Thank you to the Makerspace!

Model of Neoclassical Modernist Home in Rome, Italy

The Makerspace empowered me, somebody with no model-building experience, to create an architectural model of a home in Rome, Italy that I am proud of—they even lent me the tools to make it happen. I am grateful to  David Keiser-Clark, Makerspace Program Manager, for offering guidance in this design project. This Neoclassical Modernist home was inspired by my time spent last spring studying abroad in Rome, Italy, and David helped me design this relatively low-tech model for my architecture class, taught by the great and powerful Professor Michael Lewis. As an economics major, I had never created anything like this, so I enlisted David to help me solve some practical problems that were preventing me from getting the design to look as accurate as I’d hoped. Specifically, I needed help to understand how to get the proportions of arches to look correct, and how I could properly cut and fill these voids. Due to the nature of the project, I wanted this to be done by hand, so David’s first idea of 3D printing the walls was not practical, so he worked with me to trace voussoirs into both the poster board walls and the plexiglass windows, a material that he referred me to. In addition, we grappled with the idea of how to properly include a glass dome in my model. David had the wonderful idea to buy a clear plastic bowl from Walmart and then set the scale of the entire model off of the measurement of this piece. David and I had many ideas about how to create the most interesting model possible, but his genius lies in the simplicity of his solutions to these practical problems. Being well-versed in the world of 3D printing, he was tempted to create bespoke parts for the project, but I was impressed with his restraint, ingenuity, and creativity to use more common items to solve these issues using a fraction of the time, labor, and resources.  In addition to his more high-tech tools in the Makerspace, David keeps a plethora of different tools that made this project possible and accessible for a student like me. He has compasses, saws, scoring equipment, clamps, and countless other items that allow students to have a one-stop shop for making their creative vision into a reality. I cannot thank David enough for all of the help and support, and I would recommend that anyone at the College and beyond come check out what he is doing, as it is extremely interesting and unique in a college landscape. Below, I included a write-up on my project for anyone interested. Thank you David & the Makerspace!

Jack Murphy
Modern Architecture
Professor Lewis
11 November 2024

Neoclassical Modernist Home in Rome, Italy

My vacation house in Rome, Italy features Classicist architecture with a modernized design that subverts the traditional Roman order to provide the home with aesthetic and functional attributes never seen in ancient Rome. More specifically, the house is located in the Aurelio District above Vatican City at 41º53’21.56” N, 12º27’02.88” E. This undeveloped plot of grassland (1.2 acres) is located directly across the street from Villino Algardi, a government-owned villa where meetings are held. Villino Algardi sits inside Villa Doria Pamphili, a massive public park where Romans escape the city and have picnics with their families. The house faces north and sits at 246 feet of elevation, 0.95 miles away from Vatican City (50 feet of elevation), providing spectacular views of the entirety of downtown Rome. This area provides me with a unique location just outside of the city, views of the scenic city, and distance from the highly traditional architectural standards that my home violates. 

In essence, my home’s exterior is meant to mimic buildings like the Pantheon, Parthenon, and countless other Roman Temples. It features a portico and dome similar in silhouette to the Pantheon, but I decided to make the “rotunda” square due to the difficulty in creating a circular floorplan for home applications. To allude to this building, I included arches on all four sides with glass beneath to provide excellent natural light into all rooms. The ground floor features a dividing wall in the middle, with a great room in front and a bedroom in the back. The great room includes a dining room and kitchen with an island in the middle, allowing me to entertain guests during dinner parties essential to Roman culture. In total, this room sums up to 332 square feet, giving me space for indoor functions and direct access to the portico for aperitivo (afternoon cocktail hour) as the sun sets over the Roman cityscape. The rear half of the ground floor features a bedroom, bathroom (accessible from both sides of the ground floor), and walk-in closet, allowing for comfortable living for me and my future wife. I chose to put the bedroom on the western side of the home to prevent the morning sun from waking me too early as I relax on vacation. The one bathroom is located on the east side of the home, with the option to soak in the morning sun as you prepare for the day or to pull blinds down for extra privacy. Back in the great room, a staircase climbs the dividing wall to allow access to the semi-circular loft inside of the glass dome, overlooking all of Rome. This room includes a sectional couch and TV and serves as an excellent living space to watch sunsets or stargaze with friends and loved ones. This sectional can also pull out to allow for additional sleeping space for guests of the home looking for one of the most beautiful and unique living arrangements imaginable. The loft is semicircular, allowing for natural light to permeate into the great room as you cook lunch and enjoy days off on the weekend. A long basalt-cobblestone driveway connects the property to Via Aurelia Antica, cutting under an ancient Roman aqueduct’s arch that provides privacy from the passing traffic. 

One of the chief inspirations for this home was Hagia Sophia of the East Roman Empire. This building collapsed 21 years after its construction in 558 AD due to the difficulty of supporting a round dome on a rectangular rotunda. This problem led to the invention of pendentives, which use arches on all 4 sides and diagonal arches across the hypotenuse of the rotunda to distribute force away from weak points towards the middle of the rectangular floorplan and into the corners of the structure. I decided to use a light glass dome for reasons listed later, so pendentives are unnecessary due to their juxtaposition with the heavier brick-and-mortar dome of Hagia Sophia. Interestingly, this building has been modernized in its own way, as it was converted into a mosque in 1453 following the Ottoman invasion of Constantinople. While I didn’t end up needing to use pendentives, Hagia Sophia served as a major inspiration for the silhouette of my home as it was the first time that a round dome was placed on a rectangular building in any part of the Roman Empire.

The use of glass serves as a way to improve upon traditional Roman architecture using modern materials. Firstly, glass allows for the use of arches in the design, tying in the aforementioned inspiration of Hagia Sophia with the practicality of an enclosed structure. Furthermore, glass allows me to subvert the ideas of modern architecture into the form of classicism. I found myself fascinated by the transparency of the Seagram Building and the Crown Hall (Ludwig Mies van der Rohe) and wanted to incorporate this into my home. In addition, the oculus of the Pantheon served as inspiration for the dome, as I took this idea and wanted to maximize natural lighting past what Roman architects were capable of due to material limitations. Ancient Romans never had access to the quantity of glass that we do today, so I wanted to use the figure of a classical dome with the transparency of glass to allow for a unique living space in the loft and beautiful natural lighting in the great room. To directly reference traditional Roman orders, I used monolithic columns on the portico, but again subverted it by using black marble, something untraditional to ancient Rome. To take this idea to the next level, omitted almost all aspects of Roman orders, including the capital, base, and entablature to provide a more minimalist aesthetic that is free of ornament. The exterior of the home is constructed of black painted stainless steel, juxtaposing it with the marble cladding of ancient Rome and Renaissance architecture, again using traditional Roman form with modern material functionality.

The fundamental idea of this home was to combine modern materials and aspects of modern functionality into a more classicist design. I found myself interested in the irony of this home, as modern architecture was in a way in direct opposition to classism. The challenge was to create a home that is both classicist and modern, styles many would argue are mutually exclusive. Prof. Lewis challenged me to design the interior of the building first and to avoid trying to cram a floorplan into a predetermined exterior, but in avoiding this, I actually found the home to become more interesting. By clinging to the idea of having a dome, I was forced to think about how I could use the upper floor, leading to my favorite idea for the whole home in the semicircular domed loft. Like all great architects, limitations forced me to become creative and create novel solutions to functional problems. While my home is largely in the form of a Roman temple, something less than ideal for living, it actually is quite suited for a home as it has all of the necessities that one could need for a small vacation home. While this design is far from the most daring, I would argue that it encompasses many of the ideas that we have gone over in class as crucial to the inception of modern architecture and applies them in a different direction than seen before.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-pendentive-dome-177310

What is a pendentive dome?

Exhibit 5

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia

Hagia Sophia

Exhibit 6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seagram_Building

Seagram Building

Exhibit 7

https://www.johndesmond.com/blog/design/mies-van-der-rohe-part-ii-the-mind-behind-the-steel/

The Arts 314 exhibit in the Big Art Show

In my first Makerspace academic project, I jumped into the deep end. My role was to support Giuseppina Forte, the Assistant Professor of Architecture and Environmental Studies, and her students by preparing exhibition materials for the end-of-semester campus Big Art Show. I supported her two studio arts classes “ARTS 314 / ENVI 310 – Design for the Pluriverse: Architecture, Urban Design, and Difference” and “ENVI 316 / ARTS 316 – Governing Cities by Design: the Built Environment as a Technology of Space”. For ARTS 314, her students designed an architectural model of an outdoor community building, and for ARTS 316, they re-envisioned the Cole Avenue Rail Yard area of Williamstown into a river-side park. My role was to convert the students’ digital architectural designs into 3D-printed objects. What seemed straightforward quickly became a challenging—and amazing—learning experience filled with challenges and growth that I want to share. 

Prototyping

The first of many difficulties arose when I sliced, or readied, the models for the 3D printers. First, some files seemed to have problematic features deeper than the abilities of the FlashForge and Prusa slicer software repair algorithms. So, I spent some time learning MeshMixer and how to identify the Achilles heels of the models. In most cases, manually widening thin connections was sufficient. Second, some prints seemed impractical, if not entirely impossible. In some cases, these impractical features were easily removable without destroying the final product, like thin columns on B3. In others, features were inherent to the design, such as with A1, which posed a challenge for 3D printing due to its elevated, thin, and intricate spiral design. Finally, some prints, like B2, would just take an incredibly long time to print – up to 60 hours.

The models I would print. From top left to bottom right: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, S1, S2, B1.

A prototype of A2

In a typical project, I would prototype each print and present them before starting any final prints. This helps to set expectations for what a 3D print looks like, how the pieces go together and allows me to get feedback on the prints. However, these prints proved particularly challenging to prototype for the above reasons. While I could get a couple of iterations of the simpler prints, many prints proved difficult to scale down due to their small and intricate details, and, in my mind, no prototype is worth 40 hours or 100 meters of filament because of the likelihood of repeated failed prints.

Crunch Time

For prints with exposed, flat surfaces like A4, printing upside down provided a smoother finish and allowed the prints to peel off of the plate more consistently

However, dilly-dallying in this “half-prototyping” stage created a problem. Since I was hesitant to review an incomplete set with everyone, I mentally stayed in the prototyping phase, not starting any of the final prints. Instead, I spent this time optimizing the prints that I hadn’t been able to prototype. I ran tests to maximize the quality of the print while minimizing the filament used. While I can’t say that this time was wasted, since many of the optimizations helped me later, in hindsight, I wish that I had paid more attention to the time and started my final prints sooner, as I could have prevented much of the stress in the final time crunch.

I found that I was able to go as low as 8% infill on solid prints before jeapordizing structural integrity.

The final week and a half of the project was a combination of epic stress and stellar production. It started with David Keiser-Clark, the Makerspace Program Manager, asking me if I thought it would be possible to finish and deliver the prints before the start of the show in nine days. I panicked. I had become so immersed in solving the technical issues that I had lost track of the delivery date. I sat down and figured out that the total printing time for this project would take ~240 hours. Had I immediately started two prints on the two working printers and ran them 24/7, the prints would have only finished three or four days before the deadline. I immediately put two prints on the printer and responded to David, cautiously telling him I thought I could finish them in time. 

A spectacular failure of one of the prints

My estimates couldn’t have been more wrong. My first two prints should have been relatively quick and easy, but when I returned to collect them I was greeted by two spaghettified clumps of white PLA. I reran both prints, praying that they were flukes, but of course, they weren’t. Within 5 minutes, both prints had failed again. I did a 20-minute calibration of both printers and reran the prints: the print in the FlashForge was successful, but the Prusa failed again. Time was slipping away, and only one printer was operating reliably. 

Removing Roadblocks

All four printers running smoothly!

I reached out to David and explained the issue. He helped me configure the two out-of-commission Dremel printers, which seemed to be my saving grace. However, I transferred my slices to the Dremel and found that many of the round prints were larger than the Dremel’s base plate. This, combined with the fact that the Dremels struggled with finer detail in test prints added to my stress. However, after examining the models, I found that I could cut the larger files into smaller pieces, print them, and then later assemble and permanently glue them together. 

The final print of A2 and the tops of S1 and S2, unfortunately printed in different sizes.

Six days before the show we had four working printers. The Prusa had been fixed (twice) and was churning out the finer detailed prints. The FlashForge was working on a piece of the largest print, which I had cut down to 30 hours (from 48) by increasing the layer height to the maximum of 0.3mm (75% of the nozzle diameter). Both Dremels were printing the remaining pieces of the largest print and we had received permission to use the Science Shop’s Ultimaker for A1, which was the most challenging, longest-running, and most likely-to-fail print in the entire project. For a moment, it looked as if the project would be done comfortably in time, with several days of cushion to spare.

Using natural supports used less filament, took less time, and failed less than vertical supports

One day later the situation flipped on its head. The filament for the Ultimaker, ordered in advance, failed to arrive. Three prints in the Makerspace failed. The filament roll on the FlashForge got tangled and caused a jam, the Prusa had spaghettified, and one Dremel printed the house sans the roof. I was able to find and solve a problem within the Dremel slicer software and recalibrate the Prusa, but for now, the FlashForge was out of commission. 

In hindsight, I had not anticipated the variance in scaling among different slicing softwares. The Dremel software defines its x-axis differently than the FlashForge software, which resulted in pieces that scaled poorly with the rest of the model. 

A copy of A1 printing on the FlashForge 1 day before delivery.

Three days before the show, I had somehow managed to print A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, and B3. We fixed the Dremel and set the most structurally fragile and complicated print (A1) to run overnight on all four printers. This would be our last chance. 

One day before the show, our final prints were completed: the Prusa and FlashForge succeeded, while both the Dremels failed. Of the two successful prints, the Prusa created a beautiful, highly detailed print. Unfortunately, I woke up with the flu and didn’t get to say goodbye to the prints, nor could I go to the Big Art Show. However, I got to see pictures and I was proud to support the students’ architectural work for the show, but, to me, the greatest value of this project was not in the prints themselves, but in the lessons that I learned and that I will take with me into my future work both in and out of the classroom. Specifically, I developed confidence in my ability to solve technical problems in a new medium while working under pressure and improved my capacities in project management.

The final collection of pieces

Murphy’s Law

The Arts 316 exhibit in the Big Art Show

Murphy’s Law states that when something can go wrong, it will. Doubly so when you are under a time crunch. In hindsight, most of this pressure could have been avoided had I made an effort to timeline the project before the due date was imminent. When printing, you have to strike a balance between quality, material used, and time. Before the time crunch, I was trying to maximize quality and minimize the material used. However, the instant time became the driving factor, I swapped those priorities. All in all, it worked out, but if I had managed my time better I likely could have delivered just as good of a final product with less stress. 

Post Mortem

During this project, I discovered how fragile 3D printers are. We had four printers in the Makerspace, and I had to do a total of eight mechanical fixes. At some points, I felt completely defeated. It seemed like every successful print was counterbalanced by an awful grinding sound or a jammed PLA feed. This was not the first time I had ever 3D printed, but it was my first time tinkering with 3D printers. Admittedly, at the start of the project, I was so scared of breaking something that I barely opened the side panel before asking for help. The silver lining of the printers breaking so often was that I had the opportunity to learn how to fix them. During the project, David took a few hours to show me around each printer, explaining how they work and where they usually fail. This paid itself off in dividends. By the end of the project, I was more than comfortable repairing every single printer we had and reached a point where I didn’t even have to tell David when they were broken, likely saving him more time than it took to help me figure out how all of them work. I’m excited to take this experience and apply it to my next faculty project in the Makerspace.