Graduate Monograph - Columbia GSAPP

an anatomy of subversion Jacob Chengjie Li

Columbia GSAPP

2018-2021

Jacob Chengjie Li Columbia GSAPP Master of Architecture Class of 2021

ADV VI Spring 2021 critic: Ivi Diamantoupoulu & Jaffer Kolb ADV V Fall 2020 critic: David Benjamin ADV IV Spring 2020 critic: Lindy Roy Core III Fall 2019 critic: Adam Frampton Core II Spring 2019 critic: Toshihiro Oki Core I Fall 2018 critic: Anna Puigjaner Tech III Fall 2018 critic: Sarrah Khan Tech V Fall 2019 critic: Philip Palmgren Table of Contents Power Tools Spring 2021 critic: Lexi Tsien Generative Design Fall 2019 critic: Danil Nagy Acoustics Fall 2018 critic: Raj Patel Cross-Species Testsite Spring 2019 critic: Chris Woebken Advanced Drawing & Representation Fall 2018 critic: Lexi Tsien Designing for Zero Spring 2020 critic: Lexi Tsien Kitchenless Stories Fall 2020 critic: Lexi Tsien

One Barn, Five Obstructions

1

An Icon for Green New Deal

19

Anthropocenery

31

Melrose Co-Housing

41

Library

61

Broadway Stories

81

Greenpoint Theater

95

Hunts Point Distribution Center

99

Burning Man Pavilion

105

Aquasonic Project Room

111

Etymology Forceps

115

Mayfly Habitat

117

Grace Farms

119

LIHTC Meets New Urbanism

125

Systematic Acts of Sympathy: Women in NYC’s Affordable Housing

129

1 One Barn, Five Obstructions

Standardization (of structure, partition, image) pursues to use a minimal variety of elements to adapt to most conditions.

But the trade off with economical desirability is often the weaponization of architecture into a colonial, oppressive tool, as is observed in the case of Edgemere’s urban renewal remnants, as well as speculated in the incubation of its Community Land Trust development, from which the community members themselves have largely been shunned. (conflict between the administrative level and daily life.) Standardization measures and controls buildings as well as people narrowly along the metrics of efficiency and productivity, which we may argue discounts and suppresses the diversity that makes them wonderful.

1

This project seeks to subvert standardization both architecturally and socially.

Borrowing the pre-engineered butler frame and various wall types of different thickness, materiality, and tectonics, this investigation seeks to capsize the agenda of the most common residential barn typology - the barndominium.

Instead of demarcating spaces by function using a homogenous divider (stud wall), the project begins by studying the affordance and spatial qualities that different wall types can generate, by removing, revealing, and lifting the steel frames. By translating gadgetized domestic functions and spaces into community programs, the building not only recalls the communality of various activities, but also creates contingent spaces for flexible and creative use. The programs respond to the community board’s desire for a playland and trade school, but most importantly they cater as a third space and forum to support the congregation of local residents which is an essential step to build their collective bargaining power.

One Barn, Five Obstructions

Plan 1”=200’-0”

2

SP21 ADV STUDIO VI

3

Section Pe

erspective

One Barn, Five Obstructions

4

SP21 ADV STUDIO VI

5

Section Pe

erspective

One Barn, Five Obstructions

6

SP21 ADV STUDIO VI

7

One Barn, Five Obstructions

Program Diagram

8

SP21 ADV STUDIO VI

9

Wall Type Taxonomy

One Barn, Five Obstructions

Program Axon

10

SP21 ADV STUDIO VI

11

One Barn, Five Obstructions

Site Axon

12

SP21 ADV STUDIO VI

13

Plan Elements

One Barn, Five Obstructions

Building Sections

14

SP21 ADV STUDIO VI

15

Model 1/4” = 1’-0”

One Barn, Five Obstructions

Model 1/4” = 1’-0”

16

SP21 ADV STUDIO VI

26’ - 0” top of roof

21’ - 0” top of roof

14’ - 0” 9’ - 0” top of wall

3

1

2

2

3

0’ - 0” ground

26’ - 0” top of roof

21’ - 0” top of roof

14’ - 0” 9’ - 0” top of wall 1 gypsum drywall 2 felt curtain 3 plywood wall 4 brick wall

0’ - 0” ground 4

17

Interior Elevation

2

3

One Barn, Five Obstructions

Room Axon

18

2 An Icon for Green New Deal: Typological Transformation of the Seagram Building

After declaring state and national emergency, on March 22, Governor Andrew Cuomo ordered all non-essential workers to stay home; subsequently over 500 million sq of commercial space stood vacant for nearly two months. Today, only 10% of New York’s 1.2 million office workers have returned to working in person. It makes one wonder: what’s the future of NYC’s commercial office stock?

As demands for high end office spaces begin to shift from traditional commercial hot zones like midtown to newer developments in Hudson yards and Chelsea, already high tensions between landlords and tenants are made worse by Covid rent strikes. From the mayor’s office to private corporations, leaders are toying with the idea of converting midtown offices into homes, quoting the success of Lower Manhattan, which in recent decades have turned from an almost exclusively office district into a vibrant residential neighborhood.

Indeed, Manhattan’s mostly densely built neighborhoods may just offer a solution to many of the city’s problem with social justice and climate change. As a major part of the city’s stride towards the Green New Deal, Local Law 97 of the Climate Mobilization Act of 2019 demands all buildings larger than 25,000 sqft to meet decarbonization targets by 2024. Our studio imagines a Climate Design Corps comprised of young people volunteering their time and energy to physically manifest the GND through acts of design and building. And my proposal is focused around Office Building Adaptive Reuse to achieve decarbonization, create jobs, and address New York’s housing crisis all at once.

19

An Icon for Green New Deal: Typological Transformation of the Seagram Building

‘Architecture is the will of an epoch translated into space. Living, Changing, New. Not yesterday, not tomorrow, only today can be given form.’

polycarbonate panels R = 3.0 - 3.7

Material Organization

particle board [densified wood + paper waste]

terrazzo floor finish [crushed glass + rubble aggregate]

20

21

Inspired by the success of Comedores Populares in Peru and other similar models in Japan, Mexico, and Canada, Collectivity is addressed by the elimination of in-unit kitchens for communal kitchens, enabling more natural sharing of domestic labor and resources.

Duplex arrangement is instituted in the units to achieve a more sensible distribution of thermal comfort zones, as well as flexibility of apartment sizes. Minimized private space, more semiprivate space for sharing of domestic labor and resources

shared terrace and communal kitchen

polycarbonate over cladding double facade

existing reinforced conrete and steel structure

15F

DUPLEX APT

existing bronze mullion and window units

sliding door winter garden

waste-based fiberglass laminate partition boards

15F

DUPLEX APT

upcycled/ flipped furniture

staircase from reclaimed lumber and steel

post consumer recycled glass and concrete terrazzo floor topping

15F DUPLEX APT

22

FA20 ADV STUDIO V

28˚C

26˚C

24˚C

bathroom 22˚C

temperature

living room

20˚C

18˚C

bedroom 16˚C

circulation 14˚C

12˚C 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

relative humidity

23

Comfort

An Icon for Green New Deal: Typological Transformation of the Seagram Building

bedrooms, bathrooms Floorplan Layout

shared spaces

24

FA20 ADV STUDIO V $500B *GND projection of ANNUAL economic output due to climate change by year 2100

social justice

Median Rent vs. Median House Income (US Census 2014)

Global Average Surface Temperature (US EPA 2017)

climate change

Global Greenhouse Gas Emission (IPCC AR5 2014) Sea Level Change Projection (NOAA 2017) 1950

25

Federal Disaster Relief Fund Appropriation 10-year rolling median (Congressional Research Service 2018)

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Energy System Analysis

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

An Icon for Green New Deal: Typological Transformation of the Seagram Building

Arbor Realty Trust Strategic Partners Clayton Dubillier Rice MIC Capital Nearwater Capital Temasek Servcorp Vista Holdings SPS Holding Universal Capital L1 Health Banco de Bogota Fintech Lindenmann Capital Wells Fargo

Phase I

100% offices (97% ‘occupied’); lobby, restaurant on GF;

Office leases end (~50%) and relocate; Climate Design Corp moves in and sets up headquater & social services on floors 0 - 5;

Phase II

Phase III

Phase IV

CDC conducts survey and design, begins renovating office floors into residential programs; occupancy rate 20-50%;

CDC implements shared kitchen, museum, and closed loop energy system; CDC assists residents and volunteers to convert higher floors resi into permanent housing; occupancy rate 50-90%;

amenities, health clinic, event space, family space and emergency housing are implmented;

lis m te o lp e ce.c m pa co frs oF r w.r w w

g tin

Not to scale. All dimensions and conditions are approximate and for information only.

52nd STREET

WORK FORCE

Design

- Survey - Design - Community engagemnt

18,214 sf

52

C

nd

ST

R

MEN

E N O H PH OT BO

EE

T

TASKS

WOMEN

PHASE

TEL/ ELEC CLOSET

PY

N

Date Printed: 1/23/2020

O

For complete listing, visit www.rfrspace.com

,v

isi

t

N

Green New Jobs

ns tio dn i ly. co on d n as n atio n rm sio fo en r in m di fo ll nd .e A te a al a sc im tt o rox o p N e ap ar

Current Condition;

20

t in Pr e at D

PY

O C

ui

nd 52

5 2 37 te

T E E TR S

-1

Pa 100

PF-1

E NU VE KA

A 7,

52nd STREET

R PA

rk

scale. All dimensions and conditions N Not to FloorV are approximate and for information only.

F ww o r c o m w. r p l f e r s p ace te listi .com ng, visi t

v 519

53rd STREET

/ IT GE A R

O ST

TR N PA

20

N

MEN

For complete listing, visit www.rfrspace.com

IT

7/

TEL CLOSET

FIRE TOWER COURT

-Local lumber industry -Climate Design Corp -Residents -Propspective Residents

375 Park Avenue

Y

8/

ELEC CLOSET

- offsite manufacturing - transportation - assembly - cleaning - furnishing

*A

Date Printed: 7/18/2019

E R R FI WE T R TO OU C

: ed

WOMEN

N are ot to a p p sc a l rox e.

A i m ate ll dim an d en s for ions in f o rmaand co tion ndit only ions .

e F ne u RS

SS

rd

Floor 34

Not to scale. All dimensions and conditions are approximate and for information only.

53

N

52nd STREET

T

For complete listing, visit www.rfrspace.com

Date Printed: 7/18/2019

EE

375 Park Avenue

27,495 sf PARK AVENUE

R ST

53rd STREET

Suite 3400 - 18,214 RSF

L/ TE LEC T E SE LO C

PA

N

TR

Y

FIRE TOWER COURT

- Private contractors - Residents

- Removal - Demolition

Construction

PARK AVENUE

Demo

-Climate Design Corp -Propspective Residents

20 20 3/ /2

e at D

1 d: te rin P

PARK AVENUE

375 Park Avenue

ME

N FIR COTOW E E UR R T

FloorV 2

RSF

rd

E NU

53

VE

T E E TR S

health clinic A RK PA

o

N

Fl

39,842 sf

53rd STREET

WO ME T CLOELEEL/ SE C T

or

-Social workers -NGOs -Residents

- maintenance - financial/ social empowerment

MEN

34

S

WOMEN

Post-occupancy

Process Diagram

LEXINGTON AVENUE

26

FA20 ADV STUDIO V

furniture cabinetry

major offshore recycling plants banning US exports since January 2018

lighting units terrazzo flooring

material processing: - crushing - repurposing - assembling - light manufacturing

reclaimed windows

concrete structural lightweight steel bronze glass stone brick gypsum

C&D waste + Household recyclings

109,932,202 24,090,429 24,197,769 3,087,868 428,899 3,265,201 4,729,711 61,407

lbs lbs lbs lbs lbs lbs lbs lbs

reclaimed doors

reclaimed lumber wall boards

NY local recycling plants overburdened; become depot for landfill

terrazzo

27

Process Diagram

terrazzo

furniture

An Icon for Green New Deal: Typological Transformation of the Seagram Building rce Fo

eal

D ew

Climate Design Corps

N een

Fe U br .S ua . C ry on 7 gr , 20 es 1 s 9

Gr

*national service

s es dr y; ad lit to ua s q ie ne lic ic i po m ty o ci on d ec an d e an at e st ng ze ha ili c ob te m ima cl

a

iliz

ob eM

t Ac

A p N ril ew 1 8 Yo , 2 rk 01 Ci 9 ty Co un ci

at

n tio l

ew

N en Gre 016 2

ask al T e D

m

Cli

Office Building Adaptive Reuse

Affordable Homes

B

4 ,9 92 aw ofs lL o ca n R Lo ee Gr

Construction Jobs

95 en i aw c l L Effi ca gy Lo er En

Showcase for Green Materials and Building Strategies

cy g

in

ad Gr 96 es s aw As l L yca ert Lo op Pr

rbo

ca De

d

se

Lo ca

n ea

Cl g

in

nc

na

Fi

7

gy

er

w9

En

l La

n

tio

a niz

98 y aw rg l L ne ca E Lo ind W

Climate justice is social justice. Climate change becomes a ligitable issue for architects through us addressing the housing crisis - the two challenges are inherently one, and urgent.

The existing solutions we have to address low income housing in the US is corrupt and ineffective, and simply cannot undo decades of systematic oppression. As a stagnant system and extreme weathers continue to exacerbate the ongoing crisis, we are forced to look for immediate solutions that can solve high consumption of low performing buildings and shortage of housing stock at once.

As is the case in most enduring concentrated metropolis, New York’s opportunity of evolution lies the Anthropocene of existing built forms. Buildings constructed in the postwar boom often out live their designed life cycle; maintaining and upgrading them is appropriate given the structures were built to resist once in 500 year environmental loads, with safety redundancy of 20%.

However, it is pathetic and agonizing how they are operating today. 2020’s Energy Star Rating report put buildings made in this era in the worst performing tier, worse than the typical masonry high-rises from the 30s, as well as the more techno-

logically advanced and environment-minded skyscrapers of the 80s.

All of International Style’s signature moments, the full height glazing, metallic envelope structure, hermetic and stable indoor climate, inevitably lead to extremely high consumption of both embodied and operational energy. The Seagram building uses an overhead HVAC system, as well as perimeter heaters to mitigate the immense thermal bridging through its single glazed curtain wall and all bronze exterior finishing. On the other side of energy inefficiency, we find that the building has a chronic vacancy from proxy offices set up by high profile financial institutions and law firms, who’s more total absence from the office space might be guaranteed by the new and more lenient work from home model.

So the proposal to convert the office building into housing can simultaneously reduce its energy use intensity, and sequester its embodied carbon by avoiding demolition and building from scratch. How do we design not just housing, but affordable, green, stable, and just homes, for those who are most in need, while preserving the legacy of a modern icon?

28

FA20 ADV STUDIO V

Energy Star Rating 2020 median score : 78 (B-Office)

*Via Verde 96

740 Park Avenue 20

Manhattan House 53

The Plaza 1

601 Lexington Ave 66

Trump Tower 51

Trump Hotel 23

Lipstick Building 48

432 Park Ave 6

The Osborne 18

550 Madison Ave 89

Lever House 20

Riverhouse 52

Chrysler Building 68 Seagram Building 3

operating energy

444 Madison Ave 77 building age

Macy’s Herald Sq 30

29

Energy Consumption

An Icon for Green New Deal: Typological Transformation of the Seagram Building

skyscraper

350

international style

330

LEED (rise of environmental consciousness)

300

median source EUI

office

233

250 200

177 170

150

multifamily dwelling 146

138 100 50 0

pre-1900

1900

1920

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

steel 12,098.885 tons 1,500 kg CO2 /ton

1970

1980

CO2 sequestered

embodied CO2

1990

2000

steel 12,098.885 tons 1,500 kg CO2 /ton

engineered timber concrete 67,082.456 tons

156 kg CO2 /ton steel

640 kg CO2 /ton

concrete 67,082.456 tons 640 kg CO2 /ton

concrete

Embodied Carbon

30

3 Anthropocenery

Anthropocenery is a short-term residency for a group of New Media artists who are encouraged to explore projected visual installation using the pit walls and other elements within Tomkins Cove Quarry, and transform them into performative objects.

As a fairly new form of artistic expression, urban projective multimedia installation has the power to engage and reconceptualize buildings in the urban environment. Artists such as Refik Anadol and Michel Lemieux often use it to celebrate technology, recall neglected history, and voice political ideologies.

The question of quarry reclamation is one example of such contested grounds, where advances in technology, willful neglect of history, and conflict between political parties converge. The program of the residency, which is an incubator and facility for projections, therefore seeks to engage massive amounts of inorganic material through the process of ‘photo-morphosis’, and perpetuate the purpose of the quarry as a place of production, except instead of exporting mineral material to the metropolis, the product is the mobilization of the quarry pit itself as an immersive mirage. It might even help us contemplate on a global scale and across geological time, how we are intimately living with and using up mineral material that took scores of millions of years to create.

The artists will live and work both individually and collaboratively within the tower leaning against the pit wall. Individual living/working pods attaches to, and draws from the central spine that is simultaneously structure, MEP, and circulation.

31

Anthropocenery

Context

32

SP20 ADV STUDIO IV

33

Exterior View

Anthropocenery

Process Diagram

34

35

Site Photos

36

SP20 ADV STUDIO IV

37

Site Analysis

Anthropocenery

Precedents

38

SP20 ADV STUDIO IV

39

Building Elements

Anthropocenery

Site Analysis

40

4 Melrose Co-Housing

Team: Adela Locsin

Creating a flexible structure that would be easily adaptable to different postnuclear family structures. In the vein of that interest, we also wanted that flexibility and freedom of layout to allow the structure to be able to have a long building lifetime. To avoid alienating the neighborhood, we decided to take two typologies that were already familiar to New York - the tower and the rowhouse - and invert the populations that usually live in those spaces.

Instead of the tower representing gentrification and the new, it houses seniors and their nurses as well as families who want to live together in the same proximity. The layout of the tower focuses on the unit of the room, and allows families to adapt the rooms as needed to their living situation. A balcony acts as secondary circulation, but allows allows for a more domestic scale within an urban structure. In contrast, the rowhouse, when assembled in a series of units, becomes a slab building that houses a more transient population in a series of micro-units. The two volume types overlap and co-exist and where they overlap, communal program is created to service both buildings. Adjacent to the communal program on the street side within the slab buildings, public spaces are created that serve both the communities within the block and the communities in the vicinity. The ambition is to create housing that is easy to grow into, adaptable as families and their structures change, and create living spaces that are a part of the neighborhood and not against what already exists.

41

Melrose Co-Housing

Site Model - 1/32” = 1’-0”

42

FA19 CORE STUDIO III

43

Site Plan

Melrose Co-Housing

Building Axon

44

FA19 CORE STUDIO III

45

Common Area - Bar

Melrose Co-Housing

Common Area - Tower

46

FA19 CORE STUDIO III

47

Floorplan - Tower

Melrose Co-Housing

Section - Tower

48

FA19 CORE STUDIO III

49

Unit - Bar

Melrose Co-Housing

Street Level - Bar

50

FA19 CORE STUDIO III

51

Floorplan

Melrose Co-Housing

Model - 1/16” = 1’-0”

52

FA19 CORE STUDIO III

1 : 2.7 SKY EXPOSURE PLANE

17 F ROOF

16 F AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

15 F SHARED LIVING

14 F AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

13 F AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

12 F SHARED LIVING

13 F AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

13 F AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

8F SHARED LIVING

9F AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

8F AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

7F SHARED LIVING

6F AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

5F AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

4F MEZZANINE AND ROOF GARDEN

3F SHARED FLOOR

2F AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

1F AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

EAST 151st STREET ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8” = 1’

53

Sec

ction

Melrose Co-Housing

4F ROOF GARDEN

06

’

12’

18’

3F MICRO-UNIT HOUSING

2F MICRO-UNIT HOUSING

1F MICRO-UNIT HOUSING

MEZZANINE RETAIL

GF

06

’

12’

18’

54

FA19 CORE STUDIO III

55

Ground Plan

Melrose Co-Housing

Street View

56

FA19 CORE STUDIO III

57

Site Model - 1/32” = 1’-0”

Melrose Co-Housing

PARAPET 1” THK GLASS RAILING ALUMINUM PARAPET CAPPING BRICK VENEER W/ MORTAR JOINT 3/4” PLYWOOD SHEATHING METAL FLASHING RETENTION TEE

ROOF ASSEMBLY R=49.2 SOIL RESERVOIR LAYER MOISTURE-RETENTION LAYER AERATION LAYER 6” RIGID INSULATION AVB CONCRETE ON METAL DECK

WALL ASSEMBLY R=22.0

BRICK VENEER 1” AIR GAP AVB 2” THK RIGID INSULATION BRICK TIE 5/8” GWB 2X6 CFS STUD WALL BATT INSULATION 6” CFS STUD WALL

TILT AND TURN WINDOWS WITH COMPOSITE FRAME RADIATOR UNIT

FLOOR ASSEMBLY 3/4” TONGUE & GROOVE FLOORBOARD 4” CONCRETE ON METAL DECK LIGHT GAUGE STEEL BEAM INTUMESCENT PAINT

R=51.0 1” INSULATING SHEATHING 6” RIGID INSULATION CAST IN PLACE WAFFLESLAB 14X14 RC COLUMN PILE FOUNDATION

Wall Section Detail

58

FA19 CORE STUDIO III

BRONX, NY 40°49’05.40” N TEMPERATURE

DEG °F

AVG HIGH MEAN AVG LOW

1 0 ,0 0 0

100

9 ,0 0 0

90

8 ,0 0 0

80

7 ,0 0 0

70

6 ,0 0 0

60

5 ,0 0 0

50

4 ,0 0 0

40

3 ,0 0 0

30

2 ,0 0 0

20

10

JAN

F EB

M AR

AP R

M AY

JU N

JU L

AU G

DIRECT NORMAL DAYLIGHT

FC

11 0

SEP

OC T

NOV

GIFU PREFECTURE 岐阜県

D EC

KITAGATA EXIST ING CO ND I TI ON 2ND HIGHEST TEMPERATURE RECORDED IN JAPAN: 41.0°C (105.8°F) IN AUG 2018

AVG HIGH MEAN AVG LOW

1 ,0 0 0

0

JAN

FEB

MAR

A PR

M AY

J UN

J UL

AU G

SEP

O CT

NOV

D EC

35°26’00.50” N C H . R 4 C O M P L I A N C E & H O T T E R C L I M AT E A D A P T I O N CLIMATE ZONE: 3B (WARM, DRY)

COMPARED TO NEW YORK, GIFU HAS MORE DIRECT SUNLIGHT EXPOSURE IN THE WINTER MONTHS, AND LESS IN THE SUMMER.

E N C L O S E D C O R R I D O R A S B A R R I E R L AY E R - C O N T I N U O U S I N S U L AT I O N - H I G H P E R F O RM A N C E G L A Z I N G - S O L A R G A I N D E F L E C T I O N - I M PA C T R E S I S TA N C E

59

Precedent - Enclosure Analysis

Melrose Co-Housing

Precedent - Section Model 1/2” = 1’-0”

60

5 Library

With every passing day the contemporary library is increasingly taking on a motley of functions, often picking up the slacks from other public institutions.

As one of the last free public spaces in the city, the library provides free access to the internet, and shared amenities such as event spaces, volunteer resources, and even shelter; and therefore is making the transition from an archive of knowledge into social infrastructure.

Situated within Sara D. Roosevelt Park, a green relief for a very densely built neighborhood, the library’s relationship with the park and the city reveals the opportunity to design and transform a large stretch of the park, and turn it into a coherent agglomerate of programmed and unprogrammed spaces for physical activities, knowledge production, social services, and community gathering, etc. While in the process, preserve most of the existing and functioning programs.

61

Tucked under one floating canopy that extends the width of the park from sidewalk to sidewalk, the programmed rooms scatter from north to south. These rooms are at angles with each other and are enclosed by another layer of full height structural glazing, therefore creating in-between conditions that form a continuous communal space with a variety of reading and working niches. The canopy is further populated by customized skylights; on one hand providing adequate natural lighting for the programmed rooms, and on the other hand accentuating the active spaces, and acting as an inviting beacon that encourages passersby to engage with the building. The juxtaposition of physical and mental activities is further fractured by the overlaying of the urban context reflected on different curvature of glazing, and natural light piercing out from inside the building. The level of reflections and transparency fluctuates throughout the day from morning to night, and varies between different seasons of the year. The intangible and immaterial thus becomes as integral a part of the architecture as the steel columns or the concrete floors.

Library

Building Axon

62

SP19 CORE STUDIO II

63

Model - 1/4” = 1’-0”

Library

Section Perspective

64

SP19 CORE STUDIO II

65

Site Plan +

+ Elevation

Library

66

SP19 CORE STUDIO II

Bibliotheque Nationale 1854

Before 1850s, ever expanding archive; ‘todo el mundo’ in one room.

Laurentian Library 1571

Philips Exeter Library 1971

NYPL 1911

St. Genevieve Library 1850

Musashino Library 2010

STACKS READING SPACE

Early 20th c, 300ft

0

battle between books and public space;

100m

TYPOLOGIES OF THE IDEAL LIBRARY

67

TU Delft Library 1998

Typology Evolution

Library

Site Programs

68

SP19 CORE STUDIO II

69

Library

70

SP19 CORE STUDIO II

71

Library

72

SP19 CORE STUDIO II

73

Library

74

SP19 CORE STUDIO II

75

Library

76

SP19 CORE STUDIO II

77

Library

78

SP19 CORE STUDIO II

79

Library

80

6 Broadway Stories

This project proposes a small scale collective roof addition as shared space, through reenactment of a historical moment in the Upper West Side in the late 19th century, and through addressing today’s pressing questions regarding the role of semi-public space, its social and environmental impact, negotiations.

This stretch of the Upper West Side is best characterized by its two designated historic districts one on each side of Broadway. Although the area consisted of mainly farmland and residences until late 19th century, it developed primarily as a residential neighborhood during the building boom from 1885 to 1910.

With New York’s rapid growing population and commerces expanding north, the neighborhood saw a quick growth of tenements for the working class, flats for the middle-class, single family row houses for the affluent, as well as newly emerged typologies such as the apartment hotel, for the curious.

These grand residential towers of the UWS often featured cheap rent and luxurious amenities, thanks to the opening of the new subway line, and loopholes in regulations. With their gorgeously decorated kitchenless suites, dining halls, offices, libraries, and promenades, the apartment hotel tenants royally put the tenement dwellers to shame, who had to share their connected backyards for communal use of water, lavatory, and laundry facilities, Throughout the turmoil of two economic depressions (50 years apart), as well as the two World Wars, the housing stock and quality of life in the neighborhood kept deteriorating. By the 1950s, most apartment buildings would have 81

Broadway Stories

been turned into smaller multiple dwellings; their amenities striped away, either become retail spaces, or are transformed into residential units. Many tenements would have been demolished and replaced by mid-rise multiple dwellings for the middle class; their backyards privatized by individual owners, isolated by fences from adjacent private gardens. The collective semi-public spaces in the UWS gradually became extinct.

Today the UWS consist of more than 85%(?) multiple-family residential buildings, home to a highly-educated, family-oriented, high-income demographic.

The infrastructure of public spaces, in comparison, is outdated and dysfunctional(?). Besides the seemingly infinite expanses of green space in Central Park and Riverside Park, there are only a handful of designed, usable urban plazas along Broadway. They exist exclusively below West 72nd street, and feel very removed from the community fabric of the UWS. Privately owned public spaces such as the Lincoln Center or West Side Community Garden impose strict terms on the users, that govern time, accepted types of activity, etc. what you do, when you do it, and who you can do it with.

In 2002, Dutch landscape architect Hans Ophius argued that the ‘Classic park design has become obsolete’; that the idea of leisure today clearly calls for much more than a simple stroll in the park. He further argues that even the simple act of picnicking can help park users feel ‘at home’, through participation in the public space, communication with one another, and reaching a consensus about how we use collective space as a community.

Identifying the scarcity of, and lack of variety therein, active public spaces(?) in the area today, I proposed the re-implementation of semi-public spaces within the residential neighborhoods. The kind of middle-sized, collective spaces that once existed as dining halls or laundry yards, served not only as a (metropolitan) convenience, but more importantly, as a platform for experimentation of a new collective lifestyle, encouraged negotiations of using a shared good, and fostered the community spirit. And I believe their return would likely have a significant impact on the life quality of upper west siders today.

The concept of collective living is not uncommon today. Although it is almost always closely associated with a certain sense of temporality and exclusivity - whether it’s the general age limit at dormitories and hostels, or the non-binding leases that most co-living projects today offer their participants. It is all too easy for the individual to reject the community and quickly find the next one, and vice versa. This power dynamic encourages focus on short term gains, and makes it very hard for a community to grow.

82

FA18 CORE STUDIO I

Given that the area has a high density above ground and complex geological condition underground, I’ve chosen the roof as the site for intervention. Under the current zoning laws, new construction up to 20’ above an existing midrise residential building is allowed (R8B) in the historic districts. However, it’s unlikely the city will allow additions on top of an existing building, which are considered ‘fully developed’ for Zoning Floor Area, and protected under preservation laws.

In order for the residents to acquire the air right necessary to build collective space on their roofs, they have to negotiate and collaborate with the city. So by using locally produced waste as building material, therefore upcycling the waste, they effectively short circuits the recycling chain which has become increasingly costly for the city (and state) to operate due to current changes in domestic and foreign policy, and helps the city relief its recycle crisis.

The design of the upcycled building material is focused on its reproducibility how easy it is to make with the minimum requirement for experience, strength, tools, space, and chemicals. Interlocking paper bricks, paper tubes, and 3d printed joints.

83

Broadway Stories

Hotel Apartments

84

FA18 CORE STUDIO I

85

Air Rights in Landmarked Neighborhoods

Broadway Stories

Programs

86

FA18 CORE STUDIO I

87

Material Stories

Broadway Stories

1 to 1 - Pulp Brick

88

FA18 CORE STUDIO I

89

Integration

Broadway Stories

1 to 1 - 3D Printed Joint

90

FA18 CORE STUDIO I

91

Axon

Broadway Stories

1 to 1 - Paper Wall Assembly

92

FA18 CORE STUDIO I

aa’

a

1’25”

2’40”

a’

3’00”

3’30”

b

bb’

5’30”

6’00”

c

b’

10’30”

10’35”

cc’

10’45” 15’30” 10’50” 16’45”

c’

11’30”

13’10”

18’35”

d

14’30”

19’20”

dd’

23’00”

d’

22’00” 27’25”

29’04”

93

The Way Things Go

Broadway Stories

a

a’

b

b’

c

c’

d

d’

Film Analysis

94

FA19 TECH IV

7 Greenpoint Theater

Team: Audrey Dandenault, Erin Biediger, Nelson De Jesus Ubri

We were asked to imagine a fully functional contemporary theatre space in Brooklyn’s Greenpoint, comprising of a 500-700 seats main auditorium, a black box theatre, front & back of house, landscape, and connection to the urban fabric as well as energy grid. Many of the city’s successful new theatres, such as St.Ann’s Warehouse and the National Sawdust, provided clues for us to solve the issue of the relavence of creating a theatre space in the neighborhood. We decided that not only should the auditorium be able to host a wide range of events from big productions, to small independent shows, but also be utilized during the off-hours of the performance-realm, as vessel for a gala, or perhaps a flea market. Further more, taking cue from avant garde trends such as immersive performance, we propsed to suspend the black box theatre above the main stage to inspire interactions between the two spaces - two simultaneous performances.

Five AHU distribute air to the spaces through overhead variable air volume systems to the five distinct climate zones we identified in the building, separating back-of-house from auditorium, black box theatre, circulation ramp, and front-of-house spaces. On the West side, the facade is a double skin glazing system, manifested in a catwalk, roller blinds, and passive ventilation assembly to mitigate glare and heat gain/loss.

95

In order to integrate our design to its site, we decided to include 3 ‘green’ areas to the building’s immediate perimeter, buffering the border between our building and Transmitter Park. These green zones are used for bioswales to mitigate storm runoff as well as for rainwater collection.

Greenpoint Theatre

F

E 20' - 0"

20' - 0"

220' - 9"

H

G

20' - 0"

J

I

20' - 0"

20' - 0"

20' - 0"

K

L

20' - 0"

A

20' - 9"

B

C

20' - 0"

D

20' - 0"

F

E

20' - 0"

20' - 0"

20' - 0"

220' - 9"

H

G

20' - 0"

140' - 0"

J

I

20' - 0"

20' - 0"

20' - 0"

K

L

20' - 0"

15' - 0"

6

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

2075 SF

981 SF

FIRE PUMP ROOM

UP

328 SF

UP

WATER METER ROOM

GAS METER ROOM

I.T. / ELEC INCOMING

182 SF

147 SF

100 SF

D

E

F

G

H

I

K

J

UP

L

A

C

B

D

E

F

G

H

I

K

J

L

DRESSING ROOM

TERRACE

W.C.

BACKSTAGE

LOBBY

G

H

I

20' - 0"

20' - 0"

J 20' - 0"

TERRACE

W.C.

BACKSTAGE

LOBBY

DRESSING ROOM

Level 1 0' - 0"

CABARET 310 SEATS A

3

B

C

20' - 0"

D

20' - 0"

E

20' - 0"

20' - 0"

F 20' - 0"

220' - 9"

G

20' - 0"

H

I

20' - 0"

20' - 0"

J 20' - 0"

K

L

20' - 0"

A

20' - 9"

15' - 0"

6

347 SF

STAR DRESSING ROOM 1 392 SF

COUNTER

STAR DRESSING ROOM 2 347 SF

5572 SF

427 SF

15' - 0"

9

9

2075 SF

2075 SF

CONCESSIONS

2075 SF

CONCESSIONS

OFFICE

10

OFFICE

10

459 SF

459 SF

981 SF 15' - 0"

15' - 0"

981 SF

FIRE PUMP ROOM

UP

328 SF

UP

11

WATER METER ROOM

GAS METER ROOM

I.T. / ELEC INCOMING

182 SF

147 SF

100 SF

UP

F

G

H

I

K

J

L

A

C

B

D

E

F

G

H

I

K

J

L

Roof 50' - 0"

C

B

D

Roof Terrace 41' - 1"

DRESSING ROOM

F

G

100 SF

H

UP

I

K

J

L

Audtorium Roof 60' - 0"

DRESSING ROOM

BLACK BOX THEATER

TERRACE

CIRCULATION RAMP

TERRACE

CONCESSION

Level 2 23' - 11 5/8"

Office Level 11' - 0" BACKSTAGE

W.C.

Office Level 11' - 0"

DRESSING ROOM

LOBBY

Level 1 0' - 0"

Level 1 0' - 0"

Ext. Ground -4' - 0"

RECITAL 315 SEATS

BACKSTAGE

W.C.

DRESSING ROOM Level 1 0' - 0"

Ext. Ground -4' - 0"

5

FLE AR

Level 2 23' - 11 5/8" CIRCULATION RAMP

Office Level 11' - 0"

LOBBY

Roof Terrace 41' - 1"

BLACK BOX THEATER

CONCESSION

CIRCULATION RAMP

DRESSING ROOM

Bro

Roof 50' - 0"

Roof Terrace 41' - 1"

CIRCULATION RAMP

Level 2 23' - 11 5/8"

W.C.

E

VIEWING DECK

CIRCULATION RAMP

BACKSTAGE

I.T. / ELEC INCOMING

147 SF

Roof 50' - 0"

BLACK BOX THEATER

STADIUM 450 SEATS

A

VIEWING DECK

CONCESSION

LOBBY

GAS METER ROOM

182 SF

Audtorium Roof 60' - 0"

VIEWING DECK

CIRCULATION RAMP

WATER METER ROOM

11

Audtorium Roof 60' - 0"

DRESSING ROOM

328 SF

UP

11

E

FIRE PUMP ROOM

15' - 0"

981 SF

BOH CORRIDOR

15' - 0"

BOH CORRIDOR

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

BOH CORRIDOR

OFFICE 459 SF

427 SF

8

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

8

ENSEMBLE DRESSING ROOM 1

15' - 0"

ENSEMBLE DRESSING ROOM 1

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

427 SF

9

1856 SF

LOBBY / PRE-FUNCTION

7

5572 SF

TERRACE

560 SF

BACKSTAGE 15' - 0"

15' - 0"

75' - 0"

75' - 0"

STORAGE

COUNTER

1856 SF

LOBBY / PRE-FUNCTION

7 ENSEMBLE DRESSING ROOM 1

100 SF

Nelson De Jesus

BACKSTAGE

1856 SF

147 SF

L 20' - 9"

15' - 0"

15' - 0" 151' - 11 13/16"

15' - 0" 151' - 11 13/16"

6

347 SF

BACKSTAGE

182 SF

K 20' - 0"

5

STAR DRESSING ROOM 2

5572 SF

328 SF

J 20' - 0"

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

COUNTER

5

STAR DRESSING ROOM 2

I.T. / ELEC INCOMING

I 20' - 0"

COUNTER

5

GAS METER ROOM

H 20' - 0"

15' - 0"

392 SF

COUNTER

WATER METER ROOM

G

4

COUNTER

FIRE PUMP ROOM

220' - 9"

20' - 0"

246 SF

STAR DRESSING ROOM 1

4 15' - 0"

4

D

F 20' - 0"

205 SF

3

15' - 0"

392 SF

UP

E 20' - 0"

COAT CHECK

560 SF

205 SF

STAR DRESSING ROOM 1

C

D 20' - 0"

BOX OFFICE

2 STORAGE

COAT CHECK

3

15' - 0"

16' - 11 25/32"

246 SF

15' - 0"

205 SF

B

C 20' - 0"

Jake Li DESIGNERS Erin Bied Jake Li Audrey D Erin Biediger D AudreyNelson Dandena

140' - 0"

16' - 0"

16' - 11 25/32"

16' - 0"

16' - 11 25/32"

B 20' - 0"

BOX OFFICE

2

560 SF

A

FLEA MARKET 460 SEATS

Alex Barm ENVELOP CON DeSimon 140 Broa Alex Barmas NewCons York DeSimone 140 Broadway, 2 New York, NY 10 DESIGNE

1

STORAGE

CONCESSIONS

DRESSING ROOM

Ext. Ground -4' - 0"

L

8

W.C.

BACKSTAGE

LOBBY Level 1 0' - 0"

BOX OFFICE

15' - 0"

Office Level 11' - 0"

Ext. Ground -4' - 0"

246 SF

15' - 0"

Level 2 23' - 11 5/8" CIRCULATION RAMP

1

10

CONCESSION

140' - 0"

LOBBY / PRE-FUNCTION

Roof Terrace 41' - 1"

CIRCULATION RAMP

Level 1 0' - 0"

1

4

Roof 50' - 0"

DRESSING ROOM

Ext. Ground -4' - 0"

20' - 9"

COAT CHECK

L

Office Level 11' - 0"

DRESSING ROOM

K 20' - 0"

K

J

Audtorium Roof 60' - 0"

CONCESSION

140' - 0"

7

I

Shinjinee STRUCTURAL Silman C 32 Pathak Old Sl Shinjinee Silman New York 32 Old Slip New York, NY 10 MECH., E Sarah Sa MECH.,BuroHapp ELEC., 100 Broa Sarah Sachs New York BuroHappold 100 Broadway # New York, NY 10 ENVELO

16' - 0"

220' - 9"

20' - 0"

UP

H

151' - 11 13/16"

F 20' - 0"

100 SF

G

Level 2 23' - 11 5/8"

2 E

F

CIRCULATION RAMP

ARENA 460 SEATS

20' - 0"

E

BLACK BOX THEATER

Office Level 11' - 0"

D

D

Roof Terrace 41' - 1"

CIRCULATION RAMP

Level 2 23' - 11 5/8"

3

C

B

VIEWING DECK

CIRCULATION RAMP

20' - 0"

I.T. / ELEC INCOMING

147 SF

BLACK BOX THEATER

CONCESSION

C

GAS METER ROOM

182 SF

Roof 50' - 0"

Roof Terrace 41' - 1"

CIRCULATION RAMP

WATER METER ROOM

Audtorium Roof 60' - 0"

BLACK BOX THEATER

20' - 0"

A

VIEWING DECK

DRESSING ROOM

328 SF

UP

11

Roof 50' - 0"

B

FIRE PUMP ROOM

15' - 0"

100 SF

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

I.T. / ELEC INCOMING

147 SF

VIEWING DECK

20' - 0"

459 SF

981 SF

GAS METER ROOM

182 SF

Audtorium Roof 60' - 0"

TERRACE

OFFICE

10

11

C

2075 SF

CONCESSIONS

OFFICE 459 SF

981 SF

BOH CORRIDOR

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

BOH CORRIDOR CONCESSIONS

10

11

6

427 SF

8

9

2075 SF

B

ENSEMBLE DRESSING ROOM 1

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

5572 SF

427 SF

BOH CORRIDOR

OFFICE

1856 SF

LOBBY / PRE-FUNCTION

7 ENSEMBLE DRESSING ROOM 1

9

459 SF

ARCHITE Stephan ARCHITECT Stanev P 1103 Spr Stephan Potts StanevPhiladelp Potts Arc 1103 Spruce Str Philadelphia, PA STRUCT

347 SF

5572 SF

8

9

2

COUNTER

STAR DRESSING ROOM 2

BACKSTAGE

1856 SF

LOBBY / PRE-FUNCTION

7

427 SF

A

392 SF

COUNTER

347 SF

75' - 0"

75' - 0"

15' - 0"

1856 SF

ENSEMBLE DRESSING ROOM 1

1

STAR DRESSING ROOM 1

BACKSTAGE

5572 SF

A

560 SF

15' - 0"

15' - 0" 151' - 11 13/16"

15' - 0" 151' - 11 13/16"

6

347 SF

WATER METER ROOM

L 20' - 9"

5

STAR DRESSING ROOM 2

BACKSTAGE

8

K 20' - 0"

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

COUNTER

5

STAR DRESSING ROOM 2

328 SF

20' - 0"

COUNTER

5

FIRE PUMP ROOM

20' - 0"

4

COUNTER

CONCESSIONS

J

I

20' - 0"

STORAGE

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

392 SF

COUNTER

LOBBY / PRE-FUNCTION

H

G

246 SF

STAR DRESSING ROOM 1

4 15' - 0"

4

220' - 9"

20' - 0"

205 SF

3

15' - 0"

15' - 0"

392 SF

UP

20' - 0"

COAT CHECK

560 SF

205 SF

3 STAR DRESSING ROOM 1

10

F

E 20' - 0"

BOX OFFICE

2 STORAGE

COAT CHECK

560 SF

205 SF

16' - 11 25/32"

246 SF

STORAGE

15' - 0"

BOX OFFICE

2

COAT CHECK

7

D 20' - 0"

140' - 0"

16' - 0"

16' - 11 25/32"

16' - 0"

246 SF

3

C 20' - 0"

1

BOX OFFICE

2

B 20' - 0"

1 16' - 11 25/32"

1

6

A

20' - 9"

140' - 0"

16' - 0"

D 20' - 0"

151' - 11 13/16"

C 20' - 0"

75' - 0"

B 20' - 0"

75' - 0"

A

Ext. Ground -4' - 0"

6

GALA 460 SEATS

FLEXIBLE THEATRE ARRANGEMENTS

1 M-300 M---

NTS

FLEXIBLE THEATRE ARANGEMENTS

A R C H I T E CT Stephan Potts Stanev Potts Architects 1103 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 ST R U CT UR AL CONSU LT AN T Shinjinee Pathnak Silman 32 Old Slip New York, NY 10005 M E CH AN ICA L C O N SU L T AN T Sarah Sachs BuroHappold 100 Broadway #23 New York, NY 10005 E N CL O S U R E CO N S U L T A N T Alex Barmas DeSimone Consulting Engineers 140 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, NY 10005 DESIG N E R S Jake Li - cl3794@columbia.edu Erin Biediger - egb2151@columbia.edu Audrey Dandenault - amd2291@columbia.edu Nelson De Jesus Ubri - nd2584@columbia.edu

NO.

DATE

REVISION

01

1 OCT 2019

SD SUBMISSION

02

22 OCT 2019

DD SUBMISSION

03

26 NOV 2019

CD SUBMISSION

Greenpoint Theatre 1 8 G r e e n p o i n t Av e B ro o k l y n , N Y 1 1 2 2 2

MASSING DIAGRAMS

Concept Diagrams

Project number Date Scale

96 0001

191021 NTS

FA19 TECH IV

N

P

D

S

1

97

HVAC_Iso

HVAC System

Greenpoint Theatre

15 A

AIR GAP TO HELP COOL FACADE AND LOWER SOLAR HEAT GAIN

FINISH METAL PLATE

METAL BRACING FOR OUTER SKIN

EXTERIOR SHADING SYSTEM

AR CH IT E Stephan P Stanev P 1103 Spru Philadelph

RIGID INSULATION

ST RUCT Shinjinee Silman 32 Old Sl New York

INSULATED HEAD MULLION

TERRACE PAVERS

M E CH A N Sarah Sac BuroHapp 100 Broad New York

E N CL OSU Alex Barm DeSimone 140 Broad New York

Level 2 (Terrace) 19' - 11 3/4"

DE SIG N E Jake Li Erin Biedi Audrey D Nelson De

15 A

CONCRETE SLAB ON METAL DECKING

SINGLE PANE PUT GLAZING DOUBLE PANE GRAZING

RIGID INSULATION CURTAIN WALL FOOTING GIRDER BEYOND

NO.

D

01

1O

02

22

03

26

AIR GAP TO HELP COOL FACADE AND LOWER SOLAR HEAT GAIN

Office Level 17' - 5 7/8" DROPPED CEILING TIE

CURTAIN WALL CMU FOOTING WITH FURRING

STRUCTURAL BEAM

FLOOR FINISH

DROPPED CEILING

Level 4 1 0' - 0" HHAC SYSTEM BEYOND

CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB

HVAC SYSTEM BEYOND DOUBLE SKIN CURTAIN WALL CAVITY

INTERIOR SHADING SYSTEM

G

INNER FACADE MULLION SINGLE PANE OUT GRAZING

1

WEST FACADE PARAPET DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

CMU CURTAIN WALL FOOTING

2

WEST FACADE BASE DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

S

Project n Date Scale

Facade Details 1/2” = 1’-0”

98

SP20 TECH V

8 Hunts Point Distribution Center

Team: Genevieve Mateyko, Alek Tomich, Nelson De Jesus Ubri

This project seeks to decentralize the food distribution network in New York City through the implementation of a new food distribution centre on our site in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Currently, the largest food distribution centre in New York is located in Hunts Point in the Bronx, and commercial truck traffic driven through the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway is contributing to a rapid decay in transportation infrastructure in New York, as goods are delivered northbound through the city in order to reach Hunts Point and other final destinations.

Our proposal aims to reduce food-related truck traffic through the city by up to 45%, preserving the longevity of critical infrastructure, reducing carbon emissions in the city, and strengthening the resiliency of New York City’s food systems as a whole.

Bush Terminal Food Distribution Centre advocates for a series of strategies that are synergistic with the conditions of the site and surrounding dependent energy systems and conditions. We have examined and catalogued the existing local food business on-site, urban energy and water infrastructure, and environmental conditions including the location of the site within the floodplain. This proposal preserves and works with existing businesses, siting relevant infrastructure around these and the natural conditions of the site.

Water and energy systems are symbiotic, and an on-site wastewater treatment facility is coupled with a closed-loop energy production system that produces biofuel for local transportation and an N+1 redundancy energy storage bank. A large, hollow berm is designed to protect critical infrastructure, and a 99

Hunts Point Distribution Center

direct, physical connection to existing buildings provides an opportunity for pedestrian connection to the buildings, plus imaginings of consumer-level offerings that work in tandem with wholesalers on the site. An existing railway runs adjacent, under the berm, delivering goods to the buildings in conjunction with existing truck routes, now much reduced, and the introduction of a cargo barge terminal. Complete streets, a walkable berm with connection to both the waterfront and businesses, and passenger ferry access, supports a vibrant community overlaid on the industrial programs of the site.

Site Analysis - BQE

100

SP20 TECH V

101

Section Pe

erspective

Hunts Point Distribution Center

102

SP20 TECH V

Last Mile

103

On-Site Closed-Loop Energy

Hunts Point Distribution Center

Energy System

104

SP21 Power Tools

9 Power Tools

From the length of the breath of a Gaelic soldier, to the size of a banner, to several hundred or couple thousand pixels across the headlines on the front page of news outlets, slogans claim, shock, validate, and infect our memory almost entirely by its brevity. Good slogans are capturing, amenable, without the need for any explaination or sound argument to back them up. The vacuity of slogan makes it a powerful tool to convince an audience, voters and consumers alike. It uses pareidolia to whitewash ideologies, personalities, products, while making the unsuspecting its accomplice in the process.

Just in the case of political rhetorics in recent years, we have become all too familiar with slogan’s power to inspire hate, to instill alternative truth, to naturalize narrow, skewed definition of complex terms. Using isolated analyses of the subsumed vocabulary, the Tool initiates a project to map and track the political cooptation of each slogan. Facilitated by a broadened apperception of the subjects, participants of the Tool (through contribution or mere observation) become better equipped to argue, protest, and educate.

105

Etymology Forceps is an open public platform that is written, edited, and stewarded by the online community. It enables and encourages visual and audio creators who feel the pressure to engage in the current or a historical political moment, to dissect, elaborate, redefine words that are used in (often weaponized) slogans with collages, photos, animations, sounds, speeches, etc. Through the process of multimedia-cyber-metalexicography, the Tool can generate an open ended discussion, and exploration of multiplicity to inspire a broader understanding of these rhetorics beyond the obvious and perceived interpretation.

Power Tools

Power Diagram

106

107

Timeline

108

SP21 Power Tools

109

Prototype Diagram

Power Tools

Metadata Feedback Loop

110

SP20 Generative Design

10 Burning Man Pavilion

This class experiments with generative tool Discover developed by Danil Nagy for Autodesk. By iterating with propitious traits/ ‘genes’ in parameters, meanwhile eliminating poor traits, the algorithm utilizes a Darwinian logic to narrow down optimization.

The Pavillion is the result of the subdivision of 3 ellipses stacked vertically with 8’ between that change in size and proportion to yield a series of points.

The points are moved radially outwards in series to create 3 spirals of points.

The points are interpolated to curves that vary in size and cross section. Corresponding to its position on the spiral, the curves are longer and provide more or less overhang. The top of each curve is connected to a ring beam at the center of the installation to resolve the curves from falling forward. Each curve is a continuous metal/wood member.The connecting element is wire and the ring beam is wood/metal.

111

Building Elements

Burning Man Pavilion

Genetic Algorithm Generative Tool

112

SP20 Generative Design

113

Gen 8-15

Gen 9-25

Gen 11-35

Gen 18-4

Gen 22-28

Gen 24-17

Gen 29-8

Gen 30-28

Gen 30-35

Gen 32-27

Gen 36-12

Gen 39-16

Gen 42-2

Gen 48-17

Gen 48-31

Design Space Model

Burning Man Pavilion

Exterior View

114

FA18 Acoustics

Aquasonic Project Room MEP box in box constrction

dry section

wet section

tension platform

Aquasonic Project Room

Aquasonic Project Room

Acoustical Targets:

Early Reflection 50~80ms Reverberation time 0.9~1.1s Diffusion & Scattering Geometry, Elements, Relief, Roughness, Texture

Flexible Form Flexible Wall Finishes

115

Design Parameters: In Air

Under Water

Path Difference

55’~88’

237’~378’

Room Volume

2000m3

6000m3

Geometric Requirement

3-6’ 8-12” 2” 1/2” 1/16”

9-18’ 2-3’ 6” 3” 1/4”

Movable Structure

Manipulation of Water Level

Movable Components

1.225 kg/m3 344 m/s

420 Pa.s/m

λ = 32’ - 3/4”

Decibel @ 20μPa

audible fq 20Hz-20kHz

+61.6dB for equal intensity

1480 m/s

λ = 246’ - 3”

Decibel @ 1μPa

997 kg/m³

1.5MPa.s/m

800x denser

3600x higher

Aquasonic Project Room

1/8” chipboard 1” acoustic foam (NRC=0.59)

Monofilament wires 1/16” metallic hook

Tom Tom Boom Box A4628 Acoustics Fall 2018 CL3794 Jacob Li

Undulating surface behind acoustic foam helps creating a diffused field, as well as eliminating higher frequency sounds.

The outer and inner shell are connected only through monofilaments, leaving a 1/2” air space to create imapct isolation.

116

SP19 Cross-Species Testsites

12 Cross-Species Testsites

This course investigates the complex relationships between humans and non-human urban inhabitants. Students study urban animal wildlife, indicator species, and microbial communities and work with biologists and ecologists to identify new potentials in designing for biological systems. Through the process of fabricating, situating and testing prototypes, we aim to create a reflective space for deeply considering the details of these new interactions, and to discover unforeseen opportunities, twists and challenges. The outcome is a physical device in the form of multispecies interfaces, bio-receptive materials, and infrastructure modifications that propose new multispecies collaborations across all scales.

The Mayfly

By Douglas Florian

117

A mayfly flies In May or June.

Its life is over Far too soon.

A day or two To dance, To fly Hello Hello Good-bye Good-bye.

Design

Mayfly Habitat

Functional streetlight with High Pressure Sodium bulb

mechanical unit -rotor -receiver -sensor

light spectrum filter Design Moonlight @57° 4000K white LED

support members

Sodium vapor

Moonlight @57° 4000K white LED Sodium vapor

clear shell

118

FA18 ADR

119

Building Elements Deconstruction

Grace Farms

Section Perspective

120

FA18 ADR

121

Deconstruction Analysis Model

Grace Farms social programming 19%

collections

typical NYPL branch library operating expenses (avg. $3,170,000 per branch location in FY2018)

IT Y

DI

19 9

GA L

TT

E

AN

36 T

0.-

..8 5 PA

AP

CK LA

6

ÅLEN EKED

FTIGKE

199.-

49.2 FULL TIME LIBRARIANS 8 ROVING VOLUNTEER SUPERVISORS

2 * $56,880

3 FULL TIME CLEANING CREW

3 * $23,440

3 FULL TIME STAFF 4 PART TIME STAFF

3 * $24,126 4 * $15,643

EKE

T

218.

700

DBY

GEN

ÅLEN EKED

49.-

BAR K

.-

ABO

289 DA

BJU

RSTA

.-

229

.ER

137.

R ÅK

NÖR

-

260.

T

AN GAL

ECONOMY OF THE LIBRARY between the intangibility of knowledge and corporeality of social infrastructure.

ADR II Spring 2019 GSAPP Dan Taeyoung

‘Drawing an Argument’

cl3794 Jacob Li

122

FA18 ADR

123

Grace Farms

124

14 LIHTC Meets New Urbanism

Introduction Proportion of suburban affordable housing developments has been on a steady increase ever since the beginning of LIHTC. In fact, in the past 20 years nearly half of all new LIHTC units have been developed in suburban neighborhoods.

The shift of focus from urban to suburban community revitalization presented opportunities for a fascinating collaboration between subsidized housing and New Urbanism. The vibrant colors, Victorian detailing, and pitched roofs recall a society so distant from the present. To an innocent eye, these New Urbanist affordable housing projects may look indistinguishable from their market rate counter parts. Yet, an almost eerie atmosphere often prevails to radiate from these government-financed rental apartments that are manipulated to look like individual post-colonial family houses on the outset. To understand the phenomenon of New Urbanist LIHTC development, there are a few key drivers.

Principles vs Style On the theoretical level, New Urbanism is grounded in promoting ‘diversity, human scale, conservation, and regionalism’, according to one of its founderpractitioners Peter Calthorpe.(2) Initially conceived to counter the norm of suburban sprawl of the 50s and 60s, New Urbanism prioritizes the rebirth of urban design over masterplanning. Calthorpe’s manifest points out that within the wide interdisciplinary movement, there’s an inherent struggle, or ‘healthy tension’, between ‘principle’ and ‘style’ of the movement, where its greatest strength shows in one, and most debilitating limits show in the other. Putting aside the stereotypical practice and judging the movement by its principles alone, it is easy to see why it is an attractive approach for both allocating agencies and developers. The former attempts to engineer diversity in income (and potentially demographics), and uses it as a measure to rehabilitate poverty within a community through social mobility, whereas the latter can disguise under the facade of individual ownership and still profit from economies of scale.

125

LIHTC Meets New Urbanism

Dominance of Affluent Homeowners LIHTC backed housing developments are essentially public-private partnerships. While relinquishing liability of management to private developers might seem like a more efficient use of (future) government funds, it denies the funds’ ability to reach those who are most in need. In order to maximize profit, developers seek to submit applications in places with higher median income and lower land cost. Generally, the inherent high poverty rates and high land values in cities, which constitutes a dire need for affordable housing, are actually driving away the financial interests under LIHTC’s current system. As a result, low density, greenfield projects such as Wincoram Commons, NY become much more preferable to developers than urban infill projects. In this case, the New Urbanist typology allowed for multi-family 4-story apartments, essentially rezoning the typical single-family-detachedhome neighborhood.

126

SP20 Designing for Zero

Flexible Accumulation through Urbanization As a critical reaction to the ‘Fordism’ modernization characterized by rationality, functionality and efficiency of corporate power, postmodernism and indeed New Urbanism gained huge traction during the stagflation of capitalism in the 70s and 80s.

‘In the urban context, therefore, I shall simply characterize postmodernism as signifying a break with the idea that planning and development should focus on large-scale, technologically rational, austere and functionally efficient “international style design, and that vernacular traditions, local history and specialized spatial designs ranging from functions of intimacy to grand spectacle should be approached with a much greater eclecticism of style.’(3)

Conclusion As laws and congressional Acts adapt and evolve, so is federal money continuously redistributed - from government agencies to homeowner and tenant subsidies (‘69 Brooke Amendment, ‘74 HCDA Section 8), and finally to private investors and developers in the form of ‘deferred future tax income’ through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit under the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

As LIHTC still constitutes the largest source of federal housing aid, most of today’s new affordable housing program fundings continues to be funneled to private investors through tax and loan incentives. While that has many benefits such that it allowed an upsurge of both quantity and diversity of housing, it inevitably opened up the term ‘affordable’ to anyone’s interpretation. The overarching theme remains that of ‘organizing the poor to press for relief from poverty’ (Bauer, Piven),(4) nonetheless, affordable housing has never ceased to reform itself. New Urbanism may have opened up ingenious ways to circumvent bylaws and common perceptions, yet its near-monopoly effectively stifled the possible creative, innovative market for suburban affordable housing development. Perhaps it is time to stop using principles of New Urbanism simply as justification for post colonial nostalgia, but instead use them to engage questions of the future of energy and mobility to work towards creative solutions to affordable housing.

127

LIHTC Meets New Urbanism

Notes: 1, Mcclure, Kirk. (2006). The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program goes mainstream and moves to the suburbs. Housing Policy Debate. 17. 419 - 446.

2, Calthorpe, Peter, et al. New Urbanism: Peter Calthorpe vs. Lars Lerup. University of Michigan, 2005.

3, Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard Cloward. “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty (Reprinted with a New Introduction by Frances Fox Piven) New Introduction.” New Political Science, vol. 33, no. 3, 2011, pp. 271–284 4, Harvey, David. “Flexible Accumulation Through Urbanization: Reflections on‘Post-Modernism’ in the American City.” Post-Fordism, p.253

128

15 Systematic Acts of Sympathy Women in NYC’s Affordable Housing

Housing Discrimination Law On April 12, 2019, New York State signed into law banning housing discrimination based on lawful sources of income. The original NYS Human Rights Law passed in 1945 has been amended repeatedly over the years to include non-discrimination acts on the basis of gender, class, and race. While dozens of counties in the state including New York City have been fighting housing discrimination through increased pressure on policy, and had established similar scope as NYS’s latest legislature nearly a decade back, it comes as a shock that only now has a state-wide amendment come to reality.

For decades, local municipalities alongside NGOs such as Fair Housing Justice Center and Statewide Source of Income Coalition have been on their own fighting on New Yorkers’ behave against discrimination targeted at rental assistance, child support, and social security recipients, denying them the fair opportunity to affordable housing in desirable neighborhoods. New York as the most densely developed and politically aggressive city in the nation’s history has a long and committed relationship to housing shortage, and like in many other massive and centralized metropolis, it is irrevocably a result of condensed and magnified social inequality. The counterpart to the wealth and prosperity that the city has created is poverty and misery for ‘the other half’, x both of which are inevitable consequence of and have to be maintained by capitalist society, at least by the measure of any Marxist theories. Indeed, the struggle of alleviating poverty and protecting the human rights of the ‘poor class’ has immortalized in the city despite the implementation of a myriad of housing and subsidiary policies since the late 19th century. After nearly a century of trying efforts, the gender-neutral, color-blind, and caring force of housing policies ironically have produced more decentralization of power and control, reinforcement of gender and class construct, perpetuation of poverty, neighborhood segregations, and the preservation of women’s struggle in the domestic sphere, than it created momentum and progress towards a sympathetic and egalitarian culture which it often strived for.

129

The severity of New York’s housing discrimination is indicative of the longevity of an oppressive system on both the authoritative and social level. Unlike the racial equality struggle which has gained national attention for the past several decades, at least politically, and has been on a fruitful path of rectification, the housing right battle on the other hand has much less to show for the hard work of its advocates. Very-low-income and extreme-low-income housing needs reached a 550,000-unit deficit by 2011, and has remained on a steady increase since the 2008 recession. Remaining at the core of these problems is the value of property rights over human rights. By taking the example of female head household families in New York City, we can begin to understand the housing crisis in relation to its effect on women, and to the gender neutrality of housing policies.

Disproportionate Effect on Women

Issues such as housing the poor are often studied and dealt with by federal policy as gender neutral. Race, Age and Disability factors are given much more attention and higher priorities for housing subsidies. However, statistics shows that the impact of housing crisis is highly gender based. Under the social construct of gender roles, it is generally suffered more widely and deeply by women than men.

Availability of Opportunities

The struggle that women, especially POC and women with children, face in acquiring and staying in affordable housing in New York is multifold. Despite the initial installment and revisions of fair housing laws since 1968, the reality today is that women still experience discrimination in seeking affordable housing options, especially in desirable neighborhoods where their children could have better opportunities for education, employment, and safety. A growing body of research demonstrates that neighborhoods matter—that where people live, especially children, can impact future educational and employment outcomes. Higher-income neighborhoods in the city tend to have lower rates of violent crime and better public services, making them more desirable places to live. Also, city schools that have greater concentrations of students from higher-income neighborhoods tend to have higher average standardized test scores and graduation rates. In higher-income neighborhoods, however, developable land and construction tend to cost more, particularly in large swaths of Manhattan and North Brooklyn. Higher per unit costs may ultimately result in fewer units being subsidized.

In a 2012 HUD study about housing discrimination, researchers found out that female testers of the same qualification and circumstances received different treatments from prospective landlords and real estate agents than the male testers.4 Stigma against welfare recipients, against young children, and against victims of domestic violence, are just a few of the reasons women are more

130

often rejected the access to fair housing. Note the original Fair Housing Act in 1968 did not prohibit discrimination based on sex, until the 1974 amendment.

Pervasiveness

As of January 2020, 77.6% of NYCHA public housing, and 76.3% of section 8 voucher receivers, are female head of households - defined by a family with or without children, for whom the female is the sole or main source of income, whether she is single, married, or divorced. High poverty rate in women can be attributed to occupational inequalities such as wage gap, job segregation, and limited upward mobility due to gender-based bias. More importantly, sociologist Christine Delphy and co-founder of the Women’s Liberation Movement would argue that women’s labor always had exchange value, except within the institution of the family as a framework, which acted as the site of economic exploitation.5 The female head of household as the simultaneous sole provider and care giver, therefore, undergoes double the exploitation, one capitalist, and one patriarchal.

Security

Finally, housing security of female head households is too often threatened by not just the financial instability caused by domestic and workplace exploitations, but more regularly by the ensuing prejudice that they might fall behind on rent, especially when childcare burden is taken into consideration.

As is the case with rejection from fair housing opportunities, female headed households also experience higher eviction rates. National Fair Housing 131

Alliance indicates that individual lawsuits and fines are not enough to the change the behavior of landlords who would use obnoxious tactics to drive out rent-protected and government subsidized tenants in the hope of raising rent revenue. It is truly worrying how housing policy have allowed such a toxic atmosphere of discrimination to endure, in which vulnerable groups are frustrated and exhausted to find and keep affordable homes. However, a detailed analysis of the language and application of these policies reveals that housing discrimination not only advanced certain conservative agendas, but also could be made profitable for the riches.

Housing Policies

New York is the most densely developed and politically aggressive city in the nation’s history. In this massive and centralized metropolis, social inequality is inevitably condensed and magnified. Among all aspects of life, housing is one of the most palpable issues that needed addressing. Policy has played a central role in shaping the way low-income families and vulnerable communities received help - from the first piece of legislature that regulated the quality of tenements through mandating architectural forms, to the post-depression approach of mobilizing federal money to build affordable housing units, to the current model of private public partnership. The fact that housing discrimination has been so common is directly related to the political will, proposed actions, and implementation of these housing policies. From the perspective of the female household head, we can understand better how historically housing policies have been used to perpetuate wealth disparity and reinforce gender construct.

1910 Tenement Act

Due to the rise of concentrated industrial and commercial activities, population doubled every decade between 1800 and 1880, The Tenement House Act of 1867 was the first ever legislature that set the legal standard for minimum living condition for low-income/ workers’ housing, practically addressing the problem of cheap construction and doubling-up. It wasn’t until the 1901 Tenement Act that the city started rebuilding existing and constructing new tenements. Albeit already a long existing issue, the call for tenement reform wasn’t started until the city suffered a cholera epidemic in the LES in 1849, followed by civil unrest in 1863 against military conscription, and many incidents of fire taking lives by the hundreds in the decade leading up to 1867; therefore it should be understood as a concern for public welfare and safety, to protect the production labor of the capitalist system, as we can see the quality of life of tenants had not been improved significantly. Overcrowding and poor sanitation remained in tenements very much until the 1930s slum clearance and introduction of public housing. From the lens of Jacob Riis, we 132

can start to understand living in tenements meant women’s domestic labor often included care for seniors and children in extended family and neighbors, as well as subjugation to reproductive labor as a means for the families upward mobility. Rather than integrating families of different backgrounds and financial circumstances, the Tenement Act effectively established slums within the city, and finished them off with a prescribed look. The lingering effect on neighborhood discrimination, as well as entrapment of women in free domestic labor is still experienced today.

Health, Safety, and Morals of the Nation - 1937 Wagner-Steagall Act

The Great Depression brought a devastation to the economy and stability of governance the kind that the US has never seen before. It was apparent the extent to which federal mortgage loans activated by the ’34 Housing Act and FHA restrictions on mortgage interest and rate had barely put a dent in the crisis, as foreclosure rate kept soaring and unemployment stayed high across the country. As an urgent reaction the Wagner-Steagall Act was enacted on September 1st 1937; its eminence upheld by almost complete authorship of housing expert and advocate Catherine Bauer Wurster. The core importance of the Act lies in the creation of the nation’s public housing program.

133

Naturally, this unique moment of federal money directly creating architectural forms to house the poor generated alleviation as well as a unique set of problems. Through the concentration of poverty and exacerbated racial segregation constructed by public housing projects, it becomes apparent the underlying agenda of it serving a certain group of people. The extent of the ‘Nation’ whose ‘health, safety, and morals’ are to be redressed is in practice exclusionary and discriminatory. The invisible redlining enabled by the WagnerSteagall Act indeed cultivated disparities in terms of public services and investment, employment opportunities, and perception between racial groups.

Moreover, the sanitization of low-income housing has had an adverse effect on the collectivity of poor families. The Wagner-Steagall Act not only served to establish the definition of ‘slum’, but more obtrusively mandated that for each new public housing unit created, one unhealthy ‘slum’ unit be removed, and together with the physical dwelling, the sense of ownership, autonomy, and power of community. In the new vertical isolation of prefab modernist towers, wealth accumulation through ownership, communal self-government, and socialization of domestic work becomes utterly mythic. The ‘unsafe and insanitary housing conditions’, as well as their occupants, that are deemed ‘injurious to the health, safety, and morals of the citizens of the Nation’ are finally effectively removed from the equation.

Discrimination in Private Market - 1983 Section 8 Voucher

Following the ethos of Civil Rights Movement, Section 8 Voucher was created out of a newfound consciousness to promote racial and class integration.

Ironically, it had led to the invention of new forms of decentralized discrimination, and presented a case of implementation of policy working against its intentions. The term ‘section 8’ refers to multiple amendments in the last century to the 1937 Housing Act, in which the original legislature, in the most succinct way, granted ‘LOANS FOR LOW-RENT-HOUSING AND SLUMCLEARANCE PROJECTS’. In today’s interpretation, section 8 serves as an umbrella term that includes various programs funding the building, rehabilitation, and private market or project-based rental assistance established in the ’37, ‘78, ‘83, ‘91 amendments respectively. In theory, the voucher program would stimulate the construction of more low-income homes in the private market, and allow eligible families to live in market rate units by subsidizing the difference between 30% of their adjusted income and market rate rent which would be determined by local FHA. By regulation, more than 80% of voucher rental assistance is solely tenant based and untethered to any project. While seemingly a strong opposition to housing discrimination, the effort of the policy is only implicit; its dependence on the landlord’s voluntary participation was hardly supplemented by fair housing programs, and in practice defeated the original purpose of integration. Soon after the enactment of the Act, and up until recent years, better served neighborhoods that have 134

a competitive housing market such as New York have often seen landlords carrying outright prejudiced tenant policies that denied applicants with children, government disability subsidies, or rental assistance the opportunity to live in their properties. The disproportionate effects of discrimination created by the loophole in the ’83 Fair Housing Amendment is especially concerning, in light of studies that show most of the section 8 voucher holders are extremely low income, minority families, headed by a female.

Hiding in Plain Sight - 1986 LIHTC

Following the economic recession in 1980 and skyrocketing inflation rate rapidly escalating both employment and mortgage rate nationwide, the government began shifting the form of housing subsidies from federal reserve funds to tax abatements for private-public-partnership. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit became the first federal housing policy that received bipartisan support. If the endorsement from both political parties as well as real estate corporate whales alone is short of a warrant for worries, the reality of LIHTC projects in New York today should ring the alarms. To the credit of this innovative approach, a large percentage of LIHTC projects include a higher makeup of low-income units, than the requirement for new developments benefiting from its tax credit to have more than 20% of affordable units (>50% 135

AMI) or 40% slightly less affordable units (>60% AMI). However, in the highpressure real estate markets of Manhattan and Brooklyn, developers almost exclusively adopt the model of adhering a minimum number of low-income units to high-rise, high-end apartment buildings. Out of the 146 LIHTC projects larger than 500 units that have received tax credits since 1987, 61 are built in New York City.

The segregation within these developments hardly stops at access to amenities, to the same address and entrance lobby, and the same quality of infrastructure; albeit sharing the same building envelope, low-income units are often deprived of good (if any) views, adequate exposure to natural light, and basic in-unit amenities and timely repairs. The inequitable treatment of tenants who pay differently to occupy the same building became exploitable by developers and architects to maximize the profit margin of inner city LIHTC projects, and has generated a trend for creative architectural ingenuity. Amidst the ‘poor door’ controversy at their 40 Riverside Blvd project, Extell ventured to allocate all 200 low-income units in their newest project at One Manhattan Square in a completely separate 13-story building next to the 68-story luxury tower. It is unlikely the tenants of the ‘poor building’ would have access to ‘the city’s largest private outdoor garden’ directly under their homes.

Discrimination against low-income tenants in LIHTC projects in New York extends far beyond the level of convenience they receive compared to their millionaire neighbors. Landlords only need to comply with the affordable unit requirement for typically 30 years (or 15 years in many cases) to keep receiving the tax credit. More than 15,000 LIHTC units are to lose affordability protection in 2020. The number is projected to reach 30-fold within the next decade. The outcome when these low-income families are inevitably dislocated can hardly be matched by the growth rate of LIHTC, which is the most robust and vigorous housing policy in place at the moment. Albeit it has provided nearly 400,000 affordable homes to low-income families in approximately 120,000 properties in New York in three decades, applicants are gambling with a chance as low as 1 in 1600 today to get into one of these units.

136

137

Conclusion Home is a reflection of society, the power relations within, and its economic structure. Subsidized housing for low-income families presents a controversial case of federal funding directly interacting with households struggling with poverty. Rather than creating an equitable environment for all, past and current housing policies strengthened the biopower of a disciplinary capitalist society, in which architecture as an accomplice functioned as a normalizing, gendering, and racializing force.8 The structure of capitalist exploitation was bolstered through the construction of the poor working class and women’s role within it. In other words, the control of sanitation and reproductive activity of the individual body onto which the state wishes to exert, is almost explicitly expressed in its housing policies. In this respect, NYS’s housing discrimination law is commendable in the sense that it is finally openly pushing for a total kind of housing integration, which has largely been met by reluctance from policy makers and dismissal from private actors. As Architects, the story of housing policies seen through the perspective of the female head of household should make us mindful of the harm that design can do as accessory to an oppressive system, and/or exploitative ventures, and at the same time emphasize on innovations in the discipline as a potent tool to affect and bring changes to policy.

End Notes 1. Westchester County first passed its source of income law in December 2013. In 2018 the County Executive made the law permanent.

2. Worst Case Housing Needs, 2019 Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

3. LIHTC How It Works and Who It Serves. Urban Institute. 2018 4. Housing Discrimination Against Racial And Ethnic Minorities 2012. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

5. Toupin. P32 6. 13 in brooklyn. 22 in Manhattan. 11 in the bronx. 6 in staten island. Data from HUD LIHTC Database collected 1987-2018.

7. Data from National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2018 8. Federici. P128 Bibliography • United States Housing Act of 1937 (75th Congress. 1st session - CH896.

1937.)

• Federici, Silvia. Caliban and the Witch: Autonomedia, 2014. • Toupin, Louise. Wages for Housework a History of an International Feminist Movement, 1972-1977. Pluto Press, 2018.

138

Jacob Chengjie Li Columbia GSAPP Master of Architecture Class of 2021

139