AAD_SU21_018

A BOOK ABOUT QUESTIONS. A COLLECTION OF SPECULATIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT DESIGN POLICIES EQUITY ECOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGIES. MARIE CHRISTINE DIMITRI

UNPACKING EQUITABLE QUESTIONS 01 32 37

CAN DESIGN BE AN EQUITABLE TOOL FOR SOCIETY ?

CAN LINEAR GEOMETRIES REDEFINE ARCHITECTURAL SPACES?

CAN THERE BE AN EQUITABLE BALANCE BETWEEN MARKET RATE AND LOW INCOME HOUSING ?

58

HOW HAVE STAKEHOLDERS ARCHITECTURE AND POLICIES CONTRIBUTED TO HOUSING SCARCITY ?

63

CAN GEOMETRICAL TYPOLOGIES AND FABRICATION PROCESSES RE-DEFINE EQUITABLE FEMINIST TECHNOSCIENCES?

102

CAN THREE DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURES REDEFINE SOCIAL GATHERINGS?

EQUITY THROUGH LAND AND WATER

with Jasmine Jalinous Advanced Studio VI Led by Ziad Jamaleddine

Equity Through Land and Water is both an urban planning strategy and an architectural intervention. In Fatih, Syrian refugees and other minority communities have been stripped of their religious hubs. Through our lightweight scaffolding encasing the Fatih mosque, a canal system intervening throughout the city and an agricultural system dividing the imperial mosque gardens. The scaffolding-like structure is designed as a partial temporary structure depending on crop production and seasonality. However, three main branches remain permanent. Each acting as a religious hub giving communities a safe space to practice their beliefs. These branches represent the added Ablution and Women’s Mosque, the Church, and the Synagogue. The structure also houses a cultural centre and social services for visa counsellors & lawyers. The rainwater collected and channelled downhill gets diverted into patches of courtyard spaces where it is filtered and pumped back into the greenhouse structure surrounding the mosque, enabling a network of agricultural exchange, whilst giving equitable agency to minorities.

01

Istanbul Map

Highlighting Social and Environmental Factors through building typologies, sea routes, pollution, and urban nodes

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

02

03

Istanbul Map

Highlighting The Flood Map (dark blue is equivalent to areas with high retention of rainwater)

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

04

05

Fatih Minorities Map

Blow-Up of Minorities Map

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

06

07

Diagramatic Sketch

Highlighting the Rainwater Irrigation System Connecting to The Mosque and the Agriculutral Exchange System

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

08

09

Rain Collection Irrigation Plan and Section

Redefining the Waqf System

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Filtration Agriculture Filtered Water Path Rainwater Collection Path Religious Hubs

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

10

11

Rain Collection Irrigation Plan and Section

Redefining the Waqf System

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Filtration Agriculture Filtered Water Path Rainwater Collection Path Religious Hubs

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

12

13

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

22904 sqf

Fall 2020 Canal System Moment

14 15

Architectural Section

Scaffolding Structure Intervention Surrounding Fatih Mosque

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

16

17

Interior Perspective

Agricultural Planters Located In the Scaffolding Structure

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

18

19

Architectural Section

Scaffolding Structure Intervention Surrounding Fatih Mosque

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

20

21

Architectural Floor Plans

Ablution, Social Services, Women's Mosque & Agricultural Floor Plan

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

22

23

Agricultural Calendar Highlighting the Crop Sowing Period

Agricultural Calendar Highlighting the Crop Harvest Period

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

24

25

Architectural Ground Floor Plan

Transforming Imperial Gardens into Agricultural Sites as Part of The Waqf System

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

26

27

Architectural Elevation of The Agricultural Scaffolding

Highlighting the Scaffolding Structure, Canal System and Waqf System

Istanbul, Turkey

Adaptive Reuse

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

28

29

Adaptive Reuse

Istanbul, Turkey

Further Exploration

Can design be an equitable tool for society ?

Redefining a religious policy “the Waqf System” into an inclusive secular agricultural trading system.

Land and Water as sites for equity and exchange ?

Ephemerality a design conscious tool ?

Fall 2020

22904 sqf

30

31

LINES NOT S PLINES Indpendant Work Visual Elective Led by Christoph Kumpusch

A flat drawing as means of representation, A still image as means of translation, an object as means of visualization. How are twodimensional images translated in the real world? Design is heavily rooted in its visual representation, transforming a space into a drawing that is printed and viewed before even experiencing its real scale, in the real world. How is light, sound and texture transmitted / transformed or transported? The project transformed simple line drawings into a three-dimensional object. Re-imagining lines as architectural components, columns, walls, ceilings. The materiality of the object converts density into volumes and spaces. The white ropelike material enables the penetration of light within the structure. The contrasts between the balsa wood and rope distinguishes structure and surfaces. Re-imagining lines as canopies, bridges, platforms and roofs. The model requestions the notion of quantity. What is the difference between 1, 10, 100 or 1000 lines? Is the rope one line or an infinite possibility of segments? How does this affect the built object and notion of scarced ressources for building materials?

32

8.5 x 7 in

Fall 2020

Physical Model

Nowhere, NY

Translating Lines into a Space

33

34

8.5 x 7 in

Fall 2020

Physical Model

Nowhere, NY

Translating Lines into a Space

35

36

d

CON FLUENCE HARBOR POINT

with Tomas Buitrago Botero and Brandon Conrad Advanced Studio VI Led by Kate Ascher and Christoph Kumpusch Con·flu·ence (känˌflo͞oəns) is the junction of two bodies of water.

The LIHTC mixed-used development project aims too equitably merge residents of low-income housing with resident of market rate housing through designs of common spaces and shared amenities.

Confluence symbolizes both, the junction of the Harbor point and the Mohawk River, and the architectural junction of different socioeconomic backgrounds. This mixed-use development provides 445,000 sf of new commercial and residential space in addition to the creation of 110 new affordable residential units with rents ranging from 30 to 80 percent of area median income which create a total of $30 million dollars of LITHC credits. Additionally, the project promotes social accessibility by reactivating the water edges on the inner harbor and Mohawk River. Re-configuring their existing infrastructures to promote equity and accessibility. Harbor Point Utica is transformed into a pedestrian-friendly node and a socially equitable beacon of attraction. The market rate building is flanked by common spaces and bridges connecting the low-income housing.

37

Transforming the Harbor Front Into a Community

72774 sqf

Spring 2021

LIHTC Project

Utica, NY

Exterior Perspective Of The Harbor Point LIHTC / Mixed-Use Building

38

39

Modifying Existing Infrastructure Diagrams

72774 sqf

Spring 2021

LIHTC Project

Utica, NY

Plan Highlighting Major Nodes in Utica

40

41

Section Highlighting the Harbor Edge Commercial Building

72774 sqf

Spring 2021

LIHTC Project

Utica, NY

Architectural Section

42

43

Section Highlighting Commercial Building

72774 sqf

Spring 2021

LIHTC Project

Utica, NY

Architectural Section

44

45

Section Highlighting LIHTC Building and Market Rate Building Connected by Bridge

72774 sqf

Spring 2021

LIHTC Project

Utica, NY

Architectural Section

46

47

Section Highlighting Market Rate Building and LIHTC Building Connected by Bridge

72774 sqf

Spring 2021

LIHTC Project

Utica, NY

Architectural Section

48

49

Section Highlighting LIHTC Building and Park

72774 sqf

Spring 2021

LIHTC Project

Utica, NY

Architectural Section

50

51

Ground Floor Plans and Typical Floor Plan

72774 sqf

Spring 2021

LIHTC Project

Utica, NY

Architectural Floor Plans

52

53

Design Reinforcing Inter-Connectivity and Social Accessibility

72774 sqf

Spring 2021

LIHTC Project

Utica, NY

Architectural Section

54

55

LIHTC Project

Utica, NY

Further Exploration

Can there be an equitable balance between market rate and low-income housing ?

Readapting LIHTC guidelines and policies to create more socially accessible spaces.

Communal spaces and shared amenities as mean of social equity.

56

72774 sqf

Spring 2021

Water edges, a site for accessibility ?

57

HOU SING SCAR CITY Indpendant Work Hisotry Elective Led by Michael Bell

The Essay is constructed as a script between major housing scarcity stakeholders in the United States. The paper unfolds chronologically analysing the historical impact of housing laws in 1934, 37, 49, 54, 75, 95 and 98. These key dates illustrate different periods in which low-income housing, public housing and market-rate housing have drastically impacted the housing situation through economic and political changes. The research further examines the major stakeholders, from politicians to architects to bankers and their relationship to financing, construction phases and the real-estate market which have moslty contribute to unequitbale results.

STAKEHOLDERS: STAKEHOLER #1: Housing Governmental entities executing and Legislative and Judiciary power.

STAKEHOLDER #2: Residents affected by the housing laws place upon them.

STAKEHOLDER #3: Author’s Arguments (myself) STAKEHOLDER #4: The audience (readers)

58

INTRODUCTION As the urban population grows, so does urban density and need for housing. Indeed, enactment of new acts and policies have continuously shaped the housing market in the United States. This paper focuses on examining the historical evolution of housing in the United States in order to understand the policies and economic factors that have created scarcity in housing through three different lenses: public housing, market-rate housing, and low-income housing. The chronological timing in this paper will navigate from 1939,37,49,54,76,95, up until 1998.

The culmination of all these housing policies will allow me to develop a critical stance on the forces that have created market-rate housing.

BODY I: PUBLIC HOUSING PART 1: 1934 STAKEHOLDER #1: The first federally funded public housing in the United States of America dates back to 1933. In fact, the Act of 37 also known as the Wagner and Steagall act initiated the federal housing administration which provided subsidies to be paid by the US government to public housing (EveryCRSReport, 2018). The goal was to allow for low-income families to have better and improved living-conditions.

PART 2: 1949 to 54 STAKEHOLDER #1: Consequently, the act of 49 intended to ameliorate these public housing living conditions. Theoretically, the housing act of 49 would have been an improved policy in which public housing would be built on slum-clearance sites and generate urban renewal whilst providing decent living conditions.

STAKEHOLDER #2: While it was “successful” in some

59

PART 3: 1964-1974 STAKEHOLDER #1: Subsequently, a brief public housing revival initiative emerged under President Lyndon Johnson’s candidacy in hopes of ending poverty and decrease crime rates (History, 2018).

STAKEHOLDER #1: Conversely, during President Nixon’s candidacy, a moratorium on all federal programs for housing and urban development projects was declared with the exception of undergoing projects (Morris, The Nixon Program). Nonetheless, several studies were executed to examine the housing situation and argued that a pause was needed to draft new housing programs.

PART4: 1978 STAKEHOLDER #1: The goal for the 1978 act was to build 6 million units, yet several policy changes had slowed down these projects (Salpukas, 1973).

Stakeholder #3: It has become abundantly clear that changes in policy making and policy makers have affected public housing projects in the United States of America.

PART 5: 1992 STAKEHOLDER #1: Indeed, in 1992 the HOPE VI program was created to once again, revitalize the distressed public housing sector (EveryCRSReport, 2018). This new program intended to provide monetary funding to destroy or renovate “dangerous” and “dilapidated” public housing in the country and replace it with new mixed income communities.

STAKEHOLDER #2: Though, further controversies have emerged with this new initiative. The problem with this act was that only half of the units that were deconstructed were replaced resulting in thousands of citizens evicted.

[Transition] - End of Body 1: The following body paragraph will examine the evolution and effects of

market rate housing policies in the United States.

housing construction.

BODY II – MARKET-RATE HOUSING

Part 2: 1946 STAKEHOLDER #2: The numbers of Americans who could afford market rate housing increased from 93000 in 1933 to 619000 in 1941, proving this housing act to be effective.

Nonetheless, one downfall to this successful administration is the highly concentrated middle-class suburbs. 1946 highlights the era of the suburbs depicted in the Affluent Society by Galbraith.

STAKEHOLDER #2: For lower classes, bread and water was deemed sufficient for people living in public housing; similarly, during the 18th century; selecting, purchasing, and constructing a home was not considered to be the government’s responsibility (Yglesias, 2015).

Part 1: 1932 STAKEHOLDER #1: This mentality quickly shifted during the Great Depression. In fact, one of the biggest characteristics of this period was the foreclosure of houses resulting in 40 to 50% of mortgages in “default” ultimately contributing to the bank crises of 1930 (Housing 19291941, Encyclopedia). Government intervention was crucial in trying to resolve the housing crises. Three acts were put in motion to relieve distressed owners and bankers. The first act was executed under Herbert Hoovers presidency known as the Home Loan act of 1932.

STAKEHOLDER #2: This program swiftly failed since it did not account for the depletion of house values. Houses before the Great depression worth 10000$ would then be worth 4000$ ((Housing 1929-1941, Encyclopedia); leaving thousands of people not qualified for those monetary loans.

STAKEHOLDER #1: This first market rate housing act was followed by the Homeowners’ Refinancing act in 1933 leading to the creation of the Homeowner Loan Corporation known as HOLC (Housing 1929-1941, Encyclopedia). Unlike the previous housing agreement act this was deemed “successful” in the fact that it allowed for low mortgage rate interest to be paid on a longer period.

Spanning from a five-year payment plan to thirty years.

In other words, this act prevented further foreclosure by redefining its payment terms.

STAKEHOLDER #2: As successful as the HOLC was it mainly benefited the white middle class population who could afford to buy houses on the outskirts. In fact, redlining practices had emerged at that time. This consisted of labeling certain areas as “high-risk” resulting in tougher loan restrictions. These redlined areas were often characterized by aging, racially mixed and densely populated areas (Rasurde, 2021). By 1970 this practice had become illegal.

STAKEHOLDER #1: Because the HOLC act was created as an emergency program; the Federal Housing Administration was created as a legal entity that would rely on a private enterprise (Kagan, 2020). Its main goal was to increase employment through renovation and new

STAKEHOLDER #3: The post-World War II economy is principally driven by consumerism. Galbraith highlights the parallels between the growing suburbs and consumerism as two markets benefiting from each other (Breeden, 2018). Such as, the production of cars for transportation, kitchen appliances, and other goods needed to sustain the middle-class lifestyle. The post-World War economy is characterized by the growing suburban typological singlefamily ownership of houses. One symbolizing example is the Levittown built by architect William Levitt. However, just as Galbraith’s criticism, the housing market and more specifically, the private sector have created serious inequalities at the expense of the public and the less affluent.

Part 3: 1974 to 1998 STAKEHOLDER #2: Discrimination and poverty have plummeted, creating bigger disparities. Consequently, the Equal Credit Opportunity act was passed on in 1974 to limit lenders from discrimination and increase financing opportunities to more people.

STAKEHOLDER #1: The following year, in 1975, the Homeowner Relief Act was created allowing mortgage relief payments to individuals with financial burdens.

Additionally, the Fair Housing Amendments Act became effective in 1989 making it illegal to discriminate against mortgage borrowers (Sweet, 2020). Last but not least, the 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act was put into action, providing even better quality for all houses but specifically, public housing.

[Transition]: End of Body II: The following body paragraph will examine the evolution and effects of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits in the United States.

BODY III – LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS Part 1: 1965 STAKEHOLDER #1: The Housing and Urban Development which was created in 1965 (US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Hud User) as a housing program with an aim to provide for low-income families; is the cabinet that determines eligibility factors to ensure equity for low-

60

2265 words

Spring 2021

STAKEHOLDER #2: However, due to lack of maintenance and poor construction; public housing resulted in run-down housing conditions. The idealistic declaration of “Every American deserves a descent home and a suitable living environment” was not followed through. Controversially, these public housing projects did not allow for air-conditioning, large living spaces or predominant light access.

respects; it failed to recognize social equity of those whose lives were displaced by these urban renewal projects (Shester, 2013). Thus, public housing in America is seen as controversial and extremely volatile phenomenon. Slum clearance and public renewals are still overshadowing the public housing market in 54.

Housing Scarcity

Nowhere, NY

Research Paper

income housing.

Part 2: 1980 STAKEHOLDER #2: By the 1980’s significant measure to create opportunities for all start to emerge especially with the creation of the LIHTC incentive.

STAKEHOLDER #3: Although Public Housing and Low-Income housing both share a common goal: to provide, create and preserve affordable housing; they are quite different in their bureaucratic format.

While Public Housing is made possible through subsidies paid by the US government; the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit also known as “LIHTC” allows for investors to take a tax credit or tax incentive which will directly be utilized to fund low-income development projects. Another significant distinction between both programs; is the eligibility criteria required for LIHTC developments. Thereby, rent prices cannot exceed 30% of 50% or 60% of the area median income “AMI” (What Is the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and How Does It Work?, Tax Policy Center).

STAKEHOLDER #1: The LIHTC program was created under the Tax Reform act in 1986 and has undergone several changes since its creation; nowadays it is the biggest provider for low-income housing.

Part 3: 1990 STAKEHOLDER #1: In fact, the Low-Income Housing and Preservation Act was created in 1990; after the cost of Section 8 contracts became too expensive to maintain by the HUD (HUD’s Historical Timeline, Hud User). Since its initiation, The LIHTC was able to support three million units.

[Transition]: End of Body III: The following body paragraph will elaborate on the author’s point of view.

ultimately be more lucrative. Thus, creating disparities and inequalities on a nation-wide basis. undoubtedly, corporate greed is a clear contributing factor to housing scarcity. Moreover, LIHTC is only plausible because of private entity tax incentives; thereby, is the Government not accountable for providing more lowincome housing? This vulnerable market also affects the greater population considering that the middleclass constitutes over 50% of the population. In fact, the thirty-year mortgage plan should be requestioned and adapt to the needs of younger generations that might not commit to a long-term financial burden.

Additionally, economic fluctuations; policy making, alternating construction phases, social and economic inequity all contribute to housing scarcity. If twothirds of global wealth results from human capital; accordingly, should there not be more equity, fair wealth distribution or less poverty? Frances Fox Piven highlights the purposeful discrepancies as an integral feature of the welfare system. The discrepancies lie within what people are entitled to and what they receive, which if challenged would precipitate an economic crisis (Piven, 2010). How can policies, laws and statistics adequately be put to better use when they are not fully transparent or accurate. Evidently, welfare recipients during NYCHA’s early projects accounted for only 5%.

Just as importantly, the Housing crash of 2008 has demonstrated that housing policies created do not allow for flexibility and more importantly do not account for emergency scenarios such as economic collapse or global conflicts. Similarly, to the Great Depression, the 2008 housing bubble resulted in millions of Americans’ homes in foreclosure and a decrease in employability as if history were repeating itself. Thus, how can we envision a safer housing system if the existing system is already broken?

Conclusion

STAKEHOLDER #3: Nevertheless, public housing, market-rate housing and low-income housing all remain extremely volatile markets nowadays. While the LIHTC has many benefits such as increase in quality and quantity; it undoubtedly marginalizes citizens with the lowest income bracket to maximize their profits on rent. This affects where these types of projects are built. Areas with a higher AMI would

61

STAKEHOLDER #4: The historic evolution of housing policies underlined in this paper should push us to engage questions about the future of housing towards more creative solutions and to re-think stakeholders which up to this point are mainly limited to bankers, developers, and governmental entities. Is it possible to deduct specific patterns emerging from historic policies and reforms to predict the future stability of housing? Thinking of housing as an entropic

CREDITS “A Brief Historical Overview of Affordable Rental Housing.” National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Accessed April 19, 2021. https://nlihc.org/sites/ default/files/Sec1.03_Historical-Overview_2015.pdf.

Breeden, Edwin C. et al. “26. The Affluent Society.”

Edited by James McKay. The American Yawp. Stanford University Press, 2018. http://www.americanyawp. com/text/26-the-affluent-society/.

“Great Society.” History, August 28, 2018. https:// www.history.com/topics/1960s/great-society.

“HOPE VI Public Housing Revitalization Program: Background, Funding, and Issues.” EveryCRSReport, January 6, 2012. https://www.everycrsreport.com/ reports/RL32236.html#:~:text=Created%20in%20 1992%20and%20administered,it%20with%20 mixed%2Dincome%20housing.

“Housing 1929-1941.” Encyclopedia. Accessed April 20, 2021. https://www.encyclopedia.com/ education/news-and-education-magazines/ housing-1929-1941.

Kagan, Julia. “Federal Housing Administration (FHA).” Investopedia, August 30, 2020. https:// www.investopedia.com/terms/f/federal-housingadministration.asp#:~:text=Its%20primary%20 purpose%20was%20to,(FSLIC)%20and%20the%20 FHA.

Salpukas, Agis. The New York Times, April 16, 1973. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/04/16/archives/ moratorium-onhousing-subsidy-spells-hardship-forthousands-stricter.html.

Shester, Katharine L. “The Local Economic Effects of Public Housing in the United States, 1940–1970.”

Cambridge Core, November 15, 2013. https://www. cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economichistory/article/local-economic-effects-of-publichousing-in-the-united-states-19401970/35AB2E9EF 536F9B960E93B8D9670BA6C. Sweet, Joni. “Timeline: History of the Housing Market Over the Last 50 Years.” The Simple Dollar, October 6, 2020. https://www.thesimpledollar.com/ mortgage/history-of-the-housing-market-over-thelast-50-years/.

“US Department of Housing and Urban Development 1930 - 2020.” Hud User. Accessed April 22, 2021. https://www.huduser.gov/hud_timeline/index.html “What Is the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and How Does It Work?” Tax Policy Center, May 2020. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/whatlow-income-housing-tax-credit-and-how-does-itwork.

Yglesias, Matthew. “Everything You Need to Know about the Affordable Housing Debate.” Vox, May 11, 2015. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/10/18076868/ affordable-housing-explained.

Morris, Eugene J. "THE NIXON HOUSING PROGRAM." Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal 9, no. 1 (1974): 2-6. Accessed April 18, 2021. http://www. jstor.org/stable/20781297.

Piven, France F, and Richard Cloward. “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.” The Nation, March 8, 2010. https://www.thenation.com/article/ archive/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty/.

2265 words

Spring 2021

BODY IV – AUTHOR’S ARGUMENTS

phenomenon; the more unpredictable a system is the more likely it will fail.

Housing Scarcity

Nowhere, NY

Research Paper

Rasurde, Erika. “Redlining.” Investopedia, March 22, 2021. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ redlining.asp.

62

REDEFINING NURSING PODS with Anthea Viloria Advanced Studio VII Led by Ani Liu

Redefining nursing pods aims to create new typological geometries and micro-scale architectural interventions through the lens of gender and sexuality. The objective is to engage in nterdisciplinary design using various media in order to reflect the social, political and ethical domains of technoscientific feminism. How can we design for more equitable gendered futures? The lactation pods aim to redefine the traditional, sterilized, and hospitalized existing typologies. These pods incorporate a curvilinear and organic design, promoting inclusivity and genderless spaces for lactation. The goal is to provide intimate, non-institutionalized and non-conforming gendered environments. These pods are grouped within three families: the workplace pod, the outdoor public pod, and the indoor public pod. Ranging from enclosed to semi-open to fully open pods challenging today’s societal norms and taboos around pumping, breastfeeding, and breastmilk. These pods cater to a variety of preferences, giving agency by providing a user-friendly experience through the curvatures and various amenities. These semi-modular pods allow us to requestion today's existing technologies and spaces.

63

Modularity Construction Process

1. Workplace Pod 2. Outdoor Public Pod 3. Indoor Public Pod

2.

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Typologies Matrix for Lactation Pods 3.

7 x 7 feet

Summer 2021

1.

64

65

Exterior Perspective and Section

7 x 7 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Workplace Pod / Single User / Enclosed Pod - Plan

66

67

Exterior Perspective and Section

7 x 7 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Workplace Pod / Multiuser / Enclosed Pod - Plan

68

69

Exteiror Perspective and Section

7 x 7 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Workplace Interior Perspective Pod / Multi User / Enclosed Pod - Plan

30 70

30 71

Exterior Perspective

4 x 3 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Workplace Pod / Single User / Open Pod - Plan and Features

72

73

Exterior Perspective and Section

7 x 10 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Outdoor Pod / Single User / Enclosed Pod - Plan

74

75

New York, NY

Lactation Pods

7 x 10 feet

Summer 2021

Interior Perspective

77 76

Exterior Perspective and Section

7 x 10 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Outdoor Pod / Multiuser / Enclosed Pod - Plan

78

79

3 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Outdoor Pod / Single User / Open Pod - Exterior Perspective

80

81

7x4

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Outdoor Pod / Multiuser / Open Pod - Exterior Perspective

82

83

Exterior Perspective and Section

7 x 4 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Indoor Public Pod / Single User / Enclosed Pod - Plan

84

85

Exterior Perspective and Section

7 x 7 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Indoor Public Pod / Multiuser / Enclosed Pod - Plan

86

87

7 x 10 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Indoor Public Pod / Multiuser / Enclosed Pod - Intersection

88

89

Top View Perspective

7 x 7 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Indoor Public Pod / Multiuser / Semi Open Pod - Plan and Features

90

91

7 x 7 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Indoor Public Pod / Multiuser / Semi Open Pod - Exterior Perspective

92

93

7 x 7 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Indoor Public Pod / Multiuser / Open Pod - Exterior Perspective

94

95

User-Friendly Interface Experience

7 x 7 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

App Created to Give Further Agency to Lactating Users

96

97

7 x 7 feet

Summer 2021

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Physical Model Image

98

99

Can geometrical typologies and fabrication processes redefine equitable technofeminist products ?

Lactation Pods

New York, NY

Further Exploration

Surface design as an inclusive tool.

Transforming existing gendered designs into non-gendered conforming environment.

7 x 7 feet

Summer 2021

Can modularity and agency co-exist?

100

101

AVERY SPOT PAVI LION

Class Work Technology Elective Led by Laurie Hawkinson and Galia Solomonoff The design-build seminar came about after a town-hall meeting with students who expressed their needs of increasing social interaction and activities on campus that were at the time restricted due to COVID-19 guidelines. One major design question revolved around the “Body in space today”, and how that would define the type of structure required to cater for social distancing guidelines.

Consequently, thinking of the inflatable as a main structural component that would not only provide shelter, but also allow a continuous flow of air; evidently, re-imagining pneumatics in architecture. We were challenged to think of the outdoor space in terms of climate, resiliency, energy use and structural principles as a way of extending the capacity of Avery Hall to bring the outside in.

The inflatable’s design is a direct response to these crucial questions addressed during an unprecedented time. The suspended threedimensional structure unfolds a dialogue on geometries, and how they directly affect the architecture and design through its strcutural, physical and visual capabilities and limitations.

102

LED Changing Light as Key Feature

1500 sqf

Spring 2021

Inflatable Structure

New York, NY

Image Taken Under Inflatable

103

104

Pavilion Floor Plan

1500 sqf

Spring 2021

Inflatable Structure

New York, NY

Inflatable Plan

105

106

1500 sqf

Spring 2021

Inflatable Structure

New York, NY

Front View Image of the Inflatable

107

108

Portfolio Academic Work

New York, NY

Marie Chrristine Dimitri

2020-2021

Master of Science

GSAPP, Columbia University

Advanced Architectural Design