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.