Architectural Technology

Technology Jake Joseph Richardson

2

SITE MAP

PLANS

Using the site to form the base of the mass

Creating three vertical elements which interact with the church, castle and monument giving the mass a different perspective

Angling the vertical elements to provide light to exisiting facades

Creating a new public link through connection to upper level

Forming a relationshiop between the towers

ARCHITECTURAL.TECHNOLOGY

JJR

Engaging mass with street elevation

01

3

PLATFORM DIAGRAM

MODEL MAKING Through a site responsive massing process I was able to create a design which worked with the complex geometries of Richmond. From this mass I then used the monumental elements of Richmond, for example, the Castle to set a series of level parameters enabling the best views. In addition the immediate site constraints were taken in to consideration to decided where the openings were placed in order to respect the adjacent buildings.

ARCHITECTURAL.TECHNOLOGY

JJR

4

CONSTRUCTION DETAIL 1. Full bricks 102.5m deep Flemish bond 100mm joints 2.Wall ties at 450mm vertical centres 3.170mm Insulation 4. Motar 5. DPC 6. 300mm horizontal bracket 7. Waterproof Membrane 8.Recessed brick in header of Flemish bond 77.5mm deep 10mm joints 9. 240mm cast in situ concrete

The faรงade of the building aims to tell a story of what is happening inside. The floor plans are indicated by a change in brick dimensions, while the openings give an indication for what is occurring within.

ARCHITECTURAL.TECHNOLOGY

JJR

5

MATERIALITY EXPERIMENTS The material application of the proposal intends to continue the rich history of brick construction in Richmond. However, unlike the bricks used in the area, the unique use of cob and concrete is employed here to form cobcrete.

After extensive experiments of different mixes, I was able to achieve a wide variety of colours. The use of cob links back to a lost historical use of the material, while in terms of application, the design intends to allow the users to interact with the construction through a different form of brick openings.

01

These have practical applications in addition to the atmospheric qualities which allow exhibitions to be presented on them while allowing light into the structure.

02

03

ARCHITECTURAL.TECHNOLOGY

JJR

6

Reduction at Source: Questioning the brief

these forms means these critical relationships are lost. Furthermore, I do feel a balance would need to be made between the use of special bricks in juxtaposition

The open nature of the brief gave me the opportunity to evaluate the actual requirements of

with the inclusion of standard bricks. What becomes difficult is finding the balance

the scheme, I was able to consider what was actually required. The only prerequisites were

of preserving the value/ideology of the construction and the fulfillment of the need

that the accommodation should provide storage for a time capsule and a room in which

for a sustainable build.

the archivist could work. Therefore the scheme does not need to be a public building, Personal Enviromental Social

more a public space which does not require second fittings. However, it must include an environmentally controlled room for the archivist. This questioning of the brief allowed me to reduce the size of the scheme to its essential accommodation schedule. This meant the internal fittings could be reduced to a minimum, whilst enhancing the value in the materials used as they become more exposed in the construction. Consequently this

The value of the use of cob can be seen in the Meadow Orchard Project3 which

resulted in the spaces created in the building becoming more flexible and adaptable, should

engaged the wider community to connect with the space and with the low the impact

this be required in the future.

natural recycled material, whilst targeting specific community users including those with special needs (referrals). A consequence of the ease of construction with

Figure 1 - LSE Doing more with less: Standardisation, Modularization and Lean Construction

cob bricks is that it enables engagement of the community in the build, while also facilitating the design ideologies of capturing time in Richmond. Each brick will

Figure 2

Due to the complex nature of the building a wide range of brick sizes and forms will be

have its own identity/memory to the town through the many participants who will

used in the construction. The key building precedent used for the construction was the

have been involved in the construction. However, an argument can be made for the

London School Economics (LSE) student centre (Figure 1). “The bold red brick tower is

construction of a rammed earth wall rather than the use of brick forms; this can

made of not just any brick there are 46 standard shape bricks, 127 special bricks out of a

be seen in the Cobturn House (Figure 3). This again comes down to the value in

total of 175,000.”1 Much like the LSE, my design will require the production of special

keeping the history of brick construction in Richmond, whilst adding this new brick

bricks to fabricate the complex sloping façade, angles and planes (Figure 2). Through

to the growing amalgamation of “Earthy reds, Yellows and browns [which] are the

further development the design could be adapted so the three towers have the same slope

colours of clay”4

and angle. This would result in standardization by lowering the number of special bricks and utilizing more of standard bricks, thus achieving greater economies of scale. “The use of standard components and modular construction reduces the need for modification and, hence, waste”2 however through the pursuit of this reduction in the complex geometries of the design, I feel the building would lose its intrinsic value. The nature of the building is its form and its connection with Richmond which is created through these angles and limiting Figure 3 - Cobtun house ARCHITECTURAL.TECHNOLOGY

JJR

1 london school of economics saw swee hock student centre.” RIBA. Web. 2 Jan. 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.architecture.com%2FStirlingPrize%2FAwards2014%2FLondon%2FLondonSchoolofEconomicsSawSweeHockStudentCentre.aspx>.

2 Edwards, Brian. “Waste.” Rough Guide to Sustainability: A Design Primer. 3rd ed.

London: RIBA, 2010

Figure 4 - Meadow Orchard 3 “Meadow Orchard.” Cob in the Community. Web. 6 Jan. 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cobinthecommunity.org%2F%3Fportfolio%3Dgallery-with-descriptions>.

4 Heeney, Gwen. Brickworks. London: & C Black, 2003. p. 16.

7

Building, Components and Material Reuse

construction the site is an unused car park. As a result, this intervention it is turning what was a derelict part of Richmond in to an area the community can use.

Once deconstructed, the cobcrete bricks could be used in wider community projects engaging local schools in mini schemes to build structures. The addition of extra cob will

Design for Future Adaptation

be needed to bond the bricks, but this would give the building a further life after its initial use. “redefining waste as ‘an object that no longer has any beneficial use’, the objective would

“Small repairs simply require filling with freshly made cob. However, when repairing

be to keep reusing it until it was of no value – rather than discard it after it had been used

larger areas, there is always the risk that the new cob will fall off the building before

once”.5 An excellent example of this can be seen in the Robin Hood Community Garden –

the area has dried. For that reason, larger repairs are best carried out using pre-made

cob oven, where the residents used cob to create an oven for community use. This not only

cob bricks, as they increase the stability of the repair.”8 However, as a result of the

uses the recycled building materials but it also adds value by engaging the community.

cobcrete bricks not being the primary structure, repair could be achieved easily. As a result of questioning the brief from the start, I designed the building around a series

Design for Deconstruction Figure 5 - Robin Hood Community Garden – Cob oven

of spaces which could be adapted. This means the building can be easily modified as rooms’ functions can change in keeping with future circumstances.

The main environmental benefit from cob comes from the fact “cob is biodegradable, abandon cob walls and they will become incorporated back into nature without a trace

Instead of the use of Kingspan insulation, the building will utilize sheep’s wool which

very quickly.”6 Issues arise with the addition of cement to form the cobcrete mixture, but

otherwise would be wasted; Figure 7 shows the environmental benefits of this. As

the bricks could be made without this addition as they do not form the primary structure,

after its use it can be recycled and re-introduced in to the eco system without harm.

whereas the cast in situ concrete does. This leads to the bricks being fully biodegradable.

This also could have economic value with the wool locally sourced, while reducing material transport costs.

Further experiments can be carried out adding different recycled construction binders e.g. sawdust, whereby the same variation of colour could be achieved as were produced with the use of cement. This would preserve the value in the rich variety of bricks, whilst enabling Figure 6 - Robin Hood Community Garden – Cob oven

Enviromental Social Personal

the facade to be deconstructed and disposed of in an eco- friendly manner. The cast in situ concrete structure would be recycled and used as an aggregate in future construction;

There many reasons for the choice of the materials used, not only in there sustainable

recycled aggregate accounts for 6% to 8% of that used in Europe7. An alternative primary

benefits but in the value they add to the building. The idea behind the scheme centres

structure which could be investigated is the use of a steel frame, as in the LSE; this would

around evoking memory, the use of wool and the binders in the cob will achieve this

be easier to deconstruct from the site. However this would lose the value of the building’s

as the user travels through the building. This is in addition to the fact that the use of

openings, where the thick thresholds in window openings allow the user to interact

such materials means the building will be capable of deconstruction.

differently with the building. The choice of the site itself is worth noting, as prior to

Figure 7 - Simple illustarion of the life cycle of Sheep wool Insulation

5 “Managing Your Waste.” Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (n.d.): 3. NSCC. NSCC Ltd 2007.

Web. 26 Jan. 2015 6 “Cob Building.” Info Training Products Services. Web. 14 Jan. 2015. <http://www. lowimpact.org/lowimpact-topic/cob-building/>.

7 UEPG 2006 statistics published 2008 have a figure of 6%. QPA (October 2007) has higher figures and gives 2006 stats as 8% European average and 26% in GB

8 “Use, performance and risk.” Cellulose-based Building Materials. NHBC Foundation, n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2015. <http://www.nhbcfoundation.org/LinkClick. aspx?fileticket=NIZv2HcXI7I%3D&tabid=153&portalid=0&mid=939>.

ARCHITECTURAL.TECHNOLOGY

JJR

8

Material recycling

“Cob has very low embodied energy, is non-toxic, and can be recycled”9 Using straw has many benefits

Personal Enviromental Social Economic

“The mixing of straw with clay to form cob bricks is a classic way of enhancing the engineering properties of the clay to form low environmental impact dwellings. Straw has little use as it is mainly

To appreciate the value of the use of cobcrete in brick form we must understand

cellulose and farmers use it as bedding materials for their animals.”10 (Figure 10) So not only does the

the value of a brick. The Oxford English Dictionary describes a person who is a

cob benefit from the added strength but it also uses a material which otherwise has little use.

“brick” as “a good fellow, one whom one approves for his genuine good qualities.”13 What if there was a building material with the same qualities? Indeed, Alberti

Figure 8 - Mix A

The timber shuttering for the concrete frame once used will be recycled and reemployed to construct

called brick “practical, graceful, solid and reliable.”14 Not only does brick have

the furniture inside the building. This in itself will mean using a material which would have otherwise

these characteristics, but it is common and has always been so, thus making it the

have been wasted. In addition it will add to the value and idea behind the design in which a piece of the

“ubiquitous brick,”15 “the most ancient of all artificial building materials.”16 It

building’s history will enhance the internal experiencing. Therefore as such the building envelope acts as

is its historical connections of reliability and strength which gives the modelling

a time capsule in addition to the artefacts which have been deliberately presented.

of the cob its value. As a result of clay being found in abundance in many parts of the world, this material is the very definition of “local.”17 Today, most brick

Figure 9 - Mix B

Materials’ Reclamation

manufacturing plants are located near surface deposits of clay and the final product is transported, usually no more than 200 miles.18 In Richmond the use of local clays

“Reclaimed materials and products can easily be incorporated into the design as cob can be molded

gives the building identity going back to the age old values of locating a brick to its

around them.”11 During early design development I experimented by putting wood shavings and

source from its colour. “Around a third of the world’s land mass contains soil suitable

sawdust instead of straw in the cobcrete mixture (Figure 6 & 7) This resulted in different colours being

for cob building”19, which means that the material can usually be found on or near

achieved, due to the increased moisture content. The building achieves a greater sustainability factor, not

to the building site, thus the costs and emissions associated with the processing and

only through the processes of reclaiming construction waste, but value is added in the extensive variety

transport of bulk materials is reduced or eliminated.

of brick colours, further contributing to the building’s integration into Richmond. It can be argued that reclaimed bricks could be used to replace the use of standard bricks in the design and then the use of cobcrete for the “special bricks.” This would not only add value in the use of local reclaimed bricks representing the past, but also reduce the material consumption use in the construction. However “the recovery process for bricks is labour intensive and relies on the use of lime mortar. Currently, projects tend to utilise cement based mortars which are often stronger than the bricks, making it difficult to separate bricks without damage.”12

Figure 10 - Cobcrete Mix ARCHITECTURAL.TECHNOLOGY

JJR

9 “Cob Building.” Info Training Products Services. Web. 14 Jan. 2015. <http://www.lowimpact.org/ lowimpact-topic/cob-building/>.

10 Richardson, Alan, Reuse of Materials and Byproducts in Construction: Waste Minimization and Recycling. London: Springer, 2013. 2 11 “Cob Building.” Info Training Products Services. Web. 14 Jan. 2015. <http://www.lowimpact.org/ lowimpact-topic/cob-building/>.

12 Reducing Material Demand, UK Indemand. Web. 21 Dec. 2014. <http://www.ukindemand.ac.uk/ sites/default/files/Reducing-Material-Demand-in-Construction.pdf>. P. 12

13 Simpson, J. A., and E. S. C. Weiner. The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989. p. 5.

14 Alberti, Leon Battista. On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1988. p. 10.

15 Yglesias, Caren. The Innovative Use of Materials in Architecture and Landscape Architecture: History, Theory and Performance. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc, 2014. p. 49.

16 Brady, George S., and Henry R. Clauser. Materials Handbook: An Encyclopedia for Managers, Technical Professionals, Purchasing and Production Managers, Technicians, Supervisors, and Foremen. New York: McGraw Hill, 1991. p.

138.

17 Yglesias, Caren. The Innovative Use of Materials in Architecture and Landscape Architecture: History, Theory and Performance. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc, 2014. p. 49.

18 Calkins, Meg. Materials for Sustainable Sites: A Complete Guide to the Evaluation, Selection, and Use of Sustainable Construction Materials. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. p. 184.

19 “Cob Building.” Info Training Products Services. Web. 14 Jan. 2015. <http:// www.lowimpact.org/lowimpact-topic/cob-building/>.

9

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Figure 1 - London School Economics (LSE) student centre, Web. 7 Jan.

Architecture: History, Theory and Performance. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland

“Managing Your Waste.” Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (n.d.): 3. NSCC.

2015. <http://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/Assets/Images/London/

& Company, Inc, 2014.

NSCC Ltd 2007. Web. 26 Jan. 2015

tre,LondonSchoolofEconomics,ODonnellTuomeyArchitects/LSE10Dennis-

Alberti, Leon Battista. On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Cambridge, MA: MIT,

McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle:

Gilbert_6510.jpg>.

1988.

Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point, 2002.

Figure 2 - Author

Bee, Becky. The Cob Builders Handbook: You Can Hand-sculpt Your Own Home. Mur- Richardson, Alan. Reuse of Materials and Byproducts in

RegionalAwards2014/EducationandCommunity/SawSweeHockStudentCen-

phy, OR: Groundworks, 1997

2013. 2

Figure 3 - Cobturn House, Web. 22 Jan. 2015. <http://c1038.r38.cf3.rackcdn. com/group4/building38543/media/4d7f40511a7d98.64970237.jpg>.

Construction: Waste Minimization and Recycling. London: Springer,

Brady, George S., and Henry R. Clauser. Materials Handbook: An Encyclopedia for Managers, Technical Professionals, Purchasing and Production Managers, Technicians, Reducing Material Demand (n.d.): n. pag. UK Indemand. Web.

Figure 4 - Meadow Orchard, Web. 12 Jan. 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.

Supervisors, and Foremen. New York: McGraw Hill, 1991.

21 Dec. 2014. <http://www.ukindemand.ac.uk/sites/default/files/ Reducing-Material-Demand-in-Construction.pdf>.

cobinthecommunity.org%2F%3Fpage_id%3D229%23>.

Calkins, Meg. Materials for Sustainable Sites: A Complete Guide to the Evaluation, Figure 5 - Robin Hood Community Garden – Cob oven, Web. 12 Jan.

Selection, and Use of Sustainable Construction Materials. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009.

Oxford: Clarendon, 1989.

2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cobinthecommunity.org%2F%3Fpage_ id%3D229%23>.

Simpson, J. A., and E. S. C. Weiner. The Oxford English Dictionary.

“Cob Building.” Info Training Products Services. Web. 14 Jan. 2015. <http://www. lowimpact.org/lowimpact-topic/cob-building/>.

“Use, performance and risk.” Cellulose-based Building Materials.

NHBC Foundation, n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2015. <http://www.nhbcfounda-

Figure 6 - Robin Hood Community Garden – Cob oven, Web. 12 Jan. 2015. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cobinthecommunity.org%2F%3Fpage_

Deplazes, Andrea. Constructing Architecture: Materials, Processes, Structures, a

tion.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=NIZv2HcXI7I%3D&tabid=153&-

id%3D229%23>.

Handbook. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2005.

portalid=0&mid=939>.

Figure 7 - Life cycle of Sheep wool Insulation, Web. 9 Jan. 2015. <http://www.

Edwards, Brian. “Waste.” Rough Guide to Sustainability: A Design Primer. 3rd ed.

sheepwoolinsulation.ie/images/whywool_lifecycle.jpg>.

London: RIBA, 2010

Yglesias, Caren. The Innovative Use of Materials in Architecture and Landscape Architecture: History, Theory and Performance. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc, 2014.

Figure 8 - Author

Heeney, Gwen. Brickworks. London: & C Black, 2003

Figure 9 - Author

Lyons, Arthur. Materials for Architects and Builders. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth- Yglesias, Caren. The Innovative Use of Materials in Architecture and Heinemann, 2004.

Figure 10 - Author

Landscape

ARCHITECTURAL.TECHNOLOGY

JJR

Bibliography

120111066