Mending a Neglected Site TCF Site Redevelopment Lewiston, Idaho By Adam Council
Page 4-6
Reducing Our Using Carbon Debt, Ecological Footprint, and Water Footprint
Page 7-8
Editorial Editorial/Cartoon
Page 9-11
Project Proposal Design Intent Location Project Introduction
Page 12-13
Current Use
Page 14-15
History of Site
PaGE 16-21
Zoning Current Zoning Some Inside Information Building Form and Orientation Standards Use Limitations And Prohibitions
Page 22-24
Research Agenda Key Points & Questions My Design Concepts to Incorporate Performance Goals
Page 25-33
Case Studies Chiswick Park The Planar House
Table of Contents
Page 34
Program Master Plan Requirements Mixed Use Bldg. Requirements
Page 35-41
Climate Data Temperature Sky Coverage Wind Ground Temp The Sun
Page 42-43
Site analysis
Page 44-53
Masterplanning Imageability The Design Experiencing the Site Site Section
Page 54-77
Mixed use bldg. a Bldg. Mass Inspiration Structure The Design Floor Plans An Experience Elevations Sections
Page 78-79
What i learned
Page 80-81
Bibliography
Reducing our using
Carbon Debt, Ecological Footprint, and Water Footprint Before jumping right in to my thesis project, I would like to start with something you have heard and read about before. As a country, our Carbon, Ecological, and Water footprints have grown out of control. Carbon Debt is known as, “the imbalance between the carbon footprint of a particular country, group, person, etc., and any carbon offsetting that has been agreed or undertaken to counteract this” (Oxford). Our country’s carbon debt is credited towards the abuse of amenities such as electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, the automobile, and lack of recycling. And our water consumption reflects no difference. We lead the world with this consumption. To help scare you with some numbers, we as Americans, “on average emit 1.341 pounds (lbs) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kWh through electricity sources. And the annual consumption for a U.S. Residential utility customer is 10,896 kWh. That equates to about 14,600 lbs. of (CO2) per person per year” (Carbon).
4
Fuel and natural gas consumption tends to be at the forefronts as well. “American single family houses abuse approximately 58 gallons of fuel oil per month” (Carbon). This roughly equates to 700 gallons per household per year. Natural gases are abused as well with “the average single family home using 48,734 therms per year with an estimate of 0.005 metric tons of CO2 per therms of natural gas that is burned” (Carbon).
This totals 243.67 metric tons of CO2 emitted per household per year. The automobile has become a total plague on our country. “On average cars emit 17.68 pounds of CO2 per gallon and trucks emit 22.38 pounds of CO2 per gallon. Cars on average get 27.5 miles per gallon and truck get 23.5” (Carbon). These vehicles average a mileage of 12,000 per year. And that total comes to 5,834,400 pounds of CO2 for cars and 6,311,160 pounds of CO2 for trucks emitted.
you are hurting the country’s carbon footprint the most. Ecological Footprint also tries to help us understand our abusive behavior as a country with letting us know how many earths it would take to have everyone on the planet live my lifestyle. And National Geographic helps us understand the problems with our water consumption by informing us of our water consumption based on
Water consumption has become out of control as well. “On average, the American lifestyle is sustained by about 2,000 gallons of water per day. This is twice the global average” (Water). We must stop abusing this overwhelming imagination that we need more and attempt to use less. It starts at home with you. It is very shocking to view some of these statistics. And while we aren’t all scientists who completely understand every little equation for how we can make a difference. One thing is clear, we can use less. There are some out there that have tried to make it easier for the layman. American Forests make an attempt to educate Americans on their carbon footprint and how they can make a difference through planting trees. They also provide statistics that you can review to see where 5
each category and how we can take action to reduce those levels of consumption. Below is a summary of the recommended amount of trees I would need to plant to offset my carbon footprint, the amount of earth’s we would need if every one of the planet lived my lifestyle and my water consumption scores and levels.
6
Editorial
Since the industrial age, the United States has been plagued with abandoned industrial sites that have occupied ideal locations for building types and master plans. These sites have been named brownfield sites since the early 90s. These sites are typically located in current or former industrial zoned sections of towns and are considered to be a nuisance to the surrounding environment. They can discourage activation of a town or city because of their annoyance on the street. Sometimes these sites propose opportunity for immediate revitalization and other times they are deemed to be too contaminated from previous use to be a destination for development. No matter what the case is, one thing is clear; if your town has a brownfield site within it that can restore its local environment, change must be done. And it must be done in the most sustainable manner. Sustainability is considered to be designing for the present without compromising the environment of the future. The word sustainability brings about many thoughts when spoken. Different people have different opinions of the word and what it entails. Some consider it to be the most important concept to incorporate into future designs for the built environment. Some think of it to be a fad that will pass in the near future. I consider it to be pertinent to design while including personal moral considerations. I feel it is required while not compromising aesthetic. It is important to focus on the smartest 7
way to make a project sustainable and not just jump on board to the first sustainable strategy the presents itself. When anything is designed to be built, one must think about the future world and how it will be affected. As a future recipient of a Master’s Degree in Architecture, I feel that I have a direct responsibility to do as much as I can to consider sustainability in the built environment. And, I will.
Remember: Sustainable design doesn’t start with renewable energy
wait, so how is this place leed certified?
8
the tour guide said something about renewable energy
Project Proposal
Design Intent To redevelop the neglected site of Lewiston’s downtown waterfront into a more Connected, Economically sustainable, and Walkable community while focusing on one mixed use development to incorporate sustainable design strategies and an emotionally evoked response within.
9
location: Lewiston, ID. site: northwest corner
snake river
clear
citation: google earth
10
wate rr
iver
The city of Lewiston, Idaho has been working to develop planning initiatives for redeveloping a waterfront site in downtown. The site was once used as a frozen food processing industrial warehouse but is currently vacant. The site misses opportunities to engage with the community and have a greater connection between downtown and the Clearwater and Snake Rivers. The city has expressed interest in using the site as an economical stimulant for the community to promote tourism to the city. I plan to redevelop the site through design strategies that will Excite, Connect and Draw the community towards it and help to re-stimulate the downtown area of Lewiston. Performance Goals: -Improve Sense of Place -Connectivity -Visual Appearance
current use: Vacant approx. 750,000 sq.ft. dike bypass
5th st.
Project Introduction
citation: google earth
11
Current Use Vacant, C5 commercial: Approx: 750,000 Sq.ft. Industrial mark left on site: Perma-frost Removal of existing structures: -2 Metal Sheds -1 CMU Existing to stay: Pump House historical building Bike path Pedestrian Bridges
IMAGE: GOOGLE EARTH
12
Currently, there are 3 structures on the site. 2 of which are extremely dilapidated and all 3 resemble a nuisance on the site in terms of aesthetic. I propose removal of the three structures outlined in Red and allow the existing pump house to stay as it is included on the historical registry. It is also important to note that there are currently 2 pedestrian bridges leading to the bike path in close proximity of the site. They are outlined in orange. These bike paths are thought of as somewhat unsuccessful as they lack a true engagement to the pedestrian and a connection to something engaging in the downtown area. The bridge to the west is oriented to the motor vehicle and the bridge on Fifth Street to the East connects to a rather boring vehicular dominated street. This eludes to the possibility of including a pedestrian bridge that could have a more successful and engaging design.
IMAGE: GOOGLE EARTH
13
History of Site
14
Twin City Foods, a frozen food processing company, was previously located on the chosen site. The image shown conveys what was once there and how the typography of the site was at the time. The image is very educational to view what was there compared to what is currently there. However the main point to take away is that the railroad spurs are still located north and south of the site and must be considered when developing a design for the site. These spurs are essentially “a railway line connected to a trunk line with tracks leading to it� (Spur).
15
citation: http://idahospanhandlerailroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/modeling-downtown-lewiston-part-2-using.html
zoning
Current Zoning: From the zoning map, it is easy to understand that the site is currently zoned towards C-5 Central commercial. The city defines this zone’s purpose as; “To provide a mix of uses within the central business district for a wide variety of goods services, and compatible multifamily housing. Development shall provide access to adequate parking for uses that normally rely heavily on pedestrian circulation. Such areas should be compatible with adjacent noncommercial development� (Welcome). There is various residential to the south and light residential zones to the North along the Clearwater River. There is a heavily vehicular trafficked road to the North of the site that causes some noise. Across the Clearwater River is Port zoning for boat transportation of goods. On the following page, are permitted outright uses and conditional uses that are allowed currently (Welcome).
16
H US
CITY LIMITS
I GH
citation: http://www.cityoflewiston.org/index.aspx?nid=201
LEGEND
µ
CITY ZONING ZONE CLASSIFICATION ZONE BASPAA = BRYDEN AVE SPECIAL PLANNING AREA A
P
ZONE BASPAB = BRYDEN AVE SPECIAL PLANNING AREA B ZONE A = AIRPORT ZONE C-1 = LOCAL COMMERCIAL ZONE C-2 = TOURIST COMMERCIAL ZONE C-3 = COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE C-4 = GENERAL COMMERCIAL
LEVEE BYP
ZONE C-5 = CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE C-6 = REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONE MXD-NL = N LEWISTON MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
C5
ZONE P = PORT ZONE PD = PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE F-2 = AGRICULTURAL TRANSITION ZONE NHMU = NORMAL HILL MIXED USE ZONE ZONE NHNA = NORMAL HILL NORTH ZONE NHS = NORMAL HILL SOUTH
ST
ZONE R-4 = HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
C5
9T H
ZONE R-3 = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
citation: http://www.cityoflewiston.org/
ZONE R-2A = LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(LIVESTOCK)
ST
ZONE R-2 = LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
D ST
C4
IDA
HO
VE
UPDATED: DECEMBER 6, 2012
NHN
H ST
ZONE R-1 = SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
1ST ST
ZONE M-2 = HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
8TH
ZONE M-1 = LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
17 R4
S
Some Inside Information (Plaskon)
Building Form and Orientation Standards (Plaskon)
There is currently information on C5 zoning at the City of Lewiston’s website which will soon be irrelevant as the Planning and Zoning department is currently refining the TCF site zoning requirements. Some of the intentions of the city are to recognize the Clearwater and Snake River as assets to the Community. “They have aspirations of a premier small town waterfront city to enhance the waterfront as a recreational, social and economic activity center; and to enhance the vitality of Beautiful Downtown Lewiston” (Plaskon). After speaking with Joel Plaskon, who is with the City’s Planning and Zoning Department, he educated me on what the city is starting to consider for building form and orientation standards. This is shown below. And after a meeting with the Planning and Zoning department, I was able to learn about their vision of a 9 point system based on qualifiers for development on the site. This is shown below in the Allowable Land Use and Development Qualifiers requirements.
Proposed construction and reconstruction shall comply with the following: • Height allowance: 80’ (not counting parapet) maximum allowed. • Wall size; breaks-up (yet to be defined) in the appearance of walls fronting public rights of way shall occur not less than every 30’ (horizontal & vertical). • Floor area ratio: 0.5 minimum. • Roof shape: 4:12 min. pitch required; or, for flat roofs or those pitched less than 4:12 and not having public or patron rooftop usage, break-up (yet to be defined) in roof appearance shall occur not less than every 30 linear feet. • Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from ground level and from other buildings with in a 1,320 foot radius of the equipment. • Location of building relative to lot lines: 10’ max. front or street side setback allowed, unless the space is used for public open space (yet to be defined) or serves as a porta-cochere for loading/unloading or valet parking activity for guests of a lodging use; 6’ min. from all other lot lines, unless for zero lot line development where the adjoining lot is also developed zero lot line on/along the same lot line.
18
• • •
Width of building relative to lot width: 50% minimum (all street frontages). Location, design and orientation of building access: Building walls facing public streets shall contain not less than 1 public, architecturally defined, non-vehicular building entry every 100’, designed and oriented (yet to be defined) so as to be clearly identifiable as such and pro vided in locations convenient to access from such travel-ways. Street or public walkway facing walls shall be 40% min visually penetrable.
Allowable Land Use and Development Qualifiers (Plaskon):
Proposed construction and reconstruction must generate a minimum of 9 points from the list below in order to obtain a building permit. Use of property or a building for public parking (including free, permit, pay by hour, leased, etc.) is exempt from having to qualify in point system in order to occur, even if it is the only use of the property. Accessory uses are not subject to having to qualify under this point system. Accessory uses will not be recognized for point qualification under the “multiple use” category.
1. Multiple use (2 uses, minimum per lot): 2 points (for each primary use greater than 1), and whereby 4 points shall be allotted for resi- dential proposals. 2. Minimum of 1 employee, office or work station per 500 square feet of gross floor area: 2 points. 3. Minimum floor area ratio of 1.0 (except for uses with no associated buildings or with build- ings not exceeding 220 square feet): 3 points. 4. Open space and amenities for social gather- ing or active or passive recreation (privately owned): 2 points. 5. Parkland dedication (publicly owned, ½ acre or 10% of project development site size, whichever is less, but must be accepted by applicable pub lic agency): 4 points. 6. Public art display: 1 point. 7. Levee trail or river access provided (physical and easement or dedicated right of way): 6 points. 8. Levee trail or river access improvement/up grade or donation of $3,500 min. value: 3 points. 9. River view for public or for building patrons or occupants: 1 point. 10. Shared parking arrangement (for 50% mini mum of what the off-street parking require- ment would be pursuant to LMC 37-149): 2 19
points. 11. Minimum average of 10 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet (weekday) or 3 per employee: 2 points. 12. Outdoor café: 1 point. 13. Rooftop garden, patio, deck, public open space: 2 points. 14. Alternative transportation mode support (to be defined): 2 points. 15. “Conferencing facilities” with accommodations for a minimum of 100 people in one room: 3 points. 16. Leadership in Energy and Environmental De- sign (LEED) certified building: LEED Certificate, 1 point; Silver Certificate, 2 points; Gold Certifi cate, 3 points; Platinum Certificate, 4 points. 17. Re-locate overhead utilities underground: 4 points. 18. Minimum 15% landscaping of site: 3 points. 19. Decks/balconies/patios on upper floor(s): 2 points. 20. Reinforced building corner(s): 3 points. A pri- mary pedestrian building entrance will be lo- cated within 15’ of the corner of a building at the intersection of 2 streets and said building corner will be designed with increased build- ing height, mass, and/or façade angles for in- creased prominence of that portion of the build ing. 20
21. 22.
Tripartite façade(s): 3 points. Building facades facing streets will incorporate design features which create the appearance of three distinct parts of the building and consist of a distinguishable base, middle and top. Underground or ground floor parking in a multi-story building: 3 points.
Example Renders that reflect Planning and Zoning.
The city is also currently developing Use limitations to establish what is not allowed in the site. They are currently as follows:
or longer than 60 minutes in any 8 hour period, as measured at any property line. • No tractor trailer or shipping container storage which is visible from beyond the property lines of the subject property. • No other outdoor storage except licensed, registered, operating vehicles; outdoor recreational equipment; outdoor furniture and other items related to an onsite business which are incidental and ancillary to such business and which are made for outdoor usage related to the type of on-site business. • Dumpsters must be fully screened. • No drive-thru windows. • No tractor trailer delivery design requiring use of street right of way for parking or turnaround.
Use Limitations And Prohibitions (plaskon) • No detached, single family residential as the only use of a building, unless the residence is accessory to primary use developed under the qualifications section of this zoning district. • No direct train or barge shipping, except for continuation of an existing use or for transport of people. • No non-food related odor beyond property line. • No particulate matter produced which is unmitigated and defined or determined by the EPA as being an air pollutant, or which creates dust, odor or other nuisancetype conditions either on or off-site. • No noise exceeding 70db for longer than 30 consecutive minutes
Exceptions to the limitations and prohibitions listed above may be granted for special events upon written request to the Community Development Department (process and guidelines to be developed). citation: http://www.cityoflewiston.org/index.aspx?nid=201
21
Research Agenda
Key Points & Questions: • New Urbanism strategies have helped to rede- velop many successful communities in the Unit- ed States. Ex: Seaside Fl. • What are the needs of the downtown area that can be incorporated into the new site? • What major axis can benefit the most from con- tinuing north to the site and provide a good con nection? • What amenities are needed within downtown Lewiston? • What forms of transportation are needed in the area? • What sustainable building types are most suc- cessful in terms of performance? • How can any of the structures within the site be saved and re-used? • What are the benefits of high density in Lewis- ton, ID?
My Design Concepts to Incorporate: • 22
Sustainability o Social o Environmental o Economical
• • • •
Walkability Green Building Diverse Amenities Phenomenology
Performance Goals (Plaskon): The City of Lewiston is striving for a Form and Impact Based Zoning District. The performance goals of the city are as follows: • Establish land use patterns along the rivers which maximize the potential of the rivers by in- creasing uses which create more outdoor recre- ation and pedestrian activity along the water- front and which create a pleasing, enjoyable en vironment. • Improve the attractiveness and sense of place of the built environment on public and private properties and to preserve and enhance views of the rivers and related open spaces and bridg es. • Assign high priority status for “key sites” in ren- dering planning, development and funding deci sions by the City of Lewiston. • Improve Levee Trail and river access. • Establish a new, Mixed-Use Downtown Water- front Zoning District to encourage land uses
which promote enjoyment of the rivers and are complimentary to Beautiful Downtown Lewiston and to include a residential component. This zoning district would be intended to bring high- er concentrations of residents, workers, and visi tors expected to frequent restaurant, retail, rec- reation and entertainment businesses and facili- ties in the immediate area. • Improve the sense of place, connectivity and vi- sual appearance of the built environment. • Establish zoning development standards or in- centive options to improve community design. The intent would be to focus design of new con struction and re-construction on pedestrian- friendliness, a visually welcoming environment, including consideration of such things as: o building materials, architecture, bulk, height, scale, setbacks and orientation on the lot, o historic preservation and enhancement, o public and private pedestrian and bicy- cle amenities and improvements, includ- ing way finding, that improve non-motor ized access to the rivers and to adjoin- ing public and private facilities o parking lot size, orientation on the lot and related landscaping o landscape buffering between potentially 23
incompatible uses or uses of substantial- ly different intensity and landscaping sim ply as a beautification o formal and informal social gathering or resting areas o view-shed and view corridor preserva- tion and provision of river-view vantage stations/points o public artwork o burial of existing overhead utilities and of new utilities o reduced storm water run-off amounts and/or rates o Increased storm water run-off quality. • Incorporate zoning requirements, standards and/or incentives for provision of social and public gathering or resting spaces and ameni- ties in new development and redevelopment. • Establish off-street parking requirements in the Zoning Code for all uses in this sub-area. The goal of these parking requirements would be to require approximately one half of that required for the same uses outside of the parking ex empt area described in the Zoning Code. It would be expected that the balance of the park ing demand generated in this area be accom- modated by public parking (on-street, munici- pal parking lots, municipal parking garage) 24
and by the addition of fixed route transit service to this area. It would also be expected that park ing demand in this sub-area be less than else- where due to eventual transformation of the area to a more pedestrian and bicycle oriented environment.
Case Study 1
Chiswick Park By: Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners Location: London Project Type: Business Park
citation: http://www.rsh-p.com/work/all_projects/chiswick_park/completed
25
City & Context The site is located on a Brownfield Industrial Site and is largely dependent on public transportation. It is considered an urban island that is bounded by rail links to the east and north, and some residential to the west. It is located 5 miles from the global city center of London and 8 miles from Heathrow Airport.
The 33 acre site is composed of 140,000 square metres of office space inter-mingled with amenities of restaurants, bars, swimming and excercise centers. There is currently only some availability in buildings 4, 10, & 11.
citation: http://www.rsh-p.com/work/all_projects/chiswick_park/completed
26
Public Realm At the center of the site there is a large lake with a boardwalk from which the entrance of each building is arranged. There are inner gardens and outer landscape areas. The site is extremely pedestrian oriented and open to the public.
citation: http://www.rsh-p.com/work/all_projects/chiswick_park/completed
citation: http://www.rsh-p.com/work/all_projects/chiswick_park/completed
citation: http://www.rsh-p.com/work/all_projects/chiswick_park/completed
27
Flexibility
Legibility
Rogers’ concept of the project was to produce a development that is highly distinct and yet buildable within commercial constraints. The interior spaces are highly flexible and allow users to decide on open office or mor cellular configurations. Each floor can be arranged to hold up to 4 tenants. There are currently 6 4- story buildings and expectations of 5 that will be 9 and 12 story bldgs.
The project has a very clear floor plan with a central core surrounded by uninterrupted 18 m deep office plates. The cores are assisted by external stairs. In terms of the site, the central public space forms the focus of the design, with each building’s canopied entrance opening onto the central gardens, and with all the office floors enjoying views out over the landscaping.
citation: http://www.rsh-p.com/work/all_projects/chiswick_park/completed
28
citation: http://www.rsh-p.com/work/all_projects/chiswick_park/completed
Energy The energy strategies include fixed external aluminum louvres and retractable external fabric blinds activated by light sensors which together are able to shade 90 percent of the buildings’ surfaces. There is natural ventilation and an air displacement system for heating and cooling. These strategies all help to reduce the need for air conditioning and contribute to a high level of comfort in the offices.
Aluminum Fixed Louvres
CORE Retractible Fabric Blinds
Cross Ventilation
citation: http://www.rsh-p.com/work/all_projects/chiswick_park/completed
29
Case Study 2
Planar House By: Steven Holl Location: Arizona, USA Project Type: Private Residential “A building has one site. In this one situation, its intentions are collected” (1-Holl 1). And while the quote can begin to define intentions of architecture’s intent through design, it is specific to Holl’s concept within his writings and how it is shown in his built work. He introduces the concept of porosity in his writings and attempts to explain sub-concepts of the term. These concepts then, in turn, reflect within his architectural designs. Steven Holl is able to clearly define architecture through porosity, phenomenology, and connection to site in his writing and built work.
30
citation: http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?type=houses&id=57&page=0
Porosity This concept of porosity, as a literal sense, can be seen directly in a residential project located in Paradise Valley, Arizona called the Planar House. While the house utilizes contemporary materials that we would expect from the architects studied in this class, they are used in a very specific way. The materials on display in the house are tilt up concrete, glazing, and corten steel. The house utilizes glazing on facades and also in skylights to incorporate lighting into the building to stimulate the senses. However, I find that the main display of phenomenology through porosity in the house is through perforations on the corten steel. The corten steel acts as a formed mass attached to an entry glazed door into the house and allows light to glow into the building. These perforations also allow shadow to play a big part of the design, and create what Holl calls, “sunlit projection like that through trees in a dapple of white light and black shadows on a wall” 2-Holl 107). This description would be to evoke an emotional experience through, “a dancing variegation that exhilarates” (2-Holl 107).
citation: http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?type=houses&id=57&page=0
31
Phenomenology The concept of phenomenology engages the senses through designing for emotional responses from the users. While this can be created through program or specific materiality, like some of the previous architects have done, Holl mainly showcases this through porosity. Holl states, “The porosity of architecture can be reinforced with a testament for the porosity of spirit and matter. One proof of this is through light’s effect through form, shade, and shadow. This becomes an experiential phenomenon of spatial sequences within, around, and between which triggers emotions and joy in the experience of architecture� (2-Holl 106-107). And while this quote tends to reference light, Holl showcases this phenomenon of porosity through water as well. He categorizes properties of light and water to help his designs evoke the senses within each user. Some of these properties are reflections and refractions off of attached forms, glow and color changes based on season, material, and light (artificial or natural), and shadow incorporation.
citation: http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?type=houses&id=57&page=0
32
Site Connection Steven Holl also strives to be very architecturally connected with the site and within his writings. He speaks about typology or architecture formed from topology or site context. He describes how two modern architects, Alvar Aalto and Le Corbusier had created similar size villas that have had large influence on architecture. He then called out the difference between the two, being the connection between architecture and site. He basically says that “Corbusier’s villa lacks connection to site and Aalto’s villa merges overlapping fields of vision with the surrounding forest” (2-Holl 107). Holl became inspired with the phenomenological uncertainty of experiences as one moved through Aalto’s pavilion. It allows for partial perspectives as one circulates and is not time fixed like Villa Savoye. This concept of “typology formed from topology” seemed to be shown in the Planar house through circulation (2-Holl 107). Typically, when one turns to move a new direction, the houses open into framed views of mountain, water at elbow level, or even shadows formed from the site. These outlined visions of what he is conveying helps to create a unique experience for the users.
citation: http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?type=houses&id=57&page=0
33
Program
Master plan Requirements: • • • • • •
Mixed Use developments that are flexible to al- low opportunities for program below Diverse types of housing Walkable and inviting paths Designate Paths, Edges, Nodes Landmarks, and a District at more of a micro scale but, reflecting Kevin Lynch’s analysis of cities. 1 Parking Facility or Lot Connection to Downtown Lewiston through axis on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th street.
Mixed Use Building (6 stories): • • • • • •
34
REI: 7,000 sqft. x 2 flrs. Office: 7,000 sqft. Restaurant: 8,500 sqft. Integration: 5,000 sqft. Multi-family Housing: 14,300 sqft. Parking: 80,000 sqft.
Climate Data
Starting with Environmental Considerations Before jumping into schematic design strategies, it is important to consider a buildings surrounding climate to understand how it might perform. To achieve this, I chose to utilize a program call Climate Consultant to analyze Lewiston’s climate. The software also helped me to come up with initial design considerations for my schematic design phases.
35
Temperature Range • Yearly Average: 53 degrees • Only 4 months that have average comfort levels
36
• Conclusion: I need to bring some heat into this building • Consideration: Thermal Mass
Sky Coverage • Throughout the year, about 52% of the sky is covered. • Sky Coverage is worst November through march • Challenge: capitalize on solar radiation gain during these months because they are the colder ones
37
wind velocity • On average, wind speeds of about 7 mph • Recorded high: 40 mph
38
• Most manufacturers say that this is good speeds to capitalize on renew- able energy • Conclusion: consider Wind Turbine
Wind Roses • Highest Speeds are coming from the West • Wind Times are Highest in the East (Fall, Spring, Winter) • Relative Humidity: Mostly Average (Fall, Spring, Winter) • Conclusion: Vertical Axis Rotor/evaporative cooling Summer
Summer
Fall
Spring
Winter 39
Ground Temperature • Temperature at 13.12 feet is typically 10 degrees warmer in colder months and 10 degrees cooler in warmer months
40
• Consideration: Ground Source Heat Pump/Geothermal
Sun Shading • Basically showing another disadvantage of my September to April Months. • During these months I need to bring Solar exposure in • And shade in the summer months • Conclusion: Horizontal shading devices on South to block out sun in hot months and allow sun in during cold months while sun is lower in sky. Vertical shading devices on east and west.
41
Site Analysis
What to Consider Before embarking on the right design for the site, it was important to decide what I wanted to address or make better. Some of my immediate analysis was that there was a noise issue that needed to be addressed to the north of the site. Currently, the Dike Bypass road is at speeds of 45 mph and is typically trafficked by trucks hauling to businesses on Snake River Ave and people that are wanting to avoid slower speeds through town at 25 mph. Views of the Clearwater River are a huge issue at the pedestrian scale because of the dike embankment which is typically 15 ft. tall. There is a Rail line that comes in from the East through the site that transports seed to and from the Wheatland Grain Growers. This Rail travels at very slow speeds. I have been told that I can walk faster and that it comes through very rarely. For my design, I proposed removal of the tracks. I also wanted to consider the potential for connections with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Street as they are shown diagrammed to the right.
42
Noise : -Some from traffic to the North Views: -Water blocked by Dike Embankment Connections: -1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th St. Rail
43
Master Planning Edges Paths Nodes Landmarks Districts
44
Imageability Kevin Lynch defines imageability as, “That quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer. It can also be referred to as legibility or visibility” (Lynch 9-10). During the first stages of design, I chose to make a basic diagram on how the site could begin to create a new image for the city of Lewiston. In the book The Image of the City, Kevin Lynch categorizes five different physical forms of a city. Paths are anything that a person uses to circulate within the city. This circulation can be done in any of the modern modes being to walk, ride a bike, drive a car, ride on a bus, ride on a train, etc. “Edges are lateral references or boundaries between two phases” (Lynch 47). This can be anything that separates one boundary from another. This is traditionally thought of as waterways but can also include railroads like the Camas Prairie Rail Line that runs north to south just east of the TCF Site. “Lynch refers to Districts as a place the observer mentally enters and is recognized as some common identifying character” (Lynch 47). An example of this could be the building character which is starting to be associated with Lewiston’s downtown areas along D St. and Main St. “Nodes are points in the city where the pedestrian can noticeably enter” (Lynch 47). They are typically denoted with a landmark to help identify them. However, they can also be places where many paths
come together. They always have a more dominant focus on them as well. “Landmarks are physical objects that can be identified within a node. They range from a building, sign, store, or mountain� (Lynch 48). All of these categories are evident within a successful city or town and must be considered for planning.
45
Master Planning site plan key 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
46
Stage Pavilion: 3200sf Row Housing (5 per): 4,000sf per Mixed Use Bldg. B: 9,000sf Mixed Use Bldg. A: 23,750sf Mixed Use Bldg. C: 20,000sf Co-op Grocery Store: 21,600sf Farmer’s Market Pavilions: 14,000sf per Man Made Lake: Appr. 800’ long Board Walk Bridges Over Lake: 70’ wide Open Lawn Burmed Up Amphitheater Existing Water Pump House Pedestrian Bridge to Bike Path: 15’x330’
The Design The result of my research has evolved into a design that utilizes many concepts explained in the previous pages. There is a tree buffer to the North of the site to diffuse the noise of traffic from the Dike Bypass. There are clear arterials that connect with 2nd, 3rd, and 4th street that can engage downtown to the site and in one case (3rd street) connect all the way to views of the Clearwater River. The paths are pedestrian oriented with grass crete pavers but are wide enough to display vehicles during the event Hot August Nights. The design offers mixed use building types with an option for row housing. There is a Co-op with a bus stop at B and 5th street to help in creating a node. There is a man-made lake at the center to offer another node and pedestrian gathering. There are pavilions to the South that create a designated space for a farmer’s market among other uses. And finally, there is a stage pavilion that utilizes the excavated earth for a burmed up amphitheater.
13
DIKE BYPASS 2
2
2
2
4
3 10 11
5
1 9 10
8
7
9
7
7
12
6
5TH ST.
4TH ST.
2ND ST. C ST.
3RD ST.
DIKE BYPASS
1ST ST.
B ST.
D ST.
site plan
Scale: NTS
MAIN ST.
N 47
Experiencing the Site
1 11 stage pavilion and burmed ampitheatre 48
7 farmer’s market pavilion 49
Experiencing the Site
8 lake view west of site 50
13 dike bypass view of bridge 51
Experiencing the Site
site section
Scale: NTS 52
34’-1/2”
28’
35’
20’
20’
10’
10’
115’
60’
80’
83’
10’ 10’
53
Mixed Use bldg. a
Early Sketch
54
Building Mass • Stepping Down Concept: Allows Solar Exposure to more Interior Spaces • Integrated programmatic design to bring a connection between the diverse categories within the building. • Retail/Restaurant to bring people in from nodes • Multiple viewing options for Residential/& solar exposure • REI to have Rock Climbing wall over looking Clearwater River • Residential facing all directions to allow for different incomes to diversely live within the same building • Lofts at top floor to capitalize on the best views to the North. • Building to house parking garage for over 200 spaces and continue underneath bldg. adjacent.
Bldg. Mass
REI: 7,000 sqft. x 2 flrs. Office: 7,000 sqft. Restaurant: 8,500 sqft. Integration: 5,000 sqft. Multi-family Housing: 14,300 sqft. Parking: 80,000 sqft.
to H
ter Wa & lls
i
te
i to S
55
Mixed Use Bldg. A -Inspiration & Concepts
56
Cross Bracing in structure inspired by Local Bridges Deep Structural Mullions inspired by Antoine Predock: Nelson fine arts center Rammed Earth as a environmentally conscious way of using shear walls. The Use of Timber and Glulams as a great source of Carbon Storage and because of how plentiful wood is in the area.
Mixed Use Bldg. A -Structure
24” Rammed Earth w/ 4” Foam Insulation
-Flexibility in plan -Constructability -Easily Changed layout 1 A
2
3
15”x5” Glulam Beams
4
5
6
7
8
9
16”x16” Timber Columns spaced @ 20’ O.C. (y axis) - 25’ O.C. (x axis)
B C D E F G H
57
Mixed Use Bldg. A-Design
4 MIXED USE BLDG. A 58
4 MIXED USE BLDG. A SE AXON 59
Mixed Use Bldg. A-floor plans aa
cc
bb
floor plans key 2 Bdrm. Lofts: 1,200sf/unit 4 Bdrm. Loft: 2,400sf/unit Extensive Green Roof Circulation/Gathering: 5,000sf/flr. REI: 7,000sf/flr. Egress Stairs & Elevator Bike Storage: 450sf/flr. Communal Gardens: 2,500sf/flr. 2 Bdrm. Units: 1,200sf/unit 1Bdrm. ADA Units: 700sf/unit Resident Fitness Center: 1,000sf Public Restrooms: 700sf/flr. Gallery Display Space Gathering: 1,800sf Office Space: 7,000sf Restaurant: 8,500sf Parking Garage Mechanical Rm. Storage
Storage
Mech. Rm.
dd
Basement
60
Scale: NTS
dd UP
UP
UP
UP
N
aa
bb
cc
aa
bb
cc
dd
dd UP
DN
DN
DN
UP
UP
aa
1st floor
Scale: NTS
bb
cc
N 61
Mixed Use Bldg. A-floor plans aa
bb
cc
dd
dd UP
UP
DN
aa
2nd floor
Scale: NTS
62
bb
N
cc
DN
aa
bb
cc
dd
dd UP
DN
DN
UP
Storage
aa
3rd floor
Scale: NTS
N
bb
cc
63
Mixed Use Bldg. A-floor plans aa
dd
cc
bb
Garden Stor.
UP
WHWH
UP
aa
4th floor
Scale: NTS
64
N
bb
DN
WH
Garden Stor.
Garden Stor.
WHWH
dd
WHWH
Garden Stor.
WH
cc
aa
cc
bb
dd
dd DN
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
aa
5th floor
Scale: NTS
N
bb
cc
65
Mixed Use Bldg. A-floor plans aa
bb
cc
dd
dd
aa
6th floor
Scale: NTS
66
N
bb
cc
Mixed Use Bldg. A-eXPERIENCE
LOBBY CATWALK-wINTER sOLSTICE 67
Mixed Use Bldg. A-eXPERIENCE
LOBBY VIEW UP-SUMMER SOLSTICE 68
Mixed Use Bldg. A-eXPERIENCE
COMMUNAL GARDEN ROOF DECK 69
Mixed Use Bldg. A-eXPERIENCE
RESIDENTIAL LOFT 70
Mixed Use Bldg. A-eLEVATIONS
South Elevation
Scale: NTS
East Eleva
Scale: NTS
71
Mixed Use Bldg. A-ELEVATIONS
East Elevation
Scale: NTS
72
North Elevation
Scale: NTS
Mixed Use Bldg. A-ELEVATIONS DUPLEX ROOF BOTTOM 68' - 0" LEVEL 6 58' - 0" LEVEL 5 48' - 0" LEVEL 4 36' - 0" LEVEL 3 24' - 0" LEVEL 2 12' - 0"
North Elevation
GARAGE LEVEL 1 0' - 0" GARAGE BASEMENT -12' - 0"
Scale: NTS
73
Mixed Use Bldg. A-sECTIONS
PARKING GARAGE PARKING GARAGE
PAR PARKI
aa section
bb section
Scale: NTS
74
Scale: NTS
AGE AGE
eLEVATOR SHAFT
Mixed Use Bldg. A-sECTIONS
RESTROOM RESTROOM PARKING GARAGE PARKING GARAGE PARKING GARAGE
PA
bb section
cc secti
Scale: NTS
Scale: NT
75
Mixed Use Bldg. A-sECTIONS
RAGE
PARKING GARAGE PARKING GARAGE cc section
Scale: NTS
76
PARKING GARAGE PARKING GARAGE
HE
dd section/Ground Source Heat w/displaced air Ventilation
Scale: NTS
eLEVATOR SHAFT
Mixed Use Bldg. A-sECTIONS
Hot Water From Water Heater Unit Cold Water to Water Heater Unit
Return Air to Heat Exchange Supply Air From Heat Exchange to Floor Plenum Earth Loop 1’ Below Parking Garage Under Slab, Sand/Gravel- Coils: NTS
77
What i Learned
During the final critique of my college career I received compliments along with constructive criticism on my presentation. I was given praise for having great design intentions and concepts that easily reflected my theory. My group of critics appreciated my design as creating a site for the people of Lewiston. They also appreciated how it offered a communal living condition inside and outside of my buildings. Some of the feedback I received was that I could have distributed my mixed use building program throughout the site instead of concentrating it all on one building design. Given more time, I would experiment with this recommended distribution and try to better spread the mixed use building concept throughout the site more evenly. I would like to further develop the additional mixed use buildings on the site along with the row housing to better show this. I received advice on how I could make my lake, which offered a nice public gathering space, into more than just a lake. This particular critic recommended utilizing small ponds and swales amongst other landscaping features as these are sometimes overlooked when focusing on built architecture. If I had more time I would certainly provide designated spaces within the site for these features that could enhance the landscap78
ing within. One comment that I really agreed with was that I might have had trouble deciding whether or not my project wanted to be a park or a densified mixed use development. After thinking on this comment for a while I feel that this site could really accommodate either a park or a densified mixed use development. With Lewiston’s current needs, I feel that the city would strive off of a park atmosphere. However, with future possibilities, the city could benefit from growth of a denser urban environment. From my point of view, I choose to come from that of a developer who could integrate both a mixed use development and a park atmosphere. I envisioned that the park would be within immediate walk-able access for the residents and open to the public to encourage the integration of the two. Throughout the semester I admit that I did experience times where I was indecisive on how realistic my design would be in terms of reality. Now that my design is completed, I feel that my conclusion for the design was an excellent start on a possibility for what Lewiston’s downtown waterfront site could become. I feel that I stayed true to my design approach, fulfilled current code requirements along with my own conceptual requirements. I truly appreciate all of the design recommendations I have received from not only my professors, but also the support I received from the City of Lewiston and my fellow student colleagues.
79
bibliography
“Oxford Dictionaries.” Oxford Dictionaries. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2013. “Carbon Calculator Assumptions and Sources | American Forests.” American Forests. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. “Water Footprint Calculator.” National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2013. “Ecological Footprint.” What It Measures: Quiz by Center for Sustainable Economy. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013 “New Urbanism.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Nov. 2013. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. “Spur Track.” The Free Dictionary. Farlex, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. “Find Your Neighborhood.” Walk Score. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. “Welcome to an Engaged Community.” Lewiston, ID. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. Plaskon, Joel. “FORM & IMPACT BASED ZONING, CITY OF LEWISTON WATERFRONT PLAN DOWNTOWN SUB-AREA.” E-mail interview. 07 Nov. 2013.
80
“Idaho’s Panhandle Railroad.” : Modeling Downtown Lewiston, Part 2: Using Aerial Photographs. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013 “NEWS FROM THE PARK, OUR GUESTS AND OUR EVENTS.” Chiswick Park. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. “Rogers Stirk Harbour Partners.” Rogers Stirk Harbour Partners. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. “Chiswick Park, Building 4, 566 Chiswick High Road, London.” Chiswick Park, Building 4, 566 Chiswick High Road, London. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. 1-Holl, Steven. Anchoring: Selected Projects, 19751991. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural, 1991. Print. 2-Holl, Steven. “Porosity.” Parallax. Basel: BirkhäuserPublishers for Architecture, 2000. N. pag. Print. Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1960. Print.
81
Thank You For Your Time