A routine is a sequence of actions that culminate with a product. No product, be it the zen of drinking tea, the finality of a sandwich, nor the totality of a musical composition, can be achieved without the careful, strict accomplishment of specific actions. Visualized as a concept map, the product is the end point, usually, and the actions preceding function as a series of checkpoints. The end point, or culmination of the routine, is a checkpoint as well. Each checkpoint is a milestone toward the development of the goal the routine strives to obtain. 

In context of the routines of pet ownership, minimizing on the routine of walking a dog, a golden retriever, such points of action, or checkpoints, carry geographical significance. Whereas many routines may occur in a small, confined space, walking a dog requires a neighborhood of a space, a liberated, yet consistent path for an animal that thrives upon spatial freedom and exploration, yet values a familiar hearthy routine. Each checkpoint is defined by the occurance of an event: departing from the home, sniffing the ground, typical distractions, and the desired result- the excretion of waste. Whereas many routines are purely linear, with the desired result culminating at an end point, walking a dog is rather cylical, with the zenith occuring in the middle of the process. The dog departs from the home. The dog excretes at a usually familiar point away from the home. The dog returns to the home, remaining there until the process is ready to begin again. The diagram is not a crescendo to an endpoint, but a wave that crests in the middle of the timeline. Therefore, the geographical checkpoint at which this action occurs should be the most implicitly dramatic.

What responsibilities does a designer have creating the checkpoint for this to occur? Does the designer even have the power to dictate where this occurs? Well, yes actually. The design of such checkpoint could be done in such way that it recieves the proper emphasis, becoming a monument of sorts, truly a checkpoint in a physical form. In human civilization, monuments are designed to be celebratory and commemorative, urban focal points, or checkpoints rather, from which the entirety of a neighborhood is based, such as Dupont Circle, L'Arc de Triomphe or Trafalgar Square. Certain monuments, that are dedicated to more dramatic, melancholy circumstances, tend to posess a more subtle, yet powerful existence. Maya Lin exemplifies the power of such subltly by physically actualizing what she concieved as a figurative scar in the earth, the Vietnam war, and the design for her processional monument that exists amidst the landscape of the National Mall. Her design is absent of the sort of explicitly powerful grandeur of the Arc Triomphe at the opening of the Champs-Elysees, but present of the implicitly powerful subtly.

Returning to the context of a marker for a dog to pee, an activity so ritualistic yet mundane does not need the dramatic architecture of the Arc de Triomphe. Rather, it desires the subtlty like that of maya lin, with the craft of the landscape around to deliver the emphasis that the actual monument should lack. The subtle elevation of the checkpoint over the land around is completly emphatic, physically and symbolically elevating this point in space over the surroundings. In order to retain this emphasis, it is important to isolate the marker, and void the remainder of the space of any vegetation or architectural element with the exception of the grass and the form of the land. Therefore there is no competition, the marker will have to win. In order for the golden retriever to more easily "mark the spot" and welcome the object psychologically as the point of excretion, it should be ergonomically designed to best accomodate the form of the dog himself. The marker, a boulder planted into the ground, should be reasonably proportioned to the height of the dog and elliptical so that it may be round enough for the dog to appreciate but thin enough that it can agree with the dimensions of the dogs parts. It should include concavities that allow better access for the dogs hind leg to rise. Thus, the combination of its isolated power and its ergonomic form should easily speak to the golden retriever that it in fact is the zenith of his walk, the most important checkpoint in the process, the item to be peed on.

Even before digesting the concept of social interaction, I was inspired by a picture I encountered on twitter featuring one of my favorite musicians standing inside of a sculpture composed of flourescent tubes mounted on a spherical metal frame. One of the most interesting aspects of the sculpture was the use of the light tubes as both a directional device and an ambient light source. From this picture I began studying the works of Dan Flavin who's use of flourescent tubes is mostly sculptural. Exploring further I discovered the works of James Turell and Dough Wheeler who's use of light is more of an architectural device, something that manipulates our perception of space. Robert Irwin is another artist who's work bridged the gap between Turell/Wheeler's work and Flavin's focusing on both sculptural and ambient use of light. From my studies I constructed a small lighting model in which two electronic glow sticks light a face through two slits on either side of the face. In constructing and studying this model I discovered that light, when the source is not obvious, becomes more associated with space itself rather than an element within the space. This small process in light study led me to include ambient lighting in my construction. 

With the design aspects nearing finalization, I had to explore construction methods. Initially I wanted a very sleek final product, and looked towards plastic paneling. After consulting a few studio members, someone suggested I use the process of vacuforming, in which sheets of plastic are heated until pliable, placed over a mold, and then the air between the form mold and sheet is vacuumed out, sucking the plastic to the mold. I set out to vacuform scaled polystyrene sheets I scaveneged. In a few nights I had created the vacuform bed, frame, and CNC routed a mold out of MDF. Unfortunately, the process of heating the plastic to it's pliable state proved to be a greater challenge than I was equipped for, and my final product (as shown in the pictures) was unacceptable.

Next I explored the possibility of casting the wall in plaster. Using the same form, I made a cast and poured plaster into it. Unfortunately, the displacement of the form required more plaster to be poured than could dry within a reasonable timeframe. Although not a failure in terms of end product, logistically plaster was unsuitable.

In my race to create the scale model in time, I decided to use paper mache as a model material. The success of the paper mache, and working properties discovered during construction led me to consider it as a large scale material. The more research I did, the more paper mache appealed to me. Further light, finish, aperture, and technique studies led me to decide upon paper mache for the final construction. 

Before embarking on the paper mache, I installed the lighting system. The frame was painted white to grant optical neutrality, and three flourescent tubes were installed, two 48" T8 lamps vertically, and one 24" T8 horizontally across the top member. The top lamp was wired directly to the main power switch so it would remain on so long as power was on. The side lamps were wired to a motion sensor switch placed at the bottom of the frame. This meant that whenever someone approached the frame, the sensor switch would power the side lamps, changing the color of the lighting coming through the paper mache. This is the method by which I allowed the user to manipulate space as an expansion on the manipulation of data in a phone. All that was left was to make the paper mache face.

Paper mache however, required a structural frame for support. I finalized my face geometry, and cut out MDF studs which matched the geometry in profile. These studs were then braced horizontally with strips of flexible fiber reinforce panel (FRP). The decision to use FRP came from several factors, including ease of access, flexibility, white color, and impact resistence. Once the framework was finished, I began the paper mache process. 

The paper used was acid-free archival quality tissue paper. The use of this paper was to help prevent yellowing over time, and to allow greater control over opacity and light transfer through the paper. Adhesive used was wall paper paste, which was economical, and included fungicide to prevent mold growth over time. Multiple layers built over time softened the curves of the geometry, and controlled both lighting and structural properties. I was amazed at how little paper it took to create a strong surface!

Now that my wall was granted direction, I had to design. Reflecting the wall's intention was an extension of a phone's social implications, I considered the wall's construction as an extension of the phone's physical/tactile experience. Initially I pictured the wall as a sheer surface, in which cavities would be occupied while using a cell phone. Expanding on the concept of reversed privacy, I developed the idea of using parabolic shapes within the cavities as a way to project sound, while still denying visual observation from outsiders. Drawing from my light studies, I saw an opportunity to reflect the way a cellphone allows us to effortlessly manipulate information. When a human occupies the wall, it would change internal lighting, in a way manipulating space the same way we manipulate data. A theme of minimalism was followed in an effort to reflect the minimal design/construction so often used in modern phones. Through the projection of sound, the manipulation of light (and therefore space), and a simplistic construction, the wall intended to expand on the experience of a cellphone. 

From my ideas I set out to construct a study model. While following my intentions of parabolic shapes affecting sound, I realized what would be my greatest obstacle: intuitive form. Making acoustic shapes in a wall was fairly straitforward, and forming them to fit human proportion was none-too-large a challenge either. The problem lied in the making the use of the shapes obvious to a passerby, someone without insight into my design intentions. My initial study model featured forms that certainly were ergonomic and parabolic, but i quickly realized it granted little intimition for intended use. 

Using a product called InstaMorph, I studied possible forms that would hopefully grant obvious clues to use. I found great difficulty in producing forms with obvious intention, while maintaining the informed subtlety I found in cell-phone design. My breakthrough came when I stopped the use of additive and subtractive methods, and instead explored worked shapes. The flowing shapes allowed me to create ergonomic faces, while hiding their intention in the abstract geometry. Furthermore, the complex sculptural shapes would encourage people to explore the shapes, and discover all the ways in which the form could be used. These InstaMorph studies allowed me to give the wall a much more sophisticated form.

An overarching theme to section 2's walls was the exposure, expansion, or critique of some social interaction in an effort to explore the wall as a social device. Not knowing what to study or where to explore, I brought my camera with me when I went out one night. A recurring challenge I observed was getting pictures of people interacting without them being distracted by their cellphones... More on that later.

After reviewing the photos, one in particular stood out. I intended to take a picture of my friend, but the camera's autofocus instead captured a couple in the background engaged in what was a fairly intimate (but innapropriately boisterous) conversation. After rumination I realized that the couple's disregard for personal privacy was in many ways reflective of the cell phone dilemna I faced earlier.

While initially the telephone was meant to be a private auditory experience, the conversational privacy has been reversed over time; people today are not worried about putting their conversations into public space, whereas looking at or watching someones phone is now a much more intimate invasion of privacy. In a way, the classic phonebooth has been made obsolette by the cell phone, not just in terms of technological innovation, but the social advancement that came along with it. Phone booths are intended to block sound, but not vision (as evidenced by their open/glass construction), essentially the opposite of what would be valued in a phonebooth today. From this discovery, my project was given direction: I set out to make a wall that acted as a twenty-first-century phone booth, providing visual privacy, but not necessarily audible privacy. 

Taken from Wikipedia:

HANDRAIL DIMENSIONS

Various model codes—The International Code Council (ICC) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)—and accessibility standards—ANSI A117.1 and the Americans With Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design (ADA SAD)—refer to handrail dimensions. Current versions of these codes and standards now agree that handrail is defined as either a circular cross section with an outside diameter of 1¼" (32 mm) minimum and 2" (51 mm) maximum or a non-circular cross section with a perimeter dimension of 4" (100 mm) minimum and 6¼" (160 mm) maximum and a cross section dimension of 2¼" (57 mm) maximum. In addition, the International Residential Code (IRC) includes a definition of a "Type II" handrail that allows for handrail with a perimeter dimension greater than 6¼" (160 mm).

The IRC and residential portion of the 2009 IBC define Type II handrail as follows:

Type II. Handrails with a perimeter greater than 6¼ inches (160 mm) shall provide a graspable finger recess area on both sides of the profile. The finger recess shall begin within a distance of 3/4 inch (19 mm) measured vertically from the tallest portion of the profile and achieve a depth of at least 5/16 inch (8 mm) within 7/8 inch (22 mm) below the widest portion of the profile. This required depth shall continue for at least 3/8 inch (10mm) to a level that is not less than 1¾ inches (45 mm) below the tallest portion of the profile. The minimum width of the handrail above the recess shall be 1¼ inches (32 mm) to a maximum of 2¾ inches (70 mm). Edges shall have a minimum radius of 0.01 inch (0.25 mm).[1]

Handrails are located at a height between 34" (864 mm) and 38" (965 mm). In areas where children are the principal users of a building or facility, the 2004 ADAAG recommends that a second set of handrails at a maximum height of 28" (711 mm) measured to the top of the gripping surface from the ramp surface or stair nosing can assist in preventing accidents.

I would like you all to meet someone near and dear to my heart! Finding him cold and dirty on the ground next to Au Bon Pain I was taken over with compassion. Taking him in, I named him Rocky II, and committed to care for him like any responsible pet owner. Below are GIFs of some typical activities involved in caring for a pet, giving him warmth, feeding him, washing him, allowing him to socialize.

The Bakery:

Hybrid of Hannah and Chris

The form for the bakery was the combination of Hannah's second version of her bakery and the previously discussed Dog Marker. The exterior was inspired by the form of the Dog's Marker, and the interior by the the style of Hannah's bakery, where she prioritizes mixing, baking and serving as the three checkpoints of her ritual. In addition, there is an emphesis on storage throughout the development of her space. The space substracted in the monument to create the ergonomic concavities for the dog's legs have been kept and transformed into such storage and ventilation spaces. Two levels were incorporated to help express the prioritization of checkpoints. The pre-oven activity (mixing) and the baking within the oven exist on the lower level, where the patron sits comfortably on the upper level, resting her back on a soft, foam padding shaped to act as a flexible cushion, but functions as shelving. The patron, as in an commercial enterprise, is the priority, where all other elements exist to appease it. Excess spaces were either completely removed and replaced by siding, as occurs at the top right of the drawing, or exists as empty space with the implication of storage space, as occurs at the bottom left. 

The Musician's House:

Hybrid of Christina, Hannah and Chris

The Musician's House posesses the same form and spatial elements as the Bakery, but the patron space on the upper floor has been converted into the Musician's space, while the lower floor continues to serve as the kitchen for baking. The upstairs incorporates a larger table intended for a keyboard, a microphone dangling from shelving, and a clerestory window to supplement the oculus and provide direct light onto the workspace. In addition, the back-cushion on the seat has been approrpiately redesigned from a more funky, commercial style to a more simple, residential style. The similar unit on the table has not been changed as it posesses a different function. The siding has also been changed from a wavy, ornate form, to a more casual, residential form. The form of the house continues to play on the idea of priorities, considering the musician's synthesis as the priority of the house, where the kitchen exists below to provide sustenance and maintain the musician's ability to concieve. 

http://books.google.com/books?id=YzMtzvs9sBMC&pg=PA556&lpg=PA556&dq=Handrails+for+children&source=bl&ots=GXlirkSPMm&sig=2wXW_hP9VM7pxE4aelOnkH-BRVc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kU47U7e_HovJsQT7m4H4Cg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Handrails%20for%20children&f=false

From Ergonomics for Children: Designing Products and Places from Toddlers to Teens.

• Research indicates that children prefer higher handrails.
• Shoulder or head height is acceptable. (30 inches)
• Recalls a child's interaction with his or her parent, the upward extension of the arm to meet the arm of the parent.
• Grasp Diameter for a 1 year old is 0.94", for a 10 year old ideal grasp diameter is 1.61"