Revitalizing The Urban Parking Structure by Beatrice Soto by Beatrice Soto

Revitalizing the Urban Parking Structure

BEATRICE SOTO

Revitalizing the Urban Parking Structure A Thesis Presented to the Undergraduate Faculty of The NewSchool of Architecture & Design

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Architecture

by Beatrice Soto June 2017 San Diego, CA

THESIS ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates how architecture can help conduct human centered activity in an inactive building; the parking structure. The study examines Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reliance on automobiles in our modern society and the rising phenomena of car ride sharing, in accordance to the smart phone era. This thesis looks into future reduction in car ownership as well as the parking infrastructure needed in urban areas. Since experts agree automobiles are the cause for widely dispersed land developments, there lies the opportunity for application of architectural design interventions to underused large scale parking in urban environments. Careful strategies can be applied to foster a plan for a synergy of public and private adaptations to connect the public and its surrounding environment. This thesis examines how parking structures in inactive central zones can be reinvented to serve the public with residential and commercial mixed-use programming.

III

Revitalizing the Urban Parking Structure

A Thesis Presented to the Undergraduate Faculty of The NewSchool of Architecture & Design

by Beatrice Soto

Approved by: _______________________________________________________________ Undergraduate Chair:

Date:

_______________________________________________________________ Studio Instructor:

Date:

_______________________________________________________________ Thesis Integration Instructor:

Date:

DEDICATION.

To my parents.

You always did more than enough.

VII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

NSAD FACULTY: Jorge Ozorno Jeremy Joyce PEERS: Jose Ponce Athena Dadiz Luis Valdovinos

Your knowledge and guidance has been exceptionally helpful in the development of my thesis. Thank you.

VIII

Front Matter Copyright Page Thesis Abstract Signature Page Dedication Acknowledgments Table of Contents

I II IV VI VIII X

CHAPTERS

02 Introduction

10 Research

22 Beginning Studies

06 06

14 18

Problem Statement Critical Position/Thesis Statement

Summation of Research Users

33 37 41

Case Studies on Parking Structures Beginning Diagrams Contextual Analysis Programming

46 Design Process

64 Final Design

22 Conclusion

51 59

65 67 69 90

23 Thesis Conclusion 101 List of Figures 102 Works Cited

Concept Reassessment

Summation of Thesis Program Diagrams Drawings & Renders Code, Cost & Schedule

Figure 1. View of Downtown San Diego from a parking structure. (By author)

01 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.2. Existing San Diego parking structure at C St. (By author)

The future of a city depends on people and how they function. Respectively, Andy Cohen, co-chief executive of top architecture firm Gensler, predicts car ownership will peak around 2020 and then start to decline, with more Americans relying on some form of ride-sharing than their own vehicles by 2025 (LA Times, April 2017). Cities are intended for people, yet the car has played a major role in urban city design throughout history, especially in urban parking structures in the U.S. Merriam Webster says a city is an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village. On a deeper note, Rem Koolhaas in The Generic City, identifies it as “...nothing but a reflection of present need and present ability.” America is a nation of drivers and there is no doubt the nation’s reliance on automobiles reflects as fitting of our modern society. Although the automobile and its parking structures shape the environment, and the public’s

lives, it neglects the civic and social infrastructure that supports a community. Due to the car, widely dispersed developments make walking person-centric as well as unsafe and unpleasant. This land use makes for underused street design along the perimeter of large scale parking structures in the heart of central areas where you find people walking or biking. Despite the mentioned obstacles, architecture can be applied to recent trends and create synergies where opportunity presents itself in neglected and abandoned streets. The question becomes, what will become of parking structures?

Figure 1.3. Southeast render of proposal. (By author)

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Although a city is intended for people, city design in downtown San Diego and other cities embody programmatic function for cars over people. Certain parking structures currently create dead zones and city streets as these parking structures serve only one function: auto storage. In return, most central spaces do not fulfill the purpose of human interaction, leading to dead zones, like the parking structure on C Street in downtown.

THESIS STATEMENT

This thesis will focus on strategies to help alleviate this particular inactive parking structure with two problems: a dead zone at the exterior of parkingstructure and the lack of human centered design in the structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interior. In addition, by reinventing the parking structure, this thesis will aim to provide human scale programmatic function in order to revive the parking structure that was originally designed for cars. By applying human centered design strategies to the parking structure and its neighboring perimeter streets, the next life of the parking structure will celebrate people rather than cars. The parking structure in this thesis is located in downtown San Diego and will be the basis for which the concept will be applied. The program will consist of residential and commercial spaces, a market place, bike rooms, and car ride sharing activities rather than owning a car.

REVITALIZING THE URB

AN PARKING STRUCTURE

Figure 2.0. San Diego map. (By author)

02 RESEARCH

Research focuses on city design, urban parking structures, and human centered design according to the needs of today.

“Each new situation requires a new architecture.” John Nouvel

Figure 2.1. San Diego zoom in of downtown area. (By author)

SUMMATION OF RESEARCH SOURCES

The built environment that has emerged over the past half-century is now designed to support iactive lifestyles. Roadways and streets have little accommodation for pedestrians to rest,lounge and sometimes even walk. Workplaces are usually isolated in office or industrial land use developments, so that the workforce has to drive to and from these activities. (ULI 2006) Architect and author Jan Gehl has said, “Life takes place on foot.” Since the 1950’s, widespread car ownership has opened tracts of land to millions of people and made possible the sprawl of land development patterns that have emerged before our eyes. As Robert Dunphy, Senior Resident Fellow for Transportation at Urban Land Institute, has noted, “Currently, conventional greenfield development patterns make transit expensive and underused, render carpooling ineffective, and discourage walking and biking. Although a growing number of national retail establishments are oriented toward pedestrians, the

majority employ design that favor the automobile. If a sidewalk exists at all, using it is often unpleasant and can often be dangerous due to lack of the watchful public eye. Commutes become long and tiresome and robs them of free time they can be spending on things that matter. As a result, children who come from the working class rely heavily on transportation from their parents. Seniors also become unable to drive and can become trapped in their own homes or neighborhoods without assistance. Numerous obstacles remain in the development of compact, walkable and mixed-use cities. Architect and planner Andres Duany summarizes: Environmental regulations, such as mandatory greenways and buffers, prevent connectivity between projects. Requirements for on-site storm water retention limit density and discourage infill development. Lot coverage limits and high parking requirements also discourage density. (Schmitz 2006)

Walkable places are nothing new, nor are they dated. Major cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. (Schmitz and Scully, 2006) have been known for their pedestrian focus and remain competitive to business and culture. Smaller towns like Asheville, North Carolina, to Boulder, Colorado, (Schmitz and Scully, 2006) have also remained desirable places to live and work due to their pedestrian focus as well.In short, the size of a city does not necessarily matter when it comes to pedestrian centered design. As both homes and workplaces have sprawled away from cities and towns, walking has dramatically declined as a mode of transportation. In 1960, about 9.9% of workers walked to work. By 1990, the percentage dropped to 3.9%, by 2000, only 2.9% arrived by foot. (Schmitz and Scully, 2006) Apart from this observation, it is worth noting that in more compact places, about one-third more people walk to work than in more sprawling places.

1808-1885

Figure 2.2. Horseless buggy. (LOC 2017)

WORLD’S FIRST CAR By Karl Benz The answer as to who invented and built the first car is not straightforward. The Library of Congress mentions, “The history of the automobile is very richa and dates back to the 15th century when Leonardo da Vinci was creating designs and models for transport vehicles.” (LOC 2017)

1924-1930s

Figure 2.3. The Doble. (Bellows 2017)

1940s-1950s

Figure 2.4. The D’Humy ramp system, first introduced in 1918. (LOC 2017)

1950s

Figure 2.5 Greenwich Village, NY. (Wright 1983)

20th Century Steam Vehicle

FIRST PARKING STRUCTURE

INTRODUCTION OF MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

A technology called Internal Combustion Engine appeared and shortly after, four brothers, the Dobles, produced the extroardinary machines and rekindled the market with these easierto-use cars. Steam powered vehicles peaked in the early 1930s with fast light weight boilers and engine designs. These machines developed during WWI and became simpler to operate. (LOC 2017)

By 1929 there were 23 million cars on US roads, and parking quickly became a problem. An early engineering solution for multistory garages was car elevators. Early garages were staffed with parking attendants. Drivers were not allowed to park their own cars. By the 1950s, the country was experiencing a parking garage construction boom. (NPR 2017)

Mixed-use development is a type of urban development that integrates residential, commercial, institutional, cultural, or industrial uses. Traditionally, human settlements have developed in mixed-use patterns in the past. However, with industrialisation, as well as the skyscraper, governmental zoning regulations were introduced to separate different functions (such as the manufactoring from residential zones). (ULI 2009)

1973

Figure 2.6. Martin Cooper. (LEE 2013)

1993

Figure 2.7. The IBM Simon. (Curtis 2014)

2007

Figure 2.8. Steve Jobs holding iPhone. (Digital Tail 2007)

2009

Figure 2.9 The new Uber logo. (Uber Newsroom 2011)

FIRST MOBILE PHONE BY MARTIN COOPER

IBM SIMON FIRST SMART PHONE

FIRST IPHONE BY APPLE

UBER APP TRANSPORT COMPANY

The father of the cell phone, Martin Cooper, made teh cell phone in April 3, 1973. The weight of the phone was about the same as a bag of sugar (2LB). The brick-like battery allowed for approximately 30 minutes and took 10 hours to charge, making it more of a chore. In 1983, the mobile phones went on sale in the US, costing about $3,000. By 1990 there were a million users. Voicemail was later added in 1986, 10 years later, internet access was available. (Lee 2013)

In 1993, the bulky gadget was the first smartphone and had a calendar, fax, touch screen and a host of other features with a price tag of about $650. The best selling model was the Nokia 1100, made in Finland. The model only ever worked in the USA, operating within a 15 state network. (Curtis 2014)

Steve Jobs, Co-founder of Apple Computer Inc. (1976), announced the iPhone at the Macworld convention on January 9, 2007. Jobs’ vision of a “computer for the rest of us,” sparked the PC revolution and made Apple an icon of American business. (Entrepeneur Media 2017) Apple had revolutionized two product categories: the Mac computer and iPod music player, with the iPhone, it’d now become three. Jobs introduced the multitouch interface that let iPhone pinch-to -zoom, along with scrolling, rubber banding and seamless multitasking. (Ritche 2017)

Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp started Uber when they had trouble hailing a cab in Paris. What started as an app that requested premium black cars throught a mobile phone in a few metropolitan areas soon became the losistical fabric of cities around the world. “Whether it’s a ride, a sandwich, or a package, we use technology to give people what they want, when they want it.” (Uber 2017)

Figure 2.10. People are the users. (Boulton 2017)

LOOKING AT USERS

ThE program is intended for everyone, but specifically for millennials who want to live in an urban landscape, but cannot afford to do so due to their abundant student loans. Debt keeps most millennials from putting their down payment for their first home. These millennials are typically one to five years out of college and in the work force from ages twentytwo through twenty-seven. Who are these millennials? Millennials, or Generation Y, ranges from individuals born between 1980 and 2000, typically 23 through 34 years of age (Hyatt-Fennell 2015). These millennials cannot afford to live in hot urban areas where their jobs are located. Most millennials can actually only afford to buy homes in Utah, Colorado, Missouri, Iowa, Kentucky and Michigan (Fortune 2016). Over the past hundred years, the American Dream has driven many human-beings to make brave choices. The American Dream, for the middle class, has slowly shifted throughout the decades. Working hard in order to buy a cul-de-sac

suburban home with a white picket fence to provide for their families was most mansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; vision. After the suburban home was achievable for most, it was all about keeping up with the Jonesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; as technology grew at a larger scale and becoming available to more individuals. Typically, these millennials do not mind living with others in multiple numbers if it means saving money in order to live the urban lifestyle that is close to their jobs, groceries, entertainment, and transportation. Living with other generations, like Generation X, defined as the ages thirty-four through fifty-four can be helpful to the millennial and the typology as they can provide insight on experience.

USERS THE DEMOGRAPHICS

gen X

04 USER

THE DEMOGRAPHICS

GEN X

GEN Y

GENERATION X 1960 - 1980 34 - 54 YEARS OLD

MILLENNIALS “GENERATION Y” 1980 - 2000 24 - 34 YEARS OLD

WORK

65%

75% FINANCIAL HELP FROM PARENTS

36% WHO ARE THE MILLENNIALS?

Studies know that in all millennials, only sixty percent are white, twenty percent are hispanic, twenty percent are black, twenty percent are asian and twenty percent are considered ‘other’. The generation is generally diverse with Whites winning the majority.

19%

WHITE 60%

HISPANIC 20%

BLACK 20%

ASIAN OTHER 20% 20%

10.4%

MILLENNIALS WHO LIVE ALONE

Milllennials do no mind living with other room-mates if it means they will save money due to high rent prices.

MARITAL STATUS

As decades go by, less and less millennials are having children. Millennials find it more important to be able to graduate school and pursue their careers in order to be financially stable before they form their own families.

Figure 2.11. Demographics of millenials. (By author)

WHO

ARE THEY?

DEBT UBER CARPOOL

MARRIED 21% DIVORCED 4% SINGLE 75%

MARITAL STATUS

ARE THEY?

DIVORCED 4% SINGLE 75%

DEBT UBER CARPOOL DON’T MIND LIVING TOGETHER WORK W/COMPUTERS

AGE

WHO

MARRIED 21%

SCHOOL / COLLEGE

1-5 YEARS POST GRADUATION

“OTHER” MILLENNIALS + GEN X + OLDER

Figure 2.12. Millenial demonstration. (By author)

Figure 3.0. Ground diagram (By author) over Tiny Home image (Curbed 2016)

03 BEGINNING STUDIES

CASE STUDIES

Parking Garage 1111 Lincoln Road, Miami, USA

Millennium Point Car Park, Birmingham, UK

Parc Des Celestines, Lyon, France

Figure 3.1. 1111 Parking Structure. (Stott 2013)

Figure 3.2. Millennium Car Park (Stott 2013)

Figure 3.3. Parc Des Celestines (Stott 2013)

The parking garage on 1111 Lincoln Road, Miami, USA, is becoming increasingly popular as it introduces unique shopping, dining, residential and parking experience along the pedestrian promenade. 11 11 is “Miami’s premier urban lifestyle destination, 11 11 features a curated collection of international retailers and fine fare hotspots at its base.” (UIA Management, LLC 2016).

Millennium Point Car Park, Birmingham, UK has a façade in which helps to bring light into the building. A series of blue boxes are notched into the surface of the building at all four elevations. The parking garage is also home to a science museum, college faculty offices and hosts a variety of diverse events throughout the year that focus on arts, science, technology and design.

Parc Des Celestines, Lyon, France is creative in one aspect, it uses a rotating mirror at the lowest level in order to reflect sunlight into the many levels of the underground parking garage.

Ballet Vallet, Miami, USA

Veranda Car Park,

Rotterdam, Netherlands

Genseler Parking Garage Los Angeles, CA, USA

Figure 3.4. Ballet Vallet (Stott 2013)

Figure 3.5. Veranda Car Park (Stott 2013)

Figure 3.6. Gensler Future Parking Garage (LA Times 2017)

Ballet Vallet, Miami, USA is an adaptive re-use parking garage on a block of historic art deco facades. The building is entirely covered in green vegetation to soften the appearance and reduce the visual scale impact to the surrounding pedestrians.

Veranda Car Park, Rotterdam, Netherlands, creates a modern day courtyard-like space for its users. It reflects a “…high-quality architectonic character that would fit in with the urban planning vision…” (ArchDaily 2009).

Architecture firm Gensler released their vision plans for retrofitting a parking structure in Los Angeles, California. Gensler aims to provide residential housing and commercial space for businesses.

Figure 3.7. Bird eye view over Downtown San Diego hightlighting selected site. (By author)

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA • POPULATION: 1.39 MILLION • 8TH LARGEST CITY IN THE USA 2ND LARGEST CITY IN CALIFORNIA • MEDIAN AGE: 34.9 YEARS • AREA: 372.40 SQUARE MILES • WEATHER: ANNUALLY SUNNY • MORE THAN 100 SPOKEN LANGUAGES • RATED NO. 4 IN LOCATION (JONES LANG LASALLE 2015)

• RATED NO. 1 IN MILITARY ASSETS (SD MILITARY ADVISORY COUNCIL) • RATED NO. 2 AS MOST INVENTIVE CITY IN THE WORLD (FORBES 2013) • SELECTED AMONG “WORLD SMART CITIES” (2015) • “BEST PLACE TO LAUNCH A STARTUP” (FORBES 2014)

(CITY OF SAN DIEGO 2017)

LOOKING AT SAN DIEGO

Downtown San Diego, as mentioned before, houses many parking structures and parking lots that will soon need to be reinvented to create space for new, fresh, and bold ideas. Downtown San Diego is currently home to more than 34,000 residents, 80,000 employees, 4,000 businesses, 137,000 jobs and 110 technology and innovation startups (Downtown San Diego Partnership 2016). With such life in downtown, it is critical to efficiently plan for its future. This thesis focuses on a parking garage located on 702 C St, in downtown San Diego, CA. This particular parking structure has seven levels and existing retail and/or business space on ground level that is not being entirely occupied. The intent for this thesis will be to also incorporate living and entertainment spaces that can be affordable and comfortable in the downtown area. The site sits in a somewhat dead spot in downtown. The entire block south of the site is currently abandoned, which does not help as it can attract the homeless, trash, night-time fear of safety,

etc. Besides the negative cons, the site does sit connected to Meryl Lynch Bank, which can later be a great help financially. The trolley runs directly in front of the site, incorporating transportation convenience to the future user.

4TH

BROADWAY

MARKET

Figure 3.8. Diagram map of parking (yellow) in Downtown San Diego.(By author)

THE SITE

Parking Structure on C Street. The parking structure on C Street between 7th Street and 8th Street in centered in the middle of downtown San Diego. It is one of the many parking structures in downtown that have potential to be transformed into something greater. Downtown San Diego houses many parking structures and parking lots that will soon need to be reinvented to create space for new, fresh, and bold ideas. Downtown San Diego is currently home to more than 34,000 residents, 80,000 employees, 4,000 businesses, 137,000 jobs and 110 technology and innovation startups (Downtown San Diego Partnership 2016). With such life in downtown, it is critical to efficiently plan for its future. For the initial site research, the focus was on a parking garage located on 702 C St, in downtown San Diego, CA. This particular parking structure has seven levels and existing retail and/or business space on ground level

that is not being entirely occupied. The intent of this thesis will be to incorporate affordable living and entertainment spaces. Currently, the site sits in a dead spot in downtown. The selected case studies show several exclusive parking structures located throughout the world. Each parking structure contains a design element acknowledging several factors such as new program life, effective passive design strategies, and/or new ways of dealing with problems that arise after a period of time. Alongside parking structures, some case studies hover over small homes that can be efficient yet sleek and modern.

Figure 3.9. View of site in Downtown San Diego. (Google 2016)

TINY HOMES LIVING SMALL

Living small has been a new concept that has been adapted by modern users. Peope are finding new ways of living. Living in small spaces in order to have a more minimal life to make time for activities or hobbies that reflect their passions in life. For some, Tiny homes do not seem reasonable due to lack of living space for their belongings. People are used to have two to three bedroms interconnected with hallways and ample space for hosting and/or entertainment. Although this concept is not everyone, the concept works for the people who are ready to live sustainable lives. Their focus may be to learn to live with less and live a more ‘free life’ with less interruptions. Small homes are more affordable than the more permanent and traditional homes, as seen in Figure 3.10 through 3.12. People might opt for this style of living in order to pour their savings onto other passions and living by the “less is more” concept.

Figure 3.10. Tiny Home 1. (Curbed 2016)

Figure 3.11. Tiny Home 2. (Curbed 2016)

Figure 3.12. Tiny Home 3. (Curbed 2016)

Size: 269 SQFT Cost: $66,600

Size: 262 SQFT Cost: $71,000

Size: 240 SQFT Cost: $95,000

(Curbed 2016)

BEGINNING DIAGRAMS

Figure 3.13. Mixed-use diagram. (By author)

Figure 3.14. Light diagrams. (By author)

“You don’t need to be an urban planner to understand that, above all, good urban planning is about building connections, not walls.” Rob Quigley

[ Affordable Homes for Millennials + Gen-X ] Millennials are achieving the American dream of graduating college and pursuing great careers, only to realize they are being left with less than empty pockets. Student loans are keeping the majority of millennials from starting their lives, like moving out of their parent’s home and buying a house. Almost always, its the millennials who are not able to purchase their home due to the fact that older home buyers actually have the down payment for the home, unlike the millennial, who in most cases, don’t. Millennials want to live the trendy and smart way but cannot afford it. The solution may be to, yes live in downtown San Diego, but with other generations and smaller footprints, smaller than they perhaps imagine. The new era of micro homes can be the new way of life. Modern, customizable, and affordable.

SITE

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

SITE

BT DE

TRANSPORTATION

BROADWAY

4TH

BROADWAY

BROADWAY 4TH

BROADWAY MARKET

4TH

MARKET

MARKET MARKET

SITE

TROLLEY

FERRY STOPS

SITE

TROLLEY

FERRY STOPS

PARKING LOT / STRUCTURE

TROLLEY STOPS

BUS STOPS

PARKING LOT / STRUCTURE

TROLLEY STOPS

BUS STOPS

DOWNTOWN / URBAN LANDSCAPE

PARK

DOWNTOWN / URBAN LANDSCAPE

PARK

Existing Parking Space 37

SITE

Figure transportation. (By author) FERRY STOPS SITE 3.15. San Diego diagram TROLLEY of Trolley PARKING LOT / STRUCTURE

TROLLEY STOPS

DOWNTOWN / URBAN LANDSCAPE

PARK

BUS STOPS

The San Diego trolley provides transportation with several lines available to get users to different parts of the city. All trolleys run through downtown, as its main station is located south east of downtown. Luckily, the trolley runs through the chosen site, making it easy for future users to be able to take public transportation and lowering chances of using a vehicle.

MILLENNIUM POINT CAR PARK BIRMINGHAM, UK

4TH

BROADWAY

MARKET MARKET

MARKET

PARC DES CELESTINS LYON, FRANCE

BALLET VALET MIAMI, USA

SITE

TROLLEY

FERRY STOPS

PARKING LOT / STRUCTURE

TROLLEY STOPS

BUS STOPS

PARK BUS + TROLLEY STOPS

TROLLEY

FERRY STOPS

PARKING LOT / STRUCTURE SITE DOWNTOWN / URBAN LANDSCAPE PARKING LOT / STRUCTURE

TROLLEY STOPS

BUS STOPS

PARK

DOWNTOWN / URBAN LANDSCAPE

TROLLEY TROLLEY STOPS

FERRY STOPS BUS STOPS

PARKS PARK

SITE

Scanned by CamScanner

DOWNTOWN / URBAN LANDSCAPE

VERANDA CAR PARK ROTTERDAM, NETHERLANDS

SITE

BROOKS + SCARPA SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA

TINY HOMES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

BROADWAY

Size: Approx. 240 square feet Cost: Approx. $95,000

BROADWAY 4TH

Size: Approx. 262 square feet Cost: Approx. $71,000

4TH

Size: Approx. 269 square feet Cost: Approx. $66,600

MARKET

C St in downtown san diego between 7th and 8th

Figure 3.16. San Diego diagram of bus/trolley stops. (By author) FERRY STOPS SITE TROLLEY PARKING LOT / STRUCTURE

TROLLEY STOPS

DOWNTOWN / URBAN LANDSCAPE

PARK

BUS STOPS

The symbols on the left figure demonstrate where surrounding transportation stops/pick-up locations are held. The triangle symbol represents the trolley stops. The circle symbols represent the bus stops. Lastly, the diamond symbols by the bay, south west of downtown, represents the Ferry stops.

FigureSITE3.17. San Diego diagram (BySTOPS author) TROLLEY of parks. FERRY PARKING LOT / STRUCTURE

TROLLEY STOPS

DOWNTOWN / URBAN LANDSCAPE

PARK

BUS STOPS

The hatched spots seen on the left figure reflect the parks in downtown, or rather green areas where users can go to sit on grass or under a tree. We can see there are not many parks where users can go to for recreation. It will be important to be able to provide such program on site.

Figure 3.18. Bird eye view of outlined site in Northern Downtown San Diego. (Google 2016)

35,175

LEVEL 07 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 05 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 01

SQUARE FEET

X 7 LEVELS

246,225

ROOFTOP RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MARKET PLACE

35,175

Figure 3.19. Diagrams of building site square footage. (By author)

SQUARE FEET

117,250 SQUARE FEET 58,625

SQUARE FEET

35,175

SQUARE FEET

PROGRAMMING PROGRAM NAMES + SQUARE FOOTAGES

Figure 3.20. Square footage area by level. (By author)

The figure on the left is the first attempt at program for the site. Since the site is located in downtown, there is need for mixed-use program. A building that only serves one program is not efficient. In downtown, users need to be able to have access to various options in order to reduce carbon foot print.

The figure on the right goes into program detail. The parking structure will incorporate living, co-working, and entertainment. The living aspect will br broken into three categories, small, medium, and large. The size of living depends on need and cost, allowing for flexible ways of living in downtown.

PROGRAM DIAGRAMS

L7 L6

live

L5 L4 L3

shop/eat

L2 L1

other Figure 3.21. Elevation diagrams of building program by level. (By author)

The program will not be contained in one spot according to program type. The program will be designed to be spread out through the building in order for users to have access. The ground level will contain most of the public entertainment program.

Co-working and co-living will be spread out throughout the building. Users will be able to work together in collaboration. Users will be able to eat and shop within feet of where they live.

Figure 3.22. Initial schematic concept sketches. (By author)

The figure above show various initial conceptual ideas of program design layout. The public space will be designed to live in the middle of the parking structure, making it easy access for its users. The private space will be located around the exterior, in order to be able to have sun light.

The figures to the right begin to deal with ways for light to penetrate into the building. Parking structuresâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; large floor plates lack light, as they are mainly used for car parking.

Figure 3.23. Initial schematic concept program sketches. (By author)

Figure 4.0. Southeast Perspective View of building. (By author) 45

04 DESIGN PROCESS

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Wherever technology reaches its real fulfillment, it transcends into architecture.â&#x20AC;? Mies van der Rohe

From an architectural standpoint, the city code may not allow for mixed-use with living space in the parking structure, but in an effort to become more sustainable towards the long term, it may be possible that codes will be rewritten and allow for more collaborative program, rather than being in the residential, commercial, business, or education category. This typology will incorporate living, at a smaller level: Micro S, Micro M, and Micro L. Smaller, yet modern, homes can range from $66,000 to $95,000. (Curbed 2016) Co-Working will also be introduced into the program. This allows for human minds to come together in order to draw inspiration from othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; thoughts, ideas, and plans by simply collaborating their time in the same space as others. Spaces like these can help users think better by being in an open layout where collaboration of ideas is encouraged, which likely forms social networks that can help users in many ways. Buildings also needs an outdoor public space in order to keep sane. Human-beings

need nature in this world of closed rooms filled with technology. Users need fresh air to relax and reactivate. Other program such as health grocery stores should be included to let the user not have to think twice about traveling to another grocery store that can carry unhealthy items. Adding retail helps the economy as users tend to look for the latest fashion every day. Entertainment is perhaps the second most important. People want to have fun after work and gather with friends and loved ones to have a good time and not think about bills, or life. Where there is entertainment, people will go and if there is a great deal of entertainment, it usually becomes a hotspot for many people and/or tourists, adding value to the site. The key is to diversify. In our world today, if something only serves one use or purpose, it will become a thing of the past.

Scanned by CamScanner

Figure 4.1. Circulation and light diagrams. (By author)

CONCEPT QUARTER 2 OF 3

Towards the middle of Quarter 2, the concept became clearer. The design arose from the concept of Jenga. Jenga, as most may know, is a game that is played with various wood modules that sit atop of each other. The point of the game is to remove one module per turn and place it at the top of the module tower until someone looses by tumbling the tower down. The Jenga concept was applied to this thesis but looking at the module as a ‘car in the parking structure’ and replacing the module with ‘a person now living in a residential living space.’

Figure 4.2. 3 Step concept diagram. (By author)

Concept Formation Process Existing Parking

Urban Jenga

Remove Car Outline Space

Rotate Left Stop at 90 Degrees

Push + Pull

Studio

1-2 Bedroom Unit Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner

L Scanned by CamScanner

1-2 Bedroom Unit Scanned by CamScanner

Figure 4.3. Concept formation process. (By author)

Scanned by CamScanner

E X T E N D

What Goes? What Stays?

Unit

Side Yar

Scanned by CamScanner

Existing

canner

Plan

Scanned by CamScanner

05 54 Scanned by CamScanner

E X T E N D

What Goes? What S

canned by CamScanner

Existing

Figure 4.4. Comparison of existing and proposal sections. (By author)

Plan

E X T E N D

es? What Stays?

Unit

Side Yard

Plan

Push + Pull

02 S

Studio

1-2 Bedroom Unit

Scanned by CamScanner

Existing

Scanned by CamScanner

1-2 Bedroom Unit

Scanned by CamScanner

Parking Structure.

Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner

EXISTING: Two - Way Slab With Beams

EXISTING:Two - Way Slab Section

NEW: Interior Steel Framing Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner

Figure 4.5. Structure systems concept sketches. (By author)

B Street C S TRE ET

Merrill Lynch

8th Avenue

Typical Existing Plan

Vestibule

EXISTING CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE SLAB/STRUCTURE EXISTING PRECAST EXTERIOR PANELS ANCHORED TO CAST IN PLACE FORM

ENTRY TO MERRIL LYNCH

TWO-WAY SLAB

VENDOR KITCHEN

R N

VENDOR KITCHEN

A lace

VENDOR KITCHEN

main entry UP

market place

C Street UP

C S TRE ET

Typical Existing Plan EXISTING CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE SLAB/STRUCTURE EXISTING PRECAST EXTERIOR PANELS ANCHORED TO CAST IN PLACE FORM TWO-WAY SLAB

Figure 4.6. Typical existing plan with perimeter panel detail. (By author)

REASSESSMENT QUARTER 2 OF 3

The end of Quarter 2 demonstrated a need for a program that celebrated people in a more obvious way. At this time, the Market Place needed to be analyzed once more in order to make sure the program was serving its need in the correct way.

Figure 4.7. Public and private sketch. (By author)

Figure 4.8. Private meets public diagram. (By author)

Mixed - Use

Public Park Generation Y Generation X? Business / Retail / Work

Scanned by CamScanner

Figure 4.9. Program layers diagram. (By author)

Figure 5.0. Southeast render of proposal. (By author)

05 FINAL DESIGN

FINAL SUMMATION QUARTER 3 OF 3

The figure to the right demonstrates the south west perspective of the final proposal of the reinvented parking structure. The program names point out its area in the building.

ROOFTOP LOUNGE

BIKE / EXERCISE CIRCULATION RAMP

COMMERCIAL OFFICE/WORK SPACE RESIDENTIAL UNITS

MARKET PLACE CAR RIDE SHARING PICK-UP + DROP OFF 65

SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE

T E E

R T S

Figure 5.1. Southwest render. (By author)

carve

PROGRAM DIAGRAMS

Carve Footprint to Introduce Natural Light Core

Carve Through Building to Allow Light To All Levels

Carve Interior Shell of Existing Stair Tower For Restoration

Pull Slabs Outward At South Perimeters

Carve Slabs For Natural Daylight Penetration to Sideyards

Shading Parameters Define New Program

Proposed South East Perspective

push + pull

Existing South East Perspective

Figure 5.2. A) Final diagrams. (By author)

GREENERY

Walking / Biking Path

Life Safety Egress

Market Place

Commercial

Residential

Residential Sideyards

Rooftop Lounge Park

Public Walk

PROGRAM

CIRCULATION

Street Pedestrian Walkability

Figure 5.3. B) Final diagrams. (By author)

DRAWINGS THE RE-INVENTION TRANSITION

The following drawings depict the transition from existing parking structure as-built drawings to the proposed design in order to understand the story of the process.

8th Avenue

7th Avenue

B Street

RESTROOM

courtyard UP

VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN

market place

market place main entry UP

C Street

Figure 5.4. Site Plan. (By author)

PROPOSED SITE PLAN 70

ELEVATION PLANS

NORTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

Figure 5.5. North elevation. (By author)

Figure 5.6. East elevation. (By author)

SOUTH ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

Figure 5.7. South elevation. (By author)

Figure 5.8. West elevation. (By author)

FLOOR PLAN: ROOF

FLOOR PLANS

FLOOR PLAN: ROOF FLOOR PLAN: ROOF

FLOOR PLAN: ROOF

:: SOUTH LEVELELEVATION 01 - 07 PROGRAM DIAGRAM Living Units

Side Yard

FLOOR PL

SOUTH SOUTH ELEVATION ELEVATION PROGRAM DIAGRAM Living Units

Market Place

Side Yard

SOUTH EL

Market Place

WN DO

ROOF

APT 300 DN

balcony

roof

balcony

APT 300

FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL 03 + 05 balcony

balcony

roof

balcony

FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL 03 + 05

FLOOR PL

FLOOR PLAN: ROOF FLOOR PLAN: ROOF

FLOOR PLAN: ROOF

FLOOR PL

TYPICAL LEVELS: 02 - 06

APT 200

APT 203

326 SF

APT 205

CREATIVE OFFICE ? SF

CREATIVE OFFICE

balcony

APT 203

APT 205

CREATIVE OFFICE ? SF

APT 200

FLOOR PLAN: TYPICAL LEVEL 02-06

APT 200

FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL 02 + 04 + 06 326 SF APT 300

326 SF APT 300

CREATIVE OFFICE

balcony

FLOOR PLAN: TYPICAL LEVEL 02-06

roof

balcony

FLOOR PLAN: TYPICAL 02-06 FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL LEVEL 02 + 04 + 06

FLOOR PL

FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL 03 + 05

FLOOR PL

Vestibule

ENTRY TO MERRIL LYNCH

VACANT VACANT LEASE LEASE SPACE SPACE

VACANT LEASE SPACE VACANT VACANT LEASE LEASE SPACE SPACE

BIKE BIKE ROOM ROOM

VACANT LEASE SPACE

Figure 5.9. Existing

BIKE ROOM

CCStreet Street as-builts.

VACANT LEASE SPACE

(By author)

EXISTING C Street

FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL 01

FLOOR PLAN: TYPICAL LEVEL 02-06 Existing Floor Plans FLOOR FLOOR PLAN: PLAN: LEVEL LEVEL 01 01

E1 E2

VENDOR KITCHEN UP

VENDOR KITCHEN

VACANT LEASE SPACE

E2 E2

VENDOR KITCHEN

VACANT LEASE SPACE

Figure 5.10. APT 200 326 SF

ENTRY TO MERRIL LYNCH

VENDOR KITCHEN

BIKE ROOM

VACANT LEASE SPACE market pla ce DN

VENDOR KITCHEN

VACANT LEASE

main entry

VENDOR KITCHEN

UP DN

VENDOR KITCHEN

m a r k eSPACE t place VENDOR KITCHEN

VENDOR KITCHEN

BIKE ROOM

VACANT LEASE SPACE

APT 203

CREATIVE OFFICE

VENDOR KITCHEN

VACANT LEASE SPACE

main entry

C Street Demolition plan. market place

VENDOR KITCHEN

VACANT LEASE SPACE

VENDOR KITCHEN

E2E1 E1

VENDOR KITCHEN

RAMP

market place

(By author)

DEMO PLAN C Street

balcony

APT 205

CREATIVE OFFICE ? SF

7th Avenue

E2 E1

7th Avenue 7th 7th Avenue 7th Avenue Avenue

VACANT LEASE SPACE

Vestibule

8th Avenue 8th Avenue Avenue 8th

7th Avenue 7th Avenue 7th Avenue

GROUND

8th Avenue 8th Avenue 8th Avenue 8th Avenue

RAMP

VACANT VACANT LEASE LEASE SPACE SPACE

APT 200 326 SF

balcony

FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL 01

FLOOR PLAN: TYPICAL 02-06 FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL LEVEL 02 + 04 + 06 NEW Floor Plans FLOOR PLAN: LEVEL 01 0101 FLOOR FLOOR PLAN: PLAN: LEVEL LEVEL

FLOOR PL

FLOOR PLANS

LEVEL 00 - 07

open to below UP

open to below

E2 corridor

RESTROOM

courtyard UP

VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN

market place

8th Avenue

7th Avenue

main entry UP

C Street Figure 5.11. Proposed ovrall typical floor plans. (By author)

PROPOSED: OVERALL

FLOOR PLANS

RESTROOM

courtyard UP

VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN

market place

market place main entry UP

C Street Figure 5.12. Site Plan featuring Market Place. (By author)

RESTROOM

8th Avenue

7th Avenue

GROUND LEVEL: MARKET PLACE

RESTROOM

courtyard UP

VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN

market place

8th Avenue

7th Avenue

FRAME OF VIEW

main entry UP

C Street

Figure 5.13. Market Place. (By author)

PICK UP/DROP OFF ZONE

Figure 5.14. Pick up and Drop off zone at 7th Street. (By author)

MARKET PLACE VENDOR KITCHEN

Figure 5.15. Kitchen vendor at Market Place. (By author)

ROOF TOP

open to below UP

Figure 5.16. Roof floor plan. (By author)

ROOFTOP WEST VIEW

FRAME OF VIEW

open to below UP

Figure 5.17. Rooftop lounge at Level 07. (By author)

6 1

SLEEP SPACE

UNIT PLANS RESIDENCES: S, M, L

Exposed existing structure.

SIDEYARD

Typical Studio Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6

ENTRANCE SIDE YARD LIVING ROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM RESTROOM

Figure 5.18. Typical studio plan. (By author)

Allows natural daylight to sleep area.

Folding doors open full length to allow for more flexible floor space.

BUSINESS UNIT + CORRESPONDING OUTDOOR SPACE

2 1 3

1 2 3 4

ENTRANCE OUTDOOR MEETING SPACE BUSINESS UNIT FOLDING WALL

Figure 5.19. Commercial business unit. (By author)

BUILDING SECTION

1 2 3 4 5 6

MARKET PLACE BUSINESS RESIDENTIAL SIDE YARD BIKE PATH ROOF TOP LOUNGE

ROOF 95’ - 0”

ROOF TOP 80’ - 0”

LEVEL 06 67’ - 0”

4 LEVEL 05 54’ - 0”

5 LEVEL 04 41’ - 0”

3 LEVEL 03 28’ - 0”

2 LEVEL 02 15’ - 0”

1 GROUND 0’ - 0”

Figure 5.20. Building section. (By author)

WALL SECTION DETAIL CURTAIN WALL GLASS SYSTEM MULLION

TWO WAY SYSTEM STRUCTURE REINFORCED REBAR CAST IN PLACE CONRETE BEAM

Figure 5.21. Wall section detail. (By author)

CAST IN PLACE CONRETE COLUMN

STRUCTURE PLANS + AXONOMETRIC ROOF

LEVEL 06

LEVEL 05

LEVEL 04

LEVEL 03

LEVEL 02

GROUND LEVEL

ADD DEMO DIAGRAM PLANS

STRUCTURE PLANS

SOUTHWEST STRUCTURE AXONOTMETRIC

Figure 5.22. Structure. (By author)

BUILDING SYSTEMS SECTION

Air and water circulate continuously, to every floor in the building. They move to and from handling units, where outside air is conditioned (heated or cooled) and filtered through risers.

LEGEND COLD WATER HOT WATER RETURN AIR AND EXHAUST WASTE LEGEND COLD WATER HOT WATER RETURN AIR AND EXHAUST WASTE

ROOF 95’ - 0”

ROOF TOP 80’ - 0”

LEVEL 06 67’ - 0”

LEVEL 05 54’ - 0”

LEVEL 04 41’ - 0”

LEVEL 03 28’ - 0”

LEVEL 02 15’ - 0”

GROUND 0’ - 0”

Figure 5.23. Building section showing systems diagram. (By author)

CODE|COST|SCHEDULE

Figure 5.24. San Diego Municipal Code. (City of San Diego 2016)

BUILDING USE: Storage Group S, Low-hazard storage, Parking Garages, open or closed. OCCUPANCY: S-2 ACCESSORY OCCUPANCY: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: FIRE PROTECTION: Fire alarm/detection system

San Diego Municipal Code (8-2016) (CCPD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; CORE)

BUILDING HEIGHT: ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT:

Chapter 15: Planned Districts

BUILDING AREA:

Division 3: The Centre City Planned District (Added 4-3-2006 by O-19471 N.S.)

FIRST FLOOR AREA: SECOND FLOOR AREA: THIRD FLOOR AREA: FOURTH FLOOR AREA: FIFTH FLOOR AREA: SIXTH FLOOR AREA: SEVENTH FLOOR AREA:

Article 6: Planned Districts (Added 4-3-2006 by O-19471 N.S.)

BUILDING AUTHORITY APPLICABLE CODES: FIRE RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS: 1. 2. 3.

Figure 5.25. Code. (City of San Diego & CBC 2016)

PROJECT CONCEPTUAL PROFORMA PROPERTY ADDRESS: 722 C ST, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 ACQUISITION COST

PURCHASE PRICE $11,000,000.00 70% LAND LOAN @ 5% $7,700,000.00 LAND LOAN CLOSING @ 1.6% $176,000.00 PRIVATE INVESTOR $3,476,000.00

BANK INVESTMENT FOR ACQUISITION PRIVATE INVESTMENT FOR ACQUISITION

$7,700,000.00 $3,476,000.00

ENTITLEMENTS & DESIGN PERIOD COST

PAY OFF INTEREST OF LAND LOAN $385,000.00 TOTAL SOFT COST $1,330,000.00

BANK INVESTMENT FOR SOFT COST PRIVATE INVESTMENT FOR SOFT COST $1,715,000.00 CONSTRUCTION LOAN

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST $17,080,000.00 CONSTRUCTION LOAN @ 70% OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST $11,956,000.00

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD COST

CONSTRUCTION LOAN $11,956,000.00 PAYOFF LAND LOAN $7,700,000.00 PAYOFF LAND LOAN INTEREST $385,000.00 TOTAL HARD COST $4,750,000.00

BANK INVESTMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION COST PRIVATE INVESTMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION COST

$11,956,000.00 $879,000.00

TOTAL BANK LOAN $11,956,000.00 TOTAL PRIVATE INVESTMENT $6,070,000.00

Figure 5.26. Project detailed Proforma. (By author)

UNIT MIX

RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL

x20 x10

GROSS MONTHLY RENT $121,500.00 ANNUAL RENTAL INCOME $1,458,000.00 VACANY LOSS 5% $72,900.00 OPERATING EXPENSES 35% $510,300.00

NET OPERATING INCOME (NOI)

$874,800.00

CAP RATE TARGET 4.5% CAPITALIZED VALUE $19,440.00 BUY AND SALE EXIT STRATEGIES

SALES PRICE $19,440,000.00 CONSTRUCTION LOAN PAY OFF $11,956,000.00 CONSTRUCTION LOAN INTEREST + ORIGINATION FEE $504,560.00 INVESTOR CAPITAL RETURN $6,070,000.00 PROJECT PROFIT $909,440.00

INVESTOR PROFIT SPLIT 60% DEVELOPER SPLIT 40%

$545,664.00 $363,776.00

TIME FRAME 5 YEARS TOTAL PROFIT TO INVESTOR $545,664.00 INVESTORS ORIGINAL INVESTMENT $6,070,000.00 TOTAL: $6,615,664.00 ROI: 8.99%

PROJECT SCHEDULE

The project duration of this thesis project is estimated to be 17 months. The schedule is divided into 4 Phases: Pre-Construction Phase Design Phase Procurement Phase Construction Phase The Pre-Construction Phase includes schematic design and land acquisition with a duration of 4 months. The Design Phase (total duration of 6 months) includes reviews with pertaining Authorities Having Jurisdiction. The design phase is also divided into 4 design packages in order to expedite permitting and construction process. The PreConstruction Phase will slip into the Procurement Phase with a duration of 4 months. The Construction Phase, with a duration of 11 months, will be followed by the Pre-Sales Phase. This phase ensures all project units are sold.

Activity ID

PROJECT TITLE

Jul-17

Aug-17

Sep-17

Oct-17

Nov-17

Dec-17

Jan-18

Feb-18

Mar-18

Apr-18

May-18

Jun-18

Jul-18

Aug-18

Sep-18

Oct-18

Nov-18

Pre Construction Phase Project Analysis & Land Acquisition Site and Market Analysis Schematic Design & Program Development Proforma Analysis Investor & Bank Buy-In Land Acquisiton Construction Finance Design Design Development Review Design Development (DD) Review DD Fire Life Safety Review DD San Diego Building Code Review DD Utility Department Planning 50% Design Development Review Design Development (DD) Review DD Fire Life Safety Review DD San Diego Building Code Review DD Utility Department Planning Construction Documents Review Design Development (DD) Review DD Fire Life Safety Review DD San Diego Building Code Review DD Utility Department Planning 50% Construction Documents Review Design Development (DD) Review DD Fire Life Safety Review DD San Diego Building Code Review DD Utility Department Planning 95% Construction Documents Review Design Development (DD) Review DD Fire Life Safety Review DD San Diego Building Code Review DD Utility Department Planning 100% Back Check Construction Documents 100% Back Check Construction Set Procurement Solicit Bids Design Package 1: Civil and Site Preparation Design Package 2: Structural Design Package 3: Architectural and MEP Design Package 4: Landscaping and Offsite Work Award Contracts Design Package 1: Civil and Site Preparation Design Package 2: Structural Design Package 3: Architectural and MEP Design Package 4: Landscaping and Offsite Work Submittals Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples, Engineering Calculations Long Lead Items Order Long Lead Items Construction Phase Mobilzation Civil and Site Preparation Foundation Work/Demolition Pour Structural Columns at Ramp Pour and Cure New Slabs Frame L1-L7 Rough-in MEP Dry-in L1-L7 Finish Architectural Interior Finish Architectural Exterior Finish Site Work Set Transformer Closeout and Commissioning Energize Building Punch List Security Testing HVAC Testing/Balancing Substantial Completion Demobilization Disconnect Temporary Utilities Remove Trailers Remove Temporary Fencing Warranty Warranty Begins Sales Unit Pre-Sales

Figure 5.27. Project duration schedule. (By author)

Figure 6.0. Collage of minds coming together. (By author)

06 CONCLUSION

Figure 6.1. May 31, 2017 - Final thesis presentation. (By author)

THESIS CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the revival of the urban parking structure was repurposed with mixed-use development: residential and commercial space. This new building use provides living spaces for the people in lieu of merely being automobile storage in hopes of interconnecting pedestrians and the building program users. This thesis provides the current parking structure with a next life that focuses on the people and their everyday needs.

100

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

101

1. View of Downtown San Diego from a parking structure. (By author) 1.2. Existing San Diego parking structure at C St. (By author) 1.3. Southeast render of proposal. (By author) 2.0. San Diego map. (By author) 2.1. San Diego zoom in of downtown area. (By author) 2.2. Horseless buggy. (LOC 2017) 2.3. The Doble. (Bellows 2017) 2.4. The Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Humy ramp system, first introduced in 1918. (LOC 2017) 2.5 Greenwich Village, NY. (Wright 1983) 2.6. Martin Cooper. (LEE 2013) 2.7. The IBM Simon. (Curtis 2014) 2.8. Steve Jobs holding iPhone. (Digital Tail 2007) 2.9 The new Uber logo. (Uber Newsroom 2011) 2.10. People are the users. (Boulton 2017) 2.11. Demographics of millenials. (By author) 2.12. Millenial demonstration. (By author) 3.0. Ground diagram (By author) over Tiny Home image (Curbed 2016) 3.1. 1111 Parking Garage. (UIA 2016) 3.2. Millennium Point Car Park. (UIA 2016) 3.3. Parc Des Celestines. (UIA 2016) 3.4. Ballet Vallet. (UIA 2016) 3.5. Veranda Car Park. (ArchDaily 2009) 3.6. Gensler future parking garage. (LA Times 2017) 3.7. Bird eye view over Downtown San Diego on selected site. (By author) 3.8. Diagram map of parking (yellow) in Downtown San Diego. (By author) 3.9. View of site in Downtown San Diego. (Google 2016) 3.10. Tiny Home 1. (Curbed 2016) 3.11. Tiny Home 2. (Curbed 2016) 3.12. Tiny Home 3. (Curbed 2016) 3.13. Mixed-use diagram. (By author) 3.14. Light diagrams. (By author) 3.15. San Diego diagram of Trolley transportation. (By author) 3.16. San Diego diagram of bus/trolley stops. (By author) 3.17. San Diego diagram of parks. (By author) 3.18. Bird eye view of outlined site. (Google 2016) 3.19. Diagrams of building site square footage. (By author) 3.20. Square footage area by level. (By author) 3.21. Elevation diagrams of building program by level. (By author) 3.22. Initial schematic concept sketches. (By author) 3.23. Initial schematic concept program sketches. (By author) 4.0. Southeast Perspective View of building. (By author) 4.1. Circulation and light diagrams. (By author) 4.2. 3 Step concept diagram. (By author) 4.3. Concept formation process. (By author) 4.4. Comparison of existing and proposal sections. (By author) 4.5. Structure systems concept sketches. (By author) 4.6. Typical existing plan with perimeter panel detail. (By author) 4.7. Public and private sketch. (By author) 4.8. Private meets public diagram. (By author) 4.9. Program layersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; diagram. (By author) 5.0. Southeast render of proposal. (By author) 5.1. Southwest render. (By author) 5.2. A) Final diagrams. (By author) 5.3. B) Final diagrams. (By author) 5.4. Site Plan. (By author) 5.5. North elevation. (By author) 5.6. East elevation. (By author) 5.7. South elevation. (By author) 5.8. West elevation. (By author) 5.9. Existing as-builts. (By author) 5.10. Demolition plan. (By author) 5.11. Proposed ovrall typical floor plans. (By author) 5.12. Site Plan featuring Market Place. (By author) 5.13. Market Place. (By author) 5.14. Pick up and Drop off zone at 7th Street. (By author) 5.15. Kitchen vendor at Market Place. (By author)

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

5.16. Roof floor plan. (By author) 5.17. Rooftop lounge at Level 07. (By author) 5.18. Typical studio plan. (By author) 5.19. Commercial business unit. (By author) 5.20. Building section. (By author) 5.21. Wall section detail. (By author) 5.22. Structure. (By author) 5.23. Building section showing systems diagram. (By author) 5.24. San Diego Municipal Code. (City of San Diego 2016) 5.25. Code. (City of San Diego 2016) 5.26. Project detailed Proforma. (By author) 5.27. Project duration schedule. (By author) 6.0. Collage of minds coming together. (By author) 6.1. May 31, 2017 - Final thesis presentation. (By author)

WORKS CITED Cartion, Gina. Selfridge, Gladys. Shapiro, Josh. Walshok, Mary. April 2016. Downtown San Diego: The Innovation Economy’s Next Frontier, A Data Driven Exploration of San Diego’s Urban Renaissance. Downtown San Diego Partnership and UC San Diego Extension Center for Research on the Regional Economy. Retrieved from <http://www.downtownsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DSDP-Demo graphic-Study-2016.pdf> Chew, Jonathan. 3 March 2016. Top 10 Places Where Millennials Are Buying Houses. Fortune. Retrieved from <http://fortune.com /2016/03/03/millennials-home-buying/> Curtis, Sophie. Smartphone at 20. IBM Simon to iPhone 6. The Telegraph. United Kingdom. 2014. < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ mobile-phones/11037661/Smartphone-at-20-IBM-Simon-to-iPhone-6.html> Downtown San Diego Partnership. 2016. Downtown San Diego is Alive with Ideas, Opportunity and Diversity. Retrieved from <http://www. downtownsandiego.org> Entrepreneur Staff. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. Steve Jobs: An Extraordinary Career. California. 2017. < https://www.entrepreneur.com/ar ticle/197538> Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2008. Print. Grant, Denise. Messinger, Gordon. Weinstein, Jeff. 2016. 1111 Lincoln Road. Retrieved from <http://www.1111lincolnroad.com/contact/> Harjani, Ansuya. Parking lots: The future of urban housing? Oct. 2014. CNBC. Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/14/parking- lots-the-future-of-urban-housing.html Here’s How Self-Driving Car Will Transform Your City. October 2016. Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2016/10/heres-self- driving-cars-will-transform-city/ Hyatt-Fennell. 20 November 2015. Y it Matters: Millennials in the Workforce. Hyatt-Fennell Executive Search. Retrieved from http://www. hyattfennell.com/single-post/2015/11/20/Y-it-Matters-Millennials-in-the-Workforce> Intuit. 17 September 2013. Gen X vs. Millennials: Financial Habits Compared (Infographic). Turbotax. Retrieved from <http://blog.turbo tax.intuit.com/tax-planning-2/gen-x-vs-millennials-financial-habits-compared-infographic-15344/> Kimmelman, Michael. Paved, but Still Alive. Jan. 2012. NY Times. Retreived from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/arts/design/tak ing-parking-lots-seriously-as-public-spaces.html MacQuarrie, Ashley. 5 December 2011. Transforming the Way We Learn: Engaging the Millennial Generation. K12 Inc. 2016. Retrieved from <http://www.learningliftoff.com/transforming-way-learn-engaging-millennial-generation/#.WE8jWKOZNTZ> Malik, Anmar A. What defines a “city”? Urban Wire: Neighborhoods, Cities and Metros. Oct. 2015. Urban Institute. Retrieved from http:// www.urban.org/urban-wire/what-defines-city Pipkin, Ruth. 2016. Millennium Point. Rewired PR. Birmingham. Retrieved from <https://www.millenniumpoint.org.uk/plan-your-visit> Purinton, John. Mixed Use Parking Structure Design. International Parking Institute. Retrieved from http://www.parking.org/2016/01/12/ tpp-2012-10-mixed-use-parking-structure-design/ Schmitz, Adrienne. Scully, Jason. Creating Walkable Places, Compact mixed-Use Solutions. Urban Land Institute. 2006 Stott, Rory. 2013. The World’s 10 Coolest Car Parks. ArchDaily. Retrieved from <http://www.archdaily.com/443597/the-world-s-10-coolest- car-parks> Ruiter , Paul de. 24 July 2009. ArchDaily. Retrieved from <http://www.archdaily.com/29874/veranda-car-park-paul-de-ruiter> Xie, Jenny. 7 November 2016. 5 impressive tiny houses you can order right now, small living, made easy. Curbed. Retrieved from <http:// www.curbed.com/2015/8/18/9929218/where-to-buy-tiny-houses> Ritchie, Rene, History of iPhone: Apple reinvents the phone. Mobile Nations. iMore. 2017. < https://www.imore.com/history-iphone-orig inal> Uber Technologies Inc. 2017. Finding the Way. Creating possibilities for riders, drivers, and cities. Retrieved from https://www.uber. com/our-story/ Vincent, Roger. When car ownership fades, this parking garage will be ready for its next life. April 16, 2017. LA Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-car-future-real-estate-20170405-story.html

102

103

BEATRICE SOTO. FIRST YEAR OF ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL. 2012.

104