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