FORCE FIELDS // Community Design-Built Studio

FORCE FIELDS

:

TECHNOLOGIES & TOPOLOGIES FOR SOCIAL CHANGE

Design-Build Studio: RAINBOW COMMUNITY GARDENS

FALL SEMESTER PORTFOLIO [2016] Student: Steven Hung [7658848] Studio Crit: Lancelot Coar Course: ARCH 7050

PORTFOLIO SCHEDULE 1st YEAR MASTER: Faculty of Architecture University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB FALL 2016

material studies

A1

design

build A] P] C] T]

SMART BY NATURE

Sept.12.2016 - Sept.19.2016 a > Natural Forms/Natural Efficiencies b > Shaping Steel

A2

: Assignments : Projects : Construction : Trips

FREE RADICALS

Sept.20.2016 - Oct.03.2016 a > Individual Proposal

P1

SATELLITE STRUCTURES

Oct.4.2016 - Dec.20.2016 a > Group Proposal [TOTETOT] b > Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

C1

ASSEMBLAGE

Dec.09.2016 - Dec.20.2016 a > Shed Construction

T1 a b

OUTINGS

- // > Shoppost > Clearwater

{]

FINAL REVIEW

Dec.21.2016

A1 SMART BY NATURE

Natural Forms + Natural Efficiencies

TITLE BLOCK

INTRODUCTION

The Rainbow Gardens community site is not permanent and thus is a temporary location for both the community gardens as well as the structure we intend to build there. As a result, what we inevitably build must be able to be disassembled, moved and reassembled on another site in the future. This provides a unique challenge, to build with our primary material (steel) promoting the highest forms of economy in form, structure and mass.

In order to innovate the studio was pushed to explore how a material such as steel could be used to achieve highly efficient structures by looking at natural forms and current examples of innovative steel structural systems. *excerpt from brief

UNFOLDING LEAVES The assignment began with an exploration of the natural forms present in which leaves are unrolled or unfolded while exiting the bud of a plant.

In the case of the Hornbeam, its leaves consists of relatively simple and regular corrugated folding patterns that allow to fan out. Such simple mechanism founded in nature could suggest possibilities in designs of deployable structures and transport. This pattern that the Hornbeam employs is was influential in the folding pattern proposed by Miura for solar panel deployment called the ‘Muira-Ori’ and is what this study looked to investigate.

p Muira-Ori Pattern + Hornbeam leaf

p explorative model using the Muira-Ori pattern

A

B

C

MUIRA-ORI 3 3 2

The constructed Muira-Ori pattern, is a set of periodical arrays of mountain and valley folds that allows the entire structure to be folded or unfolded simultaneously. The pattern allows a large surface area to be reduced to a smaller foot print when the folds converge which raises possibilities for uses in deployable infrastructure.

EXPLORATIVE MODELS

2

1

1

Models where used to see how arranging the different mountain+valley folds would affect the way the material would be folded. It was found that by changing the spacing and angles of the Muira-Ori pattern, the width of the folded material would be affected as well as the length in which the converge structure was.

PRECEDENTS The images above show the mathematics that goes into the generative folded capabilities of the muira-ori origami pattern. As the surface is unfolded the ridges are flattened and the surface area is fully revealed.

1

2

3

4

METHODOLOGY Through modeling one could extract how the Muira-Ori pattern used reduce the surface area. It was also interesting how the folded material held an elastic and simultaneously rigid form from the mountain+valley creases. The brought about a question of a simple origami pattern could perhaps be used to create a robust structure that could be rigid.

ZIPPER ORIGAMI In researching the muira-ori pattern, it was found that by folding 3-dimensional lattices using the same folding method and attaching them to one another could provide an object that could be flattened in 2 directional-axis but rigid in one. This folded origami was named the zipper for the way the two lattices nest between each other.

MUIRA-ORI ORIGAMI 3-D PATTERN y

x flattened from the x-axis p

ZIPPER ORIGAMI FORMS

compression on the x-axis p

p

flattened from the z-axis

compression on the y-axis p

compression on the z-axis p

p

unstressed form

A1 SMART BY NATURE

Shaping Steel

DOUBLE CURVATURE FORMS

John Patkau: One Fold

In the second part of the assignment student were called to research into the an innovative use of steel. From earlier exploration of origami folding patterns, research was focused on how steel could perhaps be formed or ‘folded’ like paper. This led into the technology of double curvature and twisting forms that steel sheets could be molded to using different methodologies such as sheet breakers to multi-point stretch form machinery.

depiction of horizontal axis of a sheet

p

depiction of vertical axis of a sheet

Formtexx: Multi-point Stretch Form

PRECEDENTS

p

p

p

model showing the convex curve from the folding stress

p

forces enacting on the sheet from the folding motion

model showing the concave curve from the folding stress

PROJECT INTRODUCTION Rainbow Community Gardens INTRODUCTION

q

gardeners harvesting their crops at the year-end harvest potluck

The Rainbow Community Gardens Project is design-build development done by students in the UofM faculty of architecture intended to design and construct structures that would help ease the garden communities current needs and wants while also considering for the future. The intention is not only to provide a gift to a well-deserving community but bring in participation from both sides and create valuable learning experiences for all those involved.

COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE The project is a joint venture with the University of Manitoba faculties of Architecture and Engineering, the local steel industry, and the Rainbow Community Gardens. It was important for the studio to use the expertise and potential of the projects diversity. This included participating in the community gardens potluck event as well as visiting a local steel fabrication plant. Throughout the project design reviews were opened to the partners and community and provided crucial feedback and guidance.

COMMUNITY HISTORY Rainbow Community Gardens was first founded in 2008 and operated by the Immigrants Integration and Farming Worker Community Co-op (IIFC). Since it’s conception the community has quickly grown from just a handful of participants to over 150 families. Members hail from countries all around the world and the program focuses on providing new immigrants with a chance to integrate into their new society while allowing participants to cultivate their own cultural needs. The organisation currently has three site, the largest located at the University of Manitoba. Currently the largest participating group on the site is the Nepali community and has become a site for not only work, but a place for gathering, resting and family time.

It is thus that Rainbow Community Garden holds a lot more value to it’s members than just a garden plot.

* excerpt from Food Matters Manitoba

tp

photos of community members working in the garden

WASTE Presently the garden has composting bins lined at the front of the site, however the issue has been that these bins are in disrepair and currently hold too much organic material to be effective. Another problem has been trash, the garden lacks bins and a system for which garbage is taken away from the site.

In meetings and discussions with community members, talks of an outhouse sparked many peoples interest since there is not one at the garden making inconvenient for group who spend long days at the site

WATER CATCHMENT/STORAGE/ DISTRIBUTION While the community owns a number of water tanks/totes the issue has been the ability for these basins to be filled. Currently the are done manually by a third-party but on an inconsistent schedule. Distribution has also had complications, due to the large site and lack of road infrastructure certain areas of the garden do not have water easily accessible to them.

HIGH PRIORITY +Bathroom +Compost

HIGH PRIORITY +Water Catchment (Passive) +Water Distribution MEDIUM PRIORITY +Water Storage

COMMUNITY NEEDS Rainbow Community Gardens ASSESSMENT In discussion with representatives of Rainbow Community Gardens as well as participant inputs during the communal potluck. The studio determined a list of programmatic needs ranging from high to low priority. The intent was to incorporate as many of the programs while being effective in answering the high priority issues.

ACCESSIBILITY Issues of site access have been brought up especially problems dealt with the dirt service road which is the only vehicle entrance to the site.

Another form of accessibility comes with the multicultural and multinational makeup of the community and the need to make the project transverse through cultural and language barriers.

SHADE + COMMUNAL SPACE A large issue will an open plot garden has been the lack of shade available to the gardeners during the day. While the tent provides some shade it lacks sitting and is also removed from most of the plots. Members also were looking for a space intended for larger group events and could be used as a resting spot for elders and families at the site. A play area was also suggested as many kids come with there families to the garden but currently there lacks space for activities.

STORAGE The garden currently contains two tool storages. However, one is shared with the adjacent UMSU gardens and has caused difficulties in the past. Both sheds are under-maintained and problems of security have been brought up by many members.

Space is also another challenge the garden faces, presently the lack of space has forced the community to store larger items such as the temporary tent structure and pump on other sites making it ineffective to use.

HIGH PRIORITY +Sitting/Relaxing/Gathering +Shade LOW PRIORITY +Play Area +Bug Free Zone

HIGH PRIORITY +Tool Storage/Equipment +Security LOW PRIORITY +Seed Storage

FOOD PREPARATION Due the fact that many of the gardeners use the site as a chance to be with family and meet friends there was definite interest to provide the community with an area that could allow members to cook and prepare food at site.

These wants include a summer kitchen, preparation space, food drying and washing station.

WORK SPACE Along with food preparation, proposal for work areas were also well received by the community.

PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURES Rainbow Community Gardens INFRASTRUCTURE The gardens present site is on the University of Manitoba’s land on the corner of pembina hwy and chancellor matheson. The land use is on a 10 year lease which puts a notion of temporality to the project. Currently the site is shared by two communities, Rainbow Gardens and the UMSU gardens, the infrastructure and amenities on the site are being shared by both but has caused issues in the past.

SOUTH IBC Tote Hub [5]

CENTRAL IBC Tote Hub [10]

RAINBOW COMMUNITY GARDENS

IBC Tote

NORTHEAST IBC Tote Hub [10]

Water Tanks [2]

Shed

Dirt Service Road

Wood Shed *owned by UMSU

Temporary Tent

UMSU GARDENS

SOUTHEAST IBC Tote Hub [4] Compost Bins Picnic Tables *owned by UMSU [14]

SITE PLAN Rainbow Community Gardens CONFIGURATION The garden holds over 150 garden plots and continues to expand. These plots are approximately 10’x25’ and have 2’ wide trails between each plot.

The plots ploughed 3 years before and have stay the same configuration since. Due to the service road being the primary access point for most users most of the infrastructure has been placed at the paths edge which includes the sheds, tent, picnic tables, compost, and a large portion of the water.

Rainbow Community Gardens

M

Service Road

BE R

Pe m

bi

na

Hi gh wa y

While IBC totes (which hold water) are plentiful and have been distributed throughout the site, since issues of maintenance and filling schedules many of the totes do not get used unfortunately.

UMSU Gardens

garden expansion

BERM

Chancellor Matheson Rd.

A2 FREE RADICALS

Individual Proposal

INTRODUCTION From an initial group meeting it was agreed that it would be beneficial to have a period of time for each individual to bring about and explore a range of ideas that could be brought back into the collaborative process. As a result, each studio member was responsible to produce a fully developed design proposal intended to invoke and provoke feedback and discussions as the project moved forward.

SCAFFOLDING The proposal began looking at temporary structures that had simple construction methods. Since the duration the gardens would remain on the site was uncertain it was important to find a building method that could constructed and de-constructed easily and quickly.

Scaffolding connections provide a wide range of stick construction options and are easily available commercially. The reasoning for using scaffolding details was the speed in which the allowed temporary structures to be erected. It also provided a way the structure could be disassembled and transported easily.

p scaffolding couple allows steel tubes to be connected in a wide range of angles

p

BENDING PROFILES The main construction material proposed was steel tubing popular in fence and scaffolding structures. The idea was to use straight tubes and introduce curvatures by bending the tubes to create a spacial dimension in each piece, then using couples and fitted rings a profile could be made and copied to create a livable structure.

p

assembly diagrams of the proposed structures

construction details

PLAN

Individual Proposal STRUCTURE 1 RIBS

Wall Profile

Storage Profile STRUCTURE 2 RIBS Table Profile

Patio Deck Profile Seating Profile

IBC totes

rain gutter

E2

UR

T UC STR

Interior Table Profile STRUCTURE 1

Interior Seating Profile shed

ELEVATIONS Individual Proposal

EAST ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

RENDERINGS Individual Proposal EXTENSION Since the structure consists of interconnected parts that can be mass manufactured, there is the potential to modularize the structure so that the building can continue to extend to fit the needs of the community.

view from the garden plots u

t

entrance view coming from the entrance road

MODELS Individual Proposal

STRUCTURE FOR: Seating and Working

STRUCTURE FOR: Resting and Relaxing

p elevations

of each individual structure view of structure from the garden view u view the interior and exterior structure and its profiles creating furniture t

P1 SATELLITE STRUCTURES

q consideration

Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

> in collaboration with: Carson Wiebe + Jillian Teterenko

of satellite structures placement within the site:

It was felt important that the design should not impede with adjacent plots and thus the proposal footprint was bound by the size of the garden lots

CONTRACTION + EXPANSION After the completion of the individual proposal the studio return together as a group to discuss the issues and challenges that they faced within their attempt at the projects scope. In these discussions the group finalized the programmatic needs that the final design would need to house. During this time, restrictions the group would have to be considerate of were specified.

IZE

TS PLO

x 10’

’ 25

FINALIZED PROGRAMS 1 2 3 5

Shade (800ft2) 6 Gathering Space 7 Water Collection (Distribution/Storage) 4 Play Area

Storage Outhouse Summer Kitchen

AGREED RESTRICTIONS Constructibility - single structure pieces could be carried by two persons Modularity - for ease of construction, transportation and potential of expansion and disassembly

COLLABORATION From these initial meetings it was realized there would need to be multiple structures in order for the project to meet all these programs and serve the entirety of the site. It was thus decided that the studio would be broken into smaller group that would focus on these individual structures. 2 groups were formed with the larger group tasked with the main structure and a secondary group on satellite structures that would help serve those within the garden plots.

PRE-EXISTING IBC TOTES April Sun Path

q sun path diagrams: the satellite structures orientation within the plots was done so to reduce the amount of shade casted on adjacent garden plots.

PROPOSED STRUCTURE

PROPOSED STRUCTURE

PROPOSED STRUCTURE

August Sun Path

April Sun Path

June Sun Path

08:00 08:00 08:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

16:00 08:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

POTENTIAL SITES Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

50 ft Radius

SECONDARY SITE

PRIMARY SITE

SITE SELECTION In discussions with the group it was felt that the proposals of satellites structures within the garden would be most effective if spread out evenly to provide access for all garden plots. Selection of the two potential sites were chosen on their placement on the site as well as the fact that the proposed areas already held IBC totes and therefore would not be taking away from pre-existing garden plots.

50 ft Radius

TRANSPORTATION Group Proposal [TOTETOT] SITE ACCESS Since these structures have the potential of being disassembled and move to a new site, it was imperative to design for a building that could be move using accessible modes of transportation. The use of a flat bed truck allows this to happen and the proposed welded frames were conscious of the dimensional restrictions that using a flat bed would entail.

p plan and elevation of a flat bed truck trailer.

FLAT BED A flat bed trailer standard dimensions are usually 8.5’ wide and anywhere from 28’ - 48’ long. When moving large item there is also a height restriction of 10’ for anything being carried on a flat bed. The flat bed site help limit how large the totetot could be and also encouraged the design to become modular.

p flat

bed trailer with two totetots

IBC TOTES

ELEVATIONS

TOTES...

TOTETOT

IBC Totes or intermediate bulk containers are ideal for storing liquid in large quantities. They consist of a plastic jug enclosed by a metal cage and are often used as rain storage containers. Currently Rainbow Community Gardens owns 33 IBC totes and it was felt that use of these containers should be not be ignored, rather be celebrated in the design.

The satellite structure was a collaboration with two other members of the studio (Carson Wiebe and Jillian Teterenko). As the group came together it was imperative that the design would be successful in providing the pragmatic needs of the community and supplement the main structures programs while not interfering to the daily structure of the garden.

Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

The ‘totetot’ aims to provide remote passive water collection and storage systems within the garden plots so that gardeners will not have to rely only on the main structure for their water. Placement and orientation on the site was used to break down the distance that gardeners would have to walk to access water. The intent is that the totetot could be nested between the garden plots without taking up too much room.

PASSIVE WATER COLLECTION The totetot frame provides a canopy which allows for rain water collection rain is siphoned into the IBC totes where it can be held for garden use.

Currently on the site the IBC totes rest on wooden palettes that raise them above the garden beds for irrigation. However the present system has proved to lack durability due to broken palettes and uneven ground. Thus, it is proposed to place the totes on a steel frame in order solve these issues.

p

NORTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION The frame in which the IBC totes are placed in are meant to allow for easy maintenance and give a tap on either side of the structure. The totes are slid in onto the frame and can be removed in the same manner.

p

WEST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION

garden plot

site

6’

25’

garden plot

REST + SHADING The benefit of a roof is that it provides shading for those below. Taking advantage of the shade the totetot extends as a bench that the community can use to rest and relax. The bench is designed to not inhibit the access to the water taps.

WORK TABLE

STORAGE UNIT

SOUTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

SINGLE UNIT CONFIGURATION Group Proposal [TOTETOT] MODULARIZATION Due to the uncertainty of how many of the totetot structures could be built and consideration for future development. The group looked at how the structure could be configured and expanded to fit multiple units. By modularizing the design allows for flexibility in the way the community can use the structures to fit their needs.

p single

unit plan

CORRUGATED STEEL ROOF

GUTTER

IBC TAP STORAGE

Steel Frame [Painted]

IBC TOTES

WOOD BENCH

STORAGE UNIT

WATER DISTRIBUTION

SHADED GROUND SPACE

.water. .rest/shade. .work. .storage.

> rendering produced by Carson Wiebe

DOUBLE UNIT CONFIGURATION Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

p double

CORRUGATED STEEL ROOF [ Wide Panel ]

unit plan

CORRUGATED STEEL ROOF [ Short Panel ] BACK REST

WORK TABLE

WOOD BENCH SIDE STORAGE ACCESS

WATER DISTRIBUTION

.water. .rest/shade. .work. .storage. > rendering produced by Carson Wiebe

1:1 MOCK-UP STRUCTURE Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

> photo taken by Jillian Teterenko

BUILDING PROCESS

FULL SCALE As a group it was decided that it would be important to produce a full-scale mock up of the steel structure in wood to get a sense of the spatial scale and get a feel of the construction process.

A 1:1 lumber model was erected and allowed the group see some of the structural issues that could be seen in the actual structure. From the build the design was braced in the rafters to provide more stability from point loads on the roof. The bottom frame was also given brackets to spread the load more evenly to the columns.

The exercise also gave the group a chance to test auxiliary pieces of the structure such as the gutter, bench and storage.

p construction

DESIGN TEAM:

PROJECT TITLE:

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE

RAINBOW COMMUNITY GARDENS / UMSU GARDENS DESIGN BUILD

UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA

UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA CAMPUS WINNIPEG, MANITOBA

No.

ISSUED FOR

PRINTING DATE

1

ENGINEER / MANUFACTURE REVIEW

OCTOBER 17, 2016

drawings

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

A202

JT DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2016

> footage taken by Jillian Teterenko

STRUCTURAL ITERATIONS Group Proposal [TOTETOT] ADAPTATION In the development of the steel frame of totetot the structure was subject to many changes that came from design refinements, regards to the structural integrity, as well as considerations to fabrication techniques and budgetary restrictions.

ITERATION A

The initial design had proposed rotating roof panels that could be turned during the winter months to reduce the amount of snow loads the structure would have to support. This idea was later scraped due to the amount of maintenance needed.

p

The roof panels were initially symmetrical and were not developed to provide shade.

The intent was to reduce the amount of overhang as to not produce large shadows on the site. q

ITERATION B

In the first iteration bracing had not been added but after the 1:1 scale exercise it was obvious the structure would need some cross bracing. The angles of the rafters were developed with the south end being steeper than the north side due to sun angles. Purlins were also proposed to make for easier attachment to the roofing panels.

p

In the second iteration the roof panels were adjust to relate to the programs under the roof (seating/ taps). The size of the panels were also extended to provide more rain catchment. q

ITERATION C

FINAL DESIGN

The bracing of the rafters were changed after feedback with the engineering students who advise for a stronger form to provide the roof with more stability. The new bracing also allowed more freedom with the gutter and connection.

With further discussion with engineering it was realized that the large roof cantilevers and the unsymmetrical nature of the structure would need more bracing to stabilize the roof.

p

p

The roof was also given an additional overhang on the east end of the structure to provide rain and shade coverage for the entirety of the bench.

The roof panels designs were changed to provide a more aesthetic rendition for the design while increasing some rain catchment without changing the overall structure. q

t

SAME

u

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

> in collaboration with: Dr. Dimos Polyzois + Engineering Students REALITY Throughout the design phase and especially in the final design input, communication with engineering students in the UofM provided structural feedback for the proposals and finalization of the framework form and material sizing.

p

final design framework model

p

snow load diagram

FRAME SIZING FRAME A

p

iteration framework model

FRAME B

FRAME C

GUTTER

STORAGE UNIT

Jillian Teterenko

Carson Wiebe

Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT The main aspect of the gutter that needed to be attentive to was the need for it to converge at 2 points. The sloping of the gutter it self is from both ends and the drain funnels are placed to provide even drainage to both totes.

p

gutter plan + elevation

p q

gutter perspective connection detail

self tapping screws DESIGN TEAM:

PROJECT TITLE:

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE

RAINBOW COMMUNITY GARDENS / UMSU GARDENS DESIGN BUILD

UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA

UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA CAMPUS WINNIPEG, MANITOBA

TOOL STORAGE + ACCESS With the IBC totes being raised on a steel frame the void space under the water storage became a space to fit another program into, due to the large size of the site it was felt that a storage unit would be helpful for gardeners with plots in vicinity of the structure to store some of there tools.

No.

ISSUED FOR

01 02 03 04 05

ENGINEER / MANUFACTUR CITY OF WINNIPEG REVIE REVIEW SUBMISSION REVIEW SUBMISSION FINAL SUBMISSION

P1 SATELLITE STRUCTURES Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

FOCUS

BENCH SCHEMATICS

CRITERIA

While the overall design of totetot was a collaborative effort throughout the process each member took on main aspects of the project to refine and develop further. I took on the seating and much of the programs the wrapped around the steel frame structure. Though the development and refinement was very much an individual process, open communication and constant referral between group members made sure that each part and piece would support each other and enhance the project.

Due to the narrow size of the site and want to reduce the amount of ground work needed it was decided that the seating would be extended of the frame of the structure without need to meet the ground. The question then became an exploration of how seating could be attached to the structure and what types of connections and materials would be most successful.

a b c d e

BUDGET: material + labour cost (under $250.00) ACCESS TO TOTES: does to inhibit access to the taps EASE OF ASSEMBLY: allow for anyone to put together DETACHABLE: for ease of transport DURABILITY: resistant to weathering and the outdoors

BENCH ITERATIONS

OPTION 1: UNDULATING BENCH

undulating bench

The first bench design incorporated the use of different materials and focused on using CNC routing for fabrication to lessen the load on the steel fabricators. The rise of the bench allowed users to access water while also providing a bench rest.

p

(+) could be constructed in-house (-) durability of material for the ribs and construction were questionable (-) comfort BENCH ITERATION 1

OPTION 2: LONG BENCH

long bench

As the bench became refined the idea of using brackets that could hold wood slates came to fruition in this iteration the brackets had holes in which the slates could be inserted into.

p

(+) material cost (+) quick construction and assembly (-) access of water delegated to one side of the structure (-) comfort (-) connection detail of wood slates to brackets

OPTION 3: LONG BENCH W/ TABLE

long bench with work table

The brackets in this option allowed for easier connection with the slates but did not solve of the logistical issues seen in other iterations

p

OPTION 4: CORNER BENCH

corner bench

(+) material cost (+) quick construction and assembly (-) access of water delegated to one side of the structure (-) fabrication method of the brackets p The final iteration called for a bench that wrapped around the corner of the structure, working with the shaded areas of the structure and allow both sides of the totetot to have access to a tap. With the placement and orientation decided for the bench focus was turned to the development and refinement of the brackets.

steel brackets

bench notched rib

wood 2x4 slates

(+) material cost (+) quick construction and assembly (+) access of water on both side of the structure (+) follows the sunpath to optimize shade (+) comfort w/ addition of back rest

BRACKET DEVELOPMENT Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

ITERATION 1

Initial brackets designs suggested that the wood slates could be nested using a profile that had tabs that would hold the slates in place as one would attach to the bracket. In this first iteration the brackets were proposed to have a central spine that would be attached to the front face of the steel HSS column, however this was changed due to fabrication issues with having so many breaks in a profile.

BENCH BRACKET ITERATION 1

BENCH BRACKET ITERATION 1 p

bench cut and break profile

p

table cut and break profile

p connection diagram of bracket to bench slates

ITERATION 2 Taking the main aspects of the first bracket the second iterations took the challenge to reduce the amount of breaks that would be needed to make a profile as well as find a better method of attaching the profiles to the HSS column of the structure.

p

p

bench bracket profile development

bench bracket attachment to structural frame

BRACKET DEVELOPMENT

Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

SPLAYING THE BRACKETS

UNBRACED BENCH

SPLAYED BENCH

Due to the thinness of the profiles and the amount of cantilever from the bench there was a need to brace the structure from the potential of racking. Since the slates were pin connections to the brackets with having only straight brackets the bench was subjected to racking along the horizontal axis of the bench. In order to combat this structural issue the addition of brackets at an angle help stabilize the movement and strengthened the cantilevered bench.

bench + table plan

WEST ELEVATION

bench + table elevations

NORTH ELEVATION

SOUTH ELEVATION

NAL ITERATION) LAYOUT BENCH + TABLE PLAN

REFINEMENT Initially the brackets were fitted with tabs in which the wood slated could be nested within, however in discussion with the fabricators the amount of breaks and cuts needed would make the brackets incredibly difficult to fabricate. Thus there was need to simplify the tabs. The decision to create only one break in which the slates would be attached provided an easier fabrication profile while still consist of the same functionality.

p

early iteration bracket profile

p

final bracket profile design

BENCH TESTING

Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

PROTOTYPING Using the 1:1 wood frame structure, prototypes of the bench brackets were tested to gain a better understanding of how all the parts would be assembled in reality. Issues such as proximity of profile breaks and material thickness cam to light and helped to adjust and improve the design. t

u

photos of a bench bracket prototype assembled

p

bracket profiles were designed so that they could nest into a 4’x8’ steel sheet for cutting

BENCH ASSEMBLY

BENCH ASSEMBLY

Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

1-1/2” HSS Tube

1-1/2” - 1/4” Hex Bolt

Nut

3

2 x 4 RED CEDAR

BENCH BRACKET 2B

SCREWS attachment to brackets

2

ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS 1 Attachment of bench bracket 2B to HSS post from the left side face of the post (bolt connections) 2 Attachment of bench bracket 1B to HSS post from the front face of the post (bolt connections) 3 Attachment of red cedar bench slates to the bracket profiles. (screw connections)

BENCH BRACKET 1B

1

D

BENCH BRACKET SUPPORTS

C F

BENCH SUPPORTS

Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

D

A

B E

C F 1D

2D

4C

3C

2C

1C

1B

2B

1C

1B

2B

> plan view <

D 1D

2D

4C

3C

2C

> plan view <

1D

2D

4C

3C

2C

1C

1B

2B

2C

1C

1B

2B

> front elevation <

1D

2D

4C

3C > front elevation <

BRACKET PROFILE

BRACKET -3Cattached to the front face of column C

A B

E

bracket profile -2C- consist of two breaks BREAK 1 : broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the right of the plate BREAK 2: broken at an angle of 25 degrees to the right of the plate

C

BREAK 1 90

.0 0

°

F D

> COLUMN GRID <

BREAK 2

°

155.00

> front elevation <

C

> bracket profile <

> plan view <

C

BREAK 1 0°

.0

90

BRACKET -4Cattached to the back face of column C BREAK 2

bracket profile -4C- consists of four breaks BREAK 1 : broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate BREAK 2: broken at an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate BREAK 3: broken at an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate BREAK 4: broken with an angle of 25 degrees to the left of the plate

BREAK 3

.0 90 0°

155.00

°

BREAK 4

> SE PERSPECTIVE <

> NE PERSPECTIVE <

> column C consists of four bracket profiles > front elevation <

> bracket profile <

> plan view <

BRACKET PROFILE

90 .0 0째

BREAK 1

A

BRACKET -1D-

B

E

attached to the right side face of column D

BREAK 2

C

F

bracket profile -1D- consist of three breaks

D

BREAK 1 : broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the right of the plate BREAK 2 : broken at an angle of 90 degrees to the right of the plate BREAK 3 : broken at an angle of 90 degrees to the right of the plate

> COLUMN GRID <

90

.0

0째

BREAK 3

D

D > plan view <

> front elevation <

> bracket profile <

BRACKET -2Dattached to the front face of column D

bracket profile -2D- consists of two breaks BREAK 1 : broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the right of the plate BREAK 2: broken at an angle of 65 degrees to the right of the plate

90

.0

0째

BREAK 1

BREAK 2

0째

> NE PERSPECTIVE <

11

5.0

> SE PERSPECTIVE <

> column C consists of four bracket profiles > front elevation <

> bracket profile <

> plan view <

BRACKET PROFILE

BREAK 1 90 .0 0°

BRACKET -1Cattached to the left side face of column C

A B

E

bracket profile -1C- consists of four breaks BREAK 2

BREAK 1 : broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate BREAK 2: broken at an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate BREAK 3: broken at an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate BREAK 4: broken with an angle of 25 degrees to the left of the plate

C

F D

> COLUMN GRID <

BREAK 4

90

.0

0°

BREAK 3

0°

155.0

C

C > plan view <

> front elevation <

> bracket profile <

BRACKET -2Cattached to the right side face of column C

bracket profile -2C- consist of two breaks BREAK 1 : broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the right of the plate BREAK 2: broken at an angle of 25 degrees to the right of the plate BREAK 1 0°

.0 90

155.0

0°

BREAK 2

> SE PERSPECTIVE <

> column C consists of four bracket profiles

> NE PERSPECTIVE <

> front elevation <

> bracket profile <

> plan view <

BRACKET PROFILE

A B

E

BRACKET -2B-

C

F

attached to the left side of column B

D

BRACKET -1Battached to the front face of column B

> bracket profile <

90

.0

0째

> front elevation <

BREAK 1

> COLUMN GRID < BREAK 2

> front elevation <

bracket profile -2B- consist of three breaks

> bracket profile <

BREAK 1 : broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate BREAK 2: broken at an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate BREAK 3: broken at an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate

BREAK 1

B

> SE PERSPECTIVE <

> NE PERSPECTIVE <

0째

.0

90

B

90

.0

0째

BREAK 2 BREAK 3

bracket profile -1B- consist of two breaks BREAK 1 : broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate BREAK 2: broken at an angle of 65 degrees to the left of the plate

0째

5.0

11

> plan view < > plan view <

> column B consists of two bracket profiles

TABLE ASSEMBLY TABLE ASSEMBLY

Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

1-1/2” HSS Tube

BISCUIT JOINT 1-1/2” - 1/4” Hex Bolt

3 TABLE BRACKET 1E Nut

1

2 x 6 RED CEDAR BOARDS SCREWS attachment to brackets

2 ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS 1 Attachment of table bracket 1E to HSS post from the left side face of the post (bolt connections) 2 Attachment of bench bracket 2E to HSS post from the front face of the post (bolt connections) 3 Attachment of red cedar table slates to the bracket profiles. (screw connections)

TABLE BRACKET 2E

E

TABLE SUPPORTS

F

BRACKET -1E / 1F -

POST F

POST E

attached to the left side of column F and right side of column E 11

0°

5.0

5.0

11

0°

BREAK 1

bracket profile -1E / 1F - consist of one break BREAK 1E: broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the right of the plate BREAK 1F: broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate *brackets are mirrored

> bracket profile <

> plan view < > SE PERSPECTIVE <

BRACKET -2E / 2F attached to the front side face of column E and F

.0 0° 90

90 .

0°

.0 90

° 00

.

90

BREAK 1

00 °

A B

E

C

F D

bracket profile -2E / 2F - consists of two breaks

BREAK 2

- 2E BREAK 1: broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the right of the plate BREAK 2: broken with an angle of 65 degrees to the right of the plate - 2F BREAK 1: broken with an angle of 90 degrees to the left of the plate BREAK 2: broken with an angle of 65 degrees to the left of the plate

> bracket profile < > front elevation < > column C consists of four bracket profiles

> COLUMN GRID <

BACKBOARD

Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

PATTERN DEVELOPMENT

GARDEN TOOLS AVAILABLE SIGNOUT: _______________________________________________________________ trowels _______________________________________________________________ shovels _______________________________________________________________ rakes _______________________________________________________________

Important information - volunteer oppurtunities for new members - harvest clean up

BACKBOARD The backboard provides the community garden with a way to communicate with itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s member on the chalk board and allows people to have place to post important notices. A short brief about the Rainbow Gardens project along with signage of all the partners will be etched in the backboard to provide visitors with some information about the community.

BULLETIN

BACKBOARD ASSEMBLY BACKBOARD ASSEMBLY

Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

A steel backboard brackets - welded to frame

B 3/4” plywood board - CNC pattern

>project introduction/sponsorship plaque

C 29 gauge steel panel - lazer cut >blackboard ptd.

D 1/4” plywood attachments- lazer cut

>screw hold of steel panel to the backboard.

E plywood storage box

>storage for chalk / eraser / magnets >lock for security

COAT HOOKS

Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

HANGER ASSEMBLY Hanger Plate [1/16” ] - flat -

BREAK 1

1.5 “ HSS

HANGER BREAK 1 : broken with an angle of 70 degrees BREAK 2: broken at an angle of 50 degrees

3"

11

0.0

0°

Hanger Plate [1/16” ]

3 1/16"

BREAK 2

1/4” - 2“ Hex Bolt

50.

00° 2"

1 1/2"

> assembly <

> front elevation <

> section <

TOTETOT ATTACHMENTS OVERALL ASSEMBLY

Individual Contribution [Bench/Backboard/Hooks]

ASSEMBLY

Since most of the non-structural parts of the totetot are attached to the frame it was important to make sure that each piece would be able to fit without obstructing other parts.

p

steel structure material count

BUDGET The budget was an important factor throughout the design process.

Especially in the selection of material, HSS steel tubes were proposed to reduce the amount of weight and in turn cost.

p

exploded isometric of auxiliary parts assembly

TOTETOT CONSTRUCTION Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

TOTETOT CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

RUCTION SEQUENCE

FOUNDATION

concrete footings

STEEL FRAME

HSS and Angle Steel

STEEL FRAME

HSS and Angle Steel

PRIMARY ATTACHMENTTS

Stainless Steel Gutter + Cable Cross Bracing

AUXILIARY ATTACHMENTS

steel brackets + steel splashpad frames

AUXILIARY ATTACHMENTS

steel brackets + steel splashpad frames

WOOD ADDITIONS

storage unit + bench slates

PRIMARY ATTACHMENTTS

Stainless Steel Gutter + Cable Cross Bracing

ROOF PANELIZATION

Tough Rib Rib Steel Steel Roof Roof Panels Panels Tough

ROOF PANELIZATION

Tough Rib Rib Steel Steel Roof Roof Panels Panels Tough

WOOD ADDITIONS

storage unit + bench slates

SUPPLEMENTARY PARTS

cobblestone pavers pavers ++ backboard backboard ++ hooks hooks cobblestone

SUPPLEMENTARY PARTS

cobblestone pavers pavers ++ backboard backboard ++ hooks hooks cobblestone

CONSTRUCTED STRUCTURE

TOTETOT CONTEXT Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

SHADING . gathering . rest .

WATER COLLECTION

WATER COLLECTION

SHADING

. storage . distribution .

. storage . distribution .

. gathering . rest .

HARVEST . preparation . cooking .

PLAY

STORAGE

. space .

CONSTRUCTED STRUCTURE

STORAGE WASTE . storage . management .

. tools . tent structure .

. tool drawer . long tool bin .

WORK . table . coat hooks .

12.00

SUN PATH RAIN

me r

Winter

Sunset

Su m

passive water collection

Water Access

IBC tote Access

Water Access

cobblestone splash pad bench

BENCH VIEWPOINTS

INE

L LOT NP

x. pro

(A

E RD

GA

NORTH END PERSPECTIVE

SOUTH END PERSPECTIVE

)

10’

’x 24

TOTETOT PROGRAMMING Group Proposal [TOTETOT]

SPATIAL PROGRAMMING

IBC tote IBC tote

backboard cedar table cedar bench cedar table plywood long tool storage

WORK REST

REST

WORK

plywood drawer storage

cedar bench

cobble stone paver splash pad

cobble stone paver splash pad

< EAST SIDE >

< WEST SIDE >

C1 ASSEMBLAGE

Shed Construction

> in collaboration with: Melanie Yau + Carson Wiebe + Amanda Ries + Ryan Van Belleghem

CONSTRUCTION Part of the project implied that the studio would be working as a collective to built and construct the proposed structures, since the steel frames would be fabricated out of house studio members were partnered with others to help complete the wood structures. As such, I was put into helping construct the shed. While the shed overall design was close to completion many of the connections and details had not yet been figured out and had to be done as built continued.

SHED PANELIZATION Due to certain delays and issues with the prospect of moving these structures onto the site in the spring, as another option to provide the group flexibility the wall frames of the shed were panelized. By doing so the shed could be completely disassembled and move to the garden by hand.

BACK WALL FRAME PANELS

FRONT WALL AND DOOR FRAME PANELS

wall frame

plywood sheet + building paper p

alternate cladding pattern

2 x 2 cedar slates

firring strips

CLADDING DETAILS + PATTERN While the design had called for continuous cladding to wrap around the entire structure due to material constraints the cladding detail had to be rethought on the back wall and changed. Corner details also had to be figured out to allow for a nice transition between the different walls.

T1 OUTINGS

Shoppost

Sept.19.2016

OUTINGS Clearwater Oct.19.2016

[] FINAL REVIEW

Thank You: > To all the partners and sponsors throughout this project: Sperling Steel, CISC Canada, Shoppost Ironworks, Assiniboine Credit Union, Barkmans Concrete, the FABLAB, Westman Steel and The Home Depot > To Food Matters Manitoba and Urban Eatinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for the advice and continued interest > To Dr. Dimos Polyzois and the Faculty of Engineering Students > To Rainbow Community Gardens and IIFCC for your acceptance and encouragement > To my TOTETOT group members: Jillian and Carson > To Lancelot Coar for taking on and organizing this incredible project