Portfolio - College (2) by Ryan Albracht

Ryan Albracht Portfolio

Statement of Intent

I recently completed my masters degree in landscape architecture at Kansas State University and now seek to practice and build upon my skills. My current skill set is very diverse with an emphasis in urban design and modeling. I am also interested in improving design communication through using applicable technology from gaming and cinema realms such as virtual reality and augmented reality hardware. Perhaps the biggest thing that sets me apart from other urban designers is that I can utilize ESRI CityEngine to create quick detailed models. In this portfolio is some of my best work. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks for taking the time to look through my portfolio. Sincerely,

Ryan J. Albracht

Background Kansas State University College of Architecture Planning & Design Landscape Architecture/Regional & Community Planning Master of Landscape Architecture

Horticulture

Construction

Design

Contact

From 2009-2011 I worked at Family Tree Nursery in Kansas City, KS. Here I grew herbaceous annuals and perennial plants and learned plant species characteristics.

During the first three summers of my college career I worked for Oleson Landscape & Design in Okoboji, IA. It is a design build firm that specializes in lake shore development. The first two years I did construction work. I built patios, retaining walls, pergolas, decks, and waterfalls. My third summer I did design work and learned how to work with clients.

My design work began at Kansas State University. In the department of Landscape Architecture/ Regional & Community Planning I worked on a variety of project types including many urban design and sustainability projects. During my internship with Wolff Landscape Architecture I did many construction documents and learned how to design green roofs.

Ryan Albracht Address: 4223 N. 125th St. Kansas City, KS 66109 Cell Phone: (913) - 940 - 2077 Email: ryan12@k-state.edu

Table of Contents

Campus Design

1-8

REDUCE; RE-USE; RECHARGE RE-ENVISIONING CAMPUS CREEK CLAFLIN TRIANGLE

Residential

9-14 WEST OKOBOJI LAKEHOUSE 414 LIGHT STREET

Parks and Plazas

15-20

THE GALLERY RADIATING PLAZA

Urban Design

21-30

PLANNING FOR RAIL TRANSIT IN THE CHICAGO AREA THE COMMON GROUND BEGINNING WITH BLUEMONT UCR DISTRICT

Campus Design

A handful of my project sites were located on campus. The project showcased above was entered in a EPA Rainworks Competition as well as an ASLA competition in the Midwest. 1

Reduce Re-use Recharge

EPA Rainworks Challenge 2013

Mint Garden

Interactive Cistern

For the EPA Rainworks Challenge my team of four was required to choose a site on campus. The site we chose was the area next to the famous K-state Call Hall Dairy Bar.

Large Cistern Congregation Area Bars, Tables, Benches Flow Through Planter Rain Garden

The redesigned space was intended to maximize functionality while artfully managing the stormwater runoff from the rooftops of the buildings while providing an area for visitors to view and learn about stormwater management.

Tall Fescue Lawn

New Sidewalk

Lily Turf Lawn

Not to Scale 3

The plan was to reduce erosion, pooling, runoff, and maintenance costs.

Gutter Filter

For this team project I was the leader of the design. I produced several conceptual designs which my team collaborated on and then advanced a concept. I calculated how much water storage was needed for different storm types and sized the cisterns, pipes, and rain garden to hold the water volumes. I also created a video for this design which can be seen by clicking here.

First Flush System

Overflow Spout 300 Gallon Cistern

Twisting Nozzle

Stormwater Runoff

Open Air Steel Pipe

1.5’ Planting Medium Filter Fabric 6” Sand Filter Fabric 6” Pea Rock 6” Concrete Base Grease Board

Splitted 2 Gallon Funnel Planting Medium 1/2” Pipe

These numbers are calculated by an equation using the rational method, which factors the infiltration rate of all surfaces and the intensity of a storm based on Manhattan’s macro-climate.

Re-Envisioning Campus Creek The goal of this project was to design a healthy stream channel and floodplain for bankfulll and +100 year storm events. In addition to improving the hydrological function it was vital to include a native landscape that Kansas State University students, faculty, and the general public could appreciate. The project was done by my entire studio and my work included inventory and analysis of the bank, 3D modeling, and developing a maintenance plan.

Rendering in Vue Alpha maps were created to render materials in Vue. However, since we did not have a render farm I did not have enough processing power to render the vegetation sufficiently. Instead I went with my back up plan which was to color code each planting mix so other teammates would know where each planting mix ended. This method was used to help render the perspectives.

Alpha Maps

3D Modeling The 3D modeling was done in Rhino. In this program I modeled the topography, multiple bridges, railings, retaining walls, elevated planters, light fixtures, and an amphitheater. Then the models were brought into Vue.

1 2

Claflin Triangle

Spatial Framework

Circulation

Parking Zones

Not to Scale 7

Building Stories & Program

Located at Kansas State University, this project represents an idea that a parking lot could be removed to create a pedestrian friendly, urban environment that contrasts with the rest of the KSU campus.

Heirarchy of Space

Service Access

Water Management

Adjacent to the site is a polluted Campus Creek. To reduce the stormwater runoff on site a series of bioswales, rain-gardens, and cisterns were proposed. This would reduce on site runoff from polluting the creek.

Building Purpose This design introduces new mixed-use buildings that would solve the housing shortage dilemma as well as provide more space for classrooms, lecture halls, studios, offices, restaurants, and cafes.

Office Residential Cafe & Restaurants Classes Shops Service and Utilities

Aerial Looking South

Residential

In 2014 I designed several residential properties in Okoboji, IA while working for Olsen Landscape and Design. I learned to work with clients first hand and to follow building codes. 9

West Okoboji Lake House Design Goal: Create a smooth transition between the road, lake house, and West Lake Okoboji while also enhancing existing space and creating a dog area. Ed

Improved Car Circulation Fenced in Dog Area Vegetated Privacy Fence House Retrofitted Patio Area Sitting Wall

New Dock Location

Not to Scale 11

Before Deck with Staircase

Driveway with Fence

After The proposed lakeside design unifies the shoreline property. It moves the dock location on axis with the front door. It raises the existing patio, making it more comfortable and easier to access. It disposes of the existing

shack. It also adds three boulder walls to create two terraces. These terraces will consist of low maintenance perennial plantings that will reduce pollutants going into the lake and will also soften the edge of the boulder walls.

Patio with Fire Pit 12

EXISTING WATERPROOF MEMBRANE

SLIP SHEET PROTECTIVE LAYER EXISTING WATERPROOF MEMBRANE TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB, SEE ARCH. DWGS

TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB, SEE ARCH.

GREEN ROOF TRAY 4 6" DEPTH Typical Planter

5 6" HT ALUMINUM EDGE RESTRAINT SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"

INSPECTION PIPE AT EVERY PLANTER DRAIN

STAINLESS STEEL SINK BY SUN GRILLS, MODEL #A-SS17,

STAINLESS STEEL COUNTERTOP,

16 GAUGE MINIMUM PLANTING AREA: SHRUBS, ORNAMENTAL GRASSES, DRAINAGE LAYER, HYDRO-TECH OR PERENNIALS AND GROUNDCOVER APPROVED EQUAL

12" SOIL DEPTH WITH APPROVED FERTILIZER

STAINLESS STEEL CABINET, 18 GAUGE MINIMUM

STAINLESS STEEL COUNTERTOP, 16 GAUGE MINIMUM

HOT AND COLD WATER

'PM-35' LIGHTWEIGHTCONNECTIONS, PLANTING SEE ARCH. DRAWINGS SOIL MIX, TYP. SINK DRAIN SEE ARCH. DRAWINGS

CONCRETE PLANTER WALL, TYP. SEE ARCH. FOR DETAILS CONCRETE

GEO-FOAM

GEOFOAM RIGID INSULATION

DRAINAGE LAYER, HYDRO-TECH OR APPROVED EQUAL

48" CONCRETE RETAINING WALL CONNECTED TO BLDG SLAB WITH GALVANIZED STEEL DOWEL

12"

During my internship with Wolff Landscape Architecture LLC I worked on 414 Light Street, a 44 story mixed-used residential building in Baltimore, Maryland. This project included amenity decks on the 7th, 8th, and 35th floor and is to be the highest skyscrapper in Baltimore. My inolvement in this project was in the construction document phase. I specified materials, 6 plants, and created details.

Section

SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"

414 Light Street

DRAINAGE LAYER, HYDRO-TECH OR APPROVED EQUAL

9'-0"

STRUCTURAL BLDG SLAB SEE ARCH. DRAWINGS

TYPICAL PLANTER INSPECTION PIPE DETAIL

GENERAL NOTES:

VERSICELL DRAINAGE LAYER OR APPROVED EQUAL

SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"

N THROUGH NORTHWEST OUTDOOR KITCHEN

TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB, SEE ARCH. FOR DETAILS

1. PLANTER, CONCR REFER TO STRUCTU

4 NORTH / SOUTH SECTION THROUGH OUTDOOR KITCHEN SINK

2. PLANTER WALL, VERIFIED BY STRUC

SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"

East/West Kitchen Section

North/South Kitchen Section 6" 3"

M 9'-0"

STAINLESS STEEL COUNTERTOP, 16 GAUGE MINIMUM

12" SOIL DEPTH WITH APPROVED FERTILIZER

STAINLESS STEEL SINK BY SUN GRILLS, MODEL #A-SS17,

1'-6"

STAINLESS STEEL COUNTERTOP, 16 GAUGE MINIMUM

2'-6"

2'-10"

4'-0"

36" BUILT-IN IN GRILL BY AMERICAN OUTDOOR GRILL 36" W x 19 1/2" D x 8 1/2" HT MODEL #36NB, NATURAL GAS

48" HIGH PLANTER RETAINING WALL

3'-0" 9'-0"

3' WIDE SIDEWALK

EAST / WEST SECTION THROUGH NORTHWEST OUTDOOR KITCHEN SCALE:KITCHEN 1" = 1'-0" ST OUTDOOR

36" BUILT-IN IN GRILL BY AMERICAN OUTDOOR GRILL 36" W x 19 1/2" D x 8 1/2" HT MODEL #36NB, NATURAL GAS

STAINLESS STEEL COUNTERTOP, 16 GAUGE MINIMUM

DRAINAGE LAYER, HYDRO-TECH OR APPROVED EQUAL STAINLESS STEEL CABINET, 18 GAUGE MINIMUM GEO-FOAM NATURAL GAS CONNECTION, SEE ARCH. DRAWINGS 48" CONCRETE RETAINING WALL CONNECTED TO BLDG SLAB WITH GALVANIZED STEEL DOWEL

CONCRETE

DRAINAGE LAYER, HYDRO-TECH OR APPROVED EQUAL

STRUCTURAL BLDG SLAB SEE ARCH. DRAWINGS

GEO-FOAM

4 NORTH / SOUTH SECTION THROUGH OUTDOOR K 5 NORTH / SOUTH SECTION THROUGH OUTDOOR KITCHEN GRILL SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"

SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"

7th Floor Landscape Plan PD RKH

29 E

NSM

59 H

15 S

MPP

12 H

3 L4.03 4 L4.03

KITCHEN STATION WITH GRILL, SINK AND COUNTERTOP, TYP.

45 H

KITCHEN GARDEN PLANT BY OWNER

NSM

11 BG

13 S

1 L4.03

8 BG

RKH

25 E

PAH LOUNGE SEATING BY OWNER, TYP.

NSM

9 CAB

60 H

TV BY OWNER, TYP.

CHE

L KIT

UNA

NSM

12 S

13 N

7 SJL

14 S

4" x 4" HANOVER PREST BRICK, TRADITIONAL 4 x 4 SQUARE EDGE, TAN FINISHES, TYP., SEE SHEET L4.02, DETAIL 7

DECOMPOSED GRANITE, TYP. KITCHEN STATION WITH GRILL, STOVE, SINK AND COUNTERTOP

5 TM

24" x 24" HANOVER PREST PAVERS, CREAM FINISHES, TYP., SEE SHEET L4.02, DETAIL 8

+36"

+42"

11 SJLP

14 N

TWO HEIGHT BAR, SEE ARCH. DWGS KITCHEN GARDEN PLANT BY OWNER VECTOR BUILT-IN SEATING, BY FORMS+SURFACES, TYP., SEE SHEET L4.02, DETAIL 2

5 SR

HEN KITC NIA 2 SF. ) 3 IFOR CAL ' x 24' (4 18

RKH

31 E

6 SJN

9 SN

12 ER

STB 23 ER

STB

16 S

SPM

32 H

7 HM

NSM

15 S

23 H

18 SS

16 S

CUSTOM NATURAL GAS FIRE PIT, SEE ARCH. DWGS

23 CEB

14 CEB

32 ER

RAISED CONCRETE PLANTER, TYP., SEE ARCH. DWGS

KITCHEN GARDEN PLANT BY OWNER

FIRE PIT TERRACE

TRELLIS STRUCTURE, SEE ARCH. DWGS

DECOMPOSED GRANITE, TYP.

ST 11 S

12 N

3 SJA

7 TMT

20 CM

1 7TH FLOOR KITCHEN AREA LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENT

SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

0 6" 1'

NORTH

Parks & Plazas

The Parks & Plazas section showcases two projects with site designs. These projects include design process and construction documents. 15

The Gallery The concept for this design is to create a seamless harmony between man and nature. In addition to this design concept I also wanted to create a seamless experience throughout the landscape, create an interior-exterior relationship, and provide seasonal interests.

Program Organization

Conceptual Design

Schematic Design

Design Development Parking

Entrance Plaza

Event Area Lounge Area Overflow Event Area

Sculpture Meadow

Not to Scale 17

Plant Selection The design incorporates many textures, colors, and forms that change throughout the year. The planting design creates a balance of blooming plants throughout the blooming seasons.

Radiating Plaza Colbert Hills is a public golf course located in Manhattan, Kansas. The plaza is located in-between the clubhouse, cart barn and two purposed lodges. The proposed design unifies the highly used space through radiating arcs of materials and plants creating fluidity and a seamless experience for its viewers. Another benefit of the design is managing stormwater on site through the use of bio-retention areas and raingardens which also influence circulation and define space.

Grading Plan

Earthwork Plan

Planting Plan

SECTION 1+11

F4 Section Sub Cut Area(s) sq.ft.

C1 C2 C3 C4 Total Sub Cut Area =ȈC1..C10 Adjusted for K Total Sub Cut Area =(ȈC1..C10)+(ȈK1..K10)

104.13 2,697.92 2,802.05

Sub Fill Area(s) sq.ft.

F1 F2 F3 F4 Total Sub Fill Area =ȈF1..F10

1+11 555.76 22.35 3.91 713.32

1,295.34

K (Cut in Fill Area)

K1 K2 K3 K4 Total K Area =ȈK1..K10

N/A

10.00 Section Vertical Exaggeration

Corrected Sub Cut Area sq.ft.

280.21

=Total Cut / Vert.Exag.

Sub Fill Volume for Sections

10.00

Corrected Sub Fill Area sq.ft.

1+11 1+61

129.53

=Total Cut / Vert.Exag.

Sub Cut Volume for Sections

1+11 1+61

2,802.05

Section Vertical Exaggeration

Corrected Sub Cut Areas sq.ft.

Average Sub Cut Area sq.ft. = (Sta1+Sta2) / 2

Corrected Sub Fill Areas sq.ft.

Average Sub Fill Area sq.ft. = (Sta1+Sta2) / 2

280.21 225.59

129.53 248.80

252.90

189.17

Distance Between Sections

50 Distance Between Sections

Sub Cut Volume cu.ft.

=Avg Cut Area * Dist.

12,644.75 Sub Fill Volume cu.ft.

9,458.43

Sub Cut Volume cu.yds. =Cut Volume / 27

468.32 Sub Fill Volume cu.yds. =Fill Volume / 27

350.31

SECTION 1+61

F2 Section Sub Cut Area(s) sq.ft.

C1 C2 C3 C4 Total Sub Cut Area =ȈC1..C10 Adjusted for K Total Sub Cut Area =(ȈC1..C10)+(ȈK1..K10)

Section Vertical Exaggeration Corrected Sub Cut Area sq.ft. =Total Cut / Vert.Exag.

N/A N/A

131.53 2,319.94

2,451.47

Sub Fill Area(s) sq.ft.

F1 F2 F3 F4 Total Sub Fill Area =ȈF1..F10

1+61 383.97 726.97 -

1,110.94

2,451.47 10.00 Section Vertical Exaggeration 245.15

Corrected Sub Fill Area sq.ft. =Total Cut / Vert.Exag.

10.00 111.09

K (Cut in Fill Area)

K1 K2 K3 K4 Total K Area =ȈK1..K10

N/A

Sub Cut Volume for Sections

1+61 2+11 Sub Fill Volume for Sections 1+61 2+11

Corrected Sub Cut Areas sq.ft.

Average Sub Cut Area sq.ft. = (Sta1+Sta2) / 2

Corrected Sub Fill Areas sq.ft.

Average Sub Fill Area sq.ft. = (Sta1+Sta2) / 2

245.15 225.59

111.09 248.80

235.37

179.95

Distance Between Sections

50 Distance Between Sections

Sub Cut Volume cu.ft.

=Avg Cut Area * Dist.

11,768.30 Sub Fill Volume cu.ft.

8,997.43

Sub Cut Volume cu.yds. =Cut Volume / 27

435.86 Sub Fill Volume cu.yds. =Fill Volume / 27

333.24

Not to Scale

Irrigation Plan

Lighting Plan

Layout & Dimensioning

Pergola

Detail Reference Plan

Deck Footing 20

Urban Design

Five of my semesters in college were designated to urban design. I worked on projects in Manhattan, St. Joseph, Chicago, and Orvieto. Many of these projects involved collaborating with government officials, business owners, and the general public. The above image is of a pedestrian bridge proposed for Chicago which I developed in my free time. 21

Planning for Rail Transit in the Chicago Area

Bodies of Water

CTA Stations

Legend

This study searches for suitable areas for new public rail transit stops based on existing development. However, future development around proposed transit stops must be anticipated to reduce harm to the environment. Future development can lead to increased impervious surfaces which can destroy wetlands. Suitable locations for new transit stops are sites with: high population density; a close proximity to development; locations on or near impervious surface; sites with non-steep slopes; and sites that are a protective distance from wetlands. This study proposes 24 rail transit stops to hopefully increase ridership and provide an alternative to vehicular transit.

Stops 0 Transit 1 s for ble Area Suita

Value

iction Restr Water 3.75

7.5

22.5

30 Miles

Metra Stations

Value High : 5.1

0 Low :

Legend Value

Distanc 0

ations CTA St e from

3.75

7.5

22.5

30 Miles

0 Stops 1 Transit 2 s for ble Area Suita

Slope

Value High : 5.1

0 Low :

Methodology

Legend

Stops 0 Transit 1 s for ble Area Suita

Value

Dista 0

ations tra St m Me nce fro 3.75

7.5

22.5

30 Miles

Value High : 5.1

0 Low :

(Excluded) (Excluded)

Wetlands Slope 0

3.75

7.5

22.5

30 Miles

Legend

Value

(Excluded) Land Cover ds Wetlan 0

3.75

7.5

22.5

30 Miles

(25%)

Legend

Value

(40%) Population Density Land 0

3.75

7.5

Cover 15

22.5

30 Miles

Legend

Impervious Surface

Value

(10%)

Legend Value

Density 0

3.75

7.5

22.5

30 Miles

(15%)

(10%) rface ous Su Impervi

3.75

7.5

22.5

30 Miles

Legend Value

Heights ! (

! (

Marengo

Cherry Valley

! !

Island Lake

! !

Lake Michigan

! Waukegan ! Libertyville ! ! ! ! Highwood ! ! ! Marengo ! ! ! Carol Stream Cherry ! ! ! ! Lakewood !! ! urn Valley ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Inverness ! Highwood ! Gilberts ! Antioch ! ! Horatic ! ! ! ! ! Genoa ! ! !Wilmette ! ! ! Gardens ! Mooseheart Spring ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Grove ! Evanston ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Inverness !! ! ! Gilberts !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Genoa ! ! !Wilmette !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! De Kalb ! !! !!!!!!! ! !! ! Island ! ! Medinan ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! Evanston Lake ! Libertyville ! ! ! ! ! ( ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! Oswego ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! Carol Stream ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ( ano ! ! ( ! ! Elburn !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! Marengo ! ! !!! ( ! ! ! ! ! !! ( ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !! De Kalb ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Lemont !! ! ( !!!! ! MedinanCherry ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! Lakewood !! !! Yorkville !!! ! !!! !!! Valley !!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! Mooseheart ! ( ! ( ! !!! ! !! !!! ! !! Carol Stream ! !! ! !!! ! !!! ! ( Horatic !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! Elburn ! ! !! ! ! ( Gardens ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ( !! ! ! Calumet City ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Lockport ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ( !! ! !!! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ( ! Homewood ! ! ( ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mooseheart ! Inverness ! ( ! !! !! Gilberts ! !!!! ! ! ( ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! Genoa ! !! ! Oswego ( ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! Plano ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! ! Lemont ! ( ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! Yorkville ! ! !! ! ! Minooka ! ! ( Sandwich ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Richton ! Oswego Ryan Albracht ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ( Plano Calumet City ! ! ! ! Antioch ! De Kalb Park Medinan ! ! ! Lockport ! ! ! ! Lemont ! Channahon !!!!!! Spring ! ! ! Zion! Harvard !! ( ! ! ! Homewood ! ! Yorkville Grove Manhattan ! ! ! Carol Stream ! Sandwich ! ! ! Earlville ! ! ! ! ( ! ! ! Morris Elburn ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Island ! ! Calumet City Waukegan ! ! ! Lake ! Libertyville ! ! Belvidere ! Lockport ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Lake Minooka Mooseheart ! ! ! ! Homewood Marengo ! ! Richton Michigan Cherry ! ! Wilmington Earlville ! ! Lakewood ! Valley !Park ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Highwood ! ! ! ! Horatic Channahon ! ! ! ! Gardens ! Braidwood ! Manhattan ! ! ! ! ! !

Medinan

Lakewood

Belvidere

Lake Proposed Metra Stations Michigan

Horatic ! Gardens !

The suitability analysis was used to plan where future rail transit Chicago should go in the Chicago area. In addition to the suitability analysis LaGrange other dilemmas were taken into account. These dilemmas were how to not promote urban sprawl and how will suitable areas connect to Naperville the existing rail system. From a regional scale 24 Metra stops were Aurora proposed. The next step should be to look at the site specific scale where the tracks and stations should go.

Arlington Heights

Harvard

Zion

! (

Arlington Belvidere Heights

Waukegan

Lake Michigan

Chicago

LaGrange

Plainﬁeld

ILLINOIS

SuitabilityJoliet Analysis

Chicago

Naperville

Aurora

GlenwoodILLINOIS

LaGrange

Wilmette

Arlington Heights

Naperville

Aurora

Highwood

Evanston

Plainﬁeld

Joliet

Plainﬁeld

Joliet

! (

Inverness !

Genoa

La Salle

! ! Gilberts ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Wilmette ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Evanston ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! Medinan ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! Carol Stream ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! Mooseheart !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! Oswego ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! Lemont ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Arlington Heights

De Kalb

Kankakee

! (

Elburn

Minooka

Morris

Marseilles

La Salle

Morris Braidwood

Marseilles

ty Analysis

Plano

Sandwich

Yorkville

Lostant

Naperville

Aurora

Plainﬁeld

Joliet

! !

Channahon

La Salle

30 Marseilles Miles

! ! ! !

Morris

Suitability Analysis

MetraStations

CTA_Stations

3.75 7.5

Kankakee

High : 5.1

3.75 7.5

Legend !

MetraStations

CTA_Stations

Suitable Areas for Transit Stops Value

22.5

Low : 0

! (

! ( Lemont

! (

Plainﬁ! (eld ! (

Calumet City ! ( Homewood ! ( ! (

Lockport

! (

Joliet

Kankakee

30 Miles 22.5

! ( Channahon

Kankakee

Legend La Salle

Suitability Analysis

Value

Wilmington

! (

Wilmington Earlville

Glenwood

30 Miles

Morris

Richton Park Manhattan

Legend CTA_Stations

Wilmington Braidwood

! Suitable Areas for Transit Stops MetraStations

Value

Lostant

! (

Marseilles ! MetraStations !

Suitable Areas for Transit Stops

Manhattan

Braidwood

Lostant

! ( ! (

! (

Yorkville ! (

ProposedTransitStops

Suitability Analysis

Glenwood

Manhattan Sandwich

Naperville

Richton Oswego Park ! (

Minooka

ProposedTransitStops_Buffer

Richton Park

Plano

newrail

! ! ! Homewood !

Minooka

22.5

! ! !

! ( Lostant !

Calumet City

Lockport

Earlville

Braidwood

Legend

Glenwood Aurora

Chicago

LaGrange

ILLINOIS

Channahon Wilmington

Chicago

LaGrange

ILLINOIS

Glenwood

High : 5.1

! (

CTA_Stations

Suitable Areas for Transit Stops

Low : 0 Value

! (

Kankakee

High : 5.1 Low : 0

Suitability Analysis

Legend

24ProposedT

! (

newrail

ProposedT !

MetraStati

The Common Ground

Transition into Alleyway Jules Street

A new vision for Downtown St. Joseph, MO involves creating an active engaging space in the existing alleyways. Collaboration with local residents about architectural styles and public wants helped steer this new vision.

New Mixed-use Building Green Roof Plaza Fountain

New Mixed-use Building

Utility Veil for Pedestrians

Francis Street

Canopy Veil

Site Context 6th Street

5th Street

Outdoor Cafe

Felix Street

Alleyway Cafe Pedestrian Alleyway

Office: 84,500 sq ft 25%

Retail: 90,250 sq ft 26%

Residential 94,625 sq ft 28%

Bike Staging Amphitheater Restaurants: 72,150 sq ft 21%

New Mixed-use Building Green Roof Edmond Street

Not to Scale

Southern Civic Space This design proposal responds to the need for civic space and residential housing in Downtown St. Joseph. The plan calls for two new civic spaces connected by a pedestrian alleyway that would be highly active and serve as a catalyst for downtown redevelopment.

Beginning With Bluemont

KSU Campus

The goal of this project was to My group’s design proposal update the business district of consisted of new mixed-use Aggieville located in Manhattan, buildings with internal parking Kansas. The first step I took garages. These buildings were was to do a series of mapping proposed in suitable locations exercises to address dilemmas. based on historical meaning, As a class we produced over property costs, and building 150 maps. We then split into square footage. three person teams to form design proposals. Little Surface Stormwater Enters Aggieville From Adjacent Areas

Triangle Park

Wildcat Plaza

City Park

Classification

The Downtown East/Downtown West watershed breakline bisects Aggieville so water drains away from the district

W3_RA01_10,000|300_Watersheds.PDF

Impermeable surfaces lead to stormwater runoff

Bluemont Avenue

Moro Street

Anderson Avenue Moro Street

Laramie Street 14th Street

15th Street

14th Street

Laramie Street

Fremont Street

Fremont Street So u rc e : E s ri , Di g i ta l G l o b e , G e o Ey e , i -c u b e d , US DA , U SG S, A EX , G e tm a p p i n g , Ae ro g ri d , IG N, IG P, s w i s sto p o , a n d th e G IS U s e r C o m m u n i ty

Watershed Divide

Kansas River

The ridge line between City Park Downtown East and Downtown West watersheds divides the runoff in Aggieville. GIS was used to analyze watersheds.

Figure 02: Aggieville Watershed Source: Riley County GIS. Stormwater Management Master Plan- Existing System Performance N

Inquiry: What is the drainage pattern in Aggieville and the larger Manhattan area? Key Extractions: Hillshade, Elevation, Slope, Rivers, Creeks, Bodies of water, floodplains, Drain inlets, Storm Sewers, watershed breakline, runoff directions, Streets, and buildings. Methodology: The GIS layers’ hue, transparency, and contrast were adjusted in GIS and then exported to Adobe Indesign. The 1995 stormwater management master plan watershed was assembled in Adobe Photoshop and then traced in Adobe Illustrator. These layers were then put into Indesign and overlayed. Conclusions: Aggieville is divided by the Downtown West|Downtown East watershed breakline. The precipitation in Aggieville runs away from the center of Aggieville and is directed into storm sewers which eventually discharged into the Kansas River. The only external runoff potentially entering Aggieville is water running south along N. Manhattan Ave. 0

Inquiry: Where are impermeable surfaces located in Aggieville? How does it compare to its surrounding context? Key Extractions: Permeable surfaces, impermeable surfaces, and an aerial image. Methodology: Location of permeable surfaces was done during site vists on a printed aerial map. This data was put into GIS and percentage calculations of permeable and impermeable surfaces were done. Conclusions: Aggieville has a drastically higher percentage of impermeable surfaces vs permeable surfaces. Aggieville’s context including residential housing, City Park, and the KSU campus have a lower percentage of impermeable surface.

11th Street

Figure 01: Manhattan Watershed Source: Riley County GIS. 1995 Stormwater Management Master Plan- Existing System Performance

Impervious Surfaces

Figure: Impermeable Surfaces Source: Riley County GIS. Site Visit: Albracht, Ryan.

5,000

10,000

20,000

Legend North watershed Stadium watershed Blue Hills watershed North View watershed Downtown East watershed Downtown West watershed Wildcat Southeast watershed Rolling Hills watershed Wildcat Southwest watershed Eureka Valley watershed

Virginia Nevada watershed Cico Park watershed Little Kitten Creek watershed Buildings Floodplain Creek River Location Reference Aggieville Roads

15,000

30,000

60,000

Drain Inlets Storm Sewers Watershed Breakline Runoff Direction

Aggieville is only composed of 9% permeable surfaces. The other 91% is channeling stormwater into storm inlets where it eventually discharges into the Kansas River.

10th Street

Laramie Street

Downtown West Discharge

12th Street

Aggieville

ine akl Bre

Anderson Ave.

Manhattan Ave.

Big Blue River Downtown East Discharge

Vattier Street

11th Street

Bluemont Ave. Wa ter she d

12th Street

Manhattan Avenue

Wildcat Plaza

Not to Scale

Impermeable Surfaces Dominate Aggieville W2_RA01_300_ImpermeableSurface.PDF

Tuttle Creek

Triangle Park Existing Triangle Park is enlarged and retrofitted to provide for more programs such as concerts. A landmark is introduced to mark the entrance to Aggieville. Wildcat Plaza and Triangle Park would be part of a larger greenway system that connects City Park to KSU.

A classmate and I created a video of all of my studioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work for this project which can be seen by clicking here.

Potential Collection of Stormwater

Strategy

Infiltrating stormwater and or slowing down peak runoff times to reduce pollution. Dilemma

Most Downspouts Drain onto Impermeable Surfaces

W2_RA03_200_WaterCollection.PDF

Stormwater runoff carries contaminates into piped stormwater system

W2_RA02_200_Downspouts.PDF

10th Street

11th Street

12th Street

Manhattan Avenue

10th Street

11th Street

12th Street

Manhattan Avenue

Bluemont Avenue

Anderson Avenue

Moro Street

Laramie Street

Laramie Street 14th Street

15th Street

14th Street

15th Street

Sourc S our c e e:: E ssriri , D Digit ig it a alG lG llobe, obe, G Ge eo oEye, Ey e , i --c cu ubed, bed, U USDA SD A , U US SG GS S, A AE EX, G Get et m mapp a p p iing, ng, A Ae e rrog o g rrii d d,, IIG GN N,, IIG GP P,, ssw w iis s sstt o opo, po, a and nd t h he e G IIS SU Us se err C Comm o mm u unit n it y

Sourc S o u r c e: e : E ssriri , D Digit ig it alG a lG lobe, lo b e , Ge Ge oEye, o Ey e , i -c -c ubed, ubed, U USDA SD A , US U S GS GS , AE AE X , G Get et m mapp a p p iing, ng, A Ae e rog ro g riri d, d , IG IG N, N , IIG GP P,, ssw w iis s sstt o opo, po, a and nd t h he e G IIS SU Us se err C Comm o mm u unit n it y

Figure: Downspouts Source: Riley County GIS. Site Visit: Albracht, Ryan & Krehbiel, Beth.

Figure: Water Collection Source: Riley County GIS. Site Visit: Albracht, RyanN & Krehbiel, Beth.

Downspout Inventory

nquiry: Where is the source of high intensity stormwater flows? Key Extractions: Drains, permeable surfaces, impermeable surfaces, building footprints, and an aerial image. Methodology: Through site visits, downspouts were located in Aggieville. That data was then put into Illustrator. Next, the downspout runoff was analyzed whether it flowed onto permeable or impermeable surfaces. This data was overlayed in InDesign on previous field research of permeable and impermeable surfaces, which was created in GIS. Conclusions: High intensity flows are primarily flowing onto impermeable surfaces. Of the sparse permeable surface in Aggieville, there are no permeable areas that collect surface runoff. This lack of good stormwater management practices causes stormwater runoff, and washes contaminants into storm sewers. This contaminated water eventually drains into the Kansas River.

Stormwater Treatment

100

200

Most downspouts in Aggieville do not go to permeable surfaces.

100

200

400

Inquiry: How can pollution be reduced in the Kansas River? Legend Key Extractions: Drains, permeable surfaces, impermeable surfaces, building footprints, an aerial image, current areas with minimal runoff, potential Permeable Surface areas for capturing stormwater, and potential stormwater collection areas. Impermeable Surface Methodology: Through site visits, downspouts were located in Aggieville and then documented in Adobe Illustrator. Next, the downspout runoff was Downspouts ontoThis Permeable analyzed whether it flowed onto permeable or impermeable surfaces. data wasSurface overlayed in InDesign on previous field research of permeable Surface slope and drainage direction. This helped to determine and impermeable surfaces, which was created in GIS.Downspouts Lastly, a siteonto visit Impermeable was done to examine Area of Aggieville where potential stormwater collection areas could be located. Footprints Conclusions: If stormwater was collected in AggievilleBuilding before entering into storm sewers, there would not be as much contaminated water entering

As a solution for the stormwater runoff dilemma, the alleyways in Aggieville can be used to collect water or be used to infiltrate water at the source.

into the Kansas River. In order to reduce pollution, the alleyways in Aggieville could serve the function of collecting stormwater. Curbs cuts should be installed adjacent to peremable surfaces to collect stormwater runoff from streets and alleyways. If alley water is collected through these strategies, the only runoff directed off site would be street water.

Legend Potential areas for capturing stormwater Potential stormwater collection areas Current areas with minimal runoff Permeable Surface Impermeable Surface Drains flow onto Permeable Surface Drains flow onto Impermeable Surface Area of Aggieville Building footprints

UCR District The City of Manhattan, Kansas consulted me to produce visuals that they could use to help adopt their new Urban Cored Residential (UCR) District design standards and attract developers. To do this I created a hypothetical masterplan in ESRI CityEngine and modeled how it could be phased in. In this project I learned CityEngineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s procedural modeling and metric capabilities. The end products included a CityEngine Web Scene and a Unity game.

Short-term Development Mid-term Development

Long-term Development

Computer generated architecture (CGA) rules allow designers to create time effective models for large environments. The rules include parameters which can be easily edited to revise buildings or streets in a matter of seconds. For more information on this project you can download my masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s report by clicking here.

Metrics

Screen Shot of CityEngine Viewport

CityEngine Web Scene

Unity Game

Ryan Albracht 4223 N. 125th St. Kansas City, KS 66109 (913) 940-2077 ryan12@k-state.edu