This thesis is an attempt to utilize architecture as a form of social art. Social artistry can be defined as an attempt to address a particular social issue using one’s creative skills to affect change in both the community and the world. Currently, the city of Philadelphia and the United States as a whole is going through a particular social issue that has direct connection to residential architecture and development. Social artistry in architecture is not a new concept, nor is it new to residential architecture. Throughout the 20th century, noteworthy architects and thinkers have used the concept of social art to influence their peers, as well as tackle issues hands on. One issue that was confronted numerous times was how to create dwellings for the average middle class American family. A century ago, Frank Lloyd Wright used his architectural skill set to design the Usonian house series. These houses, the first being developed in 1932 for his client Malcolm Willey, was an attempt by Wright to solve the issue of designing homes that could be affordable for middle and lower class Americans. Wright created a system that lowered construction costs and eliminated extra work and features that...raised the cost of construction”. Wright would go on to design around sixty Usonian houses throughout his career. Half a century later, The Case Study House Program would be the keystone to the rebirth of the Arts and Architecture magazine, and would showcase to the world the possibilities of how modernism could improve the standard of living for the masses. “Each house was designed within a specific budget and was subject to the usual...building restrictions. The designs had to be capable of duplication and in no sense be a individual performance.”Between the years 1945 and 1966, Arts and Architecture, led by editor John Entenza, published designs for thirty six individual prototypes. Many of the original designs were prototypes that did not have any real clients or sites, and therefore offered the architect the a significant amount of freedom in developing ideas about “the use of materials, organization of plan, [and] other experimental features.” Using Frank Lloyd Wright and John Entenza as inspiration, Millennial Philadelphia’s goal is to design a series of replicable prototype typologies formatted to meet the contemporary needs of the new middle class millennial generation.
Main Goals • Create living conditions that meet the needs of the millennial generation, while simultaneously improving Philadelphia neighborhoods • Have development promote ‘Aging in Place’ concept • Prevent gentrification from occurring as a result of the new development by programming for a diverse population and demographics • Create a series of residential typologies that can be replicated across the city in a variety of neighborhoods
Research begins by understanding the changing culture of the contemporary Millennial generation of America. Because they are much more educated compared to previous generations, millennials are delaying household formation as they graduate college and take up student loan debt burdens. Paired with this, millennials are also facing issues with housing affordability. This affordability crisis means that there is now a shortage of low priced starter homes that young millennials can afford, which is delaying household formation. The culture of the new millennial generation is also sparking a newfound interest in America’s city centers, with Philadelphia being no exception. By understanding this population trend, Center City Philadelphia is a prime location to provide dwelling options for this new generation.
Budget will be number one priority while designing the dwelling options for millennials, as the financial burdens they face drastically limits what they can afford. As a result, research must be completed to understand exactly how much millennials can afford. Four household typologies were created to understand how much each family type can afford. Further, Target Value Design will be implemented as a method to hit the budgets of each typology.
City vs Suburban Living - Monthly Expenses
Monthly Expenses Breakdown
Monthly Expenses Breakdown
Since land values directly influence how much budget can go towards direct construction costs, understanding Philadelphia’s property values is important in deciding which neighborhoods would meet millennial requirements. Currently, Philadelphia’s Center City District is experiencing a boom in land values, while its surrounding low rise neighborhood property values are below average. t did
Philadelphia Heat Map 2007
Philadelphia Heat Map 2017
The below average property values of these neighborhoods are a direct result of the 43,000 vacant lots within the city of Philadelphia. The vast majority of these vacant properties are made up of either RSA-5 single family zoning or RM-1 multifamily housing. The low cost of vacant land, paired with the limited variety of zoning types, means that these neighborhoods are prime locations to develop low cost, replicable housing typologies for the millennial generation. Developing in these neighborhoods does bring up the issue of gentrification, as most millennials moving into the city are not native to Philadelphia. However, the strict budget requirements of the millennials, paired with the process of infill development, means that the housing typologies proposed can be integrated into the existing neighborhood fabric. This will allow millennials to move into the city without drastically raising land values nor wiping out whole communities for development. Further, the increased population of these neighborhoods will spawn new amenities and resources that were not there prior.
Designing ‘Right -Sized’ homes would allow for dwellings to reduce in size - creating high quality living space that are also significantly cheaper than what is being produced by the homebuilding industry
Full Scale Concrete Insulated Slab on Grade Section
Full Scale 2 HR CMU Firewall Section
Full Scale Exterior 1HR Wall Section
Full Scale 2x10 Wood Joist Floor Section
In-Depth Construction Cost Breakdown of Housing Typologies
4 person
4 person
single
single
Shadow Study E/W
4 person
Shadow Study N/S
single
Shadow Study N/S
Single Person Typology Axonometric
Of the four household classifications, the Single Person and the Couple with two Children typologies had the tightest budget restrictions. As a result, these were the two households that were given prototype designs. Single Person Household - Axonometric
Since these typologies could face any direction depending on the orientation of the specific vacant property being developed, emphasis was instead placed on the designs’ reaction to the street and privacy. Mechanical metal louvers were used on both facades as a way to provide privacy while also allowing windows to be exposed when needed. When the louvers are in a raised open position, they mimic the Axonometric cornices of the historical Philadelphia row house, seen throughout the neighborhoods they are being developed in. Couple + 2 Typology Axonometric
Single Person Typology Entrance
The Single Person prototype was designed to provide maximum versatility in the smallest amount of square feet. Oriented with a grand living room near the entry and more private quarters near the rear, the space uses a central ‘core’ in which all utilities and storage are located. Using a Murphy Bed that transforms into a table when closed allows the bedroom to take on many different functions. At night the space acts as a bedroom with a walkin closet and laundry adjacent. During the day, the bed folds up and can be used either as a dining room or home office. The tall ceiling in the living room provides necessary relief in such a small space, and the increased height allows the front facade to better integrate with the existing two to three story buildings that surround the site.
2' - 8"
8' - 4"
8' - 0"
16' - 0"
17' - 8 1/2"
5' - 0"
Single Person Typology Ground Floor
Single Person Typology Section
Front Entrance Wall Section
The Couple with two Children prototype was designed to refine family living into the basic essentials, in an attempt to fit the highest standard of living within the smallest amount of square feet. The design is made up of two stories, public on the ground floor with private quarters above. Plumbing is aligned along a single wall and bathrooms aligned vertically to reduce cost. Storage is provided in a closet space under the stairs, and bedroom closets are enclosed with a curtain to eliminate the need for closet doors. The two bedrooms upstairs are located at either ends of the property to provide daylight into the spaces. In order to reduce square feet, a single bathroom is shared between the two. The front entrance has a three foot setback from the sidewalk in order to provide more privacy to the living room, as the slab on grade eliminates the opportunity to raise the ground floor above street level. Instead, a garden at the entry creates a privacy screen for the ground floor windows and to create a sense of safety and enclosure within the living room. Couple + 2 Typology Ground Floor
Couple + 2 Typology Section
Couple + 2 Typology Upper Floor
The 9’ x 15’ back patio creates necessary private outdoor space for residents to enjoy, and is enclosed by a wooden fence. The outdoor space is also home to the HVAC split system outdoor unit that allows for ease of maintenance.
Couple + 2 Typology Kitchen
2 HR Firewall Details
1 HR Exterior Wall Details
1 HR Rated Exterior Wall Details
Coupe + 2 Typology Street Elevation
Millennial Philadelphia is ultimately a thesis on understanding how contemporary technology and design can influence low cost construction. By attacking an issue that is facing many Americans today, this thesis is also aimed at trying to understand what is causing the affordability crisis, and what architects can do to help resolve the problem. One final takeaway that can be seen as an accomplishment is comparing the Millennial Philadelphia prototype elevations to the historical row house elevations of the nineteenth century. The two are drastically different in design, size, and use of materials, yet they were both designed for the lowest cost, using the most up-to-date technology at their time of creation. Therefore, comparing the prototype to the historical row house is physically seeing how far the construction industry has come over the past century, and hopefully will continue to improve into the future.