Monday: Group Progress Presentations

Week 11 started with our usual Monday and Wednesday schedule. This week, the group were tasked with presenting each team’s progress. For Design Build 2024, this year’s group of consists of 12 interdisciplinary students. Each student was then put onto two different teams, allowing for 8 different teams! These teams include: Site Plan, Floor Plan, Exterior Elevations, Structure, Sections, Mechanical Electrical Plumbing (MEP) andHeating Ventilation, Air Conditioning (HVAC), Energy Model, Carbon Model

During the presentations, drawings were presented and discussed, allowing for teams to receive feedback on their documents and guidance on how to revise their work.

What became apparent throughout our group presentations was the need of collaboration between teams. Several team’s decisions relied on other team’s choices, making this process a challenging group effort to remain on the same page.

Wednesday Work Day

Coming back to studio on Wednesday, DesignBuild started off with useful insight from Professor Mike Davidsohn from the Landscape Architecture Department. Professor Davidson help our Site Team to create a welcoming outdoor area in the front lawn. Suggestions were made so that the families within the adjacent building complex (which have no private yard) would have the opportunity to enjoy several spots around a more park like landscape.

While the site team was occupied, the rest of the group began their work time faculty was working closely with teams to ensure that all questions were answered and decisions arrived at. Since students were involved in two teams, the classroom got very busy with multiple discussions on multiple topics.

One of the most important tasks of the day was completing the Window Schedule for Pella! With the lead time reaching well into the Summer, we had to put the order in to ensure we were on track for the Summer Build. With a few final revisions, the group was able to come to a consensus and we were able to complete the order.

Eventually, the Site Team returned from meeting with Prof. Davidson and met to review the suggested changes to the design. For starters, the floor plan got flipped, due to the revised parking requirements. The parking needed to be moved to the opposite end of the home, resulting in a mirrored version! Additionally, there was the need to shrink the floor plan slightly caused by the addition of a vented drip edge at the roof termination along the North and South Elevations which still needed to adhere to the 16′ wide transportation requirements. We were then up to date and moving forward!

The tenth week of the DesignBuild was unlike any other week, starting off with a rare event, a total solar eclipse, at 3:27pm on Monday. The eclipse was visible from three surrounding states: Vermont; New Hampshire; and New York, so we were given an optional class day for an opportunity to watch it. Picking up a free pair of eclipse glasses from UMass, I drove north to Rock River in Vermont where I watched the eclipse while listening to the water flow and admiring nature. Watching how the moon slowly began to cover the sun and then eventually turning everything momentarily dark, was an eye-opening experience and a humble break from the work rhythm of the studio.

On Wednesday we were back in class as usual, beginning the day with an in-detailed conversation about energy modelling led by Mark Rosenbaum. Using his proprietary spreadsheet, we went over the whole process for calculating the net energy consumption of a house by unpacking the different variable and constant components that play a role in the energy cycle of a home. Analyzing energy systems is essential in designing net zero architecture and hence minimizing the impact of the build on our environment.

While on one hand, there is a huge responsibility to build net positive buildings, on the other hand, few of us understood and had been exposed to the application of energy calculations in the built environment. As such, this conversation involving all working groups (not just the team responsible for energy modelling) was extremely insightful and necessary to all of our careers.

To wrap up the week we delved deeper into the structure and envelope of the home with a group discussion led by Professor Kent Hicks finalizing unclear components: the type of insulation, roof and floor trusses, as well as roof type. Through this we were finally able to identify the effects of the loads of each component in the assembly, the connections between wall to roof and wall to floor, and the vapor barrier wrapping the whole structure. Understanding the assembly of a home is essential for ensuring protection from the external natural elements, home efficiency, thermal transmissions and comfort, as well as durability of a home.

Unlike what we had initially planned, a generous donation of wood fiber batt insulation led us to abandon the choice to use a densely packed cellulose wall. Both having the same resistance to heat flow, simultaneously sequestering carbon, and having similar application processes. The switch in insulations was relatively effortless requiring few changes at this stage. Moreover, we were also able to use a physical model of a double 2×4 dense packed cellulose high performance wall to rapidly understand and study the wood batt assembly. The specificity of studying a constructed wall with manufactured materials was insightful and helped bridge the gap between theory and application.

Furthermore, to go with the double pitch offset gable roof of the design, we learned about a unique solution involving the implementation of two different types of trusses, both sets designed to accommodate their appropriate roof slope and load. Through the process of understanding the trusses, we were introduced to truss technical drawings and important measurements assigned to each truss including the deflection and snow load, to ensure that the structure of the trusses is strong enough to withstand the code required parameters. The design and construction of the trusses is undertaken by UFP Site Built under the auspices of Brian Tetreault and is vital to preserve the structural durability of the home and protect the safety of its inhabitants.

Lastly, we identified the continuous air barrier around the building envelope created by a thick layer of Zip sheathing. Moreover, this sheathing also aids in stabilizing and aligning the connections of the whole structure. This discussion was critical for deviating from the conventional uses of each material and instead, identifying its properties and thus, its role in the assembly.

The discussion was extremely specific to our design, bridging the gap between building science theory and actual application; simultaneously taking us through the thinking process of the assembly, from component to component to understand how exactly they are interacting. Next, we take on the challenge of designing aesthetic protection for insects to keep our walls healthy for as long as possible!

This week, we have been immersed in a whirlwind of educational design activities that have both challenged and expanded our understanding of sustainable construction. From technical lectures to hands-on tutorials, the journey has been inspiring.Mechanical Systems: Backbone of Sustainable Construction

Our week kicked off with an engaging lecture on Mechanical Systems by Professor L. Carl Fiocchi. Mechanical systems are part of the backbone of any building, ensuring occupant comfort, functionality, and efficiency. Professor Fiocchi’s expertise stood out as he explained the intricacies of integrating these systems into sustainable design. His emphasis on the importance of achieving energy efficiency and reducing carbon footprints resonated with the team, as we prepare to apply these principles in our UMDB Project.

Professor Naomi Darling brought us another invaluable Autodesk AutoCAD tutorial. As we dove into the design software’s capabilities, we learned how to translate our ideas into precise digital representations for inclusion in our construction documents. With xrefs in AutoCAD, the linking of drawings to one another keeps everyone in the loop on changes and updates and allows teams to work on linked drawings without conflicting with one another. Professor Darling’s approach has empowered us to create a comprehensive document flow with our detailed plans, sections, and elevations for our project.

Design Finalization: Turning Visions into Drawings

The latter part of the week was dedicated to finalizing our designs and setting up our working groups for the project. This phase was a testament to our growth in developing concept designs for small homes, as we refine our schematic design, and Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) System selections into practical, buildable plans. Instructor desk critiques provided constructive feedback, pushing us to consider every aspect of our designs – in this design challenge it is incredible to see how important inches matter.

Carbon Modeling Workshop: Climate Responsibility

Finally, we wrapped up the week with a workshop on Carbon Modeling led by Diana Brito Picciotto. This session was particularly eye-opening, as we explored the tools and techniques for assessing the carbon impact of our designs. Understanding the carbon footprint of building materials and construction methods is crucial in our quest to create environmentally responsible architecture.

Reflections and Looking Ahead

As we reflect on this week’s activities, it is clear that the UMDB Program is not just about designing and constructing buildings; it is about constructing a better future. Each lecture, tutorial, and workshop brings our team closer to becoming architects and builders who can make a tangible difference in the fight against climate change.

As we look forward to the remainder of the semester, we are excited to continue this journey of learning and discovery. With the foundation laid this week, we’re ready to tackle the challenges ahead as a team and contribute to a more sustainable world, one building at a time.

This week was centered around the big review on Wednesday, where each team of 3 would pitch their design ideas to a panel of professors, architects, and community members. One of these designs would be chosen as the ultimate class decision for what will be built in the summer, so it was serious business.

On Monday, students came back from Spring Break having made lots of progress on their final schemes. During class, each team was given any last minute critiques about their designs and presentation boards, all in preparation for Wednesday. Final deliverables included presentation boards, slides, and a physical model. The class has made so many models over the course of the semester, it is now model city in the studio!

It was finally time for the four teams to present their schemes on Wednesday. In lecture room 170, students pinned up their boards on movable panels, and prepared to roll them up to the front of the room, where they would present their designs – microphone and everything! The class was kindly joined by architects Adam Hopfner, Maria Chao, John Gilbert, and Chris Farley, along with OneHolyoke’s Executive Director Michael Moriarty, who all contributed to a wonderful discussion and gave valuable feedback to the teams.

The first team to go, “Loft Abierto,” alluding to the flexible, open quality that the design possessed. This team’s design was so flexible that they presented 3 alternative layouts, in addition to the main proposal. Everyone was impressed. Team 2, “The Bay,” was next up, presenting a scheme characterized by its ultra separated spaces, green roof, and bay window, connecting the home to the surrounding neighborhood. Following this group was Team 3, “Nexus,” where they presented a scheme characterized by its angled doorway, allowing the user to enter straight into the center of an open swing space. Finally, Team 4 presented their scheme called “The Eighth Sister,” alluding to its figurative connection with Mount Holyoke Range’s 7 peaks, as the house fit right into its surroundings while also being fresh and new. This scheme was characterized by its easy circulation, open concept, single bar kitchen, and particularly functional entry space.

After all teams presented, it was time to choose one of the four. Students gave their input with a paper vote, and waited as the panel made a final decision. Everyone gathered together as the results were announced ——-Team 4’s scheme is to be carried forth as the class design!

After a big round of applause, the class was dismissed with the task to think about what elements of the design they would like to take part in next!

This week we got the ball rolling with our group concept designs; each team was tasked with developing a design focusing on certain aspects and layouts of the home.  We had four groups of three students each working hand in hand to tackle the space’s layout parameters.  These four different layouts strategies were: include a Loft Space, emphasize Central Living Space, insert a Two Bedroom Configuration, and establish a Central Core.

During Monday’s studio, students collaborated in their groups on ideas and potential strategies in which their designs could take shape. We then presented these up-and-coming thoughts to our professors. After meeting with professors, we continued in our groups, exploring alternative floor plans effecting optimum placement and dimensions for building’s rooms and entryways as related to each team’s focus.  Work flowed smoothly as groups bounced more ideas off each other and with the continued helpful criticism of faculty pinned down what needed to be modified or perfected to optimize flow and space.  

During Wednesday’s studio, we were excited to find out the location of the site where the house will reside, 150 E. Dwight Street in Holyoke!  With the location now established students were excited to finally orient their designs in response to a specific location. These design and group discussions led to more ideas about ways to have our building interact with the site more cohesively. These included optimizing solar access, considering daylight and ventilation strategies within the building, locating the front and/or back entrance doors to flow properly within the site limitations and circulation possibilities; as well as positioning the house so that there is an opportunity for a future addition.  The site located between a large apartment building to the east and a traditional home to the west is owned by One Holyoke CDC. Plans are in the works to establish a parking area for residents on the west side of the site.  

As class ended and we prepared for spring break, our teams were tasked with creating team names along with a logo to help give our groups some character. Ben Leinfelder suggested the name “Baywatch” for one team that had a set of bay windows as their main attraction. Too funny! Floor plans are not the only thing that the teams need to deliver. Groups are expected to have presentation boards, physical and digital models of their designs, and an understanding of what materials students may want to implement for the Build. Post break we will be presenting our work for the “Midterm Crit” to outside architects, faculty, students, and One Holyoke CDC!

Can’t Wait!