Author Archives: jrader

What would equity look like?

Posted on by
Reply

Income disparity has become a prominent part of today’s social and political landscape.  The gap between the highest incomes and the average income per person has been increasing from its historic low point in the 60’s, until recently passing the inequality spike of the 30’s.  A chart of income disparity over the last century reveals symmetry between the historic Great Depression and our own more self-conscious “Great Recession.”

The ratio between the income of the top 20% and that of the bottom 20% has doubled from a low of around 7:1 in 1968 to a 14:1 ratio today(*).  There are many indicators of inequity; one that has fueled a tipping point of public opinion is the fact that the top 1% of the US population captured half of the economic growth between 1993 to 2007 (**).  What’s more, the wealth of the top 1% has been increasing at a rate ten times faster than the middle income population (***).

“We are the 99%” signs from Occupy Wall Street and other Occupy groups are uniting frustrated individuals, each with their own discouraging story, under the common language of inequity.

While the media is delivering various representations of inequity, we at the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio are trying to understand the issue from a design point of view.  We have started asking the critical question: “What would equity look like in _____?”

For example we are asking:

  • What would equity look like in an affordable housing program?

  • What would equity look like in an inner-city redevelopment plan?

  • What would equity look like in a public park project?

 We are looking for equity in both the process and the products of our work.  We don’t claim to have the answers to our own questions.  However, we find asking these questions to be a useful critical tool.

To start, we believe that equity in design does not work like equity in money.  To illustrate in simple terms: ten dollars shared by four people equals two and one-half dollars for each person.  One the other hand, a design decision shared by four people equals a better decision.  This is because equity in access, equity in learning, equity in decision-making, and other such opportunity-based activities are not a zero-sum game like notions of equity in income, in which the only way one person gains money is when another person loses money.  (In reality, income distribution only looks like a zero-sum game when it is seen statically.  In the real economy, income is dynamic and is reproduced, recycled and multiplied as it circulates within an economic community.  Thus, systems that create opportunities for exchange within a community do more to increase distributed income than trying to bring income into the community by exportation.)

The Gulf Coast Community Design Studio is fortunate to be involved with a team of local planning and advocacy organizations working on a HUD Sustainable Communities Grant.   This three-year project aims to develop a regional plan for the Mississippi Gulf Coast that integrates housing, transportation, land use, economic development and other activities into a plan that is shaped by sustainability and equity.   At the federal level the Sustainable Communities Initiative is a manifestation of the unprecedented cooperation between HUD, the EPA and the Department of Transportation.  The language of sustainability is merging with language of equity.  Following this significant trend, the Gulf Coast team is calling its work “Plan for Opportunity,” using language that bridges equity and sustainability. The use of the word “opportunity” avoids the growing political division around the more liberal words “sustainability” and “equity.”

A 5th grade planning workshop for the Gulf Coast Sustainable Communities Initiative. Source: Ohio State University

At the international level, it is certainly more than a coincidence that the language of sustainability is being combined with equity.   Every year since 1990, the United Nations has sponsored an extensive study of global conditions, called the Human Development Report.  An overview of the report titles for the past twenty years is a reading of the dominant concerns and language of each year.  The report for 2011 is titled; “Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All.”  The report argues that the urgent global challenges of sustainability and equity must be addressed together, emphasizing the “human right to a healthy environment, the importance of integrating social equity into environmental policies, and the critical importance of public participation and official accountability.”

We at the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio are going to do more to articulate the integration of sustainability and equity in our own work and to do what we can to help others do likewise.  We are going to be using the question, “What would equity look like in____?” to share some lessons learned and to invite and challenge other practices to do the same.  We look forward to an encouraging dialogue from a range of practices.  We are hopeful that using the positive language of the imagination, rather than the divisive language of politics, will prove useful.

–David Perkes, Director of the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio

(*) Yen, Hope. Associated Press. “Census Finds Record Gap Between Rich and Poor.” Salon.com, September 28th, 2010.

(**) Saez, Emmanuel. “Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (Updated with 2008 Estimates).”  University of California, Berkeley.  July 17, 2010.

(***) Congressional Budget Office. “Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.” October, 2010.

 

 

It’s time for us to elaborate on “public design.”

Posted on by
Reply

We use the term “public design” as an inclusive label that points to the past as well as the future.  It aims to respect and sustain the heroic work of socially progressive designers of the past, and at the same time, it names what appears to be an emerging new force in contemporary practice.  Similar terms such as: community design, community-based design, community-driven design, and the newest term: public-interest design, communicate an aspiration for designers to be responsible to society.  We like the fact that both words of the term “public design” are imprecise to welcome a broad range of current practices and leave room for future inventions and reinventions. Nevertheless, even though the term is intended to include diverse activities, we believe that there are several qualifications for a practice to be called “public.”  First, the practice has a mission that is driven by service more than profit.  Second, the practice is able to provide design to groups that do not fit the standard definition of a client.  And third, the practice uses various activities to address issues that are relevant to the general public.

The term “public design” is also used to associate with other professions that have a public segment, such as law and medicine, in an attempt to make progress in design as we learn from other practices.  Technical progress in design advances naturally as material science and product development inform the design and construction of structures and landscapes.  Such progress is built into the building industry because technology is already driven by market forces and does not require changes in the way we practice.  However, social progress in design does not happen without effort. Changes in the social forms of practice are less apparent, in part because defining and measuring social progress is not yet institutionalized to the degree of technical progress, as evidenced by the popularity of LEED and the relatively unknown status of SEED**. Nevertheless, if we want to move practice forward we should be able to define social progress and consider the effectiveness of a practice accordingly.

A comparative view of progress in health care offers a way to look at progress in design practice. In health care, technical progress can be seen as advancements in the tools, procedures, and treatments that help people get well more effectively.  Social progress can be seen as improvements in access to health care and as an increase in preventive activities among the population, to reduce health problems. In short, progress is being made if more people get the care they need and if fewer people need medical treatment to begin with. We might ask: can the definition of social progress in health care inform a definition of social progress in design practice? Can we define progress similarly, as increasing people’s access to design and reducing problems of the general population resulting from deficient physical settings?

A public design practice is shaped by such questions about social progress.  Efforts to achieve social progress are often framed by a critique of traditional client-driven practice methods.  A public design practice strives to overcome the limitations of the traditional relationship between an architect and a client.  This traditional relationship is built on a fee for professional services, which means that access to design is limited to those who can afford it. It is impossible to significantly increase public access to design if each additional person is expected to be a client who can pay for design services. Likewise, preventive public design to address problems of the physical environment would take a rare client, one who was willing to pay for work beyond the self-interests of their project and to take responsibility for problems beyond their control.  Overcoming the limitations of client-driven practice motivates public design practitioners and results in a range of innovative methods found in various public design practices.  At the same time, sustaining a public design practice when the funding source is not a traditional client requires an alternative business model.

The Gulf Coast Community Design Studio has now been in practice long enough to be self-conscious of our own evolution.   We are aware that our name continues the tradition of place-based, community design work, though we wonder if we should replace “community” with “public.”  For the past year, our own work has been energized a new tool: the public design certificate program.  This program is changing our practice because we are becoming more reflexive.  The interns that commit to a year in the program are looking to learn from the work we (they) are doing.  We are also more conscious of how our local work has become part of the national landscape.  With each semester, when we add one or two public design interns, we get a larger number of applications.  We are currently accepting applications for two new interns and have received over 90 applications so far.  For those that have applied, this number may be daunting – though we hope it will not discourage their dedication to public practice.  But for those of us that are committed to service-oriented practices, seeing the increasing demand for public design experience is very encouraging and a good indication that the design professions are going through a positive transformation.

We are living in a time when well-founded encouragement is certainly needed.

–David Perkes, Director of the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio

East Biloxi residents

**LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a green-building certification system designed to provide building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions. SEED (Social Economic Environmental Design) is a network and certification process to guide professionals toward community-based engagement within design practice.

Re-Usable Disaster Housing

Posted on by
1

The Department of Homeland Security through the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI) has contracted with the GCCDS to design prototype temporary disaster housing as described in Overview: FEMA Region IV Capability Gaps (12 August 2010) as capability gap number 2010-RCD-004, Temporary Disaster Housing: Developing a Temporary Housing Unit Design and Prototype. The key objective of this project is to develop an inventory of reusable housing units that meet the unique requirements of disaster housing, which can be produced by multiple manufacturers at a cost-effective scale, streamline the housing unit life-cycle, and be configured for the size and composition of a range of households in varying disaster situations.

Providing disaster housing has been a continual challenge because temporary housing units in the past typically consist of either modified recreational vehicles or manufactured homes, neither of which is designed to meet the challenges of disaster response and recovery. Recent costly and time-consuming performance-related problems with traditional housing units have highlighted the Federal government’s need to efficiently and effectively respond to future disaster housing needs by: 1) raising the standard of disaster housing by improving unit design specifications and construction, and 2) accounting for the logistics of temporary housing by creating a standardized, reusable inventory to improve procurement, delivery, retrieval, storage, and maintenance of disaster housing units.

The formative design challenge of the Re-Usable Disaster Housing is to plan for the second and third disaster. Even though the housing need after a disaster is temporary, the housing inventory should be designed and constructed to have a long life-cycle. Single-use disaster housing, which is either disposed of or decommissioned, is wasteful and will never create an inventory that is ready to be deployed. Standardized specifications that can be produced by multiple manufacturers would allow FEMA to quickly increase the housing inventory and respond to disaster housing needs in a more intelligent and sustainable way. A standardized, reusable approach to disaster housing will allow lessons learned to be implemented and incremental improvements to be made without changing to an entirely new product and unit design at each disaster cycle.

We invite you to stay informed of the progress of this exciting and timely project through the GCCDS blog, or contact us at info@gccds.org for more information.

Flood Simulation 2

Posted on by
Reply

After making revisions to the test pods after flood simulation 1 for the SERRI Dry Floodproof Construction Research project, the GCCDS performed the second full test flood simulation June 28th, 2011. For a 24-hour period, six test pods (shown above), which are full-size mock-up wall assemblies of various commercial construction wall assemblies, were subject to a 3-foot flood, to simulate anticipated hydrostatic pressure on buildings during a major coastal flood event. During the testing period, measurements were taken to record the depth of water that was able to penetrate the wall assemblies. The working definition of dry floodproof construction, per the USACE, states that waterproof construction shall be “permitted the accumulation of [no] more than four inches of water depth in such space during a 24-hour period if there are no devices provided for its removal…”. Thus, it was considered that a well-performing test pod during the flood simulation would have an interior water depth of less than four inches over the testing period. Four test pods demonstrated performances compliant with dry floodproof construction standards during this testing period. Below is a summary of the results for each test pod during flood simulation 2.

 

Test Pod A: Sealed BlockTest Pod A: Sealed Block was constructed of a basic CMU block wall with an exterior sealant applied to the exterior face of the wall. The sealant was comprised of three layers: two layers of silicone modified polyurea sealant sandwiching a layer of closed cell spray foam insulation. This type of sealant is generally found in industrial applications, used as lining for storage tanks designed to hold corrosive materials. This exact wall assembly was tested during flood simulation 1. During flood simulation 2, the results were similar: after 24 hours, the maximum interior depth of water was only 1/4″.

 

Test Pod B2: Cavity Wall Filled BlockTest Pod B2: Cavity Wall Filled Block was a revision of Test Pod B: Cavity Wall, that was tested during flood simulation 1. During the second flood simulation, all of the cores of the this CMU block wall were filled with grout, to observe if additional mass within the block wall would contribute to overall performance. A fluid-applied asphaltic emulsion coating was painted on the exterior face of the CMU block wall, with a layer of 2″ rigid insulation board continuously attached over this. A 2″ cavity separated the brick veneer exterior of the assembly and the thermal barrier. Test Pod B2 had an improved performance during flood simulation 2 (over Test Pod B in flood simulation 1); however the photo above clearly shows water penetrating the block wall at masonry joints. The flood depth in this test pod after the 24-hour test period was 15 1/2″, demonstrating an assembly that is not viable for floodproof construction.

 

Test Pod G: Sheet Membrane BlockTest Pod G: Sheet Membrane Block in flood simulation 2 was a retrofit of Test Pod C: Unsealed block that was used in flood simulation 1. Test Pod G was comprised of a CMU block wall with a self-adhering rubberized asphalt/polyethylene membrane sheet applied to the exterior face. Vertical edges of the membrane sheet overlapped at least 2″ to provide a continuous waterproofing membrane. Furring strips on the exterior of the membrane were attached with masonry screws that penetrated the membrane. In an actual building, siding or panels would be attached to these furring strips in a ‘rainscreen’ assembly. However, for observational purposes, the exterior finish was omitted from this test pod during flood simulation 2. This test pod performed well; during the 24-hour testing period, with a maximum interior water depth of 3 1/2″.

 

Test Pod D2: ICFTest Pod D2: ICF in flood simulation 2 was a retrofit of Test Pod D: ICF used in flood simulation 1. Test Pod D2 was constructed out of ICFs–Insulated Concrete Forms, which are modular units designed to act as both the formwork for a cast-in-place masonry wall and also the permanent thermal barrier, as the forms are made of EPS foam. The retrofit included applying a layer of elastomeric paint to the exterior of the reinforced stucco and thoroughly covering the joint between the slab and the base of the wall. The improvements were a success, as the maximum interior water depth of Test Pod D2: ICF after the 24-hour flood simulation was only 3 3/4″.

 

Test Pod H: Weatherproofed BlockTest Pod H: Weatherproofed Block was intended to test an assembly demonstrating a minimal approach to dry floodproofing. A CMU block wall was coated with an elastomeric waterproofing membrane, applied with a conventional hand sprayer. This assembly did not perform well; at only four hours into the testing period, the interior water depth had surpassed the 4″ dry floodproof standard. At the end of the 24-hour testing period, the pod had accumulated a maximum interior water depth of 17″, proving that this assembly is not viable for dry floodproof construction.

 

Test Pod F2: Metal SIPsTest Pod F2: Metal SIPs in flood simulation 2 was a retrofit of Test Pod F: Metal SIPs that was tested in flood simulation 1. This assembly is a simple panel construction, using Structurally Insulated Panels, which are made up of a layer of 4” EPS rigid foam sandwiched between sheets of stainless steel. The panels are attached to a track at the base of the wall, which is bolted to the slab. Vertical joints are sealed with caulk and metal flashing. This type of wall system was explored, as the Metal SIPs are impermeable to water. During flood simulation 1, this wall assembly did not perform well, as the base was not securely fastened to the channel to avoid uplift from buoyancy forces (vertical hydrostatic pressure). The retrofit for flood simulation 2 involved securely fastening the base channel to the panels with more bolts, using additional layers of caulk to seal the channel, and applying butyl tape to vertical and horizontal seams. Test Pod F2: Metal SIPs performed well during this flood simulation; at the end of the 24-hour test period, the assembly had only accumulated a maximum interior water depth of ½”.

Overall, we were happy with the results from flood simulation 2; we were able to identify four assemblies that are viable options for dry floodproof commercial construction, all of varying degrees of affordability and exterior finishing options.

Flood Simulation 1

Posted on by
Reply

To investigate the performance of different materials and wall assemblies under hydrostatic forces for potential viability for dry floodproof construction, full-scale wall assemblies were constructed and tested for this research. Referred to as ‘test pods’ within the documentation, each was different and built within an outdoor flood tank. Six test pods were observed during flood simulation 1, with flood water depths of 36” for a 24-hour period of time.Water penetration measurements (documented as interior water depth), visual observations, and electronic moisture content readings were collected during the first flood simulation. After the 24-hour simulation, the test pods were left for a drying period of two weeks, during which time moisture levels were measured and documented, using embedded sensors.The flood tank was constructed using Hesco boxes, which are welded wire mesh boxes with a geotextile lining for sand or gravel fill. Each box has a 3’x3’ base and is 4’ tall, linked together to create a 4’x40’x40’ test flood tank. The tank was lined with heavy plastic sheets to increase its ability to hold water. An elevated walkway was installed within the flood tank to provide access for observation during the flood simulation. A large open air tent was installed over the tank for the duration of the simulation and the drying period.The working definition of dry floodproof construction, per the USACE, states that waterproof construction shall be “permitted the accumulation of [no] more than four inches of water depth in such space during a 24-hour period if there are no devices provided for its removal…”.Thus, it was considered that a well-performing test pod during the flood simulation would have an interior water depth of less than four inches over the testing period. One test pod demonstrated a performance compliant with dry floodproof construction standards during this testing period.

Below are summaries of each test pod assembly and the results of flood simulation 1.

Test Pod A: Sealed BlockTest Pod A: Sealed Block was a CMU block wall with a multi-layered polymer membrane for an exterior waterproof coating. The membrane consisted of closed-cell spray foam insulation sandwiched between two layers of modified silicone polyurea. This coating is generally used in industrial applications, as a tank-liner for corrosive materials. The first course of the CMU block wall was filled with grout and a water-resistant additive. Additionally, at the corners and at middle of each wall span, CMU cells were fully grouted.

Test Pod A: Sealed Block performed well during flood simulation 1; the maximum interior water depth over the 24-hour period was only ¼”, making it a viable option for dry floodproof construction.

Test Pod B: Cavity WallTest Pod B: Cavity Wall was a CMU block wall, coated with a fluid-applied rubberized asphaltic emulsion coating. Over this was a layer of 2” rigid foam insulation and an exterior brick veneer finish, separated by a 2” cavity. A nylon mesh mortar deflection system was installed at the base of the brick wall to provide better drainage during the drying period, along with larger-than-standard weep vents. The first course of the CMU block wall was filled with grout and a water-resistant additive. Additionally, at the corners and at the middle of each wall span, CMU cells were fully grouted.

Test Pod B: Cavity Wall had accumulated 36” of interior water depth (equalizing with the flood depth) after 22 hours into the flood simulation, and surpassed the 4” depth after only 4 hours. It was observed that water was penetrating the CMU block wall through masonry joints, not through the blocks themselves.

Test Pod C: Unsealed BlockTest Pod C: Unsealed Block was a CMU block wall wrapped in a weather barrier with a plastic drainage mat to provide a drainage plane between the exterior face of the block wall and a layer of 2” rigid foam insulation. On the exterior of the foam, vertical furring strips (water-resistant composite deck boards) were fastened, to allow for a ‘rainscreen’ installation of fiber-cement panels as the exterior finish. The intention of this wall, similar to Test Pod B: Cavity Wall, was to create a wall assembly that stopped water at the exterior face of the main structure, and allowed water to drain well from the exterior finish assembly during the drying period.

However, the weather barrier failed to resist water penetration, and Test Pod C: Unsealed Block surpassed the 4” threshold after four hours of the flood simulation. The maximum interior water depth of this test pod was 36” (equalized with the flood depth) at 20 hours into flood simulation 1.

Test Pod D: ICFTest Pod D: ICF was a constructed of ICFs (Insulated Concrete Forms), which are modular units designed to act as both the formwork for a cast-in-place masonry wall, and also the permanent thermal barrier, as the forms are made of EPS foam. The exterior of the wall was finished with a high-end reinforced single-coat stucco.

Overall, this wall performed decently, although it surpassed the 4” threshold after 10 hours of the test flood. The maximum interior depth of this test pod was 10 ½”, surprisingly reached after 30 hours (6 hours after the flood tank draining began).

Test Pod E: Metal StudTest Pod E: Metal Stud had a light-gauge steel frame for the structure, with fiberglass batt insulation between studs. The exterior was sheathed with an exterior grade gypsum board, with a weather barrier wrapped on the exterior. Brick was used as the exterior finish material. This wall was intended to be the control wall for the test period, as it represents a typical construction type found in commercial buildings along the Mississippi Gulf Coast that are not intended to be dry floodproof.

As expected, Test Pod E: Metal Stud failed to perform well enough to be considered viable for dry floodproof construction. After less than two hours into the flood simulation, the interior depth had surpassed the 4” threshold; after four hours, the assembly had a maximum interior water depth of 36”, equalizing with the depth on the exterior of the walls.

Test Pod F: Metal SIPs

Test Pod F: Metal SIPs was a simple panel construction, using Structurally Insulated Panels, which are made up of a layer of 4” EPS rigid foam sandwiched between sheets of stainless steel. The panels are attached to a track at the base of the wall, which it fastened to the concrete slab. Vertical joints are sealed with caulk and metal flashing. This type of wall system was explored because the panels are impermeable to water and can serve as both the structure and the finished wall.

This wall assembly did not perform well during flood simulation 1. After four hours, the 4” threshold had been surpassed, and it was observed that water was steadily seeping into the assembly through the base channel. After 12 hours into the testing period, the vertical hydrostatic forces (buoyant forces) of the flood water caused the wall panels to come completely detached from the foundation, and the walls floated free.

Interior Water Depths: Flood Simulation One The information and observations gathered during this first flood simulation were instrumental in the design of the second flood simulation, as it was clear where improvements could be made to retrofit the walls for further testing. Additionally, by testing a myriad of materials and assembly types, we were able to further our knowledge base of viable options for dry floodproof construction methods.