OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Thesis Prep | Fall 2016 by Emmett Walker Advisor: Larry Davis
Contents
Contention: Optimizing Density + Site
1
Introduction To The Tower In The Park
2
Densification Trends In The United States
3
New York City Region
4
Manhattan
5
Thesis Site Analysis
6
Principals + Strategies
7
Site Application: Proof of Concept
8
CONTENTION:
Optimizing Density + Site
A SUBURBAN AMERICAN DREAM
Fig 1
The American Dream was a response to the Industrial Revolution, a time when our cities were over run with a stigma of grit, overcrowding and danger. It offered the privilege of living in an individual fully detached home in the ‘country’ with the ability to easily travel into economic city centers. Examples such as Levittown, New York played specifically on the notion that even those working blue collars jobs characteristic of the city could have a connection to nature through a simple detached home upon a small parcel of land. Most of all, despite the cookie cutter duplicates of each individual plot, Levittown and the suburban sprawl that would follow harped deep sentiments that any American could sink his or her roots into a solid foundation. Levittown provided the sentiment of luxurious country living to a middle class population that could only dream of such luxury prior. A new American Dream formulated post WWII which specified the importance of land ownership. Land ownership became an identity of success but most importantly family values and individuality. Sprawling cities like Los Angeles show that humans have felt a fondness for the city as an economic entity yet not a livable one. Due to this sentiment we created cities of seemingly endless boundaries.
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
MODERNIST IDEALISM
Fig 2
Meanwhile, city planners saw modernism as a more optimistic urban future for our cities. Originally, the Pruitt- Igoe was conceived as a Utopian illustration of what the city could be. It’s architects, planners and politicians saw it as a microcosm of the future of American cities. Its conception of high living for even the most destitute was supposed to translate into what urban planners believed would soon be a massive population influx in St. Louis. In totality it housed 33,000 people upon 56 acres of land. Unfortunately, with the slowing of the industrial age along with new federal suburban subsidies, St. Louis lost half its population and thus it no longer had the proper tax base to support social programs. Once a symbol of Utopian urbanism, the tower in the park typology eventually became a symbol of the end of modernism, inefficiencies of liberal politics and reinforced segregation. Modernism’s ‘tower in the park’ lacked the ability to effectively integrate into the city fabric thus separating its subjects from the surrounding urban fabric. At Pruitt- Igoe residents were living on an isolated island. Its lack of tenants do to St. Louis’ dwindling population and its disconnectedness from the city, lead to its demolition under 20 years after its conception. Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis is perhaps most prominent symbol of urban decay in our countries history.
LEVITTOWN American Suburb
PRUITT - IGOE Modernist Tower In The Park
Spreading Out Evenly
Condensing Vertically
The affordable promise of homeownership!
An urban adaptaion of suburban America?
OPTIMIZED DENSITY Optimizing Existing Urban Density Affordable, Available + Stable
Conglomeration
CONTENTION Whether spreading out evenly across the land in individualized parcels or condensing vertically to make minimal contact upon earth’s surface; humans have always wanted to feel in touch with nature. From this urge we contracted two top-down construction typologies: the suburban ranch upon land and the urban tower in the park. However, our cities don’t need the same kind of individualized open space as our suburbs but rather concentrated communal parks and plazas. The tower in the park was not the answer to the promise of land ownership through the Suburban American Dream. Unfortunately, in the 40s and 50s many of our cities, especially in New York City, faced heavy “slum” clearance to make way for towers in parks. Soon the tower in the park became recognized for its negative connotation rather than for its innovative modernist planning principals. Today, the tower in the park is still a part of many urban environments. While other historical typologies have been adapted, the tower in the park remains inadaptable. It lacks correspondence with its surroundings and isolates its inhabitants from the city ultimately becoming iconic for a sense of false optimism and even dystopia. While these modernist developments throughout American cities are extraordinarily previlant, their lack of social interaction can turn into their upside.
Optimized densification is the exploitation of under utilized space to create a more dynamic cooperative based density often times adding onto what is already existing. The pursuit of maximizing intelligently can help to relieve socioeconomic exclusivity, create a more ecologically sustainable lifestyle and influence social mixing. Though architecture can only have a limited influence on the social climate of a place like New York City, re-envisioning and optimizing the density of the tower in the park typology can lead to a more harmonious engagement between buildings and their surrounding context or population. Optimizing density could be the modern day American dream by providing affordable and stable living situations to increasingly dense metropolitan areas.
The Jacob Riis Houses Architect: Walker and Gillette Completed: 1949 Number of Units: 1,768 Land Use: 20 acres Density: 88 units per acre
Fig 3
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
The tower in the park site I have chosen to explore is the Jacob Riis Houses or otherwise known as Riis + Riis II. The Jacob Riis Houses are an affordable housing development owned by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). The area was designed by the architecture firm Walker and Gillette in conjunction with James McKenzie + Sidney Strauss. The housing development reached completion in 1949 just after the First Street Houses and Vladeck Houses. It is located in the Lower East Side of Manhattan and spans from 14th street to 6th street North to South. Ont he East side of the site is FDR drive and the East River Parkway beyond. To the West is Avenue D making it a typical NYC long block width at 800 feet.The complex is made up of 18 buildings with 6 midrise and 12 highrise residential towers. The midrise masses are a kind of H shape and consist of 7 stories and the highrise towers are a X shape and consist of 13 stories. The entire 20 acre site is 2 long super blocks with only one street cutting through the site. Where the street bisects the super blocks, the buildings are arranged in 2 opposing U shapes creating large open park promenades or mall space. Where other tower in the park / affordable housing experiments in the Lower East Side, and throughout New York City, divulged from the European spatial theories, the Jacob Riis Houses along with Stuyvescent Town and Peter Cooper Village all are notably true to these values. The complex is one of the first examples of slum removal in the Lower East Side, in what would soon become the most prolific tower in the park experiment on Manhattan island. This complex can be seen as the political and social agenda of Robert Moses who is discussed more thoroughly in the following chapter.
Lower East Side Thesis Site: Jacob Riis Houses
INTRODUCTION:
The Tower In The Park
Fig 4
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Fig 5
While the tower and the park is a large part of the fabric of New York City and much of North America, its theories of a vertical utopian city lifestyle was conceived by European architects. One of the visionaries of the tower in the park is Auguste Perret with his 1922 conception of Maison-Tour otherwise known as ‘tower houses’. The towers were projections of a utopian Paris with massive 200 meter tall residential and mixed use towers spread nearly 250 meters apart as to preserve as much natural environment as possible. These towers would organize all functions of daily urban habitat: transportation, housing, work and commercial. Coming from a background of architecture and engineering, Perret was deeply inspired by the Woolworth building in Manhattan. The Woolworth building was a 57 floor office tower designed by Cass Gilbert. While many technological advancements were being created in the United States do to its massive industrial revolution, residential innovations were hard pressed to find. The most innovative urban housing solutions in the 1920’s in the United States would have been garden apartments. While garden apartments increased livability in the city, they pailed in ambition and potential to the European experimentations. It’s interesting to note the back and forth between European and American innovations in architecture throughout the elaboration of the tower in the park into a form of realized urbanism. Nevertheless, Gilbert’s technological achievement of reinforced concrete and formal monumentality can be directly understood as Perret’s primary precedent for Maison-Tour. The similarities in physical mass in both Maison-Tour and The Woolworth Building are strikingly similar; however socially (and underdsatandably) are opposite.
Fig 6
Fig 7
While Perret’s imagined urban landscape was too ambiguous and ambitious to be realized in 1922, Le Corbusier quickly adopted his theories. He took the idea of condensed verticality from Maison-Tour and created what we know today as The Tower In The Park. While the leap from Perret’s Maison-Tour to Le Corbusier’s tower in the park does not appear vast, it established a model for urban growth that was achievable, organized and modern. In a 1924 publication “Ville Reiduse” Le Corbusier established a new top down notion of urban planning more holistic and socially orchestrated than even the Haussmann plan in Paris and across Europe. He saw his method of urban planning to be more responsive to the functionality of the daily lifestyle rather than Haussmann and City Beautiful’s attempts to invoke cultural nostalgia or monumentality. Ville Reiduse, wanted to erase the vernacular of the European city to create his sterile utopia. While city life had become dirty, loud and dangerous during the industrial age, Ville Reiduse offered optimal light and air while establishing a more rigorous density. The publication pictured prefabricated towers surrounded by seemingly endless park. It envisioned a new lifestyle of social experimentation where city and nature could coexist. Buildings stood on pilotis to allow movement and landscape to seamlessly pass beneath. Le Corbusier used experiential illustrations to seduce his audience into his utopian vision. The city was so repetitive and authoritarian that its urban fabric could only be understood from an aerial view. The buildings were so large that the relationship between human and building was hard to understand. The organization of the city was based around a Cartesian grid of extreme scope. It was truly a social machine rigidly organizing various social programs from one another. Work was to be separate from commercial which was to be separate from residential. The only major hierarchical reference point would have been the central business district which was made up of 200 meter cruciform towers generously spaced with rolling landscape between. Connecting the peripheral housing with civic center was a network of public trains. The surrounding living districts were much lower rise residential buildings with basic amenities.
“New york is a home. New York’s great gift to the world was that people from all over the world could come here. They could create there own communities create their own neighborhoods. So people felt a sense of community, a sense of belonging, a sense of neighborhood. That’s really the basis of human endeavor. If people feel they belong they can go on to other things. Now all of a sudden, that was going be harder for New York… because at this crucial moment in the cities history, the city loses its way. Where as before neighborhoods were created, now neighborhoods are destroyed.” -Robert A. Caro
Fig 8
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Fig 9
Time Square was the place to be post World War 2. It was the epicenter of patriotic celebration of a new found global power. It is the place where massive war ships are coming back to port packed full of troops returning home. With the end of the war and the industries to support it still churning out revenue, New York City becomes the pinnacle of its greatness and secures itself as the most important city of the now most important nation. New york didn’t just have one thing like other industrial cities; it had everything, which is why in the height of the industrial revolution of post World War 2 America, New York distinguished itself from its peers becoming the testing ground for innovation. This need to drive for technological advancement leads a cross road between tradition and future. New York City became dichotomized between two prospects for the future: the city of tomorrow or the city of the working class. The city of tomorrow was chiefly defined by automobile and its sprawling settlements versus the city of the working class defined by blocks, neighborhoods and communities. Across the United States, a new argument ensues, one questioning the tight pedestrian friendly urban streets, which have become congested with the growth of the automobile. Like Le Corbusier, Robert Moses felt that the old urban fabric of walkable neighborhood based cities had become increasingly obsolete. The modernist notion emerges that humans must become one with automobiles. Like the Ville Radieuse, the city must remove its sidewalks to make way for the constant flow and independence that cars and highways have to offer the city of the future.
Fig 10
Fig 11
In 1947, Le Corbusier flies to New York to help with creating the vision of the city of tomorrow through the new United Nations headquarters. Along with Oscar Niemeyer and over 40 others, they design the UN building. Unsurprisingly, the UN building becomes the first example of a city within a city or the tower in the park in New York City. Located on the east river where once stood slaughterhouses, the UN building stands isolated from the city. Not only is its international diplomatic community isolated, but its physical sculptural form establishes a barrier between NYC and itself. It is the first tower in the park. It creates a decisive transition for New York City of modernist islands of office buildings set back and isolated from the urban fabric. The Seagram building by Mies Van de Rohe becomes the poster child of corporate growth in New York. With modernization towards the city of tomorrow and post industrialization, the blue-collar roots of New York City and the tightly nit neighborhood communities and walkable streets of the past become incompatible with the cities new future. New York became a place to escape to the suburbs or a canvas to build upon. ***
Fig 13
Fig 12
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Fig 14
If New York was a canvas, Robert Moses was the painter. Robert Moses helped legislation pass a bill to create the title of “construction coordinator” which stated that all federal money gifted to NYC must be evaluated by the position. Robert Moses gains control of all federal assets including the funding for affordable housing projects and the highway interstate program. Later in 1948 a slum-clearance + urban renewal proposal called Title One is passed through the senate. Upon its conception, senator Robert Taft leaks information allowing Moses to engineer his way to become the Chairman of the newly formed “Slum Clearance Committee”. In his new positing, Robert Moses was able to bulldoze slums using eminent domain laws and sell the now empty lot off to private developers. Ultimately, poor communities were completely displaced into further reaching areas of NYC like Bed-Stuyvesant despite the promise of ‘urban renewal’. While the slum communities were poor, they were dense vibrant communities that couldn’t be maintained when implanted back into the new tower in the park developments. City planning in NYC during the Moses era became obsessed with the replacement of gridiron streets with super blocks. Superblocks allowed for developments to be commercial free therefore being a more pure version of the tower in the park; however by removing the commercial activity of the street, most neighborhoods lost their vibrancy.
“Nobody seems to care about New York, except for those of us who live and work here. And we who do care believe the time has come to put a stop to the wanton destruction of our greatest buildings, to put a stop to wholesale vandalism. It may be too late to save Penn Station, but it is not too late to save New York.” - Jane Jacobs and The Action Group For better architecture in New York
Fig 15
With “urban renewal” taking over the city, an activist named Jane Jacobs advocated for the old neighborhood qualities of New York City. Protest ensued fighting the top down approach of urban planning specifically culminating in the rejection of civic works such as the Lower Manhattan Expressway. Jane Jacobs with her published The Death and The Life of Great American Cities (1961) really tested what had become the standard of city planning. She argued that urban planning and specifically the automobile destroyed the natural order and economy that was created through city building. The city was becoming a series of privatized space rather than a massive shared public space. She made people look at the street with her ideas of eyes on the street and mom and pop stores. The city is not about land planning but about the network of people. Instead of an elevator in a high-rise we should be focused on the 5-story walkup that engages with the street. We shouldn’t shatter our communities by spreading out separate programs. We want a network of intricate foot traffic. This notion of a vibrant dense city directly refutes the ideas of segregated sectors, which were pushed through the modernist agendas of Le Corbusier and Robert Moses. Finally after the demolition of Penn Station and years of public protest lead to Mayor Wagner signing the Landmarks Preservation Commission of 1965. This legislation saved much of the old urban fabric of New York City.
First Almhouse built in New York City. The Almhouse would act as NYC’s first example of low income housing relieving those stuck in “poor debt”
1736
Roosevelt establishes Tenement Health Act to regulate quaility of life in tenements
1901 New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor established as first major government regulations to quality of life in response to industrialisation
With massive influx in immigration, NYC uses taxation of 1% on auctioned goods to support growing crisis
1798
NYC instates new law which requires all future tenements to use dumbell floor plan in order to improve light and air issues.
1843
1879
1825
First Tenements built in New York City; Easy construction techniques and a dense layout upon skinny parcels of land made a lucrative business.
Federal Subsidized housing only for lowest income persons
1949
The first truly federal public housing is built on the lower east side of Manhattan
1935
1988 Pruitt-Igoe is demolished subsiquently forcing President Nixon stop all funding for public housing
1867 New York State law requires tenements must have 1 outhouse for every 20 residents
1937 Housing Act implemented to establish greater federal investment in public housing
Gov. Pataki ends state funding in public housing
1998
1981
NYCHA created in wake of wake of depression public equity
Tensions between public and planners of a proposed NYCHA complex in Forest Hills, Queens exposes the disconnect between tenants and planners
NYCHA gains approval from HUD to use Section 8 housing subsidies
2008
2006
Reagan cuts Department of Housing and Urban Development by 85%
1971
Major Federal disinvestment of public housing; culminating in building auctions across the US
2001
1972
1934
The 1824 Poor Law, which would force all counties to build “poorhouses”, is rejected
1830
Federal plans to clear “slums” to make way for public housing investments
Under Bloomberg, NYC makes plan to refund NYCHA by cutting workforce, raising rent and investing 120 million in emergency funds
1991 NYCHA accused of “Racial Steering”
2011 NYCHA seeks economic restrucuturing and managment through Boston Consulting Group
One of the hardest parts of building affordable housing in NYC is that land is so incredibly expensive. Fortunately, NYCHA and public space are already owned by the city therefore building on these sites is like playing poker on house money!
Publicly Owned Land NYCHA Developments Open Space
“Look what they have built: low income projects that become worse centers of delinquency and vandalism than the slums they were supposed to replace, promenades that go from no place to nowhere and have no promenaders, expressways that eviscerate great cities. This is not the rebuilding of cities. This is the sacking of cities.” – Jane Jacobs
“Once upon a time, we thought we could bulldoze the slums and build shiny new public housing for low income people, all social problems involving these people would virtually disappear. That has turned out to be not so.� -Mayor Wagner
Fig 16
DENSIFICATION TRENDS
In The United States
Where are we as a nation? Our densist communities are growing at a tremendous rate. A 2012 UNICEF study predicts that nearly 90% of the US population will be living in urban environments by 20401. Though we are currently seeing a mass exodus into our urban environments in the United States, our city planners and the building industry is currently unable to meet the increasing population’s demands. Because we are no longer an industrializing nation, there is an increasing financial gap between those that live in cities and those that do not. With 90% of our nations GDP generated in our metropolitan areas, it is no surprise that the reality between those in cities and those in rural areas is very different. The diagram to the bottom left perhaps most convinicingly illustrates this gap. The average american family is making almost half of metropolitan families are. So not only is more money being created in cites, but our cities are also becoming more exlusive to the average american. Cities like San Francisco and Manhattan are now described as gated communities. Data Source: UNICEF
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Data Source: What is Affordable Housing?
Data Source: A Country of Cities
Avg. Annual kWh Per Household If other countries are able to live more efficiently, why can’t we?
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century Data Source: Shrink That Footprint
Avg. American Home Square Footage
Houses Have Grown Rapidly The American Dream founded upon developments such as Levittown prove that the American Dream was about accessible + affordable land aquisition rather than size.
Data Source: homevestors.com, urbanomnibus, Trulia
What does it take to produce the average american house?
Fig 17
Fig 18
Data Source: Microtopia
NEW YORK CITY REGION
Ecology + Affordability
Population Density* 100-1K
25K-100K
1K-10K
+100K
10K-25K
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Data Source: Esri, US Census Bureau
*per square mile
The densist areas of Manhattan where all MTA lines converge also have the greatest amount of economic generating commercial space.
Transit + Commercial 1/4 Mile of Public Transit Commercial Space
Data Source: HERE, IPC, Esri, MTA, New Jersey Transit, Port Authority of NY + NJ, CTTRANSIT, NYCDT, GTFs Data Exchange
Breaking Down Land Use Metrics
As mentioned before, house square footage is directly proportional to efficiency Naturally because urban housing tends to be smaller, there is a signficant energy savings for this lifestyle
In the United States, Rural and Urban are the most efficient living conditions in terms of energy consumption. Everything in between is less efficient generally
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
One ecological benefit in the suburbs is the average household size; however this has dropped significantly since the 1950’s when nearly 3.5 people lived in the average american household
Data Source: US Department of Energy, US Department of Transportation, MNN
Land Use Spectrum URBAN
RURAL Data Source: Esri, HERE
Household Carbon Emissions 25 metric tons of CO2
80 metric tons of CO2
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Data Source: Cool Climate Network UC Berkeley
60
30 30
30
30
metric tons CO2
metric tons of
CO2
T
Scarsdale, Westchester
H
F
Fig 19
G
S
00
T
H
F
G
S
0
T
H
F
G
S
28.8
30 30
0
30
metric tons CO2
metric tons of
CO2
Midtown, Manhattan Fig 20
00
T
H
F
G
S
T
H
F
G
S
0
While individual carbon emissions may be difficult to acount for one’s self, a bad commute can be felt by all. As the city becomes more liveable, commuting for space in the country seems less and less glamorous.
Avg. Commute Time 15 Minutes
+ 60 Minutes
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Data Source: Trulia Maps
Daytime Population < 20K
100K - 250K
20K - 50K
250K - 625K
50K - 100K
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Data Source: City of NYC, State of NJ, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, NGA, USGS, NPS, Esri, HERE
TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 0%
10.01-20%
1-5%
20.01%-27%
5.01%-10%
Data Source: State of NJ, ESRI, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS
The increase in population density is inevitable and therefore housing demand has risen exponentially. More demand means more competition for housing and therefore rents begin to rise. The orange line in the graph to the left represents the amount of construction which occured annually while the black bar graph represents population growth. Building booms in the 40â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s-60â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s helped to meet demands of population increase. Many of these projects were large scale, mass produced modernist tower in the park housing projects. We have very few of these building booms anymore. Data Source: NYC.gov, MORPHOCODE: Urban Layers
The orange dashed line represents median household income by decade and the orange fill region shows the percentage of income spent on housing. The black bars, as with the graph above, show the population fluctuation over time. As rents and population increase, so does the percentage of income spent monthly. In 1950, New York renters only spent 20% of their income on housing. Today, the typical New York renter is spending 30% of his or her income on housing. Anything above represents those under rent burden. Data Source: A Country of Cities, NYC.gov
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
3 million renters
1.6 million rent burdened
600,000 severely rent burdened
Data Source: NYU Furman Center
MANHATTAN
Construction + Consequence
New York Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s range of density: housing footprints in Chelsea
New York City is the densist city in the United States and yet, the amount of building footprint diversity creates a very interesting proposition for density optimization. OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
New York City’s vast housing scales and typologies.
There are many building typologies that exist side by side in New York City, but the ones that make up the bulk of the city’s character are row houses, tenements, mid rise and high rise towers. These building typologies represent the mass production of housing in different eras. They can all be seen replicated often times nearly identically throughout the urban fabric. They make up the core New York City’s identity.
Brownstone/ Townhouse
Tenement Apartments
Mid-Rise Towers
High-Rise Tower
1 - 4 Units
20 - 49 Units
50 - 99 Units
+ 100 Units
8000 New Buildings 2000 200 1800
1860
1870
The Construction of NYC
25K New Buildings {20K of which are Dumbell Tenements}
Moses Era 1875 - 1915 Robert 2.6K New Buildings
13.5K New Buildings
1915 - 1935 2.5K New Buildings
1880
189
90
Robert Moses Era 1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Data Source: MORPHOCODE: Urban Layers
1935 - 1955 1.3K New Buildings
1975 - 1995
1955 - 1975 1.9K New Buildings
1995 - 2015
Publicly Owned Land
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
NYCHA Developments Open Space
Data Source: New York City Housing Authority
Daytime Population
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
< 20K
50K - 100K
20K - 50K
100K - 250K
250K - 625K Tower In The Park
Data Source: City of NYC, State of NJ, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, NGA, USGS, NPS, Esri, HERE
TANF
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
0%
5.01%-10%
1-5%
10.01-20%
20.01%-27% Tower In The Park
Data Source: State of NJ, ESRI, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS
Engaging Typologies Building typologies that meet the the street wall are easily able to interact with the urban environment through retail and commercial enterprises. Even with less open space, it seems that more people flock to locations like St. Marks and East Village not for comfort but for social interaction.
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Un-Adapted Spaces By contrast, tower in the park typologies are removed from the street condition and therefore the urban fabric. They often sit alone with the singular purpose to house its tenants.
Socioeconomic Divide In Chelsea It may not be visible from the highline, biut there really is a wide discrepency between wealthy and low income housing. Gentrification can be quickly visualized through this.
Apartments sold in the past 5 years for over 1 million Blocks with median incomes over 100,000 30,000 < Gray Median Income < 100,000 Blocks with median incomes under 30,000
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Data Source: NYT
THESIS SITE ANALYSIS
A Proof of Concept
GraduateGraduate
Blue Collar Blue Collar
bbery Risk
28.4%
28.4%
31.3%
No HS 31.3%
No HS
Some HS Some HS
e Risk
The East Village is an interesting area on Manhattan. While it is downtown, and right next to the hottest areas White White Collar Some physically Some such as SoHo andCollar Bowery, its also disconnected geographically, and in terms of transportation. The Bachelors Bachelors College Total College Crime Rape Risk East Village is an area that was on the front lines of urban renewal. It is a siteRisk defined by Robert Moses’ ambi71.6% 71.6% 40.7% 40.7% tions to create expressways across the island. It is the site that made Jane Jacobs and other activists say ‘we dont want this’. Though its a site with its battles and scars, it is a site that can become something great. Assault Risk
Never Married
rder Risk
Non-Family Households
61% 61%Property Crime
No HS 31.3%
Some
elors College
7%
70% 70%
There are many single person apartments in the east village and in NYC for that matter.
No HS
Blue Collar
Graduate
28.4%
31.3%
White Collar Rape Risk
Murder Risk
Some College
Bachelors
71.6%
40.7%
41% 41%
61%
31% 31%
Crime
Some College
70%
Total Crime Risk
Jacob Riis Housing: Assault Risk
Blue Collar 28.4%
Graduate Employment 31.3%
% 70%
White Collar 71.6%
No HS
Those mainly doing blue collar jobs are in affordable housing or their rent is federally subsidized. The East Village has a higher number of blue collar workers than the average neighborhood on Manhattan because of the amount of affordable housing which occured in the 50’s
Personal Crime
Some HS
Education
Some HS
45% 45%
Burglary Risk
aduate
Some HS
Robbery Risk
Job 31% 31%
No HS
Social Security
Robbery Risk
SSI
Some HS
Bachelors 45% 45% 40.7%
Some College
41% 41%
31%
Property Crime
Rape Risk
Murder Risk
Burglary Risk
61% OPTIMIZED DENSITY: 70%
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
45%
41%
Personal Crime
The East Village
Fig 21
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Stuyvesant Town + Peter Cooper Village
Jacob Riis Houses
Planning: Met. Life Insurance Company
Architect: Walker and Gillette
Completed: 1947
Completed: 1949
Number of Units: 11,250
Number of Units: 1,768
Land Use: 80 acres
Land Use: 20 acres
Density: 149 units per acre
Density: 88 units per acre
Fig 22
Fig 3
Baruch Houses
Smith Houses
Architect: Emery Roth & Sons
Architect: Eggers and Higgins
Completed: 1959
Completed: 1953
Number of Units: 2,194
Number of Units: 1,931
Land Use: 28 acres
Land Use: 22 acres
Density: 78 units per acre
Density: 88 units per acre
Fig 23
Fig 24
La Guardia Houses
Vladeck Houses
Architect: Hyman Isaac Feldman
Architect: Shreve, Lamb and Harmon
Completed: 1957
Completed: 1940
Number of Units: 1,093
Number of Units: 1,523
Land Use: 11 acres
Land Use: 13 acres
Density: 100 units per acre
Density: 117 units per acre Fig 25
Jacob Riis Houses
Fig 3
Architect: Walker and Gillette Completed: 1949 Number of Units: 1,768 Land Use: 20 acres Density: 88 units per acre OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Connectivity From The East Village
Thesis Project Site Metro Stations Bus Stops
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
20 min.
CITI Bike
y 15 minutes nearl wa lk
to
se
clo
st
me tro
Jacob Riis Houses
5 min. walk
10 min.
15 min.
Socioeconomic Divide In The East Village
Thesis Project Site Blocks with median incomes over 65,000 30,000 < Gray Median Income < 100,000 Blocks with median incomes under 30,000
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Jacob Riis Houses
Data Source: NYC.Gov
Avenue C
Pitt St
Riis Housing Land Use E 12th St
Columbia
Avenue D
St E Houston St h Dr
Baruc
FDR Drive
Parking Open Space
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Bus Stop
CITI Bike
Recreation
E 15th St
E 14th St
E 13th St
E 10th St
E 9th St
E 8th St
E 7th St
E 6th St
E 5th St
E 4th St
E 3rd St
E 2ndSt
Szold Pl
Avenue C
Pitt St
Off Street Entry
E 12th St
E Houston St
Baruc
h Dr
FDR Drive
Entry
Open Space
E 15th St
E 14th St
E 13th St
E 10th St
E 9th St
E 8th St
E 7th St
E 6th St
E 5th St
E 4th St
E 3rd St
E 2ndSt
Avenue D
St Columbia
Szold Pl
Avenue C
Pitt St
Neighborhood Program E 15th St
E 14th St
E 13th St
E 10th St
E 9th St
E 8th St
E 7th St
E 6th St
E 5th St
E 4th St
E 3rd St
E 2ndSt
Szold Pl E 12th St
Columbia
Avenue D
St E Houston St h Dr
Baruc
FDR Drive
Low Rise Residential
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Mixed Use
Community
Mid Rise Residential
Commercial
Industrial
High Rise Residential
Avenue C
Pitt St
Pedestrian Path E 15th St
E 14th St
E 13th St
E 10th St
E 9th St
E 8th St
E 7th St
E 6th St
E 5th St
E 4th St
E 3rd St
E 2ndSt
Szold Pl E 12th St
Columbia
Avenue D
St E Houston St h Dr
Baruc
FDR Drive
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Path
Avenue C
Pitt St
E 15th St
Szold Pl
E 14th St
E 13th St
E 10th St
E 9th St
E 8th St
E 7th St
E 6th St
E 5th St
E 4th St
E 3rd St
E 2ndSt
Crimes by Location E 12th St
Columbia
Avenue D
St E Houston St h Dr
Baruc
FDR Drive
Annual # of Crimes
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Data Source: NYC.Gov
<2
>16
Avenue C
Pitt St
E 15th St
ba ur
ic abr nf
w flo an tr i
he ds t
E 14th St
E 12th St
E Houston St
pe de s
FDR Drive stifles uper block The s en
E 13th St
E 10th St
E 9th St
E 8th St
E 7th St
E 6th St
E 5th St
E 4th St
E 3rd St
Avenue D
St Columbia
Szold Pl E 2ndSt
“Border Vacuum”
Baruc
h Dr
FDR Drive
PRECEDENTS + CASE STUDIES
Affordable Housing + Micro Units
Kowloon Walled City
Visualizing Density Understanding the density of Kowloon is nearly impossible; visualizing it is even harder.
If Manhattan were the same density as the Kowloon Walled City...
NYC
KWC The amount of space per person in the Kowloon Walled City as it relates to NYC is vastly different. The KWC truly shows the maximization of density possible. 2000% magnified Fig 26
The Kowloon Walled City represented one of the most densely organized complexes ever constructed with over 30,000 residents upon a 6.5 acre footprint. It exemplified an organic human phenomenon reminiscent of an anthill. Though every portion of the complex was negotiated on a neighbor-to-neighbor locality, its overall mass was a fully symbiotic relationship packed with everything from factories to doctors, market places to residences. The only constraint upon its mass was its limitation on height do to the nearby airport. Though in many ways it is an archaic example of the random vernacular of pure urban mass, it represented a microcosm of the city within itself. The Kowloon Walled City was itself a fully functioning section of Hong Kong. As opposed to modernist buidling projects such as Pruitt-Igoe which attempted to seperate themselves from the fabric of the city, The Kowloon Walled City is a continuation of Hong Kong. While the walled city appears as some dystopian science fiction similar to Blade Runner (1982), is it possible to create a project of comprobable density but attractive to a much more diverse and contemporary population?
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
While The Kowloon Walled City is only one development, it is nearly impossible to compare its density to even our densist of communities
Data Source: NYT
The entire population of CA could fit on the is2000% magn land of Manhattan while still preserving openspace and streets!
1993
A History of Organic Growth
1847
In 1842, Britain achieves indefinite lease of Hong Kong territory. Later, 1847 China’s military builds a large granite wall around one of their few military strongholds remaining in Hong Kong thus establishing the KWC.
1940
From the late 1890’s through 1945, the KWC becomes an ungoverned territory do to a beauracratic glitch which prevents both Britain and Chinese occupation. Under no direct governance (or law) KWC becomes a lawless squatters paradise
1963
The KWC establishes itself as a self governed community. The first towers towers are erected through the 60’s. While the KWC begins to densify vertically, informal shanty towns begin to form outside of where the wall once stood.
1974
Fig 27
Though China begins vows to crack down on corruption, the KWC remains a lawless sanctuary for drug dealers, prostituates and criminals. More informal organic human habitation continues to spread around the territory.
Tower’s in the Territory?
In the mid 1950’s medium to highrise towers begin to erect throughout the territory. This particular image shows the first major towers errected in 1955.
Fig 28
Peak density of over 9000 units on the 6 acre site is reached in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Its unplanned mass left a very dark and dingy network of paths throughout the building. On the bottom floor, over 1000 businesses from markets to factory flourish supported by both the internal community and the surrounding urban fabric.
While path through the massive conglomoration was unpredicatlbe and even dangerous. The KWC represented a fully self contained section of the city containing its own economic generator.
Nagakin Capsule Tower
Permanent Cores
Replaceable Components
The core of the Nagakin Capsule Tower stands as a full building on its own. The cores in the tower not only acts as structural and circulatory components but also water distribution and air circulation. In fact, The core holds every aspect of the buildings function aside from the residential units and the personal distribution components such as sockets or shower nozzles. Even more important is the permanence at whicht he core is designed. These monolithic extrusions are supposed to last over 100 years, a much more ambitious promise than even the most cutting edge constructions today!
The most iconic portion of the building are the residential apartments which give the Nagakin Capsule Tower its name. They are very compact units which contain barley enough room for a bed, desk, bathroom and basic kitchenette. While the tight quarters arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t for everyone, those who have been lucky enough to live in the Nagakin Capsule Tower part or full time have sworn by the lifestyle. The shifting of the volumes around the core allows for unobstructed views out of the iconic circular portals in each unit. Finally, the capsules are to have a much shorter 30 year lifespan than the buildings core and become replaced as needed.
Fig 29
Architect: Kisho Kurokawa Location: Tokyo Completed: 1972
Number of Units: 140 Land Use: .15 acres Density: 933 units per acre
The Nakagin Capsule Tower was designed by Kisho Kurokawa and was completed in 1972. Kisho Kurokawa was one of the leading designers involved in The Metabolism Movement in Japan which sought to bring more organic and less monumental structures to the urban fabric. As such, The Nagakin Capsule Tower reflects a kind of organic or kinetic form. The capsules are mass produced pre-fabricated units which attach to the inner core of the building. While the capsules are intended to have a life span of 30 years, the core is intended to last over 100 years making the building extremely efficient.
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
Modular Prefab Units
Axon Capsule This main thick wall acts as the main plug inCITY component for THE KOWLOON WALLED capsules. 3 Million People per the Square Mile It allows the units to get water and electricity.
NAKAGIN CAPSULE TOWER 900K People per Square Mile
LA MIAMI
CHI BOS SF
PRUITT-IGOE n loo Kow
La rge r
NYC
20 0%
Pre-fabricated modules act as a great way to save money as onsite construction time and assembly skill needed are both dramatically decreased thus saving lots of money.
SEA
PHI
Be
D.C.
uld ho S le bb Bu
NYC
Because of the buildings verticality, tiny unit size and small footprint, it is extremely dense
The units contained some funny 70s technology built into the capsules in an effort to save space.
The units simply attach into the core allowing a lightning fast construction time
The unit as stated prior is very simple and only has enough space for a bed, seating, space for a kitchenette and bathroom.
Fig 30
Habitat 67’
Decentralized Public Promenade Unlike tower in the park construction, Habitat 67’ decentralizes its open space creating a more personal scale for public space.
Fig 31
Architect: Moshe Safdie Location: Montreal KAGIN CAPSULE TOWER Completed: 1967
0K People per Square Mile
Number of Units: 354 Land Use: 7.5 acres MYacre MICRO NY Density: 47 units per
Habitat 67’ was designed by Moshe Safdie first as his thesis project and later became an exhibit at the Montreal Expo. of 1967 envisioned as a new typology for urban living. Its fragmented form blurs the line between individual unit and outdoor promenade creating a unique community livability enjoyed by its inhabitance to this day. While the overall realization is very interesting and attractive, Habitat 67’ is about the human experience in space rather than the overall monumentality. The concept is to create smaller clusters of community rather than one centralized collective. The building is designed primarily as a range of relationships between units rather than a holistic move. NYC
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
NYC
HABITAT 67’
NYC
Habitat 67’ is less of an example of max imizing density and more of an example of liveability. While its denser than NYC, it still doesnt meet the Sierra Club’s specified “efficient urban” of 100 units per acre.
Unit Configurations
Centralized Park
Decentralized Community If the tower in the park represents centralized open space, Habitat 67â&#x20AC;&#x2122; represents decentralized open space. While it still believes in open space and escape, it shows that creating localized open space allows for more chance for community to form. Habitat 67â&#x20AC;&#x2122; is notable for its vibrant and enthusiastic community
The community space is formed by the relationship between each prefabricated concrete unit. One unit can be reconfigured or rearranged to have vastly different effects.
Fig 32
My Micro NY
Sawtooth Massing
The sawtooth allows for units to be staggered allowing more opportunity for views out and corner windows - vital to such small units Fig 33
Architect: nARCHITECTS Location: NYC HE KOWLOON WALLED CITY 2014 Mile 3 Million Completed: People per Square
MY MICRO NY
20 0%
Sh le bb u nB loo Kow
OPTIMIZED DENSITY:
Rehabilitating The Tower In The Park for The 21st Century
NYC
As efficiently as possible, the units stack one on top of another. At 10 stories with a small footprint, the building seems to strike a balance of repetition but not repetative. HABITAT 67â&#x20AC;&#x2122;
NYC
La rge r
NAKAGIN CAPSULE TOWER My Micro NYC is one of New York Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first true micro900K residential towers. It was designed People per Square Mile by nArchitects in conjunction with the Department of Urban Planning and Design. It features several unit types ranging from 250-350sq. feet. {NYC regulation prior stated that MIAMI apartments had to be a minimum of 400 sq feet.} While, it doesnt live up to the expectation of affordability, it sets an interesting precedent for the livability and even luxury of the micro SEA PHI unit typology. CHI It maximizes efficiency by stacking its modular units directly on top of one BOS another and provides programmed shared space throughout to make up for the minimal unit size. My Micro illustrates the desirability and market for micro unit projects. Ideally its SF conception affordable models in the near future. ld PRUITT-IGOEwill lead to more ou Be
NYC
Number of Units: 55 Land Use: .12 acres Density: 458 units per acre
Unit stack
NYC
My micro is the lastest example of achievable density. It nests many in a small area yet provides lots of ammenities to counter the units lack of square footage.
Prefab Units Like in both the Nagakin Capsule Tower and Habitat 67’, prefabricated, modular units are used to save time construction expertise and money. While this building is more of a demonstration of these techniques to save money, it is clearly a practical methodology for affordable housing.
Core
Shared Space + Amenities
The circulation core is as efficient as possible containing two spiraling staircases to save space. It is strategically set off the the back in order to give maximum oportunity for unit placement.
Since the units are so small, onsite amenities and shared space is very important. The bottom floor includes a small gym, laundry and lounge while the 8th floor has a large terrace connected to a shared clubhouse.
Anything outside of the the dashed box is called the “canvas” and can change from unit to unit and essentially allows space for the inhabitant to modify themselves. Fig 34
Fig 35
The highligheted box is what nArchitects coin the “toolbox”. It is the component which can be placed into any unit providing bathroom, kitchen and storage.
Affordable Precedents
Fig 36
Fig 37
SUGAR HILL HOUSING Architect: David Adjaye Location: Sugar Hill, NY Year: 2014
MIRADOR HOUSING Architect: MVRDV Location: Madrid, Spain Year: 2005
Sugar Hill is a prime example of how architecture has a place in affordable housing. While the units are the biggest give away to value engineering nesesarry to achieve affordable living, all public space is superbly detailed. With its pre-cast graphite concrete facade and saw tooth mass, it disregards all assumptions about affordable housing.
Built on the periphoral of the city, this affordable housing typology attempts to create vertical neighborhoods loosely based off of the surrounding vernacular. As mentioned prior with My Micro NYC, this building attempts to create public meeting spaces throughout the building for both the inhabitance and the surrounding context.
Fig 36
Fig 36
Fig 38
Fig 39
MONTERREY HOUSING Architect: ELEMENTAL [Alejandro Aravena] Location: Monterrey, Mexico Year: 2010
KALKBREITE Architect: Muller Sigrist Location: Zurich Year: 2014
This model of affordable housing gives families the ability to make controlled modifications to their property over time. The seeming gaps between the buldings allows for further construction to take place as users take over their base provided model. It allows inhabitance to double the space of their home. It is a very interesting and calculated response to informality.
Cooperative living has been a very significant affordable lifestyle answer to Zurichâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own housing crisis. Zurich is a city economically and socially very similar to NYC; however cooperative living has yet to be demonstrated in modern design practices in NYC. This particular model uses a variety of different housing options which molds to the needs of the inhabitance.
PRINCIPALS + STRATEGIES
Generic Test Site
75 units per acre 75 units per acre is a pretty middle of the road scheme for the towers in the park in NYC. My site, the Jacob Riis Houses is 88 Units per Acre while some of the other comps are lower.
In order to do quick density studies throughout this process, I have fabricated an imaginary test tower in the park site. This translates more to the end of these boards however goes along with this idea that the tower in the park can be a catalyst for methodology or rules that translates to a variety of different shapes and sizes.
1
3
Key Design Principals
2
1
Commercial Should Meet Street Wall
2
Anchor Tenants + Community Program
3
Increase Density to Over 200 Units Per Acre
4
Increase Density Dynamically
4 a
Resdential and Program Should Be Interspersed To Create More Vibrance
b
Park / Open Space should Be decentralized
Commercial Super Ring
Manhattan Grid
Deflection
One ring of commericial enterprise meets the street wall. Allows for development above at any density. This option does not break up the the super block enough. It also doesnt utilize the interior space.
This option breaks down the superblock into 2 manhattan blocks with a padestrian friendly through street. Development above is flexible to different desired densities. This option does not utilize the interior of the rings.
This option creates a commercial through street like the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Manhattan Gridâ&#x20AC;? however can be applied to more dynamic sites. Development above is flexible to different desired densities.This option does not utilize interior of the rings.
â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Leachâ&#x20AC;?
Habitat
Capsule Tower
This option extends the already existing structure of the tower in the park to create more housing. Using micro units at the same density as My Micro NY, the leach could almost add 1000 units. Unfortunately, it doesnt solve the problem of activating the street wall.
This option is based off of Habitat 67. It wraps around the corners of the buildings creating a more activated corner condition. While this system can be altered in different ways, at the density of Habitat 67, it would 250 units. This option doesnt create as much hierarchy as others and could prove too informal.
This option envisions a series of permanent cores which have the ability to attach modular units onto. This option at the density of the NCT would add 1260 units. This example lacks engagement with the ground and doesnt resolve connections with the towers.
Maximize
Strategic High Street
{9x18}
This option is based off of the Kowloon Walled City. It has the promise of being a vibrant network of mixed use development; however at the expense of significant light and air issues. This option would add nearly 4000 units to the superblock.
This option i strategically takes over street parking to create new leaseable square footage to the ground floor and some residential above. This option while achievable, doesn’t take full advantage of what the site has to offer and doesn’t address the problems with the tower in the park.
Urban Monterrey Housing This option takes the ideas of ELEMENTAL and their Monterrey Housing and uses its controlled informal development approach as a way to create user modfication in the site. This concept can change over time where gaps are between units. This option doesn’t engage with the towers or ground very well because it is rigid.
Mirador Loop
Kalkbreite
Cluster Stack
This option is loosely based off of the Midor Tower by MVRDV by creating a fluid loop of housing, commercial and programmed ammenitites. This option has the ability to engage the street wall and allow padestrian travel through the site. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s too monumental and too much of an object. It lacks efficiency.
This option is loosley based off of the Kalkbreite cooperative in Zurich. Iits rings create a nice fluidity around the site. The most prominant portion meeting the ground is at the corners therefore offering optimal commercial activation. This scheme seems unlikely for NYC and unfitting for a larger campus.
This option is based around the notion that comunity is based off of clustering. It uses one basic square cluster and agrigates itself throughout the tower in the park allowing light and air to penetrate through communities. It doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t engage with the street wall enough.
SITE APPLICATION
O P T I M I Z E D D E N S I T Y Whether spreading out evenly across the land in individualized parcels or condensing vertically to make minimal contact upon earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s surface; humans have always wanted to feel in touch with nature. From this urge, two topdown construction typologies were created: the suburban ranch upon land and the urban tower in the park. As time progressed, suburbia became the embodiment of the American Dream while cities became abandoned. Without the stimulus of a thriving and local middle class, American Cities became increasingly desolate. Despite the growing contrast between city and suburb, in the 40s and 50s many of our cities, especially in New York, faced heavy â&#x20AC;&#x153;slumâ&#x20AC;? clearance to make way for towers in parks. The tower in the park still could not answer to the promise of land ownership in the suburbs and additionally sterilized the once unique urban communities. Soon the tower in the park became recognized for its negative connotation rather than for its innovative modernist planning principals. Today, the tower in the park is still a part of many urban environments. While other historical typologies have been adapted, the tower in the park remains unchanged. It lacks correspondence with its surroundings and isolates its inhabitants from the city ultimately becoming iconic for a sense of false optimism and even dystopia. While these modernist developments throughout American cities are extraordinarily prevalent, their lack of social interaction can become their upside. Optimized densification is the exploitation of under utilized space to create a more dynamic cooperative based density often times adding onto what is already exists. The pursuit of maximizing intelligently can help to relieve socioeconomic exclusivity, create a more ecologically sustainable lifestyle and influence social mixing. Though architecture can only have a limited influence on the social climate of a place like New York City, re-envisioning and optimizing the density of the tower in the park typology can lead to a more harmonious engagement between buildings and their surrounding context or population. Optimizing density could be the modern day American dream by providing affordable and stable living situations to increasingly dense metropolitan areas.
Prefab Units Like in both the Nagakin Capsule Tower and Habitat 67â&#x20AC;&#x2122;, prefabricated, modular units are used to save time construction expertise and money. While this building is more of a demonstration of these techniques to save money, it is clearly a practical methodology for affordable housing.
IMAGE CITATIONS 1. Levittown, New York (1948) by Uknown Artist 2. The Pruitt Igoe Myth (2011) 3. H, Steve. “Lower East Side Aerial View Flashback.” LESNYC. N.p., 15 Jan. 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 4. “View of Woolworth Building.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 5. “Avenue Des Maisons-Tours, Banlieue Ouest De Paris – Auguste Perret.” Institut Auguste Perret. N.p., 12 June 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 6. Merin, Gili. “AD Classics: Ville Radieuse / Le Corbusier.” ArchDaily. N.p., 10 Aug. 2013. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 7. Merin, Gili. “AD Classics: Ville Radieuse / Le Corbusier.” ArchDaily. N.p., 10 Aug. 2013. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 8. Press, Associated. “Never-before-seen Photos from 100 Years Ago Tell Vivid Story of Gritty New York City.” Daily Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 24 Apr. 2012. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 9. MTA Bridges and Tunnels Archive. Renderer: Julian Michele 10. Rosenfield, Karissa. “The Iconic U.N. Headquarters Makeover.” ArchDaily. N.p., 09 Mar. 2012. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 11. Layouni, Yssam. “Mies Van Der Rohe – LESS IS MORE.” Yssamlayouni.wordpress.com. N.p., 29 Mar. 2013. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 12. H, Steve. “Lower East Side Aerial View Flashback.” LESNYC. N.p., 15 Jan. 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 13. Plunz, Richard. A History of Housing in New York. New York: Columbia UP, 1990. Print. 14. Nonko, Emily. “Tracing the History of Affordable Housing in New York City.” Curbed NY. N.p., 18 Sept. 2015. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 15. “Pennsylvania Station’s Many Phases.” Project.wnyc.org. WNYC, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 16. “On This Day in NYC’s History: City Council Prohibited Discrimination in Public Housing.” New York Natives. N.p., 13 Feb. 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 17. Sandburn, Josh. “Suburbs Increase as City Growth Slows, According to New Census Numbers.” Time. Time, 22 May 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 18. Haidar, Ali. “Ali Haidar Architecture Home Styles Blog.” Ali Haidar Architecture Home Styles Blog. N.p., 08 Feb. 2016. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 19. “1 Dolma Road, Scarsdale, NY | Trulia.com.” Trulia Real Estate Search. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 20. “Avalon Midtown West.” Rent.com. N.p., 24 June 2015. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 21. Massini, Peter. “Aerials.” BIG CITY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 22. H, Steve. “Lower East Side Aerial View Flashback.” LESNYC. N.p., 15 Jan.2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 23. “Baruch Houses.” GKC Industries LLC. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016.
24. “La Guardia + Wagner Archives.” Flickr. Yahoo!, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 25. Elie. “Revisiting the Fairchild Aerial Surveys of New York City from the 1940s [PHOTOS].” Bowery Boogie. N.p., 22 Jan. 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 26. Girard, Greg, Charles Goddard, and Ian Lambot. City of Darkness: Life in Kowloon Walled City. Surrey: Watermark Pub, 1993. Print. 27. “HONG KONG | Kowloon Walled City.” HONG KONG | Kowloon Walled City. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 28. “Winter 2013. Waterloo Arch. 392 Urban Precedent 16. Kowloon Walled City.” Vimeo. Waterloo Architecture 382, 23 Jan. 2013. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 29. Sveiven, Megan. “AD Classics: Nakagin Capsule Tower / Kisho Kurokawa.” ArchDaily. N.p., 08 Feb. 2011. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 30. MailOnline, Emily Payne for. “Tokyo’s ‘futuristic’ 1970s Capsule Tower Threatened with Demolition... despite a Starring Role in The Wolverine.” Daily Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 01 Oct. 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 31. “Homage - Habitat 67.” Habitat 67. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 32. Frearson, Amy. “Brutalist Buildings: Habitat 67, Montreal by Moshe Safdie.” Dezeen. N.p., 26 Feb. 2016. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 33. “Apply to Live in Manhattan’s First Micro Apartments for as Low as $950 a Month.” Inhabitat New York City Apply to Live in Manhattans First Micro Apartments for as Low as 950 a Month Comments. N.p., 03 Sept. 2015. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 34. “Apply to Live in Manhattan’s First Micro Apartments for as Low as $950 a Month.” Inhabitat New York City Apply to Live in Manhattans First Micro Apartments for as Low as 950 a Month Comments. N.p., 03 Sept. 2015. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 35. “Apply to Live in Manhattan’s First Micro Apartments for as Low as $950 a Month.” Inhabitat New York City Apply to Live in Manhattans First Micro Apartments for as Low as 950 a Month Comments. N.p., 03 Sept. 2015. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 36. “David Adjaye’s Sugar Hill Development: A New Typology for Affordable Housing.” ArchDaily. N.p., 10 June 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 37. “Quatro Passos Para Solucionar O Déficit Mundial De Habitação Acessível.” ArchDaily Brasil. N.p., 23 Nov. 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 38. “Monterrey Housing / ELEMENTAL.” ArchDaily. N.p., 08 Mar. 2010. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. 39. “Pension Kalkbreite.” The Building and Surrounding Area | Pension Kalkbreite. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. <https://www.pension-kalkbreite.net/en/house>.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Owen, David. Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability. New York: Riverhead, 2010. Print. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. Print. Plunz, Richard. A History of Housing in New York City: Dwelling Type and Social Change in the American Metropolis. New York: Columbia UP, 1990. Print. Chakrabarti, Vishaan. A Country of Cities: A Manifesto for an Urban America. New York: Metropolis, 2013. Print. Lambot, Ian (2007). City of Darkness: Life in Kowloon Walled City. Watermark. ISBN 978-1-873200-13-1. Bloom, Nicholas Dagen, Matthew Gordon. Lasner, and David Schalliol. Affordable Housing in New York: The People, Places, and Policies That Transformed a City. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2016. Print. Woo, Rosten, and John Mangin. “Affordable Housing.” Housing Finance Systems (2009): n. pag. 2009. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. trulia. “Trulia Local.” Trulia Local - Visual Analysis of Local Data. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016.
Corbusier, Le. The City of To-morrow. 3rd ed. London: Architectural Pr., 1971. Print. Haas, Tigran. New Urbanism and Beyond: Designing Cities for the Future. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 2008. Print. El-Khoury, Rodolphe, and Edward Robbins. Shaping the City: Studies in History, Theory and Urban Design. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print. Shapiro, Ari. “American Dream Faces Harsh New Reality.” NPR. NPR, 29 May 2012. Web. 05 Sept. 2016. <http://www.npr. org/2012/05/29/153513153/american-dream-faces-harsh-new-reality?sc=tw>. The Pruitt-Igoe Myth. Dir. Chad Freidrichs. Unicorn Stencil, 2011. YouTube. Chandra Ward Stefanik, 27 Sept. 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKgZM8y3hso>. The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream. Dir. Gregory Greene. Perf. Gregory Greene. Electric Wallpaper Company, 2004. Vimeo. EnlaceSol, 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 20 Sept. 2016. <https://vimeo.com/57444376>. Day, Lara. “Kowloon Walled City.” The Wall Street Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Sept. 2016. <http://projects.wsj.com/kwc/#chapter=people>.
“CoolClimate Network.” Coolclimate.berkeley.edu. UC Berkeley, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016.
Carmichael, Joe. “How Science Fiction Dystopias Became Blueprints for City Planners.” Inverse. Inverse, 20 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016. <https://www.inverse.com/article/18488-science-fiction-future-city-planning-dubai-skyscrapers-dystopia>.
“Urban Layers. Explore the Structure of Manhattan’s Urban Fabric. | MORPHOCODE.” . Explore the Structure of Manhattan’s Urban Fabric. | MORPHOCODE. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016.
Blade Runner. Dir. Ridley Scott. Prod. Ridley Scott and Hampton Francher. By Hampton Francher and David Webb Peoples. Perf. Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, and Sean Young. Warner Bros., 1982.
McLendon, Russell. “Urban or Rural: Which Is More Energy-efficient?” MNN - Mother Nature Network. N.p., 28 June 2015. Web. 18 Dec. 2016.
Metropolis. Dir. Fritz Lang. UFA, 1926.
Http://www.homevestors.com/author/homevestors/. “Average Size of American Homes: Is It Too Much?” Homevestors. N.p., 30 June 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. “NYC Housing Authority.” NYC Housing Authority. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. Kriss, Sam. “Letter of Recommendation: The Nakagin Capsule Tower.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 Oct. 2016. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. “Inside the Exhibit Affordable New York: A Housing Legacy at Museum of the City of New York.” Untapped Cities. N.p., 10 Dec. 2015. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. “Cities Connection Project | KALKBREITE. ZURICH.” Cities Connection Project RSS2. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. “How Dense Is Dense Enough?” How Dense? Thoreau Institute, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. “Four Steps to Fix the Global Affordable Housing Shortage.” ArchDaily. N.p., 02 Nov. 2014. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. “Healthy Growth Calculator - Sprawl - Sierra Club.” Healthy Growth Calculator - Sprawl - Sierra Club. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. Fernandez, Manny. “Where the Other Half Lives: An Insider Works to Bolster the Projects.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Apr. 2008. Web. 18 Dec. 2016.
Ruff, Joshua. “Levittown: The Archetype for Suburban Development | HistoryNet.” HistoryNet. N.p., 10 Apr. 2007. Web. 05 Sept. 2016. <http://www.historynet.com/levittown-the-archetype-for-suburban-development.htm>. “Levittown, New York.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 05 Sept. 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York>. Adams, James Truslow. The Epic of America. Boston: Little, Brown, 1931. Print. Edelstein, Sally. “Envisioning The American Dream.” Envisioning The American Dream. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Sept. 2016. <https://envisioningtheamericandream.com/>. “American Dream.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 05 Sept. 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream>. Krulwich, Robert. “The Big Squeeze: Can Cities Save The Earth?” NPR. NPR, 8 Apr. 2013. Web. 20 Sept. 2016. <http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2013/04/08/176565424/the-big-squeeze-can-cities-save-the-earth>. Heintz, Molly, and Julie Iovine V. “Q+A REM KOOLHAAS.” The Architect’s Newspaper. N.p., 27 Oct. 2011. Web. 20 Sept. 2016. <http://140.174.71.192/news/articles.asp?id=5722>. “KENCHIKU / Architecture from Japan | Wochi Kochi Magazine.” KENCHIKU / Architecture from Japan | Wochi Kochi Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2016. <http://www.wochikochi.jp/english/special/2013/09/japan-of-modern-architecture.php>.
“Building of the Week.” Review: Carmel Place - NARCHITECTS. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016.
Schindler, Susanne, Mitchell Schwarzer, Introduction by Keith Eggener. Archival Text by Vincent Scully., and Joe Day. “Is the Co-op the Future of Housing Affordability?” Places Journal. N.p., 01 Oct. 2014. Web. 20 Sept. 2016. <https://placesjournal.org/article/housing-and-the-cooperative-commonwealth/>.
“Visualizing Density Investigating the Density Challenge Facing the United States.” Visualizing Density. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. <http://datatoolkits.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/visualizing-density/tour/t11.aspx>.
Stott, Rory. “AD Readers Debate: Living Standards, From Micro-Apartments to Favelas.” ArchDaily. N.p., 29 May 2016. Web. 20 Sept. 2016. <http://www.archdaily.com/788469/ad-readers-debate-living-standards-from-micro-apartments-to-favelas/>.
“PROPOSAL.” 9 X 18. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. <http://www.9x18.net/proposal/>.
H, Steve. “Lower East Side Aerial View Flashback.” LESNYC. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. <http://lesnyc.com/blog/les/lower-east-sideaerial-view-flashback>.
Nonko, Emily. “Tracing the History of Affordable Housing in New York City.” Curbed NY. N.p., 18 Sept. 2015. Web. 18 Dec. 2016. Price, Richard. “The Rise and Fall of Public Housing in NYC.” Guernica. N.p., 25 Nov. 2016. Web. 18 Dec. 2016.
“Monterrey Housing / ELEMENTAL.” ArchDaily. N.p., 08 Mar. 2010. Web. 18 Dec. 2016.