2009 MArchThesis Lindstrom

FOUNDATION FOR INCRIMENTAL DENSITIES Michael James Lindstrom

Master of Architecture Thesis 2009 Taubman College of Architecture + Urban Planning University of Michigan

FOUNDATION FOR INCRIMENTAL DENSITIES Michael James Lindstrom

Submitted on June 12, 2009 Craig Borum, Faculty Advisor

1.

FOUNDATION FOR INCRIMENTAL DENSITIES

BETWEEN FOUNDATION AND ARCHITECTURE The foundation for a typical building, concrete and rebar buried deep into layers of soil, hidden from view, is often understood as being separate from the performance of the building itself. And yet the two are unmistakably tied to each other. In order for the forces from the weight and loading of the structure to transfer safely from superstructure to ground the connection between the two must be static, rigid and strong. Its performance allows for the building’s programmed performance. However this connection as defined above does not allow for the building’s performance to change. On the contrary the connection secures not only the building but the program of the building as well.

This interface between building and foundation has anchored buildings into a static state of aging without the possibility of growth, a stasis that renders them inadequate and vulnerable. By liberating current conceptions of what this interface could be, new potentials can be encouraged to develop while both conserving resources and essences of the architectural fabric through time.

SHIFTING DENSITIES Currently 50% of the world’s population lives in cities. By 2050 it is estimated that 80% of the worlds population will live in major cities around the world.

As more people move to the cities there is no question that there will be continual need to proportionally raise the housing density surrounding urban cores. The periphery areas, often no more than 10 miles away, are composed mainly of low density single family residences.

Typically these urban single family homes, as opposed to the wealthier suburban single family homes outside the city, are rented or owned by low income residents and are the targets of many new infill developments and gentrification. Relatively low cost as compared to the rest of the city, these single family residences are aggressively acquired by developers. The old infrastructure is purchased and demolished to make way for out of scale high-rent apartments.

In addition to a growing need to densify existing housing infrastructure there is an increasing need to update aging materials. Many of the homes in the United States were built in the 1950s and 1960s during the housing boom post World War II. In affluent neighborhoods these older residences are renovated and remodeled, however in areas of lower income where people cannot afford the steep expense of remodeling, the housing falls into disrepair and drops in property value.

The reason why housing is so expensive to remodel is because current housing is not built to accommodate large scale maintenance or improvements. The services are buried or hidden behind walls and due to a lack of modular assembly if one part of the residence needs replacement or repair the whole house is affected. After a period of time without proper maintenance, demolishing and rebuilding is often cheaper than try to repair

Underpinning a single family home.

or expand part of the existing house.

ARCHITECTURE THROUGH TIME In the future this problem will be intensified as the need for housing in cities collides with the need to repair existing infrastructure. Many cities have tried and failed at large scale urban renewal programs. Problems of gentrification and destruction of the urban community goes hand in hand with the displacement that often occurs. The modernist utopian ideals of Le Corbusier and others have more than often resulted in failure such as the Pruitt Igoe Housing in St. Louis, Missouri or the Ellicott in Buffalo, New York.

In the past century, time has been connected and disconnected from the practice of architecture. Modernism rejected the notion of the past in the early 20th century in order to frame a discourse unburdened by history and autonomous in form. In Modernist buildings as well as in most of our built infrastructure today, time is understood in the Euclidian sense where it moves consistently along a path from one point to another. In result the finished product, the Modernist building, can only be seen as new or decaying.

However, while cities like Beijing are growing at unprecedented rates, the populations in cities like post-industrial Detroit continue to shrink, leaving behind lifeless buildings. Similarly these buildings are left behind to rot.

Currently there is no way a building can change gradually to provide for new demands.

2006 Venice biennale

However, occupying a similar time period, people were un-framing time.

In 1905 Einstein produced his Theory of Special Relativity in which he explained in Ideas and Opinions, Housing in Detroit, Michigan

“Before Maxwell people conceived of physical reality in so far as it is supposed to represent events in nature as material points, whose changes consist exclusively of motions, which are subject to differential equations.

After Maxwell they conceived physical reality as represented by continuous fields, not mechanically explicable, which are subject to partial differential equations.”

Here Einstein explains that time is not a set of discrete points but fields that change not globally but have local differentiation relative to each other.

Likewise, in 1910, Henri Bergson looking at time philosophically wrote in Creative Evolution, “Now life is an evolution. We concentrate a period of this evolution in a stable view which we call form, and when the change has become considerable enough to overcome the fortunate inertia of our perception, we say that the body has changed form. But in reality the body is changing form at every moment; or rather, there is no form, since form is immobile and the reality is movement. What is real is the continual change of form: form is only a snapshot view of a transition” Bergson explains that nothing is static, everything changes and all matter is in a perpetual state of becoming. In essence one thing does not become another but is simply, becoming. Likewise a building continues building whether the architect addresses duration or not. Currently building is designed for a singular purpose, used and then destroyed. However by embracing aspects of time new potentials for adaptation, layering, and chaos can create new ongoing narratives that embrace the event and hint at unpredictable becoming.

The Futurists were the first group to produce work that addressed time in a different way. Harnessing ideas of forces, velocity and fields to define architecture, they established a close relationship and dependency on time.

La Citta Nuova, a project drawn by Antonio Sant’Elia in 1914 can be seen as perhaps the first building to be fluid as opposed to a solid. The building is the receptacle and conveyor of continuous flow. Reyner Banham said that La Citta Nuova was “the first to give modern architecture the habit

La Citta Nuova, 1914 by Antonio Sant’Elia

of thinking in terms of circulation and not vistas” (Sant’Elia, Architecture Review 1955). Sanford Kwinter describes time in La Citta Nuova as “put in the service of a certain pantheism. La Citta Nuova is a system, then with no inside or outside, no center and no periphery, but with merely one virtual circulating substance –force- and its variety of actualized modes –linear, rotating, ascending, combining, transecting.”

Thinking of architecture as the process of a system and not a finite object was further developed in the 1960s. Both Archigram and the Metabolist movement explored ways for architecture to evolve and adapt over time.

As a reaction to Modernism, both groups developed architecture that embraced change allowing for modules to be pre-fabricated, plugged-in and replaced as needed in response to changing densities and desires.

Archigram in 1966 said “buildings with no capacity to change can only become slums or ancient monuments.” In 1970, Peter Cook of Archigram wrote that architecture “can be much more related to the ambiguity of life.

It can be throw-away or additive; it can be ad-hoc; it can be more allied to the personality and personal situation of the people who may have to use it.”

Archigram and the Metabolists established the ground work for an architecture based on a system as opposed to an architecture based on form or program.

Similarly, Kisho Kurokawa defined “the architecture of metabolism as the architecture of temporariness. A dynamic balance expressed by Buddhism’s concept of impermanence as an alternative to the Western aesthetic ideals of the universal and the eternal.”

Arata Isozaki “Curves in the Air”

Designing the event is another important element of connecting architecture to time. An event is something that occurs over a duration which involves both active observers (people) and well as space. In Architecture of Time, Sanford Kwinter wrote. “for when something occurs it may be said that that which previously remained only a potential or virtuality now emerges and becomes actual, though only in place of something else that could have arisen here at this time, but did not. This double “difference” – between what is here now but previously was not – and between what emerged and what did not, in all of its complexity and fatality and in all of its own pregnant virtuality or potentiality is what I will call “the event.”

Plug-in city, 1964 by Peter Cook

Kwinter defines the event as a tangible entity of an ongoing change that can be read. Similarly Henri Bergson defines ‘duree’ or duration as “a

change, a becoming, but it is a becoming that endures, a change that is substance itself.” In both cases the complexity of the event is not something elusive but something that can be tangibly addressed as ongoing change in architecture.

In addressing time with relation to architecture, looking at the precedents of Archigram and the Metabolists, the two main aspects are the use of systems and the propagations of that system to generate events.

However despite a lot of public interest, Archigram’s projects remained science fiction and very few of metabolist systems were ever built. Largely due to their massive scale, these megastructures called for massive change not unlike Le Corbusier’s Pavilion de L’Esprit Nouveau in 1919, utopian planning that Archigram was largely reacting against. Gradual change was not part of the program for the shell structure, only for the units. Furthermore, although the idea was to provide a direct relationship to the cities growth the projects are always drawn in the full, completely occupied configuration.

Time is still rendered and represented visually as a point of completion. The shell system also dictated exactly how the units would be configured in the frame, not allowing for variety at all, only internal variety which is just as true for standard apartment buildings.

One of the best examples that represents time in the built environment comes not from architecture but from Landscape Urbanism, which uses the ideas of temporality and unpredictably of Landscape Architecture to seed new urban environments. Mohsen Mostafavi explains that the problem of planning lies in the desire and need for control. “Planning became synonymous with certainty; freedom was what it curtailed. Citizens’ actions were- and are - being played out within spatial frameworks that swerve to reduce any diversity of events and to control (and thereby reform) behavior. “. Mostafavi sees Landscape Urbanism as a catalyst to allow for new urban

opportunities that embrace unpredictably. The diagrams that are used to describe these projects are represented in chronology and fields. Mostafavi continues: “We cannot describe our societies as democratic without considering the spatial frameworks that enable democracy to act. Landscape urbanism will in future, with its temporal and political characteristics, set the scene (albeit momentary) for democracy in action.”

Downsview Park Competition, 1999 by Field Operations

While landscape urbanism interventions have had a certain amount of success with open democratic systems, architecture has remained at a more theoretical level. For housing this may be due to the psychological importance people associate with a home being tied and connected to the ground. In an otherwise unpredictable environment, a building is thought to be dependable, not fickle with movement.

Wes Jones Partners created Pro/con Package Homes using shipping containers and a mechanical structure to break through the current barriers of a building moving. In their essay Stillness they explain,

Not only does movement allow for new spaces to be created by the user over time but it simply allows for change.

However, even if movement is desired in an architectural project there are two important established barriers: 1. Foundation systems.

2. City Zoning.

Pro/Con Package Homes, 2000 by Wes Jones Partners

“At its most general , ‘architecture’ is that which is fixed, in the sense of being locate (space), and in being decided (time). From this localized determination proceeds a quality of stability, and then dependability: architecture names the framework or structure (space) that secures (time) the relationships of the other in terms of a discourse.”

Part of the problem lies in the conceptual idea that architecture is supposed to be static. The other more obvious problem is that due to a buildings scale, a lot of energy would be needed to move it. So if architecture is to move it better have a good reason. Wes Jones Partners argue: “Real movement is empowerment. It liberates. The potential for an object’s movement is usually defined on a scale measuring ‘degrees of freedom’.

This is an interesting expression. It captures the quality of willfulness in movement that is naturally ascribed to animate form. For the designed object this willfulness can be credited to the movement that acts out the object’s own desires, and movement that traces the will of another upon it.”

Foundation systems have evolved throughout the history of building. Startingwith massive stone slabs of the Egyptian pyramids foundation systems have evolved to transfer ever greater loads to smaller bearing area using deep foundation systems such as caissons. Due to advancements in steel, the weight of a building can be transferred through the superstructure to thin foundation system such as a pile. However, a foundation is still needed to anchor and transfer the loads into the earth. If a building were to shift on

the site, the foundation would need to shift with it. Either a new foundation is added or a foundation such as a mat or a raft is spread throughout the site to anticipate a shifting superstructure in the future.

rupted development (a form in a ‘state of latency’ - ‘on standby’ -able to be associated with incompleteness and infinitude, properties emblematic of all open systems).”

Foundation systems are usually the most expensive part of construction. If the program of the building needs to expand or change it is currently more economical to abandon the building and buy or rebuild a new building that fits the most current program.

Although Guasa says “final form” in a true open system the form is never final. Ironically all building forms change in time whether intended by the architect or not. Weather, change of ownership, remodeling, new technology and style all lead to formal change.

Building code restrictions are the other major barrier to change. Zoning in most cities is confined to certain parameters that define a single family house or an industrial site. Zoning for a particular site is either one or the other without the possibility of a gradient. For instance, the single family house has a particular site offset to keep the house at a distance from the neighboring property line. What if the city zoning code allowed for a more dynamic relationship for change to encourage density or change over time?

The favelas of San Paulo are an example of extreme informal building without interference from the city or designers. Often illegally, poor families build simple structures that are layered with new found material to create an evolving conglomeration of shelters. The result is a diverse and dense urban fabric. As there is no formal regulation, these houses are not only dark and dirty but are unsafe structurally. However there is a certain richness to the formal composition. While the twisting spaces of informal building may be ideal for crime they also provide for varied and complex spacial experiences. The complexity is built over time as new residents

INFORMAL According to Bergson, if form is “only a snapshot of a transition,” how is form established in a project that anticipates the formal change? If a system is constructed to seed and encourage manipulation by the user, what kind of formal strategy can the architect have? Form in this case cannot be about what it definitively is but more interestingly about what it was or will be. Manuel Guasa, a Spanish architect writing about informal systems explains, “The matter would be to access the unfinished definition and the ‘infrastructural’ character of dynamic systems through the analysis of combinatory mechanisms, destined to bring about processes of spatial organization in which the final form manifests itself as the precise snapshot of an inter-

San Paulo favela

tions, that would provide the sense of place people need and allow them to retain and develop their sense of identity.�

Although there are 20 different unit types, they are all very similar and cannot be expanded. Is there a system that would allow for the intricate micro development of the favela and yet still maintain a level of organization like in Habitat to allow for light and safety?

The work of Teddy Cruz and the Elemental Housing Competition are two different examples which encourage informal building.

Habitat, 1967 by Moshe Safdie

Teddy Cruz’s research on the relationship of the built environment between the border cities of Tijuanna and San Diego has led to many interesting projects. A large amount of unwanted materials from San Diego is trucked across the boarder to Tijuanna. These materials and sometimes complete houses are layered on top of the existing infrastructure using large steel

cycle through and new materials become available. The form can be read as an ongoing narrative of experience. What is most interesting is that because these structures develop gradually over time they produce a density that is of the human scale.

Habitat built for the Montreal Expo in 1967 by Moshe Safdie was one of the few modular megastructures to be built. Unlike Plug in city, Habitat maintains more variability in structuring the individual modules. In addition to creating both visual and spacial complexity, the form allows for spaces of a human scale. Each unit seems unique. A group of units form a collective that resembles a more natural configuration of a village as opposed to an ordered apartment complex. Safdie explains, “My intention at Habitat was to organize the building into small repetitive components that lent themselves to industrialization and then to unite them by a formal language of permutations and combinations, rhythms and varia-

Structural Frame, Teddy Cruz

frames. Teddy Cruz created a series of transportable structural frames that he distributed to allow for more people to safely expand their living area.

The Elemental Housing Competition is held every year to enhance social housing projects in Chile while under strict monetary constraints. The underlying theme of the competition was to create the necessary spacial

framework but to leave the “finishing� of the project up to the residents.

Both of these examples seed an existing site with a framework and allow the user to ultimately construct the end result. Although many people may not be interested in developing their own residential space, the possibility for flexibility whether the construction is hired out or not is very desirable.

Instead of one unifying form a building could be an arrangement of different architectural work and different formal languages to create a diversity and richness seen in the bazaars of Istanbul but rarely in suburbia.

METHOD The role of the architect in a project where the user is encouraged to manipulate the form lies in both in the initial seeding of the system as well as during the expansion and change to follow at some point in the future.

Just as in parametric design where a series of variables are allowed to vary in a script, an informal composition for a building could have certain confining parameters of projected change. These limitations are directly related to the interface between the building and the foundation. The interface would have various axes of freedom that would allow controlled change across the site. Once in position the interface could be secured, ready to accept loading from new infrastructure.

Elemental Housing Competition Entry 2003 by Hermanitos Verdes Architecture

However to understand what these parameters should be, what the limits are and ultimately how the project would unfold, one operative method of working would be to project possible scenarios through time.

By projecting various permutations of how a structure could be shifted ro-

tated and layered on a given site through of a long generative time span, an iterative process of exploration could produce constraints and dependencies upon which a flexible foundation interface could be structured.

This projective process is most closely related to the work often see in Landscape Architecture and Landscape Urbanism as the development of ecologies are dependent on many interrelated variables that come into being at different times. Instead of structuring work from a hierarchal and centric standpoint, Field Operations, creates horizontal fields that are interconnected and expansive with time. James Corner explains, “the emphasis now shifts from the one to the many, from objects to fields, from singularities to open-ended networks.”

Using techniques of mapping and diagrams, Field Operations clearly illustrates how the project unfolds through time. Certain variables are introduced to a system at different times which in turn affect the environment.

Instead of controlling the result they control which agents are implemented and when, and to what intensity. On the process of ecology James Corner said,

Field Condition Diagrams, Field Operations

“Ecology teaches us that all life is bound into dynamic an interrelated processes of codependency... It’s stability and robustness derive from its dynamics in its capacity to handle and process movement, difference and change. This is an attractive idea for cities and landscapes to be flexible, to be capable of responding quickly to changing needs and demands, while themselves projecting new sets of effect and potential.”

By creating a set of “infrastructural catalysts” into a field, James Corner creates an urban ecology. Likewise a similar strategy could be used for seeding a site for temporal infrastructural development.

PROGRAM(ABLE) The initial program for the project is the single family home. Not only is there a pressing need to address the problems of increasing density in areas where there is only low density housing, but the single family home already undergoes frequent renovation. Stuart Brand, in How Building Learn said, “In this century the houses of America and Europe have been altered utterly. When servants disappeared from them, kitchens suddenly grew, and servant’s rooms became superfluous and were rented out. Cars came, grew in size and number, then shank in size, and garages and car parks tried to keep pace. Family rooms expanded around the television. In the 1960s women joined the work force, transforming both the workplace and the home.�

There is little doubt the house will continue to change in the future. According to the Remodelers Council of the National Association of Homebuilders, homeowners are projected to spend $114.1 billion on remodeling this year, up from expenditures of $100.9 billion last year. Whether the goal is performance, accommodating new programs, or to increase value of the property for change of ownership, the residential dwelling is the structure that desires the most change.

However, housing with all its permutations and need for flexibility is just a starting point. Ultimately the system could encourage not just new housing programs but also integration of commercial programs. Ultimately the program is programmable space.

PORTLAND, OREGON Portland, Oregon is the smallest major city on the Pacific Coast. With a density of 4199 people/sq. mi. it is behind Seattle and San Francisco with densities of 7085 people/sq mi. and 16,380 people/sq mi. respectively.

The growth rate is higher than the national average, however because it is still a relatively small city, the transition of neighborhoods from low density to high density is still readily apparent.

Portland is also known for its progressive land use planning. The city encourages density and established an effective urban growth boundary in 1979 to prevent sprawl. However, the zoning policies between commercial and residential space are carefully controlled, limiting the ability to provide for gradual growth.

When the city changes the zoning to densify a neighborhood, many people are pressured out of their homes by high end developments and commercial spaces. Gentrification in Portland continues to be a major problem.

CA commercial zone

R2.5a single family

max height: 45ft min 50% of site

max height: 35ft max area 50% of site

On Mississippi Avenue the zoning transitions from residential single family to commercial where the allowable land usage changes dramatically from a maximum of 50% of the site area for residential, to a minimum of 50% of the site area for commercial. Of course mostly all commercial developments maximize their allowable area to cover 100% of the site. These areas of radical transition are ideal for progressive zoning that is based on the relative growth of adjacent properties.

For example, if residential zoning was based on the Floor Area Ratio of neighboring properties than an iterative feedback loop of development could be created to allow for gradual increases in density. Over time the zoning would allow for more growth or if neighboring property decreases in FAR, less growth. If more than one family occupied the same site would this introduce new questions of property ownership or what defines the property line?

Therefore there are two scales of site that need to be addressed. The first is the site of a residential lot to investigate the local parameters that influence the growth of the single family house through a flexible foundation interface. (system) The second being the scale of a city block or multiple blocks to understand how the system’s influence if propagated to multiple sites would develop over time. (event)

1. block is rezoned. interstitial areas are acquired from participating property owners.

1.

2. landscaping for groundwater retention.

2.

3. tree farm 4. a path for running 5. ground water retention pond.

6. new property is developed incrementally with a new foundation system.

7. foreclosed property.

3.

8. new alley for interior units.

FOUNDATION FOR INCRIMENTAL DENSITIES 9. underground basins for storm waterare pressurized for site irrigation.

10. trees are replanted as need.

11. stair systems and bridges provide public shelter from rain.

12. living machine installed to treat gray and black water from units.

N.

4.

scale 1:40

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

POTA

BLE WAT ER

RETU

RN

10.

OPT IC

1. occupiable roof system with porous drainage mat for plantings.

2. drainage piping.

3. structural frame for single unit.

4. radiant heating/cooling coils.

5. utilities, digital and electrical wiring in the unit connect to host system.

6. structural frame is bolted to the foundation interface.

7. booster pumps and heat exchanger are located under first floor unit frame.

8. utilities are connected underground through the foundation.

9. spread footing.

10. geothermal system for heating and cooling.

ELE C

SE WE RT OT

AL

TRIC

RE AT

AL

ME N

T

An urba n growth boundary and an escalating urban population have pressurized Portland, Oregon. Detached singlefamily dwellings are incapable of dealing with the demand for increasing density and continue to give way to large-scale multi-level housing complexes. Currently there is no means for these houses to change gradually and evolve in our dynamic shifting culture.

The interface between foundation and superstructure has anchored buildings into a static state of aging without the ability for growth. Buried and fixed in the ground the old system promotes permanence and a fixed identity. However, by creating a flexible foundation system to interface with the ground that could also serve as the conduit for utilities, a new building typology could be created that not only facilitates change and growth, but encourages it; A system of transformation and event that strengthens the independence of the individual, while the collective system strengthens the resources of the community.

WILLIAMS STREET

Vendetta Bar

LEFT: Site and potential sites for incremental foundation interfaces along Williams Street in Portland, Oregon.

Pix Patiserrie Nutshell Vegetarian Restaurant Forclosure

Forclosure

Tax Lien

Club 12 Twenty Two

Tax Lien

Wonder Bread Retail Outlet Pizza a go-go

First Baptist Church

RIGHT: Plan drawing of multiple blocks over three different periods of time.

1.

1. Block is rezoned 2.

2. Landscaping for groundwater 3. retention.

3. Tree Farm 4. A path for running 4.

5. Ground water retention pond.

6. new property is developed 5. incrementally with a new foundation system.

7. Foreclosed property 6.

8. New alley for interior units.

9. underground basins for stormwater are pressurized for site irrigation.

7.

10. trees are replanted as needed.

11. stair systems and bridges provide public shelter from rain.

12. living machine installed to treat gray and black water from units.

11.

8.

9.

10.

12.

The old Industrial East Side of Portland, Oregon is comprised of mostly housing, industrial buildings, and empty lots. The foreclosure rate in this area is one of the highest in Portland and is also an area of increasing gentrification.

Working with participating property owners and banks over a number of blocks, the interstitial space between buildings is incorporated into a new system. The block is then rezoned. Existing setbacks are removed, however a new code establishes governing parameters for growth. The block is landscaped for storm water retention and planted with trees.

Housing units are developed incrementally based on demand using a flexible foundation system allowing for both horizontal and vertical real estate. As the system spreads, the network of utilities becomes more complex and self-sufficient. More geothermal wells are connected to each other, the community cultivates and harvests open space, and wastewater and storm water are recovered and reused to create an independent and interdependent community of resources. While new units come and go or shift in program, the foundation system remains waiting to host new demands from society.

EXISTING SETBACKS REMOVED.

EXISTING HOUSE.

INCREMENTAL FOUNDATION SYSTEM.

OUTDOOR SPACE.

INCREMENTAL UNIT.

2:1 DISTANCE TO HEIGHT RATIO.

PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE.

1/3 DEVELOPED FOOTPRINT PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE.

FOUNDATION INTERFACE.

1/3 DEVELOPED FOOTPRINT PUBLIC OUTDOOR SPACE.

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OUTDOOR SPACE.

Parameters for new zoning and incremental growth.

DIRECT ACCESS TO STREET OR ALLEY.

Perspective drawing of a main alley in the development.

Section perspective drawing showing a diversity of material and form as well as the relationship of public gardens to private outdoor spaces.

Section perspective showing the stacking and unstacking of units and the resultant spaces created.

The model is made of basswood, acrylic and piano wire. Steel sheet metal panels were added to one unit. Each unit is bolted into the foundation columns with small metal bolts. The spread footings are voided in the acrylic. White colored piano wire represents the nested utilities that not only connect the unit to the ground but connect each unit together. The stand is made from welded square steel tubing.

POSTSCRIPT

During the final review the work was well received. The first subject of debate was how is the foundation system connected as a network if it is laid in incrementally? The main argument against incremental installation is cost. Laying out a system and the utilities in one shot would be far less expensive that having to add new systems incrementally underground as needed. This led to the next question of wouldn’t the project be better as a master plan instead of incremental growth? Although the system would be cheaper to implement as a master plan with our current conception of foundation systems I believe that implementation in the future needs to be far more dynamic. This project rests on the premise that the installation of the foundation system would become quick, efficient and cheap.

Otherwise an apartment building would be more cost effective which is precisely what the project is trying to avoid. The final issue was whether an apartment building would provide for more light than a dynamic systems that can be controlled by the user. This created a lively discussion of the distance to height zoning parameter and how this and other parameters would need to be further developed and researched. Overall the panel appreciated the developed work and its important relevance in our current housing situation as well how it questions current development strategies and housing typologies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution. Boston University Press of America, 1911. pg 302.

Bowles, Joseph. Foundation and Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982 Brand, Steward, How Buildings Learn: What Happens After they’re Built, New York: Penguin Group, 1995). pg3.

Duncan, Chester Jr. Sols and Foundations for Architects and Engineers.

Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.

Forster, Wolfgang. Housing in the 20th and 21st Centuries, Munich: Prestel, 2006.

Gausa, Marcel. “Dynamic Time, Informal Order, Interdisciplinary Trajectories: Space Time Information and New Architecture.” Time Based Architecture. Ed. Bernard Leupen. Rotterdam: 010, 2005. pg 78.

Kurokawa, Kisho. Kisho Kurokawa: From Metabolism to Symbiosis. New Yor: St Martin’s Press, 1992. pg 8.

Kwinter, Sanford. Architecture of Time. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001. pp 48,59,96 Mostafavi, Mohsen ed. Landscape Urbanism: A Manual for the Machinic Landscape. AA Print Studio, 2003. pp 5,9, 63 Sadler, Simon. Archigram: Architecture without Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005. pg94.

Safdie, Moshe Safdie. Beyond Habitat. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970. pg 241 Tennent, Scott, ed. Jones Partners Architecture: El Segundo. Princeton Architectural Press, 2007, pp 168,177 Re: American Dream Six Urban Housing prototypes for Los Angeles.

New York, NY Princeton Architectural Press, 1995.

Elemental Housing Competition. Elemental Chile. <http://www.elementalchile.cl/category/concurso_mundial/?lang_pref=en> Elemental Competition. Hermanitos Verdes Architecture. <http://www. hermanitosverdes.org/hv_en/elemental.html> Portland, Oregon. Wikipedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregon> Teddy Cruz: Bottom up Architecture. Projectos Urbanos. <http://www. projetosurbanos.com.br/category/arquitetura/page/2/> Zoning Land Use. Portland Online. <http://www.portlandonline.com/ bds/index.cfm?c=35881>.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Craig Borum for his patience, support and advise.

His help was not only important in my thesis work but in developing my own voice in the architecture community. I would also like to acknowlege Keith Mitnick, Jason Young, Jason Johnson, and Robert Fishman for their critique and guildance. Finally I would like to thank my friends Emily Corbett, Tim Szal, Kevin Deng and Ross Hoekstra for their support, friendship and advise.