Blazing the Trail by Zachary Callaway

BLAZING THE TRAIL COMBINING NEW METHODOLOGY WITH TRADITIONAL BUILDING TECHNIQUES TO COMBAT STRUCTURE CREEP ALONG THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL AN ARCHITECTURAL THESIS BY ZACHARY CALLAWAY

ZACHARY CALLAWAY | Z@ZCALLAWAY.COM

Blazing the Trail:

Combining new methodology with traditional building techniques to combat structure creep along the Appalachian Trail Zachary Callaway Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master in Architecture at The Savannah College of Art and Design ÂŠ May 2013, Zachary Callaway The author hereby grants SCAD permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic thesis copies of document in whole or in part in any medium now know or hereafter created.

Signature of Author and Date ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Professor Huy Ngo ______________________________________________________________________________________________/______/___________________ (Type name here) (Sign Here) (Date Here) Committee Chair Professor Melanie Parker ______________________________________________________________________________________________/______/___________________ (Type name here) (Sign Here) (Date Here) Committee Member Dr. Jeffrey Marion ______________________________________________________________________________________________/______/___________________ (Type name here) (Sign Here) (Date Here) Committee Member

Blazing the Trail:

Combining new methodology with traditional building techniques to combat structure creep along the Appalachian Trail

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Architecture Department in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters in Architecture Savannah College of Art and Design by Zachary David Callaway Savannah, Ga May 30th, 2013

special thanks to: Dr. Jeffrey Marion Professor Melanie Parker Professor Huy Ngo

extended thanks to: David Callaway Lynda Callaway

This thesis is dedicated to the hard working volunteers that sacrifice their time and effort in making the Appalachian Trail safe and enjoyable for all

List of Figures

Abstract

Chapter 1

Introduction: Man, Nature, and Architecture

Understanding Nature: The Four Elements of Wilderness Experiencing Nature through Architecture Symbolism and the Spirituality of Nature Educational Aspects of Nature Architecture’s Role in the Natural Environment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 2

Nature influencing Architecture / Architecture protecting Nature

Nature’s role in Architecture: National Parks, Lodging, and the American Log Cabin Benton MacKaye and the Appalachian Trail: A socioeconomical reform turned American Icon Appalachian Trail Shelters: Disorganized Unity Architecture’s Role in Wilderness Management Shelter and Formal Campsite Capacity Shelter and Formal Campsite Location Shelter/Campsite Design Sanitation

Chapter 3 Part 1

Understanding the User

Introduction Understanding the User: The Survey Understanding the User: The Results Overall Statistics General Information

Chapter 3 Part 2

Case Studies

Case studies: Backpacking Tents Case studies: La Petite Maison du Weekend Patkau Architects

11 15 16 19 19 21

25 26 29 31 32 42 43 47 50

54 54 60 60 63

70 73

Chapter 4

Site Analysis: Laurel Fork Gorge

Chapter 5

Programming

Chapter 6

Project Synopsis and Concept Development

Chapter 7

Architecture to Facilitate Primitive Design

Laurel Fork Gorge, Tennessee Climate Analysis Solar Analysis Predicting Site Activity Existing Shelter Analysis Selecting the Site

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction Developing the Programmatic Elements Refining the Programmatic Elements Spatial Categories Comparing the Programmatic Elements with the Spatial Categories.

Introduction Trends in Shelter Evolution Preliminary Concept Sketches Aesthetic Concept Exploration

Introduction User Group Analysis (re-visited) Developing the Matrix System Hiker Scale: Designing around the Human Figure with an Emphasis on Hiking Tendencies Employing the Hiker Scale The Matrix Proposal Understanding How to Use the Matrix

82 84 90 94 96 98

101

102 104 105 106 108

111

112 117 119 121

123 124 124 126 126 130 132 133

Chapter 8 Part 1

Matrix Adaptation

Chapter 8 Part 2

Matrix Adaptation (re-visited)

Introduction Adapting the Matrix to Site 1 Adapting the Matrix to Site 2 Final Conclusion

142 143 146 147

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction Site Analysis (re-visited) Understanding How to Implement Site Analysis into a Final Design

Chapter 9

Final Design, Final Defense, and the Mobile Application

Final Design - Laurel Fork Final Design - Whitetop Mountain Final Design - McAfee Knob Final Design - Mount Madison Final Design - Cranberry Pond Final Defense The Mobile Application Future Possibilities

Chapter 10 Bibliography

141

Self Reflection and The Big Picture

151

152 156 160

165 166 176 186 196 206 217 230 237

239 243

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Man and Nature

by author

Figure 1.2 Technology and Nature

by author

Figure 1.3 Popularity of the Wilderness

by author

Figure 2.1 The Old Faithful - Robert Reamer

yellowstone-notebook.com

Figure 2.2 Cyclopean Masonry Construction

thelovecraftsman.com

Figure 2.3 Map of the Appalachian Trail Communities

by author

Figure 2.4 Popularity of the Appalachian Trail

by author

Figure 2.5 Destruction cause by human intervention

by author

Figure 2.6 Destruction through natural versus human causes

by author

Figure 2.7 Coverups: How to pick a campsite you can leave without a trace

Cole & Benedict

Figure 2.8 Campsite Study Results 1

Cole, David

Figure 2.9 Campsite Study Results 2

Cole, David

Figure 2.10 Campsite Study Results 3

Cole, David

Figure 2.11 Outerbridge Shelter

web.eecs.utk.edu

Figure 2.12 Mountaineer Falls Shelter

web.eecs.utk.edu

Figure 2.13 Jim and Molly Denton Shelter

web.eecs.utk.edu

Figure 2.14 Avoiding Man Made Trails

Proudman & Birchard

Figure 2.15 Diagram explaining mid-slope construction

Proudman & Birchard

Figure 2.16 Diagram explaining user created short cuts

Proudman & Birchard

Figure 3.1.1 Page 1 of 5 of the Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey

by author

Figure 3.1.3 Page 2 of 5 of the Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey

by author

Figure 3.1.2 Page 3 of 5 of the Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey

by author

Figure 3.1.5 Page 4 of 5 of the Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey

by author

Figure 3.1.4 Page 5 of 5 of the Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey

by author

Figure 3.1.7 Diagram explaining the percentage of hiker activity per season

by author

Figure 3.1.6 Diagram explaining group size tendency for hikers hiking the Appalachian Trail

by author

Figure 3.1.8 Cooking Method

by author

Figure 3.1.9 Tent Weight

by author

Figure 3.1.10 Diagram explaining the percentage of hiker activity per season

by author

Figure 3.1.11 Diagram explaining the percentage of hiker activity per season

by author

Figure 3.1.12 Thru-Hiker Demographics

by author

Figure 3.1.13 Section Hiker Demographics

by author

Figure 3.1.14 Recreational Hiker Demographics

by author

Figure 3.1.15 Thru-Hiker Perspective on Existing Shelter Conditions

by author

Figure 3.1.16 Section Hiker Perspective on Existing Shelter Conditions

by author

Figure 3.1.17 Recreational Hiker Perspective on Existing Shelter Conditions

by author

Figure 3.1.18 Future Amenity Opinions

by author

Figure 3.1.19 Future Amenity Opinions

by author

Figure 3.2.1 MSR Carbon Tents

MSR.com

Figure 3.2.2 Table Representing the dimensions of tents from leading tent manufacturers.

by author

Figure 3.2.3 Diagram explaining group size tendency for hikers hiking the Appalachian Trail

by author

Figure 3.2.4 Diagram explaining group size tendency for hikers hiking the Appalachian Trail

by author

Figure 3.2.5 La Petite Maison du Weekend - Patkau Architects

Patkau Architects

Figure 3.2.7 La Petite interior space

Patkau Architects

Figure 3.2.6 La Petite circulation

Patkau Architects

Figure 3.2.8 La Petite Level 2 Floor Plan

Patkau Architects / by author

Figure 3.2.9 La Petite Cross Section A

Patkau Architects / by author

Figure 3.2.10 La Petite Cross Section B

Patkau Architects / by author

Figure 3.2.12 Adirondack Shelter - Crowley’s Ridge State Park - Arkansas

Good, Albert H

Figure 3.2.11 Adirondack Shelter - Letchworth State Park - New York

Good, Albert H

Figure 3.2.13 Adirondack Shelter - Detail Plan and Elevations (Park and Recreation Structures)

Good, Albert H

Figure 3.2.14 Spatial Organization Diagram

Good, Albert H / by author

Figure 3.2.15 Camp Layout - Detail Master Plan (Park and Recreation Structures)

Good, Albert H

Figure 4.1 Macro Site Location

by author

Figure 4.2 Tennessee - North Carolina Border

by author

Figure 4.3 Laurel Fork Gorge

by author

Figure 4.4 Micro Site Location

by author

Figure 4.5 Climate Zones

by author

Figure 4.6 Average Monthly Temperature

by author

Figure 4.7 Average Days Above 90 of and Below 32 of

by author

Figure 4.8 Average Monthly Snowfall and Precipitation

by author

Figure 4.9 Average Wind Speed

by author

Figure 4.10 Average Monthly Could Coverage

by author

Figure 4.11 Average Relative Humidity

by author

Figure 4.12 Wind Study Diagram

by author

Figure 4.13 Visual Walk Through of the Laurel Fork Gorge Section of the Appalachian Trail

by author

Figure 4.14 Elevation Plot of the Laurel Fork Gorge Section of the Appalachian Trail

by author

Figure 4.15 Winter Solstice Study

by author

Figure 4.16 Summer Solstice Study

by author

Figure 4.17 Spring/Fall Equinox Study

by author

Figure 4.18 Thru-hiker Miles per Day analysis

by author

Figure 4.19 Nation Park / Forest Map

by author

Figure 4.20 Neighboring Shelter Survey

web.eecs.utk.edu / by author

Figure 4.21 Laurel Fork Shelter Survey

by author

Figure 4.22 Longitude and Latitude Analysis of Proposed Site

by author

Figure 4.23 200’ from water and 2 miles from motorize access

by author

Figure 4.24 Rock Slide locations

by author

Figure 4.25 Final Proposed Site Location

by author

Figure 5.1 Basic Programming of a Hiking Shelter

103

by author

Figure 5.2 User Analysis “other comments” Survey

104

by author

Figure 5.3 Programming in Relation to ATC Guidelines

105

by author

Figure 5.4 Exploration of Programmatic Conditions

106

by author

Figure 5.5 Programmatic Conditions in Relation to Programmatic Elements

109

by author

Figure 6.1 Evidence of the visual damage caused from visitor created campsites

112

by author

Figure 6.2 Destruction cause by human intervention

112

by author

Figure 6.3 Common Issues within Existing Campsites

113

by author

Figure 6.4 Thesis Problem

114

by author

Figure 6.5 Thesis Solution

115

by author

Figure 6.6 Trends in Shelter Evolution

116

by author

Figure 6.7 Preliminary Sketches

118

by author

Figure 6.8 Study Model - Roof as Habitable Space

120

by author

Figure 6.9 Study Model - Nature Integration Exploration

120

by author

Figure 7.1 Appalachian Trail Maintenance Clubs and their respective governing territory

124

by author

Figure 7.2 ATC Maintenance Clubs and their respective guidelines

125

by author

Figure 7.3 Human Figure Dimensions Exploration

127

Panero & Zelnik / by author

Figure 7.4 Sleeping Platform Exploration and Final Design

129

by author

Figure 7.5 Study Models - Spatial Explorations

130

by author

Figure 7.6 Spatial Explorations 2

131

by author

Figure 7.7 Matrix - Floor Plan Configurations

134

by author

Figure 7.8 Matrix - Roof Configurations

136

by author

Figure 7.9 Matrix - Platform Configurations

138

by author

Figure 8.1.1 Site Axon and Site Proposals

142

by author

Figure 8.1.2 Site 1 Rubric

143

by author

Figure 8.1.3 Site 1 Matrix Results

144

by author

Figure 8.1.4 Site 1 Configuration Exploration 1

144

by author

Figure 8.1.5 Site 1 Configuration Exploration 2

145

by author

Figure 8.1.6 Site 1 Configuration Exploration 3

145

by author

Figure 8.1.7 Site 2 Rubric

147

by author

Figure 8.1.8 Site 2 Matrix Results

148

by author

Figure 8.1.9 Site 2 Configuration Exploration 1

148

by author

Figure 8.1.10 Site 2 Configuration Exploration 2

149

by author

Figure 8.1.11 Site 2 Configuration Exploration 3

149

by author

Figure 8.2.1 High Density - Moderate Climate (Laurel Fork)

153

Google Earth / by author

Figure 8.2.2 Low Density - Moderate Climate (Whitetop Mountain)

154

Google Earth / by author

Figure 8.2.3 Rock Outcrops - Moderate Climate (McAfee Knob)

154

Google Earth / by author

Figure 8.2.4 Low Density - Moderate Climate (Mount Madison)

155

Google Earth / by author

Figure 8.2.5 High Density - Moderate Climate (Cranberry Pond)

155

Google Earth / by author

Figure 8.2.6 Site Analysis Elements

156

by author

Figure 8.2.7 High Density - Moderate Climate (Laurel Fork)

156

by author

Figure 8.2.8 Low Density - Moderate Climate (Whitetop Mountain)

157

by author

Figure 8.2.9 Rock Formations - Moderate Climate (McAfee Knob)

157

by author

Figure 8.2.10 Low Density - Cold Climate (Mount Madison)

158

by author

Figure 8.2.11 High Density - Cold Climate (Cranberry Pond)

158

by author

Figure 8.2.12 How to Use Solar Patterns

160

by author

Figure 8.2.13 How to Use Wind Patterns

160

by author

Figure 8.2.14 How to Use Climate Patterns

161

by author

Figure 8.2.15 How to Use Shelter Proximity

161

by author

Figure 8.2.16 How to Use Vegetation Proximity

161

by author

Figure 9.1 Macro Site Axon (Laurel Fork)

166

Google Earth / by author

Figure 9.2 Areas of Emphasis and Matrix Results (Laurel Fork)

167

by author

Figure 9.3 Adaptation of Site Analysis (Laurel Fork)

168

by author

Figure 9.4 Configuration Adaptation (Laurel Fork)

168

by author

Figure 9.5 Site Plan (Laurel Fork)

168

by author

Figure 9.6 Northwest Elevation (Laurel Fork)

170

by author

Figure 9.7 Southwest Elevation (Laurel Fork)

171

by author

Figure 9.8 Connection Detail A (Laurel Fork)

172

by author

Figure 9.9 Connection Detail B (Laurel Fork)

173

by author

Figure 9.10 Preliminary Concept Rendering (Laurel Fork)

174

by author

Figure 9.11 Final Rendering (Laurel Fork)

174

by author

Figure 9.12 Macro Site Axon (Whitetop Mountain)

176

Google Earth / by author

Figure 9.13 Areas of Emphasis and Matrix Results (Whitetop Mountain)

177

by author

Figure 9.14 Adaptation of Site Analysis (Whitetop Mountain)

178

by author

Figure 9.15 Configuration Adaptation (Whitetop Mountain)

178

by author

Figure 9.16 Site Plan (Whitetop Mountain)

178

by author

Figure 9.17 South Elevation (Whitetop Mountain)

180

by author

Figure 9.18 West Elevation (Whitetop Mountain)

181

by author

Figure 9.19 Connection Detail A (Whitetop Mountain)

182

by author

Figure 9.20 Connection Detail B (Whitetop Mountain)

183

by author

Figure 9.21 Preliminary Concept Rendering (Whitetop Mountain)

184

by author

Figure 9.22 Final Rendering (Whitetop Mountain)

184

by author

Figure 9.23 Macro Site Axon (McAfee Knob)

186

Google Earth / by author

Figure 9.24 Areas of Emphasis and Matrix Results (McAfee Knob)

187

by author

Figure 9.25 Adaptation of Site Analysis (McAfee Knob)

188

by author

Figure 9.26 Configuration Adaptation (McAfee Knob)

188

by author

Figure 9.27 Site Plan (McAfee Knob)

188

by author

Figure 9.28 West Elevation (McAfee Knob)

190

by author

Figure 9.29 South Elevation (McAfee Knob)

191

by author

Figure 9.30 Connection Detail A (McAfee Knob)

192

by author

Figure 9.31 Connection Detail B (McAfee Knob)

193

by author

Figure 9.32 Preliminary Concept Rendering (McAfee Knob)

194

by author

Figure 9.33 Final Rendering (McAfee Knob)

194

by author

Figure 9.34 Macro Site Axon (Mount Madison)

196

Google Earth / by author

Figure 9.35 Areas of Emphasis and Matrix Results (Mount Madison)

197

by author

Figure 9.36 Adaptation of Site Analysis (Mount Madison)

198

by author

Figure 9.37 Configuration Adaptation (Mount Madison)

198

by author

Figure 9.38 Site Plan (Mount Madison)

198

by author

Figure 9.39 South Elevation (Mount Madison)

200

by author

Figure 9.40 West Elevation (Mount Madison)

201

by author

Figure 9.41 Connection Detail A (Mount Madison)

202

by author

Figure 9.42 Connection Detail B (Mount Madison)

203

by author

Figure 9.43 Preliminary Concept Rendering (Mount Madison)

204

by author

Figure 9.44 Final Rendering (Mount Madison)

204

by author

Figure 9.45 Macro Site Axon (Cranberry Pond)

206

Google Earth / by author

Figure 9.46 Areas of Emphasis and Matrix Results (Cranberry Pond)

207

by author

Figure 9.47 Reasoning behind Elevating the Cranberry Pond Shelter

208

by author

Figure 9.48 Configuration Adaptation (Cranberry Pond)

208

by author

Figure 9.49 Site Plan (Cranberry Pond)

208

by author

Figure 9.50 West Elevation (Cranberry Pond)

210

by author

Figure 9.51 South Elevation (Cranberry Pond)

211

by author

Figure 9.52 Connection Detail A (Cranberry Pond)

212

by author

Figure 9.53 Connection Detail B (Cranberry Pond)

213

by author

Figure 9.54 Preliminary Concept Rendering (Cranberry Pond)

214

by author

Figure 9.55 Final Rendering (Cranberry Pond)

214

by author

Figure 9.56 Final Defense Presentation Boards

216

by author

Figure 9.57 Final Defense Presentation Boards (General Information)

218

by author

Figure 9.58 Final Defense Presentation Boards (High Density - Moderate Climate)

220

by author

Figure 9.59 Final Defense Presentation Boards (Low Density - Moderate Climate)

222

by author

Figure 9.60 Final Defense Presentation Boards (Rock Formations - Moderate Climate)

224

by author

Figure 9.61 Final Defense Presentation Boards (Low Density - Cold Climate)

226

by author

Figure 9.62 Final Defense Presentation Boards (High Density - Cold Climate)

228

by author

Figure 9.63 Step by Step How to Build and Elevated Shelter

231

by author

Figure 9.64 Slide 1 of Mobile Application Prototype

232

by author

Figure 9.65 Slides 2 of Mobile Application Prototype

233

by author

Figure 9.66 Slides 3-5 of Mobile Application Prototype

234

by author

Figure 9.67 Slides 6 of Mobile Application Prototype

235

by author

Figure 9.68 Slides 7 of Mobile Application Prototype

236

by author

Figure 10.1 Laurel Fork Shelter

240

by author

Blazing the Trail:

Combining new methodology with traditional building techniques to combat structure creep along the Appalachian Trail Zachary Callaway May 30th, 2013

Abstract Throughout our National Parks, acres of untouched land are slowly deteriorating to an irreversible status. Unfortunately, the people who help cause the destruction are also the ones who value the land the most. Research indicates that traditional “tent” camping causes harmful erosion and vegetation impaction that, if not addressed, could eventually lead to the destruction of many natural parks. This poses the question: can architecture provide the solution? Shelters offer hikers a designated area to camp, thus decreasing the potential for illegal campsites. However, with the increase in shelters throughout the Appalachian trail, a new issue occurs. Structure creep is the terminology used to describe the movement of once primitive structures to more advanced shelter designs, changing the identity of the Appalachian Trail. The purpose of this proposal is to explore a solution to combat the effects of structure creep. The result is a matrix of different configurations that produces optimum shelter designs based on select parameters. The projects below embody this methodology through five unique topographic conditions. Through the use of the matrix, along with detailed site analysis and user studies, a series of fully nature integrated structures are created.

Chapter 1 Introduction: Man, Nature, and Architecture

The beauty of nature evokes a tantalizing

the speed at which the quality of the natural world

sensation in the eye of man, wiith its acres of untouched

was deteriorating, and a deep respect re-emerged,

land, isolated from the destructive powers of civilization,

shifting the previous levels fear to a new, humbling

and frozen in a time where animals are the dominant

sensation. Today, millions of tourists vacate to the wild

beings and the presence of man goes unnoticed. This

to experience that feeling. Subsequently, concepts

fragile experience places man and nature in constant

such as Wilderness Management and National Park

conflict. Early man respected the power of the wild,

Conservatories began to appear with a goal to preserve

reaping the benefits the land had to offer and fearing

the ability to achieve this sensation. Society as a whole

what might come from making their presence too

began to redirect its attention away from expanding out

pronounced. However, as man evolved, that primeval

and more towards reviving what little natural wilderness

fear shifted to a desire to conquer. Man began to

was left.

rely less on the wilderness and the landscape was

Unfortunately, man’s connection to nature has

overtaken by cities. Around the turn of the 20th century,

never been able to fully revert back to its primitive

when the Industrial Revolution was nearing an end,

state. A contributor to this disconnect is found within

the ideas of cohabitation within the natural world

architecture, resulting in the question: Can architecture

were almost entirely lost. While man was achieving

exist without creating a barrier between what is artificial,

technological greatness, the automobile, and the

and what is natural? Can man, nature, and architecture

railroad system created widespread destruction of the

live harmoniously? Before an attempt to answer these

natural environments and the identity of the world was

questions is made, society needed to truly understand

quickly changing. Eventually, people began to notice

the power, beauty, and benefits nature had to offer.

By fi rst taking an etymological approach, one

its value. Conclusions from this approach can then be PRIOR TO CIVILIZATION MAN AND NATURE LIVED SYMBIOTICALLY

applied more specifi cally towards how architecture might be able to evolve with a stronger focus on the relationship and protection of the natural world.

Figure 1.1 Man and Nature

can observe the historical understanding of nature and

Understanding Nature: Is Landscape an One of the earliest written uses of the word

object or sensation? As previously stated, the most basic form of

‘wilderness’ was found within the Bible, where

human civilization relied heavily on nature to survive.

“wilderness” was described as “evidence of God’s

Man and wilderness lived symbiotically. The earth

displeasure, [where] the greatest blessing to be

benefi ted man by providing resources, and man

bestowed on humanity was to transform the wilderness

benefi ted the earth by wasting nothing, and interfering

‘to make it blossom like a rose’” (Hendee & Dawson,

little. Unfortunately, as human skill increased, our

2009, p. 5) This stance on nature described a potential

dependence on nature diminished. Humans began

for man’s overtaking, suggesting that nature was not at

to place themselves, mentally, in the center of their

its fullest until man had intervened, that God punished

surroundings, making them feel, hierarchically, more

the earth and it was man’s obligation to “transform the

important. This is best exemplifi ed by the different

wilderness” into beautiful civilization.

meanings the term nature took throughout history.

Similarly,the term landscape was also defi ned

landschaft, landscape was understood as “a restricted UN-NATURAL CAUSES +10% to +40%

piece of land” (Olwig, 1996, p. 630). This interpretation of landscape carried a territorial tone, suggesting that

N IO CT

T WI

A HN

RE TU

H TEC

L NO

Y OG

landscape was man’s invention. It can be hypothesized that this egocentric view, in addition to neglect and lack of understanding, eventually led to the vast OF HUMANS ARE SAID TO INCREASE THE PROCESS

EROSION ANYWHERE FROM TEN TO FORTY PERCENT MORE THAN THE NATURAL PROCESS

AS TECHNOLOGY EVOLVED, THE CONNECTION BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE AND NATURE DEVOLVED.

Figure 1.2 Technology and Nature

an object of man. Derived from the German root,

NATURAL PROCESS

destruction of natural landscapes throughout history. - LANG 2006

Architecturally, the notion of designing within

devolved. Electricity allowed for more time spent

the surroundings followed a similar history as the 90% 95% understandings of nature. Uncivilized humans were

indoors, air conditioning overruled natural ventilation,

forced to live harmoniously within their surroundings.

civilized, and nature went from being a necessity to a

Methods of sustainability and building-site relationship

recreation. “When the fi rst European Explorers reached

were concepts ingrained in their thinking, because

what is now the conterminous forty-eight United

supplies were limited to what was readily accessible.

States, they found a continent that was inhabited by

IN A STUDY OF A CAMPGROUND IN EAGLE CAP WILDERNESS, OREGON:

Man’s abilities were defi ned by what could be

“90% OF TREE SEEDLINGS AND A SIMILAR PERCENTAGE OF GROUND VEGETATION HAS BEEN accomplished before sundown, and vital resources DESTROYED BY TRAMPLING. OVER 95% OF THE OVERSTORY TREES HAD BEEN DAMAGED BY PEOPLE had to be within aCOLLECTING day’s worth of travel. Civilization was FIREWOOD, AS WELL AS FROM THOUGHTLESS MALICIOUS ACTS”

defi ned by nature, not man. However, as technology -COLE AND BENEDICT 1983 evolved, the connection of architecture to its habitat

and cars destroyed regional vernacular. Man became

“REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF USE ON THE STANDARD

SITE BY A FACTOR OF TWO DECREASES VEGETATION Native Americans, whose lands…were considered LOSS BY A FACTOR OF FOUR”

- COLE 1992 the 1.9 undeveloped wilderness. In less than 500 years,

billion-acre former wild landscape has been reduced by 98 percent” (Hendee & Dawson, 2009, p.4). Recently, however, with the emergence of

environmental and natural sciences, the concept

Understanding Nature: The Four Elements of

of nature began to evolve back to a more spiritual

Wilderness

interpretation. No longer did wilderness have an aura

In recent history, there has been a shift in society

of terror attached to it, nor was there a determination

away from building our civilized cities outward, towards

to civilize the world. Studies began to show the positive

protecting what little natural landscape was left. As

psychological effects of the natural environment on the

mentioned previously, this was, in part, due to the

human psyche. Scientists suggested the positive benefi ts

emergence of environmental and natural sciences.

of nature could be found in places as simple as a

Understanding the non-materialistic values of nature

planted fl ower on top a window sill, or even a view of a

had changed the way we viewed wilderness. Society

mature tree outside a busy offi ce. Nature began to take

no longer relied as heavily on nature for survival.

on a more subjective meaning. Nature was found within

Instead, we began to view nature for its other values.

us, not found around us. The Wilderness Act of 1964

The development of these new sciences led to the

defi ned the wilderness as a contrast to “…areas where

discovery of what those values entailed. Through

man and his own works dominate the landscape… were

numerous studies, surveys, and reports, four central

the earth and its community of life are untrammeled

themes materialized. Research showed that nature

by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not

provided experiential qualities, spiritual qualities,

remain.” (Hendee & Dawson, 2009, p. 4) The perception

educational benefi ts, and economic values. (Wilderness

of nature evolved from a forbidden, restricted, punishing

Management p.4) These were not “new” discoveries. For

landscape, to one that had cultural, economic, social

centuries, tribal people understood the spiritual qualities

and environmental value.

of the wilderness and “sent their young males into the

wilderness for self-affirming ordeals known as “vision

scientists provide proven factual evidence, architecture,

quests” (Gallagher, 1993, p. 211). However, bringing

when applied successfully, provides first hand

these discovers to attention, with scientific evidence

experience.

backing up the findings, gave them more weight, and thus, generated a greater response, because, as humans, we have a hard time supporting things we

Experiencing Nature through Architecture It is estimated that in the United States alone,

do not fully understand (Gallagher, 1993, p. 213). Prior

around $100 billion has been spent, per year, on outdoor

to the scientific discoveries of the beneficial qualities

activities, and Americans make approximately 600

of nature, the protection of wilderness relied on select

million trips to federal lands, resulting in a sixty-percent

individuals who were able to foresee the advantages

increase over the last twenty years (Gallagher, 1993,

nature had to offer. Today, there are hundreds of unions,

p. 208). No matter what the activity, statistics have

organizations, and government protocols in place to

shown that the American population has spent more

protect the natural landscape.

money and more time visiting and enjoying the natural

Similar to scientists, architects have a unique

environment. This growth in interest for the natural

opportunistic involvement in the process of the

environment is, in part, due to the experiential qualities

protection and education of nature. Architecture

that only nature can provide. Psychologists suggest

allows for prolonged stays within nature, creating

that our experiential pull towards nature comes from

more oppotunities for direct contact with nature and

the fact that “our ancestors evolved in a nature-filled

when designed correctly, this may result in a better

environment [and that such places] should feel more

understanding of the natural enviornment. Where

comfortable, more relaxed, more like home” (Jaffe,

2012). There are numerous ways to experience nature, but for the purpose of this thesis, I have classified them into two categories: psychological experience and recreational experience. John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club in 1892, wrote extensively on his experiences in nature, and specifically the mountains at Yosemite (Hendee & Dawson, 2009, p. 7). He believed that the freedom, solitude, and beauty of the mountains could “satisfy all human needs” (Hendee & Dawson, 2009, p. 7), and psychological studies have proven Miur’s comments accurate. The mechanics of the human brain are very complex, and combining the fragility of the mind with the congested elements of a city can cause high levels of psychological damage. Urban settings subject the human brain to a great number of stimuli, suggests

“[The] prescription for inner turmoil is spending a minimum of four hours alone in a natural area; with no activities or distractions… sitting quietly in that atmosphere allows most people to process a lot of emotions and issues they haven’t been dealing with. Modern society focuses almost exclusively on the value of intellect and professionalism, which requires a lot of representation and denial. Both as individuals and as a culture, we can forget about some really important things, including identity and self-worth, so we need periods that allow us to get in touch with who we are and what really matters” (Gallagher, 1993, p. 203).

When walking through a city, the mind is in constant exertion, reacting to quick and sudden changes. However, psychologists have shown that the inclusion of natural elements decreases the amount of mental fatigue. Rural settings offer a lot less change, which results in less stimulation. This allows the brain to focus on one thing without various distractions.

psychologist Peter Suedfeld, and these stimuli create

Because time spent in the wilderness offers a

a phenomenon known as mental fatigue (Gallagher,

comforting experience and provides psychological

1993, p. 203). Psychologist Jane Swan recommends that:

benefits, recreational activities have become one of the

leading reasons people venture to the wilderness. The

of danger. Although, at first thought, this can be taken

ability to escape from everyday life is an element that

as a negative, placing one’s self in an atmosphere

only nature can offer. This has increased the popularity

where one wrong move can result in disaster makes one

of wildlife refuges, national park systems, and nature

feel more alive, which is a psychological element that

trails (which has also increased the need for wilderness

cannot be found within urban recreation.

management – a topic to be discussed in greater

In the architectural profession, when designing in

detail later). Recreation, in general, benefits the human

a natural environment, the elements of psychological

body both physically and psychologically. However,

and recreational experience must be considered.

wilderness recreation presents some advantages

Studies show that “the vast majority [of people] go into

that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Aside from the

the wilderness to be with others: fewer than 2 percent

obvious aesthetic and physical benefits, nature provides

of the visitors…spend their time alone” (Gallagher, 1993,

solitude, giving the participants the feeling of being a

p. 212). Although this statistic may seem contradictory

part of a larger body which allows them to take control

to the previously mentioned statement made about

of their lives and think and act for themselves. No visual

venturing into the wilderness to experience solitude,

boundaries allow the mind to wonder, which gives

instead, people want to experience what is known

participants the feeling of freedom. As humans, our lives

as “selective solitude”, meaning during recreational

are defined by time, but in the wild, perception of time

activities, be it alone or with a party, when strangers are

is nonexistent; even when participating in exhilarating

included, a sensation of discomfort is felt (Gallagher,

activities such as rock climbing, and whitewater rafting,

1993, p. 212). Architects must take this information into

the world seems to slow down. Finally, there is the aspect

account when designing structures meant for recreation

and a compromise of community and solitude must be

do things you weren’t sure you could…it’s much easier

created.

to figure out what matters and what doesn’t, and to make some changes in your life’” (Gallagher, 1993, p.

Symbolism and the Spirituality of Nature As mentioned earlier, the idea that nature

211), William Shakespeare writes “One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.” (Troilus and Cressida. Act

can provide symbolic and spiritual qualities is not a

iii. Sc. 3), and American author Orison Swett Marden

new discovery. Our ancestors have sent their young

suggests that “Forests, lakes, and rivers, clouds and

into the wilderness alone to experience, firsthand,

winds, stars and flowers, stupendous glaciers and

the spiritual elements of the wilderness. Early Native

crystal snowflakes - every form of animate or inanimate

Americans were able to connect to the spiritual origins

existence, leaves its impression upon the soul of man”.

of Nature, and although this ability has decreased in present society’s civilized minds, a small element of it has remained. In today’s society, when life is filled with

Educational Aspects of Nature Like spirituality, our ancestors also recognized the

the pressures of deadlines and complexity of an ever-

scientific and biological benefits the natural landscape

changing atmosphere, nature still symbolizes stability

held by using the land for its medicinal qualities.

and simplicity. Writers, painters, and philosophers have

Unfortunately, through the rise of civilization, there

all noted the symbolism and spirituality found within

is not much “pure” wilderness left, and areas of the

the wilderness. Psychologist Stephan Kaplan explains

nation that are virtually untouched by man are vital to

that, “‘When you’re in an atmosphere that offers few

the understanding of how the world works as a holistic

distractions and allows you to experience your ability to

ecosystem. “[W]ilderness is an important benchmark

source of scientifi c information about the world around

us, how it evolved, how the effects of civilization have

utilized greatly through hundreds of outdoor educational

altered natural systems, and what the unmodifi ed

programs. These programs provide education to both

environment holds for us. Wilderness is a baseline or

youth and adults on the benefi ts of nature, some range

control area with which to compare change in other

from a more recreational education (teaching travel

world environments,” (Hendee & Dawson, 2009, p. 8).

and survival skills) with clubs such as the Boy Scouts

Studying plant and animal life in a natural environment

of America which instill outdoor education to young

provides invaluable information for the protection of

men at an early age, to courses that inform others

these species. In a speech given by E.O. Wilson for

on low-impact use techniques (Hendee & Dawson,

the prevention of wilderness destruction, Wilson spoke

2009, p. 364). Other programs take troubled youth

about how “one in every ten plant species contains

into the wilderness to utilize the psychological benefi ts

compounds with some anticancer activity” and that

mentioned earlier. These programs use nature to teach

some of these plants, if society kept destroying nature at

troubled teens self-esteem and self-empowerment

the rate of present day, would quickly become extinct

by stretching the abilities of the participant’s that

(Hendee & Dawson, 2009, p. 9). Nature also provides

may, otherwise, have never been utilized. A 2004

scientists with the opportunity to study the complexity

report by Dawson and Hendee, authors of Wilderness

of human interaction. The majority of the psychological

Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources

benefi ts previously mentioned would not have been

and Values, recognized more than 1,500 students took

discovered without doing studies and observations in a

wilderness related courses at colleges and universities

natural environment.

within the United States. Surveys in the 1990’s by the

The educational benefi ts of nature are also

same pair identifi ed approximately 230 personal growth

Architecture’s Role in the Natural

programs, and in 1998 they identifi ed 38 wilderness

Environment

therapy programs (Hendee & Dawson, 2009, pp. 364365). These statistics represent the growth in popularity for nature focused activities within the last few decades, and for architects, these statistics give reasons to focus attention on designs that preserve the educational qualities of nature.

Architecture, as a whole, is an invasive profession, especially in the construction process of a building. The feat of simply pouring a foundation requires the excavation of tons of soil. Because of this, the majority of architecture lies on relatively fl at ground, or when steep slopes present themselves, thousands of dollars are spent towards creating a level surface. This engineering challenge has assisted in the vast destruction of the natural landscape over the years, and since a clear shift of focus towards the protection of nature has occurred within the last decade, the need for a more “nature friendly” architecture has risen.

1,500 STUDENTS TOOK WILDERNESS RELATED COURSES AT COLLEGES 230 PERSONAL GROWTH PROGRAMS 38 WILDERNESS THERAPY PROGRAMS

With a clearer understanding of the benefi cial

qualities provided by the natural wilderness, the proposed project in this thesis will consist of a design that can utilize all three elements of nature (experiential, spiritual, and educational). In order to successfully do so,

Figure 1.3 Popularity of the Wilderness

the project’s identity will take the role of a hiker’s shelter

along the Appalachian Trail. In its creation, the Appalachian Trail was

discussed earlier and are slowly changing the identity of the Appalachian Trail. Therefore, it is the purpose

developed as “a response to the emergence of

of this thesis to develop a solution to combat these

industrial, consumer society during the early twentieth

issuesa structure that provides a harmonious relationship

century” (Foresta, Transformation of the Appalachian

between nature, man, and architecture.

Trail, 1987). It is estimated that nearly a thousand hikers attempt to hike the trail each year, and it is considered to be one of the most popular trails associated with the national park systems (Appalachian Trail Conservancy, 2012). A great opportunity presents itself in the focus of utilizing architectural techniques when designing future Appalachian Trail hiking shelters. The present day shelters were designed around the 1920’s and today, many of them are either in need of preservation, or have already been replaced by new high design structures, where the “sights, sounds, and smells of people replace the sights, sounds, and smells of nature” (Marion, 2006). The recent introduction of these amentiy laden structures are not respective of nature’s beneficial qualities

Chapter 2 Nature influencing Architecture Architecture protecting Nature

Nature’s role in Architecture: National Parks,

through management… [and] a testimonial to the

Lodging, and the American Log Cabin

grandeur of American wilderness.” (Bonnemaison,

Previously, Chapter One discussed the varying

2003, pp. 13-14). Around the same time of the Chicago

views of nature throughout history and how man first

exposition, the United States declared an end to the

relied on the wilderness as a provider for shelter, food,

American frontier, and people began to recognize “that

and resources. That through the rise of civilization, man’s

there were no more large expanses of ‘free land’[left in

dependence on nature fell to the point of negligence.

America” (Bonnemaison, 2003, p. 15). Thus, along with

However, in recent history there has been a shift in

the redwood tree, the expositions layout featured a

focus towards the protection of natural landscapes.

large majority of green space, and a series of instillations

A major instigator of this shift was the reaction to the

of photographs and geological models of western

Industrial Revolution, where once luscious green space

landscape (Bonnemaison, 2003, p. 17). As visitors

was replaced by gray, polluting, factories. However,

traveled to the fair, they left their dirty “brown cities” of

another contributing factor that shifted Americans’

their workday lives and entered what was viewed as

views was the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893 in

a “magical city of the future” (Bonnemaison, 2003, p.

Chicago, Illinois. Located at the center of the exposition,

71). The contrasting landscape of the World’s Fair gave

in the heart of the US Government Building, was a

American’s a unique perspective on their everyday

twenty-three foot diameter base of a redwood tree

city lives, and instilled a desire to maintain some form of

(Bonnemaison, 2003, p. 13). This exhibit was the most

natural escape. Visitors were so intrigued by the pictures

popular in the Chicago Fair and a symbol expressing

and contrasting landscape that a strong desire grew

“the late nineteenth century optimism for progress

to visit the real thing, and with this desire came the

creation of national parks (Bonnemaison, 2003, p. 71). Yellow Stone National Park, established in 1872,

2003, p. 71). This resulted in a number or lodging hotels and inns designed within the natural reserves. The

was one of the first government mandated national

innovator for Yellow Stone National Park buildings was

parks (Bonnemaison, 2003, p. 74).However, the people

architect Robert Reamer, and although he was not the

that wanted to experience America’s true wilderness,

first to design hotels within the region, he developed

also wanted “rapid connections to major urban centers,

an architectural style that “spoke of the conservation

organized travel itineraries and all the comforts that modern life could offer in the 1900s” (Bonnemaison,

of nature… [and] wilderness as a place of leisure” with the construction of The Old Faithful Inn seen in Figure 2.1 (Bonnemaison, 2003). Along with its rustic appearance, The Old Faithful Inn supplied visitors with amenities The Inn was recognized as an extravagant version of the

Figure 2.1 The Old Faithful - Robert Reamer

American log cabin and, in its essence, was a symbol of the nature that surrounded it. Robert Reamer designed a series of buildings within Yellowstone, all using “local materials and handcrafted details” corresponding to the character of its site in a form of “miniature regionalism” (Bonnemaison, 2003, p. 115). In Reamer’s words: “‘I built [them] in keeping with the place where [they] stand. Nobody would improve upon that. To be at a

discord with the landscape would almost be a crime.

“blending” within its environment. Stone work was rustic

To try to improve upon it would be impertinence’”

and constructed in a cyclopean style as shown in Figure

(Bonnemaison, 2003, p. 115). It was Reamer’s designs

2.2. Unmilled timber replaced dimensional lumber, water

for Yellowstone that led to a policy in 1918 which

fountains were concealed within boulders or piles of

regulated architectural design within national parks.

rocks, and fallen trees were revitalized as foot bridges

Steven Mather, a promoter of federally mandated

and handrails.

park lands, wrote “in the construction of roads, trails, buildings, and other improvements, a particular

In just under a half of century, national parks became an icon in the American vacation tradition

attention must be devoted always to the harmonizing of these improvements with the landscape” (Bonnemaison, 2003, p. 1156). Later, this chapter will explain how the aesthetic policy has been overlooked in recent history with newly designed shelters along the Appalachian Trails. In 1938 Albert H. Good and the National Park Service published a three volume compilation of park architecture entitled Park and Recreation Structures. The compendium included architecture found within national and state mandated parks throughout the United States. All structures shared a common theme of

Figure 2.2 Cyclopean Masonry Construction

and a new trend emerged: “As parents went to parks

MacKaye’s initial intentions were to create “a footpath

to show their children what American wilderness looked

through the wilderness that stretched like an unbroken

like and the children did the same with their own, these

chain along the crest of the Appalachians” where

parks acquired an ever stronger status as monuments in

surrounding communities would reflect America’s native

the American collective memory… By accepting tourists

culture (Foresta, 1987). He wanted to provide visitors

into the pockets of wilderness, the conservationists

that traversed the trail “a perspective of the social

planted the seeds for what would become a major

context of their lives, much as they would obtain a literal

national industry – nature tourism” (Bonnemaison, 2003,

perspective on the cities that lay below” (Foresta, 1987).

p. 126).

In chapter one, the economic benefits the wilderness provided was discussed, and no one understood the

Benton MacKaye and the Appalachian

economic values more than Benton MacKaye. He

Trail: A socioeconomical reform turned

foresaw communities dispersed along the trail that

American Icon

would nurture travelers through their journey, and his

Accompanying in the rise in popularity of

hopes were: “Eventually the communities would be permanent, with

wilderness tourism was the creation of the Appalachian

an economy based on farming, timber cutting or local

Trail in 1921. Grown from the mind of Harvard graduate,

manufacturing. With government encouragement,

Benton MacKaye, the Appalachian trail is now one of the best-known cultural elements in the United States. But MacKaye’s intentions went beyond just creating a recreational experience unlike any other in the world.

circulation of those goods would fuse the communities into a domain of small-scale producers, traders, and consumers. That domain would be an alternative to urban industrialized society and a bulwark of indigenous culture capable of confining metropolitans to the eastern seaboard” (Foresta, 1987).

3 4

8 10

Figure 2.3 Map of the Appalachian Trail Communities

1 Hanover, NH 2 Norwich, VT 3 Great Barrington, MA 4 Boiling Springs, PA 5 Harpers Ferry, WV 6 Pearisburg, VA 7 Damascus, VA 8 Erwin, TN 9 Hot Springs, NC 10 Franklin, NC 11 Hiawassee, GA

Although the full potential of his dream was not

It is estimated that nearly a million visitors travel to the

fullyAS met, there are elements that still exist today that TECHNOLOGY EVOLVED, THE CONNECTION

Appalachian Trail in one year, with over a thousand 1,500 STUDENTS TOOK WILDERNESS RELATED COURSES AT COLLEGES

show the true economic foresight MacKaye had back

attempting to hikePERSONAL the entire 2,180PROGRAMS miles in one trip, a 230 GROWTH

in 1921. Small towns such as Hanover, New Hampshire,

WILDERNESS THERAPY PROGRAMS feat that puts38 those who accomplish it in the record

Pearisburg, Virginia, Hot Springs, North Carolina, and

books (Appalachian Trail Conservancy, 2012).

BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE AND NATURE DEVOLVED.

many others sprung up along the trail (see Figure 2.3). These Appalachian Trail Communities, mandated by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, both participate in the protection of the trail through educational and volunteer programs, as well as provide food, water, shelter, and occasionally a much needed emotional lift, “REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF USE ON THE STANDARD

OVER A THOUSAND HIKERS ATTEMPT TO HIKE THE 2,180 MILES OF THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL PER YEAR

SITE BY A FACTOR OF(Chazin, TWO DECREASES for passing hikers 2012).VEGETATION LOSS BY A FACTOR OF FOUR”

Benton MacKaye was alive to see the completion - COLE 1992 of the Appalachian Trail, and although his intentions of

AN ESTIMATED 1 MILLION VISITORS HIKE SOME PORTION OF THE APPALACHIAN TRIAL PER YEAR

Figure 2.4 Popularity of the Appalachian Trail

social reform were quickly forgotten, the transformation into an icon of American recreation has already

Appalachian Trail Shelters: Disorganized

begun. Today, the Appalachian Trail is one of the more

Unity

predominate hiking trails in the Western Hemisphere,

Similar to the need for lodging in Yellowstone

ranking number 9 on Discovery Channels 10 best

Nation Park back in the 1870s which led to a policy

hiking spots in the United States (new.discovery.com)

mandating an architectural style, the Appalachian

Trail offered hikers a place to shelter along the trail.

of this thesis to understand why there is a need for the

However, unlike the architecture in Yellowstone, there

use of architectural techniques when designing hiking

was no government delegated “style” applied to

shelters.

these shelters. Instead, the construction responsibilities were spread out through thirty-one different volunteer services known as the Appalachian Trail Maintaining

Architecture’s Role in Wilderness

Clubs (Chazin, 2012). Back in 1939 when the Trail was

Management

completed, the dispersed responsibilities didn’t prove

It is now understood that the importance of

problematic because lack of technology required

nature plays a vital role in the overall context of society.

shelters to appear rustic, with little to no amenities

There is scientific evidence that nature can restore

added due to the isolation of construction sites.

psychological damage as well as boost economic

However, with the recent advancements in construction

growth in surrounding communities. Because public

material, design, these once rustic lean-tos now mimic

understanding of the benefits of nature has grown, more

small house-like structures. Many hikers feel this aesthetic

citizens travel to national wildlife refuges and national

diminishes the hiking experience. One of these hikers is

parks each year. Unfortunately, this has led to a higher

Dr. Jeff Marion, and he leads the movement towards

increase in wilderness damage. In essence we are loving

mandating guidelines for newly constructed shelters.

“America’s wilderness to death” (Cole & Benedict,

Before this thesis examines the specific guidelines that

1983). The increase of park visitation and overnight

Dr. Marion has designated for the location and design of

camping in the last couple of decades has led to vast

Appalachian Trail Shelters, it is important for the defense

amounts of irreversible damage. Although primarily

unintentional, this damage is a high threat and must be managed. The concept of Wilderness Management is a relatively new one. Although primarily unintentional, visitor damage is a high threat and must be managed. The idea of regulating the wild seems paradoxical, but as of recent history, government mandated policies have been put in place pushing the management of

“Section 2 (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and while (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially

wilderness to assure the protection of natural habitats.

unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude

While, only a portion of the Appalachian

or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has

Trail falls within areas defined as “wilderness” lands, sections within the Wilderness Act of 1964 should still be considered within this thesis. The majority of the Appalachian Trail is governed by the National Park Services (NPS), and these policies will be discussed in

at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value(Hendee & Dawson, 2009, pp. 495-497)

Elements within Wilderness Act Section 2(c) that

detail on the following pages. To begin, however, the

must be considered during the design process are first,

National Park Services refers to some policies with then

the definition of “wilderness area” is explained as “...

Wilderness Act, therefore The first policy applying to this

an area where the earth and its community of life are

thesis is presented as followed:

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor

who does not remain”. The response to this policy will be a design that is secondary to the environment, with

when essential for resource protection and preservation or to meet other specific wilderness management objectives. In keeping with the terms of the park’s wilderness

a near zero footprint that embodies the sensation of

management plan, campsite facilities may include a

man is no longer viewed as dominant being. The design

site marker, fire rings, tent sites, food storage devices,

will also reflect the policy by “retaining its primeval character and influence... [where] man’s work [should be] substantially unnoticeable... [with] outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation”. Within the National Parks Services Management

and toilets if these are determined by the superintendent to be the minimum facilities necessary for the health and safety of wilderness users or for the preservation of wilderness resources and values. Toilets will be placed only in locations where their presence and use will resolve health and sanitation problems or prevent serious resource impacts, especially where reducing or dispersing visitor use is impractical or has failed to alleviate the problems. Picnic tables will not be allowed in wilderness except in

Policies, 2006, section 6.3.10.3 refers to shelters and

those limited circumstances when they are necessary

campsites within national parks. Due to the nature of this

for resource protection and when documented and

thesis, this section directly applies to the overall success

approved through a minimum requirements analysis.” (U.S. Department of Interiors, 2006)

of the proposal. The policy is stated as followed: “The construction of new shelters for public use will generally not be allowed, in keeping with the values and character of wilderness. An existing shelter may be maintained or reconstructed only if the facility is necessary

The specifics within this section will be discussed in greater detail later in the design process. However, there are some vital elements that need to be

to achieve specific wilderness management objectives as

elaborated upon. The first is the statement that “The

identified in the park’s wilderness and cultural resources

construction of new shelters for the public will generally

management plans ... “Although the development of facilities to serve visitors will generally be avoided, campsites may be designated

not be allowed”. Due the large amount of parkland that the National Park Services governs, their policy must be

written in a general manner. However, the Appalachian

Dr. Jeff Marion and colleagues, in their studies, have

Trail is an exception to this rule. This is because, when the

noticed that if “campsites are not provided visitors will

trail was determined under NPS governance, shelters

often create them, often on side of the trail or in fragile

had already existed along the trail. Due to this, the

rather than resistant locations” (Marion J. L., 2003, p. 43)

inclusion of shelters within the trail has been allowed because it has been defined a part of the Appalachian Trail experience. Even though inclusion of shelters is allowed, the privilege should not be taken lightly and a convincing argument will still need to be made. The purpose of this thesis will be to develope that argument. The other important element to be found within section 6.3.10.3 is the phrase that “...campsites may be designated when essential for resource protection and preservation...” This element applies directly to the above statement that an argument will need to be defined in order to the proposed project to be considered a successful one. The aforementioned policies explain the need for

Therefore, could architecturally designed shelters, when dispersed throughout national parks and trails provide the solution? Would providing individuals a place to camp overnight, minimize soil compaction and erosion caused by visitor created campsites? The following pages explore that concept.

Arguing a Need for Architecturally Designed Hiking Shelters: Wilderness Protection As stated before, the growth of popularity has led to a greater destruction of natural elements found within the wilderness. A study in 1983 by Dr. David Cole and Jim Benedict looked at the impact of seedlings within

the protection of wilderness, and although the idea of

campsites within the Eagle Cap Wilderness located in

architecture providing the solution seems contradictory,

Oregon.

- LANG 2006

90%

95%

its original state, suggests Dr. Cole and Dr. Benedict. Soil erosion is caused by the compaction of soil to the point where it is unable to absorb moisture. This creates drier, smaller particles that are easily picked up in a rain storm. Vegetation slows down the process of erosion by absorbing moisture and containing small particles of

Figure 2.5 Destruction cause by human intervention IN A STUDY OF A CAMPGROUND IN EAGLE CAP WILDERNESS, OREGON:

He found that “90 percent of the tree seedlings and

“90% OF TREE SEEDLINGS AND A SIMILAR PERCENTAGE OF GROUND VEGETATION HAS BEEN a similar percentage the ground vegetation DESTROYED BYof TRAMPLING. OVER 95% OF THE had OVERSTORY TREES HAD BEEN DAMAGED BY PEOPLE COLLECTING FIREWOOD,Over AS WELL FROM of the been destroyed by trampling. 95 AS percent THOUGHTLESS MALICIOUS ACTS”

soil during a rainstorm. Humans are said to increase the process

“REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF USE ON THE STANDARD SITE BY A FACTOR OF TWO DECREASES VEGETATION of erosion LOSS anywhere from OF tenFOUR” to forty percent BY A FACTOR

- COLE 1992 more than natural processes (See Figure 2.6) (Lang,

2006).

overstory trees (trees that create canopy) -COLE the ANDforest BENEDICT 1983

well as from thoughtless or malicious acts” (See Figure 2.5) (Cole & Benedict, 1983). The study also suggests that one-third of mature trees were cut down for the various uses and the destruction of seedlings prohibits

UN-NATURAL CAUSES +10% to +40%

had been damaged by people collecting firewood, as

NATURAL PROCESS

PRIOR TO CIVILIZATION

AND NATURE LIVED the opportunity for MAN regrowth, thus campsites will “only SYMBIOTICALLY

remain forested until the present generation of trees dies” (Cole & Benedict, 1983). Campsites deteriorate very quickly, and can take around a decade to regain

HUMANS ARE SAID TO INCREASE THE PROCESS OF EROSION ANYWHERE FROM TEN TO FORTY PERCENT MORE THAN THE NATURAL PROCESS - LANG 2006

Figure 2.6 Destruction through natural versus human causes

Unfortunately, the recreational activity

visitors compact the soil through repeated circulation

of camping is one of the leading causes of soil

within the site, as well as compaction through sleeping

compaction. Dr. David Cole and Dr. Jim Benedict’s

atop the ground. The amount of impact is dependent

article, Coverups: How to pick a campsite you can

on the size of the group and it is estimated that “parties

leave without a trace, explains the elements a camper

of fewer than five persons are two to three times as

should look for when searching for a campsite location,

common as larger parties” (Cole & Benedict, 1983).

as well as methods for decreasing campsite impact

A tent’s floor areas ranges from 31 square feet

(see Figure 2.7) The most remarkable element of Cole

for 1 person tents, up to 100+ square feet for tents that

and Benedict’s research was the explanation of what

can sleep up 8 people (Coleman.com). Therefore,

separates a correct camp site from a damaged

if the average group of hikers ranges between 3-5

campsite. The visual elements are very similar, and only

people, then the approximated average tent floor

experienced campers would be able to notice the

area is 70 square feet. After adding on additional area

variances. This is where the role of architecture can play

for circulation and excluding the possibility of more

a difference. David Cole and Jim Benedict suggest the

than one tent within the group, the total surface area

“most intelligent options or minimizing campsite damage

impacted within a campsite can equal that of a small

[is to] convince people to camp over and over again

bedroom or approximately 100-120 square feet of

on the same small number of sites” (Cole & Benedict,

damage on any given campsite. When one assumes

1983). The design and distribution of shelters can help

multiple campsites within a camp ground, the amount

control the impact visitors have on surrounding areas by

of damage increases exponentially. This damage is

designating places to stay. When campsites are used,

irreversible and compounded by the addition of fire

Figure 2.7 Coverups: How to pick a campsite you can leave without a trace

rings (which get repeatedly used as trash cans), and the

collection of fire wood. Another study composed by Dr. David Cole researches the relationships between campsite structure, visitor use, and vegetation and soil impact. The study created a hypothetical “model” campsite with a

Figure 2.8 Campsite Study Results 1 “The standard model campsite, showing isopleths of trampling intensity and zones of vegetation cover. Campsite area is 1256 m2, vegetation loss is 29%, area of vegetation loss is 364 m2.”

circular configuration. The independent variables were the fact that “(1) all trampling occurs within walking back and forth between the center and perimeter of the site (2)all directions from the center are trampled equally, and (3) no more time is spent close to the center than at any other distance from the center “ (Cole, 1992). In the first model shown in Figure 2.8, one assumes that the level of trampling decreases by 50%

Figure 2.9 Campsite Study Results 2 “A campsite model identical to the standard, except all activities are confined to an area within 10 m of the camp site center. Campsite area is 314 m2, vegetation loss is 70%, area of vegetation loss is 220 m2.

as the distance from the center doubles since the area increases. The result is an area 1 meter from the center point which results in 200 tramples per year, 100 at a distance of 2 meters, 50 at a distance of 4 meters and so on. It is also assumed in this model that the campsite is covered in 75% vegetation, resulting in 25% reduction

Figure 2.10 Campsite Study Results 3 “A campsite model with all activities confined to an area within 10 m of the campsite center and with twice the amount of use of the standard. Campsite area is 314 m2, vegetation loss is 91%, area of vegetation loss is 286 m2.”

in vegetation cover through trampling. Using the model

and will not be used. Raising the sleeping platform off

designated by Dr. Cole, an area of 1256 square meters

the ground promotes vegetation growth which also

is affected, with complete vegetation loss in areas

decreases the level of soil compression.

receiving more than 200 tramples per year, or a total of 364 square meters removed by camping in total (Cole,

Guidelines for Locating and Designing A.T.

1992).

Shelters and Formal Campsites – Dr. Jeff Dr. Cole also developed two varying model

campsites, one decreasing the amount of tramples (visitor use) with the area of the site, and another by increasing the amount of vegetation within the campsite area. The Conclusions drawn from his studies are: “that reducing the amount of use on the standard site by a factor or two decreases vegetation loss by a factor of four” and “camping of a site with durable vegetation... [can] reduce vegetation loss” (Cole, 1992). As a result of Dr. Cole’s studies, it is clear that providing an architectural structure, roughly the same size as the usage area of a campsite, would minimize the erosion and vegetation loss by reducing the area of soil compaction and controlling which areas will

Marion Appalachian Trail Shelters are considered an integral part of the Appalachian Trail hiking experience. However, as stated earlier, the lack of a designated policy involving the design of the shelters has led to a mixture of designs throughout the trail. Within recent years, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy has begun to mandate a style concerning the construction of shelters, but this has created another shift, a phenomenon Dr. Marion refers to as “structure creep”, which in his own words describes: “a shift to more elaborate structures with added amenities… [that] cater to hiker comfort and convenience, and, while some hikers may welcome or request them, they serve no resource protection function… they transform the A.T. hiking experience from

one emphasizing self-reliance and intimate contact with nature to a ‘cabin camping‘ experience that is increasingly at odds with the Trail community’s definition of the ‘Appalachian Trail Experience’ ” (Marion J. L., 2007).

2.12). The Appalachian Trail Experience that professor Marion aims to protect states: “The sum of opportunities that are available for those walking on the Appalachian Trail [include the ability]

Structures such as the Jim and Molly Denton Shelter,also are the type of hiking shelters Marion and others are arguing against. Marion states that having a few of these amenity laden shelters could prove to be beneficial, however the worry is that this style of shelter will become the new ‘normal’, which will gradually change the identity of the Appalachian Trial and the

Figure 2.11 Outerbridge Shelter

Appalachian Trail Experience (see Figures 2.11 through

to interact with the wild, scenic, pastoral, cultural, and natural elements of the environment of the Appalachian Trail, unfettered and unimpeded by competing sights or sounds, and in as direct and intimate a manner as possible. Integral to this Trail Experience are [the] opportunities for observation, contemplation, enjoyment, and exploration of the natural world; a sense of being on the height of the land; a feeling of being part of the natural environment; …and opportunities for travel on foot, including opportunities for long-distance hiking.”

Figure 2.12 Mountaineer Falls Shelter

Figure 2.13 Jim and Molly Denton Shelter

(Marion J. L., 2007).

the design of the Appalachian Trail Shelter proposed

Concepts such as “unfettered and unimpeded by

within this thesis and are described and elaborated on

competing sights or sounds” and “as direct and intimate

as followed:

a manner as possible” are qualities that are affected by the design of structures like the Jim and Molly Denton Shelter What makes these shelters stand out when

Shelter and Formal Campsite Capacity Minimize crowding and conflicts: In 2000, Chad

compared to other hiking shelters are their size aesthetic

P. Dawson and Alan E. Watson composed a study on

appearance which reduce man’s intimate relationship

measuring perceived crowding in relationship to visitor

with nature. Large carrying capacities impede on

satisfaction in a wilderness setting. In Chapter One, it

man’s intimacy with nature and materials such as

was discussed how people venture to the wilderness

typical house siding causes the structure to interfere

for solitude, that even a group of five or more people

with the visual properties of the natural surroundings

can experience solitude in what is known as “selective

. Some shelters are able to sleep up to thirty people,

solitude”. Unfortunately hiking shelters along the

thus overcrowding becomes common and “the sights,

Appalachian Trail serve visitors in a first come first serve

sounds, and smells of people replace the sight, sounds,

manner, and is only limited to how many people can

and smells of nature” (Marion J. L., 2006). In order to

cram into the tiny structures. The study by Dawson and

regulate the construction of these new and improved

Watson explains that “when user expectations are

shelters, Dr. Marion and his colleges, established a series

exceeded, users feel more crowded. Satisfaction is

of guidelines that future shelter designs should abide by.

partially influenced by perception of crowding, usually

The following guidelines will provide the framework for

with some negative affection of satisfaction, particularly

when crowding is perceived as moderately to extremely

visitors will relocate outside around shelters, creating

crowded… [and] that satisfaction and perceptions of

new campsites that eventually, if use is continued, will

crowding are [directly] related” (Chad P. Dawson, 2000).

lead to erosion. Dr. Marion states within the guidelines

Dawson and Watson’s conclusions become important

that a well-designed formal camping area should

for shelter design because the larger the capacity, the

be considered before constructing a shelter unless

greater the crowding, the lower the visitor satisfaction,

justification is stated. It is the intention of this thesis to

which infringes of the Appalachian Trail Experience goal

provide that justification.

of “unfettered and unimpeded” experience mentioned earlier. To resolve the potential for overcrowding, Marion suggests a limit of a fifteen person capacity in the most desolate areas, and no more than a thirty five person limit in areas that are heavily traversed. Or, the capacity can be calculated at one person for every fifteen square feet (Marion J. L., 2006). Accommodate expanding overnight visitation: Earlier in this chapter the negative implications campsites have on erosion were discussed. One of the best ways to prevent the creation of future campsites is to designate a place for visitors to stay. However, in many cases, when shelters are filled to their capacity,

Shelter and Formal Campsite Location Close proximity to clean source of water: When locating a site for a newly constructed shelter there are many elements that must be accounted for in order to provide the best experience for passing hikers. The first of these elements is the shelters proximity to a clean source of water. However, close is a relative term, because it is important for sanitary reason that a shelter is no closer than 200 feet from a clean source of water (Guidance for Locating). According the guidelines, “A permanent source of clean water is a nearly essential requirement. The highest mid-slope location within a drainage that retains flowing water during drought periods is best”

(Marion J. L., 2007). This is a necessity for the health and

motorized access. When hiking the trail, or camping at

safety of the hiker by providing them with a dependable

a shelter, it is important to the experience that complete

source of water. However, locating a structure too close

solitude is felt. If a shelter was located directly along a

to water can potentially pollute the water source, or

trail, hikers would have other hikers passing through their

even create a safety hazard depending on the size and

campsites at any point during the day. This can be both

water current of the body of water.

a safety hazard as well as impede on privacy, resulting

Remote from motorized access: Referring back

in lower visitor satisfaction. Most of the current shelters

to the phrase “unfettered and unimpeded” of the

utilize a side trail or “spur trail” which are alternate

Appalachian Trail Experience, the location of a shelter

routes, dead end, and routes that lead travelers off the

away from motorized access allows for complete

Appalachian Trail to shelters or vistas. These trails can

separation from civilization. This prevents any unwanted

be anywhere from a few hundred feet to many miles,

noise produced by motorized vehicles, as well as

depending on the location and topography of the

averts any possible use of vehicles along the trail. The

landscape.

recommended distance is two miles from any road

Mid-slope position: Constructing shelters in mid-

which deters the shelter from being use by non-hikers,

slope positions helps prevent erosion as well as controls

weekend parties, and/or squatters (Marion J. L., 2007).

campsite expansion (see Figure 2.15). Mid-slope or side

Out-of-sight from the A.T.: This recommendation,

hill construction helps with erosion because it allows for

at first, appears contradictory. However, the reason

water to flow continuously. Locating a site in a valley

for locating a structure out of view of the Appalachian

or flat ground subjects the shelter to flooding and

Trail is similar to the purpose of locating it away from

saturated sleeping platforms. In contrast, locating a

shelter at the top of a mountain or along a ridge makes

Protective of visitor safety and sensitive natural

the site prone to lightning strikes. Mid-slope positions

or cultural resources: It is imperative when locating

also benefit by confining foot traffic to the designated

and designing a shelter that visitor safety is the number

trail. According to Dr. Marionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Camping Impact

one priority. The second essential is the protection of

Management on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail,

natural and cultural resources. When Robert Reamer first

the average campsite slope is a 3-4% grade (Marion J.

designed the Old Fashion Inn, it was crucial for him to

L., 2003, p. 96). However, if a shelter could utilize correct

maintain the spirit of the innâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s natural surroundings, and

engineering, giving it the ability to adapt to slopes of up

that fact remains important when designing todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

to 70% grade, then the benefits of mid-slope position will

shelters, for aesthetic and environmental reasons.

increase. It is the purpose of this thesis to explore that

Site Design

option. Trampling resistant and expansion proof: The

Prevent erosion: It has been proven that there is a clear link between visitor overuse and soil erosion,

topic of utilizing a shelter to prevent vegetation

therefore a shelter design elevated above ground

trampling is one that has been discussed in earlier

plane, can prevent future soil erosion. Other ways

sections of this chapter. That being said, the proposal

of avoiding visitor impact can be achieved through

of designing a shelter in high-slope conditions would

proper site design, as well as structure design. One

both eliminate trampling by restraining foot traffic to

way to protect the surrounding natural elements

a designated trail, as well as not providing options for

is to design a trail that avoids potential problems

expansion of campsites. This topic will be discussed

involving user created shortcuts (see Figure 2.14). The

repeatedly through this, and the next few chapters.

book Appalachian Trail: Design, Construction, and

Maintenance by William Birchard Jr. suggests that “if a

site layout can be achieved by the distancing

hiker can see or hear use at the shelter, and the terrain

neighboring shelters. Referring back the phrase found

is open, he/she will shortcut. The distance, X, must be

in the Appalachian Trail Experience policy, locating

great and rugged enough so that the easiest access is

neighboring shelters out of visual and auditory levels, it

on established trails (Y,Z). X should be at least 500 feet

will provide the visitors an experience that is “unfettered

[in length] unless rugged terrain limits hiking” (William Birchard, 2000). This is a fact that needs to be taken into

and unimpeded by competing sights or sounds, and in as direct and intimate a manner as possible”. The

account when planning out the hiker circulation to and from the proposed project. Protect water sources: As mentioned under the Shelter and Formal Campsite Location, the minimum

distance allowed between shelter and clean source of water is 200 feet. This section deals with designing and directing traffic to and from the aforementioned body of water. It is ideal to direct traffic to a body of water through already created trails, if that option is not available, applying the mid-slope design principal to

Figure 2.14 Avoiding Man Made Trails

trail design will limit erosion cause by rain runoff, as well

1. Shelters located in visual sight of the Appalachian Trail will encourage user created paths, resulting in higher erosion.

as confine foot traffic to the designated trail. Promote solitude: Promoting solitude through

2. Vegetations, rough terrain, or long enough trail will enough a confined route preventing any possible user created shortcuts.

minimum distance recommended is 30 yards (Guidance

for Locating). Promote visitor safety: Since Appalachian Trail shelters are minimalistic and rustic in their design, the understanding of daily and seasonal weather patterns is vital for the protection of visitor safety. Decisions such as orienting shelters away from prevailing winter winds or providing large overhangs to keep hikers out of the sun and rain are just some of the design designs that

Shelter/Campsite Design Emphasize primitive, rustic qualities: It is important to the Appalachian Trail that any artificial element constructed on the trail appears as natural as possible, therefore the use of unmilled timber as opposed to dimensional lumber is encourage. Another technique is cyclopean style stonework (see page 4). When traditional methods such as concrete footers are needed it is recommended to conceal with other

Figure 2.15 Diagram explaining mid-slope construction

promote higher visitor safety.

natural elements. A more in depth study of past and

up to 32 miles apart hiking shelters need to be self-

present structures abiding by this principal will be

sustaining (Chazin, 2012). Some methods for achieving

presented in future chapters.

low maintenance, high lifespan buildings found within

Emphasize resource protection in shelter design and facilities: To adhere to the Appalachian Trail Experience policy, it is important to use as little material as possible when constructing a shelter. When materials are used, emphasize local and found resources. It is recommended that “shelter designs and associated facilities should be reduced to the absolute minimum required for resource protection” (Marion J. L., 2007). However, complex site locations might require more structural engineering. It will be the intention of this thesis to find a harmony between the two contrasting construction techniques. Maximize lifespan and minimize maintenance:

the guidelines are: “[p]provide separation between the ground and wood, and use pressure-treated lumber. In the south, use metal flashing at key places as a termite barrier. Provide adequate overhangs to keep wood sides dry and overlap roofing to prevent rot in supporting wood. Slope the land uphill from the shelter to divert water flow around the shelter area and install broad and deep drainage channels armored with rock to capture and divert roof water” (Marion J. L., 2007).

Also, the Appalachian Trail relies heavily on volunteers for upkeep, thus the Appalachian Trail shelter proposed in this thesis will need to instill a low maintenance, selfsustaining design. Minimize fire danger: Advances in camping equipment has made cooking by campfire nearly

The remote locations of the shelters prevent the ability

obsolete. A study done by Neal A. Christensen and

for regular maintenance. Since the minimum proximity

David N. Cole looked at the use of campfires in national

to a road crossing is 2 miles and the hiking distances

parks in the northwest. They explored the relationship

between shelters range from as little 1 mile and some

between visitor tendencies and campfire use. They

found that “larger groups and groups on long trips were

open fire. Nearly a half century ago, campfires were the

more likely to have fires, as were less experienced users

only methods of cooking, thus fire pits were designed

and users who did not feel strongly about being alone

throughout campsites and shelter sites nationwide.

or were less sensitive to social and ecological impacts”

However, with the emergence of “backpack stoves”

(Christensen & Cole, 2000). Their research concluded

campfires have become purely recreational, and

that the majority of campfires were for enjoyment

fire pits are now being used as places to stash litter.

purposes only, since most groups carry a travel stove

Constructing metal fire rings with a grate is a potential

and prefer cooking over a stove as opposed to an

compromise that would allow for small enjoyment fires while preventing visitors from collecting large amounts of

Figure 2.16 Diagram explaining user created short cuts

firewood which minimizes visitor use impact. Minimize use of tent platforms: Tent platforms are considered “less natural, expensive, and require sustained maintenance” (Marion J. L., 2007). Tent platforms also can be problematic when it comes to securing a tent. As mentioned before, the floor area of a tent ranges from a multitude of sizes, and since tents are made of very light weight material, it is necessary to anchor the tent to the ground. Tent Platforms are to not provide the necessary flexibility to provide a secure anchor point. However, the essence of a tent platform

could become element incorporated within the

concerns because of the large amounts of toxins and

Appalachian Trail Shelter proposed in this thesis.

bacteria. That being said, there are methods in place

Ensure food protection from wildlife: One of

today that deal with the proper disposal of human

the largest problems shelters have today is rodent

waste. Each method has its advantages and setbacks.

infestation. With the recent rise of the Hantavirus cases

The “cat hole” method is the most commonly used

in Yosemite National Park mentioned earlier, the ability

method, it allows for complete isolation yet takes the

to keep rodents out of shelters have become a major

most time for decomposition. Another similar method

priority. Unfortunately, the rustic qualities of most existing

is the group trench latrine, which utilized a technique

structures make it nearly impossible to prevent the

similar to the “cat hole” method but applied to a larger

invasion of rodents. Other wildlife that threaten hiker

quantity. The most environmentally friendly method is

safety include snakes, bobcats, and bears. To prevent

the pack-out method. Devices have been created to

any conflicts with big or small animals, metal storage

make this method a little less unpleasant, however many

containers can be used as well as pulley systems to hoist

hikers refuse to apply this method. Other, less personal

food above the reach of any wildlife.

methods include incineration and containers that are removed periodically by way of helicopter (Lachapelle,

Sanitation Be located in well-drained soils: Privies, or out-

2000). Although this is an unpleasant factor to consider in the design, it poses a large health hazard and must

houses, are not a common amenity found with most

be taken seriously. Any privy located on the site must be

shelters. However, if a privy is provided, it should be

a minimum of 200 feet from all water sources, as well as

located in area that does not impact human and

a good distance away from the trail and other shelters in

wildlife safety. Human waste is one of the largest

the region.

Follow applicable state and ATC guidance: There

performance in relation to global warming and

are many guidelines required by the ATC on proper

sustainability. Analysis is done about how the building

sanitation methods. Although this thesis will not go into

performs and the emissions created during the

great detail on the specific guidelines, the final proposal

construction process. However, there is little focus on

will meet all the necessary requirements discussed thus

the building’s structural impact on its site, and more

far.

specifically the destruction caused from a building’s footprint. Creating a more harmonious relationship

Visitor Use Management Avoid or minimize resource and social impacts:

between a building’s foundation and the site it sits on can reduce unnecessary destruction of natural

Research has shown that education is the greatest way

elements. Although this thesis focuses specifically within

to avoid or minimize resource and social impacts along

the Appalachian Trail, it is plausible to conclude that if a

the Appalachian Trails. Most of the education provided

low impact design can be achieved within the extreme

is found via online resources or training programs. It is the

site challenges found along the Appalachian Trail, then

intention of this thesis to benefit from as well as add to

applying these methods to less confining locations will

the educational recourses, to promote a safer and less

encourage a new focus in sustainable architecture.

invasive wildlife experience.

Arguing a Need for Architecturally Designed Hiking Shelters: Small structures – Big Picture Currently, in the architectural profession, there is a strong focus on the study of a building’s

Chapter 3 Part 1: Understanding the User

Introduction:

However, as different as these hikers are, they all share

one common characteristic that will eventually play a

As mentioned previously in Chapter Two, due to

the Appalachian Trailâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s great length, the responsibilities

large role in the shaping of the Appalachian Trail Shelter

of maintaining the trail were spread out between thirty-

proposed in this thesis: their desire to experience nature

one different clubs located throughout the surrounding

in a way that can only be found through hiking.

states (A.T. Data Book). These organizations are made

up of volunteer hikers, ex-hikers, and general nature

that hike the Appalachian Trail, a survey was developed

enthusiasts who donate their time and money into

and distributed throughout a series of very popular

keeping the Appalachian Trail experience as natural

online hiking forums: whiteblaze.net, trailforums.com,

and authentic as possible. It is therefore necessary, prior

hikingforums.net, and trailplace.com. Of the four

to introducing an addition to the Appalachian Trail, to

websites, whiteblaze.net offered the most feedback

understand the culture of the potential user.

on the survey, and therefore, will be the primary source

To help better understand the men and women

referenced when discussing statistics and trends

Understanding the User: The Survey

concluded through the survey. The sample size of the

The community of hikers who have, are, and will hike

survey consists of 76 responses, 79% of which were male

the Appalachian Trail is a tightly woven, yet widely

and 21% were female. It is important here to note that

dispersed group of people. Hikers travel from all over the

the conclusions drawn through this survey only constitute

world to embark on the journey that is the Appalachian

for hikers that are members of the online forums, and

Trail. Each hiker has a different motive, unique skill sets,

the trends do not necessarily correlate to all hikers

and experiences the trail in their own personal way.

associated with the Appalachian Trail. In other words, to

conclude that 76% men completed the survey suggests

that 76% of all hikers are also men, is not an accurate conclusion. However, although the sample size is limited, the information gathered does draw important conclusions that will shape the final proposal of the Appalachian Trail Shelter which will be discussed later in this chapter. The structure of the survey was divided

Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey The following survey is for educational purposes only

General Information: What is your age? 17 or younger 18-30 31-50 51+

into five categories; general information, equipment survey, existing shelter survey, future shelter survey, and other comments. The actually survey is shown in

What is your gender? Female Male How long ago did you hike the Appalachian Trail? More than 5 years ago Less than 5 years ago I am a regular hiker

figures 3.1.1 through 3.1.5, and the survey questions and

What time of year did you hike the Appalachian Trail? (Check all that apply) Summer

the reasoning behind them described in detail on the following pages.

Fall Winter Spring What is the size of the group you hiked with? (Check all that apply) I hike alone 1-2 other people 3-4 other people 5+ other people What best describes your hike(s)? (Check all that apply) Thru-hike Section hike Weekend hike Day hike Other

Figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2021; 3.1.1 Page 1 of 5 of the Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey

Equipment Survey: What were your methods of navigating the trail? (Check all that apply) Hand held GPS

Existing Shelter Survey: Rate the overall construction quality of Appalachian Trail Shelters.

Cell phone GPS

Needs Repair

Map and Compass

Poor

Other

Neutral

Did you stay overnight along the Appalachian Trail? Yes (continue to next question) No (please skip to next section) If yes, what were your means for shelter? (Check all that apply) Tent Trail Shelter Nearby Hotel or Hostel Other How many nights did you stay? (Check all that apply) 1-3 nights 4-10 nights 10+ nights What were your methods for cooking? (Check all that apply) Campfire with gathered firewood

Satisfactory Excellent Conditions Have you experienced overcrowding while staying in a shelter? I do not stay in shelters Yes No Do you feel overcrowding is a major concern and should be addressed? I do not stay in shelters Yes No Have you experienced problems with animals while staying in a shelter? No Yes (Please list the animals you have experienced problems with) Rate the overall level of comfort of existing Appalachian Trail Shelters.

Travel stove

Uncomfortable

Other

Satisfactory

If you traveled in a group, did you pack more than one tent?

List the most common issues with the existing trail shelters. (Optional)

yes no I hike alone

List the names or locations of the higher quality trail shelters. (Optional)

We do not pack tents If a tent was packed, what was the estimated weight of your tent? I do not pack a tent

List the names or locations of the lower quality trail shelters. (Optional)

1-3 pounds 4-6 pounds 7-10 pounds 10+ pounds

Figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2021; 3.1.3 Page 2 of 5 of the Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey

Future Shelter Survey:

Figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2021; 3.1.2 Page 3 of 5 of the Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey

Do you have future plans of hiking the Appalachian Trail again? Rate the following amenities by how strongly you agree or disagree with their addition in future Appalachian Trail Shelters. Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Yes No Please feel free to add any additional comments related to the Appalachian Trail Shelters.

Electric Lighting Heating / Air Conditioning

Thank you for your time

Electric Outlets

Disclaimer:

Heated Running Water

The author of this survey is a graduate student of architecture at the Savannah College of Art and Design. The information provided within this survey will benefit a thesis focused on the design and improvements of future Appalachian Trail Shelters. The information provided is for educational purposes only, and the author thanks you for your time in completing the following fields.

Gas or Electric Stoves Lavatories Emergency Phones

I agree to give the author of this survey permission to use the information provided for educational purposes only

Other amenities you would like to see added in future Appalachian Trail Shelter Designs. (Optional)

Other Comments (Optional): What attracted you to the Appalachian Trail? (Check all that apply) Recreation Scenery Education Scientific Studies Physical Challenge Social Interaction Tradition Other

Figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2021; 3.1.5 Page 4 of 5 of the Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey

Figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2021; 3.1.4 Page 5 of 5 of the Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey

General Information:

they might hike from Georgia to North Carolina one year, then North Carolina to Virginia the next year, and so on. The third and

Age and Gender: The intention of this question was to discover

fourth types of hikers are the Weekend and Day hikers, these

if there is any variance between gender and perceived hiking

hikers are not committed to completing the entire trail, instead

experience.

they hike purely for the recreational experience. Day hikers do not stay overnight in shelters and therefore their information was

Regular Hiker or Occasional Hiker: This question tests the

discarded when calculating statistics involving overnight stays.

hypothesis that the occasional hiker might view shelters differently

For the purpose of this thesis, it was important to section out the

than hikers that venture the trail on a regular basis. Regular hikers

type of hiker because it is hypothesized that shelter design might

are those who have hiked multiple times within the past five

differ depending on the type of hiker.

years, and also have future plans of hiking. The occasional hiker is on who has hiked only a handful of times, and their future plans for hiking vary from hiker to hiker.

Equipment Survey:

Season: Understanding the trend of when hikers hike the

Method of Navigation: With the rise in technology, it was

Appalachian Trail will play a large role in the design of the

important to find out the mode of navigation used so shelters

proposed shelter.

can adapt accordingly, the different methods include hand held GPS, cellphone GPS, tradition map and compass, or other means

Size of Group: Similarly, determining trends in hiker group size will

of navigation.

formulate the capacity the proposed shelter must meet. Type of Shelter: Although this thesis involves the construction of a Type of hike: There are four methods for hiking the Appalachian

trail shelter, it was important to find out the percentage of hikers

Trail, Thru-hike, Section hike, Weekend Hike, Day Hike. The

that use tents, stay in hotel or hostel, or use some other form of

unit that determines the difference in hikes is based on the

overnight accommodation other than trail shelters.

commitment level of the hiker. Thru-hikers are those who hike the entire 2,180 miles in one continuous hike, thus committing to

Cooking Method: As mentioned in Chapter Two, the destructive

finishing the entire trail. Section hikers are those who commit to

qualities a campfire has on its surrounding environment are great.

hiking the entire 2,180 miles, yet do so in sections. In other words,

A survey by Neal Christensen and David Cole was composed

between 1990 and 1992 in which “the majority of people…

not they felt it was a major concern. It is a bit counter intuitive

reported using (and preferred using) stoves for cooking….

to imagine that someone experiencing overcrowding might not

[and] at least 50% of people had at least one wood fire on their

feel it is a factor that should be addressed, because in society,

trip” (Leave no trace Practices). This question was added to

we associate overcrowding with discomfort. The purpose of this

determine if that trend was still relevant, and if so, the proposed

question was to find out if these perceptions still remain true in the

shelter would have to adapt accordingly.

wilderness experience.

Tent Weight: The purpose of this question was to determine the

Problems with Animals: In Chapter Two, it was mentioned that

average weight of a backpacking tent. While this question does

mice pose a great threat on hiker safety. With a rise in Hantavirus

not related directly to the proposed construction of the hiking

cases, shelters will need to adapt and become less accessible

shelter, the information provided further intensifies the argument

to rodent. Therefore, purpose of this question was to discover

that as tents have gotten lighter, they are being used more often,

if rodent infestation if a common element found within hiking

which in turn, has created larger visitor impact on the surrounding

shelters.

environment (a concept discussed earlier in Chapter Two). Overall Comfort Level of Shelters: Unlike the question addressing the construction quality of shelters, this question addressed

Existing Shelter Survey:

perceived levels of comfort found when staying in an existing shelter. The perception of comfort is a complex element,

Quality of Existing Shelters: To develop an argument that shelter

therefore if the majority of hikers found existing shelters to be

design must be addressed, it was important to understand the

uncomfortable, additional studies as to why that is and how the

hiker’s perception of existing shelters along the trail. Later in this

proposed shelter might adapt.

chapter, it will be discussed how the findings associated with this

Future Shelter Survey:

question has evolved the focus of this thesis. Amenity Addition Survey: This section of the survey asked the Experienced Overcrowding and Overcrowding Concern: While

participants to rate seven different amenities by how strongly

these two questions seem redundant, for the purpose of this thesis

they agree or disagree with their addition into future hiking

it was important to distinguish between whether or not hikers

shelters. The amenities provided were: electric lighting, heating

have experienced overcrowding within shelters, and whether or

and air-conditioning, electric outlets, heated running water, gas

or electric stoves, lavatories, and emergency phones. The results

Overall Statistics:

gathered from this section of the survey will provide the most influence towards the final design.

General Information: Age and Gender: (Result: 76% men, 24% women) As mentioned

Other Comments:

earlier, this statistic can be misleading because it only represents the percentage of the people who filled out the survey. However

Reason for Hiking and Plans for Future Hiking: While this section

understanding trends between men and women does become a factor later in the statistics.

does not relate directly to the construction of the proposed shelter, the information gathered does provide important

Season: (Results: see Figure 3.1.7) Conclusions drawn from

information on the hiker culture. Trends as to why hikers hike, and

the statistics shown in Figure 3.1.7 explain that, although the

whether or not they will hike again, provides understanding of

Appalachian Trail is hiked primarily during the spring, summer,

hiker priority and the proposed shelter will adapt accordingly to those priorities.

and fall seasons, there is enough hikers that travel in the winter season, thus concluding that the proposed hiker shelter must accommodate both hot and cold climates. The potential ability to have the shelter adapt, through either adjustable walls or

Understanding the User: The Results

To understand the results correctly, the

statistics were divided into two sections: [1] a section

other methods will be investigated in later chapters. It is important to note that, due to the length of section and thru-hikes, the time period might span multiple seasons, thus each percentage should be read as a comparison to the 76 submitted responses.

representing major trends found within all participants

Size of Group: (Results: see Figure 3.1.6) Mentioned earlier, this

and [2] a section separating the results by the types of

capacity of the proposed shelter. The results shown in Figure 3.1.6

hikes; Thru-Hikes, Section Hikes, and Recreational Hikes (a combination of Weekend and Day hikes).

statistic will eventually become a guide line for the available explain that the majority of hikers travel in groups of four and under. It is important to note that, because hikers hike multiple times in different group sizes, the percentages should be taken

technologies. 41%

80%

84%

80%

41%

80%

84%

80%

WINTER

SPRING

SUMMER

Type of Shelter: (Results: Tent 88%, Trail Shelter 79%, Hostel or Hotel 41%, Other 14%) The information collected from this section of the

FALLL

survey concludes that the primary form of overnight camping is

Figure 3.1.7 Diagram explaining the percentage of hiker activWINTER SPRING SUMMER FALLL ity per season 60%

58%

25%

14%

60%

58%

25%

14%

SOLO HIKER

1-2 OTHER HIKERS

3-4 OTHER HIKERS

5+ OTHER HIKERS

SOLO HIKER

1-2 OTHER HIKERS

3-4 OTHER HIKERS

5+ OTHER HIKERS

done so with a tent. In Chapter 2, it was discussed how camping in a tent produces a negative impact on the surrounding environment and the statistics gather give a greater reason for the need of architecturally designed shelters.

Method of Cooking: (Results: see Figure 3.1.8) Discussed earlier in this chapter, the importance of this section of the survey was to

Figure 3.1.6 Diagram explaining group size tendency for hikers hiking the Appalachian Trail 12%

26%

determine if the trend discovered in the 1992 survey developed

61%

by Christensen and Cole still applies today. It is concluded by POOR 12%

NEUTRAL 26%

the 80% of people that cook by methods other than campfire,

SATISFACTORY 61%

and the trend in 1992 still applies in present day. Therefore when

as an POOR individual element, similar toSATISFACTORY the seasonal percentages. In NEUTRAL

designing the proposed shelter, the area designated for a

other words, Hiker A might have hiked one year in a group of 1-2

campfire does not need to be large. In contrast, an area needs

other people, while also hiking solo in a different year. 72%

to be provided for cooking by travel stove or other means.

28%

72% MORE THAN LESS THAN Equipment Survey: 3LBS

MORE THAN Method 3LBS of

80%

Tent Weight: (Results: see Figure 3.1.9) The results from this survey

3LBS

28%

LESS THAN Navigation: 3LBS

15%

(Results: Hand Held GPS 5%, Cell Phone 83%

36%

80%

36%

GPS 6%, Map and Compass 62%, Other 51%) As mentioned earlier the results of this survey were 83% to determine adapting80% to the rise 36% 80% 15% 36% in technology such as GPS devices would be necessary, since RECREATION

EDUCATION

the percentage of hikers

PHYSICAL SOCIAL SCENERY TRADITION CHALLENGE INTERACTION that use electronic devices is minimal,

there is no need to adapt the shelter to accommodate these RECREATION

20%

EDUCATION

80%

PHYSICAL CHALLENGE

SOCIAL INTERACTION

SCENERY

TRADITION

portray the fact that tent manufacturing has greatly reduced 16%

the weight of tent design. In a sport where one’s life is carried by pack and one “will break off the handle to your toothbrush just

16% OTHER

OTHER

to save the weight” (interview with hiker), providing a lightweight solution for the common portable shelter allows for more hikers to utilize the tent camping method. According to Dr. Marion “the substantial growth in A.T. hiking and the development of

WINTER

60%

SPRING

SUMMER

58%

FALLL

25%

14%

lightweight... tents means that more folks are using tents now

proposed hiking shelter will mimic existing shelters and embody

as well [as staying in shelter].... [and that] increasing camping

all the characteristics, but do so in a new light that will both

demand over1-2time by equal increases in5+shelter SOLO OTHERwill not be met 3-4 OTHER OTHER

protect the surrounding environment (through confining camping

capacities... [t]he increasing demand will instead be met

to a specific location) and maintain the rustic experience (a

HIKER

HIKERS

by increasing camping by other means” (Marion). When this

conclusion drawn from statistics that will be discussed later).

statement is compared to the conclusions drawn from the survey, It is plausible to predict that tent camping41% will increase, meaning 80% 12%

26%

Other Comments Survey: 80%

84%

61%

a greater need for a architecturally designed shelters. POOR

NEUTRAL

Reason for Hiking and Plans for Future Hiking: (Results: see Figure

SATISFACTORY

Existing Shelter Survey:

WINTER

SUMMER3.1.11)

SPRING

The results FALLL of this section in the survey portray the variety of

reasons hikers travel to the Appalachian Trail. Hikers will travel the Quality of Existing Shelters: (Results: see Figure 3.1.10) The results 60%

58%

trail for recreational purposes, the physical challenge, and the

25%

14%

72% of this survey are pivotal for the purpose of this thesis. It was

scenery. However, it is important to realize that only 36% of the 76

28% hypothesized that the conditions of hiking shelters was the

submittals hike the trail as a social experience, this relates back to

MORE THAN THAN leading factor inLESS why hikers preferred in SOLO tents. After1-2 discovering OTHER 3LBS 3LBS HIKER

that the original hypothesis was incorrect, and that existing trail shelters are generally perceived to be of satisfactory condition, 80%

15%

83%

36%

80%

the focus of this thesis switched from developing a new shelter language to improving on the styles that already exist, with 12%

20%

EDUCATION

PHYSICAL CHALLENGE

POOR SOCIAL INTERACTION

SCENERY

NEUTRAL TRADITION

Following pages represent the sections involving

statistics divided by specific details. It is important to

SATISFACTORY OTHER

the survey in order to reveal trends that occur based on hiker characteristics. Understanding these divisions will explain as to why these trends occur. Because

28%

Figure 3.1.8 Cooking Method

accordingly.

categorize the information found within sections of

80%

OTHER

16%

61%The

26%

72%

CAMPFIRE

HIKERS

“selective solitude”. This statistic explains that hiking should be a intimate experience, thus the proposed shelter will have to adapt

36%

a focus on techniques in constructability. In other words, the RECREATION

the topic mentioned in both Chapter One and Chapter Two of 5+ OTHER

3-4 OTHER HIKERS

HIKERS

MORE THAN 3LBS

LESS THAN 3LBS

the sample decreased per category, the number of

Figure 3.1.9 Tent Weight 80%

15%

responses is represented over percentages. 83%

36%

80%

36%

16%

SOLO HIKER

1-2 OTHER SOLO HIKERS

OTHER 1-23-4 OTHER HIKERS HIKERS

HIKER

OTHER 3-45+ OTHER HIKERS HIKERS

5+ OTHER HIKERS

design for every type of hiker, understanding trends that occur 12%

26%

12%

POOR

within these categories becomes important when designing

61%

26%

NEUTRAL

POOR

the proposed shelter. It was also important to understand the

61%

SATISFACTORY

NEUTRAL

demographics per type of hiker. For example, in Figure 3.1.12, the largest group of hikers that stay in shelters are hikers over the age

SATISFACTORY

Figure 3.1.10 Diagram explaining the percentage of hiker activity per season 72%

of 50, regular section hikers, with 20 total submittals. Conclusions drawn from this statistic will be investigated in future chapters.

28% MORE THAN 3LBS

2 80%

LESS THAN 3LBS

28%

15%

83%

MORE THAN 3LBS

RECREATION

EDUCATION

80%

Type of Shelter: Unlike the results applied to overall participants,

72%

3 36%

this section was reduced to a yes or no variable. If a hiker

80%

36%

16%

stayed overnight in a shelter, he or she was placed in the yes

LESS THAN 3LBS

PHYSICAL CHALLENGE

category, and vice versa. This statistic became important when

SOCIAL INTERACTION

15%

SCENERY

TRADITION

83%

categorizing other statistics. Since the focus of this thesis is on

OTHER

36%

80%

Figure 3.1.11 Diagram explaining the percentage of hiker activity per season 20%

80%

RECREATION OTHER

hikers do or do not stay in shelters, the only way to express that was by categorizing hikers into these two categories. The results

EDUCATION

Categorized Statistics: CAMPFIRE

it was the intentions of this survey to determine why 36% hiking shelters, 16%

PHYSICAL CHALLENGE

SOCIAL INTERACTION

SCENERY

20% 80% General Information: (Figure 3.1.12 - 3.1.14)

Type of hike: (Results: Thru-Hike 23%, Section Hike 75%, OTHER RecreationalCAMPFIRE Hike 47%) Similar to the age and gender statistics,

shown in Figures 3.1.12 - 3.1.14 explain the demographics of those

TRADITION

OTHER

who do and do not stay in shelters, while the results expressed in Figures 3.1.12 - 3.1.14 represent the common issues found within existing shelters. The conclusion from the latter results will be discussed later in this chapter.

Regular Hiker or Occasional Hiker: (Results: see Figures 3.1.12 3.1.13) The purpose of this section was to categorize hikers by

the results of this survey can be misleading because they only

their frequency of visits to the Appalachian Trail. This category

represent the 76 total submittals and do not embody all those

plays a larger role in the statistics in results expressed later

who hike the Appalachian Trail, therefore the information was

involving opinions of additions to future shelters.

divided up by hiker characteristics. Since is it implausible to

Type of Hike

Type Type of of Hike Hike

Thru-Hike

Thru-Hike Thru-Hike 30% 30% (23) (23)

23% (30)

Stay Stay in in Shelter Shelter

Stay in Shelter

Yes 17

Regular Hiker

Age

Yes Yes 17 17

No 6

Yes 8

No 9

Yes 1

No 5

Under 30

31-50

Over 50

Figure 3.1.12 Thru-Hiker Demographics

Existing Existing Shelter Shelter Conditions Conditions

Satisfactory Satisfactory 13 13

Poor Poor 4 4

Satisfactory Satisfactory 5 5

Poor Poor 1 1

Issues Issues with with Animals Animals

Yes Yes 12 12

No No 5 5

Yes Yes 4 4

No No 2 2

Experienced Experienced Overcrowding Overcrowding

Yes Yes 15 15

No No 2 2

Yes Yes 3 3

No No 3 3

Overcrowding Overcrowding Concern Concern

Yes Yes 8 8

No No 9 9

Yes Yes 2 2

No No 4 4

Figure 3.1.15 Thru-Hiker Perspective on Existing Shelter Conditions Type Type of of Hike Hike

Type of Hike

No No 6 6

Section Section Hike Hike

Section Hike

75% 75% (57) (57)

75% (57)

Stay Stay in in Shelter Shelter

Stay in Shelter

Yes 46

Regular Hiker

Age

No 11

Existing Existing Shelter Shelter Conditions Conditions

Yes 41

No 5

Yes 9

No 2

Under 30

31-50

Over 50

Figure 3.1.13 Section Hiker Demographics

Yes Yes 46 46 Satisfactory Satisfactory 36 36

Poor Poor 10 10

Satisfactory Satisfactory 10 10

Poor Poor 1 1

Issues Issues with with Animals Animals

Yes Yes 34 34

No No 12 12

Yes Yes 5 5

No No 6 6

Experienced Experienced Overcrowding Overcrowding

Yes Yes 35 35

No No 11 11

Yes Yes 5 5

No No 6 6

Overcrowding Overcrowding Concern Concern

Yes Yes 11 11

No No 35 35

Yes Yes 2 2

No No 8 8

Figure 3.1.16 Section Hiker Perspective on Existing Shelter Conditions Type Type of of Hike Hike

Type of Hike

47% 47% (36) (36)

47% (36)

Stay Stay in in Shelter Shelter

Yes 28

Regular Hiker

Age

Recreational Recreational Hike Hike

Recreational Hike

Stay in Shelter

No No 11 11

No 8

Existing Existing Shelter Shelter Conditions Conditions

Yes 25

No 3

Yes 5

No 3

Under 30

31-50

Over 50

Figure 3.1.14 Recreational Hiker Demographics

Yes Yes 28 28

No No 8 8

Satisfactory Satisfactory 21 21

Poor Poor 7 7

Satisfactory Satisfactory 7 7

Poor Poor 1 1

Issues Issues with with Animals Animals

Yes Yes 19 19

No No 9 9

Yes Yes 3 3

No No 5 5

Experienced Experienced Overcrowding Overcrowding

Yes Yes 22 22

No No 6 6

Yes Yes 1 1

No No 7 7

Overcrowding Overcrowding Concern Concern

Yes Yes 10 10

No No 18 18

Yes Yes 0 0

No No 8 8

Figure 3.1.17 Recreational Hiker Perspective on Existing Shelter Conditions

Existing Shelter Survey: (3.1.15 - 3.1.17)

determines whether hikers stay in shelters or camp in tents. It will be the purpose of this thesis to attempt to persuade hikers

Existing Shelter Conditions, Problems with Animals, Overcrowding

into staying in a trail shelter. Thus, it is important to provide other

Experience, and Overcrowding Concern: (Results: see Figures

qualities rather than just convenience.

3.1.15 - 3.1.17) The larger statistic is highlighted for clarity. When comparing the results found in these category to whether or not a hiker stays overnight in a shelter, one can begin to draw

Future Shelter Survey:

conclusions. The first conclusion is, of the hikers that responded yes to staying in shelters, the majority of them found the shelters of satisfactory conditions (13 thru-hikers, 36 section hikers, 21 recreational hikes). Of those that found the conditions satisfactory, the majority also experienced problems with animals and overcrowding. This means that the hikers that stayed in shelters were willing to deal with levels of discomfort without it

Amenity Addition Survey: (Results: see Figure 3.1.18) The results from this section of the survey proved to be the most controversial. The participants were asked to rate the amenities seen in Figure 3.1.18 on how strongly they agree or disagree with their additions in future shelters. There is a visible trend found within this section, concluding that the majority of hikers disagree with any additional amenities. However, certain amenities did

interfering with their overall perceived satisfaction. Similarly, those

portray the largest contrasting views. These amenities were

who responded no to staying in shelters, also felt the conditions of

lavatories, emergency phones, and electrical outlets. It is also

existing shelters were satisfactory, leading to the hypothesis that

important to notices that women agreed more with amenities

existing shelter conditions are not a driving force in the decision

than men.

whether or not to camp in tent or to stay in a trail shelter. The second conclusion drawn from Figures 3.1.15 - 3.1.17 is that nearly 100% of the hikers that experienced overcrowding, also feel is it not a large concern. (Thru-hikers 15:9 respectively, section hikers 35:35 respectively, Recreational hikers 22:18 respectively). This confirms the hypothesis stated earlier that hikers are willing to put up with discomforts when staying overnight along the trail. It is also important to note that there is no statistical evidence relating shelter quality with choice in shelter, leading one to believe that the variable of personal preference

Disagree M

Lighting

Outlets

M F

Disagree 100%

75%

Agree 0% 25%

Lighting Outlets

75% 100% 100% 75% 100% 75%

25% 0% 0% 25% 0% 25%

100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0%

75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75%

25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25%

75% 100% 100% 75% 74% 75%

25% 0% 0% 25% 26% 25%

75% 100% 74% 75% 89% 75%

25% 0% 26% 25% 11% 25%

75% 74% 89% 75% 75%

25% 26% 11% 25% 25% 11%

Thru-Hike Thru-Hike 30% Thru-Hike (23) 30% (23) 30% (23)

HVAC

M MF

Outlets HVAC

MF M

Hot Water

MF F

HVAC Hot Water Powered Stoves Hot Water Powered Stoves Lavatories

MF M MF F MF M MF F

Section Section HikeSection 75% Hike(57) 75% Hike(57) 75% (57)

Disagree

75% 100%

Emergency Phones

MF F

Lavatories Emergency Phones

Emergency Phones

89%

75% Disagree

M F

Agree

25% 0%

Lighting

Outlets

M F

Disagree 86%

93%

Agree 14% 7%

Lighting Outlets

64% 91% 86% 93% 98% 64%

36% 9% 14% 7% 2% 36%

100% 86% 98% 64% 98% 100%

0% 14% 2% 36% 2% 0%

93% 98% 98% 100% 98% 93%

7% 2% 2% 0% 9% 2% 7%

93% 98% 98% 93% 79% 93%

7% 2% 9% 2% 7% 21% 7%

64% 98% 79% 93% 88% 64%

36% 9% 2% 21% 7% 12% 36%

64% 79% 88% 64% 64%

36% 21% 12% 36% 36%

HVAC

M MF

Outlets HVAC

MF M

Hot Water

MF F

HVAC Hot Water Powered Stoves

Hot Water Powered Stoves Lavatories

M MF F MF M MF F

91%

93%

Disagree

91%

Powered Stoves Lavatories

Emergency Phones

MF F

Lavatories Emergency Phones

Emergency Phones

88%

64% Disagree

M F F

Lighting

Agree

12% 36% Agree

85%

15%

89%

14%

Lighting

85%

15%

Outlets

M F

Disagree 81%

Lighting Outlets

HVAC

M MF

Outlets HVAC

MF M

Hot Water

MF F

HVAC Hot Water Powered Stoves

Hot Water Powered Stoves Lavatories

Powered Stoves Lavatories

M MF F

Emergency Phones

MF F

Lavatories Emergency Phones

MF M F F

Emergency Phones

Lighting

Disagree

89%

44% 85% 81% 89% 100% 44%

56% 15% 19% 14% 0% 56%

100% 81% 100% 44% 96% 100%

0% 19% 0% 56% 4% 0%

89% 100% 96% 100% 96% 89%

11% 0% 4% 0% 4% 11%

89% 96% 96% 89% 67% 89%

11% 4% 4% 11% 33% 11%

44% 96% 67% 89% 81% 44%

56% 4% 33% 11% 19% 56%

44% 67% 81% 44% 44%

56% 33% 19% 56% 56%

81%

44% Disagree

M F

Agree

Agree 19% 14%

19% 56% Agree

92%

100%

Disagree

as the commitment to hiking increased from basic commitment with recreational hikers to high levels of commitment in thru-hikers, the purity for an unimpeded experience with nature grew. As seen in Figure 3.1.18, there was a wider contrast in opinion for all amenities with recreational hikers than with thru-hikers. As these

After gathering the results, it was noticed that,

25% Agree

Lighting

Recreational Hike 47% Recreational Recreational Hike(36) 47% Hike (36) 47% (36)

100%

Powered Stoves Lavatories

Figure 3.1.18 Future Amenity Opinions

Agree

Lighting

Agree

results begin to form the programmatic function of the proposed shelter (see Figure 3.1.18), amenities that fell within the zero priority section, such as HVAC, hot water, and powered stoves, the intentions of incorporating them within the proposed shelter was removed. Elements the landed within the minimum priority section, such as lighting and electrical outlets, these amenities are still plausible in the final design, but will be incorporated in a minimal manner. Amenities such as lavatories and emergency phones trended towards the limited priority side will more than likely be included in the final design.

Although the general consensus is to not

67 Disagree

Lighting

M F

hypothesized that some of these amenities can be

Outlets

incorporated in a manner that will not impede on the hiker experience. It is the purpose of this thesis to explore those methods. It is also important to note that there is

Thru-Hike 30% (23)

HVAC

Hot Water

Lavatories

no statistical difference between the desire for more

Emergency Phones

amenities and whether the hiker is an occasional hiker or

0% 25%

75% 100%

75%

25%

100%

M F

Powered Stoves

Agree

100%

25%

75% 100%

75%

25%

74%

26%

75%

25%

89%

11%

75%

25%

Disagree

a regular hikers.

Section Hike 75% (57)

Lighting

Agree

91%

93%

Outlets

86%

14%

64%

36%

HVAC

98%

100%

98%

93%

98%

93%

Lavatories

79%

21%

64%

36%

Emergency Phones

88%

12%

64%

36%

Hot Water

Powered Stoves

Recreational Hike 47% (36)

Disagree

Agree

Lighting

85%

15%

89%

14%

Outlets

81%

19%

44%

56% 0%

100%

Hot Water

96%

89%

11%

Powered Stoves

96%

89%

11%

HVAC

Lavatories

Emergency Phones

67%

33%

44%

56%

81%

19%

44%

56%

limited priority

Minimum priority

Figure 3.1.19 Future Amenity Opinions

apply any of these amenities in future shelters, it is

zero priority

Chapter 3 Part 2: Case Studies

After formulating conclusions drawn from the

removes itself as an object and experientially becomes

survey discussed in Part One of Chapter three, it is

a part of the surrounding environment?

understood that the proposed hiking shelter must

be minimal in both size and amenity. Hikers value an

important to study some existing archetypes,. The case

intimate relationship that offer a connection with the

studies range from small scale studies, such as looking

surrounding natural environment. They hike to escape

at the properties and characteristics of backpacking

the everyday elements of civilization, thus the proposed shelter must not interfere with those limitations. It was also explained that architecturally designed shelters could potentially help in the protection of nature. In other words, since visitor created campsites occur within national parks, and these campsites eventually lead to erosion, vegetation trampling, and irreversible damage, in theory, providing hikers with a directed place to stay that would concentrate their level of activity could potentially minimize the amount of visitor created campsites. However, the question that still has yet to be answered is the investigation as to how a man made shelters could potentially exist within the natural world. Could artificial manifest in a manner that visually

In order to begin to answer this question, it is

tents, to large scale studies, such as observing the spatial relationships found in existing campsites within existing national parks. The following pages consist of the case studies used to help formulate programmatic, materialistic, and constructability guidelines that will apply to the proposed hiking shelter.

Case studies: Backpacking Tents

By now, it is clear that the backpacking tent is

the preferred method for overnight camping. Due to its ease of constructability, mobility, and now light weight design. The backpacking tent offers a lot of benefits that trail shelters cannot offer. One of these benefits a tent has over a trail shelter is its intimacy found through its

Big Agnes

Eureka

Golite

Hilleburg

Kifaru (Tipi)

DIMENSIONS

North Face

Six Moon Designs

ZPacks

TentTarp

Figure 3.2.1 MSR Carbon 1-4 respectively. Notice how the floor areas occupy the most minimum space needed to sleep the required number of people

AVERAGE

38 in

45 in

72 in

52 in

56 in

82 in

127 in

88 in

Length Area

56 in 22 sqft

82 in 47 sqft

127 in 112 sqft

88 in 60 sqft

Height

38 in

51 in

58 in

49 in

Width

36 in

78 in

86 in

67 in

Length Area

96 in 24 sqft

90 in 49 sqft

103 in 63 sqft

96 in 45 sqft

Height

45 in

62 in

73 in

60 in

Width

34 in

92 in

114 in

80 in

Length Area

34 in 8 sqft

92 in 59 sqft

114 in 91 sqft

80 in 53 sqft

Height

40 in

44 in

42 in

Width

44 in

64 in

87 in

65 in

Length Area

91 in 28 sqft

171 in 76 sqft

208 in 126 sqft

157 in 77 sqft

Height

72 in

Width

160 in

160 in 177 sqft

does not offer

Height

55 in

50 in

53 in

Width

80 in

96 in

88 in

80 in 45 sqft

96 in 64 sqft

88 in 55 sqft

does not offer

Height

37 in

46 in

74 in

52 in

Width

26 in

68 in

90 in

61 in

Length Area

86 in 17 sqft

88 in 41 sqft

120 in 75 sqft

98 in 44 sqft

Height

25 in

43 in

55 in

Width

34 in

114 in

90 in

79 in

Length Area

93 in 16 sqft

150 in 94 sqft

111 in 51 sqft

Height

45 in

Width

76 in

116 in

Length Area

120 in 23 sqft

116 in 34 sqft

Height

47 in

Width

54 in

62 in

Length Area

108 in 41 sqft

108 in 45 sqft

91 in 43 sqft

41 in

90 in does not offer

192 in 236 in 57 sqft 47 in

does not offer

58 in 108 in 43 sqft

Height

42 in

48 in

49 in

46 in

Width

60 in

92 in

104 in

85 in

Length Area

96 in 20 sqft

94 in 51 sqft

90 in 51 sqft

93 in 41 sqft

Height

40 in

49 in

60 in

50 in

Width

47 in

85 in

104 in

79 in

Length Area

87 in 22 sqft

101 in 49 sqft

124 in 95 sqft

shelter capacity group

AVERAGE

Width

Length Area MSR

2 to 3

Height

Length Area Mountain Hardware

106 in 55 sqft

Figure 3.2.2 Table Representing the dimensions of tents from leading tent manufacturers.

COMPANY

Width

does not offer

Length Area Mountain Hardware

Height

WINTER

compact design. What tent manufactures have been able to achieve, that existing trail shelters have not, is the ability to sleep its inhabitant in a confined location. Since size equals weight, tent manufactures have been able to decrease tent floor area to the smallest inhabitable space per hiker. The table expressed in Figure 3.12 as well as Figures 3.11, represent the different tent sizes found within leading tent manufacturing companies. In Figure 3.12 the averages found in the far left column are totaled from the tent sizes within

MSR

58%

North Face

Six Moon Designs

SOLO HIKER

TentTarp

12% COMPANY Big Agnes AVERAGE

POOR Eureka

highlighted by the green box indicates to total averages taken from all tent sizes within all manufacturers. For the purpose of this thesis, the averages found on the bottom row and within the green box will become the base case example of the size of the proposed shelter.

Drawing conclusions from this study, if the

averages found within Figure 3.12 is compared to the

37 in

Width

26 in

Length Area

86 in 17 sqft

25%

160 in

160 in 177 sqft

50 in

80 in

96 in

80 in 45 sqft

96 in 64 sqft

FALLL53 in 88 in

88 in 55 sqft

46 in

74 in

52 in

68 in

90 in

61 in

88 in 41 sqft

14%

120 in 75 sqft

98 in 44 sqft

Height

25 in

43 in

55 in

Width

34 in

114 in

90 in

79 in

Length Area

93 in 16 sqft

150 in 94 sqft

111 in 51 sqft

Height

91 in 43 sqft

45 in 3-4 OTHER 76 in HIKERS

Width

45 in 116 in

does not offer

41 in

90 in 5+ OTHER 192 in HIKERS

Length Area

120 in 23 sqft

116 in 34 sqft

Length Area

108 in 41 sqft

108 in 45 sqft

Height

42 in

48 in

49 in

46 in

Width

60 in

92 in

104 in

85 in

26%

Length DIMENSIONS Area

96 in 1 20 sqft

Height Height Width Width

236 in 57 sqft

108 in 43 sqft

94 in 61% 2 to 3 51 sqft

90 in 4+ 51 sqft

Length Area Area

38 in

51 in

Width

36 in

78 in

86 in

67 in

Length

96 in

90 in

103 in

96 in

Width

34 in

92 in

114 in

80 in

Length Area

34 in 8 sqft

92 in 59 sqft

114 in 91 sqft

80 in 53 sqft

Length NEUTRAL

in 45 in in in 49 in 82 in in in 85 in 82 in in in 101 SATISFACTORY sqft 47 sqft sqft sqft 49

72 60 127 104 127 124 112 95

93 in AVERAGE 41 sqft

38 40 56 47 56 87 22 22

Height

in in in in

52 50 88 79 88 106 60 55

in in sqft sqft 58 in

in in in in in in sqft sqft

49 in

Figure 3.2.4 DiagramArea explaining24group size tendency sqft 49 sqft 63 sqft for hikers 45 sqft Golite HeightTrail 45 in 62 in 73 in 60 in hiking the Appalachian 72% Height

Hilleburg

28% Kifaru (Tipi)

found throughout all tent manufactures. The averages

1-2 OTHER HIKERS

Height

160 in

Figure 3.2.3 DiagramHeight explaining47group size tendency for hikers ZPacks in 47 in 47 in Width Trail 54 in 62 in 58 in hiking the Appalachian does not offer

the company. The averages found on the bottom row is the total averages within sleeping capacity

does not offer

Length Area

60%

55 in SUMMER

SPRING

Width

does not offer

MORE THAN 3LBS

40 in

44 in

42 in

Width

44 in

64 in

87 in

65 in

Length Area

91 in 28 sqft

171 in 76 sqft

208 in 126 sqft

157 in 77 sqft

Height

LESS THAN Width 3LBS Length

does not offer

72 in

160 in

statistics found in Figure 3.2 in part one of this Area 177 sqftchapter, 177 sqft Mountain Hardware

Height Width

160 in

55 in

50 in

53 in

80 in

96 in

88 in

80 in 45 sqft

96 in 64 sqft

88 in the necessary shelter dimensions begin to formulate. 55 sqft MSR

80%

Length Area

does not offer

15% Height

83%37 in

36% 46 in

74 in

Width

26 in

68 in

90 in

80%

61 in

Area

17 sqft

41 sqft

75 sqft

44 sqft

25 in

43 in

55 in

41 in

150 in 94 sqft

111 in 51 sqft

52 in

36%

16%

If the majority of hikers travel86in groups between 1 -983in Length in 88 in 120 in North Face

Height

Width 34 in 114 in 90 in 79 in people, then the minimum dimensions required is 49 Six RECREATION Moon Designs

Length Area

EDUCATION Height

93 in 16 sqft

91 in 43 sqft

TRADITION square feet per party. If the shelter seeks to adapt19290toinin a Width Length Area

PHYSICAL 45 in CHALLENGE 76 in

120 in 23 sqft

SOCIAL 45 in INTERACTION 116 in 116 in 34 sqft

SCENERY

does not offer

236 in 57 sqft

larger group of people, then47 the minimum dimensions ZPacks Height in 47 in 47 in Width

20%

80%Length Area

54 in

62 in

108 in 41 sqft

108 in 45 sqft

does not offer

58 in 108 in 43 sqft

would be 95 square feet per party. It is unreasonable TentTarp

Height

42 in

48 in

49 in

46 in

Width

60 in

92 in

104 in

85 in

Length Area

96 in 20 sqft

94 in 51 sqft

93 in to recommend that the shelter will only allow for one 41 sqft 90 in 51 sqft

Height

40 in

49 in

60 in

50 in

Width

47 in

85 in

104 in

79 in

Area

22 sqft

49 sqft

party of hikers toOTHER stay and must Length at a time, 87 in 101 therefore in 124 in 106 in CAMPFIRE AVERAGE

95 sqft

55 sqft

OTHER

accommodate at minimum 3 hiking parties, therefore

The decision to study this particular piece of

the total square footage of the proposed hiking shelter

architecture was due its and spatial qualities. La Petite

will increase (other factors that will be discussed later

Maison du Weekend utilizes a compact design. Similar

such as existing shelter proximity, or topographic region

to the backpacking tent studies, Patkau Architects were

will also help in determining the overall shelter capacity

able to design a comfortable space while maintaining a

limit). The numbers represented by the averages found in Figure 3.12 will begin to formulate what will be known

Case studies: La Petite Maison du Weekend Patkau Architects Designed for the “ ‘Fabrications’ exhibition at the Wexner Center for Arts, in Columbus Ohio, La Petite Maison due Weekend is a prototype for self-sufficient dwelling” (Patkau Architects). The design intentions of the structure seen in Figure 3.13 was to provide a weekend getaway for two. Its minimalist design provides the very basic needs for life “shelter, sleeping loft, kitchen, shower, and [composting] toilet” (Patkau Architects).

Figure 3.2.5 La Petite Maison du Weekend - Patkau Architects

in this thesis as “hiker scale”.

Figure 3.2.6 La Petite circulation Compact circulation minimizes building footprint while allowing quick access to the second floor sleeping lofts and composting lavatory

Figure 3.2.7 La Petite interior space La Petite Maison du Weekend is designed around the human body, resulting in compact spatial qualities

minimal footprint. Studying the unique scale of La Petite Maison du Weekend begins the process of evolving the concept of hikers scale. Similar to the human scale concept found throughout architecture, the proposed A

hiking shelter will be designed around the dimensions of the hiker. Since hikers do not need the same spatial

B Figure 3.2.8 La Petite Level 2 Floor Plan

luxury as man requires in civilization, the shelter will mimic the compact spaces found with tent design and the design of La Petite Maison du Weekend. Similar to La Petite due Weekend, the hiker shelter will consist of minimal interior spaces, instead the programmatic qualities will encourage spending ones time outside in nature. Also similar to the Patkau

Figure 3.2.9 La Petite Cross Section A

structure, the proposed shelter will utilize a large overhang to encourage exterior activity while still protecting the hiker from the elements. The concept of utilizing the roof for both solar power and water collection, as well as an exterior shower and composting lavatory are factors that might also be incorporated into

Figure 3.2.10 La Petite Cross Section B

the final design.

Case studies: Adirondack Shelter A tradition to the New York State parks, the Adirondack shelter is a “survival of the primitive shelter of the earliest woodsman and hunters of [the Adirondack] region” (Park and Recreation Structures). This specific

The question of whether to design a modern interpretation of the Adirondack Shelter, to develop a new trail shelter style, or mimic the vernacular language already existing but applied it in relation to the site, is one that future chapters within this thesis will investigate.

style of architecture has unique qualities that many of the existing shelters along the Appalachian Trail follows. These characteristics consist of the use of logs to construct the front side and rear walls, an open front to catch the “friendly warmth and light of the campfire”, a roof sloping gently to the rear and sharply to the open front “to give a protective overhang” (Park and Recreation Structures). The simple construction

Figure 3.2.11 Adirondack Shelter - Letchworth State Park - New York

and use of rustic materials provides inspiration that will transfer into the final design within this thesis. This form of shelter depicts what one would consider vernacular architecture within trail shelters. Variations of this shelter do exist, but the majority of existing shelter design traces back to the original Adirondack shelter.

Figure 3.2.12 Adirondack Shelter - Crowley’s Ridge State Park - Arkansas

Figure 3.2.13

Adirondack Shelter - Detail Plan and Elevations (Park and Recreation Structures)

Case studies: Campsite Layouts Referring Back to Chapter Two in the

as Counselor Cabins (K), Administrator Buildings (A), Dining Lounges (D) and etc, it is the spatial qualities of

Appalachian Trail Experience, the policy states that

the campsite plan that will be incorporated into the final

any addition to the trail should off an experience that

proposed master plan (if a master plan is developed).

is “unfettered and unimpeded by competing sights

Notice how, in Figure 3.21, the shortest distance

or sounds, and in as direct and intimate a manner

between campsite cluster is 600 feet. This relates back

as possible” (Guidance for Locating and Designing

to the concept of selective solitude, and these spatial

A.T. Shelters p. 2). When designing the master plan for

qualities will be applied to the final design.

the proposed trail shelters (if more than one shelter is called for to achieve a successful design) it is important to study existing campsite layouts to achieve the aforementioned “direct and intimate” manner.

900’

Figure 3.22 is a proposed master plan for campsites located on a peninsula portion of land, which

600’

closely mimics that of the site chosen for the proposed

900’

trail shelter. Figure 3.22 does not represent any particular existing camp layout, instead it is a “best case scenario”

900’

study of how campsites should be laid out. Notice the dispersity of the cabins (T). While the case study utilizes building that will not be incorporated into this thesis such Figure 3.2.14 Spatial Organization Diagram

Figure 3.2.15 Camp Layout - Detail Master Plan (Park and Recreation Structures)

Chapter 4 Site Analysis: Laurel Fork Gorge

Laurel Fork Gorge Johnson City, TN

Erwin, TN

Hot Springs, NC

Ashville, NC

Figure 4.2 Tennessee - North Carolina Border

Laurel Fork Gorge, Tennessee As discussed in the previous chapters, the NC TN

Appalachian Trail extends around 2180 miles beginning offi cially at Mount Katahdin in northern Maine, and ending at Springer Mountain in northern Georgia. (The offi cial mile zero is located in Maine, however, the majority of hikers who thru-hike the trail begin their hikes in Georgia)

Due to its length which cuts through four different

meteorological zone (see Figure 4.5) the Appalachian Trail encounters many different climatic changes. In order to design a shelter that can adapt to all the Figure 4.1 Macro Site Location

Hi gh wa y6 7

Watuga Lake

Hampton, TN fewer than 1,000 inhabitants

i nn

e ov sC . Rd

Figure 4.3 Laurel Fork Gorge

environmental conditions, the proposed site for this thesis is located in a zone that shares characteristics of both hot and cold climates.

The following pages consist of an analysis of the

environmental, physical, and perceptual qualities of the proposed site location for the Appalachian Trail Shelter. Figure 4.4 Micro Site Location

80 70

60 20

50 40

30 10 20

WINTER 41%

SPRING 80%

SUMMER

FALL

84%

WINTER

80%

41%

10 Seasonal Hiking Trends (%)

Figure 4.5 The location of the site sits on the boarder between two climatic zones with a difference of nearly 2,000 heating degree days (eia.gov)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figures 4.6-4.11 express climatic trends overlaid

70 with the previously discussed seasonal hiking trends

15 4 30 3 25

found in Chapter 3. There are conclusions that can be 50

2 20

drawn from the data shown, The fi rst is seen in Figure 4.8 40

1 15

where precipitation is relatively constant year round,

0 10

and hikerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s seasonal trends do not directly relate to

Average Temperature ( oF )

the amount of rainfall, yet does directly relate to the 0

Seasonal Hiking Trends (%)

41%

SPRING 80%

SUMMER

FALL

84%

80%

WINTER

Montly Snowfall (inches)

WINTER

41%

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

lack of snowfall. This means that the fi rst priority of the

SPRING 80%

SUMMER

FALL

84%

WINTER

80%

41%

Monthly Precipitation (inches)

W Seasonal Hiking Trends (%)

Jan

Feb

WINTER 41%

Mar

Apr

SPRING 80%

May June

July

SUMMER

Aug

84%

Sept

Oct

FALL 80%

Nov

Dec

Average Days Above 90 oF

WINTER 41%

Average Days Below 32 oF

80 7

Seasonal Hiking Trends (%)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figure 4.7 Average Days Above 90 of and Below 32 of 6

41%

WINTER

Jan

Figure 4.6 Average Monthly Temperature

Climatic Analysis

Average Temperature ( oF )

5 20

90 80 70 60 50

4 40

5 3

Jan

20 50

20 WINTER 50 41%

10 40

0 30

0 30 Jan

SPRING

SUMMER 84%

80%

FALL

SUMMER

80%

84%

WINTER FALL 41% 80%

WINTER 41%

Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov

WINTER

0 6 Jan

41%

Average Temperature Average Temperature ( oF ) ( oF )

Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

41%

6 0

SPRING WINTER 80%

WINTER SPRING 41% 80%

SPRING 80%

SUMMER 84%

FALL 80%

FALL WINTER 80% 41%

Dec

WINTER 41%

5 15 0 10

Dec

6 3 5 2 4 1 3 0 2

7 6

200

0 20 Jan

Montly Snowfall (inches)

WINTER

4 41%

SPRING WINTER 80% 41%

SPRING

SUMMER 84%

80%

FALL

SUMMER

80%

84%

WINTER FALL 41% 80%

WINTER 41%

Montly Snowfall (inches)

Monthly Precipitation Monthly Precipitation (inches) (inches)

84%

SUMMER 84%

FALL 80%

WINTER FALL 41% 80%

WINTER

Average Days Below Average Days Below 32 oF 32 oF

41%

Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov WINTER SPRING 41% 80%

SPRING 80%

SUMMER 84%

FALL 80%

FALL WINTER 80%

41%

Average Days Above Average Days Above 90 oF 90 oF

Dec

WINTER 41%

Average Days Below Average Days Below 32 oF 32 oF

Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

FebJanMarFebAprMarMayApr JuneMay JulyJune AugJulySeptAugOctSept NovOctDecNov

Dec

1 Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov WINTER SPRING

SPRING

SUMMER

FALL

FALL WINTER

Dec

WINTER

Montly Snowfall (inches)

Monthly Precipitation Monthly Precipitation (inches) (inches)

10 0

8 0 Jan

Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

FebJanMarFebAprMarMayApr JuneMay JulyJune AugJulySeptAugOctSept NovOctDecNov

Dec

90 0 80 70

4 7

80 40

3 6

3 WINTER 6

2 5

41%

SPRING WINTER 80% 41%

SPRING

SUMMER

80%

84%

FALL

SUMMER

80%

84%

WINTER FALL 41% 80%

41%

Average Wind Speed Average Wind Speed (mph) (mph)

Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

Feb

41%

1 0 Jan

60 20 50 10

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept Oct Nov Dec FALL SeptFALL WINTER Aug Oct NovWINTER Dec

WINTER SPRING SUMMER WINTER Jan SPRING Feb Mar Apr SUMMER May June July

70 30

WINTER

1 4

15 Clear Days (inches)

5 10

0 Jan

41% 80%

80%

84%

80%

80% 41%

41%

Average Wind Speed Average Wind Speed (mph) (mph)

Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

FebJanMarFebAprMarMayApr JuneMay JulyJune AugJulySeptAugOctSept NovOctDecNov

Figure 4.9 Average Wind Speed

Dec

40 0 30

SPRING WINTER 80% 41%

SPRING 80%

SUMMER 84%

FALL 80%

WINTER FALL 41% 80%

Clear Days (inches)

WINTER 41%

Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov

41% 80%

80%

84%

80%

41%

Cloudy Days

Clear Days (inches)

Dec

Figure 4.10 Average Monthly Could Coverage WINTER SPRING FALL WINTER SPRING SUMMER SUMMER FALL WINTER 900 Jan 80

Cloudy Days

Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

41%

0 3 Jan

41%

0 Jan 2

WINTER

90 50

SUMMER

Cloudy Days

5 8

0 3

80%

Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

0 Jan 10

5 8

1 4

SPRING

WINTER

8 0

41%

41% 80% 80% 84% 80% 41% 41% 41% 84% 80% Figure 4.8 Average Monthly Snowfall and Precipitation

SPRING WINTER 80%

5 15

41%

15 4

WINTER 20 41%

WINTER

Average Temperature Average Temperature ( oF ) ( oF )

Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

FebJanMarFebAprMarMayApr JuneMay JulyJune AugJulySeptAugOctSept NovOctDecNov

WINTER 41%

Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

FebJanMarFebAprMarMayApr JuneMay JulyJune AugJulySeptAugOctSept NovOctDecNov

Dec

70 60 90 50 80 40 70 30 WINTER 60 41% 20 50

SPRING WINTER 80% 41%

SPRING 80%

SUMMER 84%

FALL 80%

WINTER FALL 41% 80%

WINTER

41% Average Relative Humidity (%)

10 40 0 Jan 30

Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov

WINTER

0 Jan

Average Relative Humidity (%)

41%

WINTER SPRING 41% 80%

SPRING 80%

SUMMER 84%

FALL 80%

FALL WINTER 80%

41%

Dec

WINTER 41%

Average Relative Average Humidity Relative Humidity (%) (%)

Seasonal Hiking Trends Seasonal Hiking Trends (%) (%)

FebJanMarFebAprMarMayApr JuneMay JulyJune AugJulySeptAugOctSept NovOctDecNov

Figure 4.11 Average Relative Humidity

Dec

shelter will be to provide maximum shelter from the rain. Another Important distinction is the cloud coverage (see Figure 4.9). Throughout the year there are statistics that suggests that there are more cloudy days than clear days. This becomes most important when designing for the winter months. Meaning, the shelter will have to take full advantage of the sun angles in order to provide enough heat for the safety and well being of the hikers. Figure 4.12 represents the wind patterns of Laurel Fork, these predominate wind patterns will eventually dictate the orientation of the shelter which will be discussed further in Chapter 8.

Figure 4.12 Wind Study Diagram

North

-6%

10%

+11%

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Figure 4.13 Visual Walk Through of the Laurel Fork Gorge Section of the Appalachian Trail

10 2800 ft

2600

11 12

2 3

4 9

2400

2200

2000

1900 0 miles

Figure 4.14 Elevation Plot of the Laurel Fork Gorge Section of the Appalachian Trail

7 miles

Solar Analysis

The location within Laurel Fork Gorge was chosen

due to its solar exposure during the winter. Due to the topography of the region, direct winter sun is obstructed for the majority of the gorge. However, the location presented in the following pages represents the area within the gorge that gets the maximum winter sun exposure.

Site

N O R

Appalachian Trail

Winter Solstice 9am Altitude 13.3 Azimuth 114 Figure 4.15 Winter Solstice Study

Appalachian Trail

Winter Solstice 12am Altitude 29.9 Azimuth 173.7

N O RT H

Site

N O RT H

Site

Appalachian Trail

Winter Solstice 5pm Altitude 2 Azimuth 239.1

Site

Site W

Appalachian Trail

RT H O N

O N

Appalachian Trail

RT H

Appalachian Trail

Summer Solstice 7am

Summer Solstice 12am

Summer Solstice 7pm

Altitude 19.6 Azimuth 79.4

Altitude 75.3 Azimuth 152.6

Altitude 8.0 Azimuth 293.3

Figure 4.16 Summer Solstice Study

Altitude 8.0 Azimuth 293.3

Site

H O R N

Spring/Fall Equinox 8am

N O RT H

Appalachian Trail

Site

Appalachian Trail

Spring/Fall Equinox 12am

N O RT H

Site

Appalachian Trail

Spring/Fall Equinox 7pm

Spring: Altitude 15.1 Azimuth 111.8

Spring: Altitude 50.4 Azimuth 165.1

Spring: Altitude -5.6 Azimuth 271.8

Fall: Altitude 21.0 Azimuth 102.4

Fall: Altitude 55.9 Azimuth 169.3

Fall: Altitude -5.6 Azimuth 277.7

Figure 4.17 Spring/Fall Equinox Study

Approx. 80% of Thru-Hikers will either reach the site between the months of March and April if they are traveling North Bound, or July and August if they are traveling South Bound 15

Average Hiking Speed (Miles Per Day)

Trail Elevation (feet)

5000

SITE

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 0 mi

500 mi

Month Hikers Begin a Thru-Hike Janurary

1500 mi

MILES PER DAY CUMULATIVE AVERAGE

2000 mi

13%

March

15% 60%

April

22%

24% 3%

Days South Bound

June July August September

47% Days North Bound

2180mi

Month Hikers Finish a Thru-Hike

12.9

Februrary

May

1000mi

15%

October

Figure 4.18 Thru-hiker Miles per Day analysis

Predicting Site Activity The above graph represents data derived from

only. It is important to notice how the average mile per day increases as the elevation change in terrain

an independent study produced by (Steve Shuman).

decreases. This is important when understanding

The data above represents the mile per day average

the psyche of hikers who will travel to the proposed

(green line) over the entire length of the Appalachian

Appalachian Trail Shelter. The bar graphs represent

trail (brown shaded region) for north bound thru-hikers

the statistics of when thru-hikers begin their travels.

Statistically, the majority of hikers leave from Springer Mountain in the month of March and arrive to Mount Katahdin in September, averaging a total of 12.9 miles per day (including zero days which involves a rest day of no hiking). When all this data is combined and used to predict south bound hiking also, it is estimated that hikers will arrive to the proposed site within a month of their departure if traveling north and within 4 months when traveling down to the south. This results in an maximum usage are between the months of March and April for north bound hikers, and the months of July and August for south bound travelers.

When this information is combined with the

climatic qualities of these month is it important to note that these months of maximum capacity occur at the very end of the winter months for north bound travelers and at the beginning of fall for south bound travelers The proposed hiking shelter should adapt to these months of maximum capacity accordingly.

Figure 4.20 Neighboring Shelter Survey

Cherokee National Forest

7.2 miles

Hot Springs

miles

Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Existing Shelter Analysis

miles

7.9 miles

Figure 4.21 represents the aesthetic and dimensional exploration of the existing Laurel Fork Shelter.

Caro rth

Georgia ro Ca rth

ss ne

a lin

miles

travel both north and south of the Laurel Fork Shelter.

miles

26.8

n Te

4.19 represent the shelter within a one to two day

Figure 4.19 Nation Park / Forest Map

thus minimizing the potential for structure creep. Figure

S ou

17.5

that already exist along the trail to try to get a better understanding of the aesthetic style used in that region,

Caro

lina

along the trail it is important to survey the shelters

lina

When proposing a new shelter to be designed

South Carolina

rth

vandeventer

Pisgah National Forest

watuaga lake

Laurel Fork

li ro Ca

laurel fork

rth

mountaineer falls

gin Vir

mooreland gap

miles

apple house

NATIONAL PARK / FOREST MAP

21.2

iron mountain

Damascus

a lin ro Ca gia or Ge

NORTH BOUND

Springer Mountain

SOUTH BOUND

61 shelters until site location

226 shelters until site location

6.8 average miles between shelters

7.5 average miles between shelters

1.2 minimum miles between shelters

0.1 minimum miles between shelters

14.2 maximum miles between shelters

32.2 maximum miles between shelters

7.7 common miles between shelters

8.8 common miles between shelters

2’ 3’6”

2’

10’

2’ 6”

2’

10 ‘

5’3”

7’

10’

3’ 8” 2’ 6”

2’

1’

2’

7’ 4”

13’ 8” 1’ 6” 7’ 6”

3’ 6”

2’ 6”

Figure 4.21 Laurel Fork Shelter Survey

5’

7’ 6”

3’ 5’

Selecting the Site

motorized traffic regulation (dotted line), as well as the 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; minimum distant to a body of water (brown region).

Dictated by solar analysis, the general location

82.1305 2 30 W

82.1310 8 1 W

82.1315 82 5W

82.1320 W 8

82.1330 2 1330 W

82.1325 W

82.1335 1 W

82.1340 8 1 4 W

82.1345 2. 345 W

82.1355 2.1 55 W

82.1350 W

82.1360 8 .13 W

82.1365 8 365 W

82.1370 W 8

82.1380 W 8

82.1375 W

82.1385 W 82.

82.1390 W

82.1395 W

82.1405 05 W

therefore a shelter cannot be built in those regions. This

82.1400 W

Figure 4.23 is a diagram explaining the 2 miles from

82.1410 . W

history of the mountain. These present unstable ground

82.1415 2 W

designing campsites, as well as other site conditions.

82.1420 2 W

build up has occurred due to rock slides through the

82.1430 2.14 W

one must first look at the ATC guidelines for locating and

82.1425 W

Fork consists of section of the mountain side where rock

82.1435 W

specific location needs to be explored. In order to do so,

82.1440 2 W

The next step is looking a the slope conditions. Laurel

82.1445 W

of the site was determined (Figure 4.22), now a more

82.1450 W

36.2875 N 36.2870 70 N

36.2865 86 N

36.2860 6.28 N

2 miles

36.2855 N

36.2850 N 36.2845 6.2845 N

36.2840 2 N

36.2835 N

36.2830 6 283 N

36.2825 N 36.2820 6 2820 N

36.2815 N 3

36.2810 0N

36.2805 N 36

36.2800 N 36.2795 36. 95 N

36.2790 N 36.27

36.2785 6.2785 N

36.2780 36 2 80 N

36.2775 N 36.2770 36.277 0N

2 miles

36.2765 36 2765 N

36.2760 6 N

0 feet

1000 feet

36.2755 2 5N

Figure 4.22 Longitude and Latitude Analysis of Proposed Site

Figure 4.23 200â&#x20AC;&#x2122; from water and 2 miles from motorize access

decreases the overall area of buildable space to the

and topographic conditions, while also meeting the

areas shown in the medium shade of green in Figure

ATC guidelines for locating and designing campsites.

4.24. The rock slides vary from 200’ across to 10’ across

The areas in dark green represent the most optimum

and the locations are also documented in Figure 4.25.

location to build a shelter within this region.

When all this data is collected a more specific region of buildable area is determined. This region becomes the space for a shelter when considering solar patterns

2 miles

B B

B B A A

A A

G G

740,000 sq ft

G G

E D

870,000 sq ft

2 miles 0 feet

1000 feet

Figure 4.24 Rock Slide locations

0 feet

1000 feet

Figure 4.25 Final Proposed Site Location

,00

100

101

Chapter 5 Programming

102

Introduction

The basic programming of a hiking shelter is to

provide a place to eat sleep and change all while protecting the hiker from the natural elements. (Figure 5.1) However, through the use of the user study survey, it become obvious that there are a majority of other programmatic elements that are involved in order to design a successful shelter. The following pages describe the process involved in the determination of the other programmatic elements.

103

PRECIPITATION WIND

EAT

Figure 5.1 Basic Programming of a Hiking Shelter

SLEEP

CHANGE

WIND

Appalachian Trail Shelter Survey - Additional Comments 104

Developing the Programmatic Elements

Results from the user survey help in the formation

of the programmatic spatial requirements for this thesis. As seen in Figure 5.1, when individuals were asked to include their personal opinions on possible changes made to existing or proposed shelter designs, certain phrases appeared more than others. These prioritized terms became the catalyst for dictating the programmatic elements. It is important to note that there is no distinction made between negative use of the phrase or positive, because it does not affect the fact that the phrase appeared, making it a hierarchically more important element to focus the attention of the design on. The programmatic elements used to determine the spatial organization of the proposed thesis were dictated by the result from the user study survey and are listed as follows:

Sleeping space, sitting space, standing space,

areas to pack and unpack, places to change, areas to store gear, places to cook, places to eat, areas for social interaction, areas for observation, areas for contemplation

nature(al) experience safe(ty) room / space small(er) big(er) crowded comfort privacy social sleep(ing) sit(ing) eat(ing) cook(ing) change(ing) (un)pack(ing) clean(ing) hang(ing) bunks tables steps floor food water mice (mouse) shelf(ves) privy / lavatory(ies) / toilet(s) tent dirty dry light dark rain(ing) snow(ing) wind hot cold simple rustic spartan natural Figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2021; 5.2 User Analysis â&#x20AC;&#x153;other commentsâ&#x20AC;? Survey

Accommodate expanding overnight visitation Close Proximity to Clean Water Source

Remote from Motorized Access

Out of Site from the A.T.

Mid Slope Position Trampling Resistant and Expansion Proof

Refining the Programmatic Elements

When comparing the programmatic elements

to the aforementioned ATC Guidelines and Regulations for Locating and Designing Campsites, one starts to see how certain elements are dictated more by the guidelines than others. For example, the programmatic element of sleeping is affected more by the guidelines than sitting and standing space. The use of this chart helps in prioritizing the programmatic elements. In other words, the programmatic element of sleeping will be the primary element focused on when designing the shelters within this proposal.

Protective of Visitor Safety and Sensative Natural or Culteral Resources Prevent Erosion

Protect Water Sources

Promote Solitude

Promote Visitor Safety

Emphasize Primitive, Rustic Qualities Emphasize Resource Protection in Shelter Design and Facilities Maximize Lifespan and Minimize Maintenance Minimize Fire Danger

Minimize Use of Tent Platforms

Ensure Food Protection from Wildlife

Be Located in Well-Drain Soils Follow Applicable State and ATC Guidelines Avoid or Minimize Resource and Social Impacts

Figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2021; 5.3 Programming in Relation to ATC Guidelines

Contemplation

Observation

social Interaction

Eat

Cook

Store Gear

Change

Pack/Unpack

Stand

Sit

Sleep Minimize Crowding and Campsite Capacity

105

106

fully enclosed

partially enclosed

Figure 5.4 Exploration of Programmatic Conditions

Spatial Categories

Fully Enclosed: This category includes spaces that are

To maintain a minimalistic quality within the

enclosed by at least three walls and overhead protection,

proposed hiking shelter, the spatial designation for

and will provide shelter from the wind, sun, rain, and snow.

certain activities will be limited to the smallest amount of space possible to comfortably accomplish the task, which for the purpose of this thesis will primarily be the task of sleeping. Results drawn from the previously mentioned survey suggest that hikers prefers experience of nature over quality of stay. It is paramount that the proposed hiking shelter does not impede on the hiking experience. To accomplish this, shelter will utilize four

Partially Enclosed: This category represents the spaces that are protected by overhead protection but no more than one wall, this space will be open to the wind, but will protect the hiker from the sun, rain, and snow.

Open: This category covers all architecturally designed spaces that are neither protected from overhead elements nor walls of any type, these spaces differ from the next

defined â&#x20AC;&#x153;spacesâ&#x20AC;?: fully enclosed, partially enclosed,

category because they include at least one architectural

open, and natural. The differences between each

element such as a platform, porch, or some other designed

category is explained as followed:

element.

107

open

Natural: This category represents all spaces that involve purely natural elements with minimal human interference (spaces including elements such as trail steps, ladders, handrails, or other circulation elements necessary for the safety of navigating the trail, are accepted within this category).

When applying these spatial categories to the proposed shelter programming, a minimal ratio of 2:1, fully enclosed to partially enclosed, will be implemented. This ratio will limit the amount of space spent within the shelter and encourage more activities to take part within the natural surroundings. Meaning, for every 20 square feet of sleeping space, a minimum of 10 square feet of partially enclosed exterior space is required.

natural

108

Comparing the Programmatic Elements with the Spatial Categories.

When comparing the programmatic elements

with the spatial categories, one begins to see how certain programs require certain spaces. Figure 5.5 represents how one can utilize maximum efficiency when space planning. The following chapter will explore the conceptual use of these spaces.

109

FULLY ENCLOSED

PARTIALLY ENCLOSED (TWO WALLS)

(CONSTRUCTED PLATFORM)

(NO MAN MADE ELEMENTS)

SLEEP

SIT

STAND

TENT

PACK/UNPACK

HAMMOCK

CHANGE

COOK

TENT

OBSERVATION

STORE GEAR

EAT

HAMMOCK

CONTEMPLATION

STORE FOOD

SOCIAL INTERACTION

SEPARATE STRUCTURE

PACK/UNPACK

LAVATORY

DRY CLOTHES

DISPOSAL OF WASTE

HAMMOCK

(THREE WALLS)

Figure 5.5 Programmatic Conditions in Relation to Programmatic Elements

OPEN

NATURAL

110

111

Chapter 6 Project Synopsis and Concept Development

112

BEFORE

Introduction

Up to this point there have been two main

AFTER

issues that drive this thesis. The first is the issue of visitor created campsites and the damages they create, with documented cases of humans increasing the process

Figure 6.1 Evidence of the visual damage caused from visitor created campsites

of erosion from 10 to 40 percent (Figure 6.1 and 6.2).

described in Figure 6.3. It has also been discussed that,

this problem, current trends within shelter construction are headed towards more civilized designs. While, the last few chapters have briefly discussed programmatic

NATURAL PROCESS

while shelters are one possible solution to help minimize

UN-NATURAL CAUSES +10% to +40%

This occurs due to a number of factors which are

strategies to help minimize erosion while maintaining a minimal footprint and visual integration, the following pages address the conceptual development of how this will be achieved.

Figure 6.2 Humans are said to increase the process of erosion anywhere from ten to forty percent more than the natural process” (Lang 2006)

113 THRU-HIKERS COMPLETING THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL ( PER DECADE )

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1940s

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

illegal camping

increase in numbers

visitor made trails

fire rings

expansion and size

vegetation loss and soil exposure

) NEIGHBORING SITES WITHIN VIEW (#)

2 3+

Illegal campsites

lack of solitude

2 3+

legal unrationed campsites

2 3+

legal rationed campsites

2 3+

legal rationed shelters

human waste

tree damage

Figure 6.3 Common Issues within Existing Campsites

1930s

PROBLEM

114

increase in numbers

lack of solitude

expansion and size

illegal camping

visitor made trails

fire rings

tree damage

vegetation loss and soil exposure

human waste

SOLUTION

Figure 6.4 Thesis Problem fire rings

tree

vegetation loss and soil exposure

hum

topography

An increase in number of campsites has led to expansion in 58% campsite area, lack of solitude, and for some, illegal illegal camping camping. When visitor made trails are introduced, the result is an increase in vegetation loss and soil exposure, increase in numbers

effecient shelters

evidence of human waste, tree damage, and fire rings.

response to user group

visitor made trails

expansion and size

spatial innovations

PR expansion and size

illegal camping

visitor made trails

vegetation loss and soil exposure

human waste

SOLUTION

115

fire rings

tree damage

vegetation loss and soil exposure

human waste

topography

58%

increase in numbers

effecient shelters

illegal camping

response to user group

visitor made trails

expansion and size

spatial innovations

Figure 6.5 Thesis Solution

One possible solution, in response to the increase in camping, is to design more efficient shelters that utilize topography, user group studies, and spatial innovations to help minimize illegal camping and campsite expansion. This should help prevent of user created trails, decrease vegetation loss and soil exposure, and minimize human waste, tree damage, and fire rings

116

TRENDS IN SHELTER

STRONG CONNECTION WITH NATURE PROPOSAL

Figure 6.6 Trends in Shelter Evolution

PAST TRENDS

CURRENT TREN

117

SHELTER EVOLUTION

AST TRENDS

STRONG DISCONNECT FROM NATURE

CURRENT TRENDS

Trends in Shelter Evolution When designing more efficient shelters, it

design is advancing to the right of the spectrum, resulting in designs that mimic traditional architecture,

is important to understand the wide spectrum of

thus changing the identity of the Appalachian Trail. It

designs that exist (Figure 6.6). The left represents

is important to identify this trend in order to provide

primitive shelters that fit within nature through

a solution. The proposal within this thesis will attempt

appearance, footprint, materiality, and experiential

to fall just left of the original primitively designed

qualities. The right represents civilized shelters that

Appalachian Trail shelters. It will be through the

have little relationship to their natural surroundings.

application architecture that this thesis will achieve

As mentioned earlier within this book, current shelter

these goals.

118

Figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2021; 6.7 Preliminary Sketches

Preliminary Concept Sketches

The first sketch explores the initial idea of an elevated

119

Another conceptual proposal was the idea of creating

shelter design, this sketch shows how this concept

a set floor plan that would be made from a collapsible

could be utilized while still maintaining a level

light weight aluminum, that once erected, would

entrance. The concept of an elevated shelter also

be filled with the material found on site. This would

might add to the experiential quality by placing the

regulate the size of the shelters, while still allowing for

hiker within the trees and within nature.

customization.

Taking a more detailed look at how an elevated

The final sketch is a diagram comparing the use of

shelter could work, this sketch explores possible

elevated platforms versus excavation. This emphasizes

materialistic qualities and structural elements, due the

this thesisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; argument that an elevated platform

raised platform, lateral loading is vital in keeping the

decreases the overall footprint of the shelter, allowing

platform safe for hikers.

for a more nature friendly design.

This sketch is an exploration of utilizing the area underneath the elevated platform as a potential habitable space. This also would be directly under the shelterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s floor, thus creating a roof, making the platform weather resistant.

120

Figure 6.8 Study Model - Roof as Habitable Space

Figure 6.9 Study Model - Nature Integration Exploration

Aesthetic Concept Exploration

In keeping with the idea making architecture

seamlinessly blend in with its surroundings, one proposal is to utilize existing trees as a supporting element for the platform (See Figure 6.9). By tieing the platform into the trees, it would minimize the need for cutting down trees, thus decreasing the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impact on the existing land.

The other conceptual aesthetic is the idea of

using the roof as a habitable space, If a flat roof is present in the future proposal design, that roof could be utilized as either a tent platform, or the base of another shelter, efficiently maximizing the use of space. (See Figure 6.8)

While these concepts vary entirely from existing

hiking shelter designs, they offer elements that could prove to be beneficial. The use of these concept will be explored in future chapters, and an argument will be made for, or against, the implementation of these designs within the future proposal.

121

122

123

Chapter 7 Architecture to Facilitate Primitive Design

Introduction

124

User Group Analysis (re-visited) In Chapter 3 Part 1, the hiker was analyzed,

Through the use of the user group studies in

and a series of hypotheses were developed as to

Chapter 3 Part 1, site analysis in Chapter 4, spatial

what direction the shelterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s form, programming, and

programming in Chapter 5, the next phase in the

aesthetics should be. However, this is not the full

design process is to develop a mythology. Throughout

scope of the user group. Key players in the process

this thesis, it has been argued that architecture is the

of designing a shelter are the maintenance clubs

solution to combat structure creep and minimize the

and volunteers that oversee and physically construct

potential for erosion and vegetation impaction. While

the shelters. As mentioned earlier in Chapter 2, there

it seems contradictory, since architecture in its nature

are 31 different maintenance clubs that governing

is an invasive profession, the same processes involved

sections of the Appalachian trail (Figure 7.1). Within these 31 maintenance clubs there are a total of 5

in the creation of a well design building will provide

possible regulating organizations that govern the

the solution to the issues discussed in this thesis. The

construction of the shelters, the Appalachian Trail

following pages document that process, leading

Conservancy (which has been analyzed in greater

up the to proposed solution that will facilitate the

detail in the previous chapters), the United States

design thus making the practice of architecture an

Forest Services, Land Management Planning Guides,

achievable goal.

the National Parks Services, the Department of

MILE 2180

Figure 7.1 Appalachian Trail Maintenance Clubs and their respective governing territory

GEORGIA APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB

SMOKY MOUNTAINS HIKING CLUB

NANTAHALA HIKING CLUB

TENNESSEE EASTMAN HIKING AND CANOEING CLUB CAROLINA MOUNTAIN CLUB

PIEDMONT APPALACHIAN TRAIL HIKERS

MOUNT ROGERS APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB

OUTDOOR CLUB OF VIRGINIA TECH

ROANOKE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB

TIDEWATER APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB

POTOMAC APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB

NATURAL BRIDGE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB OLD DOMINION APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB

LUB

Conservation and National Resources. Another body

MAINTENANCE CLUBS:

125

Georgia A.T. Club

that governs the construction of shelters is the Forrest

Nantahala Hiking Club Smoky Mountains Hiking Club

Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines,

Carolina Mountain Club

which oversees handicapable accessibility

Mount Rogers A.T. Club

Tennessee Eastman Hiking Club

Piedmont A.T. Hikers Outdoor Club of Virginia Tech

throughout hiking trails and future shelter designs.

Roanoke A.T. Club

Finally, there is the one other method for construction.

Tidewater A.T. Club

This is the industry standards/best practices

Potomac A.T. Club

Natural Bridge A.T. Club

Old Dominion A.T. Club

GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS:

method, which means that the maintenance club is not technically running their designs by a larger

Mountain Club of Maryland Cumberland Valley A.T. Club

Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC)

York Hiking Club Susquehanna A.T. Club

United States Forest Services (USFS)

Allentown Hiking Club Blue Mountain Eagle Climbing Club

governance, but instead chooses which ever method is the least costly and easiest to produce. When contacting each maintenance club and inquiring

Land Management Planning Guide (LMPG)

Philadelphia Trail Club AMC Delaware Valley Chapter

National Parks Services (NPS)

Botona Hiking Club Wilmington Trail Club

Department of Conservation and National Resources (DCNR)

New York-New Jersey Trail Conference AMC Connecticut Chapter AMC Berkshire Chapter

which governing body they use to over see their

Industry Standards / Best Practices

Dartmouth Outing Club Forrest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines

design, it is noticeable the disorder that occurs

Green Mountain Club

Randolph Mountain Club Appalachian Mountain Club Maine A.T. Club

throughout the entire Appalachian Trail (See Figure 7.2).

PROBLEM: THERE ARE A NUMBER OF GOVERNING BODIES WITH DIFFERENT GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN, RESULTING IN VARYING DESIGN PRACTICES

ALLENTOWN HIKING CLUB CUMBERLAND VALLEY APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB

AMC - DELAWARE BATONA HIKING CLUB

MILE 0.00

Figure 7.2 ATC Maintenance Clubs and their respective guidelines

GREEN MOUNTAIN CLUB

AMC - CONNECTICUT

SUSQUEHANNA APPALACHIAN TRAIL CLUB NY-NJ TRAIL CONFERENCE MOUNT CLUB OF MARYLAND PHILADELPHIA TRAIL CLUB WILMINGTON TRAIL CLUB YORK HIKING CLUB BLUE MOUNTAIN EAGLE CLIMBING CLUB

AMC - BERKSHIRE

APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB RANDOLPH MOUNTAIN CLUB

MAIN TRAIL CLUB

126

Developing the Matrix System

discussed in greater detail later, because before

the configurations can materialize, it is important to

One hypothesis for the cause of structure

creep is through the lack of total governance of all

understand the driving factors that fully dictate each

maintenance clubs concerning trail shelter designs.

design.

While the governing bodies are more than qualified to provide the necessary governance, the main issue is that they govern a large area of land. This results in very broad and vague regulations. The other issue is that they do not provide visual representation of the guidelines. In order for an idea to be adopted seamlessly, it needs to be easily understood, and a way to accomplish this is through visual representation.

The proposal within this chapter will act as

Hiker Scale: Designing around the Human Figure with an Emphasis on Hiking Tendencies

As discussed in previous chapters, the concept

of hiker scale will dictate the size and shape of the spaces within the proposed shelter. The following pages consist of the process explaining the development of that hiker scale. The first step in this process consists of a study of the human body and its dimension. Research states that

a supporting document to the governing bodies,

“[d]ue to the significant variations in individual body

that if adopted, will provide a visual representation

size, “averages” are obviously of little use to the

of what should be designed. In order to determine the optimal designs, a matrix of configurations uses a series of parameters to decipher which designs are the best for select situations. This process will be

designer and it is necessary to deal with range... Since it is impractical to design for the entire population, it is necessary to select a segment from the middle potion, Accordingly, it is fairly common today to omit the extremes at both ends and to deal with 90 percent of the population group” (Panero and Zelnik 1979, p 34)

127

72.8”

67.1”

38.0”

35.7”

15.5”

14.0”

20.7”

Figure 7.3 Human Figure Dimensions Exploration

17.0”

128

This information becomes vital in the design process

comfortable, spaces within the shelter. Figure 7.3

of the sleeping platforms. Since this shelter will

represents the overall body dimensions of the 90th

potentially be used by millions of hikers throughout its

percentile body width and height for male and

life time, it is important for the design to comfortably

female. It also represents the dimensional proportions

accompany 90 percent of the users. Also, in

of certain bodily movements. Figure 7.4 takes the

continuing with the idea of achieving selective

information seen in Figure 7.3 and compares it to

solitude, each shelter will utilize individual sleeping

existing bed designs. Figure 7.4 analyzes all the

platforms. The use of a sleeping platform allows for a

compact bed possibilities, compiles it into one

solo hiker to feel elements of solitude in a shelter with

composite diagram, and from there, the final design

a larger group of hikers. Hierarchically, sleeping is the

emerges. The dimensional elements found within the

most important programmatic element because of

study of tent design (see chapter 3.2), along with the

the strenuousity of the hiking recreation. Also sleeping

dimensions of a single bed, commercial cots, naval

is when a hiker is at his most vulnerable, and, next to

cots, and residential beds, were used in determining

hiking solo, is one of the more intimate of activities

the final design of a 32” by 84” sleeping platform.

a hiker will experience during the hike. It is for these

reasons that the main factor when designing the

final dimensions of sleeping platform, an additional

proposed shelter becomes the sleeping platform

few inches of width are added to account for heavy

dimensions. All other dimensions will stem from the

clothing during winter months, and the added

dimensions of the sleeping platform. Therefore, the

dimensions in height are for storage of gear either

platforms will need to be the most efficient, yet

at the footing of the platform or heading. This is a

The concept of “hiker scale” is seen in the

SINGLE BED

COMMERCIAL COT

NAVAL COT

COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL

129

MEAN

LARGEST

SMALLEST

NAVAL COT

COMPOSITE

COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL

FINAL 32”X84”

72.8”

AVERAGE

COMMERCIAL COT

67.1”

SINGLE BED

COMPOSITE

FINAL 32”X84”

Figure 7.4 Sleeping Platform Exploration and Final Design

67.1”

SMALLEST

72.8”

EST

TENT

130

practice used within the hiking community in winter months because it keeps the gear warm from body heat.

Employing the Hiker Scale

When incorporating the sleeping platforms

into the first attempts of a shelter floor plan, its is obvious of the many possibilities that exist. The models seen here in Figure 7.5 represent the multitude of possibilities in utilizing the platform as a basis for the shelter design. Along with each configurations, there is also a number of possibilities involving the ability to sleep hikers outside of the designated sleeping platforms (Figure 7.6). It is the results from this process that lead to the overall development of the matrix system which will be discussed in greater detail on the following page.

Figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2021; 7.5 Study Models - Spatial Explorations

131

Figureâ&#x20AC;&#x2021; 7.6 Spatial Explorations 2

132

The Matrix Proposal

configurations based on those needs. It is then up to the

maintenance clubs to interpret how they will instill the

Before the full potential of the matrix can be

understood, a synopsis of why it evolved must be re-

configurations within their final proposal. What this allows

examined. It has been mentioned that from the 31

is user customization, while still providing regulations

total maintenance clubs, there is no single governing

over the overall design. Also, the matrix does not only

document that aids in the design process of hiking

provide floor plan solutions, but suggests optimum roof

shelters, resulting in what is known as structure creep.

and platform configurations. What makes the matrix

This matrix seeks to become that governing document.

a successful solution, is the ability to architecturally

However, the matrix does not provide codes and

assist on the design process without an architect being

regulations like the aforementioned guidelines

present. This dramatically decreases the cost of creating

do, instead the proposed matrix offers a visual

architecturally designed shelters, theoretically increasing

representation of the possibilities one club might chose

the likelihood of this methodology being implemented

to use as the basis for their designs. Based on a series of

throughout the Appalachian trail Maintenance Clubs.

parameters the matrix acts as a system to produce the

optimum design based on maintenance clubsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; priorities.

will be supplemental to the already in place guidelines

This removes the element of code interpretation, and

and regulations used by the respective maintenance

replaces it with design interpretation. In other words,

clubs. It is also important to understand that the

if the priorities of the maintenance clubs consist of

design process does not end at the results created

providing adequate sleeping, standing, sitting and

from the matrix process. There are a number of over

changing space, then the matrix produces the optimum

design factors that are necessary to design a fully site

It is important to understand the use of this matrix

integrated structure, the matrix only seeks to aid in that

that shelter was given a +1. Once all the parameters

process. It will be the purpose of this thesis to explore the

were determined, the totals were tallied, and the most

other architectural practices and how to make them

optimum shelters emerged. Theoretically, if the actual

accessible to the maintenance clubs, a topic that will

values of the grading system were tallied, then a more

be discussed later. Instead, the following pages will

precise result would occur. This is how the matrix would

explain the initial adaptation of the matrix applied to

adapt if adopted by the maintenance clubs.

Laurel Fork in Hampton, Tennessee.

It is also important to understand the results

displayed when completing the matrix are suggested

Understanding How to Use the Matrix

The matrix consists of 20 different floor plan

configurations, 15 different roof configurations, and 8 different platform configurations. Each set of configuration are graded on a ten point grading scale based on their respective parameters. Ten represents the highest and zero represents the lowest. Under select parameters such as footprint and maintenance, lower values are better. For the purpose of this thesis and ease of adaptation, the method for determining the optimum configurations was based on an addition process. If the shelter consisted of a parameter with a value of +5 then

optimum configurations and should be taken as a recommended design solution since special cases will occur, be it though site conditions, maintenance club abilities, or other exterior factors. Chapter 8 will go into greater detail the process of adapting the matrix to existing site conditions.

133

134

F 1A SLEEPS

SIT STAND PACK/UNPACK CHANGE DRY CLOTHES STORE GEAR COOK EAT STORE FOOD SOCIAL INTERACTION OBSERVATION CONTEMPLATION

SOLAR PROTECTION WIND PROTECTION CONSTRUCTABILITY NATURE INTEGRATION PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT VIEW OF SURROUNDINGS EFFECIENT USE OF SPACE

CROWDING AND CONFLICTS ACCOMODATE OVERNIGHT EXPANSION PROXIMITY TO WATER SOURCE REMOTE FROM MOTORIZE ACCESS OUT OF SIGHT OF THE A.T. MIDE SLOPE POSITION EXPANSION PROOF SENSITIVE OF NATURAL RESOURCES PREVENT EROSION PROTECT WATER SOURCES PROMOTE SOLITUDE VISITOR SAFETY PRIMITIVE, RUSTIC QUALITIES RESOURCE PROTECTION MAXIMIZE LIFESPAN, MINIMIZE MAINTENANCE MINIMIZE FIRE DANGER MINIMIZE USE OF TENT PLATFORMS FOOD PROTECTION FROM WILDLIFE LOCATED IN WELL DRAINED SOILS APPLICABLE STATE ATC GUIDELINES AVOID SOCIAL IMPACTS

Figure 7.7 Matrix - Floor Plan Configurations

CONSTRUCTABILITY

F 1B

F 2A

F 2B

F 3A

F 3B

F 4A

F 4B

F 5A

135

F 5B

F 6A

F 6B

F 7A

F 7B

F 8A

F 8B

F 9A

F 9B

F 10 A

F 10 B

PREVENT EROSION PROTECT WATER SOURCES PROMOTE SOLITUDE VISITOR SAFETY PRIMITIVE, RUSTIC QUALITIES RESOURCE PROTECTION MAXIMIZE LIFESPAN, MINIMIZE MAINTENANCE

136

MINIMIZE FIRE DANGER MINIMIZE USE OF TENT PLATFORMS FOOD PROTECTION FROM WILDLIFE LOCATED IN WELL DRAINED SOILS APPLICABLE STATE ATC GUIDELINES AVOID SOCIAL IMPACTS

R1 CONSTRUCTABILITY MAINTAINENANCE

NATURAL LIGHTING NATURAL VENTILATION NATURAL HEATING SOLAR PROTECTION WIND PROTECTION WIND RESISTANT RAIN RESISTANT SNOW RESISTANT USE OF MATERIALS NATURE INTEGRATION VIEW POTENTIAL PRIMITIVE APPEARANCE RAINWATER COLLECTION OVERHANG POTENTIAL ROOF AS HABITABLE SPACE

Figure 7.8 Matrix - Roof Configurations CONSTRUCTABILITY MAINTAINENANCE

PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT

R 4

R 5

R 6

137

R 10

R 11

R 12

R 13

R 14

R 15

PREVENT EROSION PROTECT WATER SOURCES PROMOTE SOLITUDE VISITOR SAFETY PRIMITIVE, RUSTIC QUALITIES RESOURCE PROTECTION MAXIMIZE LIFESPAN, MINIMIZE MAINTENANCE

138

MINIMIZE FIRE DANGER MINIMIZE USE OF TENT PLATFORMS FOOD PROTECTION FROM WILDLIFE LOCATED IN WELL DRAINED SOILS APPLICABLE STATE ATC GUIDELINES AVOID SOCIAL IMPACTS

P 1A CONSTRUCTABILITY MAINTAINENANCE

PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT SITE INTEGRATION CAMPING POTENTIAL WIND RESISTANT RAIN RESISTANT SNOW RESISTANT PRIMITIVE APPEARANCE EXPANSION CAPACITY ACCESSIBILITY SLOPE ADAPTABILITY SITE ADAPTABILITY STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY

Figure 7.9 Matrix - Platform Configurations

P 1B

P 2A

P 2B

P 3A

P 3B

139

140

141

Chapter 8 Part 1 Matrix Adaptation

Introduction

142

In chapter 4, it was discussed how this particular section of the Laurel Fork trail was chosen. As seen in Figure 8.1.1, the Appalachian Trail runs just west of the APPALACHIAN TRAIL

two site proposals that will be addressed in this chapter.

HIGHWATER TRAIL PROPOSED EXTENSION

The Highwater trail is a side trail that was introduced EXISTING SHELTER

LAUREL RIVER

HIGHWATER TRAIL

APPALACHIAN TRAIL

to allow for continued access to the Appalachian Trail when Laurel River floods. In order to access the two

site locations, a continuation of the Highwater trail is proposed, connecting the trail to a higher elevated section of the A.T. This proposal occurs right at the site of the existing Laurel Fork Shelter. Due to these site

characteristics, the first site proposal and the second Figure 8.1.1 Site Axon and Site Proposals

site proposal will require unique priorities, changing the results the matrix produces. This is evident in the following pages.

SLEEPS

6 - 15 People

143

most important

FLOOR PLAN

ALL SIT

CROWDING AND CONFLICTS

ROOF

ACCOMODATE OVERNIGHT EXPANSION

STAND PACK/UNPACK

CONSTRUCTABILITY

CHANGE

MAINTAINENANCE

PROXIMITY TO WATER SOURCE

PLATFORM

DRY CLOTHES CONSTRUCTABILITY

STORE GEAR COOK EAT STORE FOOD

NATURAL LIGHTING

SOLAR PROTECTION WIND PROTECTION

CONTEMPLATION

WIND PROTECTION

MIDE SLOPE POSITION EXPANSION PROOF

PREVENT EROSION

NATURAL HEATING

OBSERVATION

OUT OF SIGHT OF THE A.T.

SENSITIVE OF NATURAL RESOURCES

NATURAL VENTILATION

SOCIAL INTERACTION

SOLAR PROTECTION

MAINTAINENANCE

REMOTE FROM MOTORIZE ACCESS

PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT

PROTECT WATER SOURCES

SITE INTEGRATION

PROMOTE SOLITUDE

WIND RESISTANT

CAMPING POTENTIAL

VISITOR SAFETY

RAIN RESISTANT

WIND RESISTANT

PRIMITIVE, RUSTIC QUALITIES

SNOW RESISTANT

RAIN RESISTANT

RESOURCE PROTECTION

USE OF MATERIALS

SNOW RESISTANT

MAXIMIZE LIFESPAN, MINIMIZE MAINTENANCE

NATURE INTEGRATION

PRIMITIVE APPEARANCE

MINIMIZE FIRE DANGER

CONSTRUCTABILITY

VIEW POTENTIAL

EXPANSION CAPACITY

MINIMIZE USE OF TENT PLATFORMS

NATURE INTEGRATION

PRIMITIVE APPEARANCE

ACCESSIBILITY

FOOD PROTECTION FROM WILDLIFE

PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT

RAINWATER COLLECTION

SLOPE ADAPTABILITY

VIEW OF SURROUNDINGS EFFECIENT USE OF SPACE

OVERHANG POTENTIAL

SITE ADAPTABILITY

ROOF AS HABITABLE SPACE

STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY

LOCATED IN WELL DRAINED SOILS APPLICABLE STATE ATC GUIDELINES AVOID SOCIAL IMPACTS

Figure 8.1.2 Site 1 Rubric

Adapting the Matrix to Site 1 For this particular location, certain elements were

will reach traveling southbound from Watauga Lake shelter, and the last one traveling North from Laurel Fork

prioritized over others (see Figure 8.1.2) Constructability

shelter. For this, it is believed the shelter will be highly

and maintenance were a priority because the

used, therefore social interaction is prioritized. Other

proposed shelter is a far enough distance from any

elements such as nature integration, physical footprint,

motorized access that reaching the site becomes

and efficient use of space are important in keeping

a difficulty. This shelter will be the first shelter hikers

with the opinions of this thesis. Climate conditions then

144

F 1A

F 6A

F 1B

F 2A

F 2B

F 4A

F 4B

F 5A

F 5B

F 6B

F 7A

F 7B

F 8A

F 10 A

F 10 B

R 5

F 8B

F 9B

F 9A

R 4

R 6

R 11

R 12

R 13

P 1A

P 1B

P 2A

P 2B

P 3A

P 3B

R 14

R 15

WIND

SUN

Figure 8.1.3 Site 1 Matrix Results

Figure 8.1.4 Site 1 Configuration Exploration 1

145

WIND

SUN

Figure 8.1.5 Site 1 Configuration Exploration 2

SUN

Figure 8.1.6 Site 1 Configuration Exploration 3

146

dictate the rest of the prioritized elements on this rubric.

issues with this concept is the longevity of the structure.

When these elements are run through the matrix (Figure

If a tree dies, how would the platform react structurally?

8.1.3), the results are then combined into the models

How would a maintenance club replace the fallen

represented in Figures 8.1.4 through 8.1.6. Since these

tree with a structural element? Ultimately, there are too

are preliminary exploration models, the process of

many variables that are involved with the idea utilizing

converting the matrix results into a final design was not

existing trees, therefore this concept will not be used

explored, instead the purpose of these models were to

within the final proposals, instead a variation will be

test the matrix.

implemented.

Another element explored within these proposals

and the proposals for the second site, is the concept

Adapting the Matrix to Site 2

of utilizing existing trees as a means for elevating the

structure. This is a concept that was discussed in chapter

of a different set of rubric priorities. Since this shelter

6. As seen in the floor plans in Figures 8.1.4 through

is located between the first site proposal, and the

8.1.6, the platforms took the shape of the existing tree

existing Laurel Fork Shelter, the shelterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity

layout. After further analysis of this concept, it has

decreases, and the needs change. Notice in Figure

been concluded that this is not an economic design

8.1.7, social interaction is decreased, but observation

technique. This is for two reasons: the first being the

and contemplation are increased. Also, in keeping with

physical constructability of the structure, how the

some of the user studies, found in Chapter 3, space

platform connects to the existing trees, and how the

for gear storage, cooking space, eating space, and

bean and joist connections would occur. The second

standing room are the main priorities of this shelter.

The adaptation of the matrix to site 2 consists

most important

FLOOR PLAN

ALL SIT

CROWDING AND CONFLICTS

ROOF

ACCOMODATE OVERNIGHT EXPANSION

STAND PACK/UNPACK

CONSTRUCTABILITY

CHANGE

MAINTAINENANCE

PROXIMITY TO WATER SOURCE

PLATFORM

DRY CLOTHES CONSTRUCTABILITY

STORE GEAR COOK EAT STORE FOOD

NATURAL LIGHTING

SOLAR PROTECTION WIND PROTECTION

WIND PROTECTION

PREVENT EROSION PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT

PROTECT WATER SOURCES

SITE INTEGRATION

PROMOTE SOLITUDE

WIND RESISTANT

CAMPING POTENTIAL

VISITOR SAFETY

RAIN RESISTANT

WIND RESISTANT

PRIMITIVE, RUSTIC QUALITIES

SNOW RESISTANT

RAIN RESISTANT

RESOURCE PROTECTION

USE OF MATERIALS

SNOW RESISTANT

MAXIMIZE LIFESPAN, MINIMIZE MAINTENANCE

NATURE INTEGRATION

PRIMITIVE APPEARANCE

MINIMIZE FIRE DANGER MINIMIZE USE OF TENT PLATFORMS FOOD PROTECTION FROM WILDLIFE

CONSTRUCTABILITY

VIEW POTENTIAL

NATURE INTEGRATION

PRIMITIVE APPEARANCE

ACCESSIBILITY

PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT

RAINWATER COLLECTION

SLOPE ADAPTABILITY

EFFECIENT USE OF SPACE

EXPANSION PROOF SENSITIVE OF NATURAL RESOURCES

EXPANSION CAPACITY

VIEW OF SURROUNDINGS

MIDE SLOPE POSITION

NATURAL HEATING

OBSERVATION

SOLAR PROTECTION

OUT OF SIGHT OF THE A.T.

MAINTAINENANCE

NATURAL VENTILATION

SOCIAL INTERACTION

CONTEMPLATION

REMOTE FROM MOTORIZE ACCESS

OVERHANG POTENTIAL

SITE ADAPTABILITY

ROOF AS HABITABLE SPACE

STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY

LOCATED IN WELL DRAINED SOILS APPLICABLE STATE ATC GUIDELINES AVOID SOCIAL IMPACTS

Figure 8.1.7 Site 2 Rubric

Other elements were adjusted to test the flexibility of the matrix. Similar to the first proposal, the process of

Final Conclusion The overall capabilities of the matrix are endless,

going from matrix results to building design was not

and the previous results display that. However, since the

fully explored. Notice in the model seen in Figures 8.1.9

locations are within the same topographic region, with

through 8.1.11, the smaller stature of the proposed

the same climate conditions, ground condition, and

design. This is a direct result of the matrix system.

similar context conditions, the capabilities of the matrix are not fully evident. The fully range of the matrix will be explored in the next part of this chapter.

147

148

F 1A

F 1B

F 2A

F 2B

F 3A

F 3B

F 4A

F 4B

F 5A

F 5B

F 6A

F 6B

F 7A

F 7B

F 8A

F 8B

F 9A

F 9B

F 10 A

F 10 B

R 4

R 5

R 6

R 11

R 12

R 13

R 14

P 1A

P 1B

P 2A

P 2B

R 15

WIND

SUN

Figure 8.1.8 Site 2 Matrix Results

Figure 8.1.9 Site 2 Configuration Exploration 1

SUN

149

WIND

SUN

Figure 8.1.10 Site 2 Configuration Exploration 2

Figure 8.1.11 Site 2 Configuration Exploration 3

150

151

Chapter 8 Part 2 Matrix Adaptation (re-visited)

152

Introduction

and a high density - cold climate will also be chosen.

This equals a total of four differing site conditions. One

In order to explore the full potential of the

matrix system, there needed to be a winder range

must now look at site factors not involving climate,

in the variables associated with the site conditions.

Laurel Forkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s topography is mainly top soil with a few

The majority of this thesis has been dedicated to

rock extrusions. Therefore, the opposite condition of that

the exploration of Laurel Fork as the proposed site. However, as the first part of this chapter explored, Laurel fork only offers a select set of variables. Stepping back and looking at the basics of Laurel Fork, one will notice that the site conditions are as followed: moderate climate with high density vegetation. This poses the question: what would the matrix produce if the site was in a contrasting climate condition. To fully answer the question, one must first explore the possible site conditions that exist. If Laurel Fork is located in a high density - moderate climate, then a low density cold climate would be the extreme opposite. However, two cases is not enough to explore the endless possibilities, so a middle range of site conditions are needed. Therefore a low density - moderate climate,

would be a location whose surface is primarily exposed rock.

The number of site conditions now equals a total

of five, offering a well rounded exploration of extreme variances in elements that will theoretically lead to a wider range in priorities, thus testing the true flexibility of the matrix. The following site locations are as followed: High Density - Moderate Climate

It was already discussed that Laurel Fork acts as the

High Density - Moderate Climate candidate, and all the previous site analysis explored in Chapter 4 still applies.

Low Density - Moderate Climate

The site chosen for this climatic element is Whitetop

Mountain in southern Virginia. Whitetop mountain was chosen because of the naturally occurring bald that exists near the peak of the mountain, offering a low density moderate climate scenario.

Rock Outcrops - Moderate Climate The candidate for the rock outcrops - moderate climate is McAfee Knob located in middle Virginia. This

proposed location. Instead, the purpose of the locations are to test the capabilities of the matrix, and explore the

site was chosen due to the exposed rock section located

outcomes that result. Sites like McAfee Knob are iconic

on the southern side of the peak of McAfee Knob.

to the Appalachian Trail, and adding a shelter to this

Low Density - Cold Climate In order to fully explore cold climate capabilities, the location chosen for low density - cold climate was Mount Madison, located on the Presidential Range in New Hampshire. This site was chosen due to the elevations

location could potentially affect the iconâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s popularity. This contradicts the argument this thesis proposes, so it is important to understand that these sites are for exploration purposes only.

involved as well as the climate conditions found along

site

the presidential range. The shelter will be located nearing

Laurel Falls

the alpine zone (tree line), thus creating a low density condition.

High Density - Cold Climate The location of the high density - cold climate site is found on Mount Bigelow in Maine, The location of the site is just north of Cranberry Pond and exists in a high density region.

It is important to make the distinction that these sites were chosen purely for their topographic and climatic conditions. This thesis is not suggesting that these sites should or should not have shelters located in the

00 0

fee t NO

H RT

Figure 8.2.1 High Density - Moderate Climate (Laurel Fork)

153

154

McAfee Knob Whitetop Mountain

site

670

0 fe et N

H RT O

Figure 8.2.2 Low Density - Moderate Climate (Whitetop Mountain)

fe et

RT NO

Figure 8.2.3 Rock Outcrops - Moderate Climate (McAfee Knob)

155

Cranberry Pond

Mount Adams Mount Jefferson

site

Mount Madison

Hornâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Pond

site Mount Washington

26 00 0

fe e

t R NO

Figure 8.2.4 Low Density - Moderate Climate (Mount Madison)

ee t H RT

Figure 8.2.5 High Density - Moderate Climate (Cranberry Pond)

156

Site Analysis (re-visited) For the purpose of this thesis, the level of site analysis done on the four new sites will not be as in depth as that of Laurel Fork, however it would be expected by the maintenance clubs who design these shelters to explore every element of site analysis

HIGH DENSITY - MODERATE CLIMATE Laurel Fork - Tennessee

Laurel Fork, Tennessee 30

80 70

before embarking on the process of designing a shelter.

50 40

20 5

10 0

Average Temperature ( oF )

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average Days Above 90 oF

Average Days Below 32 oF

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

average temperature 20

However, in order for the matrix to be successful, some

50 15 40

20 5 Montly Snowfall (inches)

Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Cloudy Days

Clear Days (inches)

snowfall and precipitation

level of site analysis needs to be completed; in order

90 80

50 20 40 15

Laurel Fork, Tennessee 0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

10 Average Wind Speed (mph)

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

wind speed

to design site integrated structures, each site has to be

80 70

60 20

50 40

30 10 20 5

analyzed.

Average Temperature ( oF )

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average Days Above 90 oF

Average Days Below 32 oF

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

days above 90oF / below 30oF 20

50 15 40

20 5

For each site, the following elements are

Montly Snowfall (inches)

Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Cloudy Days

Clear Days (inches)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

cloudy / clear days 40

80 70

50 20 40

highlighted:

5 0

10 Average Wind Speed (mph)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average Relative Humidity (%)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

relatively humidity

5,500’ 5,000’ 4,500’ 4,000’ 3,500’ 3,000’ 2,500’

Watauga Lake Shelter Laurel Fork Shelter

2,000’ 1,500’

solar patterns

wind patterns

climate patterns

shelter proximity

vegetation proximity

Figure 8.2.6 Site Analysis Elements

1,000’

SOUTH

7.79 miles

0.32 miles

Some other key elements for each site include:

7.47 miles

Laurel Fork Shelter Capacity: Fee:

Laurel Fork - The close proximity to an existing shelter

NORTH

0 miles

Near AT: Maintained By:

PROPOSAL 6

Capacity:

Fee:

YES

Near AT:

Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club

Maintained By:

Watauga Lake Shelter 6

Capacity:

Fee:

YES

Near AT:

Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club

Maintained By:

and illegal campsites located west of the proposed site. Figure 8.2.7 High Density - Moderate Climate (Laurel Fork)

6 NO YES Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club

Average Relative Humidity (%)

157

LOW DENSITY - MODERATE CLIMATE

ROCK FORMATIONS - MODERATE CLIMATE

White Top Mountain, Virginia

McAfee Knob - Virginia

Cranberry Pond on Bigelow Mountain, Maine

Laurel Fork, Tennessee

25 60

50 40

50 15

10 20

20 5

10 0

80 70

Average Temperature ( oF )

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average Days Above 90 oF

Average Days Below 32 oF

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average Temperature ( oF )

Jan

Feb

average temperature

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Feb

Mar

Apr

Nov

Dec

Mar

Apr

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

60 20 50 15

40 30

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Average Days Above 90 oF

Average Days Below 32 oF

Dec

Average Temperature ( oF )

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Average Days Above 90 oF

Average Days Below 32 oF

0 Jan

Dec

days above 90oF / below 30oF

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

days above 90oF / below 30oF 20

15 40

5 Montly Snowfall (inches)

Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Clear Days (inches)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Montly Snowfall (inches)

Cloudy Days

Dec

Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Cloudy Days

Clear Days (inches)

Jan

Feb

Mar

cloudy / clear days 90

Average Wind Speed (mph)

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Oct

Nov

Dec

Nov

Dec

Average Relative Humidity (%)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

30 20 10 Average Wind Speed (mph)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

relatively humidity

Thomas Knob Shelter

5,500’

Sept

Jan

Aug

15 10

July

40 30

May June

50 20 15

Apr

cloudy / clear days

40 35 30

5,000’

Average Relative Humidity (%)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

relatively humidity

5,500’ 5,000’

4,500’

4,000’

4,000’ Lost Mountain Shelter

Horn’s Pond Lean-tos

3,500’

3,000’

2,500’

2,000’

Spaulding Mountain Lean-to

2,000’

1,500’

SOUTH

1,500’

NORTH

11.51 miles

1,000’ 0 miles

11.51 miles

4.41 miles

1,000’

SOUTH

11.51 miles

15.29 miles

PROPOSAL 6

Capacity:

Thomas Knob Shelter 6 -10

Capacity:

Spaulding Mountain Lean-to

Fee:

Capacity:

Near AT:

YES

Near AT:

YES

Near AT:

YES

Fee:

Mt. Rogers Appalachain Trail Club

Maintained By:

Mt. Rogers Appalachain Trail Club

Maintained By:

0.72 miles

PROPOSAL

Thomas Knob Shelter

Fee:

Maintained By:

NORTH

0 miles

7.1 miles

Lost Mountain Shelter Capacity:

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Clear Days (inches)

10 Average Wind Speed (mph)

Dec

Oct

July

Jan

wind speed

Sept

May June

Mar

Aug

Apr

Feb

July

Mar

Average Relative Humidity (%)

Jan

May June

Feb

Cranberry Pond on Bigelow Mountain, Maine

10 Average Wind Speed (mph)

May June

Apr

Jan

Feb

Mar

Dec

Jan

Feb

Nov

Cloudy Days

3,500’

Oct

wind speed

Sept

750’

Aug

0’

July

May June

20 15

Jan

Oct

Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Jan

Laurel Fork, Tennessee

Sept

snowfall and precipitation

Average Temperature ( oF )

Aug

Clear Days (inches)

Jan

July

Montly Snowfall (inches)

Cloudy Days

snowfall and precipitation 40

May June

5 Montly Snowfall (inches)

Apr

Mar

Feb

Jan

Average Days Below 32 oF

Dec

average temperature

Average Days Above 90 oF

Mt. Rogers Appalachain Trail Club

Near AT: Maintained By:

Capacity:

Fee:

YES

Near AT:

Maine Appalachain Trail Club

Maintained By:

Capacity:

Fee:

YES

Near AT:

Maine Appalachain Trail Club

Maintained By:

16 NO YES Maine Appalachain Trail Club DOUBLE SHELTERS

Figure 8.2.8 Low Density - Moderate Climate (Whitetop Mountain)

Figure 8.2.9 Rock Formations - Moderate Climate (McAfee Knob)

Average Relative Humidity (%)

158

HIGH DENSITY - COLD CLIMATE

LOW DENSITY - COLD CLIMATE

Cranberry Lake on Bigelow Mountain - Maine

Mount Madison - New Hampshire

Cranberry Pond on Bigelow Mountain, Maine

Mount Adams, New Hampshire 30

80 25

20 50

0 Average Temperature ( oF )

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Average Days Below 32 oF

Jan

Dec

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average Temperature ( oF )

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Sept

Oct

Nov

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Sept

Oct

Nov

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Average Days Below 32 oF

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Average Days Above 90 oF

0 Dec

Average Temperature ( oF )

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Average Days Below 32 oF

0 Jan

Dec

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

days above 90oF / below 30oF

days above 90oF / below 30oF 20

10 20

5 Montly Snowfall (inches)

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Clear Days (inches)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Montly Snowfall (inches)

Cloudy Days

Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Jan

Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Cloudy Days

Clear Days (inches)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Dec

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Nov

Dec

Apr

cloudy / clear days

cloudy / clear days 40

60 50

40 15

10 Average Wind Speed (mph)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average Relative Humidity (%)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Average Wind Speed (mph)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Average Relative Humidity (%)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Dec

relatively humidity

5,500’

5,500’ Madison Spring Hut

5,000’

4,500’

4,500’ 4,000’

Carter Notch Hut

4,000’

3,500’

3,000’

2,500’

Horn Pond Lean-tos

Spaulding Mountain Lean-to

2,000’

2,000’ 1,500’

SOUTH

1,500’

NORTH

1,000’

1,000’ 0 miles

11.51 miles

1.03 miles

Fee: Near AT: Maintained By:

SOUTH

NORTH

0 miles

16.01 miles

9.24 miles

Madison Spring Hut Capacity:

15.12 miles

PROPOSAL 30

Capacity:

YES

Fee:

YES

Near AT:

Appalachain Maintenance Club

Maintained By:

0.83 miles

Carter Notch Hut 10-15

Capacity:

YES

Fee:

YES

Near AT:

Appalachain Maintenance Club

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Maintained By:

Spaulding Mountain Lean-to

YES YES Appalachain Maintenance Club

Capacity: Fee: Near AT: Maintained By:

PROPOSAL 8

Capacity:

Fee:

YES

Near AT:

Maine Appalachian Trail Club

Maintained By:

Watauga Lake Shelter 8

Capacity:

Fee:

YES

Near AT:

Maine Appalachian Trail Club

16 NO YES Maine Appalachian Trail Club

Maintained By:

DOUBLE SHELTERS

Figure 8.2.10 Low Density - Cold Climate (Mount Madison)

Clear Days (inches)

10 Average Wind Speed (mph)

Dec

Average Temperature ( oF )

May June

Mar

Apr

Feb

Mar

Jan

wind speed

Dec

Feb

Nov

Jan

Cloudy Days

Oct

Dec

Average Relative Humidity (%)

Sept

Nov

Cranberry Pond on Bigelow Mountain, Maine

Aug

May June

30 20

Average Wind Speed (mph)

Aug

Oct

wind speed

July

Sept

Feb

Apr

60 50

Jan

Mar

20 15

Feb

May June

Aug

Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Jan

Mount Adams, New Hampshire

Apr

July

snowfall and precipitation

Mar

May June

Clear Days (inches)

Feb

Apr

Montly Snowfall (inches)

Cloudy Days

snowfall and precipitation 40

Jan

Mar

5 Montly Snowfall (inches)

Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Feb

Jan

Average Days Below 32 oF

Dec

Aug

July

May June

average temperature

Average Days Above 90 oF

Figure 8.2.11 High Density - Cold Climate (Cranberry Pond)

Average Relative Humidity (%)

White Top Mountain - Located on a bald, thus prone to lightning strikes and high winds. McAfee Knob - Located within close proximity to two existing shelters, and an iconic section of the trail Mount Madison - 1.03 miles from Madison Spring Hut which utilizes glazing and other civilized technology. Average temperature does not reach above 50oF year round, and subject to heavy snow loads. Cranberry Pond - Close proximity to Hornâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Pond Leantos which is a two shelter complex with a total capacity of 18 hikers. It is also located at the base of a rock cliff which blocks out all harmful winds.

159

160

Understanding How to Implement Site

months, the concept is reversed. One of the purposes of the overhang is to provide shade during the summer months,

Analysis into a Final Design

therefore the overhang should usually be large enough

A well integrated shelter must utilize everything the site has to offer through materiality, orientation, scale, etc. In order for this approach to work, it is

accomplish this. In summary, the overhang should block out summer sun, and allow winter sun (this concept aslo varies on location, colder climates might want to utilize summer sun, this is seen in the final design for the Mount Madison Shelter). The orientation of the building also is determined

necessary to understand how to implement the knowledge of a site to better design the structure. The

by the sun rise and sun set. In keeping with the above concept of allowing winter sun to penetrate the building, the

explanation of how to incorporate the five elements

orientation should be so that during the winter, the sun enters

mentioned on the previous page is found in Figures

the structure at sun rise, and is leaving the shelter right at sun

8.2.12 through 8.2.16.

Y at noon, mark the degrees north the sun is the winter solstice sun rise

set. In order to accomplish this technique, one must study Y

winter

X Y

located, and rotate the structure along that same X axis (see Y

Figure 8.2.12) sun rise

X Y

X solar patterns

winter

X=Y

noon

sun altitude determines roof overhang

solar patterns

sun altitude determines roof overhang

sun azimuth determines building orientation

winter

sun azimuth determines building orientation

Figure 8.2.12 How to Use Solar Patterns winter

building orientation must be so that

X=Y

noon

summer

wind patterns

building orientation must be so that inhabitants are protected from winter winds, but should aim to allow maximum exposure to summer winds

areorientation, protected from Solar Patters - The roof overhang,inhabitants building

winter winds, but should aim to

allow maximum exposure of to and depth of the space are all determined by the angles

summer winds

summer wind patterns the sun. Seen in Figure 8.2.12, in the winter months, the height

Figure 8.2.13 How to Use Wind Patterns rain

snow

PRECIPITATION

of the winter sun angle at its peak (11:30 to 12:30 pm) directly

Solar Patters - Similar to sun angles, the orientation ofROOF the PITCH

affects the overhang of the roof. Lower sun angles means

climatic building must also be dictated by the wind patterns of thepatterns

the overhang can be longer. The purpose behind this study

area. These wind patterns can usually be found in local

is to understand the sun, and allow for maximum amount of

weather reports. In a best case scenario, the shelter would

climate patterns sun exposure during the winter months. During the

o protect from harmful winds X (winds below 60 F) and allow for

rain

snow

PRECIPITATION ROOF PITCH

climatic patterns determine the summer pitch of the roof

determine the pitch of the roof

climate patterns

X Y

winter

solar patterns

sun rise

X Y

climate patterns

sun altitude determines roof overhang

X=Y

noon positive winds. This usually is not the case, so the priority of solar patterns

the shelter

sun altitude determines would then to deflect roof be overhang

harmful

noon

winter

sun azimuth determines winds. It orientation is also building

sun azimuth determines climatic patterns building orientation determine the pitch of the roof

important to note that sometimes the wind orientation and winter

sun orientation might be in conflict, if this is the case,must harmful building orientation be so that inhabitants are protected from

winds,thus but should aim to winds outweigh the potential for naturalwinter heating, wind allow maximum exposure to summer winds

orientation take priority over sun.

summer

wind patterns

summer

wind patterns

building orientation must be so that inhabitants are protected from Ywinter winds, but should aim to allow maximum exposure to summer winds

X Y

shelter proximity determines the overall size of the structure

shelter proximity

rain

snow

PRECIPITATION

Y Proximity Figure 8.2.15 How to Use Shelter

ROOF PITCH

X Y

rain

Shelter Proximity - The proximity to existing shelters willclimatic helppatterns in determine the

snow

PRECIPITATION ROOF PITCH climatic patterns determine the pitch of the roof

climate patterns

pitch of the roof

height of the vegetation determining the sleeping capacity of the proposed shelter, determines the proximity to

vegetation proximity

vegetation

as the distance between existing shelters increases, the need Y

for a larger sleeping capacity increases, thus increasing X

X Y

shelter proximity determines the aidoverall in this size process of the structure

vegetation proximity

X Y

is needed, determining the degree of the pitched roof is X

still necessary. Seen in Figure 8.2.14, as the patterns for large height of the vegetation

determines the proximity to vegetation

amounts of precipitation increases, the pitch of the roof also increases. It also important to note that in rainy climates, a

slight slope is appropriate (no less than a three degree slope is recommended), where as in areas with high chance of snow, a pitch up to 45 degrees is more appropriate.

X Y

by eliminating flatter roofs in climates where a pitched roof Y

shelter proximity determines the overall size of the structure

shelter proximity decreasing unused space.

Climate Patters - Climate conditions dictated the roof style

vegetation proximity

X Y

the area of the shelter (See Figure 8.2.15). Utilizing this

concept correctly maximizes the efficiency of the shelter by

Y Figure 8.2.14 How to Use Climate Patterns X Y

proximity ofshelter the structure. While the matrix will help

= ROOF PITCH

height of the vegetation determines the proximity to vegetation

Figure 8.2.16 How to Use Vegetation Proximity

Vegetation Proximity - Understanding the vegetation of the context is important for a number of reasons. Safety becomes important in areas with low vegetation due to the increased risk of lightning strikes. Figure 8.2.16 explains that as the vegetation of the area increases, the distance from that vegetation can also increases. Understanding the vegetation also becomes important for building materials, and for sizing

161

162

and locating the shelter. Higher density areas call for smaller shelters, thus minimizing the need for removing trees. It is also important to understand that vegetation also directly affects the first three elements mentioned: solar patterns, wind patterns, and climate patterns. High density regions might have slightly different climate conditions than neighboring areas with less density.

The next chapter explains the process of

adapting the matrix and implementing site analysis all the way through to the final design, thus resulting in an entirely site specific design that responds to the maintenance clubâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs.

163

164

165

Chapter 9 Final Design, Final Defense, and The Mobile Application

166

Final Design - Laurel Fork With a large number of illegal campsites just west of the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s location, the main focus of this shelter

site

is to minimize the need for user created campsites. Its

Laurel Falls

proximity to an existing shelter, allows for a smaller shelter design, and due to the abundance of vegetation, this shelter will focus highly on the use of site integration techniques. The result is a cluster of small individualized shelters whose structure is built around existing trees. In addition to these shelters, an area of the topography is adapted to provide a designated area for camping, thus reducing the potential for illegal campsites. Seen in Figure 9.2, several elements were run through the matrix, which resulted in a number of optimum configurations. Of these configurations three were chosen. Then, the three configurations were adapted to fit within the site through the use of the site analysis explained in the previous chapter. The entire process is examined in Figures 9.1-9.11.

00 0

fee t NO

H RT

Figure 9.1 Macro Site Axon (Laurel Fork)

AREAS OF EMPHASIS

MATRIX RESULTS

SITTING ROOM STANDING ROOM SOCIAL INTERACTION CONSTRUCTABILITY

F_8A

R_3

F_8B

R_4

F_9A

R_5

F_9B

R_11

F_10A

P_2B

PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE CONSTRUCTABILITY MAINTENANCE

R_2

NATURAL LIGHTING SOLAR PROTECTION WIND PROTECTION WIND RESISTANCE RAIN RESISTANCE NATURE INTEGRATION PRIMITIVE APPEARANCE

F_1A

OVERHANG POTENTIAL ROOF AS HABITABLE SPACE SITE INTEGRATION CAMPING POTENTIAL EXPANSION CAPACITY ACCESSIBILITY STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY

F_10B

Figure 9.2 Areas of Emphasis and Matrix Results (Laurel Fork)

P_1B

167

168

77.2

54.2

30.3

122.4o

R_2

F_1A

180.8o ha rm fu

P_1B

be ne fici al w inds

238.5o Figure 9.3 Adaptation of Site Analysis (Laurel Fork)

Figure 9.4 Configuration Adaptation (Laurel Fork)

Figure 9.5 Site Plan (Laurel Fork)

in ds

169

170

10’

NORTHWEST ELEVATION Figure 9.6 Northwest Elevation (Laurel Fork)

171

B 0

10’

SOUTHWEST ELEVATION Figure 9.7 Southwest Elevation (Laurel Fork)

172

24” x 8’ corrugated metal roofing 1/2” x 12” galvanized lag screw aluminum tie (for uplift) saddle notch (for rafter to beam connection) 1/2” x 8” galvanized lag screw saddle notch (for column to beam connection)

Figure 9.8 Connection Detail A (Laurel Fork)

wood to concrete column seat

saddle notch (for column to beam connection) 173

wood to concrete column seat 1/2” x 10” galvanized lag bolt concrete topping 1/2” x 12” galvanized lag bolt with leveling nuts 14” diameter concrete friction footing stone build up to disguise column footing (increases primitive appearance) frost line

Figure 9.9 Connection Detail B (Laurel Fork)

Figure 9.10 Preliminary Concept Rendering (Laurel Fork)

Figure 9.11 Final Rendering (Laurel Fork)

174

175

176

Final Design - Whitetop Mountain The focus of this shelter is for day use purposes.

Whitetop Mountain

A day use shelter is important in inclement weather,

site

especially on a bald where lightning strikes become a major concern. Being located on a bald also means an increased focus on solar and wind protection, as well as wind and rain resistance. The result is a shelter with little designated sleeping space, but maximum covered interior space, which allows for a larger capacity during inclement weather. The roof of the design allows for the interior space to receive direct sunlight during the winter, and natural ventilation during the summer. Seen in Figure 9.13, several elements were run through the matrix, which resulted in a number of optimum configurations. Of these configurations three were chosen. Then, the three configurations were

670

0 fe et N

H RT O

adapted to fit within the site through the use of the site analysis explained in the previous chapter. The entire process is examined in Figures 9.12 - 9.22.

Figure 9.12 Macro Site Axon (Whitetop Mountain)

AREAS OF EMPHASIS

MATRIX RESULTS

SITTING ROOM STANDING ROOM PLACE TO COOK PLACE TO EAT

F_2A

P_2A

OBSERVATION

R_11

CONTEMPLATION WIND PROTECTION CONSTRUCTABILITY

F_2B

VIEW OF SURROUNDINGS MAINTENANCE SOLAR PROTECTION

F_7B

F_7A

WIND PROTECTION WIND RESISTANCE RAIN RESISTANCE PRIMITIVE APPEARANCE

R_3

P_1A

RAINWATER COLLECTION OVERHANG POTENTIAL PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT

R_4

SITE INTEGRATION CAMPING POTENTIAL EXPANSION CAPACITY STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY

R_5

Figure 9.13 Areas of Emphasis and Matrix Results (Whitetop Mountain)

P_4

177

178

R_11 76.8

53.9

F_7A o

238.7o en efi cia

lw ind s

P_1A b

har m

181.2o 122.7o Figure 9.14 Adaptation of Site Analysis (Whitetop Mountain)

f ul

s nd wi

P_4

Figure 9.16 Site Plan (Whitetop Mountain)

29.9

Figure 9.15 Configuration Adaptation (Whitetop Mountain)

179

180

10’

SOUTH ELEVATION Figure 9.17 South Elevation (Whitetop Mountain)

181

10’

WEST ELEVATION Figure 9.18 West Elevation (Whitetop Mountain)

182

24” x 8’ corrugated metal roofing 1/2” x 12” galvanized lag screw 12” diameter log 2x6 dimensional lumber for wall support with 4” deep notching 8” diameter log 1/2” x 12” galvanized lag bolt high strength mortar

Figure 9.19 Connection Detail A (Whitetop Mountain)

12” diameter log column

1/2” x 12” galvanized lag bolt high strength mortar 183

12” diameter log column 6” diameter log for lateral support 1/2” x 16” galvanized lag bolt 1/2” x 8” galvanized lag screw 2” deep notching

Figure 9.20 Connection Detail B (Whitetop Mountain)

Figure 9.21 Preliminary Concept Rendering (Whitetop Mountain)

Figure 9.22 Final Rendering (Whitetop Mountain)

184

185

186

Final Design - McAfee Knob Due to its close proximity to existing shelters and

McAfee Knob

the predominate hiking attraction McAfee Knob, it is

site

necessary to keep the sleeping capacity at a minimum. However, a large space for gathering would be a beneficial feature in case of inclement weather. The result is a cluster of shelters that offer both privacy and social interaction. This occurs by mixing smaller, more individualized, shelters with a central covered platform that counteracts all the deficiencies of the smaller structures. Seen in Figure 9.24, several elements were run through the matrix, which resulted in a number of optimum configurations. Of these configurations three were chosen. Then, the three configurations were adapted to fit within the site through the use of the site

fe et

H RT NO

analysis explained in the previous chapter. The entire process is examined in Figures 9.13 - 9.33.

Figure 9.23 Macro Site Axon (McAfee Knob)

AREAS OF EMPHASIS

MATRIX RESULTS

SITTING ROOM STANDING ROOM PACKING/UNPACKING SPACE CHANGING SPACE

F_10A

P_3A

PLACE TO COOK PLACE TO EAT SOCIAL INTERACTION

F_10B

SOLAR PROTECTION

R_5

WIND PROTECTION CONSTRUCTABILITY EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE

R_3

MAINTENANCE WIND RESISTANCE RAIN RESISTANCE PRIMITIVE APPEARANCE

R_4

F_1A

OVERHANG POTENTIAL SITE INTEGRATION EXPANSION CAPACITY

R_11

ACCESSIBILITY SITE ADAPTABILITY STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY

P_2A

Figure 9.24 Areas of Emphasis and Matrix Results (McAfee Knob)

P_1A

187

188

R_5 76.0

53.2

29.2

F_1A

123.9o rm fu

be ne fici al w inds

183.1o

Figure 9.25 Adaptation of Site Analysis (McAfee Knob)

Figure 9.26 Configuration Adaptation (McAfee Knob)

Figure 9.27 Site Plan (McAfee Knob)

P_1A

ha in ds

189

190

10’

WEST ELEVATION Figure 9.28 West Elevation (McAfee Knob)

191

SOUTH ELEVATION Figure 9.29 South Elevation (McAfee Knob)

192

2x6 dimensional lumber flooring aluminum tie (for uplift) 1/2” x 8” galvanized lag screw saddle notch system 1/2” x 8” galvanized lag screw

Figure 9.30 Connection Detail A (McAfee Knob)

wood to concrete column seat

1/2” x 8” galvanized lag screw

193

wood to concrete column seat 1/2” x 10” galvanized lag bolt concrete topping 6” maximum excavation for a level surface 1/2” x 24” expansion bolt with leveling nuts

Figure 9.31 Connection Detail B (McAfee Knob)

Figure 9.32 Preliminary Concept Rendering (McAfee Knob)

Figure 9.33 Final Rendering (McAfee Knob)

194

195

196

Final Design - Mount Madison The main focus of this shelter will be on understanding the climatic region and providing

Mount Adams Mount Jefferson Mount Madison

maximum visitor comfort. With the shelter being located in a harsh cold climate, the primary goal of this design

site Mount Washington

will be on the use of natural heating through glazing and thermal properties of stone. The result is a larger shelter with a less primitive appearance, yet an aesthetic based entirely around the climatic patterns, thus maximizing solar heat gain. Seen in Figure 9.35, several elements were run through the matrix, which resulted in a number of optimum configurations. Of these configurations three were chosen. Then, the three configurations were adapted to fit within the site through the use of the site analysis explained in the previous chapter. The entire process is examined in Figures 9.14 - 9.44.

26 00 0

fe e

t H RT

Figure 9.34 Macro Site Axon (Mount Madison)

AREAS OF EMPHASIS

MATRIX RESULTS

SITTING ROOM STANDING ROOM PLACE TO COOK

F_10A

PLACE TO EAT SOCIAL INTERACTION WIND PROTECTION CONSTRUCTABILITY

R_4

EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE

R_3

MAINTENANCE NATURAL LIGHTING

R_5

NATURAL HEATING WIND PROTECTION WIND RESISTANCE SNOW RESISTANCE

R_11

F_10B

PRIMITIVE APPEARANCE SITE INTEGRATION SNOW RESISTANCE ACCESSIBILITY

P_1A

STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY

P_2A

Figure 9.35 Areas of Emphasis and Matrix Results (Mount Madison)

P_4

197

R_3

69.1

46.3

22.4

119.8o ha rm fu

P_4

in ds

F_10B

be ne fici al w inds

176.8o 235.7o

Figure 9.36 Adaptation of Site Analysis (Mount Madison)

Figure 9.37 Configuration Adaptation (Mount Madison)

Figure 9.38 Site Plan (Mount Madison)

198

199

200

10’

SOUTH ELEVATION Figure 9.39 South Elevation (Mount Madison)

201

493 pt

10’

WEST ELEVATION Figure 9.40 West Elevation (Mount Madison)

202

ridge flashing ridge flash blocking 24” x 8’ corrugated metal roofing 4’x8’ plywood 1/2” x 12” galvanized lag bolt high strength mortar 1/2” x 18” galvanized lag bolt

Figure 9.41 Connection Detail A (Mount Madison)

high strength mortar 1/2” x 18” galvanized lag bolt 203

1’6” overhang 1/2” x 18” galvanized lag bolt 4” deep notch 4” deep notch 1/2” x 18” galvanized lag bolt

Figure 9.42 Connection Detail B (Mount Madison)

Figure 9.43 Preliminary Concept Rendering (Mount Madison)

Figure 9.44 Final Rendering (Mount Madison)

204

205

206

Final Design - Cranberry Pond Due to this site’s close proximity to the Horn’s

Cranberry Pond

site

Pond Lean-tos, this particular shelter does not need to

Horn’s Pond

provide a high level of accommodations. Instead, the site was chosen for its topographic properties, allowing for an exploration of different techniques for integrating a shelter within its surroundings. The result is a design whose entire structure is carved away from an existing cliff. While this may be the hardest to construct, it offers the highest level of natural integration, prolongs the life expectancy, and decreases the overall maintenance of the shelter. Seen in Figure 9.46, several elements were run through the matrix, which resulted in a number of optimum configurations. Of these configurations three were chosen. Then, the three configurations were

19 0

fee t H RT

adapted to fit within the site through the use of the site analysis explained in the previous chapter. The entire process is examined in Figures 9.15 - 9.55.

Figure 9.45 Macro Site Axon (Cranberry Pond)

AREAS OF EMPHASIS

MATRIX RESULTS

OBSERVATION CONTEMPLATION WIND PROTECTION CONSTRUCTABILITY

F_1B

P_1B

F_2A

P_2B

PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT VIEW OF SURROUNDINGS EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE MAINTENANCE

R_3

NATURAL LIGHTING NATURAL HEATING SNOW RESISTANCE

F_2B

EFFICIENT USE OF MATERIALS NATURE INTEGRATION VIEW POTENTIAL PRIMITIVE APPEARANCE

F_3B

F_3A

PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT SITE INTEGRATION SNOW RESISTANCE

F_7A

SITE ADAPTABILITY STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY

F_7B Figure 9.46 Areas of Emphasis and Matrix Results (Cranberry Pond)

P_4

207

208

170’ - 175’

65 ’- 70’

30’ - 35’

15’ - 20’

R_3

A 51,500 sq ft

F_3A

B 25,000 sq ft

by elevating the shelter 30’ above ground level, it decreases the amount of vegetation the sun has to pass through by a little over 50%

Figure 9.47 Reasoning behind Elevating the Cranberry Pond Shelter

Figure 9.48 Configuration Adaptation (Cranberry Pond)

Figure 9.49 Site Plan (Cranberry Pond)

P_4

209

210

10â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

WEST ELEVATION Figure 9.50 West Elevation (Cranberry Pond)

211

10’

SOUTH ELEVATION Figure 9.51 South Elevation (Cranberry Pond)

212

aluminum flashing aluminum counter flashing 1/2” x 10” expansion bolts 2x6 dimensional lumber blocking 24” x 3’ corrugated metal panels stone mortar wall (construction edge) 1/2” x 10” expansion bolts

Figure 9.52 Connection Detail A (Cranberry Pond)

24” x 3’ corrugated metal panels

stone mortar wall (construction edge) 1/2” x 10” expansion bolts 213

24” x 3’ corrugated metal panels 1/2 x 12” expansion bolt 8” diameter log (rafter for roofing) 8” notching (for rafter support) 1/2” x 12” galvanized lag bolt 1/2” x 12” epansion bolt

Figure 9.53 Connection Detail B (Cranberry Pond)

Figure 9.54 Preliminary Concept Rendering (Cranberry Pond)

Figure 9.55 Final Rendering (Cranberry Pond)

214

215

Figure 9.56 Final Defense Presentation Boards

216

217

Final Defense

Throughout our National Parks, acres of

throughout the Appalachian trail, a new issue occurs.

untouched land are slowly deteriorating to an

Structure creep is the terminology used to describe

irreversible status. Unfortunately, the people who help

the movement of once primitive structures to more

cause the destruction are also the ones who value

advanced shelter designs, changing the identity of the

the land the most. Research indicates that traditional

Appalachian Trail.

“tent” camping causes harmful erosion and vegetation

impaction that, if not addressed, could eventually lead

solution to combat the effects of structure creep. The

to the destruction of many natural parks. In essence,

result is a matrix of different configurations that produces

we are loving “America’s wilderness to death” (Cole &

optimum shelter designs based on select parameters.

Benedict, 1983).

The projects below embody this methodology through

five unique topographic conditions. Through the use

This poses the question: can architecture provide

The purpose of this proposal is to explore a

the solution? Shelters offer hikers a designated area

of the matrix, along with detailed site analysis and user

to camp, thus decreasing the potential for illegal

studies, a series of fully nature integrated structures are

campsites. However, with the increase in shelters

created.

218

Figure 9.57 Final Defense Presentation Boards (General Information)

219

220

Figure 9.58 Final Defense Presentation Boards (High Density - Moderate Climate)

221

222

Figure 9.59 Final Defense Presentation Boards (Low Density - Moderate Climate)

223

224

Figure 9.60 Final Defense Presentation Boards (Rock Formations - Moderate Climate)

225

226

Figure 9.61 Final Defense Presentation Boards (Low Density - Cold Climate)

227

228

Figure 9.62 Final Defense Presentation Boards (High Density - Cold Climate)

229

230

The Mobile Application

structure, and teaches by example the techniques used.

Ultimately, in order to truly prevent structure creep

Informing future maintenance clubs can also

and provide architecture throughout the Appalachian

be found within the final defense presentation boards

Trail, there needs to be a large focus on educating the

by diagraming the process of construction (See Figure

architectural processes to those who are not familiar with the profession. Since hiring an architect to design every future shelter is very unlikely, the only way to truly instill the essence of architecture into these shelters is to inform the maintenance clubs of the process.

The use of a mobile application to aid in the

implementation of the proposed methodology will provide a better understanding of the matrix process. An interactive application allows Appalachian Trail Maintenance clubs to better understand how every decision directly affects the overall outcome of the design.

However, the application does not end at the

production of the optimum configurations. Instead, it aims to inform maintenance clubs of the architectural methods required to achieve a fully site integrated

9.63).

This is the true intention of this thesis and

the mobile application; to spread the process of architecture to those who need it, but might not have the funding to use it.

231

No. 1 Grade

No. 2 Grade

No. 3 Grade

below frost line

well fastened

pulley system support log

marked for notching

roof template

Figure 9.63 Step by Step How to Build and Elevated Shelter

232

Choose Location

where would you like your shelter to be built?

moderate climate

high density vegitation

low density vegitation

cold climate

rock outcrops

low density vegitation

high density vegitation

Figure 9.64 Slide 1 of Mobile Application Prototype

Step 1: Location The process of the application begins by choosing from five unique topographic locations. Each region contains its own unique set of recommended areas of emphasis, directly affecting the overall outcome. Here the maintenance clubs will first have to judge their climate conditions and vegetation density, areas discussed earlier in Chapter 8 Part 2.

233 You chose: HIGH DENSITY - MODERATE CLIMATE

You chose: ROCK OUTCROPS - MODERATE CLIMATE

You chose : HIGH DENSITY - COLD CLIMATE

recommended areas of emphasis:

constructability

efficient use of materials

natural integration

efficient use of materials

natural integration

physical footprint

natural integration

natural lighting

site adaptability

natural heating

physical footprint

snow resistant

primitive appearance

wind resistant primitive appearance

GO BACK

CONTINUE

GO BACK

CONTINUE

You chose: LOW DENSITY - MODERATE CLIMATE

You chose : LOW DENSITY - COLD CLIMATE

recommended areas of emphasis:

standing room

solar protection

sitting room

wind resistant

wind protection

natural ventilation

GO BACK

CONTINUE

wind resistant natural lighting natural heating snow resistant

GO BACK

CONTINUE

GO BACK

CONTINUE

Figure 9.65 Slides 2 of Mobile Application Prototype

Step 1 Part 2: Recommended areas of Emphasis When the location is chosen, the next screen represents the recommended areas of emphasis based on the site locations. Notice that these are recommended not required, this is to persuade the maintenance clubs into choosing what is already highlighted, but allows for customization based on unforeseen circumstances that the application cannot predict. This concept is in keeping with the idea of regulated variety.

natural lighting

natural heating

place to cook

place to eat

solar protection

wind protection

opportunities for social interaction

opportunities for observation

wind resistance

rain resistance

opportunities for contemplation

solar protection

snow resistance

efficient use of materials

constructability

R_1

R_2

R_3

R_4

constructability

maintenance

physical footprint

site integration

P_1A

n at io ve ge t de

P_1B

P_2A

P_2B

wind protection

constructability

nature integration

physical footprint

view of surroundings

efficient use of space

SUBMIT

F_5A

F_5B

F_6A

F_6B

F_7A

F_7B

F_8A

F_8B

F_9A

F_9B

F_10A

F_10B

nature integration

view potential

primitive appearance

rain water collection

overhang potential

roof as habitable space

SUBMIT

R_5

R_6

R_7

R_9

R_10B

R_11

R_13

R_14

R_15

R_8

R_12

primitive appearance

expansion capacity

accessibility

slope adaptability

site adaptability

structural rigidity

P_3A

P_3B

FINALIZE

Figure 9.66 Slides 3-5 of Mobile Application Prototype

Step 2: Matrix In step 2, the interactive matrix offers a first hand experience of how the userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s actions directly affect the outcome of the matrix. Updated in real time, this process informs the maintenance clubs of the results of their decisions. Continuing with the previous step, the recommended areas of emphasis are already highlighted, but are not concrete and allow for customization, with instant gratification of the results.

at io ve ge t ity ns

snow resistance

wind resistance

rain resistance

camping potential

P_4

hi gh

F_4B

re qu ire s

F_4A

hi gh

F_3B

re qu ire s

F_3A

ity

ve ge t

at io

maintenance

F_2B

hi gh

F_2A

re qu ire s

F_1B

standing room changing space

re qu ire s

F_1A

sitting room packing/unpacking space

hi gh

ity

chose areas of emphasis within the design:

ity

ve ge t

Platform configurations

Roof configurations chose areas of emphasis within the design:

Floor plan configurations chose areas of emphasis within the design:

at io

234

P_5

235 floor plans

roof

platform

F_1A

F_1B

F_2A

F_2B

R_1

R_2

R_3

R_4

P_1A

P_1B

P_2A

P_2B

F_3A

F_3B

F_4A

F_4B

R_5

R_6

R_7

R_8

P_3A

P_3B

P_4

P_5

F_5A

F_5B

F_6A

F_6B

R_9

R_10B

R_11

R_12

F_7A

F_7B

F_8A

F_8B

R_13

R_14

R_15

F_9A

F_9B

F_10A

F_10B

EDIT

Above are the optimum configurations as determined by the priorities chosen in the previous steps CONTINUE Figure 9.67 Slides 6 of Mobile Application Prototype

Step 3: Final Results The tallied results are displayed in step 3, allowing for a summarized view of the optimum configurations, portraying all the design possibilities. Here the maintenance clubs will see the beginning possibilities of their shelter, but this step also allows for continued customization by offering the user to edit the final results. It is important to note that the user cannot directly chose the shelter he or she wants based on appearance alone, instead they must explore which programmatic elements create the preferred design, thus informing them of what would need to be added or sacrificed to achieve their desired design.

236

From Matrix to Finalizing the Design see presentation board for details

solar patterns

wind patterns

climate patterns

vegetation proximity

shelter proximity

Solar Patterns

Wind Patterns

Climatic Patterns

Vegetation Density

Shelters/Campsite Proximity

Determines: - orientation of floor plan - depth of roof overhang - height of walls

Determines: - orientation of floor plan - depth of side walls - use of materials

Determines: - type of roof - depth walls - type of material

Determines: - type of material - type of platform - construction method

Opportunities: - natural lighting - natural heating

Opportunities: - natural ventilation - natural heating

Opportunities: - primitive appearance - natural integration

Determines: - capacity - need - use of materials - aesthetics

Concerns: - overheating - visitor comfort

Concerns: - wind damange - visitor comfort

Concerns: - snow damange -rain damage - visitor safety

Concerns: - lightning strikes - tree damage - visitor safety

Opportunities: - minimize illegal campsites - minimze erosion - prevent erosion - provide resting points between existing shelters/campsites Concerns: - structure creep - over densify trail

FINISHED Figure 9.68 Slides 7 of Mobile Application Prototype

Step 3: Educate The final step, is the most important within the application. In this step, the icons displayed relate the site analysis elements found in part 2 of Chapter 8. They inform the maintenance clubs how to incorporate each element and educate by example how to alter the matrix results into a distance design that is site specific and responsive to the maintenance clubâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs. The application is not meant to be a singular entity, but instead would be supplemental to this thesis book and/ or final presentation boards.

Future Possibilities

into the application could be a user study element,

The concept of an application to help aid in the

process of creating more nature friendly designs is one that offers a multitude of possibilities. For example, if this prototype were to go into production, the easiest elements that would be implemented first would be the inclusion of links to websites that display solar and climate data, case studies of past project involving the process of utilizing site analysis into the final design, and other educational elements. This would provide a database of information that the maintenance clubs could refer to during the beginning process of design.

Other, more complex elements that could be

implemented within the application would be the ability to chose a location, and the solar, wind, and climate information would be built into the program itself, as opposed to a link described in the above paragraph. This would eliminate steps making the process more convenient for the maintenance clubs.

The final element that could be incorporated

that would allow hikers to enter their input on every shelter along the trail. The hikers could suggest future changes, give their opinions of what they like or dislike about the shelters, or even recommend areas where they feel shelter do or do not belong. Throughout time this information could be paramount in maintaining the identity of the Appalachian Trail.

237

238

239

Chapter 10 Self Reflection and The Big Picture

240

In the grand scheme of the Architectural

profession, hiking shelters are easily overlooked. That

revolutionize the architectural profession, by allowing

being said, the Appalachian Trail is an American

clients to fully participate in the design process.

icon, and loved by millions of those who journey some

portion of this trail. It is for this reason that I chose to

architect. Instead, it is meant to allow those who may

delve into the idea of applying architecture to the Appalachian Trail. The term â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; can be used in many different ways, and for this particular thesis, it is used to describe the process, not the product. It was the purpose of this thesis to blur the physical identity of architecture and keep the structures primitive and respective of the settings.

The methodology explored within this project,

however, can easily transfer over into the profession of architecture, especially when involving modular designs. While this thesis only explored the matrix in the form of Figure 10.1 Laurel Fork Shelter

application along with this methodology could also

The purpose of the matrix is not to remove the

not have the means to support architecture a chance to utilize the same practices, and as a result enjoy a well design structure.

There are many areas within the built environment

that often go unnoticed by architects and architecture. Does that mean these structures do not deserve the same attention? If one were to make the case that architecture is the process of taking the mundane and making it extraordinary, then why should any structure be left out? This is the message I would like readers

a hiking shelter, the process could theoretically apply

to take away: that architecture can be found in the

to a number of designs. The methodology of designing

simplest of forms; that aesthetics and design are not

a series of configurations (graded on a number of

always the solutions, and that sometimes a simple

parameters) and allowing clients to prioritize their needs,

structure can mean more to someone than the tallest of

offers endless possibilities. The potential of using a mobile

buildings.

241

242

BIBLIOGRAPHY Appalachian Trail Conservancy. (2012). 2000 Milers. Retrieved September 2012, from Appalachian Trail Conservancy: www.appalachiantrail.org. Bead, D. C. (1972). Shelters, Shacks, and Shanties. New York: Charles Scribnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Birchard, William, Robert Proudman D., and Michael Dawson. (2000). Appalachian Trail Design, Construction, and Maintenance. Harpers Ferry, W. Va.: Appalachian Trail Conferenc. Bonnemaison, C. M. (2003). Architecture and Nature: Creating the American Landscape. New York: Routledge. Burch, Monte. (1983). Building Small Barns, Sheds & Shelters. Pownal, VT: Storey Communications. Canadian Wood Council. (1991). Wood Reference Handbook: A Guide to the Architectural Use of Wood in Building Construction. Ottawa.

243

Christensen, N. A., & Cole, D. N. (2000). Leave No Trace Practices: Behaviors and Preferences of Wilderness Visitors Regarding Use of Cookstoves and Camping Away from Lakes. USDA Forest Service Proceedings , 77-85. Cole, D. N. (1992). Modeling Wilderness Campsites: Factors that Influence Amount of Impact. Environmental Management , 16 (2), 255-264. Cole, D. N., & Benedict, J. (1983). How to pick a campsite you can leave without a trace. Backpacker , 11 (5), 40,44,87. Elliott, Stewart, Eugenie Wallas, Christian BruyeĚ&#x20AC;re, and Robert Inwood. (1977).The Timber Framing Book: The Complete Library of Log Construction & Timber Framing. York: Housesmiths. Foresta, R. (1987). Transformation of the Appalachian Trail. Geographical Review , 77 (1), 76-85. Gallagher, W. (1993). The Power of Place: How Our Surroundings Shape Our Thoughts, Emotions, and Actions. New York: Harper Perennial. Good, Albert H. (1938) Park and Recreation Structures. Washington.

Chad P. Dawson, A. E. (2000). Measures of Wilderness Trip Satisfaction and User Perception of Crowding. USDA Forest Service Proceedings , 93-98.

Hendee, J. C., & Dawson, C. P. (2009). Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values (4th ed.). Golden: Internation Leadership Wilderness Foundation.

Chazin, D. D. (2012). Appalachian Trail Data Book. Harpers Ferry: Appalachian Trail Conservancy.

Jaffe, E. (2012, May/June). This Side of Paradise: Discovering Why the Human Mind Needs Nature. Retrieved September 2012, from psychologicalscience.org: www. psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle. cfm?id=2679.

Ching, Frank. (2008) Building Construction Illustrated. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

244

BIBLIOGRAPHY Lachapelle, P. R. (2000). Sanitation in Wilderness: Balancing Minimum Tool Policies and Wilderness Values. USDA Forest Service Proceedings , 141-147. Lang, S. S. (2006, March 20). â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Slow, insidiousâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; soil erosion threatens human health and welfare as well as the environment, Corness study asserts. Retrieved September 2012, from Chronical Online: www.news. cornell.edu/stories/march06/soil.erosion.threat.ssl.html. Love, T. W. (1976). Construction Manual, Rough Carpentry. Solana Beach, CA: Craftsman Book. Marion, J. L. (2003). Camping Impact Management on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Harpers Ferry: Appalachian Trail Conference.

245

Parsons, Steve. (1984). Stone Houses: A Design & Construction Handbook. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Tab. Richardson, Phyllis, and Lucas Dietrich. (2001). XS: Big Ideas, Small Buildings. New York, NY: Universe. Richardson, Phyllis. (2007). XS: Small Structures, Green Architecture. New York, NY: Universe. Richardson, Phyllis. (2009). XS Future: New Ideas, Small Structures. New York, NY: Universe. Sobon, Jack, and Roger Schroeder. (1984). Timber Frame Construction: All about Post and Beam Building. Pownal, VT: Storey Pub.

Marion, J. L. (2006). Guidance For Locating and Designing A.T. Shelters and Formal Campsites - Review Draft.

Syvanen, Bob. (1982). Carpentry, Some Tricks of the Trade. Charlotte, NC: East Woods.

Marion, J. L. (2006, November-December). Structure Creep: Managing the A.T. Camping Experience. A.T. Journeys , 10-11.

William Birchard, J. a. (2000). Appalachian Trail: Design, Construction, and Maintenance (2nd ed.). Harpers Ferry: Appalachian Trail Conference.

Marion, J. L. (2007). Guidance for Locating and Designing A.T. Shelters and Formal Capsites. Appalachian Trail Conservency.

Yosemite National Park. (2012). Hantavirus in Yosemite. Yosimite National Park.

McRaven, Charles. (1989). Building with Stone. Pownal, VT: Storey Communications. Olwig, K. R. (1996). Recovering the Substantive Nature of Landscape. Annals of Association of American Geographers , 86 (4), 630-653.