[1]

Architectural Speculations 2:‘Structuralism, Housing + The Commons’

TectonicsAdam Richards | 11733895

[3][2]

Contents.

Tectonics Study: Cast concrete patterned tile based upon the silhouette of the

historic oyster fleet of Whitstable Yawls, 31/44 Architects.

5

23

37

6

8

10

14

1819

2021

2425

2627

2830

32

34

3840

4244

Precedent Development + Tectonics Concept Sketches.

‘Component Wall’ Concept Modelling.

1:1 Tectonics Model Concept. 1:20 Detail Study Models. The Kitchen Garden. - Solar Pavilion, Alison and Peter Smithson. - Cheeran House, John Pardey Architects. Social+Physical Infrastructures. - Quinta da Malagueira Housing Scheme, Álvaro Siza. - 1401 Red House, 31/44 Architects.

Tile Component Testing + Analysis. - Production and Pattern Testing. - Results & Evaluation. Integral Pattern Analysis + Casting. - Production and Pattern Testing. - Results & Evaluation. 1:1 Formwork Production. - Construction, Casting + Re-use. - Results & Evaluation. Finishes Process, Testing + Evaluation. Tectonics Final Details.

Photographic Analysis - 1:1 Tectonics Model - 1:20 Component Models Inhabitation + Visualisation.

‘Detail Study’

‘Process’

‘Analysis’

[5][4] ‘Det

ail S

tudy

’

Tectonics Study: 1:1 Component Wall, Sectional Model.

H820 x W200 x D460mm

[7][6]

Tectonics Concept Sketches.

Proposed ‘Component Wall’ Concept Model.

Component Wall Concept | Precedent Analysis + Tectonics Development Sketches.

[9][8]

‘Component Wall’ Concept.

Component Wall Concept | Exploded Isometric Designing specific components to provide a framework upon which to build.

External FurnitureDefining An Entrance.

Specific Components To Define An Entrance.

Extended Lintels & Arches, Creating Entrances.

Utilities & Services Connec-tion Point into each Dwelling.

Physical Infrastructures, Ser-vices & Rainwater Collection.

Proposed Timber Frame Construction Method.

Structural Components & Inset Window Frames.

Ref: Cheeran House & Quinta Da Malagueira.

Component Wall Concept | Self-Build, Structural Frame ProposalPhysical Infrastructures, Allowing Self Building Units To ‘Plug-in’.

[11][10]

1:1 Tectonics Model Concept.

Component Wall Concept | Initial Design of Physical Infrastructures & Potential for ‘Plug-in’ Self-Build.

1:1 Tectonics Model Proposal.

Component Wall Concept | Self-Build, Structural Frame ProposalPhysical Infrastructures, Allowing Self Building Units To ‘Plug-in’.

Utilities + Services Component.

Rainwater Collection + Production Irrigation System.

Utilities + Services Zone, Electricity, Gas, Data etc.

Full Fill Insulated Masonry Wall.

Lintel & Entrance Components.

[13][12]

1:1 Tectonics Model Concept.

Precedent Study: Red House 31/44 Architects.

Final 1:1 Techtonics Model.

Patternation Concept: Cast within each component is an abstracted tree scape which reflects the site location within Chelmsley Wood and proximity to Merian Park but also the wider connotations of providing social infrastructures, with the branches connecting the wider community.

Branches of Community: Social Infrastructures.

The model making process will explore to use of pat-terned tiles to link and reflect upon the Victorian aspect of the ‘Kitchen Garden’ con-cept.

The abstract nature of 31/44’s Red House will lead to the creation of a patterned tile to represent Chelmsley Wood with the process to be documented throughout this report.

First conceptual iteration al-lowed for the tiles to attach to each individual component allowing them to be changed as the user saw fit.

The second approach ana-lysed the authenticity of the component which resulted in the chosen pattern being cast within each specific model.

The model making process will explore to use of pat-terned tiles to link and reflect upon the Victorian aspect of the ‘Kitchen Garden’ con-cept.

The abstract nature of 31/44’s Red House will lead to the creation of a patterned tile to represent Chelmsley Wood with the process to be documented throughout this report.

First conceptual iteration al-lowed for the tiles to attach to each individual component allow them to be changed as the user saw fit.

The second approach ana-lysed the authenticity of the component which resulted in the chosen pattern being cast within each specific model.

1:1 Tectonics Model | Physical InfrastructuresCast Sectional Model Identifying Integrated Services & Utilities.

[15][14]

1:20 Detail Study Models.

Component Wall Model 1.0Physical Infrastructures, Allowing Self Building Units To ‘Plug-in’.

The first study model begins to explore the creation of an urban, physical form of infrastructure that would adhere to the ‘Kitchen Garden’ concept. The component wall provides a framework upon which affordable, self-built residential and communal units could ‘Plug-in’ to. The design allows for inserted lintels, window frames, structural supports, staircases and services zones which provide all the necessary utilities and connections.

Component Wall Model 2.0Entrance Components & Timber Framed Construction Systems.

The second component model studies 31/44 architects ‘Red House’ and ex-plores how entrances could be defined within the wall to help guide unit scales and densities of the scheme. The concept of the ‘Kitchen Garden’ is taken in part from traditional Victorian walled gardens. The components set within the wall share the ability for decorative pattern tiles to be attached to reflect the precedent study and Victorian period of architecture.

[17][16]

1:20 Detail Study Models.

The third concept model takes reference from the Smithsons, Solar Pavilion and John Pardey architect, Cheeran House. The model explores the built re-lationship to a corner of the wall whilst proposing a different form of timber construction. Victorian references to patterned tiles reflected within the com-ponents are shown with reference to Red House in adding this to the facade detail. Deep reveal widows and doors & structural lintel designs are shown.

Component Wall Model 3.0Alternative Method of Structural Connection To The Wall.

Principal ComponentsStructurally supportive projecting Lintels & Lintel/Facade Patternation.

‘Infrastructure Wall’ concept showing projecting components set in the wall.

Entrance study, showing alternative lintel designs & archway components.

Principal Component Concept for the Tectonics Model Review 1:1.

Structural connections within the wall allowing units to ‘Plug-in’.

Feature components sets up perime-ters and frameworks of the wall.

Cheeran House & Red House Prece-dent Studies, Tile Patterns & Glazing.

Inset Lintel Component forming opening within the wall.

Projecting Lintel & Picture Frame Window Component.

Projecting Lintel Design,Creating storage beneath.

Services void to house utilities provision for residential units.

Full Fill Insulation within the wall to minimise heat loss.

Rain water collection & irriga-tion of ‘Kitchen Garden’ concept and production spaces.

Raised planting & recyclingstorage components to help form the entrance.

Structural Connection Compo-nents for ‘Plug-in’ construction.

Larger components to assist in defining unit size & location.

Potential lintel/deep revealwindow component design.

Tile patterned facade designs reflecting precedent study.

Timber Frame Construction Method to Component Wall.

[19][18]

The Kitchen Garden.Solar Pavilion, Alison and Peter Smithson, 1959-62.

Designed as an alternative to a suburban house, building upon existing ‘found’ structures, such as a traditional Victorian Walled garden. The house uses contemporary, prefabricated materials whilst being supported by the stone wall. The ‘Kitchen Garden’ concept seeks to propose a similar form of architecture. Where by the infrastructure is designed with integral compo-nents embedded within to allow future self build structures to ‘plug in’.

Cheeran House, John Pardey Architects, 2014.

The design of Cheeran House is defined by a listed, one acre Victorian Walled Garden. The main body of the house engages with the walled gar-den, sitting on and within the Southern wall, creating glazed openings that provide glimpses of the garden beyond. The house creates two worlds, that of a courtyard house to the South and a walled garden to the North. These ideals will feedback into the design of the ‘Kitchen Garden’ concept.

[21][20]

Social+Physical Infrastructures.Quinta da Malagueira Housing Scheme, Álvaro Siza, 1973-77.

Qunita da Malagueira forms 1200 social housing units in Évora, Portugal, each of a terraced, courtyard design. Critically to the concept of introducing social and physical infrastructures within the ‘Kitchen Garden’ concept. The precedent includes an elevated network of conduits that distribute water and electricity much like a miniature aqueduct. The individual properties connect to the infrastructure which forms a series of colonnaded terraces archways.

1401 Red House, 31/44 Architects, 2017.

31/44 Architects designed Red House, terminates the end of a traditional terraced row of Victorian Houses. The objective was to create a dwelling that references the character and rhythm off the Victorian terrace whilst veering away from any kind of inauthenticity in its decoration. The use of pigmented concrete tiles and archways references the patterned thresholds of the neigh-bouring properties using similar tectonic testing processes.

[23][22] ‘Pro

cess

’

“I’m always amazed once you take photos of a model how different they look, and what

different information they provide compared with the model itself. Even if you have the

model sitting here and the picture here, you can have completely different perceptions

of space. I think that if you take pictures of this, you are able to get a better idea of the

sequence of movements through the spaces, or the way the materials are applied to the

spaces, and also the scale of the art in comparison with the spectators.”

Yaneva, A (2009) The making of a building: A pragmatist approach to architecture.

[25][24]

Tile Component Testing + Analysis.Production + Pattern Testing.

The ‘Kitchen Garden’ is the principal concept of the project and is based upon the Victorian Walled Gardens of the past. The Victorian connection transfers into housing through the Red House Precedent. The use of Pat-tern and decorative component parts within the scheme have been explored through the tectonics model work and material testing. Geometric shapes of the precedent have been replaced with natural materials to reflect the site.

Pattern Testing. Geometric patterns inspired by the precedent study, leading to natural forms that would better reflect Chelmsley Wood, incorporating planting and branches, to reflect the wood and conceptual social connections.

Precedent Study31/44 Architects, Red House.

Testing geometric & naturalpatterns within plywood form-work using rolled clay.

Testing natural materials, linked to the Chelmsley Wood site & social infrastructure concept.

Results + Evaluation.

The modelling and testing processes explored the potential of creating ter-racotta tiles for use within the key component parts of the project. It began with the use of creating traditional plywood form-works and rolling clay over a pattern. This then developed to using red clay and more natural patterns. Finally resulting in using red clay, kiln dried and instead of pressing the pat-terns directly into the clay these we rastered directly onto the tiles.

Testing hard modelling clay, failed to form an accurate

impression of the patterns.

Red clay was much softer which gave a more accurate definition & better colour to resemble the

components terracotta finish.

Red clay plane tiles, kiln dried and then laser rastered patterns.

Issues with an even etch if the tile wasn’t perfectly flat.

[27][26]

Integral Pattern Analysis + Casting.Production + Pattern Testing.

The concept of creating tiles to attach to the components changed here at this point. It was felt that having the pattern cast within each component would add a greater level of authenticity. The process then began to explore

how a natural pattern could be cast within the chosen 1:1 tectonics model. x3 natural patterns were chosen each with varying degrees of complexity as shown, and using a variety of methods to laser cut or raster onto differing

3mm laser cut ply pattern pressed into a clay finish. Failed due to a lack of strength in the material when removed.

Rastered and laser cut pattern analysis, two levels of detail.

Chosen pattern set within 1:1 formwork to be plaster cast.

Testing a rastered image, set within formwork, using plaster

to create a more accurateimpression.

Heavily waxed rastered pattern to be set within final formwork

& 1:1 tectonics model.

2nd Pour of 1:1 model including inset tree detail pattern. 1st pat-

tern required more definition.

Results + Evaluation.

1, 2 & 3 Stage rastered image onto ply + laser cut onto 1, 3 & 5mm Ply.

Failures during the clay press meth-od, too much detail and weakness in the material. & pattern chosen.

Vacuum forming was discounted due to the underlying pattern. Waxed rastered images were deemed suitable.

depths of material. Different methods were used from pressing the chosen pattern into clay, creating a form-work and casting the piece, vacuum form-ing the pattern to create a negative. Through failures shown here, the middle of the pattern was chosen and following a great deal of testing the best way to achieve the desired effect was to raster the image multiple times, creating the depth on a piece of ply & inserting it into the mould to be waxed and cast.

Rastered pattern testing, x3 levels of detail using varying strength & speed passes of the laser cutter.

Rastered patterns then used to create plaster impressions.Reveals a very subtle detail.

Laser cut pattern testing using different wood types & depths. Issues over the strength of the

pattern once cut.

Comparison between a laser cut & rastered pattern. The laser cut

ply fails due to the weakness in the material once damp.

[29][28]

1:1 Formwork Production.Construction, Casting + Re-use.

The 1:1 tectonics model required a great deal of planning. The decision to use plaster required a large amount of time in creating the formwork and lining it in acetate to create as smooth a finish as possible. The formwork was then oiled and lined with clay to ease the models extraction and avoid any plaster leaks. The strength of the formwork has allowed for multiple models. Each pour used approximately 38 lbs of plaster & 24 pints of water.

1:1 Tectonics Formwork. 18mm plywood coated in acetate to create a smooth finish.

Internal blocks to reducematerial use and model weight. Created complexities in how to remove once the plaster was set.

Structural supports added to create a spine to avoid the model cracking once dried & standing.

Each section of the formwork was labelled to assist in re-use.

Speed of the plaster pour was critical and help was on hand.

Base used to create a smooth finish and allowed the formwork to be screwed from underneath, assisting in its removal once the

plaster was poured.

To reduce the mass of the 1:1 model, x3 large openings were inserted to cre-ate a 4cm band of plaster to form the overall model. To improve the models structure x2 metal bars were hung internally and set within the oak base. The model shows the service void and larger area for the supporting brickwork, as well as the angled water collection zone at the top of the model. x2 pours were completed to improve the detail of the pattern & overall model finish.

1st plaster pour used terracotta dye within the mix. Model failed due to the ink turning a deep orange and bleeding from the surface.

1st plaster pour following its re-moval from the formwork, slight peach finish turned to the image above overnight.

Metal rod hung within the mould to create a spine to in-crease the models strength.

2nd plaster pour using the same mould, re-acetated. No dye, final

finish to be tested.

Rain Water Run-off,To be copper lined.

Void to reduce model mass.

Service void, To show suspended copper pipe work.

[31][30]

1:1 Formwork Production.Results + Evaluation.

The 1:1 Tectonics model culmi-nated in the final poured model being wet sanded and imperfec-tions being smoothed out and then washed with layers of terra-cotta dye and left to dry.

The testing process informed and evolved the production of the tec-tonics model. Additional finishing testing was conducted due to the issues faced with the first model.

Potential alterations could of been made to the formwork to further reduce the weight by using a n in-ternal foam core.

The Tectonics model also includes a section of 45 degree brickwork informing the exterior face of the component wall.

The original testing of the brick-work dint allow for movement within the plaster model. This split the wood and could of cracked the model.

The 2nd attempt included 5mm black foam board mortar joints which provided compression to account for the movement within the model. A free floating spine holds the bricks in place.

[33][32]

Finishes Process, Testing+Evaluation.

Vacuum Forming.

Clay Stamp Moulding.

Testing of the finish of the tectonics model following the 2nd pour was nec-essary in order to reduce the risk of the finish failing to adhere to the plaster. A series of tests were created using timber formwork, clay stamping and vac-uum forming to create mini test pieces upon which to test a series of finishes.

Timber Formwork.Timber formwork matching the 1:1 tectonics model. Lined with tape with detail impression. Oiled ready to be plaster cast.

An alternative to timberformwork, creating a miniature form of the tectonicsmodel, chamfering the edges and stamping it into a clay press.

Vacuum forming as a meth-od of testing failed due to the depth and detail required. The intention was to create multiple examples to quickly plaster pour several test pieces.

Clay Stamping Finishes.

Plaster Cast Finish Testing.

In order for the clay stamp process to work effectively the edges of the stamp had to have a small chamfer. Although this process produced some accurate test pieces the final marquettes could not stand vertically and as such the process was classed as a failure.

The finishes testing was valuable in taking finishes such as red clay, bootpolish, acrylic paint and terracotta dye and testing ratios to water anddifferent types of applicator from paint brushes, cotton rags and sponges.

Results:- The watered down 1/10 red clay failed to provide a quality finish the 1/2 ratio did, the problem was the length of time it took to achieve this.- The dark tan polish failed due to it drying purple.- The acrylic was the first choice before the testing but was too thick a consistency and brush strokes were easily visible.- The terracotta dye watered down 1/5 showed too many brush strokes, and using a cotton rag as a 1/1 ratio also left a streaky finish. The chosen finish was a 1/1 dye ratio but tested with a sponge, applied very thin in multiple layers.

Terr

acot

ta C

lay

Wat

ered

Dow

n 1/

10.

Red

Cla

yW

ater

ed D

own

1/2.

Dar

k Ta

n Bo

ot P

olish

Cot

ton

App

licat

or.

Terr

acot

ta A

cryl

ic P

aint

Brus

hed.

Terr

acot

ta D

yeW

ater

ed D

own

1/5.

Brus

hed

& la

yere

d on

to su

rface

.

Terr

acot

ta D

yeW

ater

ed D

own

1/1.

Cot

ton

App

licat

or, D

ried

& L

ayer

ed.

[35][34]

Tectonics Final Details.

Copper Detailing.

The copper detailing principally involves indicating the services zone and the rain water collection gulley of the tectonic model. The model shows two polished copper pipes suspended and inferring the utilities whilst cop-per sheet is bent to form a drip detail and finishing detail to the model.

45° Brickwork.

The Brickwork provides context to the tectonic model. Testing the original black brickwork did not allow for movement in the plaster, forcing it to break. The 2nd test using C&C ply added 5mm foam to each brick to

account for movement but the block lent forwards. A free floating wooden spine was added with bracing to each brick to limit horizontal movement. Finishing test-ing was then also completed using various Staines.

[37][36] ‘Ana

lysi

s’

“At OMA I observed a continuous transmission of information among the different

visuals, zooming into details and zooming out to the bigger representation with more

contextual elements, converting the imperceptible traces of the image into the foam

features of the model; context into content.” Yaneva, A (2009) The making of a building: A

pragmatist approach to architecture.

[39][38]

1:1 Tectonics Model.

Photographic Analysis.

Patternation Concept,Abstracted Tree Design To Link The Site,Community & Social Infrastructures.

Integrated SteelworkCreating A Structural Spine To The Model.

Indicative Rain Water Collection & Irrigation System.

Copper Lined & Cut GlassDetailing.

Insulation Voids Designed To Reduce Model Mass.

40mm Width, Minimal Use of Plaster, Terracotta Dyed.

W200mm

H82

0mm

D460mm

Service Zone Providing Utilities To EachResidential Dwelling.

45° Brickwork Design, Used To Sup-port Model. Inc. 5mm Foam Motar Joints To Allow For Movement.

[41][40]

Photographic Analysis.1:20 Component Models.

Chosen tectonics component identifying rainwater collec-tion & services zone. Fully insulated infrastructure.

Indicative community self-build housing. Typical timber framework plugging into the infrastructure concept.

Variation in construction methods, building ‘On’ or ‘Within’ the wall con-cept. Proposed window & lintel concepts referencing precedent studies.

Principle infrastruc-ture component shown with services & rainwater collection.

Tectonics Concept Models

Indicative entrance compo-nents set within the wall. Ref-erencing 31/44’s Red House.

Proposed corner infill construction. ‘Build-ing Upon The Wall’ Referencing Cheeran House & Solar Pavilion.

Alternative deep reveal entrance design with patterned structural lintel details.Facade details from Cheeran House.

Typical principle street, resi-dential frontage. Built form-work defined by design code.

[43][42]

Inhabitation + Visualisation.

Tectonics Concept Model | Scale 1:1 Tectonics Component Visualisation.

The techtonic model is shown within a sectional, contextual image, identifying its place within the wall alongside additional lintel and corbel terracotta com-ponents. The inhabitation of the image shows the construction of a self-build dwelling connecting to the physical piece of infrastructure.

[45][44]

Inhabitation + Visualisation.

Tectonics Context Visualisation.

[46]

‘Tectonics’Adam Richards | 11733895 | June. 2018 | ARC7210