UC Davis Domes

Ecological Design Process

January- June 2016
Elizabeth Godkin
Jake Parkhurst
Jorge Espinosa

Contents
I.
II.

Executive Summary
Introduction
A. History of the Domes
B. Ecological Design Process

III.

Methods
A. Goals Articulation
1. Mapping Stakeholders
2. Desired Elements List
B. Site Analysis and Assessment
C. Design
1. Schematic Design
2. Patch Implementation

IV.

Results and Discussion

A. Goals Articulation
1. Stakeholders Map
2. Power Map
3. Desired Elements List
B. Site Analysis and Assessment
1. Summary
2. Key Observations and Insights
C. Design
1. Schematic Design
2. Patch Implementation

V.
VI.
VII.

Recommendations
References
Appendices
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

Stakeholder map
Power map
Scale of Permanence maps
SoP Observations & Insights
Needs Inventory
Needs Responses
Needs response Bubble Diagrams

I. Executive Summary
Introduction
The Domes at the University of California, Davis is an experiential learning place and an
alternative housing community. The unique combination of on-campus location, ample
land, and cooperative principles allows the resident students to search for holistic
solutions to issues at the intersection of social justice, environmental sustainability, and
financial feasibility. However, there is not a long-term design for the Domes that has
resulted in an ephemeral use of the space as projects come and go with the flow of
students with different levels of interest and available time. To that end, this project
attempts to create a long-term design using the Ecological Design Process that meets
the needs of all stakeholders involved with the Domes.
Results
The tasks of the first part of the project have been to review of various documents
pertaining to this project and to organize information about the stakeholders and the
site. This has resulted in two maps of stakeholders organizational and influential
relationships, several tables that organize the stakeholders needs, and several maps
that document the current state of the site. These have then been used to create a
schematic design and guide action on the ground at the patch level.
Recommendations
Moving forward, there are several tasks to prepare for the next phase of design that can
be summarized in the following three categories:
1) Meet with stakeholders to verify the accuracy of our assessment with them and
update information to account for any changes.
2) Complete any site maps that were left incomplete and assess social and financial
resources.
3) Create a list of patterns and elements that might be present in the final design
based on the stakeholders needs.
4) Refine the schematic designs as a community.

II. Introduction
A. History of the Domes
The Domes, also known as Baggins End, consists of 14 fiberglass domes that
house 26 students on about 4.5 acres of the University of California, Davis (UC Davis)
campus. The Domes were constructed in 1972 by a group of students with the help of
outside contractors with the goals of providing sustainable alternative housing and
creating a space for experiential learning that is land based (Pardo, 1). The students of
the domes actively steward the land, and are in constant relationship with the local
ecosystem. The Domes are related to the larger UC Davis community by having open
garden parties and dinners, class tours, internships, individual projects, and by class
projects. To this day, Domes residents grapple with issues at the intersection of social
justice, environmental sustainability, and financial feasibility.
The Domes dont have a long-term design that connects one generation of
Domes residents (Domies) to the next. Recently, the Domes have been unified with
similar communities around campus with similar values through the creation of the
Sustainable Living and Learning Communities (SLLC) (Kosel et al, 5). While the
formation of the SLLC has solidified the Domes within an academic umbrella within UC
Davis, the Domes dont have a clear plan for bringing out the full potential of the domes.
B. Ecological Design Process
The goal of this project is to create a long-term design that furthers the values of
the Domes and meets the needs of all stakeholders involved with the Domes. As
gardening can be a viable step in addressing climate change on the personal level (di
Paola, 6), and because growing food is central to the Domes given the large resource of
land, a process that integrates community into engagement with the landscape is
necessary. Past attempts to create a long term design have not been grounded in a
review of how the land was currently used, thus we will use the Ecological Design
Process so final design is situated in present reality and clear steps towards
implementing the design can be established.
Ecological Design Process is an iterative methodology for achieving sustainable
multifunctional landscapes. Edible Forest Gardens by Dave Jacke and Eric Toensmeier
is a guide for engaging in that process.

III. Methods
The overarching methodology for this project is Dave Jackes Ecological Design
Process. The phases of this design process are the articulation of goals, analyzing and
assessing the site, design, implementation and evaluation (EFG2, 142). These phases
build on each other, however the process is not linear and there is constant iteration
between the phases. There is constant spiraling back to the previous phases to
integrate feedback and new insight. Especially in the context of designing
collaboratively, the outcomes of each phase are constantly being subjected to iterative,
refinement and polishing. These iterations can be seen as results of first, second, third,
order and so on. They can also be understood as oscillations between divergent and
convergent processes.

A. Goals Articulation
Due to the diversity of stakeholders, our team took the preliminary steps of
stakeholder mapping, taking inventory of needs and mapping power relationships
among the stakeholders to inform ourselves of the context we would be working in.
Then we developed a toolkit of 4 activities to engage with the Domes community to
articulate goals according to the Ecological Design Process (Jacke, 146).
To inform the stakeholder mapping, our team reviewed literature relevant to the
Domes as well as value statements for SCHA, the University, and the SLLC.
Documents reviewed are:
- Domes Values Statement (see Appendix A)
- Results from prior Domes design processes (see Appendix B)
- SCHA board and Domes meeting notes
- The Domes Handbook
- The Domes at UC Davis: A Conflict-Ridden Narrative
1
- Chancellor Katehis Envisioning Letter
2
- The UC Davis Vision of Excellence
3
- The UC Davis Principle of Community
- The Sustainable Living and Learning Communities Capstone projects of
2014 and 2015
Due to the high volume of available documentation and research pertaining to the
Domes, the strategies employed within the work of Winter Quarter 2016 aim to organize
the information gathered with written and visual analyses.
1. Stakeholder Map
To visually frame the stakeholders organizational relationships, our team created
a diagram beginning with the most inclusive organizations and then considering the
intersection of positions of individuals involved with multiple groups. Through several
iterative sketches, a final diagram titled Stakeholders Map describes the organizational
relationships between stakeholders. The visualization of the organizational ecology of
the stakeholders involved in the Domes Design Project can be used to interpret the
nested networks of communities as potential programmatic partnerships.

http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/initiatives/21st_century/envisioning.pdf

http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/initiatives/past-initiatives/vision-of-excellence/vision_of_ex
cellence.pdf
3
http://occr.ucdavis.edu/poc/

2. Power Map
To visually frame the stakeholders degree of influence of the project, we created
a second diagram that maps each groups power and support along the X and Y axes
respectively. While this diagram is largely based on our interpretation, it will be updated
during follow-ups with each stakeholder to improve its accuracy. This diagram will justify
our prioritization of involvement from the network of groups.
3. Desired Elements List
In order to develop a design that is realistic and successful, the needs and
desires of those involved must be accounted for to provide design constraints. The
Needs Inventory (Appendix D), based on information gathered in the literature review,
delves into the specific requirements of stakeholders through the lenses of multiple
identities. We engaged with community to gather their input regarding what their needs
were and which of their needs were unaddressed by the landscape. To allow everyone
to give input appropriate to their level of interest and available time, we used the Needs
Inventory as a starting point to develop different activities. These activities fell into 4
categories:
a) Surveys
By asking a mix of open ended questions and multiple choice questions,
we were able to quickly gather input from individuals. We usually gave
these out in the domes weekly meeting when we had access to most of
the residents at the same time.
b) Site map posters
We printed out posters of site maps both as aids for discussing the
landscape as well as for letting residents write ideas and comments about
the landscape.
c) Community discussions
For important issues that not only needed input from individual, but also a
general understanding between members of where the community stood
on the issues, we create an agenda item at the weekly meeting to discuss
the topic. These discussions worked well with the survey activity as the
survey could be given the previous week and the results used to guide the
community discussion. We also used community dinners to discuss
aspects of the projects with groups of members, which often used a site
map poster as a center of discussion.

d) Workshops
We hosted workshops which allowed for more in depth discussions to take
place. The workshops also allowed for other stakeholder groups to interact
with the Domes community and provide a wider range of perspectives in a
discussion.

B. Site Analysis and Assessment

To perform a site analysis and assessment, the scale of permanence framework
was used. The scale of permanence categorizes site features into eleven layers varying
in ability to be altered, (i.e. it is much easier to change soil fertility as opposed to
average annual precipitation) (Jacke, 193). As the scale of permanence maps the
current landscape is it currently exists, it provides insights into what is needed as well
as a foundation upon which an implementation plan can consider appropriate timelines
to effect changes based on which layer they relate to.
Ranging from most to least changeable, the scale of permanence includes
aesthetics, zones of use, soil fertility, social, infrastructure, flora and fauna,
microclimate, access, water, landform, and climate (Jacke, 194). These layers consist of
the spatially specific observations and interpretations coupled with a document of
outlining those notes as well as general comments. In the associated document
included in the appendix, observations are objective phenomena occurring in the
landscape; whereas, interpretations are an observations relationship to the sites
opportunities, considerations, and constraints for design. Furthermore, secondary
sources for additional factors (elevation, precipitation, etc.) are cited. In addition to the
maps of each scale, the main result is a single map that summarizes prominent
observations referred to in this document as the Site Analysis and Assessment
Summary Map.

C. Design
As the goal of this process to create a design of the long term vision for the Domes, the
scope of this project is larger than what can be accomplished in a quarter, or likely even a year.
In order to account for that timeline, we had to develop a process that can be handed off
between generations of residents. We chose a combination of a schematic level design and and
patch level implementation as the quarterly iteration of this process that would lead to the final
design for the long term vision.
An articulation of goals as an expression of the desired reality and a site analysis and
assessment as a recognition of the present conditions, automatically yield the connections that
together become a design. A schematic design is a representation with minimal amounts of
detail, that visualizes the plan for that desired reality in a site specific way. It focuses on the
relationships taking place on the landscape and provides a playing field for a design team or a
community to engage with that imagined future reality. EFG V2 Find page In ecological design
process the concept design and schematic design happen in somewhat simultaneous fashion.
And the detail and patch designs happen consequently in order to specify further detail. For this
project because the schematic designs created by the design team will be tools for discussion
and further iteration with the community, the schematic design phase will consist of living
documents that are added to and refined.
We chose a patch level implementation, a development of a small parcel of the larger
site, as part of the quarterly iteration process because the turnover rate in the Domes residency
is high enough that without constant implementation, this process could become stuck looping
through the refinement of the schematic design. Additionally, even if it turns out that a given
implementation does not fit with the long term vision, the experience and sense of
accomplishment developed through each implementation is worth the risk that the patch may be
redone in the future. At the level of patch or smaller units of ecosystem, the schematic design
will place the desired elements that the community wants to create through projects and work
parties and will allow a birds eye systems view of the whole site, to allow for much more hands
on and emergent action at the patch level.

1. Schematic Design
On the base map, the designers and community visualize future system in which all the
needs identified can be met on the landscape. Components are placed relative to each other
and their relationships are explored on paper, the new systems become differentiated on the
landscape at a conceptual level before being attempted on site.

2. Patch Level Implementation

To select and implement a patch, we looked at the desired elements lists and chose
elements that we would be able to implement. We then brought this list to the community using
and used a survey to select the most popular element. We then used a series of additional
surveys to refine how the community wanted to implement the patch. Then we used a workparty
(a bi-weekly event when the community does work on the land) to implement the patch.

IV. Results and Discussion

A. Goals Articulation
1. Stakeholder Map

Figure 1. Stakeholder Map

The network of groups who have a stake in the land is contained largely within
the UC Davis community with the exception of SCHA members living in the off-campus
houses who are not students. The Domes fall completely within UC Davis since Domes
residents (Domies) must be full time students and the land is owned by UC Davis. The
Domes also fall completely within the SLLC, along with the Tri- Coops, the Student
Farm, The EC Gardens, and Project Compost (not reflected in the current Stakeholder
Map. The five communities of the SLLC are related by their physical proximity to each
other and by their values of intentional action, connection to food and land, experiential
learning, and community (Kosel et al, 5). These relationships are categorized in the
diagram by the each group falling completely within the SLLC circle. Two cases that
stand out and have a specific label on the diagram are The Domes Academic Advisory
Committee (DAAC) and the Solar Decathlon (SD.) The DAAC is made of professors
and Domies with the goal of formalizing more of the experiential learning the occurs at

the Domes. The Solar Decathlon is a UC Davis student team that builds
Zero-Net-Energy houses and is considering placing one or more of these houses on the
Domes land.
Real Estate Services manages UC Davis land use and is thus closely related to
the Domes. While it might make sense to encapsulate everything in the UC Davis circle
within the RES circle to show that much of what is related to UC Davis occurs on UC
Davis land, we thought this would detract from the notion that while UC Davis depends
on having land, at its heart, UC Davis is an academic institution.
We included Student Housing in its own separate bubble because, although the
Domes are housing for students, Student Housing does not manage them. However,
there is an important relationship between the Domes and Student Housing in that
much of Student Housings policy is applied to the Domes through SCHA.
Since the Domes are managed by SCHA, Domies are members of SCHA and
thus also fall completely within SCHA (not reflected in the current Stakeholder Map).
SCHA also includes the Tri-Coops, which are also exclusively made up of students and
thus completely fall within UC Davis, and three other coops: Sunwise, J Street, and
Corner Copia. SCHAs board of directors is comprised of elected members from each
coop, including the Domes.

2. Power Map

Figure 2: Power Map

Power
The power axis is mostly based on the hierarchy within UC Davis. It is important
to note that this hierarchy places significance on academic interests. At the top of the
map we find the President of the UC system who will be signing our ground lease.
Below the president are the chancellor and vice chancellors of UC Davis who have
much influence with the President. Both Faculty and RES influence the Chancellors. We
placed RES over faculty because RES has the power to veto something based on land
use policy, financial, and liability reasons. Additionally, with respect to the Domes, land
is proportionally a larger resource than the academic research that is currently
documented at the domes (compared to a professor using a lab and consistently
authoring research papers); since RES is in charge of Land Use, it seems reasonable to

allocate more power with respect to the domes than faculty at this time. In the future,
this could change as academics at the domes broadens and becomes more
documented, thus giving the faculty involved more sway with the chancellors.
As SCHA is the property manager for the University, that gives them more power
over of the Domies. As SCHA staff consistently interacts with RES, staff has the
opportunity to influence RES; Domies have the opportunity to regularly meet with RES,
however, in practice they dont take this opportunity, thus giving their share of power to
the staff who represent the Domes. A similar release in power occurs with respect to
control of Domes finances: Domies have the opportunity to take more control of hiring
out jobs that require professional labor as well as create their yearly budget; however at
present this power is given to staff.
The SCHA board hires the staff, creates the lease, and makes most decisions of
SCHA. However, we have placed them at equal levels with staff since staff act on these
decisions and thus gain the experience to give feedback on those decisions and the
results and greatly influence the board.
Other members of SCHA have less power than Domies because the Domies are
residents of the land and are most affected by decisions pertaining to the land and thus
have a larger say within SCHA regarding what take place at the domes.
While other SLLC members have equal power over the SLLC land in its entirety,
which includes the Domes, they have slightly less power as Domies (not reflected in the
power map) with respect to the Domes land itself. However, it is worth noting that the
Student Farm is more structured, efficiently run, and integrated with academics and has
clearer value, all of which give them credibility with those in positions of power in the
school.
Lastly, it is worth remembering that the Domes are able to organize much
support when faced with closure. The implications of this are that the Domes may have
power comparable to UC Davis administration that is normally dormant. We deemed it
unnecessary to incorporate into the Power Map as it is centered around times of crisis
and the result our our design will be founded in a harmonious relationship with UC
Davis administration.

Support
Domies are the biggest supporters for the Domes, although this is fairly equal to
SCHA level of support as SCHA promotes cooperative living. The other SLLC
communities support the domes as fellow groups with different applications of the same
values. At higher levels of power, there are both active proponents of the Domes as well
as some folks who might have different ideas for what could be domes with the space

that the Domes use. There may be people at high levels in the university who advocate
just as strongly for the Domes as Domies, however the diagram does not reflect this.

3. Desired Elements List

Below is the categorization of elements that were asked for through the various input activities.
1. Sustainability
a. Water
i.
Catchment
ii.
Solar heating
iii.
Composting toilet
iv.
Greywater gardens
b. Solar power
i.
Greenhouse
2. Community at the Domes, SLLC, and University levels
a. Gathering places
i.
Domes
1. Water
a. Slip n slide
2. Treehouse
3. Rocket mass heater bench
4. Dumpster Security
5. Parking
ii.
Domes/SLLC
1. Fire pit (upgrade)
2. Patio/porch
3. Clothes line
4. Amphitheater
5. Gazebo
6. Classroom
7. Dining
8. Cob oven
9. Kitchen
10. Grove
11. Garden
a. For Orchard Park Residents
b. Other SLLC and/or SCHA members
c. EC Gardeners
12. Art space
13. Library
a. Seeds

b. Books
i.
Social justice resources
ii.
Sustainable agriculture
iii.
Domes/SLLC/University
1. Public garden
a. Rose garden
2. Museum
3. Extra produce free-dge
b. Compost
i.
Weed
c. Parking
3. Food
a. Solar dehydrator
b. Greenhouse
i.
Additional greenhouse
ii.
Solar panels for irrigation timer
iii.
Retrofit with earthtubes
c. Production
i.
Row crops/annual staples
ii.
Food forest
iii.
Herb garden
iv.
Orchard
v.
Full field
vi.
Mushrooms
4. Site layout
a. Defined public-private interface
i.
Signage
ii.
Entryway in front of Dome
iii.
Welcome kiosk/entrance
iv.
Corridors
v.
West
1. Greenbelt orchard
2. Pedestrian artery
a. Food forest
vi.
South
1. EC Garden - Domes border
vii.
East
1. border
2. Sidewalk continuity from EC Gardens along Orchard Park Drive
viii.
North
1. Nature barrier/hedge
2. Noise from the road

5. Experiential Learning
a. SAFS major work-trade
b. Student farm apprentice housing
c. Internship
d. D-Lab
Note: This is list is a snapshot of the current wants of the community and will evolve as it is
brought back to the community each quarter.

B. Site Analysis and Assessment

Figure 3: Summary Map of the Scale of Permanence

2. Key Observations along the Scale of Permanence
Climate:
-

Plant hardiness zone: 9b: 25 - 30

Predicted future climate change: Could increase to zone 10a or 10b by the end of the
century with a slight increase (2-5%) in precipitation.
Annual precipitation / Seasonal distribution (see appendix D)
Latitude: 38.55

Sun Angle (above horizon) Summer: 74 Winter 28

Wind directions (from):
Prevailing: SSW (delta breeze) with NNW being intermittent but gustier
Seasonal variations: NNW prevails in Dec-Jan
Storm wind: NW
Growing degree days (important for ripening nuts) (see appendix D)
Average frost-free dates
Ave first frost: Nov 21-30
Ave last frost: Mar 1-10
Chilling hours (important for fruit tree dormancy)
659 (T < 45 F)
633 (32 F < T < 45F)
Extreme weather potential: Statewide drought, fire hazard from dead plants
Heating/cooling degree days (see appendix D)

Landform (unmapped):
Topography: flat

Water:
Broader context: longest and driest drought in recent history.
Puddling at various locations.
Spigot locations (see appendix E)
Downspout locations (see appendix E)
Various irrigation systems (see appendix E)
Grey water laundry system (see appendix E)
Streets on 2 sides have functional drains that connect to sewer.
Moisture inside domes tends to promote mold growth.

Legal issues (not mapped)

Access and Circulation (not digitized)

There are many unmarked paths and entry points
Access around the majority of the property perimeter
Major bicycle corridor on northern edge of property
Vegetation and Wildlife (incomplete)

Stone pine over story (planted in the 70s) lines east and north sides
Multiple patches of mid-succession young oak overgrowth in the shade of the
stone pines.
Many old trees have died/or been cut down in the past 4 years

Various fruit trees scattered around site.

Microclimate (unmapped, highly dependent on Vegetation and Wildlife (trees)
map and Buildings and Infrastructure map):

Buildings and Infrastructure (incomplete):

Dome placement
Utilities map is missing ground sourced heat pump water lines.
Various porches (not on map), adjoined and separate throughout the property
with varying levels of functionality.
Domes are made of fiberglass shells insulated with foam.

Zones of Use:
Hangout locations (see appendix E)
Gardening plots (see appendix E)
Commons
Points of interest (see appendix E)

Soil Fertility (not digitized):

Several points tested around site which can be extrapolated to areas on site with
similar conditions.

Views and Aesthetics:

Boundaries arent well defined
Some windows view out to the street to towards more public spaces
Stone pines define Domes street boundaries
Things that are built or bought to the site and then left to rot or get thrown away
create a sense that there is not much of a plan for the future

C. Design
1. Schematic Design

Note: There will be many more schematic designs in the future. These two designs are
just the start of trying out different arrangements on paper to assess the synergistic and
clashing relationships that arise from placing various elements next to each other.

2. Patch Implementation

Figure 4: Patch selection survey

Figure 5: Patio/Porch/Outdoor Dining patch refinement survey

Figure 6: Patch implementation location survey

The results of these surveys marked option 2) Patio/Porch/Outdoor Dining as the most popular
patch to implement (figure 4); shade, small tables, picnic tables, vines, flowers, and trees and
the most popular aspects of this patch (figure 5); and the area just west of domes 14 and 15,
known as the grotto, as the spot for implementation (figure 6).

Figure 7: Patch design for Grotto

Figure 8: Grotto before renovation

Figure 9: Pruning dead branches to create more head space.

Figure 10: Cleaning out trash

The workparty to implement the patch coincided with a major holiday, so while a large
portion of the work was done with the few people who attended, the implementation was not
completed. There is still work to clear away pruned branches, mulch the paths, and arrange the
tables; this work will likely be finished during summer as this took place just before the end of
the quarter and residents have become busy with studying for finals.

V. Recommendations
Moving forward with the project, there are some clear next steps towards a final
design.
1) Refine schematic designs through multiple iterations.
2) Implement another patch.
3) Improve the patch implementation process to allow for larger implementations,
such as building a new house.
4) Develop table for the desired elements list that lists implementation inputs,
implementation outputs, established inputs, established outputs, functions,
synergistic elements, clashing elements.
5) Check in with each of the stakeholders to verify the needs we attributed to them,
along with the prioritization of needs, and add anything that we have overlooked.
Once the need list is verified and prioritized, the points where needs conflict can
also be prioritized to inform the criteria that guides the design process.
6) Update the Stakeholder Map and Power Map to reflect anything learned from
checking in with the stakeholders. Include
- Domies fall completely within SCHA
- Domies do have power over the Domes Coordinator because that position is an
employee for the Domes (although still hired by SCHA)
- SLLC power is less with respect to Domie power.
- Support range within the higher level of UC Davis hierarchy include support
equal to that of the Domies.
- Include Solar Decathlon House on Power Map.
7) Assess financial and social resources as each patch must take into account both
finances and the availability of all parties involved to implement and maintain
whatever the outcome is.
8) Complete mapping and digitizing the different layers in the scale of permanence
and finish documenting any observations and insights. Use gps tree mapping tool
to create an accurate tree map.
9) Organize a design charrette amongst all stakeholders once the needs have been
updated.
10)Look at other projects similar to this that can inform what a successful final
design should consider.

VI. References
Pardo, Veronica Louise. The Domes at UC Davis: A Conflict-Ridden Narrative. Davis:
UC Davis, 2012. Print.
Kosel, Arriana, Brett Webber, Ellen Pearson, Jessica Brown, Michele Ko, and Nicolia
Mehrling. Sustainable Living and Learning Communities. Davis: UC Davis, 2014. Print.
Barr, J. Kiko, Jerrid Higgins, Lucas Hill, Greta Macomber, Paul Martinez, and Anton
Parisi. Sustainable Living and Learning Communities. Davis: UC Davis, 2015. Print.
Di Paola, Marcello. Environmental Stewardship, Moral Psychology and Gardens. Vol.
22. Isle of Harris: White Horse, 2012. Print. Environmental Values.
Jacke, Dave, and Eric Toensmeier. Edible Forest Gardens. Vol. 2. White River Junction:
Chelsea Green, 2005. Print.

I.

Appendices

A. Domes Values Statement

The Domes at Baggins End is a living-learning community that encourages critical thought,
communication and cooperation between individuals and the community, active
maintenance of an open and inclusive space, and resistance to consumerism and structures
of oppression.
We aim to enact these values through the following, yet are always making mistakes along
the way:
Unlearning oppressive behaviors which includes recognizing our privileges and
biases, and questioning what weve been told
Taking personal responsibility for self-education and introspection
Learning from one another, and educating others outside the community
Encouraging experimentation with yourself, your interests, and the space
Being patient with ourselves and others
Sharing our resources time, tools, meals, and knowledge (when we are able)
Creating a space for self-care
Providing affordable, low-income housing
Supporting each other as students in our various academic pursuits
This is not a space for prejudices, stereotypes, violence, and/or oppressive language
or behavior towards any one race, ethnicity, gender identity, sex, sexuality, ability
(social, mental, physical), socioeconomic class, age, size, religion, or citizenship
status
Respecting one anothers needs space, noise, cleanliness, and other personal
preferences
Being open to changing your mind and not getting everything you want while
prioritizing some peoples needs over your own
Resisting consumerism and production-based mentality growing our own food,
seed saving, food preservation, communal dinners, composting, greywater, energy
reduction, freecycling, reusing, communal tools, and so on
Consider how growing your own food challenges corporate dominance of
people, cultures, and land
Recognizing the intersectionality of ideas and movements and promoting solidarity
between them

B. Results of previous Domes design processes

Figure 4: Sustainability Brainstorm

Figure 11: Room Priority Diagram

Figure 12: Room Location Diagram

C. Scale of Permanence Layers

Figure 13: Aesthetics and Views

Figure 14: Climate

Figure 15: Water

Figure 16: Vegetation and Wildlife

Figure 17: Zones of Use

D. Needs Inventory Tables

1) Domes Community
Residents

Students

Researchers

Humans

Safety

Time to study

Land for food

production

Social connection

Utilities

Places to study
individually/in a group

Greenhouse

Community support

Shelter

Class credit

Space to meet

Privacy

Space to teach/learn
(workshops, classes)

Hangout space

Learn skills for

doings projects
relevant to the domes

Food preparation

Storage for material

Tools for projects
Space to process
crops

Here we lay out needs of every Domes cohort as humans, residents, students,
and researchers. The human needs, aside from proper shelter and food, are connection
to nature, social relationships, and means of pursuing interests. The environment of the
Domes foster all three of these needs. As residents, the needs include safety and
proper facilities to eat, cook, sleep, recreate, and relax. Aside from basic requirements,
residents need proper move in and move out procedures, a process to pay rent, and
timely fulfillment of repairs. As students, priorities are centered on performing well in
class. Students require places to study, both individually and in groups, sufficient time to
study, and an environment conducive to educational success. The factors promoting
educational success include a support network, access to nurturing food, and
environments that promote rest and recovery to balance the schedule of a student. As
researchers of social and environmental sustainability, the needs extend from land-use
decisions to interdisciplinary support. Domies acting as researchers must be able to
authorize land-use decisions to carry out projects with adequate venues to
collaboratively teach and learn.

2) UC Davis
Landowner
(liability)

Academic
institution

Student housing
Provider

Community

Fire hazards

Vibrant community of
learning and
scholarship

Ensure all students

have a healthy
environment to live

Serving the needs of

society

Code standards

Drive innovation at
the frontiers of
knowledge

Climate of justice

Standing water

Spirit and purpose

based on mutual
respect and caring

Black mold

Embrace global
issues

Hazardous work
done by
professionals

Nurture a sustainable
future

Regular meetings to
review stewardship

Support and sustain

healthy, equitable
communities

Uncovered compost

Organizational
excellence

As an academic institution, the landowner, and a provider of student housing, UC

Daviss requirements reflect its various identities. Acting as an academic institution
dedicated towards benefiting the general public, the context calls for research and
learning As the landowner or manager dealing with liability, the university must maintain
living conditions up to code and eliminate environmental hazards, such as fire. As a
provider of student housing, the University needs to offer a range of housing to meet the
varying needs and interests of incoming students. While the Domes do not offer student
housing the standard efficiency of high-density housing, the community offers novel
living conditions beneficial to the lifestyles of student researchers.

3) Solar Cooperative Housing Association (SCHA)

Property
Manager

Cooperative

Non-profit for
affordable
housing

Rent

Board members
from the domes

Create
community

Good
communication
regarding
projected
projects in order
to interface with
the university

Committee
members

Encourage
respect
Provide
affordable
housing

SCHA, the third party that manages the Domes, holds roles as property
manager, a cooperatively operated non-profit, and an institution with an educational
mission promoting sustainable lifestyles and housing equity, and an outreach mission to
4
support other similar community groups and non-profits . As a property manager,
SCHA needs spaces for interfacing with both residents and Real Estate services, and
other groups involved with the Domes as well as bookkeeping, and general
management for fulfilling maintenance on the land. As a cooperatively owned non-profit,
SCHA requires representatives from the Domes to perform on the board and
committees. As a low-income housing provider, SCHA encourages practices that
reduce resource use and waste, as well as promoting social structures that support
low-income residents to thrive.

www.schadavis.org

4) The Sustainable Living-Learning Communities (SLLC)

Academic
umbrella

EC garden

Domes
representative

Greenhouse
usage

Academic
documentation

Plumbing
maintenance
protocol

As an academic network within the university, the members of the SLLC

intentionally participate in research and activities concerning the connection of food and
land, experiential learning, co-operative decision-making, community and easily
accessible spaces (Kosel et al). To mesh the Universitys goals to teach and learn within
the community, the SLLC benefits from a forum for communication and documented
research that can be effectively communicated inter- and intra-organizationally.
Specifically, the Experimental College Gardens (a member of the SLLC and neighbor of
the Domes) need access to the Domes greenhouse and water.

5) Solar Decathlon Team

House builder

Construction

ZNE Researcher

Utility
connections

Land for
construction

Land for long

term placement

Tool storage

Residents engaged
with/aware of the
data monitoring of
the house

Protection from
weather
Road access

The federal Department of Energy hosts the bi-annual Solar Decathlon to create
discourse on solar-powered houses that are cost-effective, energy-efficient, and
5
attractive . The UC Davis Solar Decathlon team has participated in one competition and
plans on competing through the next decade; at this rate, Frank Loge and Tom Ryan
estimate the construction of six zero-net-energy (ZNE) homes. As a small-scale
developer without a client, the team primarily needs a location for construction; ideally
this location would keep equipment safe and provide shelter from the elements.
Following construction, the houses require installation on parcels with connection to
utilities as well as ensuing property management. Afterwards, the team will require
access to the houses to monitor performance for an undetermined amount of time.
6) Analysis
Briefly reviewing the needs of the stakeholders brings to surface areas of overlap
when needs work against each other, signifying points where design could step in a
resolve these issues. More work needs to be done after stakeholders have giving
feedback on the results of these assessments.
The domes offer so much opportunity to learn and experiment that even without
doing the minimum maintenance of the land, documenting the learning that already
occurs, and fulfilling representative and committee positions for SCHA and the SLLC,
there would still be plenty to do. In conjunction with residents also being full time
students and human beings, there seems to be the opportunity to design a system that
optimizes the available time of residents while incorporating more students who dont
necessarily live at the Domes. However this brings up the issue that while the Domes
likely should include more students to offset the workload of the domes for residents,
the Domes are also a residence and thus there should be some guidelines regarding
who can freely visit the Domes and when and where they can come.
The Domes are on UC Davis land and the low-density housing suggests that the
extra space is meant to be actively used, which doesnt appear to be happening as
there are currently large chunks that are fallow. However the Domes are also affordable
5

http://www.solardecathlon.gov/

housing, offering effectively a two-bedroom apartment next to campus for $792 whereas
6
the average rent in Davis for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,462 . As students who
need affordable housing may be burdened with high course loads to graduate faster
and reduce debt and with jobs to help pay for expenses, there is contradiction in that the
Domes require more time while offering affordable housing that is needed by students
who might not have the time necessary to meet the requirements of being a resident.
However, this is also evidence that this can is an issue of clarifying the commitments of
being a Domie rather than Domies not having times as there are many cases in which
the hardest working members of the community were some of the most underprivileged.
The land based learning of the Domes is based on students having the freedom
to explore different uses of the land. While this has led to many successful lessons, it
has also resulted in priorities of using the land that are different from the Universitys
priorities. While the University values the experiential learning, as a landowner, it has to
make sure it is safe and not an eyesore. Plants along the borders of the Domes are
often overlooked as attention is usually given to the plots of land that are suitable for
food production. Historically the biggest concerns with safety are making sure that dried
plants do not create a fire hazard and that the interiors of domes are mold free and
clean in general. However, there is also the safety issue that structures must be up to
code, which conflicts with the DIY culture of the Domes as students who want to do
projects themselves to gain experience and save money often dont have the
understanding of code that a contractor would have.
As the Domes are being considered as a potential location for the first Solar
Decathlon house, the most easily accessible site for placement is quite far from a
convenient location to connect to utilities. This suggests looking at a long-term design of
the Domes to see if we can use the infrastructure upgrade to prepare for other potential
future projects.

housing.ucdavis.edu/_pdf/vacancy_report/2015-vacancy-report.pdf

E. Needs Responses
1) What do you get from the landscape?
EDIBLE
LANDSCAPE
(7)

ORNAMENTAL
GARDENING?
(0)

NATIVE
VEGETATIO
N (0)

INSEC
T
ISSUE
(0)

AESTHETIC
S (5)

LEISURE
(8)

LESS
WEEDIN
G (3)

INTERACTION
(4)

WILD
LIFE
(2)

PATHWAYS SHAD
(1)
E (1)

food, less insects?

open space, social space,

vegetables,
herbs, oysters
[mushroom], OWLS

something that requires a lot of

weeding & an outdoorsy oasis
riddled with skeeters.

Responses

scenery, whole foods :), a home

1 space for exploration

EDUCATION
(1)

healing vibes

Food sometimes, a place to

take a breather (for my eyes)

joy + relaxation +FOOD +

connection to land!, cuts from
weeding

1
1

peacefulness - small amounts

of food - too much weeding

1 knowledge of gardening
1

1
1

food structure, culture, lessons,

1 experience

happiness, food, love

inner peace, sounds that make

me feel safe and at home, lots
of
life
and
beauty
(co-habitation/food
gardens/lovely plants)

Sun space. Food.

Weeds to whack.

1
1

cilantro
1

- food production - peace/safe

space - secret/magical garden

Food/ a beautiful space that

offers peace and a sense of
tranquility. Oxygen, beautiful
smells. Safe areas to walk
barefoot. A clean space.

1
1

1
1

food, shade beauty

Rob walking around - calmly
speed walking, Ape being a
bloody B.A.M.F. - dance party,
self acceptance/love

1
1

Food, recharging, birds, event

space, weeding work

visual/emotional
satisfaction,
1 allergies, pride, inspiration

[baby blue marker] A sense of

reprieve from the hectic norms
of moderns life
1

Grass.

[fine felt tipped pen] Nature shit

[blue fine tipped felt pen] peace

of
mind,
a
place
to
meet/organize

[pencil] chard, cilantro, baby

lettuce - Weeds disturb my
peace. Nena & Almond are cute
& annoying

2) What would you like to get more of? Name three species.
EDIBLE
LANDSCAPE
(17)
1

ORNAMENTAL
GARDENING?
(9)

NATIVE
VEGETATIO
N (3)

INSECT
ISSUE
AESTHETICS
(1)
(1)

LEISURE
(4)

LESS
WEEDING
(3)

INTERACTION PATHWAYS SHADE

(6)
(2)
(2)

WILD
LIFE
(5)

esp crane flies so many crane

flies

MUSHROOMS, outdoor dining,

benches

Gazebo, hot tub, swing set

yarrow, other medicinals, fruit
trees

Responses
more foods, flowers! trees!

EDUCATION
(3)

California Lilacs, Sticky Monkey

flower, Cyotee bresh, Mugwort,
Native fesscia,~ things the eco
garden grew we can take
cuttings from

Fremontodendron, E.
Californica, Woody perennial

All native plants!!! planted after

targeted weeding practices, herb
gardens, labrynth, HORSE!

FOOD, More flowers! More

organized landscape areas

Bees. Daisy. More education

value about compost & compost
to public. More art incorporate
with the land => Let's build a
1 treehouse!
same. structure

lantana, violets, forget-me-nots,

strawberries

more food, trees watered

bees! maybe. kale, broccoli,

more herbs? more flowers <3
also maybe 2 fruit tree :)

Food, less weeds, more rocks

vegetables, less weeds, lemons

->succulents (all) -> edible

plants (fruit trees + annuals) ->
manzanita -> cob oven -> more
drought tolerants

signage, food gardens, social

1 spaces/ workshops
Bees, Grumps, pancakes,
VEGAN food 4ever Movie Night

1
1

1
1

Aquaponics, Barn owl & bat

boxes, CA native plants,
mulched landscapes, functional
irrigation, temperature controlled greenhouse
fruit trees, sitting spaces herbs
A greater sense of
ownership/interaction watr tehad
1 [with the land?]

Sunflowers and poppy flowers.

hummingbirds!!! Hummingbird
garden, is that a thing? Bees!

lemons and limes. pathways.

picnic spots
more flowers, fruits, veggies

3) What makes the domes special?

NATURE (5)

SOCIAL
JUSTICE (9)

SUSTAINABILITY (2)

AUTONOMY (4)

COMMUNITY (12)

LEARNING (2)

The Domes are a space of comfort/freedom at uc

davis. I feel mostly safe at the domes. Veggies
and fruits <3

An alternative to the normative means of

interaction.

INTENTION

Fighting the patriarchy, all while leading

individual live with an emphasis on cooperative
living - boom!

Beautiful microcosm, consensus, collaboration

We have autonomy to do different projects

Mostly the people. People give a shit, for the

most part.

Community + resistance
A community based on sustainability and social
justice

1
1

Self-sustainable

unique intersection of land, values of

social/ecological/financial sustainability and
being an internationally acclaimed uni

1
1

1 learning community, awareness

unique. beautiful land, structures, and
community. refuge from concrete, fast-paced,
distracted world

1
1

1
1

Responces

You! Herb garden.

The amount of land we have control over

diversity, character of landscaping,

The effort the community puts in and how

everyone works together to maintain the beauty
of the land. How welcoming people are to outside
members.

freedom, community./cooperation/support, learn/

education leadership & independance building,
1 social justice,

love that domies share-community building

spaces - we need more! pls

Autonomy & co-operation. Space for

transformative events, edible landscaping

open, interpretive spaces and collaboration

4) How can the landscape better reflect that? [Regarding what makes the domes
special.]
NATURE (8)

SOCIAL
JUSTICE (4)

SUSTAINABILITY (8)

AUTONOMY (5)

How can the landscape

reflect that more?
Food forests! Natives! More
ground-covers, drought-tolerant
plants, street coverage
1 (barriers), flowers <3

Reconciling the land with our

ideals

MORE community involvement,

through ACCOUNTABILITY!
#1/key

1 intentional tending to the space

1 We should do more projects

LEARNING (6)

COMMUNITY (9)

More established hangout

places. An outside gym! #swole

sign w/ information about plants

/ social justice, more respect for
clearing personal belongings
1 from commons

MORE FOOD PRODUCTION,

Animal, Easy to maintain
vegetables, more fruit trees

Be more organized with

planting/ gardening We should
plan long-term for a food forest
@ dome.

intentional design -> more food,

learning, less unnecessary
1 work

more fines, concerts,

community events,
1 signage/artworks all over

Less weeds, more herbs

-> mitigated weeds, productive

land ie grow shit or drought
tolerant

more drought tolerance +

establishment
Keeping areas around domes
accessible and clean. No
trash/junk around

1
1

signage, food/ bee garden

Sunflowers, more herbs,
melons, fruit, bread (yeast)
kombucha (water)

concerted effort toward that

plan... more houses
more art and intentional
planting of things

F. Needs Responses Bubble Diagrams

1) What do you get from the landscape?

2) What would you like to get more of?