Rooftop Architecture: A Sustainable Alternative for Urban Expansion

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: TYLER SCHOOL OF ART AND ARCHITECTURE

A city should tell a story...

CONTENTS

I. Preface II. Introduction III.

Thesis Statement

IV.

Research and Case Studies

1.

the new

Case Studies that support the Design Idea: The relationship between the old and

• Stealth Building • AF Skyroom

•

Louviers Music School

•

Antwerp Port House

2.

Case Studies that supports Project Aspirations: The Micro-Urban •

Tunesian Village Radetzkystraße

3.

The Where, When, and How of Rooftop Architecture

4.

Case studies to support Project aspirations: The City Scale

•

Utopian Ideas: The Multi-Layer City

•

Grand Paris Study

5.

What is the Right Density?

V.

Site and Program

1.

Area of experimentation: South Philadelphia

•

Why South Philadelphia?

•

South Philly: The Culture of Stoop and Social Streets

2.

Chosen Urban Fragment: West Passyunk Ave, Broad St, S 16th St, and Morris St

• Context analysis • Selection criteria • Site Visit

•

Local food Suppliers Mapping

•

Philadelphia 2035 Comprehensive Plan: South District

Recommendations

•

Specific Case Studies

• SkyCycle

•

Promenade Plantee (Paris) Vs Highline (New York) Vs Rail Park

(Philadelphia) comparison

3.

Proposed Program

VI. Bibliography VII. Links

Page 5

Figure 01: Rooftop Remodeling Falkestrasse, source: himmelblau.at

Page 6

I. PREFACE

It all started 4 years ago,

When I stumbled upon this picture on the Internet, I was intrigued by the juxtaposition of two completely different architectural styles from two distant periods of times. Yet, they coexist together with no tension. So, I decided to investigate the matter as my undergraduate thesis project, and every time I realize how important “Rooftop Architecture” could be in solving today’s urban, economic and social issues.

Page 7

II. INTRODUCTION

Since its inception, the roof has been one of the essential features in the architectural context. The roof began as a monofunctional structure that served as a critical shield from the outside environment and its unmerciful weather. When homo-sapiens started to cluster and form societies, the roof evolved to become a valued canvas, allowing civilizations to compete for the creation of dazzling cultural markers (signatures). Roofs became an elevated piece of art that one could notice and admire from afar. They dominated skylines, where no other architectural element could challenge its territory. No one can imagine cities such as Paris without its iconic Parisian Roofs, or New York City, without its skyscraper’s crowns. Roofs were an undissociated part of the architectural and social culture of a city. A space that held a variety of functions and activities across space and time. They were a source of inspiration for artists for ages and a place for those seeking to retreat from the city’s dense lifestyle for a break.

Today we tell a different story about rooftops, perhaps the most boring one in human history. Rooftops occupy the last seat of architectural development. It is considered by many as “the end of an Architecture.” Ed Melet and Eric Vreedenburgh discuss in their book ROOFTOP ARCHITECTURE: BUILDING ON AN ELEVATED SURFACE how roofs are “hardly appreciated in the west,” and that they are “merely the top of the building” despite their potential role of being “the foundation of a new layer.”1.

It should be added that this is not happening only in the west, but around the world due to either a similar lack of interest or an overloaded interest that makes rooftop architecture a nauseating experience (Informal Roofs Activities in Middle Eastern and Asian Cities for example).

Rooftops are becoming critical on an urban scale. Especially today, where our cities are growing faster than ever before: “The population is growing, the average number of square meters per capita is growing, and so is the number of one-person or two-person households”2. This growth is mostly horizontal and linear, proving to be unsustainable and environmentally destructive. A solution is to rethink rooftops to help in the expansion of our cities. However, this idea of revisiting an existing urban tissue and building a new layer on top is still considered very complicated, close to utopic, and unrealistic. As a result, it is simply rejected by society and decisionmakers. What we are doing here is depriving cities of their own natural right to evolve, become diverse, and adapt. Melet and Vreedenburgh discuss: “Evolution and transformation are natural processes that form an unmistakable part or urban developments and culture in general… Like nature, cities are constantly exposed to a changing context, and they have to adjust to this, deliberately or through unforeseen mutations.”3

1 Rooftop Architecture: Building on an elevated surface, p10 2 Rooftop Architecture: Building on an elevated surface, p17 3 Rooftop Architecture: Building on an elevated surface, p17-18

Page 8

Consequently, urban societies have become hesitant to change, trying to keep the world the way it is as much as possible. Because of fear, today’s cities are so tied up with laws, codes, and social mindsets to the point that there is no room left for innovation, change, and imagination. Therefore, everything is stagnating because of fear of change as Peter Newman, Timothy Beatley, and Heather Boyer explain: “Resilience is destroyed by fear, which causes us to panic, reduces our inner resolve, and eventually debilitates our bodies.”1

If we represent the history of urban innovation levels and qualities since Mesopotamian times in a graph, we will definitely be plateauing by now. Our obsession with controlling our little worlds as societies have made us and our cities dull. This obsession will not help us progress towards a better future for our cities. Audacious decisions need to be made with new territories to be explored and experimented in. Roofs need to be reconsidered in the urban city context as a platform for urban densification. It is how cities should be: more dynamic and architecturally elastic enough to absorb new ideas and grow or face an identity stagnation, where a city’s urban life would collapse and architecturally freeze. Rem Koolhaas’s conclusion in his essay “The Generic City” describes what happens if the city core stops to innovate and regenerate: “The city no longer exists. We can leave the theater now.”2

Nevertheless, we are not leaving the city theater in this thesis. In fact, we are planning to set our play, where we will try to challenge the way we think about urban development through re-activating rooftop Architecture, push it to its limits and beyond, and dream about the city of tomorrow. When we say the city of tomorrow, we do not mean in 10 years, or 50 years, but a vision for the next 100 years.

It is time to unleash the city urban evolution machine again and see how it can marvelously evolve.

1 Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change, p1 2 The Generic City (1995), p1264

Page 9

III.

THESIS STATEMENT / PROBLEMATIC

Page 10

“Penthouse,” “Rooftop restaurant,” “sky pavilion,” etc. These multimilliondollar words define what Rooftop Architecture looks like in our time. Displaying a severe lack of vision when it comes to the potential that roofs can offer architecturally.

This lack makes “Rooftop Architecture” practice a very “exclusive” activity available only for the small, privileged portion of the population that possesses the necessary means to achieve it. If we take all the luxurious connotations mentioned above out of the equation, Rooftop Architecture becomes a pure theory, especially in an urban definition. Building on top of buildings always comes with a set of social, economic, technical and regulatory complications that render the idea expensive and worthless. Not to mention a person’s instinctive adverse reaction to the term “Urban densification.” In short, the “Rooftop Architecture” as an urban design concept was never executed in its full capacity, especially in American cities (The situation is less dire in Europe).

Unfortunately, the majority of roofs around cities are either mechanical jungles or merely unreachable, empty dead spaces. However, urban problems are becoming more aggressive. Cities face several urban challenges that push towards looking in new territories for solutions. One of these territories can be the roof if its current interpretations are reevaluated and extended to include more than just luxurious penthouses, or RTU’s. “The exclusiveness has to go,” as Melet and Vreedenburgh observe.

We live in an era where planners call for a radical rethinking of the ways we design our urban lives. “Contiguous development,” “Leapfrog growth,” etc... are unhealthy expansion processes in which our cities function and grow, causing apparent adverse effects on many levels. Many professionals agree that stretching a city horizontally comes with severe environmental consequences, causing a slow death of the natural habitat. Steel and concrete are nibbling forests and agricultural lands daily, which make the effects of global warming (GHG (Green House Gas) and UHI (Urban Heat Island)) more severe.

Luckily, “Infill development” and” Compact Urban form” concepts were studied by several Architects and Urban designers as alternative ways for inner-city growth. Many argue that a city should grow on top of itself and within its limits.

For instance, in his book PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY, Stephen M. Wheeler calls for a “Compact Urban Form” development that revisits existing urban areas and improves the land usage within a city’s boundaries as counter-measures against the extensive horizontal sprawl. This will accentuate the dynamic growth behavior of cites and help preserve the natural exterior environment. Melet and Vreedenburgh say: “Demolishing and rebuilding the city is not a very realistic option while leaving it to its own devices and allowing redundant parts die off – as is happening today in the American Edge Cities – is an undesirable option.”1

1 Rooftop Architecture: Building on an elevated surface, p20

Page 11

Likewise, Newman, Beatley, and Boyer argue that American cities, for example, can become more sustainable and more resilient if they compact their urban development and foldback: “It is projected that by shifting 60 percent of new growth to compact patterns the United States will save 85 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030.”1

Another major problem is single-use urban spaces: “Today’s districts are primarily monofunctional. The center is for shopping, the business estates are for working, the residential areas are above all for sleeping.”2. Consequentially, injecting a mixed-use functionality to the single-used parts of the city will lead to economic and social growth and more resiliency. Besides, these “Urban Infill” practices will bring numerous benefits as Newman, Beatley, and Boyer explain: “The many benefits of a resilient city include greater overall physical and emotional health; ease of movement in higher density, mixed-use communities that are walkable and have accessible transit options; better food that is produced locally and is, therefore, fresher; efficiency of energy resources, greater affordability, healthier indoor environments; easier access to natural environments; and more awareness of the local urban area and its bioregion enabling us to have a greater sense of place and identity”3.

So, how would vertical expansion through rooftop architecture make our cities more sustainable and resilient?

All the pressing issues and reasons mentioned above puts “Rooftop Architecture” as an ideal contender to solve many of the architectural and urban challenges. Therefore, this thesis will revolve around the problematic nature of roofs within urban spaces, specifically low dense areas, and studying the possibilities of transforming these spaces into hosts for a new architecture that respond to certain urban, economic, and social anomalies. This idea will push towards seeing rooftops as an alternative way for urban expansion that rivals the classic horizontal ideal, densifies the existing urban tissue, layers the city vertically, and defines sustainable design concepts that could change the way our cities look and interact with their surroundings. Moreover, the conventional “Rooftop Architecture” definition incorporates concepts such as “Green Roofs” and “Terraces.” In consequence, this thesis will focus on “Rooftop Architecture” as a combination of building a new architecture on top of an existing structure while creating green roofs for better sustainability practices.

Through the examination of several case studies, this thesis will analyze the present urban (aesthetics), regulatory (air rights), Social dimensions, and structural aspects (structural concerns) of roofs. This thesis will diagnose the anomalies that prevent “rooftop architecture” from being applied in a bigger urban scale, and provide alternative ways for its execution. Finally, the thesis will lay down the necessary foundations (site and program) for the thesis design project in the Spring semester.

1 Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change, p5 2 Rooftop Architecture: Building on an elevated surface, p19 3 Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change, p11

Page 12

IV.

RESEARCH AND CASE STUDIES

Page 13

There is an extensive list of case studies that demonstrate how “Rooftop Architecture” questions were addressed and interpreted around the world. In a general manner, “Rooftop Architecture” can be defined in two main groups: One architectural and the other urban. However, while investigating, we discovered that in “Rooftop Architecture,” one cannot dissociate between the architectural aspects and the urban ones. For instance, when approaching the Architectural questions of rooftops, the fact that the aerial view and urban aesthetics would be affected by this new injection brings urban concerns to the discussion table. The same goes for urban, the fact that we deal with an existing building as a support for the new structure summons the Architectural / Design questions on every occasion. It is why this thesis’ final product would eventually be a hybrid combination of architectural and urban scales, with more emphasis on the urban one, for it is the least explored of the two.

The chosen case studies can be classified into three main themes based on this thesis’ specific goals and the scale of operations. The methodology here is to go from the micro-scale where the Architectural manifestation of rooftops will be carefully studied to the city scale where the urban questions would be addressed: 1.

Case Studies that support the Design Idea: The relationship between the old and the new:

In this thesis, we are particularly interested in ancient buildings that belong to different architectural styles, excluding Contemporary and Modern ones, and have historic/patrimonial dimensions and cultural footprints. Because the idea of someone designing and building on top of an existing creation that belongs to a different period and designed by a different mindset is fascinating and worrying.

Furthermore, these types of buildings are most of the time renovated and cared about due to their cultural importance. This constitutes a durable platform for the new addition, as these buildings are too precious to demolish. Moreover, Akiko Busch explains in his book ROOFTOP ARCHITECTURE: THE ART OF GOING THROUGH THE ROOF that old buildings are the best contenders to receive a new Architectural addition. He says” Rooftop additions to older buildings also have a more practical side. Many older buildings- those built before WWII – were not constructed to the maximum density permitted by the zoning and building codes established later. Also, such buildings, while perhaps underbuilt in terms of height, may have been overbuilt in terms of structure and support. The steel beams that support the rooftops of many of these buildings may also support the additional weight of a rooftop construction.”

1

That being said, details in these kinds of interventions matter and every movement count. One simple mistake can generate a series of unwanted errors and angry public reaction to what has been done to their precious heritage. It is a delicate operation that needs extra care and vigilance. This thesis will try to define, through the following case studies, what makes such a delicate operation successful:

1 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p137

Page 14

•

STEALTH BUILDING, New York City – NY, 2016

Designed by WORKac Studio, the Stealth building is a renovated 19th Century structure in a landmarked district in New York City with a two-and-a half story penthouse addition on the roof. The design operation was to completely hide the new rooftop addition. People on the street level can never tell if there is something happening on in the roof. According to the Studio, the “Landmarks Commission” required that the rooftop addition “be invisible to passerby”. WORKac Studio adds that their design “has been hailed as a model of sensitive but stridently contemporary historic preservation and adaptive reuse”1.

Figure 02: Real images of the project, source: Dezeen.com

1 https://work.ac/featured/

Page 15

Figure 03: Plans, Section and images of the whole project, source: Dezeen.com

Page 16

REFLECTION

In this Case study, we saw an operation that glorifies the support structure for its historical value by hiding the contemporary rooftop addition.

It is a prevalent design attitude among the general public when it comes to urban consolidation within landmark areas, as it keeps the “Urban Harmony” in the city. However, this is not what we are intending to do in this thesis project. We believe that this kind of design attitude undermines the new architecture extensively. The two structures need to learn how to coexist together at the same time. And it is the role of architects and designers to make sure that both, the building support and the new Architecture, have their moments of glory and shine together. Melet and Vreedenburgh argue that the public, especially in western civilizations, rejects the unusual and tend to keep it under control: “We want to conserve the past that we are familiar with. It is precisely this idealization of the past that erases memory and destroys historical development. This endless reproduction of an arbitrary segment of time disavows the finitude of history and the directionality of time… Many cities in the west are dominated by the desire to stop the advance of time, so the historic centers are regarded as finished. Any possible mutation is ruled out as far as possible. Change and tension are not what tourists expect to find.”1.

1 Rooftop Architecture: Building on an elevated surface, p19

Page 17

•

AF SKYROOM, London, UK, 2010

The project is a Rooftop Pavilion designed by David Kohn Architects on top of the “Lake Estates for the Architecture Foundation” Building. The purpose of this project is “to demonstrate the value of providing access to London’s rooftops and celebrate the impressive views of the city”1 . The building support is a 19th Century warehouse. Due to difficulties supporting the new structure loads, a new steel deck was created and the new pavilion structure was connected to the existing steel columns of the old building. The new addition features an open courtyard that takes advantage of the sky and London’s skyline simultaneously. The courtyard has a “a variety of different arrangements” plus four smaller intimate spaces for meeting and relaxing, that form an extension to the main courtyard.

Figure 04: Images of the building, source: Will Pryce

1 https://davidkohn.co.uk/projects/skyroom

Page 18

Figure 05: Technical drawings and images of the building, source: Dezeen.com

Page 19

REFLECTION

Through a small cantilevered balcony, the project has successfully announced its existence on the roof of the 19th Century warehouse building.

We find this architectural gesture interesting as it gives to both architectures, through the simple act of hinting, a chance to manifest and communicate with the surrounding environment. We believe that this design attitude gives justice to both structures, and the intended architectural message of the project (Celebrating London’s roofs) was accurately transmitted to pedestrians.

Page 20

•

LOUVIERS MUSIC SCHOOL, Normandy, France, 2012

This project was designed by Opus 5 Architects, and it is a series of rehabilitation and renovation actions on a 17th Century building in northern France.

The main project consists of a concert hall extension on top of the southern wing of the building. “The plan was also to highlight the archaeological heritage and its exceptional site in the heart of the city.”1

Since its construction in 1646, the old building has experienced a series of successive constructions and different functions. It is a heavy historic monument rich with culture: - 1646 and 1659: The Monastery of the Franciscan brethren was built.

- 1789: Parts of the building were transformed into a Prison.

- 1827: The church part was demolished.

- 1934: The prison closed and old south wing started falling down.

- 1990: The building was mainly used as a Music School “The remains of the cloister above the river ‘L’Epervier’ are formingan ‘Impressionist’ picture combining stone, vegetation and water in a beautiful harmony.”

Figure 06: Images of the project, source: Luc Boegly 1 https://www.dezeen.com/2012/07/16/music-school-louviers-extension-by-opus-5/

Page 21

Figure 07: The interaction between the two architectures, source: Opus 5, Analysis by: Author

Page 22

Figure 08: The interaction between the two architectures, source: Luc Boegly, Analysis by: Author

Page 23

REFLECTION

It is fascinating to see the sharp line that separates the two entities in areas and the disappearance of this separation in other places.

The two Architectural styles from two different periods coexist in harmony and on the same plot of land. The design must distinguish between the two entities in order to preserve the historical integrity of the two styles. Besides, this project, in particular, represents the best-case scenario that demonstrates how we can address Architecturally, structurally, and culturally such a complex building.

Finally, the camouflage treatment applied to the Northern faรงade has successfully created a design harmony between the new contemporary addition and the old structure. By allowing the reflection of the old structure and its surrounding environment on the new glass facade, the architects created a peaceful and humble environment for the two. In our opinion, this project represents a successful intervention and the best-case study that shows what this thesis is trying to achieve and the quality of massage that wants to transmit.

Page 24

•

ANTWERP PORT HOUSE, Antwerp, Belgium, 2016

Designed by Zaha Hadid Architects, the project “repurposes, renovates, and extends” an abandoned fire station within the second largest shipping port in Europe. The project transforms the fire station into a new headquarters for the port.

During the competition phase of the project, the president of the port of Antwerp Marc Van Peel said “There was only one rule laid down in the architectural competition, namely that the original building had to be preserved. There were no other requirements imposed for the positioning of the new building.”1. He adds that the jury was surprised with all the five shortlisted candidates opted for a contemporary rooftop extension, along with adaptive reuse of the old fire house.

Figure 09: Project Images, source: Helene Binet

1 https://www.archdaily.com/795832/antwerp-port-house-zaha-hadid-architects

Page 25

Figure 10: Project Images and section, source: Helene Binet

Page 26

REFLECTION

Despite the impressive architectural and engineering accomplishments of this design, there are a couple of aesthetic anomalies when it comes to the relationship between the two buildings:

Like we saw in the case of the “Stealth Building” in NY, where the new architecture is wholly hidden, The Antwerp port house represents a case where the new Architecture leaves no space for the building support to breathe and express.

The architectural dosage is not balanced, and no harmony exists between the two structures.

The people’s attention goes directly to the new marvelous structure, and the building support becomes like a footing for the new structure due to scale. We believe that this attitude is also not the right way to apply for Rooftop Architecture extensions. The old firehouse building was indeed preserved as required by the competition brief.

However, we are not quite sure if it is noticeable anymore.

Page 27

CONCLUSION STEALTH BUILDING, New York City – NY 2016 WORKac Studio 19th

Century Support Building

AF SKYROOM, London, UK 2010 David Kohn Architects 19th Century Support Building

Figure 1: Plans, Section and images of the whole project, source: Dezeen.com

Page 28

LOUVIERS LOUVIERS MUSIC MUSIC SCHOOL, SCHOOL, Normandy, Normandy, France France 20122012 OpusOpus 5 Architects 5 Architects

ANTWERP ANTWERP PORT PORT HOUSE, HOUSE, Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Belgium 2016 2016 ZahaZaha Hadid Hadid Architects Architects

17th Century 17th Century Support Support Building Building

Page 29

Figure 11: Explanatory diagrams, source: Author

Page 30

REFLECTION

We want to make clear that it is important to distinguish between the two architectural styles. “Rooftop Architecture” should not be a “topping up” operation which aims to increase volume and density by adding a lot of the same.

This design attitude can severely damage the historical accuracy of the two buildings and the urban environment. Akiko Busch says:” Additions that try simply to continue or extend the design of the original building may be mistaken as part of the original design, and when this happens the addition may misrepresent or undermine what is original.”1

Luckily, New York City Architect Phillip Smith states that landmarks agencies most of the time “tend to respect an intelligent design with a new spirit of its own, rather than one that mimicked what is already there.”2

1 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p200 2 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p200

Page 31

2.

Case Studies that supports Project Aspirations: The Micro-Urban

The second wave of case studies will define a soft transition from architectural settings to urban ones. These case studies will start approaching the urban implications of stacking new architecture on top of roofs in the form of “Redensification” and “Infill” developments. We have to mention that the intended infill development is not a “Topping Up” operation, which is “an old term for building on the roof…This building practice mainly adds a lot of the same, without any differentiation in housing. The only aim was to increase volume.”1

The set will be defined in this thesis as “Micro-Urban Rooftop Architecture,” and it is the closest set to what rooftop architecture looks like as an urban entity in the real world. A Micro-Urban Rooftop Architecture should contain more than one building, and should fulfill the needs of more than one group of people: •

Tunesian Village Radetzkystraße, Vienna, Austria

This village project is a series of apartments built on top of a 19th Century house from the “Gründerzeit” period in Vienna, Austria. The village was designed by PPAG architects and was completed between 2012 and 2013.

The new roof addition was designed with sloped exterior walls that mimic a traditional European building Attic rooftop. The reason behind this design choice is to make the contemporary addition “Hardly visible from the street”2. Overall, the entire project was developed based on privacy and intimacy design parameters: “No one terrace overlooks the other. Just like a little Tunisian village”3.

1 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p1 2 https://architizer.com/projects/radetzkystrasse-a-village-on-the-roof/ 3 https://www.ppag.at/projects/radetzkystrasse/

Page 32

Figure 12: Sloped exterior facades, source: Roland Krauss

Figure 13: Inner Private Terraces, source: Roland Krauss

Page 33

Figure 13: Technical drawings of the project, source: architizer.com

Page 34

REFLECTION

Certainly, this Urban village project is the right step towards implementing “Rooftop Architecture” as a strategy to increase city density.

Nevertheless, similar to our conclusion for Stealth Building in New York, we think that making the project discreet and hardly appreciated from the street level is a waste of precious opportunity to influence the urban scenery. Busch says, “Rooftop follies have been inspired by images from Dali to Disney. And indeed, they bring a sense of excitement and intrigue to the urban landscape.

However, apart from that, they remind us that architecture can be provocative, experimental, and functional”1.

Equally important, the project severely lacks a green dimension to it. As we mentioned in the thesis statement, “Rooftop Architecture” should be a combination of building a new architecture on top of an existing Structure while creating green roofs for better sustainability practices. Green roofs significantly reduce Urban heat island effects and efficiently manage stormwater. Therefore, the project does not take full advantage of the environmental qualities that roofs offer.

1 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p87

Page 35

Figure 14: Explanatory diagrams, source: Author

Page 36

Additionally, the project did increase the density. Nevertheless, it is considered as a single use injection. The vertical addition should reflect sustainability principles of the compact city concepts such as increasing mixed-use development within walkable distances. This subject will be further discussed in “What is the Right Density?� Section.

Page 37

3.

The Where, When, and How of Rooftop Architecture

Besides the aesthetic relationship between the old and the new architectures, other ambiguous relations need to be defined and clarified in order for this phenomenon to take place in the real world. In his book, Akiko Busch dedicates a whole section explaining what to expect when you want to build on roofs, and how complicated is the process: “Working with the fifth wall, though, is a complex process.” Says Akiko, “If the virgin acreage of the rooftop is extensive, so too are the construction and zoning variables, the legalities, and certainly the expense that come with building on it”1. Akiko states that these specifics may change from context to context, but “rooftop dwellers” will have to deal with at least some of them. Although Akiko Busch’s book was published in 1991 and some of his reasoning and numbers might not apply to today’s world, we consider his analytical approach a good foundation for an initial understanding of the rooftop addition process:

Busch states that the first issue is cost, he implies that costs of rooftop architecture back in his days were relatively expensive: “Although this may not hold in the future, the costs of rooftop construction are substantially higher than those building on the ground.”2. Of course, like any act of building, these costs would fluctuate from city to city, and within the city itself. Akiko says that the costs of rooftop architecture in New York are estimated at around $300 to $400, while it was estimated at around $200 to $250 in San Francisco (1991 numbers). However, construction costs and technological progress in the domain of building certainly drives costs down. For instance, the French Architect Stephane Malka proposed a prefabricated system for affordable rooftop housing that can propose a green housing 40% below the real estate market price in Paris3.

The second step, according to Busch, would be figuring out air rights. He states that there are two major scenarios: The first one is where the client owns the building: “If the client owns the outright, roof rights are obviously no problem.” He says. The second one is the most common when the client will have to deal with a Co-op board. This scenario brings many challenges, such as mitigating Co-op members’ concerns about the rooftop addition (leaks, wiring, plumbing issues) and negotiating roof rights and benefits.

1 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p197 2 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p197 3 https://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/can-we-stick-affordable-housing-rooftops-cities.html

Page 38

The third step, if you survived the previous two, is examining the structure of the support building. “Determining the structural integrity of the building can be especially difficult if plans of the existing building are not available, as is often the case with older buildings”1 says, Busch. The process requires hiring a structural engineer to do the mission. Usually, architects start the investigation, and they double-check with the engineer’s findings in order to avoid later problems. When the rooftop addition is significant, architects recommend checking the structural integrity of the adjacent building too. Akiko states that most cases conclude that the building is not ready for extra weight as it was originally designed to only support loads such as snow and stormwater. Nevertheless, Akiko Busch argues that heavy equipment like elevator motor, water towers are actually stored on the roof which is supported by dunnage2, which redirects the loads into the structure. He claims that if the new construction is light weighted, it can be supported by the dunnage most of the time. Another alternative solution would be reinforcing the construction “from below, by having new floor joists supported by the building’s load-bearing walls”3. A third method is to “drop new structural columns through the building onto the existing foundation and newly excavated footing”4. However, Busch claims that this last solution can only be applied to “relatively low buildings.”

The next step is to go through the local city’s building department and the zoning department. Busch states that there are regulatory constraints that need to be met in order to obtain a roof addition permit. Some of these constraints are:

- Egress means

- Construction materials limited lists, especially in historic neighborhoods

- Less flammable construction materials, especially in higher-density residential buildings

- Fire safety and safety requirements in general

- Zoning development restrictions (Although, we argue in this thesis that zoning should be changed to allow mixed-use injections)

- If the building is in a landmark district, the rooftop addition would have to be approved by the “local municipal landmarks agency.” These agencies usually worry about the aesthetics of the rooftop addition. Busch states that new additions on historically significant buildings need to be hidden in order to please the agency. New York City Architect Phillip Smith adds: “They are not likely to approve a proposal for a building that overwhelms or intimidates the presence of the existing building” 5. Nonetheless, we previously stated that this attitude do not align with our vision in this thesis.

- Seismic consideration in cities like San Francisco

1 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p197 2 “Steel beams spanning the roof of the building” 3 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p198 4 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p198 -199 5 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p200

Page 39

After approval, the final step is to figure out how to construct the rooftop addition, specifically how to get the building materials to the roof site. This step requires a lot of good relations with the existing building owners, as well as the building occupants generosity. These “human relations” will facilitate the already complicated process. Busch adds that some drawbacks need to be expected, like the existing stairs and elevators’ limited sizes and capacities. Also, construction problems such as leaks tend to happen often.

In brief, the checklist provided by Akiko Busch in his book gives us a broad, down to earth look of what to expect if we decide to go higher and increase density.

This checklist is expected to be even more challenging when transitioning from an individual roof addition to an urban scale sized operation.

4.

Case studies to support Project aspirations: The City Scale

The third and final group of case studies is the most diverse of all three sets in terms of project typologies: It is a combination of urban design studies done by experts and architecture firms around the world to respond to certain laws and codes created by authorities. The purpose behind the creation of these policies was to solve pressing urban issues that these cities face, through techniques and procedures such as infill urban development and Vertical urban expansion. To illustrate, during the nineties, The Netherlands introduced a Policy document known as “VINEX,” which was a supplement to the Fourth National Policy Document on Spatial Planning. The new policy attempted to control the city growth and diverge it back to the dying core. City centers were suffering from population loss in favor of modern suburban development: “Vinex enabled the large cities to tackle the competition with the growth cores by proposing that some 750.000 homes be built in and around the main cities. Since the development was in the hands of market forces, most of these homes took the form of terraced houses with (small) gardens, in line with what most Dutch people prefer. These Vinex housing estates were a financial success too. The houses sold like hot cakes”1.

Thinking about the city as a multi-layer entity is not a recent idea. For example, many architects and designers like Harvey Wiley Corbett, Peter, and Alison Smithson, Peter Sigmond, Rem Koolhaas, etc. Proposed Utopian ideas about the city of the future look and evolution. In those periods of time, cities were either recovering from conflicts (After WWII), in the middle of a geopolitical crisis (Berlin as a divided capital) or facing major urban problems generated from technological progress (Traffic congestions because of the introduction of cars as a mode of transportation). Many competitions where held, generating an influx of extraordinary ideas. For example, 1957’s Berlin was a divided city between east and west as an aftermath of WWII. The Western side proposed a competition to imagine the city’s urban future based on New Urbanism vision. Alison and Peter Smithson and Peter Sigmond proposed a futuristic design where Berlin would become a Multi-layer city, by detaching the new structure from the pre-existing fabric:

1 Rooftop Architecture: Building on an elevated surface, p17

Page 40

Figure 15: Hauptstadt Berlin Competition Entry by Alison and Peter Smithson, with Peter Sigmond, source: Architectural Association Collection Blog

Page 41

Figure 16: City of future by Corbett - 1913, source: artcontrarian.blogspot.com

Page 42

Another remarkable example of Utopian vertical cities is Harvey Wiley Corbett’s studies and illustrations. Corbett’s work about the cities of tomorrow helped in the popularization efforts for the “Multi-level city” concepts in the early decades of the twentieth century. One of his popular studies is “New York the city of the future”, where he proposed several levels of separated pedestrian and vehicle traffic, going through and above the city skyline. His proposal intended to address the traffic congestion problems of New York.

Page 43

Figure 17: Explanatory diagrams, source: Author

Page 44

REFLECTION

This diagram shows how important it is for cities to have multiple layers that would assure its functioning during times of crisis such as sea rise levels or flooding. Case in point, imagine if New Orleans, a city that was heavily devastated by hurricane Katrina, had multiple layers, how many lives we could have saved and how resilient the city would be in the face of climate change disasters!

Page 45

Today, we have more reasons and pressing issues that push us towards going back and thinking about the Multi-Layer city. The technological progress in the domain of Architecture and construction certainly makes the task easier to achieve, and many successful cases exist around the world: London, Paris, Vienna, are cities where remarkable advancement in this field has been achieved through several urban evolution phases. For example, the ALUR law “Accès au Logement et a un Urbanisme Rénové” which translates to “The Access to Housing and Renovated Urbanism,” was established in France. The 2014 policy was introduced to mitigate the housing crisis within large expensive cities, especially in Paris, through multiple measurements that alleviate the zoning code limits, address the roof rights, and the co-op relationship between landlords, owners, and residents. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of rooftop architecture projects is roof rights. It can be a tricky matter that needs to be carefully defined. BUSCH says,” If one is prepared for the cost of rooftop building, the next step might be to establish the question of roof rights – a tricky term that may need redefining from project to project. If the client owns the building outright, roof rights are obviously no problem. A more likely scenario is that the client will have to negotiate roof rights from a co-op board.”1. Another question is how these policies would affect and shape the urban scenery in the city?

• GRAND PARIS STUDY, Paris, France

Paris is a pioneer city when it comes to urban consolidation efforts. In 2008, the French Ministry of Culture and Communication commissioned MVRDV, ACS, and AAF to study the city of Paris and develop a sustainable master plan for the city using vertical urban expansion and infill development. In fact, French President Sarkozy “commissioned ten teams of architects and urban planners to imagine an exemplary “Grand Paris”: a sustainable and bold capital. The project was hailed as the most ambitious since Haussmann changed Paris in the 19th century. The teams were tasked with envisioning the European metropolis in 2030: a “post-Kyoto” green urban center that would accommodate growth beyond the Paris’ two million inhabitants and provide them with attractive urban environments.”2

The MVRDV’s plan was developed in four parts that collectively “seek to mitigate future sprawl and radically transform Grand Paris into one of the densest, most compact and thus sustainable, high-quality cities in the world”3.

1 Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, p197 2 https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/358/grand-paris 3 https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/358/grand-paris

Page 46

Figure 18: Rendering of the Master Plan(Densification through Rooftops + Infill development), source: ACS and AAF, MVRDV

Page 47

Figure 19: Explanatory diagrams, source: Author

Page 48

REFLECTION

This diagram shows how flexible vertical expansions should be when it comes to air rights and landlord’s reactions to increasing density. Not only the urban plan should be smartly designed to absorb potential future growth when landlords change their minds, but also it should be respectful of the property line rights of owners who do not seek densification strategies.

Page 49

5.

What is the Right Density?

The term ‘Urban Density’ has been addressed numerous times in this thesis so far. We have been arguing that vertical expansion through rooftop architecture is a solution to increase density. This implicates that the density is not enough in some urban regions and needs to be increased until it becomes ‘right.’ Density is one of the major urban indicators that Rooftop Architecture is heavily influencing, and urban density affects people’s personal and social lives in many unpredictable ways.

MVRDV state in their book “FARMAX Excursions on Density” that applying more density increases massiveness, which implicates an enlargement in the number of activities, an increase in people’s movement, which triggers people’s fear of density. Accordingly, all these facts make understanding and defining the “right” density critical to the success of rooftop architecture as an urban development concept.

Just like rooftop architecture itself, ‘Urban Density’ have allies and enemies that claim they know what the term means and should look like: “In debates about urban density we often find comments about buildings being too tall or not tall enough, about too many people in a neighborhood or too few, about streets and buildings being overcrowded or empty.”1

Urban density is an enigma created by us entangling different concepts together in a chaotic way. For instance, when we talk about urban density, we usually target building density and people density at the same time. Kim Dovey argues in his article “Urban density matters – but what does it mean?” that in order to talk appropriately about urban density, we should start by dissociating building concentration from people’s one because people move and their quantity changes in very short amounts of time compared to building’s quantity. Furthermore, we tend to understand density through numbers like FAR and building heights. But many argue that these numbers create confusion more than anything. According to Dovey, one of the reasons why the current urban density definition is so limited is because the term “density” was borrowed from science, where it makes perfect sense in that environment. Urban density do not only depend on science, but it also depends of culture, art and feelings to name a few. With such complexity and clash of thoughts, how can we calibrate the right Urban Density? Moreover, is there such a thing in the first place?

To clarify, we are not interested in defining the ‘right’ density through specific numbers and ratios in this section: MVRDV thinks that the urban community’s obsession with ‘quantity’ and not ‘quality’ is what makes urban density skewed most of the time. What we are interested in is understanding what makes an urban density ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Of course, A good density is a synonym to the right density.

In consequence, exploring how we can dissociate the good from the bad will help us define more accurately where urban vertical expansion should be applied, and when it should stop. Because If it is not appropriately applied, density becomes a burden and a legitimate reason to hate the city. Certainly, we do not want Urban Rooftop Architecture to become a failure because of the unbalanced built density generated from the concept.

1 Kim Dovey, “Urban density matters – but what does it mean?”, 2016, http://theconversation.com/urban-density-matters-but-what-does-it-mean-58977

Page 50

First, a good density is the one that provides “proximity” and “diversity” through mixed-use development to the community. According to David Sim in his book “Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life,” a good density should be “soft” enough to allow people to spend “more time outdoors in the company of others, moving about, and experiencing ‘life between buildings’”1. He adds that cities with the right amounts of densities make people” moving closer, getting together, connecting people to one another, and to all aspects of life around them”2. Furthermore, Sim argues that an adequate diverse density should bring at least those three benefits: “Physical proximity, common resources, and shared identities”3.

This can be very applicable through vertical expansion in areas where density is not bringing enough proximity, diversity, and interest in urban life. Re-activating rooftops in single-use urban developments, especially the residential kind, will make the local community curious enough to go around and up, explore their neighborhoods, and become closer to where magic happens:” it is about being closer to where decisions and discoveries are made, where new knowledge grows, where fashion is created, trends start, and culture happens”4.

Also, proximity allows people to get their needs fulfilled without motorized traveling, which helps them save time significantly and save the environment: “With Proximity, the space of the urban environment can be translated into time, with the convenience of being to do a wide variety of things in the same day, in the same morning, or even in the same hour”5. Thus, proximity created by the right density will convert the time lost in traveling into something more meaningful and allow the community to live “as locally as possible”: “We waste so much time traveling between the needs and the wants, often missing out on other more fulfilling opportunities to better connect ourselves with the places and the people immediately around us”6.

In contrast, this proximity should be carefully applied, or we will end up with a bad density surplus that promotes conflicts more than benefits: “People have different perspectives and needs, values and behaviors. The benefits of colocation can just as easily become problems, as surplus becomes waste, energy becomes pollution, mobility becomes congestion, collaboration becomes exploitation, and coexistence becomes a conflict.”7

1 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p3 2 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p3 3 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p12 4 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p12 5 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p12 6 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p90 7 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p11

Page 51

Based on these parameters, an excellent urban density is actually promoting for healthier lifestyle (physically and socially) which generates a better quality of life.

People surrounded by diverse urban activities will tend to go outdoors more often: “There is an epidemic of poor health due to people living their lives indoors, sitting inside mechanically ventilated building with artificial light, transporting themselves everywhere in cars”1.

Second, a good density should be a smart development and not dumb densification: Besides what was mentioned about proximity and diversity, a good density is the one that brings nature to the city, which promotes for better sustainability practices, increases the city resiliency, and make the population happier and healthier. “There may not always be natural landscape close by to connect with, so the experience of nature, or at least strong elements of nature, may need to be brought into the city.”2. Sim also states in his book that urban density should unmistakably incorporate natural elements such as greenery and water for their proven benefits on people’s health and the environment in general. For example, he explains that “The strongest sensory experiences are associated with water, in particular, running water, with sound, movement, and reflection”3

Thus, incorporating elements such as water fountains boosts people’s happiness and satisfaction. Also, the right density should preserve the existing nature as much as possible by creating a new development on existing urban tissues rather than expanding outwards and increasing urban footprint. The bad density happens when the new added development is ultimately nature -free, MVRDV state that this kind of urban density envelops societies in total “greyness” which creates suffocating environments that make people miserable and hate dense developments.

Smart density should be a layering operation and not a stacking one. Sim defines the difference between the two as follows: “Layering places different function and types of accommodation on top of one another and makes the most of distinctions between each space. Stacking merely places the same functions and the same type of accommodation on top of one another.”4 As we explained in previous sections, adding more of the same is a waste of an opportunity to apply sustainable urban development, and can create urban congestion and unnecessary development. “Layering on both planes creates a complex system of spaces indoors and outdoors. The more complex the spatial system, the more varied its qualities, the greater the chance that a variety of activities and behaviors will occur.”5

1 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p3 2 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p188 3 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p188 4 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p46 5 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p48

Page 52

Finally, a good density should be porous enough to provide access to light, fresh air, and generally good hygienic conditions to all its levels and layers. This is probably one of the most challenging aspects of applying extra density. The secret is to play with shapes, volumes and development quantities in order to meet codes and allow permeability. Case in point, “the Dutch bylaws require that every living room should receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight on its façade every day”1. In our case, when defining the second layer through rooftop architecture, it is crucial to guarantee that the lower layers won’t become a dead place. MVRDV discuss the example of Guangzhou in 1998 China, and how the increased density generated an uncontrollable increase in traffic which was compensated by more bridges and infrastructure. MVRDV continues explaining that this new development was on top of an existing traditional city that continued to survive despite absence of adequate light and ventilation:” One experiences this mainly below the new roads were - for the time being – the traditional city and traditional life continue to exist in some form as a kind of underworld.”2

In conclusion, we can say that the right urban density should be defined in terms of design concepts and qualities, and not only numbers and ratios. Numbers changes from city to city and within the city itself. Numbers constitute only a small part of the picture. The adequate density is a density that makes local residents needless of long traveling. Its where everyday life needs can be fulfilled within walkable distances. David Sim summarizes a successful sustainable dense built environment in nine Criteria. He says “a livable, resilient, high-density area should have: a diversity of built form and of outdoor spaces, flexibility, a human scale, walkability, a sense of control and identity, a pleasant microclimate, a smaller carbon footprint, and greater biodiversity.”3

1 FARMAX Excursions on Density, p194 2 FARMAX Excursions on Density, p475 3 Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, p212

Page 53

V.

SITE AND PROGRAM 1.

Area of Experimentation: South Philadelphia

Why South Philadelphia?

Many reasons led to choosing South Philadelphia as our target for vertical expansion: South Philadelphia is an important, mostly residential, part of the city that is rich with history and culture. Since the 17th Century, the area experienced an influx of immigrants from all over the world (Italian, Irish, Jewish, Mexican, Asians...) that called South Philly home, and generated a unique residential architecture that constitute a source of cultural pride for the local community and the city in general.

However, South Philadelphia is a flat urban land compared to other parts of Philadelphia. As shown in figure 20, the area is mostly developed as residential single-family and lacks urban diversity, which makes it very attractive for MixedUse infill Development and Compact City principles application. Moreover, South Philadelphia historical attributes makes it the best support for any rooftop architecture manifestation as discussed in the research part.

To summarize:

- South Philly is composed of historical neighborhoods, preserved and cared

for by the city and the local communities. Thus, the support is culturally

strong enough and theoretically eternal, which constitute a perfect host for

the new addition, as no demolition desires would occur in the future.

- South Philly lacks access to green space, green roofs, and healthy food

within walkable distances.

- As shown in the figure 21, the zoning Code allows for 36ft while the actual

average height built is 28ft. So, vertical expansion is lawfully possible.

- South Philly is primarily a residential type urban area with a finite number of mixed-use/Commercial buildings type clustered around main streets and avenues.

Which makes mixed-use injections highly recommended for better sustainability practices (Environmentally, Socially, and economically).

Page 54

Figure 20: Zoning Map of South Philadelphia, source: City of Philadelphia - CityGeo

Figure 21: Aerial View of a Typical South Philadelphia Neighborhood, source: City of Philadelphia - CityGeo

Page 55

• South Philly: The Culture of Stoop and its social aspects: “In a city like Philly, everything has a story,”1

South Philadelphia is a very distinguished part of the city due to its famous and historical rowhomes. These rowhomes are unique; they are an architectural signature of the local community identity and a source of pride. Rowhomes offer an open platform for social interaction between family members and between neighbors.

This platform is taking the shape of a stoop (some might call it “steps”). The stoop goes beyond being simply steps to meet the exterior door level. Writer Tommy Rowan says: “The stoop is a meeting place, it is a time capsule, it is a place where a family’s history is preserved and passed down from one generation to the next, just like their houses.”2 Furthermore, Charles Croce, executive director and CEO of the Philadelphia History Museum, states that Philadelphia’s history as a city goes beyond the independence war. ”History is made every day on stoops and steps like these. “3 He says.

The stoop gets activated in warm seasons. During the summer, it becomes a hub and a popular destination for families, their relatives, and their friends. It’s a fascinating place in the quality of social interaction and surprises. The stoop is where miracles happen, where people meet, talk, fight, then become friends again.

The stoop is large enough to host block parties and small enough for intimate conversations. It is fascinating how a simple arrangement of steps can generate such a variety of urban scenarios.

All the facts mentioned above indicates how important outside urban life is for South Philadelphians. Understanding the stoop will help us assess how the local residents activate the streets, interact with the urban environment, and engage other people. We want to make sure that defining the second layer would not clash with the already existing one. In fact, both urban layers should be a continuation and extension of one another. Moreover, the urban aerial life that we intend to design should be balanced with the one on the ground in terms of providing new life through the new development while respecting the intimacy of local families.

1 Kaitlin Pomerantz, Visual Artist 2 https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/real-time/South-Philly-this-is-how-we-stoop-it.html 3 https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/philadelphia/philly-history/preserving-philly-stoopsand-stoop-culture-into-the-future-20171116.html

Page 56

Figure 22: “ ON THE THRESHOLD” art installation by Kaitlin Pomerantz, 2017, source: Steve Weinik

Figure 23: South Philly Block Party Wedding Attendees, source: Jauhien Sasnou

Page 57

2. Chosen Urban Fragment: West Passyunk Ave, Broad St, S 16th St, and Morris St • Context analysis The site shown in figure 24 is chosen to host our design project.

- Selection criteria:

- The availability of different types of buildings other than residential, different heights and different functions (Hospital, Parking garage, School, public playground‌) would grant us more design flexibility.

- The urban fragment is bordered by two main streets (Broad St and Passyunk Avenue), which will reduce the infill development density pressure on the existing infrastructure.

Page 58

Figure 24: Site Buondaries, source: Google Earth, Analysis by: Author

Page 59

Figure 25: Explanatory diagrams, source: Author

Page 60

REFLECTION

- The urban fragment contains very few vacant lots and buildings that we would use to create a public vertical transition from the street level to the roof level. According to Philadelphia’s city government, more than 40,000 vacant lots are scattered around the city, and 74% are privately owned. The Philadelphia comprehensive plan proposes “infill development” as a strategy for these lots, which is a positive sustainable move. Nevertheless, major areas such as South Philadelphia contains fewer empty lots. In consequence, relying only on infilling vacancy is a very limited strategy when it comes to diversifying existing urban areas. Furthermore, we see that these empty lots as an opportunity to establish smoother connections between the city vertical layers, instead of infilling and blocking the access once and for all. As we discussed in Akiko Busch’s checklist, going through negotiations with landlords to grant access to the roof is not a fun experience. On the other hand, buying these empty lots from owners would save a lot of headaches. To summarize, we will use our context as a counterargument in proving that vacant urban lots are not the only way to address urban infill development and internal densification.

Page 61

Figure 26: Explanatory diagrams, source: Author

Page 62

REFLECTION

What if a landlord is hesitant to sell his vacant lot for he wants to develop it in the future?

With this policy idea, for instance, landlords who offer their lots to grant access to the second layer will be compensated with an equal amount of airright to develop their property in the future, and benefit from direct access to the second layer.

Page 63

• Site Visit

The first site visit took place to explore the urban fragment first hand. Many pictures were taken to document the different buildings typologies, the variety of buildings heights, the neighborhood’s and street’s characteristics, and how people are engaging all of the above:

Page 64

27 . A variety of Architectural Styles 28 . Different heights and functions 29 . Empty lots and underutilised buildings to use as an opportunity for vertical transition.

27

28

29 Page 65

• Local food Suppliers Mapping:

This map shows the variety of food options that is available to the Broad and West Passyunk community within the walkable distance (5-minutes pedestrian Shed). We want to note that these options were not examined for healthy food availability.

Page 66

Page 67

• Philadelphia 2035 Comprehensive Plan: South District Recommendations

We examined the Official Philadelphia Citywide Vision Plan to understand what are the specific urban needs of the West Passyung region. Specifically, we looked into the south district plan where our site is classified. The explored documents represent the city officials’ list of recommendations for the West Passyung region, the community agencies’ comments, and the resident’s wish list (the referenced people do not necessarily live in the West Passyung region as the south district covers a larger territory).

South Philadelphia Community Comments (2015):

Here are the main wishes of the local community. Although, some of the comments do not align with our sustainable vision for the area: • There are many “Traffic concerns”. Therefore, increase the roads capacities…

• We need more parking spaces.

• Mixed-Use development is favorable • Actively preserve historic structures • Include capital investment in green space.

• “I wanted to know if we can include both the Tolentine Center and Southwark Elementary as potential sites for parkland in South Philly…. Green2015(The city/ Penn praxis plan) specifically mentions our area as a green desert” by Kate Clark, resident of East Passyunk.

Figure 31 presents a letter from the South Broad Street Neighborhood Association where they express some recommendations and concerns about the South District rezoning plan. For instance, the letter expresses some hygienic concerns, such as sunlight penetration, that can be caused by increasing the area density.

Moreover, the agency encourages the application of sustainable design concepts such as green roofs and open green spaces. Finally, another recommendation is to apply more retail development that serves the local community, which we consider encouragement for mixed-use injections.

Page 68

Figure 31: SBSNA Document , source: Philadelphia 2035 South District Plan

Page 69

The City Official’s Recommendations:

The city also has some development plans for the south district: - West Passyunk Avenue is known for being a bicyclists nightmare. This was explicitly stated in the document: “Unwelcoming intersections, and parking on streets and median create unsafe conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.”1 - The plan recommends the implementation of a “High Priority bicycle infrastructure projects”2 in the West Passyunk Avenue.

In conclusion, the general mindset of the city officials and the people tend to favorize a sustainable development for the South District, which aligns with our main goals and program elements which we will discuss shortly.

1 Citywide Vision Philadelphia 2035 South District Plan, p 33 2 Citywide Vision Philadelphia 2035 South District Plan, p 73

Page 70

• Specific Case Studies: SkyCycle, London, UK, 2013

This case study is examined to explore the possible ways to introduce elevated cycle lanes along with pedestrian walkways as an attempt to respond to the Philadelphia 2035 recommendations for safer cycle routes. SkyCycle is a design Proposal by Foster and Partners to create safe new cycle routes throughout London. “The proposed SkyCycle network follows existing suburban rail services and provides over 220 kilometres of safe, car free cycle routes which can be accessed at over 200 entrance points.”1 Says the design team. The project can be considered as introducing a second infrastructure layer to the city, which encourages urban vertical development. Additionally, the team argues that “Early studies of a SkyCycle system indicate that it provides capacity at a much lower cost than building new roads and tunnels. The possibility of the deck providing development opportunities for businesses along the route, particularly where it intersects with stations and bridges, has also been the subject of the study, exploring ideas for public/private commercial growth and regeneration.”2. The project was welcomed by the mayor, the city officials, and Cycling enthusiasts. Figure 32 shows how the project smoothly connects with the lower infrastructure and activates the rooftop life along its path.

Figure 32: Project Rendering, source: Foster+Partners 1 https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/skycycle/ 2 https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/skycycle/

Page 71

• Specific Case Studies: Promenade Plantee (Paris) Vs High Line (New York) Vs Rail Park (Philadelphia) comparison

We chose these three particular case studies because we consider them as successful attempts to introduce a vertical dimensionality to urban life in the city.

We compared them to one another through a series of comprehensive diagrams to understand the relationship created between these projects and the local environment, and how they affected (for better or worse) the local communities.

Particularly, we are interested in what is happening above and under these elevated parks in terms of activity, levels of permeability, etc... This analysis would help us determine why there are different success degrees between these similar design approaches.

Page 72

The Surrounding Density: - Very dense surrounding which is one of the key successes of the High Line.

-Similarly, the High Line activation increased the density of the surrounding area (The Hudson Yard development for instance).

The High Line (2009), NY - Like the High Line, the Promenade Plantee is surrounded by high density.

The Promenade Plantee (1993), Paris

- On the other hand, the Rail Park surrounding density is relatively low.

The Rail Park (2018), Philadelphia Page 73

The Green Spaces: - The High Line provides a decent amount of open green spaces with a variety of public seating and interesting landscape design.

- The Promenade Plantee possesses the highest greenery coverage of all three examples.

- The Rail Park green areas are very limited and unmaintained compared to the other two. However, the Rail Park provides interesting landscape and public furniture that can engage the visitor’s interest.

Page 74

Connection to the lower level: - Access to the High Line from the street level is easy with obvious stairs, ramps and elevators towers available within short distances to pedestrians.

- Access is available from the street level but not as obvious as the High Line.

- There is only two accesses: at the beginning and the end of the park. The Rail Park does not engage the street as much as it should be.

Page 75

Surrounding Development typologies: - The High Line benefits from various development types that increase its visitor’s rates and frequency. At the same time, the surrounding developments benefit from the High Line success story that attracts millions of tourists.

- When it comes to the street levels, the High Line does not provide engagement opportunities as all the attention is going up. Most of the activities under the High Line are industrial (car services for instance)

- The Promenade Plantee Strongly engages the streets as businesses nest under the bridge itself.

-The promenade Plantee successfully activates all the city layers (streets, elevated parks) which increases the community and tourist’s interests.

- Compared to the other two, the Rail Park is a victim of the surrounding development as most of it is industrial and parking. This is why, in our opinion, the rail park is still not very successful at attracting many people.

Page 76

3.

Proposed Program

SUSTAINABLE & RESILIENT CITY SUSTAINABLE & RESILIENT URBAN FRAGMENT SUSTAINABLE & RESILIENT URBAN FRAGMENT SUSTAINABLE & RESILIENT URBAN FRAGMENT

Page 77

Page 78

Page 79

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY Melet, Ed, Vreedenburgh, Eric. Rooftop Architecture: Building on an Elevated Surface, NAi Publishers, Belgium,2005.

Busch, Akiko. Rooftop Architecture: The Art of Going Through the Roof, Henri Holt and Company, New York, 1991.

Roth, Manuela. Roof Architecture + Design, Braun Publishing AG, Germany, 2012.

Rosen, Laura, Top of The City – New York’s Hidden Rooftop World, Thames and Hudson, New York, 1982.

Lewis, Paul, Tsurumaki, Marc, J.Lewis, David. Manual of Section, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 2016.

M. Wheeler, Stephen. Planning for Sustainability: Creating livable, equitable and ecological communities, Second Edition, Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2004.

Newman, Peter, Beatley, Timothy, Boyer, Heather. Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change, First Edition, Island Press, Washington-Covelo-London, 2009.

Sim, David. Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life, Island Press, WashingtonCovelo-London, 2019.

Beatley, Timothy, and Manning, Kristy. The Ecology of Place: Planning for Environment, Economy, and Community, Second Edition, Island Press, 1997.

Portney, Kent E. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and Quality of Life in American Cities (American and Comparative Environmental Policy), The MIT press, 2013.

DAMDI Publishing Co. Program Diagrams, First Edition, Suh, Kyongwon, March 2011.

Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Citywide Vision Philadelphia 2035. PDF file.

June 2011.

https://www.phila2035.org/citywide-vision Steiner Frederick R. The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning, Island Press, 2008 SITU Studio.” The Other New York” “Uneven Growth: Tactical Urbanisms for Expanding Mega Cities”. November 19, 2014. 04:12, https://vimeo.com/112302379

Page 80

VII. LINKS https://www.dezeen.com/2016/11/10/workac-stealth-building-jagged-rooftopaddition-tribeca-new-york/#/ https://work.ac/featured/ https://www.archdaily.com/359050/louviers-music-school-rehabilitation-andextension-opus-5-architectes https://www.dezeen.com/2012/07/16/music-school-louviers-extension-by-opus-5/ https://www.designboom.com/architecture/opus-5-architectes-maurice-duruflemusic-school/ https://skyroom.london/model/ https://davidkohn.co.uk/projects/skyroom http://www.architen.com/projects/london-design-festival-skyroom/ https://www.dezeen.com/2010/10/13/skyroom-by-david-kohn-architects/ https://architizer.com/projects/radetzkystrasse-a-village-on-the-roof/ https://www.ppag.at/projects/radetzkystrasse/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02502621 http://collectionsblog.aaschool.ac.uk/aa-library-hauptstadt-berlin-2/ http://artcontrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/harvey-wiley-corbett-style-cities-of. html https://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/FUTURE_CITY/NEW_YORK_MODERN/ walkthrough_corbett.php https://www.completefrance.com/french-property/buying-property/france-s-loialur-explained-1-3737371 https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/358/grand-paris https://www.greenplayllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Highline.pdf https://www.thehighline.org https://streeteasy.com/blog/changing-grid-high-line/ https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2017/02/the-high-lines-next-balancing-act-fairand-affordable-development/515391/ http://theconversation.com/urban-density-matters-but-what-does-it-mean-58977 https://www.archdaily.com/795832/antwerp-port-house-zaha-hadid-architects https://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/port-house/ https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/philadelphia/philly-history/ preserving-philly-stoops-and-stoop-culture-into-the-future-20171116.html https://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/05/20/philadelphia-stoops/ https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/real-time/South-Philly-this-is-how-westoop-it.html https://monumentlab.com/on-the-threshold-salvaged-stoops-philadelphia http://www.goodmorningparis.fr/walks/la-promenade-plantee-a-green-andunusual-walk-in-paris/

Page 81