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