Ford c3 Grant Pioneer Material Renewal Project

THANK YOUThe Pioneer Material Renewal Team was awarded $25,000 to contribute toward the proposal promoting sustainable communities through the: 2014 Ford College Community Challenge: Building Sustainable Communities.

section one: introductionExecutive Summary | 003

Project Criteria | 004Why Deconstruction in Detroit? | 005

Project Partners | 008Schedule | 009

Section two: documentationUrban Analysis | 014

Middle East Central Neighborhood | 020Structure Documentation | 028

section three: deconstructionDeconstruction Process | 040 Coordination Schedule | 041

Permit: The Process | 043Deconstruction Days | 046

The Crew | 047 The Cleanout | 050

Lath + Interior | 054 Roof | 058

Attic Floor | 062 Interior Walls | 066 Exterior Walls | 070

Material Processing | 074First Floor Platform | 078

Thing We Found | 081 Thank You Volunteers | 082

section four: Material AssessmentMichigan Lumber: History | 087

Material Estimation vs. Actual Yield | 091Lumber Totals | 093

Material Testing: Overview | 095 Material Test One: Compression | 097

Material Test Two: Bending | 101 Material Test Three: Tension | 108

section five: DesignDesign Process | 114

Possible Reclaimed Material Design Typologies | 115Typology Selection | 117

Iteration One: Lamella Hybrid System | 120Iteration Two: Truss System with Stud Wall | 121

Design Documentation | 123

section six: building sustainable communities

Learning From Those in Action | 133Civic Engagement Steps | 134

Conclusion | 136

Meaghan Markiewicz

Charles Harris

Mike Paciero

ralph nelson

andrew bradford

Brandon Olsen

PIONEER materialrenewal team

Principal Investigator Associate Professor

Faculty Advisor

Lawrence Technological University

Project LeadMasters of Architectural

Engineering Student


Masters of Architecture Student

The University of Michigan





Masters of Fine Arts in Graphic Design Student

Rhode Island School of Design

section one: introduction

BUILDING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

addressing an unmet need

STUDENT LEADERSHIP

multi-disciplinary approachPioneer Material Renewal is a project to deconstruct an old building in Detroit and design a new building comprised of the material harvested from deconstruction. Recognizing Detroit’s abundant stock of abandoned and dilapidated buildings as a great natural resource, the project seeks to defi ne a process of material acquisition with viable construction potential. Waste material from building demolition and construction comprises one third of all solid waste in the U.S. and this project strives to minimize landfi ll and redefi ne natural resources through a process of renewal.

Building on the spirit and principles of early pioneers who settled Detroit and the current urban pioneers rebuilding the city, the project will work with a minimum of resources to a maximum eff ect

and engage community members, students and faculty from Lawrence Technological University, and partners from Architectural Salvage Warehouse Detroit and Recovery Park.

The project consists of four phases. Phase one involves selecting a Detroit home to deconstruct and then documenting the history and current state of the property and neighborhood. Phase Two includes deconstruction of the carefully selected Detroit home and a comprehensive inventory of harvested material. Phase Three will defi ne construction testing for structural performance and aesthetic viability. Phase Four will engage the design of a new building that will utilize the exact amount of material reclaimed through deconstruction.

Reducing urban blight and removing dilapidated buildings is an urgent and unmet need in several neighborhoods of Detroit. To conduct these activities with community partners in a transparently innovative, ecologically sensitive, and practical manner meets a need with a tangible process. Providing structural and aesthetic guidelines and standards for new construction built with reclaimed material addresses unmet and urgent needs for individuals and neighborhoods to take local action in the renovation or new construction of local buildings within an aff ordable, educational and palpable process. Developing guidelines and standards also provide new business opportunities urgently needed for Detroit residents.

Collaboration between Colleges is a vital component of this multi-disciplinary project. As evidenced by numerous joint programs, competitions, and research projects, LTU’s Colleges of Architecture and Design, Engineering, Management, and Art and Science work together to enhance student learning and foster intellectual growth through theory and practice. Architecture, Engineering, and Management students dedicated to challenging and redefi ning building methodologies will collaborate throughout the process, with each individual working in their area of expertise and in concert with each other. and the guidance of LTU faculty, particularly Ralph Nelson, the faculty lead, professor in the College of Architecture, and licensed architect.

The root defi nition of innovation is “to renew” and building sustainable communities is based on cycles of continual renewal. This project proposes three forms of innovative renewal. First, to renew an age-old principle that there is no such thing as waste, only resources awaiting useful transformation. Second, to renew salvaged building material by assessing and documenting structural and aesthetic viability for new building construction. Third, to renew community interest and action in remediating blight through hands-on activities. Neighborhood organizations, residents, and students will engage a process with direct participation while witnessing a framework for action that may be applied in repeatable fashion.

Students, under the guidance of Principle Investigators, will take leadership roles in defi ning the scope of work, labor management, communication, budget, and schedule for the project. Students will take the lead in organizing the material harvested from deconstruction, including conducting inventory, classifying and measuring, and selecting material for constructability testing. With professional guidance, students will provide leadership in developing both structural and aesthetic testing criteria for the harvested material, will conduct the tests, and document all test results. Utilizing the data gathered, students will take the lead in the design documentation of a new building conceived with the harvested materials employed.

introduction: executive summary

004

Detroit, notorious for its plethora of blighted buildings has the greatest opportunity of perhaps any city to set an example for how a city’s future can be built from the remains of its past. With over 40,000 structures recommended for demolition, and another 38,000 parcels awaiting further analysis, Pioneer Material Renewal is poised to provide an example of a unique process that can be repeated thousands of times. As Detroit rebuilds, it already has much of the material it needs in its existing structures. This project will show that these nearly 80,000 structures do not all need to be demolished and packed in a landfi ll per the current plan. These structures are assets waiting to be transformed into new projects, structures, and homes across the city.

Deconstruction is the careful disassembly of the components of an existing building, removal of any hazardous material while retaining viable material, and then classifying the viable material. This material has many reuse applications, and is found most commonly in furniture making, and interior furnishings for homes or businesses such as wall coverings, bar/counter tops, or fl ooring. This reuse is only possible through deconstruction as opposed to its alternative of demolition. Deconstruction, unlike demolition, saves usable material from landfi lls, provides opportunity to reuse quality and historic material in construction and woodworking, provides training and skilled labor jobs to those seeking employment, and is a profi table ‘green’ industry.

The Motor City has become the testing ground for an updated American dream: privateers finding the raw material for new enterprise in the wreckage of the Rust Belt."

after looking into it more and more, i realized deconstruction is not just waste diversion, it’s job creation, it’s an economic multiplier.”

Unless we want to have landfills on every corner, we can't just keep throwing away perfectly good material. Over 100 million tons a year from taking down buildings is going into landfills right now."

"

"

"

"Despite years of service, reclaimed wood does offer some performance advantages. Many of today's buildings use virgin lumber cut from second and third growth forests, resulting in lumber with a looser grain and more knots than wood cut from old growth forests."

-chris rutherford, architectural salvage warehouse of detroit

-the new york times

-dan pratt, architectural salvage warehouse of detroit

-james brandon, “suitability of salvaged timber structural design”

detroit: why deconstruction?

006

94- FORD FREEWAY

75 - CHRYSLER FREEWAY

E. CANFIELD ST.

GRAT

IOT

AVE.E. CANFIELD ST.

WILLIS RD.

WOODW

ARD AVE.

94- F9FORD FREE

FFD FRFRREE

944-- FFOORDWWWWAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAA

75 - CHRYSLER FREERE

FRR FR

ER

75 - CHRYSLER FRE

RY5

REEEEEERE

FREF

RF

SLERRYSLRY

CHRY- CH

5757

REEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWAAAAYYYYAAAA

E. CANFIELD SLD SD SEL

. C

TT.TT

GGRRAAAAAT

IOT

TTTIAAAAAV

E.VVEEEEE. CANFIELD S

CCCCEEEELELELEL

TTTT...TT

WILLIS RD.DDLLI

WOODOO

WOOO

WO

WO

WO

WO

WO

WO

WO

WWWWWARDRDRDDARAAR

AAAAAAVE.VVVVVEV

offices + greenhouse

RECOVERY PARKPROPOSED AREA FOR

center for designand technology

lawrence tech

recovery park

warehouseaswd

4820 DUBOIS

ASWD

RECOVERY PARK

LAWRENCE TECH

LTU Students, under the guidance of Principle Investigators, will take leadership roles in defi ning the scope of work, labor management and communication, budget, and schedule for the project. Students will also take the lead in organizing the material harvested from deconstruction, including conducting inventory, classifying and measuring, and selecting material for constructibility testing. With professional guidance, students will lead developing structural and aesthetic testing criteria, will conduct tests, and will document all test results. Utilizing the data gathered and conclusions gleaned, students will take roles in the design documentation of a new building conceived with the harvested materials employed.

LTU has formed a strategic alliance with RecoveryPark, a Detroit-based non-profi t working in collaboration with the City of Detroit to reclaim, and develop a 350 acre housing, agricultural, and employment development within the city’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative boundaries near Eastern Market in Detroit. RecoveryPark is providing the property that the LTU team will deconstruct. RecoveryPark will also serve as the client for the design of a new structure from the house’s reclaimed material.

ASWD – Architectural Salvage Warehouse of Detroit is a non-profi t organization founded to keep building materials out of landfi lls through architectural salvage. Their mission is to promote environmental sustainability, job creation and training, and preservation and conservation. ASWD is providing deconstruction consulting, planning, and structure assessment services to the LTU team. They will also assist in developing a training program for volunteers who wish to become certifi ed in deconstruction.

Deconstruction ExpertiseArchitectural SalvageSustainability and PreservationJob Creation and Training

Create Local EmploymentSmall Scale Sustainable Agrarian Culture Self-Sustaining Lasting Community ImpactCapture Local Business Opportunities

Create Local EmploymentSmall Scale Sustainable Agrarian Culture Self-Sustaining Lasting Community ImpactCapture Local Business Opportunities

community partners

architectural salvage warehouse of detroit

recovery park lawrence technological university

008

AUGUST 2014

SEPTEMBER 2014

OCTOBER 2014

NOVEMBER 2014

DECEMBER 2014

JANUARY 2015

FEBRUARY 2015

MARCH 2015

APRIL 2015

MAY 2015

dated: may 2014 dated: january 2015

AUGUST 2014

SEPTEMBER 2014

OCTOBER 2014

NOVEMBER 2014

DECEMBER 2014

JANUARY 2015

FEBRUARY 2015

MARCH 2015

APRIL 2015

MAY 2015

DOCUMENTATIONDOCUMENTATION

material assessment

material assessment design

design deconstruction

deconstruction

After beginning the project, it became appropriate to change “Inception Phase” to “Documentation Phase”. The documentation phase endured much longer than originally expected. Rather than concluding at the end of August, it lasted until end of October. This was mostly caused by the complications that came along with obtaining rights to the property (see deconstruction update).

Phase One involves the strategic selection of adilapidated Detroit home to be deconstructed.Upon selection, the home’s history, size, current state, and estimation of material yield will bedocumented through site visits, research, and drawings. The immediate neighborhood will besubjected to a similar process to ultimately tell an evocative story of a piece of Detroit history.

This phase shifted from phase three to phase two since deconstruction could not be completed as originally planned. However, it will still occur during the original time frame of November through January. In context of the other phases, material assessment will now be happening in conjunction with design and before deconstruction.

Phase Three will defi ne construction testing forstructural performance and aesthetic viabilityto test how reclaimed material measures up totoday’s material. Building components intended for re-use as structure will be assessed based onbuilding code standards, and building materialsemployed for enclosure and aesthetic purposeswill be assembled as mock-ups at full-scale.

There are now two phases of design; an initial phase before deconstruction that coincides with testing, based on an estimated amount of material reclaimed, and a refi nement phase after deconstruction once exact material numbers have been determined. We are continually working with Recovery Park and the immediate community to fi nalize a client and design program in the next several weeks.

Phase Four will engage the design of a newbuilding for Detroit that will utilize the exact amount of material reclaimed from the home. The intent of this phase is to show that a buildingcan be built from a building. This new building will be designed for public use and designed so that it may be built with unskilled labor while still meeting standard codes and standards of integrity.

The original intent was to deconstruct the house during early Fall. However, complications arose with obtaining the rights to work on the property prior to the beginning of winter. This resulted in a complete rescheduling of the project and the team’s new goal is to deconstruct in the spring during mid-March while completing the majority of work in other phases over winter.

Phase Two includes deconstruction of theselected Detroit home and a comprehensive inventory of harvested material. Students, community members, and professionals willwork together to reclaim the structure. Theintent of this process is to guide a neighborhood in eliminating blight through hands-on activities. and provide a repeatable model for neighborhoods across the rest of the city.

report 1 report 1

report 2 report 2

report 3 report 3

final report final report

process: revised scheduleprocess: original schedule

010

section two: documentation

In the Documentation Phase, the team identifi ed 4820 Dubois St. in the Middle East Central Neighborhood of Detroit as the prime candidate for deconstruction. This selection resulted from working with RecoveryPark within their 20+ acre proposed footprint for an urban agriculture development. While still in the process of acquiring the land, RecoveryPark’s leadership has become intimate with the layout of the neighborhood and guided the team toward the properties that were available for deconstruction. This was accomplished through a driving tour of the neighborhood at the beginning of the project. The team then returned to the neighborhood with leadership from Architectural Salvage Warehouse of Detroit (ASWD) to survey several candidate houses. Evaluation criteria with ASWD included; integrity of structure, avoidance of toxic materials such as asbestos, and deconstruction diffi culty, since the work will be performed by mostly unskilled labor. Through this process, the

team selected 4820 Dubois Street. This house is located in the future footprint of RecoveryPark’s urban agriculture initiative, and is one of three structures on the block of Dubois between Hancock and Warren. There are also two burnt structures on the block, one of which is next door to the selected site. The following pages are a result of the urban analysis component of documentation. To accomplish this, the team studied the area’s past and present states which included web research, visits to the Burton Collection at the Detroit Public Library, site visits, and extensive diagramming and mapping of the area.

• Identify property to deconstruct• Understand neighborhood history• Document neighborhood present state

documentation: urban ANALYSIS

014

3,961

today in 1930

45.6 % 89.0 %

136 42

11,375 unimproved

u n e m p l o y e d e m p l o y e d

vacant, open,& dangeroushouses in 2010

occupied housesp e r d e t r o i tblock in 1930

population per

i n t e r p o l a t e d

density:

unemployment: employment:

structures: structures:

of density:l a c k o f

h i g h r at e o f h i g h r at e o f

b l i g h t e d o c c u p i e d

abundance

lots in 2009

civilians in 2010 civilians in 1930

s q . m i l e 1 9 3 0

018

MIDDLE EAST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD

MIDDLE EAST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD

4820 DUBOIS

chene ferry market | 2014

chene ferry market | past

neighborhood condition | 2014

dequindre street | 1935

1

1

2

24820 DUBOIS

SANBORN MAP -1897

BASEBALL GAME - 1888

turnbull & chene streetcar - 1888PHOTOS FROM THE WAYNE STATE WALTER P. REUTHER DIGITAL LIBRARY

MIDDLE EAST CENTRAL: late 1800's

020

DU BOIS STreet - 1901

427 hancock avenue - 1901

new orleans & superior - 1902

west side of chene - 1902

PHOTOS FROM THE DETROIT HISTORIC SOCIETY

MIDDLE EAST CENTRAL: 1900's

1

1

2

2 3

4

3

4

4820 DUBOIS

022

SANBORN MAP -1921

PHOTOS FROM THE DETROIT PUBLIC LIBRARY DIGITAL COLLECTION

4820 DUBOISMIDDLE EAST CENTRAL: 1950's

024

SANBORN MAP -1951

1035 DUBOIS STreet - 1950

1014 dubois street - 1951

dubois & monroe - 1950

8035 st. aubin street - 1950

1

1

2

2 3

4

3

4

1897

1981 1997 2014

1921 1951

1997

1981

1951

1921

1897

2014MAPPING: DENSITY MAPPING: PERSISTENCEBy documenting which structures have survived the period of rapid decline in the city, the team is further able to examine the natural dynamic of the neighborhood that perhaps can help explain why certain houses or buildings remain, while others have succumbed to the vacancy of Detroit. This also gives a keen look into just how far back the history of these distraught homes goes.

A look at the genealogy of the neighborhood based on layers of development and dilapidation shows that even within the context of only a few blocks, there is a clear pattern of exponential vacancy since the neighborhood’s most dense era in the 1950’s. Typical for many neighborhoods in Detroit, this is a shining example of one of Detroit’s vast natural resources in the form of open space and usable land.

026

Upon site selection, 4820 Dubois was documented through photographs, fi eld measurements, architectural drawings, and historical research from the Burton Collection at the Detroit Public Library. The team made a separate site visit to the home with ASWD to sketch fl oor plans, take room-by-room measurements, photograph, and assess quality, age, and types of reclaim-able materials inside. This information allowed the team to develop a three dimensional model of the house complete with fl oor plans and elevations.

The house’s fi rst fl oor measures approximately 1,450 square feet of living space with another 1,450 square feet of attic space and partial living space above. It also has a small, underground cellar beneath the kitchen. The fi rst fl oor is divided by 10 diff erent rooms. The layout of these rooms suggest that the

house at one time served as a duplex.The house is traditional wood stick frame construction and has a gable rafter roof. The front two rooms appear to be an addition which can be confi rmed from the house’s size on early Sanborn Maps. The foundation consists of timber beams which sit on concrete block piers, and the only excavated portion is the small cellar space below the kitchen. This is a key feature in terms of ease of deconstruction. Since less below grade work is required, it’s less costly and can more easily be done by unskilled labor. Additionally, the timber beams are a very valuable reclaimed resource for use in the design of a new structure.

• Obtain rights to deconstruct property• Research house history

documentation: structure ANALYSIS

028

According to the Burton Historical Collection, 4820 Dubois was constructed in 1888 and its fi rst owner was named Frank Funk. Its original address was 960 Dubois, but became 4820 Dubois in 1920 when the entire city’s addresses were changed to account for the growing population. This house has lasted through 126 years of Detroit history, a changing neighborhood, and various owners. In many years, there were two owners listed for the property. This provides further evidence that suggests the property served as a duplex for many years (although not supported by the Sanborn Maps). The property is currently publicly owned by the Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA).

The project’s original intent was to deconstruct the property with RecoveryPark as the landowner. However, RecoveryPark had not fi nalized the land acquisition process by the beginning of Fall. Through motorcitymapping.com, the team was able to determine that the owner of the property was the DLBA. Since it is a publicly owned property, it was a faily straighforward process to contact the DLBA and request the rights to deconstruct. The DLBA obliged to the team’s request and drafted a memorandum of understanding between it and LTU. The MOU will give the team permission to deconstruct without owning the land. However, this process forced the entire project schedule to be rearranged as previously stated and the house will now be deconstructed in Spring 2015.

HOUSE HISTORY HOUSE ACQUISITION PROCESS

The house: 4820 dubois street

030

Second Floor Bedroom

Attic

First Floor Walls

Back Porch

1

2

3

4

1

2 3

4

1888 Funk, frank 1889 Funk, frank + schednkowski, wm. 1890 Funk, frank + ramiowsky, joseph 1892 Funk, frank + goralski, joseph 1895 coop, frank 1900 kuptz, frank 1902 kuptz, frank+ romanowski, wladislav 1911 bercholc, michael + kurzewski, joseph + Lasinski, anthony 1912 bercholc, michael + Lasinski, anthony 1922 berckulz, michl + rearwietek, stanley 1941 berchule, michl + sheski, henry 1957 berchulc, john 1963 no return 1974 myles, effie, mrs. 1997 no listing

residents of 4820 dubois street

KITCHEN

KITCHENFAMILY

ENTRY

LIVING

LIVING DINING

DINING

ATTIC / STORAGE

BATH

BATH

BED

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”

MASONRY CHIMNEY MASONRY CHIMNEY

MASONRY CHIMNEY

VINYL ON WOOD SIDINGWOOD SKIRT

MASONRY CHIMNEYASPHALT SHINGLES

VINYL ON WOOD SIDINGWOOD SKIRT

ASPHALT SHINGLES

3’-0”

3’-0”

14’-0”

14’-0”

26’-6”

26’-6”

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”

034

Documentation: house plans + elevations

plan: second floor elevation: south

elevation: northplan: first floor

BATH

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”

MASONRY PIER

MASONRY CHIMNEY

VINYL ON WOOD SIDING

WOOD SHAKE SIDING

WOOD SKIRT

WOOD JOIST

ASPHALT SHINGLES

MASONRY CHIMNEY

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”

BED

BATH

DINING

LIVINGLIVING

CELLAR

KITCHEN KITCHEN

LIVING

ATTIC / STORAGEATTIC / STORAGE

MASONRYWALLS

STRUCTURALTIMBERS

3’-0” 3’-0”

3’-0”3’-0” 3’-0”

14’-0” 14’-0”

14’-0”14’-0” 14’-0”

26’-6” 26’-6”

26’-6”26’-6” 26’-6”

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”

036

Documentation: house plans + elevations

BEDATTIC / STORAGE

BATH

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”section: north - south sections: east - west

plan: basement elevations: east - west

section three: deconstruction

.

deconstruction: The Deconstuction Phase is the core project phase. Here the team executed the full deconstruction of 4820 Dubois. This phase commenced in March 2015 after a long process of deconstruction planning. which is described in the following pages. This phase’s outcome aff ects the entire project’s outcome and planning. This was experienced by the team through the rescheduling of deconstruction due to the longer than expected process of obtaining the proper permissions to deconstruct. This forced the team to re-evaluate the original proposed process, of document, deconstruct, test, and design, as Michigan’s winter approached. Rather, the the team documented, started testing and design prior to deconstruction, and then fi nished them after deconstruction. PMR still recommends

the original approach if this process were to be repeated regularly. However, the revised schedule did allow more time for community engagement, deconstruction planning, and facilitated a material assessment and design process based on material estimation, which was then verifi ed through actual material yield post deconstruction. PMR believes that this extra research time allowed for improved development of the deconstruct to reconstruct concept.

• Fully deconstruct house and clean up site • Collect, categorize, and assess condition and

quantity of deconstructed material.• Engage organizations, and community and student

volunteers in the deconstruction process. . 040

june 2014

july 2014

AUG 2014

SEPT 2014

OCT 2014

NOV 2014

DEC 2014

JAN 2015

FEB 2015

MAR 2015

APR 2015

MAY 2015

secure funding + Budget

select neighborhood + partner organization

select house & deconstruction professionals

•Awarded $25,000 grant from the Ford Foundation to execute project.•Created a budget for what the money will be used for. (employees, equipment, expertise)

•Partnered with RecoveryPark, a non profi t looking to acquire land in the area for urban agriculture development that has a need for blight removal after land acquisition.

•Toured the neighborhood with RecoveryPark to identify deconstruction candidates.

•Site visit to house candidates with Architectural Salvage Warehouse of Detroit to obtain professional advice on the best deconstruction option.

•Selected 4820 Dubois

pre-deconstruction logistics

obtain rights to perform work on 4820 dubois

•Original deconstruction was set to begin and complete in October 2014, however due to the land acquisition process it was rescheduled to March 2015 during LTU’s Spring Break.

•PMR worked with ASWD throughout winter to plan deconstruction in the Spring•After land was privately acquired, the house was tested for asbestos at the end of February. Fortunately, the test was negative and no abatement was required, saving time and money.

•The team requested that the city disconnect the water (electric and gas had previously been disconnected) so that a demolition permit could be attained. This request was later cancelled due to the team acquiring a building permit instead. Explanation of this is on the following page.

•PMR recruited volunteers from school through the use of volunteerlocal.com, a volunteer signup website that helps non profi ts and organizers collect and keep track of volunteers.

•Extra tools were collected from both Lowes and Home Depot as part of a donation request. Lowes donated hammers, safety goggles, and earplugs. Home Depot donated an assortment of prybars and gloves. Other major tools and equipment were supplied by ASWD.

•Lastly, the PMR team and a core group of volunteers received deconstruction and safety training from ASWD at LTU’s campus prior to deconstruction.

•RecoveryPark could not acquire land until Summer 2015.•PMR Team visited motorcitymapping.com and discovers the property is publically owned.

•PMR contacted the Detroit Landbank Authority (DLBA) regarding acquiring the rights to deconstruct 4820 Dubois

•In October, the DLBA drafted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between itself and LTU, giving LTU the rights to deconstruct the property without assuming ownership.

•In the meantime, 4820 Dubois was marked for demolition by the city with a big yellow sticker on the house. PMR inquired about this and was informed that there was no threat to the house being demolished soon.

•The MOU went back and fourth between parties for a few months before ultimately being signed. However, PMR assumed that since the DLBA was maintaining ownership, they were going to expidite and perform steps required for demolition permitting such as asbestos testing and utility disconnects. This

•PMR wanted to ensure that residents in the area were aware of project so when deconstruction came there were no surprises, but also, the team wanted a sense of what the neighborhood used to be like compared to now. To gain this perspective, interviews with 6 area residents were organized through mutual contacts of Recovery Park.

•Passed out fl iers in the neighborhood advertising the project•Continued to engage volunteers from the community and Lawrence Tech to collect sign ups for deconstruction week.

community engagement

deconstruction•Deconstruction commenced on Sunday, March 1st when the team cleaned out the house of the contents.

•During that following week (March 2-6), ASWD cleared the house of all plaster.•The PMR team picked deconstruction back up on March 7th at the beginning of LTU’s spring break and took 12 days to take the house down to the fi rst fl oor.

•The project was completed after the school semester ended in May when the team returned to remove the fi rst fl oor platform.•This deconstruction process is fully documented in the following pages.

Pioneer Material Renewal’s goal is to provide a replicable deconstruction model that can be replicated in other Detroit communities and city’s across the country. Ideally, residents and organizations could use this model for their own neighborhoods. Part of that replication is being able to acquire the properties that are in need of removal by non profi ts or individuals. The process on the next page shows how Pioneer Material Renewal identifi ed, acquired rights, raised awareness, and planned the deconstruction of 4820 Dubois. Every property and project will be diff erent but this specifi c process provides one example of execution.

was not directly written in the MOU, only verbally discussed. As a result, by February 20th the MOU still was not fi nalized and deconstruction was to begin on March 7.

•Fortunately, in the meantime, the land became privately owned and the land owner granted permission to PMR to deconstruct.

coordination schedule: timeline + description

042

The City of Detroit does not legally recognize deconstruction as a building removal method. Therefore, deconstructing or demolishing, only a demolition permit can be acquired when proposing to remove a building. The demolition permit requires four main disconnects/clearances; gas, electric, water, and asbestos/hazardous materials. Gas and electric disconnects must be performed, and clearances obtained through the utility company, usually DTE, and water disconnects and clearances must be done

through the Detroit Water & Sewer Department. Utility disconnects are essential because usually by the end of the project there is a clear site with no structure. Clearing the utilities ensures that the site is completely clear of any previous structure when redevelopment comes along and keeps workers safe from electrocution or gas leaks. Asbestos and hazardous materials testing is usually performed by a third party company. If asbestos is found, it must be abated which can take a lot of time, and be expensive depending on the amount. Once it is abated, or if none is found, an asbestos clearance can be obtained. After all four clearances are received, then begins the process of obtaining a demolition permit.

Fortunately at 4820 Dubois, the gas and electric connections had already been removed previously by DTE, and the house was negative for asbestos. This saved time and money. However, what was not complete was the water connection. Through previously working with the DLBA as mentioned in the “Coordination Schedule” section of the report, the PMR team assumed that the Landbank was able to take care of this requirement and expedite the demolition permitting process. Deconstruction was planned for March and as of February this still had not been completed. It was at this point where the land was privately acquired and the team began to work with the landowner. The team visited the Detroit Water and Sewer Department three weeks prior to deconstruction and was informed that it could take up to eight weeks for the department to perform the work. The team went ahead anyways and put in a work order request but later canceled it due to new developments.

A permit is required to perform structural work on a house. As deconstruction neared with no word from the Water & Sewer Department the PMR team got creative. Rather than applying for a demolition permit, the team drafted construction documents and applied for a building permit to alter the structure rather than remove all of it. The existing cellar was viewed as an asset and the team proposed to keep the existing masonry foundation and frame a new tool shed on top of it that would be paired with an urban garden on site. Since the team proposed to keep an integral part of the structure an alteration building permit

permit: the process

with Permit ApplicationEnter

1

2

8

910

12

11

43

56

7 the Area of

Waiting

the Lair of

Cashiersthe Desk of

Notory

the Desk of

Signing In

the Office of

Licensingthe Department of

Permits

the Inspector of

Buildings

the Engineer of

Structure

the Office of

DangerousBuildings

Building andthe Department of

Safety

with

Perm

it E

xit

was granted. Even this process though was a back and forth process with the city as is described in the graphic above. This eliminated the need to disconnect the water altogether which worked out better anyways since keeping the water connection would allow for watering of plants.

Overall this approach made better use of the money allocated to deconstruction. If the structure were to be completely demolished, PMR would have had to pay for an excavation crew to remove the cellar basement, and then backfi ll hole and the site. This can sometimes cost up to $2,500 no matter the size of the basement. In addition, ASWD (PMR’s deconstruction partner) does not have a Detroit certifi ed demolition license. This is something that is diffi cult to obtain

for a small non-profi t due to politics and fi nancial liability, especially because the city doesn’t offi cially recognize deconstruction. If the team proposed demolition, a demolition contractor would have had to been hired who would have then contracted the work out to ASWD. This would have cost more because PMR would have then had to pay two parties.

Also, by building a shed, it is making the site more useful, and valuable to the property owner, as well as adding another dimension to the project. While this shed will actually be built in the future, it is not to be confused with the design proposal that PMR is also making as part of this project. A full description, explanation, and graphics of this building design can be found in the design section of the report. The following graphic explains the experience the PMR team had at the Detroit Buildings and Safety Department when attempting to get the permit. There were many diff erent desks to visit and approvals needed as can be seen and PMR believes it is important to describe this process for anyone wanting do deconstruct with this method in the future.

044

cleanout lath roof attic interior exterior material Platform

The house was removed down to the fi rst fl oor platform in twelve days with the help of over 50 diff erent volunteers throughout that time period. The twelve days include days over LTU’s spring break and the following weekend. On average, there were 10 crew members on site at any given time, which, over 12 days totals to over 840 man hours. The fi rst fl oor platform then remained in place until the end of the school semester when the team could commit more time to removing the rest of the structure.

The following pages outline each step of the deconstruction process which include house clean-out, lath and interior removal, roof removal, attic fl oor removal, interior wall removal, and exterior wall removal. A summary of the current state of the project, description of the material processing procedure, interesting artifacts found and a tribute to all of the volunteers is included.

deconstruction: physical process

046

crewthe

Meaghan Markiewicz, pmr team member

pierce Sadler, (left) volunteer site leader

james sharp, pmr team member

jamiil gaston, volunteer site leader

jose perez, volunteer site leader

mike paciero, (right) pmr team member

tony fakhouri, volunteer site leader

drew tucker, volunteer site leader

charlie harris, pmr team member detroit challenge fellows, volunteers

joe kuzdal, volunteer site leader

chris rutherford, aswd contractor

justin lee, volunteer site leader

brandon olsen, pmr team member

dan pratt, aswd contractor kienan kowalski, volunteer site leader

048

pre-deconstruction: the cleanout

CLEANING: trash, nick-nacks, artifacts

cleanout lath roof attic interior exterior material platform

Day One was content removal. Prior to the project, every visit the team made to the site entailed walking through massive amounts of clothes, papers, and other debris that were scattered across the house. This is the side of blight that is not always seen from the outside. It was hard to imagine just how the contents got strewn about as they were. Clearing these out was the fi rst step in the deconstruction process. There was so many contents that one entire dumpster was fi lled on the fi rst day.

The team considered saving some of it, especially the clothes, to donate but it would have added days to the project that there was not time for. Many crew members have commented, it was a mixed emotion fi lled day because while it was fun, they found many personal belongings and information about the previous tenants who they didn’t even know. It all seemed to be strangely forgotten about. Items saved from the cleanout included furniture, nick-nacks, and items that had historical signifi cance.

050

“This day was probably the most emotionally varied of the project... Although we had a great time as a group

cleaning out the house, There was always that little voice in my head reminding me everything we found to be

worthless was once priceless to someone.”

“There was a crazy amount

of stuff!”

-Joe kuzdal, volunteer

-brandon olsen, team member

052

deconstruction: lath & interior

Lath: millions of tiny pieces Day Two through Day Six was lath and interior fi nish removal. The interior fi nish of the house was plaster with some drywall. The contractors (ASWD) removed the plaster with their crew so that PMR wouldn’t have to submit participants to dust and lead paint exposure. ASWD are professionals who know how to work with hazardous materials. An asbestos survey was also required. Thankfully the test was negative for asbestos and work was able to progress on time.

Located behind the plaster is a material called lath. These are thin strips of wood that span between the studs which the plaster adheres to. In a plastered house there is a lot of lath. Over 3000 pieces were removed and denailed. Denailing is a tedious, slow task. As a result, fi nishing lath took a while. Many of the crew have joked that they never want to see another piece of lath again. However, removing it was a crucial fi rst step and served as a good warm up for bigger, more labor intensive tasks.


054

“I will hate lath for the rest of

my life!”


“One of the most awe striking experiences of all, was when I was tearing apart the ceiling and found

a handwritten note from 1927 completely intact that had been

hidden from the world for almost an entire century! Finding the

note made me realize that this isn’t just some house, this was once

someone’s home and has been a home to many different people

over its lifetime.”

processStep 1- Remove and cleanup plasterStep 2- Remove lath and other interior fi nishes with hammers/prybarsStep 3- Pile with similar sized piecesStep 4- DenailStep 5- Bundle lath into 50 piece per bundle and bundle trim

materials harvestedLath • Door Trim • Window Trim • Base Trim • Interior Shealthing • Wainscoting • Electrical Wiring • Window Weights • Doors

-tony fakhouri, volunteer

056

deconstruction: ROOF

Day 7 through Day 9 was the roof was removed. Once the lath and fi nishes were removed, the next step was to start from the top and work down. On Day 7, the roof was stripped of the shingles by ASWD’s crew for safety reasons so the volunteer crew could safely remove the rest of the roof from the underside. The roofi ng fi nishes consisted of two layers of shingles and one of cedar shake. Once the shingles were gone, sun rays between the open slits

in the sheathing boards created beautiful lighting eff ects that made for great photos. On Day 8 the two brick chimneys came down and 1” thick roof sheathing boards were removed from the rafters which led to the 2x4 & 2x6 rafters being removed on Day 9. Removing the roof was a dramatic transformation to the structure. It was the fi rst major change to the exterior appearance of the house and was a huge moral booster for the team.

Roof: Raise Drop the roof


058

“With my major being Architectural Engineering

the project had a lot to teach me. In classrooms

you learn mostly theory and design, but

deconstructing you learned how houses were

actually put together.”

-Pierce sadler, volunteer

“As the roof boards came down, the

sun rays created an amazing lighting effect in the second story.”

-Meaghan Markiewicz, team member

processStep 1- Strip roof fi nishesStep 2- Dispose of roof fi nishesStep 3- Remove chimneysStep 4- Remove the underside roof sheating Step 5- Remove interor attic wallsStep 6- Remove roof raftersStep 7- Remove gable endsStep 8- Remove front and back porch awning.

materials harvested1” Thick Roof Sheating Boards • Brick •2x4 Interior Studs • 2x4 Roof Rafters •2x6 Roof Rafters • 2x4 Framing of Gable Ends • Wood Siding & Sheathing from Gable Ends • Cedar Shake Siding from Gable Ends

060

deconstruction: Attic floor

Attic: Nothing to stand onDay 10 was removal of the attic fl oor. Only a couple members of the crew were needed. Safety harnesses were worn and everyone had to be careful not to fall through what was now the open ceiling. Even though the roof was off at this point, having the attic fl oor still made the house feel as if a roof was there. After this step though the house became much more open, and exposed to the elements. The astounding 24 foot long 2x6 joists

were now completely visible, and it became very clear from viewing construction techniques and wood type that the original house was sandwiched between two additions on the front and back. Some of the oldest fl oor boads weren’t even nailed down. These boards were about 15 feet long, and poked above the ceiling. The main fl oor of the house quickly became cluttered and looked like a forest of reclaimed wood.


062

“I began to see much more

potential in all the material!”

-Jeremy nafus, volunteer

“The project has helped me gain inspiration for myself in Detroit. We can play a role and impact the future of this city and help make it the place we want to live and

spend our life in. The amount of opportunity I see in the city now

makes me want to stay here which is something I would have never

thought of saying before.”

-kienan kowalski, volunteer

processStep 1- Put on Safety HarnessStep 2- Determine where to start (from front of house)Step 3- Remove Floorboards with PrybarStep 4- Drop Floorboards between Ceiling Joists for Storing.Step 5- Remove All Wood from Main Floor of House.

materials harvested1x12 fl oorboards (middle-original house) • 1x8 fl oorboards (back addition) • 1x6 fl oorboards (front addition)

064

deconstruction: interior walls

Day 11 was removal of the interior walls and the ceiling joists. This was one of the most transformational days as the house became on large open room by the end of the day. At the beginning of the day it looked like it did after removal of the attic fl oor with wood strewn everywhere. That wood was carried out and piled it up. Then the team proceeded to knock out all of the interior sheathing and interior stud walls. One interesting construction method was that the 1x sheathing (typically plywood

or osb today) was placed on the interior side of the exterior studs and not the exterior side. These were beautiful boards, some as large as 18” wide and 14’ long. They could only have come from very large, old trees. It is assumed that these boards were the original interior fi nish back in 1888. After sheathing and interior studs were removed, the massive 24’ long 2x6 ceiling joists were removed one at a time. Removing so much structure weakened the house considerably and the entire house shook.

Interior WallS: They are on the inside


066

“It is not typical to see such high quality interior boards. They

must have been original to the house ”

-Mike Paciero, team member

“This deconstruction project was entirely

different. Not only did it strengthen my pride for Detroit, it energized my friends, non-Detroiters,

to give back to the city that helped build

America.” -Jamiil gaston, volunteer

processStep 1- remove remaining interior sheathing boardsStep 2- remove interior wallsStep 3- remove remaining door framesStep 4- remove stairsStep 5- remove remaining windowsStep 6- remove ceiling joists

materials harvested1x interior sheating boards • 2x4 studs from walls • 2x4 top & bottom platesdoor frames • window frames & glassstair stringers, risers, & treads • 2x6 ceiling joists

068

deconstruction: exterior walls

Day 12, the fi nal full day, was removal of the exterior walls. This was a labor intensive process as it took nearly the entire crew to lower the walls once they were cut them into sections. It was certainly a dynamic day as the entire project was now revealed to the street. Once the walls were down, they were disassembled them on the fl oor deck. This was the safest way to complete this process. After the walls

were down and disassembled, there was much cleanup around the site to do. The crew continued to denail material, pick up scraps, as well as sort wood into piles. At the end of the day it felt fulfi lling to have accomplished nearly full deconstruction. It was strange to look at the site from the street now as there was no more house at all, just a platform.

exterior WallS: They are on the outside


070

“It was extremely satisfying to see the house

slowly become piles of organized materials to be

re-purposed.”


processStep 1- Sawzall walls in sections at strategic pointsStep 2- Lower wall to ground with entire crewStep 3- Disassemble wall on groundStep 4- Organize components into respective piles

materials harvested2x4 exterior studs • 2x4 top and bottom plates • wood siding • cedar shake siding from front wallfront window & decorative trim • exterior facia boards

072

deconstruction: material Processing

After the wood is removed from the house it must be inventoried and processed. Processing means that similar pieces are stacked together, denailed, and then wrapped or loaded up on a trailer to be stored off site. Denailing is the most time consuming step in this process. There are sometimes dozens of nails in a piece of wood. Due to the length of time this process takes, denailing often occurs off site at a secure location. In this project some of the wood

was denailed onsite throughout the deconstruction and some was taken directly back to ASWD to be stored and denailed later. Throughout the process there was always a denailing team as well as a deconstruction team. Crew members switched between teams to get both experiences. PMR was fortunate enough to have enough volunteers that deconstruction and material processing could be done simultaneously.

material Processing: denail + inventory


074

“The project has opened my eyes to the possibilities and

potential that the city of Detroit possesses.”

-Justin lee, volunteer

“What made the work easiest was the comradery between the volunteers. We were all excited to be there which

made even the worst jobs, like removing lath or

de-nailing wood, incredibly fun. Nothing makes the work go by faster than when you’re dancing, singing, and working

all at the same time”


076

deconstruction: first floor platform

On day 13 & 14, after the school semester was over, the team returned to remove the fi rst fl oor decking, supporting 2x8 & 2x6 joists, structural beams, and concrete piers. The majority of the structure was removed with the exception of the fl oor covering the cellar and a portion of the fl oor attached to the cellar. This is the extent of structure that will be removed until the tool shed is built on site over

the cellar. The site began to feel cleaner and it was the fi rst time the dirt underneath the house had seen daylight since 1888. What is left to do is much denailing, and material processing around the site. Eventually, all the materials will be stored either in a warehouse for future use or on site once the team acquires a shipping container. The fi rst fl oor removal is the fi nal structure removal step the PMR project.

first floor platform: down to the last boards


078

“It was amazing to see how the foundation of the house

was constructed. For 127 years Hardly anything was mechanically fastened, yet

most of the foundation was solid as can be. The beams sat unattached on the piers,

beams were notched together where they connected, and the joists were notched into

the beams.”

-mike paciero, team member

processStep 1- Remove Tongue + Groove subfl oor deckingStep 2- Remove fl oor joistsStep 3- cut beams at intersection point of where structure will be savedStep 4- Rake and clean dirt and debris under houseStep 4- Organize materials under existing structure and tarp

materials harvested4” Tongue + Groove Subfl oor • 2x6 + 2x8 Floor Joists • 6x8, 8x8, 4x7 Structural Beams • CMU Block from Structural Piers • Misc. 2x4’s and Other Supporting Members • Misc. Metal, Glass, + Plastic

080

Jeremy Nafus, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherDarin McClesky, Neighborhood ResidentAndrew Markle, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherDylan Masko, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherMario Gagnon, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherMike Pruski, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherRich Douglas, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherAaron Barroclaugh, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherTravis McCaul, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherCody Chumbler, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherDan Gallagher, LTU StudentHadiel Modhelidean, LTU Student Sue Markiewicz, Friend of the Project Schoren Family, Friend of the ProjectSarah Campbell, Friend of the ProjectRyan Diehl, LTU StudentRandy Tebbs, LTU StudentKenny Delage, LTU StudentAaron Barroclaugh, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherSteven Paciero, Friend of the Project David Paciero, Friend of the ProjectLeslie Paciero, Friend of the Project

Ed Orlowski, LTU Professor of ArchitectureDrew Bradford, Project Member Farah Harb, Ford C3 CoordinatorMatt Scarchilli, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother Steven Vondra, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ Brother Kyle Schmidt, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherEvan Beaudrie, LTU Student - ΣΦΕ BrotherEd Gorecki, Friend of the ProjectAyodh Kamath, LTU Professor of ArchitectureRandy Harris, Friend of the ProjectSteve Bengelsdorf, Friend of the ProjectAnn Phillips, Challenge Detroit FellowAnna Schroen, Challenge Detroit FellowElizabeth Grabowski, Challenge Detroit FellowJessica Wang, Challenge Detroit FellowKenneth Andejeski, Challenge Detroit FellowMartha Cavazos, Challenge Detroit FellowSarah Robb, Challenge Detroit FellowSeth Haug, Challenge Detroit FellowAlison Figliomeni, Challenge Detroit FellowRachel Rosenbaum, Challenge Detroit Fellow

thank you: all the volunteersvolunteers: the list

One of the most exciting parts of the project was discovering souveniers with either historical signifi cance from the early 1900’s or belongings of previous residents that were hidden behind walls or under the fl oors. Each time something new was discovered, the crew member who made the discovery walked around the site and showed the fi nd to everyone. Pictured here are a few of the items found. To name a few, there were 1922 Silver Dollars, square hand cut nails, old newspaper dated 1927, and what ended up being deeped the project mascot “Mr. Hippo”, and his friends.

FOUND

THINGSWE

082

section four: material assessment

The Material Assessment phase makes Pioneer Material Renewal unique in the deconstruction and material reuse industry. Since the ultimate goal is to design a new structure only from the amount of material reclaimed, some of that material needs to be designed as structural components. However, no current standard is in place for certifying reclaimed wood for structural use, none the less a construction standard for designing and building a new structure from completely reclaimed materials. This is what Pioneer Material Renewal aims to accomplish through its Material Assessment phase. There are two main components to this phase; structural testing, and material estimation/inventory. Since structural testing occured before deconstruction in the project schedule the team tested wood provided by PMR’s deconstruction consultants, ASWD, that is a similar age and type to the wood found in 4820 Dubois. This timeline also led the team to complete an analysis to estimate the amount of material that would be yielded from the home. This amount was then compared and verifi ed post deconstruction upon the completion of material inventory.

Pioneer Material Renewal’s primary hypothesis

for this phase was that various reclaimed structural members from a 100+ year old home have maintained their structural properties and integrity over time, meet the minimum structural requirements per current code for wood stick frame buildings, and equal or exceed the strength of today’s standard wood structural members. The main reasons behind this assumption were that 100+ year old wood was cut from higher quality, more mature trees than today’s wood, and the wood’s dimensions are a true nominal size, unlike modern day wood. To assess this, the team designed several possible tests that involved testing structural and aesthetic properties of the reclaimed wood. Utimately, four tests were prepared and executed using LTU”s Structural Testing Center. The test results, quantities harvested from the house, and history regarding the material are all included in this Material Assessment section.

• Defi ne and execute structural and aesthetic tests on the reclaimed wood

• Successfully quantify and document the material harvested from 4820 Dubois.Extracted material from 12527 Klinger Street by Charlie O’Geen. Photo courtesy of PD Rearick.

Material assessment:

086

board feetof lumber

board feet of lumberwas transported on the

Wood harvested from Michigan forests

WOOD traveling down THE BLACK RIVER

a sawmill in Detroit

Modern harvesting equipment

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

25 billion 35-96 millionsaginaw river michigan

is soldannually inTHE state of

michigan lumber: history

1

White pine harvesting is a classic case of how the timber industry shaped Michigan's forests and young economy. In the 19th century, white pine was a major component of Michigan's forests, but as a result of major development in the Detroit area and the rest of the midwest, white pine forests were greatly reduced by the mid 20th century. Today much less lumber is purchased in the state compared to the late 1800s when 4820 Dubois was built. Not to mention, the timber harvested now is from far younger and smaller trees as can be seen in image 4 on the left. This research highlights the signifi cance of the wood reclaimed from 4820 Dubois. It belongs to some of the fi rst harvests of Michigan lumber and is considered antique. This quality increases the lumbers value, hence the interest in re-harvesting it through deconstruction.

The best white pine was called “cork pine,” and Michigan was loaded with it, especially in the Saginaw Valley. Dorothy Langdam Yates writes in her History of Midland County (1987) that in the last big year of logging (1897) the Saginaw River fl oated 125 million pine logs, representing a staggering 25 billion board feet of lumber. These trees were hundreds of years oldDetroit in the 1860s had fi ve lumber yards and nine sawmills that delivered 40.5 million board feet of lumber to the growing city and on to the eastern states. Cut lumber came from St. Clair, Lapeer, Sanilac and Saginaw, towed by tug boat along the shore of Lake Huron, down the Black River and across Lake St. Clair. Over time Detroit’s role faded as more and more mills were built in the Saginaw Valley.

Michigan Lumber:1897 Michigan Lumber: today

088

Cut lumber came from St. Clair, Lapeer, Sanilac and Saginaw, towed by tug boat along the shore of Lake Huron, down the Black River and across Lake St. Clair. Over time Detroit's role faded as more and more mills were built in the Saginaw Valley.

[51] Roof Members 1'x6" @ 12' Lengths

material estimation: individual building componentsThe numbers below are calculated assuming 100% of the material is salvaged. During the deconstruction process, it is assumed only 60% - 70% will actually be reclaimed for re-use.

material yield:

[26]2’X6’ Roof Members @ 20' Lengths

[26] 2’X4’ Roof Members @ 20' Lengths

[2] 2’x2’ Brick Chimney @ 26' Height

[3,240] Lath Members @ 4’ Lengths

[1,366] Square Foot Wood Flooring

[1] Full Stair

[177] Exterior Studs @ 9’-12’ Lengths

[90] 2’x6’ Ceiling Joists @ 16” O.C.

[14] Windows

[1,366] Square Foot Wood Flooring

[7] Foundation Timbers

[26] Concrete Piers

[90] 2’x6’ Floor Joists @ 16” O.C.

[1/2] Wooden Stair

[180] Linear Feet of Brick Wall

[39] 1’x6” Roof Sheathing Boards @ 12'

[14] 2’X6’ Roof Members @ 17' Lengths

[54] 2’X4’ Roof Members @ 8’, 13’, & 17’

[2] 2’x2’ Brick Chimney @ 26' Height

[2,500] Lath Members @ 2’-4’ Lengths

[90] 1”x6”,8”, 12” Floorboards

[1] Full Stair

[104] Exterior Studs @ 8.5’ & 11.5’ Lengths

[54] 2’x6’ Ceiling Joists @ 10’, 20’ & 24’

[6] In tact Window Frames

[150] 1”x4.5” Floorboards @ 10’ Lengths

[15] Foundation Timbers

[30] Concrete Piers

[18] 2”x6” Floor Joists @ 10’ & 24’ Lengths

[180] Linear Feet of Brick Wall

[27] 2”x8” Floor Joists @ 19’ & 23’ Lengths

[188] Interior Studs @ 4’, 8’, & 15’ Lengths

092

Prior to deconstruction, PMR knew the amount of material that would be yielded from the house, but the team had no idea just how much that material would end up being in person once the house was removed. By the end of deconstruction, both lots next to the house were covered with piles of wood. Some of that wood was sent to ASWD’s warehouse for storage and some if it stayed stored on site underneath the fi rst fl oor of the house or under tarps to stay protected from the weather. Over the course of the few months following deconstruction the team made it back several times to process, inventory, and properly store this wood to ensure it wouldn’t be damaged. In total, the team reclaimed nearly 7000 board feet of lumber that otherwise would have been sent to a landfi ll. This is approximately equivalent to 3, 10 yard dumpsters. A board foot is a volume measurement that refers to the volume of the board. 1 board foot equals: 1”x12”x12”. So a 2x6 that is 10 feet long is equal to: 2”x6”x120” = 10 board feet. PMR used this calculation to estimate the amount of material. There were 3 main categories of lumber; 2x’s which include 2x4s, 2x6s, and 2x8’s, beams which include all of the foundation beams under the house, and 1x material which includes all fl ooring, sheathing, and interior fi nishes throughout the hosue. The charts that follow outline the amount of lumber reclaimed for each category.

2x4s, 2x6,s and 2x8s were all found in the house. The majority of the 2x4s came from the exterior and interior walls. The 2x6s and 2x8s came from the fl oor joists, celing joists, and roof rafters. The 2x material was the easiset to reclaim and inventory. Therefore, PMR has a very accurate count of these members. It is estimated that 98% of the 2x material available was reclaimed and not wasted. It was all in very good shape and very little was rotted. The 2x material is the second most valuable material in the housenext to the beams. At market value, the antique (lumber before 1910) 2x4s can sell for $2 per linear foot. the 2x6’s and 2x8s go for even more.

Lumber totals

2x material

Beams

1x material

The foundation of the house consisted of timber beams resting on concrete piers. Once the team deconstructed down to the fi rst fl oor it was easy to identify and remove the beams. Therefore 99% of this material was reclaimed. The only reason 100% was not possible was because some of the beams had to be cut due to their length and many were notched to allow for other beams and joists to fi t together. The beams are the most valuable material in the house. The remaining lumber in the house was what is

referred to as 1x material. This includes everything from the wall and roof sheating, to the siding, and the fl oors. This was the hardest material to reclaim as it was the easiest to break when removing, and also had the most rot since it is generally the fi rst material that gets exposed to water and other elements. In total, it is estimated that 70% of this material was reclaimed. The most valuable 1x material was the interior sheating boards that was the same antique texture and color of the 2x’s. This material was suspected to be the original interior fi nish of the house in 1888.

094

material testing: Overview

STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES

SPANS WITH SHORT MEMBERS

POST AND BEAM SPANS

ENCLOSUREOften times during deconstruction, wood membersare cut or broken into shorter lengths during the disassembly process. As a result, lengths of wood are not consistent and often shorter than standard lengths. This raises questions of how to structurally use these shorter, inconsistent sized members when designing a new building. PMR aimed to answer these questions through testing a truss and a lamella. A truss is an easily recognizable structural element built usually from 2x4’s or 2x6’s. Likewise, a lamella is also a spanning structural element built using short lengths of 2x4 or 2x6 members. The diff erence from a truss is that it forms a curved arch rather than a straight, triangular grid. Testing these would mean testing individual reclaimed members assembled into a system.

Without enclosure, a building is only a skeleton.Pioneer Material Renewal’s last potential test would be to provide enclosure for a building. During deconstruction, many materials are reclaimed that can be used for exterior fi nishes including fl ooring, plaster lathe, shiplap siding, and roof/wall sheathng. Using reclaimed glass for windows is also an important component to this test as daylight plays an important role in the design of the building.One test could be using reclaimed boards like fl ooring, lathe, and shiplap for exterior cladding This test will be fairly straightforward and similar to conventional methods used today. Testing with reclaimed glass will prove to be more challenging though. This is PMR’s fi nal option for reclaimed material testing.

Currently, there is no standard for certifying reclaimed lumber for structural use. It is generally assumed that once a structural member is removed from a building, its strength has deteriorated to a point where it cannot be used structurally per code. The team must provide proof reclaimed wood can be used structurally in order to make a design proposal for a new building that strictly uses reclaimed material as the main structure. The structural properties test would test old and new 2x4’s side by side. This would involve completing 3 separate tests; compression, bending and tension. It is important to test all three properties. New 2x4s will be tested along with old 2x4s, compared to each other, and also to code.

Reclaimed timber beams are a valuable resource in the deconstruction and reclaimed material industry. They are also very aesthetically pleasing elements when left exposed to the interior. Thus, the team wished to investigate the reuse of 4820 Dubois’s foundation beams in the design. As a result, one structural method that PMR considered using in the design was post and beam. It is a basic, proven structural system that has been used for hundreds of years. To test this system based on the material available in 4820 Dubois, two tests would be designed. Beams borrowed from ASWD that are similar to the foundation beams would be examined structurally. However, 4820 Dubois does not contain true “posts” so instead the team would build and test built up columns made from multiple 2x4’s.

PMR proposed to complete four material tests that would assist in designing a structure from 4820 Dubois’s material. Whichever systems were tested, would appear in the building’s design. Therefore, material testing and design depended heavily on each other. As a result, many iterations of tests were conceived by the team. Each iteration involved a diff erent structural strategy that would shape the design’s construction. These four main iterations and the tests included in them are described on the following page. They are Individual Properties, Post and Beam, Spans with Short Members, and Enclosure.

The fi rst iteration is individual structural properties of the 2x4s and 2x6s. The three tests included here were 1) compressive, 2) tensile, and 3) bending properties of individual members. Designing a structure from this test resulted in a a typical stick frame building. The second iteration is a Post and Beam structural system. Two tests cam from this iteration; 4) testing a timber beam, and 5) a built up column from multiple 2x4s. Utilizing this test would result in a heavy timber framed building. The third iteration created a structural system from short

members. Two tests resulted from this iteration; 6) constructing a truss and a 7) lamella. Two types of buildings could be framed from these tests, a typical triangular shaped frame, or a long tubular arch that resembles the shape of a greenhouse. Lastly, the fourth iteration was enclosure. While not explicitly a structural system, every building described above would need enclosure of some type. Also, enclosure such as exterior sheathing is often structural in nature. This would test multiple enclosures including 8) typical wood sheathing and 9) splicing together old windows that would laterally brace the system. While four of the nine brainstormed tests were ultimately chosen, PMR believes it is important to still describe each idea to provide information on the replicability of this concept.

Ultimately the tests chosen were all three of the individual properties tests and the truss test. The team felt it was important to test all the basic properties of the material and then assemble a system (truss) using that material. This gave PMR a well rounded result as to the strength of the old material. Descriptions and results of the tests are on the following pages.

096

material test one: compression

materials needed:

compression: Example Calculation:

testing Pictures:

process:LTU’s Structural Testing Center contains a testing machine that can compress or pull material using diff erent attachments. For this test the compressive attachment was used. Each specimen was placed in between the plates of the machine. It was critical to ensure the specimen was centered between the plates so that an even load could be applied. Once centered, the machine applied a pressure at a rate of .25 inches per minute. A close eye was kept on the load amount. Each test took about 2 minutes. Specimens were loaded until they sustained their maximum load except for the one pictured on the previous page which was completely crushed.

The materials used for the compression test involved three reclaimed specimens and three new lumber specimens. Each specimen was cut to be six inches long. They are cut short at six inches to prevent the specimen from buckling before failing in true compression. Buckling is a sudden sideways failure of a member due to excessive compressive forces. A taller member will buckle before failing in compression unless it is laterally braced. To get the best results, shorter members were used in the compression test. The new lumber is structurally graded as No. 2 Spruce Pine Fir (SPF) and is common lumber found at any local hardware store. The reclaimed lumber species and grade is unknown but is suspected to be pine based on the team’s research. Each tested specimen was cut from a separate, longer 2x4 to ensure diversity within the specimens. One surprising quality of the material is the freshness of the reclaimed wood when cut. Unlike the outside of the wood, there is little diff erence the end grain color between the new wood and the old wood.

Testing compressive properties of new and reclaimed 2x4s is Pioneer Material Renewals fi rst test. The team must verify that the reclaimed wood’s compressive properties have not deteriorated over time. Inherently, wood is strongest in compression so it was hypothesized that the highest load of all the tests would be experienced here. The compressive property is important because compression is a major force that 2x4s are subjected to while in a load bearing stud wall.

Figure 1: Compression Test Specimens

Figure 2: Compression Test Setup098

Results:The results showed that the reclaimed lumber was stronger in axial compression than the new lumber. This confi rms PMRs original hypothesis. The compression test was the most conclusive of all the tests as the diff erence in strength was highest. On average, the reclaimed lumber held was 2,621 more psi than the new lumber. However, it is not enough to just compare the reclaimed values to the new values, it must also be compared to code values since code governs building construction requirements. Every species of lumber has it’s own structural properties per type of force. Allowable axial compression of Spruce

Pine Fir was researched and found to be 1400 psi for a select structural (SS) grade (highest). A good rule of thumb for code values is that they are reduced approximately 3x from actual values for safety factors. Simple calculations show that in compression both types of lumber exceed code even without safety factors. The photos on the previous page show the stress cracks created in the lumber by the compressive force. While the cracks are subtle, these members are completely failed. The image on the top shows a member that was completely crushed for demonstration reasons.

Specimen: one

New Lumber: 5238 psi New Lumber: 5486 psi New Lumber: 4895 psi

Reclaimed Lumber: 8133 psi Reclaimed Lumber: 7613 psi Reclaimed Lumber: 7733 psi

Specimen: two Specimen: three

Compression failure beyond max yield point

Compression failure in new lumber specimen

Compression failure in reclaimed lumber specimen

3

4

5

3

4 5

100

materials needed:

Tension: Example Calculation:

testing Pictures:

process:LTU’s Structural Testing Center contains a testing machine that can compress or pull material using diff erent attachments. For this test the tension attachment was used. Each specimen was placed in the jaws of the machine. Once placed, the pressure of the jaws had to be adjusted to ensure the specimen wasn’t crushed prior to testing. A close eye was kept on the load amount and each test took about 2 minutes. Specimens were loaded until they either failed in tension, or were split by the pressure from the jaws.

The materials used for the tension test involved three reclaimed specimens and three new lumber specimens. Each specimen was cut to be twelve inches long. This length allowed for the jaws of the machine to grip the member on both sides. The new lumber is structurally graded as No. 2 Spruce Pine Fir (SPF) and is common lumber found at any local hardware store. The reclaimed lumber species and grade is unknown but is suspected to be pine. Each tested specimen was cut from a separate, longer 2x4 to ensure diversity within the specimens. It is much harder to pull something apart than to crush it so the original testing strategy was to place bolts through the specimen and pull on steel plates attached to the bolts. However, this caused the bolts to tear out before tension failure. To rectify this problem the team had to modify the height and width of the specimens. First, the jaws of the machine can only accept a piece that is 1.5 inches wide. Therefore, the reclaimed 2x4s had to be planed down to that size. Then, there wasn’t enough force in the machine to pull the full section apart so the cross section size had to be reduced by cutting incisions at the center point to induce tension failure as can be seen in the photos.

Testing tensile properties of new and reclaimed 2x4s is Pioneer Material Renewals second test. Like compression, the team must verify that the reclaimed wood’s tensile properties have not deteriorated over time. Inherently, wood is weakest in tension so it was hypothesized that this is the property that has degraded the most over time and would be most comparable to new wood.. The tensile property is important because, like compression, is a major force that 2x4s are subjected to while in a load bearing stud wall and in truss assemblies.

Figure 1: Splitting of the reclaimed wood due to jaw pressure

Figure 2: Tension Test Specimens

material test two: tension

102

Results:The results showed that, on average, the reclaimed lumber was slightly weaker in axial tension than the new lumber. This does not confi rm PMRs original hypothesis that the reclaimed lumber is stronger than the new. However, a test error occured that leads to believe the reclaimed lumber did not reach its maximum tension strength. The new lumber reached textbook tension failure as can be seen on the top picture on the previous page. Before the reclaimed lumber could reach this point, the pressure from the jaws of the machine split the specimen each time, halting the test and anff ecting the results. The split can be seen in the

picture on the previous page. It is theorized that if the specimen did not split it would have met or exceeded the new lumber tensile strength. This also may indicate that due to the reclaimed wood’s dryness from so many years, compresssion perpendicular to the grain may be a controlling structural factor rather than compression parallel to grain, tension, or bending. Regardless though, when compared to allowable code values for SPF, both new and reclaimed lumber held to the code allowable 700 psi tension strength for SPF. All members also exceeded that value multiplied by 3 as is the rule of thumb safety factor for code.

Type Name Width (in) Height (in) Area (in^2) Red. Area(in^2)

Force (lbs) Stress(psi)

Avg Stress(psi)

Specimen 1 1.5 3.5 5.25 1.125 6,000 5333Specimen 2 1.5 3.5 5.25 1.125 3,500 3111Specimen 3 1.5 3.5 5.25 1.125 5,500 4889Specimen 1 2 3.75 7.50 1.125 4,400 3911Specimen 2 1.9375 3.8125 7.39 1.125 5,400 4800Specimen 3 1.9375 3.8125 7.39 1.125 5,100 4533

2x4 Tension Test Lumber Lumber vs. Old Growth Reclaimed Lumber

NewLumber

4444

ReclaimedLumber

4415

Specimen: one




textbook tension failure in new lumber specimen

tension failure in new lumber specimen

tension failure in recliamed lumber specimen

3

4

5

3

4 5

104

material test three: bending

materials needed:

bending: Example Calculation:

process:LTU’s Structural Testing Center contains several actuators for testing beams, bridges and other material. For this test the smallest actuator was used. Each specimen was placed on steel supports so that it spanned 5’-4”. In addition, the members were laterally supported by steel and rested on concrete cylinders as can be seen in the photgraphs in this section. Once placed, the actuator put pressure at the center of the span. Also hooked to the 2x4 was a string pod with a distance measurement attached to it. This pod measured the amount of defl ection in the 2x4 throughout the test. Unlike compression and tension, The 2x4 was loaded until it could not support any more load. This allowed for very accurate data points to be recorded as can be seen in the results section.

The materials used for the bending test involved three reclaimed specimens and three new lumber specimens. Each specimen was cut to be six feet long. This length allowed for a reasonable span to be tested. The actual span between supports was 5’-4”. Normally 2x4s do not span horizontally as how PMR tested them, but a normal horizontal spanning member such as a 2x6 is expected to behave in a similar manner while supporting more weight. As in the previous tests, the new lumber is structurally graded as No. 2 Spruce Pine Fir (SPF) and is common lumber found at any local hardware store. The reclaimed lumber species and grade is unknown but is suspected to be pine.

Testing bending properties of new and reclaimed 2x4s was Pioneer Material Renewals third test. Like compression and tension, the team must verify that the reclaimed wood’s tensile properties have not deteriorated over time. There were a couple diff erent elements to the bending test. First, overall strength was tested as done before. Secondly, defl ection in the member was also tested and measured. It was hypothesized that the reclaimed lumber would again be stronger but that it would defl ect less than the new lumber because of it’s dryness. Bending properties are important values if using a conventional rafter framing system for a roof, as well as truss assemblies.

106

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

49.4

99.1

148.

819

8.5

248.

229

7.9

347.

639

7.3

447

496.

754

6.4

596.

164

5.8

695.

574

5.2

794.

984

4.6

894.

394

499

3.7

1043

.410

93.1

1142

.811

92.5

1242

.212

91.9

PSI

SECONDS

Reclaimed Lumber Stress (PSI) New Lumber Stress (PSI)

Results:

Reclaimed vs. new bending stress over time:

The results showed that, on average, the reclaimed lumber was stronger in bending stress than the new lumber. The team tested the new lumber fi rst and knew that the reclaimed wood would need to sustain a larger load to equal the stress sustained by the new lumber because it naturally has a larger cross section, therefore it should carry more weight. However, PMR did not expect when the results were calculated that on average the reclaimed lumber would be over 1,400 psi stronger than the new lumber. Bending stress calculations heavily depend on the size of the member. The slightest change in size can quickly impact the resulting

stress. This was evident through the reclaimed lumber calculations. For example, if reclaimed lumber specimen 2 was truly 2”x4”, only .125” wider, and .25” taller, the bending stress would be reduced to 8,778 psi rather than 10,653 psi. Since the wood was hand cut so many years ago, very few of the members are actually the same exact size and only roughly 2”x4”. This unique material quality is something to take into consideration when designing with the material both aesthetically and structurally. Regardless, all member exceeded code values again as seen in the chart.

Type Name Width (in) Height (in) Area (in^2)Section

Modulus"Sx" (in^3)

Span (in)Max

Force(lbs)

MaxMoment

(lb in)

Stress(psi)

Avg Stress(psi)

Specimen 1 1.5 3.5 5.25 3.063 64 1,661 26,576 8678Specimen 2 1.5 3.5 5.25 3.063 64 1,067 17,072 5575Specimen 3 1.5 3.5 5.25 3.063 64 974 15,576 5086Specimen 1 2.0625 3.875 7.99 5.162 64 1,254 20,064 3887Specimen 2 1.875 3.75 7.03 4.395 64 2,926 46,816 10653Specimen 3 1.75 3.625 6.34 3.833 64 2,178 34,848 9092

NewLumber 6446

ReclaimedLumber 7878

2x4 Bending Test Reclaimed Lumber vs. Old Growth Reclaimed Lumber

Specimen: one




fully yielded reclaimed lumber specimen3

3

The graph above shows the stress curves of New Lumber Specimen 1 and Reclaimed Material Specimen 2. The graph shows the behavior of the internal stresses over time. The reclaimed lumber

took much longer to fully yield than the new lumber and it was more resilient as it reloaded several times before fully failing.

108

Results:Bending stress was not the only important value to evaluate when completing this test. Since defl ection was also measured, it was possible to calculate the elastic modulus (E) of the material. The elastic modulus is the ratio of the stress to the strain of the material. It is determined by assessing the amount of defl ection at maximum load, and the moment of inertia of the section (which is again determined by the cross sectional area of the specimen). The elastic modulus determines how much a material can elongate before it cannot go back to its original shape and eventually yields. As can be seen in the photos on the previous page, the reclaimed lumber was surprisingly fl exible. The

team anticipated minimal fl exing due to its dryness. This was not the case as it took longer to fully yield the reclaimed lumber due to this fl exing than it did the new lumber (see following graphs). In fact, once the new lumber yielded once it was completely failed. On the other hand, the reclaimed lumber reloaded many times before completely failing. PMR concludes that this is a result of tighter and more layers of grain in the old lumber, as well as its open air, natural drying process rather than inside a large oven (which can destroy natural glues) as is done today. As a result the elastic modulus was higher in the reclaimed lumber.

Type Name

Specimen 1Specimen 2Specimen 3Specimen 1Specimen 2Specimen 3

NewLumber

ReclaimedLumber

Deflection " " (in)

Momentof Inertia"I" (in^4)

ElasticModulus

"E"

AverageElastic

Modulus"E"

1.365 5.359 1,240,4540.940 5.359 1,156,8241.015 5.359 977,3600.522 10.001 1,312,6941.256 8.240 1,543,5600.987 6.947 1,734,863

1,124,879

1,530,372

Specimen: one

New Lumber: 1,240,454 psi New Lumber: 1,156,824 psi New Lumber: 977,360 psi

Reclaimed Lumber: 1,312,694psi Reclaimed Lumber: 1,543,560 psi Reclaimed Lumber: 1,734,863 psi


reclaimed lumber specimen mid test3

3

The graph above shows the elastic modulus curves of New Lumber Specimen 1 and Reclaimed Material Specimen 2. The graph shows the behavior of the elastic modulus over time. The reclaimed lumber was much more fl exible than the new lumber and

therefore had a higher elastic modulus at max load. PMR’s theory for this is because the old lumber had many more, stronger layers of grain to break through.

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

33.9 68

102.

113

6.2

170.

320

4.4

238.

527

2.6

306.

734

0.8

374.

940

944

3.1

477.

251

1.3

545.

457

9.5

613.

664

7.7

681.

871

5.9

750

784.

181

8.2

852.

388

6.4

920.

595

4.6

988.

710

22.8

1056

.910

9111

25.1

1159

.211

93.3

1227

.412

61.5

ELAS

TIC

MO

DULU

S

SECONDS

Reclaimed Lumber Elastic Modulus New Lumber Elastic Modulus

Reclaimed vs. new elastic modulus over time:

Reclaimed vs. new deflection + modulus of elasticity:

110

material test four: truss

materials needed:

Truss:

process:

PMR’s fi nal test took information from the previous, individually tested members and assembled them into a system. A truss experiences compression, tension, and some bending forces when under load. It also is a common structural element used in many buildings, and when left exposed in a design it becomes an aesthetic element as well. This made the truss an ideal fi nal test for PMR. Ultimate strength and defl ection were the main qualities tested for. An equivalent, new lumber truss was not tested since data had already been collected on the new lumber from the individual tests. The goal for this test was not to compare new vs. old, but to verify that the reclaimed wood truss could sustain a normal, code specifi ed, roof design load (psf ) at a 2 ft o.c. spacing.

As experienced by the PMR team during deconstruction, reclaimed wood varies in size depending on what happens during the removal process. The question arises then, what is the best use for these inconsistent lengths of wood? The nature of a truss’s construction is one solution to this question. PMR also went extra lengths to minimize waste when designing the truss as is the ultimate goal of the project. The team took 12 randomly selected reclaimed 2x4s and designed the truss with their exact lengths. Some length was compromised because 2 inches off of each end needed to be removed due to nail damage. In the end, the design was an asymmetrical truss that used 10 of the 12 2x4s. The design was determined based on a 16-18 foot span and what confi guration of this specifi c group of 2x4’s would allow that span. This span was chosen because it is a reasonable width for a single span building. To hold the truss together, 3/4” plywood gusset plates were used along with 10d nail fasteners and construction adhesive.

Construction of the truss was done over two days and the testing procedure was very similar to the procedure used for the bending test. A single point load at the peak was applied by an actuator and a string pod was placed on the bottom cord to measure defl ection. A lateral bracing system also had to be constructed to ensure the truss would not shift sideways while under load. It was predicted that the truss would sustain the required design load and that failure was more likely to occur in the gusset plate connections than the wood itself.

scale model of truss design using available lengths1

Trimming and cutting ends to the right angles for connection 2

Mid-Construction of full scale truss3 112

( p )7.430 s Jul 25 2013 MiTek Industries, Inc. Thu Apr 23 12:17:51 2015 Page 1 Maverick Building Systems, Commerce, MI. 48390, KJB

ID:qhW3XScKz9RBSWw8SZKBs9zNs2c-WlVGKOQ_Xq9uoOa36SOvMgqRCIZzds?kmPEylezNrtE

Scale = 1:33.2

T1

T2

T3

B1

W1

W2 W3

W4

B21

2

3

4

5

6

710 9 8

11

12 13

4x6

4x6

3x6 3x4 3x4

1.5x4

3x4 3x6

7-1-107-1-10

10-1-42-11-10

17-2-87-1-4

17-6-00-3-8

-1-4-01-4-0

4-8-64-8-6

8-9-04-0-10

13-1-04-4-0

17-6-04-5-0

18-10-01-4-0

0-4-

12-

10-1

33-

11-1

3

0-4-

1

5.00 12

3.00 12

7.00 12

Plate Offsets (X,Y): [4:0-3-0,0-1-15]LOADING (psf)TCLL(Ground Snow=30.0)TCDLBCLLBCDL

18.9

10.00.0

10.0

SPACINGPlates IncreaseLumber IncreaseRep Stress IncrCode

2-0-01.151.15YES

IRC2009/TPI2007

CSITCBCWB(Matrix)

0.140.260.04

DEFLVert(LL)Vert(TL)Horz(TL)

in-0.06-0.160.03

(loc)6-86-8

6

l/defl>999>999

n/a

L/d240180n/a

PLATESMT20

Weight: 61 lb FT = 20%

GRIP197/144

LUMBERTOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 2100F 1.8EBOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 2100F 1.8EWEBS 2x4 SPF 2100F 1.8E

BRACINGTOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 6-0-0 oc purlins.BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing.

MiTek recommends that Stabilizers and required cross bracingbe installed during truss erection, in accordance with StabilizerInstallation guide.

REACTIONS (lb/size) 2=754/0-3-8 (min. 0-1-8), 6=756/0-3-8 (min. 0-1-8)Max Horz 2=-59(LC 9)Max Uplift2=-119(LC 8), 6=-121(LC 9) ( p )

7.430 s Jul 25 2013 MiTek Industries, Inc. Thu Apr 23 12:17:51 2015 Page 1 Maverick Building Systems, Commerce, MI. 48390, KJBID:qhW3XScKz9RBSWw8SZKBs9zNs2c-WlVGKOQ_Xq9uoOa36SOvMgqRCIZzds?kmPEylezNrtE

Scale = 1:33.2

T1

T2

T3

B1

W1

W2 W3

W4

B21

2

3

4

5

6

710 9 8

11

12 13

4x6

4x6

3x6 3x4 3x4

1.5x4

3x4 3x6

7-1-107-1-10

10-1-42-11-10

17-2-87-1-4

17-6-00-3-8

-1-4-01-4-0

4-8-64-8-6

8-9-04-0-10

13-1-04-4-0

17-6-04-5-0

18-10-01-4-0

0-4-

12-

10-1

33-

11-1

3

0-4-

1

5.00 12

3.00 12

7.00 12

Bottom chord splice

3

1'-0"

1'-6"

1'-6"

1'-0"1'-6"2'-0"

1'-0

"

1'-0"

12"x12" Gusset12"x18" Gusset

12"x18" Gusset

18" Wide Gusset

18" Wide Gusset

12"x24" Gusset

12"x24" Gusset

This collection of images and diagrams display the construction and setup of the truss test. To design the truss connections, PMR enlisted the help of a local truss manufacturer; Maverick Building Systems. Since PMR lacked the machinery to mechanically press typical metal gusset plate connections, Maverick recommended plywood gusset plates be used. These plywood plates are larger than metal plates but are equivalent in strength. Maverick provided a truss design analysis using both metal plates and plywood plates. The cut sheets for these trusses and load data can be seen on the previous page. Diff erences in gusset plate sizes between metal and plywood can be seen.

truss lab setup with lateral bracing.1

truss under load with final cross bracing setup2 gusset plate at peak of truss3

Gusset Plate at bottom of truss4114

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.7

2.1

2.5

2.9

3.3

3.7

4.1

4.5

5.0

5.4

5.8

6.2

6.6

7.0

7.4

7.9

8.3

8.7

9.1

9.5

9.9

10.3

10.7

11.2

11.6

12.0

12.4

12.8

13.2

13.6

14.1

14.5

14.9

15.3

15.7

16.1

16.5

16.9

17.4

Defle

ctio

n (IN

)

Load

(LBS

)

Time (Minutes)

Truss Load & Deflection vs. Time

The maximum load sustained by the truss was 5,100 pounds. At a span of 17 feet and 2’ o.c. spacing, that is equivalent to 150 psf, much higher than the design load of 38.9 psf (1,322 lb point load) estimated by Maverick. This confi rms that an asymmetrical, reclaimed wood truss can and will sustain code rated loading and safely support a building. At maximum load, defl ection of the truss measured approximately 1.35 inches but at design load (1,322 lbs) it had only defl ected .25 inches. This data can be seen in the chart and truss diagram on the left.

The truss was actually tested to failure twice. This is because failure did not occur in the wood, but instead in a gusset plate connection as predicted. This connection was the plate that spliced the bottom cord together at mid span. In design, the team knew this would be a critical point. After the fi rst test, that plate was removed and replaced using a diff erent nailing and connection strategy. Metal bracing was even added. The theory was that if diff erent, larger nails were used, and they were angled towards the splice as show, the connection may have a better chance of sustaining more load. Ultimately though it did not as the composite strength in the nails could not sustain more than 5,100 lbs of load. Images of the fi rst failure can be seen above and the second failure is below.

failed bottom cord splice separation3 damage to wood from nail tearout4

nail tearout in bottom cord splice connection2nail deformity in first gusset plate after removal1

repaired bottom cord splice connection ready for second test3 116

section five: design

design PROCESSThe Design Phase of this project represents the project’s holistic approach to sustainable design and construction. It was the driving force behind the project’s proposal as the PMR team took aim at approaching true net zero energy design. Net zero energy does not only pertain to the amount of energy the building uses, but also the amount of embodied energy in its materials. In today’s mass produced global market, Pioneer Material Renewal wanted to show that at a small scale, buildings can be built from local, recycled materials and be just as, if not more, beautiful, cost eff ective, and effi cient as construction using new materials. Hundreds of years ago this was a standard practice, but development of manufacturing and automation over the last century has resulted in less sustainable building practices and exponentially increased amounts of waste around the world.

Detroit is the perfect market for this model. While “skimming” the house for fl ooring, cabinets, and other non structural items prior to demolition has become a common practice in Detroit due to the cost of full deconstruction, the structural material (if antique lumber) is just as, if not more valuable. There are thousands of blighted structures built with

valuable, antique (prior to 1915) 2x4’s, 2x6’s, beams, and other structural material being demolished and sent to landfi lls. Pioneer Material Renewal aimed to prove that not all these structures need to go to the landfi ll by showing the value of these members. They are assets that can be used to help rebuild the city, provide jobs, and create a sustainable economy in Detroit. While the original intent to represent this model was to design a house, the team decided to pursue a more basic approach for the fi rst iteration and focus on structure and enclosure only. The following pages describe the concept, research, and process behind this design.

Design ProcessStep 1: Identifying and Selecting a TypologyStep 2: Schematic Design ProcessStep 3: Design Documents

Section Goals• Design a new structure from the amount of

material reclaimed from 4820 Dubois.• Complete one comprehensive design, but also

present multiple design typologies based on same amount of material.

120

dwellA reclaimed dwelling can utilize several materials in various ways. Dwelling is defi ned as a house, apartment, or other place of residence. A dwelling may require additional expenses such as windows, insulation, waterproofi ng, plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems. A dwelling may also be paired with another system such as a trailer for versatility and mobility. Dwellings may not only be in the form of a house or an apartment, but non-conventional methods of housing may be a result of reclaimed materials.

shedA shed is defi ned as a simple roofed structure, typically made of wood or metal, used as a storage space, a shelter for animals, or a workshop. A reclaimed shed can off er a space that can shelter or store something that does not require waterproofi ng, electricity, or mechanical systems. The idea of a shed could also host an array of small spaces such as a studio space, workshop, or portable storage.

farmstedFarmstead is defi ned as a food harvesting landscape and the buildings needed to support the agricultural needed. This could include a greenhouse, a hoophouse, a shed or a structure housing utilities used for the farm. In addition, due to the location’s climate, a structure to support growing in winter months could be utilized.

furnishA furnishing is defi ned as furniture, fi ttings, and other decorative accessories, such as curtains and carpets, for a house or room. Furnishings could vary from furniture to wall coverings to small objects. This may be a clever way to use smaller pieces or reclaimed materials with low attainability. Using reclaimed material for furniture may require more or diff erent preparation work for the desired fi nish.

shelterShelter is defi ned as a place giving temporary protection focused on the public realm. A shelter may be similar to a shed requiring less systems. A shelter could provide protection for the public in the form of a bus stop, a bike storage center, a pavilion, or a band shell.

Possible Reclaimed Material Design Typologies

122

Typology selection: farmstead+dwell= grange hall

The Grange, offi cially referred to as The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, is a fraternal organization in the United States which encourages families to band together to promote the economic and political well-being of the community and agriculture. The Grange, founded after the Civil War in 1867, is the United State’s oldest agricultural advocacy group of national scope. The Grange continues to press for the causes of farmers, including issues of free trade and farm policy. It is now found in more than 2,100 towns across the United States. Although the Grange was originally founded to serve the interests of farmers, because of the shrinking farm population the Grange has begun to broaden its range to include a wide variety of issues, and anyone is welcome to join the Grange. PMR selected the grange hall because it was a concept that combined multiple typologies. As a community gathering place iIt supports the farmstead and dwell concept. It’s mission also represents that of Recovery Park, and the growing Detroit community of urban farming.

History of The grange

The Michigan Urban Farming Initiative is a nonprofi t organization in Detroit that believes that challenges unique to the Michigan community (e.g., vacant land, poor diet, nutritional illiteracy, and food insecurity) present a unique opportunity for community-supported agriculture.

Keep Growing Detroit exists to promote a food sovereign city where the majority of the produce Detroiters consume are grown by residents within the city’s limits. They help beginner gardeners become engaged community leaders and food entrepreneurs,to address the needs of the community.

Brooklyn Grange is the leading rooftop farming and intensive green roofi ng business in the US. They operate the world’s largest rooftop soil farms located on two roofs in New York City. They grow over 50,000 lbs of organically-cultivated produce per year. They also provide green roof consulting and installation services.

Detroit Food & Ag Network (DFAN) is a business-to-business support network for food processors, distributors, and agribusinesses. Their mission is to enhance the capacity of Metro Detroit’s food and agriculture industry by providing support services and technical assistance aimed at alleviating barriers to growth.

The modern concept of a urban farmstead/grange includes a group of individuals working collaboratively to improve the condition of agriculture and farming, including the structures to support the organization. Recently, farming and gardening has become a trend within urban contexts, such as Brooklyn, Detroit and Portland. The idea of an organization focused on the needs of local farmers within an urban setting is the reason for modern granges today. The farmstead component includes the use of multiple structures to assist with these agriculture needs. The assets of vacant land, salvageable material from blighted structures and people interested in urban farming located with the project area serves as tools to fi ght the liabilities that remain currently. Due to the focus on urban farming, the concept of the urban farmstead grange takes advantage of the given assets and lays the groundwork for diminishing liabilities, such as lack of fresh food, crime within the neighborhood, unemployment, and blighted structures. Several precedents of urban grange and farming organizations exist as described below. The design of this urban grange hall could serve as a connector for all of Detroit’s farming initiatives.

ur•ban | adjective | \ˈər-bən\

: of or relating to cities and the people who live . in them

farm•stead | noun | \ˈfärm-ˌsted\

: the buildings and adjacent service areas of a . farm

: a farm with its buildings

grange | noun | \ˈgrānj\

: one of the lodges of a national fraternal . association originally made up of farmers : a farmhouse with outbuildings

urban

farmstead

grange

124

In line with all aforementioned concepts (grange/farmstead/dwelling) the overall design concept is an amalgamation of these ideas to create a single structure that will encapsulate various productive functions for the neighborhood and its surrounding constituents. The integration of a productive agricultural front [greenhouse] alongside a program that allows the growing process to surpass the GROW stage [grange/farmstead] is a key notion to generating a process that takes the production from growing, to processing, to cooking, to the tabletop. Through

the research process and the involvement of community organizations in the Middle East Central neighborhood, it is apparent that urban agriculture plays a critical role in the future of turning the area into a thriving sustainable community. The generation of programmatically adaptable structures allows for a multiplicity of uses throughout the new lifetime of the reclaimed structures, allowing not only the community members themselves to benefi t from the buildings, but many of the organizations as well.

concept

replicability of processWithin the larger context of the goals of the Pioneer Material Renewal project, repeatability was examined extensively throughout the process. The goal was to generate a structure with a construction process (starting with deconstruction) that can be as repeatable as possible based on the materials collected through the deconstruction procedure. This entails a design that effi ciently maximized the use of shorter length members to allow for a larger span. This created a desired open-plan structure with enough room for multiple functions, whether the structure itself will be used for growing food, community gathering, or living space. Ideally, other Detroit communities can improve their neighborhoods through this simple process.

Conclusions from material testsThe structural testing confi rmed that the reclaimed wood is just as, and in most cases, stronger than modern day wood. Therefore, PMR sees very little obstacles to constructing a building with this material. Even though the antique lumber is not stamped with a structural lumber grade, the compiled results will be enough to have any city’s building department approve the construction. The largest challenge is spotting rot or abnormal damage to any particular member and deeming it unfi t for structural use. This requires nearly every piece of wood to be visually inspected before use. Economic challenges also become a factor as in many cases the reclaimed wood is more valuable as a single piece than hidden in a wall or roof system.

ITERATION ONE: LAMELLA HYBRID SYSTEM

After going through the process of brainstorming the preliminary tests as discussed in the Material Assessment section, the direction of the conceptual design of the structure shifted to a hybridization of multiple systems. This hybridization allowed PMR to gain the advantages of the diff erent systems being proposed as tests. In this case it is post & beam and lamella. This method of construction would also allow for a high degree of integration of various sets of reclaimed materials, including the standard 2x4 members, larger spanning members [2x6\2x8\2x10], timber beams, as well as reclaimed windows and doors for a panelized enclosure system. The design also

creates a profi le that is similar to that of a typical green house. The reason for the hybridization of the post and beam and lamella is to allow for more daylight for plant growing on the south side. A lamella is a fairly dense structure made of short members, and the post an beam is less dense made with longer members. Combining the two allowed PMR to achieve it’s goals of building with shorter, inconsistent lengths, and maximize the grange/farmstead concept by providing suffi cient daylight for growing and gathering. However, no design is perfect the fi rst time and iteration one was succeeded by iteration two on the next pages.

126

Further exploring design, the team turned back to the truss option. Previously, a set amount of 2x4’s had been selected to be used for tests. After subtracting the material needed for compression, tension and bending tests, the remaining material had originally planned to be used to construct a full scale lamella prototype or a truss. Ultimately, PMR opted for the truss due to the unique design challenge associated with it. There were various sizes of wood in the left over material ranging from 9’-0” to 3’-0”. PMR wanted to know what diff erent shapes and sizes of trusses could be built with this hodgepodge of material. The team knew that each member could be cut to a certain size to make a typical looking symmetrical truss, but instead

decided to design an asymmetrical truss that created the minimum amount of waste possible. To explore these options, a scale model was made for each member that was available. Next, many truss iterations were made with these scaled pieces as can be seen from the images on the right. The control for this exercise was to span the truss at least 16’-0”. This distance was chosen because it is a typical bay size in building design, and anything smaller would make the building too skinny and aff ect the programmatic vision of the grange. The truss that can be seen in the Material Assessment section is the truss that was chosen. From here, the team created a building design around this truss which can be seen in the following pages.

Iteration two: Truss System with stud walls

128

plan: neighborhood program: site + previous iterations

plan: farmstead elevation: street view

PATH

DUBO

IS

GREENHOUSE33’ X 20’

KITCHEN12’ X 20’

EVENT10’ X 20’

GARDEN20’ X 28’

SIDE

WAL

K

3’-0”6’-0”

12’-0”


DWELL12’ X 20’

EVENT20’ X 20’

GARDEN20’ X 20’

PATH

DUBO

IS

SIDE

WAL

K

SITE OPTION a SITE OPTION b SITE OPTION c

PATH



DWELL12’ X 20’

EVENT20’ X 20’

GARDEN20’ X 28’

PATH PATH

DUBO

IS

SIDE

WAL

K

DUBO

IS



EVENT8’ X 20’

GARDEN20’ X 28’

SIDE

WAL

K

dubois grange

proposed agriculture land use

dubois grange

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”

REVOLVING PANELS

SITE CONTEXT

RECLAIMED LUMBER

DESIGNED RECLAIMED LUMBER TRUSS

EXISTING FOUNDATION

130

RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING

RECLAIMED METAL ROOFING

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”

Community kitchenPorch Greenhouse / planting

RECLAIMEDTRUSSES

12’-0”

19’-6”

15’-0”

19’-6”

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”

132

DESIGN Documentation: house plans + elevations

2’-0”4’-0”

8’-0”PLAN: GROUND FLOOR ELEVATION: east

SECTION: NORTH - SOUTH Elevation: west

LOFT SKIP STAIRS

PASSIVE VENTILATIONREVOLVING PANELS

RECLAIMED GLAZING

Community kitchenGreenhouse / planting

LOFT

19’-6”RECLAIMED METAL ROOFING

fragmented photoshop elevationffffffffffffffffffffffrrrrraaaaaaaaagggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggmmmmmeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttteeeeedddddd ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppphhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooootttttttoooooooossssssshhhhhhhhoooooooooopppppppp eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

POTENTIAL FACADE USE FOR RECLAIMED WINDOWS

BEFORE DEMOLITION

PROPOSED DUBOIS GRANGE BUILDING

RECLAIMED WINDOWS

3

3

1

1

4

4

2

2

134

136

section six: Building Sustainable Communities

While extensive research on the neighborhood has been studied through Sanborn maps, The Motorcity Mapping Project, Data Driven Detroit, land use typology, The Burton Historic Collection, The Detroit Public Library and The Wayne State Digital Collection, there is no better method of understanding the current neighborhood landscape than through communication with the current residents, community members, local businesses and non-profi ts.

To renew community interest and action in remediating blight through hands-on activities that make transformations of “old into new” tangible within a community.

Nearby residents PMRconnected with agreed todistribute fl yers made to others that would like to be informed of the work or anyone interested in helping with the project.

Using social media avenues, such as Facebook is one more way of informing the public of the work takingplace in the neighborhood.

Through interviews with residents, non-profi ts and entities doing similar work, PMR learned of the area’s needs and implementation strategies.

Life Remodeled is a non-profi t organization that exists to remodel lives one neighborhood at a time. They use holistic strategies to make dramatic and immediate impact in communities and to establish foundations for long-term sustainable growth and development. Life Remodeled has 5 years of revitalization work.

www.liferemodeled.com

2013 Projects: • Remodeled 36 neighbors’ homes • Boarded up 253 vacant dangerous houses • Beautifi ed 65 blocks in detroit’s north end • Involved 5,200 volunteers 2014 Projects: • Remodeled 3 schools in Cody-Rouge

community • Removed 3 burnt house • Boarded up 254 vacant houses • Beautifi ed 303 city blocks • Completed $1 million synthetic football fi eld

The Motor City Blight Busters is a non-profi t organization that has over 25 years of active neighborhood revitalization in the Old Redford neighborhood on Detroit. They hold volunteer Saturdays to fi ght blight every Saturday of the year.

www.mcbbdetroit.com

Motor City Blight Busters over the past 25 years: • 379 boarded homes • 176 renovated houses • 114 build new houses • 113 demolished houses • 3,850 neighborhood cleanups • 300 students to learn building trades

learning from those in action

civic engagement

building sustainable communities

why?

awareness flyers

social media

face to face

communitymember

neighborn

If I were to move, I would want a farm.

I want to create an

urban homestead,

creating a structure

that would support

resident farming.

140

history + documentationMain goal:Understand and study Detroit’s the past and present of Detroit’s blight history, the neighborhood around 4820 Dubois, and the house itself.

Detroit Blight: Detroit contains nearly 40,000 structures awaiting demolition. This project was designed to promote full deconstruction as an alternative building removal method to demolition. 33% of all landfi ll content in the United States results from construction and demolition waste. Deconstruction, unlike demolition, saves useable, historic material from landfi lls, creates jobs, and promotes a green economy by reselling reclaimed lumber piece by piece, as furniture, or other products. Particularly, this project aimed at a deconstruct to reconstruct approach where a new building design was proposed using the reclaimed material from 4820 Dubois.

House: 4820 Dubois was built 127 years ago in 1888. The original owner and builder was Frank Funk. It was a two story house and measured approximately 2,900 square feet. The construction was simple wood framing that rested on a foundation of timber beams supported by concrete piers. A small cellar was located in the back of the house. It is estimated the house had been vacant for approximately 2 years.

Neighborhood: The offi cial name for the neighborhood is Middle East Central which is located just South of Poletown East on Detroit’s east side. The peak of the neighborhood’s density was 1951 according to the Sanborn Maps recovered from the Detroit library. Currently the neighborhood has a rural appearance as most houses were removed over 20 years ago.

142

designMain Goal: To design a structure that serves the community using no more than the reclaimed materials from 4820 Dubois.

Design Concept: PMRs design concept is an Urban Grange Hall. This aligns with the rural nature of the neighborhood and also RecoveryPark’s initiatives to support an urban agriculture development. A grange is an organization of local farmers and growers, and a grange hall is their gathering place. Considering that there are many local urban gardens in the area, coupled with the future development of RecoveryPark, a local grange hall would serve the community in multiple capacities.

The Design: The 4820 Dubois Urban Grange Hall sits on a typical 30’x100’ Detroit lot. It’s construction is traditional 2x4 framing on a slab on grade. The southern end is cladded in reclaimed windows to allow for natural daylighting and some greenhouse growing. There is also a community kitchen and sleeping quarters located in the rear of the structure. The roof structure consists of the asymmetrical truss that was designed for the structural test. The completed design provides a template for the future construction and development of the site and building.

Material Assessment

deconstruction

Main Goal: To approximate and verify the material yielded from the house, and test the structural properties of 100+ year old wood against today’s wood and structural standards.

Material Reclaimed: Overall approximately 6,500 board feet of lumber was reclaimed. Only 3 dumpsters were used as opposed to the more than 10 needed for demolition. Approximately 95% of the structural material (2x4,6,8, and Beams), and 70% of non-structural (1x, fl ooring, and sheathing) material was reclaimed.

Testing: Four tests on the reclaimed wood were executed. Three tests assessed individual structural properties, and the fi nal test assessed the complete system.- Individual Property 1 – Compression- Individual Property 2 - Tension- Individual Property 3 - Bending- System Test - TrussAs predicted, in all tests, the reclaimed lumber met or outperformed No. 2 graded newly milled lumber. The antique, reclaimed lumber is theorized to be stronger because it was cut from older, denser trees, and was dried using more natural methods than today’s wood. These test results provide enough evidence to construct a building using reclaimed materials.

Main Goal: To completely deconstruct the house using unskilled student and community labor in order to provide a model for other projects and communities around the city to do the same.

Duration: Approximately 5 months of planning with LTU, RecoveryPark, ASWD, and the Detroit Landbank that included house surveying, community engagement, deconstruction scheduling, volunteer signups, and obtaining working rights, permits and clearances for the property. Following planning, there were 14 days of deconstruction that engaged over 50 volunteers from LTU and the community.

Process: Since the city does not offi cially recognize Deconstruction as a building removal method, PMR obtained a building permit instead of a demolition permit to perform structural work. This permit allowed a portion of the existing foundation to remain for future development. The removal process consisted of 8 major steps as outlined in the report: - House content clean out - Hazardous material testing- Plaster, Lath and Interior - Roof Structure and Sheathing- Attic Floor- Interior & Exterior Walls- Material Processing- First Floor structure and deck

144

conclusionIn one year, Pioneer Material Renewal accomplished its goal to fi ght blight through a deconstruction process that can be replicated in other Detroit communities. It was successful in large part because of the community partners and volunteers. RecoveryPark provided the area in which the project would occur, and Architectural Salvage Warehouse of Detroit provided deconstruction expertise and scheduling services that made the project’s execution possible. In addition, the project would not be possible without all of the volunteers that helped on site over the 14 deconstruction days. Eff orts by all of these people even got the project featured on Detroit’s local Fox2 channel as a news segment. The team hopes to seek more funding to complete another similar project as well as construct the design in the report.

146Project Mascot , Mr. Hippo found on site February 28, 2015.

INTRODUCTION http://assets.dwell.com/sites/default/fi les/styles/large/public/2012/11/01/reclaimed-spaces-Eco-pic-5.jpg?itok=MTzMjrct

http://www.berkeleyjuniors.co.uk/northlincs/primary/berkeley/site/pages/classes/class82013 http://ask.fm/luvculturegurl26/best http://vintagetimber.com/barn-wood-beams.html

DOCUMENTATION PART 1

http://www.aswdetroit.org/about.htm http://www.atdetroit.net/forum/messages/6790/83536.html?1232873807 http://www.atdetroit.net/forum/ http://www.southfi eldcitycentre.com/lawrence-tech-launches-third-place-design-competition/

DECONSTRUCTION

http://www.huduser.org/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_092313.html

ASSESMENT & TESTING

http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/11/keep-growing-detroit-has-plenty-to-be-thankful-for-this-year.html

http://post-and-beam.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html

http://dalcoastalstudio.blogspot.com/2010/05/lamella-construction-progress.html

DESIGN

http://www.theartofupcycling.com/2013/05/diy-greenhouses-build-green-house-from.html

http://belle-goodmorninggod.blogspot.com/2014/09/window-garden-recycled.html

http://www.degc.org/businesses/detroit-food-ag-network

https://detroitfoodandag.wordpress.com/resources/

http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/11/keep-growing-detroit-has-plenty-to-be-thankful-for-this-year.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Grange_of_the_Order_of_Patrons_of_Husbandryhttp://www.kval.com/news/local/39208617.html

http://kittitashistory.com/sites/swauk-teanaway-grange/

Organizing the Unemployed: Community and Union Activists in the Industrial By James J.

references

148