Mass Modular

School of Architecture Northeastern University 151 Ryder Hall 360 Huntington Ave Boston, MA 02115 http://www.northeastern.edu/camd/architecture/ 617.373.8589 Copyright Š 2017 School of Architecture Northeastern University The texts and images included in this booklet are intended for academic purposes only. No parts of this bookelet may be copied, reproduced, replublished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way for commercial purposes.

2

Northeastern University School of Architecture ARCH 7130 Master’s Research Studio

Ed. by Ivan Rupnik with contributions from Arthur Campbell, Bruno Dariu, Khalil Farhat, Ariella Fishkin, Andrew Giannino-Curtis, Nicole Radice, Charif Tabet, Saurabh Vashist, Jennifer Vasington and Fredrik Viklund.

3

4

RESEARCHING MODULAR HOUSING DELIVERY AT NU For the last six years, modular housing has been a research topic at Northeastern University’s School of Architecture, carried out through a series of research projects, courses and symposia organized by Prof. Ivan Rupnik, in collaboration with several faculty, graduate students and experts in the field. Prof. Rupnik’s doctoral work at Harvard University focused on the transfer and translation of instruments of planning and management from industrial engineering to architectural projection during the first half of the twentieth century. Using that research as a foundation, Rupnik organized a major symposium on industrialized housing delivery in 2010, titled Home Work. That symposium brought together a varied group of scholars, practitioners and thought leaders to assess the current state of “prefab” in the North American context after what one symposium participant, Dwell's Karrie Jacobs, referred to as the “prefab decade”. That symposium concluded that modular construction was a valid and still relatively unknown topic of academic research, leading to a series of yearlong graduate research studios.

The first in the series of research studios, titled “Home Work” (2010-11), examined the modular industry in relation to other forms of industrialized housing delivery.

Through this comparative approach, the specificities of modular construction began to emerge, defining a series of new research questions. Where had the modular industry come from? How large was the industry, in terms of market share and facilities? What was the role of the architect in this new industrial ecology? The second in this series, “Mass. Production” (2014-15), focused entirely on modular construction, using three broad areas of focus to structure the research; first, a team of graduate students attempted to map the modular industry, in terms of market share and in terms of the geographical distribution of facilities; second, three architectural practices with innovative, but

differing approaches to the modular industry were chosen for closer examination; they included Res 4, based in New York City, Connect Homes, based in Los Angeles and Onion Flats, based in Philadelphia. Third, a team of students examined the current climate in Greater Boston in relation to modular construction. Through this research two new research foci emerged; it became clear that modular construction was evolving from a system developed around single family housing to one that was now being applied to multi-unit housing; it also became clear that in addition to architects, other disciplines and interest groups, from municipal governments to non-governmental organizations were directly influencing the development of modular construction. Significant feedback on this initial research from experts, including Gordon Stott and Jared Levy of Connect Homes, Joe Tanney and Robetr Luntz of Res 4, Bill Feduchak and the whole team at Simplex Homes, Peter Rose of Peter Rose + Partners, and Prof. Ryan Smith of the University of Utah helped further refine the future scope of this research. Important insight into the socio-political context of modular construction in the Greater Boston area was provided by Prof. Barry Bluestone, the founding Director of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University.

Prof. Bluestone was directly involved in the framing of the third installment of this series, “Mass. Modular” (2016-2017), with the focus of assessing the current state of the modular industry in the northeastern United States to assess how modular construction could better be utilized to address Boston’s current housing needs. “Mass. Modular” is organized around four broad topics, the continued mapping of the industrial ecology of modular production in the northeastern United States, the logics of fabrication and assembly of modular multi-unit urban housing, the formation of coalitions organized to promote modular housing construction and finally the identification of initiatives and

indicators in the greater Boston area that relate to modular construction. The 2016-2017 team has benefited from the network of experts, methodologies and the existing body of research, answering many existing research questions and developing new directions for further investigation.

In “Modular Ecologies”, publicly available data on the location and scale of operation of modular fabricators in the northeast has been mapped in order to understand the spatial and temporal relationship of the industry to its new market, urban housing in cities like Washington D. C., Philadelphia, New York City and Boston. Philadelphia’s unique position in the center of the ecology helps explain why that city has seen a significant number of modular projects in the last decade. On the other hand, New York City provides an interesting case study in the feasibility of modular facilities in an urban area.

The “Modular Factory” chapter continues research begun in “Mass. Production” (2014-15) through the analysis of three facilities, Simplex Homes, located in the modular cluster of central PA and focusing primarily on Type V construction, Deluxe Homes, also located in PA but focused primarily on Type II construction, and finally Capsys, also focused on Type II construction but based in the dense urban area of Brooklyn, NY. These three case studies are further contextualized through a series of charts that relate them to a range of facilities in the northeast.

“Urban Modular” explores the expansion of modular construction into urban multi-unit housing. The analysis begins with a study of a typical modular project in Boston before turning to four pilot projects, three in New York City and one in Los Angeles, experiments that provide insight into the future of this building system. A consistent mode of analysis across all five projects allows the reader to assess the work in a novel way. This analysis shows the importance of the early involvement of the architect in the modular process as well as the challenges for onsite coordination in

offsite construction posed by urban sites. In all the cases, a permitting process out of sync with the logics of industrialized housing delivery also hinders the efficiency of modular construction. In “Modular Dimensions” a series of cases studies are used to analyze the dimensional relationships between the housing unit and modular unit. Projects are drawn from North America, Europe and Australia. Special focus is given to micro unit projects, where the module of construction and habitation are often one and the same.

“Modular Coalitions” explores a series of constellations of private and public entities formed around the introduction of modular construction into various urban contexts, including Los Angeles, New York City, Boston and Philadelphia. Whereas Operation Breakthrough, HUD’s initiative to introduce modular construction into the United States between 1969 and 1974, sought to change the construction industry from the top down, these coalitions suggest that a new model is emerging, one that aligns the advantages of modular construction with a myriad of other goals, with diverse groups working from the bottom up, albeit often with more indirect support from HUD. A consistent mode of analysis and representation affords the reader a new understanding of seemingly disparate case studies.

Working from insights garnered from the “Modular Coalitions” chapter as well as from input from Prof. Bluestone and others, the “Indicators and Initiatives” chapters examines indicators and initiatives in the Greater Boston areas to assess the viability of a new modular facility in or near the city. A survey of the permitted projects in the city of Boston for 2016 suggests that a significant portion of the housing being constructed could be modular. Initiatives like the Millennial Village proposal, advocated for by the Dukakis Center, and new Bylaws encouraging the construction of accessory dwelling units could also provide steady demand for modular construction.

5

6

01

Andrew Curtis

02

Nicole Radice, Andrew Curtis

03

Khalil Farhat, Saurabh Vashist

04

Charif Tabet

05

Art Cambell and Ariella Fishkin

06

Jennifer Vassington, Bruno Dariu, Fredrik Viklund

MODULAR ECOLOGIES

THE MODULAR FACTORY

URBAN MODULAR

MODULAR DIMENSIONS

MODULAR COALITIONS

INDICATORS & INITIATIVES

7

8

MODULAR ECOLOGIES While initial inspection would tell the average viewer that the proximity and prevalence of manufacturers are the determining factors to the success of modular production, however upon closer inspection it can be seen that modular housing either thrives or fails based on a number of other factors that would be unforeseen at first look.

In fact, upon close inspection, proximity appears to be one of the least important factors, while transportation infrastructure and ease of site assembly, among other factors, in reality play a much larger role.

3 9

MODULAR ECOLOGIES THE NORTHEAST Through mapping the existing landscape of modular production, we begin to gain some understanding of how and why the industry developed the way it did. Through mapping the existing transportation landscape as well as the relation of production to urban areas, which mean higher cost of land and labor, we can see why the modular industry exists in its’ current state

Statistical Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Area Interstate Highways State Highways Closed Modular Production Facilities Modular Production Facilities 10

Source: http://www.modulartoday.com

State Lines

Transit Relationships

Statistical Metropolitan Areas

Metropolitan Areas

5 11

MODULAR ECOLOGIES THE NORTHEAST These abstractions of the previous mapping attempt to make sense of the concentration of producers in Pennsylvania above all other places in the United States.

While many other factors play a role in shaping the industry

Washington D.C.

- Population 672,228 - Metro Population 6,097,684 - Statistical Population 9,546,579

12 6

Source: http://www.modulartoday.com

Philadelphia

- Population 1,567,442 - Metro Population 6,069,875 - Statistical Population 7,146,706

these mappings distill the role that transportation and urban development have played in the industry through illustration of the direct relationship of transportation links to urban centers and population bases.

New York City

Statistical Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Area Interstate Boston Highways State Highways Closed Modular Production Facilities Modular Production Facilities

- Population 8,550,405 - Metro Population 20,182,305 - Statistical Population 23,723,696

- Population 667,137 - Metro Population 4,774,321 - Statistical Population 8,099,575

New York City

Population 8,550,405 - Population 8,550,405 Metro Population 20,182,305 New York City - Metro Population 20,182,305 - Statistical Population 23,723,696 - Statistical Population 23,723,696

Philadelphia Philadelphia

- Population Washington D.C.

672,228 - Metro Population 6,097,684 - Statistical Population 9,546,579

-P -M -S

- Population 1,567,442 - Metro Population 6,069,875 - Statistical Population 7,146,706

Boston

Washington D.C.

Population 672,228 Metro Population 6,097,684 Statistical Population 9,546,579

Bo

Population 1,567,442 Metro Population 6,069,875 Statistical Population 7,146,706

Boston

Population 667,137

- Population 667,137 Metro Population 4,774,321 Statistical Population 8,099,575 - Metro Population 4,774,321 - Statistical Population 8,099,575

7 13

MODULAR ECOLOGIES PHILADELPHIA While Philadelphia is not, in terms of pure numbers, the most densely surrounded by manufacturers, having 20 within 200 miles to first place New York City’s 24, it has been the most successful city on the east coast in terms of implementing modular construction. This success is seen not just in terms of building within the city itself, but through the high density of manufacturers within the state of Pennsylvania. Of the 61 Manufacturers part of our survey of the Northeast, 36 (or 59%) are located in Pennsylvania. This density of manufacturers, along with a few key governmental and NGO initiatives, appears to be the key to the success of modular housing within Philadelphia.

While Simplex is not the largest manufacturer of modular housing in the Northeast, it falls squarely in the middle of our range in that regard, it is in many regards one of the most typical production companies in the region. Their close access to three major highways, Interstate 84, 81, and 476, allows the factory easy access for both delivery of construction materials and their finished products to building sites. Further adding to the desirability of the location is the relatively low cost of land that is afforded by being located in the more rural Pennsylvania countryside.

Simplex further defines the industry through their history as a company as well, what originally started as a small family business developing single family homes has since evolved over time, following the industry’s evolution, into a company that now finds almost half of their business in an average year falling to multi-family and commercial projects.

14 8

Philadelphia’s adoption of modular has been aided in addition to its’ close proximity to a multitude of manufacturers, also by a number of different governmental and non-governmental organizations over the past decade.

The Fix-IT-Filly Coalition, elaborated upon further in our research, was instrumental in creating an environment in which modular housing could thrive and grow over time.

In addition to permissive and helpful local policies the growth of modular in Philadelphia has also seen help from the developer’s side of the equation as well. Onion Flats, again to be elaborated further on in this research, has found great success in the Philadelphia market through their use of modular construction to offer both affordable and environmentally sensitive housing to the market.

The Philadelphia Ecology

Source: http://www.modulartoday.com

Statistical Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Area Interstate Highways State Highways Closed Modular Production Facilities Modular Production Facilities

9 15

MODULAR ECOLOGIES NEW YORK CITY Despite New York City’s prime placement relative to the modular industry, surrounded by 24 manufacturers within 200 miles, the city has seen a relatively low amount of building projects completed using modular construction. In part this is most likely due to the rather unique difficulties that are brought about when trying to transport large loads through a denser island city like New York. Further complicating the issue in New York is the need for denser and taller building, leading to the necessity of building with non-combustible materials something that has traditionally been ignored by the modular industry.

Connecticut into New York, the greater challenge faced in New York often comes at the stage of actually assembling the modules on site. The city’s numerous tight streets and land limitations simply makes it more difficult to maneuver modules into place. The few successful modular projects seen in the city, nARCHITECTS My Micro for example, had the benefit of more open sites than the typical construction project in New York and as a result had an easier time staging their modules prior to attempting to set them in place.

Capsys, New York City's on-site modular producer, provides a unique lens with which to view the modular industry as a business. While Capsys was originally founded for the completion of a singular affordable housing project, the Nehemiah 2 Project, over time the company expanded to attempt to deliver more ambitious modular housing developments within the city. However, as their rent grew higher at their Navy Yards location within the city, it was no longer a viable location for their fabrication process.

While this would not have necessarily led to the closure of Capsys, in their search for a new factory location they were in turn acquired by Whitley manufacturing, and relocated to southern Pennsylvania, becoming another piece of the Pennsylvania modular ecology.

10 16

New York City’s unique geographic situation appears to be one of the largest limiting factors to its’ adoption of modular housing. While the simple act of transporting modules to the city offers a certain set of challenges, Simplex themselves have stated that it is extraordinarily difficult if not impossible to transport modules through

New York City Migration

Source: http://www.modulartoday.com

Statistical Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Area Interstate Highways State Highways Closed Modular Production Facilities Modular Production Facilities

11 17

MODULAR ECOLOGIES BOSTON Compared to other Northeastern cities, Boston finds itself with a distinct lack of manufacturing resources nearby with only 11 manufacturers inside its' 200 mile radius. As a result, the city has shown a slower uptake of modular construction than its' neighbors, but more recently interest from officials in the city government has created an environment for exploratory research into how modular housing could play a role in Boston’s solution to its housing problems. The Boston Housing Innovation Lab sponsored the creation and exposition of the uhu Unit in order to convince city residents that modular housing is a viable alternative for the city.

modular unit that traveled around the city to different neighborhoods. The Unit, sponsored by the Boston Housing Innovation Lab, was created in an effort to convince city residents that modular housing is not necessarily lower quality than traditional construction and can in fact offer quality housing at a reduced price over traditional construction.

While modular has not seen the success in Boston that it has in Philadelphia as of yet, Boston’s unique housing typologies, the triple-decker and five-over-one construction, both favor modular in their construction type. Unlike New York, Boston has not yet reached the density where noncombustible construction is the only truly viable construction method within the city and as a result it could be much easier for modular housing to gain a foothold within the city.

Despite the relative lack of modular construction in Boston, a number of initiatives in the city have recently begun with a focus on not just modular housing, but solutions to the city of Boston’s relative lack of affordable housing much like what occurred in Philadelphia over the past decade.

These studies and NGO initiatives could allow for modular construction to get its’ foot in the door in Boston.

12 18

One such modular project happening in the city now is the uhu Unit which involved the construction of a single sample

Boston's Ecology?

Source: http://www.modulartoday.com

Statistical Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Area Interstate Highways State Highways Closed Modular Production Facilities Modular Production Facilities

13 19

THE MODULAR FACTORY The most critical element of Modular construction is the factory. Similar to traditional construction, the process of fabrication involves conventional construction techniques but instead of fabricating the building on-site, it is relocated to an off-site factory. This factory provides a climatecontrolled environment for production, creating a higherquality, more consistent construction.

21

THE MODULAR FACTORY FABRICATION In the modular housing industry, the timeline for construction is streamlined due to the off-site production of building modules. The Modular Building Institute created the graph below, which reveals the inherent time-savings in modular construction, simultaneous on-and-off site construction.

According to the MBI, this saves upwards of 30-50% in the construction schedule, and ultimately can save on costs. Depending on the type of project, however, the timesavings element of modular construction may not apply.

Smaller projects, such as single-family homes, work well with modular due to the simplicity in the modules, and well-

established market. Larger projects with more complicated systems and sites perish due to lack of precedent and complications in planning.

In the three following case studies, we compare each factory's defining construction methods relating to the module itself, factory organization, and business models. All variations of construction, whether it be Type II light wood framing or Type V non-combustible steel construction, can benefit from modular construction in time and cost-savings.

SITE-BUILT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE design engineering

permits & approvals

site development & foundations

building construction

site restoration

MODULAR CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE design engineering

permits & approvals

site development & foundations

install & site restoration

building construction @ plant

22

The MBI boasts that modular construction can save 30-50% of project time through off-site construction techniques

TIME SAVINGS Simultaneous site development and building construction at the plant reduces the construction schedule by 30% to 50%

The separation between structural chassis and conventional construction in modular construction is what separates it from on-site construction, as well as prefabricated systems such as panelized or kit-of-parts.

CHASSIS

CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION

TYPE V CONSTRUCTION (SIMPLEX HOMES)

TYPE II CONSTRUCTION (CAPSYS CORPORATION)

TYPE II CONSTRUCTION (DELUXE BUILDING SYSTEMS) 23

THE MODULAR FACTORY CASE STUDIES In the construction industry of the Northeast United States, 42+ fabricators have produced thousands of models since the 1950's. Since there is such a wide diversity in the industry, it is beneficial to understand the industry through what could be considered the "averages" depending on size, production capabilities, business models, market segments, locations, etc. The sizes of factories can vary from 10,000sf all the way up to 400,000sf, influencing not only the production capabilities for the business, but also the technology required to operate functionally. Since modular construction can be applied to most markets, fabricators have the opportunity to capitalize on a specific market, or cast a wide net and become involved in a variety of building types. Currently operating as the main hub of fabricators, Pennsylvania's geographic location provides a unique angle on providing modules for projects. The network of highways and interstates of the Northeast provide a framework of access for fabricators, however, policies and restrictions can inhibit transportation of modules.

Simplex Homes provides a look into the averages of multiple aspects of the modular factory. It's module construction type, facility size, market segments, and general history provide a snapshot of the modular industry in Pennsylvania.

Three factories that represent the average for different aspects of the industry are Simplex Homes, Capsys Corporation Inc. and Deluxe Building Systems.

SIMPLEX HOMES Scranton, PA | 65,312SF Facility Wood-frame construction focuses on single-family homes in states of the Northeast 24

Capsys Corporation Inc. is an interesting example of a noncombustible factory, located directly in a city. Although Capsys is not necessarily an example of an average, it represents a unique angle that the modular factory could capitalize on.

Deluxe Building Systems provides an example of an interesting factory layout, as well as an interesting path factories can take over time. This fabricator's history in the industry, their process, and the factory itself show variety and transitions evident in the industry.

CAPSYS CORPORATION INC.

DELUXE BUILDING SYSTEMS

Brooklyn, NY | 25,920SF of workspace Non-combustible light-gague steel construction Services the New York area as well as various locations throughout the North East

Berwick, PA | 100,000 SF Facility Non-combustible light-gague steel and wood-frame construction

25

THE MODULAR FACTORY SIMPLEX HOMES Simplex Homes Inc., located in Scranton, PA is a perfect example of a typical modular manufacturing facility. The factory opened in 1971 originally servicing the Northeast United States, and focused on conventionally constructed wood-frame single family homes. In the 1990’s Simplex began exploring the multi-family market in an effort to broaden their market. Unsure of the multi-family fabrication process, Simplex expanded into an adjacent building and set up a secondary assembly line dedicated to multi-family projects. Due to the conventionality inherent to modular construction, Simplex found that these two module types could work in parallel, and were able to use assembly lines for both single-family and multi-family depending on project requirements. Today, their facility produces modules for a wide variety of residential typologies, and continues to thrive.

Situated in eastern Pennsylvania, this factory has quick access to a variety of major metropolitan areas such as

26

New York, Philadelphia, and even Pittsburgh, even though they have not yet embraced modular construction methods.

Like many of the factories, the sequence of events for the construction process are similar to that of a conventional construction site. First, materials arrive at the factory, and since Simplex has ample space, they are able to store materials inside the main facility, as well as in an adjacent storage building, seen on the left side of the main building in the diagram to the right. The more detailed process for fabrication inside the facility can be seen in the module assembly section following the factory analysis. As modules are completed in the assembly line, they can be stored in the exterior area for as long as needed, however modules typically stay for around a week or two due to the fast-paced construction process.

WHY THEY OPENED

HOW THEY THRIVE

WHERE THEY ARE NOW

Simplex opened to do single family houses, to provide a need found in pennsylvania and the greater Northeast

They created a functioning and profitable business model in the single-family market, which allowed for other experimentation in other markets

Simplex continues their profitable business model in the single-family industry and has further expanded their involvement in adjacent markets.

MATERIALS ARRIVE ON SITE ASSEMBLY STAGING STORAGE FOOTPRINT OUTDOOR STAGING

MODULES GO

TO SITE VIA TRUCK

0'

100'

200'

THE MODULAR FACTORY CAPSYS CORPORATION The Capsys Corporation, located in the Brooklyn Navy Yards of New York City, is a prime example of the urban modular factory. Similar to Simplex homes, this factory is situated in an area high in industry and manufacturing. In 1996, the corporation was born with the commissioning of the Nehemiah Homes initiative's desire to create around 700 affordable-housing units. Since opening, Capsys has manufactured non-combustible modules for projects such as Carmel Place by nArchitects which opened in early 2016, and the B2 building of SHoP Architect’s Atlantic Yards which opened in fall of 2016. These two projects represent a growing market in New York for multi-family affordable homes. Before closing its doors, Capsys created modules for the multi-family market of New York, as well as townhouses, hotels, assisted living facilities, supportive facilities, and a collection of what they consider “unique modular”.

Capsys is an interesting modular fabrication facility because of it’s location. The company faced issue in 2010 when their long-term lease at $4/sf would not be renewed, and would rise to a price similar to surrounding Navy Yard areas, at $20/

28

sf. Since this discovery, the company struggled to find a new location nearby, which was an important requirement due to well established relationships with suppliers and clients.

Capsys recognized that losing their land at the Navy Yards would force them to relocate outside of the city, losing their connection to their union employees in the Brooklyn area.

On February 8, 2016, Capsys announced it’s acquisition by Whitley Manufacturing which confirmed Capsys’ move to Leola, Pennsylvania. The acquisition also shifted Capsys' manufacturing focus since Whitley produces modules for a variety of markets outside residential units. Due to the flexibility of modular construction, the shift away from housing will not influence the Capsys building methods.

The relocation to a new facility will require re-organizing the assembly process, which will be explained in further detail in the following section. As mentioned previously, the supplier, client, and employee relationships Capsys relied on are now gone, ultimately reducing the Capsys name to the intellectual property of the construction method.

WHY THEY OPENED

HOW THEY THRIVED

WHY THEY "CLOSED"

Capsys began building modular because of the Nehemiah homes project, a social housing project

Capsys' location in the Brooklyn Navy Yards provided a unique opportunity to access New York City-based projects

The jump in lease price along with the acquisition by Whitley Construction resulted in the Brooklyn factory's closing

MODULES ASSEMBLED

MODULES GO TO SITE VIA TRUCK

ASSEMBLY STAGING STORAGE FOOTPRINT OUTDOOR STAGING

VE O ARRI S L A ERI MAT

E N SIT

0'

100'

200'

THE MODULAR FACTORY DELUXE BUILDING SYSTEMS DeLuxe Building Systems is located in Berwick, PA, about 130 miles from New York City. The largest facility in the North East, DeLuxe is an example of an ex-urban facility which has produced modules both with wood-framing and non-combustible steel construction. DeLuxe's founder Don Meske has worked in the modular housing industry since the 1950's, and opened the DeLuxe facility in 1965 with the intent to produce wood-framed modular housing and explore opportunities for innovation in the industry. Since opening, this factory has been at the forefront of modular construction, establishing a method which they boast “saves time, delivers unprecedented quality, and extends the capabilities of system-built construction in exciting new directions”. Interested in the non-combustible construction process, DeLuxe began fabricating both steel and woodframed modules. Attracted to the sustainable qualities of non-combustible construction, DeLuxe shifted their production towards steel modules and abandoned the wood-frame method.

30

Fabricating modules for a variety of building types, DeLuxe has produced modules for apartments, condominiums, military housing, student housing, hospitality, and academic buildings.

Similar to Capsys, DeLuxe was bought by a larger modular fabrication company, however in this case, the facility and location drove the purchase rather than the fabrication process. Fabricating small-scale prefabricated elements instead of housing modules, DeLuxe required a shift in the factory's business model. This transition from housing to 'pods' does not necessarily influence the organization of the facility, but rather influences relationships with suppliers and clients. The factory itself is organized in a way that any variety of prefabrication can take place, similar to many other modular factories. Along with their flexible factory geometry, the factory's location provides quick access to highways for both incoming materials and outgoing modules.

WHY THEY OPENED

HOW THEY THRIVED

WHY THEY SHIFTED FOCUS

DeLuxe’s founders have worked on modular housing since 1950, and opened their own factory in 1965 at the forefront of the construction method

After opening their own factory, Deluxe explored both light wood frame construction as well as non-combustible, casting a wide net for market possibilities

Deluxe eventually specialized in noncombustible, recognizing the opportunity for growth in the market, lower environmental impact, and structural capabilities of steel

MODULES ASSEMBLED

MATERIALS ARRIVE MODULES GO TO SITE VI A TRUCK

ASSEMBLY STAGING STORAGE FOOTPRINT OUTDOOR STAGING

0'

100'

200'

THE MODULAR FACTORY SIMPLEX HOMES The construction process for Simplex Homes begins with the arrival of materials to the storage spaces, both inside the factory and outside for long-term storage. The Simplex facility's assembly line organization circulates modules around the facility as seen in the adjacent diagram. Unlike other factories, Simplex has designated areas where ceiling panels, side panels, floor panels, stairs, and even doors are constructed, dictating the path of fabrication. After the floor, side walls and ceiling panels are built, they come together at station 4 in the adjacent diagram to create a chassis on which the rest of the construction is done. After the chassis is assembled, the module then continues down the line with workers utilizing conventional light-wood framing techniques to build the module as it would be on-site.

Simplex’s modules come off the line around 95% completed, so everything from plumbing to millwork are installed

32

Everything from wiring to exterior sheathing and waterproofing is installed at Simplex Sources: Photos, Nicole Radice and Ivan Rupnik

inside the facility. In order to increase production, Simplex sometimes changes when the module is wrapped and sealed in order to continue work in thier outdoor yard. After the module is completed, it may leave for the site that day, or it could sit in the yard for a week or two.

The main distinction between modular and conventional construction techniques are the indoor construciton of buildng elements. This climate-controlled construction site allows for a higher level of predictabiliy in construction, as well as a higher level of control in the assembly of the module. Simplex achives their quality due to their longstanding relationship with sub-contractors of the Scranton area. Their 46+ years in the industry provides an established network of clients and suppliers, which solidifies their stake in the modular construction industry.

In order to have full access to modules, Simplex has a variety of moveable catwalks and platforms used throughout the factory.

Simplex Factory's typical layout, depicting the movement of modules throughout the factory floor

Large-scale Material Storage Stair Shop Door Shop Material Storage Exterior Module Storage Yard Overflow Module Assembly Area Front Office

stair assembly area

1

34

floor, side and ceiling panels assembled in staging areas

Sources: Photos, Nicole Radice and Ivan Rupnik

ceiling staging area

2

wheels attached to floor panel to create the chassis

gantry cranes and posts holding up a floor panel in preparation for wheels 3

module panels assembled

detail of the floor panel construction

4

floor sheathing installed

Sources: Photos, Nicole Radice and Ivan Rupnik

beginnings of gyp board installation

5

interior partitions framed out

module in assembly line with gyp board fully installed 6

gypsum wall board and stairs installed

35

stair assembly area

7

36

insulation and exterior sheathing applied

Sources: Photos, Nicole Radice and Ivan Rupnik

hydraulic lift used to raise the module

8

doors and windows installed

tracks in floor for module movement

9

millwork and interior finishes applied

module prepped for window installation

10

final check before wrapping

Sources: Photos, Nicole Radice and Ivan Rupnik

module receiving electrical wiring

11

module wrapped and prepped for exterior storage

factory-based bathroom finishes installed

12

module shipped to site

37

THE MODULAR FACTORY CAPSYS CORPORATION The Capsys factory presents an interesting alternative to the assembly line production sequence. At 25,000 sf, the factory floor is only 2/3 of Simplex's facility, severely limiting storage, assembly, and staging space. Capsys' solution for organization is a stationary fabricaiton floor instead of an assembly line. Using the existing technologies and structures of the Navy Yard building, the chassis are organized throughout the facility so sub-contractors and builders can move around the modules instead of the

38

modules themselves moving. Along with an alternative assembly strategy, Capsys' production capabilities were limited to one project at a time. The flexible space and stationary modules allowed the organization of the modules on the floor to reflect the needs of each specific project.

The Carmel Place project Capsys completed for nArchitects consisted of a relatively small module, so Capsys was able to organize the modules in a line, and in places, had modules stacked on top of each other.

Overhead gantry cranes moving module chassis into place for continued fabrication

FACTORY LOCATION ASSEMBLY STEP

Flexible Staging Area Stationary Assembly Location Exterior Module Storage Yard

The organization of Capsys' facility is unique, in that the modules themselves do not move, rather the sub-contractors move down the line

39

module panel assembly area

1

40

module panels assembled in staging areas

Capsys uses the existing structure of the building with swinging gantry cranes to work on stacked modules 2

vertical structure welded to floor panel, ceiling panel welded in place

Photos courtesy of nArchitects | Module axonometrics courtesy of Nicole Radice

3

rebar laid in place for floor casting

ceiling panel being swung into place via gantry cranes

4

concrete floor cast in place

modules organized in Carmel Place alignment

5

exterior and marriage walls framed out

6

interior partitions framed out

Photos courtesy of NY Times " A Factory in Brooklyn That Constructs Homes Is Losing Its Own" and New York Business Journals "Modular housing manufacturer set to close at Brooklyn Navy Yard" | Module axonometrics courtesy of Nicole Radice

41

workers using scaffolding to install sheathing

7

42

gypsum wall board installed

Carmel Place module being prepped for shipment to site

8

insulation and necessary exterior sheathing installed

9

windows and doors installed

Photos courtesy of nArchitects video "Making Carmel Place" and CurbedNY "Modular Firm Capsys Will Stay In Business With New Owners" | Module axonometrics

Alternate factory module organization with modules at various stages

10

interior millwork installed

Photos courtesy of | Module axonometrics

11

Capsys factory's unique swinging cranes used for module accessibility

module wrapped and prepped for exterior storage

12

module shipped to site

43

THE MODULAR FACTORY DELUXE BUILDING SYSTEMS

44

The fabrication process at DeLuxe is similar to Simplex’s assembly line, however instead of the modules travelling individually, the modules are connected front to end like a train and moved along the track as an entire unit. The linearity of the factory allows for this train-like organization, and creates a unique example of a factory. The train-like organization of the factory allowed for an easy transition from housing module production to the prefabricated pods of Deluxe's new management.

To assist with the train-like organization of the factory, Deluxe has a variety of technology typical of modular factories.

Because of the ample space, Deluxe has catwalks hanging from the structure above, as well as the track system to guide the modules down the line. A special feature at Deluxe is the lift at the end of the assembly line where modules are jacked up with hydraulics to have the bed of the truck slide underneath, finalizing the module for shipment

A special feature of Deluxe's factory is the continuous hanging catwalk that workers use to freely access the top of modules, as seen in the picture to the right

Workers at Deluxe use harnesses attached to the ceiling to work to access the top of modules in order to weld

Sources: Photos, Deluxe Building Systems and Gluck+'s video "The Stack"

Flexible Staging Area Flexible Staging/Storage Area

Deluxe's Factory

Exterior Module Storage Yard

45

Deluxe's structural module being assembled adjacent to assembly train

1

46

module panels assembled in staging areas

2

Deluxe's in-house pre-cast floor panel fabricator

vertical structure welded to floor panel, ceiling panel welded in place

Sources: Photos, Deluxe Building Systems and Gluck+'s video "The Stack"

3

rebar laid in place for floor casting

workers installing gyp board

4

concrete floor cast in place

worker installing temporary structural braces for shipping

5

exterior and marriage walls framed out

Sources: Photos, Deluxe Building Systems and Gluck+'s video "The Stack"

6

interior partitions framed out

47

workers using scaffolding to install ceiling panels

7

48

gypsum wall board installed

Sources: Photos courtesy of Gluck+'s video "The Stack"

Deluxe's signature assembly "train"

8

insulation installed

9

windows and doors installed

At the end of the assembly line, the modules are lifted up and a truck bed slides underneath it 10

interior millwork installed

Sources: Photos courtesy of Gluck+'s video "The Stack"

11

This module for the Stack project by Gluck+ is constructed to butt up against other modules on multiple sides

module wrapped and prepped for exterior storage

12

module shipped to site

49

THE MODULAR FACTORY SCALE While it would be easy to try to apply a view of averages to the modular factory as a means of production, the truth is that there is actually much more variation within the industry than there is throughout the products that they produce. This comes in part because the industry has grown in such a haphazard and loose way. Each producer has their own way of building and as such there is a large amount of variance in facility size and scale, shown most clearly at each end of the range, spreading from the smallest facility at 73,000 square feet and the largest at 1,618,000 square feet.

This range continues across the full spectrum of the industry, staying true whether looking at the size of facilities land usage, unit production, or cost per square foot.

Average Facility Land Size - 525,00 SF Largest - 1,618,000 SF Professional Building Systems, INC. - Middleburg, PA Smallest - 73,000 SF Signature Building Systems - Moosic, PA Average Facility Size - 112,00 SF Largest - 173,000 SF Professional Building Systems, INC. - Middleburg, PA Smallest - 12,000 SF Signature Building Systems - Moosic PA 14 50

Source: http://www.modulartoday.com

Signature Building Systems Professional Building Systems Inc.

Simplex

Capsys 500 ft 250 ft

1,000 ft

Deluxe Building Systems

15 51

16 52

0 Signature Building Systems Chelsea Modular Homes Excel Homes Epoch Homes Homes by Keystone Ritz-Craft Corp. of PA Durabilt Homes Whitley Manufacturing Capsys Icon Legacy Structural Modulars Keiser Industries KBS Building Systems New England Homes Huntington Homes Alouette Homes Penn Lyon Homes RCM Modular Future Home Technology Carolina Building Solutions Deluxe Building Systems Westchester Modular Homes Simplex Bill Lake Home Construction Avis America Corporation Pleasant Valley Homes Pennwest Homes Sun Building Systems Muncy Homes New Era Building Systems Preferred Building Systems Apex Homes Professional Building Systems 0 Source: http://www.modulartoday.com

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Square Footage of Facility Square Footage of Facility Lands

Fifth St. - 735,686 SF

666 Summer St. - 2,023,882 SF

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

THE MODULAR FACTORY PRODUCTION

Habitec-2000 Capsys Preferred Building Systems Ritz-Craft Corp. of PA Epoch Homes Hallmark Homes Hart Housing Group Bill Lake Home Construction Chelsea Modular Homes Custom Building Systems Durabilt Homes Homes by Keystone Huntington Homes Integrity Building Systems KBS Building Systems Manorwood Homes Structural Modulars Icon Legacy Commodore Corporation Fairmont Homes Keiser Industries New England Homes New Era Building Systems Pennwest Homes Pro Built Homes Simplex Westchester Modular Homes Avis America Corporation Excel Homes Signature Building Systems Sun Building Systems Pleasant Valley Homes Future Home Technology Penn Lyon Homes Corporation Apex Homes Crest Homes Patriot Homes Carolina Building Solutions Liberty Homes Muncy Homes Alouette Homes Professional Building Systems 0 Source: http://www.modulartoday.com

Average Unit Production per Year

Average Unit Production as reported to the MBI 290 Units

100

200

300

400

500

600

700 17 53

THE MODULAR FACTORY COST

Hart Housing Group Apex Homes Integrity Building Systems Commodore Corporation Fairmont Homes Excel Homes.

Crest Homes Liberty Homes RCM Modular Habitec-2000 iQ Modular Homes Chelsea Modular Homes Custom Building Systems Homes by Keystone Manorwood Homes (Commodore) Pro Built Homes Future Home Technology Inc Carolina Building Solutions Hallmark Homes KBS Building Systems Simplex Muncy Homes Huntington Homes Keiser Industries New England Homes.

Sun Building Systems Alouette Homes Durabilt Homes Preferred Building Systems Bill Lake Home Icon Legacy New Era Building Systems Signature Building Systems Pennwest Homes Westchester Modular Homes Epoch Homes Pleasant Valley Homes

Average Cost per Square Foot (Low) Average Cost per Square Foot (High)

$113 per Square Foot Average Cost of Construction in Boston

0 18 54

Source: http://www.modulartoday.com

50

100

150

200

THE MODULAR FACTORY AGE + PRODUCTION

800 units

700 units Professional Building Systems, Inc.

600 units

Alouette Homes

500 units

Muncy Homes

Liberty Homes

Carolina Building Solutions

400 units

Homes by Keystone

Crest Homes

Future Home Technology

Penn Lyon Homes

Pleasant Valley Homes

300 units

Signature Building Systems

Keiser Industries Pennwest Homes Icon Legacy

Sun Building Systems

Excel Homes

Simplex Fairmont Homes

Westchester Modular Homes

Pro Built Homes New Era Building Systems

New England Homes Commodore Corporation

200 units Integrity Building Systems Manorwood Homes Custom Building Systems KBS Building Systems Hart Housing Group

100 units

Preferred Building Systems

Chelsea Modular Homes

Bill Lake Home

Huntington Homes

Durabilt Homes Epoch Homes

Capsys

Hallmark Homes Habitec-2000

Closed Facilites Open Facilites

Blu Homes

0 units 0 years 10 years 20 years Source: http://www.modulartoday.com

30 years

40 years

50 years

60 years

70 years

80 years 19 55

URBAN MODULAR In spite of the increased interest in modular construction shown by local developers in the Greater Boston Area, the city of Boston has fallen by the wayside in terms of exploring the true potential and range of possibilities with modular as a system of construction. The urban modular has innovated as a typology since 2010 as certain “pilot” multi-unit projects have redefined the urban modular as a system of processes. This section looks at four specific projects – each unique – and vital in understanding the system that constitutes the urban modular.

57

URBAN MODULAR BOSTON Several developers in the Greater Boston area have used modular construction for recent multi-unit projects.

They have typically attributed their choice of modular construction to its lean construction practices which reduce material waste and save time through parallel processes. In spite of the increased interest in modular construction by developers in the Greater Boston area, they have not necessarily been willing to explore the full potential and design possibilities of modular construction.

All projects executed in the Greater Boston Area are Type V wood construction and limited to a maximum of five storeys plus podium. These projects largely replicate the massing and aesthetics of existing multi-family typologies.

Site logistics are therefore driven by site conditions.

Some of the leading developers in the Greater Boston Area include the Tocci Building Co. and Urban Spaces LLC. It is noteworthy that in sharp contrast to Boston, “pilot� projects in New York, Los Angeles and Seattle have been much more innovative in design and construction strategies in their application of modular to the multiunit sector.

58

Sources: tocci.com, urbanspacesllc.com, nerej.com

Tocci Building Co.

Grossman Cos., Inc. & Waypoint Cos.

Urban Spaces LLC

The Tocci Building Co. has developed multi-unit modular projects like the Park87 in Cambridge, a four-storey, 54-unit apartment complex completed in 2010 and Chelsea Place in Chelsea, a four-storey, 56-unit apartment complex which completed in 2013.

A joint venture of the Grossman Companies & Waypoint, the 61-83 Braintree St. project in Allston will house an 80-unit apartment complex.

It has 5 modular levels above a podium and is being marketed as the “largest modular construction project in the city of Boston�.

Completion is scheduled for 2017.

Urban Spaces LLC has completed three multi-unit modular projects, 7 Cameron Ave. - a four-storey 37-unit building in North Cambridge, 30 Haven St., a fourstorey 53-unit building in Reading, MA, and The Rand at Porter, a four-storey 20-unit building completed in 2016.

Type V

Type V

Type V

59

Sources: tocci.com, urbanspacesllc.com, nerej.com, portersquare.net

URBAN MODULAR THE RAND Cambridge MA, 2016 Architect: Prellwitz Chilinski Associates Manufacturer: KBS Building Systems, S.Paris ME Type-V construction 38 modules 19 units

60

STAGING PARAMETERS The crane for constructing The Rand is located in the back corner of the lot. This area is eventually turned into surface parking for the building. After modular construction was complete and the crane was removed from the site, a conventionally built triplex unit was added as an extension to the modular building.

Triplex Unit

82'

104'

Site plan showing placement of crane on lot and truck location on side street

61

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

1. Existing brick building is demolished and a new concrete foundation with basement is built.

62

2. Steel structure for the ground floor including a steel deck is constructed.

3. Stacking of modules starts with oversized modules at one end of the building.

4. All three levels are stacked at the same end of the building.

63

5. Corner modules are stacked next.

64

6. All three levels at the corner are stacked.

7. Remaining modules are stacked at the back of the building.

8. Once the crane has been removed from the site, a triplex unit is built using conventional on site construction.

65

FLOOR PLAN The typical Rand floor plan consists of 12 to 14 modules of varying sizes and shapes. Module lengths vary between 32' and 69'. Dwelling units span across multiple modules and vertical circulation is integral to the prefabricated modules.

66

Third floor plan showing module and unit layout with vertical circulation

67

URBAN MODULAR PILOT PROJECTS The urban modular industry has witnessed increased interest in recent years as a construction typology for the multi-unit sector in spite of much infamy for modular construction given the stalling of the B2 Atlantic Yards project (461 Dean Street) in New York. Innovation in modular construction as a system for the multi-unit typology has manifested through a combination of improvement in construction systems, knowledge refinement through implementation experience and greater precision. The successful completion of certain “pilot” projects since 2010 has redefined modular as a system for dense urban sites. This section looks at four specific urban multiunit projects towards understanding the systemic nature of modular construction and the parameters which are enabling modular construction to be accepted for multiunit typology.

The research methodology incorporates four “pilot” projects as case studies towards exploring more innovative construction solutions in the respective dense urban contexts. These four project are the Star Apartments, the Stack, Nehemiah Spring Creek Housing, and My Micro NY. The variance of the solutions and their specific settings allow for a comprehensive analysis through documentation of the processes that define these projects. The projects have been documented through online resources, articles and material published by architects, developers and manufacturers. This material has often included construction videos and construction images documented through the construction life of these projects. Thus, both the factory process and the on-site construction process have been documented through images.

68

Sources: Multifamily Market on the Rise, Modular Building Institute

STAR APARTMENTS Los Angeles, CA - 2013 Michael Maltzan Architecture

Type V

THE STACK

NEHEMIAH HOUSING

MY MICRO NY

New York, NY - 2013 Gluck+

Brooklyn, NY - 2015 Alexander Gorlin Architects

New York, NY - 2016 nArchitects

Type II

Type II

Type II

69

URBAN MODULAR STAR APARTMENTS Los Angeles CA, 2013 Architect: Michael Maltzan Manufacturer: Guerdon Enterprises, Boise ID Type-V construction Podium+4 111 modules 102 units

70

Star Apartments is comprised of 111 modules that make up 102 dwelling units.

Some of the units are part of the vertical circulation. The site had a preexisting single-level retail and parking structure which was renovated and them built upon.

Boise, ID

The factory uses conventional light wood framing however the sequence is unique to the factory environment. Each module starts with the floor assembly.

Interior partitions are pre-assembled and attached to the floor structure. The external walls and ceiling assembly are installed next, followed by mechanical systems,electrical, interior finishes. Next is insulation, sheathing and weather barrier. The module is then wrapped for shipping.

844 mi.

Los Angeles, CA

Transportation route Floor Frame 2x8 wood frame

Sub-floor 3/4� OSB

Internal Partitions 2x4 Frame + Gypsum Board Exterior Walls 2x6 frame Ceiling + Gypsum Board Assembly 2x6 frame + Gypsum Board

Exterior Envelope Insulation + Sheathing + Weather Barrier

Protective Wrap Modules loaded on truck for transport to site

Guerdon factory sequence 71

FACTORY AND SITE SEQUENCE 1. Floor plate assembly is built using conventional wood framing methods

2. Interior wall partitions, including gypsum board, are built horizontally using 2x4 framing

3. Interior wall partitions are assembled onto the floor platform

4. Exterior wall assemblies, including gypsum board, are built horizontally

5. Exterior walls are assembled to the floor plate

6. Ceiling/roof assembly is manufactured then hoisted onto the module in process

72

Sources: guerdonmodularbuildings.com

7. Electrical wiring being installed

8. Insulation is installed

9. Windows and weather barrier are installed then unit is shipped to a temporary staging area in LA 5 miles from construction site

10. Existing commercial structure is reinforced and renovated

11. Podium level is built of site-cast concrete

12. Tower crane is installed at podium level

73

Sources: guerdonmodularbuildings.com, mmaltzan.com

13. Modules are delivered by truck from storage yard 5 miles away

14. Module is hoisted from the truck to the platform

15. Modules are staked up to 4 high

16. Wood frames on concrete platform ensure proper alignment of modules

17. Final module is placed

18. Exterior stucco is applied

74

Sources: guerdonmodularbuildings.com, mmaltzan.com

75

FLOOR PLAN The typical Star Apartments floor plan consists of mostly identical modules with each module containing a single unit.

Average unit size is 520sf. Horizontal circulation is created by the external steel structure which also provides lateral bracing for the module stacks. Three egress stairs and a double elevator core provide vertical circulation.

76

Floor plan showing module and unit layout with vertical circulation

STAGING PARAMETERS The construction site for the Star Apartments did not have an adjacent staging area. The tower crane is erected on the podium level, therefore the module stacks are set back from the back edge of the podium.

226’

4 modular levels type-V construction 16’

16’

13’ 13’

16’

70

13’

70

13’

’ ’

13’ 13’

’

70

13’

70

13’

’

11’6”

’

16’

STAR APARTMENTS 16’

STAR APARTMENTS

16’

16’

70

13’

70

13’

’ ’

16’

11’6

11’6” 45

’

’

42

module size 16' x 42'

16’

11’6”

42

32’ 16’

45

’

11’6

11’6”32’ 13’

THE STACK

13’

16’

32

’

NEHEMIAH HOUSING

Site plan showing reach of tower crane for unloading modules from truck

THE STACK

16’

NEHEMIAH HOUSING

77

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

1. Existing retail building is renovated and structure is reinforced to become podium for the new building.

78

2. Tower crane is installed on podium. No adjacent sites are available for staging. This is a unique solution to the conditions of this project. The stacking of the modules is set back from rear edge of podium where crane is installed.

3. First level above podium is built of reinforced concrete.

This level houses amenities and common spaces.

4. Vertical circulation structures are built of reinforced concrete. These include a double elevator core and two egress stairs. Third egress stair is built later, part of the horizontal circulation structure.

79

5. A multi-level platform of reinforced concrete is built above the first level.

80

6. Modules are delivered in pairs by truck. They are lifted from the truck directly onto the platform then placed in their location.

7. The stacking sequence starts closest to the crane and ends closest to the side street where the transportation trucks are parked.

8. A steel structure creates external walkways and third egress stair. This structure also ties to the stacked modules to provide lateral bracing.

81

URBAN MODULAR THE STACK New York NY, 2013 Architect: Gluck+ Manufacturer: Deluxe Building Systems, Berwick PA Type-II construction Podium+6 56 Modules 28 Units

82

Scissor stairs provide two means of egress within minimal footprint

The Stack is comprised of 56 modules that make up 22 dwelling units. The vertical circulation stack is also modular and includes one elevator and scissor stairs. The lot had been used as a parking lot. There is a second adjacent lot that was used as a staging area.

The modular manufacturer for the Stack Apartments is Deluxe Building Systems in Berwick PA, about 141-mile drive from the construction site. The modules have a welded steel frame with cross bracing for the main structure. Precast concrete floor panels are then attached to the steel frame. Interior partitions of light gage steel and gypsum board are pre-assembled and installed within the frame. The external walls and ceiling assemblies are installed next, followed by mechanical systems, electrical, interior finishes. Next is insulation, sheathing and weather barrier. The module is then wrapped for shipping.

Berwick, PA

141 mi.

New York, NY

Transportation route

Welded steel frame Provides structure Includes crane hoisting points

Precast concrete floor panels Adds lateral rigidity to the Interior partition frame assemblies Light gage steel and gypsum board

Exterior wall assemblies Light gage steel and gypsum board Wet wall left open for plumbing

Ceiling assembly Light gage steel and gypsum board Protective wrap Module loaded on truck for transport to site

Deluxe Building Systems factory sequence 83

FACTORY AND SITE SEQUENCE

1. The welded steel frame provides structure to each module. Crossbracing is used for lateral rigidity.

Floors are precast concrete panels.

2. Wall assemblies of light gage steel and gypsum board are fabricated on a conveyor. Automated screw insertion is seen in the picture.

3. Wall assemblies are installed onto welded steel frame.

4. Several modules move together through serial assembly steps.

5. Roof assembly is welded to steel frame.

6. Electrical wiring is installed.

Temporary brace is seen in picture.

84

Sources: deluxebuildingsystems.com

7. Insulation is installed. Elevated catwalks eliminate the need for ladders.

8. Kitchen plumbing is done after cabinets are installed.

9. Module is complete and wrapped for transport.

10. Concrete foundation and slab are site-poured.

11. Steel structure for ground level is erected on concrete slab.

12. Precast concrete panels for interior courtyard are installed on steel structure.

85

Sources: deluxebuildingsystems.com, gluckplus.com

13. Modules are delivered overnight 3 or 4 at a time. They are unloaded to an adjacent vacant lot.

14. Modules are stacked on the steel structure starting with the rearmost corner.

15. Stacking progresses from the back to the front.

16. Vertical circulation module is the last in the sequence. Elevator shaft is visible in the photograph.

17. Stacking progresses floor by floor following the same sequence.

Marriage wall is visible in the photograph.

18. Stacking is complete. Panelized facade system is then installed.

86

Sources: gluckplus.com

87

FLOOR PLAN The typical Stack floor plan consists of nine modules. One module is part of the vertical circulation comprising a single elevator and double scissor stairs. The remaining eight modules are unique and combine in various configurations to create units ranging from 450sf studios to 1250sf three-bedroom apartments. Vertical members in the steel frames of each module are aligned to provide a continuous vertical structure to the podium level.

Structure - podium

88

Floor plan showing module and unit layout with vertical circulation

Structure - modules

STAGING PARAMETERS The construction site for The Stack has an adjacent vacant lot used as a staging area. The telescoping boom crane is positioned between the building and the staging area where modules are delivered overnight. The stacking begins at the rear corner of the building and proceeds in the sequence shown to avoid interference between the stacked modules and the crane boom.

9

6 modular levels type-II construction

3

2

1

61’

69’

16’

16’

16’

16’

16’

16’

8

70

13’

70

13’

’ ’

70

13’

’

70

11’6” 11’6”

R APARTMENTS

13’

’

’

module size 13' x 45'

13’

THE STACK ’ 13

THE STACK

’

7

6

11’6”

11’6”32

’

45

70 5

4

70

’

11’6”

45

R APARTMENTS 6’ 1

70

11’6” ’

16’

13’

’

13’

’

70

32

’

16’

35

’

35

’

12’

NEHEMIAH HOUSING 6’

MY MICRO NY ’

NEHEMIAH HOUSING

MY MICRO NY

1

Site plan showing staging area and reach of telescoping boom crane

12

89

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

1. Concrete foundation and slab are poured on site.

90

2. Steel structure for ground level is constructed on foundation slab.

3. Precast concrete slabs for elevated courtyard are placed by crane.

4. Building modules are delivered overnight by truck and unloaded in adjacent vacant lot.

91

5. Modules are placed by crane on steel structure. Each level is stacked starting with three modules along the back, then three along the front, then three along the side.

92

6. Last module placed completes vertical circulation core.

7. Panelized facade system and store-fronts are installed.

93

URBAN MODULAR NEHEMIAH HOUSING Brooklyn NY, 2015 Architect: Alexander Gorlin Architects Manufacturer: Capsys Corp.

Type-II construction Row housing 911 Modules 535 Units

94

The site for the Nehemiah Housing is located in a suburban area of Brooklyn.

The project is comprised of row housing with each vertical stack categorized as 1-family (2 modules), 2-family (3 modules) or 3-family (4 modules). The vertical circulation is separate for the upper units.

The modular manufacturer for the Nehemiah Housing is Capsys Corp. in Brooklyn’s Navy Yard, about 24-mile drive from the construction site. The modules have a welded steel frame for the main structure. Rebar is tied in steel base frame and then concrete is poured to cast the floor slab. Interior partitions of light gauge steel are pre-assembled and installed within the frame. The external walls and ceiling assembly are installed next, followed by mechanical systems, electrical, interior finishes. Next is insulation, sheathing and weather barrier. The module is then wrapped for shipping.

STRUCTURAL FRAME Perimeter Beams 4” Sq. Steel Columns

BASE SLAB REINFORCEMENT Steel Rebar

BASE SLAB ASSEMBLY 3” Cast in Place Concrete

WALL ASSEMBLY Light Gauge Steel Partitions

CAPSYS CORP

NEHEMIAH HOUSING

24.1 Miles

Transportation route

CEILING STRUCTURE & WALL FINISH Insulation Sheathing Weather Barrier Finished Gypboard PROTECTIVE ENVELOPE FOR TRANSPORT

Capsys factory sequence 95

FACTORY AND SITE SEQUENCE 1. The steel rebar for the floor is tied within the welded steel frame and then concrete is poured.

2. The walls are assembled in the welded frame as light gauge steel partitions.

3. The light gauge steel partitions are enclosed with gypsum boards.

4. The ceiling structure is welded separately and then welded and installed onto the module frame.

5. The internal partitions and walls are painted and finished.

6. The module is completed with weather barriers and wrapped for transport to the site.

96

Sources: capsyscorp.com, nytimes.com, gorlinarchitects.com

7. The first module arrives on site for assembly.

8.The first set of modules are stacked onto the concrete foundation walls.

9. The second level of modules are stacked once the entire row of first level modules are stacked.

10. The stacking of modules through the crane is assisted with workers on the ground pulling with ropes.

11. The third level of modules are stacked once the entire row of second level modules are stacked.

12. The finishing of the module facades is a parallel process to the stacking of the third level of modules.

97

Sources: capsyscorp.com, gorlinarchitects.com, nydailynews.com

FLOOR PLAN The typical Nehemiah row house consists of two units. A single-level 450sf unit made of one module, and a two-level 900sf unit made of two modules. The two-level unit has a separate vertical circulation and a fire escape staircase. Vertical members in the stacked steel frames create a continuous structure.

Structure - modules

Level 1 Apartment 1

98

Level 2 Apartment 2

Floor plans showing module and unit layout with vertical circulation

Level 3 Apartment 2

STAGING PARAMETERS The construction site for the Nehemiah Spring Creek Housing is a suburban development in Brooklyn with vacant lots which are used as storage areas for modules arriving from the Capsys facility. The streets of the site can be cordoned off as per the phase of the project in development and a telescoping boom crane stacks each level of modules in a horizontal sequence.

3 modular levels type-II construction 16’

70

16’

70

13’

’

16’

70

13’

’

70

13’

’

’

16’

70

11’6”

13’

’

11’6”

35

’

’

THE STACK

16’

11’6”

NEHEMIAH HOUSING 32

THE STACK

16’

module size 16' x 32'

11’6”

12’

MY MICRO NY

35

’

’

13’

70

’

32

13’

44’

79’

NEHEMIAH HOUSING

12’

Site plan showing staging area and reach of telescoping boom crane

MY MICRO NY

99

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

1. Concrete foundation walls are site poured.

100

2. Modules are delivered to the specific street of the development from a vacant site/lot within the development.

The first level modules are placed in a horizontal sequence on the foundation walls.

3. The second level modules are stacked in the repeated horizontal sequence above the first level modules.

4. The third level modules are stacked in the repeated horizontal sequence above the second level modules.

Facade systems are executed in parallel during the stacking of the third level modules.

101

URBAN MODULAR MY MICRO NY New York, NY Architect: nArchitects Manufacturer: Capsys Corp.

Type-II construction Podium+9 64 Modules 55 Units

102

e, ID

844 mi.

My Micro is comprised of 64 modules. The project has 55 micro-units and 9 vertical circulation modules. The vertical circulation is designed as scissor Capsys Corp stairs. The site had a very narrow footprint at 45’ by 105’. Part of the adjacent Mt. Carmel Place street was used for staging due to lack of a vacant adjacent lot.

Nehemiah Housing

My Micro NY 6.8 mi.

141 mi.

Berwick, PA The modular manufacturer for Newthe York,My NY Micro NY is Capsys Corp. in Brooklyn’s Navy Yard, about a 7-mile drive from the construction site. The modules have a welded steel frame for the main structure. Rebar is tied in steel base frame and 24.1 mi. then concrete is poured to cast the floor slab. Interior partitions of light gauge steel are preassembled and installed within the frame. The external walls and ceiling assembly are installed next, followed by mechanical systems, electrical, interior finishes. Next is insulation, sheathing and weather barrier. The module is then wrapped for shipping.

STRUCTURAL FRAME Perimeter Beams 4” Sq. Steel Columns

BASE SLAB REINFORCEMENT Steel Rebar

BASE SLAB ASSEMBLY 3” Cast in Place Concrete

WALL ASSEMBLY Light Gauge Steel Partitions

Capsys Corp

Transportation route

CEILING STRUCTURE & WALL FINISH Insulation Sheathing Weather Barrier Finished Gypboard PROTECTIVE ENVELOPE FOR TRANSPORT

Capsys factory sequence 103

FACTORY AND SITE SEQUENCE

1. The modular steel frame is welded with vertical steel uprights.

2. The steel rebar for the floor is tied within the welded steel frame.

3. The concrete is poured onto the base rebar and is then leveled and finished.

4. The base frame is prepared for assembly of the partitions. Plumbing and electrical conduits are raised.

5. Light gauge steel partitions are assembled separate from the module.

6. The light gauge steel partitions are then lifted to the module and welded to the base frame and the vertical uprights.

104

Sources: capsyscorp.com, nytimes.com

7. Insulation is added to the light gauge steel partitions which are then enclosed in gypsum board.

8. The internal partitions and walls are painted and finished.

9. The module is completed with weather barriers and wrapped for transport to the site.

10. The podium structure and transfer slab are prepared on-site as a parallel process to the module fabrication.

11. The first set of modules arrive on site and are stored in the staging area.

12. The first module - the vertical circulation core - is lifted from the staging area to begin the assembly process.

105

Sources: capsyscorp.com, nytimes.com, gangboxnews.blogspot.com, nymag.com, fieldcondition.com

13. The first module is maneuvered into position for placement.

106

05/30/2015

14. The first module is maneuvered into position by construction workers carefully with the help of markers.

06/06/2015

Sources: capsyscorp.com, nymag.com, fieldcondition.com

06/14/2015

15. Modules are then stacked onto the first three level of modules through a strategic assembly sequence.

06/21/2015

06/25/2015

107

FLOOR PLAN The typical My Micro floor plan consists of eight micro-units ranging between 250-370sf and a vertical circulation module comprising of the staircase and the elevators. The corridor is distributed across the vertical circulation module and four of the micro-units and is part of three of the remaining modules in its entirety.

Structure - podium

108

Floor plan showing module and unit layout with vertical circulation

Structure - modules

STAGING PARAMETERS The construction site for My Micro NY is a narrow site of 45'x105' with the shorter side as the primary access for the telescoping boom crane. The access directionality of the crane requires a larger radius for the placing of the furthest module and generates restrictions for the crane in section, resulting in a specifically choreographed stacking sequence.

109’

9 modular levels type-II construction 16’ 16’ 70

103’

70

13’

’

70

’

70

13’

’

’

11’6” 11’6” 35

’

16’ 16’

MIAH HOUSING MIAH HOUSING

35

’

module size 12' x 35'

12’ 12’

MY MICRO NY MY MICRO NY

Site plan showing staging area and reach of telescoping boom crane

109

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

1. Concrete foundation and pad are site poured.

110

2. The steel structure for the ground level is constructed onto the slab.

3. The roof slab for the podium level is poured and cast above the steel structure.

4. Modules are delivered by truck overnight typically one at a time. They are unloaded at a designated space on Mt. Carmel Place street. The first level of modules are stacked on the ground level roof slab.

111

5. The next two levels of modules are stacked in the same sequence as the first level.

112

6. A careful strategy for assembly is now applied given site and assembly constraints. The three levels of rear set of modules are stacked above the first three modular levels.

7. The three levels (levels 4-6) of four front modules on the right are stacked next in the assembly sequence.

8. The three levels (levels 4-6) of modules on the left are then stacked next in the assembly sequence.

113

9. The remaining terrace level modules (levels 7-9) on the right are stacked next in the assembly sequence.

114

10. The remaining modules for levels 4-6 are then stacked on the left.

11. The remaining terrace level modules on the left are stacked. The facade assembly is then completed on-site.

115

URBAN MODULAR MODULE SIZES The determining factor for the module sizes are the Department of Transportation regulations for the width of the oversize load transport. The Modules are often restricted to 14 feet to avoid oversize restrictions and fees. The height of the module is also restricted to avoid problems with

16’

16’

70

13’

16’

70

13’

’

transport through underpasses and tunnels which are along the routes. However, the Star Apartments and Nehemiah Spring creek housing do not conform to the recommended maximum width of 14 feet for varying design reasons.

16’

70

13’

’

’

11’6”

13’

11’6”

11’6” 45

42

’

’

35

32

’

’

16’

STAR APARTMENTS

116

70

13’

’

STAR APARTMENTS 4 modular levels Type-V construction

13’

THE STACK

THE STACK 6 modular levels Type-II construction

16’

NEHEMIAH HOUSING

NEHEMIAH HOUSING 3 modular levels Type-II construction

12’

MY MICRO NY

MY MICRO NY 9 modular levels Type-II construction

URBAN MODULAR MODULES VS UNITS Most developers and architects prefer the one unit to one module system which increases efficiency in assembly and on-site finishing with the joining of marriage walls the only necessary process. However, the Stack Apartments are an exception to this norm with the interlocking arrangement

STAR APARTMENTS

NEHEMIAH HOUSING

of the unit layout which spreads across multiple modules.

This arrangement allows for more complexity in layouts but necessitates additional steps for on-site completion with finishing of openings in the marriage walls of the modules.

THE STACK

MY MICRO NY 117

URBAN MODULAR STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS The vertical load transfer varies depending on the specific chassis design. The Stack module, fabricated by Deluxe Building Systems, relies on a box frame structure with cross bracing. The project has a direct load transfer with the module structure directly placed above the podium

118

The Stack

I-columns. The My Micro NY module, fabricated by Capsys Corp., has a standard chassis with vertical steel uprights.

The project has an eccentric load transfer system given the design variations in the floor plan.

My Micro NY

URBAN MODULAR TRANSPORTATION MAPS The Modular Building Institute in its Annual Reports encourages developers and construction companies to explore modular manufacturing facilities within a maximum of 500-mile radius of the site. Intrastate facilities are preferable as the fees and transport restrictions increase

with each state that has to be traversed. In the case of My Micro NY and the Nehemiah Spring Creek Housing, the availability of an Intracity facility in the form of Capsys Corp. proved advantageous to the projects – cutting down on additional transport fees.

THE STACK

THE STAR APARTMENTS Boise, ID

Idaho Oregon Nevada California

Boise, ID

Pennsylvania New Jersey New York Berwick, PA

844 mi.

Berwick, PA

844 mi.

141 mi.

Capsys Corp 141 mi.

New York, NY Nehemiah Housing

New York, NY

Los Angeles, CA

24.1 mi.

Los Angeles, CA

NEHEMIAH HOUSING

MY MICRO NY Capsys Corp

New York City

My Micro Capsys CorpNY New York City

Boise, ID

6.8 mi.

Nehemiah Housing Berwick, PA

844 mi.

141 mi.

New York, NY

Berwick, PA

141 mi.

24.1 mi.

Nehemiah Housing

New York, NY

Capsys Corp

My Micro NY 6.8 mi.

Capsys Corp

24.1 mi.

Los Angeles, CA

119

Source: Permanent Modular Construction, 2015 Annual Report, Modular Building Institute

URBAN MODULAR ON-SITE STRATEGIES The on-site strategy for each case varies according to the dimensions of the site, the access points for assembly, the availability of staging areas and the density of the surrounding context. The massing and the location of the

furthest module to be placed also play a critical role. These factors in tandem determine the choice of the crane system for the assembly and as well as the choreography of the assembly sequence itself.

226’

61’

69’

32

44

109’

79 103’

120

URBAN MODULAR PROJECT TIMELINES A significant advantage of modular construction is the parallel nature of the processes of site development and the factory module assembly. This is true for most modular construction. However, in the case of Nehemiah Spring

Creek Housing, a cyclical process was possible for the row housing where once the installation of the last level of modules began, the process was further accelerated through execution of on-site finishes in parallel.

STAR APARTMENTS, LA

THE STACK, NY

NEHEMIAH HOUSING, NY (SINGLE ROW)

MY MICRO NY, NY

2 DESIGN ENGINEERING

4

6

PERMITS & APPROVALS

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

KEY

SITE DEVELOPMENT/ FOUNDATIONS

SITE DEVELOPMENT/ FOUNDATIONS

MODULAR CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE (M.B.I.)

FACTORY MODULE ASSEMBLY ON-SITE MODULE ASSEMBLY FACTORY MODULE ASSEMBLY

ON-SITE MODULE ASSEMBLY

ON-SITE FINISHING WORK

ON-SITE FINISHING WORK

121

Source: Permanent Modular Construction, 2015 Annual Report, Modular Building Institute

122

MODULAR DIMENSIONS Be it modular, micro or modular-micro units, the sizes of those units varies. Ranges from 180 square feet to 500 square feet, depending on the zoning law of each city. In the case of Boston there is a proposed minimum square footage of 350 square feet for residential units. When it comes to modular housing, modules come in different sizes and shape, limited only by transportation regulation limiting the maximum size of a module to 15’9” wide, 60’ long and 11’ high. In order to better understand modular buildings and modular apartments we will be analyzing five modular projects and two micro projects from the USA, Copenhagen and Australia. Doing so will help us discover the different trends that are happening and define a typical modular size and design layout for those apartments. This section will compare the precedents to typical residential building, look at the different sizes of modules, units and units’ layout, comparing the construction module to the residential module and discover the different types of module being used.

PRECEDENTS

Sky Village Copenhagen, Danemark #Unit: ~25 #Module:374

124

Star Appartments Los Angeles, CA #Unit: 102 #Module:111

The Stack New York, NY #Unit: 28 #Module:56

dysturb.net/mvrdvs-sky-village-winning-skyscraper-competition-entry, guerdonmodularbuildings.com, mmaltzan.com, deluxebuildingsystems.com, gluckplus.com, one9apartments.com

One 9 Melbourne, Australia #Unit: 34 #Module: 36

MyMicro New York, NY #Unit: 55 #Module: 64

Dorms for Millenials Syracuse, NY #Unit: 10

1047 Commonwealth Boston, MA #Unit: 180

capsyscorp.com, nytimes.com, gangboxnews.blogspot.com, nymag.com, fieldcondition.com, theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/coliving/414531/, french2d.com/#/1047-comm-microhousing/

125

SLAB LAYOUT: TYPICAL VS PRECEDENTS In order to analyze modular and micro unit buildings, it is not enough to just look and analyze precedents alone.

It is important to compare them to regular building parameters. Building parameters such as circulation cores, hallways, depth of the apartment for optimal lighting and so on allowed so standards to be set and defining what a typical building is. Be it a typical double loaded corridor building (left) or a typical point tower building (right).

A typical point tower would be 85 feet by 85 approximately which has a slab area of 7,225 sq feet. My micro building is 48 feet wide and 100 feet long, the slab area is 4,800.

Even though its slab area is 2,425 sq feet smaller than the typical point tower building, we can see that they both have 8 units per floor. Another advantage provided by the micro modular layout of the project.

The double loaded corridor has a typical width of 66 feet to best accommodate a central core that houses the hallway and egress. Whereas the 1047 Commonwealth building, a micro unit double loaded corridor type building has a width of 49 feet. 17 feet in width in this case or 5,032 sq feet saved as space and construction material that the micro unit allows us to gain.

126

Typical Point tower

MyMicro

Typical Double Loaded

1047 Commonwealth

127

UNITS LAYOUT Modular or not, looking at those units, we start to see in the compact and micro units similar layouts trying to maximize efficiency by utilizing the space with the minimum possible waste of space.

Reducing redundancies by having the kitchen and bathroom share a wall for the pipes and plumbing, and having the living room and bedroom next to each other if not sharing the same space to avoid clustering the space with additional walls and partitions. Using the negative space or left over spaces for storage.

1047 Commonwealth

One 9

128

MyMicro

Star Appartments

The Stack

Sky Village

Bath

Dorms for Millenials

Kitchen

Bedroom

Livingroom

Flex space

Transition

Storage

129

MODULAR LAYOUT: CONSTRUCTION VS. RESIDENTIAL The 5 projects below are either fully modular or hybrid of modular and cast structures. Each of them with different size and shapes of modules. However the program varies from project to project and on the floor plan. Not all construction modules are equivalent to the residential modules. Some are equal, some bigger and some smaller. The diagrams bellow serves to point out which is which in plan.

Sky Village

130

None-Residential

Star Appartments

Residential

The Stack

One 9

MyMicro

MODULAR TYPES: CONTAINER VS CONTENT Inferior: More than one construction module = unit/residential module ex: The Stack, Sky Village

Equivalent: Construction module = unit/residential module ex:Star Appartment, MyMicro, One9

Superior: Construction module = unit/residential module + other program (hall way, balcony, utility closet) ex:MyMicro and The Stack

Hybrid: Construction module extend beyond the boundary of one unit 2 or more construction module = 2 or more unit/residential module ex: The Stack

Module

Unit

131

132

MODULAR COALITIONS In order to further the success of built environment projects within the urban fabric, modular construction can be used in unison with a collaborative team of designers, developers, cities & policy makers, as well non-profit agencies in order to fill the inherent gaps and make up for consistent weaknesses in the building process. This is done by expediting on-site time, and cutting costs across the board. The following case studies are strong examples of coalition based projects that have used modular construction to impact the building industry through high profile, large city contexts.

MODULAR COALTIONS Modular construction, which is often seen as a single family, suburban tool to enter more expensive markets, has in recent years made its way into a number of high profile urban building scenarios. This is largely because it has the inherent ability to bridge a set of costly gaps in the city construction process. These gaps exist outside of the urban context but are far less influential or impactful on the outcome of the project. Developers, investors, city planners, and policy makers alike work within a tight range of leeway in terms of timing, code, and budget restrictions.

This concept is elevated to an even higher level when NGOs and non-profit organizations consider their risk-reward matrix; when the outcome isn’t a lump of cash, it’s a roof over a family’s head. The addition of a modular building component to a more traditional real estate development process is a critical linkage and can often mean the difference between a successful project and one that would have never gotten off of the ground in a competitive urban context. Whether it be a drastic relief of on-site holding costs, a route around high price labor unions, or the allowance of a social housing occupancy due to projected cost cuts of mass production, modular has clearly found a niche in markets where risk runs high and consistency can be a defining factor in a project’s outcome.

Capsys Corporation Capsys - Nehemiah II Capsys - Carmel Place FixItPhilly Coaltion Onion Flats Business Model Star Apartments Homeless Rehabilitation The Stack Atlantic Yards B2 Development uhu Urban Housing Unit Millennial Village Idea

134

Brooklyn 1996 Brooklyn 1996 Manhattan 2009 Philadelphia 2004-2008 Philadelphia 2012 Los Angeles 2013 Manhattan #### Brooklyn 2014 Boston 2016 Boston ?

Modular

Architect

Developer

Investor

Project

Builder

City

NGO

Social Justice 135

MODULAR COALTIONS CAPSYS CORPORATION Brooklyn NY 1996-2009 645 units at Nehemiah II 56 units at Carmel Place Capsys Corporation is a Brooklyn based modular housing provider that emphasizes a focus on non-combustible, steel and concrete composed, volumetric boxes. Since its founding in 1996, largely due to a partnership with an NGO called The East Brooklyn Congregations and their development arm The Nehemiah Housing Development Fund. During this time, the EBC was looking to add to the 2,000 plus low-income homes that had already been developed under the Nehemiah name since 1983. Here, the concept was to create an integrated housing facility, within a reasonable distance to the Nehemiah II site, in order to design and build the homes and deliver them in a time efficient and cost effective manner. The project was a success, and soon after its completion, it won “Build New York” and HUD’s “Innovation in Housing”, elevating the small company to another level and effectively putting Capsys on the map.

136

Nehemiah II built a strong case for modular construction services within the boroughs and the process of making that happen was not the task of one party; this was the work of a group of organizations working with a shared cause. The ability for a project of this scale to happen required four legs to walk as one. The first leg is donated land from the city and $20,000 subsidies to keep the homes affordable. The second is a non-profit with a social housing cause in order to facilitate the connection of city subsidies and private capital to build relatively inexpensive

housing for underprivileged families. The third leg is a party to help finance the initial construction loan; in this case the New York Preservation Corporation pitched in a $6,000,000 interest free loan. And finally Capsys was created… “For Capsys, the $70 million, 645-unit first phase of the project was large enough to shoulder the risk and the cost, about $1 million, of setting up the factory”, said Alan Bell, a principal at Monadnock Construction, in a New York Times article in 1997, speaking on the project.

Later in the same article, the NYT writer Rachelle Garbarine wrote that “The venture is the latest to test the concept of factory-built houses, also known as modular homes, in New York City. Though the concept is considered an effective way to produce affordable housing because costs can be held down, such factories have not survived the ups and downs of the housing cycle in the city.” However, the Capsys team was already in the process of answering these concerns.

This concept of creating risk averse low-income housing in partnership with private development money and state aid is one that would greatly benefit Capsys again nearly 15 years later when they partnered with Monadnock Construction (the same group from the Nehemiah II), nArchitects, and the Actor's Fund on a project in Manhattan called “My Micro New York”. This project won a social housing contest hosted under the Bloomberg

The situation at Capsys has taken a slightly ironic turn in that the company, once created as a means of catering to low-income centered construction, is being forced out of its once cheap location due to skyrocketing rents in Brooklyn. Upon looking for new facilities, the company was purchased by larger modular manufacturer Whitley Manufacturing as a means to capturing the Northeast market share, which is the largest in the country.

NYC Admin

East Brooklyn Cong.

Alexander Gorlin Arch.

Capsys Corp.

Manadnock Dev.

NYP Corp.

capsys formed for modular for nehemiah phases

NYP Corp.

NYC Admin

Alexander Gorlin Arch.

Manadnock Dev.

Capsys Corp

2000

funds from congregations to develop Brooklyn neighborhood

1996

1980s

NEHEMIAH II - Brooklyn NY Partnership between Nehemiah Housing Development Corp, East Brooklyn Congregations, Monadnock Development, Alexander Gorlin Architects, Capsys Corp

Fast, low cost, and high quality.

Administration called “adAPT NYC” and eventually lead to the creation of the now titled “Carmel Place”. The construction of an 11 story fully modular structure was astonishing to the majority of those in the city’s building industry, and the attached trend of the micro unit dwelling added public allure. In an aptly titled “Leasing begins for New York’s First Micro Apartments”, columnist Ronda Kaysen mentioned, “the development, previously called My Micro NY, has tapped into a desire common among many singles to live alone. The building includes 14 units designated as affordable, for which some 60,000 people applied, or nearly 4,300 applicants per apartment.”

first time home ownership achieved for residents 137

CAPSYS CORPORATION

nArchitects Monadnock Dev. NYC HPD

adAPT NYC

Monadnock Dev.

Actors Fund Housing

Monadnock Dev. Nehemiah II

Capsys Corp.

Actors Fund Housing

NYC Admin

Capsys Corp.

Capsys Corp.

NYC HPD runs micro-housing pilot project competition

CARMEL PLACE - New York NY Partnership between Monadnock Development, Capsys Corp, nArchitects, and The Actor's Fund for the adAPT NYC Competition

2012

2012

1996

138

previous collaboration

team wins competition and partners with capsys for modular micro units

How do we build it?

nArchitects

nArchitects

nArchitects

Monadnock Dev.

Monadnock Dev.

Monadnock Dev.

Actors Fund Housing

Actors Fund Housing

Actors Fund Housing

NYC Admin

NYC Admin

NYC Admin

Capsys Corp

Capsys Corp.

Capsys Corp.

2016

2012-16

project is constructed easily due to push from city government and pilot/competition

Whitely Manufacturing

capsys is absorbed into whitely

The rent is too damn high.

nArchitects

Whitely Man.

139

MODULAR COALTIONS THE FIXITPHILLY COALITION Philadelphia PA 2004 - 2008 2 publications time could be caused by a lack of modern experience by contractors and potential bias against the system. Modular also was quicker, had better value over time, reduced job site theft, and was more durable and environmentally friendly. This coalition used its partnership to encourage modular construction and ease the process of construction in Philly.

May 8 Consulting

William Penn Philadelphia Govt. Man. Director

BIA Philadelphia

10+ Coalition Members

BIA Philadelphia

2003

140

In 2004, the FixItPhilly Coalition was founded by a group of non-profit organizations in order to “increase investment in Philadelphia by lowering the cost to develop real estate and by creating a streamlined, predictable development review process.” ("FixItPhilly: A Coalition Case Study" by FixItPhilly and May 8 Consulting) Organized originally by the Building Industry Association of Philadelphia’s (BIA Philly) Government Affairs Committee the coalition set out to create a list of recommendations that would aid the city in lowering the cost of development and published them in "If We Fix It, They Will Come". Over the next seven years they worked with the city to push forward their recommendations and succeeded in establishing forward action for nine out of the ten recommendations. Among these were a new zoning code, a centralized inspection system, and a published guide to the city’s development review process. In 2008, the also embarked on another avenue they hoped would encourage cheaper development in the Philadelphia area. Their second publication, "Going Mod: Reducing Housing Costs in Philadelphia with Modular Construction", described the process of modular construction, its benefits and how it could lower construction costs. It also used a pricing RFP to gain direct cost information from construction companies and manufacturers to directly compare the viability of this proposal. The information they found showed that construction could be done in all four seasons, the consolidation and efficiency of the process could lower costs by up to 20%, and that any higher costs at the

Gov. suggests BIA put their complaints in writing

FIXITPHILLY - Philadelphia PA Coalition between BIA Philly and ten other non-profits with help from May 8 Consulting and the William Penn Foundation

Category

Stick Built

Modular

% Saved

Urban 16ft

$156 / sqft

$124 / sqft

20.5% saved

Urban 20ft

$137 / sqft

$125 / sqft

8.7% saved

Suburban 16ft

$128 / sqft

$106 / sqft

17.2% saved

Suburban 20ft

$113 / sqft

$112 / sqft

0.9% saved

coalition formed to push forward Pub.1 and investigate more strategies

9 of 10 Principles Achieved

2009

2004

Publication 1 with complaints and recommendations for Philly building industry

Implementation & dispersion.

FixItPhilly Advocacy & Support

2004

Problem analysis and media creation.

“When we fix it, they will come”

“Going Mod”

by 2009 9 of their 10 recommendations had been acted on in some way

141

MODULAR COALTIONS ONION FLATS BUSINESS MODEL Philadelphia PA 2012 3 units Onion Flats, a Philadelphia based design / build collaborative, has shaken up the industry in a number of ways, consistently putting their own spin on the functionality involved in their projects. When examining the work they have done from 10,000 meters, it seems as though they are simply another high quality urban building design team, until the structure of the company is taken into account. By vertically integrating the firm to include consulting services that encompass sustainability, passive haus, and owner representation sectors, they are able to have an extremely high amount of control over each of their projects.

142

The firm has a strong commitment to creating holistically responsible projects, which includes creating an entire branch of its company dedicated to helping others build modularly. Their website elaborates further the firm’s ideals toward the industry, stating that, “Onion Flats has been exploring the opportunities offered by modular construction since early 2000 including partnering with a modular manufacturer for more than five years, and completing a number of modular projects. As a result, Onion Flats has extensive experience in the challenges and opportunities of modular construction. Onion Flats provides consulting services in both modular planning, site suitability, financial analysis, and modular manufacturer selection.” It should be noted that the statement provided is possibly influenced by and may have been an influencer in Philadelphia’s recent involvement in a city wide initiative

to include modular construction as a major tool to combat a dual-pronged housing and environmental crisis. “Going Mod” is a publication commissioned by the BIA and the FixItPhilly Coalition, through May 8 Consulting, in order to move forward this movement.

Belfield Townhomes, a recent project under the Onion Flats collaborative is a set of modular townhomes built as a pilot concept for developing quality net zero social housing in Philadelphia alongside the Urban Affairs Coalition's nonprofit Program Partner, Raise of Hope. The idea for the project initially came when the firm was approached by the city to save a previous proposal. When the idea was being discussed, the team realized they could not only bring the project to fruition, but it could be done incredibly efficiently, making it an exception to the perceived rule that passive haus or net zero buildings were costly to build.

The project, which was allocated by HUD, was finished in three total months with few bumps in the road and is now fully occupied by formerly homeless families. The metrics of the units are also consistently monitored and it lives up to its perceived passive haus standards, using solar and a tight envelope to decrease energy needs by nearly 90%. All and all, the project was a huge success on multiple fronts, including its naming as the first certified net zero energy home in Pennsylvania.

Much of this success can be attributed to the structuring of

the business model and the system of vertical integration for which they finance, design, and build their projects.

Under the umbrella of the Onion Flats name, the firm includes a monetary entity (The McDonald Group), an architect (Plumbob LLC), a technologist (G.R.A.S.S. Inc.), a builder (JIG Inc.), and a modular fabricator (BLOX).

The involvement of all of these (technically) separate companies working under one cause allows the group to build a more accurate and efficient product while limiting liability to each of its branches, rather than the whole of the umbrella.

Another recurring factor that has added into the success of many of the projects is a consistent relationship with either the city to give back to its residents, or a foundation, NGO, or charity to better the stock of quality, affordable housing in the Philadelphia metro area. Though many vertically integrated urban development firms use the inherent advantages of the process to create a high-end product for a wealthy crowd, Onion Flats uses the cost and time efficiency to build for those in need. This border line pro-bono building has implied benefits including better relations, possibly leeway, and a route to more work with the city administration and those in need of affordable housing. This calculated mixture of thoughtfully designed, cost effective, resilient characteristics specific to the Onion Flats building process is amplified by the addition of a modular building system. In fact, the concept behind bringing a modular facility on board is the idea that it complements each of the steps in the firm’s process to-a-

143

ONION FLATS BUSINESS MODEL

Onion Flats Dev.

Onion Flats BLOX

Raise of Hope Onion Flats Plumbob

Thin Flats

Rag Flats

city comes to onion flats with underwater project

144

ONION FLATS - Philadelphia PA Creation of Belfield Homes through partnership of Onion Flats with Urban Affairs Coalition and Philladelphia Redevelopment Authority

from pre-fab exp, decides to do modular

Fast, time effecient, and high quality.

Philadelphia Admin. w/ HUD

Onion Flats JIG

Onion Flats Dev.

Onion Flats Plumbob

Onion Flats BLOX

integrated system allows for streamline dev process

Ability to build at a greater scale of influence.

Onion Flats JIG

Bellfield Homes

Stable Flats

OEMNY Emergency Housing OEMNY Emergency Housing

The Ridge

modular projects since blox addition

145

MODULAR COALTIONS STAR APARTMENTS HOMELESS REHABILITATION Los Angeles CA 2013 102 units At first glance, Michael Maltzan’s “Star Apartments” certainly stick out within their downtown LA context; even more so when considering the modular industry’s stereotypical aesthetic. The $40,000,000 facility has the capability to house 100 homeless people at a time as well as providing services to rehabilitate and reintroduce them to society based on the Housing First policy proven under the Obama administration. The design of the building encourages openness and allows those in need to experience many amenities previously reserved for the wealthy. The overarching goal of the project takes a stab at the homeless crisis engulfing the Los Angeles urban fabric, and aims to chip away at the massive inequality gap in the area.

146

For prominent architect Michael Maltzan, who has effectively designed for all socioeconomic levels, this project is nothing out of the ordinary for him, in fact he had worked with the Skid Row Housing Trust successfully twice before. In 2003, the Rainbow Apartments were completed, followed by the New Carver Apartments in 2009, and finally the Star Apartments in 2013; all with a similar goal, to provide an experience to the residents of the unit and the community that would allow the disenfranchised and ailing to get back on their feet. Incorporated in this is the idea that a house is not the only tool in providing long term security to a person struck by poverty. The other part of the equation is based on providing a mental, physical, and emotional base which can be built on. This means, first and

foremost, that social housing should be as beautiful, and provide the same quality of life as more luxurious buildings.

Here profit takes a backseat to humanitarianism, but only when you consider it from a cash flow perspective. A study of homelessness across the nation conducted in 2014 found that a person with no permanent dwelling may cost taxpayers an average of $31,000 a year including medical and criminal bills chalked up to the state. This means that the faster cities can rehabilitate the homeless, the better tax-payer money can be spent on other needs, making this project highly valuable from a cost perspective as well as what it adds to the community.

Modular construction played a large part in the building’s shape and project’s overall purpose. The existing plinth of the building was redeveloped to house the pragmatic components of the program with regards to benefiting its inhabitants and their road to self sufficiency, specifically the county’s Department for Health Services’ Housing for Health division. This moved the center to a more active point of the homeless community in the city, while the remainder of the first and second floors contain a library, fitness areas, art space, and a community garden. Hovering above are the 102 housing units that give the inhabitants a second chance to get on their feet. The shape and cost efficiency of these modular units seemed to be ideal for the type of residences that the Skid Row Housing Trust was looking to develop. Plus, the move to off-site modular

construction meant that the project could also save money via holding and construction costs by building the units within the same time frame as the conventional construction happening in the plinth of the building. And what a success it was…

Since its inception, the apartments have received notable recognitions, including a place on the Time Magazine “25 Best Inventions of 2015” where it was hailed as a fresh take on homeless housing, and a 2015 LEED award for “Outstanding Affordable Project”. The success of the Star Apartments, the Rainbow Apartments, and the New Carver Apartments have given birth to another collaboration between the Skid Row Housing Trust and Michael Maltzan.

The Crest Apartments which are coming to fruition in late 2016 and are aimed at being LEED Platinum social housing much like its predesesors.

147

STAR APARTMENTS HOMELESS REHABILITATION

Gensler

New Carver Apts

Skid Row Housing Trust

2012

LA DHS Housing & Health

STAR APARTMENTS - Los Angeles CA Partnership between Skid Row Housing Trust, Michael Maltzan Architecture and Guerdon Modular Buildings, with help from SciArch and Gensler Architects

Guerdon Guerdon

Gensler

2013

2006

148

previous collaboration

designs office space pro bono

Skid Row Housing Trust

lowering cost and time, increasing sustainability through modular construction

Lower $ / sq ft = better location.

Michael Maltzan Arch.

Partnering on design cost = lower $ / sq ft.

Rainbow Apts

Michael Maltzan Arch.

Skid Row Housing Trust

Guerdon

Sci Arc

Gensler

Guerdon

Skid Row Housing Trust

Guerdon Star Apts

Crest Apts

Gensler

Guerdon

Sci Arc

2013

2013

provides local location for modules storage

Neighboring insitutional partners = lower $ / sq ft.

Michael Maltzan Arch.

Michael Maltzan Arch.

continued partnership of skid row and maltzen though not modular

149

MODULAR COALTIONS THE STACK New York City 2012 3 units

150

Peter Gluck Arch.

Brown Hill Dev.

Deluxe Building Systems

Traditonal building methods + holding costs.

The Stack the first modular multi story residential building in Manhattan, is a product of a collaboration of team members who each contribute to a phase of the design process. This group was a more traditional building team in terms of composition, and considered innovation a driving force and a deciding factor in the project. Peter Gluck (an architect / developer), Brown Hill Development, and Deluxe Building Systems (a modular manufacturer) were able to deviate from the norm and produce a successful residential building within a moderate time frame and budget largely due to the fact that project was riding the wave of innovation. Each of the entities involved was looking to leverage the media coverage. The architect and developer knew this would put them at some level of expertise in the logically evolving market that is urban modular construction. Meanwhile New York policy makers saw this as a chance to be seen in the media as being on the forefront of a global building technology movement.

THE STACK - Manhattan NY Partnership between Gluck+, Deluxe Building Systems, and Brown Hill Development

Brown Hill Dev. Deluxe Building Systems

NYC Admin.

Media and good will.

Peter Gluck Arch.

Peter Gluck Arch.

Brown Hill Dev. Deluxe Building Systems

The Stack

Deluxe Building Systems

151

MODULAR COALTIONS FC RATNER > FC MODULAR > FULL STACK MODULAR Brooklyn NY 2014 363 units Forest City Ratner Companies and SHoP architects were the talk of the world wide building industry in 2009 when Brooklyn’s brand new Barclay’s Center was constructed.

Following that victory, they developed a large residential project that would be an innovation in housing and could change the cityscape entirely… the worlds tallest modular structure. In order to do this FCR (Forest City Ratner) and original architect Garrison Architects hired a modular consulting firm, Xsite Modular, in New Jersey to collaborate on the project. Here, the first conflict started as the design team felt they were undercompensated for the scale of the task at hand, especially considering the girth of the issue involved and the experience expected of the team. Deterioration occurred and a new team, who was considered more equip to handle the monumental undertaking, was formed.

152

461 Dean Street, as it was called at the time, was now to be built under the likes of SHoP in partnership with Skanska construction. The team decided that the most effective path would lie in the creation of a totally new entity called FC Modular; the acronym derived from the Forest City ownership, while the management would be in the hands of Skanska. Upon analysis of the modular industry, its functionality, standardization, and shipping methods, the team decided upon large non-combustible, volumetric units that that would be stacked in place like Legos.

Much like the smaller scale operation involved in Capsys, the units would be constructed close by in the Brooklyn

Navy Yard and trucked to the nearby site. However, these massive building blocks required special street blockages, meaning they would be moved at night. The process was hailed by the media and the design community as being revolutionary, claiming massive cost, timing, and efficiency innovations due to the nature of modular construction.

However, a project of this scale was bound to run into obstacles, especially considering the issue surrounding its construction technique; a tower of this height, with its bracing structure, code requirements and tolerances had never been built.

Fresh off of the new development at the truly extraordinary Barclay’s Center across the street, there was clearly no better team to innovate on fabrication techniques than those hired to erect the $4.9 billion project. In line with the mission of the administration to create low and middleincome housing in a rapidly gentrifying area, the project planned for half of the 1,500 units to cater to working class residents. The city handed over $300 million in subsidies as well as various setback allowances regarding code compliance, and was promised usage of union workers to create thousands of jobs, essentially making the entire project holistically beneficial. All seemed to be moving along smoothly, much to the shock of intelligent naysayers eagerly tracking the progress, until major delays began popping up nearing the announced completion date.

The three major entities involved entered litigation, each releasing statements to the press about how they were

not to blame. FCR was held accountable by Skanska for cutting corners in the design process, Skanska was being blamed by SHoP for underestimating its responsibility in the fabrication process, and SHoP was being hailed as a one hit wonder by the media. Meanwhile the city was up in arms about the extreme lack of job creation promised in predesign phases.

Now, nearly 4 years later, the renamed B2 Tower of the Atlantic Yards development site is finally wrapping up after FCR purchased Skanska’s stake in the project, overhauled the production process and finished the tower on its own.

And while some are considering it a positive example of disruptive innovation in the design / build field, others are more quickly drawn towards what it left behind in terms of promises left unfulfilled, budgets overdrawn, and timing totally disregarded. One man, Roger Krulak, former vice president of Forest City Ratner construction division is still wildly optimistic that the future of the building industry relies on modular construction to take on the ever increasing need to build faster, cheaper, and of better quality than traditional methods. He purchased the facilities sold off after the project and rebranded the operation Full Stack Modular, mentioning that there are a hand full of projects in the pipeline, including a 40 story tower in Singapore, and noting that the the Asian market is rapidly emerging.

153

FC RATNER > FC MODULAR > FULL STACK MODULAR

Garrison Arch.

Atlantic Yards B2 Forest City Ratner

Forest City Ratner Barclay’s Center

SHoP Arch.

SHoP Arch.

Skanska

SHoP Arch.

FC Modular

Who will do it?

XSite Modular

Forest City Ratner

Forest City Ratner

SHoP Arch.

SHoP Arch.

Skanska Skanska FC Modular

FC Modular

Skanska

NY BUILDING CONGRESS pres endorses new construction techniques

2014

ATLANTIC YARDS B2 TOWER - Brooklyn NY Partnership starting as SHoP Architects, Forest City Ratner Companies and Skanska and yielding FC Modular

form modular fabrication co. for atlantic yards project

2013

reject project

2011

2011

2010

154

previous collaboration

project issues result in litigation

SHoP Arch.

SHoP Arch.

FC Modular

Skanska

FC Modular

SHoP Arch.

Forest City Ratner

Roger Kulak

SHoP Arch.

FC Modular

Fullstack Modular

What about the factory?

Forest City Ratner

Time to finish up.

Forest City Ratner

Forest City Ratner

2016

kulak purchases assets to move co.forwards as fullstack

155

MODULAR COALITIONS UHU - URBAN HOUSING UNIT Boston MA 2016 1 modular micro unit built Prototype project 385 sq ft

Idea through: Tamara Roy (Stantec) Mayor's Housing Innovation Lab Design by: Tamara Roy (Stantec) PennKraft Building Systems Livelight Exhibition through: BSA / BSA Foundation Mayor's Housing Innovation Lab

Over the years, Tamara Roy and Stantec had been exploring housing options in the South Boston Innovation District of the city, particularly micro housing options and current size constraints. Discussions with the city’s new Housing Innovation Lab resulted in a combined effort to get more prototype options for the city. In order to do this Roy, the Housing Innovation Lab team and the BSA created a competition in early 2016 and went through design charettes with residents to determine how to downsize housing in Boston. In the end, the uhu urban housing model, spearheaded by Tamara Roy, was chosen for prototype creation and exhibits.

Tamara Roy / Stantec

Mayor’s Housing Innovation Lab

Livelight Micro Competition

Tamara Roy / Stantec

2016

2015

Roy advocating for changes in zoning and regulations that allow micro unit housing in Boston

PennKraft

Tamara Roy and Stantec wins the micro housing competition livelight and pennkraft brought in to create modular micro units to achieve timeline and portability goals

156

The general idea was to built one micro unit and set it up throughout the city over the summer of 2016 in order to get viewership from residents who would not typically go to the BSA Exhibit Space to see something like this. In order to create a micro unit that could be moved easily, they had to bring on PennKraft Building Systems and Livelight LLC to help manufacture and design a modular micro unit. The modular technology allowed them the speed needed to get a prototype up and running in only a few months and allowed the unit to easily travel throughout the city without structural damages or disassembly.

Tamara Roy / Stantec BSA Live Light

PennKraft

Initiative media and industry outreach.

Mobility and public accessibility.

Mayor’s Innovation Housing Lab

The unit achieved great success by visiting neighborhoods where this type of solution could be viable. The key was being able to physically show people what micro unit space looked like since few can visualize 385 sqft and have negative initial reactions to the concept of a micro unit.

Many seniors, young professionals, and even small families found the unit and its options to be an attractive solution to their current housing woes. Hopefully after its 2016-2017 exhibit in the BSA Space, the uhu urban housing unit can become a realized housing solution for Boston.

Mayor’s Innovation Housing Lab Tamara Roy / Stantec uhu Live Light

Penncraft

BSA

bsa foundation helps with funds and publicition through use of the bsa space

UHU - Boston MA Created by Tamara Roy, LiveLight and PennKraft with help from Mayor's Housing Innovation Lab and the BSA

157

MODULAR COALITIONS MILLENNIAL VILLAGE IDEA Boston MA 2016 Innovative Housing Idea Prototype project

Barry Bluestone Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy Northeastern University City of Boston

Northeastern University

158

Housing Report Card

MILLENNIAL VILLAGE - Boston MA Conceptualized by Barry Bluestone through work with Northeastern University, the Dukakis Center and the city of Boston.

Barry Bluestone

Northeastern University

Millennial Village Idea

what could solve some of the isses?

Dukakis Center

what are the Boston housing issues?

Barry Bluestone

In 1999 Barry Bluestone, then Dean of the Northeastern University School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, helped found the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy.

The general mission was to conduct interdisciplinary research at Northeastern University to address “challenges facing urban areas throughout Greater Boston, the Commonwealth, and the nation,� (northeastern.edu/ dukakiscenter) One of the projects of this center has been the Greater Boston Housing Report Card, a publication that has been produced yearly since 2002. The most recent 2015 and 2016 publications have shown that housing needs are drastically different than what is currently being built and Barry has tried to figure out a way to address that problem.

While not an architect, Barry Bluestone has made connections within the architecture industry in order to push forward his concept of a Millennial Village which he thinks can solve some of the current housing issues in Greater Boston. This project would ideally be an apartment building with small unit sizes and large community spaces to create lower cost city housing options for college students, young professionals, and even retired baby boomers who don’t want to live in the suburbs anymore.

In order to make this project happen, Bluestone feels that a combined effort is needed between the city/state government, architects, housing developers, public and commercial lenders, universities, hospitals and other large employers, and the unionized building trades. Each of these would play a key role in making sure that the Millennial Village is successful in predicting needs and providing solutions for Boston housing.

159

MILLENNIEL VILLAGE IDEA

Design Team Boston 2030 Housing Plan

Lenders

Boston City Gov

Design Team

State Gov

where will it go?

Lenders Boston City Gov

can it be designed?

Dukakis Center

future potential progression

Barry Bluestone

Architects

Developers

encouragement of innovating design thinking

Construction

160

MILLENNIAL VILLAGE - Boston MA Conceptualized by Barry Bluestone through work with Northeastern University, the Dukakis Center and the city of Boston.

provide zoning and policy changes and locations for factories and apartment buildings

Unions Boston City Gov

State Gov

lower rates to encourage use of unions education of apprentices through project

Design Team Colleges Boston City Gov Hospitals State Gov

Unions

who will live here?

Design Team

union approval. lower rates.

Lenders

Lenders

Lenders

Design Team

Boston City Gov

State Gov

Millennial Village

Unions

Colleges

Hospitals

master leases signed for more guaranteed initial residency solution to housing issues for students

161

MODULAR COALITIONS NP - Non-profit FP - For profit Our findings indicate that a successful project, measured in terms of completion and impact on the building industry, is often based on a combination of a driving factor, a cause or non-profit based institution, collaborating with a for-profit, and a modular corporation to create a product. This is a common precedent across many of the projects created in urban fabric of the three coastal cities studied in our research. Housing for the underprivledged, cost-effective building techniques, and innovation in the media are tools used in these coalitions to hurdle common obstacles in the development process. Due to a common objective amongst all of the entities involved in each project, certain groups are willing to compromise for the betterment of the whole. This is shown in code variances, cash offerings, and man hour commitments to projects that would otherwise most likely not be considered.

ALEXANDER GORLIN ARCHITECTS

Capsys-Nehemiah II:

162

International Area Foundation (NP), East Brooklyn Congregations (NP), Metro-IAF (NP), Alexander Gorlin Architects (Arch), Monadnock Development LLC (FP), and Capsys (FP)

May 8 Consulting

FixItPhilly Coalition

FixItPhilly Coalition Building Industries Association Philadelphia (NP), May 8 Consulting (FP), and the FixItPhilly Coalition membes (NP)

Capsys-Carmel Place

Onion Flats Business Model

adAPT NYC (NP), Actor's Fund (NP), nArchitects (FP), Monadnock Development LLC (FP), and Capsys (FP)

Onion Flats (FP), the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (NP), and the Urban Affiars Coalition (NP)

163

Star Apartments Homeless Rehabilitation Skid Row Housing Trust (NP), Michael Maltzen Architecture (FP), Gensler (FP)

The Stack

164

Gluck+ (FP), Deluxe Building Systems (FP), and Brown Hill Development (FP)

FC Ratner > FC Modular > Full Stack Modular Forest City Ratner (FP), SHoP (FP), Skanska (FP), New York City Building Council (NP), and the New York Building Foundation (NP)

Barry Bluestone

Tamara Roy

uhu Urban Housing Unit

Millennial Village

Tamara Roy (FP), Mayor's Housing Innovation Lab (NP), BSA (NP), LiveLight LLC (FP), and PennKraft (FP)

Barry Bluestone (NP), the Northeastern Dukakis Center (NP), Stantec (FP), and more...

165

166

INDICATORS & INITIATIVES This chapter focuses on three initiatives that could help jump start a modular facility in Boston. The three types of housing that could act as a seed project for a Boston facility are private housing, Millennial Villages and ADU's.

Boston is facing a housing shortage and each of these initiatives looks at a way to address the shortage on a different scale. Private housing is experiencing an increase in permits for construction which is helpful for the modular initiative which works great up to five stories. The Millennial Village initiative looks at locations where students are currently living and therefore neighborhoods that have the most stresses from students. The section on ADU's looks at Boston's bi-laws which are pursuing permits for the construction of accessible dwelling units in people's backyards. This could be a small-scale solution to the housing project that could easily implement modular.

167

INDICATORS & INITIATIVES HEADLINES

2014 MILLENNIAL VILLAGES 2016

ARE PRE-FAB MICRO UNITS THE SOLUTION TO MILLENIAL URBAN DESIGN?

MULTIFAMILY EXECUTIVE.COM, AUGUST 2014

2015 IT TAKES A MILLENIAL VILLAGE TO GET CHEAP HOUSING IN BOSTON

BOSTONGLOBE.COM, MARCH 2015

YOUNG BOSTONIANS MIGHT GET THEIR OWN 'MILLENNIAL VILLAGES'

MENTALFLOSS.COM, MARCH 2016

'MILLENIAL VILLAGES' FOR YOPROS ARE NOW MASS. LEGISLATURE APPROVED: FOR "EXPLORATION" PURPOSES AT THE VERY LEAST

BOSTINNO.COM, MARCH 2016

THIS CITY WANTS TO CREATE A 'VILLAGE' FOR MILLENNIALS TIME.COM, MARCH 2016

THE YOUNG AND THE NESTLESS: HELPING MILLENNIALS WITH HOUSING

BIGSTORY.AP.ORG, MARCH 2016

BOSTON NONPROFIT WANTS TO PUT GROWN-UPS IN DORMS

168

BLOOMBERG.COM, MARCH 2015

WOULD 'MILLENIAL VILLAGES' SOLVE BOSTON'S HOUSING CRISIS? REALESTATE.BOSTON.COM, MARCH 2016

2017

MILLENNIAL VILLAGES The Millennial Village is one possible solution to the student housing crisis in Boston. There are roughly 150,000 students in Boston and the majority are living off campus.

The students are pushing middle and lower class families out of their homes. Millennial Villages would help alleviate the pressures in working class neighborhoods by catering to undergraduates, graduates, and young professionals.

Barry Bluestone, an economist and faculty member working in the Dukakis Center on Northeastern's campus, is a big advocator for the Millennial Village and says that the Village could also cater to Baby Boomers who are

selling their homes in the suburbs and moving back into the city. Ideally, Millennial Villages would be located close to public transportation networks so students and working professionals have easy access to universities and offices.

The goal of the Millennial Village is to free up work housing stock. Marty Walsh, the Mayor of Boston, created an initiative to construct 18,500 new dorm beds by 2030. This initiative will ultimately free up 5,000 workforce housing units that students are currently occupying. Incorporating modular with the idea of the Millennial Village could be an optimal way of constructing all these new dorms.

Barry Bluestone, Dukakis Center

169

UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES This map of Boston is highlighting University Campuses in light red. The darker, red bubbles show the student population at that campus. The MBTA network is overlaid to show the connectivity between campuses and different areas of Boston. This map is a tool to begin to understand where the students in Boston attend school and subsequently where they would like to live in close relation to.

5.

1.

4.

Student Population

2.

3.

1. Boston University 32,551 2. Northeastern University 19,798 3. UMass, Boston 16,756 4. Boston College 13,705 5. Bunker Hill Community College 12,271

University Campus 170

Student Population

bostonplans.org ; colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com

NEIGHBORHOOD POPULATIONS This map is drawing upon the previous map while representing the neighborhood boundaries. The population of each neighborhood is in light blue and the off student population in each neighborhood is represented with dark blue. This map shows the neighborhoods with the highest off campus student populations.

University Campus Student Population Neighborhood Population Off Campus Population

bostonplans.org ; colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com ; Department of Neighborhood Development

171

OFF-CAMPUS STUDENT POPULATION 1% 16. Charlestown 1.4%

West End

1. Allston

Beacon Hill

9%

Downtown

7.3%

Back Bay

1. Brighton

Bay Village

Chinatown

14.5%

LMA

South Boston Waterfront

6.9%

2. Fenway

South End

4. Mission Hill

East Boston

North End

South Boston

1.9%

17.5%

1.7%

Roxbury

10.8% 3. Jamaica Plain

1.6%

172

5. Dorchester

bostonplans.org ; Department of Neighborhood Development

Roslindale 1.1%

2.0%

OFF CAMPUS STUDENTS BY NEIGHBORHOOD In the chart below each Boston neighborhoods is ranked by the total number of students living in a neighborhood. This chart was used as a basis to create a series of maps that highlight the neighborhoods with the highest off campus student population and the neighborhoods with the least. The subsequent series of maps helps understand the fabric of Boston in terms of student distribution and the stresses on the existing neighborhood infrastructure.

NEIGHBORHOOD 1. Allston/Brighton 2. Fenway/Kenmore 3. Jamaica Plain 4. Mission Hill 5. Dorchester 6. Central 7. Back Bay/Beacon Hill 8. South End 9. Roxbury 10. South Boston 11. Roslindale 12. East Boston 13. Hyde Park 14. West Roxbury 15. Mattapan 16. Charlestown

UNDERGRADS ALL STUDENTS % OF ALL STUDENTS THAT ARE UNDERGRADS

2,874 3,797 2,410 1,979 2,320 1,099 1,054 842 748 372 392 421 348 254 318 87

6,486 5,930 4,058 3,326 2,711 1,971 1,930 1,648 1,050 669 590 568 420 359 378 167

44% 64% 59% 59% 86% 56% 55% 50% 71% 56% 66% 74% 83% 71% 84% 52%

Boston Student Housing Trends 2014-2015 Department of Neighborhood Development

173

1. ALLSTON | BRIGHTON

Allston and Brighton have the highest off-campus student population in Boston at 6,486 students. Boston College, Boston University and Harvard University are responsible for bringing in the majority of the student population but many students also move to this neighborhood because of its slightly cheaper prices for housing.

9%

44% Undergrads 56% Grads

174

Overall Population: 65,276

University Campus Fabric

Off Campus Student Population: 6,486

University Campuses

BU West

St. Paul's St.

Pleasant St.

Babock St.

Packards Corner

Harvard Ave.

Griggs St.

Allston St.

Warren St.

Washington St.

Sutherland Rd.

Chiswick Rd.

Chestnut Hill Avenue

South St.

Boston College

B

UNIVERSITIES

Boston College Boston University Harvard University St. John's Seminary

Building Fabric : Neighborhood vs. Campus bostonplans.org ; Department of Neighborhood Development 175

2. FENWAY | KENMORE

Fenway and Kenmore have a huge percentage of off-campus students compared to the overall neighborhood population. Nearly 15% of the neighborhood population are students. There are 13 Universities in this neighborhood which makes it one of the most desirable locations to live in Boston for students.

14.5%

64% Undergrads 36% Grads

176

Overall Population: 40,898

Off Campus Student Population: 5,930

University Campus Fabric

University Campuses

B

BU Central

BU East

C D

Hawes Fenway

Longwood

E

Kenmore

Blanford

Longwood Medical Area

Northeastern

MFA Ruggles

Symphony Massachusetts Avenue

UNIVERSITIES

Berklee College of Music Boston Conservatory Boston University Emmanuel College Harvard Medical School Massachusetts College of Art Massachusetts College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences New England Conservatory Northeastern University Simmons College Wentworth Institute of Technology Wheelock College

Building Fabric : Neighborhood vs. Campus bostonplans.org ; Department of Neighborhood Development

177

3. JAMAICA PLAIN

Jamaica Plain is slightly on the outskirts of where many universities are located but because of its easy access to the city because of the orange line many students find this neighborhood desirable.

10.8%

59% Undergrads 41% Grads

178

Overall Population: 37,468

University Campus Fabric

Off Campus Student Population: 4,058

University Campuses

E Forest Hills

Green

Stony Brook

Heath St.

Jackson Sq.

UNIVERSITIES Harvard Arboretum Hellenic College

Building Fabric : Neighborhood vs. Campus bostonplans.org ; Department of Neighborhood Development

179

4. MISSION HILL

Mission Hill has the highest percentage of off-campus students compared to the neighborhoods population. Mission Hill is easily accessible by the green and orange line and is still walking distance to all of the Universities in Fenway. Mission Hill is one of the neighborhoods that is struggling with the student population as many lower and middle class families are being pushed out of this increasingly gentrifying area.

17.5%

59% Undergrads

University Campus Fabric

41% Grads

180

Overall Population: 19,000

Off Campus Student Population: 3,326

University Campuses

E

Heath

Back of the Hill

Riverway

Mission Park

Fenwood Brigham Circle Road

Longwood Medical Area

MFA

Roxbury Crossing

UNIVERSITIES

Wentworth Institute of Technology

Building Fabric : Neighborhood vs. Campus bostonplans.org ; Department of Neighborhood Development

181

5. DORCHESTER

Although only containing one University in the neighborhood Dorchester is the fifth highest off campus student population. Lower housing prices and accessibility with the red line make this neighborhood more accessible and desirable than others in Boston.

1.6%

85% Undergrads 15% Grads University Campus Fabric

182

Overall Population: 160,691

Off Campus Student Population: 2,711

University Campuses

Butler

Cedar Grove

Ashmont

Shawmut

Fields Corner

Savin Hill JFK/UMASS

UNIVERSITIES

University of Massachusetts, Boston

Building Fabric : Neighborhood vs. Campus bostonplans.org ; Department of Neighborhood Development

183

16. CHARLESTOWN

Charlestown has the smallest population of off-campus students. Despite some access to the orange line most of Charlestown is unaccessible by the MBTA and the buses run very infrequently. Bunker Hill Community College is located in Charlestown, which has a large student population but the majority of the students commute which accounts for the low student population in the area.

1%

59% Undergrads 41% Grads University Campus Fabric

184

Overall Population: 16,685

Off Campus Student Population: 167

University Campuses

Sullivan Square

Community College.

UNIVERSITIES

Bunker Hill Community College

Building Fabric : Neighborhood vs. Campus bostonplans.org ; Department of Neighborhood Development

185

ON CAMPUS / OFF CAMPUS HOUSING

186

To meet the 2030 dorm housing initiative there are many high rise dorms being built in Boston on Campuses such as Northeastern, Emmanuel and Emerson. To implement modular into this building type would require a hybrid system of modular and traditional building techniques. The example at Harvard University is a great example of a dorm that could easily be built using modular. The triple decker dorm could use wood modular techniques quite easily and effectively.

The last two examples are apartment complexes that are not exclusively for students but are located next to large campuses ; UMass Boston and Harvard.

These two examples could be adapted to modular with a base + 5 floor strategy in wood or steel. The University Place and Barry's Corner Residential can be used as precedents for a Millennial Village

Northeastern University East Village

Northeastern University Burke St. Residence Hall

Emmanuel College New Julie Hall

220,000 SF 713 beds

320,000 SF 800 beds

267,500 SF 691 beds

Fenway

Roxbury

Fenway

457 SF 114 SF/P $4,575/P

974 SF 324 SF/P $5,490/P

846 SF 211 SF/P

1,008 SF 252 SF/P 1,161 SF 290 SF/P https://www.northeastern.edu/housing/rates/ ; http://www.bostonplans.org/projects

Emerson College 1-3 Bolyston Place

Harvard University Hingham & Western Ave

University Place Residences 150 Mt. Vernon

Barry's Corner Residential & Retail Commons 141 North Harvard

89,900 SF 400 beds

7,500 SF 18 beds

175,000 SF 184 residential units

350,000 SF 325 residential units

Downtown

Cambridge

Dorchester

Allston

1,267 SF 422 SF/P $3,680/P

917 SF 152 SF/P bostonplans.org ; https://www.harvardhousingoffcampus.com

187

ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR STUDENT HOUSING These three examples are all models that already exist in Boston that could be implemented in a Millennial Village. The first is a co-housing building located in Jamaica Plain where the residents share resources and a new way of living. The Bayridge Residence houses female students from different colleges throughout Boston to give them a unique living experience. The last example is the Beacon Hill Village which is a center for people over 50 to receive help but also go on cultural and social outings around Boston. A Millennial Village should strive to incorporate each of these unique models.

188

Jamaica Plain Co-Housing 65 Cornwall St.

Bayridge Residence & Cultural Center 395 Commonwealth Ave

Beacon Hill Village 74 Joy St.

Jamaica Plain

Back Bay

Beacon Hill

Co-housing is more than just a house - it's a way of living that makes it easy for you to meet neighbors, make friends, find playmates for the kids, attend parties or find a movie group.

We are situated in the artistic Brookside area of the socially and environmentally-conscious neighborhood of Jamaica Plain in Boston.

Bayridge is an independent student residence and cultural center, which offers off-campus housing for university women around Boston and Cambridge.

We are a community of people in central Boston who prosper from directing our lives and creating our own future. We are trend setters for a new generation of people over 50 and invite you to join us in this exciting venture.

Dining Hall Living Room Toddler Room Home Theater Office Space

Meeting Room Laundry Bike Storage Craft Studios Gardens

Dining Hall Library Kitchenette Multi-purpose room ( TV + work-out) Chapel Common Space on every floor Laundry Study Room Bike Storage Music Practice Room

Concierge Services Social and Cultural Programs Transportation Discounted Home health care providers Discounted Health and Wellness Programs

https://sites.google.com/site/jpcohousinginternet/ ; http://www.bayridgeresidence.org ; http://www.beaconhillvillage.org

189

INDICATORS AND INITIATIVES 2016 BOSTON PERMITS The Boston Planning and Development Agency map below shows all the approved development up to date in Boston.

Looking at the numbers of buildings and their types we are able to analyze and predict the potential of modular construction in Boston. These analysis would serve as a tool for initiating a modular facility in the city of Boston

190

Source: http://www.bostonplans.org/

BOSTON NEWS HEADLINES

2014 BOSTON 2017 HOUSING 2015 2016

“THE YEAR 2030, BOSTON WILL REACH MORE THAN 700,000 RESIDENTS, A NUMBER THE CITY HAS NOT SEEN SINCE THE 1950S. CITYOFBOSTON.GOV

“CITY ESTIMATES 53,000 UNITS OF HOUSING REQUIRED BY 2030" BOSTON.GOV

“MAYOR WALSH ROLLS OUT PROPOSALS TO COMBAT HOMELESSNESS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, EVICTION”

“MAYOR WALSH BREAKS GROUND AT ORIENT HEIGHTS PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN EAST BOSTON”

“EIGHT PROJECTS VALUED AT $1B TO BREAK GROUND IN BOSTON”

BOSTONHOUSING.ORG

MULTIHOUSINGNEWS.COM

PATCH.COM BOSTON PATCH

191

192

TYPOLOGICAL BREAKDOWN Private housing has been in their best year in Boston. 2016 shows that Boston has the majority of housing typologies up to 5 stories plus one base (type 5 Construction). 68.8% of overall construction for 2016 is type 5 construction and that is a good indicator for modular housing since the majority of modular facilities build in wood up to 5 stories.

The good example of such facility is Simplex which does from single family home to multifamily housing to up to 5 stories. We also have Capsys as an example that has successfully built a 10-floor tower (My micro) out of steel modules. That is also a category(6-10 stories) of buildings that modular can take part on and in Boston for 2016 that is 20.7% of overall construction

Suffolk County

53% SQFT

28.7%

26.4%

PERMITS

PERMITS

19%

18%

SQFT

SQFT

13.7%

20.7% PERMITS

10.3%

PERMITS

PERMITS

5%

3%

SQFT

SQFT

3 FLOORS

4 FLOORS

5 FLOORS

6-11 FLOORS

12+ FLOORS

Boston Permits by Typologies Source: http://www.bostonplans.org/

193

MODULAR CONSTRUCTION IN BOSTON Developers in Cambridge have already started to use modular. The Rand at Porter by Urban Spaces has built 20 condos with modular construction. The movement has already started in Boston and a seed project could be the spur for the modular industry in Boston while helping the city with its housing shortage. This is a 1+3 building type.

194

The RAND Source: randcambridge.com/

BUILDING CODE IN RELATION TO MODULAR CONSTRUCTION We are primarily interested in building up to 5 stories tall because this height works the best with the Building Code.

After 70 feet there are many additional codes that kick in and modular becomes less feasible at this point.

REFERENCE PLAN C 907.8.2 high-Rise Buildings Alarm-initiating devices 907.2.12 High-Rise Buildings Emergency alarm systems 905.8 High-Rise Buildings Standpipe or sprinkler risers 403.13 Smokeproof Exit Enclosure Smokeproof enclosures and pressurization 403.12.1 Stairway Communication System Two-Way communication systems 403.12 Stairway Door Operation Lockable stariway doors 403.11 Emergency Power Systems Emergency power system requirements 403.10 Standby Power Standby power system 403.9 Elevators Elevators serving all floors + lobby enclosure 403.3 Reduction in Fire-Resistance Rating Fire-resistance and sprinkler control 403.3.2 Shaft Enclosures Vertical shaft barrier walls

REINFORCED STEEL MODULE REFERENCE PLAN C 1022.2 Use in a Means of Egress Exterior exit ramps and stairways 1019.1.8 Smokeproof Enclosure Smokeproof enxlosure and pressurized stairway 911.0 Fire Command Center Fire command center guidelines

12 11 10

75’ STEEL MODULE

403.3.1 Type of Construction Minimum contruction type allowed

Capsys Maximum Height Non Combustable Materials

403.2 Automatic Sprinkler System Sprinklers and secondary water supply REFERENCE PLAN C 1609.5.1 Protection of Openings Glazing and building openings

9 8

REFERENCE PLAN C 903.2.11.3 Building Over 55’ in Height Automatic sprinkler system

70’

7 6

2605.2 Exterior Use Exterior plastic veneer height limit

60’ Simplex Maximum Height Combustable Materials WOOD MODULE

ACCESIBILITY

CONSTRUCTION

Source: Housing Studio.Northeastern University

5 4 3 2 1

30’

55’

50’

1007.3 Enclosed Exist Stairway Required area of refuge on each accessible floor

REFERENCE PLAN C 905.3.1 Building Height Automatic standpipe systems GROUND FLOOR 1405.11 Glass Veneer Structural glass veneer limitations

GROU ND FL O

OR

FIRE SAFETY

EGRESS/CIRC.

195

COMMON HOUSING TYPOLOGIES IN RELATION TO MODULAR CONSTRUCTION One of the most common typologies in Boston for multifamily housing is the double loaded corridor. Developers prefer this typology because it maximizes space and profit.

We want to show that modular construction can easily to be used to achieve the same typologies we already have in place.

Module 15’ x 60’

196

Module 15’ x 50’

60’ 16 Modules 1 Cores 2 Weeks (CAPSYS)

60’

150’ 40 Modules 3 Cores 5 Weeks

50’

150’ 45 Modules 2 Seperate Cores Platform + Five 5-6 weeks

60’

150’ 45 Modules 2 Cores Platform + Five 5-6 Weeks

210’ 60’

60’ 70 Modules 2 Cores Platform + Five 10 Weeks

197

198

INDICATORS & INITIATIVES HEADLINES

2014 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 2016 2015

IT WILL BENEFIT YOU NOW AND WHEN YOU TRY TO SELL YOUR HOME.

STAMP DUTY U-TURN BRINGS TAX RELIEF FOR ‘GRANNY FLAT’ BUYERS

THE GUARDIAN, APRIL 2016

BOSTONGLOBE.COM, DECEMBER 2014

AS POPULATIONS AGE IN AREAS WHERE SINGLEFAMILY ZONING PREVAILS, THERE’S BEEN A BURST OF INTEREST IN “ADUS” BOSTONGLOBE.COM, MARCH 2015

"ACCESSORY APARTMENTS AREN'T SOME FAD THAT AROSE LAST WEEK AT A NEWURBANISM CONFERENCE. THEY'RE PART OF A LONG TRADITION OF MODEST APARTMENTS AND MULTIGENERATIONAL HOMES THAT PREDATE THE POSTWORLD WAR II BOOM IN SINGLEFAMILY SUBURBAN HOMES. AND IF "GRANNY FLATS" - OR "AUNT HAUNTS" OR "NEPHEW NOOKS" OR EVEN "TOTAL STRANGER STUDIOS" - PROVIDE SUITABLE, COST-EFFICIENT QUARTERS FOR MORE PEOPLE,

WE NEED A LOT MORE OF THEM"

BOSTON GLOGE, MAY 2016

"L.A. NEEDS MORE HOUSING. REOPENING THE DOOR TO MODEST 'GRANNY FLATS' COULD HELP" LA TIMES, JUNE 2016

"THE NEXT BIG FIGHT OVER HOUSING COULD HAPPEN, LITERALLY, IN YOUR BACK YARD" WASHINGTON POST, AUGUST 2016

“PEOPLE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTAIN OLD NEIGHBORHOODS.” NY TIMES, AUGST 2016

2017 199

MODEL BYLAW

200

In most markets, when prices rise due to demand outstripping supply, the market responds by producing more of the product that consumers want. Clearly, this has not been the case in past two decades for housing in Greater Boston. Home prices and rents have systematically increased well beyond normal inflation rates as the supply of new housing continuously lacks an understanding for what the market is asking for. Various measures has been taken in order to try to change this, the model bylaw which would allow homeowners to have an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is one.

The Model Bylaw for Accessory Dwelling Units is part of an act to promote housing and sustainable development in the commonwealth. In June 2016, the Senate passed S.2311 which provides cities and towns with new tools for planning, zoning and permitting. It aims to help increase the production of housing and includes provisions that would be the most important change in zoning laws since the adoption of Chapter 40B in 1969. While the House took no action on this legislation in the current session, housing advocated are prepared to work hard in the next session to gain House approval and the Governor’s signature.

- The Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2016

MODEL BYLAW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Introduction Accessory dwelling units (also known as ‘accessory apartments’, ‘guest apartments’, ‘in-law apartments’, ‘family apartments’ or ‘secondary units’) provide units that can be integrated into existing single family neighborhoods to provide low priced housing alternatives that have little or no negative impact on the character of the neighborhood.

The regulatory approach used by most municipalities for accessory dwelling units is a zoning bylaw that permits an accessory unit, thereby allowing certain improvements to be made to the existing dwelling.

Provisions can address certain restrictions based on whether the dwelling existed as of a certain date, the maximum allowed building and site modifications, the options for choosing inhabitants, whether the main unit needs to be owner occupied, and minimum lot sizes. However, the greater the number of restrictions, the fewer options there are available to homeowners for adding the units.

The following is a model bylaw for accessory dwelling units. It is recognized that there is no single “model” that can be added to community regulations without some tailoring, therefore revisions to the text within this model is encouraged. There may also be a need to examine local development review process to find ways that the process can be streamlined to encourage homeowners to use the accessory dwelling unit ordinance.

The annotation included in this model bylaw will not be part of the adopted bylaw, but will serve as a “legislative history” of the intent of the drafters and the interpretation to be given to certain terms and provisions. The annotation includes some recommended positions that reduce burdens on both homeowners and municipalities when implementing the bylaw.

MODEL BYLAW 01.0 Purpose and Intent: The intent of permitting accessory dwelling units is to: 1. Provide older homeowners with a means of obtaining rental income, companionship, security, and services, thereby enabling them to stay more comfortably in homes and neighborhoods they might otherwise be forced to leave; 2. Add moderately priced rental units to the housing stock to meet the needs of smaller households and make housing units available to moderate income households who might otherwise have difficulty finding housing; 3. Develop housing units in single-family neighborhoods that are appropriate for households at a variety of stages in their life cycle; 4. Provide housing units for persons with disabilities; Smart Growth / Smart Energy Toolkit

1

ADU Model Bylaw

DISTRIBUSTION The City of Boston is facing growing housing demands and an increasing need to encourage and facilitate more housing options for residents. One promising strategy is building new homes in existing residential buildings.

The regulatory approach used by most municipalities for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) is a zoning bylaw that permits an accessory unit, thereby allowing certain improvements to be made to the existing dwelling. The model bylaw for ADUs in Boston are limited to singlefamily residential zoning districts on lots with 5,000 square feet or more. The zoning ordinance or bylaw requires that the principal dwelling of the ADU to be owner occupied. In order to predict the possibilities and impacts the new zoning ordinance may have on the housing market of Boston, the distribution of singlefamily households in the city may give an idea towards where accessory dwelling units could be incorporated accordingly with the ordinance.

Single-family households in Boston

201

NEIGHBOORHOOD DISTRIBUTION / TYPOLOGY By mapping out the typology of the various neighborhoods of Boston, it is possible to determine where ADUs could successfully be incorporated with he existing built fabric.

Dense neighborhoods like the South End and South Boston tends to have single-family households with limited area suitable for an additional structure in compliance with the ordinance. Dominantly residential neighborhoods which are less dense such as Allston/Brighton and Hyde Park have a greater number or detached single-family households with lots greater than 5,000 square feet which then would suit the incorporation of ADUs.

100 Students 100 Single-Family Households 100 Aveage Rent

Single-Family Households

202

Allston/Brighton

Fenway

Jamaica Plain

Nearly 100,000 students lives off-campus in Boston, these make up a large portion of the total market stock, therefore, the distribution of off-campus students relative to the average rent per person and the number of single-family households acts as a good indicator on which neighborhoods an implementation of ADUs could potentially ease the demand of the current housing market.

Neighborhoods such as Allston/Brighton and Fenway house a great percentage of the off-campus student population.

Dorchester

Central

These neighborhoods also have one of the highest rents in Boston. The number of single-family households in Fenway are remarkably lower than of Allston/Brighton which makes Allston/Brighton a more compelling neighborhood for an implementation of ADUs. A redistribution of off-campus student in neighborhoods such as West Roxbury and Hyde Park with attractive, cost efficient rental units could potentially easy the demand for smaller units in more attractive neighborhoods.

Back Bay/Beacon Hill

South End

203

204

Hyde Park

Mattapan

West Roxbury

Charlestown

Roxbury

South Boston

Roslindale

East Boston

MODULAR ADU As of today, there are various modular AUDs on the market. Modular construction is a process which construction takes place off-site under controlled plant conditions. Prefabricated modular use the same materials and designing to the same codes and standards as conventionally built facilities – but in about half the time.

The dimension of modular construction is limited to the regulations transportation from the facility to the building site.

An average modular is 13’ by 64’ (832 square feet) which is less than the regulation ordinance. The modular can be fabricated as one solid modular or multiple modulars assembled on site which allows maximum satisfaction for the customer. To prefabricate an ADU modular is more efficient than assemble it on site which minimizes cost.

Various configurations of a modular ADU can be achieved depending on what the customer wants and what the site allows for.

Max. dimension by Bylaw

Max. dimension of modular

64' 13'

13'

832 sq.ft ADU modular

32'

32'

Unit 1

Unit 2

32' 13'

Unit 1 Unit 2

Single unit ADU

Two unit ADU

205

15'

5' ADU Buidling Height

Buidling Setback

Separate ADU Entrance

Building Setback ADU Setback Buildable Space

206

Typical single-family lot with ADU

207

208

2014 MODULAR 2017 TRENDS 2015 2016

"A FACTORY IN BROOKLYN THAT CONSTRUCTS HOMES IS LOSING ITS OWN"

"BOSTON'S HOUSING SHOULD BE MORE LIKE LEGOS"

NYTIMES.COM

CONSTRUCTION IS SHUT DOWN AT ATLANTIC YARDS COMPLEX NYTIMES.COM

“DEVELOPER, SF SEE NEW POSSIBILITIES IN ASSEMBLY-LINE HOUSING”

"TINY APARTMENTS FOR HOMELESS HIT SNAGS OVER LABOR, LAND”

SFCHRONICLE.COM

RIPPLENEWS.COM

“AN AMBITIOUS CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE USING PREFAB MODULES, WITH QUESTIONS”

"NEW YORK CITY TESTS POSTDISASTER HOUSING THAT STACKS UP"

NYTIMES.COM

NYTIMES.COM

WWW.BOSTONGLOBE.COM

"NEW BUILDING TECHNIQUES NEEDED TO SOLVE BOSTON HOUSING CRISIS" WWW.BOSTONGLOBE.COM

"TINY HOME TEST DRIVE” NYTIMES.COM

209

INDICATORS AND INITIATIVES PROJECTIONS

CAPSYS 1996

200 Modules/year

NEHEMIAH 2003

2016

56% 2016

113/Year

75/Year

MY MICRO

Nehemiah is an example of a successful seed project, which started in 1996 by Capsys. This seed project required 650 units to be made out of modules and Capsys was able to start up its facility by providing these units.

To keep Capsys running the company had to produce 113/boxes a year for 7 years, as well as take on smaller projects as they came up.

By studying the Capsys start up model we calculated that it would only take 2% of all projected 53,000 buildings to support a modular facility in Boston, and only 18% of the 18,500 new dorm beds would need be built with modular construction to sustain a factory. This number is helpful because it shows that modular can be implemented for student housing without having to make up all of dorm construction. If we combine this percentage with some modular construction in the private market it shows that creating a modular facility in Boston is very possible and sustainable.

CAPSYS CAPACITY

210

37%

2030

CAPSYS

UNITS REQUIRED

2016

2030

FUTURE MANUFACTURE 56%

600 Modules/year

2016

5,600 Modules/year 5600 Modules/year

113/Year

2%

18%

75/Year

MY MICRO

2003

NEHEMIAH

2016

MILLENNIAL HOUSING

1996

200 Modules/year

37%

CAPSYS CAPACITY MILLENIAL HOUSING

2030

BOSTON FUTURE PLAN PRIVATE HOUSING

211

IMPLEMENTATION OF ADU The population is aging, average household size is shrinking but yet the housing stock is increasingly out of synch with these changing demographics. Even Boston, where multifamily housing is common, treats accessory units as illegal. In Portland, Oregon, supporters of the tiny-house movement have taken on the cause of reconfiguring singlefamily homes. In 2009, Portland implemented a bylaw called System Development Charges (SDC) which eased the permitting of ADU. After 7 years since the SDC was

implemented 1.8% of the total single-family households have an ADU. In 2010, the ADU zoning code was also changed to allow ADUs to be built up to 75% the size of the main house, or 800 square feet – whichever is smaller.

The old size limit was 33% the size of the main unit, which was considerably more restrictive. The City of Portland continues to grow its ADU housing stock. In 2013, there were almost 200 ADU permit applications received, which is about 25% of all single-dwelling permits in Portland.

1.8% 110

PORTLAND SDC

60

OWNER: OFF SITE

30

TENANTS: 7 BUILT: 1,300 (1%) 212

0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

MAX. HEIGHT: 18'

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

MAX. AREA:800 SQ.FT

90

SDC

If the bylaw would pass in Boston and allow for single-family households to invest in an ADU, comparing the interest and development of ADUs in Portland, Boston could have at least 1,064 permitted ADUs by 2030 which could house over 3,000 off-campus students. The saturated housing market in Boston which has allowed the rental prices to increase systematically makes ADU a relatively risk-free investment for a homeowner.

1.8% 110

BOSTON BY LAW

MAX. HEIGHT: 15'

60

OWNER: ON SITE

30

TENANTS: 3 BUILT: N/A

0

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

MAX. AREA: 900 SQ.FT

90

BYLAW

213

PAST INDICATORS Looking at the past 20 years of Boston construction permits we can see that 2016 has the most permits so far. We expect that the future permit requests will be even higher because Boston has promised to erect 53,000 new private housing units by 2030. This means that there will be enough construction to support any kind of construction method. We are looking for a certain portion of these units to be modular in order to create a seed project to support the first modular facility in Boston.

ALOUETTE 1200/Year L&G 7500/Year Total Building Permits

Buildings Over 11 Floors Height

1996-2016

9000

Units/Boxes

CAPSYS 200/Year AV SIMPLEX 1000/Year

8759

8000 7000 6000

5509

Number of Modular Boxes

5000

4955

4000 3000 2000 1000 0

2561

2419 227

249

757

1147

567

883

772 1508 1079 1156

2841

1776 1041

513

332

351

785

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Year 214

http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/bldgprmt/bldgdisp.pl

http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/bldgprmt/bldgdisp.pl

FUTURE PREDICTIONS

16000

Units/Boxes

9000

2016-2036

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000

HOUSING

2000 1000 0

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

DORMS ADU

Year 215

MODULAR FACILITY If Private Housing, Millennial Villages and ADU's become a seed project for modular construction, where should a modular facility be built? The sites shown here are possible sites because the land is city owned and the plots are large enough to host a modular facility. Additionally, each of these locations is adjacent to existing infrastructure and local transportation networks. Coincidentally, all of these sites are located on the waterfront which could be beneficial for the transportation of goods to the site.

216

Seaport, South Boston

Charlestown and Everett

217