What follows are my presentation boards for our final studio review.  We had a very productive quarter and produced a lot of work.  My formal scheme was based on the idea of semi-enclosed spaces that have a permeable face that allow movement and connection to the next scale of community.  This is reflected on three scales.  On the site level this is two shapes a V and C facing each other.  In the cluster it is 3 or 4 units pinwheeled around a common outdoor space.  On the unit level it is three wood faces with a metal panel face that is more open and permeable.  It also serves as the technical wall for the unit where all of the services are aligned and easily accessible.  This cluster scheme removes cars from the center of the space and creates a space for people to use for children’s play and community gardening as a means to supplement their income or decrease food costs by providing 30% of their annual demand.  By removing the cars from the centers of these spaces they are aggregated in one space and separate the two clusters from each other in an undesirable way.  Tuck under parking could resolve this, but is questionably achievable while maintaining affordability.

Affordability in this project is viewed in the traditional sense of minimizing first costs in the development to ensure lower financing costs and therefore rents, but additionally it is desired that there be an awareness of creating affordable lifestyles for the residents.  Minimizing first costs comes through the use of modularity and pre-manufacturing.  The 40 units of 3 sizes are composed only of two floor plans that can be augmented in many ways by flipping, rotating, or adding on to.  The entirety of the site can be transported and craned into place compressing construction schedules and lowering costs.  The units are laid out to optimize the use of 4′x8′ sheet stock.  I’ve capitalized on the interior to exterior assembly technique that prevails in pre-manufacturing by using spray in aircrete which can create a continuous air, vapor, and thermal barrier around any interior penetrations.  This addresses the problem of air infiltration, the largest cause of loss of energy (about 40%) through a buildings envelope.

Creating an affordable lifestyle comes in the form of providing ways in which residents can grow, capture, or produce capital.  As previously described there are many community gardens.  Many units have attached greenhouses for food production in the winter, and are appropriately sized and arranged to operate as a space for a family members or friends to use during the growing season as a sleeping space.  Water catchment from rooftops can provide ~40% of the communities needs.  Additional catchment can occur on the ground level to increase water neutrality, but something more expensive than a sand filter would be needed for that and more detailed cost estimating would be required.  The design provides for enough space with good southern exposure to outfit the development with a PV array that could meet 98% of their energy demand.  Food, water, and energy are the three areas I focused on to lower living expenses.  Additionally provide though are spaces in the master bedrooms for spaces for entrepreneurial means of production.  This can vary by the residents needs and I have shown several options in the floor plans, from increased greenhouse sizes to, a space for a home office, or craft space for producing things to sell at a craft fair or farmers market.

In evaluating my project I feel that I have dealt well with the aspects of affordability/sustainability and the idea of creating a flexible kit of parts that offers an ability to personalize and create variation from repetition.  I have not dealt adequately with the particulars of creating lively community spaces that are fully programmed and defined.  If I were to continue the project I would further explore these activities and architectures.