In this project, we focused on developing spaces and designing them around peoples’ interactions with these spaces. Our learning goals were:
- developing geometries
- experimenting with forms
- designing interactions
- prototyping solutions
- communicating your ideas
Phase 1: Rapid Ideation
This project centered on developing structures through modular design — creating large assemblies using repeated smaller elements. We started by creating 3 modules of our choice out of cardstock, cardboard, or Bristol board. For each module, we cut out about 25 copies and made 2 structures with each, constructing these using a building rule. For my modules, I chose to work with multimedia paper, which served as a great available alternative to Bristol board given their similar textures and weights.
Module 1: Round + Flat
For the first module, I stuck with a more “traditional” structure of a flat cutout of a sheet of paper. I used an odd number of connections so that structures created with this module could curve away gradually instead of being confined to right angles.
Structure 1
Rule: Connect modules naturally to form rings and then spheres.
I started connecting the modules into rings hoping that their angle would cause the modules to converge. They naturally arranged themselves into a spherical configuration, taking about 10–20 modules to do so. This sphere pattern could be repeated with more modules if desired. I tried expanding the sphere but the modules started joining at unnatural angles and started losing structural integrity.
Structure 2:
Rule: Start with one module in the center and branch outwards from each connection.
This formation allowed for more freedom than the spherical configuration. Due to how it could branch out indefinitely, it could form a structure more easily with less modules. However, compared to the spherical configuration, this version lacks strength in the connections since each module is supported by one other module only and therefore has little support from the others.
Module 2: Rectangular + Curved
For this module, I wanted to experiment with how curving a module could allow for more complex transitions between modules as compared to flat modules. This module has 4 points of connection, 2 diagonal and 2 perpendicular. I kept this module as a rectangle to really focus on the impact of curving modules.
Structure 1
Rule: Connect modules only by diagonal slots.
This structure used diagonal connections to create a rotational movement along a string of these modules. Although I felt that the transition between modules worked well, I was unsure of the potential of this module past this type of connection.
Structure 2
Rule: Connecting clusters of 3 modules.
A challenge with this module was figuring out how to build outwards in multiple directions. The configuration of the slots limited the number of ways I could connect more than 2 modules to each other without them falling apart; this 3 module cluster was the biggest unit I was able to make. I was able to build upwards with this configuration and the curved planar nature of these modules gave the structure a more organic feel.
Module 3: Geometric + Creased
After playing around with the creased module above, I realized that a non-flat module was very useful for creating complex movements and transitions within a structure and a great way to create volume in a natural-looking manner. This triangular module had three connections: two the base of the triangle angle towards the center, and one triangular cutout that could hold the tip of another module. The module is also creased down the middle.
Structure 1
Rule: Units of 2 modules connected in a linear pattern.
For my first structure, I connected two modules by the slots and then stacked these together using the center holes of these units. The resulting structure conveyed a sweeping gesture while keeping a clean, segmented look, somewhat like the shell of an armadillo or reptile. Building this configuration showed the potential of the center hole in creating connections with smaller angles, allowing for a form that could have a more complex transition.
Structure 2
Rule: Star-shaped submodules of 4 connected together.
While experimenting with this module, I realized that 4 could form a closed module that kept its shape well. Given that the only open connection left using this module was the center hole, that is where I joined them by. This connection turned out to be very weak due to the weight of each submodule and the size of the single connection between each module. I later experimented with adding extra connections at the tips of the triangles to see if I could make a stronger connection, but that only weakened the module itself so I did not decide to use it. I didn’t pursue this module further, but I could see it forming a weblike dome or curving surface if it was extended to more modules.
Other Ideas
Before I settled on the configuration for my actual structure, I came up with these other formations using the module. Although none of these made it into the final configuration, I learned the strengths and weaknesses of this module, making the process of creating the first iteration of my structure easier.
A Spatial Experience
After this ideation phase, we moved onto the real deal: our structure. Our prompt was:
Step 1: Develop up to 3 modules for one structure that are 2in x 2in and make a minimum of 25 individual modules.
Step 2: Choose a verb, such as sit, climb, crawl, or jump, to derive the form of 1 occupiable space/structure with this larger module(s). Add a scale model of a person into the space (think about how large your person should be).
Step 3: Draw the form with multiple people interacting with it using your verb.
Iteration 1
Since I had the most success with the triangular module, I decided to adapt it for use in the structure. When experimenting with this module, it was clear that the middle hole would be far too weak as a structural connection; I settled on keeping this hole mostly for aesthetic purposes.
Since I was working in a larger scale, I switched over to cardboard which could freely bend can retain its strength. With the above right interlocking string of modules, I was able to extend this pattern and wrap the string around itself, forming into a tent / dome shape.
I was partly inspired by the pavilion of a park close to my home. This pavilion was also built to hold social gatherings, containing tables and a partially vented covering to encourage this. I noted how this space felt airy and welcoming while blocking sunlight out of the space (light can make a space feel bigger).
In order to visualize how people would interact with this space, I made a few human figures and scale objects. After cutting the above figures out I realized that the space felt cramped, so I scaled down the people to the size in the below sketch.
During this class crit, classmates liked the angular, unitary feeling of my structure but wondered if there was a better way to show how people could interact with the space. After this class, I started paying more attention to the perspective of a person in the space rather than a person looking at a scale model of the space.
Iteration 2
Along with refining our form, we were asked to:
1: Show non-design people our structure and gather feedback about how they think this space would feel like.
2: Assign 3 adjectives to our structure based on the action we chose the structure to encourage.
3: Based on the purpose we assigned our structure and the feedback from design and design and non-design peers, experiment with color and light to understand how they affect our individual spaces, then choose a color scheme.
I asked a group of 4 non-design friends and 2 family members about how they felt the space would feel like. The feedback from each person was mixed but there were common points mentioned.
Since the friends I asked were all my age, I asked members of my family with varying ages for feedback as well. I summarized their feedback below:
- “under an umbrella” feeling
- intriguing but claustrophobic
- more openings would help to brighten the inside up
- curious about rain
- feels small (literally, may need to be scaled up)
- “like a spider”
Amongst the feedback I noticed common points that people mentioned:
- the space felt visually claustrophobic and uncomfortable
- having openings in the ceiling helped open up the space, but it could be annoying in real life
Since a lot of the feedback focused on the space feeling cramped, I experimented with painting the entire structure a light color. My first color tests were done with brown tinted grayscale values, since I was focusing on light first before actual color.
I settled on the following 3 adjectives to guide my color testing:
- Gothic / Brutalist
- Delicate
- Airy
One of my inspirations was the modern trend of open ceilings, especially when a ceiling is painted darker or lighter than the rest of the building to give the impression of more space. Since this structure would have a dark, shaded ceiling in real life, I decided to keep it light and color the “pillars” dark brown instead.
This open-ceiling inspired color scheme was intriguing, but I wasn’t convinced that it was adding visual space at all. If anything, coloring the pillars dark brown would actually cause the space to feel smaller. Also, given the industrial, geometric feel of the modules, I felt that some metallic shade would match the outside appearance much better.
I also experimented with adding various patterns to the pillars. Some were more successful than others (for example, used sparingly, the paint splatters could give the structure a fun, crafty vibe). However, adding patterns also hid the natural form of the modules, which I felt was an essential characteristic of the space.
During class crit, I got the some feedback from the professors and TAs:
- The adjectives used aren’t accurate to the structure, mainly delicate and airy
- Using a thinner material could help convey that the space is less clunky
- The opening in each module seriously influences the “openness” of the space — play around with the opening
- Try thinning certain modules to see if it reduces visual mass
Iteration 3
The feedback I received while working on my 2nd iteration gave me several clear goals to pursue:
- Open up the modules to make the structure feel less closed in
- Switch to a thinner material to help the scale model feel less bulky
- Try modifying the triangular shape of modules to “lighten” the structure
- Add actual color (hues) to the structure
This time, I remade the structure from scratch using a cardboard box with very thin corrugated cardboard. Compared with what I used previously, this cardboard was much easier to make clean cuts without denting the outside surfaces and deformed less when creased.
I experimented with reshaping the modules’ openings and their overall shape. The original modules had tiny openings designed to connect other modules; since I no longer needed to connect modules through this center hole, I could widen it quite a bit while retaining structural integrity. I planned to make this iteration out of two variants of this module: one with a single center opening and another with two asymmetrical openings. I used the asymmetrical one for the roof since light could cast a more interesting pattern through that module. The new singular module continued to be used for the structure’s pillars as a means to reduce visual clutter.
This was also the first iteration I experimented with actual color. Since I described my structure as “airy” and “delicate”, I felt that the interior had to look refined and friendly at the same time. I chose a pastel green for the roof and pastel purple for the pillars as they separated the roof from the rest of the structure without clashing with the green roof. In real life, this structure would likely be made of metal so I imitated this by lightly brushing on a shade of grey, leaving some cardboard visible. Metallic paint would have definitely helped and I considered using aluminum foil, but I was concerned about the foil wrinkling up too easily even after being applied.
I found a very bright flashlight while making this revised structure which allowed me to simulate sunlight at different angles easily. Compared to the old iteration, this structure cast a more complex light pattern, accentuating the already angular structure of the roof modules. Improved craftsmanship as a result of the switch to a thinner material, combined with the imitation metal finish, transformed the structure from a rough cardboard scale model into a more convincing representation of a real space.
However, this model was still not perfect. During class critique, my professors and TAs noted that while my structure did seem to be “Gothic” inspired, it wasn’t “airy” or “delicate”. They surmised that it was a combination of me using a thick material and the jarring, geometric shape of the modules that created a closed-in feeling, regardless of the size of the openings that I cut into the pillars and roof modules. One TA noted that while this iteration felt top-heavy, mainly owing from how the bottom of each pillar ended in a sharp point. Others advised me to fill in gaps between pillars with a third module to more clearly define a direction from which people would enter this space.
Iteration 4
By now, there was very little time left to finalize our structures. Although I would have liked to explore more directions given the advice I got from previous crits, I settled on fixing only the most glaring issues.
Through modifying my original modules, I realized that I was approaching this next iteration completely wrong. “Softening” the structure, whether by arching the pillars, rounding the ceiling openings, or other means, clashed with the angular nature of this structure. For example, even if I rounded the openings of the ceiling modules, they would still be hard-edged triangles with a straight crease down the middle — a confusing combination of organic and industrial. In other words, I was trying to make the structure be something it wasn’t.
The problem, then, lay within my description of the space. I decided to change some of my adjectives:
- Gothic → Gothic
- Airy → Angular
- Delicate → Armored
Before, I over-emphasized the openings on the ceiling to the point that I convinced myself that the structure took on a different characteristic.This new set of words represented the feeling of my current structure much better.
However, I did make a small addition to the structure. During a class crit, Laura noted that the triangular shape of the pillars made the whole unit feel too top heavy. I tried hourglass-shaped pillars previously but those added unnecessary bulk to the whole structure. Instead, I cut out mini versions of my pillar modules and connected them, inverted, to each pillar using the hole as a connection. I kept these modules white on purpose: in real life, they would be anchored or molded to the ground, and using a light shade would set these anchors apart from the main metallic construction.
Reflection
From the start, this project targeted skillsets that I previously had little experience in as a design student. The technical part of this project: craftsmanship, working with various paper media, etc. was the most time consuming but not the most difficult part.
I quickly learned that a large space with a few descriptive words as reference is very tricky. As a regular-sized human working on a tiny scale model, I often forgot that what I was designing was not a handheld product viewed from afar but actually a representation of an experience that would be viewed from below. It wasn’t until the later iterations that I realized just how important the user interaction aspect was.
In hindsight, spatial experiences was the most eye-opening of the projects I did during the spring semester, combining elements of everything I learned this year in eye-opening ways. Building the structure was probably the easiest part. Asking non-design people and hearing their feedback struck me harder, not because of their honesty but the realization that I actually wasn’t designing for the user in mind. Our final class on Thursday, where every student showed pictures of their structure over Zoom, made me question the amount of time I spent on the structure itself. In reality, photographing the space accurate to the perspective of a user, even placing figures within these images, communicated the feeling of a space better than any degree of craftsmanship would alone. And finally, it amazed me how important the choice of color in our space was to the overall vibe —small tweaks in both the modules and colors used transformed my structure towards my goals.
Robert told us that no matter what track we pick next year, C track skills are fundamental to everything we’re gonna do. He’s not wrong.
