Jack Ryan - Stage 2 Portfolio - 2014/15

JMR J A C K M I C H A E L RYA N ARCHITECTURE PORTFOLIO STAGE 2 // SESSION 2014-15

CONTENTS

*

Denotes New/Revised Work

Project 2.5: Crossover - Page 1

Project 2.4: Prospect and Refuge - Page 17

Project 2.3: Living on the Edge - Page 39

Project 2.2: Placed Displaced - Page 59

Project 2.0: Charette - Page 73

ARC2009: Architectural Technology - Page 79

ARC2010: Environmental Design and Services - Page 93

ARC2011: Twentieth Century Architecture - Page 99

ARC2023: The Place of Houses - Page 105

ARC2020: Dissertation Studies and Research Methods - Page 109

LEARNING SUMMARY

2

Stage 2 has been an enjoyable year for me, despite being a higher workload than first Prospect and Refuge year I feel that I have managed it better and been able to relax more. I believe this is mainly due to a change in my working habits, as this year I have treated studio life like a 9-5 job, coming into the studios during the day to work and then using the evenings to relax and do other activities. This is a contrast to last year when I would work in my bedroom, leaving no divide between work and rest, hence why this year has been more enjoyable as I have found a good balance. I also feel as though I am beginning to find my architectural style and have begun to work out the techniques and processes that suit me best, whereas last year I felt it was slightly dictated as to what we had to do and how we had to do it. This year we were given far more freedom in how we wanted to work and being able to use digital processes was one area that I feel benefitted me as it is something I am far more comfortable with.

Saying this, I still understand the importance of physical work so have tried to find a balance between the two this year, working by hand and then moving to digital for more final work.

Charrette

I enjoyed charrette week last year and was looking forward to it again this year as it is a great way of easing back into the year and getting the creative juices flowing! This year was no different and I felt the charrette was a well-run and interesting task, having me designing a flat pack chair from cardboard. I thought the week in general went well and at the end of the week we had an awards ceremony with Sir Terry Farrell awarding my group’s chair as his favourite – a very encouraging accolade going into the year.

Placed Displaced

The first proper design project of the year was Placed Displaced, designing a small row house in North Shields. I was excited for this project as it was a chance to try out some new techniques and start to develop my architectural style. I was determined to try and change my working methods from first year and I knew it was important to get into the routine of it from the start. I feel it paid off as I learnt a lot during this short project and working close with a few other students in the studios, we were all learning new things and then teaching each other, which was something that continued throughout the year. I feel the project went reasonably well overall and I was happy with my final output, producing some printed presentation boards for the first time. I felt it was a good foundation to build upon moving into the next, larger scale project.

Living on the Edge

This project was purposely designed to be a progression from last project, moving us into a larger scale of design and thinking carefully about public/private thresholds. I feel the transition was smooth and well thought out, which made it a lot easier to move into a larger scale of design. I wanted to use this project as another opportunity to teach myself new techniques and move into some more advanced presentation techniques, including learning Revit. I was very happy with this project and it was certainly one of my most enjoyable projects to date for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons I feel was that I worked well with my tutor Kieran and found it easy to develop my design with him. Also, due to the fact that I was working far more efficiently than in past projects, I felt my time was used effectively and I allowed myself time to make adjustments if needed. This all combined to leave me with a project I was happy with and I think my grade reflected that.

The final large design project of the year was Prospect and Refuge and I was looking forward to taking the techniques I had learnt in the past projects into this one and combining the result of my development throughout the year. This project was again scaled up into a larger scale public building, giving us different priorities than before, as it was no longer residential design. It was also different than past projects as the form was pre-determined for us, which was something I found odd at first but upon reflection I think it was a good idea, as it allowed me to focus more on the actual space and internal planning of the building. Saying that, I did think slightly less about the building and its context, which I have tried to address in my portfolio additions. Overall I was happy with this project but was a little disappointed with my grade and feel I could have done better, which is why I made a couple of additions in my portfolio for it.

Crossover

Crossover was the final design project of the year and was one that required me to work in a team with other architecture students and engineers, the first time this I have done this for a design project, so I was looking forward to applying 11 brains to one design compared to just 1. I enjoyed this process and although the project was short I felt it was a good emulation of what real world architecture would be like and how groups can work towards a single goal. I was very happy with our final output and felt it was a coherent, well thought out presentation.

Thoughts for the Future

Going into third year I have high hopes and am looking forward to developing my architectural language even further than I have this year. I feel I have moved forwards a lot this year with my studies and have been happy with what I have produced. There are still areas with room for improvement, as there always is, such as developing my hand drawing further and possibly experimenting with more advanced model making techniques, but the feedback this year will help me to address that. I am looking forward to the challenge of my final year and although I know it will be a lot of hard work I feel second year has prepared me well for it.

4

CROSSOVER

Crossover was a group project that required me to work in a team with 10 other students, including 2 structural engineers, to design a temporary structure on Newcastles Quayside. More specifically the structure had to be in the “Chares�, small alleyways that link the Quayside with the Town Centre, and will be the host to a folk music festival. Our structure had to be made from timber and it also had to be easily removable, leaving little trace that it was there. At the end of the 3 week long project we had to exhibit our work in front of the entire school of architecture.

Site Images

2

Site Model

3

Site Context Diagrams

4

Main Areas of Design

5

Site Journey Renders

6

Site Journey Renders

7

West Section

1:100 SECTION (WEST)

8

East Section

M U S I C A L

C H A R E

1:100 SECTION (EAST)

9

Echopipes Diagrams

1:50 SECTION

10

Main Platform Diagrams

PERSPECTIVE SECTION

11

Music Platfrom Diagrams

PERSPECTIVE SECTION

12

Construction Sequence Diagrams

13

Final Exhibition Images

Group Video

14

http://youtu.be/WaS4Fx6m_0Y

Final Model Images

15

PROSPECT & REFUGE

Prospect & Refuge was a 7 week long project that required me to design a satellite facility for the University that will have two main functions, a shop window to advertise the University and also an academic retreat.

The site was in Amble, a small fishing town on the Northumberland coastline and was a very open, flat site. The form of my design had been decided for me as everyone had to design a building within a 15.6x15.6x15.6m cube, with a mass constructed plinth below, up to 3.6m in height.

Site Images

18

Site Plan Showing Context and Links to Town

19

Developing the Design

20

Diagramming the Design

21

Long Section Showing Buildings Context on Site

Exterior Materiality

Green Walls Clad the Exterior

Frosted Glass Lit Up to Highlight Stairs

Curved Timber Retaining Wall

Double Skin Facade with Timber Louvres

*

Interior Materiality

Timber Frame is on Show Throughout Building

Solid Timber Truss that Spans the Roof in Lecture Venue

Stairs are Cast In-Situ Concrete

Lift Shaft Will Form a Solid Concrete Wall Throughout

1:100 Model

24

1:50 Model of Lecture Venue

25

Structural Grid Model

26

Rendered Perspective Section

27

4th Floor Plan - 1:100

3rd Floor Plan - 1:100

2nd Floor Plan - 1:100

1st Floor Plan - 1:100

Ground Floor Plan - 1:100

Lower Ground Floor Plan - 1:100

1st Floor Interior Render Showing Light Qualities

34

Lecture Venue Interior Render Showing Light Qualities

35

View Past Custom House Showing Building in Context

36

View From East Side of Harbour Showing Building in Context

37

LIVING ON THE EDGE

Living on the Edge was a 6 week long project based in Newcastles Ouseburn Valley, alongside the river on Lime Street. It required me to design a “foyer�, a place where young people from disadvantaged backgrounds will live and work, learning a trade at the same time. We had to include 8 bedrooms for the students as well as living facilities, a flat for the tutor, a workshop and an exhibition space. This meant careful planning of the thresholds between public and private was essential and the movement through the building had to be thought about.

Site Images

40

Site Analysis

41

Volumetric Siting

42

Design through Diagramming

43

Model Development

44

Final 1:100 Model

45

Section Through Small Tower - 1:200

46

Section Through Large Tower - 1:200

47

4th Floor Plan - 1:100

3rd Floor Plan - 1:100

2nd Floor Plan - 1:100

1st Floor Plan - 1:100

Ground Floor Plan - 1:100

Basement/Workshop Floor Plan - 1:100

Interior Render of Communal Kitchen Space

54

Interior Render of Exhibition Space

55

Lime Street Approach

56

Lime Street Approach

Riverside Path View

Riverside Path

57

PLACED DISPLACED

Placed Displaced was a short 3 week project that required me to design the interior of a small terraced house on Waldo Street, North Shields, that were being built on the site of some currently disused garages.

The exterior envelope of the building was given to me, but I was free to develop the interior however I wanted. Thought had to be put into the planning of the space and how to use it efficiently, in order to fit a large amount of items into a limited area.

Site Images

60

Site Location

61

Developing Designs

62

Final 1:50 Model

63

Rear Elevation Showing Materiality

64

Perspective Section

65

2nd Floor Plan - 1:50

1st Floor Plan - 1:50

Ground Floor Plan - 1:50

Basement Floor Plan - 1:50

Interior Render of Lounge Area

68

Interior Render of Kitchen Area

69

West Section

70

East Section

71

CHARETTE WEEK

Charette Week is a week long project at the start of the year where the entire school of architecture comes together to participate in short, hands on tasks that are then exhibited on the final day. This year I had to work in a group and design a flat pack chair that was to be placed in a location around the city of Newcastle. We were only allowed to use cardboard to construct it and no adhesives or extra material could be used. The charette was run by 2 former students who now work for Sir Terry Farrells architectural practice.

Site Plan

74

Group Final Design

75

Construction Manual

76

Final 1:1 Chair on Site

77

ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGY

The ARC2009 module was made up of 2 pieces of coursework. First semester was a structural report of my design from Living on the Edge and second semester was a report on access for all & means of escape for my design from Prospect & Refuge.

Structural Report

My design consists of 2 different towers, each with a different form of structure. The larger tower forms the resident’s block, which includes the bedrooms and social spaces of the students. This is a large steel frame structure with glazed infill panels, which has concrete slabs spanning across each floor. The second tower is used as the tutor’s flat and office. This is a masonry construction building using concrete blockwork as the load bearer and insulated externally with a vacuum insulation. Connecting these 2 towers are 2 large concrete slabs that will be supported using a steel frame and reinforcements allowing them to cantilever. The basement level is the workshop, which has retaining walls at the rear. The whole building is then supported using pile foundations at each main point of load. Because of the 2 different structures I have 2 structural orders as illustrated on the next few pages.

80

Tectonic Intent To describe my building simply it is essentially 2 towers that are connected via large concrete slabs, but in reality it is not that simple as this means some quite complex junctions need to be addressed. The main one is the opportunity for thermal bridging that is introduced via the slabs going through the main towers. Because of this I had to look at using ISOKORB thermal blocks. They are insulated blocks that have steel reinforcements built into them to support the concrete slabs. These will sit at the junction between the inside and outside of the building to prevent any thermal bridging.

I also wanted to clad my building in tiles to give it a solid look so I explored the idea of having a rain screen using stainless steel rails to support the tiles. The tiles have an anchor point notched into the back that secures a bracket, and then this slots onto the horizontal rails, fixed to the vertical rails.

Having rails going opposite directions means a gap is left for any penetrating water to drain away.

Because of this system I didn’t want to end up with overly thick walls, so I found an insulation with a very low thermal conductivity, Kingspan Optim-R vacuum panels with a thermal conductivity of just 0.007W/m2K. This meant I didn’t have to use a lot of it to achieve low U-values, keeping the wall thickness to a minimum.

81

Structural Details 3

1

1 - Waterproofing membrane, angled timber block to prevent pooling of water, 40mm Kingspan Thermaroof insulation, 90mm Kingspan Optim-R vacuum insulation, 50mm screed, 150mm concrete deck, 12.5mm plasterboard fixed to 50mm timber battens

1

2 - 215mm aerated conrete blocks, 90mm steel lintel support, plasterboard infill finishing window reveal

2 - 10mm ceramic tiles with anchored hooks secured to the back, 20mm stainless steel horizontal railing, 20mm stainless steel vertical railing, 100m Kingspan Optim-R vacuum insulation, 215mm aerated concrete blocks, 12.5mm plasterboard fixed to 50mm timber battens

2

1 - Drip detail, timber frame glazing unit, triple glazed panel, stainless steel L bracket fixing frame to concrete blocks

3 - Angled sill overhanging tiles to stop water dribbling down, timber frame glazing unit, triple glazed panel, stainless steel L bracket fixing frame to concrete blocks, timber inner window sill finish

2

3 - Stainless steel parapet capping with angled drip feature, ends extend past the top of the cladding system and waterproofing membrane to prevent rainwater from tracking in, 100mm Kingspan Optim-R vacuum insulation continuing over blockwork

U-value of Glazing: 0.5W/m2K

3

U-value of Roof: 0.064W/m2K U-value of Wall: 0.063W/m2K

1 - 50mm screed, 500mm concrete slab, 250mm ISOKORB thermal blocks, 100mm Kingspan Optim-R vacuum insulation, 12.5mm plasterboard fixed to 50mm timber battens

1 - 50mm screed, 150mm concrete deck, 12.5mm plasterboard fixed to 50mm timber battens

1

2 - 10mm ceramic tiles with anchored hooks secured to the back, 20mm stainless steel horizontal railing, 20mm stainless steel vertical railing, 100m Kingspan Optim-R vacuum insulation, 215mm aerated concrete blocks, 12.5mm plasterboard fixed to 50mm timber battens U-value of Wall: 0.063W/m2K

2

82

2

1

2 - 10mm ceramic tiles with anchored hooks secured to the back, 20mm stainless steel horizontal railing, 20mm stainless steel vertical railing, 100m Kingspan Optim-R vacuum insulation, 215mm aerated concrete blocks, 12.5mm plasterboard fixed to 50mm timber battens U-value of Wall: 0.063W/m2K

Sustainability External Wall Construction

These are the ratings given by the Building Research Establishments Green Guide 2008. They give a rating of each construction element based on multiple factors and determine how environmentally friendly they are. Overall I got reasonably good ratings for my design apart from the intermediate floor construction which scored a lot lower than the other elements. My ground floor construction is of a similiar build to the intermediate floor so they are combined for the purpose of this report.

Ratings

A Internal Wall Construction: A+ External Wall Construction:

Intermediate/Ground Floor Construction: Roof Construction: B Windows:

Intermediate/Ground Floor Construction

E

A+

Roof Construction

Windows

Internal Wall Construction

83

Access for All and Means of Escape Access for All

Disabled Parking Provision

Means of Escape

There are four disabled parking spaces provided to the East of the building which are 2400mm x 4800mm in size with a 1200mm safety zone on the driver side and rear to allow the user to easily exit their vehicle and move to the rear of it if needed (1.18 - p.19).

A clearly sign posted drop off point is also provided within reach of the building so that passengers with disabilities can be safely dropped off and not have too far to travel to the accessible entrance (1.17 p.20).

External Access for Wheelchair Users

From the disabled parking spaces a firm durable and slip resistant path is provided that is completely level with the building to allow users to safely travel to the accesible entrance (1.13 - p.19).

As the buildings main entrance is at the top of a relatively steep hill a clearly sign posted, seperate entrance is provided at the same level as the parking (2.7 - p.27).

This entrance has an automatic power assisted door that satisfies the effective clear width of 1000mm for its type (2.13 - p.28).

This entrance is also made from glass both for aesthetic and saftey reasons; allowing users to see any oncoming people and avoid a collision (2.12 - p.28).

Cover is provided at this entrance to protect it from the elements and allow the user an easy transition into the building (2.6 - p.27).

Internal Access for Wheelchair Users

When in the building a passenger lift is provided to allow the user easy access to every floor of the building and at 1900mm deep x 1100mm wide it satisfies the minimum dimensions allowed (3.34 - p.38).

There are two seperate enclosed stair cases that can be used by mobility impaired users as the risers are 150mm and the goings are 300mm (3.51 - p.41).

In the lecture theatre space there are specially designated spaces at the front to allow wheelchair users space to use the room and pull up tables will be provided in case any writing needs to be done (4.6 p.43).

To satisfy the Part M WC provision, two toilets are provided on 4 of the 6 floors, with one of these floors being the entrance level. They are usuable by both disabled and able bodied users and are located in the same place on all of the floors with the doors opening outwards (5.10 - p.54).

The reception desk has a lowered side to allow use from a person in a wheelchair from both sides (3.3 - p.33).

Visual and Hearing Impairment Provision

Minimum Stair Width

The width of the stair should be enough to accomodate the number of persons needing to use it in an emergency (4.18 - p.46). To calculate the minimum width I can use the formula W=(P+15N-15)/(150+50N) where P = Occupancy and N = Number of Storeys (4.25 - p.48). Assuming one staircase is blocked I can apply this to my design: W = (498 + [15x6] - 15) / (150 + [50x6]) = 1.273m wide

This means my current stairs are too narrow so would need to be widened to cope with the number of people in an emergency.

Minimum Escape Route Corridor and Door Opening Width

Each storey should have sufficiently wide corridors and door openings to cope with the occupancy level and will vary depending on the amount of people needing to use them (3.18 - p.37). To work out the width for a building with more than 220 people the formula W = O x 5mm where O = Occupancy. So applying this to my design:

The signage for the accesible entrance is visually contrasting and well lit to make it easy to see in all light conditions (2.7 - p.27).

The reception area is fitted with an induction loop to allow communication for people that are hard of hearing (3.6 - p.33).

An induction loop is also fitted in the lecture space so that people with hearing impairments can take part in any events in this space (4.35 - p.50).

All of the internal doors will be a visually contrasting colour to the walls to allow people with visual impairments to easily spot them in the wall (3.8 - p.34).

At the top and bottom of each flight of stairs there will be a ‘corduroy’ hazard warning surface to warn visually impaired users that there is a staircase (1.33 - p.22).

W = 498 x 5mm = 2490mm wide

All above references are from the Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document M

All above references are from the Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document B Volume 2

The floors with higher occupancy are sufficiently wide but on some floors the corridors may need widening.

Minimum Width for Final Exits

If a ground floor exit is shared with an escape stair the width needs to be sufficient to enable a maximum evacuation flow rate (3.23 - p.37). To calculate the width I can use the formula W=((N/2.5)+(60S))/80 Where N = Occupancy and S = Stair Width. This can then be applied to my design: W = ([498/2.5] + [60x1.273]) / 80 = 3.445m wide

This is very wide so I would have to make my final exits a lot wider or introduce multiple doors in the same position to allow the occupants to get out safely in the event of an emergency.

130416393 ARC 2009 Prospect and Refuge: Amble Site Plan May 2015 1:500 Scale

4

130416393 ARC 2009 Prospect and Refuge: Amble Level 4 Floor Plan May 2015 1:100 Scale

3

130416393 ARC 2009 Prospect and Refuge: Amble Level 3 Floor Plan May 2015 1:100 Scale

2

130416393 ARC 2009 Prospect and Refuge: Amble Level 2 Floor Plan May 2015 1:100 Scale

1

130416393 ARC 2009 Prospect and Refuge: Amble Level 1 Floor Plan May 2015 1:100 Scale

G

130416393 ARC 2009 Prospect and Refuge: Amble Ground Level Floor Plan May 2015 1:100 Scale

-1

130416393 ARC 2009 Prospect and Refuge: Amble Level -1 Floor Plan May 2015 1:100 Scale

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

The ARC2010 module required me to submit 1 piece of coursework as well as sit an exam. The coursework was to produce an environmental report on my design from Living on the Edge, which included completing a SAP report/analysis, thinking about the construction of different elements and working out their U Values, completing a daylight study and producing a strategy for it’s sustainability.

ARC2010 Environmental Design and Services 2.1 Sustainability Report SAP Report I began by filling out the SAP spreadsheet using the reference data provided, in order to get a basic score for my building (the tutors flat from the foyer design project) without any specialist materials/techniques being used. This gave me quite a poor score so I knew I had some work to do in order to acheive some credits. I explored a variety of different techniques to do this and they will be detailed within this report. The table below details the improvements made and how much better the building performed when using quality building techniques.

As you can tell from the table, the building’s efficiency greatly improved after the adjustments, taking me up to a DER over TER percentage of 23%, which gave me 5 credits. This was mainly acheived by improving the key elements; walls, floors, roof and glazing. Another key factor that drastically impacted my score was the fact that the storey heights of my flat were way too high, so I significantly lowered them for the final report. This helped prevent heat loss and saves heating unused space, hence improving the rating. I will now go into further detail on the elements I changed and the building techniques I propose to use.

Wall Construction

94

I wanted to keep the thickness of the walls as thin as possible, whilst still achieving good U-values.

After a bit of research I came accross Kingspan Optim-R which fixes directly to the concrete blockwork, keeping the wall thickness to a minimum. It has a very low thermal conductivity (0.007 W/m2K) which means large amounts aren’t required in order to reach low U-values, I used just 100mm. The insulation is then covered with an external render that allows the exterior finish to fix to it. In the example I found they use brick slips but for my design I am using ceramic tiling. Using this system I can acheive a wall thickness of 360mm.

U-Value = 0.063W/m2K

Roof Construction

Floor Construction

For the roof construction I wanted to, again, keep the thickness as low as possible whilst still acheiving a good U-value. Kingspan Optim-R can be used along with Kingspan Thermaroof (a rigid insulation used for flat roofs), to achieve low U-values with little depth. The Kingspan Optim-R is fixed to the concrete deck (with a VPC in between) and then the Kingspan Thermaroof is fixed on top of that, reducing thermal bridging. The Kingspan Thermaroof is also vapour resistant, which aids in creating a barrier against the elements. The combined thickness of the insulations is just 130mm which means the overall roof thickness can be just 347.5mm. This is very efficient as a U-value of 0.064W/m2K can be achieved.

The Tutors flat sits above the workshop area which means that any heat transferred through the floor will not be classed as a heat loss, as it will still be used just in a different part of the building. Due to this the U-value and heat loss in my SAP calculation were 0 for this element. I still wanted to consider the construction that would be used for the flooring though, as it is important that I think about it. So I looked at the Kingspan Optim-R, as it offers a much lower thermal conductivity than any other insulation I came accross, which will allow me to acheive a low U-value. Although it is not imperative that the U-value is low for this particular element it still helps as it will be more efficient when heating the spaces. The construction I would use is a block and beam method. The Insulation sits on top of the block and beams with a protecton layer either side of it. There is then a separation layer that allows the screed to be put on top of the insulation.

Then finally the floor finish can be put on top of the screed. A U-value of just 0.065W/m2K can be achieved using this method, with an overall floor thickness of only 265mm, making it a very efficient flooring.

U-Value = 0.064W/m2K

Glazing System

The glazing system I plan to use is the Pilkington Optitherm™ S1 Plus triple IGUs as it has the lowest U-value I could find for a glazing system. The unit is composed of; a 4mm inner pane, 16mm argon filled cavity, 4mm middle pane, 16mm argon filled cavity and a 4mm outer pane. This means that they are extremely energy efficient but also have a good light transmittance. The glazing has a low-e coating which will also help with the heat loss during winter months and any unwanted heat during the summer months. This glazing system can achieve U-values of just 0.5W/m2K, making it very energy efficent and improving my SAP score.

95

Daylight Study using DiaLux Software

Ground Floor This is a realistic view of how daylight impacts the ground floor with the office and kitchen spaces.

Second Floor

First Floor This shows how the daylight will spread around the first floor level containing the lounge and dining.

To analyse the amount of daylight that entered the tutor’s flat I used a program called DiaLux which simulates this. It also allows me to use false colour rendering to get an accurate visual on the amount of Lux. As the building spans over 3 floors I decided to use the top floor as it had the most amount largest amount of glazing as well as being the most lit due to less overshadowing, hence being more realistic when put on DiaLux. I performed one calculation before any alterations and then adjusted the windows slightly to improve the amount of daylight/level of intensity. Below are the results of this study.

96

Before Alterations

After Alterations

This is a false colour rendering of the space before I modified it. You can see that the white patches are 600lx and above which could potentially make them a bit too bright to inhabit.

The ideal level is 200300lx. The average is at 419lx on the workplane.

In order to try and help this I changed the glazing to be triple glazing, lowering the light transmittance slightly.

The space is still pretty well lit but there are now more areas that are pleasant than unpleasant. The average is at 303lx on the workplane.

Energy Strategy for Design Upon completeing my SAP calculations I had a score of 69 before modifications, which I managed to increase to 85 after alterations. The total energy cost per year also decreased from ÂŁ635.85 to ÂŁ305.04, a massive improvement. On the improved calculation I also found out that I would need 3396.389 KWhr/Year to heat the water and 3607.282 KWhr/Year to heat the space.

I wanted to decrease this even further so I explored some renewable energy sources as a way of lowering the costs.

Solar PV Panels Due to the height of my building it makes sense to use solar PV panels as a renewable energy source as there will be no overshadowing from any of the surrounding buildings, making the solar panels more efficient. PV panels work by having layers of semi-conducting material, usually silicon, that create an electric field when hit by sunshine. This energy can then be utilised and any uneeded energy can be sold back to the grid for a profit.

This will also reduce the buildings carbon footprint as it will not need grid electricity to power. From a quick calculation I estimated, the solar panels could produce around 4000KWhr/year.

Ground Source Heat Pumps To power the heating I would consider using ground source heat pumps. These draw heat energy from the surroung ground using a coil pipe that is buried. A mixture of water and antifreeze circulates the pipe, drawing in heat energy at a low temperature. Then it passes through a compressor that raises the temperature making it usable for hot water heating etc. The ground temperature stays relatively constant all year round which means this system can be used throughout the year.

They deliver heat at a lower temperature over longer periods, so this will work well as the flat will be properly insulated.

97

20TH CENTURY ARCHITECTURE The ARC2011 module was made up of 2 parts. The semester 1 submission was an 1800 word essay and the semester 2 submission was on representational techniques for unbuilt architecture.

ARC2011 - 20th Century Architecture Essay

100

101

ARC2011 - 20 th Century Architecture - Jack Ryan - 130416393 Precedent: Lebbeus Woods - High Houses

Representational Mode: Collage

The unbuilt precedent I was assigned was Lebbeus Woods - High Houses. This is a project that was proposed in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina after the longest siege of a capital city in the history of modern warfare, between 1992-1995. The site is an old tobacco factory that was badly damaged during the siege, near the centre of the city. The concept behind the proposal was to occupy the airspace that was once full of artillery shells and falling mortar, therefore reclaiming it for the people of the city and representing a new beginning for Sarajevo. Steel cables anchor the houses to the ground whilst the scavenged steel beams provide support below, poising the houses like catapults. Lebbeus Woods was an experimental architect, producing conceptual designs that challenged what we perceive as “normal” by giving us the opportunity to experience a type of space we haven’t experienced before. Only one of his designs was ever actually built (The Light Pavilion in China) but even this space was an experimental one, using the same philosophy I mentioned above to make the user experience a type of space they are not used to experiencing. His work tended to be a combination of quite linear sketch drawings and carefully made models that would be well photographed, as you can see in the images below of his High Houses design.

My assigned representational mode is collage and is something I am not used to using in my architectural work, which I found to be an exciting challenge. From the lecture series I remember being shown some of Archigram’s work and their use of collage in the 1960’s. This was a style of collage that interested me and I felt it could be applied to Lebbeus Woods - High Houses to try and change how it is read by others. Archigrams work (especially some of the pieces made for their Instant City concept) tends to leave the architectural parts of the image a bit more ambiguous and focus more on their design concept by highlighting these in bright colours, layered on top of the main image. In the larger image below the “site” of the project is shown in black and white and the concept of the Instant City (the idea of an airship landing in remoter areas to give them a buzz of what city life is like) is dotted around in brighter colours, to really emphasize what their work is about. My aim for this coursework is to use an image of Lebbeus Woods site in Sarajevo as my base layer in black and white and then overlay an adapted version of his proposal in brighter colours to show his concept of taking back the sky full of artillery for the people and to give them a new beginning in the city.

102

Lebbeus Woods - High Houses shown in an Archigram style of Collage

103

THE PLACE OF HOUSES

The ARC2023 module was a short module that was semester 1 only and was all about what home means to different people. The submission was a 1500 word essay that was presented in the form of a poster.

106

The Place of Houses “Home is distinguished from house in that the former is a relationship, an experienced meaning” was said by Dovey (1985) and is something I feel offers a good contrast to Le Corbusier’s statement, “all men have the same organism, the same functions. All men have the same needs. … I propose one single building for all nations.” Le Corbusier believed that it would be possible to rationalise architecture, to create a single building style that would be suitable for anyone, anywhere; as he believed that every person functions in the same way therefore lives the same way. I can agree with him to an extent, as it is true that the human body’s body basic needs are biologically similar, so could be provided for to a point, but his statement only touches the surface of what a person really needs and what turns a house into a home.

I wanted to understand how Le Corbusier had gotten to this idea that all men have the same organism, the same functions, the same needs and what made him think that the home could be standardised to accommodate them. So I looked into what made human beings similar and the basic needs of humans that stay constant from person to person. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs stood out to me and his Theory of Human Motivation (McLeod, 2007) was one that seemed most in line with Le Corbusier’s ideas. It uses a pyramid structure (Figure 1) to define the basic needs of human beings and what motivates us, with the most basic needs at the bottom and the more superfluous needs at the top. His theory is that once the first level of needs has been satisfied you move on to the next level, until you reach either the top or your progress is interrupted by failure to meet lower level needs due to life experiences such as divorce or loss of a job. The hierarchy of his five-stage model is as follows (McLeod, 2007): “1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep.

2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, freedom from fear.

3. Love and belongingness needs - friendship, intimacy, affection and love, - from work group, family, friends, romantic relationships.

4. Esteem needs - achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, self-respect and respect from others.

5. Self-Actualisation needs - realising personal potential, self-fulfilment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences.”

The first two levels of this theory are a the main things that can be provided through the use of architecture, such as shelter and security and I believe that these are what Le Corbusier would have used as the basis for his idea.

But it is the levels beyond this that start to become unachievable if architecture is standardised. standa Figure 1 - Maslow’s Theory of Motivation Pyramid.

Looking beyond Maslow’s Theory of McLeod, S., 2007. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. [Online] Motivation, there are many more Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html. things that need to be considered when designing a home. These are the things that cannot be standardised, the things that will vary from person to person, country to country. As Dovey said “people are more at home among their own ‘disorder’ than within someone else’s ‘order’” (1985). This phrase is key to my reasoning as to why I think Le Corbusier was wrong when he believed that human nature can be rationalised and defined in a simple manner. manne He failed to comprehend the full range of human needs as well as the individual differences that exist among people within or across cultures, or at least recognised them and chose to disregard them when designing (Lang, 1994). His idea was to create his own ‘order’ for people to conform to, which is in my opinion a very dictatory style of design and as I just mentioned from Dovey (1985), this will not be home to people. It will be someone else’s idea of home, therefore they will not be satisfied and not reach the top of Maslow’s pyramid, self actualisation. (McLeod, 2007). It all links together and this is why a home plays such an important role in our lives. It is more than just a building, it is (often) the place we grew up, the place that formed our character. This is something that we often overlook in our day to day lives and it is not until you stop and think about what home is to you, that you realise how much deeper it goes.

Another quote from f Dovey that really made me think was “Home is a kind of origin, we go ‘back’ home even when our arrival is in the future” (1985) as it makes a point that often we take for granted. He compares home to an origin, a place we will always return to and how we talk about it on a daily basis. We use home as a starting point and this is almost a metaphor for what home is. It is where we as human beings begin our development process and also where we continue to return to throughout our lives (Figure 2). But what if a person moves house? Does the new dwelling become their home? I believe that it does, as home is not a specific place, but more mo of a phenomena that we as humans attach to a place. “Home is not, perhaps, at all a notion of architecture, but of psychology” (Pallasmaa, 1992) sums up my point well as home is what we perceive it to be rather than something that can be visually seen. But the house that we are calling home will still need to fit in with this notion, as not all buildings will. Our idea of home will have certain features attached to it that we need in order to feel comfortable, such as a fireplace, or a conservatory. It is the physical features of a house that creates our perception of home. Again this contradicts Le Corbusier’s Corbusier theory that a home for all could be created as it would not satisfy the needs of each individuals unique idea of home.

One well-known example of an architect designing buildings that the client does not see as home is the case between Dr. Edith Farnsworth and Mies van der Rohe (Pallasmaa, 1992). Mies designed a house that was architecturally very beautiful, but so much so that it was unpleasant for the client (Edith Farnsworth) to live in. She could not use the building as her home. Mies was once quoted as saying “Only one. Always. And the best one that we can give.” when asked if he ever submitted alternative schemes to clients (Shakespeare, 1998). Now I can agree with this to an extent as it can avoid the client being overwhelmed with choice; however, this will only work if the client has had direct di user involvement. If they haven’t then the “best scheme” is not necessarily going to satisfy the needs of the user and it will once again not be seen as their home. This creates problems, and in the aforementioned case Dr. Edith Farnsworth ended up suing Mies van der Rohe. I believe that this also highlights how important the idea of home is to us, as Farnsworth was willing to fight to rectify the problems with her house.

Figure 2 - Home as Connectedness and Origin.

Dovey, K., 1985. Human Dove Behaviour and Environment Advances in Theory and Research. In I. Altman & C. Werner, eds. Home Environments, Vol 8. New York: Plenum Press. pp.33-64.

To conclude, I believe that Le Corbusier had good intentions when he made his statement about all men being the same and designing a building for all, as he was simply trying to rationalise architecture to make it a more streamlined process, which in theory does work.

But in doing so he failed to comprehend the other basic needs that humans have when it comes to home which are key to making human beings feel comfortable within a space, and this is why his idea never took off. o On the other hand I believe that it was important that he made this point, as it allowed future generations, including myself, to stop and think about what home means to us and what we would be losing if we were given a standardised building to live in. It allowed architects to appreciate how important direct user involvement is when it comes to the design process and means that the clients of the future will be receiving a home, not just a house.

Bibliography Dovey, K., 1985. Human Behaviour and Environment Advances in Theory and Research. In I. Altman & C. Werner, eds. Home Environments, Vol 8. New York: Plenum Press. pp.33-64.

Lang, J., 1994. Urban Design: The American Experience. Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Architectural Press.

McLeod, S., 2007. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. [Online] Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html.

Pallasmaa, J., 1992. The Concept of Home: An Interdiciplinary View. Finland.

Shakespea Shakespeare, T., 1998. Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives. New York: London ; Cassell, 1998.

Wiles, W., 2008. Modulor Man. [Online] Available at: http://www.iconeye.com/gallery/item/3815-modulor-man.

Le Corbusier’s Modulor Man Wiles, W., 2008. Modulor Man. [Online] Available at: http://www.iconeye.com/gallery/item/381

Jack Ryan 130416393 ARC2023 - The Place of Houses Question 2 - 1369 Words

107

DISSERTATION STUDIES

The ARC2020 module was about preparation for writing my dissertation in stage 3 and required me to submit a 500 word proposal of what I wish to research. It had to be referenced and illustrated to show I had done the relevant research into my chosen topic.

110

111

112