Jonathan Lewis

Background – Problem Statement

Our 13-person integrated design and construction program/studio was assigned with designing and constructing a type of temporary home for victims of a natural disaster. We were presented with the tasks of design development, materials, budgeting scheduling and constructing the house within a 4-week period. Initial phases, preproduction went well, as that our studio was divided into groups that would research precedents and submit schematics on what “our” house would entail.

Noting, that we were to construct the house all under a $2000 ceiling. As well, due to the nature of the house-disaster relief refuse- that these homes, if they were the design were to be implemented on a lager scale, would need to be able to be constructed quickly and made from conventional, readily available materials.

Primary Duties

As described above, our studio was split into groups… mine of which was to finalize the design proposal and initiate the CDs (Construction Documents) in Revit. In the initial phase, I assisted in any redesigns of the layout, more or less redlining and completing the overall plan of the home.

During the production phase, I was assigned to documentation, via A/V-audio video - with classmate Martha Merzig. As for assisting in the actual building, I had little hands-on activity due in part to documenting and most of what could be done had been/was being “tackled” by our studio/class members. On site there were less jobs for the amount of individuals to partake in… most of which had been a type of self imposed duty to take on a tad bit more… Yet, in hindsight, I wished I had been more involved in the construction phase.

Research Issue

Our budget had been “capped” at $2k, limiting our funds to what was available. This limit had influenced the project throughout, from design decisions (building size and configuration) to material selection and detailing. Initially it seemed very restrictive, but as we progressed, it became a challenge and a key driver. Maintaining a waste management program and initiated a type of obligatory system to do more with less.

Resulting in advanced framing, having studs set at 24in on center rather than the traditional 16in on center. The footprint of the house was spaced in such a way as to take a limited number of plywood sheets. Producing a managed daily budget, tracking the amount of money and material. Keying in on knowing exactly where we stood financially throughout production.

Reflections on the Project and Engagement

I thoroughly enjoyed the whole project, with regret that I had very little in the actual construction. I feel that our studio members are a great bunch and all had much to learn and share during the project. For myself, I feel that I obtained much knowledge throughout each phase – preproduction, production, and postproduction – each being very different but in some ways the same. Meaning that what happens on a drafting board doesn’t necessarily mean it will stay that way during construction.

Where I have been engaged has been throughout all phases. Albeit, some may argue based upon my type of participation, my duty has been to wrap up our project via a “web-diary.” Creating the visual element from all images and video gathered on-site. Regretfully, I would have loved to be out at the field lab and build away the entire time; there is nothing like seeing a vision come to life, a tangible thing that engages one in deep focus with the task at hand. But alas, since now our studio has wrapped its final undertaking, I continue to process and deliver… just kidding. It is my duty in this project, or what I have been assigned to do; as it is said “let it be written, so let it be done.” 

Contribution to Learning

The whole project has been a wonderful enterprising experience: from documentation and design to the events that unfold on the ground. I am taking away knowledge that I will use throughout my professional career, especially when dealing with others… one definitely gets “more bees with honey,” and “the busy bee has no time for sorrow.”

Surprises – Suggestions

What surprised me was the tension on sight… complaining and the like, about what others did or did not do. As well, the changes that were made in the field from what was designed in the drawing. But in some ways, much of that is to be expected, “the best laid plans…”

If at all possible, I think that projects like these (at this scale) would be beneficial to the program if they were built adjacent to the Gorrie Center. Material drop-off is not an issue because of the easy pull-in at the Samford Ave. and “concourse” gate. The concourse/walkway was redesigned for emergency vehicles, so receiving a flat bed hauler, and the like, would not be difficult.

Having a project like this would benefit the students involved, finding refuse from the heat as well as being able access either fabrication lab, based on proximity, at Gorrie or Dudley Hall. Most importantly, it advertises itself, for the college… in that having passersby’s become more inquisitive and perhaps wanting to know more directing their studies to either construction or architecture.