Urban Housing Atlas

Urban Housing Atlas is a compendium of more than twenty multi-family projects that Utile, a Boston-based architecture and urban planning firm, designed from 2003 through 2007. The book was originally developed as an inhouse manual to record housing solutions for both implemented projects and for proposals not carried forward that ran the risk of becoming lost design efforts. As a reference book, the compendium was to communicate collective knowledge gained to an ever-growing design team and would avoid instances of wheel-reinvention, a problem in a busy office with a horizontal management structure.

Urban Housing Atlas

Except in rare instances, all of the projects comprise between eight and forty units, are four stories or fewer, and were planned for urban infill sites in the Boston metropolitan area. Although the collection of proposals represents a wide range of building types, the projects were developed under uniform regulatory and economic constraints and with a consistent design methodology.

$15.00

Urban Housing Atlas

Urban Housing Atlas EDITORS

INTRODUCTION

Christina Crawford Chris Genter Matthew Littell

Tim Love

©2008 Utile, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from Utile, Inc. ISBN 978 1 60585 586 4

PUBLICATION

BOOK DESIGN

Pink Comma Books 81b Wareham Street Boston, MA 02118

Chris Genter

pinkcomma.com CONTENT

Utile, Inc. Architecture + Planning 50 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 utiledesign.com PRINTING

LULU lulu.com

COPY EDITING

Christina Crawford PHOTO CREDITS

Rob Knight pages 30, 32, 58, 60, 90, 92 Andres Backer pages 112, 200 John Horner page 74 All other photos, drawings and images by Utile, Inc. THANKS

to Mark Pasnik and Chris Grimley at Over,Under for their editing and graphic design advice.

Cover Photos by Rob Knight

Contents

6

COLLABORATORS

7

UTILE'S APPROACH TO HOUSING TIM LOVE

9

TOWNHOUSE

10

FIRST+ FIRST

16

MEADOWS

24

ROSLINDALE FIELD

30

557 559 EAST SECOND STREET

40

MSCBA

48

WEBSTER BLOCK

57

MULTIFAMILY

58

TROLLEY HOUSE

66

MEADOWS

72

NORTH MARGIN STREET

80

SUNOCO

90

321 WEST SECOND STREET

100 DAVIS SQUARE 112 SUNRISE 124 WYMAN 134 SEAVERNS 146 FOURTH AT BROADWAY 152 BLAKEMORE 161 METCOM 166 WEBSTER BLOCK 176 WORCESTER SCHOOLS

185 ONE + TWO FAMILY 186 ROSLINDALE FIELD 194 BLAKEMORE 200 SUNRISE 210 FIFEVILLE

6

Collaborators Utile is a horizontally structured firm

UTILE 2003–2007

directed by four managing principals.

Andrew Ashey Scott Bishop Ezra Block Eric Boatright Phil Chaney Guion Childress Altea Cico Billy Craig Christina Crawford Peter Crowley Emily Farnham Darell Fields Chris Genter Travis Hanks Aliki Hasiotis Seth Hoffman

A different constellation of designers is brought together for each project to ensure healthy cross-fertilization of personal design interests, technical know-how and management skills. In addition to embracing a non-hierarchical organizational model, Utile seeks collaborative working relationships with other architecture and design firms, not only to expand the opportunities for commissions, but also as a way to augment the firm’s expertise and methodological approaches.

Ryo Inoue Lysa Janssen Ian Kenney Sarah Laliberte Michael LeBlanc I-Ching Lee Matthew Littell Mimi Love Tim Love Tina Luk Beth Maher Christine Nasir Jason Neves Cheyne Owens Lisa Pasquale Allison Patrick

Luke Perczak Paula Read Seth Riseman Sarah Roszler Penn Ruderman Susanne Schindler Rahul Shah Bradley Shanks Sierra Sharron Kelly Smith Juliette Spertus Ryan Sullivan Benjamin Wakelin Christian Waters Erin White

COLLABORATING ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS

Office of David Neilson (321 West Second, North Margin, Trolley House) Chan Krieger Sieniewicz (Meadows) Metropolitan Planning Collaborative (Sunrise)

Bold type indicates lead project designers.

Since the inception of Utile in 2002,

Utile’s Approach to Housing Tim Love

by owners of under-utilized properties and

the firm has actively pursued and developed

the brokers and attorneys who advise them.

an expertise in small-scale multi-family

Projects typically begin as an analysis of

housing for urban infill sites. The firm has

the highest and best use of a specific real

had many opportunities to design housing

estate parcel. In addition, Utile works entre-

projects partly because it launched dur-

preneurially by teaming with urban design-

ing a residential real estate boom in the

ers, real estate consultants and developers

Boston metropolitan area. At precisely this

to propose development scenarios on private

time, residential real estate development

and publicly-owned property as a means to

moved from the already gentrified neighbor-

generate projects.

hoods of the Back Bay and South End to

In all cases, design begins with a series

abutting neighborhoods and cities such as

of diagrammatic “what if?” scenarios that

South Boston, Jamaica Plain, Somerville

are, by their nature, typological and respon-

and Chelsea.

sive to the constraints of housing design.

Given the shift in activity from high-

Typically a double-loaded corridor bar build-

priced neighborhoods to slightly riskier

ing is the most efficient configuration—as a

mid-market locales, development concepts

ratio of net to gross building areas— and is

needed to be more economical and smaller

often the most familiar configuration to the

in scale. Available parcels tended to be va-

client. Utile, however, always seeks a better

cant post-industrial sites at the edges of es-

diagram—one that produces more innova-

tablished working class residential districts.

tive, interesting and marketable units with-

Many of the best-located parcels were infill

out sacrificing the measure of efficiency.

sites too small to be of interest to large de-

The housing types that the firm has

velopment companies. As a result, scrappy

developed are mostly framed and impinged

developer/builders took control of these

by regulatory codes and the economics of

sites—a type of client that was willing to

construction. As a result of global commodi-

take a risk on a similarly proactive start-up

ties markets, the cost of steel for both steel

architecture firm.

frame construction and the rebar in con-

Utile’s design methodology is partly in-

crete construction has increased dramati-

formed by the way that projects arrive at the

cally. Wood frame construction, therefore,

office. Assignments are brought to the firm

has become the most economical construc-

7

8

tion type in the Boston market for the types

nities for design within that context. Several

of projects Utile undertakes. As a result, the colleagues worked together to complete a majority of the housing types the firm has

report on the research that included pro-

designed are four stories or fewer and short-

posals for a number of new housing types.

er than sixty feet high (per the requirements

Since 2003, three of Utile’s designers have

for wood frame, combustible construction

taught housing design studios at Northeast-

type). Utile’s understanding of the precise

ern. Among the articles that were an out-

limits of this code classification has led to

come of collective research was an essay for

several economical design solutions with

the Harvard Design Magazine in the Winter

building circulation diagrams that are more

2005/Spring 2006 issue entitled: “Double-

socially successful than the typical double-

Loaded: Everyday Architecture and Windows

loaded corridor buildings. Given the high

for Improvement”.

cost of elevators, the firm has experimented

Utile’s tie to Northeastern University is

with code-compliant walk-up housing for

consistent with the mission of the firm to

many of its mid-market projects.

function as a think-and-do tank. The firm’s

The second determinant of housing

priority in practice is to create knowledge

form is the politically driven need to pro-

through research necessitated by working

vide a specific percentage of on-site parking

through the design process. As a result,

spaces. Given the relatively small size of

individual projects are part of a larger con-

the lots, and the high cost of subterranean

tinuum of research, enriching both the next

parking, many of these projects include a

project and the larger culture of housing

ground-level parking plinth that is screened

production. Utile’s practice model is not

from the public street by ground-level lob-

limited to housing, but can be applied to

bies and the entrances to individual units.

wider range of building types. As the real

Utile’s designers have complemented

estate market goes through a readjustment

their practice-based knowledge of urban

in 2008, Utile is busy developing new re-

housing through their association with

search agendas.

Northeastern University. A 2003 Provost’s Grant allowed the firm to study the regulatory context for urban housing and opportu-

9

Townhouse 10

FIRST + FIRST

16

MEADOWS

24

ROSLINDALE FIELD

30

557 559 EAST SECOND STREET

40

MSCBA

48

WEBSTER BLOCK

10

11

First + First First + First is a development of twenty-two new single-family rowhouses proposed for a site on the boundary between traditional South Boston and the industrial waterfront.

Each house has a garage for two cars accessed from the rear and a front stoop, entryway, and mud room that faces the street. The main living level is an open loft-like space on the second floor. The upper floors of the house have been designed to anticipate different lifestyles. Two rooms and a bathroom on the third floors of the house and a room, bathroom, and terrace on the fourth floor can be interpreted in a variety of bedroom/home office/family room scenarios. The houses are aggregated on the street to invoke the scale and character of similarly scaled streets in the South End. The same house type is deployed in series and in book-matched pairs to create a variety of scales. As a gesture to the larger urban fabric, special units were designed at the corners. Sidewalk-front gardens, front stoops, and entryways were carefully conceived so that the development makes a contribution to the social fabric of the existing neighborhood.

12

PROS

··Townhouse arrangement allows all circulation to be internal to unit and minimizes net-to-gross loss for developer. ··Private fourth floor deck for each unit. ··Unit width and entry configuration allows for two car garage. ··Units are designed for aggregation and allow flexibility in building size. ··Unit elevations designed to be either slip-matched or book-matched to maximize streetscape variety. Façades are also designed with window configuration options that maximize opportunities for variety.

CONS

··Width of two-car garage door requires a steel moment frame at the ground floor for shear load, increasing project cost.

··The façade design requires a steel moment frame above the entrance door for shear load, increasing project cost. ··While the façade massing allows for corner windows, this detail complicates construction and increases cost. ··Plumbing walls are not stacked. ··Mechanical duct runs are complicated.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Because of the entry configuration—street entrance on one side, parking on the other—the building is only suited to sites that allow access to both sides. ··The unit was designed around section 1017.2 of the Massachusetts State Building Code which allows for one means of egress if the travel distance to that egress door is less than seventy-five feet (for residential use groups).

Dorchester Avenue Elevation

West First Street Elevation

The stair and configuration of the unit are such that the distance from the farthest point on the fourth floor to the entry door is seventy-four feet.

Not having to accommodate a second means of egress through the garage allowed for a wider garage door and adequate space for two cars.

Since the design was completed, there has been a ruling on the code that requires two means of egress at the ground floor of a townhouse, regardless of travel distance. As a result, the design of the unit would need to be modified, and one garage parking space would likely be lost.

13

LOCATION

South Boston, MA DESIGN

2003-2004

Pending CLIENT

Pappas Properties West First Street

FINANCING

FIRST+FIRST TOWNHOUSE

CONSTRUCTION

Private Developer CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Wood frame and steel UNIT TYPES

Flexible 3 bedroom UNITS PER ACRE

rA ve n St

ste

rst

re

et

COST PER SQ. FT.

$260-280

he

Fi

rc

st

Do

Ea

ue

22/.95

PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

14

Fourth Floor Bedroom

Lateral Section Entry

Longitudinal Section Stair

Lateral Section Garage

Longitudinal Section Living Spaces

Second Floor Living

Second Floor Kitchen

Floor 4

Floor 4

Floor 3

Floor 3

Floor 2

Floor 2

FIRST+FIRST TOWNHOUSE

15

Floor 1 Floor 1

CORNER UNIT

TYPICAL UNITS 0

5

10

20 feet

16

IN COLLABORATION WITH CHAN KRIEGER SIENIEWICZ

Meadows Utile was hired to design two hundred seventy units of housing in North Andover, a town north of Boston. This project falls under Chapter 40B, a Massachusetts state statute which enables greater built density than would be allowable under local zoning codes if at least twenty five percent of the units are made affordable. There are two types of housing on this site: multi-story garden-style flats at the front of the site, and single-family townhouses adjacent to a state forest.

The townhouse section of the site offers maximum perceptual variety through a minimum of means. Among the seventy-eight townhouses, there are only three individual house designs to satisfy different lifestyles. Type A provides direct connection to a garage, and two-story living. Type B allows for a bedroom on the ground floor, and three full living stories. Type C is minimally partitioned, with loft-like living space. Once the units themselves were designed, the site plan developed naturally, as the three designs were staggered to allow each unit’s entry porch an open, free corner, and an individual address. Economies were also built into the project through a minimum of window and dormer types.

SEE PAGE 66 FOR MEADOWS MULTIFAMILY UNITS

17

18

PROS

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Only three townhouse designs, to satisfy different lifestyles.

··Project exempt from Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, due to the Townhouse Exemption.

··Minimum of window and dormer types. ··Open entry porch for each type; when units staggered, picturesque site planning results. ··Suburban/rural site allows for views to woods from all units. ··Simple exterior detailing prevents the traditional aesthetic from looking too quaint.

CONS

··Site plan was pre-approved before Team began; unit design was required to stay within pre-prescribed footprints. ··Value engineering led to unsatisfying resolution of details in construction.

··Sill of window on top floor at maximum allowable height per Massachusetts Building Code for egress. The pitch of the back roof was determined by second floor ceiling height in conjunction with this sill requirement.

LOCATION

19

North Andover, MA DESIGN

2004 CONSTRUCTION

CLIENT

Northpoint Realty FINANCING

MEADOWS TOWNHOUSE

2005-2007

Private CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Wood UNIT TYPES

3 Types 3 bed 2-2.5 baths UNITS

78 PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

$36 M Total

0

200

400 feet

20

Floor 2

Floor 1

UNIT TYPE A

MEADOWS TOWNHOUSE

21

Floor 3

Floor 2

Floor 1

UNIT TYPE B 0

5

10

20 feet

22

MEADOWS TOWNHOUSE

23

Floor 3

Floor 2

Floor 1

UNIT TYPE C 0

5

10

20 feet

24

25

Roslindale Field Roslindale Field is the result of a collaborative effort between two non-profit Community Development Corporations, Urban Edge and Southwest Boston CDC. The twenty two-unit development will provide a mix of affordable home ownership opportunities and market rate units to the residential neighborhood of Prospect Hill in Roslindale.

The steeply sloped site fronts Rowe Street on its western boundary and the MBTA commuter rail line along its eastern boundary. To negotiate the complex topography, Utile developed three building types specific to the varied terrain of the site. Among these were single-family townhouses with tuck-under parking. Because of the economic pressures imposed by the subsidized portion of the project, and the high cost of site work, the project underwent a mid-stream structural change, to take advantage of the efficiencies of off-site, prefabricated construction. The project thus bridges the gap between modular and traditional neighborhood building typologies.

A pitched roof, not typical in the townhouse type, first emerged as a design element to respond to the vocal neighborhood's push for a contextually-sensitive vernacular language.

The steepness of the roof created a series of internal design challenges. A prominent dormer had to be inserted at the second floor landing to allow for head-height clearance, and the top floor plan had to be creatively designed to deal with the awkward residual spaces left under the roof.

SEE PAGE 186 FOR ROSLINDALE ONE + TWO FAMILY UNITS

26

PROS

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Minimized front-to-back dimension accommodates steeply sloped site.

··Bay window is required to complete the stair run from the second to the third floors.

··Parking below living spaces takes advantage of steep grade change.

··Visible roof pitch relates directly to the slope of the stair.

··Can be built using modular construction.

··Pitched roof, not traditionally used in town house design, allows the type to be more readily deployed in a context of predominantly one- and two-family pitched roof dwellings.

CONS

··Inefficient design of top floor. ··Living areas small relative to bedroom size. ··HVAC/duct work difficult to distribute within the very tight plan.

··Originally designed to be site-built, the buildings had to be redesigned for modular construction.

27

LOCATION

Roslindale, MA DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

— CLIENT

Urban Edge FINANCING

ROSLINDALE FIELD TOWNHOUSE

2004-2006

Public/ Private CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Modular Rowe Street

UNIT TYPES

3 bed,1.5-2.5 bath 1,300 sq. ft.

UNITS PER ACRE

8/1 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

28

Floor 4

Floor 3

Floor 2

Section through Stair Bay

Floor 1

MARKET RATE UNIT

ROSLINDALE FIELD TOWNHOUSE

29

Floor 4

Floor 3

Floor 2

Section through Living Room

Floor 1

AFFORDABLE UNIT

0

5

10

20 feet

30

31

557 559 East Second Street 557-559 East Second Street is a development of eight new single-family row houses located at the industrial/residential seam of the South Boston neighborhood. A central court serves both pedestrian and automobile access to the units. Above the ground floor entry and garage, the sectional diagram of a traditional row house has been inverted. Rather than placing the living areas on a bel etage, they are located on the top floor, taking advantage of views to the seaport and downtown Boston.

Given site constraints and market considerations, two distinct unit types were developed. In the four units at 557, the third floor living space is completely open, includes a galley kitchen, and extends to a west-facing porch. In contrast, in the four units at 559 an extra story allows for the separation of the kitchen from the living space, and provides additional space for a fourth-floor study that opens on to a roof terrace. The development also includes the adaptive re-use of an existing light industrial building into a commercial condominium.

Mechanical systems, detailing, and building materials have been designed to attain Energy Star Homes certification.

32

PROS

··Vertical living with one-car garage and private, exterior living space. ··No net-to-gross loss factor for developer, since all circulation is private. ··Vertical offset between buildings provides 559 with views, 557 with privacy.

CONS

··Services were not stacked, nor rigorously accommodated during the planning phase, resulting in complex ducting and venting runs. ··Vertical interior connections were not sufficiently explored in the design.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Zoning change-of-use was required to transform the lots from light industrial to multi-family. ··Second means of egress provided through garage. ··Design exploited the steepest stair allowed within single-family house (8¼" rise over 9" run). ··Exterior wall fire rating required due to additional floor on 559, and due to proximity of 557 building to property line (less than 5 foot setback). ··Size of openings on rear facades limited by tight setbacks. ··Project exempt from ADA. ··Eighteen foot, ten inch townhouse width forced bedrooms to be arranged front-to-back only.

Twenty-five foot depth of 559 (versus twentynine foot depth of 557) pushed bedroom and bathroom sizes to the minimum limit.

Townhouse 33

LOCATION

DESIGN

2005-2006 CONSTRUCTION

2006 CLIENT

RCG LLC FINANCING

557 559 EAST SECOND STREET TOWNHOUSE

South Boston, MA

Private CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Wood, CMU UNIT TYPES

2 bed, 1.5 bath 1,150-1,350 sq. ft.

UNITS PER ACRE

8/.2 COST PER SQ. FT.

$176.26 PARKING RATIO 559

557

East Second Street

1 space/unit 4 additional PROJECT COST

$284,655/Unit

0

20

50

100 feet

34

Floor 4

Floor 3

Floor 2

Floor 1 559 END UNIT

557 559 EAST SECOND STREET TOWNHOUSE

35

Floor 4

Floor 3

Floor 2

Floor 1 559 TYPICAL UNIT

0

5

10

20 feet

36

Floor 3

Floor 2

Floor 1 557 END UNIT

557 559 EAST SECOND STREET TOWNHOUSE

37

Floor 3

Floor 2

Floor 1 559 TYPICAL UNIT

0

5

10

20 feet

38

pPeE SSloLO

Metal METAL STAINLESS STEEL Stainless Steel FASTENERS Fasteners 4’X4’Rainscreen HARDIPANEL 4´x4´ Hardipanel RAINSCREEN WITH 4” Parapet PARAPET Rim Board RIM BOARD

MEMBRANE ROOFING Membrane Roofing PLYWOOD Plywood TJI FRAMING ALIGNED TJI Framing Aligned with Studs WITH STUDS Icynene Insulation ICYNENE INSULATION

CELLULOSEInsulation INSULATION Cellulose 1/2” PLYWOOD ½˝ Plywood Sheathing SHEATHING 3/4” Air AIR SPACE ¾˝ Space MOISTURE Barrier BARRIER Moisture 2X6 STUDS, 2x6 Studs24’atO.C. 24˝ on Center

RAINSCREEN DETAIL

3/4” FURRING ¾˝ Furring STRIPS Strips RUBBER GASKET @ Rubber Gasket at Vertical Joints VERTICAL JOINTS

EXTERIOR WALL EXTERIOR WALL WITH RAINSCREEN WITH RAINSCREEN Hardiplank HARDIPLANK ¾˝ 3/4”Vertical VERTICAL Strapping STRAPPING MoistureBARRIER Barrier MOISTURE ¾˝ Plywood 3/4” PLYWOOD 2x6 2X6Framing FRAMING WOOD Trim TRIM Wood Cor-a-vent COR-A-VENT Metal MTL Flashing FLASHING

FLOOR ASSEMBLY FLOOR ASSEMBLY HARDWOOD FLOOR Hardwood Floor HOMASOTE Homasote PLYWOOD Plywood TJI FRAMING TJI Framing STRAPPING Strapping (¾˝x1½˝ at 16˝ on center) (3/4” X 1 1/2”, 16”O.C.) Blueboard Plaster BLUEBOARD &and PLASTER Cellulose CELLULOSE Insulation INSULATION

ICYNENE INSULATION Icynene Insulation ENTRY DOOR Entry Door CLEAR Sealed SEALED CEDAR Clear Cedar

FOUNDATION ASSEMBLY FOUNDATION ASSEMBLY 4x8x16 4x8x16Ground GROUNDFace FACE 4x8x16 CMU 8X8X16 CMUStem STEM Concrete CONCRETE Footing FOOTING Brick Pavers on Concrete Setting BRICK PAVERS ON CONC. SETTING

ENTRY DETAIL

CONCRETE SLAB ON

GRADE ON RIGID Concrete INSULATIONSlab on Grade on Rigid Insulation THERMAL BREAK Thermal Break

39 557 559 EAST SECOND STREET TOWNHOUSE

DEMISING WALL DEMISING WALL 5/8” GYPSUM BOARD Gypsum Board 1/2” Plywood PLYWOOD SHEATHING ½˝ Sheathing 1/2” Air AIR SPACE ½˝ Space 5/8” GYPSUM BOARD Gypsum Board 2X4 STUDS, 24’ O.C. 2x4 Studs Staggered at 24˝ on Center STAGGERED CELLULOSE Insulation INSULATION Cellulose 1/2” Plywood PLYWOOD SHEATHING ½˝ Sheathing 5/8” GYPSUM BOARD Gypsum Board

40

41

MSCBA Modular Study Due to continuing research and innovation in affordable modular housing types, Utile was hired as design consultant to the Massachusetts State College Building Authority (MSCBA)to develop faculty housing prototypes based upon this alternative delivery method. The high cost of housing in Massachusetts, relative to established salary rates in the state college and community college systems, is increasingly cited as an impediment to attracting and retaining qualified faculty and staff, and undermines the quality and competitiveness of the state higher education system. In response to this over-arching concern, Utile developed conceptual designs for townhouse-style two- and three-bedroom unit types and site aggregations for proposed sites in Bridgewater and Fitchburg, based upon program requirements outlined by the Colleges. As part of ongoing collaboration with modular manufacturers, Utile compiled extensive information on behalf of the MSCBA to help the client determine the political and economic feasibility of utilizing off-site fabrication of unit components to reduce on-site labor costs.

42

PROS

CONS

··Modular project delivery allows for reduced on-site labor costs.

··Extreme topography on both sites drove up projected site costs.

··Three townhouse designs (all within the limits of modular construction) allowed accommodation for a variety of household types.

··Designs remain at schematic level; no elevations were developed.

··Interlock type provides for a parking spot adjacent to front door (only suburban sites were explored). ··Low overall project costs allowed for State Colleges to consider providing rental faculty housing on campus for the first time.

··Suburban site planning addressed solely; no urban equivalent.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Sixteen foot width and forty foot depth were the approximate maximum dimensions allowed for modular construction due to trucking transportation methods. ··In the Interlock type, the extra side-slung box would be cut in two, stacked, and attached to the main box on-site.

Bridgewater Site

Fitchburg Site

43

LOCATION

DESIGN

2005-2006 CONSTRUCTION

— CLIENT

MSCBA

MSCBA MODULAR STUDY TOWNHOUSE

Fitchburg, MA Bridgewater, MA

FINANCING

State CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Modular UNIT TYPES

2,2.5,3 bed 1.5-2.5 bath 1,052-1,164 sq.ft.

UNITS PER ACRE

— COST PER SQ. FT.

$110.00 est.

PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

— Bridgewater Site Plan

0

20

50

100 feet

44

Fitchburg Site Plan

0

20

50

100 feet

MSCBA MODULAR STUDY TOWNHOUSE

45

Floor 2

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 1

SMALL TOWNHOUSE

MEDIUM TOWNHOUSE

2 Boxes (2) 16´ Wide

2 Boxes (2) 16´ Wide

1,052 square feet

1,152 square feet

2 Bedroom

2.5 Bedroom

0

5

10

20 feet

46

Floor 1

INTERLOCK TOWNHOUSE 3 Boxes (2) 16´ Wide (1) 11´ Wide 1,164 square feet 3 Bedroom

Floor 2

MSCBA MODULAR STUDY TOWNHOUSE

47

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 1

SKINNY TOWNHOUSE

SIDE BY SIDE TOWNHOUSE

2 Boxes (2) 16´ Wide

4 Boxes (2) 14´ Wide (2) 10´ Wide

1,140 square feet

1 Unit

1,680 square feet

Floor 2

1 Unit

2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom

2 Units

2 Units

0

5

10

20 feet

48

49

Webster Block The Webster Block is a one hundred forty-one-unit multi-family project on just over two acres in Chelsea’s emerging Broadway/Eastern mixed-use district. A diverse mix of unit-types—lofts, flats and townhouses in three new buildings—as well as new communityserving retail create an active, pedestrian-friendly urban environment. A strong urban edge is created along Eastern Avenue, complimented by more intimately scaled townhouse-style buildings along Spencer Avenue. The interior of the site is designed to provide efficient parking and maximize open space. Building massing is stepped-down in deference to existing neighbors.

The steep topography at the north end of the site—with the highest point at Spencer Avenue—allowed the parking to be concealed at grade beneath the townhouses, in back.

The street-side entrances, on the second story of the building, are appropriately-scaled to the one- and two-family context of the neighborhood.

The complex appears from the exterior to be series of party-wall townhouses. In reality, it is a variation of the typical double-loaded corridor building with common elevator and stair cores. The building is comprised of flats on the street—or second—level, and duplexes on the third and fourth floors, accessed from a third-floor corridor. This common circulation system allows the building to drop only two stairs and one elevator core into the tight parking grid below.

SEE PAGE 166 FOR WEBSTER BLOCK MULTIFAMILY TYPES

50

PROS

··Embedding townhouses within larger multifamily building allows for greater density. ··Townhouses are accessed via internal doubleloaded corridor on second floor. One stair internal to the unit allows access to the second floor of the townhouses. ··The first level of the townhouse—accessed from the common corridor—is wide but shallow, while the second level stretches over the corridor space and is narrow but long, with exposure to the back and front of the site.

Townhouses

··Elevators needed only to access townhouses with a second floor main entrance. The Massachusetts Building Code townhouse exemption allows for internal private stair to upper level.

CONS

··Single exposure on lower floor.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Townhouse exemption allows non-compliance with Massachusetts Building Code accessibility requirements.

Spencer Avenue Elevation

Multifamily

51

LOCATION

Chelsea, MA DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

— S PS EpN

Ave nu e

eCnEc

ReAr

CLIENT VAEv NeUn Eue

Synergy FINANCING

WEBSTER BLOCK TOWNHOUSE

2007

We bs

ter

Private CONSTRUCTION TYPE

BS

TER

AV

EN

UE

Wood on concreteslab garage

WE

UNIT TYPES

3 bed, 2 bath 2 bed, 2 bath UNITS

65 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

— EASTERNAvenue Eastern AVENUE

0

20

50

100 feet

52

Floor 1

Floor 2

WEBSTER BLOCK TOWNHOUSE

53

Floor 3

Floor 4

0

5

10

20 feet

54

Spencer Avenue

Parking Section

WEBSTER BLOCK TOWNHOUSE

55

Interlocking Duplex Unit

56

57

Multifamily

58

TROLLEY HOUSE

66

MEADOWS

72

NORTH MARGIN STREET

80

SUNOCO

90

321 WEST SECOND STREET

100 DAVIS SQUARE 112 SUNRISE 124 WYMAN 134 SEAVERNS 146 FOURTH AT BROADWAY 152 BLAKEMORE 161 METCOM 166 WEBSTER BLOCK 176 WORCESTER SCHOOLS

58

IN COLLABORATION WITH DAVID NEILSON

Trolley House The Trolley House is a twenty-four unit condominium building located in South Boston on the boundary between the traditional working class residential neighborhood and an industrial area. David Neilson developed the conceptual building plans, unit types and elevations, which Utile refined in collaboration with David after the schematic design phase. The building has structured parking and two lobby entrances at street level topped by three levels of units, organized around a central courtyard. The unit plans were conceived as hybrids of two urban types: they enjoy the open living spaces and large windows of a loft and the well-planned bedroom suites and kitchens of a classic pre-war apartment.

Strategic design decisions managed cost throughout the project. Since all two hundred and sixty windows of the building are the same size, larger than typical windows could be specified. More expensive and durable materials such as granite cladding and mahogany garage barn doors at the ground floor were paid for by the use of inexpensive Hardie cladding above.

59

60

PROS

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Courtyard scheme allows two window exposures for all units.

··Community process required a ratio of two parking spaces per unit.

··The square building footprint permits the building to occupy the entire industrially-scaled site.

··St. Vincent Zoning District allows a certain percentage of spaces to be compact (seven feet wide).

··Full floor of parking is concealed behind a scrim of lobbies at street level.

CONS

··Not efficient from an egress standpoint.

Multiple egress stairs required for the courtyard layout to work.

61

LOCATION

South Boston, MA DESIGN

2003 CONSTRUCTION

ES

T

E

W

CLIENT SE

CO

ND

Niskanen Real Estate ST

RE

FINANCING

ET

Private

W es

tS

BO

LT

ON

ST

ec

on

d

CONSTRUCTION TYPE St

Modular

re

et

UNIT TYPES RE

2-3 bed, 1.5-2.5 bath 1,052-1,164 sq. ft.

ET

TROLLEY HOUSE MULTIFAMILY

ES StTre R Ee EtT

Panelized Wood

UNITS PER ACRE

24/.38 Bo

lto

n

St

COST PER SQ. FT.

re

et

$120.00 PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

$2.5 M

0

20

50

100 feet

62

Floor 1

TROLLEY HOUSE MULTIFAMILY

63

Floor 2

0 5 10 20 feet

64

Floors 3 and 4

TROLLEY HOUSE MULTIFAMILY

65

Courtyard Section

West Second Street Elevation

0

5

10

20 feet

66

IN COLLABORATION WITH CHAN KRIEGER SIENIEWICZ

Meadows The Meadows project falls under Chapter 40B, a Massachusetts state statute which enables greater built density than would be allowable under local zoning codes if at least twenty-five percent of the units are made affordable. Of the two hundred and seventy units on the site, there are two types of housing: multi-story garden-style flats at the front of the site, and single-family townhouses adjacent to a state forest. The garden-style buildings are arranged around a central courtyard, in which sits a community building with an indoor pool and exercise facility.

The design challenge resided in the length of the buildings (a condition inherited from a pre-approved site plan). To break-down the monotony of the long building facade, each double-loaded building is slightly deeper than typical to allow for some vernacular crenellation—and scalar relief—on the façade and a generous entry/foyer condition within the unit. The units themselves are clearly zoned, with services tucked against the corridors and living and sleeping against the large window wall.

SEE PAGE 16 FOR MEADOWS TOWNHOUSE UNIT TYPES

67

68

PROS

··Efficient double-loaded corridor design. ··Deeper than the typical double loaded building.

The extra depth allowed for crenellation of façade and ample foyer/entry condition within each unit. ··Clean zoning of service programs at the back of the units. ··Dead space at the inner corner of the L-shaped building programmed with rentable extra-storage units.

CONS

··Site plan pre-approved before Team began—building design was required to stay within pre-prescribed foot prints.

··Large footprint coupled with the limits of wood construction created an overall squat building proportion. ··Unsuccessful resolution of open garage elevation on the largest, L-shaped building.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Since it is an elevator building, all units are required to be ADA accessible.

69

LOCATION

North Andover, MA DESIGN

2004 CONSTRUCTION

2005-2007 CLIENT

Northpoint Realty FINANCING

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Wood on concrete/steel parking deck UNIT TYPES

MEADOWS MULTIFAMILY

Private

3 Types 2 bed, 2-2.5 baths UNITS

192 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

$36 M Total

0

200

400 feet

70

One Bedroom Flat

Two Bedroom Flat Type 2

Two Bedroom Flat Type 1

Two Bedroom Flat Type 3

MEADOWS MULTIFAMILY

71

0

5

10

20 feet

72

72

IN COLLABORATION WITH DAVID NEILSON

North Margin Street With their generous and unique unit plans, private decks, and two garage parking spaces each, these three condominium apartments stand out among Boston’s dense and quirky North End neighborhood. David Neilson was both client and designer, responsible for overall concept, interior detailing and exterior elevations as well as construction administration. Utile was architect of record, with a key role in fine tuning plans, code issues, and supervising the structural work. The thirty foot by eighty foot parcel was constrained on two sides by existing buildings, leaving only the street façade and a back façade for openings. Their size was maximized using the largest possible double-hung windows. In order to maintain open floor plans, two steel moment frames were required to resist shear forces. The upper floors were framed in wood, with the added moment frame.

The two required means of egress slipped along the lateral party walls to minimize impact on the unit plans. Of the three distinct units, the lower unit is the most flexible: it can function both as an open loft or it can accommodate up to three bedrooms, separated from the living space by sliding panels. The middle unit offers a more traditional living arrangement: a bedroom suite to the rear and a living and dining area—with a separate bedroom or study—facing the front. The penthouse unit takes full advantage its rooftop location, with a spectacular, double-height living area and mezzanine facing the street.

73

74

PROS

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Deep floor plans allowed for generous units with floor-through exposures.

··Since the square footage of the penthouse mezzanine was less than one-third of the space it overlooked (as described in the Massachusetts Building Code), the structure was allowed to remain wood construction.

··Three units were built on top of existing onestory building, providing six parking stalls. ··Light penetrates deep into the plans due to high ceiling and very large windows. ··Bay window allows for additional natural light and broad views of the street. ··Rear yard setback allowed for private terrace space.

CONS

··Units did not stack efficiently, so utilities and stairs had to be carefully coordinated. ··Tight site made it difficult to stage and accept deliveries.

··The rear of building was built on angle to accommodate abutters’ wishes to maintain natural daylight behind the building. ··Bay window required Public Improvements Commission approvals. ··Existing foundations and soil conditions were not sufficient to support new structure; piles were required.

75

LOCATION

Boston, MA DESIGN

2004-2005 CONSTRUCTION

2005-2007 CLIENT

FINANCING

Private CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Concrete piles with slab, CMU ground floor, wood above

NORTH MARGIN STREET MULTIFAMILY

49 North Margin LLC

North Margin Street

UNIT TYPES

2 bed, 2 bath UNITS PER ACRE

3/.06 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

76

Floor 3

Floor 2

Floor 1

77

NORTH MARGIN STREET MULTIFAMILY

Roof

Mezzanine

Floor 4 0

5

10

20 feet

78

North Margin Street Elevation

Rear Elevation

NORTH MARGIN STREET MULTIFAMILY

79

0 5 10 20 feet

80

81

Sunoco The site of a former Sunoco gas station in South Boston is the proposed location for forty-eight micro-condos. The units are five hundred and ten square foot studios with sleeping lofts and have been designed for members of the creative class in the twentyfive to thirty-five age bracket, the appropriate demographic to target given the industrial character of the neighborhood and the general shortage of studio apartments in the Boston market. In addition, the site is directly across the street from the Broadway subway station, just one stop from South Station on the Red Line of Boston’s mass transit system.

Because each unit is a duplex entered from a skip-stop corridor, the second-floor space over the public corridor is recaptured to create deep walk-in closets on the second level of each unit. This storage space has been re-imagined as the back stage of the apartment containing a stacked washer/dryer and a second small in-closet bathroom. The public bathroom on the main level includes a deep Japanese soaking tub that can be opened up to the living area of the unit.

82

PROS

··The visibility of loft interiors from the downtown approach to South Boston—the Broadway Bridge—helps to market project. ··All units have unobstructed views of the Boston skyline. ··Duplex units provide maximum lifestyle amenities in a minimum area. ··Automated car-parking system reduced the amount of subsurface excavation needed and amount of retaining walls.

CONS

··The dimensions of the site required an inefficient single-loaded corridor configuration. ··The height requirement for the bar/screening room on the ground floor and the desire to keep the height of the building below the dimension that triggers the high rise code limited the number of residential floors.

Duplex Units (top) and Microcondo Units (below)

··The expressed concrete frame was economically infeasible. ··The automated car-parking system had not yet been implemented in other projects in the Unites States.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··The first floor of each unit was required to be handicapped accessible. To meet this requirement, an accessible bathroom was placed on the entry floor, and square footage was set aside for a convertible bedroom.

In subsequent relevant arbitration by the Massachusetts Accessibility Advisory Board, mezzanine space was ruled non-exempt from accessibility requirements, making this type technically non-compliant.

Microcondo Unit

83

LOCATION

South Boston, MA DESIGN

2004-2005 CONSTRUCTION

— CLIENT

Pappas Properties FINANCING

Dorchester Avenue

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Concrete UNIT TYPES

1 bed loft, 1 bath 2 bed, 2 bath

SUNOCO MULTIFAMILY

Private

UNITS

Br

oa

dw

ay

48 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

1 space/unit PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

84

Screening Room

Lobby

Bar

Ground Floor

Automated Parking

85

SUNOCO MULTIFAMILY

Unit A

Unit B

Floor 2 and 3 mezzanine

Unit A

Unit B

Floor 2 and 3

0

10

20

40 feet

86 Unit C

Floor 4 mezzanine

Unit C

Floor 4

0

10

20

40 feet

Unit A mezzanine

Unit B mezzanine

Unit C upper floor

Unit A entry

Unit B entry

Unit C entry

SUNOCO MULTIFAMILY

87

0

5

10

20 feet

88

Section through Automated Parking

SUNOCO MULTIFAMILY

89

Section through Screening Room

0

5

10

20 feet

90

IN COLLABORATION WITH DAVID NEILSON

321 West Second Street 321 West Second Street is a fifteen-unit condominium building located in a rapidly changing part of South Boston. David Neilson developed the conceptual building plans and unit types, which Utile refined in collaboration with David after the schematic design phase. A point-loaded circulation strategy was used to eliminate all common corridors at the upper levels and maximize living areas within the units. Each unit is located between two stairwells.

Entry lobbies are located on both West Second Street and Bolton Street, with no entry serving more than six units. The ground floor is dedicated to structured parking and accommodates two accessible residential units along West Second Street. Above, two-bedroom units are organized around a central courtyard, allowing all units to have at least two exposures. An additional fourth-floor penthouse articulates the prominent north-east facing corner.

The organizing elements on the building exterior are the continuous wood planter boxes. Mounted below a ribbon of windows, these boxes define the living areas of each unit. Large French doors allow residents both to access the planters and to open their living rooms to the street.

91

92

PROS

CONS

··Because of the deepness of the lot, units are configured around a central interior courtyard which allows multiple exposures from all units.

··Because of pressures of the building diagram, zoning and abutters concerns, units were unable to be stacked exactly from floor to floor.

··Point-loaded circulation eliminates internal corridors in favor of walk up stairwells. This diagram increases net salable square footage to achieve a high net/gross ratio and create a cluster-unit organization.

··Topography created difficult entry conditions on the rear of the building. ··The number of main entries—four—created difficulty with addressing and fire department unit numbering.

··High quality windows and kitchens. ··Excellent views of the city and close proximity to Broadway retail corridor.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Variances for density, unit counts and setbacks were required.

··Accessible first floor units and three-story height (with mezzanine) allowed the building to remain a walk-up. ··Penthouse square footage was less than one third the footage of the floors below, allowing for less expensive fire suppression system. ··Three story height allowed for one-hour fire ratings instead of two-hour on most shafts and stair wells.

93

LOCATION

South Boston, MA DESIGN

2005-2006 CONSTRUCTION

ES

T

E

W

CLIENT SE

CO

ND

Niskanan Real Estate ST

RE

FINANCING

ET

Private

W es

tS

BO

LT

ON

ST

ec

on

d

CONSTRUCTION TYPE St

Masonry and wood

re

et

UNIT TYPES RE

2,2.5,3 bed 1.5-2.5 bath 1052-1164 sq.ft.

ET

321 WEST SECOND STREET MULTIFAMILY

E Str S T ee RE t ET

—

UNITS PER ACRE

Bo

lto

n

15/.25 St

re

et

COST PER SQ. FT.

$116.00 PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

94

Floor 1

321 WEST SECOND STREET MULTIFAMILY

95

Floor 2

0 5 10 20 feet

96

Floor 3

321 WEST SECOND STREET MULTIFAMILY

97

Floor 4

0 5 10 20 feet

98

Section through Units

321 WEST SECOND STREET MULTIFAMILY

99

Section through Courtyard

0

5

10

20 feet

100

101

Davis Square A quick feasibility study and accompanying schematic design were completed to test the development potential of a site near Somerville’s vibrant Davis Square. The constraints of the project were typical for Utile’s developer work, since the design required balancing a required parking ratio (in this case two parking spaces per unit), a four story structure which maximizes the limits of wood construction in the Massachusetts Building Code, and the desire for a maximum number of units on the site. The two studies shown here were undertaken during the period when the developer had an option on the property.

102

Scenario One Double Core with Garage In the first option, a single below-grade parking garage was proposed to serve two independent circulation cores, each with its

PROS

··The two cores that run perpendicular to the street allow for each unit to be have floorthrough exposure.

own elevator and stair system. At the sidewalk level, the building

··Lobbies serve a small number of units, providing a sense of community within the entryway.

has two separate addresses and lobbies. The key to making this

··Parking hidden from view.

configuration work on the upper residential floors was to separate the two means of egress by a distance of one-quarter the length of the diagonal of the area served, a minimum limit specified in the Massachusetts Building Code. Working through this issue determined both the depth and width of each module of the plan.

CONS

··Multiple cores required. ··Elevator expense spread between a small number of units. ··Below-grade parking a significant expense.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··The minimum distance between egress stairs—one-quarter the length of the diagonal of the area served—determined the dimensions of the units.

103

LOCATION

Somerville, MA DESIGN

2005-2006 CONSTRUCTION

— CLIENT

Xerxes Agassi PARKAvenue AVENUE Park

FINANCING

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Wood frame E AEveA VnEuNeU CoCllOeLLgeE G

UNIT TYPES

2, 3 bedrooms

DAVIS SQUARE MULTIFAMILY

—

UNITS PER ACRE

8/.23 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit Winter WINTERStreet STREET

PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

104

Basement

DAVIS SQUARE MULTIFAMILY

105

SCENARIO 1

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

106

Section

DAVIS SQUARE MULTIFAMILY

107

SCENARIO 1

Floors 2,3 and 4

0

5

10

20 feet

108

Scenario Two Two-over-One Duplex Rowhouse In the second option, a stacked and modified rowhouse solution was explored. The plan was conceived as series of double party wall modules (each twenty feet wide) that could accommodate four parking spaces at ground level. These garages are accessed from the rear of the site while leaving space for individual unit vestibules on the sidewalk side. Significantly, each unit has its own private vertical circulation, meaning that there is no shared circulation space. The second floor of the double-module is one single flat. The third and fourth floors are

PROS

··No shared circulation, as each unit has its own private stair system. ··Each unit has an entry closet at the sidewalk level, and an individual address. ··Parking is solved efficiently and inexpensively at grade.

CONS

··Shallow footprint in which a significant portion of each floor is given over to circulation.

side-by-side duplexes with private stairs directly to the street configured

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

such that the travel distance from within the unit to the exit is less

··Type does not comply with Massachusetts State Building Code in recent rulings regarding maximum length of egress path.

than seventy-five (a requirement of the building code). While the type appeared to meet the letter of the law per the Massachusetts Building Code, more recent interpretations of the code by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts prohibit the deployment of the type in Massachusetts.

109

LOCATION

Somerville, MA DESIGN

2005-2006 CONSTRUCTION

— CLIENT

Xerxes Agassi PARKAvenue AVENUE Park

FINANCING

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Wood frame AveA VnEuNeU E CoCllOeLLgeE G E

UNIT TYPES

1, 2 bedrooms

DAVIS SQUARE MULTIFAMILY

—

UNITS PER ACRE

10/.23 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit Winter WINTERStreet STREET

PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

110

Floor 2 Option 2

Floor 1

Floor 2 Option 1

DAVIS SQUARE MULTIFAMILY

111

Floor 3 Option 2 SCENARIO 2

Floor 3 Option 1

Floor 4

0

5

10

20 feet

112

IN COLLABORATION WITH METROPOLITAN PLANNING COLLABORATIVE

Sunrise The redevelopment of Sunrise Trailer Park is a significant undertaking for the Habitat for Humanity Greater Charlottesville (HfHGC), the local chapter of the non-profit housing ministry. As single-family housing was becoming less feasible to build, HfHGC recognized the need to pursue centrally located, compact, sustainable, and mixed-income developments.

In 2005, HfHGC and the Charlottesville Community Design Center co-sponsored Urban Habitats, an international design competition, to generate models for this task. Seventy-two units of housing for various income levels were to be located on the two-acre site, without displacing any of the current residents residing in eighteen trailers on site.

The competition entry by Chris Genter and Susanne Schindler was awarded first prize.

The project is being developed by Utile and Metropolitan Planning Collaborative, the competition’s second prize winners. In a community-based master planning phase, unit types were diversified and the overall unit count was reduced to fifty-two.

The multifamily buildings designed here mark a departure for Habitat for Humanity, insofar as the more robust type is of a scale and level of complication that cannot be built by volunteers alone. A professional contractor would have to be hired to build this portion of the project.

SEE PAGE 200 FOR SUNRISE ONE+TWO FAMILY TYPES

113

114

PROS

··Wide variety of building and unit types allow for different lifestyle scenarios, among them elderly housing, graduate students and families. ··Units are accessed directly from the exterior, either at ground level or from a raised shared deck. ··Units have at least two exposures. ··Units feature either outdoor spaces or decks. ··Buildings feature green roofs.

CONS

Two over One Cluster

Condominium

··Parking is not always adjacent to unit entrance. ··Large scale condo buildings would require professional builder—would not Habitat buildable.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··The site occupies almost an entire block that is currently a trailer park. Habitat bought the property with the intention of creating its first mixed-income residential development, and will provide the opportunity for new housing to all current residents of the trailer park. ··A living street will run through the site to provide access to units internal to the site. The street will accommodate the majority of parking. ··The density of the project requires Planned Unit Development approval from the Zoning Board.

View from Cluster Porch

View from Condominium Unit

115

LOCATION

Charlottesville, VA DESIGN

2005-2007 CONSTRUCTION

Carlton Avenue

Pending Two over One

Condominium

CLIENT

Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville FINANCING

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Rives Street

treet

au S

Nass

Wood frame and steel UNIT TYPES

SUNRISE MULTIFAMILY

Private Cluster

Microcondos 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom UNITS PER ACRE

52 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

1.25 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

— Midland Street

0

20

50

100 feet

116

Floor 3

Floor 2

SUNRISE MULTIFAMILY

117

Section

CLUSTER

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

118

Floor 3

Floor 2

SUNRISE MULTIFAMILY

119

Section

TWO OVER ONE

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

120

Floor 1

SUNRISE MULTIFAMILY

121

CONDOMINIUM

Floor 2

0

5

10

20 feet

122

Floor 4

Floor 3

SUNRISE MULTIFAMILY

123

CONDOMINIUM

Section

0

5

10

20 feet

124

125

Wyman Street Along Wyman Street in the Jamaica Plain neighborhood of Boston, a multi-building complex—consisting of a 1920's brick school conversion and three new three-family buildings—was inserted into a through block in the existing residential fabric. In the school, the partially submerged ground floor basement area was reclaimed through excavation, providing private patio areas in front of each ground floor unit and more natural light. Similarly, previously unused roof area was used to create duplex units with exterior roof decks. Each roof-top unit was set back to minimize the visual impact on the building’s exterior. The renovation design privileged floor plan flexibility to support either open loft-style living or more subdivided space, as desired by the occupants. In addition to the school, three new triple deckers were inserted along the south of the parcel; these buildings were designed and spaced to duplicate the existing pattern of the densely settled Forbes Street. The units in these buildings improve upon the standard triple decker layout by shifting the second means of egress—which typically blocks the rear views within the building—to the side, permitting both the kitchen and master bedroom the views and the privacy afforded by the back yard.

126

School Renovation

Triple Deckers

PROS

PROS

··Existing classroom layout is retained. Corridor space that was previously unused is annexed to provide a layer of program between the units and the common areas.

··Centralized location of second egress stair allows the master bedroom and kitchen to take full advantage of the views at the rear of the site, and full separation of the bedroom suite.

··Layouts accommodate open studio, one- or two-bedroom units.

··Layout accommodates two- or three-bedroom arrangement.

··Kitchens and baths create a core within the unit, allowing the existing windows and exterior walls to remain as untouched as possible.

··Triple decker typologically well-suited for the dense street.

CONS

··Since the baths and kitchens are not stacked, the plumbing design was difficult and inefficient.

··Building can be constructed using modular components.

CONS

··Triple decker type has limited economies of scale. Three-unit building requires a fully handicapped accessible ground floor unit and sprinklers. ··While the building type is typical in this context, the similarity presents a marketing challenge in that it will be competing with many other comparable units on the market.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··The ground floor accessible unit, which mandates an at-grade entry to the building, presents a challenge to the typology which more traditionally relies on an elevated porch to mark the front door and raise the ground floor unit above grade.

127

LOCATION

Jamaica Plain, MA DESIGN

2005-2006 WYMAN STREET Wyman Street

CONSTRUCTION

— CLIENT

Xerxes Agassi R EeEt T

FINANCING

C C EeNn

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Existing masonry building, wood frame UNIT TYPES

WYMAN STREET MULTIFAMILY

TtRreE

SS tTre

Private

1 bed, loft, 1.5 bed, 2 bed, 1-2 bath UNITS

13 School Renovation 9 Triple Decker COST PER SQ. FT.

— reet

es St

FORB

ES

oErTb S T RFE

PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

128

Floor 1

WYMAN STREET MULTIFAMILY

129

SCHOOL RENOVATION

Floor 2

0

5

10

20 feet

130

Floor 3

Floor 4

WYMAN STREET MULTIFAMILY

131

Section

Side Elevation

SCHOOL RENOVATION

0

5

10

20 feet

132

Street Elevation

Forbes Street Elevation

Section

133

WYMAN STREET MULTIFAMILY

Floor 3

TRIPLE DECKER

Floor 2

Floor 1 0

5

10

20 feet

134

135

Seaverns The Seaverns Avenue project was a quick attempt to subdivide a former church and printing press into a series of market rate condominiums. Because the existing building and site are completely constrained on all sides, the design challenge was to find the right degree of subdivision within the existing space. Too few units would reduce the initial return on investment, too many would not likely be allowed by an active neighborhood association sensitive to density issues. From the beginning of the study, the lack of space for on-site parking was likely to make the issue of density a critical one.

Several permutations were explored, based on two variables: subdivision of three or four spaces to the right of the entry door, and common circulation at the front or the rear.

All schemes located townhouse style units at the ground floor. The upper floor two-story units required the common corridor to achieve a code-compliant egress condition. The designs were done for a potential investor in the site who chose not to pursue the project.

However, as of 2008, the building is being renovated by another developer into luxury triplex condominiums.

Coat

··Ground floor units take advantage of grade drop at rear of property. ··All schemes take place within existing building envelope.

WC

Server

··Diverse unit types created, with a variety of sizes and price points.

Kitchen

PROS

Council Room Boiler

Maint.

Chapel Below

CONS

··Extensive re-framing of building interior would be required.

Dining

WC

Floor 2

··Subdivision of existing windows would be required on the schemes which divide the space to the right of the entry into three bays.

Office

WC

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··No on-site parking was provided; zoning relief would have been required. ··Single-loaded corridor required on second floor to meet egress requirements.

Office Entry

Chapel

Coat

WC

Kitchen

Floor 1

Server

136

Dining

WC

Existing Elevation

Boiler Council Room

Maint.

Basement EXISTING PLANS

Chapel Below

0 Office

WC

10

20

40 feet

137

LOCATION

Jamaica Plain, MA DESIGN

2005-2006 CONSTRUCTION

— T

CLIENT

Kieran Fitzgibbon

AL

FR

ED

AlfS reTdR E SE

tTre et

GGreR eEnE N StSrT eReEtE

FINANCING

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

— UNIT TYPES

studio, 1-1.5 bedroom, 1 bath SE

AV

SeE R avN S ernA V s EA ve

SEAVERNS MULTIFAMILY

Private

UNITS

8 nu

e

COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

None provided PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

138

Section

Basement

SEAVERNS MULTIFAMILY

139

Floor 2

SCHEME A

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

140

Section

Basement

SEAVERNS MULTIFAMILY

141

Floor 2

SCHEME B

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

142

Section

Basement

SEAVERNS MULTIFAMILY

143

Floor 2

SCHEME C

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

144

Section

Basement

SEAVERNS MULTIFAMILY

145

Floor 2

SCHEME D

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

146

147

Fourth at Broadway An early twentieth-century, three-story masonry building prominently located on Chelsea’s main retail stretch is the site of this adaptive reuse project. Originally built as a commercial building that included a theater, the property had been converted several times to accommodate small apartments and some offices. In this latest conversion, the existing residential units were replanned and renovated, and the office space transformed into fourteen new residential units.

Capitalizing on the existing high ceilings, generous structural dimensions—and some equally generous steel beams—and large window openings, a variety of studio, one- and two-bedroom units were accommodated in the original shell. Exterior walls and roof were provided with additional insulation. Where appropriate, elements such as the industrial sky lights were maintained.

In addition, the building was overhauled on the exterior. The work included masonry repairs, new paint, and new windows. The ground floor retail spaces were stripped, to be replaced by more generous storefronts with coordinated signage and lighting.

148

PROS

··The high ceilings and large window openings of the existing structure allowed for spacious units. ··A wide variety of unit types accommodated within the existing structural bays. ··Single-loaded corridor layout allowed for natural light within the common spaces. ··Large clear spans to accommodate original commercial program made for open living areas. ··Ratio of windows to units allowed for inventive unit layouts.

CONS

··Existing structure was illogical and needed to be upgraded. ··Possible future expansion at the back of the site will make some of the renovated units less desirable. ··Existing building required many code and accessibility upgrades. ··Congested site left little parking availability.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Change of use zoning variance required for parts of the building. ··Central open stair allowed to be used as one means of egress, due to existing conditions clause. in the building code. ··Because cost of renovation amounted to less than thirty percent of fair market value of the building, extensive accessibility upgrades not required per Massachusetts Building Code.

149

LOCATION

Chelsea, MA DESIGN

2006 CONSTRUCTION

2006-2007

B

RO

CLIENT

Synergy LLC, RCG LLC FINANCING

Private CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Existing masonry, wood and steel UNIT TYPES

FOURTH AT BROADWAY MULTIFAMILY

y

wa

Y d W A oa A D Br

ET t R E ee S T tr H S 4 Turth

Fo

Studio 725-825 sq. ft.

1 Br 705-1040 sq. ft.

2 Br 1150-1250 sq. ft.

UNITS PER ACRE

19/34.5 + 9600 sq. ft. retail COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

1 space/unit PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

150

North Building Floors 2 and 3

FOURTH AT BROADWAY MULTIFAMILY

151

South Building Floors 2 and 3

Lobby Section

0

5

10

20 feet

152

153

Blakemore Hyde-Blakemore is an affordable for-sale housing development, designed for nonprofit developer Urban Edge, that provides thirteen units in three buildings. A three-story nine-unit residence at the intersection with Blakemore Street finds its inspiration in the vernacular motifs found elsewhere in the neighborhood. The three ground-floor units in the building are handicapped accessible, as required by Massachusetts State Building Code.

The butterfly roof on the northern portion of the building serves a dual purpose. It occurs at the prominent intersection of Hyde Park Avenue and Blakemore Street, giving expression to the entire complex in the three-quarter view. More importantly, it is a water collector, and as such it is the visual manifestation of the larger site-wide storm-water management strategy as conceived by landscape design collaborators, Landworks Studio.

Energy efficiency is insured in all units through Energy Star rating.

SEE PAGE 194 FOR BLAKEMORE ONE+TWO FAMILY UNITS

154

PROS

··All three ground floor units are handicapped accessible. ··Blown-in cellulose insulation and upgraded windows minimize noise from street and rail traffic.

CONS

··No private outdoor space. ··Storage room is minimal.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Two means of egress provided at the end of eccentrically-shaped common corridors.

155

LOCATION

Roslindale, MA DESIGN

2006-2007 CONSTRUCTION

2007-2008 CLIENT

Urban Edge FINANCING

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

B L AK EM O R EStreet STREET Blakemore

Wood frame

HyHY deDEPaPA rkRKAvAV enEN ueUE

UNIT TYPES

2 bedroom

BLAKEMORE MULTIFAMILY

City of Boston

UNITS PER ACRE

9/.31 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

$2,528,857 (all 3 buildings)

0

20

50

100 feet

156

Floor 3

Floor 2

BLAKEMORE MULTIFAMILY

157

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

158

Hyde Park Avenue Elevation Option 1

West Section

BLAKEMORE MULTIFAMILY

159

South Section

North Section

0

5

10

20 feet

160

161

Metcom The top two floors of an existing brick warehouse building in the center of Salem was converted from under-utilized office space into ten market rate condominiums. The urban fabric of downtown Salem is remarkably intact, the streets lined with charming historic buildings. For this reason, and due to the convenient commute to nearby Boston, the core commercial district is enjoying a resurgence as a hip urban residential neighborhood. The existing building offered large window openings, high ceilings and elegant structural elements that were embraced into the design of the new units.

A single-loaded corridor system was chosen as the only feasible option for the narrow fifty foot building depth; all common spaces are therefore naturally lit. The resulting deep unit plans were planned to be as open and unobstructed as possible to take advantage of the existing window openings. Through the industrial-scale windows daylight penetrates deep into the units and excellent views of the downtown and Salem harbor are revealed.

The deepest portions of the plans hold work spaces which are illuminated by skylight.

162

PROS

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Generous windows and high ceilings of existing building allow for spatially generous units.

··Ten-unit project required zoning and planning approvals.

··Single-loaded corridor provides natural light in common spaces.

··Zoning change of use required from business to residential.

CONS

··Fire protection needed to be upgraded due to change of use.

··Existing building footprint necessitated deep units with narrow exposures to exterior. ··Because first two floors are not residential, housing circulation cores and piping distribution were complex and inefficient.

··Renovations designed to accommodate future expansion to the south.

163

LOCATION

Salem, MA DESIGN

2006-2007 CONSTRUCTION

2007 CLIENT

Dodge Street LLC FINANCING

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Wood and steel UNIT TYPES

1 and 2 bedroom lofts

METCOM MULTIFAMILY

LA FAYE TTE STRE ET Lafayette Street

Private

UNITS PER ACRE

— DDodge O D G E SStreet TREET

COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

1.5 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

164

Floor 1

METCOM MULTIFAMILY

165

Floors 2, 3 and 4

0

5

10

20 feet

166

167

Webster Block The Webster Block is a one hundred forty-one-unit multi-family project on just over two acres in Chelsea’s emerging Broadway/Eastern mixed-use district. A diverse mix of unit-types—lofts, flats and townhouses in three new buildings—as well as new communityserving retail create an active, pedestrian-friendly urban environment. A strong urban edge is created along Eastern Avenue, complimented by more intimately scaled townhouse-style buildings along Spencer Avenue. The interior of the site is designed to provide efficient parking and maximize open space. Building massing is stepped-down in deference to existing neighbors.

The project communicates a connection to the existing residential scale of the neighborhood while also tapping into the industrial heritage of the area and the contemporary aesthetic of the adjacent Spencer Lofts. The micro-loft unit type offers double-height living spaces, with dramatic fifteen-foot, six inch ceilings and thirteen-foot walls of windows.

While these units offer modest square footage—to maintain a reasonable price point—the vertical scale of the space, as well as private exterior balconies, provide a sense of spatial generosity.

SEE PAGE 48 FOR WEBSTER BLOCK TOWNHOUSE UNITS

168

PROS

CONS

··Small unit size allows for low sales price and a higher return per square foot to offset rising construction costs.

··Large windows pose heating and cooling challenges.

··Mezzanines provide inexpensive additional net salable square footage within the zoning height limitations on site, while reducing the amount of circulation area in the building. ··Sixteen-foot ceilings in living spaces create the feel of a much larger unit. ··All units have private exterior terraces. ··Structural bay—which accommodates three parking stalls—allows space for two micro-lofts or one penthouse. ··Micro-lofts create an economical new housing type for first-time buyers in an otherwise expensive market.

Webster Avenue Elevation

··Long double-loaded corridors in some sections. ··Difficulty in meeting parking requirements due to density on site.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Mezzanines need to be handicapped accessible per Massachusetts Building Code, but duplex floors do not. Therefore, the upper floor of the unit was given more square footage (to qualify as duplex), which kicked the project into a more robust construction type (concrete or steel). ··Retail use required zoning variance. ··Project was required to go through a Planned Unit Development review due to density.

169

LOCATION

Chelsea, MA DESIGN

2007 CONSTRUCTION

— SSp

PeEn NcCe Er RA Ave V En NuUe E

CLIENT

Synergy FINANCING

CONSTRUCTION TYPE WBeS T bsEtR erA V E AveN U nuE e

Bldg 1:Light gauge metal Bldg 2:Block and plank UNIT TYPES

WEBSTER BLOCK MULTIFAMILY

Private

WE

3 bed, 2 bath 2 bed, 2 bath UNITS PER ACRE

141/2.15 65.5 COST PER SQ. FT.

$185/square foot, est.

PARKING RATIO

1.25 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

— EAST E R NAvenue AV E N U E Eastern

0

20

50

100 feet

170

Microloft Entry Level

WEBSTER BLOCK MULTIFAMILY

171

Microloft Mezzanine Level

0

5

10

20 feet

172

Two Bedroom Loft Entry Level

WEBSTER BLOCK MULTIFAMILY

173

Two Bedroom Loft Mezzanine Level

0

5

10

20 feet

174

Mezzanine

Mezzanine

Entry

Entry

MICROLOFT

TWO BEDROOM LOFT

0

5

10

20 feet

WEBSTER BLOCK MULTIFAMILY

175

Parking

Eastern Avenue

Section

0

5

10

20 feet

176

177

Worcester Schools School House Lofts is a project comprised of two late-nineteenth-century brick grammar schools in Worcester, to be renovated into forty-five residential units. Both schools are registered historical properties; the Dartmouth Street School is on the National Registry of Historic Places, and the Adams Street School is on the Massachusetts Registry. Given the remarkable existing character of the each building, the project seeks to take a light touch approach to renovation. The typical classroom unit itself—a thirty-five by twenty-two foot module—offers a simple and direct conversion into an entry-level one-bedroom condominium for the targeted demographic: young, first-time homebuyers, researchers at the nearby Medical Center, and recent graduates from Worcester’s many universities.

In both schools, the units were designed to maintain a relatively untouched window wall (in many cases, due to the crenellation of the plans, the units enjoy multiple exposures). The new bathroom and kitchen cores and bedroom partitions stand away from the existing walls where possible to allow for salvage of original trim details, chalkboards, built-in shelves and cabinetry.

178

PROS

CONS

··The typical classroom size—a thirty-five by

··Steep topography and multiple building entrances—each with stairs—made creating a handicapped accessible path into the building very difficult to achieve. The only feasible manner to meet accessibility guidelines was to undergo significant excavation to reveal a buried entrance at a lower grade.

twenty-two foot module—translated well into to a one-bedroom unit type. ··The open plan of the classrooms—entirely without internal structural interruption—allowed for excellent planning flexibility. ··The crenellation of the building footprint created multiple corner units. ··Large windows and high ceilings allowed for a loft-like quality to the spaces.

··The amount and cadence of windows in each classroom/unit limited the possible location of new partitions. ··Thick masonry chases between each classroom and between the classrooms and corridor made running necessary residential services difficult to achieve and conceal.

179

LOCATION

Worcester, MA DESIGN

2007 CONSTRUCTION

2007-2008 CLIENT

FINANCING

Private CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Imperial Road

IMPERIAL ROAD

ADAMS STREET

Adams Street

Masonry UNIT TYPES

1 bed, 750 sq. ft.

2 bed 975 sq. ft.

3 bed 1527 sq. ft.

WORCESTER SCHOOLS MULTIFAMILY

LMM Realty LLC

UNITS

24 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

180

Floor 1

WORCESTER SCHOOLS MULTIFAMILY

181

Floor 2

0 5 10 20 feet

182

Floor 3

WORCESTER SCHOOLS MULTIFAMILY

183

Floor 4

0 5 10 20 feet

184

185

One+Two Family

186 ROSLINDALE FIELD 194 BLAKEMORE 200 SUNRISE 210 FIFEVILLE

186

187

Roslindale Field Roslindale Field is the result of a collaborative effort between two non-profit Community Development Corporations, Urban Edge and Southwest Boston CDC. The twenty twounit development will provide affordable home ownership opportunities to the residential neighborhood of Prospect Hill in Roslindale.

The steeply sloped site fronts Rowe Street on its western boundary and the MBTA commuter rail line along its eastern boundary. To negotiate the complex topography, Utile developed three building types specific to the varied terrain of the site. Among these were stacked two-family buildings, some which offered tuck-under parking. Because of the economic pressures imposed by the subsidized portion of the project, Roslindale Field takes advantage of the efficiencies of off-site, prefabricated construction. It thus bridges the gap between modular and traditional neighborhood building typologies.

Two distinct types of two-family buildings were developed, to respond to the particularities of the steep site, to provide a mix of unit types, and to offer a more diverse range of elevations along the street. In both designs, the dimensions of the floors are dictated by the limits of modular construction. On site two pre-fabricated boxes would be nestled sideby-side and attached to one another to create each composite floor plate.

SEE PAGE 24 FOR ROSLINDALE FIELD TOWNHOUSE UNITS

188

Building Type A PROS

··Provides a combination of two- and threebedroom unit types. ··Dimensioned for modular construction CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Ground floor unit is handicapped accessible.

This was not a requirement of the Massachusetts State Building Code, but was required by City of Boston Zoning Code.

189

LOCATION

Roslindale, MA DESIGN

2005-2006 CONSTRUCTION

— CLIENT

Urban Edge FINANCING

Public CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Modular e Street

UNIT TYPES

studio, 2 bed, 1 bath UNITS PER ACRE

6/.51 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

ROSLINDALE FIELD ONE+TWO FAMILY

ROW E STR EET Row

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

—

Building Type A

0

20

50

100 feet

190

Building Type B PROS

··Front to back building dimension just long enough to provide parking for two cars in the basement. ··Third floor works with or without dormers to accommodate both affordable and market rate units. ··Dimensioned for modular construction.

CONS

··Unit overlap at second and third floors creates fire separation challenges.

191

LOCATION

Roslindale, MA DESIGN

2005-2006 CONSTRUCTION

— CLIENT

Urban Edge FINANCING

Public CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Modular ROW E STR EET

Rowe Street

UNIT TYPES

UNITS PER ACRE

10/1.3 COST PER SQ. FT.

— PARKING RATIO

ROSLINDALE FIELD ONE+TWO FAMILY

3 bed, 1.5-2.5 bath

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

—

Building Type B

0

20

50

100 feet

192

Floor 3

Section

Floor 2

Basement

Floor 1

TYPE A

193

Section

Floor 2

Basement

Floor 1

TYPE B

ROSLINDALE FIELD ONE+TWO FAMILY

Floor 3

0

5

10

20 feet

194

195

Blakemore Hyde-Blakemore is an affordable for-sale housing development, designed for non-profit developer Urban Edge, that provides thirteen units in three buildings. The two duplex buildings draw from the character of the existing residential fabric along Hyde Park Avenue.

Energy efficiency is insured in all units through Energy Star rating, and each duplex unit draws solar power from photo-voltaic panels installed on the roof. Each building is separated from its neighbor with a carefully considered landscape strategy. Sensitive landscape design takes into account the inherent desire for more greenery and privacy between buildings, but also addresses other environmental issues such as storm water run-off through grading and the use of bio-swales.

SEE PAGE 152 FOR BLAKEMORE MULTIFAMILY UNITS

196

PROS

··Each unit has a private entry and front porch on separate facades. ··Photo-voltaic panels are installed on the roof of each building for solar energy. ··The landscape plan maximizes privacy for each unit while also accommodating a comprehensive environmentally-sustainable strategy for handling water run-off through the implementation of bio-swales. ··Blown-in cellulose and upgraded windows minimize noise from street and rail traffic.

CONS

··Dimensional constraint of building footprints required steep stair rise-to-run ratio. ··Storage room is minimal. ··Overlapping of units between second and third floors created fire separation challenges.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··Zoning variance required for the main side entry for the second unit, as code required front door to face the street. ··Twelve-over-twelve roof pitch allows for dormerless occupation of third floor. ··Designed and built as affordable housing.

197

LOCATION

Roslindale, MA DESIGN

2005-2006 CONSTRUCTION

2007-2008 CLIENT

Urban Edge FINANCING

Public CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Hyde Park Av enue

UNIT TYPES

studio, 2 bed,1 bath UNITS PER ACRE

6/.51 COST PER SQ. FT.

HY DE PA RK AV EN UE

-

BLAKEMORE ONE+TWO FAMILY

B L AK EM O R E Street STREET Blakemore

Modular

PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

198

Section through Porch

Section

Section through Bay

Hyde Park Avenue Elevation

199

Floor 3

Floor 1

Floor 2

BLAKEMORE ONE+TWO FAMILY

Floor 1 Alternate porch entry configuration

0

5

10

20 feet

200

IN COLLABORATION WITH METROPOLITAN PLANNING COLLABORATIVE

Sunrise The redevelopment of Sunrise Trailer Park is a significant undertaking for the Habitat for Humanity Greater Charlottesville (HfHGC), the local chapter of the non-profit housing ministry. As single-family housing was becoming less feasible to build, HfHGC recognized the need to pursue centrally located, compact, sustainable, and mixed-income developments.

In 2005, HfHGC and the Charlottesville Community Design Center co-sponsored Urban Habitats, an international design competition, to generate models for this task. Seventy-two units of housing for various income levels were to be located on the two-acre site, without displacing any of the current residents residing in eighteen trailers on site.

The competition entry by Chris Genter and Susanne Schindler was awarded first prize.

The project is being developed by Utile and Metropolitan Planning Collaborative, the competition’s second prize winners. In a community-based master planning phase, unit types were diversified and the overall unit count was reduced to fifty-two.

Unlike the multifamily buildings, the one-and two-family types were carefully designed to be buildable by Habitat volunteers—the typical manner by which the homes remain affordable.

SEE PAGE 112 FOR SUNRISE MULTIFAMILY UNITS

201

202

PROS

··Wide variety of building and unit types allow for different lifestyle scenarios, among them elderly housing, graduate students and families. ··Houses are designed to be aggregated and attached in various combinations. One wall of each unit could be a party wall with another unit without modification to interior layout. ··Site planning arrangement creates a defined private exterior space for each house. ··All houses feature porches. ··Most interior walls are non load-bearing, allowing for alternative plan configurations within the building volume. ··Buildings are standard wood frame construction and could be constructed by Habitat for Humanity volunteers. ··Most houses are handicapped accessible on the ground floor.

CONS

Midland Units

··Parking is not always adjacent to unit entrance.

Internal Units

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··The site occupies almost an entire block that is currently a trailer park. Habitat bought the property with the intention of creating its first mixed-income residential development, and will provide the opportunity for new housing to all current residents of the trailer park. ··A living street will run through the site to provide access to units internal to the site. The street will accommodate the majority of parking. ··The density of the project requires Planned Unit Development approval from the Zoning Board.

Midland Street Units

Nassau Street Units

Nassau Units

203

LOCATION

Charlottesville, VA DESIGN

2005-2007 CARLTON AVE Carlton Avenue

CONSTRUCTION

Pending CLIENT

Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville FINANCING

Private CONSTRUCTION TYPE

treet

RIVES Rives Street

Wood frame and steel UNIT TYPES

Microcondos 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom UNITS

52 COST PER SQ. FT.

—

SUNRISE ONE+TWO FAMILY

NAS

au S

SAU

Nass

I

PARKING RATIO

1.25 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

— MIDLAND ST Midland Street

0

20

50

100 feet

204

Floor 3

Floor 2

205

SUNRISE ONE+TWO FAMILY

Section

MIDLAND UNITS

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

206

Floor 3

Floor 2

207

SUNRISE ONE+TWO FAMILY

Section

NASSAU UNITS

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

208

Floor 3

Floor 2

209

SUNRISE ONE+TWO FAMILY

Section

INTERNAL UNITS

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

210

211

Fifeville Two former single-family parcels bordered by King, Grove and Tenth Streets were combined to accommodate six new single-family units. The goal was to create compact yet generous single-family units—affordable by virtue of their size—within walking distance of the growing University of Virginia Hospital and downtown Charlottesville.

Each house is accessed individually from one of the three streets, lending each streetscape a distinct identity. At the inside of the block, the units’ gardens all front a densely planted shared open space. This inner green space acts as a visual extension of the small, private outdoor spaces, and creates an acoustical buffer from the units across the way.

An attached house type, combining a three-bedroom, three-story house with a twobedroom, two-story unit behind, faces Grove Street. Three three-bedroom, three-story houses create a street edge on Tenth Street. Finally, a four-bedroom, two-story house is accessed from King Street.

212

PROS

CONS

··All units are directly accessible from a small porch facing the street.

··Because most of the units are detached, they cannot take advantage of the efficiency of circulation or materials of attached units, such as the reduction in the area of exterior cladding required for each unit.

··The living space of each units opens onto a small private yard that fronts a common green space. The common green space creates a visual extension of each private yard and acts as a buffer between the units. ··Single-story projections on the garden side of the units—most of which house kitchens—create privacy for the yards and feature green roofs. ··Three-story units enjoy an upper-level deck.

CODE AND OTHER PARTICULARITIES

··The density of the project required Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval. ··The shared green space is fifteen percent of the overall site area, a requirement in Charlottesville for a PUD. ··Site planning and building dimensions are suited to the peculiarities of the small site, including the maintenance of existing trees.

213

LOCATION

Charlottesville, VA DESIGN

2006-2007 CONSTRUCTION

Pending eet VeE Str G GRroOv

CLIENT

London Calling LLC

h T1e0ntth

Stree

t

FINANCING

Private Developer CONSTRUCTION TYPE

Wood frame UNIT TYPES

UNITS et

e INiGng Str KK

6 COST PER SQ. FT.

—

FIFEVILLE ONE+TWO FAMILY

3 bedrooms in 4 building types

PARKING RATIO

2 spaces/unit PROJECT COST

—

0

20

50

100 feet

214

215

FIFEVILLE ONE+TWO FAMILY

Floor 3

Floor 2

GROVE STREET HOUSE

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

216

217

FIFEVILLE ONE+TWO FAMILY

Floor 3

Floor 2

TENTH STREET HOUSE

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

218

219

FIFEVILLE ONE+TWO FAMILY

Floor 2

KING STREET HOUSE

Floor 1

0

5

10

20 feet

Urban Housing Atlas is a compendium of more than twenty multi-family projects that Utile, a Boston-based architecture and urban planning firm, designed from 2003 through 2007. The book was originally developed as an inhouse manual to record housing solutions for both implemented projects and for proposals not carried forward that ran the risk of becoming lost design efforts. As a reference book, the compendium was to communicate collective knowledge gained to an ever-growing design team and would avoid instances of wheel-reinvention, a problem in a busy office with a horizontal management structure.

Urban Housing Atlas

Except in rare instances, all of the projects comprise between eight and forty units, are four stories or fewer, and were planned for urban infill sites in the Boston metropolitan area. Although the collection of proposals represents a wide range of building types, the projects were developed under uniform regulatory and economic constraints and with a consistent design methodology.

$15.00

Urban Housing Atlas