Philadelphia. Department of Wharves, Docks and Ferries. Municipal Pier Construction Photographs, 1917-1921 Photographs documenting the construction of municipal piers on the Delaware River waterfront under the auspices of the Philadelphia Department of Wharves, Docks and Ferries. The construction was part of a progressive-era project to upgrade Philadelphia’s severely neglected port infrastructure. Before the creation of the Department of Wharves, Docks and Ferries in 1907, Philadelphia had just over twenty piers, most of which were owned by private companies - principally railroad companies. Few could accommodate larger cargo ships. In the early decades of the 20th century, the Department oversaw the construction of dozens of new piers designed to accommodate ships with much greater draw, enable the loading and unloading of more than one ship simultaneously, and the facilitate the transfer of cargo to railroads, trucks and wagons. The piers depicted in this collection served as marine-railroad terminals linking the river and the Pennsylvania, B&O and Reading railroad yards. Considerably larger than any piers previously constructed by the city, Pier 9 North measured 100 feet in width and was 536 feet long while piers in the Moyamensing Group ranged from 250 to 336 feet in width and from 900 to 1,000 feet in length. Images primarily depict construction of Municipal Pier 9 North, also known as the Cherry Street Pier. Images show bulkheads, pilings, forms, portions of the concrete decks, retaining walls, framing, and interior and exteriors of partially and fully completed pier buildings. Some images include construction workers and a few include the temporary offices for general contractors working on the project, Arthur McMullen Company and Snare & Triest Company. The photographs incidentally capture adjoining piers, businesses lining Delaware Avenue, and ships at dock. Historic Images of Pier 9 (Courtesy of phillyhistory.org)
CHAPTER 2 Givens Feasibility Study of DescriptionJackson Bohlin Cywinski History Architecture Planning Interior Design
Physical Assessment Site Infrastructure Piles and Deck Superstructure Cladding Safety & Codes
D R W C | Fe a s i b i l i t y S t u d y P i e r 9
PIER 9
Delaware River Waterfront Corporation
April 17, 2012
ii
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
Feasibility Study of Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Architecture Planning Interior Design
PIER 9
Delaware River Waterfront Corporation
April 17, 2012 DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
iii
iv
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
CREDITS CLIENT Delaware River Waterfront Corporation Tom Corcoran Marilyn Jordan Taylor Alan Greenberger Joe Forkin Sarah Thorp Karen Thompson Sean Campbell DESIGN TEAM CVM Jon Morrison Eric Godfrey Kevin Coll In Posse Robert Diemer Hunt Engineering Susan Menno Michael Thomas W.J. Castle Bill Castle Rick Parisi
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Frank Grauman Alfred Dragani Erin Roark Tina Cheng Bridget Donnelly
Historic Images of Pier 9 Courtesy of The Library Company of Philadelphia
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
v
vi
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND STABILIZATION Physical Assessment Stabilizing the Structure
CHAPTER 2 DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE NEW USES Spatial Organization Zoning and Building Code Considerations Parking
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
CHAPTER 3
POSSIBILITIES FOR MORE INTENSIVE USE Program Possibilities Building Systems
CHAPTER 4
DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND STAGES Costs and Phasing Cost/Bay Diagrams Phasing Plans Cost Breakdown
CHAPTER 5
RENDERING THE VISION
CHAPTER 6
HISTORY
vii
viii
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pier 9 is one of Philadelphia’s great spaces. Concealed behind dilapidated cladding is a magnificent, voluminous, light filled steel armature. The setting is stunning and quintessentially Philadelphian: surrounded by a wide-open sky, the watery expanse of the Delaware, Race Street Pier and the towering Benjamin Franklin Bridge. This study illustrates Pier 9’s extraordinary potential while providing a rational approach to preventing its further deterioration and exploring its potential for reuse. Rehabilitating this 93-year-old structure requires a comprehensive approach to reversing decades of deferred maintenance. The study examines the pier’s structural condition and the viability of its exterior roofing and cladding. In response, it recommends an initial investment focusing specifically on physical stabilization in order to prevent further deterioration of the building and reduce its maintenance liabilities. This initial work, whose project cost is estimated at $3,500,000, will reinforce the pier’s existing concrete deck and steel superstructure, while restoring the elegant concrete head houses at its east and west ends. Elements whose condition is beyond repair — the roof, roof deck, monitor windows and side doors — will be removed, exposing the shed structure’s beautiful steel trusses. These stabilization costs will certainly require up-front public funding; however the stabilized pier replaces current liability with an obvious asset. Completing this initial phase of work will then allow the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation (DRWC) to aggressively market the building for potential private funding/investment. Additionally, the improved building will visually complement the Race Street Connector and Pier, and Philadelphia Live Arts/Philly Fringe’s pumping station restoration. Improvements after initial stabilization can be completed utilizing public or private funding, or a combination of the two. Ideally, marketing of the building by the DRWC will lead to a public/private partnership for the further development of the building, engaging private tenants or developers as opportunities arise.
With its structure soundly reinforced, a safe egress system installed, and initial architectural enclosure provided, Pier 9 will be ready to accept development for a broad range of indoor and outdoor uses. The list is virtually unlimited but clearly could include performances, social events, retail, dining, marketplace commerce, fairs, art exhibits and sports. This report proposes resource-efficient ways to build and operate such indoor space— ways that exploit the building’s intrinsic assets, abundant daylight and riverfront microclimate. Developing such fully serviced interior space can also be accomplished in phases, offering the flexibility to invest apace with potential revenue-generating business plans. The ultimate build-out can enclose some 33,000 net square feet for indoor activities at an aggregate additional investment of about $5,200,000. Such ambitions may emerge opportunistically or incrementally over time, including the opportunity for DRWC to pursue private development contributions either through lease or outright sale of the building. However, at each stage of the process, the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation can point to achievements that are highly attractive, publicly useful and economically prudent. This report contains the technical and financial aspects of the reuse strategy, structuring the information in several chapters that discuss Physical Assessment and Stabilization, Design to Accommodate Use, and Possibilities for More Intensive Use, along with an analysis of Cost and Phasing. Additionally, the report documents Pier 9’s important heritage and its extraordinary potential for the future — a future as a public-serving and revenue-generating destination facility. The interior, with its robust industrial character, inspires awe both in its luminosity and its sheer size. With the flexibility to accommodate myriad uses, Pier 9 is ready to help Philadelphia capitalize on the Race Street Pier’s dynamic amenity, the Ben Franklin Bridge’s majestic sweep, and the Delaware’s vast riverand-sky landscape.
Initial stabilization will not allow public access to the building on a regular basis; however, if modest additional funds permit, the stabilized pier can be offered for public use by building a fire-rated exit passageway as required by the building code. This passageway, which will serve all subsequent improvements, could cost about $550,000. An additional $650,000 will provide Pier 9 with public restrooms and infrastructure to support various open-air activities. For an additional $1,200,000, a new roof with new monitor windows can be installed, restoring the pier to its characteristic architectural form, and providing the public with a shaded and rain-sheltered venue for various activities. Thus the total requirement for public investment ranges from $3.5 million to $5.9 million, depending on how many of the options are added.
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
ix
Bohlin Cy winsk i Jackson
CHAPTER 1 Existing Conditions and Stabilization Physical Assessment Stabilizing the Structure
D R W C | Fe a s i b i l i t y S t u d y P i e r 9
Physical Assessment The existing Pier 9 building consists of a tall volume single-story steel superstructure supporting a gable roof and continuous monitor originally designed to deliver daylight and ventilation to the large shed space within concrete head houses with integral classical ornamentation occupy the west end and waterside extremes of the pier. Large-scaled arched openings punctuate the facades of each of the headhouses. The steel superstructure is composed of built-up steel columns spaced at 20-foot on center over the entire length of the building. The columns are made of steel angle sections joined by a steel plate web with riveted connections. The columns support an armature of north–south spanning steel roof trusses spaced 4 feet apart, which in turn carry the main and monitor roofs constructed of tongue and groove wood decking supported on east to west spanning steel channel purlins. The steel frame rests on a one-way slab and beam system with an overall footprint measuring 100 feet by 535 feet, which bears on a grid of 27 concrete beams (referred to in other sections of this report as “bents”) that span north to south at 20-foot increments. This primary and secondary tier of structural concrete elements in turn bears on a timber deck system, which is then supported by a dense grid of 12-inch to 14-inch diameter timber piles.
A visual survey of the Pier’s existing concrete deck, steel superstructure, wood roof deck, exterior wall cladding and windows was conducted as part of the feasibility study. Conditions below the concrete deck, related to the underside of the existing beam and slab system, existing concrete bents, and wood piles were assessed using existing survey documentation, and data collected from the recent Level 2 investigation of the piles and deck performed by the maritime engineering firm, W.J. Castle & Associates. The following pages provide an in depth assessment of the existing physical conditions of Pier 9. The design team conducted a visual survey of the Pier’s existing concrete deck, steel superstructure, wood roof deck, exterior wall cladding and windows as described in the Physical Assessment Narrative. By use of a high-reach lift, the team was able to physically access the trusses and interior roof deck for measurement and analysis. A cross section of photos and sketches have been provided in this chapter.
Notable original architectural features consist of the classically detailed concrete headhouses, and the spacious steel column and roof structure. Most of the original painted steel rolling door panels on the long north and south facades of the pier have been replaced with modern metal overhead doors, with the exception of a small number of original door panels on the north side. The original roof cladding has recently been replaced with a single ply membrane roof system. Considerable deterioration over the years has rendered a large part of the original wood roof deck and steel framed clerestory windows unusable. The building currently exists in a state of disrepair resulting from years of deferred maintenance. At the present time, Pier 9 is not listed on any national, state, or local historic register.
2
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
Typical Section
0
5
10
20
Existing Conditions DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
3
Existing Plan
South Elevation 0
20
40
80
Existing Conditions 4
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
West Elevation
North Elevation
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
0
10
20
40
0
20
40
80
East Elevation
0
10
20
40
5
6
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
CLADDING
North Elevation
door types and windows The existing doors (both original horizontal sliders and coiling rollups) are in poor condition and should be scheduled for removal and replacement. The existing steel framed windows in the headhouses are in poor condition and should be removed and replaced.
pier foundation Widespread deterioration to the concrete substructure, perimeter walls and curbing was observed and appears to be related to typical weathering and age.
north wall and pier spandrel The cast-in-place concrete walls at the north and south elevations are in fair to poor condition and should either be repaired or selectively demolished and filled in with structurally and visually compatible material. The existing built-up steel spandrel beams are in fair to poor condition; the elements of the spandrel that support the integral roof gutter (bent plates, outriggers, etc.) are in an advanced state of deterioration and should be removed.
clerestory windows The existing steel framed clerestory windows are in an advanced state of disrepair, with failed structural mullions and widespread glazing failures (loose & broken lights). The existing window system should be removed in its entirety and replaced with a new clerestory window system.
South Elevation
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
7
concrete spalling In general, the exposed cast-in-place concrete head houses (west and east) are in fair condition with moderate amounts of corrosion induced fracturing and spalling of the concrete cover on the embedded steel reinforcing bars. These areas should be repaired with appropriate patching materials to match the appearance of the adjacent sound concrete.
8
concrete deterioration There is a significant amount of deteriorated concrete (cracked, frost-shattered) that is vulnerable to continued deterioration and eventual failure (spalling) if left unchecked. These areas should be repaired (crack sealing) or protected (clear coating or roofing of projected cornices) to stabilize these elements.
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
concrete substructure
concrete substructure
The existing one-way slab and beam system that frames the floor of the pier is in an advanced state of deterioration. Corrosion of embedded steel reinforcing bars has led to widespread cracking and spalling in the beams and slabs. The loss of concrete cover over the embedded steel has led to significant section loss of the steel reinforcement.
In general, the concrete substructure is in fair to good condition. Localized repairs to deteriorated areas of concrete will be required. Refer to Concrete Bent Substructure Condition Summary (pg. 12) for additional information.
Photo No. 7: Typical scaling in the tidal zone of the concrete walls.
Photo No. 8: Typical under-deck reinforcing exposure looking up from water.
column corrosion The majority of the built-up steel columns have some level of corrosion-induced section loss ranging from moderate to severe. Reinforcement of these critical structural elements should be considered as the highest priority for stabilization.
Existing Regions of Deterioration Columns
Slab / beams
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
pier foundation Widespread deterioration to the concrete substructure, perimeter walls and curbing was observed and appears to be related to typical weathering and age.
9
Roof Plan
Legend:
Level of Existing Wood Sheathing Deterioration
fair
severe
roof sheathing - exterior The existing roof cover is a temporary elastomeric membrane that is not properly attached at its perimeter. Aerial photographs circa 2010 suggest that the existing wood sheathing was left unprotected for some time.
10
roof sheathing - interior Close visual and tactile inspection of the existing tongue and groove wood decking revealed widespread deterioration evidenced by white and black rot, soft spots, and loose and missing planks. The extent of deterioration makes selective removal and replacement infeasible. The existing wood decking should be removed in its entirety and replaced with new roofing (metal deck, structural insulated panels, etc.)
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
Superstructure roof sheathing - exterior
clerestory windows The existing steel framed clerestory windows are in an advanced state of disrepair, with failed structural mullions and widespread glazing failures (loose & broken lights). The existing window system should be removed in its entirety and replaced with a new clerestory window system.
The existing roof cover is a temporary elastomeric membrane that is not properly attached at its perimeter. Aerial photographs circa 2010 suggest that the existing wood sheathing was left unprotected for some time.
concrete pier deck The existing one-way slab and beam system framing the floor of the pier is in an advanced state of deterioration. Corrosion of embedded steel reinforcing bars has led to widespread cracking and spalling in the beams and slabs. The loss of concrete cover over the embedded steel has led to significant section loss of the steel reinforcement. Traditional in-situ concrete repairs may be infeasible/ cost-prohibitive given the location of the pier deck in a tidal zone that is difficult to access. An alternate solution consisting of a new redundant floor structure is discussed later in this report. Photo No. 7: Typical scaling in the tidal zone of the concrete walls. concrete substructure
In general, the concrete substructure is in fair to good condition. Localized repairs to deteriorated areas of concrete will be required. Refer to Concrete Bent Substructure Condition Summary for additional information.
steel superstructure
In general, the existing steel superstructure (columns, spandrel beams, roof trusses and bracing) is in fair to good condition with the exception of the column bases, which have appreciable section loss due to corrosion. The existing steel elements should be cleaned of rust scale and elements that will be exposed to weather should be coated with a high-performance rust-inhibiting coating.
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
Photo No. 8: Typical under-deck reinforcing exposure looking up from water.
roof sheathing - interior
Close visual and tactile inspection of the existing tongue and groove wood decking revealed widespread deterioration evidenced by white and black rot, soft spots, and loose and missing planks. The extent of deterioration makes selective removal and replacement infeasible. The existing wood decking should be removed in its entirety and replaced with new roofing (metal deck, structural insulated panels, etc.) 11
1
2
4
5
1
6
6
5 3
2 4 core sample location Bent Substructure Condition Summary 2/14/2012 The pier’s supporting concrete substructure consists primarily of large (four-foot-wide) concrete beams supported on timber pile bents running in the north-south direction at 20 foot intervals along the length of the pier. Localized areas of concrete deterioration (scaling, cracking, spalling, etc.) occur to varying degrees throughout the structure (refer to February 2012 Underwater Inspection and Evaluation report prepared by the maritime engineering firm, W.J. Castle on file at the Delaware Riverfront Waterfront Corporation for additional information), but is most prevalent on the western (shore side) half of the pier. This deterioration appears to be an ongoing issue as evidenced by previous repair efforts to these elements on the eastern end (river side) of the structure at some point in the past. To further establish the significance of this deterioration, a material sampling program was performed to obtain concrete core samples from the structure’s tidal zone. Significant variations in the concrete quality between samples obtained at locations 1 and 2 (generally poor condition) and those taken at locations 4-6 (generally good condition) were noted. The varying condition of the core samples taken from the concrete bents reinforces the initial visual inspection findings. For the most, part previously repaired bents on the eastern half of the pier appear to be in serviceable condition with little to no repair needed. Bents on the western end of the pier, at which comprehensive repairs were not conducted, have continued to deteriorate and are now in need of some level of repair. Given that a significant reduction in live load from the 600 pounds per square foot original design to 150 pounds per square foot (for future use as assembly space) is anticipated going forward; and the large cross-sectional size of the bent beams and potential arching of the bents between column foundations, repairs to the concrete and supporting wood pile bent system are expected to be limited to isolated areas adjoining the column caps.
core sample not taken
deterioration
Going forward, a more detailed assessment of the existing concrete substructure condition and capacity to support projected structural loads will be required. 12
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
Tidal Zone
Stabilizing the Structure
Cross Section Through Concrete Bent Stabilization of the existing pier shell and superstructure includes three structural reinforcement measures (shown above) that should be considered as high priorities. The most time-critical are repairs to the corroded bases of the built-up steel columns supporting the roof trusses. Anticipated repair includes the removal of surrounding concrete floor slab to fully access the column, removal of rust to expose sound material, and installation of new steel reinforcing plates at areas of significant corrosion.
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
Detail at Column Base
Also important, but less time critical is the need to address the widespread deterioration of the concrete slab and beam system that frames the pier floor deck. Because the underside of the pier deck is not readily accessible and is subject to tidal ebb and flow, it is infeasible/cost-prohibitive to make conventional concrete repairs to the floor structure. The alternate approach shown above consists of placing a new conventionally reinforced, cast-in-place concrete slab over the existing pier floor deck. This new slab would span from bent-to-bent and circumvent the need to repair the existing slab and beam system from beneath.
Additionally, repairs to address localized areas of deteriorated concrete and partially bearing timber piles will be required to maintain these elements for continued structural use.
13
14
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
CHAPTER 2 Design to Accommodate New Uses Spatial Organization Zoning Building Code Considerations Parking
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
15
16
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
Spatial Organization
OPERABLE WINDOWS
MAIN HALL
NORTH TERRACE
SERVICE CORE
SOUTH ESPLANADE
SECTION 0
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
10
20
40
17
SITE PLAN
18
0
20
40
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
RESTROOMS
NORTH TERRACE
WEST PORTAL
MAIN HALL
EAST TERRACE
SOUTH ESPLANADE
SERVICE CORE SERVICE ACCESS RESTROOMS
PLAN 0
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
20
40
80
19
Bike Storage
Public Restroom WEST PORTAL
Coffee/ Refreshment Kiosk
0
20
10
20
Information Kiosk
40
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
PUBLIC AMENITIES
The rehabilitated Pier 9 will include services and amenities for the users of Race Street Pier. These will include public restrooms, bicycle storage, an information kiosk and a coffee/ refreshment kiosk. These functions will be housed within the “porch� at the western tip of the pier structure. The porch is envisioned as an open and inviting gateway to Pier 9, consisting of a large hollowed out space open to the sky, with views toward Race Street Pier, the Benjamin Franklin Bridge and the greater volume of the pier structure beyond. Fronting on Delaware Avenue/ Columbus Boulevard and occupying the first four bays of the Pier volume, the porch and the activities contained within will announce Pier 9 to pedestrians and passersby and function as an enticing transitional space between the pier and the public way. A large wall positioned in the southwest corner of the porch and visible from Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard can be used for projected graphics and temporary art installations. During private functions at Pier 9, the west porch will be closed to the public to provide a gracious entrance hall for large groups of people attending various events planned for the great hall beyond.
21
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PIER 9 BOHLIN CYWINSKI JACKSON -- TECHNICAL EXPLORATION
JANUARY 9
Marketplace
East Terrace 22
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
PUBLIC ART The Delaware River Waterfront Corporation has incorporated into its Master Plan for the Central Delaware a public-art program designed to ensure that projects which are designed and constructed under the plan are imbued with a strong sense of place. Under the master plan, permanent and temporary installations of public art are seen as integral components of the waterfront landscape. The DRWC has also committed to complying with the City of Philadelphia’s Percent for Art Program. A redeveloped Pier 9 creates unique opportunities for the display of public art.
The images displayed on these pages are examples of the type of work that could resonate with a site such as Pier 9.
Ned Kahn
Louise Bourgeois
These range from changeable to permanent installations, to the possibility of integrating works of art within the Pier’s existing and new architectural fabric. The west portal and large volume of the main hall present ideal spaces for large-scale art installations that have great potential to enhance the sense of “Place” that the revitalized Pier aspires to. In addition to the interior spaces of Pier 9, the broad north facade and roof visible to the users of Race Street Pier and the city beyond, represent another surface with the capacity to support works of art in physical or projected form.
J. Meejin Yoon
Janet Echelman
Jenny Holzer
South Esplanade DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
23
24
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
Zoning Site Location: Zoning:
121 North Columbus Blvd. C3, General Commercial Districts.
Open Area:
10% required - Recommend open area at the West Portal and East Terrace.
Building Setbacks:
None required.
Height Regulations:
65-feet- Building is 46 feet and therefore compliant.
Gross Floor Area:
Not to exceed 550% lot area - Building is one story and therefore only 100% coverage which is in compliance.
Off Street Loading:
2 spaces required.
Off Street Parking:
220 minimum number required - Will have to be provided at a remote location (see diagram on page 36).
Handicap Spaces Required:
Accessible parking, where parking is being provided per section 308.4.5.
Restaurant, Entertainment & Public Assembly:
Occupy no more than 35,000 square feet - Pier 9 existing building area is 47,600 square feet with approximately 18,000 square feet set aside for open air space, core and circulation, leaving nearly 30,000 square feet available for these occupancies, which complies with the zoning code.
Bicycle Parking/ Storage:
5 minimum.
Multi-Use Trail Setback:
Thirty-eight feet from edge of Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard— Though not a requirement by zoning, the Master Plan for the Central Delaware recommends an allowance for a trail in this central section (Zone 3). The trail is located on the east side of the road as a part of a 38-foot section (which could be reduced to 22 feet). This 38-foot section accommodates a 12-foot multi-use trail, a separate pedestrian sidewalk and planted buffers.
MULTI-USE TRAIL BUFFERED BIKE LANE EXISTING AND PROPOSED BIKEWAYS
Illustration from the Master Plan for the Central Delaware DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9 Trail Implementation
Street cross- section along Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard Illustration from the Master Plan for the Central Delaware
Street cross-section along Delaware Avenue
25
Building Code Considerations Project Description Municipal Pier 9 is an existing 100-foot-wide by 535-foot-long pier with a one-story steel frame and concrete structure supported on a grid of timber piles. The pier is constructed with a concrete deck that spans over 27 solid concrete bents spaced approximately 20 feet apart. These in turn support the steel superstructure and the roof. The bents are entirely supported by 12-inch to 14-inch timber piles. The building is not currently served by any utilities. Pier 9 is not currently listed on either the national or local historic registers. The building is located within the Old City Historic District on the local register, though the building is not listed as an individually contributing asset to this district.
Architectural Summary
The exits along the west side of the event space areas will serve as the Assembly Main Exit and be sized to accommodate 50% of all exiting occupants, for a total width of 16-feet, 8 inches (per section 1028.2 IBC 2009). Exiting occupants will pass through the West Portal Entry Court onto the 50-footwide public way abutting Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard through (2) existing 20-foot wide portals. The West Portal Entry Court is an open air space (partially under roof ) that would occupy the first 70 feet of the pier volume. Further review would be required to confirm whether the adjacent two-story building would need to be utilized to provide additional exit pathway capacity. The above description summarizes a preliminary review of code implications for the pier occupancy; a complete code analysis should be undertaken prior to proceeding with further design and documentation.
The applicable code for the Pier 9 Project is the International Existing Building Code 2009 [IEBC] with supplemental requirements from the International Building Code 2009 [IBC], as adopted by the City of Philadelphia Building Code. The current Pier 9 enclosure is a 47,600-gross-square-foot structure with a current S2 occupancy. The Feasibility Study proposes a change of occupancy from S2 to A2/ A3 for a +/30,000-square-foot event space per section 303.1 of the 2009 IBC. Secondary program would include a service area, bathrooms, mechanical space and incidental storage. The construction type currently being considered is Type IIA, which allows for 46,500 square feet of usable area per floor with an automatic sprinkler system. The 30,000 square feet of overall event space will require exit capacity for 2,000 people. The IBC requires that any single space containing over 1,000 people will require 4 exits (per table 1021.1). While the smaller subdivisions of space shown in the feasibility study would each accommodate fewer than 1,000 people, when these spaces can be combined to hold larger groups, four exits are provided from such combined spaces. These exits will be located at appropriate intervals along the west and south edges of the event space (per Section 1027.5 IBC 2009). The total required exit dimension for this occupancy will be 400 inches or 100 inches for each of the 4 required exits. Per Section 1027.2 IBC 2009 the exit discharge must not be less that the required discharge of the exits being served. The exits along the south side will be served by the South Esplanade. The width of the South Esplanade would accommodate the width required at a single exit, which is 8 feet, 4 inches. Further investigation would be required to determine the appropriate separation between the Esplanade and the event space areas (in coordination with the requirements for an exterior ramp/stairway in Section 1026.6).
26
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
Applicable Code:
International Existing Building Code 2009 (City of Philadelphia)- Prescriptive Compliance Method
Occupancy:
A2 (with accessory A3)
Construction Class:
IIA (investigate IIIA)
Min Exits Required:
4 (Note: main exit must accommodate ≥ 1/2 Overall Occupant Load (Article 1028.2)
Occupant Load:
15 square feet/Occupant (see Scenario 1-3)
Travel Distance:
250’-0” (with Automatic Sprinkler)
Allowable Area:
15,000 sf x 3 = 45,000 sf (with Automatic Sprinkler)
Allowable Height:
65’-0” one story
Exit Access:
3 or more exits are required in an area with >500 occupants. At least 2 exit doors or exit access doorways shall be arranged per section 1015.2.1: The distance between the doors shall not be less than 1/2 the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the area to be served.
Exit Access Travel Distance:
Exit Passageways:
One hour minimum rated construction for wall, floors and ceilings (Section 1023.3)
Accessibility:
Per Section 11 of IBC- At least one accessible route connecting accessible parking and accessible loading zones to an accessible entrance.
Existing Building Area:
47,600 square feet
Occupant Load & Exiting Strategies: Scenario #1:
1,000 Occupants 0.2” x 1,000 = 200” ÷ 4 Exits = 50” 50” ÷ 12” = 4’-2” Exit (existing exit width = 20’-0”)
Scenario #2:
1,600 Occupants 0.2” x 1,600 = 320” ÷ 4 Exits = 80” 80” ÷ 12” = 6’-8” Exit (existing exit width = 20’-0”)
Scenario #3:
2,000 Occupants 0.2” x 2,000 = 400” ÷ 4 Exits = 100” 100” ÷ 12” = 8’-4” Exit (existing exit width = 20’-0”)
Group A, M, S = 250’-0” with sprinkler system (table 1016.1) CATERING KITCHEN
200
EGRESS CORRIDOR
EGRESS CORRIDOR
”
3
”
250 INFORMATION KIOSK
2
1
PRE-FUNCTION
’-6
85
84
’-1 88
al
121’-4”
200
’-3”
Dia
HI INTENSITY EVENT
gon
al
101’-10”
2
1
3
WALNUT WEST (128 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.36 MILES TO PIER 9
4
WALNUT EAST - PUBLIC PARKING LOT (91 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.36 MILES TO PIER 9
5
COMFORT INN - PRIVATE PARKING LOT (PARKING BASED ON AVAILABILITY) 0.1 MILES TO PIER 9
6
PRIVATE PARKING LOT (PARKING BASED ON AVAILABILITY) 0.30 MILES TO PIER 9
7
HYATT HOTEL PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE (500 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.45 MILES TO PIER 9 PATH OF TRAVEL
WALNUT WEST (128 POTENTIAL SPACES)
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: PUBLIC PARKING FARMERS’ MARKET PRIVATE PARKING OPEN TO PUBLIC BASED ON AVAILABILITY
3” D
iag
PRE-FUNCTION
LOW INTENSITY EVENT
on
al
90’-4”
GARDEN
x
PUBLIC KIOSKS PRE-FUNCTION
Garden GARDEN (Not occupied)
Exterior Space SUPPORT SPACE 3,300 sf 220 people @ 15 sf each
247 2
220
SUPPORT SPACE
LEVEL 3 POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: ARTIST STUDIO LEVEL 1 POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: FARMERS’ MARKET
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: PRIVATE PARKING LOT (PARKING BASED ON AVAILABILITY) 6 EXHIBIT ART 0.30 MILES TO PIER 9
PATH OF TRAVEL
PUBLIC KIOSKS
4 FIT OUT: POSSIBLE LEVEL PROGRAM ART EXHIBIT
0.1 MILES TO PIER 9
HYATT HOTEL PRIVATE POSSIBLE PROGRAM FITPARKING OUT: GARAGE (500 POTENTIAL SPACES) 7 MILES TO PIER 9 ARTIST0.45 STUDIO
3’-
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: LECTURE/ THEATRE
Event Space 2 7,500 sf 500 people @15 sf each
3 0.36 MILES TO PIER 9 POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: DINING WALNUT EAST - PUBLIC PARKING LOT (91 POTENTIAL SPACES) 4 0.36 MILES TO PIER 9 POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: COMFORT INN - PRIVATE PARKING LOT (PARKING BASED ON AVAILABILITY) LECTURE/ THEATRE 5
x
EXITING DIAGRAM
2
Event Space 1 9,000 sf 600 people MARKET STREET- PUBLIC PARKING LOT (504 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.25 MILES TO PIER 9 @15 sf each
13
HI INTENSITY EVENT
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: DINING
MARKET STREET- PUBLIC PARKING LOT (504 POTENTIAL SPACES) GARDEN 2 0.25 MILES TO PIER 9 VINE STREET- PUBLIC PARKING LOT (254 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.25 MILES TO PIER 9
SERVICE BAR GARDEN
SERVICE BAR VINE STREET- PUBLIC PARKING LOT (254 POTENTIAL SPACES) 1 0.25 MILES TO PIER 9
1
PRE-FUNCTION
LOW INTENSITY 247 250EVENT REST ROOM
REST ROOM
Exit Discharge (Section 1027.1 of IBC)
INFORMATION KIOSK
EGRESS CORRIDOR
” ’-6
gon
200 1
131
FOOD KIOSK/ CAFE RESTAURANT
84
1”
Egress Courtyard (Section 1027.4 of IBC)
Dia
” ’-4
’-1
’-4”
FOOD KIOSK/ CAFE RESTAURANT
85
88
149
EGRESS CORRIDOR
LEVEL 4
Event Space 3 7,400 sf 494 people @15 sf each
Exit Discharge Utility Core Garden
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 1
x
1”
’-4
CATERING KITCHEN
x
Occupant Count Exit Travel Path 1 Hour Rated Wall Exit Path
PUBLIC PARKING
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
PRIVATE PARKING OPEN TO PUBLIC BASED ON AVAILABILITY
27
STRUCTURAL SUMMARY The required building code for the Pier 9 project is The City of Philadelphia Building Code 2007 with 2010 amendments. This code follows the 2009 Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code (UCC), which has adopted the 2009 International Building Code (IBC). The 2009 Pennsylvania UCC permits work on existing, non-residential buildings to comply with either the 2009 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) or Chapter 34 of the 2009 IBC. The IEBC provides three options for designers to achieve compliance for a repair, alteration, or change of occupancy of an existing building. These options are the Prescriptive Compliance Method covered in Chapter 3, the Work Area Compliance Method covered in Chapters 4-12, and the Performance Compliance Method covered in Chapter 13. It should be noted that the Prescriptive Compliance Method is the same method provided in IBC Chapter 34 sections 3403 through 3411 and the Performance Compliance Method is a duplicate of IBC Chapter 34 section 3412. The following summarizes the review of the structural aspects of the IEBC as they pertain to the Pier 9 project:
•
Based on the Building Code of Philadelphia Chapter 16, Section 1613.5.4: “For the City of Philadelphia the determination of Seismic Design Category for Site Class D shall be based on SDS = 0.295 and SD1 = 0.096.’”
•
According to IBC, Section 1613.5.2: “…When the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to determine the site class, Site Class D shall be used unless the building official or geotechnical data determines that Site Class E or F is likely to be present at the site.”
•
Due to the nature of this project and the fact that we do not plan to do any foundation work we feel that a geotechnical investigation is not necessary, unless the Building Code Official requires it.
•
IEBC Chapter 9 – Change of Occupancy (Work Area Compliance Method)
•
Section 907.3.1 states: “Where a building or portion thereof is subject to a change of occupancy that results in the building being assigned to a higher occupancy category … the building shall comply with the requirements for International Building Code level seismic forces as specified in Section 101.5.4.1 for the new occupancy category.” Section 101.5.4.1 essentially requires compliance with 100% of the values in IBC Chapter 16.
•
There are no exceptions in the section that pertains to this project.
•
The project at Pier 9 would be classified as a Change of Occupancy. Structural design buildings are assigned an occupancy category in accordance with Table 1604.5 in IBC. The current occupancy category of the building is category II. The proposed new occupancy category will be category III: “buildings and other structures whose primary occupancy is public assembly with an occupant load greater than 300.”
•
IEBC Chapter 3 – Prescriptive Compliance Method •
IEBC Chapter 13 – Performance Compliance Method
•
Section 307.4 states: “When a change of occupancy results in a structure being reclassified to a higher occupancy category, the structure shall conform to the seismic requirements for a new structure of the higher occupancy category.”
•
However the second exception in section 307.4 states: “when a change of use results in a structure being reclassified from Occupancy Category I or II to Occupancy Category III and the structure is located where the seismic coefficient, SDS, is less than 0.33, compliance with the seismic requirements of Section 1613 of the International Building Code is not required.”
It is not appropriate to use this method at this time because it requires a structural analysis of the existing building to be performed to show that the structure is capable of resisting loads specified in IBC Chapter 16 when the new work is completed.
•
Based on the review of the structural aspects of the building codes as they pertain to the Pier 9 project, it appears that the Prescriptive Compliance Method will not require a seismic upgrade to the structure provided that a geotechnical investigation is either not required, or if it is required, it shows that the site class is D or better.
•
28
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
PERMITS AND APPROVALS
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ACOE)
The improvements to Pier 9 being considered as part of this study may require the following permits and approvals for Civil/Site development.
•
Individual Permit: The ACoE suggests an Individual Permit application be submitted concurrently with the Joint Permit as there is additional required information contained within the Individual Permit Application. Nationwide Permit 3 - Maintenance: Required by the ACoE for repair, rehabilitation and maintenance of existing pier structure.
PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT •
Stormwater Management permitting through Philadelphia Water Department will be required if Delaware River Waterfront Corporation proposes that the improvements made to Pier 9 create 5,000+ square feet of disturbance.
•
•
5,000 – 14,999 square feet of disturbance = Existing Resources and Site Analysis (ERSA) Permit
•
•
15,000+ square feet of disturbance = Technical Permit
PHILADELPHIA STREETS DEPARTMENT
PENNDOT •
•
Philadelphia Water Department defines “disturbance” as any disturbance to the subgrade/existing soil. Work completed on top of the existing pier, as long as it does not disturb the existing subgrade, is not considered disturbance as it pertains to stormwater management permitting. Act 537 Planning: If additional bathroom facilities or cafe/restaurant facilities are constructed an Act 537 Planning Module will be required. Typically, DEP requires full planning for projects with flows larger than 62,000 gallons per day. It is not anticipated that the average daily flows for Pier 9 will be anywhere near 62,000 gallons per day, therefore an exemption will most likely be granted.
Highway Occupancy Permit: Required by PennDOT if additional egress points onto Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard are needed, or if ADA ramps are to be constructed as a part of the Pier 9 improvements.
ZONING •
•
Philadelphia Streets Department approval will be required if changes are to be made to the curb line.
A zoning permit may be required if the building use changes.
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION (DRBC) •
Application for all other projects: Required by the DRBC for all projects that propose to drive piles.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP) •
Joint Permit: Required by the DEP and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACoE) for any proposed bridge connection to the Race Street Pier (Pier 11) or cantilevered improvements made to Pier 9.
•
General Permit #11: Required by the DEP for maintenance, testing, repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of water obstructions and encroachments.
•
Any excavated materials from the site must be certified as clean fill and disposed of in a legal manner.
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
29
Parking
et
treet
treet
et
S
Callowhill Street
p r in g
Race Street
Market Street
Chestnut Street
Walnut Street
et
et
G
CATERING KITCHEN EGRESS CORRIDOR
EGRESS CORRIDOR
6
HI INTENSITY EVENT
PUBLIC KIOSKS
INFORMATION KIOSK
LOW INTENSITY EVENT
PRE-FUNCTION
S
eet
FOOD KIOSK/ CAFE RESTAURANT
a r d e n
et
REST ROOM
2
SERVICE BAR GARDEN
1
VINE STREET- PUBLIC PARKING LOT (254 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.25 MILES TO PIER 9
2
MARKET STREET- PUBLIC PARKING LOT (504 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.25 MILES TO PIER 9
3
WALNUT WEST (128 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.36 MILES TO PIER 9
4
WALNUT EAST - PUBLIC PARKING LOT (91 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.36 MILES TO PIER 9
5
COMFORT INN - PRIVATE PARKING LOT (PARKING BASED ON AVAILABILITY) 0.1 MILES TO PIER 9
6
PRIVATE PARKING LOT (PARKING BASED ON AVAILABILITY) 0.30 MILES TO PIER 9
7
HYATT HOTEL PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE (500 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.45 MILES TO PIER 9 PATH OF TRAVEL PUBLIC PARKING PRIVATE PARKING OPEN TO PUBLIC BASED ON AVAILABILITY
OFF SITE PARKING 30 PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE 0.3 MILES TO PIER 9
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: DINING to events at Pier 9 may be accommoTransportation
dated byPOSSIBLE public PROGRAM transportation or car, as well as on FIT OUT: foot via LECTURE/ existing THEATRE sidewalks. The recently completed Race Street Connector project and the proposed POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: Multi-Use Trail from the Master Plan for the Central ART EXHIBIT Delaware, which will run the full length of the waterfront,POSSIBLE will improve access to Pier 9 and encourage PROGRAM FIT OUT: ARTIST STUDIO pedestrian traffic. The parking diagram on page 36 illustrates opportunities for public parking as well POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: as potential access to private parking areas. Shuttle FARMERS’ MARKET buses, valet services, or alternative vehicles could be utilized to facilitate access to events for guests who arrive from the nearby parking lots. Public transportation may be accessed via buses along Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard as well as the SEPTA Market-Frankford line at 2nd and Market Streets. (0.45 miles walk to the Pier).
SUPPORT SPACE
Benjamin Franklin Br idge
Pier 9
4
LEVEL 4 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 1
The Delaware River Waterfront Corporation may wish to engage a transportation engineer to further study the parking structure serving Pier 9 with respect to issues relatedxto the time interval between remote lots and Pier 9 using shuttle bus service; impact to existing traffic patterns on Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard resulting from proposed expanded lay-by/ drop off; and loading/service bay curb cut designed to support new functions at the redeveloped Pier 9. This study could also examine the potential contribution from public transportation toward moving visitors to and from Pier 9.
x
3
7
GARDEN
1
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
t r e e t
5
PRE-FUNCTION
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
31
32
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
CHAPTER 3 Possibilities for More Intensive Use Program Possibilities Building Systems
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
33
Program Possibilities
PERFORMANCE warehouse, miami, fl
SCULPTURE GARDEN MOMA, nyc
ART mass moca
With additional investment beyond that which is required to stabilize the structure, more intensive uses can be considered for Pier 9. This report envisions Pier 9’s main hall as a highly flexible, programmable space. Consistent with this flexible design approach, a broad array of possible functions will be accommodated by a fully fit out core and shell. The diagrams on these pages envision a variety of uses.
BOWLING garage, seattle FARMER’S MARKET fontainebleau, france
34
The Delaware River Waterfront Corporation may wish to conduct a market study to explore potential for private investment in Pier 9, and identify alternative revenue streams and yearly projections for event planning as a possible next step towards realizing a revitalized Pier 9.
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
WINTER GARDEN sheffield, UK
ROCK CLIMBING philadelphia rock gym
RESTAURANT audrey claire, philadelphia
WINE FESTIVAL finger lakes, new york WEDDING distillery warehouse, toronto DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
BISTRO the river cafe, NYC
GARDEN olbrich botanical garden, wisconsin
35
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PIER 9 BOHLIN CYWINSKI JACKSON -- TECHNICAL EXPLORATION
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PIER 9
BOHLIN CYWINSKI JACKSON -- MAJOR PLANNING/USE ALTERNATIVES 36
JANUARY 9, 2012
DECEMBER 9, 2011 Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
ALTERNATE PROGRAM COMBINATIONS CATERING KITCHEN 50 people
368 people
15 people
EGRESS CORRIDOR FOOD KIOSK/ CAFE RESTAURANT
ART EXHIBIT
DINING
ARTIST STUDIOS
ART EXHIBIT
INFORMATION KIOSK
PRE-FUNCTION
SERVICE BAR
SERVICE BAR
CAFE
CATERING KITCHEN
EGRESS CORRIDOR
PRE-FUNCTION REST ROOM
120 people LOADING
SERVICE BAR GARDEN
1040 people
DINING
300 people
FARMERS MARKET
50 people
1
VINE STREET- PUBLIC PARKING LOT (254 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.25 MILES TO PIER 9
2
MARKET STREET- PUBLIC PARKING LOT (504 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.25 MILES TO PIER 9
3
WALNUT WEST (128 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.36 MILES TO PIER 9
4
WALNUT EAST - PUBLIC PARKING LOT (91 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.36 MILES TO PIER 9
5
COMFORT INN - PRIVATE PARKING LOT (PARKING BASED ON AVAILABILITY) 0.1 MILES TO PIER 9
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: ARTIST STUDIO
6
PRIVATE PARKING LOT (PARKING BASED ON AVAILABILITY) 0.30 MILES TO PIER 9 ART EXHIBIT
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: FARMERS’ MARKET
7
HYATT HOTEL PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE (500 POTENTIAL SPACES) 0.45 MILES TO PIER 9
ART EXHIBIT
PRE-FUNCTION
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: DINING POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: LECTURE/ THEATRE POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: ART EXHIBIT
PATH OF TRAVEL
SERVICE BAR
SERVICE BAR
CATERING KITCHEN
EGRESS CORRIDOR
PUBLIC PARKING
CAFE
PRIVATE PARKING OPEN TO PUBLIC BASED ON AVAILABILITY
120 people LOADING
50 people
368 people
550 people
GARDEN PRE-FUNCTION
SERVICE BAR
SERVICE BAR
CATERING KITCHEN
CAFE
EGRESS CORRIDOR
120 people LOADING
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
37
Performance
Cultural
38
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
Marketplace
Athletics
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
39
Building Systems MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL PLUMBING FIRE PROTECTION CONCEPTS
Dry sprinkler system main – South & North sides Gas-fired heating & ventilation unit with capability for future airconditioning
High-Bay Fluorescent Light Fixture with Dimming
Domestic cold water main with valved connections for fit-out of each service bar space
Sanitary gravity main to accept pumped discharge from service bar plumbing fixtures
High-volume, low velocity fan for low-energy cooling
40
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
RESPONSIBLE USE OF RESOURCES The architecture and urban planning communities have responded to the need for resource conservation, developing new methods to create buildings and urban areas with a smaller environmental footprint than those of the past. The City of Philadelphia, for example, responded with the Greenworks Philadelphia Plan, while the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation completed a waterfront redevelopment master plan whose primary principle is environmental responsibility.
MEP SYSTEM CONCEPTS
• Allows for localized specialized environmental control (box within a box) or the future addition of air conditioning • Allows for the future installation of renewable energy system.
Pier 9 will be primarily day lit. It will be equipped with a high efficiency electric lighting systems designed to supplement the available daylight when necessary and to provide flexible and adjustable lighting for events at night.
In mild weather, ventilation will be provided by operable windows taking advantage of the pier’s location on the river to capture local breezes and supplemented by ceiling mounted high volume fans in hotter weather. In colder weather, low energy mechanical systems will utilize gas-fired heating and ventilation units to provide efficient and effective conditioning that can be turned on and off as needed for event schedules, thereby saving energy and reducing operating costs.
The development plan for Pier 9 envisions a flexible and adaptable space that can be utilized for a variety of functions in the short term with minimal capital investment and operating cost while providing the opportunity for future investment and more intensive use. The mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems proposed for Stage 4 of this project will support this vision by taking advantage of the location and orientation of the pier to optimize low or no energy passive systems and add active systems as needed to provide the level of life-safety and operational infrastructure required to support the immediate use. The pier’s environmental impact will be minimized along with annual operating costs. The approach is for a primarily day lit building with passive ventilation supplemented by low energy mechanical systems to create better than outdoor ambient conditions. The goal is to provide an overall ambient environment that: • • • • • • • •
Requires low energy to maintain Reduces water use through low-flow plumbing fixtures Limits the impact of the pier on the environment Allows for flexible use of the space Minimizes solar heat loads in the summer Takes advantage of natural ventilation when possible Maximizes daylight harvesting opportunities Is partially conditioned to achieve better than ambient conditions but not to the level of full conditioning
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
41
DAYLIGHT POTENTIAL Pier 9 has been analyzed for its potential to provide ambient lighting levels by daylight alone. Depending on the ultimate configuration of window and wall area, there is the potential for the pier to be adequately lit by daylight alone for approximately 90% of the annual daylight hours for a daylight autonomy of 90%. The clerestory windows alone have the potential to achieve daylight autonomy of up to 45%. Daylight autonomy is the percentage of day lit hours during which desired light levels can be achieved with day light alone.
MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS
SUMMER – NATURAL VENTILATION WITH SUPPLEMENTAL FANS
The following descriptions are based on the assumption that the enclosed portions of the Pier 9 envelope including roof and wall assemblies will be upgraded to include thermal insulation, that the clearstory glazing will be replaced with insulated units that are operable and that the side walls will be operable, insulated and utilize double pane insulated glazing units where windows are provided.
During mild weather, operable windows on the north and south facades as well as clearstory windows in the roof monitor will take advantage of the micro-climate the river provides to cool and ventilate the space with natural ventilation. Ceiling mounted, large diameter, high volume ceiling fans will be used to supplement the air movement provided by natural ventilation when required.
WINTER – HEATING & VENTILATION Heating and ventilation for enclosed spaces will be provided to maintain the space above 65 degrees Fahrenheit when operating. Heating will be provided by three indirect gas fired heating & ventilation units located above the service core along the south wall, centered within each event space. Each unit will include a louvered sidewall outside air intake, mixing box, indirect-fired gas furnace, filters and supply fan. The units will be configured with space for the installation of a future cooling coil to allow for full air-conditioning to be provided at some point in the future without replacing the initial equipment and duct work distribution.
42
SERVICE CORE HEATING VENTILATING AND COOLING SYSTEM To the extent that service bar areas are fit out with toilet rooms, sewage ejectors, pantries, etc. these spaces will be provided with basic systems consisting of toilet exhaust fans and electric heating systems to maintain spaces above freezing regardless of the temperature maintained in the rest of the pier.
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
PLUMBING SYSTEMS
LIGHTING
The plumbing system will consist of basic cold water distribution and a gravity main located within the truss space with capped wye fittings for future connections.
An overhead lighting system will provide basic even illumination throughout the pier with a flexible control system to allow for various uses of the space. The basic ambient target design light level will be 25-foot candles. Additional accent lighting may be provided at key locations throughout the pier to highlight architectural features.
A cold water main will be run the length of the pier to allow for future service to toilet rooms, pantries, janitor closets, hose bibs, kitchen facilities and other plumbing fixtures required by the future space utilization. Plumbing fixtures will be low-flow water saving fixtures. All horizontal waste piping will be run above the pier slab in plumbing chases to sewage ejector pits located at the ends of each chase which will then pump the waste up to the gravity sanitary main. Hot water will be provided by local electric tank type water heaters. New gas service piping will be routed down the service core to serve heating and ventilation units with valved and capped outlets for future service.
FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM All portions of the pier that are under roof cover must be protected by full sprinkler coverage to protect against freezing, a dry-pipe type sprinkler system will be required. Fire fighter hose connections will be located at 100-foot intervals along the length of the pier.
Light fixtures will be high-bay compact fluorescent pendant fixtures with clear acrylic prismatic housing, dimming ballast and four 42-watt compact fluorescent lamps per fixture. Lighting control will be flexible to allow for integration with daylight harvesting as well as the ability to adjust light levels depending on the type of event being held in the facility.
POWER The electrical system will provide power for all base building elements and systems including the heating and ventilation units, fans, lighting, water heaters and sewage ejector pumps. Additional power outlets and connection points will be provided to accommodate the power requirements of various events and shows that may use the facility.
LIFE SAFETY The pier will be protected with a complete fire alarm system with manual pull stations, horns/strobes and a voice evacuation system.
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
43
MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL PLUMBING SYSTEMS BY SPACE Garden • Non-freeze hose bibs • Exterior lighting • Exterior grade convenience outlets
Loading Dock • Electric unit heaters • Dry sprinkler system • Non-freeze hose bib
Main Hall (Partially Conditioned) • Heating and ventilation unit • High volume, low velocity ceiling fans • Toilet exhaust systems • Electric cabinet heaters and unit heaters for service core spaces • Non-freeze hose bib at north entrance doors • Water, waste and vent for service core toilets with ejector pumps to gravity main • Dry sprinkler system throughout • Ambient lighting system with battery backup for egress lighting • Convenience outlets for service core space • Convenience outlets at columns • Convenience outlets at truss level for events • Special event power connections at panels • Fire alarm system with voice evacuation
South Esplanade • Dry sprinkler system • Ambient lighting system with battery backup for egress lighting • Fire alarm system with voice evacuation
Main Hall (Unconditioned) • Dry sprinkler system throughout • Egress lighting with battery backup • Convenience outlets at columns • Convenience outlets at truss level for events • Special event power connections at panels • Fire alarm system with voice evacuation
44
Public Toilets • Electric unit heaters toilet exhaust • Non-freeze hose bib • Water, waste (gravity) and vent for toilets • Vandal resistant stainless steel fixtures • Dry sprinkler system • Ambient lighting system with battery backup for egress lighting • Convenience outlets with ground fault interrupter • Fire alarm system with voice evacuation East Portal • Dry sprinkler system throughout • Ambient lighting system with battery backup for egress lighting • Fire alarm system with voice evacuation
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
ENERGY CODES Based on a review of the 2009 International Existing Building Code, we recommend that the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems should be designed and constructed to comply with current building code requirements. We base this recommendation on a review of the prescriptive and work area compliance methods of the code which indicate that for all intents and purposes this will be required. We have the following observations and comments: • • • •
Based on the scope of the expected modifications to the existing pier, we believe the work should be classified as both an Alteration and a Change of Occupancy. The Change of Occupancy will be from S2 (Storage) to A2/A3 (Assembly) which is a more hazardous use based on life and fire risk. We believe the scope of work should be classified as a Level 3 Alteration as it is expected to exceed 50% of the aggregate area of the building. Using the Prescriptive Compliance Method, defined in Chapter 3 of the IEBC, for Change of Occupancy as defined in Section 307: • •
•
The project will be required to comply with the International Energy Conservation Code (307.5) Electrical, fuel gas, mechanical and plumbing systems must comply with the special provisions of the respective codes that apply to the proposed new occupancy unless otherwise approved by the code official (307.6, 307.7, 307.8 & 307.9)
Using the Work Area Compliance Method defined in Chapters 4-12 of the IEBC: • • • • • •
An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided (704.2.2, 912.2) A fire alarm and detection system complying with the International Building Code shall be provided (912.2.2) Where a change of use to Assembly use occurs, the electrical systems and equipment shall comply with the National Electrical Code (908) Code compliant quantity and type of plumbing fixtures shall be provided (710.1, 910) Ventilation systems in compliance with the International Mechanical Code shall be provided (709.1, 909.1)) Alterations shall comply with the International Energy Conservation Code (711, 808)
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
45
AVAILABILITY OF REQUIRED UTILITIES Based on information provided by the Pennsylvania One-Call system and Sheet C1.1 – “Utility Plan” of the Race Street Pier Design project as completed by Langan engineering firm on July 9, 2010 for the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation, the following utilities are located on, or adjacent to, the site and are available for connection to the proposed building: • Electric – Pier 9 is currently being served by existing underground lines. There are additional underground lines adjacent to the Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard right-of-way. • Water – Building currently served by the Philadelphia Water Department. A 12-inch ductile iron water line is shown in the Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard right-of-way. • Fire Water – Two 36-inch High Pressure Fire System (HPFS) intakes and a 36-inch multi-port HPFS hydrant (fireboat connection) are located north of Pier 9 and south of Pier 11. A fire hydrant is located along the frontage of the existing Pier 9 building. • Storm Sewer – Multiple inlets are located along the eastern limit of the northbound section of Delaware Avenue/ Columbus Boulevard. An 18-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) combined sewer pipe is located adjacent to the site underneath the northbound section of Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard. A 10-inch Vitrified Clay Pipe (VP) storm pipe is located underneath a 24-inch RCP combined sewer pipe (which serves as an overflow for the storm pipe) underneath the southbound section of Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard. All conveyance pipes discharge into a 54-inch RCP combined sewer that discharges into the Delaware River at the Tidal Gate south of Pier 9. • Sanitary Sewer – An 18-inch RCP combined sewer is located adjacent to the site underneath the northbound section of Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard. A 24-inch RCP combined sewer is located underneath the southbound section of Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard. • Natural Gas – A 6-inch Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) line is located underneath the southbound section of Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard. • Data/Telephone/Communications – 9-inch by 5-inch and 5-inch by 11-inch Verizon conduits are located adjacent to the site and appear to be serving the existing building. All utility locations are approximate. Locations and sizes of existing utilities must be field verified.
46
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
PGW (6")
TELECOMM 9"x5" 12" WATER LINE (DIP) SWMH (INV: -6.08) 36" MULTI-PORT HPFS HYDRANT (FIREBOAT CONNECTION) 36" HPFS INTAKE (HOODED) 36" HPFS INTAKE (HOODED)
COMBINED SEWER MH (INV: -4.27)
RACE STREET PIER
PECO (3'-2"x1'10" CONDUIT)
PECO (2'-2"x1'-8.5" CONDUIT) PECO (1'-4"x11" CONDUIT) VERIZON (9"x5" AND 5"x11" CONDUIT)
APPX. LOCATION OF VERIZON MANHOLE PECO (SIZE UNKNOWN) PECO (ABANDONED)
PECO (2'-0"x10.5" CONDUIT) TRANSFORMER FIRE HYDRANT PECO (ABANDONED) 18" RCP COMBINED SEWER PIPE STORMWATER INLET TO COMBINED SEWER (TYP.) 24" RCP SAN. PIPE & 10" VP STORM PIPE (COMBINED DUE TO VENTING/ OVERFLOW)
PIER 9
ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN MUST BE VERIFIED.
TIDE GATE 54" RCP COMBINED SEWER PIPE
EXISTING SITE UTILITY PLAN
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
47
EXTERIOR CLADDING
A number of approaches toward re-cladding the north and south walls and monitor of a stabilized Pier 9 structure have been considered as part of this study. The systems considered here are conventional aluminum and glass, thermally broken storefront systems, insulated polycarbonate standing seam and interlocking wall panel systems, and various brise soleil assemblies such as vegetated bio-wall, galvanized metal grille work, and wood lattice designed to filter and reduce heat gain on the long south exposure of the Pier. Pages 48 - 50 illustrate some of the concepts that have been developed.
48
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
49
EXTERIOR CLADDING
50
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
ENHANCEMENTS
Additional public and private investment in Pier 9’s redevelopment may create opportunities for enhancing the core and shell structure with materials and systems that reduce energy demand such as photovoltaic arrays on the south facing expanses of roof, or higher performance curtain wall systems that provide a tighter thermal envelope. Operable exterior wall systems capable of transforming the exterior shell of the building, expanding interior space and increasing natural ventilation might also be considered. The addition of mechanical systems that provide for a greater degree of thermal comfort and controllability is also possible. The diagrams on this page illustrate some of these adaptations. DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
51
B o h l i n Cy w i n s k i J a c k s o n
CHAPTER 4 Development Costs and Stages Costs and Phasing Cost/Bay Diagrams Phasing Plans Cost Breakdown
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
53
Costs and Phasing This study outlines an incremental approach to revitalization, in which sequential investments will first repair and rehabilitate the existing structural fabric and then equip it for safe use as a public amenity. The approach offers the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation a roadmap that remedies those conditions that will only get worse with time, using only those financial resources that are essential for this specific goal. Essentially these address the pier and shed’s long-term structural integrity through a robust strategy of repair and reinforcement. Simultaneously, many of the building’s enclosure elements will be removed, as they have lost all useful integrity. These include the side doors, the roof deck and the monitor windows. FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PIER 9 BOHLIN CYWINSKI JACKSON -- TECHNICAL EXPLORATION
SIBILITY STUDY OF PIER 9
CYWINSKI JACKSON -- MAJOR PLANNING/USE ALTERNATIVES
The initial stabilization will also prepare Pier 9 as a fit out ready, core-shell site capable of accepting a wide range of adaptive reuses or tenancies. Subsequent investments will render the Pier code-compliant for public occupancy and will place it under roof. Over time, it can be further transformed to permit higher levels of use. Its 500-foot length permits a strategy of covering and enclosing up to 40,000 gross square feet, of which 33,000 net square feet are available for program activities. As selected portions of the pier structure are enclosed, they can be equipped with restroom, storage, support, heating, ventilating and lighting infrastructure to permit the staging of events, concerts, exhibits, markets, athletics and many other uses. JANUARY 9, 2012
DECEMBER 9, 2011
In order to illustrate the phasing and cost strategy in the most flexible way, this study takes an innovative approach to cost estimating. It estimates the cost of each level of investment on a per-bay basis. As illustrated graphically on pages 56 through 59, the per-bay costs estimate what is required to achieve each stage of the redevelopment process: A. Stabilizing the structure B. Enabling public access through code compliance by building the South Esplanade enclosure C. Adding enclosures and systems D. Fully enclosing and fully servicing the Main Hall space
The per-bay cost estimates are in current (2012) dollars and represent project costs. This means that, in addition to predicting the cost of construction, allowances are included for what are commonly termed “soft costs.” Among these are the cost of design, permitting, insurance, testing, inspection, administration, basic equipment and contingencies. The per-bay costs are cumulative, meaning that the projected $442,000 per bay cost for fully enclosed and serviced space, Stage 4, includes the costs incurred in Stages 1 through 3. As shown in the color coded diagrams on pages 60 and 61 these per-bay costs are aggregated to prepare overall budgets for the several incremental development stages. Stage 4, Full Enclosure, is presented as a full build-out, but also illustrates alternate budgets for incremental enclosure. These are termed Stages 4A and 4B. A detailed summary of scope items included in the full build-out is found on page 63. The scope of work for each estimated cost includes the technical improvements described in prior chapters; the scopes of work are also summarized below. While enhanced scopes for upgraded glazing and cladding are described in Chapter 3, the estimates present a base-level quality, focusing on durable, cost effective materials. The relevant technical discussions can be found as follows: • Demolition work: described in Chapter 1, Existing Conditions and Stabilization • Structural reinforcement: described in Chapter 1, Existing Conditions and Stabilization • South Esplanade egress passage and service core construction: described in Chapter 2, Design to Accommodate New Use • Cladding and architectural enclosure of the Main Hall: described in Chapter 3, Possibilities for More Intensive Use • Mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems: described in Chapter 3, Possibilities for More Intensive Use These estimates relate directly to a phasing strategy that allows Pier 9’s redevelopment to unfold over time. As it does, Pier 9’s stunning potential will become apparent;
54
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
and it will immediately benefit the neighboring assets including the Race Street Pier, the Race Street Connector and the Philly Fringe/Philadelphia Live Arts Festival’s restored 1902 Fire Pumping Station.
in Stage 1 alone will not provide all those building code requirements to obtain a certificate of occupancy. Stage 2 will implement the life-safety criteria needed to make the pier available for public use.
Complementing these successful venues, Pier 9 will further activate one of the Delaware River waterfront’s most powerful destinations. It is anticipated therefore that initial financing can be used to bring the project to a positive tipping point, where after success will breed further success. As each stage of the process prepares the Pier for further development it can attract private-sector participation—whether by sale or lease. Together, the investments being considered will prepare Pier 9 as a fit out ready core-shell with the ability to accommodate a broad spectrum of future development scenarios or tenancies. Along the way, each stage is intended to produce a result that can stand as a logically complete result:
It is assumed that public funding will be utilized to implement Stage 1, and that at the completion of Stage 1, DRWC will aggressively market the building for potential partnerships with private tenants and/or developers to complete future stages. If no such partnerships emerge, DRWC could continue to utilize public funding to complete additional increments of investment that would create more value in the building, either by making it publicly accessible or by adding other amenities.
Stage 1, Stabilization, is designed to stem the ongoing pattern of deterioration. It is understood that if nothing is done, the building will continue to deteriorate, meaning that it will remain a liability for DRWC and a nuisance to its neighbors, and could potentially significantly or even drastically raise the costs of eventual rehabilitation. Stabilization will reinforce the pier’s existing concrete deck, steel superstructure and elegant concrete head houses, while removing its seriously deteriorated roof, roof deck, monitor windows and side doors. The structure’s numerous maintenance liabilities will essentially be eliminated. By establishing this condition with a relatively minor investment, Pier 9 will be reestablished as a viable site for future development, with the potential to become an extraordinary landmark. Rather than diminishing its surroundings attractiveness, the stabilized Pier 9 will complement its neighboring Race Street Pier and Race Street Connector. At the conclusion of this first phase, Pier 9 will stand as a structurally safe, open-air structure. While this level of investment would not replace the roof system, the structure will be finished to resist the elements with little or no maintenance. Guardrails will be installed along the north, south and east sides of the pier, but it must be stressed that investment
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
Stage 2, Provision of Fire Egress, is designed to enable safe use for an initial range of public activities. Most importantly, it calls for the addition of a fire-separated egress corridor along the pier’s south façade from its entrance to its eastern end, and for public restrooms just inside the west head house designed to serve users of Race Street Pier and others enjoying the waterfront. Minimal roof cover will be provided at the pier’s west end to support the public restroom function. The balance of the Pier will remain open to the sky. The construction of the egress corridor and restroom amenities makes the pier available for general public uses, and for more structured events. At the stage of development, events on the pier may require tent structures, portable sanitary facilities and temporary electric power. The key improvement in Stage 2 is the provision of the egress corridor, permitting multiple egress paths. Safely separated remote exits are a crucial requirement for public occupancy. Stage 3, Partial Enclosure, introduces a new roof and monitor windows over approximately eighteen bays of the pier. A new code-compliant fire protection system is installed within the extent of the new roof, expanding the potential for the covered portion of the pier to be used as a flexible event space. With the roof and monitor windows in place, the pier will regain its original architectural form and its light-filled interior space will present itself as it did when new in 1919. This approach retains eight bays of open space at the pier’s landside and waterside ends. By
retaining these open-air spaces, the pier’s extraordinary length can offer a variety of spatial experiences, facilities for crowd management off the Delaware Avenue/ Columbus Boulevard sidewalk and a venue for outdoor dining. With the sun and rain protection of a roof, Pier 9 can now attract a higher level of use than at the Stage 2 investment level. Not needing tenting, it will provide a major expanse of protected space for publicly programmed, privately sponsored and/or impromptu use. Stage 4, Full Enclosure, further continues the pattern of incremental improvements, with each improvement building on the foundation of previous investments. In Stage 4, indoor spaces will be created whose glazed exterior doors and walls bathe it with interior light. The exposed steel structure and smooth concrete floor will express the Pier’s industrial character and heritage. Base level infrastructure will be included to provide eventsized bathrooms, power and light to support daytime and evening events, heat to allow cold-weather use, and ample ventilation for swing season and occasional summer activity. Comparable to an exhibition hall, this level of investment makes it attractive for a broad variety of temporary fit outs: concerts, exhibits, athletics, celebrations and parties. Permanent access, egress, restrooms, life-safety, power, storage and similar support elements are designed to maximize the range of potential temporary uses. Similarly, these same investments provide for maximum flexibility for more elaborate, and presently undefined adaptive reuses. This graduated rehabilitation pattern offers the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation a very flexible framework for Pier 9’s restoration and adaptive reuse. For a relatively moderate investment, the building’s present and continuing deterioration will be stopped and a liability will become an asset. It will then be made available to the public through the introduction of life-safety improvements; principally those that create separated egress paths. Further investment in its roofing, enclosure and infrastructure can be made incrementally to keep pace with rising demand, leading to a permanent fit out, with almost no limit on its potential for imaginative and flexible use as an extraordinarily exciting and revenuegenerating waterfront destination. 55
Cost/Bay Diagrams
A $133,000 / Bay Base stabilization • remove roof membrane, decking, existing windows and exterior wall cladding • restore steel structure & repair concrete deck with structural slab overlay • conduct localized repairs to timber pile and concrete bent substructure • guard rails at north, south and east elevations • structural repairs for head houses NOR TH
56
$133,000 / Bay
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
B $133,000 / Bay $ 25,000 / Bay
Base stabilization Service core + egress corridor • precast plank roof/ceiling, steel support beam, CMU bearing partition, CMU partition north side
$158,000 / Bay
NOR TH
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
57
C $133,000 / Bay $ 25,000 / Bay $ 80,000 / Bay $ 13,000 / Bay $ 16,000 / Bay
NOR TH
58
Base stabilization Service core + egress corridor Metal standing seam roof system over SIPs Monitor: Operable Polycarbonate Wall System Fire Protection System
$267,000 / Bay
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
ALTERNATIVE: North Elev: Aluminum + glass storefront system translucent glass bottom & clear glass top, 2 lines of horizontal steel girts, 50% operable vents at lower translucent storefront Monitor: Operable alum. + glass storefront system
D $133,000 / Bay $ 25,000 / Bay $ 80,000 / Bay $ 13,000 / Bay $ 49,000 / Bay
Base stabilization Service core + egress corridor Metal standing seam roof system over SIPs Monitor: Operable Polycarbonate Wall System North Elev: Polycarbonate wall system • 3 lines of horizontal steel girts • 50% operable panels from 3 feet above slab to 7-foot north wall $ 19,000 / Bay South Elev: Alum. + glass storefront system • clear glass @ clerestory $ 94,000 / Bay Interior Fit out: MEP, HVAC, FP $ 16,000 / Bay Fire Protection System $ 13,000 / Bay Service Core Fit out NOR TH
$442,000 / Bay
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
59
STABILIZE STRUCTURE
$3.5 M
1
MAKE SAFE FOR PUBLIC USE
+$1.2 M
$4.7 M (* $648,000 Amenities added at this stage to support public use. These include public restrooms, DRWC link renovations, & MEP tie-ins and basic distribution setup. )
2
ADD INFRASTRUCTURE AND PARTIAL ROOF
+$1.2 M
$5.9 M
3 60
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
ENCLOSE WITH CORE AMENITIES
$7.9 M
+$2.0 M
4B
EXPAND ENCLOSURE
+$1.7 M
$9.6 M
4A MAXIMIZE ENCLOSURE TO FULL BUILD OUT
+$1.47 M
$11.07 M
4 DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
61
CATERING KITCHEN EGRESS CORRIDOR
EGRESS CORRIDOR FOOD KIOSK/ CAFE RESTAURANT
HI INTENSITY EVENT
PUBLIC KIOSKS
INFORMATION KIOSK
LOW INTENSITY EVENT
PRE-FUNCTION
PRE-FUNCTION
GARDEN
REST ROOM
SUPPORT SPACE
SERVICE BAR GARDEN
LEGEND
NE STREET- PUBLIC PARKING LOT (254 POTENTIAL SPACES) 5 MILES TO PIER 9
ARKET STREET- PUBLIC PARKING LOT (504 POTENTIAL SPACES) 5 MILES TO PIER 9
ALNUT WEST (128 POTENTIAL SPACES) 6 MILES TO PIER 9
ALNUT EAST - PUBLIC PARKING LOT (91 POTENTIAL SPACES) 6 MILES TO PIER 9
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: DINING
LEVEL 4 D
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: LECTURE/ THEATRE
LEVEL 3 C
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: ART EXHIBIT
LEVEL 1 A
MFORT INN - PRIVATE PARKING LOT (PARKING BASED ON AVAILABILITY) MILES TO PIER 9
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: ARTIST STUDIO
x
VATE PARKING LOT (PARKING BASED ON AVAILABILITY) 0 MILES TO PIER 9
POSSIBLE PROGRAM FIT OUT: FARMERS’ MARKET
x
ATT HOTEL PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE (500 POTENTIAL SPACES) 5 MILES TO PIER 9
TH OF TRAVEL
BLIC PARKING
VATE PARKING EN TO PUBLIC BASED ON AVAILABILITY
62
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
Cost Breakdown For Full Build Out Base Stabilization Selective Demolition and Removals Superstructure Stabilization and Repairs Substructure Stabilization and Repairs Floor Framing - Structural Topping Slab
Estimated Cost
Subtotal Soft costs Total
$600,000 $560,000 $430,000 $1,000,000 $2,590,000 1 $880,000 $3,470,000
Subtotal Soft costs Total
$480,000 $730,000 $190,000 $630,000 $650,000 $230,000 $210,000 $3,140,000 $1,380,000 $4,520,000
Subtotal Soft costs Total
$650,000 $100,000 $110,000 $80,000 $490,000 $250,000 $1,685,000 $740,000 $2,425,000
Subtotal Soft costs Total
$180,000 $100,000 $175,000 $455,000 $200,000 $655,000
Enclosure Insulated Wood Roof Deck Roofing and Gutters Monitor Windows South Wall Enclosure with Service Core Structure North Wall Enclosure East Partition Wall West Partition Wall
MEP Electric Water Sanitary Gas Service HVAC Fire Protection
Misc. DRWC Link Public Rest rooms Remaining fit out/bathroom facilities
Notes:
Project Total 1
$11,070,000 Enhancements Landscaping (Allowance) Hardscaping (Allowance) Floor extensions at north side of pier
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
$110,000 $60,000 $290,000
(1) Cost estimate values presented above have been factored by a total of 44% to include allowances for the following soft costs: General Conditions Construction Management Fee Construction Contingency Permits, Bond, Insurance Fees - Design Design Contingency (*not applied to base stabilization) (2) Values are in current (2012) dollars; no escalation has been included
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. South Esplanade Looking East
6. Main Hall Looking East
2. West Portal
7. Nighttime Performance in Main Hall
3. East Terrace Looking North
8. Exterior View Pier 9 and Race Street Pier
4. South Esplanade Looking Into Main Hall
9. Exterior View Looking Southwest to West Portal
5. Main Hall Looking West
10. Nighttime View Looking Southwest to West Portal
10 64
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
CHAPTER 5 Rendering The Vision
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
65
66
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
67
68
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
69
70
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
71
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
73
74
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
75
76
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
Philadelphia Department of Wharves, Docks and Ferries. Municipal Pier Construction Photographs, 1917-1921 The photographs featured in this chapter document the construction of municipal piers on the Delaware River waterfront under the auspices of the Philadelphia Department of Wharves, Docks and Ferries. The construction was part of a progressive-era project to upgrade Philadelphia’s severely neglected port infrastructure. Before the creation of the Department of Wharves, Docks and Ferries in 1907, Philadelphia had just over twenty piers, most of which were owned by private companies, principally railroad companies. Few could accommodate larger cargo ships. In the early decades of the 20th century, the Department oversaw the construction of dozens of new piers designed to accommodate ships with much greater draw, to enable the loading and unloading of more than one ship simultaneously, and to facilitate the transfer of cargo to railroads, trucks and wagons. The piers depicted in this collection served as marine-railroad terminals linking the river and the Pennsylvania, B&O and Reading railroad yards. Considerably larger than any piers previously constructed by the city, Pier 9 North measured 100 feet in width and was 535 feet long, while piers in the Moyamensing Group ranged from 250 to 336 feet in width and from 900 to 1,000 feet in length. Images primarily depict construction of Municipal Pier 9 North, also known as the Cherry Street Pier. Images show bulkheads, pilings, forms, portions of the concrete decks, retaining walls, framing and interiors and exteriors of partially and fully completed pier buildings. Some images include construction workers and a few include the temporary offices for general contractors working on the project, Arthur McMullen Company and Snare & Triest Company. The photographs incidentally capture adjoining piers, businesses lining Delaware Avenue/Columbus Boulevard and ships at dock. Historic Images of Pier 9 Courtesy of The Library Company of Philadelphia
CHAPTER 6 History
D R W C | Fe a s i b i l i t y S t u d y P i e r 9
The history behind the creation of Pier 9 is deeply embedded in the golden age of Philadelphia’s industrial past and rooted in the once vibrant neighborhoods and commercial corridor that characterized life on the city’s Delaware River waterfront. Pier 9 and other great engineering and architectural marvels that still mark the landscape along the Delaware form the legacy left behind, reminders of the waterfront’s storied past.
and piers. Many of them immigrants, they labored long and hard to provide a better future for their children. This brawny, working-class landscape, the flip side of the well-groomed, proper enclave of nineteenth century Rittenhouse Square, was especially evident on the Delaware waterfront. These piers and factories were built to last, as were the houses, churches and other institutions that were sustained by them.
The following material written by Steven B. Ujifusa for PlanPhilly provides a more in-depth perspective on the history of Pier 9 and its neighboring municipal piers:
The industrial waterfront’s decline during the midtwentieth century was slow and drawn-out. It was punctuated by one catastrophic event in the late 1960s— the construction of I-95. This was the death blow to a waterfront already reeling from the loss of industrial jobs to cheaper labor markets and the rise of containerization, which rendered the old piers obsolete. The 1976 book Philadelphia Preserved, a compilation of work conducted by the Historic American Buildings Survey, notes many warehouses, factories, piers and other industrial buildings along the waterfront, especially in Old City and Society Hill. However, the majority of these entries are concluded with the terse phrase “Demolished 1967,” when I-95 crashed through the historic waterfront wards.
William Penn’s 1682 vision of a “green country towne” stretching river to river did not square with the necessities of commerce and industry that became Philadelphia’s lifeblood. Until the advent of the horse-drawn trolley in the 1830s, residential and commercial districts hugged the shoreline of the Delaware River. This created a city in which different classes and land uses were shoved cheekby-jowl with each other. Even Philadelphia’s merchant elite had no problem living close to the waterfront’s dirt and noise. Stephen Girard, who died in 1831 as the richest man in America, had a house at 23 North Water Street with a counting room on the ground floor (iii). Here, as he kept track of his finances, Girard kept an eye on the longshoremen as they unloaded crates of valuable imports and hauled them over to the warehouse. The construction of the railroads and their massive freight and passenger complexes near Broad Street and on the banks of the Schuylkill in the mid-nineteenth century caused some industry to shift westward. However, the Delaware River port continued to prosper well into the twentieth century, sustaining a variety of factories, warehouses and other enterprises that required close access to the sea. During its industrial glory years, this waterfront was a muscular, rough, yet lively place. Its streets, alleys and waterfront were defined by hissing steam, clanking machinery, drifting coal smoke, blasting whistles and sweating workers. This was the world of most Philadelphians during the Victorian age, a society of determined, proud men and women who worked long hours in the factories, shipyards 78
Some industrial waterfront structures have found new uses, such as condominiums, playgrounds and storage facilities. Many are surrounded by newly-renovated row houses, restaurants and small businesses. Industrial historian Phillip B. Scranton wrote: “If much of what we have is buildings and memories, both are worth preserving for uses that as yet lie only in our imagination.” Much of the Delaware River’s industrial landscape has been lost, but there is still much to preserve for future generations. The buildings profiled in the article, which are lesser-known industry-related landmarks on the Delaware, might not have the architectural grandeur of Frank Furness’s library at Penn or Victorian row houses near Rittenhouse Square. However, they are worth saving because they are tangible reminders of the livelihoods of thousands of ordinary Philadelphians, who toiled in the factories, piers and power plants, back when the waterfront was the proud gateway to a city once known as the “Workshop of the World.”
THE DELAWARE RIVER PIERS The creation of Municipal Pier 9 coincided with an ambitious initiative begun by the city of Philadelphia in the early part of the twentieth century to breathe new life into its Delaware River port and to reassert itself as a major player in the world of commercial shipping. The earliest Delaware piers were made of little more than wood pilings topped off by a plank deck, most of which have been destroyed. Starting in 1907, a number of larger, more permanent piers were constructed, part of a comprehensive plan to upgrade the Delaware River as a shipping channel. Along with building new piers, the plan included dredging the river to a depth of 35 feet all the way to Allegheny Avenue and the construction of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. By this time, Philadelphia had ceased to be a major port of departure for the crack transatlantic passenger steamers. The grandest passenger ships, some of which were approaching 900 feet in length, were departing from New York. Nonetheless, a number of smaller liners from the White Star and Red Star Lines departed from Philadelphia to Europe. In addition, the older freight piers were too small to dock increasingly larger cargo ships. These new piers, meant to be grand gateways to the city, resemble the larger Chelsea piers in New York City, which were built around the same time. The head houses facing Delaware Avenue were constructed of poured concrete and were decorated with arched entrances, baroque pediments, and rusticated bases. The piers themselves were two-story metal sheds topped with monitor roofs
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
and catwalks. Each of these piers could accommodate ships up to 500 feet long, which in the early 1900s meant a large cargo ship or a small passenger liner. Their cranes were capable of hoisting up to 5 tons of cargo. Surviving examples of these early twentieth century passenger and freight piers include Municipal Pier Number 9 at Delaware Avenue and Cherry Street, and the much larger Piers 38 and 40 at Delaware Avenue and Carpenter Street. With the exception of Pier 9, the concrete head houses of these piers have all been whitewashed. In the 1920s, the head houses of two of the original Center City municipal piers, known as the Girard Group, were refaced in the Art Deco style with simplified Gothic motifs. Instead of poured concrete, the Girard Group used composite construction of yellow brick and concrete detailing. However, the construction of the actual piers was the same as the older ones: a two-story steel shed with catwalks above.
Wharf Drop Pier 9 was originally constructed with eight wharf drops spaced equally along the north and south sides of the building. These movable gangways were designed to accommodate the rise and fall of the water’s surface as goods were unloaded from ships directly on to freight trucks. Sections of steel supported timber deck were hinged at one end and suspended from overhead frames at the edge of the pier so that they could be raised or lowered by hand-powered gearing or by electric motors.
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
79
80
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
DRWC | Feasibility Study Pier 9
81
82
Bohlin Cywinski Jackson