student lodge 1&2

11

Student Lodge 1 & 2AA Design & Make

Project Portfolio

Thiago José Barros2011 | 2012

3

Student Lodge 1 & 2Thiago José Barros

AA Architectural Association School of ArchitectureMarch Design & Make

Director Martin SelfHooke Park - Dorset, UK

2011 | 2012

4

1- ‘Student Lodge 1&2’ - 5

2- Site Selection - 7

3- Starting Concept - 11

4- Material Source - 23

5- Material Production - 29

6- Longitudinal Frames - 33

7-Secondary Members - 51

8-Ability to Change - 59

9- Moving Foward - 93

CONTENts

7

StudentLodge 1 & 2

The project documentation seeks to expose the individual involvement de-veloping the ‘Student Lodge 1 & 2’. The document has it main focus on the material approach and the thesis research topic. The timber procure-ment was part of the individual task, which was different for each student. From the species selection to stock control, the task was helpful to devel-op a conscious approach to material-ity. Furthermore relating material to place and a more ecological agenda. Relating to the thesis, the research is around the idea of how a building can be designed to better cope with time. By that means, how can accommodate

its actual function but still leave scope for change. Understanding the build-ing as something in a constant state of flux, the analyses tries to define a rational understand of permanence and change in the built environment. Seeking to define a background not only able to change, but also friend-ly to a ‘making’ agenda. Weaving all that is the physical engagement dur-ing the test of ideas. Being part of the making process was crucial to relate those arguments with scale and physi-cal limitations. Developing a argu-ment grounded in the particularities of the physical realm, overlooked by

many architectural theories.

8

The ‘tree’ used as a key element in the design concept. A hinge point for the building articula-tion.

9

siteselection

10

The site selection came by the cross of the master plan with the living ex-perience at Hooke Park. Seeking for integration with the landscape, the building emerges from the middle of the trees. The location places the building on the bottom of the slope, just in the boundary defined by the masterplan. That is a strategic posi-tion, first in terms of view and privacy and second in logistics aspect. The building has the highest possible point, providing a complete view of the park. Also, further away from the workshop and the main road, it delivers more privacy to the inhabit-ants. In terms of logistic, by using the further extreme, the future buildings can grow towards the road with-out disturbing the Lodge. Adding to that, the direct route to the Big Shed allowed elements to be prefab and easily delivered to site. Using this concept of embracing the trees and fusing with the landscape, the footings were defined responding to that. Even without a clear design definition, the footings were casted according to the site access possibili-ties. With a set of defined footings, the project had to be reassessed and from that became much more re-sponsive to the realities of the place.

D&M students trying to emulate the possible view from the Stu-dent Lodge

Site and Footings

11

Footings embracing the main tree localtion.

13

startingconcept

14

Initial sketchs studing the Stu-dent Lodge geometry and its’s

relation to the surrounding trees

16

D&M students and tutors studing the rooms arrangement inside a big scale model

17

Using the footings as an initial refer-ence, the first scheme departs from a basic geometry morphing towards the woods. A simple shelter was the starting figure on the west side, evolving in complexity as heading east, responding to the site obstacles and qualities.

Looking for structural stability and buildability, the scheme was simpli-fied being divided in three parts, West, Centre and East. The Centre bit presents a more complex geom-etry, fragmented to respond to light exposure and a big tree, representing the project node that shelters the liv-ing space. Both West and East parts have a similar geometry, with it’s up corner slightly raised to accommo-date mezzanine areas and more light incidence, giving room for the more private spaces. With both ends raised the geometry shrinks towards the node, or centre, acknowledging the existence of a big tree and making a more cosy space on the living area.

The concept

First model

Second model

18

/room3 /room1

/room4 /room2

Proposing the central node as a liv-ing area the rooms should take full advantage of the high celling spaces. Volumetrically appropriating the space, the 4 rooms are divided in mezzanine and ground area, inter-locking each other to provide access, light and stimulating spaces for the dwellers.

Interlocking ROOMS

19

/room3

/room1

/room4

/room2

20

Ground floor plan

21

Mezzanine floor plan

25

MaterialSource

Hooke ParkForest

26

Student Lodge 1&2 demand - 40 m3

Hooke Park

Spruce Trees location

2012 felling plan - 600 m3

Annual possible production - 1200 m3

27

The material strategy for the Student Lodge project was clear since the be-ginning, use locally sourced material, as much as possible from Hooke Park. For that was necessary to comprehend two important factors, first the mate-rial heritage used in the other proj-ects and the forest production chain, crossing both information to deliver the right material alternative. In terms of building history, Hooke Park is a site composed by projects that relates to the forest in it’s actual state. Recently, the Big Shed gives continuity to this research in the use of round tim-ber, developing a methodology that combines different round sections to minimize the waste. Starting the analy-ses from this point, the material choice for the student lodge follows the same principle. Analysing the forest chain, in contact with Chris Sadd the forestry in charge, it came to topic that some species are getting closer to its decay point. Usually, means they are getting older and close to decay, with radius not commercially valuable (too large) and not allowing younger trees to get light and nutrients from the ground, preventing the natural resources to develop. With that in mind the natural option was to use large radius trees and from that extract squared sec-tions, from where the building compo-nents could be taken. In terms of spe-cies, the one available in these terms was Spruce, a soft wood with low tolerance to water. The material choice is a direct response to site conditions and the building details are designed to better cooperate with the material properties.

TImber species / Spruce

28

squared sections steel footings

29

Following the forest cycle, the mate-rial choice was Spruce, a non-durable soft timber. To better use the materi-al, the building needed to be respon-sive to its properties. To deal with the large radius, all the components are squared and with different profiles. This allows less waste during the cutting, so there are more options to fill the timber cutting plan. Also, as non-durable specie, Spruce shouldn’t get in direct contact with water. For that, the columns have steel footings, to protect the timber from the dump ground. Also, all the components are behind a waterproof layer. There are no exposed timber parts, just in the building interior. Those decisions ultimately try to increase the mate-rial lifespan and keep its aesthetical properties.

responsive design

steel footings waterproof membrene

31

materialproduction

32

After the material choice, cutting lists were produced following the techni-cal limitations of the woodmizer. With the maximum length of 5,10 meters, the cutting lists had to be produced to match that length, any member longer than that would have to be specially produced. From 5,10 to 6,20 meters lengths, the members could be done in the woodmizer in a slower and ac-curate process with trees specially pro-cured to match that dimension. After that critical measurement, the pieces would have to be manually spliced using components inside the 5,10 me-ters, for example the column measur-ing 7,50 meters. The first cutting list was produced according the 3D model of the building, providing the elements to make the longitudinal main frames. The following cutting lists were made according to site measurements and inside the 5,10m length, taking always in consideration an extra margin for mistakes.

Technical aspects

33

Material check with the forestry in charge, Chris Sadd

35

LongitudinalFrames

36

A5A6

B5B6

B2B3

A2A3

A5A6A5A6

B5B6B5B6

A2A3A2A3

37

The Longitudinal Frames were the first step in the project ‘making’ process. During the design defini-tion, a 3D model was generated containing all the initial measure-ments. From that model, technical drawings were produced indicating the material measurements and the connection point between ele-ments. Even trying to stick with the proposed limit of 5,10 m length, a few elements were longer than that. In that case making the pro-curement process slower. Another issue that comes to topic is, longer the elements heavier they are. This fact was a problem when dealing with longer lengths, demanding more people and concentration to move any member. More people to develop one task ultimately lead to more time consuming in the overall process. Despite their beauty, the longer elements are a challenge in a process of self-fabrication.

200 x 200Column

(10x)

300 x 150Roof Beam

(5x)

350 x 175Floor Beam

(9x)

3d model and material

38

Students making the longitudinal frames in the ‘Big Shed’

39

The four longitudinal frames had to be individually pre-fabricated in the shed to be craned in position afterwards. Particular in that phase, precision was a crucial point. Start-ing from representation, there is no reference in the material world. Each frame had to be precisely made to allow precise fit during the meticulous lifting process. Further-more, the components of those frames were the longest timber pieces, which were procured spe-cially for that purpose. Any mistake in that phase would mean more time consumed to find and fell new material in those long lengths.

Pre fab elements

Frames ready to be transported to site and

reassembled

40

a5a6

41

/ l o n g i t u d i n a l f r a m e

/ f r a m e r a i s i n g s e q u e n c e

4,70m

4,80m

1,60m

1,60m

4,70m

4,80m

5,40m

42

b5b6

43



5,20m

4,40m

4,20m

4,40m

44

A2A3

45



4,20m

3,60m

4,40m

4,70

46

b2b3

47



7,20m

5,10m

4,70m

5,10m

4,70m

48

A4

49

/ c e n t r a l f r a m e

/ a s s s e m b l i n g w o r k

3,20m

2,20m

4,80m

53

Secondary members

54

Plates

Rafters

Wall studs

Columns

Floor Joists

220 x 150Roof Rafters

(38x)

55

220 x 75Floor Joists

(38x)

150 x 50Wall Studs

(36x)

220 x 50Plates

(8x)

56

After the Longitudinal Frames, the timber procurement followed in a more informal way, better respond-ing to the site activities. With an ini-tial list made according to drawings, the process followed with sequential requests. Dealing with demand and project changes, those requests were a direct response to site activi-ties. This approach was only possible with the constant feedback between site and timber stock. Dealing with a self-build operation, with non-skilled labour, the material waste increases a lot, mostly regarding cutting mis-takes. To manage that, an intensive control of supply and the anticipa-tion of necessities was key to make the material constantly available for use. Plus the projects changes that demanded new material profiles and quatities.

INFORmal process

Floor joists arriving on site

57

columns 200 x 200floor beam 350 x 175

roof beam 300 x 150

mezanine beam 300 x 150

terrace beam 300 x 150

roof beam 200 x 100

main rafters 200 x 75

A1 | A2 0,500/A1 4.500

B1 | B2 1,062/B1 4.775 2.7354.241

A2 | A3 4,200/A2 4.500 4.5703,681/A3

B2 | B3 7,272/B2 4.644 5.174 4.6445,648/B3

A3 | A5 3.2472.700

B3 | B5 5.100

A5 | A6 5,409/A5 4.703 4.703 4.7034,739/A6

B5 | B6 5,295/B5 4.301 4.3354,503/B6

main rafters main wall studs

150x75floor joists

220x75lateral support

220x100mezanine beam

300 x 150West B2/A2 B2 -‐WMR 153 x 75 x 2354 3.749 4923 5546 6233

A2 -‐ WMR 211 x 75 x 6150 2.168

East B2/A2 2.184 4.049 48986.050 2.484

West B3/A3 4.990 1.822 5.4813.183 2.211

East B3/A3 B3 -‐EMR 205 x 75 x 3256 2437 5.481A3 -‐EMR 276 x 75 x 4898 2188

AB4

West B5/A5 B5 -‐WMR 315 x 75 x 4816 2875 4.561A5 -‐WMR 276 x 75 x 2416 2982

East B5/A5 4.904 2.598 4.5612.198 2.794

West B6/A6 5.142 2.375 4.5641.552 2.794

East B6/A6 B6 -‐EMR 231 x 75 x 5206 1792 4.564 4706 4280A6 -‐EMR 168 x 75 x 1721 2474

rafters 220x50wall studs

150x50floor joists

220x75 top plate 175x50bottom plate

175x50AB12 37

AB23 33 21 55,216,8 12

AB34 20 7,5 3212,5

AB45 15,2 10,8 187,2 9,6

AB56 34,3 21 35,212

secondary members|linear meters

longitudinal frames| meters

cross frames| meters

complete frame missing lenght critical lenght

Initial timber cut list made acording to drawings

Meetings and stock counting as a way of keep track ot the supply

61

Abilityto change

63

framework and levels

The Building is designed to better suit the initial briefing, a Student Lodge. On top of that specific pro-gram, design decisions were taken to make the building cope with time and acknowledge the presence of a possible ‘creative user’. The ap-proach doesn’t propose ‘flexibility’ as an excuse to provide a non-op-timized solution, presuming that a state of flux should be a generic state. In opposition, the proposal suggests the most suitable solution for the requested program, but in a way that the system is not static, or locked. For that, the design is conceived on levels of permanence and change, which are independent of each other and visually compre-

hendible. To acomodate that the Framework gives the suport as the most fixed element. In that fashion, the building doesn’t need a forensic investigation to be deployed. The intention is to facilitate the accom-modation of different uses or even a radically new interpretation of the space, providing the building a lon-ger lifespan and a more user related environment. In that approach, the building elements can be easily re-placed and customized according to technical needs or user’s aesthetical aspirations. Allied to that, the pos-sibility of a different use makes the building more relevant in a dynamic environment of change and new de-mands, like nowadays society.

64

FRAMEWORK

High level

SHell cover

_main structure _secondary members; rafters, wall studs, fl oor joists, plates. _insulation_water proof membrane

_cladding_insulation

65

low level

Permanent interior semi-Permanent interior

supply sistemns

suggestive frames

_toilet_shower_heating stove

_mezannines_kitchen

_electric line_heating

_partitions frames

67

It’s the building most solid estate, what confronts the gravity forces. Can be considered the minimal unit where the space starts to take shape. In a ‘design and make’ agenda, where modifications are welcome during the process, the user could physically inhabit this space. That would lead to a spatial perception that allows the user to challenge ar-chitectural ideas made in an immate-rial domain. Furthermore leading to a rethink of the following project’s steps accepting the user’s participa-tion. Being the most fixed part of the building, its design should be over dimensioned, to allow a certain degree of future additions on top of that. As a matter of scale and pre-ciseness, its fabrication doesn’t take much advantage from the user or architect involvement. As the experi-ence in the Student Lodge demon-strated, it’s a labour intense work, where time is more relevant than the individual’s input. As the most stable and unchangeable state, the Frame-work would be considered the high-est level. To sun up, a level of stabil-ity that demands higher technical skills to be developed and changed.

FRAMEWORK

71

The second level would give a more defined shape to the building, kind of a shell. This layer would house the secondary building elements, like wall studs, floor joists and rafters. Closed on exterior and interior faces, this could also receive the insulation material and the external waterproof membrane. Another function is to house the openings. Treating that level with independency of the inte-rior walls and supply systems leaves more chance for interior changes. This level is more easily manageable during the building process, but after enclosure of its faces demands more work to be accessed. This means that after the completion it’s modification or replacement needs to be handled by technical labour, being not so accessible to the user. Even being a more fixed level The Shell has an important role. That’s because will be the support for more changeable levels.

SHELL

75

With the Level above holding the insulation and the waterproof mem-brane, the cladding and facades can be more users friendly. Gener-ally with a smaller lifespan, those elements can be easily replaced and attend to the user’s aesthetical ambitions over time. In the par-ticular case of the ‘Student Lodge’, the Polycarbonate façade can be replaced or punctured to receive new openings. Also the cladding could have part of it prefab in a more controlled environment, as the building is waterproofed and the cladding will perform aesthetically only. Even with the making process happening, the facades and clad-ding could be changed, having their design reviewed during the process. This allowed the building to be more responsive to the site and its making process, and ultimately will allow an-other changes during its life develop-ment.

Cover

76

46

meetings happening on site to define the

facade layout and material

79

Even with an independent interior, covered and waterproofed, there are still bits that need to be defi ned as permanent. This particular level relates to the elements that due to its technical nature have to be fi xed. The bathroom and the fi replace need to be defi ned because their support had to reach outside the Shell level. In the Student Lodge, was used a strategy to give more options to the users. Being permanent elements, their walls were used as loadbearing partitions, giving the opportunity to be support for a mezzanine. This would allow more occupation options without adding other fi xed elements. With its independence from the Shell layer, the partition’s positions could be tested on site before assembled. This allowed confronting the draw-ing information with the sensation of physically inhabiting the space before taking a fi nal position.

permanent interior

80

Ground fl oor plan

81

fixed elements being tested and-

defined on site

83

This level is considered semi per-manent, as it has their places de-fined but it’s optional to happen. This occurs to the technical support demanded for its deployment. The mezzanines have their support points and can be used or not. For example in the ‘Student Lodge’ where the combinatorial analyses of 3 possible mezzanine spaces results in 8 dif-ferent space configurations. Other option is regarding the kitchen posi-tion. Providing two different points for location, it gives more freedom to the user. Its difficult to predict if future user’s will demand a larger or a small kitchen, or even no kitchen at all for example.

Semi-permanent interior

84

expandable lightroom4 (R4)

M1

M2

R2

R1

SL

LR2LR1

R4

M4

M3

R3

K1K2K3

expandable lightmezzanine 3 (M3)


expandable lightroom 3 (R3

small power suplyexposed galvanized pipe power socket

heights and position(see floor plan)

power suplyfor external light power suply

for external light

expandable lightroom 2 (R2)

expandable lightroom4 (R4)

expandable lightliving room 2 (LR2)

expandable lightliving room 1 (LR1)



expandable lightsmall living (SL)

expandable lightroom 1 (R1)

spot lightpendant light

switchsocket

/ diagram used in the building process to better explain the unconventional electrical suply to the contractor.

85

M2

M3

R3

R4

R2

SL

LR

K

R1

M4

M1

This level is crucial to allow change, being one of the most difficult levels to be handled by the user. Most of the times those systems are mixed and hide inside walls, making their change part of an investigation work. In the proposal this level uses the shell as support, being mounted on top of it. Being exposed and hap-pening on the building perimeter allows more independency of the interior partitions. The design of the supply line is made to better attend the initial design. But as a visible element running on the fringes, it allows scope for additions and direct changes. For example in the electri-cal line, that can easily receive extra sockets and light fixtures.

Supply systemns

extendable rubber wire to allow thelamp position tobe defined by the user

R1 / room 1M1 /mezzaznine room 1R2 / room 2M2 / mezzanine room 2R3 / room 3M3 / mezzanine room 3R4 / room 4M4 / mezzanine room 4SL / small living roomLR / living roomK / kitchen

/ pendant light detail / ground floor plan

/ mezzanine floor plan

86

163

163

163.5

165.5

166

165

165 165.5

BEDROOM 3

BEDROOM 4

wood burningstove 9.5 kw

DINING

KITCHEN

SHOWER

163

163

163.5

165.5

166

165 165.5

BEDROOM 1

MEZZANINEBEDROOM 1

BEDROOM 2MEZZANINEBEDROOM 2

MEZZANINEBEDROOM 4

MEZZANINEBEDROOM 3

TOILET

LIVINGSMALL LIVING

RIDGE LINE

RIDGE LINE

MArch Design & Make 2012Architectural Association School of Architecture

157

158

158

158

158

159

159

159

159

159

161

161

161

161

161

161

161

161

162

162

162

162

162

162

162162

162

162

162

162

162

162

162

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

164

164

164

164

164

164

166

166

166

166

166

166

166

167

167

167

167

167

167

167

168

168

168

168

168

169

169169

169

171

171

171

172

173

160

160

160

160

160

165

165

165

165

165

165

165170

170

170

170

A2

Electrical Ground floor plan

87

MEZZANINEBEDROOM 2

163

163

164

165.5

166

165

165 165.5

163

163

164

165.5

166

165 165.5

MEZZANINEBEDROOM 1

MEZZANINEBEDROOM 3

BEDROOM 1

BEDROOM 2

BEDROOM 3

BEDROOM 4

MEZZANINEBEDROOM 4

TOILET

RIDGE LINE

RIDGE LINE

MArch Design & Make 2012Architectural Association School of Architecture

157

158

158

158

158

159

159

159

159

159

161

161

161

161

161

161

161

161

162

162

162

162

162

162

162162

162

162

162

162

162

162

162

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

163

164

164

164

164

164

164

166

166

166

166

166

166

166

167

167

167

167

167

167

167

168

168

168

168

168

169

169169

169

171

171

171

172

173

160

160

160

160

160

165

165

165

165

165

165

165170

170

170

170

A2

Electrical Mezzanine floor plan

89

The suggestive frame was a way to deliver hints of a possible layout without being dictatorial. The idea gives a support to receive partitions that will need modest DIY skills to be completed. These hints of occupa-tion still leave the space free of fi xed elements. Still those frames can be completely ignored and the space reinvented in the future according to users terms. The ambition is to chal-lenge fl exibility ideas that propose free spaces, but also empty of any specifi c confi guration. They were placed following the overlay with different confi gurations, placing the elements that are shared by them. This would be a lower stance in the levels hierarchy, as it demands less technical skills to be modifi ed. This would be the last state of change be-fore entering in the aspect of modi-fi cations with aesthetical purpose only, like painting walls and changing furniture for example.

Suggestive frames

91

Marks pointing the position to receive the frames that defines

partitions positions

94

photo by Valerie Bennett

95

movingfoward

97

Following the ‘suggestive frames’, which is made by an overlay of different uses, the building can be reconfi gured. In this case, during the building process the school direction suggested to have an intermediate use for the space. Before the other group of accommodations are com-plete and more students can live in Hooke Park, the ‘Student Lodge’ will face a different program. With more students coming, Hooke has more employees and a demand for new of-fi ce spaces. This proposal transforms the West wing in a shared working space, with its larger mezzanine be-ing used as a more private offi ce. The East end works as a meeting room, with its smaller mezzanines housing places for storage. In the centre, a small reception uses the step as a sit-ing area for waiting. To achieve that, minor modifi cations have to be done. Just one of the frames has to be fi lled and the kitchen is not used. As the other buildings emerge and the offi ce is relocated, the building can easily go back to its initial proposal, a ‘Student Lodge’.

working space

Ground fl oor plan

Mezzanine fl oor plan

99

The initial proposal for the ‘Stu-dent Lodge’ is more focused on the individual space aspect. With larger rooms with ground and mezzanine areas, the confi guration doesn’t leave much scope for shared spaces. In other hand, the ‘collective’ propos-al tends to make smaller individual spaces to provide more options of social engagement. The Mezzanine in the West wing, gives space for a large living room, taking advantage of the open façade to create a more lightly ambient. The ground fl oor is divided into two rooms, with enough space for bed, wardrobe and study-ing desk, a smaller private space in comparison to the initial proposal. In the East side the confi guration gives space for two independent mez-zanines and the option of a shared ground fl oor. This tries to achieve degrees of sociability, with the mezzanine being the most private. Followed by the shared ground, a semi private space for a more inti-mate engagement, with two or three people. And the living room, the social space where all the students can gather and bring people from outside to their coexistence. The kitchen is located in the central area, with enough space to house a table and take advantage of the steps as more casual siting place. Like the ‘offi ce’ proposal, this confi guration can be achieved using the frames to defi ne the partitions.

collective space

Ground fl oor plan

Mezzanine fl oor plan

101

With the end of the architect’s work the life of a building starts, and just in time the success or not can be evaluated. Part of the ‘Student Lodge’ proposal, is to have a build-ing that is able to deal with time, incorporating the user’s as a par-ticipative agent. Proposing a way to conceive architecture detached from the notion of fi nal estate, the build-ing is something that evolves beyond an established idea of completion. In that fashion architecture is an instance of its living state, something that surpasses the initial architectural predictions.

The end as a begining

104104

Architectural Association School of ArchitectureMArch Design & Make

2011 | 2012

student lodge 1&2

Documents

student lodge

design concept

material approach

material production

material source

building articulation

possible view

main road