2019 Portfolio

Selected Works

Andrew Cunningham

2

1

4

6 3

5

A visual history of home

Andrew Cunningham issuu.com/arcunningham

B. Arch 2012 M. Arch 2013 M. U. P.* 2020

4

Table of Contents

Resume

6

University of Washington

Leshi Waterfront Redevelopment Tacoma LCY - Architectural Typology U-District Mobility Report Northgate Redevelopment Northgate Apartment Redevelopment

8 - 13 14 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 22 - 23

Low Income Housing Institute

Frank Chopp Tiny House Grant Proposal Licton Springs Hygiene Ramp

26 - 29 30 - 31

Design

Main Street Studio

BDCL Design Intl.

Junliang Masterplan Competition

32 - 35 36 - 39

Northeastern University Masters Thesis

Air-Rights Research Parallel Transit Corridor TOD Hybrid Building

40 52 56

Urban Design Research GIS Walkability Study

74

Senior Thesis

Future Use Building

84

Built Work

International Students and Scholars Institute

96 5

Andrew Cunningham EDUCATION

425.753.6656 cunningham.andrew@me.com 1819 23rd Ave, Apt E318 issuu.com/arcunningham Seattle, WA 98122

Masters: M. Urban Planning Masters: M. Arch, Bachelors: B.S. Arch,

University of Washington Northeastern University, Northeastern University,

Seattle, WA Boston, MA Boston, MA

2018-2020

Study Abroad: Sustainable Transit

Delft University of Technology

Delft, Netherlands

2012

Study Abroad: Architecture

Academic Initiatives Abroad

Rome, Italy

2010

2012-2013 2006-2012

PROFESSIONAL Summer 2018 - Fall 2018 Tiny House Project Manager: Low Income Housing Institute, Seattle, WA -Participated in project management meetings with the City of Seattle for build out of 2 encampments.

-Designed graphics for grant applications and successfully coordinated $12 million application.

-Created internal tools to engage volunteers more efficiently & effectively.

-Participated in lengthy meeting processes to create plans for stakeholders and organizational interests.

Tiny House Project Coordinator: Low Income Housing Institute, Seattle, WA -Negotiated with City of Seattle and stakeholders on two separate encampment moves.

-Developed site feasibility studies to assist identifying preferred sites.

-Assisted with various design needs while consulting with design professionals.

-Consulted with other design professionals and managed workflow for projects.

Summer 2017 - Winter 2017

Summer 2016 - Winter 2017 Volunteer / Architectural Designer: Architects Without Borders, Seattle, WA -Worked with a team on design proposal for a Kenyan Orphanage through Little Drops Foundation.

-Provided design research for local building construction & vernacular precedents.

-Designed presentation materials for Non-Governmental Organization client deliverable.

6

Urban & Architectural Design: BDCL Design Intl., Seattle, WA -Collaborated with a group of architects on a master plan for Junliang City.

-Coordinated 3D modeling and created graphic material for the competition submission.

-Prepared development plans and design guidelines for submission material.

-Produced the published submission product and coordinated presentation material.

Winter - Spring 2014

Architectural Design Intern: Northeastern University, Boston,MA Facilitated concept designs, feasibility studies, schematic designs, construction documents, and finish schedules for the needs of the Universities 2.5 million sq. ft. campus. Conducted field measurements for as-build documentation. Generated renderings of projects for clients.

Managed client communication and relations.

Fall 2011

Urban Design Intern: Massachusetts Port Authority, Boston, MA Responsible for updating the port-wide basemap and creating graphics for office presentations and documentation. Assisted with creating presentations for potential real-estate investors.

Conducted feasibility studies for LEED certification process of existing port properties.

Observed infrastructure planning and development process.

Fall 2009

Interests

SKILLS Photoshop

Kerkythea

3D Printing

Illustrator

Podium

Architecture

InDesign VRay

Art & Photography

Autocad FormZ

Biking

Revit

Mac OS X

Hiking

Sketchup

Windows 7

Transit

ArcGIS Microsoft Office

Urbanism

Google Earth

Volunteering

iWork & iLife

7

A

Leschi Waterfront Redevelopment X.O LAND USE AND ZONING

Seattle, WA

E YESLER WAY

EXISTING CONDITIONS

B

E LID AV EUC

TEXT

E HUR

E LID AV EUC

SEATTLE

EGIONAL CONTEXT

CENTRAL AREA

S

Park

Current Uses

Restaurant, Office, and Storage

Parking Lot

Height Restrictions

40’ maximum

30’ maximum

Floor Area Ratio

3.25 maximum

-

Setback Requirements

Front: First floor dwellings must be 4’ above or 10’ back from street Rear: 10’ next to residentially zoned lot Sides: 15’ next to residentially zoned lot Parking: 1 per unit; No min. in Urban Villages

-

Site Portion A

Site Portion B

Parcel Numbers

#4114601145

#4114601195

Site Area

41,700 sq ft

20,200 sq ft

Zoning Classification

NC 1-40

SF 5000

Designated Land Uses

Mixed-Use Commercial

Park

Current Uses

Restaurant, Office, and Storage

Parking Lot

Height Restrictions

40’ maximum

30’ maximum

Floor Area Ratio

3.25 maximum

-

Setback Requirements

Front: First floor dwellings must be 4’ above or 10’ back from street Rear: 10’ next to residentially zoned lot Sides: 15’ next to residentially zoned lot Parking: 1 per unit; No min. in Urban Villages

-

Early Design Guidance Parcels: 4114601145 and 4114601195 2018.03.09

8

35TH AVE S

S X

LE SC HI PL

35TH AVE S

POWER AVE

The site is corner. Th develope zoned for all Seattle S

Single Family SF5000

Early Design Guidance Parcels: 4114601145 and 4114601195 2018.03.09 S JACKSON ST

Figure X - Z

Low Rise LR1 & LR3 Neighborhood Commercial (NC 1-40)

LE SC HI PL

S JACKSON ST

AV ES

N

E YESLER WAY

S MAIN ST

1000’

SF 5000

LA KE SID E

500’

LAK ESID E AV ES

Mixed-Use Commercial

35TH AVE S

250’

SH WA KE LAS JACKS

E HURON ST

NC 1-40

S MAIN ST

0’

20,200 sq ft

Designated E YESLER WAY Land Uses

Figure 1 - Site Context

14601145 and 4114601195 2018.03.09

#4114601195

Zoning Classification

AV ES

Ave

41,700 sq ft

LA KE SID E

Erie Ave

SITE

Lakesid e

B

Yessler ROW

VD BL

ON #4114601145 GT

IN SH WA KE LA

E SUPERIOR ST

Site Portion B

ERI

hi Was

vd.

n Bl

ngto

Lake

Site AreaE HURON ST

Site Portion A

E ERIE AV

A

Parcel Numbers

POWER AVE

E SUPERIOR ST

Open Space

Figure X - Zoning Map

Figure X - Land Use Map

The site is composed of two portions that can be split along parcel lines, as shown in the corner. The two portions are currently zoned for different uses. The built portion of the pr developed exclusively on portion A, while portion B would be developed to serve as a pu zoned for open space uses, but is currently being use as a parking lot. The park would be all Seattleites, and increase publically accessible views on the waterfront.

X.O PRIVATIZATION OF WATERFRONT

SITE

X.O CONSIDERATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS NEIGHBORHOOD DEMOGRAPHICS

GEOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS Geographic contraints perpetuate Leschi’s perceived separation from the rest of Seattle, including Lake Washington to the east and the steep topography to the west.

As shown below, the street grid in the Central District is disrupted as you move east into Leschi, where the irregularly curved roads conform to topographical constraints.

The steep topography acts as a barrier to the integration of the two neighborhoods, This image shows one of the few “publically accesible” areas in the area and forces commercial activity to the more easily developed waterfront area.

Race/Ethnicity Breakdown 1%

7%

6%

5% 10%

Leschi

Perpetuating the feeling of exclusivity that characterizes Leschi is the general lack of public space along the waterfront. The area directly surrounding the site has been largely privatized. Indeed even the officially designed public space is not conducive to public use. As shown in the photo above, this meager space reseved for ‘public access’ is only accessible after walking through a private parking lot. Further, our site includes an area designed for park uses, but that is currently being used as a parking lot, which does not take advantage of the potential benefits for improving Leschi’s public realm.

Our proposed development aims to make better use of waterfront spaces for public enjoyment.

2% 1%

71% 8% 13% White Black or African American Two or More Races Asian Hispanic or La�no, Any Race Some Other Race American Indian/Alaskan Na�ve

Seattle

5%

64%

7%

Figure 6 - Race/Ethnicity Breakdown

SITE

As discussed, Leschi is an affluent neighborhood bordering Lake Washington. Following decades of redlining, Leschi remains significantly Private whiter than the restProperty of Seattle, as Waterfront shown above. The wealth disparity is also significant, as shown below, with Leschi residents making nearly two times more than the average Seattleite. These neighborhood demographics have influenced the exclusive character of the area and Early Design Guidance Parcels: 4114601145 and 4114601195 2018.03.09 play into the site’s development context which may be perceived as an unwanted change to the neighborhood character.

X

Median Household Income Sea�le

Leschi

Topographical Barrier $0

$25,000

$50,000

$75,000

$100,000

Figure 7 - Median Household Income Early Design Guidance Parcels: 4114601145 and 4114601195 2018.03.09

$125,000

$150,000

Figure 8 - Geographic Constraints

9 X

8.3 Orthographic Drawings 8.3 Drawings SITEOrthographic PLAN SITE PLAN

Sections Sections Option 2

A

A

Option 2

A

A

Option 1

A

A

Option 1

A

A

X.O Massing Analysis

Optio

ZONING & PARKING REQUIREMENTS Option 1

Option 2

Parking Solutions Residential X

Early Design Guidance 2018.03.13

Commercial

Early Design Guidance 2018.03.13

X

Parking

These photos act as our inspiration regarding how to accomodate the required parking that provides pleasing design without detracting from pedestrian access.

10

Optio

ntial

rcial

king

Option 2

Figure X - Option 1 Site Programing

Option 1

X.O Massing Analysis 2 REQUIREMENTS ZONING & PARKING

2

Option 1

1

1

3

Option 2

X.O MASSING ANALYSIS

ive zoning allowances.

3

Parking Solutions Residential

Option 1Option 2

Figure X - Option 1 Site Programing

Commercial

Parking

Figure X - Option 2 Site Programing

BUILDING ENVELOPE AXON

60’ 50’ 40’

+10’ +10’

2

X

1

These photos act as our inspiration regarding how to accomodate the required parking that provides pleasing design without detracting from pedestrian access.

3

+10’ 50’ 40’

Figure X - Option 2 Site Programing Early Design Guidance Parcels: 4114601145 and 4114601195 2018.03.09

Option 2

10’

11

LA

KE

SID

EA VE

NU E

PUBL

IC PLA

ZA

X.O PRELIMINARY DESIGN

PUBLIC GREEN SPACE

Early Design Guidance Parcels: 4114601145 and 4114601195 2018.03.09

12

X

13

Origination of the Street Grid & Architectural Heritage

Preservation & U

The three different neighborhoods in Tacoma have vastly different stories behind their origination and their urban fabric.

Mapping significant

Tacoma Livable City Year Studio: Architectural Typologies Tacoma, WA

Proctor - A Streetcar Suburb

Proctor - A Streetcar Suburb Proctor, one of the oldest business districts in Tacoma was founded as one of Tacoma’s streetcar suburbs at the turn of the 20th century. The neighborhood was a relatively affluent residential neighborhood. The blocks are laid out square with residential green boulevards and large houses.

The blocks are homogeneously square and small. The neighborhood centers around N Proctor St. and N 26th St.

300’ 300’ 300’ 300’ 300’ 300’ 300’ 300’ 290’

330’

330’

320’

Proctor Street Grid

Hilltop - Tacoma’s First Neighborhood

14

and Buren decided to develop a small apartment building.

300’

320’

320’

320’

340’

360’

330’

280’

360’

360’

Graphic Credit: Hayden

BLOCK TYPOLOGY AND ADAPTABILITY

Typology Study around the 20-minute neighborhood center.

Utility Park / Open Space Institutional / Public Industrial Commercial Multi-Family Residential

Proctor - Preserving Character Mixed Residential

- Courtyard cottages mid-block can be developed into denser multi-family residential.

- Garages off service alley.

- Vacant lots scarce.

N 30th St

Big Box Commercial

- Single building surrounded by parking on perimeter streets.

- Building is low-rise “Big-Box” commercial.

- Ample opportunities for infill development on underutilized land along perimeter of block.

- Multiple densities compatible with infill.

N 30th St

N 26th St N 26th St

Neighborhood Commercial N Alder St

N Alder St

N Union Ave

N Union Ave

N Proctor St

N Proctor St

- Small grain cellular commercial storefronts. Small storefronts along street to accommodate more stores.

- Parking in rear off service alley or on street.

- Minimal vacant space as potential to be redeveloped.

N 21stSt

Utility

N 21stSt

Park / Open Space Institutional / Public Industrial Commercial Multi-Family Residential

Block Typology Map

N

Single Family Residential

- Homogeneous single family housing potential to be developed with backyard DADU’s, cottages, and carriage houses.

- Consistent setbacks for residential structures.

- Garages off service alley - Vacant lots scarce in single family blocks, all lots developed.

1000’

15

Hilltop - Inspiring Vitality

Utility Park / Open Space Institutional / Public Industrial Commercial Multi-Family

290’

Hilltop - Tacoma’s First Neighborhood 330’

330’

320’

300’

320’

320’

320’

340’

360’

330’

280’

360’

360’

Graphic Credit: Hayden

Proctor Street Grid

Hilltop - Tacoma’s First Neighborhood

and Buren decided to develop a small apartment building.

Hilltop, directly adjacent to Tacoma’s booming downtown, was a vibrant and diverse commercial district and home to many working class families. Many blocks consisted of both single family and multi-family residential. The blocks mainly square, with some joined into long rectangles along service alleys. The neighborhood centers around MLK Jr. Way and S 11th St.

380’ 380’

ornell Bros., contr.

380’ 380’ 380’ 380’ 360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

Hilltop Street Grid

South Tacoma - Pacific Northwest Railroad Town

16

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

Graphic Credit: Hayden

Mixed Residential

- Courtyard cottages mid-block can be developed into denser multi-family residential.

- Garages off service alley.

- Vacant lots scarce.

Utility Big Box Commercial

Park / Open Space Institutional / Public

- Single building surrounded by parking on perimeter streets.

- Building is low-rise “Big-Box� commercial.Industrial - Ample opportunities for infill development on underutilized land Commercial along perimeter of block.

Multi-Family - Multiple densities compatible with infill.

N 30th St

Residential N 26th St

Neighborhood Commercial N Alder St

N Union Ave

N Proctor St

- Small grain cellular commercial storefronts. Small storefronts along street to accommodate more stores.

- Parking in rear off service alley or on street.

- Minimal vacant space as potential to be redeveloped.

6th St.

N 21stSt

Utility Park / Open Space Institutional / Public

Single Family Residential

Industrial Commercial Multi-Family Residential

N

pology Map

9th St.

- Homogeneous single family housing potential to be developed with backyard DADU’s, cottages, and carriage houses.

- Consistent setbacks for residential structures.

- Garages off service alley - Vacant lots scarce in single family blocks, all lots developed.

11th St.

- Inspiring Vitality

Utility

I. St.

J. St.

13th St.

Park / Open Space Institutional / Public Industrial

MLK Jr W

6th St.

Multi-Family Residential

Institutional

Ainsworth

- Originally single family residential blocks demolished during urban renewal of Tacoma.

- Large buildings clustered around each other on part of blocks with ground level parking. Buildings do not respond to human scale.

- Vacant and underutilized space common.

Ave.

- Buildings take up most of block and often are attached to parking structures on adjacent blocks. Large scale buildings serve institutional needs over neighborhood vitality.

- Buildings are internally focused with courtyards.

- Potential to increase density and develop taller buildings.

I. St.

y n MLK Jr Wa Sherida

15th St.

21st St.

23rd St.

Ave.

Ainsworth 19th St.

Ave.

25th St.

21st St.

.

Sheridan Ave

Tacoma - Attracting Amenity

- Blocks have diverse building types including both commercial and residential. Residential can be multi-family or single family.

- Vacant lots exist with medium frequency.

- Service alleys are present, though some have been re-purposed.

- Potential to develop infill housing in interior of block and on vacant lots.

Residential

19th St.

11th St.

J. St.

Mixed Commercial & Residential

- Blocks have diverse residential building types including both multi-family and single family structures.

- Vacant lots exist with medium frequency.

- Land use is dense.

- Service alleys are present, though some have been re-purposed.

- Potential to develop infill housing in interior of block.

Multi-Family

9th St.

13th St.

Mixed Residential

Commercial

ay

15th St.

23rd St.

17

360’

South Tacoma - Pacific Northwest Railroad Town 360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

360’

Hilltop Street Grid

Graphic Credit: Hay

South Tacoma - Pacific Northwest Railroad Town

South Tacoma, originally farm land in a valley, was founded as a railroad town around the Northern Pacific Railroad. The valley’s industrial land centered around the railroad with working class housing east of South Tacoma Way. The blocks are long and rectangular along service alleys. The neighborhood centers around S. Tacoma Way and S 56th St.

340’ 710’ 390’ 620’ 630’

390’

South Tacoma Street Grid 18

LIVABLE CITY YEAR

240’

260’

260’

280’

270’

270’

340’

280’

Graphic Credit: Dre

Hilltop - Inspiring Vitality

C

M

R

6th St.

Multi-Family Residential

- Originally single family residential blocks demolished during urban renewal of Tacoma.

- Large buildings clustered around each other on part of blocks with ground level parking. Buildings do not respond to human scale.

- Vacant and underutilized space common.

Institutional

9th St.

- Buildings take up most of block and often are attached to parking structures on adjacent blocks. Large scale buildings serve institutional needs over neighborhood vitality.

- Buildings are internally focused with courtyards.

- Potential to increase density and develop taller buildings.

11th St.

I. St.

15th St.

Commercial

Mixed Commercial & Residential

19th St.

Ave.

- Blocks have diverse building types including both commercial Multi-Family and residential. Residential can be multi-family or single family.

Residential - Vacant lots exist with medium frequency.

- Service alleys are present, though some have been re-purposed.

- Potential to develop infill housing in interior of block and on vacant lots.

S 47th St

Ainsworth

S 47th St

y MLK Jr Wa

- Blocks have diverse residential building types including both Utility multi-family and single family structures.

Park with / Open Space frequency.

- Vacant lots exist medium - Land use is dense.

Institutional / Public - Service alleys are present, though some have been re-purposed.

Industrial - Potential to develop infill housing in interior of block.

J. St.

13th St.

Mixed Residential

21st St.

500’

1000’ Sheridan Ave

S 52th St

.

S Tacoma Way

S Oakley St

South Tacoma - Attracting Amenity

25th St.

Single Family Residential Utility Park / Open Space

S 56th St

Institutional / Public Industrial Commercial Multi-Family Residential

Multi-Family Residential S 47th St

S 47th St

S 60th St

Neighborhood Commercial

S 62nd St

S 52th St S Oakley St

S Tacoma Way

Light Industrial

Warehouse Industrial

S 60th St

1000’

Block Typology Map

- Long rectangular blocks with single family housing.

- Blocks occasionally have varying uses on ends along arterials.

- Service alleys common mid-block.

- Churches common interspersed among housing.

- Infill potential on vacant lots.

Block Typology Map

N

- Long rectangular blocks with multi-family housing.

- Blocks have been combined into mega-blocks.

- Low-rise multi-family housing arranged around parking lots.

- Develop on underutilized land.

- Zero lot set-backs on low/mid-rise buildings.

- Rectangular blocks and buildings oriented perpendicular to street-frontage.

- Parking in rear off arterial streets.

- Develop vacant and underutilized lots and consolidate parking.

- Low rise buildings on large blocks with high levels of vacancy.

- Variable building sizes.

- Underutilized parking lots common.

- Larger infill potential development.

S 66th St S 56th St

500’

23rd St.

N

- Large irregularly shaped blocks with high levels of vacancy.

- Low-rise buildings surrounded by parking lots to facilitate truck loading.

- Potential to develop vacancy.

19

URBAN F

U-District Mobility Report Seattle, WA

Executive Summary

U District Mobility Report BIKE & PEDESTRIAN COUNTS AND ANALYSIS IN U DISTRICT

INTRODUCTION TO THE CLASS This observation report is the result of work completed by students in Pedestrian Travel, Land Use, and Urban Form, a course offered jointly by the Department of Urban Design and Planning and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Washington. Nineteen graduate students gathered information through field observation counts the week of May 7th-May 13th, 2018 in the University District directly adjacent to the University of Washington’s main Seattle campus. The course was led by Urban Design and Planning Assistant Professor Rachel Berney during the Spring Quarter.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT This data gathering and analysis exercise coincides with the U-District Area Mobility Plan and is intended to supplement the research and design being completed by a series of design firms and community volunteers.

Consultants for the U-District mobility study include Makers Architecture, Toole Design Group, and Fehr & Peers. Partner organizations include Seattle Children’s Hospital, the University of Washington, and the U District Community Council. The U District Area Mobility Plan plan aims at giving community input around mobility in the U-District as the area undergoes significant changes.

This study provides a glimpse into existing non-motorized traffic patterns in the urban environment surrounding the proposed site of the new U District Link Station. The station, currently under construction by Sound Transit at NE 43rd St and Brooklyn Ave NE, is at the 100% design phase (completed in 2016) and is projected to open to service in 2021. Counts in the study focused on non-motorized transit including pedestrians, bicycles, bikeshare, skateboards, scooters, e-assist devices, and other non-vehicular modes observed by participants. Figure 1 demonstrates construction site and closed roads around it.

COLLEGE OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT URBDP 576 Pedestrian Studies Spring 2018 Work by: Michelle Surber, Manette StaMM, DreW cunninghaM, irving chu, liying Zhu, lucien ong, Manali Sheth, Marlo kapSa, braD valtMan, eric clute Figure 1 Graphic Credit: Sound Transit

U District Station Construction Graphic Credit: Flickr

1

20

OVERALL AGE GROUP SPLIT AGE GROUPS WEEKEND

3.9%

0-14 15-24

3.7%

47.8%

0.9%

31.5%

49%

13%

34.8%

13.7%

25-39 40-64

1.6%

WEEKDAY

0

20

40

60

80

65+

100

PERCENTAGE

Figure 9 - Overall Age Group Split GRAPH TITLE 120

WEEKDAY

WEEKEND WEEKDAY

80 60

WEEKEND

40

HOURLY AVERAGE OF PEOPLE WALKING THROUGH THE AREA

DENSITY*

100

=

20 0

40TH & 41ST

*

42ND & 43RD

%

.1

.8

97

100

UNKNOWN WEEKEND

WEEKEND OBSERVATIONS

80

WEEKEND

PERCEIVED MALE

60

60

0

WALKING

% 0.2

%

%

BIKING

0.3

55%

20

WEEKDAY OBSERVATIONS

%

PERCEIVED MALE

WEEKEND

40

20 3.9

45%

PERCEIVED FEMALE

80 WEEKDAY

2.6

PERCEIVED FEMALE

WEEKDAY

WEEKDAY

40

Ƃ♂

WEEKDAY

WEEKEND

PERCENTAGE

57%

100

PERCENTAGE

43%

PERCIEVED MALE

95

Ƃ♂ PERCEIVED FEMALE

%

Figure 10 - Overall Pedestrian Volume at 2 Intersections

OTHER

0

WALKING

BIKING

OTHER

Figure 11 - Overall Gender & Mode Data

21

Northgate Redevelopment Proposal Northgate, Seattle, WA

22

Market Spaces Cre

ek

Library 5th Ave NE

1 Northgate North Thornton Place

2 3 5 7

6

10

9

4

3rd Ave NE

3 5

Existing Parking Structure

Existing Buildings to Remain in Pink

8 Existing Parking Structure

7

10

Cre

ek Library

Community Center Northgate Park

Northgate North Thornton Place

2

N

1st Ave NE

10

Sound Transit Parking Structure

9

Cre

ek

1 Northgate North

NE Northgate Way

8 7

on

Thornton Place

3rd Ave NE

Existing Parking Structure

Existing Parking Structure

rnt

2

3rd Ave NE

3 5

NE 103rd St

NE Northgate Way

3rd Ave NE

Hubbard Homestead Park

1 NE 100th St

Hubbard Homestead Park

5th Ave NE

Th o

King County T.O.D. Site

4

Link Light Rail Station (2021)

N

3rd Ave NE

3 5

Existing Parking Structure

Existing Buildings to Remain in Pink

6 1st Ave NE

NE 100th St

on

8 Existing Parking Structure

7

10

Sound Transit Parking Structure

9

NE 103rd St

rnt

NE 105th St

Th o

NE 105th St

5th Ave NE

6

9

King County T.O.D. Site

Link Light Rail Station (2021)

1st Ave NE

N

Sound Transit Parking Structure

OďŹƒce Space Community Center Northgate Library Park

Existing Buildings to Remain in Pink

ek

Thornton Place

6

Residential Space

4

Cre

2

King County T.O.D. Site

Link Light Rail Station (2021)

1st Ave NE

N

Sound Transit Parking Structure

on

Northgate North

NE Northgate Way

8 Existing Parking Structure

rnt

1

Existing Parking Structure

Existing Buildings to Remain in Pink

Th o

3rd Ave NE

3rd Ave NE

NE 103rd St

NE Northgate Way

3rd Ave NE

4

Community Center Northgate Park

NE 100th St

on

NE 103rd St

rnt

NE 100th St

Hubbard Homestead Park

5th Ave NE

Th o

Hubbard Homestead Park

Community Center Northgate Park

NE 105th St

Library

NE 105th St

Pedestrian Linkages

King County T.O.D. Site

Link Light Rail Station (2021)

23

d Po iu

d Po

m

m

r co

iu

ne

r co

tD ra

ne tD ra

en

Northgate Apartment Redevelopment Proposal or /B ny

en

en

or /B ny

/L

aI

er nt

or

aI

en

or

/L

en

en

se

er nt

n

io ct

se

io ct

Northgate, Seattle, WA n

w To

er

w To

m

fro

fro

er

D

A

R

T

LL

P

en

E R

A

N

G R

U

M CO

M

L FF O

L

n

CIA

io ct

ER

Future Lane Use Key

CIA

se

N

IC E

E

N

LE

Urban Center

IC

1 Mile Radius

LE

&

FF O

&

n

N

io ct

RE

se

RE

r te

BO

ER

M

r te

BO

In

M CO

In

ke tla

O

O

RA

N

Hub Urban Village

RA

� ��

Residentail Urban Village Manufacturing Industrial Center RESTRO

OMS

Single Family Residential Area

n pla

n pla

ce

ffi

ce

ffi

lo cia

� ��

RESTROOMS

lo cia

er m m co al pic Ty

Site

er m m co al pic Ty

1/2 Mile Radius

Multi-Family Residential Area N LA

R L AL TU H UC CK TR BE S IS RK RA MA D

N LA

w to al pic Ty

Industrial Areas

er

w to al pic Ty

E

n pla

E

Major Institutions

n pla

er

R L AL TU H UC CK TR BE S IS RK RA MA D

Commercial / Mixed Use Areas

Cemetery City-Owned Open Space Site � �3

� �3

K

H T 20 18

1mi

��

��

��

�

�

0/2

��

/2

33

02

��

g

��

��

��

|

t in

N

��

�

3�

O

ee

PS

��

3�

��

��

���

��

M

M

O

G

TH

���

���

��

ER

ED

EB

Source: https://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/ pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/ p2450595.pdf ���

W

.5mi

��

0

EY

RIG

Drew Cunningham Dan Cloutier Northgate Apartments January 28th, 2019

01 8

CO PY RIG HT EB

20

ER

HT

W

RIG

18

PY

20

CO

N E IO AL IC T FF TI C O M L N EN IA RA C FU ESID G O ER E R M C PR M E A H O IS AC C SP SP R RN N AI O C O ST M / M �� G R O O ��� IN C ��� AT AD ��� EV ��� LO EL / NG ��� ��� H KI �� R B O PA �3 ��� / ���

PY

(Drew Cunningham)

33 8 g 1 t in 0/20 e e 2/2 M |0 G ON EY K E D MPS O N TH E ER IO AL IC EB T W FF 18 TI C O 20 TM L N EN HA IA RIGR C FU ESID PYG O CO ER E R M C PR M E A H O IS AC C SP SP R RN N AI O C O ST M / M �� G R O O ��� IN C ��� AT AD ��� EV ��� LO / NG ��� ��� H KI �� R B O PA ��3 / ��� ���

O

Transportation

The site is home to the Northgate Apartment complex.

Located in the Northgate Urban Center, the site is directly across NE Northgate Way from the Northgate Mall, one of the first modern shopping centers built in the United States. The Northgate Urban Center is close in proximity to the Bitter Lake and Lake City Hub Urban Villages and the Aurora-Licton Springs Residential Urban Village. Major institutions near the Northgate Urban Center include North Seattle Community College and Northwest Hospital.

EL

C

C² Design

TH

ON

ER

PS

EB

OM

W

TH

18 OM PS ON

BUS

BUS

BUS

BUS

BUS

BUS BUS

BUS

BUS

BUS

BUS BUS

BUS BUS

BUS BUS

E

t urs

eh

Pin

BUS BUS

yN Wa

t urs

BUS

BUS

BUS

eh

Pin

BUS

BUS

BUS

BUS

E

yN Wa

BUS

BUS BUS

BUS BUS BUS

BUS

BUS

BUS BUS

BUS

2M 1/ R ile

BUS

BUS BUS

ad

BUS

BUS

ius

BUS

BUS

Light Rail

BUS

BUS

BUS

BUS

BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS

Wa yN

ge W ay N

ege Light Rail

Northgate Way

source: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/lynnwood-link-extension-seattle-to-shoreline-roll-plots.pdf

24

C² Design

Drew Cunningham Dan Cloutier Northgate Apartments January 28th, 2019

BUS

BUS

BUS

Bus Stop Light Rail Station (Future) Interstate Street Name

BUS

BUS

BUS

BUS

y Wa

y Wa

Coll e

BUS

lt eve

BUS

s Roo

BUS

5th Ave NE

lt eve

Bike & Vehicle Circulation

s Roo

5th Ave NE

In Street, Major Separation In Street, Minor Separation Sharrow / Marked Bike Path

BUS

Coll

D

ke tla

P

D

O

N

N

es /W ny

es /W ny

O

D

en

H

m

Urban Villages Map - Future

BUS

BUS

BUS

Public Transportation Bus

Transportation: There is a significant amount of traffic exiting and entering I-5 which travels along NE Northgate Way close to the site.

Traffic from I-5 is coming to Northgate Mall and other neighborhood commercial destinations. Walking along NE Northgate Way is possible with existing pedestrian infrastructure, but not comfortable for pedestrians. Bicycle infrastructure doesn’t extend directly to the site. Bus routes run N-S along Avenues and the future Northgate light rail station is within a 1/2 mile walking radius of the site.

Development Considerations.

Promote alternative forms of transit through encouraging the pedestrian realm. Be cognizant of vehicular traffic along NE Northgate Way and provide adequate separated pedestrian and cycle infrastructure as an amenity.

Building 3 3 stories

erf

Woonerf

2

Building 2 9 - 23 stories

Street

Building 5

7 stories Green Street

1

Building 5 7 stories

Building 1 9 - 29 stories

Building 4 7 stories

Building 4

9

12

13

15

14

L

Site Planning Assignment 4 Winter 2019

B

L

J

711 Bellevue Ave E. #317 Seattle, WA 98102

4

A

425.753.6656

K

cunningham.andrew@me.com

3

1

C

A

Architectural & Urban Designer

2

5.753.6656

D

B

m.andrew@me.com

11 15

14

F

Andrew R. Cunningham

. #317 Seattle, WA 98102

I

C

& Urban Designer

E

D

Site Planning Assignment 4 Winter 2019

K

. Cunningham

13

10

E

G

12

9

F

11

8

H

10

7

G

I

6

8

H

J

5

7

I

4

6

K

3

J

5

2

L

4

K

1

3

2

L

1

7 stories

25

Frank Chopp Tiny House Grant Proposal Seattle, WA

26

27

Frank Chopp Tiny House Grant Proposal Seattle, WA

28

29

Licton Springs Hygiene Ramp

WA forSeattle, Living

The homes are small enough to not require permitting and therefore are modest structures. Encampment hygiene facilities reside in a separate building that requires a minimal degree of permitting. In order to meet city-based permitting requirements, the hygiene facility had to have an accessibility ramp the hygiene buildings are required to have ramps, turning radius minimums, and grab bars in order to be compliant. Licton Springs is not the first encampment to have a ramp to its hygiene facility, but by serving a low-barrier encampment with tremendously vulnerable residents, the

Licton Springs Village

accessibility need was greater.

In order to secure the permit for the already constructed shower facility of the operating camp, a simple design was chosen, and the surround community was tapped to find donated labor (supported by a local carpentry program). The permit was granted so the residents could have access to critical hygiene services. The ramp meets all ADA accessibility standards and is used frequently by residents.

Locations Licton Springs Village

3’ - 3” 3”

3” 15’ - 0”

8’ - 0”

4’ - 0” 3”

1’ - 0”

3”

3’ - 3”

.

3’ - 0” 3”

3” 3” 5’ - 0” 8’ - 0”

15’ - 0”

30’ - 0”

3”

4’ - 0” 3”

1’ - 0”

3” 3’ - 0” 3”

3” 5’ - 0”

30’ - 0”

Lichton Springs - ADA Ramp Proposal 8620 Aurora Ave N. Seattle, WA 98103

30 Lichton Springs - ADA Ramp Proposal 8620 Aurora Ave N.

3/16” = 1’

0

1’

5’

10’

N

East Elevation

E-W Section

3/16” = 1’-0”

3/16” = 1’-0”

West Elevation

E-W Section

3/16” = 1’-0”

3/16” = 1’-0”

N-S Section

North Elevation

3/16” = 1’-0”

3/16” = 1’-0”

31

Main Street Studio Walla Walla, WA

Studio Rendering

32

Entrance / Display Gallery

Studio

Misc.

Storage

Studio / Gallery Organization N

0’ 1’

5’

10’

20’

Furniture Layout

Reflected Ceiling Plan

ceiling grid ceiling grid

Gallery Wall Partition Axon

HVAC SupplyHVAC Duct Supply Duct

2’x2’ troffer light 2’x2’ troffer light Fire SprinklerFire Sprinkler

Main Street Studio 33

34

35

an

BDCL Design Intl.

Junliang Masterplan Competition Site Plan

ark

d train station

2

aza

1 central park 2 high speed train station

und public facility 3

wer

3 transit plaza

n boulevard

4 underground public facility

d/plaza

nt store/movie theatre

5 feature tower

9

6 pedestrian boulevard 7 courtyard/plaza

9 9

roof garden

ound crossing

9

7

8 department store/movie theatre 9 hotel 11 planted roof garden 10 underground crossing

4 11 10

6

CIRCULATION DIAGRAMS 交通 Pedestrian 步行系统 6 The two north/south streets and the southernmost east/west street are developed as pedestrian dominated areas. Paving and landscaping are designed to bridge the gaps between building faces and establish a seamless pedestrian experience.

In addition to the street network a series of cuts are made through the blocks that establish a more intimate and complex network of movement. These pedestrian axes link important places within the city center.

1

6

用地中的南北和东西街道设计为步行道路，结合景观 绿植、铺装等设计形成宜人的步行空间， 通过系列的步行路网将步行空间有机地结合。

8 5

Site Master Plan (above)

36

Bike Share 自行车 To provide an alternative to vehicular traffic we propose a bike share program with conveniently located pick up and drop off locations.

Pedestrian Circulation Diagram (above)

Aerial Site Rendering (below)

37

Site Sections 场地剖面

100m

27m

Site Sections 场地剖面

100m

Site Sections 场地剖面 A

100m

B

B A

Site Section A-A (below)

100m 27m

section A-A

27m

section A-A

Site Section B-B (below) 100m

60m 100m 27m 60m

38

27m A

section B-B

Block ‘Chop’ Rendering (above) Central Greenspace Rendering (below)

Block Axonometric (above)

39

Air Rights CSX Beacon Park Rail Yard

Charles River

1

Boston University West

2

Boston University East

3 4 5 6

7

8

9

10

11

Fenway Park

Fenway/Kenmore

Tim Glickman

Parcel 1

Katherine Murphy

Parcels 16-23

Allison Marschilok

Parcel 18

Rachel DeBaun

Parcel 9-10

Pablo Juarez

Parcel 4-6

Haiyang Xu

Parcel 8

Frank Delledera

Parcel 12

Chris Gallo

Parcels 21-22

Drew Cunningham

Parcel 8

Boston Air Rights Parcels | Spring 2013 | Northeastern University Graduate Program of Architecture | Master’s Degree Project | Tim Love 40 Masters Thesis

12

Financial District

Boston Public Gardens

Boston Common

Back Bay

South Station

Chinatown Bay Village Hancock Garage

13

15 14

Prudential Center

16

17

Copley Place

18

19

20 21

22 23

South End

I-93

Research 41

Thesis Research History of ‘Air Rights’ Air - Rights projects are believed to have originated in the 13th century in medieval Roman law. It is commonly thought that the Ponte Vecchio, a bridge with many shops in Florence, Italy, which dates back to the 14th century was the first air rights project in history. The famous architect Le Corbusier discussed the concept of raising residential and commercial activities above transit in his 1815 book ‘Towards a New Architecture’ and ‘Ville Pilotis’ .

after the construction of the Interstate Highway System. Many air-rights projects were constructed simultaneously with the interstate below them. Examples include the George Washington Bus Terminal and Apartments in NYC, the Prudential Building in Chicago, an the Prudential Center in Boston, MA. Projects that Could Not Although Air - Rights projects are incredibly successful at creating value above existing infrastructure, a number of proposed development projects in the recent decades have failed to be constructed. There seem to be three main categories that are standing in the way of projects being completed successfully: 1. Political/Community 2. Technical Issues 3.

Financial Issues. While these are all obstacles that are difficult to overcome, the public sentiment in Boston and around the nation is growing in favor of air rights projects.

Projects that Could The concept of “Air Rights” was first utilized in the United States atop railroad property, but has also been utilized with roadways and other buildings. While the concept had been around since antiquity, it was not until trains were electrified, that Air Rights projects became feasible. The first notable project within the United States was Grand Central Station and adjacent blocks in New York, New York. Another push for air-rights developed 42

Masters Thesis

what is not // 79

Research

43

Thesis Research Development

on end Clar

Dar t

e Stre

t

e Stre

uth

tmo

t

ree n St lsto Boy

Hu

nt in

e

gt on

Av en

ue

u ven ts A

uset

sach

Mas

44

Masters Thesis

what is // 37

1 188 ce: Sour

Timeline

The

Bosto

las n At

Copley Place (1983) 1 185 ce: Sour

2013 Hancock Garage (1976) and Prudential Center (1964)

5 177 Sourc

e: Th

e Bo

ston

The

; Atlas

Bosto

Librar

las n At

y of

; Bo

sto

n Pu

Lib blic

rary

ress Cong

1980 City blocks removed for rail yard

1957 City blocks infilled

1881 Railroads

1851 Wetlands

1775 what is // 29 Research

45

Project Economic Studies

TOTAL

easible

ce were e scale of the es. The llion sq ed and Railroad 414,000 ff ramp, These e if the

address at are ver, the fit into ocated. have a Users 90 and without

ites to major When expand as their me time

Total square footage over I-90 PRUDENTIAL CENTER 18.5% HANCOCK TOWER AND GARAGE 12%

COPLEY PLACE 16.8%

Total square footage 38.5%

27%

Ground floor square footage over I-90

20%

47%

21.8%

Ground floor square footage

what is // 51

46

Masters Thesis

Architecture Techtonics -Utilities -Code -Right of Way

Urbanism

Connectivity -Pedestrian -Urban Fabric -Mitigation

Neighborhood -Zoning -Density

Urban Morphology

Regional -Infrastructure -Connectivity

Construction Logistics

Urban Redevelopment Sustainability

Structure

Density (FAR)

Program ‘Cost Premium’

Transit

Subsidy Opportunity Development

Development Threshold

Value

Market Land Ownership -Ground Lease -Code

Property Value Funding Economic Feasability

Research

47

Left A perspective view of the cooridor park on Parcel 17.

Below A groundfloor site plan for the development.

48

Masters Thesis

Mortgage Crisis Mortgage Crisis Recession Recession

Dot-com Recession Doc-Com Recession

Gulf War Recession Gulf War Recession

Parcel 17 used pre-case 8% concrete panels that 8% were placed over the highway and railroad tracks to create its deck. The tower on Parcel 6% 6% 16 was the0% most complicated deck design and utilized a lightweight concrete deck.

4% One particular hurdle for the project 4% related to the deck of the ground floor of Parcel 16’s Columbus Center tower. The tower 2% -2% was difficult 2% on the parcel to construct largely due to site conditions. Because the street is 0% 0% particularly low at this site, it was impossible for transfer beams to be constructed under the deck and still maintain clearances for the -2% -4% railway. -2% highway and The design required the ground floor deck to be 1965 hung from the 1970 transfer -4% beams by tensile columns.

The transfer beams -4% 1965 1970 1975 1965 1970 1975

Iranian Energy Crisis Iranian Energy Crisis

deck weathering and associated structural impacts).

At this price, for Parcel 16 alone, the decking cost premium is equivalent to approximately $24 million. However, after the price of steel began to steeply climb after 2005, the cost of the deck increased.

Each parcel had a unique deck condition and design.

The decking strategy for Columbus Center was therefore unrepeatable and somewhat inefficient. The differing deck conditions were necessary to address different site conditions for their respective parcels.

Parcel 18’s deck was the simplest to construct with single beams spanning from caissons to form the deck of the parking structure above.

Energy Crisis Recession Energy Recession

Case Study: Columbus Center deck maintenance costs (mitigation of

OPEC Recession OPEC Recession

2%

Nixon Recession Nixon Recession

4%

were then able to be located on the 2nd floor so that the ground floor could be flush with street level and highway clearances maintained.

Another hurdle for the project resulted from the John Hancock Insurance Corporation.

After the sale of the air-rights to the Columbus Center developer it was discovered that the land adjacent to the highway associated with Parcel 16 reverted back to the John Hancock Insurance Corporation in the event of a sale.

When this was discovered, the John Hancock Corporation was in the process of selling its properties and exercised the right to this land. This was a difficulty for the project in 1975 1990 that the tower1980 on Parcel 16 1985 could no longer to terra and that 1985 1990 1995firma2000 2000 2005 the tower 2011 1980be anchored 1980 1985 1990 1995 2005 2011

Duration ofofColumbus Duration Columbus US Recession Center Development Center Development

US GDP Growth US Recession

US GDP Growth case studies // 191

case studies // 187

Caption Proposed Rendering of Columbus Center

Research

49

campus building directly abuts the highway.

Air rights projects must address the grade change between the at grade elevation on the Southern side and the adjacent building on the Northern side. The railway tracks at this site are not electrified, though clearance must be kept in-case they are electrified in the future.

Mountfort St.

Cummington Mall

Section Typologies Boston University: At Grade

pe 2: Bowker Overpass

e Bowker Overpass also is another allenging air rights site. The overpasses nnot bear any additional load, so all structure st be independent of the overpass. This ates a gap that must be present for an pansion joint. Overpasses are rarely level nditions, and create a geometric issue that utting air rights projects must address.

Eastbound

Westbound

12’

12’

50’

48’

48’

Eastbound

12’

12’

110’

50

Masters Thesis

Ipswich St.

Interstate 90

Newbury St.

Westbound

// design

Conrail Tracks

156 // design

40’

48’

Bowker Overpass: Sloping Grade

must be independent of the overpass. This creates a gap that must be present for an expansion joint. Overpasses are rarely level conditions, and create a geometric issue that abutting air rights projects must address. Also, due to the spans of the highway, all spans and footings must be located on median or adjacent terrafirma.

Massachusetts Ave: Narrow Valley Type 4: Chinatown The Chinatown and South End air rights sites pose another problem due to their large size and long spans. These sites have been recommended to have intermediate streets to break up the blocks. Furthermore, these sites have retaining walls. Retaining walls occur all along the Pike. Although they may not be the same condition, they are necessary factor for mitigating the elevation changes on each side of the highway. Thus creating a problematic factor that air rights projects must address when considering construction.

Westbound

Eastbound

12’

12’ 100’

40’

Marginal Rd.

Interstate 90

Chinatown: Wide Valley

MBTA Tracks

Hearald St.

160 // design

Eastbound Westbound

12’ 110’ 162 // design

12’ 92’ Research

51

Parallel Transportation Corridor

Downtown Typical Light Rail Distribution Light Rail with Downtown Subway Typical Streecar Streetcar with ‘light rail’ segment Unsucessful Streecar with long distances

400’ length 52

Masters Thesis

Business School Science Center Cambridge Street

Beacon Yards Stadium Commonwealth Ave. Landsdowne High Rise Mass Ave

Parallel Transit Corridor

53

Boston Population Density (2010) 54

Masters Thesis

5

i²

i²

m

/ 00

i²

/m

1,

0 00

/m

2,

0 50

5

i²

i²

i²

m

/ 00

/m

5,

0 00

i²

/m

00

1

0 0,

i²

/m

00

2

0 0,

i²

/m

00

3

0 0,

/m

00

4

0 0,

47, 57 57 47, 47, 57 47, 60 60 47, 47, 60

Station Spreadv Massachusetts Massachusetts Massachusetts Aveune Aveune Aveune

.34 .34 mi. mi. .34 mi.

3 min.

3 min.

3 min.

Massachusetts Massachusetts Massachusetts Aveune Aveune Aveune

Transit Connections

Fenway / Landsdowne Fenway //Landsdowne Fenway Landsdowne Street Street Street

.38 .38 mi. mi. .38 mi.

3 min.

3 min.

3 min.

Fenway Fenway / Landsdowne //Landsdowne Fenway Landsdowne Street Street Street

High Rise High High Rise Rise

.5 .5 mi. mi. .5 mi.

4 min.

4 min.

4 min.

High Rise High High Rise Rise

64 64 64 Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth Avenue Avenue Avenue

.25 .25 mi. mi. .25 mi.

2 min.

2 min.

2 min.

Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth Avenue Avenue Avenue

Stadium Stadium Stadium

.25 .25 mi. mi. .25 mi.

2 min.

2 min.

2 min.

Stadium Stadium Stadium

Beacon Yards Beacon Beacon Yards Yards

Cambridge Street Cambridge Cambridge Street Street

.21 .21 mi. mi. .21 mi.

2 min.

2 min.

2 min.

Beacon Beacon Beacon Yards Yards Yards

70 70 70

Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Street Street Street

Science Center Science Science Center Center

Busness School Busness Busness School School

.21 .21 mi. mi. .21 mi.

2 min.

2 min.

2 min.

Science Science Science Center Center Center

Busness Busness Busness School School School

Massachusetts Massachusetts Massachusetts Aveune Aveune Aveune

Fenway Landsdowne Fenway //Landsdowne Fenway / Landsdowne Street Street Street

High High Rise Rise High Rise

Commonwealth Commonwealth Commonwealth Avenue Avenue Avenue

Stadium Stadium Stadium

Beacon Beacon Yards Yards Beacon Yards

Cambridge Cambridge Street Street Cambridge Street

Science Science Center Center Science Center

Busness Busness School School Busness School

Alignment Distances

.6 .6 mi. mi. .6 mi.

4 min.

4 min.

4 min.

1 1 1

Parallel Transit Corridor 55

TOD Hyrbid Buildings Case Study: Landsdowne Place Landsdowne Place is a mixed-use hybrid building that provides both transit-oriented development while connecting the Fenway cultural district with Kenmore Square. Bridging over an 8 lane interstate-highway and 2 MBTA train tracks at a distance of 150’, the proposed development creates.

There are multiple connections to the surrounding context, and distinctive entrances for the multiple program uses.

Lastly, the building has its own station along the Parallel-Transportation Corridor. The building has its own Light-Rail station to provide direct connection to the building amenities as well as mobility and connection for the surrounding neighborhoods.

56

Masters Thesis

Parcel 8

TOD Hybrid Buildings

57

Site Axonometric

58

Program Axonometric Program Transit Station

39,000 sqft.

240,200 sqft.

15,000 sqft. / Flr. 9.400 sqft. / Flr. 417 rooms -Conference Center -Ballrooms -Restaurant / Lounge

Hotel Space -11 floors -8 floors

Office Space -10 floors

380,000 sqft.

38,000 sqft. / Flr.

Parking Garage -3 floors

120,000 sqft.

40,000 sqft. / Flr.

Sky Lobby (key commercial space) -1 floor 40,000 sqft.

59

60

Masters Thesis

TOD Hybrid Buildings

61

Floor 3

62

Masters Thesis

Floor 4

Floor 5

Floor 6-15

Floor 16-22

TOD Hybrid Buildings

63

Building Section

64

Masters Thesis

Landsdowne St.

Light Rail

MBTA Commuterrail

I-90 Eastbound

I-90 Westbound

TOD Hybrid Buildings

65

Building Section - Longitudinal Interstate 90

66

Masters Thesis

Hotel Tower

Hotel Program

Office Space

Parking Garage

Sky Lobby

TOD Hybrid Buildings

67

Renderings

68

Masters Thesis

TOD Hybrid Buildings

69

Ground Floor Structure Grid

70’

70’

44’

70

Masters Thesis

55’

55’

35’

TOD Hybrid Buildings

71

Structure Axon

Foundation 72

Masters Thesis

Floor 3 - Hotel Structure Transfer

Floor 5 - Office Structure Transfer

Floor 22 TOD Hybrid Buildings

73

Urban Design Research Restructuring our Urban Infrastructure In alignment with the goals of improving urban sustainability, contemporary Urban Design encourages walkable neighborhoods.

However, often times the existing conditions of our urban structure discourages pedestrianism to the point where automobiles are the only practical form of personal transportation.

Although there are many forms of sustainable transportation, fossil fuel based transit must be reduced. Structuring our urban infrastructure to encourage walking as a primary means of transportation has the ability to both reduce fossil fuel consumption and improves urban vitality. It is necessary to re-shape the existing built environment in a manner that encourages alternatives to the automobile.

Pedestrianism is the ultimate sustainable transportation.

form

pedestrian infrastructure, and investments could be made to improve the overall state of walkability. Furthermore, it was concluded that development around transportation nodes is light and not well structured. Ideally development around the transportation nodes would be dense and well laid-out to

encourage pedestrianism. The relationship between pedestrianism and public transit is highly symbiotic. Public transit depends on pedestrians as trip generation, and pedestrians depend on Public Transportation for increased mobility.

of

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software has the opportunity to address walkability concerns, evaluate existing infrastructure, and assess the condition of our built environment.

In this case study, simple GIS techniques were used to identify assets of existing infrastructure, perceived and real barriers to pedestrianism, and ultimately to make recommendations on infrastructure investment opportunities.

The research concluded that it is incredibly difficult to improve existing infrastructure in urban environments, but that there was a decent level of existing infrastructure in the neighborhood. The existing neighborhood is highly fragmented in pockets of acceptable 74

Urban Design Research

Above An artists illustration of the 50/50 vision.

Above A pedestrian only street near Downtown Crossing in Boston, MA

GIS Walkability Study

75

GIS Walkability Study Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Boston, MA

76

Urban Design Research

Transit Connections

T

T

T

T 5 & 10 minute Population Density walk radius

High School

1500 - 2000

Middle School

Elementary School

0

2000’

Schools

1001 - 1500

1000’

501 - 1000

GIS Walkability Study

77

Population Density

Population Density

78

High School

1500 - 2000

Middle School

0

2000’

Schools

1001 - 1500

1000’

501 - 1000

Elementary School

Urban Design Research

GIS | ENVR 5260

Sidewalk Infrastructure

Population Density

High School

1500 - 2000

Middle School

0

2000’

Schools

1001 - 1500

1000’

501 - 1000

Elementary School GIS Walkability Study

79

GIS | ENVR 5260

Perceived Road Barriers

Population Density

80

High School

1500 - 2000

Middle School

0

2000’

Schools

1001 - 1500

1000’

501 - 1000

Elementary School

Urban Design Research

GIS | ENVR 5260

Neighborhood Fragmentation

2000’

0

1000’

Infrastructure Improvements - Crosswalk improvements - Sidewalk replacement

GIS Walkability Study

81

GIS | ENVR 5260

Infrastructure Investment Areas

2000’

82

0

1000’

Infrastructure Improvements - Crosswalk improvements - Sidewalk replacement

Urban Design Research

GIS | ENVR 5260

GIS Walkability Study

83

Comprehensive

Ancilary Program

Design Studio

Conference Small Meeting

Service

Sequence

Public Realm

Seminar

03

Classroom VMS Space

Progra

Primary Program

Leased Space

lle Ga

e

nt Pri

Floor 5

-Leasable Office Space -Conference Room

ry

***Auditoirum

Wifi Lounge

Ma fe Ca

Reception

rd ya urt Co try En

p ho

S ine ch

01

Entry

a Lo gD

din

Kendall Square Cambridge, MA

02

rag Sto

k oc

Site Plan

Senior Thesis: Future Use Buildings T STAGE

Floor 5

-Leasable Office Space -Conference Room -Auditoirum

Floor 3

-VMS Space -Classrooms -Leasable Office Space -Conference Room -Seminar Space

Floor 3

-VMS Space -Classrooms -Leasable Office Space -Conference Room -Seminar Space

Floor 2

-VMS Space -VMS Administration -Leasable Office Space -Wifi Lounge -Gallery -Seminar Space

Floor 1

-Retail -MBTA T-Stop -Bike Storage -Lobby -Reception -Cafe -Kitchen -Print Shop -Fabrication Shop -Loading Dock

84

Senior Thesis

Internal Courtyard Perspective

Street Perspective

Future Use Buildings

85

Ground Plan

Reception Retail Space

Retail Space

MBTA Station Cafe

VMS Storage

Print Shop

86

Senior Thesis

Loading Dock

/ Fabrication

Bike Storage

Machine Shop

Second Floor Plan

Conference Room VMS Leasable Space

VMS Leasable Space

Administrative Offices

Gallery

Atrium

VMS Leasable Space

VMS Leasable Space

VMS Leasable

Space

VMS Leasable

Space

Future Use Buildings

87

Courtyard Rendering

88 Internal Senior Thesis Courtyard Perspective

A

C

C

B

B

A

Section A A

1/8” = 1’-0”

Section B B

1/8” = 1’-0”

Section C C

1/8” = 1’-0”

Future Use Buildings

89

Auditorium Ancilary Program

Parti

Sequence

Small Meeting

Service Public Realm

Seminar

01 volume 01 volume

PHASE

02 axis

02 axis 03

Classroom VMS Space Leased Space

03 voids

Program Diagram

Floor 6

I. 04 connections

Floor 5

lle Ga

e

nt Pri

-Leasable Office Space -Conference Room

02

rag Sto

ry

***Auditoirum

Wifi Lounge

Ma fe Ca

Reception

rd ya urt Co try En

p ho

Par ti

S ine ch

01

Entry

Floor 5

a Lo

gD

din

k oc

T

03 voids 03 voids

Par ti

Site Plan

04

Conference

Primary Program

Program

|12

ehensive

n o

I.

04 connections

STAGE

04 connections

Floor 5

-Leasable Office Space -Conference Room -Auditoirum

04|12

Floor 4

Comprehensive

Design Studio

II.

0 4 |1 2

05 terracing & south

06 surface

Comprehensive

Design Studio

Floor 3

-VMS Space -Classrooms -Leasable Office Space -Conference Room -Seminar Space

II. 05 terracing & south 05 terracing & south

Floor 3

06 surface

06 surface

Floor 3

-VMS Space -Classrooms -Leasable Office Space -Conference Room -Seminar Space

Floor 2

07 rendering 07 rendering

III.

Floor 2

-VMS Space -VMS Administration -Leasable Office Space -Wifi Lounge -Gallery -Seminar Space

III.

Floor 1

-Retail -MBTA T-Stop -Bike Storage -Lobby -Reception -Cafe -Kitchen -Print Shop -Fabrication Shop -Loading Dock

Floor 1

IV.

90

Senior Thesis

IV.

Future Use Buildings

91

92 Senior Thesis g

Bracing

tain wall

-0”

1/2” = 1’-0”

Section Detail - Curtain Wall

6” steel round column

2’-0” x 2’-0” diffuser

15” Return duct

15” Supply duct

4 1/4” Fire life plumbing line

1” Acoustical tile in 2’-0” x 2’-0” ceiling tile grid

24” Castellated beam with 16” openings

15” I-beam girder

7 1/4” concrete on 3 1/2” steel decking

9” Relieving angle

1/4” Radiant polyeurethane tubing embedded in 2” lightweight concrete

Subfloor, 1/4”

Finished floor, 1/4”

Stone veneer

Cavity

Vapor barrier

4” Rigid insulation

EPDM waterproof membrane @1/4”:1’-0”

Parapet

Wall Section

gs

e

ion wall

ing

g tile grid

Future Use Buildings 93

Compacted gravel

Poured in place concrete slab on grade

Existing foundation wall

New column and 5/8� gypsum sheathing

Existing load-bearing masonry wall

Elevations

North Elevation

1/8” = 1’-0”

94

South Elevation

Senior 1/8” =Thesis 1’-0”

North Elevation South Elevation

1/8” = 1’-0”

South Elevation Future Use Buildings

95

ISSI Office Redesign Northeastern University, Boston, MA Staff Offices + Student Cultural Space

Sp Room 412 4 Drawer High Density File 5 Drawer High Density File

Room 407 2 Drawer File Cabinet 3 Drawer File Cabinet 4 Drawer File Cabinet

96

Built Work

16’ 24’ 32’

72’ 90’

4 Drawer File C

Conference R

4 Drawer High 5 Drawer High

FURNITURE PLAN 1/16” = 1’-0”

Recep

2 Dr 3 Dr

ISSI Renovation

97

Proposed Renovation

Classroom

Classroom

Storage

Mailbox

98

Built Work

& Design

Classroom

ISSI Renovation

99

Interior Photos

100

101

102 Built Work

ISSI Renovation 103

104 Built Work

ISSI Renovation 105

106 Built Work

ISSI Renovation 107

Thank you for taking the time to review my portfolio.