Please take a look at the work Rachel and I did for our midterm.  Photos and descriptions of our work can be viewed by clicking on the page titled “Midterm.” Enjoy!

Midterms! Yeah for design gauntlet! Yeah for staying up all night! Yeah for experimental media! Yeah yeah yeah!

The review was last Friday, and I’d call it “mixed,” though to be clear the mix was definitely not homogenous; we were slammed at first (with almost no useful feedback), and later we charetted a bit and I came out of it with some good ideas.  I think both Jeff and I have some ideas about how to proceed. (To see Jeff’s notes about the review, click here.)

Maybe I should rant a bit (nobody is reading this, right?). The prep for the reviewers was nil, and it really hurt our review. Because we started late, and the reviewers were not familiar with the project, Jeff and I were forced to modify our presentation on the fly. The reviewers therefore did not fully understand our constraints, both those set up by the studio (i.e. time) and those set up by us (i.e. scheme). When you combine the poor setup with the fact that the first reviewer set the tone by pointing out a minor technical detail, it is easy to see why it was useless.

page 1 (click to embiggen)

After the critics finished disemboweling our project, I took an emotional break.

The charette was great. By the time the critics finished reviewing all the projects, they had a better idea about what was going on, and they could look at our design with fresh eyes. One idea that I really liked was to take the ‘views east’ principle and apply it to the community spaces rather than to the units. The payoff is twofold: greater flexibility in the unit layout and better definition of the mid-scale community spaces. Another big idea that I really liked was that the expansion areas for the units could be in bays that are adjacent (in the east-west axis) to the core. The bays could be a fixed width, like eight or ten feet, and footings could be provided for up to a certain maximum size. I really like this idea, and I think coupled with the previous idea of grouping the units around a view could be really beneficial to my design, and it is what I am going to explore next.

page 2 (click to embiggen)

Our studio design process to this point has been an exploration of replicating sets of three unit types on the site to develop two schemes, one based on placing public space at the center of the design, the other placing amenable parking at the center to enlarge the perceived size of the site  and engage the social functions of parking.

In developing 14 site options I was able to see the impact of differing sets of unit plans when arranged produce varying sizes of shared outdoor spaces.  A problem we are coming up against is that small units need to be stretched out into longer bars to enclose larger amounts of open space.  This has the potential to negate the savings of having party walls to reduce energy costs.  We have been bundling sets of 4 units together around common outdoor courtyards and are considering raising the number of units that face these smaller courtyards to increase their size.  As is seen in the previous phases of Nuevo Amancer the desire to provide these common outdoor spaces led to very skin oriented designs and we hope to work against that trend.

The general size of these smaller courtyard spaces is a large concern but we also need to clearly address how these courtyards relate to the larger central gathering spaces and what occurs in these larger spaces.  Also how can we maintain clear sight lines from within the units over the majority of the site to increase the amount of space children have to play while still under supervision of their parents who will likely be inside the unit.

A large point of discussion centered around modularity and efficiency measures.  Our groups current approach to modular building has been to think of the unit as the module and that is what needs to stay rigid and be replicated to achieve the economy of scale savings.  When using a rigid reproduction of a set of three floor plans it is difficult to imbue distinguishing characteristics to each unit or cluster as well as to respond to site peculiarities (which this site has in spades).  Our reviewers challenged us to think of modularity in a different light and to think of the module not as the unit but as the piece of dimensional lumber and 4′x8′ sheet stock.  This would be a digression from manufactured housing to optimization of site built methods; and is a decision that needs to be made soon.  Panelized construction is a possible hybrid approach to combining the manufactured techniques we have been studying and the site-built module of dimensional lumber; and is worth further review.

The issue of solar orientation that we discussed as a group for quite some time, may not be as big of an issue as we thought.  One of our reviewers indicated that a southwestern orientation to the design is more efficient than a true southern orientation due to the nature of our cloudy weather and early morning fog.  I hope to find a study that shows this, otherwise I find it hard to pursue that line of thinking.

The next step in our inquiry will be to delve deeper into the unit configuration and how we can resolve a coherent and amenably sized courtyard space while maintaining a high proportion of party walls between units for energy savings.  The flexibility of how those units translate into a site plan are very dependent upon the degree of flexibility of the unit plan and if we are choosing to view the unit as our module of design or dimensional lumber as our module.

The adaptive cycle of development that explains the resilience of systems and societies is a cognitive model that I often use to view a project in.  It has been explored by many individuals in sociology, anthropology, and archaeology.  Here is a study PanarchyorComplexity by C.S. Holling showing how this systems thinking approach can become “nested” and interrelated to form a panarchy.  This multi-scaled cognitive model allows for viewing sustainable development in a more logical, less dogmatic light.  This study is one of the broader thinking studies done using this model, showing its adaptiveness and versatility.

My introduction to this thinking comes from Vernon Scarborough’s instruction in spatial archaeology, and his text “Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response.”  His thoughts are that societies divide themselves into two classes labor-tasking and techno-tasking, and that through this series of nested adaptive cycles a society can reach new levels of complexity by either technological innovation (the Western model of development) or through collective effort.  Coming from a techno-tasking society we understand what it is rather well, labor-tasking societies are harder to comprehend, at least for me.  Scarborough’s Meso-American studies show a highly complex society that chose to develop diffuse means of production and labor sourcing as opposed to consolidation and efficiency measures.  Labor-tasking societies are in my mind the “crowd sourcing” equivalent in the archaeological world.

I bring up the distinction of labor- vs techno-tasking societies to illustrate how this adaptive cycle can develop in different directions.  The adaptive cycle while often used to support the efforts of sustainable development, can be viewed as devoid of value.  So while this model is helpful in viewing how societies change and either succeed or fail, it does not intrinsically help us to identify or codify our societal goals and values.  For this, I value the model popularized by William McDonough.  That is the triangle that has been used by many before of Ecology, Economy, and Society.  Although McDonough re-branded the society point as Equity, making it more value laden as well as making it alliterative (which we know we architects love when things fit into nice boxes like that).  The ecology, economy, equity triangle is a bit flat though and does not indicate how a society grows and changes, it more accurately is a coordinate system of sorts that can tell you where you are vs. where you wished to be.  My hope is that we can develop a cognitive model that combines the two aspects that I enjoy, an adaptive model viewable on multiple scales and a value laden coordinate system.  This is my first attempt.

I begin with the triangular coordinate system popularized by McDonough

I consider developing complexity to be the vertical axis.  This form of development is what we see the most of, and is expounded upon by “free market” advocates. It uses efficiency as a means to reach the highest point with the most minimal amount of structure.  It is inherently precarious.

This is much of what we have seen in the form of “green” design.  It uses the current form of development and attempts to make it more socially and ecologically responsive.  This mode of development while often easy to bash is necessary.

This is the mode of thinking that we are moving into.  We value equity and ecology as a society and we are taking steps towards addressing them, while we simultaneously recognize that building in a socially and ecologically sound fashion can actually increase profits.  This thinking has challenged traditional economics.  Think of John Nash’s work in game theory (not that I’m going to ever pretend to understand this man’s work).  It often takes the form of integrating development and operations capital to see how smarter growth can lead to long term returns on investment.

There are obviously more social and ecological concerns that we have not addressed and this development pyramid can be expanded to be more inclusive.

This will surely lead to even more benefits that we can not currently envision.  But what concerns me is the fact that we are still developing with the same structure in place.  Note all of the hole in the structure.  This can be addressed by the idea of resiliency, i.e. how many pieces of the system can be removed or stressed while still maintaining either A- the overall level of complexity or B- the ability to reshape the pyramids components into something else of equivalent value.

This calls into question levels of scale and resolution.  How much structure does a project need to provide?  Where is it located in the vertical axis?  Are it’s neighbors in the system lacking in anything that this project can provide to increase overall stability as opposed to project stability.  How precarious is our current mode of development?  are some portions of the structure stronger than others currently?  I don’t know any of this, but this mode of viewing the problem is appealing to me; due to it’s versatility.  What does jump out at me though is that more attention needs to be paid to the base levels of complexity.  If in our development psychology the least complex structures like American homes are being built in ways that are socially, ecologically, and economically unsound how can we laud the efforts of “green” skyscrapers and vastly large developments?  What structure in society is in place to hold up high tech sustainability, and for how long.  Lets get back to basics and figure out what efforts are available to us that can promote ecology, economy, and equity while simultaneously laying the foundation for future development to come.

I appreciated the feedback from the reviewers that attended our midterm.  The sharete was also helpful – and Ben gave Nicole and me some really great feedback / ideas to consider especially related to parking.

Looking forward:  I’m excited to consider modular design, both pre-fab as well as the possibility of panelization.  I’m exploring dimensions that are multiples of 4, as well as considering widths that are right around 12′ (to travel down the highway.)

I’m excited about exploring the image of “house.”  I’ve been continually inspired by the images that Herminio shared at the start of studio – Teddy Cruz’s Hudson, New York Housing.  I think that creating affordable housing that has traditional elements can help to “normalize” the development.    I think Michael Pyatok does a really great job achieving this.    

Finally, I’m looking forward to celebrate the parking area.  Parking lot as space for cars, sometimes, but also play space – semi-green space, group space, running space, tricycle space, shaded space, sunny space…

Other things on my mind as I move forward: solar orientation, appropriate building heights, usefulness, together space, family space, private space, the word dignity… The list goes on.

Here is a summary of imagery and existing cognitive models I’ve found from various sources that have applicability to our studio’s efforts.

a quick summary of our project goals so far, for those unable to make it to the midreview. Our project is working to develop a positive model of housing for farmworker families to live on farms.  This location cobenefits the farmer and farmworker and had the opportunity to increase the standard of living for the workers.  The question is how to develop a prototype that is flexible enough for multiple sites, but is also specific enough to develop a sense of place and community.

The rapid pace of our design called for developing a set of principles and adhering strictly, almost authoritatively to them:

views east: views were one of the principles developed by the land owner, Henry. Except he only identified views for half of the units.  We thought this should be extended to every one.

solar access: in order to passively heat the buildings, they needed to be oriented towards the south.

ownership: we were understanding ownership in a multitude of ways.  Figuratively, it was investment in the household and community.  Literally, we were exploring ways to create social justice through housing.

the midreview started off on the wrong foot, but eventually came around to something that approximated a discussion.  The main comments focused on lack of understanding of the site plan.  This, I believe is fair but was a direct manifestation of our principles.  Moving forward, we’ll have to reinterpret out principles and maybe adhere less strictly to them.

Much discussion came out of our lack of detailing the spaces between the units.  This was a major deficiency in our project, we were not able to develop this in the time allotted.  However, we were equally envisioning it as being developed by the inhabitants–a strategy we will need to think about.

Also, we put our skylight in the wrong place.  But maybe we don’t need a skylight at all.

All in all, I think we are moving forward.  We need to readdress our principles and possibly rescheme for a while, but I believe we are starting to ask the right questions.

Midterm_powerpoint1

The main goal our group had going into the mid review was getting feedback on the two site schemes we produced.  I think we were given some really good suggestions, however the comments brought up a lot more questions as well.  The main difference between our two schemes was the parking concept.  One had the parking along the outside of the site; the other had it in the middle.  Some of the comments/suggestions we received were:

• Going up to three stories in some places to break up massing and relate to existing market-rate housing
• Create a bicycle loop within the site for little kids
• Use storm water swales in awkward leftover or corner spaces
• Look at using a combination of the two schemes

During the review, the suggestion was brought up to take away some the restraints on the site to make a more ideal plan.  Some of these restraints are connections to private streets and property to better connect our site to main streets.  I agree that the site might be more successful without these constraints so the question now is should I move forward on a scheme our group had already come up with or try and rework the site with the new connections.  How much should I design for the ideal site versus what could realistically happen?  I haven’t decided on the direction I’m going to take yet, but I probably will do some quick site schemes that include the adjacent properties and see if they start to go anywhere.