Sanctuary 519

Designing a sacred space in Springfield, Missouri

[bvannesanctuaryproject]

MidCrit Boards

[bvannesanctuaryproject]

Final Boards

[bvannesanctuaryproject]

Process Portfolio

The drawings above come from the first round of analyzing program and organizing things on site. As can be seen, there are several large changes that happened afterwards: the craziness of the roof doesn’t really make sense, and the project as a whole spread out along the site quite a bit more. The concept of keeping the Butsuden and the Zendo is still intact, and the conceptual idea addressing hierarchy in the precedent and manipulating that also pops up.

This handful of drawings demonstrate taking the newer mode of thinking by addressing the tectonic relationship between wood and concrete. This also shows how the program/building was separated into squares and scattered across the site, as well as the change in the orientation in regards to the lot and surrounding urban fabric.

These drawings show a development in the thinking of the program on the upper level, as well some structural refinement. These drawings too place just after midcrits.

These sketches show some work towards site development and handling parking, as well as the connections between buildings. This was done on a grid, as was most of the rest of the buliding, although for parking the size was changed to 9′x9′s to accomodate 9′x18′ parking spots. 

These two drawings indicate some larger conceptual vocabulary that I was working with. The first is an elevation study looking at the same type of grid that organized the plan. I chose to express this grid on any flat surface of the stone in order to tie it together with the more easily expressed proportions of the wood. The second drawing is used to think about how the rock structures could be organized across the site, and how this could influence and affect paths.

These early models are dealing with some formal exploration and some massing that could be used to describe the rock forms.

These models show the first round of forms found. They’re much more erratic and sculptural, but not that practical and a little out of scale. The idea of personal meditation spaces inside of the rock wall started out here as well.

These models are all after midcrits, and all resulted both in reducing and adjusting scales, but also in how the forms were more efficient and now include a proportioning system inscribed on some sides.

These screencaps show the methodology between the form finding and the pattern on some of the walls. Both derive from the same type of 6′x6′ grid, whether it be a direct connection or through a shape subtracted from the larger mass that followed these same guidelines.

[bvannesanctuaryproject]

TIW: Wall Section/Enclosure

This was the preliminary design of the enclosure system, which notably had a few errors. The first was the size and distance of the footing (a function of how much paper I had left to draw on) as well as the way it get’s water off of it’s surface (with a gutter that is way too small and not enough of the shape designed to handle overflow).

This is the final design, which included drain pipes and gravel, as well as a new type of curb that would handle the bulk of the water from the roof on the concrete part. There still exists a gutter underneath, but it handles far less water between the wood and concrete sections.

[bvannesanctuaryproject]

TIW: HVAC

So here the different pieces are located on the site. The ones on the bottom are taken directly (size-wise) from the table. Since the unit affecting the top floor actually has less square footage to cover, it being identical means that it’s probably oversized, but I figured providing too much room and a strategy were better than providing too little. The lower unit supports right around 10000 sqft, while the upper unit is closer to 5000 sqft, but they both fit into the same category on the table.

As far as some of the orientation on the radiant heating is concerned, there are a few things to take into account. The pipes themselves radiate the heat, and therefore there is a limit on the distance that they can travel. This affected the sanctuary space because it’s recommended to be somewhere between 200′-400′, and the distance is more easily attained by traveling diagonally from the center of the system.

As far as the ventilation is concerned, most of it travels through the rock structures, but it’s only supplemental and not supposed to support the whole space. The upper portion is supposed to be supplied thought the floor and ventilated through a return air duct hidden in the clerestories.

[bvannesanctuaryproject]

TIW: Structure

This image shows the method of using the studio companion to find column thicknesses. Since the smaller two, the 10x10 and 6x6s were way oversized for their area and height, the lower diagram in red shows the finer point for the large columns in the sanctuary space. If I were to take the unbraced column height, I would get a little under 24′, hence the horizontal red-line. By looking at one of the central columns in the sanctuary space, the overall area was right around 575 square feet, hence the vertical line. While this rules out the usage of the 12″ square column, the 14″ gets plenty of clearance to by utilized.

Also related to the sanctuary space, utilizing glu-lam beams was the only way to get a span of 36 feet (where it isn’t even an option for timber beams). Since I’ve only got four, I found this acceptable, and even could be used to accentuate the structure in a meaningful way (in order to create a swastika as the buddhist symbol, not as the nazi symbol). All other spans broke into size categories for 24′, 18′, and 12′ due to the 6 foot grid I was utilizing. These are marked and coloured for location accordingly.

[bvannesanctuaryproject]

TIW: Egress

Calculating egress for a building is one of the few ways that design can actually save lives in buildings. It’s important to both follow common sensibility when designing, as well as code requirements. The first step in calculating appropriate egress is sizing the occupancy based upon the size of the spaces: this is done separately from programmatic definitions of occupancy (such as those for bathrooms) because there is always the possibility to place more people into a space than what is originally designed for. Below is a chart from the 2006 IBC colour coded to our diagrams below (ignoring the yellow highlights)

We’ll start with the largest sized space and move through different groupings that the building has. The largest single space is the sanctuary, which is 72′x72′, or 5184 sq ft. Since this type of space is an assembly area with unfixed seats but no tables (or floor pillows for meditation) the area will be calculated as one occupant per 7 sq ft, or 741 people total. For each 30 person classroom, the sizes vary, being between 415-507 sq ft. This is calculated at one occupant per 20 sq ft, or a max of 25 people (though since programmatically we expect 30 people per classroom, we’ll calculate with that number as it’s higher). Offices are calculated at 100 net sq ft per person, but it’ll be easier to oversize than calculate a square footage that might fluctuate a bit, we’ll put 10 people in each space. The group volunteer area below is about 54′x54′ or 2916 sq ft, and could be calculated at 15 sq ft per occupant since it’s fairly unconcentrated, which gives us 195 people. This should take care of each area that isn’t pure service, which are usually calculated as 0 persons (these might change in the future, and over-sizing slightly now should accommodate them fairly well). In images, that looks like this, with all exits circled as well:

These numbers allow us to size the exits. The top piece of classrooms and offices come to be 110 people total, which we then multiply by .2 to obtain the total number of inches for that segment. In this circumstance, we get 22″, and have provided a generous double door of 5′-10″. For the lower orange area we have 195, which gets us 39″ and there are 3 exit doors at 5′-10″, which could even be reduced to single 30″ doors or reduced in number, but this provides more exits which never hurt. The two lower classrooms each have a 30″ door which is more than enough for the 30 people in each. The sanctuary space is the most challenging, with 741 people leading to 12.35 feet. This number needs multiple exits, split between the two fire escapes on the southeast side with 3' doors each, as well as the two main double doors, each 5′-8″, for a total of 17′-4″. This clears our area and gives a little bit of play for the design to change in size if needed. 

The last requirement is related to the distances of the doors in the sanctuary space from each other, as well as the distances from the most remote places in the building to the exits. The first condition requires at least two of the doors to be spread out in the space for at least half the distance of the diagonal of the space, which we clear, shown below in a geometric proof:

We also need to configure for our distance being less than 200′ from the most remote place to the public way, which are shown below:

Roughed out to 32+88+13+14+26=173′

21+21+54=96′

13+33+23+43+13=125′.

With that, we see that the building meets egress codes just fine. A future goal in the development, however, would be to better accommodate the sanctuary space: with every exit on the two sides, the back corner doesn’t feel quite right in a panic condition, and we still need to make sure that the actual flow of people will utilize the doors in an appropriate manner. Stair width also changes things a little bit, but we’re assuming that the extra width is included in the stairwells, which also include an area of refuge for ADA requirements.

-------------------------------------- UPDATE 5-10-15

With the evolution of the project, some of the different spaces combined and some of the exits changed, as well as the appearance of a new room to better accommodate some programs. The majority of areas stayed the same, but the egress out of the sanctuary changed into fire escapes hidden in the rock formations. The 5 escapes, with 2′6″ doors, come up to a total of 150 inches of egress, which is just over the require 148 found earlier on for the square footage. The new auditorium on the bottom floor requires egress for 230 people, which the two exits meet fairly easily.

The final aspect is the reconfiguration for the offices to double check the distance being less than 200′. At just over 90′, this area is also provided with a large enough egress pathway.

[bvannesanctuaryproject]

TIW: Bathrooms

Bathrooms are a necessary part of a person’s everyday life, and are also necessary in regards to design of buildings (both pragmatically and by code). In order to break down and analyse these as units, it’s necessary to collect information about the systems for minimums, as well as create a mockup and implement it to some degree into the sanctuary design.

Here is an excerpt from the most recent Studio Companion, which I selected due to it being my most recent source (utilizing the 2009 IBC, as opposed to what is provided within our MEEB or the 2006 IBC). It is also slightly more stringent in certain areas, although in regards to bathrooms the book is really close to the actual numbers (just having higher amounts of sinks). Highlighted in red are numbers for calculation, and in blue is an exception for urinals. The educational numbers would be used only if the classroom sizes exceed the limit set by A-3 worship space ancillary spaces, which for now we’ll assume are how classrooms are covered.

Calculating at a maximum capacity of 500 due to the size of the sanctuary space, we get 7 stalls and 3 sinks (500/75 and 500/200 respectfully for women, rounding up). This is skewed a little bit in regards to total number, as the 500 is a maximum, which should also account for men, where urinals are also present. Here is where I performed a test mockup of a concentrated bathroom area (where everything should be all in one):

This drawing is actually way larger than is necessary, as there are actually enough for 1000 people here (I calculated one bathroom for 500, and assigned it twice, because of women AND men). This examination also included some drawings of ADA accessibility, which will be examined a bit further on.

This is a much more reasonable size. I didn’t reduce the size of the sinks, just because 3 felt more proportionally comfortable in the space. 

This is the organization, programmatically between the sanctuary space and the educational/office area to serve both as the occupancy changes in the building.

Further studies in regards to this are directed towards ADA concerns, of which the image below shows most of the relevant diagrams for bathrooms.

Which are reflected in the next drawing:

And for door accessibility (and turn-around, shown in the red dashed lines):

[bvannesanctuaryproject]

The site within the area of Springfield has several factors influencing it: it's the densest part of the downtown, one of the lowest places with the Jordan River Valley, and most importantly, several different colleges and organizations in close proximity that such a sanctuary could serve.

When looking at the site feasibility for the project, several different layers need to be considered. The above diagram shows some layers of development stacked on top of each other (note: South is oriented in its current direction because it's easier for me to visualize the Sun and it's path of movement.)

Here are the layers flattened: in order, there are Natural elements, Climatic influences, and Movement around the site all overlaid on the topography. (Thanks Google for the screenshot!)

Parking on site is another issue that needs to be dealt with. By looking at the code for Springfield, MO, we can determine the minimum amount of parking required without applying for variances/exceptions. At 500 people, with a requirement of 1 spot per 4 people, we get 125 spaces. (section 5-1502, part D). Looking at the bicycle parking reduction allowance, we can shave off another 10%, or 12 spaces, getting down to 113 spaces. (section 5-1502, part H) We can further reduce this by using the cooperative parking (5-1504 part A) to release 50% of parking to get to 57 spaces. It should also be considered that the main influences are the campuses and with their proximity a higher variance could be allowed. Estimating roughly 20 spaces for ADA and employees at the sanctuary, we can start to get a range of maximum and minimum: 20-57 spaces. At 400 sq ft per space with circulation for cars included, that's between 8,000-22,800 sq ft allotted on site for parking. This is represented in size on both sites below.

Finally, by summing up some very preliminary and estimated sizes for spaces on these sites (excluding circulation) we can start seeing how large the building will be in comparison to the site. With a Sanctuary and associated spaces around 7,500 sq ft, Community support spaces around 2,000 sq ft, and Learning centers around 5,000 sq ft (Labeled S, C, and L respectively), we can start playing with configurations and site locations.

--

Update log: Original 2/7/15

[bvannesanctuaryproject]

Conceptual Start

When considering a sanctuary in the abstract, the only way I can conceive starting is by considering what religious institutions and spiritual gatherings do, what emotions and experiences are truly transcendent, and what methodology they use to accomplish these goals.

Therefore, to sum up my conceptual goals for this project, I need to

Create spaces that are emotionally separate from the every-day in order to create a place that allows people to focus on the spiritual.

Represent both singularity and plurality within architecture as a form of mediation to the divine.

Embrace cultural heritage to both educate believers of their history, and the surrounding community of the institution's purpose.