CASE STUDY OF AUDITORIUM

PRESENTED TO - AR. VIPIN JINDAL

AR. EKTA SHARMA
PRESENTED BY – MISHUL GUPTA
75186008
B.ARCH, 6TH SEM.
KOODAARAM KOCHI-
MUZIRIS PAVILION

(New Delhi, Delhi, India )

page 2
 PROJECT DATA
 Typology – Auditorium

 Project Location – New Delhi, Delhi, India

 Site Area: 5,000.0 m2

 Pavilion: 560.0 m2
 Art Room: 150.0 m2
 Edible Art Archive: 50.0 m2
 Kudumbashree Kitchen: 50.0 m2
 Toilet: 42.0 m2
 Climate – Composite

 Architect – Anagram Architects

 Year of complete – 2018

INSIDE VIEW

 Photographs: Suryan//Dang
3
CONCEPT
• “...a desire to explore various possibilities for a non-alienated life…” From the Curatorial Note, Kochi
 Muziris Biennale 2018, Anita Dube.
• Architecture, through its terrain, material and devices, opens and closes edifices in space, thereby
mediating social and environmental alienation or coalescence.
• The architectural notion of a pavilion is that of an “island”: of respite, reinvigoration, contemplation,
conversation and of transience.

INSIDE VIEW OUTSIDE VIEW page 4

CLIMATE ANALYSIS
Climate type = composite

Temperature range Weather characteristics

Sky cover range Wind rose diagram

page 5
 INTRODUCTION
•Every biennale, a pavilion is constructed to host
performance and cinematic art at Cabral Yard, a one
acre campus full of large canopied trees in the heart
of Fort Kochi.
•In KMB 2018, the curator Anita Dube
commissioned Anagram Architects to design the
Biennale Pavilion.
•In turn, Anagram Architects collaborated with B L
Manjunath for structural design and Studio Wood
for furniture design.
•In earlier editions, the Pavilion had served
essentially as an auditorium for cinematic and stage
performances.
•This year the curatorial brief envisioned a more
intensive and inclusive programmatic use, of both
the structure and the campus. This included
workshops, lectures, social performances,
conferences and book launches.
•Further, the pavilion kept its media and connectivity
AERIAL VIEW OF BUILDING open for public use between scheduled
programming.
•This time the campus housed two eateries, a
children’s art space, an ATM, public toilets and an
organic waste recycling plant. 6
 ANALYSIS OF
KOODAARAM KOCHI-
MUZIRIS PAVILION
Planning & ARCHITECTURE
 In order to explore the curatorial vision for
KMB2018, we deconstruct “the pavilion
within the yard”. Unpacking its architecture
and programmed to occupy the whole one
acre site, the entire Cabral Yard is activated to
perform as a island-hub for art with people.
 Of light and lightness: We call it the
Koodaaram or tent in Malayalam. It is a half
-opaque, half transparent, half buried
performance space for about 420 people.
 The design references the Koothaambalam, a
traditional Kerala temple adjunct used for
ritual performances, similarly modulating
plinth, trellis and canopy.
 However, it explores the possibility of
diffusing its opacity and weight while
infusing it with light and accessibility.

7
SITE PLAN
ANALYSIS OF
KOODAARAM KOCHI-
MUZIRIS PAVILION
Planning & ARCHITECTURE
• By making Cabral Yard an open people’s
pavilion, the design counterargues traditional
exclusivities associated with performative
spaces through openness, transparency,
lightness, temporariness and accessibility.
• Koodaaram is thus suggests a counterpoint to
the Koothaamablam.
• The design also seeks transience through
lightness.
• The structures are designed to sit “lightly” on
the site.
• Built in a record time of two months, the
pavilion is designed to completely dismantle
into components salvageable for reuse,
leaving the site largely unmarked, to allow for
its rewilding over the coming two years.

8
ANALYSIS OF
KOODAARAM KOCHI-
MUZIRIS PAVILION

Planning & ARCHITECTURE

• Experiences of architectural coalescence:
Monolithic buildings induce distance from the
natural and the social.
• The pavilion is deconstructed to reveal
through its porosities, programmatic
flexibilities and skeletally, the (un)making of
a monolith.
• The intent is to widen experiences of
architectural coalescence, both material and
programmatic.
• Walls and ground fluidly morph and,
similarly, canopy and foliage merge to create
opportunities for spontaneous and social
spectacles, encounters and conversations.

9
SECTION AT A –A’
SECTION AT B- B’
MATERIAL USED
• Bamboo use in roof member.
• Steel use in column , roofing & outer
envelop of building.
• Glass used in window.
• Cement concrete
• Steel cable
• Poly carbonate bamboo mat or roof
covering
• Perforated metal sheet
• Split bamboo member used in interior.

ROOF STRUCTURE BALCONY VIEW 12

 LANDSCAPING

 Various variety of trees is planted

in all over site.
 Pathways are shaded & sitting area
is also provided around it.

PATHWAY SPACE OUTSIDE VIEW 13

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY - I (KOODAARAM KOCHI-MUZIRIS PAVILION)
Site Planning
• 1.0 acer land area.
• It is surrounded by large
amount of landscape.
• Transportation and market
near-by.
• It is surrounded by
landscape of trees.
Visually
• Visually it amazing use of
modern material.
• Maintained is proper.
• Surrounded with good
natural backdrop.
Form & Function
• Form is made according to
site side area.
• G+ 1storeys structure.
• Inter-connected space by
pathways and shaded with
trees.
• Transparency is through –
out the building.
• Ellipse shape of building is
merged with the vegetation.
Vegetation
• Vegetation good.
• Random vegetation.
• Existing topography is
merged with building.
Circulation
• Circulation in exterior is
done by pathways shaded
with trees.
• Beside the stage it has lot of
space around chair sitting
area & step sitting area also.
• Ceiling is also high and
glass is used through-out.
Light and Sustainable Aspects
Ventilation
• Light & ventilation is come
through- out the curtain
wall provided.
• All rooms have good light
and ventilation & and
exceeding its requirements.
Thermal Comfort
• Area of units are good.
• Beside use of glass and
steel it is comfortable by
surrounded by high
vegetation.
• Use of ploy- carbonate
bamboo tile & bamboo
split member also help n
achieved thermal comfort.
• Use modern or local
materials.
• Built acc. To topography.
• Internal area capture light.
• Grass paver block used.
• Single structure.
• Use of vernacular material
mud and bamboo.
Services
• Water supply is good.
• Electricity 24 hours &
natural light in all rooms.
• Garbage disposal is also
good.
• Pakka road.
• Street light provided.
• Drains are closed.
• Toilets are place at corner of
site with septic tank.
Inferences
• Architect covered up social
movement, drive idea from
religious philosophy and
their architecture.
• Building has ability to
dismantle and rejoin any
time.
page 14
COMPONENT SIZE COMPARISON BETWEEN CASE STUDY OR BUILDING LAW
Sr. No. Name Case Study size N.B.C or Haryana building law Suggestion
1. Staircase Width =2.80 meter Width min.= 2.00 meter Sizes are good acc. To building law
Tread = 300 mm Tread min without nosing = 300mm and requirement.
Riser = 150 mm Max riser = 150mm No. of staircase enough provided.
Min. 2 staircase at above 15 metre height of building.

2. Passage or Corridor Width = 5.76 metre Min width = 1.25metre Width of passage is according to
Headroom = 2.70 metre Headroom = 2.15metre building

3. Width of exit Width = 2.80 meter Width = 1.00 metre Width of exit is good.

4. Ventilation shaft ---------------------- 18m ht.= 4.0sqm provided in acc. to structure.

24m ht. = 5.4sqm
30m ht. = 8.0sqm

5. Cantilevered roof & width = 5.80 M Balcony width max = 1.80 metre Balcony is appropriate according to
Chajja projection building.

6. Sun shade over opening Projected = 5.00m (semi covered 0.23m over road Appropriate sun shade according to
area on door and window) 0.45m at own land at 2.3 metre height. window in courtyard semi-covered
At height = 3.00- 6.00 metre areas.

7. Open space 3.00m side set back in site. Ht. of 24m , one set back , open space at ground not less Open space is according to building
than 6m law.

8. Height limitation G+ 1 = 6.00 m – 10.00 m Max ht. of building not exceed 1.5 times of width of road. Appropriate according to building
law.

9. Refuse area --------- Provided at 18m above building No information

10. Refuse chute system --------- For 5 storey or above floors No information
Internal diameter least 300mm
page 15
11. Plinth 0.45metre height or above it . not less than 450mm and more than 1.5 metre. Appropriate size.
COMPONENT SIZE COMPARISON BETWEEN CASE STUDY OR BUILDING LAW
Sr. No. Name Case Study size N.B.C or Haryana building law Suggestion
13. Mean of access In front = 11.30 m 12.0 m width = 200m length Width is according to building.
Around building = 2.20 m to 3.10 15.0 m width = 400m length
m. 18.0 m width = 600m length

14. Width of footpath Width = 2.54 m 1. Min. free walking width / mixed use areas = 1.80 m Width of footpath is good.
2. Commercial / mixed use areas = 2.5m
3. Shopping frontage = 3.5 to 4.5 m

15. Banking ----------------------------- 1 for every 15,000 population No information

Floor area for counter 75m2.

16. Distance from electric ----------------------------- In vertical above building , 2.50 m from highest point. No information
lines Line passes from adjacent in horizontal 1.2m from point.

17. Access routes 5.10 m to 4.0 m width. Recommended width is 2000 mm Appropriate size.

18. Ramp ------------------------------ External ramp gradient not exceed 1 in 20 with max. rise No information
450 mm.

19. Entrance 1.90 ~ 2.00 m width Adequate space should be provided outside all entrance. Appropriate size.

20. Door 3.00 m to 4.00 m A clear opening width should be 1000 mm. Appropriate size.

21. Internal staircase ------------------------------ It should not less than 1200 mm clear width No information

22. Passenger lift ------------------------------ Recommended internal dimension = 1800 x 1800 mm. No information

23. Sanitary facilities Min. distance to facilities = 15.5m Horizontal travel distance to nearest toilet not exceed 40 Appropriate size.
page 16
Max distance to facilities =50.0m m horizontally.
COMPONENT SIZE COMPARISON BETWEEN CASE STUDY OR BUILDING LAW
Sr. No. Name Case Study size N.B.C or Haryana building law Suggestion
24. Rehearsal hall -------------------------- 20 to 24 sq ft per student. No information

25. Projection room 268.49 sqm area of one projection 48 sq ft for first projection machine. Built acc. To building.
room. 24 sq ft for each additional projector.

26. Proportion of 33.26 m length = 28.72 m width of 24m length of last seat = 13m width proscenium width. In-appropriate sizes.
auditorium proscenium. 32 m length of last seat = 17 m width of proscenium wid.

27. Exit , escape routes 5.10 m width for 420 peoples. 1m width per 150 people. Appropriate size.
1.2 m width for 200 people.

28. Length of rows 1 seat per aisle & 26 seat per aisle. Max. 1 seat per aisle & 25 seats per aisle. Appropriate size.

29. Size of auditorium 560 m2 pavilion area 0.5 sqm per person for sitting. Appropriate size.
560 / 0.5 = 1,120 person capacity.

30. Width of proscenium 28.72m width. Min width 12.0 , 18.0 , & 24.0m max width In-appropriate sizes.

31. Auditorium volume 560 x 6 = 3360 m3 Play house approx. = 4 – 5 m3 / spectator. In-appropriate sizes.
3360 m3 / 1,120 = 3 m3 per Opera house approx. = 6- 8 m3 / spectator.
spectator.

32. Seating layout Min row –to – row distance = Min row –to – row distance = 850 mm Appropriate size.
1100mm Min gangway = 1100 mm
Min gangway = 2500 mm Max. area per seat = 0.7 to 0.9 sqm.
Max. area per seat = 0.76 sqm Max. width with arm rest = 500 mm
Max. width with arm rest = 500
mm

33. For wheelchair seat -------------------------- 1% seat (least 2 ) provided. No information

800 x 1300 mm of wheelchair space. page 17
 Project Analysis

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

PROJECT STRENGTH
ANALYSIS SLIDE 8 WEAKNESS
› Site has transportation connection , it has near by area › There is lot of transparency in site, beside one main
entry there are another entry in backside workshop &
INTERNAL

of commercial or shopping area.

service road.
› By good offset there is perfect relationship with site
and other vicinity building. › Visibility of building by road is not good, because of
high amount of landscape.
› At front they have art room, then café , then they have
main pavilion building, building is surrounded with › Security is big issue, in that building because use of
trees. too many glass.

OPPORTUNITY THREAT
› High amount of shaded trees pathways & gathering › Use of access glass and steel in composite climate of
spaces invite a lot of people in that building. building.
EXTERNAL

› Café ,art rooms also gathering lot of amount peoples. › Heating problem in building, but it cooler by trees.

› Building can be dismantle easily by requirement of it.

 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN CASE STUDY'S

KOODAARAM Kochi-Muziris Pavilion (New Delhi Delhi , India) Prithvi Theatre, Juhu Church Road
s much as Site planni 6.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN CASE STUDY'S &
Sr. Parameter of KOODAARAM Kochi- Prithvi Theatre, Juhu Church landscapin
Inferences / Suggestion
No. critical Muziris Pavilion (New Road (Maharashtra , India)
analysis Delhi Delhi , India)
1. Environment • Composite climate • Composite climate Different strategy should learn from
& climate
• Orientation = 90* north straight to
main building
• Orientation = 90* north facing
• Macro climate =
that =
7. Structural
• Achieving the micro climate by
• Macro climate = • Warm and Humid climate details
planting shady trees on the site
• Composite climate • Annual Temperature = 23*c – 30*c • Using vernacular materials as much
arn from • Annual Temperature = 40*c – 43*c • Sun is medium , precipitation high as we can
• Sun is high , precipitation low • Annual wind mostly from NW direction
ces should • Annual wind mostly from west or NW • Micro climate achieved by =
direction • Achieved by surrounded vegetation ,
• 30% sky coverage (average year) Large trees on site
oes not fits Micro climate achieved by = • Use of vernacular material like bamboos 8. Building
important • Achieved by surrounded vegetation
material in • Use of vernacular material med, services
bamboo, bamboo matt.
• Use of Split bamboo in interior.
m is very
2. Requirements • Area of room is sufficient. • Cafes and interactive places are made Different strategy should learn from
• All type of people come there. • Designated spaces are provided for each that =
important& user • Common & gathering spaces created purpose 9. Design
• Common and interactive places
behavior • Too much use of glass, steel, steel • No rooms is provided for any type of should be made to attract more public
considerati
cable increasing heat gain. special guests • Note to use material which does not
• Backstage area look quit small & barrier
fits in the site’s climate and most
important point not to use heat gaining
free
material in hot or composite climate
environme
page 20
10.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN CASE STUDY'S
Sr. Parameter of KOODAARAM Kochi- Prithvi Theatre, Juhu Church Inferences / Suggestion
No. critical Muziris Pavilion (New Road (Maharashtra , India)
analysis Delhi Delhi , India)

3. Utility & • Transparency through- out whole • T he shape of the auditorium is fan-shaped • The shape of the auditorium is very
building. which is ideal for maximum sound important.
space • Different types of trees use provide intelligibility even to the people sitting at the • Segregation of the space is important
enhancement shade whole pathways. very end. aspect of design
• Segregated of spaces to art room, to • T he shape also helps is cutting down the • Pathways should be shaded
main building, to toilet & kitchen. unwanted noise so as to give the audience a
good theatre experience
• T he stage is of thrust type i.e., audience
surrounding the stage from 3 sides which
helps the speaker to connect with the
audience on a personal level

4. Form & • From of main building is oval merged
with surrounding landscape.
Function • Building does not made according to
climate use of glass & steel increase
heat gain.
• Reason behind form is transparency
through whole building invite lot of
people gathering & create interactive
spaces.
• The form and function goes hand in hand
in this place
• The form is evolved by considering the
function
• Straight lines are used in designing the
form
•The circulation in the building is good
• The form should merged easily with
the site or
• Both form and function should go
hand in hand
• Form of the building should be made
keeping the climate of site in mind
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN CASE STUDY'S
Sr. Parameter of KOODAARAM Kochi- Prithvi Theatre, Juhu Inferences / Suggestion
No critical Muziris Pavilion (New Church Road (Maharashtra
. analysis Delhi Delhi , India) , India)

5. Horizontal & • Horizontal = corridor , passages , • Horizontal = corridor , passages , • Both vertical and horizontal circulation should
pathways. pathways. be as per national building code
Vertical • Vertical = staircase. • Vertical = staircase. • Provision for circulation of physically
circulation • Provided above as per building • Provided above as per building challenged people should also be given
code. code.

6. Site planning • Size of road is around 5m.
• Distance b/t main building to gate
& is adequate.
landscaping • Parking area is not provided on
site.
• Building is surrounded by trees &
vegetation.
• Art room is provided on entrance
& toilet & septic tank area at last.
• Parking area is not provided on site. • Parking should be made on site
• Building is surrounded by trees & • Building should surround with trees
vegetation. • Zoning on the site should be functional
• Site having lots of interactive spaces • Sites should have interactive spaces
like cafes , display galleries , book
shop which attract more people
toward the theatre

page 22
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN CASE STUDY'S
Sr. Parameter of KOODAARAM Kochi-
No critical Muziris Pavilion (New
. analysis Delhi Delhi , India)
7. Structural • Steel cables, glass curtain wall.
• Roof is also pitched with half of it
details interior covered with bamboo or
roof covering & on exterior
bamboo poly carbonate roof matt.
• Glass is also used on roof.
• Metal sheet material used on wall.
8. Building • Sewerage is closed
• Septic tank is provided.
services • Drainage pipe is proper.
• Water supply is also proper.
9. Design • Ramp is provided on entrance.
• All sitting area is provided on
consideration built in & appropriate.
& barrier free
environment
Prithvi Theatre, Juhu Inferences / Suggestion
Church Road (Maharashtra
, India)
• Laced columns and beams • Modern steel structures can be used
supporting the roof. • Pitch roof is used in both the theatres
• Steel columns beams are used • Sustainable materials are also being used
• Temporarily shaded outdoor café
• Steel truss is used in roof
• Pipelines and AC ducts are combined • All the services should be given at hidden
• Air handling unit under the last row places
of seating • Ducts and piplines can combine
• Machines rooms is also given under
the seating
• The lights fixtures are placed in the
catwalk
• No provision for physically • Provision for circulation of physically
challenged people is provided in the challenged people should also be given likes
house ramps
• No ramps are provided • Seating area should be as per bylaws
• Circulation space in the backstage is
less
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN CASE STUDY'S
Sr. Parameter of KOODAARAM Kochi- Prithvi Theatre, Juhu Church Inferences / Suggestion
No. critical Muziris Pavilion (New Road (Maharashtra , India)
analysis Delhi Delhi , India)

10. Socio – • Transparency through whole • No fancy things are provided in the theatre • The spaces should look open and
building invite & create social space • Everything is kept as simple as can welcoming
economic in building. • Other than theatre cafes and galleries are • No over the top things should be given
profile of user • Segregate of building in site is play also there so one can have other option to in the public spaces
important role in people circulation. that come to that site • Other interactive spaces should be given
• Theatre provide medical and educational which also provide the employability to
assistance to theatre workers and their the people working in the them
children

11. Parking • Parking is not provided on site. •The Prithvi theatre does not have parking • On site parking should be given
• Outside area for same is also not Spaces alloted hence the users have to park
detail & near-by. either at the parking lot of J.W. Marriott
standard which Is 500m away from the theatre ;or
At the adjacent lane which has the MCGM
pay and park service
THANK YOU
MISHUL GUPTA
75186008
B,ARCH. , 6TH SEM.
REFERENCES
• Weather archive in Delhi (India). Wind rose in Delhi (world-weather.info)
• KOODAARAM Kochi-Muziris Pavilion / Anagram Architects | ArchDaily
• www.google.com

26