Clemson SoA Comprehensive Studio 2020 | Part 01

I-HOUSE

EQUINOX MILL

APPLETON MILL

HOUSING + TECHNOLOGY + ENERGY as Strategies to Rethink Housing in Anderson

Graduate Comprehensive Studio | Clemson University School of Architecture | Spring 2020

ANDERSON MILL

PART 01

“Imagine a stronger, safer, life-giving community where everyone feels valuable and loved. Sadly, this isn’t the reality for our friends in Anderson’s transient population, and for the residents of Anderson’s low-income neighborhoods who are plagued with challenges like adequate affordable housing, transportation, access to healthy whole foods, basic needs like clothing & shoes, and health care. The LOT Project is here to help, and we invite you to come along with us as we love, pursue, and support those in the greatest levels of need. We invite you to explore new and creative solutions for our city’s toughest issues.”

-The LOT Project (2020)

The Anderson County Council has made plain its commitment to do all within their power to improve or remove old mill sites within the County. However, they have had limited guidance on what actually constitutes a sustainable form of development in these blighted areas. Some explanations of the objectives of such a “sustainable development” are: Meet the economic and social needs of people who live and work in these areas; Maintain or enhance the character of the neighborhood, and conserve its natural resources; Improve the viability of existing commercial areas.”

-From the Five Anderson Mills Report by Anderson County Planning Services (2002)

i

ii

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

PROJECT BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................v HOUSING, TECHNOLOGY, + ENERGY...........................................................................................................................vi I-HOUSE: Three Projects in One..................................................................................................................................vii URBAN STRATEGIES.................................................................................................................................................viii PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................................................ix SITE CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................................................................x SUPER TEAM 01........................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT 01 Andrea + Pancho...............................................................................................................................2-11 PROJECT 02 Ryan + Dom....................................................................................................................................12-21 PROJECT 03 Sophia + Lea....................................................................................................................................22-31 SUPER TEAM 02......................................................................................................................................................32 PROJECT 04 Audrey + Taylor................................................................................................................................33-42 PROJECT 05 Cole + Miguel...................................................................................................................................43-52 PROJECT 06 Kelly + Josh......................................................................................................................................53-62 SUPER TEAM 03......................................................................................................................................................63 PROJECT 07 Gray + Mason...................................................................................................................................64-73 PROJECT 08 Arthur + Charlotte.............................................................................................................................74-83 PROJECT 09 Richard + Cameron..........................................................................................................................84-93 SUPER TEAM 04......................................................................................................................................................94 PROJECT 10 Kari + Seth......................................................................................................................................95-104 PROJECT 11 Chari + John.................................................................................................................................105-114 PROJECT 12 Aaron + Sal...................................................................................................................................115-124 SUPER TEAM 05......................................................................................................................................................125 PROJECT 13 Chloe + Hawraa............................................................................................................................126-135 PROJECT 14 Megan + Phil................................................................................................................................136-145 PROJECT 15 Libby + Roberto............................................................................................................................146-155

iv

PROJECT BACKGROUND Between a Mill Town + a High-Tech Factory The History of the industrial development in the Upstate of South Carolina gives us a unique perspective for understanding also its cultural, social, and even, to an extent, its architectural roots. But it also helps us imagine how a new economic renaissance built around new technologies and clean energy could help solve the great social challenges (income inequality, severe rent burden, homelessness, …) that our region is currently undergoing. This studio will be a platform to produce comprehensively developed architectural designs that take into account the complexity of that vision, and the multiple scales it encompasses.

During the second half of the 19th Century the Upstate witnessed a great economic growth thanks to the proliferation of textile mill communities mostly in riverside sites. The mills were usually built in partially isolated locations, which often made necessary the creation of small new towns ex-novo, with their own housing, stores and other community programs, in order to attract mill workers from other regions of the South. As a result, and mostly throughout the first decades of the 20th century, these small new towns turned into vigorous communities, where v

the work in the mill was transmitted form father to sons, and a strong sense of collectivity defined a very particular lifestyle.

Decades later, not long after the decay of the local textile industry due mostly to technological changes and massive overseas relocations, the Upstate started to witness the growth of very different industries. First the French tire company Michelin in 1973 and later the German car manufacturer BMW in 1994, planted the seed of an international scale industrial development based in highly advanced technologies and the production of increasingly sophisticated products. A local company like the Spartanburg based Milliken embodies this transformation like no other. The company literally transitioned from owning dozens of textile mills during the 1920’s into global-scale chemical operation housed in facilities across the Upstate and beyond. Naturally, the impact of these newer industries in the built environment and the social tissue of the Upstate differs greatly from that of the textile mills. Looking for a better connectivity, most of their factories were placed in suburban locations along Interstate 85, so their local social impact in the region hardly goes beyond the technical jobs they provide.

HOUSING, TECHNOLOGY, + ENERGY The overarching objective of this Comprehensive Studio will be to design new forms of sustainable and socially positive industrial architecture, as alternative to the two industrial forms that have characterized the history of the Upstate: the mill town and the automotive manufacturer. Instead of cotton fabric or cars, we will focus on a radically different line of production that responds to the social needs of the Upstate.

The main objective of the project will be the design of the structures, spaces and processes to support the production of affordable housing using three former mill sites, and responding to the industrial traditions of the Upstate. From the old mill town, we will claim its community-based spatial organization, the way it combined different programs into a whole urban structure; but we will avoid its lack of integration with other towns and its inclination to isolate the workers and their families from the exterior world. From the new automotive industries, we will claim their drive towards innovation and the integration of research and education within their processes, as well as the use of advanced technologies. But we will

definitely pursue final products that stand in contrast to the car, whose environmental implications are obviously negative.

The three mill sites, located in the Anderson SC, will provide three programmatic components of the process, but also three great thematic areas essential for the wider discussion: HOUSING, TECHNOLOGY and ENERGY. These three themes will materialize as three distinct architectural projects each of them occupying one of the three existing mill sites located along the railway tracks on the west side of Downtown Anderson. Historically, these sites were home to ANDERSON MILL, APPLETON MILL and EQUINOX MILL. While the main program in each of the three projects will be flexible production space, all of them will integrate other programmatic elements of EDUCATION, COMMUNITY and FOOD. In that way the three projects will function as social and economic activators of the upstate, as lab / innovation spaces operated by local technical colleges, as accessible common areas for the use of community-based groups and non-profits, and as food hubs where neighbors can access healthy local food.

vi

I-HOUSE: Three Projects in One The following thematic areas will define the projects’ program and will also be the categories that articulate the discussion within the studio: 1. DWELLING [Sim-ply] The Housing Project will contain the facilities necessary for the production and final assembly of housing units using the Sim-ply system of flexible, affordable and sustainable construction. It will also include the educational and community-based support to implement the strategies for local affordable housing.

2. TECHNOLOGY [Production] The Technology Project will contain production spaces necessary for manufacturing the machinery needed in the housing component. It will also include labs and classroom as part of a local community college structure, working as a bridge between education and actual production.

3. SUSTAINABLE ENERGY The Energy Project will contain production spaces necessary for the development and manufacture of clean energy technologies, with residential applications. It may also be, in itself, the source of clean, renewable energy for the whole vii

complex, as well as for the residential neighborhood in between the three mill sites. It will also include spaces for both academic research, and for education of the general population on energy efficiency. It will integrate the type of energy infrastructure that usually is inaccessible and detached from the public realm into a wider urban structure.

Therefore, the I-HOUSE Complex is composed of three projects. Student teams of two will each take on the design and development of one of these three projects. Additionally, each student pair will also combine into a larger team of six students that will together develop the spatial and programmatic relationship(s) shared among the three projects, as well as the conceptual identity of the overall complex. The integration of the multiple scales, especially in terms of programmatic symbiosis among the three projects, becomes essential to this project.

URBAN STRATEGIES: Social Integration vs Gentrification Designing and understanding a community as a whole, without leaving out any of its essential moving parts—its economy, its people, its culture,…—, has proven to be one of the most challenging exercises for architects and planners since the inception of the modern city. If anything, the outcome of the largest processes of modern urban growth in American towns has been the alienation of their citizens’ private and collective life. In a way, we are still recovering from the tragic dissolution of innumerable downtowns that took place during the suburbanization of the mid 20th century across America. From that perspective, and although they were not at all free of social complications, Southern textile mill towns constitute a happy exception. In them, the spaces of work, housing and leisure were entangled into an integrated community where most of the workers could walk to their mill-owned rental homes, buy in the company store or share recreational time at the local YMCA. Unfortunately, during the last few decades of the 20th century, most of the numerous textile mills of the South Carolina Upstate faded or closed, turning off the economic heart of communities that never recovered completely. As in many other urban contexts, most of the economic alternatives currently conceived to

reactivate textile mill towns are based on tourist activities or higher-end housing developments, which naturally entail the displacement of lower income families from what had been working-class neighborhoods. Although from design disciplines like architecture we cannot fully respond to the economic implications for these communities, we certainly are able to imagine spatial, social and material visions with the potential to unlock these scenarios.

The design of the connective elements between the three projects will be essential to induce the important social integration between the productive and educational spaces and the existing residential neighborhood, referred to as the “Alphabet Blocks.” Much of that neighborhood was built for the original mill workers, and is currently occupied mostly by low-income families. However, due to the proximity to the vibrant downtown, a probable consequence of building new and attractive facilities is the escalation in the rental values of the houses and the consequent displacement of their current occupants. The design of the different programs, public spaces and pedestrian connections between the three projects should aim at avoiding, or at least moderating the effects of such gentrification processes. viii

PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS Each design team will have the chance to craft a program based on precedent research, site visits, and conversations with knowledgeable parties. Each team will likewise consider the functional and technical requirements associated with its programming choices. This will include informed responses to topics such as the relationship between public accessibility and security of the production spaces (visibility of the production, degree of openness, security, etc.), as well as acoustics, daylighting, spatial boundaries, flexibility / adaptability, and others. Whether in programming, or site design, or otherwise, you are encouraged to treat any of these constraints as generative forces for the project. The approximate square footage of the overall complex should be 150,000 square feet, which can be divided equally among the three components or redistributed. Much of the programming will intentionally be left to the judgment of each design team and to the specific thematic area (Housing, Technology and Energy) of the project. However, there are certain basic components that will be in all of them:

ix

-25,000 (approx.) square feet of high bay space.

-10 offices -4 classrooms -Prototyping/ Pneumatic lab -Business Incubator -Food Hub (public) -Community and Collaborative Spaces (public) -Multipurpose room (public) -Executive conference room (public)

SITE CONSIDERATIONS: Downtown Anderson + the Mills The City of Anderson has a population of around 28,000 and is the county seat of Anderson County in northwest South Carolina1. Like much of the upstate, Anderson was built on a textile economy, surrounded by cotton and dotted with mills and contingent mill villages. Known as the “electric city”, Anderson was one of the first cities in the southeast to electrify, and was the first in the world to boast an all-electric cotton gin. However, as the industrial economy expanded in the 20th century, ownership of the textile mills shifted from local families to out-of-state, and sometimes foreign, companies.2 On this topic, historians Jennifer Revels and Mary Sherrer have stated: “In this process, the nature of the mill communities changed from having an often paternalistic relationship between the mill management and its workers, to employing more independent workers who often lived outside of the village and commuted, and whose children chose different occupations.

Mill companies eventually sold the houses to individual workers, instigating a change among the communities’ architecture, design and residents.”4 Noting later, mid-century developments, Revels and Sherrer go on to describe the effects of Interstate 85, which connected

Greenville/Spartanburg to Atlanta, and was completed in Anderson County in 1964.

“As a result, while many South Carolina counties lost population over the last forty years, Anderson County’s population steadily increased from 98,478 persons in1960 to 165,740 persons in 2000. While the county has increased in population, the city of Anderson gradually decreased in population from 27,556 people in 1980 to 25,514 in 2000. Although the city annexed several neighborhoods to the north in the 1960s, briefly increasing its population, recent development has occurred outside the city limits towards Interstate 85. In addition, mill closings within and immediately beyond the city limits have contributed to a decreasing city population.”4 Although Anderson county’s population and economy has kept growing during the last decade, downtown Anderson remains mostly underutilized, although it shows signs of reactivation and attention from city officials. The three separate projects, as well the I-House complex as a whole should be designed to take into account their proximity to downtown, solving the points of connection and the visual references from and towards Main street. x

STUDENT WORK

EQUINOX MILL PRODUCTION + ASSEMBLY

ANDREA BALANDRAN

+ FRANCISCO ZAMBRANO

APPLETON MILL DWELLING

DOMINIC BECKER

+

RYAN MASSENGILL

ANDERSON MILL RECYCLING

LEA COUNDOUSSIAS 1

+

SOPHIA DELGADO

SUPER TEAM 01

2

ANDREA BALANDRAN FRANCISCO ZAMBRANO PROJECT 1 | FOLDING INTO EQUINOX There is a lack of understanding of the available assets that have gone unnoticed in the Anderson community. Resources such as real estate, the centrally located mill sites of Appleton, Anderson, and Equinox, local talent an example is the local artist that painted the worthy mural on the lot project, to material resources, such as metals, plastics, and timber. By facilitating the engagement of residents and neighboring communities in production methods, we aim to create an integrated and captivating environment for production where these new methods can be expanded and adapted into other communities.

Historically, fabrication facilities were a part of the community because the majority of the residents worked for them. As time progressed, this no longer became the case and the facilities began boarding up their windows, restricting access, and separating themselves from the communities, creating lasting voids in the local fabric. The Equinox Mill is no different; not being able to adapt to the changing times further dividing an already marginalized community.

Railroad tracks along the north of the site as well as a steep grade change create a physical disconnect between the communities and resources. To solve this, we propose to embed the main production program which serves as a bridge between the north and south parts of the site. By mixing in community programming with the production spaces, further involvement is encouraged by those approaching and using the site. Lastly, the roofs fold in response to the program below to create a visual expression of what each space contains underneath.

SITE PLAN 3

SITE AXON 4

NORTH FACING ELEVATION

39

GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 5

15

LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 19

LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 17

6

TYP. CONC. ROOF: WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE OVER 3" RIGID INSULATION OVER 6" CONCRETE.

TYP. RAKE DETAIL: ANODIZED ALUMINUM COPING, EXTEND PAST RIGID INSULATION. BRING WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE DOWN PAST RIGID INSULATION. TYP. EXTR WALL CONSTRUCTION: RECYCLED PLASTIC PANELS ATTACHED TO C-CLIPS.

ALUMINUM ANGLE

VAPOR BARRIER 3" RIGID INSULATION

FLASHING COPPING WOOD BLOCKING PLASTIC TILE BATT INSULATION

Z-GIRTS 6" CONCRETE

3" DEEP STRUCTURAL STEEL DECK, MECH. ATTACHED TO WELDED SCREWS ON W-BEAM

CLADDING CLIP RIGID INSULATION VAPOR BARRIER

0"

ALUMINUM FRAME HEADER STEEL FRAME BEYOND, PRIME & PAINT WHITE. SEE STRUCTURAL

ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALL BEYOND

ALUMINUM FRAME FLASHING COPPING

-15'-6"

PRIMARY BARRIER

DRAINAGE MATERIAL RETENTION ANGLE 3" GROWTH MAT

3" RIGID INSULATION

SEPARATION FABRIC DRAINAGE MATERIAL CAPILLARY FABRIC ROOT BARRIER PRIMARY BARRIER

6" CONCRETE 8" POLISHED & SEALED CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE W/ W.W. MESH

0'-0" T/ PRODUCTION LVL -2 STEEL FRAME BEYOND

-4'-6" T/ CONC. FOOTING

WALL SECTIONS

STEEL FRAME CONC. FOOTER BEYOND. SEE STRUCTURAL

0 1'

2'

4'

SITE SECTION 7

37

STRUCTURAL

D.B

TYP. GREEN ROOF CONST.: VEG. MAT OR PLUG PLANTS OVER SYSTEM SUBSTRATE OVER GEORASTER PROTECTION MAT OVER THERMOPLASTIC WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE OVER COVER-BOARD OVER 3" RIGID INSULATION

TYP ROOF COPPING DETAIL

D.A

D.01

T/ R O O F ± 4 8' - 3"

3" DEEP STRUCTURAL STEEL DECK, MECH. ATTACHED TO WELDED SCREWS ON W-BEAM

2 : 12

W 18 X 46 STEEL BEAM MECH. FASTEN TO RIGID STEEL FRAME W/ TACK WELDS

5/8", 4" ACOUSTIC PANEL ATTACHED FROM STEEL DECK SLOPE 1:12

C OMMUNIT Y ROOM TYP. CONC. SLAB 6" POLISHED & SEALED CONCRETE SLAB W/ W.W. MESH OVER 3" DEEP STRUCTURAL STEEL DECK, MECH. ATTACHED TO WELDED SCREWS ON WBEAM

METAL FLANGE MECH. FASTENED TO CURTAIN WALL. PAINT TO MATCH.

S T R E E T LV L 0 30 ' - 0 "

W STEEL BEAM MECH. FASTEN TO RIGID STEEL FRAME W/ TACK WELDS STEEL BEAM WELDED TO RIGID STEEL FRAME. PRIME AND PAINT WHITE SEE STRUCTURAL

RIGID STEEL FRAME, PRIME AND PAINT WHITE. SEE STRUCTURAL

CLASSROOM

D.02

P R O D U C T I O N LVL -1 15 ' - 0 " STEEL FIN MECH. FASTENED TO CONCRETE POUR STOP ANGLE AND STEEL FRAME.

5' LED DOWNWARD HANGING LIGHT FIXTURE. FASTENED FROM STEEL DECK.

5/8", 4" ACOUSTIC FELT BAFFLE SYSTEM ATTACHED FROM STEEL DECK @ 10" O.C. SLOPE FOR CLEARANCE FROM TILTING WINDOW.

ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALL W/ CENTER TILT WINDOWS

R&D LAB CONCRETE PAVERS OVER PERMEABLE SETTING BED AGGREGATE, OVER 1' PERMEABLE BASE AGGREGATE, OVER 6" SUBBASE AGGREGATE.

7'-6"

8" POLISHED & SEALED CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE W/ W.W. MESH.

1'-6" MIN.

P UB L IC S E R V IC E D RIV E

TO NORT H T R A NS IT H U B

F.F. P R O D U C T I O N LVL -2 0 ' -0 "

6" DIA. TRENCH DRAIN, DRAIN TO DAYLIGHT

VAPOR BARRIER OVER 3" RIGID INSULATION OVER 4" GRAVEL.

STEEL FRAME BEYOND

T/ C O N C . F O O T I N G -4 ' -6" STEEL FRAME CONC. FOOTER BEYOND. SEE STRUCTURAL

W A LL S EC T IO N D | B UIL D ING P HA S E 3 0"

1'

2'

4'

8

STRUCTURAL 9

MECHANICAL 10

11

12

DOMINIC BECKER RYAN MASSENGILL PROJECT 2 | DWELLING Our site is the former site of Appleton Mill, located within the Alphabet Streets community. What we have seen, across the country and the world - is that all too often, replacement leads to displacement. Through irresponsible and careless “revitalization” efforts, many urban developments are directly responsible for the displacement of established communities. Time and time again, we’ve seen low market prices attract money-motivated developers to build undistinguished and placeless residences and leased-retail spaces in the name of revitalization and beautification. But this market-driven force doesn’t concern itself with the humanitarian consequence. New residents and businesses simply displace the old. And to what end? It stands to reason that this relationship of replacement and displacement is cyclical - that these short-sighted profit-scheme developments, in part due to their ephemeral aesthetic, will themselves be replaced in the future in favor of the next zeitgeist of uninspired buildings.

We believe that our approach, with key emphasis on the morphological and financial investment in the existing community, can disrupt the cycle of replacement and displacement and be the ameliorative force needed to truly revitalize this neighborhood.

From the morphological perspective, our strategy focuses on utilizing the existing site conditions using three key aspects: topography, stormwater management, and vestigial building materials. Our design will make use of these conditions in a way that stands in recognition of what was, and with respect to the community of the past and present. From the financial perspective, this project envisions the implementation of community-focused services that will improve long-term employment prospects, provide meal service to those in need, offer education and technical training from childhood through adulthood, and in general, restore autonomy to the residents of this community.

13

14

B - Non-profit Office (100 sq. ft.)

1945 sq. ft.

A-2 - Dining Area (15 sq. ft.)

2354 sq. ft.

A-2 - Kitchen (200 sq. ft.)

2318 sq. ft.

S - Fan Room (300 sq. ft.)

322 sq. ft.

S - Electrical Closet (300 sq. ft.)

77 sq. ft.

B - Open Source Asset Lab (20 sq. ft.)

1390 sq. ft.

B - Classroom (20 sq. ft.)

816 sq. ft.

B - Vocational Training (20 sq. ft.)

730 sq. ft.

B F-1 - Applied Research Space (100 sq. ft.)

4374 sq. ft.

F-1 - Production Facility (100 sq. ft.)

28314 sq. ft.

A-3 - Lobby/ Community Hall (15 sq. ft.)

2800 sq. ft.

A-3 - Viewing Area (15 sq. ft.)

2552 sq. ft.

A

C

A-3 - Atrium/ Community Hall (15 sq. ft.)

3300 sq. ft.

A-3 - Collaborative Space (15 sq. ft.)

676 sq. ft.

E - Daycare (35 sq. ft.)

Op

en

to

be low

A-3 - Business Incubator (15 sq. ft.)

885 sq. ft.

1452 sq. ft.

D A-3 - Library (50 sq. ft.)

A-3 - Conference Room (300 sq. ft.)

1326 sq. ft.

1038 sq. ft.

E - Classroom (20

Atrium, open to below

sq. ft.)

892 sq. ft.

S - Mechanical (300 sq. ft.)

842 sq. ft.

S - Fan Room (300 sq. ft.)

980 sq. ft.

S - Transformer Vault (300 sq. ft.)

416 sq. ft.

S - Switchgear Room (300 sq. ft.)

600 sq. ft.

3

Second Floor 1/64” = 1’-0”

4

First Floor 1/64” = 1’-0”

FLOOR PLANS 15

PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION 16

17

18

Rooftop single-packaged units Production floor

K

K

L M

32’-0” typ.

20

3

Foundation Plan 1/32” = 1’-0”

3

32’-0” typ.

21

20

22

17’-2 1/2”

21

23

24 22

39’-8 1/2”

17’-2 1/2”

23 19

24

L M

N

N

O

O

9’-2” typ.

I J

32’-8”

H

I J

4’-11”

H

9’-2” typ.

F G

4’-11”

F G

32’-8”

9’-2” typ.

9’-2” typ.

Adult education workspace

VAV reheat system Food hub Daycare center/ Collaborative workspace

39’-8 1/2”

19

Foundation Plan 1/32” = 1’-0”

MECHANICAL

FACTORY + CLASSROOM Factory and Classroom Factory Load and Tracing Classroom Load Tracing

COMMUNITY HALL Community Hall Load Community Tracing Hall Load Tracing

STRUCTURAL 19

Skylight Framing

Aluminum Coping

Polycarbonate Glazing

Aluminum Mullion

Flashing

Aluminum Coping Flashing

Parapet

Moisture Barrier

Gypsum Interior Finish

Insulation

Fasteners

Cross Laminated Timber Decking

Aluminum Frame

Aluminum Soffit Moisture Barrier

Truss

Section Factory Skylight 1/2” = 1’-0”

Supply Duct

Sedum Green Roof

Cross Laminated Timber Decking

Aluminum Curbing

Flashing Aluminum Coping

Waterproof Membrane

Insulation

Mullion Continuous Insulation

Drop Ceiling

Glazing Beyond Exterior Wood Paneling Furring

Track Steel Stud

Moisture Barrier

18’

Continuous Insulation

Cavity Insulation

10’

Aluminum Coping

Gypsum Recycled Concrete

Recycled Concrete Track Steel Stud

Gabion Steel Mesh Cage

Gabion Steel Mesh Cage Cavity Insulation Glazing Beyond Gypsum

Supply Duct

Expansion Joint Expansion Joint Cap

Water Stop

Reused Slab

Crawl Space

Steel Rod Lateral Retaining Support

Footing Footing

C

Wall section West Factory Wall 1/2” = 1’-0”

D

Wall section Daycare Exterior 1/2” = 1’-0”

WALL ASSEMBLY DETAILS 20

21

Truss Fastened Connection Bearing On Truss

Suspension Joint

Cable Cross Laminated Timber Decking

Railing

Community Hall Suspended Floor Assembly

22

LEA COUNDOUSSIAS SOPHIA DELGADO PROJECT 3 | ANDERSON MILL RECYCLING + COMMUNITY CENTER During our site visit, project research and discussions with Andy, we saw how important it was to create a project that focused on responsible revitalization for the Anderson community. We believe a Recycling and Community Center can help form a creative economy where new skills can be taught and new job opportunities can be provided. Throughout our research, we discovered many stats on recycling in Anderson county. We identified current programs in place along with the most recycled products in the community. We saw recyclables as the primary underutilized resource that can inspire a creative economy. Our program aims to recycle materials not only from the community, but from the other project sites as well.

In order for our project to be successful for the Anderson community, we learned that our program should make it easier and more enjoyable to recycle; educate and show the community the benefits of recycling, teach new skills so individuals can reuse recyclables and make new products, and encourage the community to participate in a common goal. We believe this common goal will help re-establish long lasting relationships and the lost community fabric.

The Anderson Mill Site is the best location for a recycling and community center because it is located within a 1⁄2 mile from downtown Anderson. It is also next to the proposed Anderson Greenway bike trail that will pass through the west side of the site.

This location supports our premise of interweaving production and play by allowing the Recycling and Community center to be an anchor for the community where learning, working, playing, and recycling will occur collectively.

SITE PLAN 23

on the northern side of the site and are angled to preserve views of the smokestack from the central courtyard. Two other existing buildings also remain, which we propose to be a museum and a shell building for events.

B. There are also a variety of shared outdoor courtyards located beside each building. As a local eats in the courtyard outside of the Food Hub, they can also see what is being built in the makerspace.

LEA + SOPHIA C

B

C. Though our site is designed with separate buildings, a recycled plastic tile canopy will oat above the shared outdoor spaces providing shade and guiding users through our site. These wire mesh canopies feature recycled plastic tiles that can be made in the makerspace by community members.

D. The Central Courtyard provides a destination where all members of the community can gather while also seeing their recyclables being processed in the recycling center’s high bay space.

The food hub will provide fresh food and local produce to the neighboring community visitors. The Community Center is where you will nd additional assembly spaces for events and a computer lab for community members to use as needed. The Business Incubator includes ofce and meeting spaces where local businesses can collaborate with students on site. The two story education portion includes classrooms and meeting spaces. The recycling hub is where Residents can sort and drop off their recyclables just off of railroad circleCONCEPT road. DIAGRAMS After dropping off their recyclables, neighbors can grab coffee at the cafe while also seeing their recyclables being processed in the High Bay space.

LEA + SOPHIA

A

6

B

C

C

D

D

7

D

7

SITE AXON

8

24

7

LEA + SOPHIA

)RRG +XE VI 0DNHUVSDFH VI &RPPXQLW\ &HQWHU VI %XVLQHVV ,QFXEDWRU VI 5HF\FOLQJ &HQWHU VI (GXFDWLRQ VI &DIH VI

25

FLOOR PLAN

)RRG +XE VI 0DNHUVSDFH VI &RPPXQLW\ &HQWHU VI %XVLQHVV ,QFXEDWRU VI 5HF\FOLQJ &HQWHU VI (GXFDWLRQ VI &DIH VI

)RRG +XE VI 0DNHUVSDFH VI &RPPXQLW\ %XLOGLQJ VI %XVLQHVV ,QFXEDWRU VI 5HF\FOLQJ &HQWHU VI (GXFDWLRQ VI &DIH VI

11

FLOOR PLAN 26

and the central courtyard.

The High Bay Space is about 40’ high to accommodate large machinery. Acoustic absorption is provided with bafes at the roof joists and panels at the walls. These acoustic panels are made with recycled PET bottles.

Some of the passive and renewable energy strategies implemented in our project are cisterns, PV solar arrays, greenroofs, biomass incinerators, and passive ventilation. The energy provided by both the solar arrays and biomass incinerators will be enough energy to supply BUILDING SECTION 61 homes.

Since the High Bay Space requires the largest cooling load, we proposed supplementing the system with passive ventilation. Underground ventilation ducts will provide cool air through the storage, collection, and high bay spaces by pushing warm air through the stack effect up and out operable, clerestory windows.

BUILDING SECTION

14 SECTION PERSPECTIVE

27

our design aims to preserve the historic mill walls while also incorporating existing structure. In all spaces, a high emphasis on visibility is placed.

The most complex part of our structure is the wall bracing, which is used to support our own buildings and the existing mill walls. Currently, existing bracing is in place to support a portion of the mill wall. We have proposed extending the bracing along the mill wall, while also using it to support our structure and canopy system.

In this wall section, you begin to see the interaction between our structure and canopy system. The columns provide structure for the building, and then continue to provide a hanging support system for the mesh canopies. Concrete paving slabs on a pedestal system provide an occupiable roof, while the green roof system is utilized at the perimeter of the roof.

BUILDING SECTION

15

16

SECTION PERSPECTIVE

28

LEA + SOPHIA

MECHANICAL To touch on our mechanical resolution, we chose to use single packaged rooftop terminal units. This system was advantageous to us in that it provides both heating and cooling, is easy to install, conserves oor space, and allows us to have a continuous polycarbonate façade.

15

12

29

MECHANICAL 13

LEA + SOPHIA $BMDVMBUJOH PG 1FEFTUBMT WJTJU PVS XFCTJUF GPS BO BVUPNBUJD QSPEVDU DBMDVMBUPS

OFFEFE

.BUFSJBM 'VMMZ 3FDZDMBCMF )JHI %FOTJUZ $PQPMZNFS 1PMZ 1SPQZMFOF )%$11

5FNQ 3BOHF UP EFHSFFT GBSFOIFJU

8FJHIU $BQBDJUZ MCT QFS QFEFTUBM

4,:+"$, QFEFTUBMT DBO CF VTFE XJUI BOZ TJ[F PS TIIBQFE E NBUFSJBMMT JODMMVE EJOH E EFDLLJOH BOE DPODSFUF QBWFST 4JNQMZ SFNPWF TQBDFS UBCT BOE SF QPTJUJPO JO UIF IPMFT UIBU QSPWJEF BQQSPQSJBUF TQBDJOH

"UNPTQIFSJD $POEJUJPOT

OCCUPIABLE ROOF

DFBHBO!TLZEFDLVTB DPN XXX TLZEFDLVTB DPN SEDUM GREEN ROOF

STRUCTURAL

WALL SECTION 17

30

31

32