This portfolio document outlines Eric Burnside's education and experience in architecture. He received a Master of Architecture from Rice University and a Bachelor of Arts in Architecture from the University of Kentucky. His experience includes internships at Morris Architects-Huitt Zollars and Morphosis Architects. He has also worked as a teaching assistant at Rice University and the University of Kentucky. The remainder of the document contains architectural project proposals and details from Eric's academic work.

1. ARCHITECTURE
PORTFOLIO
Eric
Burnside
M
.Arch.
Rice
University

3. ERIC BURNSIDE eburnside91@gmail.com
1816 W. Main Street,
Houston, TX
859-576-0440CV 2017
MAIL:
PHONE:
EDUCATION SOFTWARE & SKILLS
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE
Masters of Architecture.
Rice School of Architecture.
Rice Univesity, Houston, TX.
Bachelors of Arts in Architecture.
Summa cum Laude
UK College of Design
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Rhinoceros 3D, V-Ray Rendering Plug-in for
Rhino, Adobe Creative Suite, Grasshopper
Plug-in for Rhino, Revit Architecture
Intermediate German Language Speaker
Proficiency with Laser-cutting, 3D printing,
architectural model fabrication, and com-
mon fabrication tools
Summer Intern
Morris Architects-Huitt Zollars
Urban Planning
Responsibilities: Designed and prepared a comprehensive feasibility study for the
implementation of a public light rail system. I worked independently to represent the phases,
engineering, and infrastructural alignments necessary to achieve the project’s scope. These
tasks required dutiful, accurate and visually engaging representations of data, precedents,
and financial figures as well as the schematic design of stations, facilities, and projected built
development.
Teaching Assistant
Rice University School of Architecture
Responsibilities: Assist with lecture preparation by transcribing past lectures
Rice School of Architecture in Paris
Fall semester and design studio spent in
Paris, France
Operations Manager / Marketing Coordinator CHHJ Moving
Responsibilities: Manage payroll, coordinate moving team duties, trained new hires, and
managed the company's door-to-door and social media marketing efforts.
metLEX Light Rail Transit Study
Independent research project to determine feasibility of light rail transit for Lexington, KY.
Fresh Punches Installation Fabrication
Morphosis Architects
Spring Break Practice Preview: Week long job shadow and mentorship
Rice Building Workshop
Fotofest 2016 Exhibition Fabrication
Teaching Assistant
University of Kentucky College Of Design
Responsibilities: Lead discussion sessions and assisted in grading student assignments. I chose
and researched an independent topic concerning discussions in contemporary architecture,
on which I gave a final lecture.
2017
2013
2015
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2012
2016
2013

5. ABOUT
FACE
FACADE
FICTIONS
A TOWER
ON A
TOWER
WITH A
TOWER ON
TOP
3300
RICHMOND
MUSEUM
OF ART OF
THE 20TH
CENTURY
CONTENTS
Micro Housing High
Rise in the Lower East
Side
Mixed-Use Urban
Design
Olympic Housing
Addition to the Eiffel
Tower
Civic Building
Houston, Texas
Berlin Kulturforum

7. ABOUT FACEPartnership with Yifan Wang
About Face is a proposal for 105 microunits in
the Lower East Side, located on a site that is
only 30 feet by 80.
We are proposing a building that compounds
the definition of the unit across scales through
the conception that by sharing components of
what would traditionally be a single apartment
unit,residents are privy to more square footage
on average than if they had a 200 square foot
unit to themselves.
By this we mean that a unit can be defined
concurrently as a single 200 square foot
bedroom, a floor of 4 bedrooms, a suite of
8 bedrooms, to a community of 8 floors. At
each scale consequent programs are shared
amongst proportional groups of people. As
a result, instead of each resident only renting
200-250 square feet per person, there living
arrangement is defined by 700-800 square
feet per person.
Thebuildingiscomprisedofthreecommunities
that create the “about face,” switching
orientation as the building moves upward.
Between each community are two transition
floors that act as free planned balcony and
event spaces connecting communities to
each other. At these moments the building’s
density almost completely dissipates as these
transition floors create an open clerestory,
connecting the east and west lights.
AB
C
D
A
A
COMMUNAL LIVING SCHEME
ABOUT FACE FORM CONCEPTUAL RENDER
Single bed and bath
Single Floor
4 - 5 Single Bedrooms
Kitchen
Suite Pair
8-10 Single Bedrooms
2 Kitchens
Dining
Study
Lounge
Community
30+ Single Bedrooms
4 Suite Pairs

8. GROUND FLOOR PLAN
1/32” = 1’
N

9. CONTEXT VIEW SURVEY
ENTRY RENDER
S
E
N
W

10. 2nd Level
15’- 0”
1st Level
0’- 0”
3rd Level
25’- 0”
4th Level
35’- 0”
5th Level
45’- 0”
6th Level
55’- 0”
7th Level
65’- 0”
8th Level
75’- 0”
11st Level
105’- 8”
9th Level
85’- 0”
10th Level
95’- 0”
12nd Level
117’- 8”
13rd Level
129‘
14th Level
139’
15th Level
149’
16th Level
159’
17th Level
169’
18th Level
179’
19th Level
189’
20th Level
199’
21st Level
209’
22hnd Level
221’
23rd Level
233’
24th Level
243’
25th Level
253’
26th Level
263’
27th Level
273’
28th Level
283’
29th Level
293’
30th Level
303’
31st Level
315’
32nd Level
319’
33rd Level
324’
CROSS SECTION LONGITUDINAL SECTION

11. TRANSFER FLOORS
PERSPECTIVE SECTION

12. TOP RESIDENTIAL SUITE
1/16” = 1’
BOTTOM RESIDENTIAL SUITE
1/16” = 1’
SUITE PAIR

13. BEDROOM COMMON KITCHEN
SUITE PAIR
PERSPECTIVE SECTION
TRANSFER FLOOR BALCONY

14. MEZZANINE FLOOR
1/16” = 1’
TRANSFER FLOOR
1/16” = 1’

15. EAST ELEVATION

16. PHYSICAL MODEL

17. NORTH ELEVATION
EVENING RENDER

18. Insulated Low UV Double Pane Glazing
Insulated Low UV Double Pane Glazing
Mirror Coated Metal Panel
Mirror Coated Metal Panel
Finish Floor
Extrusion Aluminum Mullion
Weather Seal
Curtain Wall Anchored Bracket
Smoke and Fire Barrier
Aluminum Furring
1’6” Rigid Foam Insulation
Drop Ceiling Suspansion Cable
Aluminum Panel Soffit
1’6” Rigid Insulation
1’6” Rigid Insulation
Finish Floor
Weather Seal
Extrusion Aluminum Mullion
Curtain Wall Anchored Bracket
Smoke and Fire Barrier
Sheetrock Ceiling
CURTAIN WALL DETAIL
1/4” = 1’
CURTAIN WALL DETAIL
1/4” = 1’

19. Insulated Low UV Double Pane Glazing
Bristled Entry Foot Pad
Extrusion Aluminum Mullion
Glass Revolving Door
Insulated Glass Entry Barrier
Floor Plate
5’ 5’ 5’5’ 5’ 5’5’ 5’ 1’6”5’ 5’
80’
5’ 5’5’ 4’7’ 2’6”
1st Level
0’- 0”
2nd Level
15’- 0”
3rd Level
25’- 0”
10’ 4”
Spandrel Glass Curtain Wall Panel
Insulated Low UV Double Pane Glazing
Smoke and Fire Barrier
Operable Window Sash
Parallel-Push Window
8” Concrete Slab
Ceiling Plenum
Sheetrock Ceiling
Extrusion Aluminum Mollion
6th Level
55’- 0”
7th Level
65’- 0”
8th Level
75’- 0”
9th Level
85’- 0”
FACADE DETAIL
FACADE DETAIL

21. FACADE FICTIONS
G
Facade Fictions is a project to design a mixed
use plan for a 17 acre parcel directly to the
north of downtown Houston.
This project proposes a form of mixed-use
I am referring to as compressed use. By
working within the known boundaries and
optimizations of the generic housing, office,
and commercial typologies, this urban plan
deploys tightly packed formations of housing
and office. This allows the plan to contract and
expand, alternate tall and flat, dense and loose,
and creates an urban space that contrasts with
the urban simulacra that is often the product of
mixed-use design

22. PHASING DIAGRAM
SITE MODEL
PHASE 1
RESIDENTIAL: 620,606 sqft
28 townhomes / 445 apartments
OFFICE: 145,950 sqft
RETAIL: 40,000 sqft
PARKING: 275,172 sqft
786 parking spaces
GROSS SQFT: 1,081,728 sqft
SITE AREA: 199,483 sqft
F.A.R.: 5.4
PHASE 2
RESIDENTIAL: 456,699 sqft
359 apartments
OFFICE: 145,950 sqft
RETAIL: 19,000 sqft
PARKING: 85,343 sqft
243 parking spaces
GROSS SQFT: 706,992 sqft
SITE AREA: 101,153 sqft
F.A.R.: 7.0
PHASE 3
RESIDENTIAL: 492,579 sqft
22 townhomes / 354 apartments
PARKING: 276,512 sqft
790 parking spaces
GROSS SQFT: 769,091 sqft
SITE AREA: 101,398 sqft
F.A.R.: 7.6
PHASE 4
RESIDENTIAL: 497,320 sqft
7 townhomes / 427 apartments
OFFICE: 145,950 sqft
RETAIL: 32,000 sqft
PARKING: 234,880 sqft
671 parking spaces
GROSS SQFT: 910,150 sqft
SITE AREA: 175,754 sqft
F.A.R.: 5.2
PHASE 5
RESIDENTIAL: 334,868 sqft
252 apartments
OFFICE: 145,950 sqft
RETAIL: 29,872 sqft
PARKING: 206,854 sqft
591 parking spaces
GROSS SQFT: 717,544 sqft
SITE AREA: 104,628 sqft
F.A.R.: 6.8
METRIC TOTALS
TOTAL SITE AREA: 17.5 acres
TOTAL FOOTPRINT: 358,202 sqf
BUILT/UNBUILT RATIO: 47%
GROSS CONSTRUCTION: 4,185,505 sqft
RESIDENTIAL: 2,402,072 sqft
57 townhomes / 1,837 apartments
105 units per acre
OFFICE: 583,800 sqft
RETAIL: 120,872 sqft
PARKING: 1,078,761
3,081 parking spaces
AVERAGE F.A.R.: 6.4

23. 1” = 320’LONGITUDINAL SECTION AA
LONGITUDINAL SECTION BB
Residential buildings are a tightly packed bundle of living typologies, providing apartments, condominiums, and town-
homes in a single amalgamated form creating compressions in the density of the urban plan. Low single and double
height retail buildings, in contrast create expanses of decompression, challenging phenomenalized conceptions of ur-
ban density. There has almost always been a graduated and parallel relationship between building height and density,
but this proposal contrasts the high and low conditions in close proximity.
1” = 320’
Apartments
Townhomes
Amenities
Parking
Lobby
Below Grade
Parking

24. TRANSFER FLOOR (6)
COMPRESSION OF HOUSING
TYPOLOGIES
7th FLOOR 1” = 50’
1” = 50’

25. 1st FLOOR PLAN NORTH ELEVATION
2st FLOOR PLAN
7th FLOOR PLAN
16th FLOOR PLAN

26. MODEL PHOTOS

28. Steel T section runner with multiple connection
points
Steel unit mounting carriage. Welded to primary
structure
Mounting carriage spanning support
Lateral scaffolding
Dark water
Supply water
Primary walkway support. Tapering steel beam in
cantilever. Welded to primary structure
Steel Floor joists with cutouts for mechanical
connections

29. A TOWER ON A
TOWER WITH A
TOWER INSIDEPartnership with Wenqi Chen
The premise of this project is ridiculous: to
build an olympic housing facility on the eiffel
tower for France’s 2024 Olympic bid, while
relying on the tower’s existing structural
capacity to support the load and leaving the
tower’s tourist operations uninterrupted.
By entertaining the premise of this project,
we enter the very pitched and very much
alive debates on tall buildings in Paris, the
sanctimony ascribed to patrimonious cultural
monuments, and architecture’s pitiful history
with olympic buildings.
Inspired by scaffolding, we decided early on to
design a building that would be disassembled
- not demolished. With precedents like the
Centre Pompidou, the works of Peter Cook
and the Metabolists, we found we had a
responsibility to leverage architecture as a
speculation on temporality in an effort to first
do no harm, while also attempting to gain
something spectacular. This contrasts with
what one has come to expect from Olympic
architecture.
This scaffold tower begins just above the
second platform (where the best views can
be found) thereby preserving the tourist’s
experience of the Tour Eiffel. Secondly, the
athletes, as they ascend the interior of the
tower, will have a new spatial relationship with
the tower as historical artifact, much like a
window washer on a skyscraper, or viewing the
skeleton of an extinct creature in a museum.
Lastly the structure is more a kit of parts than
architecture. It can easily be disassembled and
reassembled elsewhere for a new function,
returning the tower to its original state.

30. beaugrenelletrocadero ecole militaire montmarte
0-200 m
.2-1 km
1-4 km
4-8 km
TOWER VISIBILITY STUDY

31. compound
8km
4km
1km
200m
COMPOSITE VISIBILITY
RADII AND SURVEY POINTS
The Tour Eiffel is obviously a city-wide marker. Apartment listings are
sure to note “views of the eiffel tower” even no matter how far or
small the tower is on the horizon. But the world renowned tapering
silhouette of the tower is only visible from a very small radius.
We used this visibility study conducted in person and from google
street view, to determine from many vantage points, where our tower
on tower could begin, to harmonize with the changing perceptions
of the tower as it currently exists.

32. 1st public deck
Existing power
generation, water
pumps
2nd public deck
3rd public deck
We leave the lower
decks to operate
normally, and draw
a simple separation
between the tourist
public, and the
athletic housing
above
There is a partial
thinning in density
at the top deck to
allow visitors to
continue to visit the
tower floor, as well
as reveal the end of
the existing tower,
exposing the
proportion that
cotinues upward in
cantilever
Using
prefabricated units,
we compose a
tower that
increases in opacity
and occupancy as
it grows. In doing
so we expose as
much of the
existing tower
inside
Vertical circulation
is dispersed to
prevent creating
consolidated
moments of
continuous opacity
on the facade
Shared programs
area evenly
dispersed
throughout the
tower. They form
bands of glazing
on the facade that
are split into pieces
and shift to break
up the controlling
rhythm of space
created by the
housing unit grid.
CONCEPT DIAGRAM
PRECEDENTS

33. ELEVATION

34. 58.8m
116.5m
121.65m
126.0m
130.1m
134.2m
138.3m
142.4m
146.5m
150.6m
154.7m
158.8m
162.9m
167.0m
171.1m
175.2m
179.3m
183.4m
PLAN0
PLAN+5
First athlete
arrival checkpoint
Exisiting express
elevator to level
Jules Verne
Fire stair changes
orientation to
accomodate the
profile of the
tower
Passenger eleva-
tors. skip sto
every 5 floors
Passenger eleva-
tors. skip sto
every 5 floors
Service elevator
CIRCULATION DIAGRAM

35. 187.5m
191.6m
195.7m
199.8m
203.9m
208.0m
212.1m
216.2m
220.3m
224.4m
228.5m
232.6m
236.7m
240.8m
244.9m
249.0m
253.1m
257.2m
261.3m
265.4m
269.5m
273.6m
277.7m
281.8m
285.9m
290.0m
294.1m
298.2m
302.3m
306.4m
310.5m
314.6m
318.7m
322.8m
326.9m
331.0m
335.1m
339.2m
343.3m
347.4m
351.5m
355.6m
359.7m
363.8m
367.9m
372.0m
376.1m
380.2m
384.3m
PLAN+16
PLAN+25
TYPICALWALLSECTION
PLAN+37
PLAN+44
DETAILSECTION
TOWERCONNECTION
DETAIL
PLAN+59
PLAN+62
STRUCTURAL PREMISE EARLY CONCEPTUAL RENDER

36. ARRIVAL PLAN

37. 4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A B C D E F G H J K LI
I LKJHGFEDCBA
I LKJHGFEDCBA
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I LKJHGFEDCBA
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I LKJHGFEDCBA
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A B C D E F G H J K LI
I LKJHGFEDCBA
I LKJHGFEDCBA
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I LKJHGFEDCBA
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I LKJHGFEDCBA
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.1004.100
4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100 4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
5th FLOOR PLAN
16th FLOOR PLAN 59th FLOOR PLAN
44th FLOOR PLAN

38. TOWER CONNECTION
DETAIL SECTION
8.2 m 8.2 m4.1 m 4.1 m 4.1 m 4.1 m 4.1 m 4.1 m 4.1 m
24.2 m2.0 m0.5m7.7 m0.5 m1.55 m 2.0 m 8.7 m
Metal mesh bodyrail
Scaffolding segment connector
Corrugated aluminum siding
Steel stud
Prefab stud wall assembly
Output dark water pipe w/
branch to units
Supply water pipe w/
branch to units
Aluminum flooring panel on
corrugated steel deck
Existing tower structure
Steel collar with pin joint
connections
Pipe section steel strut 50 cm di.
Pipe section steel strut 25 cm di.

39. CONTROL ELEVATION
MEP SCHEME
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
8.
9.
1. Clean water vertical chase
2. Service elevator
3. Dark water vertical chase
4. Water pump
5. Mechanical room
6. Egress stair
7. Passenger elevators
8. Egress stair
9. Passenger Elevators

43. 3300 RICHMOND
The aim of this project is to design a public
service annex for the city of Houston including
an auditorium, courtrooms, and bureaucratic
functions to create a complete public interface.
At the same time, there is the ambition to
explore the nature of public (civic) space in
a city like houston, which is largely known
by its dispersed, archipelago-like, private
decentralization.
Theproposal,then,drawsfromthesurrounding
context. Many mid century modernist homes,
offices, and commercial buildings mark
the Richmond Avenue corridor and can be
identified by their lifted forms, freeing the
ground floor for covered parking. Additionally
they often feature wide-brimmed, flat roofs
that create a intimate and shaded relationship
with the sidewalk.
The contrasts are drastic between these
buildings and more recent constructions
driven mostly by parking codes and setback
regulations. These conditions create the
urban sprawl/asphalt desert that so frequently
characterizes the generic American urban
periphery.
This contextual form’s versatile ability to
modulate the a close “private” scale and
interface with the public domain primed it for
reinvention.
In contrast to the free plan, this proposal
introduces a sweeping circulatory form that
drives the plan in conjuction with a regular
column grid.
FORMAL PROCESS

44. 1.
2. 3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
1. Primary Entrance
2. Workshop
3. Workshop
4. Public Plaza
5. Cafe seating
6. Cafe
7. Employee and
secondary entrance
ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT CIVIC SERVICES PUBLIC AMENITIES CIRCULATION / MECHANICAL JUDICIARY FUNCTIONSARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT CIVIC SERVICES PUBLIC AMENITIES CIRCULATION / MECHANICAL JUDICIARY FUNCTIONS
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION
SITE PLAN
RICHMONDAUDLEY
A
B
A
B

45. 2. 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1. Assembly Hall Stage
2.General Purpose Assembly Hall
3.Workshop
4. Bathroom
5. Primary Mechanical
6. Bathroom
7. West Fire Stair
8. Green Screen room/Theater
Storage
9. Theater administrative office
10. Locker room
11. Dressing Room suites (3)
12. Service and pasenger Elevators
13. East Fire Stair
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1. Main Entrance and Theater Foyer
2. Main Theater (360 seats)
3. Stage
4. Exhibition/ Gallery
5. Childcare
6. Childcare Office and storage
7. Mechanical
8. Classroom
9. Classroom
10. Reception/ Box Office
11. Storage
12. Tax Office
13. Stage Support
14. Classroom
15. Clerk Offices (6)
16. Employee Break room
17. Restroom
18. Main Records Storage
19. Secondary Entrance
14.
15.
17.
16.
18.
19.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1. Public Lounge
2. Gallery Catwalk (Entry from +1 to +2
3. Stage Technical
4. County Clerk queueing and service counter
5. County Clerk Office
6. Justice of the Peace Clerk Office
7. Justice of the Peace service counter
8. Mechanical
9. Judicial Promenade
10. Stage Technical
11. Circulation Vestibule
12. Judge’s Office (1)
13. Jury Deliberation Room(1)
14. Court Clerk office (1)
15. Courtroom (1)
16. Jury Assembly
17. Restrooms
18. Courtroom (2)
19. Jury Deliberation Room (2)
20. Court Clerk Office (2)
21. Judge’s Office (2)
22. Marriage and Divorce proceedings office
14.
15.
17.
16.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
B1 PLAN
1’=1/64”
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
1’=1/64”
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
1’=1/64”

46. LONGITUDINAL SECTION AA
1’=1/32”
LONGITUDINAL SECTION BB
1’=1/32”
NORTH ELEVATION
1’=1/32”

47. SOUTH ELEVATION
1’=1/32”
ON
N

49. MUSEUM OF ART
OF THE 20TH
CENTURY
There was recently a high profile
competition to propose a Museum of Art of
the 20th Century to go on the Kulturforum
in Berlin, Germany to join the seminal works
of Hans Scharoun and Mies van der Rohe.
This project is a response to that brief.
This site is concurrently an architect’s dream
and nightmare. It is an incredible challenge
to design a museum that responds to
such a charged and iconic context, yet the
Kulturforum is conditioned by an uncanny
vastness - a kind of desolation - resultant
from the deliberately non-monumental
land form architectures of Scharoun and
Mies’ parthenon-like universal pavilion.
Deterred by the legacy of national socialist
monumentality and neighboring East
German Socialist totalitarianism, it seems
the Kulturforum and indeed the 1960’s
showed the struggle to define a public
monumentalism free of the problems of
the past. Time clearly solved this problem,
as the site is also near Potsdamer Platz
which is the Germany capital’s emblem of
neoliberal iconicity and monumentalism.
But as one walks from Potsdamer Platz to
the Kulturforum, there is the distinct feeling
of “exiting” of a condition of buzzing
urbanity to one of insularity and deference.
Oddly, these properties of the Kulturforum
are a kind of strength. Each major building
of the Kulturforum is specifically attuned
to a particular purpose. Scharoun’s
Staatsbibliotek is the nation’s largest
academic library and is not open to
the public. Scharoun’s Philharmoniker
explodes with life at concert times but then
goes dormant in between events.And Mies’
Neue Nationalgalerie is less a museum
than a highly focused pavilion. Therefore
the inherent ambition of this competition to
invigorate this district through with a single
building is a sisyphean task, compounded
by thepossibilityof creatinganarchitectural
petting zoo due to the concentration of
high profile buildings.
It is ironic that this district is called the
Kulturforum when one compares it to the
Museum Insel, which is far more classically
organized,and telegraphs its public cultural
commodities in a much more recognizable
way.
Therefore, this project aims to lean into
the archipelago already in the making,
by creating a unique, highly specific, and
embounded cultural experience in contrast
to the consumable, touristic cultural day
out provided by the Museum Insel. The
program itself demands it, in a way. This
is because it is a relatively new notion to
conceive of art of the 20th century as an
archived, historicized epoch - no longer
contemporary, and “modern” only in
designation. The word Modern has acted
as an age reversal cream for Modern Art,
extending its contemporaneity. The aim,
thenof thisprojectisinspecttheinnovations
of Modern art on the display of art, and the
conventions of the historical display of art.

50. KULTURFORUM PLAN
NATIONALGALERIE
STAATSBIBLIOTHEK
SITE
PHILHARMONIKER
KAMMERMUSIK
HALL
GEMAELDEGALERIE
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
A A

51. CONCEPTUAL MONTAGE
Art in isolation is very much the format of art in
a contemporary moment, one could argue, the
sequence of most contemporary art museums
reflects this one-on-one spatial arrangment
between viewers and the art. I argue this reflects
an insistance that the work itself contains any
political, social, and artistic response to its
present moment. This format, I argue, was
mastered during the modern era which can be
associated with the explosion of media, formats,
and the size of art.
This image is an example of how art is often
historicized. The contextualized breadth
of a cultural moment is often added to the
motivations, and ambitions of any individual
piece. Isolation is the format in which we
“appreciate” art and the other is considered
how we learn about art.
This museum is composed as a aggregate of 2 conditions of display: Clearings and Dense Display. Clearings
place a piece of art in its isolated format, the format popularized by Modern Art. Dense Display is the greater
collection of historicized art. It is an opportunity for viewers to view and investigate art in a format one rarely sees
in Modern Art. Additionally, museums rarely display more than 5% of their collections on the museum floor at
any one time. This strategy responds to the question of how to historicize the artistic moment that was more self
aware of its “presentness” more than any other - by creating this duality in format.

52. CLEARINGS
FOCUS
DENSE DISPLAY
CONTEXT
CLEARING/DENSE BOUNDARY

53. CLEARING SURVEY
INSIDE CLEARING
OUTSIDE CLEARING
MULTISTORY CLEARING OVERLAP
DENSE DISPLAY

54. SECTION AA
ROOF 19.3 m
4 15.2 m
3 10.6 m
2 6 m
Potsdamer Street Level 4m
St. Matthaus Kirche 0m
0 m 3.4 m 12.43 m 21.46 m 30.49
LEVEL 4LEVEL 3LEVEL 2

55. m 39.51 m 48.54 m 57.57 m 66.60 m 70.0 m
PERSPECTIVE RENDER