(click to embiggen)

The concept for our design was to build a sort of substrate that would foster both community building and individual growth, and hopefully work as a template for future farmworker housing wherever applicable.  In order to function as a template we thought our project would have to do four things: 1) be of good design, 2) create strong community spaces between the units, 3) be replicable and economic, and 4) be successful in post-occupancy.

On our boards, we decided to highlight three areas in which we felt we had the most control in this model to template project. The first is called “Layers of Community,” wherein we lead the observer across the thresholds between the spaces. We spent a good amount of time rendering the images of the front and back yards, as well as a couple of private porch shots, to try to convey a good 3-D understanding of the spaces. The next area we dealt with we titled “Kit of Parts [Dynamic Implementation].” Here we dealt with the construction process, parts of which are modular and built off-site and other parts of which would be site-built. The last area, “Integrated Local Responses,” shows how we propose to ground our theories in reality. We include environmental responses, a detailed site plan, designs for a community center, a site section, and a diagram of the community spaces.

I really feel that the challenges of community support, ecological mindfulness, and economic feasibility were all met head on in this project. As we were working in both Medford and theoretical space, Jeff and I decided to focus primarily on community support and economic feasibility and include the sustainability features as site-specific side notes.

Our community building really began with the unit itself. We thought that the more flexible our unit design, the more options we would have at the site level. Most reviewers we talked to told us that it was all in the site plan, all in the extra-building and interstitial spaces, and so we wanted to maximize our arrangement possibilities. All along we had the idea of having the community actually help build the buildings, too, as we felt that would strengthen relationships, keep costs down, and even teach some skills. A key piece to the whole thing was the idea of reapplying program space from the private zone to the public, similar to many collaborative housing projects. So we programmed some outdoor space for dining, some community outbuildings for laundry, and a larger outdoor/indoor space for larger functions like daycare, formal and informal meetings, weddings, birthdays, holiday celebrations, and innumerable other options.

We went into the midterm with some ideas for a panelized system, but not knowing quite what it would be. After the midterm we looked into it more, and declared it not viable due to cost. We did however decide to stick with a modular core, containing all the wet walls for two units. The prevailing thought is that the rest of each unit (bedrooms, living room, kitchen spaces) would be stick framed after core delivery, and could be of flexible size. If John and Jane are planning on having a big family, they can build out three or four bedrooms and have a larger living area then Bob and Sally, who have only one daughter and plan on keeping it that way. When we looked at harvesting rainwater, sunshading, and adding an arcade, this other module came into play: the robot-spider finger (RSF). The RSF is really just a half moment frame that is further “bent” down to function more appropriately on the site. The RSF would probably only be economically feasible if mass produced (we planned for about 1 per person for the Medford site), but something similar could be crafted on the prototype site.

And this gets us into the idea of ecological sustainability. The RSFs, since their deployment is situational, are already site specific. They can be used to carry rainwater to cisterns, or to protect residents and building interiors from sun. This means that more can be used for sunshading in sunnier spots, more can be used for water conveyance in wetter spots, and less for less. We nicknamed the RSFs the Specifier for these reasons. As a side note, we also planned all the buildings for maximum solar capabilities and put a Trombe wall in the community center.

I think one of the troubles we had in this project was our heavy use of Revit. I think it was somewhat constraining in the early design process, and very constraining when it came time to develop our boards. Since we also used Revit to render our final images, I think our buildings came out as more mechanical and suburban than we would have liked, rather than the weathered and farm-y look we were going for. That being said, I am quite glad that I did my project in Revit, because I know the program much better, and for the next time I have a choice of what to use during design development I can make a more informed choice. I also reaffirmed a long-standing belief of mine: I need to draw more. Not only that, but I need help with my drawing. Jeff was a great partner to work with because his interactions with me were very non-judgmental and he encouraged me to draw a lot. I am glad to be taking both a drawing class this summer and a studio that focusses on drawing and sketching. I had Bill Tripp as an instructor a year ago for an Aalto seminar and he is both a terrific sketcher and an affable teacher, I think it will be very good for me.