EVERYONE DESERVES A ROOF
A study for a portable shelter for EDAR UNLV Downtown Design Center and UNLV School of Architecture July 2014
42”
40” 76”
30”
··
E
··
D A R ··
··
30”
purpose This document is a description of the process and outcomes of a design studio collaboration between the UNLV Downtown Design Center and the UNLV School of Architecture / UNLV Make. The UNLV Downtown Design Center’s mission is to act and advocate for the best sustainable environment in the State of Nevada. As the only School of Architecture in Nevada, the UNLV School of Architecture / Downtown Design Center is an important voice in best practices in urban design, sustainable /ecological design, and human-centered design in the state. This document contains the description of a project done during the Spring Semester 2014 for the non-profit , Everyone Deserves A Roof ( EDAR ) ( www.edar.org ) . EDAR worked with the UNLV Downtown Design Center to construct the parameters for a follow up study to the original portable shelter designed by students at the Pasadena Arts Center. EDAR sought improved performance in areas of cost , weight , and transportability of the units, based upon observation and feedback they garnered from users of the t he hundreds of original units in use on the streets of Los Angeles . The original EDAR units cost $ 500 each, and are donated to end-users through service organizations with whom they have a longitudinal relationship. UNLV School of Architecture faculty Joshua Vermillion brought the EDAR version 2.0 design problem to his seminar class ; challenging his students to analyze the first unit ; derive design guidelines, assemble design teams and design and build prototypes. In addition to these tasks, students spent quite a bit of time engaging community members including contractors in fabrics and steel fabrication. The students ended up creating what they felt were three viable schemes, based upon their self-assessment , and the feedback of EDAR and construction experts. These schemes represented a range of more daring to more conservative within the challenge given to them.
PA GE
|
2
The EDAR unit is an important and viable product to assist with shelter for those in need. EDAR 2.0 is meant to optimize costs versus the needs of safety and health in temporary shelter design. EDAR is located in Los Angeles where they deployed their first run of the units. Our study uses both Las Vegas and Los Angeles as study areas to help guide what will af fect our design solution. In this document , we briefly note the viability of the EDAR product as a low cost course of relatively quick action to assist in those in need. We present an analysis of the first unit and what works and what needs to be improved. We set up criteria for design performance, and test our three solutions, illustrating strengths and weaknesses of each. The viable solutions are meant to be constructed and distributed. Following the legacy of the first process run with the Pasadena Art Center College of Design, at the time of this writing - two of the unit designs in this book are in the process of being explored, protyped and tested further for the purpose of creating an EDAR unit for mass production. Special thanks go to our students, who met for three hours a week of class time and engaged this problem for another ten hours outside of class time. Students sought out contractors, community members and other experts that could be of assistance to gain perspectives on these problems. Noted on the ensuing page of this document are the community members and organizations helping the students and all involved in this endeavour. We hope this community will continue to expand the geographic and organizational range of EDAR ; and help to develop the EDAR concept in partnership with each other.
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
THANKS/SUPPORTERS
PROJECT TE AM
EDAR ( E VERYONE DESERVES A ROOF ) www.edar.org Peter Samuelson, President Robin Winston, Executive Director
UNLV Joshua Vermillion, Assistant Professor School of Architecture
T RI S TATE S T EEL INC Michael Scully CISCO’S CUS TOM UPHOLS T ERY SERVICES, INC Cisco Servin UNITED MOVEMENT OF ORG ANIZED K INDNESS Peter Politis, President DOWN TOWN RA NGERS Sarge S TIT CH FA C TORY Winnie Shao Jennifer Tal US A SH ADE & FABRIC S T RUC T URES Tyler Stradling VEG A S SE VEN Greg Miller Stacy Willis
Ken McCown, Assoc. AIA , A SL A Lincy University Professor Director, UNLV Downtown Design Center Phil Zawarus Fellow, UNLV Downtown Design Center Students : Divina Arellano-Nunez Marshall Cowan Andres Diaz Eric Gross Jixin Liu Richard Olmedo Luz Olsen Jacob Rivard Nasar Saghafi Thomas Slaughter Benjamin Snape Milica Tajsic Sean Zurko
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
3
table of contents WHAT IS EDAR?
6
REGIONAL HOMELESS
7
CONVENTIONAL SHELTER VS EDAR 8 COMPLETE COST
9
EXISTING EDAR UNIT 10 EDAR V.2
11
DESIGN GUIDELINES 12 DESIGN EVALUATION / RECOMMENDED SCHEMES 16 SCHEME 1
18
SCHEME 2
22
SCHEME 3
26
STUDIO PROCESS SUMMARY 30 PA GE
|
4
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
5
WHAT IS EDAR? ED A R ( Ever yone Deser ves A Roof ) ( w w w.edar.org ) is a 5 01 ( c ) ( 3 ) nonprofit organization that provides mobile shelters to the homeless. Each ED A R unit is a four- wheeled unit , based on a mobile car t design allowing for storage during the day and at night , provides a comfor table place to sleep with protection from the elements. T he mission of ED A R ( Ever yone Deser ves a Roof ) is to provide shor t-term , immediate shelter to homeless individuals and families. We distribute mobile shelter units through a net work of par tnerships in order to reduce the number of individuals sleeping in the open and to suppor t their dignit y and hope. ED A R launched the first six t y units in the Southern C alifornia area af ter approximately nine protot ypes. T he units are in use in Los A ngeles and surrounding counties as well as A rizona and C olorado. W ith the help of our generous suppor ters ; we continue to place additional units in Southern C alifornia and expand to other cities nationwide. ED A R par tners with a net work of philanthropic , governmental and homeless advocacy organizations to assist in the distribution of EDA R units. For individuals not af filiated with one of these organizations and would like an ED A R unit , ED A R will refer an individual to an organization so that they may receive a unit . ED A R units are used in a variet y of modalities determined by both the needs of the distributing agency and homeless client . In all cases , we ask the distributing agency to collect feedback from the EDA R user and in some situations , the EDA R unit has become a “first step� for those that are t ypically reluctant to enter a traditional shelter system. ( text from www.edar.org ) PA GE
|
6
image: edar.org
REGIONAL HOMELESS In Los Angeles, California there are 4 HOMELESS PER 1 SHELTER BED, which puts a high demand on accomodating those without a place to sleep.
Clark County (Las Vegas)
14K
Although there are 9.5 THOUSAND homeless in Las Vegas, Nevada there is nearly 37 THOUSAND homeless annually.
Los Angeles County
73K
The overall homeless population has been down since 2011, however there has been a steady increase from 2013 to 2014 by 28% .
30%
2011
22%
2012
28%
2013
2014
ht tp : // w w w.helphopehome.org /2014 -F IN A L-HOMELE SS - CENSUS.pdf ht tp : // w w w.edar.org / pdf /2010_ED A R_E-K it _v3_5-2010.pdf
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
7
CONVENTIONAL SHELTER VS EDAR
Facilities to house 1 HOMELESS PERSON annually costs anywhere between
$50,000 and $100,000
PA GE
|
EMERGENCY SHELTERS
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE
Congregates Short Stay Extended Stay Overnight
Shared Rooms Individual Rooms Facility-based
Shelter Plus Care Facility-based Scattered Site
8
Each EDAR unit costs one flat rate of
$500
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
COMPLETE COST
However, if you were to house those
14,000 homeless residents in an EDAR unit, the cost is only
$7 MILLION
For Las Vegas, in order to house 14,000 homeless residents in conventional shelters, the annual cost would be anywhere between
$700 MILLION AND $1.4 BILLION ht tp : // w w w.huduser.org / publica tions / pdf / Cos t s_Homeles s.pdf ht tp : // w w w.edar.org / pdf /2010_ED A R_E-K it _v3_5-2010.pdf
PA GE
|
9
EXISTING EDAR UNIT MATERIAL
COMFORT
MARINE GR ADE CANVAS WATERPROOF FIRE RE TARDANT DURABLE
collapsible
PADDED MAT TRESS
VENTILATION FLAPS FOR AIR CIRCUL ATION ON ENDS
safety REFLECTIVE STRIPES, 2 BRAKES
MOBILITY WHEELS WITH LOCKING MECHANISM
PA GE
|
10
HEALTH UNIT OFF OF GROUND
STORAGE ME TAL STOR AGE BASKETS ON ENDS
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
EDAR V.2 USER
client
MULTI-FUNCTION MOBILITY WEIGHT STABILIT Y SIZE AESTHETICS PORTABLE
COST MATERIALS DURABILITY EFFECTIVE SUPPORT
The EDAR organization challenged UNLV faculty and students to make the new EDAR v.2 have the best qualities from the first version, while making the new one lighter, more portable, and less expensive while maintaining safety, cost , comfort and durability. The design work took place during the Spring 2014 academic semester with 13 students and 2 faculty members from the School of Architecture.
ATTRIBUTES
V.2
SAFETY HE ALTH NOISE SEEMS
MATERIALS FRAME PANELING TEXTILES SIDINGS HANDLES WHEELS TOW ARM SE AT
Students worked in small teams to design and prototype new EDAR schemes judging their success by weight , materials, safety, mobility, and cost of production targeting from $ 4 00 - $ 500 per unit.
PERFORMANCE COST DURABILITY MOBILITY COMFORT
EDAR staf f, community members, local experts and contractors met with the design teams several times throughout the term to provide advice and assistance. Local industry and community members provided design and fabrication feedback , including donated services and materials for the production of the prototypes.
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
11
DESIGN GUIDELINES The analysis of the first EDAR unit , along with a brief description of needs gave the team a panoply of factors to consider. The student teams collected and prioritized these factors to establish them as design guidelines. Design guidelines are parameters used during the design process to help direct decision making. During the design process, teams need to answer questions that arise from having to optimize a response to multiple factors. The design guidelines can also be used as an evaluative tool. The team, for organizational purposes, distributed the factors to five dif ferent groups ; PEOPLE -Client ( EDAR ) -User EDAR UNIT -At tributes -Materials -Performance Within each one of the five categories, there are subheadings and objectives. This five category set of factors enabled the team to create a system that allowed a qualitative description of the strengths and weaknesses of each unit design ; and let each group quantitatively score each unit design.
client
COST - MATERIALS - DUR ABILIT Y - EFFECTIVENESS
COS T Bring in the unit cost under five hundred dollars total. M ATERIALS Use materials that optimize durability, cost , comfort , readily available /standard and easy to build with. DURABILIT Y Make the unit capable of handling impacts and staying intact. Impact may include lowspeed collisions with vehicles, or the unit tumbling into a drainage canal, as an example. EFFEC TI V ENESS The unit must synthesize all factors from all five categories to deliver a functioning temporary shelter for the client and users. TRANSPORTABILIT Y The unit must be lighter than the first EDAR unit , and be towable by bicycle.
In this page, and the ensuing three pages, we describe the design guidelines and decision matrix including listing the factors the team accounted for in their design development.
PA GE
|
12
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
DECISION MATRIX GUIDE
COST MATERIALS DURABILITY EFFECTIVE
CLIENT
#
#
USER
MOBILITY WEIGHT STABILIT Y SIZE AESTHETICS PORTABLE
SUBHEADER FACTORS
PRIMARY FACTORS AFFECTING DESIGN
We used a five point , polar chart to plot the score of each of the three design schemes. The five radial axes are client needs, EDAR at tributes, performance, materials and mobility. We plot ted the score for each category along its axis. A high trapezoidal area means a high score overall - suggesting a scheme worth further development.
CATEGORY NAME AT TRIBUTES SAFETY HE ALTH SEAMS
#
#
# PERFORMANCE R ATING SCORE FOR CATEGORY
MATERIALS
FRAME PANELING TEXTILES HANDLES WHEELS TOW ARM
COST DURABILITY MOBILITY COMFORT
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
13
ATTRIBUTES
SAFE T Y - HE ALTH - SE AMS
The unit should not have any negative health impacts upon occupants /users. The unit should separate users from the ground. Lower ground temperatures, or extremely high ground temperatures can cause discomfort at the least and contribute to health issues such as pneumonia. The unit should create a sense of privacy - most likely from a fabric wrapping around a structural frame. This fabric should have some capacity for ventilation so as to not have unhealthy air on the insides. The fabric seams, around vents and frame connections, should be durable with vents and openings easy to operate ( close and open ) . Zippers or Velcro are considered viable options for these mechanisms. The unit should have some reflectivity readily visible on the surface of the unit for night time safety.
PERFORMANCE
COST - DURABILITY - MOBILITY - COMFORT
The unit should be comfortable to sleep in - a thin mat tress should be a consideration. Additionally, the unit should comfortably sleep at least a six foot tall person with their body extended to full length. There should also be at least some consideration for space for a parent and small child to sleep in the unit together. All materials and construction assemblies of the EDAR unit should have durability as one of the most important guidelines. This includes the framing system down to things such as zipper or Velcro mechanisms. The fabric assembly would ideally last for a couple of years, with a much longer lifespan for the frame and metal assemblies. The unit must be mobile to meet the needs of the users. For the EDAR 2.0, this includes the ( recommended ) option of creating a hitch to allow the unit to be towed by bicycle. This hitch should be considered in a way that does not allow the EDAR unit to cause troubles for the bicycle user. As noted above in cost - units should cost less than five-hundred dollars. Within this parameter, the designs of the EDAR units must maximize the performance of each material and assembly. The unit should be relatively easy to get in and out of, and not feel claustrophobic inside. The design should optimize ‘roominess’ and ef ficiency. The size of the opening of the skin of the unit is an important factor in the ease of get ting in and out of the unit.
PA GE
|
14
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
USER
MOBILIT Y - WEIGHT - STABILIT Y - SIZE - AESTHE TICS - PORTABLE
MATERIALS
FR AME -PANELING - TEXTILES - HANDLES - WHEELS - TOW ARM
The EDAR units will be commonly in the public realm. Therefore, they should in no way become unsightly and represent temporary shelter in the best way possible. The unit design should maintain an aesthetic appearance throughout the lifespan of the unit , perhaps helping to instill a point of pride for the user.
The unit should have a strong and durable frame that optimizes strength, weight and cost. This material will most likely be steel.
The unit should minimize weight to ease the portability and use of the structure for the user. The unit must be lighter than the original EDAR unit.
The skin of the unit needs to be flexible and allow for air movement. The most likely choice for this skin is fabric. This fabric should be strong and durable, but permeable through vents or the porosity of the material. This material should also shield the user from rain ef fectively. Military grade canvas was used on the first structure ; it might be good to continue with this material.
The unit should be sized as ef ficiently as possible, leaving storage for the users items inside of it as a possibility. The size of the unit also mat ters with respect to weight , hand steering , and wheel locations. The distribution of the center of gravity with the unit and where the person engages the unit , should be comfortable and not cause fatigue in the user. Ideally, the collapsed size of the EDAR unit would allow it to be put on the front of a bus, and /or allow it to get through doors or on to public transportation within the parameters of the rules of the transportation company. Research on the users of the EDAR 1.0 unit frequently moved long distances in Los Angeles on its bus system. Portability, in this case being able to put the EDAR unit on the bus, will mean that the user does not have to separate from the unit.
The frame should have paneling where needed to comfortably support and /or protect the user and protect the skin of the unit.
The unit should have outstanding detailing of the human interface with it. Therefore, items such as handles, levers, locks and zippers should be easy to access and use. As the unit must be mobile ; it will most likely have wheels. As noted, the wheels and wheel assembly should be durable, allow for ease of movement while being relatively quiet. W heels minimizing the need for air might be a preferred option. As noted in performance, the EDAR 2.0 should have a tow arm so the unit can be towed by bicycle. This may be considered as an ‘add on’ element , but it would be preferable to have it as part of the unit.
As noted in performance, the units should be mobile. This mobility should include an ease of movement of the unit , including a quick means of collapsing the unit in case users are asked to evacuate a property quickly. Users may also wish to have ‘quiet’ wheels that do not make loud noises when moved.
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
15
Analysis and Performance: Matrices
DESIGN PERFORMANCE COST
Differing Material Amount Exchange between Trades Labor and Time Fabric Choice
DURABILITY Size of Materials Cost Comparison Reuse of Materials Replacement
MOBILITY
Towable Collapsable Bus Attachment Transformation Speed
COMFORT
Human Proportions Interior Space Breathable and Waterproof Storage Capacity
1 2 3
PROPOSAL
PROPOSAL
PROPOSAL PA GE
|
16
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
GUIDELINES CONCLUSION: 3 SCHEMES RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER S TUDY
This unit demonstrates good optimization of multiple factors in the design guidelines. It has good weight , portability, price and comfort. In summary it represents a solid response to the guidelines - not excelling in any one area, but doing a good job in all. The unit needs further study on the fabric covering and the amount of moving parts are also a potential issue needing further study.
This design has an extremely ef ficient response to portability. The cot structure, out fit with a collapsible cable system for the fabric, potentially could be carried as a backpack. However, this extreme ef ficiency has challenges with the operations of the collapsible cables and the fabric connection ; and additionally lacks storage. This scheme may have potential viability with time and resources spent on research and development.
RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER S TUDY
This scheme has an outstanding response to the design guidelines by creating a roomy and comfortable space inside. It is possible to use this unit in the seated position inside. The roominess also helps with storage. In the development of this scheme, further work needs to be done with weight and cost reduction, and study upon the proper location for the center of gravity for the unit when closed so it does not tend to tip over.
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
17
SCHEME 1 ··
MA XIMIZE PORTABILIT Y 4
5 3
MATERIALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
10 feet - 1” x 1” Steel Angle 12 feet - 2 ” x 2 ” Steel Angle 20 feet - 1” Square Tube Steel 4 feet - 1/4” Solid Round Steel Bar 4 feet - 1/2 ” Hollow Round Tube Steel 7 feet - 1/ 8 ” x 2 ” Flat bar Steel 15 square feet - Expanded Steel Mesh Pair 36 ” 250 lbs. Full Extension Drawer Slides 9. Clevis Pins - 1” ( 8 ) 10. 8 ” Rigid Solid Rubber Caster ( 2 ) 11. 1000D nylon cordura fabric coated with PU 12. Tent window mesh
12 11
9
2 8 1
7 6
10 13
OPTIONAL 13. 2 ” Thick Rest Mat
PA GE
|
18
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
COST MATERIALS DURABILITY EFFECTIVE
CLIENT
24
15
USER MOBILITY
WEIGHT STABILIT Y SIZE AESTHETICS PORTABLE
BENEFITS Medium Weight Por table and Towable Low Price Quickly Deployed Appropriate Interior Volume
DRAWBACKS SAFETY HE ALTH SEAMS
AT TRIBUTES
11
22
12
PERFORMANCE
COST DURABILITY MOBILITY COMFORT
MATER IAL S FRAME
PANELING TEXTILES HANDLES WHEELS TOW ARM
Fabrication Tolerance ( lots of moving par ts ) Minimal Storage Capacit y Fabric Material and Openings Unresolved
CONCLUSION Promising Scheme Needs to be fur ther study to refine Fur ther fabric design and protot yping needed
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
19
42”
30”
PA GE
|
20
40” 76”
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
30”
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
21
SCHEME 2 ··
LIGHT WEIGHT/PORTABLE MATERIALS
8 3
1. 1000D nylon cordura fabric
coated with PU 2. Sew On Gripping Strip 3. Tent window mesh 4. Reflective Webbing 5. Super Heavy Duty 100 % Nylon Thread 6. Molded Plastic Two-Way ExtraLong Heavy Duty Separating ( Tent / Sleeping Bag ) Zipper 7. Galvanized Steel Pipes 8. Spring steel wire 9. A xle 10. 20 ” Puncture resistant W heels, solid tire installed. 4 00 lb capacity 11. Foam Grip Handle
1 6 5
9 2 10
4
7
11 12
13
14
OPTIONAL 12. 2 x Pannier 13. Bicycle At tachment ( tow ) 14. Foam pad integrated in the cot PA GE
|
22
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
COST EFFECTIVE
CLIENT
24
9
BE NE F I T S
USER MOBILITY
WEIGHT AESTHETICS PORTABLE
Extremely Light Weight Extremely Portable and Towable Low Price Quickly Deployed
DR AW B A CK S
SEAMS MAKES NO NOISE
AT TRIBUTES
9
15
MAT ER IA L S PANELING TEXTILES WHEELS
Questionable Durability Cot Sleeping Surface Minimal Storage Capacity Fabric Material and Openings Unresolved
CONCL USION 8
PER FOR MA NCE MOBILITY
Interesting scheme but ultimately not durable enough for users
COST
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
23
40” 44” 36”
PA GE
|
24
82”
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
36”
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
25
SCHEME 3 ··
6 7
COMFORTABLE / ROOMY 2 10
MATERIALS 1. 80f t of 1” x 1” X 1/ 8 ” Steel Angle 2. 5 yards of Canvak Treated Waxed
Military Canvas 3. Two Full extension 100lb set 4. 3 /4” Diamond x 9GA Steel Expanded Metal 5. Three Wesco 10in W heel 6. Screen Window Mesh 7. Ritchey Curve Handlebar 8. Sunguard Thread 9. Reflective Webbing 10. Two Heavy Duty Zippers 11. 2 ” Thick Rest Mat
1
4
8 3
5
11 9
12
OPTIONAL 12. Bicycle At tachment ( tow )
PA GE
|
26
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
BENEFITS COST MATERIALS DURABILITY EFFECTIVE
CLIENT
15
18
Large Interior Volume High Storage Capacity Medium Price Quickly Deployed
USER SIZE
STORAGE
DRAWBACKS
SAFETY HE ALTH
AT TRIBUTES
20
10
MATER IAL S FRAME
PANELING TEXTILES SE AT
Heavy and Large Questionable Towability Balance and Stability Collapse-ability Under-resolved Fabric Materials and Openings Unresolved
CONCLUSION 7
PERFORMANCE COST
DURABILITY COMFORT -POTENTIAL TIPPING
Promising Scheme Needs to be further prototyped to work out sliding , wheels, and center of balance Further fabric design + prototyping needed
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
27
48”
48”
24”
PA GE
|
68”
28
82”
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
29
PROCESS TIMELINE FEBRUARY 6 EDAR v2.0 Introduction and
20 Stitch Factory visit for fabric
13 Design Scheme reviews
discussion
Kick off with EDAR visit ( Peter SamUelson, Robin Winston )
JANUARY 23 Course Introduction
27 Review of Team Project Matrices
30 Examination of EDAR V.1
6 Design Scheme reviews
|
TRI STATE
13 Portability and frame module
MARCH
PA GE
20 SPRING BRE AK AND VISIT TO
30
27 FABRIC ATION OF STEEL FRAMES ( FIRST VERSIONS )
EDAR 2.0 STUDY - SPRING 2014 - UNLV DOWNTOWN DESIGN CENTER & UNLV MAKE
APRIL 3 EDAR review with Peter Samuelson, Robin Winston, Peter Politis ( UMOK ) , Sarge ( Downtown Rangers ) , Stacy Willis ( Vegas Seven Publication )
10 Fabrication of steel frames.
24 Fabrication of final frames at
9 Final Review at Fifth Street
Online discussion with Tyler Stradling ( US A Shade & Fabric Structures ) about fabric materials and fabrication parameters.
Tri State Steel.
School Auditorium - Pater Samuelson and Robin Winston ( EDAR ) , Peter Politis ( UMOK ) , Michael Scully ( Tri State Steel )
MAY 17 Fabrication of steel frames.
1 Fabric fabrication at Cisco Upholstery
E D A R 2 . 0 S T U D Y - S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 - U N L V D O W N T O W N D E S I G N C E N T E R & U N L V M A K E PA GE
|
31
Pullable Handles to expand / contract unit
2 Side windows with breathable material / mesh
2’-3”
2’-11” 1’-10”
2’-8”
2’
3’-9”
3’-8” 9”
6’-10” 2’-6” 9”
Pull-able Handle to extend to 9”
2 Operable doors /windows
4 Fully Deployed with Fabric
EDAR v2.0 22 September 2014
Handles for pulling / “Kick stand� when deployed Back handle
2 Sliding - Laying Down
Pull-able (similar to dolly)
Push-able (4-wheel cart)
Four Wheels (front swivels, back wheels have brakes)
1 Unfolding
2 Sliding - Sitting
3 Folding With Fabric
4 Fully Deployed With Fabric
Front wheel will lift off ground
Towable (with bicycle)
EDAR v2.0 22 September 2014