Charles Harris_Y4 |Unit 14 | Bartlett School of Architecture

-

FEEDING MANHATTAN

CHARLES HARRIS YEAR 4

UNIT

Y4 CH

QUEENSBORO CULTURE

@unit14_ucl

All work produced by Unit 14 Cover design by Maggie Lan www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/architecture Copyright 2018 The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the publisher.

@unit14_ucl

CHARLES HARRIS YEAR 4 harriscwm@gmail.com charlie-harris.uk @harriscwm

Q U E E N S B O R O C U LT U R E Feeding Manhattan Manhattan, New York, USA

T

echnology and industry transformed the USA during the Second Industrial Revolution.

Nowhere was this more evident than New York City, which was transformed from a sparsely populated former Dutch trading outpost to a big player in global trade and industry within the space of 50 years. Central to New York City’s growth and cultural heritage was the meat industry. Enabled by a series of large infrastructure projects, New York City’s meat industry became one of the largest in the world, however, since the 1930’s, increasing land prices have progressively forced both the meat industry and the network of supporting delicatessens and butchers to close or relocate.

Current predictions estimate a growth in global population to reach 9.7billion by 2050.

one of the world’s most meat-consuming nations about sustainable production.

Returning to Manhattan’s legacy infrastructure, the project is located below Queensboro Bridge, intensifying under used space and offering a foot bridge to Roosevelt Island. The ground-bearing portion of the scheme houses an intensive, largescale, cellular meat facility, offering affordable meat products. The mid span is occupied by a number of ‘bio-alotments’, allowing New York City residents and small businesses to experiment with their own meat production. Central to this span is an open public space, allowing views up and down the East River and celebrating the location.

Finally, on arriving at Roosevelt Island, there is a new Deli, where experimental meat production can be tested.

This increase, combined with economic growth in Less Economically Developed Countries, is expected to result in an almost 70% increase in caloric requirement globally, largely from increased meat consumption.

In the pioneering spirit of Manhattan’s infrastructure, the long-span structural system is ‘biomimetically’ informed, developing a typical ‘box girder’ to a central ‘spine’ system, which is highly differentiated in response to load conditions and programmatic requirements.

This increase far outstrips the capacity of present agricultural methods and would use more than the total availability of drinkable water and over 60% of the Earth’s landmass.

The so-called ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ offers some potential solutions to sustainably satisfying this demand, through biotechnology. Cellular Agriculture is one-such technology, enabling meat and other animal products to be lab-grow, using a fraction of the space and resources.

B.02 A.03

E.04

A.02

B.05

B.03

C.01

C.02

E.02

E.01

D.01

E.03

B.01 A.01 GS-ZC-001 B.04

Y4 CH

GE-SO-001 DS-ZB-002

GS-ZB-001

EAST RIVER [EAST CHANN

EAST RIVER [WEST CHANNEL]

AREA SCHEDULE ZONE A

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

Integrating these new technologies, this scheme looks to introduce a cellular agriculture bio-meat facility to Manhattan, aiming to re-connect meatproduction to the city and making a statement to

A.01 A.02 A.03 50M

10M

SCALE: 1:1000 DWG: GE-SO-001

10M

50M

FACADE CONDITIONS

LOGIC OF SYSTEMS

GENERAL ELEVATION

ZONE B

[EXISTING ‘BRIDGEMARKET’]

SCALE: 1:1000 DWG: GA-XX-001

SOLID CLOSED STRUCTURE

CENTRAL SHEAR WALL - SPAN STRUCTURE

[REACTOR HALL]

Public market Starter laboratories Theatre - cell extraction

B.01 B.02 B.03 B.04 B.05

ZONE C+D

ZONE E

B.01 B.02 C.02

E.01 E.02 E.03 E.04

[BIO-ALOTMENTS]

Reactor hall - full height Public walkway Meat printing Terraced public realm Shear core

[REACTOR HALL]

Zone B alotments Public terrace Zone C alotments

CENTRAL SHEAR WALL - GROUND BEARING STRUCTURE

Deli alotments Deli test kitchen Deli restaurant M.E.P

Facade logic is driven by

At points of highest load structure forms a solid en Slender edge profile distinct from primary structure SECTION - Structral concrete walls fully visible - Ribs / structure exposed

ELEVATION

SECTION - Ribs / structure exposed - Frameless glazed infil

ELEVATION

SECTION

ELEVATION

- Frameless glazed infil -Secondary structure edge infil with slim profile

As the moment reduces, ‘spine’ in the elevated se in inserted between struc translucency.

3

Where the box girder dev ground bearing part of th required, so a logic of se

QUEENSBORO CULTURE FEEDING MANHATTAN

CHARLIE HARRIS PORTFOLIO UNIT 14, THE BARTLETT SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE 2018 UNIT TUTORS: Dirk Krolikowski Jakub Klaska

4

Technology and industry transformed the USA during the Second Industrial Revolution. Nowhere was this more evident than New York City, which was transformed from a sparsely populated former Dutch trading outpost to a big player in global trade and industry within the space of 50 years. Central to New York City’s growth and cultural heritage was the food and particularly meat industry. Enabled by a series of large infrastructure projects, New York City’s meat industry became one of the largest in the world, however, since the 1930’s, increasing land prices have progressively forced both the meat industry and the network of supporting delicatessens and butchers to close or relocate.

Current predictions estimate a growth in global population to reach 9.7billion by 2050. This increase, combined with economic growth in Less Economically Developed Countries, is expected to result in an almost 70% increase in calorific requirement globally, largely from increased meat consumption. This increase far outstrips the capacity of present agricultural methods and would use more than the total availability of drinkable water and over 60% of the Earth’s landmass.

The so-called ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ offers some potential solutions to sustainably satisfying this demand, through biotechnology. Cellular Agriculture is one-such technology, enabling meat and other animal products to be lab-grow, using a fraction of the space and resources.

Integrating these new technologies, this scheme looks to introduce a cellular agriculture bio-meat facility to Manhattan, aiming to re-connect meat-production to the city and making a statement to one of the world’s most meat-consuming nations about sustainable production.

5

6

BUILDING MANHATTAN INDUSTRIAL [INFRA]STRUCTURE SUPPLYING THE STATES BRIDGES OF THE EAST RIVER SMITHFIELD MARKET AND THE PHOENIX COLUMN [RE]STRUCTURE LONG SPAN HYBRID INFRASTRUCTURE - [DE]CENTRALISATION INDUSTRIAL NEW YORK - [DE]CENTRALISATION FOOD + INDUSTRY THE [SUB]URBAN FACTORY MEAT IN MANHATTAN: THE URBAN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT THE MEATPACKING DISTRICT

7

INDUSTRIAL [INFRA]STRUCTURE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MANHATTAN

INFRASTRUCTURE | the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities needed for the operation of a society or enterprise

WILLIA

1875

Opens: Long Span: Length: Suspension Bridge w

Second Avenue Railroad opens, using Phoenix Columns as primary structure.

Pre 1850 1850-1875

1883

1871

MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION

Grand Central Terminal Opens

Source: NYC PLUTO GIS Data

BROOKLYN BRIDGE

1868

Opens: 188 Long Span: 486 Length: 182 Hybrid Cable Stay Bridg

Ninth Avenue Railroad opens, using Phoenix Columns as primary structure.

8,000 2,000 200

0

SECOND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUT

Buildings Completed (per annum)

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1870

1860

1880

1890

1849

1800

City of Greater New York constitu

The method of producing an I-beam rolled from a single piece of steel patented by Alphonse Halbou in France

1856

End of American Civil War

Puddling of Iron patented, enabling mass-production of Wrought Iron.

Bessemer process for mass production of steel patented by (Henry Bessemer) in the UK.

STEEL

Steel was previously not cost effective for construction until the introduction of the Bessemer Process. The typically 2.14% carbon content of the ‘mild steel’ used in construction made it brittle, however, improvements in ferrous metallurgy allowed this to be reduced.

Modern steel is substantially more ductile that Wrought Iron and has higher tensile strength.

8

1865

Substantially less brittle than cast iron (due to it’s low carbon content of <0.08%). This meant it could be rolled, welded and riveted. This allowed for fabricated structures and was used in the construction of St Pancras Station and the Eiffel Tower.

First licensed factory to use the Bessemer Process opened up in the USA in Troy, New York.

1862

1784

WROUGHT IRON

‘Phoenix Column’ invented by the Phoenix Iron Works, Arizona.

They had a better strength to weight ratio better compressive strength than alternatives.

1910

1927

1903

HOLLAND TUNNEL

1903 490m 2227m with Truss Causeways

Pensylvania (Penn) Station opens

OPENS: 1927

Vehicular tunnel under the Hudson river

1909

1936

1964

AMSBURG BRIDGE

VERRAZANO-NARROWS BRIDGE

TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE

QUEENSBORO BRIDGE

Opens: 1939 Long Span: 1298m Length: 4176m Suspension Bridge with two decks, at the time it was the longest in the world.

Opens: 1936 Long Span: 420m Length: (3 sections) 850m, 94m, 117m 3 Suspension Bridges connected to each other

1939

Opens: 1909 Long Span: 360m Length: 1135m Double Cantilever Bridge

E

MANHATTAN BRIDGE

83 6m 25m dge

BRONX–WHITESTONE BRIDGE

Opens: 1909 Long Span: 415m Length: 2089m Suspension Bridge with Warren Truss deck

Opens: 1939 Long Span: 700m Length: 1150m Suspension Bridge

TION 1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

k formed from uent boroughs

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

1973

1929

1898

1900

1973 Oil Crisis, GDP per capita fell 3%

1913

The ‘Wall Street Crash’ marked the start of ‘The Great Depression’ and subsequent period of sustained economic decline.

‘Dual Contracts’ signed, facilitating construction of ‘rapid transport’ and subway systems.

This was a contract between the City and two major rail companies; Interborough Rapid Transit Company and Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company.

9

Wharf / Dock Area (Historic)

Tunnel (Vehicular)

THE BRONX

New York

New Jersey

Bridge (Mixed Use)

Tunnel (Rail / Subway)

Major Roadawys

Major Railways

LA GUARDIA AIRPORT

HUDSON RIVER

NEW JERSEY

MANHATTAN ISLAND QUEENS

D

NEWTON CREEK

NORTH PIERS

ST

EA R VE RI

CHELSEA PIERS

BROOKLYN NAVAL YARD

B C A

BROOKLYN

REDHOOK CONTAINER TERMINAL

PORT NEWARK

NEW YORK HARBOUR

HOWLAND HOOK MARINE CONTAINER TERMINAL

10

ey ers wJ Ne ork wY Ne

STATEN ISLAND

INFRASTRUCTURE

BRIDGES OF THE EAST RIVER

BROOKYLN BRIDGE Opened: Construction: Structural System:

1883 1869-1883 (14 Years) Hybrid Cable Stay Suspension Bridge, with Truss Deck, connected to masonry towers.

CARRIES 6 Lanes Roadway 2 Lanes Pedestrian DESIGNED 2 Lanes Roadway 2 Lanes Streetcar (up to 1950) 2 Lanes Elevated Railway (up to 1944) 2 Lanes Pedestrian / Cycle

WILLIAMSBURG BRIDGE Opened: Construction: Structural System:

1903 1896-1903 (7 Years) Suspension Bridge, with Truss Deck. Note: truss spans final section of approach without support from cables.

CARRIES 8 Lanes Roadway 2 Lanes Subway 2 Lanes Pedestrian / Cycle DESIGNED 4 Lanes Roadway 4 Lanes Streetcar 2 Lanes Subway 2 Lanes Pedestrian / Cycle

MANHATTAN BRIDGE Opened: Construction: Structural System:

1909 1901-1912 (11 Years) Hybrid Cable Stay Bridge, with Truss Deck Construction contracted to the Phoenix Bridge Co, a division of Phoenix Iron Works

CARRIES 7 Lanes Roadway 4 Subway 1 Lane Pedestrian 1 Lane Cycle DESIGNED 3 Lanes Roadway 4 Lanes Streetcar 4 Lanes Subway 2 Lane Pedestrian / Cycle

QUEENSBORO BRIDGE Opened: Construction: Structural System:

1909 1903-1909 (6 Years) Cantilever Bridge

CARRIES 9 Lanes Roadway 1 Lanes Pedestrian / Cycle DESIGNED 4 Lanes Roadway 2 Elevated Railway 2 Lanes Pedestrian

A D

C B

11

486m

84m

41m

A Brooklyn Bridge

490m

107m

41m

B

Williamsburg Bridge

451m

102m

41m

C Manhattam Bridge

360m

192m

107m

41m

D Queensboro Bridge

12

192m

107m

41m

INFRASTRUCTURE [DE]CENTRALISATION

“Now that the Pennsylvania tunnels are completed, and a resident of Flushing can go from his home to Herald Square in sixteen minutes, and without change of cars, now that the Great Queensboro Bridge is open to traffic, and a Flushing resident can go for a single fivecent fare by trolley in the fibest cras in New York over this bridge in thirty minutes, and with the prospect of the Steinway Tunnel being quickly opened, tens of thousands of New York’s increasing population will take advantage of and enjoy the same invaluable priveleges that have previously been the privelege of only thousands.”

New York’s Premier Suburban Colony - 1910 Business Men’s Association of Flushing Since the turn of the 20th century, the nature of the city centre has changed hugely; large manufacturing has moved further from the city centre and better infrastructure has allowed people to travel further and live further away. Increased decentralisation after the mid-20th century has moved manufacturing still further from Manhattan, however the early decades of the 19th century saw a particularly critical change in the nature of New York City. Suburban factories drew wrokers to the suburbs, where relaxed building regulations allowed many families to build their own homes.

The Bronx

210,000

Brooklyn

1,167,000

Manhattan

1,850,000

153,000

Queens

Staten Island

67,000

8.2M

6.9M

6.9M

Population

Population

Population

5.6M

Population

4.7M

Population

3.4M

Population

1927

2010

1940

Penn Station opens

1930

1920

1910

1900

1910

1939

Holland Tunnel opens

Bronx-Whitestone Bridge opens

1883

Brooklyn Bridge opens

1909

Queensboro Bridge opens

1903

Williamsburg Bridge opens

1931

George Washington Bridge opens

1936

Triborough Bridge opens

1909

Manhattan Bridge opens

Relative Population

(Data taken from New York Census)

13

1910 POPULATION DENSITY Data taken from New York Census

The Bronx

> 500

350-500

250-350

Manhattan

Queens

150-250 Residents per acre 100-150

50-100

25-50

< 50

Brooklyn

Staten Island

1930 POPULATION DENSITY Data taken from New York Census

The Bronx

> 500

350-500

250-350

Manhattan 150-250 Residents per acre 100-150

50-100

25-50

< 50

Brooklyn

Staten Island

14

Queens

INDUSTRIAL NEW YORK [DE]CENTRALISATION

“In the nineteenth century, the railroad emancipated many industries from reliance upon water transportation. Factories became freer to locate away from central port areas along radial radial freight lines and suburban spurs. Then, early in this century, changes in manufacturing production began to provide active incentives for factories to move out of the centre.”

‘Industry and residence: The decentralisation of New York City, 1900-1940’ Richard Harris - Journal of Historic Geography, 19, 2 (1993) 169-90 The ‘Second Industrial Revolution’ saw an un-precedented period of mass construction of urban fabric and infrastructure in New York City, with a huge amount of large infrustructure projects at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries: accomodating the growth in manufacturing industries. This growth changed the form as well as the size of the city; factories were changed, expanded and began to move to suburbs, with an unprecedented growth in blue-collar suburbs between 1900 and 1940.

The Bronx

Brooklyn

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Island

639,000

Manufacturing Jobs

562,000

Manufacturing Jobs

526,000

Manufacturing Jobs

389,000

Manufacturing Jobs

233,000

Manufacturing Jobs

2010

1937

1929

1919

1909

1899

DISTRIBUTION OF MANUFACTURING JOBS (in New York City)

Relative No. Manufacturing Jobs (Data taken from Regional Plan Association of New York, 1944 - Census of Manufacturers)

15

20th CENTURY INDUSTRIAL LANDSCAPE

Industrial Buildings

Data taken from 1935 City Planning Commission, Emergency Relief Project

10-50,000 Employees

1-10,000 Employees

100-1,000 Employees

100 Employees

THE BRONX

MANHATTAN QUEENS

BROOKLYN

STATEN ISLAND

16

FOOD + INDUSTRY

THE FOOD LANDSCAPE OF INDUSTRIAL NEW YORK

The development of New York City is intrinsically tied to its food heritage. Only 16 years after the founding of New Amsterdam the few dozen farmers and millers were exporting flour to Europe and by the mid 19th century, New York rivalled Chicago as the centre of the Americn grain trade, distributed via the Erie canal and Hudson river. After 1850, Cornelius Vanderbilt’s New York Central Railroad constantly supplied some 22 grain elevators on the Manhattan pier, the largest holding 2.3 million bushels. Until the end of the 19th century the area between 5th avenue and the Hudson River was filled with backyard piggeries and bone boileries on each block.

Pigs may no longer roam the streets of Manhattan and the silos are long gone, but the legacy of food in shaping New York City remains; from the street names and waterfront to the plethora of ex-industrial buildings, the heritage of food lives on.

FOOD MANUFACTURE EMPLOYMENT 82,677 employed 1920 19,000 employed 2010

FOOD MANUFACTURE ECONOMY $8.2bn (adjusted for inflation) 1920 $5bn - 2010 figure 2010

$15.8m

Value of Product

Persons Employed

Number of Factories

$184m $15.8m

$589m

$25m

$6m

2618

18,600

51,000

6000

870

495

1,700

2,323

355

72

Staten Island

Queens

Manhattan

Brooklyn

The Bronx

[FOOD +] INDUSTRY BY BOROUGH - 1920’s Data taken from Merchants Association of New York, 1922 Census

169,000 employed $1.1bn industry

Womens Clothes

8,091 factories 83,730 employed $671m industry

Mens Clothes

3,222 factories 82,677 employed $750m industry

Food Products

5,006 factories 113,000 employed $436m industry

Metal / Metal Products

2,614 factories 81,454 employed $390m industry

Printing / Publishing

3,167 factories

PRIMARY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES - 1920’s Data taken from Merchants Association of New York, 1922 Census

17

20th CENTURY INDUSTRIAL LANDSCAPE - FOOD INDUSTRY

Areas of Food Manufacture

Data taken from Merchants Association of New York, 1922 Census

Mixed Use Areas (incl. Food Manufacture)

THE BRONX

MANHATTAN

QUEENS First Avenue ‘Abattoir Centre’

Domino Sugar Factory Riverside Drive grain silos ‘Meat Packing District’

Red Hook Grain Terminal

BROOKLYN

STATEN ISLAND

18

FOOD + INDUSTRY THE [SUB]URBAN FACTORY

Between the 1800’s and 1950’s, sugar refining was one of New York City’s major industries, importing raw sugar from the West Indies and Deep South, refining it and exporting through out the norther states.

In 1857 Frederick C Havemeyer opened a seven storey factory in Williamsburg (The American Sugar Refining Company, which sold the ‘Domino’ brand), using the latest technology developed in Europe. Its initial production of 300,000 pounds of sugar per day exceeded the monthly output of all the other New York refiners. By locating the factory in Williamsburg (Brooklyn), Havemeyer could build directly on the East River, where ships would dock and unload good straight to the refinery.

The Williamsburg site was one of five major processing plants owned by The American Sugar Refining Company (now ‘Domino Sugar Corporation’), with plants in Baltimore and New Orleans. Since the 1950’s, a combination of land costs and increasing public hostility to factories in the city, all of New York City’s sugar refineries have closed. The introduction of high fructose corn syrup in the late 1970’s saw many traditional sugar refineries become obsolete. The Domino refinery was the last in New York, closing in 2004. Today only the Pan, Filter and Finishing House stands; with re-development of the site imminent.

West Elevation

Pan, Filter and Finishing House

North Elevation

Pan, Filter and Finishing House

1971

1805

Havemeyer family begin refining sugar in Manhattan.

1870

Domnio factory produces more than half of all American refined sugar.

1882

1820’s

Fire destroys most of the Williamsburg factory.

It is rebuilt with the smokestack on the Filter House.

1857

Factory expands between Kent Avenue and the River.

1819

Frederick C Havemeyer opens the Domnio factory in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

Its daily production immediately outstripped the monthly output of all the other New York refineries combined.

4,500 now employed.

New $35m sugar factory proposed for Brooklyn meets strong opposition from the public and is never built.

1996

1970’s 1959

Employment falls after Second World War, with 1,500 now employed

2014

450 now employed, following sequential industrial action over working standards and pay

High Fructose Corn Syrup gains popularity, making many traditional refineries obsolete

Remaining buildings demolished

2007

Pan, Filter and Finishing House given ‘Landmark Status’

2004

Domino Sugar refinery closed

2000

1950

1900

1850

1800

19

Factory Axonometric Pan, Filter and Finishing House © PAU Studio

Factory Axonometric

H ud so n

Ri ve r/

Er ie

C

an al

Pan, Filter and Finishing House © PAU Studio

U

ps ta te

-

West Indies

Downstate

EAST RIVER

Raw Sugar Wharf

Refined Sugar Wharf 6 9

12

5

10

7 8

11 River

1 4

13

3

14 2

Street

1 Filter House 2 - Pan House 3 - Finishing House 4 - Adant House 5 - Bolier House 6 - Pump House 7 - Turbine Room 8 - Power House 9 - Syrup Station 10 - Raw Sugar House 11 - Wash House 12 - Bin Structure 13 - Packaging House 14 - Speciality Sugar House

Kent Avenue

20

Grand street

South 4th Street

South 4th Street

South 4th Street

South 4th Street

South 5th Stre et

Remaining Structure (2017)

FOOD + INDUSTRY

MEAT IN MANHATTAN: THE URBAN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT

1902 1822

Fulton Street market becomes a fish market, due to loss of trade.

Fulton Street Meat Market opens.

1820’s

New York’s meat consumption nearly doubles, as a result of cheaply available meat (around half the price of European meat).

Beef Trust increase prices by 50% - Kosher Meat Riots ensued, boycotting butchers in the demand of pair pricing.

1850’s

1843

By 1960, 75% of meat is sold prepackaged.

1914

Hygrade suasage factory opens.

1875

600 Butchers registered in New York City.

1850

2005

60th Street Slaughterhouse opens, exporting ‘dressed meat’ and livestock to Europe.

2000

1950

1900

1850

1800

1810

Fulton Fish Market leaves Manhattan and relocates in The Bronx.

1950’s

Rise of the supermarket: independant stores, particularly butchers see a reduction in demand

Mass herding of cattle banned by city ordinance.

Meat supply is limited to licensed markets and butchers - resulting in a lack of competition and high meat prices.

1960

1906

‘The Jungle’ (a book exposign the conditions inside Chicago’s meat industry) published - reducing consumer confidence in the processed meat industry.

1843

Common Council declare that markets laws ‘no longer serve people’s interests’ - independant meat shops are legalised.

Livestock

New York City

Slaughterhouses + Meat Cutting

Butchers

Exports to Europe

Exports to US

Manhattan Slaughterhouse District

Brooklyn Slaughterhouse District

‘Meat Packing’ District

Exports downstate and to Europe

21

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT - THE KOSHER MEAT RIOTS

1700’s - 1850’s

Multiple ‘cottage-industry’ butchers around the city.

Livestock is walked through the city, slaughtered, processed and sold locally.

1850’s - 1950’s

Establishment of larger, conglomerate slaughter houses and meat cutters, distributing to local butchers.

1950’s - 2000’s

Supermarket begins to dominate grocery sales. Advances on packaging and containerisation allow meat processing to move outside the city.

‘Tomorrow’s housewife won’t have to shuffle on the butchers sawdust floor, see little chicken’s innards, or an animal oozing out its life’s plasma.’

Samuel Slotkin, Hygrade Foods Discussing the move to processed meat products The New Yorker 1952

22

2050’s - Speculative

Meat becomes a luxury item, with prices have increasing exponentially and a lack of available land for livestock production. Increasing environmental awareness has led to a boom bio-meat production, with localised production units spread around the city.

MEAT IN MANHATTAN EMPIRE STATE OF MEAT THE MANHATTAN DELICATESSEN FEEDING MANHATTAN [RE]STRUCTURE CLOSING THE FOOD GAP AN AVOIDABLE FUTURE CELLULAR AGRICULTURE CELLULAR ANATOMY

23

EMPIRE STATE OF MEAT THE MEATROPOLIS

The USA has one of the largest meat consumption rates per capita in the world; more than double the golbal average, twenty times India’s and almost twice China’s. The image above shows the annual meat consumption of Manhattan Island’s 1.6 million innhabitants, arranged to form the Empire State Building.

24

BR-101 Rye Bread

20-35mm (Typ.)

BR-101 Crust (5mm +/-2mm)

MT-101 Pastrami

20-35mm (Typ.)

100-150mm (Typ.)

5-15mm slices (< 100mm Total Typ.)

CO-101 Mustard Sauce - Applied to Bread

BR-101 Rye Bread

PASTRAMI ON RYE - SECTION 1:1

GENERAL INFORMATION: Origin: Manufacturers: Requirements:

BREAD: BR-101 Rye Bread Product: Supplier:

MEAT: MT-101 Pastrami

Sussmann Volk, Manhattan Jewish Quarter, 1888 Katz’s Delicatessen, Carniegie Deli and Kosher

American Yellow Mustard Katz’s Delicatessen, or other acceptable Kosher baker

Application: Serving:

Thick layers between bread Remove sruface membrane and slice thinly, against the grain of the meat. Typically served warm.

Cut: Curing: Marinate: Smoking: Cooking: Steaming:

Beef Briskett, navel end Salt cure for 2-4 weeks Spice rub - to include; Onion, Garlic, Pepper and Coriander 2-3 days hickory smoke Boil to a constant internal temperature of 75oC 15-30 mins

CONDIMENTS: CO-101 Mustard Sauce Application: Product:

Generous layer spread directly to upper leaf of bread.

American Yellow Mustard

CO-110 Sauerkraut (optional) Application:

Layered below meat

CO-115 Emmental Cheese (optional) Application:

Layered above meat

SPECIFICATION

LOCATION:

PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: SCALE @ A2: REVISION: DATE: ISSUED FOR: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

Pioneering Sentiment Pastrami on Rye Section As Indicated A 29.11.17

CHARLIE HARRIS

THE BARTLETT SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE Unit 14

22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB T: E: W:

+44(0)7904362155 design@charlie-harris.uk www.charlie-harris.uk

Information

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DRAWING:

CH

WARNING - EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION OF FATS AND CARBOHYDRATES MAY HAVE ADVERSE MEDICAL IMPACTS

DK/JK

CONSUMPTION OF RED MEATS MAY NOT BE ADVISABLE IF PREGNANT.

25

CL

CO-120 Grainy Mustard Sauce

25 (T 45m yp m .)

CO-110 Sauerkraut

70-100mm (Typ.)

MT-110 Hot Dog Sausage

mm -80 60 yp.)

(T

BR-110 Bun

NEW YORK HOT DOG - SECTION 1:1

GENERAL INFORMATION: Origin: Requirements:

BREAD: BR-110 Bun

Product:

MEAT: MT-110 Hot Dog

Pioneered by Samuel Slotkin (Highgrade Foods) Kosher

White Hot Dog Bun

Application: Serving:

Inside bread roll Served Hot

Cut: Smoking: Casing: Cooking: Frying:

100% Beef Hickory smoke Natural Boil to a constant internal temperature of 75oC Until browned

CONDIMENTS: CO-110 Sauerkraut Application:

Surrounding hot dog

CO-120 Grainy Mustard Sauce Application: Product:

Thick poured on top of hot dog American Yellow Mustard with Grainy Mustard

SPECIFICATION

LOCATION:

PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: SCALE @ A2: REVISION: DATE: ISSUED FOR: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

26

Pioneering Sentiment New York Hotdog Section As Indicated A 29.11.17

CHARLIE HARRIS

THE BARTLETT SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE Unit 14

22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB T: E: W:

+44(0)7904362155 design@charlie-harris.uk www.charlie-harris.uk

Information

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DRAWING:

CH

WARNING - EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION OF FATS AND CARBOHYDRATES MAY HAVE ADVERSE MEDICAL IMPACTS

DK/JK

CONSUMPTION OF RED MEATS MAY NOT BE ADVISABLE IF PREGNANT.

THE MANHATTAN DELICATESSEN AN URBAN SOCIAL HUB

‘D EL IK AT ES lly ta SE ke n ‫ עַמ‬N’ fro m ֲ‫יִנָד‬ G ‫ם‬ la e

Or igi na

te rm r t an ran a sla nd te d.

SA FE

TY In t de he e l pr icat arly ev es ye De ale se ar s n n awlicat t in , an of t t e th ay fr sse Mani se he J m e n o cit m pr hat itis ewi y. th ov tan m sh e t id w e ro d . The as ub åa les s of afe th pla e res ce to f

E OD een L N was ys from A a n UN tessee awrtantity.

M M delicaa homimpomun CO wishng oef d ane com e hi m th e J et or or Th som nd f ce f as e a pla m g ho etin e m

d an at ral me e nt ce ican mad T ry to er s EA on m Thi uxu M parios pe,hAeaps. ible l r m s . c co Eu ey ce ses he s rt ha By tern rem inac as fo uc ly s m t ea s ex usly the ed es, s ous w i o a i h o v ll is e w rev e to l t a d pr a p ilab ea w h m ne ic a p of wh av ea ent ye’, r’. h c ia is pm n R av Th elo i o e c v m ik de stra n ‘l a ee P ‘ b d ha

LOCATIONS:

Theatre District

Lower East Side

Upper East Side

27

A.Forman Delicatessen Manhattan Lower East Side

Katz’s Delicatessen 2010

Carnegie Delicatessen 2012

Postcard for Lindy’s Deli (now closed) Manhattan Theatre District

Katz’s Deli 1950’s

Carnegie Deli Interior 2010 Images © MCNY

28

Stage Delicatessen and Restaurant (now closed) Manhattan Theatre District

Katz’s Deli 1950’s

Queues outside Carnegie Deli (now closed) 2014

29

MEAT PRODUCTION FEEDING MANHATTAN

US MEAT CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA Chicken

90 80

4% ase per anum

icted pred

incre

70 60

Beef Pork

50

40 30 20 Fish and Seafood 10 00 1960

2017

lbs meat annual consumption per capita Source: USDA

GLOBAL MEAT CONSUMPTION annual consumption per capita Source: OECD

Lamb

Pork

Beef

Poultry

97.1kg

USA

per capita per annum

69.2kg

EU

per capita per annum

M

4.5kg

41.9kg

per capita per annum

30

222 572,000

Pigs

dresse

3.2

Manhattans’ Rearing Space

0.7

137,370

tonnes of feed

120

Days to maturity

C

per capita per annum

Manhattans’ Growing Space

Dressed Weight : Mass of Feed

67 0 ,69 kg 4m 3

Co n 37 sum ,19 pt 4,5 io n 37 44 k ,19 g 4m 3

per capita per annum

Global Average

1:6 Feed Conversion Ratio

BE EF

Co 63 nsum ,23 p 0 tio 63 ,725 n ,23 kg 0m 3

CH IC Co K 67 nsumEN ,69 p 4,0 tio 3 7 n

PO RK

50kg

China

India

S N’ N TA PTIO T A M NHNSU A M CO T EA

65 kg

dressed weight per animal

11 ols Po ng

39 ols Po ng

ic mp Oly

EFr BEWaatteer

9 ols Po ing

ic mp Oly

mi im Sw

4m

ic mp Oly

mi im Sw

EN ter ICK9W4am3 H ,6 C 67

3w

,69 67

m im Sw

RKer POW4amt 3 ,69 67

N IO ILL

Ms 34icken

Ch

Manhattans’ Growing Space

2.8

730,800

tonnes of maize feed

142,000

Head of cattle

1:6 Feed Conversion Ratio

Dressed Weight : Mass of Feed

1080

Days to maturity

9.7

ed weight per animal

Manhattans’ Rearing Space

2 kg

R TE WA

CT PA M I

31

[RE]STRUCTURE

TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE? PROJECTION

(UN Medium Fertility Variant)

2.1%

11.2 Billion 10.8 Billion 10.2 Billion

2.0%

9.6 Billion 1.8%

1.6% 7.4 Billion 1.4%

1.2%

1.0% 4.4 Billion 0.8%

3.0 Billion 0.6%

1.7 Billion

0.4% 0.9 Billion 0.2%

0.0% 1750

1800

1850

First Industrial Revolution ‘The Age of The Factory’

1900

1950

Second Industrial Revolution

2000

2050

2100

Third Industrial Revolution

‘The Age of Mass Production’

‘The Digital Revolution’

Fourth Industrial Revolution...

‘The Age of Integration’

Mean Population Growth Total Global Population Based on UN and HYDE population growth projections, interpreted from data from ‘OurWorldinData.org

7.4 Billion 2006

THE FOOD GAP Global Food Production (2006)

69%

9.6 Billion 2050

THE FOOD GAP

required increase in food calories to feed 9.6B

1 BN STARVING

9.6 BN

1BN OBESE Global Population by 2050

32

AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS 24%

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

37% Earth’s Landmass (Ex-Antarctica)

28% of global population directly or indirectly employed by agriculture

62% by 2050, at current uasge 70% Water Withdrawal 118% by 2050, at current uasge Agriculture’s share of global environmental impact (2010).

Data taken from WorldResourcesInstutute.org

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Beef Cattle Milk Small Ruminant Meat Small Ruminant Milk Pork Chicken Meat

90%

of production

Chicken Eggs 0

100

200

300

400

500 50%

Kg of CO2e per kg of protein

of production

Data taken from WorldResourcesInstutute.org

THE BIOFUELS NEXUS

The ‘Renewable Energy Directive’ mandates that at least 10% of all energy in road transport fuels, be produced from renewable sources by 2020, with the EU following a similr directive. On the back of this, some governments are planning to produce 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2050. This impacts the available land for crop production, as outlined below.

10%

Road Transport Fuels

32%

Global Crop Production

2%

Global Delivered Energy

If implemented...

THE FOOD GAP Global Food Production (2006)

100%

required increase in food calories to feed 9.6B

If eliminated...

THE FOOD GAP Global Food Production (2006)

55%

required increase in food calories to feed 9.6B

The statistics illustrate that there is potential to substantially reduce available food calories and agricultural land in delivering 10% of road transport fuels from renewable sources. As such, changes from current farming practice are required to increasing the efficiency of biofuel crop production and deliver the required biofuel energy.

33

CLOSING THE FOOD GAP [RESOURCE USAGE?]

RE-DISTRIBUTION

2300 kcal/person/day WHO recommendation

3000 kcal/person/day

WHO recommendation + actual waste

2,831 kcal/person/day 2009

(2009 production evenly distributed)

2,026 kcal/person/day

974 kcal/person/day shortfall

2050

(2009 production evenly distributed)

FOOD WASTAGE 40% wasted

50% edible

Fruit and Vegetables

30% cosmetic

30% wasted

Cereals

20% wasted

Meat and Dairy

35% wasted

Fish

30-50% Wasted

40% Consumer / Retail

45% Preparation

21% Spoilage

21% Thrown away from plate

12% Recycled

REDUCING WASTAGE 50% Food Waste Reclaimed

50% Food Waste

Units - Trillion Callories

9,500

1,400

1,400

THE FOOD GAP Global Food Production (2006)

Reclaimed Waste

49%

required increase in food calories to

ENTOMOPHAGY The viability of insect protein 205g/Kg

Protein

256g/Kg

68g/Kg

Fat

187g/Kg

Insect Protein (Cricket)

34mg/g

Vitamin C

1.8mg/g

1402g/kg

Calories

2776g/kg

8g Food / 1g Weight Gain 2g Food / 1g Weight Gain

34

Food to Weight Gain Ratio

Beef Protein

CLOSING THE FOOD GAP [SUSTAINABLE INTENSIFICATION?]

WORLD FISH PRODUCTION (million metric tons)

Aquaculture

150

Wild Capture 120

90

60

30

0 1960

1950

1970

1980

2010

1990

2010

CEREAL YEILDS (metric tons per hectare)

Developed Countries

5.0

Asia Developing 4.0

Latin America Sub-Saharan Africa

3.0 Future Trend 2.0

Future Potential

1.0

0.0

1950

Sub-Saharan Africa

1985

2011

2050

2050 Calorific Requirement Increase

Current Cereal Yeilds

Developed Countries

2050 Calorific Requirement Increase

Current Cereal Yeilds

CLOSING THE FOOD GAP - A COMBINED APPROACH 7.4 Billion 2006

9.6 Billion 2050

Reducing Waste Use of Degraded Land Land Management Gentic Modification Increasing Yeilds Decreasing Meat Consumption Entomophagy Aquaculture Redistribution Use of Degraded Land Population Control

35

MANHATTAN 2050 AN AVOIDABLE FUTURE

By 2050, the global population is predicted to rise to 9.6bn, with a 60% increase in calorific requirement. As Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s meat consumption continues to rise steadily Less Economically Developed Countries will move out of poverty and increase their meat intake exponentially.

Our present agricultural systems simply cannot accommodate this increase without drastic environmental consequences; water shortages, extreme land use and exhaustion of resources.

This images envisages a dystopian Manhattan, it captures the erasure of cultural heritage in a world where food and water are scarce and land prices have skyrocketed.

Of course this isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t the only option - this project sets out to provide a statement about a better way forward; intensifying production, with a more intelligent use of land and resources and an engagement with cultural heritage.

Manhattan has a rich heritage of meat and food culture. In siting the project in Manhattan, a major city in one of the largest global consumers of meat, the project aims to stand as a statement of a possible alternative to the current stutus quo of manufacture which has been developing since the mid 20th century.

Achieving this will require a careful approach; simultaneously looking forwards to recent advances in technology made possible with the Fourth Industrial Revolution, whilst looking to the past to be deeply rooted in place, context and heritage.

36

CELLULAR AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOGY AND POSSIBILITIES

“Some folks have big plans for your future. They want you - a burger-eatin’, chicken-finger-dippin’ American - to buy their burgers and nuggets grown from stem cells. One day, meat eaters and vegans might even share their hypothetical burger. That burger will be delicious, environmentally friendly, and be indistinguishable from a regular burger. And they assure you the meat will be real meat, not just ground from slaughtered animals.”

Ryan F Mandlebaum

A Gr lgin ow ate ht Su Bead bs s tra te

re ltu Cu ue

s Tis

D’ UNAT O R E ‘G M AR UL LD L L FOide form v CE AF pro to SCcture

O BI

R TO C A RE

u str te ina alg

K’ IC T H ‘T EA M

37

ILK

ILK

LL CE

M

M

O BI

G EG

LL CE

G EG

O BI

38

R TO C A RE

OR CT A RE

CELLULAR AGRICULTURE FEEDING MANHATTAN

3.6 m

2.5 m

25,000 litre bioreactor 10,000 peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consumption of meat, (continuous supply)

<1%

Starter Culture

rty ibe

L of tue Sta

55%

13,750L Water

ly us uo

n nti ITaSn co

UN att 0 anh 36feed M To

45%

11,250L Growth Serum

TRANSPORTATION

NYC Permitted Tanker Options

10.6 m Max. allowable length

32 Vehicules per day Goods out

15 Vehicules per day Deliveries Recieved

8 Mins.

3,600 Gal.

Unloading time per truck

GMC Tanker

16.7 m Max. allowable length 12 Vehicules per day Goods out

10,000 Gal. GMC Tanker

6 Vehicules per day Deliveries Recieved

20 Mins.

Unloading time per truck

39

MEAT + CULTURE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Exploring the schemes polemic programmatic opportunities for engagement, on a scheme and city-wide scale.

NY Fla C

gs DE hip L stoI re ,

ce le

br at

ing

cu ltu re

T eat EAof m

M s K cut res ICpingtructu H T elo ’ s

v ld Deaffo ‘sc

on

N TImOeat C f U o nd ODctionarou PR du ion

S le proribut AS ca st s Mrge nd di

La te a tan s t pa nha a M

TSd EoNn an M ti OTduc AL pro

O- ale tion BIall-scenta

Sm erim p ex

AN G I

en MA es L is of CE th LL e pr EX oc es TR s A

TE Ex ST p K

wi erim IT th C ne enta HE w lr ing ec NS re ipe die s nt s

CT IO N

Fat Cell

Muscle Cell

15 Vehicules per day Deliveries Recieved

Manufacture (Large-Scale) Display Area / Cellular Extraction Test Kitchens Bio-Alotments Delicatessen

MANHATTAN

40

EAST RIVER

32 Vehicules per day Goods out

SITE SELECTION UNDER THE ELEVATED QUEENSBORO BRIDGE

41

UN-TAPPED POTENTIAL UNDER THE ELEVATED

TYPICAL ELEVATED ROAD

Section

Van Sindern Avenue

Queens

31st Street

Queens

Pitkin Avenue

Queens

Queens Blvd

New Utrecht Avenue

Fulton Street

86th Street

Myrtle Avenue

Queens

Gowanus Expressway

122nd Street

Queens

Stillwell Avenue

Brooklyn

McDonald Avenue

Brooklyn

Manhattan

Roosevelt Avenue

Queens

Brooklyn

Queens

Rockaway Freeway

Queens

Brooklyn

Brooklyn

Palmeto Avenue

Queens

Coney Island Segment

Brooklyn

Broadway

The Bronx

The spaces beneath and around New York Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s elevated infrastructure offer a variety of spatial conditions which presently are largely un-used. The map opposite shows the distribution of these elevated structures throughout the city, illustrating the large scope of these spaces, whilst the accompanying sections illustrate the sheer variety of structures.

TYPICAL ELEVATED RAILWAY

Section

Air Train

Queens

Staten Island Railway

Staten Island

Metro North Railroad

Manhattan, The Bronx

Long Island Railroad

Brooklyn

Amtrak

Manhattan

42

Long Island Railroad

Queens

Amtrak

The Bronx

Amtrak

Brooklyn

Broadway

Brooklyn

43

SITE SELECTION QUEENSBORO BRIDGE

44

45

UN-TAPPED POTENTIAL QUEENSBORO BRIDGE

2

1

2

3

4

3

6

4

5

4

POTENTIAL SITES OF INTENSIFICATION: 1 - Underside of Queensboro Bridge 2 - Waterfront Zone 3 - Spaces under bridge 4 - Un-built Perimeter or Ramp 5 - Bridgemarket - Former market, now dis-used retail 6 - Low-rise mid-twentieth century buildings.

46

SITE SELECTION QUEENSBORO BRIDGE

PIER ELEVATION

VEHICULAR DECK SECTION

47

QUEENSBORO BRIDGE MANHATTAN APPROACH

VEHICLE DECK

Four general use and HGV Lanes on top of deck.

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Lattice truss and fabricated columnsteel structure, carrying vehicule deck above.

SUBSTRUCTURE

Part-vaulted masonry ramp, carrying six lanes of general use and HGV traffic.

SUBSTRUCTURE

Rafael Guastino designed tiled vault.

48

49

50

DESIGN SPATIAL ARRANGEMENT 3D PROGRAMME STUDIES INFRASTRUCTURE MASSING STUDIES SPATIAL DIAGRAMS SPATIAL HIERARCHIES CONCEPT SECTION SPATIOTEMPORAL STUDIES TESTING FORM

51

DESIGN EVOLUTION

52

DESIGN EVOLUTION

53

DESIGN EVOLUTION

54

DESIGN EVOLUTION

55

DESIGN EVOLUTION

56

DESIGN EVOLUTION

57

DESIGN EVOLUTION SPAN DEVELOPMENT

58

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

BIOMIMETIC DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

59

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS STRUCTURAL LOGIC

DEVELOPING STRUCTURE

Beam Column

Primary structure and corresponding load paths all develop from a central structural 'spine'. At times of highest load, this becomes a solid box girder, with the flanges opening up during the East River, as loads reduce.

Structural Wall [Integral to Box Girder] Shear Wall Structs / Span Landing Line of Enclosure 01 02 03 04 05 06

8.1m ctrs. typ, to match existing bridge Back span equal to main span centre, to balance moments.

Girder develops into central spine Thickening locally at highest load Central shear core Box re-forms at point of connection to Bridgemarket

06

1 2 3

THE SPINE LOGIC

Structural Deck [Integral to Box Girder]

3 [plan]

LANDING: Develops into struts SPAN: Box webs fall away as forces reduce GROUND: Box roof develops into central shear wall when it is no longer working as part of the span. Box webs develop to become struts.

3 2

2

1

1

05 04

03

03

PRIMARY STRUCTURE PLAN 1:1500

160M

160M *02

01

PRIMARY STRUCTURE ELEVATION 1:1500

STRUCTURAL SCHEMATICS:

Primary Load Distribution Downstand Bracing / Bulkheads Central Shear Wall

PLAN LAYOUTS [NTS]

INTERNAL SHEAR WALLS

Load carried centrally - large openings + thinner facade. Downstand bracing restrains facade

GIRDER EDGE BEAMS LOAD DISTRIBUTION

Load carried at perimeter - few openings / opaque facade

20m

Typ. ctrs

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

60

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PRINCIPLES AND OVERVIEW STRUCTURAL OVERVIEW ANTICIPATED FORCES Bending Moment EQ

Deflection

65M

Shear

EQ

280M

[Span]

160M

[Main Span]

[Cantilever]

Very High Shear Very High Compression Very High Tension

Anchorage Bearing

Bearing

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS SELECTION: CONCRETE BOX GIRDER

Cantilever

Cantilever

[to provide reaction force]

[to provide reaction force]

Upper Flange in Compression Lower Flange in Tension Vertical Load Transferred to Pillars

ADVANTAGES: -

Suitable for offsite manufacture in sections Long span achievable, with small Span: Depth ratios (up to 1:45) Penetrations can be made more easily than steel box girders Extremely high resistance to torsion

CASE STUDY: RIO-NITEROI BRIDGE

DETAIL STUDY:

CONCRETE GIRDER WEB CONNECTION

300M SPAN STEEL BOX GIRDER

1

Cantilever

300M

[to provide reaction force]

2

Cantilever

[to provide reaction force]

3 4

1 - Pre-stressed reinforcement to upper flange 2- Cast-in connections - reduces disruption to reinforcement 3 - Conduit for post-tensioned tendons (filled with grout) 4 - Chamfered haunch for de-moulding / Vierendeel connection

Deck Bracing Box Girder

7.5-12.5M

7M

6.5M

7M

26M

A series of biomimetic investigations lead to developing the typical ‘box girder’ system to brace the façades and transfer load to a central shear wall, using a series of optimised downstand beams / bulkheads. This system allows large openings to be made to the facade where required.

TYPICAL BOX GIRDER

Load transferred through outer shell - structurally onerous to make large openings.

GIRDER + CENTRAL SHEAR WALLS

Most load transferred to shear wall Vierendeel facade allows large openings - restrained to central shear wall.

61

RO OF I

NF

IL

M AN UF AC T

UR IN G

TO P

FL

AN GE +

SH E

AR

CO RE

EX

TE RN AL

LO W ER

W AL LS

+B RA CI NG

FL

AN GE

+L

AN DI NG

PR IM AR Y

ST RU TS

ST RU CT

UR E

AX ON OM

ET

RIC

62 SCHEME AXONOMETRIC

SCHEME AXONOMETRIC

63

SUPERSTRUCTURE - SYSTEMS

1

GIRDER SPAN: DERIVING DESIGN LOGIC

Standard box girder - no openings.

CENTRE SPAN

[Standard options for openings]

GIRDER SPAN:

DERIVING DESIGN LOGIC

2

Truss - competes visually with bridge above

3

Vierendeel Truss - Feedback from the structural engineer highlighted that a vierendeel system would be impractical for the very alrge span without smaller than acceptable horizontal centres of members

In order to make the box-girder span element habitable and maximise East River views, it is necessary to introduce openings to the shell. Moment diagrams reveal that this is best introduced closest to the middle of the span, where forces are lowest in magnitude.

The diagram opposite describes the logic of the design proposal, derived from the principles of standard systems.

CLOSED GIRDER

1

[introducing a non-standard system] Adjacent Shear Walls [Vierendeel Logic] - Feedback from the structural engineer highlighted that this system would not be sufficient in smals this great.

5

Inclined Shear Walls - Preferable aesthetic and greater moment resistance

TRUSS GIRDER

2

VIERENDEEL TRUSS GIRDER

[optimising and intoducing project systems logic] 6

Shear wall sizes varied in response to load conditions and restained to central downstand ‘spine’.

STANDARD TRUSSES

4

3

ADJACENT SHEAR WALLS

INCLINED SHEAR WALLS

CENTRE SPAN STRUCTURE PLAN

NON-STANDARD TRUSSES

4

As a 'nod' to Queensboro Bridge, the two centre connecting shear walls splay to meet each other.

5

1:500 [PARTIAL]

Wide in elevation - greater moment resistance

Structure Handed

Slender Leading edge

Restrained to central downstand ‘spine’ Girder edge raking in elevation restrained to down-stand until full-height

6

Views permitted

DESIGN INTENT [PLAN]

SUPERSTRUCTURE - SYSTEMS

The design intent of the span rstructure involves only visually interfacing with Queensboro Bridge at its landing points.

LANDINGS AND INTERFACES WITH QUEENSBORO BRIDGE

BRIDGE LANDING

STRUCTURAL OVERVIEW

Lack of control over the existing structure and lack of certainty of its capacity means no load is to be transferred to the superstructure or masonry substructure / foundations.

Central Core

Main

span

This lead to the design of a strut system attaching to a ground-level ring beam surrounding the existing masonry arches.

An elegant and efficient design was required in response to the existing stucture, the logic for which is outlined below.

External Shear wall

BRIDGE LANDING DERIVED FORM

BRIDGE LANDING ISO

P

Shell thickening at point of highest load

P

CONNECTION TO LINK AREA Loading

Positive Moment

BRIDGE LANDING PLAN H

1:1000 Negative Moment

H

H H

Superimposed

Landing Geometry

BRIDGE LANDING ELEVATION NTS

64

RECTION FORCES DIAGRAM 1:1000

Struts splayed in plan for stability

SUPERSTRUCTURE - SYSTEMS

BRANCHING BEAMS

GROUND BEARING REACTOR HALL

BAY STUDY

The ground bearing structure houses the heaviest part of the scheme - the Reactor Hall. Following the structural logic of the elevated programme, the spanning box girder develops into a central shear core, with a system of beams and shear walls branching off it.

4 1 2

3

Connection to existing market - load bearing transfer frame to retain existing masonry

BRANCHING BEAM ELEVATION

Final anchorage - tension tendons transfer forces from the bridge span to the shear wall

1 - Central 'spine' shear core.

2 - Reinforced concrete beam.

3 - Exterior shear wall - connection to basement 4 - Internal beam system

1 Cantilevered leading edge

2 4

Horizontal restraint with internal beams

3

20m Typ.

Link area - connection to main span.

20m Typ.

BRANCHING - A TRUSSED FRAME:

Un-braced: Frame does not resist moment and is susceptible to deflection.

Branching: Forms bracing / truss system.

SUPERSTRUCTURE - MANUFACTURE

COMPONENT / IN SITU CONSTRUCTION COMBINATIONS Structural reinforced concrete typically takes the form of either pre-cast or in-situ cast systems and combinations of the two.

The diagrams on this page explore the options for where precast / insitu concrete systems may be used.

PRECAST CONCRETE

INSITU CONCRETE

Fewer limitations to panel size - transportation to site is not required.

Limitations to panel size

Monolithic product: NOTE: shows pour and mould marks et cetera.

On-site jointing required

Less control over surface finish and tolerance High level of control over finish

5m

5m

AN IN SITU CORE: It is proposed that external shear walls and service core are constructed in situ for a homogenous surface finish. These elements are fairly straightforward shapes and should be achievable on site.

AN ACHIEVABLE FINISH: To achieve a consistent surface finish, a process that can be achieved on and off site to the same standard is essential.

Precast Concrete In-Situ Concrete

65

MANUFACTURE AREA DETAIL STUDY

Cut-back iso looking at the manufacture 'Serum Hall' from the previous page.

01 Shear Wall Service Core - see previous 02 Cavity drain+ Insulation to basement 03 Louvred roof infil system - see next page 04 Suspended Access Gantry - see net section 05 Stair to manufacture 07 Louvred roof infil system - see next section

05 03

04

05

02

01

ENVELOPE + SECONDARY STRUCTURE LOGIC AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

Facade logic is driven by the arrangement of primary structure.

01

At points of highest loading in the main span, the primary structure forms a solid enclosure, with no penetrations

04

08

As the moment reduces, the box girder develops into a central ‘spine’ in the elevated section. A frameless glass screen in inserted between structural shear walls for maximum translucency.

Where the box girder develops into a central ‘spine’ in the ground bearing part of the building, the deck is no-longer required, so a logic of secondary infils is introduced.

01 Annodised aluminium rainscreen 02 Ventilated cavity + insulation 03 Annodised Aluminum soffit board 04 Connection to primary structure 05 Secondary structure 06 Exterior Glazing 07 Annodised aluminium cover 08 Slim sight-line edge profile 09 Internal Glazed screen 10 Primary bracing

02

09

03 10 04

08

03

06

1:25 Perimeter Detail

66

SYSTEMS + DISTRIBUTION SCHEMATIC + DETAIL STUDY

Connection to mains via access core

an] l sp

ed ilat ent yV rall

a ntr Ce

tu [Na

BIO SERUM:

Held + sterilised in Reactor Hall building.

Dispatch to Bio reactors, Allotments and Deli

BIO ETHANOL:

Blast-proof secure storage in basement.

Used in CHP system in Reactor Hall + Deli Plant Room

POWER:

2 / 3 Phase ring mains from Reactor Hall CHP and Deli CHP systems.

DOMESTIC HOT / COLD WATER:

Supplied cores at Deli and Reactor Hall, up to mid span.

NON-POTABLE WATER:

Waste Heat recovery from CHP systems, used in space heating + heating reactors

Xref C:\Users\Charlie\Dropbox\Architecture\00 PROJECT FILES\[1704] Pioneering Sentiment\04 GRAPHICS\00 Design Realisation\Orthographics\Section\180416_Zone C\DA-ZC-002-View-1.dwg

DRAINAGE: Bio Serum

All waste water to be collected on site and transferred back to outfalls on Manhattan + Roosevelt Island

Xref C:\Users\Charlie\Dropbox\Architecture\00 PROJECT FILES\[1704] Pioneering Sentiment\04 GRAPHICS\00 Design Realisation\Orthographics\Section\180416_Zone C\DA-ZC-002-View-1.dwg

Bio Ethanol Power

Protected, separated distribution for power + fuel

Domestic Hot / Cold Water

Public health, serum + mechanical distribution

Non-Potable Hot Water

DISTRIBUTION: MAXIMISING SPACE EFFICIENCY

Sterile Water Drainage

In order to reduce space used in storing raw materials, a ‘JUST-IN-TIME’ continuously fed / dispatched system is proposed. To facilitate this, a containerised distribution along the shear spine is proposed, connecting Queensboro Bridge to the Reactor Hall.

Mechanical Ventilation Vertical Access Core

DISTRIBUTION

Continuous incoming deliveries

LOWER GROUND 1:500 Incoming Vehicles [Over Land]

Outgoing Vehicles [Over Land]

Continuous feed to reactors

Continuous dispatches

G LOADIN

INCOMING SERVICES: STERILISATION PROCESS

BAY

Water / Serum HOLDING TANKS - water to be delivered at night at time of low demand on

6

10

1

grid STERILISATION - small batch, continuous feed

5 8

1

7

DISTRIBUTION to reactors

9

2

DELIVERY / DISPATCH: VERTICAL TRANSPORT

4 3

OUTGOING MEAT

INCOMING DELIVERIES

Serum Holding Tanks Water Holding Tanks Bioreactors Meat Holding Tanks [pre-dispatch]

1

Container lifts

6

Vertical transport to internal gantries / rooftop

2

Serum holding + Sterilisation tanks

7

Main Reactors

3

CHP + plant room

8

Platform lift - link area manufacture

4

Starter Reactors

9

Link Area Plant

5

Air handling + vertical distribution - shear core ‘spine’

10 Dispatch Tanks

Pa

ck

ag

ing

/D

isp

at

ch

Market Outgoing

Ar

ea

Goods / Passenger Lifts

67

DETAIL STUDY: REACTOR HALL

Large-scale cellular meat manufacture - publicly open.

SYSTEMS + DISTRIBUTION

CONTROLS - MANUFACTURE:

SERVICING STRATEGIES

CONTROLS - PUBLIC:

Thermal - highly controlled

Thermal - Occupant Comfort

Light -Varied Level of Control

Light -Occupant Comfort

Pathogens - highly controlled

Pathogens - highly controlled

Air - highly controlled

N/A Air - fresh air supply

Enclosed, environmentally controlled Enclosed, unheated Open, covered Incoming / Outgoing Services

Water

Telecoms

Fuel

Serum

Water

Telecoms

1:1500

BRIDGEMARKET [OPEN]: Open market

BIODELI:

CONTROLS:

Delicatessen with on-site meat production, processing and restaurant..

Weather protection only BRIDGEMARKET [ENCLOSED]:

Laboratories and cellular extraction.

CONTROLS:

SPAN STRUCTURE

Thermal - highly controlled

Open, covered bridge with enclosed, unheated pods [used as food stalls and bio-alotments].

CONTROLS:

Thermal - highly controlled

Light - Occupant Comfort

CONTROLS:

Enclosure - robust weather-tight enclosure to pods Pathogens - highly controlled

Light - highly controlled

Light - occupant comfort Air - highly controlled

Pathogens - highly controlled Air - highly controlled

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES:

The manufacture areas require very tightly controlled environmental conditions, with very high heating and cooling loads at different times. Stringent requirements for environmental control mean that a non-passive heating, cooling and ventilation strategy had to be adopted for the manufacture areas.

The diagram below illustrates the strategies for efficient distribution of heat to reduce energy losses

ROOF INFIL SYSTEM:

07

MANUFACTURE Temp. Constant

PUBLIC / BUFFER

OUTDOORS Temp. Range

Solar Control Lighting Ventilation Distribution

04 05

Thermal de-coupling Positive Ventilation Pressure

Adventitious Ventilation

[SEE SECTION 03.4]

Pathogens 02

Pollutants

03

Excess heat

Air Handling Unit: Filtration + Heat Exchange

06

06

SUPPLY AIR

Sterile Incoming Separation >20m Soiled Outgoing EXTRACT 01

THERMAL / AIR TIGHTNESS LINE

ZONING

BIOREACTORS: Heat Source + Servicing Requirement

Steam

Air

01

Service core - ventilation + service distribution + vertical transport

02

Perimeter glazed faรงade - thermal envelope line

03

Internal glazed faรงade - Separation of zones for pathogen control

04 Translucent louvred roof [SEE SECTION 03.4]

06

Constant, high flow supply of fresh air through roof system.

Internal public circulation route

07

Air supply duct from core extension

05

Solar Gains

Heated / Controlled Buffer

68

Heat

Heat

Ventilation Distribution Facade Line Pathogen Barrier

69

PERSPECTIVE SECTION - REACTOR HALL DWG:

70

DS-ZB-002

71

PERSPECTIVE SECTION - BIO-ALOTMENTS DWG:

72

DS-ZC-002

73

SUTTON STREET PERSPECTIVE

View of link area crossing sutton street. The scheme forms a new point of interest along the linear street.

74

75

INTERIOR VIEW - LINK AREA OBSERVATION GALLERY

The smaller link area houses a series of meat printing tanks, which are fully glazed and surrounded by public viewing areas.

76

77

INTERIOR VIEW - REACTOR HALL

78

79

ROOSEVELT DELIKATESSEN ‫םיִנָדֲעַמ טלווזור‬

80

81

INTERIOR VIEW - MID SPAN + ALOTMENTS

82

83

SPAN SECTION - VIEW FROM ROOSEVELT ISLAND

84

85

W y

QUEENSBORO CULTURE

86

BIO-ALOTMENTS A

did t a h W ay? you s

Oh I wa s just plan nin our futu g re...

AVAILABLE

87

2050

AN AVOIDABLE FUTURE...

QUEENSBORO ACT NOW, EAT BIO MEAT CULTURE

88

W H O L E S A L E S E R U M

WHAT COULD YOU MAKE? QUEENSBORO CULTURE

89

B.02 A.03

A.02

B.05

B.03

C.01

B.01 A.01

GS B.04

DS-ZB-002

GS-ZB-001

EAST RIVER [WEST CHANNEL]

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SCALE: 1:1000 DWG: GA-XX-001

10M

90

50M

E.04 C.02

E.02

E.01

D.01

E.03

S-ZC-001

GE-SO-001

EAST RIVER [EAST CHANNEL]

AREA SCHEDULE ZONE A

[EXISTING ‘BRIDGEMARKET’] A.01 A.02 A.03

Public market Starter laboratories Theatre - cell extraction

ZONE B

[REACTOR HALL] B.01 B.02 B.03 B.04 B.05

Reactor hall - full height Public walkway Meat printing Terraced public realm Shear core

ZONE C+D

ZONE E

B.01 B.02 C.02

E.01 E.02 E.03 E.04

[BIO-ALOTMENTS] Zone B alotments Public terrace Zone C alotments

[REACTOR HALL] Deli alotments Deli test kitchens Deli restaurant M.E.P

91

SCALE: 1:1000 DWG: GE-SO-001

10M

92

50M

FACADE CONDITIONS

LOGIC OF SYSTEMS

GENERAL ELEVATION

SOLID CLOSED STRUCTU

SECTION

- Structral concrete walls - Ribs / structure expose

URE

s fully visible ed

CENTRAL SHEAR WALL - SPAN STRUCTURE

CENTRAL SHEAR WALL - GROUND BEARING STRUCTURE

Facade logic is driven by the arrangement of primary structure.

At points of highest loading in the main span, the primary structure forms a solid enclosure, with no penetrations

Slender edge profile distinct from primary structure ELEVATION

SECTION - Ribs / structure exposed - Frameless glazed infil

ELEVATION

SECTION

ELEVATION

- Frameless glazed infil -Secondary structure edge infil with slim profile

As the moment reduces, the box girder develops into a central ‘spine’ in the elevated section. A frameless glass screen in inserted between structural shear walls for maximum translucency.

Where the box girder develops into a central ‘spine’ in the ground bearing part of the building, the deck is no-longer required, so a logic of secondary infils is introduced.

93

+ 12.00

+ 6.00

+/- 0.00

- 6.00

GENERAL SECTION REACTOR HALL SCALE: 1:200 DWG: GS-ZB-001

94

95

All work produced by Unit 14 Unit book design by Maggie Lan www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/architecture Copyright 2018 The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmited in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retreival system without permission in writing from the publisher.

96

UNIT @unit14_ucl

97

P I O N E E R I N G S E N T I M E N T

2018

At the centre of Unit 14’s academic exploration lies Buckminster Fuller’s ideal of the ‘The Comprehensive Designer’, a master-builder that follows Renaissance principles and a holistic approach. Fuller referred to this ideal of the designer as somebody who is capable of comprehending the ‘integrateable significance’ of specialised findings and is able to realise and coordinate the commonwealth potentials of these discoveries while not disappearing into a career of expertise.

Like Fuller, we are opportunists in search of new ideas and their benefits via architectural synthesis.

As such Unit 14 is a test bed for exploration and innovation, examining the role of the architect in an environment of continuous change. We are in search of the new, leveraging technologies, workflows and modes of production seen in disciplines outside our own. We test ideas systematically by means of digital as well as physical drawings, models and prototypes. Our work evolves around technological speculation with a research-driven core, generating momentum through astute synthesis.

Our propositions are ultimately made through the design of buildings and through the in-depth consideration of structural formation and tectonic constituents. This, coupled with a strong research ethos, generates new and unprecedented, viable and spectacular proposals. They are beautiful because of their intelligence - extraordinary findings and the artful integration of those into architecture.

This year’s UNIT 14 focus shifts onto examining moments of pioneering sentiment. We find out about how human endeavor, deep desire and visionary thought interrelate and advance cultural as well as technological means while driving civilisation as highly developed organisation. Supported by competent research we search for the depicted pioneering sentiment and amplify found nuclei into imaginative tales with architectural visions fuelled by speculation.

The underlying principle and observation of our investigations is that futurist speculation inspires and ultimately brings about significant change. A prominent thinker is the Californian Syd Mead who envisages and has scripted a holistic vision of the future with his designs and paintings.

As universal as our commitment and thoughts is our testbed and territory for our investigations and proposals. Possible sites are as such global or specific to our visits, as much as the individual investigations suggest and opportunities arrive. Unit 14 is supported by a working relationship with innovators across design. We engage specialists, but remain generalists, synthesising knowledge towards novel ways of thinking, making and communicating architecture.

UNIT 14 @unit14_ucl

All work produced by Unit 14 Unit book design by Maggie Lan www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/architecture Copyright 2018 The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmited in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retreival system without permission in writing from the publisher.