Issuu on Google+

Fv

Flat Vertical


18

Pros and Cons

The flat vertical typology, mainly used for housing, has proved to be an EFFICIENT ORGANIZATION of individual cells.

Organization


20

Pros and Cons

Circulation

The linearity of the flat vertical typology enables the use of LINEAR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, both horizontally and vertically.

7.0m 2.0m

9.0m

Single detached

10 story slab block

Isometric

Plot Plan Dwelling units/acre

8

Floor area/plot size

0.23

~1.78

Units related to the ground

100%

10%

Access to unit

private on ground

90

common elevator


22

Pros and Cons

Orientation

The linearity of the flat vertical allows for an OPTIMAL ORIENTATION of the envelope towards the south, to maximize ecological performance.

N

NW 20

NE 0h

:04

6:0

h

north observer

W

E

70° 60° 50°

:05h

17

6:52

h

40° 30° 20° 10°

SW

SE

S

NEW ORLEANS 21 June, 21 December 29°57'15.984"N


24

Pros and Cons

BUT: Historically the flat vertical has proven to have a problematic connection with the ground, leaving vast, arid, public open spaces that in most cases become “NO MAN’S LAND” due to unclear property ownership.

FV : Moisei Ginzburg Apartment Building 1928

No man’s land


26

Pros and Cons

Identity and Orientation

BUT: The uniformity of the floor plan leads to the creation of a homogeneous population and to A LACK OF IDENTITY AND ORIENTATION.

FV : Team X Toulouse Le Mirail Apartment Complex, Toulouse, France 1960-1964


28

Pros and Cons

Toulouse Le Mirail, riots, 2005


30

Site Analysis

31

Magnolia Projects

In New Orleans, MAGNOLIA PROJECTS is a classic example for a flat vertical public housing project which has become one of the most problematic sites in the country in terms of crime rates since its construction between 1941-1955.

FV : Magnolia Projects The Magnolia Projects, officially the C.J. Peete Projects, was among the largest Housing Projects of New Orleans and first all-black public housing federally founded in the United States (after the constructionof the all white St. Thomas). It housed approximately 2,100 people in 1,400 units distributed in 41.5 acres.

Completed in two phases (1940-41 and 1954-55), it became famous nationwide for its legendary violent-crime rates (one of the highest murder rate in the United States).


32

Site Analysis

New Orleans Lake Pontchartrain

In

t

c ra

Lake Borgne M

Mi

MAGNOLIA

0

2

4 Miles

ss

iss

ip

pi

Ri

ve

r

is

s

is

s

ip

p

i

R

iv

e

r

G

u

lf

O

u

tl

e

t

oa

s

l ta

W

a

r te

w

ay


34

Site Analysis

New Orleans

Magnolia Progects is part of a NETWORK of rather similar housing projects in new Orleans, all suffer from similar socio-economic issues. Lake Pontchartrain

St. Bernard Calliope 2 Calliope Lafitte Iberville MAGNOLIA Guste 9th Ward

St. Thomas

Mi

0

2

4 Miles

ss

iss

ip

pi

Ri

ve

r

M

is

s

is

s

i


36

Site Analysis

New Orleans - environmental analysis

N

NW 20

NE 0h

:04

6:0

h

Elevation in meters

(0 reflects sea level during normal conditions*) -4.00 to -1.25 -1.25 to -.50 -.50 to 0 0 to .5 .5 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 8.5 *When using this map, take into account that sea level rises during & after hurricanes

north observer

W

E

70° 60° 50°

h 7:05

1

6:52

h

40° 30° 20° 10°

SW

SE

S

NEW ORLEANS

21 June, 21 December 29°57'15.984"N

SUN ANGLE DIAGRAM

60

27°

Temperature, °C

20

Windspeed, m/s Insolation, kWh/m²/day RelaIve Humidity, %

10

0 Jan

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec


38

Site Analysis

FV : POST KATRINA FLOODING map made as part of: “Exposing New Orleans”, an urban analysis of post-Katrina New Orleans by: Anthony Fontenot, Jakob Rosenzweig, Anne Schmidt Fall 2005 Princeton University

New Orleans


40

Site Analysis

FV : RACIAL DISTRIBUTION map made as part of: “Exposing New Orleans”, an urban analysis of post-Katrina New Orleans by: Anthony Fontenot, Jakob Rosenzweig, Anne Schmidt Fall 2005 Princeton University

New Orleans


42

600,000

New Orleans $180

Site Analysis

Population, 2000: Population, 2006: Population, 2008:

484,674 223,000 336,644

Loss of residents between 1970 – 2000:

108,000

Growth of suburbs between 1970 – 2000:

293,000

Population change between 2000 - 2006:

-53.9%

500,000

What are effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans population and housing situation?

$135

400,000

300,000

200,000

$65 1950

1990

2005

2010

HOUSING: Households, 2000

188,251

Persons per household, 2000 1-person household 2-person household 3-person household 4-person household 5+ person household

2.48 33% 28% 16% 12% 11%

Median rental costs, 2008

$908

Median household income, 2007 Median household income, New York

$37,348 $45,343

POPULATION MIX

COSTS: Median house or condo, 2008 Townhouses Detached houses Mobile homes

$194,300 $192,638 $320,426 $60,229

2-unit structure 3/4-unit structure 5-unit structure

$222,337 $312,538 $370,148

WHITE 28% BLACK 67.5%

2005 BEFORE KATRINA

WHITE 42.7% BLACK 47%

2006 AFTER KATRINA

FV : POST KATRINA Hurricane Katrina (2005) left New Orleans in a major lack of housing solutions due to the vast damage created by the storm. One of the results of the hurricane was the rise of real estate values causing the exclusion of a large part of the community, mainly the black, poor part, from the city center. The population was reduced to half of its original size. The lack of

affordable housing created a different social and ethnic mix. The percentage of the black community was reduced significantly. Within the site, 70% of the population is under the poverty level. The average household income of the Magnolia Project population was less then 13,000$.


44

Site Analysis

Hope VI

When planning pundits discuss the future of New Orleans, New Urbanism is the dominant concept.

What stands behind the agenda of HOPE VI?

NEW URBANISM, as the architectural strategy of Hope VI, argues for a renewal of urban fabric by suggesting: > Density reduction > Contextual continuity > Social mix > Low-Rise building typology The FINANCIAL SYSTEM behind Hope 6 and the New Urbanism agenda is of a combination of subsidized housing units for lowincome families with free market housing, keeping a general low density. > The execution of the projects is done by private developers due to the lack of capital. > The developer oftentimes cuts the number of units receiving a federal subsidy. > Only a small portion of the tenants displaced from the old housing projects eventually move back into the replacement housing project. THE RESULT: Low-density neighborhoods in American city centers that according to market pressures do not sustain the principal of socio-economic mix and do not offer a sustainable solution for the need of housing.


46

Site Analysis

Can NEW URBANISM provide the answers for post-Katrina New Orleans?

Hope VI proposal for the development of the site FV : HOPE VI PROPOSAL FOR THE SITE Hope VI Statement: “The proposed redevelopment of the CJ Peete public housing site will decrease the concentration of low-income families by creating a viable mixed-income co munity that is integrated into the greater Central City neighborhood. The redevelopment plan creates a safe and walkable neighborhood for its residents, which is centered around a

school and community center. The diversity of housing types contribute to the viability of the development.�

Hope VI proposal for the development of the site


N/A

71%

54%

100%

36,5

71%

54%

N/A

32%

In 2008, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$11,201; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$21,834

68% 71%

54%

100%

N/A

% OF UNITS WITH A MORTGAGE

N/A

N/A

68%

36,5 32% 36,5 36,5

55%

% OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL

We propose a HIGHER DENSITY as an answer to the lack of housing in post-Katrina New Orleans.

39%

In 2008, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$11,201; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$21,834

N/A

36%

N/A

39%

55%

51%

66%

100%

43%

43%

36,5

71%

36,5 36,5

49,2 54% 49,2 47,5 47,5 47,5 49,247,5 49,2 47,5 47,5

112.8112.8

66%

76%

112.8112.8

57,1

36%

57,1 57,1

27.2 27.2

% OF UNITS WITH A MORTGAGE

43% 49,2

112.8

112.8 43%

51%

52,6 52,6 52,6

$ 17,392

MEDIAN HOUSEHOULD INCOME, 2008

% OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL

N/A

68%

N/A

57,1 57,1

63.5 63.5

57,1 100% 63.5 63.5

N/A

27.2 27.2

STUDIO PROGRAM 27.2

$ 30,871

STUDIO PROGRAM

STUDIO PROGRAM $ 10,197

$ 18,435

$12,895

$ 15,942

$21,218

INCOME, 2008

76%

49,2 63.5

63.5

27.2

52,6

39%

52,6 52,6

32%

55%

$ 17,392

43%

$ 10,197

$12,895 66%

$ 18,435

76%

NEW URBANIST PROPOSAL

% OF UNITS WITH A MORTGAGE

In 2008, HOUSEHOULD the poverty threshold MEDIAN for a single person under 65 was US$11,201; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$21,834

% OF UNITS WITH A MORTGAGE

NEW URBANIST PROPOSAL

36%

51%

$ 30,871

$ 15,942

N/A

N/A

68%

47,5 47,5

39%

36,5 36,5

2 x MAGNOLIA

NEW URBANIST PROPOSAL

% OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL

$ 22,996

Density and Socio-economic aspects

49,2

49,2 49,2 47,5

67.5

67.5 67.5

57,1 105.6105.6

57,1 57,1

36%

N/A

68%

$21,218

In 2008, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$11,201; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$21,834 43%

27.2 27.2

52,6

52,6 52,6

55%

32%

66% 71%

54%

100%

51% N/A 39%

% OF UNITS WITH A MORTGAGE

% OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL $ 22,996

27.2

43%

76%

43%

% OF UNITS WITH A MORTGAGE

49

POPULATION PER HECTAR BEFORE KATRINA POPULATION PER HECTAR BEFORE KATRINA

Site Analysis

N/A

105.6

48


50

Site Analysis

Surrounding Context

COMMERCIAL

COM

S CLAIBORNE AVE.

MERC

IAL

COMMER

CIAL

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING SCHOOL

HOSPIT AL

GREEN

LOUISIA

NA AVE

.

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING

Site Plan

Site Analysis


52

Site Analysis

Program distribution

1 0x

40

be

dro

om

qf)

0s

(36

x 00

4

ro

ed

2b

om

qf)

0s

(48

2 0x

PROGRAM 693,600sqf

20

om

dro

be

40

qf)

0s

(54

x2

om

ro

d be 40

x

qf)

0s

(60

om

dro

e 3b

lex

rip

t 0x

20

qf)

0s

(72

(64,437sqm)

2b

80

f)

sq

00

(6 dr

b

x2

ple

u xd

4

lex

up

d 0x

f)

sq

00

(6 dr

3

r bd

qf)

0s

(72

x 00

4

ro

ed

1b

om

qf)

0s

(36

x 00

4

ed

2b

PROGRAM 693,600sqf

(219,800 sqm)

(64,437sqm)

SITE 2,366,000sqf (219,800 sqm)

The original program of the Magnolia Projects was composed of 1400 residential units in flat vertical buildings: 400 X 1 bdr (360sqf), 400 X 2bdr (480sqf), 200 X 2 bdr (540sqf), 40 X 2 bdr (600sqf), 40 X 3 bdr (720sqf), 200 X triplex 2 bdr (600sqf), 80 duplex X 2 bdr (600sqf), 40 X 3 bdr (720sqf).

qf)

0s

(48

2 0x

SITE 2,366,000sqf

FV : PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION

m roo

20

om

dro

be

40

x

qf) 0s

(54

m roo

qf) 0s

(60

d

e 2b

40

x

om

dro

e 3b

qf) 0s

(72

lex

trip 0x

2b

20

80

f) sq

00

(6 dr

b

x2

ple

u xd

lex

up

d 0x

4

f) sq

00

(6 dr

3

r bd

qf) 0s

(72


54

Site Analysis

Program Distribution

Prototypes > What would be an ideal distribution of the program on the site? > Is it possible to have an ideal distribution?

SUPER THIN

TOWER

HILBERSEIMER

KARL MARX COMPLEX

BLOCK STRUCTURE

BARCELONA

NEW URBANISM

NEW ORLEANS

LEVITTOWN

98.5%

50%

96.5%

33.1%

33%

44.0%

ca. 50%

50%

1.16

0.78

0.60

0.70

0.93

0,23

1.28

1.36

1.8

0%

0%

0%

100%

53%

2.1%

55%

55%

70%

10%

0%

50%

100%

100%

0%

100%

100%

100%

% OF PRIVATE ENTRANCES

0%

0%

0%

33% - 55%

100%

0%

100%

100%

100%

BUILDING DEPTH

7m

20m

10 m

11.5 m

12m

25m

6m

8m

5,5m

1.72%

1.64%

14.64%

0%

31.96%

2.27%

20.14%

14.82%

12.27%

74,900 sqm

50,700 sqm

38,900 sqm

60.200 sqm

19,200 sqm

82,600 sqm

88,200 sqm

116,200 sqm

NORTH/SOUTH FACACE FACADE/FLOOR AREA RATIO PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

CONNECTIVITY TO STREET GRID

STREET GRID AMOUNT OF FACADE

45,300 sqm

ca. 50%


56

Site Analysis

Program Distribution

NORTH/SOUTH FACADE VS. FACADE FLOOR AREA RATIO

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE VS. % OF PRIVATE ENTRANCES

100

100%

98.5%

100%

90

1.8 96.5% % OF PRIVATE ENTRANCES 80

NORTH/SOUTH FACADE 70

70%

1.36

60

55%

50

50%

50% 78%

40

0.70 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

30

33%

0.60

20

33 - 55%

33.1%

FACADE/FLOOR AREA

10

0,23

-

0%

0%

0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FV : PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION - EVALUATION Different alternatives for the distribution of the original Magnolia Projects program lead to the conclusion that while the ecological performance of the flat vertical typology is very high comparing to other building typologies, it performs poorly in parameters that relates to the organization of the ground level, such as its connectivity to the street grid and the percentage

of private open space in the site. Other typologies that lack the ecological performance of the flat vertical, performs better on the ground.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


58

Alternative Solutions

Hybrids

KARL MARX HOF [= 100% private ground] +

SUPER THIN [= 100% north/south orientation]

LEVITTOWN [= 100% private ground + good facade ratio + 70% private access] +

HILBERSEIMER [= 100% north/south orientation]

WHAT IF? We argue that the hybridization of two “good” typologies can lead to a better performing envelope both ecologically and socially.


60

Alternative Solutions

Hybrids

LEVITTOWN

KARL MARX HOF

[= 100% private ground + good facade/floor area ratio + 70% private access] +

[= 100% private ground] +

SUPER THIN [= 100% north/south orientation]

HILBERSEIMER [= 100% north/south orientation]

FV : HYBRIDS A closer analysis of various hybrids of two typologies led to the conclusion that the hybridization of: The Karl Marx Hof typology and the Super Thin slab will benefit from the ideal orientation of the super thin, as well as its compact footprint and cross ventilation potential and at the same time will benefit from the ground solution of the Karl Marx Hof typology.

The hybridization of the private houses typology with the Hilberseimer slab could benefit from the ground solution of the suburban typology and the ecological advantages of the flat vertical typology. In both cases the flat vertical typology will be superimposed on top of the ground level typology offering a sectional solution.


62

Alternative Solutions

STREET GRID

Hybrids

SUN DIRECTION


64

Alternative Solutions

Existing urban context

Site Strategies


66

Alternative Solutions

Existing urban context

Site Strategies


68

Alternative Solutions

Adopting the street grid

Site Strategies


70

Alternative Solutions

North/South orientation

Site Strategies


72

Alternative Solutions

Superimposition

Site Strategies


74

Alternative Solutions

Site Strategies

SCHOOL

Existing public buildings


76

Alternative Solutions

Site Strategies

SCHOOL


78

Alternative Solutions

The existing urban context

Hybrids

The existing urban context

SCHOOL

Superimposition

Existing public buildings

Adopting the street grid

SCHOOL

Gradual housing typology

North/South orientation


80

Alternative Solutions

REDUCE SHADING

Hybrids

EXTRUDE SOUTH FACADES

SCHOOL GARDEN PLOTS

SCHOOL


82

Alternative Solutions

Hybrids

AFFORDABLE

AFFORDABLE

AFFORDABLE

AFFORDABLE

PUBLIC SPACE

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING

HOUSING

HOUSING

HOUSING AFFORDABLE

HOUSING

AFFORDABLE

AFFORDABLE

AFFORDABLE

PUBLIC SPACE FOYERS RETAIL

HOUSING

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING

MARKET RATE

HOUSING

HOUSING

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING

HOUSING

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING HOUSING

PUBLIC SPACE

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING

AFFORDABLE

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING

AFFORDABLE

PUBLIC SPACE

MARKET RATE

HOUSING

HOUSING

HOUSING

PUBLIC SPACE MAGNOLIA

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING

PUBLIC SPACE

HOUSING

SCHOOL PUBLIC

STREET

PROPOSAL

DUPLEX TRIPLEX TOWN HOUSES

PRIVATE GARDENS


84

Alternative Solutions

Hybrids


86

FV Analysis

Floor Plan

THIN

MEDIUM

THICK

D = 9 - 10m

D = 11 - 14m

D = 18 - 20m

envelope/floor area

1.2 - 0.85

envelope/floor area

0.75 - 0.5

envelope/floor area

0.46 - 0.33

8.0m 7.0m 2.0m

7.0m 2.0m 7.0m

9.0m 2.0m

11.0m

FV : FLOOR PLAN The circulation in a flat vertical building is determined by the thickness of the slab and by privacy considerations. We identify 3 main alternatives for a floor plan organization: a single loaded corridor, a double loaded corridor and a core per each 3-8 units. The corridor system is cheaper since it reduces the number of

cores. A single loaded corridor organization allows for cross ventilation but reduces the privacy level of the units. The double loaded corridor system is mainly used in thick buildings and lacks the advantage of cross ventilation. It is the cheapest in terms of cores/unit.

8.0m

2.0m 8.0m

7.0m 9.0m

2.0m 8.0m

7.0m

9.0m 9.0m


88

FV Analysis

Floor plan

30.0m 15.0m

FV : FLOOR PLAN


90

FV Analysis

Dwelling Type

Dwelling Catalogue Single detached

Semi detached

Joint court

Duplex

Row house

Triplex

Back to back

Isometric

Plot Plan Dwelling units/acre

8

10

10

16

20

21

24

Floor area/plot size

0.23

0.28

0.28

0.46

0.62

0.6

0.78

Units related to the ground

100%

100%

100%

50%

100%

33%

100%

Access to unit Unit aspect Facade per unit (sqm)

Dwelling Type

private on ground quadruple 132

Stacked row house

private on ground

private on ground

triple

triple

93

94.8

Stacked row house

Garden apartment

50% private on ground 50% private stairs quadruple

private on ground double

132

76.8

3 story walkup apartment

Medium rise stacked units

33% private on ground 67% private stairs quadruple 132

10 story slab block

private on ground double 103

10 story high rise block

Isometric

Plot Plan Dwelling units/acre

30

40

52

65

71

90

120

Floor area/plot size

0.94

1.25

1.1

1.41

1.33

~1.78

~2.62

Units related to the ground

33%

50%

33%

33%

33%

10%

10%

Access to unit

33% private on ground 67% common stairs

50% private on ground 50% private stairs

Unit aspect

double

double

Facade per unit

76.8

76.8

common stair double 60

common stair single 36

common elevator double 60

common elevator single 36

common elevator single/double 33


92

Alternative Solutions

Layered sectional strategy

Circulation: double loaded corridor Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.75 Building depth: 8-26m North/South facade: 100%

+ +

Private open space: 10% Private entrances: 0%

Circulation: single loaded corridor Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.75 Building depth: 10m North/South facade: 100% Private open space: 0% Private entrances: 0% Circulation: private access on ground Facade/Floor area ratio: 1 Building depth: 8-17m, 2-8m, total=34 North/South facade: 100% Public interior space: 26% Private entrances: 0%


94

Alternative Solutions

Layered sectional strategy

+ +

+

Circulation: double loaded corridor Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.375 Building depth: 10-18m North/South facade: 100%

+

Private open space: 0% Private entrances: 0% Circulation: single loaded corridor Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.75 Building depth: 10m North/South facade: 100% Private open space: 0% Private entrances: 0% Circulation: private access on ground Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.6 Building depth: 10m

Circulation: varies Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.75 Building depth: 10-18m

North/South facade: 35% Private open space: 20% Private entrances: 100%

North/South facade: 100% Private open space: 0% Private entrances: 0%


96

Alternative Solutions

Layered sectional strategy

Circulation: double loaded corridor Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.375 Building depth: 10-18m North/South facade: 100% Private open space: 5% Private entrances: 0%

+ Circulation: single loaded corridor Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.43-0.67 Building depth: 9-14m

+

North/South facade: 100% Private open space: 5% Private entrances: 0%

Circulation: varies Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.375 Building depth: 28m North/South facade: 100% Public closed space: 35% Private entrances: 0%


98

Alternative Solutions

Layered sectional strategy

Circulation: single loaded corridor Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.6 Building depth: 9-18m North/South facade: 100% Private open space: 0% Private entrances: 0%

Circulation: single loaded corridor Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.375 Building depth: 18m North/South facade: 100% Public closed space: 35% Private entrances: 0%

Circulation: double loaded corridor Facade/Floor area ratio: 0.375 Building depth: 14-17m North/South facade: 100% Public closed space: 0% Private entrances: 0%


100

Generic Approach WHICH PARAMETERS INFLUENCE THE FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FLAT VERTICAL WITHIN THE SAME CLIMATE ZONE?

New Orleans Hong Kong Addis Ababa

B Brisbane Buenos Aires


102

Spread Title

Since the 1949 HOUSING ACT, public housing projects were built in an organization of large complexes, concentrating populations of lowincome families in one area. The Act governed the way the immense financial resources of the federal government have shaped the growth of American cities in the post-war era. It facilitated a rise in home ownership and the building of huge public housing projects that would become fixtures in many American cities.

Further Explanation of Page Heading


104

Spread Title

Housing projects that were built during that period have oftentimes become even worst cores of poverty and neglect characterized by high CRIME RATES and SOCIO-ECONOMIC STAGNATION.

Further Explanation of Page Heading


106

Spread Title

Further Explanation of Page Heading

In New Orleans, MAGNOLIA PROJECTS is a classic example for a public housing complex, which has become one of the most problematic sites in the country in terms of crime rates and neglect, since its establishment between 1941 and 1955.

FV : Magnolia Projects The Magnolia Projects, officially the C.J. Peete Projects, was among the largest Housing Projects of New Orleans and first all-black public housing federally founded in the United States (after the constructionof the all white St. Thomas). It housed approximately 2,100 people in 1,400 units distributed in 41.5 acres.

Completed in two phases (1940-41 and 1954-55), it became famous nationwide for its legendary violent-crime rates (one of the highest murder rate in the United States).


108

Spread Title

HURRICANE KATRINA (2005) left New Orleans in a major lack of housing solutions due to the vast damage created by the storm. One of the results of the hurricane was the rise of real estate values causing the exclusion of a large part of the community, mainly the black, poor part, from the city center. The population was reduced to half of its original size. The lack of affordable housing created a different social and ethnic mix. The percentage of the black community was significantly reduced.

Further Explanation of Page Heading


3 110

Spread Title

Further Explanation of Page Heading

MEDIAN HOUSEHOULD INCOME, 2008

% OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL

MEDIAN HOUSEHOULD INCOME, 2008

43%

36%

55%

32%

66%

43%

$ 30,871

51%

$ 17,392

$ 15,942

$ 10,197

$12,895

$ 18,435

$ 22,996

$21,218

Within the site, 70% of the population lived below the poverty level. The average household income of the Magnolia Project population was less then 13,000$. They were forced to leave.

76%

In 2008, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$11,201; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$21,834

% OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL In 2008, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$11,201; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$21,834


112

Spread Title

Today, 5 years after Katrina, Magnolia Projects are being demolished and redeveloped. Residents oppose the demolition.

Further Explanation of Page Heading


114

Spread Title

The redevelopment of the site is carried out as part of the HOPE VI initiative by private developers. The NEW URBANISM approach, advocated by the executors of Hope VI since the early 90’s, argues for the creation of new, mixed income communities. Their plan suggests reducing the amount of housing units from the original 1,400 to 460.

Further Explanation of Page Heading


116

Spread Title

Further Explanation of Page Heading

Can NEW URBANISM provide the answers for post-Katrina New Orleans?

Hope VI proposal for the development of the site FV : HOPE VI PROPOSAL FOR THE SITE Hope VI Statement: “The proposed redevelopment of the CJ Peete public housing site will decrease the concentration of low-income families by creating a viable mixed-income co munity that is integrated into the greater Central City neighborhood. The redevelopment plan creates a safe and walkable neighborhood for its residents, which is centered around a

school and community center. The diversity of housing types contribute to the viability of the development.�


118

Spread Title

WE AGREE with the New Urbanism argument that the notion of a homogeneous society can no longer be regarded as valid in a contemporary design for the site.

BUT, NEW URBANISM ARGUES for a sparse distribution of the program on the entire site creating low-density sprawling pattern. WE ARGUE for the reestablishment of the former density and its arrangement in a concentrated manner along the edges of the site.

Further Explanation of Page Heading


LO

120

Spread Title

> An EVEN DISTRIBUTION of the mass will lead to an organization with almost 100% of private gardens.

Further Explanation of Page Heading


LO

122

Spread Title

Further Explanation of Page Heading

> New Urbanism’s architectural approach implies a COMMUNAL STRUCTURE by arranging a relatively low number of single detached housing units around semi defined public spaces (mostly designed as parking areas) and a community center in the center of the site. > SERVICE FACILITIES, such as retail areas, ARE NOT INTEGRATED in the plan and therefore require car driving. > The New Urbanism approach DOES NOT REGARD ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS such as flooding or sun/wind directions.

NEW URBANISM


LO

LO

124

Spread Title

Further Explanation of Page Heading

> By distributing the building mass along the edges of the site we create BORDER CONDITIONS that establish a clear definition of built and unbuilt. > The housing mass is distributed along the periphery of the site while the empty area in the core will be enclosed and protected as a semi private NATURAL RESERVE.NEW URBANISM

> The organization of the housing mass around the site creates a CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND ITS SURROUNDINGS, avoiding a communal structure within the site and thus avoiding potential segregation.

CREATING BORDER CONDITIONS


126

Spread Title

Further Explanation of Page Heading

> The mass is ADJUSTED to maximize energy gain by enlarging the ratio of North/South facades in the ring.

RESIDEN 1-2 FAMIL

CLIMATE CONSIDERATIONS


128

Spread Title

Further Explanation of Page Heading

COMMERCIAL

> The organization of the housing mass around the site creates a CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND ITS SURROUNDINGS, avoiding a communal arrangement within the site and thus avoiding potential segregation. > The THICKNESS of the ring changes according to the surrounding context.CLIMATE

COM

S CLAIBORNE AVE.

MERC

IAL

COMMER

CIAL

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING

URBAN FORCES

CONSIDERATIONS

HOSPIT AL

GREEN

LOUISIA NA AVE .

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING


130

Spread Title

Further Explanation of Page Heading

COMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL

> The mass is PERFORATED according to programmatic consideration, need for air, COMMERCIAL the COMMERCIAL light, parking, playgrounds, etc. COM

S CLAIBORNE AVE.

MERC

IAL

COM

COMMER

CIAL

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING

S CLAIBORNE AVE.

MERC

IAL

COMMER

CIAL

COMMERCIAL RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING SCHOOL

URBAN FORCES

PROGRAMMATIC NEEDS

RETAIL

HOSPIT AL

GREEN

GREEN

HOSPITAL

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING

LOUISIA NA AVE .

LOUISIA NA AVE .

RESIDENTIAL 1-2 FAMILY HOUSING


132

Spread Title

The new master plan of New Orleans 2030 states the goal of restoring and increasing the urban forests to reach 50% tree canopy and wetlands. One of the goals of the plan is to enhance urban green spaces as WATER-STORAGE ASSETS. Designating the core of the Magnolia Projects site for the return of natural conditions will help to sustain the city’s climate condition and contribute to the cities resilience.

Further Explanation of Page Heading


134

Spread Title

Researchers at the University of Florida have found that: > When wetlands comprise as little as 10% of the landscape, flooding is reduced by 60%. > When wetlands cover 20% of an area, flooding is reduced by 90%.

Further Explanation of Page Heading


136

Spread Title

> During storms wetlands slow down floodwaters as they enter rivers and streams. By doing so, wetlands reduce flooding. > Wetlands help filter sediment and pollution from stormwater runoff before it reaches rivers and streams. > Slowing down the rate of soil erosion is another function of wetlands.

Further Explanation of Page Heading


138

Spread Title

Further Explanation of Page Heading

Carbon “cap and trade� credits financially enable the protection and restoration of local wetlands.

FV : Economic Potential In the early years of the mitigation banking industry in Louisiana, the majority of the transactions hovered in the range of $3,000 to $5,000 per acre; however, as time increased, credit prices did also. This upward trend is depicted in Figures 4.4 and 4.5. In the most recent years sampled (2004-2006), several transactions were recorded in excess of $20,000 per

acre. Nevertheless, a substantial number of transactions in Louisiana during that same period remained at or below the price of $5,000 per acre. This bimodal trend could be indicative of segregation in the wetland mitigation credit market. In fact, over the ten-year period for which Louisiana credit prices were collected, the average price was only $6,382.


140

Spread Title

Further Explanation of Page Heading


PEG Case Study: New Housing for New Orleans