reorientation
The interim review of the project went well. I argued that, although architects do not like to think about the suburbs, and although this sentiment is in some senses justified by the fact that speculators, not architects, have been in charge of the suburbs from layout and infrastructure to the shape of the houses since the very beginning–despite this, I believe the architectural dismissal of the suburbs on aesthetic grounds is about to become irrelevant.
My critics appreciated my research and the thoroughness of my investigation and explanation of the basis for the project.
They wondered how I planned to move forward, and I realized that I had completely forgotten to talk about this project being an exercise in sustainable re-design. I didn’t even mention sustainability.
So, retrofitting suburban houses–my critics saw this moving forward as a study of demographics, of what people want (or are likely to want) in their homes, taking into consideration the size and makeup of families, and then building a suburb to accommodate them, and building it green.
They suggested that I take into consideration what would draw people to want to re-inhabit abandoned houses; how to sell the worth of the idea of retrofitting an existing structure, make it desirable. How to sell retrofit, in order to avoid greenfield development.
My adviser, on the other hand, saw it in almost the opposite way; instead of basing my design on demographics, he interprets my project as a kind of eco-Frank Gehry exercise, where I do whatever it takes to reach zero-energy, and whatever it looks like is the aesthetic I present. As he put it, “domestic flexibility and energy are driving this thing; if it pushes aesthetics while doing so then so be it.”
For me, this project is about where those two intersect. Or more accurately, it’s about zero-energy, as informed by the variables which in 2010 we now know, including such things as potential demographics, and high performing landscape modifications.
The following are some ideas in order of my interest in them:
1. what does a retrofit home look like
2. what are the systems that go into it
3. if all the houses had these modifications, what kind of energy savings and livability improvements does it add up to
4. how much do they cost the residents
5. could the costs be put on a sliding scale
6. how do the modifications complement the families who live there
7. what kind of infrastructure improvements do they slot into, what the high performance landscape looks like*
Things that would make me happy at the final review would be cool renderings of spaces, and “sweet infographics” illustrating systems at a couple of different levels.
So I guess my first priority is to choose a home and design a retrofit, then diagram how it works, calculate loads and savings, cost, and how this works out for the people likely to live there as the sub/exurbs are re-inhabited.
Design thoughts:
-flexibility of space is useful to a wide variety of inhabitants
-flexibility of space with regard to seasonal use is a feature of zero-energy design
-need a catalogue of moves to apply to a basic plan/section
-uniqueness comes from applying a series of moves, which are oriented according to the cardinal directions, to a series of plans, which are oriented to their cul-de-sacs
Things still bugging me:
-I’m concerned about maintaining a balance between designing for a target market, which can be a powerful driving force and a great design motivator, as evidenced by the Solar D house; and designing a series of modifications that could be widely applied across a lot of suburban cookie-cutter housing. In other words, the balance between specificity and broad applicability.
*Wait a sec, if I’m reusing a neighborhood instead of designing a new neighborhood, then it doesn’t matter what optimal, high-performance neighborhood design looks like…or at least, I don’t need to waste time researching it.
No Comments
No comments yet.
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.