Project 1.0

So far this semester, we have been primarily working on analyzing precedent projects, all recently constructed and many serving as prototypes or “tests” for emerging technologies. For this analysis we are producing original drawings and models as a way of “unmaking” these buildings in order to understand how they are put together. We reviewed these projects on Monday, so now the challenge will be deciding how to best incorporate this research into our design process for the rest of the semester.

Below is a list of what were identified as the "take aways" from each project. The things that we could or should try to use in our projects going forward.

triPOD House (Carnegie Mellon 2007 Solar Decathlon House)

1. modularity

2. efficient use of space (small footprint)

3. circulation outside is important (how you move into the house)

EcoMOD 3 (University of Virginia)

1. usable outdoor living space - indoor/outdoor transitions

2. customizability. . . to a certain extent - might get messy

3.various living scenarios as far as who can utilize the modules

R House (ARO and Della Valle Bernheimer)

1. Lots of insulation is good for preventing heat energy from passing through the walls of the house in winter and summer.

2. The small house is made to seem larger through several techniques: Incorporating large vertical windows that span floors; Light colored interior walls and ceilings; Double-height interior spaces, a dynamic interior with various simple planes that overlap and allow the passage of light through translucent walls and from around corners.

3. Connection to the out-of-doors is provided by the large viewing windows and smaller windows that welcome the natural rhythm of daylight and views to the sky, trees, and ground outside as well as patio stones that appear to be the same level of the interior concrete floor surfacing over the low set viewing windows viewing out to the private back yard.

4. Local typologies are integrated into the form of the home in an abstracted, modern sense at a scale smaller than the surrounding buildings to give the home a humble presence that respects its neighbors while accomplishing a cool modern look.

ZeRow House (Rice University 2009 Solar Decathlon)

1. The idea of a system of "cores" which attempt to locate the higher cost elements (electrical/plumbing) into one localized zone - perhaps as a way of incorporating prefabricated modules into the generally simple stick-frame construction.

2. The use of traditional/common building methods as well as the inclusion of simple design moves (as opposed to relying on hi-tech, hi-cost methods) that accomplish high performance operations. This includes the use and adaptation of a row house typological model for the given climate.

3.The extension of the interior physical space, which is small, to expand into exterior spaces. The blurring of the lines between exterior and interior.

Design Build Texas (University of Texas at Austin, Professor Louise Harpman)

1. Utilization of water, wind, and sun

2. Large roof to shade smaller enclosure

Team Germany (Technische Universitat Darmstadt 2007 Solar Decathlon)

1. Jacket concept: adaptable and could be made low tech

2. Modularity

3. Repetition and variation: does a lot with one thing

4. Flexibility

5. Interactivity