Design+Make Urban-Rural Interface Volume 2 by Design+Make

Urban - Rural Interface

Volume 2 Kansas State University, APDesign Design+Make Studio 2020-2021

Urban - Rural Interface

Volume 2 Kansas State University, APDesign Design+Make Studio 2020-2021

Directory

Urban-Rural Interface

Urban-Rural Interface Foreword Introductions The Interface

Volland Foundation Vernacular Typology Final Proposals

Lone Oaks Farm

5 9 11 19

27 33 41 75

117

Introduction Site Evaluation Final Proposals

123 129 135

Learning in a Pandemic Acknowledgments Index

189 191 193

Fig. 1: Larissa Oshima, Illustrating how the Volland Foundation can bring all backgrounds together.

Page 3

Urban-Rural Interface Foreword Introductions The Interface

Alone is dull, together they inspire. Emily LaRocco

Foreword The Atmosphere of the Studio

The spring semester of the design-make studio lived in two worlds. One world was close to home, the other world was seemingly imaginary until the end of the semester. Volland, Kansas, a town with more history than inhabitants, developed into a rigorous study in vernacular throughout the semester. Lone Oaks Farm in Middleton, Tennessee, where buttercup flowers roam free in wide open wheat fields, strengthened dialogue between owner logistics and designer ambitions. Being close to home, Volland, KS was visited a handful of times. Only 45 minutes away from Manhattan, the Volland team gathered to walk, measure, document, and digest the subtleties of Volland with the future residency in mind. With weathered wood, flowing prairie grasses, and cows gathering to whomever arrives into town, Volland flaunts its character to it’s visitors without reserve. Along the main road, each house can be seen with a specific attitude toward the street, until the Volland store. Faced toward the railroad, the store was a trading post and Urban statement that Volland was unique. Following the passion of diverse progression in material, the Volland team aimed to capitalize on the campus unity by exploring what the residencies vernacular could be moving forward. At the end of the semester, the whole studio traveled to Lone Oaks Farm to experience the reality of what a screen could never show. Endless rolling fields of yellow and red flowers danced on the landscape like fire around kindling. Black boarded brackets bordered the perimeter of the farm with a construction

Urban-Rural Interface

unique to the farm. Cows freely grazed on open pastures, geese flew the foggy skies looking for their next stand. A trail could not be found to form a straight path, only gracious bends that shaped to the hills within. Water held, water fed, water streamed, water paused, water escaped, water was the commanding officer of the farm that lost to the engineers who had to control the natural erosion it so helplessly ensues. Nestled into what felt like pure nature arose agrarian barns, shelters, storehouses, and a new event facility that humanized the site. Studying the

A trail could not be found to form a straight path, only gracious bends that shaped to the hills within. farm in four dimensions rather than two, the ideas that were theories over zoom found their beginnings in the imaginations of the students as they staked out the buildings in the field. Students of design were taught surveying in the land, while teachers of practice were taught the ingenuity of a creative mind. Written: Justin Jennings

Fig. 1: Alex Kinnan

Page 9

Meet the Team Studio Mentors The Design+Make studio is sponsored by El Dorado, an architecture firm located in Kansas City, Missouri. The studio consists of a team of partners and associates from El Dorado, as well as two visiting guest critics who are AP Design alumni and professionals in the field.

David Dowell, AIA El Dorado | Partner

Part One Urban-Rural Interface

Brian Michener, AIA LEED AP El Dorado | Associate

Ted Arendes, R.A. El Dorado | Associate

Daniel Renner, AIA El Dorado | Project Architect

Lauren Harness, AIA LEED GA

Timothy Tse

About the Work | Associate Project Manager

OMA | Architect

Page 11

Meet the Team Students The Design + Make Studio is composed of twelve graduate architecture students who are in their final year at Kansas State University.

Krishan Baniqued

Cheyenne Canterbury

Jenna Engel

Most likely to have a bad internet connection

Most likely to schedule a meeting

Most likely to pull an all-nighter

Alex Kinnan

Krynne Knopik

Emily LaRocco

Most likely to make memes

Most likely to eat during zoom

Most likely to be outside during class

Urban-Rural Interface

Natalie Grimm

Matthew Ho

Justin Jennings

Most likely to be in ArchDaily

Most likely to be in studio all the time

Most likely to walk the entire site

Kylee Mernagh

Drew Lofton

Larissa Oshima

Most likely to zoom from their car

Most likely to have a tape measure

Most likely to argue with client

Page 13

Studio Introduction Communications Studies The Design+Make Studio at Kansas State University’s College of Architecture Planning and Design is a capstone studio focusing on real world clients with projects that make a difference in communities around the world. In this studio, the students were broken into three groups, each focusing on different projects that address the focus for this year’s Design+Make studio, the Urban Rural Interface. Going into the spring semester, the studio was challenged to study each drawing typology in isolation of each project first beginning with precedents then applying to our own drawings. This focus on drawing typologies was a part of the companion course to studio, design communications. This line of study forced the studio to think critically about what each drawing is showing and how it serves the project, for better or worse.

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 1-2: Design+Make Studio

Page 15

Maybe the URI is a medium fry and a frosty...

Fig. 1: Mike Sinclair

Urban-Rural Interface

The Interface How We See It

In the next 30 years, the human race will increase its population by two billion people. That’s two billion more mouths to feed, two million more bodies to clothe, and two million more humans to house. Society is not facing an easy task, and it’s apparent that things cannot simply continue as they currently are. Suburban sprawl will hit a stopping point - the Meadow Lakes neighborhoods will start backing

Food production is at an all time strain, and yet millions live in inner city food deserts. right up into the Golden Hills ones. Small towns with charming histories and stories are in danger of being overrun or abandoned. Society wastes astronomical amounts of food, and yet millions live in inner city food deserts. All of these issues are primed around the topic of this capstone studio The Urban Rural Interface (UR-I). It is our belief that by studying, understanding, and working within this interface, we can start to solve some of these truly wicked problems.

Page 19

The Interface Thought Process

On a Friday afternoon in February at Kansas State’s union bar and grill, the studio gathered over drinks and pecha kucha presentations to try and fully grapple with what the Urban Rural Interface was. The students didn’t come to one solid answer. But, they did realize that the interface is not one specific district between the urban and the rural. It is not a place that is passed through, separated by urban and rural roads. Sometimes it can appear this way, and those moments are gloriously ironic. (Take for instance, the lifelong city dweller who moves out to the fringes of town, and doesn’t know how to handle the combine blocking half the road). The studio found that more likely, the interface is this tension that is invisible until it is named, and then it is everywhere. It is relationships between people, companies, and cities. It is infrastructure. It is food production, transportation, and waste. It is education and art and mentoring the next generation. The Urban Rural Interface is a force to face - and society can either work with it or against it. The studio hopes to portray in this book how architecture can start to aid in this tension, either by abating it, or making it more obvious. Throughout the semester, this was studied in two different locations - Lone Oaks Farm near Middleton, Tennessee, and Volland, Kansas. Multiple projects were undertaken at each site throughout the course of this studio, including masterplanning. This book is just a snippet of the work and research that was poured into these places, and hopefully serves as a catalyst for the next group that tries to reckon with the Urban Rural Interface.

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 21

What is the URI?

Fig. 1: Mike Sinclair

Urban-Rural Interface

The Interface A Platform for a Solution

The Urban-Rural Interface is not defined by one finite answer. It is an ambiguous, all-encompassing ideology that can serve as a platform for the solution. The world faces countless wicked problems every day, so how can one expect a single answer to solve all of them? The UR-I serves as a means to the end, a way for these solutions to complex issues to foster through the cross pollination of ideas and beliefs. If society is to solve the wicked problems that it faces such as food scarcity and rural flight, there needs to be a way for members of both communities to come together and brainstorm and invent.

The UR-I serves as a means to the end, a way for these solutions to complex issues to foster through the cross pollination of ideas and beliefs. While the UR-I is the platform ideologically for these solutions to foster, architecture can serve as the physical platform used for these gatherings to happen. Architecture inherently provides communities with spaces to congregate, and in order to find solutions to these wicked problems, there needs to be a physical meeting point for the UR-I. For centuries, urban and rural communities have coexisted, but over time a divide has grown. It is up to us as community members, architects, designers, scientists, etc. to recognize that these issues are not isolated to whatever community they are affecting right now. These are issues that if we don’t help solve, they will affect all of us eventually. In order to bridge the growing divide, we must push to create spaces dedicated to the sharing of knowledge.

Page 25

Volland Foundation Vernacular Drawing Typology Final Proposals

Client Group Volland Foundation The Volland team interacted with the owners of the Volland Foundation, Jerry and Patty Reece, as well as their various colleagues with numerous specializations. They provided the passion and insight that helped guide and ground the students in retention of vision for the Volland campus. Various consultants and faculty joined intermittently throughout, providing insight and commentary during interactions with students. Mindy Chaffin, the new Volland Director, also joined the collaboration this semester, lending her insight having previously been involved in another artist residency program in Oregon.

Jerry and Patty Reece Founder | Volland Foundation

Urban-Rural Interface

Mindy Chaffin Director | Volland Foundation

Laurie Hamilton Owner | Grimm-Schultz Farmstead

Page 29

Design Team Mentors & Students The Volland team was assisted in conjunction with El Dorado faculty. The team of six students from the previous Fall 2020 semester forms the Spring 2021 team.

David Dowell, AIA El Dorado | Partner

Urban-Rural Interface

Ted Arendes, R.A. El Dorado | Associate

Daniel Renner, AIA El Dorado | Project Architect

Krishan Baniqued

Justin Jennings

Krynne Knopik

Emily LaRocco

Drew Lofton

Larissa Oshima

Page 31

Part One Vernacular Locality Diptych

Fig. 1: Artist Residency Collage

Urban-Rural Interface

Everything... that we plan we see through the lens of both urban and rural, and its a very delicate balance. It’s not always possible to have programs and art that appeal to both but we’re always conscious of it and how both can inform each other. Patty Reece, Volland Foundation Chair

Page 35

Locality Volland Vernacular At the beginning of the spring semester, the students traveled around Wabaunsee county to document the specifics of the vernacular in the area. Alma, a town northwest of Volland, was the largest local influence of residential and commercial vernacular that we could study in a dense community. We also drove through the gravel farm roads in and around Volland to try and identify the roof pitch, dormer styles, construction details, gutter profiles, window shapes, door placements, house configurations, and material choices that all make up the unique flavor of the Volland vernacular. After diagramming the differences and similarities between Wabaunsee County vernacular and Volland vernacular, the students were able to identify what was specific to the site of Volland versus the county at large. Studying the similarities and differences heightened their sense of what was true to Volland, and ultimately informed the way they thought about the designs for the new artist residency.

Fig. 1: Historical Volland Collage

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 37

Diptych Study of Relationships A diptych in art is anything made up of two parts that when joined together reveal comparing or contrasting qualities. With the existing building context of Volland being so sensitive to new construction, diptychs and triptychs became an important tool to compare proposals to existing. Elevational and sectional studies were helpful because of the ability to quickly cycle through design iterations. Fig. 1: Diptych of House 3 and 2 Fig. 2: Diptych of House 1 and 0

House 2

House 3

Urban-Rural Interface

House 0 House 1

Page 39

Part Two Drawing Typology Typology Elevations Sections Situational Plans

Fig. 1: Sectional Studies of Art Barn

Urban-Rural Volland Foundation Interface

The structure of this semester pushed the design team to return to the basics of drawing types. Each week was focused on a specific drawing typology, of which the students found precedents that were thought to be a depiction of a successful drawing. This exercise provided the opportunity to dive into the typologies in order to understand what was needed for success in the students’ drawings to help communicate ideas with the client. This limited the team to only being able to produce one type of drawing weekly, so there were iterations upon iterations of floor plans, elevations, sections, and more. Over the course of this semester, the students were able to start to compile the drawing types that had been studied and use them to present to the clients as a whole. It helped focus meetings onto a certain subject but also allowed the client to effectively see the differences of the ideas as they were presented in a comparative manner side by side.

Page 43

Elevations House Zero

02.26.21

03.05.21

03.17.21

03.22.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

Urban-Rural Interface

03.05.21

03.22.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

Page 45

Elevations House Two

02.26.21

03.05.21

03.10.21

03.17.21

03.29.21

Urban-Rural Interface

03.05.21

03.10.21

03.22.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

Page 47

Elevations House Three

02.05.21

02.12.21

02.21.21

02.26.21

03.10.21

03.29.21

Urban-Rural Interface

02.21.21

02.26.21

03.10.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

5’

04.09.21

Page 49

Elevations Admin

02.05.21

02.19.21

03.05.21

03.10.21

03.29.21

Urban-Rural Interface

02.05.21

02.19.21

03.05.21

03.10.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

Page 51

Elevations Art Barn

02.19.21

02.21.21

03.05.21

03.22.21

03.29.21

Urban-Rural Interface

02.21.21

02.26.21

03.10.21

03.22.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

Page 53

Section House Zero

03.10.21

03.17.21

03.22.21

04.09.21

5’

Urban-Rural Interface

03.17.21

03.22.21

5’

03.22.21

04.09.21

Page 55

Section House Two

02.12.21

02.19.21

02.21.21

03.05.21

03.10.21

Urban-Rural Interface

02.12.21

03.05.21

03.17.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

Page 57

Section House Three

02.12.21

02.19.21

02.21.21

03.17.21

Urban-Rural Interface

02.12.21

02.26.21

03.05.21

03.10.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

.5’ 0

1’ .5’

1’

Page 59

Section Admin

02.12.21

02.19.21

02.21.21

03.22.21

03.29.21

Urban-Rural Interface

02.12.21

02.19.21

03.05.21

03.22.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

Page 61

Section Art Barn

02.12.21

02.21.21

03.22.21

03.29.21

Urban-Rural Interface

02.12.21

03.05.21

04.09.21

Page 63

Situational Floor Plan House Zero

03.10.21

03.17.21

04.09.21

Urban-Rural Interface

04.09.21

5’

Page 65

Situational Floor Plan House Two

02.26.21

03.05.21

03.17.21

03.22.21

Urban-Rural Interface

03.10.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

Page 67

Situational Floor Plan House Three

02.29.21

03.10.21

03.17.21

03.29.21

Urban-Rural Interface

03.05.21

03.10.21

03.17.21

03.29.21

02.29.21

5’

Page 69

Situational Floor Plan Admin

02.05.21

03.10.21

03.17.21

03.22.21

03.29.21

Urban-Rural Interface

03.10.21

03.22.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

Page 71

Situational Floor Plan Art Barn

02.05.21

02.26.21

03.05.21

03.17.21

03.10.21

03.19.21

03.22.21

03.29.21

Urban-Rural Interface

03.05.21

03.10.21

03.19.21

03.29.21

04.09.21

Page 73

Urban-Rural Interface

Part Three Final Proposal Preface Proposal Future

Page 75

Fig. 1: Creation of Site Model

Urban-Rural Interface

Preface Approach to Proposal

This semester provided a different approach to design thinking and analysis that was a refreshing reprieve to the prior work done as a team. The goal of the semester was to study a drawing typology weekly in order to apply it to the work we were presenting to the client. This was supposed to help bridge and strengthen the communication between students and clients. Through studying these drawing typologies, we were able to understand how they work as a tool for communication and not specifically a way to communicate. The challenges we faced earlier in the year started to lessen while new ones arose. As a team we realized that the relationship between client and student worked two ways and was not one sided. We learned how to communicate effectively through drawing types in order to present our ideas to the people invested in Volland. Specifically, it became a give and take from both sides; conversation flowed around ideas passed between both parties instead of the team trying to tell the clients what we were doing and thinking. As the semester progressed there were periods of time where there was no contact between the two sides due to exciting events taking place at the Volland Store. This provided an opportunity for the team to buckle down and focus on the design as a whole. We focused our exploration on finding the vernacular of Volland and applying that to our designs. Once the vernacular was established through building form, materiality, and experience we worked on how we could present the work in a successful way to communicate our ideas in the hopes of opening a conversation between the client to trade ideas. Multiple iterations and ideas of ways to communicate our thoughts had been thrown around. When talk of diptychs were introduced we ran with the idea and it opened many opportunities in how we can communicate our ideas. It provided us with a tool of comparing and contrasting, existing and new proposed structures in Volland. This way of presenting our ideas through diptychs allowed us to show the clients exactly what we were verbally saying. We continued to use this method of communication through the end of the semester, allowing conversation to open up and flourish. Page 77

Fig. 1: Historical Volland UFO Collage

Urban-Rural Interface

After roughly three months of iterating through these drawing typologies, we concluded the spring’s schematic design and began dedicating our time to the finish of each building. Through the earlier iterative process, the buildings found their essence or underlying story that breathed life into each proposal. We also continued to use the beneficial tool of diptychs to compare the buildings and align them with the architectural theme we have discovered in Volland. The following set of buildings was what we as a studio proposed to the clients and the Volland Foundation at the beginning of May 2021 to bring our 5th-year studio to a close.

Page 79

Proposal Existing Site Plan

Urban-Rural Interface

1 House 1 2 House 2 3 Little Sheds 4 Schultz Residence 5 Blacksmith Shed 6 Volland Store 7 Leaning Shed 8 Old Volland Store 9 Ruins

Page 81

Proposal House Zero - The Stone House The Stone House is a proposal that embodies the idea of permanence. With a history of Volland where each house has been picked up and moved to a new location multiple times, the artist residency is not interested in moving away or losing their homes. Much like the Volland store, masonry construction will more than likely stay where it was built. The idea of the Stone House is to cap off the northern end of the artist residency with another masonry-built structure that embodies a grounded site defining element into the campus of Volland. By adding the material of Kansas limestone, the Volland vernacular finds a complete set of all construction types represented from Wabaunsee county. Seen from Old Hwy K-10, this limestone house will attract attention from people passing by with a new understanding of traditional limestone construction.

5 4

1 Bed Nook 2 Kitchenette 3 Bath 4 Dining 5 Living 6 Porch

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 83

Fig. 1: Interior View of Stone House

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 2: Section Detail of Stone House

Proposal House Zero - The Stone House

On the interior, the Stone House resembles a familiar layout and amenities as the recently renovated House 1 in Volland. The major difference lies in the thick stone walls, providing thermal and acoustic benefits, and well as a large dormer window that lets in soft North light. Within an artist residency, Mindy Chaffin mentioned that having similar homes with little unique differences is a great way to keep artists from being jealous, yet feel special at the same time. By letting the acoustics, light, and material steal the importance rather than the layout, artists can feel a part of a unified campus that shares similar qualities of life, yet can express the unique aspects of each home. Since the studio studied the local vernacular to a great depth, this house is designed with Kansas Limestone construction in mind. The windows are relatively small with stone lintels and a chamfer on the inside of the window. The house is kept to a simple rectangle for ease of construction. The roof though, which is constructed with wood members and stone tiles on top, bring an innovative idea to the local vernacular to emphasize the idea of permanence. The most drastic design element is the dormer. By taking the proportion and shape of a classic dormer and scaling it up, the wall and roof open up to the sky and prairie to let in soft light and to act as a beacon at night.

Page 85

Proposal House Zero - The Lantern The Lantern House, another proposal for House Zero, reiterates the frontal dormer to sit on the northern roofline to welcome visitors who enter town from Old K-10 Highway. The subtracted porches are glazed to allow light to enter the spaces. No other glazing can be found except for in these porches. The interior possesses a flat ceiling to bounce light deeper inside, while the volume of the dormer intercepts this plane to draw your eye up and out into the sky. The interior floor plan is like that of House 1, with the service core separating the living spaces.

1.5’ 1’

1 5 3

1 Bed Nook 2 Kitchenette 4

3 Bath 4 Dining / Living 5 Porch

Urban-Rural Interface

5’

Page 87

Proposal House Zero - The Lantern

Urban-Rural Volland Foundation Interface

At night, the lantern house glows from within. The modern dormer is a portal to the shelter inside, echoed by the glazed porch spaces. The glowing shape of the window seen from the highway would act as a lighthouse leading the artists to Volland. The residence exudes the warm, welcoming glow of a home in the flint hills prairie and calls the resident artist back home.

Page 89

Proposal House Two - The Retreating Addition House Two is an adaptive reuse of an existing structure, to accommodate an artist’s studio needs as well as living needs. The existing house originally was a two story home, with lacking accommodations for modern comfort. This paved the decision to open the original house two into a double height space to serve as the studio. An addition was then designed behind the house, “retreating” in all fronts while obviously taking cues in proportion and form.

2 1

5 1 Bedroom 5

2 Kitchenette 3 Bath 4 Dining / Living 5 Porch

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 1: National Geographic

Page 91

Proposal House Two - The Retreating Addition The addition is lacking in fenestration, serving as a formal diagram of live and work between the two forms. At night when an artist retires for the evening, an oculus unseen from the exterior serves as a personal surprise for the visitor, exemplifying an important asset of Volland (the untarnished night sky).

Fig. 1: The addition can be seen replicating the width of House 2. Fig. 2: Lack of fenestration emphasizes the vernacular of the addition. Fig. 3: The addition also steps down in height to not overpower House 2.

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 93

Proposal House Three - The Disappearing House The Unfolding House sits closed in the landscape until its resident artist arrives. Mechanized panels cover the openings to the house that can be left closed or opened. Several panels that would appear to open are in fact vents that remain stationary yet allow for ventilation. This opening effect is also found on the interior, with the thick interior wall that house the kitchen and other appliances. The large living space is entered first, where this wall appears just as any other wall in the residence. Panels can be lifted and folded up to reveal the workspace of the kitchen that can be easily hidden. The door to the bathroom also hides within this wall, along with storage and access to the mechanical area above the bathroom.

1 Bed Nook 2 Kitchenette 3 Bath

4 Dining / Living 5 Porch

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 1 & 2: The house in a state of open and closed fenestration. Fig. 3: The double height living space in relation to the services. Fig. 4: The interior built in furniture in a recess state to maximize flexibility. Fig. 5: Section detail of the cabinetry in motion from a closed to open state

Page 95

Proposal House Three - The Disappearing House When closed, the house appears resolute and the panels that cover the windows blend seamlessly into the surrounding exterior cladding. The mechanized panels swing out like an opening book to let the light and air into the residence. The Volland Store has a similar effect with the automatic shade system on the southern facade. These panels, both inside and out can be manipulated by the resident to their desire. Fig. 1: The Disappearing House in a closed state Fig. 2: The Disappearing House in a open state

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 97

Proposal Admin Building - The Sentinel The sentinel acts as the guard and eye of Volland, allowing staff to welcome guests. The low hip roof with ample overhang is protective thus allowing for glazing along the east and south facade that creates a continuous view out into the landscape.

3 4 5 2 1

1 Open Office 2 Services 3 Bath 4 Private Office 5 Meeting Room

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 99

Proposal Admin Building - The Sentinel The ceiling plane is lowered to create a horizontal space that pulls you out into the landscape, fitting in the setting of the flint hills. The administration building is detailed to reinforce the idea of an office in the prairie. The standing seam roofing bends to become the ceiling plane, and the framing of the glazing is set within the ceiling and floor to form an unobstructed view out.

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 1: The Sentinel section detail through floor to ceiling glass Fig. 2-4: Sun shading studies Fig. 5: Interior render looking at corner of Volland Road

Page 101

Proposal Art Barn South of the new residence building proposals and north of the Volland Store is the art barn. The new building supports a variety of artist types and community events. Opening back up to the campus of artist residences, the north elevation is very animated, having the ability to make the work environment as open or as closed as an artist wants or needs.

3 4

1 Studio 1 1 4

Urban-Rural Interface

2 Studio 2 3 Studio 3 4 Bath

Page 103

Proposal Art Barn The art barn has three types of studios: a large studio, small studios, and the loft studio. The studios accommodate a diversity of special needs for a number of artists. Two smaller studios are created by the stair, the loft studio gives a smaller scale artist a vantage of Volland unavailable anywhere else, and the large studio holds the capacity to become whatever type of studio or gallery space is desired.

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 1: The Art Barn section detail through both floors Fig. 2-4: Cross sections in various height conditions Fig. 5: Exterior render of Art Barn from the central exterior space

Page 105

Proposal Proposed Site Plan

Urban-Rural Interface

Existing

1 House Zero

Proposed

2 House 1 3 House 2 4 Little Sheds 5 House 3 6 Schultz Residence

7 Art Barn 8 Admin 9 Blacksmith Shed

10 Volland Store 11 Leaning Shed 6

12 Old Volland Store 13 Ruins

Page 107

Proposal Proposed Site Plan Model

13 7 9

Urban-Rural Interface

8 5

1 House Zero 2 House 1 3 House 2 4 Little Sheds 5 House 3 6 Schultz Residence 7 Art Barn 8 Admin 9 Blacksmith Shed 10 Volland Store 11 Leaning Shed 12 Old Volland Store 13 Ruins

Page 109

Proposal Proposed Site Plan Model

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 111

Fig. 1: Proposed Architecture in Prairie Collage

Urban-Rural Interface

The Volland Foundation provides artist residencies and community programming in a historic village setting in the Flint Hills of Kansas. The Foundation aims to be recognized as a world-class residency program of the highest caliber, serving a mix of regional and international artists. The Volland Foundation will bring high quality arts and culture practitioners and events to the Flint Hills while sharing the majesty and history of this unique and under appreciated landscape with individuals from around the world. Its site and facilities will celebrate and showcase the simple architecture and gentle sublime landscapes characterizing the region. The Volland Foundation’s activities will bring together artists, residents, and visitors with members of the local community in a village environment, enhancing the region’s economic vitality and nurturing community connections and open dialogue. Beyond a focus on ecologically oriented artistic practices, The Foundation’s programs aim to celebrate and share local life-ways and the complex history of the Flint Hills region and its peoples.

Page 113

Fig. 1: Volland Team Typical Workshop

Urban-Rural Interface

Mulligan Stew made from odds and ends of foods, communal gathering of neighbors around Volland in late September, trust in each other to put in the right food. Just like a Design + Make Studio.

Page 115

Lone Oaks Farm Introduction Site Evaluation Final Proposals

Client Group University of Tennessee, Lone Oaks Farm & West Tennessee River Basin Authority Lone Oaks Farm, owned by the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture is administered by the UT Extension program. The UT Extension program is dedicated to improving the quality of life and solves problems that occur in Tennessee through research and education. Through this dedication to providing educational experiences to Tennesseans, UT Extension strives to enhance the well-being of rural and urban communities. (“About”, Lone Oaks Farm). Lone Oaks Farm serves as a platform for the UT Extension program to truly prosper through the hands-on educational experience. One way of doing this is through the work of the West Tennessee River Basin Authority. This organization has begun stream mitigation efforts on the farm, addressing erosion issues on site. They have also had a heavy hand in discussions about the W.E.T. Center.

Ron Blair University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture | Farm and STEM Director

Urban-Rural Interface

Ben West, Ph.D. University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture | Director and Professor

Penny Russell Lone Oaks Farm | STEM Program Director

David Blackwood, P.E. West Tennessee River Basin Authority | Executive Director

Page 119

Design Team Mentors and Students The Lone Oaks Farm design team consists of six students, three who focused on the STEM Barn, and three focused on the W.E.T. Center. The team also includes three members from El Dorado as well as two guest critics who are professionals in the architecture field.

David Dowell, AIA El Dorado | Partner

Urban-Rural Interface

Ted Arendes, R.A. El Dorado | Associate

Brock Traffas El Dorado | Designer

Lauren Harness, AIA LEED Green Associate About the Work | Associate Project Manager

Timothy Tse OMA | Architect

Cheyenne Canterbury

Jenna Engel

Natalie Grimm

Matthew Ho

Alex Kinnan

Kylee Mernagh

Page 121

Part One Introduction Project Goals Semester Timeline

Fig. 1: WMWA Landscape Architects

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 2: Alex Kinnan

Fig. 3: Natalie Grimm

Fig. 4: David Dowell

Project Goals Propose Architecture as a Solution In the fall semester, the design team analyzed the master plan of Lone Oaks Farm and created the goal of proposing “positive architecture” which is a design that begins to address infrastructural and community issues. During the spring semester, that goal was focused on two individual projects - the STEM Barn and the W.E.T. Center. Both buildings aim to provide spaces where the Lone Oaks Farm mission of hands on education can start to take place in very rich ways. Keeping this mission as a guiding principle throughout the design process was crucial in furthering the vision of Lone Oaks Farm.

Programming and Siting the W.E.T. Center The W.E.T. Center was initially presented by the firm Kimley Horn to Lone Oaks Farm prior to the studio’s involvement in the project. Due to this, preliminary siting for the complex and general programming was in its infancy. Throughout the fall explorations were made in tandem with general master planning to explore various potential locations for the W.E.T. Center aside from the formerly proposed sale barn site. Ideas surrounding making the complex more interactive with the farm as well as more overtly sustainable lead to the decision to move the center to a site along the farm’s dam. This allowed the W.E.T. Center to not only be centrally located on the site and viewable from points of entry and observation, but also to better connect with the farm’s lake, spillway and river network. David Blackwood, West Tennessee River Basin Authority Executive Director put it best: “This is below the big lake where we have a high availability of water to fill the big tank and to run a lot of our simulations.” (“W.E.T. Center Town Hall”, 2021).

Refining the STEM Barn During the fall semester, the project team worked to understand the purpose of the barn as well as site the structure accordingly. Throughout the spring semester, the team worked to refine the previous semester’s work, striving to create a barn that met the programmatic requirements while simultaneously providing elements that would engage and provoke a deeper level of STEM education. By proposing additional program to the STEM Barn, the project team aimed to challenge the preconceived notion of what a barn is, creating a new platform for handson educational experiences. Through further exploration of the barn as a way-finding element of the site, the team hoped to create an iconic piece of architecture that would complete the previously designed STEM Center by El Dorado. Part-way through the semester, the goal was broadened to investigate a potential expansion of the STEM center, pushing the team to analyze the site and plan for any future development within the STEM complex.

Page 125

Project Timeline A Semester of Unique Circumstances Resuming work in mid-January, the Lone Oaks Farm teams worked to continue developing the architectural proposals presented at the end of the fall semester. The teams continued collaborating directly with the clients to refine the siting and architectural proposals for both projects. Beginning in mid-March, the team was fortunate to begin getting vaccinated, ultimately resulting in an opportunity to finally visit Lone Oaks Farm in late April. While at the farm, the teams were able to deliver the final proposals directly to the clients, walk the sites, and stake out elements of the W.E.T. Center at full scale.

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 127

Part Two Site Evaluation The Lone Oaks Experience Project Visualization

The Lone Oaks Experience Site Visit

In late April, the studio had the opportunity to visit Lone Oaks Farm in Middleton, Tennessee. After eight months of working with the clients at the farm to reimagine the master plan, site two new structures, and create two distinct architectural proposals, the project team was finally able to walk the sites they had been imagining for so long. In addition to the Lone Oaks team, several members of the Volland team joined the site visit. Spending four days at the farm, the studio walked the sites led by Ron Blair. Having gotten a sense of scale and place, the project teams presented their final proposals to the clients in person, after eight months of various Google Meet presentations. After a turbulent year in a global pandemic, the opportunity to safely present in-person allowed for the project team and the client to have in-depth conversations about each project in a more traditional format than had previously been possible. This allowed discussions following to be highly effective in plotting a path forward for these designs. On our last afternoon on the farm, the studio, accompanied by Ron Blair, was able to visit and play a round on the sporting clays course at the farm. Along with this, the studio was also able to see how such a course was organized and designed via Ron’s tour and first hand accounting. These lessons will become invaluable as both projects come closer to development in the coming months.

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 1: Cheyenne Canterbury

Fig. 2-3: David Dowell

Fig. 4: Natalie Grimm

Page 131

Project Visualization Staking the Site

On our last full day at the farm, the studio team tried their hands at site staking. Led by Ron Blair, the team learned how to make sure they were using right angles, and avoiding parallelograms when they wanted rectangles. After starting over more than once, the W.E.T. Center’s main components were visible on a 1:1 scale. With the lower basin of the W.E.T. Center being roughly the size of a football field, the students and Ron alike were surprised at the vastness of the project. It also became clear to everyone that the placement of the building could be adjusted by only a few yards and have much better rainwater management. One of the biggest takeaways for the studio in this exercise was seeing how greatly being on site will impact the design process. At the time of the site visit, the STEM Barn site was holding piles of earth for the construction of the Forest Cabins, so the team was unable to do the staking process for that project.

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 1-2: Alex Kinnan

Fig. 3: David Dowell

Fig. 4: Cheyenne Canterbury

Page 133

Part Three Final Proposals W.E.T. Center STEM Barn

Urban-Rural Interface

Proposals Overview

Over the course of the semester, the design team focused on siting and programming the W.E.T. Center as well as refining the STEM Barn proposal from the previous semester. Throughout the design process, the team continued to work directly with the clients in order to gain a deeper understanding of the W.E.T. Center and the purpose it serves beyond the scope of Tennessee. With countless iterations, the design team came to finalize the site of the facility and transitioned into studying how architecture can serve as a tool to enhance the educational experience. In addition to W.E.T. Center, the design team was tasked with furthering the proposal of the STEM Barn that was presented in the fall. Beginning with the site that was determined in the previous semester, the team worked to identify and refine what makes this barn unique as a STEM barn. This challenged the team to think of architectural elements that could be implemented into the space that would spark curiosity of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Through multiple iterations, the team pushed to create a barn that served as a platform for the Lone Oaks mission. Through both projects, this mission of a handson educational experience was realized.

Fig. 1: Proposed W.E.T. Center Fig. 2: Proposed STEM Barn Page 137

Lone Oaks Farm Proposed Overall Site

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 139

Floods have happened for a long time, and they are not going to stop anytime soon. So the question is always, what to do about it? David Blackwood, West Tennessee River Basin Authority

Urban-Rural Interface

W.E.T. Center Program Introduction

Managing storm water, erosion, and flooding is required by municipalities, counties, state and federal agencies, universities, and private landowners. Simple structures like road culverts, in order to perform successfully, need an understanding of basic principles in hydrology and erosion. Lone Oaks Farm in partnership with the West Tennessee River Basin Authority feels an urgent need to educate landowners about how water moves across the landscape. The proposed solution to this infrastructural issue is the creation of a completely new building type. A Water Education and Training (W.E.T.) Center is an educational program and facility to teach the basic concepts of hydrology, erosion, and green infrastructure to the people responsible for constructing water related infrastructure. Participants can experience water in volumes and velocities relatable to actual heavy rain and flood events.

of the site, topography and grading that can accommodate roughly twenty to thirty feet of elevation change, access for visitors and earth moving equipment, and proximity to support services. Programs and classes held at the W.E.T. Center have the potential to last multiple days, so support space will be necessary in order to accommodate meals and breaks. Programmatic criteria for the W.E.T. Center includes a one million gallon water reservoir, two to three flooding flumes used to efficiently simulate floods, a lower demonstration basin roughly the size of a football field and capable of being flooded, a fifteen to twenty space parking lot, and a building to house interior program. The ideas outlined in a W.E.T. Center relate directly to the larger mission at Lone Oaks Farm. Originally, the youth education zone of the farm contained all of the STEM education elements and used agriculture as the context. With the addition of the W.E.T. Center, those same ideas of STEM education and learning by doing will be translated to use infrastructure as the context. This widens the participant pool to include everyone from K-12 students, to rural road builders and landowners, to geotechnical engineers.

Site criteria for the W.E.T. Center includes access to water to be used for full scale simulation, a way to drain excess water out Fig. 1: Failed Culvert Fig. 2: Proposed W.E.T. Center Fig. 3: Water Cycle Through Flume

Page 143

W.E.T. Center Site Placement Studies

Throughout the semester, the design team studied four different sites for the W.E.T. Center. As the semester progressed, the team began to focus in on one site, centrally located on the farm. “It’s just really central and integral to a lot of things that we are going to have going on there” (“W.E.T. Center Town Hall”, 2021). Fig. 1: W.E.T. Center Proposal in Black Fig. 2: Proposed W.E.T. Center

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig 1-3: W.E.T. Center Mural Page

Page 145

W.E.T Center Site Strategy

Original Architectural Concept The preluding concept for the W.E.T. Center was a series of three parallel blocks - the upper reservoir, the main building, and the lower basin. The design team knew this was a possible solution, but realized it was lacking a functionality and design spark that the building needed.

Flume Zone Split To aid in better flume function while maintaining close proximity to visitors’ observing spaces, the building was split into a main programmatic area and a large-scale storage area. This separated the functions of the building, improved circulation, and granted more space to the flume construction area. This zone quickly became a key part of the building, and a very important moment.

Kinking the Building A ‘kink’ was added to the north end of the building to turn its focus back on the flume zone and to create an outlook across the vista of the farm. After visiting the site, the design team realized that this kink also provided views of the ever changing stream mitigation area that will be taking place in the coming decade. It was a poetic realization that the building focused on water management would be saluting the efforts to restore the natural rhythm of the streams on site.

Expansion of Program 6niv - Expansion of Program Siting the building in the center of the levee provides opportunities to further activate the site in the future. With this zone being a central and very visible area on the farm, it is prime for further development. The south side of the levee currently houses overflow parking for the W.E.T. Center, and in the future, it could hold a boat launch, a recreational area, and a gathering space for W.E.T. Center workers and young campers alike. Urban-Rural Interface

50’

200’

500’

Page 147

W.E.T. Center Programmatic Arrangement

The interior of the W.E.T. Center is broken up into two main buildings. The northernmost building contains the educational and observational wings, while the southern building contains the storage wing. Separating these allows for visitors to the W.E.T. Center to remain separate from flume zone workers when necessary. The educational wing is a flexible space that can house educational equipment for both students and flume workers. This space can also be opened up via a Nana wall to flow into the open air entry space. These areas are equipped with concrete floors and drains for easy maintenance. The observational wing provides a space for learning and watching the flume construction for both visitors and workers. A built in desk provides a natural barrier between the two people groups. An exterior observation deck exists along the boardwalk at the flume space as well. The storage wing houses large scale building equipment along with building materials.

12.5’

Urban-Rural Interface

25’

50’

Education Wing Flexible Use Space Simulation Room Kitchenette Mech. Storage

Observation Wing Observation Room Offices Locker Rooms Restrooms

Storage Wing Large Equip. Storage Flume Access

Page 149

W.E.T. Center Situational Floor Plans

An interior flexible education space located within the kinked part of the building allows for visitors to get familiar with the physics of water and the power of heavy construction equipment. A large open area is provided to accommodate flexibility for stream tables and teaching moments, as well as drains in the concrete floor for easy cleaning after messy physics demonstrations. Over the next ten to twenty years the landscape just to the north will drastically change to accommodate stream mitigation done by the West Tennessee River Basin Authority. This space offers windows to the north to be used as an educational tool for visitors to learn and observe what proper water management looks like in a rural West Tennessee setting. The entry space results from many conversations with the client about needing a welcoming area for arriving and departing groups of visitors. Entering alongside the upper reservoir, guests are welcomed into an exterior flex space with views of the farm to the west and the lower basin to the east. Gathering here upon arrival to or when departing from the W.E.T. Center, the entry flex space provides a consistent location for visitors and workers to reference. Drains and proper sloped flooring are also fitted to allow for table top demonstrations to flow out from the interior flexible education space to the north. Fig. 1: Flex Education Room and Entry Plan

Urban-Rural Interface

4’

8’

16’

32’

Page 151

W.E.T. Center Situational Floor Plans

The main circulation between spaces happens along a covered ramp between the upper reservoir and the building. Moving down this ramp, program is ordered by scale starting with locker rooms and rest rooms, then moving to an office and utility room, and finally resulting in the observation and control room. This control room is where the instructors operate and manage the floods happening in the flume zone. The flume zone is an exterior demonstration space for teaching, showing, learning, observing, and doing. Two identical fifteen foot wide, six foot deep, and 120 foot long concrete flumes run downhill to the east and allow for real time comparison tests between two constructed culverts. These flumes carry water from the upper reservoir to the lower basin and let the water gain consistent and measurable velocities before flooding a constructed culvert, levee, or roadway. The flume zone is the nexus of full scale simulation at the W.E.T. Center. Fig. 1: Observation Room and Deck Plan

Urban-Rural Interface

4’

8’

16’

32’

Page 153

W.E.T. Center Observation Room in Detail

Fig. 1: W.E.T. Center Observation Room Fig. 2: Observation Room Window Detail

Urban-Rural Interface

Ledbetter Bronze Corrugated Metal

Embedded Aluminum Gutter

Treated and Stained Plywood Paneling Bronze Aluminum Frame Curtain Wall System

Operable Bronze Aluminum Frame Casement Window

Ledbetter Bronze Corrugated Metal

Polished Concrete Flooring

Cast-in-Place Concrete Foundation

Page 155

W.E.T. Center Local Vernacular

The form of the building was inspired through careful consideration of the existing vernacular at Lone Oaks Farm. The ten to twelve roof pitch is iconic on the farm and prompted replication. Fig. 1: Ledbetter Plateau, Lone Oaks Farm Fig. 2: South Elevation Fig. 3: North Elevation

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 157

W.E.T. Center Longitudinal Sections

Both interior and exterior spaces at the WET Center connect through a covered ramped walkway between the upper reservoir and the building. The ramp helps mitigate the topographical difference between the entry and the flumes, while also providing experiential value as one walks down it, sinking slowly below the waterline of the upper reservoir to the right. The two foot thick concrete wall holds back the water while also creating an uncomfortable tension in the mind of visitors. These moments hint to the ever-present potential energy when you mix water and gravity. This is vital to one’s understanding of the WET Center and its role closing the knowledge gap between engineers and road builders.

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 1: View from Levee to Site Fig. 2: Section through Observation Deck Fig. 3: Longitudinal Section Fig. 4: Longitudinal Section through Circulation

Page 159

The W.E.T. Center ties together a lot of different worlds because we all intersect at water. David Blackwood, West Tennessee River Basin Authority

STEM Barn Purpose of STEM Barn

In order to create a fully functioning STEM educational demonstration garden, there was a realization that there would need to be significant storage associated with it. As Lone Oaks began construction of the STEM Center designed by El Dorado, the need for a barn to accommodate the storage required by the garden became pertinent. Ideally located at the terminus of the existing STEM Center axis, the STEM Barn is an unconditioned facility that is primarily used for the storage of materials and equipment, as well as providing hands on workspace. The studio saw the STEM Barn as an opportunity to incorporate architectural features that challenge the way kids think into the STEM Center. Due

Urban-Rural Interface

to the nature of the facility the barn will be worked into, the STEM Barn serves as its own platform for the urban-rural interface, creating opportunities for students to be exposed to real world applications of what they learn in the classroom. It is through Lone Oak’s mission of creating an educational centerpiece that this expansion of the program for the STEM Barn is feasible. Within the STEM Barn, the design team proposed incorporating a greenhouse, a workshop for hands-on demonstration, an area for compost education, as well as a covered gathering space for classes and a barn-style conditioned restroom area.

Fig. 1-4: Lone Oaks Farm

Page 163

STEM Barn Site Strategy

Existing STEM Center Designed by El Dorado, the STEM Center consists of two parallel bars with a kinked bar directly to the south, and a demonstration garden directly to the west. This campus of buildings sits at the northernmost edge of the 4-H camp on site, serving as an educational center for the 4-H students as well as for students that come on daily field trips.

Continuing Site Axes Taking precedent from the STEM Center, the axes that are set through the demonstration garden create a clear circulation path from the moment a person gets out of their car, through the buildings, and into the demonstration garden. These axes provide an inherent opportunity to tie in the STEM Barn program to an existing campus.

STEM Barn as a Cap Informed by these axes, the STEM Barn is placed at the eastern edge of the demonstration garden. Looking to the existing vernacular set by El Dorado, the STEM Barn is oriented north and south, providing a cap to the STEM Center.

Expansion of Program With the growing demands of STEM education at Lone Oaks, the STEM Center will need to expand. With this in mind, the program and siting of the barn allows for indefinite expansion on the site, catering to whatever needs may arise on the farm.

Urban-Rural Interface

100

Page 165

STEM Barn Architectural Concept

Placed at the western edge of the demonstration garden, the barn serves as an opportunity to take precedent from the STEM Center. Looking to the vernacular set by El Dorado, the barn takes the same ten to twelve roof pitch. With the introduction of additional programmatic elements, the mass is shifted and another form is extruded from within, creating a slipping motion between the two. By doing this, the barn is able to house a greenhouse element on the southern portion of the building and allows for the workshop and storage elements to co-habitate in the traditional barn space to the north. This slipping motion allows not only for a functioning greenhouse on site, but also creates a way-finding element for the 4-H camp as well as the STEM Center.

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 1: STEM Barn Site Location Fig. 2-4: STEM Barn Massing Fig. 3: Wayfinding Element

Page 167

STEM Barn Programmatic Arrangement

The STEM barn is broken up into three programmatic zones. At the southern end of the building lives the greenhouse that is connected to the barn through a thermal mass wall. This is so that the greenhouse can be oriented for optimal sun exposure and plant growth. Just north of this thermal wall is the primary large equipment storage area which additionally acts as a flex workshop space. These two programmatic elements co-habitating allows for the barn to serve as an educational centerpiece. To highlight this, the storage area incorporates operable wall elements that open the space up to the demonstration garden, creating an openair educational pavilion. The northern end of the building houses the smaller program such as restrooms and small equipment storage.

Fig. 1-6: Programmatic Requirements Fig. 7: STEM Barn Floor Plan

Large Equipment Storage

Small Equipment Storage

Lantern | Greenhouse

Workshop

Restrooms

Covered Gathering Space

Urban-Rural Interface

7 5

3 1 3 1

6 2

8 2

1. Large Equipment Storage 2. Greenhouse 3. Workshop 4. Small Tool Storage 5. Restrooms 6. Public Gathering Space 7. Demonstration Garden 8. Rain Water Cistern

Page 169

STEM Barn Way-finding Element

Through the greenhouse, the STEM Barn becomes a way-finding element on the site. At the apex of the 4-H camp and the STEM Center, the barn is visible from various points on site. Due to this, the barn serves as a perfect opportunity to create a glowing object in a dark Tennessee night, providing just enough light to know where you’re going but not create an overwhelming amount of light pollution.

Fig. 1: Site Section - Night Fig. 2: Site Section Key Plan

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 171

STEM Barn Way-finding Element

In addition to the greenhouse glow, the STEM Barn illuminates the pathways approaching the structure through the light emitted through the louvered doors. This low-level light emission further cements the barn as a way-finding beacon on site, not taking away from the starry night skies. Fig. 1: East Elevation - Night

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 173

Urban-Rural Interface

Page 175

STEM Barn Situational Studies in Plan

The STEM Barn has a deep connection to the site and local ecosystem. With this in mind, the design team incorporated weather and daylighting situations to enhance the connection between experience and nature with the design. As the seasons change, the STEM Barn takes on varying functions to

Fig. 1-4: STEM Barn Through the Seasons Fig. 5-8: Daylight Studies Fig. 9-10: Artificial Light Studies

Urban-Rural Interface

accommodate the needed performance. As the sun moves across the sky and day turns to night, the design remains lively and engaging with Lone Oaks Farm. The poetic relationship that the design has with its context was unique and perplexing as the students simulated seasonal and daylighting changes. These informed how the programmatic spaces were intended to be used, considering variations from harvest season, to summer camp season, and to dormant winter seasons. Additionally, these showed how the STEM Barn would fluctuate in capacity throughout the day depending on hourly events and site usage.

7am

9am

12pm

3pm

Page 177

STEM Barn Elevations and Material Studies

As the STEM Barn is an addition to an existing complex, the question of materiality was at the forefront of the design process. Taking precedent from the STEM Center, the barn is clad in Ledbetter bronze corrugated metal paired with pine wood paneling throughout the storage bays. However, seeing as the STEM Barn is its own unique architectural element, materials such as polygal panels are added to the palette, cladding the greenhouse structure. An introduction of wood via the louvered elements of the butterfly doors add variety and visual connections to the program beyond the elevation. Both east and west elevations mirror one another, accentuating the slipping motion of the “shell”, whereas the north and south elevations speak independently of one another. Fig. 1: Interior Elevations of Storage Area Fig. 2: East Elevation with Material Call-outs Fig. 3: East Elevation Fig. 4: North Elevation Fig. 5: South Elevation

Ledbetter Bronze Barn Door

1 North Wall Urban-Rural Interface

Wood Structure

2 East Wall

Polygal Panels

3 South Wall

Pine Wood Panels

4 West Wall

Ledbetter Bronze Polygal Panels Wood Louvered Panels Corrugated Metal

Page 179

STEM Barn The Greenhouse

The greenhouse is a key part of the STEM Barn in that it offers another hands-on education approach. Wooden columns and trusses are continued from the rest of the STEM Barn to be the main structure. Then, polygal panels with aluminum framing wrap the structure for the greenhouse purposes. The design uses smaller butterfly doors on the side panels, at plant level, as well as panels in the roof for help with ventilation. The hot air will either rise up and out through the butterfly doors in the roof or through the fan to get cycled through the concrete thermal wall. The thermal wall acts as another key teaching moment showing how hot, humid air from the greenhouse can be filtered through a dehumidifier and reused to heat the storage part of the STEM Barn. Fig. 1: Greenhouse Passive Ventilation Fig. 2: Greenhouse Interior Elevations Fig. 3: Greenhouse Active Ventilation through Thermal Wall

Polygal Panel Doors

Pine Wood Panels

Concrete Thermal Wall

1 North Wall Urban-Rural Interface

2 East Wall

Polygal Panels

Aluminum Framing

3 South Wall

Treated Wood Structure

4 West Wall

10 Page 181

STEM Barn Butterfly Doors

By using butterfly doors instead of regular barn doors, the STEM Barn offers another chance to spark curiosity in kids and become a teaching tool. These motored doors challenge kids in how they think about physics and STEM education while at the same time, connecting the barn to the demonstration garden and outdoor spaces. Design intent was placed in finding a way to challenge students from both urban and rural Fig. 1: STEM Barn from the Demonstration Garden Fig. 2: Storage Wall Section Fig. 3: Butterfly Door Detail

Urban-Rural Interface

environments to think differently about STEM education. These operable doors accomplish this with their scale, mechanical function, and connection to a designed rainwater recollection system. With these panels being large in scale, we designed them to be constructed with wooden slats to serve as shading devices, while allowing passive air circulation through the storage program. The doors operate on tracks set within the structure, and allow the STEM Barn to open up to the adjacent garden and public space. A small mechanical motor brings this design to life, while also ensuring child safety by minimizing human errors associated with human operated building parts.

Ledbetter Bronze Corrugated Metal Insulated Metal Panel Conveyor Motor with Cable

Steel Joint

Water Catcher Pine Louvered Panel

Wood Scissor Truss

Aluminum Panel Track

10 Page 183

STEM Barn Rainwater Retention

As seen through the W.E.T. Center, Tennessee is prone to heavy rains. With this in consideration, the STEM Barn aims to address these heavy rains through an integrated rainwater retention system. At the perimeter of the building, a concrete pad extends out from the structure leading towards EnviroGrid pavers. These elements work together to drain any water from the building to a drainage system that is reverted to cisterns adjacent to the building. The cisterns located at the STEM Barn are then used to provide the irrigation needed within the respective greenhouses.

Urban-Rural Interface

Fig. 1: Approach from 4-H Center Fig. 2: Storage Wall Drainage Detail Fig. 3: Rainwater Retention Detail

Insulated Metal Panel Water Membrane Gyp. Board Wood Column

2x6 Wood Framing Flashing Concrete Slab Gravel Drainage Pipe EnviroGrid Paver

Page 185

We don’t teach science, we don’t teach agriculture. We do science, and we do agriculture. Ron Blair

Learning in a Pandemic Light at the End of the Tunnel

During the spring semester of 2021, COVID-19 Cases were declining and vaccinations were increasing. The design team was itching for the possibility to visit Lone Oaks farm in Middleton, Tennessee. In any normal year the students would have likely been on the farm multiple times before even beginning the design process. Learning to design a space that the students had never been in before was an entirely new process. The idea of getting to finally see the land that they had studied so

Urban-Rural Interface

thoroughly was exhilarating. After a process of being approved by the University as well as the college of Architecture, Planning and Design the Design+Make studio heard the exciting news that thanks to the COVID vaccinations and the ever decreasing number of infections in the area they were granted permission to go to Lone Oaks Farm. This trip, while still a trip of study, had an air of excitement about it because it was the first thing that many students felt pointed towards a normal life again. Being in community was so refreshing. Working towards solutions to complex problems as a group in person, that they had been studying for multiple months and discussing over zoom, was a game changer. The goals felt more clear and the work seemed so much more valuable when the human connection was made. This trip was certainly a gesture towards the curve of normalcy. The studio is ever grateful to Lone Oaks Farm for the chance to come visit, and to the University for giving them the chance. Written: Kylee Mernagh

Fig. 1: Design+Make Studio

Page 189

Acknowledgments Volland Artist Residency, with the vision of preservation and emphasis on the character of Volland and Grimm-Schultz. The passion our clients bring to every conversation has transpired into a fruitful semester stemming from rich conversation about the goals, vision and future of the residency. While the semester has been unorthodox in collaboration and presentation, our clients have given us the fullest extent of their attention and tools needed to be well immersed in the goal of bringing a successful arts and humanities residency to the Flint Hills. We would first like to thank the College of APDesign at Kansas State University for giving us the opportunity to participate in such a unique capstone studio under the supervision and guidance of El Dorado. Under circumstances outside of our control, APDesign and El Dorado have worked to make our final year at Kansas State as normal as it could be. We would like to thank our clients at Lone Oaks Farm for continuing to support our vision, pushing us to think critically throughout the process. We were thankful for their hospitality during our site visit, helping us understand the site that we had been so closely studying for several months. The passion that those at Lone Oaks farm have for these projects has pushed us to deliver our most all-encompassing design work to date. We would also like to thank David Blackwood from the West Tennessee River Basin Authority for working with us to help us better understand his vision for the W.E.T. Center. His enthusiasm for this new building typology has been paramount in the design’s final proposal, without his tireless work to help us, this design would not be what it is. We would like to thank our clients Patty Reece, Jerry Reece and Laurie Hamilton for the opportunity to collaborate in the integration and vision for the Volland Foundation Artist Residency. The invitation to explore the historic Volland and Grimm-Schultz has helped invigorate the drive needed to propose a vision of arts and humanities local to the Flint Hills. The locality of the site’s history and challenges has helped ground the unique goals of the

Urban-Rural Interface

We would finally like to thank our professor David Dowell and the team members from El Dorado who have dedicated time challenging us to think critically, explore various avenues of the creative process, and have helped guide us towards the schematic designs presented in this body of work. We would also like to thank Ted Andres and Daniel Renner for assisting our studio in understanding the practical implications that come with our designs as well as challenging us to think critically.

Fig 1-2: El Dorado

Page 191

Credits Jennings, J. 2021. Digital images. Kinnan, A. 2020. Digital Images. Baniqued, K. 2020. Digital images. Baniqued, K. 2021. Digital images.

Kinnan, A. 2021. Digital Images. Knopik, K. 2021. Digital Images.

Canterbury, C. 2021. Digital images.

Kratzer, O. “People celebrating in front of the Kratzer store.” 2015. Digital image. http://thevollandstore.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ durso_p_646_copy_2_WCHS_Kratzer_20131024x1024.jpg

Dowell, D. 2021. Digital images.

LaRocco, E. 2020. Digital images.

El Dorado inc. 2018. Digital image.

LaRocco, E. 2021. Digital images.

El Dorado inc. 2015.

Lofton, W. 2020. Digital images.

El Dorado inc. 2018.

Lofton, W. 2021. Digital images.

El Dorado Architects. “Lone Oaks Farm 2016 Masterplan” KSU Student Introduction. Lecture, August 24, 2020.

Mernagh, K. 2021. Digital images.

Blackwood, D. “Wet Center Town hall” March 12, 2021.

Engel, J. 2021. Digital images. “Farmland Legacy Resources - Farming Heritage - Farms Agriculture.” Farming Heritage - Farms - Agriculture - TN.gov. Accessed December 11, 2020. https://www.tn.gov/agriculture/farms/ heritage/ag-farms-farmland-legacy.html. Federman, Posted by Sarah, Jim Pantaleo, Paul E. Hadinger, Amitkumar Patel, Yabbie, Leah Hammond, Melanie Bennett, et al. “Vertical Farming for the Future.” USDA, August 14, 2018. https:// www.usda.gov/media/blog/2018/08/14/vertical-farming-future. Ferree, Lyda Kay. “Lone Oaks Farm: A ‘Labor of Love’.” The Jackson Sun, August 30, 2015. https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/ life/2015/08/29/lone-oaks-farm-labor-love/32450717/.

Oshima, L. 2020. Digital images. Oshima, L. 2021. Digital images. Parish, T. “Gathering at Old Kratzer store.” 2016. Digital image. https:// thevollandstore.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/volland_rephotographic_vv_store-front_flat_72dpi_6x10.jpg Patterson, Hannah, and Name *. “Tennessee Agriculture Overview.” Farm Flavor, August 21, 2020. https://www.farmflavor.com/tennessee/ tennessee-crops-livestock/tennessee-agriculture-overview-2/. Schultz, Bill and Mary. Photographs from personal collection reprinted by the author, 1994. Sinclair, M. 2015. Digital images. https://eldo.us/volland-general-store

Foley, Jonathan. “A Five-Step Plan to Feed the World.” Feeding 9 Billion - National Geographic, 2014. https://www.nationalgeographic. com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/.

Sinclair, M. 2018. Digital images. https://eldo.us/volland-house-1

Graves Adams, Paula. “Ranching in the Kansas Flint HIlls: Exploring the Built Forms of a Family Cattle Ranch,” 1997, 1–242.

Stovall, Brittany, and Name *. “How Farmers Are Saving the Soil in Tennessee.” Farm Flavor, August 21, 2020. https://www.farmflavor. com/tennessee/tennessee-environment/how-farmers-save-the-soil/.

Grimm, N. 2021. Digital Images. Haake, E. “Along Volland Road.” 2020. Digital image. https://images. fasosites.com/71114_3821554l.jpg?cv=202010181345 Haake, E. “Along Drovers Trail Road.” 2020. Digital image. https://images.fasosites.com/71114_3821617l. jpg?cv=202010181345 Ho, M. 2020. Digital Images Ho, M. 2021. Digital Images Infarm. “Infarm - A Few of Our Most Frequently Asked Questions.” Medium. Medium, July 22, 2020. https://medium.com/@infarm.com/ infarm-a-few-of-our-most-frequently-asked-questions-5221e9f65ae0. Jennings, J. 2020. Digital images.

Urban-Rural Interface

Sinclair, M. 2021. Digital images

“Venn Diagram.” 2020. Digital image. http://thevollandstore.com/ruralurban-invitational-ii/#jp-carousel7286 “What Is 4-H? - 4-H.” 4, November 30, 2020. https://4-h.org/about/ what-is-4-h/. “What Is Aquaponics?” Nelson and Pade, Inc. Accessed December 9, 2020. https://aquaponics.com/aquaponics-in-schools/aquaponicsinformation/. “World Population Prospects - Population Division.” United Nations. United Nations, 2019. https://population.un.org/wpp/.

Page 193

Urban-Rural Interface

May 2021, Volume 2 Thanks to Kansas State University & El Dorado Architects © Design+Make Studio 2021 No part of this publication may be reproduced, in any forms or by any means, without written permission.

Page 195