Design Research Work
The main method used to test the research idea is drawing. The most developed housing cluster from the Semester Two design project is brought forward and trialled through drawings. Elements of this part of the proposal are re-drawn with the shearing layers diagram in mind. The techniques of previously mentioned, Kahn, Muybridge and Maray were first deployed as a means of capturing movement through experimental architectural representation. Kahn’s work uses the layering methods discussed. Muybridge and Maray are concerned with recording movement in space through the ‘number of transformations’ and ‘freeze frame’ methods mentioned by Latour (Latour, 2017 p.80).
|
Next, the traditional ‘static’ architectural drawings are tested. Drawings were layered, again and again. This attempted to embed a time element within the drawings and assess the longevity and potential movement of each component at their various speeds. Duffy remarks, "Thinking about buildings in this timeladen way is very practical" (Brand, 1995, p.17). These drawings could be characterised as process or projective.
|
As these drawings were created, they were continuously discussed, critiqued, re-drawn and sketched over to develop further in an iterative cycle to drive forward the research project. It was determined that when rationalising the relationship between the buildings and trees present, drawings needed to present a feedback loop in order to capture the change and how it happens. The aim is not just to show artefact, but a process. While the drawings project towards the future, two elements of building responsiveness become evident. These being, the building element’s responsiveness and the design process responsiveness.
A drawing process is developed to chart the change in order to determine the building’s response. A series of drawings were created, charting aspects of the trees in relation to the Semester Two design scheme. Drawings were made to represent tree growth. A limit of 20 years was derived from the arboricultural assessment (Arborist Associates Ltd, 2019, p.1) of an active housing development under South Dublin County Council in order to provide parameters. The development deals with buildings in close proximity to existing trees in order to achieve required densities (South Dublin County Council, 2020).
A drawing process is developed to chart the change in order to determine the building’s response. A series of drawings were created, charting aspects of the trees in relation to the Semester Two design scheme. Drawings were made to represent tree growth. A limit of 20 years was derived from the arboricultural assessment (Arborist Associates Ltd, 2019, p.1) of an active housing development under South Dublin County Council in order to provide parameters. The development deals with buildings in close proximity to existing trees in order to achieve required densities (South Dublin County Council, 2020).
All section drawings dealing with aspects of existing trees in relation to Semester Two housing cluster layered up (20 year duration of root and tree growth, seasonal shading, services, council policy). Drawing is sketched over to see how forms may change and buildings could become more responsive to trees over time.
|
The same investigations carried out in plan.
|
The unpredictability of these changes over time was accepted in order to move forward. Zeroing in on some aspects of predictability was possible. This included changes in daylighting and overshadowing resulting from existing trees, coupled with seasonal changes, careful mapping of the roots as they grow over time and where they may intersect with service routes underground. In order to develop these drawings an understanding of root systems was imperative: ‘most individual trees of the same species growing in the same stand are connected to each other through their root systems’ (Wohlleben, 2017, p.3). Trees understand that it is advantageous to work together and once connected, via their roots, they will exchange nutrients (Wohlleben, 2017, p.4). The final drawing encapsulated all aspects of the tree in relation to the design. There is also a layer illustrating council policy regarding tree proximity and removal of original trees. If they are structurally unstable or decaying then they are to be replaced (South Dublin County Council, 2015, p.26, 34).
It became clear that the building structure and skin (shearing layers) had to be re-addressed in the drawings. This ecological thinking through the design process could take notes from the order of the tree and the order of the architecture could become more responsive to this. It is also clear from the previous drawings that multiple foundations and services are intertwining with roots and churning up the ground. A number of sketches were made to think through this issue.
It became clear that the building structure and skin (shearing layers) had to be re-addressed in the drawings. This ecological thinking through the design process could take notes from the order of the tree and the order of the architecture could become more responsive to this. It is also clear from the previous drawings that multiple foundations and services are intertwining with roots and churning up the ground. A number of sketches were made to think through this issue.
Thought process: sketching, original design churning up the ground with many foundations.
|
Thought process: sketching to think about tree proximity, inhabitant’s proximity and interaction with trees.
|
Architectural order responding to tree order. Foundations touching ground as little as possible. Still achieve close proximity between buildings and trees.
|
Following the documenting of this thought process, I now refer back to the order of the tree. Tudge simply states that: ‘a tree is a big plant with a stick up the middle – and [that] is not an easy thing to be’ (Tudge, 2006, p.60). Tudge also provides additional clarity on the structure of a tree: ‘A big horizontal branch puts enormous strain on the point of contact with the trunk in broadleaf trees, such as oaks’ and often at ‘the base of the branch where it meets the trunk, it is… oval [shaped]: the branch beneath is holstered by compression wood, like a corbel in a cathedral holding up a beam’ (Tudge, 2006, p.88).
A universal building system could be established with two articulations. The first being the original structure design from Semester Two, where timber pile foundations can be added beside the original ones if extra support is needed. If the roots cause gradual ground movement, this structural strategy can be used where proximity to trees is very close. The second articulation could take the form of a platform structure that touches the ground minimally and still maintains a close relationship to trees. The raised platform foundations would allow for the six metre radius distance that the root protection area that council policy outlines (BSI Standards Publication 2012, p.4). Services could also be brought above ground through the interstitial platform structure and move up into the building, avoiding interference with the root protection area. Services being taken out of the ground and up the building allows the architectural order to respond to the order of the tree: ‘most trees draw water up from the ground through the conducting vessels of the xylem, coursing through their trunks and branches (Tudge, 2006, p.255).
A universal building system could be established with two articulations. The first being the original structure design from Semester Two, where timber pile foundations can be added beside the original ones if extra support is needed. If the roots cause gradual ground movement, this structural strategy can be used where proximity to trees is very close. The second articulation could take the form of a platform structure that touches the ground minimally and still maintains a close relationship to trees. The raised platform foundations would allow for the six metre radius distance that the root protection area that council policy outlines (BSI Standards Publication 2012, p.4). Services could also be brought above ground through the interstitial platform structure and move up into the building, avoiding interference with the root protection area. Services being taken out of the ground and up the building allows the architectural order to respond to the order of the tree: ‘most trees draw water up from the ground through the conducting vessels of the xylem, coursing through their trunks and branches (Tudge, 2006, p.255).
Platform structure that works with or original design (at either end of elevation). Services brought above ground and less foundations (helical steel piles)
The next step is breaking away from the Semester Two original site footprint. The combined building system was tested to determine whether it could achieve close, but appropriate, proximity to the existing trees on the site in relation to council policy. The design process and building configurations are changing as a result of testing the traditional static drawing methods and factoring longevity into the drawings. Layering has served as the leading method of research thus far, but this now has to be amalgamated and rationalised. Under-croft spaces are becoming more important. Sunlight, services, and perhaps, tree and building proximity are starting to develop a complex matrix.
Original Semester 2 Site Plan.
Breaking free from Semester Two site layout, before bound by very specific programme brief. Placing new foundations as close to trees as is allowable according to council policy and determining spans to establish the new footprint.
|
Highlighting foundations in Semester Two design and drawing root protection area around each of the 48 existing trees on site (BSI Standards Publication, 2012, p.20).
Ground level latest footprint. Emphasising the ground and under croft conditions.
|
From discussions with the Executive Superintendent of the Parks Department in South Dublin County Council, it was recommended that it is best practice to deal carefully with existing trees in proximity to new buildings from the construction stages. The British Standards for Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction document was referenced as well as the Living with Trees South Dublin County Council’s Tree Management Policy 2015-2020 document. At the outset of construction, a root barrier must be erected around trees, each root protection area should have a minimum radius of six metres (BSI Standards Publication 2012, p.4). Services should also be routed outside of this zone (BSI Standards Publication 2012, p.28). The Semester Two design continuously invades the root protection area, thus, the research project now follows the trajectory of revising the site plan and incorporating the new building system.
Through structure workshop consultations with the structural engineer in Technological University Dublin and steel construction references, it was determined that a light steel structural system could be tied to the Semester Two timber housing units. This was best practice in order to achieve the closest proximity to trees and achieve structural stability (SteelConstruction.info, 2021). A light steel structure proved to be the most economic use of materials and allowed higher densities to be achieved. A timber structure would be very heavy and less flexible, much steel connections would have been needed to join elements (Trada, 2016, p.72).
|
The drawings that synthesised the series of trialling and grappling with the research questions through drawing present a radical structure. It is elevated above the ground, services are raised and staircases ascend into the units. The building form was adapted to allow tree canopies grow into external spaces and dwellers could interact with the elevated parts of the tree while inside the elevated parts of the building. Drawings were produced that examined three conditions across the site.