The San Pedro Art Festival - Thesis 2018

The San Pedro Art Festival

Sebastian Schott | NSAD 2017-2018 | Thesis

A Thesis Presented to the Undergraduate Faculty of The NewSchool of Architecture & Design

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Architecture

by

Sebastian Schott June 2018 San Diego, CA

i

ii

© 2018 Sebastian Schott All Rights Reserved

iii

Thesis Abstract

The city of San Pedro is undergoing a change in identity. What is considered to be the #1 port of entry to the US, handling nearly 9.4 million units of cargo in 2017 alone, San Pedro offers a drastically varied landscape of shipping containers and cranes, which paint the foreground of a gentrifying downtown and an affordable waterfront neighborhood. The commercial viability of the waterfront has always been an issue with the port and city residents. Where families have a deep connection with the waterfront, spanning over multiple generations, the port of San Pedro seeks to add more value to the surroundings by introducing new business and therefore outside interest. Some locals are compelled to have the waterfront remain as it is: a 1960s New England Styled Village that serves to primarily attract tourists to its restaurants, however, the city has evolved to become a gateway of industry and should take the opportunity for highlighting this aspect for future use. The city is changing, its just a matter of steering it in the right direction.

The waterfront is where locality can be embraced and cultivated to serve both tourism (commerce) and its residents. Because of the port’s objective to increase diversity in the industry sector and mold commerce around what will be education, recreation and space exploration fields, it was only fitting to provide a bridge of these pursuits with a landscape that can evolve as quickly as the neighborhood around it. This area had to relate to what exists within the neighborhood currently, and also had to offer a permeable quality for tourists to embrace the unique ideas of San Pedro’s local residents. There had to be a means of communion and gathering for residents to discuss ideas, or a point to observe the changes that are occurring within the waterfront.

The answer for this problem was found within the San Pedro art community. Currently, San Pedro hosts a multitude of artists, but retains a separation of artist galleries on 7th street (downtown) at CRAFTED (10 blocks away) and Angels Gate (nearly 35 blocks away). None of these areas have a direct connection to the waterfront, nor will they for the next 10 years. However, if there was a point where this vibrant community could converge, and attract other locals to discuss and oversee the changes of the waterfront, there would be more passion and attachment to an area that will otherwise be subject to the whims of tourism.

This area needed to offer artists and the local community a means of physically exploring new ideas about how a space could be used. This thesis, titled “The San Pedro Art Festival” gives local artists the opportunity to customize their own rentable plot of land and create an eye-catching booth to showcase their ideas. Everything operates seasonally, offering constant reinterpretation of surroundings and serving as a catalyst for the San Pedro community to voice its opinions. This Art Festival also has a means of commissioning large-scaled pavilions for any type of artist to transport visitors to a realm of constant evolution. In essence this thesis revitalizes and empowers the waterfront community through a evolutionary, permeable space that oversees and ties in the current waterfront development.

iv

A Thesis Presented to the Undergraduate Faculty of The NewSchool of Architecture & Design

by

Sebastian Schott

Approved by:

Undergraduate Chair:

Date

Studio Instructor:

Date

v

vi

For my family. My mom and dad’s patience, kindness, and their believing me.

vii

Table of Contents Introduction 1 Critical Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Thesis Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Thesis Essay

5

Research Methods

9

Summation of AR 501. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Bulwary Wiślane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Garden Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Chicago Riverwalk

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Domino Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Moscone Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Piazza del Campo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Christchurch Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 New Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Site Selection

26

Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 The Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Site: Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Problem/ Solution Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Site Analytics - Acitivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 viii

Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Site Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Satelitte Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Surroundings: Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 What’s Around: Misc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 The Components. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 The Development

39

Development and Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Development Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Development Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Results/Design Prototype

43

Summation of AR 502/503 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Program Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Program Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Master Plan - AR 502. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Booth Layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Master plan - Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Topography - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 AR 502 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Perspective - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 AR 502 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Site Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 ix

Topography Refined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 The North Connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Festival Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Entrances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Interior Layouts - AR 502. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Booth Isometric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Kitchens - AR 502. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Building 1 - AR 502. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Kitchens - AR 503. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Building 1 - AR 503. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Elevations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Elevations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Building Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Building Details. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Building Axo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Structure Axo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Wall Layout Axo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Renderings 76 Lower Access Point. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Upper Venue Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Boardwalk - South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 North Entrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Recreation Classroom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Office Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 North West Courtyard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 x

West Courtyard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Statement of Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 References 87 List of Figures

88

xi

Introduction

Critical Position It is required to approach the topic of urban design from an infrastructural and social perspective. The setting in which one finds the most sociological problems with development are usually where populations are increasing at an unsustainable rate, creating an influx of population without supporting functions of a city (this is what Richard Florida would consider the New Urban Crisis). Proximity is also an issue for rapidly growing urban environments. Developers may be concerned for establishing a lively commercial area in downtown centers and away from neighborhoods, but I, alongside many urban activists (Jane Jacobs, Jeanette Sadik-Khan, and Jeff Speck) would argue that commerce is far more viable with walkable areas for locals to make purchases year-round. The impacts of having local-based infrastructure and designs that attract and congregate the existing population can be seen in sucessful urbanscapes in the modern world - New York, Copenhagen, Amsterdam to name just a few cities.

Designers have an immense responsibility to provide healthy and liveable environments for people. As Leon Battista Alberti stated, “[the architect] is responsible for our delight, entertainment, and health while at leisure, and our profit and advantage while at work, and in short, that we live in a dignified manner, free from any danger.”

When rapid change presents itself in the urban setting, the designer’s response should adequately meet the scale and demand for change through a humanistic and considerate approach. Not all approaches to providing a human environment have to be architectural in the sense of providing a structure that may be around for a hundred years, completely unsusceptible to change. But, I would argue, ideas of change must be investigated to inspire others to be entertained, social, or attached to their sense of place. The pace of urban change must be met with alternatives to a singular thinking of building as means of providing detachment from one’s surroundings.

2

Thesis Statement While viable neighborhoods compose a city through intricate connections of residents to their immediate surroundings, tourism can offer a bridging of ideas to other areas of the globe. A progressive city needs tourism to provide secondary insight for urban areas on: how they are developing, what values they attract, and who forms the deeper connections to the area.

“A summary of observations and investigations shows that people and human activity are the greatest object of attention and interest” (Gehl, 2011).

When people (including locals) see viability, they also see opportunity to have a voice, or to sit back, to experience a space, or to make social connections that inevitably translate to happiness. When locals gather and share ideas, the city begins to have an internal identity, that can then reform the type of tourism and industry that city attracts. And these are the types of urban spaces architects, planners, and engineers should be developing towards.

City planners and Civil engineers have traditionally built cities around the car and people’s ability to freely go from one place to another, creating what one might call “car nomadicism.” This nomadicism has displaced identities of both individual and city to the point of complete confusion and replicating isolation on all scales. One needs to consider spaces should be trying to attract, and how commercial the space truly functions in relation to a defined city.

The trend of cities should be moving towards cultivating a culture that already exists, yet remains unstimulated or phased-out: the locals.

3

Problem Statement There is a massive disconnect and polarization from the local community (culture) and the highly urbanized, commercialized, and developing downtown area in San Pedro. The city itself is undergoing an identity crisis, where tourism and industry seek to become the main components of an otherwise understated city with deep roots in the evolution of California as a whole.

San Pedro needs to accommodate a newer local culture by providing settings to congregate, socialize, and observe, particularly near the waterfront development area. With adequately designed spaces, within proximity of a neighborhood terminus and the development, San Pedro could become an extremely vibrant city amoung the greater area of Los Angeles, contributing to both the health of its citizens as well as the evolution of the urban individual in an otherwise isolating landscape.

4

Thesis Essay 5

We are at an impasse. Cities have been around since 7500 BCE but the technologies of the modern world have transformed the formation, organization, and behavior of these constantly growing masses. Cities had always been built in an organic fashion: first, one would build a single point of interest and supporting functions and residents would follow, weaving urban space into a meandering, yet highly complex network. The overall structure of these cities was entirely dependent on the person’s need and derived from a pedestrian scale. With the car, everything changed. Cities now had to accommodate for wider roads to allow for a turning radius, buildings were spaced further apart to avoid fires, and segregated landuses. Personalized transportation was given priority over the pedestrian and massive infrastructure broke apart the social landscape that empowered people to explore. Not only did people’s behaviors change, but resources also became strained. If one considers people as a social and creative resource, we too suffered from this dispersion of the cityscape. As Charles Montgomery puts it, “…the dispersed city is the most expensive, resourceintense, land-gobbling, polluting way of living ever built” (2013, p. 47).

Compare where social vibrancy has been displaced following industrialization and in recent times. The advent of the car in the early 20th century allowed for a mass migration of the working class to the peripheries of the urban environment, limiting social interaction on a multitude of levels.

Within the cities themselves, social space was never considered viable for building community. “By 1900, a typical New Yorker enjoyed seven fewer years aboveground than his cousin on the farm" (Speck 2015, p. 105) alluding to the fact that people had limited incentive to even walk around, explore or interact and blend in with their local environment. Following industrialization, the suburban environment claimed what could have been highly sought-after interactions of downtown areas. The creative class filled the vacuum created by this migration, as documented in Jane Jacobs’ “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” specifically in her analogy: the Ballet of Hudson Street. Yet, in more recent times, the blue collar working

class has been forced out of downtown centers due to increasing rent prices and a strong pull from the suburban environment through homeowner tax incentives. In a 2015 study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the federal government provided “$200 billion in annual subsidies” (CityLab 2015) in tax deductions towards homeowners. Paired with an increasing percentage of a young renting population, and a 9 million rentable household increase “from 2009 to 2015” (JCHS Harvard 2015), there exists a divergence on the urbanscape that cannot adapt to social vibrancy.

Surburbia will forever remain constant, but with recent times a vast number of young adults (that are part of the revived and highly evolved creative class) are starting to concentrate themselves in urban centers.

The creative class holds the ideals of a society and can offer expanded and contemplative viewpoints that pertain to all levels of life. However, it is essential to create physical connections among all groups of the cityscape: the creatives, blue collars, white collar, tourists, businesspeople, and anyone in between. This is with the sole objective to merge ideas and expand ways in which people can be present, social, and happy with their lifestyles. As seen with the current urbanscape, “life between buildings is both more relevant and more interesting to look at in the long run than are any combination of colored concrete and staggered building forms“ (Gehl 2011, p. 22). Therefore, city planners, architects and engineers have a responsibility to the public to provide for the betterment of humanity – to propel people to think and behave in considerate and provoking ways with safety serving as a constant focus. And infrastructure is where these changes can be made to truly reflect this movement.

Public space is what is at stake in the ever-persistent conflict between city and individual. Developers can rapidly change an urban environment through their vision, but the affective built environment should not stop at the door. Instead, these people should consider “the economic power of 6

sustainable streets [as] probably the strongest argument for implementing dramatic change” (Sadik-Kahn 2016, p. 252). The street is where design meets the public arena, where people decide on what they become attached to in a place or whether they should even bother. “Traditional, walkable urbanism is grounded in figural space” (Speck 2013, pg. 216) and developers have a responsibility of shaping this figural space to accommodate the character of a city. This helps people form an attachment to the space around them as well as create a medium for locality to selfidentify.

Successful developments have stemmed from adhering to portable means of transportation, and by doing so, eliminate or significantly reduce need for the car. A Swedish study found that people with commute times longer than forty-five minutes “were 40 percent more likely to divorce” (2011) and by 2011, “the average American family of four spent more on transportation than on taxes and healthcare combined” (Laitner 2011). It is not surprising if a city is difficult to access, and policies do not allow for new network technologies to be implemented within infrastructure or developments, the overall sociability and satisfaction of citizens diminishes.

To summarize, the spaces needed to promote human social health need to offer opportunities for interaction on multiple levels. These levels should be sensory, transitionary.

From an infrastructural perspective, new physical connections made between contrasting or geographically isolated neighborhoods can drastically improve and invigorate the surrounding environment as well as provide sustenance for local economies. In terms of resource consumption, creating a pedestrian-scaled means of transport is significantly less costly to the environment. In a study by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, it costs an estimated 29.3 cents in public infrastructure alone per mile traveled by a single car (Victoria 2012, p.10-13). When compared to the costs of biking or walking (.9 cents and .2 cents respectively), this is a component of 7

infrastructure that should be changing more towards human-scaled transport, particularly in dense urban centers such as Los Angeles. Sadly, almost “40 percent of [Los Angeles’] sidewalks are in disrepair” (Montgomery 2013, p.242) causing even less desire for locals or tourists to venture within the “life between buildings.” Current trends, however, are moving more towards offering pedestrian transport as neighborhood connectors in the form of bridges. Thomas Heatherwick’s Garden Bridge was meant to connect both the artsy South Bank with the increasingly isolated North Bank of the Thames River located in London. At the Los Angeles River, a pedestrian bridge (currently being funded by the taxpayer) is being constructed to connect Elysian Valley and Cypress Park with a 40-acre public green space. In both these instances, the public demand for converging and dispersive space are being met in a mutually beneficial, social, and attractive way.

Los Angeles is massive in size and population (503 square miles with 18.7 million residents), making it difficult for the city to adapt to newer technologies or future-minded developments, which should be focused on placemaking and improving life satisfaction. The recent 405 widening cost taxpayers $1.6 billion and offered little to no change in terms of traffic reduction. The problem with Los Angeles is that “traffic congestion isn't a matter of too little supply-roads-it's a product of overabundant demand-too many people driving without credible transportation alternatives” (SadikKahn 2016, Pg. 62). In other words, traffic will exist while untapped means of transportation remain unexplored. If designer and city planners do not account for variations of mobility, traffic forever remains constant. In the words of Jeff Speck, “in an effort to ease that traffic, the road is expanded by 25 percent to ten lanes, the city will eventually have ten lanes of traffic and nearly 25 percent more traffic, not 25 percent less.” At a city-scale, density should allow for a variety of infrastructural adaptations to ease automobile congestion and adhere to personalized transport.

The economic benefits of pushing towards pedestrian-based

infrastructure are tremendous to local economies. In a 2011 study for the transportation of London, “people who drove cars to shop spent more on each individual visit, people who arrived on foot or by bus or the tube shopped more frequently and collectively spent almost five times more than those who drove over the course of a week or month” (CTC.org 2015, Pg. 1). In American cities where pedestrian-scaled design has been a leading focus of street-shaping techniques (eg. San Francisco, London, and New York), economic growth is seen across the board for streets that have been given 1. Wider sidewalks, and 2. Separated bike lanes. For the sake of benefitting public space and secondary and tertiary business functions, developers and city planners must take advantage of these dramatic profit increases. Factoring in for the snowball effect of visual activity creating more activity, one can see how allowing for pedestrian-focused design could lead to highly diverse and vibrant socialscape of downtown areas.

Designers and policymakers alike need to improve human social capital in cities. In a fast-paced world, where everyone is connected digitally, there still is an innate desire to be with people, to communicate, to laugh, to explore and absorb the brilliant physical qualities of space. It is human to experience the world in its beauty and to help it reach its potential. With architecture, people are gifted the ability to shape space in the hopes of bettering people’s lives, and not simply accommodating a singular function.

It is ironic that the space that really matters isn’t typically within the buildings themselves but exists outside of the fabricated borders. It is the public space that responds to the architecture and it is the public space that decides what the character of the building creates.

There are numerous and creative urban alchemy practices that can revitalize and reinvigorate abandoned or isolated cityscapes. Public transit systems that don’t degrade users and offer efficient transportation can offset the amount of traffic seen on city streets as well as open routes to other means of personalized transportation. Consequently, a person that lives and works in the city should not have to need a car. In Oslo and Vancouver, “boulevardizations” allows for both streetcars and light rail to function alongside pedestrians and cyclists (Sadik-Kahn 2016 pg. 288). Finding open public space isn’t difficult, it’s the lens that needs to be changed to see potential in a city’s design. In San Francisco, Buenos Aires, and Mexico City, city governments are creating pocket parks “atop former triangles of asphalt” (Pg. 20) to provide intermediary space or “soft zones” in the streetscape. Green areas are an invaluable commodity in the city and give people areas of reprieve from the hectic city lifestyle. Aside from the typical, large, expansive park, there are pocket parks, green strips, green walls, and community gardens that can be infused into the city.

8

Research Methods 9

Summation of AR 501 During the course of AR 501, we were given the task of finding case studies that addressed our broad research topics (from summer) prior to picking out a site. Following that selection, we then chose a site that matched a general description and allowed us to pick further case studies that could better define a program. A very general program was developed, which became more refined in the following quarter. The main takeaway from this course was the site selection.

The site analytics created were for typical studies and did not specifically address any defined thesis at the time of gathering information outside of physical limitations and conditions.

10

Located between the Świętokrzyskie bridge and Cypl Czerniakowski in Warsaw, the Vistula boulevard was envisioned to reconnect visitors streaming in from an adjacent rail line and the commercial area known as Kahla Square. As with most waterfront revitalization projects, the main issue is the lack of character and attachment of the city center with the river, meaning there is commercial opportunities for water-activity support.

Figure 2. River walk

Figure 1. Event Space

Figure 3. Building Connection to Water

Bulwary Wiślane

11

Figure 4. Reclusive Space for Seasonal Change

Warsaw, Poland WXCA Architects

Figure 5. Large-scale river walk view

WXCA’s program calls out for a multitude of different spatial functions to account for seasonal and typical human behaviors within public space. For the active lifestyle, recreational sport facilities are to be located on the south side of the railway bridge. A pavilion to be used for catering services is located further down (along the green strip) and serves to extend the seasonality of the space’s use.

This waterfront revival is contradictory in today’s urban environments, where people are placing larger emphasis on building higher density areas; however the architect and many urban planners understand the necessity for recreational and green spaces. The development behind some of the areas contributes towards funding the main concepts of the park.

Figure 7. Courtyard entrance

Figure 6. South-facing Render

Figure 8. West Terracing

12

Garden Bridge London, UK Heatherwick Studios

Figure 9. Render

Designed to connect Arundel Street and the crescent of The Aldwych, Thomas Heatherwick’s Garden Bridge provides both an area of reprieve and a scenic interjection for tourists of Central London. The Garden Bridge concept was originally envisioned by actress Joanna Lumley, who wanted to better connect North and South 13

Figure 10. Elevation

Figure 11. Below the Bridge

Figure 13. Garden View

London neighborhoods. The North Bank suffered from extreme isolation following the fine arts boom experienced in the South Bank. This was particularly exhibited after the building of the Victoria Embankment The Bridge attaches itself to the front of the London Television Center to an empty lot adjacent to the most centrally located metro stop in all of London. From an infrastructural point of view, pedestrianism and tourism between both banks could easily converge through this adaptation of a garden space.

Figure 12. East Perspective

Cables and structural columns were removed from the top of the bridge in order to provide expansive views and preserve the sense of intimacy of the bridge. The radiating fin design is simple enough to tie attributes from both the stone and brick of the North and the concrete of the South. The space inevitably becomes both part of the heritage of the site.

14

Chicago Riverwalk Chicago, IL

Chicago DOT Ross Barney Sasaki Assoc.

Alfred Benesch & Co.

Figure 15. Riverfront Sketch, Sebastian Schott

The Chicago Waterfront, designed by Sasaki and Ross Barney Architects, is a new 1.5-mile stretch of revitalized and redesigned riverfront aimed at turning the banks of the Chicago River into a civic gathering space, park, and transportation corridor. The idea behind this initiative was to help redefine what a waterfront is, and how it should Figure 14. Type of Spaces within Riverwalk

15

Figure 16. Spacial Concepts

function. Developers accomplished this feat through sectioning of the river into both active and ecologically responsive portions.

The defining of each activity by section of the waterfront attracts any type of person. So far, there are 6 river section typologies: the Boardwalk, Jetty, Water Plaza, River Theater, Cove, and Marina Plaza. Here is an excerpt from the design team on the project goals and expected

Figure 17. Marina Plaza

Figure 20. Habitat Creation Concept

outcomes: “The river today is exponentially cleaner, an opportunity Riverwalk designers used to connect visitors with nature. The waterfront has been lowered to meet the river, and numerous activities, including a kayaking cove, help get people on the water and enjoying the waterway...�

Figure 18. Water Plaza

Figure 21. Master Plan

Figure 19. Jetty Space

Figure 22. Transitional Space from theater to plaza

16

Domino Park Figure 23. West Outdoor Casual Dining

Brooklyn, NY

The historical site of Domino Sugar factory in Brookyln, New York offers the perfect example of finessed adaptive reuse, where a landmark building and the spaces around are transforming into reflective and a which will be subsidized for low and moderate-income tenants. modernized version of urban life.

James Corner Field

Domino Park is currently being redeveloped to accomodate an 11-acre mixed-use community containing a variety of housing, office and recreational spaces.

Along the waterfront, developers are projecting to have a 380,000-square-foot office campus and 2,800 apartments, 700 of 17

The highlight of the park is a 450-foot-long elevated walkway that will be called the Artifact Walk.

The approximately five-block long walkway will run along the footprint of the warehouse that stored the sugar.

The Artifact Walk was inspired by the series of catwalks that connected the buildings on the Domino site when it Figure 24. East Perspective Rendering

was still a sugar factory.

Despite the park being built for heavily mixed-use purposes, it effectively ties-in the old industrial character to a newer component of the neighborhood. The site actively questions whether the waterfront is reserved for commerce and tourism or the neighbors that will inevitably fill the apartment complexs along the park.

Figure 25. East Perspective Rendering

Figure 26. Residential Development

Figure 27. Rec. Courts at East end

Figure 29. Spatial Layout

Figure 28. Fishing Station

Figure 30. Activity Layout

18

Figure 32. Perspective Rendering

Figure 31. Perspective Rendering

Moscone Center

19

Figure 33. Area Layout

Figure 34. Interior View

San Francisco, CA SOM Architects

Figure 35. Overlooking the Pedestrian Bridge

The Moscone Center for the Arts reconfigures the spatial interaction between tourism and the general public.

The highlight of this arrangement are two new bridges over Howard St. Also to support pedestrian needs, outdoor public spaces are also being created.

In addition to adding rentable square footage, SOM architects sought to create an iconic sense of arrival that enhances Moscone’s civic presence on Howard Street and reconnects it to the surrounding neighborhood through the creation of mid-block passageways. The two new, enclosed pedestrian bridges connect

Figure 36. Elevation

the upper levels of the new Moscone North and Moscone South as well as upgrade the existing pedestrian bridge across Howard Street. This helps frame the main public arrival space and provide enhanced circulation.

Figure 37. Pedestrian Bridge

Figure 38. Massing Section

20

Piazza del Campo Siena, Italy

Figure 39. The Marketplace

The Piazza Del Campo serves as the “living room” of Siena and draws people from all walks of life through its openness, light qualities, and the subtle sloping towards it’s focal point - the Fontana Gaia, located beneath the Torre del Mangia. There is a large amount of possible activities one can experience due to the impressive coalescence 21

Figure 40. The Enclosure

Figure 41. Historic Separation

Figure 43. Arial View

of casual, soft zones and commercial areas. People can gather collectively, or in a dispersed manner; however, there are always people and sociability infused within the Piazza.

The City of Siena is famously known for being built entirely around this Piazza. Commissioned in 1349 by the ruling body Council of Nine, Piazza del Campo was designed to symbolize their power and assertion. The square’s spoke-like paving pattern divides the space into nine sections with each section serving as a symbol of The Nine who governed Siena at the height of its medieval reign.

Figure 42. The Bowl of the plaza

As a successful civic space, the Piazza strangley does not contain benches or furniture for visitors, but people will more often sit alongside the edges of the square.

22

Christchurch Center Figure 44. Arial Perspective

Christchurch, NZ Zotov & Co. The Christchurch Center, designed by architects Zotov & Co. was created to serve as a liveable city center. Through nature-based and socially stimulating space implementation, the center became a dense, forest island that funnels in all types of locality. The connections to Christchurch’s bike lanes as well as a dominance of ground-level commercial and retail locations attract outsiders and pique curiousity.

The top of the island is designed as a lawn area, with a cultural homage to the Greek “agora” or “marae” of Maori tribe. Traditionally, 23

Figure 45. Interior Form Development

Figure 53. Nature at the Center

Figure 46. Marae Rendering

Figure 51. Permeation

Figure 52. Density Configuration

Figure 47. Land Allocation

Figure 48. Central Plan

Figure 49. Pedestrian Connection

Figure 50. Exterior Rendering

the marae is a carved building consisting of meeting ground, and serves as the focal point of Maori communities. When visitors come through the building, the stone walls are meant to open up to this hidden gem of a garden.

Figure 54. Master Section

24

Figure 55. Proximity to Water

New Road

The pedestrian street of New Road in Brighton, UK is a revitalized project that connects the city’s pier to its North Laine neighborhood. What was originally considered an unsavory backalley in 2005, New Road has since reduced traffic levels by 93%, increased the number of pedestrians by 62%, and increased a massive 600% of healthy, lingering activities. The street has adopted a pedestrian-centric position, and thus encourages defensive driving.

25

Figure 56. The Entrance

Figure 57. Material Pallete

Brighton, UK

Jan Gehl Architects

Site Selection

26

Location San Pedro was annexed to Los Angeles City in 1909 and is connected by a narrow strip called the “Shoestring” (or harbor gateway) addition. This addition has undergone some infrastructural additions (through implementation of public transit) but still separates the LA Center from its harbor’s waterfront.

Rail Lines can be seen adjacent to the site and were originally established by the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1872.

The site itself is located directly West of the apex of the S.P. slip, which houses 20 fishing boats that are used to by the San Pedro Fish Market. It is situated on top of a hill overlooking Sampson way, which still serves 27the main road in and out of the San Pedro development. as

The Site

Figure 58. Main Area of Focus in San Pedro

Aside from having the San Pedro Waterfront offer a uniquely undeveloped condition in LA - located at the waterfront - what is most intriguing about the area is its massive scale and complete tailoring to the tourist facet, while maintaining close proximity to community areas. What has resulted out of this large gap between tourism/developer and community is what I would consider a polarization of values in commercial, cultural, and overall sociable lifestyles. What many urban activists and theorists would argue for in this setting is to promote commerce through the local base, who are constantly present, non-seasonal, and devote more attention to the character of their surroundings. The complete underutilization of transit options (even in the prescence of existing infrastructure) also has developers reaching for a tourism base, when a more strategic option may be to curtail the needs of the city. Former Director of New York’s Department of Transportation Jeanette Sadik-Kahn looked at retail stores’ earnings located next to pedestrianized (and bike friendly) streets that she had installed and compared them to similar stores on more car-centric areas and found the former’s earnings to be 65% more over the course of a year. It is estimated that a single parking spot has an average annual cost of to the US economy of around $12,000 (Shoupe). Not Surprisingly, the largest issue with scale on this site stems from the car and parking, however, there are many opportunities to devlop multiple transit opportunities (either as a ferry, trolley, bus, bike share).

28

29

Figure 59. Area1N

Figure 62. Area 3N

Figure 60. Area2N

Figure 63. Area 3S

Figure 61. Area2S

Figure 64. Area 4N

Site: Area San Pedro is an area of historical and industrial significance for the city of LA. It is the 10th busiest port globally, it handles 8.1 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) a year, and the port’s annual revenue is around $446 million.

Figure 65. Movement Tendency - Midscale

Figure 66. Visual Tendency - Midscale

Approach Water Transport Focal Point Parking Community Movement Sight Lines

Figure 67. The Break

The site that I have chosen for my project directly overlooks the 33 acre development area which currently houses: 1 Greek Restaurant, a fishing equipment storage yard, and a 40’ wide asphalt street, for fishing boats to use at their discretion. The site iteself contains Bloch Field (a baseball diamond) but does not see much activity or use outside of little league.

It is essentially an open space, with natural topsoil, rendering it perfect for landscaping and outdoor activities. It is also located at the terminus of the San Pedro Neighborhood and offers a perfect means of introducing local circulation into the developing areas.

Hopefully, the lot can also be used as a means of congregation for the growing neighborhood.

Figure 68. The Point of Interest

30

P r o b l e m / Solution Words

Fitting

Guarded Pleasant

One part of this thesis involved being able to distinguish problems with the targeted site. After my first site visit, there were clearly distinguishable traits that were lacking.

Repercussions on the neighborhood could be seen through an absolute lack in activity in all areas of tourism and locality.

Needless to say, in San Pedro, the main issue is a lack of identity and social connection, but these listed components can be directly observed in the waterfront setting.

The solution words were given varying levels of priority per their respective problem.

Most of these words attach themselves more to placemaking than through a building space. Here we see a preference towards higher communication and foot-traffic for the goal of breathing life into the San Pedro Art Festival Site.

Forming

Protected

Un SAFE

Proportionate

Strong

Healthy

OVER Scaling Calibrated

Comforting

Conforming

Closeness

Living Animated Full

Intimacy

Approachability

Isolation

Lifeless

Energetic Communion

Familiarity

Spirited

Figure 69. Disconnect

Figure 70. Isolation

31

Worker

Family

Local

Tourist

Figure 71. Daily Use per Individual

Site Analysis - Acitivity

3 PM

8 AM

3 PM

Figure 72. Daily Use Overlap

8 PM

Figure 73. Solar

32

Topography The site’s topography (Figure 74) shows a relatively flat area, with minimal geographical obstacles to the water’s edge. As see in 5’ increments, the top of the site is located at around 41.00 ft above sea level, and converges to the lower area of the wharf at 18.31 ft. The grade difference offers a panoramic view of the devlopment and is highly prized as this that needs little grading. Since I am undertaking this project with the objective of providing temporal spaces that offer changing landscpaes in a seasonal manner, the connection to the waterfront is one of the only components that must remain permanent and direct.

Figure 75. Adjacent Topography at SP Slip

33

Figure 74. Topography

Site Analytics

Other 18%

Asian 5%

Single 40%

Married 42%

Black Other 4% 6%

White 44%

Hispanic 41%

Blue Collar 40% Female 51% White Collar 60%

Male 49%

Figure 76. Demographics

San Pedro has a population of 78,405 making it the 105th biggest city in California and also has an average elevation of 100’ above sealevel. Its community contains one of the most historically diverse and accommodating populace in Southern California. Originally controlled by the Spanish, San Pedro begun attracting Italian and Croatian immigrants during its hay-day (1920s) when the fishing industry reached its peak. San Pedro Harbor was also home to significant amount of Japanese immgrants, prior to WWII. Nowadays, the city has upwards of 90,000 residents, some of which still have strong ties to the founding and emergence of this significant port.

The city offers multiple areas where artwork can be featured, however, in recent times, the creative class has had little opportunity to parttake in the development and evolution of the city.

As a developing town located within the largest city on the west coast, San Pedro has a large influx of white-collar jobs that are emerging in this heavily industrial area. Historically, this area was home to blue-collar jobs, with 6,000 people being directly employed by the fishing industry in 1935.

34

Satelitte Image

35

Surroundings: Art The site itself is located directly West of the apex of the S.P. slip, which houses 20 fishing boats that are used to by the San Pedro Fish Market. It is situated on top of a hill overlooking Sampson way, which still serves as the main road in and out of the San Pedro development.

San Pedro Art Association A Non-profit Organization The Downtown District is home to over 30 studios and galleries, many unique/non-chain restaurants and at least a dozen world class artists who own property in and around San Pedro. Part of 14 inaugural California Cultural Districts, a creative statewide program celebrating the state’s diverse and abundant cultural treasure.

2

San Pedro Waterfront Arts District The San Pedro Art Association was formed in 1936 by a small group of local artists to bring together creative people with similar interests within the Harbor area community, and to provide a focal point for those with such interests to work together, to learn, and to exhibit their work. Currently headquartered at CRAFTED.

1

3

4

CRAFTED at the Port of LA A Permanent weekend market with handmade apparel, home decor & food goods, plus regular events. The Collection is a curated space inside the CRAFTED marketplace! The Collection is home to over 15 handmade artists and makers. A classically restored 1940’s-era Warehouse No 10 open during the weekends Angels Gate Cultural Center The Center emerged from a group of San Pedro artists in the 1970’s that created artist studios and exhibition space within the 1940’s era Army barracks of Angels Gate Park. The Center provides professional work-studio space for 52 artists, including musicians, ceramists, painters, sculptors, writers, photographers, printmakers and jewelers.

36

What’s Around: Misc.

The San Pedro Fish Market is open on the weekends and serves around 15,000 meals per week. The current infrastructure only accounts for personalized transport (the car) and attracts tourists. There are around 1,000 open parking spots on-site, which will be doubled within the next 5 years of development.

The trolley was currently undergoing a $3 million renovation to add an additional track to the historic S.P. rail; however the trolley was ruled to be inefficient in transporting and shuttling people into the site. The intent of the trolley is to link downtown parking with the final station being at ports o’call village.

Figure 77. Brouwerij West

Figure 78. Cabrillo Marina

Figure 80. San Pedro Fish Market

Figure 79. Ports O’Call Trolley Station

There are two breweries located within the area of the waterfront. The most popular brewery, Brouwerij West, was founded in 2016 and is located in historical naval Warehouse no. 10 (120,000 square feet).

37

The Components

Figure 85. Circulation

Figure 81. Division

The site offers complexity in a variety of aspects, which in turn can be translated into numerous approaches within the masterplan design. The main inspiration of these diagrams was the idea of the site serving as a pathway for locals and the city alike. As it stands, the baseball field serves as a barrier, separating residents from direct contact with the waterfront (by 1000 ft). The site will be able to direct local foot traffic into the development area as well as serve as a year-round attraction through its intent as a flexible art event space.

People should not realize they are on a path that is taking them to a singular destination, so exploration of the surroundings is key. A successful path should allow people to permeate into space rather than simply moving through a transitional zone.

Figure 83. Instinct

Figure 86. Combined Abstracts

Figure 84. Occlusion

Figure 82. Flow

38

The Development 39

Development and Thesis The project I am proposing offers a means for locals to directly attach themselves to the San Pedro harbor and maintain/create social connections (and therefore identity) through an exchange of ideas, art, and services to the general public. The dynamicism of the site program will allow for dedicated artists of all professions to showcase their ideas towards what the city and the world should be developing towards as well as offer consistent activity through both sides of the development.

In terms of unique leasing, festival space can be provisioned as seasonal and offer events according to demand or longevity of said event. If the space requires more control, then the privatized area of the festival space may serve for controlled, commercial areas, whereas the exterior landscaping allows for pedestrian direction and refuge for meetups.

40

Development Guidelines Private Financing Dependent - Waterfront/Commercial developments are heavily dependent on private financing from banks, insurance funds and equity funds which are sensitive to limitations on term length.

Development Life Cycles - Economic life cycles for visitor serving commercial developments are dynamic and heavily influenced by shifting market demand, competition, and the economic environment.

Proactively Address Market Decline – Economic obsolescence must be addressed proactively in order to limit periods of stagnation or blight that can impact the overall momentum and branding of the district.

Unique Lease Provision Issues – Issues regarding subleasing, assignments and leasehold financing, are critically different in the private development context.

Development Goals • Improve the quality and character of the Waterfront • Increase public access to the Waterfront • Connect the project to the local community • Expand the harbor experience • Support local businesses • Expand public parks & recreation

41

Development Currently being developed by Jerico Developers in conjunction with the TFO Architecture, the waterfront market won’t be completed until 2020. What will be eventually created is: 2600 parking spots, 375,000 sq ft commercial space, a 3-acre fisherman’s park, a conference center, and 35,000 square feet reserved for congregation.

Figure 89. Concept - Public Market

Figure 88. Phase 1 Areas (est completion 2025)

Figure 90. Concept - Warehouse 79

Figure 87. Master Plan

42

Results/Design Prototype 43

Summation of AR 502/503 AR 502 established the overall form of the project and addressed the problems faced during AR 501’s site visit. Although the architectural solutions may not have been aesthetically refined, the overall functions were met adequately to reflect the connection, permeation, and supportive means necessary to promote the san pedro art community within the context of a revivied identity. The most developed areas were the modular booths, arranged in a 12’ grid, the three-piece strip North connection, and the overall topography. The topography was sculpted to allow ADA accessibility and to minimize the amount of top soil removed from the site.

Overall, AR 502 not only required a set of buildings to be grafted to a landscape, but also needed a site that could support the outdoor functions of placemaking, refuge, reprieve, and revival.

The reason I have included AR503 in here is because the thesis designs were developed sequentially across both quarters and with the auxillary buildings (kitchens, office, education, and ticketing centers) in particular, much of the aesthetics were not developed and had to be drastically improved upon from the previous quarter. The exterior from AR 502 did not change as much, however, the visual queue of the site as an event location was highlighted through the implementation of the elevated boardwalk, which acted like a beacon for guiding and attracting people from the development.

44

Program Development This program Figure 92 shows adjacent spaces that were to be used to acommodate the public among the redeveloping waterfront.

Due to the SP Slip site being too detached from the existing neighborhood, this site had to be relocated to better provide a means in which neighborhood identity could development in conjunction with the development. Circulation among all functions of the waterfront is critical in order for people to effectively navigate the space and also attract others (tourism) to the waterfront. It is also important to note that the new site (at Bloch Field) overlooks the entire waterfront development with nearly unobstructed views and also provides locals a means of respite from the active water’s edge.

The more permanent structures are seen as bordering agents for the controlled, commercialized internal space (at around 400,000 sq ft), whereas the exterior area (not featured) simply needed a means of connecting the pedestrian activity with the space and the surrounding neighborhood. This developing program at Bloch Field originally envisioned to provide 3 kitchens at 6000 sq ft, 5000 sq ft of admisitrative office to oversee the scheduling and logistics of the event spaces, and other auxillary buildings to aid the conectivity of people among the waterfront and neighborhood.

45

VENUE SPACE

VENUE SPACE

Seating

Dance Floor

Stage

BAR

PLAZA

BAR

OFFICES

PLAZA CAFE

YOUTH CENTER

OFFICES

Focal Point

Soft Zone Seating

YOUTH CENTER

MARKET

Game Rooms

Classrooms

Performing Space

Seating

CAFE

Lounge

Cafeteria

Gymnasium

MARKET

FITNESS CENTER

Vendors

Pool

FITNESS CENTER

Gymnasium Weight Room

Spa

Rock Wall

Group Room

Figure 91. Program Diagram 1

Figure 92. Program Diagram 2

Figure 93. Program Diagram 2

Program Analysis The building type for the site does require a degree of fireproofing for the exterior structure. Therefore, these buildings are equipped with a Type II-B, which is composed of non-flammable materials at the exterior. For the Occupancy type B, the kitchen areas were required to have a fire sprinkler system, allowing for 92000 sq ft of building, whereas the office administration is not equipped with sprinklers, leaving 23000 sq ft for building area.

Office

Offices

Kitchens

Exit/Entry

Kitchen 1

Recreation ED. Check-out

Lobby

Kitchen 2

Meeting Room

Break Room

Break Room Bathrooms Print Area Utilities

Locker Room Bathroom Utilities

Ticket Area Main Function

Hospitality

Office Space

Support

Kitchen

Rest

Education

Utility Figure 94. Program Diagram 1

46

387'-3 1/2" + 49.31 ft

47

Figure 95. Program Positioning

/2"

1 '-6

99

45'-5

1/2"

Figure 96. Topographical Progression

Figure 97. Topographical Progression

48

Master Plan - AR 502 1

387'-3 1/2" 257'-7"

49.31’

18’1”

2

345'-10 1/2"

This master plan primarily focuses on the layout of the interior commercial festival spaces, where 106 booths, 1 administration office, 2 kitchens, a bar, and an outdoor stage reside. This space is meant to invoke a sense of exploration within, while aslo retaining the sense, for those who are visiting, that they are still near the waterfront. For locals, this area can be seen as a means of escape from their typical work week, a means of communion, or a way to share and explore ideas. With a creative-driven, fast-paced, evolving space, there always something new to see.

3

The footpaths that meander through the exterior landscape create parcels of land that can be used to house interactive and provoking largescale art pieces or architectural pavilions that can concentrate the public within this transitional axis of the waterfront development. Orientations of the footpaths were derived from the sight lines (see Figure 103) and offer 3 access points to the festival space. These access points allow for permeability within the planned site as well as direct circulation to either end of the site’s area (depending on where people desire to go). For the neighborhood to the West, a simplified permeation of space allows for easier integration of the festival and the artists to San Pedro’s creative identity.

150'-6 1/2"

I approached this site with the intent to minimally impact the landscape, but to also be able to offer transparency in this transitionary setting.

Conviniently, the site offered an opportunity to terrace the area according to the direct circulation lines (for the macro-development scale) and the sightlines one would experience within the festival.

12'

Figure 98. Master Plan

49

12'

36'

84'

132'

324'

50

Booth Layout

49 people

12'-0"

12'-0"

12'-0"

15'-6"

12'-0"

24'-0"

15'-6"

24'-0"

24'-0" 24'-0"

Artist booths were designed within a 12x12 grid (as were the permanent structures) to provide a human-scaled level of interaction among the site and serve as examples for artists who would ideally build these temporary structures themselves.

With shelving and displays set up for sculptural and ceramic art, artists who are showcasing work that takes up less floor area may likely have more opportunity for roomier booths. The layout in Figure 99 was derived from 1. circulation and 2. accessibility. ADA requires that a 60� radius be used for turnaround, therefore it was a standard space requirement for the ciruculation within the booth. Shelving is 18-24� in depth and the artist is allotted a space for them to interact or hang out with passing customers.

1 person

Figure 99. Modular Booth Layout

51

ut

Master plan - Overview Figure 97 highlights the separation of land mass in the form of topographical terracing with respect to 1. the original landscape and 2. the need for people to easily access both the waterfront development and the surrounding neighborhoods. The landscape terracing also allows for massings to be placed in order to inform direction and spacial allocation (for private and public areas within the site).

The skewing of building masses at this stage provides more expansive views within the controlled commercial venue space.

This skew also translates into a border, which (when arranged according to existing topography) can effectively flow down to 18.00’ above grade without obtruding views from the West neighborhood.

Figure 96 showcases the basic existing topography through increments of 2’6” while also indicating the proximity of the site to the SP SLIP. The site’s topography does exhibit steepness along the North edge of around 8.53° and had to be addressed in order to be acceptable for ADA accessibility (which it is in the case of the current master plan).

The red lines were drawn in to aid the the visualization of terrain slope changes and were then taken to inform on the enclosures that would inevitably be present.

52

Topography AR 502

53

Perspective AR 502

54

Site Perspective

55

56

" '-2 59

The Topography of the San Pedro Art festival follows the natural slope of the site with a total height difference of 30 ft. Following the natural slop minimizes the amount of natural topsoil removed during construction which can sustain natural flora both in and outside of the festival space. The Pathways are sculpted to allow for a meandering pavilion and public art sculpture walk, but can also offer a means of activity and recreational sport. There is a 100’ sliver located south of the paths that can also account for recreational activities, but remains undefined in this thesis. The Festival space did need to become slightly raised in comparison to the East outlet zones, but there is an ADA access point at the south corner of the site.

45'-2"

" 1/2

'-3 1/2 "

62'-10"

63

53'-8" 77'-3 1/2"

33'-11"

27'-6"

0"

88'-

83'-4"

37'-9 1/2"

66'-4" 44'-3 1/2"

"

'-9

41 "

'-0

33 '-9

80 1/2 "

1"

'-1

45'-2"

79'-2"

60

79'-2"

42'-5 1/2" 10"

/2" "

01

1/2

33

'-9

"

63

'-9

1/2

"

'-0

47

'-1

1

1/

2"

'-4

52'-

36

47'-3"

50'-

1/2

"

49

'-3

"

45

'-2

51

66

'-1

1/

1/2

"

67'-4"

2"

'-6 "

"

" '-7

"

44'-5 1/2

'-8

63

1/2

"

'-1

47

41

"

143'-11

Figure 100. Exploded Pathways

57

'-5 54

19'-3" 46'-4 1/2"

62

Topography Refined

12'

36'

84'

132'

Figure 101. Path Dimensions

324'

The North Connection

47'-3"

As a main component of the neighborhood-development concept, this terraced area is divided into three main components. The first component was modeled after the Spanish Steps located in Rome, Italy, where steps of longer treads provide a means for people to sit, relax and observe their surroundings. The second component of this pathway is the landscaped, rolling grass hills, which can allow for picnics, provide adequate shading, or be used for children to play on. The final component is the ADA-rated ramp at a 4.02 degree slope. This “ramp� can be used to allow cyclists through the north, assist persons with disabilities through the site, or allow access into the festival space.

324'

Figure 102. North Connection

58

Festival Space

59

Entrances

1

1.3 acres

There are a total of 6 public access points into the Festival space. The main access for the West neighborhood is designed in the language of the 2016 Serpentine pavilion, which allows for 1. adequate diffusion of light, 2. a porous visual of the interior space 3. a matching, flowing connection between the 2 PTFE buildings.

The remaining entrances are located underneath the boardwalk and are used to promote a back-and-forth of develpoment vistors with the neighborhood.

2

Figure 104. Entrance_Serpentine

Figure 103. Access and Egress

60

Interior Layouts - AR 502 Taking the booth layout options of Figure 106, the arrangement of booth interiors permits festival-goers to explore the many nooks and crannies of the 9 acre space. Trees and seating flow along the pathways and line faux-courtyard spaces that have developed through clearings in these 25 blocks of exhibition areas. People can choose to do as they please and engage in what the English geographer Jay Appletons terms “prospect” and “refuge” (Montgomery 2013).

This main area is supported by the permanent structures through means of sustinence, education and entertainment in the form of music. The Stage area is placed on the high North West (+43.00 ft) corner of this site so that people may decide whether they wish to engage in music or simply have it for background noise. Buildings are located along the higher side of the site so deliveries and parking don’t obstruct from the main attraction of the space - the waterfront.

12'

36'

84'

132'

Figure 105. Floor Layouts of Festival Space

61

Booth Isometric

62

Kitchens - AR 502 The two kitchens (technically composed to be one building) are also derived from a 12x12 grid.

Each Kitchen requires a minimum of 7 workers per space - a sous chef, head chef, a couple chefs de Partie, a Kitchen porter, Cashier, and Dishwasher, which leaves <200 sq ft per occupant in the kitchens alone. Depending on the demand these facilities have, the amount of employees could easily triple.

There is also an outdoor bar area with shading that can add 2-6 employees for serving outside.

AA

1 5

5

5

2 1

4

3 2

4

3

1 2 3 4 5 6

6

5 6

Kitchen Pantry Break Area Locker Room Bathroom Outdoor Patio

1

7

8

6'

18'

42'

9

63

10 2

3

84'

Figure 106. Floor 1, Building 1 and 2

6'

18'

42'

84'

Building 1 - AR 502 9 10 2

3

11 12 4

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

14 10

15 5

1

5

16

7

Lobby Ticketing Area Check-out Area Rec Room Bathroom Meeting Room Office Break Area Print Area Mechanical Room

7

17

7 6

7

The responsibility of the administration building is to coordinate/maintain the existing grounds and to oversee seasonal changes in theme and installations.

The building itself has 11 offices that overlook both areas (of the pavilion garden and festival space) to be offered for the variety of coordination efforts placed into supporting this program. 31% of this portion of the building is composed of circulation space The other components of this administration facility are 1. a ticket booth and purchasing center, and 2. a recreational classroom and event room (flexible space). The purchasing area is to be used for item check-out (if artists cannot be present to write a receipt of sales) and can also be used to store larger items that may have to be shipped.

7

18

7

7 7

19

7 8

20 9

21 7

7

22

AB

A

B

C

6'

D

18'

E

F

42'

G

H

I

J

84'

Figure 107. Floor 1. Building 3

64

5

5

1

4

1

5

2

2

Kitchens - AR 503

3

1 2 3 4 5 6

6

3

4

Kitchen Pantry Break Area Locker Room Bathroom Outdoor Patio

1

5 6 7

8 9 2

3

10

65

Figure 108. Floor Layout - Kitchens 11 4

hens

8 9 2

3

10 11 4

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

13 10

14 5

1

5

15

7

Lobby Ticketing Area Check-out Area Rec Room Bathroom Meeting Room Office Break Area Print Area Mechanical Room

7

16

Building 1 - AR 503

7 6

7

7

17

7

7 7

18

7 8

19 9

20 7

7

21

AB

C

D

6'

E

18'

F

G

42'

H

I

84'

Figure 109. Floor Layout - Administration Building

66

Elevations Here I have highlighted the two main areas of entry to the San Pedro Art Festival space. The West elevation (Figure 109) shows the gracefulness and cascading of the light-wave roofs that were based off Enric Mirallesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Scottish Pavilion. The waves are supported by an open web truss system and are made from a translucent material called PTFE

67

Figure 110. West Elevation

Figure 111. East Elevation

68

Elevations

69

Figure 112. North Elevation

70

Figure 113. South Elevation

Building Sections The permanent structures must retain a low-profile to reduce the elimination of views from the surrounding neighbors (located to the West of the Festival Space). In order to minimalize the amount of topsoil excavations from the site, these buildings had to be grafted to the natural slope of the hill, while also fortifying an entrance. The images featured below showcase the transparency of the PTFE membrane atop the segmented spaces. The membrane was formed to represent the ripples caused by the ships that frequently occupy the portâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s background.

71

Figure 114. Section 1 and 2

Building Details

1

2

6 7

3

8 9 10 4

5

1

13 12

14 15 11 16

17 18 19

20 21

1. Outer Membrane 2. Thermal Insulation 3. Inner Membrane (Silicone Coated Glass Fiber Woven Cloth) 4. Glazing Head Trim (Stainless Steel) with Flexible Connection 5. Clerestory Glazing (Low Iron Double Glazing) 6. Clamping Bracket for Outer Membrane 7. Roof Gutter 8. Steel Ring Beam 9. External Cladding (Fibre Reinforced Plastic) 10. Clamping Bracket for Inner Membrane 11. Glass Mat Gyp. Sheathing 12. #1/4” x 3” SMS @ 12” O.C. 13. Corner Bead 14. Metal Sill Flashing with End Dams 15. Metal Studs 16. Batt Insulation (R-19) 17. Weather Barrier 18. 1” Coil Coated Metal Wall Panels 19. Flushmount Field Installed to Wall 20. Anchor Bolt 21. Wood-Stamped Concrete

Figure 115. Wall Detail

2

Figure 116. Section Locations

72

Building Axo The permanent structures must retain a low-profile to reduce the elimination of views from the surrounding neighbors (located to the West of the Festival Space). In order to minimalize the amount of topsoil excavations from the site, these buildings had to be grafted to the natural slope of the hill, while also fortifying an entrance. The images featured below showcase the transparency of the PTFE membrane atop the segmented spaces. The membrane was formed to represent the ripples caused by the ships that frequently occupy the portâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s background.

73

Structure Axo The structure of these buildings was based off a 12 x 12 grid. The open web truss system allows for ductwork of the CAV system to adquately and conveniently maneuver through the structure, rather than requiring the addition of an even higher ceiling than its current elevation- 15 ft above F.F..

74

Wall Layout Axo The pictures featured below show the main segmentation of the program and the materiality of the exterior walls. The three materials used to achieve a type II-B rating were: 1. metal panels, 2. wood-stamped concrete, and 3. Steel framing

75

Renderings

76

Lower Access Point

Figure 117. The Development

Connection

77

Upper Venue Space

Figure 118. Venue Area

78

Boardwalk South

Figure 119. The Boardwalk

79

North Entrance

Figure 120. Junction Entrance

80

R e c r e at i o n Classroom

Figure 121. Classroom Area

81

Office Corridor

Figure 122. Office Hallway

82

North West Courtyard

Figure 123. Courtyard Booth

83

West Courtyard

Figure 124. West Courtyard

84

Statement of Learning For me, thesis year involved more of understanding how people come together, define a space, and form an identity within an urban setting. This thesis project encompassed a large site that offered physical and social opportunities with an important consideration of the surrounding development. I felt the accessibility concept was more than adequately met and the architecture of the festival space itself allowed the site to stand out from the typical industrial aesthetic, appear permeable from a public standpoint, and also appear as a means of respite and sociability. I am grateful to have had the support of The Port of LA, specifically Michael Galvin, Director of Waterfront and Commercial Real Estate as well as support from my fellow peers within the class of 2018.

85

86

References 1.

Barker, R., & Coutts, R. (2016). Aquatecture: buildings and cities designed to live and work with water. London: RIBA Publishing.

2.

Brown, L. J., Dixon, D., & Gillham, O. (2014). Urban design for an urban century: shaping more livable, equitable, and resilient cities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

3.

Castle, H. (2015, May/June). Pavilions, Pop-ups and Parasols. Architectural Design, 85(3), 5.

4.

Ellis, C. (2015). Landscape Urbanism and New Urbanism: A View of the Debate. Journal Of Urban Design, 20(3), 303-307. doi:10.1080/13574809.2015.1031003

5.

Florida, R. (2016). New Urban Crisis. New York, NY: Basic Books.

6.

Fraser, D. (1986). Village planning in the primitive world. S.l.: S.n.

7.

Gaventa, S. (2005). New Public Spaces. London: Mitchell Beazley.

8.

Gehl, J. (2011). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space (J. Koch, Trans.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

9.

Krier, R., Graves, M., & Ibelings, H. (2006). Town spaces: contemporary interpretations in traditional urbanism ; Krier-Kohl-Architects. Basel: Birkhäuser.

10.

Montgomery, C. (2013). Happy city: transforming our lives through urban design. First edition. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

11.

Paddison, R., & Sharp, J. (2007). Questioning the end of public space: Reclaiming control of local banal spaces. Scottish Geographical Journal, 123(2), 87-106.

doi:10.1080/14702540701615236 12.

Rosenau, H., & Rosenau, H. (1983). The ideal city: Its architectural evolution in Europe. London: Methuen.

13.

Sadik-khan, J. S. (2016). Streetfight: Handbook for an Urban Revolution. New York, NY: Penguin Group USA.

14.

Sampson, Robert J. (2016). Individual and Community Economic Mobility in the Great Recession Era: The Spatial Foundations of Persistent Inequality. Economic Mobility:

Research and Ideas on Strengthening Families, Communities and the Economy, 261-287.

15.

Schumacher, P. (2011). The autopoiesis of architecture. Southern Gate, NJ: Wiley.

16.

Speck, J. (2013). Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time. New York, NY: North Point Press.

.

List of Figures Figure 1.

Event Space . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 26.

Rec. Courts at East end. .

Figure 2.

Building Connection to Water. . . . . . 11

Figure 27.

Fishing Station .

Figure 3.

Reclusive Space for Seasonal Change. .

11

Figure 28.

East Perspective Rendering. .

Figure 4.

River walk. . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 29.

Spatial Layout .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 18

Figure 5.

South-facing Render . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 30.

Activity Layout .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 18

Figure 6.

Large-scale river walk view. .

.

.

.

.

12

Figure 31.

Perspective Rendering . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 7.

West Terracing . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

12

Figure 32.

Area Layout. .

Figure 8.

Courtyard entrance . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

12

Figure 33.

Perspective Rendering . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 9.

Render .

. 13

Figure 34.

Interior View . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

19

Figure 10.

Elevation. .

14

Figure 35.

Elevation. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

20

Figure 11.

Below the Bridge. . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 36.

Overlooking the Pedestrian Bridge. .

.

.

20

Figure 12.

East Perspective. .

14

Figure 37.

Pedestrian Bridge. . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 13.

Garden View. . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 38.

Massing Section. .

Figure 14.

Type of Spaces within Riverwalk. . . . . 15

Figure 39.

The Marketplace . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 15.

Riverfront Sketch, Sebastian Schott. .

15

Figure 40.

The Enclosure. . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 16.

Marina Plaza. . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 41.

Historic Separation . .

Figure 17.

Water Plaza . .

16

Figure 42.

The Bowl of the plaza .

Figure 18.

Spacial Concepts. . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 43.

Arial View. . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 19.

Jetty Space. . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 44.

Interior Form Development . .

Figure 20.

Transitional Space from theater to plaza.

. 16

Figure 45.

Arial Perspective . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 21.

Habitat Creation Concept . . . . . . . 16

Figure 46.

Land Allocation . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

24

Figure 22.

Master Plan . .

16

Figure 47.

Central Plan. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

24

Figure 23.

West Outdoor Casual Dining.

. 17

Figure 48.

Pedestrian Connection. . . . . . . . 24

Figure 24.

East Perspective Rendering. .

17

Figure 49.

Exterior Rendering . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 25.

Residential Development. . . . . . . 18

Figure 50.

Marae Rendering. . . . . . . . . 24

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

. .

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

. .

. .

.

.

. .

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

19

.

.

. .

.

18

.

.

. .

. 18 .

.

.

18

. .

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

20

22 . 22

.

23

Figure 51.

Nature at the Center . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 77.

San Pedro Fish Market . .

Figure 52.

Density Configuration.

. 24

Figure 78.

Brouwerij West. . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 53.

Permeation . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 79.

Cabrillo Marina . .

.

.

.

.

.

37

Figure 54.

Master Section . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 80.

Ports Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Call Trolley Station . .

.

.

.

.

37

Figure 55.

Proximity to Water . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 81.

Circulation .

Figure 56.

The Entrance . .

.

.

Figure 57.

Material Pallete. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

37

.

. 38

Figure 82.

Instinct. . . . . . . . . . . . 38

.

25

Figure 83.

Occlusion. . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 58.

Main Area of Focus in San Pedro . . . . . 28

Figure 84.

Division . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 59.

Area 1N . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

29

Figure 85.

Flow . .

Figure 60.

Area 2N . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

29

Figure 86.

Combined Abstracts . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 61.

Area 2S . .

.

.

.

29

Figure 87.

Concept - Public Market. . . . . . . 42

Figure 62.

Area 3N . .

.

.

.

29

Figure 88.

Concept - Warehouse 79. . . . . . . 42

Figure 63.

Area 3S . .

.

.

.

29

Figure 89.

Phase 1 Areas (est completion 2025) . . . 42

Figure 64.

Area 4N . .

.

.

.

29

Figure 90.

Master Plan . .

Figure 65.

Movement Tendency - Midscale.

. 30

Figure 91.

Program Diagram 1 . .

Figure 66.

The Break. . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 92.

Figure 67.

The Point of Interest . .

30

Figure 68.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Figure 93.

Program Diagram 2 . .

.

.

Visual Tendency - Midscale . . . . . . 30

Figure 94.

Program Diagram 1 . .

.

Figure 69.

Disconnect.

. 31

Figure 95.

Program Positioning . .

.

Figure 70.

Isolation . .

. 31

Figure 96.

Topographical Progression. .

.

.

.

.

47

Figure 71.

Daily Use per Individual. . . . . . . 32

Figure 97.

Topographical Progression. .

.

.

.

.

47

Figure 72.

Daily Use Overlap. . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 98.

Master Plan . .

.

.

.

.

49

Figure 73.

Solar . .

Figure 99.

Modular Booth Layout. . . . . . . . 51

Figure 74.

Adjacent Topography at SP Slip. . . . . 33

Figure 100.

Exploded Pathways . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

57

Figure 75.

Topography. .

33

Figure 101.

Path Dimensions . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

57

Figure 76.

Demographics.

. 34

Figure 102.

North Connection .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

. .

.

. .

. .

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

. .

. .

.

. .

. .

.

. .

.

.

. .

. .

32

.

.

.

. .

.

.

42

.

.

45

.

.

.

45

.

.

.

.

45

.

.

.

.

.

46

.

.

.

.

.

47

.

.

.

.

.

38

.

.

.

.

Program Diagram 2 . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

25

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 58

Figure 103.

Entrance_Serpentine. . . . . . . . 60

Figure 104.

Access and Egress . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 105.

Floor Layouts of Festival Space. . . . . 61

Figure 106.

Floor 1, Building 1 and 2 .

Figure 107.

Floor 1. Building 3 . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 108.

Floor Layout - Kitchens . .

.

.

65

Figure 109.

Floor Layout - Administration Building. .

.

66

Figure 110.

West Elevation . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 111.

East Elevation. . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 112.

North Elevation. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

70

Figure 113.

South Elevation . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

70

Figure 114.

Section 1 and 2 . .

.

.

.

.

71

Figure 115.

Wall Detail . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Figure 116.

Section Locations. . . . . . . . . 72

Figure 117.

The Development Connection . . . . . . 77

Figure 118.

Venue Area . .

Figure 119.

The Boardwalk . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 120.

Junction Entrance. . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 121.

Classroom Area . .

Figure 122.

Office Hallway. . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure 123.

Courtyard Booth . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 124.

West Courtyard . .

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 63

.

.

.

.

.

78

81

84