Design Manifestos: Hannah Hackathorn of Unispace

Hannah Hackathorn is a Design Principal at Unispace in New York, New York. She lends 15 years of large-scale corporate workplace expertise to the design of progressive environments for a myriad of client types. Human-centered in her approach, Hannah believes that workplaces should function for the people who inhabit them. She encourages her team to challenge the industry’s pre-conceived notions, leading to greater learning opportunities for our people, clients and collaborators. Modelo spent some time learning about Hannah’s unique approach and design philosophy at Unispace.

On becoming an interior designer
I have always been drawn to creative disciplines and I originally wanted to be a potter. I love the act of creating something that combines a tactile experience, function, and beauty. Once I got to college – and after some soul searching – I found that interior design functions very much in the same way that pottery does. The most successful interiors also combine function and aesthetics to positively impact those who inhabit them. After that, the segue into interior design was a no-brainer – and my parents were very relieved!

On discovering her voice as an interior designer
Most of my peers wanted to go into residential or hospitality design after graduation – which to me always felt like emotionally driven practice areas.

Instead, I found myself at Gensler working on 1M square feet corporate projects. I was privileged to work with E.J. Lee who creates functional and visually arresting interiors that drive interaction. E.J. remains a mentor to this day and from her, I learned how critical decisions are made based not just on money as so many assume but on culture, brand, and the human needs of an organization – and all of these decisions are grounded in facts and metrics. I’ve been in love with workplace interiors ever since.

On joining Unispace
I feel that many designers lack an understanding of the end-to-end project cycle. They don’t involve themselves in budgeting or stop their work when construction takes over. I came to Unispace because I’ve always wanted to bridge the gap between disciplines. Unispace is driving for excellence across strategy, design, and construction by investing in top talent and really thinking about new and better ways to deliver projects. The firm’s global footprint was also a selling point – I can connect with colleagues around the world to share intelligence, best practices, and lessons learned that directly benefit local projects.

On specific principles she strives to adhere to
Everyone talks about creating a bespoke client space but I find that most firms invariably apply their own brand. I strive to understand as much about my clients’ culture, needs (current and future), as well as their aspirations. To me, the most successful projects are those where the client walks in and is overwhelmed by the beauty of the space but two months later realizes the full functionality it offers and how it can drive their business and culture. We recently completed the NY headquarters of Slate, which is a great example of form and function – every detail we planned for – from the phone booths to the collaboration areas – is used as we envisioned.

On her role at Unispace
Unispace is relatively new to the market so I’m working on sharing our process with the industry and familiarizing clients with our approach so they can come to see us as a trusted resource for problem solving through space. Internally, I’m working with our teams to rethink how we present design to our clients. I am constantly asking designers: are we getting our message across as clearly and effectively as we can? Are we showing our clients the full value of a design? Can they experience the space before it’s delivered? I want to push the envelope and try things that haven’t been done before – which is where recent advances in technology become truly critical.

On recent projects that represent the firm’s unique approach
Our approach allows designers to break down traditional silos and seamlessly transition back and forth between design and construction. We explore cost and issues of buildability from the start of a project rather than through a post CD value engineering phase so we’re able to maximize time and budget with solutions that provide high design value. Two projects that stand out are Slate and DoubleVerify – both in New York.

On her design toolkit
This may sound old fashioned but I start with trace paper. I need to sketch first before I can move on to Revit and 3D technology.

We sometimes forget that our clients are not taught to read plans & elevations. Even 3D renderings can sometimes fail to convey the volume, scale and proportions, and adjacencies, which can make it hard for clients to fully experience and appreciate the thinking and story behind our designs. This makes me and my team work harder to find better ways to communicate with our clients.

On the DoubleVerify project, we brought in 3D modeling as early as the test fit phase and virtual reality in schematic design. This allowed us to effectively communicate all the right volumes and help our client understand the flow of their new space and the relationships within. The client felt that they experienced the space before it was built and felt confident in making decisions quicker than they would have through a traditional process.

On the state of design software today
There are so many incredible tools available to us now which help us design more effectively and accurately but this can also feel a bit overwhelming to designers who may have gone to school a few years ago. I think it’s important not to get lost in the technical possibilities of today’s software at the expense of a design’s intent. I tell my teams not to focus exclusively on creating beautiful renderings – we still need solid concepts to build upon and create meaning from. I sometimes ask myself if we’re losing some of the art and romance of design as we forget how to draw by hand.

On the future of architecture in the next 5-10 years
I’ve been asking myself that question from the start of my career. The traditional model is segmented and pits disciplines against each other which ultimately doesn’t work to the advantage of the client. Disciplines need to come together, integrate their processes from the onset, and collaborate to create and deliver projects.

Silos will break down thanks to technology allowing us to collaborate across disciplines, use building materials we couldn’t before, and conceptualize space in a more complex way. Our processes will also continue to become faster and more efficient translating to shorter delivery times.

On the future of Unispace in the next 5-10 years
Unispace is disrupting the industry. We’re bringing together top talent from the fields of design, technology, strategy, and construction and pushing ourselves to rethink the way the workplace is conceived and delivered. We have started to incorporate BIM technology into our workplace strategy offering to provide clients with more accurate test fits and cost models far earlier than the traditional design process allows. I believe we’ll continue to work in this vein, push boundaries, and use technology in ways traditional, siloed firms cannot.

On advice she would give her younger self
I would tell my younger self to intern at not just design firms, but with potential clients, lighting manufacturers, and construction companies. These disciplines are interwoven like a spider web – understanding this has changed my perspective on the industry and how best to approach a project. I’d also tell myself to pay more attention in 3D tech classes!

UNBUILT: Synesthesia by Joris Putteneers

Joris Putteneers
Experiment, Sint Lucas Architecture 25/10/2016
Docent: Corneel Cannaerts

Synesthesia is a project influenced by the works of Francois Roche. It is made with the intentions of creating an architecture that defies classification and reductionism. I try to explore unexplored levels of resolution and topological complexity in architecture by developing a series of compositional strategies based on purely geometric processes. In this project, I use a coalescence of two algorithms to create a growing structure that appears at once synthetic and organic.

This single process generates many scales of architecture, from the overall form with its broad curvature, to local surface development, down to minute textures.

The design process strikes a delicate balance between the expected and the unexpected, between control and relinquishment. Although the algorithms do not incorporate random values, the results are not necessarily entirely foreseeable either. In order to create an extension from the vertical system, the protocol receives input information that is extracted from surface directionality of the structure.

A seed is planted from the moment of removal in the vertical system, and from that point on, every location on the terrain is mapped with a directionality that points towards the void and the sun. Once a system reaches the edge of the structure, an illusion of parallel cities is projected, and the information acts with gravity until it disappears.

As the system evolves, vines bundle up, then twist and bind to each other. The bundles then split and separate around volumes of spaces that are translated into chambers. As the vines lose attachment to the structure or each other, they are partially affected by gravity and by the search radius of the nearest vine.

Towards the end of the bundle extension into the void, the aggregated vines that have bound with other bundles begin to converge and overlap in an interior space. These vines are collected and woven into a central pattern. The repetition of this action causes a symmetry to occur. These images are only visible to the occupants of the chambers.

The machine works on the logic of its own point of view. As it navigates away from the vertical structure, a signal is given which results in a feedback loop. The machine begins to read its own past projections as current vision and navigates towards it. The result is a differentiation of behavior in three different stages. Initiation, Transition and serenity.

Towards the final stage of the machine’s journey, it becomes hyperactive and overfills with its collection of vines. As a consequence, the machine expels a coating of resin, leaving behind a structural membrane on its vines as a continuous weave. the resin solidifies and captures the modification of the vines, defining the outer boundaries of the chambers. The processes can devise truly surprising topographies and topologies that go far beyond what one could have traditionally conceived.

Synesthesia is between chaos and order, both natural and the artificial. Any references to nature or existing styles are not integrated into the design process, but are evoked only as associations in the eye of the beholder. Such a hierarchical differentiation can also be found in classic architecture. Yet unlike traditional architectural design processes, here a single process is used both to sculpt the overall form, and to create the surface details.

This articulation can be used to create features that exceed the threshold of human haptic or visual perception that would be entirely un-drawable using traditional means.

Virtual:
• Algorithmically generated geometry

• 18000 vectors

• 9 million surfaces

• 2,6 billion voxels

• 12 GB production data

Design Development:
˜80 hours in the course of 5 weeks

Team
Fabrication: Joris Putteneers
Video / Photo: Joris Putteneers
Mentor: Corneel Canaerts

Design Manifestos: Vishaan Chakrabarti of PAU Studio

Vishaan Chakrabarti, AIA, is a registered architect and the founder of PAU. Simultaneously, Vishaan is an Associate Professor of Practice at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning & Preservation (GSAPP), where he teaches architectural design studios and seminars on urbanism. He serves on the boards of the Architectural League of New York and the Regional Planning Association. He is a trustee of the Citizens Budget Commission, and is an emeritus board member of Friends of the High Line. He is also a member of the Young Leaders Forum of the National Council on US-China Relations and has served on the National Mayor’s Institute of City Design. Metropolis Magazine named Chakrabarti one of the top 12 “Game Changers” for 2012, he is a former Crain’s “40 Under 40” and David Rockefeller Fellow. Modelo spent some time learning about Vishaan’s journey through the profession and about founding PAU.

On becoming an architect
As a child we traveled a great deal; my father was a scientist and when he had speaking engagements we would tag along. On a shoestring budget we saw the world’s great cities, with art, performance, and food always at the center of our travels. In an effort to be A-Good-Indian-Boy I majored in engineering in college, but eventually completed a dual degree in both engineering and art history, a kind of left brain/right brain path that ultimately led me to architecture and city building.

On discovering his voice as a designer
As an author I believe to write one must read, and it is the same with architecture — to “write” with design, and therefore to express one’s voice, requires the “reading” of cities and culture, materials and tectonics, places and occasions. For example, my architecture thesis examined the design of an eye hospital proposed by my father on the outskirts of Calcutta, India, in which patients would slowly regain their eyesight in the days following surgery; the project raised intensely architectural questions of the haptic versus the retinal in terms of light, materials, construction techniques, and the reading of the specific cultural landscape of the West Bengal river delta.

My professional influences span many of the great urbanist architects and theorists including Richard Rogers, John Habraken, Kenneth Frampton, the Smithsons, and other members of Team 10. A wide range of cultural figures are inspiring to me artistically, from painters Jacques-Louis David, Mark Rothko and Agnes Martin; to photographers Henri Cartier Bresson and Gary Winogrand; to sculptors Constantin Brancusi and Richard Serra; to musicians John Coltrane and MIA; to authors Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Jeffrey Eugenides, and Donna Tartt. Academically I have been privileged to study with extraordinary design professors including Stanley Saitowitz, Tom Chastain, Kathleen James Chakraborty, Gary Hack, and Julian Beinart. Beyond the field of architecture, certain individuals have been inspirations in terms of actions, words and demeanor, particularly Barack and Michelle Obama.

On starting PAU Studio
I started the Practice for Architecture & Urbanism (PAU) with the specific intent of founding a firm dedicated to re-imagining cities through enduring architecture and socially-impactful urbanism. Since the founding of the firm I have been energized by our collective ability to be true to our mission, taking only the commissions that provide the opportunity to help reinvent urban life. It will take some time for our current projects to be realized, but it is already evident to me that PAU will yield architecture that is specific to who we are and what we hope to achieve.

On specific principles he strives to adhere to
On our website, we have set forth a clear set of principles for our practice that are best expressed in terms of what we do and what we don’t do. We want to pursue cultural, institutional, commercial and infrastructural design projects that reinforce urban life. We are not interested in pursuing projects like suburban homes or office parks, casinos, correctional facilities, or commissions for nations or corporations with poor labor or environmental practices.

On his role as Founder of PAU Studio
As our founder my role is to lead our design work, mentor our team, and find commissions that align our ideals with our practice. I am also the bartender during our studio’s weekly happy hours.

On recent projects that represent the firm’s unique approach
Our firm has a unique approach to design that explicitly entails the reading and writing of cities. The most representative project we can discuss publicly is our proposal to re-imagine Pennsylvania Station at the request of the New York Times. We made very specific architectural decisions governed by a palpable sense of self-restraint; we did not feel this building should be about PAU or its founder, but instead should be about arriving in the heart of New York City into the busiest transit hub in the Western hemisphere. As architects who believe deeply in urban public space we proposed the largest enclosed civic space in New York City, without a grand public price tag, by recycling the existing circular structure of Madison Square Garden once they have relocated to a new home. The specific architectural decisions include recladding the structure in a double-skin glass curtainwall to reveal the city from the station while passively heating and cooling it; the inner layer of glass would be arranged in a saw tooth pattern in plan in order to capture and reflect the specific light that strafes Manhattan’s side streets, colloquially known as “Manhattanhenge.” Conceptually this lightweight tectonic structure of roof, columns and glass would rest upon a stereotomic base rising from the below-grade platforms, culminating in a stone colonnade that would rise from the sidewalk level to create a durable and civic stone carpet around the entire perimeter of the cylinder, fluidly merging the space of the station with the space of the city. With inspiration from the stars on the ceiling of Grand Central, we have adorned the ceiling of the new Penn Station with a map of New York, orientating travelers as they emerge from their trains.

Our other projects include a major Manhattan mixed-use commercial tower with significant transit connections below; a Brooklyn office building with a vocational school at its base; a new transit connection across the East River; the design of a major public space in Midtown; the reconceptualization of a public housing site in Mexico City; master plans for major waterfront sites in San Francisco and Newark; and technologically futurist architecture and design for Sidewalk Labs. While none of this work is available yet for public release, we are confident that it represents a body of work that is indicative of a unique point of view in terms of both design expression and cultural meaning.

On his design toolkit
Our process often begins with me writing an essay about the project and the site, which usually includes observations about the project’s meaning, purpose and possibilities within the context of the city in which it is located. To supplement this essay, we generate sketches, photographs, collages, study models, and yet more sketches. Slowly we translate the site to the computer, typically using a combination of Rhino and Grasshopper. We tend to build three dimensional digital models prior to the creation of specific plans and sections on the computer, again moving back and forth between hand sketches and the Rhino model.

When the design reaches a certain point of maturity do we use AutoCAD for drawings, with painstaking attention given to line weights and dimensions. We try to avoid hyperrealistic renderings, opting instead for collages, section perspectives, axonometrics, diagrams, and other drawing types to communicate the design.

On the state of design software today
Design software is a powerful tool, no more, no less. We do not use software as a means to generate design, which comes much more from the head, hand and heart. Software is a powerful tool to resolve geometry, analyze problems, and express design intent. We imagine that the future will bring us more powerful software tools, but we do not imagine those tools as ever being a substitute for talent.

On the future of architecture in the next 5–10 years
The language of architecture needs to become multivalent. To regain relevance architects could embolden design to be a horizontal rather than a vertical by reinventing their practices to bridge across the siloes of buildings, cities, ecologies, economies, and communities.

Design could be the cultural bridge that spans the gaping chasms of our time.

With the emergence of figures like Alejandro Aravena, Shigeru Ban, and Tatiana Bilbao, leading architects are bridging the false divide between design excellence and social impact that evolved out of the celebrity era of the late twentieth century. Our newest generation of designers, millenials, came of age at the outset of the twenty first century, when resource constraints returned to the fore as a consequence of economic and environmental hardship. The irrational exuberance of the nineties already feels distant, and with this new generation of young talent and new leadership, we will see a resurgence of design architecture with socially progressive ambitions, a reinvention of the idea that less can indeed be more.

On the future of PAU in the next 5–10 years
PAU will respond to the pressing and evolving challenges of our era. We will always strive to be a practice focused on social impact through the tangible advancement of cities, a practice naïve enough to believe that the very definition of lasting design is to create architecture and urbanism that will tackle society’s challenges and reimagine urban life in their wake. We exist to help reinvent the city of the future, to advance the values of liberté, égalité, et fraternité that undergird metropolitan life, to design cities, buildings, public spaces, infrastructure, and urban technologies that are of, by, and for the global civilization we seek to serve and advance. We take on this mission informed by our decades of experience, yet guided by the ideal that by reinventing cities, we can help shepherd our shared world to betterment, self-reflection, and public delight.

On advice he would give himself
To have faith in myself, my ideas and my design abilities regardless of what others think. Most of us struggle with this when we are young, and to prevail in that struggle is one of the great gifts of age.

Design Manifestos: Amy Donohue of Bora Architects

Amy Donohue, AIA, became a Principal at Bora Architects in Portland, Oregon in 2007. For the last two decades, Amy has focused on designing higher education spaces, performing arts venues, and collaborative work environments. Most recently, she served as the Design Principal for the Shanahan Center at Harvey Mudd College and the Learning Innovation Center at Oregon State University. In addition to her higher education efforts, Amy has led numerous workspace projects for Google and Microsoft. She currently serves on the Board of Literary Arts. Amy holds a Master of Architecture degree from Princeton University. Modelo spent some time learning about how Amy joined Bora Architects and about recent projects that represent the firm’s unique approach.

On becoming an architect
I always wanted to be an architect. My mother often tells stories of me going to parties as a five-year-old, coming home to describe the house in detail while talking little of the actual party. While my parents told me about architecture as a career, we did not have any architects in the family or in our group of friends. My interest was driven by a desire to draw and make new places, spurred on by travel with my family and the many different experiences that travel provided. I was keenly aware of the environment around me and constantly thinking of how I could change it.

On discovering her voice as an architectural designer
I grew up in Tampa, Florida, one of the older cities in the State and one with a fair amount of interesting architecture from the early 20th century. I attended the University of Florida as an undergraduate, a program heavily focused on design, with eight full semesters of studio as part of the four-year curriculum. We focused on understanding and creating space through making. None of the projects in the early studios were buildings — my professors worked to strip everything we knew about the physical world and take us back to the fundamentals of space, form and material.

After graduating from Florida, I headed to New York and a position with the office of Richard Meier & Partners. The office had a definite language and material vocabulary that was constantly being refined. It was interesting to jump into such a defined architectural language. The focus was on very fine detailing, light and the flow of space — good lessons learned for any architect.

In 1996, I was recruited to work for Nike in Portland, Oregon, as a designer in creating Nike retail spaces. I was given an incredible amount of latitude to design the projects and was able to work with many different designers — not just architects, or landscape architects, but also graphic designers, product designers, environmental designers and exhibit designers. This process expanded my notion of design, pushing me to think aboutarchitecture as creating experiences, not just buildings. Although it was outside of the architectural profession, the experience at Nike was a formative time in my career. It was a place to design with a group of people who approached the problem from different perspectives, teaching me a great deal about design thinking.

On joining Bora Architects
I was a client of Bora while working at Nike, having hired the firm to partner with us in creating the retail spaces. I appreciated the way Bora approached the work, so much so that when my project was finished, I left Nike and moved to Bora full-time to work on the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center Museum. I worked with Bora for six months before heading back to the East Coast and a two-year graduate program in architecture at Princeton University. The Master of Architecture program comprised students from around the world — Hong Kong, Auckland, Athens, Moscow — whose voices offered me a variety of perspectives on architecture and urban space.

Returning to Bora after completing my graduate degree, I split time between my role as Project Designer and a position as an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Design at the University of Oregon, where I taught for seven years until I became a principal with the firm in 2007.

On principles the firm adheres to
We are a research based office, digging into each and every parameter of a project and using that information to drive the design. A learning center at Oregon State University is very different than one at Harvey Mudd College or one at the University of Washington. We work to understand the place, the culture and the people involved with the building and wrap design around those ideas.

On her role at Bora
There are six of us who serve as Principals in the firm, responsible for everything from office culture to marketing to leading projects. In addition to winning work and providing more opportunities for the firm, we take seriously our job to make Bora a creative environment where people can do their best work. We make sure people feel supported, that they’re given good feedback and have the right tools throughout the day. Our studio is open, with principals sitting with teams, so that people across the spectrum of experience can participate in and contribute to the design. We host all-office charrettes in order to get perspectives from many different design voices. Often, we are looking for people who do not have experience on a particular project type to give a beginner’s mind approach to the design.

On recent projects that represent the firm’s unique approach
We recently completed the Learning Innovation Center (LINC) project at Oregon State University, a general purpose classroom building to serve the 30,000 students on campus. With its population and academic program growth, OSU was in desperate need of seats in learning environments. The registrar had outlined a program including rooms with seating capacities of 600, 400, 300, 200, 100 and 75. While the economics of delivering coursework at the University necessitated these sizes, the faculty insisted they have greater engagement with their students than typical auditorium configurations would allow. OSU is committed to increasing graduation and retention rates for their student body and this project was a way to make that happen. Research shows that student/faculty engagement is a critical factor in a student’s success. So the challenge for the design was how to shift these large classrooms into a more active learning pedagogy.

Our team jumped into an extended research process and began working closely with faculty, hosting a series of pedagogy charrettes where we tried to understand how they hoped to interact with their students. Gathering this data, we created a series of spatial characteristics for active learning classrooms, including visibility, mobility, adaptability and proximity. For the later, we researched the field of proxemics, which revealed the fact that if a faculty member is within 15’ of a student, that student cannot ignore her. A key design principle for the project was to make sure the faculty could get within this “radius of engagement” for each student.

We used these characteristics to develop a collection of classrooms that have never before been done in the country. The LINC has a 600-seat auditorium in the round, where students are never more than eight rows from their professor. Technology surrounds the room, so students can look at one another as well as see their professor, all layered over the information on the screen. A 300-seat version in-the-round places students just five rows from their professor while a parliament classroom hosts 175 seats in a debate style configuration.

The building opened this past fall and it has been a radical change according the both the faculty and students, particularly in terms of the way that they interact, in terms of the learning outcomes, and in terms of the engagement. By looking outside of typical classroom precedents and getting back to the fundamentals of human interaction in a space, we were able to create these new learning environments. We looked to other models — government and TV studio models, for example — at the start of the process. In early design charrettes, we called the 600-seat room the “Phil Donohue” (after the talk show host’s in-the-round studio), making a quick sketch of it to show the OSU faculty. We put it on the wall and the faculty said, “let’s do that!” It went from this initial, somewhat crazy idea to a more fully detailed design. After drawings and testing and full-scale mockups, the space came to fruition. Here we are a couple years later and they’re teaching in it. As an architect, it is exciting to see it go from this somewhat radical idea to a fully capable learning space. Now colleges and universities from across the country are calling Bora and OSU wondering, “how do we do this?”

On her design toolkits
We work in many modes of design, from sketching to computer modeling to fabrication and full scale mock-ups. Obviously when we document the project, we use Revit. Earlier in the design, we heavily rely on Rhino, Grasshopper and occasionally Sketch-Up. The interface between these programs and our model shop is key, with the laser cutter and CNC router at work most often. Exploring the design problem through these many different tools is essential to our process.

On the state of design software
It is amazing what some software can do, especially when it comes to many different team members collaborating on a project. Grasshopper is interesting, although not overly intuitive, but it’s an amazingly powerful tool. I struggle –and I see our staff struggle — with Revit. It’s not a tool for day one. I find that it asks so many questions early in the process, many we simply are not ready to answer in the design. We are often still trying to let ideas get legs and breathe for a little while before the design is locked down. Revit asks a lot of questions early on that might prematurely model something before we’re ready to commit to what it is. Revit is a big, powerful program but it requires a lot of management and customization.

On the future of architecture in the next 5–10 years
There will be a great deal more integration between design, technology and fabrication. In many cases, the architects may become the makers — of surfaces, products, furniture and materials. Architects will work more closely with subcontractors, especially as we work more in the Design Build delivery process, to understand physical limitations of what they’re creating and actually incorporate those parameters into the design brief.

On the future of Bora in the next 5–10 years
In the coming years, you will see more research from Bora — either in conjunction with clients, such as the Geometry of Learning research project we are conducting with OSU, or in design projects that are meant to provoke a different response to a question. We recently completed a design research project for the last remaining empty parcel of land along the Willamette River in downtown Portland, which is currently owned by ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). We embarked on a pro-bono project to imagine a different future for the site — one which would preserve access to the river, enable residents to use the Willamette for recreational activities, and protect the current maker industry that resides in the neighborhood. We believe it is important to advocate for the best possible public space in our City.

On the technology and fabrication side, we’re working to pull that into every project. We just started a group in our office called LaBORAtory — an exploratory group tasked with pushing the boundaries on how and when to incorporate technology and fabrication methods into our process.

On advice she would give herself
I would tell myself to not be quite as serious or as singular in my design focus. As a younger architect, it is easy to get designer’s block and be frustrated that the right idea is not coming. My advice would be to experiment more; explore ideas for a little bit longer. Bring people in to discuss the design; listen and build on those comments. Find reasons why an idea can happen rather than why it cannot.