Crop Stop 2 0

Page 1

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 [ < 15� 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 7.5’ 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 you’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

1

3" 12'-98

m1-2

2x4

6

m1-3

2x4

1

1" 32

1" 52

1" 52 1" 82

1" 82

1" 2'-72

m1-6

m1-7

2x4

1

2x4

1

2x4

1

1" 62

5° 3" 8'-108

1"61" 61" 52 4 2

1

8" m1-5

3" 8'-118

3" 8'-108

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

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 36� 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 didn’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 didn’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 - 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


...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. 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 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 it’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

Let’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 30�

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!


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.