Page 1

WILLIAM TOOHEY III M.Arch 2018, in-progress BSA 2017, magna cum laude tooheyw@wit.edu +1 603.973.9152 williamtooheyiii.com


POINT OF VIEW & BRIEF BACKGROUND Awareness as an Observer: It is apparent that human beings, among other living organisms, play a role in society that only exists because of the influences that have preceded their time. To accept that role, without questioning at least why and who seems dangerously-complacent. This inherently simple perception of the world serves as the foundation for many of my lines of inquiry, architectural or not: an endless curiosity about why things are the way they are. 13 Homes: From what I can recall between my first memories and now, I have experienced living in at least thirteen different places that I have considered home: the deepest lot in a North Hampton, New Hampshire mobile home park; a suburban home in Skokie, Illinois; family friend’s house (#1) in Epping, New Hampshire; a finished basement in Lawrence, Massachusetts; low-income housing in Portsmouth, New Hampshire; a house in Rochester, New Hampshire; family friend’s house (#2) in Rochester; a two-bedroom apartment in Rochester; a onebedroom apartment in Rochester; a duplex in Haverhill, Massachusetts; a mobile home in Wells, Maine; a house in Newmarket, New Hampshire; and finally, an apartment in Boston. I spent most of my childhood with my mother and sister in Southern New Hampshire, but my experience with the notion of home, in conjunction with the integral members of the communities I grew up in, has influenced my desire to understand what home means to others. Professional Influence & Experience: From June 6, 2014 to the present, along with studying architecture at the undergraduate and graduate level at Wentworth Institute of Technology, I have been lucky enough to gain professional experience in the offices of TMS Architects, Arrowstreet, and Gensler. I have been influenced by the processes of designing residential homes in New Hampshire, understanding seven-story parking garage structures in Providence, and realizing how complicated a mixed-use development touching the southern facade of TD Garden is. In addition to working in offices and studying at Wentworth, I was given an opportunity to design a single-family home in Dover, New Hampshire as a nineteen-year-old, following my freshman year: an intense yet rewarding experience of how to understand the needs of future building inhabitants, translate ideas to drawings, and attempt to convey enough information to a contractor. Many of these experiences have influenced my own design processes and interests as a professional and student. Overall, the places in which I have lived and worked, with the people whom I have met along the way, whether neighborhood friends or colleagues, have shaped who I am and how I view the synergistic interaction between people and place. After a variety of experiences in multiple contexts, I have discovered that life, in all of its complexity and unanticipated variability, is inevitably embedded in architecture, and vice versa. Thank you for taking the time to read and view this work. Sincerely, Billy

Links to Digital Media: http://www.williamtooheyiii.com https://issuu.com/williamtooheyiii https://www.instagram.com/tooheyiii https://www.behance.net/williamtooheyiii https://www.pinterest.com/williamtooheyiii https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-jtoohey-iii-864840a8 https://www.youtube.com/channel/

December 2017

UC6uWjBDUKIm4nL0zDpQNo2g


01

YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL

02

RISING WITH THE TIDE

03

MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR

04

THE LINK: URBAN GONDOLA

STUDIO IX — 5th-Year M.Arch FALL 2017 — Wentworth w/ Carol Burns, FAIA, LEED AP, (Yale B.Arch, 1983)

STUDIO VIII — 4th-Year BSA SPRING 2017 — Wentworth w/ Matthew B. Matteson, PhD, (GSD MAUD, 2005)

STUDIO VII — 4th-Year BSA FALL 2016 — Wentworth w/ Alberto Cabre, Architect, (MIT M.Arch, 1997)

LIFESTYLE STUDIO — Internship SUMMER 2017 — Gensler, Boston

Supervisor: J.F. Finn, III, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Principal

Intern Team Members: Addison Silva­­—UConn Marketing Lily Shi—Cornell Design & Environmental Analysis Lindsay Hague­—Endicott Interior Design Longshao Xiao—WashU Architecture Luis Negron—UPR Rio Piedras Architecture Peijin Shi—Parsons Interior Design Rebecca Resnic—WashU Architecture Tianyi Sun—UPenn Architecture Yang Zhao—Cornell Architecture Article by Jim Stanislaski 2017.10.10: http://www.gensleron.com/cities/2017/10/ 10/envisioning-bostons-transit-future-its-abird-its-a-plane-it.html 05

RESPONSIBLE ARCHITECTURE: A SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE TOWER IN THE PARK THESIS — 5th-Year M.Arch FALL 2017 — Wentworth

Thesis Prep Professors: Carol Burns, FAIA, LEED AP, (Yale B.Arch, 1983) Jack Cochran, Architect, (UofV M.Arch + MUEP, 2012) Thesis Advisor: Robert Cowherd, PhD, (MIT, 2002) Independent Advisor: Austin Samson, Adjunct Faculty, (SCI-Arc M.Arch, 2014) 06

MISCELLANEOUS PROOF OF POTENTIAL Models, Graphics, & Construction Documents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Program Coordinators: Adam Harper, Project Architect, Associate Diana Vasquez, Architect, Senior Associate


THE HALLWAY OF EDUCATION Extended Axis: Old to New


YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL Studio IX: 5th-Year Graduate, Fall 2017 Project Type: Community-Oriented Campus Extension Location: New Haven, Connecticut Professor: Carol Burns, FAIA, LEED AP, (Yale B.Arch, 1983) Previous faculty positions at GSD, MIT, Yale, UVA, & Dalhousie

This contemporary and connected extension of the Yale Divinity School strives to foster a sense of community, embedded in the existing landscape. The design process views the existing landscape and its steep topography as an exciting opportunity for the Divinity School’s future campus. The configuration of massing, informed by an array of interior and exterior program, allows for layers of activities and circulation to weave itself into both the Hill and its architecture. Delicate physical connections are made to connect “old” to “new,” and by positioning the architecture in a 90-degree, asymmetrical orientation to the east of the site, views to the context are framed in a new light; a contemporary stage is set to support the ever-growing needs and desires of a progressive YDS community.

01


01 01 Bike Storage 02 Ramp Down to Hill

02

03 Below the Bridge

03

04 Community Dining 05 Community Cafe 06 Descending Plazas

04

07 Restrooms

06

08 Study Room

13 05

07

08

10

12

11 09

09 Egress Stair 1 14

10 Egress Stair 2 11 Flexible Classroom 1 12 Flexible Classroom 2 13 2HR-Rated Passage 14 120-Seat Auditorium

P-1

GROUND LEVEL Architectural Plan

PLAN AND SECTION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” WTIII

FROM PAVEMENT TO BOARDWALK: PRIORITIZING PEDESTRIANS Campus Form Follows Walkable & Accessible Routes


01 C The Hill D Community Center E Campus Entry F The Square G Student Housing

PROPOSED EXTENSION Conceptual Site Plan

G

B

C

D S-1 P-1 90°

YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL

E

FALL 2017

F

A

STUDIO IX

B East Quad

06-07

From Pavement to Boardwalk: Prioritizing Pedestrians

A Sterling Divinity Quad


Sn

EMBEDDED & INTERCONNECTED: ARCHITECTURE FOR COMMUNITY Axonometric Massing of Program & Primary Circulation

SNOW DAY Children At Play

ow

Da

y:

Ch

ild

re

n

at

Pl

ay


01 STUDIO IX Existing Site Existing

Existing

Existing

Existing

Public

Public

Public Program Public

YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL

Proposed

Existing

Proposed

Proposed

Proposed

Semi-Public

Semi-Public Program Semi-Public

Semi-Public

Primary Circulation

Proposed

Private

Primary Circulation

Private

Primary Circulation

Private

AXONOMETRIC MASSINGS CIRCULATION + PROGRAM WTIII AXONOMETRIC MASSINGS CIRCULATION + PROGRAM WTIII AXONOMETRIC MASSINGS CIRCULATION + PROGRAM WTIII

Existing

Circulation

FALL 2017

Primary Circulation

All

Proposed

08-09

Primary Circulation

Private Program


01 STUDIO IX YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL First Floor +154'-8"

Ground Floor +143'-7"

Basement +130'-6"

Sub-Basement

S-1

10-11

FALL 2017

+123'-0"


An existing dry dock volume and the above constructed landscape serve as a sytem for community storm surge overflow and rain water storage (for later distribution)

THROUGH THE DRY DOCK Merging Life, Work, & Water


RISING WITH THE TIDE Studio VIII: 4th-Year Undergraduate, Spring 2017 Project Type: Mixed-Use, Resilient Community Location: Innovation District, Boston, Massachusetts Professor: Matthew B. Matteson, PhD, (GSD MAUD, 2005)

While climate change continues to reveal our vulnerabilities as a species, rising sea levels come to the forefront as a crippling force that will compromise city infrastructure, unless we are prepared. Understanding the needs of Boston and the city’s 2030 objectives, this project is mainly concerned with connecting future implications of rising sea levels with increasing demands for mixed-use growth in the Innovation District. Call to Action: “...support job growth and new housing opportunitites, add amenities, and create active, mixed-use centers for residents, workers, and visitors” (Imagine Boston 2030 127). Criticism: “...we remain dangerously disingenuous about our urban resilience objectives and risk catastrophic social and economic consequences for Boston...” - Stephen Gray (Assistant Professor of Urban Design at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, serves as a Cochairman for Boston’s 100 Resilient Cities Resilience Collaborative, and is Associate Director on the Board of the Boston Society of Architects).

Walls built up for increased storm surge protection

02


14-15

SPRING 2017

RISING WITH THE TIDE

STUDIO VIII

02


N N

N

Public & Private Amenities A | Stacked Configuration A | Stacked Configuration

| Stacked Configuration A |AStacked Configuration

| North to South Configuration B |BNorth to South Configuration

A.1A.1

B.1B.1

A.2A.2

B.2B.2

A.3A.3

B.3B.3

A.4A.4

B.4B.4

A.5A.5

B.5B.5

N

Leasable Office Space

B | to North to Configuration South Configuration B | North South

Housing & Community Progam

| East to West Configuration C |CEast to West Configuration

| Hybrid Configuration D |DHybrid Configuration

A.1

A.1

B.1

B.1

C.1C.1

D.1D.1

A.2

A.2

B.2

B.2

C.2C.2

D.2D.2

A.3

A.3

B.3

B.3

C.3C.3

D.3D.3

A.4

A.4

B.4

B.4

C.4C.4

D.4D.4

A.5

A.5

B.5

B.5

C.5C.5

D.5D.5


02 STUDIO VIII RISING WITH THE TIDE Tapered Ground Plane, Rising 14’ Above Existing Ground Level

Harborwalk Extended + Lifted

Main Interior Stairways

Floating Farms Production for On-site Market

Constructed Wetlands + Pathways

Egress Stairs

Mechanical Equipment Located at Safe Elevation in Case of Severe Storm Surges + Sea Level Rise

Waterfront Green Space + Rooftop Gardens

Elevator Cores (x2)

00’

+07’

+14’

+14’

PUBLIC REALM

CIRCULATION

16-17

CLIMATE RESILIENCE

SPRING 2017

+14’


C.4

D.4

Public & Private Amenities

Leasable Office Space C.5

D.5

Housing & Community Progam

E | Program Modules Arranged throughout Massings | New Pier Emerges

E.1

Program Massing

Proposed

Exploded

Existing


02 STUDIO VIII A

Floor Plan at Level 1

18-19

SPRING 2017

Floor Plan at Level 6

RISING WITH THE TIDE

Building Section A


20-21

SPRING 2017

RISING WITH THE TIDE

STUDIO VIII

02


Frame [0001]

Frame [0240]

Frame [0440]

Frame [0510]

Frame [0715]

Frame [0770]

Frame [1242]

Frame [1272]


02 STUDIO VIII RISING WITH THE TIDE

Frame [0360]

Frame [0657]

Frame [1370]

ANIMATION FRAMES FROM AUTODESK MAYA Aerial Flight and Sectional Cutting

23-23

SPRING 2017

Frame [0950]


MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR Studio VII: 4th-Year Undergraduate, Fall 2016 Project Type: Mixed-Use, High-Rise & Additional Structures Location: MIT West Campus, Cambridge, Massachusetts Professor: Alberto J. Cabre, Architect, (MIT M.Arch, 1997)

A new grand gesture in both vertical and horizontal dimensions allows for a redirection of MIT’s Infinite Corridor. The proposed master plan operates as a response to Eero Saarinen’s 1954 vision, the current site context, and MIT’s needs and desires as a leading institution in science and engineering. Identifying 9 concepts visible through the lens of a mid-twentieth-century architect allowed for setting the framework for a design process relevant today, with great hopes for the future built environment. The current state of West Campus presents a few problems: a lack of identity and loosely defined/underutilized public space. Maintaining awareness of these site circumstances, in conjunction with MIT’s increasing demands for on-campus housing, provided the necessary elements for what led to the proposed master plan. The blending of landscape with the architecture helps create a social platform for engaging dialogue between students and the general public, awarding the community diverse perspectives that contribute to West Campus’s new identity. Vertically-focused architecture within the immediate context of Kresge Auditorium, the MIT Chapel, and the Student Center encourages a new dynamic of social interaction on campus and responds to a spectrum of scales: from city to room. The Vertical Corridor generates a new and exciting social exchange between the student body and its local Cambridge community.

03


26-27

WEST CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Axonometric Massing

FALL 2016

MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR

STUDIO VII

03


03 served as an investigation into the history of the site. By extrapolating dimensions from a 1954 site plan, a digital massing model was constructed and analyzed. The series of

STUDIO VII

Reconstructing Eero Saarinen’s mid-twentieth-century master plan for West Campus

28-29

FALL 2016

MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR

perspectives seen here are framed views from the never fully-realized master plan.


PLAZA-A Winter Conditions


Auditorium

Student Expo

MIT Pavilion

03

Public Space

STUDIO VII

Public Space

MIT Chapel

Bridge

Plaza-C Plaza-C Pathway Centered on the MIT Chapel

1-Story Dwelling Vertical City Square Student Expo MIT Athletic Hub Saarinen St.

MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR

Elevated Corridor

Journey Below an Elevated Corridor

3-Story Dwelling

FALL 2016

Event Space

Elevated & Sloped Infinite Corridor

30-31

Kresge Auditorium


00 Site Axonometric 1954

01 Site Axes

02 Major Nodes

03 Path + Network

04 Vertical Separations

2030

00

01

02

03

Site Axes + Footprint Of Interest

Gestures To Context

The Missing Campanile

Public Auditorium + Event Spaces

Public Merges With Student Life

Student Dwellings

04


03 STUDIO VII 05 Landscape/Hardscape

06 Blurring The Line

06

08 Campanile Procession

07

09 Volume + Density

08

09

MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR

05

07 Framed Views

Entry At Base

Student Exposition | Gesture To Charles

Create Common Space Between Dwellings

Public Amenities + Interstitial Space

Vertical City Squares

32-33

FALL 2016

Activate West Campus @ Ground Plane


34-35

FALL 2016

MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR

STUDIO VII

03


Public Space

Cambridge Observatory

El. 700’ - 0”

3-Story Dwelling

2-Story Dwelling

Vertical Neighborhood

1-Story Dwelling

Public Space

Vertical City Square

Public Mingle

SCALE / STRUCTURE / HIERARCHY Building Section

Volumetric Study Model: 8-Part Layering


36-37

BETWEEN THE COLUMNS View from Building 7

FALL 2016

MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR

STUDIO VII

03


4

3

2

1


03 STUDIO VII MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR The above site plan illustrates the drastic transformation proposed for a future West Campus. An obtrusive row of existing tennis courts, along the lower portion of the site, currently occupy much of where proposed Plaza C (#1) is, as well as across from proposed Saarinen Street (#2). The MIT Athletic Hub (#3) is a solution for removing 12 existing exterior tennis courts and a large structure currently housing 4 additional courts. Concentrating interior and exterior courts within a smaller footprint results in new

transformations of the surrounding public space that would maintain West Campus’s positive atmosphere, year-round. For example, Plaza A (#4) has the ability to transform from a studious summer lawn to a winter wonderland, filled with activities like public skating for the community during winter months.

38-39

to its rich Saarinen history and local monolithic building materials (e.g. masonry and concrete), inspired a vision for seasonal

FALL 2016

opportunities for open plazas and desirable landscaped/hardscaped zones. Considerations of the temporal quality of the site, due


03 STUDIO VII MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR illustrate volumetric relationships and connections between levels. Exterior renderings explore a variety of vantage points from new plazas, bird’s-eye views, and neighboring structures.

40-41

scale, space, and qualities of daylight. Interior renderings help

FALL 2016

A series of conceptual perspectives are used to understand


View to East-01

View to North-04

14 View to East-02

View to South-05 13 1

12 1

11 1 10

15

View to East-03

View to South-06 9

WEST CAMPUS SITE SECTIONS

8

6 5 7

4 2

3

01. Vertical City Squares

06. Flexible Event Space

11. 4-Core Elevator Shaft

02. Pedestrian Bridge

07. Main Entry Lobby

12. 7-Story Segment of Internal Corridor

03. Amphitheater

08. Private 3-Level Dwelling

13. 4-Story Segment of Internal Corridor

04. Student Exposition

09. Public Interstitial Space

14. MIT Pavilion

05. Rooftop Plaza

10. Entry to Vertical Neighborhood

15. MIT Athletic Hub

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Charles River


03 STUDIO VII MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR

LATE-NIGHT STROLL ALONG MASS AVE Connection Between Buildings 9 & W20

Boston

42-43

FALL 2016

NORTH-TO-SOUTH CONCEPTUAL URBAN SECTION Cambridge-Boston High-Rise Dialogue


East Campus

EAST-TO-WEST CONCEPTUAL URBAN SECTION Cambridge-Boston High-Rise Dialogue

Main Campus


44-45

FALL 2016

MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR

FISH’S-EYE VIEW Charles River

West Campus STUDIO VII

03


NORTH STATION 1.5 min stop

NORTH END 0.

56

m

ile

s

BEACON HILL

-2

m

in

No rth

-S

ou th

via

su bw ay :1

0

-2

0

m

in

97'

FINANCIAL DISTRICT

For images of the team and final presentation, please visit: http://www.

in

williamtooheyiii.com/professional/#/ gensler/

les

i 7m

0.2

NOTE: Overall site plan graphics by Rebecca Resnic / Master plan by team / North Station architecture by Longshao Xiao & Rebecca Resnic / Parcel 18 architecture by Yang Zhao & Luis Negron

SOUTH STATION 1.5 min stop

m -1


THE LINK: URBAN GONDOLA

D

Studio: Lifestyle, Summer Internship 2017 Project Type: Master Plan & Gondola Stations Office & Project Location: Boston, Massachusetts Supervisor: J.F. Finn, III, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Principal Program Coordinators: Adam Harper, Project Architect, Associate / Diana Vasquez, Architect, Senior Associate Intern Team Members: Addison Silva­­—UConn Marketing, Lily Shi—Cornell Design & Environmental Analysis, Lindsay Hague­—Endicott Interior Design, Longshao Xiao—WashU Architecture, Luis Negron—UPR Rio Piedras Architecture, Peijin Shi—Parsons Interior Design, Rebecca Resnic—WashU Architecture, Tianyi Sun—UPenn Architecture, Yang Zhao— Cornell Architecture

With the task of connecting a currently disconnected North and South Station in Boston, Massachusetts, this proposal speculates about an efficient, economical, yet ambitious

LONG WHARF 1.5 min stop

option that challenges the already explored notion of a multi-billion-dollar process of boring tunnels for subterranean connections: an airborne alternative via cable-propelled transit. Executed by a diverse team of ten, inside and (voluntarily) outside of Gensler’s Boston office, this demanding intern project involved a historical survey, site analysis, and design process that led to an enticingly-new urban vision that would help alleviate public transit

0.34 m

congestion in Boston, flying above the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. By drawing the longest and least amount

iles -

of straight lines along the Greenway, understanding the limits of a variety of differing gondola systems, distinct site nodes

1 min

were generated at their intersections. Utilizing a 3S cable car system to provide the necessary infrastructure to move 3,600 people per/hour, per/direction, following suit with cities such as New York and London, this proposal continues an international trend but sparks a local, city-wide dialogue about the future of public transit.

PARCEL 18 1.5 min stop

SEAPORT LINE 1.5 min stop 0.9 3m ile s-

04


TRANSIT HUB TO SUPPORT BOSTON’S NEW GONDOLA SYSTEM Sectional Perspective through Dewey Square / South Station


I-93 TUNNELS Created to mitigate traffic congestion and allow opportunities for new public spaces

2030

Connection from Boston to East Boston/Logan Airport TED WILLIAMS TUNNEL

04

Response to the demand for land transportation due to ambitious landfilling projects HORSE-DRAWN VEHICLES

MOTOR BUS Boston establishes motor bus route

1980

1780

THE EL Boston Elevated Railway Company (BERY) expands the network of railway lines, adding new carhouses and terminals

1930 Existing tracks utilized as ideal framework for new transportation system ELECTRIC STREETCAR

1830

1880 Rails added to planned routes along street RAILS & HORSECARS

THE LINK: URBAN GONDOLA

BOSTON TRANSIT TIMELINE

1730

Top Left Image: Digital model by Tianyi Sun / Base rendering by Luis Negron / Post-process by author Data: https://www.mbta.com/history

SUMMER 2017

1680

48-49

1630

OMNIBUS Longer than conventional stagecoach with bench seating running lengthwise along the vehicle

GENSLER

FERRY SERVICE First form of public transportation in Boston: 3-mile route to Chelsea across the harbor


Key design strategies for the proposed South Station / Dewey Square Gondola Station: 1. Preserve existing public space that supports farmer’s markets, food trucks, and other tactical urbanism at street-level 2. Allow existing site lines (e.g. pathways, greenspace edges, and tree lines) to generate an appropriate building footprint that leads to a building that belongs in its immediate site context 3. Utilize existing tunnel infrastructure to support new gondola station loads 4. Design the rooftop and various interior elements to play the role as an extension to the Greenway 5. Create a pedestrian bridge that allows easy access to the gondola loading dock from High Street. Based off of the placement of the Parcel 18 (Urban Arboretum) station and an existing building between Dewey Square and Congress Street, the gondolas would have to be received above the road where Purchase Street terminates at Summer Street. With 26 feet of clearance above the road, the gondola station would not interfere with any traffic, and the station form would serve as a new threshold for commuters to experience on Purchase Street.


04 GENSLER THE LINK: URBAN GONDOLA NOTE: White building skin scripted by Yang Zhao / Gondola vehicles designed primarily by Tianyi Sun / Detailed gondola system modeled by Luis Negron / Building programming, form, general structure, photograph, modeling & rendering by author

PROPOSED GONDOLA STATION South Station / Dewey Square

50-51

SUMMER 2017

mechanical areas for


PORTION OF CABRINI-GREEN

SOUTH OF HILLIARD TOWERS


RESPONSIBLE ARCHITECTURE: A SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE TOWER IN THE PARK M.Arch Thesis: 5th-Year Graduate, Fall 2017 Keywords: Social, Environmental, Urban, Mixed-Use, Mixed-Income, Tower in the Park, High-Rise, Public Housing, the Functional City, the International Congress of Modern Architecture (CIAM), the American Midwest Location for Design Testing: Chicago, Illinois Thesis Prep Professors: Carol Burns, FAIA, LEED AP Jack Cochran, Architect, (UofV M.Arch + MUEP, 2012) Thesis Advisor: Robert Cowherd, PhD, (MIT, 2002) Independent Advisor: Austin Samson, Adjunct Faculty, (SCI-Arc M.Arch 2014)

This thesis seeks to critically reassemble an alternative to Chicago’s former public housing towers: a low-to-high-rise building typology that embodies the social and environmental responsibility of contemporary, urban architecture. By highlighting and learning from the historical and contemporary pitfalls of the Corbusier-inspired “tower in the park,” entangled in architectural, social, environmental, political, and economic forces, a revised and conscientious design process emerges for the American Midwest. With hopes of developing a universal kit of parts, the architecture of “reassembly” strives to redefine the initial purpose of what was once a precarious model for single-use public housing in American cities, isolated from the ground plane and its immediate context: at times, in the case of Chicago, providing residents with a rather ominous view of the skyline through a chain-link screen on the edge of an open-air gallery. The introverted architecture of the past that housed thousands of the city’s poorest citizens, many of which were low-income families remaining well below the poverty line, is given new Astronaut photograph

life through an architectural thesis that applies a

ISS041-E-103791, captured

contemporary lens to the complexities of the tower-in-the-

from the International

park model. Testing new configurations of diverse uses,

Space Station on October

spaces, materials, resident income levels, and activity on and

28, 2014 with a Nikon D4

above the ground plane inspires an interconnected

digital camera and 800

architecture on the vacant blocks of Chicago’s former public

mm lens, shows 16 miles

housing tower sites. With an emphasis on the responsibility

of the Lake Michigan

of architecture, to create an encouraging setting for human

shoreline, Chicago, Illinois,

potential and ensure the success of passive and active

https://earthobservatory.

performance of building/landscape systems, the design

nasa.gov/IOTD/view.

outcomes of this thesis advocate for a socio-environmental

php?id=84943

alternative to the tower in the park.

05


Figure 001. Partial site plans: super blocks that made a continuous 2-mile stretch of public housing high-rises, Robert Taylor Homes, digital scan of drafted plan by Shaw, Metz and Associates, the Art Institute of Chicago Ryerson & Burnham Archives: Archival Image Collection, original image altered for black and white representation, accessed 25 November 2017, http:// digital-libraries.saic.edu/ cdm/singleitem/collection/ mqc/id/16358/rec/3

Figure 002. Axonometric: Private dwellings Figure 003. Axonometric: Communal laundry Figure 004. Axonometric: Communal open-air gallery Figure 005. Axonometric: Entry Figure 006. Axonometric: Vertical circulation Figure 007. Axonometric: Horizontal circulation


05 THESIS 2

liv

ea

ov

ov

sC

OM

UN

IT

OU

GH

1

4

liv

sC

OM

M

UN

IT

Y

2 FALL 2017

HR

Y

P

ea

eT

Y

M

eU

7

ov

IL

3

liv

ea

m

AM

N

6

m

sF

eI

PRE-FRAMING: RECONSTRUCTING ROBERT TAYLOR HOMES Analytical Methodology: Bronzeville, South Side, Chicago, IL

54-55

m

RESPONSIBLE ARCHITECTURE: A SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE TOWER IN THE PARK

5


56-57

FALL 2017

RESPONSIBLE ARCHITECTURE: A SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE TOWER IN THE PARK

THESIS

05


MANIPULATING AN EXISTING MODEL­—ROBERT TAYLOR HOMES


RAPID-FIRE QUESTIONS EXERCISE: INFLUENCING DESIGN WORK TO COME

05 THESIS

Recent questions from my M.Arch thesis draft, preparing for a wave of design tests:

CHICAGO AS A LABORATORY FOR DESIGN TESTING Why cannot Near Side neighborhoods benefit from public realm activities closer to home, compared to the variety of public places/socially-stimulating activities prevalent in the area of the Loop? How does one transplant experience? Catalog viable options for public and private amenities that offer

Instead of blaming economics and politics, can simple ideas for higher quality public places, in neighborhoods deprived of them, spark productive dialogue and engagement with future interventions? ··Ice Rink for the South Side—good or bad? Why? ··Neighborhood stage: a physical built structure for performances and a range of other activities, specified by community opinions ··Constructed landscapes that stimulate vacant blocks­— could embracing landscape urbanism principles enhance the experience of residents in the Near Side neighborhoods of the North, West, and South Side of Chicago? ··Solutions at this scale need not match the building scale What are the temporal qualities of public placemaking ideas? Take advantage of the ever-changing, Midwest climate. Can a completely new approach to planning the two-mile stretch of what once was the area of Robert Taylor Homes help activate this portion of the city? Grappling with the term “gentrification,” what are the essential ethical practices and/or

variables (e.g., program, people, space, material, landscape,

questions to answer for this scenario? (This was ethical question

et cetera) inherently flawed? I would like to believe (and thus,

#1) ^

so does this thesis) that contemporary architecture has the ability to create more unified and optimistically-amalgamated

Is gentrifying without displacement of low-income families

environments that support and encourage diverse

an acceptable strategy in contemporary cities? Are there any

experience; this is truly the heart of the notion of “responsible

ongoing studies of planning strategies that strive to retain

architecture.” To improve a deteriorating or vacant block/

low-income residents upon the act of “gentrifying?” It may be

series of blocks, what is or is not ethical about the process

that the negative connotation of the word “gentrification” is too

needed to actually improve the conditions?

RESPONSIBLE ARCHITECTURE: A SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE TOWER IN THE PARK

formerly-neglected neighborhoods more.

In an attempt to develop universally-deployable design

mindedness is key, especially for this topic.

processes, how can concepts of program, space, form, material, and landscape adapt to a variety of metropolitan

Informed by a rigorous process that leads to the tower-in-

contexts? How does this evolve as more of a thesis and less of

the-park alternative, is the notion of unifying a variety of

a studio project? Be concise and methodical.

58-59

made about the discussion that would follow; open-

FALL 2017

influential towards the immediate opinions or assumptions


06 C

GARAGE SIDE

SHEET NOTES:

UL RATING: DESIGN NO. N502

3" DECKING

2-HOUR RATED SPRAY FIREPROOFING

(2) LAYERS 5/8" GWB FLUSH W/ CMU FACE

GROUT FILL

CENTERLINE OF BEAM TO INSIDE FACE OF CMU WALL DEPENDENT UPON LOCATION OF (2) 5/8" GWB, CHANNEL BRACKET, AND RUNNER CHANNEL ASSEMBLY.

CL ALIGN

SEISMIC CLIPS;SEE STRUCTURAL DETAILS S3.01; PROVIDE 2-HR SPRAY-APPLIED FIREPROOFING

A5.05A

CHANNEL BRACKET

+/-

HEAD JOINT SYSTEM AT CMU WALLS: RATED UL HW-D-1078 OR HW-D-1069

GROUT FILL

1

RUNNER CHANNEL

4-1/2" CONC. SLAB PROVIDE 2 HOUR LAYER OF FIREPROOFING FOR STEEL BEAM SIZE BEAM SIZE VARIES

STEEL BEAM

SEISMIC CLIPS; SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWING S3.01

SEISMIC CLIPS; SEE STRUTURAL DETAILS S3.01; PROVIDE 2-HR SPRAY- APPLIED FIREPROOFING GROUT FILL

CL

4

MAINTAIN 1/2" AT ALL CONDITIONS BETWEEN FLANGE AND CHANNEL

UL RATING: DESIGN NO. N715

GROUT FILL

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A, SIMILAR

1. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING SLAB CONDITION AT EACH PROPOSED SLAB CONNECTION. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 2. T/O SLAB AT STAIR ON EACH LEVEL TO ALIGN WITH T/O PROPOSED AND / OR EXISTING CURB ADJACENT TO THE STAIR. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 3. WHERE EXISTING STEEL BEAMS AND COLUMNS ARE TO REMAIN, MAINTAIN OR PROVIDE FIREPROOFING AS REQ'D; PRIME STEEL PRIOR TO FIREPROOFING. 4. PROVIDE 2-HOUR RATED SPRAY FIREPROOFING AS REQ'D ON ALL NEW STEEL BEAMS, POUR STOPS, BENT PLATES AND SEISMIC CLIPS. 5. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWING S3.01 FOR SEISMIC CLIP DETAILS; GROUT BLOCK AT ALL SEISMIC CLIP LOCATIONS. 6. ALL NEW CMU WALLS TO BEAR ON STRUCTURAL SLABS. DO NOT BEAR CMU ON CURBS. 7. STAIR TO BEAR ON CMU WALL AS PER CONTRACTOR'S SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION. CMU TO BE GROUTED AT BEARING POCKETS; SEE STRUCTURAL. COORDINATE POCKET DETAIL WITH CMU SHOP DRAWINGS.

1/2"

HEAD JOINT SYSTEM AT CMU WALLS: RATED UL HW-D-1078 OR HW-D-1069

HEAD JOINT SYSTEM AT CMU WALLS: RATED UL HW-D-1078 OR HW-D-1069

REFERENCE THE EXISTING ISSUED CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: • CONTRACT DOCUMENTS • STRUCTURAL CLARIFICATION SKETCHES • CMU & STEEL SHOP DRAWINGS

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 3/S3.02 FOR POUR STOP DETAIL. LEVEL L1 60' - 4"

SEISMIC CLIPS, SEE STRUCTURAL DETAILS S3.01; PROVIDE 2-HR SPRAY-APPLIED FIREPROOFING

STEEL BEAM

27.9 EJ.2 28.1

SEE STRUCTURAL FOR CMU WALL REQUIREMENTS PROVIDE FIRE RESISTIVE JOINT SYSTEM AT FLUTES OF METAL DECK

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR DECK CLOSURE

PRESSURIZATION DUCT 16" x 62"; MAINTAIN REQ'D CLEARANCE, CONSULT ARCHITECT W/ ANY DISCREPANCIES

2 A5.05A

STAIR SIDE

SEE STRUCTURAL SSK-A, SIM. POUR STOP LEVEL L2 82' - 4"

3 A5.05A

EXTRAS

© Copyright Arrowstreet Inc.

27

CMU WALL

STAIR 15 DETAIL

5

1" = 1'-0"

PROVIDENCE PLACE RENOVATIONS

C

STAIR 15 STEEL BEAM DETAIL

6

1" = 1'-0"

KEY PLAN (LEVEL 1 STAIR 15) 1/4" = 1'-0"

1 PROVIDENCE PLACE PROVIDENCE, RI 02903

B

C

B

C

3

27

2

A5.05A

27.9 EJ.2 28.1

A5.05A 15' - 10"

CL STEEL

PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-A

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE DETAIL 4 / SKA 02.0 FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

STEEL CL

CL STEEL 15'-5 1/4"

10'-11"

CL STEEL 3'-7 3/4"

LEVEL 3 104' - 4"

W21x55; SEE STRUCTURAL

W21x55; SEE STRUCTURAL CL STEEL

CL STEEL

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-G FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

20'-0"

LEVEL 3 104' - 4"

W21x55; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

STEEL CL

15'-5 1/4"

CL STEEL

STEEL CL 10'-11"

CL STEEL

C12x25

W21x55; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

3'-7 3/4"

CLARIFICATION SKETCH

12' - 8"

CL STEEL

LEVEL 3 104' - 4"

W10x12 BEYOND

EXISTING W27x84 W/ NEW PLATES; SEE STRUCTURAL

GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0 EXISTING W36x182 W/ NEW PLATES; SEE STRUCTURAL

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL

CONTINUOUS CMU WALL FROM L2 TO L3

CONTINUOUS CMU WALL FROM L2 TO L3

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR SLAB CONNECTION

STEELCL

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE DETAIL 4 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM LEVEL 2.5 93' - 4" W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

CL STEEL

CL STEEL

15'-5 1/4"

10'-11"

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION

STEEL CL

CL STEEL

3'-7 3/4"

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

CL STEEL

STEEL CL

15'-5 1/4"

10'-11"

CL STEEL

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-C, SIM. FOR SLAB CONNECTION

PLATE AND HANGER; SEE STRUCTURAL

LEVEL 2.5 93' - 4" W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

W18x45; SEE STRUCTURAL

C12x25

PROPOSED W21x48 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL

LEVEL 2.5 93' - 4"

W10x12 BEYOND

W18x45; SEE STRUCTURAL

GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

3'-7 3/4"

PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL

SEE DETAIL 4 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

CL STEEL 3'-7 3/4"

CL STEEL

STEELCL

STEELCL 15'-4 1/4"

11'-0"

CLSTEEL 3'-7 3/4"

10'-11"

7 5/8"

9' - 8" CLEAR

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

7 5/8" 2' - 3" 7 5/8" 9" CLEAR

CL STEEL

STEEL CL

15'-5 1/4"

10'-11"

CL STEEL

15'-4 3/4"

EXISTING W33x118; SEE STRUCTURAL

CL STEEL 3'-7 3/4"

CL STEEL

STEEL CL

W10X12 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL

W24x76; ; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL EXISTING W33x118; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

CL STEEL

STEEL CL

15'-4 3/4"

10'-11 1/2"

3'-7 3/4"

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

STEELCL

15'-6"

W18x40; SEE STRUCTURAL

10'-9 1/4"

CL STEEL 3'-8 3/4"

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM STEEL CL

CLSTEEL

15'-6"

STEEL CL

10'-9 1/4"

CL STEEL 3'-8 3/4"

LEVEL P2 38' - 4"

7/11/2016 5:28:13 PM

CL

7 5/8" NEW CMU WALL

9' - 8" CLEAR

7 5/8"

STAIR 15 CROSS SECTION 1 P2 - L3 1/4" = 1'-0"

Description

EXISTING W21x73

GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0

SEISMIC CLIPS; SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWING S3.01

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

PROPOSED W24x76 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL

PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL

W18x40; SEE STRUCTURAL EXISTING W33x130; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

4" HIGH CURB SLAB TO ALIGN WITH T/O STAIR LANDING; SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR CURB EXTENTS SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-A

LEVEL P3 49' - 4"

PROPOSED W21x44 BEYOND SEE STRUCTURAL

W24x117

C12x25

EXISTING W21x44

GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0

PROPOSED W24x162; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

CL

CL 3' - 0 1/4"

3' - 7 5/8"

9' - 8" CLEAR

STEEL CL 1' - 0 3/8"

2

STAIR 15 CROSS SECTION 2 P2 - L3 1/4" = 1'-0"

STAIR 15 SECTIONS

7 5/8"

30' - 0"

NEW CMU WALL

Drawing Title

LEVEL P2 38' - 4"

30'-0"

3

Date

LEVEL L1 60' - 4"

W10x12 BEYOND

LEVEL P2 38' - 4" 7 5/8"

15' - 5 1/8"

CLSTEEL

C12x25

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 2/S2.01 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

LEVEL P3 49' - 4" W21x44; SEE STRUCTURAL

EXISTING W33x130; SEE STRUCTURAL CLSTEEL

No.

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-B FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-A1 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

PROPOSED SLAB TO ALIGN WITH CURB

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

LEVEL P3 49' - 4" W21x44; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

Revisions

EXISTING W21x101 SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

LEVEL L1 60' - 4"

W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

10'-11 1/2"

LEVEL 1.5 71' - 4"

NCM 07/11/2016

PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-F FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

STEEL CL

WT

Issue date

W10x12 BEYOND

GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0

16" x 62" VERTICAL DUCTWORK FROM L1 TO L3; SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS

LEVEL L1 60' - 4" W24x76; ; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

C12x25

W24x55; SEE STRUCTURAL PROPOSED W21x48 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

PRESSURIZATION SHAFT

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR SLAB CONNECTION

STEELCL

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

3'-7 3/4"

15065

Checker

LEVEL 1.5 71' - 4"

STEEL CL

CL STEEL

3'-7 3/4"

Author

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION

W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

W21x48 CL STEEL

STEEL CL

15'-5 1/4"

Project Number

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-C1 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE DETAIL 4 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

EXISTING W21x83 W/ NEW PLATES; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL

LEVEL 1.5 71' - 4" W21x4; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

PROPOSED W27x84 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

CLSTEEL

CONTINUOUS CMU WALL FROM L1 TO L2

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR SLAB CONNECTION

STEELCL

C12x25 W10x12 BEYOND GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0

EXISTING W21x101 W/ NEW PLATES; SEE STRUCTURAL

1

1/4" = 1'-0"

CL STEEL

25' - 4" CLEAR 7 5/8" NEW CMU WALL

STAIR 15 LONG SECTION P2 - L3

28'-6"

7 5/8" NEW CMU WALL

10 3/8"

SCALE Drawing Number

As indicated

A5.05A

MISCELLANEOUS PROOF OF POTENTIAL

11'-0"

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

2015-2017

STEELCL

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

CONTINUOUS CMU WALL FROM L1 TO L2

4" HIGH CURB SLAB TO ALIGN WITH T/O STAIR LANDING; SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR CURB EXTENTS LEVEL L2 82' - 4"

LEVEL L2 82' - 4" W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

W27x84; SEE STRUCTURAL

EXISTING W30x116; SEE STRUCTURAL

60-61

15'-4 1/4"

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-F FOR SLAB CONNECTION SIMILAR TO DETAIL 3/S3.02

LEVEL L2 82' - 4" W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

W27x84; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM STEEL CL

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-B FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-A, SIM.

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-A FOR SLAB CONNECTION SIMILAR TO DETAIL 3/S3.02


WTIII williamtooheyiii.com

William Toohey III | Architecture Portfolio 2018 for GSD, GSAPP, Michigan & UC Berkeley  

Portfolio submitted for successful, post-professional degree applications: the Harvard University Graduate School of Design (MAUD), Columbia...

William Toohey III | Architecture Portfolio 2018 for GSD, GSAPP, Michigan & UC Berkeley  

Portfolio submitted for successful, post-professional degree applications: the Harvard University Graduate School of Design (MAUD), Columbia...

Advertisement