Manhattan Urban Design Core Studio by Bryan Yang

MANHATTAN URBAN DESIGN CORE STUDIO GSD Studio 1202 Taylor Brandes Anna Falvello Tomas Enoch Wong Bryan Yang

INTRODUCTION MACRO INTERVENTIONS This project tackles the problem of adding new housing in an already-dense setting such as Manhattan. By addressing simultaneously multiple scales, from the city to the dwelling, this project offers a design framework that does not call for the razing of large plots of land. Rather, we look at the city’s existing physical and social characteristics to inform new housing developments in Manhattan.

methodology for the insertion of these new buildings within the larger picture of the city. Readily available lots, opportunities to coopt existing rooftops, party walls, and proximity to transportation will play a key role in these decisions. Lastly, our speciﬁc proposal for the aggregation of housing units ties together all the scales explored in the project: from the block to the backyard planter.

The supporting materials offer a preliminary research of the chosen site, eight blocks spanning from 7th Avenue to the Hudson. This research supports our thesis that new housing developments should build on the existing urban fabric in the form of single buildings, and starts to suggest ways in which the street-life of Manhattan can inspire spaces for dwelling in the city.

Even though we are advocating for idiosyncratic and opportunistic buildings, all our housing designs share a series of elements that constitute the core of our project. Along with the occupation of open roof planes, we propose an exteriorized circulation that will extend the individual’s engagement with the city up until their doorstep, the creation of micro-communities within the building that share a common terrace, an insistence on different types of units for different kinds of households, and a sensitive threshold between building and street that integrates retail and adopts the ﬁne-grain texture of the streetscape.

We argue that the home is often disengaged from its surrounding city, and that an adequate proposal will integrate apartment and city into a more seamless experience without sacriﬁcing the privacy that the latter inevitably demands. Secondly, we propose a

Index and Introduction

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Preliminary Studies Precedent studies through formal transformations Comparison of New York and Barcelona - Hard data - Soft data

p. 24 p. 28

Urban Study of Hudson Yards

p. 32

Site Selection

p. 86

Housing

p. 96

p. 4

Design samples - Sample A - Sample B

p. 104 p. 116

- Orthographic Drawings - Model Photos

p. 124 p. 134

Additional Materials

PEDREGULHO STUDY

AFFONSO EDUARDO REIDY Rio de Janeiro, Brasil 1947 Original FAR: 1.6 Net Density per Block: 288 ft2/person Open Space Ratio: 1:6 Public Space per inhabitant: 222 ft2/person

The most interesting part of Pedregulho was its formal response to site conditions. The linearity of the building lent itself to a single loaded corridor typology with multi-level units that were accessed by a series of stairs. The curving form of the building was a response to its sloping site conditions with stilt foundations supporting the building and bridges that accessed the surrounding site.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 1 || Tranformations of Housing

5 3

PEDREGULHO TRANSFORMATION SHIFT

The first transformation: By flipping the building according to a few key division lines, and then realigning the building, the circulation remains continuous while creating multiple frontalities. This maintains the single loaded corridor typology while increasing the vantage points out from the building. The second transformation: The shear operation allows for two things: the creation of balconies for each unit, and to fit the Pedregulho onto a typical Manhattan block without increasing its original height. This maintains the continuous corridor but establishes both a single and double loaded corridor typology. The third transformation: The coil operation allows what was originall a bar building to be transformed into a tower building with a single continuous vertical circulation shaft and a central common space. This allows for a much higher density than the original scheme and may fit in better with the surrouding Manhattan landscape.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

COIL / UNCOIL

Assignment 1 || Tranformations of Housing

FOLD

TUSCOLANO STUDY

RENZI & MURATORI Rome, Italy 1950-1954 Original FAR: 1.00 Net Density per Block: 0.004 persons/ft2 Open Space Ratio: 0.175 Public Space per inhabitant: 23.4 ft2/person

The most interesting aspect of this building is its ambition to reduce the shared space to an absolute minimum. The common staircase occupies the center of the building, and in fact the entire shared space consists of the only means of egress in the building. In that sense it constitues an interesting example of collapsing the functional (and necessary) space of the ďŹ re stair with the common space between apartments. Additionally, each apartment is separated by a quarter ďŹ&#x201A;ight of stairs, which creates a pinwheel stacking of the apartment units.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 1 || Tranformations of Housing

8 10

TUSCOLANO STUDY SHIFT

The transformations of the Tuscolano apartment building mainly focused on its pinwheel arrangement: what happens when the pinwheel is flattened, straightened out, or even folded? By shifting the apartment units in elevation in order to create flat floor plates, this means that the central space of the building can no longer contain the stairs, which so efficiently managed to compact the space in the original building. We propose that the shared space between apartments would have to expand in order to house a more traditional egress stair and core, but in turn would enable for a space that can be enjoyed by the inhabitants of all four units and might even have access to natural daylight. The second operation uncoils the pinwheel in order to align all four apartments along a spine. This means that the distance between the two ends of the spine might be so great that one means of egress might not suffice. While this configuration adds a significant amount of light in the building, it is at the expense of building additional egress structures in order to meet code. Lastly, if one were to take each floor plate and fold it in half, this would mean that the staircase would now be exposed to the exterior. By bringing it out to the facade of the building, this necessary element of the building could start to bring in sunlight, and perhaps constitute an enjoyable substitute to the elevator

Bandy Studio || Group 1

COIL / UNCOIL

9 11

Assignment 1 || Tranformations of Housing

FOLD

10 12

UNITÉ D’HABITATION STUDY

Le Corbusier The Unité d’habitation by Le Corbusier in Marseille, France, is a housing development constructed in béton brut that encapsulates the Brutalist architectural style. With 337 apartments, the building is unique in its arrangement of program and communal space. The overlapping of the split level apartments allows for views from both sides of the long bar building while creating large, alternating central “street in the sky” circulation corridors every third level. These long corridors span the length of the building, creating access to apartments on alternating upper story or lower story entries. This method of apartment arrangement creates extra communal space that is further enhanced by the communal facilities on the generous roof level that includes a pool, an atelier, and a kindergarden school. The building therefore begins to act like a full neighborhood condensed into one building, offering its residents a strong sense of community.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 1 || Tranformations of Housing

11 13

12 14

UNITÉ D’HABITATION TRANSFORMATION SHIFT

The ﬁrst variation, based on the verb SHIFT, takes the standard interlocking unit shifts their relationship further to increase balcony space and overhangs. This shifted united is aggregated vertically, then shifted laterally to create more public circulatory space and offset their relationships to one another. This is then shifted again longitudinally, creating a complex system of interlocking units that offers a lot more public communal space. The resulting block is an pair of double loaded corridors connected by diagonal paths. The shifted units all rests on this diagonal, which creates nooks of communal space in the shifted corridors. Each unit also beneﬁts from having extra balcony space. The second variation, based on the verb COIL, takes the standard unit and creates a pinwheel stack of overlapping alternating units. This pinwheel is then coiled vertically to create a pinwheel point tower with central circulation and an immense amount of balcony / terrace space. Aggregating these point towers so as to create circulatory connections, the resulting building is a dense network of protruding balconies with multiple nodes of circulation. While the building is all connected through shared balconies, the circulation is fragmented and features separate cores for each point tower.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

COIL / UNCOIL

13 15

Assignment 1 || Tranformations of Housing

FOLD

14 16

EDIFICIO COPAN STUDY

The Edificio Copan by Oscar Niemeyer is a large, dense residential building in downtown São Paulo, Brazil. The building is a large curved extrusion that fits into the unique shape of the high density site and is one of the largest in Brazil with the largest floor area of any residential building in the world. At such a massive scale, the building features multiple commercial businesses on the ground floor along with 20 elevator cores to service its 1,160 apartments ranging in size from small studios to luxurious 3-bedroom apartments. The apartments are organized along a long corridor that snakes through the curved building, switching between a double loaded condition to a single loaded condition as the corridor traverses the length of the building. With such a range of apartment sizes, the building is home thousands of residents and offers an interesting intersection of a diverse range of social classes in a highly segregated city.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 1 || Tranformations of Housing

15 17

16 18

EDIFICIO COPAN TRANSFORMATION

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 1 || Tranformations of Housing

17 19

18 20

ROBINHOOD STUDY

Alison and Peter Smithson Poplar, East London 1969-72 Original FAR: 1.02 Net Density/Block 1 person/307 ft2 Open Space Ratio: 0.875 Public Space/Inhabitant: 1 person/260ft2 Robin Hood Gardens, in London, by the Smithsons is essentially a variation and, in the architects’ words, “an improvement” on Corbusier’s Unite d’Habitation. The Smithsons moved the Unite’s trademark central public corridor to the outside of the building, creating what became known as “Streets in the Sky”. All units would be accessed off these streets, but they were intended to be much more than mere circulation. Their extended width made them a public place and space for activity. The units of the building were interlocking in such a way that each unit had two stories and had frontage on both faces of the building.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 1 || Tranformations of Housing

19 21

20 22

ROBINHOOD TRANSFORMATION SHIFT

Looking to increase FAR and Open Space as the building is transposed into a Manhattan block, the design remixing of Robin Hood Gardens focuses on two aspects of the original building. First, the interlocking, Tetris-like unit arrangements are preserved and expanded upon. Secondly, and most importantly, the “Street in the Sky” public space of the building is the driver to both create improved circulation and open up more public space. “Shift” takes the base block of 6 units and shifts them sectionally to create variation and open perpendicular passageways. While the original building had straight, ﬂat circulation, this iteration adds vertical passages and opens up opportunities for additional connections. The shift of the units also adds possibilities for terraces and other open spaces. “Coil” is more of a manipulation of the whole building while “shift” and “fold” are manipulation at the scale of the unit block. Coil looks at wrapping the street in the sky around the building, creating points of intersection and positional change. No longer is the street facing ony into the interior courtyard of the buidlign as is the original design. Here, the coil causes it to face both inside and outside. “Fold” changes the relative position of the units to one another, but keeps the units themselves intact. The previously linear “street in the sky” now takes on a more dimensional arrangement allowing for perpendicular connections. As this new arrangement is aggregated across a building scale, courtyards begin to be formed. Also a hierarchy of more public and more private streets in the sky emerges from the network of paths.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

COIL / UNCOIL

21 23

Assignment 1 || Tranformations of Housing

FOLD

22 24

RENTAL TRENDS OF NEW YORK CITY

When we began to look at New York City and find qualities to analyze, we thought to look at ethnographic data from Manhattan, specifically rental trends. We thought that this could posibly inform the quality of the housing which we would eventually design. This manifested itself in two ways: The first rental trend we looked at was a comparison between the income required to live in a specific neighbourhood and the average income of the residents within that neighbourhood. We obtained this data by looking at average rents per bedroom of each neighbourhood, and multiplying that by three by taking into account HUD’s measure of housing rental burden (people paying more than 30% of their income to housing are considered burdened). We then compared that to the median income levels of each neighbourhood. This showed a great disparity between the affordability of each neighbourhood and the aveage incomes of each neighbourhood. The second rental trend we looked at was the change in average rental prices over the period of seven years. This showed that, for most neighbourhoods, rents have steadily increased year by year.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 2 || Mappings of New York City and Barcelona

WHAT ARE RENTAL PRICE TRENDS TELLING US? Rent trends are increasing at a fast pace. Coupled with the income disparity between the median income and a minimum required income in order to afford living costs, the ability of typical residents to afford living in their respective areas seems like it will only get worse as time goes by.

Median Income of Neighbourhood

300000

This is true of our site as well, which saw an increase in rental prices by 14% over the past 4 years, but also has an income disparity level of 34%.

200000

Minimum Income Required to Afford Rental Costs 100000

Change in Rent prices over 6 Years

0 4000

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500

AT WHAT SALARY CAN SOMEONE AFFORD TO LIVE IN MANHATTAN?

Though the median income of most New Yorkers is much higher than the national average, judging from HUDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s calculation of living cost burden, the only residents who, on average, can afford to live in Manhattan are those who live in Battery Park. Though these calculations provide an extreme narrative, it is rather telling as to the state of housing in New York City.

23 25

24 26

COMPARING BARCELONA AND NEW YORK CITY

HOW MUCH DOES THE AVERAGE NEW YORKER PAY IN RENT? The cost of living in Manhattan is, unsurprisingly, extremely high compared to other cities. Accounting for multiple bedroom and single bedroom units, and averaging out the total rental costs has provided us with a quick snapshot of the cost of living in various 4HUOH[[HU ULPNOIV\YOVVKZ ;OL ÄUKPUNZ though unsurprising in their relative relationship, are still astonishingly high. Harlem, which has long been considered a relatively affordable neighbourhood averaged $2,133 per bedroom per month.

the cheapest neighbourhood to live in. Moving further south exponentially increases those ÄN\YLZ HARLEM Most Affordable Manhattan Neighbourhood

We’ve pulled the most expensive, the least expensive as well as a neighbourhood with average rent rates to compare. In comparison to Harlem, Tribeca, the most expensive neighbourhood in Manhattan per rent rates averages $4,294 per bedroom.

Using HUD’s cost burden estimate of 30%, this means that the average person would need to earn an annual income of $84,373 in order to affordably live in Harlem. And that was by far

MIDTOWN WEST Average Manhattan Neighbourhood 31% more expensive than Harlem

TRIBECA Most Expensive Manhattan Neighbourhood 99% more expensive than Harlem

HARLEM

Least Expensive Neighbourhood Average Rent: $2,133 per Bedroom Minimum Income: $84,373 per person

We chose to compare the ethnographies of New York City to another metropolitan city within a different context. Barcelona differed enough from Manhattan in terms of its culture that we could then look at differences in terms of rental prices, demographics and general building properties. We began by comparing average rent prices in Manhattan and Barcelona by neighbourhood, mapping out where the more affluent neighbourhoods were and where the areas that were more affordable were. We then compared this map to a map of average age of renters in both cities to see if w could find correlations between the two. Some interesting findings that came out were the disparities in terms of affordability between the two cities and the difference in age groups. For example, residents of Barcelona, by and large, were older than those in Manhattan. Rental prices were also, on average, cheaper than that of Manhattan.

MEDIAN INCOME MIN. INCOME REQUIRED

MIDTOWN WEST

Average Neighbourhood / Site Location Average Rent: $2,792 per Bedroom Minimum Income: $108,640 per person

BATTERY PARK FINANCIAL DISTRICT TRIBECA LOWER EAST SIDE SOHO EAST VILLAGE GREENWICH GRAMERCY PARK CHELSEA MURRAY HILL MIDTOWN EAST MIDTOWN WEST UPPER EAST SIDE UPPER WEST SIDE HARLEM

TRIBECA

Most Expensive Neighbourhood Average Rent: $4,249 per Bedroom Minimum Income: $162,447 per person

$1000

$2000 $1500

$3000

HOW MUCH IS THE AVERAGE RENT IN BARCELONA? Rental prices in La Barceloneta, which is located at the southern tip of the city, exceed double the rental price of Torre Baró ($1.90 per square foot versus $0.83 per square foot). Surprisingly, Barcelona’s rental prices seem to IL H[ SLHZ[ H[ ÄYZ[ ZPNO[ L]LU TVYL WVSHYPaLK than those of New York. Upon further research, we found that La )HYJLSVUL[H PZ TVZ[S` KL]V[LK [V VMÄJL [V^LYZ and retail space. In order to fully understand where the high income population resides we made use of a second variable, RFD, or “real disposable household income,” and found that residents of Pedralbes actually present the highest income level within the city. At an impressive average of 243% of the average

city income, Pedralbes residents have almost three times the average disposable income of Barceloneta residents, and over six times as much disposable income as Torre Baró residents.

Torre Baró Most Affordable Barcelona Neighbourhood

After some more digging, we found that Pedralbes income might be slightly skewed by the numerous football players that reside in this peaceful neighborhood. Not surprisingly, the Camp Nou is only a 20 minute walk away.

Hostafrancs Most Affordable Barcelona Neighbourhood 70% more expensive than Torre Baró

Pedralbes Least Affordable Barcelona Neighbourhood 94% more expensive than Torre Baró

Torre Baró

Least Expensive Neighbourhood Average Rent:

$0.83 per square foot

PEDRALBES

Most Expensive Neighbourhood Average Rent:

$1.61 per square foot

HOSTAFRANCS Average Neighbourhood Average Rent:

$1.41 per square foot

$0.2 / sq ft.

$0.4 / sq ft.

base $1 / sq ft. $0.3 / sq ft.

$0.6 / sq ft.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

25 27

Assignment 2 || Mappings of New York City and Barcelona

COMPARING THE TWO CITIES: HOW OLD ARE RENTERS? It’s unsurprising to see that, generally, the ages of renters in Manhattan tend to be lower than that of Barcelona - Manhattan is a large draw for millenials and subsequent generations. However, what is surprising is the seeming lack of demographics under the age of 30 in Barcelona. In fact, Barcelona is fairly homogenous when you look at the age of renters across the city whereas Manhattan comprises of a fairly mixed population. However, it seems like the Upper East Side is the exception to this rule - the average age within the Upper East Side is 46.9 compared to Barcelona’s average age of 42.9 and Manhattan’s average age of 35.5.

UPPER EAST SIDE

BARCELONA:

46.9

42.9

MANHATTAN:

36.4

NEW YORK CITY:

35.5

SITE:

33.3

BATTERY PARK CITY: 31.1

MEDIAN AGE; RENTER HOUSEHOLDER 31.2

46.9

26 28

work

EXPERIENTIAL SECTIONS

From Torre Baro residence ($) to Pedralbes

From Hostafracs residence ($$) to Plaza Catalunya

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 2 || Mappings of New York City and Barcelona

From Pedralbes residence ($$$) to Maria Cristina

27 29

28 30

work

EXPERIENTIAL SECTIONS

home

Bryant Park

Increasing Density

Different path home

Profession: Architect

23 minutes

Home

15 minutes

work day

Crossing under 123 train

456 Subway downtown

456 Subway uptown

Profession: Assistant Retail Manager

13 minutes

20 minutes

5 minutes

Workday

5 minutes

20 minutes

Profession: Associate Principal

52nd st. exit

Home 12th Ave

24 minutes

Workday

5 minutes

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 2 || Mappings of New York City and Barcelona

29 31

36th St.Midtown West to 49th St. Midtown $$

Return on 9th Ave. Stop at bar

35 minutes

7 minutes

Harlem to 52nd St. btwn Park and Madison $

125th Street

13 minutes

Tribeca to 52nd St. btwn Park and Madison $$$

Client dinner

West Village lowrises

5th Ave. local

60 minutes

18 minutes

30 32

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT

The following axonometric drawings track the development of the Hudson Yards area from 1850 to 2015. We observed the following trend in the growth of the site: In the mid-nineteenth century, blocks were scarcely populated, and buildings were mostly bound by the 100’ x 25’ lot divisions. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, blocks started to “close up,” and a clear perimeter block typology started to emerge. At the turn of the century, we observed that more and more buildings started to extend past the 100’ x 25’ lot divisions. At this point, the area reached a peak in density, if density were to be measured by the occupation of ground space.

Hudson Yards area as it existed 1850 - 1860

Building heights were fairly homogenous from east to west. Today, the site presents more open spaces than it did at the turn of the century. However, there is a clear increase in average building height. Additionally, a height gradient has emerged from east to west, clearly driven by the proximity to midtown, and by the inability to occupy Hudson Yards until now.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

31 33

Assignment 3 || Site Research

1870

1880

1890

32 34

1900

1910

1920

Bandy Studio || Group 1

33 35

Assignment 3 || Site Research

1930

1940

1950

34 36

1960

1970

1980

Bandy Studio || Group 1

35 37

Assignment 3 || Site Research

1990

2000

2010

36 38

LOT DIVISIONS

We found the historic division of Manhattan blocks into lots of 100 ft by 25 ft very interesting, as they constitute a clear example of how laws and regulations can so powerfully shape the space of the city. Perhaps the perimeter block typology would not have emerged had the team of commissioners decided in 1811 that the block should be divided into square lots, or had the block been sliced into three longitudinal sections, instead of two. The following images show how, even today, some of these original divisions are still preserved in the existing city, in the form of party walls or building boundaries.

Lot divisions as deﬁned in 1811

“The greatest evil which ever befell New York City was the division of the blocks into lots of 25 x 100 feet. So true is this, that no other disaster can for a moment be compared with it. Fires, pestilence, and ﬁnancial troubles are as nothing in comparison; for from this division has arisen the New York system of tenement-houses, the worst curse which ever afﬂicted any great community.” - Ernest Flagg, The New York TenementHouse Evil and Its Cure.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

37 39

38 40

FORMS OF GROWTH

Having traced the development of the Hudson Yards area from 1850 to the present, we were confronted with the question of how the city should continue its growth. What is the next trend to come, if any? The following pages illustrate the two possible extremes of the spectrum, if we were to impose a macro-scale rule to the growth of the city. Our proposal posits that neither end of the spectrum should be followed literally. Rather, we propose that the city is an organic entity that develops at a much ďŹ ner scale that the block. The historic development research showed that the nature of the city changes gradually, and that it is impossible to impose a one-dimensional trend on the

Notice the coincidence between building dimensions in 1850 and the lot divisions .deďŹ ned in 1850.

complex system that is the city. We propose to operate through interventions, rather than city-wide formal impositions.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

ine

igh

ld /O

Assignment 3 || Site Research

igh

L Old

900

ing

ild

u fb

Lin

din

igh

il bu

201

39 41

40 42

FORMS OF GROWTH

Extreme 1: One possibility would be to propose that the city (and in particular, Hudson Yards) keep growing at the same rate as it has for the past century and a half. This reductive understanding of densiďŹ cation would mean interpolating the average increase in height per decade for every building lot in our site. The graph on the top right shows the corresponding increment per decade, and the dashed lines indicate the projected growth per decade. In particular, we found that if we proposed a maximum densiďŹ cation of 150%, (or in other words, a projected FAR equal to 1.5 times the current FAR) growth would have to be capped by year 2070. By mapping out growth as a gradual,

Detail of Extreme 1: Incremental growth

cumulative action, it becomes apparent that the city does not actually follow this kind of trend. In fact, building demolitions and apparitions are a lot more spontaneous and organic in nature.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

41 43

42 44

FORMS OF GROWTH

Extreme 2: Illustrated in the images to the right, another option for proposed growth consists of taking the current open lots and free space frontage, and erecting buildings that are directly proportional to these openings. Structurally, this proposal would make sense, as buildings with larger footprints lend themselves to greater heights. A corollary to this proposal would be that the current height gradient that currently exists from Midtown to the Hudson River would be completely inverted. In a way, the Hudson Yards proposal for Manhattan would ďŹ t within this scheme. Our team has taken the position to selectively apply these growth schemes as

Growth by site-speciďŹ c interventions

they seem suitable on a case-by-case basis. For example, the blocks that are close to midtown generally present buildings that will not realistically be demolished in the near future, and therefore might only admit small, parasitic additions. Other buildings might call for demolition, and other lots might call for the development of high-rises. In short, we propose to not adapt one extreme or another, but rather intervene on our site surgically. The existing context is so complex, and the relationships between the different part of the city present so many different dimensions that it is impossible to impose a single method for densiďŹ cation.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

43 45

Assignment 3 || Site Research

220 ft 180 ft 58 ft 413 ft 282ft 22 ft 496 ft 1108 ft

12 ft

469 ft

1595 ft 1541 ft 371 ft 234 ft 737 ft 344 ft

Map of current open street fronts by length

Extreme 2: Growth proportional to open spaces

44 46

LAYERED USER GRIDS

While New York is widely known for its famous gridded streets and avenues, the uses of these grids change depending on the user. Parsing through the different users of these grids exposes a divers perceptions of the city. While the taxi driver perceives the city through its streets, pedestrian usage is expansive and not limited to the sidewalks themselves, oftentimes extending into open spaces and alleyways within the blocks. The bicyclist experiences a limited portion of the city where bike lanes are offered, whereas bus drivers only perceive the city through their assigned routes along the avenues or large cross-town streets. Finally, the subway riderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grid of perception is limited to the physical stations and lines

Description of Drawing #1

and a 10-minute walking radius from these points. By laying these unique perceptual grids over one another, we begin to see not only the limitations of a strict street grid and city block condition, but also the divergent experiences of different city dwellers.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

45 47

Assignment 3 || Site Research

Layered User Grids Pedestrian Walking GridGrid Pedestrian Walking

Bus Driver Driver Grid Bus Grid

Bicyclist Grid Bicyclist Grid

Taxi DriverGrid Grid Taxi Driver

Subway Rider Grid Subway Rider Grid

46 48

PEDESTRIAN WALKING GRID

The pedestrian gtid is the most pervasive of all the grids - pedestrian movement throughout the city is often unpredictable and freeform. However, this map shows all the open areas that are potential spaces for pedestrian connections despite their unavailability / disconnected nature. In this way, we see a disconnect between the vast amounts of open lot spaces towards the northwest that is suitable for pedestrian movement but is currently is dominated by athe non-pedestrian culture of the automobile.

Pedestrian Walking Grid

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

47 49

48 50

TAXI DRIVER GRID

Given that the grid is determined by the automobile, it is therefore expected that the grid navigated by city taxi drivers would be the most instantly recognizable. However, this map goes on further to show areas of high taxi pick up volume. These areas point to areas of commercial activity, public street life, and also areas of heightened pedestrian activity that require taxi transportation. Unsurprisingly, the areas right by the Javitz center and Madison Square Garden are the zones of highest concentration of taxi pickups. The areas concentrated on the southside on 10th and 11th avenues see taxi pickups spike during the evening hours, most likely to accomodate the late-night clubbers in Chelsea.

Taxi Driver Grid

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

49 51

50 52

BUS DRIVER GRID

Most major bus routes in the area run north and south on the avenues with sporadic stops every couple of blocks. There are also two bus routes that run east and west on 23rd and 34th streets, providing crosstown service on these two major thoroughfares. Around the U.S. Post OfďŹ ce building on 31st street is a major bus stop for out-of-town bus services such as Greyhound, GoBus, and Megabus. The routes of these bus drivers are strict in their timing and paths, providing reliable but limited service throughout the neighborhood. However, these connections still require signiďŹ cant walking distances depending on the bus taken and the ďŹ nal destination, as many swaths of streets are not covered or near a bus stop. Also note that there is a concentration of bus activity just north of the site at Port Authority Bus Terminal that is not shown here.

Bus Driver Grid

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

51 53

52 54

SUBWAY RIDER GRID

The subway service in the area is notably weak in comparison to the rest of the city. The red diamonds are estimated 10 minute walking distances from each subway station. This map shows which areas have no reasonable subway access, which is unusual for the city of New York. The 123 and ACE trains stop on 7th and 8th avenures respectively, servicing the majority of Midtown; however, from 9th avenue west, subway service is practically nonexistent. The newly added 7 line terminus at 34th and 35th street will bring notable pedestrian trafďŹ c to the west side once it is opened, leaving only the far west Chelsea neighborhood without a subway connection.

Subway Rider Grid

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

53 55

54 56

BICYCLIST GRID

The bicyclist has the most limited experience of the city within Midtown West as there are few bike lanes in the neighborhood. The existing bike lanes of this area of Manhattan are restricted to 7th, 8th, and 9th avenues along with the Hudson Greenway in the north / south direction, and 29th and 30th street in the east / west direction. This leaves much of the neighborhood inaccessible to bicyclists, especially near Hudson Yards and the Javitz Center, which could beneďŹ t from more bicyclist connection from the river to Midtown.

Bicyclist Grid

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

55 57

56 58

BLURRED BOUNDARIES: BLOCK TO BLOCK

There is no typical New York block, as the notion of the block is a construct: a byproduct of the grid established for ease of wayﬁnding. There are no boundaries to the spaces we typically refer to as blocks. One space bleeds into another. Spatial conditions of the block are deﬁned not by the elements comprising itself, but rather by the conditions of the blocks in adjacency.

In these examples, we see how certain qualities of the block, and in turn, the experience of the users, are deﬁned more by its neighbors than itself. Lighting conditions are entirely dependent on the building massings of adjacent blocks. Views, an individual’s perception of space, vary greatly depending on the conditions of the neighboring blocks.

Near: Views Deﬁned by Other Blocks Far: Effects of Neighbors on Sunlight

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

57 59

58 60

BLURRED BOUNDARIES: STREET + BLOCK

Furthering the idea of the blurred boundaries of the block, there is no hard line between the space of the street and the space of the built environment. The street permeates into the building; the building spills out onto the street. The street becomes a mix of public and private experiences, just as the buildings oscillate between public

and private uses. Even more cogently, the space of the street belongs to all functions at once. It serves the public and the private. The New York street is both the front-ofhouse and the back-of-house. This creates a constantly changing experience of the street as multiple narratives are collapsed into one space.

Description of Drawing #1

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

59 61

60 62

VARIETY OF BLOCK TYPOLOGIES

The idea that there is no hard line between the block and the grid is also manifested in a study of the variety of bock conditions that are present, even just within our site perimeter. A sampling of ďŹ ve blocks, as shown in the drawings here, illustrate that each block possesses a different character, furthering the idea that there is no typical

block within Manhattan. This ranges from the perimeter block that includes dense housing, to blocks that include mixed uses with empty lots. One other block includes features not in other blocks such as the point tower.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

61 63

62 64

PROPOSED SITE

We chose a site containing a total of eight blocks. It is bounded by 7th Avenue on the east, and by the Hudson River (and 12th Avenue) on the west. We chose this site because it presents a great variety of urban conditions and because of its adjacency to the Hudson Yards development. With this anticipated influx of pedestrians to the Hudson Yards area, we seek to provide a strong pedestrian link between this development and midtown. Starting at the east, we ďŹ nd blocks that are completely built up and house a full range of program: residential, ofďŹ ce, retail, hotel. As one moves towards the west, however, we start to lose programmatic variety. We no longer ďŹ nd such an abundance of retail

Site spans from 7th Ave. to the Hudson

on the ground level, and open lots start to become a trend, ultimately arriving to a block that contains no buildings between 11th Ave. and 12th Ave. There are a number of points of intensity in terms of public pathways. Our site contains the end of the High Line, the future subway station for the 7 Line, entrances to the Lincoln Tunnel, and a highly transited subway station at the intersection of 34th St. and 8th Avenue.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

63 65

64 66

SECTIONAL HIGHLIGHTS

The sectional highlight at 8th avenue highlights opportunities for intervention in a dense, built up environment. Here, the large party wall space behind a building is currently used as advertisement space. The avenue is split with a bike lane and a divider with planters, and there is a subway line directly underground. The sectional highlight near the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel and 495 Freeway also offers multiple party wall conditions facing the freeway, along with a bridge overpass

and sunken highway thoroughfare. The housing buildings nearby have multiple overhanging AC units and awnings over the sidewalk, along with planters with large trees. The sectional highlight near the terminus of the High Line Park is the end of the bridge infrastructure with a sloping entry / exit condition. The block is slightly sloping away from Midtown and is clear of any obstructions and development.

Sectional Highlights

Multiple AC unit overhang Large expanse of empty wall space Sidewalk planters

Basement entry

Awning overhang

Extended awning over sidewalk

Eight foot wall Street bridge crossing

Sunken highway thoroughfare

Bandy Studio || Group 1

65 67

Assignment 3 || Site Research

Sectional Highlights

' #% $ % " Advertisement space

Flat, low-lying roof-space

% !( * #!! $"

Temporary scaffolding "!# #* $ !

! #

! ! !

No street % frontage ! $%# % #! " # % Separate bike lane

! Foliage ' # in divider

" # $

Basement aligns $ % $ sectionally $ % !subway * ( % with $& ( *

Sectional Highlights

Opportunity for

""!#%& %* !# height %

End of ! infrastructure # $%#& %&#

Large ďŹ&#x201A;at expanse

# % )" $ Sloped highline terminus !" % # &$ Rising sloped sidewalk $ $ !" $ (

Trees median # Large 12th Ave.

# % ' ( * highway Underbridge space # # $"

Flat rectangular

% # % & # " # !%lot parking

66 68

CATALOGUE OF SPATIAL AVAILABILITY

In a highly developed city like New York, we need to look for alternative areas for development as the conventionally deemed developable areas are scarce. Viewing the streets, sidewalks, air, and residual spaces between buildings as utilizable are important to the future of development in the city. Furthermore, an examination of these “other” areas for development shows that the once pervasive grid actually deteriorates and has less an effect on these areas.

COMMONLY DEFINED OPEN SPACES Park/Green Vacant Lot Surface Parking Garages/Storage/Sheds Near: Commonly Deﬁned Open Spaces Middle: Other Available Spaces Far: Grid Deterioration in Air

Bandy Studio || Group 1

67 69

Assignment 3 || Site Research

sky sky

+ 450’

+450 ft

+ 400’ ft +400

+400 ft + 400’

+300 + 300’ ft +350 ft + 350’

200’

+200 ft ++300 300’

+ 100’ +100 ft

+250

city

+ 250’

city

+200 ft blocks blocks

undeveloped undeveloped space space

+ 200’

+150 ft + 150’

water, docks water, docks, & rail yard railyard

streets

+ +100 100’

streets

sidewalks and sidewalks & residual residual space

+50

+ 50’

+5 + 5’

68 70

PREDICTED DEMOLITION: MATERIAL

As part of our contextually sensitive approach, we propose to build only on lots that house buildings that will likely be demolished in the near future. In a preliminary attempt to estimate building lifespan we mapped the material characteristics of our site, which provided hints to the kind of structural system of each building. For example a 1900 building with a brick exterior will most likely have structural masonry walls. However, a 2000 building with patches of brick on its exterior will most likely be a reinforced concrete structure, or a steel frame. The projected lifespan for these different buildings will be different.

Project Site

Stone Masonry Concrete Brick Clad Glass and Steel

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

69 71

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Block 4

Block 5

Block 6

Block 7

70 72

PREDICTED DEMOLITION: MATERIAL

We followed the following estimates to calculate the predicted demolition year for each building according to the year of construction and the structural system: Expected Service Life Wood 50 years Masonry 80 years Concrete 90 years Steel 100 years The graphs shown to the right simply map out these characteristics per building block. The graphic to the near right illustrates material durability, from wood (white) to steel (dark yellow). The graphic on the far right shows the

Closeup of Block 2

year of construction, with white indicating the oldest, and presumably less durable buildings, and blue indicating buildings that were recently constructed and are therefore more likely to survive for at least another 50 years.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

71 73

72 74

PREDICTED DEMOLITION: MATERIAL

Having established a series of potential sites for location according to building age and material, we started to examine the program that currently occupies those sites, as shown in the graphic to the right. Not surprisingly, we found that these two factors alone are insufďŹ cient to determine prime sites for future development. For example, St. Michaelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s church was built in 1890, thus making it one of the oldest buildings on our site. However, the cultural value of this building make it unlikely to be demolished in the next few years. This material and age study provides a point of departure for a deeper analysis for predicted demolition. The next few pages expand this context by including

Closeup of Block3

additional, non-tangible characteristics into the prediction of future demolitions and opportunities for development.

73 75

Assignment 3 || Site Research

Bandy Studio || Group 1

ofďŹ ces

low rise retail

about 50 housing units + theater

mental health facility commercial surrounded by surface parking

housing + commercial St. Michaelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Church

entrance to new Line 7

end of High Line

Expected Demolition

within 5

after 2090

74 76

PARTY WALLS AND STREET ACTIVITY

Party wall can be viewed as the city’s internal coding for future development. The coding arises organically, coming from many individual sites over a period time. By seeking out these spots in the city, new development is automatically somewhat integrated and seamlessly received into its context. As we look for the least invasive sites to build on, party walls are a crucial thing to look for.

Near: Location of party walls on site Top Right: Street activity Bottom Right: Publicly accessable doors

The street is the realm of the public and the private. It is front-of-house and back-of-house. However, that doesn’t mean all streets are equally active. In a dense and diverse city as New York, a block without storefronts feels alien and sharply interrupts the experience of the street. By mapping pedestrian friendly facades and doors accessible to pedestrians, we can approximate the activity of the street. Looking at the activity of the streetscape allows us to identify locations that are successfully working in the city. More importantly it allows us to ﬁnd the places of inactivity and devise strategies to better integrate these areas into the pedestrian experience.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

STREET ACTIVITY STREET ACTIVITY Active streetfront: ACTIVE STREETFRONT

engagementstorefronts, at level ofengagement walker at level of walker

PASSIVE STREETFRONT Passive streetfront: blank facades or walls, unengaging blank facades or walls, unengaging

BACK OF HOUSE loading docks or garages, uninviting Back of house: OPEN SPACE AT STREET loading docks or garages, uninviting vacant lots, parks, break from built space Open space at street: vacant lots, parks, break from built space

Doorways publicly accessible from street DOORWAYS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE FROM STREET

75 77

76 78

IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL AREAS FOR INTERVENTION

We view New York as a condition to be improved, not razed. However, with the growing cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s need to add density and diversity, elements of the existing fabric will be inevitably be redeveloped. Integration within the existing New York context is a key component of our design strategy for the whole site. Utilizing our studies of building material and age, program and activity, while paying attention to party wall conditions, we have determined areas for development based on the potential impact a new building on a given site would have on its surroundings. Not only are we being sensitive to the context of New York, we are being responsive to the individual buildings themselves and devising strategies

to protect their access to light and air. We have designated tiers of invasiveness , to test the potential development would have on the current context. Through this study, we can begin to parse our areas we can add density with the least invasion. Furthermore, networks of connectivity begin to emerge across multiple planes.

TIERS OF INTERVENTION

TIER 5. REPLACE/MODIFY MEDIUM SCALE removal of

Categorizing intervention by invasivity

buildings has large effect on site as a whole. limited to medium scale residential + commercial

TIER 1. READILY AVAILABLE/ UNINVASIVE available

buildings of 10-100 units and FAR 4-10 most of displaced

land to be built on, e.g. parks, vacant plots, parking lots.

residential and commercial use can be replaced within

displaced program can be seamlessly incorporated within

proposal.

TIER 6. FUNDAMENTAL EFFECT

TIER 2. LEAST INVASIVE

built interventions in close proximity of existing

built interventions on rooftops or against existing party

structures. Has irrecconcilable effect on views and light/

walls. no effect on views and light/air quality of adjacent

air quality of adjacent buildings, rendering portions of

buildings.

building uninhabitable.

TIER 3. REPLACE/MODIFY SMALL SCALE removal of

TIER 7. REPLACE/MODIFY LARGE SCALE

buildings has limited effect on site as a whole

removal of buildings has drastic effect on site as a

limited to small scale residential + commercial buildings

whole.L imited to large scale residential + commercial

of <10 units and FAR <4. Entire displaced residential

buildings of <100 units and FAR <10 entire displaced

and commercial use can be replaced within proposal.

residential and commercial use cannot be replaced within

TIER 4. SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT

proposal.

built interventions in near proximity of existing

TIER 8. IRREPLACABLE PROGRAMS

structures. Has effect on views and light/air quality of

programs which would be exceedingly difďŹ cult to

adjacent buildings, but commesurate with qualities of

replace in proposal, such as hospitals, churches, school,

neighboring areas.

theatres.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

77 79

78 80

+5’

+35’

+70’

+100’

Invasivity based on existing condition’s access to light and air

EXAMPLE In order to remain sensitive to the existing EXAMPLE buildings throughout to remain sensitivethe to site, the adjacent buildings would not trespass the orange existing buildings planes. throughout the site exposure plane of 1:3.7 slope maintains light and air qualities of existing building footprint offset 10’ exposure to maintain accessibility plane of 1:3.7

footprint offset 10’ to maintain accessibility

slope maintains light and

air qualities of existing building

Bandy Studio || Group 1

79 81

Assignment 3 || Site Research

00’

+150’

+200’

+250’

+300’

+350’

+400’

82 82

MID-SCALE INTERVENTIONS

At an intermediate scale between macro and micro, we identiďŹ ed the possibility of expanding the public space of the grid into the generally more private space of the block through the use of additional ground planes. The axonometric below suggests how these public ground planes might start to populate the rooftops of existing buildings. Through visual and spatial connections, these spaces would feel like a natural extension of the city grid. The drawing to the right maps all the horizontal ground planes of our site (except for the ground plane, which is understood to occupy all the space between the existing buildings). These ground planes were classiďŹ ed according to size. The largest

Example of publicly accesible ground plane on the rooftop of a low rise

ground plane occupies nearly half a block between 9th and 10th Avenue, whereas a number of ground planes do not exceed 50 square feet, and therefore are appropriate for little more than a private terrace or courtyard.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

83 83

(+20,000 sf) XL L (7,000 - 20,000sf) M (2,000 - 7,000 sf) (500 - 2,000 sf) S (0 - 500 sf) XS

84 84

MACRO INTERVENTIONS

Following our attitude toward city development, and the idea that no single element should overwhelm the urban fabric, we propose a series of typologies for new “implied” blocks. These new blocks transcend the typical binary of grid versus block, or public versus private. Instead, each of these typologies seek alternative elements to define zones in the city, rather than simply establishing a separation between the grid and the block. Some of these typologies are defined by the relationship between different ground planes, by the bounded-ness of space due to elements that are considered to be immobile, by an intensification of program, by the suggestion of a passageway

Typology B, recognizing that the programmatic demands of the street might differ radically from those of a higher elevation.

or by a continuity of program across block boundaries. For example, typology E was inspired by the space that is contained between the end of the High Line near 12th Avenue, and the building that houses the Coach Headquarters, which we considered to be of historic signiﬁcance. Typology G, for example, considers the superposition of different grids (pedestrian, subway, automobile, and cycling) as a means of accentuating a single point in space. It suggests the formation of a “block” where program is distributed in section, rather than in plan.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 3 || Site Research

85 85

A: Interior Block

B: Ground / Sky Block

C: Corner Block

D: Joined Block

E: Interior Plaza

F: Implied Entrance

G: Vertical Block

H: Elevated Block

84 86

SITE DESIGN: MACRO INSERTION IN THE CITY INTERVENTIONS

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Site Design

Project site comprised of eight Manhattan blocks.

Available Lots: Below is a catalogue of buildings according to the adequacy of demolition. For example, a church, performance center, or hospital will be considered immovable program. Retail, on the other hand, is considered to be more ďŹ&#x201A;exible.

Tier I: Readily available Tier II Tier III Tier IV: Not available

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Site Design

The following pages illustrate the site-selection process by building up the following layers: -

Party Walls Currently Open Lots Replaceable Program (Tier I) Roofs that can be occupied Our proposed interventions

party walls open lots replaceable program potential to coopt proposals

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Site Design

party walls open lots replaceable program potential to coopt proposals

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Site Design

party walls open lots replaceable program potential to coopt proposals

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Site Design

Model of our site showing the existing party walls (vertical white planes) and the existing horizontal planes larger thann 5,000 sf. (horizontal translucent planes). There is a clear abundance of these planes as one approaches midtown, but this is also the area the least open lots are available.

HOUSING MACRO DESIGN INTERVENTIONS

empty lot

party wall

massing

collective spaces

adjacent roofplane

l d l externalized circulation (engaged with surroundings)

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Housing

These diagrams show the governing massing principles at the scale of a building. Wherever possible, housing is built up against a party wall, which is understood as the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s way of implicitly suggesting where new development should take place. Every building incorporates communal spaces for the residents: laundry, workout area, winter garden, utilities spaces for caretakers. These are expressed as plenums (either glazed or open), which often take advantage of adjacent rooftops to suggest where such plenum should be located.

98 At a smaller scale, these diagrams show how units might aggregate to form communal corridors and shared â&#x20AC;&#x153;backyards.â&#x20AC;? These are only very diagrammatic and apply only to double-height units.

unit cluster

shared corridor

aggregation

shared backyard

When applied to speciďŹ c lot conditions and a variety of apartment sizes, units will start to take on different shapes without losing these design principles as seen in the diagrams below.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

No party wall Small units

Againts party wall Small units

Assignment 4 | | Housing

No party wall Large units

Againts party wall Large units

Above are different ďŹ&#x201A;oor plan conďŹ gurations depending on: - party wall restricting views - size of apartments - option to articulate a saw-tooth for added views and light At a certain elevation, outdoor spaces become admittedly inconvenient and uncomfortable. This yields tightly packed apartments, and a glazed, centralized communal space. See section on next page.

100

exteriorized circulation easy access to street

appropriated rooftop (hidden)

shared backyard shared corridor

access to subway

material language: masonry, concrete, glass, dark metallic ďŹ nishes

cafe

building atrium (apartments have views to it) HOUSING ELEMENTS

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Housing

101

102

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Housing

103

104

SELECTED MACRO DESIGNS SAMPLE A INTERVENTIONS This section provides two examples of block development according to the ruleset described in the previous chapter. These designs are meant to synthesize the materials provided in our research portion: all the ideas, from the Manhattan grid, the urban characteristics unique to the city, and the sensitivity to built environment were all taken into account as we were giving form to these buildings. The ﬁrst sample presented is located in a very dense urban block; as one approaches Midtown, the opportunities for the development of buildings with large footprints becomes increasingly difﬁcult.

The corner of 8th and 34th provides one such rare opportunity. The current buildings are old, low rise retail. The entrance to the subway provides a chance to create a multi-use development that with retail, a more private “backyard,” and an open-air subway station.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Design

105

106

Block 8: Existing

Block 7: Existing

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Design

107

Block 8: Removed Buildings

Block 7: Removed Buildings (Based on map from page 9)

108

EMENTS

Block 8: Party Walls

Block 7: Party Wall

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Design

109

Block 8: New Housing (externalized circulation)

Block 7: New Housing (externalized circulation)

110

Block 8: Outdoor Backyards (none)

Block 7: Outdoor Backyards

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Design

111

Block 8: Collective Space

Block 7: Collective Space

112

residential backyard public sunken plaza with subway access

Ground Plan: This building is located at the corner of 34th St and 8th Avenue. The ground ďŹ&#x201A;oor combines retail, which is accessed from 8th Avenue, and housing, which looks out the back onto the sunken plaza. At the west side of the plaza, a glazed staircase is divided and shared by public commuters accessing the subway and residents accessing the low residential building to the east.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Design

113

Underground level: This level shows the details of the sunken plaza, which can be accessed by housing, retail, and the subway station. The housing units are conďŹ gured tightly and are either one level (center unit), split level (two right units), or double-storey (two left units).

114

Lower underground: This plan shows the lower level of the two split units. These plans show the area where the building meets the street, which yields more opportunities for the building to open up to retail and semi-public open spaces. The upper levels of the building are devoted to tightly-packed units that exploit the maximum building envelope allowed by FAR constraints.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Deisgn

115

116

SELECTED MACRO DESIGNS SAMPLE B INTERVENTIONS This second example deals with an urban block that is not as dense as the previous one, given its location further West, and therefore closer to the waterline Located east of Dyer Avenue, and spanning from 34th St to 35th St, here we ﬁnd a lower average building height, and even an opportunity to co-opt one large rooftop of an adjacent building. With only one small sliver of open land on ground level, we propose to create an entrance to a circulation core that will provide acces to the new development above. In accordance to our housing principle of encouraging the creating of community withing the building, this proposal creates

communal “backyards” accessible to sets of four apartments, similar to the arrangement of Sample A on the ground ﬂoor. Additional features include an elevated lobby, the introduction of retail atop the coopted rooftop, and an exteriorized circulation that makes public the activity within the building and contributes to the liveliness of the street below.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Deisgn

117

118

Building touches lightly on 34th Street, inďŹ&#x201A;icting minimum discontinuity on the existing streetscape. Glazed circulation. Full engagement with the city beyond.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Deisgn

Higher up, the building swells to occupy as much space as purchasable air rights permit. Shown in this cut: four double height units sharing a backyard. The backyard can only be accessed through the apartments, and has access to emergency egress, if needed.

119

120

Apartments are tightly packed, yet allow enough area for outdoors space. These dwellings are meant for young growing families.

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Assignment 4 | | Deisgn

121

122

123

Thank you

124

ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS PLANS AND SECTIONS FROM WEST TO EAST

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Annex | | Additional Drawings

125

126

ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS PLANS AND SECTIONS FROM WEST TO EAST

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Annex | | Additional Drawings

127

128

ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS PLANS AND SECTIONS FROM WEST TO EAST

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Annex | | Additional Drawings

129

130

ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS PLANS AND SECTIONS FROM WEST TO EAST

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Annex | | Additional Drawings

131

132

ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS PLANS AND SECTIONS FROM WEST TO EAST

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Annex | | Additional Drawings

133

92 134

MODELS

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Annex | | Photos

135

94 136

1:2000 STUDIES

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Annex | | Photos

137

96 138

1:500 STUDIES

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Annex | | Photos

139

98 140

UNIT STUDIES

Bandy Studio || Group 1

Annex | | Photos

141