Home
I’m an emerging architectural investigator working at the intersection of spatial design, computational methods, and critical theory.
My work studies how governance, historical trauma, displacement, and instability become spatial form—and how architecture can respond without spectacle.
I prefer design-led computation (parametric/diagrammatic systems, spatial analysis) over coding as an end in itself. The goal is architectural authorship:
making space legible as power, and making new spatial propositions from that legibility.
Process / Lab
Field protocol (portable)
Observe thresholds, queues, visibility, signage scripts, barriers, and maintenance traces.
Record “soft denial” mechanics: where friction accumulates (time windows, unclear requirements, enforced exposure).
Translation protocol
1) Forensic drawings (plan/section) → 2) system diagrams → 3) architectural hypothesis (final proposition).
Every design move must cite an observed rule, constraint, or lived condition.
Tools (current / learning)
QGIS (spatial overlays) • Illustrator (diagram + annotation) • Photoshop (light tone control)
Rhino + Grasshopper (learning; used as a “drawing machine” + rule-based iteration).
Questions that recur
When does care withdraw? Where does waiting become a filter? What spatial logics survive displacement?
How do “neutral” design decisions distribute access, dignity, and risk?
Investigations
Three sample investigations below. Each page follows the same structure:
Abstract → Research Question → Investigation → Design Process → Architectural Products.
Investigation
INV-01 — The Waiting Room State
Baltimore, MD (civic services corridor) • Spring–Summer 2026 • Institutional Time / Governance
Abstract
Waiting is not neutral. This investigation documents how civic-service interiors turn time into a filter: delaying access, testing endurance,
and distributing dignity unevenly through spatial layout, visibility, and procedural friction.
Research Question
How does architecture enforce bureaucratic power through time, and what spatial reconfiguration reduces “soft denial” without reducing security or clarity?
Investigation (essay)
Field visits were conducted across two public-facing interiors: a benefits intake lobby and a records/ID service hall.
The shared pattern was not the queue itself but the architecture that makes the queue unavoidable: single-point counters,
exposed seating, ambiguous signage, and repeated re-check moments.
“Eligibility” quietly became an endurance test. The room asked people to prove patience, literacy, and bodily tolerance
(light, noise, lack of privacy). The building did not refuse; it delayed.
The key spatial operator was visibility: staff sightlines covered the whole seating field, while visitors had no equivalent
clarity about their place in the system. Time was made opaque on purpose.
Design Process
Translation steps:
1) Forensic drawings annotated “time instruments” (kiosk placement, re-check points, seating density, staff cones of vision).
2) System diagrams converting procedures into spatial logic (branches, failure loops, rework).
3) Architectural hypothesis: distribute waiting, add legible timelines, and create privacy gradients without isolating staff.
Iterations tested three layouts: centralized hall (baseline), distributed clusters, and hybrid rings.
The chosen scheme uses small waiting “cells” paired to service types, each with its own information wall and acoustic buffering.
Architectural Products
Forensic set (existing):
• Plan + section with annotations: “time friction points,” staff visibility cones, re-check loops.
• Diagram set: procedure flowchart mapped onto plan (where people stall, repeat, or exit).
Final proposition (design):
• Proposed plan (1:200) — distributed waiting cells + clear service zoning.
• Key section (1:150) — privacy gradient (open → semi-screened → brief consultation).
• Elevation fragment — information wall as spatial interface (requirements, timelines, translations).
• Exploded axonometric — components: acoustic fins, seating modules, queue divider, signage band.
• One interior perspective section — “time made legible” (light band marking service phases).
Notes / Next Tests
Next iteration will simulate peak hours using a simple movement model (manual or Grasshopper-based) to test circulation conflicts
and confirm that the design reduces exposure without creating hidden congestion.
Measure success as: fewer re-check loops, reduced crowd density near counters, improved wayfinding confidence, increased privacy without reduced safety.
Investigation
INV-02 — Rooms Without Ownership
Prince George’s County, MD (shared-housing conditions) • Fall 2026 • Displacement / Domestic Instability
Abstract
Displacement often appears as a statistic, but it is lived as a rearrangement of rooms: temporary leases, rotating roommates,
doubled families, and privacy negotiated through furniture and habit. This investigation models domestic instability as a spatial system.
Research Question
What housing typology supports dignity when permanence disappears—without treating instability as a short-term exception?
Investigation (essay)
The study began with “micro-boundaries”: curtains, shoe lines, kitchen rules, sound discipline, and the subtle architecture of consent.
In shared units, the living room becomes a contested zone: it is both social commons and overflow bedroom.
Conventional apartment plans assume stable households and clear ownership of rooms. In contrast, instability produces rotating territories:
people claim space by schedule (time), not by deed. Domestic architecture becomes a negotiation device.
The emotional center is fatigue—the constant translation of self into someone else’s rules. A dignified plan makes negotiation easier,
not harder.
Design Process
Translation steps:
1) Diagram domestic rituals (cooking, prayer, care work, sleep, study) as overlapping networks rather than rooms.
2) Convert overlaps into spatial gradients: quiet-to-active, private-to-shared, fixed-to-rotating.
3) Prototype a “threshold kit” that lets households redraw boundaries without construction: sliding panels, storage-spines, acoustic curtains.
A parametric matrix tested unit types across occupancy change (2–8 people). The chosen scheme centers a service spine
(kitchen/bath/utility) with two flexible “commons” that can convert to sleeping via threshold devices.
Architectural Products
Forensic set (existing typology):
• Typical apartment plan annotated with “conflict zones” and “negotiation points.”
• Section study showing sound/light/privacy leakage in shared occupancy.
• Ritual-to-space diagram set (time-based territories).
Final proposition (design):
• Unit plan series (Type A/B/C) — 3 occupancy scenarios each (2, 4, 6+).
• Key section — threshold devices in use (day/night transformations).
• Elevations (interior) — storage spine + sliding partition track.
• Exploded axonometric — “threshold kit” components and assembly logic.
• One perspective section — common room in “shared” and “sleep” modes.
Notes / Next Tests
Next step is a small-scale prototype (foamcore or cardboard) of the threshold kit to test ergonomics, storage capacity,
and privacy performance.
Success metrics: fewer spatial conflicts, more predictable privacy, and smoother occupancy change without displacement within the unit.
Investigation
INV-03 — The Last Floor Above Water
Norfolk, VA (chronic flooding band) • Spring 2027 • Climate Retreat / Grief / Archive
Abstract
In places facing chronic flooding, “resilience” can become a story that delays grief.
This investigation proposes architecture that accepts retreat—not as failure, but as a way to preserve ritual, memory, and safety when permanence is no longer ethical.
Research Question
What is the architectural form of leaving—when departure is gradual, contested, and emotionally dense?
Investigation (essay)
The project maps not only flood lines but “care withdrawal lines”: where insurance becomes unaffordable, where services become intermittent,
where repairs repeat until they stop being repairs and become rituals of denial.
Retreat is spatially rehearsed: families move valuables upward, sleep shifts floors, gatherings shrink to fewer rooms, porches disappear first.
The house becomes an archive of choices.
The ethical question is not how to hold the water back forever, but how to preserve life and memory without forcing people into endless repair.
Design Process
Translation steps:
1) Document phased abandonment as a section timeline (ground floor → upper floor → fragment).
2) Extract the “last rituals” that remain: cooking, prayer, gathering, rest, care.
3) Design a series of elevated “last-floor” fragments connected by a light infrastructure spine (power, water, safe access).
A parametric rule set tested platform heights and connectivity based on predicted flood frequency bands.
The chosen strategy uses modular elevated slabs with replaceable stairs/ramps and a community “memory room” per cluster.
Architectural Products
Forensic set (site + dwelling):
• Flood-band map + “care withdrawal” overlay (service interruptions, repair cycles).
• Section timeline: domestic life shifting upward (phasing diagrams).
• Detail studies: porch, stair, threshold decay/repair traces.
Final proposition (design):
• Master plan (small cluster) — elevated fragments + infrastructure spine.
• Typical fragment plan — kitchen/commons/quiet alcove (ritual-based program).
• Key section — platform + access + flood clearance + shaded undercroft.
• Elevation — structural frame expressing “temporary permanence.”
• Exploded axonometric — modular slab, stair kit, utility spine, memory room.
• One sectional perspective — gathering at dusk; architecture as witness, not promise.
Notes / Next Tests
Next step is to test the infrastructure spine as a phasing strategy: what remains functional when fragments are removed,
and how the system supports partial occupancy without abandonment turning into danger.
Success metrics: safe access during floods, reduced repair burden, preservation of social ritual, and dignified retreat pathways.