Interior Design Thesis - Volume 1 Research

B.F.A. INTERIOR DESIGN

SENIOR THESIS

H E A R T & H A V E N TRANSITIONAL SHELTER

EVA SOLANO GENAO

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

INTRODUCTION (PP. 4-5)

PRECEDENTS / HISTORY (PP. 6-11)

CURRENT TRENDS AND PRACTICES (PP. 12-13)

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS (PP. 14-23)

ANTICIPATED PROGRAM (PP. 24-27)

SITE & BUILDING SELECTION (PP. 28-29)

CODE SEARCH / REVIEW (PP. 30-33)

PROGRAMMATIC CONCEPTS (P. 34)

PROPOSED TEST FIT (PP. 35-38)

APPENDIX (PP. 39-40)

BIBLIOGRAPHY (P. 41-42)

INTRODUCTION

EVA SOLANO GENAO

4

I N T R O D U C T I O N Homelessness continues to be a pervasive issue in urban areas across the United States, particularly in Atlanta, Georgia, which accounts for over a quarter of the state’s homeless population. With approximately 3,000 individuals experiencing homelessness in the city, the urgency to provide effective transitional housing solutions is paramount. While emergency shelters often address immediate needs for safety and temporary shelter, they seldom provide the necessary resources to support long-term recovery and reintegration into society. Transitional housing bridges this gap by offering a structured environment for individuals to regain stability. However, the design of many transitional housing facilities fails to address the complex and interconnected needs of its residents, including mental health support, personal growth opportunities, and a sense of community. The Heart & Haven Shelter project seeks to transform Lakewood Elementary School into a transitional housing facility, reimagining how architecture and design can support individuals transitioning out of homelessness while also preserving the historical and environmental significance of the site.

Framing the Problem Homelessness is rarely a standalone condition but rather a culmination of systemic inequities, economic instability, and personal trauma. Data specific to Atlanta’s homeless population underscores the severity of these challenges. Among the city’s unhoused individuals, 81% have experienced physical or sexual abuse, 58% exhibit symptoms of trauma, 57% have a chronic medical condition, and nearly half are underemployed or unemployed. Traditional approaches to shelter often focus narrowly on providing temporary relief, overlooking the importance of addressing these underlying issues.

In addition to psychological and social barriers, the lack of innovative housing solutions exacerbates the cycle of homelessness.

Current transitional housing models often lack thoughtful design considerations that could facilitate recovery and growth.

Moreover, sustainability is frequently an afterthought in these designs, despite the growing emphasis on environmental stewardship in urban development. The Heart & Haven Shelter aims to address these shortcomings by leveraging adaptive reuse—the process of repurposing an existing structure, in this case, Lakewood Elementary School—to create a facility that meets both the immediate and long-term needs of its residents.

Design Intent and Objectives The Heart & Haven Shelter is envisioned as a transitional housing facility that places equal emphasis on functionality, sustainability, and emotional well-being. The primary target demographic includes single women, as well as single mothers with young children, a group that is particularly vulnerable to the compounded effects of homelessness. The project will address multiple dimensions of transitional housing through the following objectives: Promoting Mental Health and Emotional Recovery: Recognizing the prevalence of trauma among the homeless population, the facility will include designated spaces for counseling, therapy, and group support sessions. Additionally, the design will emphasize natural light, calming aesthetics, and areas for quiet reflection to foster a therapeutic environment.

Encouraging Self-Sufficiency and Personal Growth: The shelter will integrate practical resources, such as job training workshops, skill development programs, and childcare facilities.

These features aim to empower residents by equipping them with tools for economic and personal independence.

INTRODUCTION

EVA SOLANO GENAO

5

Ensuring Safety and Stability: A secure environment is critical for rebuilding trust and fostering a sense of stability. The facility will include a security office, controlled access points, and clear delineations between public and private spaces to ensure resident safety without compromising the welcoming nature of the design.

Emphasizing Sustainability and Adaptive Reuse: By preserving the facade of Lakewood Elementary School, the project not only honors the building’s historical significance but also minimizes environmental impact. Sustainable materials, energyefficient systems, and a focus on adaptive reuse will underscore the project’s commitment to environmentally responsible design.

Research Questions The development of the Heart & Haven Shelter is guided by two central research questions: 1. How can the design of transitional housing be optimized to support mental health and emotional recovery for individuals transitioning out of homelessness?

2. In what ways can the integration of supportive services within transitional housing encourage self-sufficiency and personal growth, enabling residents to achieve long-term stability?

3. These questions aim to establish a foundation for exploring how architecture can transcend its traditional role and become an active participant in social healing and empowerment.

Parameters and Possibilities The redevelopment of Lakewood Elementary School will involve navigating several critical design and logistical parameters: Space Utilization: Effective space planning is essential to balance privacy, community interaction, and functionality. The project will include private living units, shared communal spaces, and multi-functional areas for supportive services.

Sustainability Strategies: Adaptive reuse will serve as the cornerstone of the project’s sustainability approach. Energyefficient systems, renewable materials, and resource-conscious construction methods will align the shelter’s design with modern sustainability goals.

Supportive Services Integration: The inclusion of on-site services such as counseling, healthcare, addiction recovery programs, and job training workshops will necessitate adaptable spaces that can accommodate diverse and evolving needs.

Community Engagement: Engaging stakeholders, including local organizations, residents, and experts in transitional housing, will ensure that the project is informed by practical insights and tailored to the specific needs of its future occupants.

Significance and Impact Addressing homelessness requires more than temporary shelter; it demands holistic solutions that integrate emotional recovery, personal development, and long-term stability. The Heart & Haven Shelter aspires to redefine transitional housing by focusing on these interconnected needs. Beyond its immediate impact on the lives of its residents, the project aims to serve as a replicable model for other urban centers grappling with homelessness.

The choice of Atlanta as the project’s location enhances its relevance and urgency. The city’s growing homeless population highlights systemic challenges that extend beyond local boundaries, including economic inequality and limited access to affordable housing.

INTRODUCTION

EVA SOLANO GENAO

6

P R E C E N D E N T S / H I S T O R Y The origins of formalized care for the homeless in the West can be traced back to the establishment of almshouses during the 10th to 16th centuries. These early institutions were founded by religious orders, wealthy landowners, and monarchs, often as a demonstration of Christian charity. Almshouses provided basic necessities such as food, shelter, and spiritual guidance to those who were poor, elderly, or ill. They were mostly found in towns and cities, and were usually located near churches or monasteries, since their founding was so deeply rooted in the Christian doctrine that emphasized almsgiving (the practice of giving money/food to poor people) as a direct path to salvation for the wealthy. Notably, “during early days, and, indeed, until the Reformation, hospitals and almshouses attached to religious houses, were, like all the other Institutions of the Church, directly controlled by the episcopate.” (Heath, 1872, 19). As such, almshouses were not designed to be actual homes in the modern sense but rather temporary places of relief where those in need could receive care.

The architecture of almshouses during this period perfectly reflected this charitable yet hierarchical structure. Most of these institutions were built in a U-shape or courtyard design, with a chapel at the center or attached to the facility, symbolizing the spiritual foundation of the care they were meant to provide. For instance, Ford’s Hospital in Coventry, England consisted of “...an open central court in the form of a parallelogram…on either side of which are the abodes of the inmates, and an entrance passage, to the left of which on the ground and upper floors, are the apartments of the matron. Another passage leads to the gardens which are common to the little community.” (Heath, 1872, 81). Additionally, the rooms were often small and communal, with shared living spaces and dormitories where multiple people would be made to sleep quite close to each other. Clearly, privacy was not prioritized, as the main focus of these institutions was to serve the community’s charitable needs as efficiently as possible.

The construction of almshouses at the time was typically modest, using local materials such as timber, stone, and brick, depending what was available in the area of their construction; for example, in the village of Ewelme, the almshouse was constructed in such a way that its “...external walls are of stone, the internal walls towards the quadrangle of brick and wood construction.” (Heath, 1872, 68). However, despite the simplicity of their construction, almshouses often contained symbolic elements that reflected the religious motivations behind their creation. Gothic arches, stained glass windows, and ornate stone carvings adorned many of such buildings. As noted in the text, “no group of buildings are, in their way, more charming, or more impregnated with human associations than the picturesque sets of almshouses that adorn so many of our cities, towns, and villages…” (Heath, 1872, 31).

Ultimately, the integration of religious iconography into the architecture of almshouses further reinforced the idea that caring for the poor was not just a social obligation but a sacred duty to be fulfilled. These institutions not only served as a visible expression of charity, but as a physical representation of the hierarchical structure of medieval society, where the wealthy and powerful were responsible for the welfare of the so-called less fortunate. It is important to note that those who entered almshouses were often required to perform some form of labor, attend religious services, and follow strict rules that governed their behavior and conduct. This particular model of charity reflected society’s belief that poverty was essentially a moral failing and that receiving charity should be accompanied by spiritual and moral reform. Over time, the function of many almshouses began to shift. While initially focused on generally serving the poor, by the 16th century, many almshouses started to serve more specific populations, such as the elderly, widows, and orphans (Rothman, 1971, 1116). This transition was partly driven by demographic changes, which created new forms of poverty and social dislocation.

FIG. 1

PRECENDENTS/HISTORY

EVA SOLANO GENAO

7

Despite these changes, the basic design of almshouses remained largely the same. They continued to not be intended for longterm housing but rather for temporary relief stations where the most impoverished could receive care until they were able to reintegrate into society by themselves. This design approach can be seen as a precedent to later models of homeless shelters, which also emphasize temporary relief with the goal of rehabilitation. However, the rigid hierarchical nature of these institutions also highlights the limitations of early shelter models, which often viewed homelessness through the lens of moral deficiency rather than as a complex socio-economic issue.

Eventually, a turning point was marked by the development of poor houses during the 17th to 19th centuries. These institutions were established in response to a growing urban population and increasing poverty rates, which were a direct cause of societal factors like the Enclosure Movement in England, the Industrial Revolution, and the displacement of rural populations looking for work in cities (Blakemore, 2018).

Unlike almshouses, poor houses were strictly secular institutions funded by local governments. They were designed not only to house the “homeless” (which at the time were mostly people that were traveling the country in hopes of finding work somewhere), but also to instill a work ethic in them. Poor houses were part of a much broader societal shift that linked poverty with laziness. Essentially, able-bodied individuals should be expected to work for their upkeep, and as a result, poor houses were designed specifically to accommodate both living quarters and workspaces.

The architecture of poor houses reflected the punitive approach to poverty that dominated this era. Unlike the more compassionate designs of almshouses, poor houses tended to be grim, institutional buildings. They were typically located on the outskirts of cities, reinforcing the idea that the poor should be kept separate from the rest of society. The exteriors were cold and unfriendly, with a complete disregard for aesthetic value or comfort. Internally, poor houses were designed to be functional and highly regimented, often resembling prisons more than the place of refuge they were technically meant to be.

Poor house dormitories were large rooms filled with rows of beds that offered little to no privacy. Men, women, and children were typically housed separately, and families were often split up as soon as they entered the institution (Wagner, 2005, 88).

Communal spaces were few and far between, and residents spent the majority of their time in designated work areas performing tasks such as breaking stones, spinning wool, or other menial labor the higher ups considered appropriate for their abilities. Overall, the design of these spaces was intended to reinforce discipline and order, and it was quite obvious that their goal was not to rehabilitate or support the individual but to dissuade dependency on public assistance of any kind.

Poor houses were also characterized by their strict regimes and rigid schedules. Meals were lackluster and served at very specific set times, with little variation in the diet.

Residents were more often than not subjected to harsh living conditions, including overcrowding, lack of proper sanitation, and poor ventilation- the culprits of the alarmingly high mortality rates within these institutions.

According to a select committee of the New York State Senate in 1856, “The poor houses throughout the State…may be generally described as badly constructed, ill-arranged, ill-warmed, and ill-ventilated. The rooms are crowded with inmates; and the air, particularly in the sleeping apartments, is very noxious, and to casual visitors, almost insufferable.” (Katz, 1996, 25).

These harsh conditions were nothing short of deliberate; the poor house was intended to be a deterrent, an absolute last resort for those who had no other means of support. This punitive approach was designed to encourage self-reliance and discourage what was perceived as laziness or a lack of moral character. Despite the aforementioned conditions, poor houses were an essential part of the social safety net for the poorest members of society at the time. They provided a basic level of shelter and sustenance, when for many, the only other alternative would have been to starve or sleep on the streets.

By the late 19th century, public criticism of the poor house system began to grow. Reformers argued that the conditions in these institutions were completely inhumane and that poverty should be addressed through broader social reforms such as better wages, education, and healthcare.

The rise of the labor movement and the growing awareness of economic inequality that followed led to a rethinking of how society dealt with poverty and homelessness.

FIG. 2

PRECENDENTS/HISTORY

EVA SOLANO GENAO

8

Slowly but surely, the poor house model that had dominated for centuries at this point, gave way to more modern approaches that emphasized support and rehabilitation rather than punishment. However, the legacy of this model continued to influence the design and philosophy of homeless shelters for many years to come, with many institutions opting to uphold the emphasis on discipline and moral reform that was so characteristic of poor houses.

During the very peak of the Industrial Revolution, urban centers became hubs of rapid industrial growth, drawing populations away from rural areas but leaving many in destitution due to low wages, job instability, and overcrowded living conditions. This increasing visibility of homelessness in cities, particularly among the working poor, led to a shift in how society approached poverty and shelter. Religious institutions, philanthropic organizations, and social reformers began establishing charity missions and shelters, marking a pretty significant departure from the harsh and punitive approach of poor houses. Unlike said poor houses of the previous centuries, charity missions and shelters began to be founded with a stronger focus on compassion and rehabilitation. Many of these shelters were founded by Christian organizations, such as the Salvation Army, which was established in 1865 by William and Catherine Booth in London. These missions aimed not only to provide temporary shelter and food to the homeless but also to address the moral and spiritual needs of the destitute. The central mission of these organizations was to save souls through religious instruction, moral reform, and practical aid (Magnuson, 2004, 2). This reflected the era’s belief that homelessness was not just a physical problem but also a moral and spiritual one.

Architecturally, charity missions and shelters began to reflect more humane considerations in their design. While poor houses were often prison-like, charity missions sought to create environments that were more nurturing. Though modest in size and amenities, these shelters typically included dormitory-style sleeping arrangements, communal dining rooms, and sometimes even classrooms or chapels. Many charity-run shelters also provided basic vocational training, with the belief that equipping individuals with skills would help them reintegrate into society and secure employment. This was particularly significant because for many residents, “...the alienation of others from society was so great that considerable personal change had to precede any attempt to obtain and hold employment…” (Magnuson, 2004, 92). The training offered in these shelters often included sewing, cooking, cleaning, and other basic trades that could lead to low-wage work. The layout of the shelters was designed to foster order and discipline but without the harshness that characterized earlier institutions. Additionally, some missions provided services for alcoholics and those suffering from mental illness, which also reflected a greater awareness of the complexities behind homelessness.

Despite the relatively modest facilities, charity shelters had a very important impact on social welfare. Their approach to homelessness was far more compassionate than it had ever been historically, and while the moral reform element was still strong, the services provided went beyond mere survival needs. These shelters helped lay the groundwork for the more holistic approaches that would come into play during the 20th and 21st centuries. Furthermore, charity shelters also played a role in urban social reform movements, as many founders and benefactors advocated for more broad societal changes to take place, such as labor laws, public health measures, housing reforms, etc. Their efforts truly highlighted the relationship between systemic poverty and homelessness, and in doing so, challenged the widespread belief that homelessness was simply the result of personal failings. Despite all of this, the shelters were not perfect. Many individuals resented the religious overtones that accompanied the assistance provided to them by these missions. In some cases, receiving shelter required attendance at religious services or participation in moral education programs, which was a step backwards into the almshouse era where religious coercion in exchange for help was rampant. Additionally, these shelters were still only temporary solutions, and for many, the missions became mere revolving doors where individuals would get temporary relief only to return to the streets once they exhausted their stay.

The early 20th century then gave way to immense social and economic upheaval, particularly marked by the Great Depression, which left countless individuals without any means of subsistence. This period officially marked the beginning of a new era, where governments began to step in to provide immediate relief through welfare and emergency shelters. Emergency shelters were largely a response to the overwhelming need for housing created by mass unemployment, urbanization, and economic downturn-, a desperate attempt to take care of the “...millions of Americans [that] were living outside the normal rent-paying housing market.” (Gregory, 2009).

Because emergency shelters were designed to meet the basic needs of large numbers of people, offering a safe place to sleep, access to food, and basic medical care, their architecture reflected a sense of urgency and efficiency. Buildings were often repurposed from existing structures (like warehouses, armories, or municipal buildings) and adapted to accommodate large groups of individuals. Dormitory-style layouts were the most common, with rows of cots or bunk beds placed in large open rooms.

Privacy was not really a concern in these environments, as the priority was on housing as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Therefore, the defining characteristics of these shelters became shared bathroom facilities, communal dining halls, and minimal personal space.

PRECENDENTS/HISTORY

EVA SOLANO GENAO

9

The welfare shelter system, which had developed alongside emergency shelters, was slightly more structured and formalized.

These shelters were not just about providing a place to sleep but also acted as distribution points for food and clothing and as hubs for other social services. While emergency shelters were typically run by local municipalities or charitable organizations, welfare shelters were fueled by New Deal policies in the U.S. and similar welfare-state initiatives in other countries aimed at stabilizing the lives of homeless people/families (Marx, 2018). Design-wise, welfare shelters were utilitarian, with a focus on functionality over comfort. They were often vast structures with simple layouts that maximized space. In contrast to previous shelter models, these welfare buildings were constructed/adapted with long-term durability in mind. Due to their emphasis on efficacy, many welfare shelters had a cold, institutional feel that reflected the idea that homelessness was a temporary crisis that needed immediate intervention, even if it was in an impersonal manner. Welfare shelters were typically found in urban areas, particularly in cities hit hardest by the Great Depression. However, even though these shelters could be found all over major cities and were meant to house countless individuals, they still struggled with overcrowding and underfunding. Reports from the time reveal the difficulties faced by residents, with many forced to share cramped living spaces and go without basic necessities like clean water or food. Additionally, many of these shelters continued to lack adequate heating, ventilation, or sanitation, which led to outbreaks of disease and illness among residents.

Thankfully, as the Great Depression gave way to the post-war era, the role of welfare and emergency shelters began to evolve.

While they continued to serve as critical components of the social safety net, particularly in times of economic crisis, they also laid the groundwork for more comprehensive solutions to homelessness that would come about later in the century. The welfare and emergency shelter systems highlighted the need for a more robust, long-term approach to housing the homeless, a realization that would eventually lead to the development of public housing projects and transitional shelters designed to offer more than just temporary relief.

The end of World War II marked another turn of the tide in how societies addressed housing, particularly for vulnerable and low-income populations. The destruction caused by the war, combined with the economic dislocation of millions of individuals and families, led to an acute housing crisis in many parts of the world. Governments, especially in Western countries, began to see housing as a public responsibility, rather than simply a private matter. In the United States, the Housing Act of 1949 set the groundwork for the development of extensive public housing projects. The primary goal was to provide affordable, permanent housing to low-income families, many of whom were displaced or homeless in the post-war period. For instance, in La Crosse, WI, “during the first five years after World War II, the city was able to pursue, with the Federal Housing Administration, other affordable housing that was more permanent [including] the additions called Salzer Plats which provided 118 homes…” (Anita, 2018).

Public housing projects during this time were built on a massive scale, and large urban centers like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles became epicenters for these developments. The design of these projects reflected the modernist architectural principles that were popular at the time, particularly the high-rise utilitarian structures that could, in theory, most efficiently house thousands of people. Notably, precast reinforced concrete (PRC) homes required “...less skilled labor, [and] were constructed from concrete panels and steel frames. The assembly was quick, and they were expected to last a lot longer than other temporary housing…at least 60 years…” (National Science and Media Museum, 2021). And so, housing projects during this era became characterized by concrete facades, flat roofs, and minimal ornamentation, and were designed specifically to contain as many people as possible per unit, per building.

Public housing developments were often built in the outskirts of cities on land that was considered cheap and readily available.

In the U.S., many of these developments replaced old, run down neighborhoods, often displacing residents in the process.

While the original intent was to offer a dignified living environment for the urban poor, the execution often fell extremely short due to inadequate funding, poor maintenance, and a lack of social services. One of the most iconic public housing projects from this era was Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis, Missouri. Completed in 1954, Pruitt-Igoe consisted of 33 eleven-story buildings and provided thousands of housing units, all equipped with modern amenities such as central heating and elevators.

FIG. 3

PRECENDENTS/HISTORY

EVA SOLANO GENAO

10

While initially praised as being a symbol of modern housing innovation, over time, the project became infamous for its failures. A combination of poor management, underfunding, and social isolation led to high rates of crime, vandalism, and neglect (St. Louis Public Radio, 2024). By the 1970s, Pruitt-Igoe had deteriorated to the point where it was considered no longer safe to be inhabited and was subsequently demolished in 1972, only 18 years after it was completed. The demolition of Pruitt-Igoe became a powerful symbol of the failure of large-scale public housing projects and became a significant deterrent for future urban housing policy.

Critics of post-war public housing argue that the actual design of these buildings was one of the major contributors to their failure. The large, impersonal towers, often surrounded by expanses of empty, uninviting land, created environments that were inherently socially isolating. There was also very little thought put into integrating these public housing projects with their surroundings; they were often placed far away from commercial areas and services, which helped to reinforce social and economic segregation. Overall, the lack of amenities and poor community infrastructure within these projects led to a sense of abandonment and neglect, so it was imperative that future housing/shelter endeavors address these issues in a far more nuanced way.

The idea that housing is a right and that governments should be responsible for providing it to those in need was a radical shift from earlier approaches, where charity and temporary shelters were the primary means of addressing homelessness. However, the realities of these large-scale projects were more often than not quite grim. As a result, by the 1970s, many governments began to shift away from large public housing projects in favor of more decentralized, community-based solutions.

In the U.S., policies shifted toward housing vouchers and subsidies for private landlords, and many of the existing public housing developments were either demolished or repurposed, marking the end of the high-rise era of public housing. By the late 20th century, homelessness had become an increasingly visible social issue, due to factors such as “...gentrification of the inner city, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, high unemployment rate, the emergence of HIV/AIDS, an inadequate supply of affordable housing options, and deep budget cuts to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and social service agencies in response to what was then the country's worst recession since the Great Depression.” (Jones, 2015, 93). As a response, shelter design evolved from the previous basic temporary solutions to more structured environments, often reflected by transitional shelters. These shelters aimed not only to provide immediate refuge but also to offer long-term pathways toward stability and reintegration into society.

The architecture of transitional shelters began to prioritize a more humane and rehabilitative environment. Earlier shelters, such as those from the 19th and early 20th centuries, were largely focused on dormitory-style housing with little privacy or individualized care. In contrast, transitional shelters of the late 20th century began to be designed with smaller, more private spaces in mind, often featuring individual rooms or even apartment-style units. These layouts promoted a sense of dignity and ownership among residents, an aspect that was absolutely critical to rebuilding self-esteem and preparing these individuals for independent living. The focus on smaller units also reflected a deeper understanding that privacy and personal space are essential for mental health recovery, especially for populations dealing with trauma, addiction, and/or family displacement.

According to accounts, securing a sense of privacy among residents by not prying into their pasts actually facilitates social interaction, as they are not being scrutinized or poked and prodded the way they historically have been in other shelter types, particularly those with an emphasis on religious/moral reform (DePastino, 2013, 79).

Communal living spaces, such as shared kitchens, dining areas, and lounges, were integrated into shelter designs to further foster social interaction and a sense of community, which is vital for reintegration. These common areas were often designed to be open and flexible, encouraging both social engagement and group activities like counseling sessions or vocational training workshops. A defining feature of transitional shelters during this period was their emphasis on integrated supportive services.

Shelters were no longer seen as just housing but rather as comprehensive support centers that are meant to actually address the incredibly complex needs of homeless individuals. On-site services like mental health counseling, job training, addiction recovery programs, and legal aid began to be incorporated into these shelter designs as a direct reflection of their dual role as both residential and service-oriented facilities.

In many transitional shelters, the progression was also reflected in the structure of the living arrangements. Residents might begin their stay in a more supervised communal area and gradually move to more independent private spaces as they demonstrate stability and readiness for permanent housing. This tiered approach was supported by the shelter's architectural design, where different levels of privacy and autonomy were built into the shelter’s layout.

Despite these improvements, transitional shelters were not without their challenges; funding limitations often constrained the scope of services that could be offered, and overcrowding remained a persistent issue in many urban areas.

PRECENDENTS/HISTORY

EVA SOLANO GENAO

11

Additionally, while transitional shelters were designed to serve as temporary solutions, many individuals and families ended up staying far longer than intended due to the shortage of affordable housing options. These issues underscored the need for broader systemic solutions to homelessness, such as permanent housing initiatives.

FIG.4

FIG.6

FIG.5

FIG.7

FIG.8

CURRENT TRENDS AND PRACTICES

EVA SOLANO GENAO

C U R R E N T T R E N D S P R A C T I C E S

A N D

12

In more recent decades, the “Housing First” model has emerged as a groundbreaking approach to addressing homelessness.

Unlike traditional shelter models that require individuals to address issues such as addiction, mental health challenges, or unemployment before being eligible for permanent housing, the Housing First approach completely flips the paradigm on its head. It prioritizes stable housing as the foundational step in recovery, providing individuals with a safe and secure living environment before addressing other underlying issues. The idea is simple: once people have a place to call home, they are better positioned to tackle personal challenges that may have contributed to their homelessness.

The origins of Housing First can be traced back to the 1990s, when it was first implemented in New York City by Pathways to Housing, an organization founded based on the belief that housing is a basic human right. They pioneered the concept of providing permanent housing to individuals experiencing chronic homelessness without the prerequisite of sobriety or treatment adherence. Housing First advocates argued that the uncertainty of homelessness made it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to focus on recovery, and that by eliminating housing insecurity, these individuals could more effectively engage in treatment for mental health, addiction, or employment issues.

Architecturally, Housing First programs are designed with a focus on permanence and integration into the broader community.

Unlike the emergency or transitional shelter models that often isolate homeless populations, Housing First models are typically integrated into residential areas, in an effort to reduce the stigma associated with homelessness.

In fact, many Housing First developments are essentially indistinguishable from regular apartment complexes or housing units (Tsemberis, 2007). This deliberate design strategy helps to foster a sense of dignity and normalcy for residents, positioning them as important members of a community rather than as outcasts.

Design priorities for Housing First initiatives include privacy as a particularly key concern, with most models providing individual apartments or small housing units rather than shared dormitories. By offering these private units, residents are given a space to regain their independence, which is imperative for mental health and self-worth. Safety is another major design consideration.

Many homeless individuals, especially women and those with mental health challenges, have faced trauma, making secure housing critical for their recovery. Housing First units often include security measures such as secure entry systems, 24-hour monitoring, and staff support to ensure residents feel safe and protected. This focus on safety is essential in encouraging individuals to remain in the housing and begin the process of recovery without the fear of returning to the streets.

Accessibility is also heavily prioritized, as physical disabilities and chronic health conditions tend to be quite prevalent in homeless populations. These units are often built with features such as wheelchair ramps, accessible bathrooms, and elevators, ensuring that all residents can live independently in their new homes. Sustainability has also become a growing focus in these initiatives. Many developments have started incorporating green building practices such as solar panels, energy-efficient appliances, and even water-saving fixtures. This not only helps reduce operational costs but also promotes long-term sustainability for both residents and the community.

All in all, studies have shown that participants in these programs are far more likely to remain housed and less likely to experience relapse into homelessness compared to individuals in traditional shelter models. In some cases, Housing First programs have achieved retention rates as high as 80-90%, significantly reducing the social and economic costs associated with homelessness. This is generally because “...housed people are less likely to use emergency services, including hospitals, jails, and emergency shelters, than those who are homeless.

FIG. 9

CURRENT TRENDS AND PRACTICES

EVA SOLANO GENAO

13

One study found an average cost savings on emergency services of $31,545 per person housed in a Housing First program over the course of two years.” (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2022). However, the success of such programs depends heavily on funding and community support. The upfront cost of developing permanent housing units and providing ongoing social services can be a lot, not to mention trying to integrate these developments into existing communities, an effort which can sometimes meet resistance, as local residents may hold negative beliefs and misconceptions about the impact of homeless populations on property values and neighborhood safety. Due to this, the most successful programs of this kind often have had to include community outreach and education to not only address these concerns but also emphasize the positive societal outcomes of reducing homelessness.

Even more recently, shelter design has been geared towards addressing the specific needs of vulnerable populations, resulting in the creation of specialized shelters. These shelters cater to distinct groups, such as women, children, veterans, and individuals from marginalized communities. This model understands the fact that a one-size-fits-all approach is not very effective in addressing the diverse challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness.

These specialized shelters are particularly successful as they offer tailored services that respond to the physical, emotional, and social needs of their specific residents. Most relevant to my thesis is the design of women and girls’ shelters. These programs are much more focused on creating a sense of warmth and comfort, contrasting the often sterile or institutional feel of traditional shelters. Additionally, individual or family units are preferred over shared living quarters, offering privacy that is crucial for emotional recovery. Therapeutic design elements are also heavily incorporated (soft lighting, natural materials, calming color schemes, etc.) to promote a sense of tranquility and healing.

Beyond physical safety, women’s shelters provide access to a wide array of services aimed at supporting long-term recovery and reintegration into society. Many are equipped with on-site counseling rooms, legal aid offices, and job training centers, allowing residents to receive care all in one location. As for single mothers, it is well documented that shelter life tends to interfere with their parental roles by increasing their feelings of incompetency regarding the familial role, so it has been crucial for shelters to “...develop empowerment strategies for the women in their care…” (Arrighi, 1997, 52). Playrooms, educational facilities, and outdoor spaces are set up to provide their children with areas for recreation, learning, and social interaction, and schooling and counseling are often provided on-site to ensure the kids maintain their education while receiving emotional support during their stay. Plenty of communal areas for the women themselves are also included within these designs, and are aimed to foster a sense of community while maintaining individual privacy, offering spaces like shared kitchens, dining areas, and living rooms where they can interact, seek support from one another, and rebuild their social networks in a safe environment. This intentional blend of privacy and community fosters empowerment, encouraging women to regain their independence while feeling supported.

Overall, the holistic approach of modern shelters is particularly compelling to me as a designer. The integration of comprehensive services—addressing trauma, healthcare, education, and long-term recovery—are all elements I intend to incorporate into my design. My ultimate goal is not just to provide immediate safety and shelter, but to cultivate autonomy and long-term stability for some of society’s most marginalized individuals.

FIG. 10

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: 1

C A S E

S T U D Y

EVA SOLANO GENAO

14

A N A L Y S I S

Navy Green Supportive Housing Navy Green Supportive Housing (NGSH), as its name suggests, is the supportive housing section of the Navy Green public housing development in Brooklyn, New York. Completed in 2012, it was a collaboration between nonprofit developer Pratt Area Community Council (PACC) and the renowned architecture firms Architecture in Formation and Curtis + Ginsberg Architects.

This project was designed as a direct response to the homelessness crisis in New York City and is part of a larger initiative to revitalize the Brooklyn Navy Yard area. NGSH’s development as a whole is firmly rooted in local engagement, with the design process involving community charrettes and the input of residents from the surrounding area. This allowed for the project to not only be a top-down solution but a collaborative effort to actually meet the community’s needs. The larger Navy Green development occupies almost an entire city block and is made up of a mix of affordable and market-rate housing, as well as home ownership opportunities, commercial space, and green spaces.

The site where the NGSH building stands today was once the U.S. Navy Brig, which was a naval prison built during WWII and demolished in 2006. The transformation of this space from a cold, dark prison into a vibrant supportive housing complex perfectly reflects society’s shift in treating homelessness, moving away from incarceration/institutionalization and towards holistic and community-building approaches.

NGSH’s primary objective is to provide permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless individuals with mental health challenges and/or histories of substance abuse. This objective involves not just providing shelter but creating a community that supports the well-being and stability of the people it is meant to aid. The project strives to foster a sense of belonging, connection, and dignity through thoughtful design and rehabilitative services. It integrates case management, counseling, job training, and recreational programs into the housing environment, as a way to address both the physical and psychological needs of its residents. Another key focus during the design process was sustainability; the building incorporates energyefficient systems, recycled materials, and a maximization of natural light- all of which contribute to its long-term affordability and low environmental impact.

The development is located at 40 Vanderbilt Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, and is a major part of the rapidly changing urban landscape of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The Yard was once a booming industrial hub that had quickly fallen into disrepair by the mid-20th century, and has since been subject to some major redevelopments. The area surrounding the Navy Green development includes a mix of industrial buildings, other residential developments, and creative businesses, which all seem to reflect the ongoing gentrification of the neighborhood. Bordered by the elevated Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, the design of the NGSH building takes this into account and stands out from it with its bright red facade, a clear delineation between the industrial landscape/the constant flow of traffic, and the place so many marginalized individuals call home. Notably, the development also includes access to public transport and plenty of green spaces, ensuring that residents feel well-connected and included in the broader urban environment of the Yard.

The construction of the 56,000 sq ft NGSH building began in 2010 and was completed in May 2012, its total construction cost averaging out to about $16.8 million. The choice of materials used, including precast concrete planks and block construction, allowed for a pretty cost-effective development that still maintained the structural integrity. The building also incorporated recycled content in its masonry and energy-efficient appliances, making it both affordable and sustainable. Budgetary constraints were still a challenge, however, and led to the head designers choosing to go for a NYSERDA energy efficiency certification versus a LEED certification, and allowed the remaining funds to be directed to high-quality interior furnishings and finishes.

FIG. 11

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: 1

EVA SOLANO GENAO

15

Navy Green Supportive Housing’s design program is organized around the concept of striking a balance between private and public spaces for residents. The building contains 97 single-occupancy units, each designed to maximize functionality within a small footprint. These units, which each have an area of approximately 450 sq ft, provide individual residents with a completely private living space, including a kitchenette, bathroom, and sleeping area. Notably, the units are arranged along double-loaded corridors, which aim tremendously in optimizing the building's space and circulation efficiency. The development’s communal spaces also play a critical role in its organization. The double-height lobby serves as a welcoming entry point, flooded with natural light and visually connected to the outdoor “Shared Courtyard”. The "Ramphitheater" is a particularly interesting and innovative feature that functions as both an ADA-compliant ramp and a gathering space for all residents. This multifunctional area connects the street level to the courtyard and serves as a metaphorical bridge between NGSH residents and the broader Navy Green community, as the courtyard itself is shared with the other residential buildings within the development.

Additionally, the ground floor’s community room offers space for tenant meetings, classes, and social events, while the caseworkers’ offices located across the corridor provide residents with quick and easy access to supportive services. For my modular shelter design, NGSH offers particularly valuable lessons in program organization. Its integration of private and communal spaces, as well as its strategic use of multifunctional areas like the “Ramphitheater,” allowed me to understand how certain spaces can be optimized to meet both practical and social needs. In a modular context, where space is often pretty limited, it will be critical for me to ensure that communal areas are easily accessible and designed to encourage interaction.

Similarly, the circulation of NGSH’s building is designed to be clear and intuitive. The double-loaded corridors provide efficient access to all units, while the wide, brightly lit stairwells encourage residents to use them instead of only relying on the elevators.

Each floor is color-coded and features bold graphic shapes/simple designs, helping residents visually navigate the building and create a distinct sense of identity for each level. The circulation patterns also encourage interaction among residents, with communal spaces placed strategically along the main circulation routes. In my own design, incorporating clear and logical circulation patterns will be essential for creating a functional and welcoming environment. By following NGSH’s model, I can make sure that residents can easily navigate the building while encouraging them to engage with each other through the communal areas. The use of color and graphics to differentiate floors is another idea that I can adapt to make my shelter more navigable and visually appealing. NGSH uses a block-and-plank construction system, with the depth of the structural bays determined by the need to maximize the efficiency of space without sacrificing the building’s structural integrity. The choice of materials was mostly guided by budgetary restrictions, but the design team was able to incorporate creative elements that still give the building character. An example of this was the use of varied window sizes and orientations, which helped break up the facade and provided each unit with totally different and unique views/natural light. This lesson regarding the importance of flexibility in the structural system is also worth noting for my own project. A modular shelter could certainly benefit from a similar approach, where the structural system allows for variations in unit layout while maintaining cost-effectiveness.

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: 1

EVA SOLANO GENAO

16

Natural lighting is another central feature of NGSH’s design. The large windows in the residential units provide plenty of daylight, and create a brighter and more welcoming space for residents. The communal areas, such as the lobby and “Ramphitheater,” are specifically designed to maximize natural light in a way that makes them feel extremely open and inviting. The building’s orientation takes advantage of its urban setting and the sun’s path, with the facade facing the street and its grand windows providing views of the surrounding neighborhood. Taking this into account for my own project, ensuring that both private and communal spaces are well-lit with sunlight is definitely a priority, especially when it comes to a design that aims to give holistic refuge to users. NGSH demonstrates how thoughtful window placement and orientation can enhance the quality of life for residents, so for a modular design such as mine, where access to natural light may be limited by the size and layout of individual units, this demonstration is particularly relevant.

One of the most important aspects of Navy Green’s design is its balance between public and private spaces. Approximately 50% of the building’s area is dedicated to private units, 30% is used for public or communal spaces, and 20% of space is allocated to circulation, including corridors and stairwells. This balance ensures that residents have the privacy they need in their individual units while also giving them many opportunities for socializing and interacting within the communal areas. This effort to maintain a balanced ratio between public and private zones will also be essential for my shelter design. Providing residents with personal space is extremely important for their sense of autonomy and security, while shared social spaces are crucial in helping to reduce isolation and foster a sense of community between everyone.

NGSH is deeply influenced by its urban context, with the building’s design reflecting the challenges and opportunities of the densely populated Brooklyn neighborhood it is located in. Its proximity to public transportation, commerce, and other services allows residents to access essential resources, while the shared courtyard provides outdoor space and fresh air for residentsan amenity that is quite rare within such dense urban landscapes. Additionally, the building’s bold red facade helps it stand out amidst its environment and creates a visual anchor for the equally bold and vibrant community surrounding it.

It should also be noted that while suburban/rural supportive housing projects may have more space available, they tend to face challenges in providing access to services and public transport. Therefore, I believe the densely populated and developed location of my chosen building, Lakewood Elementary, fits my shelter design’s purpose of reintegration quite well. Therefore, by referencing Navy Green’s success in creating communal outdoor spaces that residents have easy and equal access to within a developed urban area, I can draw valuable insights for my own design.

FIG.12

FIG.13

FIG.14

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: 2

EVA SOLANO GENAO

17

Shelter From The Storm Shelter From The Storm (SFTS) is the only non-government-funded homeless shelter in all of London that provides temporary accommodation. The project brief was to convert a disused local store into a multipurpose building that functions as a 38-bed homeless shelter by night and a community café by day. The night shelter provides free emergency accommodation, along with breakfast, dinner, and holistic support to around 40 guests, while the day café is open to the public in order to generate revenue and encourage interaction between community members and shelter residents. While the housing periods are temporary (usually lasting about a month), the shelter emphasizes personal ownership and individuality for guests. The design includes cork-clad stud partitions in both male and female dormitories that provide both acoustic insulation and a customizable pinboard for guests to make their spaces feel like their own. Additionally, while the shower areas are communal, they are fully enclosed for privacy and security.

The design was strongly influenced by the shelter’s philosophy of shared meals and community (Contributor, 2020). Designers saw cooking and eating together as key to a guest's transformation and rehabilitation, and as such, the kitchen was placed at the very center of the facility, with the other spaces branching out from it and surrounding it. Notably, communal tables are arranged around the kitchen so that volunteers preparing meals can directly engage with those eating them, which helps create an inclusive and supportive environment. Sensitivity was also a high priority in addressing the experience of new guests. Many shelter residents had recently experienced trauma, and it was critical to create a warm, inviting environment for them to be welcomed into. The choice of materials, the scale of the design, and its overall sensitivity aimed to make the shelter as homely as it is durable. The SFTS shelter occupies the site of a former supermarket located in a residential estate, which presented several challenges. Opposition from local residents arose due to the stigma associated with homelessness, the site’s deep plan limited natural light especially towards the back of the building where loading bays had been, etc. Rolling with the punches, the design team chose to retain some of the original supermarket’s practical features, like the exposed ducts and conduits, which not only gave the space an industrial yet modern aesthetic, but also helped make maintenance more straightforward.

The construction timeline for Shelter From The Storm began in February 2019 and concluded in May 2019. Though the project’s total construction cost remains undisclosed, it was designed under strict budget constraints (Woodger, 2019). The architects leveraged donations and sourced materials such as white Grestec tiles for the bathrooms, wooden chairs from a closing-down restaurant, and flooring donated by Altro. This pragmatic approach is particularly notable, as it allowed for a well-functioning and aesthetically pleasing design despite the relatively small budget.

Despite its limited gross internal area, the shelter’s layout accommodates a wide range of functions, including a kitchen, communal dining area, dormitories, bathrooms, and the café. The central placement of the kitchen naturally organizes the rest of the space, fostering interaction and community-building through shared meals. Spaces are spaced very strategically to be able to utilize the square footage of the building as effectively as possible, which is certainly a key point to study when planning out my own shelter’s floor plans.

FIG.15

The design’s open plan allows for easy circulation between all of its areas while maintaining clear separations between public and private spaces. Circulation flows naturally from the center outward, creating direct access to communal areas while preserving privacy for residents in dormitory/restroom areas. Furniture placement and built-in structures subtly guide movement through the shelter without feeling restrictive.

The building’s structural bay, with columns spaced at approximately 1.5 meters (4.92 feet), creates an intimate yet functional layout. The column spacing provides the flexibility to carve out smaller nooks for residents, without creating an overly dense or cramped atmosphere, a strategy that will surely be helpful when tackling my chosen building, Lakewood Elemnetary’s structure.

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: 2

EVA SOLANO GENAO

18

As briefly mentioned before, the shelter’s deep plan and lack of windows in the rear made it pretty challenging to allow natural light in. To counter this, windows and glass panels on the east and west sides were added to allow sunlight to filter in throughout the day, providing a bright, welcoming space in the communal areas.

Public and private spaces were very carefully throughout and balanced, with public zones occupying the center of the building for easy access, especially during day hours when the facility operates as a cafe and is open to the general public, while private zones are located on the periphery of the floorplan. This separation ensures that the residents have their privacy while allowing for communal interaction in the central areas (Archdaily, 2020). Circulation between public and private spaces is practically seamless, with clear visual and spatial distinctions that help residents feel secure without feeling isolated. Overall, by carefully balancing public interaction with privacy and meticulously designating each square foot available to the most suitable space, Holland Harvey Architects created a shelter that is practical, welcoming, and sensitive to the needs of its users. Most noteworthy to me personally, as my own work is an adaptive reuse project, was their ability to overcome the original site's constraints, and still be able to produce a final design that reflects the proposal’s core philosophy of community, dignity, and rehabilitation above all else.

FIG.16

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: 3

EVA SOLANO GENAO

19

MLK1101 Supportive Housing MLK1101 Supportive Housing, designed by Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects, transformed a previously vacant lot in South Los Angeles into a supportive housing community. The project is made up of approximately 34,000 square feet, plus 4,000 square feet of parking, and provides permanent, 100% affordable housing for formerly homeless veterans, chronically homeless individuals, and low-income households. The development aims to offer safe, stable, and affordable housing that also prioritizes community-focused amenities. It also features two retail units at the street level that help generate income that will help subsidize the housing while providing workforce training to residents so that they can transition back into society.

The primary goal of MLK1101 is to create a sustainable, healthy, and socially engaging environment for its residents. Its LEED Gold-certified design aims to maximize space efficiency, minimize environmental impact, and foster a sense of community through both planned and organic social spaces that feature high-efficiency heating and cooling, appliances and fixtures, solar water heating, electric vehicle charging and bike parking.

The site was originally a vacant lot located in a central urban area near public transportation, museums, and gardens. To create a strong street presence, parking was tucked behind a storefront space and a widened staircase that connects the street to elevated community spaces. This stoop also serves as a public gathering space and encourages interaction between residents and their neighbors, which directly cuts through the isolation that supportive housing can oftentimes foster.

The construction of MLK1101 Supportive Housing took place officially between 2018 and 2019, with a total project cost of about $16.2 million. The budget included sustainable design features and impactful architectural elements like the outdoor garden which houses drought-tolerant plants and raised-bed edible gardens that connect the community room to the living spaces, and give residents a place to relax and socialize.

The building’s program consists of 26 residential units designed for individuals and families, as well as a few supporting amenities. Units range from one to three bedrooms, and each is equipped with a kitchen, living area, and bathroom. On the lower floors, there are shared spaces such as a community room, kitchen, and outdoor garden that all residents have access to The L-shaped design organizes the program to maximize natural light, cross ventilation, and opportunities for social interaction, while ensuring privacy within living spaces.

Circulation within MLK1101 is designed specifically to promote accessibility and social interaction. Exterior walkways connect public and private areas, facilitating easy movement between units and community spaces. These wide walkways act as informal gathering areas, enabling residents to interact while maintaining privacy. Secondary circulation within units is quite straightforward, with clear pathways that ensure efficient use of space and access to natural light.

The structural bays at MLK1101 measure approximately 20 feet between interior columns, while the ground-floor parking area spans 40 feet between columns. Besides the efficient structural support these bays bring, they also allow for flexibility in unit layouts and optimal use of space within the building, which is always welcome.

The L-shape of the building is oriented to maximize natural light in all units. Windows are positioned on all sides in order to ensure that sunlight reaches each apartment. This orientation supports resident wellbeing and reduces the need for artificial lighting, which aligns with the project’s LEED Gold certification and the design’s sustainability objectives.

FIG.17

Space utilization at MLK1101 balances public and private areas. Public spaces, such as the community room, garden, and retail units, are located on the ground and second floors, while residential units occupy the upper floors. Public zones include the retail space, community room, and garden, which encourage resident engagement and interaction with the broader neighborhood. Private zones, including the residential units, management offices, and supportive services, are situated in such a way that they organically provide residents with a sense of security and privacy.

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: 3

This clear delineation is ideal as it supports both community building and individual well-being.

MLK1101 emphasizes compactness, mixed-use spaces, and pedestrianfriendly design, and its location in a central urban area near public amenities easily allows for resident integration into the community. Additionally, the design’s incorporation of retail space and community-centered amenities make it a great example of urban solutions for supportive housing.

Through its integration of LEED-certified elements, efficient space utilization, and clear distinctions between public and private areas, MLK1101 offers insights that will be nothing short of crucial for my thesis.

FIG.18

FIG.19

EVA SOLANO GENAO

20

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: 4

EVA SOLANO GENAO

21

Repos Maternel Women's Shelter Extension Repos Maternel is a shelter located in Gradignan, France, specifically designed for pregnant women and young mothers who are socially and financially vulnerable. The site spans 33,174 square feet and is situated in the wooded park of Château Lafon, a country house that was originally built in 1920. The facility provides residents with housing, support services, and communal areas. Prior to the modern extension executed by Marjan Hessamfar & Joe Vérons architectes associés, the site was made up of scattered outbuildings that served various functions, including a nursery, offices, and three halfway-house units. The goal of this extension and revitalization was to retain these essential services while adapting them to better meet the needs of the residents. The updated design consolidated residential units inside the original château with additional functions placed in a sunken extension that surrounds a courtyard.

The design of Repos Maternel aims to preserve the positive image of the château, which holds cultural and historical significance. The project's objectives focus on maintaining the integrity of the park, preserving existing trees, and highlighting the historic architectural features of the château. The design strives to uplift residents’ self-esteem by allowing them to enjoy the beautiful environment of the park and the château alike. The landscape and the château are treated as a unified whole, with any visible extension carefully integrated to maintain architectural coherence and the site’s relationship with its surroundings.

The site itself is a woodland park with trees that date as far back as a century. The design prioritizes the natural arrangement of said trees and the views framed by their leafy canopies, creating a sense of unity between the lawns and the built structures.

Landscaping improvements include the addition of tall-growing trees along redesigned driveways to guide the view toward the château. The flower meadow that covers the extension integrates it into the park, while a low strip of perennials near the building enhances natural light. The upper garden not only serves as a more private space separated from the park, it also acts as a protective area for residents to feel a sense of safety and comfort. All in all, the full extension and modernization of Repos Maternel was completed with a budget ranging between $1 million and $5 million, and its construction was finally wrapped up in 2019.

The courtyard space at Repos Maternel is the central feature of the sunken extension, offering a unique balance of privacy and openness. It provides a secure, welcoming space for residents to gather, connect, or simply relax, away from the public eye yet fully integrated into the design. The open patio, for instance, is designed to bring in natural light to the sunken extension while maintaining visual privacy. It allows residents to feel a sense of openness while also feeling protected, which is crucial for the shelter’s target residents—pregnant women and young mothers seeking safety and solace. The landscaping around the courtyard includes soft grasses and flowers, enhancing its calming and protective ambiance. The patio’s sunken nature aligns with the need for discreteness, as it is shielded from direct view while still providing a visually attractive and inviting space.

This specific aspect of the overall design is particularly significant because it supports the psychological and emotional wellbeing of residents. By providing a safe yet communal area for social interaction and relaxation, the courtyard helps to foster a sense of normalcy and community, both of which are vital for residents in transitional housing. The space acts as an extension of the indoor spaces in a way that seamlessly connects the shelter’s residential units to the outdoors. It also functions as a buffer zone that offers a protected transition between the privacy of the living areas and the openness of the park beyond. This integration makes the courtyard feel like an intimate extension of the residents' daily living spaces, providing opportunities for outdoor dining, recreational activities, and solitary reflection. Because of this, this case study will play a very important role in shaping the courtyard space I plan to design into my own shelter. This project also aligns with my broader design goal of providing a shelter for specifically women and young girls. All in all, this case study is invaluable for my thesis as it demonstrates how thoughtful design can create a secure, therapeutic, and community-oriented environment—an approach that aligns perfectly with my creative vision.

FIG. 20

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: 5

EVA SOLANO GENAO

22

Maison d’accueil de l’enfance Eleanor Roosevelt Maison d’accueil de l’enfance Eleanor Roosevelt is an emergency residential center located in Paris, managed by the local child welfare department (Aide Sociale à l’Enfance - ASE). It serves as a temporary shelter for minors under legal guardianship and provides them with a safe, supportive, and nurturing environment. The center is designed to not only offer protection but also to support the maintenance of family ties and meet the educational needs of the children it houses. To create a sense of safety and normalcy, the architects developed a building where each floor caters to a specific age group and fulfills distinct needs ranging from individual quiet time to group activities, similar to many K-12 school models. The new facility, which was completed in 2013 with an approximate budget of $18 million, was designed to replace the existing center in order to increase its capacity and expand its services. Notably, the development is part of a larger urban renewal project that includes public amenities such as a cinema, a residential circus, and Serge Gainsbourg Park.

The main objective of this center is to provide practical, educational, and psychological support to children and teenagers in need of emergency care. The design aims to create a welcoming, homelike environment that meets both safety and educational requirements while maintaining a calm, reassuring atmosphere. The designers wanted to strike a balance between functionality and a sense of warmth, and thus focused on creating a place that feels safe and nurturing for its young residents.

The existing site presented two major challenges: its core is north-facing, and the architectural program is dense, which made it hard to align with the primary development zone plans. These constraints also created potential issues with natural light and open space. To address all of this, the architects designed an L-shaped structure with varying stepped levels that allow for recreational terraces on each floor and optimizes natural light and views for all residents alike. Enclosed gardens were also added around the building, with primary façades facing south and west to maximize sunlight. Essentially, each floor functions as an independent unit with its own health and safety regulations, tailored to the specific needs of its occupants.

The material choices for Maison d’accueil de l’enfance Eleanor Roosevelt played a critical role in meeting the project’s objectives. The architects aimed to create a building that is not only functional and sustainable but also visually cohesive, all while ensuring a comforting, homelike atmosphere for the children. As such, material selection was key in enhancing both the aesthetic and practical aspects of the shelter.

The wood-framed façade with metal cladding was chosen for its combination of durability and warmth. The wood provides a homely texture that makes the building feel less institutional and more inviting, while the metal cladding adds resilience, offering protection against external elements.

The concrete structure, including pillars, beams, and floors, provides the flexibility necessary for the building’s layout. The use of concrete throughout the entirety of the project allows for different functionalities across floors, meeting the diverse needs of the shelter’s residents. The exterior features self-cleaning white concrete, which helps maintain the building’s appearance as the material naturally resists discoloration from weather and pollution. This choice is particularly effective given the shelter’s location near busy Parisian ring roads, where exposure to pollution is a concern. This prefabricated white concrete also reduces maintenance efforts and costs, making it an ideal choice for a facility that needs to focus its resources on resident care.

FIG.21

FIG.22

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS: 5

EVA SOLANO GENAO

Furthermore, the gold-colored aluminum louver shutters were selected for their multifunctional role. They not only add an aesthetically pleasing touch to the façade, but also protect the building’s interior from excessive sunlight and help preserve privacy through their modulation of visibility; this ensures that the children are protected from potential prying eyes while still benefiting from natural sunlight.

The use of black metal elements further enhances the building’s visual cohesion.

These elements frame the windows, balconies, and terraces, providing contrast against the white concrete and golden shutters and creating a unified, elegant exterior.

In terms of application to my own project, the material strategy of Maison d’accueil de l’enfance Eleanor Roosevelt offers a lot of valuable insights. The self-cleaning concrete would be particularly advantageous for the transitional shelter I have in mind, ensuring a visually appealing and low-maintenance exterior, even in polluted or weather-exposed environments. In addition, the use of shutters could enhance the privacy of the shelter’s residents while contributing to a warm, welcoming aesthetic. By integrating these materials, I believe I can achieve a safe, homelike, and sustainable environment for the displaced women and young girls of Atlanta.

23

FIG.23

FIG.24

FIG.25

FIG.26

FIG.27

ANTICIPATED PROGRAM

A N T I C I P A T E D

EVA SOLANO GENAO

24

P R O G R A M

Client Description The primary clients are unhoused women, young girls, and single mothers residing in Atlanta. In 2023 alone, it was reported that over 40% of the city's homeless population were women and children, many of whom face unique challenges. Single mothers, in particular, may struggle to find stable housing that allows them to care for their children while working toward financial independence. This project addresses these urgent needs by not only providing them with housing, but a supportive, secure, and empowering environment designed to help them rebuild their lives and gain stability.

Design Parameters The project will serve as transitional housing, offering a mix of small studio apartment units designed primarily for single women.

Each studio will include a bathroom, a small seating area, and a sleeping area, but no kitchen, as meals will be provided in a shared cafeteria serving residents three times a day. Additionally, a limited number of 1-2 bedroom units will be designated for single mothers, ensuring they can stay with their children.

A top priority is sustainability and adaptive reuse. The design will transform an old, abandoned school building to accommodate all these essential spaces. The historic facade will be preserved to maintain the character of the landmark, while the interior will be modernized to meet the needs of the residents effectively.

Critical Spaces and Functions Primary Spaces: Studio Apartments – private living spaces for single women, including bathroom, sleeping, and seating areas.

1-2 Bedroom Units – for single mothers, with bathroom, sleeping, and seating areas.

Social / Conferencing Spaces: Cafeteria/Dining Hall – communal dining area for residents, with seating for group meals.

Outdoor Courtyard/Recreational Area – a social, open-air space for relaxation and play.

Counseling Rooms – private, soundproof rooms for one-on-one sessions.

Job/Skill-Building Workshop Rooms – for educational and vocational training sessions.

Addiction Recovery and Harm Reduction Rooms – designated space for group meetings or one-on-one support related to recovery.

Community Lounge or Gathering Room – a space where residents can socialize, watch TV, or attend group activities and events.

Quiet or Meditation Room – a calming space dedicated to reflection, mindfulness, or meditation.

Children’s Playground – an outdoor play space for children to play safely under supervision, especially helpful for single mothers needing time to participate in workshops or counseling sessions.

Ancillary Spaces: Reception/Intake Office – welcoming area for new residents and guests.

Administrative Offices – workspace for facility management and staff.

Security Office – designated area for security guards to monitor resident activity and ensure a safe environment.

Storage Rooms – designated for supplies, food storage (near cafeteria), and other necessary items.

ANTICIPATED PROGRAM

EVA SOLANO GENAO

25

Storage Rooms – designated for supplies, food storage (near cafeteria), and other necessary items.

Staff Break Room – a designated area for staff to rest or recharge, promoting their well-being and allowing them to provide better support.

Small Library or Reading Nook – a cozy, resource-filled space with books and possibly computers, to encourage residents to read, study, or research job opportunities. This can be especially useful for residents working on skillbuilding.

Utility Spaces: Infirmary/Medical Room – includes a small examination area and waiting space for basic healthcare.

Shared Laundry Room – accessible to all residents for laundry needs.

Janitorial Closet with Sink and Supplies – ensuring easy access to cleaning supplies for regular maintenance, helping keep the facility orderly and safe.

Circulation Factor: Corridors and Hallways – connecting residential units to shared spaces and support services.

Stairwells/Elevators – providing accessibility between floors, especially given the adaptive reuse of the existing school building layout.

Entryways and Exits – main and emergency exits, considering both accessibility and security.

Equipment and Furnishings Primary Spaces: Studio Apartments (Single Women) Single bed with mattress, bedding, and pillows Small sofa or armchair Side table and lamp Dresser or wardrobe Wall-mounted mirror Basic bathroom fixtures: toilet, sink, and shower Towel rack and storage for toiletries 1-2 Bedroom Units (Single Mothers) Double or twin beds (one for mother, others for children as needed) Small seating area (sofa or armchair) Dining table (small, foldable if space is limited) Storage (dresser, wardrobe) Basic bathroom fixtures: toilet, sink, shower or bathtub Wall-mounted mirror Child-safe shelving for toys and other personal items Social / Conferencing Spaces: Cafeteria/Dining Hall Storage containers Serving counter Refrigerated display cases Tray and utensil dispensers Microwaves Warming ovens Prep tables Dishwashing area Food storage cabinets Commercial refrigerators/freezers Trash and recycling bins Tables and chairs (durable, easy-to-clean materials) Bulletin board Outdoor Courtyard/Recreational Area Benches and seating Picnic tables Plants and landscaping elements Counseling Rooms Comfortable armchairs (for counselor and client) Small coffee table or side table Soundproofing elements (acoustic panels, rugs) Tissues and small trash cans

ANTICIPATED PROGRAM

Low lighting options (table lamps for a calming effect) Job/Skill-Building Workshop Rooms Work tables and chairs (flexible for group arrangements) Whiteboard and markers Computers or workstations Storage cabinets for materials Projector or screen (for presentations) Addiction Recovery and Harm Reduction Rooms Comfortable seating arranged for group settings Small table for refreshments (water, coffee) Tissues and trash cans Inspirational or calming wall decor Whiteboard or flipchart (for group sessions) Community Lounge or Gathering Room Sofas and armchairs for group seating Coffee table or side tables Television with cabinet Bookshelf with books, magazines, games Floor lamps or soft lighting options Area rugs for comfort and sound absorption Quiet or Meditation Room Floor cushions or meditation mats Small table for calming elements (plants, small waterfall feature) Soft, dimmable lighting Aromatherapy diffuser Children’s Playground Child-sized tables and chairs Age-appropriate toys and books Soft play mats Storage bins for toys and supplies Child-safe seating (small sofas or beanbags) Swingset Play clubhouse w/ slides Ancillary Spaces: Reception/Intake Office Reception desk and chair Comfortable seating for waiting area Visitor sign-in system (clipboard or digital device) Brochure display and information rack Wall clock and informational posters Administrative Offices Desks and chairs for staff Filing cabinets and storage shelves Computers, phones, and office supplies Meeting table and chairs Whiteboard or bulletin board Security Office Desk and chair for security personnel Monitoring equipment (cameras and displays) Secure lockbox for incident reports and keys Basic first-aid kit Radio or intercom system for emergency communication Storage Rooms Shelving units for storage of supplies and inventory Lockable cabinets (for food or sensitive items)

EVA SOLANO GENAO

26

Staff Break Room Small table and chairs for meals Microwave, coffee maker, and mini fridge Lockers for staff belongings Bulletin board for staff notices Couch or comfortable seating Small Library or Reading Nook Bookshelves stocked with a variety of books Armchairs or beanbags for comfortable reading Small table with a lamp Computers or tablets Utility Spaces: Infirmary/Medical Room Examination table with paper rolls Storage for medical supplies and first aid Handwashing station Lockable cabinets for medications Waiting chairs for patients Basic health monitoring equipment (thermometer, blood pressure monitor) Shared Laundry Room Washing machines and dryers Folding table Laundry baskets and carts Shelving for detergent and other laundry supplies Janitorial Closet Mop sink with faucet Storage for cleaning supplies and tools Mop, broom, and vacuum cleaner holders Circulation Factor: Corridors and Hallways Wayfinding signs for directions and rooms Lighting fixtures for visibility Handrails for accessibility Stairwells/Elevators Stairwell railings and emergency lighting Elevator with emergency communication system Signs indicating emergency exit routes Entryways and Exits Secure entry system (keycard or monitored access) Durable, easy-to-clean floor mats at entrances Emergency exit signage and lighting Access ramp or ADA-compliant entry

ANTICIPATED PROGRAM

EVA SOLANO GENAO

27

Growth Objectives / Expansion Options / Exit Strategies, Etc. Growth Objectives: Expand the shelter’s capacity gradually by utilizing underused spaces or renovating additional rooms.

Begin with a set number of units and support services, allowing for a phased approach to adding more apartments or family units.

Assess occupancy rates, waiting lists, and resident needs to justify expansions.

Enhance supportive services (job training, counseling, healthcare) over time.

Partner with local organizations, nonprofits and government agencies to bring in additional resources.

Consider expanding addiction recovery programs, legal aid, or other services based on resident feedback.

Build community support and awareness for the shelter’s mission and impact.

Organize open-house events, volunteer opportunities, or partnerships with local businesses to secure ongoing funding and volunteer support. As the shelter grows, this should attract sustainable investments and resources.

Expansion Options: Plan for multi-functional spaces, such as conference rooms that can double as workshop areas or community rooms adaptable for different group sizes.

Track available buildings or lots near the facility that could accommodate more specialized spaces, such as larger family units, a daycare, or a community center.

Sustainability and Funding Objectives: Secure diversified funding from multiple streams to avoid reliance on one source.

Build partnerships with government entities, seek grants, and create a donor and volunteer support base to support expansion and operational growth over time.

Increase environmental sustainability.

Aim for energy efficiency certifications like LEED and invest in sustainable materials to reduce operational costs and appeal to donors who prioritize sustainability.

Exit Strategies: Create a full record of design decisions, materials, and specifications for future reference and maintenance.

Compile floor plans, elevations, renderings, and any design revisions made during the project.

Include a materials list with sources, care instructions, and sustainability certifications.

Provide a list of all equipment and furnishings, including purchase details and maintenance recommendations.

Ensure all project deliverables are completed, organized, and transferred smoothly to the client or facility management team.

Provide both hard and digital copies of all documents, plans, and permits.

Include detailed “as-built” drawings reflecting the final design post-construction to aid in future renovations or repairs.

Equip facility staff with the necessary knowledge to operate, maintain, and maximize the building’s functionality.

Prepare an operations manual detailing the functionality and upkeep of all installed systems (e.g., HVAC, security, appliances).

Perform a final walkthrough and client review.

Conduct a thorough walkthrough with the client to assess each space against the design brief.

Gather client feedback and resolve any minor issues on the spot to ensure their satisfaction.

Obtain written confirmation of project completion and satisfaction to formally conclude the design phase.

Provide a smooth post-project transition.

Schedule a follow-up meeting to address any emerging issues and evaluate the project’s long-term impact.

Provide the client with a list of recommended contractors or contacts for regular maintenance needs.

SITE & BUILDING SELECTION

EVA SOLANO GENAO

28

S I T E & B U I L D I N G S E L E C T I O N Building Selection Project Location: Lakewood Elementary School: 335 Sawtell Avenue, SE, Atlanta, GA The building is located in the Lakewood Heights neighborhood, south of downtown Atlanta. The area is adjacent to South Bend Park and South View Cemetery. The site falls within Council District 1 and NPU-Y. Entry, Approach, Topography: The main entrance of the building faces Sawtell Avenue, providing direct access from the street. This entrance is characterized by wide steps and a potential for ramp additions to meet accessibility standards. The surrounding topography is relatively flat, facilitating ease of access to the building. The property features a driveway and loading area on the south side of the main building, which can accommodate up to 5 cars. Additionally, there is a leased parking lot that can hold approximately 35 cars, expanding the potential parking capacity for residents and visitors. The front of the annex has a small playground, which can be repurposed for outdoor communal space, while the rear features a large open area with a concrete pad suitable for recreational or service use.

Parameters of Site/Building: Total Site Area: 2.1 acres Total Building Gross SFT: 43,000 square feet Number of Stories: 3 (main building and small basement), 1 (annex) The main building is a robust two-story structure that includes essential facilities such as an auditorium with a stage, a kitchen, a cafeteria, and a media room. Classrooms are arranged along double-loaded corridors. Large windows along the building’s perimeter provide significant natural light. The annex is a one-story structure connected to the main building by a corridor and features additional classrooms and a multi-purpose room with restrooms. The main building structure consists of CMU (concrete masonry unit) load-bearing walls supported by steel bar joists and a concrete roof. The exterior is covered in a brick veneer. The annex is constructed with CMU load-bearing walls, steel trusses, and a metal roof.

ADA Accessibility: Currently, the building does not meet ADA requirements. Comprehensive renovations are needed to include features like elevators, ramps, accessible doorways, compliant restrooms, and other necessary updates to make the building fully accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Socio-Economic and Demographic Summaries: The Lakewood Heights neighborhood has a diverse and economically varied population. This project focuses on transitional housing for single women and single mothers, addressing a critical need within the community. Many residents face socioeconomic challenges, including limited access to affordable housing and supportive services. Transforming the former school into a transitional shelter aligns with efforts to empower women and promote community resilience.

FIG.28

FIG.29

SITE & BUILDING SELECTION

EVA SOLANO GENAO

29

Reasoning for Its Appropriateness Lakewood Elementary School’s existing infrastructure, including classrooms, a kitchen, and communal spaces, makes it an ideal candidate for adaptive reuse as transitional housing. The building’s layout provides a foundation for creating a supportive environment that can cater to various needs, such as communal dining, educational workshops, and private living spaces. The original structure allows for an efficient redesign, minimizing the need for extensive structural modifications while optimizing the space for a new purpose. The building’s central location is a significant asset. It offers close proximity to public transportation, healthcare facilities, social services, and educational resources, which are essential for residents as they work toward stability and independence. This connectivity to essential services can facilitate easier access to job opportunities, community programs, and healthcare, fostering a supportive ecosystem for residents transitioning to more permanent housing solutions.

Repurposing outdoor areas into recreational spaces and communal gathering spots further enhances the suitability of the site.

These areas can be transformed into gardens, play areas for children, or quiet spaces for reflection and socialization, promoting physical and mental well-being. The integration of outdoor spaces aligns with best practices for creating holistic environments that support both physical activity and community-building.

Historical Context: The former educational facility in the Lakewood Heights neighborhood, holds historical significance that can be leveraged to strengthen community ties and preserve local heritage. Maintaining and repurposing this structure honors its legacy while adapting it to meet present-day needs. This historical resonance can also foster a sense of pride and continuity within the community, making the project more than just a housing initiative but a symbol of resilience and progress.

Community Impact: The transformation of the site into transitional housing aligns well with city initiatives aimed at addressing homelessness and supporting vulnerable populations. The project contributes to broader social goals by providing stable, supportive environments for those in need, particularly single women and single mothers. The provision of transitional housing helps bridge the gap between emergency shelters and permanent housing, offering residents a secure space to rebuild their lives with dignity and support. This impact resonates throughout the neighborhood, enhancing community cohesion and reducing the visibility and impact of homelessness.

Environmental Considerations: Opportunities for sustainable design practices, such as energy-efficient retrofitting and the incorporation of green spaces, will be explored to support the project’s sustainability goals. Energy-efficient upgrades, including improved insulation, energysaving windows, and LED lighting, can reduce long-term operational costs and contribute to a smaller carbon footprint. Green spaces and urban gardens will also be introduced to promote biodiversity and create pleasant, functional outdoor areas that contribute to residents’ quality of life.

FIG.31

FIG.32

CODE SEARCH / REVIEW

C O D E

S E A R C H

EVA SOLANO GENAO

/

30

R E V I E W

Local Building Codes The project must adhere to the 2018 IBC with Georgia Amendments, as enforced by the City of Atlanta. Key sections of the IBC applicable to this project include: Chapter 3 (Use and Occupancy Classification): Transitional housing is classified under Group R (Residential), specifically Group R-2 for non-transient residential uses.

The building's design must accommodate this classification with appropriate fire safety measures, occupancy limits, and egress strategies. This involves clear demarcation of residential units and associated shared spaces to meet compliance.

Chapter 4 (Special Detailed Requirements Based on Use and Occupancy): Special regulations for residential structures such as shelters must be observed, including provisions for fire command centers, areas of refuge, and emergency management facilities.

Chapter 6 (Types of Construction): Understanding the existing construction type is critical to evaluate necessary renovations and upgrades. The current structure, composed of CMU and steel, must meet the fire-resistance ratings prescribed for Type III or Type II construction. Fireproofing materials and reinforcement may be required to meet these standards.

Chapter 7 (Fire and Smoke Protection Features): Required fire-rated walls and partitions must be evaluated and potentially upgraded to create fire compartments that limit the spread of smoke and fire, ensuring occupant safety. The implementation of fire doors and barriers will be considered.

Chapter 8 (Interior Finishes): All interior finishes must meet the flame spread index requirements outlined in this chapter. This includes ensuring that wall coverings, flooring, and ceiling finishes are compliant with fire safety regulations to prevent rapid flame spread.

Chapter 9 (Fire Protection Systems): A detailed plan for installing or upgrading fire sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, and alarm systems must be developed. Compliance with NFPA 13 for sprinkler systems and NFPA 72 for fire alarm and detection systems is essential to enhance safety.

Chapter 10 (Means of Egress): Detailed analysis of exit access, travel distance, and emergency exits must be undertaken to meet egress requirements. This includes ensuring that corridors are wide enough for safe evacuation and that exit signs and lighting meet code specifications. Proper egress systems, including stairways and exit doors, should be planned to ensure no bottlenecks occur during evacuation.

Chapter 11 (Accessibility): While the building is currently non-compliant, modifications must be implemented to satisfy ADA requirements, including accessible routes, elevators, and compliant restroom facilities. The addition of automatic doors and tactile warnings for the visually impaired are also required components.

Chapter 12 (Interior Environment): Regulations for ventilation, natural light, and temperature control must be reviewed to ensure a healthy living environment.

Chapter 13 (Energy Efficiency): Adherence to energy conservation standards outlined in this chapter must be ensured. This involves upgrading insulation, using energy-efficient windows, and incorporating energy-saving HVAC and lighting systems.

Chapter 29 (Plumbing Systems): Adequate plumbing must be installed to accommodate the residential load, including water-saving fixtures as per modern code standards. This involves retrofitting existing plumbing to meet the increased demands of residential use.

Chapter 34 (Existing Buildings): This chapter outlines provisions for the renovation and repair of existing structures. It focuses on maintaining the structural integrity and upgrading essential safety systems while preserving historical elements.

CODE SEARCH / REVIEW

EVA SOLANO GENAO

31

Zoning Regulations The building is currently zoned under MRC-2 (Mixed Residential-Commercial), allowing for both residential and limited commercial use. Some specific zoning regulations include: Permitted Uses: The MRC-2 zoning classification permits a mix of residential and commercial uses. This flexibility supports transitional housing that integrates supportive services such as job training centers, counseling offices, community spaces, and educational workshops. Such mixed-use development can strengthen the community by providing essential resources on-site.

Density Limitations: The MRC-2 zoning designation supports medium- to high-density development. The floor area ratio (FAR) for non-residential use is capped at 2.5 times the net lot area, while residential use is limited to 1.49 times the net lot area. These limitations help regulate building size relative to the lot. The zoning also permits increased density through open space and affordable housing incentives, allowing developers to expand floor area ratios when such community benefits are included.

Open Space Regulations: Developments in MRC-2 zones are required to include a minimum percentage of open space to create a balanced living environment. These regulations promote outdoor activity, community interaction, and visual relief. Open spaces must adhere to design standards, including accessibility and maintenance criteria, to ensure they serve all residents effectively.

Parking and Transportation: Zoning regulations mandate parking provisions based on the type of residential and commercial use within the development.

For transitional housing projects, parking requirements must meet both residential and ADA standards, including designated spaces for individuals with disabilities. Additionally, developments should incorporate safe pedestrian pathways and bicycle storage to support alternative transportation methods.

Landscaping and Aesthetic Controls: MRC-2 zoning requires that landscaping be included as a buffer between residential and commercial areas. These landscaped areas improve the aesthetic appeal, contribute to environmental sustainability, and reduce noise pollution. Standards often include the planting of native trees, shrubs, and greenery that enhance visual interest and support urban ecology.

Signage and Lighting: Zoning codes in MRC-2 districts regulate the type, size, and placement of signage to ensure clarity, proportionality, and harmony with the building design. Signs should be appropriately scaled to avoid visual clutter and maintain a professional appearance. Lighting regulations focus on providing adequate illumination for safety without contributing to light pollution, ensuring that fixtures are shielded and directed away from adjacent properties.

Sustainability and Green Building Requirements: While not always explicitly stated in zoning codes, many MRC-2 developments are encouraged to adhere to sustainable building practices. This includes the integration of green roofs, energy-efficient systems, and stormwater management features to minimize environmental impact. Sustainable practices align with broader city initiatives aimed at promoting eco-friendly and energy-efficient construction.

Federal Codes (ADA) The project must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which mandates the inclusion of accessible routes, ramps, door widths, restrooms, and elevators. Key considerations include: Accessible Entrances: The primary entrance must be modified to include ramps or lifts, ensuring access for individuals with mobility challenges.

Elevators: To provide accessibility to all floors, installation of elevators will be necessary, meeting ADAAG (ADA Accessibility Guidelines) specifications.

Restrooms: Renovating existing restrooms or constructing new ones to meet ADA standards, including grab bars, adequate turning space, and accessible sinks.

Signage: Compliant signage with braille and tactile elements must be installed throughout the building.

Lighting and Acoustics: Enhancing lighting to ensure proper visibility and acoustics to assist those with hearing impairments are part of ADA compliance considerations.

CODE SEARCH / REVIEW

EVA SOLANO GENAO

32

Industry Sanctioned Codes NFPA (National Fire Protection Association): Compliance with NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code) ensures fire safety measures such as fire alarms, sprinkler systems, and emergency lighting are in place.

JCAHO (Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations): While typically applied to healthcare facilities, aspects relevant to residential health and safety standards may be referenced to enhance the shelter’s safety and operational protocols.

Additional Local Considerations The City of Atlanta enforces regulations regarding historic preservation, given the building’s potential historical significance.

Adaptive reuse must balance preserving original architectural features with modern code compliance. Additional considerations include: Energy Codes: Implementation of energy-efficient systems, in line with ASHRAE standards, to enhance sustainability and reduce long-term operational costs.

Seismic and Wind Load Requirements: Compliance with IBC provisions related to structural stability under seismic and wind loads is crucial, especially in retrofitting older buildings.

Preservation Guidelines: Any renovation or adaptive reuse project involving an older building must adhere to the city’s preservation guidelines, which outline necessary steps to retain key architectural elements. This includes maintaining the integrity of the facade, conserving original window designs, and using materials that match or complement the existing structure. Specific permits may be required for modifications impacting historically significant features.

Community Impact Assessment: Before significant renovations commence, a community impact assessment may be mandated to gauge how changes to the building will affect the local area. This process involves community consultations, public meetings, and input from local preservation societies. The goal is to create a renovation plan that aligns with the community’s needs and values while supporting the intended use as transitional housing.

Sustainability and Environmental Considerations: Sustainability is a key part of local regulations, particularly when working with historic properties. Energy-efficient retrofitting, such as the installation of double-glazed windows that mimic historical designs or insulation improvements that do not disrupt existing structures, is encouraged.

The use of eco-friendly materials and low-impact construction practices can further ensure the project aligns with city sustainability goals.

Integration of Modern Safety Features: Modernizing an older building for public use, especially for residential purposes, requires the integration of contemporary safety features. This includes the addition of fire suppression systems, updated electrical wiring, and advanced HVAC systems that meet current building codes while being as non-intrusive as possible to maintain the structure’s historic elements.

CODE SEARCH / REVIEW

EVA SOLANO GENAO

33

FIG.33

FIG.34

FIG.36

FIG.35

FIG.37

PROGRAMMATIC CONCEPTS

P R O G R A M M A T I C

EVA SOLANO GENAO

34

C O N C E P T S

The adaptive reuse of Lakewood Elementary School into transitional housing for single women and mothers is an opportunity to explore the transformative potential of intentional design in addressing homelessness. This project builds on several programmatic concepts: sustainability, resident well-being, supportive services, and community interaction. These ideas serve as a foundation for creating a supportive environment that fosters recovery, autonomy, and personal growth.

A critical focus of the project is sustainability. The design must prioritize energy-efficient systems and the reuse of materials to minimize environmental impact while reducing operational costs. Resident well-being is just as crucial, with private, secure spaces essential for mental health and stability. Supportive services, such as counseling centers, job training workshops, and health facilities, aim to address the multifaceted challenges faced by residents. Finally, community interaction is facilitated through shared spaces like a courtyard and cafeteria, creating opportunities for residents to connect, share experiences, and rebuild social networks. Together, these programmatic elements inform the broader questions of how design can empower vulnerable populations.

In light of these considerations, the thesis explores two key questions. First, how can the design of transitional housing support mental health and emotional recovery for residents transitioning out of homelessness? Second, in what ways can the integration of supportive services within transitional housing designs encourage self-sufficiency and personal growth among residents? These questions are rooted in the belief that the built environment profoundly influences human behavior and emotional health. By addressing these questions through design, this project seeks to advance the discourse on transitional housing and provide practical solutions.

To ground this exploration in evidence, the study by Rollings and Bollo (2021), titled "Permanent Supportive Housing Design Characteristics Associated with the Mental Health of Formerly Homeless Adults in the U.S. and Canada," offers valuable insights. The authors hypothesize that specific design elements (such as privacy, safety, housing quality, opportunities for social interaction, etc.) positively impact mental health outcomes. Framed within the theoretical perspective of environmental psychology, the study emphasizes the capacity of well-designed spaces to mitigate stress and foster recovery among vulnerable populations.

The research identifies several variables crucial to mental health, including privacy, safety, housing quality, community spaces, and autonomy. Privacy allows residents to regain a sense of control and personal dignity, while safety and security alleviate anxiety and create a stable environment. High-quality housing features, such as natural light and durable materials, contribute to a sense of comfort and permanence. Community spaces foster social engagement, reducing isolation and encouraging positive relationships. Autonomy is enhanced by giving residents control over their living environment, reinforcing their independence. Rollings and Bollo’s methods involve a systematic review of 17 peer-reviewed studies on permanent supportive housing across North America.

This approach allows the authors to synthesize findings from diverse sources, identifying consistent trends and outcomes.

They conclude that privacy, safety, and well-maintained communal areas significantly improve mental health outcomes for residents, affirming the critical role of design in supportive housing.

However, the study is not without limitations. It relies heavily on secondary data which limits its ability to draw direct causal relationships between design features and mental health improvements. Additionally, while the findings are compelling, including real-world examples of successful design implementations would certainly strengthen the study’s applicability.

Overall, the insights from this research provide quite a strong foundation for designing Lakewood Elementary School’s transformation into transitional housing.

By prioritizing privacy, safety, and communal spaces, the design can address residents’ psychological needs while promoting social interaction and recovery. Coupling these elements with sustainability enhances the project’s impact, demonstrating how transitional housing can meet immediate needs while fostering long-term empowerment. This thesis seeks to contribute to the discourse on homelessness by illustrating the transformative potential of intentional, evidence-based design.

FIG.38

PROPOSED TEST FIT

EVA SOLANO GENAO

P R O P O S E D

T E S T

35

F I T

The bubble diagram for my thesis project, Heart & Haven Shelter, maps out the spatial relationships within the converted Lakewood Elementary School, focusing on creating a safe, functional, and empowering environment for residents. Residential units are intentionally positioned away from more open social spaces, such as the cafeteria and outdoor courtyard, to prioritize privacy and provide a retreat for residents. This separation helps create a balance between fostering community engagement and maintaining personal boundaries, which is essential for the emotional recovery of individuals transitioning out of homelessness. Direct access is instead reserved for supportive services like counseling rooms and the infirmary, ensuring that residents can easily reach critical resources without compromising their privacy.

Indirect access is incorporated into spaces that support communal activities or operations but do not need immediate adjacency to private areas. For example, the cafeteria and job/skill workshops are strategically placed with indirect pathways from the residential units, encouraging residents to engage in these spaces while maintaining a physical and psychological boundary from their private quarters. The outdoor courtyard, positioned as a transitional area, connects to multiple spaces but avoids direct access to the units, ensuring that it remains a shared yet secure zone for residents to relax or interact. This thoughtful zoning fosters a sense of community while respecting the need for privacy in residential areas.

Undesired access is minimized to ensure safety and uphold the shelter's mission of providing a secure environment. For instance, the security office and addiction recovery services are deliberately distanced from family units and shared recreational areas to prevent disruptions and create distinct zones for specific needs. This separation also ensures that residents feel protected without the sense of being monitored excessively. The bubble diagram has been critical in visualizing these nuanced relationships, allowing me to balance accessibility, privacy, and functionality in a way that aligns with the project's overarching goals.

Shared Laundry Rooms 2 Bedroom Apartments

Staff Break Room

Small Library

1 Bedroom Apartments Security Office

Admin Offices

Community Lounge Outdoor Courtyard

Infirmary/ Medical Room Addiction Recovery Rooms

Studio Apartments

Reception AREA Children’s Playroom

Quiet/ Meditation Room Counseling Rooms

Job/Skill Workshop Rooms

Cafeteria/ Dining Hall

PROPOSED TEST FIT

B L O C K D I A G R A M

1

B L O C K D I A G R A M

2

EVA SOLANO GENAO

36

PROPOSED TEST FIT

B L O C K D I A G R A M

3

B L O C K D I A G R A M

4

EVA SOLANO GENAO

37

PROPOSED TEST FIT

EVA SOLANO GENAO

38

This test fit represents the culmination of my thesis design for a transitional housing project within the historic Lakewood Elementary School building. This proposal blends adaptive reuse with modern interior solutions to honor the architectural legacy of the site while transforming it into a functional, purpose-driven space. The design focuses on creating a safe, supportive environment tailored to the unique needs of single women and single mothers, offering both privacy for personal growth and opportunities for community engagement.

At the heart of this layout is a commitment to balancing security, comfort, and practicality. Spaces are carefully zoned to ensure safety, with the residential units placed away from high-traffic areas and open social spaces to preserve privacy. Supportive services, such as counseling rooms and skill-building workshops, are strategically integrated to provide residents with accessible resources for personal and professional development. Communal areas, including the cafeteria and outdoor courtyard, are designed to foster connection and a sense of belonging, reinforcing the importance of community support in the recovery and transition process.

This design also emphasizes sustainability by maximizing the existing structure while incorporating modern, durable materials to create a warm and inviting interior. Essential services are interwoven with daily living spaces, allowing residents to rebuild their lives in an environment that promotes independence and resilience. By combining thoughtful space planning with a focus on holistic support, this transitional housing project aims to serve as a model for how interior design can contribute to breaking the cycle of homelessness in a compassionate and empowering way.

P R E L I M I N A R Y T E S T F I T

APPENDIX

EVA SOLANO GENAO

39

A P P E N D I X Concept/Thesis Question The concept driving my thesis design, Heart & Haven Shelter, is centered on the intersection of transitional housing design and its capacity to support mental health and emotional recovery for residents transitioning out of homelessness. This exploration is grounded in two guiding questions: (1) How can the design of transitional housing support mental health and emotional recovery for residents transitioning out of homelessness? and (2) In what ways can the integration of supportive services within transitional housing designs encourage self-sufficiency and personal growth among residents? These questions frame a design challenge that seeks to move beyond basic shelter provisions, delving into how intentional, research-informed interior design can foster healing, empowerment, and community resilience. The need for this exploration stems from the pressing realities of homelessness in urban environments such as Atlanta, where over 3,000 individuals lack stable housing. Among this population, high rates of trauma, chronic medical conditions, and unemployment underscore the importance of creating environments that address more than just immediate physical needs. Transitional housing projects often fall short of holistically addressing the multifaceted challenges faced by residents, leading to a cycle of instability. By integrating supportive services within the framework of a thoughtfully designed built environment, this project aims to create spaces where residents can heal, rebuild their confidence, and work toward long-term self-sufficiency.

Mental Health and Design Research consistently underscores the impact of the built environment on mental health, particularly in transitional settings. A study by Evans et al. (2003) highlights how environmental stressors—such as overcrowding, poor lighting, and lack of privacy —can exacerbate anxiety and depression among vulnerable populations. Transitional housing must therefore prioritize elements that reduce stress and foster a sense of control, such as personalizable spaces, natural light, and acoustical privacy.

Evidence-based design principles employed in healthcare environments—such as biophilic design, soft color palettes, and sensory calming elements—offer valuable insights into creating spaces conducive to emotional recovery in shelters.

In addition, trauma-informed design has emerged as a critical approach for spaces serving individuals who have experienced significant adversity. Trauma-informed environments emphasize safety, empowerment, and predictability, aligning closely with the needs of transitional housing residents. According to Pinderhughes et al. (2015), key features include clear wayfinding, secure entrances, and communal areas that balance openness with controlled visibility. These principles will directly inform my design of Heart & Haven Shelter, ensuring that every space supports residents’ mental and emotional well-being.

Supportive Services and Self-Sufficiency The integration of supportive services into transitional housing is pivotal in breaking the cycle of homelessness. Studies have shown that providing on-site access to counseling, skill-building workshops, and healthcare services significantly improves outcomes for residents. For example, the Housing First model, which prioritizes stable housing paired with wraparound services, has demonstrated measurable success in reducing homelessness and promoting independence (Tsemberis, 2010).

Although Housing First typically emphasizes permanent housing, its principles—such as individualized care and low-barrier access to services—are equally applicable to transitional housing.

Transitional housing also benefits from spaces designed to cultivate community and connection. Communal dining areas, outdoor courtyards, and multipurpose rooms can reduce isolation and encourage peer support, which is particularly important for single mothers balancing personal growth with childcare responsibilities. Research by Bower et al. (2019) highlights how shared spaces that are intentionally designed to foster positive interactions can improve residents’ social skills and sense of belonging. These findings emphasize the importance of balancing privacy with opportunities for communal engagement in transitional housing design.

Adaptive Reuse and Sustainability The decision to convert Lakewood Elementary School into transitional housing aligns with broader trends in adaptive reuse, which prioritize sustainability and the preservation of architectural heritage. Adaptive reuse projects not only reduce construction waste but also offer unique design opportunities by repurposing existing structures. Research by Douglas (2006) emphasizes that successful adaptive reuse projects require careful consideration of the building’s original layout and structural constraints. For Heart & Haven Shelter, retaining the historic façade while modernizing the interior allows for a meaningful blend of past and present, creating a space that resonates with both history and hope.

APPENDIX

EVA SOLANO GENAO

40

Furthermore, sustainable design practices—such as energy-efficient systems, the use of durable materials, and the incorporation of green spaces—can enhance residents’ quality of life while reducing operational costs. Studies suggest that incorporating natural elements, such as indoor plants and outdoor gardens, can have measurable benefits on mental health, including reduced stress and improved mood (Ulrich, 1984). These principles will be integrated into the shelter’s design to support both environmental and human sustainability.

Ending Remarks This thesis is grounded in the understanding that transitional housing must do more than provide a temporary roof\u2014it must create a supportive environment where residents can heal, grow, and regain their independence. By addressing the relationship between design, mental health, and supportive services, and by leveraging adaptive reuse principles, Heart & Haven Shelter aims to set a new standard for transitional housing that is both compassionate and effective. This concept is not only a response to current challenges but also a vision for how design can empower individuals and transform lives.

Through extensive research, thoughtful design, and a deep commitment to addressing the multifaceted needs of individuals transitioning out of homelessness, this project demonstrates the transformative potential of interior design as a tool for social impact. It is my hope that this work not only contributes to the ongoing dialogue around homelessness but also serves as an inspiration for future innovation in creating equitable and healing environments for those most in need.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EVA SOLANO GENAO

41

B I B L I O G R A P H Y Arrighi, Barbara A. 1997. America's Shame: Women and Children in Shelter and the Degradation of Family Roles. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Blakemore, Erin. 2018. “Poorhouses Were Designed to Punish People for Their Poverty.” HISTORY. January 30, 2018. https://www.history.com/news/in-the-19th-century-the-last-place-you-wanted-to-go-was-the-poorhouse.

Contributor, A. J. 2020. “Shelter from the Storm by Holland Harvey Architects.” The Architects’ Journal. April 30, 2020. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/shelter-from-the-storm-by-holland-harvey-architects.

DePastino T. 2013. Citizen Hobo: How a Century of Homelessness Shaped America. Chicago Scholarship Online.

Gregory, James. 2009. “Hoovervilles and Homelessness.” https://depts.washington.edu/depress/hooverville.shtml.

The

Great

Depression

in

Washington

State.

Jones MM. 2015. “Creating a Science of Homelessness During the Reagan Era.” Milbank Quarterly.

Katz, Michael B. In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America. New York: BasicBooks.

Keegan, Edward. 2017. “MLK1101 Supportive Housing, by Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects.” Architect. February 24, 2017. https://www.architectmagazine.com/project-gallery/mlk1101-supportive-housing.

“La Crosse Public Library Archives :: Post-World War II Emergency Housing Project.” n.d. Archives.lacrosselibrary.org. https://archives.lacrosselibrary.org/blog/post-world-war-ii-emergency-housing-project/.

Magnuson, Norris, and Beverly Magnuson. 2004. Salvation in the Slums. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Marx, Jerry. 2018. “Great Depression: American Social Policy.” Social Welfare History Project. February 26, 2018. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/great-depression/american-social-policy-in-the-great-depression-and-wwii/.

“Maison d’Accueil de l’Enfance Eleanor Roosevelt, Paris (75) | Ordre Des Architectes.” 2019. Ordre Des Architectes. 2019. https://www.architectes-pour-tous.fr/architectes-pour-tous/marjan-hessamfar-et-joe-verons-architectes-associes/maisondaccueil-de.

“MLK1101 Supportive Housing / Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects.” 2020. ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/950370/mlk1101-supportive-housing-lorcan-oherlihy-architects? ad_source=search&ad_medium=projects_tab.

November

3,

2020.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2022. “Housing First.” National Alliance to End Homelessness. March 20, 2022. https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/.

“NAVY GREEN PACC SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.” content/uploads/2014/04/Session1E_ProjectFinalists_NavyGreen.pdf.

n.d.

https://www.csh.org/wp-

“Navy Green Supportive Housing.” 2013. Architizer. June 4, 2013. https://architizer.com/projects/navy-green-supportivehousing/.

“Navy Green Supportive Housing.” n.d. NYHC. https://thenyhc.org/projects/navy-green-supportive-housing/.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EVA SOLANO GENAO

42

“Navy Green Supportive Housing / Architecture in Formation + Curtis + Ginsberg Architects.” 2015. ArchDaily. July 10, 2015. https://www.archdaily.com/769887/navy-green-supportive-housing-architecture-in-formation-plus-curtis-plus-ginsbergarchitects?ad_source=search&ad_medium=projects_tab.

“Navy Green Supportive Housing by Architecture in Formation | 2014-06-16 | Architectural Record.” n.d.

Www.architecturalrecord.com. https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/7980-navy-green-supportive-housing-byarchitecture-in-formation.

Old English Houses of Alms : A Pictorial Record with Architectural and Historical Notes : Heath, Sidney, B. 1872. 2014. Internet Archive. 2014. https://archive.org/details/cu31924015418241/page/n7/mode/2up.

“OSHI | MLK1101 Supportive Housing.” n.d. https://oshi-la.org/project/mlk1101-supportive-housing/.

“Post-War Homelessness: Makeshift Homes between 1945 and the Early 1950s.” 2021. National Science and Media Museum.

November 18, 2021. https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/post-war-homelessness.

“Pruitt-Igoe.” 2024. Stlpr.org. 2024. https://black-white.stlpr.org/pruitt-igoe.html.

Rollings, K. A., & Bollo, C. S. 2021.

“Permanent Supportive Housing Design Characteristics Associated with the Mental Health of Formerly Homeless Adults in the U.S. and Canada: An Integrative Review.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18), 9588. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189588.

Rothman, David J., ed. 1971. The Almshouse Experience. Poverty USA: The Historical Record. Arno Press.

“Repos Maternel – Shelter for Mothers and Children.” 2020. Architizer. April 28, 2020. https://architizer.com/projects/reposmaternel-shelter-for-mothers-and-children/.

“Repos Maternel Woman’s Shelter Extension / Marjan Hessamfar & Joe Vérons Architectes Associés.” 2020. ArchDaily. May 3, 2020. https://www.archdaily.com/938669/repos-maternel-womans-shelter-extension-marjan-hessamfar-and-joe-veronsarchitectes-associes?ad_medium=gallery.

Tsemberis, Sam; Stefancic, Ana. 2007. “Housing First for Long-Term Shelter Dwellers in a Suburban County: Traditional Housing and Treatment Services.” The Journal of Primary Prevention.

Verons, Joe. 2019. “Repos Maternel | Marjan Hessamfar & Joe Vérons Architectes Associés.” Hessamfar-Verons.fr. MHJV. 2019. https://www.hessamfar-verons.fr/repos-maternel/.

Wagner, David. 2005. The Poorhouse. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

“Welfare Centre for Children and Teenagers | Marjan Hessamfar & Joe Vérons Architectes Associés | Archello.” 2024. Archello.

2024. https://archello.com/project/welfare-centre-for-children-and-teenagers.

“Welfare Centre for Children and Teenagers in Paris / Marjan Hessamfar & Joe Vérons Architectes Associés.” 2014. ArchDaily.

June 5, 2014. https://www.archdaily.com/512588/welfare-centre-for-children-and-teenagers-in-paris-marjan-hessamfar-andjoe-verons-architectes-associes?ad_medium=gallery.

Woodger, Michèle. n.d. “Shelter from the Storm Gives Homeless a Cosy Berth.” Www.ribaj.com. https://www.ribaj.com/products/shelter-from-the-storm-london-holland-harvey-architects-conversion-homeless-shelter.