Workspaces of the 21st Century: Makerspaces by Jekaterina_Porohina

Workspaces of the 21st Century:

MAKERSPACES

MASTER THESIS / STUDIO MATERIAL PERFORMANCE: WORKSPACES OF THE 21st CENTURY First advisor: PROF. KRASSIMIR KRASTEV Second advisor: PROF. LISS C. WERNER JEKATERINA POROHINA / 4061154

DESSAU INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURE GRADUATE SCHOOL ANHALT UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCE WS15-16 SS16

Abstract The following publication is a result of a design based thesis exploring grassroots urban development on the example of Maker Culture and the city of Berlin. The project proposes a strategy for utilisation of vacant sites in Berlin by a hypothetical community based on the Maker Movement. The project explores solutions on different scales making a catalogue of urban, structural and interior fit-out options which could assist users in developing their own environment. With an understanding of organisational and financial complexities of bottom-up urban initiatives, the project proposes multi-staged development as well as user-led design and construction. Project is focused around questions of flexibility and specialisation. It implements computational design methods to enable adaptation of general rules to specific contextual or user or architects requirements.

Contents ABSTRACT 5

MAKERS 13

CONCLUSION 89

THESIS PROPOSAL 9

URBAN FORM 29

BIBLIOGRAPHY 91

BUILDING MASSING STRATEGY 33 OPEN BUILDING 49 PRIMARY STRUCTURE 55 SECONDARY STRUCTURE 65 SCENARIO 81

MAKER REQUIREMENTS

URBAN FORM

SET OF SPATIAL SOLUTIONS ON URBAN SCALE

STRUCTURAL SOLUTION AND FIT-OUT KIT

Thesis Proposal

INTRODUCTION

The current thesis is based on a studio design project, aimed at developing an architectural ‘toolkit’ containing strategies for the transformation of vacant urban sites into small scale production/fabrication facilities in the city of Berlin by Maker Movement. In addition, the study tests application of computational methods on various stages of project development as a tool for design exploration as well as a platform for userdesigner interaction. Increasing affordability of digital fabrication and open source software has expanded access by a much larger groups of users, introducing phenomena of localised production and mass customisation as well as a greater intersection between designing and making (Richardson et al, 2013). So called Maker Movement - being still a niche experiment that claims in its extreme to produce big implications on patterns of production and urban life – introducing new kinds of manufacturing back to our cities - small scale and distributed (Mota, 2011).

HYPOTHESIS

The project is based in Berlin – a city which could be said to be pioneering the Maker Movement. The city is a home to the first hacker space which was founded in 1990s (C-base). Now in 21st century the city has a creative sector as its largest business sector and is home to a large number of tech start-ups. As well as having a world-recognised cultural scene, the city is still affordable in comparison to other European capitals. The city has only recently started to re-grow, but still has a lot of vacant spaces that can be utilized. (Mühlhans et al, 2014) By developing a design strategy for the Maker Movement on the example of Berlin with the help of computational systems, this thesis aims to use evolutionary algorithms as a tool for design experiment that could provide unique response to different urban contexts as well as being able to assist in creating a dialogue between users and the designer, through the adaptation of designs to user requirements and the environment.

This project imagines a possible future of this movement. With distribution of web-based information sharing platforms and proliferation of Fab-Labs and co-working spaces that can be seen in large cities of the postindustrial world one can see big socio-economic trends that support this idea.

Thesis Proposal

The thesis will explore emergent generative design systems in the design experiment working in dialogue with top-down development control by the designer when using these systems. Thesis will also consider how involvement of users in the design process can be integrated together. (e.g. Makers being able to customize the design options offered by the architect, according to their programmatic needs.)

SUPPOSITIONS

WHAT? HOW? WHEN? WHAT?

It is difficult to estimate the impact which the Maker Movement can actually have on the global economic structures and suggest thats self-build, Maker + architect developed platforms can start appearing in our cities. However, some of the experimental projects like Wikihouse and related open-source fabrication platforms are already gaining momentum in the industrialised cities and can be used as case studies. (Smith, 2014)

There is a variety of requirements related to Maker groups, from programme which can vary across different communities of users (proportion of spaces dedicated to workshops over social spaces, type of equipment, etc.) environmental issues (for example, noise control in event spaces, workshops, heat gain, etc.) or the qualities of the neighbourhood (prevailing uses in the area, development plans, etc.) All these factors can affect the design outcome for a single project.

Creation of design platforms for small-scale grassroots initiatives can arguably become a positive sustainable and socially liberating response to urban development. Allowing the users to participate in design and construction, reduces the project costs for the users but also gives platforms for development of new businesses around digital fabrication. (Richardson et al, 2013) The real estimate and evaluation of the success of these initiative is yet to be made.

Thus, in order to address the idea of assisting Makers in designing their spaces, the project aims to come up with a general strategy or ‘toolkit’ that could be used by any maker groups offering enough flexibility and adaptability to the context and user requirements. Despite the differences, some general rules for the ‘toolkit’ can be identified. For example, in relation to spatial planning: typologies of spaces, from studying existing Maker hubs; or rules for vehicle and public access, proportion of public space etc. As well as in relation to project development scenarios, considering project stakeholders as well as the funding streams, this can also effect project development time-frame and appearance.

The ‘toolkit’ aims to assist users in defining a programme, adjacencies, spatial configuration and structural solutions, as well as development scenario for a given site. It does not provide definite solutions, instead suggesting various approaches that address the issue on different scales. Overall design strategy, adjacencies and programming are to be left to the architect and user decision while the studies of geometric relationship to the neighborhood and studies of structural solutions are developed with evolutionary algorithms, as these are the areas where computation can be applied more successfully, offering opportunity to come up with unexpected design solutions. During the later project phase, fit-out options are developed that can be adapted by the users and ‘prepared’ using computer systems for fabrication by Makers. The project involves computational design decisionmaking mechanisms in the design process, establishing a continuous dialogue between these mechanisms, the architect, and the users.

Geometry principles of the neighbourhood, e.g. Berlin Street blocks – grid of perimeter block developments of 19th century - become a reference for identifying massing and geometric relationships with the context by introducing new geometric solutions by use of evolutionary algorithms.

Thesis Proposal

ENGINEERING + TRADITIONAL TOOLS

INFORMAL NETWORKED OPEN

Makers The following chapter includes the definition of the Maker Culture and Makerspaces. As well as summarizing some of the key Makerspace requirements and a catalogue of spaces that could be used in development of individual Makerspace programme. The chapter also gives a brief overview of the communities these Makerspaces serve as well as other possible user groups. The chapter gives a brief overview of the project location - a city of Berlin.

DEFINITION OF THE MAKER CULTURE

Maker Culture is a contemporary international movement that can be considered an extension of DIY Culture or Hacker Culture. The movement is based around creation of new physical devices as well as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;re-makingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; the existing ones, with focus on engineering: electronics, robotics, 3-D printing, CNC-milling as well as more traditional interests like woodworking or metalworking. Facilitated through the increasing amount of information available to individuals and the decreasing costs of electronic components. Maker Culture is a trend that places value on an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to be a creator of things as well as a consumer of things. Most of the products created under the Maker Movement are open source, as anyone can access and create them using available documentation and manuals (Techopedia, 2016).

With an expansion of the movement Makers started dividing themselves into 3 categories: Zero to maker - learning the skill, accessing necessary means of production; Maker to maker - accessing the experts of others, contribution to existing platforms; Maker to market - maker pursuing market opportunities.

The movement is international and is promoted by magazines, conventions, video channels and Web-based marketplaces. In many countries like USA and UK, the movement is promoted by the government - to encourage student interest in science and engineering and as a way to revitalise manufacturing. Although the majority of the Makers are hobbyists, it is claimed that the movement is growing rapidly and can become more economically disruptive - ordinary people becoming more self-sufficient, making their own products instead of buying brands (Rouse, 2016).

a. Zero to Maker, - public workshop at Access Space, Sheffield, 2012; b. Maker to Maker - project collaboration at CADS, Sheffield 2013; c. Maker to market - Pimoroni - storage and production facility opening in Neepsend, Sheffield, 2014.

Makers

MAKERSPACES CASE STUDIES

It can be argued that the growth of the movement can be attributed to the rise of Makerspaces - community centres where public can access tools that would otherwise be inaccessible or unfordable: 3D printers, laser cutters, CAD software, computer numerical control (CNC) milling machines (Rouse, 2016).

FabLab Berlin Diagram on this page give an overview of one of the local Makerspace - FabLab Berlin. Fab Labs are small-scale workshops equipped with various computer controlled and traditional tools, with an aim to allow anyone to make ‘almost anything’. Part of international Fab Lab network initiated in 2009 by Fab Foundation - a not-for-profit that aims to benefit local community organisations, educational institutions and charities, by providing access to digital tools and knowledge (Fab Foundation, 2015).

R NT

PUBLIC AREA / CO-WORKING

ADMIN

3D PRINTERS, 3D SCANNER, STORAGE, WORKSPACE

METAL LAB CNC METAL LATHE

SPACES FOR RENT WOOD LAB

CNC MILL, HAND-TOOLS

COMPOSITE LAB 3D PRINTERS

LASER CUTTER LAB LASER CUTTERS

MATERIAL LAB SOLDERING STATIONS, VINYL CUTTER, SEWING MACHINES

FabLab Berlin - layout and equipment

Makers

Betahaus

Another similar-sized digital tool workshop to FabLab in Berlin can be found in Betahaus - a public co-working space, spread out over 5000 square meters. Besides having a mentored hardware lab and a wood workshop, there are co-working spaces, team rooms, meeting rooms and event spaces of various sizes as well as a cafe. Co-working - style of work that involves shared working environment and independent activities. People who are co-working together are usually not employed by the same organisation. Betahaus puts strong emphasis on the community, to become part of it there are various membership packages - from renting out a desk for few hours/week to having an unlimited monthly access to all the hardware tools (Betahaus, 2015).

CAFE

‘ARENA’ ‘ARENA’ FILM, WORKSHOP, FILM, WORKSHOP, KICK-OF MEETING KICK-OF MEETING - UP TO 40 PEOPLE - UP TO 40 PEOPLE

WI-FI, HEALTHY WI-FI, HEALTHY LUNCH, MEETING, LUNCH, MEETING, CO-WORK CO-WORK 60

MEETING MEETING ROOMS ROOMS 12

‘INNOSPACE’ ‘INNOSPACE’ FOR UP EVENTS FOREVENTS UP TO 150 PEOPLE TO 150 PEOPLE

4 -20 PARTICI4 -20 PARTICIPANTS PANTS qm

m 00

AREA AREA CO-WORKING CO-WORKING

2 ‘WOODSHOP’ ‘WOODSHOP’

FLEXIBLE, CAN FLEXIBLE, BE CAN BE SPLIT INTO AREAS SPLIT INTO AREAS FOR GROUPFOR WORK GROUP WORK

BASIC DIY TOOLS, BASIC DIY TOOLS, ADVISORS ADVISORS

The space is good example for diversification of the small Fab Lab workshop. 0

m sq

‘HARDWARE ‘HARDWARE CO-LAB’ CO-LAB’

SPACE FOR PROTOSPACE FOR PROTOTYPING UP TO 10 TYPING UP TO 10 PEOPLE PEOPLE

ACCESSACCESS

MemebrshipMemebrship - €159/month- €159/month Extras:

Extras:

Spaces:

The Woodshop The- Woodshop €150/month- €150/month 24/7 Access 24/7 €25/month Access €25/month Hardware Lab -€309/month, €29/day Hardware Lab -€309/month, €29/day Mailbox - €25/month Mailbox - €25/month Coffe - €25/month Coffe - €25/month MeetingroomMeetingroom - €25/5hours/month - €25/5hours/month Locker - €25/month Locker - €25/month Fixdesk - €100/month Fixdesk - €100/month

Betahaus - building programme and areas

Makers

SUMMARY OF KEY MAKERSPACE REQUIREMENTS

By looking at these two and other examples we can sum up key attributes for the Makerspaces: Great degree of flexibility - in order to adjust changing spatial demands, as equipment may vary as well as intermediate uses of the space, e.g. a workshop area can be used as event space temporarily, as it brings more revenue, etc.

FLEXIBILITY

FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH/DE-GROWTH

CONNECTIVITY

COMMUNITY

LOW SET UP AND RUNNING COSTS

LIVE AND WORK

Framework for growth/de-growth. Ability for spaces to be developed gradually, where, for example, with an increased demand more square meters of space can be added or the other way around. Most of the Makerspaces are part of the network of other groups. Connectivity to networks of information and people and also to physical networks of supply and demand. Community powered (with management practices that are close to the co-operatives and not-for-profit, Makerspaces are about diversity and innovation, not about selling square meters first. Low set up and running costs. Culture of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;makingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reflected in the design of the environment, e.g. reuse of empty buildings at low rent, or crowd-funded self-build spaces, use of accessible materials. Production of energy can also become a critical theme for the building design. Live and work. Maker Culture entails a specific lifestyle, including flexible working hours. Some form accommodation, permanent or temporary, would be an interesting option for the project.

Makerspaces - key requirements

Makers

PROGRAMME - CATALOGUE OF SPACES

This spread sums up the spatial catalogue that can be used in developing a programme for a Makerspace. It shows technical requirements and dimensions of the spaces.

M A B C H I

WORKSHOP 24 m2

40 m2 A H I

STUDIO/OFFICE 10 m2

24 m2

80 m2

24 m2

A B C D H I

80 m2

120 m2

COMMUNAL KITCHEN

80 m2

A B E F G H I

A B C D E F G H I

190 m2 A B C E I

A B C H I

CATERING

A B C D E F G H I

A H I

A B H I

EVENT

L A B C D E F G H I

KITCHEN

52 m2

CAFE

64 m2

A-Controlled natural light; B-Assisted ventilation; C-Connection to plumbing system; D-Covered unloading/loading bay - vehicle access; E-Demountable walls/Flexible partitioning; F-Wide spans; G-Multiple storey high; H-sound proofing, acoustic panels; I - Views

Makers

A B C F G H I

M A C H I

L A C H I

A C H I

LIVING 40 m2

CIRCULATION

60 m2

80 m2

W 1.8 m

W 1.2 m

16 m2

3 m2

15 m2

A B

W 6 m, H 4 m A B

R 10.5 m A B

WC 3 m2

24 m2

15 m2 D E

D B

STORAGE 15 m2

15 m2 t0

3 m2

15 m2

GARDEN < / = 190 m2

Makers

COMMUNITIES THAT MAKERSPACES SERVE

TOOLS, SPACE, COMMUNITY

Y CIT

MAKERSPACE C KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE

% ... creative business

At the same time, Makerspace does not have to be focused on a single neigbourhood, but can attract users from across the city as well as from abroad.

EVENTS, EDUCATION, SPACE, COMMUNITY, SOCIAL NETWORKS

NEI GH BO

The primary focus is around creative businesses and individuals, particularly start-ups and entrepreneurs. These groups share their knowledge and expertise, creating business links - clustering effect. Thus different business and ownership models can be explored.

maker

EVENTS, EDUCATION, SPACE, COMMUNITY, BUSINESS NETWORKS

Y CIT

The user make up can vary across different neighbourhoods and thus communities which form around a Makerspace project can affect the way the space is operated and build.

GL O

creative business

Y LL BA

The Makerspaces work on a variety of scales - connecting to both local neighbourhood-, city- and global communities. Thus, different groups of users can benefit form the Makerspace;

public

EVENTS, EDUCATION, SPACE

D OO H UR

young professionals TOOLS, EDUCATION, SPACE, BUSINESS NETWORKS

MAKERSPACE A school TOOLS, EDUCATION

club of interest

NEI GH BO

UR H

university TOOLS, EDUCATION

DIY enthusiast

TOOLS, SPACE, COMMUNITY

Communities that Makerspace serves

Makers

D OO

MAKERSPACE B

TOOLS, KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE

USER GROUPS: MAKERS S

WOODWORKING

WORKSHOP

METALWORKING

STUDIO/OFFICE

ELECTRONICS

ROBOTICS EVENT CITIZEN SCIENCE LABS

CATERING

CLOTHES

FOOD LIVING URBAN AGRICULTURE

COSMETICS STORAGE TOOL MANUFACTURING GARDEN

ADMINISTRATION

Representation of the Makerspace user-group and its programme requirements. Plain line - essential spaces; dashed line - desirable spaces

Makers

USER GROUPS: TOURISTS S

GASTRONOMY

L WORKSHOP

SHOPPING

STUDIO/OFFICE

EVENTS

WORK EVENT TEMPORARY STAY

CATERING

EDUCATION

LIVING

STORAGE

GARDEN

‘Tourist’ groups represents occasional users of the space or co-workers not involved in making. Programme requirements; plain line - essential spaces; dashed line - desirable spaces

Chapter Name

USER GROUPS: RESIDENTS S FAMILY WITH CHILDREN

L WORKSHOP

COUPLE STUDIO/OFFICE

SINGLE

EVENT

CATERING

LIVING

STORAGE

GARDEN

‘Residents’ group represents community of makers or public that may also live in the building. Programme requirements; plain line - essential spaces; dashed line - desirable spaces

Makers

L WORKSHOP

STUDIO/OFFICE

MAKERS EVENT

TOURISTS CATERING

RESIDENTS

LIVING

STORAGE

GARDEN

Overall use of the spaces by different user-groups. Plain line - essential spaces; dashed line desirable spaces

Makers

SUMMARY OF SPATIAL ADJACENCIES AND PROGRAMME

EVENT MAKERS

EVENT SPACE L

STORAGE UNIT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

CIRCULATION/ CIRCULATION/ SERVICES SERVICES

VEHICLE ACCESS

CIRCULATION MAKER SPACES MAKERSPACES

LIVE/WORK LIVE/WORK

ADMIN

CAFE

CO-WORK

LIVE b. CONNECTION IS A REQUIREMENT

EVENT EVENT

CO-WORK/OFFICES CO-WORK/OFFICES

CIRCULATION

CONNECTION IS DESIRABLE

LIVE

EVENT MAKERS STORAGE

CO-WORK cafe

GROUND LEVEL ACCESS

a. Overall programme - proportions of the floor area; b Summary of spatial adjacencies c. Ground level access diagram

Makers

manufacturing

creative economy

Proportion of the contribution of the creative industries to gross value added in Berlin

ART

DESIGN

10 0 -10

registered creative business

60 40 20 0

below 17,500 Euros

-20

High number of small and micro enterprises partially below the turnover threshold 17,500 Euro

ARCH

ART

100

Every 5th company in Berlin is a creative business

DESIGN

Changes in the employment numbers 2009-2012 (%)

Makers

Development of revenues 2009-2012 (%)

SOFTWARE/GAMES

trade

ARCH SOFTWARE/GAMES

PROJECT LOCATION: BERLIN trade

FILM INDUSTRY Makerspaces are a global phenomena, however in order to create a case, the project focuses on one place. The city of Berlin is closest to DIA School and already has a reputation for being a European hub for innovation and creative sector. In 2012 Around 10% of the total sales in Berlin’s economy were in the creative industries. At least a quarter of employment growth is due to creative professions, while in Germany it is one eight. By 2013, the number of employed in creative sector increased by almost 30,000 people which is 19%. It is the city’s economic sub-market with the highest increase. The sector is characterised by a high number of small and micro enterprises, below the annual turnover of 17,500 Euro. Still being a growth sector and driver for innovation in other sectors, it continues to be in the city’s political and economic focus, with promotion of creative industries and facilitation of the good climate for creative sector being city’s prime objectives. Berlin already has a lot of spaces for innovation, researchlabs, incubators or Co-working Spaces or Fablabs or Grassroots Labs. The study commissioned by the Senate for Economics, Technology and Research on Innovation and Creative Labs in Berlin showed that Berlin has over 50 innovation laboratories, which are a kind of Berlin trademark now.

BOOK MARKET

DESIGN ECONOMY

ARCHITECTS MARKET

PERFORMING ARTS

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT / GAMES

PRESS MARKET

80 70

MUSIC INDUSTRY

ADVERTISING MARKET BROADCASTING INDUSTRY

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10

Today the spaces for implementation and experimental temporary uses, the chances to discover new terrains, become considerably less. Lots of artists and creatives now feel less like space pioneers, but are rather forced by the property market. Given the intense interactions between built city and creative environments it can be assumed that the space for the creative industry has a higher importance than for any other industries, being a resource but also a limiting factor (Mühlhans et al, 2014).

100

SPACE FOR CROSS-SECTOR INNOVATION

60 40 20 0 -20

Makers

Urban Form The project is not focused on one single location. The following chapter introduces 4 site typologies that were chosen as development sites for a design strategy on an urban scale. A brief analysis presented in this chapter aims to assist in the development of buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s massing and buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s structural elements, which will be explored further in the rest of the publication.

RESIDENTIAL - 19th CENTURY

Charlottenburg - aerial view

RESIDENTIAL - GDR

Lichtenberg - aerial view

Urban Form

INDUSTRY

Moabit - aerial view

INDUSTRY+RESIDENTIAL

Moabit - aerial view

Urban Form

8 12

16 24

48 16

Building Massing Strategy is based on dimensions of Berlin perimeter developments

Building Massing Strategy It is possible to read Berlin city patterns as a combination of different grid systems. Computation can offer an interesting approach to the development of building massing using grids.

Following chapter presents overview of a simple Cellular Automata system as well as looks at how it can be introduced in urban design context. Evaluation criteria and analysis of the systemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s outputs in relation to the quality of the design are further introduced.

THE SYSTEM

Larger areas of central Berlin can be characterised by socalled Berlin-Prussian style, 19th century architecture or Perimeter block developments. This building typology was picked up to run a simple massing exercise. Instead of repeating traditional plan and courtyard typology the exercise attempted to introduce computational system that would produce more interesting massing solutions. As part of this a dimensional unit of 12 by 16 meters was identified that could fit in this urban context, forming a grid in the empty lots between the developments. Each grid unit represents a potential building block. Based on Cellular Automata model a system was developed that allowed creation of unpredictable 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional grid patterns. A cellular automation consists of regular grid of cells. For each cell a neighbourhood is identified. Each cell can only have two states. e.g. 1 or 0, or in our case - ‘occupied’ or ‘unoccupied’ by building foot-print. Initial condition of each cell is determined by the architect. In a new generation - a state of the cells changes according to the set up rule, usually a formula. In our case the condition of cell was determined by the number of occupied neighbours. For example, a cell become occupied only if it has 4 neighbours that are occupied. In a simple 2-dimensional Cellular Automata model a grid a cell can have up to 8 neighbours. On 3-dimensional grid, a cell can have up to 26 neighbours. Typically, the rule for updating the state of cells is the same for each cell and does not change over time, and is applied to the whole grid simultaneously.

3 neighbours ‘occupied’

neighbours

cell RULE:1 ‘occupied’ neighbour

initial condition

generation 1

generation 2

RULE: 2 ‘occupied’ neighbours

initial condition

Building Massing Strategy

generation 1

generation 2

test area

perimeter cells are identified as context

context cells set up as ‘occupied’

‘block’ visualisation of the occupied cells

1st generation

2nd generation

3nd generation

4th generation

5th generation

6th generation

7th generation

8th generation

Building Massing Strategy

TESTS

100

3-2

100

2-1

100

2-3

The 2-dimensional system was tested across different sites in the area. Below is the plan outline of the site with 2-dimensional grid, adjusted to geometry of the site. On the right you can see test results. Different rule for the number of neighbours was applied in each row. For consistency, results are presented at similar generations: 15th, 20th, 37th, etc.

Building Massing Strategy

EVALUATION

1 4

The game provides us with one conclusion: the results are quite unpredictable. The system was tested across various sites of different sizes to acquire sufficient number of data that can be further analysed. For example, an architect or the user can develop an evaluation strategy to analyse each result in order to find solutions that could be applied in the project or, at least serve as an inspiration.

Building Massing Strategy

4 most interesting configuration were picked up and represented on site plan, adjusted to site geometry.

Building Massing Strategy

Results shown as volume on sites

Building Massing Strategy

EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS: COST

It is possible to highlight some rules that could be used in evaluation of the results. Most critical ones can relate to cost of the construction. For example, considering that envelope is usually the most expensive part of the building. Building footprint perimeter to floor area ratio can be a good selection criteria. Another criteria can be drawn from position of the cells and shape of cell cluster, for example denser clusters of cells would probably require less vertical circulation units installed, effecting the costs respectively.

AREA: 576 sq m PERIMETER: 168 m

AREA: 576 sq m PERIMETER: 136 m

1 UNIT

Building Massing Strategy

2 UNITS

AREA: 576 sq m PERIMETER: 136 m

AREA: 576 sq m PERIMETER: 96 m

3 UNITS

EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS: SPATIAL QUALITY NO EMPTY CELLS ACROSS

NO CELLS WITH 8 NEIGHBOURS

MIN 2X2 COURTYARDS FOR SITES >/= 1543SQ M

It is also possible to suggest some rules in relation to the quality of the space. For example the creation of units that are linked to each other only with one corner can suggests spatial disconnections.

2 1 4 6

2 7

3 5 8

1 4 6

3 5

Definition of how deep the building can be to allow sufficient light in, or dimensions and proportions of the courtyards created by the scheme to allow traffic circulation or to achieve interesting spatial variety. Since public function is of great importance to the project, street presence can also be an important factor. For example it is possible to evaluate which parts of the building envelope are visible from the street, in cases where parts of the building are not obstructing the others.

VISIBILITY FROM THE STREET

STREET

STREET STREET

STREET

Building Massing Strategy

EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS: ACCESSIBILITY NO GAPS BETWEEN BLANK WALLS

GAP BETWEEN WALLS WITH OPENINGS

The assessment can also prioritise position of the cells in relation the existing structures. For example, blank wall would suggest that the cells next to it should be occupied. While facade or wall with openings means there must be a gap between to maintain access. Accessible courtyards can be also a priority and particularly provision of access to existing ones. BLANK WALL

WALL WITH OPENINGS

ACCESS TO EXISTING COURTYARDS

STREET

Building Massing Strategy

STREET STREET

STREET

WALL WITH OPENINGS

EXISTING COURTYARD

ACCESSIBLE COURTYARDS

EXISTING COURTYARD

BLANK WALL

Four configurations for the site were evaluated following above discussed criteria.

123-55

125-15

128-17

123-21

Blue numbers are shown to suggest a way in which scoring of the project can be made. It is not a fully developed system, and while one architect can see one aspect of the configuration as a limitation the other may take it as an opportunity. The numbers are shown to give an idea which of the results performs better on overall from only one personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective. As can be seen, some values provide only half the score, to indicate that some of the criteria can be more important than other e.g. good envelope to area ratio gives one score while visibility of the facade is only half the score, etc.

SITE AREA (m2) B-G FOOTPRINT AREA (m2)

5088 2880

FOOTPRINT/AREA RATIO

0.57

ENVELOPE (m)

432

560

488

504

ENVELOPE/AREA RATIO No. OF VERTICAL CIRCULATION UNITS No. OF EMPTY CELLS ACROSS No. OF CELLS WITH 8 NEIGHBOURS 2x2 CELLS COURTYARDS STREET FACADE (m) VISIBLE FACADE (m) VISIBLE SIDES (m) BLOCKED COURTYARDS COVERED BLANK WALLS (%) SCORE

Building Massing Strategy

0.15 20 1 0 3 56 40 84 0 0 4.5

+1 +1 0 +1 +1 0 +0.5 0 0 0

0.19 21 0 0 2 88 8 60 1 100 2.5

0 0 +1 +1 0 +1 0 0 -1 +0.5

0.17 20 1 1 3 64 24 192 0 100 4

0 +1 0 0 +1 +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 +0 +0.5

0.18 20 2 1 3 56 16 156 0 0

0 +1 -1 0 +1 0 0 +0.5 0 0

1.5

Adjustments to improve the scheme can be made. Here, each scheme scores differently from the initial analysis.

SITE AREA (m2) B-G FOOTPRINT AREA (m2)

5088 2880

FOOTPRINT/AREA RATIO

0.57

ENVELOPE (m)

460

500

464

488

ENVELOPE/AREA RATIO

0.16

No. OF VERTICAL CIRCULATION UNITS No. OF EMPTY CELLS ACROSS

N/A

No. OF CELLS WITH 8 NEIGHBOURS

N/A

2x2 CELLS COURTYARDS

STREET FACADE (m)

VISIBLE FACADE (m)

VISIBLE SIDES (m)

BLOCKED COURTYARDS

N/A

COVERED BLANK WALLS (%)

100

SCORE

Building Massing Strategy

2.5

+1 0 0 0 +1 0 +0.5 0 0 0

0.17 16 N/A N/A 2 88 8 48 N/A 100 2.5

0 +1 0 0 0 +1 +0.5 0 0 0

0.16 16 N/A N/A 2 80 0 168 N/A 100 3

+1 +1 0 0 0 +0.5 0 +0.5 0 0

0.17 17 N/A N/A 3 80 0 144 N/A 100 2

0 0 0 0 +1 +0.5 0 +0.5 0 0

Following pages present examples of the evaluation of the other sites.

123-15

SITE AREA (m2)

125-21

128-46

123-34

B-G FOOTPRINT AREA (m2)

1731 1056

FOOTPRINT/AREA RATIO

0.61

ENVELOPE (m)

136

160

248

200

ENVELOPE/AREA RATIO

0.13

No. OF VERTICAL CIRCULATION UNITS

No. OF EMPTY CELLS ACROSS

No. OF CELLS WITH 8 NEIGHBOURS

2x2 CELLS COURTYARDS

STREET FACADE (m)

VISIBLE FACADE (m)

VISIBLE SIDES (m)

BLOCKED COURTYARDS SCORE

Building Massing Strategy

0 1.5

+1 0 0 -1 0 0 +0.5 0 0

0.15 5 0 0 1 12 0 56 1 2.5

0 +1 0 0 +1 +1 0 +0.5 -1

0.23 9 0 0 0 12 0 56 0 0.5

-1 0 0 0 0 +1 0 +0.5 0

0.19 8 0 0 0 0 12 32 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 +0.5 0 0

0.5

123-15

SITE AREA (m2)

124-0

B-G FOOTPRINT AREA (m2)

960 576

FOOTPRINT/AREA RATIO

0.6

ENVELOPE (m)

144

ENVELOPE/AREA RATIO

123-21

0.17

No. OF VERTICAL CIRCULATION UNITS

No. OF EMPTY CELLS ACROSS

No. OF CELLS WITH 8 NEIGHBOURS

2x2 CELLS COURTYARDS

STREET FACADE (m)

VISIBLE FACADE (m)

VISIBLE SIDES (m)

BLOCKED COURTYARDS

COVERED BLANK WALLS (%)

SCORE

Building Massing Strategy

0 0 0 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0

0.17 3 0 0 0 48 0 0 1 24 -0.5

960 576

0 0 0 0 0 +0.5 0 0 -1 0

0.25 3 0 0 0 48 0 72 0 24 1

-1 0 0 0 +1 +0.5 0 +0.5 0 0

124-0

SITE AREA (m2)

123-15

124-16

B-G FOOTPRINT AREA (m2)

768 576

FOOTPRINT/AREA RATIO

0.75

ENVELOPE (m)

144

ENVELOPE/AREA RATIO

0.25

No. OF VERTICAL CIRCULATION UNITS

No. OF EMPTY CELLS ACROSS

No. OF CELLS WITH 8 NEIGHBOURS

2x2 CELLS COURTYARDS

STREET FACADE (m)

VISIBLE FACADE (m)

VISIBLE SIDES (m)

BLOCKED COURTYARDS

COVERED BLANK WALLS (%)

100

SCORE

-0.5

Building Massing Strategy

-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +0.5

0.17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 -1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0

0.17 2 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 100

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +0.5 0 0

0.5

Open Building Project focuses on the design strategy rather than on the design of a single building and aims to address possible changes in the building programme or a multistaged development which can be said to be the key characteristics of most of the grassroots building projects. The following chapter explores the concept of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Adaptabilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in Architecture by looking at some of the case studies and major movements.

‘ADAPTABILITY’ IN ARCHITECTURE

While the basic needs of the space and its users can be identified, specific programme depends on the particular community being involved int the project, qualities of the neighbourhood, land values, ownership models, projects time-scale and many other factors. Thus, the project does not aim to propose a single building solution or a programme. The architect’s role is to provide a framework for a building that can be altered by its users who can also change it if necessary over time. To address this issue the concept of adaptability in Architecture is looked at.

To some extent the criticism has its base - throughout the last century ‘Adaptability’ has not became the norm and been left within experimental projects mainly. In most of the places the design for adaptability has never been a priority. Driven by short-term ‘quick-profit’ thinking, market economy creates a tendency to design to a specific type of household. However, the design for adaptability is not expensive per se, and even if there are any extra costs, they are out-weighted by long-term economic calculations - real-estate value of long-lasting adaptable housing can be not only maintained, eliminating costs in dismantling, but also increased over time (Schneider and Till, 2005).

The notion and benefits of ‘Adaptability’ in architecture had particular resonance in the field of housing which was used to address many social and environmental challenges. First of all, buildings that are able to adapt last longer, thus reducing costs in refurbishment and the environmental impact. Secondly, it can be argued that adaptability brings a social benefit in a form of user empowerment, e.g. resident taking action to construct or change their environment. On urban scale, adaptable architecture provides a platform for resilient and sustainable neighbourhoods, being an absorbing infrastructure for various social and economic changes, like ageing population, urban migration, changing patterns of life and work, coexistence of different cultures, individualisation of lifestyles, etc. Despite the obvious benefits the idea of ‘Adaptability’ has been facing much criticism as well, with many highlighting the opinion that it has failed to deliver its promises or that people are tired of faceless, non-commited flexibility (Schneider and Till, 2005).

Frei Otto – Ökohaus Berlin – 1987

Ville Spatiale (Spatial City),Yona Friedman – 1960s

Open Building

Quinta Monroy social housing project, Chile, Elemental Architects - 2003

TWO KINDS OF ‘ADAPTABILITY’

The field of ‘Building Adaptability’ can be divided in two categories mainly attributing to the role which the architect plays in the design. In the first case the architect is defining how functions in the building change, by means of design features like sliding doors and partitions - allowing instantaneous changes in functions. In many cases the building has distinctive form, with ‘flexibility’ message throughout (Schneider et al, 2006). This way building is capable of withstanding reconfigurations while retaining its purpose or function - meaning flexible only to short-term, routine, reversible changes, for example, re-organising home or office to meet needs of ageing occupants, adaptable to environmental conditions, etc. This form of flexibility - is still an ideology of control architect’s control over the building but manifested in the future. Here flexibility is visible in buildings appearance rather than qualities of use. In many cases user has to adopt to the flexible design rather than the other way around.

Traditional Japanese house that is organised as a series of interconnected spaces that can be joined or divided by means of sliding partition walls.The size of the rooms is based on the standard measure of tatami mats.

Good example that illustrates the condition could be Traditional Japanese House - free and flexible ground plan for the inner rooms, light building components, however construction sets the occupant in confrontation: the individual qualities of the flexible rooms must be respected by their user, not the other way around. In the second case, the architect does not control as much how house is occupied - but provides a breathing space for change - provision of space rather then specific technological solution or rigid plan that permits reconfigurations. Being a key factor in the building’s ability to be reused differently through its life-time, e.g. office becoming apartments, or laboratory becoming an office.

Funktionsneutrale Räume, Walter Stamm, Switzerland, 1987. Flexibility achieved by a relatively determined structural form and plan. Rhythm of fixed elements gives wide range of possibilities for subdivision.

Open Building

OPEN BUILDING

It is also possible to address the topic of Adaptability, by defining the building as a system of layers. Steward Brand, in his book ‘How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built’ (1994), lists the principles of adaptability by looking at the buildings as a series of interconnected systems such as structure, skin and services that change and mutate at different rates, with skin and services being the fastest. Different people have control over different layers of the building once completed. Adaptive building must allow slippage between each layer, or the ‘slow’ layers should not be blocking the flow of ‘quick’. Embedding layers together may look efficient initially, but over time it’s the opposite. (Gyford, 2004) Brand’s principle of ‘layering’ and separation of the structure from services and envelope can be traced back to 1960’s and the seminal book by Dutch architect N. John Habraken “Supports: An alternative to Mass Housing’’ which became a base for “Open Building” movement that runs until today and is now followed internationally.

NEXT21, Osaka, Japan, 1993 Planned as a multi-unit housing complex for the 21st century. The four main subsystems are structure, cladding, infill, and plumbing . The 18 ‘Infill’ units were designed by 13 different architects. As a two-stage housing, the design of the units began after the design of the building frame and continued while the building frame was being constructed.The participation of the occupants was instrumental throughout all design decision-making processes. A variety of housing units were produced.

Figure 6. Frame

The movement recognises that the build environment is always in constant transformation and promotes the idea of distinct levels of intervention: “Support’’ and “Infill’’, where ‘‘Support’’ or base of the building is being an interface between different technical and fit-out systems, that can be replaced. The movement is also set to acknowledge that design is a process of different participants including the residents and other professionals. The levels allow distinctions to be made concerning the locus of control between individuals, group or organisations, which can change between the phases of design, construction, occupation and the life of the building. (Kendall and Teicher, 2000) Figure 7. Building Sections

Open Building

According to Harbraken the ‘Support’ structure is a construction which allows the provision of dwellings which can be built, altered and taken down, independently of the others. ‘Support’ has to be stand outside the industrial field which produces the ‘Infill’ and should withstand the ages. ( Harbraken, 1972) ‘Support’ is a finished building, and ready to be occupied. However, the layout and size of individual occupancies dwellings, offices, etc. - are not predetermined - ‘Support’ has to be a setting that offers space and possibility to make dwellings with as few constraints as possible, while also requiring little work. Typical support elements include building structure and facade, entrances, staircases, corridors, elevators and trunk (main) lines for electricity, communications, water, gas and drainage. With its specific social and technical setting, the ‘Support’ is built using locally appropriate means of design and construction (Kendall and Teicher, 2000).

SEPARATE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STRUCTURE

SIMPLE CONSTRUCTION

QUANTITY OF SPACE OVER QUALITY OF FINISH

MODULAR DIMENSIONAL SYSTEM

ACCESSIBLE BUILDING MATERIALS

FLEXIBILITY COMBINED WITH SPECIALISATION

LIGHTWEIGHT AND DEMOUNTABLE

USER INVOLVEMENT IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

1.5 FIVE OR 2 STOREY HIGH SPACES

According to Kendall, An ‘Infill’ system is a carefully prepacked, integrated set of products, custom prefabricated off-site and installed as whole. Comprehensive “Infill” system provide the partitions, mechanical installations and equipment, doors, fixtures, cabinets, finishes and other elements needed to make a completely habitable space. Diagrams on this page highlight key principles in design for ‘Adaptability’ and ‘Open building’ that the project should take on board.

Open Building

Primary Structure Project follows Open Building principles through the separating primary and secondary structure. In theory, provision of the full primary structure on the initial stage of the development suggest that occupants could develop the rest of the building with their own resources on site without having to hire heavy machinery and stopping the building operation. The project focused on frame structures, because of the system’s flexibility or ability to integrate modular dimensioning as well as visual qualities: the ‘lightness’ of the frame and regularity that fits Berlin’s urban patterns. Next chapter has focused on the aesthetic aspects of primary frame structure, specifically its ability to be adjusted to different urban situations while still maintaining its multi-functionality. It also explores computational principles that could assist the architect in designing the primary structure.

CO-WORK AND EVENT GARDEN

CAFE

EVENT SPACE L

EVENT SPACE M

CO-WORKING SPACE L

CIRCULATION

STUDIO/ OFFICE

ADMINM

MEETING SPACE S

EETING SPACE L

MEETING SPACE M

LAB

STUDIO/ STUDIO/ OFFICE OFFICE

LAB

WORKSHOP CIRCULATION

CIRCULATION

MAKERS GARDEN

CIRCULATION CIRCULATION

WORKSHOP

EQUIPMENT ROOM

LAB

STORAGE UNIT

LIVING UNIT M

LIVING UNIT L

CIRCULATION

LIVE

CIRCULATION

GARDEN

LIVING UNIT S

LIVING UNIT M

LIVING UNIT L

12m

LIVING UNIT M

CIRCULATION

16m

Adjusting programme to Urban Block Unit

Primary Structure

LIVING UNIT L

FLEXIBILITY C

By analysing case studies of the flexible buildings, it can be concluded that rigid structural systems can be used as a solution to the question of multi-functionality as Makers may not have a specific programme for their building in place from the beginning.

On the example of the 12 by 16m urban block - modular dimensioning was introduced and different spatial configuration of possible elements of the programme were tested. CIRCULATION CIRCULATION

The dimensioning allows incorporation of larger and smaller spaces in the same grid as well as ensures provision of the â&#x20AC;&#x2122;bufferâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; area to maintain essential circulation roots, services and outdoor spaces.

The modular dimensioning of this urban block could suggest strategies for developing a frame structure.

Modular dimensioning and structure

Depending on the technology, the choice of material and the installation methods, variety of structural densities can be explored: form monolith concrete frames to lightweight wooden or steel frames. In order to maintain flexibility of the layouts within the frame, vertical supporting elements have to follow modular dimensioning patterns of the spatial grid. This can be done by regularly following positions within grid nodes, as shown in diagrams a. b. and c. or in a more organic format by introducing varied density within a frame, as shown in diagram d.

STUDIO/ STUDIO/ OFFICE OFFICE

EVENT SPACE M

Providing room for different heights

Primary Structure

FLEXIBILITY AND SPECIALISATION

Each of the 4 site typologies introduced in previous chapter have its own site lines and dimensions of the urban block. Similarly to the 12 by 16m example, the dimensions of the programme elements could be adjusted so it could fit onto each site. The height of the neighboring building as well as the rhythm of the facades, vistas, and street connections can help to identify where it would be important to increase density in the structure in order to create visual interest or where it would not have much importance.

Primary Structure

The drawings on the right present overall massing strategy for the completed buildings. Drawing a. Here more dense structure was introduced next to residential facade in order to continue the pattern of neighbouring smaller residential windows, while larger spaces were left in the middle of the space. The height of the building and setback are also response to the context. Drawing b. Industrial area with long functional spaces that present no spatial interest for pedestrians. Here density of the structure was increased next to the monotonous facade in oder to break the continuity and add interest. Difference in hight is also a response to monotony.

Drawing c. Residential areas of east Berlin can be characterised by large areas of open space, making it difficult to have a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;situationistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience while navigating the streets. The massing strategy responds to the lack of street interaction by creating new public spaces of a smaller scale and increasing the density in following main possible vistas and public routes to increase interaction. Drawing d. Larger site in the mixed industrial and residential area - response is a combination of principles described in the previous 3 examples: importance of breaks in monotony, increase in street interaction, visual presence of public areas, provision of public space.

Primary Structure

The following drawings represent changes in the density of the possible structure on site. Primary Structure on smaller sites as in Drawing a. and b. could be developed at once while the larger sites would probably see staged development of the primary structure, with zones of the site that increase buildings public presence being developed first, e.g. street fronts. The structure does not show all the infrastructure that has to be incorporated in the design, including services and circulation elements that are essential for it to be occupied by makers. This will be closely explored in the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Scenarioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; chapter.

Primary Structure

architect defines position of key point supports and outline of the floor frame

area around point supports can be used in creation of stress lines

stress lines are emanated from each point on the perimeter

COMPUTATIONAL MODEL

The location of structural elements can be automated. A system where the architect defines floor layouts and the positions of denser parts of the structure and uses topology optimisation to define position of the rest of the supports in accordance to structural requirements. This model simplifies the task of designing a primary structure for the building on different sites.

changes in size of the area as well as number of points create different stress lines

Computation model for development of the one-storey primary structure

Primary Structure

any number of points on the stress lines can be created

number of points on stress lines as well as position of stress-lines can be optimised to identify most structurally appropriate positions of the point supports

here we define all possible remaining positions of additional point supports

Shortest Path component allows to reduce number of elements in the floor frame - outline of the floor frame can be included to maintain initial design strategy Computation model for development of the primary structure

points on the stress lines that are closest to nodes within frame structure are selected as potential locations of additional point supports

Primary Structure

here number of frame elements was reduced without compromising the design

position of key point supports and floor outlines are defined by architect

points for stress lines tracing are identified

points on stress lines guide location of additional point supports

stress lines are created for each level separately

otimisation helps allocate additional point supports

position of additional point supports is identified

Computation model for development of the Multi-storey primary structure

Primary Structure

Secondary Structure The following chapter focused on development of the secondary structure. Considering limitations of the technology available to makers, the chapter proposes a new structural system that could be fabricated on site by the users.

TOOLS AND MATERIALS

It seems there are many options of tools available to Makers that could be used in construction of secondary structure. Following already existing examples of open source platforms for application of CNC routing technology in construction, the project focuses on the possibilities of the CNC routing in development of the secondary structure. CNC fabrication has many advantages: -CNC router requires low set up and running costs. -Machine operators do not need special skills to produce high quality components. -Plywood is an easily available material that comes in standard sizes around the world - it can be recycled, e.g. used as an energy source. -Sheet material allows creation of frame elements that are easy to assemble as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;clip-onâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; systems, meaning no special construction skills are required, which results in reduced construction time and costs. -Elements can be taken apart and potentially reused in a different reconfigurations. -Computations can allow easy adjustments of the design to fit specific project needs and user requirements.

Router set up

Secondary Structure

CASE STUDY: Wikihouse

The elements of the Wikihouse are fabricated from plywood using a standard 3-Axis CNC router with plywood sheet size of 2.4 by 1.2m. The small elements cut from plywood sheet are assembled together into frames which are further attached to each other in a row. Being an open source design, the Wikihouse have been ‘hacked’ and constructed by the community around the world. The Current ‘official’ recommendations for the design ‘hack’ include: – Maximum two storey high. – The single largest room can only be 4.6m wide (but as long as you like). – Doors & windows can be positioned anywhere around the chassis, but can only be 900mm wide on side walls. – Straight edges rather than curves. - Standard 1.2x2.4m sheets of plywood used.

Secondary Structure

CASE STUDY: Facit Homes

Commercial application of the same size CNC router and structural plywood in building construction. Here, the system consist of blocks stacked side by side forming load-bearing walls of the structure. Larger spans are achieved by integrating steel beams into the structure. Examples seen are maximum 3 storey high.

Secondary Structure

RECIPROCAL FRAME

Lightweight sheet material and small size of the router bed makes it a perfect system for self-build structures where elements are light enough to be assembled without heavy equipment. The precision of digital technology allows creation of self-locating parts reducing construction time and skills. However, it also creates limitations for the span sizes, which is reflected in Wikihouse and FacitHomes systems. In order to address this issue existing systems were looked at which use smaller structural elements in construction of larger spans and structures.

Reciprocal frame have been a common element in traditional Japanese Architecture - a 3-dimensional selfsupporting system that was applied in roof or bridge design. The project explores the use of this system in the design of the modern spaces using digital fabrication.

a. Planar grillage, by Sebastiano Serlio, 16 cent; b. Serpentine Pavilion by Alvaro Siza, 2005; c. Prostho Museum Research Centre, Kengo Kuma, 2010

Secondary Structure

DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURE AND ASSEMBLY Reciprocal frame is a structure made up of mutually supporting beams in a closed circuit, developed out of single repeating element.

Incorporation of multiple functions into a single element makes it an exemplar of some of the Design for Manufacture and Assembly principles. The fact that the structure can grow out of single element simplifies the assembly process on site. Digital joints can assist in orientation of parts for insertion and alignment and minimise the use of tools and fixing.

Reciprocal frame test - basic form constructed with one single element and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s halve

Secondary Structure

CONNECTIONS

One identical element allows variety of 3-dimensional configurations. Connection type and strengths between each element can be further explored. Elements can slot into each other, as well as be glued together for further strength. Large cut-outs that can be seen on each element are introduced with an idea that element are fixed together with screws - the opening allows the drill and hand access.

VARIETY OF ELEMENTS One single element can develop variety of forms. However, we also explored what configurations can be achieved by adding extra element design. Page on the right presents a shape developed by introduction of 45 degree angle. Total variety of elements is shown on side as well.

Element connections

Secondary Structure

Design variation with extra elements introduced

Secondary Structure

CAPACITY: RE-USE AND VARIETY OF CONFIGURATIONS Build-in capacity of the structure to accommodate more than one programme of functions is at the core of the Open Building theory. The capacity of the secondary structure system to create different forms and spaces was also explored. Reduction of number of varied elements and simple design of each element can potentially allow re-use of the single structure into something else. This principle is essential if considering that needs of the building occupants changes with time.

The set of elements also allows variety of forms to be developed without adding extra element designs 3-or 2-dimensional sloped roof or curvy walls can be constructed.

c. a. 3-dimensional slope; b. 2-dimensional slope; c. curved wall

Secondary Structure

INTEGRATION OF OTHER SYSTEMS

OPENINGS No extra elements are required to introduce openings in the structure. Overall dimensions of the structural grid (size of the elements) can be adjusted to fit the requirements of certain industry, e.g. specific window dimensions etc.

SERVICES Services can be run trough the structure. Here size of the internal openings has to be adjusted to maintain structural integrity of the system.

Secondary Structure

CLADDING Different cladding options can be introduced. Thermal insulation can be also fitted inside the structure. Fire protection techniques and noise insulation have to be considered, especially for plywood structures.

CONNECTION TO PRIMARY STRUCTURE

Depending on the space, elements can be modified to fit exact dimensions of the beams of the primary structure. Design of the fixing elements can be explored further, however, design development would have to take into account loads and material specification of the primary structure, and these will not be considered. Diagram here suggests the element of the Secondary structure is attached to the beam via â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;specialâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; bracket (which will most likely be made out of laser-cut steel). Same element can be attached to the primary structure in different directions.

Connecting elements to the Primary Structure

Secondary Structure

COMPUTATION

The size of the structural elements depends on many factors. Computational system can be developed that helps to define optimal size of the elements considering loadbearing properties of the structure but also geometry of the space.

For example distance between supporting beams of the primary structure, dimensions of the beams, or height of the space and dimensions of the installations have to be considered in order to optimize the size of the structural element and grid size.

Potentially, a computational model can be developed that helps user to create cutting files for the fit-out of the required space.

X X

Parameters of the possible computational model

Secondary Structure

1 to 10 physical prototype

Secondary Structure

Vision of the construction of the secondary structure on site

Secondary Structure

Visualisation of the use of the primary structure â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;in-betweenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; the development:: a space for communal garden and outdoor events

Scenario Using one site as an example, the following chapter explores programme development scenario and briefly looks into business model. This scenario considers initial set up of the primary structure and minimum provision of spaces to full scale operational building.

MIN. OCCUPANCY

MAX. OCCUPANCY

TEMP. LIVING +

LIVING +

GARDEN GARDEN EVENT M

STUDIO + EVENT +

STUDIO +

GARDEN WC CAFE

WORKSHOP S

WORKSHOP +

Identifying minimum to maximum occupancy of the primary structure

Scenario

WORKSHOP +

BUSINESS MODEL

Diagram on the right briefly highlights possible funding streams for the project.

CONSTRUCTION 1

SITE LEASE

Primary structure requires initial capital, thus the scheme considers involvement of the private or public investors in the project from the beginning.

CONSTRUCTION 2

RENT COST

Project assumes that further development of the building can rely on the income from the building operation. Except for construction of the secondary structure other possible milestones can include purchase of the site as well as acquisition of sufficient capital to set up another Makerspace.

MAKER X

INVESTOR X

INVESTOR

S PACE RENT

CATERING

START

MEMBERSHIP FEES

CONSTRUCTION 3

NEW MAKERSPACE PROJECT

DONATIONS

PRODUCTION OF ENERGY

KNOWLEDGE EXPERTISE

INVESTOR X

PRODUCT SALES

RENT COST

SITE PURCHASE

Income streams and key expenses

Scenario

...

... MAKERSPACE C

MAKERSPACE B

... MAKER COMMUNITY = MAKERSPACE B

... MAKER COMMUNITY = MAKERSPACE C

MAKERSPACE A MAKER COMMUNITY = SECONDARY STRUCTURE

MAKERS + INVESTOR = PRIMARY STRUCTURE

MINIMUM OCCUPANCY

The primary Structure fills-in the maximum volume allowed by local planning regulations. Cafe and workshop spaces on ground floor are fitted out. Vertical circulation units including elevator and staircases are provided, while unoccupied parts of the primary structure can be accessed via bridges an platforms. Unoccupied parts of the primary structure can be used for public outdoor events and garden.

GARDEN

WORKSHOP

Temporary screening options can extend the use of the outdoor spaces throughout the winter.

WORKSHOP

CAFE

Scenario

MEDIUM OCCUPANCY

Further development of the secondary structure and fitouts extend the use of the primary structure on the upper levels: a. large event space is set up b. other spaces are let out as workshops and studios c. garden and public outdoor areas are maintained d. rooftop-garden e. spaces on upper levels can be used as temporary accommodation.

STUDIOS

STUDIOS EVENTS

OUTDOOR EVENTS

STUDIOS

STUDIOS WORKSHOP

GARDEN EVENTS OUTDOOR EVENTS

Scenario

MEDIUM OCCUPANCY

A more permanent layout of the building is developed. A combination of: a. larger spaces for events, maker workshops and coworking areas b. smaller units for private studios and offices c. spaces on the upper level - reserved for more permanent living units (as long as planning regulations allow) d. percent of the total floor area is reserved for the outdoor communal areas and garden

LIVING UNIT

STUDIOS

EVENTS

OUTDOOR EVENTS

LIVING

LIVING UNIT

STUDIOS STUDIOS

CAFE

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP MEETING COSTUDIO

STUDIO

Scenario

Conclusion The project was set out to explore the possibility of creation of a design strategy for utilisation of vacant urban lots for grassroots development, specifically Maker Community. During the project various computational systems were developed and utilised on urban and structural scale. A flexible internal fit out model was also developed, which can be both built and adapted by users. The project has shown the application of the design strategy on four sites in Berlin, and one in particular. It would be interesting to see how the model could also be applied to other cities and how the computational system could be developed further.

Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Betahaus (2015), Our Story, Betahaus, available at <http:// www.betahaus.com/berlin/story/>[10 Nov 2015] Celanto, David (2007), Innovate or Perish: New Technologies and Architecture’s Future, Harvard Design Magazine, 26, available at <http://www. harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/26/innovate-or-perishnew-technologies-andarchitectures-future> [10 Dec 2015 ] Fab Foundation (2015), Fab Foundation Mission, Fab Foundation, available at <http://www.fabfoundation.org/ about-us/> [10 Nov 2015] Gyford, Phil (2004), How Buildings Learn by Steward Brand, Phil Gyford’s website, available at: <http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2004/10/24/ how_buildings_le.php> [16 Nov 2015] Harbraken, John, Supports: an Alternative to Mass Housing, London: Architectural Press,1972 Kendall, Stephen (2015), Reflections on the History and Future of the Open Building Network, Ball State University, available at <http://www.open-building.org/archives/ Reflections_on_the_History_and_Future_of_Open%20 Building_and_the_OB_Network.pdf> [16 Nov 2015] Kendall, Stephen and Teicher, Jonathan, Residential Open Building, E & FN Spon, 2000

Mota, Catarina (2011), The Rise of Personal Fabrication, Research Notebook, available at <http://www. researchnotebook.cc/2011/08/the-rise-of-personalfabrication/ > [10 Dec 2015 ]

Schneider, Tatjana, Till, Jeremy and Wigglesworth, Sarah (2006), Flexible Housing Project: A Few Thoughts on Flexible Housing, available at < http://www.afewthoughts. co.uk/flexiblehousing/> [16 Nov 2015]

Mühlhans, Tanja and Walther, Ingrid (2014), Dritter Kreativ Wirtschafts, Berichtentwicklung und Potenziale (Third Creative Industry Report, Development and Potential), Senate Department for Economics, Technology and Research,The Governing Mayor of Berlin, Senate Chancellery - Cultural Affairs, Senate Department for Urban Development and Environment, available at <http:// www.berlin.de/projektzukunft/uploads/tx_news/01_ KWB13_Inhalt_small.pdf>[20 Oct 2015]

Schneider, Tatjana, Till, Jeremy (2005), Flexible Housing: Opportunities and Limits, Cambridge Journals, arq, vol 9, no 2 , 2005, available at <https://jeremytill.s3.amazonaws. com/uploads/post/attachment/37/flexible_arq_1.pdf> [16 Nov 2015]

Richardson, Mark, Elliott, Susie and Haylock, Brad (2013), This home is a factory: Implications of the Maker Movement on Urban Environments, Craft + Design Enquiry, 5, available at <http:// press.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/ craft%2B+design+enquiry%3B+issue+5%2C+2013/10761/ ch08.xhtml [10 Dec 2015 ] Smith, Jo (2014) WikiHouse 4.0: A force for change in UK housebuilding?, Build Positive, available at <http://buildpositive.net/2014/09/22/wikihouse-4-0-aforce-for-change-in-uk-housebuilding/> [10 Dec 2015 ] Rouse, Margaret (2016), Maker Movement , Search Manufacturing ERP, TechTarget, available at <http:// searchmanufacturingerp.techtarget.com/definition/Makermovement> [5 June 2016]

Techopedia (2016), Maker Movement, Techopedia TM, available at <https://www.techopedia.com/ definition/28408/maker-movement> [12 June 2016]

IMAGE CREDITS

All images were last accessed on 24 June 2016 Page 14: a <https://richardbolam.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/access-space-sheffield-uk-one-of-nestas-newradicals-2012/> Page 14: b <https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/pimoroni-is-3/> Page 50: <http://www.carovandijk.nl/stories/unfinished-business-designing-for-the-unknown/> Page 51: < http://www.afewthoughts.co.uk/flexiblehousing/> Page 52: <http://www.mech.hku.hk/sbe/case_study/case/jap/next21/next21-as.html> Page 66: Clockwise from top-right: <http://www.a10.eu/news/headlines/solar_house_madrid.html> <http://www.architecture00.net/news/3251> <http://inhabitat.com/facit-homes-d-process-creates-efficient-buildings-that-snap-together-like-lego-bricks/> Page 68: a <http://www.architecture00.net/news/3251> Page 68: b <http://www.archdaily.com/550093/wikihouse-unveils-world-s-first-two-storey-open-source-house-at-londondesign-festival> Page 69: a <http://inhabitat.com/facit-homes-d-process-creates-efficient-buildings-that-snap-together-like-lego-bricks/> Page 69: b <http://designtoimprovelife.dk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/villa-asserbo-entileen-facit-homes-6.jpg> Page 70: a <http://www.slideshare.net/fatdogfish/3-54779474> Page 70: b <https://dfl.arq.up.pt/serpentine-structure/> Page 70: c <http://www.archdaily.com/199442/gc-prostho-museum-research-center-kengo-kuma-associates/5004e0cf28b a0d4e8d000ad6-gcprosthomuseum-research-center-kengo-kuma-associates-details>