DIMARIA

OU T CITY Reimag ining q ueer space Until very recently, spaces for LGBTQ-identified people have existed in hidden bars and clubs, parks, bathhouses and within the strictures of heteronormative society. The growing acceptance of queer people has led to greater visibility, yet the commodification of gay culture and the erasure of many members of the community remains prevalent. Queerowned bars, clubs and shops provide places for people to meet up and spend money but not to gather and connect in meaningful ways. The William Way Center, the current LGBTQ community center in Philadelphia, serves important functions but does not live up to its programmatic or architectural potential and does not engage the community. A purposebuilt project focused on dwelling, wellness, gathering and expression, including community spaces and transitional housing for homeless youth, will act as a hub for queer people in the city and region.

Vincent DiMaria | Thesis | 2014-2015 Advisor Joanne Aitken

Purpose

W here we stand Up to this point, the LGBTQ community has achieved rights by being palatable and assimilating, and many people believe that all of the issues have been solved through the legalization of same-sex marriage. However, the lives of many queer people are still very difficult. It is important for the queer community to maintain strength and provide support to the members of the community most in need. We’re at a time in history where we can move beyond basic acceptance and towards the celebration of sexual identity and gender expression.

Building on Queer Space in Philadelphia

The Issue of Queer Youth Homelessness

SHOPS BARS/CLUBS

COMMUNITY

5% of the general

40% of the homeless

62% LGBTQ

58% homeless

+

youth population identifies as LGBTQ

PUBLIC ART & SIGNAGE

HEALTH

homeless youth suicide rate

youth population identifies as LGBTQ

LGBTQ youth who have been sexually assaulted

82% homeless

LGBTQ youth who reported at least one mental health problem

HOUSING EVENTS

Barriers to Stability

Scarcity of affordable housing & discrimination in shelters

2

Incomplete education makes finding work difficult

Drug abuse as a means of survival

(The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force & The Human Rights Campaign)

Program SHELTER ROOF TERRACE THEATER

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

EXPRESSION

=

BANQUET HALL

GATHERING ROOF TERRACE

EXHIBIT

CAFE

DAY CENTER/ THERAPY

LOBBY/ LOUNGE

WELLNESS DWELLING

CONF ROOMS OFFICES

COMP. LOUNGE

FITNESS CENTER

(Image by Angela Duncan)

Project Goals Create a hub for queer people in the city and region Create a different type of queer space based on community instead of commerce Explore issues of contemporary expressions of queerness in architecture Expand upon the identity of the area as a safe and welcoming place for all queer people Engage and educate the Philadelphia community on queer issues Challenge neighborhood issues of exclusivity and gentrification

3

Site & Context 30TH STREET STATION

JEFFERSON STATION

NATIONAL(15 min. subway+walk)

BROAD

REGIONAL (15 min. walk)

GAYBORHOOD

PINE LOMBARD/SOUTH CITY (2 min. walk)

Potential Sites

Location Plan

Existing Conditions

Broad Street Landmarks

4

Precedents Asakusa Culture & Tourism Center

Tourism & Community Center / Tokyo / Kengo Kuma & Associates / 2012

CAFE VIEWING TERRACE

EXHIBITION SPACE

Size: 8 stories / 20,200 SF Connection: The Asakusa Center is an example of how to incorporate multiple

community uses on a tight urban site and how to stack program elements vertically.

It also shows how a modest building can be very engaging and exciting through thoughtful design.

MULTIPURPOSE ROOM

LARGE CONF ROOM

SMALL CONF ROOM MEDIUM CONF ROOM SEMINAR ROOM

OFFICE GROUP TOUR SUPPORT

TOURIST INFORMATION NURSING ROOM

INFORMATION LOBBY FOREIGN EXCHANGE

RESTROOMS MECHANICAL

Bud Clark Commons

Shelter, Day Center & Housing / Portland, OR / Holst Architecture / 2011

Size: 8 stories / 106,000 SF / 130 tenants Connection: Bud Clark Commons is an excellent example of how to mix uses and sensitive program elements in an effective and efficient way. Similar to the Center on Halsted, this building shows the possibilities and requirements of a specific user group when a programming process is followed. Aside from the public spaces and day center, Bud Clark will inform the more detailed requirements of a homeless shelter and single-occupancy transitional housing units.

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

DAY CENTER

SHELTER

Center on Halsted

LGBT Community Center / Lakeview, Chicago, IL / Gensler / 2007

Size: 3 stories / 175,000 SF / 1,000 visitors/day Connection: The Center’s vision to promote “a thriving LGBTQ community, living

powerfully in supportive, inclusive environments” is directly related to my project’s goals. As one of the few purpose-built LGBTQ community centers, the Center shows the programming possibilities for this building type when a proper budget and process is achieved. Aside from providing the sizes and scope of the program elements, the Center will inform desired adjacencies between the elements and the specific needs of the user groups. While not the most inspirational design, this precedent will provide the basis for many of my program requirements.

SUPPORT DISCREET INWARD-FACING PUBLIC GENERAL NORTH HALSTED ST (Chicago’s main queer corridor)

5

Fall Review Massing Process

Floor Plans 150’

KITCHEN

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

68’

RESTROOMS

Level 10-18

THEATER LOBBY

RES. LOBBY

CAFE

AIDS MEMORIAL

Ground Floor

ROOF TERRACE

GALLERY

RESTROOMS

COMPUTERS

BREAK AREA

CONF ROOMS

6

Level 4

Coming Out

Journey

Diversity

Ambiguity

Assimilation/ Resistance

Escape

site selection form/massing

vertical circulation through stacked spaces reward/revelation

variety in articulation of interior spaces

blurred distinction between interior/exterior & public/private

response to context facade materiality

2nd floor lobby private roof terrace

Queer Space Diagrams

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

SHELTER BANQUET HALL GALLERY LOBBY LOBBY

CATERING KITCHEN

OFFICES CONF ROOMS FITNESS CENTER

THEATER

DAY CENTER

RES. LOBBY

CAFE

REHEARSAL

Exterior Sketch Section Perspective

7

Technical Review

2' - 2"

GYPSUM WALL BOARD

An aluminum mesh screen evolved into a kinetic, stainless steel panelized system between the Technical and Final Reviews

Materiality

FIBER CEMENT PANEL RAINSCREEN

0' - 10"

FLASHING

INSULATION

SITECAST CONCRETE BEAM & FLOOR

MECHANICAL PLENUM

STAINLESS STEEL PANEL STAINLESS STEEL SUPPORT

ACOUSTIC CEILING TILE GLAZING

MOISTURE BARRIER

VEGETATED ROOF

stormwater management

Wall Section

CHIMNEY COOLING TOWER FAN ROOM FRITTED GLASS

FRESH AIR

reduce heat gain

EXHAUST AIR RETURN DUCTWORK SUPPLY DUCTWORK FAN ROOM

ACCESS TO OUTDOOR SPACES

COOLING TOWER

connection to natural environment

TO RESIDENTIAL FAN COIL UNITS FRESH AIR EXHAUST AIR

CHIMNEY

TO COMMUNITY FAN COIL UNITS

SUN SHADING reduce heat gain

CHILLED WATER PLANT BICYCLE STORAGE RAINWATER HARVESTING

reuse in restrooms & greywater reuse

BOILER URBAN CONTEXT

walkable neighborhood transit access previously-developed land

BOILER CHILLED WATER PLANT CHILLED WATER

RAINWATER COLLECTION CHILLED WATER HOT WATER

HOT WATER

8

Sustainable Strategies

Mechanical Section

Modular Construction

Units are delivered to the site fully constructed and fit-out and are stacked into place The Stack (GLUCK+)

55' 0"

18' - 0"

A system of prefabricated modular residential units was dropped in favor of a more flexible, sitecast concrete structural system

18' - 0"

14' - 0"

13' - 0"

35' - 0"

53' - 4"

Kullman Modular Architecture Manual (Garrison Architects)

40' - 0"

Modular units are individually structured and supported at the corner of each unit

19' - 6"

18' - 0"

14' - 0"

13' - 0"

18' - 0"

35' - 0"

40' - 0"

53' - 4"

26' - 9"

Structural Framing Plan

19' - 6"

Structural Framing Plan Structural Axon

Structural Axon

9

Feedback Juror/Advisor Comment

Response

Site Selection - Thesis advisors took issue with the initial site selection (Juniper & Spruce St), since it was the same site as the Co-housing studio project.

Site Selection - I compiled a list of several potential sites within a defined area and weighed their benefits and challenges. The study ultimately led me to choose a site that was much more suitable to the program and helped enhance the overall concept.

Efficiency vs. Expression - The jurors at the Mid Review encouraged me to be more expressive in the organization of the program, and one juror said it was too much of a “developer” building.

Efficiency vs. Expression - I took another look at the structure and realized I could manipulate it in a way that would enhance the expression of the overall design and serve the building functions better. I then challenged myself to think of different ways make each space unique and expressive.

Queerness in Architecture - Throughout the year, the jurors and my advisor challenged me to think of how I should define “queer architecture” and how I would respond to the current needs and identity of the community.

Queerness in Architecture - To wrap my mind around what I considered to be my toughest challenge in this project, I created diagrams to help me abstract common themes that queer people share (coming out, visibility vs. defense, etc.). I then translated these abstract concepts into architectural design concepts. I think my response was successful because I strayed away from relying on stereotypes and developed a more nuanced approach.

Engaging Spaces for Community - The jurors at Mid Review were concerned with how the public would engage with the building and how the building users would interact with each other. They encouraged me to push certain ideas that I had started to think about.

Engaging Spaces for Community - I was able to reorganize certain program elements to create a more public street presence along Pine Street. I also organized the community spaces around a central atrium to open sightlines between the building users. I reimagined the residential levels to include a series of indoor and outdoor common spaces.

10

Final Review

Process

L

TIA

EN

SID

RE

TE IVA

PR IC

BL

PU

T

OR

PP

SU LY

AS

Location

Context

B EM

S

Program

Light & Views

Atrium

Screen

Context

N

Site Plan

11

3

6

2

5

4 1

12

Floor Plans

9

16

8

15

7

11

13

14

Queer Space

Balancing competing forces of assimilation and resistance, the design solution is a building that challenges its context while inviting curiosity. The subtlety of the expression aligns with the nuance and sophistication of the diverse community it serves.

Coming Out

landmark building on Broad Street, the city’s most important corridor, is a gateway to the Gayborhood

Visibility & Vulnerability

Defense & Shielding

interior atrium opens public sightlines to the diversity of building users and activities

exterior screen obscures and protects the community within; exterior spaces are carved out of the building

Journey & Identity

vertically-stacked program promotes self-discovery through the understanding of others

Movement

kinetic facade panels express the revolutionary, dynamic spirit of the contemporary queer community

Materiality

1 1 laser-cut metal panels

2

3

fritted glass

fiber cement panels

4 roof terrace

2

5 kinetic facade supports

6 stainless steel kinetic facade panels

3

4 5

6

15

16

17

Section

Dwelling Units

Fitness Center

18

Floor Plan

Gallery

Atrium

Lobby

Gallery AIDS Memorial

Roof Terrace

19

Youth Center

East Elevation

20

Common Area

North Elevation

Common Area

West Elevation

Communal Kitchen

South Elevation