CCHRC Final Ip

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 1

Prototype Sustainable Village - Circumpolar North

Site Feasibility Study

University of Alaska FairbanksDevta Khalsa & Mitchell EdwardsUniversity of Arizona 2010 - 2011


Table of ContentsIntroduction.................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Site Feasibility Study for a Prototype Sustainable Village.............................................................................................................................5

Purpose and Background............................................................................................................................................................................................7

Site Analysis..............................................................................................................................................................................................................13

Site Characteristics....................................................................................................................................................................................................16

Ecosystem Services...................................................................................................................................................................................................28 Fundamentals of Planning.............................................................................................................................................................................30

Project Scope.............................................................................................................................................................................................................31

Design Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................................................................................34 “First Pass” Alternative.................................................................................................................................................................................35 Alternative A1...............................................................................................................................................................................................36 Alternative A2...............................................................................................................................................................................................36 Alternative B1...............................................................................................................................................................................................37 Alternative B2...............................................................................................................................................................................................37 Alternative C.................................................................................................................................................................................................37

Summary...................................................................................................................................................................................................................44

Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................................................................46

References ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................48

Table 1 - Alternative Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................43

Appendices...............................................................................................................................................................................................................49 Appendix A: Katie Mouton Site Study.........................................................................................................................................................50 Appendix B: Notes from site walk...............................................................................................................................................................51 Appendix C: DOWL site map......................................................................................................................................................................52 Appendix D: Process drawings....................................................................................................................................................................53 Appendix E: Six Thinking Hats...................................................................................................................................................................60

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 3Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 3

Introduction

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 4 IntroductionFigure 1. Cold Climate Housing Research Center, Fairbanks, Alaska (Devta Khalsa)

Cold Climate Housing Research Center

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 5 Introduction

Site Feasibility Study for a Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North

A project of the Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC)The Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North concept evolved through the efforts of the Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC) in Fairbanks, Alaska as a response to change the sub-standard housing conditions of many Native villages in Alaska. Many homes within the villages are unhealthy or unsafe to inhabit in their present state of disrepair and are often overcrowded. As the price of heating fuel has increased it has become increasingly difficult for village residents to afford home heating costs. This expense results in residents crowding into the least-bad structures and abandoning the next-to-impossible ones. In some coastal areas the rising waters of the ocean caused by polar ice melt are encroaching upon the village and, in many cases, the entire village needs to be relocated. The housing quality, livability, safety and affordability are a long time problem for the villages and a reconstruction campaign is being birthed.

The CCHRC has researched, designed, and built prototype sustainable housing in some Circumpolar North villages. In June of 2009 a sustainable home was constructed in approximately five weeks in Anaktuvuk Pass. In October of 2010 an octagonal house was built in Quinhagak, a Yup’ik village of 700 residents. The prototypes are designed to be carefully monitored for heating and ventilation efficiency for continued research and evaluation of efficient housing in polar conditions. Local success of the program rests in part on a four step process 1) participation of community members and community engagement activities using design charrettes, 2) resident participation in construction activities and 3) long-term monitoring of building functionality through the collection and analysis of scientific performance data.

Ongoing research and development of new building materials and methods is an aspect of the work being done at the CCHRC, in addition to training the residents of the villages in the skills needed to construct

their homes. The concept of a Prototype Sustainable Village at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks is twofold; provide UAF with new student housing, and have a setting in which to explore and develop new sustainable building practices that can evolve through time and experience to benefit the world’s arctic regions. The mission for the Sustainable Village is to become

“A dynamic and evolving community at the University of Alaska Fairbanks - committed to the tenants of sustainability - demonstrating what can be achieved to ensure an enduring future for the people of the Circumpolar North.” (Jack Hebert,

CEO CCHRC)

This would be a place for students to experience living in and learning to design and build sustainable communities.

This site concept for the Prototype Sustainable Village at the UAF is an early phase in a series of many phases in the development of this project with many to follow as we discover how to live more lightly and harmoniously on our planet. The idea of “sustainable” means that we will adopt lifestyle practices which will help us enjoy an abundant and prosperous life over a long period of time; that we will not exploit or over burden nature, who provides for all of our needs; that the natural resources we are privileged to have access to will remain in abundance; and the undomesticated indigenous plant and animal species will flourish as we will have a respectful relationship with them.

Beyond the sustainable considerations, this collaboration between talented visionary people touches issues which are humanitarian, sociological, cultural and historical in nature. To what extent can those of us who live comfortably accept the responsibility of assisting fellow humans by actively participating in elevating them physically, socially, culturally and spiritually? Projects like this show who we are and how well we have evolved. The work of organizations like the CCHRC has an important historical impact. There will be a cause-effect reaction for every action we take. We are creating the future and it is essential that we not ignore the long range vision for the future we are ushering forth.

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 6 Introduction

The CCHRC is a private nonprofit organization located at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. They are designers, researchers and builders who are exploring new building materials, construction methods, and energy efficient heating and water usage systems with the goal of implementing sustain-able and innovative practices to improve the housing conditions in arctic environments.

Figure 2. The Circumpolar North, Yukon River, Alaska (Devta Khalsa)

CCHRC MISSION STATEMENT:“Promoting and advancing the development of healthy, durable, and sustainable shelter for Alaskan’s and other circumpolar people through applied research.”


Purpose & Background

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 8 Purpose & Background

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDYThis document serves as a feasibility study of alternative site plans for native villages which can be adapted to different locations using the Sustainable Northern Shelter developed by the CCHRC. This feasibility study demonstrates how individual units can fit into an existing urban/developed environment or on green fields while creating a cohesive community connecting community assets and preserving cultural values using natural elements of the landscape. This study addresses siting needs, which have already been determined by the CCHRC, and discusses the flexibility of the integration of the shelter in urban and rural environments using data collected during the construction and implementation of the demonstration project on the campus of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

Figure 3: Location of current prototype village demonstration sites (Google Map 2010)

PROJECT BACKGROUND“The Sustainable Northern Shelter project was initiated in 2008 to address the needs for sustainable rural housing in northern climates. The project investigates, develops and incorporates many sustainable solutions that will benefit northern communities by demonstrating a culturally designed, affordable, replicable and simply constructed home that uses very little water or energy. As interest in the program grew, the title was changed to Sustainable Northern Communities to reflect the many projects now being done in different areas of the state.” (CCHRC - Sustainable Northern Communities 2010)

Example projects include prototype homes in the villages of Atqasuk, Quinhagak, and Anaktuvuk Pass (Figure 3), which demonstrate energy efficient technologies for arctic regions.


Figure 4. Passage to Anaktuvuk Pass (Khalsa)

Figure 5. Anaktuvuk Pass (Khalsa)

Figure 6. Anaktuvuk Pass (Khalsa)

Figure 7. Prototype Home at Anaktuvuk Pass Built 2009 (CCHRC)


The CCHRC has designed and built a prototype home in Anaktuvuk Pass, a remote Nunamiut Eskimo community in the central Brooks Range with a population of 302. The structure is built partially into the ground utilizing the insulating qualities of the earth and protecting the structure from the wind and drafts while south facing windows collect solar energy for passive heating. Solar collection panels are also located on the south wall of the structure.

Figure 8. Floor plan for home at Anaktuvuk Pass (CCHRC)

The floor plan incorporates different heating zones which are determined by the subsistence lifestyle activities of the Nunamiut Eskimo culture; a warm zone for living and cooler zones for arctic entry, wild game preserving, and cold storage.

Figure 9. Charrette meeting at Anatuvuk Pass (CCHRC 2009)

Figure 10. Self-contained sewage treatment unit (CCHRC - The Sustainable Northern Shelters (SNS) Program 2010).

The home at Anaktuvuk Pass was built in five weeks during the summer of 2009, employing Ilisagvik College students as the construction crew. The home uses solar and wind generated electricity, a self-contained sewage treatment unit, and delivered water. Only 87 gallons of fuel oil were used from November to April in its first winter. The final construction cost was $200,000 while the last home constructed in the village by the local housing authority in 1999 cost $750,000. The CCHRC was able to not only integrate sustainable and efficient building practices in a location with climatic and cultural challenges but this prototype home was at 23% of the cost of a typical home constructed in this region. A family of six now live in the home.

The prototype designs for each village is unique since they evolve from a series of charrettes the CCHRC conducts with the village residents at the beginning of the project. A “charrette” is a collaborative design session where the design team invites the client, in this case the residents of the village, to a series of meetings which are a venue for communicating the needs of the village, defining design criteria, sharing ideas about possible solutions, and together working through the evolving design


The prototype designs for each village is unique since they evolve from a series of charrettes the CCHRC conducts with the village residents at the beginning of the project. A “charrette” is a collaborative design session where the design team invites the client, in this case the residents of the village, to a series of meetings which are a venue for communicating the needs of the village, defining design criteria, sharing ideas about possible solutions, and together working through the evolving design process, making sure the design reflects the people and place. In this way anyone who wishes to may give input, and understanding and communication between the village and the designer is promoted throughout the development of the project.

The concepts defined in the development of these initial prototype designs, and the information gained from monitoring the efficiency of the structures for heating, water use, interior air quality and sewer treatment provides data to be taken into account during the design phase by professionals at the CCHRC.

Figure 11. Floor plan of Quinhagak Home

Figure 12. Completed Home, Fall 2010

Figures and 11 and 12 illustrate the floor plan and a photo of the home completed in the fall of 2010 by the CCHRC and the local village residents who were the construction crew. This home reflects the input and comments from the people of Quinhagak, a small village located on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. During charrettes with Quinhagak residents, an octagonal floor plan was designed that reflected the soft edges of the traditional dwellings (CCHRC - Quinhagak Prototype Home 2010). The traditional shape and low profile roofline shed blowing rain and snow. A special wall was built of lightweight steel frame and spray foam which was tested and proven to withstand wind driven rain, a common weather issue in Quinhagak.

“This design lessens the surface-to-volume ratio, which creates significantly more heated space and less surface area exposed to the cold than a rectangular model of the same area. Additionally, an elaturaq, or Arctic Entry, is wrapped around the windward side of the house.” (4)


The cost of construction for this building was $220,000, including air freight to transport all of the materials into the village. The last low income building of equal square footage built in the community cost $430,000. It took approximately six weeks to construct this prototype home.

It is estimated the home will use approximately 160 gallons of heating fuel per year compared to an average consumption for an equal square footage building in Quinhagak which is 600-800 gallons of fuel per year. The buildings designed for the Prototype Sustainable Village at UAF will reflect similar climatic and cultural considerations, and will utilize in their design the data being gathered from the prototypes currently being monitored.


Site Analysis

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 14 Site Analysis

SITE ANALYSIS A site analysis was completed by DOWL Engineering for the development of a research/business park in April of 2006 and a report was submitted to the University of Alaska. Due to the fragile conditions of the site the University of Alaska concluded that a business park would be an unfeasible land use.

In the summer of 2010 Katie Mouton, an intern of the CCHRC, completed a site analysis as a potential location for building a Prototype Sustainable Village where studies would be conducted for sustainable practices in building for the global Circumpolar North (see Appendix A). In August of 2010 Katie Mouton, Devta Khalsa (graduate student at University of Arizona), and Aaron Cooke (designer at CCHRC) walked the site and noted distinguishing features for preservation, and building locations for the Sustainable Village (see Appendix B). We concluded that the site would be ideal for supporting further arctic sustainable living studies because it is a characteristically fragile specimen of the Boreal forest. When approached with sensitivity toward low impact, and preserving the natural condition of the wetland areas the site makes sense as an indoor/outdoor environment for investigation of living and thriving in arctic conditions. There is sufficient dry soil for building sites in the hardwood forested areas. The wetlands can support trails and boardwalks and lends itself toward being a walking community.

Figure 13. Wild Berry Patch (Khalsa)

Figure 14. Wetland with Native Grasses (Khalsa)

April 2006:Site analysis by Dowl Engineering for UAF

Research/Business Park Feasibility

Summer 2010:Site analysis by Katie

Mouton for the CCHRC to investigate feasibility of prototype sustainable

village

August 2010:Site analysis to identify

distinguishing features for preservation and building

locations for prototype sustainable village

Fall 2010:Jack Hebert, CCHRC

CEO, asks the University of Arizona to develop a

feasibility study

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 15 Site Analysis

In Fall 2010, Jack Hebert, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the CCHRC tasked Devta Khalsa, at this point a graduate student at the University of Arizona, with completing a more detailed feasibility study and design options. During a visit to Tucson in October 2010, Jack sat down with Devta and the University of Arizona design team to answer questions and identify goals of the study. These goals were:

Figure 15. UAF Campus Map; Prototype Village Site/CCHRC (Red Zone); Parking Lots 4D, 4E, 4F/ Nenana Shuttle (Green Zone) (UAF web site)

• Disturb the wetlands as little as possible; preserve wildlife habitat.• Be low impact and use sustainable practices.• Explore on site water catchment practices.• Build a walking community; no cars on site.• Use the site’s natural setting for educational purposes.• A 50 foot wide vegetative buffer will be maintained along Geist

Road.

• Grow a garden for food production including a greenhouse and food prep area.

• Create walking trails including board walks in wet and delicate areas.

• Use trail connectivity to the UAF campus; walking trail along No-atak Park is available.


Site Characteristics

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 17 Site Characteristics

SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The approximately 70 acre site is located on the south side of the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus just south of the railroad tracks, between Thompson Drive along the agricultural fields to the west and Fairbanks Street along Lathrup High School to the east. Geist Road borders to the south. There are intersections with signals at Geist Road and Thompson Drive and at Geist Road and Fairbanks Street.

The CCHRC sits in the northwest corner of the lot with a gravel road leading to it along the northern and western borders of the site (Figure 15). According to the 2010 University of Alaska at Fairbanks Master Plan, the CCHRC site and the adjacent lot have been designated as partners and outreach available to lease for research purposes.

Figure 16. UAF Campus Map (UAF Master Plan 2010)

Figure 17. UAF Campus Building Use (UAF Master Plan 2010)

The only paved roads are those that run along the perimeter of the site on the south, west, and east borders. Along the southern border facing Geist Road is the Interior-Aleutians Campus Building.

Approximately 29% of the site (20.5 acres) is designated palustrine (marshes, bogs, swamps, tundra) wetlands. Black spruce thicket makes up 84% of the wetlands. Topography & Vegetation: This site sets in the valley floor just below the south facing slope of the UAF campus. It is a complex piece of land and hosts a variety of forest and under-story vegetation. It is gently sloping 1-5% from north to south, with a slight tilt to the southeast. The lowland creates a drainage basin collecting spring melt runoff and forms wetlands over much of the site. The landscape is natural (undeveloped), mostly drunken spruce forest with some deciduous forest meandering throughout the east side, and substantial grassland with raspberry bushes.


Figure 18. Open Space Use (UAF Master Plan 2010)

There is one low area which is a pond most of the summer. The under story vegetation is rich with sphagnum moss, labrador tea, coltsfoot, low bush cranberry, scrub willow, alder bushes and other plants providing opportunities for herbal wild crafting throughout the site. Dead fallen spruce trees play host to lichens.

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 19 Site CharacteristicsFigure 20. Drunken Boreal Forest and Wetlands with Permafrost (Khalsa)

Figure 21. Low Bush Cranberries (Khalsa)

Figure 22. Colts Foot (Khalsa)

Figure 19. Drunken Boreal Forest and Wetlands with Permafrost (Khalsa)


This 70 acre site is one of the larger lots remaining in the Fairbanks city limits and supports species of wildlife such as moose, arctic hare, fox, squirrels, small rodents and many bird species both migratory and annual residents. The site has been designated a wetland by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

SOIL

Numerous boring tests have been done at various times in past years revealing thaw-unstable permafrost at varying depths over the majority of the site. Areas of “drunken forest” suggest some melting activity of the permafrost.

CLIMATEThe climate is moderate in the summer ranging on average from 53-72 degrees with possibilities of reaching the low 90’s on long summer days. There is lots of sun in the summer when the “midnight sun” circumambulates the globe on summer solstice at such an angle that it doesn’t set. This site is open to the south and gets good southern exposure both summer and winter. Average annual precipitation is 11.5 inches, with 68 inches of snow. The winter sun limits its rise to just above the horizon and gives light from approximately 11:00 am to 2:30 pm at such a low angle that there is insignificant solar heat gain from it (Keeping in mind that the length of a day changes by minutes every day). Winter temperatures range in average from -2 to -25 degrees. Extremes (which occur at some point in the winter months) vary between highs of 40 degrees and lows of -60 degrees fahrenheit. Being in the valley this site is a low land and will experience the coldest extremes.

CIRCULATION The university operates an on-campus shuttle bus system and the site is accessible by the Fairbanks North Star Borough bus system (MACS). The on-campus shuttle bus system is critical to university circulation in that it connect facilities on the perimeter of campus to the campus core. Currently, the Nenana Shuttle Station is the closest to the site. MACS stops are located at the Transit Hub and the perimeter of the campus, and corner of the CCHRC site at Geist Road and University Avenue. Parking on campus will be served by parking lots 4D, 4E, and 4F along Tanana Loop.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Sustainable practices will be explored in the prototype structures. Currently, the UAF Planning Department requires all development on campus to include utilities and infrastructure accommodations. The majority of utilities are run within the extensive underground utilidor system which is a proven, reliable method. Other infrastructure systems currently in place throughout campus include:• A ditch and swale system, in combination with sewers, is used for site drainage. Underground systems for site drainage must be carefully designed because storm inverts allow super cold air to freeze the lines, making them non-operational during surface thaws without substantial steam thawing of the pipes.• The wetlands on the east side of campus are the receiving areas for storm water and melt from Lower Campus.

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 21 Site CharacteristicsFigure 23. UAF Campus Circulation and Transportation (UAF Campus Master Plan 2010)

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 22 Site CharacteristicsFigure 24. UAF Campus Circulation and Parking (UAF Campus Master Plan 2010)

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 23 Site CharacteristicsFigure 25. UAF Campus Utility Network (UAF Campus Master Plan 2010)

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 24 Site CharacteristicsFigure 26. UAF Campus Soils (UAF Campus Master Plan 2010)

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 25 Site CharacteristicsFigure 27. CCHRC Green Roof Plan (Rust et al 2007)

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 26 Site CharacteristicsFigure 28. CCHRC Green Roof cross section (Rust et al 2007)


Figure 29. Wind Turbines (CCHRC Web Site)

Figure 30. Masonry Heater at CCHRC facility (CCHRC Web Site)

Water will be delivered and stored in holding tanks, and there will be a water catchment system for rainwater. Sewer will be handled individually at each structure by an internal septic treatment system. Storm drainage will be surface drainage.

Figure 31. CCHRC Holding Pond (Khalsa)

Figure 32. CCHRC Solar Panels (Khalsa)


Ecosystem Services

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 29 Ecosystem Services

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Unifying Site and Cultural Analysis:

When considering the landscape and our interaction with it we benefit from developing the most harmonious relationship possible. A greater longevity is assured when we look at creating a long term sustainable lifestyle that enhances humanity and all other life forms we share Earth with. These resources are known as ecosystem services. These services include many things that we have had the luxury of taking for granted such as, clean drinking water, decomposition of wastes, food, solar energy, wind, minerals, fire and more.

The resources which make up our environments are the things we depend on to support life for humanity. Our ingenuity has found many ways to combine and alter them to make the natural resources useful in a variety of ways. In 2004 the United Nations initiated a study of these services involving over 1,300 scientists across the globe. As a result of this study ecosystem services were grouped into four categories; provisioning, such as the production of food and water; regulating, such as the control of climate and disease; supporting, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination; and cultural, such as spiritual and recreational benefits. As we are observing our impact on the resources upon which we depend it is obvious that our increasing numbers in population worldwide are putting stress on the ability of the ecosystem services to continually provide for our needs. Many of the resources which we depend upon do not renew themselves, and in the case of plant and animal life, many species cannot sustain themselves at the rate that we are consuming or displacing them. There is not an unlimited supply of plant, animal, mineral, water, or soil resources.

We must consider all of the range of costs consumption brings to bear, and recognize the web of cause-effect chain of reactions we are an integral part of. When we overburden any aspect of the balance in nature the stress of that imbalance eventually comes full circle back to us and we have to make sacrifices. Diverse ecosystems are more productive than non-diverse ones and there is an economic

consequence to allowing over specialization. Along the chain of life support, species both nourish and nurture each other. One of the goals in the long term studies involved with the Sustainable Village is to explore the activities of species enhancement. This is particularly relevant in delicate environments such as the Circumpolar North.

The Sustainable Village concept is to study how we can most effectively and efficiently partner ecosystem services with human activity and innovation by exploring ways to combine cultural tradition and modern technology in creating a sustainable future. For residents of the “village” this translates to a lower consumption and more economically practical life experience. The CCHRC is continually expanding it’s research facility and field projects to explore water catchment, storage, and purification; food production, gathering and storage; heating and energy production; solar energy production, storage, and use; sewage treatment, and health safety; building methods and materials; and cultural and social requirements to maintaining healthy growing communities.

Within the anthropological setting our customs of storytelling, art, music, spiritual practices, foods, language, clothing, survival techniques; imitating nature and developing shelters are the “ecosystem services” that keep a culture alive and ensure the longevity of the community. The Sustainable Village model trains community members in the building methods needed to construct their homes, and they are given the skills to monitor, and maintain their village.

Taking all of this into account the CCHRC is an organization committed to present long range studies of the impact nature and humanity have on each other and strive to forge the future through exploration using the Prototype Sustainable Village as a staging ground for the continual evolution of methods to create the most cooperative relationship possible between ecosystem services and human cultural practices from which everyone benefits.

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 30 Design Alternatives

FUNDAMENTALS OF PLANNING

Unifying Site and Cultural Analysis:

The central theme of sustainability is to promote the health, longevity and balance of every aspect of life in a community. This means the economic, environmental, and socio-cultural elements of life all meet and work in such a way as to support and sustain each other. This requires observation, communication and long range planning to guide the inner qorkings of the community. A natural response in site analysis is the need to understand how the site will grow to support and hold the necessary activities to satisfy the needs of the community. Figure 33 is a sustainability planning map to understand the relationship of development to the values central to tribal community planning.

The Sustainable Prototype Village at UAF is a demonstration of technologies that support sustainable development and adapt to the sensitivites of the site. The demonstration project is to test conditions, costs, and technologies before wider-spread implementation in Native Alaskan communities. Appendix E is a qualitative cost/benefit analysis (“Six Thinking Hats”) or “mind map” illustrating how the UAF demonstration project can be adapted in Native communities.

Figure 33. Sustainability Planning Map


Project Scope


SITE

• Avoid through traffic from high school• Get emergency vehicles through and water delivery trucks• Durabase – expensive• Use gravel; mulched vegetation as thermal base• Walking community• Parking; people walk in• Gardens w/ greenhouse• Boardwalks• Connect to bus turnout• Arboretum plantings – possibly longer term goal• Low use local roads with turn around parking area• Apiary staging• Emergency vehicles; pavers• Walking path to bus turn out• Path to Geist city bus stop• Electricity is along Geist. Double the cost to bury electrical, but this is the standard for development on the UAF Campus according to the Master Plan

Background research of the site and understanding general development conditions for UAF buildings provided the design team with a set of baseline constraints and opportunities. During an October 2010 visit to the University of Arizona design team in Tucson, Jack Hebert sat down with the design team to more explicitly define the design criteria, program requirements, and timeline for developing a feasibility of constructing the prototype sustainable village.

PROJECT SCOPE

UAF Sustainable Village Design Criteria

BUILDING

• Maybe shared external walls• 1200 sq ft or less per structure• 10 clusters of 5; how the structures relate to each other• Some higher density 2 story• Family residence. 3-4 bedrooms, 8 students / couples• Connection between houses as screened area; breeze way• Southern orientation for solar gain.• Same village clustering• CHP building – heat greenhouse• Water treatment goes onto the ground and gets absorbed• Delivered water by water truck.• Heat in a variety of ways• Sewage treatment is individual to each unit

USER• Cultural – we are all connected.• Cultural identity attached for various villages• Elder housing• Students interact with ski trails & student recreation center.• Students can learn construction skills using arctic techniques.


Cold Climate Housing Research CenterSustainable Village Program Reqirements:

1. Upon completion of the final concept(s), there needs to be a hierarchy of phasing that will be applied to the site for indication of future planning and construction considerations.2. The selection of five locations on the proposed site for clustering of medium density housing for college students that can potentially be multifamily or individual cohabitation. 3. For each location a proposed minimum of five units to accommodate the potential medium density housing.4. Individual units must support 3-4 bedrooms for approximately 8 individuals. The unit’s overall layout should be formed around a centralized meeting room with appropriate amenities.5. The identification of mitigation techniques for potential pest problems during summer months need to resolved. 6. An established trail system for the connectivity of pedestrian, bicycle and snowmobile/off-road vehicles, that allows users to circulate between villages, as wells as to connect bus lines and the larger UAF Campus. 7. Responding to the sensitive ecological components, there are areas that should be avoided on-site: wetlands, where possible, and the permafrost that is located in the center of the site. Also, open grass and shrub area should be preserved and left undisturbed.8. Identify a route for the water truck and emergency access. It is suggested that these two routes are coincident to minimize ecological damage on-site.9. Address containment options for: 1) water and sewer, 2) waste water and storm management, and 3) water conservation through on-site rain water harvesting strategies.10. It is recommended, where applicable, that materials used on- site for construction are recycled and other construction materials be appropriate for use in the Circumpolar North. 11. With regard to the clusters of housing, established a building footprint for a greenhouse and ample space for gardening to promote a self-sustaining community.

To deliver the stated project scope within the Fall 2010 semester, the following timeline was developed.

Timeline:Week 1 – Define Program Week 2 - Conceptual DiagramWeek 3 - Review opportunities and constraintsWeek 4 – Refine and Edit Final Concept Week 5 – Final Report and Documentation Week 6 – Review and Final edit


Design Alternatives


SUMMARY OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

The following design alternatives were developed and reviewed. Each answers the program requirements in a different way.

“First Pass” AlternativeThe “First-Pass” Alternative was developed as a “first-pass” at developing a structural layout for the site (Figure 34). For this alternative several elements of the design criteria had yet to be clarified. This alternative uses the criteria that the village has 5 housing clusters of 10 units each. They were located to the east of the site to avoid disturbing the wetlands as much as possible. Parking was included as part of each housing cluster.

Figure 34. “First Pass” Alternative


During a Skype conference call November 11, 2010 with Jack Hebert and his team of engineers, we eliminated the parking from each cluster. The reasoning was to support a 100% walking community. Parking would be accommodated using existing UAF parking lots North of Tenana Loop. After further discussion we concluded that the initial density of five clusters of ten units each, for a total of fifty units, was too intense given the sensitive nature of the site. The initial arrangement would require a footprint of 60,000 square feet. The design team was instructed to develop layouts of 10 clusters of 5 units each. To minimize the impact of the entire housing development, the design team began to play with the cluster arrangement of units in relation to each other so it would feel more organic and flow more with the land. Another design aspect that impacted arrangement was to minimize the potential obstruction a building could impose upon adjacent clusters in order to maximize sun exposure. The “first-pass” alternative also did not provide for emergency vehicle access.

The UA project team really needed to reflect upon the design changes resulting from the conversation with the CCHRC but they also needed to consider the functionality of the site; subsequent site proposals needed to adapt to the land use suitability of the site and sensitivities that may impact development potential. As mentioned previously, basic site analysis was completed by Katie Mouton and Dowl Engineering. The result was a series of maps indicating the extent of wetlands as described by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, vegetation cover as identified by Katie during direct observation and through use of GoogleEarth satellite imagery, and soil cover as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) (Appendix A). These maps, in addition to those produced by Dowl Engineering served as a very cursory constraints analysis in determining locations for the sustainable villages.

Alternative A1Alternative A1 integrates the changes from the “first pass”, including changing the cluster arrangement to ten units of five and eliminating parking. The design of each cluster reflects an abstract pentagon, since each cluster has five units. The units for Alternative A will have an occupancy of 6 to 8 people per unit with each unit approximately 1,440 square feet; or of dimensions 48’ x 30’. The radial orientation of the cluster is to avoid blocking the sun and views of other clusters. Additionally, the yellow square in the center of the site indicates the approximate location of wetlands. The clusters are located on the edge of site to minimize the amount of new road needed for emergency access and to decrease the impact on the site’s ecology. (Figure 35)

Additional characteristics:• Trails set at 3’ wide• Roads set at 8’ wide

Alternative A2Alternative A2 (Figure 36) continues to integrate the changes from the First Pass alternative but provides for larger units. Again, the design supports ten clusters of five units. Each unit is approximately 2,880 square feet, or dimensions of 60’ x 48’, and can accommodate eight people comfortably. For smaller families, the additional room can be used for arctic cold storage, as a work area, or to house a self-contained waste water system. Each cluster includes space for “cluster gardens” or outdoor community space. Buildings are oriented approximately 15 degrees to the east to capture east light, a little more south light onto the west wall, and a little more setting sun on the north wall. Building footprints are staggered to avoid blocking the light and view of adjacent housing clusters.

Additional characteristics:• Service and emergency vehicles approach on the north side.• Walking trail extends over the Geist Road for bus access.


After the development of Alternatives A1 and A2 the project team at the CCHRC responded with additional comments that would further constrain where the clusters could be built. During a conference call via Skype on November 30th, 2010 Jack Hebert sent a sketch of the most desirable locations for project development. The areas we identified in the first three alternatives were already identified by the UAF in the 2010 master plan (Citation) as locations restricted from development to prevent disturbance to the approach to the university along Thompson Drive. Given this change, additional flexibility is possible with respect to placement of the clusters, the number of units within each, and occupancy sizes.

Other CCHRC comments included:• Make it flow with the topography of the land• Avoid wetlands• Locate the clusters more throughout the hardwood forest• Trails can be narrow walking paths, not necessarily three feet wide

Alternative B1Alternative B1 aligns the constraints identified during the November 2010 conversation with the CCHRC with the overall program goals. In this alternative, the number of units in each cluster varies but respects the sensitivity of wetlands by avoiding these areas and the clusters are primarily located in hardwood forests. Also, this alternative does not disturb the grasslands in the northeast corner of the site. In total, this alternative accommodates for a total of 32 units, each 48’ x 60’, in seven clusters. The general concept behind these units is that they can accommodate more people in a smaller area. Additionally, each structure is oriented slightly east for additional light exposure. (Figure 37)

Additional characteristics:• Connected by walking trails.• No parking on site.

Alternative B2Alternative B2 is similar to Alternative B1. The differences between the two alternatives is that this alternative eliminates the clusters of residences to the west of the Interior Aleutians Building. Additionally, there are now structure in the northeast corner. Although the size of the buildings are the same, 48’ x 60’, this alternative has one less unit, thirty-two, than Alternative B1 in seven clusters. (Figure 38)

Alternative CAlternative C is very different than the alternatives presented thus far. The First Pass and all A and B alternatives have included configurations of a single size unit; units in each cluster were the same size - either 48’ x 25’, 48’ x 30’, or 48’ x 60’. Alternative C provides a combination of each of these sizes. Among the fifty units represented in this alternative, the number of units in each cluster varies. Although this alternative does include three small structure to the west of the Interior Aleutians Building, unlike Alternative B2, the location of these units provides added privacy and act as its own community separated from the other clusters. The other clusters are primarily located in the hardwood forest but avoid areas identified as wetlands. Additionally, no structures disturb the grasslands. Given that units and clusters vary in size and arrangement, a lack of sun exposure is still a concern. This alternative staggers the placement of each structure to reduce concealment of the sun. Since the other alternatives are uniform in the number of units in each cluster and the size of each unit, configuration could be difficult for Alternative C. Instead of succumbing to the difficulties in the uniqueness of Alternative C, the project team used these issues to their advantage. Figure 39 illustrates that some radial configurationis retained by creating a centralized inner courtyard.


Figure 35. Alternative A1


Figure 36. Alternative A2


Figure 37. Alternative B1

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 41 Design AlternativesFigure 38. Alternative B2


Figure 39. Alternative C


# of small units48’ x 25’(Total: 1,200 sq. ft)

# of medium units48’ x 30’(Total: 1,440 sq. ft)

# of large units48’ x 60’(Total: 2,880 sq. ft)

Total Units

No. of Clusters

Impervious Surface

First Pass Alternative

50

50

5 @ 10 units

60,000 sq ft

AlternativeA1

25

25

5 @ 5 units

36,000 sq ft

AlternativeA2

50

50

10 @ 5 units

60,000 sq ft

AlternativeB1

33

33

7

95,040 sq ft

AlternativeB2

32

32

7

92,160 sq ft

AlternativeC

32

15

3

50

12

68,640 sq ft

Table 1: ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY


As part of this study six alternatives were examined. Shifts in the general design are seen after the First Pass Alternative and prior to the development of Alternative B. These shifts were due to design feedback from the CCHRC. The six alternatives really provide a spectrum of options for the proposed site. The differences among the alternatives are how well they satisfy the original design criteria.

Site:Goals satisfied for all alternatives were those relating to walkability, parking, and preservation of sensitive environments. All alternatives encourage walking within the site and between housing clusters. The major differences really stemmed from how the word “community” is defined through the design criteria.

Alternatives 1 and 2 really are self-contained communities in the sense of everything that is needed to survive is available within each cluster. Yet when considering the social definition of community people are connected by walking paths and boardwalks. The journey and distance to another cluster may seem like an inconvenience but it really provides an opportunity for the resident to make a connection with nature along their journey. In this way, these two alternatives provide a more explicit connection between nature, people, and sustainable housing.

Alternatives B1, B2 and C take a different approach to defining community and everything that is important for a community to thrive. There is a clear separation between preservation areas and housing. Although the housing clusters generally have a minimal impact on the environment, these alternatives allow the natural systems that exist in the forest research area on the west side of the site to remain untouched. Residents are still able to walk between clusters using trails and boardwalks in those few areas that cross sensitive environments. Community in these alternatives is very different than in Alternatives 1 and 2 in that the social context is maintained but

the inclusion of the natural features for these three alternatives really stems from the reverence and respect of the natural landscape the cluster design imposes.

The layout of Alternatives 1 and 2 is spread out literally over the entire site. A driveway for emergency vehicle access is provided for each cluster . In Alternative 1, residents can park in dedicated spaces in the lot along Fairbanks Street, shared spaces at UAFs Harper Building, or in shared spaces with the CCHRC. In Alternative A2, parking is provided within each cluster. For Alternatives B1, B2 and C, there is no parking on-site aside from driveways provided for emergency access. Residents of the clusters near Geist Road can share parking with UAFs Harper Building and residents of the clusters in the northern section of the site can share parking with the CCHRC. Additional parking and access to UAF and City of Fairbanks public transportation is available north of the train tracks in the West Nenana UAF lot. Since this is a sustainable project, the developers should work closely with the university and local planning officials to obtain waivers for minimum parking requirements.

For all alternatives, water will be delivered and stored in holding tanks and there will be a water catchment system for rainwater. Sewer will be handled individually at each structure by an internal septic treatment system. Storm drainage will be surface drainage.

Building:Only two alternatives have units that are completely or mostly (more than 60%) 1,200 sqaure feet (Table 1). After understanding the site, the “ideal” size of a unit and the number of units in each cluster deviated from what was stated in the initial design criteria. In the initial design criteria what was more important was an understanding of how the buildings related to each other. This spatial relationship was demonstrated through orientation of the structures to capture sunlight for natural light within the living spaces and to maximize the potential to capture solar energy for heating and cooling.

All alternatives except Alternative C provide for uniform housing

SUMMARY


types; with living spaces for a particular number of individuals. To make the space most efficient, ideally you would house the most number of students possible in the unit. So for example, if the unit was made for 8 people then you would try to house 8 individuals in that unit. This causes a few issues: first, although it is possible to place individuals in units below occupancy, it is important to understand how this impacts the “sustainability” and efficiency of the structure and resources used to run the structure. Secondly, the community chousl be designed to accommodate structures and clusters of various sizes. Although this is simply a demonstration project and true application are in communities with a strong family structure and close familial ties, providing for a variety of housing types and sizes can help the CCHRC test various definitions of efficiency - in terms of cost, time, and maintenance - if several housing options are available. Alternative C provides this variety by integrating each housing unit type in its design among clusters of different densities. Additionally, the amount of impervious surface due to design coverage is comparable in Alternative C than to Alternative A2, which impacts more sensitive environments while still accommodating the same number of total units.

User:The very nature of the sustainable prototype villages is such that residents feel connected to nature and to each other. At the site and building level this connectivity is reflected in each alternative - at various levels and using different flows. Developments in India, South Africa and other nations where culture and community values shape residential development endear an ethic that is directly transformed into the built environment.

“Inhabitants encode their environment within a paradigm generated by territorial identity and usage patterns. Often the same development needs to work also within a public paradigm with clearly defined networks of movement, information and social mobility. A formal pattern of hierarchical socio-cultural infrastructure and city level movement pattern is overlaid on the ‘atonal’ housing mass fabric to create a duality of perceptual fields. This combined with a formal

landscape provides the necessary ‘place-making’ element providing the settlement its identity in a wider urban context” (Shrachi 2008).

The alternatives presented here enable residents to interact with each other in community spaces available within each cluster or they can interact with nature using the many walking trails and boardwalks. Although the community is self-sustaining there is access and a need to interact with the UAF campus to participate in recreation or outdoor activities, catch public transportation, or to just be apart of a different environment. Given the site’s proximity to the CCHRC residents can learning sustainable construction skills in the context of arctic environments and can engage with the center in other projects that may include a greenhouse or arboretum.


Conclusion

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 47 Conclusion

CONCLUSION

The plot of land immediately adjacent and to the south of the CCHRC facility, which is the site being studied in this report, is well suited for the proposed Prototype Sustainable Village project. The location is within walking distance of the main UAF campus which makes it convenient for student housing. Being adjacent to the CCHRC it can be closely monitored as an extension of the existing facilities. Ongoing studies and further development of ways to live sustainably in arctic environments can occur without the burden of shipping costs or transportation to remote sites. The natural Boreal Forest topography of the site simulates the larger natural environment, thereby, presenting many of the same challenges of development interfacing with a complex landscape such as surface moisture, permafrost, unstable soil conditions, delicate plant materials and frozen ground much of the year.

This project will serve the UAF by providing student housing, expand the CCHRC research facility, and will have impact on the Native Villages of Alaska and indigenous peoples of the Circumpolar North around the world. The intention of this project is that the natural landscape will be maintained as unaltered as possible, especially the sensitive wetland areas. This site is ideal for studying the complexities of the Boreal Forest and how we can impose a human footprint with the least possible negative impact on the environment

At this time of profound climate change we are being challenged to investigate our relationship to the environment and apply our ingenuity as we take responsibility for improvements we can make by utilizing sustainable practices. Native cultures hold the indigenous wisdom that has served their subsistence survival practices for centuries. The Sustainable Village will explore merging ancient indigenous wisdom with contemporary technologies to build the most culturally meaningful and physically responsible future possible. Building a Prototype Sustainable Village on the 70 acre site proposed in this feasibility study is a step on that path.

The vision for this community is that it will be a walking community with boardwalks and paths for circulation in order to have the lowest possible impact on the land. Wild harvesting of indigenous plant foods will be observed alongside food production agriculture for the community. Solar and wind power are already being studied, along with self-contained sewage treatment units. Building materials and methods are being studied to address the extreme arctic climate, including transportation challenges to remote areas. This village will also be a training facility for teaching the residents of the villages how to build the structures, giving them trade skills.

The building materials and construction methods developed as a result of studies done at the Sustainable Village will be a demonstration that we can make significant changes in the quality of life in the remote arctic villages. These advancements are meant to have a global impact. It will be more economically feasible to heat a home, and it will be a healthier environment without mold and poor indoor air quality that leads to death from upper respiratory disease. The natural resources of the landscape, wind and sun, will be harvested to provide electricity.

With continued research and careful planning we can create culturally and environmentally sensitive communities. Efficiency, safety and health cannot be taken for granted in extreme climates and must be strong factors in the design criteria. Another step in the process will be to look with a broader perspective and develop comprehensive plans for the layout of the villages which reflect the indigenous culture living in harmony with the landscape. The village can take shape around its cultural values and activities so a grace and beauty flows from the built form and an expression of place emerges like a mandala in the tundra. As we bring culture, architecture and environment together we plan for a future that will sustain all life on all levels.

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 48 Conclusion

REFERENCES

Cold Climate Housing and Research Center, 2008 Annual Report, January 2009.

Cold Climate Housing and Research Center, “Quinhagak Prototype Home,” Cold Climate Housing and Research Center, http://cchrc.org/quinhagak-prototype-home.

Cold Climate Housing and Research Center, “Sustainable Northern Communities,” Cold Climate Housing and Research Center, http://www.cchrc.org/sustainable-northern-communities.

Cold Climate Housing and Research Center, “The Sustainable Northern Shelters (SNS) Program,” GW Scientific, http://www.gwscientific.com/cchrc/sns/anaktuvuk-pass/stp/index.shtml.

Dowl Engineers, University of Alaska Fairbanks Research/Business Park Master Plan, April 2006.

Rust, C., D. Reichardt, J. Derry, and M. Lilly, 2007. CCHRC Roof Hydrology During Spring 2007 Break-up. Fairbanks: Cold Climate Housing and Research Center.

Shrachi, “Housing - Renaissance, Burdwan,” Shrachi, http://www.shrachibardhaman.com/township/housing.php.

University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) 2010 Campus Master Plan, (Fairbanks: University of Alaska, 2010)


APPENDICES

Prototype Sustainable Village for the Circumpolar North 50 Appendices

APPENDIX A

Katie MoutonCCHRC Summer 2010

PURPOSEThis summer I was given the task of conducting a baseline survey of the land adjacent to the CCHRC for a possible environmentally friendly student housing project. CCHRC wanted to know the types of vegetation, the animal life, the water drainage, the soil types, and other important qualities of the plot of land.

Techniques:In order to fully study the piece of land I employed a few different techniques. I used mapping tools such as hand held GPS, GIS software, GoogleEarth imaging, local agency maps (Fairbanks North Star Borough, University of Alaska Fairbanks) and national agency maps (Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA). I conducted physical walk-throughs of the land to assess the ground types and the vegetative cover. I looked for wildlife and recorded sightings and possible habitat locations.

RESULTSOver my summer long internship, I have worked to understand the plot of land slated for future construction. It is a complex piece of land that exhibits a multitude of different vegetation and habitat types. A very large portion of the land area is taken up by a drunken forest. This consists of a sphagnum moss covered floor, blueberry bushes, low bush cranberries, dead fallen spruce trees covered in lichen and a few still standing spruce trees. These large areas of drunken forest have lots of low shrub-like growth and are very moist. (This land is designated as a wetland by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) The only active animal life I actually encountered were birds such as robins, but there was evidence of recent moose and rabbit activity. This evidence came in the form of excrement, hoof prints and rabbit trails.

Another forest type was the close-set, stunted spruce forest. This forest type had very thin trees placed very close together with little to no underbrush present. The forest floor was usually mossy in these areas

too. Animal life found here were usually rabbits and birds.

Yet another forest type is the mixed forest. This is usually on the drier soils surrounding the plot of land. The tree types consist of birch, aspen, black spruce, etc. In this mixed forest area in addition to the various trees, grasses and a few low shrubs grow rampantly. Wildlife found here includes a multitude of rabbits and birds. Moose and rodent leavings (including excrement and tracks) were also found here. The soil is very dry and because of this the trees are not obviously stunted and the sphagnum moss is not found here.

A final area type is a small portion of land not dominated by trees, but by shrubs and grasses. This is found along the disturbed land (possibly ski trails or used by ATVs) and in a corner of the property. The soil here is dry, but in the tracks of the disturbed land water accumulates forming ponds. It is also here that a few larger ponds are found. Plant life includes raspberries, a variety of wild flowers, mushrooms, tall grasses and some medium height shrubs. Grass growth is very thick. Animal life consists of small rodents (squirrels and mice), moose (not seen, but bedding areas, excrement and prints), one fox (he has been seen multiple times in the area), rabbits (so many rabbits) and many birds (including a Great Grey owl).

MAPSI have created three maps to supplement the DOWL report supplied by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The first map shows the extent of the wetland area as described by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The second map shows the vegetation cover as seen by me on my walks and through the use of GoogleEarth satellite imaging. The final map is of the soil cover as described by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service.

This is also supplied in digital format as well.Note: Lidar data of this area will be available at the end of the year. This is a better technology and will be helpful for further study of the land and in depth mapping. UAF is also currently working on a master plan which will include a property wide map.


SOILS MAP VEGETATION MAP WETLAND EXTENT MAP

APPENDIX B NOTES FROM SITE WALK: UAF Sustainable Village August 10, 2010

• Contact the PI’s of the Thermopile Project near the pond to get data on thermal regime of the land• The main North-South trail is a wild-edible corridor: Chokecherries, Raspberries, Coltsfoot• The site seems to have once been irrigated; there is old piping crumpled up at numerous spots• What types of water collection strategies are viable here? Cisterns, evaporative catchments?• The possibility of dedicating a wild crafted herb garden… FOODSOURCE must be an integral part of this development• Beekeeping• How could the work of Les Viereck (sp?) be incorporated into this project?• An arboretum is a possibility• The idea of touching the earth lightly is appealing. A boardwalk between buildings would be peaceful and in keeping with the mission. Each building will likely have to have parking and loading area, and certainly ADA accessibility, but if there were additional paths behind that connected the buildings in an organic web through the forest, it would be a wonderful place to walk and meditate on the taiga.


APPENDIX C

Figure 42. DOWL Site Map showing wetlands. (Dowl Engineers 2006)


APPENDIX D

Process DrawingsFigure 43. Design Criteria

Figure 44. Vegetation Layout Map


Figure 45. Concept One Drawings


Figure 46. Design Criteria, Site Map Figure 47. Concept Sketch


Figure 48. Radial design concept to avoid blocking sun and views

Figure 49. Concept for group living; common area, possibly elders.


Figure 50. Concept 1, 2, and 3 Drawings


Figure 51. Notes from meetings with CCHRC


Figure 52. Alternative C Concept Sketch


APPENDIX E

SIX THINKING HATSUsing the known design criteria we organized and categorized the data to compare and contrast the urban setting with the rural setting since housing needs are in every community and the specific UAF project is urban and most of the villages are rural.

Six Thinking Hats – Univ of Alaska, Prototype Sustainable VillageProblem: The University of Alaska at Fairbanks needs student housing that is sustainable, with reduced impact to the environment, and has financial longevity.Intent: The purpose is to develop a concept document for a Research-Demonstration Housing Village in Alaska. The research housing project will demonstrate viable options for building and community design for the circumpolar north.

THINKING HATSWhite Hat:With this thinking hat, you focus on the data available. Look at the information you have, and see what you can learn from it. Look for gaps in your knowledge, and either try to fill them or take account of them. This is where you analyze past trends, and try to extrapolate from historical data.

Economic

Site Analysis/Structural

UAF• Known cost of housing in traditional dorm vs. prototype• Financial incentives for prototype design (i.e., possibly federal green design incentives, LEED, etc.)

Circumpolar North (Villages)• How do the villagers make money?• How do the villagers provide for themselves (Artisans?)• Annualized cost of housing/maintenance

UAF• Master Plan report. Provides site conditions and alternatives that led to site choice.• Building techniques, materials, and insulation that are sustainable.• University sponsored sustainable village prototype• Provide a working demo housing to study and explore new building materials and techniques

Circumpolar North (Villages)• “Sustainable Northern Shelter Update”. Summary of constraints and other site conditions• “Qingok Ventilation Snapshot” provides details concerning ventilation constraints and solutions


UAF• Students, non-family; have data on general population needing dorm housing

Circumpolar North (Villages)• Family, native elders, extended family, children• Data reflecting number of families on housing list and their housing needs

Demographic

Legal

Cultural

UAF• Building codes and ordinances• University rules and standards• City codes

Circumpolar North (Villages)• Building codes?• Village regularion and laws

UAF• There is a relationship between maturity/level of education and respect for their environment (i.e., physical structure and principles of sustainability).• How students use the dorm as a gathering place (does their treatment and care of the facilities differ if building has sustainable features vs. traditional dorm)• Diversity; living learning environments

Circumpolar North (Villages)• Needs of subsistence lifestyle. Needs vary depending upon village (i.e., coastal v. near mountains). Generally, meat preservation is a primary need.• Potlach• Cultural familiarity with the use of the technology. Documented example in existing report.• Sacred elements; ideals• Artistic ideal• Music and dance• Ceremonies


Social

Environmental

Transportation

UAF• How the built environment facilitates social networks: quiet earth, study sleep environment

Circumpolar North (Villages)• Creates jobs and purpose• Relationship of social networks and the built environment; how one may facilitate the other• Extended family, more impactful use• Opportunities for villages to work together; teamwork and cooperation

UAF• More structured/controlled environment (on-campus)• Boreal forest (very moist) even without much precipitation• Selected site has extensive natural vegetation; undeveloped• Not a very permeable site/permafrost and wetlands• Permafrost/Wetlands

Circumpolar North (Villages)• Difference between seasons, amount of light is similar (about 3 months difference)• Terrain is much drier, rocky• Tundra• Most villages don’t have a very permeable site• Some villages need to be relocated due to global warming effects• It’s at least partly underground• Mainly ocean and/or rocky mountain environments

UAF Circumpolar North (Villages)• Limited access to supplies using the airport


Red Hat (complete last):Wearing the red hat, you look at the decision using intuition, gut reaction, and emotion. Also try to think how other people will react emotionally, and try to understand the intuitive responses of people who do not fully know your reasoning.

Black Hat:When using black hat thinking, look at things pessimistically, cautiously and defensively. Try to see why ideas and approaches might not work. This is important because it highlights the weak points in a plan or course of action. It allows you to eliminate them, alter your approach, or prepare contingency plans to counter problems that arise.

UAF• The community (can mean villages specifically but could include and circumpolar people on the planet) needs a leader - an example or demonstration of cultural ideas supported by progressive contemporary methods• Their is currently a 10-year waiting list for housing.

Circumpolar North (Villages)• Sustainable housing is needed in all circumpolar villages (around the globe)• A visionary solution to the problem

UAF• Impact• Houses fewer students than a traditional dorm. (Is building to same capacity as traditional dorm cost feasible?)

Circumpolar North (Villages)• Funding. How is the village going to pay for the structures? How is maintenance going to be paid for?• Transportation - transporting materials difficult for initial construction and maintenance• In case of mechanical failure, what is the backup system• Small structures create an isolating situation. Consider a communal or family style living

• Structural Impact. At UAF, fixed occupancy whereas in the villages challenges exist in variable occupancy and the number of occupants exceeding what the buildings are designed for. Also, a challenge in the villages with respect to use. (Possible solution is to design structures with “flex space”).• Technology may be too advanced or unfamiliar. Villagers require a lot of training in the use of the new technology.


Yellow Hat:The yellow hat helps you to think positively. It is the optimistic viewpoint that helps you to see all the benefits of the decision and the value in it, and spot the opportunities that arise from it. Yellow Hat thinking helps you to keep going when everything looks gloomy and difficult.

UAF• They need housing• Will reduce operating costs (long-term). Easier to heat, build, maintain, greater energy efficiency, etc. Makes a lot more sense given the constraints of the environment.• Quicker to build• Potential to offer tours/educational

Circumpolar North (Villages)• Much better quality of housing (insulation, affordable - utilities)• More functional than current housing • Natives can learn how to build these structures themselves• Creates jobs and develops skills• Restores dignity and pride in the village (i.e., reduces financial burden of housing)• Provides much needed affordable housing • Uses alternative energy sources• Unlimited growth potential (need a school and health center)

• This project can evolve and change over time as we develop new techniques and materials, a dynamic laboratory• (From UAF Project Statement) Developing innovative and sustainable approaches to community planning, design, construction management, research and evaluation and monitoring of the sustainable village.

UAF• Arboretum, experiment with tree species - contribute to education• Herba-wildcrafting• Boardwalks across the wetlands• Environment for research tours

Circumpolar North (Villages)• Change the organization of the village• Design details from artisans/develop character of village visually• Growing village food/CSA• Elder housing. Maybe need to handle differently• Cemeteries• Solar/wind building orientation• Mondala-shaped village plan

Green Hat:The Green Hat stands for creativity. This is where you can develop creative solutions to a problem. It is a freewheeling way of thinking, in which there is little criticism of ideas. A whole range of creativity tools can help you here.

CCHRC Final Ip

Documents

Transcript of CCHRC Final Ip