The Cabins at the Fort Pulaski National Monument

The Cabins at the Fort Pulaski National Monument: A Collaborative Design/Build Exploration by The Historic Preservation Design Studio + The Historic Preservation Trades Program School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign + The Historic Preservation Trades Program, Savannah Technical College

Contents I.

Acknowledgments

II.

Overview: Two Programs, One Project by Paul Hardin Kapp, Associate Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

III.

Foreword: by Melissa Memory, Superintendent, Fort Pulaski National Monument, U.S. National Park Service

IV.

The Project: Summary by Paul Hardin Kapp

V.

The Workshops: by Stephen Hartley, Director, Historic Preservation Trades Program, Savannah Technical College, Savannah, Georgia

VI.

Background Information: Program Analysis: Site Analysis: Vernacular Analysis: Accessibilty Analysis:

by Anastasia Sekalias, M.Arch Candidate 2016, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

by Lina Thurer, International Student, Technical University Munich

by Elsa Reifsteck, M.Arch Candidate 2016, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

by Stephanie Henry, M.Arch Candidate 2015, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

VI.

Three Proposals for Master Plans of the Complex: Overview: by Paul Hardin Kapp Master Plan 1:

by Claire McDermott, M.Arch Candidate 2016, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Master Plan 2:

by Timothy Kennedy, M.Arch Candidate 2016, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Master Plan 3:

by Maria Pujol and Meri Mensa, International Graduate Students, ETSAV, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC)

VII.

Design Schemes: Master Plan 1: Main Cabin:

Cabin 1: Cabin 2:

Elsa Reifsteck, “Destination Cabin” Nikolas Ospino, International Graduate Student, ETSAV, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC), “Variations on the Barn” Stephanie Henry, “Tower and Clusters” Drew Steusloff, M.Arch Candidate 2015, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Courtyard Dogtrot” Adrian Defaz, M.Arch Candidate 2016, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Courtyard” Claire McDermott, “Interpretations of the Dogtrot”

Master Plan 2: Main Cabin: Cabin 1: Cabin 2: Master Plan 3 Main Cabin: Cabin 1:

Cabin 2: VIII.

Building the Design

Anastasia Sekalias, “Lean-to” Sarah Turner, M.Arch Candidate 2015, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Shed & Trusses” Weiwei Chen, M.Arch Candidate 2016, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Three Pavilions” Timothy Kennedy, “Vernacular Center-hall” Azadeh Eskandari, M.Arch Candidate 2015, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Cribbing Corners” Maria Pujol, International Graduate Student, ETSAV, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC), “Gateway” Stephanie Morgenthaler, M.Arch Candidate 2015, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Barn Door” Meri Mensa, Interantional Graduate Student, ETSAV, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC), “Terraces” Lina Thurer, “Living Timber Barn” Maximilian Wuerfl, International Student, Technical University Munich, “Duplex”

Drawing for Fabrication:

directed by Bryan Mossing, Director, Architectural Drafting Program, Savannah Technical College

Common Details:

directed by Paul Hardin Kapp and Bryan Mossing

Fabrication & Traditional Building:

directed by Stephen Hartley

IV.

Conclusion:

Paul Hardin Kapp, Steven Hartley, and Bryan Mossing

X.

Afterword:

David M. Chasco, FAIA, Professor and Past Director, Illinois School of Architecture

Acknowledgements The academic study and preparation of the publication were conducted by the Historic Preservation Design Studio, Graduate Program, School of Architecture, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign and the Historic Preservation Trades Program and the Architecture Drafting Program at the Savannah Technical College, Savannah, Georgia in Spring Semester 2015.

The project staff included: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Ms. Melissa Memory, Superintendent, Fort Pulaski National Monument Professor Steve Hartley, Director, Historic Preservation Trades Program, Savannah Technical College Professor Bryan Mossing, Drafting Instructor, Savannah Technical College Ms. Laura Rich Acosta, Facility Manager Fort Pulaski.

Dr. Ray Albright, NPS CESU Coordinator Professor Paul Hardin Kapp, AIA, LEED AP, Associate Professor, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign

Graduate Students in the Historic Preservation Studio, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Weiwei Chen Adrain Defaz Azadeh Eskandari Stephanie Henry Timothy Kennedy Claire McDermott Meri Mensa Stephanie Morgenthaler Nikolas Ospino Maria Pujol Elsa Reifsteck Anastasia Sekalias Drew Steusloff Lina Thuerer Sarah Turner Maximilian Wuerfl

Savannah Technical College Historic Preservation Trades Program Students: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Chaklit Ali-Redwood Elijah Brackett Elyse Carroll Steven Dennison Patrick Fitzgibbon Laura Vogler Benjamin Mattern Joseph Murphy Nicole Vanella Sidney Scott

Savannah Technical College Architecture Drafting Program Students: 1.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Marion Gist William Hooper Nathaniel Leeks Dijon Lynn Sean Roach Nathaniel Southwood

Illinois School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Administration Peter Leslie Mortensen, Director William Worn, Associate Director, School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Savannah Technical College Adminstration Dr. Kathy Love, President Dr. Ken Boyd, Vice-President of Academic Affairs Joseph Powell, Dean of Industrial Technology Publication Design + Compilation: 1.

2.

3.

Timothy Kennedy Claire McDermott Elsa Reifsteck

Overview: Two Programs, One Project Paul Hardin Kapp, Associate Professor, School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign During the 2015 spring semester, graduate architecture students from the Historic Preservation Design Studio, led by Paul Hardin Kapp, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Illinois) teamed up with the Historic Preservation Building Trades Program, led by Stephen Hartley, and the Architectural Drafting Program, led by Bryan Mossing, from the Savannah Technical College (STC) to develop a design/build project solution, which utilized digital graphic technology, digital communication, and new building design thinking that incorporates historic building fabrication techniques, for a temporary accommodations complex on Cockspur Island at the Fort Pulaski National Monument, located outside of Savannah, Georgia. The complex will serve volunteers who annually come to the Monument and perform useful and necessary tasks for its maintenance and mission. Typically, these volunteers are retirees who are motivated by the historic significance and importance that the Monument embodies.

This project was supported through educational funding from the Fort Pulaski National Monument and the U.S. National Park Service. The design challenge: Produce feasible ideas for three housing units and a communal kitchen and lounge building. The complex will provide overnight to weeklong accommodation for volunteers. Its intent is to satisfy a current need for the service of the national monument. Other parameters that were set for this project: The complex should have as minimal of a building footprint as possible, and, when necessary, be easily removed from the proposed site; it will also embody traditional construction techniques and assemblies, which exemplify the rich vernacular architecture tradition of the Georgia Low Country. Moreover, the design and construction of the complex will comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation, specifically, the building of new construction in historic contexts.

Illinois students traveled to Savannah at the beginning of the semester in February 2015. During their stay in Savannah, they learned about the building site, understood the historic significance of Fort Pulaski, and met with Superintendent Melissa Memory and her staff (N.P.S. Staff) to discuss the programmatic parameters of the project. They also analyzed Low Country Georgia vernacular architecture and architectural detailing as well as vernacular landscape design. Along with these tasks, they participated in a series of traditional trades-based workshops. The first workshop introduced Illinois students to traditional masonry. Students were introduced to lime-based mortar preparation, masonry construction, which incorporates brick bond work, and masonry repointing. The second workshop introduced students to blacksmithing and traditional metalwork. In this session, students understood how tools, such as the anvil, determine how a steel product is fabricated. Traditional timber fabrication was the last workshop for the students. Students fabricated mortise and tenon joinery and built a typical “pen” or bay. Savannah Technical College students instructed Illinois students. Through this experience, future architects learned to appreciate the extensive labor and skill required to craft a high quality traditional building.

When they returned to Urbana-Champaign, the architecture students commenced with developing three distinct master plans and schematic designs of cabins, and commonly used or shared details.

Material selection that met the clients’ requirements and building feasibility (conveyed by the STC students and faculty) was determined. Students and faculty shared large-scaled ideas and worked toward a goal of providing the NPS staff at Fort Pulaski with a thorough architectural vision for the proposed accommodations complex. This included not only master planning strategies but also design development level solutions for individual cabins and the actual fabrication of key components of the proposed accommodation complex. Savannah Tech students executed the component construction facet of the project. A detailed analysis of the site conditions, historic architecture and environmental analyses, development of the designs, and finally, the fabrication of the design are all featured in the final deliverable of this semester long design exercise, which is featured in this publication.

The instructors developed this project with the following question in mind: How can we improve architecture and trades-based pedagogy so that it will introduce students to the designer/builder working relationship? In this age of digital media, instantaneous communication, and building information modeling, one activity in construction remains constant—designers must convey the intent of their designs to builders and builders use the best means necessary to build the design as intended. The instructors believed that pedagogy, based on understanding of how buildings are built and clear communication, is the best way to achieve this goal. Understanding of “how” architecture is built is extremely important for the architecture designer. Although it is most likely not feasible for a designer to be master all of the building trades; it is necessary for the designer to understand how the trades work at the most rudimentary level. It is an idea as old as Vitruvius.

Teaching communication skills between designer and builder is something that architectural programs have not directly addressed in their curricula within the last thirty years. The National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB) mandates architecture programs to include teaching experiences that are outside of the classroom, field trip based, and community-wide. (NAAB, 2014, 10) They also stipulate that students understand building project management and stakeholder roles in the building project, but little else. (NAAB, 2014, 15) The instructors sought to challenge the accepted norm of studio-based teaching, both in architecture programs and in trades-based programs. In this project, they developed a project that compelled students to communicate among each other and with the students in other programs.

Weekly “Skype” calls were conducted between Savannah and Champaign. Drawings and photographs were submitted to a common data-sharing website, commonly known as a “Box” site. In order to prevent confusion in this project, either in Savannah or in Champaign, meeting minutes were posted after meetings were conducted. These practices are commonplace in the professional world but seldom used in an academic setting. Both the students and instructors were pleased in how well communication procedures helped bring this project to fruition but they also recognized the need to improve communication techniques and procedures in future collaborations.

Traditional building and detailing was primary means for developing design solutions for the client—the Fort Pulaski National Monument. Timber Frame Construction: All About Post-and-Beam Construction (Pownal, VT: Garden Way Publishing, 1984) by Jack Sobon and Roger Schrooeder was the primary text used during the collaborative studio. Students learned both the opportunities and limitations of using timber as the singular structural material for the project. Students also became aware of the cost limitations of sizes of readily available timber. During the Skype sessions, faculty from STC pointed out to Illinois students timber lengths greater than twelve feet were often difficult to acquire and expensive. This compelled the students to be judicious in their use of material and more sophisticated in their employment of traditional joinery techniques. (Sobon and Schrooder, 1984) Material limitations also compelled students to design solutions that utilized readily available materials and easily applied building techniques. Examples include: Roofing for the cabins was covered either with wood shingles or “V-crimped” galvanized metal panels, or corrugated metal panels; wall coverings were composed of wood shingles, shiplap wood siding, or wood clapboard. Incidentally, this material selection correlated with vernacular buildings examined along the Southeastern Georgia coast.

Vehicular access was a prerequisite stated by the N.P.S. Staff, and this condition surprised both the faculty and the students involved in the project. At the outset of the project, Illinois students, and their instructor, erroneously assumed that vehicles use was limited on Cockspur Island. The staff stated that volunteers, who serve the monument, often arrive in their recreational vehicles (RV’s). Parking for at least four large RV’s was required by the staff at the beginning of the project. Students were presented this challenge: How can an RV parking area be better incorporated within the natural scenery at Cockspur Island and be assimilated into the master plan of the complex in an architectural way? The students presented several options for RV use for the staff to consider.

Environmental sustainability was another requirement stated by the N.P.S. Staff to the students during the programming meeting held at Fort Pulaski early in the semester. Energy conservation, stormwater management and reuse, and utilizing locally available materials were objectives stated by the staff. Also, ease of maintenance and relatively ease of relocating the units, when necessary, was also emphasized by the N.P.S. Staff. Students responded by designing cabins and lodges that incorporated passive cooling design features, stormwater reuse, daylighting, and minimal HVAC systems, along with pier or post foundation construction.

The final projects shown in this publication presents a holistic vision of an accommodation complex at Cockspur Island. Each design incorporates the vernacular tradition of historic dwellings that were built in the Georgia Low Country, traditional building timber framing and carpentry techniques, and traditional and contemporary approaches to ecological and sustainable design. The complex design solutions are removable and can be relocated, when it is deemed necessary. Students learned how to collaborate with each other, and more importantly, they began to learn the process of collaboration between designer and builder.

References: Fort Pulaski National Monument. 2014. http://www.nps.gov/fopu/index.htm. Accessed on 9 April 2015.

National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). 2014. Conditions for Accreditation. http://www.naab. org/home. Accessed on 5 January 2015.

Sobon, Jack and Roger Schrooeder. 1984. Timber Frame Construction: All About Post-and-Beam Construction. Pownal, VT: Garden Way Publishing.

Foreword

Melissa Memory, Superintendent, Fort Pulaski National Monument, U.S. National Park Service The Reverend John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, landed on “The Peeper” in February 1736 with James Oglethorpe , founder of the Colony of Georgia and a pioneer of American urban design. In describing his first sermon in the New World Wesley stated “we chose an open place surrounded with myrtles, bays and cedars, which sheltered us from both the sun and wind, and called our little flock together to prayers.” Since that first documented gathering, Cockspur Island, as “The Peeper” began to be known, has sheltered the city of Savannah, as a site of Colonial, Revolutionary, Civil War, Spanish American War and World War II defense, and, since 1924, its rich historical and natural legacy has been protected as Fort Pulaski National Monument, managed as a Unit of the National Park Service since 1933.

As the National Park Service embarks upon its second century in 2016, how we continue to preserve this legacy and remain unimpaired yet relevant in a changing world is the critical challenge of our time. Observing the physical changes of melting glaciers and rising seas that our parks are facing, we must focus not only on how we adapt to these changes, but how we can also demonstrate best practices in environmental sustainability in our own management actions.

In a time when preservationists and sustainable designers are just beginning to find a common language, the National Park Service has both an obligation and an opportunity to provide leadership pursuant to its mission in the practice of sustainable preservation. Further, engaging with the next generation of thinkers, designers and builders to help us be on the forefront of practice is a tremendous opportunity to create relevance.

This project to design and build volunteer and student housing on Cockspur Island with the University of Illinois and Savannah Technical College to demonstrate best practices in education and sustainable yet historically sympathetic design and construction, and to leave behind a place where others can gather to continue the legacy of public service on Cockspur Island is unique and timely for Fort Pulaski. I would like to thank Paul Hardin Kapp, Steve Hartley and Bryan Mossing and their talented and thoughtful students in allowing us this opportunity.

The Project : Summary

Paul Hardin Kapp Background Information: At the beginning of the American Republic, masonry fortifications were built at the entrances of harbors of major cities all along the Atlantic seaboard. Fort Sumter (Charleston, SC), Fort Monroe (Hampton, VA), Fort McHenry (Baltimore, MD), and Fort Jay (New York, NY) were all built as the main defense against oversees enemies. Fort Pulaski, on Cockspur Island outside of Savannah, Georgia, was a later fortification within this main defense system. After the War of 1812, President James Madison ordered a new system of coastal fortifications; Fort Pulaski was part of what was called the “Third System” of coastal fortifications.

Construction of the fort began in 1829 under the direction of Major Samuel Babcock, who was replaced

by Lieutenant, and then Major, Joseph Mansfield soon after earthmoving commenced. In 1830, Second Lieutenant Robert E. Lee, a recent graduate of West Point, surveyed Cockspur Island, managed the construction of the initial embankments, and produced preliminary designs for the Fort. In 1833, it was named “Fort Pulaski” in honor of Kazimierz Pulaski, a Polish soldier and military commander who fought under George Washington in the American Revolution and was killed at the Battle of Savannah in 1779.

(National Park Service, 2015) Fortresses, like Fort Pulaski, were effective in defending important port cities, such as Savannah, until the Civil War when technology made them obsolete. In 1862, the Union navy used a new revolutionary rifled cannon to pummel the Fort, which compelled the Confederate garrison to surrender. The siege of Fort Pulaski was a decisive moment in military history. Because of this event, Fort Pulaski became a national monument and is owned and managed by the N.P.S., which along with the fort also owns and manages nearly 5000 acres of pristine salt marsh on Cockspur Island and parts of Tybee Island. (National Park Service, 2015) Along with a highly trained N.P.S staff, an energetic group of volunteers, or “friends of the Fort,” take part in maintaining the monument and the surrounding natural salt marsh.

Programmatic Statement: The complex design will include the following: 1.

A master plan for an assembly of three residential lodging cottages and a multi-purpose entertainment building.

2.

Three of the lodging cottages will accommodate up to six occupants.

3.

The multi-purpose cottage will feature an outdoor area (porch or terrace), an open space entertainment/living room/ dining room and kitchen and a smaller study workroom and a conditioned storage space for volunteer supplies. It will serve up to 25 occupants but more regularly 15 people using the space.

4.

The complex will feature a parking area for 10 automobiles. (Avoiding pavement for this feature would be ideal.)

5.

The complex will feature environmentally sustainable features, such as a zero stormwater system, a gray-water sewage system, and low energy-use electrical and mechanical systems.

6.

The complex will be built in a modular manner and will be easily removed from its site.

7.

The complex will conform to all life-safety codes, specifically, the South Florida Building Code for Hurricanes and High Velocity Winds.

Learning Objectives: 1.

Analyze the vernacular architecture of the Georgia Low Country.

2.

Understand how to design new buildings that incorporate traditional building techniques in a historically significant setting.

3.

Participate in a weeklong workshop and site visit in Savannah, GA and Cockspur Island in early February. The hands-on workshops will introduce students to timber framing, tabby construction, lime mortars and renders, and blacksmithing.

4.

Learn how to convey design intent and manage construction documentation and fabrication.

2014 National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB) Student Performance Criteria: Realm A: Critical Thinking and Representation A.1: Professional Communication Skills A.3: Investigate Skills A.6: Use of Precedents A.7: History & Culture Realm B: Building Practices, Technical Skills, and Knowledge B.1: Pre-design (Programming) B.2: Site Design B.3: Codes & Regulation B.4: Technical Documentation B.5: Structural Systems B.6: Environmental Systems B.8: Building Materials and Assemblies Realm C: Integrated Architectural Solutions C.2: Integrated Evaluations and Decision-making Process Realm D: Professional Practice D.1: Stakeholder Roles in Architecture References: National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). 2014. Conditions for Accreditation. http://www.naab. org/home. Accessed on 5 January 2015.

U.S. National Park Service. “History & Culture at Fort Pulaski National Monument.� http://www.nps.gov/ fopu/historyculture/index.htm accessed on 5 January 2015.

The Workshops

Stephen Hartley, Director, Historic Preservation Trades Program, Savannah Technical College, Savannah, Georgia

Masonry Workshop

Workshop Procedures The Illinois students arrived in Savannah during the week of January 31-February 7, 2015. During that limited time, the students received a series of workshops devoted to traditional construction, led by Professor Stephen Hartley and the HP students at Savannah Tech. These workshops included walking tours of Savannah and Tybee Island, as well as hands on workshops dedicated to masonry, blacksmithing, and timber framing. It was anticipated that from these workshops the students from the University of Illinois would gain a greater understanding of traditional trade techniques as well as the processes and procedures that are experienced by practitioners of heritage crafts in both new construction as well as repair works.

Lowcountry vernacular walking tour The students began their week in Savannah by participating in a walking tour of downtown Savannah and Tybee Island in Monday, Feburary 2nd, led by Professors Hartley and Kapp. Professor Hartley began the session in the morning by leading a tour of downtown Savannah, focusing on the Old Fort neighborhood, the boundaries of the original settlement of the City of Savannah and the location of some of its oldest buildings. Professor Hartley discussed the Oglethorpe Plan, an urban planning model based of the early defensive structure of the city, as well as common lowcountry vernacular architecture details. The students were also exposed to some of the common issues found in the deterioration and repair of these structures. In the afternoon, Professor Kapp led a tour of Tybee Island to examine some of the vernacular details found immediately on the coast. This tour also included a visit to Tybee Lighthouse, with an examination of the First and Second Lighthouse Keeper’s cottages, as well as Hosti and Gillard cottages, two structures moved to the lighthouse to save them from demolition.

Blacksmithing Workshop

Heavy Timber Workshop

On Tuesday, February 2nd, the University of Illinois students participated in a masonry workshop head in the maintenance sheds at Fort Pulaski National Monument. The workshop, led by Professor Hartley and Katie Purcell, a Park Service maintenance employee, and assisted by the Savannah Tech Advanced Preservation Skills class, introduced the students to the basic tenants of masonry construction. The workshop began with a lecture on brick construction and bonds, along with differences between mortar compositions and their effects on historic masonry. The students were then broken up into smaller teams, which were assigned to a Savannah Tech student to oversee their work. The Savannah Tech students then introduced them to the correct procedures for mixing traditional lime mortar, applying mortar to brick, commonly known as buttering, and laying bricks to the line to form masonry patterns. The groups then proceeded to practice laying a larger brick pattern and masonry repointing techniques. The groups worked in rotation to mix mortar, lay brick, and point a mockup brick wall.

In the afternoon, the students took a tour of Fort Pulaski, led by Ms. Purcell and Professor Hartley. The tour highlighted the history and development of the fortifications found within the National Monument, along with the repair programs that have occurred throughout its history. Discussions on weathering, poor masonry repairs, fluorescence, and natural degradation cycles within the fort occurred. The students then toured the ammunition vaults to study tabby construction techniques and repairs. The day concluded with a tour of a World War II battery located on the grounds to examine cementitious material degradation as well as the effects of early crack injection repair techniqeus on historic structures.

On Wednesday, February 3rd, the students traveled to the Savannah Technical College campus to participate in a blacksmithing workshop in conjunction with the HP Advanced Materials Sciences and Metals class. The workshop began with a safety lecture pertaining to general shop safety, proper PPE and emergency medical procedures. The students then watched a demonstration by Savannah Tech students Chaklit Ali-Redwood and Elyse Carroll on the processes for making decorative metal hooks. During this demonstration the students were introduced to five basic steps in blacksmithing; tapering, flattening, barley twisting, creating a curve, and punching. The students were then broken into pairs and assigned a forge, each being overseen by two Savannah Tech students. The students then worked together to produce a pair of decorative hooks for their own use.

They completed their hooks by using a traditional beeswax application applied over the heated metal.

The hands-on workshops concluded on Thursday, February 4th with a timber framing workshop held at the Savannah Tech campus. The workshop began with a discussion of timber grading and joinery techniques. The Illinois students toured a timber frame structure built by the Savannah Tech students in 2012 to examine the components of the timber frame to gain a greater understanding of the role that each of the structural components serve within the overall design of the building. The class then returned to the shop and were broken into smaller groups and assigned a Savannah Tech student as a mentor. They were each given a set of plans for the structure they visited and were asked to scale it in half for a mockup construction.

Each group was given a specific component to complete, and were only allowed to use traditional timber framing hand tools for their construction.

The groups worked with their student mentor to complete their element to combine for final assembly. To expedite the construction, and to introduce them to the project, Professor Mossing’s drafting students joined the workshop to assist in the construction of the components. Several Illinois students took to the role of project coordinators, traveling between the groups to ensure layout and cutting was done correctly so final assembly could be accomplished by days end. Due to time constraints and because the structure would be temporary, corner bracing was eliminated from the construction.

Once the components were completed, the groups brought their elements behind the shop for assembly. Before assembly, Professor Hartley gave a brief lecture on professional procedures for timber frame building assembly, including blocking, rigging, and technical processes. After determining that some final cleanup needed to be performed on some of the components, the frame was assembled with relative ease.

The workshops designed for this project were chosen to introduce Illinois students to the practical application of three of the most common building materials throughout history; masonry, timber and metals. It was anticipated that through these workshops the students gained a greater understanding of traditional construction techniques which, it was expected, would inform the designs for their projects. The Savannah Tech students also were expected to gain significant experience in communicating their craft to their architect partners, a valuable skill they would need for their professional careers. It can be stated that both student groups expanded their professional abilities through their collaborative efforts in Savannah.

B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N : MAP OF COCKSPUR ISLAND

PROPOSED SITE

SAVANNAH RIVER SOUTH CHANNEL

MC

QUE

COCKSPUR ISLAND

EN’

S ISL

AND

HIST

ORIC

AL T

RAIL

SAVANNAH RIVER

FOR T PU

LAS

KI R OA

D

FORT PULASKI

B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N : MAP OF PROPOSED SITE

US COAST GUARD

PROPOSED SITE APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES

SITE PLAN

BAR PILOT

PARK HEADQUARTERS

B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N : PROGRAM ANALYSIS

ANASTASIA SEKALIAS

Overview Considering the needs of the National Park Service it was determined that the accommodation complex would consist of 4 buildings: one main cabin, and 3 lodging cabins. Based on research and client input, a program was developed to address the community requirements in the main cabin and basic lodging needs in the smaller cabins. In addition to the new construction it was requested that the existing spaces for recreational vehicle (RV) parking be maintained.

Main Cabin -Classification: Building Type B -Max occupancy: 25 The main cabin acts as a central gathering point for the volunteers in the complex. It will be approximately 3100 S.F. (gross) in size including both programmed and circulation space. Because of its classification all spaces must be accessible according to ADAAG standards. Six main spaces comprise the program of the main cabin: Volunteer Lounge, Kitchen/Dining, Administrative Office/Study, Restroom, Laundry Room, and Storage.

Bubble diagram showing size and relationship of spaces within the main cabin.

Space Recommendations Assuming Max Occupancy of 25 Space

Minimum (sf)

Average (sf)

Deluxe (sf)

Lobby/Lounge Kitchen Study/Office Area Laundry Room Bathroom/Shower Storage

725 195 180 65 100 60

1180 300 300 95 100 80

1700 420 420 135 100 100

Total Programmed Space

1325

2055

2875

Total Square Footage

ยง

ยง

ยง

Sample Layout - Volunteer Lounge The lounge is a space for volunteers to socialize and relax in a larger group setting. It is spacious enough to hold large group meetings if necessary. This space is anticipated to be the central hub of the main cabin, and as such should have extra space to accommodate heavy circulation.

Minimal - 25’ x 29’ (725 S.F.) -Seating for 16 max -Multiple groupings of seating -Little variation in seating options

Average - 40’ x 30’ (1200 S.F.) -Seating for 18 max -Multiple groupings of seating -Space for entertainment activities

Deluxe - 50’ x 35’ (1750 S.F.) -Seating for 25 max -More separated seating -Possibility of elevated “stage area” for events -Room for more seating if desired

Sample Layout - Kitchen/Dining Room The kitchen and dining area is where the volunteers cook and eat their meals individually or as large groups. The kitchen has appliance similar to a home kitchen, with additional counter space to work. It is recommended that the kitchen and dining spaces have the same square footage.

Minimal – 12’ x 20’ each space (240 S.F.) -Compact seating saves space -Little room for storage in kitchen

Average – 15’ x 20’ each space (300 S.F.) -Multiple groups of seating -Island in kitchen to increase work space -Room for “clean” sink and food prep sink

Deluxe 26’ x 15’ each space (390 S.F.) -Plenty of work surface and storage -Possibility of cold room

Sample Layout - Study/Office Area The administrative office is a point of contact between the program organizers and the volunteers on site.

Volunteer leaders or a permanent staff member can occupy the space in order to provide support to the volunteers as needed.

Minimal 10’ x 10’ (100 S.F.) -Less storage -Fit for a single occupant

Average – 10’ x 15’ (150 S.F.) -More meeting space -Could possibly hold two occupants -Adequate storage

Deluxe – 12’ x 15’ (180 S.F.) -Secondary work space available -Could accommodate a second occupant -Adequate storage

Additional Spaces Restroom/Shower: The main cabin includes one unisex accessible bathroom and shower.

Storage: A programmed space is dedicated to storage of equipment within the cabin.

Main Cabin

Lodging Cabins -Classification: Building Type R-IV -Max occupancy: 12 Lodging needs are very basic and limited to simple bathing and sleeping facilities. Two types of lodging cabins are proposed, a hostel style lodging accommodating 4-8 volunteers with shared restrooms or a semiprivate style accommodation 8 volunteers with private restrooms. According to ADAAG all the cabins must have one accessible unit at minimum.

Semi-Private Accomodations (800 S.F.) -100-150 S.F. per person in sleeping area -Mostly private, but some shared space

Hostel Accomodations (850 S.F.) -50-70 S.F. per person in sleeping areas -Space saving -Economical

B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N : SITE ANALYSIS

LINA THURER

Climate and Environment in Savannah, GA The climate in Savannah is humid subtropical, which means long, hot summers, high rainfall and tropical storms prevail. The average temperature amounts to 66.3°F, with July being the hottest month as there are 22 days with a maximum temperature of 90°F or higher. Annual precipitation is 49.2 inches, with the highest precipitation in August: 7.5 inches. Despite the heavy rainfall, there have been two historic droughts in 2007 and 2012.

These specific climate characteristics can be used as renewable energy sources, e.g. use of wind, use of sunlight and installing greywater systems for rainwater.

The Savannah area has always been prone to hurricanes; however, there have not been any major ones in recent times – the last category 2 hurricane (Hurricane David) hit the city in 1979, causing only minor damage. The reason for the rarity of direct hits is that Georgia’s coast is currently protected by a series of barrier islands – on the downside, as sea levels rise due to global warming, hurricanes could work their way further into Georgia in the future.

Another natural threat to this site is flooding. There are several types of flood zones in Savannah, and Tybee Island is situated in the most dangerous flood zone. Buildings located in these coastal high hazard areas will experience rising waters, severe winds and wave action. Therefore, structures must be elevated so that the lowest horizontal structure member is above the base flood elevation. Such construction usually means placing the structure on piles, and these pilings must be anchored to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement due to the combination effects of wind and water loading forces of the 100-year storm. Thus, we decided that a three foot elevation would be suitable for our purposes.

Since there is a high possibility that buildings located on this site could be washed away eventually, it is advisable to make use of sustainable materials in order to keep environmental exposure at a minimum.

[100 + 500 YEAR FLOOD]

X-Zone: It is considered outside of the 100 and 500 year flood plains. The lightly shaded X is above or protected from the 100 year flood plain, but may have up to a foot of water in a 500 year storm.

A/AE-Zone: Flood zones are common in Savannah.

These areas are prone to flood with rising water in both the 100 year and the 500 year storms.

V/VE Zone:

Major flooding zones: The flood zones are based on the 100 and 500 year storms. These storms are rated according to how much rain falls within a certain time period

Most dangerous flood zones. Homes in these zones on the south side of Savannah along the Forest and Vernon Rivers will experience rising waters, severe winds and wave action. Structures located in these coastal high hazard areas must be elevated so that the lowest horizontal structure member (e.q. a floor sill, or floor joist) is above the base flood elevation.

Such construction usually means placing the structure on piles (pilings), and these pilings must also be anchored to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement due to the combination effects of wind and water loading forces of the 100 year storm.

Probable levels of flooding if global warming does not cease: Savannnah, Ga - 0% flooded

Savannnah, Ga - 8% flooded

Savannnah, Ga - 40% flooded

Savannnah, Ga - 87% flooded

0 Feet:

5 Feet:

12 Feet:

25 Feet:

Today’s sea levels and land area

Probable level in about 100 years

Potential level in about 2300 if nations make moderate pollution cuts

Potential level in coming centuries based on historical climate data

Source: FEMA, 2015

500 - year Flood 100 - year Flood

B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N : Vernacular Analysis

ELSA REIFSTECK

Georgia’s Coastal Vernacular Architecture Architectural Characteristics: The Dog-Trot House Open Breezeway The two main rooms of the house were separated by a wide open breezeway, allowing for cool air to pass through. This is the most distinctive feature of a classic “dog-trot” house Front and Back Porches Large, front and back porches created cool, outdoor living spaces and offered shade from the intense sun Large Windows Floor to ceiling windows, as opposed to the smaller windows found in northern homes, brought cool breezes through the house Gabled Roof Generally, a steep 7:12 gabled roof was built over the main house to shed water and capture heat. Shallower roofs were built over the wide, front and back porches Elevation Above Ground All houses were elevated above ground level to avoid flood damage, allow more cool breezes to enter, and increase air circulation under the house

The Georgian Four-Square House Enclosed Central Breezeway The open central breezeway of the traditional dogtrot home was enclosed and became a long hallway, separating the two sides of the house. Doors on both ends of the hall could be opened to allow cool cross breezes through the house.

High Ceilings Ceiling heights of around 10 to 11 feet allowed for warm air to travel upward and larger windows for cool air to enter the house.

Shared Chimneys In this plan, two rooms shared a chimney which was not only economical, but also reduced heat gain in the house.

Steeply Pitched Pyramid Roof with Ventilation Cupola These house are characterized by their steep, pyramid shaped roofs which helped to draw hot air upward. A cupola at the top allowed for increased ventilation.

Light Colored Exterior Roofs and exterior walls were painted light colors to reflect, rather than absorb the heat of the sun Illustrations: Classic Cracker by Ronald W. Haase

Photo: Elsa Reifsteck

Background

Site Orientation

When pioneers first settled in Georgia, they needed to erect shelter quickly and for little cost, so they turned to locally available materials such as wood and natural materials to make bricks. The first, and simplest structure was the single-pen, one room house made of wood logs and brick. As families grew, the double pen and saddlebag houses developed, each containing two rooms. The settlers gained more knowledge about construction and how to adapt to the hot, humid climate and began building what is now called the dog-trot home which is characterized by its central breezeway. As more settlers moved to the area, the four-square home, with four rooms, was developed.

The orientation of the building on the site can play a large role in passive cooling strategies. Houses should generally be oriented east-west to reduce solar gain and windows should be located in a direction to catch summer breezes. The landscape can also be shaped to help channel cool breezes toward the house or block potentially damaging winds.

Early settlers used to tear down trees within a twenty foot radius of their house and used the wood for construction. However, they later learned that having tall trees near their home could be utilized for passive cooling strategies like shade from the sun, and wind protection and utilization.

B A C K G R O U N D I N R O M A T I O N : ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS

STEPHANIE HENRY

Code Analysis Our studio utilized both the 2012 International Building Code and the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design (ADAG) as the model codes for the design of the cabins. Building classification, issues of egress and fire code, required widths for maneuverability, standard heights of objects and number of plumbing fixtures and parking spaces required were determined (see plates on the following pages).

Providing equal access and opportunity for all guests staying at the complex was of primary importance. Guardrail and handrail heights were determined along with the maximum slopes of ramps at inclined walks. Minimum five foot wide pathways and hallways in all proposed designs were specified. Doorway widths are all 36� wide, along with the required grab spaces. The five foot wide turning radius was identified for turning along walks and in bathrooms. Doors and windows were designed to comply with specifications for egress.

The structure of proposed designs also complies with the Miami/Dade Hurricane Code.

Throughout the design process, the initial code analysis became a means to balance economy of space with design intent in order to provide the most enjoyable experience possible for guests who would be staying at the proposed cabin complex.

HEAVY TIMBER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Char Zone

Heavy timber was proposed as a viable solution for the cabins because of its fire resistive quality. In the event of a fire, the outer layer chars, leaving the rest of the structural member intact to carry the load.

Required Fire-Resistance Ratings ( typ. 4 Constr. in Hrs) Building Element Primary Structural Frame Bearing Walls Exterior Interior

Heavy Timber 2 1/ HT

Floor Construction

HT

Roof Construction & Secondary Members

HT

Heated Zone Solid Wood at Full Strength

DESIGN FOR ACCESSIBILITY

DOORWAY DESIGN

PLUMBING DESIGN

STAIR DESIGN

DESIGN FOR HURRICANES AZADEH (AZI) ESKANDARI

Three Proposed Master Plans for the Accommodation Complex : Overview :

Paul Hardin Kapp After experiencing the building site and meeting the N.P.S. staff in February 2015, the Illinois students identified the goals for the master plan of the accommodation complex. The students determined the following objectives for the complex: 1.

Provide housing, dining, and entertainment space for a minimum of 35 people, including people using recreational vehicles (RV’s, four parking spaces).

2.

Designed and built so the units can be easily assembled and removed from the site.

3.

Respect the historic nature of Cockspur Island; conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

4.

Designed with sustainability and environmental design in mind.

5.

Designed for ease of maintenance.

6.

Designed for accessibility.

The Illinois graduate studio developed three distinct master plans, which satisfied these objects but also shared common site details, such as fencing, decks, railings, and signage.

Dro

p-o

ff

in Ma in b a C

RV king

Par

bin 2

Ca

ive

Dr

MASTERPLAN 1:

OVERVIEW BY CLAIRE McDERMOTT

ast Co rd a Gu

bin Ca 2 r 1o bin 1

Ca

The orientation of this master plan draws from the prevailing, southwest summer winds, optimizing their use for passive cooling strategies within the cabins. The master plan evolved linearly, creating a strong axis of circulation within the complex. The main cabin is situated at the center of this axis, serving as a beacon of the master plan, being highly visible from the main road and has direct views onto the Savannah River.

The parking complex is placed on the east end of the axis and the lodging cabins are placed on the west, centering the main cabin as the space for gathering for all patrons.

The parking complex incorporates both visitor parking and long-term parking for visitors in recreational vehicles. Trees provide ample shading for the vehicles parked long-term. On the west end, the lodging cabins are situated in a cluster backing into the treeline, providing a cool, shaded area. The cabins are situated facing each other in an intimate cluster with communal gardens and have an opportunity for privacy as they back into the trees on the opposite sides. The linear boardwalk opens up around lowered gardens which are accessible to both visitors and volunteers, further reinforcing the communal qualities of this master plan.

Savannah River

MASTERPLAN 2:

OVERVIEW BY TIMOTHY KENNEDY

ast Co rd a Gu

C 1

ab

in C 2

ab

in C 2

ab

in

M C ain ab in

Dr

iv

Pe

rg

RV

Pa

rk

e

ol

a

in

g

This master plan is designed with a large focus on site orientation to maximize passive cooling from the summer winds on Cockspur Island. This accounted for the complex being angled towards the southwest and northeast axes. The main cabin is tucked in the wooded cove that exists; it will shelter the building from harsh summer sunlight and create the illusion of seclusion. The additional sleeping cabins, both hostel and semi-private, are connected to the main cabin by a common exterior deck. The complex is pushed towards the northern side of the island to allow for picturesque views of the Savannah River.

With each building having its own connection from the public cabin, there was an addition of garden and green spaces between the cabins and their decks. These garden spaces create another set of interaction areas for the visitors. There is also a curved pergola that frames the stage area on the south of the main cabin which serves as a connection area for the existing RVs and the complex guests. The final element is the angled entry ramp that is oriented towards the parking lot and the road toward Fort Pulaski.

Savannah River

Ad

di

tio

na

lP

ar

kin

g

p-o

Ma Ca in bin

Dr

1

iv

in ab

ff

e

C

2

OVERVIEW BY MARIA PUJOL + MERI MENSA

Dro

Cabin

MASTERPLAN 3:

ast Co rd a u G

RV

Pa

rkin

g

The organization of the buildings in this master plan create a central shared outdoor area for the volunteers of the National Park who reside in the cabins or RV’s. The principal characteristic of this master plan is its compactness, hence, the relation between the buildings and the shared space is an important concern.

The main cabin of this mater plan takes heirarchy since it faces the main road of the site and visitors would usually arrive crossing through. Therefore, this building acts as a gate for the master plan. After passing through it, occupants experience the outdoor plaza defined by the semi-private rooms and hostel which are extensions of the main cabin. Both residential buildings have a principal facade which faces the plaza and a rear one that provides privacy for the rooms. In plan, the three buildings form a “C” shape facing south-west.

In order to incorporate the RV’s in the master plan and, therefore, let them participate in the outdoor plaza, they are placed hidden in the woods similarly to how they are currently situated. This system allows the RV’s to define the main characteristic of this master plan: the outdoor plaza.

Savannah River

THE PROPOSED DESIGNS PROCEEDING PAGES

MAIN CABIN : VARIATIOINS ON THE BARN ELSA REIFSTECK

“Destination Cabin� designed by Elsa Reifsteck The main cabin for this master plan is a destination point for both volunteers and visitors of Fort Pulaski National Monument. Located in the northwest corner of the proposed complex, the building welcomes guests with its traditional cupola, acting as a beacon for onlookers. The main cabin is divided into two buildings, a large cabin, which can be opened to the surrounding deck space for large events or gatherings, and a small cabin containing the kitchen, library, and an office for staff. Inspired by the traditional dog trot form, the two cabins are linked through a central breezeway, with gardens in the space between.

With its proper orientation on the site and many operable dormer windows, the building is designed to take advantage of cool breezes during the summer, minimizing the dependence on artificial energy. The main cabin draws upon the traditional materiality and vernacular styles of the area, creating a contemporary retreat for the guests of Fort Pulaski National Monument.

PLAN

NORTH-EAST ELEVATION

SITE PLAN

SOUTH-EAST ELEVATION

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

CONCEPT DIAGRAMS

CUPOLA DETAIL

TRANSVERSE SECTION

MODEL PHOTO CAPTION

MODEL PHOTO CAPTION

MODEL PHOTO CAPTION

NIKOLAS OSPINO

MAIN CABIN : VARIATIOINS ON THE BARN

“Variations on the Barn� designed by Nikolas Ospino The main goal of this design is to create a space where all social interactions can occur, encouraging volunteers and visitors to gather. To achieve this goal, proposed is a space that is flexible, open, and permeable as possible to allow various activities. A vernacular timber truss structure creates a large volume making this cabin a focal point in the master plan. The program requirements -kitchen, bathroom, laundry place, office and walk-in closet- are arranged within the timber-frame structure, which fits in the trusses structural grid.

The program requirements are arranged within the timber-frame structure, which fits in the trusses structural grid. The remaining space provides flexibility of use in the cabin, where meetings, lectures, exhibitions, celebrations and relaxation can occur. Almost all of the enclosure is operable; this allows the interior space to have different closing options depending on the season, opening it as much as possible in the hot summers to allow a fresh breeze or closing it as needed in winter. The roof structure provides a louver system to create cross ventilation across the building.

PLAN

B L

L

K

S

O B S

PROGRAM

SOUTH ELEVATION

O

K STRUCTURAL GRID

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION

EAST ELEVATION

COMMON SPACE

PORCH

SITE PLAN

NORTH ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

TRANSVERSE SECTION

STRUCTURAL AXON

CONSTRUCTION DETAIL

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

MODEL PHOTO CAPTION

STEPHANIE HENRY

CABIN 1 : TOWER AND CLUSTERS

“Tower and Clusters� designed by Stephanie Henry The tower and clusters cabin scheme is proposed as a semi-private complex that will accommodate eight occupants. Recessing the complex into the trees is an important design element which serves two functions: 1) it takes advantage of the natural cooling effect of the shade of the trees; 2) it ensures maximum privacy for the occupants. By separating a main cabin into several smaller clusters, privacy is achieved. Each cluster is designed to house either two people or one family. Between the two end clusters, there is a connecting porch element, which allows for a gathering space to mingle with the other occupants at the end of the day.

The tower is a central gathering space for occupants from both cabins to enjoy in the evenings, while enjoying the cool breezes naturally provided in the stacked effect the tapering shape creates. A central wood burning stove provides a campfire-like ambiance and a source of heat on cooler evenings. This ‘together yet separate’ concept balances occupants’ social space with private lodging space.

PLAN

SOUTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

SITE PLAN

NORTH ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

TRANSVERSE SECTION

NATURAL VENTILATION

TREES AS SCREENING

WAYFINDING ELEMENT

TOGETHER BUT SEPARATE

TOWER DETAIL

DETAIL PLAN 3” = 1’-0”

DETAIL ELEVATION 3” = 1’-0”

BREEZEWAY TOWER TIMBER CONNECTION DETAIL Drawn by Chris Southwood

TIMBER CONNECTION DETAIL Fabricated at Savannah Technical College

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

BOARDWALK VIEW

TOWER AT NIGHT

AMONG THE TREES

OUTDOOR SEATING AREA

BIRDS EYE VIEW

INSIDE THE CABIN

DREW STEUSLOFF

CABIN 1 : COURTYARD DOGTROT

“Courtyard Dogtrot” designed by Drew Steusloff Since the inception of the project, it was the goals of both the client and designer to create a building that was environmentally efficient and respectful of the historical context of the site. Drawing inspiration from the vernacular Dogtrot, this semi private dwelling incorporates a central living space that channels the breeze and provides a gathering area for the occupants. Directly above the central passage is a cupola, which allows heat to leave the space and architecturally connects to the other accommodations on the site. The sleeping quarters of the building are organized into three wings creating a “C”

shaped plan. This forms a central courtyard space that the breezeway opens up to.

Consistent with the design of masterplan, the courtyard has square opening that allows for trees and vegetation to be planted which will provide additional shading to the building.

Traditional timber framing is a cornerstone of this design. A regular grid composed of 6� x 6� nominal columns that support king post trusses. The timbers are partially exposed on the interior with finished wall infilled between each bay. This creates a simple but elegant interior where the structure is used to accentuate the space. The exterior sheathing utilizes a variety materials, ship lap being the most prominent. The gables and dormers are finished in cedar shingles providing distinction from ground story.

PLAN

SOUTHEAST ELEVATION

SITE PLAN

NORTHWEST ELEVATION

TRANSVERSE SECTION

SOUTHEAST ELEVATION

NORTHWEST ELEVATION

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

ADRIAN DEFAZ

CABIN 2 : COURTYARD “Public Hostel: Courtyard� designed by Adrian Defaz Reminiscent and influenced by Pompeii residencies, the form of this hostel embraces and frames a central courtyard, where volunteers and visitors can enjoy an outdoor seating and leisure space within their living quarters. Facing the main cabin, the open courtyard area invites visitors to enjoy an additional communal space within the complex. Simple in structure, form, and assembly, it is straightforward in its construction. Using only timber, metal roofing, and simple windows, the design produces an assembly composed of simple elements including timber and raft structure, dowel screens, shingle siding, a louver system, and a compartmentalized flooring system.

The intent behind the design reflects the requirements of the client: cost-efficient, simple and straightforward, ease of assembly and disassembly, and complaisant with the year-round climate at Cockspur Island. Both construction and maintenance are environmentally sustainable. Other aesthetic features that are integrated onto the design include the use of pergolas as part of the main entrance, along with a gate similar to that of the common picket fence design. The design portrays the beauty of simplicity, while respecting the needs of the client.

BB

AA

2

4

PLAN

lumber

sono tube

column beam rafter

parquet flooring

louvre ventilation

finish siding dowel rod screen

MATERIAL PALETTE

2 2

SOUTH ELEVATION

4

8

NORTH ELEVATION

4

8

8

30

SITE PLAN

2

4

8

2

4

8

EAST ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

60

120

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

2

TRANSVERSE SECTION

4

8

2

4

8

2

DETAIL SECTION

AXON: STRUCTURE ASSEMBLY

4

8

AXON DETAIL

CLAIRE McDERMOTT

CABIN 2 : INTERPRETATIONS OF THE DOGTROT

LIN DRAW RENDE “Interpretations of the Dogtrot� designed by Claire McDermott

For this hostel scheme, the initial design process focused on a modular sleeping unit, emphasizing space efficiency. The single built-in sleeping units were then manipulated to form spaces of their own, creating more privacy and optimizing the square footage of the hostel cabin. The built-in sleeping units are designed with a structural purpose as well, as they support the stairway, incorporating structural columns which support the lofted sleeping room above. An accessible semi-private sleeping cabin was placed across from the hostel cabin. This cabin carries the concept of built-in units, further emphasizing the need for spatial efficiency. The space between the two cabins creates a dogtrot, space allowing cooling winds the pass in-between, aiding the passive strategies of the

NE WING ERING

cabins. Opening onto the dogtrot, the two cabins also incorporate outdoor storage which would allow for the volunteers to store any supplies or tools used. The traditional dogtrot typology was manipulated, as it was multiplied and rotated perpendicular, creating cross-form intersection of two dogtrots. The third cabin on the end of the axis is the communal bathrooms for the volunteers.

The open space the intersecting dogtrots creates serves as an excellent opportunity of communal space for the lodgers, and the outdoor fireplace is placed in the center as an anchor and focal point aligned with the central axis of the linear master plan.

SITE PLAN

NORTH EAST ELEVATION

MODULAR SLEEPING UNIT

AIRFLOW AND NATURAL VENTILATION

NORTH WEST ELEVATION

FIRST FLOOR

SOUTH EAST ELEVATION

SECOND FLOOR

TRANSVERSE SECTION

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

Fabrication of Balcony at Savannah Technical College

BALCONY DETAIL Drawn by Marion Gist, Savannah Technical College

BALCONY SECTION Fabricated at Savannah Technical College

ANASTASIA SEKALIAS

MAIN CABIN : LEAN-TO

“LEAN-TO” designed by Anastasia Sekalias

Based on program needs and the development of the Master Plan, the main cabin proposal is developed within a 40’ x 80’ volume. Within these dimensions, a 10’ x 20’ structural bay system was developed, which continued to drive the design. The structure is constructed using timber and traditional mortise and tenon joining methods. As an additional organizing element and historical allusion, two perpendicular breezeways are incorporated to accommodate circulation within the building and within the site. The program fits cleanly into the rhythm dictated by the structural grid and breezeways, creating an open plan defined by structural elements rather than physical division. The public functional program is placed near the entrance and accommodation cabins for easy access, with the private program functions farther away from the majority of anticipated foot traffic. Two shed roofs serve a dual purpose. Firstly, to add variety to the otherwise repetitive structural grid, and secondly to reinforce a hierarchy of the program within, giving

precedence to the important volunteer lounge with a higher volume. The shed roofs as a variation on traditional post and lintel structure refers to a precedent of the primitive lean-to. Through repetition and careful detailing, this basic construction method is elevated to an architectural language.

Another important consideration was utilization of prevailing winds to create passive cooling during the summer months. In plan, this goal was addressed through the use of windows that allow wind to cross-ventilate the building. In section this space was addressed by operable clearstory windows, which could be opened to expel excess heat as it rises. Ultimately, the advantage of this scheme is in its simplicity.

By maintaining a repetitive language in the space, the construction process also becomes repetitive, leading to a building which is easy to construct quickly and with little error.

PLAN

DIAGRAM - PASSIVE COOLING STRATEGIES

EAST ELEVATION

SITE PLAN

DIAGRAM- FACADE STRATEGY

WEST ELEVATION

DIAGRAM - CIRCULATION ON SITE

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

SOUTH ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION

TRANSVERSE SECTION

STRUCTURAL SECTION

The Lean-To is constructed using traditional mortise and tenon joining techniques.

Each frame or “bent� is identical throughout the entire system. The posts and beams constructed using are 8x8x10 timbers, while the rafters and braces are 3x8x10 members. Because of the span and height of the frames, scarf joints are necessary throughout the frame.

RAFTER-BRACE-COLUMN CONNECTION DETAIL

3x6 RAFTER

2x6 PURLIN

45.0 0°

" 0' - 2

3x6 RAFTER & BRACE

1 0' - 1

0° 0.0 15

/2"

EQ

EQ

0' - 5 1/2"

" 0' - 2

0° 0.0 15

0' - 2"

/2"

135 .00 °

/2"

120.0 0°

" 0' - 4

1 0' - 3

0' - 3"

0' - 7 1/2" 1 0' - 8

8x8 BEAM

EQ

75 .0 0°

MORTISE & TENON

90 .0 0°

3x6 BRACE

0' - 3" 8x8 POST

8x8 POST BEYOND

" 2' - 0

" 2' - 0

" 9' - 4

2x8 PURLINS 3x6 RAFTER " 0' - 2

" 2' - 0

LAP JOINT

° .00 30

0" 2' - 1

10 5.

00 °

2 A7

3x6 BRACE 4 A7

8x8 BEAM

3' - 6"

8x8 POST

POST AND RAFTER DETAIL Drawn by Nathaniel Leeks, Savannah Technical College

45.0 0°

3 A7

POST AND RAFTER DETAIL Fabricated at Savannah Technical College

UPPER WINDOWS ON SOUTH FACADE

INTERIOR BRACING

NORTH FACADE

SCREENED-IN PORCH

APPROACHING FROM NW

INTERIOR VIEW OF LOUNGE

INTERIOR VIEW OF LOUNGE

INTERIOR - STRUCTURE

SINGLE BAY

SINGLE BAY - SECTION

SARAH TURNER

MAIN CABIN : SHED AND TRUSSES

“Shed and Trusses� designed by Sarah Turner The initial concept of the layout came from examining the functions inside of the building and focusing on how the spaces would be used. A double-height open gathering space, which is flexible in its use, is the determining feature of the design. The other functions are pushed to the sides, where they could have a more appropriate ceiling height. An open truss system is proposed, and the side areas are composed by basic timber rafters.

For hierarchy of space, the main room has a higher ceiling height that is brought to a human scale by the trusses. The roof of the main cabin is a shed roof to allow the largest

surface area facing south to accommodate the photovoltaic panels (PV’s). The side roofs are gabled for scale purposes, as well as fitting in with other buildings on the site. Other interesting features of the cabin are the use of cisterns to collect water from the roof, and the use of natural ventilation during the summer months to cut down on cooling costs.

The front windows and top windows of the back are operable to allow heat to escape.

Lastly, the back doors fully slide open to create a truly indoor-outdoor space. The space will provide a gathering space that is interactive and flexible for multiple functions, while having as little impact on the environment as possible.

PLAN

INITIAL FLOOR PLAN SKETCH

INITIAL ELEVATION SKETCH

INITIAL SITE SECTION SKETCH

INITIAL EAST ELEVATION SKETCH

SITE PLAN

SITE MODEL PHOTO

STRUCTURAL AXON

SOUTH ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

TRANSVERSE SECTION

SUSTAINABILE FACTORS DIAGRAM

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

SOUTH FACADE ENTRANCE

CLOSE-UP SOUTH FACADE

VIEW FROM ABOVE

NORTH FACADE ENTRANCE

WEIWEI CHEN

CABIN 1 : THREE PAVILIONS

“Three Pavilions� designed by Weiwei Chen The hostel is divided into three parts, two bedroom units and one bathroom unit, with gardens in between the three cabins. Large windows are placed on the southern walls of the bedroom units facing the gardens to optimize daylight and ventilation. The traditional typology of the gable roof is manipulated, extended down the northern face of the cabin to further emphasize privacy for each cabin. The roof also provides privacy to the small front porches on the west ends of the cabins, which also open up to the surrounding gardens

The cabins are oriented to face the summer winds and avoid winter winds. In the summer, the gardens between cabins will cool the air that would pass through the cabins. While in the winter, the gardens will lower the pressure of the winds passing by the hostel.

The structure for these cabins is simple, functional and easy to build. The inclined roofs are connected directly to the floor which means the roofs themselves are the walls as well. The gabled roofs lead to actually another kind of viewing experience for people staying there.

PLAN

SOUTH ELEVATION

SITE PLAN

WEST ELEVATION

TRANSVERSE SECTION

RIDGE BEAM CONNECTION

FOUNDATION DETAIL

WINDOW DETAIL

2 A9

LAP JOINT

0' - 3"

8x8 RIDGE BEAM

EQ EQ EQ

8x8 POST TYP 8x8 POST TYP

0' - 3"

EQ EQ EQ

0' - 1"

8x8

8x8 BEYOND

8x8 RAFTER 0' - 4 1/4"

0' - 1"

0' - 6 1/4"

0' - 3"

63 .54 째

EQ EQ EQ

MORTISE & TENON 8X8

2

3 A9

POSTS DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1/2" PEG

12 7 1/2

8x8

6

2 A9 12

2' - 1 1/2"

8x8

0' - 3"

8x8

1/2" PEG 8x8 1' - 11 3/4"

RIDGE BEAM DETAIL Drawn by: Sean Roach and Dijon Lynn, Savannah Technical College

RIDGE BEAM DETAIL Fabricated at Savannah Technical College

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

MODEL PHOTO: GARDEN VIEW

MODEL PHOTO: INTERIOR VIEW

MODEL PHOTO: PORCH SPACE

MODEL PHOTO: SECTION

TIMOTHY KENNEDY

CABIN 1 : VERNACULAR CENTER HALL

“Vernacular Hall� designed by Timothy Kennedy The Vernacular Hall is a proposal for a hostel style accommodation. The building is organized in a slightly modified Georgian four-square layout having the four rooms in the corners and two restrooms off to the sides of the main hall. The central hall serves as a passive cooling system for the building. Additionally, there is a cupola that acts as a heat chimney in the center to allow the predominant southwestern winds to carry through the space. Inside the structure subtly displays itself as it protrudes from the walls to showcase the heavy timber construction. In between the structure, there are some decorative

elements, including crown-molding and wainscoting. The main hall was designed to have a large floor pattern that would emphasize the connection between the rooms and relates the space with the wooden paneled cupola above. Elegance and simplicity of these elements create the hostel to become a space that the volunteers will look forward to using and relaxing in after working. The unit provides all the necessary amenities for its guests with a few extra features that makes the building be memorable for the volunteers.

PLAN

SOUTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

SITE PLAN

NORTH ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

TRANSVERSE SECTION

SHUTTER DOG ASSEMBLY DETAIL

COLUMN DETAIL [feet]

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

VIEW FROM THE SOUTH-EAST

VIEW FROM THE EAST

SECTIONAL MODEL FROM SOUTH-EAST

AERIAL VIEW FROM SOUTH AERIAL VIEW WITH SECTION CUT

INTERIOR VIEW OF CENTER HALL

SECTIONAL PERSPECTIVE FROM SOUTH

AZADEH ESKANDARI

CABIN 2 : CRIBBING CORNERS

“Cribbing Corners� designed by Azadeh Eskandari The proposed cabin supported by six cribbing columns makes a sturdy connection between the roof truss system and the floor structure. This system weaves the sky to the ground while it adds character to the contemporary interpretations of cabins in Savannah.

As the site is located in the Risk Category II Building Code zone, cribbing columns were shaped in response to the Aerodynamic pressure because the highest uplift loads occur at roof corners. The cabin is designed to be spatially flexible. Pocket doors between units in

the cabin provides flexible strategies for guests. The four private rooms can be turned into two units with their shared bathroom, all connected through the use of pocket doors.

The cabin’s is orientationed towards the prevailing pleasant summer winds, which provides passive cooling. By locating some volume of the massing on the windward side, the pleasant southwest winds are captured and directed into each unit while they buffer the hot air and are cooled down through a porch feature.

A B

A 2

C

B D

3 E

F

4

5

A

B

6

2

PLAN

SOUTH ELEVATION

4

8

SITE PLAN

WEST ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION

TRANSVERSE SECTION A-A, S.C; 1/2”= 1’- 0”

STRATEGY DIAGRAM FLEXIBILITY

STRUCTURE DIAGRAM CRIBBING COLUMNS

ENVIRONMENTAL DIAGRAM WIND

BATHROOM VIEW

NORTH VIEW

KING HAMMER BEAM- DETAIL B

DETAIL A

DETAIL C

DETAIL D

8x8 TIMBER 3 A3

5'

31

5'

/2 "

60

. 00

°

60

. 00

-3

1 /2

"

°

7 5 .0 0 °

75 .0 0°

4 A3

8x8 TIMBER 45 .

0 0°

45 .

6x6 TIMBER

0 0°

8x8 TIMBER

1' - 2"

00°

45.

45 .

0 0°

5 A3

4' - 0"

2' - 0" 10' - 0"

KING HAMMER BEAM Drawn by William Hooper, Savannah Technical College

4' - 0"

12

0°

0.0

0. 0

0°

12

135

0' - 1" . 00

°

60

. 00

°

-7

1 /2

"

60

. 00

°

0' - 1"

8x8 TIMBER

"

1 /2

-2

0'

75 .0 0°

-2

0'

"

0'

8x8 TIMBER

10 5. 00°

6x6 TIMBER

45.

00° 0' - 1"

0 0°

13 5 . 00

0' - 1"

45 .

1' - 2"

°

135

. 00

°

°

. 00

LAPPED 8X8

13 5

6X6

1/2" PEG(4) 2X2 PEG

0' - 3 1/2" EQ

EQ

KING HAMMER BEAM Fabricated at Savannah Technical College

LONGITUDINAL SECTION B-B, S.C; 1/2”=1’- 0”

VIEW FROM SOUTH

STRUCTURE

VIEW FROM SOUTH

VIEW FROM SOUTH

VIEW FROM NORTH

MARIA PUJOL

MAIN CABIN : GATEWAY “Gateway� designed by Maria Pujol The project defines an exterior space and has a direct relation to the two other buildings that compose the master plan: semi-private and hostel cabins. The Main Cabin in this master plan is a focal point and greatly represents the design of the project since it is the first element seen by visitors and volunteers of the National Park.

The design of the Main Cabin is divided into three parts where the two areas on the sides have different characteristics than the main middle part. The sides relate the project to the

other buildings of the master plan having a lower height and opaque faรงades with upper windows to allow indirect light into the bathroom, laundry room and kitchen areas. In contrast with the sides, the main area of the building consists of an open volume with high ceiling and visible king trusses. Also, the skin of this main living room has a large amount of windows in comparison to the sides. The north-east faรงade performs as a monumental entrance of the project showing the very transparent central part and completely opaque sides.

2

4

8

PLAN

2

NORTH ELEVATION

4

8

SITE PLAN

2

EAST ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

4

8

2

TRANSVERSE SECTION

SHAPE AND VOLUME

VIEWS

CIRCULATIONS

PROGRAM

DIAGRAMS

4

8

COPPER FLASHING PAN

5/8’’ ANCHOR BOLT

#3 BAR

CONCRETE

MASONRY FOOTING DETAIL

#4 REINFORCING BARS (x4)

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

2

4

8

STEPHANIE MORGENTHALER

CABIN 1 : BARN DOOR “Barn Door” designed by Stephanie Morgenthaler

The strength of the “Barn-Door” scheme is that it allows the Park Service Staff to shutter the cabin when it is not occupied. This feature provides ease of maintenance during off-season months. The outside walls, across much of the building, are panels of louvers that allow for passive cooling. The louver-paneled walls are able to be closed with a system of smaller barn doors on the interior of each unit, giving groups of individuals the control of the wind-flow through the building.

This plan was created around the structural system composed with the materiality in mind. The timber system spans twelve feet; thus, the post and lintel system is set on 12’x12’ spanning bays.

The center bay became the traditional dogtrot style main entry space, with a unit on each side as

well as one more upstairs. The units are arranged in a “family-style� sharing manner where a family or a small group can stay in one unit with multiple beds and a shared bathroom. The last bay extends a private terrace off the back of the building and steps off of the complex’s porch down to a community area for volunteers at the site.

This scheme reinterprets the use of traditional technologies in a more contemporary manner. The immense sliding barn door is a well-used component in agricultural buildings; in this design, it is introduced for a residential building unit. The traditional timber framing is exposed, but protected by the corrugated metal roofing with long overhanging eaves over the sides of the building.

PLAN

SOUTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

NORTH ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

TRANSVERSE SECTION

ROOF DETAIL

LOUVER-WALL DETAIL

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

WEST EXTERIOR WALL

EAST LOUVERED WALL

INTERIOR LOUVER LIGHTING

MERI MENSA

CABIN 1 : TERRACES “Terraces� designed by Meri Mensa These cabins are designed for long-term accomodation for volunteers. The main purpose is to design rooms so that each individual can feel that they are at home. Intimacy is an important aspect of this design. The cabin is designed for seven individual rooms (one of them being accessible). They are thought to be the same cabins that are repeated one next to each other to make the construction simple and systematic. The rooms are small, but efficient, to minimize the footprint and the cost of its construction. Each room has access to its individual outdoor balcony. This relation is provided with an opening to the

exterior that takes over almost the entire wall in order to create a direct relation between interior and exterior. Every two rooms share a space between them that includes the shared bathroom and an entrance hall. There is also the possibility to unify two rooms making a two bed bedroom. Each room in provided with a furniture closet that goes all along the wall and includes all the necessary furniture: bed, desk, closet and shelfs. This allows the rest of the room to be free and reinforce the interior-exterior direct connection.

The roof of each cabin is pitched in a way that it gets higher when approaching to the balcony, letting the light come in and having a lower ceiling in the bedrooms.

A

C

B

B’

A’

PLAN

EAST ELEVATION

C’

SITE PLAN

WEST ELEVATION

TRANSVERSE SECTION A-A’

LONGITUDINAL SECTION B-B’

Light

DIAGRAMS

DETAILS

Privacy

Furniture wall

TRANSVERSE SECTION C-C’

TOP VIEW

WEST ELEVATION

TOP VIEW

WEST ELEVATION

LINA THURER

CABIN 2 : LIVING TIMBER BARN

“Living Timber Barn� designed by Lina Thurer A hostel is a place where people decide to stay because they need an inexpensive and conveniently located overnight accommodation. Privacy is not a primary concern for the occupant who prefers hostel accommodations; in fact, the spirit of community is sought out by this type of guest. A generously open space where guests can get a sense of community and cohesion, where everyone would feel equally welcome, is proposed in this design. Heavy timber for the construction, mostly exposed, and a second floor with a void

in order to generate an even more airy, bright space, is featured.

The goal is to import the sensation of being in a big, cozy barn. There are foldable doors on the east and west side of the building to create a breezeway that helps keeping the space cool during the hot summers. The gable ends on the north and south side are covered with horizontal louvers that leave the structure visible and let an adequate amount of daylight into the room.

SITEPLAN

WIND FLOW

STRUCTURE

1ST FLOOR

2ND FLOOR

TRANSVERSE SECTION

SOUTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

RAFTER TAIL AND BRACE DETAIL AS DRAWN BY NATHANIEL LEEKS, Savannah Technical College

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

MAXIMILIAN WUERFL

CABIN 2 : DUPLEX “Duplex” designed by Maximilian Wuerfl The design of this hostel unit for the third master plan is best described as a “Duplex”. This is due to its dual massing and interior partitioning. Because the third master plan is compact with a simple public space in the open area, efficiency in lodging space is proposed, along with personal private space. This is achieved by dividing one large space into several private sleeping areas using compact bedroom furniture units. This cabin is built in a modular manner in order to be efficient and cost effective. Symmetry in form and composition also provides efficiency in both cost and construction.

A

A

B

2

4

8

PLAN

STRUCTURE SECTION

STRUCTURAL GRID

2

SOUTH ELEVATION

4

8

2

EAST ELEVATION

4

8

30

60

120

SITE PLAN

HALLWAY

HALLWAY

SLEEPING AREA

1

BATHROOM

HALLWAY

2

1

2

BATHROOM

3

4

CONCEPT DIAGRAMS

2

NORTH ELEVATION

4

8

2

WEST ELEVATION

4

8

2

4

8

TRANSVERSE SECTION

1

BED/SHELF FURNITURE DETAIL

2

1

3

SHUTTER DETAIL

2

3

1

COLUMN DETAIL

2

3

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

2

4

8

VIEW FROM NORTH-WEST

VIEW FROM SOUTH-WEST

TOP VIEW

VIEW FROM SOUTH-EAST

VIEW FROM NORTH-EAST

3" 1 1/2"

1/2"

1 1/2"

6x6 HEWN POST

3 1/2"

2 1/2"

2 1/2"

TENON

MILLED RAIL

1/8" 1"

2 A1

1 1/2" 1 7/8"

1 7/8" 1/2"

1 7/8"

1X4 @ 5 1/2" O.C.

7/8"

3/8"

HANDRAIL DETAIL 12" = 1'-0"

3' - 2"

2' - 9"

3' - 0"

2' - 3 1/8"

2

1/8"

1"

15.00째

3/8"

3 1/2"

3"

3 A1

1 1/2" 1 7/8"

1 3/4"

2X4 BOTTOM RAIL

3"

1 7/8"

1 1/2"

1

HANDRAIL SECTION 3" = 1'-0"

COMMON RAILING DETAIL DRAWN BY: MARION GIST Drawn by Marion Gist, Savannah Technical College

3

BOTTOM RAIL DETAIL 12" = 1'-0"

Drawing for Fabrication Bryan Mossing, Director, Architectural Drafting Program, Savannah Technical College Communication of design intent and coordination between designer, drawer, and fabricator are pivotal happenings in the building design and fabrication process. One of the greatest lessons learned in the collaboration between the Illinois architectural students, the STC drafting students, and the STC preservation students was how to accurately communicate design details. The caveat, of course, was that much of the coordination had to happen from miles away and via impersonal communication methods.

This was a particularly interesting process to witness knowing that these students will be the next architects, drafters, and builders in an ever more globalized industry. The ability to communicate design intent & construction details across borders and across cultures will be increasingly valuable.

The process of determining common construction details started early in the project in order to meet the project’s goals in a one semester project timeline. Illinois students determined common details right away and STC Drafting students produced “shop drawings.” STC drafting students consulted with STC preservation students to determine feasibility, materiality, and construction techniques of Illinois student designs. This naturally led to questions, which STC students submitted as “requests for information” to Illinois students in order to clarify drawing changes. (See Common Detail—“Fence and Rail”) At the Illinois midterm review, drawings were shared and design intent was communicated for sixteen individual Illinois students’ projects. STC drafting & preservation students determined 5 conditions to detail based on material availability, unique quality, hierarchy within the individual project, and construction time. The five conditions chosen were Chen’s Ridge Beam Detail, McDermott’s Balcony Detail, Sekalias’ Rafter & Purlin Detail, Henry’s Breezeway Tower Timber Connection Detail, and Reifsteck’s Cupola Detail. Upon jointly selecting the individual project details STC Drafting students drafted a first round of shop drawings. The Illinois architecture students and STC preservation students reviewed and approved fabrication drawings that both met design intent and construction feasibility.

A valuable lesson STC drafting students learned during the semester was the importance of drawing communication of precise detail in a specific component. Working with the preservation students, they quickly learned the complexity typically required in a timber-frame detail. STC drafting students were reminded early and often that builders innately understand the intent of the component design. Drawings went through several revisions to improve accurate noting, dimensioning, and material representation before being shared with Illinois students and STC Preservation students.

The coordination between STC drafting students and STC preservation students was particularly valuable and occurred many times per detail. STC Drafting student’s lack of experience with traditional building materials, such as timber, proved to be a hurdle in completing the construction detail process. However, the close proximity of STC preservation students was very beneficial in completing buildable fabrication drawings. This emulated the common interaction, in the architectural field, between the drafter and contractor and/or material manufacturer. When material size, connection, or type needed to be changed by the Preservation students; drawings were promptly changed by the STC drafting students. Due to distance and daily schedules, notifying UIUC students of the change in a timely manner proved difficult.

The hypothesis, that this collaborative project would be a multi-tiered lesson in communication, rang true throughout the project timeline. STC drafting students had to learn that what was being drawn was what would be built; finding solutions from experts in particular materials or processes took initiative on their part. STC drafting students did ask these important questions but only after many reminders by instructors that the solution would not be handed to them without some level of communication with the designer or fabricator. For future projects, more regular meeting between designers, drawers, and fabricators will facilitate quicker solutions while drawing for fabrication.

The process of drawing for fabrication gleaned valuable experience for designers, drawers, and fabricators alike. The experience of interpreting others drawings and attempting to communicate through their own drawings was shared by all. In future collaborative projects, a more regular communication routine should be planned and followed. Bi-weekly, video conversations, which include all members of the design/build team, will make the process more efficient, specifically pertaining to issues of design intent, material, or process. Short, but regular, “check- ins” will improve communication and keep all members of the team in touch with developments throughout the project.

Common Details

Paul Hardin Kapp and Bryan Mossing One of the challenges identified early on in the design/build project was the problem of developing 16 distinctive designs within three different master plans schemes so that they would be coherent and relate to each other. Programmatic mandates were discussed between Champaign and Savannah during early Skype conversations: First, units designed and built in such a manner so that they can be easily removed.

Second, finish floor elevations were set at 36 inches above grade. Third, every unit must be accessible. And finally, fourth, the primary material used for building the units was wood, specifically, timber.

The primary features used by all of the students were the designs for a guard/handrail, a circulation walking deck, and an accessible ramp system. This detail took into account the building code and ADA requirements, limitations and opportunities found in wood fabrication, and precedents found in historic building trades. The secondary details pertained to the enclosure of exterior space. Students developed a design for a picket fence in order to identify the spatial boundaries of the complex and to delineate gardens in the complex. Fence components included hand-hewned fence posts and pickets set within 2x4 frames. The Illinois students proposed a unique traditional building detail: A gate enclosure using a cannonball and chain as a counterweight for a gate closer.

Illinois students submitted these common details on to the “Box” website. STC Drafting and Trades students downloaded the drawings and commented on the feasibility of building the details. Immediately, the issue of the profile of the handrail was brought to the attention of the Illinois students. The STC Preservation Trades Program did not have readily available a molding knife that could fabricate the designed handrail.

The STC Drafting Program proposed a new profile that was based on the knives that the Preservation Program possessed in their shop. STC drafting students drew the railing profile straight from the standard knife in the Construction lab. This development sparked discussions between STC & Illinois Students on budgetary restrictions faced in custom fabrication. The issue: Would the proposed railing profile substitute suffice? Would it meet the designers’ intent? The answer was yes to both questions and the revised profile was substituted for the proposed design.

Post fabrication was another issue that the Illinois students faced. What was the best and most efficient way to fabricate fence and guard rail posts? Students discussed with the STC instructors how to develop an appropriate post. A hand-hewned post was adapted. The railing and fence details were the first design issues solved by the communicative process developed by the Illinois studio and their Savannah counterparts.

Foundation details were also extensively explored during the Skype sessions. Students and instructors proposed several solutions that will meet the Park Service mandate to be easily removable but, at the same time, meet wind loads requirements stipulated by the current building code. The Illinois studio proposed two options. The first solution was a reinforced brick pier foundation, 8” x 16” in which sill beams would rest on top and support the entire load of the building. The second solution involved a 6x6 or 8x8 post that was mechanically attached to a reinforced concrete pier formed by a “Sono” tube. Both solutions satisfied the Park Service requirements.

The use of Common Details allotted STC Drafting students time to begin their work while Illinois students continued on Schematic Design. This played a large part in making the projected fabrication timeline more manageable. This exercise also allowed students in Champaign and Savannah to develop their system for communication and the graphic quality required for the design/build project.

0' - 5 1/2"

2" HOOK 6"x6" P.T. HEWN POST

0' - 8 1/2"

0' - 6"

3' - 11 1/4"

0' - 5 1/2"

2' - 3 3/8"

2" STAPLE

2' - 1"

5'-0" CHAIN 1"x4" FENCE PICKET 2"x4" SUPPORT

0' - 5 1/2"

3' - 11 1/4"

1' - 6"

6 LBS CANNONBALL

CANNONBALL GATE CLOSER DRAWN Drawn by Chris Southwood, Savannah Technical College

0' - 5 1/2"

0' - 5 1/2"

2" HOOK 6"x6" P.T. HEWN POST

0' - 5 1/2"

2' - 3 3/8"

0' - 6" 0' - 8 1/2"

3' - 11 1/4"

2" STAPLE

1"x4" FENCE PICKET 2"x4" SUPPORT

6 LBS CANNONBALL

0' - 5 1/2"

3' - 11 1/4"

1' - 6"

2' - 1"

5'-0" CHAIN

0' - 5 1/2"

Common Details

Fabrication & Traditional Building Stephen Hartley In discussions with the Savannah Tech drafting students, the Historic Preservation department (HP) set a goal of six elements to construct for the final deliverables. The six elements are as follows: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Common post to beam connection, in conjunction with rafter to post connection and decorative rafter tail, based on designs by Anastasia Sekalias and Adrian Defaz.

Balcony porch section with representative handrail also found a in walkway design by Claire McDermott Fence and gate with cannonball gate closer Structural detail of Wei-Wei Chen’s cabin design Structural timber connection found in tower design, designed by Stephanie Henry.

King Post Truss designed by Azadeh Eskandari.

In conjunction with the University of Illinois students, it was agreed the construction of the cupola designed

by Elsa Reifsteck would be attempted if time permitted.

The students began the project by focusing on two elements, the post to beam connection and the balcony porch. Three students, Vogler, Ali-Redwood, and Mattern (Team 1), focused on the post to beam connection, while students Brackett, Fitzgibbons, and Murphy (Team 2) began construction on the balcony connection.

Team 1 began by milling the required trunnels (pegs) from eastern white oak, chosen for its straight grain and structural strength. Trunnels were required to be milled in ¾” and ½” sizes to accommodate the two common connection sizes using the pre-determined 6x6 and 8x8 timbers used in the various projects.

Group 1 then proceeded to layout and cut the mortise and tenon for the beam and post connection as well as the decorative rafter tail. The elements were cut and “dry-fitted” for connection verification.

A considerable issue was then discovered when the 3x5 brace that was intended to be used was determined to be a defectively milled 4x6, requiring the team to halt further construction and mill the defective lumber to the adequate size, causing a day delay in production. After the lumber was correctly sized, it was determined the brace housing on the beam was cut incorrectly, thus causing the structural element to have to be reproduced, causing another day loss in production. The team finalized the mockup by cutting the brace and brace housing, and preparing the mockup for final assembly.

While team one was progressing on the post to beam mockup, team two began production of the balcony mockup. The team began by cutting the dimensional lumber used in the floor joists and rim joist, as well as hewing the end posts for the timber connections. Work then proceeded with the team dividing into smaller units, with students Murphy and Brackett (2A) initiating milling and construction of the railing and balustrade components, while Ali-Redwood (2B) began the layout and cutting of the timber connections. Team 2A began with the milling of the handrail, which was constructed using to matching milled 2x4’s glued together to form the railing assembly. The tenons and picket housing were milled into the railing assembly. The bottom railing was formed in a similar manner, with book-matched 2x4 methods glued together. The team then proceeded to mill 2x4’s down to 1x4” to create the pickets, and perform the final assembly of the railing system.

While team 2A created the railing section, team 2B performed the layout and cutting of the timber structural system. Since the assembly system was simple in design, the construction of the support system was straightforward with no major complications.

Once the first two projects were completed, the students then continued working in their assigned groups to complete two additional mockups. Team 1 worked quickly to complete the 45 degree tower connection with no major issues. Since the construction of the mockup went rapidly, the team then proceeded to construction the picket fence sections and gates. The construction went quickly, with the only delay being the backordered status of the gate hardware, causing the final construction to be postponed until final staging day.

Team 2 began working on the structural detail of Wei-Wei Chen’s design. Given the relative complexity of the connection, the students initially struggled with the layout of the adjoining timbers. To assist in their process, they requested “as-built” drawings on the design from the drafting department, which was delivered to the team within one hour of the initial request. Once the new drawing arrived, the team progressed at a continual pace to cut the mortise and tenon connections and dry fitted the joinery to ensure accuracy. The team concluded the project by cutting the required lap joints and completing the final assembly.

With the project deadline approaching, it was determined that in order to complete the maximum amount of mockups, all attention should be given to complete the king post truss originally chosen from the designs. Team one began with decorative tapering of the king post, using a timber band saw to cut the majority of the excess timber away and completed the decorative element using hand tools. They proceeded to build the lap joint detail found on the tie beam. The team completed the layout and cutting with no major complications.

In the interim time, team 2 proceeded to layout and cut the principle rafters and struts found on the drawing. The team found no major issues with the layout, however, with time running short, the team moved at a quicker than desired pace, which led to a major mistake in cutting, causing one of the principle rafters to have to be rejected and recut using new timber.

Since the delivery date was two days away, it was decided that the cupola project could not be completed in time, and that all projects should be dressed in preparation for photo staging. The students then built the staging area, and produced final assembly of the chosen elements.

Several lessons were learned during the fabrication process of this project. Since the Illinois students were limited to the materials and sizes they could use, the timbers, primary components of all the projects, could be ordered in advance from the local sawmill. This proved to be an integral step in the completion of the mockups. Ordering of dimensional lumber and ancillary materials, while easier to obtain, did experience some issues, albeit minor. The backordering of certain materials caused delays in the construction processes, and may have placed the completion of those projects in jeopardy. While this proved not to be an issue, it was concluded that a rapid determination of all building materials would be beneficial in the future planning to avoid any major disruption in the delivery stream that would put the completion date in jeopardy.

The major issue faced by the fabrication team was the limited time which was left for building the mockups after the designs were completed. While this was unavoidable, given the time frame for project completion, it was found to be a hindrance on the final outcomes of the project. Although the Illinois students produced sixteen well executed designs, all of which could have been chosen for mockup production, the limitation of the construction to six details was a necessary choice due to the five week window available for construction. The students, who had other projects to complete, also experienced the pressure of the schedule, and often made mistakes in the construction process that they would not typically have been performed. While none of the mistakes proved costly or dangerous, each mistake caused a delay in final construction of the mockups, and overall contributed to the elimination of the cupola construction in the final mockups. If the fabrication team was given additional time, more mockups could have been completed and the final deliverables more substantial.

In conclusion the fabrication processes within this project close mirrored the experiences found on an actual building site. The issues that the team experienced; changes in the drawing specifications, supply delivery delays, worker mistakes, and tight time constraints are all subjects in which the students will face within their professional careers, and proved valuable life lessons for them. These experiences, while providing indispensable learning opportunities, also restricted the final deliverables from the fabrication team. To improve this project, it is suggested that the fabrication time be expanded to allow for extended mockups to be produced. Given the time frame of the project within its current form (16 weeks), it has been determined that increased time for the fabrication team would cause concerns for the other teams involved in the assignment. In an ideal situation, the fabrication team could have benefited from at least three weeks more for construction. It is therefore prosed that this project can be improved by expanding it over multiple academic sessions in order to increase project deliverables.

Conclusion Paul Hardin Kapp, Stephen Hartley, and Bryan Mossing Outcome of the Design/Build Studio and Shop Experience Design and then construction is properly the last and most difficult lesson to teach future architects and future craftspeople. Students are first taught rudimentary and foundational skills—conceptualization, drawing, building, and computation—along with history and theory in either architecture or historic trades. Instructors then require a comprehensive demonstration of students’ knowledge and skill, either as a “capstone project,” or as a thesis. This is the typical curriculum path that students experience in the academy. Design and actual construction, with all of its challenges and opportunities, is typically a professional experience. The objective of this joint exercise between Illinois and Savannah Technical College was to introduce to students the actual process that the architect, draftsperson, and craftsperson go through in order to actually build a building design.

Architecture students are introduced to various methods of project delivery, be it single prime or multiprime construction contracting, design/build, or construction management; but they rarely, if ever, are actually asked to directly engage with a builder or a tradesperson. Communication, both verbally and graphically, is the primary tool needed for the architect to convey his/her design intent. It may sound rather simple but it is essential and rarely taught in architecture education. Illinois and Savannah instructors introduced for the first time how communication is conducted in the construction industry. To complicate manners further, or rather emulate current and future working conditions, in this project, there was a several hundred mile geographical separation between architecture students; shop drawing drafting students, and historic preservation trades students. Simply dropping by the shop or the studio was not an option. As stated, communication was one of the most valuable lessons learned, particularly as it pertains to distance communication during the coordination process. Students and instructors had to manage information in a systematic manner utilizing digital information management systems (Box.com, etc.) and video conferencing (Skype) and although Building Information Management and other digital tools for project management are celebrated as the new way buildings will be built; the “Request for Information” (RFI) and the shop drawing still remain the primary means of getting to the basic answer: How is this design going to be built?

Due to the four-month semester, time allotted for the design/build process was truncated. Both Illinois and STC students not only had to understand how to communicate with each other regarding design and construction; they also had to “fast-track” the process. Fast-tracking is normally arduous experience for professionals, it is an even a greater challenge for students who are also learning how to design and communicate simultaneously. Valuable time was lost trying to figure out how to systemize communication and project completion. Furthermore, the time during the semester used by the Illinois students to design the cabins impeded the Savannah students to build the mockups. Delays in material delivery, weather delays, and schedule changes, typical encumbrances found on any construction site also complicated project delivery.

For future collaborative design/build ventures between different programs, the following issues should be factored into the problem at the outset of the project: 1.

Time Contingencies: Project schedules should factor an extra week into the project. This will require deadlines for mid-reviews and final deliverable dates to be moved up one week than typical review deadlines set during the semester. This will require coordination between the instructor and his/her administration. Building schedules by the instructors and the students should be created with “critical paths” stated within the schedule at the beginning of the project.

2.

Material Selection: The instructor should specify building materials before the semester begins; materials should be stated in the course syllabus.

3.

Smaller exercises designed for the project: Instead of assigning the students to design a building and complex through schematic design and design development, architecture instructors and trades instructors should design one and two week design exercises that will allow all students to engage in the project and have the time needed to accomplish stated goals in a methodical manner.

4.

Assign Communication Exercises: Instructors should teach at the beginning of the semester standard communication procedures based on the AIA Handbook for Professional Practice. This should include meeting minutes production procedures, submittal logs, and RFI processes.

Trades students should be assigned an RFI assignment and architecture students should respond in a professional and prompt manner.

5.

A Distance communications plan will be developed at the outset of the project highlighting a process for Drawing Coordination, Viewing, & Discussion. A plan for regular communication will be set in place. Regular meetings similar to that of Architect, Drafter, & Builder during the Construction Administration Process.

Feasibility of the Design and Construction of the Lodging Units at Fort Pulaski National Monument Despite scheduling conflicts and project delivery delays, Illinois and Savannah students produced sixteen successful and feasible designs within three master plan proposals. Each design was elegant in design, well detailed, and constructible. Savannah students produced mock-ups of key components that communicated the intent of the design and through these mock-ups provided important insights into the feasibility of the entire project.

By carefully considering the clients’ needs and directives, analyzing vernacular precedents found in the Georgia Low Country, and also in learning traditional trades, Illinois students developed designs that were both autochthonous and practical. Dog-trot planning schemes, deep porches, low eaves, and tall ceilings—all distinctively deep South traditional building traits—were featured in the designs; this created an imagery of the complex that was compatible and distinctive to the overall character of Cockspur Island. This was a primary objective in this collaboration and a requirement, which is stated in both the ninth and tenth standards in the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation. Through the use of traditional and time-tested building techniques and details, the projects are buildable. By understanding material availability, students designed cabins that are affordable.

Sustainability objectives in the designs were accomplished through the incorporation of vernacular architectural ideas, specifically pertaining to passive cooling measures. Students designed exterior dogtrot circulation spaces, center halls with cupolas that allowed hot air to pass through the building, rooms with tall ceilings and large windows, clearstory windows, porch areas, and roofs with deep overhangs.

Sensible heating was provided mainly by the use of Franklin stoves. This approach will allow the cabins to be built without incorporating forced air mechanical systems. Plumbing using stormwater is also considered in the designs. By incorporating sustainability ideas in the architecture design, extensive mechanical/ electrical/plumbing design and installation can be avoided. Each cabin will only need 200 amp service panels, Flexible Metal Conduit (FMC) wiring, PVC plumbing piping, septic tanks for sewage, and potable water service. Electrical baseboard heating or fin-unit two-pipe baseboard radiators served by a compact propane fuel boiler are other options for providing sensible heating. This approach to architecture design allows MEP work to be as minimal as possible and thus making the construction of the cabins more affordable.

In using timber-framing as the only structural system for the cabin units, the structures are robust. In order to build any of the units, a licensed structural engineer should further design complex trusses featured in the designs, foundation connections, and beam connections. This is typical practice for any professional architectural project.

In conclusion, this collaborative project between Illinois and the Savannah Technical College is a successful one. Illinois students were introduced to traditional trades techniques, historic vernacular architecture, a significant historic monument, the designer/client relationship, and the designer/builder relationship. Savannah students were also introduced to the designer/builder relationship and the designer/builder/client relationship. The significance of distance communication in these relationships and collaboration between the drafting students, through their production of shop drawings, and the trades students was vital in the success of the project. The instructors hope that all of the students will carry these lessons learned from this project with them, and incorporate them in their future work. The instructors will incorporate the lessons they learned in this exercise into their pedagogy with the intent of doing similar projects in the foreseeable future.

Afterword

David M. Chasco, FAIA, Professor and Past Director, Illinois School of Architecture

I want to express my gratitude to the Fort Pulaski National Monument and the National Park Service for providing the students at the Illinois School of Architecture, in collaboration with the students at the Savannah Technical College, the opportunity to create a holistic and intensive design solution for temporary lodging quarters at Fort Pulaski and Cockspur Island. The students’ work personify our objective at Illinois—to look beyond current fashion and strive to design technically proficient and aesthetically expressive buildings, which serve the needs of both the client and society. I also want to express my gratitude for the efforts of Professor Paul Kapp. He continues to broaden the opportunities for Illinois students to engage preservation issues with organizations here and abroad, that share the preservation ideals that the Illinois School of Architecture embraces.

As the second oldest architecture program in the United States, the Illinois School of Architecture has a long and laudable record in educating architects to become effective and innovative practitioners.

Illinois has an impressive history in the field of historic preservation.

Among our notable alumni who have contributed to the field of historic preservation is distinguished National Park Service architect and co-writer of the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties” Lee H. Nelson who earned his Master of Architecture degree at Illinois in 1958. Today, Illinois alumni are involved in all facets of historic preservation and design preservation solutions for many notable national monuments that are managed by the National Park Service, including Fort Pulaski National Monument.

This design studio collaboration, between the Illinois School of Architecture and the Savannah Technical College, provided an excellent global opportunity for students to understand how creative ideas impact the design of historically significant built environments.

Given that the studio was comprised of students from the United States including Illinois, along with students from Spain, Germany, Iran, and China, this studio clearly expresses the global reach that architecture has today and will have in the future. It is the hope of the Illinois School of Architecture that such future collaborations with the National Park Service will continue and indeed influence the preservation of historical environments here and around the world.

CONTRIBUTORS

Paul Hardin Kapp, Associate Professor of Architecure, School of Architecture, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Steve Hartley, Director, Historic Preservation Trades Program, Savannah Technical College

Bryan Mossing, Director, Architectural Drafting Program, Savannah Technical College

STUDIO

Weiwei Chen

Adrian Defaz

Azadeh Eskandari

Stephanie Henry

Timothy Kennedy

Claire McDermott

Meri Mensa

Stephanie Morgenthaler

Nikolas Ospino

Maria Pujol

Elsa Reifsteck

Anastasia Sekalias

Drew Steusloff

Lina Thuerer

Sarah Turner

Maximilian Wuerfl

School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign