Housing Design Education

Transcription

1 Housing Design Education Baltimore Housing Studio: Restorative Learning Community 2706 Baltimore City is experiencing a persistent housing crisis, symptomatic of most shrinking cities, with affordable housing shortage and widespread vacancy and in the city s poorest and racially segregated communities. Meanwhile, luxury housing development in the central business and waterfront districts is booming but remains generally inaccessible to working and middle class families. For the students at a minority serving, public research institution, housing equates to the lifeblood of a community. When introduced early in the architecture curriculum, it offers aspiring architects a fertile ground for reconstructing knowledge about place, identity and opportunity. It also provides a robust framework for empowering students with limited knowledge of the architecture field to engage public agencies and community constituents in vigorous discussions about restorative housing futures. city of row houses, designed for the now obsolete urban working class of the last two centuries, Baltimore is facing the challenge of adapting and reinterpreting this practical invention in order to address the multifaceted socio-economic needs of its residents. This Undergraduate Baltimore Housing Studio offers students a transition from fundamental design coursework to upper-level, socially engaged curriculum that challenges the traditional low-rise housing context of Baltimore neighborhoods. Row house prototypes are hybridized with higher density types through tactics that seek to enhance both the spatial utilization of site and the quality of life for the residents. Ranging from speculative and hypothetical to sitespecific proposals, design activities challenge students to develop a critical position on the subject and engage in a collaborative design process while continuing to develop basic spatial and design communication competences. The studio serves as an annual platform for engagement between young designers, professionals, city officials and community organizations by investigating typological, financial and ethical aspects of urban housing.

2 Baltimore Housing Studio Restorative Learning Community Baltimore City is experiencing a persistent housing crisis, symptomatic of most shrinking cities, with affordable housing shortage and widespread vacancy and in the city s poorest and racially segregated communities. Meanwhile, luxury housing development in the central business and waterfront districts is booming but remains generally inaccessible to working and middle class families. For the students at a minority serving, public research institution, housing equates to the lifeblood of a community. When introduced early in the architecture curriculum, it offers aspiring architects a fertile ground for reconstructing knowledge about place, identity and opportunity. It also provides a robust framework for empowering students with limited knowledge of the architecture field to engage public agencies and community constituents in vigorous discussions about restorative housing futures. city of row houses, designed for the now obsolete urban working class of the last two centuries, Baltimore is facing the challenge of adapting and reinterpreting this practical invention in order to address the multifaceted socio-economic needs of its residents. This Undergraduate Baltimore Housing Studio offers students a transition from fundamental design coursework to upper-level, socially engaged curriculum that challenges the traditional lowrise housing context of Baltimore neighborhoods. Row house prototypes are hybridized with higher density types through tactics that seek to enhance both the spatial utilization of site and the quality of life for the residents. Ranging from speculative and hypothetical to site-specific proposals, design activities challenge students to develop a critical position on the subject and engage in a collaborative design process while continuing to develop basic spatial and design communication competences. The studio serves as an annual platform for engagement between young designers, professionals, city officials and community organizations by investigating typological, financial and ethical aspects of urban housing.

3 House & Home Design process begins with exploring the duality of House and Home using students intimate experiences and speculative investigation of spatial assemblage and aggregation resulting in visions of housing futures on various scales. The design method involves interpreting the house as an assemblage of living spaces that is modified through the of use spatial operations based on themes from a fourteen-verse sonnet composed to express one s perception of home. Students work in triptychs to study the physical and emotional implications of a familiar domestic space and conceptualize the potential for unit aggregation using iterative geometric transformations. 7 triptychs: house (), home (2), assemblage (&), aggregation (&6), actualities (7) human perception and experience informs physical and phenomenological spatial possibilities systematic aggregation of units provides a method of control and differentiation for emerging forms and spaces

4 Push + Break Morgan State University - School of rchitecture and Planning - BSED RCH 0 - FLL 20 - NDREW NGURE PRODUCED BY N UTODESK EDUCTIONL PRODUCT PRODUCED BY N UTODESK EDUCTIONL PRODUCT PRODUCED BY N UTODESK EDUCTIONL PRODUCT PRODUCED BY N UTODESK EDUCTIONL PRODUCT PRODUCED BY N UTODESK EDUCTIONL PRODUCT PRODUCED BY N UTODESK EDUCTIONL PRODUCT PRODUCED BY N UTODESK EDUCTIONL PRODUCT BLOT + MERGE EXPLOSION + ROTTION MERGE + SHIFT + EXTEND 8 Morgan State University - School of rchitecture and Planning - BSED RCH 0 - FLL 20 - NDREW NGURE 0 Morgan State University - School of rchitecture and Planning - BSED RCH 0 - FLL 20 - NDREW NGURE PRODUCED BY N UTODESK EDUCTIONL PRODUCT PRODUCED BY N UTODESK EDUCTIONL PRODUCT 2 Morgan State University - School of rchitecture and Planning - BSED RCH 0 - FLL 20 - NDREW NGURE PRODUCED BY N UTODESK EDUCTIONL PRODUCT MIRROR + VERTICL TRNSLTION TRNSLTION + ROTTION INTUITIVE TRNSLTION + INVERSION Morgan State University - School of rchitecture and Planning - BSED RCH 0 - FLL 20 - NDREW NGURE 6 Morgan State University - School of rchitecture and Planning - BSED RCH 0 - FLL 20 - NDREW NGURE Detach + Stack Push + Pull Rotation + Translation Rotation + Rotation Rotation + Translation

5 6' 8' 6' ttached Building lley + Open Space 96' Maximum Volume Street + Sidewalk 96' Street + Sidewalk 6' 672 SF 28' 6' 8',008 SF 0' 2' 96' partment Units 8' 6' 6' 96' 2,00 SF Rowhouse Units hypothetical project site with potential row house and apartment aggregation Density & Diversity Prototypical row houses and apartments for a hypothetical site offer comparative study of unit density and diversity. Students begin by assembling living spaces of a generic functional program into a basic row house and apply spatial operations to develop a second prototype that accommodates a specific user type (family, live/work couple, etc.) The two prototypes are aggregated into a row of 6 houses and analyzed alongside the design of an 8-unit low-rise apartment building for the same site.

6 TOTYPE SSEMBLGE ROWHOUSE PROTOTYPE SSEMBLGE ROWHOUSE PROTOTYPE ROWHOUSE 2 SSEMBLGE PROTOTYPE 2 SSEMBLGE UNIT GGREGTION ROWHOUSE PROTOTYPE SSEMBLGE ROWHOUSE PROTOTYPE 2 SSEMBLGE UNIT GGREGTION ROWHOUSE ROWHOUSE PROTOTYPE PROTOTYPE SSEMBLGE SSEMBLGE ROWHOUSE ROWHOUSE PROTOTYPE Rooftop PROTOTYPE Deck 2 SSEMBLGE 2 SSEMBLGE UNIT GGREGTION UNIT GGREGTION Bedroom LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL Bedroom 2 LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL Bedroom Bedroom 2 Down Bedroom 2 Bedroom Bedroom 2 Down Bathroom 2 Down Office LEVEL LEVEL Bedroom Bedroom Play rea Bedroom 2 Bedroom 2 LEVEL LEVEL Bedroom Office Bedroom Bathroom 2 Office Bedroom 2 Bedroom 2 Play rea Play rea Bathroom 2 Down Bathroom 2 Bathroom 2 Living Room LEVEL Down Office Office Master Bedroom Master Bedroom LEVEL LEVEL Bedroom Bedroom Bathroom 2 Play rea Play rea Living Room Bathroom 2 Bathroom 2Bedroom 2 LEVEL Bathroom 2 Bedroom 2 Master Bedroom Master Bedroom LEVEL LEVEL Balcony Up Master Living Bedroom Room Living Room Living Room Bathroom Up Up Up LEVEL 2 Up Kitchen Bathroom Up Up LEVEL LEVEL Bathroom Master Bedroom Master Bedroom Bathroom Bathroom LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2 Living Room Living Room Living Room Master Bedroom Bathroom Balcony Master Bedroom Master Bedroom Bathroom Living Room Balcony Balcony LEVEL 2 Bathroom LEVEL 2 Bathroom Bathroom Parking/Open Space LEVEL 2 Mud Room/ Kitchen Laundry Room LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2 Balcony Parking/Open Space Kitchen Garage Dining Room Kitchen Mud Room/ Laundry Room Kitchen Up Dining Room Dining Room Garage Powder Room Up Powder Room Kitchen Kitchen Up Garage Garage Garage LEVEL LEVEL Dining Room Kitchen Dining Room Powder Room Parking/Open Space Dining Room Mud Room/ Powder Room Laundry Room Mud Room/ Mud Room/ Kitchen Kitchen Laundry Room Laundry Room Dining Room Parking/Open Space Parking/Open Space LEVEL LEVEL om Dining Room Dining Room Powder Room Powder Room Powder Room Powder Room Powder Room LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL l GRM Private Private Private Private Stairwell/Lightwell Stairwell/Lightwell Stairwell/Lightwell LONGITUDINL SECTION Stairwell/Lightwell ORGNIZTION DIGRM ORGNIZTION ORGNIZTION DIGRM DIGRM ROWHOUSES ROWHOUSES CIRCULTION DIGRM ORGNIZTION DIGRM PROTOTYPE PROTOTYPE PROTOTYPE PROTOTYPE 2 2 unit # / density: 2 rowhouses /. units per acre rowhouses / 28.6 units per acre unit type: user unit type: type: -bedroom, general -bedroom, 2. bathroom 2. bathroom rowhouse rowhouse -bedroom, family -bedroom, 2. bathroom with children 2. bathroom rowhouse rowhouse unit size: design unit size:,90 features: SF (exculding open,90 living SF (exculding garage/carport) space, office, garage/carport) 2,070 SF (exculding spacious 2,070 SF (exculding family garage/carport) room, garage/carport) playroom,rooftop garden LONGITUDINL SECTION LONGITUDINL SECTION LONGITUDINL SECTION LONGITUDINL LONGITUDINL SECTION SECTION CIRCULTION DIGRM CIRCULTION DIGRM Private CIRCULTION CIRCULTION DIGRM DIGRM Private Stairwell/Lightwell PROTOTYPE PROTOTYPE 2 ORGNIZTION DIGRM unit type: -bedroom, 2. bathroom rowhouse -bedroom, 2. bathroom rowhouse unit size:,90 SF (exculding garage/carport) 2,070 SF (exculding garage/carport) Private Private Stairwell/Lightwell Private Stairwell/Lightwell Stairwell/Lightwell Stairwell/Lightwell LONGITUDINL SECTION LONGITUDINL LONGITUDINL SECTION SECTION LONGITUDINL SECTION ORGNIZTION DIGRM CIRCULTION DIGRM ORGNIZTION DIGRM CIRCULTION DIGRM ORGNIZTION ORGNIZTION DIGRM DIGRM CIRCULTION CIRCULTION DIGRM DIGRM HOUSING TYPOLOGY: HOUSING DENSITY TYPOLOGY: VS CIRCULTION DIGRM DENSITY DIVERSITY VS VS N ITERTIVE, INFORML DESIGN METHODOLOGY 6' 8' 8' 8' Maximum Volume 6' 6' ttached Building Prototype 2 Maximum Volume Maximum Volume ttached Building lley lley Street ttached Building Prototype 2 Prototype 2 Prototype Prototype 2 Prototype 2 Prototype Prototype 2 Prototype 2 Prototype Prototype 2 Prototype 2 Prototype Prototype 2 Prototype VLLEY CCESS DIGRM GGREGTION DIGRM BUILDING USGE DIGRM Vehicular ccess lley Pedestrian ccess Vehicular ccess Vehicular ccess lley Pedestrian ccess lley Pedestrian ccess Vehicular ccess lley Pedestrian ccess Parking VLLEY CCESS VLLEY DIGRM CCESS DIGRM GGREGTION GGREGTION DIGRM DIGRM BUILDING BUILDING USGE DIGRM USGE DIGRM GGREGTION DIGRM lley eet GGREGTION DIGRM unit type: unit size: VLLEY CCESS DIGRM unit # / density: 8 apartments / 28.6 units per acre unit type: unit type: variety: () -bedroom, loft, () loft -bedroom, (6) w 2-bedroom, street (6) access, 2-bedroom, (8) apartment -bedroom (8) -bedroom w balcony unit size: unit design size: features: interior,00 common SF, 800,00 space, SF, SF, 600 open 800 SFSF, courtyard 600 SF unit # / density: unit # / density: 8 apartments 8 apartments / 28.6 units / 28.6 per acre units per acre Parking Vehicular ccess lley Pedestrian ccess VLLEY CCESS DIGRM Parking Parking Parking BUILDING USGE DIGRM three-bedroom row house prototype and family variation prototype 2 with potential site aggregation () -bedroom, (6) 2-bedroom, (8) -bedroom BUILDING USGE DIGRM,00 SF, 800 SF, 600 SF

7 Prototype 2 Prototype 2 Prototype Prototype Parking Parking ORGNIZTION DIGRM ROWHOUSES ROWHOUSES CIRCULTION DIGRM PROTOTYPE PROTOTYPE 2 unit type: -bedroom, 2. bathroom rowhouse -bedroom, 2. bathroom rowhouse PROTOTYPE PROTOTYPE 2 unit size:,90 SF (exculding garage/carport) 2,070 SF (exculding garage/carport) unit # type: / density: 2-bedroom, rowhouses 2. /. bathroom units per rowhouse acre -bedroom, rowhouses 2. / 28.6 bathroom units per rowhouse acre user unit size: type: general,90 SF (exculding garage/carport) family 2,070 SF with (exculding children garage/carport) design unit # / features: density: open 2 rowhouses living space, /. office, units per garage acre spacious rowhouses family / 28.6 room, units playroom per acre,rooftop garden user type: general family with children design features: open living space, office, garage spacious family room, playroom,rooftop garden ORGNIZTION DIGRM CIRCULTION DIGRM HOUSING TYPOLOGY: DENSITY HOUSING VS TYPOLOGY: DIVERSITY DENSITY VS N ITERTIVE, INFORML DESIGN METHODOLOGY DIVERSITY N ITERTIVE, INFORML DESIGN METHODOLOGY NBR OREIZI-ESFHNI HOUSING STUDIO PROFESSOR ILIEV NBR OREIZI-ESFHNI HOUSING STUDIO PROFESSOR ILIEV 8' 8' 6' 6' 96' 96' Maximum Volume Maximum Volume ttached Building ttached Building Street Street lley lley GGREGTION DIGRM BUILDING USGE DIGRM GGREGTION DIGRM BUILDING USGE DIGRM unit type: () -bedroom, (6) 2-bedroom, (8) -bedroom unit size:,00 SF, 800 SF, 600 SF unit # type: / density: () -bedroom, 8 apartments (6) 2-bedroom, / 28.6 (8) units -bedroom per acre unit variety: size: loft, loft w street access,,00 apartment SF, 800 SF, w balcony 600 SF Street Street design unit # / features: density: interior 8 apartments common space, / 28.6 open units courtyard per acre loft, loft w street access, apartment w balcony interior common space, open courtyard PRTMENTS PRTMENTS unit variety: design features: Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Support Core Support Core Support Core Living Room Living Room Living Room GGREGTON DIGRM Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Vertical Vertical CIRCULTION DIGRM GGREGTON DIGRM GGREGTON DIGRM CIRCULTION DIGRM CIRCULTION DIGRM UNIT DIGRMS UNIT DIGRMS UNIT DIGRMS Private Open Spaces Private Open Spaces Private Open Spaces Garage Common Interior Space Garage Common Interior Space Garage Common Interior Space BUILDING USGE DIGRM BUILDING USGE DIGRM BUILDING USGE DIGRM TYPOLOGY DIGRM TYPOLOGY DIGRM TYPOLOGY DIGRM lley lley LONGITUDINL SECTION LONGITUDINL SECTION TRNSVERSE SECTION TRNSVERSE SECTION TRNSVERSE CORE SECTION TRNSVERSE CORE SECTION GGREGTION ITERTION PROCESS GGREGTION ITERTION PROCESS Street Street LEVEL LEVEL 2 LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL UNIT GGREGTION 8-unit apartment aggregation with parking, interior and exterior common space

8 comparative study of row house and apartment building types row houses rely on efficient vertical circulation and narrow space utilization but maintain high degree of privacy and spatial autonomy apartment building configuration is predicated by horizontal and vertical access and spatial modularity with a variety of shared spaces and resources

9 alternative pedestrian & open space networks PRK live/work commercial corridor SHOPS, RESTURNTS, OFFICE ELEMENTRY SCHOOL 2 2 SHOPS, RESTURNTS, OFFICES STREET Urban Housing Blocks BOULEVRD Students combine row houses and apartments from Density & Diversity study in small groups and compose a complete urban housing block that responds to the specific urban conditions of a hypothetical neighborhood. Exterior facades and outdoor spaces are adapted to corresponding site orientation and adjacencies and coordinated among all groups in order to present a coherent proposal for an urban housing community. BOULEVRD STREET STREET ELEMENTRY SCHOOL 2 blocks, 2 boulevards, a park, a school and a store amidst local and collector street STREET

10 collaborative groups assemble individual block strategies into a coordinated approach for the neighborhood

11 HOUSING TYPOLOGY: DENSITY VS DIVERSITY Building Type N ITERTIVE, INFORML DESIGN METHODOLOGY KILH FORBES-PYLOR, MORGN COBBS, LIN GENTLES total # units per b unit # / density: total # apartment apartment type: total # rowhouses design features: CITY SITE VICINITY MP GRO view from the park Park Front ccess lly ccess Building ggregation (West) ccess lly ccess SITE DIGRMS Building ggregation (West) ccess Building Type HOUSING TYPOLOGY: Building ggregation (East) DENSITY VS DIVERSITY total # units per block: unit # / density: 9 (6) -bedroom, (2) 2-bedroom, (0) -bedroom total # rowhouses: 6 N ITERTIVE, INFORML design features: pocket park, park views, green spaces etc. DESIGN METHODOLOGY Front ccess BUILDING GGREGTION (EST) BUILDING GGREGTION (WEST) BUILDING SSEMBLGE KILH FORBES-PYLOR, MORGN COBBS, LIN GENTLES CCESS lly ccess Building ggregation (West) Building Type CITY BLOCK 9 FRONT CCESS BLOCK 9: PRKFRONT residences adjacent to large public spaces have the ability to extend the landscape beyond existing boundaries by integrating shared green space in SITE PROFORM SHEE adjacent surfaces PRK 2 units per acre total # apartments: Low Riseapartment partment type: Front ccess SCHOOL ELEMENTRY ccess OFFICES lly ccess Building Type SHOPS,RESTURNTS, Front ccess GREEN SPCES RCH 0: HOUSING STUDIO PRTMENTS Building ggregation (East) GROUNDROWHOMES LEVEL SITE PLN ( =0 ) ccess CCESS SITE VICINITYLLYMP ROWHOUSE PROFORM LND COST SITE RE (SF) Park Front ccess HIGH USGE lly ccess Building Type PROJECT RE (SF) ROWHOUSES - PREMIUM ROWHOUSES - STNDRD Building ggregation (West) ccess PRK LOW USGE SLES ROWHOUSES - PREMIUM ROWHOUSES - STNDRD MRKETING / SLES COMMISSION TOTL REVENUE view from the park TOTL DEVELOPMENT COSTS VEHICULR / NOISE CIRCULTION HRD COST CONSTRUCTION - PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION - STNDRD SOFT COST PROFESSIONL FEES FINNCING DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES Building ggregation (East) 8,0 # UNITS 8 8 PER SF PROFIT Front ccess ccess OFFICES Building Type SHOPS,RESTURNTS, Building ggregation (West) lly ccess PRTMENT PROFORM LND COST Building ggregation (East) SITE RE (SF) PROJECT RE (SF) BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM BEDROOM HLLWYS + INTERIOR COMMON SPCES PRKING + DECKS + PTIOS DIGRMS Building Type Front ccess lly ccess Building ggregation (West) SCHOOL ELEMENTRY PRK Building ggregation (East) VIEWS (WEST) FRONT VIEWS BCK VIEWS HRD COST CONSTRUCTION - UNITS CONSTRUCTION - HLLWYS + INT. COMMON CONSTRUCTION - PRKING / DECKS / PTIOS SOFT COST PROFESSIONL FEES 8,0 # UNITS ,00 2,00

12 SITE VICINITY MP PRK SHOPS, RESTURNTS, OFFICE 8 8 ELEMENTRY SCHOOL SITE ERIL NOISE/CONNECTON XIS PEDESTRIN VEHICULR CIRCULTION BLOCK : CORNER PLZ lifting select portions of residential space above street level allows for public space to permeate the urban block and connect to other informal pedestrian networks GGREGTION/TYPOLOGY

13 SITE VICINITY MP -Work/Commerical Translate Multi-Family Housing RCH 0: HOUSING STUDIO SITE NO: 8 Residential Rowhouses ROWHOUSE PROFORM BLOCK 8: INNERSPCE transitions in functional program intensity and unit density (live/work, multifamily, single family) help mediate contrasting urban edges (boulevard vs. school) BUILDING TYPOLOGY/GGREGTION MIN XIS LND COST 0,02,000,02,000 SITE NO: 8 RCH 0: HOUSING STUDIO SITE RE (SF) 20,80 SUBTOTL TOTL PROJECT ROWHOUSE RE (SF) PROFORM # UNITS SF PER UNIT,200 ROWHOUSES - PREMIUM 0 2,00 2,000 ROWHOUSES - STNDRD 8 2,00 9,200 LND COST 0,02,000,02,000 HRD COST COST PER SF,66,000 SITE RE (SF) TOTL 20,80 SUBTOTL CONSTRUCTION,60,000 - PREMIUM ,0,000 CONSTRUCTION - STNDRD PROJECT RE (SF) # UNITS SF PER UNIT,200 ROWHOUSES - PREMIUM 0 2,00 2,000 SOFT COST,89,0 ROWHOUSES - STNDRD 8 2,00 9,200 PROFESSIONL FEES 8%,20 FINNCING 0% 66,00 DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES % 69,920 HRD COST COST PER SF,66,000 CONSTRUCTION - PREMIUM 0.00,60,000 VG COST PER SF CONSTRUCTION - STNDRD 2,0,000 TOTL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 8. 7,920,60 SOFT COST,89,0 SLES PER SF SLE COST PER UNIT TOTL UNIT SLES 9,20,000 PROFESSIONL 8%,20 FEES ROWHOUSES - PREMIUM 0,000,00, FINNCING 0% 66,00 ROWHOUSES 80,000,80,000 - STNDRD 200 DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES % 69,920 MRKETING / SLES COMMISSION 6%,00 VG COST PER SF TOTL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 8. 7,920,60 TOTL REVENUE 8,68,600 SLES PER SF SLE COST PER UNIT TOTL UNIT SLES 9,20,000 PROFIT 76,960 ROWHOUSES - PREMIUM 22 0,000,00,000,80,000 ROWHOUSES - STNDRD ,000 MRKETING / SLES COMMISSION 6%,00 PRTMENT TOTL REVENUE PROFORM 8,68,600 PROFIT 76,960 LND COST 0 6,00 6,00 VEHICULR CIRCULTION / PRKING SITE RE (SF) 2,288 SUBTOTL TOTL PROJECT PRTMENT RE (SF) PROFORM # UNITS SF PER UNIT 6,200 BEDROOM ,600 2 BEDROOM,000,000 BEDROOM 8,200 9,600 LND COST 0 6,00 6,00,660 HLLWYS + INTERIOR COMMON SPCES,660 PRKING + DECKS + PTIOS 7,7 7,7 SITE RE (SF) 2,288 SUBTOTL TOTL PROJECT RE (SF) # UNITS SF PER UNIT 6,200 HRD COST COST PER SF,0,20 BEDROOM ,600 CONSTRUCTION - UNITS 00.00,620,000,000 2 BEDROOM,000 CONSTRUCTION - HLLWYS + INT. COMMON ,000 9,600 BEDROOM 8,200 CONSTRUCTION - PRKING / DECKS / PTIOS ,20 HLLWYS + INTERIOR COMMON SPCES,660,660 PRKING + DECKS + PTIOS 7,7 7,7 SOFT COST 82,78 PROFESSIONL FEES 8% 2,060 FINNCING 0% 0,2 HRD COST COST PER SF,0,20 DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES % 20,98 CONSTRUCTION - UNITS 00.00,620,000 66,000 CONSTRUCTION - HLLWYS + INT. COMMON VG COST PER SF 0.00 CONSTRUCTION - PRKING / DECKS / PTIOS 227,20 TOTL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 2.7,,868 SOFT COST 82,78 RENT RENTL INCOME / MONTH TOTL RENT / YR 772,800 PROFESSIONL FEES 8% 2,060 RENT FOR BEDROOM 2,600 29,200,200 FINNCING 0% 0,2 RENT FOR 2 2,200 02,00 BEDROOM,800 DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES % 20,98 RENT FOR BEDROOM 7,600 2,200 2,200 View of the Shopping Center SOUND POLLUTION / SIGHTLINES View of the School VG COST PER SF BUILDING MNGEMENT EXPENSES TOTL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 2.7,,868 MRKETING / RENTL COMMISSION 8% 6,82 MINTENNCE / VCNCY 20%,60 RENT RENTL INCOME / MONTH TOTL RENT / YR 772,800 FINNCING 6% 6,68 RENT FOR 2,600 29,200 BEDROOM,200 02,00 RENT FOR 2 BEDROOM,800 2,200 VERGE REVENUE / YER 0,08 RENT FOR BEDROOM 2,200 7,600 2,200 YERS TOTL REVENUE :,60,28 BUILDING MNGEMENT EXPENSES MRKETING / RENTL COMMISSION 8% 6,82 PROFIT 9,66 MINTENNCE / VCNCY 20%,60 FINNCING 6% 6,68 VERGE REVENUE / YER 0,08 YERS TOTL REVENUE :,60,28 PROFIT 9,66

14 Hybrid Housing Explorations in low-rise hybrid housing propose an alternative typological approach for the redevelopment of 80 parcels of row houses recently demolished as part of urban renewal efforts in the Tivoly community of the Coldstream Homestead Montebello Neighborhood in Baltimore City. Design strategy aims to maintain pre-existing density despite the pressure of surplus vacancy and focuses instead on the reconfiguration of space and introduction diverse types of private and communal residential experiences that utilize successful features developed during the comparative part of the design process.

15 Ground Floor Site Plan Safe Haven Bringing the communal space to into the center Problem on site : Children play in the streets. Despite the upside of a tighly knit community, the odds or safe play are slim to none. Due to the crime in the nearby vicinity a and rundown nearby parks, the childre are left to go indoors when night falls. The design intention is to create a private space for children to play despite the time of day. ll the apartment unites are three bedroom leaving the complex prodominantly family oriented. The units surround a central courtyard that allows for private play. The courtyard in accentuated with a jungle gym that begins within the courtyard. It moves beyond the units and reaches the park, leaving a public jungle gym that just reaches beyond the boundarie lines of site 8. THe jungle gym then wraps itself completely around the building, becoming the facade that screens a complete glass structure. Diagrams of Building layers: complete glass layer Shave for main entrance Within structure Wood screen panels surounding glass layer Facade begins in the center as a jungle gym, then reaching out towards the neighboring park Facade wrapping itself around the building. Balconies pushing beyond the facade Light access PUBLIC/PRIVTE CONNECTION three-bedroom family units in a multifamily cluster are accessed through a protected inner courtyard that provides shared playspace continuous interactive structure extends from the courtyard and wraps the exterior of the building to support continuous activity and common experience between public and private Level 2 Level Perspectives Section Elevations

16 FORML TRNSFORMTION repurposed shipping containers provide a modular approach to a mixed unit-type compound that reinterprets the uniform streetscape into a series of undulating volumes that provide porosity to the street and lead to a shared semipublic outdoor space deep into the site THE REVIVL Total # units per block: 8 NDREW M. NGURE Unit # / density: Ownership: 6 UNITS PER CRE OWN & RENT TO OWN Total # apartments: 700sqft Total # rowhouses: 00sqft partment type: PRTMENT HYBRID CONSTRUCTED FROM RECLIMED SHIPPING CONTINERS. ECH CONTINER BECOMES UNIT ND IS STCKED TO MTCH THE HEIGHT OF THE UNITS ON THE BLOCK. THE REVIVL IMS TO BRING NEW LIFE TO TIVOLY VENUE; NEIGHBORHOOD WITH BLIGHTED PST. WITH COMBINTION OF BOTH ROWHOUSES ND PRTMENTS IT PROVIDES TWO DISTINCT HOUSING EXPERIENCES IMING TO DIVERSIFY THE LIVING EXPERIENCE ON TIVOLY VE. THE USE OF SIPS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROW HOUSES PROVIDES N ESY CONSTRUCTION. PREFBRICTED SLBS RE SHIPPED ND SSEMBLED ON SITE. PRTMENTS RE MODIFIED SHIPPING CONTINERS WHICH RE FFORDBLE YET DURBLE LEDING TO LOW CONSTRUCTION COSTS MXIMIZING PROFIT. Design features: -COMMUNITY KIDS PLYGROUND. -ELEGNT LENING FORMS. -SUSTINBLE: TPERED WLLS OF THE ROW HOMES CRETED BY USE OF STRUCTURE INSULTED PNELS. -PRTMENTS RE RECLIMED SHIPPING CONTINERS. SITE MP SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLN /8 = SITE CIRCULTION. ROUTES TO UNIT ENTRNCES. PROJECT PROVIDES CHILDRENS PLYGROUND S COMMUNITY MMENITY WITH OPEN VISIBILITY FROM THE UNITS. KIDS PLY RE ROWHOUSE PRTMENT PRKING. 6 PRKING SPOTS ON SITE ND STREET PRKING. FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLN /8 =

17 8 e 28 th 82 st PERMEBILITY the alameda fenwick ave flow and movement permeate through the site of a village-like duplex housing configuration with individual entries and shared semipublic throughway tivoly ave SITe vicinity mp miscellaneous Housing Housing TYPologY: DensiTY vs DiversiTY n ITerTIve, Informl design methodology olumide adegboyega 7 total # units per block: 7 units per acre unit # / density: apartment type: () 2-bedroom, () -bedroom design features: Courtyard, roof terrace, tutouring center, etc. SITe eril Ground level SITe Pln ( =0 ) SeCond level Pln ( =0 ) 2 Bed Bed 8 e th st open SPCe CIrCulTIon fenwick ave e th st e 6 th st tivoly ave tivoly ave fenwick ave fenwick ave the alameda the alameda the alameda TyPoloGy tivoly ave GreGTIon

18 LLEY LLEY LLEY ' LLEY LLEY LLEY LLEY LLEY ' ' TIVOLY VE ' First Floor Plan TIVOLY VE TIVOLY VE Site Plan URBN HYBRIDS JUN MNJRRES ' ' Site Plan Site Plan Site Plan erial erial erial Second Floor Plan ' MODULR MICRO OE DL U LL INRG S DMW MICRO URBN HYBRIDS D WMNJRRES ELLINGS JUN erial ' First Floor Plan TIVOLY VE First Floor Plan First Floor Plan LOT Front Perspective number of units 8 unit type () Studio Units () -Bedroom Units (2) Two Story / Work Units LOT u n i t size 20 SF, 70 SF, num b 20 e r SF o f (respectively) units Second Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Second Floor Plan 8 unit type () Studio Units () -Bedroom Units (2) Two Story / Work Units unit size 20 SF, 70 SF, 20 SF (respectively) Third Floor Plan Front Perspective Front Perspective Front Perspective Section Interior View Back Perspective Third Floor Plan Third Floor Plan Third Floor Plan Unit ssemblage L LE Y TIV Movment OL Y VE Back Perspective Back Perspective Back Perspective rch 0 LIM FOX Unit ssemblage Unit ssemblage Unit ssemblage ggregation D Section Perspective ian str de pe d pe r ula hic ve ian tr es lar u PEDESTRIN / VEHICULR CIRCULTION hic ve PEDESTRIN / VEHICULR CIRCULTION TIV TIVOLY OL V Y E TIV VE OL Y VE Movment Movment Movment L LL LE LELE Y YY LLLEY LE Y L LE Y BUILDING TYPOLOGY ND GGREGTION Interior View Interior View Interior View TIVOLY GRDENS SITE PLN SITE PLN BUILDING TYPOLOGY ND GGREGTION L LE Y Section Section Section TIVOLY TIVOLY GRDENS GRDENS TIVOLY GRDENS STUDIO UNIT STUDIO UNIT ONE BEDROOM UNIT ONE BEDROOM UNIT URBN LNDSCPE RECLMTION rch 0 rch 0 LIM FOX LIM FOX rch 0 LIM FOX TWO BEDROOM UNIT TWO BEDROOM UNIT ggregation ggregation ggregation D Section Perspective D Section Perspective D Section Perspective alternative reorganization of buildings allows for utilization of the entire site by bringing prominence to all edges and interstitial landscapes

19 Billboard Lofts- Perspective View : Intersection of W. sh and Union St 7 Hallway- 2nd Floor Kebab Shop San Diego Magazine Beach Transportation Extraordinary Desserts Billboard Lofts- View from W sh St UTILITY ROOM UTILITY ROOM L M N O P Q R S T U K PRKING J TRSH I H G F E D C B W/D BTH BTH BEDROOM BEDROOM 6 BEDROOM BEDROOM 2 BTH BTH S I T E P L N 0 S H S T. DECK W/D W/D W/D W/D CORRIDOR LIVING W/D W/D W/D W/D DINING 2 6 S E C O N D F L O O R BEDROOM LIVING W/D W/D BEDROOM 2 6 DECK DECK DECK DECK DECK DECK T H I R D F L O O R Morgan State University - School of rchitecture and Planning - BSED Design III - Fall 20 - Fereshteh Oreizi 2 Level Unit- Type Level Unit- Type 2 Level Unit- Type 2 Level Unit- Type 2 F O U R T H F L O O R M E Z Z N I N E SECTION Morgan State University - School of rchitecture and Planning - BSED Design III - Fall 20 - Fereshteh Oreizi 0 0 BLOCK GGREGTION partment Rowhouse 8 8 U N I O N S T. Hallway Stairs Main Entrance 2 0 Morgan State University - School of rchitecture and Planning - BSED Studio III- Housing Design - Fall 20 - nbar (Fereshteh) Oreizi-Esfahani 0 BILLBORD LOFTS PROJECT DT Developer Sebastian Mariscal Design Team Sebastian Mariscal Studio Year completed 200 Development type + Work Building type partments/ Lofts The Billboard Lofts initiates a new classification of urban density by creating a 2-unit apartment and garage in a 6,900 square foot corner lot located in San Diego, California. lthough it s five stories high, this structure is low-rise and seems insignificant when compared to its towering surrounding buildings. It is made up of two rectangular masses separated by a smaller rectangular mass which designates the space for movement within the building. The 7-foot high narrow corridors located on the second and foruth floor allow for horizontal circulation, while the two stairs located at each end of the corridors are reserved for vertical circulation. Site area.6 acres Overall size 6900 square feet # stories Units 2, 2 story lofts- story lofts, 800 square feet Density 2 units/acre PROJECT FETURES Main Organization The apartment buildings have a very simple yet strategic organization which allows for easy access and maximum use of space. The first floor contains the garage that accommodates up to twenty cars. The kitchen, Fall living, and dining 20 room are located on the second level while the bathroom and bedroom are situated on the third floor mezzanine. The fourth and fifth stories contain another 2 apartments with the same organization as the lower two stories. Relation to Surroundings Being situated at the corner of W. sh and Union Street, the Billboard Lofts are accessible and easily located. This apartment building, standing levels tall, is about half the height of its surrounding structures BLOCK which are at least 0 Boulevard Street stories CIRCULTION ROUND high. Distinctive rchitecture The Billboard Lofts is unique for its highly effective organization that allocates 2 apartments and a parking in a 6900 square foot lot. The first floor of the rectangular mass facing the south side of the site, is used both as work and living space. However, the rest of the apartments and area throughout the building are private livable spaces. The structure is designed to make the most use of the small property space while meeting the criteria s and needs of the occupants. Light and Open Space The apartments in this development are lightened by the vast windows located on the south, north and east elevation. Skylights provide illumination for the fourth floor corridor and and fifth floor apartments. Each loft has a double-ceiling dining room which allows for open space and effective air movement. Private/Social Life The first floor of the rectangular mass facing the south side of the site, is used both as work and living space. However, the rest of the apartments and area throughout the building are private livable spaces. CIRCULTION WITHIN BLOCK Vehicular Pedestrian ROWHOUSE PROFORM HOUSING STUDIO RCH 0: HOUSING STUDIO SITE NO: LND COST 0 6,00 6,00 TOTL SITE RE (SF) 2,288 SUBTOTL PROJECT RE # UNITS 2,000 (SF) SF PER UNIT ROWHOUSES - PREMIUM 2,00 2,000 ROWHOUSES - STNDRD 2,00 2,000 HRD COST COST PER SF,20,000 CONSTRUCTION - PREMIUM 0.00,680,000,0,000 CONSTRUCTION - STNDRD SOFT COST 6,200 PROFESSIONL FEES 8% 29,600 FINNCING 0% 2,000 DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES % 9,600 VG COST PER SF TOTL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 8.90,,600 SLES PER SF SLE COST PER UNIT TOTL UNIT SLES,880,000 ROWHOUSES - PREMIUM 26 66,000,80,000 2,700,000 ROWHOUSES - STNDRD 22 0,000 MRKETING / SLES COMMISSION 6% 2,800 TOTL REVENUE,27,200 PROFIT,,600 PRTMENT PROFORM Housing Myth PvLIN ILIEv, R Myth Number 8- Housing is Only for Poor People: Chapter Summary Up to now it is commonly presumed that public housing is built to shelter the underprivileged individuals of society; however, this has not been the case in or out of the United States. Foreign countries have shown that public housing can be used as a strategy to increase economic growth in nations that are becoming industrialized, meet needs not met by the private market, boost the construction industry and increase private lecturer savings. Singapore used the method of state-managed public housing to encourage homeownership, increase personal savings and gain significant positive and negative advantages of a higher living standard. They focused strictly on a flourishing public housing program and did not engage government insurance programs for private lenders or government-sponsored secondary mortgage market. Unlike the United States, the prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, strongly opposed hidden subsidy that would quietly back the private housing system. Lee developed a plan to mobilize private savings to be used to fund vast new public construction. Not unlike other countries, they used public housing as a temporary sanctuary that provided its users with the opportunity to upgrade their shelter when possible. The government aimed to increase homeownership by allowing Singaporeans to dedicate a portion of their savings to the purchase of a public housing flat as well as its ongoing functions as a health and retirement system. While providing shelter, public housing also bought unavoidable changes in lifestyle, family organization, labor distribution, and consumption. The state used the program to begin teaching former slum dwellers what household items they needed to purchase, how to properly lodge households and how to live in a modern residence. Certain guidelines were set to define who could inhabit the units such as the maximum income for each family, what types of families were accepted into the units, and how many members could occupy the residence. ll these factors not only helped increased the number of people inhabiting the public housing units but also caused changes in society such as releasing women from former house jobs and encouraging them to enter the workforce. This caused urbanization rates in Singapore to easily exceed those of its neighbors. The clearing of slums allowed for urban redevelopment and the construction of new public housing flats. s a result, unemployment decreased and gross domestic product increased steadily. Over time the HBD created a variety of units with various prices that gave families the opportunity to upgrade their housing and open up their units for families with lower-income. By entering the semiprivate housing market, the HBD began making various deals and as a result presenting housing that offered greater architectural variety. This encouraged homeowners to advance their housing scale as they became wealthier or even purchase units if they were not qualified to buy HDB units. By examining the use of public housing in Singapore, one can conclude that the United States needs to create a process that provides homebuyers with the opportunity to slowly and logically move up the housing ladder. HOUSING STUDIO Fall 20 Source: Bloom, Nicholas Dagen, Gregory Holcomb Umbach, Lawrence J. Vale, and Joseph Heathcott. Myth #8: Housing Is Only for Poor People. Housing Myths: Perception, Reality, and Social Policy. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print. BILLBORD LOFTS LND COST 0 92,600 92,600 TOTL SITE RE (SF) 8,2 SUBTOTL PROJECT NLYSIS ggregation Unit and Site ggregation PROJECT RE (SF) # UNITS SF PER UNIT 9,200 BEDROOM ,800 2 BEDROOM 8,000 8,000 BEDROOM 2,200,00 HLLWYS + 8,97 INTERIOR COMMON SPCES 8,97 PRKING + DECKS + PTIOS 8,00 8,00 Slab Sun-oreinted parallel rows HRD COST COST PER SF 6,060,00 CONSTRUCTION - UNITS 00.00,920, ,00 CONSTRUCTION - HLLWYS + INT. COMMON ,000 CONSTRUCTION - PRKING / DECKS / PTIOS 0.00 Movement COMMUNL SPCES Building Usage Private SOFT COST,272,68 PROFESSIONL FEES 8% 8,82 FINNCING 0% 606,00 DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES % 8,82 Pedestrian ccess Horizontal Vertical VG COST PER SF TOTL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 69. 8,20,98 Vehicular ccess +Work Garage RENT RENTL INCOME / MONTH TOTL RENT / YR,029,600 RENT,200 7,00 FOR BEDROOM,00 67,200 RENT FOR 2 BEDROOM,700 0, ,000 RENT FOR BEDROOM 2,000 2,000 STRENGTHENING Building Typology Spaces BUILDING MNGEMENT EXPENSES MRKETING / RENTL COMMISSION 8% 82,68 MINTENNCE / VCNCY 20% 20,920 FINNCING 6% 6,776 VERGE REVENUE / YER 679,6 YERS TOTL REVENUE : 8,8,968 BUILDINGS RELTIONSHIPS & VIEWS PROFIT,00 supplemental activities: CONTEMPORRY HOUSING EXMPLES CSE STUDY & NLYSIS PHILDELPHI LOW-RISE URBN REDEVELOPMENT FIELD TRIP ND PROJECT TOURS FINNCIL PROFORM NLYSIS OF ROW HOUSE ND PRTMENT DEVELOPMENT FFORDBLE HOUSING REDING ND DISCUSSION DESIGN FORUMS WITH PROFESSIONLS, CDEMICS, CITY OFFICILS ND COMMUNITY MEMBERS