The Salt House Project

Te Salt House Project: Designing for Death (DfD)

by SunMin May Hwang

B.S., Housing & Interior Design Yonsei University, 2009

Submitted to the Department of Architecture in Partial Fulfllment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

February 2014

Te author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafer created.

Signature of Author ...... Department of Architecture January 15, 2013

Certifed by ...... Brandon Cliford Belluschi Lecturer of Dept. of Architecture Tesis Supervisor

Accepted by ...... Takehiko Nagakura Associate Professor of Design and Computation Chair of the Dept. Committee on Graduate Students 1 2 3 Tesis Committee

Tesis Supervisor

Brandon Cliford M.Arch, Belluschi Lecturer Massachusetts Institute of Technology External Design Critiques 12.19.2013

Gabriel Feld Tesis Reader Professor, RISD

Antón García-Abril Debora Mesa Ph.D, Professor of Architecture Visiting Faculty, MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lindy Roy John E. Fernández Visiting Lecturer, Architectural Design, Princeton University School of Architecture M.Arch, Associate Professor of Architecture, Building Technology, and Engineering Systems Head, Building Technology Program | Codirector, International Design Center, Singapore University of Technology and Design Marc Swackhamer 4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Associate Professor, University of Minnesota School of Architecture 5 Te Salt House Project: Designing for Death (DfD) Testing radically rapid turn-over of building life-cycle

by SunMin May Hwang

Submitted to the Department of Architecture on January 15, 2014 in partial fulfllment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Abstract

We as architects consider ourselves creators. We work under the false assumption that buildings will last forever. However, the fact is that every building eventually dies. Tis thesis rethinks the question of death. Te Salt House Project is a product of this questioning. It tests radically rapid turnover of the building life cycle in the Islands of Galapagos, Ecuador. Te thesis is carried out by designing a salt-cured seasonal residence, which will gradually and naturally be demolished over a designated period of time. Te building life expectancy will be precisely set out from the beginning to the end-purporting each and every step of its life cycle -from occupation to demolition. It will be constructed and disappear back into the nature within a one-year life cycle. Some parts will obviously remain for a longer period of time depending on its structural integrity. However, the big picture is that the house will evolve-decay over time, varying not only in its form but also in its function. To implement this idea, all building materials will be based on natural resources including salt, soil, gravel, sand and coconut fber. Water and heat will be the binding solution of the building structure and wind and rain will act as demolition agents. Tis thesis challenges the attempt to alleviate building obsolescence over time by reversely mandat- ing a building’s life expectancy. In doing so, we achieve frstly, a sympathetic connection between geometry and material and secondly, a vitality to achieve eccentric expressions of life styles that can be highly unique and customized. In fact, the way we operate shifs dra- matically when we design for death as opposed to perpetuity.

Tesis Supervisor: Brandon Cliford 6 Title: Belluschi Lecturer of Department of Architecture 7 Acknowledgment

I would like to sincerely thank:

All M.Arch fellow students who I learned the most from during my time at MIT, Professors for the “whippings” that now will be the seed of both my life and career, Cron for ubiquitous and kind support, Cynthia Stewart and the rest of administrative staf whose eforts made things happen,

JongWan & Namjoo for the devoted help in the last few days of thesis, JinKyu for the mentorship when most needed, Miho & Sung for the comfort and friendship throughout the frst year, Jonathan Krones, Zahraa Saiyed, and Emily Lo Gibson for their supportive feedbacks,

Antón García-Abril for both compliments and critiques that come from true expertise, John E. Fernández for the added intellectual rigor and depth to my research, Nader Tehrani for the courage and confdence I gained through the internship at NADAAA,

Brandon Cliford, the best teacher I have ever had, for making my last semester the most enjoyable and the most successful,

Friends & Relatives all over the world for encouragements,

Peter Kang, needless to say, for being there with me,

and

Lastly but not the least, my family for the inefable trust, love and support.

SunMin May Hwang January 15, 2014

8 9 Table of Contents

Introduction 12 Material & Building Process Experiments 60 Unintended building obsolescence 14 1. Salt crystallization 62 Rising building demolition rates over time 16 2. Salt solidity test 78 DfD Matrix: Scale over time 18 3. Salt texture, composite test 90 Building component life-span 20 4. Earth repose test 96 Deconstruction vs Demolition 22 5. Salt layer test (Saltifcation 1, 2) 102 Architects’ attempts to alleviate building obsolescence over time 24 6. Excavation mock-up 108 Precedents 26 7. Demolition test 110 Other industries 32 8. Settings 122 Mandate of time 34 Result of buildings not designed to be deconstructed 36 Drawings & Renders 124 Phase sections 126 Testing Ground 38 Plans 128 Site Specifcs: Galapagos 40 Diagrammatic plans 130 Human Encroachment | Zoning 42 Section 132 Resources | Tourism 44 Renders 134

Design Process 46 Final Presentation 138 Life-cycle 48 Materials | Form 50 Bibliography 150 Life cycle assessment 52 Construction & Demolition Process 54 Program | Maintenance & Operation 56 Structure | Design Factor 58

10 11 Introduction

12 13 Unintended Building obsolescence

Interestingly enough, buildings in modern society are typical- DfD: Designing buildings to facilitate future renovations and ly not designed to be demolished or deconstructed according eventual disassembly. Tis involves using less adhesives and to construction and demolition expert Bradley Guy. Te way materials and using more re-usable components. architects have been operating for years has been focused on growth and prosperity because we believe that long-lasting life C&D: Construction & Demolition materials consist of the de- is a virtue and at times economically more cost-efective. How- bris generated during construction, renovation and demolition ever, the result is that many buildings actually fail to fulfll their of buildings, roads and bridges. life expectancy set out by architects. In fact, up until now, the (http://www.epa.gov/greenhomes/TopGreenHomeTerms.htm) assumption was that building obsolescence is a matter of scale of time.

Derelict buildings seen at 'Villa 26' slum on the banks of the Riachue- Derelict building photography Derelict building in Saint Louis, MI, Derelict building in ZhongZheng, Taiwan lo river in the Argentinian capital of Buenos Aires, Argentina. (2011) Source: http://1074192222.blogspot.com/2011/02/12.html by Olivia Williams Approx. 6,000 abandoned buildings in the Missouri City which has seen a declining Source: http://fotografar.pt/predios-abandonados-ultrapassado-por-natureza/ Source: http://tetw.org/post/41374954509/ill-fares-the-land population over the last 60 years Source: Photographed by Demond Meek http:// www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169773/Stunning-photographs-transform-St- Louis-landscape-crumbling-buildings-abandoned-homes-slum-beautiful-art.html 14 15 Rising Building Demolition Rates over time

16 17 DfD Matrix: Scale over time

Short Term Medium Term Long Term (1-12 months) (1-15 years) (15 years- 60years)

Pneumocell: Inflatable Afterparty Installation Light House by Thomas Herzig by MOS S

San Francisco Embarcadero Pier-Museum, Historic Preservation

UBC C.K Choi Building London Aquatic center M by Zaha Hadid

L Source: http://gbdmagazine.com/2012/zaha-hadid-london/

Philips eco enterprise center Shrinking building Stata Parking Lot demolition in Japan 18 19 Building Component Life-

Building components’ life span varies to a great extent and so some parts inevitably become obsolete earlier than other components. Tis distribution map [fgure 1.] shows how ofen 0 1 year 10 years 20 years 30 years 40 years 50 years 60 years 70 years 80 years 90 years 100 years buildings are demolished for reasons unrelated to physical obsolescence. When the building is designed for perpetuity, it falls WHAT HAPPENED HERE? in the pit of having to deal with area redevelopment, resale and life expectancy of building components far exceed not to mention maintenance issues. *Please refer to the timeline below. actual lifespan of buildings Building life expectancy by factors and functions Schools Residential buildings non-residential buildings Building Ecology Research Timeline of high-rise towers Buidling Life-cycle maps Seagram building Buidling Component Life-span John Hancock Tower Chrysler building Building demolition reasons Empire state building Most of the reasons are unrelated to the physical obsolescence of building components Building components life expectancy Foundation Frame Upper Floors Stairs Windows Internal Walls Wall finish Ceiling finish Area redevelopment (34%) Space Heating & Air treatment Lift Installation Building no longer suitable for STUFF 5-15 yrs intended use (22%) SPACE PLAN 5-20 yrs 0 1 year 10 years 20 years 30 years 40 years 50 years 60 years 70 years 80 years 90 years 100 years SERVICES 5-30 yrs Others SKIN 30-60 yrs Timeline of temporary buildings inflatables, exhibition booths MOS’s Afterparty, P.S.1 NY, 2009 STRUCTURE 60-200 yrs Shigeruban container pavilion+recyclable paper tubes, Singapore Biennale 2008 Lack of maintenance (24%) SITE >building Exhibition booths Source: Building layers, The six S, by Stewart Brand (1994)_edit: added arrows go- Figure 1. 0 1month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 7 months 8 months 9 months 10 months 11months 12months Source: O’Connor, Jennifer. “Survey on actual service lives for North American ing counter clock to the original ones. Guy, Bradley, Ciarimboli, Nicholas and etc. “Design for Disassembly in the built en- buildings” 2004. vironment”-a guide to closed-loop design and building. 20 21 Deconstruction vs Demolition Deconstruction vs Demolition Deconstruction is a careful process that systematically disassembles a structure into Demolition process usually requires detonation thereby protection of the site its components. Tis process can recover items to be reused in future construction. and surrounding buildings. Many components that can be salvaged are damaged Deconstruction process is also roughly the reverse process of construction, allowing through this process. separation of materials for reuse, recycling and disposal.

21 % + Higher cost Deconstruction vs Demolition 37 %- Salvage value Deconstruction Demolition man power Cost $3.64/sq.ft. $1.74/sq.ft. 2.4 x Labor 12 people 5 people Time 5 days 3 days lower net deconstruction costs Man-hours 4 x Man-Hours 480 hours 120 hours 10%- Source: Deconstruction Institute, GreenHalo Systems, Note: For a typical 2000 square foot home

Building Demolition Transfer Recycling & Processing center Distribution Building Demolition Transfer Recycling & Processing center 22 23 Architects’ attempts to alleviate building obsolescence over time REUSE LIFE CYCLE IN BUILDING ENVIRONMENT

EXTRACTION OF NATURAL In order to resolve the problem of partial obsolescence, However, in the building industry, because of the large RESOURCES architects have attempted to reuse, recycle, reprocess and scale and the diverse methods of construction, despite the relocate buildings and material components. For exam- fact that there is a huge amount of research going on, the RECYCLING OF MATERIALS BUCKMINSTER FULLER’S DYMAXION PROCESSING INTO ple, Japanese metabolism came up with plug-in unit type ramifcations have been slow and minute in their impact. MATERIALS architecture in the 1900’s. However, the initial cost of (Simply put, this is not to say that we lack information or fabricating these customized unit types was too expensive knowledge, but it is rather that, it is hard for architects to REPROCESSING OF MATERIALS PHILIPS ECO-ENTERPRISE CENTER, MN that it could not supersede normal standards of build- have a comprehensive understanding of the technological MANUFACTURE INTO ing construction. It goes the same for the container box input we can make on one’s own end.) COMPONENTS buildings, which has now become a popular architectural practice. Tere are industries such as automobile and fur- REUSE OF COMPONENTS CONTAINER BUILDINGS C.K CHOI BUILDING, VANCOUVER, BC niture in which designers have actively started engaging in ASSEMBLY INTO BUILDINGS the end-use of consumer goods. RELOCATION OF WHOLE BUILDING THE CARNEGIE LIBRARY OF PATCHOGUE, NY BUILDING USE

Methods of solutions ROSE HOUSE

DISASSEMBLY 1) Recycling Material 4 Basic scenarios for DfD: 2) Reprocessing of Material 3) Reuse of components Design for Disassembly WASTE FOR 4) Relocation of whole building DUMPING

Source: Scenarios for Reuse in the Life Cycle of the Built Environment Source: Crowther, Philip. “Building Disassembly and the lessons of industrial ecology” Shaping the Sustainable Millennium: Collaborative Approaches. Brisbane, Australia, July 2000 Source: Philip Crowther, School of Architecture, Interior and Industrial Design, Queensland Univ. of Technology, Australia.

24 25 Precedents Building Industry 1) Recycling Material 1) Recycling Material 4 Basic scenarios for DfD: 2) Reprocessing of Material 4 Basic scenarios for DfD: 2) Reprocessing of Material Design for Disassembly 3) Reuse of components Design for Disassembly 3) Reuse of components 4) Relocation of whole building 4) Relocation of whole building

Wang Shu, Recycling Parts Concrete reprocessing Metal reprocessing Xiangshan Campus, China Academy of Art, Phase II, 2004-2007, Ningbo History Museum, China Concrete Recycling Process Metal Recycling Process Hangzhou, China http://www.metalandwaste.com/Products/ferrous-metal.html

PROS Historic signifcance, ecologically efective PROS Reduction in landfll space, CONS Time consuming, need for base resource Preservation of virgin material, CONS Site/Storage for recovered material, Lack of standards for recovered material Devalued materials 26 27 1) Recycling Material 1) Recycling Material 4 Basic scenarios for DfD: 2) Reprocessing of Material 4 Basic scenarios for DfD: 2) Reprocessing of Material Design for Disassembly 3) Reuse of components Design for Disassembly 3) Reuse of components 4) Relocation of whole building 4) Relocation of whole building

Figure 1. Figure 2. Cargo Container Architecture Japanese Metabolism http://www.archdaily.com/160892/the-pros-and-cons-of-cargo-container-architecture/ Nagakin Capsule Hotel by Kisho Kurokawa Photo by wendyfairy - http://www.fickr.com/photos/20575593@N00/

PROS Strength, Durability, availability and cost (as cheap as $900 sometimes) PROS Interchangeability, Replaceability Figure 1. Isometric plan of capsule. Dimension are 2.5m x 4m x 2.5m Figure 2. Detail of system of joining capsule to shaf CONS Toxic coatings used to facilitate ocean transport, Hazardous chemical CONS Costly fabrication of customized pieces fooring, Cumbersome process of making the box habitable, Energy Low feasibility for mass production consumed to transport container into place where needed, Awkward dimensions for human living space

28 29 Precedents

1) Recycling Material 1) Recycling Material 4 Basic scenarios for DfD: 2) Reprocessing of Material 4 Basic scenarios for DfD: 2) Reprocessing of Material Design for Disassembly 3) Reuse of components Design for Disassembly 3) Reuse of components 4) Relocation of whole building 4) Relocation of whole building

Using Tecorep system, build- Te Carnegie Library of Pa- ing components are disas- tchogue was relocated as the sembled in the closed space. 334 ton three-story brick Two foors are removed each building was moved to a stor- time. Te roof of the top foor age location. Te moving will is supported by temporary be done in several phases. columns, which are placed on large beams two foors below. While building components get dismantled, jacks incorporated into columns are lowered, creating a shrinking building efect from the out- side.

Production & Manufacturing industry’s efect on Architecture High-tech demolition systems for high-rises Building Mobility Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion Shrinking Building, Tokyo, Japan Te Carnegie Library of Patchogue, NY http://web-japan.org/trends/11_tech-life/tec130325.html http://www.wolfehousebuildingmovers.com/showcase/project-list/gallery/new-york/patchogue-ny PROS Interchangeability, Replaceability PROS Quiet demolition, Potential for reuse of materials PROS Saves historic building, Allows new construction in original place CONS Costly fabrication of customized pieces CONS Specifcity and high-technology required CONS Heavy machinery moving process Low feasibility for mass production

30 31 Other industries

Automobile Industry Furniture Industry

Automobile components disassembly Self assembly and disassembly of furnitures Damian Ortega’s exhibition Damian Ortega’s exhibition

General Motors, Chrysler and Ford formed “Vehicle Recycling Partnership 1994 Do-it-yourself (DIY) furnitures allow components to come apart easily as it is to develop means to recover materials from automobiles for reuse and recycling to assembly them, allowing easier access to reuse, recycle and reprocessing of (Billatos and Basaly, 1997) materials.

32 33 Mandate of time

Successful Example: LEED Point System

LEED, in fact, mandates the use of dead buildings as much as possible.

1 point 2 points

34 35 Result of buildings not designed to be deconstructed Designing for Built-in-Obsolescence Afer a thorough examination of current and past attempts to reduce building construction Perhaps we can reverse the common notion and design with built-in obsolescence and waste, the realization was that the major problem lies in the fact that buildings in modern make a building last for only for a certain period of time. society are typically not designed to be deconstructed*. Tat is why so many building materi- What would it mean for architects to break away from creation? als end up in trash. What does it mean to design for death instead of birth? *Source: Guy, Bradley, Shell, Scott, Esherick, Homsey. ”Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse,”

Te consequences are as follows......

36 37 Testing Ground

38 39 Site Specifcs N

Galapagos, Ecuador

Te SALT HOUSE will be sited in Santiago Island of Galapagos, Most importantly, this is a site where awareness for human en- Ecuador. Santiago Galapagos is a volcanic island in the northern croachment on its natural habitat cannot be more ecologically part of Galapagos that consists mostly of arid and dry zones. Tere sensitive. Te rising level of awareness in reducing disruptive and is also a history of salt mining in the northwestern part of the is- wasteful practice of human invasion makes it a perfect testing land, which now sits as a scar of human invasion. Te project will ground for this thesis. Santiago Island utilize salt from this mine as an essential part of the project. Area: 585 km² Maximum Altitude: 907 meters History: 1960’s Salt mine excursion by Mr. Hector Edgas, the first settle

1 knot: 1.151 miles per hour WARM SEASON COLD SEASON UNDESIRED ZONE Weak southwest trade wind 0-8 knots Strong northwest trade wind 11-15 knots Safe for development, Dry land 40 41 Human Encroachment Zoning Topmost zone | Wet climate | Prevailing fern & Pampa Zone grasses | Lava Flows Miconia Zone Miconia bushes | Direct Sunlight Santiago Islands, Galapagos Arid zone Dry zone Brown Zone Scalesia trees | Brown zone due to due to decay Humid Zone of moss Costant rain during wet season | Humid | Ferns, Scalesia Zone mosses, grasses, Scalesia tree | Oversized daisy Transitional Zone Small trees and shrubs Arid Lowlands Zone Cacti | Dry zone | Rocky & Sandy Littoral Zone Lowest zone | Dry & Sandy | Salt water flora | 66% Prevalent Mangroves Invasive species & Human settlement 1200m STEEP CLIFFS, LAVA FLOW, CORAL & SHELL 900m SAND BEACHES, ROCKY BEACHES, CRATER LAKES, FUMAROLES, LAVA TUBES, SULPHUR FIELDS, PUMICE, ASH AND TURK FROM LAVA 600m

300m

During 1920s and1960s, companies extracted salt from the Salt Mine Crater. The SECTION CUT THROUGH ROCA REDONDA, ISABELA ISLAND AND SANTIAGO ISLAND mine is a small volcanic cone whose crater has a seasonal, salt-water lagoon, where flamingos and other birds can be seen. Galapagos hawks are often ob- served in the area. 42 43 Resources Tourism

Resources & Rise in Tourism in Galapagos

Galapagos holds very little capacity for fresh water

2011 2020 STONE EXTRACTION TIMELINE 1999 2001 2004 2007 2008

Gravel 1,000,000 Potential Capacity 16,250 800,000 (estimate) cubic m/day Sand 700,000

Stone Filling Stone Rubble 600,000 9,423 Stone block cubic m/day Granule used for pave- “La Cascade” Complete rebuilding 2007 increase in salaries “La Cascade” ment of the Puerto Ayora neighborhood is of the road to for civil servants sparks neighborhood is Canal de built and new Baltra wave of construction built and new 500,000 Itabaca Road streets are created streets are created

400,000 DESALINATION $100/ cubic m Existing Capacity of Tourism $25/ cubic m one household 2.9 cubic m/day 800 liters/ person/ day 300,000 RAIN WATER COLLECTION 93.5 cubic m/day 200,000

100,000 NEW POLICY-SUSTAINABLE TOURISM $1.21/ cubic m 1210 cubic m/day EXTRACT FROM WELL 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

IMPORTED BOTTLED POTABLE WATER 167 cubic m/day

44 45 Design Process

46 47 Life Cycle Salt House Construction & Habitation Cycle

WARM SEASONWARM SEASON DRY SEASON Hence, the thesis is carried out by de- WARM SEASON DRY SEASON signing a salt-cured seasonal residence, 29 °C which will gradually and naturally be demolished over a designated period of time. Te building life expectancy will Passive Occupation End of Life-cycle Beginning of Construction Active Occupation be precisely set out from the beginning to the end-purporting each and every step of its life cycle -from occupation to demolition. It will be constructed Digging | Piling | Base Construction and disappear back into nature within Saltification a one-year life cycle. Some parts will Interior Excavation & Build-up obviously remain for a longer period of Contemplation Shelter Family Vacation House time depending on its structural integ- Animal Sanctuary rity. However, the big picture is that the house will evolve over time, varying not

only in its form but also in its function. PLOTS: 7/9, 9/9 done moving 5 hr still need to plot 5/9 need to cut 8/9-lef side (v) & 5/9-lef side

1,2,3,(4),(5) 6,7, -8,-9

48 CLEAR SKY (hrs) 49 Materials Form

Main Material Stream Form Works Using Earth element: Angle of Repose + Earth Molding

Te main material of the building will be salt, water, soil, sand, ber will be layered on top of each mound to become the building Using angle of repose as form work allows the space inside to get diameters, heights and angles depending on the mixture of earthen gravel and coconut fber. Te reposed mounds built out of earth, façade. Salt crystallization over this layer will add rigidity and as big as the mound gets. Te important factor in this method is elements-which will add uniqueness and variability to each and will be the form works (or mold) for the house and coconut f- controlled opacity to the house. that it leaves no harmful impact on the ecology. Forms will vary in every time a house with this method.

45 ° 40 ° 35 ° 30 °

SALT + WATER + SOIL | GRAVEL + BURLAP | COCONUT FIBER + SAND

50 51 Life Cycle Assessment

Comparison among different building types

Photochemical Oxidation Creation Non-Renewable Global Warming Potential (GWP) Acidification Potential (AP) Energy Use CO2 Emission SO2 Emission NO2 Emission PM10 Emissions Average Potential (POCP) Energy (NRE)

Variant 1. Variant 3. Variant 4. Salt House 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 100% 100% 100% 30% 90% 90% 90% 20% 10% 80% 80% 80% 0% Construction Operations & Decommissioning 70% 70% 70% (includes material Maintenance 60% 60% 60% manufacturing) 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% Variant 2. 30% 30% 30% 100% 90% 20% 20% 20% 80% 10% 10% 10% 70% 60% 0% 0% 0% 50% Construction Operations & Decommissioning Material Construction Operation & Demolition Material Construction Operation & Demolition 40% 30% (includes material Maintenance Manufacturing Maintenance Manufacturing Maintenance 20% manufacturing) 10% 0% Construction Operations & Decommissioning (includes material Maintenance manufacturing)

Source: Bayer, Charlene, et al. “AIA Guide to Building Life Cycle Assessment in Practice” American Institute of Architects, Washington, DC. 2010 52 53 Construction & Demolition Process

Life-cycle Diagram Te diagram shows the construction process.

1 Week | DIGGING 1/2 Week | BASE-CONSTRUCTION 1/2 Week | SAND PILING 1 Week: 2nd Week | LAYERING. TARP WRAP, BURLAP or COCONUT FIBER

1-2 Month: 2nd Month 2 Weeks | SALTIFICATION 1 Week: 2nd Month 3rd Week | CURING 1 Week: 3rd Month | EXCAVATION

STABLE PARTS: LONGER LIFE-CYCLE 1 Week: 6-12month Month | NATURAL DEMOLITION 3 Month: 3.2-7th Month | ACTIVE OCCUPATION 1 Week: 3.1 Month | INTERIOR BUILD-UP

1) Earth will be dug out, pile of sand that was excavated will be reposed to create a mold for the space. Te next couple weeks will be spent on salt crystallization over the coconut fber layer. Ten, earth will be excavated back into the un- derlying earth. In this stage, there will be a negative space created in the ground alternatively so as to have service space and interior build-up using the lefover earth.

54 55 Program Feasible method of Maintenance & Operation

Program Variability Rain Water Harvesting Potential

2) Over time, the form will deform and some parts will 2 fade away. Some parts can be made structurally more rigid ROOF PROJECTED AREA: Approx. 20m in the layering process so that the durability is intentionally Calculation: Area in m2 x Rainfall in mm x 0.001 x 0.9 (efficiency rate) increased. 1ton = 1,000 liter Water needed per person per day: 2-3 liters / day | 730 liters / year Differentiating MATERIALITY of mounds DIFFERENTIATES THE FUNCTION, LIFE-CYCLE VARIABILITY 90 % RAINWATER COLLECTING EFFICIENCY =7.31 ton/year

Soft-Bright Coarse-Dark 50 % EFFICIENCY + =4.06 ton/year Change over TIME CHANGES THE FUNCTION OF ROOMS Note: Despite the huge potential in the rainwater collection system, this idea will not be incorporated into the Salt House. Te rainwater harvesting goes against the natural demolition concept of the house . Although ideally feasible, it is unanimously agreed among the critiques to not include rainwater harvesting in the project as it counteracts the thesis.

Private Dwelling Public Hut 56 57 Structure “Obsolescence over time” as a desirable factor BASE STRUCTURE & PROGRAM Base Key element in Construction and Demolition CHANGE IN PROGRAM OVER TIME Living Room------Open public auditorium In the conventional practice of architecture, “OBSOLESCENCE Tis deformation will provide subtle changes at diferent times of OVER TIME” was undesirable. In this project, obsolescence over the day and year, which will then cause to serve diferent functions time is actually one of the key elements of construction and at diferent stages of life. Restroom ------Plant Vegetation demolition . Over time, the form will mutate through natural Bedroom Living Room Yoga Room weathering agencies such as wind, water and rain.

Kitchen Kitchen ------

Pool Public bath Flamingo Sanctuary

BASE STRUCTURE DIAGRAM

58 59 Material & Building Process Experiments

60 61 1. Salt Crystallization

Original state of materials

62 63 1. Salt Crystallization

64 65 1. Salt Crystallization

Daily Spraying Action 11.10.2013-12.12.2013 1. Casting Gauze 2. Coconut Fiber

11.11.2013 11.13.2013 11.15.2013 11.16.2013 11.18.2013 11.23.2013 11.24.2013 11.29.2013 12.04.2013 12.10.2013 12.12.2013

66 67 1. Salt Crystallization

Daily Spraying Action 11.10.2013-12.12.2013 3. Rice Paper 4. Cotton Fabric

11.11.2013 11.13.2013 11.15.2013 11.16.2013 11.18.2013 11.23.2013 11.24.2013 11.29.2013 12.04.2013 12.10.2013 12.12.2013

68 69 1. Salt Crystallization

Daily Spraying Action 11.10.2013-12.12.2013 5. Wire Mesh 6. Burlap

11.11.2013 11.13.2013 11.15.2013 11.16.2013 11.18.2013 11.23.2013 11.24.2013 11.29.2013 12.04.2013 12.10.2013 12.12.2013

70 71 1. Salt Crystallization

Daily Spraying Action 11.10.2013-12.12.2013 7. Corrugated Cardboard 8. Basswood

11.11.2013 11.13.2013 11.15.2013 11.16.2013 11.18.2013 11.23.2013 11.24.2013 11.29.2013 12.04.2013 12.10.2013 12.12.2013

72 73 1. Salt Crystallization

Oven Baking

74 75 1. Salt Crystallization

11.11.2013 11.13.2013 11.15.2013 11.16.2013 11.18.2013 11.23.2013 11.24.2013 11.29.2013 12.04.2013 12.10.2013 12.12.2013

76 77 2. Salt Solidity Test

Mound Test 10.20.2013 Oven Baking | Boiling | Microwave | Natural Evaporation

78 79 2. Salt Solidity Test

Mound Test 10.20.2013 Oven Baking | Boiling | Microwave | Natural Evaporation

80 81 2. Salt Solidity Test

Brick Test 10.22.2013 Oven Baking | Boiling | Microwave | Natural Evaporation

82 83 2. Salt Solidity Test

Brick Test Result

84 85 2. Salt Solidity Test

Brick Test 10.24.2013 Oven Baking | Boiling | Microwave | Natural Evaporation

86 87 2. Salt Solidity Test

Brick Test Results

WATER: SALT (RATIO) 1:4 | 100pwr | MICROWAVE 60sec. 1:3 | 100pwr | MICROWAVE 60sec. 1:1 | 77 °F| BOIL 1:4 | 100pwr | MICROWAVE 30sec. 1:2 | 100pwr | MICROWAVE 60sec.

88 89 3. Salt Texture, Composite Test

Sand, Salt Aggregate 11.03.2013 Sand+Plaster: Sand->Sun dried Salt + Epsom Salt -> Steam -> Plaster -> Excavation

90 91 3. Salt Texture, Composite Test

Sand, Salt Aggregate 11.03.2013 Sand+Plaster: Sand->Sun dried Salt + Epsom Salt -> Steam -> Plaster -> Excavation

92 93 3. Salt Texture, Composite Test

Sand, Salt Aggregate Test Result

94 95 4. Earth Repose Test

Sand Build-up, Texture Wrap-up 12.05.2013

96 97 4. Earth Repose Test

Sand Build-up 12.05.2013 Sand Build-up demonstrating angle of repose

98 99 4. Earth Repose Test

Sand Build-up, Texture Wrap-up 12.05.2013 Texture Wrap-up to cast sand mound

100 101 5. Salt Layer Test (Saltifcation 1.)

Salt Water Spray + Drier + Light Torch 12.07.2013 Salt Water Spray + Drier + Light Torch

102 103 5. Salt Layer Test (Saltifcation 1.)

Salt Water Spray + Drier + Light Torch 12.07.2013 Salt Water Spray + Drier + Light Torch

First day Few days afer

104 105 5. Salt Layer Test (Saltifcation 2.)

Salt Water Paste application 12.10.2013 Solution: Epsom Salt + Table Salt + Boiling Water

106 107 6. Excavation Mock-up

Sand Excavation (& Interior Build-up) 12.11.2013

108 109 7. Demolition Test (Partial)

Syringe: Rain Simulation 12.13.2013

110 111 7. Demolition Test (Partial)

Syringe: Rain Simulation 12.13.2013

112 113 7. Demolition Test (Partial)

Syringe: Rain Simulation Result

114 115 7. Demolition Test (Full Scale Model)

Rain Simulation Result 12.15.2013

116 117 7. Demolition Test (Full Scale Model)

Rain Simulation Result 12.15.2013

118 119 7. Demolition Test (Full Scale Model)

Rain Simulation Result

120 121 Experiment Settings

Salt, Rain, Demolition Test set-up room 11.20.2013-12.15.2013

122 123 Drawings & Renders

124 125 Phase Sections

Drawings+Material: Time Section Details & Deformation over time

Phase Sections 1/6” = 1’-0”

3rd MONTH OF BUILDING LIFE-CYCLE 3rd-4.5 MONTH OF LIFE-CYCLE 4.5-6th MONTH OF LIFE-CYCLE 6th-12th (or More) OF LIFE-CYCLE Immediately after Earth Excavation Beginning of Occupancy Stage Active Occupancy Stage Natural Demolition Stage

126 127 Plans

Drawings+Material: Time Occupancy Phase: Deformation and transition over time

Phase Plans 1/6” = 1’-0”

128 129 Diagrammatic Plan

Unique formations Diagrammatic Plan Variations

130 131 Section

Occupancy Phase

Phase Plans 1/6” = 1’-0”

132 133 Lighting & Gaze Material Function 134 135 Exterior View 136 137 Final Presentation

138 139 Final Presentation

Model & Test Samples 12.19.2013, Media Lab

140 141 Final Presentation

Model & Test Samples 12.19.2013, Media Lab

142 143 Final Presentation

Model & Test Samples 12.19.2013, Media Lab

144 145 146 147 148 149 Bibliography

150 151 Bibliography etc.

Andrew Scott (M.Arch) Spring 2011 Studio. “Galapagos: Architecture at the Intersection of Biodiversity and Encroachment in the Ecuadorian Gala- Credit Black background photography by Andy Ryan pagos” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 2011 For video, visit link: Bayer, Charlene, et al. “AIA Guide to Building Life Cycle Assessment in Practice” American Institute of Architects, Washington, DC. 2010 http://youtu.be/-5GcSURrhwY (Title: Te Salt House Project: Designing for death_MIT M.Arch thesis '13_SunMin May Hwang ) Crowther, Philip. “Chapter 7-Design of Buildings and Components for Deconstruction”

Crowther, Philip. “Building Disassembly and the lessons of industrial ecology” Shaping the Sustainable Millennium: Collaborative Approaches. Brisbane, Australia, July 2000

Diven, Richard and Michael R.Taylor. “Demolition Planning” Supplemental Architectural Services, Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice. 2006

EPA Green Building Workgroup. “Buildings and their Impact on the Environment: A Statistical Summary “ 2009 (EPA’s Green Building website at www.epa.gov/greenbuilding. )

Gaisset, Ines. “Designing Buidings for Disassembly: Stimulating a change in the Designer’s Role” Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept. Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology. June 2011

Guy, Bradley and Sean Mclendon. “How cost efective is deconstruction?” Center of construction and Environment at the University of Florida, Gainsville. July 2001

Guy, Bradley, Ciarimboli, Nicholas and etc. “Design for Disassembly in the built environment”-a guide to closed-loop design and building.

Guy, Bradley, et al. ”Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse,”

Saiyed, Zahraa Nazim. “Disaster Debris Management and Recovery of Housing Stock in San Francisco, CA” Department of Architecture, Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology. June 2012

152 153