First of all, the final hi res board can be found here. I apologize for the size of the document, but it has killed my computer twice trying to make it smaller. I’ll get a smaller image up as soon as possible.

Secondly, I would like to walk you through the presentation, in case you did not make it to the presentation.

The project’s site was situated in Medford, Oregon, just outside of the urban growth boundary of the city on an organic farm. The farm owner would like to provide housing for the people that work on his farm, as he sees the current situation as inadequate (and it is quite so).

We did not understand the project as just a small, singular project, but instead we envisioned it as the first step in a prototype that demonstrates a positive model that can be replicated throughout the state/country to improve the standard of living for this marginalized section of the population. Marc and I found a scientific method analogy appropriate for this situation with an observation, hypothesis, and (for lack of a better term) an ‘experiment’.

OBSERVATION We see the current situation of farm worker housing as extremely inadequate and in just. There are many people crammed into very small, inadequate housing, built with the singular vision of cost. The problem we identified is that there is a very thin line between private and public, if one at all.

HYPOTHESIS If we develop a prototype that is a well designed, unit that can be distributed in the landscape to create a spectrum of scales of social spaces ranging from private to public, and we make it of a planning/construction module that is easily replicable, the project can begin to address the greater social injustice. We further propose that if the community is strong and is able to identify and have a sense of pride in their housing situation, it can begin to combat the idea of social stratification. We implemented this hypothesis through our concept of layers of community which was implemented though our kit of parts on our site in an integrated local response.

Layers of Community The layers of community are a series of architectural implements that divide levels of space from public to private. This thickened progression is a direct response to the extremely thin or non-existent boundary in the existing farmworker-on-farm archetype. The progression encompasses nearly the entire site as a resident would travel from the vehicle through the private zone of their house into the community space that is formed by the relationship of the buildings.
Kit of Parts The kit of parts developed the concept of the prototype that could be placed in multitudinous situations, but had tools to become specific in every instance. The two major parts were the housing unit and the ’specifier.’ The housing unit was essentially a duplex with a shared wet-wall for the bathrooms and integrated exterior space. Because this exterior room was part of the unit, an arrangement of multiples always creates a progression of private to public spaces. This exterior space also adjusted the geometry of the unit to allow for passive heating and cooling and provided a different scale of shared open space depending on how it was arranged.
The housing unit was designed to have a premanufactured core of the bathrooms/kitchen which would be delivered on site. The rest of the house would be stick-framed on site by the community, as the first step of both building a community and minimizing costs. The sweat-equity would payoff in lower rents.
The specifier is employed after the arrangement of the housing units is determined. The specifier is used for solar shading, water collection and as another device for dividing spaces. The specifier was designed by reversing the angle of a moment frame and could be produced quickly for low costs.
Integrated Local ResponsesThe specific implementation of the prototype is designed to create a diverse spectrum of public spaces as well as satisfy the requirements for passive systems. We wrote the environmental story into the design of the public spaces, so the units are all maximized for passive heating and cooling as a way to provide scales of community space. The water is collected from the individual units an carried to the shared laundry facility (mimicking the shared values of the community) and creating a loggia that divides two scales of public space. Water from the community center is collected for the community gardens. At no point does a singular element provide a singular response.

EXPERIMENT This entire project, to continue our scientific model metaphor, can be seen as the experiment. The next step then, is to test the experiment. One way in which we did this, was to present it to a set of outside reviewers. The response was generally positive and noone critiqued our main concept of community spaces. However, they did pick on details of how this was implemented. Also, there were many comments about the weakness our or landscape plan (which I strongly agree with) and some comments about the ’suburban’ vision we’ve created. I want to avoid a personal affront when addressing the latter, but I believe that it comes from a somewhat affected view of suburbia and it would be interesting to understand how people who would actually live here would view it.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES I learned this term that it is difficult to provide a holistic, integrated view of architecture. Clarity, I believe, often comes at the expense of the holistic and vice versa. In response, Marc and I developed a new term that beautifully summarizes our approach, and though I don’t believe we quite achieved it in this project, it stands as a goal. The term:
C_LAYERITY

Please visit the Community Center Sketches page in order to view a few sketches and diagrams that I have been developing.  I will be adding to the page over the weekend.

Here’s an aerial view of the NA phase IV site.  The version I emailed out is higher resolution, but here’s another in case you misplaced the other.  Image credit MS Bing.

Water Demand – Usage based on 39 units (sorry I only have 4 1 BR’s) comparing code to low flow water usage.

Demand Analysis – Quantifying reduction measures and sizing collectors and storage tanks.

Monthly – Monthly flows of water to determine peak capacity requirements.

While the reviewers on Friday didn’t have a lot to say about my individual unit design they did bring up some important considerations for the final.  Based on their comments some of the things I’ve been exploring further are:

• The type of systems being used in the units and how some of those systems might be shared between a cluster of units.
• How can interior furniture and openings and the exterior landscape be customized to allow individual personalization in order to allow the building form to stay more simple and replicable?
• Making sure there is a clear purpose for breaks and paths between units so these areas do not create unused and potentially unsafe areas.
• Getting away from the circular form of the fire-truck turnaround to create a better social space at the connection point of the two neighborhood phases.

The biggest thing I am still trying to work out is the type of building system I want to use.  Originally I was exploring the idea of using SIP construction and a more modular design.  After the review and discussing what the benefits of using a SIP versus more traditional site built construction I am exploring a few alternatives.   Some of my ideas include creating a core between two units that could be prefabricated and would include the bathrooms, kitchens and staircases.  The rest of the unit (the bedrooms and living spaces) could then be site built to allow greater flexibility in the design and window opening types.  Another topic I am looking at is if the construction becomes more panelized but still built on site, how can the pieces be broken down into modules that allow for easy and efficient packing/shipping.

(Jeff’s blog: images from review)

I got a lot out of this review, a lot more than I was expecting. The reviewers had some really great comments, and we actually had a great dialogue with them. I learned a lot about panel tectonics and economics, was able to reinforce several ideas that Jeff and I had, and have a good idea of where to go from here to the final.

The biggest thing that I took immediately from the review was that we should ditch the panels. The U.S. market simply does not support them for low (or even middle) income housing. They are fantastic for a number of reasons – they just don’t pencil out. Given that, one of the reviewers suggested a different approach: Factory build the core, and site-build (stick frame) the rest.

I like this idea because I think the foundations can be laid for the maximum sized unit, and the units could be personalized using sweat equity on site. The sweat equity could be all the initial users helping out, thereby creating a strong sense of community from the get-go.

This week I would like to figure out the details for joining the site built with the shipped segment, and have a final-ready drawing complete.

Another thing that was nice from the review was that it appears that our site plan is in order. Hooray! Five reviews went before us, and seemed like for each presentation there was at least one reviewer comment where I was thinking “We did that!” Private deck off shared communal space… check. smaller communal spaces bleeding into larger ones… check. Unit arranged for solar access… check. I think we still need to tighten up the landscaping, and we should do that this week.

Also this week we need to design the covered community space. This should be fun, but we need to keep it economically relevant because it is extremely important to the program of the site. I would hate for it to be value-engineered out.

images from the last review:

reactions:

• the largest take-away from the review is that maybe we are pushing prefabrication and tectonics forward artificially in the incorrect realm. The history of prefabrication in our country doesn’t support the claim of lower costs, unless the production scale is large enough to overcome the transportation/setup costs. That said, since we are designing a prototype, maybe we should approach it in a way that our possibly ‘one-off’ building could be constructed with stick-framing, but leaving the door open to prefabrication if the scale increases to 200 or so units, to be installed around the state.
• the second takeaway is that we are still providing too much customization, especially if this becomes a prefabrication process. We need to focus our efforts in design a select number of options, and then let the users/clients choose the most desired. This gets away from a lot of the customization that supports our ideas of ownership and investment. Maybe we can focus this more on finishes and furnishings, or on outdoor space and landscaping, though this is a very important distinction that needs to be made before the projects is over.

Why?

For me, this week was about looking at the tectonics of manufactured housing and achieving a workable unit, cluster, and site plan.  I’ve decided to rigorously follow an 8′ planning module.  I’ve tracked this in plan, ensuring that all of the transitions inside and outside the unit occur along that module.  With a double 2x wall backing up that module, it was less important to optimize the length of the dimensional lumber because there would be many differences between the interior and exterior lengths.  That is why I laid the planning module out in alignment with the interior face of studs, with an added 1/2″ at each face to allow four the optimization of 4′x8′ sheet stock OSB and Drywall that will dove tail at the corners.  The unit itself will be split longitudinally into two components of 8′ and 10′ for travel down the highway.  There were structural concerns of leaving one of the 4 sides open, but this is a common practice in manufactured structures.  Also, I minimized the longitudinal spans to 20′ with the stair and the kitchen/bath party wall at the midpoint to prevent the needed addition of any steel or temporary bracing for transport.

The studio to date has had a large amount of technical challenges to overcome such as overbearing zoning requirements, modular or pre-manufactured construction, and a challenging site and context.  My responses to these challenges are not perfect, but I feel as if they have been dealt with sufficiently.  The focus of my attention in the coming two weeks will be the aspect of why are we building and attempting to better represent the character of the place that we are trying to make.  What features and activities will make this site feel like a center rather than an edge or end?  What materials and finishes will allow for personalization and flexibility as well as durability and sustainability?  What activities are fitting to farm worker housing, and how do these activities change in the growing season vs. the winter months?

The crit on Friday was really helpful.  As an Option Three, it’s always nice to see the great work of those who have more experience then I do.  I had thought of many of the things that I could / should have included in my drawings, but ultimately they didn’t make it on to the board on Friday.

I have notes to include a large north arrow, to include a cross and stack ventilation diagram, to further express my sustainable strategies, and the opportunity to showcase a few key details that really make the space “nice.”  I’m going to explore the front porch space – how that might be truly inviting but also a little bit private.  I’d like to study the window sills – would it be possible to incorporate a bench below a few key windows?  I also need to study basic floor construction.  I like the idea of exposed joists, but I wonder if that space would be better used as space for additional insulation.  I’m also thinking about the stair, what simple yet beautiful rail detail I could include there.

I’m excited to get cooking on this final presentation.  I want to explore incorporating words / inspiration on my boards.  Until now, my final boards have been largely graphics centered, and I’d like to include the inspirational words of Teddy Cruz and others this go around.