PAGE 1
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
+ The mission of the Clemson Architecture Center in Charleston (CAC.C) is to bridge academia and practice by teaching in a hybrid environment—a cross between academic and professional modes of work. Devoted to service learning, CAC.C studios are offered in two tracks (urban design and fabrication) that work on actual issues and projects in Charleston and the Low Country. Students work collaboratively, often on teams led by professors and graduate students. Since 2001 the Center has won three NCARB Prizes from the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards NCARB) for the Integration of Practice and Education, as well as the American Institute of Architect’s Best Mentoring Practices award in 2006. In 2008, the center’s previous director, Robert Miller, won an ACSA Creative Achievement Award, one of three in the nation, for the CAC.C’s design/build project, “The MINImuseum of Richard McMahan.”
TEAM MEMBERS UNDERGRADUATE
GRADUATE
PROFESSOR
Alex Armstrong
Ashley Davis
Brian Betz
Alyx McCarthey
William Craig
Trey Meyer
Nick Irmen
Jianfei Shen
Jared Lee
Adam Windham
Alex Libengood
Mary Tran
David Pastre
STUDIO V
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 3
+ STUDIO V focuses on architecture and tectonics, particularly the relationship between design and building. STUDIO V will emulate practice in that, unlike standard academic exercises, students will not always work in isolation on hypothetical situations. We will work often in collaboration. The studio will offer an approach to design informed by how something is assembled and the materials from which it is made. The studio will employ craft in the execution of the work, which will require patience, planning, understanding tolerance in materials and tools, testing and mock-ups, and the working with the limits and capabilities of tools and materials.
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONTENTS
i
Concept
6
I
Research
8
II
Regional Design
84
III
Charrette
98
IV
Porch Framing Design
106
Midterm Design Presentation
108
Design Development
116
Porch Mock-Up
118
Site Survey
124
Final Design Proposal
130
Construction Documents
142
Construction
180
Final Photos & Details
196
Critique
200
V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 5
STUDIO V, FALL 2014
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONCEPT
What’s a Crop Stop? “Crop Stop” is joint venture with the College of Charleston, as well as a component of the South Carolina farmto-school initiative—wherein schools invest in their local communities with their food dollars, allowing local foods to span the food trade, and healthy habits to take root. The initiative itself is not without its hurdles: since the largest local harvests occur during the summertime months outside the school year, market activities between farmers and schools are often limited by this time constraint. Our concept allows for the circumvention of this obstacle. The Crop Stop is designed to increase these supply chain activities between local farmers and school systems by providing a low-cost, easily assembled commercial kitchen—with capacity to cook, can, and freeze foodstuffs. Participating farmers will then be able to make their summer-harvested products available to schools through winter and beyond: simultaneously bolstering the viability of FTS while injecting a boon into local agricultural economy.
PAGE 7
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
Before setting out to design anything, we first had to look into the potential directions and challenges of the project. Our scope needed to include not only the Cropstop that we were to create, but also take into consideration the future of the program. The studio split into smaller sub-groups in order to better explore foundation systems, transportation, climate regions, and kitchen requirements. It was also important to study the preceeding CropStop, and learn from its successes and weaknesses. Through this we were able to bring the major issues into focus as well as figure out how we could proceed on to the next phase of design.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION I
R E S E A R C H
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE]
We weren’t starting from scratch on this project. The Crop Stop we were going to create already existed in one form on John’s Island, SC. Our first step was to study and critique this precedent so that we would begin to understand the direction our future design was to take.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 11
CROP STOP 1.0
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE]
Visualize It!
100
INNOVATION
FIRMNESS 100
0
100
DELIGHT
100
COMMODITY
This radar chart locates the FCDI conditions equalaterally along the peripherary of a circle, with the perimeter indicating a perfect score of 100, and the center commodity, delight, and innovation, giving us a representation of the health of the project. Right now, it looks like a creepy egg haunting us as it stands impossibly on it’s end.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 13
Visualizing the critique of Crop Stop 1.0 this way allows us to evaluate how well-rounded of a design it is. It’s worth noting that this is a qualitative exercise developed from considering the project goals, mission statement for the program, and design quality. The
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE]
Topical Evaluations In order to identify and visually communicate the strengths and weaknesses of Crop Stop 1.0, each of the Critical Topics that came commodity, delight, and innovation.
This radar chart locates the FCDI conditions equalaterally along the peripherary of a circle, with the perimeter indicating a perfect score of 100, and the center designated as absolute 0. Each colored line represents a different Critical Topic - it’s size and shape representing how successful it was at implementing all four well-rounded the project is.
This diagram not only highlights the strong an weak characteristics of the project, but also starts to illustrate the relationships between
FIRMNESS
Critical Topics Legend
100
massing
the those features.
details materials accessibility screened porch dogtrot elevation modularity sustainability constructability structure labor academic
INNOVATION
0
100
DELIGHT
100
COMMODITY
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 15
100
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
FIRMNESS
Let’s Examine...
COMMODITY
INNOVATION
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE] Each of the Critical Topics are pulled out and examined seperately here in order to zoom in on each issue and explain the reasoning for each respective rating. 85
80
Accessibility 60
50
85
Ramps and stairs are not exactly innovative, but the details are striking and the circulation highly functional.
Elevation 90
30
55
90
home
to
The framing is unimaginative, the structure required welding, and the envelope is not easily installed, docking innov. & comm.
Labor 75
75
75
75
to measure according to these values. Labor scores are average due to high skill required.
90
Details 40
95
causes
75
Construction
75
Chassis
and make it easy to move, raising value, but isn’t creative.
80
70
60
DELIGHT
The details are highly crafted but are beautiful, creative, and customized. Fragile corners.
Massing 90
70
85
The form is broken up nicely by the dog trot, keeping it from looking like a mobile home but also keeping it simple & moveable.
85
85
Materials 85
60
90
Materials used are common, but carefully articulated for maximum pleasure. Cypress and galv. metal weather well. Materials not unique.
Structure 90
55
75
30
60
Modularity 55
45
65
This building is not conveniently modular. It would be hard to add structure outside the chassis, and tacked on forms would be tacky.
Sustainability 70
40
70
60
Materials are local. Chiller is not oriented well for solar gain, and the project is griddependent.
85
Dogtrot
Porch 75
60
Structure is simple, but chassis had to be reinforced, and is otherwise stable but not anthything new.
85
The porch is a nice space, and has dual function as community space and circulation, but can be removed without much loss of value. Screening already damaged.
90
80
95
The dogtrot is a valuable space that breaks up the program and massing. Built well and creative use of space.
60
90
80
90
This educational program is innovative and potentially attractive to communities, but dependence on the university is potentially unstable.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 17
Academic
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE]
minor relationships
major relationships
screened porch
details
big idea
chiller screened porch materials
pro
als
dogtrot dogtrot massing
con
safety safety
accessibility
CROP STOP
solution
elevation elevation modularity
constructability structure
constructability
labor labor
sustainability
students
students Diagram Evolution #1
Mapping relationships between critical topics It was recognized that the various critical topics had clear relationships to one another. Often, changing on feature of the project would have an impact on another - the goal here is to identify these relationships and focus on making positive impacts, and avoiding the negative ones.
minor relationships craft and beauty
major relationships too customized
adjacent to kitchen
details
not optimally oriented
communal space
local and durable
screened porch
pro
dogtrot
not enclosed
too customized
chiller
low risk program
con
nice house
communal space
big idea
materials
massing
nice house
not code
solution
safety
accessibility elevation
CROP STOP
invites critters
good for
functional ramp
not quite ADA
modularity not modular
educational high skill
structure
low innovation
transportable
constructability
low innovation
high skill means high cost
labor students
sustainability
easy to build
grid dependent
university dependent
free labor
easy to build
Diagram Evolution #2 Identifying pros and cons for each topic
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 19
traditional framing
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE] modular and pre-fab design allow for site to site manipulation
accessible materials and pre fab techniques creates beauty with safety and ease
craft and beauty
too customized
adjacent to kitchen
creat and g
communal space
SCREENED PORCH
DETAILS
splits massing well
local and durable
not optimally oriented
not enclosed too customized
CHILLER
DOGTROT low risk program
MATERIALS MASSING nice house
nice house
not code
SAFETY ACCESSIBILITY CROP STOP
ELEVATION
good for
not quite ADA
MODULARITY
traditional framing
invites critters
functional ramp
not modular
educational high skill
STRUCTURE chassi reinforce
CONSTRUCTABILITY low innovation
high skill means high cost
LABOR transportable
simple form
easy to build
SUSTAINABILITY grid dependent
prefab design increases innovation while reducing dependence on simple form for constructability
STUDENTS
university dependent
free
minor relationships
te enclosed threshold gathering space
major relationships
big idea
pro
con
additional design features to maximize accessibiliy/aesthetic solution
While this diagram is informative and helpful in regards to mapping relationships, it lacks the FCDI valuations, and quite honestly is hard to read and
invest labor in design phase to preserve craft and reduce skilled labor
Diagram Evolution #3 Creating solutions from each pro/con relationship
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 21
labor
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE] Assembly Layout is
Incorporate appliance size, depth, function, and usage in design Separate heating and cooling appliances Appliance should be determined based on # of people, regions, usage and volume of space Mechanical System needs to be incorporated Resize isle and incorporate appliance depth Design for Adaptation and Variables Improve cross ventalation
COMMODITY 100 Ice Cream Hardener next to the range
sink placement
Operable Windows
DELIGHT 100
Windows too custom
Windows only on one side
FIRMNESS 100
Door openings Adjacent to cooler
Linear Duct work prevents kitchen to stand alone
Typical windows should be use in a innovated way. Openings could be cut w/out predetermination. Design for expansion Design Kitchen as a stand alone unit Could cooler be separate from kitchen?
INNOVATION 100
Mobile
modularity
layout
Isle is too big
Ice Cream Hardening Cabinet
Spacious
Appliance picked for expansion Too many burners
Too wide
COMMODITY 100
adjacent to kitchen
COMMODITY 70
not optimally oriented
DELIGHT 100 DELIGHT 95
Hood and air intake after thought
Wall depth not incorp w/ appliance
FIRMNESS 75 FIRMNESS 100 INNOVATION 40
Use of CoolBolt
volume
INNOVATION 100
appliance chiller
Creating a more linear and simple representation of pro/con/solution This relationship diagram uses the FCDI evaluations of each topics in relation to both the kitchen and the project as a whole. Mapping the relationships in a more linear fashion provided more clarity, but the scale of FCDI evaluations is muddled.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 23
Diagram Evolution #4 - The Kitchen
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE]
nice house
low risk program
nice house
not code
COMMODITY 100
COMMODITY 70
communal space
craft and beauty
DELIGHT 100 DELIGHT 95
too customized too customized
FIRMNESS 75
local and durable
FIRMNESS 100
not quite ADA
functional ramp
INNOVATION 40
INNOVATION 100
PRIORITY I PRIORITY II
massing
accessibility details
materials
safety
screened porch
PRIORITY III
Diagram Evolution #4 - The Project Creating a more linear and simple representation of pro/con/solution
d
educational high skill
create enclosed threshold and gathering space
free labor
COMMODITY 100 high skill means high cost
additional design features to maximize accessibiliy/aesthetic
university dependent
splits massing well
DELIGHT 100
not enclosed
invest labor in design phase to preserve craft and reduce skilled labor
chassi reinforce
invites critters good for
simple form
not modular
grid dependent
accessible materials and pre fab techniques creates beauty with safety and ease
FIRMNESS 100
prefab design increases innovation while reducing dependence on simple form for constructability
low innovation
INNOVATION 100 traditional framing
modular and pre-fab design allow for site to site manipulation
easy to build transportable
modularity sustainability elevation
constructability
structure labor
students
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 25
dogtrot
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE] FIRMNESS100
DELIGHT100 DELIGHT 95
craft and beauty
FIRMNESS 75
local and durable
nice house too customized
0
too customized
INNOVATION 40 nice house
COMMODITY 70
INNOVATION100
COMMODITY 100
PRIORITY I PRIORITY II
massing details
materials
PRIORITY III
Diagram Evolution #5 - A New Model This chart shows a new model for our developing diagram designed to comprehensively evaluate Crop Stop 1.0 for it’s critical topics, FCDI evaluations, and the relationships in between
Where do we go from here? The graphic diagram is not yet clear enough. Trying to represent topics of critique, measure their scale success on the four principles of design (FCDI), and map their relationships to the point of seen in the mutliple graphic iterations, representing it in a clear and concise way has been challenging. Scale on which to judge successes of topics is unclear Ambiguity on relationship lines Pros vs. Cons impact Better way to incorporate the solutions?
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 27
-
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE] The critique of Crop Stop 1.0 was a process that allowed the various features of the project successes of the project. The critique started by simply listing out all our observations of Crop Stop 1.0.
Affordability -
Labor was not accounted for in total cost Training was extensive for the build
Function -
The screened in porch is not rationalized well enough into the program Why wasn’t the dogtrot screened? Cladding susceptibility for being banged up Dogtrot is a nice circulation space and split the program well Nice to have chiller adjacent to the kitchen
Constructability The details took way to long to build The materials were too customized (corrugate panel edges) The labor required high skills Unnecessary construction methods Not replicable Simple palette of materials
Massing/Form -
The building feels like a house Crawl space invites critters It does not look like a mobile home due to dogtrot massing, materials, and craft Simplicity of massing and form
Accessibility/Safety -
The ramp is not to code (ADA) Mobile chassis needed reinforcing and added cost – is this really smart reuse? Stairs are not as useful as the ramp on this site Sharp corners on the corrugate metal cladding Good size for truck transportation
Design -
The details were too customized Details make the building feel more like a home than a kitchen. The beauty surpasses the function Not geared for sustainability or going off-grid Orientation of the building is wrong – chiller is on the southwest corner Does not engage the site – it just sits on the site Does it meet hurricane requirements? Not modular Materials were articulated well Simple palette of materials
-
How much of the schedule and management was coordinated by the students? Has no appliances CAC.C STUDIO V Design process?
PAGE 29
Management
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE]
Identifying Relationships By breaking down the critiques into topics, we were able to establish relationships between them regarding the pros and cons of each.
PAGE 31
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE]
How do we evaluate design? FIRMNESS
COMMODITY
/100
/100
hand. The the case of a building, how does the shape hold? How do the materials respond to the environment and age? Is the structure stable?
All design is subject to the general uses of the universe - it’s functionality. Commodity simply begs the questions of how useful is this? Is it of value to its target audience? Can it be sold? High commodity is when function meets the purpose.
stability shape lifetime
functionality value demand
imagine measuring the stability of
...let’s add one
DELIGHT
INNOVATION
/100
/100
Delight encompasses the qualitative analysis including but not limited to aesthetic, feeling, response, atmosphere, and pleasure. It can be argued that delight is dependent on and enhanced by the other two
As time rolls on, how can we resist adding to or changing a good thing to make it better? Innovation involves employing new solutions for existing, new, or developing needs. Not to be confused with novelty, innovation is born when new applications have a positive impact on society.
beauty atmosphere culmination
new solutions improvement CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 33
Words that the ancient Roman architect Vitruvius used to qualify “good design” - since the 17th century, they have been the common basis of architectural evaluation.
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE]
Evaluating Crop Stop 1.0 as a Whole FIRMNESS
COMMODITY
70
75
The mobile home chassis that was reused as the structure had to be reinforced.
It’s a little big
The gap around the ramp and the lack of railing create safety issues cove-like details, and crawl space beneath the building Cypress is a good wood for weathering The
metal panel cladding susceptible to damage
is
Not easily constructible for communities with limited resources/funds The program is well thought out and functional Was not compeleted on schedule Not
affordable considering amount of labor involved
DELIGHT
INNOVATION
95
40
Material articulation is beautiful
Standard framing method
The details have a high level of craft
Creative us of mobile home chassis
It looks and feels like a livable space
Custom windows and doors
Pleasant massing that does not look like a mobile home
Does not take advantage of modern fabrication techniques
High quality of natural lighting
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 35
The crawl space is undesirable
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE]
elevation
IT OD M
M
CO
0
1
modular and pre-fab design allow for site to site manipula-
2
prefab design increases innovation while reducing dependence on simple form for constructability
3
accessible materials and pre-fab techniques creates beauty with safety and ease
Diagram Evolution #6 evaluation scale is inverted with low scores at the top and bottom boundaries, and the high scores meeting towards the middle, culminating at the proposed design solutions.
welding required
traditional framing
creative program split
additional gathering space
less durable screen
not program crucial
SS
lacks creativity
40
built in pieces
E
4 transportable chassi
75
N
IN
6 lacks rails but is ada
M
IR
ON
well crafted/beautiful
valuable circulation
pleasant but unscreened
T H N OV AT I
constructabil
95
SOLUTIONS 100 F
dual function circulation
70
striking details
IG
dogtrot
porch
Y
accessibility
communal space
D
EL
0
innovation/commodity local and durable
not unique
metal edges are fragile
customized
simplicity of form
moveable to new locations
not pre-fabricated
grid dependent
not modular
forms potentially unstable
bridge community/academic
design before labor
PAGE 37
weather well
carefully articulated
time to build
high level of craft
broken up for program
lacks a mobile home look
chiller poorly oriented
local material
program well suited traditional framing
university dependent
highly educational
high skill required
free labor
chassis needed reinforcing
not creative
5 4
works well for program
simplicity but traditional
6
additional design features to maximize accessibiliy/aesthetic invest labor in design phase to preserve craft and reduce skilled labor create enclosed threshold and gathering space
major cons
3 1 5 2
materials details massing sustainability modularity academic labor structure lity
solution
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING CAC.C STUDIO V
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [CRITIQUE]
CONCLUSION OF THE PROCESS In completing an in depth critique of each topic, pro, and cons we have deciphered a direction to begin with as we put forth our 6 regional design proposals. Henceforth the project must take into consideration what should be changed, what needs to bekept, and how to continuously push towards a product of excellence. Through this process of critique, we have learned to develop critical lenses under which to judge many facets of the project and pick out in depth discussion on the prioritization of what was essential to the project, and those items that had lesser importance or were hindering to the design.
PAGE 39
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [KITCHEN] DHEC REQUIREMENT Construction of Physical Materials Floors must be smooth, free of junctures and have coving. Drains must be installed if they will be flushed with water, including mopping. A sink with hot and cold water must be provided to clean garbage receptacles and disposal of mop water. Walls must be sealed and made of an easily cleanable surface only as far food splash could occur. Studs, joints, and rafters cannot be exposed in the cooking area unless the are sealed and finished. Bulbs in cooking area must be rated at least 20 foot candles (an avergage window on a sunny day with no direct sunlight is approxamitely 2,000 foot candles.) Bulbs used in storage, cleaning and cooler must be rated at least 10 foot candles. Lights in a cooler must be mounted at least 30 inches from floor. Bulbs must be shatterproof or protected by a shield.
Equipment and Tools All equipment and surfaces must be made of a non-permeable material that can me easily cleaned. Smooth materials such as stainless steel or ceramic are desirable, so long as it is resistant to chipping, buckling, denting and crazing. Baker’s tables may be made of wood as long as they are dense, non-toxic and free of defects such as crevices and open seams. Food contact surfaces cannot have any seams and must be sealed to each other if they are made of multiple pieces. No galvanized metal. Copper or any copper alloy cannot be used when cooking or preparing acidic foods such as citrus fruits. All sinks and drain-boards must be self-draining.
Equipment must be mounted or sealed 6 Equipment inches off floorInstallation and 4 inches off any work surfaces. Appliances that mount to tables Equipment must be mounted or sealed 6 must have at off least 6 inches between inches floor and 4 inches offeach any other work to allow for adequate cleaning room.toPortable surfaces. Appliances that mount tables must appliances must have sanitary skids have at least 6 inches between eachinstalled other to on them. Any appliance installed that must be allow for adequate cleaning room. Portable fully sanitized must besanitary designed to beinstalled taken appliances must have skids apart by basic tools. on them. Any appliance installed that must be fully sanitized must be designed to be taken Ifapart an object is accessible from 3 sides and is by basic tools. more than 4 feet but less than 8 it must be located no closer to the wall than 6 inches. If an object is accessible from 3 sides and is Ifmore an object is more than 8 feet it must than 4 feet but less than 8 it mustbebe located from located 12 no inches closer to the the wallwall. than 6 inches. If an object is more than 8 feet it must be Any type12 of inches bug catcher installed located from the wall. must be installed no higher than30 inches to the midppoint frominstalled the foodmust prepration Any type ofand bugaway catcher be area, ideally near the trash receptacles. installed no higher than30 inches to the midppoint and away from the food prepration area, ideally near the trash receptacles.
Cleaning All surfaces must be cleaned when switched Cleaning from raw to cooked preperation. Surfaces must all All be surfaces cleaned at least a day. For switched washing must beonce cleaned when a three sink must be used toSurfaces clean, rinse, from rawbay to cooked preperation. must then sanitize the utensils or dishes. The sink all be cleaned at least once a day. For washing baybay must bemust big enough the a three sink be usedtotosubmerge clean, rinse, largest piece the of eqiupment washed to then sanitize utensils or being dishes. The sink bebay submerge least by two Grease must beatbig enough tothirds. submerge the traps, if needed, must be easily accessible largest piece of eqiupment being washedfor to cleaning. be submerge at least by two thirds. Grease traps, if needed, must be easily accessible for Area must be free of vermin and spaces that cleaning. can harbor them. Garbage must be disposed of whenever receptacles are full. Area must be free of vermin and spaces that can harbor them. Garbage must be disposed of whenever receptacles are full.
Storage Food and untensils must be stored at least Storage 6 inches off the floor and 4 inches off of any surface. be stored flooratofleast the FoodFood and may untensils muston bethe stored floor of theoff cooler. All bullk must be 6 inches the floor and 4food inches offalso of any stored surface. Food may beunder storedits oncommon the floorname. of the floor of the cooler. All bullk food must also be stored under its common name. CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 41
Equipment Installation
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [KITCHEN]
6 burner ranges
Ice cream hardening cabinet
2 bowl sink
10 burner ranges
Ice cream hardening cabinet
prep table and shelving
3 bowl sink
KITCHEN VOLUME I
20’
10’
10’ KITCHEN VOLUME II
30’
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 43
More prep table and shelving
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [KITCHEN] Oven 38x38.5x58
6 burner ranges 36x34x58
52x36x82
Hood Hood size dependent on heating appliances 81x27x42
KITCHEN LAYOUT STRATEGY
17x13x5
Oven 38x38.5x66.5 17x13x5
10 burner ranges 60x34x58
60x21x37
Hood Hood size dependent on heating appliances
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 45
52x36x82
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CROP STOP 2.0 STANDARD SET I
RESEARCH [KITCHEN]
KITCHEN VOLUME I
1'-6"
5'-6"
8'
6' WH
20’
6'
6'
8' 3'
10’
6' x 8' ADA Restroom
6’x6’ Utility Room
Standard Kitchen Volume With Optional Modular Additions.
KITCHEN LAYOUT STRATEGY
1'-6"
6’x8’ Cooler
1'-6"
5'-6"
8'
6' WH
6' KITCHEN VOLUME II
8'
12' 3'
30’
6' x 8' ADA Restroom
6’x8’ Utility Room
1'-6"
6’x12’ Cooler
Larger Kitchen Volume With Enlarger Optional Modular Additions.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 47
CROP STOP 2.0 STANDARD SET 2
10’
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
Ice Cream Hardener next to the range sink placement
Assembly Layout is
N OV AT I
ON
CO
Door openings Adjacent to cooler
Operable Windows
Too many burners
SS
KITCHEN CRITIQUE
Wall depth not incorp w/ appliance
N
0
Use of CoolBolt
IR
E
Appliance picked for expansion
95
M
T H
75
2 4
SOLUTIONS 100 M
OD IT Y
elevation appliances
0
Hood and air intake after thought
D
IG
M F
70
Ice Cream Hardening Cabinet
EL
40
IN
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [KITCHEN]
massing Isle is too big
Linear
Windows too custom
Spacious
1
3
1
Typical windows should be use in a innovated way. Openings could be cut w/out predetermination. Design for expansion Design Kitchen as a stand alone unit Could cooler be separate from kitchen?
Too wide
Too site
Windows only on one side
Duct work prevents kitchen to stand alone
Mobile
2
Incorporate appliance size, depth, function, and usage in design Separate heating and cooling appliances
3
Resize isle and incorporate appliance depth Design for Adaptation and Variables Improve cross ventalation
4
Appliance should be determined based on # of people, regions, usage and volume of space Mechanical System needs to be incorporated
CAC.C STUDIO V
solution
major cons
innovation/commodity
PAGE 49
structure
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
LAYOUT
RESEARCH [KITCHEN] - Ice Cream Hardener is next to the range
Incorporate appliance size, depth, function, and usage in design
- Only sink is on one side of kitchen (inefficient use of space)
Separate heating and cooling appliances
- Door openings causes spacial inefficiency + Assembly Layout is efficient + Operable Windows + Adjacent to cooler
APPLIANCE
- Hood and air intake was an after thought
Appliance should be determined based on # of people, regions, usage and volume of space
- Wall depth not incorp w/ appliance Mechanical system needs to be incorporated - Too many burners (waste of energy?) +Use of CoolBolt +Use of Ice Cream Hardening Cabinet
MODULARITY
VOLUME
+Appliance were picked for expansion
-Too wide
Resize isle and incorporate appliance depth
- Isle is too big
Design for Adaptation and Variables
- Too site specific +Spacious
Improve cross ventalation
-Windows are too custom
Typical windows should be use in a innovated way
-Windows are only on one side
Openings could be cut w/out predetermination
-Duct work prevents kitchen to stand alone
Design for expansion
+ Linear
Design Kitchen as a stand alone unit
+Mobile
Could cooler be separate from kitchen?
+ PRO
- CON
= Solutions
ISSUES/ UNCERTAINTIES: - Occupancy based on commercial kitchen designations from IBC? 1 person / 200sf? -How to present the mechanical systems requirements for the hood, exhaust, and air makeup system? -Do we need grease trap? -Does the kitchen volume strategy make sense?
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 51
-Does our strategy for self customization allow or hinder work flow?
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [REGIONS] US hardiness zones [2-10] Extreme Dry Zone [ < 15â&#x20AC;? of rain ]
4 ZONES
5 ZONES
Hardiness zones were combined by analyzing similarities in the growing seasons of various produce
zones: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Extreme Wet Zone [ > 50” of rain]
6 ZONES
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
7 ZONES
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 53
Extreme Wet Zone [ > 50” of rain]
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [REGIONS]
7 1
2 5 3
4
6
PAGE 55
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FREE DAYS
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [REGIONS] ZONE 1
92
47
47 198 92 234 123 ZONE 153 47 ZONE 198 922 234 123 292 153 339 292 1533 339 198
123
198 # OF FROST FREE DAYS 92
47
153
234 198ZONE 4
292
123
153
# OF FROST FREE DAYS 234 234 198
ZONE 5
339
198
339 47
92
234
47
234 92
# OF FROST FREE DAYS
339
# OF FROST FREE DAYS
234
339
292 123
234
153
198
234
292
198
339
234
339
234
292
339
198
92
234 123
234
198 292
339 339
234 339
339
198
234 339
292
234 234
292
234
292
198
339
234
339
234
47 292
339
339
# OF FROST 234 292 FREE DAYS 198 339
292
339 153
# OF FROST FREE DAYS 234
339 292
47 198
123
234
292
ZONE 6 153
198
339
# OF FROST 292 FREE DAYS
ZONE 7
339
339
92
# OF FROST FREE DAYS
123
339
234
292 92
47
123
153
234
198
292
339 92
47 198
123
153
198
234
339 198
# OF FROST FREE DAYS
339
234
234
# OF FROST FREE DAYS
234
292 234
47 153
234
198
292
198
234
153
198
# OF FROST FREE DAYS 123
153
234
292
198
339
234
339
234
292
339
198
234
292
339
339 47
234
123
339
339 92
47
92
92
123
153 198 198 339
234
292
292
# OF FROST FREE DAYS
339
CAC.C STUDIO V 198 234
339
339
PAGE 57
3
234
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH
DEGREE FAHRENHEIT HIGH+LOW -20
REGION 1
REGION 2
REGION 3
REGION 4
REGION 5
REGION 6
REGION 7
-10
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ANNUAL AVERAGE 110
HUMIDITY
ANNUAL
PRECIPITATION
81%
20in
76%
40in
68%
53in
Summer
Summer
Spring
80%
35in
79%
10in
75%
55in
83%
GROWING
SEASONS
AutumnSummer
Spring AutumnSummer
Winter Spring AutumnSummer
Winter Spring AutumnSummer
Winter Spring
50in
AutumnSummer
RECOMENDED
R-VALUES
Openings oriented for prevailing wind Minimize West Glazing Plants to minimize heat gain Ceiling Fans Window overhangs
Pitched roof with wide overhangs Lightweight Construction Pitched/ well ventilated attic Long Narrow Building Floorplan Operable sunshades
No trees on south side Minimize West Glazing Slab on grade Screened porches and patios High Efficiency AC or Heat Pump
Open to summer breezes Lightweight Construction Shaded Outdoor Buffer Zones Long Narrow Building Floorplan Ventilated Attic
Openings oriented for prevailing wind Raised above ground Light colored building materials Ceiling Fans Window overhangs
R13R25
Low-E Glass on NWE windows Lightweight Construction Shaded Outdoor Spaces Long Narrow Building Floorplan Tall Ceilings and French Windows
R25
Light colored building materials Small recessed shade openings Shaded Outdoor Spaces Long Narrow Building Floorplan Earth Sheltering/basements
Openings oriented for prevailing wind Minimize West Glazing Plants to minimize heat gain Radient barrier roof Keep building small to prevent excess AC Light colored flat roof Minimize West Glazing Openings located on opposite faรงades Ceiling Fans Evaporative Cooling
Open to summer breezes Lightweight Construction Shaded Outdoor Spaces Radiant barrier roof High Mass Interior Surfaces
Openings oriented for prevailing wind Minimize West Glazing Plants to minimize heat gain Ceiling Fans Window overhangs
Open to summer breezes Lightweight Construction Shaded Outdoor Spaces Long Narrow Building Floorplan High Mass Interior Surfaces
Openings oriented for prevailing wind CAC.C STUDIO V Minimize West Glazing Plants to minimize heat gain Ceiling Fans Window overhangs RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
ATTIC
WALL FLOOR
R49R60
R13R21
R38R60
R30R60
R30R60
R30R60
R30R60
R38R60
R13R21
R13R15
R13R15
R13R15
R13R15
R13R15
CLIMATE CONSULTANT
PASSIVE STRATEGIES Open to summer breezes Lightweight Construction Shaded Outdoor Spaces Long Narrow Building Floorplan High Mass Interior Surfaces
R25R30
R25R30
R25
R13
R25R30
CROP STOP 2.0
PAGE 7 59
NATURAL
DISASTERS
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [REGIONS]
Room for improvements • Long-term considerations should take climate change into account • Regions were generalized, and does not account for micro-climates within regions. (i.e. mountainous regions vary greatly due to severe change in elevation) • Growing seasons are variable from year to year, and cannot be defined by a single number. • The regions do not take into account various levels of municapalities, i.e. local, state, etc. • Agricultural practices such as greenhouse cultivation and supplimental irragation could vary based on region. • Fruit, more than vegetables are more regionally based.
PAGE 61
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH
Regional Design Factors:
Soil Activity
Wind Loads
Frost Zones 5 10 20 30 40 50
60
70 80 90 100
100 90 80
100 90
100 90
70
80
70
80
80
70 80 90
70 60 90
50
90
40 30 20 10
80 70
70 90
90 110
5
0
110 70
100 90 70
0
110
110 110
Areas with extensive regions with highly active soils
Note: In areas of the map with highly active soils, there will be many locations with no expansive soils. Conversely, in the areas of the map with the least active soils, expansive soils can be found in some locations.
Areas with extensive regions with less active soils Areas with soils that are predominantly not active
110
SOURCE: International Code Council, Inc. BOCA National Building Code/1999 Commentary 110
70
80
90 100
100 90
Basic wind speed 70 mph (fastest mile) Special wind region
110
NOTES: 1. Values are fastest-mile speeds at 33 ft. (10m) above ground for exposure category C and are associated with and anual probability of 0.02.
SOURCE: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Building Foundation Design Handbook, 1988
SOURCE: ASCE 7-88, 1990, American Society of Civil Engineers - Minimun Design Loads for Buildings and Other Strctures, Fig.1, Basic Wind Speed (mph)
2. Linear interpolation between wind speed contours is acceptable. 3. Caution in the use of wind speed contours in the mountainous regions od Alaska is advisded. 4. The ASCE 7-98, 2000, at Figure 6-1, shows wind speed values as 3-second gusts, with a revised map.
Seismic Activity
Snow loads
Termite Threat
Very Heavy 40 psf (Snow) 30 psf (Snow)
Hawaii
20 psf (Minimum)
Moderate To Heavy Slight To Moderate
Puerto Rico
Zone 0
None To Slight
Zone 1
SOURCE: PART 3280 Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards and Interpretative Bullentins to the Standars, Code of Federal Regulations, HUD, 1999.
Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
SOURCE: International Code Council, Inc. 1995 One-and Two-Family Dwelling Code 速
NOTE: Lines defining areas are approximate only. Local conditions may be more or less severe that indicated by the region classification. SOURCE: 2000 International Residential Code 速
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING PAGE 63
Regional Map
Wind Loads
Seismic Activity
Termite Threat
Snow Loads
Frost Zones
Soil Activity`
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [FOUNDATIONS]
Pier Foundation Types
Jack Stands/CMU Blocks on Bearing Pads:
Poured Concrete Piers:
Most commonly specified pier foundation system for its afordability.
Reletively affordable.
Quick installation and can be used immediately.
Time consuming installation and can not be used immediately.
No special equipment required.
No special equipment required.
* Requires an additional tie down system too compensate for up lift forces.
* no tie downs rquired * most site impact
Diamond Pier Pin Foundation:
Material cost.
Material cost.
Quick installation and can be used immediately.
Quick installation and can be used immediately.
Hydraulic screw drive equipment required for installation.
Jack Hammer with pipe drive bit required.
* no tie downs required
* no tie downs required CAC.C STUDIO V
* least impact on site
* very low site impact
PAGE 65
Helical Pier:
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [FOUNDATIONS] Engineered Framing System:Mock-up
- To be used as pre designed framing system for crop stop units - Existing structure designed around 7.5â&#x20AC;&#x2122; max span . - Future design can accommodate longer spans.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 67
NOTES:
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [TRANSPORTATION] Tranporting CROP STOP 2.0 two viable options exist to acquire such a service: Option 1: Transnational shipping companies (e.g. ABF and Con-Way) with localized service providers across the contiguous United States using their own in-house freighter vehicles to transport CROP STOP 2.0 to its desired location. Option 2: Freight brokerage companies (e.g. Freight Center) who rely on a vast network of independent owner-operators that accept transportation jobs on a contract basis.
Flatbed shipping has the capacity to transport more than 45 tons of freight cargo, well above the assumed weight of the CROP STOP. In terms of cost calculation, distance to the destination does not really factor in. While the driver of the
<300 miles
regardless of the actual time the deliver takes.
SHIPPING QUOTE: $700 - $1300
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 69
Quotes acquired from ABF, Con-Way, and Freight Center, for a parcel of dimensions 14’ x 30’ x 10’
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [TRANSPORTATION] Design Factors 1
1. Road size limitations (including vehicle).
2
13’ 6”
2. & 3. Most common Drop 3’
14’
8’
3 36’
1. Spacing of pin foundation needs to allow for the trailer to be driven between them.
2
7’ 6”
3
4
being designed in Clemson. Three compound beams running the longer distance with no more that 7’ 6” joist in between. (Due to the 4 x 8 sheets of plywood). 3. As designed the structure could not be lifted from the perimeter of the building. 4. Solution - Use structural beams running perpendicular to the compound main structure to lift the structure to prevent buckling when moving (Will be removed after relocated). CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 71
1
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [TRANSPORTATION] Transportation Process
Insert cross-sectional support for lifting.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 73
Insert toe jacks under crosssection supports to lift structure.
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [TRANSPORTATION]
Back trailer under lifted structure.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 75
Lower structure onto trailer.
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [TRANSPORTATION]
Remove toe jacks.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 77
Tie down and move structure.
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [TRANSPORTATION]
10’ 6”
13’ 6”
3’ 3’
8’
3’
Things to consider: 1. Width of overall structure needs to extend far enough so that the foundation will be outside the wheel base. 2. The beams used to stabilize the structure are going to add to the loaded height therefore shortening your design able volume. 3. Roof options due to the limited height restrictions. 4. Is there a method that could be used to make the placement of the structure onto the new foundation require less precision.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 79
36’ - 40’
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [TRANSPORTATION]
PAGE 81
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RESEARCH [TRANSPORTATION]
PAGE 83
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
After research, we split into six groups in order to generate a range of schematic designs. Though we were only truly designing for South Carolina in the shortterm, it was a useful exercise to look at very diverse conditions, as well as set the foundation for what may hopefully someday be a national program of Cropstops. Though each group had identical programs and size requirements the end result was a wide variety of construction methods, priorities, and design elements. These in turn led us to the foundation for proceeding on to our design development.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION II
R E G I O N A L D E S I G N
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
REGIONAL DESIGN
PAGE 87
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
REGIONAL DESIGN ALEX LIBENGOOD / MARY TRAN
+
cooler utility
bathroom
=
kitchen
kitchen bathroom
+
cooler utility
kitchen
=
cooler
bathroom
cooler utility
utility cooler
kitchen
kitchen
2nd Kitchen
Phase
utility
1
+
cooler
bathroom
Phase
=
2
Phase
kitchen bathroom utility
bathroom
cooler utility
utility
utility cooler
kitchen
kitchen
3
kitchen
=
+
cooler
cooler
kitchen
2nd Kitchen Phase
VOLUMES
VOLUME EXPANSION PLAN
EXPANSION PLAN
PROGRAMMING
COMMUNAL
METING SPACE EXPANSION PLAN
REGION 2 - CROP STOP SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROPOSAL
1
Phase
2
Phase
2nd
Phase
1
Phase
2
3
Kitch
en
Phase
3
CNC PREFABRICATION + MODULARITY ROOF PATTERN STUDIES
1
STA
NDA
RD
2
KITC
HEN
EXPLODED AXON UNIT
ROOF MODULE ASSEMBLY each roof “module” is assembly using three standard units. The units are first slotted into one another dead-on
3
READY TO ORDER MODULE OPTIONS
The units are then rotated to line up and complete the tri-axial conifguration, and locked together using a mortice and tenon joint.
Each module is standard and made form the same panel units. The modules lock together, and disappear into the larger roof pattern.
ROOF ITERATION #1
ROOF ITERATION #2
The panels are all cut using a CNC, and notched with perpendicular cuts. The perpendicular cuts give the room to allow the unit to be assembled and locked together mortis and tenon joint, making the whole unit rigid.
The nature of the roof’s modularity, and hardware-less connections allow the whole structure to come apart and be reassembled elsewhere with just two people without heavy equipment, expensive tools, or skilled labor.
ELEVATION
CAC.C STUDIO CAC.C STUDIO V V
PAGE 89
READY TO ORDER VOLUME MODULES
CROP STOP 2.0 CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING SCHEMATIC DESIGN
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
REGIONAL DESIGN
PAGE 91
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
REGIONAL DESIGN ZONE 4
KITCHEN OUTPOST SHELL STRUCTURE
EXPANDABLE PANELS
SERVICE MODULES FRAMED VIEWS
INSERTABLE MODULES
INSPIRATION - [BARN CONSTRUCTION] SINGLE LAYOUT
EXPANDED LAYOUT
DOUBLE LAYOUT
SECTIONAL EXPANSION PARTI
8’
8’
4’
8’
4’
UTILITY
4’
COOLER
SOUTH ELEVATION
KITCHEN
RR
4’
8’
NORTH ELEVATION
4’
8’
4’
8’
N
FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0” PRECEDENT STUDIES
0’
2’
4’
10’
ANDERSON, SC
92
123
153
198
234
# OF FROST FREE DAYS IN A YEAR
# OF FROST FREE DAYS
FOUNDATIONS
SHELL STRUCTURE
MODULE INSTALL
DECK STRUCTURE
292
198
339
234
339
234
PANEL SKIN
339
292
UTILITY FOUNDATIONS
ANDERSON, SC
OPERABLE SYSTEM
MODULE INSERT
FARMERS MARKETS
MAIN THOROUGHFARES
TIMBER BEAMS
DECKING
MODULE ARRIVAL
ACCESSIBILITY
(1x4) perlins prefabricated truss, trtd. spaced 2x8 beam louvred vent corregated mtl. over 1x4 furring strips
spaced 2x8 beam 1x5 tounge and groove decking
CAC.C STUDIO V timber beam 3/8” steel base plate steel reinforcing
CROP STOP CAC.C STUDIO V 2.0 REGIONAL DESIGN PROPOSAL
PAGE 93
kitchen beyond
MEYER SHEN
47
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
REGIONAL DESIGN CropSTOP Dry/Arid Regional Design CAC.C - Studio V 09.17.14 Nick Irmen + Alex Armstrong
Schematic Programing
Assembly AXON
Dry/Arid Region General Considerations
Circulation
WSW Sun
Water Collection
Emphasize shade on S + W walls
Extended opening treatment
Night flushing
Precedent Iphiko (wing)
Architect: BASEhabitate Program: Passive home for disabled children http://www.basehabitat.org/projekte/iphiko
Precident: large truss water collection and seating detail
Scaffolding Detail Living Tebogo
Architect: BASEhabitate Program: Home for handicapped children
http://www.eartharchitecture.org/index.php?/archives/955-Tebogo-Home-for-Handicapped-Children.html
Precident: large truss agrarian look material
Les Grandes Tables de l'ĂŽle
Architect: 1024 Architecture Program: Temporary elevated resteraunt. http://www.1024architecture.net/en/2010/05/les-grandes-tables/
Precident: temporary construction technique creative use of scaffolding.
Seating/ Work Table
Circulation and Water Collection
4"
Ice cream hardening cabinet
Ramp
4"
6' x 6' Utility Rm
WH
2’
Phase II
6' x 8' Cooler
8'
1’
10'
6' x 8' Cooler
8'
Plan
Phase I
6' x 6' Utility Rm
WH
foundation program scaffold
East
truss
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING North
PAGE 95
8'
6' x 8' ADA Restroom
5'-6"
1'-6" 3'
South 1'-6" 3'
1'-6"
Assembly deck
5’ 10’
Phase II Elevation
Ice cream hardening cabinet
20'
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
REGIONAL DESIGN
massing
core wall
porch
entrance
PHASE 1
ING
DECK
R MODULAAIRS ST
M
U D
O LA R
A R M
P
8 AM
10 AM
NOON
2 PM
4 PM
6 PM
7 PM
PHASE 2
hrv system electrical plumbing / gray water
active core solar core
wet core
massing
core wall
THE GREEN CORE
entrance
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 97
porch
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
C H A R R E T T E SECTION III
In order to come to a group consensus and solidify many disparate ideas in a short time frame we met as a group, along with a few guests, in an extended charette. We all worked to blend together the regional designs and program in order to coalesce them into one schematic.
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
DESIGN CHARRETTE The studio continued developing ideas from the two person group presentations through a series of group charrettes. The goal of these charrettes was to begin identifying successful aspects of each of the partner proposals, filtering concepts into one final proposal. These collaborative exercises were carried out through a combination of timed idea sketches and discussion, investigating a multitude of various design options.
Initial Charrette
Charrette Pin Up
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
DESIGN CHARRETTE
Investigative Generation
As part of the process of design, we knew that there would be a separate structure developed for the open-air section. We subdivided into two groups to come up with alternate proposals. This generated a large number of iterations and ideas.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION IV
P O R C H F R A M I N G D E S I G N
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
PORCH FRAMING DESIGN Following the design charrette, the studio began to reconvene, going from six groups of two, to two groups of six. Building off of the ideas we developed, the two groups approached the task of devising a system of porch framing from two fronts.
Massing Context
Program Massing
Structural Condition
The ideas generated from this exercise were then applied and married to form the basis of our midterm schematic design.
Massing Configurations
CAC.C STUDIO V Roof and Foundation Configuration
PAGE 107
Roof Condition
CROP STOP 2.0 FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
This presentation marked the midpoint of our design process. We reached a point where we could come together with one cohesive design. This presentation also addressed materials, the shell of the kitchen, and the arrangement of modules.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION V
M I D T E R M D E S I G N P R E S E N TAT I O N
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
CAC.CDOCUMENTATION STUDIO V FINAL REVIEW
MIDTERM SCHEMATIC DESIGN SITE:
GREENVILLE SC CONCEPT: LIGHT:
WATER:
DOWNTOWN WEST END MATERIALS:
CROPSTOP SITE ALUMINUM
PLYWOOD
“PBR”
POP RIVETS
RECLAIMED WOOD
PAGE 111
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
MIDTERM SCHEMATIC DESIGN The midterm review consisted of the schematic design proposal for the CropStop 2.0 created through the collaboration of all twelve (12) studio members. The presentation focused on a variety of design factors, including spatial layout, form, material, expansion possibilities, and sustainable solutions. One unique aspect of this presentation considers the unknown that is a finalized site. This design proposal was to have the ability to be implemented on any site. In subsequent stages: the introduction of the exposed problems that needed to be resolved when considering both an urban and sloped site.
PAGE 113
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
Before reaching actual, physical construction we needed to finalize small details and connections. As with any project, design development is the act of turning concept into reality.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION VI
D E S I G N DEVELOPMENT
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Using the comments and suggestions that came from the Midterm review, the design of the CropStop continued to develop. Our efforts were focused on refining the elements from our midterm proposal into a simplified design. This was a fast track process and involved quick sketches of design concepts and computer modeling. In the end the design was simplified to a single roof that spanned the length of the kitchen modules and covered a versatile outdoor assembly space in front of the kitchen units. Immediately following the resolution of this design, the team focused their efforts building a mock-up to test the framing design.
PAGE 117
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
In order to test the physical reality of our design prior to actually building on-site, we needed to create a mockup of a section of the structure. We built this in the yard of our shop facility over the course of several days. The process not only allowed us not only to get experience building, but also to test the feasibility of many of the connections.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION VII
P O R C H M O C K - U P
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
PORCH MOCK UP
Erection Steps
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
PORCH MOCK UP
Construction Photos
U
I
R
T V E
E Y
A small group of students went to the site in Greenville in order to assess the actual conditions we would be building on. As we had been designing without a final site determined, this was necessary in order to discover any issues that might affect the structure. In fact, the site turned out to have a ______ slope, which led to multiple small changes to accommodate the _______.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION VIII
S S
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
SITE SURVEY
The final site was selected in collaboration with Mill Village Farms and the Long Branch Baptist church. The site offered unforseen challenges with unique opportunities to respond to these challenges. The site included a dramatic slope along the north-south axis and a gradual slope along the eastwest axis. Along with the slope, the site was constricted by two perimeter roads, Bolt St. and Trotter St., each having their respective zoning setback guidlines. The final design responded to the site parameters by incorporating a shift in angle, creating new axes to the church and playground, while orienting itself along the dramatic slope.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 127
City of Greenville Plot Plan
CROP STOP 2.0 FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
SITE SURVEY
The final design responded to the site parameters by incorporating a shift in angle, creating new axes to the church and playground, while orienting itself along the dramatic slope.
View from South Edge of Site CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 129
View from NE Corner Looking Towards the Church
CROP STOP 2.0 FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
The following pages contain the design as presented to the review board in Greenville, SC. At this point we were nearing the end of our design development and preparing to build our mockup. This step was critical for getting construction approval and the first step in making real-world building a reality.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION IX
F I N A L D E S I G N P R O P O S A L
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
FINAL DESIGN PROPOSAL RENDERINGS
rendering from southwest
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 133
rendering - workbench & ramp
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
FINAL DESIGN PROPOSAL RENDERINGS
rendering - porch seating
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 135
Trotter Str eet
Bolt Street
SITE PLAN
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
FINAL DESIGN PROPOSAL FLOOR PLAN PHASE I
6.0’
37’3”
30.0’
4.0’ 4.0’
4’3” 2.0’ 2.0’
8.0’ 6.0’ 12.0’
0
10’
15’
20’
RENDERINGS
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 137
rendering - porch seating
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
FINAL DESIGN PROPOSAL FLOOR PLAN PHASE II 21.0’
26.0’
8.0’
5.0’
12.0’
12.0’
4.0’
3.0’
0
10’
15’
20’
ELEVATIONS
CEILING 8’-0”
FINISHED FLOOR
south elevation PHASE TWO
12
PHASE ONE
1
1
12
CEILING 8’-0”
west elevation
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 139
FINISHED FLOOR
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
FINAL DESIGN PROPOSAL SECTIONS
2X4 2X8 DIAGONAL BRACING MEMBER RAFTERS GUTTER KITCHEN SHELL TO BE BUILT IN PHASE II
KITCHEN EXHAUST RAMP HAND RAIL PORCH STAIRS 2X6 SITE SLOPE SONOTUBES, 12” DIAMETER
SECTIONS
2X4 2X8 DIAGONAL BRACING MEMBER RAFTERS GUTTER KITCHEN SHELL TO BE BUILT IN PHASE II
KITCHEN EXHAUST RAMP HAND RAIL PORCH STAIRS 2X6 SITE SLOPE SONOTUBES, 12” DIAMETER
SECTION THROUGH KITCHEN SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 141
2
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
In order to actually be able to build both the prefabricated and on-site sections of the structure we needed a set of documents to translate the design to usable construction information. We created a full set including plans, elevations, details, and schedules in order to be able to build effectively.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION X
CONSTRUCTION D O C U M E N T S
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
After the final design decisions were made, the team started to produce construction documents for the construction of the Crop Stop 2.0 porch. Construction documents are the fundamental task necessary before the real process of building can begin. Although we had already figured out the majority of the construction methods and how things go together though digital modeling and our mock-up, there were still many details that needed careful consideration. From material counts to hardware schedules, and from detail joints to tier planning, all the detail drawings needed to build the CropStop porch make up this section.
The foundation plan is the first step once the site is graded, and you can’t move forward without a strong foundation. We sent a small group up to Greenville to set up foundation a week before our scheduled build so that it could cure in time. We set three rows of foundation piers. The “B” and “C” rows are for roof columns, and the “A” row is for the back posts that support the stadium seating deck. 1
1
2 6'
0'-3"
6'
5
4
3 6'
6'
EQ.
EQ.
COLUMN
Foundation Plan Detail
12" DIA CONCRETE FOOTER TO 3'-0" BELOW GRADE
SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
7
6 6'
ANCHOR STRAP (PA-51) EMBEDDED 8" IN CONCRETE
1 21"
6'
8 6'
9 6'
10 6'
11 6'
A 11" 7'-1116
5'-3"
B 9" 15'-516
9" 18'-716 10'-913" 16
15'
0'-0"
9'
C 12'
1
12'
12'
12'
12'
Foundation Plan SCALE: 3 16"=1'-0"
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 145
0'-0"
3" 13'-116
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
The porch phase of the CropStop has two main parts. The first is the roof structure which provides solar shading and shelter from the rain. Second is the decking, which includes three tiers of stadium seating, an ADA ramp to the top tier of the deck, and a counter top for additional work space. On the right youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll find the axonometric diagram of the entire structure we built, exploded into each set of components. Because our building site is a four hour drive from Charleston, we decided to prefabricate the structural components and assemble them on site, to minimize on-site construction time.
PAGE 147
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Columns are the essence of structure, and are thus very important. The main parameters for these were strength and aesthetics. We decided to use two 2x4 studs and sandwich one 2x8, ripped 3/4” off each side. Because of the different types of decking and ramp frames, 2x4 columns are variable depending on location and need. We then prefabricated and labeled the column components based on the location to help us assemble them easily on site.
SCHEDULE 2 COLUMN CODE
COMPONENTS COMBINATION
C1, C3, C5, C7, C9, C11
m2-1(W) m2(M) m2-1(E)
B1
m1-1(W) m1(M) m1-2(E)
B3 B5
m1-2(W) m1(M) m1-2(E)
B7
m1-2(W) m1(M) m1-3(E)
B9
m1-4(W) m1(M) m1-6(E)
B11
m1-5(W) m1(M) m1-7(E)
WEST(W)
EAST(E)
MIDDLE(M)
NOTE: 1. EACH COLUMN IS MADE OF WEST SIDE COMPONENT (W), MIDDLE COMPONENT(M) AND EAST SIDE COMPONENT (E) 2.EACH COMPONENT HAS A CODE THAT LINKS TO THE CHART ON THE LEFT WHICH HAS ITS DIMENSION INFORMATION 3.ALL 2X4 POSTS TOP END SHOULD HAVE 5 DEGREE (1/12)ANGLE BASE ON THE SHORTER LENGTH OF POST WHICH SHOWN IN CHART.
TOP
BOTTOM
SCHEDULE 1 LUMBER SIZE
NUMBER
DRAWING 1" 74
10'-10" m1
2x8
6 1" 74
11'-7" m2
2x8
6 12'-03 8"
m1-1
m2-1
2x4
2x4
5°
1
3" 12'-98
m1-2
2x4
6
m1-3
2x4
1
5°
1" 32
1" 52
1" 52 1" 82
1" 82
1" 2'-72
m1-6
m1-7
2x4
1
2x4
1
2x4
1
5°
1" 62
5° 3" 8'-108
1"61" 61" 52 4 2
1
5°
8" m1-5
3" 8'-118
3" 8'-108
5°
1'-8" 2x4
1" 32
12 1" 52
m1-4
1" 32
1" 1" 52 1'-64 1'-73 4"
5° 3" 8'-108 5°
1" 62 5°
8'-103 8"
1"61" 61" 52 2 2
5° 10'-103 8"
73 4" 1" 62
5°
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 149
COMPONENTS CODE
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
The section drawing clearly shows the relationships between the roof structure, the decking structure and the position of the future kitchen. The critical detail of the porch is the connection between the roof structure and decking/ramp frame which occures at the “B” row columns in the drawing.
PAGE 151
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS The roof structure is comprised of girders, rafters, stilts, purlins, and roof panels. Other than the roof panels shipped to the site, all components were pre-made in Charleston, transported, and assmebled on site. 1
General Structural Notes 1)
2) 3) 4)
Design Criteria: 2012 International Building Code Roof live load: 20 PSF Roof snow load: 20 PSF Floor live load: 50 PSF Wind load: ASCE 7-10 115 MPH Exposure B q basic = 17 PSF (ult), 10 PSF (ASD) Seismic load: Sds = 0.295, Sd1 = 0.169 Site Class D Seismic Design Category B SFRS: Light frame walls with shear panels Allowable soil bearing pressure assumed to be 2000 PSF Concrete work shall comply with ACI 318. All framing lumber shall be SYP No. 1 or better, pressure treated. All screws, nails, and hardware straps shall be as called for and shall be hot-dipped galvanized.
3'-6"
3'-0 5 " 16
B
2
4'
4'
5" 6" 9'
C
16'
3'-11"
GIRDER
1
1 G1.07
Roof Structure Plan
3
4'
4
2X4 CROSS BRACING X5 (CUT AT FIELD)
5
4
4'
4'
7
6
4'
4'
4'
8
4'
4'
9
4'
10
4'
11
4'
4'
3'-6"
6"
12'
12'
STILTS (TYP.)
3
G1.07
16'
12'
COLUMNS (TYP.)
1 G1.02
RAFTERS (TYP.)
1 G1.08
ROOF MATERIAL (3'-0" WIDE TUFF RIB PANEL)
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 153
4'
ROOF FASTENING PATTERN (2'-0" O.C.)
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SCHEDULE 1 COMPONENT LUMBER NUMBER CODE SIZE
These are the detail drawings that show the relationship between the rafters, columns, stilts, and girders.
LENGTH
g1
8
g2
12
2X8
12'-0"
S1
48
2X4
1'-2 5/8"
2X8
16'-0"
*Dimensions are for marking location of columns and stilts
3" Screw RAFTER STILT
1" 52 GIRDER (SEE DRAWING g1+g2)
4
GIRDER STILTS AND RAFTER WEST ELEVATION
3" Screw
RAFTER
1" 52 COLUMN MIDDLE PIECE
5
GIRDER (SEE DRAWING g1+g2) COLUMN WEST PIECE
GIRDER COLUMN AND RAFTER WEST ELEVATION
1
GIRDER TYPE 1 ELEVATION
33 4"
RAFTER
3'-6"
4'
4'
4'
1" 24
STILT (SEE DRAWING 2)
g1 1" 42
1" 3'-72
1" 3'-12
GIRDER
12' 16'
COLUMN
2
RAFTER
GIRDER TYPE 2 ELEVATION
4'
1" 24
4'
4' STILT (SEE DRAWING 2)
g2 1" 3'-72 COLUMN
12'
STILTS ELEVTION
5째 s1
5" 1'-28
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 155
3
GIRDER
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS To maximize structural strength, purlins that rest on the top of rafters are different lengths and staggared across the roof. There are three different types of purlin members used to achieve this; two of them are the same size, but staggared in different positions, and the third is longer.
SCHEDULE 1
COMPONENT LUMBER NUMBER SIZE CODE
LENGTH
r p1
18
2x6
16'-0"
18
2x4
12'-0"
p2
9
2x4
12'-0"
p3
18
2x4
16'-0"
*Dimensions are for marking location of purlins and rafters
3" Screw purlin
3
RAFTERS PURLINS DETAIL
rafter
RAFTER ELEVATION
1
1'-713 16"
1"
r
1'-713 16"
1'-713 16"
1'-713 16"
1'-713 16"
1'-713 16"
13" 1'-716
13" 1'-716
1"
3"
3"
PURLINS
2'-6" 1" 32
1" 32
1" 32
1" 32
1" 32
1" 32
2'-6" 1" 32
1" 32
1" 32
16'
2
PURLINS TYPES p1 p2 p3 ELEVATION
12' 1" 3'-42
1" 54
p1
1" 12
1" 3'-102
1" 3'-102
p2
1" 12
1" 12
1" 12
12' 1" 3'-102
1" 3'-102
1" 3'-102
p2 1" 12
1" 12
1" 12
1" 12
16'
3" 4
1" 3'-102
1" 3'-102
1" 3'-102
1" 3'-102
1" 12
1" 12
1" 12
1" 12
1" 12
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 157
p3
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS The stadium seat decking has three different tiers, and each tier is made of prefabricated panels. The construction method was to slide each panel into the bay between specified columns and posts. This is the panel component plan for the first tier.
PAGE 159
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS This page contains the Tier 1 panel component prefabracation drawing, the section closest to the ground. (Note: All the decking boards had to be adjusted on site because the bay distances between columns were out of the allowable tolerance.)
SCHEDULE1 LUMBER COMPONENT NUMBER SIZE CODE
LENGTH
df1
7
2x6
df2
10
2x6
5'-10 1/2" 4'-3 1/2"
df3
14
2x6
5'-7 1/2" 11'-6"
df4
2
2x6
df5
3
2x6
1'-1"
df6
1
2x6
0'-9 1/2"
dd1
72
1x6
2'-11"
dd1-1
5
1x6
2'-1"
dd2 1x6 12 2'-4" * dd1-1 can only be installed on site
NORTH
PANEL 1 COMPOSATION X5
1" 32
df3
JOIST HANGER (U26) BOTH ENDS (TYP.)
df2
1'-1"
dd1
df2
df3 1'-1"
df1
CORNER BRACE (USP AC5-TZ) CORNERS (TYP.) 2
1 16"
PANEL 2 COMPOSATION X1
1" 92
JOIST HANGER (U26) BOTH ENDS (TYP.)
1'-1"
df1 df6
dd1-1*
1"
SOUTH
1 8"
NORTH df3
df5
1"
df3
df4
dd2
df4
1" 32
dd1
df3 1'-1"
df5 1"
df3 1'-1"
df5 df1
SOUTH
1 16"
1 8"
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 161
1
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Tier 2 Plan:
PAGE 163
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Tier 2 Components:
SCHEDULE 1 LUMBER COMPONENT NUMBER CODE SIZE
LENGTH
df1
7
2x6
5'-10 1/2"
df3
14
2x6
5'-7 1/2"
df5
3
2x6
1'-1"
df6
1
2x6
0'-9 1/2"
df7
10
2x6
5'-5 5/8"
df8
2
2x6
7'-6 1/2"
dd1
72
1x6
2'-11"
dd1-1
3
1x6
2'-1"
dd2
12
1x6
2'-4"
1x6 dd2-1 1 2'-4" * dd1-1 on this level only has three slots between columns dd2-1 is 4" wide
1
PANEL3 COMPOSATION X5
NORTH 1" 32
df7
df7 df3
JOIST HANGER (U26) BOTH ENDS (TYP.)
dd1
1'-1"
df3 1'-1"
df1
CORNER BRACE (USP AC5-TZ) CORNERS (TYP.)
dd1-1
SOUTH
1" 1 16"
43" 8
1 8"
4"
1"
PANEL 4 COMPOSATION X1
1" 92
JOIST HANGER (U26) BOTH ENDS (TYP.)
1'-1"
df6
NORTH
dd2
df3
dd2-1
df5 df3
df8
df8
df3 1'-1"
1" 32
df5
dd1
df3 1'-1"
df5 df1
SOUTH
1"
1 16"
1 8"
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 165
2
df1
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Tier 3 Plan:
PAGE 167
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Tier 3 Components:
SCHEDULE 1 LUMBER COMPONENT NUMBER SIZE CODE
LENGTH
df9
6
2x6
5'-7 7/8"
df10
6
2x6
5'-9" 1'-1"
df5
36
2x6
df11
6
2x6
3'-6"
df13
12
2x6
5'-7 1/2"
dd3
72
1x6
3'-11"
dd3-1
5
1x6
3'-11"
df1 6 2x6 5'-10 1/2" * dd3-1 can only be installed on site. The width of board is 4 34" need to be trimmed from 2x6
1
NORTH SOUTH CAN FLIP
PANEL 5 COMPOSATION X6
df10 1'-1"
df5
df5 df13
JOIST HANGER (U26) df9 BOTH ENDS (TYP.)
1'-1"
df11
df13 1'-1"
CORNER BRACE (USP AC5-TZ) CORNERS (TYP.)
df5
df5 df5
df5 df1
NORTH SOUTH CAN FLIP
43 4"
dd3
dd3-1*
1 2" 1 16"
1 8"
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 169
1"
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1
The ramp frames are different from the decking frames because of the angle necessary for the ramp surface to function. We needed to specifically cut the frames to respond to the angle so that the decking boards on top could be flush and even to JOIST HANGER (U26) BOTH ENDS walk or roll on. (TYP.)
CORNER BRACE (USP AC5-TZ) CORNERS (TYP.)
4
5째
TYPE 1 RAMP COMPONENTS X1
rf1
1" df5
df5 rf4
dd3 df5 rf2
df5 rf4
df5
1"
rf1 rf4 ELEVATION
df5 rf4
JOIS B rf3
CORN AC
TYPE 2 RAMP COMPONENTS X3
TYPE 3 RAMP COMPONENTS X1
3
rf1
rf1 df5
df5
df5
rf4 rf3
dd3 df5
df5
BOTH ENDS (TYP.)
rf4 df5
NER BRACE (USP C5-TZ) CORNERS (TYP.)
rf3 JOIST HANGER (U26)
rf3
dd3
df5
df5
rf4
df5
CORNER BRACE (USP AC5-TZ) CORNERS (TYP.)
rf4
rf4
df5 df5
rf5
df5 rf1
NOTE: 1. ALL RAMP DECKING BOARDS ARE SAME DIMENSION AS TIER 1 DECKING. SIZES ARE GOING TO BE ADJUSTED ON SITE.
5
rf3 rf5 SECTION
SCHEDULE 1 COMPONENT LUMBER NUMBER CODE SIZE
5-1/2"
5째
LENGTH
rf1
6
2x6
5'-10 3/4"
rf2
1
2x6
6'-1 7/8"
rf3
8
2x6
5'7-3/8"
rf4
14
2x6
5'-7 3/4"
rf5
1
2x6
3'-6"
df5
30
2x6
1'-1"
dd3
66
1x6
3'-11"
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 171
ST HANGER (U26) BOTH ENDS (TYP.)
2
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SCHEDULE 1 We designed stairs at both end of stadium seats and the dog trot to allow for more access to the deck. To expand the function of the structure and continue the horizontal plane, we added a countertop to be used for “GAP” certification next to the ramp.
LUMBER COMPONENT NUMBER CODE SIZE
LENGTH
sf1
3
2x6
sf2
10
2x6
5'-11 7/8" 1'-5"
sf3
2
2x6
4'11-3/4"
sf4
3
2x6
5'-8 7/8"
sf5
6
2x6
4'-8 3/4"
sf6
6
2x6
1'-0 1/2"
sf7
12
2x6
2'-9 11/16"
sf8
3
2x6
0'-6"
sd1
58
1x6
1'-7 1/2"
sd1-1
3
1x6
1'-7 1/2"
*sd1-1 IS CUT ON FIELD
SCHEDULE 2 LUMBER COMPONENT NUMBER CODE SIZE
3
LENGTH
cf1
3
2x6
11'-10 1/2"
cf2
1
2x6
11'-9"
cf3
16
2x6
1'4-1/2"
cd1
50
1x6
1'-9 1/2"
cd1-1
2
1x6
1'-9 1/2"
STAIR SECTION DETAIL
1"
lower sf4 &sf5
1 2"
TYPE 1 COUNTER COMPONENTS X1 1" 1'-102
1" 1'-102
1 1" 1'-102
1" 12
1'-6"
1" 1'-102
cf3
cf3
cf3
sf4
sf2
s1
cf3
cf3
cf3
cf3 cf3
sf7
1" 1'-72
cf2 c1
TYPE 1 STAIR COMPONENTS X3
cf1
3
POST B8
7" 18
sf7 sf6 sf6 sf1 sf8
sd1
cd1 1"
sd1-1
1"
2
TYPE 2 COMPONENTS X2
TYPE 2 COUNTER COMPONENTS X1 1" 1'-102
1" 1'-102
1" 1'-72
1" 12
1" 1'-102
1" 1'-102
1" 1'-72
cf1 c2
sf2
1"
cd1-1
5
lower
cf3
cf3
cf3 cf3
cf3 cf1
cf3
sf5
sf2
s2 cf3
cf3
lower sf2
sf3 3
POST B8 1"
7" 18
sd1
1"
1"
cd1-1
cd1
POST B10
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 173
4
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
SCHEDULE 1 COMPONENTS CODE
LUMBER SIZE
NUMBER
DRAWING 3'-1"
To connect all the decking tiers together, and also to stabilize the entire stadium seat structure, we designed the back post row “A” foundations to reinforce the structural strength.
n1
2x8
7 1" 32
n1-1
2x4
2
n1-2
2x4
10
1" 81" 51" 81" 52 2 2 2 1" 2'-72 1" 51" 81" 1'-52 2 2 1" 2'-72 1" 2'-72
n1-3
2x4
2
n2
2x8
1
1" 2'-62
2'-1" n2-1
2x4
2
n3
2x8
1
1" 2'-02
1'-7" n3-1
2x4
1
n4
2x8
1
1" 1'-62
1'-1" n4-1
2x4
2
n5
2x8
1
1" 1'-02
7" n5-1
1
2x4
COLUMN LINE A COMPONENTS
2
SCHEDULE 2
PANEL 5
PANEL 5
POST CODE
COMPONENTS COMBINATION
PANEL 4
A1
n1(M) n1-1(E)
PANEL 2
A2
n1-1(W) n1(M) n1-2(E)
A3 A4 A5 A6
n1-2(W) n1(M) n1-2(E) n1-2(W) n1(M) n1-3(E)
A8
n2-1(W) n2(M) n2-1(E)
2
A1 EAST A2 WEST ELEVATION
3
A2 EAST A3 A4 A5 A6 WEST AND EAST A7 WEST ELEVATION
4
A7 EAST A8 A9 A10 A11 WEST AND EAST ELEVATION
SCHEDULE 3 LUMBER SIZE
NUMBER
LENGTH
A9
n3-1(W) n3(M) n3-1(E)
COMPONENTS CODE
A10
n4-1(W) n4(M) n4-1(E)
k1
2x4
6
2'-9 1/2"
A11
n5-1(W) n5(M) n5-1(E)
k2
2x6
3
1'-11"
k3
2x4
1
2'-0 1/8"
k4
2x8
2
3'-0 1/4"
k5
2x4
1
2'-0 7/8"
k6
2x4
1
1'-1 1/8 " | 1'-1/4" (4.7)
k7
2x4
1
1'78" | 1'-1/2" (4.7)
WEST(W)
EAST(E)
POSTS
MIDDLE(M)
PANEL FRAME
SCHEDULE 4
3" SCREW
5
COLUMN LINE B AND B.5 SECTION DETAIL
NOTE: 1. ALL ROW B AND ROW B.5 POSTS USING SAME METHOD TO CONNECT TO DECKING PANEL AND RAMP STRUCTURE.
6
POST CODE
COMPONENTS COMBINATION
B2 B4 B6
k2
B8
k3(W) k4(M) k5(E)
B.5.2, B.5.4, B.5.6
k1
B10
k6(W) k4(M) k7(E)
COLUMN LINE B AND B.5 COMPONENTS
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 175
A7
RAMP FRAME
PANEL 3
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS As a finishing detail, we designed a steel handrail support that has a dendridic style that would soon match that of the porch structure. These were also prefabricated.
2X4 TRTD LUMBER W 21" ROUND OVER ON TOP EDGES. PAINT.
2x6 TRTD LUMBER. PAINTED.
2"
5 8
3"
3 4
"
141"
3 8
"
3 4
3 4
"
"
3 8
3 4
121"
"
121"
"
DECK BD. ABOVE
2" STEEL ANGLE
121" SQUARE STEEL TUBE
"
241"
2"
121" STEEL PLATE W/ 5 16" PRE-DRILLED HOLE
2
Handrail Post Plan
121" SQUARE STEEL TUBE
1
Handrail Connection Detail
2X6 TRTD LUMBER DECK FRAMING
DECK BD.
1"
1"
141"
141"
141"
141"
1"
5 16"
3
PRE-DRILLED HOLE
Handrail Post Elevation
2" STEEL ANGLE 121"
SQUARE STEEL TUBE
6"
2x4 PT WOOD HAND RAIL W/ 21" ROUND OVER ON TOP EDGES
2x4 PT WOOD HAND RAIL W/ 21" ROUND OVER ON TOP EDGES
1 41" 10 ga. STEEL PLATE
1 14" 10 ga. STEEL PLATE
1 12" SQUARE STEEL TUBE
1 21" SQUARE STEEL TUBE
3'
5 4
5"
PT WOOD DECKING 5 4
2" STEEL ANGLE
PT WOOD DECKING
2" STEEL ANGLE
2x6 PT WOOD DECK FRAME
2x6 PT WOOD DECK FRAME
Handrail Connection Detail
2
Handrail Connection Detail
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 177
1
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Finally, to strengthen against the shear load impact on structure, we added diagonal bracing between column and rafter, column and beam, and long diagonal bracing between columns. This gave the the structure a tree-like aesthetic that completed the theme of growth.
PAGE 179
CAC.C STUDIO V
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
The construction took part in several phases both on-site and in the Charleston shop. The first portion was the foundation work at the Greenville site, during which a small group of students excavated and poured concrete. Simultaneously another group worked in Charleston cutting and priming wood members. Later many of these were pre-assembled into panels and painted in order to ease onsite construction. Later the entire group of students travelled to Greenville in order to erect the full structure over fall break. Some outstanding challenges led to a need for one more small group to head out after this main build in order to add a few finishing touches to the project.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION XI
CONSTRUCTION
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION PRE-FABRICATION[PRE-FABRICATION]
PAGE5183 PAGE
CAC.C STUDIOVV CAC.C STUDIO
CROP STOP2.0 2.0 CROP STOP RESEARCH RESEARCH&&PROGRAMMING PROGRAMMING
CONSTRUCTION FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
TRANSPORTATION[TRANSPORTATION] CONSTRUCTION
PAGE PAGE 7185
CAC.C STUDIO CAC.C STUDIOVV
CROPRESEARCH STOP 2.0 CROP STOPPROGRAMMING 2.0 RESEARCH &&PROGRAMMING
CONSTRUCTION FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
SITE WORK + FOUNDATIONS CONSTRUCTION [SITE WORK & FOUNDATIONS]
PAGE9187 PAGE
CAC.C STUDIOVV CAC.C STUDIO
CROP STOP2.0 2.0 CROP STOP RESEARCH RESEARCH&&PROGRAMMING PROGRAMMING
CONSTRUCTION FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
POST + LINTEL ERECTION CONSTRUCTION [POST & LINTEL ERECTION]
PAGE PAGE 11 189
CAC.C STUDIO CAC.C STUDIOVV
CROPRESEARCH STOP 2.0 CROP STOPPROGRAMMING 2.0 RESEARCH &&PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION [DECKING] DECKING
PAGE 191 PAGE 13
CAC.C STUDIO CAC.C STUDIOVV
CROPRESEARCH STOP 2.0 CROP STOPPROGRAMMING 2.0 RESEARCH &&PROGRAMMING
CONSTRUCTION FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
RAFTERS + ROOFING CONSTRUCTION [RAFTERS & ROOFING]
PAGE 193 PAGE 15
CAC.C STUDIO CAC.C STUDIOVV
CROPRESEARCH STOP 2.0 CROP STOPPROGRAMMING 2.0 RESEARCH &&PROGRAMMING
CONSTRUCTION FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
HANDRAILS CONSTRUCTION [HANDRAILS]
PAGE 195 PAGE 17
CAC.C STUDIO CAC.C STUDIOVV
CROPRESEARCH STOP 2.0 CROP STOPPROGRAMMING 2.0 RESEARCH &&PROGRAMMING
L & S
The following represent the finished documentation of phase 1 of the Greenville Cropstop.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION XII
F I N A P H O T O S D E T A I L
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW CONSTRUCTION
FINAL PHOTOS+&DETAILS DETAILS FINAL PHOTOS
CAC.C STUDIOV`V CAC.C STUDIO
PAGE19 199 PAGE
In the end, we built a porch, but we also built: a staging area for culinary and agriculture class; a central hub for a gardening initiative; a framing overlook to a church; an education in construction for ourselves, and an investment in the city of Greenville, as well as South Carolina. CropStop as an idea is a universal commodity--but in execution, we find a truly unique product; a design wholly informed by the site in which it sits. Winds off the hill; the grade of the land; the rays of the sun; and the character of the community--all contributed to the final form of the CropStop. Not simply a porch--a part, of which to add to a greater sum--but a whole unto itself; a part of a greater whole.
CROP STOP2.0 2.0 CROP STOP RESEARCH RESEARCH&&PROGRAMMING PROGRAMMING
In order to continually learn from and improve the Cropstop project we need to analyze the successes and failures of our iteration. The following is our attempt at an objective review. Based on four criteria (firmness, commodity, delight, and innovation) we re-examined our work.
CAC.C STUDIO V
SECTION XIII
C R I T I Q U E
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUE The critique of Crop Stop 2.0 was a process that allowed the various features of the project to be digested and reflected on for the purpose of solving the issues without sacrificing the successes of the project. The critique started by simply listing out all our observations of Crop Stop 2.0.
Affordability - -
Labor was not accounted for in total cost Extensive training was not necessary for the construction
Function - - - - - -
The stadium seating is great for circulation and programming for education Dogtrot splits the program well and keeps the buildings a manageable size for potential future transportation on tractor trailer truck beds Cooler is close to the kitchen but separately accessible for simultaneous use by different users Great for flooding since it hovers above the site The project can be built in phases and still stand on its own The buildings are modular, and the layout can be changed to adapt to the site
Accessibility/Safety - - - - -
The design is ADA accessible The exterior programming is open and flexible for community use The space is accessible from all approaches There is no drop of more than 36â&#x20AC;? without a railing (building code) Good size for truck transportation
Massing/Form - - -
PROS are in black CONS are in orange
The form is unique and adaptable with the customized porch Crawl space invites critters The massing is simple
Constructability - - - - - - - - -
The details on the porch are simple and easy to construct with jigs for accuracy Construction required no special skills beyond use of common hand power tools and jigs All materials used are easily accessible in most regions The CNCed buildings are simple to assemble and require no special equipment Railings are custom fabricated from steel and require special skills, but can be bid out The buildings are replicable The prefabrication process reduced time spent on site and potential impact of weather Site preparation and foundations were difficult to coordinate with prefabrication - the panels did not fit in between the foundation-set columns. Excavation and regrading of site was a major on site task and required heavy machinery
Design - - - - - - - - -
It feels more like a community space than a home (Crop Stop 1.0 critique) The aesthetics compliment and work within the function Designed for sustainable options like water collection, solar panels, and battery storage Building orientation works well and engages the site Solar heat gain is not well resolved; fly-roof is too high to shade outdoor spaces, and while it shades the building walls, it does not shade their roofs Meets building codes Porch is permanent and not modular Building layout, porch and fly-roof can be designed to respond to unique site conditions Simple palette of materials
- - - -
It didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t finish on time; Phase 1 is complete, and Phase 2 structure is fabricated City regulations and approval was managed behind the scenes by the faculty due to time Interior finishes and building envelope has not been designed There was no community involvement in the design process beyond the client
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 203
Management
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUE
CONS
Affordability
Labor was not accounted for in total cost
Massing/Form
Crawl space invites critters Railings are custom fabricated from steel and require special skills. Also not to code.
Constructability
Design
Site preparation and foundations were difficult to coordinate with prefabrication; the panels did not fit in between the foundation-set columns. Solar heat gain is not well resolved; fly-roof is too high to shade outdoor spaces, and while it shades the building walls, it does not shade their roofs It didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t finish on time; Phase 1 is complete, and Phase 2 structure is fabricated
Management
City regulations and approval was managed behind the scenes by the faculty due to time Interior finishes and building envelope has not been designed
Identifying Relationships
There was no community involvement in the design process beyond the client
By breaking down the critiques into topics, and isolating the cons that were identified, we considered the relationship each issue has, and considered solutions that eliminate the cons and preserve the pros.
PROS
SOLUTIONS modify the model to limit academic dependency
Great for flooding since it hovers above the site
Weigh and consider effect of installing a skirt
The railings are aesthetically minimal and do not compete with the structure
Bid the railings out to a metal fab shop, and modify design to satisfy 4” gap rule, or keep deck under 30”
Prefabrication reduces the need to be on site, and the impact weather can have on the project schedule
Design column base detail so connection is exposed for community education and consider epoxy-set anchor bolts rather than cast-in place options.
The height of the fly-roof gives the building prominence on the site, and identifies it as a gathering space. Limiting it’s area keeps material costs down, and simplifies the structure.
Consider flipping, and increasing the slope of the fly roof to provide more shading for the outdoors spaces and building roofs
Phasing the project made the project goals attainable and forced the design of the first phase to stand on its own without the second, increasing the functionality.
Phasing is likely a good solution to adapt to availability of community funding and needs.
The schedule was maintained despite city approval issues.
Work in local jurisdiction reviews into academic schedule to maximize student management & education
Passing on design problems to the next group helps them adopt ownership of the project.
Allow Spring Semester studio to finish design and promote ownership Include the community in the design to promote their ownership of the building
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 205
Student labor is free, and does not impact the budget
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUE
How do we evaluate design? FIRMNESS
COMMODITY
/100
/100
When we talk about firmness, one can imagine measuring the stability of something by holding it firmly in your hand. The the case of a building, how does the shape hold? How do the materials respond to the environment and age? Is the structure stable?
All design is subject to the general uses of the universe - itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s functionality. Commodity simply begs the questions of how useful is this? Is it of value to its target audience? Can it be sold? High commodity is when function meets the purpose.
stability shape lifetime
functionality value demand
...let’s add one
DELIGHT
INNOVATION
/100
/100
Delight encompasses the qualitative analysis including but not limited to aesthetic, feeling, response, atmosphere, and pleasure. It can be argued that delight is dependent on and enhanced by the other two conditions - firmness and commodity.
As time rolls on, how can we resist adding to or changing a good thing to make it better? Innovation involves employing new solutions for existing, new, or developing needs. Not to be confused with novelty, innovation is born when new applications have a positive impact on society.
beauty atmosphere culmination
new solutions improvement CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 207
Words that the ancient Roman architect Vitruvius used to qualify “good design” - since the 17th century, they have been the common basis of architectural evaluation.
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUE
Evaluating Crop Stop 2.0 as a Whole FIRMNESS
COMMODITY
86
92
Construction is simple, and solid
Program is flexible, and moldable to unique site conditions
The structure wiggles a bit, but stands strong Built out of soft pine wood, but is pressure treated The details are strong enough to stand the test of time
Easily constructible for communities with limited skilled laborers The program is well thought out and functional Was not completed on schedule Could be affordable depending on how the building envelope works out, and not considering labor.
DELIGHT
INNOVATION
91
84
The details are simple, honest, and attractive
Standard framing methods for the porch and fly-roof
It
Creative use of CNC methods for the buildings is high-tech, and eliminates the need for skilled labor
Tall structure draws attention Colors compliment the structure High quality of natural lighting The paint is easily scuffed and needs constant attention
Prefabricated construction simplifies assembly and reduces on site work Materials are not very innovative
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 209
looks and feels like a community gathering space
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
The values in this chart were attained b
ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUE
Visualize It!
100
INNOVATION
survey; each studio member rated th
project as a whole according to each of th
FIRMNESS 100
0
100
DELIGHT
FCDI conditions, and the average of thos
was taken to create this chart
100
COMMODITY
CropStop 2.0
by
he
he
se
This radar chart locates the FCDI conditions equilaterally along the periphery of a circle, with the perimeter indicating a perfect score of 100, and the center designated as absolute 0. The colored line traces the designated values of firmness, commodity, delight, and innovation, giving us a representation of the health of the project. Right now, it looks like the sphere is almost full, and fairly round, so the project is looking more healthy compared to evaluation of CropStop 1.0 below.
CropStop 1.0
FIRMNESS 100
100
INNOVATION
Visualizing the critique of Crop Stop 2.0 this way allows us to evaluate how well-rounded of a design it is. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s worth noting that this is a qualitative exercise developed from considering the project goals, mission statement for the program, and design quality. The critical goal of a design is to completely fill the circle.
0
100
COMMODITY
100
DELIGHT
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 211
t.
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUE
Topical Evaluations In order to identify and visually communicate the strengths and weaknesses of CropStop, each of the Critical Topics that came up were rated according to their individual contributions to firmness, commodity, delight, and innovation for both CropStop 1.0 & 2.0
This radar chart locates the FCDI conditions equilaterally along the periphery of a circle, with the perimeter indicating a perfect score of 100, and the center designated as absolute 0. Each colored line represents a different Critical Topic itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s size and shape representing how successful it was at implementing all four of the FCDI conditions. The more the lines fill the complete circle, the more well-rounded the project is.
89 86 84 90 85 80 92 87 88
FIRMNESS
Critical Topics Legen
100
massing details materials accessibility porch/fly-roof buildings
site integration modularity sustainability
constructability structure labor academic
85 86 70 79 89 84 83 82 81 75 92
100
INNOVATION
0
100
DELIGHT
100
91 86 90 87 88 85 78 92
COMMODITY
CropStop 1.0
nd
This diagram not only highlights the strong an weak characteristics of the project, but also starts to illustrate the relationships between the those features.
89 86 84 90 85 80 92 87 88
FIRMNESS
Critical Topics Legend
100
massing details materials
CropStop 2.0
accessibility porch/fly-roof buildings site integration modularity sustainability constructability structure labor academic
85 86 70 79 89 84 83 82 81 75 92
100
INNOVATION
0
100
91 86 90 87 88 85 78 92
COMMODITY
n
It can be seen from the
y
comparison of these charts that CropStop 2.0 has a more full, and well-rounded shape indicating marked overall improvement in each Each studio member rated each FCDI conditions, and the average of those was taken to create this chart.
100
91 89 86 94 72 83 87
DELIGHT
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 213
critical topic according to each of the
of the project goals
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
FIRMNESS
Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Examine...
COMMODITY
INNOVATION
ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUE Each of the Critical Topics are pulled out and examined separately here in order to zoom in on each issue and explain the reasoning for each respective rating. 90
86
Accessibility 86
70
86
Ramps and stairs are not exactly innovative, but the details are striking and the circulation highly functional.
Site Integration 85
83
94
90
87
The framing is simple, but the prefabrication is valuable and CNC assembly unique.
Labor 78
81
89
72
88
89
Details 85
92
89
The orientation of the building to the site engages the context very well, and the way it floats above and touch the site is delightful.
80
Construction 89
DELIGHT
The details are simple but articulated well, and compliment the function of structure without being superfluous
Student labor is free and functional. Little training was required to complete construction.
Massing 91
86
91
The form is broken up nicely by the dog trot, and the fly roof is attractive on as you approach the building.
87
86
Materials 92
75
87
Materials used are easily accessible in most regions, but carefully articulated for maximum pleasure. Materials not unique.
Structure 91
86
91
85
89
Modularity 88
84
86
Prefabricated porch and CNC cut building structure give modularity high points. The fly-roof is not modular, and would be difficult to add to.
Porch/Fly-Roof 91
82
94
84
The porch is a nice space, and has dual function as community space, circulation, classroom, and training space.
92
Buildings
Sustainability 90
79
Structure is simple, and easy to learn from and replicate. There is some wiggle and more shear bracing may be needed.
86
Materials are local. Chiller is insulated by adjacency, and the project is grid-dependent. Pressure treated wood is not enviro-friendly.
91
92
83
The buildings are innovative for CNC structure, but are boxy, and the envelope is unresolved.
89
91
85
89
This educational program is innovative and potentially attractive to communities, but dependence on the university is potentially unstable.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 215
Academic
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUE IT Y OD M M
CO
ON
welding required
CNC kit of parts
simple form, not built
N OV AT I
on site adjustments
high craft, no skill labor
kitchen and cooler
2 pre-fabrication ability
high fly roof
unique gathering space
tough site to manage
SS
stadium seating
truck transport
N
IN
construction
4
86
E
pleasing materials
6 railings and ADA
IR
M
84
heat gain not resolved
F
buildings
porch
creates its own space
SOLUTIONS 100
no flooding
T H
92 91
activates entire site
open and flex program
IG
accessibility site integration accessible from all sides
D
EL
0
0
1
consider altering or reversing porch slope to provide more natural shading and prevent heat gain
2
design column base detail to expose connection to educate community; keep decks below 30â&#x20AC;?
3
bid out the railings to a metal fabrication shop; consider epoxy set anchor bolts instead of cast in place
Mapping the Pros, Cons, and Proposed Solutions Here the FCDI evaluation scale is inverted with low scores at the top and bottom boundaries, and the high scores meeting towards the middle, culminating at the proposed design solutions.
innovation/commodity local and durable non-traditional
aesthetically minimal
front end design
crawl space invites critters
modularity considered
pre-fab, solar ability
can go off grid
replicable units
compatible anywhere
design for community
not community involved
weather and site
design before labor
PAGE 217 pre-fabrication ability
traditional materials
railings are custom
high level of craft
cooler accissible at all times
dogtrot splits program
heat over gain
local material, water
units expand
CNC & traditional
kit of parts, front end design
highly educational
skill required
free labor
special rail fabrication
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING CAC.C STUDIO V
firmness/delight simple but effective
5 4
rails are not to code
prominence on site
6
consider adding a building skirt, make handrails and/or guardrails to code limit academic dependency, work local juristiction reviews into schedule, and give ownership to incoming students and community consider phasing as a solution to funding and adapting to community needs
major cons
3 1 5 2
materials details massing sustainability modularity academic labor structure n
solution
FINAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUE amount spent by category
14,000 13,000
percentages of budget spent
travel + food rentals materials
12,000 11,000
22%
73%
10,000
5%
9,000 8,000 greenville charleston
7,000 6,000
10,000
14,472.16
11,214.55
8,957.07
5,515.09
3,161.31
5,000
budget
total spent
material
charleston
greenville
travel + food
4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
real money talk
we exploded past the projected budget of 10,000
38% 62%
144%
budgets drive much of what a realistic project will become. not only is it an important client value, but can determine a good portion of the aesthetic and construction process. our goal was to keep the porch build to 10,000. these breakdown show the success (or unsuccessful) results of our porch costs.
Through critical evaluation of CropStop 1.0, many key issues were discovered that led to the development of the project goals for improvement in CropStop 2.0. Now that CropStop 2.0 is complete through Phase 1, we used the same critical review process to compare the two. This comparison helps us to determine how much the project has improved, and whether the project goals of replicability, modularity, affordability, and functionality have been met, and where improvements can still be made. Having identified areas of needed improvement, solutions have been proposed that will hopefully allow the CropStop project to continue to evolve and improve not only into Phase 2, but down the road with CropStop 3.0 and beyond.
CAC.C STUDIO V
PAGE 219
ns .
CONCLUSIONS
CROP STOP 2.0 RESEARCH & PROGRAMMING
GO TIGERS!