Susan Scappatura

THE HUDDLE BRINGING YOUTH SPORTS TO THE STADIUM DISTRCT Susan Scappatura Senior Project 2022 Advisor: Jeff Krieger

INITIAL PROPOSAL | Statement of Intent & Narrative

Sports are not equal in Philadelphia. There are various inequities

in our city limits: attention between professional and youth sports, access from sport to sport, and privilege surrounding various levels of play. By creating a youth athletic facility focusing on sports that are not emphasized within the public school district of Philadelphia, this facility will level the playing field for children of all levels by providing a secure and dedicated home field. Not only will this project improve athletic ability, it can encourage kids to be more involved in an academic setting, promote them to veer away from negative influences, develop social and leadership skills, and can potentially lead to scholarships later in life. With so many children living below the poverty line, harnessing natural talent at a young age in sports that they otherwise would not be given a chance to play. This aids in physical, mental, and social developments, allowing the youth of Philadelphia to rise above.

Rooted in our Heritage, Looking to the Future Sports are held at extremely high value in Philadelphia, dating back decades. While the focus may be on collegiate and professional sports, it is time to turn attention back to the youth of our city to get them involved at a younger age.

2

Harnessing the Unique, creating a Home For the kids that don’t fit in or feel like their future can hold so much more, access to new sports and coaching awaits them at the Huddle.

Natural verses Artificial

Tearing down the Barrier

Sports originated in nature, but the future presents an artificial solution. In an urban setting, biophilic design contrasts with the artificial to indicate directionality and circulation.

The City of Philadelphia has hundreds of playing field and courts. Children approach these in the off-season, just to see a large padlock on the chain link fence, restricting their desire to play and opportunity to sharpen their skills.

RESEARCH | Project Justifications The reasoning for this project is backed initially by the fact that the amount of active kids are decreasing. There are numerous physical, psychological, and social benefits to playing sports (see right), and it is a shame for society that less kids are being active.

It is also proven that there is correlation between a parents’ income and a child’s participation in sports. That creates an unequal and unjust environment for kids to live in. Money provides opportunities for children, and I want kids to feel like they have an equal opportunity to play sports as those born into better financial situations.

Luckily, there are organizations like Philadelphia Youth Sports Collaboration that are serving underappreciated kids in society, reaching over 65,000 kids in Philadelphia.

Their motto is “...focused on developing the child first, the athlete second.” This organization falls in line with my intentions with this project.

Physical Benefits Decreases Blood Pressure Battles Child Obesity Increases bone density in kids Decreases chances of heart disease Lowers resting heart rate Improves mental growth Enhance coordination and flexibility Psychological Benefits Benefits academic performances Develops positive self image Reduces feelings of depression and anxiety Promotes sense of well-being Builds confidence Improves mental alertness Social Benefits Promotes teamwork and communication Enhances group problem solving abilities Helps build personal relationships Aids in competitive drive Teaches discipline Holds kids accountable Increases self-motivation

3

SITE SELECTION | FDR Park When selecting a site, I knew I wanted the project to be close to the Stadium District in South Philadelphia. That area houses the professional sport teams’ stadiums, and I wanted that to be an attraction for kids to come and play in the near vicinity of their heroes. Between the Stadium District, Broad Street, and the Navy Yard, public transportation is extensive to connect the outskirts of the city to these prominent areas.

After studying the area, there was consideration between consuming impervious areas of the parking lots for the stadiums. Early in the proposal stages of this project, a facility member redirected my attention to WRT Design’s master plan for FDR. Located across Broad Street from the Wells Fargo Center, FDR Park became the final site location. For the purposes of the project, I treated the master-plan as existing. Its proximity to the stadiums is fitting due to the history of the park originally crossing Broad Street as well.

My project adds to the programmed activity space that WRT designed.

4

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS | Site Constraints & Solutions LEGEND FEMA 500YEAR FLOODPLAIN FEMA 100YEAR FLOODPLAIN

E

G INA

A

DR

RE

US

COLLECTION & RETAINAGE E

One of the initial issues I found when design on the site is that FDR Park has a long history of being in a flood zone. Dating back to the early 1900’s, the site was swampland, which has been made worst with the run-off from the Stadium District and I-95. WRT considered the storm-water management within their masterplan design, but knowing that I was going to be displacing a large amount of pervious surface area to house my building, I wanted to incorporate storm-water management design into this project.

In addition to building in a flood zone, athletic facilities created another environmental concern by its high water consumption. The usage ranges from the multiple bathrooms and locker rooms that require running water, the aquatic center, and the heightened cleaning requirements. In order to lessen the amount of water used, designing a water collection system to recycle rainwater will be the first step.

In addition to recycling water, I believe that water storage will be a large factor in the design of this building. As a precedent, Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta, GA has the ability to store 2 million gallons of water, which helps with the flooding in the area. The site of the stadium is able to retain this water, creating less run off and flooding in the urban environment, and there is opportunity to design similarly in my project.

5

RESEARCH | Program Research When considering the sports to be involved in this facility, there were a few major factors - I wanted to select sports that were popular enough to have participation but that were not popular enough to be offered in every school; to select sports that needed a unique facility that otherwise would be expensive to rent; and to pick sports that are not a focus in the master plan for FDR Park.

Although college athletics were not a focal goal, I also cross-referenced these studies with the sports that are being played at the collegiate level. Kids do not need to play sports in college, but there are scholarships opportunities that can allow kids to continue their athletic careers and the benefits of it throughout their lives.

All sports selected are not gender-specific.

I did not want to limit a part of the facility to one gender.

My final sport selection is swimming and diving, ice hockey, squash, and volleyball.

6

RESEARCH | Case Studies Colby College Harold Alfond Athletics and Recreation Center Location: Waterville, Maine Architect: Hopkins Architects + Sasaki Study Focus: Site plan, programming/adjacencies, massing Each overarching programmatic element is broken into its own mass to relate to the scale of the campus.

Although the mass is broken up to separate the venues, the support space is distributed equally and relatively centered between the four major programmatic elements to allow for flexibility.

Camp del Ferro Sports Center Location: Barcelona, Spain Architect: AIA + Barceló Balanzó Arquitectes + Gustau Gili Galfetti Study Focus: Program, stacking diagram, urban environment The stacking of the programmatic elements are essential for the urban environment of Barcelona. Although the programs need triple heighted ceilings to allow sports to be played, the architects used this extra height to stack the service elements, such as locker rooms, spectating space, and janitorial areas.

7

DESIGN | Preliminary Design Review - Fall Term The preliminary design took more cues from the site context than the program and massing elements. To attempt to have the building blend and fit in with the masterplan, I placed the building internally to force users to infiltrate the park before entering the facility. The angeling of the building related back to the circulation of the park and the views from the main entrance to the water. Unfortunately, I do not believe there was adequate thresholds to the building. The facility also begins to cut off the Great Lawn of the masterplan from the rest of the programmed park on the west side of the site. The massing is underwhelming. The location of the building is not conducive for the amount of large vehicle transportation that will be coming to the site bringing sports teams in tow.

8

DESIGN | Mass Iterations

INDIVIDUALIZATION OF SPORT VENUES

CENTRALIZATION OF SUPPORT SPACE

LAYERING OF SUPPORT

In order to hardness the unique, I wanted to treat each sport as individual. This will make each kid be able to identify their own space to feel more like home.

To try and limit redundant spaces that may be empty for the majority of the time, support spaces were centralized to allow for sharing and overlapping.

To control the amount of park displaced, the support programs were layered. Height-wise, they fit between the venues, and it limits the amount of impervious surfaces.

ANGLING FOR WATER COLLECTION

CONNECTION TO PARK & HUMAN SCALE

CREATING LANDMARK FOR SITE

To collect water, the roofs of the venues are sloped to move water to the center, and that roof it angled to one collection point.

The center roof was broken down in order to relate back to the human scale and create an entry to the park.

The roof of the central space became angled to catch those entering. It also creates a landmark within the park and on Broad.

1

{3D}

9

DESIGN | Structure Knowing that the venue spaces did not allow for columns, meaning there would be very large spans, I knew I needed steel structure and trusses in this design. Each of the venues are designed similarly,

with trusses and beams running to the where a more traditional framing columns to counteract the vertical loads, plan is seen. The structure is and cross bracing to hold up against the exposed to peak curosity and horizontal loads. The atrium is designed interest in the kids. in a similar manner as well. The structural design differs in the support spaces CONCRETE SHEAR WALL

TRUSS 20’-0” O.C.

W16 GIRDER

W12 BEAMS 6’-

CROSS BRACING

SLAB ON 10

DESIGN | HVAC SOL

AR

To aid the HVAC system, a few sustainability elements are incorporated into the design. Solar panels are installed on the roof, enough for 900 panels, in order to reduce the energy consumption of the facility. The harnessed energy can be used to run the HVAC equipment and lighting.

For HVAC, each venue needs its own system, so a traditional split-system will be implimented for each. The trusses in each venue is large enough to run ductwork through, and the mechnical equipment will be housed on the roof of the support space and in the basement.

DA

YLI

GH

CO

LLEC

TION

TIN

G

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

COOLING

REFRIGERATION SYSTEM FOR RINK

DEHUMIDIFYING

HEATING 11

DESIGN | Plans KEY Multi Purpose Courts 1 2 3 4 OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW

OPEN TO BELOW

LEVEL 1 PLAN

12

LEVEL 2 PLAN

Locker Room

6

Athletic Trainer

7

Classroom

8

Administrative Offices

9

Student Lounge

10

Exterior Event Terrace

11

Atrium

14 15

OPEN TO BELOW

Squash Court + Viewing

Fitness Center

13

OPEN TO BELOW

Pool

5

12

OPEN TO BELOW

Ice Rink

Snack Bar Restrooms Support

DESIGN | Sections

13

DESIGN | Elevations The material palette was intended on relating back to the historic buildings on the site in order to blend on. Concrete panels were selected that would match with the Boathouse and the American Swedish Museum. Additionally, brick was chosen to clad the support program areas as brick has supported the city of Philadelphia.  

14











































DESIGN | Elevations

The east and west facades are solid to restrict the amount of light that is coming into the venues. Since this is a youth facility, the solidness also adds in a layer of security. The panel system breaks up the long wall, and the scaling changes to keep each venue unique.

The north and south facades are more flexible to allow control light in. On the south side, the walls of the pool extend further to shade the harsh southern light.The concrete panels relate back to the column grid, while also staying in tune with the scaling pattern on the east and west facade. The brick of the support spaces is more visible on these facades.

15

DESIGN | Exposure to New Sports The double height hallway connect the locker rooms to the classrooms, offices, and lounges above. This supports the community mentality that this building encourages, while also allowing the skylights to lighten the locker room hallways below.

16

DESIGN | Final Images The building is intended on relating back to the park. By creating a humble entrance off of Broad Street, it brings down the intensity that may be involved as kids enter.

On the park side, I wanted to open up the support space to allow for an interior exterior relationship. Although this element is for the users of the building and not for the park, it does help blend the divide between the public and private users. Although the entrance on the park side is grander than the Broad Street side, it creates a pavilion that can be used for all.

The interior of the venues has large glazing on the north or south sides, allowing the participants to always feel connected back to the park at all times.

17

18

CONCLUSION & REFLECTIONS When looking back a this project, there are a lot wishes that if I were to do this year again, I doubt I would actually do differently. It would be great to have more research done before the fall term starts. I regret not being more on top of my work every week. There are a few process elements that I think I could have done better. For example, I think I treated elements of the project very individual. I made the floor plans, and then designed the structure, and then made the elevations. If I veered more from the linear path, I believe that some decisions could influence other design elements to create a more cohesive design.

One regret that I have is the lack of interior design. I had so much focus on trying to make my massing work, and then eventually my facades, that I believe I could have made the building feel more grand and important by selecting finishes and graphics for the programmed areas. Most of my critique comes from this. For example, I could have programmed the atrium to be more interactive, like a mini golf course.

I feel like I filtered criticism well. At one point, I believe I was listening to all feedback from juries and warping my design to fit it. I finally was able to take a step back, remind myself of my design goals, and created a project that I was able to stand up for and protect since it did echo what I was trying to accomplish from the beginning.

19