Constructing Environments Journal
Week 3 – Site Visits Nina Novikova - 643695
References for this week's journal include: Information provided by Heather during the field trip, Bachelor of Environments, University of Melbourne, 2013 Henry (Cox Architects), Pavilion construction worker F. D.K. Ching (2008)Building Construction Illustrated, 4 th edition
Constructing Environments Journal
Week 3 – Site Visits
The destination of this week's main site visit is the sports oval pavilion on campus, which is currently location to construction works. Originally a wooden heritage building, it has to be renovated in order to be more stable and functionable as a building – the wooden part appears to be in poor condition close up – as well as have a larger space build onto it to accommodate the needs of the sports organisations on campus.
Students were provided with a map of the propsed design, which includes the existing features (the square with a circular corner to represent the structure photographed above.
Location 1
Some overshadowing buildings can be seen in the distance. One of the issues regarding the choice of material and construction solutions would have been the design fitting in with the neighbourhood character while still being able to relate back to the original structure. Here one sees a row of strip footings indicating the span of the proposed structure, filling up a trench that has been drained of groundwater. The concrete has been reinforced to prevent buckling. From this point on, it is unclear what the next 'layer' of the building would be like; one could guess that a concrete formation can be placed to mark the edge of the future pavilion.
Location 2
Viewed from the corner of where the elongated strip footings section meets the centra site, this shows the works on the current foundation – a thick concrete slab layered with wood. The wood formwork is to accommodate (?) a concrete cast which would then have an interesting texture, adding a special feature to the otherwise industial aesthetic. Although not visible on the photograph, there is a trench leading off into the right side, which is used to drain groundwater so that it doesn't undermine the stability.
Location 3 Once again, the existing structure, with the body being made from timber, and the roof from corrugated (?) iron. at its condition, it could have been subject to weathering, prolongued exposure to lateral forces; the effect of moisture on the materials can be seen through the rust, and one may suppose that the timber is subject to mould and/or rotting (the builders on site note the high amount of ground water on the site). If one looks closely, dislodged or rotten pieces of timber are visble, especially on the round turret; those would probably need to be replaced, if not the entire cladding.
In terms of the basement/foundation of the existing building, one can suggest that the term of underpinning should be relevant to this site. The visible foundation for the existing structure does not seem too sturdy; especially with the ground being excavated for further works. Temporary supports may have been/need to be erected, to support the weight and possibly dewater the ground below.
Location 3
The view from the back of the construction site, which focuses on the work that has already been done on the foundation of the future pavilion.
A lot of the footings for this site are strip footings over which rock walls are constructed; a concrete slab is also in place. The slab depth for this particular point is 236 millimetres deep, while the base slab is 100millimetres. Retaining walls are a part of the foundation; those are coated with a waterproof fabric membrane; this is to prevent groud water from applying additional force onto and deteriarating the foundation once the excavated site is filled with earth. Metal bars have been embedded into the upper concrete slab where the walls shall be erected in the future; some electric cord bundles are visible. There are minimal exposed services below the slab.
This particular space features a link between two buildings which are adjoined both through an interior space and a roof sheltering the space just outside.
The weight of the adjoining roof would be distributed over the frame of load-bearing walls, while the timber and steel elements of the roof members would be in tension.
The space links the one other building to the Eastern Resource Centre library which is then connected to Frank Tate by an underground passage; all three are also easily accessably by walking from one to another as they are clustered closely together. Wide entrances and open spaces are achieved by tension through the roof and the load bearing walls, which makes circulation through the area easy, and visually creates more space and light. Given the restriction of circulation and a small space, this site is quite efficient in its material useage and impact on the existing environment.
On Campus: Site 1. ERC.
The prevalent materials in use are steel (beams, framework), timber and laminated timber (roof, rendering, dĂŠcor elements), concrete (walls, floor) and plaster (rendering). Overall the building has a slightly industrial aesthetic but a pleasant atmosphere. Large sheets of glass make up the roof, which lets natural light into the space.
On Campus: Site 2. Ormond reception.
This area links the older Ormond College building to a modern reception area. The materials in use are steel, zinc, glass, allumunuim and concrete – all very industrial materials. The structural systems are very framebased – the adjoining space is a steel frame keeping sheets of glass upright to form a corridor. There are also beams lined up to transfer the weight of the modern building to the left through columns – the thicker concrete and thinner steel ones. The construction constraint of interacting with the existing building and referencing the neighbourhood character is form work on concrete, which gives it different rendered finishes. The areas alligned with the faces of the older buildig bear a textural resemplance to the masonry utilised; the large concrete columns are smooth, some other areas resemble timber. To avoid having a huge block of steel and metal, the walls of the reception area are constructed out of glass block, connected by a steel frame while also bearing some weight themselves.
On Campus: Site 3. Queens College extension. A small extension of an existing older building the rendering of which appears to be concrete, plaster or masonry, but no evident historic value or aesthetic. The materials seen on site are glass (windows), concrete (most of the walls; it is worthy of notice that the concrete walls are pre-manifactured, delivered and arranged on site), mesh and steel to reinforce some concrete. Timber framing can be seen lining the interior spaces. In this case, all the walls are load-bearing. The connection between the site focus and the existing structure seems to occur through adjoined walls, save for where the open space of new structure meets verandah of existing (the latter is supported by two steel load bearing columns)
On Campus: Site 4. Ormond reception. The connection of a new space to an already existing one, achieved by partially taking down sections of an exterior wall of the red brick building. Traces of the wall, which would be thus thicker than the others as well as load-bearing, can be seen in the corridorlike space withing the link between buildings
Materials in use are steel (both roof and exterior cladding), concrete and brick, with plaster rendering for the interior newer wall, and a coat of paint for the existing structure. A frame system can be observed in the upper window where steel keeps large sheets of glass in place. One can assume some of the roof members are in tension, but most of the weight is transferred down loadbearing walls. Some of the interesting features include angled ventillation ducts that then pass down pipes visible on the inside; fire/smoke curtains where the doorways to the older building were cut into the existing wall, and box gutters for rainwater collection with a downwards pipe.