ADAPTABILITYIn housIng

Christophergebhardthousing Terminal studio

Prof. Michael Fifield Winter-spring 2014

“Architecture that is designed for adaptation recognizes that the future is not finite, that change is inevitable, but that a framework is an important element in allowing that change to happen.”-Kronenburg, Flexible: Architecture That Responds to Change.9 9

RAUSCH9 9

RAUSCH

The available data on residential mobility within the U.S. shows that people move for a wide variety of reasons, but analysis of those reasons shows that there are general trends and commonalities that can allow a designer to address issues that will be relevant for a large number of people. For example, 62% of local moves are made for housing related reasons, 26% are made for family related issues.

Regardless of the specific reason, the decision to move is about the need for change. Since buildings are generally considered static and permanent, change in a life situation usually means moving to a different building. The fundamental premise of this project is that when people need change, instead of them needing to move to different housing, their current housing should be able to change, or adapt, to meet their new needs.

This project is an exploration of the ability of a building to adapt to meet the changing needs of its inhabitants. It will explore the issues surrounding residential mobility in America. What is it that makes so many of us pick up our roots and set them down in a new location? How many of the needs that drive people to do this can be met by thoughtful and innovative housing design? Can we enjoy the benefits of a community we have invested ourselves in while also having housing that works for our current life circumstances?

sTATIsTICs

SITe SIze:

BUIldIng Type:

nUmBeR oF UnITS:

UnIT denSITy:

UnIT TypeS:

CommeRCIAl SpACe:

99 Rausch st. san Francisco, CA (soMA District)

.75 ACReS

mId-RISe ReSIdenTIAl/mIxed-USe 66 UnITS 88 d.U./A.

STUdIoS, 1 And 2 BedRoom FlATS, 3 BedRoom UnITS

2600ft2

Housing-Related Reasons

Family-Related Reasons

Work-Related Reasons

Other

Local Moves

Internal Migration Immigration

New/Better House

Cheaper Housing

Better Neighborhood

Wanted to Own Home

Other housing reason

Change in Marital Status

Establish Own Household

Other Family Reason

New Job/Job Transfer - 0%

Retired

Closer to Work/Commute

Look for Work/Lost Job

Other Job Related Reason

Housing-Related Reasons Family-Related ReasonsWork-Related Reasons

Attend College

Health Reasons

Change of Climate

Other Reasons

Other Reasons

Quality Issues 30.6%

Quantity Issues 25.9%

Other Issues 41.4%

This study divides the reasons for moving into three catagories: issues involving the quality of the housing situation, the quantity or square footage of the housing situation, and “other” issues such as those having to do with location or ownership type.

New/Better HouseBetter NeighborhoodHealth Reasons (Accessibility)

Change in Marital StatusEstablish Own HouseholdLook for Work/Lost JobRetiredCheaper Housing

Closer to Work/CommuteWanted to Own HomeAttend CollegeChange of ClimateOther Family ReasonOther Job Related ReasonOther Housing ReasonOther Reasons

24.4%4.8%1.4%

7.0%9.5%0.5%0.2%8.7%

3.4%12.2%

1.8%0.2%9.8%0.4%

11.7%1.9%

41.4%

30.6%

25.9%

Type Analysis: Local Moves

All data from: Donald J. Bogue, “Why Americans Move,” in Immigration, Internal Migration, and Local Mobility in the U.S., ed. Donald J. Bogue, Gregory Leigel, and Michael Kozloski (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009), 30–58.

Total does not equal 100 due to rounding in each catagory

Design Responses

Quality Issues - Addressed through good design in this project and the possibility for units’ facade interfaces to be upgraded

Quantity Issues - Addressed through the ability of the units to be reconfigured, expanded, or shrunk by either the developer or the occupant.

Other IssuesThe scope of this project is limited to issues that can be addressed in a single housing development. The designer recognizes that there are many reasons for residential mobility that cannot be addressed in this project.

Reasons for Moving by Type of Mobility, 2005

Reason For Moving Total Mobile Local Mobility Internal Migration Immigration

All Movers 100 100 100 100

Family-Related Reasons 27.1 26.3 29.3 19.6Change in Marital Status 7.1 7 7.8 3.4Establish Own Household 7.8 9.5 5.7 3.5Other Family Reason 12.2 9.8 15.8 12.7

Work-Related Reasons 17.6 4.4 29.3 55.1New Job/Job Transfer 10.4 0 20 30.5Look for Work/Lost Job 1.9 0.5 2.4 15Closer to Work/Commute 3.4 3.3 3.9 1.3Retired 0.5 0.2 1 0.4Other Job Related Reason 1.4 0.4 2 7.9

Housing-Related Reasons 47.1 61.8 29.9 9.9Wanted to Own Home 9.3 12.2 5.9 1.4New/Better House 17.8 24.4 9.7 3.4Better Neighborhood 4 4.8 3.3 0.4Cheaper Housing 6.6 8.7 4.2 1.2Other housing reason 9.4 11.7 6.8 3.5

Other Reasons 8 5.3 11.3 15.4Attend College 3.2 1.8 4.9 6.5Change of Climate 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.1Health Reasons 1.6 1.4 2 1Other Reasons 2.6 1.9 3.1 7.8

Why Americans Move

Shiftable Units Subdividable Units Reconfigurable Units

Pedestrian Friendly Street Edge Accessible UnitsGood Neighborhood

Housing-Related Reasons

Family-Related Reasons

Work-Related Reasons

Other

Local Moves

Internal Migration Immigration

New/Better House

Cheaper Housing

Better Neighborhood

Wanted to Own Home

Other housing reason

Change in Marital Status

Establish Own Household

Other Family Reason

New Job/Job Transfer - 0%

Retired

Closer to Work/Commute

Look for Work/Lost Job

Other Job Related Reason

Housing-Related Reasons Family-Related ReasonsWork-Related Reasons

Attend College

Health Reasons

Change of Climate

Other Reasons

Other Reasons

Quality Issues 30.6%

Quantity Issues 25.9%

Other Issues 41.4%

This study divides the reasons for moving into three catagories: issues involving the quality of the housing situation, the quantity or square footage of the housing situation, and “other” issues such as those having to do with location or ownership type.

New/Better HouseBetter NeighborhoodHealth Reasons (Accessibility)

Change in Marital StatusEstablish Own HouseholdLook for Work/Lost JobRetiredCheaper Housing

Closer to Work/CommuteWanted to Own HomeAttend CollegeChange of ClimateOther Family ReasonOther Job Related ReasonOther Housing ReasonOther Reasons

24.4%4.8%1.4%

7.0%9.5%0.5%0.2%8.7%

3.4%12.2%

1.8%0.2%9.8%0.4%

11.7%1.9%

41.4%

30.6%

25.9%

Type Analysis: Local Moves

All data from: Donald J. Bogue, “Why Americans Move,” in Immigration, Internal Migration, and Local Mobility in the U.S., ed. Donald J. Bogue, Gregory Leigel, and Michael Kozloski (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009), 30–58.

Total does not equal 100 due to rounding in each catagory

Design Responses

Quality Issues - Addressed through good design in this project and the possibility for units’ facade interfaces to be upgraded

Quantity Issues - Addressed through the ability of the units to be reconfigured, expanded, or shrunk by either the developer or the occupant.

Other IssuesThe scope of this project is limited to issues that can be addressed in a single housing development. The designer recognizes that there are many reasons for residential mobility that cannot be addressed in this project.

Reasons for Moving by Type of Mobility, 2005

Reason For Moving Total Mobile Local Mobility Internal Migration Immigration

All Movers 100 100 100 100

Family-Related Reasons 27.1 26.3 29.3 19.6Change in Marital Status 7.1 7 7.8 3.4Establish Own Household 7.8 9.5 5.7 3.5Other Family Reason 12.2 9.8 15.8 12.7

Work-Related Reasons 17.6 4.4 29.3 55.1New Job/Job Transfer 10.4 0 20 30.5Look for Work/Lost Job 1.9 0.5 2.4 15Closer to Work/Commute 3.4 3.3 3.9 1.3Retired 0.5 0.2 1 0.4Other Job Related Reason 1.4 0.4 2 7.9

Housing-Related Reasons 47.1 61.8 29.9 9.9Wanted to Own Home 9.3 12.2 5.9 1.4New/Better House 17.8 24.4 9.7 3.4Better Neighborhood 4 4.8 3.3 0.4Cheaper Housing 6.6 8.7 4.2 1.2Other housing reason 9.4 11.7 6.8 3.5

Other Reasons 8 5.3 11.3 15.4Attend College 3.2 1.8 4.9 6.5Change of Climate 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.1Health Reasons 1.6 1.4 2 1Other Reasons 2.6 1.9 3.1 7.8

Why Americans Move

Shiftable Units Subdividable Units Reconfigurable Units

Pedestrian Friendly Street Edge Accessible UnitsGood Neighborhood

Housing-Related Reasons

Family-Related Reasons

Work-Related Reasons

Other

Local Moves

Internal Migration Immigration

New/Better House

Cheaper Housing

Better Neighborhood

Wanted to Own Home

Other housing reason

Change in Marital Status

Establish Own Household

Other Family Reason

New Job/Job Transfer - 0%

Retired

Closer to Work/Commute

Look for Work/Lost Job

Other Job Related Reason

Housing-Related Reasons Family-Related ReasonsWork-Related Reasons

Attend College

Health Reasons

Change of Climate

Other Reasons

Other Reasons

Quality Issues 30.6%

Quantity Issues 25.9%

Other Issues 41.4%

This study divides the reasons for moving into three catagories: issues involving the quality of the housing situation, the quantity or square footage of the housing situation, and “other” issues such as those having to do with location or ownership type.

New/Better HouseBetter NeighborhoodHealth Reasons (Accessibility)

Change in Marital StatusEstablish Own HouseholdLook for Work/Lost JobRetiredCheaper Housing

Closer to Work/CommuteWanted to Own HomeAttend CollegeChange of ClimateOther Family ReasonOther Job Related ReasonOther Housing ReasonOther Reasons

24.4%4.8%1.4%

7.0%9.5%0.5%0.2%8.7%

3.4%12.2%

1.8%0.2%9.8%0.4%

11.7%1.9%

41.4%

30.6%

25.9%

Type Analysis: Local Moves

All data from: Donald J. Bogue, “Why Americans Move,” in Immigration, Internal Migration, and Local Mobility in the U.S., ed. Donald J. Bogue, Gregory Leigel, and Michael Kozloski (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009), 30–58.

Total does not equal 100 due to rounding in each catagory

Design Responses

Quality Issues - Addressed through good design in this project and the possibility for units’ facade interfaces to be upgraded

Quantity Issues - Addressed through the ability of the units to be reconfigured, expanded, or shrunk by either the developer or the occupant.

Other IssuesThe scope of this project is limited to issues that can be addressed in a single housing development. The designer recognizes that there are many reasons for residential mobility that cannot be addressed in this project.

Reasons for Moving by Type of Mobility, 2005

Reason For Moving Total Mobile Local Mobility Internal Migration Immigration

All Movers 100 100 100 100

Family-Related Reasons 27.1 26.3 29.3 19.6Change in Marital Status 7.1 7 7.8 3.4Establish Own Household 7.8 9.5 5.7 3.5Other Family Reason 12.2 9.8 15.8 12.7

Work-Related Reasons 17.6 4.4 29.3 55.1New Job/Job Transfer 10.4 0 20 30.5Look for Work/Lost Job 1.9 0.5 2.4 15Closer to Work/Commute 3.4 3.3 3.9 1.3Retired 0.5 0.2 1 0.4Other Job Related Reason 1.4 0.4 2 7.9

Housing-Related Reasons 47.1 61.8 29.9 9.9Wanted to Own Home 9.3 12.2 5.9 1.4New/Better House 17.8 24.4 9.7 3.4Better Neighborhood 4 4.8 3.3 0.4Cheaper Housing 6.6 8.7 4.2 1.2Other housing reason 9.4 11.7 6.8 3.5

Other Reasons 8 5.3 11.3 15.4Attend College 3.2 1.8 4.9 6.5Change of Climate 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.1Health Reasons 1.6 1.4 2 1Other Reasons 2.6 1.9 3.1 7.8

Why Americans Move

Shiftable Units Subdividable Units Reconfigurable Units

Pedestrian Friendly Street Edge Accessible UnitsGood Neighborhood

Housing-Related Reasons

Family-Related Reasons

Work-Related Reasons

Other

Local Moves

Internal Migration Immigration

New/Better House

Cheaper Housing

Better Neighborhood

Wanted to Own Home

Other housing reason

Change in Marital Status

Establish Own Household

Other Family Reason

New Job/Job Transfer - 0%

Retired

Closer to Work/Commute

Look for Work/Lost Job

Other Job Related Reason

Housing-Related Reasons Family-Related ReasonsWork-Related Reasons

Attend College

Health Reasons

Change of Climate

Other Reasons

Other Reasons

Quality Issues 30.6%

Quantity Issues 25.9%

Other Issues 41.4%

This study divides the reasons for moving into three catagories: issues involving the quality of the housing situation, the quantity or square footage of the housing situation, and “other” issues such as those having to do with location or ownership type.

New/Better HouseBetter NeighborhoodHealth Reasons (Accessibility)

Change in Marital StatusEstablish Own HouseholdLook for Work/Lost JobRetiredCheaper Housing

Closer to Work/CommuteWanted to Own HomeAttend CollegeChange of ClimateOther Family ReasonOther Job Related ReasonOther Housing ReasonOther Reasons

24.4%4.8%1.4%

7.0%9.5%0.5%0.2%8.7%

3.4%12.2%

1.8%0.2%9.8%0.4%

11.7%1.9%

41.4%

30.6%

25.9%

Type Analysis: Local Moves

All data from: Donald J. Bogue, “Why Americans Move,” in Immigration, Internal Migration, and Local Mobility in the U.S., ed. Donald J. Bogue, Gregory Leigel, and Michael Kozloski (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009), 30–58.

Total does not equal 100 due to rounding in each catagory

Design Responses

Quality Issues - Addressed through good design in this project and the possibility for units’ facade interfaces to be upgraded

Quantity Issues - Addressed through the ability of the units to be reconfigured, expanded, or shrunk by either the developer or the occupant.

Other IssuesThe scope of this project is limited to issues that can be addressed in a single housing development. The designer recognizes that there are many reasons for residential mobility that cannot be addressed in this project.

Reasons for Moving by Type of Mobility, 2005

Reason For Moving Total Mobile Local Mobility Internal Migration Immigration

All Movers 100 100 100 100

Family-Related Reasons 27.1 26.3 29.3 19.6Change in Marital Status 7.1 7 7.8 3.4Establish Own Household 7.8 9.5 5.7 3.5Other Family Reason 12.2 9.8 15.8 12.7

Work-Related Reasons 17.6 4.4 29.3 55.1New Job/Job Transfer 10.4 0 20 30.5Look for Work/Lost Job 1.9 0.5 2.4 15Closer to Work/Commute 3.4 3.3 3.9 1.3Retired 0.5 0.2 1 0.4Other Job Related Reason 1.4 0.4 2 7.9

Housing-Related Reasons 47.1 61.8 29.9 9.9Wanted to Own Home 9.3 12.2 5.9 1.4New/Better House 17.8 24.4 9.7 3.4Better Neighborhood 4 4.8 3.3 0.4Cheaper Housing 6.6 8.7 4.2 1.2Other housing reason 9.4 11.7 6.8 3.5

Other Reasons 8 5.3 11.3 15.4Attend College 3.2 1.8 4.9 6.5Change of Climate 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.1Health Reasons 1.6 1.4 2 1Other Reasons 2.6 1.9 3.1 7.8

Why Americans Move

Shiftable Units Subdividable Units Reconfigurable Units

Pedestrian Friendly Street Edge Accessible UnitsGood Neighborhood

Housing-Related Reasons

Family-Related Reasons

Work-Related Reasons

Other

Local Moves

Internal Migration Immigration

New/Better House

Cheaper Housing

Better Neighborhood

Wanted to Own Home

Other housing reason

Change in Marital Status

Establish Own Household

Other Family Reason

New Job/Job Transfer - 0%

Retired

Closer to Work/Commute

Look for Work/Lost Job

Other Job Related Reason

Housing-Related Reasons Family-Related ReasonsWork-Related Reasons

Attend College

Health Reasons

Change of Climate

Other Reasons

Other Reasons

Quality Issues 30.6%

Quantity Issues 25.9%

Other Issues 41.4%

This study divides the reasons for moving into three catagories: issues involving the quality of the housing situation, the quantity or square footage of the housing situation, and “other” issues such as those having to do with location or ownership type.

New/Better HouseBetter NeighborhoodHealth Reasons (Accessibility)

Change in Marital StatusEstablish Own HouseholdLook for Work/Lost JobRetiredCheaper Housing

Closer to Work/CommuteWanted to Own HomeAttend CollegeChange of ClimateOther Family ReasonOther Job Related ReasonOther Housing ReasonOther Reasons

24.4%4.8%1.4%

7.0%9.5%0.5%0.2%8.7%

3.4%12.2%

1.8%0.2%9.8%0.4%

11.7%1.9%

41.4%

30.6%

25.9%

Type Analysis: Local Moves

All data from: Donald J. Bogue, “Why Americans Move,” in Immigration, Internal Migration, and Local Mobility in the U.S., ed. Donald J. Bogue, Gregory Leigel, and Michael Kozloski (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009), 30–58.

Total does not equal 100 due to rounding in each catagory

Design Responses

Quality Issues - Addressed through good design in this project and the possibility for units’ facade interfaces to be upgraded

Quantity Issues - Addressed through the ability of the units to be reconfigured, expanded, or shrunk by either the developer or the occupant.

Other IssuesThe scope of this project is limited to issues that can be addressed in a single housing development. The designer recognizes that there are many reasons for residential mobility that cannot be addressed in this project.

Reasons for Moving by Type of Mobility, 2005

Reason For Moving Total Mobile Local Mobility Internal Migration Immigration

All Movers 100 100 100 100

Family-Related Reasons 27.1 26.3 29.3 19.6Change in Marital Status 7.1 7 7.8 3.4Establish Own Household 7.8 9.5 5.7 3.5Other Family Reason 12.2 9.8 15.8 12.7

Work-Related Reasons 17.6 4.4 29.3 55.1New Job/Job Transfer 10.4 0 20 30.5Look for Work/Lost Job 1.9 0.5 2.4 15Closer to Work/Commute 3.4 3.3 3.9 1.3Retired 0.5 0.2 1 0.4Other Job Related Reason 1.4 0.4 2 7.9

Housing-Related Reasons 47.1 61.8 29.9 9.9Wanted to Own Home 9.3 12.2 5.9 1.4New/Better House 17.8 24.4 9.7 3.4Better Neighborhood 4 4.8 3.3 0.4Cheaper Housing 6.6 8.7 4.2 1.2Other housing reason 9.4 11.7 6.8 3.5

Other Reasons 8 5.3 11.3 15.4Attend College 3.2 1.8 4.9 6.5Change of Climate 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.1Health Reasons 1.6 1.4 2 1Other Reasons 2.6 1.9 3.1 7.8

Why Americans Move

Shiftable Units Subdividable Units Reconfigurable Units

Pedestrian Friendly Street Edge Accessible UnitsGood Neighborhood

sITe FeATuRes: .3 mIleS FRom BART.1 mIleS FRom Bus LInes.2 mIleS FRom 10 CARshARes .1 mIleS FRom 2 PARks.2 mIleS FRom 2 suPeRMARkeTs

soMA District, san FranciscoCLIMATe Wind Rose

Psychrometric Chart

Monthly Temperatures

data from U.S. department of energy and Climate Consultant 5.4

99 Rausch san Francisco, CA

UP

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

Office

Retail

Laundry

Resident

Services

Trash

Bike Parking

Mech.

Elec.

ExitLoading

19.1

17.4

22.6

21.4

20.6Floor 1

Rausch St. Folsom

St.

A

B

0’ 5’ 10’ 20’

1/16” = 1’0’ 10’ 20’ 40’

1/8” = 1’

0’ 5’ 10’1/4” = 1’

1/2” = 1’0’ 5’1’ 3’

0’

5’

15’

35’32nd

16th0’ 5’ 15’10’

DN

UP

UP

UP

DN

DNUP

UP

DN

DNUP

UP

DN

DN

Housing Plan Floors 2 and 3

A

B

UP

DN

DN

DNUP

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

Housing Plan Floors 4 and 5

Roof Deck

Emergency Egress

A

B

0’

5’

15’

35’32nd

16th0’ 5’ 15’10’

0’ 5’ 10’ 20’

1/16” = 1’0’ 10’ 20’ 40’

1/8” = 1’

0’ 5’ 10’1/4” = 1’

1/2” = 1’0’ 5’1’ 3’

Section A: facing northwest Section B: facing northeast

0’ 10’ 20’ 0’ 10’ 20’

Section A: facing northwest Section B: facing northeast

0’ 10’ 20’ 0’ 10’ 20’

1/8" = 1'-0"

One Bedroom Pair

1/8" = 1'-0"

Two Bedroom and Studio632sf each 817sf and 475sf

0’ 5’ 10’ 20’

1/16” = 1’0’ 10’ 20’ 40’

1/8” = 1’

0’ 5’ 10’1/4” = 1’

1/2” = 1’0’ 5’1’ 3’

one Bedroom Adaptability

1/8" = 1'-0"

Two Bedroom

1/8" = 1'-0"

One Bedroom w/ Expanded Living Space967sf 967sf

12’ O

pen

ing

= 3

Sh

eets

of

Dry

wal

l

1/8" = 1'-0"

Two Bedroom

1/8" = 1'-0"

One Bedroom w/ Expanded Living Space967sf 967sf

12’ O

pen

ing

= 3

Sh

eets

of

Dry

wal

l

0’ 5’ 10’ 20’

1/16” = 1’0’ 10’ 20’ 40’

1/8” = 1’

0’ 5’ 10’1/4” = 1’

1/2” = 1’0’ 5’1’ 3’

Two Bedroom Adaptability

680 and 796 sf

796 and 680 sf 1/8" = 1'-0"

2x1 Bedroom and Three BedroomConfigurations

1/8" = 1'-0"Three Bedroom Lower Floors

0’ 5’ 10’ 20’

1/16” = 1’0’ 10’ 20’ 40’

1/8” = 1’

0’ 5’ 10’1/4” = 1’

1/2” = 1’0’ 5’1’ 3’

680 and 796 sf

796 and 680 sf 1/8" = 1'-0"

2x1 Bedroom and Three BedroomConfigurations

1/8" = 1'-0"Three Bedroom Lower Floors

Three Bedroom Adaptability

Fully Shaded

Partially Shaded

Vertically Shaded

Open Position

Shading Position

Full Balcony

Juliet Balcony

Double Facade

Solid Panels

Window Adaptations

Ideal World Real World

Panels that easily clip onto the mullion system allow users to adapt to seasonal changes in desired solar access while also customizing their unit’s interaction with the outdoors through visual access or upgrades such as larger balconies.

Shades slide on simple tracks concealed in joints between wall panels, allowing the users to cutomize solar access without requiring any installation or uninstallation.

Window Adaptations

nighteveningMorning

Hopper Window

Sliding ExteriorSun-shades

Awning Window

Inward OpeningCasement Windows

Spandrel Panel

Track Concealedin Panel Seam

Juliet BalconyRailing

Floor Level

Window Operability

Possible Removable Panelfor Full Door

one Bedroom Adaptability

0’ 5’ 10’ 20’

1/16” = 1’0’ 10’ 20’ 40’

1/8” = 1’

0’ 5’ 10’1/4” = 1’

1/2” = 1’0’ 5’1’ 3’

Facade Adaptability

Back Yard Social Node

1/8" = 1'-0"

Section - Back Yard Social Node

1/8" = 1'-0"

Back Yard Social Node

1/8" = 1'-0"

Section - Back Yard Social Node

1/8" = 1'-0"

Plan

section0’ 5’ 10’ 20’

1/16” = 1’0’ 10’ 20’ 40’

1/8” = 1’

0’ 5’ 10’1/4” = 1’

1/2” = 1’0’ 5’1’ 3’

Courtyard social node

Courtyard social node

DN

Scale

Project number

Date

Drawn by

Checked by 1/8" = 1'-0"

5/22/2014 7:08:55 PM

A304

Outdoor Spaces 2W14

3 March 2014

Author

Checker 1/8" = 1'-0"

1Roof Deck

2Roof Deck Iso

Scale

Project number

Date

Drawn by

Checked by 1/8" = 1'-0"

5/29/2014 3:41:25 PM

A305

Outdoor Spaces 3W14

3 March 2014

Author

Checker

1/8" = 1'-0"Roof Deck Section

Plan

section

0’ 5’ 10’ 20’

1/16” = 1’0’ 10’ 20’ 40’

1/8” = 1’

0’ 5’ 10’1/4” = 1’

1/2” = 1’0’ 5’1’ 3’

Roof Deck

Roof Deck

Folsom St. Edge Rausch St. Edge

Ground Level0' - 0"

Level 215' - 0"

Level 325' - 0"

Ground Level0' - 0"

Level 215' - 0"

Level 12' - 0"

Level 325' - 0"

Folsom St. Edge Rausch St. Edge

Ground Level0' - 0"

Level 215' - 0"

Level 325' - 0"

Ground Level0' - 0"

Level 215' - 0"

Level 12' - 0"

Level 325' - 0"

Folsom st. edge

Rausch st. edge

0’ 5’ 10’ 20’

1/16” = 1’0’ 10’ 20’ 40’

1/8” = 1’

0’ 5’ 10’1/4” = 1’

1/2” = 1’0’ 5’1’ 3’

Rausch street

street edge

I would like to thank my professor, michael Fifield, for all his help and guidance over the course of this project, as well as david Israel and BAR Architects for their generous contributions of time and money that allowed this studio to be so much more than a typical two-term project.

Thanks also to my parents who supported and encouraged me through all my many years of schooling, as well as the great friends I have made through the years for making it such an enjoyable process.

I definitely couldn’t have done it without you all.

-Christopher gebhardtB.Arch. Spring 2014

University of oregon

Rear Courtyard