Contents 1.0 Process .................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Initial design task and collaboration with TUM .................................................................................. 2 1.2 Study trip to Greenland ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Realistic project working ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Overall progress .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Design manual ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Problem space ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Solution space ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Design proposal ................................................................................................................................... 5
PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY DTU JAN 2009 BRIAN HURUP‐FELBY, JONAS VENDEL JENSEN, THOMAS MONDRUP
1.0 Process In the following section the process of the project is outlined. Below selected parts and phases of the process are described.
1.1 Initial design task and collaboration with TUM The project was originally formed on the basis of the “Ice‐Camp 2008” project given to a group of students at the Technical University of Munich (TUM). The assignment was to design three ice camps (tourist huts) to accommodate travellers and tourists on a dog‐sledge route between Ilulissat and Uummannaq. The camps should be; constructed lightweight, easy to assemble, able to withstand harsh Greenlandic climate, transported to site by helicopter or snow mobile (requiring high‐tech design). By selecting the “Ice‐Camp 2008” project, collaboration between DTU and TUM was started.
1.2 Study trip to Greenland During three weeks of August the project group together with DTU, TUM and ARTEK (Arctic Technology Centre) visited Greenland. Throughout the study trip the project group stayed in Kangerlussuauq and Sisimiut; two important towns regarding tourism. The study trip to Greenland can be seen as an opening phase of the project. The objective of the trip was to collect useful empirical data and information, observe the Greenlandic conditions and interview important actors. In particular interviewing locals and persons working at the municipality resulted in useful information and knowledge of great value. Throughout the trip various alternative locations for putting up tourist huts were discussed (in contradistinction to the initial locations Ilulissat and Uummannaq). In light of the various interviews the actual need was outlined; more tourist huts in the area around Sisimiut. Thus, a great part of the study trip was used for visiting possible locations.
Picture 1: Possible locations outside Sisimiut
Based on the “Ice‐Camp 2008“ project and the knowledge gathered throughout the trip to Greenland, the project was formed.
2
PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY DTU JAN 2009 BRIAN HURUP‐FELBY, JONAS VENDEL JENSEN, THOMAS MONDRUP
1.3 Realistic project working Compared to traditional school projects, the study trip to Greenland introduced a more realistic aspect to the project. Traditionally, prerequisites often are set on the basis of “made‐up” problems and theoretical requirements. In light of the study trip this project includes realistic and actual needs. By introducing a realistic aspect other subjects are influenced, inducing different questions and various discussions on the topic of: • • • •
Educational level versus realistic level (overall project discussions) Traditional building performance criteria (referring to Danish and European standards) versus actual requirements (e.g. no performance criteria regarding tourist huts) Requirements put up within the initial school project description versus actual customer requirements Challenging high‐tech design versus more realistic and traditional design (economical issues and degree of usability)
That is, opposite more traditional school assignments, the project is formed by implementing realistic and actual needs and requirements.
1.4 Overall progress Based on the different parts of the assignment, the working progress is divided into various phases; the initial design task formed by TUM, the study trip to Greenland and the realistic project working part. As a result, the project work has been focusing on going back and forth between the different phases, synchronising the different parts. Consequently, the project is developed on a holistic and integrated understanding of the subject.
3
PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY DTU JAN 2009 BRIAN HURUP‐FELBY, JONAS VENDEL JENSEN, THOMAS MONDRUP
2.0 Methodology The methodology is formed on the basis of the four parts; “design manual”, “problem space”, “solution space” and “design proposal”. The four pars make up the overall procedure and working progress (see figure below).
Figure 1: Working progress
4
PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY DTU JAN 2009 BRIAN HURUP‐FELBY, JONAS VENDEL JENSEN, THOMAS MONDRUP
2.1 Design manual The design manual takes it background on how to design buildings in Greenland. Based on an exposition of various information and appurtenant discussions the manual is defined. The design manual shall be used as a prequel to the start design, a guideline that points out options and possible solutions on the subject of selected items. The manual is a work in progress that becomes more specific when a given “problem” is presented.
2.2 Problem space Based on the trip to Greenland and items pointed out in the design manual the problem space is defined. That is, costumer requirements, local interests, functional requests, building performance criteria, indoor environment criteria etc. The objective is to describe the fundamental basis, the design task, through which the actual project is formed. In other words, the problem space defines the terms for achieving the “goal”.
2.3 Solution space The solution space is made up of a number of different design criteria. The criteria are formed on the basis of overall energy reflections, relevant discussions and additional computer simulations (iDbuild, IESVE and Heat2). The objective is to create an initial overview of various important performance‐ decisive parameters, which can be used as guiding principles in an early stage of the design process.
2.4 Design proposal The design proposal part features a collection of typologies, possible design proposals, all developed by means of important factors outlined in the design manual and criteria listed up in the problem space and solution space. Thus, the typologies are developed on the basis of an integrated approach, in which items such as climatic conditions, functional needs and essential energy aspects are included as a part of the overall design process. Finally, the typologies are evaluated. The objective is to produce a “catalogue” of ideas and various typologies.
5