Background – Problem
Statement
Our thirteen-person
integrated design studio was tasked with designing, sourcing materials, and
building a prototype for a temporary finished home for tornado victims over the
course of three to four weeks. The home is meant for one or two persons, likely
a retiree or young couple left homeless by tornadoes in rural Alabama. Due to
the unpredictable nature of tornado strikes, these homes must be able to be
constructed quickly and made from conventional, readily available materials. The
project budget is extremely ambitious: only $2,000 for materials, with all
labor donated. The proof-of-concept structure was a 14’ square cabin,
documented in this Youtube video.
A description of your
primary duties on the project
During the design phase
of the project, the studio was divided into four teams, each responsible for a
different project phase: pre-planning, schematic design, detailed design, and
implementation. The design made its way sequentially through each team,
evolving as it went. I was involved in pre-planning, which meant clarifying the
target demographic, pricing potential materials,
researching case studies,
and ensuring the proof-of-concept cabin could be constructed
for our budget.
As construction loomed, I helped write the construction work plan (basically a daily schedule), so daily and weekly construction goals would be clear to everyone.
Once construction commenced, students worked as a single group, spending mornings on site doing whatever the schedule dictated. I worked daily on site, doing as much construction as I could, meanwhile shooting photos and videos of the construction as it progressed.
Research one relevant
issue related to your project. Include a summary of that issue and how it
relates to the project.
Budget was a major
factor that drove not only the design but the pacing of the project as well.
While we were able to procure some additional funds, the final budget was
limited to right around $2,500. In the early stages, this meant designing to
minimize cuts and maximize material usage. Advanced framing was used: wood studs
were set at 24in on center rather than the traditional 16in on center, meaning
fewer studs were required. The walls were designed at 8ft and 10ft heights,
again meaning there could be an amply sloped roof with minimal waste from
cutting. The footprint of the house was spaced in such a way as to take a
limited number of plywood sheets, and windows sized to fit within the 24in.
stud increment. Material optimization combined with small structure size meant
that we could be very precise about predicting the amount of material we would
need for the final project. Final budgeting was primarily a matter of finding the
least expensive local option for any given material.
Even so, a running daily
budget was tallied to track the amount of money and material used to date.
Purchases were made on a just-in-time basis, frequently less than 24 hours in
advance of when they would be needed on site. So it was important to know
exactly where we stood financially at any given time. This system helped
control costs and ultimately meant we returned very little: a sheet of plywood,
an unused tube of caulk, and a handful of hardware.
Your reflection on
the project:
When were you most
engaged? Who/what contributed to your learning on this project and why?
I was most engaged
whenever I had the opportunity to learn something new. The bulk of my energy (physical
and intellectual) was invested in the construction and assembly of the house.
This is the first opportunity I’ve had to do any kind of new construction, and
I was eager to get my hands dirty. I made a particular effort to involve myself
in the construction and installation of every aspect of the house, from
foundation to framing to roofing to insulation to cladding. It was gratifying
to have colleagues experienced in construction who were patient and facile
teachers on the job site, always willing to step back and let me try my hand at
something new. I was never criticized for my lack of knowledge or skill;
rather, I was shown how to do things better. It was incredibly fun to gain new
skills and participate as the project developed.
When were you least
engaged and why?
There were some stages
when necessity dictated that I participate less, and other times when I chose
to give others the opportunity to lead. During the design and detailing phase,
my team was tasked with pre-planning and the first to tackle the project. So I was
naturally less intimate with the design of the house as it made its way
through subsequent teams. But even when the project was in the final stages of
budgeting and detailing, and members of all groups were involved, I made a
conscious decision to give others ample space to spearhead issues. It didn’t
seem productive to add another voice to the chorus of heated debate already in
progress. More often than not I was a less-informed voice as well: I didn’t
have a dog in the fight design-wise (other students were more passionate about
the structure’s design), and I had little experience in new construction. I nevertheless
involved myself whenever I could: I helped catalyze the construction work plan,
and well before construction started I helped lay and level the foundations.
But most of the time (at least in the early stages) it seemed unnecessary to
add another cook to an already overcrowded kitchen.
Despite the enthusiasm I felt for being on-site, there were several work sessions when there were simply too few jobs for the number of people on site. The pace of work seemed to slow to a crawl during those sessions. There was nothing fun about being out in the hot Alabama sun, looking for and wanting things to do and not finding them. In a perfect world there would have been select morning and afternoon sessions where about half the cohort was present at any one time, or better pacing of the construction to prevent bottlenecks; some kind of solution to the everyone-show-up-all-at-once problem.
Despite the enthusiasm I felt for being on-site, there were several work sessions when there were simply too few jobs for the number of people on site. The pace of work seemed to slow to a crawl during those sessions. There was nothing fun about being out in the hot Alabama sun, looking for and wanting things to do and not finding them. In a perfect world there would have been select morning and afternoon sessions where about half the cohort was present at any one time, or better pacing of the construction to prevent bottlenecks; some kind of solution to the everyone-show-up-all-at-once problem.
What surprised you
about the project?
The tension between drawing and actually constructing an assembly is fascinating. What on paper seems like a straightforward detail or perfectly coordinated dimension can become a more complex problem when fit into a construction sequence. Or, alternately, things that seem to make sense on site can ignore important design aspects of a structure. This disconnect is a perennial issue on both the construction and design sides, but to see it played out in person is an interesting case study that drives home the need for well-coordinated drawings and a well-coordinated construction sequence.
The tension between drawing and actually constructing an assembly is fascinating. What on paper seems like a straightforward detail or perfectly coordinated dimension can become a more complex problem when fit into a construction sequence. Or, alternately, things that seem to make sense on site can ignore important design aspects of a structure. This disconnect is a perennial issue on both the construction and design sides, but to see it played out in person is an interesting case study that drives home the need for well-coordinated drawings and a well-coordinated construction sequence.
What would you
suggest for additional projects of this type?
The difficulty with this
type of project seems to lie in two places: budget and ease of construction,
with issues of time and material procurement tied up somewhere between. The
longer the construction timeline is on a house of this type, the more likely it
is that you will find reduced-cost, donated, or upcycled materials and be better
able to stretch your construction budget. Similarly, if you are able to
experiment with alternative or specialty construction types (CNC milling,
material misuse, etc) you have more freedom to exploit the potential of very
low-cost materials, stretching a severely limited budget to its maximum. Lots
of interesting solutions could have been investigated and executed had the
budget been larger, had there had been the flexibility to procure free or
reduced-cost materials, or had this structure been allowed to be a true one-off
rather than a prototype that relied on conventional construction. While the
project’s goals were admirably grounded in the real-world constraints of
conventional construction and readily-available materials, the combination of a
restricted budget, lack of donated materials and restricted timeline meant
that, ultimately, it was impossible to produce a conventionally-constructed and
occupant-ready cabin for $2,000.
Budget-wise, we were
only able to create the equivalent of a garden shed: a dried-in and minimally
insulated structure that was fully clad (which, it turns out, was equivalent to
the so-called proof-of-concept cabin). Budgets for many of the fully finished
and plumbed “tiny home” dwellings we investigated reached into the tens of
thousands of dollars. The least expensive conventionally-built tiny house we
studied cost $5,000 for materials only, but the owner built the house over the
course of a year as he slowly collected the least expensive materials he could
find. Unfortunately this is not feasible for victims of a tornado for whom time
is of the essence.
The takeaway for this type of project seems to be that the faster, easier, and more conventional the construction, the closer to the five-digit budget mark you are likely to land. If, however, you have time to procure materials that are less costly than market rates, or if you have the freedom to use unconventional building materials, you can significantly reduce costs and the opportunities for a restricted budget expand.
The takeaway for this type of project seems to be that the faster, easier, and more conventional the construction, the closer to the five-digit budget mark you are likely to land. If, however, you have time to procure materials that are less costly than market rates, or if you have the freedom to use unconventional building materials, you can significantly reduce costs and the opportunities for a restricted budget expand.
