Studio: Knitlock, a Masters of Architecture Thesis by Sam Brak

Studio: Knitlock Samuel Brak

1

cover image: Knitlock wall and roof segments. 1917-1930. http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/20933843?q=knitlock&c=picture&versionId=24870265

3

Studio: Knitlock Samuel Brak

2016 S1 Architecture Design Thesis: studio KNITLOCK Studio Leader: Philip Goad Samuel Brak 542519

Contents 05 07

Studio Outline

Thesis Statement

08

Research

38

Design

92

Making

10

Griffin’s Knitlock

40

A New Knitlock

94

Knitlock

Glenard Estate

58

22 30 34

Pholiota

48

Case Studies

64

Mid Semester Interim

Final Outcome

108

New Knitlock

Studio Outline

S

tudio KNITLOCK will re-imagine

own house at Eaglemont, as part of

Mahony’s unique patented concrete

Gallery later in 2016, and which will

Walter Burley Griffin and Marion

construction system – Knitlock – on the eve of the centenary of its invention

(1916). Students will examine issues of element design, repetition, fabrication, inventive construction and the design of a model or prototype house for the

future. There will be archival research, re-drawing, site visits, modelmaking (hand and digital) and multiple

sessions in the MSD Fabrication

Workshop. Work undertaken in this studio will also contribute to the

complete reconstruction at 1:1 scale

of ‘Pholiota’ (mushroom), the Griffins’

5

an exhibition to be held in the Dulux comprise the MSD’s contribution to

the University’s ‘Cultural Collisions: Grainger-Griffins’.

Philip Goad

Thesis Statement

I

have redesigned Griffin’s original Knitlock to produce a radically

simplified system that addresses many of the thermal, structural, and weatherproofing issues associated with the original design. The new system

combines the straightforward double

skin stacked-tile approach of Wright’s

Textile Block with the added ingenuity of interlocking elements. Resulting in a more efficient concrete system that

updates Knitlock for the contemporary construction industry.

7

I have applied this idea of interlocking elements to create a cohesive whole to the site planning. The efficiency

of tightly knitting different housing

typologies results in a master plan that

maximises public open space, allowing for meaningful community activity to thrive.

Samuel Brak

Research

8

opposite: Fig. 1. Knitlock house under construction.

1917-1930.

9

Griffin’s Knitlock

W

alter Burley Griffin and his wife

Marion Mahony Griffin arrived to

live in Australia in 1914 after winning an international contest to design

Australia’s new capital city, Canberra.

Griffin began developing the Knitlock construction method while working

in Canberra and in 1917 he patented

this interlocking concrete wall tile unit.

Griffin designed this type of ‘segmental architecture’ as an alternative to the

increasing standardisation of building design in the 1920’s. His architectural vision was to use this interlocking

construction method to build a simple, but non-standard worker’s cottage.

The Knitlock System was developed as an economical, flexible and quick way

were used to create two types of the

Gumnuts, Pholiota and the Jefferies

shaped block to form the building’s

Jefferies in 1924, survive.

concrete tiles: the vertebral, quadrant framework and distinctive vertical

piers, and the tesseral block to infill

The Knitlock method embodies Griffin’s

columns and corners and the tesseral

practical, adaptable and democratic

the walls. The vertebral blocks formed blocks were interlocked back to back with staggered joints, resulting in

bedding or plastering and allowed

a greater variety of building shapes.

They were light but sturdy and finished walls were only 6 centimetres wide.

Steel reinforcing rods could be could be inserted into the core between blocks.

Standard concrete tile, or segments,

as his weekend retreat. Only a few

10

architecture.

Knitlock ‘bricks’ did not need cutting,

Griffin built a pair of Knitlock cottages,

fitted together on site. Timber moulds

idealism and his commitment to a

smooth internal and external surfaces.

to build minimalist dwellings.

were produced by machines and

House in Surrey Hills, built for Julian St

Gumnuts and Marnham, in Frankston Knitlock buildings were constructed.

Marnham was demolished in 1983 but

text: http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/places, http:// www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/landmarks opposite: Fig. 2. Knitlock construction building promotion at Royal Melbourne Show, September 1919.

11

left: Fig. 3. Knitlock corner demonstration showing staggered tiles and steel reinforcing. right: Fig. 4. Knitlock half column.

12

top: Fig. 5. Exterior view of Julian S. Jefferies Knitlock house, 1927. bottom: Fig. 6. A Knitlock tile-making machine.

13

The Fourteen Elements

14

15

162.4mm 162.4mm

20mm

314.8mm

162.4mm Half tessera +6” version 16

M-F quadrant +6” version

F-F quadrant +6” version

M-M quadrant +6” version

M-M tangent +6” version

M-F tangent +6” version

ngent sion

162.4mm

20mm

304.8mm

40mm

304.8mm

314.8mm

17

M-F tangent +6” version

Full tessera +6” version

162.4mm Half tessera +6” version

M-F quadrant +6” version

F +

Partition join

The Wall Connections

Partition join

Partition join

Corner column

Right angle corn Corner column

Right angle corner 18

Corner column

Corner column Corner column

Partition join

3

Right angle corner

Half column

Half column Half column

F

Right angle corner Free standing column

Right angle corner

Free standing column Free standing column

Right angle corner 19

Right angle corner

Right angle corner

Half column

Half column

Half column

Pros: •

Straightforward construction

•

Cheap to make your own tiles

• • • •

Relatively lightweight Planning simplicity

Adaptability, such as double skin walls

Unique concrete finish

Cons: •

Very low insulating properties

•

Structural issues, such as storey

•

• • •

20

Not entirely weatherproof limitations

Time consuming to self-produce

Free standing column

blocks

Restricted to rigid grid planning

Requires bespoke windows/doors

Free standing column

Free standing column

opposite: Fig. 7. Knitlock patent plan drawing, 1917.

21

Pholiota

W

alter Burley Griffin used his

Knitlock construction system

in the design of his and Marion’s first home, Pholiota on land they owned

on the Glenard Estate. Completed in

1920, Pholiota was a very small house of a very innovative and controversial design.

Because it was so small Pholiota, the Griffins obtained a Council Building

Permit for it as a ‘doll’s house’ for their nieces and nephews who lived next

door. In her memoirs Marion refers to her house as ‘one of the most perfect buildings ever built.’

Pholiota is a single storey house with an overall dimension of 6.4 metres.

by 8 small alcoves with flat ceilings.

the western elevation of the building

entrance and service areas and the

alterations to the original interior fabric

The corner alcoves contained the side alcoves contained a piano, a

fireplace and two bedrooms areas.

Curtains were used to partition the

The casement windows had decorative

plans developed by Griffin and is a

diagonal glazing bars and extended to

the ceiling line. They were designed to

open inwards using a simple nail pivot.

The floor was originally red brick laid

very distinctive example of a one room house, with a central open plan living area with side alcoves.

pattern. The roof was clad in terracotta tiles rather than the matching Knitlock

roof tiles, Griffin used at Gumnuts and

Marnham, which were patented in 1917.

considerably altered with extensions

22

examples of the minimalist house

directly on the ground in a herringbone

designed as a cross within a square. pyramidal ceiling and was surrounded

still be seen.

Pholiota is one of the few surviving

Since Pholiota was sold in 1925

The square central room had a

and finishes the Knitlock wall tiles can

alcoves when needed.

It was laid out on a module system

using the Knitlock vertical piers and

remains unobstructed. Despite

the original building has been

added in 1938 and 1975 and a second storey added in the 1990’s. Now only

text: www.onmydoorstep.com.au/ heritage-listing/348/pholiota, www. heidelberghistoricalsociety.com.au opposite: Fig. 8. Exterior view of Pholiota. 1925-30.

23

left: Fig. 9. Marion and Walter tending to their garden at Pholiota. 1918. above: Fig. 10. Pholiota interior. 1925.

24

6705.6 1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

Positives:

1066.8

•

1066.8

762.0

•

BED ALCOVE BATHROOM

•

1066.8

1066.8

DRESSING

•

914.4

W.C.

PIANO ALCOVE

•

1066.8 1066.8

•

•

ENTRY

762.0

1066.8

BED ALCOVE

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8 6705.6

Pholiota floor plan 5

efficient heating.

Service areas are grouped in one area.

Flexible alcove spaces function as bedrooms when curtained off, or living spaces when open.

Operable windows on all sides of the house allow for natural cross ventilation.

Simple symmetrical plan can be easily extended.

Simple rammed earth floor

provides geothermal heating.

No space provided for basic

modern amenities, such as a

fridge, washing machine, dryer,

KITCHEN

25

open-planned dwelling allows for

Negatives:

914.4

1066.8

LIVING

• 6705.6

FIREPLACE

914.4

6705.6

1066.8

•

Fireplace in the centre of the small,

1066.8

1066.8

•

• •

bath.

Very small, outdoor toilet not seen as desirable by contemporary living standards.

Absence of doors limits visual and auditory privacy.

Lacks lighting - central living space can become dark and gloomy when curtained off.

Very little inbuilt storage space.

Absence of insulation in walls

and roof means it has a very poor environmental performance.

2286mm ceiling East-west Section

26

7

6

5

4

3

2

1. Brick on rammed earth floor 2. Knitlock walls (roughly 2250 total tiles) 3. Casement

27

windows/doors slid into walls 4. Wall top plate 5. Ceiling 6. Pyramid roof framing 7. Ceramic tile roof

1

1066.8 1066.8

1066.8 1066.8

1066.8 1066.8

6705.6 1066.8 1066.8 6705.6 1066.8 1066.8

1066.8 1066.8

1066.8 1066.8

1066.8 1:50 1066.8

1066.8 1066.8

VING

PIANO ALCOVE

VING

PIANO ALCOVE

WEST ELEVATION 1:50 WEST ELEVATION 1:50

1

WEST ELEVATION 1:501:50 WEST ELEVATION West elevation

BED ALCOVE

ENTRY

WEST ELEVATION1:501:50 WEST ELEVATION BED ALCOVE

ENTRY

WEST ELEVATION 1:50 WEST ELEVATION 1:50

1

BED ALCOVE

6705.6

8

2

6705.6

NORTH NORTH

1066.8

1066.8

NORTH

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

NORTH

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

1:50 EAST ELEVATION 1066.8 1:50 EAST ELEVATION

1066.8

EAST ELEVATION

1:50

EAST ELEVATION

1:50

EAST ELEVATION

1:50

3NORTH NORTH ELEVATION 1:50 1:50 ELEVATION North elevation

1066.8

6705.6

EAST ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION 1:50 NORTH ELEVATION 1:50

1066.8 BED ALCOVE 6705.6

8

2

1066.8

ENTRY

8

8

1066.81066.8 1066.81066.8

ENTRY

2 1066.8 1066.8

6705.6 6705.6

6705.6

PIANO ALCOVE

FLOOR PLAN 1:25 FLOOR PLAN 1:25

6705.6 6705.6 1066.8 1066.8

6705.6

VING

1066.8 1066.8

NORTH ELEVATION 1:501:50 NORTH ELEVATION

3

NORTH ELEVATION 1:50 NORTH ELEVATION 1:50

4SOUTH ELEVATION

1:50 SOUTH ELEVATION 1:50

6705.6

EAST ELEVATION 1:501:50 EAST ELEVATION

2

EAST ELEVATION1:501:50 EAST ELEVATION East elevation EAST ELEVATION 1:50 EAST ELEVATION 1:50

28 NORTH ELEVATION

1:50

SOUTH ELEVATION 1:50 1:50 SOUTH ELEVATION

4

SOUTH ELEVATION 1:501:50 SOUTH ELEVATION South elevation SOUTH ELEVATION 1:50 SOUTH ELEVATION 1:50

1066.

1066.8 1066.8

1066.8

1066.8 1066.8

6705.6

1066.8 1066.8

1066.8 PIANO ALCOVE 1066.8

FLOOR PLAN1:251:25 FLOOR PLAN

1066.81066.8 1066.81066.8

1066.8 1066.8

FLOOR PLAN 1:251:25 FLOOR PLAN

VING

6705.6 BED ALCOVE 6705.6

1066.8 1066.8

1066.81066.8 1066.81066.8

762.0

FLOOR PLAN 1:25 FLOOR PLAN 1:25

1066.81066.8 1066.81066.8

762.0

DRESSING

NORTH NORTH

Perspective

29

The Glenard Estate

T

he Glenard Estate, Eaglemont,

is a residential estate designed

by Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin in 1915 . It was the

second earliest example of the Griffin’s suburban designs and shares many characteristics with nearby Mount Eagle Estate which they had been

commissioned to lay out in 1914 on

land owned by Peter Keam. There are other examples of garden suburbs in

Victoria designed later by the Griffins but not all are as intact as Glenard.

The use of innovative covenants on the titles, created by Peter Keam, ensured

were ahead of their time. He

children, safe from traffic and easily

the Griffins at Glenard were developed

the idea of a neighbourhood as a

that suburbia should provide ‘playing

and at the Ranelagh Estate at Mount

advocated garden city planning and physical and social planning unit.

The Griffins took into account the

topography of the site, the existing

indigenous vegetation and also the

exotic plantings from the 1860’s and

followed the natural contours of the

site so that each allotment had views.

Griffins’ ideals. The reserves used

of Walter Burley Griffin’s suburban

design approach. His environmental and social concerns and principles

30

community use also reflected the

land made spare by the irregular plan, rather than take up street frontages.

lots in 1915. The Griffins designed

small Knitlock house Pholiota at 23

Glenard Drive and, with their brotherin-law, Roy Lippincott, Lippincott House at number 21. Lippincott

House was perhaps the best domestic example of the Frank Lloyd Wright

architecture brought to Australia by the Griifins.

Together with the unfenced back

Glenard plays a historically significant

the reserves were intended to provide

and the garden suburb movement in

gardens recommended by the Griffins, common safe playing places for

Eliza in 1926.

natural conditions’.

many houses is the area including their

area. The distinctive long curved roads

further at Castlegraig in Sydney in 1924

as nearly as possible open country

responded to the natural beauty of the

them. The layout, vistas and planting all

the Griffins.

reserves of Glenard are early examples

grow up healthy and vigorous under

The Glenard Estate consisted of 120

Internal public reserves for safe

The subdivision layouts and internal

grounds for the children so they can

designed the estate to harmonise with

the survival of the original street layout and internal reserves as designed by

supervised. The Griffins believed

role in the history of town planning

Victoria. The ideals put into practice by

text: www.heidelberghistoricalsociety.com.au, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaglemont,_ Victoria, www.onmydoorstep.com.au/ heritage-listing/ opposite: Fig. 11. Sales brochure for Glenard Estate, 1916.

32

opposite: Fig. 12. Exterior view of “Lippincott� residence. 1925-30. top: Fig. 13. Interior park of Glenard Estate. bottom: Fig. 14. The commemorative plaque.

33

Wright’s Textile Block

T

he Textile Block System was an

experiment by Frank Lloyd Wright

in modular construction. By the early 1920’s Wright felt he was being type

cast as the Prairie House architect and wanted to broaden his architectural outlook and challenge himself.

The concrete blocks were an

experiment by Wright to develop an

inexpensive and simple construction method that would enable ordinary

The textile block system was a double-

For the first textile block house, Millard,

of square, pre-cast, concrete tiles with

sand, gravel and minerals found on the

wall system, with each wall consisting channels along the sides. The blocks were set together and connected

Wright made the concrete blocks using property.

by steel reinforcement running

Storer House is the only house to

likened the system to a fabric warp

Sledgehammers and aluminium

horizontally and vertically. Wright

and weft. After the channels were filled

with mortar or grout the two walls were “tied” together by steel reinforcement,

have multiple, four, block patterns. moulds were used to impress Mayan inspired patterns into the blocks.

leaving a hollow airspace between.

Ennis House was the last and largest

stacked blocks, tied together with

In 1923 and 1924 Wright designed four

more than 27,000 concrete blocks

mass produced blocks in the hope that

County: Millard House, Freeman House,

people to build their own homes with steel rods. Wright added design to

they could become a “masonry fabric

capable of great variety in architectural beauty.” He used the texture, colour and decoration on the blocks to fit houses into their natural settings

making each “a man-made extension of the landscape.”

34

‘textile block’ houses in Los Angeles Storer House and Ennis House. The

of the four houses. It was made from all made with decomposed granite extracted from the site.

name Textile Block described their

richly textured and decorated concrete walls. These house designs were

also influenced by Wright’s interest in primitive American architecture such

as Mayan and represented his earliest uses of exotic and Mayan forms.

text: Modern Architecture Since 1900, William J R Curtis, www.archdaily.com/77922/ frank-lloyd-wrights-textile-houses, https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millard_House

left: Fig. 15. Textile block construction diagram. right: Fig. 16. Ennis House, F.L.W., Los Angeles.

35

Kingo Housing Jørn Utzon

Helsingør, Denmark, 1956-59

F

rustrated in his attempt to build

an earlier housing development,

Utzon persuaded the mayor of

Helsingor to give him a 3.6 hectare

undulating site with a pond on which

to build courtyard-style houses within government low-cost restrictions.

plots. While the intended market for

the development was workers at the nearby Elsinore shipyards, some of

Utzon’s employees moved here shortly after its completion, when the Sydney Opera House competition was won.

With a local contractor and backed by his father, Utzon built a showhouse which proved successful, and the

development proceeded in phases.

Eventually 63 houses were built,

following the contours and arranged to maximise views, sunlight and shelter from the wind. Utzon, quoting Alvar

Aalto, described the plan of the houses

as ‘like flowers on a cherry tree branch, each turning to the sun’. Four similar

L-shaped house types were designed, with a living room and study in one

wing, and the kitchen, bedrooms and

bathroom in the other. Perimeter walls of different heights contain the other two sides of the 15 metre square

36

text: http://brick.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/03/BB%20Spring%202009.pdf

above: Fig. 17. Kingo Housing master plan. right: Fig. 18. View from within courtyard.

37

Design

38

39

Double Skin Variant

Re-Designing Knitlock First Iteration

M

y first attempt at modifying Knitlock aimed to address

its thermal performance issues by

repeating Knitlock pieces to create a

double skinned system. The large air

gap acted as both a barrier to improve

thermal performance, and as a conduit

for pipes, and wires etc. A semicircular variation of the male and female

quadrant pieces acted as thermal

breaks joining the two skins. Ultimately, this idea was discarded as the final

wall thickness was too excessive for a

small house and required significantly more tiles.

• Double skin provides superior insulating pr • Insulation batts and conduits can be placed the cavities • Increased structural strength and durability • Only requires 8 pieces rather than 14 • Semicircular pieces made from a rubber/foa al to act as both stiffeners and thermal brea • Allows for seamless right angle corners

40 8

F-F Semicircle

M-F Semicircle

Full Tessera

365mm

y

am materiaks

41

245mm

roperties d inside

914mm

Re-Designing Knitlock

100

redesign of Knitlock in an attempt

to drastically simplify the system. A

140

140

he second iteration is a complete

100

T

140

100

Second Iteration

rigid plastic fin-like structure makes

up the core of the structure, on which smaller, simplified tiles are be slid on

to form the wall. The tiles interlock on all sides, but do not overlap - making

42

54

20

54

20

20

ER TILES AND HALF TILES UT WITH INTERNAL SHEETS GER WALLS SULATION/PIPES/CONDUITS OF WALLS FOR EASY DOOR, EEN INSTALLATION PTIONS

54

assembly and disassembly easier.

140

100

20

20

54

20

20

54

EXT COR

54

20

TESSERAL

INTERNAL CORNER

HORIZONTAL WALL DIVIDER

EXTERNAL CORNER

HORIZONTAL WALL DIVIDER

43

RIGID PLASTIC WALL BRACING

END CAP

54

EXTERNAL CORNER

PROS: • LESS TILES • SMALLER, LIGHTER TILES • NO STAGGERING AND HALF TILES HORIZONTAL WALL DIVIDER • EASY WALL LAYOUT WITH INTERNAL SHEETS • THICKER, STRONGER WALLS • AIR GAPS FOR INSULATION/PIPES/CONDUITS • SEGMENTATION OF WALLS FOR EASY DOOR, WINDOW, OR SCREEN INSTALLATION • BREEZE BLOCK OPTIONS

54

20

140

100

PROS: • LESS TILES • SMALLER, LIGHTER TILES • NO STAGGERING AND HALF TILES • EASY WALL LAYOUT WITH INTERNAL SHEETS • THICKER, STRONGER WALLS • AIR GAPS FOR INSULATION/PIPES/CONDUITS • SEGMENTATION OF WALLS FOR EASY DOOR, WINDOW, OR SCREEN INSTALLATION • BREEZE BLOCK OPTIONS

54

54

140

140

100

100

54

20

20

54

20

KNITLOCK REDESIGNED FOR THE MODERN AGE

140

EASY WALL LAYOUT WITH INTERNAL SHEETS THICKER, STRONGER WALLS AIR GAPS FOR INSULATION/PIPES/CONDUITS SEGMENTATION OF WALLS FOR EASY DOOR, WINDOW, OR SCREEN INSTALLATION • BREEZE BLOCK OPTIONS

100

• • • •

INTERNAL CORNER

END CAP

INTERNAL CORN

RIGID PLASTIC WALL BRACING

TESSERAL

Re-Designing Knitlock Final Iteration

M

y final iteration is an update on the previous with a few

key alterations. All elements are

constructed out of concrete, rather

than some out of plastic, to enable all elements to be made on site. Simple right angled pieces means casting

and de-moulding is easier. Two types of columnar elements (a standard, and a corner column) repeated on a 300mm grid comprise the main

structure of the wall. Column elements are cast with a hole down their centre for steel reinforcing and cement to be placed. Slender concrete tiles

are stacked between the columns,

44

interlocking on each side. Tiles do not overlap or interlock in the interior of

the wall, allowing for unobstructed air cavities for batt insulation and wiring.

Fenestrated tiles, either cut-out or with operable glass inserts, allow home

builders to introduce more complexity to their designs.

300

300

300

160

300

50

300

Wall cap

300

Breezeblock tile

Column 1

300

300

300

Column 2

45

Corner piece

Solid tile

1/3 wall height

300m

1/4 wall height

m

Column 2

Column 1

Wall cap Breezeblock tile (open, glazed, and operable glazed options)

Solid tile Corner piece

46

Steel reinforcement

Batt insulation

Column 1 piece

Breezeblock tile

Column 2 piece

Corner tile

Solid tile Isometric construction diagram

47

Mid Semester

M

y work towards mid semester

presentation explored the idea

of a ‘vertical’ Pholiota. A multi-storey version of the original house that

kept the same small footprint across

the 1, 2, and three bedroom versions.

The minimal footprint allowed for

much greater density across the site.

Density could be increased sixfold on the blocks containing 2 and 1

bedroom dwellings, and fourfold on

those containing 3 bedroom dwellings.

Ultimately, this site configuration was an interesting exercise in density, yet failed to embrace the Griffin’s notion of the importance of landscape and natural environment to residents.

48

CONCEPTUALISING HIGHER DENSITY CONCEPTUALISING HIGHER DENSITY

Concept Diagram 6705.6 6705.6

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8 1066.8

1066.8 1066.8

1066.8 1066.8

1066.8 1066.8

1066.8

762.0

BED ALCOVE

1066.8

1066.8

762.0

1066.8

BED ALCOVE

LIVING, DINING, KITCHEN LIVING, DINING, KITCHEN (BEST VIEWS) (BEST VIEWS)

DRESSING

1066.8

DRESSING 1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

BATHROOM

BATHROOM

1066.8

1066.8

BEDROOMS & BATHROOM

BEDROOMS & BATHROOM

ENTRY BED ALCOVE

762.0

KITCHEN

762.0

1066.8

BED ALCOVE

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

6705.6

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8 6705.6

49

1066.8

STORAGE, LAUNDRY

STORAGE, LAUNDRY

ENTRY

1066.8

1066.8

KITCHEN

1066.8

1066.8

1066.8

914.4

CIRCULATION

6705.6

PIANO ALCOVE

LIVING

CIRCULATION

1066.8 6705.6

FIREPLACE

FIREPLACE

914.4

PIANO ALCOVE

LIVING

914.4

914.4

6705.6

6705.6

1066.8

914.4

914.4

W.C.

W.C.

1066.8

SECTIONAL DIAGRAM

SECTIONAL DIAGRAM

8400

2 & 3 Bedroom

4800

UP

1200

DN

UP

8400

1200

UP

DN

1200

8400

ENTRY FLOOR BEDROOM) ENTRY FLOOR (TWO(TWO BEDROOM) 8400 8400

8400

DN

UP

1200

UP

UP

8400

1200

DN

UP

UP UP

UP

8400

UPPER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR

8400

8400

4800

4800 4800

UP

4800

UP

4800

DN 4800

DN

5 5 50

UP

ENTRY FLOOR (THREE BEDROOM) ENTRY FLOOR (THREE BEDROOM) DN

8400

1200

8400

8400 1200

8400

4800

DN

1200

4800

DN

8400

DN

4800

2500 2495

8400

4800

7950 2500

1200

2495

LOWER FLOOR LOWER FLOOR

1200

8400

4800

1200

4800

2500

2500

4800

UP

7950

LIOTA OTA MS

8400

1200

VERTICAL PHOLIOTA 2 & 3 BEDROOMS SECTIONSPHOLIOTA / ELEVATIONS VERTICAL 2 & 3 BEDROOMS SECTIONS / ELEVATIONS

VERTICAL PHOLIOTA 2 & 3 BEDROOMS SECTIONS / ELEVATIONS

WEST (ENTRY) WEST (ENTRY)

WEST (ENTRY)

EAST

2500

EAST

2500

EAST

8400

1200

2500

1200

2500 2500

2500

UP

2495

4800

NORTH

1

2495

LONG SECTION

NORTH

5

2495

LONG SECTION

NORTH

2500

7950

2495

4800

2495

LONG SECTION

4800

2495

UP

2500

7950

2495 DN

2495

2500

1200

4800

7950

UP 4800

UP

8400 2500

1200 UP DN

2500

1200

DN

2500

7950

2500

1200

DN

DN

8400

1

8400

5

8400 8400

8400

8400

8400

8400 UP

8400

8400

8400 DN

UP

2500

51

500

7950

UP

2500

7950

8400

8400 7950

1200 DN 1200

8400 7950

1200

2500

8400

2500

1200 1200

DN

8400

VERTICAL PHOLIOTA New Pholiota ORIGINAL 1 BEDROOM

8400 8400

8400 8400

8400

UP UP

UP

5300

4800

4800

4800

2500

UP

2500

WEST (ENTRY)

LOWER FLOOR 1200

8400

1200 1200

1200

8400

1200

5300

8400

2500

NORTH

1200

1200

8400

DN 2500

DN

1

52

2500 2500

2500

ENTRY FLOOR

DN

5300

2500

4800 4800 5300

4800

DN

LONG SECTION

5

EAST

DN

8400

Master Plan

LOW ER

HEID

ELB

ERG

ROA D

MASTER PLAN GLENARD ESTATE

23m

53

Six Dwelling Lot Plan

LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD

BLOCK DIVISIONS SIX DWELLINGS

1m

54

5m

10m

Four Dwelling Lot Plan

LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD

BLOCK DIVISIONS FOUR DWELLINGS

1m

55

5m

10m

Site Section

LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD

VERTICAL PHOLIOTAS SITE SECTION

BLOCK DRIVEWAY SECTION

56

Views

Main entry.

57

From interior park

Interim

M

y work after mid semester took

a step in the opposite direction

- moving away from density and

verticality, and instead exploring linear house plans and forms that could be

densely situated in a confined strip to

maximise public ‘green’ space. Further community building strategies were implemented, such as communal

parking and a public path traversing the site. Each house includes a roof

terrace providing sweeping views over the estate. Yet, the planning scheme

of rigidly aligned linear houses lacked variety.

58

Master Plan

LOW ER

HEID

ELB

ERG ROA D

NEW MASTER PLAN GLENARD ESTATE

23m

59

New Pholiota

4660

UP

9973

FLOOR PLAN

NORTH

60

2 Bedroom

4660

UP

15253

FLOOR PLAN

NORTH

61

3 Bedroom

UP

4660

DN

18193

62

Views

From interior park

Rear patios

63

Final Outcome

T

he final iteration of my design is a combination of the best aspects

from the previous two. The communal parking, public path, and large open green areas are retained in order to

promote healthy living and meaningful community relationships. The linear house plan is developed into a two

storey version - making the most of

the small footprint to maximise open

public space, and to provide sweeping views over the landscape. The linear

arrangement of the houses is slightly offset to ensure north solar access, and create variations in the public

64

path. Each dwelling has large living/

dining area that opens up to a private courtyard, which in turn, has direct access into the interior park.

The Site

Lowe r He

idelb

erg R d

Banksia St

65

e Th

vd

Bl

Site Plan Diagrams

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The existing site showing my 8 blocks with the busy Lower Heidelberg Rd to the west and interior park to the east.

66

Plot boundaries are dissolved to maximise public space and crossovers are reduced to 4. The existing path into the park is retained.

A Knitlock wall is introduced to screen off visual and auditory interference from Lower Heidelberg Rd.

67

Communal parking spaces are introduced to reduce traffic buildup on Lwr. Heidelberg.

A public path is introduced that traverses the entire site. This enables the public to experience the Knitlock houses and meet the people that live in them.

68

A strip of land designated for the 15 dwellings is introduced with direct access to the public path and into the reserve.

Individual dwellings are offset so that each receives north sunlight. The offsets enable the public path to extend into three main plazas.

69

GL EN

RIV

DD

AR

E

LOW ER

RG R OAD

ELBE

HEID

E

RIV

DD

AR

GL EN

Master Plan

70 MASTER PLAN 1:500 T

Shadow Diagrams

9:00 AM

71

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

Pholiota Redesign Diagrams LIVING / DINING CIRCULATION BEDROOMS STORAGE KITCHEN / SERVICE

Demonstrating the inwardness of Pholiota’s square plan. The central living area has no direct access to natural light or external environment.

72

A redesigned linear Pholiota with spaces situated alongside a central corridor.

This enables living spaces direct access to a private courtyard - screened with breezeblock tiles - and to the interior park.

In the two bed version, bedrooms are situated on the upper floor and screened for privacy. The L shape plan enables a large rooftop terrace overlooking the estate atop the ground floor.

73

The children’s bedrooms are extended in the three bedroom version.

REF.

1m 74

P'TRY

DN

L'DRY

4m New Pholiota Ground Floor

1m 75

4m New Pholiota Long Section

UP

76

1m

REF.

4m

P'TRY

DN

L'DRY

2 Bedroom Ground Floor

DN

1m 77

4m

2 Bedroom First Floor

1m

78

4m 2 Bedroom Long Section

1m

79

4m 2 Bedroom Short Section

UP

1m 80

REF.

4m

P'TRY

DN

L'DRY

3 Bedroom Ground Floor

DN

81

1m

4m

3 Bedroom First Floor

1m 82

4m 3 Bedroom Long Section

5m 83

30m Site Short Section

200 150

380

2165

Typical Slab Detail

84

575 1

200

1

150

Chain Drainage Detail

85

86

Master Bedroom

87

2 Bedroom at Night

88

View from Interior Park

89

3 Bedroom Interior

90

Public Path from Entry

91

Roof Terrace

Making

F

or the Making part of the studio

learned from each attempt, and in the

seven original KnitWlock pieces in

tile that successfully knitted with our

we were tasked with remaking the

concrete, and at full scale. The studio

was divided into groups of three or four

end, were able to produce a full-height prototypes.

and each assigned one of the seven

Also in this section I cover the

female tangent piece - the largest and

my redesigned Knitlock system. I did

pieces. My group received the maleone of the most difficult to make.

Over the course of the semester

we tested three different moulding techniques: two part MDF moulds,

vacuum formed plastic moulds, and rigid foam moulds - each with their

own advantages and disadvantages.

First, half-height pieces were made

with each mould to save on material

cost and to get a feel for the moulding process. It was quite a steep learning curve, as my group members and

I had little experience with casting

concrete, and as a result many of our attempts were unsuccessful. Yet, we

92

techniques used to mould and cast this later in the semester so that I

knew which was the most successful

moulding technique from our previous tests.

93

Two Part MDF Mould

T

he first moulding technique we tried involved drawing a mould

template in Rhino to then be laser cut on sheets of MDF (medium-density

fibreboard). The mould positives are

removed from each sheet and set aside for later use, while the negatives are

stacked and glued in two halves. The two halves align when slid together with the help of tabs on either end.

The theory being that once concrete

is poured into the mould and set, the two halves should slide apart easily.

However, this was not the reality.

94

CAD drawn template is laser cut from MDF sheets.

95

The negatives are glued together. Note grooves for alignment.

The two halves shown sliding together.

96

The inside of the mould is greased and then lined with plastic to enable easy release.

This plastic was too thick and did not stick to all the small details of the mould.

97

We ended up using a thinner plastic as a liner. However, we left the concrete to set for too long and it became impossible to remove.

Plastic Forming

O

ur second approach aimed to create a mould with a much

smoother inner surface for easier

de-moulding. This was possible using the FabLab’s vacuum former. The

process involved glueing together the MDF positives set aside previously

to create a full height version of our tile. The MDF tile is then placed into the machine and a heated sheet of

plastic is formed around the tile by the vacuum suction. Once the plastic has cooled and hardened, the MDF can

be removed and the plastic holds its shape.

98

The MDF positives are glued together to form a half height tile.

99

The MDF form is placed in the vacuum forming machine. Plastic is then placed on top and heated. The piece is lifted up into the hot plastic and a vacuum is turned on to suction to the piece.

The suction was not powerful enough to fully envelope the tile, so we had to push dowels into crevices.

100

In the end, we had to cut the tile out of the plastic as it was stuck in so tightly. Thus, we could not use the mould to cast, so we decided to move on to the next technique.

101

Rigid Foam Mould

T

he last technique we tried - rigid foam moulding - was the most

successful. A template of our tile with

a surrounding border was traced onto

three sheets on 100mm rigid foam and cut out using a hot wire cutter. The

three sheets are then greased as a

releasing agent and stacked atop each other to form the 300mm full height

mould. The three sections are clamped tightly to a wooden base and the

concrete is poured in. Foam moulding was by far the quickest and cheapest method we tested. This is due to wire

cutters being free and readily available in FabLab. However, even though this technique was straightforward for

creating the single piece we needed, it’s not plausible for large scale

production as the mould has to be cut to remove the tile.

102

The mould is cut out of three 100mm thick sheets of rigid foam.

103

The three sheets are stacked and clamped together with tape.

View down into the mould. As we cut each mould section with a differing exterior border it was hard to clamp and thus the sheets slided apart during pouring.

104

The tile once removed. You can see the ledges where the sheets of foam slipped when during vibration. Since we didn’t grease the mould, foam particles stuck to the concrete while it set.

Our second attempt at foam moulding. This time we greased the inside of the mould and cut each exterior to the same dimensions for easy clamping.

105

Concrete is poured into the mould and clamped while setting. We let this one set for 2 days.

The tile was much easier to remove this time and had a good overall form. However, our concrete mix was too and resulted in an inconsistent clumpy areas throughout the tile. We attempted to add more water at the end but t no avail.

106

Despite it’s inconsistent surface, one male section was fine to demonstrate its knitting capability. Here it is knitting to our MDF tile.

Demonstrating a wall partition knit.

107

Three piece knit.

New Knitlock

I

utilised foam moulding to make

my redesigned Knitlock due to its

simplicity and speed shown previously.

I cast all six tiles in my system but only at 100mm height (that of one standard foam sheet) for demonstration purposes.

108

All the pieces laid out in 100mm high foam moulds. Moulds were greased first and fastened together with duct tape.

109

Plastic pipe is inserted and held in placed during puring to create the re-bar slot.

The tiles are removed after 24 hours of curing and are left to dry for another 24 hours.

110

Demonstrating a corner knit. Here you can see I forgot to include tolerances on the knitting elements of my moulds and as such, the pieces did not properly knit together. When casting concrete, tolerances are very important as it shrinks during the curing process.

111

Figures

•

Fig. 1. http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-150380270/view

•

Fig. 3. http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-150277601/view

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

113

Fig. 2. http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-150148941/view Fig. 4. http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-150331157/view Fig. 5. http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-150492359/view

Fig. 6. http://collectionsearch.nma.gov.au/nmacs-image-download/emu/78/980/ cn_78980.640x640_640.jpg

Fig. 7. http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-150335211/view Fig. 8. http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-150258940/view Fig. 9. http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an24429941-v Fig. 10. http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-vn3914494-v Fig. 11. http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-vn3701541-v

Fig. 12. http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-150259242/view

Fig. 13. http://images.realestateview.com.au/pics/868/36-glenard-drive-eaglemontvic-3084-real-estate-photo-8-large-7868868.jpg

Fig. 14. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mFQlvOnDjps/TRloc9pyhuI/AAAAAAAAAI8/ y5bc_3EeTBE/s1600/glenard-plaque.jpg

Fig. 15. http://sdrdesign.com/blockTNH2.jpg

Fig. 16. http://www.feelguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/FLennis6.jpg

Fig. 17. http://www.urbipedia.org/images/thumb/b/b3/Utzon.CasasKingo.Planos2. jpg/704px-Utzon.CasasKingo.Planos2.jpg

Fig. 18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingo_Houses#/media/File:Kingo_Houses_-_ courtyards.jpg

2016 S1 Architecture Design Thesis: studio KNITLOCK Studio Leader: Philip Goad Samuel Brak 542519