ANALYSIS
oliver hessian sustainable studio
STREET HIERARCHY
BLOCK SIZE
granville
study area: existing
Existing Typologies
A
• •
An analysis of the existing examples of densification in the study area revealed a range of typologies that have attempted to achieve this.
B
single dwelling plot single storey
• • •
single plot 11 sub plots private yard
*** ***** ** ** *** * **** * *** ***** 29 = 319
• • •
double plot apartments shared central access 2 storeys
D
• • •
E
double plot apartments shared central access 2 storeys
• • •
double plot apartments parking under building 3/4 storeys
• • •
single plot 17 sub plots 4 with yard space
• • •
** *** ** * ** * **** * *** *****
25 = 425
24 = 432
•
= Development potential
•
What is desirable? • • •
space light community
• • •
single plot 20 sub plots shared green
All plots orientated north-south Square plots are roughly 5x5m Square plots use shared green space All plots utilise roof terrace for additional private space Square subdivision assumes no on site parking therefor a car share system is in place and parking is on the street. Vehicle access is for emergency or one off use
connection flexibility safety
• • •
longevity? temporary? nature?
30 = 540
• • •
• •
• •
• •
amalgamated plot apartments shared driveway access 3/4 storeys
• •
double plot 36 sub plots
***** ***** ***** *** ***** ***** **** ** **** *****
35 = 648
43 = 774
What is flexible?
What isn’t flexible
• • •
•
potential for change architectural evolution maintained quality
• • •
8: Cluster Community Plots
double plot 37 sub plots
**** ***** **** **** **** *** *** ** **** **
29 = 508
density? flexibility? photovoltaics?
•
G
Plot sizes need to be more generous to leave room for flexibility and future development Cluster housing effective as a typology but only within an off street area. Closed Courtyard plots are effective All plots need a release for movement
7: Closed Courtyard Plots
double plot 35 sub plots
*** ***** **** *** *** ** ** * *** ***
What is sustainable? • • •
6: Open Courtyard Plots
double plot 36 sub plots front yard space
* ***** *** **** *** *** *** ** **** **
24 = 480
triple plot apartments shared cul de sac access 2 storeys
• • • •
5: Back to Back Plots
** *** ** ** *** * ** * *** *****
• • •
Conclusions:
4: Central Access Plots
single plot 18 sub plots shared green
F
Assumptions:
•
3: Split Access Plots
study area: connection
This lead me to question what the criteria might be in order to understand, judge and ultimately create desire in a dense suburban area.
Sub plots/plots x desire total
Total out of 50
* ** *** ** *** *** *** * ** *****
Sustainable Plot Size
study area: intensified
This would then be weighed up with how many dwellings are achievable per plot.
* = unacceptable ** = poor *** = ok **** = good ***** = desirable
2: Meandering Access Plots • • •
study area: existing
However what was clear from studying these examples was that there was a lack of desirability in all cases.
Strategies marked out of 5 in same order:
i. Quality of green space ii. Proximity of green space iii. Community atmosphere iv. Daylight v. Ventilation vi. Pedestrian Friendliness vii. Privacy viii. Connectivity ix. Growth Potential x. Development Distribution
• • •
C
double dwelling plot side access single storey
Desire Criteria:
1: Side Access Plots
study area: intensified
ROUTES
•
100% building to plot ratio permanent structure
•
un-recyclable materials
typical 2 bed house:
65 m
minimum 25 sqm
master bed bedroom toilet bathroom storage stair kitchen living flexible Plot Size
15 sqm 9 sqm 2 sqm 6 sqm 2 sqm 5 sqm 7 sqm 16 sqm + 70 % ? 100 sqm approx.
bungalow arrangement:
bedroom
flexible
stair
kitchen
5x5m
bathroom
storage
15 m
toilet
master bed
existing 975 sqm
living
100 sqm
60 sqm
SITE PROPOSAL
oliver hessian sustainable studio SITE PLAN 1:200
lawn
PHASING
flow
er g
• + 1 plot • 1 demolition • + 5 sub plots
men ts
• 1 plot, 2 back garden, 1 front garden • 0 demolition • 7 sub plots
phase 2
n
phase 3
• + 2 plots • + 2 demolition • + 11 sub plots
allot
phase 1
arde
TOTAL 23 sub plots, 3 demolished
Duck Creek
littered - low water level - fast flow rate - low capacity - ignored
In order for the creek to operate as an inhabited infrastructure the existing section needs to be revitalised to become something that is worth celebrating.
lawn
Existing:
future connection
The current section is inadequate to contain the frequent flooding risk and is predominantly ignored through the area. As a result the steep banks are full of litter.
future connection
Due to the nature of the soil in the area removing the concrete section would contaminate the water table.
The boardwalk would then be cantilevered over part of the section with spacing in the floorboards to allow light to plant life below. This primary piece of landscaping integrates the series of shared courtyards along the developing site. These might manifest as a series of different uses. I have proposed an area of tiered seating that slopes down to the creek bed which also doubles as excess flood capacity while providing a place to sit in the north sun. I have also proposed an allotment area that could be rented out among the local community.
ating d se
The slope of the creek would need to be lagooned to slow the water flow down as well. This would then allow suspended reed beds to cover the concrete walls.
tiere
filtered - slow lagooning water - increased capacity - engaged
woo dlan
I am proposing to extend the existing section to increase the flood capacity while also providing some storm water retention capacity.
d
Proposal:
ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSAL
couple
kitchen
dining
bedroom
bathroom
living
+ storage
Parties Sofa space Basic Cooking Ventilation Nursing Hangover Natural light in living room
[Academic use only]
graduate
oliver hessian sustainable studio
family
family +
Dinner Parties 2 person sofa 250% storage TV in bed Living-Kitchen connection Vertical connection
Family Meals Central kitchen Individual retreats 500% storage Capacity to hide mess Individual Retreat [Academic use only]
[Academic use only]
[Academic use only]
shower
st.
lawn
wc
green wall
bedroom
roof seating
raised deck / water tank pod
[Academic use only]
phase 2: ground floor 1:100
deck
phase 2: first floor 1:100
bbq
bedroom sink
living
wc
st.
kitchen bedroom st.
dining
st.
st.
bathroom
st. balcony
phase 1: ground floor 1:100
front garden
phase 3: first floor 1:50
phase 1: first floor 1:100
phase 3: ground floor 1:50
phase 1: bbq area under canvas awning
phase 1: front elevation
ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSAL phase 1: section 1:100
oliver hessian sustainable studio
phase 2: section 1:100
phase 3: living areas [Academic use only]
phase 3: section 1:100
pod
roof seating
bedroom
bathroom
bedroom wc
phase 1: main bedroom
shower
[Academic use only]
green wall
bedroom
deck
living
kitchen
dining
front garden
lawn
demic use only]
materials: Wall: Victorian Blue Brick
Deck: Blackbutt
Deck: Blackbutt Aged
Ground Floor: Concrete
Furnishing: Pine
Furnishing: Dark Brushbox
phase 3: second bedroom
phase 3: sectional perspective rain s
sink
sh
shower
t
toilet
w
washing machine
mains
water tank green wall
environmental strategy: summer
environmental strategy: winter
• adjustable external shading • roof encourages cross ventilation in both bedrooms • opening sizes create negative pressure for ground floor cross ventilation
• glazed north elevation and adjustable louvres enable deep winter sun penetration • potential for photovoltaics on roof
rainwater strategy: phase 3 • 66 sqm roof catchment • 10,000 litre storage capacity
s
sh
t
w
sewage