agricultural housing in chicago and detroit: phase i

Regrowth: Agricultural Housing for Underdeveloped Urban SettingsDetroit, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois

Bryan SeefSpring 2015 Independent Research

Foreword and Table of ContentsAcknowledgements and Contributors

I would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions to or interest in the project:

Jamey Glueck - Jamey was my Capstone faculty advisor for this project and was my studio instructor during the spring 2014 semester. His insight and guidance during the research and design portions of this project was invaluable, and as always, it was a pleasure and a valuable learning experience working with him. His master’s thesis was also quite insightful.

Adam Gebrian - Adam was my studio instructor for the semester prior to my undertaking this project. The studio, in Prague, the Czech Republic, encouraged exploratory research and open-ended thinking, and many of the precedents and principles I derived for this project were those examined for my project that semester.

Diane and Lawrence Seef - My parents provided some financial support for my trip to visit the sites discussed in the project, and my father joined me in the trip to help make sure I was safe in Chicago. Their willingness to let me participate in this research experience does not go unnoticed.

Marilyn Blanton - Marilyn provided a majority of the funds I required to travel to and study Detroit and Chicago. I received the funds in the form of a travel award which I had heard about from the University Honors Program.

Dwayne Barnes - Dwayne was my University Honors Program advisor, and his correspondence regarding submission of this to fulfill Honors Program completion requirements and about applying for and receiving the travel award were essential to the process going smoothly.

Alex Todd - My uncle’s support made the Chicago leg of the journey easier and more viable - he provided me with some preliminary information about urban farming and gardening in Chicago, about the current status of developments in the area formerly home to the Cabrini-Green projects (my initial consideration for expansion), and with a place to stay and with food in Chicago. Without him, the Chicago trip might not have happened, and I certainly would not have had as much fun.

Rhonda Angerio and Jay Sikes - I believe Rhonda and Jay were the only two people at Smith Sinnett that I told about my research, and their interest in the project and my design development was refreshing.

Adam Dunn and Steven Mazur - Through Adam, one of my classmates, I was introduced to Steven, and both provided me with some advice about things to be aware of while in Detroit. I appreciate their help in this regard.

Burak Erdim - In Burak’s History of Contemporary Architecture course in the fall or 2013, I was first exposed to public housing and its modernist context, which continues to remain a subject of great interest to me today; hence, in many respects, this project. I appreciate Burak’s enthusiasm for this project, and his support for the travel award.

Dana Gulling - Dana was my studio instructor for the fall semester of 2013, and her continued support and interest in her students’ work (such as my project) is much appreciated. In her studio, I was first exposed to the notion of a food desert - themes of which are explored in this project.

Erin White - Erin was my instructor for my Digital Representation course sophomore year, and without his initial instruction, my visuals would not be as cohesive. More importantly, however, his involvement in the urban food systems of the Triangle illustrates the impact these systems have on their communities, which is important.

Patricia Morgado, Brian Peters, and Kristen Schaffer - I contacted these three individuals at points in the project and received much appreciated support.

R.H. Coates, Linda McCoy, and Alaine and Nancy Todd - I contacted several of my relatives at points throughout the project hoping to gather some insight on how to plan my trip and about places to stay, and received some helpful information in the process. Thank you, Aunt Alaine and Aunt Nancy, for listening to me talk about the project while I was in Chicago, and for the discussion that followed.

Lenore June Seef - I would like to thank my grandma for her support while we were in Chicago; not only for the food and time spent at her house on the day of the site visit, but also for the neat camera collection handed on to me. I hope to make good use of them over the years to come.

Kaitie Gay and Brandon Porterfield - Kaitie and Brandon were almost to join me on the trip, and also listened to my ideas about the project while it was still in its planning stages. My discussions about Detroit with Kaitie demonstrated a rare shared respect.

Eric Futerfas - Eric listened to my ideas about the project initially, and donated his camera to the cause of taking a photograph of me for this project.

The Folks at the Eastern Market - I engaged in a few discussions about urban farming and gardening and about my research with some vendors while I was shopping at and examining the Eastern Market in Detroit. It was interesting learning about your practices, and I appreciate your warm welcomes to Detroit.

The Security Guard at the Packard Plant - I don’t think my dad and I ever got your name, but thank you for showing my father and I safely around parts of the deteriorated Packard Plant and showing us the way to the Heidelberg Project - something I had hoped to see from the start but did not anticipate being able to see when we were there for time’s sake. Your kindness to and interest in us strangers was much appreciated.

Random People I Encountered in Detroit - Thank you for your anonymous kindness!

Foreword and Table of Contents

Phase I - Preliminary Site and Precedent Research: P. 01-34

P. 02 - Why? Identifying the ProblemP. 03 - How? Addressing the ProblemP. 04 - What? Formulating a ProgramP. 05-06 - Establishing Context - Detroit, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois*P. 07 - Establishing Context - Public Transportation and Neighborhood Influences*P. 08-10 - Examining Precedent - Buildings, NCSU and Raleigh, and Agriculture*P. 11-18 - Examining Precedent - Eight Significant Buildings*P. 19-26 - Examining Precedent - Eight NCSU and Raleigh Buildings and/or Public Spaces*P. 27-34 - Examining Precedent - Eight Agricultural Projects*

Phase II - Site Visitation, Interpretation, and Examination of Case Studies: P. 35-52

P. 36 - Detroit Site Examination*P. 37-38 - Detroit Site Photos*P. 39 - Chicago Site Examination*P. 40-41 - Chicago Site Photos*P. 42-43 - Eastern Market - Detroit Case Study*P. 44-45 - Lafayette Park - Detroit Case Study*P. 46 - Case Study Relevance*P. 47 - Detroit Site Acreage Approximations and Allocations*P. 48 - Chicago Site Acreage Approximations and Allocations*P. 49 - Site Analysis Diagrams - Noise Levels*P. 50 - Site Analysis Diagrams - Vantage Points and Visibility*P. 51 - Site Analysis Diagrams - Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation*P. 52 - Site Analysis Diagrams - Public and Private Spaces*

Phase III - Prototype Design and Implentation on the Sites: P. 53-71

P. 54 - Site Programs - SummaryP. 55 - Site Concept Diagrams - Significant Features and Circulation*P. 56 - Site Concept Diagrams - Residential Clustering*P. 57 - Site Concept Isolation - Topography*P. 58 - Site Concept Isolation - Buildings and Roads*P. 59-60 - Site Overview - ChicagoP. 61 - Site Overview - DetroitP. 62-63 - Site Modeling - DetroitP. 64-67 - Site Perspectives - DetroitP. 68-72 - Residential Units

P. 73-74 - Works Cited and Correspondence

*Unless otherwise indicated, north is oriented towards the top of each page.

This project aims to examine the ways by which a new life can be brought to the sites in question in the interest of their local context and of larger redevelopment goals of the cities of Detroit and Chicago. In Reimagining Detroit: Opportunities for Redefining an American City, author John Gallagher contends that vacant lot (infill) development is an essential component of revitalizing a neighborhood, and that a densification of urban development at a reasonable scale should be encouraged to allow unused peripheral landscapes to be used for recreational or sustenance farming to help address the needs of the city and its people. This model provides a level of food security and stability, creates localized, more sustainable economic hubs, encourages public participation and health awareness, and sheds new light on the industriousness and infrastructural capacities of the cities while shifting developmental patterns away from the sprawling, resource- and energy-exhaustive, and car-oriented suburban model.

Through sustenance of an entire city’s population within its boundaries is not feasible within many locales, the establishment of urban agricultural practices can help meet the needs of those without ready access to fresh, healthy food resources (individuals who live in areas referred to as “food deserts”). As produce becomes localized and within reason and reach for urban environments, existing urban agricultural networks (in the case of Detroit with the Eastern Market) can expand, or new networks can take root (in the case of the south side of Chicago where the Robert Taylor Homes were located). Additionally, new responsibilities can be assumed through urban agriculture to encourage developmental participation, introduction of new cultures, and civic involvement for urban residents.

Both sites considered herein exist within a redevelopment matrix of low-density residential and commercial spaces that has resulted from private and governmental interventionism or abandonment since the demolition of subsequent parts of the modern public housing blocs. The extent to which each site exists today within a food desert or area of other such scarcities creates opportunities for farmers markets, retail, recreational facilities, and the like, and for residential occupation to activate and maintain a new contributing localized economy.

As these sites are currently in a state of a redevelopment hiatus, herein I am proposing a modified agriculturally-oriented residential typology to occupy the sites. The projects will speculate on the appropriate scale of this type of development in these and other large voids in American cities, and these sites’ high visibility and neighborhood fabrics will help determine the building detailing and landscaping gestures. Additionally, strategies and themes to be explored for the implementation of this type of program at other viable locations will include the distinguishing of public and private spaces, the ratio of residents to businesses and to farming plot provisions, the development of a consistent material language the use of identifiable landmarks, means to encourage pedestrian circulation over vehicular circulation, external traffic noise combatting, and the relationship between the farm plots and the farmers. In essence, the designs will draw from a “kit of parts” - such as standardized housing units with retail space variances by unit type and animal barn components - formulated as a result of precedent and contextual studies and recognizable building typologies. This form of social housing aims not only to facilitate an awareness of the sites’ histories and of the benefits of urban food production and economic contribution, but also aims to explore concepts of sustainability and growth of a community.

Phase I - Preliminary Site and Precedent Research Why? Identifying the Problem

01

Phase I - Preliminary Site and Precedent Research Why? Identifying the Problem

01

Why? Identifying the Problem

The (unfortunately common) phenomenon of the urban food desert is in many respects a consequence of investment in more economically viable or industrious areas, namely the suburbs. There is a great separation between the process of growing and the food on our plates, due in some respects to the increasingly massive farming operations distancing themselves from urban environments and consumers. Unfortunately, this has created a great inequality for urbanites, who may often have to travel far to obtain healthy groceries.

Furthermore, youth who grow up in an area classified as food desert are not in touch with the growing process, and in some instances know not where the food in the supermarkets comes from, or how it is made. Educational programs in the agricultural vein need to be explored to educate students and citizens alike. This is a problem considering that the interest in agriculture as a profession has remained fairly constant, but the population keeps on growing - and with it, the demand for food. Food stress is predicted to be one of the utmost issues of the twenty-first century, so to explore additional options for farming is necessary to sustain human nutrition.

Individuals who are subject to life in food deserts may have nearby grocery options, but these are often consistent of service stations or retailers with limited inventories. Health issues are often persistent because of these unhealthy options. Over 70 percent of Detroit’s adults and close to 40 percent of its youth are overweight or obese. Rates of diabetes and heart disease are higher than state and national averages.

Expanding on the Detroit example: If 20 percent of food and beverage spending in Detroit was diverted toward local sources, the city’s annual output could increase by nearly half a billion dollars, add 4,700 new jobs, pay $125 million more in earnings, and provide the city with $20 million in added business taxes. This is done by investing in urban agricultural growing and educational programs, and by encouraging the prevalence of farmers’ markets and citizen participation in decisions on how food is grown or obtained.

Urban agricultural initiatives exist in both Detroit and Chicago (two cities studied in this project for viability). In Detroit, initiatives include, but are not limited to, the Eastern Market Corporation, Keep Growing Detroit, Earthworks Urban Farming, Grown in Detroit, Greening of Detroit, the Detroit Agriculture Network, the Garden Resource Program Collaborative, the American Community Gardening Association, and SEED Wayne. In Chicago, initiatives include, but are not limited to, the Chicago Botanic Garden, Advocates for Urban Agriculture, and Growing Power. It is estimated that over 800 urban community gardens existed in Detroit in 2009 (Greening of Detroit). Most of the farming done in the city of Chicago, by necessity of density, occurs on rooftops, though some infill initiatices exist.

Urban farms currently fulfil just a tiny portion of food needs. The Greening of Detroit estimates that, as of 2009, Detroit’s urban gardeners grow about 330,000 pounds of food a year. Using Mike Hamm, C.S. Mott Professor of Sustainable Agriculture at Michigan State University’s estimate of 1,200 pounds per person per year, the output of Detroit’s urban gardeners could feed/fully sustain only about only about 275 people per year out of a city of 800,000 to 900,000.

One of Hamm’s graduate students further elaborated on this study: on 3600 acres Detroiters could produce 76 percent of the vegetables and 42 percent of the fruit needed for a healthy diet for a million people. That amount of production could employ thousands of people and result in millions of dollars of sales.

* All of the aforementioned statistics were taken from Reimagining Detroit: Opportunities for Redefining an American City – John Gallagher, 2010 – Wayne State University Press

Open spaces in cities are ripe for sensible development, especially when served by a variety of community resources, such as schools, churches, and parks. There is a consistent market for infill housing and downtown residential construction to augment private housing investment in neighborhoods.

All of these trends toward stronger urban markets are likely to accelerate as the price of gasoline continues its long-term rise and makes it more expensive to commute to the only land available for traditional residential subdivisions – at distances that are prohibitive. Detroit (especially) and Chicago have innumerable vacant spaces within neighborhoods that are economically disadvantaged or disenfranchised.

Having unrestricted units in developments creates housing for working-class residents, retaining some of the strongest strands in the community’s fabric. It gives families with rising incomes an opportunity to stay in the community that they call home, rather than requiring them to abandon their neighbors the moment that they acquire the means to do so. The creation of jobs can help to bring disenfranchised urban areas into a renewed state of productiveness, and therefore have an impact on local politics, economics, and social patterns and beyond. The need for better housing will always be evident in urban environments.

Urban agricultural production captures the imagination of citizens wishing to make the most of difficult circumstances, and to create productive, edible green space across barren, abandoned urban landscapes.

02

How? Addressing the Problem

The course of the coming of the modern age in American cities is known for both better and worse, and is evident in the growth of the cities of Detroit and Chicago. With burgeoning new industries came a need for adequate and abundant housing, but this need was ill-met with housing project clusters and towers erected in the place of bulldozed communities in a process referred to as “urban renewal.” The demolition of the existing communities did not displace their previous inhabitants or their negative affiliations, and soon crime and violence flourished in these developments (largely uninhibited due to the decline in maintenance and surveillance of the developments) as residents felt increasingly disenfranchised.

Of the most notorious of these projects was the Pruitt-Igoe Public Housing projects that were demolished in their entirety approximately only twenty years after completion, although in terms of violence, Chicago’s Robert Taylor block (right, center) was plagued by crime and gang warfare; the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) faced similar problems in dealing with issues at other projects, such as the Ida B. Wells projects (right, top) and the Cabrini-Green projects (right, bottom). Detroit’s Brewster-Douglass projects soon suffered a similar fate and was abandoned over the course of the ensuing decades.

As this form of poverty became concentrated in project areas, the middle-class moved out of the city and into the suburbs, where they largely reside today. The projects, on the other hand, were largely torn down, the sites left empty. In only a few instances were the products of “urban renewal” successful to some extent, where they remain largely preserved today - one premiere example is Detroit’s Lafayette Park (far right), which features townhouses and high-rises designed by Mies van der Rohe and elegant landscaping. Chicago has effectively erased most of its large-scale public housing projects, as has Detroit, from their building stock, but in many respects plans for redevelopment are prescriptive and limited to single functions, in effect contributing little to the already disenfranchised communities.

Cities have long allured Americans due to their business, their cultures, and their industrious prospects, so it comes to no surprise that Detroit and Chicago became hubs for various industries, such as the automobile and railroad industries, respectively.

Some of the structures designed to house these industries remain, in varied conditions, and serve as more positive reminders of the age of industry that ushered in modernism. Shown below are three structures by Detroit’s Albert Kahn, which prioritize economy of scale and efficiency without sacrificing workplace gains.

The functions of agriculture are inherently industrial, and residential styles are cited often as being most effective if individualized. There should therefore exist a meeting point between these two sensibilities for the proposed type of housing.

What? Formulating a Program

03

Thanks for the View, M

r. Mies: Lafayette Park, D

etroit - Danielle Aubert, Lana Cavar, and N

atasha Chandani. 2012, Metropolis Books.

Designing for Industry: The architecture of Albert Kahn. G

rant Hildebrand. 1974, The M

IT Press.The Pig and the Skyscraper: Chicago - A H

istory of Our Future. M

arco d’Eramo. 2002, VERSO

.

How? Addressing the Problem

The course of the coming of the modern age in American cities is known for both better and worse, and is evident in the growth of the cities of Detroit and Chicago. With burgeoning new industries came a need for adequate and abundant housing, but this need was ill-met with housing project clusters and towers erected in the place of bulldozed communities in a process referred to as “urban renewal.” The demolition of the existing communities did not displace their previous inhabitants or their negative affiliations, and soon crime and violence flourished in these developments (largely uninhibited due to the decline in maintenance and surveillance of the developments) as residents felt increasingly disenfranchised.

Of the most notorious of these projects was the Pruitt-Igoe Public Housing projects that were demolished in their entirety approximately only twenty years after completion, although in terms of violence, Chicago’s Robert Taylor block (right, center) was plagued by crime and gang warfare; the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) faced similar problems in dealing with issues at other projects, such as the Ida B. Wells projects (right, top) and the Cabrini-Green projects (right, bottom). Detroit’s Brewster-Douglass projects soon suffered a similar fate and was abandoned over the course of the ensuing decades.

As this form of poverty became concentrated in project areas, the middle-class moved out of the city and into the suburbs, where they largely reside today. The projects, on the other hand, were largely torn down, the sites left empty. In only a few instances were the products of “urban renewal” successful to some extent, where they remain largely preserved today - one premiere example is Detroit’s Lafayette Park (far right), which features townhouses and high-rises designed by Mies van der Rohe and elegant landscaping. Chicago has effectively erased most of its large-scale public housing projects, as has Detroit, from their building stock, but in many respects plans for redevelopment are prescriptive and limited to single functions, in effect contributing little to the already disenfranchised communities.

Cities have long allured Americans due to their business, their cultures, and their industrious prospects, so it comes to no surprise that Detroit and Chicago became hubs for various industries, such as the automobile and railroad industries, respectively.

Some of the structures designed to house these industries remain, in varied conditions, and serve as more positive reminders of the age of industry that ushered in modernism. Shown below are three structures by Detroit’s Albert Kahn, which prioritize economy of scale and efficiency without sacrificing workplace gains.

The functions of agriculture are inherently industrial, and residential styles are cited often as being most effective if individualized. There should therefore exist a meeting point between these two sensibilities for the proposed type of housing.


03

Thanks for the View, M

r. Mies: Lafayette Park, D

etroit - Danielle Aubert, Lana Cavar, and N

atasha Chandani. 2012, Metropolis Books.

Designing for Industry: The architecture of Albert Kahn. G

rant Hildebrand. 1974, The M

IT Press.The Pig and the Skyscraper: Chicago - A H

istory of Our Future. M

arco d’Eramo. 2002, VERSO

.

The buildings should be mindful of the complex and controversial histories of the sites, partially generated by high densities, and should instead utilize lower density and moderate scale. Furthermore, a variety of ownership options for diverse demographics of tenants should be considered, as these are successful housing schemes, historically.

The buildings have the opportunity to be bold precedents for future developments like these in other cities throughout the United States. However, they should not be alien to the city or to the neighborhood, and as such should benefit from proven planning and design principles in A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction.

The buildings should be interesting and clear expressions of their purpose, as is the nature with most agricultural buildings. In the case of the Detroit site, the buildings have the possibility to draw on sensibilities of the industrial architecture of Albert Kahn, in accordance with establishing a buildings as a working element in the city fabric. Perhaps a larger structural gesture can be made in this regard, or be used to establish connections between the buildings.

The visibility and the location of each site has its advantages (such as being served by many community facilities) and disadvantages (such as vehicular traffic noise), requiring appropriate responses.

The buildings should not detract from community functions, and instead should actively contribute economically and socially to their context. If urban agricultural venues are already present, the buildings and site should be able to enhance the activities that occur therein. The urban agricultural network should, ultimately, expand with these buildings. They should provide a means of gardening for both recreational and market farmers.

The basic programmatic components of the sites might be arranged around these functions: housing units, farmland for residents (individualized plots) and/or the community, educational centers/venues, administrative offices, recreational opportunities, indoor growing spaces (greenhouses), farmers’ market spaces, public transportation accommodation, non-intensive livestock accommodation, community pavilion, parking for residents and customers, natural buffers, composting areas, runoff/wastewater treatment, and information centers.

The buildings should effectively negotiate the relationship between the public and the private. aspects of urban agriculture. There should be a variation of public and private spaces, differences between these realms should be clearly articulated.

Both of the sites are approximately 27.5 acres in area, which, according to A Pattern Language equates to provision for 275 families, or approximately 1100 people, if all the land was devoted entirely to farming. A balance should be sought between built and farm land; however, it is also to be understood that not all families or individuals will want to participate in farming venues. Therefore, additional retail/small business venues should be considered as opportunities for these people.


The following considerations regarding the design of the communities of this project and are derived from A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction :

P. 84 – Help people to define the neighborhoods they live in, not more than 300 yards across, with no more than 400 of 500 inhabitants.

P. 98 – The road is always sunken, or shielded along its length by berms, or earth, or industrial buildings, to protect the nearby neighborhoods from noise.

P. 119 – In any urban area, no matter how dense, keep the majority of buildings four stories high or less. It is possible that certain buildings should exceed this limit, but they should never be buildings for human habitation.

P. 124 – Do not allow more than 9 percent of the land in any given area to be used for parking... 30 cars per acre maximum.

P. 202 – Arrange houses to form very rough, but identifiable clusters of 8 to 12 households around some common land and paths. Arrange the clusters so that anone can walk through them, without feeling like a trespasser.

P. 291 – Bring the system of bike paths to within 100 feet of every building, and give every building a bike rack near its main entrance.

P. 313 – Make a public square much smaller than you would at first imagine; usually no more than 45 to 60 feet across, never more than 70 feet across. This applies only to its width in the short direction. In the long direction it can certainly be longer.

P. 339 – Give over 25 percent of the land in house clusters to common land which touches, or is very very near, the houses which share it.

P. 453 – Build bus stops so that they form tiny centers of public life. Build them as part of the gateways into neighborhoods, work communities, parts of town. Locate them so that they work together with several other activities, at least a newsstand, maps, outdoor shelter, seats, and in various combinations, corner groceries, smoke shops, coffee bar, tree places, special road crossings, public bathrooms, squares…

P. 529 – Keep buildings no longer than 25 feet wide for natural light passivity.

P. 767 – Build a place outdoors which has so much enclosure round it, that it takes on the feeling of a room, even though it is open to the sky.

P. 820 – Set aside one piece of land either in the private garden or on common land as a vegetable garden. About one-tenth of an acre is needed for each family of four. Make sure the vegetable garden is in a sunny place and central to all the households it serves. Fence it in and build a small storage shed for gardening tools beside it.

04

Establishing Context: Detroit, Michigan - Brewster-Douglass Housing

This series of six identical fourteen-story buildings and the blocks of low-rise apartments was Detroit’s largest public housing venture, and broke ground during the 1930s – 1950s in a process that, along with the Gratiot Redevelopment project (including Lafayette Park) took an existing community, known as “Black Bottom” off the map. The vacant land to the south of Wilkins Street that was once home to some of the Brewster-Douglass Homes and the Frederick Douglass apartments is the first site under consideration for this project. The blocks to the site’s southwest are mostly vacant as well, but are not being considered for this project.

With this project, this site shall serve as the catalyst from which strategic typologies are developed and employed at similar sites as prototypes, such as in Chicago.

Establishing Context: Chicago, Illinois - Robert Taylor Homes

05

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/; Google M

apshttps://w

ww

.kickstarter.com/projects/1166846538/docum

entary-brewster-douglass-youre-m

y-brother/posts/117890http://ww

w.transitchicago.com

/schedules/Im

ages of America: D

etroit - The Black Bottom Com

munity - Jerem

y William

s. 2009 - Arcadia Publishing.

Establishing Context: Detroit, Michigan - Brewster-Douglass Housing

This series of six identical fourteen-story buildings and the blocks of low-rise apartments was Detroit’s largest public housing venture, and broke ground during the 1930s – 1950s in a process that, along with the Gratiot Redevelopment project (including Lafayette Park) took an existing community, known as “Black Bottom” off the map. The vacant land to the south of Wilkins Street that was once home to some of the Brewster-Douglass Homes and the Frederick Douglass apartments is the first site under consideration for this project. The blocks to the site’s southwest are mostly vacant as well, but are not being considered for this project.

With this project, this site shall serve as the catalyst from which strategic typologies are developed and employed at similar sites as prototypes, such as in Chicago.


05

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/; Google M

apshttps://w

ww

.kickstarter.com/projects/1166846538/docum

entary-brewster-douglass-youre-m

y-brother/posts/117890http://ww

w.transitchicago.com

/schedules/Im

ages of America: D

etroit - The Black Bottom Com

munity - Jerem

y William

s. 2009 - Arcadia Publishing.


As of 2014, the remaining blocks of the cleared land at the Robert Taylor Homes, or “Legends South,” are slated for speculative redevelopment. These blocks constitute the second site under consideration for this project’s expansions. Upon initial completion, there were 28 buildings on the site; on the remaining site existed 16 of these buildings.

06

http

://ce

d.be

rkel

ey.e

du/b

pj/2

013/

06/t

he-r

ober

t-ta

ylor

-hom

es-fa

ilure

-of-p

ublic

-hou

sing

/ht

tp://

inte

ract

ive.

wtt

w.c

om/t

imem

achi

ne/d

an-r

yan-

expr

essw

ayht

tps:

//w

ww

.ope

nstr

eetm

ap.o

rg/;

Goo

gle

Map

s

Establishing Context: Public Transportation and Neighborhood Influences

07

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/; Google M

apshttp://w

ww

.detroitmi.gov/H

ow-D

o-I/Locate-Transportation/Bus-Scheduleshttp://w

ww

.transitchicago.com/schedules/

Examining Precedent: Buildings

Establishing Context: Public Transportation and Neighborhood Influences

07

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/; Google M

apshttp://w

ww

.detroitmi.gov/H

ow-D

o-I/Locate-Transportation/Bus-Scheduleshttp://w

ww

.transitchicago.com/schedules/

Examining Precedent: Buildings

08

Goo

gle

Map

s

Examining Precedent: BuildingsThese two buildings are successful in their material expressivity and their care to differentiate each unit through the use of color.

Widely regarded as successful senior housing, this building breaks structural and unit rigidity with bold cantilevers and balconies.

This project approaches its context subtly, but does so in an interesting manner that establishes unit identity and cohesiveness.

This project facilitates an effective microcommunity of scale while creating buildings that inform and perform.

This building provides a minimal working framework for a building in an economic and efficient manner that permits adaptation.

This large-scale project is a unique product of its industrial context, and expresses a variety of units via a variety of exterior treatments, within a simple volume.

This town plan is successful in its variation of housing units and public spaces, based on a scale that permits varieties of pedestrian activity.

This group of buildings is successful in its breakage with traditional approaches to expressing repetition; it too differentiates units.

MVRDV: WoZoCo

MVRDV: Silodam

MVRDV: New Leiden

Rolf Disch: Solarsiedlung am Schlierberg Lacaton & Vassal: Cité Manifeste

OFIS Arhitekti: Tetris Apartments

OFIS Arhitekti: 650 Apartments

OFIS Arhitekti: Honeycomb Apartments

Examining Precedent: Agriculture

09

Google M

apshttp://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/blog/w

hat-we-talk-about-w

hen-we-talk-about-the-state-fair/

Examining Precedent: NC State University and RaleighEvery year, thousands gather at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds in the fall for the State Fair. The iconic Dorton Arena is a part of this complex.

Not dissimilar from the fabric of residential Detroit, the Cameron Park neighborhood is home to 20th century houses and exemplifies aged density.

The University Plaza, also known as “The Brickyard”, is a large public space that, along with the Court of the Carolinas to its southeast, are important to NCSU.

Pullen Park is one of Raleigh’s oldest and most familiar public parks, and has undergone extensive renovations across the decades.

Fayetteville Street in downtown Raleigh is a central spine that is often home to major city events. It is terminated by the State Capitol to its north and the Duke Energy Center for the Performing Arts to its south.

This is NC State University’s first community garden on campus (Centennial) and is maintained by the labor of volunteers. It is a small garden.

Hunt Library is one of NC State’s largest buildings, and is a prominent contemporary presence overlooking Lake Raleigh and The Oval green area.

The NC State CVM is awaiting a Master Plan realization that will cater to the expansive interests of the University. It is a large expanse of grazing land.

Raleigh: Cameron Park Duplex

Students for Organic, United Living: NCSU Soul Garden

Snøhetta: NCSU Hunt Library

City of Raleigh: Fayetteville Street

North Carolina State University: University PlazaNorth Carolina State University: Court of the Carolinas

North Carolina State University: College of Veterinary Medicine

City of Raleigh: North Carolina State Fairgrounds

City of Raleigh: Pullen Park

Examining Precedent: Agriculture

09

Google M

apshttp://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/blog/w

hat-we-talk-about-w

hen-we-talk-about-the-state-fair/

Examining Precedent: NC State University and RaleighEvery year, thousands gather at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds in the fall for the State Fair. The iconic Dorton Arena is a part of this complex.

Not dissimilar from the fabric of residential Detroit, the Cameron Park neighborhood is home to 20th century houses and exemplifies aged density.

The University Plaza, also known as “The Brickyard”, is a large public space that, along with the Court of the Carolinas to its southeast, are important to NCSU.

Pullen Park is one of Raleigh’s oldest and most familiar public parks, and has undergone extensive renovations across the decades.

Fayetteville Street in downtown Raleigh is a central spine that is often home to major city events. It is terminated by the State Capitol to its north and the Duke Energy Center for the Performing Arts to its south.

This is NC State University’s first community garden on campus (Centennial) and is maintained by the labor of volunteers. It is a small garden.

Hunt Library is one of NC State’s largest buildings, and is a prominent contemporary presence overlooking Lake Raleigh and The Oval green area.

The NC State CVM is awaiting a Master Plan realization that will cater to the expansive interests of the University. It is a large expanse of grazing land.

Raleigh: Cameron Park Duplex

Students for Organic, United Living: NCSU Soul Garden

Snøhetta: NCSU Hunt Library

City of Raleigh: Fayetteville Street

North Carolina State University: University PlazaNorth Carolina State University: Court of the Carolinas

North Carolina State University: College of Veterinary Medicine

City of Raleigh: North Carolina State Fairgrounds

City of Raleigh: Pullen Park

Examining Precedent: AgricultureLike the Earthworks Farm, this demonstrates the effectiveness of keeping urban farming localized and within the interest of educational growth.

This community is demonstrative of the need for a means of sustinence and a designed community that is by and for the people it caters to.

This project represents the extent to which a designed urban farming space can be successful, but also represents the possibilities of a project with maximum access.

This project establishes a precedent and scale to urban agriculture with humble beginnings, and demonstrates the expanse of farming in Detroit.

This demonstrates the extent to which a community may become invested in a site, and how such a strong attachment should be encouraged.

This formerly vacant lot provides a precedent within one of the cities which operates within a successful and established urban agricultural community.

This formerly vacant lot provides an example of the level of visibility that larger urban agricultural plots achieve within a transitional urban fabric.

This occurrence demonstrates the reach and breadth of possibilities of urban farming, even at such a small frontage market.

Bayview, Virginia - RBGC Architecture, Research, and Urbanism

Detroit Market Garden

Keep Growing Detroit: Plum Street Garden

Earthworks Urban Farm, Detroit Romanowski Park, Detroit

Lafayette Greens, Detroit

Wayne State University Farmers’ Market

Prinzessinnengarten, Berlin

10

Goo

gle

Map

s

The WoZoCo Apartments consist of 7500 m^2 of senior housing (100 living units) for the Het Dosten Housing Association, and was completed in 1997. The structure features gallery-like circulation, bold cantilevering units, and colorful, differentiated balconies.

WoZoCo Silodam

11

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

http://ww

w.m

vrdv.nl/projects/wozoco/

The WoZoCo Apartments consist of 7500 m^2 of senior housing (100 living units) for the Het Dosten Housing Association, and was completed in 1997. The structure features gallery-like circulation, bold cantilevering units, and colorful, differentiated balconies.

WoZoCo Silodam

11

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

http://ww

w.m

vrdv.nl/projects/wozoco/

The Silodam Apartments consist of 19,500 m^2 of varied housing units in a 10 story, 20 meter deep envelope situated on a harbor, and was completed in 2003. The structure was formerly a dam and silo building but now houses residential units and other functions.

Silodam

12

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/ht

tp://

ww

w.m

vrdv

.nl/e

n/pr

ojec

ts/S

ILO

DA

M/

The village of New Leiden consists of 16 hectares of individualized mixed-income housing units (numbering 650 total), and was a ten-year project completed in 2005. Its master plan derives from village planning principles, and features connecting pedestrian avenues.

New Leiden Solarsiedlung

13

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

http://ww

w.m

vrdv.nl/projects/LEYDEN

/

The village of New Leiden consists of 16 hectares of individualized mixed-income housing units (numbering 650 total), and was a ten-year project completed in 2005. Its master plan derives from village planning principles, and features connecting pedestrian avenues.

New Leiden Solarsiedlung

13

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

http://ww

w.m

vrdv.nl/projects/LEYDEN

/

The Solarsiedlung am Schlierberg in Freiburg developed over a period of approximately 10 years and features 60 “Energy-Surplus Houses” along a 125 meter long service block. The terraced houses are two to three stories high, and planning is that of a community.

Solarsiedlung

14

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/ht

tps:

//st

ashp

ocke

t.wor

dpre

ss.c

om/2

008/

01/1

2/so

lars

iedl

ung-

frei

burg

-rol

f-di

sch/

The Honeycomb Apartments in Izola are comprised of 2,800 m^2 (approximately 30 apartments) of social housing units commissioned by the Slovenian Housing Fund and the Community of Izola, and were developed between 2003 and 2005 at a cheap cost.

Honeycomb Apartments 650 Apartments

15

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

http://ww

w.ofis-a.si/str_9%

20-%20H

OU

SING

/6_HO

NEYCO

MB_A

PARTM

ENTS/ofis_H

ON

EYCOM

B_APA

RTMEN

TS.html

The Honeycomb Apartments in Izola are comprised of 2,800 m^2 (approximately 30 apartments) of social housing units commissioned by the Slovenian Housing Fund and the Community of Izola, and were developed between 2003 and 2005 at a cheap cost.

Honeycomb Apartments 650 Apartments

15

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

http://ww

w.ofis-a.si/str_9%

20-%20H

OU

SING

/6_HO

NEYCO

MB_A

PARTM

ENTS/ofis_H

ON

EYCOM

B_APA

RTMEN

TS.html

The 650 Apartment Scheme in Ljubljana is comprised of four long housing units (totaling 54,700 m^2 on a 15,000 m^2 site) and were completed from 2004-2012. There are two parking levels underneath the buildings, and five levels of apartments and duplexes.

650 Apartments

16

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/G

oogl

e M

aps

http

://w

ww

.ofis

-a.s

i/str

_9%

20-%

20H

OU

SIN

G/5

_650

_APA

RTM

ENTS

/ofis

_650

_APA

RTM

ENTS

.htm

l

The Tetris Apartments in Ljubljana are just north of the 650 Apartments Scheme, and are comprised of 5,000 m^2 of social housing built between 2005 and 2007. There are four apartment types across 4 floors, and the structure has 2 levels of underground parking.

Tetris Apartments

17

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

http://ww

w.ofis-a.si/str_9%

20-%20H

OU

SING

/2_TETRIS_APA

RTMEN

TS/ofis_TETRIS_APA

RTMEN

TS.html

The Cité Manifeste in Mulhouse was completed between 2003 and 2005, and is comprised of 14 collective housing dwellings in a 2,262 m^2 structure. Designed to minimize cost, it features greenhouse construction on its third (top) level, and precast concrete elsewhere.

Cité Manifeste

18

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/G

oogl

e M

aps

http

://la

cato

nvas

sal.c

om/in

dex.

php?

idp=

19

This duplex in Cameron Park in Raleigh was built in 1925, and is representative of the style employed in many other homes in the neighborhood built during the same time period. It features approximately 9 units, and is home to about 24 people.

“Hill House” NCSU Soul Garden

19

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

This duplex in Cameron Park in Raleigh was built in 1925, and is representative of the style employed in many other homes in the neighborhood built during the same time period. It features approximately 9 units, and is home to about 24 people.

“Hill House” NCSU Soul Garden

19

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

The Soul Garden at NC State University is located on Centennial Campus close to Lake Raleigh. It is next to a frisbee golf course and the greenway, and thus is highly visible. It is owned by the University, but is maintained by volunteers as it produces a variety of crops throughout the year.

NCSU Soul Garden

20

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/ht

tp://

soul

gard

en.w

eebl

y.co

m/

The James B. Hunt Jr. Library on NC State’s Centennial Campus is the newest University building on campus, and boasts a LEED Silver designation, roof gardens, and other sustainable features. Additionally, it boldly breaks away from the brick aesthetic established on the campus.

NCSU Hunt Library Pullen Park

21

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

http://snohetta.com/project/10-jam

es-b-hunt-jr-library

The James B. Hunt Jr. Library on NC State’s Centennial Campus is the newest University building on campus, and boasts a LEED Silver designation, roof gardens, and other sustainable features. Additionally, it boldly breaks away from the brick aesthetic established on the campus.

NCSU Hunt Library Pullen Park

21

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

http://snohetta.com/project/10-jam

es-b-hunt-jr-library

Pullen Park is one of Raleigh’s most well-known recreational areas close to downtown, and boasts recently renovated facilities and landscaping. Though divided by railway, it sets a precedent for a successful variation of recreational activities in an urban context to create a place of destination.

Pullen Park

22

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/

The North Carolina State Fairgrounds and Dorton Arena are home to countless events throughout the course of any typical year in Raleigh. The latter is an iconic modernist structure and, problems aside, it represents a bold expressionist attempt that inspires visitors.

NC State Fairgrounds NCSU CVM

23

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

http://ww

w.w

aymarking.com

/waym

arks/WM

1H83_JS_D

orton_Arena_Raleigh

The North Carolina State Fairgrounds and Dorton Arena are home to countless events throughout the course of any typical year in Raleigh. The latter is an iconic modernist structure and, problems aside, it represents a bold expressionist attempt that inspires visitors.

NC State Fairgrounds NCSU CVM

23

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

http://ww

w.w

aymarking.com

/waym

arks/WM

1H83_JS_D

orton_Arena_Raleigh

The North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine is across from the Fairgrounds and is adjacent to Meredith College. Its buildings are functional and legible as agricultural buildings, and the landscape is devoted almost entirely to the animals it caters to.

NCSU CVM

24

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/

The Court of the Carolinas and University Plaza (The Brickyard) are two of the oldest and most respected large public spaces on NC State’s campus, and are home to countless events for the University. At any point in the day, they are heavlily-trafficked circulation spaces.

NCSU Public Spaces Fayetteville Street

25

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

The Court of the Carolinas and University Plaza (The Brickyard) are two of the oldest and most respected large public spaces on NC State’s campus, and are home to countless events for the University. At any point in the day, they are heavlily-trafficked circulation spaces.

NCSU Public Spaces Fayetteville Street

25

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps

Fayetteville Street in downtown Raleigh is where all of the city’s skyscrapers and people convene. It is a rigid public space whose primary function is as a street and circulation spine, but becomes a lively event space for many of Raleigh’s major spectacles. It is bounded by 3 greens.

Fayetteville Street

26

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/

The Bayview Community in Virginia is an unincorporated community formerly slated to become a maximum security prison which was rooted in extreme poverty. It now features 48 houses and duplexes that cost ~ $70,000 to build, and ~ 160 acres of farmland.

Bayview Rural Community Eastern Market Garden

27

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/; Google M

aps.http://w

ww

.cbsnews.com

/news/alice-coles-of-bayview

-26-11-2003/http://w

ww

.cnu.org/resources/projects/bayview-rural-village-2006

The Bayview Community in Virginia is an unincorporated community formerly slated to become a maximum security prison which was rooted in extreme poverty. It now features 48 houses and duplexes that cost ~ $70,000 to build, and ~ 160 acres of farmland.

Bayview Rural Community Eastern Market Garden

27

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/; Google M

aps.http://w

ww

.cbsnews.com

/news/alice-coles-of-bayview

-26-11-2003/http://w

ww

.cnu.org/resources/projects/bayview-rural-village-2006

The Detroit Market Garden is affiliated with the Eastern Market Corporation and The Greening of Detroit Initiative. It is a small-scale urban farm that features three passive solar greenhouses, a heated transplant greenhouse, and a renovated garage space for services.

Eastern Market Garden

28

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/G

oogl

e M

aps

http

://w

ww

.gre

enin

gofd

etro

it.co

m/;

http

://w

ww

.farm

plat

e.co

m/lo

cal-f

ood/

mar

ket-

gard

en/d

etro

it-m

arke

t-ga

rden

-det

roit-

mi

The Plum Street Garden is downtown Detroit is comprised of 1.75 acres of urban farmland owned by the MGM Grand Casino and maintained by the Keep Growing Detroit initiative. At this garden, volunteers, trainees, and staff produce transplants for gardens across the city, as well as produce fruits, vegetables, and flowers to sell at local farmers’ markets.

Plum Street Garden Earthworks Urban Farm

29

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps.

http://detroitagriculture.net/the-farm/

The Plum Street Garden is downtown Detroit is comprised of 1.75 acres of urban farmland owned by the MGM Grand Casino and maintained by the Keep Growing Detroit initiative. At this garden, volunteers, trainees, and staff produce transplants for gardens across the city, as well as produce fruits, vegetables, and flowers to sell at local farmers’ markets.

Plum Street Garden Earthworks Urban Farm

29

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps.

http://detroitagriculture.net/the-farm/

The Earthworks Urban Farm began in 1997 with the initiative of a single individual who works with the Capuchin Soup Kitchen, and now consist of 7 gardens spread over 20 city blocks spread within a 2 block radius of its headquarters; those extents could not be found.

Earthworks Urban Farm

30

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/G

oogl

e M

aps

http

://w

ww

.csk

detr

oit.o

rg/E

WG

/

The Prinzessinnengarten in Berlin was a project launched in 2009 on a site that had been vacant for several decades, and is now comprised of a series of transportable organic vegetable plots. The clean-up of the site was facilitated by volunteers, who now garden.

Prinzessinnengarten Wayne State University Farmers’ Market

31

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps.

http://prinzessinnengarten.net/about/

The Prinzessinnengarten in Berlin was a project launched in 2009 on a site that had been vacant for several decades, and is now comprised of a series of transportable organic vegetable plots. The clean-up of the site was facilitated by volunteers, who now garden.

Prinzessinnengarten Wayne State University Farmers’ Market

31

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps.

http://prinzessinnengarten.net/about/

The Wayne State University Farmers’ Market is a project of SEED Wayne, whose mission is to collaboratively build sustainable food systems on the campus of the University and in Detroit neighborhoods. It encourages members of the University, Midtown, and the broader Detroit community to participate, and supports the DUFB program.

Wayne State University Farmers’ Market

32

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/G

oogl

e M

aps

http

s://

ww

w.fa

cebo

ok.c

om/W

SUFa

rmer

sMar

ket

The Lafayette Greens Project was developed on a .425 acre site in the wake of the demolition of the historic Lafayette building in downtown Detroit. It is corporate-owned and sponsored, but provides a public space for discussion of urban farming, and features free-will farming and picking of vegetables and other plants within the city fabric.

Lafayette Greens Romanowski Park

33

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps.

http://ww

w.asla.org/2012aw

ards/073.html

The Lafayette Greens Project was developed on a .425 acre site in the wake of the demolition of the historic Lafayette building in downtown Detroit. It is corporate-owned and sponsored, but provides a public space for discussion of urban farming, and features free-will farming and picking of vegetables and other plants within the city fabric.

Lafayette Greens Romanowski Park

33

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/G

oogle Maps.

http://ww

w.asla.org/2012aw

ards/073.html

Romanowski Park in western Detroit underwent a renovation in 2012 that included the use of a $16,500 grant and extensive volunteer work from the 313 Organization, Home Depot, and Motor City Blight Busters. When it was announced in 2013 that the city would close the park, the citizens took to using parts of the park for urban agriculture.

Romanowski Park

34

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/G

oogl

e M

aps

http

://w

ww

.huffi

ngto

npos

t.com

/201

3/02

/01/

rom

anow

ski-p

ark-

detr

oit-

clos

ing_

n_26

0100

0.ht

ml?

Phase II - Site Visitation, Examination, and Interpretation and Case Studies Detroit: March 2015 Site Examination

35

Phase II - Site Visitation, Examination, and Interpretation and Case Studies Detroit: March 2015 Site Examination

35

Detroit: March 2015 Site Examination

The Detroit site is strikingly large on foot, and by virtue of its openness to the south, it receives ample sunlight. At the time of study, wooden posts were being driven into the ground along the sidewalks and some of the roads within and around the site as if to denote future renovations. The Brewster-Wheeler Recreation Center (left bottom, top right) may be renovation-worthy, but in addition to the existing roads, is in decay on the site. Connectivity to the Eastern Market across the freeway is of utmost concern.

36

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/G

oogl

e M

aps

37

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/.

Detroit: Site Photos Detroit: Site Photos

37

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/.

Detroit: Site Photos Detroit: Site Photos

38

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/

Detroit: Site Photos

Chicago: March 2015 Site Examination

What the Detroit site lacks in a presence of people, the Chicago site makes up for, with abundant evidence of pedestrian activity via consistent traffic and parked cars outside of businesses and schools. However, the scale of the site is more alienating here - the north-south transverse is a timely walk, and neither end features a desirable destination.

The southern portion of the site houses a boarded-up church and another church in a state of decay, while the northern portion of the site is home to a dialysis clinic and an abandoned supermarket store. As with the Detroit site, there is considerable traffic noise, though in contrast to the Detroit site’s faster, louder, and sunken vehicular traffic to the south and limited vehicular traffic on the site, the Chicago site is vehicle-level. Additionally, to the immediate west of the Chicago site exists the rail system, which although elevated, creates additional noise and visibility that should be addressed.

39

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/.

Chicago: Site Photos

Chicago: March 2015 Site Examination

What the Detroit site lacks in a presence of people, the Chicago site makes up for, with abundant evidence of pedestrian activity via consistent traffic and parked cars outside of businesses and schools. However, the scale of the site is more alienating here - the north-south transverse is a timely walk, and neither end features a desirable destination.

The southern portion of the site houses a boarded-up church and another church in a state of decay, while the northern portion of the site is home to a dialysis clinic and an abandoned supermarket store. As with the Detroit site, there is considerable traffic noise, though in contrast to the Detroit site’s faster, louder, and sunken vehicular traffic to the south and limited vehicular traffic on the site, the Chicago site is vehicle-level. Additionally, to the immediate west of the Chicago site exists the rail system, which although elevated, creates additional noise and visibility that should be addressed.

39

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/.


40

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/


Eastern Market: Detroit Case Study

41

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/.

Chicago: March 2015 Site Photos


41

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/.

Chicago: March 2015 Site Photos

The Eastern Market has been a produce staple in Detroit since 1887, and is the United States’ largest open-air wholesale/retail market. More than 150 businesses operate in the market, including specialty shops, bakeries, spice companies, meat and poultry markets, restaurants, jazz cafes, old-time saloons, produce firms, gourmet shops, truck-farm sheds, and cold-storage warehouses. Some businesses date back generations, and as such, the Market is diverse and localized. However, farmers from all over Michigan, from northern Ohio, and from parts of Canada sell their goods in the Eastern Market.

While the Eastern Market hosts a variety of events year-round, and operates a number of market days depending on the growing season, its Saturday Market is a consistently lively scene drawing in hundreds to thousands from Detroit and the surrounding areas. The Market is as much a cultural space as it is a farmers’ market, where musicians and artists showcase their talents. The Market Sheds are the most heavily circulated spaces, and have been renovated throughout their existence often in an effort to improve the image and public recognition of the project. They reflect the organic growth of the Market as a whole to meet the city’s needs. The nonprofit Eastern Market Corporation was formed in 2006 to maintain and program events for the Market and establish a resource base for stakeholders and vendors.


42

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/; G

oogl

e M

aps

Imag

es o

f Am

eric

a: D

etro

it’s H

istor

ic E

aste

rn M

arke

t – R

anda

ll Fo

gelm

an a

nd L

isa

E. R

ush.

201

3, A

rcad

ia P

ublis

hing

. D

etro

it’s E

aste

rn M

arke

t – A

Far

mer

s Mar

ket S

hopp

ing

and

Cook

ing

Gui

de –

Loi

s Jo

hnso

n an

d M

arga

ret T

hom

as.

2005

, Way

ne S

tate

Uni

vers

ity P

ress

.


The Eastern Market benefits from connectivity to the city of Detroit, from its ties to much of Detroit’s urban agricultural efforts, and from its size and diversity of produce and customers. Though it is long-standing, it has had episodes of near-failure, which it has addressed through a variety of approaches and renovations.

One of the most visible and ambitious of these efforts was that of Detroit architect Alex Pollock, whose 38 realized designs revamped public interest in the Market during the 1970s. Additionally, Pollock proposed the moving of Detroit’s original Central Market shed from Belle Isle to where Shed 1 once stood (demolished to make way for the freeway). Today, 5 sheds remain, and most buildings reflect Pollock’s artistic visions.

Lafayette Park: Detroit Case Study

43

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/Im

ages of America: D

etroit’s Historic Eastern M

arket – Randall Fogelman and Lisa E. Rush. 2013, A

rcadia Publishing. D

etroit’s Eastern Market – A Farm

ers Market Shopping and Cooking G

uide – Lois Johnson and Margaret Thom

as. 2005, Wayne State U

niversity Press.


The Eastern Market benefits from connectivity to the city of Detroit, from its ties to much of Detroit’s urban agricultural efforts, and from its size and diversity of produce and customers. Though it is long-standing, it has had episodes of near-failure, which it has addressed through a variety of approaches and renovations.

One of the most visible and ambitious of these efforts was that of Detroit architect Alex Pollock, whose 38 realized designs revamped public interest in the Market during the 1970s. Additionally, Pollock proposed the moving of Detroit’s original Central Market shed from Belle Isle to where Shed 1 once stood (demolished to make way for the freeway). Today, 5 sheds remain, and most buildings reflect Pollock’s artistic visions.


43

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/Im

ages of America: D

etroit’s Historic Eastern M

arket – Randall Fogelman and Lisa E. Rush. 2013, A

rcadia Publishing. D

etroit’s Eastern Market – A Farm

ers Market Shopping and Cooking G

uide – Lois Johnson and Margaret Thom

as. 2005, Wayne State U

niversity Press.


Considering only the buildings built before 1963 (additional townhomes were built along the east side of the Plaisance, north of Lafayette East and West in the decades to follow - these are not shown in the site plan), this development more than doubles the projected appropriate scale (300 people/site). However, it effectively navigates this density through a multiple housing options, integrated greenery, and by rendering cars subordinate. It is serene and refined, whereas other projects from the same era failed: the Robert Taylor Homes consisted of a complex of 28 16-story buildings occupying a sparsely landscaped series of blocks along 2 miles, accounting for over 4,000 units and approximately 28,000 people at peak occupancy (at 7,000 families of four, this increases the maximum scale by a factor of 14). Lafayette Park (pre-1963) has 1,694 units.

44

Than

ks fo

r the

Vie

w, M

r. M

ies:

Lafa

yett

e Pa

rk, D

etro

it - D

anie

lle A

uber

t, La

na C

avar

, and

Nat

asha

Cha

ndan

i. 20

12, M

etro

polis

Boo

ks.

CASE

: Hilb

erse

imer

/Mie

s van

der

Roh

e - L

afay

ette

Par

k D

etro

it - C

harle

s Wal

dhei

m. 2

004.

Pre

stel

Pub

lishi

ng.


The Pavilion - (northernmost tower): 340 rental apartments on 22 floors.Studio - 540, 590 sf; 1-BR - 705, 855 sf; 2-BR - 1,140 sf; est. 510 people Courthouses - (single story): 4 buildings, 6 units each; 2-4 BR/unit; est. 80 people. Townhouses - (two-story): 15 buildings with 10 units each and 2 buildings with 6 units each; 2-3 BR/unit; est. 405 people. Lafayette Towers, East and West - (easternmost towers): 584 rental apartments on 22 floors each. Studio - 414, 570 sf; 1-BR - 761, 830 sf; 2-BR - 1188, 1230 sf; est. 1752 people in both buildingsTotal Est. Density - 2747 people (687 families of 4 in pre-1963 buildings only)*Note: Overlay of pre-1963 planning extents considered. Full site occupies ~ 19-20 acres

Case Study Relevance

45

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/Thanks for the View

, Mr. M

ies: Lafayette Park, Detroit - D

anielle Aubert, Lana Cavar, and Natasha Chandani. 2012, M

etropolis Books.CASE: H

ilberseimer/M

ies van der Rohe - Lafayette Park Detroit - Charles W

aldheim. 2004. Prestel Publishing.


The Pavilion - (northernmost tower): 340 rental apartments on 22 floors.Studio - 540, 590 sf; 1-BR - 705, 855 sf; 2-BR - 1,140 sf; est. 510 people Courthouses - (single story): 4 buildings, 6 units each; 2-4 BR/unit; est. 80 people. Townhouses - (two-story): 15 buildings with 10 units each and 2 buildings with 6 units each; 2-3 BR/unit; est. 405 people. Lafayette Towers, East and West - (easternmost towers): 584 rental apartments on 22 floors each. Studio - 414, 570 sf; 1-BR - 761, 830 sf; 2-BR - 1188, 1230 sf; est. 1752 people in both buildingsTotal Est. Density - 2747 people (687 families of 4 in pre-1963 buildings only)*Note: Overlay of pre-1963 planning extents considered. Full site occupies ~ 19-20 acres


45

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/Thanks for the View

, Mr. M

ies: Lafayette Park, Detroit - D

anielle Aubert, Lana Cavar, and Natasha Chandani. 2012, M

etropolis Books.CASE: H

ilberseimer/M

ies van der Rohe - Lafayette Park Detroit - Charles W

aldheim. 2004. Prestel Publishing.


The Eastern Market provides a mechanism for selling produce within the Detroit project site, so a market space is not needed. The connectivity between the two sites should be strengthened, perhaps through such means as material choice consistency, signage, or by improving circulation patterns.

The success of the Market indicates ways by which to design a place for selling produce at the Chicago site. Because no such structure exists in the neighborhood, a market of appropriate scale to the homes needs to be designed, perhaps acting as a transition zone between public-private space. The market can serve as a space where farmers of the project site sell their goods, but where farmers operating outside sell as well.

Lafayette Park sets a precedent for both project sites because it has been weathered mostly positively by decades of political and socioeconomic change experienced by the city of Detroit. Not only have the materials of modernism aged and been well maintained, but the trees provide a sheltering canopy over the townhomes and vegetation surrounding the townhomes is appropriately scaled to the pedestrian. Residents have viewed the project consistently in a positive light, and details of planning of the homes and of the site have long contributed to its success. Such details include the interlocking courthouse units, the provision of ample circulation space on site and in the towers, and the lack of fencing or formal security measures. The proposed project need not have towers, but unit variation by multiple familial situations will be explored.

46

http

://w

ww

.eas

tern

mar

ket.c

om/

Given the desired condition that no more than 400-500 families should live in an identifiable neighborhood, the size of the site, and appropriation of land for agricultural use, the following conclusions and/or assumptions were made for the Detroit site:

A base density of 120 families (480 people) living on the site is proposed. This would allow sufficient space for parking (which should occupy no more than 9-10% of the site) of 2.475-2.75 acres, the renovation of the Brewster-Wheeler Recreation Center, and some room for expansion. This also is based on the maximum premise that each family would live on .10 acres and farm on .10 acres (for a sizeable contribution to their food sustainability). A population of 70 is considered for disability-oriented units.

Because not all residents will want to farm, however, a moderate assumption based on scalar studies is made that 37 families will want to farm to sustain themselves, occupying 3.7 acres.

The cycling of farmland for farmers who do not live on the site is considered. To test this program, one acre of farmland should be devoted to external farmers on the site.

This will be accounted for in the form of a barn for city animal operations and corresponding educational center. This will comprise an additional two acres

With the remaining land for 400 people (13.75 acres), consider the following program for standard accessibility:

1BR/1BA: 640 SF, (2 floors), 30 units – 6 units = 24 units, 15,360sf

2BR/1BA: 800 SF (2.5 floors), 40 units – 8 units = 32 units, 25,600sf

2BR/2BA: 880 SF (2.5+ floors), 25 units – 5 units = 20 units, 17,600sf

3BR/1BA: 920SF (2.5+ floors), 15 units – 3 units = 12 units, 11,040sf

3BR/2BA: 960SF (3 floors), 25 units – 5 units = 20 units, 19,200sf

4BR/2BA: 1,140SF (3.5 floors), 30 units – 6 units = 24 units, 27,360sf

In the consideration of vertical circulation and mechanical systems on the modular system, subtract 1/5 of the number of units. The total number of standard units is 132, which equates to a footprint on the site of approximately 58,080 square feet.

This system is based on a base module of 16’ by 20’, but effective living area is approximated with the base module of 12’ by 20’. Building support (including stairs) is contained within a core shared between any two adjacent units. Where there exists a void in the module, independent, ground-level retail spaces will be created. Parking shall occur along the streets or in designated lots, and will be sunken, so as to separate the vehicle from the pedestrian.

Diability-modified housing (for elderly independents and/or the disabled) will be comprised of single-story townhomes and elevator-modified standard modular plans. There will be 16 1BR/1BA single-story townhomes (800 SF), 12 2BR/1BA single-story townhomes (920 SF), 6 modified 2BR/2BA units (920 SF), and 6 modified 3BR/2BA units (1,140 SF). The footprint of the disability-modified housing on the site will be approximately 30,020 square feet across all of these buildings.

The structuring of the disability-modified units and townhomes will also be utilized at the Chicago site. These units will require additional outside circulation space for access.

Detroit Site Acreage Approximations and Allocations Chicago Site Acreage Approximations and Allocations

47

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/

Given the desired condition that no more than 400-500 families should live in an identifiable neighborhood, the size of the site, and appropriation of land for agricultural use, the following conclusions and/or assumptions were made for the Detroit site:

A base density of 120 families (480 people) living on the site is proposed. This would allow sufficient space for parking (which should occupy no more than 9-10% of the site) of 2.475-2.75 acres, the renovation of the Brewster-Wheeler Recreation Center, and some room for expansion. This also is based on the maximum premise that each family would live on .10 acres and farm on .10 acres (for a sizeable contribution to their food sustainability). A population of 70 is considered for disability-oriented units.

Because not all residents will want to farm, however, a moderate assumption based on scalar studies is made that 37 families will want to farm to sustain themselves, occupying 3.7 acres.

The cycling of farmland for farmers who do not live on the site is considered. To test this program, one acre of farmland should be devoted to external farmers on the site.

This will be accounted for in the form of a barn for city animal operations and corresponding educational center. This will comprise an additional two acres

With the remaining land for 400 people (13.75 acres), consider the following program for standard accessibility:







In the consideration of vertical circulation and mechanical systems on the modular system, subtract 1/5 of the number of units. The total number of standard units is 132, which equates to a footprint on the site of approximately 58,080 square feet.

This system is based on a base module of 16’ by 20’, but effective living area is approximated with the base module of 12’ by 20’. Building support (including stairs) is contained within a core shared between any two adjacent units. Where there exists a void in the module, independent, ground-level retail spaces will be created. Parking shall occur along the streets or in designated lots, and will be sunken, so as to separate the vehicle from the pedestrian.

Diability-modified housing (for elderly independents and/or the disabled) will be comprised of single-story townhomes and elevator-modified standard modular plans. There will be 16 1BR/1BA single-story townhomes (800 SF), 12 2BR/1BA single-story townhomes (920 SF), 6 modified 2BR/2BA units (920 SF), and 6 modified 3BR/2BA units (1,140 SF). The footprint of the disability-modified housing on the site will be approximately 30,020 square feet across all of these buildings.

The structuring of the disability-modified units and townhomes will also be utilized at the Chicago site. These units will require additional outside circulation space for access.

Detroit Site Acreage Approximations and Allocations Chicago Site Acreage Approximations and Allocations

47

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/

Due to additional programmatic proposals for this site - because of the lack of nearby existing agricultural infrastructure or farmers market - the residential footprint will be smaller than that of the Detroit site, though a comparable farm plot acreage allocation is sought to provide a higher means of income generation.

Space for a farmers market and space for events/public gathering will be accounted for on this site. 1.2 acres of land will be devoted to outside farmers. A barn for city animals and supporting facilities will occupy two acres.

After accounting for parking needs of the residents using the same calculation method employed at the Detroit site (where one family lives and farms on .20 acre), there are approximately 12 acres left of area upon which to build for residential and farming purposes, which using the calculation methods for the Detroit site, can accommodate 320 people’s farming and living situations. Standard accessibility units can be subdivided as follows:







This creates a built footprint on the site of 46,120 square feet. The total number of standard units is 104. A moderate assumption is made that 34 families will want to farm to sustain themselves, occupying 3.4 acres. The farmers market should not be so large in scale so as to alienate the users. As such, it should be kept to a footprint established by a void, or comparable, within the existing buildings on the site. It should also be visually prominent, and be located at a high-traffic area. The form of the market should buffer this traffic noise, however.

Along with the Detroit site, the Chicago site will feature a visitor’s center/administrative complex within close proximity to existing structures and in areas with high accessibility. and visibility

A population of 50 is considered for disability-oriented units. There sill be 14 1BR/1 BA single-story townhomes (800 SF), 8 2BR/1BA single-story townhomes (920 SF), 4 modified 2BR/2BA units (920 SF), and 4 modified 3BR/2BA units (1,140 SF). The footprint of the disability-modified housing on the site will be approximately 22,680 square feet.

The barn for city animals (“pets with benefits” - honeybees, chickens, turkeys, ducks, rabbits, and goats) should serve as a landmark within the agricultural landscape, and be recognizable as a node that people visit to tend to these community-shared animals.

Perhaps more so than in Detroit, public, private, and semi-private recreational green spaces are important here - this is not only due to the absence of these resources in the immediate vicinity, but because there are several schools nearby that could utilize the spaces for educational and recreational opportunities. These green spaces may be used to break up the housing on this site so as to prevent monotony and alienation of scale. Walking distances should be kept shorter so as to discourage vehicular traffic disruption.

Chicago Site Acreage Approximations and Allocations

48

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/

Site Analysis Diagrams: Noise Levels Site Analysis Diagrams: Vantage Points and Visibility

49

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/

In the above diagram, the orange areas mark zones that, based on site observations, I believe experience the highest levels of noise on the sites.

On the Detroit site, the Chrysler Freeway to the northeast and the Fisher Freeway to the southeast generate considerable noise for the eastern portion of the site. The noise amounts to fast moving cars and trucks; otherwise, the site is mostly quiet.

On the Chicago site, S. State Street to the east generates the most noise in the form of automobile movement. The intersection of S. State Street and 51st St. generates stop-and-go traffic noise, while to the west of S. Federal Street, the trains generate noise.

Site Analysis Diagrams: Noise Levels Site Analysis Diagrams: Vantage Points and Visibility

49

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/

In the above diagram, the orange areas mark zones that, based on site observations, I believe experience the highest levels of noise on the sites.

On the Detroit site, the Chrysler Freeway to the northeast and the Fisher Freeway to the southeast generate considerable noise for the eastern portion of the site. The noise amounts to fast moving cars and trucks; otherwise, the site is mostly quiet.

On the Chicago site, S. State Street to the east generates the most noise in the form of automobile movement. The intersection of S. State Street and 51st St. generates stop-and-go traffic noise, while to the west of S. Federal Street, the trains generate noise.

Site Analysis Diagrams: Vantage Points and Visibility

50

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/

In the above diagram, the gray ovals represent areas that experience high levels of visibility (by virtue of pedestrian activities therein), while orange circles represent areas with significant views. The white shaded areas represent the extents of these views.

On the Detroit site, one is likely to gain the fullest sense of the site at two of the corners, or by being in the center of the site (this is so because of existing vegetation on the site).

On the Chicago site, vegetation and the existing buildings on the site contribute to the hiding and revealing of certain elements when viewing the site. The intersection again provides important perspectival information, as does a viewing from Taylor Park.

Site Analysis Diagrams: Public and Private SpacesSite Analysis Diagrams: Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation

51

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/

In the above diagram, the white lines represent what I believe to be the dominant vehicular circulation patterns (based on site observations)- the thicker lines are more heavily traveled than the thinner lines, and the orange dashed lines represent dominant pedestrian circulation patterns. As expected, the pedestrians circulate around the edges of the sites, defined by roads, so as not to traverse the long distances of the sites.

On the Detroit site, few cars drove along the Chrysler Service Drive/Winder Street as an alternative to taking the more heavily traveled Wilkins and Brush Streets.

On the Chicago site, a few cars were parked on the southern half of S. Federal Street.

Site Analysis Diagrams: Public and Private SpacesSite Analysis Diagrams: Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation

51

https://ww

w.openstreetm

ap.org/

In the above diagram, the white lines represent what I believe to be the dominant vehicular circulation patterns (based on site observations)- the thicker lines are more heavily traveled than the thinner lines, and the orange dashed lines represent dominant pedestrian circulation patterns. As expected, the pedestrians circulate around the edges of the sites, defined by roads, so as not to traverse the long distances of the sites.

On the Detroit site, few cars drove along the Chrysler Service Drive/Winder Street as an alternative to taking the more heavily traveled Wilkins and Brush Streets.

On the Chicago site, a few cars were parked on the southern half of S. Federal Street.

Site Analysis Diagrams: Public and Private Spaces

52

http

s://

ww

w.o

pens

tree

tmap

.org

/

In the above diagram, the orange areas are more public, by their proximity to the major roads (displayed by white lines), their visibility, their levels of circulation, and their neighbors. The gray areas are more private, by virtue of their lack of circulation and lack of happenstance. This applies to the areas closer to the train on the Chicago site, and behind the Dialysis/Produce building - they are largely “dead” areas, much as the southeastern edge of the Detroit site is alongside the Chrysler Service Drive. These areas might be beneficial as buffer zones, and to some extent the private nature of these areas should be preserved. The orange dashed lines represent perceived expansions of the site based on site analysis, and while such an addition would benefit the Chicago site because of the potential for a more formal entry, the Chicago site would be louder.

Phase III - Prototype Design and Implementation on the Sites

53

Site Programs - Summary

Phase III - Prototype Design and Implementation on the Sites

53

Site Programs - SummarySite Programs - Summary

54

Programmatic Components: Detroit Site

120 Mixed Square-Footage Residential Units for 480 people in a Cooperative Structure30 Disability-Accessible Mixed Square-Footage Residential Units for 70 people (6 elevators)3.7 Acres of Farmland for Resident Farmers on 19 Plots of Assorted Size1 Acre of Farmland for External Farmers on 1 Large Plot2 Acres for an Animal Barn and Grazing LandGround Floor Retail/Multipurpose Spaces in 90 UnitsBasement Access in 132 unitsSecond-Level Retail/Multipurpose/Outdoor/Convertible Spaces in 40 unitsGreenhouse/Outdoor/Convertible Spaces on 132 Units4 Mixed-Use/Retail/Restaurant Buildings at 3 Corners of SiteRenovation of Existing Brewster-Wheeler Recreation Center into Multipurpose SpaceEducational Center for School Groups and for Resident Programs Close to BarnInformation/Administrative Center at Northeast Corner of Site; Contain Outdoor GatheringsParking for 123 Cars On and Within Site1 Large Paved Public Space1 Large Park/Green Space12 Cluster Green Spaces

Programmatic Components: Chicago Site

104 Mixed Square-Footage Residential Units for 320 people in a Cooperative Structure20 Mixed Square-Footage Residential Units for 50 people (4 elevators)3.4 Acres of Farmland for Resident Farmers on 10 Plots of Assorted Size1 Acre of Farmland for External Farmers on 4 Plots of Assorted Size2 Acres for an Animal Barn and Grazing LandGround Floor Retail/Multipurpose Spaces in 84 UnitsBasement Access in 112 unitsSecond-Level Retail/Multipurpose/Outdoor/Convertible Spaces in 32 unitsGreenhouse/Outdoor/Convertible Spaces on 112 Units2 Mixed-Use/Retail/Restaurant Buildings at Northern Corner and Center of SiteRenovation of Existing Churches - Keep St. Mary’s AFM Church as a Church, and Repurpose Berean Baptist Church as an Education/Multipurpose Center Locate the Animal Barn at the South of the Site to Create a Destination and ReferenceInformation/Administrative Center and Farmers Market at the Center of the Site Parking for 123 Cars On and Within Site1 Large Paved Public Space3 Group Green Spaces; 13 Cluster Green Spaces; 1 Larger Connected Green Space Between ClustersLocate the Silo (Navigational Vertical Landmark) in the Center of the Site

List of Guiding Design Principles and Ideas

Encourage a diversity of residents through unit variation and accessibility, and allow for diverse family structures. Encourage varying degrees of separation from adjacent buildings, and make no pair of units repeated consistentlyUsing unit variety, establish a mix of densities and housing arrangements (isolated, rowhouses, etc.)Encourage independent retail venues and community retail venuesCreate small, non-disrupting parking lotsCreate buildings with spaces that can be modified according to the residents Establish a heirarchy with open spaces that are collectively shared and maintained - the residents are to be “invested” in their neighborhoodUtilize as open of a floor plan as possible in shared rooms within the homeCreate separate bedrooms and some spaces separate for workingDesign with the life cycle of the entire building in mindEncourage variation of public and private spaces, and make zones of transition and interaction clearThe buildings should be legible and cohesive. Units should be distinguishable from the ground level through such means as coloration and modificationsDesign as thin a building as possible to maximize solar gainMake sure every building has access to sunlight Use sloped roofs to shed and collect rainwaterUse materials that are consistent with neighboring buildingsUse operable windows where people dwellSeparate the farming plots from the residences, but also encourage residences close to farms Residential buildings should provide contemporary amenities and servicesResident storage should not be neglected Encourage public transportation use and personal mobility by means other than automobilesKeep disability-accessible units closer to points of access for egress efficiencyDo not put program into the green spaces - determine if there is a need upon requestCreate significant views by creating elevated outdoor areasEncourage a maturation of vegetation and tree canopy for shaded-sunny spot varietyCreate a large paved public gathering space that vehicles can drive onUtilize a variety of built and vegetated boundaries where necessary to provide buffers, life, or bothConnect buildings to the streets via small, individualized ramps and sidewalksUse signage where appropriate to mark territorial transition and significant buildings or other featuresAllow for the posiblity of solar photovoltaic panel installationHarken on increased visibility for energy-efficient technologiesEncourage gardening possibilities by creating small yard-like spaces where appropriateEnsure the buildings are affordable by keeping construction and material costs low

55

Site Concept Diagrams: Significant Features and Circulation

12.5’

12.5’12.5’

Site Concept Diagrams: Residential Clustering

On the Detroit site, the northwestern-most corner and southwestern-most corner have the potential to serve as a vital connection point between the proposed development and future surrounding neighborhood development. The formation of a hard boundary in the form of buildings with prominent retail frontage along the edges of the site makes corner stores/restaurants a viable option. Additional proposals include a restaurant/gateway between this development and the Brewster Homes, an education center located close to the animal barn, the animal barn (located such that views to it can be experienced from downtown and from areas within the site, and the redevelopment of the Brewster-Wheeler Recreation Center into part of an information and administrative center and space for gathering.

On the Chicago site, the area I believe to be of most importance would be where the two busiest roads meet, and thus, this is a probable location for a market space. A restaurant operated by the residents forms the edge between the development and Taylor Park to the northwest, and the existing churches are maintained (one being redeveloped), as they have community significance. The animal barn is a distinct node to the south of the site.

Two vertical landmarks are speculated to signify the community’s agricultural function - large gain silos, located just behind the barn on the Detroit site and in the middle west in Chicago.

55

Site Concept Diagrams: Significant Features and Circulation

12.5’

12.5’12.5’


On the Detroit site, the northwestern-most corner and southwestern-most corner have the potential to serve as a vital connection point between the proposed development and future surrounding neighborhood development. The formation of a hard boundary in the form of buildings with prominent retail frontage along the edges of the site makes corner stores/restaurants a viable option. Additional proposals include a restaurant/gateway between this development and the Brewster Homes, an education center located close to the animal barn, the animal barn (located such that views to it can be experienced from downtown and from areas within the site, and the redevelopment of the Brewster-Wheeler Recreation Center into part of an information and administrative center and space for gathering.

On the Chicago site, the area I believe to be of most importance would be where the two busiest roads meet, and thus, this is a probable location for a market space. A restaurant operated by the residents forms the edge between the development and Taylor Park to the northwest, and the existing churches are maintained (one being redeveloped), as they have community significance. The animal barn is a distinct node to the south of the site.

Two vertical landmarks are speculated to signify the community’s agricultural function - large gain silos, located just behind the barn on the Detroit site and in the middle west in Chicago.

56


12.5’12.5’

12.5’

On the Detroit site, I believe that there should exist a built edge along the non-freeway streets to help create a defensible community and to either help set a precedent for or be able to respond to future development, should it occur, in the adjacent west neighborhood. This would also, along the northern edge of the site especially, create a lively avenue leading to the Eastern Market across the freeway bridge. The resulting corner scheme can serve as the organizational spine of the buildings within its bounds. The proposed clustered plan forms small groups of 20-30 residents, with breaks for parking and non-road entries into the space, around shared green spaces, in essence forming a series of microcommunities that are of recognizable scale. To the north, these clusters are grouped around a central park with single-story townhomes scattered throughout, forming a density gradient, and two additional clusters are to the east to provide a bounds for this space and alternative choices of location.

The Chicago site uses a similar clustering approach, but in a different fashion due to the linear qualities of the site and the goal of maintaining the existing buildings that effectively break up the site. Herein, there are three larger groups of clusters with populations of 20-30 residents, and these groups share a common, larger green space that connect smaller green spaces shared by the buildings within a cluster. The northern two groups bound this space with the townhomes, while the southern group has a larger green space.

Site Concept Isolation: Topography

12.5’

Site Concept Isolation: Buildings and Roads

12.5’

57

To keep the topography of the sites flat as is existing and as was evident when the public housing towers stood creates for a monotonous quality of open spaces, makes sound travel easier, implies little if any hierarchy of function, creates poor drainage situations, and is one of the reasons I believe that the sites appeared overwhelmingly large when I visited them.

I propose an elevation change of the residential units by three feet above the surrounding grade, as this is the suggested value in A Pattern Language. A similar approach is used at Lafayette Park, which I believe successfully separates the pedestrian from the vehicle. This also may result in an increased awareness of the shared park-like spaces and of the identification or association with a cluster of residences, and in some respects may increase the degree of separation between the developments and their hazards. This level of separation is particularly important for security of the animals and eliminates the need for a fenced barrier.

I also propose that the farmland remain on-grade, so as to create favorable drainage situations (where water from rain events travels downhill and benefits the crops) prevent agricultural runoff, and where appropriate, encourage public interaction with the crops. While the sites have been zoned for this distinction between agricultural and residential land uses, there is ample public space within and around the clusters to encourage expansion if needed.

Site Concept Isolation: Topography

12.5’


12.5’

57

To keep the topography of the sites flat as is existing and as was evident when the public housing towers stood creates for a monotonous quality of open spaces, makes sound travel easier, implies little if any hierarchy of function, creates poor drainage situations, and is one of the reasons I believe that the sites appeared overwhelmingly large when I visited them.

I propose an elevation change of the residential units by three feet above the surrounding grade, as this is the suggested value in A Pattern Language. A similar approach is used at Lafayette Park, which I believe successfully separates the pedestrian from the vehicle. This also may result in an increased awareness of the shared park-like spaces and of the identification or association with a cluster of residences, and in some respects may increase the degree of separation between the developments and their hazards. This level of separation is particularly important for security of the animals and eliminates the need for a fenced barrier.

I also propose that the farmland remain on-grade, so as to create favorable drainage situations (where water from rain events travels downhill and benefits the crops) prevent agricultural runoff, and where appropriate, encourage public interaction with the crops. While the sites have been zoned for this distinction between agricultural and residential land uses, there is ample public space within and around the clusters to encourage expansion if needed.

12.5’12.5’


12.5’

58

The clustering concept is best illustrated by isolating the buildings and examining their relationships with one another. In each case, the clusters are comprised of at most eight buildings and populations of no more than 30 residents.

On the Detroit site, As the population is larger, a more diverse spatial pattern is explored, and publicly significant buildings (the corner retail landmarks and the education center) are linked more closely to the blocs, or become a part of them. Included are pocket parking lots (for a small number of cars, tucked within the building voids) so as to encourage walking, biking, or the use of existing public transportation systems. A dominant road beginning in the southwest corner of the site and terminating at the Brewster-Wheeler Recreation Center serves as the primary means of division between residential and agricultural lands, and there exists an access road to the farming plots and to the barn towards the southeast corner.

The Chicago site offers less location variation for residence than does the Detroit site due largely to an attempt to conform to the existing buildings while providing a productive zone of separation from the busy context, as was the case with the Detroit site. Unlike the Detroit site, which features interconnecting paths and ramps between buildings where appropriate, the Chicago site is more private, with access to the units granted only from one of two roads.

Site Overview: Chicago

59

12.5

’

ANIMAL B

ARN

CHU

RCH

MU

LTIP

URP

OSE

CE

NTE

R (F

ORM

ER

CHU

RCH

)

INFO

AN

D A

DM

INIS

TRAT

ION

CEN

TER

FARMERS MARKET WEST SHED

FARMERS MARKET EAST SHED

RESTAURANTS AND EXT. RETAILRESTAURANTS AND EXT. RETAIL

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

3 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

5 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

5 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

3 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)

RESIDENT FARM PLOTS (.3 ACRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

3 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)


ANIM

AL G

RAZI

NG

LA

ND

(2 A

CRES

)

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLUSTER GREEN SPACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

EXTE

RNAL

FAR

M

PLO

TS (.

4 AC

RE)

EXTE

RNAL

FAR

M

PLO

TS (.

4 AC

RE)

EXTERNAL FARM PLOTS (.2 ACRE)


MAR

KET

SQU

ARE

SILO

NThe letter on each unit corresponds to a unit type. Consult the “Residential Units” Section

12.5

’

ANIMAL B

ARN

CHU

RCH

MU

LTIP

URP

OSE

CE

NTE

R (F

ORM

ER

CHU

RCH

)

INFO

AN

D A

DM

INIS

TRAT

ION

CEN

TER




RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

3 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

5 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

5 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

3 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)


RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

3 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)


ANIM

AL G

RAZI

NG

LA

ND

(2 A

CRES

)

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLUSTER GREEN SPACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

EXTE

RNAL

FAR

M

PLO

TS (.

4 AC

RE)

EXTE

RNAL

FAR

M

PLO

TS (.

4 AC

RE)



MAR

KET

SQU

ARE

SILO

60

12.5

’

ANIMAL B

ARN

CHU

RCH

MU

LTIP

URP

OSE

CE

NTE

R (F

ORM

ER

CHU

RCH

)

INFO

AN

D A

DM

INIS

TRAT

ION

CEN

TER




RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

3 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

5 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

5 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

3 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)


RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

3 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

2 AC

RE)


ANIM

AL G

RAZI

NG

LA

ND

(2 A

CRES

)

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLUSTER GREEN SPACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN S

PACE

EXTE

RNAL

FAR

M

PLO

TS (.

4 AC

RE)

EXTE

RNAL

FAR

M

PLO

TS (.

4 AC

RE)



MAR

KET

SQU

ARE

SILO

60

Site Modeling: Detroit

61

Site Overview: Detroit

12.5

’12

.5’

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

6 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOTS

(.4

ACR

E)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.3 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.3 A

CRE)

EXTE

RNAL

FAR

M

PLO

TS (1

ACR

E)

ANIM

AL G

RAZI

NG

LA

ND

(2 A

CRES

)

SILO

ANIMAL BARN

MUL

TIPU

RPO

SE

CEN

TER

(FO

RMER

RECR

EATI

ON

CEN

TER)

INFO

AN

D AD

MIN

ISTR

ATIO

N C

ENTE

R

RESTAURANT AND RETAIL


EDU

CATI

ON

CE

NTE

R

REST

AURA

NT

AND

RET

AIL

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN

SPAC

E/CE

NTR

AL P

ARK

EVEN

T SQ

UARE



61

Site Overview: Detroit

12.5

’12

.5’

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM

PLO

TS (.

6 AC

RE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOTS

(.4

ACR

E)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.1 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.2 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.3 A

CRE)

RESI

DEN

T FA

RM P

LOT

(.3 A

CRE)

EXTE

RNAL

FAR

M

PLO

TS (1

ACR

E)

ANIM

AL G

RAZI

NG

LA

ND

(2 A

CRES

)

SILO

ANIMAL BARN

MUL

TIPU

RPO

SE

CEN

TER

(FO

RMER

RECR

EATI

ON

CEN

TER)

INFO

AN

D AD

MIN

ISTR

ATIO

N C

ENTE

R



EDU

CATI

ON

CE

NTE

R

REST

AURA

NT

AND

RET

AIL

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CLU

STER

G

REEN

SP

ACE

CON

NEC

TOR

GRE

EN

SPAC

E/CE

NTR

AL P

ARK

EVEN

T SQ

UARE



62

Sket

chU

p 3D

War

ehou

se: D

ownt

own

Det

roit

Mod

el g

ener

ated

by

final

cutjo

e. U

ploa

ded

15 Ju

ne 2

007;

Las

t mod

ified

23

Mar

ch 2

014.

G

oogl

e M

aps

Site Perspectives: Detroit

63


SketchUp 3D

Warehouse: D

owntow

n Detroit M

odel generated by finalcutjoe. Uploaded 15 June 2007; Last m

odified 23 March 2014.

Google M

aps

Some of these views are explored in the renders on the following pages. Page 64 offers glimpses of views within the site, from balconies the top being of one of the disability-modified buildings and the bottom from a unit overlooking the barn. The renderings on page 65 aim to demonstrate the fact that the significant buildings (being the barn and the clock tower office/retail building, respectively) can modestly modify views onto the cityscape.

The renders on page 66 speculate on the branding presence of the proposal as well as a possible affectionate name for the cooperative: Douglass Farms. The top image is of the information center/administrative complex, with the Brewster-Wheeler Recreation center located just behind it, while the bottom image is of a modified corner store typology serving as a marker of destination to the southeast. The last three images demonstrate what the units might look like in perspective from within the project, and of the appearance of the greenery.

Each of these image pairings demonstrates how the Detroit site appeared just before the demolition of the Brewster-Douglass project towers and low-rise buildings and how it might appear if the proposed project were realized. By studying each pair, it becomes clear to what extent building scale is considered, and the extent of connectivity with the city.

The site’s proximity to sports arenas and to the greater downtown area enhance the need to properly address this site. No building above five stories is constructed (the tallest being the northwest corner clock-tower office/retail building (page 65), and there are no large building masses that disrupt scenic glimpses of the city.

The project aims to establish itself in a subtle way, with many of the significant features visible only at certain locations or vantage points within and outside of the site.


63


SketchUp 3D

Warehouse: D

owntow

n Detroit M

odel generated by finalcutjoe. Uploaded 15 June 2007; Last m

odified 23 March 2014.

Google M

aps

Some of these views are explored in the renders on the following pages. Page 64 offers glimpses of views within the site, from balconies the top being of one of the disability-modified buildings and the bottom from a unit overlooking the barn. The renderings on page 65 aim to demonstrate the fact that the significant buildings (being the barn and the clock tower office/retail building, respectively) can modestly modify views onto the cityscape.

The renders on page 66 speculate on the branding presence of the proposal as well as a possible affectionate name for the cooperative: Douglass Farms. The top image is of the information center/administrative complex, with the Brewster-Wheeler Recreation center located just behind it, while the bottom image is of a modified corner store typology serving as a marker of destination to the southeast. The last three images demonstrate what the units might look like in perspective from within the project, and of the appearance of the greenery.

Each of these image pairings demonstrates how the Detroit site appeared just before the demolition of the Brewster-Douglass project towers and low-rise buildings and how it might appear if the proposed project were realized. By studying each pair, it becomes clear to what extent building scale is considered, and the extent of connectivity with the city.

The site’s proximity to sports arenas and to the greater downtown area enhance the need to properly address this site. No building above five stories is constructed (the tallest being the northwest corner clock-tower office/retail building (page 65), and there are no large building masses that disrupt scenic glimpses of the city.

The project aims to establish itself in a subtle way, with many of the significant features visible only at certain locations or vantage points within and outside of the site.


64

65

Site Perspectives: DetroitSite Perspectives: Detroit

65

Site Perspectives: DetroitSite Perspectives: Detroit

66


67

Disability-Accessible Units - Townhomes 2BR 1BA (H), 1BR 1BA (G) Site Perspectives: Detroit

67

Disability-Accessible Units - Townhomes 2BR 1BA (H), 1BR 1BA (G) Site Perspectives: Detroit

2.5’ 2.5’

FRONT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION

ROOF PLANROOF PLAN

GROUND FLOOR PLAN GROUND FLOOR PLAN

2.5’ 2.5’


ROOF PLANROOF PLAN


2.5’ 2.5’


ROOF PLANROOF PLAN


2.5’ 2.5’


ROOF PLANROOF PLAN


68

Disability-Accessible Units - Townhomes 2BR 1BA (H), 1BR 1BA (G)

69

Residential Units - 2BR 1BA (B), 2BR 2BA (C)

2.5’2.5’2.5’

FRONT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION

ROOF PLAN ROOF PLAN ROOF PLAN

THIRD FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN

GROUND FLOOR PLAN GROUND FLOOR PLAN GROUND FLOOR PLAN

BASEMENT FLOOR PLANBASEMENT FLOOR PLANBASEMENT FLOOR PLAN

2.5’2.5’2.5’







2.5’ 2.5’ 2.5’

FRONT ELEVATIONFRONT ELEVATIONFRONT ELEVATION





BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT FLOOR PLANBASEMENT FLOOR PLAN

2.5’ 2.5’ 2.5’







Residential Units - 1BR 1BA (A), 4BR 2BA (F)

2.5’2.5’2.5’







2.5’2.5’2.5’







2.5’ 2.5’ 2.5’







2.5’ 2.5’ 2.5’







70

Residential Units - 2BR 1BA (B), 2BR 2BA (C)

Disability-Accessible Residential Units - 2BR 2BA (I), 3BR 2BA (J)

2.5’2.5’2.5’







2.5’2.5’2.5’







2.5’ 2.5’ 2.5’







2.5’ 2.5’ 2.5’







Residential Units -3BR 2BA (E), 3BR 1BA (D)

71


2.5’2.5’2.5’







2.5’2.5’2.5’







2.5’ 2.5’ 2.5’







2.5’ 2.5’ 2.5’







Residential Units -3BR 2BA (E), 3BR 1BA (D)

71

2.5’ 2.5’

FRONT ELEVATIONFRONT ELEVATION

ROOF PLAN ROOF PLAN

THIRD FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN


BASEMENT FLOOR PLANBASEMENT FLOOR PLAN

2.5’ 2.5’


ROOF PLAN ROOF PLAN





2.5’ 2.5’


ROOF PLAN ROOF PLAN





2.5’ 2.5’


ROOF PLAN ROOF PLAN





72


Further Readings: Information

Alexander, Christopher et al. Houses Generated by Patterns. Berkeley: Center for Environmental Structure, 1969. Print.

Baird, Craig. The Complete Guide to Building Your Own Greenhouse: Everything You Need to Know Explained Simply. Ocala: Atlantic Publishing Group, 2011. Print.

Barrie, Thomas. The Youth Village Urban Design Project: Re-Building Detroit for Future Generations. Southfield: The Northern Area Association and College of Architecture and Design at Lawrence Technological University, 2000. Print.

Bergdoll, Barry and Reinhold, Martin. Foreclosed: Rehousing the American Dream. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2012. Print.

Bethel, Craig. Meeting the Need: Architecture in Affordable Housing. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, 2010. Print.

Broto, Carles. Public Housing: Designs and Inspirations. Singapore: Page One, 2008. Print.

Bucci, Frederico. Albert Kahn: Architect of Ford. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993. Print.

Carpenter, Novella and Rosenthal, Willow. The Essential Urban Farmer. New York: Penguin Group, 2011. Print.

Carter, Brian. Albert Kahn: Inspiration for the Modern. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Art, 2001. Print.

Clouse, Carey. Farming Cuba: Urban Agriculture from the Ground Up. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2014. Print.

Colquhoun, Ian. RIBA Book of 20th Century British Housing. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1999. Print.

Costa Duran, Sergi. High Density Housing Architecture. Barcelona: Loft Publications, 2009. Print.

D’Eramo, Marco. The Pig and the Skyscraper: Chicago, A History of Our Future. New York,: VERSO, 2002. Print.

Fernández Per, Aurora and Arpa, Javier. 10Stories of Collective Housing: Graphical Analysis of Inspiring Masterpieces. Vitoria-Gasteiz: a+t Architecture Publishers, 2013. Print.

Fernández Per, Aurora and Arpa, Javier. Next: Collective Housing in Progress. Vitoria-Gasteiz: a+t Architecture Publishers, 2010. Print.

Works Cited

Works Cited: Information

Alexander, Christopher et al. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Print.

Aubert, Danielle, Cavar, Lana, and Chandani, Natasha. Thanks for the View, Mr. Mies: Lafayette Park, Detroit. New York: Metropolis Books, 2012. Print.

Celik, Matevza. New Architecture in Slovenia. London: Springer, 2007. Print.

Cisneros, Henry G. and Engdahl, Lora. From Despair to Hope – Hope VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America’s Cities. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2009. Print.

Fogelman, Randall and Rush, Lisa E. Images of America: Detroit’s Historic Eastern Market. Charleston, Arcadia Publishing, 2013. Print.

Gallagher, John. Reimagining Detroit: Opportunities for Redefining an American City. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2010. Print.

Glueck, Jamey. Creating Community: Identity Through Place. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, 2012. Print.

International Code Council. ICC A117.1-2009 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. ICC, 2013. Print.

Miazzo, Francesca and Minkjan, Mark. Farming the City: Food as a Tool for Today’s Urbanization. Amsterdam: CITIES, 2013. Print.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Fair Housing Accessibility First. 2014. Web. 14 April 2015.

Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. Print.

Waldheim, Charles. CASE: Hilberseimer/Mies van der Rohe, Lafayette Park Detroit. New York: Prestel, 2004. Print.

Williams, Jeremy. Images of America: Detroit- The Black Bottom Community. Charleston, Arcadia Publishing, 2009. Print.

Works Cited: Images

*Image websites and print sources are cited along the side of each page. Unless otherwise noted via a website, photographs are also those taken by the author.

Works Cited and Correspondence

73

Further Readings: Information

Alexander, Christopher et al. Houses Generated by Patterns. Berkeley: Center for Environmental Structure, 1969. Print.

Baird, Craig. The Complete Guide to Building Your Own Greenhouse: Everything You Need to Know Explained Simply. Ocala: Atlantic Publishing Group, 2011. Print.

Barrie, Thomas. The Youth Village Urban Design Project: Re-Building Detroit for Future Generations. Southfield: The Northern Area Association and College of Architecture and Design at Lawrence Technological University, 2000. Print.

Bergdoll, Barry and Reinhold, Martin. Foreclosed: Rehousing the American Dream. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2012. Print.

Bethel, Craig. Meeting the Need: Architecture in Affordable Housing. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, 2010. Print.

Broto, Carles. Public Housing: Designs and Inspirations. Singapore: Page One, 2008. Print.

Bucci, Frederico. Albert Kahn: Architect of Ford. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993. Print.

Carpenter, Novella and Rosenthal, Willow. The Essential Urban Farmer. New York: Penguin Group, 2011. Print.

Carter, Brian. Albert Kahn: Inspiration for the Modern. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Art, 2001. Print.

Clouse, Carey. Farming Cuba: Urban Agriculture from the Ground Up. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2014. Print.

Colquhoun, Ian. RIBA Book of 20th Century British Housing. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1999. Print.

Costa Duran, Sergi. High Density Housing Architecture. Barcelona: Loft Publications, 2009. Print.

D’Eramo, Marco. The Pig and the Skyscraper: Chicago, A History of Our Future. New York,: VERSO, 2002. Print.

Fernández Per, Aurora and Arpa, Javier. 10Stories of Collective Housing: Graphical Analysis of Inspiring Masterpieces. Vitoria-Gasteiz: a+t Architecture Publishers, 2013. Print.

Fernández Per, Aurora and Arpa, Javier. Next: Collective Housing in Progress. Vitoria-Gasteiz: a+t Architecture Publishers, 2010. Print.

Works Cited

Works Cited: Information

Alexander, Christopher et al. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Print.

Aubert, Danielle, Cavar, Lana, and Chandani, Natasha. Thanks for the View, Mr. Mies: Lafayette Park, Detroit. New York: Metropolis Books, 2012. Print.

Celik, Matevza. New Architecture in Slovenia. London: Springer, 2007. Print.

Cisneros, Henry G. and Engdahl, Lora. From Despair to Hope – Hope VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America’s Cities. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2009. Print.

Fogelman, Randall and Rush, Lisa E. Images of America: Detroit’s Historic Eastern Market. Charleston, Arcadia Publishing, 2013. Print.

Gallagher, John. Reimagining Detroit: Opportunities for Redefining an American City. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2010. Print.

Glueck, Jamey. Creating Community: Identity Through Place. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, 2012. Print.

International Code Council. ICC A117.1-2009 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. ICC, 2013. Print.

Miazzo, Francesca and Minkjan, Mark. Farming the City: Food as a Tool for Today’s Urbanization. Amsterdam: CITIES, 2013. Print.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Fair Housing Accessibility First. 2014. Web. 14 April 2015.

Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. Print.

Waldheim, Charles. CASE: Hilberseimer/Mies van der Rohe, Lafayette Park Detroit. New York: Prestel, 2004. Print.

Williams, Jeremy. Images of America: Detroit- The Black Bottom Community. Charleston, Arcadia Publishing, 2009. Print.

Works Cited: Images

*Image websites and print sources are cited along the side of each page. Unless otherwise noted via a website, photographs are also those taken by the author.


73


Ferry, W. Hawkins. The Buildings of Detroit: A History. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2012. Print.

Girard, Greg and Lambot, Ian. City of Darkness: Life in Kowloon Walled City. Chiddingfold: Watermark, 2007. Print.

Hawtrey, Kim. Affordable Housing Finance. Basingstoke: Malgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print. Hildebrand, Grant. Designing for Industry: The Architecture of Albert Kahn. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1974. Print.

Jaap Jan Berg et al. Houses in Transformation: Interventions in European Gentrification. Rotterdam: D.A.P. (Distributed Art Publishers), 2008. Print.

Johnson, Lois and Thomas, Margaret. Detroit’s Eastern Market: A Farmers Market Shopping and Cooking Guide. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2005. Print.

Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1960. Print.

Mangen, Stephen P. Social Exclusion and Inner City Europe: Regulating Urban Regeneration. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Print.

Mayer, Harold M. and Wade, Richard C. Chicago: Growth of a Metropolis. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1969. Print.

Nederlands Architectuurinsituut. Food for the City: A Future for the Metropolis. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2012. Print.

Newman, Oscar. Creating Defensible Space. Washington, D.C. : Rutgers University and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, 1996. Print.

Park, Kyong. Urban Ecology: Detroit and Beyond. Hong Kong: Map Book Publishers, 2005. Print.

Taubman, Julia Reyes. Detroit: 138 Square Miles. New York: D.A.P. (Distributed Art Publishers), 2011. Print.

Teige, Karel. The Minimum Dwelling. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002. Print. University of Michigan. Detroit Downtown 2002: Taubman College Design Charrette. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2002. Print.

Wayne State University. Connecting the Dots: Tyree Guyton’s Heidelberg Project. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2007. Print.

Bryan Seef

North Carolina State University

Bachelors of Environmental Design in Architecture Class of 2015

Bachelors of Architecture Class of 2016

University Honors Program Class of 2015

Intern, Smith Sinnett Architecture - Raleigh, NC

For inquiries, please email:

[email protected]

[email protected]

When not working, doing homework, or studying, chances are Bryan is at an NCSU Library, reading, biking, running, playing the bass guitar, or cooking. He is an avid collector of vintage automobile advertisements and enjoys discovering music.

Closing Remarks from the Author:

My intention for this component of the project is not necessarily to design in full detail the prototypal housing, but to catalog planning sensibilities and methods of contextual analysis for such an undertaking, and to introduce what I believe to be a potentially viable use of large, underdeveloped urban sites like these.

I devised the project largely as an informed outsider - my only notable connections to Chicago consist of my birth in Naperville and a large portion of both sides of my family living there, and Detroit has long captivated me with its veil of sublime paralysis over a thriving network of unique subcultures and a rich and industrious history. I believe that disenfranchised urban areas can be revived with time, investment, and justified creativity, and I would like to become a voice in that discussion.

I do intend, however, to design these buildings in full with architectural detailing over the course of the months to follow. This will concretize the visualization and plausibility of the prototypes as I pursue studies of additional probable locations.

The next area I aim to visit in this research is St. Louis, Missouri and the forested site of the former Pruitt-Igoe public housing projects - in writing a research paper about them in History of Contemporary Architecture, my interest was sparked in questioning what could happen next on sites like these with contested contexts. While my proposals cannot rewrite the sites’ histories, they can perhaps become a positive new chapter of development.

74

agricultural housing in chicago and detroit: phase i

Documents