THIS IS ME, THIS IS MY PLACE!RE-EXAMINING THE DESIGN OF PUBLIC HOUSING

TOM HILSEE

The woman in the picture, whose name I did not record, is show-ing to me her creations both on her person and amongst her home. We stand in the gateway, peering in to her realm. Her body and her home are the space in which she has physical and legal control to express her personality. It is here that she can persist in her being, and translate herself to others. The picture offers a glimpse into her realm, not a full description, but a sense that she is persisting.

Taken in the Port-fish-ington neighborhood in northern Philadelphia during the summer of 2013.

THIS IS ME, THIS IS MY PLACE!RE-EXAMINING THE DESIGN OF PUBLIC HOUSING

DEGREE PROJECT BY TOM HILSEE

MASSACHUSETTS COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN

UNDERGRADUATE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

2014-2015

The rational building type is being found more and more of-ten as innovations in building technology have allowed us to construct a well-functioning built environment. This ap-proach to design focuses on the practicalities at the expense of spirituality. This project explores the equal importance of both.

When rationalism manifests itself into the built form there is no greater ramification for the user than when it is done in the design of public housing— a dominant building type in the Dudley area of Roxbury, MA.

This project proposes to re-conceptualize the built environ-ment within public housing not only to allow, but to provide an inspiration for expression.

Expression is explored in subtle ways, by observing the in-nate desires that people already hold to express themselves and to echo that expression within their built environment.

By creating an invitation or feeling that a space is allowed to be modified into one’s own, and that the reward for do-ing so would be spiritually pleasing, the living environment is handed back over to the user to shout out his existence.

By designing with materials and building assemblies that can be easily modified and even encourage modification, because it is either clear what the piece is doing or its low enough in quality that one doesn’t feel like they are breaking a rule, the invitation can be made.

By designing with attention to light, views and inhabitable space, the possibilities for exultation become tangible. Just as a bare hill can be built upon at any point along it’s slopes— a blank slate, it still inspires and structures a potential build-ing. Because the hill has created the opportunity of dramatic views and interesting elevation changes, the hill can be oc-cupied in imaginative ways— ways that are impossible on the plains.

ABSTRACT

“Memories of the outside world will never have the same tonality as those of home and, by recalling these memories, we add to our store of dreams; we are never real historians, but always near poets, and our emotion is perhaps nothing but an expression of a piety that was lost. ... The places in which we have experienced daydreaming reconstitute them-selves in a new daydream, and it is because our memories of former dwelling-places are relived as daydreams that these dwelling-places of the past remain in us for all time.”

Gaston BachelardThe Poetics of Space

09 ABSTRACT

13 INTRODUCTION

21 THE DESIRE FOR EXPRESSION

49 SITE HISTORY & CONTEXT

75 DESIGN STRATEGY

83 DESIGN PROCESS

89 PROPOSED PLANS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

13

How can a space make the inhabitant dream of creating his own space?

13 million people in the United States received some sort of hous-ing assistance in 20111. This is 4% of the total population, but the amount of assistance has increased by 87 times the amount it was in 19642. However, the percentage of persons receiving as-sistance swells to 12% in cities such as Boston, New York, Phila-delphia, Atlanta, Chicago and Los Angeles. The percentage swells closer to 50% in certain city neighbourhoods such as Roxbury in Boston, the South Bronx in New York City and the Fifth Ward in Houston.3

The hellish living conditions that can be found in mass housing models from the 1950’s and 1960’s are typically born of the mod-

1 Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2011.2 Heritage Foundation, Index of Dependence on Government, 2013.3 Numbers from respective cities housing authorities.

ern Rationalism movement, which Friedensreich Hundertwasser and the Situationists argued was blocking genuine social progress by limiting the freedoms and expressions of the individual.4-5

One can actually find great freedom to alter the built environ-ment, a strong sense of community and a tangible identity with home in ad-hoc slums such as Kowloon in Hong Kong [see next page]. Informal environments, while a terrible precedent for liv-ing standards are extremely successful in reacting to the changing needs and desires of their inhabitants while behaving as a single large household.6

When I look at public housing today, which has evolved a great deal since it’s inception under the Federal Housing Authority in 1934 and from the type of crime infested images that became

4 Rand, Harry. Hundertwasser. 1991. 5 Sadler, Simon. The Situationist City. 1998.6 Lambert, Ian. Kowloon Walled City. 2007.

INTRODUCTION

14

hallmarks of a failed system, I still see that mass housing models still have a long way to go. As seen in the photo to the right, new housing models are not deviating very far from the rational-ist model, in effect.

This shift, to what generally falls under HOPE housing programs, was heavily influenced by New Urbanism ideals, with Oscar New-man’s 1972 book, Design Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space7, being front and center for the HOPE movements applica-tion into public housing reform.8 When reading Defensible Space, it becomes apparent however, that the main intent of Defensible Space is not to foster freedom. To give an idea of the flawed ap-proach Newman used, I’ll provide a quote by Jane Jacobs than summed up the counter mentality. “These are people whose housing needs are not in themselves peculiar and thus outside the ordinary province and capability of private enterprise... What is peculiar about these people is merely that they cannot pay for it.”9 Newman doesn’t seem to embrace this concept, and he in-

7 Newman, Oscar. Design Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space. 1972.8 Dept. Housing & Urban Development. Creating Defensible Space. 19969 Jacobs, Jane. Life and Death of Great American Cities. 1961.

Rooftop of apartment block in Kowloon City, Hong Kong, 1994.

Photo: Greg Girard, Kowloon Walled City, 2007.

15

“Little boxes on the hillside, little box-es all the same. There’s a green one and a pink one, and a blue one and a yellow one, and they’re all made out of ticky tacky, and they all look just the same.”

Malvina Reynolds, “Little Boxes”. 1962

Photo: Orchard Gardens housing development, Roxbury, Boston. 2014. The development was constructed with funds from the new HOPE program in 1999 in response to problems faced in “the projects”.

“Straight up shit is real and any day could be your last in the jungle. ... The corners is the hot spot, full of mad criminals who don’t care, guz-zlin beers, we all stare at the out-of-towners ... The streets is filled with undercovers, homicide chasin broth-ers. The D.A.’s on the roof, tryin to,

watch us and knock us. ... This goes out to everybody in New Yorkthat’s livin the real fuckin life. And every projects, all over.”

Nas, “Represent”. 1994.

Photo: Backside album, Illmatic, Nas, 1994.

“The Projects”

New Models

16

stead joined the long line of, as Jacobs would say, “utopians [find-ing] a statistical group to meddle around with.”

The Defensible Space theory, which was really the jumping-off point for reforming public housing because of the severe levels of crime and illegal activity occurring at the time, still saw the hous-ing needs of this inherently diverse set of people as something that could be addressed in broad strokes. Stewart Brand would say that the phrase “form follows function misleads architects into thinking they can predict function.”10

My reaction to the Defensible Space theories, and what was implemented into HOPE housing models, is that while focusing on making the spaces “defensible” and safe rather than focus-ing on providing a sense of ownership, control, and freedom, the reformed designs actually limit the full effectiveness of their in-tention— a thriving, self-administered community. Designing a space to be safe at the expense of being expressive will result in an unsafe space because no one will care about it. Incidentally both Newman and Jacobs would agree that if people care about

10 Brand, Steward. How Buildings Learn. 1994.

their space, they will make it safe.7 I think the problem is simply that the ball was dropped on making homes that had a true sense of ownership— a space that allowed the user to share in creating and defining the identity of the space.

On the campus of MIT the famous Building 20 was known as the ‘incubator of innovation’.11 A hastily built post and beam struc-ture with terrible lighting, poor ventilation, minimal insulation and narrow corridors— was admired deeply by all those who in-habited it.12 It was the ‘low road’ building of MIT— No one cared what you did there.9 A hodge-podge of disciplines took residence there because the ‘plywood palace’ would allow such adapta-tions as removing a floor to fit the experimental construction of the world’s first atomic clock.11

What Steward Brand discovered in his mini-study of the building was that people cared so much about freedom, control and own-ership, that they would give up space in the fancy buildings for the ratty spaces in Building 20.9

Building 20, in its lessened ‘architecture’, modest plan and hu-

11 Heywood, Nancy. Building 20. MIT Library Archives, 1998.12 A Last Loving Look at Building 20. RLE Undercurrents, Vol. 9, Num. 2, 1997.

17

Professor Emeritus Jerome Y. Lettvin, Profes-sor Emeritus Louis D. Smullin, and Visiting Sci-entist Gad Geiger in Professor Lettvin’s Build-ing 20 office.

Photo: RLE Undercurrents, Vol. 9, Num. 2, 1997. MIT Building 20 on Vassar Street Cambridge,

1945.

Photo: MIT Museum. Reprinted: RLE Under-currents, Vol. 9, Num. 2, 1997.

18

mility— didn’t narrowly prescribe its use or inhabitation. It left things for the user to decide, while offering subtle opportunities for inhabitation, such as the pocketed courtyards, outward-ex-tending wings and its overall horizontality. Also as a by-product of this lessened ‘architecting’, it presented the image to the user that this space had no limited definition about what the space was supposed to be, for whom it was meant to be or by whom it was created. This ambiguity left open the possibility for the user to assume control and “ownership”— the feeling that one didn’t have to ask to make a change, but actually felt inspired or invited to make a change. The key in all of this is that ownership was self-created, not handed down by designers— the opposite of HOPE housing.

With ownership comes expression. With expression comes iden-tity. With identity comes the ability to persist as an individual be-ing. Gaston Bachelard argues that the chief benefit of the home is to provide a nest for dreaming, a shelter for imagination— that the house protects the dreamer and allows him to dream in peace.13 That the beginning of all that we know begins within the home. And so if we allow Bachelard to strike a cord of relatability

13 Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Space. 1958.

within us and if we find his words true, then what a great injustice we have done by depriving 13 million people of a proper spiritual nest!

The house can be seen as the outer skin of the being, as Hundert-wasser has implored.4 The very identity of a person, the expres-sion of his creativity and of his being is manifested through that which he can physically control and alter.4 This is where a person can shout his existence! And so self-expression should not be a privilege left to be acquired solely through financial means.

Of course adequate control is a subjective analysis, as is spiritual gain. However, I believe that one can see quite clearly that the housing models in question are more restrictive than what can be found on the private market. And really this disparity is all that matters. In truth, the house becomes the front lines in the battle against poverty, oppression and subjection.5 Freedom must start with the human skin and work its way out.4 As it stands now, there are very few places, if truly any, that the financially oppressed can share in the freedoms available to the wealthy. Even in their homes, many of them, who would rely on housing subsidy, cannot even obtain freedom of expression there.

19

MY APARTMENT

Dotted with artwork, interests, gifts and memories. The wall is the limit of my control, and it is here that I describe myself. I secretly desire each visitor to my room to validate me, my travels and my intellectual aspirations by perusing and becom-ing enchanted with the collage of anecdotes protruding from my wall. This is my pride and I want everyone I know to see it, to appreciate it and thusly, to appreciate me.

Photo: Author, Chinatown, Boston, 2014. 450 square-foot apartment.

20

“Since he himself helped to shape and preserve his environment, he never seems to tire of it.”

Rudofsky, Bernard. Architecture Without Architects. 1964.

21

The documentation on the following pages will show that, even despite limiting environments, people still crave to express them-selves. That the desire for expression is innate.

Photographs and informal interviews were conducted over a period of four months through contacts established via a labor organization of service workers in the Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods of Boston and through door-to-door canvassing and on-street inquires. Outreach was also made to the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative which operates in the zone of the proposed site. All documentation was done with current resi-dents of public/subsidized housing developments in the Dudley Square, Madison Park, Mt. Pleasant, Orchard Gardens and Dudley Street neighborhoods of Roxbury.

These housing developments are some of the newest in the coun-try and adhering to the latest reforms in design, and yet, as the documentation shows, criticism is still abound.

THE DESIRE FOR EXPRESSION

A photographer in my home-town of Soud-erton, PA around the turn of the 20th century took portraits of town residents in the back-yards of their houses, beside the shacks, steps, outhouses and gardens that the people them-selves were responsible for constructing.

I found the photos in the back of a town his-tory book, which remarked, sarcastically and seemingly confused, that the people in the

photos seemed embarrassed, bemused and “downright sour”.

But really I think this photographer is saying: “No not the front of the house, that’s not you. You see that shed in the back? You made that! That’s you! Stand in front of that!”

Photo: Nyce, Jonas, circa 1900, Souderton, PA. Reprinted: Seeing Souderton, 1990.

22

HAWA & FAMILY

An extended family of ten is living in this five room apartment on the third floor of a subsidized three-decker building on Eustis street in Roxbury (near Hampden). The family consists of Hawa and her husband, her brother and his wife and children belonging to both couples, ranging from ages 23 to 4. They are from Kenya originally but have immigrated from Somalia three years ago.

Some of the tapestries (shown hanging on walls) have been brought along from Kenya, others purchased from Somali stores in Boston. The hanging of tapestries is a tradition in both Kenya and Somalia and by continuing this tra-dition here, they have kept some connection to their past and to the identity that has shaped them.

The center room has been reorganized to have traditional fabric couches, with no arm rests, along the edges and to keep the center for communal activities. (Kids playing, large group/visitor conversations, etc.)

23

24

25

26

MOTHER AND DAUGHTER

“Oh, my mother’s a real socialite! She does this sort of stuff all the time.” A subsidized apartment in Roxbury’s Orchard Gardens is home to an elderly woman who was not at home when we knocked on the door.

Her daughter, who was visiting, did answer the door and she gave us some in-sight into her mother. “She’s always having people over, loves to show off her decorations. I’m not into all that stuff, but good for her.”

27

28

DENNIS AND HIS WIFE, AND OCCASIONALLY THEIR DAUGHTER

A couple in their 60’s— living in a subsidized apartment in Orchard Gardens. The husband Dennis was more open to discussion. They had been living in Or-chard Park since 1978 before that development made way to Orchard Gardens in 2000. He claimed Orchard Park to be better, but couldn’t elaborate further. He likes the community in Orchard Gardens however, knows his neighbors and goes to the community meetings, which are well attended.

He grew up in Roxbury, on Humbolt ave and still has lines of family in the area and proudly documents them all on their most visible wall between the en-trance-way, living room and kitchen, as well as on top of the TV. The couple enjoys being the family anchor point, always bringing the grandchildren over and having cook-outs.

Their 47 year old daughter is living with them temporarily and because of this he says he doesn’t cling too closely with any one part of the house, since he is always having to move through all of it. The wife chimed in however, saying she enjoys sitting in the side yard, where there is no porch, because she enjoys how the sun hits there in warm weather. The interior of the house was much more decorated than the outside, and had a very cozy and warmly-lit aura.

29

30

31

32

SYED

Syed lives in one of these two-floor apartments along Shawmut street near Dudley Square. He has lived here for 15 years, after having been forced out of Brighton when rent-control was deregulated and the cost of his rent went up 75% in under two years. He enjoyed Brighton much more, when he had much more control The high crime of Dudley, which contributed to the low cost of the apartment, did not deter him from living in the area.

He valued the ability to walk to places, to work and to near-by stores above the perceptions and risks of being in a “high crime area”. He doesn’t mind to express himself in or outside his space very much, but he is growing in disdain for his neighbors that do not care for their property, and as he sees it, their building as a whole. “If you feel pride, you take care. These people don’t feel pride, they don’t feel responsible for their porch.”

Syed complained about the neighbors’ and the landlord’s lack of maintenance and the overall disregard for each other, such as being loud without care. He says the neighbors all know each other, but no one really spends time with each other. Syed’s greatest joy however, and one he talked about with much enthusiasm, was his walk to work downtown everyday.

33

34

ABREAH

Abreah is 19 years old and just moved out from living with her Mom in the apartment she grew up in in Dorchester. She’s working as a bus monitor while trying to get enrolled at UMass Dartmouth. She is temporarily living with her cousin in the Madison Park subsidized development in Roxbury. She was elated to be staying in the apartment, for the new found freedoms that come with it.

She’s in a new place, the first place where she has a level of independence, both from her mom (as is natural at 19) and from the crowded 14-apartment building she has known nothing other than.

She also commented on how great it was to have two floors for the first time. She hasn’t had time to make any of the spaces her own, at least though physi-cal manipulation, but she has developed an affinity with a particular part of the apartment. She spoke of how much she would look forward to coming home to the warm sofa by the front window on a cold day. “The heater lands right on top of it and I’ll just find myself passed out here for hours. I’ll have made plans with my friends they’ll call and be like ‘where were you?’ and I’ll have been just here the whole time.”

She expressed no remorse in having spent so much time there. To her, it was time well wasted. She also has enjoyed the privacy, the solitude, the space to move around.

35

36

DAYANA

Dayana lives in a remodeled apartment in the Madison Park development. She works as a waitress, 32 years old, and has three children. Her most pressing concern is to be able to move into a three bedroom apartment from their cur-rent two bedroom, in order to house her growing family.

She grew up with her mother, a house cleaner, in the Madison Park develop-ment, and has remained here all her life. Her apartment is not multilevel, and she would very much enjoy having that aspect in a new apartment, but is not counting on it.

Energetic and eager to talk, she showed us around the home, even if not point-ing out anything in particular. She did however begin to personalize the space, painting the interior walls— to the chagrin of the management, who came and painted them over, unprofessionally as she points out.

Despite having lived a two minute walk from Dudley square all her life, she does not associate her living location as being connected to the square and associates more with Madison Park. She expressed indifference as to what was occurring recently in Dudley Square, in terms of the new developments.

When I asked her if she would like to plant gardens out front, she answered emphatically, “I would love to do that!” She elaborated then on stories and ideas, but I wasn’t able to write them all down.

37

38

39

40

GEORGINA

Georgina is currently the longest resident of the Madison Park development, or complex as she refers to it. There since 1977, her apartment is slated to be one of the next to be remodelled. Her apartment type is the same type that Abreah is currently staying in and will be transformed into the style that Dayana is living in. They have actually already redone the inside, and will do the outside this coming Spring. She held no reservations for this, but also no expectations. On the level of cooperation she had in this process she said that she was asked of her opinion, but is generally ok with them doing “what they have to do”.

She was moved temporarily to another vacant apartment during the remodel-ling of the interior, which she also didn’t mind. One of the changes she has made and is most proud about, is the occupation of her back yard.

The gate, she said, was a controversial issue at first with the developers, but they eventually didn’t mind. The gate was put up with the practical purpose of preventing people from cutting through her yard. The gate, the shrubs and the back fence have combined to create a strong sense of enclosure in which she has filled with a personal path and patio, a couple of tables, ornaments and play sets.

She takes pride in being the community anchor and arranging get-togethers in her backyard. Although, she hasn’t touched her corner front yard.

41

42

43

44

A FAMILY

A mother, father, daughter and son compromise a family living in the Orchard Gardens development. They all immigrated from the Dominican Republic 10 years ago.

I spoke briefly with the daughter, who was about 22 and was seeking employ-ment, as she was the only one, other than her brother, that was able to speak English. She expressed a lot of indifference to the neighborhood, to Dudley Square, to Roxbury, to Orchard Gardens or to their apartment. “It is what it is”, she said. This perhaps comes from not having spent enough time to develop an opinion or from being simply grateful of what it is they have. I wouldn’t call this apathy with a negative connotation, but more of a documentation that the feeling that one’s opinion isn’t paramount is a reality of living public housing.

However, I asked her if they were allowed to paint the house. She replied they were not allowed to. (As seen in the photo, the houses are already painted in alternating colors, in an attempt to replicate the New England tradition of differently colored clapbards lining a neighborhood street. But what the de-signers failed to recognize is that the New England tradition was a direct result of people painting their houses on their own accord.) I then asked her if she would like to paint the siding, if she was allowed. To which she responded as if surprised of the possibility, “Yeah, I would love to!”

45

46

JACOB

I spoke with Jacob at a Christmas dinner party put on by the Eastern Service Workers Association in Roxbury. Jacob was recently injured on a job site and was unable to work for the past six months. He was recovering now and felt able to work but was unable to because the contractors in the area were making it hard for him to find a job in Boston because he had recently, and successfully, sued a contractor, and won, over a job-site injury.

He lives in a non-public housing, market-rate apartment on the border of Roxbury and Dorchester. He wanted nothing more than to use his hands and start working again. He loved going to the different job sites and doing the different trades that the labor union represents. I asked him if he did any work on his apartment, his place, to compensate for this lack of creation he’s currently enduring. He said he had considered it many times and would love to do so, but the lack of ownership of his apartment— legally, financially and in the personal sense of ownership, prevented him from doing so.

“What return would I get out of it, [besides that of satisfaction]?” He wondered rhetori-cally. It would be a financial burden that he could not undertake, and one that he would reap no financial benefit from. Even if the landlord was to allow it, he would still be the one left high-and-dry because any change he would make would increase the property value and he could end up priced out. Even small changes he felt tentative to make, as it seems with most people, because it almost feels as if someone is watching over his shoulder. Like the feeling that you are intruding on something that belongs to someone else— even if the feeling is intangible and unbeknownst to you.

47

48

49

The town of Roxbury was the original mainland connection for historic Boston, via “The Neck”, before the Back Bay and the South Cove were filled in. Wealthy Bostonians built country estates on the hilltops of Roxbury and North Dorchester, filling the land-scape with Victorian houses.1 The town grew as a “street-trolley suburb” of Boston once more land was filled in and more connec-tions to Boston were made possible.2 This period, between 1870 and 1900, saw the largest growth of Roxbury, as the working class from the more inner city areas were able to extend outwards.2

Roxbury was annexed by Boston in 1868.2 Dudley Square and Up-hams Corner grew as transit and merchant hubs for their role as entrances to the city.2 In the late 19th century and into the be-ginning of the 20th century, the population in Roxbury was domi-nated by Irish Catholic, most of whom being recent immigrants.1

1 Medoff, Peter. Skylar, Holly. Streets of Hope: The Rise and Fall of an Urban Neighborhood. 1999.2 Warner, Sam. Streetcar Suburbs: The Process of Growth in Boston, 1870-1900. 1978.

The community founded St. Patrick’s Church at Dudley Street and Blue Hill Avenue, which still stands today.1 Roxbury became the center for the African American community in Boston during the “Great Migration” between 1910 and 1970— supplanting the West End and the north slope of Beacon Hill as African Americans enclaves.13 (The former of which was completely demolished in favor of high-rise, high-rent apartment buildings during the “Ur-ban Renewal” of the 1950’s and 1960’s.)

In the first half of the 20th century Roxbury was a bustling town full of street-trolleys, small businesses, walkable streets and tight-knit communities.2 After World War II suburban developments were promoted through public and private investments by the way of highway infrastructure and Federal Housing Authority (FHA) backed loan programs for new construction, almost all of which was in suburbia.1 The “G.I. Bill” of 1944 provided veterans

3 Oliver, James. Horton, Lois E. Black Boston: The North Slope of Beacon Hill. 1999.

SITE— ROXBURY, MA (DUDLEY STREET NEIGHBORHOOD)

50

Roxbury and it’s con-nections to the rest of Boston— Dudley Street Neighborhood highlighted.

Author. Places and Paths. 2014-2015.

51

mortage guarantees, again, almost all of which were in suburbs, where mass industry had slowly relocated to in order to pay lower taxes.1 Both public and private entities within the real estate industry promoted racial segregation as a key to sustaining stable neighborhoods.4 During the 1930’s the FHA advised and some-times even required banks and developers to limit racial mixing. In a 1933 report the FHA ranked ethnicities by their effect on property value, ranking “Negroes” and “Mexicans” as the most detrimental.4

“Between 1946 and 1959, less than 2 percent of all the housing financed with the assistance of federal mortgage insurance was made available to blacks” writes political scientist Dennis Judd. Roxbury, a predominantly black neighborhood, was almost com-pletely drained of its white population and external investment.1 It instead became a place where blacks had no other choice but to move to because of the extent that they were excluded from the economic growth of the rest of America.5 In the wake of “White Flight,” Roxbury was left in economic ruin— empty stores, houses and factories, shut-down rail-lines and decaying streets. This ruin

4 Judd, Dennis. Segregation Forever? 1991.

was falsely blamed on the newly arrived people of color, and the problems of Roxbury were labeled as their own— instead of a result of systemic disinvestment.5

The black population made up 5% of Roxbury’s population in 1950— by 1970 it was 53%.1 The Latino and Cape Verdean popu-lation in Roxbury also grew, most of the former coming directly from Puerto Rico— other Latinos coming mostly from the Domin-ican Republic, Haiti and Honduras.1 In total, the Latino population makes up 30% of the Dudley area. The Cape Verdean community has supplanted the Irish and Italian populations in St. Patrick’s Parish (located beside proposed building site), which has become the center of the Cape Verdean community in New England. 1

It was during the period of dis-investment and “ghettoization”, that Roxbury began to burn. Gentrification fears during the 60’s, 70’s and into the 80’s— stemming from the recently gentrified South End and other Urban Renewal projects by the Boston Re-development Authority that saw massive uprooting of long time

5 King, Mel. Chain of Change: Struggles for Black Community Development. 1981.

52

residents of lower incomes, began to rumble towards Roxbury.1-6 Land owners in Roxbury were being pulled in two opposite direc-tions, and this tension lead to mass arson. The housing value of Roxbury was dramatically decreasing while speculation about new developments was increasing. A 1985 report by the City of Bos-ton Arson Prevention Commission observed that when the value of property in an area is increasing in relation to the incomes of residents, a fire becomes a financial benefit to the landowner be-cause: “1) it drives out low-income residents without the cost of waiting for attrition and without the potential political resistance to mass evictions, 2) it does the work of gutting the building for rehabilitation, 3) insurance provides tax-free, interest-free financ-ing for the rehabilitation of the structure.”

The Highland Park neighborhood and the Dudley Street neighbor-hood were among the hardest hit, with entire city blocks being wiped out.7 In the wake of the burning, the neighborhood be-came even more ignored by the city, businesses and investors.7

6 Rogovin, Janice. Sense of Place: Jamaica Plain People and Where They Live. 1981. 7 Lipman, Mark. Mahan, Leah. Holding Ground: The Rebirth of Dudley Street. 1996.

The vacant lots became dumping grounds and drug spots. Trash-companies started to use the lots as illegal trash-transfer stations.7

It was as a reaction to the dumping that neighborhood groups, the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) especially, start-ed to form as an advocate for the rights of low-wealth, low-power neighborhoods.1-7 They sought to regain control of the land and put it to use in a way that benefited the neighborhood— in serv-ing the needs of the residents— not the desires of speculators. What they realized, fought for, and eventually came to gain, was that the neighborhood needed affordable and sustainable hous-ing that was controlled and directed by those that lived within.1-7 DSNI formed a land trust and gained an unprecedented ability to purchase vacant lots in their “core area” under the powers of eminent domain.1-7 With this power they were able to transform an area left to burn as the beginnings of a new neighborhood within the community of Roxbury.

However, the Dudley neighborhood and Roxbury as a whole still suffer from a de-densified fabric, a dis-invested economy and a struggling demographic. 46% of Roxbury residents rely on sub-

53

Top Two Photos: Dudley Street Neighborhood circa 1985.Left: Same scene, occupied by DSNI Land Trust, 2012.

Screen-shots, Gaining Ground: Building Commu-nity on Dudley Street, 2012.

54

sidized housing.8 62% of residents pay more than 30% of their monthly income on rent9 and the per capita income is just $17,000 a year. 80% of those below the poverty line have children under the age of 18.8 77% of the overall population are renters9 and 42% have lived at their current address for less than 3 years.9 The need for affordable housing is drastic— as demonstrated by the 80 person application for just one of DSNI land trust’s affordable houses.10

As documented under the previous chapter, the amount of con-trol in the rapidly expanding public housing developments in the Dudley area, such as Madison Park, Orchard Gardens and Warren Gardens are very limiting in control and expression. As depend-ence persists, so too will control.

8 Boston Redevelopment Authority. American Community Survey: Roxbury. 2005-2009.9 Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. Portraits of the Dudley Village Cam-pus. 2014.10 Lipman, Mark. Mahan, Leah. Gaining Ground: Building Community on Dudley Street. 2012.

Difficulty Covering Monthly Expenses9

Dudley

MA

US

Spending More than 30% of Income on Rent9

Dudley

Boston

US

55

Figure Ground, Dudley Street Neighborhood.

Footprints attained from Boston Redevelop-ment Authority via the Leventhal Map Collec-tion at the Boston Public Library.

1965 1975 2015

Dudley Street Triangle highlighted, showing the effects of burning and consequent rebuild-ing. (Pictured page 53)

Proposed building site. Showing vacant lots spreading from the inner triangle to the street edges and central square area.

The proposed building is then conceived to be a part of the rebuilding process begun by DSNI.

56

Looking at Roxbury [right], we can see just how diverse the area is, and thusly how individual each persons wants and needs must be. As it is the intention of this project to allow that individuality and diversity to be expressed in the built environment, a quote by N.J. Habraken has been inserted. He speaks of how the very nature of “mass housing” requires the destruction of the individual and that, thusly, mass housing should not be approached with design-en-mass mentality, but to simply approach mass housing as hous-ing— a building type that procures individuality.

This is a transition into the discussion of a design approach for this project, where the building site will be conceived as a collection of separately designed housing, or interpretive spaces, that are simply publicly funded.

Roxbury becomes as vital as any place in acquiring this level of in-dividuality— due to the large disparity between it’s diversity and it’s level of allowed expression.

“Mass housing is possible only if the individual inhabitant is not consulted about the manner in which his dwelling is realized. The influence which the individual, the layman, can bring to bear upon the process must be eliminated to make mass housing possible.”

“It cannot be denied that in thinking of the user we are dealing with an actual force in the total process, for if this were not so there would be no reason to fear his involvement as a disturbing and intractable influence.”

“To those who cannot separate the notions of mass housing and housing the introduction of the user in the process is the begin-ning of chaos.”

Habraken, N.J. Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing. 1962.

57

Foreign Born

10-20% Dominican Republic 5-7% Haiti5-7% Cape Verde2-3% Brazil2-3% El Salvador2-3% Vietnam

Racial Diversity

40-70% African-American15-40% Hispanic10-20% Caucasian2-10% Asian

Language

SpanishFrench CreolePortuguese

Bostonography, U.S. Census Bureau. 2014.