Experiments in Public Housing_Vol_1

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 influence 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 Experiments in Public Housing is a two volume product of a semester-long period of research. The first volume contains the research and analysis of subsidized housing as a whole. The class has referenced books and articles in addition to conducting interviews covering housing history, policy, code, and financing. These books and articles span multiple generations of discourse on public housing. Sources ranged from classics such as, The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs to an interview on current uses of a pro-forma. To synthesize and analyze the large amount of information regarding this topic, the publication is divided into separate, but relatable chapters, each covering an important feature related to the examination of public housing.

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 Unit Design

History Politics, Policy & Pattern Movements A Closer Look at Policy

9 11 19

Response to Modernism Themes of the Twentieth Century Modernism The Moratorium Pause & Preservation Hope VI & New Urbanism

27 31 33 35 37

Urban Morphology Land Form Changes Over Time Urban Renewal Roxbury: Growth & Evolutoion Land Use Public Housing Roxbury Master Plan

43 49 55 57 59 63

Unit Aggregation Room Growth

115 133

Efficiency Overview Site Efficiency Building Efficiency Unit Efficiency

155 157 163 169

Management Operations & Management Cost & Assesment Crime Prevention & Security

179 189 193

Financing Pro-formas & Prediction

209

Site & Building Design Project Scale Density Landscape Site Typologies Public/Private Relationships

71 73 75 83 93 6

HISTORY Politics, Policy & Pattern Movements A Closer Look at Policy

politics, policy & Pattern What was affordable housing like before public housing?

A brief history of public housing

Housing was not a policy issue until the 1850’s, when industrialization and job creation flooded urban centers and created a critical housing shortage. The demand for housing was dealt with by private landowners who turned single family homes into dense, subdivided housing tenements, cramming up to five families in a single home. The New York state government attempted to ameliorate this with a Housing Act in 1879, meant to improve conditions with fresh air, fire protection and indoor plumbing. Crammed tenements and slums continued to be the norm for decades, while local governments provided various laws to improve conditions without much success.

The Depression sparked discussion about federally funded housing. Catherine Bauer, author of Modern Housing (1934), predicted the pitfalls of concentrated poverty and argued for a non-profit, mixed-income family housing that would allow for differences in wealth to be invisible, with shared amenities and an efficiency of construction that would bring affordability. She argued against the growing trend in affordable housing to visually stigmatize the poor by relegating them to aesthetically distinct, stark modernist housing blocks, arguing that concentrated poverty would only worsen conditions for the impoverished.

The 1937 Housing Act was the first federal program for low-cost, publicly-managed and owned multi-family developments, modeled after initiatives started by other cities, most notably, New York City’s “First Houses” built in 1935, the first state-funded public housing in the US. The original intent of the building projects started by the Housing Act was “to alleviate present and recurring unemployment and to remedy the unsafe and insanitary housing conditions and the acute shortage of decent, safe and sanitary dwellings for families of low income” (US 1937).

The New Deal in 1940 subsidized middle-class housing. Until the 1970’s, public housing was largely middle class and white, and seen as modern and sleek. Popular belief in the 40’s was that high rises in the style of modernism could improve living conditions with better light and ventilation. Radical ideas of clearance were also being enacted in legislation, as in the Housing Act of 1949, which emphasized slum clearance for new housing developments.

The 60’s saw the emergence of class strife and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in addition to government funded interstate highway projects marked the beginning of the flight of whites from racially integrated projects and into the suburbs. Federally funded housing got bigger and denser, and a trend for the

Political Engagement lower class to remain in the city while the middle and upper classes moved out emerged.

Income limits that gave preference for the poor and disadvantaged were set, reinforcing the tendency for affordable housing to be homogeneously poor.

In the late 1960’s the negative effects of concentrated poverty had surfaced. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was formed in 1965, and prohibited the construction of high-rises for families. This failure manifest itself in 1972 with the demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe high rises.

In 1978, President Nixon froze new federal housing projects, and HUD devised Section 8 subsidy vouchers to encourage the private sector to build affordable homes, shifting the burden from the government. In 1981 rent ceilings were eliminated and then reintroduced in 1987, this time with preferences for those who were involuntarily displaced by slum clearance.

In 1992, federal housing preferences were largely eliminated and flexibility was restored to local authorities and the private sector.

In 1993, HUD formed HOPE VI, a plan to revitalize public housing by converting projects into mixed-income developments, in the hope that smaller developments would lead to more personal investment in the property, better upkeep and thus a higher quality of living.

Today, HOPE VI is being phased out in favor of Choice Neighborhoods, a similar program that builds on the successes of HOPE VI by situating smaller, mixed-income developments in close proximity to good infrastructure like schools to improve chances for the long term success of the neighborhood.

Rental housing is heavily influenced by government rules and fees. Most lending institutions require larger down payments and charge a higher interest rate for rental property mortgages, and insurance companies charge higher premiums for rentals. For example, in Michigan it costs $200 more per month to provide a typical 3 bedroom rental home than it would for a homeowner. Political participation is the best way for tenants to keep housing affordable.

More importantly, political action is sometimes necessary to getting affordable housing projects built in the first place. For example, in 1965, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development designated part of Boston’s South End as an “urban renewal area”, planning to replace low-income communities with upper class residences. A Puerto Rican community banded together to form an “Emergency Tenants Council”, allied with an architect to re-asses the condition of the area to be demolished, and fought for mixed-income housing, on-site relocation and the establishment of a more visible ethnic landmark. By receiving support from local organizations and Puerto Rican groups in other cities, local and federal representatives and civic leaders, the Boston Redevelopment Authority granted their request, after a long battle.

Politics, Policy & Pattern | History 10

RK RD PA ORCHA 1938 LEY BROM 1941 -

movements

1900

1910

1920

1940

1930

1. Crowding and Slums

1950

p13.

2. Livable Housing

• No federal housing before 1937 • Industrialization led to movement towards cities and overcrowding • Unlivable conditions

• Some state-funded public housing pre-1937 (NYC 1st Houses) • 1937 Housing Act is USA’s First federally funded housing • “...decent, safe and sanitary dwellings for families of low income” • Low-rise neighborhoods

p14.

GO)

ICA OE (CH

-IG PRUIT 1954 H T A E H 1954 -

1950

1960

3. Concentrated Poverty

EST ORTHW RKS N A P IN TW 1970 - ALNUT PARK W 0 7 CITY 9 1 RRET N MAIN CITY 4 - STA 7 ORIA 9 T -1 IC 2 MISSIO - TENT V 0 A 1 9 197 L NS 0 9 IL 0 GARDE 1986-1 981 - V 1995-2 CHARD 1972-1 R O D L 1996 CAMFIE MONS 1999 T COM ENPOR V A D 2001 G ANDIN RICK L E V A M 2003 -

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

p15.

4. Reaction to Failure

p17.

5. The Present Day

• 1949 Housing Act • “Urban Renewal” • Slum Clearance • High-density • Concentrated poverty • Superblocks, massive scale • Modernist principles dominate (see “RESPONSE TO MODERNISM” p.27)

• 1972-1974 key years • Jane Jacobs provides basis for defensible space, new urbanism • Nixon halts public funding • Section 8 - shift to private sector • HOPE VI - demolition of old and community revival

p18.

• Mixed Income • HOPE VI phased out • Choice Neighborhoods smarter siting of federal housing projects • Small scale vernacular • Urban infill • Shift to suburbs • First Tier Suburbs

Movements | History 12

1. Crowding and Slums pre-1930’s

This period was marked by overcrowding and slum conditions. Many rooms in tenements had no or few windows and very poor light. Air quality was poor and there was little ventilation.

The monotony of tenement design only worsened conditions.

“Dumb-bell Tenement” designed to bring light and air via light shafts - still not enough to combat hyperdensity. In some tenements, whole families lived in single rooms.

2. Livable Housing 30’s - 60’s

State-funded projects like NYC’s First Houses and, later, the federal government’s 1937 Housing Act were the responses to slum conditions. These projects were designed as low rise neighborhoods, often with narrow, snaking floor plans that maximized surface area and window space in order to bring in better air and light.

Bromley-Heath is an example of a “livable” low-rise constructed after the 1937 Housing Act, meant to improve light and air conditions.

Movements | History 14

3. Concentrated Poverty Post-war, 50’s - 70’s

As a result of the success of the projects made after the 1937 Housing Act, popular opinion was that public housing should be done on an even larger scale to replace the enormous number of slums and fulfill the need for low-income housing. This meant the construction of multi-acre projects, many with several high rises in efficient layouts. Some architects designed these projects with the belief that towers with modern aesthetics on “super blocks” would give tenants a feeling of well-being and individuality (relative to the existing city). The decisions to concentrate ethnically homogeneous and uniformly poor populations in high rises would prove to have negative consequences.

Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis (above right, and opposite page) and Cabrini Green in Chicago (right) were some of the largest housing projects built during this era and examples of concentrated poverty.

Movements | History 16

4. Reaction to Failure 70’s - 90’s

By the 70’s, some federally funded projects had fallen apart; problems included crime, disrepair and vacancy. The demolition of the vacant Pruitt-Igoe in 1972 was a public, televised symbol of this failure. President Nixon froze federally funded housing, and Section 8 subsidies began. These were an attempt to reward private developers for building their own affordable housing. In response to the many people involuntarily displaced by slum clearance in prior decades, preference was given to these people for new housing developments.

In 1992, HOPE VI began revilitalizing the worst public housing projects into mixed-income developments, based on ideas of new urbanism and defensible space. The aim was to address the problems of the prior era - hyperdensity, monotony, homogeneity of race and income, and funding issues.

Villa Victoria was a reaction to monolithic, modernist housing blocks (above right).

The demolition of Pruitt-Igoe in 1972 (near right).

A typical HOPE VI funded project. (far right)

5. The Present Day 90’s - ?

1,000’

In 2010, HUD began to phase out HOPE VI, and in 2011 announced “Choice Neighborhoods”, an initiative that builds on the success of HOPE VI projects (mixed-income, small-scale) while addressing their issues (disconnection from key services). Choice neighborhoods awards grants to developers who plan affordable, mixed-income housing projects in close proximity to key services like public schools, transportation and parks.

This improves chances of success for future generations and the longevity of the project in general.

Choice Neighborhoods

$

Current initiatives emphasize smart siting of affordable/mixed income housing developments near important amenities like schools, parks, financial resources, workplaces and transportation.

Movements | History 18

a closer look at policy Housing Policy Policy relating to housing has spanned many decades and impacted countless housing projects across the United States. Several noteworthy policies and programs have had a monumental effect, specifically on the development of public housing. Everything from the New Deal to the creation of HOPE VI further added to what the institution of public housing is today.

Beginning with the Housing Act of 1937, government involvement in housing began.

The 1937 Act was the first program that focused on low-cost, publicly-managed and owned multi-family developments. The creation and importance of civic housing projects began here. Only adding to the proliferation of public housing was the 1949 act that allowed the use of slum clearance as a means to new housing developments.

The formation of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1965 resulted in a designated body responsible for the conditions of the country’s housing projects. All future programs and policies were created and governed by this Department.

The creation of the Section 8 voucher program also has had a great deal of impact on the affordable, public and subsidized housing.

The program allows for residents to have their rent supplemented by HUD, which makes housing more affordable for them.

The biggest and most notable policy to come

from HUD was the HOPE VI program created in 1993. This program took stock of the current conditions and set out to fix them with the aim to re-invent the image of public housing. It established the new bar for the design, construction and operation of public housing. As a result, numerous housing authorities across the country applied to the program in order to address their failed housing projects.

Lasting for more than 15 years, this program has definitely left its mark as an influential policy trend in the public housing sector.

Replacing the HOPE VI program is a relativity new initiative, Choice Neighborhoods, created in 2010 by HUD. This is the newest in the long history of housing policy that aims to further develop and address the issues surrounding public housing. As suggested at with its name, the current program adds a new focus on the role of community. Identifying a larger community for new housing projects to be a part of is stressed, something that has not been of central focus in previous policies.

A Policy Case Study: The HOPe vI Policy

A Housing Case Study: Orchard Gardens

The housing policy that emerged at the beginning of the 1990s was HOPE VI, a program focused on transforming the worst public housing projects into mixed-income developments. It has been referred to by the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development at the time, Henry Cisneros, as “the last grasp for public housing.”

HOPE VI was initiated by the observation of poor public housing options. As a result, Congress created a commission to investigate the issue. The aim was to identify “severely distressed” public housing developments, assess strategies to improve conditions and prepare a national action plan for dealing with the problem. In 1992 the findings of the Commission concluded that roughly 86,000 of the 1.3 million public housing units nationwide qualified as severely distressed and that a new and comprehensive approach would be required to address the range of problems existing at these developments. As a result, the HOPE VI program was enacted in October of 1992.

Beginning in 1993, any public housing authority that had severely distressed public housing units in its inventory were eligible to apply to federal funds under the new program.

As of 2010, 132 housing authorities were awarded funds under HOPE VI totaling $6.1 billion. 96,200 public housing units were demolished and 107,800 new or renovated housing units were created.

The demise of the HOPE VI policy came in 2010 when no funds were allocated for the program. Instead, the new “Choice Neighborhoods” initiative was allocated a $250 million budget.

Orchard Gardens is the perfect project to use as an example of the influence by many trends in policy. The Housing Act of 1937 allowed for Orchard Park to be created from sixteen acres of traditional housing and developed into twenty-eight brick buildings in a superblock configuration. The project was intended as a means of last resort for those in need of housing. As a result, Orchard Park was designed to provide just that, housing, and not much more.

Forty years after the creation of Orchard Park, the condition of the development was in such disrepair that crime & violence had overtaken.

The development had a high vacancy rate due to no one wanting to live in such horrible conditions.

Hearing the voices of the community, the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) stepped in and initiated plans to modernize the buildings.

This phase of “Comprehensive Modernization” can be seen in many housing developments across the country spanning the 1980s to 2000. Seeing the shift from simply a last resort for housing to actual homes filled with possessions, the new plan aimed at expanding the units and creating defensible space.

However, the “CompMod” proved to be very expensive and the BHA was forced to look elsewhere to address Orchard Park.

Realizing something else needed to be done, the BHA applied for the HOPE VI program in 1993. Several phases of intervention were planned and resulted in 205 new units in the on-site phases. Offsite phases were completed afterwards, ending with the Homeownership Phase in 2010 which resulted in 20 new units and included compliance with LEED standards.

A Closer Look at Policy | History 20

1950

The New Deal subsidizes middle-class housing.

Housing Act of 1937 is the first federal program for low-cost, publicly-managed and owned multi-family developments.

The Housing Act of 1949 emphasizes slum clearance for new housing developments.

A Housing Case Study: Orchard Gardens

A Policy Case Study: HOPE VI

Housing Policy

1940

28 buildings in a superblock configuration are completed and called Orchard Park.

The Public Housing Authority condemns 16 acres of traditional housing to build Orchard Park.

1960

1970

HUD is formed.

1990

1980

2000

2010

HUD creates the “Choice Neighborhoods” initiative and allocates $250 million to the program.

HUD devises Section 8 subsidy vouchers.

Congress established the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing to study the state of public housing.

Report on the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing’s study submitted to Congress.

Legislation written for the HOPE VI grants and the Hope VI program was enacted on October 10, 1992.

HOPE VI receives $120 million in funds for the year.

Funded projects are now at the point of creating housing from the HOPE VI grants.

Eleven projects were awarded funds for the 1993 Fiscal Year.

BHA begins plan for modernization of Orchard Park Orchard Park Phase I Comp Mod begins under the BHA. HOPE VI Phase II creates duplexes & townhouses under new Orchard Gardens name.

HOPE VI program has distributed $5.8 billion through 446 federal block grants.

No more funds budgeted are for HOPE VI.

Orchard Gardens HOPE VI Phase III creates more townhouses under new Orchard Gardens name.

Orchard Garden Homeownership Phase creates 20 units developed as LEED Silver complaint A Closer Look at Policy | History 22

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

DHK Architects. “Orchard Gardens (on-site), Boston, MA.” DHK Architects. “Orchard Park Homeownership, Roxbury, MA.” Findings and Policy Challenges.” 1-14.

HUD 2011. “U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.” http://portal.hud.gov Koven,Daniel. Interview. Financing + Proforma Expert. October 24, 2011.

Popkin, Susan; Katz, Bruce; Cunningham, Mary et al 2004. “A Decade of HOPE VI: Research Schwarz, Alex F. Housing Policy in the United States (New YorK: Routledge, 2010).

Stoloff, J. A. (2004, August 14). A Brief History of Public Housing. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from allacademic: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/8/8/5/ p108852_index.html Tanner, Russell. Interview. Madison Park Development Corporation. September 12, 2011.

Vale, Lawrence J. From the Puritans to the Projects: Public Housing and Public Neighbors (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2000).

Vale, Lawrence J. Reclaiming Public Housing: A Half Century Struggle in Three Public Neighborhoods (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2002).

Images: Trinity Financial. “Orchard Park Documentation Photograph.”

History 24

RESPONSE TO MODERNISM Themes of the Twentieth Century Modernism The Moratorium Pause and Preservation HOPE VI & New Urbanism

26

Themes of the Twentieth Century The architecture of public housing is a reflection of societal values. By examining the design techniques and principles used in public housing design, reflections of a period’s ideals begin to emerge. Before those ideals materialize into common practice, there are contextual influences such as policy, publications, economic standing, and forwardthinking projects that shape the physicality of innovation.

The Modernist era of public housing saw the integration of innovative design with the need for low-income housing. The efficiency of the standardized potential of Modernism made public housing financially possible. Coinciding with the arrival of Modernism was the rejection of slums, reinforced by slum-clearance policies. After forty years of Modernist public housing design, the style faced the same fate as the slums. HOPE VI is the form of policy through which the government recognized the failure of Modernism in public housing.

The innovation that shifted public housing design away from Modernism wasn’t as direct as the arrival of the Modernist style. This is perhaps a result of the idea that the New Urbanist perspectives involve the subjective nature of human interaction whereas Modernism focused on the objective terms of standardized, universal design. The period of “Pause and Preservation” witnessed a change

in mindset when architects took to drafting plans. Designers considered the inhabitant’s perspective, prioritizing the street level as Jane Jacobs suggested. Policy reflected this shift in 1990 when the government mandated public participation in the design process.

As the perspective shifted to the desires of its inhabitants, an idealistic insight surfaced in public housing design. Urban dwellers craved suburban elements, characteristics from the very movement that caused the decline of city centers starting in the 1950s.

New Urbanism implementation into public housing design is a relatively new development. What remains to be seen is how these principles will be able to weather potential shifts in demographics, such as those that Modernism experienced with suburbanization and white flight from urban centers. The suburban vernacular in most HOPE VI projects presents other inquiries, such as whether or not contemporary architecture could be both efficient and conform to its inhabitant’s ideals.

What is the next innovation in public housing design?

Opposite: View down Lenox Street in Boston.

The Lenox/Camden housing development (built 1939) lies to the left and Camfield Garden Estates (built 1969, redeveloped 1999) sits on the right.

Themes of the Twentieth Century | Response to Modernism 28

Modernism 1940

1937: Marcel Breuer and Walter Gropius arrive in America, bringing with them Modernist ideals.

1935: New York City clears first slum area between Avenue A and 3rd Street intended for public housing.

Pruitt-Igoe, Minoru Yamasaki

Levittown, New York

Fair Housing Act of 1968: following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., legislation is passed, outlawing racial discrimination in public housing.

Robert Taylor Homes

1945: The end of World War II precedes the approaching housing needs for returning veterans.

Warren Gardens, Hugh Stubbins → 1969

1962

1956

1943

The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs 1961

The Image of the City, Kevin Lynch 1960

American Politics, Housing, Planning, Miles Colean and the Public Interest 1955

1943

1934

The Great Depression generates a housing crisis and need for public housing.

1970

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965: established Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Housing Act of 1954: attempted to resolve the growing urban blight that was a result of white flight for America’s urban centers.

Cabrini-Green

1944

1939

Modern Athens Housing, Charter, Catherine Le Bauer Corbusier

1933

CIAM Manifesto

1960

La Ville Radieuse, Le Corbusier

Aluminum City Terrace, Gropius, Breuer 1941

Red Hook Housing / Queensbridge Houses

1956: The Federal Aid Highway Act creates the Interstate Highway System, a government endorsement of suburban ideals that sparks white flight from urban centers.

1964: The Civil Rights Act illegalizes racial descrimination.

1968: The National Commission on Urban Problems condemns large-scale projects with high-rises as public housing.

1949-1960: Title I funds from the Housing Act of 1949 used for 838 slum clearance projects.

1940: Slums cleared for Cabrini-Green and Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago.

3.6

422,451

792,228

3.1

3.0

170,436

Public Avgerage Housing Stock Household Size

1950 Housing Act of 1949: Encouraged further slum-clearance and allotted funds for 810,000 housing units in anticipation of returning veterans.

Housing Act of 1937 (Wagner-Steagall Act): established the Public Housing Administration (PHA). Granted subsidies to local PHAs and established maximum income requirements. Encouraged slum clearance and mandated a one-for-one demolition condition.

1951

National Housing Act of 1934 (Capehart Act): created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to help stem heavy bank foreclosures

Demolitions

Events

Publications

Projects

Public Policy

1930

Pause and Preservation

HOPE VI and New Urbanism

1980

1990

2000 1993: HOPE VI program established, redacting the one-for-one requirement and mandating public participation in the design process.

A Pattern Language, Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein

2010 2009: The Obama Administration announces the Choice Neighborhoods program as a replacement for the successful HOPE VI program.

The first grants under this program are issued in 2011.

Orchard Gardens

The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community, Peter Katz 1994

Urban Design as Public Policy

1977

Tent City, Goody Clancy

1988

CranstonGonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990

Villa Victoria, John Sharratt

1973

1972

Defensible Space, Oscar Newman

Housing and Urban Recovery Act of 1983: The Regan administration passed this bill to halt the rehabilitation program of the Act of 1974 and expand the role of Section 8 vouchers in public housing.

1982

Housing and Community Development Act of 1974: After George Romney of the Nixon administration issued a moratorium on all future funding for public housing, Congress passed legislation recognizing the distressed state of urban centers and created Community Development Block Grants.

1997

Moratorium

1989: Congress creates the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing to inventory the condition of the nation’s housing stock.

1972: The demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing Project in St. Louis signifies a national sentiment that Modernist housing projects have failed.

1993: The Congress for New Urbanism is founded.

1995: Cabrini-Green is slated for demolition.

1998: HUD and CNU convene in Baltimore to establish New Urbanist guidelines for public housing projects.

1996: Robert Taylor Homes is slated for demolition.

1996-2003: HOPE VI funds $391,535,505 towards the demolition of 56,755 units.

2010: New York City Housing Authority announces the demolition of Prospect Plaza, its first eradication of a Modernist-era project.

2.9

1,234,555

1,300,493

2.5

1,273,500

1,326,224

1,407,923

2.5

1,391,312

1,204,718

2.6

Themes of the Twentieth Century | Response to Modernism 30

The Arrival of Modernism and the Birth of Public Housing The emergence of Modernism in public housing and the advent of public housing itself was a symbiotic relationship intended to resolve the housing crisis that followed the Great Depression. At first, Franklin D. Roosevelt passed the National Housing Act of 1934 as part of the New Deal to in part stall the heavy volume of bank forclosures on family homes. With this act, he also created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

The Housing Act of 1937 established the Public Housing Administration (PHA) and thus was the first legislation that funded public housing in the United States. The PHA’s role was to grant subsidies to local Public Housing Authorities and to establish maximum income requirements. The intent was to at once alleviate the nation’s housing crisis while providing jobs through public works projects. In addtion, the bill encouraged using the projects as a means for slum clearance, mandating that for every one housing unit demolished one unit must be built.

In the same year, both Walter Gropius and Marcel Breuer moved to America, bringing with them new ideas in Modernist design.

Gropius demonstrated in Aluminum City Terrace, a public housing project for defense workers in Kensington, Pennsylvania, that Modern architecture could efficiently enhance the lives of its dwellers.

Catherine Bauer, protegé and lover to urban critic Lewis Mumford, traveled to Europe and approved of the Modernist designs that she observed. She published her book Modern Housing in 1934 detailing her findings.

She believed that modern public housing should be planned, built slowly, and contain few amenities. She went on to co-author the Housing Act of 1937 and advised five presidents on housing policy.

While architects like Gropius and Breuer experimented with the implications of Modern design on public housing, Le Corbusier idealized the efficiency that could penetrate every scale, from unit to master plan, in his project La Ville Radieuse. Le Corbusier had begun working on the ideals of La Ville Radieuse in the 1920s, but it wasn’t until after convening with the Congrés International d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) that he published the project in the Athens Charter in 1943. Inspired by the human anatomy and centered along a linear spine, the project supported superblocks and celebrated the automobile. At its heart, standardized cruciform high-rises were spaced out on large blocks of expansive green space, an ideal that generated an era of skyscraper-in-the-park designs in public housing. The principles of La Ville Radieuse seemed like an apt design for maximum efficiency in solving the United States’ housing crisis.

Design Guidelines: Superblocks Separate from surrounding neighborhoods 3 story walk-ups and elevator buildings Open or semi-enclosed green spaces Little to no amenities Standard, universal design and materials Common entrances

Le Corbusier’s La Ville Radieuse (Radiant City).

Le Corbusier’s design initiated the “skyscraperin-the park” ideals in public housing during the 1940s and 1950s.

Modernist housing projects were at first successful. Up until World War II, public housing projects only permitted predominately white, working class families to inhabit the units. Those on welfare were seldom selected. As a result of its initial success, the government passed the Housing Act of 1949. The legislation encouraged further slum clearance, in which the government would pay for 2/3 of the site acquisition costs.

The demolition of the slums in Boston’s West End for a Modernist project was exemplary of the Act’s intent. The government was also anticipating a sharp increase in housing needs as soldiers returned home from the battlegrounds of World War II. The bill authorized the funds for 800,000 units.

While the government correctly predicted the influx of soldiers and the subsequent swelling of housing needs, it couldn’t have predicted the massive demographic shift that would alter the contextual environment the Modernist projects were reacting to. The 1950s marked a period of affordable suburban living and declining city centers that changed the demographic landscape of public housing. The Modernist principles that guided the design of public housing began to reflect this shift in the form of crime and poverty. What followed was the descent of public housing and the development of a stigma that remains today.

Top: Queensbridge, New York City Bottom left: Red Hook, New York City Bottom right: Aluminum City Terrace, Kensington, Pennsylvania

Modernism | Response to Modernism 32

The Moratorium: Why Modernism Failed By the 1960s, the garden communities that Catherine Bauer had envisioned were in reality “warehouses for the poor.” Levittown, New York was constructed between 1947 and 1951, demonstrating that the single-family home in the suburbs was within reach for the 16 million returning soldiers. Levittown set the stage for modern suburbia, sparking the white flight from urban America. Government policy supported this with home loans geared toward suburban single-family homes and the Eisenhower Interstate System. As the white, working class families moved to the suburbs, predominantly black families on welfare moved into public housing. Inhabitants of public housing became predominantly black in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1964, the families of Boston’s six large housing projects were 80% white and only six years later in 1970 the families were 70% black.

The severe demographic shift that urban housing projects experienced was also external. A changing average family size influenced the type of desired unit plan. The urban environments in which public housing was built was decaying and hemorrhaging economic activity. The physical conditions of the buildings deteriored to the point where some units were deemed uninhabitable.

Politicians were using slum-clearance and public housing policy to uproot black communities and relocate them further from the city center.

Designers responed to the changing inhabitant makeup with more Modernism. The units remained standardized in three story brick walk-up buildings. The superblocks remained and courts wove around the non-contextual buildings. Architects began placing the repeating forms at an angle to the street, attempting to visually separate the project from the surrounding neighborhoods, isolated on their own superblock.

The results exacerbated the state of public housing. The crime, poverty, and blight that developed in housing projects was spreading to the surrounding areas. In 1961, Jane Jacobs published The Death and Life of Great American Cities. She offered a glaring and influential critique of the slum-clearance programs and neighborhoods designed using Modernist principles. She stressed that successful neighborhoods were designed with the inhabitants in mind, not efficiency.

Design alone could not solve the deep-seated social issues that families of public housing projects faced, issues that Modernist architecture induced from the start. Critic Charles Jencks noted that the demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe project in St. Louis, Missouri on July 15, 1972 marked the end of Modern Architecture. About six months later on January 8, 1973, George Romney, then director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development under Nixon, declared a moratorium on funding for all new public housing projects.

Charles Jencks:

“Modern Architecture died in St. Louis, Missouri on July 15, 1972 at 3:32pm, when the infamous Pruitt-Igoe scheme, or rather several of its slab blocks, were given the final coup de grace by dynamite.”

Demolition of Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis, Missouri

Robert Taylor Homes, Chicago

Pruitt-Igoe before demolition

The Moratorium | Response to Modernism 34

A Period of Pause and Preservation In the year after the Moratorium, Congress passed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The legislation acknowledged the distress of the nation’s public housing stock and the blight spreading around urban centers. The bill also provided funds for the rehabilitation of housing projects and initiated the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG).

This policy set the mood for the rest of the seventies. Architects and planners reexamined the principles of public housing design and suggested mainly cosmetic solutions for existing projects. In rehabilitating housing projects, designers couldn’t address the underlying issues of site, form, and building placement. Only new construction could incorporate the ideas from Kevin Lynch’s The Image of the City and Oscar Newman’s Defensible Space.

Once Reagan was elected, his administration passed the Housing and Urban Recovery Act of 1983. This act stripped away the rehabilitation program and expanded the Section 8 voucher program. The administration implemented a fiscally conservative national housing policy, cutting the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s funding in half. The policy of the two decades after the Moritorium accounts for the drop in growth of the public housing stock.

Between the 1970s and 1980s, a combination of projects, publications, and events altered the perspective from which architects and planners designed public housing projects. The ideology of public housing evolved from a tool of social reform to an active participant in community building.

Architects abandoned the idea that design alone could solve social ills and turned to the works of Jacobs, Lynch, and Newman for guidelines for successful housing solutions.

Lynch detailed how the human mind mapped out urban infrastructure. His study suggested a return to the small blocks that Jacobs would argue for a year later. The superblock and its monotonous structure were deemed counterintuitive to the mind’s natural mapping function.

Newman suggested that less public space generated less crime. This idea contributed to the ideals of a home that people held in that they would have more private outdoor space. Finally in 1977, a group of designers from California published A Pattern Language, visually diagramming and setting standards for Jane Jacobs’ principles.

In addition to the influential publications of the time, Hugh Stubbins and John Sharratt designed Warren Gardens and Villa Victoria, respectively, both townhouse-style developments. Both architects showed that the vernacular ideal that the public desired could be achieved in public housing. The townhouse style Villa Victoria followed some of Jane Jacobs’ preferences, such as being low housing, positioned close to the street, having private front porches or stoops, and including a mix of building heights, types, and uses.

Design Guidelines: 3-story height limit Units facing the street Private exterior-unit entries Parking in small lots Secure common outdoor spaces Non-stigmatizing project image Local design that considers context

The 1984 site plan for Newark’s Scudder Homes’ redevelopment demonstrates the period’s design sensibilities.

West Broadway in Boston was originally built in 1949.

West Broadway after renovations that began in 1977.

Alice Taylor Homes in Boston was originally built in 1951.

Alice Taylor Homes after renovations that began in 1992.

Pause and Preservation | Response to Modernism 36

HOPE VI Counts on New Urbanism for Success The 1970s and 1980s marked the period of pause where planners and architects shifted their perspective of public housing to the ideals of community. It wasn’t until 1990 that the National Affordable Housing Act (NAHA) initated the early HOPE programs and mandated public participation. NAHA maintained the one-for-one condition, where for every unit of housing demolished, one unit had to be built. The early HOPE programs included a Comprehensive Modernization program (CompMod). In terms of policy, developers could use funds from the Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP) to renovate existing, distressed housing projects.

The one-for-one policy kept the housing stock nearly even for the three years after NAHA was passed.

When the government established HOPE VI funds, they eliminated the one-for-one condition, encouraging the demolition of Modernist-style housing projects and the construction of lower-density communities.

This policy accounts for the steady decrease in the housing stock following the implementation of HOPE VI. While HOPE VI was signed into law in 1993, it wasn’t until 1998 that it was formally recognized, the same year that HUD met with the Congress for the New Urbanism in Baltimore. At the convention, the two organizations determined a set of New Urbansim guidelines for successful public housing design.

The mandate for public participation altered the design process and the aesthetic product of public housing. The inclusion of the public was a cognizant influence of Jane Jacobs, who argued that the community should be involved in community development. The public’s input, however, revealed a trend that permeated public housing designs across the nation.

Vinyl siding, gables, dormers, and porches became commonplace among HOPE VI housing projects. Low-income urban inhabitants were yearning for the suburban elements that their wealthier counterparts left the city for beginning in the 1950s. Jane Jacobs argued for local, contextual design, but similar suburban attributes were used in HOPE VI projects across the nation. Public housing design appears to be falling back into the same kind of universalism that Modernist design championed, only the ideals are different as reflected by the public’s participation in the design process.

Jane Jacobs started the process of influence that shifted designers’ perspective to that of the inhabitant. While this has greatly improved the fundamental site design of today’s public housing, the architectural aesthetic needs to be addressed once again. Addressing this issue is perhaps best done by looking toward the past. Public housing’s response to Modernism demonstrates how contextual environments influence its evolution, and how innovation can be a culmination of works that is perfected through materializing iterations.

Design Guidelines: Design neighborhoods around 5-min. walk Mixed building types Small blocks and connected streets Include community-building amenities Mixed-income Hide parking in small lots Streetside units with private entrances Mandated public participation in design

Maverick Landing, East Boston (source: ICON architecture)

Martin Luther King Plaza in Philadelphia before HOPE VI redevelopment.

Martin Luther King Plaza after HOPE VI redevelopment.

Guinotte Manor in Kansas City, Missouri before HOPE VI redevelopment.

Guinotte Manor after HOPE VI redevelopment.

Hope VI and New Urbanism | Response to Modernism 38

Sources Bauman, John F., Roger Biles, and Kristin M. Szylvian. From Tenements to the Taylor Homes: In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth-Century America. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 2000.

Erickson, David James. The Housing Policy Revolution: Networks and Neighborhoods.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2009.

Goetz, Edward G. “Where Have All the Towers Gone? The Dismantling of Public Housing in U.S. Cities.” Journal of Urban Affairs 33.3 (2011): 267-287.

Hays, R. Allen. The Federal Government and Urban Housing: Ideology and Change in Public Policy. Albany: State University of New York, 1995.

Mitchell, J. Paul. Federal Housing Policy and Programs: Past and Present. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1985.

Schwartz, Alex F. Housing Policy in the United States. New York: Routledge, 2010.

Varady, David P., Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, and Francis P. Russell. New Directions in Urban Public Housing. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1998.

Von Hoffman, Alexander. “Housing and Planning: A Century of Social Reform and Local Power.”

Journal of the American Planning Association 75.2 (2009): 231-244. www.bostonhousing.org

Response to Modernism 40

Urban morphology:

Case Study of Lower Roxubry Land Form Changes Over Time Urban Renewal Land Use Current Initiatives Public Housing

1795

1804 South Boston

1836 East Boston

1855 Washington Village

LandFORm CHangES OVER TImE 1867 Roxbury Breed’s Island

1869 Dorchester

Providence Rail Road 1850 Boston Shoreline

The lower Roxbury area of Boston was studied in an effort to examine the factors and circumstances that have resulted in the highest concentration of subsidized housing in Boston. The area has a dense and complex history of development over time as the city of Boston expanded, but in particular in regards to the urban renewal efforts done by the city to revitalize the area. Some of these housing projects precede the post-war era while others were realized as a result of policy and changes to the urban morphology of the area.

In this case study, an in depth analysis was made on the evolution of the urban fabric dating back to a over century in an effort to identify forces that might have precipitated the density of subsidized housing in the area.

The area at large over the decades seems to have been under the influence and control of broader city planning issues having to do with connecting the different areas of the city as it progressively expanded outwards. As a result, the area is characteristic of the effects of the different policies and changes to the urban fabric put in place over the decades that have changed the make up of the neighborhood as a result, some of which influenced the placement of a significant number of the city’s subsidized housing projects in this area.

1850

1850

1873 West R Brighto

Landfill of Back Bay

Establishment of Masssachussetts Ave

1860

1880

1860

1880

Land Form Changes | Urban morphology 44

Start of Columbus Ave

1900

1890 1900

Establishment of Columbus Ave

1920 1920

Design of the Fens

Addition of Localized Streets

Dudley Street

1930

Straightening and Extension of Massachusetts Avenue

1950

1930 1930

1950

Land Form Changes | Urban Morphology 46

Addition of Localized Streets

2011

1962

1960 construction of local streets

Redevelopment Efforts Cause the Creation of Super Blocks

Northern Section of Dudley Street becomes Malcolm X Boulevard

1978

1975

Construction of Melnea Cass Boulevard

1991

1990

Development of Washington Street & Melnea Cass Corridor

2011

2011

Land Form Changes | Urban Morphology 48

URban REnEWaL Proposed Inner Belt Study Area Boston Proposed Southwest Expressway

LOCUS MAP STUDY AREA, PROPOSED HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Proposed Inner Belt

Early Land Acquisitions (Campus High School)

Proposed Inner Belt

Proposed Southwest Expressway

Study Area Boston Proposed

Project Boundary

CAMPUS HIGH SCHOOL LAND ACQUISITIONS EARLY 1960s

LOCUS MAP CAMPUS HIGH SCHOOL

Conservation

New Institutional

New Housing

Existing Institutional

Lower Roxbury Community Housing New Commercial New Housing

CAMPUS HIGH SCHOOL MASTER PLAN BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 1973 Urban Renewal | Urban morphology 50

Land Acquisitions (Southwest Expressway) Total Land Acquisitions (Campus High School)

Land Acquisitions (Inner Belt)

Lower Roxbury Urban Renewal Area (Boston Redevelopment Authority)

TOTaL Land aCQUISITIOnS LOWER ROXbURy REnEWaL aREa, 1965 1965

lower roxbury urban renewal land area BRA

Land Acquisitions (Inner Belt)

Roxbury Urban Renewal Area on Redevelopment Authority)

nd quisitions ner Belt)

1965

lower roxbury urban renewal land area BRA

MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD

MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD & 1960 ROXBURY STREET GRID

Urban Renewal | Urban morphology 52

Beginning of Inner Belt at Intersection with 93, Massachusetts Avenue

PROPOSED INNER BELT ALIGNMENT THROUGH ROXBURY

Inner Belt Intersection with Massachusetts Avenue, bend through Roxbury

Inner Belt at Intersection with the Proposed Southwest Expressway at Columbus & Tremont

Continuation of the Inner Belt through the Fens

Urban Renewal | Urban morphology 54

ROXBURY: GROWTH & EVOLUTION

Disconnect caused by Melnea Cass

Neighborhood Comparison

“Sociologists have written of the importance of random, accidental, informal contacts among individuals to the development and sustenance of social capital. When spatial conditions reduce those opportunities, they decrease social capital and the opportunities for cross-class networks drastically�

-The Boston Conference: A City and its Future, 1984

1881 Boston Rail Lines

Boston City Growth & Limitations

Early Boston Land Use Comparison

Boston Growth Paths Along Primary Transit Lines Urban Renewal | Urban morphology 56

land use

1860

EARLY ROXBURY: THROUGH MID 19th CENTURY Primarily Industrial uses (mills & tanneries)

1930

MID 19th CENTURY THROUGH EARLY 20th CENTURY Development of housing to serve industrial workers

1975 LAND USE PLAN Planning of Melnea Cass as an Industrial throughway Development of Institutional and Public Amenities to serve residents INDUSTRIAL

INDUSTRIAL

COMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

2010 LAND USE Commercial development along Melnea Cass Increased Institutional Uses Increased Residential uses INSTITUTIONAL/PUBLIC

INSTITUTIONAL/PUBLIC

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE Land Use | Urban Morphology 58

public housing

1930-1949

1930

1950-1969

1950

1978 1990-Present

1970-1989

1970

1990 Public Housing | Urban morphology 60

CURREnT InITIaTIVES

2011 Vacant Parcels 2011 Parcels

BRA LOWER ROXBURY RENEWAL AREA (1950S) BRA EMPOWERMENT ZONE (1994)

ROXSE HOMES 371 UNITS CAMFIELD ESTATES 136 UNITS GRANT MANOR 185 UNITS

Boston Redevelopment Authority Empowerment Zone, 1994

demonstration disposition Housing Projects massHousing, 1994-2000 Public Housing | Urban morphology 62

roxbury master plan: FUTURE INITIATIVES

The Urban Ring T T

T

T

T

T

T T

T T

T T

T

T

T

T

T T

T T

T

T T

T

dudley square

The Crosstown Corridor: Gateway to Boston

The South Bay Harbor Trail

ruggles

dudley square

Roxbury Master Plan | Urban Morphology 64

Changes in Morphology

1950s Lower Roxbury Renewal Area Established

Public Policy

1934 - 1968 Redlined Zones

Public Housing Porjects

1934 - 1968 FHA Mortgage Insurance Requirements Utilize Redlining

1930 Mission Main, Grant Manor, Orchard Garden built to house industrial workers 1910 PRE- WAR

1948 Inner Belt & Southwest 1955 –1975 Impact of Rte 128 & Rte 495 Corridor proposed in MassDOT’s “Master Highway Plan for Metropolitan Boston”

1939,1949 Lenox/Camden built

1950: Alice Taylor, Whittier St., built as post-war housing

1940

1950

WAR

POST - WAR

1960 Lower Roxbury Urban Renewal Plan 1980: Distribution of Median Family Income

1968 Lower Roxbury Urban Renewal Plan; Total Land Acquisition

1968 Present: Disparate Impact of Local Land Use Regulations

1969 Camfield Gardens built

1960 URBAN RENEWAL

1987 Orange Line Rerouted Towards Forest Hills

1978 Madison Park, Haynes House

1975 TODAY

1994-2000 DEMONSTRATION DISPOSITION: funding for renovations/rebuilding Roxse Homes, Camfield Estates, Grant Manor

2011 Roxbury Master Plan includes the Urban Ring, South Bay Harbor Trail, and Crosstown Corridor

1990-2000 HOPE VI: funding for renovations/rebuilding Mission Main & Orchard Gardens 2010 TODAY Roxbury master Plan | Urban morphology 66

Sources â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Boston Atlas.â&#x20AC;? Boston Redevelopment Authority. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://www. mapjunction.com/places/Boston_BRA/main.pl?ht=800>.

United States Census Bureau. Web. <http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/boston_ ground_1880.jpg>. http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1934-1968-FHA-Redlining.html http://www.xefer.com/2002/10/innerbelt http://billwarner.posterous.com/bostons-inner-belt-the-highway-that-was-stopp http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/southwest/ http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/inner-belt/ http://futurembta.com/theorangeline/ Images:

Urban Morphology 68

SITE & BUILDING DESIGN Project Scale Density Landscape Site Typologies Public / Private Relationships

project scale Since the 1930s, the size of new housing projects has decreased significantly

Family Units Elderly Units

1,600 1,400

Number of Units

1,200 1,000 800 600 400

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1960

1955

1950

1945

1940

200

1935

Public housing in the United States started out with a bang, and no other city exemplified this housing explosion more than Boston.

In the first twenty years after the Boston Housing Authority was founded in 1935, the city’s twenty-five largest projects were built.

This large-scale housing implementation was focused on the ideas of slum clearance and job creation.

After 1955 there was a sharp drop in the number of new BHA-funded housing projects.

Year 100,000 90,000 80,000

Number of Units

70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000

1960

1955

1950

1945

1940

1935

0

BHA’s 1938 Charleston Project in (1016 units)

Year

From the 1960s through the 1980s most of the BHA’s projects were targeted at elderly housing instead of family units. As the model of financing and implementation of affordable housing changed forms, the scale of projects shrank drastically. Today, a project including 100 units of affordable housing would be considered extremely large - a far cry from the 1,000 unit developments of the past.

Public housing construction in Boston, and in the United States

In Boston, the vast majority of public housing was created in two distinct waves. The first was between 1938 and 1942, and the second between 1949 and 1954. Until the 50s, this chronological distribution of publicly funded dwellings closely mirrors the public housing booms of the United States as a whole.

1200

New Boston Housing Authority projects 1930 - 2000

1000

Units / Project

800

600

400

200

0 1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

Project Scale | Site & Building Design 72

density The need for concentration?

During the first half of the 20th century, the established line of thinking in the planning community was that density was something to avoid. From Ebenezer Howard’s Garden Cities to Le Corbusier’s Ville Radieuse the idea of separating out housing and freeing up wide swaths of open space for singular uses prevailed.

In the 1960s Jane Jacobs was a huge influence in turning these notions around.

The premise that density is in fact a healthy characteristic of an urban neighborhood was detailed in her seminal work, “The Death And Life of Great American Cities.” Condition 4 in her recipe for vibrant city life states, “The district must have a sufficiently dense concentration of people, for whatever purpose they may be there. This includes people because of residence.” The supposed link between high density and slums or “troubled” areas was shown to be a faulty one based partly on the confusion between density and overcrowding. Overcrowding being the condition of too many people living in a room or dwelling, while density is simply a high concentration of dwellings.

It is difficult to identify a “perfect” density when applying this to public housing, as it is just one of many factors contributing to the success or failure of a project or neighborhood.

Jacobs pointed out that she had discovered only one city district with urban vitality (by her definition) where density was below 100 dwellings per net residential acre. Most housing projects we have looked at in this

book have considerably lower densities, and many would certainly not be considered failures.

Another factor relating to density is the ground coverage of a residential project. This ratio between built-upon land and open land varies noticeably from project to project and the possible permutations are quite numerous.

It is possible for a project with low ground coverage to have a high density and the inverse relationship can be found as well.

1 acre of land

Semi-detached houses 16 units/acre

Three-story row houses 38 units/acre

Mid-rise apartments 55 units/acre

European walk-up 56 units/acre

High-rise apartments 103 units/acre

Density | Site & Building Design 74

Landscape Lessons learned Paradoxically, one of the most important factors in the success or failure of a housing project is not the housing itself, but the quality of the space around it - the landscape.

Looking at projects built in the early part of the 20th century, you will notice a priority put on the creation of large, open communal spaces between buildings. What was thought of as an immeasurable resource, in reality, became an affliction upon the community and contributed to the decay of many housing developments. Simply providing a pleasant landscape, it was discovered, does not assure a healthy and successful environment.

Closer study into how residents use the space around them has led to better strategies for landscaping and the delineation of space.

Architect and planner Oscar Newman was a pioneer in this area, conceiving the now well-established theory of defensible space in the 70s. The theory relies on the correct combination of good design and social attitudes.

As these new ideas and theories took hold, housing authorities began to take a second look at their projects. In Boston, the BHA redeveloped a large portion of its housing, which was seen as a significant improvement to an ailing housing stock. The photos below show Boston’s West Broadway project before and after redevelopment. The figures on the opposite page detail the changes implemented at BHA’s Commonwealth project. Before it was redeveloped, Vale (2002) remarked that Commonwealth’s buildings “had no connection to the outdoor realm, which remained wholly public and alien. After redevelopment, many buildings...carefully considered interrelation with adjacent yards, terraces, and walkways.”

New landscaping and re-grading was able to create more clearly defined spaces by which residents could establish a sense of belonging.

fill public sidewalk

semi-private area

individualized private entries/stoops

private, fenced yards

well-defined common space (playground)

undefined public open space

unsecured basement access

unsupervised public space

Before redevelopment

After

fill Landscape | Site & Building Design 76

Typical materials

grass

concrete

asphalt

plants & mulch

planted strip

curb

street

planted strip

sidewalk

parking

basketball court

Typical objects

high fence

low fence

bench

sidewalk/curb assemblage

playground Landscape | Site & Building Design 78

Building entry The way in which building entries are addressed is an important part of landscape design whether it is fifty people using a single entry or fifty families using fifty separate entries.

Much of this design involves what is called transitional space - the zone that transitions a person between the fully public street or sidewalk and the private dwelling. Symbolic barriers can be used here to inform the user that he/she is moving from a public to a private space and vice versa.

Hedges, low fences, changes in ground texture, lighting and open gateways are all useful in creating a perceptible progression from one type of space to another.

Individualized entries are often addressed with a change in elevation such as a few steps or a larger stoop. If a change in grade is not possible, other physical barriers can be used to achieve the same effect of creating defensible and well-delineated spaces.

Single, global entry way

Individualized, raised entry ways

Individualized, at-grade entry ways with semi-private zone

In relation to ground-level units Units on the first floor or ground level of a building are usually the most exposed and most susceptible to problems commonly associated with housing projects such as drug activity and other types of crime. When there are no barriers of any kind between the dwelling unit and the exterior public realm, there can be serious psychological and physical consequences leading to deterioration of a residential community.

The photo (top right) shows a typical â&#x20AC;&#x153;no mans landâ&#x20AC;? that provides no defensible space and is completely accessible to anyone who would choose to go there. The only landscape is a continuous layer of asphalt. In contrast, the photo below shows a redeveloped project where ground level units have been carefully individualized. There are clear transitions between the public walkway and the private yards created by railings and planters.

In a mixed-use project containing both housing and retail, the positioning of shops and restaurants can alleviate the problem of abrupt transitions between the public and private realms. This is especially helpful if the project is located on a street that has limited space for landscape transitions.

Landscape | Site & Building Design 80

Outdoor common spaces Common outdoor spaces have the potential to be great amenities for housing residents.

The execution of these spaces has a lot to do with their success or failure. When an outdoor area is completely public with no boundaries or transition zones, it can become an unsafe zone that no one wishes to occupy. Installing transitional zones and symbolic barriers just as you would at a building entry works in the same way to create semi-public or semi-private zones that have an implied sense of ownership attached to them.

Well-defined common space Poorly-defined common space

Outdoor private spaces Outdoor spaces that are meant to function as fully private zones need the most physical protection through landscape elements.

These zones most frequently take the form of back yards or patios, but can also manifest themselves as front yards or porches. When residents are given control over their own entrances, they will often take the initiative to privatize and personalize them as seen in the bottom photo. The sense of ownership and personal investment in their â&#x20AC;&#x153;stakeâ&#x20AC;? of a larger community is an important factor in a successful project.

Landscape | Site & Building Design 82

SITE TyPoLoGIES Examining the housing project at the macro level Many housing projects are of a scale that they become a separate neighborhood unto themselves. This is especially true for developments built in the earlier part of the 20th century. This section is about taking a step back and looking at groupings of public housing at a greater scale. Five different site typologies will be explored and are listed as followed: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

Superblock: low-rise Superblock: high-rise Small block: row house Urban infill Small-scale scattered-site

Site Typologies | Site & Building Design 84

Superblock: Low-rise The superblock was a typical site configuration during the first big public housing booms of the 30s, 40s and 50s. Characterized by clusters of zig-zagging low rise buildings, the resulting spatial environment has been called “urban swiss cheese” because of the large gaps in the built fabric. Often times, these projects were first built with very little attention paid to the space between the buildings.

These areas were often completely barren, save for a few trees and the occasional piece of playground equipment.

70%

30%

Ground Coverage

Open Land Built Land

Semi-public area 220’

Project boundary Semi-public area 60’

Public Way

Semi-public area 60’

Site Typologies | Site & Building Design 86

Superblock: High-rise The high rise superblock typology is quite different in that it has not suffered from the same stigma as its low-rise counterpart. While some infamous projects fall into this category (like Pruit-Igoe), success stories like Starrett City in Brooklyn, NY are not uncommon.

The efficiency of space created by high rise towers allows for large swaths of open space below. Many times there are no units on the ground floor of the buildings, so different landscaping strategies are used.

6%

Ground Coverage

Open Land Built Land

Semi-Public Zone 475â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Public Way

% 94

331â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Public Way

Semi-Public Zone

Semi-Public Zone

92â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Site Typologies | Site & Building Design 88

Small Block - Row House Consequently, the row house typology as conceived today emphasizes the importance of streets. Dwellings typically face directly toward a public or semi-public street in the classic urban manner. Open spaces are generally narrower and the large blocks of the past are divided into smaller units by more frequent streets.

The row house as a dwelling type has existed for hundreds of years. However, it was not commonly found in public housing until the latter part of the 20th century. When it did start to appear more frequently, it was after the consensus in the architecture/planning community that public housing should generally look the same as private housing.

Many public/affordable row house developments today are influenced considerably by the tenants of new urbanism as well as certain ideas from Jane Jacobs’ writing. % 66

Open Land 34%

Private outdoor space

Semi-private way

Private outdoor space

37’

24’

37’

33’

Public Way

Built Land

Public Way

Ground Coverage

Private outdoor space

Semi-private way

37’

24’

37’

8’

37’

Public Way

37’

Public Way

Public Way

37’

Private Semi-private Private outdoor space way outdoor space

Site Typologies | Site & Building Design 90

Urban Infill % 30

Open Land Built Land

% 70

Ground Coverage

Housing Infill 250’

Public Way

Public Way

Infill housing is in effect, the most “urban” typology of the five included in this chapter.

The higher density of these dwellings is usually a necessity based on the price of land in these locations. Ground coverage can be 200% higher than other typologies based on the constraints of the site.

Small-Scale Scattered-Site

Ground Coverage

Open Land Built Land

Public Way

50%

Housing Lot 60’

Public Way 24’

Scattered-site housing gained popularity in the latter half of the 20th century and has been tried by most housing authorities. Developed several units at a time, this affordable housing typology has the ability to function in a more strategic manner and is more versatile. The density of the surrounding neighborhood can vary significantly, depending on the context of its placement.

Housing Lot 54’

Public Way

% 50

Site Typologies | Site & Building Design 92

public/private relationships Effects on ownership and units access The way we traditionally look at public and private spatial relationships is to determine whether it has ownership or not. To say that someone is encroaching on one’s property is to imply ownership of a space; to say that someone does not own property is to imply the space is openly accessible to the public. .In regards to housing, “public” spaces are outside the unit and completely accessible to general visitors, while “private” spaces are those inside the unit and access is limited to and controlled by residents. However, aside from these two extremes, there are varying levels or degrees of public and private space depending on the context and specific spatial definers. Here there are six generic ways to look at how spaces are defined based on varying degrees of accessibility, which can be further divided by the perceived or actual barriers to create thresholds between spaces.

Public/Private Access | Site & Building Design 94

PUBLIC PUBLIC SPACES ARE OPEN TO EVERYONE - THERE IS NO PRIVATE OWNER. PUBLIC:PRIVATE

There are no physical or visually restrictive obstacles.

However, these spaces have an implied but not defined sense of ownership.

There are no physically restrictive obstacles. However, there is a clear sense of attachment to a privately owned property or territory.

s

oo

rd

lo

bb y

st

ya

ts co

wa

ur

lk s

et re st

ps

PUBLIC

A space that is open to all; there is no physical or visually restrictive obstacle.

s

PUBLIC:PUBLIC

The most public space,

A public realm, the

Paved spaces adressing a

Enclosed spaces that are

The most private space

shared by everyone - unless

treatment of these spaces

property, or in responce to

defined by pavers, curbs,

within the public realm;

it is within a gated

implies either a privatized or

the ownership of a space.

community.

public area.

small fences, etc.; this

accessable to anyone but

space serves as a buffer

directly attached to a

between a sidewalk/court

private property.

and an entry way.

A larger public space typically found in highrise and midrise developments; public to residents, mostly private to others.

PRIVATE PRIVATE SPACES HAVE RESTRICTED ACCESS - THERE IS A SPECIFIC OWNER. PRIVATE:PUBLIC

PRIVATE

PRIVATE:PRIVATE

A space that is physically owned but percieved as open or public.

Physically and visually attached to a private space. A space that is accessed solely by the owner.

A personally private space. Accessed only by the owner and removed from the public realm.

A space within a building

Public space to residents

An area denoting entry into

that connects the public

within a building; private to

a unit, similar to a stoop;

lobby to the semi-private

non-residents.

this space is directly

corridor to which residents

attached to an entry door.

access their respective

Areas within a unit that are

the private realm of the

considered public -

unit. Typically considered

available to guests and

an area where residents

residents alike. (Living

leave shoes, hats, coats,

room, dining room,

umbrellas, etc.

bathroom, kitchen).

ep i sl e

g liv in

r

ng

A small public space within

fo ye

or m at do

r do co rri

up

/d ow

n

units.

The most private area of a unit, typically assigned to one or two individuals who are considered to own the space.

Public/Private Access | Site & Building Design 96

corridor access isolated tower with single entry and lobby

20’

40’

4’

30’

10’-200’ 20’-400’ (Hdist)

54’-484’

142’-572’

-

2’

12’

18’

liv

sle

ep

in g

in g

-U RY EN T

do 10’-50’

fo ye r

at m or

rid co r

r ai st

la 30’

or

g in nd

RY EN T

st oo ps

ya rd s

rts

ks

20’

co u

st

w al

re e

ts

-B

UI

NI

T

LD IN

G

Public space surrounds the building, but once past the point of entry, public access is greatly limited. Surveillance from private areas to public areas is generally low.

This building type often has actual security in its lobby, as opposed to perceived security created by threshold elements. The site is often limited, but can create higher resident densities on a limited parcel. This limited site, however, affords little outdoor public space, does not create family-friendly space, making it more ideal for elderly or singles housing. The lack of personal defensible space -- inside or out -- often inviting criminal activity.

The single entry and lobby space allows for greater security, but once past the point of the lobby, the visitor is allowed contact with nearly every unit in the building.

4’

Public/Private access | Site & Building Design 98

corridor access villa victoria Tower, Boston, Ma Entry to the building is located off the public sidewalk, only slightly obstructed by landscape elements. It is monitored by a security guard before residents and visitors can proceed to

semi-private space and unit entries.

Fencing and landscape elements separate public space from unit windows and balconies.

STOOP

YARD

COURT YARD

STREET COURT

WALK

Public/Private access | Site & Building Design 100

Point Loaded access multiple single entries in a low-rise building

30’

50’

20’

12’

6’

-

20’ 40’ (Hdist)

38’

50’

158’

8’

liv 12’

20’

in ep sle

in

g

g

-U fo ye r

TR Y

at 6’

EN

or

m

or

4’

do

st

co r

ai

r

rid

ng la

EN

nd i

TR Y

ps st oo

ya rd s

rts

ks

20’

co u

st

w al

re e

ts

-B

UI

NI

T

LD

IN

G

This relatively efficient type of building has very little security from general public access, and unit access is directly off the point of vertical circulation, allowing no interior community space. Multiple entries serve only a small number of units, allowing closer surveillance over each unit than a tower. However, this also isolates residents from daily interactions within the larger development community. The single entry and lobby space allows for greater security, but once past the point of the lobby, the visitor is allowed contact with nearly every unit in the building.

Building layout creates a perceived private-ness through the creation of courtyards between buildings in the development. This, combined with a low structure, creates a minimal amount of defensible space. This community space has only slight implied ownership edged by the surrounding buildings and minimal fencing in the development, but has no true ownership within the development, often allowing the space to go unmaintained.

It can be used by any number of people, both residents and non-residents.

Public/Private access | Site & Building Design 102

Point Loaded access Lenox camden complex, Boston, Ma Few thresholds create little definition of the division between public and private space.

STOOP COURT

WALK

STOOP

YARD

Public/Private access | Site & Building Design 104

Individual access each unit has its own stoop and entry door

20’

26’

20’

30’

76’

in ep sle

liv

in

g

g

-U fo ye r

RY

at

20’

EN T

m do or

do r

6’

co rri

st a

ir

ng nd i la

RY EN T

s st oo p

ya rd s

ts co ur

ks w al

st re

et

s

-B

UI

NI

T

LD

IN

G

With each townhouse having its own unit entry, this provides the most defensible space and control over who has access to the unit. This also creates a unique sense of ownership to each unit and fosters ownership, pride, and respect in one’s space. Townhouse units are stacked for urban efficiency, but share only a “front yard” space, making each unit highly individualized.

Open space around the unit is treated as front and back yards, creating both perceived and actual limits to access, using fences and other landscape elements to create thresholds within the entry sequence as well as private and limited-access community/neighborhood space behind the units. Despite having fewer layers of space between the public and private spaces, the subtle thresholds, created by fencing and landscape elements, establish clear owndership of each unit.

This building type has a lower density, making it less efficient and less ideal for an urban setting, but also creates a sense of community and neighborliness often not found in the city.

Public/Private access | Site & Building Design 106

Individual access villa victoria Townhouses, Boston, Ma Many thresholds create subtle, but strong definition of the division between public and private space. Projections and separate entries create individuality for each unit, aiding in the sense of ownership and security.

STOOP

WALK

COURT

STOOP

COURT WALK Public/Private access | Site & Building Design 108

Villa Victoria Highrise - Double Loaded Corridor Public

unit entry

Private

Lenox/Camden Midrise - Point Entry unit entry

Public

Private

Villa Victoria Townhouse - Single Entry Public

unit entry

Private

STREET

DISTANCE TRAVELED

BEDROOM

Space & Access Synthesis This diagram shows the distribution of varying types of public and private spaces across the three specific types of public housing developments. It is intended to establish the majority of gradient (in terms of public and private) to better define which types of spaces are used more often, and the effects this has on varying types of social and functional scenarios.

For example, the single and/or double loaded corridor type has fewer instances of thresholds and greater expanses of interior public space that serve as a longer transition of public to private.

Conversely the individual access building type has more frequent instances of thresholds that serve to buffer the private realm of the unit from the public realm of the street and pedestrian traffic.

The point loaded access type essentially incorporates a mix of the two previous types in that the thresholds that define the public and private spaces are more uniformly divided throughout the development.

Public/Private Access | Site & Building Design 110

Sources Boston Housing Authority. “Boston Housing Authority: Public Housing Developments – Feb-07.” .Accessed October 9, 2011. http://bostonhousing.org/pdfs/Public Housing Developments Feb 07.pdf.

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

Jacobs, Jane. The Death And Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1992.

Newman, Oscar. Design Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.

Steinacker, Annette. “Infill Development and Affordable Housing: Patterns from 1996 to 2000.”

Urban Affairs Review 38 (2003): 492–509.

Vale, Lawrence J. From The Puritans to the Projects: Public Housing and Public Neighbors.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000 Vale, Lawrence J. Reclaiming Public Housing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Images: Google. “Google Maps Satellite.” Accessed October 20th, 2011. http://maps.google.com/.

Vale, Lawrence J. From The Puritans to the Projects: Public Housing and Public Neighbors.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000 Vale, Lawrence J. Reclaiming Public Housing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Site & Building Design 112

UNIT DESIGN Unit Aggregation Room Growth

unit aggregation Unit Aggregation and Entry Points Over the years, the size of individual units has grown and, as a result, the aggregation of these units has progressed over the years.

We break down this change over three phases which relate to the way in which the occupant accesses their units: Point Loaded, Corridor Access, and Individual Acess.

Point Loaded

Interlocking

L

1930-1960

CROSS and

BAR

Typical Unit Size: 1 Bed: 580 SF 2 Bed: 640 SF 3 Bed: 760 SF

Typical Unit Size: 1 Bed: 600 SF 2 Bed: 750 SF 3 Bed: 1,000 SF

DOUBLE SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

STOP

1960 - 1980

SKIP

Corridor Access

Individual Access 1980-Current Typical Unit Size: 1 Bed: 600 SF 2 Bed: 850 SF 3 Bed: 1,200 SF 4 Bed: 1,500 SF

DUPLEX

DOUBLE

LOADED Unit Aggregation I Unit Design 116

Point Loaded 1930-1960 Interlocking L In this plan type there are a series of “L” shaped units that interlock with one another.

In most cases, two “L” shaped units are paired together, which then share a circulation core with another pair or singular larger unit. These four units per floor share a singular central core which was allowable by code standards in the 30’s. The aggregation of these interlocking “L” shapes created the very popular zigzag pattern associated with housing designed directly following the Great Depression.

DN

23’-9”

UP

36’-9”

Interlocking

L

3/32”=1’-0”

CROSS and

5’

15’

30’

BAR

BR1

DIN

LIV

B

BR2

KIT

Unit Aggregation I Unit Design 118

Point Loaded 1930-1960 Cross and Bar In the cross scheme, four rectangular units are attached to a central core. In this unique configuration, each unit has three facades that are exposed. This condition allows each room to have at least one wall of windows, and two rooms to occur in corners with two walls of windows. In this configuration even the bathrooms and kitchens have windows, and ample amounts of light. Even in the bar configuration, the units are fairly shallow and allow ample amounts of light and air to circulation through the unit.

UP

24’-0”

DN

CROSS and

3/32”=1’-0”

28’-0”

BAR

5’

15’

30’

B KIT

BR2

LIV DIN

BR1

Unit Aggregation I Unit Design 120

Corridor Access 1960-1980 Double Loaded Corridor In the typical double loaded corridor strategy, the floors will have between six and twelve units organized along a central corridor. This plan is the most typical, and is the most widely used plan in low income housing because of its high efficiency. However, the corridor becomes a long and narrow space with no windows and no natural light. The units themselves only have one exterior facing wall and leave several of the rooms against the interior facing wall. As a result, in most double loaded corridor plans the living room and two bedrooms are placed to the exterior and the kitchen, while bathrooms are tucked between those spaces and the corridor.

UP

Interlocking

L

BAR

32’-5”

CROSS and

5’

15’

23’-8”

30’

STOP

SINGLE LOADED

LOADED 3/32”=1’-0”

SKIP

DOUBLE

DN

KIT

DIN

LIV

B

BR1

BR2

Unit Aggregation I Unit Design 122

Corridor Access 1960-1980 Single Loaded Corridor The single loaded corridor typology is a direct interpretation of the double loaded corridor strategy, but with both sides exposed to exterior walls. In most instances of this type, the corridor is a space exposed to the elements. With an exterior corridor, the rooms which were previously tucked into the space between the living room and the corridor now have the capability of having natural light with the exterior corridor facing wall.

32’-6”

DN

CROSS and

BAR

SINGLE LOADED

STOP

SKIP

UP

28’-6” 3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

B

BR2

BR1

KIT

DIN

LIV

Unit Aggregation I Unit Design 124

Corridor Access 1960-1980 Skip Stop

STOP

SKIP

55’-0”

The skip stop is a unique take on the double loaded corridor configuration where units become duplexes, that occupy two floors, allowing one floor to span the entire width of the building. This allows some floors to be free of public circulation. It also allows units to have more than one exterior facing wall. However, it means that most unit plans have internal circulation which subtract from usable space.

21’-7” 3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

LIV

DIN

KIT

B

BR1

BR2

Unit Aggregation I Unit Design 126

Individual Access 1980-Present Townhouse - First Floor

DN

CROSS and

BAR

35’-9”

In today’s market-driven economy, more Interlocking and more housing projects are becoming mixed income,Land in many cases, owner occupied. With the overall goal of keeping tenants in these units for a longer time, they have become more singular and identifiable.

This gives the tenants ownership and pride.

Most units have their own private entry and circulation, and if they do not, they typically only share vertical circulation with one other unit.

UP

DN

DOUBLE SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

STOP

SKIP

UP

15’-9”

DOUBLE

DUPLEX

LOADED 3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

KIT

DIN

LIV

Unit Aggregation I Unit Design 128

Individual Access 1980-Present Townhouse - Second Floor The duplex has become the most prevalent Interlocking townhouse unit.

Here, on the second floor, the bedrooms are L completely separate from the living spaces.

CROSS and

35’-9”

BAR

DN

SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

STOP

SKIP

DOUBLE

15’-9”

DOUBLE

DUPLEX

LOADED 3/32”=1’-0”

5’

15’

30’

BR2 L B

BR1

Unit Aggregation I Unit Design 130

Individual Access 1980-Present Double Loaded Corridor

35’-0”

Although townhouses are most popular today in the individual access phase, the efficiency of the double loaded corridor type cannot be ignored. It is one of few types still common today, and has found ways to cater to the needs of the individual. In some cases, units actually have their own private door, and the indoor corridor ciruclation becomes a secondary circulation. Second floor units are then allowed to have exterior balconies that give the tenant their own private space and sense of ownership.

24’-0”

Interlocking

L

CROSS and

BAR

UP DN

5’

15’

30’

STOP

SINGLE LOADED

LOADED 3/32”=1’-0”

SKIP

DOUBLE

B

BR1 KIT

BR2 DIN

LIV

Unit Aggregation I Unit Design 132

room growth Room Growth Over Time As unit sizes have grown, the individual rooms inside the units have also gotten larger.

Studying market trends and cultural norms allow us to understand why rooms have grown overtime, particularly with the rise of consumer culture.

Point Loaded

Corridor Access

Individual Access

1930-1960

1960 - 1980

1980-Present

Precedent Examples:

Precedent Examples:

Precedent Examples:

.

1938 Orchard Gardens

1960 Foundling Estates

Villa Victoria

1939 Lenox

1970 Walnut Park

Tent City

1941 Bromley Heath

1972 Villa Victoria

Madison Park

1951 Whittier

1974 Starrett City

Orchard Gardens Mission Main Camfield Davenport Maverick

Room Growth I Unit Design 134

Square Footages of Kitchen Living and Dining Space over Time

Kitchen Living Dining While the size of the kitchens themselves seem to stay similar in size, the eventual separation of the dining space increases the size of these spaces. In the earliest phase, the dining space is any left over space in the living room. In the two latter phases, the dining becomes a separate section of the whole living space.

12’-0”

20’-0”

20’-0”

Interlocking

L

23’-0”

Interlocking

DOUBLE

L

CROSS and

BAR LOADED

Point Loaded 1930-1960 270 SF

17’-0”

Interlocking

L

13’-4”

13’-4”

Corridor Access

Individual Access

DOUBLE

CROSS and

BAR

1960 - 1980 LOADED 360 SF

15’-7”

SINGLE LOADED

15’-7”

DUPLEX

1980-Present 450 SF STOP

17’-0”

SKIP

23’-0”

35’-0”

7’-0”

35’-0”

7’-0”

12’-0”

Room Growth I Unit Design 136

Point Loaded 1930-1960 270 SF

Interlocking

L

CROSS and

BAR

Interlocking

L

CROSS and

BAR

SKIP

SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

Corridor Access

Kitchen Living Dining SINGLE LOADED

DOUBLE

LOADED

DUPLEX

DOUBLE

LOADED

SKIP

1960 - 1980 LOADED 360 SF

STOP

DOUBLE

DUPLEX

STOP

DOUBLE

Interlocking

L

CROSS and

BAR

1980-Present 450 SF

DUPLEX

STOP

SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

SKIP

DOUBLE

Individual Access

DOUBLE

LOADED

Room Growth I Unit Design 138

Bedrooms

Square Footages of Bedrooms over Time

In the early phases of housing, most of the bedrooms were of equal size with equal closet space. The “master suite” fad emerged in the 90’s and bedroom sizes increased dramatically.

12’-7” 12’-7” 12’-4” 12’-4”

11’-6”

15’-6”

15’-6”

13’-8”

13’-8”

12’-1”

12’-1”

12’-0”

12’-0”

12’-8”

Interlocking

L

11’-6”

12’-8”

9’-2”9’-2”

9’-2”9’-2”

11’-5” 11’-5”

CROSS and

BAR

13’-2” 13’-2”

Interlocking

Corridor Access

DOUBLE

CROSS and

BAR

Individual Access

SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

1930-1960 Bed 1: 106 SF Bed 2: 106 SF

1960 - 1980 Bed 1: 140 Bed 2: 106

1980-Present Bed 1: 200 SF Bed 2: 150 SF

Interlocking DOUBLE

DUPLEX

BAR LOADED

SINGLE LOADED

STOP

CROSS and

SKIP

L

DOUBLE

LOADED

Room Growth I Unit Design 140

SKIP

L

Point Loaded

master Bedroom

Point Loaded

Interlocking

L

CROSS and

BAR

1930-1960 Bed 1: 106 SF

DUPLEX

DOUBLE

STOP

SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

SKIP

DOUBLE

Interlocking

L

CROSS and

BAR

Interlocking CROSS and

DOUBLE

BAR

SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

Corridor Access

Individual Access

DOUBLE

LOADED

DUPLEX

STOP

1980-Present SINGLE LOADED Bed 1: 200 SF

SKIP

DUPLEX

1960 - 1980 Bed 1: 140

DOUBLE

LOADED

DOUBLE

LOADED

Room Growth I Unit Design 142

SKIP

L

Second Bedroom

Interlocking

L

1930-1960 Bed 2: 106 SF

CROSS and

BAR

DOUBLE

LOADED

SINGLE LOADED

SKIP

Point Loaded

Interlocking

L

Interlocking

L

CROSS and

DOUBLE CROSS and

BAR SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

DUPLEX

1980-Present Bed 2: 150 SF

STOP

1960 - 1980 Bed 2: 106

Individual Access

DOUBLE

SKIP

Corridor Access

BAR

DUPLEX

DOUBLE

LOADED

DOUBLE

LOADED

Room Growth I Unit Design 144

Square Footages of Bedrooms over Time

Bathrooms Generally, bathrooms don’t significantly increase in size, but they do increase in quantity. We can see that there was a slight increase in size from the earliest phase to the second phase, but both average to be about 42 SF. However, when we reach the last phase, the square footages of individual bathrooms jump to 50 SF. When there are two bathrooms in one unit they tend to be smaller, and when there is one bathroom they tend to be larger.

6’-4”

4’-8”

5’-3”

4’-8”

4’-8”

Interlocking

Point Loaded

Corridor Access

1930-1960 40 SF

1960 - 1980 46 SF

CROSS and

BAR

LOADED

1980-Present 60 SF

Interlocking

LOADED

SINGLE LOADED

STOP

DUPLEX

DOUBLE

SKIP

BAR

SINGLE LOADED

Individual Access

DOUBLE

LOADED

Room Growth I Unit Design 146

SKIP

L

CROSS and

BAR

DOUBLE

Interlocking

L

CROSS and

6’-4”

7’-2”

7’-4”

L

Bathrooms Interlocking

Corridor Access

1930-1960 40 SF

1960 - 1980 46 SF

BAR

DOUBLE

Individual Access

SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

1980-Present 60 SF

Interlocking DOUBLE

BAR

DUPLEX SINGLE LOADED

LOADED

DOUBLE

STOP

CROSS and

SKIP

L

LOADED

DOUBLE

DUPLEX

DOUBLE

LOADED

STOP

LOADED

SKIP

DUPLEX SINGLE LOADED

DOUBLE

LOADED

SKIP

Point Loaded

CROSS and

STOP

L

Room Growth Through the years, both the units and the rooms have grown in size. This follows the market trends of our commodity culture and society’s need for material goods.

”

0 7’-

1

15

’-0

”

Point Loaded 1930-1960 Collection of household Goods

Room Growth I Unit Design 148

Corridor Access 1960-1980 Collection of Household Goods

2

1’

-6”

19

’-0

”

Individual Access 1980-Present Collection of Household Goods

2

5’

-6”

22

’-0

”

Room Growth I Unit Design 150

Sources Images: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/apr/22/immokalee-affordable-housing-project-fills-gives-f/ http://www.ncr.org/NewTowneVillage http://www.ihda.org/viewpage.aspx?pageid=44 http://www.ohio.com/news/cardinal-s-peak-1.37246?ot=akron.PhotoGalleryLayout.ot&s=1.181838 http://www.morganhilltimes.com/news/164722-making-morgan-hill-affordable http://photos.mlive.com/grandrapidspress/2011/08/moving_out_of_morton_house_apa_9.html http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/local/2011/10/11/18811501.html

Unit Design 152

EFFICIENCY Overview Site Building Unit Conclusion

Overview This section will compare and contrast the efficiency of four projects, located in the precedents section, that cover four separate time periods in public housing history. The analysis uses three different scales, site, building, and unit. Collection of data is compiled into a series of spreadsheets and then presented through charts and diagrams.

What will these findings tell us about public housing building efficiency and how it has evolved for better or worse over time?

A percentage for “poche” space is added to the total NASF. Poche space is the area needed for walls, mechanical, electrical and telephone equipment, wall thickness, and public toilets at the building level. Building efficiency is the ratio of NASF to gross square feet (GSF), the total area including the NASF and poche areas. Building efficiency equals NASF/GSF.

When calculating individual unit efficiency, the four surveyed plans are all two-bedroom and one bath units. You will notice that some space within an unit is considered circulation, even though it is not delineated with walls. We call this circulation “implied corridor.”

Each section has an accompanying graph with its key shaded across the array and highlighted in green for the focused scale.

The project is placed on the graph according to a ‘baseline’ derived from the averages of the selected projects plus two others from the precedent section in this book.

Calculating Efficiency, Why?

ABOVE

BASELINE F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS

NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

DOOR-SWINGS

An architect can plan for either a single-story building consuming the entire allowable area in one floor, or a multi-story building that rises higher above the plane of the land, but which must consequently result in a smaller footprint than would a single-story building of the same total floor area. By combining the horizontal and vertical limits into a single figure, some flexibility is permitted in building design, while achieving a hard limit on at least one measure of overall size.

One advantage to fixing this parameter, as opposed to others such as height, width, or length, is that floor area correlates well with other considerations relevant to zoning regulation, such as total parking that would be required for an office building, total number of units that might be available for residential use, total load on municipal services, etc. The amounts of these things tend to be constant for a given total floor area, regardless of how that area is distributed horizontally and vertically.

Thus, many jurisdictions have found it unnecessary to include hard height limitations when using floor area ratio calculations.

To determine the efficiency ratio of an existing plan this equation is used when the amount of affordable gross area, based on available funds, is known, and it is necessary to determine the maximum amount of net assignable area affordable. This is especially important in public housing and must be consistent with successful models. These buildings should be as efficient as possible, therefore the ratio should be higher than the typical market-rate housing development.

BELOW

Overview | Efficiency 156

S

Site Efficiency It should be noted that no two projects are ever BASELINE alike, even if the density or FAR are identical.

NO CORRIDOR LIVEABLE DOOR-SWINGS Buildings of equal FAR, for example, can have significant differences in appearance depending on the site, landscaping and architecture. The same is true of projects with an equal number of dwelling units per acre. ‘Building Coverage’ is simply all building footprints divided by the gross site SF.

R

EA Y

FAR

=

GROSS FLOOR AREA (SF) SITE AREA (SF

UNITS/ SITE ACRE (SF)

# OF UNITS SITE (SF)

BUILDING FOOTPRINT GROSS AREA BOUNDARY

BROMLEY HEATH

MISSION MAIN

BROMLEY HEATH

1.25

MAVERICK LANDING

STARRETT CITY

BOSTON, MA 1941

0.5

1.0

2.5

FAR

FAR

FAR

FAR

42

23

38

UNITS/ ACRE

UNITS/ ACRE

UNITS/ ACRE

20%

22%

7%

34%

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

ABOVE

44 UNITS/ ACRE

ABOVE

91%

91%

85%

89%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

1.2 F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

1.2 WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

1.6

LIVEABLE

DOOR-SWINGS

BASELINE

2.4

F.A.R.

FLOOR : SURFACE

FLOOR : SURFACE

NET : SURFACE

FLOOR : SURFACE

96

93

95

55

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

BELOW WINDOW : UGSF ABOVE

UNIT/ ACRE

BELOW WINDOW : UGSF Site | Efficiency 158 ABOVE

BLDG COV

BROMLEY HEATH

1.25

ABOVE

NE F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

STARRETT CITY

STARRETT CITY BROOKLYN, NY 1974

0.5

1.0

FAR

FAR

FAR

42

23

38

UNITS/ ACRE

UNITS/ ACRE

UNITS/ ACRE

20%

22%

7%

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

91%

91%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

1.2

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

MISSION MAIN

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

ABOVE

NET/ GROSS

1.2

1.6

BASELINE

LIVEABLE

DOOR-SWINGS

85%

FLOOR : SURFACE

FLOOR : SURFACE

96

93

BELOW

F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

NET : SURFACE

95 BELOW

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS

LINE

MISSION MAIN

STARRETT CITY

MISSION MAIN BOSTON, MA 1996

0.5

MAVERICK LANDING

1.0

2.5

FAR

FAR

FAR

23

38

UNITS/ ACRE

UNITS/ ACRE

22%

7%

34%

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

ABOVE

44

85%

89%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

1.6

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

2.4

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

FLOOR : SURFACE

NET : SURFACE

FLOOR : SURFACE

93

95

55

BELOW WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

ABOVE

F.

UNITS/ ACRE

91%

1.2

ABOVE

BELOW

ABOVE

BASELINE F.A.R.

DOOR-SWINGS

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

BELOW Site | Efficiency 160

NET/

BROMLEY HEATH

MAVERICK LANDING

1.25

BOSTON, MA 2006

ABOVE

F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

MISSION MAIN

0.5

FAR

FAR

42

23

UNITS/ ACRE

UNITS/ ACRE

20%

22%

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

91%

91%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

1.2

LIVEABLE

DOOR-SWINGS

BASELINE

1.2

FLOOR : SURFACE

FLOOR : SURFACE

96

93

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

BELOW

Site | Efficiency 162

Building Efficiency The Net/ Gross efficiency for the selected LIVEABLE NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR WIN : UNIT building floors only divides the liveable space which is all internal unit net square feet to the gross floor area. This calculation excludes all floor core, corridor and storage. The second percentage measures the gross floor area to the buildings perimeter surface area. The final calculation at this scale is a measure of windows per gross floor area; the higher the number, the more windows per unit per floor.

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

OR

E

OR

REA RY

BLDG

BASELINE DOOR-SWINGS

SITE BUILDING CORE LIVABLE SPACE STORAGE

POCHE ACTUAL CORRIDOR

BUILDING FOOTPRINT

GROSS AREA BOUNDARY

GROSS AREA BOUNDARY

BROMLEY HEATH

1.25

MISSION MAIN

STARRETT CITY

0.5

1.0

FAR

FAR

FAR

42

23

38

ABOVE

UNITS/ ACRE

F.A.R.

UNITS/ ACRE

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

BROMLEY HEATH

2.5

BOSTON, MA 1941

FAR

UNITS/ ACRE

WIN : UNIT

MAVERICK LANDING

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

44 BASELINE LIVEABLE

UNITS/ ACRE DOOR-SWINGS

20%

22%

7%

34%

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

91%

85%

89%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

BELOW

91%

ABOVE

NET/ GROSS

1.2

F.A.R.

1.2

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

1.6

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

2.4

FLOOR : SURFACE

FLOOR : SURFACE

NET : SURFACE

FLOOR : SURFACE

96

93

95

55

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

BELOW

BASELINE

DOOR-SWINGS

Building | Efficiency 164

BLDG COVERAGE

ABOVE

INE F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

STARRETT CITYABOVE

91%

91%

85%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

1.2

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

BROOKLYN, NY 1974

1.2

1.6

BASELINE

LIVEABLE

F.A.R.

DOOR-SWINGS

UNIT/ ACRE

FLOOR : SURFACE

FLOOR : SURFACE

NET : SURFACE

96

93

95

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

BELOW

BELOW

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS

WINDOW : UGSF

ABOVE

ABOVE

INE F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

95%

89%

92%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

90%

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

86%

88%

BASELINE

LIVEABLE

F.A.R.

DOOR-SWINGS

UNIT/ ACRE

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

85%

78%

82%

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

BELOW

BELOW

LIVEABLE SPACE

INE

INE

BLDG COVERAGE

91%

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

MISSION MAIN

85%

89%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

1.2

1.6

2.4

BOSTON, MA 1996

ABOVE

F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

FLOOR : SURFACE

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

NET : SURFACE

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

FLOOR : SURFACE

93

95

55

WINDOW : UGSF BELOW

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

89%

92%

84%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

ABOVE

86% F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

88%

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

81%

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

78%

82%

74%

BELOW LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

ABOVE

BASELINE DOOR-SWINGS

F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/

F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/

BELOW

ABOVE

BASELINE DOOR-SWINGS

BELOW

Building | Efficiency 166

ABOVE

F.A.R.

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

BLDG COVERAGE

91%

91%

85%

89%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

1.2 UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

FLOOR : SURFACE

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

1.6

BASELINE

DOOR-SWINGS

2.4

FLOOR : SURFACE

NET : SURFACE

FLOOR : SURFACE

96

93

95

55

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

95%

89%

92%

84%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

MAVERICK LANDING BOSTON, MA 2006

BELOW

1.2

ABOVE

F.A.R.

90% UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

86%

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

88%

DOOR-SWINGS

BASELINE

81%

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

85%

78%

82%

74%

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

BELOW

Building | Efficiency 168

Unit Efficiency At this scale, efficiency is measured through a series of subtractions from the overall internal Net/ Gross calculation. The ‘no corridors’ F.A.R. BLDG COVER NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR WIN : UNIT UNIT/ ACRE measurement subtracts the implied and actual corridors from all of the ‘leasable’ space.

The ‘liveable’ space percentage is simply all bedrooms, kitchen and baths Net/ Gross, without storage. The final calculation, ‘door swings,’ subtracts the square footage of any door swing into livable space. This net is then divided to the internal gross.

BASELINE NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

DOOR-SWINGS

BELOW

UNITS

BLDG

SITE

IMPLIED CORRIDOR

BUILDING CORE

LIVABLE SPACE

LIVABLE SPACE

STORAGE

STORAGE

POCHE

POCHE

ACTUAL CORRIDOR

ACTUAL CORRIDOR

BUILDING FOOTPRINT

GROSS AREA BOUNDARY

GROSS AREA BOUNDARY

GROSS AREA BOUNDARY

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

89%

92%

84%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

90%

86%

88%

81%

BROMLEY HEATH

BELOW

95%

BOSTON, MA 1941

ABOVE

F.A.R.

NO CORRIDORS

77%

BLDG COVER

NO CORRIDORS

85% LIVEABLE SPACE

UNIT/ ACRE

BELOW ABOVE

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

NO CORRIDORS

BASELINE

DOOR-SWINGS

NO CORRIDORS

78%

82%

74%

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

74%

76%

69%

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

BASELINE F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

DOOR-SWINGS

BELOW Unit | Efficiency 170

WINDOW : UGSF

BELOW

WINDOW : UGSF

STARRETT CITY

ABOVE

ELINE F.A.R.

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

BELOW

BROOKLYN, NY 1974

95%

89%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

90%

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

BELOW

ABOVE

92% NET/ GROSS

86%

88%

BASELINE

LIVEABLE

WINDOW : UGSF

F.A.R.

DOOR-SWINGS

UNIT/ ACRE

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

85%

78%

82%

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

BELOW

BLDG COVER

NET/ GRO

BLDG COVER

NET/ GRO

LIVEABLE SPACE

ABOVE

ABOVE

77%

74%

76%

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

ELINE BASELINE F.A.R.

BELOW

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

F.A.R.

DOOR-SWINGS

BELOW

UNIT/ ACRE

LIVEABLE

LIVEABLE

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

MISSION MAIN

BELOW

89%

BOSTON, MA ABOVE 1996

BEL

92%

84%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

86%

88%

81%

BASELINE

F.A.R.

DOOR-SWINGS

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

78%

82%

74%

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

BELOW

ABO

BASELINE NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

DOOR-SWINGS

BEL

74%

ABOVE

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

76%

69%

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

ABO

BASELINE

BASELINE

DOOR-SWINGS

F.A.R.

BELOW

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

DOOR-SWINGS

Unit | Efficiency 172

BEL

WINDOW : UGSF

BELOW

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

WINDOW : UGSF

MAVERICK LANDING

ABOVE

F.A.R.

BELOW

95%

89%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

90%

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

86%

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

BOSTON, MA 2006

92%

84%

NET/ GROSS

NET/ GROSS

88%

81%

BASELINE

LIVEABLE

DOOR-SWINGS

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

NO CORRIDORS

85%

78%

82%

74%

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

LIVEABLE SPACE

77%

74%

76%

69%

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

( - ) DOOR SWINGS

ABOVE

BASELINE F.A.R.

BELOW

UNIT/ ACRE

BLDG COVER

NET/ GROSS SURFACE : FLR

WIN : UNIT

NET/ GROSS NO CORRIDOR

LIVEABLE

DOOR-SWINGS

Conclusion Its has been noted that the allowable FAR has a major impact on the value of the land. So in turn, higher allowable FAR yields higher land value. We can see that Starrett City has the highest FAR because it consists of mostly 15-20 story buildings while the other projects are much smaller in scale at 3-7 stories. FAR, a poor predictor of physical form, should not be used when the objective is to conserve and enhance neighborhood character.

Whereas traditional design standards (height, lot coverage and setbacks or build-to lines) enable anyone to make reasonably accurate predictions, recognize violations, and feel secure in their investment decisions.

Assembled lots have a considerable advantage over individual lots, which has a negative effect on fine grained cities and the diversity of ownership.

At the building scale we can see a clear delineation based on building type. The two double-loaded corridor building floors yielded a lower Net/Gross ratio and happen to have a higher surface area to floor area ratio. Does this finding prove it to be a less efficient design? It might. Maverick Landing also offers the least amount of windows per gross floor area.

Bromley yielded the highest Net/ Gross on the unit scale. The actual corridor in this project is central to the plan with livable spaces surrounding it.

Conclusion | Efficiency 174

Sources Understanding Density and Floor Area Ratio, www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/PDS/.../density_floorarearatio.pdf Experiments in Public Housing, various Precedents Images: http://www.archdaily.com/109973/high-density-residential-building-solano-catalan-elena-saricu/

Efficiency 176

Section Management Title Building Operations Sub-Section & Management Topic 1 Sub-Section Cost & Assessment Topic 2 Crime Prevention Sub-Section & Security Topic 3

Section 178

Building Operations and management The management of affordable housing encompasses a variety of tasks initializing with design development and continuing through the long-term habitation of the building. As the Boston Housing Authority suggests, a managing party must: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Provide stable, quality affordable housing for low and moderate income persons; Deliver these services with integrity and mutual accountability. Create living environments which serve as a catalysts for the transformation from dependency to economic self-sufficiency.â&#x20AC;? These requirements are provided through a variety of management types including: .

- Self management .

- Fee management .

- Cooperative management When commencing the design process, the designer must address the management type, as it will inform the allowable costs as well as the programmatic necessity for additional office and/or maintenance program on-site.

Fee-management is the most frequently used management style; as it allows large companies to run efficiently, do to a higher volume of housing units and properties.

Through a consolidation of management activities, private companies are able to provide cost-effective management of housing infrastructure. This being said, some residents prefer to be self managed [i.e. Tent City, Boston], as it gives the residents more control within the decision-making process while also localizing social program opportunities.

Although this type of management tends to be

less cost effective then private management, this approach is valuable in its ability to appease large groups of residents in a democratic way. Regardless of management type, managed properties require the same attentiveness to detail and prompt service.

Another key aspect of building management is frequent maintenance, which keeps the building functioning and performing the way it did when it was originally constructed.

Maintenance requires attention to detail in the initial design phases as well as rapid response during building habitation. During the design process frequent meetings are held between the contractor, architect and management staff to flesh out problematic areas of the design and come to functional design solutions. Since maintenance is a continual process over the lifetime of the project, it is advantageous to plan long term to save additional costs in the future. Building maintenance is of the utmost importance, as it must happen before management can provide additional services to residents. Although some maintenance issues are not perceived until after the building is completed, the fewer problems the better.

The design team and management staff have the ability to prevent the majority of building issues, if they thoroughly understand them.

Within this section the following building operations issues will be discussed: .

- Curb Appeal .

- Chronic Issues .

- Winter, Water and Teenagers .

- Expert Interviews Verbatim

curb Appeal as catalyst Positive design outcomes are not just about financial stability or housing the largest number of people, but are also about providing a positive and stable quality of life. Catalysts for these types of outcomes are primarily shaped by the buildings designer and thus lie in the realm of architecture. To design affordable housing that is easily managed, the most emphasis should be applied to curb appeal.

Curb appeal is the first priority of the designer and developer at the onset of a project, as it produces a property that is easier to maintain over the long term. By designing a building that incorporates interesting and varied public greenscapes, various urban implementations and localized community spaces, public and affordable housing can effectively blend with current housing stock. This blending creates an environment that is no different than its surrounding context, thus preventing negative stigmas and localized crime.

A property that has lower crime and is not perceived as public or affordable housing becomes one that is easier to maintain and allows those managing to focus more on improving the resident experience. The upfront cost of architectural and landscape implementations has the ability to improve the properties value, while also improving its ability to serve as a catalyst for improved social cohesiveness. Curb appeal is important in any project, especially in family housing, and can be improved though the addition of park space, playgrounds, landscaping, community centers and visual vistas.

Building operations & Management i Management 180

chronic issues Through conversations with various subject experts, a series of chronic issues were brought forward; that have plagued public and affordable housing durability in the past.

Due to their detrimental impact these chronic issues should be addressed in all current and future public and affordable housing developments to prevent compromised construction. These chronic issues are primarily due to the tight budget constraints associated with these types of projects, stemming from designer and contractor cost cutting. Although not all chronic issues are related to poor design and construction techniques, the vast majority of them fall within this realm. Through a thorough understanding of buildings materials and past chronic issues, a designer can make educated decisions on the implementation of particular materials.

To remedy some of these concerns, public and affordable housing projects, within the Boston context, have been employing particular materials consistently. Affordable housing frequently employs vinyl, modern brick veneer or hardi-plank siding to solve envelope and moisture concerns; As well as wood or aluminum frame construction for interior partitions and exterior structural conditions to maximize future adaptability. Although each material has various positive and negative attributes, it is important to balance the overall performance of a material with its cost and aesthetic desirability.

The following chronic issues discussed are: - Brick Veneer Construction - Concrete Masonry Unit Construction - Cavity Structural Brick Construction

chronic issue: Brick Veneer Exterior envelopes in mid-rise buildings built before the 1980â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s utilized brick veneer that was not fully understood at the time, leading to chronic moisture issues. Although the majority of these buildings were built codecompliant, the reality was that many of the requirements were improbable to meet. Brick veneer construction acts in a similar way to the exterior brick face of structural brick construction, in that it sheds precipitation on the exterior. Moisture that makes it through the brick veneer, reaches a one-inch minimum cavity condition, which under optimal conditions would allow moisture to evacuate the cavity through weep holes at the base.

Various brick ties bridge the one-inch gap to attach the veneer to the wall sheathing that is often exposure-one plywood infrequently covered in a weather resistant membrane.

It turns out that this code required one-inch gap is difficult to acquire due to the accumulation of mortar droppings on top of the brick ties, as well as the accumulation of construction debris within the cavity. This compromised gap produces liquid water bridging to the interior face, which by code is only required to prevent water vapor, not standing water from passing through. This transmission of precipitation from exterior to interior causes various interior wall cavity issues, including but not limited to: - Mold - Structural Damage - Wall Tie Corrosion - Interior Gypsum Damage - Veneer Separation Building operations & Management i Management 182

chronic issue: concrete Masonry unit Concrete masonry unit [CMU] construction is often utilized in residential foundations and frequently in above ground applications in southern climates. CMU construction when used in structural applications is limited by its seismic and wind intolerance, as well as its approximately 35 foot height constraints.

Bearing walls are also required to be at a minimum, six-inch solid CMU or eight-inch hollow CMU construction, and when above a single story, vertical rebar is required every 32 inches on center. These limitations are also coupled with frequent CMU cracking and the difficulty of moisture and acoustic control.

These issues have the potential to cause expensive and time-consuming management considerations over the long term.

Although original construction costs are often much lower then other building types, many issues during building modernization renovations and/or reconfiguration arise, causing increased costs. When renovating a CMU constructed building that utilizes vertical rebar, extra time and care must be used to remove and redistribute partitions.

Interior partitions also require additional furring strips or narrow stud walls to provide gypsum surfaces [and electrical and service connections], bringing the total wall thickness far above that of a typical wood framed structure.

Issues associated with CMU construction include but not limited to: - Large Wall Thickness - Moisture and Acoustic Transmission - Difficulty of Renovation

chronic issue: cavity Structural Brick Brick construction has been used by builders for thousands of years, but in the last few hundred a switch has been made to cavity wall brick construction that under ideal circumstances provides a watertight building envelope. Unlike conventional brick construction, cavity brick construction provides two parallel brick structural walls with a one-inch minimum cavity condition, which under optimal conditions would allow moisture to evacuate the cavity through weep holes at the base. Various brick ties bridge the one-inch gap to attach the exterior brick wall condition to the interior brick wall condition. Much like the brick veneer wall condition [mentioned previously], this water evacuation gap is difficult to acquire due to the accumulation of mortar droppings on top of the brick ties, as well as the accumulation of construction debris within the cavity. Standing water created by these obstructions is allowed to penetrate into the interior causing similar brick veneer problems [i.e. mold and rot].

This water penetration also causes the expulsion of mortar efflorescence, which is the release of mineral compounds onto the face of the brick. Brick efflorescence, although aesthetically displeasing isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t damaging itself, but is the precursor to greater problems such as Brick spalling or cracking. Brick spalling is the destruction of a bricks surface via freeze/ thaw cycles, which compromises its structural integrity. This transmission of moisture from cavity to exterior causes: - Mortar Efflorescence - Brick Spalling and Cracking Building operations & Management i Management 184

Maintenance: Winter When the temperature dips below freezing, there are many dangerous and problematic issues that face a building manager.

The most important issues to focus on are: - Shoveling of Walkways - Frozen Pipes and Utilities - Roof Ice Damming - Icicles and Roof Avalanches

Maintenance: Water Water damage is perhaps the most damaging of any maintenance issue. Moisture and standing water can ruin interior finishes, wall components and occupant belongings.

The most important issues to focus on are: - Proper Site Drainage - Adequate Gutter System - Parking Lot and Plaza Drainage

Maintenance: teenagers Most affordable housing is designated for family use, and thus is more expensive to maintain then typical housing. This additional expense is due to higher maintenance costs within households with one or more teenagers.

The most important issues to focus on are: - Gypsum Damage - Door Stops or Bumpers

Expert Interviews Verbatim “What do you think is the most important focus of designing affordable housing?”

- “Quality design with the intended user in mind, and long-range focus on the quality of the asset.”

- “Understanding the needs of residents and management staff.”

“What issues pose the most concern when managing a project?”

- “This depends greatly on the project and the location. In general, energy efficiency, security, marketability, and curb appeal.”

- “Understanding conditions of the project.

Personal safety, building deficiencies for example. The things that affect the day-to-day lives of the tenants.”

“What role does maintenance play in day-to-day management?” .- “Maintenance issues are central to providing stable, quality housing.”

- “It is the first thing that must happen, before anything else can be done properly.”

- “Winter. Water. Teenagers.”

“How much does damage or neglect play into future material choices?” .- “Central to our process, we meet with maintenance staff and often do a review of work orders to better understand how and where materials have failed in earlier design efforts.”

- “I think the industry has been through enough cycles now to consistently incorporate durable and energy efficient materials to the greatest extent possible.”

“Are there particular strategies that have proven to be unsuccessful?”

- “Typically the desire to rush toward a design solution, as in developing plans in response to ‘shovel ready’ initiatives, have been less successful than those which have had time to be thoughtfully considered.”

- “Self-management. The subsidized housing world is too regulated to have a small management company succeed and be efficient, particularly in Boston.”

“What role does unit occupant type play in building durability?” .- “Rental housing, particularly family subsidized housing, is subjected to considerable heavy use, sometimes abuse, and it must be factored into the design and material replacement reserves.”

“Are there chronic problems that face maintenance and durability?”

- “Exterior envelopes of mid-rise buildings typically constructed before 1980, when veneer masonry design was less well understood. Before 1950 for low-rise buildings when solid masonry was used. Both have been problematic.”

“Is Public or private management more or less efficient?” .- “Privately managed projects have different labor costs than our publicly managed projects, so many efficiencies may be possible.”

- “There seems to remain quite a bit of waste in the public housing operations system.”

“What role does durability play in initial design?” .- “For family housing, it is extremely important.

Materials are selected for their durability whenever possible, although sometimes we can’t afford the best.”

- “It’s very important. These issues are built into our design contracts as requirements for building specifications.”

“How do tasks such as trash collection or laundry influence design decisions?” .- “These are very influential for our modernization projects and less influential for more modest capital improvement projects.”

“Are there any management strategies that prove more helpful then others?”

- “Private ownership coupled with HOPE VI status, provides some relief from public housing tenant selection procedures and income qualifying levels resulting in a somewhat more economically diverse community.”

“How much does cost factor into management strategies?” .- “Affordable housing projects are resource constrained, so cost matters both in terms of initial costs and operational cost down the line post occupancy.”

- “Overall management costs are very, very important, from maintenance to utilities.”

Building Operations & Management I Management 186

Occupant Type Considerations Occupant type plays a large role in overall building durability, maintenance and management; due to the heavy use [and abuse] of family subsidized housing. Within the realm of affordable housing, the majority of the demand is for family housing [i.e. units larger then one bedroom], causing a disagreement between market demand and ideal developer supply. This discrepancy in market supply and market demand, relates directly to the relationship between the two primary entities in affordable housing: - The Funder [government entity] - The Developer [private entity] The entity funding a project wants to provide the needs of the low to moderate income residents, which in most cases [including Boston] suggests a higher rate of family housing. Larger three and four-bedroom units are necessary to meet the demands of housing large families, and thus funders often require these within a project. Although these needs are not always the most cost effective solution, they are a necessity.

Housing for families with children, tend to require the most unit maintenance. Thus buildings with large family rental units should provide additional funds within a projects replacement reserve. This fact deters project developers, as larger units create fund deficiencies in relation to other unit types.

Smaller units with no children require the least maintenance, and are the most cost effective.

With these ideas in mind, unit diversity is not only a way to satisfy market demand, but also a way to subsidies large family unit maintenance requirements.

4

3

4

1

1

Affordable Funder Ideal

Affordable Developer Ideal

4 4

3 3

3

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.1 2

2 2

2

3 2.6 2

1 1

1

1

S

1 S

Affordable Funder Ideal

Affordable Developer Ideal

Affordable Boston Actual

Housing Boston Actual

Housing U.S. Actual

4 Supply and Demand: 4 Funder vs. Developer

Supply and Demand: Local Variation

3 The relationship between the developer and funder is mitigated by the architect or designer.

2.1 The primary focus of affordable housing should always 3be to provide housing for those in need; but the inclusion of market 2.6 to make a project 2 rate units may be necessary viable. It is the architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role to provide a feasible project that meets the needs of the funding agent as well as2 the developing agent.

Regions and cities have drastically different localized market variation. The architect must work with project entities to acknowledge this variation and find the optimal solution.

Thorough understanding of local housing markets can aid the proper allocation of unit types within a specific community. It is the architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role to provide unit variation that meets the needs of the community.

1

1

1

Afforda Bosto Actu

Building Operations & Management I Management 188

Cost and Assessment In order to provide a sufficient quantity of affordable housing units, while at the same time providing quality unit environments, building cost assessments must be made to maximize the overall project success. Before building design commences, a site must be picked that acknowledges cost restraints, while also balancing the need to provide easy access to locations of commerce, employment and education. Access to these programs, provides the ability for residents of affordable housing to easily access the citiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; amenities. Along with these adjacent programs, the site must provide easy access to transportation infrastructure, such as subway stations, bus stops or automobile parking. An ease of transportation will allow residents to find work, and thus elevate low-income residents from poverty.

After a site has been picked acknowledging location and transportation, density must be assessed to provide a balance of unit quantity with unit size and access to green and public space. These three topics must be addressed, before the designer can even begin designing a physical building.

If possible, the designer should be involved at the site selection phase, to guarantee the best possible location for a future affordable housing project. Although many inner cities have few sites that are within the reach of low budget affordable housing projects, investigating all possible locations will assure a projects success. These evaluations although not specific to affordable housing impact this residential type to a greater

degree, due to opposing forces within the selection of a site. Even though overall cost plays a large part in site selection, a lower cost building placed in a more expensive and ideal site can harbor greater socioeconomic outcomes for its residents. This rational is the complete opposite of past affordable housing procedures, in that old sites were often chosen for their cheapness rather then their ability to empower residents.

The quantity versus quality argument is one that plagues the ideology of affordable housing, and is best noted in past affordable housing high-rise units. Although a large number of units were supplied, there overall effectiveness on stability and/or upward mobility was non-existent. These inhospitable buildings were eventually torn down, representing not only failed policies and design, but also an utter lack of location, transportation or density assessments. Contemporary solutions to affordable housing although more expensive in hard construction costs, are much more successful in aiding their residents to become stable and provide needed services.

A balance must be struck between cost, location, transportation and density, which harbor a positive and stable environment for its residents. Due to funding deficiencies, affordable housing needs proper cost assessments, which will be discussed in depth.

The most important issues to focus on are: .

-Location Assessments .

-Transportation Assessments .

-Density Assessments

5 e walk nut mi

Location poses an extremely problematic issue, as affordable housing by nature wants to be located near urban centers, commercial [c] employment [e] and academic amenities [a].

Due to the high cost of land it is often difficult to find a quality site within a projects budget restraints. Finding a site that falls within these cost constraints, while also providing easy access to amenities and employment opportunities is the most difficult portion of the pre-design phase. Successful projects should find equilibrium between the least costly site, and best possible location. Building location is also problematic in urban context where land is often only available under three pretenses: - City-Owned Disposition - “Un” Developable - Inclusionary Zoning Land owned by the municipality has potential depending on the properties location. A developer, at lower then market rate, can acquire City land as long as affordable housing is maintained. Land with no market value, although typically the largest quantity of available land, is generally unfit for affordable housing developments. This land with no market rate is typically located on the fringe away from job and urban centers putting residents in a state of perpetual poverty. Land acquired with the intent of mixed income development is typically located in ideal locations, as market rate units “subsidize” the overall cost. Proximity to employment and amenity hubs often depends on a balance of market-rate and affordable housing stock.

walk ute min 10

location Assessment

+

c

e c

Best Place

e

c

e

e c

e

a c a

c

c

e

e

c

e

a

c

a

e e

e

c

c

a

c

c

c

Least Cost

-

e

e cost & Assessment i Management 190

te inu 2m

transportation Assessment

walk +

b b

Best Place

b p b s p

b

p

b b

p

p

p

s

p p

b b b b

Least Cost

b

b p s b

-

Transportation is also an extremely important concept when discussing affordable housing.

With the need to travel to employment opportunities, public transportation or automobile infrastructure becomes necessary to provide a catalyst for residents to change from dependency to self-sufficiency. Through the development of a site, automobile parking [p], bus transit [b] and subway transit [s] should be utilized to provide maximum mobility to residents. Although vacant sites located adjacent to transit corridors do not appear in many urban contexts, projects that due locate such a property should anticipate extra land costs. Public transit adjacent properties may have additional costs, but compared to the cost of building and maintaining parking infrastructure, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comparatively minor. When analyzing transportation with regards to site selection, it is extremly important to address the following transportation topics: - Overall Convenience - Variety of service - Variety of destinations Affordable housing that only utilize automobile infrastructure has a tendency of burdening residents, as automobile ownership adds additional costs to residents already marginalized by economic hardship. If property with transit connectivity is unavailable, consider the potential of rerouting existing transit routes to tie into the project. When selecting a site, adjacent transportation infrastructure increases the overall success of the project, regardless of added costs.

density Assessment Density within neighborhood contexts has been linked to the creation of tight knit communities within affordable housing. Density has also been viewed in a negative light, in previous affordable housing conditions where density lead to concentrated poverty and the decline of neighborhoods. Striking the precise balance of density, allows the designer to create a safe and comfortable environment for the residents, while maintaining cost efficiency standards for the developer. Maintaining public space and utilizing low-density [l], medium-density [m] and high-density [h] buildings, creates a varied and comfortable neighborhood that serves as a catalyst for increases socioeconomic status.

A mixture of greenscape and hardscape also aids generally in the other missions of affordable housing, through a combination of varied exterior spaces. Although oversized units and expanses of open exterior spaces do produce comfortable living environments, unit inefficiency, due to low-density, also has negative attributes as this adds to overall project costs. When analyzing density, it is important to apply emphasis to: - Variety of Density - Variety of Exterior Spaces - Respect Existing Density When designing affordable housing, proper density can provide a cohesive and communal environment that instills residents with a sense of place and neighborhood. Affordable housing that encourages communal activities and sense of community leads to a successful and easily maintained housing development.

+ Best Place

Least Cost

m m m m m m m m l m m m l m m m l m l l h l h m h h m l m h h h l m h l h m h l l h m h l h m h l l h h m h h h h m m m m m m m m l

l

l

l

l

h h hh l

h h

l

l

-

l cost & Assessment i Management 192

Crime prevention and security Security is one of the primary problems for public housing. For many years, policy makers and architects have tried to find solutions to these problems.

However, these problems are very hard to eradicate this situation, but architects have found some ways to reduce crime. These ways which emphasize the proper design and effective use of a created environment are called â&#x20AC;&#x153;Crime Prevention through Environmental Designâ&#x20AC;? (CPTED).

Where are the crime prone areas?

3 1

2 1

Parking place. Parked cars provide hiding places and make the dark areas. Moreover, most parking places are open to public.

2

Dense vegetation area. Dense vegetation will block the line of sight, criminals can easily hide in these area.

4

3

End of the road are always be a dark zone and has few surveillance.

4

Open areas. In these areas, when a crime event occurs, the victim often can not find any help from others. crime Prevention and Security | Management 194

cause of Public Housing crime Lack of social organization, social cohesion, and informal social control.

Lack of proprietary interests and territoriality among residents.

Social features

Lack of adequately trained, culturally sensitive personnel.

Lack of social service programs to address social service problems of residents.

Lack of supervision and organized activity for youth.

Lack of employment opportunities for residents.

Cause of Public Housing Crime Lack of surveillance.

Lack of adequate locks, door and window frames, alarms, etc.

Physical features

Lack of access control.

Lack of clearly defined areas and physical facilities.

Conflicting uses of public housing grounds.

Lack of adequate circulation patterns and transportation services and facilities.

We architects can reduce/prevent thesefeature. problems.

We architects can reduce/prevent these

Crime Prevent through Environmental Design Access Control

Locate gathering areas in places with natural surveillance and access control and away from the view of potential offenders.

Natural Surveillance

Crime Prevent through Environmental Design There are many places in public housing communities that crime event will occur.

However, most places, where crime events occur, can be transformed into safety areas through the environmental design. The cause of public housing crime is separated into two parts, social and physical feature. For physical part, this is the part that we architects can improve. The lack of surveillance, the lack of access control, the lack of clearly defined access and physical facilities, etc, these things will be better if we make a better environmental design.

Place safe activities in unsafe locations and unsafe activities in safe locations.

Provide natural barriers to conflicting activities

Provide natural barriers to conflicting activities.

Territorial Behavior

Provide a clear border definition of controlled place.

Provide a clearly marked transition from public to semi public to private space.

Crime Prevention and Security | Management 196

Access control Access control uses doors, shrubs, fences, gates, and other physical design elements to discourage access to an area by all but its intended users.

entrance

occupants non-occupants The entrance area is protected from intruders.

example: lenox

natural Surveillance

1

The possible observer will reduce the criminal activity.

Surveillance is achieved by placing windows in locations that allow intended users to see or be seen while ensuring that intruders will be observed as well. ?

?

This parking area is observed by residents.

1

100 Windows on the edges

davenport commons

example: camfield gardens crime Prevention and Security | Management 198

territorial Behavior Territory is defined by sidewalks, landscaping, porches, and other elements that establish the boundaries between public and private areas.

The green area between sidewalk and landscape makes a separation between public and semi-private areas.

The fence is used to establish the boundary of private area

Private

Public

Landscapes and fences establish a clear boundary between public and private area.

example: tent city

three Strategies for Providing Access control and Surveillance Natural strategies. Safety and security are provided through the design and layout of space, the location of windows, etc.

1

Natural strategies have low human and capital resource requirements.

Organized strategies. Security guards or police provide surveillance and access control but are labor-intensive and

2

expensive.

Mechanical strategies. Capital- or hardware-intensive security (e.g., alarms, cameras) provides access control and surveillance.

3

Tips: Where we need to put a camera â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

Out of the way places.

The place where hiring a guard is too expansive.

crime Prevention and Security | Management 200

Case Study Here is a map showing the crime reports happened in Roxbury area during the past six months. Each dot means a crime report. Most crime reports were happened around public housing community. But in Lenox, most crime reports were inside the community area.

= 1 Crime Report

Crime Report of Roxbury Area from April to October 2011

Case Study

Lenox

Madison Park

Orchard Garden Crime Prevention and Security | Management 202

How CPTED Strategies Works Through the over all data, CPTED strategies are working well. Tent City and Camfield Gardens which are using all three strategies did have fewer crime report than the other two examples. However, Tent City is mixedincome public housing. So, the resident who lives in public housing also can be a factor that influence the crime rate.

Tent City

Lenox Camfield Gardens

Camfield Gardens

Access Control Yes Yes

Natural Surveillance Territorial Behavior No Only Entrance Parking Place Parking Place

Madison Park Orchard Garden

Yes Yes

No Yes

Yes No

Tent City

Yes

Yes

Yes

CPTED in Parking Area The major place where has most crime reports is the parking place. Here are two examples, Lenox and Camfield Gardens. They are neighboring communities. But the number of crime reports are completely different. The different is that Lenoxâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s parking area is a public place, and none of CPTED strategies are used for design its parking place. However, Camfield Gardens uses CPTED strategies to make parking place to be a semi-private place. That reduces the likelihood of crime.

However, for some parking places only using the CPTED strategies as a passive system is

Lenox

not enough. Some active systems, like panic buttons, intercoms, sound surveillance, and CCTV can also be the enhancements to parking place.

Camfield Gardens

Crime Prevention and Security | Management 204

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

BHA 2011. “Boston Housing Authority.” http://bostonhousing.org Crowe, Timothy and Diane Zahm. “Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.” Land Development: 394:22-27.

Diaz, Marc 2004. “Assessing Property Management for Affordable Housing.” NeighborWorks: 804:1-45.

Hodgin, Derek A. 2008. “Problems with Code-Compliant Brick Veneer in Residential Construction.” Interface: 908:7-13.

HUD 2011. “U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.” http://portal.hud.gov Lund, Eric 1998. “Building Concrete Masonry Homes: Design and Construction Issues.” U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development:1-43.

Smith, St. John. Interview. Boston Housing Authority. October 25, 2011.

Tanner, Russell. Interview. Madison Park Development Corporation. October 24, 2011.

Images: Bing 2011. “Bing Maps.” http://www.bing.com/maps Google 2011. “Google Maps.” http://www.maps.google.com FLW Preservation Trust 2011. “Restoration Project.” http://www.gowright.com Utile 2011. “Lower Roxbury Housing Study.” The American City Coalition.

Management 206

FINANCING Pro-formas and Prediction

pro-formas and prediction Learning From a Pro-Forma Financing a housing project begins with a pro-forma, a budget that tries to predict costs and funds during the development of a project, as well as incomes and expenses after the project is built. It is a way to anticipate how big a project can be and what the major obstacles are. We will look at subsidized housing (privately owned) since it is more common than public housing today.

Subsidized housing begins with a land and sometimes building acquisition. The bank offers to loan a certain amount of cash up front to acquire land and cover construction costs, and in exchange the developer pays interest on the loan. Once the development phase is completed and the project is occupied, the loan converts to a permanent amortizing loan.

More funding for the project is acquired via equity, tax credits and government subsidies.

Investors can pay cash up front for a long term tax credit (an incentive from the government for investing in affordable housing) and the developer gets cash up front to help cover development costs.

After land acquisition and funding, the pro-forma looks at all the hard costs (construction) and soft costs (everything else) involved in the project. Hard costs include calculations for materials and construction labor and generally comprise the bulk of expenses (outside of acquisition) in a new development. Soft costs include fees for

various parties. Architects and engineers typically are paid 4-6% of total hard costs.

Surveyors, environmental engineers, and clerk of the works are other important costs on the design side. Legal fees, taxes, marketing, insurance, appraisals, construction loan interest and loan fees are other important soft costs. Finally, a contingency must be set in place for each of these parties, to prepare for any unforeseen costs (to cover a margin of error).

The pro-forma also tries to predict the financing that comes after a project is built, the operating costs and incomes. Sources of income include tenant rent, parking fees and any commercial rent that may be in a project.

Expenses include utilities, maintenance, janitors and other operating costs. Net Operating Income (NOI) is the final calculation of these costs and determines how much the owner may be able to borrow.

part of a sample pro-forma.

Pro-formas and Prediction | Financing 210

The Pro Forma, Visualized

Pre-occupancy (Development) Funding: $10,415,685 Costs: $10,415,685

“The pro forma is a reality check for the schematic design of the project” - David Koven

$200,000 Developer’s Equity

$5,928,000 Tax Credit Equity

$150,000 Public Equity

+

Funding

-

Costs

$952,000 Land Aquisition • Land permits

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Example numbers from sample pro-forma

$6,263,000 Hard Costs (Construction): • Materials • Labor

$2,665,000 Subordinate Debt

$1,472,000 Permanent Debt

$3,199,000 Soft Costs (Everything else): • Architect (4-6% of construction cost) • Surveyor • Environmental Engineer • Lawyer • Marketing • Taxes • Insurance • Appraisal • Construction Loan Interest • Loan Fees • Contingencies • etc.

Post-occupancy (Operation) Rate of Growth of Net Operating Income

$430,000 1st Year Operating Income • Tenant Rent • Parking Fees • Commercial Rent

$639,000 21st Year Operating Income • Tenant Rent • Parking Fees • Commercial Rent

Year 1

Year 21

$116,000 1st Year Loan Payment

$281,000 1st Year Operating Expenses • Maintanance • Janitors • etc.

$116,000 21st Year Loan Payment

$501,000 21st Year Operating Expenses • Loan interest • Maintanance • Janitors • etc.

Pro-formas and Prediction | Financing 212

Sources Koven,Daniel. Interview. Financing + Proforma Expert. October 24, 2011.

Financing 214