INTO THE NEST PART THREE

INTO THE NEST

the THE RESEARCH

H

HE NEIGHBORHOO

NORTHSIDE Northside, like many other neighborhoods in the older parts of Cincinnati, has experienced fluctuations in its population that has had a ripple effect in the property values, safety, and density of the neighborhood. Of course, nothing occurs in a vacuum, but our project does not focus on the causes of the drastic changes; however, we do try to address the current situations affecting the lives of the residents of Northside.

NTS

1627-1629

CORNER LOTS

SITES 1 AND 3

UNDERSTANDING THE CHALLENGES The challenges associated with the corner lots are

COOPER

1631 COOPER

1653 COOPER few and far between. With that being said, corner

lots must address the issue that their backyard is easily visible from the street. The backyard is typically considered a private space, and corner lots have a very public backyard. This poses a problem for corner lots. Lot 01 has a very different footprint from all the other lots. This can lead to difficulties in developing the plan and limits exterior space.

PURSUING THE ADVANTAGES There are several advantages to having one of the two corner lots. Most of these advantages stem from

1657 COOPER

the opportunity 1642 POWERS to

utilize all exterior walls. Houses

on both corner lots can avoid having a party wall by building the house to the extent of the site closest to the street (minus the required offsets). Thus, all four walls can have windows and avoid extra fireproofing.

Additionally, the corner lot provides the opportunity to have the main entrance on the front or side of the house. Lot 01 has several distinct advantages on its own, as it is twice as wide as a standard lot. This allows for floorplans that are not possible with other lots.

INFILL LOTS

SITES 2, 4 AND 5

UNDERSTANDING THE CHALLENGES

1631 COOPER

There are several challenges associated with the infill

1657 COOPER 1653 COOPER lots. The width of the infill lots is only 25’ and houses are required to have a 5’ offset on one side (of a 3’ offset on both sides). This means the maximum width of the house is only 20’. This can be very limiting for the floorplan. Another challenge is they are required to have a party wall when building to the extent of the lot. This party wall cannot have any windows and must have extra fireproofing. This is not ideal because it limits light from getting into the home and is expensive compared to a standard exterior wall.

1653 COOPER

1657 COOPER 1642 POWERS PURSUING THE ADVANTAGES The main advantage of the infill lots is that they are inherently more difficult to create a floorplan for than the corner lots due to their limited width. Because of this, the floorplans designed with the infill lot in mind can easily be converted to accommodate a corner lot. Additionally, Lot 03 and Lot 05 are the shortest of all the lots. Designing for these two lots specifically means that those designs could be implemented on any of the larger lots.

1642 POWERS

*Data collected from the 2016 United States Census Bureau American Community Service

AGE FAMILIES FOR THE SUBURBS Northside’s suburban feel lends itself to the family lifestyle. It is no surprise that according to the 2016 census, nearly 70% of the population is between the ages of 18-65. Families have been drawn to the suburbs since the 1950s with the intention of chasing the American Dream.

Northside opens the opportunity for people to own land, raise their kids, and escape the large city of Cincinnati.

DENSITY GROWTH IN THE SUBURBS Northside’s population density has fluctuated due to factors both within and outside of the neighborhood. While Cincinnati has grown and developed, neighborhoods such as Northside have gone from being seen as the suburbs to the inner-city. Along with changes in perception came the demographic and density changes brought on by the power of perception on property values; the inner-city perception allowed for the neighborhood to become increasingly affordable; conversely, the affordability and proximity to downtown has now transformed the neighborhood into one that is more desirable for young professionals. The young professionals and more affluent members of the community have *Data collected from the 2016 United States Census Bureau American Community Service

begun to contribute to out-pricing the inhabitants.

This has led to a change in both the age and ethnic make-up of the community.

*Data collected from the 2016 United States Census Bureau American Community Service

UNEMPLOYMENT NATIONAL CRISIS IN OUR BACKYARD There is no conversation of income without the proper discussion of unemployment.

Many people understand the problem of unemployment in the United States. What is often the problem, however, is that many people do not realize this crisis is in our own backyards. The 2016 census shows the national unemployment rate to be 3.6%, and is more than doubled in Northside at 7.5%.

This percentage plays an important role in *Data collected from the 2016 United States Census Bureau American

the median income of Northside, which is also lower than the national average.

*Data collected from the 2016 United States Census Bureau American Community Service

INCOME SOURCING A SHIFT IN FOCUS Times have changed significantly over the past decade. Many people have shifted from the typical 40 hour/week to a self-employment route. Looking specifically Northside, only 50% of income comes from a standard salary. People may continue to drop of the typical salary band and work for themselves, especially if they live in a place that allows it. Many parents choose this route to spend time with their children while still making *Data collected from the 2016 United States Census Bureau American Community Service

income. Perhaps this neighborhood offers an opportunity for all people to self employ.

PROPERTY VALUE UNDERSTANDING THE LANDSCAPE Property value is an important factor to investigate when looking at a neighborhood. Not only does it allow you to understand the landscape, but also gage an estimate for re-sell value. Having the most expensive home in a neighborhood often does more harm than good, so it is crucial to have an understanding of the surronding properties. The lots around the five sites are primarily in the range of $44,000 to $180,000. Though this is a large range, it can be costly to the neighborhood value. As designers say, “You are only as good as your worst drawing”, a neighborhood is only as good as it’s worst property. It is important that the NEST sites value these properties on the higher end of this spectrum, without exceeding it.

CRIME UNDER-UTILIZED OVER-VANDELIZED Crime can make or break a neighborhoodbut what causes crime? There is speculation that the more under-utilized space in a neighborhood, the more chance for crime.

When there is vacancy and run-down buildings, there is a tendency for more vandalism, gang activity, and other crime. Looking at the data collected from the 2016 census, Cincinnati and Northside have more than double the crime rate of the national average. Cities tend to have higher crime rates due to population, but under-utilzation can be the downfall of *ACCORDING TO THE 2016 UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU AMERICAN COMMUNIT Y SERVICE

suburban neighorhoods such as Northside.

UTILIZATION UTILIZED VS. VACANCY Utilization can best be described as making a use or function out of something so that it serves a purpose. Northside has a much higher crime rate than the national average.

Based on the utlization rate for the area, Northside has a large amount of vacancy in the immediate surroundings for the five sites. Though developments will continue to grow in this area, for the short term there is a risk of targeted crime. According to this data, underutilized areas make up close to 60% of the area, and vacant lots takes this percentage even higher. This is a dangerous percentage, but it offers an opportunity to the neighborhood to rapidly grow with new developments in the coming years.

The Northside neighborhood is full of growth potential. With sites on both infill and corner lots, NEST is able to create a structure for the neighborhood that can be built upon. With families growing and looking for the suburbs, there is the opportunity for privacy and property to raise kids. On the other hand, young adults who want space but still a populated area have the chance to experience a denser area in the suburbs rather than downtown.

Though the average income is lower in Northside than nationally, there are a wide variety of income sources. With only 50% of the population relying on salary, there is room for self-employment as well as retirement for the older generations. This could be a draw to people who could be looking to work from home or raise a family. With a range of property value in the area, development has the opportunity to produce a higher end home without devaluing the real estate value. This data also reveals a lot about the relationship between utilization and crime. Though the crime rates are higher in Northside, there is potential for these to drop significantly once the neighborhood is further developed.

CCUPANCY

STREET ATTIT STREE

SUST

CO-HOUSING FAMILY AGING-IN-PLACE STARTER HOME LIVE/WORK MULTI-GENERATIONAL

ACC

STREET ATTITUDE STREET ATTITUDE STREET ATTITUDE STREET ATTITUDE

SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS SYSTEMS

OCCUPANCY The studio researched heavily into the concept of Occupancy Types, or the family dynamics

ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBILITY

and lifestyles of the occupants that would potentially occupy the houses. Each Occupancy Type includes number of occupants, their ages, careers, and ability to navigate. In addition to characteristics of the occupants, research was done into the spaces that these Occupancy Types would need in a house, based on adjacencies and the psychology behind the way these occupants typically use their houses.

COMPONENTS COMPONENTS COMPONENTS COMPONENTS

ROOFLINE ROOFLINE ROOFLINEROOFL

OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY TYPE OCCU

WORK OL SCHO LUNCH

12 BRE AK FA ST

LIVING | STUDY

DINNER LIVING | STUDY

BATH

12

SLE EP WORK

RESTORATION

OL SCHO LUNCH

KINSHIP STORAGE

12

STIMULATION

BRE AK FA ST

INTIMACY

LIVING | STUDY

PRODUCTIVITY

DINNER

ofresearch researchgives givesreason reasontotovarious various atic decisions.These Thesedecisions decisionsare are tic decisions. on thefollowing followingpages. pages. n the

12 12 12

12 12 12

12 12

12 12 12

12 12 12

12 12 MULTI- GENERATIONAL - GENERATIONAL MULTI

STARTER HOME FAMILY FAMILY

AGING IN PLACE COCO - LIVING - LIVING

1212 12

12 12

12

1212 12

12 12 STARTERHOME HOME STARTER

12 12 TYLE CLOCKS

CO - LIVING AGING INPLACE PLACE AGING IN

12 OFFICE STUDIO

12 12

r hour clocks to measure the average within the household per occupant. of research gives reason to various atic decisions. These decisions are on the following pages.

LIFESTYLE CLOCKS Twenty-four hour clocks to measure the average time spent with the household per occupant. This area of research gives

12

reasons to various programmatic decisions.

12

12 12

12 12

CO- LIVING - LIVING CO

OFFICESTUDIO STUDIO OFFICE

OCCUPANCY TYPE CO-HOUSING A CHANGING AGE For the purposes of this studio, Co-Housing is defined as the condition in which three or more adults, typically those that are not related, live in one home, each having their own separate space. The minimum requirement of three or more was determined by utilizing the three bedroom, 1500 square foot option from the NEST briefing. A house designed around this occupancy type typically focuses on a plethora of private spaces and a variety of public spaces. Private spaces include bedrooms for single occupants, possibly shared between two occupants to maximize capacity, and private, fully functional bathrooms. Bathrooms are sometimes broken up into components, such as a separate water closet, so that they can be used by multiple occupants at one time. Public spaces can be living rooms, dining spaces, kitchens, exterior courtyards, etc. These spaces focus on the potential for occupants to partake in communal activities.

40' - 0

40' - 0

RECENT COLLEGE GRADS UP

40' - 0"

CO-HOUSING

RECENT COLLEGE RECENT GRADS COLLEGE GRADS

1ST FLOOR

40' - 0"

2NDBEDROOM FLOOR

B

BEDROOM

BATH

Bedroo Bath: 2 Primar SeconD No.Access D

40' - 0"

iving

UP

Owner KITCHEN www.autodesk.com/revit

LIVING Owner

Project Name

Project Name

www.autodesk.com/revit

40' - 0"

UP

DN 40' - 0"

UP

40' - 0"

UP

40' - 0"

No.

Owner Project Name BEDROOM

www.autodesk.com/revit BEDROOM

BEDROOM

BATH

Description

BATH

Date

Unnamed Project number Date Drawn by Checked by

BEDROOM

Project Number Issue Date Author Checker

DN

Owner KITCHEN

LIVING Owner

Project Name www.autodesk.com/revit

todesk.com/revit

No.

Description

LOFT

Date No.

Description

Unnamed Project number Date Drawn by Checked by

Project Name

Date

Project Number Issue Date Author Checker

Unnamed Project number Date Drawn by Scale Checked 1/8" =by1'-0"

STANDARD PROGRAMMING 4 Bed / 2 Bath

Description

Date

Unnamed Project number Date Drawn by Checked by

Project Number Issue Date Author Checker

A104 Scale 1/8" = 1'-0"

1/26/2020 8:58:25 PM

Primary: Kitchen, bedrooms, loft No.

Secondary: Living room Access Point: 1

A104

Pro Issu Aut Che

FAMILY A CHANGING AGE The Family Occupancy Type is defined as a parent, or parents, with two or more children. The reason for this specific definition stems from the three-bedroom, 1500 square foot option from the NEST briefing.* This number of occupants is perfect for a private master bedroom and two additional bedrooms, meeting the requirements of the brief. Because the definition of family is so broad (a couple with two children, a single parent with four children, etc.), the private spaces within the home need to be versatile. Bedrooms could potentially be housing up to three children in each. This requires large bedrooms with optimal storage, easy to rearrange as life changes. Additionally, communal spaces need to be adaptable as the family dynamic develops.

*A family that is small enough to occupy the two-bedroom, 1200 square foot option from the NEST briefing will be covered in the Starter Home Occupancy Type.

FAMILY FAMILY STYLE STYLE FAMILYFAMILY STYLE STYLE LIVE WORK 25' - 0"

1st FLOOR

2nd FLOOR

DN

DN

M

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

STARTER HOM STARTEROwner HOME STARTER

2nd FLOOR 3rdWORK FLOOR FAMILY FAMILY STYLE STYLE FAMILY STYLE LIVE 25' - 0"

2nd FLOOR

MASTER BATH

KITCHEN

LIVING

Bath: 2 FullBedrooms: BATH 3 (1 Mas Primary: Yard, Bath:Living 2 Full Areas, Primary: Storage, Loft area Yard, (can Livin be s areaR(c Secondary:Storage, Office,Loft Dining Secondary: Access Points: 1 toBEDROOM 2 Office, D UP BEDROOM

MASTER BATH

LAUNDRY

MASTER BEDROOM

BEDROOM Access Points: 1 toBE UP

MASTER BEDROOM

Owner Owner STARTER STARTER HOME HOME STARTER HOME Owner Owner No. Description

No.

Owner

No. Description

Date

Project Project Name Name 25' - 0" Project Project Name Name

www.autodesk.com/revit www.autodesk.com/revit

www.autodesk.com/revit www.autodesk.com/revit 25' - 0"

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

Bedrooms: 3 (1 Master, 2 Single) Name Project NameProject Bath: 2 Full

LIVING

25' - 0"

LAUNDRY

MASTER

BATH BATH Primary: Yard, LivingBATH Areas, Storage, Loft area (can be small) Secondary: Office, Dining Room Access Points: 1 to 2 UP

MASTER BEDROOM

MASTER BEDROOM

BEDROOM

BEDROOM

Owner Owner Owner

www.autodesk.com/revit www.autodesk.com/revit

No.

No.

No.

Description

Project Project Name Name Date 25' - Description 0"

No.Description Description Date

DN DN No.Description Description Date Date

Unnamed

Date

Date

Unnamed Unnam

Unnamed Unnamed Date Date Issue D

Project Project number Project numb

Drawn by

Project number STANDARD PROGRAMMING Date Unnamed A101 Drawn by

Project number Date Drawn by Checked by

Project Checked Number by Issue Date Author Checker

3 Bed / 2 Bath

A101

Secondary: office, dining room Access Point: 2

No. Description

ame ct Name

Date

No.Description Description Date

Unnamed Project number Date

Project Number Issue Date

Date

Unnamed Unnamed

Project Number Project Number Project number Project number Date Date Issue Date Issue Date Drawn by DrawnAuthor by Author Checked by Checked Checker by Checker Scale 1/8" =Scale 1'-0" 1/8" = 1'-0"

A102A102

1/26/2020 4:05:19 PM

BEDROOM

1/26/2020 4:05:19 PM

BEDROOM

0 4:05:17 PM

M

DrawnAuthor by

Project Number Project Num Project number Project Project Number number Checked by Checked Checke by Date Date Issue Date Issue Date Issue Date Author Drawn by DrawnAuthor by Author CheckerChecked by Checked ScaleChecker 1/8" by= 1'-0" Checker S

Scaleroom, 1/8" = 1'-0"storage Primary: Yard, living

BATH

BATH

BEDROOM

BEDROOM No.

Owner Owner

ner Project Name Project Project Name Name m/revit .autodesk.com/revit .com/revit

ASTERName ect

Project num

Project Nu Date Issue DrawnDat by Author Checked b Checker

1/26/2020 4:05:17 PM

MASTER BATH LAUNDRY

KITCHEN

CHEN

Date

UnnamedUnna Project number Date Drawn by Checked by

www.autodesk.com/revit

w.autodesk.com/revit

No. No No.Description Desc DN DN

1/26/2020 4:05:17 PM

3rd FLOOR Owner 25' - 0"

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

LIVING

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

LE WORK

3rd FLOOR Bedrooms: 3 (1 Master, 2 Si

LAUNDRY

DN

Project Proje Na 25' - 0" STARTE STA STARTER HOME Project Name

www.autodesk.com/revit www.autodesk.com/revit

www.autodesk.com/revit

DN DN

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

KITCHEN

UP

MASTER BEDROO

Owner Owne

FAMILY FAMILY STYLE STYLE LIVE WORK

DN

25' - 0"

25' - 0" 25' - 0"

25' - 0"

LIVING

UP

t FLOOR

LAUNDRY

DN

DN

UP

STA

3rd FLOOR

KITCHEN

YLE

No.

3rd FLOOR

FAMILY FAMILY STYLE STYLE LIVE WORK

FAMILY STYLE

AMILY STYLE

er

STARTER

2nd FLOOR

1st FLOOR

AGING -IN-PLACE A CHANGING AGE Aging-In-Place is defined as a place in which one can safely and comfortably live, with the expectation that age and mobility will eventually become a limiting factor. Aging-In-Place can be designed for the two-bedroom, 1200 square foot option from the NEST briefing. The key factor for this design is limiting the house to one floor. Limiting the design to one floor assists with the ability to navigate safely.

Additionally, this design is well suited for ADA. This is important to those who are aging, as the possibility of limited mobility, thus the need for a walker or wheelchair, becomes more prominent. However, if this design is too small for the needs of the homeowner, a second floor can be added. This provides the option for the design to now become the three-bedroom, 1500 square foot option from the NEST briefing.

This move is made with the understanding that one day there is a possibility that the homeowner may have difficulties accessing the second floor.

1ST FLOOR AGING IN PLACE AGING IN PLACE

1ST FLOOR

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

Bedro Bath: Prima Secon Acces

KITCHEN 25' - 0"

KITCHEN 25' - 0"

BATH LIVING

BATH

LIVING MASTER KITCHEN

www.autodesk.com/revit

KITCHEN

STANDARD PROGRAMMING 2 Bed / 1 Bath Primary: Open floor plan, large bathroom

Owner

MASTER Project Name

Secondary: Loft, yard Access Point: 2

Owner

No.

OCCUPANCY T STARTER HOME A CHANGING AGE For the purposes of this studio, a Starter Home is defined as a house intended for a smaller number of occupants, either a single person or a couple, with the intention of starting a family, or having already started a family, with one child. This Occupancy Type fits well within the two-bedroom, 1200 square foot option from the NEST briefing.* The Starter Home is seen as a house of possibility. It is typically the first house that the homeowner has purchased and is the jumping off point for the expansion of their family. Because of this, the Starter Home design needs to be versatile and adaptable, accounting for the possibilities of the future. The second bedroom has the potential to change from a guest bed or home office to a nursery.

*A family that is large enough to occupy the three-bedroom, 1500 square foot option from the NEST briefing will be covered in the Family Occupancy Type.

25' - 0

25' - 0

1st

UP

STARTER HOME

STARTER HOME FLOOR STARTER HOME

2nd FLOOR 25' - 0"

25' - 0"

YLE RK

STARTER HOME

STARTER HOME

1st FLOOR

2nd FLOOR

25' - 0"

UP

25' - 0"

LIVING

No.

No.

Date Date

Unnamed Unnamed

Author Checker

A101

A101

Scale 1/8" = 1'-0"

Scale 1/8" = 1'-0"

1/26/2020 4:05:17 PM

Project Date Drawn by Checked by

Checked by

Checker

STANDARD PROGRAMMING 2 Bed / 2 Bath

Access Point: 1 MASTER BATH

Unnamed Project Number

A102

Scale 1/8" = 1'-0"

Secondary: Office, yard

LIVING

Project number

A102

Primary: Living room, loft, storage

MASTER BEDROOM

Date

Project number Project Number Project Number Project number Date Issue Date Date Drawn by Author Issue Date Checked byby Checker Scale 1/8" = 1'-0" Drawn Author

1/26/2020 4:05:17 PM

Project number Project Number Date Date Project Issue Number number Drawn by Author Issue Date Checked by Checker

05:19 PM

me

MASTER

Description Description

Unnamed ct Name Unnamed

A101 Scale 1/8" = 1'-0"

MASTER BATH BATH

BATH BATH

DN

Date

DN Project Number Issue Date Author Checker

U

Pr Da Dr Ch

Bedrooms: 2 ( 1 Master, 1 Sing MASTER Bath: 2 Full BEDROOM Primary: Living Room, Loft, Sto MASTER BEDROOM Secondary: Office, Yard LIVING Access Points: 1 LIVING

LIVING

BEDROOM BEDROOM

er

Unnamed Project number Date Drawn by Checked by

25' - 0"

KITCHEN

Date

Date

Date

1/26/2020 4:05:17 PM

Description

Project Name 2nd FLOOR

KITCHEN

Description DN

No.

STARTER HOME No.

r www.autodesk.com/revit

Description

BATH

BEDROOM

1/26/2020 4:05:19 PM

25' - 0"

UP

Owner

ct Name

B B P S A

LIVING

KITCHEN

LIVE/WORK A CHANGING AGE The Live/Work Occupancy Type is defined as a single occupant or couple, typically without children, working from a home office. Live/Work, for the purposes of this course, does not include houses that have a first-floor store front, as this is outside of the limits of residential code. This Occupancy Type can be met in either the twobedroom, 1200 square foot or the three-bedroom, 1500 square foot option from the NEST briefing. The two-bedroom option implies one master bedroom and the other room being a home office. The three-bedroom option includes these two, as well as the addition of a guest bedroom or bedroom for a child. The key to this Occupancy Type is having a space that can function as a home office. This space should be comfortable to work in and provide easy opportunities for clients to visit, separate from the home-life portion of the house.

1st FLOOR

LIVE WORK

STARTER HOME

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

1st FLOOR

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

STUDIO / HOME OFFICE

B B P S A

Bedrooms: 1 Bed Bath: 1 Full Primary: Living Room, Office Secondary: Second Bedroom, Yard Access Points: 1 UP

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

BATH BATH

KITCHEN

KITCHEN

STANDARD PROGRAMMING

LIVING

LIVING

1 Bed / 1 Bath

Primary: Living room, office

BEDROOM WORK

Secondary: Second bedroom, yard

BEDROOM

No.

Description

Date

me No.

WORK Unnamed Project number Date Drawn by Checked by

Access Point: 1

Project Number Issue Date Author Checker

Description

A101 Scale 1/8" = 1'-0"

Dat

MULTI-GENERATIONAL A CHANGING AGE Muti-Generational is defined as having multiple generations, typically including grandparents, parents, and children, live within one household. This Occupancy Type is best suited for the three-bedroom, 1500 square foot option from the NEST briefing. A major factor within this design is providing ample privacy for all three generations. This can range from providing a private bedroom for the grandparents, to an entire in-law suite. These spaces are typically found on the first floor, as it is the easiest for grandparents to navigate. Making this floor visitable is essential for comfort. In addition to having private spaces, communal spaces are important, as they provide opportunities for the generations to mingle and grow together. There should be a variety of communal spaces with opportunities for various activities within each.

MULTI-GENERATIONAL MULTI-GEN

1ST FLOOR MULTI-GENERATIONAL

2ND FLOOR

MULTI-GEN

1ST FLOOR

2ND FLOOR

BATH

MASTER

40' - 0"

Bedroo Bath: 3 Primary Second Be Access Ba

40' - 0"

Pr Se Ac

DN

KITCHEN

Owner

LIVING

Projec

www.autodesk.com/revit

UP

40' - 0"

DN

L

UP 40' - 0"

Bedrooms: 4 (2 Master, 2 Single) Bath: 3 Full Primary: Kitchen,MASTER Master, Large living LIVING Small living Secondary: BATH Access: 2

2ND FLOOR BATH

MASTER 40' - 0"

MASTER KITCHEN

LIVING BATH DN

www.autodesk.com/revit

Owner

KITCHEN

Project Name

No. MASTER

BATH

Description

BEDROOM

Project Name

BATH

Date

BEDROOM BATH

No.

Owner

LIVING

www.autodesk.com/revit

LIVING

LIVING BEDROOM

Description

BEDROOM

STANDARD PROGRAMMING

MASTER

1 Bed / 1 Bath

BATH

Primary: Living room, office No.

BEDROOM

Project Name

BATH

Description

BEDROOM

Date

Secondary: Second bedroom, yard Unnamed Project number Date Drawn by Checked by

Project Number Issue Date Author Checker

A103 Access Point: 1 Scale 1/8" = 1'-0"

U

P D D C

1/26/2020 8:58:22 PM

UP

Owner

Dat

TREET

STREET RELATIONSHIPS All houses have an Attitude towards the Street. Front facades portray the attitude of the house into the neighborhood. This attitude includes fitting in within the context of the neighborhood, as well as a stance on the neighborhood’s interaction with the house. Pushing this concept to the extreme can lead to houses with bars on the windows and heavy, metal doors. On the other hand, it could lead to houses with floor to ceiling windows and wraparound porches. Stereotypically, affordable houses feature flat facades that lack interaction with the neighborhood. However, in this studio, that barren façade is challenged. Even houses with a Private Attitude towards the Street are complex and interact with the street.

CONSTRUCTION TYPE PRIVATE INNOCENT SECLUSION Some houses feature facades that are innately more in tune to privacy for the occupant and passersby. These homes typically do not feature a communal vestibule, such as a porch, that bridges

STREET ATTITUDE

the gap between private house and public street.

Occasionally, these houses can come across as cold or lacking an inviting presence. While this perspective is sometimes desired, houses can appear approachable, without physically inviting people in.

Houses with a Private Attitude towards the Street are

SUSTAINABLE SYS

not meant to seem prisonlike. Instead, they are simply

lacking a common ground for passersby to explore.

ACCESSIBILITY

CONSTRUC PUBLIC A VESTIBULE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD Houses with a Public Attitude towards the Street extend an open hand out to the street and invite passersby. This can be done by creating an inviting communal space between the street and faรงade of

STREET AT

the house. This space could range from the lavishes of a wraparound porch to the simplicity of a well

manicured yard. This vestibule serves as a place where the occupants of the house can interact with the neighborhood. It also serves as a neutral zone where neighbors and other participants of the neighborhood can reach out to the homeowners.

SU

A

OOFLINE

CONSTRUCTIO

STREET ATTIT

SUST

ACC

LOT

LOT

1627-1629

1627-1629

CONSTRUCTI

CONSTRUCTION TYPE ONSTRUCTION TYPE

COOPER

1631 COOPER COOPER

STREET ATTIT

STREET ATTITUDE TREET ATTITUDE

A FORMAL PROBLEM IN A CONCEPTUAL Roofs are required for the completion of any house. However, they are so much more than a cap to a building. Roofs provide an opportunity for striking design moves that completely

SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS

SUS

transform the massing. The roof has the capability to present the massing as bold and heavy, clean and delicate, or jumbled and complex. In addition to defining the exterior, the roof form ultimately impacts the interior spaces. The roof has the power to make the interior feel open and inviting or constricting and claustrophobic. Overall, the roof is a forceful mass that

ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBILITY

assists in defining the perception of the house.

COMPONENTSCOMPONENTS

ROOFLINE

ROOFLINE

AC

SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS

1631 C

COOPER

GABLE STREET ATTITUDE

The Gable Roof is ACCESSIBILITY a staple of suburban America. In its simplest form, the Gable features a peak in the middle that slopes downwards to the edges. It can be combined so there are multiple gables over various spaces (the living

area, bedrooms, garage, etc.). The Gable is ideal for Water SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS Management and double height spaces.

COMPO

MANSARD ACCESSIBILITY

The Mansard Roof, while out of fashion in modern architecture, is common in Northside. This roof features a small pitch above the house, with a dramatic pitch along the edges of the home, capping the house. The Mansard can be very difficult to design with but presents unique

COMPONENTS opportunities for bold design moves.

FLAT The Flat Roof is exactly as it sounds, a roof that is flat, or lacking any pitch. While this concept sounds simple, it is problematic to implement. ROOFLINE Flat Roofs present issues with Water Management, leading to pooling on the roof.

However, Flat Roofs offer the unique opportunity for the roof to be occupiable.

OCCUPANCY TYPE

SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS COMPONENTS

SHED The Shed Roof is ACCESSIBILITY

roof consisting of one plane at a pitch.

This roof type is the most versatile, easily implemented

ROOFLINE with minimal drawbacks. Shed Roofs are ideal for Water Management and double height spaces. By using them in a creative way, Shed Roofs create interesting opportunities for clearstories and skylights.

COMPONENTS

OCCUPANCY TYPE

BUTTERFLY

The Butterfly Roof is like an inverted Gable Roof. The roof features a valley in the middle that slopes upwards to the

ROOFLINE

edges. Butterfly Roofs are a bold design feature that can add interest to the massing. Butterfly Roofs presents issues

with Water Management, as the water wants to pool in the valley.

OC

ONSTRUCTION BUIL

THE DEBATE OF STICK BUILD AND MASONRY The age old debate of stick build vs masonry is the start of an interesting conversation. Stick built is a woodframe construction done primarily on site rather than at a manufacturing facility. Masonry is on typically done off site and brought into the construction site for installation. Rather than a wood frame, masonry places a CMU block between the exterior and interior material.

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

CONST

STICK BUILD BENEFITS OF THE BUILD Stick build construction can offer many benefits geared toward quality of a project. Since it is completed on site and not in a factory, there is a quality control with materials and cost. There is also a cost benefit

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

to using this method. Since the labor is completed on site, there is no addiional cost for bringing full pieces

on the site. There is also the benefit of not worrying about damages to the materials during transport.

RUNNING THE RISK Though there are several positive factors for stick

STREET ATTITUDE

build, it is important to note the possible cons.

Since it is constructed on site, there is possibility for unpredictable weather. This can result in an extension

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

of the scheduling which is costly to the client. Stick build is also a longer process than masonry, so it requires longer time for a crew to be on site. In an

SUSTAINABLE SYS

established neighborhood such as Northside, this

runs risk of high noise pollution from the site.

STREET ATTITUDE

MASONRY BENEFITS OF THE BUILD For a low-budget project, masonry construction can be an affordable option than the stick build. For sites with inconsistent weather, it can also be beneficial to have it constructed in a factory rather than on the

CONSTRUC

site. Using the factory method also allows a project to

stay on track with scheduling regardless of weather.

Masonry build can offer an opportunity for a good short term investment in a home, if the owner is not looking to live there long term.

RUNNING THE RISK Masonry has several risks that may not make it a good

STREET AT

option for construction. Since the structure is built off site, there is a risk of materials being damaged in the transportation from the factory to the site. Since costs

CONSTRUC

do increase significantly, quality is often sacrificed

to fit the budget. In residential design, there can be several restrictions with the HOA codes and problems reselling the property down the road.

SU

STREET AT

OMPONENT STUDIE

CONSTRUCTIO

STREET ATTIT

SUST

ACC

LOT

LOT

1627-1629

1627-1629

CONSTRUCTION TYPE ONSTRUCTION TYPE

CONSTRUCT

1631 COOPER

COOPER BEAUTY INCOOPER THE DETAILS Components are a critical piece to the design of a house, sometimes even the big selling factor for the client. These elements can simply be an accessory to the design, or the

STREET ATTITUDE TREET ATTITUDE

STREET ATT

driving factor behind the concept. In this study, designers focused on one of six (6) primary components: storage, fireplace, garage, deck, and patio. In some cases these were accents to a house, and others were more integrated. Designers implemented these into the projects

depending on personal interpretation of the component.

SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS

ACCESSIBILITY ACCESSIBILITY

SU

AC

COMPONENTS COMPONENTS

STREET ATTITUDE

ACCESSIBILITY LOT 1627-1629

STORAGE

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Storage can be implemented in multiple ways in a project. It can be SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS integrated into the program, built in to the wall conditions, or multiCOOPER task as seating. There is high demand for storage in residential

1631 C

projects, and if used successfully, it can be both aesthetic and functional.

STREET ATTITUDE ACCESSIBILITY

FIREPLACE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS Fireplaces have

been used all throughout history, often for the

purpose of providing heat. Today, they provide an opportunity to make a statement in a living room, or cozy up a den. There is a certain irony that many people want a fireplace without the intention of ever using it.

ACCESSIBILITY

GARAGE Garages can come in many forms: attached, detached, or even a car port. The suburbs have a demand for garages that cities

COMPONENTS

often do not due to the commute people make. Though it can add a significant cost to a project, the benefit is well worth the price.

ROOFLINE

COMPO

CCESSIBILITY

STREET ATTITUDE

DECK ThereSUSTAINABLE is no doubt thatSYSTEMS decks hold a special place in the heart of suburbs. People who have a desire to entertain friends and family

COMPONENTS

want an exterior space to host. In a Cincinnati climate, it is nice to have a place outside to take advantage of the warmer weather.

ACCESSIBILITY ROOFLINE

PORCH Porches can add a curb appeal to the front elevation of a home.

COMPONENTS While a deck offers more privacy, a porch is a public social space.

Another benefit is that it offers a more informal vestibule into the

TYPE of the home. home. People may choose toOCCUPANCY use it as an extension

ROOFLINE

O

the THE STUDIO

OW IT WORK

The process of this studio came about from our analysis of the past two studios work.

The matrixes generated from their line of work inspired us to take a new approach.

Our understanding of what constraints were necessary and unecessary for further research was discussed early on.

Our Matrix presented a new idea of distribution of these selected constraints.

Operating in a lottery like fashion, students drew numbers from a mug off one of the desks in the studio. It wouldve been a draw from a hat situation, but no one wears hats in the studio. This process can be understood as that of a slot machine.

Having eight categories of constraints, there were eight potential slots to spin, eight "Price is Right" wheels in a row. With fifteen students came fifteen outcomes, each containing at least one constraint from each group for optimum breadth of research. These fifteen outcomes can be better known as the Fifteen Houses. The Round 01 of their development strictly enforced the use of the original eight constraints given to each student during the lottery. Round 02 allowed students to add or subtract constraints from their original eight, however, they still had to use at least one constraint from each category at all times.

ROOFLINE

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

GABLE

MASONRY

PASSIVE SOLAR

STORAGE

NONE

PRIVATE

AGE-IN-PLACE

MANSARD

STICK

SUPER INSUL

FIREPLACE

ADA

LIVE/WORK

BUTTERFLY

WATER MGMT

PORCH

VISITABLE

MULTI-GEN

FLAT

GARAGE

STARTER

SHED

DECK

CO-HOUSING

ACCESIBILITY

OCCUPANCY TYPE FAMILY

COMPONENTS

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET PUBLIC

ACCESSIBILITY

COMPONENTS

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

ROOFLINE

OCCUPANCY TYPE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

The diagram to the left illustrates the slot machine like operation of our constraint distribution process. As you can see, there are several combinations that can occur from this practice. The numbers and statistics can be seen on the following pages. Although our studio wasn't able to explore each unique set of eight constraint options, we were able to explore each constraint from each group. Further research would allow us to explore more pairings of constraints and their compatibility.

The Timeline diagram illustrated on the next couple pages shows our process as a studio with these constraints. The initial designs from Fifteen Houses included Round 01 and Round 02. Round 01 proved beneficial in initial research of the various constraints. In Round 02 students were given freedom to add or subtract constraints of their choice. A couple of general rules were set when given this freedom: •The categories of Occupancy Type, Sustainable Strategies, and Components were not given a limit on the ammount of constraints students could chose to implicate in their design. •The initial constraint option of None from the category Accessibility was eliminated. Designs from there on must either be Visitable or ADA. From these two Rounds students were asked to give their opinions on the relationships between each constraint they were given in Round 01.

This allowed for further research into what constraint combinations are ideal, unthreatening, or unfavorable. This research has allowed us to understand what design constraints to use together when designing with housing in mind for the future.

After Fifteen Houses came the selection of Five Houses. This selection was of the designs that would be presented to NEST in hope of their approval to become one of the two designs chosen to be further developed. Five Houses focused one strengthening the main constraints that had driven their design in the earlier phases. The favorability or unfavorability of these constraints were judged by NEST. Their opinions contributed to our overall research of the constraints and assisted in the development of the Two Teams selected to continue. Two Teams is the last phase of this studio, where the two deisgns selected are developed, documented, and adjusted for each individual site.

SITE 05

09

EVAN

10

MEG

08

11 12

13

14 15 ERIN

06 ABBY

07 BEN

+ -

DYLAN

ALEX

03 RACHEL

SITE 01

02

+ -

MEGAN ANNA

05

CHARLES NATE

SITE 02

04

TORI

SITE 03

01

MICHAEL E-BETH

SITE 04

FEB

FIFTEEN HOUSES

+ + -

-

+ +

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

APR

MAR

FIVE HOUSES TWO HOUSES 01 02

03

01

04

02

05

ULL TO START

13

TORI

14 15

MICHAEL E-BETH

SITE 05

SITE 04

07

08

09

10

11 12 ABBY

06

BEN

MEGAN ANNA

05

ERIN

04

EVAN

RACHEL

03

MEG

SITE 02

SITE 01

ALEX

02

CHARLES NATE

SITE 03

DYLAN

01 FEB

+ -

+ +

+ -

+

+ + -

+ + + + + +

+ -

+ +

+ -

+

+ + -

+ + + + + +

APR

MAR

01 02

03

01

04

02

05

LOT 02

LOT 01 A DA FI RE PL AC E R

PE

SU IN L

SU

K

RY

N

SO

A

M

IC

ST

LE

TIB PA M

CO

R

LE

FL AT

ED

SH

TIB PA M

CO

ST O

M L

A

TR

EU

N

LA

ST

A

LE

SO

LA CE

-P

N

E-I

AG

LA CE

-P

N

E-I

AG

IV AT E

PR

IC

BL

PU

TE

SI

TE

SI

02

01

BL E

VI SI TA

FI RE

PL

AC E SU PE

SU L

L

SU

IN

R-I N

R

PE

SU

RY

A

RY

N

SO

M A

N

SO

M A

LE

TIB PA M

E

CO

RA G E

ST O

M L

LE

ER

BU TT

RD

SA

N

M A

TIB PA M

A TR

EU

RA G

CO

N

G A

FL Y

ST

ST O

A

E

LE

BL

M U LT I-G EN

R

RT E

ST A

PR

IV AT E

IV AT E

PR

01

02

TE

SI TE

SI

VI S

IT A

E

BL

BL E

VI SI TA

G A

K

RA G E

D EC

R

W AT ER

W AT E

M

A

SO

N

ST IC

RY

K

LE TIB PA M

IT A

CO

VI S

ST O M L A

G A

G A

LE TIB PA M

EU

A DA

BL E

BL E

CO

N TR

OT CHART ST A LE

M

I-

M

LI T

FA

U

ILY

EN

G

PR

IV AT E

PR IV AT E

E

SI TE

SI T

02

01

LOT 05

LOT 04 SI

VI BL

TA E

RC

PO

H

H

RC

PO

R

SO LA

R

LA

SO

K

IC

K

ED

FL Y

ER

TT

BU

T

A

FL

SH

ST

IC

ST

LE

A DA

LE

LOT 03

K

IC

ST

CO

TIB PA M

CO TIB PA M

ST O

M L

A

TR

EU

N

LE

TIB PA M

CO

R

ST

A

LE

ST O

LE

TIB PA M

CO

LA

N

SI

U

O

-H

CO

ILY

M

FA

G

RK

O

/W

VE

LI

IC

BL

PU

IC

BL

PU

TE

A

IV

PR

TE

SI

SI TE

03

05

04

TE

SI

BL E

A DA

VI SI TA

EC

E

RA G

K

G A

D

LA R

R

W AT E

SO

-IN

M A

SU L

RY

N

SO

A

M

N

A SO

SO

M

LE

IB AT MP

LE

TIB PA M

CO

M L

A

TR

EU

N

ST O

SO

RY

N RY

CO

SU PE R

ST O

K

M

EC

M A

LE

M A N

SA

N

BU

IB AT MP

AL

ST

A

LE

LE

TIB PA M

CO

M L

A

TR

EU

N

E

SA RD

RD

ER

TT

CO

TR EU N

LE

TIB PA

ST

A

LE

G

ST A

FL Y

LE

M CO

D

CO

R

RT E

SI N

U

ST A

O

-H

G

U SI N

O

-H

CO G

C

BL I

IV AT E

PU

PR

PR IV AT E

TE

SI

SI TE

05

04

SI TE 03

VI S

IT A

E

BL

BL E

VI SI TA

D A

FI

RE PL AC E

ST O RA G E

D EC K

PE R-I

SU

R

L

SU

N

W AT E

W AT ER ST IC K

ST IC

M

LE

LE

TIB PA

ST O

LE

TIB PA M

RA

K

A

SO

TIB PA M

M CO

M L A

TR

EU

N

CO

A

N

RY

LE

CO

ST A

LE

LE

TIB PA M

ST O

M L

G

G A

BL E

SH ED

TIB PA M

ST O

M L

A

FL

CO

EU N

LE IB

CO

A TR

EU

SI TA BL E

AT

ST

T PA M

ST

N

VI

A

LE IB

A TR

T PA M

CO

A

E

CO

ST O M

LE

MOST COMPATIBLE L

LE IB

BL

ST

EU N A TR

LE IB

T PA M

NEUTRAL

LE

A LE

T PA M

CO

A

CO

ST O M L

IT

ST

A TR

EU N

VI S

A LE

LEAST COMPATIBLE

These individual Dot Charts were taken by each student to gather information on the level of compatibility between each constraint.

This study works by analyzing the levels of compatibility between a pairing of two different constraints from different groups.

Students results were disected in order to understand which constraints make for better design harmony.

O

RK

ST A

RT ER

AG E-I N -PL AC E

LI VE /W

BL IC

PU

BL IC

PU BL IC

PU

05

04

03

SI TE

SI TE

SI TE

This Master Dot chart compiles the input from each student and their understanding of the consraints they received during the Lottery--distribution of constraints.

There are four categories as specified in the legend below. Most Compatible means that the student believed that a specific constraint pairing allowed for favorable deisgn results. Favorable, in this case, meaning their pairing gave a sense of harmony in the overall design.

This harmony may include applicability, affordability, and adjustability: •Applicability meaning is the pair relevant or appropriate to the goals of the project. •Affordability meaning is the pair the best option for generating an affordable design. •Adjustability meaning is the pair flexible enough to be modified to the appropriate standards.

The Neutral Category represents those pairings that do not pose any overwhelmingly positive or negative effects to the overall design. Least Compatible means the pairing isn't favorable towards the outcome of the design. Pairings in this category oppose the ideas of harmony mentioned above: Applicability, Affordability, Adjustability.

The Void category are those areas on the chart that were not used in the designs due to the amount of students and constraints distributed at the time.

VOID LEAST COMPATIBLE NEUTRAL MOST COMPATIBLE

45 45

39

4

38 15

4

37

30

38

45

15

13

16

01 01 08 01

07 04 06 04

02 05 02 06 OCCUPANCY TYPE

26

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

31

SITE

34

30

39

14

36

10

11

04 08 05 03

06 07 04 08

05 03 07 07

03 06 03 02

08 02 01 05 ACCESSIBILITY

17

40

COMPONENTS

51

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

43

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

39

ROOFLINE

25

40

8

46

The graph to the left represents the amount of pairings per category of Most Compatible, Neutral, Least Compatible, and Void. This graph reveals the relationships between each constraint and just how compatible each relationship handles itself according to the opinion of those who applied them in their overall design. The total results per category given by the students are tallied and displayed for each constraint.

The Most Compatible category has the least number of results. Charts prior to this page will disect this category to see why certain constraints were voted most compatible.

With Neutral just slightly greater than Least Compatibility, these categories have the highest amount of results out of the four. These results are helpful in finding what pairings pose no threat to eachother and what pairings to avoid when designing. Charts prior to this page will reveal why certain constraints had more Neutral or Least Compatibility tallies.

Last but not least, the Void category comes second in number of results.

This results from the amount of students to constraint pairings in this particular studio. These pairings were not explored and teh remaining Void pairings tell us how much more can be studied in the future to contribute to the existing findings from this practice. Charts prior to this page show what constraints have more pairings left without a design to study them.

The Compatibility categories, distinguishable by color, are ranked below the chart from greatest to least ammount of results.

In the category of Most Compatible, we can assume a higher ranking means a greater ammount of successful pairings and a lower ranking means a lesser ammount of successful pairings. With the Neutral category, we can assume a higher ranking means a greater amount of nonthreatening pairings and a low ranking means a lesser ammount of nonthreatening pairings. For the Least Compatible category, we can assume that a higher ranking means a greater ammount of unsuccessful pairings and a lower ranking means a lesser ammount of unsuccessful pairings. And finally, in the category of Void, we can assume a higher ranking means a greater ammount of pairings left not studied and a lower ranking means most pairings have been studied.

This chart represents the most compatible constraint pairings. The areas on the chart with the most compatibility are Site, Roofline, and Components. It can be assumed that these constraints have the greatest effect on the constraints as a whole. This result isn't affected by these constraints having a greater amount of options. This is ruled out due to the lack of overall compatibility for the Occupancy Type constraint. Instead it can be assumed that these constraints have the greatest impact on the design. We can also assume that these constraints have a great affect on cost. Students who subtracted or added on constraints to their design from Round 01 to Round 02 primarily changed their Roofline, Components, and Accessibility. Site was a factor for change later on in the studio when designs were selected by NEST for Construction Documentation. These designs required a solution to each site.

MOST COMPATIBLE

ACCESSIBILITY

COMPONENTS

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

ROOFLINE

OCCUPANCY TYPE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

SITE

01 04 06 03 08 07 02 05

This chart represents the neutral constraint pairings. Accessibility, Occupancy Type, and Components have the greatest amount of neutrality. It can be assumed that these constraints are the least threatening to the overall group of constraints, in other words they seem to be the most interchangeable of the constraints. Students had a strong desire to edit these as they had more freedom to do so within these constraints.

For example, Occupancy Types were able to be used as drivers for the program of the house allowing a grid of options for each type. Designs could accomodate more than one Occupancy Type. A similar approach was taken to Components.

Students could use multiple Components.

The results varied in multiple approaches to each Component. Accessibility became a choice between ADA and Visitable.

NEUTRAL

ACCESSIBILITY

COMPONENTS

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

ROOFLINE

OCCUPANCY TYPE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

SITE

08 06 02 05 04 07 03 01

This chart represents the least compatible pairings.

Site, Accessibility, and Sustainable Strategies have the greatest amount of least compatibility. It can be assumed that these constraints have the greatest amount of undesirble pairings.

In other words they are the most selfreliant. They have a hard time pairing with the overall group of constraints.

We can understand that this means Site may belong in a separate but adjacent chart.

Sustainable Strategies and Accessibility have the greatest affect on Site. This can be understood to be a direct, natural relationship between Site and its enviornment. As for Sustainable Strategies, most of the constraints have a direct affect. Sustainabile Strategies, along with Accessibility, can highly depend on all of the constraints.

LEAST COMPATIBLE

ACCESSIBILITY

COMPONENTS

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

ROOFLINE

OCCUPANCY TYPE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

SITE

01 04 05 08 07 03 06 02

This chart represents the pairings that did not occur during this research studio or were Void. From this chart we can understand that there is a great ammount of pairings from Site, Occupany Type, and Components that were not explored. This has occured in these specific constraints due purely to the number of constraints in each and the number of students available to be assigned to them. With a goal to have students cover at least one of each constraint from each group, there is a higher number of pairings left without use in these larger groups. It can be assumed that the results of this chart would benefit from further design explorations as that is the primary goal from this research studio. More explorations on the pairings from this chart would allow for a more complete understanding of this design process.

VOID

ACCESSIBILITY

COMPONENTS

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

ROOFLINE

OCCUPANCY TYPE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

SITE

01 07 02 04 06 05 03 08

01

SITE

ROOFLINE

OCCUPANCY TYPE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

05

04

03

02

ACCESSIBILITY

COMPONENTS

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Based on the graph we can gather the individual synopses:

ITE

•Components and Attitude Towards the Street have the best relationship with Site.

•Occupancy Type and Roofline have little to no relationship with Site.

•Garage and Deck pair well with Site 01, 02, 03, and 04.

•Site 04 is ideal for Passive Solar.

•Infill sites pair well with Private Attitude Towards the Street.

•Corner sites pair well with Public Attitude Towards the Street.

•Site 01 and 02 work well with ADA Accessibility.

05

04

03

02

01 This section of the chart highlights Site. At first glance we can note that the chart is more dense near the bottom where the constraint Components intersects.

Taking a closer look at this area, the Components of Garage and Deck have the greatest compatibility with Sites 01, 02, 03, and 04. Moving up the chart, Attitude Towards the Street is the second densest area.

Site and Attitude Towards the Street have a significant relationship.

The corner Sites 01 and 04, with exception of Site 05, have an easier approach to having a Public Attitude Towards the Street. The infill Sites 02 and 03 are able to be have a more Private Attitude Towards the Street.

Based on the graph we can gather the individual synopses: •Components has the best relationship with Attitude Towards the Street.

•Occupancy Type and Roofline have little to no relationship with Attitude Towards Street.

•Garage and Deck pair well with Private Attitude Towards the Street.

•Masonry is most compatible with Private Attitude Towards Street.

•Super Insulation is most compatible with Private Attitude Towards Street.

TTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

05

04

03

02

01

This section of the chart highlights Attitude Towards the Street. The chart is more dense near the bottom of the chart where the constraint Components intersects.

Taking a closer look at this area, the Components of Garage and Deck have the greatest compatibility with Private Attitude Towards the Street.

This section of the chart highlights Occupancy Type. The chart is denser near the bottom where the constraints Components and Accessibility intersect. Accessibility has a direct relationship when designing with an Occupant Type in mind. Age and ability become a determining factor on whether to design with Visitability or ADA Accessibility.

Based on the graph we can gather the individual synopses:

CCUPANCY TYPE

•Components and Accessibility have the best relationship with Occupancy Type.

•Roofline, Construction Type, and Sustainable Strategies have little to no relationship with Occupancy Type.

•Garage and Porch pair well with Occupancy Types.

This section of the chart highlights Roofline. The chart is more dense near the middle of the chart where the constraints Construction Type and Sustainable Strategies intersect.

This is a direct relationship since the type of Roofline used is affected by the material and enviornment surrounding it. Moving down the chart, the most compatible Sustainble Strategy in relationship to Roofline is Water Management.

Most of the sloped Roofline types are most compatible with Water Management. Following Water Management close behind is Passive Solar, due to the angle and ability for the roof to open up the house to the sun.

Based on the graph we can gather the individual synopses:

OOFLINE

•Construction Type and Sustainable Strategies have the best relationship with Roofline.

•Attitude Towards the Street, Occupancy Type, Components, and Accessibility have little to no relationship with Roofline.

•Stick Built pairs well with Gable, Butterfly, and Shed roofs.

•Masonry pairs well with Mansard roof.

•Butterfly and Shed roof pairs well with Passive Solar.

This section of the chart highlights Construction Type. The chart is more dense where Construction Type and Roofline intersect. The type of Roofline used a significant effect on the materials used in the design. As mentioned on the previous pages, Stick Built is primarily useful in Gable, Butterfly, and Shed roofs, while Masonry is most compatible with the Mansard roof.

•Roofline has the best relationship with Construction Type.

•Attitude Towards the Street, Occupancy Type, Components, and Accessibility have little to no relationship with Roofline.

•Fireplace is most compatible with Masonry due to fireproofing.

•Masonry pairs well with Private Attitude Towards the Street due to the feeling of security that accompanies thicker walls.

ONSTRUCTION TYPE

Based on the graph we can gather the individual synopses:

Based on the graph we can gather the individual synopses: •Roofline and Construction Type have the best relationship with Sustainable Strategies.

•Attitude Towards the Street, Occupancy Type, Components, and Accessibility have little to no relationship with Sustainable Strategies.

•Insulation pairs well with Private Attitude Towards the Street due to the feeling of security that accompanies thicker walls.

USTAINABLE STRATEGIES

This section of the chart highlights Sustainable Strategies. The chart is more dense near Roofline and Construction Type. As mentioned on the previous pages, the most compatible Roofline in relationship to Water Management is Gable, Butterfly, and Shed. For Passive Solar, the Butterfly and Shed roof are the best option due to their angle and ability to open up the house to the sun.

This section of the chart highlights Components. This area of the chart is notably denser near the constraints of Site and Occupancy Type. Fireplace and Porch are noted to have the most compatibility with a Public Attitude Towards the Street, where as Storage Systems, Garage, and Deck have a Private Attitude Towards the Street. For Occupancy Type and Components, Garage and Deck are the only Components with high compatibility towards Occupancy Type.

Based on the graph we can gather the individual synopses:

OMPONENTS

•Site and Occupancy Type have the best relationship with Components.

•Roofline and Sustainable Strategies have little to no relationship with Components.

•Fireplace pairs well with Masonry and Public Attitude Towards the Street.

•Deck and Porch pair well with Visitability.

This section of the chart highlights Accessibility. This chart is reveals that Occupancy Type has the greatest amount of compatibility with Accessibility. This should be no surprise that Accessibility is directly related to those who occupy the house. Aging-In-Place is most compatible with ADA as well as Visitability, where MultiGenerational and Co-Housing are deemed more compatible with Visitability.

•Occupancy Type has the best relationship with Accessibility.

•Attitude Towards Street, Roofline, Construction Type, and Sustainable Strategies have little to no relationship with Accessibility.

•Aging-In-Place pairs well with ADA. •Multi-Generational and CoHousing pair well with Visitability.

•Porch and Deck are more compatible with Visitability than ADA.

CCESSIBILITY

Based on the graph we can gather the individual synopses:

LEAST COMPATIBLE

NEUTRAL

MOST COMPATIBLE

ACCESSIBILITY

COMPONENTS

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

ROOFLINE

OCCUPANCY TYPE

ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET

SITE

LEAST COM

NEUTRAL

MOST COM

The Dot Chart to the left represents the overall compatibility between constraint groups. The votes from students were tallied up and the results show each group pairings strongest level of compatibility. This tells us how uncompatible or how uncompatible these constraint groups are to one another. As you can see from the chart, there are only four constraint groups that had a greater ammount of tallies in the Most Compatible category:

SITE + COMPONENTS SITE + ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET + COMPONENTS OCCUPANCY TYPE + ACCESSIBILITY Simplifying the four results above leave us with this relationship:

SITE + ATTITUDE TOWARDS STREET + COMPONENTS OCCUPANCY TYPE + ACCESSIBILITY Site, Attitude Towards the Street, and Components have the strongest bond and impact on eachother when designing. Before choosing an Attitude Towards the Street or Components, Site must first be established.

This simplification makes sense during the design process but it is hard to see the toll of the relationship without spelling it out physically like done so above. This just proves what we are taught about the significance of Site in a design. What Site allows for Attitude Towards the Street and Components all depends on the limitations and advantages of the Site.

Occupancy Type and Accessibility also makes sense as a compatible pair, as one relies upon the other in order to make essential design decisions. An understanding of who the anticipated Occupant Type might be is necessary in defining Accessibility in a design.

ARCH 4002 SPRING 2020 WHITNEY HAMAKER

ANNA HARGAN ERIN WALSH MEGAN HITE MICHAEL WEBB CHARLES HINGL ABBY LOVINS BEN PAULUS MEG MCKNIGHT RACHEL MAGEE NATE HALSTEAD ALEX PHINNEY EVAN BAKER VICTORIA WANSTRATH DYLAN ADDLEMAN ELIZABETH NORTHEIM