Civic Composition by Kaan R. Sanalan

CIVIC COMPOSITION AN ARCHITECTURAL SOLUTION TO AN URBAN PROBLEM

Kaan R. Sanalan Jean Francois Bedard (Primary) Comitee Members: Elizabeth Camell Timothy Stenson 11/03/2014 Syracuse University School of Architecture

CIVIC COMPOSITION Kaan R. Sanalan

Jean Francois Bedard (Primary) Comitee Members: Elizabeth Camell Timothy Stenson 11/03/2014 Syracuse University School of Architecture

I would like to thank: H.Murat Sanalan Lorena S. Rengel Ryan Lu Duygu Su Ocakoglu Lana Martinez Beatriz Gonzalez Federico Vicente

CONTENTS

Introduction

NEW URBANISM

KULLIYE

III

SITE APPLICATION

SUMMARY

PRECEDENTS

MODULAR

VII

TYPOLOGY & MORPHOLOGY OF PROGRAMS

VIII

EVOLUTION

CIVIC COMPOSITION

OTTOMAN CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE

Apendix Annotated Bibliography Illustration Credits

INTRODUCTION Cities are growing inefficiently. Suburbia is a waste of resources: land, energy, pollution, etc. Vehicular use caused by the growth of suburbs causes people to rely on the use of automobiles, in which leads to people must rely on cars to integrate with their daily activities. In other words, dispersed civic infrastructures, both in suburbia and in cities, cause an accumulation in commuting time and segregation of places by their use, which can be an accelerator to pollution and traffic caused by the increased, and necessary use, of cars in modern day suburbs. Even though downtown and cities are crowded enough to support public transportation, at some point the infrastructure will be insufficient because of the uncontrolled population/building growth. These are very significant issues to be addressed. How should our cities grow? How can we solve this issue for the long-term? The project I am proposing, â&#x20AC;&#x153;A New Way to Expand our Cities: a Concentration of Civic Infrastructureâ&#x20AC;?, offers a solution to this ill growth expansion. A hyper dense populated city big enough to support public transportation and other amenities less populated areas do not, in simpler terms, human oriented cities with concentrated civic infrastructures (for example: schools, city halls, museums, spa centers, transportation centers, commercial areas and low income housing). This can be done easily with the encouragement of the private sector and no zoning or mixed use, but instead, more general rules and guidance which create

more opportunity to control growth. I will argue that by creating a concentrated civic infrastructure the future growth of the urban fabric and the organization of cities will be guided in a much more defined and controlled way. I will demonstrate that the current state of our cities’ growth affects the overall functionality of, not only the city itself, but also the daily life of the population that currently inhabits them. Authors such as Chakrabarti, Hegemann, Peets, and the Krier Brothers (Leon Krier and Rob Krier) address the issue. Chakrabarti, in his book A country of cities discusses how cities can save the economy and how suburbia is bad for the environment. He proposes a solution of hyper density and public transportation oriented cities, in which we can associate with the movement of new urbanism. Leon Krier’s work The Community of Architecture, proposes traditional approaches, not only in material, but also in growth methodology. Krier criticizes the current zoning and how cities grow. His brother Rob Krier’s book Town Spaces, visually and textually explains his and his brother’s projects in an urban scale. These can be seen as the originators of new urbanism movement and its application. Hegemann and Peets in their book Civic Art, discuss precedent at various scales. They also place civic buildings and complexes in urban context and discuss the heights, sizes, shapes, and programmatic distribution of these projects. Lastly Alparslan Ataman analyzes the Ottoman Kulliyes by explaining how the Ottoman Empire used these complexes to create, establish, and develop cities and their centralized power. Kulliyes are concentrated civic complexes that have multiple communal space. These structures are easy to duplicate and applied to city according to the expansion. Fatih Kulliyesi in Istanbul is one of the most eminent examples of this Kulliyes affecting the urban growth and complex‘s other services. Ataman includes in his study the typological and morphological applications of Kulliyes. The initial stage of the project analyzes analyzes New Urbanism and the civic building complexes in an urban context approach to the issue.As precedents, the New Urbanist projects are human oriented, addressing our contemporary problems (congestion,pollution,isolation,...)by creating pedestrian friendly areas, creating multiple foci or focus, and creating spatial level at the regional level. Also they are public transportation oriented, mixed used, and high-density living projects. Also, as precedents, civic building complexes in urban context incorporated with the urban fabric create open space and landmarks that help the organization of cities. Therefore understanding the significance of these attributes is essential.

MONOPOLIS / URBAN QUARTER

QUADRI POLIS / BOROUGH TOWN

SPRAWL CITY / SUB BOROUGH

POLY POLIS CITY

FEDERAION OF CITIES

Kaan R. Sanalan

The following phase of the project analyzes Ottoman structures known as Kulliye. These structures are the most sharply defined example of concentrated civic infrastructure, they affect more than their boundaries by creating guidelines for streets, with respects to topography and geometrical rules of Kulliye establishment. Kulliyes incorporate green space and can be applied to different contexts. The greatest significance of kulliyes is that they performed well even with large amount of growth until the end of the 17th century. This system did not survive until today because of socio political and economic conditions of the final years of the Ottoman Empire. The final stage will place the project within the context of the United States considering vernacular culture, climate, socio political and socio economic conditions. It is a novel move towards new urbanism by considering it in an urban scale, incorporating civic buildings. This project can become possible with the ideology of the primary stage discussed above and the support of precedents. The project will offer a new and better option for populationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; exponential growth and city development. In addition to solving the main issues of ill growth in urban infrastructure this project will contribute to the existing projects by offering a new approach that combines the previously established studies. The project will produce a new way in which cities have the ability to grow without affecting the initial cityscape and improving culture. It will also decrease pollution, traffic, inefficient energy use, and car dependency by creating a pedestrian culture. It will offer a solution to the imminent problem of population growth while protecting natural resources and the environment.

Introduction

INCORPORATION OF KULLIYE STRUCTURE AS CENTER IN HOUSTON USA

NEW URBANISM

Meaning of New Urbanism New Urbanism Principals New Urbanism Analyses Europe Rennweg, Vienna, Austria De Resident, Hague, Netherlands Centrumgebied Vleuterweide, Netherlands Poundbury, England

Analysis of New Urbanism USA Seaside, Florida Market Commons,SC Prospect Town, Denver CO BLVD Place, Houston TX

Critism and Problems of New

Urbanism

Meaning of New Urbanism

NEW URBANISM

New Urbanism is a movement that had been influenced by the criticism of urban sprawl that had mainly emerged after the 1930’s. The movement is notable for its intention to reduce the traffic, following the intelligent urbanism principals that was established by CIAM, and practicing the passive heating and cooling solutions. New Urbanism’s main goal is to restructure the development practices by promoting walking-friendly neighborhoods and to try creating diverse usage and pop-

ulation. Being designed both for pedestrians and transit systems, including cars, it should provide easy access to public facilities and spaces and have a well defined perimeter and a centre. The movement also tries to celebrate the local history, the climate, the ecology and the building practices. By promoting walkable neighborhoods, the main element of this movement is to create a spatial (aspect)? at the regional level. Positioning public uses on the ground floor makes the

GROWTH BY DUPLICATION

city more interactive, which is also indirectly related to the reduction of the vehicles from the city center. New Urbanism also offers flexible limits to growth, meaning that it can be applied organically to topography and can support population growth? by more construction. Even though this attribute seems pleasant at the first glance and practiced by multiple projects like Seaside and Prospect town, it may be problematic in terms of not achieving New Urbanism’s main goals.

New Urbanism

FUNCTIONAL ZONING

LOW DENSITY

Consequently, the movement has been questioned by multiple architects, city planners, and scholars, stating â&#x20AC;&#x153;it almost beats at the heart of the suburbiaâ&#x20AC;?. Additionally, the biggest criticism about New Urbanism is that, it is not achieving its goals as it should. For example, it does not support housing for people with different income levels in order for it to deal with the idea of mixed population and mix housing.

RES REPUBLICA

HIGH DENSITY

It is not promoting walkability as much, which was one of the main reasons for this the location of the project, by being far away from the city downtown creating the feeling of a suburbia as if being in a medieval village with modern infrastructure. There are many questions on the quality of the buildings that have been constructed. Some politicians approach to the whole movement as a social engineering project and as a movement that restricts private enterprise,

RES ECONOMICA

despite the fact that the majority of the projects are funded by the private sector.

CIVITAS

New Urbanism Principals

1.Walkability: Pedestrian friendly streets, free of cars except special cases. 2.Connectivity: Interconnected streets, hierarchy of narrow streets, boulevards and alleys 3. Mixed Use & Density: Mix of shops, apartments, homes, offices, and density of different income levels, races and cultures created density. 4. Mixed Housing: Different types of housing, sizes, and prices 5. Quality of Architecture & Urban Planning: Sense of place, and special placement of civic uses. 6. Traditional Neighborhood Structure: Defined perimeter and center. 7. Increased Density: Enough population concentration to support public transportation. 8. Green Transportation: Electrical rail systems, Light rail, Subway 9.Sustainability: Energy efficiency 10.Quality of life: Created by connections of people and activity which create culture.

New Urbanism Analyses Europe

Rennweg, Vienna, Austria

De Resident, Hague, Netherlands

New Urbanism

For European practitioners. New Urbanism is more of a criticism of the American city and urban sprawl than a campaign against modern architecture. The principles and thoughts have been mainly addressed in Leon Krier’s work like “Choice or Fate,” and “The Community of Architecture.” European examples of New Urbanism are more concerned with their tradition and urban fabric. It is easier to practice them in Europe because of the government incentives, and also it is easier to implement the projects into urban context because the cities are not as sprawled as in the United States. Leading protagonists of New Urbanism in Europe , Rob Krier and Christopher Kohl , had set a great amount of examples of how this movement can be applied to various sites with diverse social-political and economical settings. As the main precedents being Poundbury, England by Leon Krier and De Resident in Den Hague, Netherlands show the practices of new urbanism in different scales.

Centrumgebied Vleuterweide, Netherlands

Poundbury, England

New Urbanism Analyses Europe

Rennweg, Vienna, Austria

It was a project by Rob Krier and Christopher Kohl in Vienna, Austria. The site used to be Military Barracks in the early 19th century and also a Cathedral. In order to create the public foci, programs were pushed to the side in accordance with the historical buildings. This created open green space in the center and also a high degree of enclosure. The uniformed facades which were designed accordingly to Viennaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban fabric, increased the importance of the inner area.

SITE MAP

DISTRICT

FIGURE GROUND

BORDER

New Urbanism

SQUARES

BUILDING BLOCKS

VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

AXIS

CULTURAL LOCATIONS

New Urbanism Analyses Europe

De Resident, Hague, Netherlands

As the connector, the bridge between people and transportation, the DE RESIDENT project plays a great role in the city of Hague. The project was a new urbanism project right in the middle of the city, between the City Hall and the train station. Rob Krier and his partner Christopher Kohl designed the master plan of this project, highly associating with city fabric, as a connection between city center and train station according to their urban planning principles, which can be closely associated with the New Urbanism principles. The fact that it is in the city center, density was achieved easily and it established a basis for future development of the city fabric and the mix use of the buildings. Various architects has contributed in this project as well, like Michael Graves and Cesar Pelli by designing two high rise buildings.

SITE MAP

DISTRICT

FIGURE GROUND

BORDER

New Urbanism

SQUARES

AXIS

BUILDING BLOCKS

VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

CULTURAL/COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS

New Urbanism Analyses Europe

Centrumgebied Vleuterweide, Netherlands

Centrumgebeiden is located just outside of Utrecht, Netherlands. The project was a redevelopment project of an almost suburbanized area for 50,000 residents with 15,000 sq-ft retail space. This New Urbanism project which was designed by Robn Krier and Chritopher Kohl,is a rare example of dense civic programs in the center. Also the master plan was influenced by fren frond leafs. The residential centers have their squares and vehicular traffic is manipulated to only main streets. The cultural and civic center being concentrated and helping the daily activities of the residents within the center, creates also the public foci which every neighborhood needs.

SITE MAP

DISTRICT

FIGURE GROUND

BORDER

New Urbanism

VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

AXIS

BUILDING BLOCKS

CULTURAL/COMMERCIAL CENTRE

SQUARES

New Urbanism Analyses Europe

Poundbury, England

Under the support of Prince of Wales, Poundbury is considered one of the most successful New Urbanism project. Although new urbanism takes its essential principals from medieval European cities, Poundbury was influenced by Seaside Florida. But still Poundbury is a better example then its influencer. It was master planned by Leon Krier who also contributed by designing two houses in Seaside Florida project. Poundbury reaches almost all principles of new urbanism like ; the idea of polycentric neighborhoods, clearly defined center, perimeter of the neighborhoods, organic street structure, pedestrian orientation by one car per 250 sqft, and mixed uses. All buildings were designed by various architects in order to create variety. In addition Poundbury was an extension project to an existing city, therefore we can consider this project as a complete example.

SITE MAP

DISTRICT

FIGURE GROUND

BORDER

New Urbanism

MAIN GATHERING AREA

AXIS

BUILDING BLOCKS

CULTURAL LOCATIONS

SQUARES

Analysis of New Urbanism USA

Seaside, Florida

New Urbanism as a movement in the United States was tremendously influenced by the urban sprawl around the 1980s. The pedestrian orientation, public transportation and the incorporation of green spaces under a traditional village umbrella, had created growing influence by politicians and states officials. Miami, Florida has performed the most ambitious new urbanist based zoning code, which is in accordance with the idea of smart growth. Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater founded the congress for New Urbanism. Their firm designed influential projects both in Europe and the United States. The most important being Sea Side, Florida . New Urbanism is highly associated with Neo-Traditionalism, Environmentalism, and Regionalism. The projects in the U.S. are typically constructed far away from the urban down-town

Prospect Town, Denver CO

Market Commons,SC

BLVD Place, Houston TX

New Urbanism

areas which consequently challenge the purposes and principles of New Urbanism like; achieving the density easily, reducing the car dependency, the possibility of mixed uses and creating housing for people of various income levels. Projects like Market Commons in South Carolina, Prospect Town in Colorado, and BLVD Place each satisfies only some different principles of New Urbanism but not all of them.A combination of these results would set up the perfect example.

Market Commons,SC

Analysis of New Urbanism USA

Seaside, Florida

Seaside, Florida is considered as the first fully New Urbanism town. The construction began in 1981. The site is 8 acres big and located at Pandale Coastline. The town quickly gained attention by its colonial architecture and village aspects, and also by the application of New Urbanism Principles. The project incorporates a lot of green public space and has a center that can satisfy the daily needs of the residents. In terms of civic infrastructure only the schools can be applied. The center acts as a commercial and cultural center of the village, which is clearly defined. However the application of New Urbanism principles were disrupted with the site being far away from the urban core, which led to not enough density, car dependency, and lack of transit. Also the uses of the buildings are clearly segregated which is in contrast with the principles.

SITE MAP

CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE

VIEW TOWARDS ATLANTIC

PARKING

New Urbanism

BUILDING BLOCKS

GREEN SPACE

PEDESTRIAN PATHS

CULTURAL/COMMERCIAL AREA

MAIN SQUARE

Analysis of New Urbanism USA

Market Commons,SC

This seems like a New Urbanism but project but it breaths suburbia. Market Commons was heavily oriented towards economical benefits of New Urbanism therefore the project lacks public foci. In this example we can see that the uses of the buildings are segregated, almost 50% of the site is parking lots, which is an indicator of heavy car dependency. The Market Commons is an open mall with the incorporation of housing and commercial areas. There are no incorporation of civic programs therefore the public foci couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t achieved. Besides the site is located far away from the urban core, which creates problems in density.

SITE MAP

PROGRAMS

MAIN SQUARE

New Urbanism

PEDESTRIAN PATHS

GREEN SPACE

BUILDING BLOCKS

PARKING

DISTRICS

Analysis of New Urbanism USA

Prospect Town, Denver CO

Prospect Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s construction started in 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s.It was designed for 200 residents with 585 units, and 340 car lots. The New Urbanism project is close to the urban core, which makes the density easily achievable. The project is mostly pedestrian friendly; there are hidden semi public green spaces for residents, mixed used zoning for different ranges of income. The prices range from 150,000$ to 500,000$. The developers wanted to have an ultra modern look. Commercial and Residential areas were blended together. The lack of enough green space and lack of central core is not creating the environment that New Urbanism aims for. There is no civic incorporation, so the residents have to travel for their daily activities, which leads to hidden car dependency.

SITE MAP

GREEN SPACE

ENTRANCE

New Urbanism

BUILDING BLOCKS

PROGRAMS/DISTRICTS

PEDESTRIAN PATHS

PARKING

SPACE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS

Analysis of New Urbanism USA

BLVD Place, Houston TX

This new urbanism project is located in Houston,Texas. The surrounding is heavily affected by urban sprawl; 6 miles out from urban center. BLVD Place creates a mixeduse center. There is 1,400,000sqft of Office space, 205,000 sqft of Retail and also a hotel with 275 rooms. This New Urbanism project incorporated very little green space and has no civic incorporation. There is also a lot of car dependency. The BLVD Place is a good example of using skyscrapers to achieve the density and the mix use needs of New Urbanism principles and therefore serves as a good precedent that the New Urbanism should utilize the advantages of modern day construction. Incorporation of this would create urban core, instead of Village Square.

SITE MAP

PROGRAMS

PARKING

New Urbanism

GREEN SPACE

PLACEMENT/MASSES

EXTERIOR VIEW

PEDESTRIAN PATHS

BUILDING BLOCKS

PROGRAMS AXONOMETRIC

Critism and Problems of New Urbanism

CRITIQUE

NEW URBANISM AND URBAN CONTEXT

New Urbanism principles are hard to apply in the U.S. because of urban sprawl, but it is not impossible. The combination of examples mentioned in the analysis of New Urbanism in USA, would create the perfect New Urbanism project. Although New Urbanism addresses the issues of pedestrian orientation and considers historic, climate, ecology, and building practices, it still has drawbacks in application. Most of the projects are not as urban as they are supposed to be. They are built far away, creating mistakes such as investing minimum amounts into infrastructure which can promote some problems in the future growth. Additionally, the car dependency results from the projects being built far away from the urban core. Access to the site has to be through cars creating a need of large surfaces for the parking lots, and the location of the projects create less density; therefore transit systems cannot be supported. Some cri-

New Urbanism

tiques comment to these projects as if they were â&#x20AC;&#x153;the heart beat of suburbia.â&#x20AC;? Segregated zones are formed due to less density of population and single family housing arrangements in the New Urbanism projects. They lack urban understanding, which is the concentration of programs. Currently, New Urbanism does not use the power of construction. Skyscrapers can be great mediums for achieving high density and different uses for new urbanism projects. Medieval European towns influence the idea of the town squares. However, the applications of these squares in new urbanism projects are highly oriented towards retail and commercial land use. Thus, the absence of civic infrastructure is creating an ambiguity for the development of the community. Throughout the examples one can see only schools are incorporated for civic use but like in Kulliye, it should incorporate various civic functions. The application problem of new urbanism comes from strict use of its principles. Creation of a medieval city with latest transportation or with city infrastructure is a false attempt to solve this urban sprawl problem. Lack of civic incorporation to projects reduces the creation of supply. The civic buildings are the identifying and beating components of our cities. The confusion of architectural styles in the new urbanism projects is limiting the opportunities for future growth and density. Therefore new urbanism takes advantage of the modern day construction and use of skyscrapers. Skyscrapers are the perfect structural type for

Critism and Problems of New Urbanism

creating density, mixed use, and housing. Only problem about the skyscrapers is their control. The controlled use of skyscrapers can be highly beneficial to create modern day urban core. The new urbanism projects are trying to create their own community. Therefore they need to be built next to another community in many case downtowns. There is no reason to create these projects far away from urban coreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, that would only create more potential for urban sprawl. There might be large-scale constructions or planning necessary for appropriate location, government support and encouragement to the private sector can make both the result and the process beneficial for both parties.

New Urbanism

KULLIYE

OTTOMAN CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE

Meaning of Kulliye Morphology of Kulliye on Site Kulliye Urban Relationship Analysis on Kulliye in Urban Context II. Bayazit Kulliyesi, Amasya Fatih Kulliyesi, Istanbul Suleymaniye Kulliyesi, Istanbul Atik Valide Kulliyesi, Uskudar, Istanbul

Program Translation

Kulliye as Solution

Meaning of Kulliye

MODULAR UNIT

KULLIYE VS. MONASTERY - INFLUENCE ORIENTATION

The Kulliye was a complex of buildings including mosques where a self-governing part of the city was situated while being open to the public use and residency between the years 1400 and 1800. The mentioned religious differences in the concept of Kulliye are gravely noticeable due to the ways of usage of the areas. A common mistake is that because Kulliye’s incorporate mosques, they are inevitably compared to equivalent religious structures in Christianity. Mosques are used as public gathering places that become sacred worship areas only during the prayer (salaat) hours, whereas churches are rather internal and are mainly used as praying areas. The difference between two structures, monasteries and kulliyes, is significant as the first is rather self-oriented and solely-purposed whereas the latter is externally-oriented and more socially arranged. This lets the centrally-situated mosques to be used as district and transportation planning centers of the empire in addition to their role as the main structures of the neighborhoods. The word “Kul” in Arabic means “formed by many independent components” which indicates the purpose of Kulliyes, and thus reveals the error of seeing a kulliye by its components rather than as a whole. Therefore, looking at the urban fabric gives clues about the Ottoman characteristic of distinguishing zones according to operational use; while locating the artisanship and commerce districts near a harbor (if one exists) they also form alternative neighborhood areas for housing. Since the aforementioned kulliye was government property, the majority of the foundation’s income was collected in the form of rent for the complex’s facilities, mostly commercial and retail use. This income was used for building maintenance and for maintaining the continuity of the communal hardware. Kulliyes were also part of the road networks of the neighborhoods in which they were located.

EXAMPLES OF PROGRAMS USED BY KULLIYES FOR PUBLIC USE

Kulliye

Ottoman Civic Infrastructure

EXPANSION OF ISTANBUL WITH KULLIYES

The Ottoman empire used these facilities as public hearts that created foci in the newly formed neighborhoods, which inevitably provided an opportunity for expansion of the city. According the laws of the Ottoman Empire, the word â&#x20AC;?IHYAâ&#x20AC;?, making it better, developing it and creating, is highly associated with Kulliyes. The implications of the empire were that every royal had to develop their land in order to create resources for the empire, train military personnel and provide income. This process allowed more efficient use of space. These concentrated civic buildings supplied the basic needs of the people and through the placement of these buildings, the main streets were defined and less important ones separated. The culture of establishing kulliyes was very developed and every design movement, including ornamentation, had its particular meaning. This cultural structure let the complex be highly organic in terms of topography, even though it was built through alteration of one modular unit. Istanbul is one of the greatest example of how this culture aided the expansion of the city under the control and authority of the government. It had a different culture than the West as unlike them, the Ottoman Empire was dealing with the problems of centralized government and had to consider the efficiency in land development along with maintaining Imperial presence across its vast borders.

Morphology of Kulliye on Site

A hilly region requires huge leveling projects in order to create horizontal plains. The walls of this project later with Sinan became opportunities for different functions like commercial units. The Kulliyeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s adjustments to the topography of the site was integral to its culture; it was the main element that made the complex organic. The modular structure helped this process greatly by dividing the composition into smaller parts to achieve the expected results. The complex almost lays over the site like a carpet. This respect to topography shows that even though the element was previously defined by a centralized power, its composition was vernacular. However, although the composition is made up of small modular units, there were still some rules for the Kulliye to followl - for example horizontal space for mosques had to be the highest part of the site and it needed to be oriented towards Mecca. Mostly for these reasons but also for topographical and structural purposes large excavation and leveling projects were made before the complex was built. The application of the geometrical grid and symmetry was implemented as much as possible but in the end the spatial geometry had to be guided by topography of the site, not the other way around.

EXAMPLES OF HOW KULLIYE SIT ON SITE

SOKULLU, ISTANBULL

SULEYMANIYE, ISTANBUL

ATIK VALIDE, ISTANBUL

Kulliye

Ottoman Civic Infrastructure

II. BAYAZIT AMASYA 158m x 102m

Size Comparison of Kulliyes; Clockwise: Suleymaniye, Fatih, II Bayazit, Atik Valide

FATIH, ISTANBUL 325m x 278m

SULEYMANIYE, ISTANBUL 288m x 256m

ATIK VALIDE, ISTANBUL 285m x 132m

The sizes of the Kulliyes were heavily influenced by planning and economic factors. First, planned programs had to fit. Second, topography needed to allow it or else, there would be excessive excavation or filling in needed to create the terraces or horizontal surfaces. Thirdly, the wealth of the royalty and the complex needed to be in accordance with the growth in population. Therefore, as the population grew, the sizes of the buildings, green spaces, and programs increased as well. After these attributes were met and planned, the fitting of the compositional grid and the perimeter of the site defined the exterior look and placement. This led the Ottoman architects to the challenge of composing these organic complexes and fitting in the programs while obeying these strict rules. The compositional grid and symmetry was always attempted. This is why we can easily identify the clear form of square and its additions in Fatih Kulliyesi and as its precedent of II. Bayazit Kulliyesi. However, in Suleymaniye, because of the existing buildings and topography the symmetry was achieved in upper parts only, not on the sides. The urban fabrics on the sides signals that they had to be adjusted according to the existing context. We can see the same technique in Atik Valide where we can observe the Kulliye establishments as an organization of the urban context in accordance with the existing topography.

Construction of Spaces

Construction of Spaces Compositions of these complexes are created by three different components and their alteration. These components are the revak wall, cetvel (row) and courtyard. These components affected each other’s evolution over time. First, the revak is a wall structure that defines the perimeter of the site and border of the buildings. The revak wall creates a line or lines that the buildings are attached to. The use of the revak wall can be seen clearly during the 15th century. Second, the “cetvel” or row, is a component evolved from the revak wall. It is the space between two parallel lines, and it is filled with modular units. One can easily identify the modular units by their domes. It is common to see the use of both the Revak wall and Cetvel together. This means that the Revak wall is the border maker, or a limit, and the Cetvel is the occupiable space between the two parallel borders. The distance between two parallel lines was usually 5 meters. With the improvement of technology and culture, there was a need for the addition of more programs to the kulliyes. In order to use the space more efficiently, these rows started to divide and form courtyards, as seen in the image. The use of courtyards was commonly seen in complexes built after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Division of the rows and sometimes the revak walls created not only highly concentrated occupiable space but also a central green space. Programs of the buildings usually identified with their courtyard. The entrances to buildings usually started with the to the courtyard. This evolution of a single wall created very complex compositions for concentrated civic centers for sustaining the daily activities and needs of the citizens. These “open system” structures are a product of a culture begun in the Seljuk Empire and continued through the 19th century.

Kulliye

Ottoman Civic Infrastructure

Formalization of cetvel: 1.Side by side arrangement 2.Courtyardization 3.Jointed 4.Jointed by a third element.

Various “CETVELLER” that used in Ottoman Kulliye’s.

From left to right: Imaret, Medrese, Arasta, Bedesten, Han ve Cami

Kulliye Urban Relationship

The effect of kulliyes on its urban context was apparent through its systems of networking and connectivity. As mentioned earlier, kulliyes created focis for each neighborhood. More specifically, they created a cultural, commercial, and civic space where all the roads lead to the radius. Therefore the kulliyeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s settlements on the topography, shape of the site, and placement of the programs created the organization of the larger area). The creation of an axis, of the streets and of a hierarchal difference formed districts around the kulliye itself and those districts had a small square that today would be called a residential square. However, although the idea was similar, the structure was not close to that of a Kulliye. Fatih Kulliyesi, II Bayazit Kulliyesi and Atik Valide Kulliyesi are lively examples to observe the application of this structural mechanism in context. The topography, natural resources, and orientation to Mecca is the crucial

II. BAYAZIT AMASYA

FATIH, ISTANBUL

Kulliye

SULEYMANIYE, ISTANBUL

Ottoman Civic Infrastructure

element for the design. However, at the same time, unlike the orientation of Mecca which is a religious act, the use of the complex is highly dependent on efficiency and town development. Being concentrated on the civic programs like schools, hospitals, libraries and green spaces made the surrounding more organized and indepndent. This concentration also helped agriculture and the development of wealth. Had there been any problems, they would have been easy to identify and solve. Analysis on Kulliye in Urban Context

ATIK VALIDE, ISTANBUL

Analysis on Kulliye in Urban Context

NUR-U OSMANIYE

In addition to being one of the most important Ottoman architectural structures Kulliyes were also an urban development that was unique to its own character. This idea of concentrated civic buildings had to renew itself according to the changes and needs of people over time. Therefore, between 1400 and 1800, one could see the addition of the programs and alteration of the modular unit. The effects of sociopolitical and socioeconomical changes were applied easily to these complexes thanks to the modular unit. Even though it was highly complex, these organized clustering of units offered a range of expansion. In the Atik Valide the schools became commercial units through the addition of a second floor and stables were converted into storage space by creating a courtyard in the middle. In Fatih Kulliye and Sulemaniye, other programs were also added, with the latter located in the heart of Istanbul. Therefore the Kulliye could keep up with change in certain limits without sacrificing any of its essential qualities. Additionally, this open architectural systems also serve as governmental icons throughout the

II. BAYAZIT AMASYA

YAVUZ SULTAN SELIM ISTANBUL

SEMSI AHMET PASA

ISTANBUL

Kulliye

Ottoman Civic Infrastructure

SULEYMANIYE, ISTANBUL

MIHRIMAH SULTAN

ISTANBUL

history of architecture. By its composition served and represented people and also, by its appearance, the government. These structures kept the economy and development of the cities well controlled and efficient until the decline of the Empire. The beginning of 1800s was marked by the efforts of the Ottoman Empire to keep up with its competitors for its survival. Its decline and eventual fall led to unorganized, uncontrolled urban spreading without the existence of the initial control points (kulliyes), which Istanbul still suffers from to the present day.

SULEYMANIYE SAM

ATIK VALIDE, ISTANBUL

Analysis on Kulliye in Urban Context

II.Bayazit Kulliyesi, Amasya 1481

II. Bayazit Kulliyesi located in Amasyam, finished in 1481, is one of the earliest examples of a Kulliye. Because it is one of the first there were only three programs - mosque, communal kitchen, and school with green space. Its highly geometrical order and placement of the complex in the urban context defined its use for the city. The perimeter roads and the positioning of the buildings created an axis and guide lines, which gave a type of hierarchal use of the streets. Amasya was one of the stopping points for the silk trade route; therefore the main road behind the Kulliye had a special importance. The other side of the Kulliye is adjacent to the river, with its green areas; it took the shape of the coast line and defined the placement of the bridge. Its highly developed geometrical form and respect to the existing site topography made this complex a precedent for Fatih Kulliye in Istanbul.

SITE MAP

FIGURE GROUND

Kulliye

ROAD NETWORK

DISTRICTS

AFFECTED FACADES & VIEWS

MAIN ROUTES

Ottoman Civic Infrastructure

AXIS-NORTH/SOUTH

AXIS-WEST/EAST

PROGRAMS

Analysis on Kulliye in Urban Context

Fatih Kulliyesi, Istanbul 1470-1490â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

Fatih Kulliyesi in Istanbul started construction during the 1470s and was finished around the 1490s. By the time it was finished, this establishment had become the biggest educational complex in the world. It not only functioned for educational purposes, but it also served as a hospital, kervansarai, library, mausoleums, Hamams and communal kitchens, which were surrounded by green spaces around the mosque. The Fatih Kulliyesi stands as a great example to see the effects of the Kulliye in the urban contexts with its intended application to the site. It achieved a complete symmetry and established axes, which helped define its surrounding districts. The Kervansarai side was used for trade and transportation purposes. The Fatih Kulliyesi served as a precedent for all following kulliyes, Suleymaniye being the most important. The complexâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s settlement to the grid system is highly visible. This highly geometrically organized complex, located at the edge of the city during the time of its construction, and the street layouts established by the Kulliye can still be seen today.

SITE MAP

FIGURE GROUND

Kulliye

ROAD NETWORK

DISTRICTS

AFFECTED FACADES & VIEWS

MAIN ROUTES

Ottoman Civic Infrastructure

AXIS-NORTH/SOUTH

AXIS-WEST/EAST

PROGRAMS

Analysis on Kulliye in Urban Context

Suleymaniye Kulliyesi, Istanbul 1550

Suleymaniye Kulliyesi, in Istanbul is adjacent to the south part of the Grand Bazaar, which established the trade activities between the Golden Horn, and remain part of the central city. The site was built in 1550 in existing urban development; therefore geometrical perfection was achieved only in mosque area. A leveling project was done to create horizontal levels. The difference between the existing topography and the new level created space for a row of commercial units, which was parallel to the Grand Bazaar. This Kulliye was designed by the eminent architect Sinan, and was considered one of his masterpieces after the Selimiye Kulliye in Edirne, which for a period of time functioned as the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Suleymaniye Kulliyesi had greater variety of programs than its predecessor Fatih Kulliyesi because of the change of time and needs, along with the complexity of the composition itself. The projects accordance with the existing context and setting guidelines towards west of the town can still be considered as a successful project.

SITE MAP

FIGURE GROUND

Kulliye

ROAD NETWORK

DISTRICTS

AFFECTED FACADES & VIEWS

MAIN ROUTES

Ottoman Civic Infrastructure

AXIS-NORTH/SOUTH

AXIS-WEST/EAST

PROGRAMS

Analysis on Kulliye in Urban Context

Atik Valide Kulliyesi, Istanbul 1570

Atik Valide Kulliyesi in Uskudar, was erected as a kervansarai because it was at the end of the Silk Road; due to the topography of the area, the complex sat on the site by creating horizontal levels almost like terraces, giving an organic look to the Kulliye. The high complexity of forms and various functions such as hospital, schools, communal kitchen, and commercial units were built in the same mass creating unique attributes for this specific Kulliye. It includes more programs than Suleymaniye by having kervansarai, storage, stables, schools, mosque, library, hospital, commercial units, single rooms (which served as low income housing in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s terms) making it one of the most compound Kulliyes. Even though the composition was highly complex it had a range of expansion almost like an open system building due to its modular structure. On top of the schools, in later years more commercial units were added by making a second story. The roads that divided the Kulliye were also the main roads for the urban context. It is Sinanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s late masterpiece that we can relate to the most in terms of program incorporation and creation of foci for translating the concentrated city infrastructure today, which will be explained below.

SITE MAP

FIGURE GROUND

Kulliye

ROAD NETWORK

DISTRICTS

PROGRAMS

AFFECTED FACADES & VIEWS

MAIN ROUTES

Ottoman Civic Infrastructure

AXIS-NORTH/SOUTH

AXIS-WEST/EAST

Program Translation

KULLIYE PROGRAMS

TRANSLATION TO CONTEMPORARY

GENERAL USE CIVIC/REC/HEALTH/EMPLOYEMENT/EDUCATION/TRANSPORTATION/INFRASTRUCTUR E

CAMI SULTAN’S KIOSKS SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DARUL KURRA DARUL HADIS LIBRARY TABHANE IMARET DARUSIFA HAMAMS HANS STABLES KERVANSARAI MOUSELUMS BEDESTEN ROOMS FOR SINGLES TOILETS FOUNTAINS PUBLIC USE FOUNTAINS MUVAKKITHANE

CITY HALL/PUBLIC HALLS POLICE/FIRE STATIONS SCHOOLS

CIVIC CIVIC EDUCATION

LIBRARY HOTEL FOOD COURT HOSPITAL BATHS/SPA BUSINESS/OFFICES/SHOPPING CENTERS GARAGE TRANSPORTATION CENTER CEMETARY/STATUE STOCK EXCHANGE/BANK LOW INCOME HOUSING TOILETS WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

EDUCATION EMPLOYEMENT CIVIC HEALTH HEALTH EMPLOYEMENT TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION RECREATION EMPLOYEMENT CIVIC CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE

CLOCK TOWER

CIVIC EDUCATION EDUCATION RECREATION RECREATION

ADDITIONAL CONTEMPORARY PROGRAMS MUSEUMS GALLERY THEATER PARKS

All of the programs that exist in Kulliye are mentioned above. There are some translations that I would like to address for example, Mosque to Town Hall or City Hall, as mentioned earlier Mosque’s are only sacred at the time of the prayer which makes this program more as a communal gathering space instead of a religious one. The mosque being in the center can serve as an image to the Empire’s governmental style or relations to its ethnic group, but today there are municipalities and local governments, therefore the replacement of mosques to city halls is eminent.Kervansarai’s are used to be resting locations for trading route, one can see the relationship of being the regional transportation center easily. And Single’s Rooms is basically low-income housing in today’s terms. It used for shelters for homeless and poor people, also their placement provide an extra protection to the commercial area

Kulliye

CITY IN F

TURE UC TR RA

UCTURE STR A FR N

Ottoman Civic Infrastructure

The main idea of the Kulliyes was the concentration of the civic buildings, and clustering of one main complex with multiple plazas. This can be applied to the existing situation to create our needed foci for newly created downtown development. The main obstacle is how to translate it into our present time. The city infrastructureaddresses all the main categories like health, transportation, recreation, civic, education, and even housing and commerce. Therefore creating infrastructure will give a high quality foundation that will become the point of origin for neighborhoods, which can expand with replication. Over time the cities will grow into a collection of neighborhoods instead of an agglomeration of suburban areas. The architectural challenge is how these programs will be merged and placed.

ICONS CIVIC EDUCATION RECREATION HEALTH EMPLOYEMENT TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSING

Efficiency Oriented, Not Religious Kulliyes are a statement of the Ottoman Empire. Their exterior appearances and constructions style based on variations of one modular unit reminded distant territories of the centralized power of the Empire. This complex was built for creating self-sustaining cities or neighborhoods according to their context, and outpost for trading routes and the army. The placement of the kulliyes was not based on religion, but rather efficiency oriented. These complexes are highly engaged with the existing urban fabric and the use of buildings around it. As mentioned above the complex sits on the topography easily because of its modular constuction. These standardized concepts and rules of the Kulliye apply uniquely with the topography and surrounding situations; in the case of Houston the highway structure would be a defining factor. Placement of the programs are highly integrated with the topography and existing cities condition. There are no religious rules for defining the placement of the buildings. Mosques are usually in the center of the Kulliye but it varied due to existing conditions of the site. Mosques are the originators of this complexes, and they are sacred space only in prayer times. Since there is no religious axial sequence in a mosque, the doors of the mosque is located in the perimeter of the mosque, not only in one direction. A large green public space surrounds the mosque and almost every program or building has their semi public open spaces, which are the courtyards. Modular constructions are also beneficial for public use, ownership, and planning. The use of the complex is mainly for the people that live around

it. It is the center of schools, health, food, and social gathering. In the kulliyes, there are only enough commercial spaces to fund maintenance and supplies. It is usually believed that the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic Empire but this is a misconception. The Ottoman Empire was first and foremost interested in territorial conquest and gain, not religious conversion. Correspondingly, the kulliyes were not built to convert people to Muslim religion, but rather as a statement of power from the government itself. II. BAYAZIT AMASYA

FATIH, ISTANBUL

SULEYMANIYE, ISTANBUL

ATIK VALIDE, ISTANBUL

Kulliye as Solution

Kulliyes and Houston City grid

Kulliyes performance in Houston’s urban context, division of neighborhood and kulliye as a centralized orginizer object

The problem that this project addresses is the result of the urban sprawl occurring in both Turkey and in U.S. The example of the Kulliye serves as inspiration and framework for a solution to the urban sprawl. These foci creating systems with their organized civic infrastructure can create centers that will increase density and continue development without further sprawl. The creation of kulliyes are an old idea of how to keep urban growth controlled but they can be altered for present issues with the addition of the necessary programs and civic institutions. The idea of creating a concentrated civic infrastructure is the composition of the civic buildings along with the infrastructure, including transportation, to create the heart of the city or neighborhood. This includes the necessary programs that create our community’s culture like the city hall, museums and schools and calling them the civic infrastructure. A system for creating efficient and pedestrian oriented land requires forming new downtowns in USA to allow people to live together and create their own culture. The idea of kulliyes can be transformed to offer a solution for urban sprawl.

Kulliyes and Manhattan’s grid

Kulliye

Ottoman Civic Infrastructure

The Kulliye culture will create a set of rules and guides to create these complexes as a centre. It can then be applied to different surroundings to create more controlled, compact and dense structures. Houston is a great example of urban sprawl currently in the U.S. We can envision the application of the kulliye concept near downtown Houston, creating its own perimeter defined by topography and contextual surrounding. In Houstonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s case, highways are the dividers of districts in downtown area. So in the case of Houston the highways would be an integral part of the topography that the kulliyes would have to adapt to. The efficiency of the idea is clear and should lead to government or private investment as an alternative to suburban development. This project will also address the issues of transportation and efficiency while keeping the urban sprawl under control. One of the most pedestrian dominated cities of USA is New York City but one cannot imagine it without its underground transportation infrastructure. Parks and green spaces play an eminent role in the island of Manhattan, similar to the role Kulliyes played in old Istanbul by incorporating green spaces in the middle of steel, glass and concrete buildings and traffic. This concentrated civic infrastructure can be applied to some of open spaces in urban fabric easily such as Washington Square Park.

Kulliyes settlement in NYC

III

SITE APPLICATION

Criterias for Site Urban Sprawl Houston, TX Charlotte, NC Phoenix, AZ

City / Context New Urbanism in Houston Site

Criterias

General Situation/ Urban Sprawl

Criterias for Site The project offers an alternative solution to the problem that is generally seen in the U.S cities. The proper selection of a site will be helpful to bring this project one step closer to reality. Thus the site application is important to experiment and sets an example for the success of the project. Setting some criteria to determine the site, seems like a fair challenge for the experimentation. site:

These are (some of)? the criteria for selecting the

- The city should have a medium to high growth rate, preferably high growth in order to prevent settling in the suburbia but rather moving in to the newly created downtowns. - There must be an urban sprawl, which is suburbia. - It should be a medium density city. These criteria can be met by many cities in the Southern region of the United States. Therefore after some research, I can nominate 3 possible sites that would be suitable to test this project with actual contextual objectives; 1-Houston Texas, 2-Charlotte South Carolina, and 3-Phoenix Arizona. The criteria and cities subject to addition. 66

Site Options

Houston, TX

Bird-eye View of Downtown

Site Application

Aerial View

People QuickFacts Population, 2013 estimate Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base Population, % change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013 Population, 2010 Persons under 5 years, %, 2013 Persons under 18 years, %2013 Persons 65 years and over, %, 2013 Female persons, % 2013 Living in same house 1 year & over, %, 2008-2012 High school grad. or higher, % of persons age 25+ Mean travel time to work (min), workers age 16+ Housing units, 2013 Homeownership rate, 2008-2012 Housing units in multi-unit structures, %, 2008-2012 Households, 2008-2012 Persons per household, 2008-2012 Per capita money income in past 12 months, Median household income, 2008-2012 Business QuickFacts Manufacturers shipments, 2007 ($1000) Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007 ($1000) Geography QuickFacts Land area in square miles, 2010

HOUSTON 2,195,914 2,160,712 4.7% 2,096,798 8.1% 25.9% 9.0% 49.8% 79.6% 74.8% 25.8 892,646 45.9% 48.2% 773,450 2.69 $27,029 $44,648

Persons per square mile, 2010

3,501.5

USA 316,128,839 308,747,716 2.4% 308,745,538 6.3% 23.3% 14.1% 50.8% 84.8% 85.7% 25.4 132,802,859 65.5% 25.9% 115,226,802 2.61 $28,051 $53,046

49,121,973 5,319,456,312 189,998,400 4,174,286,516 599.59

3,531,905.43 87.4

Site Options

Charlotte, NC

Bird-eye View of Downtown

Aerial View

CHARLOTTE 792,862 735,766 7.8% 731,424 7.6% 25.2% 8.5% 51.7% 78.9% 88.0% 24.4 319,918 57.6% 34.2% 292,150 2.49 $31,653 $52,916

USA 316,128,839 308,747,716 2.4% 308,745,538 6.3% 23.3% 14.1% 50.8% 84.8% 85.7% 25.4 132,802,859 65.5% 25.9% 115,226,802 2.61 $28,051 $53,046

8,996,300 15,551,586

5,319,456,312 4,174,286,516

297.68 2,457.1

3,531,905.43 87.4

Phoenix, AZ

Bird-eye View of Downtown

Site Application

Aerial View

PHOENIX 1,513,367 1,447,626 4.5% 1,445,632 8.3% 28.2% 8.4% 49.8% 78.7% 80.1% 24.4 590,149 56.8% 32.1% 516,181 2.8 $24,110 $47,866

USA 316,128,839 308,747,716 2.4% 308,745,538 6.3% 23.3% 14.1% 50.8% 84.8% 85.7% 25.4 132,802,859 65.5% 25.9% 115,226,802 2.61 $28,051 $53,046

16,926,892 23,670,515

5,319,456,312 4,174,286,516

516.7 2,797.8

3,531,905.43 87.4

City / Context

Houston,TX

Houston, TX Houston is the most populous city in Texas, with 6 million people in the metropolitan area, mostly sprawled with less density. The city was founded by two entrepreneurs named Allen Brothers who bought 6,642 acres of land in the banks of Buffalo Bayou to establish a city in 1836. Houston was named after a famous public figure General Sam Houston. The location of the city was.close to the burgeoning port. The development of rail industry and the discovery of oil industry increased the population of the city. Houstonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economy has been lead by multiple industries such as energy, manufacturing, aeronautics, and transportation. The City is also the home for Texas Medical Center, which is one of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest concentrations of

Site Application

Highways of Houston

health care and research institutions, and NASA. Houston has a very diverse population, with various ethnic and religious groups, thus realizes a growing international community. It also sheltered more than 150,000 people from New Orleans who suffered from the damages of Hurricane Katrina. Houston with a total of 656,3 sq.miles of area is the most sprawled city in USA.

The

vegetation

Transportation / Coastline

City / Context

Houston,TX

the region is classified as temperate grassland and forest. Climate is humid subtropical and generally warm in winter. Downtown is only 50 ft. above the sea level and because of the flatness and the effect of urban sprawl, flooding can occur.

Green spaces / Urban Core

The population growth and unsufficient use of land are the most important problems of Houston. There are multiple investments and organizations formed in the last

Transportation: Rails,Highways / Division of districts

Site Application

decade to find solutions to these problems, with introducing people to the idea of New Urbanism by encouraging people to move in downtown.

Site vs. City

New Urbanims in Houston

New Urbanism in Houston The city of Houston is the most sprawling,the least dense and the most motor vehicle dependent city. The city is growing with the minimum amount of infrastruction work and has one downtown center where the most density is aggregated. There is also a medical center but it acts as a sub center. With the growth of the population of the international community, the expansion of the city and its resources became the main problem for Houston. Consequently city officials decided to take action and invest in New Urbanism Principal related projects. Because of the vehicle dependence and the transit system, Houston has a zoning regulation that is not sufficient . The biggest challenge for the city is the transportation system ,since the improvement of the public transit services cannot be established as a result of least density. According to the research of Houston Municipality ; if the city continues to grow like this,then the Houstonians will have to spend 145% more time in the traffic than they spend now. In the last decade City of Houston invested in New Light Rail transport and in a new cultural center near downtown ,rehabilitating some parts of downtown for pedestrian improvements and creating esplanades. For transportation purposes, officials started a Bike Share Program with the intention of reducing the use of cars and being more green. In terms of investments and business, city of Houston encourages living and construction in downtown, with the prices offered up to 15,000$ per unit for Multifamily buildings.

Site Application

Urban Sprawl

Density Accumulations

Site

Site The site for the civic project is located in the East Downtown, separated by South Fwy from Downtown. And highways define the effected site. The density is really low and the land is open enough to consider realistic action. There are train rails for rehabilitation purposes, which we can consider that train infrastructure exists. The project is a concentrated civic center, which will act as a heart of the new neighborhood . Therefore it is effecting more than its boundaries. The site includes 12 city blocks almost in the center of the effected region. Live Oak St. and, McKinney St. crossing and Folk St. and Ennis St. Crossing are defining the perimeters of the site. Downtown= 33,175,296 sq-ft Effected Site= 22,132,166 sq-ft Site fore civic center= 1,710,360 sq-ft 1 Block= 89,200 sq-ft

Site Application

Site Map Figure-Ground Green Space Transportation: Rails,Highways

Site

Site Application

Landmarks and contextual relationship with the site. Looking towards Houston,TX Core and East Downtown

Site

Site Application

Important Locations on the site / effected by the project

III

SUMMARY

Manifesto Illustrations of End Product

Project

PROJECT Concentrated city infrastructure will be tested. Site consists 12 city of Houston blocks. This hypothesis is the center for the new neighborhood that is going to be created. Highways are defining the perimeter of the site. 12 Block size civic centers will act as an origin point for the future development and formation of the urban scheme. This site is the small part of a bigger project. Starting from smaller and creating necessary city infrastructure while considering the future developments to the civic center. New Urbanism principles along with the concentrated civic center (precedent being Kulliye) will fuse together to create this new heart for neighborhoods.The main programs will be a City Hall, Transportation Hub, and Hotel. These programs are the essential part of this complex. This composition of buildings will be the core of the core. In corporation of green spaces, public and semi public will be used for variety and opportunity for recreational activities. A courtyard will attach these buildings to each other and each of them should have their semi public courtyard. 60% of the site will be open space and only the

Summary

HOUSTON,TX

2014

PLANNING

Project

rest can be developed. Ground level is for public use. The rest of the site determined location would be added after the first phase (the programs mentioned) is completed, these buildings would create the cultural and civic center of this neighborhood and become a model for future cities of neighborhoods. Composition of these civic buildings will effect more than its area, by its axis, location, and use. Houston Downtown:

33,175,296sq-ft

Affected Site (Neighborhood): Site: 1,285,360 sq-ft 1 Block:

89,202

sq-ft

22,132,166 sq-ft

Summary

HOUSTON,TX

RES PUBLICA

HOUSTON,TX

RES ECONOMICA

Project

HOUSTON,TX

CIVITAS - CITY OF DOWNTOWNS

Summary

PRECEDENTS

Diagrammatic Solution Utopian Understanding New Urbanism Critique Kulliye Effects in Urban Scale Precedents Precedent Comparison

Diagrammatic Solution

Connetion among the diagrams shows the relationship among them in order to solve the issue that is addressed, which is urban sprawl. Having the principals of New Urbanisim and an idea reaching back at 13th Century Ottoman Empire. The programs of the necessary civic establishments and infrastructure will be provided as a concentrated plaza, in this way these plazaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s will create the center and the maximum reaching perimeter for that town. It will grow by duplication, when the population is reached to its limit the anpther center will create more opportunities for invesment and growth. There will be main connections among these centers, preferably public transportation. The use of cars is still available, so as the suburban type of living. This project only deals with making the urban areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s more efficient.

Precedents

CTURE TRU AS FR

TURE UC TR RA

CITY IN F

IN KULLIYE PROGRAMS CAMI SULTAN’S KIOSKS SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DARUL KURRA DARUL HADIS LIBRARY TABHANE IMARET DARUSIFA HAMAMS HANS STABLES KERVANSARAI MOUSELUMS BEDESTEN ROOMS FOR SINGLES TOILETS FOUNTAINS PUBLIC USE FOUNTAINS MUVAKKITHANE

TRANSLATION TO CONTEMPORARY

GENERAL USE

CIVIC/REC/HEALTH/EMPLOYEMENT/EDUCATION/TRANSPORTATION/INFRASTRUCTURE

CITY HALL/PUBLIC HALLS POLICE/FIRE STATIONS SCHOOLS

CIVIC CIVIC EDUCATION

LIBRARY HOTEL FOOD COURT HOSPITAL BATHS/SPA BUSINESS/OFFICES/SHOPPING CENTERS GARAGE TRANSPORTATION CENTER CEMETARY/STATUE STOCK EXCHANGE/BANK LOW INCOME HOUSING TOILETS WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

EDUCATION EMPLOYEMENT CIVIC HEALTH HEALTH EMPLOYEMENT TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION RECREATION EMPLOYEMENT CIVIC CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE

CLOCK TOWER

CIVIC EDUCATION EDUCATION RECREATION RECREATION

ADDITIONAL CONTEMPORARY PROGRAMS MUSEUMS GALLERY THEATER PARKS

Utopian Understanding

Precedents

New Urbanism Critique

SEASIDE

Building Blocks

ACHIEVED

PROSPECT TOWN

Connectivity

Private vs. Public

GreenSpace

Communal Buildings

Parking

Building Blocks

Residential vs. Commerial use

Figure Ground

Connectivity

Green Space

Parking

Precedents

MARKET COMMON

Building Blocks

Retail vs. Commercial

Communal Spaces

Connectivity

Green Space

Parking

BLVD PLACE

Building Blocks

Building Footprint

Building Use

Connectivity

Green Space

Parking

Kulliye Effect in Urban Scale

SULEYMANIYE KULLIYESI

ISTANBUL 0

Figure Ground

Urban Fabric

Facadeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s that is in relation with Kulliye.

East - West Axis

North - South Axis

Precedents

VIII VI I

III II

IV V VII

Kulliye as the originator of districts

Main road that Kulliye established

COLOR CODING CIVIC EDUCATION RECREATION HEALTH EMPLOYEMENT TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSING

Precedents

SULEYMANIYE KULLIYESI Compositional relation with grid.

SULEYMANIYE KULLIYESI

I.I.T Compositional relation with grid.

SULEYMANIYE KULLIYESI & I.I.T

Kulliye out of its context creation of the center and orientation of the buildings.

Compositional comparison. Kulliye as self sustaining city and I.I.T as an open city placement of the buildings creating opportunities for gathering spaces.

SULEYMANIYE KULLIYESI & CIVIC COMPOSITION

I.I.T & CIVIC COMPOSITION

Comparison of the Civic Composition to its precedent interms of creating a center and a perimeter.

100

Separation of the buildings creating gathering space opportunities, and inner courtyards.

Precedents

AIR FORCE ACADEMY Compositional relation with grid.

SULEYMANIYE KULLIYESI & AIR FORCE ACADEMY Compositional comparison of Kulliye and A.F.A. creation of the center through the modularity. Also forming semi public courtyards.

AIR FORCE ACADEMY & CIVIC COMPOSITION Modulars as a whole creating Semi public courtyards and their relation to each other. The differentiation among Normative buildings vs. Extraordinary.

101

Precedent Comparison

0 ft

102

0 ft

270 ft 270 ft

0 ft

270 ft

0 ft

270 ft

Precedents FORMATION COMPARISON Diagram is showing the formational relationship among the building complexes listed below. This formational relationship also comes with the grid that these complexes sit in and their modular that creates the buildings itself.

SULEYMANIYE KULLIYESI ILLINOIS INSTITUTE of TECHNOLOGY COLORADO AIR FORCE ACADEMY CIVIC COMPOSITION

103

MODULAR

Kuliye Modularity C.C Modular Modulars to City

105

Kulliye Modularity

Ottoman Modular

Variable

Stable

Volumetric Relation & Facade arrangement

Ottoman Modulars 106

Modular

Growth Typology

Result

Variable

Stable

Section of various Modular sizes and articulation of windows

Ottoman Modulars 107

C.C Modular

108

Modular

109

Modulars to City

110

Modular

111

VII TYPOLOGY & MORPHOLOGY OF PROGRAMS

Civic Education Health Commerce Residential & Transportation Culture General Modular & Programs Programs & Facades

113

Civic

CITY)HALL PROGRAMS

sq#ft

Enclosed)Offices Cubes Small)Conference Large)Conference Small)Storage Large)File)Storage Break/Lunch)rooms Coffee)Spaces Copy/work)rooms Men's)Room Women's)room Closets Public)Conference)Desks Rlax/Nap/Nurse)Room Library Reception/Public)Atrium Bike)Storage Computer/Training)Room (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) TOTAL Tenant)USF

COURTHOUSE Gross)sq#ft

Unit)Counts M L

S 35 67 14

8050 15660 3275 5890 1680 3000 867 513 2478 1026 1058 195 524 462 132 1075 1090 667

PROGRAMS

Sr.)District)Courtrooms

Anciliary)Facilities

6 2

2 11

Jury)Facilities

2 2

1 2 2 1

District)Courtrooms

Anciliary)Facilities

Jury)Facilities

47642 )))))))))59,076

146.2

23.9

1.2

0.0

171.2

Magistrate)Courtrooms

Anciliary)Facilities

Jury)Facilities CITY)HALL)&)COURTHOUSE SQFT 63402 )))))))))78,618

171.8

UNIT)COUNTS M L 37.2

4.2

0.0

Bankruptcy)Courtrooms

Anciliary)Facilities

Witness/Att)Conf.)Rm. Public)Waiting)Area Equip.)Storage Judicial)Staff)Toilets Court)Reporter/Off&Str Shared)Work)Rm. Transcriber/Typsit)W.S Jury)Room Juror's)Toilets Coat)Closet Trial)Jury)Room Service)Unit Audio/Video)Equip. Sworn)Jury)Cust. Witness/Att)Conf.)Rm. Public)Waiting)Area Equip.)Storage Judicial)Staff)Toilets Court)Reporter/Off Shared)Work)Rm. Transcriber/Typsit)W.S Jury)Room Juror's)Toilets Coat)Closet Trial)Jury)Room Service)Unit Audio/Video)Equip. Sworn)Jury)Cust. Witness/Att)Conf.)Rm. Public)Waiting)Area Equip.)Storage Judicial)Staff)Toilets Court)Reporter/Off Shared)Work)Rm. Transcriber/Typsit)W.S Jury)Room Juror's)Toilets Coat)Closet Trial)Jury)Room Service)Unit Audio/Video)Equip. Sworn)Jury)Cust. Witness/Att)Conf.)Rm. Public)Waiting)Area Equip.)Storage Judicial)Staff)Toilets Court)Reporter/Off Shared)Work)Rm. (addition) (addition) Tenant)USF

114

sq#ft

Gross)sq#ft S

600 800 200 100 400 100 100 100 200 40 700 40 20 100 600 800 200 100 400 100 100 100 200 40 700 40 20 100 1200 1600 400 200 800 200 200 200 400 80 1000 80 40 200 600 800 160 100 400 100

1 0.4 2 0.4 0.4 0.4 1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4

1 3 1 1 1 2 0.3 0.3 0.2 1

1 0.4 2 0.4

15760 )))))))))19,542

25.6

Unit)Counts M L 1 1

3 1

1 2

13.4

3.0

0.0

Typology & Morphology of Programs

POLICE)STATION PROGRAMS Administration Common)Facilities Communications/Dispatch Crime/Forensic)Lab. Evidence Investigation Patrol Records Traffic Training Other)General&Spec.)A. (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) TOTAL Tenant)USF

sq#ft

FIRE)STATION

Gross)sq#ft S

3150 9000 3600 4950 4500 4500 3600 2250 2250 4500 2700

19 15 10 10

Unit)Counts M L 3 7 9

54.1

Hall)Reception Kitchen Dining)Hall Lounge Duty)Kitchen Dormitories Bathrooms Interior)Garage Outfits)Zone Equipment)Rooms Infirmary Presentation)Rooms Locker)Rooms Gymnasium Control)Tower Offices Multipurpose)Sports.)Cou. (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) Helipad (addition)

45000 )))))))))55,800

PROGRAMS

30.0

8.2

6.2

98.5

TOTAL Tenant)USF

sq#ft

Gross)sq#ft S

350 500 1645 3000 250 3000 430 13000 1615 1080 165 2700 1800 3300 900 500 10765

1 13 2

Unit)Counts M L 1 1 3 3

3 2 5

45000 )))))))))55,800

20.4

16.0

5.2

18.6

41.9

115

60.1

Education

ELEMENTARY,SCHOOL PROGRAMS

sq&ft

Administrative,Offices Art,Facilitiy Cafeteria Classrooms(5) Common,Areas/Courtyard Gymnasium Health,Services Lobby Media,Center Multipurpose,Rms. Music,Education Restrooms Science,Facility (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) TOTAL Tenant,USF

Gross,sq&ft

900 600 1500 3000 1500 1800 300 800 1500 1020 600 680 800

4 3

15000 ,,,,,,,,,18,600

116

MIDDLE,SCHOOL Unit,Counts M L 2 1

8.6

PROGRAMS

Administrative,Offices Audditorium/Performing,. Art,Facilitiy Cafeteria Classrooms(6) Common,Areas/Courtyard Gymnasium Health,Services Lobby Media,Center Multipurpose,Rms. Music,Education Restrooms Science,Facility Swimming,Facilities (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition)

1 2 1 2

11.3

4.1

2.3

26.2

TOTAL Tenant,USF

sq&ft

Gross,sq&ft

950 2700 750 2150 12200 1500 3500 350 550 1000 450 600 750 950 1600

30000 Unit,Counts M L 2 1 23

2 3

30000 ,,,,,,,,,37,200

6.7

XL 2 1

1 1 1 2 3

32.5

3.3

5.7

48.2

Typology & Morphology of Programs

HIGHSCHOOL PROGRAMS Administrative,Offices Audditorium/Performing,. Art,Facilitiy Cafeteria Classrooms(6) Common,Areas/Courtyard Gymnasium Health,Services Lobby Media,Center Multipurpose,Rms. Music,Education Restrooms Science,Facility Swimming,Facilities Outdoor,Facilities (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) TOTAL Tenant,USF

sq&ft

Gross,sq&ft

950 2700 750 2150 13200 1500 3500 350 550 1000 450 600 750 950 1600 4000

35000 Unit,Counts M L 2 1 25

2 3

35000 ,,,,,,,,,43,400

6.7

LIBRARY XL

PROGRAMS

Collection,Space Electronic,Work,Station User,Seating,Space Staff,Work,Space(Off.) Meeting,Space(Conf.) Special,use,Space Non,assignable,Space (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition)

1 2

1 1 1 2 3

34.4

3.3

8.5

52.8

TOTAL Tenant,USF

sq&ft

Gross,sq&ft

65000 22500 25000 15000 13500 6000 3000

S 97

150000 Unit,Counts M L 124

64 26

150000 ,,,,,,186,000

186.7

14 6

129.7

14.5

17.2

117

348.1

Health

HOSPITAL PROGRAMS Inpatient)rooms Reception&Regist. Admit. Records Outpatient)Clinics Emergency Laboratatories Morgue Surgery X#Ray)Dept. P.M)&)R. Pharmacy Post)Hospital)Space Out.)Pat.)Discharge In.)Pat.)Discharge Medical(in) Surgical(in) Psychiatric(in) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) TOTAL Tenant)USF

118

sq#ft

Gross)sq#ft S 94

22000 6000 3600 2400 1800 4200 4800 1200 6000 3000 3000 3600 3600 2400 2400 4020 4020 4020

13 13

17 17 17

82060 ))))))101,754

182.2

Unit)Counts M L

7 3 9 2 11

7 7 5 5

56.1

10.9

0.0

249.3

Typology & Morphology of Programs

SPA)CENTER)/)BATHS PROGRAMS Admin. Support&Recei Fitness Lobby Offices Group)Exercise Locker Structure)Activities Gymnasium Storage Pool (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) TOTAL Tenant)USF

sq#ft

Gross)sq#ft S 3

625 625 2500 417 208 1250 1250 1875 3750 625 1875

1 5

15000 )))))))))18,600

11.6

Unit)Counts M L 1

1 2 2

7.9

2.0

4.3

25.9

119

Commerce HOTEL PROGRAMS Guestrooms(250) Admin.)Off. Account)Off. Front)Off. Health)Club. Restaurant Kitchen Public)Toilets Lobby Retail)Shops Service)Entrance (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition)

sq#ft

BANK Gross)sq#ft S 418 3 3

97500 675 675 1350 2700 5063 3037 2025 7425 4050 13500

TOTAL Tenant)USF

13 9 17

138000 ))))))171,120

463.4

Unit)Counts M L

PROGRAMS

Vault Vestibule Teller)Stations Lobby Workroom Restrooms Janitor)Closets Large)Offs.(2) General)Offs.(6) Conference)Rms(2) Closing)Rms(2) Storage ATM)Station Coupon)Room (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition)

1 3

5 26

35.4

4.3

5.1

sq#ft

Gross)sq#ft

1150 1150 2900 5800 1200 1160 60 1160 1740 1300 1450 290 350 290

5 5 0

1 2 1

508.2

TOTAL Tenant)USF

20000 )))))))))24,800

150.0

Tenant)USF

)))))))))93,930

OFFICES PROGRAMS OFFICES(50) Off.)M(50) Off.)L(25) Off.)XL(25) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) TOTAL

120

sq#ft

Gross)sq#ft

9500 22500 18750 25000

75750

S 50

50.0

Unit)Counts M L 50

50.0

25.0

5 5 0.3

1 2 1

1.8

Typology & Morphology of Programs FOOD)COURT Unit)Counts M L 2 1 6 6

PROGRAMS

(M))Db#St.Units(38) Food)Receiving Storage Preparation)Area Serving)Areas Dining)Area Dish)Washing Trash Mechanical Admin)Off. Entrance/Queue (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition)

2 2 3

15.2

7.5

0.0

44.5

sq#ft

Gross)sq#ft S

20000

TOTAL Tenant)USF

20000 )))))))))24,800

0.0

Unit)Counts M L 38

38.2

0.0

38.2

RETAIL)UNITS PROGRAMS (S))Units(170) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) TOTAL Tenant)USF

sq#ft

Gross)sq#ft

39609

39608.64 )))))))))39,609

S 170

170.0

Unit)Counts M L

0.0

170.0

121

Residential & Transportation

LOW)INCOME)HOUSING(2) PROGRAMS Entrance Public)Restrooms Mechanic)Rm Laundry ROOMS(600) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) TOTAL Tenant)USF

122

sq#ft

Gross)sq#ft S

400 300 200 320 69898

1 1 1 300

Unit)Counts M L 1

0.0

71117.6 )))))))))88,186

303.5

0.0

304.3

Typology & Morphology of Programs

TRANSPORTATION)HUB PROGRAMS Waiting&Queuning)Areas Infornation)Center Train)Offices Waiting&Queuning)Areas Infornation)Center Light)Rail)Offices Waiting&Queuning)Areas Infornation)Center Bus)Offices Ticket)Queuning)Area Fare)Collection Offices Storage Equipment)Room Employee's)Locker&)WC Employee)Lounge Food)BAR Newsstands Vending)Machines Public)Toilets Mech.&Circulation (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) TOTAL Tenant)USF

sq#ft 65000 500 800 40000 400 550 11000 400 350 1000 800 850 250 250 4000 1400 2600 550 1400 2500

Gross)sq#ft S 66300

40950

3.4

2.4

11750

1.5

3150

3.6 1.1 1.1

5400

4550 2500 25000

134600 ))))))166,904

2.4 6.0

21.5

Unit)Counts M L 1.0

0.8

1.5

XL 44.6

42.9

11.8

1.1

7.6 2.7 5.0

4.8 0.0

24.0

55.8

44.6

145.9

123

Culture

MUSEUM PROGRAMS Lobby/Admin Museum,Shop Auditorium Exhibition,Rms(7) Cafeteria Kitchen Public,Restrooms Garden(Courtyard) Storage Service (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) TOTAL Tenant,USF

124

sq&ft

Gross,sq&ft S

1800 1200 2350 21000 850 350 1200 4800 1100 350

35000 Unit,Counts M L 2 4

2 5

35000 ,,,,,,,,,43,400

8.2

XL 1

Lobby Shop Auditorium Library Restrooms Offices Gallery,Spaces CafĂŠ Storage Service Courtyard (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition)

10.5

GALLERY PROGRAMS

22.5

4.5

45.7

TOTAL Tenant,USF

sq&ft

Gross,sq&ft

2000 1200 2450 900 1200 550 18850 1500 950 600 4800

4 5 2

35000 ,,,,,,,,,43,400

4 5 2

3.9

Typology & Morphology of Programs

35000 Unit,Counts M L 2 5

3 2

THEATHER PROGRAMS

XL 1

Entrance

Lobby Vestibules Coat,Check Retail,Area Media,Library Main,Auditorium Seating Stage Support,Spaces Projection,Control Equipment,Storage Rear,Projection,Roon Public,Toilets(Male) Public,Toilets(Female) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition) (addition)

11.6

25.4

1.4

52.3

TOTAL Tenant,USF

Gross,sq&ft

sq&ft 3100 190 240 310 240 19100 4770 470 470 630 190 290

4080

S 1 1

23870

3 1 1

7.6

2050

30000 ,,,,,,,,,37,200

Unit,Counts M L

1 1

2.4

8.4

13.1

125

31.6

General

#-OF-MODULAR-'S-ACCORDING-TO-PROGRAM'S-AREA MODULAR SMALL MEDIUM LARGE X-LARGE

Tenant-Usable-Factor

12 18 24 30

1.24

SIZE

19 29 39 49

233 524 932 1456

PROGRAMS HEIGHT 12 sqft 18 sqft 24 sqft 30 sqft

CITY-HALL&COURTHOUSE

UNITS E

------------78,618

sqft

POLICE-STATION

------------55,800

sqft

1-M.-MAINSPACE-&-COURTYARD(2)

FIRE-STATION

------------55,800

sqft

1-M.MAINSPACE-(LOOK-AT-THE-SCHEMATIC-DIA

ELEMENTRY-SCHOOL

------------18,600

sqft

1-COURTYARD-W/-2-M.MAINSPACE,-1-S.M.SPAC

MIDDLE-SCHOOL

------------37,200

sqft

1-COURTYARD,GYM(6210sqft),-FOOD-COURT-&-

HIGH-SCHOOL

------------43,400

sqft

GYM,-FOOD-COURT,-COURTYARDS(2)

LIBRARY

----------186,000

sqft

1-L.C.A-W/-COURTYARD

----------171,120

sqft

250-UNITS-1.LC.A-&-2-M.C.A

------------18,600

sqft

1-M.C.A,-2-S.C.A,-MULTIPLE-IND.-UNITS

HOTEL

250

BATH-HOUSE FOOD-COURT

------------24,800

sqft

CAN-BE-ATTACHED-TO-PERIMETERS-OF-THE-PRO

HOSPITALS

200

----------101,754

sqft

1.L.C.A,-2.-M.C.A

OFFICES

150

------------93,930

sqft

TOWERLIKE-150-OFFICES-FOR-RENTABLE-INCOM

RETAIL-UNITS

170

------------39,609

sqft

1-UNIT-PER-RETAIL,-ATTACHED-AND-APPLIED-AS

TRANSPORTATION-HUB

----------166,904

sqft

3-MAIN-SYSTEMS.-RAIL,L.RAIL,BUS-1-L.C.A,-3-M.C

BANK

------------24,800

sqft

TOWERLIKE

------------88,186

sqft

ON-TOP-OF-RETAIL-UNITS….

MUSEUM

------------43,400

sqft

2-COURTYARDS-1-L.C.A-AND-MULTIPLE-S.C.A-

GALLERY

------------43,400

sqft

2-COURTYARDS-LOUIS-KAHN-PRECEDENT

THEATHER

------------37,200

sqft

1-L.C.A-AND-THEATHER…

TOTAL

------1,329,121

sqft

LOW-INCOME-HOUSING

126

COMMENTS 1-BIG-MAINSPACE-&-COURTYARD

300

Typology & Morphology of Programs

SITE

#-MODULAR-NEEDED MODULAR-SIZE

SIZE-OF-PROG. #-OF-MODULAR

#-XL

#-L

#-M

#-S

#-OF-MODULAR

233

---------78,618

--------------337

233

---------55,800

--------------239 -------6 --------8 -----30 --------54 ----------------99

AGRAM-OLD-DESIGN-FOR-S.F

233

---------55,800

--------------239

CE-AS-LIBRARY(5,000sqft)

233

---------18,600

----------------80 -------2 --------4 -----11

----------9 ----------------26

-MEDIA-ROOM(8000sqft)

233

---------37,200

--------------160 -------6 --------3 -----33

----------7 ----------------48

233

---------43,400

--------------186 -------8 --------3 -----34

----------7 ----------------53

233

------186,000

--------------798

--130

-----187

-------------348

233

------171,120

--------------734 -------5 --------4 -----35

-----463

-------------508

233

---------18,600

----------------80 -------4 --------2

-------8 --------12 ----------------26

233

---------24,800

--------------106

---E

----E

-----38

233

------101,754

--------------437

---E

-----11 -----56

ME-FOR-FACILITY.

233

---------93,930

--------------403

S-A-CORRIDOR-

233

---------39,609

C.A

233

OGRAMS

---E

--------1 -----24

-----146

-------------171

----19 --------5 -----16 --------20 ----------------60

----17

-----14

------E

----------------38

-----182

-------------249

----25

-----25 -----50 --------50

-------------150

--------------170

---E

----E

-----170

-------------170

------166,904

--------------716

----45

-----56 -----24 --------21

-------------146

233

---------24,800

--------------106

---E

--------7 -----15 --------22 ----------------44

233

---------88,186

--------------378

---E

----E

233

---------43,400

--------------186 -------5

-----23 -----10

233

---------43,400

--------------186 -------1

-----25 -----12 --------14 ----------------52

233

---------37,200

--------------160

TOTAL

---1,329,121 -----------5,705

----13 --------8

---E

-------1

-----304

RULES TOTAL-SITE BUILDING VOID BUILDING-MODULAR MODULAR-NEEDED

SOLID-sqEft VOID-sqEft TOTAL

BUILDING-%

VOID-%

40% 60% 100% ---------------------------1,285,360 sqft -------------------------------514,144 sqft -------------------------------771,216 sqft -----------2,207 -----------5,705

PRICING $-per-sqEft ---1,329,121 $---1,000.00 ------771,216 $------500.00

GROSS-TOTAL $--1,329,121,344.00 $-----385,608,000.00 $--1,714,729,344.00

-------------304

----------8 ----------------46

-------2 ----------8 ----------------32

--156 ---202 --530 --1,683

127

HOSPITAL

101,754sq-ft

lIBR

Modular & Programs

FIRE STATION

55,800sq-ft

CITY HALL

59,076sq-ft

POLICE STATION

55,800sq-ft

HOSPITAL Emergency

Recep & Regist.

Labs

Surgery

Admit.

P. Hospital Dischrg.

Pharmacy

Records

Inpatient Rms

X-Ray Dept.

Surgical(in)

Medical(in)

Psychiatric(in)

P.M&R

Outpat. Clinic

Morgue

BATH/FITNESS

In.Pat. Dischrg

Out.Pat.Dischrg

BATH/FITNESS

18,600sq-ft

Gymnasium

Fitness

Struc. Acts

Support&Re- Lockers ci.

Pool

Admin.

FIRE STATION

Storage Lobby Off.

Sports Court

Int. Garage

Dorms

Presen. Rms

Locker Rms

Grp. Exercise Lounge

88,186sq-ft

Din. Hall

Recep. Hall.

Outfit Zone

Infirm. Duty Kitchen. WC.

Equip. Rms

Off.

Gymnasium

LOW INCOME HOUSING

Kitchen

LOW INCOME HOUSING Entrance

Pub. WC

Rooms (S) Unt. (600)

Laundry Mec. Rm.

CITY HALL Public Atr.

Lrg. Conf. Rms

Lrg FIle Strorage

Cubes

Break Rms

Men WC

Women WC

Comp Rm. Pbl. Conf Dsk

Nurse Rm

Bike Str.

MUSEUM Lobby/Admin

Garden

Exhibition Rms

Auditorium

Mus. Shop

W.C

Storage Service Cafeteria

Kitchen

POLICE STATION Common Fac.

GALLERY

43,400sq-ft

Admin.

GALLERY Lobby

Courtyard

Gallery Spaces

Auditorium

Cafe

Train.

Off.

W.C

Service

Storage

Library

Shop

HOTEL Lobby

Restaurant

Health Club

Serv. Entr.

Front Off.

THEATER Seating

Stage

Retail A.

Equip. Strge

R. Proj. Rm

Coat Checks WC Men

Projection Cntrl

Lobby

Vestibules

M. Library WC Women

TRANSPORTATION HUB Waiting&Queuning Areas(Train)

Info. Cntr (Train)

THEATHER TRANSPORTATION HUB

Train Off.

Waiting&Queuning Areas (Light Rail)

Info. Cntr (Light Rail)

Ligth Rail Off.

Waiting&Queuning Areas (Bus)

37,200sq-ft

166,904sq-ft

Off.(

CULTURE CIVIC EDUCATION

BUILDINGS W/ COURTYARD SHARING THE SAME BUILDING PARTIALLY UNDERGROUND

COMMERCIAL HEALTH

128

50’x30’

39’x24’

29’x18’

19’x12’

TRANSPORTATION RESIDENTIAL

ENTRANCE/COMMON SPACES SERVICE AREAS STORAGE & SERVICE ENTRY

OFFICES

RARY

TypologyELEMENTARY & Morphology of Programs SCHOOL

186,000sq-ft

18,600sq-ft

COURTHOUSE

19,542sq-ft

HIGH SCHOOL

43,400sq-ft

LIBRARY Meeting Conf.

User Seating Space

Collection Space

Elec. Work Stations

Staff Off.

Special use Space

Non-assign. Space

HIGH SCHOOL Out. Facil.

Auditorium

Gymnasium

Comm Area.

Swimming Facil.

Classrooms

M.Purp. Rms Health Serv.

Admin. Off.

Media Cntr.

C. Tower

WC. Sci. Facil.

Lobby Cafeteria

Mus. Edu

Art Facil.

COURTHOUSE Witt. Conf. Rm

Pb. Wait. Area

T.Jury Rm

Equip. Str

C.Rep Off&Str

Trans. Jury W.S

Sworn J.Cust

Jury Rm

Service Unt.

Jurrs. WC

Aud/Vid Equip.

Jud. Stff. WC Shrd W. Rm

Coat Closet

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Cafeteria

Gymnasium

Comm Area.

Sml. Conf.

Enclosed Off.

Sml. Str

Classrooms(5)

Sci. Facil.

Media Cntr.

Health Serv.

WC. Art Facil.

Admin. Off.

Copy W.Rm.

M.Purp. Rms

Mus. Edu

Lobby

Closet Coffee Spc.

Lib.

MIDDLE SCHOOL Cafeteria

Auditorium

Gymnasium

Comm Area.

Swimming Facil.

Classrooms

Lobby

MIDDLE SCHOOL

Health Serv.

37,200sq-ft

M.Purp. Rms

Admin. Off.

WC. Sci. Facil.

Media Cntr.

Crime/For. Dept.

Inves.

Comm. Dispatch

Patrol

Traffic.

Mus. Edu

BANK

Evidence

Vestibule

Gen.&Specs.

Art Facil.

BANK Lobby

Teller Station

Gen. Off.

Lrg. Off.

Conf. Rms

Recs. Closing Rms

W.Rm

WC.

24,800sq-ft

ATM

Strge

Vault

J.Closet Coup. Rm

HOTEL Kitchen

Retail Shops

Pub. WC

171,120sq-ft

Guestrooms(250)

Admin. Off. Account Off.

FOOD COURT

(M) Db-Stry Units (38)

Info. Cntr (Bus)

Ticket Queuning Area.

Bus Off. Fare Collec.

Off.

Empl Lock&WC

Empl. Lounge

Food Bar

RETAIL UNITS

Vending Machines

( S) Direct Entrance Unts (170)

Strge Newsstands

Equip. Rm Pub. WC.

FFICES

(XL)

Off.(L)

Off.(M)

Off. (S)

3,930sq-ft

RETAIL UNITS

39,609sq-ft

129

24,800sq-ft

Programs & Facades

Theather

Gallery

CULTURE

130

Museum

Town Hall / Courthouse Police Station

CIVIC

Fire Station

Libr

rary

Typology & Morphology of Programs

Schools

EDUCATION

Bank

COMMERCE

Hospital

Spa/Fitness

HEALTH

Low Income Housing

RESIDENTIAL

Transportation Hub

TRANSPORTATION

131

VIII

EVOLUTION

Systematic Application Future Context Evolution 1-5 Old vs. New

133

Systematic Application

134

Evolution

135

Future Context

136

Evolution

137

138

Evolution

139

140

Evolution

141

142

Evolution

143

144

Evolution

145

146

Evolution

147

Old vs. New

Marking the center of new downtown.

Downtown Houston, TX

Civic Composition without density. C

Urban Sprawl

148

Sports Facility

Evolution

Perimeter

Civic Composition with its maximum density. Centre

Peak Density

149

CIVIC COMPOSITION

Thesis Site Plan Plan Section A Section B Volumetric System View From Piazza Library Facade Entrance View From Reading Seats Sun Clock

151

Thesis

This thesis asserts that cities are growing in an inefficient way. Suburbia is a waste of resources (e.g land, energy, pollution, etc.). Vishaan Chakrabati, in his book A Country of Cities states “recent data from the U.S. suggests that economic growth and job creation are stronger in city center and poverty is rising faster in suburbs. There is also a link between climbing gasoline prices and foreclosure rates in suburban communities” (2013, p.12). Vehicular use caused by the growth of suburbs forces people to rely on the use of automobiles. Dispersed civic infrastructures and daily life activities, both in suburbia and in cities, result in the accumulation in commuting time and segregation of places by their use. This can lead to acceleration in pollution and traffic caused by the increased, and the necessary use of cars in modern day suburbs. How should our cities grow? How can we solve this issue in the long-term? This thesis, “Civic Composition: An architectural Solution to an Urban Problem” proposes a solution to this ill growth; the composition of civic infrastructure, which will be an originator to a hyper-dense populated city, big enough to support public transportation and other amenities that less populated areas can not. This thesis, instead of banning the use of automobiles, will demonstrate preferable opportunities that will outline the difference between the suburbian and urban lifestyle, while stating that civic infrastructure should be concentrated in the city centers. This thesis analyzes New Urbanism and civic building complexes in an urban context while approaching to the issue. As precedents, the New Urbanist projects are human oriented and they address contemporary problems (e.g congestion, pollution, waste of time) by creating pedestrian friendly areas, multiple foci or focus, and space at the regional level. These cities are public transportation oriented, mixed used, and high-density living projects.

152

Civic Composition

The thesis begins with an analysis of Ottoman structures, known as Kulliye. The Kulliye are good models of concentrated civic infrastructure. The project’s site is Houston, Texas, U.S. It is a novel move towards new urbanism by considering it in an urban scale, while incorporating civic buildings in it. This thesis can become possible with the ideology of the primary stage discussed above and the support of precedents. Contrary to the existing New Urbanism models, this proposal engages civic buildings at the urban scale. By learning from Kulliye and twentieth century civic American precedents, this thesis aims at fulfilling Leon Krier’s vision, “A city is not an accident but the result of coherent visions and aims. It is an invention of the human spirit” (Krier, 2009).

Kaan R. Sanalan

153

Systematic Site Plan Application

154

Civic Composition

155

Systematic Application Plan

156

Civic Composition

157

Section A

158

Civic Composition

159

Section B

160

Civic Composition

161

Volumetric System

162

Civic Composition

163

View From Piazza

164

Civic Composition

165

Library Facade

166

Civic Composition

167

Entrance

168

Civic Composition

169

View From Reading Seats

170

Civic Composition

171

Sun Clock

172

Civic Composition

173

APENDIX

174

175

Annotated Bibliography

ACKERMAN, JAMES S. Palladio. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966. Perspective of Palladio, his urban perspective-basilica.

Formation and architectural establishments of Kulliyeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s among themselves and how they relate to urban, with examples and set of rules. CHAKRABARTI, VISHAAN. A Country of Cities: A Manifesto for an Urban America.New York: Metropolis Books, 2013.

Ottoman garden understanding and organizations. From public to Private uses.

Precedents, examples of civic architecture and civic art. Critisms and suggestion along with rules of designing public space and architecture.

Understanding the main elements of the city or Urban form.

176

Apendix

Comparison of cities and their organization.

KRIER, LEON. Architecture: Choice or Fate. Windsor, Berks, England: Andreas Papadakis, 1998. General concepts of architecture and critisicm of the practice. KRIER, LEON, and Demetri Porphyrios. Léon Krier, Houses, Palaces, Cities. London: Architectural Design AD Editions] ;, 1984. Architectural understanding and relation to urban scale, along wiht suggestions, claims and examples of Houses, palaces, and cities. How each of them relate to each other.

General concepts of architecture and critisicm of the practice. Explanation author’s projects and design decisions with his perspective of architecture. KRIER, LEON, and Robert A. M. Stern. Albert Speer: Architecture 1932-1942. New York: Monacelli Press, 2013. Examples of Albert Speer’s projects for Berlin, large scale urban projects and city planing of Berlin.

177

Annotated Bibliography

KRIER, ROB. Architectural Composition. New York: Rizzoli, 1988.

KRIER, ROB. Elements of Architecture. London: Architectural Design, AD Publications ;, 1983.

KRIER, ROB, and Hans Ibelings. Town Spaces: Contemporary Interpretations in Traditional Urbanism : Krier. Kohl Architects. Basel: Birkhauser-Publishers for Architecture, 2003. Analysis of urban projects and explanations through diagramming of city structures and formations. MANSBRIDGE, JOHN. Graphic History of Architecture. New York: Viking Press, 1967.

REZZONICO, GIULIA, and Rem Koolhaas. Elements of Venice: ...on the Accasion of FUNDAMENTALS, the 14th Venice Architecture Biennale... Baden: Lars M端ller Publ., 2014.

178

Apendix

SPECK, JEFF. Walkable C ity: H ow D owntown Can save A merica, O ne S tep at a Time. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012.

YESCOMBE, E . R. Public-private P artnerships Principles o f Policy a nd F inance. Amsterdam: Elsevier ;, 2007.

City of Houstonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s actions on the ongoing Urban sprawl problem. Incorporating New urbanism in to their city planning.

179

180

181

Kaan R. Sanalan Syracuse University School of Archtecture 315-572-1441 krsanalan@gmail.com