The first midterm of the spring term was helpful because it emphasized the amount of work that there is left to do before the end of the term, and highlighted missing diagrams and drawings.
The most useful comment was made with regard to my material selection. Since the scale of this project is conducive to a bearing system of support, rather than large-span strategies, I have identified Cross Laminated Timber [CLT] as the primary structural support. I have chosen this because it drastically minimizes the amount of concrete [a high embodied energy material], replacing it with wood [a carbon sequestration material] and it allows for a clean aesthetic. Throughout my research I have been interested in fiber reinforced polymers as the major component of the building’s envelope because of the computational nature of the material. Fiber can be applied in structurally responsive ways; panels can have various porosity allowing or denying light/ventilation, and barrier layers can be constructed in a controlled environment.
The comment was made that these materials offer formal freedoms not allowed by other materials and assemblies. Everything that I have done up to this point has been fairly rigid and orthogonal, when the only real limitation is the planar nature of the CLT [which has the potential to form curves] and the radiant slabs. As I continue to refine the building envelope and interior volumes, I will look to acquire a natural and organic architectural expression.
The other really useful comment was about the way that the buildings meet the landscape, and whether the “bunker-like bathtub” approach is the most appropriate. I studied quite a bit about non-traditional foundations when working on a project in New Orleans, LA and feel that there might be a better approach to the integration with the site. My initial reaction is to use a series of helical piles to project out toward the bay, allowing the natural riparian areas to embrace the east portions of the buildings, and employ a more traditional concrete solution where the architecture meets the land directly. This approach would be less detrimental to the habitat areas on site and provide a floating expression to the built areas.
The critics seemed to think that the systems choices were appropriate and worked well together. For that reason I plan to leave the configuration and types of systems the way that they are, developing them further as I move forward. Stay tuned for the next review.