Spring 2024 - ARCH 517 - Collaborative Revitalization Studio

ARCH 517 COLLABORATIVE REVITALIZATION STUDIO SPRING 2024 Sacred Spaces--Preserved, Adapted, Added Onto Rather Than Abandoned Julia Bernert, Adjunct Faculty - John Tschirch, Adjunct Faculty Stephen White, Dean and Professor of Architecture

ASSIGNMENT 1: IDENTIFY SACRED CHARACTER For our semester’s investigation into the preservation and adaption of sacred spaces, we begin with two short exercises to investigate, document and discuss existing historic spaces whose function has been to join users to the divine.

How can one sensitively adapt a space that is eternal, perfect and fixed?

Trinity Kendrick ARCH.517

Seamen’s Church Institute of Newport 18 Market Square, Newport, RI Built: 1930 Designer: Frederic Rhinelander King

Site Located on the south side of market square in Newport’s historic waterfront, the Seamen’s Institute was once situated in the middle of a bustling and dense commercial district. However, urban removal in the 1960s caused the loss of many of these surrounding buildings, and now the Institute is much more prominent in the landscape due to the lack of density. It occupies nearly all of its lot although there is a small walled garden directly to its east. On the south side of the building is a variety of shops and restaurants in Bowen’s Wharf, some even directly connected to the building.

Timeline Site in 1896

Site circa 1910s/20s, exact date unknown

Seamen’s Church is built 1953

2024

Site in 1921

As is visible in the timeline, the landscape around the Church has changed over the years with the building itself as a sort of anchor.

However, in recent years since urban renewal changed the landscape and added the four lane highway, or America’s Cup Avenue, alongside the wharf, there has been a revitalization in terms of businesses and activity in the area.

Historical Context The Seamen’s building is part of the larger Colonial Revival movement in 1920s and 1930s America, and specifically the more formal aspect of a Georgian Revival. Within Newport, the style was equally pervasive. A very similar architectural precedent of the Seamen’s Church is the Newport YMCA (now the Newport Vanderbilt Hall Hotel) on Mary Street, built 1908-1910.

The Church is also not the only one of its kind, as there are other Institutes in the US including New York and Philadelphia, but there is no consistent architectural style for the buildings.

Site at unknown date, post 1930 (HABS)

The Seamen’s Bethel New Bedford, MA (built 1832)

YMCA Building in Newport Built 1908-1910

First Floor

Cafe

Administrative Offices

Mariner’s Lounge Administrative Offices

Second Floor

Chapel of the Sea Office

Henry H. Anderson Maritime Library

Discovery Deck Exhibit

Architectural Description The Church is a brick, 2-story Georgian Revival structure with a slate-clad gambrel roof and parapetted end walls ending in paired chimney stacks. String courses, gauged brick window arches, and a molded water table elaborate the Institute’s Flemish bond brickwork. The east and south elevations, originally obscured by adjacent buildings, are somewhat irregular and are not fully articulated, but the always “public” west elevation and the north-facing entrance front are symmetrical and fully elaborated. Nine bays long and four wide, the building measures roughly ninety by thirty feet. The nine gabled dormers of the north front contain windows hung with 6/6 sash. Below a modillion cornice the segmental-head first- and second-story windows of this elevation have caststone lug sills and 9/9 sash. Twin twelve-light oculi flank a central entrance. Its cast- stone architrave bears a broken segmental pediment framing a draped urn and pine cone.

The plate-glass entrance doors and transom replace the 1930 paneled doors and fan-pattern transom.

Character Defining Features North elevation

West elevation

Dormer windows Parapeted end walls with paired chimney stacks 12:12 sash windows

White trim and dentils

Regular openings on facade

Oculi/port style windows

Draped urn/pine cone detail

Stone architrave with broken segmental pediment

Golden-lettered signage

Flemish bond brickwork and red brick material

Attached garden

The Chapel by the Sea Off the first floor central hall, a staircase leads up to the second floor into a small hallway. This passage leads into the chapel, the whole sequence somewhat unremarkable until you enter in. The space is intimate and rectangular, with frescoed walls and ceiling and a floor covered with handmade glazed tiles incised with sea shells, coral, seaweed, and a compass. Above marbleized wainscot murals portray a host of saints, all associated with the sea. A number of these figures bear the likeness of well known Newporters. Fictivecloth-of-gold drapery cast in plaster embellishes the altar niche and frontal. Pierced Work screens cover the chapel windows and the door is paneled in chevron-pattern marquetry. A back-lit, block letter inscription from Psalm 107 which begins “They that go down to the sea in ships…” forms the room's cornice. Benches line two sides of the room with nautical themed cushions depicting seashells and ships.

“The Chapel is thought of as quai-side, looking out upon the Seven Seas of the world.”

Sacred Character

While the Seamen’s Church was founded as an Episcopalian institution and does contain a chapel, it is not a religious institution in the traditional sense and there is no clear lived religion. I would argue, however, that there is a clear culture expressed throughout the architectural character of the building, one of the maritime clientele. It permeates every detail, from the port windows to the anchor symbols. The size and intimacy of its chapel encourages private worship or reflection, and could be used regardless of religious affiliation. The boxy and nondescript shape doesn’t reference any particular historical religious spaces.

Aside from the chapel, the rest of the building is for secular use. However, there are still clear architectural details in the chapel that connect to its Christian roots, such as the inscription from Psalm 107, the Bible near the altar, and the depictions of saints on the walls.

They that go down to The Sea in ships, and occupy their business in great waters; These men see the works of The Lord and His wonders in the deep.

For He maketh the storms to cease so that the waves therof are still.

Then are they glad because they are at rest, and so he bringeth them unto their desired haven.

Psalsm 107

Bibliography Historic American Buildings Survey, Creator. Robert Stevens Warehouse, Bowen's Wharf, Newport, Newport County, RI. Newport Newport County Rhode Island, 1933. Documentation Compiled After. Photograph. https://www.loc.gov/item/ri0038/.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Newport, Newport County, Rhode Island. Sanborn Map Company, Jul, 1896. Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/sanborn08092_003/.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Newport, Newport County, Rhode Island. Sanborn Map Company, 1921. Map. https:// www.loc.gov/item/sanborn08092_005/.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Newport, Newport County, Rhode Island. Sanborn Map Company, - Aug 1950, 1950.

Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/sanborn08092_006/.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Newport, Newport County, Rhode Island. Sanborn Map Company, ; Republished 1953, 1953. Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/sanborn08092_007/.

Seamen’s Church Institute. n.d. Seamen’s Church Institute - Newport | Serving Our Maritime Community. Accessed January 29, 2024. https://seamensnewport.org/.

ASSIGNMENT 2: SACRED SPACE: ANALYSIS + DIAGRAMS Original Diagrams: A minimum of twelve are expected. At least one diagram must be made in plan view, at least one in section or elevation view and at least one in three dimensions.

1 Site and Context / 2 Orientation and Approach / 3 Entrance / 4 Circulation / 5 Structure / 6 Symmetry/Asymmetry / 7 Balance / 8 Massing / 9 Order/Parti/Hierarchy / 10 Axis / 11 Geometry / 12 Alignments / 13 Datum / 14 Plan to Section / 15 Repetitive to Unique / 16 Volume / 17 Proportion/ Regulating Lines / 18 Layering / 19 Public and Private / 20 Sacred/ Profane / 21 Emphasis/Anomaly / 22 Transformation / 23 Contrast / 24 Transparency / 25 Base/Middle/Top / 26 Unit to whole / 27 Materiality/Color/Texture / 28 Program Organization / 29 Composition and Hierarchy 3/ 0 Audience Relationship/Position / 31 Natural Lighting / 32 Community and Cultural Context

Great Friends Meeting House Rachel Borzone | ARCH 517.01 - A2: Sacred Space - Analysis and Diagrams

Newport, Rhode Island

Great Common

Civic and commercial heart of downtown Newport

Adjacent Buildings

As the Quakers were merchants and centrally located within the community, they often rented the grounds that they owned adjacent to the Meeting House to other businesses or as homes for people in the area

Queen Anne’s Square

Extension of the Great Common, was renamed Washington Square after the American Revolution

Quaker Point

Residential area developed by the Quakers around 1705, used a grid system with numbers and streets named after trees

Community Context

Strong connection to Newport and its different regions/neighborhoods

1

2

3

1699 - Original Meeting House

1729 - Extension of North Meeting Room

1807 - Extension of South Meeting Room

4

5

6

1857 - Greek Revival Extension on West Facade

Transformation

Additions and expansions over time with the increase in visitors to the Meeting House

1867 - Expansion of South Meeting Room

Today - After 1967 Restoration

Wooden Roof Framing

Horizontal Timber Framing with Ceilings in North and South Meeting Rooms

Vertical Timber Framing

Structure

Post and beam timber framing structure for each of the three units

and Balcony Level

Both Men & Women

Men

Women

Both Men & Women

Men

Women

The “Ship Room” Balcony

Second Floor

Second Floor

Little Meeting

First Floor

Seating for Meetings

Entry and organization of program based on the three units divided by gender

Great Meeting

Women’s Meeting

First Floor

Open Meeting Space

Circulation and Program

Balcony

Volume with Voids

Meeting Room as one volume with openings in the facades according to the activities and needs of the meeting inside

N

E

W

S

Sunlight from the West in the afternoon illuminating the pews where visitors sit

Orientation and Natural Light

Building angled towards the Northwest, allowing for sunlight to enter the building in multiple directions throughout the day

Sunlight from the East in the morning illuminating the center of the Meeting Room where visitors are facing

A

B

Second Floor

Section AA

First Floor Open Meeting Space Visitor Viewing Space

Hierarchy of Visitors

The connection and site lines of the visitors to the open meeting rooms is seen in the spatial organization of the building and location of the balconies and pews for visitors to sit in

Section BB

A

B

Alignment

Openings in each facade align with the program and organization of the meeting rooms inside

West Elevation

South Elevation

Section AA

Section BB

Proportions and Repetition of Geometry

The pitch of the roof and awnings are the same angle, and each of the six different windows form proportional rectangles based on the standard window pane sizes used in the building

ASSIGNMENT 3: SACRED SPACE: ADAPTATION + ADDITION Working in teams of two, propose an addition and/or modification to one of the 7 historic sacred spaces listed below that studio members have previously documented and diagrammed. You are requested to add a ground level room, upper-level room, and any related architectural and landscape elements that are part of your conception. Provide documentation through elevation and plan drawings. You may choose to provide additional details that clarify the relationship between the historic host building and your proposed intervention.

FOLLOWED BY 1 LONG DURATION PROJECT AT 4 SITES

Structure Current Circulation

Proposed Circulation

Proportion (Plan)

Proportion (Front Elevation)

Diagrams

Proportion (Side Elevation)

Assignment 3: Sacred Space; Adaptation and Addition ARCH.517 Collaborative Revitalization Studio Austin Jarvis and Trinity Kendrick

Architectural Description

12/12 Windows

Triangular Pediment

Façade Elements

The southwest elevation is thirteen bays across, and is made up of three sections, all the same white clapboard siding and brown shingle roof: the original 1699 central section made up of five bays, the 1729 extension to the northwest (which is of a slightly smaller volume and three bays across), and the 1807 extension to the southeast (which is of roughly the same volume as the original and is also five bays). The Meeting House reflects the Quaker beliefs of the people who built it, with its simple, minimally ornamented design. It is a very practical and sparse building, with its main architectural features being its small 16:16 sash windows, triangular pediment over the doorways, pitched gabled roof, post and beam timber framing, white clapboard siding and green doors. Its simplicity in itself is its main character defining feature, representing the Quaker plain style of living and aversion to “distracting” architectural ornamentation.

ad wa y

Bro

lvd

and B

eatl

s Wh

arcu

St

Dr M

d ar w Ed

St well Fare

Marl t S h g borou

Proposal Our design for the Welcome Center aims to create an improved circulation for the Great Friends Meeting House.

Currently when someone parks in the lot on the northeast elevation, they must walk around to either the northwest or southeast side to enter the building. With this addition, the entrance would be on the same side as the parking.

We chose to locate the center on the northeast side as well so it would not stand out or be obstructive to the sides of the building most visible from the street. By locating it here, the addition will not affect the linearity of the main facade.

We also chose to connect the addition to the original by way of a glass walkway, so as to create the least damage possible to the historic fabric and avoid having to remove any windows. Besides minimizing the size of the parking lot and adding a walkway to the southeast elevation, the landscape remains relatively unchanged.

The addition itself takes subtle visual cues from the original building; the cladding is similar in style and color to the wooden clapboards, but is differentiated by a slightly different color and vertical orientation. The roof is oriented opposite to create a cross-gable effect. The front/northeast side of the addition is glazed and the geometry mimics the triangular pediments of the historic facade. It also takes cues from the simplicity and austerity of the original building with its minimal openings. While the size and massing is similar to the northwest extension, the addition is differentiated by its modern design, perpendicular orientation, glass connector and materiality.

ASSIGNMENT 4: Site + Mass + Scale + Program, March 1-April 12 Goals / Objectives To understand process of documenting existing conditions and character defining features for historic sites.

To recognize and respond to complex conditions of history, site and context.

To use historical research, analysis and diagramming in concert with architectural design tools.

To facilitate the ability to coordinate work for production by a team.

Working in teams, create a comprehensive reuse proposal for one of several historic sacred spaces. Over the course of the project, the team will produce and compile all the necessary information included in a typical application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to the pertinent local historical commission.

SAINT TERESA OF AVILA Analysis & Documentation 271 Manton Ave Providence, RI

Austin Jarvis - Ryan DeSanctis - John Rutecki ARCH.517 - March 22nd, 2024

CONTEXT & SETTING

Olneyville, 1908 Olneyville - 1908

Working-Class Olneyville

Earliest available records reveal that Olneyville began as a homestead farm owned by Christopher Olney in the late 18th century.

Olney operated two small-scale mills powered by the Woonasquatucket River, foreshadowing later development. 19th century Industrialization and waves of Irish immigrants during 1840’s famine brought on the present landscape of Large factory complexes and worker housing. In the 1950s, an expressway isolated the neighborhood from West-Side Providence. Riverside Park has replaced bygone factories.

Atlantic Mills

Olneyville Expressway (plan, 1949)

Riverside Park

SITE & LOT

Residential Density A narrow lot in a densely built neighborhood offered space for a long, narrow church.

The vacant northeast section(below) was privately owned during original construction, but has since become part of the total property. The site is bordered by streets and closely packed multi-unit housing.

Original 1883 Building

MASSING & STRUCTURE

Conjectures of a “Venerable Edifice”

William Walker and Sons designed the first incarnation of the church, built in 1883. It was entirely wood wood construction and vaguely Gothic in style and massing, though the architect of its later renovation described it as “not belonging to any of the recognized styles” and “erected during an unfortunate period of American architecture,” though also considered the “venerable edifice,” to be worthy of improvements.

The original building (red outline) still determines the overall massing at present, with the exception of rear additions (green outline).

The facade, piano nobile, and asymmetrical tower continue to define the church. Two internal colonnades separating aisles from nave support the roof, and are reflected in inter-fenestral pilasters on side elevations.

FACADE & TOWER Wrapped in Renaissance

Catholic Churches were typically designed according the architectural heritage of their parish.

Irish immigration yielded to Italian; in 1930, Ambrose J. Murphy was charged with improving St Teresa’s circulation and fire-safety. He began renovations so that “The entire church will be brought up to the best traditions of Catholic Art.” The Italian renaissance restyling is expressed through superficial detail over extant forms, and reflects a the change in local Catholic taste toward classical Italian forms circa 1900.

Parish and Bishop’s Coats of Arms

MATERIALS

Enveloped in Modern Masonry The present church is defined by its common-bond brick veneer, 1930s slate roof, and liberal use of cast-stone in both details and as cladding for the foundation. The flat, likely sealed brick veneer is least expressive of the building's character. The slate roof is rarely visible but in good repair. The cast stone, however, is the essential defining feature of the church: its innate plasticity allowed for the intricate details of composite capitals at portico columns and pilasters on all but the rear elevation.

This cast stone appears to have been a deliberate facsimile of granite; the juxtaposition of the actual granite cornerstone to its surroundings(red outline) shows it to be an uncanny imitation, though hardly indetectable.

OPENINGS

Vestiges & Outlines Windows and doors were once thoughtfully designed in stained glass and bronze. At present, they are all broken, boarded up, or hastily sealed in plastic sheeting. Nonetheless, the housing of these openings is maintained.

The dromers are a particular and impractical oddity, but the simple arch and keystone frames of maine-elevation windows offer a canvas for inventive design. The facade’s rosette window offers the same amplified. Other small novelty windows appear, like a miniature rosette in a northwest gable(red outline).

Vestigial dormers Arches Basement

INTERIOR

Figural Symbolism The Interior of the church is defined by its 1930s renovation. The vestibule harbors a chir gallery above, and is separated from the nave by an “ornamental screen.” Ten corinthian columns and two pilasters are decorated in the imposts above with symbology of the 12 apostles, and support a plaster barrel-vaulted internal ceiling interspersed with clerestory windows dimly lit through external dormers. The structure of the ceiling nonetheless becomes a defining feature and a platform of reimagination.

Brackets connect each column to flat aisle ceilings, which are wrapped into clever historicist – if not quite historical – allusions to renaissance sculptural decoration. These flat ceilings draw from the the arched vault to create the impression of an colonnaded arcade.

Foundling Hospital, Brunelleschi - 1419

PRESENT CONDITIONS Deconsecration & Community

The church edifice was deconsecrated in 2009 due to the prohibitive cost of repairs. It’s members, however, continued to see and use it as a center of connection. The current community, predominantly hispanic and a harbor for undocumented immigrants, is active and organized to advocate for rights and fair improvements. Olneyville has seen some altruistic investment in new housing on abandoned lots, a food pantry adjacent to the defunct church, and a renovated public library. Any proposed design must consider these inhabitants.

Olneyville Library

Community Activist Juan Garcia

Olneyville Food Pantry

New Housing, Manton Ave.

ZONING &

DEMOGRAPHICS Half & Half

The extant church edifice is zone as R-3 in alignment with its surrounding area, while the rear northeast lot is zoned as C-2. The distinctions between these zones are mostly immaterial for our gestationally proposed program, but both are constrained to a 40 ft height limit.

Olneyville is currently Providence’s poorest neighborhood according to US Census data, and is a USDA Low Income, Low Access Tract. Car ownership sits at ca. 40%, and indicates the importance of local, walkable access to spaces within this community.. Despite efforts to add housing units, the area still suffers from a relative lack of new construction.

PROPOSAL & PROGRAM Community, Charity, Cultivation

The present site is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places nor as part of an encompassing district, but our Proposal seeks to recognize its historic and current cultural significance. The church and its adjacent vacant lot will become a public community gathering and recreation facility, an activity center for children and students of the William D’Abate Elementary school, and a community gardening oasis.

Until recently, Olneyville residents used the church as a space for organizing collective action and assistance for its substantial immigrant population, and the building reflects the neighborhood’s long-standing association with local and national immigration patterns over time. The current nave will become a gathering place for continued activities in the same spirit, flexible and adaptable for gatherings, public speaking, civic meetings, celebrations, and more mundane recreational activities. The aisles will support the more public hall as glass-partitioned enclosures, offering space for quiet contemplation ona day-to-day basis. Access will resume through the present maine entrance of the front facade, in addition to a rear doors flanking a platform stage in lieu of the altar and leading to a central Information and public-facing, central administrative building

The Information center will connect to the present church by a glass enclosure wrapping around its east and south elevations. This enclosure will inspire a feeling of “campus,” connecting also to a new addition housing youth activity spaces. It will terminate at a bicycle rack along the south elevation of the church. The lower floor of the addition is contiguously connected to the existing basement, which will house a youth computer lab and related office space. The youth center’s main entry will be downard flight of steps inset at the center of the existing front steps at the present facade.

The community garden will consist of raised beds and seating areas, and will be adaptable for changeable layouts and a mixture of vegetable and ornamental horticulture as the community sees fit. The Greenhouse will follow this model for indoor growing. Equipment storage will be provided for shared and personal items for both facilities.

The greenhouse complex will contain a kitchen designed for community use, and an adjacent dining area within the transparent greenhouse enclosure.

REFERENCES McGowan, Lewis and Daniel Brown. Images of America: Providence. (2006.) p. 61 National Register Nomination https://preservation.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur406/files/2022-05/prov_mps_roman-catholic-church-complexes.pdf Olneyville Expressway https://bridges.rwu.edu/access/content/group/468086c2-9b04-4bf6-a5e2-fb54d2f0c9c5/07_saint%20teresa_s%20additional%20resour ces/The_Olneyville_Expressway_1949.pdf Providence Preservation Soicety https://www.rihs.org/mssinv/MSS1110.htm#scopecontent PPS https://guide.ppsri.org/property/st-teresa-of-avila-church#:~:text=The%20red%20brick%20St.,due%20to%20a%20 RIHPC https://preservation.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur406/files/pdfs_zips_downloads/survey_pdfs/prov_westside.pdf The Public’s Radio, Mosaic https://explore.thepublicsradio.org/stories/juan-garcia-part-ii-the-birth-of-an-organizer/ USDA https://www.policymap.com/newmaps#/

IMAGE SOURCES https://artinruins.com/property/atlantic-mills/#gallery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ospedale_degli_Innocenti https://dioceseofprovidence.org/documents/2015/10/2008-09%20-%20-%20User%20Friendly.pdf. https://bridges.rwu.edu/access/content/group/468086c2-9b04-4bf6-a5e2-fb54d2f0c9c5/07_saint%20teresa_s%20additional%20resour ces/The_Olneyville_Expressway_1949.pdf https://provlibdigital.org/islandora/object/002-06_Atlas_1908_19 https://provlibdigital.org/islandora/object/VM011_03_02_218 https://guide.ppsri.org/property/st-teresa-of-avila-church#:~:text=The%20red%20brick%20St.,due%20to%20a%20 https://explore.thepublicsradio.org/stories/juan-garcia-part-ii-the-birth-of-an-organizer/ https://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Olneyville-Providence-RI.html

SAINT TERESA OF AVILA Site, Mass, Scale & Program 271 Manton Ave Providence, RI

Austin Jarvis - Ryan DeSanctis - John Rutecki ARCH.517 - March 22nd, 2024

Precedents

House N, Sou Fujimoto, Oita Japan, 2008

Fleet Library, NADAA, Providence RI, 2006

Watson Institute, Toshiko Mori, Providence RI, 2018

Idea Exchange, RDH, Cambridge Ontario, 2018

Mt Auburn Cemetery Chapel, William Rawn, Watertown MA, 2018

ABOVE: NYC Community Gardens

Garden

BELOW: Edinburgh Botanical

Existing Axon

Existing Axon

Existing Plan

Existing Side Elevation 1/16

Existing Section 1/16

Existing Front Elevation 1/16

Existing Section 1/16

Urban Plan Scaled to page

Program Programmatic Breakdown Community Center -

Public Space - Library - Flex Spaces - Outdoor Gathering

- Youth Space - Computer Lab - Activity Rooms - Separate Entry - Mixed - Greenhouse - Adjustable Gathering - Plaza - Kitchen - Community Rooms

Size

Spaces

- Existing - 7300 SF

-

- Addition - 5500 SF - Demolished - 120 SF

Basement - Youth Collection - Youth Labs - ADA Entry

- Main Floor - Flexible Library - Meeting/Reading Spaces - Information Center - Greenhouse - Garden - Kitchen - Addition - Offices - Workshop/Classrooms - Meeting

Saint Teresa of Avila - 271 Manton Ave.

Program

Community Center, School Activity Center, Community Gardens DESCRIPTION

QTY

FUNCTION

NOTES

SQ FT

COMMUNITY CENTER

3650

Entry

1 Main Point of Access

Lobby

1 Indoor/outdoor buffer

Main Hall

Dedicated space for Community Organizing, Civic Particiaption, 1 Recreation, and Miscellaneous Events

Enclosed Lounges

3 Quiet, semi-private space

Glass patritions set within colonnade-spans enclose aisle space

Platform/Stage

1 Oration & Focal Point for Display

Raised, open area at rear(east) of Main Hall

Bathrooms

2 Accessible from Main Hall

Coatroom

Seasonal Coat Check or self storage

Original entry up front stairs and main doors of front facade

Located adjacent to entry lobby

Gallery

1 Observation area

Accessible via tower stairs, above lobby

Auxiliary Egress Vestibule

1 Limited access to Garden Area

Adaptation of existing acess structure at northeast corner of church

Rear Entry

1 Access to Site Reception/Info Center

Attached by enclose glass corridor

SCHOOL ACTIVITY CENTER

5650

Main Entry

1 Separation from public community space

Downward Stair-flight inset within center of existing stairs

Side Entry

1 Enclosure to offer protected circulation and waiting space

Glass Enclosed Space Between Existing Church and New Addition

Lobby/Recption Office

2 Security and Check-In - Access Control

New Addition At SE corner of exisiting church

Activity Rooms

After-School programs and activities for William D'Abate Elementary

Computer Lab?

1

BASEMENT??? (Youth Labs?)

1

Offices

Administrative & Private Space

Storage Area(s?)

Actitivy equipment & materials

Bathrooms

2 Accessible to Basment and New Addition

MECHANICAL???

1

COMMUNITY GARDEN & GREENHOUSE

3500

Food and Ornamental Garden

1 Shared space for edible and ornamental horticulture

Outdoor area with raised garden beds and seating, positioned for maximal southern exposure.

Storage Shed

1 Garden Equipment

Shared equipment area and private lockers

Entry

1 Indoor/outdoor buffer vestibule

Greenhouse

1 Indoor Plant Cultivation

Two-stories with Transparent Glass envelope

1500(1300)

Kitchen

1 Shared food preparation space

Opaque Walls at North Corner of lot

1500(1300)

Dining Area

1 Enclosed space to service kitchen

Indoor plaza adjacent to kitchen and growing area with dedicated tables and chairs

Bathrooms

2 Accessible via kitchen area

Mechanical

1 HVAC and Lighting elements

Storage

1 Greenhouse Equipment

Shared equipment area and private lockers

Diagrams Scaled to page

Street Geometry

Axis

Mass/Proportio n/Layers

Demolished Existing New

Additional Diagrams Scaled to page

Proposed Basement Plan Scaled to page

Proposed First Floor Scaled to page

Proposed Roof Plan Scaled to page

Proposed Elevation Scaled to page

Proposed Section Scaled to page

Sketches Scaled to page

Moving Forward

After comments from Tuesdays crit, we are seeking to minimize the program to a singular youth center. Our addition strategy will be less destructive of the stairs yet still give appropriate access beyond ADA standards. As of proposals for the following Friday, as shown on the next pages, we consolidated the village like additions to the back to a more unified form. Service spaces were used below rather than the youth center so children can have adequate light. The youth center is now positioned behind the church, allowing space between the new and the old to show its expression as a different addition rather then part of the church. It is parallel to a protected outdoor area for children. Further on the site remains the greenhouse with landscaped gardens. As stated moving forward, the intention is for the site to be more unified as a space for children rather than mixing generations. Additions to the rear follow the line of the balustrade, continuing a language of the mass. More is to come to unite the new and the old on the site.

2nd Iteration Scaled to page

2nd Iteration Scaled to page

Existing Model Photos

Proposed Model Photos

ASSIGNMENT 5: Material + Detail, April 12-23, 2024 Building Development @ 1/8” = 1’-0” Exterior Elevations (include relevant/allowable heights, relation to adjacent buildings/context) Section(s)--Interior major space—current or former sacred space Diagrams and descriptions as appropriate to explain building elevation and interior major space, materials and detail Renderings +/- Model(s) Site views Interior rendering +/- model—beginnings, to be developed later in Presentation/Exhibition stage Detail mode(s)l if/where appropriate to your vision. Scale to be explored Selected Detail(s) @ 1” or 1-1/2”- 1’-0” (TBD by project)

LITTLE COMPTON COMMONS

ARCH 517 - Collaborative Revitalization Studio Rachel Borzone, Trinity Kendrick & Carlos Ferman

Affordable housing within the Little Compton Common Historic District The Little Compton Laneway Overlay District was specially created to create opportunities for new development in and around the Town Common that is sensitive to the existing rural character of Little Compton. The Overlay District encompasses both the existing Little Compton Common Historic District (recognized on the National Register of Historic Places), as well as the Little Compton Business (B) District, which includes light retail and office, government and institutional, and recreational uses.

Little Compton, along with the rest of Rhode Island, is currently experiencing a housing crisis. In particular, the town has identified a need for affordable housing; Little Compton is the municipality with the smallest percentage of affordable housing in the state, and most of the town is not zoned for multifamily or mixed-use buildings. This creates a unique opportunity in Little Compton to increase density while retaining the integrity of the town.

Commercial Storefronts

United Congregational Church of Little Compton

Little Compton Town Office

Willow Ave

The Overlay District will allow for a variety of new residential and commercial buildings, both single and multi-family, as well as the development of new laneways that mimic the character of the existing historic ones. The housing typologies developed and permitted within the Overlay District follow the historic character of the town, using existing buildings as the basis for new designs. By following the historic, landscape, and development conditions already established within the town, the proposed affordable housing units within the Overlay District limit the destruction of nature, utilize existing roadways for extensions of laneways, and consider the density of properties throughout Little Compton. These proposed properties and construction of housing addresses the pressing issue for affordable housing within the town while preserving Little Compton’s historic character.

s Rd

Simmon

mm

ons

s St

Common

Co

St

Commons St

use Ln

gho Meetin

ommons

S of the C Rd

SCALE 1/64” = 1’0” 0

LANEWAYS

PROPERTIES

Lanes leading from the main roads around The Commons to one or more residential properties

Current property divisions and organization surrounding The Commons

AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS Affordable Housing in The Commons Other Residential Properties

LANDSCAPE FEATURES Agricultural Fields Historic Burial Grounds Wetlands, Ponds & Protected Water Areas

50

100

200

400

HISTORIC & BUSINESS DISTRICTS 1974 Historic District Current Business Zoning

25’

25’

25’

30’

Property dimensions following the Little Compton Business District guidelines

4

5

3 1 3 1 2

2

SCALE 1/32” = 1’0” 0

4

50

100

200

5

Laneway 4

Laneway 2 SCALE 1/16” = 1’0”

0

10

20

50

Typologies A - Cottage 24’

COTTAGE

B - Front Gable Side Hall 24’

Footprint: 768 sqft - Central axis - Raised plate - 7/12 pitch - 10’ tall stories - 1 story

32’

SIDE HALL HOUSE PLAN

Footprint: 960 sqft - Side hall - 7/12 pitch - 10’ tall stories - 1 story

DINING

40’

- 1 unit - 768 sqft total - 2 bedrooms

BATHROOM

BEDROOM 2

Type 1 - 1 unit - 960 sqft total - 2 to 3 bedrooms Type 2 - 2 units side by side - 480 sqft total or 960 sqft with lofted second story + dormers - 1 to 2 bedrooms each

LIVING POWDER ROOM

LANEWAY

LANEWAY

ENTRY

BEDROOM 1

KITCHEN / DINING KITCHEN

FAMILY ROOM

UP

LIVING

C - Side Hall Colonial 36’

24’

LANEWAY

Footprint: 864 sqft - Central axis - Raised plate - 8/12 pitch - 9’ tall stories - 2 stories - 2 units stacked vertically - 864 sqft each - 2 to 3 bedrooms per unit

MEDIUM HOUSE

CAPE D - Cape

Footprint: 1,152 sqft - Central axis - 10/12 pitch - 10’ tall stories - 1 story

48’ KITCHEN

BEDROOM

KITCHEN

24’

BATHROOM

LANEWAY

Type 1 - 1 unit - 1,152 sqft total - 3 to 4 bedrooms Type 2 - 2 units side by side - 576 sqft total - 1 bedroom

LIVING/DINING

BEDROOM

BATHROOM SHARED ENTRY LIVING/DINING

BATHROOM

UP

BEDROOM

LIVING/DINING

KITCHEN

Roofing: Cedar Wood or Asphalt Shingles

BARN PLAN

Cladding: Wood Clapboard Shingles or Hardie Board

D - Central Axis Colonial

Footprint: 1,056 sqft - Central axis - 8/12 pitch - 9’ tall stories - 2 stories

44’

24’

LANEWAY

Laneways & Driveways: Dirt or Gravel Permeable Pavement

Type 1 - 2 units side by side - 1,152 sqft total per unit, 2 stories - 3 bedrooms Type 2 - 4 units, 2 on each floor - 528 sqft each - 1 bedroom each

BEDROOM

KITCHEN/LIVING

BATHROOM

SHARED SPACE

Field Stone Walls BATHROOM

BEDROOM

KITCHEN/LIVING

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

for the Little Compton Laneway Overlay District

CONTENTS 1. Introduction to the Little Compton Laneway Overlay District

2

2. Historic and Architectural Background of Little Compton

3-5

2.1 Historic Images of the Town Commons 3. Site Design Guidelines

6-7

3.1 Laneway Patterns 3.2 Building Placement & Orientation 3.3 Landscaping & Lots 4. Building Scale Guidelines

8-9

4.1 Mass & Scale 4.2 Height 4.3 Width 4.4 Solid to Void Ratio General Architectural Guidelines 5. Building Form Guidlines 10-12 5.1 Form & Visual Emphasis 5.2 Proportion & Emphasis of Facade Elements 5.3 Rhythm & Spacing of Windows & Doors Building Materials & Details 5.4 Materials 5.5 Windows 5.6 Architectural Elements & Details 7. Approved Building Typologies 13-15 8. Little Compton Laneway Overlay District Zoning Laws 9. Conclusion

1

INTRODUCTION to the Little Compton Laneway Overlay District Current Business District and Historic Properties

The Little Compton Laneway Overlay District was specially created to create opportunities for new development in and around the Town Common that is sensitive to the existing rural character of the town.

The Overlay District encompasses both the existing Little Compton Common Historic District (recognized on the National Register of Historic Places), as well as the Little Compton Business (B) District, which includes light retail and office, government and institutional, and recreational uses. Little Compton, along with the rest of Rhode Island, is currently experiencing a housing crisis. In particular, the town has identified a need for affordable housing; Little Compton is the municipality with the smallest percentage of affordable housing in the state, and most of the town is not zoned for multifamily or mixed-use buildings.

This creates a unique opportunity in Little Compton to increase density while retaining the integrity of the town.

Design Approach The Overlay District (zoning is laid out on page 16) will allow for a variety of new residential and commercial buildings, both single and multi family, as well as the development of new laneways that mimic the character of the existing historic ones. The guidelines outlined in this document are meant to preserve the rural, historic character of Little Compton while still encouraging the development of new affordable housing units. Because the Overlay District does include the National Register Historic District, the guidelines encourage designs that are compatible with the existing historic fabric, while still being distinguishable as per the established National Register guidelines (i.e. should not try and create a false sense of historical development).

New construction should not obstruct historic viewsheds, such as to the fields around the Commons, & designs should consider the architectural character of the larger neighborhood. While direct imitation of historic styles is discouraged, new buildings should reflect the essential character defining features of the district and setting identified in this document. The guidelines outlined here have inspired five basic typologies (see pages 13-15), some with subtypes that have direct local precedents can be referenced and altered as needed.

2

HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL BACKGROUND

adapted from ‘First Light: Sakonnet, the History of Little Compton 1660-1820’ by Janet Lisle

T

he land that is now known as Little Compton was originally inhabitated by the Sakonnet Indians. The written narrative of Little Compton began in the 1670s when Benjamin Church, an original proprieter, arrived to begin building on land he had purchased in 1673 from Awashonks, the Sakonnet tribe’s female sachem. By 1674, tribal tensions & legal challengings in the Plymouth Court would lead to the Sakonnet’s losing control of their ancestral territory. Land proprietors begin to draw lots for shares of properties, all hoping for both equal access to the riverfront and rich farmland.

The map (right) shows an early vision of Little Compton’s land divison. The beginning of King Philip’s War in June 1675 would delay development by colonists, but not for long. In 1677, the original

Proprietors looking south from Windmill Hill. First View of Sakonnet Neck, Kris Donovan, pastel.

3

proprieters met to divide up lots in the village, and also voted to select a site for the town center (soon called the Commons) which would have room for a “burying ground” and “meeting house.” The town’s name was not chosen until 1682, and in 1683, the town officers were elected at the urging of Plymouth Court directives. However, Little Compton was slow to organize a formal church community, which was at odds with Plymouth’s Protestant views and would lead to future conflict: in 1686, Plymouth Court fined the town for their

1673 map of Little Compton showing divisions by the original town proprieters

“neglect of duty,” but it would be another 15 years before a full-time minister was hired.

By 1693, the homesteading population in Little Compton was around 600 individuals.

Little Compton, along with Tiverton, had been annexed by Massachusetts Bristol County in 1691, whose more authoritarian rule was at odds with the settlers independent minded, loose approach to government. Early on, Little Compton residents felt that they should be a part of the more openminded and religiously inclusive Rhode Island. In 1692 Little Compton Representatives, resenting colony taxation, pressed the court in Boston to redraw its boundaries and be included in Rhode Island. This attempted secession - Almy’s Tax Revolt - failed, and Little Compton & Tiverton would remain under the dominion of the Massachusetts Bay Colony until 1746 when they were added to the jurisdiction of Rhode Island.

Throughout this, Little Compton was slowly growing, and new buildings began to dot the landscape. In 1694 the first structure in the Commons, the Meeting House, is built on the northeast corner.

“By the early 1860s, the Commons was home It acted as a house of worship on Sundays before the construction of a dedicated church. Meeting House Lane was also constructed, which opened the way for business to be transacted in one central place.

The first gravestones begin to appear in the Commons burial ground as well. The early houses of Little Compton were simple, wood-frame structures with stone chimneys and foundations, and few survive today. The Betty Alden House (below), located across from the Commons and built c. 1682, does remain however, and was the home of original town proprieter William and Elizabeth Pabodie’s son.

The Betty Alden House, b. 1682

The town continued to grow modestly during the 18th century; livestock drove the rural economy, and this brought prosperity to the town. The First Congregational Church (not the version that stands in the Commons today) was built in 1723, nearly 20 years after the founding of the congregation in 1704. In 1746 when Little Compton becomes a part of Rhode Island, the census shows a population of 1,004 English colonists, 62 Black people and 86 Native Americans. As the Revolutionary War rages, many Little Compton citizens enlist. The war devastates the town’s economy and in 1783 a town meeting is called to as for more “support for the poore.” The town struggles to recover in the following decades, exacerbated first by the War of 1812 and then The Great Gale of 1815, which once again devastates the town. The old Friends Meeting House, built in 1700

to the Congregational and Methodist Churches, the post office, the school, the Town House, two cemeteries, three dry goods stores, two smithies, a shoe shop, and nearly twenty residences. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Commons saw the addition of a new Town Hall (1880), the Grange Hall (1902), the Brownell Library (1929), and the Josephine Wilbour School (1929), and several new houses.”

Historic and Architectural Resources of Little Compton, RI (p.16 )

by Quaker settlers, is completely destroyed, but the rebuilt 1815 version still stands today. In 1832 to accomodate a larger population, the current version of the First Congregation Church is built. The area in and around the Commons begins to densify comparitively: C. R. Wilbur’s General Merchandise and the Methodist Church (no longer standing) are both built in 1840 (below). A number of civic buildings

Town Commons, including Methodist Episcopal Church, c. 1905-15

are constructed in the second half of the 19th century, including the Number 8 School (1845) and Town Hall (1880). The Union Cemetery (directly across the street from the Commons Burial Ground) is established in 1850. Population growth declined

4

in the nineteenth century aside from an influx of Portuguese immigrants. There were a few notable buildings constructed arount the Commons in the first half of the 20th century, such as the Grange Hall in 1902, and the Brownell Library and Josephine Wilbur School in 1929. However the density of buildings actually appears to have declined overall when comparing early images to how the Commons appears now. The Commons Meeting House was destroyed by fire in 1917, and the Methodist Episcopal Church was damaged in the 1944 hurricane and torn down.

HISTORIC IMAGES of the Town Commons courtesty of Little Compton Historical Society

(right) Black and white photographic postcard. Photograph of the east end of the Commons in Little Compton RI. Buildings include houses and stores. A horse and carriage is parked in front of Wilbur's Store. A large American flag is flying from one of the buildings. Elm trees line the road. (1905-15)

Little Compton began as a farming community, and much of this history can still be seen in the landscape today. For nearly two hundred years, from the beginning of the eighteenth century until the end of the nineteenth, the town’s agricultural production and its population changed remarkably little in comparison with the rest of the state and the region. Due to the lack of dramatic change in the town, preservation of its historic buildings and agricultural traditions has been significant.

K E Y

Little Compton Historic District

1. Brownell Library, by Charles Loring, 1929

9. “Art Shop,” XX Century?

2. Alfred Bodinkton house, c. 1850

10. House, now United Congregational Church 17. Post Office building, 1960

16. Wheelwright and blacksmith shop now Pottery shop, 1870

23. Sakonnet Lodge, originally Methodist Church, 1840 24. Grange Hall, 1904.

3. Commons Restaurant, c. 1810

Parish House, c. 1850-1860.

18. Early Victorian House, 1860

25. American Legion-Post originally-school-house, 1850

4. Commercial building with apartment above, c. 1900

11. Cottage, XX Century.

19. Brownell House, 1823

26. Town Hall, 1880

5. Est of C R Wilbur store, c. 1800

12. Union Cemetery, 1850

20. United Congregational Church Cemetery or Town

27. Cottage, XX Century

6. Colonial-stlye House, c. 1800

13. Cape Cod-style House, 1935.

Burying Ground, c. 1675

28. Cottage, XX Century.

7. United Congregational Church, 1832, 1872, l87I

14. Cottage, XX Century.

21. Julia Wilbur School, 1929

8. Old Methodist Meeting House, 1825, 1839

15. Hóuse, c.1870

22. Fire House, 1870

Black and white photomechanical postcard. Photograph of the north end of the Commons in Little Compton RI. Postcard shows parts of several building including the town hall, grange hall, Brownell House, Methodist Church and church sheds. (which were torn down in the 1940s) 1919 postmark.

Black and white photographic postcard. Photograph looking North from Little Compton RI Commons from a location at the beginning of South of the Commons road. At the left is the Congregational Church, the Town House,Large barn with a cupola and weathervane, stonewalls and a telephone pole.

Behind the barn is a building was once a general store of Bliss & Cowen. Also, Dr. Cowen had and office in the building. Later the building was moved to Grange Avenue. On the right are elm trees and part of a building. On the back of this postcard is written "the Meeting House on the left is the house of Henry Brown adjoining his store a Post Office, with old town hall upstairs over the store". (c. 1905-15)

Black and white photographic postcard. Photograph looking South from Little Compton RI Commons. On the left part of the postcard are carriage sheds for the Congregational Church and then a general store. There are elm trees, stonewalls and a horse and wagon. On the right is a house with a wooden fence in front. (1905-15)

Black and white photographic postcard. Looking West from Little Compton RI Commons. Congregational Church on right with stonewalls, large elm trees and cemetery. Methodist Episcopal Church in the background. One horse and buggy on the road. (1905-15)

5

SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES Site Design Patterns 3.1 Laneway Patterns The existing plan of primary & secondary (laneway) roads is essential to historic character and should be retained. New laneways should follow the established rural pattern.

One of Little Compton’s most important historic character defining features is its landscape, including its narrow rural laneways. Early maps of the town’s land division by its proprieters show some of the earliest impacts on the current landscape: all of the proprietors hoped for equal access to the riverfront and rich farmland, leading the the narrow strips of property shown. While ownership has changed over the years, the roads in Little Compton largely retain their vertical and horizontal patterns, with small secondary laneways branching off of main roads leading to private property. This rural, organic approach to planning is markedly different than a grid or radial layout that may be seen in a city, and it is imperative that it be preserved even with further development. These laneways,

along with landscaping, also act as a tool to “hide” new developments, as they can’t be seen from the Common and won’t block scenic viewsheds, but are still providing much needed density. This approach is nothing new, and has always been a design feature of the town common. Laneways also tend to be wider at the entrance and then gradually narrow in a funnel-like shape.

Permeable gravel paving is preferred, as it retains the unpaved rural feel of existing laneways & allows for adequate drainage. Garages are discouraged.

3.2 Building Placement & Orientation When designing a new building, the historic settlement patterns of the district and context should be respected.

Suggested permeable gravel paving.

6

•

A new building should be situated on its site in a manner similar to the historic buildings in the area.

•

This includes consideration of building setbacks, orientation and open space (setbacks may vary depending on the lot and personal

preference, but should adhere with zoning).

3.3 Landscaping & Lots

•

The front and the entrance of a primary structure should orient to the street or laneway.

•

A new building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines.

The existing agricultural landscape of Little Compton is, in itself, a character defining feature and should be preserved. It is important that historic viewsheds to surrounding fields be retained.

In the neighborhood around the Commons, there is a decent amount of variation when it comes to building placement depending on lot size and location. However, lots tend to be relatively large which allows for both a generous front and back yard and sizeable setback (this is less true for the civic and commercial buildings immediately around the Commons, which are set closer to the street). This variation in building placement creates an organic feeling effect, adding to the rural character of the district.

This feeling should be preserved when possible, as opposed to equally paced and located developments, which feels markedly more suburban or urban.

View south to the Commons across open fields. Note the prominence of the Congregational Church steeple, with all other buildings laying low to the ground.

•

Well-designed landscaped areas should be maximized and balanced throughout the site.

•

Native trees and shrub plantings should be grouped together to create strong accent points within the site, but should not overtake the expanse of a simple, wellmaintained front yard. A large tree in the front yard for privacy is a common feature.

•

Dense landscaping can help screen unattractive views and features such as storage areas, trash enclosures, transformers, generators and other similar elements. (these features should also be located near the back of the site if possible)

•

Stone walls to separate properties and separate the yard from the laneway are encouraged.

A house around the Commons with a paved to unpaved laneway, stone wall and tree in the front, and considerable space on both the front and back yard.

“...the entire Common area is one of picturesque quietude, dominated by the bulk and spire of the Congregational Church and the grey ranks of vertical old stone markers in the adjacent burying-ground. The bordering streets, with their various but not domineering structures, all fortunately well maintained, form a visually interesting perimeter to the Common and are very important parts of the Historic District’s totality.”

(Little Compton National Register Nomination)

7

BUILDING SCALE GUIDELINES 4.1 Mass & Scale Buildings should be compatible in scale, mass, and form with adjacent structures and the pattern of the surrounding area (assuming the adjacent structures are generally in compliance with these design guidelines).

The following are some general patterns in Little Compton residential buildings that should be referenced •

Most residential buildings are two units deep, (with some being one deep)

•

Most homes are 3-5 bays wide

4.3 Width A new building should appear similar in width to that established by nearby historic buildings.

•

4.2 Height The height of a new building should not overwhelm historic structures in the immediate setting, and should fall within the range of height defined by historic structures in the district. Similarities in heights among prominent building features, such as porches and cornices, are equally important.

8

•

Buildings should not be over over 2.5 stories, and buildings under 1.5 stories are discouraged

•

Buildings should be no more than 26 ft tall, including raised foundation and roof pitch (but not chimneys)

Buildings should not be more than 28 ft wide on one side and 48 ft on the other (see Approved Typologies section)

4.4 Solid to Void Ratio The ratio of wall-to-window (solid to void) should be similar to that found in historic structures in the district.

•

Large surfaces of glass should not be used, rather, divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows (see Windows section)

•

Window and door openings on the front facade should occupy a total of no less than 30% and no more than 80% of the gross sq. footage of that facade.

General Architectural Guidelines

adapted from Portsmouth, RI historic guidelines

1. New architectural design should be compatible with the character of the neighboring area. Design compatibility includes complementary building style, form, size, color and materials.

2. Building architecture should be designed to provide an attractive appearance. All architectural details should be related to an overall architectural design approach.

3. Historic structures of merit should be preserved and maintained. If the development requires relocation of an historic building, every effort should be made to preserve the building.

4. Diversity of architectural design is encouraged. Highly stylized buildings that are characteristic of a particular historic period other than their own are discouraged.

5. Loud or gaudy colors, sharply contrasting colors and highly reflective materials are not compatible with the character of Little Compton and should be avoided.

particularly where buildings are located close to one another.

7. Multiple buildings on the same site should be designed to create a cohesive visual relationship. Out buildings should be designed to complement the primary building on the site in style and material expression.

8. Building siting should take best advantage of solar orientation, climatic and other environmental conditions, should encourage safety and privacy of adjacent outdoor spaces, and should reduce the impact of noise upon (or from) the project.

6. Efforts to coordinate the actual and apparent height of adjacent structures that are architecturally compatible with Little Compton are encouraged,

9

BUILDING FORM GUIDELINES 5.1 Form & Visual Emphasis A similarity of building forms contributes to a sense of visual continuity and identity. In order to maintain this sense, new buildings should have basic roof and building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally.

•

Building forms should be similar to those seen traditionally, which are typically simple rectangular solids (the exceptions being ells or additions added later)

•

Roof pitch and form should be designed to relate to the context (see Roof Line and Materials)

5.2 Proportion & Emphasis of Facade Elements Overall facade proportions should be designed to be similar to those of historic buildings in the neighborhood.

•

•

The width is always less than than height for residential buldings in Little Compton, which helps maintain a human scale.

Porches and porticos can provide an alternative and balancing visual emphasis.

5.3 Rhythm & Spacing of Windows & Doors The pattern and proportions of window and door openings should fall within the range associated with historic buildings in the area.

•

10

Residential buildings in Little Compton tend to have a symmetrical bay pattern as a majority are center hall plan (however, side hall plans are also common).

Building Materials & Details 5.4 Building Materials The following building materials are recommended to create a long-lasting building design that is consistent with the character of Little Compton: 1. Natural wood clapboard siding and cementbased artificial wood siding, such as hardie board, may be used as an alternative. Neutral paint colors (light or dark gray, white or beige, light blue or, alternatively, natural wood) are recommended.

2. Stone is discouraged for building facades as it is not a part of Little Compton’s character defining features for residential buildings; however, fieldstone is recommended as the material for property diving stone walls.

3. Glass.

4. Synthetic materials such as vinyl, plastic, or aluminum siding are not appropriate.

5.5 Roof Line and Materials

5.6 Windows

•

Windows and doors should be framed in materials that appear similar in scale, proportion and character to those used traditionally in the neighborhood.

Sloped roofs are highly preferred. Gabled are the ideal form,and may be either front or side gable, but should consider the context of the surrounding buildings. They should have a slope between 10/12 (39.81°) and 12/12 (45°).

•

Gambrel and hipped roofs are also appropriate provided that the vertical rise is appropriate for the building size (see examples in Approved Typologies section).

•

If dormers are employed, they should be of the shed type. The roof pitch of the dormer must be sympathetic to the style of the existing building and set back substantially from eaves to maintain existing roof lines.

•

Standing seam metal roofing is preferred for lower pitch roofing, and cedar shingles are encouraged elsewhere. Asphalt shingles of a high quality that will last at least 50 years may be used as an alternative. Roofing materials that imitate another material are generally discouraged.

•

Flat or steeply pitched roofs (over 12/12 or 45°) or are strongly discouraged.

•

Dark and neutral colors such as gray or standard textures are encouraged.

•

Windows with vertical emphasis are encouraged, aside for side lights alongside doors

•

Double-hung windows (6:6 especially) with “true” divided lights, traditional reveal depth & trim, and painted wood are encouraged

5.7 Architectural Elements & Details Building components should reflect the size, depth and shape of those found historically along the street: Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged.

There are a mixture of styles present in Little Compton, but Greek Revival detailing tends to dominate. While buildings from the early to mid 19th century tend more towards Greek Revival, most of the details added during the late-19th century are Victorian Gothic. Other building styles include Italianate (Alfred Bodington House), Georgian Revival (Brownell Library), Victorian, Cape Cod cottages (Brownell House) and nondescript vernacular styles. The architecture is mostly very simplistic, reflecting the Quaker influence post-1700.

11

Some common architectural details include: •

Exterior cornic mouldings and cornice returns

•

Pedimented entryways or hooded doorways

•

Shutters

•

Sidelights and transom windows

•

Front porches

•

Front steps

However, the architectural detailing in Little Compton tends towards spare, and excess detailing is discouraged. Architectural details that are not commonly found on residential buildings and should be avoided are columns, pilasters, full-height entry porches, paired chimneys, flat or high pitched roofs, brick or stone facades, brightly colored cladding or shed dormers.

12

APPROVED BUILDING TYPOLOGIES

13

14

Approved lot setbacks for all typologies - based on Little Compton Business District zoning

15

ASSIGNMENT 6: FINAL PRESENTATION, May 7, 2024 Presentation to a panel of visiting critics who are faculty members, practicing professionals, and leaders of SNEC Foundation.

LITTLE COMPTON COMMONS

ARCH 517 - Collaborative Revitalization Studio Rachel Borzone, Trinity Kendrick & Carlos Ferman

Affordable housing within the Little Compton Common Historic District

Little Compton and Affordable Housing Why Affordable Housing?

The Wilbur House was once a multifamily home. (Little Compton Historical Society)

Early on in our research, we identified housing - specifically affordable housing - as being one of Little Compton’s most pressing needs. There are currently only nine long term affordable housing units in town (six of them are in the Commons), comprising about half a percent of the town’s housing stock, making Little Compton the municipality with the smallest percentage of affordable housing in the state (Cronin 2023). According to state law, most cities and towns must maintain 10% of their year round housing stock as affordable housing. Currently, 28% of homeowners and 30% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend 30% or more of their income on housing.

As seen in historic images of the town, density is not at odds with the historic character of the district, and neither is multifamily housing. This project aims to preserve the rural, historic character of Little Compton while encouraging the development of new affordable housing.

Original Proprietor’s Map of Little Compton “This Land was allotted to the first Proprietors of Little Compton at Duxbury, 1673-1694” Little Compton Housing Statistics (HousingWorksRI Report, December 2022) The only existing affordable housing in the Town Commons at 176 Willow Ave., containing 4 units

Historic Images

of the Town Commons

courtesy of Little Compton Historical Society

Districts & Zoning

Photo looking West from the Commons. Congregational Church on right with stonewalls, large elm trees and cemetery. Methodist Episcopal Church in the background. (1905-15)

Photograph of the east end of the Commons (1905-15)

Properties filled in with blue are historic, and part of the National Register Historic District of the Little Compton Commons. The light blue overlay encompasses the Business (B) District of Little Compton, which allows for commercial and multifamily residential uses.

Photograph looking South from the Commons. On the left part of the postcard are carriage sheds for the Congregational Church and then a general store. (1905-15)

Photograph of the north end of the Commons, showing parts of several building including the town hall, grange hall, Brownell House,Methodist Church and church sheds. (which were torn down in the 1940s) 1919 postmark.

Photograph looking North from the Commons from a location at the beginning of South of the Commons road. At the left is the Congregational Church, the Town House, a large barn with a cupola and weathervane, stonewalls and a telephone pole. Behind the barn is a building was once a general store of Bliss & Cowen. (c. 1905-15)

Character Defining Features • Simple & vernacular Greek Revival and Victorian, with little ornament for their style and time period.

• Clapboard, weathered shingle, and shades of white, blue, brown and gray are very common • Buildings tend to be no taller than 2.5 stories; the tall steeple of the Congregational Church dominates the landscape.

• The landscape is rural, with relatively flat meadows and field crops. Abundant stone walls break up these large fields.

Our Proposed Development Over 10 Years

Willow Ave

SITE LAYERS

s Rd

Simmon

ons

mm

Co

St

s Common St

Commons St

n

ouse L

gh Meetin

ommons S of the C Rd

LANEWAYS + PROPERTIES & HOUSES + LANDSCAPE FEATURES + DISTRICTS

SCALE 1/64” = 1’0” 0

LANEWAYS

PROPERTIES

Lanes leading from the main roads around The Commons to one or more residential properties

Current property divisions and organization surrounding The Commons

LANDSCAPE FEATURES

100

200

AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS Affordable Housing in The Commons Other Residential Properties

HISTORIC & BUSINESS DISTRICTS

Agricultural Fields

1974 Historic District

Historic Burial Grounds

Current Business Zoning

Wetlands, Ponds & Protected Water Areas

50

400

LANEWAYS

Ȥ Branch off of a main road Ȥ Can extend from an existing laneway or create a new one

Ȥ Lined with fieldstone walls surrounding the properties Ȥ Driveways branching off of the laneways for each property

4

5

3

1 2

SCALE 1/32” = 1’0” 0

50

100

200

4

3

5

1

2

Laneway 4

Laneway 2

SCALE 1/16” = 1’0”

0

10

20

50

Street Perspective of Laneway 3

PROPERTIES & TYPOLOGIES

Ȥ Based on current business zoning setbacks Ȥ Setbacks can vary if existing landscape features interfere with property

Ȥ Variation in house typologies along laneway to maximize density while providing sufficient property to each housing unit

Ȥ More properties on laneway Ȥ No variety

25’

25’

30’

25’

Ȥ More property per unit Ȥ No variety

Lot sizes based on current zoning

Ȥ Optimizes density Ȥ Provides individual property to units Ȥ Provides aesthetic variety to resemble the gable variation of the area Gable variation in the Commons

FIVE TYPOLOGIES

The Cottage

The Side Hall

The Center Hall

The Mid-Size

Ȥ 768 sq ft (24’ x 32’) Ȥ 8/12 roof pitch Ȥ 1 unit

Ȥ 1,120 sq ft (24’ x 40’) Ȥ 10/12 roof pitch Ȥ 1-2 units

Ȥ 1,056 sq ft (44’ x 24’) Ȥ 8/12 roof pitch Ȥ 2-4 units

Ȥ 864 sq ft (36’ x 24’) Ȥ 7/12 roof pitch Ȥ 1-2 units

The Cape Ȥ 1,152 sq ft (48’ x 24’) Ȥ 10/12 roof pitch Ȥ 1-2 units

Driving down a laneway towards the surrounding agricultural fields (Laneway 2)

TYPOLOGIES The Cottage

Ȥ Design based on housing characteristics of Little Compton Ȥ Different house types for variations in amount of density per property

The Side Hall

The Center Hall

Ȥ Options for individual house organizations for density variation Ȥ Characteristics for each house can change based on the proposed Guidelines

The Cape

The Mid-Size

Unit Variations:

Unit Variations:

Unit Variations:

Unit Variations:

Unit Variations:

Ȥ 1 unit

Ȥ 1-2 units

Ȥ 2-4 units

Ȥ 1-2 units

Ȥ 1-2 units

Bedrooms per Unit:

Bedrooms per Unit:

Bedrooms per Unit:

Bedrooms per Unit:

Bedrooms per Unit:

Ȥ 1-2 bedrooms

Ȥ 1 unit with loft: 3 bedrooms

Ȥ 2 units: 2-4 bedrooms each

Ȥ 1 unit: 4 bedrooms

Ȥ 1 unit: 3 bedrooms

Occupants:

Ȥ 2 units: 1 bedroom each

Ȥ 3 units: 1-2 bedrooms each

Ȥ 2 units: 2 bedrooms each

Ȥ 2 units: 1 bedroom each

Ȥ Individuals, couples,

Occupants:

Ȥ 4 units: 1 bedroom each

Occupants:

Occupants:

agricultural workers, small

Ȥ Individuals, couples, small

Occupants:

Ȥ Individuals, couples,

Ȥ Individuals, couples, small

families as starter homes

families as starter homes,

Ȥ Individuals, couples, small

small families as starter

Duration of Occupation:

multigenerational families

families as starter homes,

homes, larger families,

Duration of Occupation:

Ȥ Short term rental

Duration of Occupation:

co-housing with shared

multigenerational families

Ȥ Long and short term rental

Projected Density:

Ȥ Long and short term rental

communal spaces

Ȥ 1-3 people

Projected Density:

Vehicles: Ȥ Up to 3

families

Projected Density:

Duration of Occupation:

Ȥ Long and short term rental

Ȥ 2-4 people

Ȥ 1-4 people

Ȥ Short term rental

Projected Density:

Vehicles:

Vehicles:

Projected Density:

Ȥ 4-6 people

Ȥ 1-2 per units in house

Ȥ Up to 4

Ȥ 4-12 people

Vehicles:

Vehicles:

Ȥ 1-3 per unit v

Ȥ 1-2 per units in house

v

Duration of Occupation:

LEAST DENSE

MOST DENSE

The Cottage

Laneway Facade

Property Facade

SCALE 3/16” = 1’0” 0

5

10

25

Laneway Facade

Property Facade

The Side Hall

Lofted Level

Laneway Facade

The Center Hall

Second Level

Property Facade

Roofing Standing Seam Metal 50-Year Asphalt Shingles - Withstand weather, long lasting to save money on repairs, sustainable

Laneway & Driveway Permeable Gravel or Dirt

Property Boundaries Fieldstone Walls Large Trees

- Withstand weather and increases in vehicular traffic

- Existing characteristic of Little Compton

Walkways and Patio Stone - Withstand weather, long lasting, affordable

Cladding Thermally Modified Wood Hardie Board - Withstand weather, long lasting to save money on repairs, sustainable

Materiality of Properties

Details of Facade

Side Hall - Property Facade SCALE 1” = 1’0”

0

0.5

1

2

Ȥ Highly-insulated envelope for affordability and to save on energy costs for each house Ȥ Raised plate with dormer for lofted Side Hall unit Ȥ Small rake projection with gutter at end Ȥ Small, thin window trim for a more contemporary design Ȥ 24’ standard dimension of each property allows for the prefabrication of foundation in 4’ increments

ARCH517, Ryan DeSanctis, Austin Jarvis &Ryan JohnDeSanctis Rutecki

SAINT TERESA OF AVILA Context & Character Olneyville - 1908

WORKING-CLASS OLNEYVILLE

A History of Industry, Worker-Housing, & Immigration Communities Olneyville Expressway (plan, 1949)

Olneyville, 1908

Atlantic Mills

Riverside Park

A “VENERABLE EDIFICE” WRAPPED IN ITALIAN RENAISSANCE Vaguely Gothic Massing, Classical Surface, & Cutting Edge 1920’s Construction Original 1883 Building

“

William Walker & Sons

1930 Rennovation J. Ambrose Murphy

FIGURAL SYMBOLISM & CHARITABLE FACSIMILE

Classical Forms & New Materials Afford Impressions of Opulence

Parish and Bishop’s Coats of Arms

SITE & SET-BACKS

A Double Lot Zoned as R3 and C2 20 Ft. Rear Lot Line

10 Ft Side Lot Line

C2

R3

Austin Jarvis John Rutecki ARCH.517

RHYTHM

Higgins Hall, Steven Holl, 2005

Roger Wellington School, Johnathan Levi, 2011

Dageu Gosan Library, Fish Design, Comptetion Entry, 2012

Apollo School, Herman Hertzberger, 1980

Fleet Library, NADAA, Providence RI, 2006

INSERTIONS

Ospedale degli Innocenti, Brunelleschi, 1419-45

URBAN

FIRST ITERATION of MASSING

FINAL DENSITY

5PQP N GU

URBAN PLAN SCALE 1”-150’

SOUTHWEST ELEVATION SCALE 1”-8’

SCALE 1”-32’

+PTMJO $PNNVOJUZ $FOUFS

4U FF SF 4U

4U FV CF O 4U

"NIF STU 4U

"O EF STP O 4U

4

WJB M G " P

TB F S U 5F BJO

1P QF 4U

,PTTVUI 4U

.

F "W O UP BO

F PM U B P "C 4DI

% SZ N B UB JMMJ FO 8 FN &M

)Z BU 4U

#P TX PS UI 4U

U T 4 SUJ $V

5F SF TB 4U

SITE SECTION

SITE PLAN

SCALE 1”-32’

PROGRAMATIC OUTLINE Our Proposal seeks to recognize historic and cultural significance of this deconsecrated Roman Catholic Church, and to respond to both physical and social circumstances of its surroundings. The church and its adjacent vacant lot will become an activity center for children and students of William D’Abate Elementary School, Spaces are designed for learning, play, and technology access, while maintaining flexibility for gathering and activity. A greenhouse will supplement Olneyville’s youth with fresh, nutritious food and allow children to participate in its cultivation.

CHILDRENS CENTER PROGRAM

FORM

FORM

LIGHTING

OLD V. NEW MASSING

TIERED GARDENS

AXIAL

GREENHOUSE

PRECEDENT FLOOR

AXIAL FORMS AND MASSING

BASEMENT PLAN

SCALE 3”-32’

PLAZA PLAYSPACE

RYTHEM

FACADE FROM POPE ST.

RHYTHM

FRONT PERSPECTIVE PUNCHES V. INSERTION

ENTRY AXIS

SIDE ELEVATION

SCALE 1”-32’

St ee re

Av e

SOUTHEAST ELEVATION

Kossu

th St

M n to an Po p

e

St

e Av

LOWER FLOOR PLAN

SCALE 3”-32’

SAFETY LAYERED SAFETY

LOBBY

LOBBY CHECKPOINT

CIRC

TIERED CIRCULATION

NAVE BAL;CANY CIRC NAVE FROM MEZZANINE

CIRCULATION

NAVE SECTION

NAVE SECTION

SCALE 1”-8’

UPPER FLOOR PLAN

SCALE 3”-32’

CLOISTER: A SPACE TO PLAY

GREENHOUSE: A SPACE TO GROW

GREENHOUSE RENDER

CLOISTER SECTION

ROOF PLAN

SCALE 1”-8’

SCALE 3”-32”

GREENHOUSE AND GATHERING AREA SECTION SCALE 1”-8’

PL;AY STAIR: A SPACE TO GATHER

REAR ELEVATION SCALE 1”-8’

STAIR DETAIL

PLAY STAIR DETAIL

SCALE 1”-1/2’

E ISTI MATERIALS E ISTI MATERIALS Enveloped in Modern Masonry E ISTI

MATERIALS

PROPOSED MATERIALS Cast-Stone Details

Board-Formed Concrete Foundation

Enveloped in Modern Masonry Enveloped in Modern Masonry

Patinated Copper Roof Cornice Plating; Window Frames & accents

Slate Roofing Copper Plating

Brick Cladding - Common Bond

Cast-Stone Foundation

Red Brick Cladding

Channel Glass - SE & NW Elevation Panels; Interior Additions

Wood Molding & Cornices

Natural Wood - Interior Details

NAVE INSERTION: A QUIET SPACE

Wrought Iron 4”

36”

EXISTING WROUGHT IRON RAILING

PROPOSED EXTERIOR GATE

SCALE 1’’-1’

EXTERIOR MATERIALITY

NEW WALL

CUBBY

Church Exterior to Interior Assembly Existing - Brick Vereer - Water Barrier - Sheathing - Rigid Insulation - Wood Studs - Plaster

New Insertion - Copper Siding and Associated System - Rigid Insulation - Stud Wall - Wood Boards - Wooden Millwork Cubbies

CUBBIE WALL INSERTION DETAIL 1”-1’

ADDITION WALL DETAIL

SCALE 1”-1’

EXISTING WALL DETAIL WITH INSERTION

SCALE 1”-1’