Collaborative Design/Build Praxis: Krunkle House and Abode Farm Cart A Divison III by Jennifer Cavanaugh
So many thanks to // Team Y, Ellen, Yestermorrow Staff, Moriah, Allen Lumber NECI nausea, Bill & Pig, impact drivers, laminated lumber, Bob, Naomi, Glenn, Sarah, Evan, Deleah, Juju, The Creativity Center, Pitches, Poorhouse, Jarvis Cocker’s Sunday Service, Jazz à la Mode, Mum and Dad
Table of Contents Part I: Krunkle House Design/Build.................9 Team Y...............................................................10 Introduction........................................................13 Site Studies........................................................16 Schematic Design.............................................27 Mid Semester Critique...................................... 32 Team Clerestory....................................... 34 Team Krunkle........................................... 44 Final Synthesis.................................................. 52 Material Studies................................................ 56 Construction Documents.................................. 60 Floor Framing.......................................... 63 Wall Framing............................................ 66 Roof Framing........................................... 70 Insulation Drawings................................. 74 Exterior Cladding.....................................78 Final Design/Build Moments............................. 80 Interior Studies..................................................86 Conclusion ........................................................91 Final Images..................................................... 92
Part II: Personal Narrative.............................101 Part III: Abode Farm Cart Design/Fabrication............................127 Introduction......................................................129 2D and 3D Studies...........................................133 Works Cited.....................................................138 Credits.............................................................139
Part I: Krunkle House Design/Build
9
Austin Anderson “Taco”
Mira Lieman-Sifry “DFA”
Anna Lucey “Boots”
Grace Bennet “Super B/Sunbeam”
José Galarza “Mario”
Ben Cheney “Pops”
team y 10
11
Introduction
Jennifer Cavanaugh “J-Raw”
team y 12
Brian Kennedy “Pink”
Ben Resnick “Tank”
The 2012 Yestermorrow Design/Build School Fall Semester in Sustainable Design/Build was composed of six students and three instructors. Out of our collective disciplines of architecture, woodworking, construction, design, engineering, environmental science, planning, agriculture, computer science, and economics, we collaboratively designed and built a 628 square foot guest home in Montpelier, VT over a four month period.
We generated a visual map of our responses, which highlighted the importance of a continual dialogue between all players at all phases of the project, and a project that considers longevity of a structure along with its context, site ecology and inhabitants. We hoped to create a structure that would be well designed, crafted and ultimately cared for.
On the first day of class we set our intentions for the semester with a conversation responding to the question “What does sustainable design/build mean to you?”
13
0 North Street Montpelier,VT 05602 The site is located on 1.5 acres off of North Street in downtown Montpelier, VT. The ultimate vision of the property includes a main house for our clients Ben and Ellen, a guest home for visitors and friends (our project), raised bed gardens, an orchard, croquet court and various other spaces conducive to outdoor activities and socialising.
14
The site terraces dramatically from a preserved wooden enclave on the urban edge of town towards the Winooski River and contains distinct zones of activity. The foundation was laid prior to our arrival, giving us a basement footprint of roughly 20’x26’ as a starting point for our designs. The basement space is intended to be a shop for our clients.
15
KRUnKLE HOUSE SITE
WINOOSKI river
16
Dowtown Montpelier
Site Studies
The following diagrams reflect student findings and discoveries on site. The information they contain varies from regulations pertaining to the site (flood zone boundary) to the subtlety of how fallen leaves are distributed within the foundation. They all act as documents to the various ways the site was initially perceived and processed.
17
Site Plan
The site plan was created from site measurements and includes all of the major features, uses and systems of the site. This includes water bodies, gutter swales, drains, sheds, attention to land gradation, utilities, septic tank location and driveway placement.
Schematic Design Site Model
The site model was cleverly created out of sawdust and wallpaper paste. It includes the permanent features surrounding the foundation, most prominently the stone steps on the north side of the building that had some influence on the flow of traffic around the building as well as the point of entry.
26
We began the design process exploring fundamental organising principles relevant to our building including cantilever opportunities, porch depth and location, floor to ceiling height, roof style and overhang, wall thickness and most importantly the 1-2 dramatic moves the volume would make. During this phase we also began thinking about the tug and pull of time, money and value in a project, trying our best to equally weigh all three components.
27
These two documents reflect the early origins of the 45 degree box cantilever on the northwest corner that came to be known as the “krunkle” because of its crank motion off of the otherwise orthogonal plan as well as the box’s likeness to a knuckle in plan. The working drawing on the right captures many of our issues during the design phase including circulation, bedroom placement, storage space and point of entry. This drawing introduced the idea of the krunkle space being a flexible work/dining area that we dubbed the “Michael Pollan room,” a term originating from our common reading A Place of My Own in which Pollan writes about his experience building a small writing hut in his Connecticut backyard, where his desk was placed in front of a large window overlooking his property.
Floor Plan Iterations
Massing Models Early 3D exploration was done with computer modeling and wooden blocks. These models provided yet another way to explore shape combinations within our parameters.
31
Mid-Semester Critique
After our schematic design phase we decided to split up into two groups of three and pursue two different design schemes, each featuring a different dramatic move and defining feature that we would develop through model making, plan iterations and ultimately elevation and section drawings. Through reviews of our individual schematic plans we decided to explore a scheme with clerestory windows and a scheme with the krunkle.
32
We were challenged by our client to include a mudroom, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, shower, laundry and living space in our designs. On September 19th, 2012 we had a studio critique with a panel of local architects and builders. The critique was an open forum for discussing the major features of the site that should influence floorplan as well as the success of the dramatic moves we had pursued thus far.
The Clerestory team was composed of Grace, Ben R. and myself. We began our design process with a series of solar studies in which we created a set of clerestory roof schemes and attached them to a working model. We took the model outside and used a compass to match the model’s cardinal orientation to the foundation’s orientation and observed where the light was cast in the building at various times of day. We ultimately chose a partial shed roof with a clerestory to the south face, and completed an analysis of roof overhang options to choose a design that would let light in at the summer solstice, equinox and the winter solstice.
This was achieved by having a step down to the living space as well as a relatively central hallway leading into an open space. The bed was placed on a platform to continue the experience of varied heights in the home. The plan included an entrance on the north side, a bedroom in the southeast corner for optimal morning light, a kitchen to the north face and a living room on the south side.
The main selling point of our design was the living room placement (seen in the north/south Section on pg. 43) near the woodstove and next to a built in book shelf. During the critique all present agreed the feeling of comfort exuded Our floorplan aimed to create an expe- from our drawings would be an ideal characrience of compression and release as teristic for the living space in the final design. you enter the living space from the mudroom to the living/kitchen/dining area.
team clerestory 34
35
These photographs document the process of creating and testing the light quality, window height, glass quantity and shape of various clerestory roof schemes. Displayed are the partial south to north shed roof leading to a flat roof (top left), as well as the full south to north shed (bottom left and top right).
In order to test the models, we used a compass to match the model’s cardinal orientation to the foundation’s. We then observed where the light fell through a small viewfinder on the east face of the model. The photographs on the right hand side show this process as well as the resulting light effects in the full shed roof clerestory scheme.
solar studies 36
37
Elevations
38
39
Roof Angle Solar Study
40
Floor Plan
41
East to West Section Drawing
42
North to South Section Drawing
43
Team Krunkle was composed of Austin, Brian and Mira. This team began their design process by iterating options for the cantilever, focusing on degree twist variations and selecting views to feature out of the resulting northwest corner “oculus” window. The group then began iterating floorplans, ultimately producing a final plan that was not dissimilar
from Team Clerestory, with the major elements (bedroom, kitchen, living, dining, mudroom) being placed in the same configuration. The team refined the “Michael Pollan” flexible work/dining program in the krunkle space. The sheet steel wrap of the krunkle was birthed from this team during preliminary conversations about cladding.
team krunkle 44
45
Elevations
47
Elevations
48
49
Floor Plan
Model
Final Synthesis
Upon returning from a brief recess, we spent several days in front of a projector screen generating ideas and altering 3D massing models to come up with the final design scheme. After many hours of discussion and deliberation, we collectively decided on a floor plan and building shape that emerged from elements of the clerestory and krunkle schemes, allowing us to order floor-framing materials and begin construction. From this point in the process onwards, the fluidity of design/build really guided our dayto-day schedule on site and in studio. Depending on the number of tasks or materials on site, the group would divide and conquer
52
to continue designing wall systems, rior/exterior wall framing plans and mal detailing while swift progress being made with the structure on
intetherwas site.
Once our building footprint, dramatic move, ceiling height and cantilevers were established we were able to make a final decision on interior floor plan. We had a final floor plan pin up with our client in which we discussed each student’s preferred interior layout. Our client then spent several hours synthesizing our floor plans, picking the best elements from all of them to create our final interior plan.
53
-1 /
2"
4
10
31/
4"
9'
11
5'
/4 "
2'
3
-1
1'2"
9'1-1/4"
5'0-1/2"
3'7"
2'0"
4'0"
1/ 2" 32'
12'0"
5'5"
1
22'10"
4'3-1/2"
10'10"
3'0" 1'8"
ENTRY
0"
3'0"
KITCHEN
6'
3'0"
PORCH
LIVING
4"
10"
PATIO
31/
2'8" 4"
SHOWER W/D
2'
2'2"
BEDROOM
2
19'1-1/4"
TOILET
DINING - WORK
The major features of the interior include an entrance and mudroom on the east face, a southern facing kitchen and living space with the more private spaces of the house contained in the northeast quadrant of the home. The separated toilet and shower creates a hallway that can be made private or public with a sliding barn-style door.
2'3-1/2"
6'
0"
1'6"
2'0"
2'7-3/4"
2'8"
3'3-3/4" 6'0"
2'0"
4'0"
2'6" 6'3-3/4"
11'11-1/2"
1'10-3/4"
16'8-1/2" 28'8"
54
14'9-1/2"
10'4"
55
5'9-3/4"
STEEL GIRDER
A
B
C
D
Material Studies
The material studies and exterior cladding research was managed by Mira and myself. We collected input from the group to guide our research and as a team we decided to pursue corrugated metal with a sinewave profile for the majority of the exterior, a steel wrap on the krunkle, and hoped to incorporate the warmth of locally harvested wood in selected places on the building. We generated various colour combinations
56
of the standing seam roof and corrugated metal to pair with weatherized steel and ship lapped cherry, and refined them with our client Ellen to produce our final material paletteslate blue corrugated metal, charcoal grey standing seam roof and facia, 3/8� sheet steel wrap on the krunkle and ship lapped cherry on the krunkle face and east entrance (Option 1).
Final Material Studies
Option 1: Slate blue sinewave corrugated metal, cherry krunkle face, garage door and soffit, weatherized steel krunkle wrap, steel facia.
58
Option 2: Slate grey corrugated metal on basement, slate blue corrugated metal on apartment story, cherry krunkle face, garage door and soffit, weatherized steel krunkle wrap, steel facia.
Option 3: Slate grey corrugated metal, cherry krunkle face, garage door and soffit, steel krunkle wrap, petina green facia and j-channel around the windows.
Option 4: Galvalume corrugated metal, full steel krunkle wrap and soffit, cherry garage door, slate grey facia.
59
Construction Documents
Countless stained papers, scribbled shims, scrap metal and 2x4s composed this project’s construction documents. More official drawings were generated in studio to guide framing and building on site. Each student was responsible for managing various research
60
components of the project, ranging from electric plan to woodstove placement and logistics. The following pages recount the larger phases of this core and shell building projectfloor framing, wall framing and roof framing. A detailed shop drawing of the hearth surrounding the wood stove drawn beautifully on a shim by Brian
4 33'6"
11
-1
/2 "
25'11"
9'
18'9-5/8" 7'10-1/8"
5'
10
4'1-3/4"
10
'0
"
3
-1 /
10'6"
4"
5'5"
2'2"
2 '3
"
45°
Floor Framing
-1 /
4"
3'0"
22'10"
'5
11'0-1/4"
11'11-7/8"
23
22'10"
19'10"
/2 " ° 135
19'1-1/4"
6' 41
11'9-3/4"
4'6-1/8"
7'10-1/8"
17
1 3'0"
12'3-1/4"
2'8-1/4"
3'0"
3'0" 14'9-1/2"
10'4"
B
C
D
We collectively installed a 23 foot long steel girder on those pillars to provide us an even surface for our floor joists. There was an admirable amount of wooden blocking done between floor joists in anticipation of interior wall loads. After installing an AdvanTech subfloor on the conditioned floor space and noting all of the depressions indicating where we had improperly planed our floor joists, we were ready to begin wall framing.
63
5'9-3/4" STEEL GIRDER
A
We spent about one week on floor framing, beginning with placing our engineered wood supports- the power beam and laminated veneer lumber beams (LVLs), which provide the structural support for the krunkle’s 45-degree cantilever. Two concrete pillars were buried in the ground several feet from the east face of the foundation, allowing us to extend our building footprint and cantilever onto those supports.
Floor Framing
Wall Framing
We decided on a double-stud interior/exterior wall assembly for its high R-value and structural integrity. The first wall we constructed was the north wall, our longest continuous wall. We had many difficulties making quick progress at first due to inconsistencies in framing plans, but we quickly learned the process of laying out walls at 24� on center with top and bottom plates, cutting studs to correct heights with the proper roof pitch, as well as framing window and door openings. In order to support roof load,
66
we had LVLs and steel i-beams built into our north and south wall systems. The i-beams protrude from the wall systems on the east face to complement the steel girder and the various other steel elements in the structure. Interesting moments in wall construction include the jog walls in the kitchen/mudroom quadrant, as well as designing clever solutions for mediating the different ceiling heights where the krunkle meets the main building.
67
Wall Framing
Roof Framing
After completing floor framing, it came to the group’s attention that our original plan to have a flat roof sheathed with either ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) or Thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) rubber membranes was not economically efficient or durable. We were then presented with the design challenge of structurally and aesthetically incorporating a shed roof that would be clad in standing seam. Our client expressed a preference for a north to south shed, however standing seam conventions normally demand a 2:1 pitch, which would have required our West facing walls to grow to a drastic height.
70
After many conversations and phone calls we were able to talk our sub-contractors into a 1:1 pitch. Grace completed a series of roof framing studies (left on facing page) that explored the various layout options for our truss joist i-beams (TJIs). We chose to layout the TJI’s orthogonally, capping the east and west TJIs with AdvanTech to create our parallelogram roof shape. We quickly installed all of the TJIs over the course of one evening in preparation for Hurricane Sandy. After the TJIs were secured in place the roof received AdvanTech sheathing, followed by roofing underlayment.
Roof Framing
Insulation Drawings
Grace drafted these insulation drawings for our dense pack cellulose sub-contractors. These elevations and plans provide information about the areas of our interior/exterior walls as well as our roof shed pitch, final window selection and placement. Ben C. purchased a large quantity of rigid foam board at various dimensions and widths that
we used to insulate walls of the basement and the ceiling of the krunkle among other spaces. Our insulation was one of the most straightforward sustainable design moments, as we were able to use foam board intended for the waste stream and recycle newsprint and paper to create a thermally tight building.
22'-1/4" top of roof
A2.3: 60 sf (double stud 2x4 walls) A2.3a: 100 sf 10'-0" ff
East Face
74 0'-0" ground
75 sf (2x10 rafters)
22'-1/4" top of roof
A2.5: 94 sf (2x4 double stud walls) A2.2a: 102 sf A2.2: 137 sf A2.2b: 17 sf
10'-0" ff
870 sf (14" rafters)
72 sf (2x10 wall) 640 sf area over interior space 0'-0" ground
South Face Roof Insulation
22'-1/4" top of roof
A2.4: 73 sf (double stud 2x4 wall) 50 sf (2x12 floor joists) 215 sf (2x12 floor joists)
A2.4a: 28 sf
10'-0" ff
87 sf (2x10 wall)
41 sf (2x12 floor joists)
0'-0" ground
West Face
Floor Deck Insulation
Exterior Cladding
78
79
Final Design/Build Moments Our final weeks consisted of exterior cladding installation and small design/build projects on the East and West porches. Team Y worked overtime to design and fabricate a railing, deck and stairs to allow safe entry and manoeuvring around the structure for the open house.
80
It also provided students the opportunity to supplement our newly acquired construction skills with metalworking techniques while independently ordering materials from the lumber and steel yards for our smaller-scale projects.
81
West Deck Railing
Attaching the railing to the structure was the main challenge to the railing design process. Since there was a steel drip edge on the top of the west porch facia, Grace and I had to create cherry blocks to ensure the railing posts would be on an even plane against the structure without crushing the water detailing. Additionally, we had to find a
82
post spacing that did not overlap with the porch floor joists. We created the railing out of steel angle iron, round stock and a long flat piece of steel to cap the railing, which would eventually be topped with a finished wooden handle. We used a combination of bolts to affix the posts to the porch deck.
83
East Porch and Stairs
Austin and Grace’s stair design added yet another cantilever moment to our building. They crafted the base frame for the stairs out of steel angle and square stock, and installed rough sawn timber treads that followed the angle of the porch decking.
84
Interior Studies
Once it became obvious that our project would culminate in a core and shell building rather than a finished home, we students spent many nights in studio drafting and articulating our hopes for the interior of the house so that our plans could be carried out by our clients and the
86
Yestermorrow network of helping hands after the conclusion of the program. Each student chose a different space in the building- mudroom, kitchen, pantry, hallway, bedroom and bathroom to study and design.
87
Austin’s studies of the bedroom focused on maximizing storage opportunities. He revived the bed platform previously seen in the clerestory plan, and designed a shelving unit that combined tiered hanging space, drawers, a bookshelf and overhead access to storage above the shower and bathroom.
88
Brian focused on finessing the pantry (above) across from the kitchen space. His final shop drawings created space for bulk goods as well as regular household items.
of the window in the bathroom was a point of much contention throughout the design phase. Grace created a “cockpit� feeling in her built in shelving surrounding the toilet. She also articulated the idea for a collage/scrap Grace completed several studies wall that would contain and preserve of our smallest interior space, the remnants of the building process. bathroom (pg. 90). The placement
89
Conclusion
At the semester program’s culmination, the Krunkle House’s exterior was completed, but the interior had only been dry walled. We students had verbally articulated our wishes for the interior spaces but the finish work was left to the homeowners, the future tenant and willing friends.
The flooring in the kitchen/krunkle/living room space is also maple, all set at a 45-degree angle following the krunkle projection. There is oak flooring in the bedroom hallway, bathroom and bedroom, and beautiful kitchen cabinetry made by the 2013 Yestermorrow Woodworking Certificate students. The drawer faces on the cabinets are made from spalted maple that was By the end of February the woodstove had a harvested directly from the Krunkle House site. soapstone hearth and steel wall after Brian’s well-researched hearth studies and plans. Finish work will continue through the summer The krunkle walls were sheathed in maple of 2013, and upon completion we anticipate to echo the krunkle’s exterior cherry faces. sharing and publicizing the complete project.
91
92
94
95
97
98
99
Part II: Personal Narrative 101
Personal Narrative Context
“An increase in the rate of innovation is of value only when with it rootedness in tradition, fullness of meaning and security are also strengthened” (Illich, 84)
I began my development as a designer fixated on the restrictive built environments of my teenage years in Central Florida. My childhood experiences in rural England and suburban Maryland shaped my general sense of the world and upon moving to Orlando I was struck by the contrasts, quickly concluding that my fifty-year-old suburb was simply not like the other places I had known. I swiftly refined my extreme sense of loathing for the design components of sprawl: collector roads and the resulting traffic, strip malls, cul-de-sacs and big box stores. For nine years I was condemned to commuting around these homogeneous landscapes, socialising in shopping malls and the homes of my friends in lieu of the few public spaces to gather in. Upon beginning college I was able to enjoy elements of more community-conscious design in the Pioneer Valley: accessible public transportation, walkable city centers, common green spaces and non-franchise businesses. Returning home during intersession periods drastically altered my day-to-day experience, most notably the necessity of automobile trips to get to any destination.
102
During my second year at Hampshire I was at last able to begin unpacking the forces that have resulted in suburban sprawl. I focused on the disciplines of regional planning, architectural theory, urban studies, rural studies and suburban studies while choosing courses and crafting independent studies. I allowed these disciplines to shape my opinions about my preferred landscapes as well as proper means of making decisions about land development and policy. My Division II was titled Redesigning the National Landscape for Sustainable, Localised Living whose umbrella goal was to get my bearings in the social, political and economic histories of American development, while refining design solutions for spaces doomed to an auto-centric modern life, endlessly commuting to and fro with no real places of community. In pursuit of a more considered and cared for built environment, I’ve spent a lot of mental energy researching solutions to empower citizens and “experts” alike to participate in the shaping and altering of their communities. My highly democratic ideals for how decision-making should be conducted were very confused when learning about people like Robert Moses who almost single handedly razed urban neighborhoods to create parkways, participating hugely in the assertion of privately owned automobiles over public transportation in the United States. The
103
development of highways and systemic shutdown of more accessible transportation like streetcars all follow a narrative of private gain and investment over community and environment-conscious long-term planning. Texts relevant to the politics of housing policies in the United States further revealed the often classist, racist mentalities that have prevailed in the creation of neighborhoods, zoning codes and the development of norms for housing standards of cleanliness and occupancy. Additionally, land development has followed patterns of capitalism, especially in the suburbs, as property owners develop real estate to attain maximum land value rather than considering present needs, utility or context. In this project I have zoomed into the individual building scale process and experience in hopes of better understanding the issues within the design and construction industries. “Design-bid-build” has been the most commonly employed project delivery system in the United States since the foundation of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in 1857. A more traditional process has been revisited by design/build project delivery structures, which evoke a “master builder” approach that has regained popularity over the past 20 years (Weston). This streamlined project delivery can “save money and time by enabling designers and builders to collaborate during design and construction phases.”
104
Additionally design/build requires communication between all players, encouraging a more interdisciplinary process. The 1909 AIA code of ethics banned design/build project delivery because of a perceived conflict of interests that would arrive from meshing the design and build players, but was repealed in 1986 (Weston). Design/build challenges the traditional notion and role of the architect, giving more power to the contractor and giving equal value to the design and build phases within a project. Because architecture is commonly taught and practiced in the realm of the abstract, there is often a conflict between architect and contractor and architect and builder when translating designs to a physical structure. Design/build’s inclusion of all players at all phases of a project encourages a more holistic building process and product. Some design/build teams employ consensus-based decision making to guide their collaborative process, as it enables a group to collectively arrive at a decision that is mutually accepted. I was first exposed to consensusbased decision-making in the fall of 2011 through Hampshire’s longest running student-run group, Mixed Nuts Food Co-op. A course in cooperative economics further solidified my understanding of this economic model and its potential as an aid to moving forward from capitalist encouraged competition and the associated prioritization of
105
monetary gain over community health and human needs. Cooperative structures have “a unique capacity to not only build a sense of community but also to challenge and reform the economic structures that are so often the cause of social breakdown.” It is my belief that the “predatory competition and profit maximization” ideals that drive modern capitalism in America have instilled a predisposition towards hierarchical structures (Restakis 236). Hierarchical institutions by their very nature promote “selfishness, individualism, competition and dependence on authority” which serves to isolate and disempower citizens (Restakis 239). I have been fortunate enough to have two formative experiences cooperatively managing projects in the past year, through which I was able to put cooperative theory into praxis.
Summer 2012 Community Meal at the Abode Farm in New Lebanon, NY
106
During the 2012 Summer Season I helped collectively manage a draft-horse powered vegetable farm at the Abode of the Message, a Sufi commune in Upstate New York with three other friends. We were a group of three female-bodied people and one male-bodied person, all white early twenty year olds, three of whom are college educated. We each brought varied skill sets and experiences to our first opportunity independently managing a farm, which initially resulted in some yielding to the opinions of those who were more experienced in farming. Towards the end of the season after many months of
learning, becoming more familiar with each other and feeling a greater sense of autonomy within the execution of tasks, notably with the draft horse, we were all participating relatively equally in decision-making. I left the farm early in the season to return to my final year of school, which produced some confused intention and varied investment among the group during conversations concerning planning for future seasons. The Yestermorrow Sustainable Design/Build Semester Program employed consensus decision-making in the pursuit of learning and experience, led more obviously by a group of faculty with advanced knowledge and obvious roles as mentors and teachers. This group of six students and three instructors was predominately white with only one person of colour. There were four women and five men in the group, and it was noted throughout the semester that the women carried a considerable amount of weight and responsibility throughout the project. This may have resulted from undistributed skill sets at the start of the semester, with all of the women having had at least one immersive design experience prior to the program, while there was only one male-bodied student who had formal design studio experience. During the final weeks of construction, there were many weekends of optional work during which the female students were more accountable than the male students.
Yestermorrow Semester Program Particpants and Collaborators, Fall 2012
107
This example highlights a success of the accessible work environment Yestermorrow strives to create. Empowering workplaces can be far and few between for women and I’m extremely thankful to be reminded of my strength and capability that was showcased in the Krunkle House project when navigating more discouraging work environments. There was definitely a hierarchy between faculty and students, however the faculty were extremely intentional about creating a space of empowerment, creativity and participation in studio and on site rather than asserting their authority and pushing their own ideas or preferences in critiques. Design decisions on floor plan, roof scheme, windows, soffit etc. were all made together. We had group meetings at least twice daily and split up individually or in small groups to achieve the many tasks that went into designing and constructing a structure. Individuals or small groups would report back with their research, findings or studies, which we would then discuss and decide upon. Though there were many varied preferences for materials, architectural styles and precedents in the group, there were few moments of dissent throughout the process. Our individual issues and eccentricities definitely presented challenges to the consensus-model, though those obstacles refer more to the variable nature of humans which makes communal processes at times both frustrating and wonderful.
108
I hope my future experiences of collective decisionmaking will be with more diverse groups as I aspire to solidify effective facilitation techniques that enable a variety of opinions to be heard. In my experience working cooperatively there have always been individuals who take on more responsibilities than others, often pertaining to facilitation roles, managerial positions or in the case of Yestermorrow, instructor evaluation for college credit. Cooperative structures do not necessitate equal participation but create the space and opportunity for democracy and autonomy. In reaction to all of the theoretical work I completed during my Division II, I have since sought out communitybased projects where I have been able to work directly and specifically with issues of decision-making, access and the provision of services. I was eager to learn design and construction skills that would allow me to begin participating in the reclaiming of abandoned housing stock and create public spaces of gathering and recreation, testing creative ideas and solutions. This context is what brought me to Yestermorrow Design/Build School in Central Vermont for my division III. I was eager to take advantage of this year to realize a design on a full-scale and gain confidence as a maker of things both large and small. I have discovered a group of kindred design spirits at Yestermorrow who have introduced me to precedent design/builders and communities whose
109
work dealt with many of the issues and questions driving my project. My first experience with a design/build process was characterized by successful group dynamics and collaboration. It offered me the opportunity to continue engaging in cooperative projects while developing my design and construction skill sets and simultaneously becoming extremely inspired by the process of making. A large source of this process inspiration came from the Vermont design/build vernacular and history, a very crucial context for the Krunkle House project.
Vermont Design/Build History
“Despite the AIA’s ban on the integration of design and construction services in a single firm (repealed in 1978, but still the remaining law in some states), the practitioners of design-build propose that the practice of architecture can be about the art of making buildings, rather than making information for others to make buildings” (Piedmont-Palladino et al, 1).
Design/Build is a “paradigm for architecture that integrates design and construction, that encourages collaboration in a discipline known for celebrating individual effort” (Piedmont-Palladino et al, xii). The inaugural moment in
110
Design/Build history that I’m concerned with begins in Central Vermont at Prickly Mountain. In 1964, three graduates from the Yale School of Architecture, David Sellers, Peter Gluck and William Reineke, purchased land near Warren, VT and set out to design and construct ski cabins (Sagan 10). Three primary desires describe these architects’ initial intentions at Prickly: 1. An entrepreneurial urge to create and control one’s life economically 2. A desire to build, to engage in the materiality and empirical nature of architecture with one’s own body 3. A desire for the creative freedoms and personal expression of the artist’s life (Sagan 11). Sellers, Gluck and Reineke’s financial control of the project allowed for great artistic freedom and a way of constructing buildings that “allowed for a direct connection with the materials used during construction” (Sagan 11).
Tack House, Prickly Mountain Warren, VT
The design training of the Prickly Mountain design/ builders had its roots in the Bauhaus School of Design, whose theories found their way to the Yale School of Architecture via sculptor professor Robert Engman who was a student of Joseph Albers, developer of Bauhaus pedagogy (Sagan 12). Engman’s 3-D foundations course in the Yale Art
111
Department required students to work directly with materials such as wire and paper, a different approach from the architecture school, which emphasized the abstract and the use of scale to represent ideas (Sagan 13). Bauhaus pedagogy asserted that Design is not separate from craft and art…and making discoveries by the use, understanding and [feel of] materials and tools is one way to lead to ideas; rather than the kinds of ideas that are down on paper (Sagan 12).
The first homes constructed at Prickly Mountain reflect this method informed by an artistic process rather than building principles. Rather than approaching construction with complete architectural drawings and instructions, the homes at Prickly were constructed by their designers without finished blueprints or complete ideas. The homes began with a “broad, formal or structural concept executed as a simple sketch or scale model.” The design process was largely improvisational, “often solutions had to be figured out when the creative process got ahead of practicality” (Sagan 13). For example,
Archie Bunker, Concrete Formed Home by Dave Sellers Warren, VT
…When Ed Owre was building the kitchen in the Tack House, there was insufficient room for the stove or refrigerator. When presented with this problem, Sellers’ response was to cut a hole in the wall, cantilever the floor, and cover the ‘bump out’
with curved plexiglass, thereby extending the kitchen” (Sagan 13).
Tack house was the first project at Prickly Mountain and upon completion it served as a headquarters for living and recreation. Prickly Mountain historian Danny Sagan compares the building methods employed on Prickly to the emerging Process Art movement. The collaborative nature of Prickly was also a celebrated element of the projects. Prickly design/builder Ed Owre reflects, “…the Tack House gave us a way to work together. We learned more from each other when we were working together than we [would have] sitting around making drawings” (Sagan 14). Sagan elegantly states, “one of the strongest outgrowths and lasting legacies of the original work on Prickly Mountain is the idea that buildings can result from a process that is collaborative and communal” (14). A great sense of community emerges from this process of living with each other, learning from one another and cooperating to construct a piece of architecture. The Bridge House’s central large gathering space reflects the influence of the collaborative process, as it offers many opportunities for inhabitants to advance vertically on the walls via climbing rungs and steep stairs to reach secret spots with framed views of the mountains, allowing a group of people to interact at stratified heights (Sagan 17).
The advent of plywood box beams encouraged and allowed for improvisation in the building process. This technology is created out of “small, wooden members that act as flanges and plywood skins that serve as webs, which tie the structure together.” Relying on plywood box beams for structural support results in very sturdy, lightweight structures created out of readily accessible materials that could easily be installed and modified (Sagan 16).
Steve Badanes’ Converted Trailer Home Prickly Mountain Warren, VT
Publicity and press drew more architects to Warren in the mid-1960s. Sellers and Reineke issued a public call for young designers in a New York Times article from January 1966, stating “We’re encouraging other young architects and architectural students who are doing interesting work to buy land here and build either for their own use or to sell” (Sagan 18). It was at this point that the real community of Prickly Mountain began to flourish, with the development of a master plan and the evolution of collaborative teams. Collaborative culture continued to thrive at the Bobbin Mill, an office hub for Prickly designers and associates. Many sustainable innovations were developed at the Bobbin Mill, including wind turbines, waterless toilets, furniture, textiles and energy-efficient stoves in addition to architectural designs (Sagan 19). New arrivals to the Prickly culture following the New York Times call for architects included
114
Barry Simpson and Steve Badanes, two individuals whose work dealt partially with issues of minimalist, itinerant living. For ten years Simpson lived in a small mobile 230 sq ft structure known as “the Silver Bullet.” Following his time at Prickly, Badanes went on to co-found Jersey Devil, a nomadic design/build outfit unique for their practice of living on their remote building sites (Sagan 20). Early on Prickly designers developed a heightened attention to site ecology. The distinctiveness of place often inspired the designs and concepts that guided the building process. The most “environmentally responsive architecture” project at Prickly was Dimetrodon, a wind powered co-housing unit. In 1970 William Maclay, Jim Sanford and Richard Travers, three University of Pennsylvania architecture students, moved to Warren and began constructing Dimetrodon, named for a Pelycosaur, a creature that could “heat and cool itself using a large, spiny fin on its back” (Sagan 20). The structure contained five private dwelling units and one guest unit that were organized around a central courtyard. It offers residents a variety of shared spaces, including a basement workshop, gardens and gathering spaces. It was one of the first prototypes of environmentally progressive intentional communities (Sagan 21). The design concept revolved around residents being provided access to basic utilities and services, but
Dimetrodon, Prickly Mountain Warren, VT
115
constructing their “own dwelling in the space between the box beams.” The occupants designed both the interior and exterior of the private units. As Sagan states The collective result is a giant collage that is both thrilling and chaotic. The spirit of self-reliance combined with shared community values comes together in a whole that ways, and remains, dynamic, visionary, and supportive of a new lifestyle (21).
Dimetrodon, Prickly Mountain Warren, VT
116
Dimetrodon employed wind power, a wood-burning boiler and thermal solar collectors installed on the south face of the building, distinguishing itself as a pioneer project for renewable energy resources (Sagan 21). Maclay sought out the advice of experts in the relatively new renewable energy field, setting a precedent for Prickly builders to “research, design and implement the systems that were needed” (Sagan 21). Since 1970, the wind turbine has been removed and the solar collectors have been replaced by passive solar glass (Sagan 21). The Dimetrodon community still takes turns stoking the wood-boiler, “reinforcing the residents’ commitment to one another and their reliance on the group” (Sagan 21). According to Sagan, the experience of community is “one of the most successful impacts of the design.” The project remains a wonderful example of how innovative design can positively impact individuals (Sagan 22).
The design/build legacy has been institutionalized through Yestermorrow Design/Build School located in Warren, VT. John Connell, friend and collaborator of Dave Sellers, founded Yestermorrow in 1980. The school’s philosophy is that “the best built environment is dependent on the joint involvement and close cooperation of designers, builders and owners” (Piedmont-Palladino et al, 3), furthermore that “every designer should know how to build and every builder should know how to design” (Sagan 27). Yestermorrow works to resist a design/realisation model that creates dependence within the trades by evoking a design/ build tradition of collaborative problem solving. Prickly design/builders have taught and participated in the Yestermorrow community since its inception as the school continues to train future generations of design/builders. “Design-build thus finds itself in the seemingly contradictory position of trying to reconcile a progressive goal of mediating the relationship between society and technology with what might seem a regressive goal of restoring architecture to a preindustrial mode of practice” (Piedmont-Palladino et al, 11)
Synthesis: Takeaways from the Krunkle House Design/Build
In my pursuit of building skills, I was assigned to design and construct a 650 sq ft accessory dwelling design/ build project in Montpelier, VT whose process is chronicled
117
the preceding pages. Our design/build team was given relative freedom throughout the process; our main restrictions were related to the short four-month timeline of the semester program. The group had very clear and impassioned intentions about the importance of developing tangible skills and the creation of a beautiful, interesting structure that would be cared for. We were able to visit and explore the exteriors and interiors of many Prickly Mountain projects including Tack House, Dimetrodon as well as Dave Seller’s workshop and concrete formed Archie Bunker House. The rich regional architectural history provided a lot of inspiration for the project’s unique parameters, process and potential. The semester began with a lot of studio hours spent pouring over precedents and completing studies focusing on fenestration, floor plan, windows etc. Our output was vast and vague at first, and even when we narrowed our goals and criteria there was always room for innovation and the introduction of new design elements. There were very few hiccups in my experience to critique, which I think is due to the educational nature of our project. Our space was extremely well facilitated and we had no outliers in the group, allowing us to relatively quickly and collectively reach consensus on decisions.
The Krunkle House client experience was influenced heavily by the 2011 Semester Program project having no client, as there was little precedent to shape our working relationship on. The semester faculty continuously reminded us of the advantages of referring to client preference, giving us some restrictions to our seemingly endless design possibilities. The day we were introduced to our client Ellen (wife of program instructor Ben C.), she showed us a variety of precedents that included large overhangs, cantilevers, reclaimed materials, windows, open spaces, and clean lines. We had very general conversations about what she did and what she absolutely did not want, all of which guided our initial designs but it certainly did not limit the many ideas that were generated throughout the design process. Since our client’s spouse was on the program faculty, we were sometimes able to request he remove his teacher hat and give us some insight into his and Ellen’s opinions. Ellen came in to the studio during three key moments of the design formulation: the floor plan, the roof shed/exterior shape, and the exterior cladding. In each of these meetings, we sat as a group with Ellen discussing the benefits and options we had studied and then worked with her to synthesize the best elements into one dimensioned, labeled document that would inform the building process.
118
119
Despite my ideal experience, design/build as a model is not necessarily the most economically efficient way to construct a building. The financial histories of Prickly Mountain projects, Jersey Devil as well as Krunkle House have all set a precedent for a budget that expands as the project progresses. Though, cost is generally expansive in new construction no matter how it’s crafted, design/build “focuses less on economic efficiency than on trying to bring design and construction into greater creative contact and confluence” (Piedmont-Palladino et al 3). If we had had more time to construct Krunkle house, I would have been very excited to spend more time utilizing craigslist’s materials listings as well as the resale stores in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont to track down wood and metal to repurpose rather than buying raw materials for the vast majority of the project. This would have helped to keep costs down and remove materials from the waste stream. I believe additional ways of designing with economy in mind could be made a priority depending on project parameters and context. In our case, our clients were building an accessory dwelling unit, seemed to have a preference for raw materials on the exterior of the building, and were able to fund the realization of our design, whose budget began at $30,000 but reportedly has cost three times that amount. Crafted objects and structures are more expensive than products from mass-production homewear stores like IKEA because of the high quality of
120
process, experience and materials that are required in production. There is definitely an assumed privilege in having a conversation about quality and craft, however if we had a higher standard for building and making we would have significantly less waste and consumption on a societal level. Design/build models also assume skill sets in construction and carpentry. Design/Build processes are a great way to empower and educate individuals interested in design and construction, but definitely require a knowledgeable “master builder” to aid and guide those with limited experience. The Rural Studio out of Auburn University, Yestermorrow, University of Washington, University of Oregon, the Remote Architecture studio out of the Artemis Institute and many other educational programs have all proved that design/build is very successful at providing students of any discipline the opportunity to learn how to build while creating an interesting, inviting structure. Furthermore, they challenge the current model of architectural education by engaging students in processes of fabrication and construction instead of projects culminating in a refined, though abstract, concept. Academic spaces allow experienced design/builders to continue engaging in work that the commercial world does not wholly support, while educating the next generation of design/builders. These educational programs require a certain amount of privilege as well to meet tuition costs,
121
though this bleeds into the larger issue of the prohibitive cost of higher education. Again, Yestermorrow created a very empowering space for me as a female-identified builder but the industrial design, architecture and construction fields are largely male dominated which also shape design/build’s semblance of accessibility.
East Warren Snail bus stop, a Yestermorrow community design/build project in East Warren, VT
122
With these critiques in mind, in examining the larger potential of collaborative building processes I prefer to focus on the undercurrent of altruism in design/build history. In 1993 Samuel Mockbee and D.K. Ruth founded the Rural Studio, an off-campus design/build program out of Auburn University that works with communities in West Alabama’s Black Belt region. All of the Rural Studio’s projects have dealt with providing underserved families and individuals with beautifully crafted homes and community structures that provide citizens access to clean water and stable shelter. Their projects immerse students in the community, challenging aspiring design/builders to work collectively with their clients to “define solutions, fundraise, design and ultimately, build remarkable projects” (Rural Studio). The Rural Studio has completed more than 150 projects that all indicate collective-decision making processes are successful in realizing built structures with specific attention to economically efficient projects that all indicate collective-decision making processes are successful in realizing built structures with specific attention to
economically efficient projects that recycle and repurpose materials and incorporate the opinions of those disempowered by the education-dependent expert-driven construction process. Design/Build processes are a more inclusive experience than that of the predominant construction industry commanded by expert-shaped policies, which give decision-making power solely to the three autonomous participants: contractor, architect and client. The homebuilder has become a niche in our society because institutional priorities have focused on rapid productivity and development, rather than encouraging self-sufficiency and skill sharing whose products are difficult to standardize. Design/build is an interesting moment on the spectrum of construction methodologies. It’s unrealistic to demand or expect all projects to switch to design/build models. However, if all project delivery methods were tailored to community needs at the very least I believe a greater sense of place and caring would be instilled in our structures, hopefully simultaneously discouraging excessive consumption and the unnecessary creation of new building stock. In the second quarter of 2012 there were 1.6 million vacant homes for sale in America and 4 million more abandoned homes that were not on the market (Bull). Clearly there is little need for new home construction in America, however all of these lost sites
Mad River Path Trail Shelter, a community project in Waitsfield, VT
123
would require some attention and reinvisioning in order to re-inhabit them. I strongly believe design and build processes that are grounded in their community context and goals create places that are maintained and frequented.
My generation has inherited a world of thoughtless waste, consumption and and excess. I feel poised to tackle these issues cooperatively on a manageable, localized scale in the work that lies ahead of me.
I’m exceedingly thankful for my time at Yestermorrow because it provided me with the tools required to relieve my cognitive dissonance as a designer uneducated about construction techniques and standards. I am proud to say I have collaboratively designed and built a house, which entailed hundreds upon hundreds of different tasks, problems and physical motions. I learned how to confidently make difficult cuts on the circular saw, remove stripped screws with an impact driver and grapple with the wrist strength required to efficiently use a cats paw while being aware of my body placement, tool use and order of operations with respect to my team members’ needs on site. I was able to employ consensus decision making on a design project while continuing to help facilitate meeting spaces that resulted in equal participation. I anxiously await my design/build opportunities in this next year- barn, shed, yurt and greenhouse construction with my close friends, coworkers and a community of kind Sufi souls to be followed by masonry, cob and brick renovation projects in France, Holland and Austria with friends yet unknown.
124
125
Part III: Abode Farm Cart Design/Build
127
Introduction
The Abode Farm Cart project emerged from a desire to complete a more independent project-based learning opportunity to follow up the Krunkle House experience. I originally intended for the project to be more collaborative in nature, but failed to compile a dedicated team of students. Instead, I called on my clients and friends Evan Thaler-Null and Sarah Steadman and the Center for Design shop manager Glenn Armitage to aid me in the cart’s design. I began with relatively simple parameters: a four-wheeled cart with two tiers sized to hold pickle barrels for harvesting and greenhouse
128
flats for transplanting. The second tier is removable, and the wheel base width is adjustable, as the cart will travel over existing rows of vegetables whose bed widths can vary. The cart will be operated by two people from the paths inbetween rows, with one person on either side. The cart needed to be strong and lightweight and would ideally utilize as many reclaimed materials as possible. I chose to use aluminium for the wheel framing and the cart basket framing because of the material’s light weight.
129
130
131
2D and 3D Studies
I began a series of 3D models in rhinocerous, my preferred computer assisted design (CAD) program, exploring the forms the tiers could take drawing from existing garden cart precedents as well as tables, chairs and tea carts from designers like Gilbert Rohde, Norman Bel Geddes and Carlo Scarpa. I explored continous curved lines as well as different combinations of rectangular basket framing. I fine-tuned the dimensions of the cart with Evan and Sarah to accommodate a sizable number of trays and barrels while finding comfortable heights for the basket and trays.
Glenn was the “master builder� in this design/ build educational experiment, who repeatedly encouraged me to learn Solid Works, another CAD program that is more detailed and better suited for industrial design modeling. After I conquered the learning curve, Solid Works proved to be extremely helpful in visualizing and comprehending the more complicated technical moments of the cart, like the set of stationary and rotating discs that enable the cart’s steering and the telescoping wheel width adjustment. I decided to use wood for the guard railings on the side of the basket tiers in the interest of saving money, though it also served to tone down the somewhat industrial utilitarian aesthetic of continous aluminium.
133
Rhino Studies Solid Works Studies
134
135
Final Model
137
Works Cited
Credits
Bull, Alister. “U.S. level of vacant homes is extraordinary: Fed’s Duke.” Reuters, 5 October 2012. Web. 1 April 2013.
All of the drawings, photographs, models, studies etc. pertaining to the Krunkle House project were created by Austin Anderson, Grace Bennet, Jennifer Cavanaugh, Ben Cheney, José Galarza, Brian Kennedy, Mira Lieman-Sifry, Anna Lucey and Ben Resnick as a part of a collective design and construction process. Thanks to Mira for her dedicated, invaluable photographic documentation of the construction process.
Illich, Ivan. Tools for Conviviality. London: Marion Boyars, 1973. Piedmont-Palladino, Susan and Mark Alden Branch. Devil’s Workshop: 25 Years of Jersey Devil Architecture. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1997. Restakis, John. Humanizing the Economy: Co-operatives in the Age of Capital. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 2010. Rural Studio. Rural Studio of Auburn University. Web. 7 March 2013. Sagan, Danny. “Architectural Improvisation.” Architectural Improvisation. Ed. Janie Cohen. Burlington: Robert Hull Fleming Museum, University of Vermont, 2009. 10-29.
Photographs of Prickly Mountain precedents in the personal narrative component were taken by Austin Anderson and Grace Bennet. The Abode Farm Summer 2012 community meal photograph was taken by Jane Feldman. The Vermont community design/build precedent photographs on pages 122-123 were taken by Yestermorrow Design/Build School.
Weston, Ronald C. “Professional Practice Notes: Design-Build.” American Institute of Architects Newark & Suburban, October 2012. Web. 1 April 2013.
138
139