Experiments in Public Housing_Appendix

Experiments in Public Housing: Appendix A Reexamination of Subsidized Housing Policy & Design

Northeastern University Graduate Program of Architecture Masters Research Studio Littell I Fall 2011

Prepared by: Pamela Andrade, Daniel Artiges, Assia Belguedj, Michael Bivas, Alexandra Bradley, Alexander Davis, Brett Ekusuzian, Sara LaPorte, Erica Lelievre, Yifan Liu, Aaron Honsaker, Marc Janty, Philip Viana, Kathryn Reynolds

IntRodUctIon Public, affordable and subsidized housing, is a topic that has been thoroughly studied and examined.

Experiments in Public Housing focuses on the architecture of housing projects over time.

In addition, this publication recognizes other associated realities of public housing and their potential inuence on design.

Through the careful analysis of mostly local precedents, this study searches for points of departure for innovation within the typology.

This book is not an outright biased critique nor is it a detached survey.

Where warranted, a position is taken to provoke new ideas and possibilities. The main objective is the identification of themes, issues and patterns that could possibly bear fruit in terms of generating new ideas for public and subsidized housing.

2

Research Methodology & Scope The second volume of Experiments in Public Housing is a catalog of mostly local precedents which act as the basis for this publication’s research. A myriad of housing projects located in Boston’s Lower Roxbury are used as a lab for research due to its diverse mix of projects spanning many periods in housing history. A total of sixteen housing projects were isolated and analyzed, ranging from post-war construction of brick super-block developments to present day townhomes directed at individualism. Architectural plans were re-drawn according to a graphical and scaled standard so that they could be evaluated side by side of each other. In addition, text and diagrams supplement the drawings and begin to analyze the different features of each project.

In addition, our proximity to Lower Roxbury gave the class the opportunity to interview, in person, various people and organizations who are heavily involved with current and previous housing projects in the city. They design, manage, and fund public housing projects and therefore were a crucial asset in our research. We give many thanks to these individuals who propelled our research.

Acknowledgements Kathryn Bennett Special Assistant to the Administrator Planning & Real Estate Development Boston Housing Authority Christine Capone-Cinelli Executive Secretary, Real Estate Development Boston Housing Authority Alberto Cรกrdenas, AIA Principal DHK Architects Rob Chandler, AIA Principal Goody Clancy Diane Clark Project Manager Nuestra Comunidad Development Corporation Janet Haines, LEED AP Project Manager Nuestra Comunidad Development Corporation Hank Keating, AIA Vice President, Design & Construction Trinity Financial

Sean McReynolds Finance & Acquisitions Corcoran Jennison Companies Chad Perry Associate, Planning & Urban Design Manager Goody Clancy David Price Executive Director Nuestra Comunidad Development Corporation St. John Smith Assistant Director Capital Construction Department Boston Housing Authority Joseph Spinelli Project Manager, Capital Construction Department Boston Housing Authority Russell Tanner Director of Real Estate Madison Park Development Corporation Marcia Thornhill Director, Real Estate Development Nuestra Comunidad Development Corporation

David Koven Financing Pro-forma Expert 4

Table of Contents Precedents Lenox Bromley Heath Whittier Street Twin Parks Northwest Walnut Park Villa Victoria Starrett City Madison Park Village Harbor Point Tent City Orchard Gardens Camfield Estates Davenport Commons Mission Main Maverick Landing Abbey Apartments

7 17 37 49 63 71 91 109 125 137 153 179 193 209 225 243

6

Lenox/ cAMDEN %8% 14

Date Built/Renovated:

552%

00-10% AMI

1939 (Lenox), 1949 (Camden) Rental Type

Developer:

BHA

Owner: Architect:

BHA Boston Housing authority & United States Housing Authority

Financing:

State and Federal Government

Total Cost: Per Unit Cost:

-

Efficiency Net/Gross:

86.2%

Overall size: Number of units:

6.44 (Lenox)/ 1.26 (Camden) acres 376

Parking:

0.21 car / unit

11-30% AMI 31-80% AMI

4304%

36%

1 Bedroom 15%

Unit Type

2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom

47% 51

100%

Building Type

Lowrise Units

51

100%

Unit Density

Units Per Acre

History Lenox Street is a conveniently located family development and Camden Street is a small family development within the Lenox/Camden complex in the South End. Lenox/Camden is really two developments that sit next to each other and were built 10 years apart. Lenox, a federally funded development, was built in 1939. Camden, funded by the state, was built in 1949. However, the same group of BHA employees manages both and residents consider themselves all part of one family and share a tenant task force.

Lenox Street includes 306 units of the total 376 apartments within Lenox/ Camden, Camden Street includes 70 units of the total 376 apartments within Lenox/Camdenconsisting of one, two and three-bedroom apartments. Both devleopments are three story walk up style buildings. Rents are calculated at 30% of a resident’s income. Residents have the option of choosing a flat rent as well.

Lenox/Camden | Precedents

8

Site Plan Ca

m

de

St

Le

no

La

tti

m

or

e

Ct

Di

tm

us

Ct

n

x

St

Br

an

no

n

Ha

W ay

all S

d Ken

ris

Tr ot te rC

t

t

m

w ha

t Tr ot te rC 1”= 200’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

e Av t u

S

1”=200’

Site analysis As a open community, Lenox/Camden does not have fences. But it uses its building’s location to make several separated blocks. All these areas are a step higher than the street and cars are not allowed in. It provides a safy environment for kids to play around their homes.

Green Space

Walking Path

TraďŹ c Line

Lenox/camden | Precedents

10

BUILDInG enTRAnce AnALYSIS For security issues, 2 units share an entrance.

F

Front Door

Back Door

Back home from outside

Communicate place Back Door

Lenox Building Plan Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

1 BD Unit c 2 BD Unit D

2 BD Unit c

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Lenox/camden | Precedents

12

Unit c: 1 BR

Unit c: 2 BR

1 Bathroom 514 Square Feet

DN

1 Bathroom 693 Square Feet

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Unit D: 2 BR 1 Bathroom 617 Square Feet

UP

DN

3/32”=1’

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Lenox/camden | Precedents

14

Sources BHA 2011 “Boston Housing Authority.” http://www.bostonhousing.org/ Images: Google 2011 http://maps.google.com/

Lenox/Camden | Precedents

16

BROMLEY HEATH

Boston, MA

Heath Street - 1941, Bromley Park - 1954 1996 - 1997

Developer:

Owner:

BHA

Architect:

Heath Street - M.A. Dyer Architects, Bromley Park - Thomas F. McDonough

Financing:

Government funding through Mass Housing Authority Act (1938) using private contractors, suppliers, tradesmen and real estate brokers

00-30% AMI Rental Type

Bromley-Heath Tenant Management Corporation

30%

.4 spaces/unit

Lowrise Units Midrise Units

Units Per Acre

70 %

Parking:

5 Bedroom

% 51

24.2 acres 983

3 Bedroom

46

Overall size: Number of units:

Building Type

2 Bedroom

30%

81%

61-80% AMI

1 Bedroom

Unit Type

Heath Street - $2.4 Million, Bromley Park $10 Million Heath Street - $1,750, Bromley Park $1,953

Efficiency Net/Gross:

31-60% AMI 81-100% AMI

4% 15%

Total Cost: Per Unit Cost:

13% % 79% 4%4

Date Built/Renovated:

Unit Density

History Bromley-Heath is made of two developments managed as one entity. Heath Street was developed in 1941 to house low-income families in a self-sustaining development, including playgrounds, daycare, elderly services, and a social hall, in the wake of the Great Depression. Architecturally, the buildings were a mixture of Zeilenbau and International Styles and Garden City Developments. They were oriented north to gain the maximum amount of daylight and spaced far enough apart to proper light and ventilation and to create play and social areas. Buildings are void of decoration to convey the cleanest sense of rationality, functionality, and standardization.

As a reaction to the greater need for low-income housing for unemployed, elderly and minority households after WWII, Bromley Park was built more densely. It was loosely modeled after Le Corbusier’s “Towers in the Park,” incorporating small amounts of greenspace between each block, though the landscape is mostly dominated by parking lots. Unlike the strict layout of Heath Street, Bromley Park shows little organization in their relation to each other or the development as a whole, sacrificing the original Zeilenbau and International Style aesthetic. Closely spaced, the seven story buildings dwarf the three story buildings, as well as the surrounding low context, creating an endless brick maze.

During the 1990’s the development was brought up to modern standards through comprehensive modernization, or “comp-mod,” adding fences, covering entries and updating units for greater security.

Bromley-Heath is significant in that it is one of the few tenant-managed developments remaining in the country, adding a level of community and residential responsibility.

Bromley Heath | Precedents 18

Site Plan

1”= 400’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Abstracted Layout Repetition and Organization

N Heath Street consistently oriented for best exposure to sun Bromley Park arrayed with no relationship to street or other buildings

Bromley Heath | Precedents

20

Heath Street typical lowrise plan after comprehensive modification

3 BR Flat B

1 BR Flat

3 BR Flat A

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

1 BR Flat

1 Bathroom 498 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Bromley Heath | Precedents

22

2 BR Flat

1 BR Flat

*Pre Comp-Mod 1 Bathroom 766 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

1 Bathroom 485 Square Feet

5’

15’

30’

3 BR Flat A *Post Comp-Mod 1 Bathroom 1,200 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Bromley Heath | Precedents

24

3 BR Flat B 1.5 Bathroom 1,120 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Bromley Park typical lowrise plan

2 BR Flat

3 BR Flat

5 BR Flat

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Bromley Heath | Precedents

26

2 BR Flat

1 Bathroom 632 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

3 BR Flat

1 Bathroom 781 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Bromley Heath | Precedents

28

5 BR Flat

1.5 Bathroom 1,207 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Bromley Park typical midrise plan

3 BR Flat A

2 BR Flat A

3 BR Flat B

2 BR Flat B

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Bromley Heath | Precedents

30

2 BR Flat A 1 Bathroom 592 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

2 BR Flat B 1 Bathroom 610 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Bromley Heath | Precedents

32

3 BR Flat A 1 Bathroom 738 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

3 BR Flat B 1 Bathroom 745 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Bromley Heath | Precedents

34

Sources Boston Housing Authority. “The Learning Center at Bromley Heath.” 12 Dec 2004.

Heath, Richard. “Bromley-Heath Public Housing Development History.” Jamaica Plain Historical Society. 2005. http://www.jphs.org/locales/2005/10/15/bromley-heath-public-housing-development-history.html Images: “Bing Maps.” Microsoft. 2011. http://www.bing.com

Bromley Heath I Precedents

36

Boston, MA

1951

Management:

Boston Housing Authority Hope VI Funding & Low Income Housing

Financing:

Subsidized public housing

Total Cost:

$11 million

27-35% AMI 36-60% AMI Market Rate

1 Bedroom

34 %

Boston Housing Authority

15-26% AMI

14%

Developer:

00-14% AMI 27%

Rental Type

15%

Date Built/Renovated:

17

%

%

27

WHITTIER STREET

9% 22%

Unit Type

2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

Efficiency Net/Gross:

91%

Number of units:

331

Parking:

73 spaces on site street parking (with resident sticker)

Open Spaces:

Inner courtyard and playground

# of Stories:

4&8

35% 100%

Building Type

53

Unit Density

Midrise Units

Units Per Acre

History This collection of buildings is located right on the edge of Roxbury Crossing and Boston proper. The four buildings, which each feature both eight and four story parts, are arranged around the perimeter of the plot with some common outdoor space and on-site parking lots for residents. Additionally, each building has at least one main and one backdoor or emergency exit. The semi-public outdoor courtyard features some landscaping with sidewalks and a central playground.

The property is located on Tremont Street, directly across from Northeastern University’s International Village. This is a college dorm that also features commercial services on the ground floor such as a coffee and a smoothie shop. There are several other amenities that surround the property which include the St. Katharine Drexel Parish center. Additionally, there is also the recently built Boston Police Headquarters across the street and the Reggie Lewis Track and Field Center nearby. Health care is available close by at the Whittier Street Health Center which is attached to the Whittier Health Pharmacy.

Whittier Street | Precedents

38

Site Plan

1”= 200’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Kit of Parts

Aggregation Analysis

PART IN AXON

PART IN PLAN

APPROX. AREA

EFFICIENCY

VERTICAL ACCESS

# OF STORIES

3,179 SF

87%

stairs/elevator

8

1,692 SF

94%

stairs/fire escape

4

1,368 SF

91%

stairs/fire escape

4

567 SF

--

--

4

all the buildings are comprised from a set, or “kit”, of different building parts that includes a cross-shaped building, two bars, and a single add-on unit.

Whitter Street | Precedents

40

South Building typical floor unit distinction

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

South Building

typical floor cross & bar

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Whittier Street | Precedents

42

Cross: 2 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathroom 640 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Cross: 3 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathroom 795 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Whittier Street | Precedents

44

Bar: 2 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathroom 610 Square Feet

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Bar: 3 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathroom 765 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Whittier Street | Precedents

46

Sources Boston Housing Authority: http://www.bostonhousing.org/detpages/devinfo64.html City of Boston Tax Accessors: http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/default.asp

Whittier Street | Precedents

48

Twin Parks, BSA Management

Architect:

Prentice & Chan, Olhausen

Financing:

Middle Income Housing Mitchell Lama

Efficiency Net/Gross:

93%

Overall size:

3/4 acre

Number of units:

113

Floors:

19 Skip/Stop Configuration

Parking:

On Street Parking

Open Space:

Front Garden

Unit Type %

Developer:

1 Bedroom

32

1970

4%

Date Built/Renovated:

Studio

32%

2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom

5%

Bronx, New York

22%

Location:

Bronx, NY

5%

TWIN PARKS NORTHWEST

Building Type

4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom

Highrise

150

Unit Density

Units Per Acre

History Twin Parks Northwest is the tower in a collection of buildings called Twin Parks in the Bronx, New York. While the other buidlings are mid-rise, this is the tallest at 19 stories. They are all run by the same management company, however they do not act as a complex, but instead as freestanding self sufďŹ cient buildings.

Twin Parks Northwest is a part of the Mitchell-Lama Housing Program for New York. The Mitchell-Lama program was created in 1955 through the Limited ProďŹ t Housing Companies Act, and provides affordable rental and cooperative housing to moderate and middle-income families. In New York, there are 97 city-sponsored moderate and middle-income rental developments through this program, with more than 44,600 units.

Twin Parks Northwest is exclusively a rental property and is a federally assisted section 236 property. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) establishes maximum admission income limits for Section 236 developments.

Twin Parks Northwest | Precedents

50

UT

TIE BO NU E

AVE

1”= 100’ ER

BST

WE

UE

AVE N

EAS T 18 1ST

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

FO LI N

AVE NUE

ST RE ET

UT AV ENUE

NTIN E

TIEBO

VALE

Site Plan

STR EET

Twin Park’s entry is on the ground floor through an exterior public walkway that connects Folin Street and Webster Ave which passes underneath the building Entry from Folin Street

Entry from Webster Ave.

Twin Parks Northwest | Precedents

52

Twin Parks Typical Floor Plans Floor A Floor B Floor C

FLOOR A 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

FLOOR B 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18

FLOOR C 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19

Twin Parks is made up of a module of three floor types A, B, C that are repeated six times to create 18 floors of tenant space. Floors A & B interlock to create duplex units, while floor C consists of flats.

The individual units are accessed only on the B and C floors leaving the A floor to be completely occupiable by units with no circulation space - creating a skip-stop floor conďŹ guration. All of the units that occur on the A floors are duplex units which are accessed on the B floors. The absense of public circulation space on the A floors creates an incredibly high net/gross ratio of almost 93%.

Twin Parks Northwest | Precedents

54

1 BR Units

2-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (6 per module)

only occurs on1-Bedroom floors B and UnitC Floor Plan (6 per module) on 3rd and 4th floors unit occupies -only onlyoccurs 1 floor

-all units occur on 4th floors -all living space of units only occupy 1 floor, except where entry is on 3rd floor

-unit occupies only 1 floor

2-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (6 per module)

ule)

-all units occur on 4th floors -all living space of units only occupy 1 floor, except where entry is on 3rd floor

1 Bedroom Unit Locations

dule)

2 Bedroom Unit Locations

4-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (2 per module)

5-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (1 per module)

-all units enter on 3rd floor -all living rooms and kitchens are located on 3rd floors -all bedrooms and bathrooms are located on 2nd floors

ule)

-units enters on 3rd floor -living room and kitchen is located on 3rd floors -bedrooms and bathrooms are located on 2nd floors

5-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (1 per module) -units enters on 3rd floor -living room and kitchen is located on 3rd floors -bedrooms and bathrooms are located on 2nd floors

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

2 BR Units

only occurs on floor C unit occupies only 1 floor

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Twin Parks Northwest | Precedents

56

1-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (6 per module) -only occurs on 3rd and 4th floors -unit occupies only 1 floor

3 & 4 BR Unit “B” Floor

-all units occur on 4th floors -all living space of units only occupy 1 floor, except where entry is on 3rd floor

all units enter B flPlan oors (5 per module) 3-Bedroom UnitonFloor allunits living on B floors -all enterspace on 3rd floor -all living rooms and kitchens are located on 3rd floors -all bedrooms and bathrooms are located on 2nd floors

3 Bedroom Unit Locations

4-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (2 per module) -all units enter on 3rd floor -all living rooms and kitchens are located on 3rd floors -all bedrooms and bathrooms are located on 2nd floors

4 Bedroom Unit Locations

4-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (2 per module) -all units enter on 3rd floor -all living rooms and kitchens are located on 3rd floors -all bedrooms and bathrooms are located on 2nd floors

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

5-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (1 per module) -units enters on 3rd floor -living room and kitchen is located on 3rd floors -bedrooms and bathrooms are located on 2nd floors

30’

5-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (1 per module) -units enters on 3rd floor -living room and kitchen is located on 3rd floors -bedrooms and bathrooms are located on 2nd floors

3 & 4 BR Unit “A” Floor beds and baths on A floors

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Twin Parks Northwest | Precedents

58

)

5 BR Unit “B” Floor all units enter on B floors all living space on B floors beds and baths on A floors

5 Bedroom Unit Locations

5-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (1 per module) -units enters on 3rd floor -living room and kitchen is located on 3rd floors -bedrooms and bathrooms are located on 2nd floors

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

5 BR Unit “A” Floor beds and baths on A floors

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Twin Parks Northwest | Precedents

60

Sources http://housingprototypes.org/project?File_No=USA005 http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/apartment/mitchell-lama.shtml http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/apps/hsgdevls/hsgdevls.asp Christian Canshirt, Oliver Heckmann, Bettina Vismann, and Friederike Schneider, Floor Plan Manual: Housing (Switzerland: Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 1994)

Twin Parks Northwest | Precedents

62

Owner: Architect:

Boston Housing Authority Isador Richmond & Carney Goldberg Architects

Financing:

Low Income Housing Tax Credit; Private Equity

Efficiency Net/Gross:

89.4%

Overall size: Number of units:

1.3 acres 168

Parking:

.15 car / unit

27-35% AMI 36-60% AMI Market Rate

20%

Studio Unit Type

Building Type

23

Unit Density

100%

$6,113,100 $36,387

15-26% AMI

53%

Total Cost: Per Unit Cost:

15%

BHA

Rental Type

27%

Developer:

00-14% AMI

14%

1970

17

%

27%

Date Built/Renovated:

27

Boston, MA

%

walnut park

1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom

Highrise Units

Units Per Acre

History Walnut Park Tower is a highrise elderly and disabled development located on Columbus Avenue near Eagleston Square. It is unique among most all highrises in Boston because it is the only pure circular masonry tower in the city.

Walnut Park | Precedents

64

Site plan

walnut park

lu

co bu

m .

ve

sa washington

street

columbus ave.

1”= 400’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Walnut Park Tower 1 BR Flat 1 BD Studio

1 BR Flat

1 BD Studio

1”= 400’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Walnut Park | Precedents

66

1 BD Studio

1 BR Flat

1 Bathroom X Square Feet

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

1 Bathroom

30’

60’

Walnut Park | Precedents

68

Sources Boston Housing Authority http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?pid=1101630000 Bing.com Aerial Image

Walnut Park | Precedents

70

Boston, MA

HUD Section 221d3 and 236 subsidies Section 8 subsidies Mass Housing Finance Agency $25.7 Million

Efficiency: Net/Gross:

78% 204,119 Net / 260,197 Gross (Phases II and III: Townhouses and High Rise)

1 Bedroom

Unit Type

2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 6 Bedroom

1%

Building Type

Townhouse Units Midrise Units 22%

Total Cost: Per Unit Cost: Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V

11 %

Financing:

33%

Boston Housing Authority Inquilinos Boricuas en Accion John Sharratt Associates, Inc.

4

Developer: Owner: Architect:

22%

22%

1972 1974 1976 1977 1981

% 11

Date Built/Renovated: Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V

37%

VILLA VICTORIA

Highrise Units

$1.3 mil / 71 Units - $18,309 $4.6 mil / 204 - $22,549 $5.6 mil / 181 - $30,939 $2.2 mil / 36 - $61,111 $12 mil / 2000 - $600 (this phase is ignored here)

11.2 acres 492

Parking:

.82 car / unit (405 spots)

29%

Overall size: Number of units:

Unit Density

44 Units Per Acre

A large community of Puerto Rican immigrants had just entered this area and was enjoying its many benefits - low rent, close access to public transit, low skill jobs and good welfare benefits - when in 1965 HUD planned to demolish low-income communities in the South End to make room for high-end residential development (“Urban Renewal�).

To stay in the South End, they enlisted the help of John Sharratt Associates Architects, formed the Emergency Tenants Council and mobilized support from every known organization in Boston to prevent HUD from designating their parcel as an urban renewal area, and won.

The ETC preserved several row houses and churches. Sharratt incorporated unique strategy of urbanism to distinguish the project.

The most distinctive is U-shaped roads which serve to discourage through-traffic, fortifying a sense of private community. A 16 story tower brings together affordable elderly housing with live-in assistants. The most common housing units are small groups (4-10 units each) of townhouses ranging from 1 bedroom flats to 6 bedroom triplexes. The townhouses provide the proximity of community housing while retaining a distinct individuality meant to empower the residents with a sense of ownership.

Villa Victoria | Precedents

72

Site Plan

1”= 200’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Thresholds Private

Public

4

1 2

3

1. Most public (Sidewalk) 2. Threshold (grade level entry) 3. Semi-private (sub-level entry) 4. Private (upper level entry) Villa Victoria | Precedents

74

Phase II: “Torre Unidad” floor 1

2 BD Studio

1 BD Studio

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

1 BD Apartment

Phase II: “Torre Unidad” floor 2

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Villa Victoria | Precedents

76

Phase II: 2 BR Studio 1 Bathroom 686 Square Feet Misc. Floors

Phase II: 1 BR Apartment 1 Bathroom 532 square Feet All Floors

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Phase II: 1 BR Studio 1 Bathroom 390 Square Feet

All Floors

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Villa Victoria | Precedents

78

Phase III: “Viviendas” Townhouses Sub-Floor (Flats) First Floor (Duplexes and Triplexes)

6BD Triplex

3BD Duplex

2 BD Flat

4BD Duplex

4 BD Triplex

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Phase III: “Viviendas” Townhouses Second Floor Third Floor

6BD Triplex 2nd floor

6BD Triplex 3rd floor

3BD Duplex 2nd floor

4BD Duplex 2nd floor

4 BD Triplex 2nd floor

1/32”=1’-0”

4 BD Triplex 3rd floor

10’

30’

60’

Villa Victoria | Precedents

80

Phase III: 2 BR Flat 1 Bathroom 741 Square Feet Sub-Floor

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Phase III: 1 BR Flat 1 Bathroom 531 Square Feet

Sub-Floor

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Villa Victoria | Precedents 82

Phase III: 6 BR Triplex 2.5 Bathrooms 2,003 Square Feet First Floor

Phase III: 6 BR Triplex 2.5 Bathrooms 2,003 Square Feet Second Floor

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Phase III: 6 BR Triplex 2.5 Bathrooms 2,003 Square Feet

Third Floor

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Villa Victoria | Precedents

84

Phase III: 4 BR Triplex 2 Bathrooms 1,595 Square Feet First Floor

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Phase III: 4 BR Triplex 2 Bathrooms 1,595 Square Feet

Second Floor

Phase III: 4 BR Triplex 2 Bathrooms 1,595 Square Feet

Third Floor

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Villa Victoria | Precedents

86

Phase III: 3 BR Duplex 1 Bathroom 1,224 Square Feet First Floor

Phase III: 3 BR Duplex 1 Bathroom 1,224 Square Feet Second Floor

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Phase III: 4 BR Duplex 1 Bathroom 1,504 Square Feet First Floor

Phase III: 4 BR Duplex 1 Bathroom 1,504 Square Feet

Second Floor

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Villa Victoria | Precedents

88

Sources Mario Luis Small. Villa Victoria: The Transformation of Social Capital in a Boston Barrio (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2004).

Sharrett, John. “Urban Design Case Studies: Villa Victoria, Boston,” Urban Design International, Volume 2, Issue 2, 1981, 34-35.

Schmertz, Mildred F. “Building Types Study: Housing,” Architectural Record, February, 1978, 78-95.

Villa Victoria | Precedents

90

Date Built/Renovated:

1974

Developer:

Starrett Housing Corporation National Kinney Corporation

Brooklyn, NY

Starrett City Associates

Architect:

Herman J. Jessor

Financing:

Mitchell-Lama Program Reduced-interest New York State Mortgage Program

Total Cost:

$360 million

Efficiency Net/Gross:

79%

Overall size: Number of units:

153 acres 5,881

Parking:

.85 car / unit

1 Bedroom Unit Type

2 Bedroom 41.5%

Owner:

23%

% 35.5

Starrett city

3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

Townhouse Units

Building Type

39

Unit Density

Midrise Units

Units Per Acre

History Originally Twin Pines Village, the envisioned solution to New York’s housing crisis in the 1960s changed its name to Starrett City after the Starrett Housing Corporation became involved as a developer. The development changed its name once again in 1992 to Spring Creek Towers. Herman J. Jessor (1894-1990), designer of about 40,000 housing units in New York, used Modernist principles for the housing development.

The project is the antithesis of Jane Jacob’s lessons, described as a vertical suburb.

Eight cul-de-sac-like loops, named Ardley, Bethel, Croton, Delmar, Elmira, Freeport, Geneva, and Hornell, are situated around three city streets. An 8-floor parking garage anchors each loop. The 46 11-. 17-, and 20-story buildings are situated on superblocks, surrounded by well-maintained green spaces.

The project breaks from traditional Modernist design in that it boasts a number of amenities, including a commercial center, schools, a private security force, a community center, recreational facilities, and its own power plant.

Poor and minority families were amazed at Starrett City at the time of its opening. The apartment rooms were large and nearly all of the ample green space was accessible.

The recreational facilities could be used late into the night due to the presence of the private security guards. Seventy-six percent of the occupants who first moved in were from elsewhere in Brooklyn. The remainder consisted mostly of white, working class families escaping the deteriorating conditions in the Bronx.

Spring Creek Towers is one of the few successful Modernist housing developments.

The project remains both the largest housing development and statically one of the safest places in the nation.

Starrett City | Precedents

92

Site Plan

PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE

GARAGE

HORNELL LOOP

BALL COURT BALL COURT

PLAYGROUND

1”= 200’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

www.starrettcitypics.com

Starrett City | Precedents

94

type a

3 BD Stacked Flat

CORE

1 BD Stacked Flat

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

2 BD Stacked Flat

60’

Type A: 1 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathroom 820 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Starrett City | Precedents

96

Type A: 2 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathroom 950 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Type A: 3 BR Stacked Flat 1.5 Bathrooms 1,320 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Starrett City | Precedents

98

type B

CORE

3 BD Stacked Flat

1/32”=1’-0”

1 BD Stacked Flat

10’

30’

60’

Type B & C: 1 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathrooms 730 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Starrett City | Precedents 100

Type B: 3 BR Stacked Flat 1.5 Bathroom 1290 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

type c

CORE

1 BD Stacked Flat

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Starrett city | Precedents 102

Type C: 1 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathrooms 700 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Starrett City | Precedents 104

CORE

TYPE A

A1

A2

TYPE A

A3

A4

TYPE B

A5

B1

TYPE C

B2

C1

A3

A5 A3

A3

A3

A5

C1

B2

A5

A1 C1

A5

A3

A5

B1 B2

A3

B2

A4

A4

A5

A5

C1

A5

C1

A5 C1 A2

B2

B1

B2

A1 A4

A4

A4

B2

B2

A1

A4

A1

A2 B1

A1

A1

A1

A1

Starrett city | Precedents 106

Sources Fried, Joseph P., “People Move In, And Starrett City Is Homey at Last,” New York Times, May 23, 1976, R1.

Fried, Joseph P., “Planners Preparing for Starrett City’s Tenants,” New York Times October 13, 1974, 91.

Horsley, Carter B, “Housing for 24,000 Begun in Brooklyn,” New York Times July 16, 1972, 46.

Lichtenstein, Grace, “5,881 Unit Project Is Dedicated Here,” New York Times October 14, 1974, 1.

Roberts, Steven V., “Project for 6,000 Families Approved for Canarsie Site,” New York Times June 28, 1967, 1. www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter02-07.html www.springcreektowersny.com

Starrett City | Precedents 108

Boston, MA

15%

1973 (Smith House), 1974 (Haynes House), 1978 (Madison Park Village III), 1980 (Madison Park Village IV)

00-14% AMI

Rental Type

15-26% AMI 27%

Date Built/Renovated:

17

%

%

27

Madison park village

36-60% AMI 14%

Owner: Architect:

Madison Park IV Inc. / MPD corp.

Elton & Hampton Architects

Financing:

Low Income Housing Tax Credit; Private Equity

Total Cost:

$ 28.4 million

Efficiency Net/Gross:

87%

Overall size: Number of units:

13.4 acres (263) 243; 506 on site

Parking:

Street Parking for residents, 60 slots in the Haynes House lot

19%

1 Bedroom Unit Type 4%

BHA Madison Park Developers Corporation & Trinity Financial

Market Rate

5% 32%

Developer: Smith House Haynes House MPV III MPV IV

27-35% AMI

2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

4 26%

38

Unit Density

49%

25%

Townhouse Units Building Type

Midrise Units Highrise Units

Units Per Acre

History Madison Park Village is a series of four developments that mark the beginning of Madison Park Development Corp. They are a community oriented developer who seeks to reclaim and enhance the culture and lifestyle of the Lower Roxbury area.

The first project on this site was the Smith House, a multi story high-rise tower primarily serving the elderly and disabled. Soon to follow was the Haynes House, a midrise development serving small families and couples. Next in line was Madison Park Village III, a 120 unit townhouse development that covers a little less than half of the site today. Finally filling in the rest of the site is Madison Park Village IV, a 123 unit townhouse development - it is slated for renovations during or shortly following 2011.

Madison Park Village | Precedents 110

Site Plan GR

EE

NW

IC

H

ST

RE

ET

T EE

R

T TS

N MO

E

TR

ME

LN

EA

CAS

SB

OU

LEV AR

D

WI

ND

SO

R

ST

ET

D

RA YN OR

CI RC

LE

RE

OA

BA

LR

LL

IVE DR

UR

NE

RT

DE WI TT

RR

JO

BR

ET

SO

KE

RE

RU

TH

M

EL

NE

A

CA

EE T

SS

E

TS TR

EV AR

SH

AW M

UT

AV E

CA BO

NU

D

SH AW M

UT

AV E

NU

E

CABOT STREET

RU

GG

LE

S

W

IL

LI

AM

S

ST

RE

ST

RE

ET

ET

EA

IVE

ST AB

OK

RO

AD

EE T ST R

DR

IVE

TO N

TT

DIS O

W AS

N

HI

PA RK C

WI

NG

OU RT

DE

WI

TT

DR

RO

MA

MA

DIS

ON

PA R

KC

OU

RT

VE

RN

ON

ST

RE

ET

PAL M

SH

AW M

UT

AV E

NU

E

ER

1”= 400’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

BO

UL

DE

ST

RE

WA Y

SH

ST

-M AR

S

KE

LE

OO

GG

AL

RU

MA

RV IN

ST

RE

ET

TABER

STREET

STR

EET

ET

Smith House Haynes House MPV Phase III MPV Phase IV

1”= 400’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Madison Park Village | Precedents 112

MPV III

2 BR Townhouse 3 BR Townhouse 4 BR Townhouse

3 BR Townhouse

2 BR Townhouse

4 BR Townhouse

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

MPV III: 3 BR Duplex

MVP3-A MVP3-A MVP3-A

1.5 Bathroom

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Madison Park Village | Precedents 114

MPV III: 4 BR Townhouse 1 Bathroom

MVP3-C

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

MPV III: 2 BR Townhouse 1 Bathroom

MVP3-B MVP3-B

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Madison Park Village | Precedents 116

MPV IV

Garden Level Duplex A & B Townhouse

3 BR Townhouse

2 BR Duplex A

2 BR Duplex B

2 BR Garden Flat

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

MPV IV: 2 BR Garden Flat 1 Bathroom

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Madison Park Village | Precedents 118

MPV IV: 2 BR Duplex A 1 Bathroom

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

MPV IV: 2 BR Duplex B 1 Bathroom

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Madison Park Village | Precedents 120

MPV IV: 3 BR Townhouse 1.5 Bathroom

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Madison Park Village | Precedents 122

Sources Tanner, Russell. Interview. Madison Park Development Corporation. September 12, 2011.

City of Boston Tax Assessor http://hubmaps1.cityofboston.gov/egis/Map.aspx?PropertyID=1101630000

Madison Park Village | Precedents 124

HARBOR POINT Developer:

Corcoran, Mullins, Jennison

Owner: Architect:

Boston Housing Authority Goody Clancy Architects

Financing:

Hope VI Funding Public/ Private Equity

Total Cost: Cost Per SF:

$250 million $131/ SF total

% 31% 14

69%

00-40% AMI

Rental Type

Market Rate

1 Bedroom

13 %

1% 5%

1990

26 99 %%

Date Built/Renovated:

Boston, MA

Buildings:

56

Parking:

1.16/ Unit

Amenities:

Clubhouse Room Fitness Center Swimming pools Tennis courts Harbor walk Convenience store Controlled access buildings JFK Library UMass Boston Redline JFK/UMass

Building Type

Townhouse

% 65

44 acres 1,283

4 Bedroom 6 Bedroom

Unit Density

3-Story Garden 5-7-Story Midrise

% 20

Overall size: Number of units:

51%

30 Units/Acre

26

Density:

3 Bedroom 5 Bedroom

15%

86%

29%

Efficiency Net/Gross:

1%

Unit Type

2 Bedroom

Units Per Acre

History This successful, mixed-income community for 1,283 families was developed on the 50-acre site of Columbia Point, once New England’s largest public housing project, a 1500-unit development where only 350 units were occupied, the rest, boarded up and condemned. The new design combines townhouses and mid-rises with renovated thee and seven story existing buildings in a dramatic new street pattern that recalls traditional city layouts.

Two-thirds of the mostly abandoned buildings were demolished. A new, rotated street grid replaces the “towers-in-the-park” layout of the original housing project, creating vistas to the water, Boston skyline, and a new linear waterfront park and harborwalk.

Columbia Points previous plan included very little green and recreational space.

Harbor Point’s plan includes a long, formal mall, lined with trees and midrise garden apartments that were scaled closely to Boston’s historic Commonwealth Ave. This central spine is flanked by two tennis courts and a recreation center.

Simple architectural details such as dormers, bay windows, pitched roofs, and balconies evoke traditional New England housing types.

The development features a diversity of unit types and sizes, market rate and subsidized apartments are seamlessly integrated. This simple dynamic has proven to create a safe and enjoyable community in the realm of public housing.

Harbor Point | Precedents 126

Site Plan

1”= 400’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Site Diagram

VIEWS OF SKYLINE

WATERFRONT PARK

VIEWS OF HARBOR

PRIMARY ENTRANCE

REHABBED BUILDINGS SECONDARY ENTRANCE

NEW 5, 6 or 7- STORY

NEW TOWNHOUSES

NON-RESIDENTIAL

1”= 400’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Harbor Point | Precedents 128

Townhouse floor 2 floor 1

HARBOR POINT

Site Size Building Size Buildings Amenities clubhouse room swimming pools tennis courts harbor walk convenience store controlled access buildings JFK Library UMass BOSTON Redline (JFK/Umass) Parking On-Site

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

2 BR Flat - Townhouse

1BR Flat - Townhouse

1 Bathroom 713 Square Feet

1 Bathroom 617 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Harbor Point | Precedents 130

2 BR Mingles - Townhouse 2 Bathroom 718 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

2 BR Duplex - Townhouse 2 Bathrooms 516 Square Feet floor 2 floor 1

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Harbor Point | Precedents 132

3 BR Triplex - Townhouse 2 Bathrooms 483 Square Feet floor 2 floor 1

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

3 BR Triplex - Townhouse 2 Bathrooms 483 Square Feet floor 3

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Harbor Point | Precedents 134

Sources “The Harbor Point Experiment,” The Boston Globe (28 January 1987) Breitbart Margulies, Myrna & Pader F., Ellen, “Transforming Public Housing: Conflicting Visions for Harbor Point,” Places (Profile: Harbor Point) p. 34-41 Goody E., Joan “From Project to Community: The Redesign of Columbia Point,” Places p. 20-33 Images: http://www.harborpointonthebay.com/ http://www.bostonapartments.com/harbor.htm

Harbor Point | Precedents 136

Boston, MA

Developer:

Tent City Corporation (Building) JMB/Urban Development Co. (Parking)

Owner:

Leighton Park Limited Partnership

Architect:

Goody Clancy & Associates

Financing:

Public/Private

Rental Type

1 Bedroom

Overall size: Number of units:

3.2 acres 269

Parking:

.48 cars / unit

4%

1,200

3

Residents:

2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

35%

Townhouse Units

Building Type 65%

$36 million $110 total / $99 residential hard costs

Market Rate

25%

Unit Type

Total Cost: Cost per SF:

Medium-Income

6% 35%

1986-1990

Low-Income 50%

Date Built:

25%

25%

TENT CITY

84

Unit Density

Midrise Units

Units Per Acre

History Located at the threshold of Boston’s South End and Back Bay neighborhoods is Tent City, one of the city’s most recognized housing projects. In the late 1960s the site consisted of a parking lot which was slated to become luxury housing. Unhappy with the general loss of low-cost housing to urban redevelopment in the area, South End residents and activists staged the ‘Tent City’ sit-in. This protest led to the formation of Tent City Corporation - a community controlled development organization in 1979. TCC then acquired designation from the BRA as a developer of the site by partnering with Macomber Development and Housing Associates. As a result of strong support from the community and eventually from the city, the project was started in 1986.

Financing was made possible through a mix of private and public sources including the MHFA, City of Boston, MA Chapter 707 and an Urban Development Action Grant.

The project consists of low-income, moderate-income and market rate apartments as well as retail space on the ground floor. Through a stepped massing, the buildings are designed to transition gradually from the low-rise, residential character of the South End to the taller buildings surrounding Copley Place.

Tent City has received numerous commendations including a United Nations World Habitat Award, Urban Land Institute’s Award for Excellence and Architectural Record’s In the Public Interest Award.

Tent City | Precedents 138

Da rt

mo

uth

Str

eet

Yarmouth Street

Yarmouth Place

Columbus Avenue

1”= 100’

5’ | 15’ | 30’ | 50’ | 75’

Figure-Ground The drawing (right) shows the ground floor of Tent City and its surroundings, illustrating public and private space. Public areas include the main Tent City lobby and restaurant/retail space along Dartmouth Street.

Semi-public areas include offices and housing amenities as well as stairways/entry ways. Private space includes all interior apartment area.

Public Semi-Public Private

1”= 100’

5’ | 15’ | 30’ | 50’ | 75’

Tent City | Precedents 140

30’ DN

15’

DN

5’

UP

UP

3/32”=1’-0” UP

UP UP

DN

DN

DN

UP

DN

UP UP

DN

UP

UP

UP

UP

DN UP

DN

UP

DN

UP DN

DN

UP

UP

DN

UP

DN DN

UP

UP DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP UP

DN

UP

DN UP

DN

UP

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP DN

DN

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

DN

UP

DN UP

UP

floor 1

floor 2

Townhouse Building

Midrise: Studio Flat 1 Bathroom 543 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Tent City | Precedents 142

Midrise: 1BR Flat 1 Bathroom 643 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Townhouse: 1BR Flat 1 Bathroom 614 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Tent City | Precedents 144

Midrise: 2BR Flat 1 Bathroom 643 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Townhouse: 2BR Flat 1 Bathroom 853 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Tent City | Precedents 146

Townhouse: 3BR Flat 1.5 Bathrooms 1,146 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Townhouse: 3BR Duplex 1.5 Bathrooms 1,290 Square Feet

DN DN

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Tent City | Precedents 148

Townhouse: 3BR Duplex (Corner) 1.5 Bathrooms 1,340 Square Feet

DN

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Townhouse: 4BR Duplex 2.5 Bathrooms 1,642 Square Feet

UP

DN

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Tent City | Precedents 150

Sources Anderson, Grace M. “From Tents to Town Houses: Mixed-Income Housing, Tent City, Boston, Goody, Clancy & Associates.” Architectural Record 176 . (1988): 90-93.

Boston Redevelopment Authority. “The Boston Atlas.” Accessed November 4, 2011. http://www.mapjunction.com/bra/.

Goody Clancy. “Tent City.” Accessed September 15, 2011. http://www.goodyclancy.com/arch?categoryId=9&view=project&layout=image&projectid=4 8&image=1.

Google. “Google Maps Satellite.” Accessed September 12th, 2011. http://maps.google.com/.

“Low-cost housing: eleven proejcts by eight architects represent a range of building types, from emergency shelters to single-room occupancy hotels to four-bedroom townhouses.” Progressive Architecture 69 (1988): 70-86.

Maloney Properties, Inc. Tent City Sample Floorplans. Obtained September 12, 2011. 130 Dartmouth St, Boston, MA, 02216.

Posner, Joshua. “Tent City: Creative Financing for Affordable Housing.” Urban Land 48 (1989): 6–11.

The Community Builders. “Tent City.” Accessed September 14 20th, 2011. http://www.tcbinc.org/what_we_do/projects/tent_city.htm.

Tsai, Freda. “A New Attitude Towards Provision of Affordable Housing: A Case Study on the Tent City Project in Boston’s South End.”(1991), Accessed September 10, 2011, http://www.archive.org/details/newattitudetowar00tsai.

Tent City | Precedents 152

orchard gardens 1996 (Phase I), 1998 (Phase II), 2000 (Phase III)

Madison Trinity Ventures Domenech Hicks & Krockmainic Architects

Financing:

Hope VI Funding & Low Income Housing Tax Credit; Private Equity

41%

Owner: Architect:

Rental Type

24%

33

23%

.75 car / unit

12

%

Unit Density

41

Parking:

2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

Duplex Units Building Type

8%

27 acres 331

51%

89.4%

Overall size: Number of units:

41-60% AMI

5 Bedroom

34%

Efficiency Net/Gross:

$145,000 $135,000 $135,000

21-40% AMI

1 Bedroom

%

Unit Type

$30 million

11-20% AMI

61-80% AMI

7%

Total Cost: Per Unit Cost: Phase I Phase II Phase III

12%

BHA Madison Park Developers Corporation & Trinity Financial

% 12

Developer: Phase I Phase II & III

00-10% AMI

% 12

Date Built/Renovated:

Boston, MA

Townhouse Units Midrise Units

Units Per Acre

History Orchard Gardens was born out of community activism and continues to thrive today due to that involvement. Thirty percent of the previous development, Orchard Park, was vacant in 1992 due to the serious state of disrepair. The area was littered with violence and crime and the super-block configuration only aided these downfalls.

Due to increasing pressure from the community, the Boston Housing Authority began a “Comprehensive Modernization” of the existing super-block buildings. Later know as “Phase I”, it created 126 renovated units and focussed on alleviating shared entries in addition to defensible space. These measures, however, proved extremely expensive and was ruled unsuccessful.

In 1995, HUD’s Hope VI program allowed for the redevelopment of the original 15 acre site.

Along with the development of new housing, there was a focus of re-connecting the area with the urban fabric. As a result, new streets were created. Each and every unit was given their own street address. Phase II included both 2 & 3 story townhomes in addition to 8 two-family duplexes, making up 90 new units.

Likewise, Phase III consisted of 115 new units configured as garden-style townhomes centered around a large public park.

In the end 331 units were created and were located in a “typical neighborhood environment.” Buildings fronted on streets, backyards offered a space to play, and garden space added to a sense of individuality. Daily resident activity on the streets provided eyes on the street and helped combat pre-existing crime. Additionally, a hierarchy of space existed, ranging from front stoops to individual entries and private backyards. In the end Orchard Gardens became a community again.

Orchard Sub-Section Gardens | Precedents | Section 154

E

H

R

D

A

T

E

R

S

G

R

A

U

IS

I S

T

T

O

I

S

E

N

U

R

E

A

V

W

A

E

Y

N

U

E

Site Plan

E

A

B

A

Z

Z

S

W

AY L

B

A

N

T

R

Y

E

E

T

A M B R O S E

S T

K

A

Y

H

T

S

A

E G

W

E

E

A S

U

N

N

S T R E E T

K R A P

R

E

S

C

O

D

P

T

T

S

T

M A D A

1”= 400’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

H A M P D E N

S

S T R E E T

S

D U D L E Y

T

R

E

E

T

O

S T R E E T

R

C

H

A

R

S T

S T

D E A R B O R N

W

H

E

AT

L E

Y

W

AY

B

E

T

H

T

Z E I G L E R

E U

Y

N

W

A

E V A

E

H

R

D

A

T

E

R

S

G

R

A

U

IS

I S

T

T

O

I

S

E

N

U

R

E E

A

B

A

Z

Z

S

W

AY L

B

A

N

T

R

Y

E

E

T

A M B R O S E

S T

K

A

Y

H

T

S

A

E G

W

E

E

A S

U

N

N

S T R E E T

K R A P

R

E

S

C

O

D

P

T

T

S

T

H A M P D E N

S

S T R E E T

A

D

A

M

S

D U D L E Y

T

R

E

E

T

O

S T R E E T

R

C

H

A

R

S T

S T

D E A R B O R N

W

H

E

AT

L E

Y

W

AY

B

E

T

H

T

Z E I G L E R

PHASE I

renovated Orchard Park buildings

PHASE II

two family homes 2 & 3 story townhomes

PHASE III

2 story townhomes

1”= 400’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Orchard Gardens | Precedents 156

Phase I Rehab floor 3 floor 2 floor 1

DN

DN

DN

DN

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP

DN

UP

DN

DN

DN

2 BD Stacked Flat

UP

UP UP

3 BD Duplex

UP

UP UP

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

1 BD Stacked Flat

Phase I: 1 BR 3rd Fl Flat

Phase I: 1 BR Stacked Flat

1 Bathroom 695 Square Feet

1 Bathroom 685 Square Feet

UP

DN

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Orchard Gardens | Precedents 158

Phase I: 2 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathroom 1,010 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Phase I: 3 BR Duplex 1.5 Bathrooms 1,320 Square Feet floor 1 l floor 2

DN

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Orchard Gardens | Precedents 160

Phase II Duplexes floor 3 floor 2 floor 1 Duplex A | Duplex B

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

UP

DN

UP

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

DN

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP

DN

UP

Phase II Duplex ‘A’: 4 BR 2 Bathrooms 2,170 Square Feet floor 1 l floor 2

DN

DN

UP

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Orchard Gardens | Precedents 162

Phase II Duplex ‘A’: 4 BR floor3

DN

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Phase II Duplex ‘A’: 3 BR 1.5 Bathrooms 1,685 Square Feet floor 1 l floor 2

DN

UP

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Orchard Gardens | Precedents 164

Phase II Duplex ‘B’: 5 BR 2 Bathrooms 2,485 Square Feet floor 1 l floor 2

DN

DN

UP

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Phase II Duplex ‘B’: 5 BR floor 3

DN

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Orchard Gardens | Precedents 166

Phase II Duplex ‘B’: 2 BR 1 Bathroom 1,400 Square Feet floor 1 l floor 2

DN

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

UP

Phase II Duplex ‘A’ 4 BR l 3 BR

Phase II Duplex ‘B’ 5 BR l 2 BR

Orchard Gardens | Precedents 168

Phase II Townhomes floor 3 floor 2 floor 1

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

DN

DN DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

60’

Phase II Townhome 1 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathroom 855 Square Feet floor 1

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Orchard Gardens | Precedents 170

Phase II Townhome 2 BR Duplex 1 Bathroom 1,445 Square Feet floor 1 l floor 2

DN

DN

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Phase II Townhome 3 BR Triplex 1.5 Bathrooms 1,970 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2 l floor 3

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Orchard Gardens | Precedents 172

Phase III Townhomes floor 3 floor 2 floor 1

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

DN

UP

UP

DN

UP

UP

DN

DN

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP

10’

30’

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP UP

UP

1/32”=1’-0”

DN

60’

Phase III Townhome 1 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathroom 950 Square Feet floor 1

UP

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Orchard Gardens | Precedents 174

Phase III Townhome 2 BR Duplex 2 Bathroom 1,425 Square Feet floor 1 l floor 2

DN

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Phase III Townhome 3 BR Duplex 1 Bathroom 1,625 Square Feet floor 1 l floor 2

DN

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

176

Sources Boston Housing Authority 1992. “Orchard Park Redevelopment.” 1-9.

Boston Housing Authority. “Orchard Park: Phase I Comprehensive Modernization.” Hard Copy.

Cárdenas, Alberto. Interview. DHK Architects. September 15, 2001.

DHK Architects. Orchard Gardens “Floorplans 1,2,3.” Digital Copy.

DHK Architects. “Orchard Gardens (on-site), Boston, MA.” DHK Architects. Orchard Gardens “Typical Unit Plan.” Digital Copy.

DHK Architects. “Orchard Park Homeownership, Roxbury, MA.” DHK Architects. “OP New Site Plan FINAL Presentation Board.” Digital Copy.

Orchard Park, Boston, MA. Mixed-Finance Guidebook: Case Study Narrative. 1997.

Tanner, Russell. Interview. Madison Park Development Corporation. September 12, 2011.

Trinity Financial. “Project Description.”

Images: Bing 2011. “Bing Maps.” http://www.bing.com/maps

Tent City | Precedents 178

CAMFIELD ESTATES Date Built/Renovated:

Boston, MA

1969, 1999

00-10% AMI % 12

Financing:

Publicly subsidized with HUD funded mortgages and rental subsidy vouchers

Total Cost: Per Unit Cost:

$15 million $147,000

% 12

Mass Housing Finance Agency Camfield Tenants Association Domenech Hicks & Krockmainic Architects

Rental Type

64%

3.9 acres 102

Parking:

.5 car / unit

41-60% AMI

2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

39%

Overall size: Number of units:

21-40% AMI

1 Bedroom 23%

79.3%

11-20% AMI

61-80% AMI

19 %

% 19

Unit Type

Efficiency Net/Gross:

12%

Developer: Owner: Architect:

Townhouse Units

Unit Density

Units Per Acre

26

Building Type

History Camfield Estates is a privately owned affordable housing development. Originally built in 1969 under the name Camfield Gardens, the development was a combination of 136 low and mid-rise buildings. Thirty years after its creation, the project greatly suffered from poor design and construction. The buildings were initially constructed of pre-cast concrete that suffered from poor craft and joints which resulted in serious leaking. In addition, the grim super-block design didn’t relate to the existing neighborhood or street pattern while also lacking defensible space due to shared corridors and entry.

In reaction to the substandard housing, Camfield Gardens was chosen to participate in HUD’s Demolition Disposition program.

The program focused on rehabilitating or demolishing failed housing. The “demo-dispo” program looked to address shortcoming in multi-family housing and was initiated in 1993.

As a result, Camfield Gardens was completely demolished in 1996.

The design process for the new Camfield Estates heavily relied on community involvement. Buildings and unit types that fit the existing resident profile were highly desired. In addition, design features such as the importance of fronting on a street and defensible space. One entrance to three units is the largest shared entry. Parking was included but did not act as a central focus.

As a result, a cul-de-sac was created that provided each module with a street address and freed the development from its previous land-locked state.

CamfieldSub-Section Estates | Precedents | Section 180

Site Plan

1”= 400’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

2 Families 3 Families Community Center

Camfield Estates | Precedents 182

Typical Floor Plans floor 3 floor 2 floor 1

2 BR Flat

2 BR Duplex A 2 BR Duplex B 1 BR Stacked Flat 1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

4 BR Triplex

3 BR Triplex

Apartment Aggregation

1 BD Flat 2 BD Flat 2 BD Duplex A 2 BD Duplex B 4 BD Triplex 3 BD Triplex Camfield Estates | Precedents 184

1 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathroom 832 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

2 BR Flat

1.5 Bathrooms 1,144 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Camfield Estates | Precedents 186

2 BR Duplex 1 Bathroom 996 Square Feet floor 1 l floor 2

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

3 BR Triplex 1.5 Bathrooms 1,575 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2 l floor 3

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Camfield Estates | Precedents 188

4 BR Triplex 2 Bathrooms 1,754 Square Feet floor 1 l floor 2

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

4 BR Triplex floor 3

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Camfield Estates | Precedents 190

Sources Cárdenas, Alberto. Interview. DHK Architects. September 15, 2001.

DHK Architects. Camfield Gardens “Floorplans.” Digital Copy.

DHK Architects. Camfield Gardens “Site Plan 01.” Digital Copy.

Images: Bing 2011. “Bing Maps.” http://www.bing.com/maps

Camfield Estates | Precedents 192

DAVENPORT COMMONS

Boston, MA 0-80% AMI

Northeastern University, BHA

Architect:

DHK Architects

%

Developer:

Rental Type

$36 million

Per Unit Cost:

$125/SF Student Housing, $130/SF Family Housing

Efficiency Net/Gross:

20

Total Cost:

121-175% AMI

2 Bedroom Unit Type

3 Bedroom

85 %

Public/Private (Trinity Financial Group, Madison Park Community Development) 15%

Financing:

81-120% AMI

% 18

2001

62%

Date Built/Renovated:

87%

Overall size:

284,396 SF (206,000 SF Student Housing, 78,396 SF Family Housing)

Number of units:

39 Units of Family Housing

Parking:

63 Surface Parking Spaces

Building Type

Units Per Acre 40 1 2

Unit Density

Midrise Units

History The Davenport Commons Development is unique in that it houses a mix of Northeastern University students and affordable housing residents. While these two groups reside in separate buildings on the complex, they share certain outdoor spaces, including a courtyard.

The affordable housing is a series of interconnected modules, each containing four dwelling units in the form of a pair of side by side duplexes, stacked in a four story building.

The massing of Davenport Commons reinforces the existing urban grid. The taller structures are located on the northern edge of the site in order to relate to Northeastern University , while the residential townhouses on the southern edge respond to the and housing density of the adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Typical units are stacked duplexes mirrored along a thickened party wall which houses the circulation for the units.

Davenport Commons | Precedents 194

Site Plan

AVENUE

TREMONT STREET

1”= 200’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

PA R DO

AS UGL

DAVENPORT STREET

BENTON STREET

BURKE STREET

K

COLUMBUS

Building Plan Ground Floor

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Davenport Commons | Precedents 196

Building Floor Plan Second Floor

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Building Plan Third Floor

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Davenport Commons | Precedents 198

Building Floor Plan Fourth Floor

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Typical Unit Floor 1

UNIT B | LEVEL 2 LIVING AREAS, KITCHEN

UNIT A | LEVEL 1 LIVING AREAS, KITCHEN

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Davenport Commons | Precedents 200

Typical Unit Floor 2

DN

UNIT A | LEVEL 2 2 BEDROOMS

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

DN

UNIT B | LEVEL 2 2 BEDROOMS

Typical Unit Floor 3

DN

UP

UP

DN

UNIT D | LEVEL 1 LIVING AREAS, KITCHEN

UNIT C | LEVEL 1 LIVING AREAS, KITCHEN

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Davenport Commons | Precedents 202

Typical Unit Floor 4

DN

UNIT C | LEVEL 2 2 BEDROOMS

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

DN

UNIT B | LEVEL 2 3 BEDROOMS

PRIVATE CIRCULATION (WITHIN UNIT)

Typical Unit Configuration 3 BEDROOM UNIT STACKED ABOVE 2 BEDROOM UNIT

SHARED CIRCULATION CORE

TYPICAL UNIT CONFIGURATION

WET ZONE LOCATED ON EITHER SIDE OF PARTY WALL CIRCULATION CORE 2-STORY STACKED DUPLEX UNITS

Davenport Commons | Precedents 204

Unit Aggregation

UNIT AGGREGATION

1 STORY, 2 BEDROOM UNITS 2 STORY, 3 BEDROOM UNITS 2 STORY, 2 BEDROOM UNITS 1 STORY, 2 BEDROOM UNITS

Davenport Commons | Precedents 206

Sources Domenech, Hicks & Krockmalnic Architects: Davenport Commons drawing set Case Study: Urban Mixed Use Housing Project Images: http://www.bing.com/maps/

Davenport Commons | Precedents 208

Mission main 1995 - 2001

Chia Ming Sze Architects

Financing:

$50 Million Grant from Hope VI Program $28 Million Comprehensive Grant 4% and 9% Low Income Tax Credits

Market Rate

1 Bedroom

15%

34 %

Architect:

27-35% AMI 36-60% AMI

Unit Type

22%

Boston Housing Authority (BHA) Limited Partnership Agreement

15-26% AMI

9%

Owner:

Rental Type

27%

Winn Development Company (50%) EA Fish & Associates (35%) Cruz Development (15%)

00-14% AMI

14%

Developer:

17

%

%

27

Date Built/Renovated:

Boston, MA

2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

$127 Million

Per Unit Cost:

$228,453

Efficiency Net/Gross:

91%

35%

Total Cost:

22%

23 acres

Number of units:

535

Parking:

1.06 car / unit

23

Unit Density

Townhouse Units 78%

Overall size:

Building Type

Midrise Units

Units Per Acre

History Mission Main was first built as a Federal Housing Project in 1940 to provide low-cost public housing. The project was designed as a “superblock” development and consisted of 38 three-story buildings arranged in rows without any through streets.

By 1993 Mission Main became one of the most crime ridden properties of the BHA due to an extensive drug trade and the violence it bred. As a result the development had become largely vacant. An assessment of the buildings at this time found only 3% to be in good condition with an overwhelming 56% considered in poor condition. A vigilent group of Mission Main residents banded together to form The Mission Main Task Force (MMTF) to make a difference in their community. The MMTF joined with the BHA to develop a vision for Mission Main’s future.

The BHA and MMTF submitted an application to become part of the HOPE VI program. The application proposed the demolition of the 38 existing structures and construction of 535 new housing units of which 83% were to serve public housing eligible households while the remaining 17% were to be available at market price. The site was to be reorganized as to eliminate the institutional feel of the “superblock” and to introduce public streets and neighborhood greenspaces. The buildings were to be designed to reflect the neighborhood pattern and building type of Mission Hill and consist of town-house style homes in addition to one midrise building.

1996

2011

Mission Main | Precedents 210

site Plan

Tetl o

Ru

wS

ggle

Pala

ce

Rd

.

t.

gw

ood

ve. nA

gto

ntin

Hu

Ave

Van cou ver St.

Lon

Ward

Mc

eve

yW ay

St.

Ore gon

Ct.

Alp hon sus St.

Gre

St.

Ho

an

Wa y

Sm

ith

Trem o

nt S

1”= 400’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

t.

t. rke rS Pa

Turq

uois

San

St.

Jua

nW ay

rad

St.

sS

t.

Building 1 Floor 3 Floor 2 Floor 1

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Mission Main | Precedents 212

Phase I: 2 BR Stacked Flat 1 Bathroom 963 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

3BR Townhouse 1.5 Bathrooms 1,428 Square Feet

Floor 1 I Floor 2 I Floor 3

UP

UP

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

5’

DN

15’

30’

DN

DN

Mission Main | Precedents 214

Building 2 Floor 2 & 3 Floor 1

DN

DN UP

UP

UP

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

60’

3BR Stacked Flat 1.5 Bathrooms 1,202 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Mission Main | Precedents 216

3BR Economy Flat 1.5 Bathrooms 1,208 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Building 3 Floor 3 Floor 2 Floor 1

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN DN

DN

DN DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP

DN DN

UP

UP UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Mission Main | Precedents 218

2BR Flat

1 Bathroom 989 Square Feet

DN

DN

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

2 BR Duplex 1 Bathroom 1,069 Square Feet Floor 1 l Floor 2

DN

DN

DN

UP

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Mission Main | Precedents 220

Typical Unit Circulation

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

2 BR Duplex Circulation

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Mission Main | Precedents 222

Sources “Boston Housing Authority,” date accessed September 7, 2011, http: //www.bostonhousing.org/ detpages/devinfo40.html.

“EA Fish Companies,” date accessed September 18, 2011, http: //www.eafish.com.html.

United States General Accounting Office, “HOPE VI Progress and Problems in Revitalizing Distressed Public Housing” (Report to Congressional Committees, July, 1998).

Honlin, Mary Joel et al. “Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program Cross-Site Report” (prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., September 19, 2003).

Mission Main | Precedents 224

MAVERICK LANDING Date Built/Renovated:

2003-2006

Developer:

Trinity East Boston Partnership

Boston, MA

% 14

23%

$54 million $140

Efficiency Net/Gross:

89.0%

Overall size: Number of units:

9 acres 396

Parking:

.83 cars / unit

1 Bedroom Unit Type

Building Type

3 Bedroom

Townhouse Units

44

Unit Density

2 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

48%

Total Cost: Per Square Foot:

26%

52%

Hope VI Funding Trinity East Boston Partnership Mass Tech Collaborative

40%

Financing:

31-60% AMI Market Rate

34%

Trinity East Boston Partnership Winn Residential ICON Architecture Geller DeVellis CWC Builders

6% 28%

Owner: Management: Architect: Landscape: Contractor:

11-30% AMI 29%

Rental Type

00-10% AMI

Midrise Units

Units Per Acre

History Located on the previous site of the distressed 1941 Maverick Gardens Project, Maverick Landing offers 396 new residential units just two blocks west of Maverick Square. These units range from one-bedroom mid-rise apartments to four-bedroom town homes available as monthly rental or resident owned dwellings. The Boston Housing Authority (BHA) in conjunction with the Trinity East Boston Partnership and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided the construction funds allowing for the transformation of the site into a currently vibrant and positive living environment.

Although constructed as one project, the street grid and unit variety through materials and color pallets, imitate a naturally occurring residential neighborhood. This helps blend the new neighborhood into its surroundings, creating an environment that feels like it has been within the neighborhood all along.

ICON Architecture and Geller DeVellis worked to provide a unique neighborhood that will positively effect future development adjacent to Maverick Landing.

Along with the physical transformation, the BHA and HUD executed various programs including home ownership financing, which allows income-eligible families to take out a $20,000 loan through a special Hope VI grant, leading to ownership once the loan is paid off. This strategy of home ownership coupled with other strategies [i.e. employment programs, training courses etc.] is a new direction that HUD is using to try stabilize and improve previously distressed neighborhoods.

The architectural design provides a positive environment for families to live, work and make the most of the social programs offered.

Maverick Landing | Precedents 226

Historical Site Development

1884 The site is comprised almost entirely of dense 4-6 story residential units providing laborers for the near by industrial uses. The residents are primarily working class and from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds.

1935

The city of Boston claims the site through a loosely established Eminent Domain and clears the site for future development. This movement of working class minority populations impacts the adjacent industry.

1941

Maverick Gardens, one of Boston’s first public housing projects is constructed on the site. The three story brick barrack style buildings housed 413 families that were comprised of primarily low income minorities.

Paris Street

Havre Street

London Street

Border Street New Street

Maverick Street

Mid-Rise

Lombardi Park

Landing Street

Community Center

Cunard Street

2006

Maverick Landing, Boston’s most recent public housing projects is constructed on the site.

Through a variety of unit types, material palette and various green space, the site becomes a vibrant mixed income neighborhood.

1”= 200’

10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Carlton Wharf

Lo Presti Park [In Conjunction]

(In Conjunction)

Sumner Street

Maverick Landing | Precedents 228

DN

DN

Waterfront Row Houses floor 2 floor 1

DN

DN

DN DN

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

DN

UP

UP DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

UP

Waterfront Row Houses floor 3

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN DN

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

UP

60’

DN

Maverick Landing | Precedents 230

Neighborhood Mid-Rise floor 1

DN

UP

UP

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Neighborhood Mid-Rise floor 2-6

DN

UP

UP

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

DN

Maverick Landing | Precedents 232

50 Units DN

DN

4 BR Triplex ‘B’ DN

24 Units B B B B C+D A A C+D

DN

C+D A A A

First Floor 4 Bedroom Triplex 1,450 SQ. FT.

Second Floor

54 Units Third Floor

UP

UP UP

First Floor 3 Bedroom FLAT 1,220 SQ. FT.

2 BR Duplex ‘D’

70 Units

DN

DN

DN

UP

1 BR Flat ‘E’ Second Floor 2 Bedroom Duplex 970 SQ. FT.

Third Floor

110 Units

A A

B B B B C+D B B C+D

C+D A A A A A A C+D

3 BR Flat ‘C’

C+D A A A A

UP

C+D A A A A A A C+D

UP

C+D B B B B C+D

B B

B B B C+D B C+D

C+D B B C+D

C+D B B C+D

1 Bedroom Flat 690 SQ. FT.

2 BR Flat ‘F’

88 Units

C+E+F

2 Bedroom Flat 860 SQ. FT.

A A A A C+D

C+D A A A A A A C+D

Second Floor

C+D A A A A A A C+D

First Floor 3 Bedroom Triplex 1,240 SQ. FT.

UP

C+D A A A A A A C+D

UP

C+D A A A C+D A A

3 BR Triplex ‘A’

C+D A A A A C+D

C+D A A A A A A C+D

C+D A A A A A A C+D

Unit Totals

3 BR Triplex ‘A’ 1.5 Bathrooms 1,240 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2 l floor 3

DN

DN

UP

First Floor 3 Bedroom Triplex 1,240 SQ. FT.

UP

Second Floor

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Maverick Landing | Precedents 234

4 BR Triplex ‘B’ 2 Bathrooms 1,450 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2 l floor 3

DN

UP

UP

First Floor 4 Bedroom Triplex 1,450 SQ. FT.

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

DN

15’

Second Floor

30’

Third Floor

3 BR Flat ‘C’ 1.5 Bathrooms 1,220 Square Feet floor 1

UP

UP

UP

First Floor 3 Bedroom FLAT 1,220 SQ. FT.

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Maverick Landing | Precedents 236

2 BR Duplex ‘D’ 1 Bathroom 970 Square Feet floor 2 l floor 3

DN

DN

DN

UP

Second Floor 2 Bedroom Duplex 970 SQ. FT.

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Third Floor

1 BR Flat ‘E’ 1 Bathroom 690 Square Feet floor varies

1 Bedroom Flat 690 SQ. FT.

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Maverick Landing | Precedents 238

2 BR Flat ‘F’ 1 Bathroom 860 Square Feet floor varies

2 Bedroom Flat 860 SQ. FT.

3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

Maverick Landing | Precedents 240

Sources Bennett, Kathryn. Interview. Boston Housing Authority. September 12, 2011.

BHA 2011. “Boston Housing Authority.” http://bostonhousing.org BRA 2011. “Boston Redevelopment Authority: Atlas.” http://mapjunction.com/bra CWC 2011. “CWC Builders Inc.” http://cwcbuilders.com/ HUD 2011. “U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.” http://portal.hud.gov ICON 2011. “ICON Architecture.” http://www.iconarch.com ICON Architcture 2006. “Construction Documents.” Hard Copy.

Trinity 2011. “Trinity Partners.” http://www.trinitypartners.com Images Google. 2011. “Google Maps.” http://www.maps.google.com ICON 2011. “ICON Architecture.” http://www.iconarch.com

Maverick Landing | Precedents 242

abbey apartments

Los Angeles, CA 00-10% AMI

2009

Architect:

Koning Eizenberg Architects

Financing:

Private investments & funding from Los Angeles Department of Housing

Total Cost: Per Unit Cost:

$20, 800, 000 $180,870

Rental Type

Skidmore Row Housing Trust

Overall size: Number of units:

51, 230 sq ft 115 units

Parking:

0 spots for residents 26 spots for employees

1 Bedroom 82%

89.7%

80-100% AMI

Studio Unit Type

Efficiency Net/Gross:

10% 90%

Date Built/Renovated:

Developer:

Building Type

68%

Unit Density

Midrise Units

Units Per Acre

History The Abbey Apartments housing project was built in 2009 in Los Angeles, California for the Skidmore Row Housing Trust as an effort to provide ‘first stepp off the street’ citizens of the Los Angeles, California area with a home and accesss to basic medical, mental and social services. It is the 21st project developed and managed by the Skid Row Housing Trust and the first affordable housing project in the Los Angeles area to provide such a range of on-site affordable services to both displaced and local residents. The apartment complex was built in hopes to serve as a solution to the problem of homelessness in the community, by pairing a bed with access to affordable health care services.

The project is settled on an odd shaped site and is configured to provide 115 cost effective efficiency units, along a few communual spaces such as lounges, shared kitchens, and offices for the supportive health services.

A central outdoor courtyard is elevated one level from the street to provide a communual outdoor recreation area and further emphasise a sense of community by creating a communual outdoor green space. It also acts as a core from which stairs and hallways lead to the resident’s apartments.

The building also encompasses strategies in being more sustainable and consume less energy with passive shading for each aparrtment, hydronic heaters, natural cross ventilation for cooling, low water consuming landscaping, and exterior circulation.

Abbey Apartments | Precedents 244

San Ped ro St.

San Julian St.

Site Plan E 6th St.

Building Plan Ground Floor

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Abbey Apartments | Precedents 246

Building Floor Plan Second Floor

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Building Plan Third Floor

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Abbey Apartments | Precedents 248

Building Floor Plan Fourth Floor

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Building Plan Fifth Floor

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Abbey Apartments | Precedents 250

1 BR - Manager’s Unit 1Bathroom 580 Square Feet floor 2 floor 3

Studio Unit 1Bathroom 392 Square Feet all floors

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Hanidcap - Accessible Unit 1 Bathroom 410 Square Feet all floors

Hanidcap - Accessible Unit 1 Bathroom 450 Square Feet all floors

1/32”=1’-0”

10’

30’

60’

Abbey Apartments | Precedents 252

Sectional Axon Circulation

main access points

Sectional Axon Circulation

main circulation path secondary circulation path

Abbey Apartments | Precedents 254

Sources http://www.kearch.com/ Koning Eizenberg Architects http://roybal-allard.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=125412 Images: http://www.kearch.com/ Koning Eizenberg Architects http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=koning+e izenberg+architects+abbey+apartments&fb=1&gl=us&hq=koning+eizenberg+architects+abbey +apartments&cid=0,0,15571130311595049640&ei=5JG1Tv6uDaHj0QGI9ZnSBw&sa=X&oi=loc al_result&ct=image&ved=0CAgQ_BI

Abbey Apartments | Precedents 256