#ProjectREPgh

[gthakkar]

Tectonics of a House

There have been numerous posts on ‘What constitutes a house?’ or ‘What is it that makes a house a home?’ by teammates here at the UDBS. These questions constantly take me back to India, in the context I am familiar with, and I always keep comparing the answers to these questions to the answers that we get back home – in Mumbai. There might be many intangible aspects which might be familiar in both conditions, after all, a home for someone is as much a home in Mumbai as it is in Pittsburgh or London. But there are some tangible aspects about a house that are very peculiar to the local conditions of a city that really dictate the tectonics and have a huge impact on the way we think of design in each of the cities. These conditions can be driven by climate, the local socio-cultural values, formal values, the contextual setting, the way of living or the family dynamics.

These tectonics literally dictate how one designs a house in the city. In Mumbai, the primary construction methods are framed concrete structures with masonry infill walls, wood being limited to either interior finishes or doors and windows whereas here in Pittsburgh, its more about SIPs, steel framing, prefabricated or CNC milled wood panels, etc. The construction materials are much more lighter and modular than the wet wall masonry in Mumbai to keep out the lashing rains. In Mumbai one start measuring spaces through span of concrete beams, 6”/9”/12” walls, waterproofing, overhangs to block sun and rain and 6-8” thick concrete slabs. Pittsburgh house design conversations revolve around the 16” frame spacings, 2x4” wood section frames, SIPs, floor joists, and insulation sandwiched between walls and gypsum boards. The most important factor dictating the tectonics of a house is the weather – blocking the sun and keeping the rains at bay in Mumbai whereas increasing solar heat gain in North west of USA. The design principles change from internal courtyards and terraces to porches, pitched roof houses with limited openings. The spatial dynamics in Mumbai are balanced between the costs (value of land) and building with nature – getting as much light and air in. Materiality weighs more towards stones, bricks, wood and concrete which is expressed outside.

Being exposed to the design discussions for a house in Pittsburgh in the studios, helped me understand the vocabulary of building in the region. The value of design shifts from an idea of a courtyard to an idea of a porch culture that flourishes here. The idea of visual connectivity is reinforced as a mother keeps an eye on her child from the kitchen window while he or she is playing on the street across the house.

As the studio progresses towards thinking about schematic designs for the house RE_CON1, it is extremely essential to understand these tectonics which dictate the values of design and how they contribute to strengthening the community.

Picture above: The Chameleon house by Anderson and Anderson Architects, The cantilever house by Anderson and Anderson Architects

[cmublog]

#Repost @cmusoa (@get_repost) ・・・ #Repost @udbs.cmusoa (@get_repost) ・・・ It’s #givingcmuday and #givingtuesday2017. A donation to the UDBS will support our students and their #re_con01 and #HOMEIncUBATOR projects. Give at soa.cmu.edu/donate. . . Thank you to all who attended our F2017 discussion of HOME RECONSIDERED. #projectrepgh #tipgh #eastlibertypgh #cmusoa #cmuideate #fordc3

[cmusoa-udbs]

Place

This semester the UDBS has been working on developing a proposal for RE_CON 01 and RE_CON 02, two homes on 315 and 317 N St Clair in East Liberty. The proposal is a continuation of work from the past year. Throughout the development of this project, the studio has been continually exploring the notion of place and how place is defined. When thinking about place in the context of the work developed, we have tried to critically understand why the context is the way it is and search for a logic and reasoning behind its formation. This can then help us make decisions using similar logic. For example, gable roofs are prominent where we’re located in the Northeast United States as it’s most functionally suitable to build a roof that will shed snow and rain.

The RE_CON proposal does not necessarily have a gable roof because other homes in the context do; it has a gable roof because it functionally suits the environment specific to this place. The proposal does not utilize brick only to emulate other brick homes in the context; it uses brick to both re-use a material and translate the stories that have been told through that material. A home that is built in the ground in East Liberty, that is formed appropriately using the sun and wind conditions specific to this region, that re-uses regionally specific materials with rich histories, and engages with the surrounding community in the process, is a home that can be of this place. Through this environmentally specific, materially appropriate, and community engaged process, there begins to be a story that’s told about the home in a way that aspires to be place-specific.

[cmusoa-udbs]

As Lana illustrated in the previous post, a significant focus of the UDBS this year has been exploring and representing the ideals we value surrounding the concept of HOME. We have been tasked with using our recollection of significant spatial memories and experiences from our past to craft images of our ideal HOME environment. In developing this work, I read Swiss architect Peter Zumthor’s book Thinking Architecture. Zumthor emphasis the importance of memory in creating and designing architectural spaces. “Memories like these contain the deepest architectural experience that I know. They are the reservoirs of the architectural atmospheres and images that I explore in my work as an architect.”

I tend to think of HOME as more of a series of feelings than of spaces, specifically the feeling of safety, comfort, and warmth. I have been struggling to represent these feelings graphically. The four images displayed are the most recent spatial iterations where I’ve focused more specifically on the use of light and shadow in daily living as a way of characterizing comfort and warmth. Like Zumthor and many other architects, I hope to use memories of HOME as my reservoir, as we continue to refine the RE_CON 01 and RE_CON 02 housing proposals.

[cmusoa-udbs]

Leaving Legacies

Building off of Kyle’s previous post, I too have been reflecting on the DE_CON 01 project. To me, I have always understood the UDBS as a living, breathing system where we - the students - come in as cogs and help the system run and function by embodying the “spirit” of the system. I remember sitting in front of a video monitor outside of the UDBS office on my very first day and watching a time lapse video in wonder. The film displayed the work of a previous UDBS and PROJECT RE_ team, and I was amazed at the level of skill and craft demonstrated, both analog and digital. Each year, students like myself have come in and have demonstrated a commitment to the work and learning afforded by the UDBS. This has built a platform for new students to come in and build upon the legacy of previous generations - literally and figuratively - , thus helping to grow the organization, its potential and its impact through the collective body of work. It is an honor to now have a hand in this process.

These thoughts registered strongly with me when Professor Folan showed us the above picture during studio as the DE_CON 01 project was wrapping up. It is a picture of some of the materials that were harvested from the project, which, as has been described in previous posts, involved the complete deconstruction of the 2005 CMU Solar Decathlon House entry which has been used for administrative offices on CMU’s campus since the competition. The material is now sitting at Project RE_ occupying a mere fraction of the space it used to occupy, waiting to be re-integrated into new construction. As Professor Folan put it, the life-cycle journey of the materials is quite poetic: from pre-fabrication at CMU; to Washington, D.C. for the Solar Decathlon Competition; to CMU again for use by the campus for 13 years; to deconstruction and sorting at PROJECT RE_; and now to be integrated into new construction - and after that, who knows? Similar to how the story of the work was shown to me in the film described above, the story and legacy of DE_CON 01, deconstruction of the Solar Decathlon House, will need to be shown. My hope is I can one day walk by the completed RE_CON 01 housing prototype, point to a material on its facade or porch or interior, and tell the story that I’ve just described. My hope, too, is that my efforts - and the efforts of my colleagues - in developing DE_CON 01 and RE_CON 01 can demonstrate the potentials for deconstruction and reconstruction in order to establish a platform for future generations of students in the UDBS.

[cmusoa-udbs]

“Having one person decide what you want all day is bizarre”

The headline is a quote from Stephen Behling included in his talk, ARCHITECTURE AND THE SCIENCE OF SENSES - (TEDxGoodenoughCollege). I think the point raised, and one of the images he presented, very clearly illustrates the kind of places and buildings where we spend most of our days. In the image, the high rises are vertical submarines with no exposure to the exterior. It occurred to me that in an attempt to ‘drive towards modernity’,  many new single family house models are starting to demonstrate similar sensibilities. There is a concerted effort to exclude the inhabitants from the existing context. This is alarming in a country where 87% of the time is spent indoors. During our first RE_CON 01 comparable houses tour earlier this semester (mentioned previously in many posts) the UDBS visited new housing as well as restored/renovated housing. In all cases the houses fortified the ground level and elevated the living spaces above the street. Porches were replaced with garages. And, outdoor gathering spaces were at roof level of in the air with artificial landscaping. Those strategies remind me of what Stefan Behling so clearly points out; being inside a building with a glass facade puts us close to the outside, but we are not able to breathe any fresh air. 

“Architects could truly make a difference” - Stefan Behling.

[cmusoa-udbs]

As part of the MAPPING BLIGHT assignment, groups were asked to analyze condemned houses to understand the scale and scope of blight both physically and materially.  All groups documented materials that were employed in the construction of houses on the City of Pittsburgh Condemned Property Register to evaluate potential re-use. For example, while the vinyl siding and asphalt shingles found at 611 Montooth Street (blogged about previously) may be difficult to remove in a way that could ensure re-use, the brick at 1214 Voskamp is not only reusable but also a valuable historical asset to the region. Window and porch elements were also analyzed. The images above illustrate some of the houses our group looked at along with the annotation techniques used in Story Mapping.  If a new building is to take the place of one that is deconstructed, it is important for it to respect the surrounding context in a meaningful way. It is not enough to just use re-purposed material. The materials need to be reinvested in an architecture that honors both the social and cultural landscape of place. If RE_CON 01 is to be a positive, authentic addition to Pittsburgh’s built landscape, it must respond formally, spatially, and materially.