Library for Play - design progress...

First attempt at floor plans...

- focusing on interlinking spaces
- common spaces intersect with digital consumption (study spaces) and digital production (workshop) spaces
- physical intersections produce social interactions - knowledge transfer, centred around vertical circulation
- what else can the architecture do to facilitate social interconnectivity and exchange of ideas?
- seems to be a lot of open-ended spaces... need to further refine spaces - with program? material? detail? gaming concepts?
- i think the building is still a bit too big... gross 37000sf.. maybe my scale is still off..
- compared to: KPMB library at bathurst/front is only 16000sf

Sketch of main lobby, looking west.
- visual and physical intersection of spaces
- starting to look into materiality

Digital Library - some precedents and finally design!

SOME PRECEDENTS...

1. Rhijnspoor Building by Powerhouse Company

- didn't get a chance to go to their lecture thursday, but did look up on their projects
- Rhijnspoor Building, Amsterdam - Amsterdam University of Applied Science technology building
- "the architecture of meeting" - a focus on knowledge through encounters with others
- each faulty has its own floor, each with a terrace poking out into the atrium
- atrium is "showcase" space - everyone can see everyone else
- relates to my first strategy - physically/visually engaging spaces - playfulness in spatial organization and intersection of spaces;
- relates to second strategy as well... opportunities for social interactions to occur
- "human interactions are a result of spatial interactions"
- how can this atrium be more engaging for library typology? what are we engaging with? people? information? tools? devices?

2. CAMP - Creative and Meeting Place, ChiangMai, Thailand

- came across this place inside a mall in ChiangMai, Thailand (I was here in March 2014)

- cool variety of spaces to work in - variety of levels, a "tree house", separated meeting rooms on the mezzanine, cafe, modular furniture

- different levels of engagement; offers choices - choose to work alone or with others 

- starting with the manipulation of these variety of interior spaces, how do i translate the playfulness into the architecture? how does the architecture emerge from a variety of levels of engagement? 

NOW FINALLY SOME DESIGN STUFF...

1. site plan
- blue angled box is "atrium" with other program (other boxes) poking into it
- angled toward the park to address the park's play activities as well as the rest of the city
- drawing from other playful elements along the waterfront, namely the wavedeck, acts as a ramp/stepped ampitheatre along south side of building to the second floor of the library; informal seating and slide in the summer, artificial tobogganing hill in the winter

2. East and South Elevations
- busy facing the city; quieter facing the lake (and airport); more quiet - parking/servicing toward residential on north side

3. Program
- as per last post - a bookless library focusing on access to and production of digital information and media
- programatically separated "boxes", each with an intersecting portion sticking out into the main atrium
- study = personal computers, laptops, devices for independent study (personal engagement, accessing/consuming information)
- workshops = places for classes, digital equipment use (eg. 3d printers, arduinos, music studios, etc) (learning/production of digital media)
- meeting/collab = various spaces for meetings, group work, (IE. CAMP-like interiors) (social engagement, collaboration)
- rooftop cafe? greenspace? something? pokes out and is visible at ground level, encouraging circulation of exploration, navigation, curiosity...
- bonus! maybe a designated space for gaming too? videogames are digital somethings that can be borrowed

I think that's all for now... thoughts and wording is still kind of all over the place.. massing next!

Playground

I thought that this link might be interesting to Rebecca. 

The best playgrounds in Toronto which Little Norway Park is actually one of them!

...still ambiguous?

Before I continue designing, I wanted to re-examine previous ideas on gaming, digital, play, and social interactions - to define an unambiguous problem and position...

Problem:

With rise of the Internet and ubiquitous technologies, videogames are gaining popularity with people of all ages today. Sociological and psychological explanations of this shift suggests that there are issues in reality where only virtual worlds can satisfy, and thus, a need to escape reality. It suggests a broken reality where the physical world is unsatisfying (McGonigal, 2011). This is a very dystopian view on the need for games. As children, we are encouraged to play. We explore, investigate, and learn through play and imagination. However, this curiosity and imagination is lost as we grow older. Maybe we as humans simply crave play and our physical world doesn’t provide it. As an object of the physical world which accommodates all human activity, contemporary architecture fails in addressing the basic human needs for play and engagement.  

Contemporary social spaces are often large spaces open to manipulation and definition by the end user. The architect is relieved of his/her role as a designer of space, allowing flexible spaces to transform on their own based on various programmatic needs. Architecture becomes a homogenous empty playground with completely flexible, modular interiors (E.g. Convention Centres, Community Centre, Multi-purpose spaces, public spaces). Although flexible spaces has its advantages, Architecture should not be a bystander to its internal activities.

Position:

Thus, instead of designing for flexibility, Architecture should be a ludic activity or facilitate ludic activities for play using social dynamics and culture of gaming to satisfy the human needs of play and engagement.

Strategies are determined by notions of gaming and play:

The design of architecture should:

1. Provide physically and visually engaging productive spaces - using architectural form to facilitate play and games (user-architecture interaction)

2. Create social spaces - using play and games as a means of ludic collaboration and social interactions (user-user interaction) - promote socialization 

3. Operate in open-ended experience space - provide non-linear experiences through navigation, exploration, and adventure - promote curiosity (self-driven)

Ludic - spontaneous and undirected playfulness 

Play is harder to define, because it is subjective and relative... but... some define it as an activity that is fun, voluntary, intrinsically motivated, incorporating free choices/free will, offers escape, and is fundamentally exciting (Smith, 2009). These actions can be: competitive, socially bonding, skill-training, or simply for fun (no reason other than for enjoyment).

Game is then simply defined as "constructed play scenarios" - applying some rules that manage play and define play spaces. Games are action-based - so engagement is defined by a user action (active engagement over passive engagement)

As an opposition to completely flexible open space, "rules" define the game of architecture where programmed spaces are fixed entities and movement from one space to another becomes the goal of the game. Transition spaces become opportunities for play.