Issuu on Google+

Riverside Towers Omar Matti Riverside Towers


Riverside Towers Lawrence Technological University Master of Architecture Designer and Author: Omar Matti 2010-2011 Graduate Thesis Advanced Design Studio Professor Martin Schwartz


Thesis Statement The purpose of this project is to create architectural space that contains both residential and commercial components for the people of the community to enjoy. This concept is derived from the idea that mixed-use buildings ought to incorporate an array of sustainable design features which will not only be able to help the environment, but also create a working connection with its residents and occupants. Mixed-use development is known as the use of a building, set of buildings, or neighborhood for more than one purpose. However, it is important to develop an understanding of the history of mixed-use development and then, capture some of the important elements of mixed-use design and apply them in the project. Mixed-use design was the norm before the development of modern zoning and land-use practices that led to the isolation and separation of different uses. Traditional mixed-use commercial and residential areas thrived into the 20th century, often at intersections and at transit nodes. But, modern zoning practices assigned land uses according to function. Houses were segregated from commerce, work, and school. From the 1910’s through the 1950’s mixed land uses were rare in new developments (Miller, 3). In the 1960s and 1970s mixed-use re-emerged as a tool for urban revitalization, in largescale projects referred to among the development community as mixed-use developments (Miller, 4). Mixed-use developments of the 1970s and 1980s were built on smaller scales than older mixed-use developments (Miller, 5-8). They also were more integrated with their urban contexts as interest in historic preservation grew. In the 1990s–2000s, mixed-use emerged as a key component of transit oriented development, traditional neighborhood development, livable communities, and smart growth principles (Miller, 9). In the late 20th century, urban planners and other professionals saw that mixed-use development entailed many benefits and should be promoted. For example, they lent credence to the fact that mixed-use developments often include residential buildings with street-front commercial space. Retailers have

the assurance that they will always have customers living right above and around them, while residents have the benefit of being able to walk a short distance to get groceries, household items and other necessities. Pedestrian life is encouraged. Being able to create an economic destination as well as an economic ecosystem by combining work, residential living, and leisure is a goal of mixed-use design. Additional benefits of mixed-use developments include creating more main street activity, encouraging commerce, public safety, physical revitalization of buildings and neighborhoods; diversified housing options; reduction of the dependence on automobiles; and the creation of a local sense of place. A mixed-used design requires a site that will accommodate it. Site research led to the investigation of New York City and more specifically, Manhattan. Many people have the misconception that New York City is a wasteful city when, in fact, New York is the greenest community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world. According to the article Green Manhattan, written by David Owen, the average “Manhattanite” consumes gasoline at a rate that the country as a whole hasn’t matched since the mid 1920s. Furthermore, Owen notes that eighty-two percent of Manhattan residents travel to work by public transit, by bicycle, or on foot (Owen). That is ten times the rate for Americans in general, and eight times the rate for residents of Los Angeles County (Owen). This means that the residents of New York are consuming less fossil fuel than the majority of the nation! New York City is more populous than all but eleven states; however, if it were granted statehood New York would rank 51st in per-capita energy use (Owen). Due to its diverse and sustainable atmosphere the site that was chosen for the project is located near the Hudson River. This site also expresses the swift transition of population and density from the high Manhattan density to an area of less density, which surrounds the Hudson River. This transition allows one to engage in both realms of population, high and low dense areas.


This design proposal calls for mixed-use development that is driven by environmental and economic responsibility and social diversity. In terms of sustainable design strategies, this design concentrates on the orientation and layout of the building. The strategic placement of each building is meant to allow as much natural lighting into the building as possible. The proposed buildings will include one, two, and three residential units distributed throughout the building. The building will feature a lobby, an urban plaza, office space, and parking. Not only will the development be open to its residents, but it will also provide services to the public in order to promote public interaction within the city. The urban plaza will allow non-residents to interact with the building and enjoy the amenities of the space. The orientation of the building is crucial in order to maximize its fullest potential to receive sunlight. The residential units will be distributed on the upper levels in order to maximize views. The lower levels will be used for retail and commercial space to maintain its integrity in the urban setting. The most crucial element in the project is the design of the building. The design offers its residents the ability to choose the spaces according to their needs and desires. This led to an investigation of designs by architects who give their residents the ability to choose spaces in accordance to their needs. A research process showed that a common aspect with the architects’ designs is that they offer a customization of space as well as the ability to manipulate spaces so that it can be used for both work and leisure. The process required the development of 11 investigations that would assess the different designs of the buildings and how they work on the site. The first step was to determine whether or not the building would need a single or double-loaded corridor in order to allow customization of space. The decision to have a single-loaded corridor was made since it would provide the most sunlight. The layout of the individual apartments was determined while achieving a minimum of two hours of natural lighting on all units per day.

Through extensive research and numerous sun studies, it was discovered that vacant land in front of the proposed site posed a possible threat to the units possibly preventing them from receiving the minimum of two hours of sunlight a day. If any future development would occur on the vacant land, it would prevent sunlight from hitting the units for at least two hours per day. This finding required moving the design to the site that is closer to the Hudson River and using that site instead. To ensure that this site would provide the minimum amount of sunlight, more investigations were made in order to determine if development on the previous site would impact the new development. Taking existing buildings from the New York area and placing them on the original site and then creating shadow studies of how the sunlight is affected allowed the possibility to investigate future problems. The findings concluded that, even if there were any future development, due to the placement of the building as well as the design, the units will still be able to receive sunlight for the minimum of two hours per day, even on December 21st; the day of the winter solstice where the sun’s daily maximum position in the sky is the lowest. It is also known as the shortest day and longest night of the year (Rosenberg). After the site was changed and the position of the building was determined, the design was complete. In addition to the two hour of lighting per day minimum the design also offers a place that includes both activities for work and a place for people and the community to enjoy. This design was created in an area as dense as Manhattan, creating a space one can go to, away from the commotion. This was also done without having to exclude people in the community by incorporating amenities such as the retail shops, green space, and office space that are open for both the residents and the community to share. A project like this does, in fact, benefit architects and professionals because it allows the architects to work with the context. This type of design approach allows architects and professionals to be able to design work that can bring the community and residents together. What it also does is break away from the traditionally hectic atmosphere of New York and offers a place of retreat and relaxation.


Table of Contents Table of contents……………………………………..…………………………………….……………..1-2 History of mixed-use…………………………………………..…………………………………………….3 Design goals………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 Why New York City……………………………………………………………………………………………5 Pie chart of NYC transportation…………………..………………………………………….………..6 New York City zoning …………………………………………………………………………………..7-10 Case studies ………………………………………………………………………………………………11-20 Site one investigations……………..……………………………………………………...……….21-22 Site one location…………………………………………………………………………….………..23-24 Site one images…………………………………………………………………………………….…..25-26 Parks and green space surrounding site……………………………………………..…..…27-28 Bike route………………………………………………………………………………………………….29-30 Transit ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….31-32 Vehicular traffic …………………………………………………………………………………………33-34 Residential ………………………………………………………………………………………………..35-36 Religious/Educational ……………………………………………………………………………….37-38 Commercial/Retail …………………………………………………………………………………….39-40 Site section ……………………………………………………………………………………………….41-42 Investigations 1-6 ………………………………………………………………..……………………43-56 Why not site one ……………………………………………………………………………….……..57-58 Site two investigations …………………………………..………………………………………….59-60 Site two …………………………………………………………………………………………………….61-62 Density figure ground …………………………………………….…………………………………63-64 Investigations 7-11 …………………………………………………………………...……………...65-74 Single-loaded with balconies …………………………………………………….…………..….75-82 Sun studies………….. …………………………………………………………………………………..83-84 Positioning and layout of buildings …………………………………………………………..85-86 Sun study elevation …………………………………………………………………………………..87-88

1

Shadow study (December 21st at 12 p.m.) …………………………………………..……89-90 Shadow studies (December 21st) ………………………..……………………………..……91-112 Final design …………………………………………………………………………………………..113-114 Sections/Ground level plans ……………………………………………………………..….115-116 Section/Typical office level ……………………………………………….…………………..117-118 Sections/Typical skip-stop units …………………………………………………………...119-120 Individual skip-stop section and plans …………………………………….…………….121-122 Sections/Typical one-level units…………………………………………………………….123-124 Wall details……………………………………………….……………………………………………125-126 Elevations………………………………………………………………………………………………127-130 Possible uses of green space………………………………………..................………..131-132 Renderings/Views………………………………………………………………………………….133-142 Work cited……………………………………………………………………………..……………………..143

2


Design Goals

History of Mixed-Use Mixed-use: the use of a building, set of buildings, or neighborhood for more than one purpose Mixed-use was the norm before the development of modern zoning and land-use practices. Such mixed-use commercial and residential areas thrived into the 20th century, often at intersections and transits. Modern zoning practices assigned land uses according to function. Houses were segregated from commerce, work, and school. From the 1910s through the 1950s mixed land uses were rare in new developments. In the 1960s and 70s mixed-use re-emerged, as a tool for urban revitalization, in large-scale projects referred to among the development community as mixed-use developments. In the late 1970s and 80s, mixed-use developments were built on smaller scales than older mixed-use developments. They also were more integrated with their urban contexts, as interest in historic preservation grew. In the 1990s–2000s, mixed-use emerged as a key component of transit oriented development , traditional neighborhood development, livable communities, and smart growth principles.

3

Benefits •More main street activity : commerce, safety, revitalization •Diversifies housing options •Reduces auto dependence •Increases travel options •Creates a local sense of place

Goals •Create an economic destination •Create an economic ecosystem by combining work, live, and leisure •Attain minimum 2 hours of direct sunlight •Low density with urban feel •Plans for future growth •Maximize views • Proper orientation

4


Why New York City? “Green Manhattan” “Most Americans, including most New Yorkers, think of New York City as an ecological nightmare, a wasteland of concrete and garbage and diesel fumes and traffic jams, but in comparison with the rest of America it’s a model of environmental responsibility. By the most significant measures, New York is the greenest community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world. The most devastating damage humans have done to the environment has arisen from the heedless burning of fossil fuels, a category in which New Yorkers are practically prehistoric. The average Manhattanite consumes gasoline at a rate that the country as a whole hasn’t matched since the mid-nineteen-twenties, when the most widely owned car in the United States was the Ford Model T. Eighty-two per cent of Manhattan residents travel to work by public transit, by bicycle, or on foot. That’s ten times the rate for Americans in general, and eight times the rate for residents of Los Angeles County. New York City is more populous than all but eleven states; if it were granted statehood, it would rank fifty-first in per-capita energy use.”

5

This pie chart expresses the method of transportation in NYC in relation to the population. It is evident that the majority of residents/individuals use the transit or walk. This is an important element for urban mixed-use.

6


New York City Zoning R10 districts permit the highest residential density in the city. In Manhattan, much of midtown and downtown, as well as major cross-town streets and avenues, permit R10 density. In these areas, and in sections of Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City, this high density can also be achieved in commercial districts that permit an R10 residential district equivalent. Almost all districts that permit R10 density allow a residential FAR of 10.0 that can be increased to 12.0 pursuant to the Inclusionary Housing Program. In R10 and commercial districts with an R10 residential equivalent, height factor regulations do not apply. Developers of residential buildings may choose between Quality Housing regulations (the same as R10A regulations) or tower rules which permit a building to penetrate the sky exposure plane. Depending on the district and location, the tower may be required to have a contextual building base. R10 Tower-on-a-Base Tower regulations require a tower-on-a-base building form for most residential developments in R10 districts (and in C1-9 and C2-8 districts which permit residential use at R10 density above one or two floors of commercial use). In these districts, a residential building fronting on a wide street must have a contextual base between 60 and 85 feet high which extends continuously along the street line. The tower portion is permitted a lot coverage maximum of 40%. Its height is controlled by a lot coverage minimum of 30% and a rule that at least 55% of the floor area on the zoning lot be located below a height of 150 feet. For buildings with only narrow street frontage, no contextual base is required, and towers are permitted provided they are set back from the street line at least 15 feet. Parking Parking is generally not required in the Manhattan Core or in Long Island City. Elsewhere, parking is required for at least 40% of the dwelling units.

R10 Towers in Primarily Commercial Districts In primarily commercial districts (C4-6, C4-7, C5 and C6-4 through C6-9) that permit residential development at R10 density, a tower is not required to have a contextual base. A tower footprint may cover no more than 40% of the area of the zoning lot, or up to 50% on lots smaller than 20,000 square feet. The tower must also be set back from the street line at least 10 feet on a wide street and 15 feet on a narrow street. In these districts, a floor area bonus can be achieved by providing a public plaza.


New York City Zoning

9


Case Studies


Unité d'habitation Basic Information Location: Marseille, France Structure : Rough Cast Concrete Building Type: 18-story Mixed Use Residential Apartments Completion: 1947-1952 Total Floor Area: 3360m2 (140m long, 24m wide, 56m high) Architect: Le Corbusier Design Concept and Principals The Unité introduced the world to raw concrete - béton brut - with its texture defined by the wooden planks shaping it when it was poured. This unwitting prototype for the New Brutalism to follow came from necessity: not only was there insufficient steel in post-war France for a steel construction, but there was insufficient skilled labor for consistent, precise construction. Le Corbusier made a virtue of this necessity. Most of Le Corbusier's 'five points of architecture' from the 1920s and the Villa Savoye are alive and well in the Unité: the strong pilotis creating circulation space beneath, the free facades now loud with a carefully orchestrated pattern of single- and double-height balconies generated from fifteen different types of apartment, and the roof terrace reclaiming the lost land beneath the building for recreation. Overview The Marseille unité d'habitation brings together Le Corbusier's vision for communal living with the needs and realities of post-war France. Up to 1600 people live in a single-slab 'vertical village', complete with an internal shopping street halfway up, a recreation ground and children's' nursery on the roof, and a generous surrounding area of park land made possible by the density of the accommodation in the slab itself.

Mass Customization of Space The plan is no longer completely free: the partition walls between the apartments are load-bearing, freeing the facades, and providing strong sound-proofing between apartments - part of the building's success in combining privacy with communal living. But between these walls, the free plan has taken on a new dimension, to become a 'free volume'. In an ingenious use of space, two-story apartments interlock, so that an entrance corridor and elevator stop are required only at every third level. On one side of the corridor you may enter an apartment's lower level, taking up one side of the building, and climb the stairs within the apartment to a double-aspect floor of bedrooms above; on the other side of the corridor you may enter the neighboring apartment's upper level, and descend to the doubleaspect floor below. As a result, apartments typically combine bright, double-height sitting rooms on one level, with long, narrow bedrooms on the other. The Unité has been much copied, usually without regard for its careful proportions based on Le Corbusier's 'Modulor Man', its individual, bright and deceptively spacious apartments, or the garden space created above, beneath and around it as the reward for the space efficiency within. The building comprises 337 apartments arranged over twelve stories, all suspended on large piloti, or peirs. The building also incorporates shops, sporting, medical and educational facilities, and a hotel. The flat roof is designed as a communal terrace with sculptural ventilation stacks, a running track, and a shallow paddling pool. Inside, corridors run through the centre of the long axis of every third floor of the building, with each apartment lying on two levels, and stretching from one side of the building to the other, with a balcony. Unlike many of the inferior systembuilt blocks it inspired, which lack the original's generous proportions, communal facilities and parkland setting, the Unité is popular with its residents and is now mainly occupied by middle-class professionals.


Gifu Kitagata Apartment Building Basic Information Location: Gifu, Japan Structure : Reinforced Concrete Building Type: 10-story Public Housing Reconstruction Completion: March 1998 (1994-1998) Building Area: 584 m2 Total Floor Area: 4,706 m2 Architect: Kazuyo Sejima & Associates and Yamasei Sekkei Design Concept and Principals The Sejima Wing housing units has been designed with a relatively shallow depth. With such a depth, the ‘room’ becomes the only basic building block. These blocks are combined in a variety of ways to produce a multitude of apartment plans and sections, thus generating complex elevations. Each unit, consisting a few basic blocks, has provided with a courtyard-like terrace. The terraces create holes in the building through which the far side of the building can be glimpsed, thus reducing the visual impression of massiveness. Overview The apartment building is part of a large scale public housing reconstruction project located about 15 minutes from Gifu City by car. Four women architects were selected under the coordination of Japanese architect Arata Isozaki to execute the projects. This Lshaped Wing designed by architect Kazuyo Sejima sits on the southeast part of the site where the idea for the overall layout of the development was to run the buildings around the perimeter.

Double-height spaces add characters to both the internal space and rhythmic elevations

Modular Standardization The use of ‘room’ as a modular building block is not difficult to understand in terms of standardization of major building components in any large scale housing development project. The basic principle of minimizing construction waste at the design level is achieved without doubt. However, standardization of components and units in the design of high-rise buildings often results in undesirable monolithic volumes particularly in high density urban development. The solution to such a problem demonstrates the design possibilities which seldom surface in our surroundings. In this housing project, the building form has been twisted to run around the perimeter of the site, and the resultant form becomes less massive as in the case of a plain slab. The monolithic and monotonous characters in modular housing have been further broken down with various elements. Double-height spaces and terraces add characters to and punctuate the elevations in a complex yet rhythmic way. Careful manipulation of spaces results in a variety of internal spatial configurations. Monotonous character has been dissolved and varieties generated while allowing the use of standardized components. All in all, it is the building form, internal spatial configurations and facade treatment that determine the resultant appearance of a modular standardized building. Mass Customization of Space The generated complex spatial configurations and elevations result in more complicated design and construction process. Each floor and each room thus require additional efforts and attentions from the initial design stages to the management of construction works. Although repetitious design of units and buildings has often been argued as a sound practice in terms of efficiency and economy while generating less construction waste, it shall not limit the possibilities of how we design the environment for ourselves the construction possibilities. Mass customization of spaces and building forms in the context of standardization and waste management become a new challenge. New challenges however demand and encourage the industry’s innovation and ability to move forward.


Campus Center for Miami Basic Information Location: Biscayne Boulevard and NE 5th Street in Miami, Florida Structure : Hyper-efficient exoskeleton shell Building Type: Quad Level Completion: 2012 Total Floor Area: 2,500,000 Architect: Chad Oppenheim

Overview The Campus Center for Miami Dade College combines apartments, offices, educational facilities, and a lot of space for art exhibition. The dramatic design set forth for Campus Center is visually daring and bold: yet upon further introspection, inherently elemental and concise in its organization of the complex programmatic mix. The proposed LEED certified structure is conceived of as a portal comprised of a base and a top supported by two towers that allow large exterior public spaces at ground and in sky. The project is to serve as a catalyst-exasperating significant enhancement to the campus experience and image through a local revitalization of the surrounding neighborhood.

Design Concept and Principals The Campus Center is fully integrated with the building and serves as the projects heart and soul. Organized around the 3rd level Quad- the various cultural components (museum, sculpture garden and Theater) of the College are fully engaged from this vantage point. A sloping landscaped plan provides a natural auditorium and opportunity for various cultural activities (spontaneous concerts, and nighttime cinema). The buildings' exterior is a pure expression of structure where veins of steel create an elegant exo-skeletal system increasing building efficiency while eliminating the need for massive shear walls aside from the core. The skin of the building is an impact resistant, energy efficient (low E) glass window-wall system that provides ample daylight and the opportunity to appreciate the natural and man-made beauty.

Mass customization of space The campus is the only one located in the city centre and its new main office looks to revitalize this urban area it has always been part of. Offices, housing and a hotel that assure the viability of the operation will be added to the university program. On a base of commercial use, two towers are built, connected at the top and sustained by a steel exoskeleton. The space between them frames the views of the historical Freedom Tower and, at its base reached from the street, a large open air patio organizes campus life.

16


COR Mixed-Use Condominiums Basic Information Location: Design District, Miami, Florida Structure : Hyper-efficient exoskeleton shell Building Type: 28-story Mixed-Use Condominium Complex Completion: March 2009 (2007-2009) Total Floor Area: 480,000 sf Architect: Chad Oppenheim

Mass customization of space With an aim to attract creative and design-oriented businesses and professionals, the interior of COR features sleek commercial and comfortable residential spaces ranging from $400,000 to $2 million. Each residential unit will include Energy Star appliances, recycled glass tile flooring, lowVOC paints, and bamboo-lined hallways. In total, COR will play host to 113 residential units, 20,100 square feet of office space and 5,400 square feet of retail space (which already includes a café and furniture store).

Design Concept and Principals COR is the first sustainable, mixed-use condominium in Miami, Florida. It represents a dynamic synergy between architecture, structural engineering and ecology. Rising 400’ above the Design District, COR extracts power from its environment utilizing the latest advancements in wind turbines, photovoltaic’s, and solar hot water generation – while integrating them into its architectural identity. Overview A hyper-efficient exoskeleton shell simultaneously provides building structure, thermal mass for insulation, shading for natural cooling, enclosure for terraces, armatures for turbines, and loggias for congregating on the ground. Comprising commercial, office, fitness, live/work, and pure residential spaces – COR provides a uniquely flexible platform for lifestyle enhancement.

18


CUBE Mixed-Use Condominiums

Basic Information Location: Design District, Miami, Florida Structure : Glass + steel skeleton Building Type: 22-story Mixed-Use Condominium Complex Completion: Estimated date 2012 Total Floor Area: 240,000 sf Architect: Chad Oppenheim

Design Concepts and Principals CUBE represents the next frontier in multifamily high-rise housing in urban areas. A dramatic and elemental steel infrastructure creates the possibility for ultimate volumetric flexibility where the homeowner can customize spatial prerogatives. Rising 22 stories over the design district in Miami, Florida - Cube promotes its occupants to design their own domain with the possibility of connecting multiple cube modules vertically, horizontally, and diagonally in addition to creating double height volumes, garden voids and cantilevered living environments. Generated by desire and need rather than architectural assumption, the volumetric play of the building creates intriguing arrangements of solid and void - a true interactive architecture. Overview Live-work environments engage the street creating a dynamic arcade for pedestrian enjoyment. Metallic screens of varying porosity and pattern distort the reading of the garage creating a reflective urban mosaic. A rooftop pool and activity zone occupies interstitial spaces captured between interior and exterior - creating exciting urban rooms that activate the street and enliven the imagination.

Mass customization of space This 22-story tower is based on a steel exoskeleton that would result in design flexibility, as well as cost and time savings for the developer. The concept would refine the Miami condominium with innovative architecture and interiors. Instead of placing the support structure of the building inside, this concept pushes the weight-bearing elements to the building faรงade. It eliminates the need for sheer walls, opens up the interior space and, allows for complete freedom in the design of the interiors without weight-bearing columns or walls. This innovation would allow buyers to design walls where they please. Also, instead of conventional one, two, or three bedrooms, it would offer the choice of 625-sq.ft. modules that buyers would select for vertical, horizontal or diagonal placement. Some could be cantilevered outside the building allowing for gardens. 20


Site One Investigations


N

Site One This is the original, but not the final site that was chosen for the design due to its amenities and views to Central Park and the Hudson River.

Bond Street New York, NY 10001

23

0

1000sf


Site Images

N

2 34

1

7

25

5

6


Parks and Green Space The site is surrounded by parks and green space. It is located 0.01 miles from the Hudson River greenway, and only 0.60 miles from Central Park, one of the most visited urban parks in the United States.

Bond Street New York, NY 10023

27

0

3500sf

N


N

Bike Route New York City has always been known to be one of the most pedestrian oriented cities in the United States. The site not only contains walk-space for pedestrians to enjoy, but also many bike-friendly routes as well.

Bond Street New York, NY 10023

29

0

3500sf


N

Transit America constitutes 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy. It is obvious that our energy use to some degree, has affected the environment. Public transportation in New York however, is a walking distance away from the proposed site which makes the site more environmentally friendly.

Bond Street New York, NY 10023

31

0

3500sf


Vehicular Traffic Fast Average The site is located near New York 9A, one of the only major roadways with fast moving vehicular traffic.

Bond Street New York, NY 10023

33

0

3500sf

N


N

Residential Most of the buildings in the area are mixed use. Residential living space (highlighted) is a major part of the area which makes it more livable verses a commercial-only neighborhood.

Bond Street New York, NY 10023

35

0

3500sf


Religious/Educational Minutes away from the site are churches and schools that range from ages of the very young to the elderly.

Bond Street New York, NY 10023

37

0

3500sf

N


Commercial/Retail The entire area is mainly a mixed use of residential, commercial and retail buildings which promotes the lifestyle of the New York occupants and increasingly gains the attention of many for its urban appeal.

Bond Street New York, NY 10023 39

0

3500sf

N


N

Site Section

Bond Street New York, NY 10023

41

0

350sf


The next few slides incorporate several design schemas in order to determine which design would work best for the site.

6 A.M.

Investigation 1 Site One Single-Loaded Corridor The first design features two separate single-loaded towers which are connected at ground level. The commercial space will be established on the lower levels of the building whereas the residential units will be distributed throughout the upper levels of the two towers. This design accomplishes natural lighting on all units. Although the residents have the option to select different views and different space options, it does not, however, fully maximize space to its greatest ability, nor does it maximize the footprint.

43

8 A.M.

10 A.M.

12 P.M.

2 P.M.

4 P.M.

6 P.M.


6 A.M.

Investigation 2 Site One Single-Loaded Corridor

8 A.M.

10 A.M.

12 P.M.

2 P.M.

4 P.M.

6 P.M.

This is a single-loaded design in which light is distributed on all units. Residents also have the option to choose views. However, this design does not maximize the footprint of the site to its fullest capability. There is much space that has not been used.

45


6 A.M.

Investigation 3 Site One Double-Loaded Corridor This design is double-loaded. It features a simple design structure where all of the retail spaces are on the lower level of the building whereas the residential living spaces would be on the higher levels in order to maximize views. However, after further research of the design, it is concluded that this design will not make great use. It is condensed and it would be something of an interest to a developer because it is only designed to maximize the footprint with no good design intent and not all units get day-lighting sometime in the day.

47

8 A.M.

12 P.M.

4 P.M.

10 A.M.

2 P.M.

6 P.M.


6 A.M.

Investigation 4 Site One Double-Loaded Corridor

8 A.M.

10 A.M.

12 P.M.

2 P.M.

4 P.M.

6 P.M.

The next design is a double-loaded structure. Residents have the option of selecting either riverfront or city views. In addition, they have the ability to customize their spaces. The residential space will be distributed throughout the upper levels of the building whereas the retail and commercial spaces will be established on the lower levels. This design maximizes space to its fullest potential as well as utilizing the footprint of the site extensively. This is the design I chose to further investigate.

49


After further investigation, a design was chosen in which also led to the examining of different designs, placements and orientation.

Investigation 5 Site One Double-Loaded Corridor

Perspective 1

Perspective 2

Perspective 3

Perspective 4

The first design here features two separate double-loaded towers with projecting units, that are connected to a base on the bottom. The commercial space will be established on the lower levels of the building whereas the residential units will be distributed throughout the upper levels of the two towers. This design did not work because the units projected north were not getting all of the benefit of the direct sunlight at ground level.

51


Typical layout for apartment floors

Layout for retail/main floor

Typical layout for office space floors Section

53

0

70sf


Investigation 6 Site One Double-Loaded Corridor This investigation consisted of removing the base and turning both buildings with projecting units facing south. This orientation works far as views and sun lighting goes. However, if further development is proposed in front of the design, then it would block the buildings views and will defeat the purpose of having the projecting unit for that reason. This led to investigate other possibilities.

55

0

50sf


Why not site one‌. The decision was to push the buildings closer to the adjacent vacant site in order to prevent the possibility of future development that would interrupt the purpose of obtaining direct sunlight and views.

? 57

58


Site Two Investigations


N

Site Two

Riverside Boulevard New York, NY 10001


N

The Transition

NO DENSITY

PROPOSED DENSITY MANHATTAN DENSITY

Through extensive research and numerous sun studies, it was discovered that vacant land in front of the proposed site posed a possible threat to the units possibly preventing them from receiving the minimum of two hours of sunlight a day. If any future development would occur on the vacant land, it would prevent sunlight from hitting the units for at least two hours per day. This finding required moving the design to the site that is closer to the Hudson River and using that site instead.

0

4000sf

64


N

Investigation 7 Site Two Single/Double-Loaded Corridor The buildings are pushed towards the river and repeated to highlight and outline the riverfront. All units are skewed to receive natural day-lighting for at least a couple of hours a day. However, this design does not work due to its limited street access to each building and also, although all buildings received natural lighting, not every unit received a minimum of two hours of direct sunlight a day.

66


N

Investigation 8 Site Two Single/Double-Loaded Corridor This single-loaded design is set at an angle to maximize views and spaced out just enough to ensure day-lighting on all units. This is another experiment where it’s singleloaded and most of the buildings have street access but again, this design did not attaint the minimum of two hours of direct sunlight that is to be achieve.


N

Investigation 9 Site Two Single-Loaded Corridor, L Shape This single-loaded design features an L-shape which offers several view options and also ensures natural lighting for at least a few hours throughout the day but not direct light. This experiment features great courtyard space however not all have street access.

70


N

Investigation 10 Site Two Single Loaded Corridor, L-Shape This design features a single-loaded L-shape design that offers direct lighting for at least a few hours throughout the day. By inversing the design, the ability to maximize space was not attainable. Also, each building did not achieve the minimum of two hours of direct sunlight per day.

72


N

Investigation 11 Site Two Single-Loaded Corridor This design features single-loaded buildings that are set facing South and are spaced out just enough to receive direct sunlight for at least a few hours of the day. After investigating several experiments, this is the one that worked best. Since all of the buildings are facing south, all units get direct sunlight. The next step was to now incorporate the details in the design.

74


Single-Loaded Corridor Some of the detailing that would be incorporated into the design consists of every single unit having its own balcony while ensuring that no building blocks other units from receiving sunlight. In order to achieve this is to allow the balconies of all units to be able to have access out and views to the river. All of these units are a one level interior and the balconies are skewed in order to achieve the full views while avoiding other balconies from blocking the others from receiving views.

75

76


77


79


Typical retail plans

Typical office plans

Typical residential plans

81

0

160sf

Section 1

Section 2


Sun Studies


This image depicts how the buildings are spaced out in height and width. The distribution is set out so that on December 21st every single unit in every building receives sunlight. The sun's apparent position in the sky reaches its northernmost extremes making December 21st the day that receives the least amount of sun for the winter solstice.


12:00 P.M. December 21

90


The following shadow studies illustrate the way in which all units attain direct sunlight for at least 2 hours everyday.

7 A.M. December 21


8 A.M. December 21

94


9 A.M. December 21

96


10 A.M. December 21

98


11 A.M. December 21

100


12 P.M. December 21

102


1 P.M. December 21

104


2 P.M. December 21

106


3 P.M. December 21

108


4 P.M. December 21

110


5 P.M. December 21


Final Design South-West View from Hudson River Greenway

107

The final design of the project incorporates several key elements. The original objective of the design was to incorporate projecting units, variation in units, and different sizes that areincorporated back into the design. All buildings are set facing South and are spaced out just enough to receive at least two hours of direct sunlight everyday of the year.


BB

AA

1 Retail Typical ground level plans 2 Lobby 3 Mechanical room 4 Recycling

115

Section AA

Section BB

0

200sf

116


BB

AA

Typical office level plans

5 Office 6 Recycling 7 Elevator lobby

117

Section AA

Section BB

0

200sf

118


BB

AA Typical skip-stop residential units level one

AA

119

Section AA

Section BB

8 Living room 9 Dining room 10 Kitchen 11 Restroom 12 Entryway 13 Extended living 14 Elevator lobby 15 Recycling

Typical skip-stop residential units level two

0

16 Corridor 17 Open to below 18 Bedroom two 19 Restroom two 20 Master bedroom 21 Master restroom 22 Extended living 200sf room open to below


B

Typical skip-stop level two

Section B

121

0

25sf

Typical skip-stop level one

0

122


23 Entryway 24 Restroom 25 Kitchen 26 Living room 27 Master bedroom 28 Master bath 29 Extended master bedroom 30 Extended living room 31 Elevator lobby 32 Recycling

0

25FT

BB

AA

123

Section AA

Section BB

Typical one level residential units

0

200sf

124


Projecting Residential typical

Residential typical

C

Residential typical Office typical

Retail typical

D 1 Leveling mortar 2 Grout 3 Brick 4 Cement –sand mortar 5 Mortar 6 Filling 7 Concrete slab roof 8 Gypsum 10 Reinforced concrete 11 Brick parapet 12 Cement-sand mortar 13 Chamfer top of brick w/mortar

Parking typical

125

Wall detail C Nation

Wall detail D 100

200

South Elevation

14 Reinforced concrete 15 Drippings 16 Concrete slab 17 Gypsum 19 Glass 20 Mullion 21 Tile 22 Concrete 23 Pavement 24 Concrete pad 25 Natural ground 26 Concrete wall

27. Interior finish 28. Insulation 29. 1� air space 30. Dropper 31. Footing

126


North Elevation

0 North Elevation

200sf 100

South Elevation 200

South Elevation


East Elevation

0 North Elevation

200sf 100

West Elevation 200

South Elevation


Key:

Green Space Layouts

Site Plans Potential green space layouts for each site to be used for recreational activities . Green space options are customized to each site but could be manipulated to fit site needs.

131

132


South-East View from Riverside Boulevard

Ground Level View of storefronts from 60th Street

134


South View of south elevation

Ground Level View from 60th Street of storefronts and office levels

136


North View of green space from 61st Street

Ground Level View of storefronts and green space from 61st Street

138


Interior View from second floor corridor looking into living room

Office Level View of typical office space before partitions and furniture

140


Interior View of typical living room

141

Interior View of typical master bedroom

142


Work Cited Miller, Nancy A. "Defining Mixed-Used Development." Design for Health. University of Minnesota, Dec 2003. Web. 01 March 2011. www.designforhealth.net/pdfs/From_MDCWEB/DPmixed_use.pdf Owen, David. "Green Manhattan." New Yorker (2004): 6. Web. 01 March 2011..www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/10/18/041018fa_fact_owen Rosenberg, Matt. "Winter Solstice." About.com. The New York Times Company, 02 Mar 2011. Web. 02 Mar 2011. http://geography.about.com/cs/calendarsseason/a/winter.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-use_development http://housingplus.wikidot.com/unite-d-habitation www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_r10.shtml www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_r10a.shtml www.oppenoffice.com/index2.htm

143



Omar Matti Master Thesis