Reflection Paper 2015 by Gitte Schreurs

COLLECTIVE STRUCTURES REFLECTION PAPER

GITTE SCHREURS

COLLECTIVE STRUCTURES A REFLECTION PAPER BY

Gitte schreurs

This publication presents a combination of research and analysis to build up my project, with a reflection about the architectural project itself. It is an attempt on showing what the challenges and opportunities of the site are and how the proposed architecture utilizes these elements. Brought as a coherent story, this publication offers an insight into the progress, and outcome of my master dissertation project. Cover image: By THOMAS GELDOF The following people contributed and guided the development of this project and publication: KRIS SCHEERLINCK SANDY DEBRUYCKER JEROEN DE CONCEICAO GUY MOUTON MARC DUJARDIN HANNES VANDAMME RUBEN JANSSENS

Layout & editing: Gitte schreurs Printed & bounded by: DE NOBELE

This project was developed for the master dissertation project, within the project of Streetscape Territories around Kaiser Park, Coney Island. proposed by Kris Scheerlinck.

ZWIJNAARDSESTEENWEG 219 9000 GENT Proofreading:

PIETER-JAN ORIS

All rights reserved under International Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo-copying, recording or by any information storage retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or specific copyright owners. Work and publication made during the course of a personal master dissertation project.

KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture Campus Sint-Lucas, Ghent Class of 2014-2015 www.arch.kuleuven.be www.internationalmasterofarchitecture.be

ÂŠ2015 by Gitte schreurs

Contact:

Gitte Schreurs Weg naar As 123a 3680 Maaseik

Streetscape Territories

Streetscape Territories is the name given to an international research and design project that deals with the way buildings and properties are related to streets and how their inhabitants can give meaning to them.

GitteSchreurs@hotmail.com +32 (0)476/02.12.82

kris.scheerlinck@streetscapeterritories.com streetscapeterritories.wordpress.com

Introduction

06 Final design proposal

01 Coney Island

07 Conclusions and Reflections

02 Collective spaces

Introduction of Coney Island Zoom-in of the tackled area and its characteristics - Coney Island in general - Coney Island history - Coney Island today

Research about collective areas, two types of appropriation in collective spaces. Supported by theoretical references - Accidental appropriation - Intentional appropriation

03 Urban Scale Strategy

04 Domestic Scale Strategy

05 Collective Structures

Changing the current configuration of the Kaiser Park area and Neptune Avenue to support future architectural interventions.

Zoom in towards the tackled areas. Triple focus points. - Living area - Recreational area - Manufacturing area. Elaborated about streetscape as a manufacturing area.

A structure of designed collective spaces, and structures that benefit the collective spaces

Collective Structures Research question Sustainable design Streetscapes

Personal position as an architect. How does the design relate to this position in architecture. Reflection on the design process and results.

Thank you note

Bibliography and figure list

101

Fig 01/ Wonder Wheel, maskins, Website

INTRODUCTION

What? Why? How? For whom? Where? A short introduction about the Master dissertation in general and the different entities involved.

MASTER DISSER TATION

STREETSCAPE TERRITORIES

T his booklet describes the architecture g raduating project of students at the faculty of architectur e, KU Leuven, campus SintLucas Ghent. T he assignment focuses on the K aiser Park area on Coney Island, NY, USA. It tackles several impor tant topics that cur rently apply to Coney Island. During the research week in November 2014, many lectures and sessions took place amongst the students and several stakeholders as par t of the Common Streetscapes project.

T his Master disser tation is developed within the framework of the Streetscape Ter ritories project and focuses on the K aiser Park Area in Coney Island, Brooklyn, New York. T he Streetscape Ter ritories project is an initiative of Prof. Dr. Kris Scheerlinck, who describes the project as follows: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Str eetscape Ter ritories is the name gi ven to an inter national r esear ch and design pr oject that deals with the way buildings and pr oper ties ar e r elated to str eets and how their inhabitants can gi ve meaning to them. In other w ords, this pr oject focuses on the ter ritorial or ganization of str eetscapes, explor ed in dif f er ent contexts, studied as par t of dif f er ent cultur es and defined by dif f er ent social netw orks. Str eetscape Ter ritories deals with models of pr oximity within a str eet, neighbourhood or r egion and star ts fr om the assumption that urban space, fr om the domestic scale till the scale of the city, can be understood as a discontinuous collecti ve space, containing dif f er ent le vels of collecti ve use that ar e defined by multiple physical, cultural or ter ritorial boundaries.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

INTERNATIONAL T he KU Leuven, faculty of architecture offers a Masters prog ram of Inter national architecture. Students from all over the world enrol in this prog ram and work on a series of assignments at the campus of Br ussels or Gent. T his gives students the oppor tunity to share thoughts, ideas and works with people from different places and different cultures. For the master disser tation, the students could choose between several sites and thematic frameworks where their projects would be located. Some options to work in were New York, Istanbul, Barcelona, London, Chicag o, but also Ghent and Br ussels.

Fig 02/ Parachute jump couple, Snipview, Website

CONEY ISLAND

What is Coney Island? Where is it located? How did Coney Island make it to the history books and what are the side effects of its success? How does it function in the shadow of Manhattan and uprising Brooklyn?

N TA AT NH MA

B ROOKLYN

S TA TE N IS L A N D

C ON E Y I S L A N D

Fig 03/ Map of Manhattan, Brooklyn + Coney Island, World of Buildings, Website

CONE Y I SLAN D GEN ERAL Coney Island is a peninsula, located on the Atlantic Ocean in the South of Brooklyn, NY. It is a long shaped island, first it was part of the outer barrier islands of New York, but during the years it got connected to the rest of Brooklyn by landfill. Coney Island is divided into four zones, going from left to right we can find Sea gate, Coney Island, Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach. Sea gate is a gated community with mostly Jewish inhabitants that live in high-rise buildings. Coney Island inhabits many cultures and nationalities in low-rise one family houses. It also contains Kaiser Park, the Mark Twain school and touches the Coney island Creek on the North. Brighton Beach has a mixture of high and low-rise buildings and is home to a lot of people with a Russian origin. Manhattan Beach has low-rise houses, but this time the houses are detached. On the south, the Manhattan Beach Park is located.

weekend Coney Island can welcome many visitors. On sunny sundays the amount of visitors can go up to one million people per day. Also the many small stores and food tents are very popular with tourists. The general view of Coney island contains amusement, the beach and fun. But behind those leisure activities is more than just amusement going on.

On the south side of Coney Island, a long boardwalk is located as a border between the residential areas and the beach. It has always been a place to escape for people who lived in the city. Also the many amusement parks were a real catch for tourism. Today, the Luna Park and the beach are still the perfect reasons for tourists to visit Coney island on a daily basis. For outsiders and tourists, Coney Island is a sanctuary where they relax, enjoy and have fun. The amusement park still has its glory and is a perfect place to spend a day with the children. The beach is still very attractive on sunny days. Every

Fig 04/ Map of Coney Island, CAD file

Fig 05/ Aerial view of Coney Island, Bing Maps

CONEY ISLAND HISTORY Originally, Coney Island was called ‘Narrioch’ by the native Americans, which means land without shadow, because the sun reached the island at any time. In the 17th century, Peter Minuit purchased Manhattan Island for the Dutch and named it the city of New Amsterdam. Not much later it was renamed to New York to honour the Duke of York, England. When the Dutch colony entered the land of Coney island, it was full of rabbits. They named this peninsula ‘Konijneneiland’, Dutch for Rabbit Island. Later it was changed into the current name of Coney Island.1 In the 19th century, amusement parks were created all over the United States of America. Not only to entertain people or gain money out of the parks, but mainly to give people a reason to use the public railway system. It were those railway companies that built the funfairs. In 1829, a railway brought people to the beach of Coney Island for pleasure and to escape the city. The train had a million users in 1875 and in the next year, this number doubled. This success was because the companies added the first carrousels next to the beach, making Coney Island an even more attractive destination for pleasure-seekers. It took another twenty years before the first permanent park was opened on the island. A few years later it would join the Steeplechase Park, one of the three major parks that Coney Island would know together with Luna Park and Dreamland. By 1910, the one million visitors were not on a yearly, but on a daily basis.2

The development of Coney island in the 20th century was a struggle of two parties. The amusement business was building facilities all over the beach, but the city of New York wanted to preserve the south of Surf Avenue as a natural environment. In the end, they had to make an agreement that there would be a border, 300 meters to the south of Surf Avenue. Above this border, the amusement parks could be developed, beneath it, the beach would remain untouched. This is how the historical Coney Island Boardwalk was created.

Fig 06/ Parachute jump with sea, The Standard Edition, Website

Coney Island History Project, Website, 2Brooklynrail, Website

In 1944, a huge fire destroyed most of Luna Park. Robert Moses bought this area, demolished what was left of the amusement parks and rezoned it as lowincome housing. Gradually, parts of Coney Island were rezoned and it left large vacant plots that were of no use anymore. Eventually only one theme park remained: the Steeplechase Park.1 In 2012, Coney Island was hit by Super storm Sandy. The storm caused severe damage to the amusement parks and the aquarium but also to the houses and the businesses. Because the amusement park offers a lot of employment and income for the island, it had to be restored as soon as possible. It could reopen by the end of March, 2013. Though some of the residential areas and local businesses were left alone. Today still, some of the houses show damage from the storm. Also small businesses were devoted to themselves to reopen and some of them never found the opportunity to do so. Because the retails and shops are all very small and employ only a few people, they often didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t find the means to recover from the storm.

17 Fig 07/ Coney Island Beach after Super storm Sandy, Jarek Mazur

Fig 08/ Coney Island Wonder Wheel, Jennifer Robinson

C O N E Y ISLA ND T O D AY Until today, amusement and a nice beach is what people remember Coney Island for. It is still a popular destination for tourists and inhabitants of the city to spend the day. But Coney Island is more than just amusement. In the shadow of the roller coasters and playfulness, a lot of low income families struggle to maintain their jobs and living standards.

community, this could be organized on cultural and religiously neutral domain to be more accessible and inviting to everyone. Crime rate Crime rate statistics show that personal crime risks like murder and robbery are above average on the island. On the other hand, property crime risk like burglary, larceny and automotive theft risks are far below average. For architecture, these statistics are rather positive because it allows us to create buildings that are more open and accessible towards the public. Vandalism towards buildings does not happen as often as in other parts of Brooklyn.

Income Statistics show that the amount of money families on Coney Island spend is far below the average for every purpose. Their medium income on a yearly basis was approximately 40,200 dollar in 2010. In the rest of Brooklyn the medium income for 2010 was 66,723 dollar and in Manhattan it was 132,754 dollar. The inhabitants of Coney Island often have to travel many miles to get to their jobs because the employment in their immediate vicinity is rather small. Though we see a general urge for entrepreneurship amongst the locals. Many small businesses are located on Neptune and Mermaid Avenue. Especially the car industry is a popular sector to undertake an initiative in, because the West side of the Island has a perfect connection to the busiest highway of New York. These businesses are all rather small with only five or less employees. In this urge for business and the good location are many opportunities for the future development of the area.

Coney Island might currently not seem to be the most optimal area to live in, but there are many opportunities to be found in the neighborhood. There is a strong sense of entrepreneurship amongst the inhabitants; they are creating businesses and undertakers are already responding to the qualities that the location offers. Car industry possibly has a bright future on this location. If they are pushed in the right direction, the social, as well as the economical development of Coney Island can be drastically altered in a positive way.

Culture The families that live on Coney Island are of many origins and cultures. Of the approximated 50.000 people living on Coney Island, half of the population are white and 30% are black people. The remaining 20% exists mostly out of Hispanic and Latino inhabitants. A small 2% are Asian or Native Americans. Even despite this mixed-culture way of living, the Catholic beliefs still seem to be predominant in general. After disasters as hurricane Sandy, food supply and health care are organised inside and around churches. For the future improvement of the

Information and statistics from Point2homes, Website

Fig 09/ Coney Island cross-streets + houses, general photos

Fig 10/ Larryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s radiator shop, Coney Island, General photos

C O L L E C T I V E S PA C E S

What are collective spaces? Which two types of appropriation in these spaces can we find? Where can we find them in Coney Island? Accessibility, privacy, territory, appropriation, permeability, proximity Founded with several references

APPROPRIATION IN COLLECTIVE SPACES Collective spaces are public areas that can be used in many different ways by many different people. In this discourse, we will distinguish two types of collective spaces and the different ways of appropriation, tolerance and use of them. This will be reflected on examples on Coney Island and the influence it has on the surroundings. This theory is based on individual findings during two research periods on Coney island, one in summer and one in winter, and contains personal insights and results.

ACCIDENTAL APPROPRIATION

The first type of collective spaces that we will look at, are the public areas that are rather close to private properties. An example can be roads and sidewalks. They touch the private property but are designed for collective use. Even though the public spaces are adjacent to the boundaries of private zones, they are available for use by the public. None of the users has more control over the area than another. This can be referred to by the term ‘Common land’, introduced in medieval England. Common land can be defined as an area that is owned by one person (or the community) but is open for use by other people. Though the users are obliged to answer to the rules that are set by the owner. The tolerance on appropriation by those users is rather low. Oscar Newman describes this phenomenon in his ‘Defensive space theory’ (NEWMAN, 1972) where he explains that controlling a space lowers the crime rate. According to him, undefined spaces cause drug problems and crime. Many of the public spaces are designed to serve a specific purpose: a sidewalk is designed for pedestrians; a road is made for cars. If you use the spaces differently, it might not be appreciated or even have consequences because the functions are determined by law. These days, the term ‘common land’ results in the term ‘the commons’. The commons, however, refers to all the cultural and natural means that people have

Fig 11/ Car repairing on sidewalk, General photos

access to. For instance water, air and liveable earth. Because in this case, the collective space is so close to their private property, we see people extending their territory into this public -common- space; they appropriate these areas abundantly. Maybe this shows a general need for more personal space besides their property. Inhabitants and shop owners start using the space that is closest to their living or working area to gain benefits from it. In this direct environment of the house or shop, the feeling of responsibility and ownership is generally higher than in any other public area. The appropriation and feeling of responsibility is higher, but the intended use of the area reduces and tolerance towards outsiders becomes minimal. It is an extension of their private property into a larger territory.

seems like a natural thing to do. The urban planning in this case was never designed for the purpose of free appropriation, on the contrary. By extending your territory into an area that is not designed for this, you also create conflicts. Pedestrians and cyclists that use the road only for passing by will be bothered by the new use of the pavement. They will feel as an intruder while they are actually using the space for what it is designed to be; a pavement. While walking the pavement on Neptune Avenue in Coney Island, you intrude territory by territory. This makes the simple action of walking or cycling next to the road a constant conflict. The appropriation in these types of collective spaces grows from an existing feeling of ownership that gradually and often temporary extends towards the public space.

In Brighton Beach, we saw women taking their chairs outside to sit on the sidewalk, extending their property and blocking the passage for all pedestrians. These actions are just an idea of the moment, not intended to change any configuration of the city, but yet defining an area as something it is not designed to be. Unintentionally they appropriate a space that is defined by the community and not supposed to be owned by any user. That is the reason why we call this accidental appropriation of collective space. Also car manufactories appropriate the sidewalk for their personal benefit. The cars that does not fit in their working space anymore are placed on the sidewalk or even on the street. This is a more permanent appropriation of collective space. These are very interesting phenomena since the area was never intended to have this reaction from the users and yet it

A PPRO PRIATION IN C O L L E CT IVE SPA C ES

INTENTIONAL APPROPRIATION

For the second type of collective spaces we will elaborate about the same starting point as the first one: an area that is controlled by one person or more, but open for use by other people. Though in this second type, the tolerance on appropriation is higher because the public area is located further away from the private property or is less connected to a personal feeling of ownership. In an area like this, the design can have a certain openness and indefiniteness and there can be a balance between defining space and leaving it open for interpretation. The Kaiser Park neighbourhood has the potentional to become this kind of collective space, controlled by the neighborhood, enjoyed by everyone. It can be a well-organized place, open for appropriation and interpretation when needed. Kaiser Park is full of potentials but unfortunately also comes along with many obstacles. It has poor accessibility and therefore not a lot of appeal to the bigger public. Inhabitants seem to have a larger interest to use collective spaces that are directly connected to their private living area. Kaiser Park is surrounded by wide avenues and this is an obstacle in permeability and accessibility. However, there is also a clear potential and this translates into smaller and bigger initiatives concerning the park, with for instance the Friends of Kaiser Park organisation.

Fig 12/ Man bringing barbecue to Kaiser Park, General photos

Friends of Kaiser Park is an initiative, maintained by one man and many volunteers. This man, Rocco, is the caretaker of this organisation, which is a place for leisure but also a sanctuary for the residents. People need a place to be themselves, so the appropriation of space is one of the main concerns in Kaiser Park. Kaiser Park exists out of fenced zones of recreation. They are free to use at any time and the user is responsible for his actions. Though the functions are mostly still defined. They needed a baseball field, so they made a baseball field. They needed tennis courts, an athletics track, a basketball field. We call this intentional appropriation of collective space because the area is designed to use in the specific way that people are actually using it.

This subtle appropriation is very important for the feeling of responsibility of the user. When they fill in the use themselves, they will feel more involved with the activity and the place. This creates a temporary feeling of responsibility. On the other hand, the subtle use is still very limited in the area because the urge to define every piece of space stays strong. Zones of free, but controlled, interpretation would offer more options for spontaneous actions. This would benefit the user because they can use the collective space more abundantly, but it would also benefit the park because a growing feeling of connection might lower the crime and neglectance.

A first element of this intentional appropriation could be called ‘explicit appropriation’. A house is intentionally made available for the children. They can eat and play together on a daily basis in a safe area. Several actions are taking place and the participants know these are planned for them. They know what to expect and realize the effort Friends of Kaiser Park takes to benefit their well-being. A second occurring event could be named ‘subtle appropriation’. The areas around the house are also purchased to benefit the inhabitants. They are available for use by anyone, without charging fees. Some of these areas are open for interpretation, though there are still a lot of rules that need to be obliged. We could witness people bringing barbecues, footballs, fishing gear, picnics and so on. Those people assume it was their own idea to appropriate this space for a few hours, while actually they were given the opportunity. Some territories are intentionally undefined so the users have a freedom to appropriate the public space for a while, unaware that it is an intentional benefit they gain.

RE FE RE NC ES

Proxemics

In the book The hidden Dimension (HALL, 1966), Edward T. Hall talks about proximity. He studies the conceptualization and use of space in relation to distance. He describes the personal space and how the distance towards it has consequences for the individual. ‘The closer you are to me, the more I will protect my personal space.’ In his theory on proxemics, he explains about two theories, one about the personal space and one about territories. The theory on personal space shows a different radius for intimate, personal, social and public space. The theory on territories refers to the space a person owns and defines as his property. He distinguishes the public, interactional, home and body territory. His theory on territorial proxemics is very applicable to the investigated areas on Coney Island. In the housing blocks, the street and pavement can be seen as the public territory, when we get to the territorial fencing of the houses, we enter the interactional territory. The front door can be seen as the boundary towards the home territory and once you enter the private space of the house, we are at the body territory. In Kaiser Park and the industrial areas, only the first two forms of territories can be seen and at the high rise building blocks, the interactional territory is larger than in the low rise building blocks. More about this can be found in the topic ‘personal framework’.

Structure of the Ordinary

N. J. Habraken is the author of Structure of the Ordinary (HABRAKEN, 1998). In this book, he looks at the structure of the everyday environment. A lot of his research focusses on the individual building, its effect on the users choices and their ability to control use. Some quotes he uses in the book are very inspiring: ‘We observe what always has been with us, not to discover, much less to invent, but to recognize’. ‘The individual responsibility for ones own environment represents an essential precondition for environmental health’. The topics of his thesis can easily be reflected on the Coney Island neighborhood. On Coney Island, there might be no need to have iconic, prestigious architecture as they do in Manhattan. Here it is most important to find qualities in the current situation and exploit them. The public spaces in Coney Island have many spatial qualities that can be used as a foundation of new architecture. There is a difference between common spaces, collective space, commercial and manufacturing areas. The specific characteristics of these areas can be molded into beneficial qualities. Architectural interventions that will work in the long run should be based on the every day life of the tackled area.

Creating Defensible Space

Indefensible Space

In his book Creating Defensible Space (NEWMAN, 1972), Oscar Newman elaborates about his theory of how defining space can prevent crime. He examined several case studies of high rise buildings in Europe as well as in America, showing the relation between housing and crime rate. About his study on high rise buildings in Pruitt-Igoe, in the American city of Saint Louis, he states: ‘Because all the grounds were common and disassociated from the living units, residents could not identify with them. Therefore the areas proved unsafe’. In his research, he elaborates about the lack of responsibility inhabitants show when they do not feel connected to an area. The same can be experienced on Coney Island. Inhabitants do not seem to feel a connection with many common and collective areas in their neighborhood. Therefore they show few responsibility, neglect the spaces or sometimes even vandalize them. Kaiser Park is a collective area with several facilities, maintained by Partnership for Parks, New York. Many inhabitants appreciate this but, at the same time, many do not. Maintainers of the Park find out new damage is done nearly every morning. Garbage cans are turned upside down or even graffiti is sprayed on the pavilion. ‘Kids get bored and find their own kind of amusement in the park.’ By creating a larger feeling of responsibility, maybe crime could be partly prevented.

Indefensible Space (SORKIN, 2013) is an answer to Oscar Newmans book by Michael Sorkin. In his work, he elaborates about how architecture and communities are dealing with the anxiety that lives amongst them since 9/11. He critiques Newman’s theory as ‘instrumental architecture’ and states that the presumption of danger becomes the defining criteria for planning and design. He questions whether the plausible danger and the nature of our response to it is in balance. Surveillance is everywhere, especially in times of technological evolution. New houses require equipments to protect and secure, but it also estranges us from neighborliness. ‘How much freedom are we willing to give up in exchange for security?’. Boundaries on Coney Island are more a matter of territorial restrictions, rather than safety issues, but yet this theory is very interesting. On Coney Island, clear boundaries are also set to prevent unwanted actions on their own properties. Here it is a matter of privacy instead of safety, but yet there are some resemblances. Defining space and leaving no room for interpretation makes an area predictable and for the inhabitants perhaps also comfortable. But we should look at this critically. No room for interpretation equals no room for spontaneous actions. People will live separately with only few opportunities for renewal and collective actions.

Fig 13/ Neptune Avenue, Coney Island, General photos

U R B A N S C A L E S T R AT E G Y

The street as a starting point. Values of the streetscapes to reinforce the built area Necessities of the built area reflected on the streets Redesigned streetscapes as foundation of new architectural interventions

C A LV E R T VA U X PA R K

K A I S E R PA R K A R E A

B AY V I E UE W AV E N

ATE SEA G

NEPTUN

U E AV E N

PA R

KSH

ORE

AV E

SIX DIAMONDS PA R K

CROP E VENU SEY A

CONEY ISLAND CREEK

M A R K T WA I N SCHOOL

NEPTUN

FRIENDS OF K A I S E R PA R K

NEPTUN

U E AV E N

LAN S I Y E CON

U E AV E N

Fig 14/ Map of Kaiser Park Area, Bing Maps

NUE

Fig 15/ Collage with interpretation of Kaiser Park area. By Gitte Schreurs 34

ANALYSIS

a separation in the middle and the street is flanked by cycling and pedestrian roads. Kaiser Park is a collective, well maintained area full of opportunities, but partly due to the separation from the living areas it is not optimally used.

By analysing the area around Kaiser Park, several interesting topics occur. First of all, the housing blocks parallel to the park appear to be very introvert. They are abundantly fenced and focussed on the inside private space and the backyard. Passengers might experience that the sense of responsibility of the inhabitants stops at the fence of their front yard. However, sometimes we see a spontaneous appropriation of the streetscapes by those inhabitants. Their properties are marked by the fences, but by using the street, they temporary extend their territory. More often this occurs at the car manufacturers. They appropriate the sidewalk and sometimes even the street by parked cars of the shop. Pedestrians and cyclers on Neptune Avenue have a rather wide footpath to use and yet it seems as if they trespass territory by territory. Owners of the buildings next to the avenue claim ownership of the pavement by appropriating it with their work. This interrupts the pedestrian flow and redefines public space into private space.

URBAN STRATEG Y In order to make future interventions work, Neptune and bayview avenue should be completely changed. Now they are overly designed, compared to their use. The ratio between provided space for passing cars and the actual passing cars is out of balance. Before reaching Cropsey Avenue, four car lanes might be necessary. Cropsey Avenue is the last connection between Coney Island and the highway, going to Manhattan and uptown Brooklyn. However, the design of the street simply continues until the end of the island. Next to Kaiser Park, not even half of the occupation of Neptune Avenue is left, causing a very wide and under used street.

Properties are also marked in Kaiser Park. Often we see a double fencing. One fence is lower and only used for marking the property of the park; when you pass this fence, you enter Kaiser Park. The second fence is often higher and for safety at tennis courts and basketball courts. Kaiser Park is full of fenced zones of recreation. When walking through Coney Island, a desire for marking properties is sensed. The fences are physical borders that explain where explicit properties begin and end. Moreover, subtle borders can insinuate a territory. More about this will be explained in the chapter of domestic scale approach. Neptune Avenue is located between Kaiser Park and the low rise housing blocks. Between the park and the high rise building blocks, Bayview Avenue is located. These avenues are both very wide and form a clear border between the park and the houses. The design of the street is a repetitive order of two driving lanes in each direction, a parking lane on every side,

Around Kaiser Park, the only destination for cars is the gated community on the edge of the Island. There is only few traffic in a wide street.

3/ Neptune Avenue around Kaiser Park LOW TRAFFIC

LOW TRAFFIC RATE

Right after the cross section between Cropsey Avenue and Neptune Avenue, there is still some traffic passing for the manufacturing, but less than before.

2/ Neptune Avenue Right after Cropsey Avenue

MEDIUM TRAFFIC RATE

Cropsey Avenue is the last connection to the rest of Brooklyn, Inland from this connection, Neptune Avenue is a busy, well used street with a lot of traffic.

1/ Neptune Avenue Before Cropsey Avenue

HIGH TRAFFIC RATE

Fig 16/ Appropriation of37 the sidewalk of Neptune Avenue by car manufacturing, General photos

Current section of Neptune Avenue

Proposal: section from Gospel Assembly Church to Kaiser Park

Proposal: section from housing block to Kaiser Park

Proposal: section from car manufacturing to Mark Twain school

Proposal: section from housing block to water front

Fig 17/ Current section + proposal sections of Neptune Avenue 38

A solution for this very wide, physical border could be an extreme makeover of the avenues. Starting from Cropsey Avenue, everything on Neptune Avenue could be erased and rethought. Only one driving lane will remain, the Avenue will become a one way street. Mermaid Avenue, parallel to Neptune, will become a one way lane in the opposite direction. The streets connecting these two avenues are wide enough to be changed into two direction roads, creating many possible loops for the cars. Because the drivers have many options where to turn left on Neptune, the perpendicular streets will not become extremely busy all at once. First the traffic was concentrated on one avenue, now it will be divided over more than 10 streets. The space that first served three more driving lanes and two parking lanes can now be used for any other public utility. Step by step the streetscape will adapt to the current situation of the built environment next to the avenue. Retail and manufacturers are given extra space in front of their shop to freely appropriate. This space still interferes with the streetscape, but this time without interrupting the flow of pedestrians and cyclists. A cycling lane manoeuvres through the entire strip so it is easy and safe to use a bike instead of the car. Sometimes the street is extended towards the waterfront or urban furniture is placed to benefit a certain zone. At the Marc Twain school, there is a larger need for cars and busses, so there can be a kiss and ride for parents to drop off their children and a bus lane for the school bus. The children can use the safe cycling lane to get to school and park their bikes on the buffer zone between the road and the kiss and ride.

appropriation. They will have a designed area to use without interfering with other functions. This will make the interference with the streetscapes more controlled and the mechanics will feel more positively involved with the activities on the street. The boundaries between public and private of the housing blocks can be controlled by the new urban design. Also, the avenue will be safer and offer more space to bikes and pedestrians. The street will no longer be a wide and grey barrier between living and recreation, but enhance both and connect them. Originally, Coney Island was built to increase the use of public transportation. The road to Coney Island was just as exciting for the people as the visit itself. By upgrading Neptune Avenue, daily events will have this same experience of enjoyment, rather than having a purely functional, transportation-based street. The new urban planning will be the foundation of future architectural interventions and strengthen its purpose. The streetscapes will enter the new buildings and create a constant interaction between outside and inside, between public and private., between protected and exposed.

Bayview avenueâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s only function is to enter one parking lot at the beginning of the avenue. This can easily be accessed from Neptune Avenue too, so Bayview can be made completely car free. This will decrease the amount of borders that inhabitants of the high-rise buildings will have to pass before entering the public park. The new urban planning will make accidental appropriation by manufactories intentional

Fig 18/ First proposal for Neptune Avenue in plan

43 Neptune Avenue today, a wide and under used street, General photos Fig 19/

BAY V VEN IEW A UE

NEPTU

NU N E AV E

Fig 20/ Map with adjusted streets: Neptune, Bayview and Parkshore Avenue 44

Current section of Shore Parkway

Not only Kaiser Park, but also Calvert Vaux park is struggling with the same issue. Calvert Vaux is located on the north side of the Creek and also buffered from the housing areas by a wide street, Parkshore Avenue. The difference in this case is the use of this street. On Coney Island, Neptune Avenue was under used so the possibility to change the street was plausible. However, the street at the Calvert Vaux Park functions as a very busy highway, connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan. Because of the use of this street and the possible costs, this highway can not be removed, so a solution must be found in a different way. The total width, starting from the end of the private property and going to the beginning of the park, is 87 meters. This contains 27 meters of highway, so 60 meters of working space is left. 26 meters on the housing block side and 34 meters on the park side. Both sides should contain a one way street (3,5m) and a two direction cycling road (2,5m). By changing the topography, a buffer on both sides of the highway is created towards the public and private areas. But this buffer can also be used as a cycling road and sidewalk. The spaces that are left, will be green zone, creating a pleasant area for mobility, connecting towards the park. Two times, the new lane guides the users towards a pedestrian bridge over the highway. It will be possible, safe and pleasant to reach the park by foot or bike.

Proposal: section from Calvert Vaux to housing block

Proposal: section from Calvert Vaux to housing block + bridge

T H E B IGGER P IC T U R E

Fig 21/ Current section + proposal sections of Shore Parkway 45

Fig 22/ House on Coney Island, General photos

D O M E S T I C S C A L E S T R AT E G Y

Existing situation as a starting point for new interventions Triple focus points on different kinds of collective spaces, related to living, working and recreation. Reinforced by the streets, appropriated by the community

Territory Property

10,5m Property firestation

3,5m

Extending territory firestation

Lane cars

2,5m

Intentional appropriation everyone

Lane Intentional appropriation bikes everyone

Parking cars for Mark Twain School

Temporal territory Property Territory Property

Property individual

3,5m

Extending territory individual

Lane cars

12m

2,5m

Intentional appropriation everyone

Lane bikes

10m Extending territory Manufacturing

Property Manufacturing Territory Property

Property

Property individual

6,5m

3,5m

2,5m

Appropriation everyone

Lane cars

Lane bikes

6,5m Appropriation everyone + students

5m Kiss & ride School

4,5m Buffer

Fig 23/ First sections of new Neptune Avenue with property vs territory

4,5m Bus lane school

8m Transition school

Property individual (school)

APPRO PRI AT I ON OF SPA C E

A TR IPLE FOCUS

As explained before, there can be differentiated several kinds of appropriation in collective spaces on Coney Island.

In the Kaiser Park area, we can observe three different approaches of public spaces. Living, recreation and also manufacturing spaces. All three of them cause a different reaction towards use, appropriation, permeability, organization, privacy and so on. By investigating these topics, I create a framework for a design strategy which can be applied in the process of finding suitable solutions for the Kaiser Park area, as well as for Coney Island as a whole.

APPROPRIATION OF SPACE 1ST type of collective space COMMON SPACE close to private properties

Lowtolerance tolerance on Low on appropriation of appropriation of space space

ex.BRIGHTON BRIGHTONBEACH BEACH

of collective space 2nd type COLLECTIVE SPACE further from private properties

Hightolerance tolerance on High on appropriation of appropriation of space space

ex. KAISER PARK

KAISER PARK

explicit explicit

subtle subtle

Fig 24/ Observed appropriation of space on Coney Island

I distinguish two approaches of collective spaces; the one close and the one further away from private properties. The closer space is an area where appropriation by outsiders is not generally accepted or embraced. Though the area is often appropriated by the inhabitants themselves. Mostly, we can relate this to the feeling of privacy that goes along with the specific area. When inhabitants live close to the collective space, they feel more connected to it and will often temporary extend their private property to the collective public area. The second type of collective space on the other hand, is an area where appropriation is generally accepted and even designed. Intentional appropriation can occur when a specific area is meant to be appropriated by inhabitants or visitors. There are two types of intentional appropriation; subtle and explicit. When an area is designed for a clear purpose or when an event is organised, we call this explicit appropriation. When an area is designed for appropriation but the way in which this happens is left open for interpretation, we call it subtle appropriation. These topics will be clearly explained and applied, in cohesion with a triple focus.

Living area

Highly restricted access

The building block between 28th and 29th West Street is the observed living area. By observing a general housing block, we can differentiate several boundaries we come across while going from public to private, this defines the permeability of the block. In low rise building blocks the street, the pavement, a fence, the garden and the front door must be passed before entering the private living area. The fence is merely territorial and the garden has a private tendency because it is located directly next to the living area. In a high rise building block the street, the pavement, a fence, a garden, a front door, a hall, a flight of stairs and another door must be passed before arriving in the private living room. Here, the fence is also territorial but the garden has a more public tendency. After the garden there are still several boundaries to pass before entering the private zones. It is less connected to the direct living area and therefore less private. In most building blocks we can perceive clear boundaries. All territories are marked by fences. Because of the clear boundaries, we understand how to behave in this situation. Though we still see accidental appropriation occur. By this appropriation, the defined meaning of a public

Recreational area

space is temporary changed. When a pavement is usually for passengers to pass by, sometimes the inhabitants use it to sit outside in the sun with their neighbours. By doing this, they extend their private property towards a public space for a certain amount of time. This has individual benefits, but at the same time the collective area is decreased. Personal gain becomes general loss. The individual will experience an increased connection to the public space but the visitor will have a decreased connection when a public area is made private. The areas in front of a high rise building block are less often appropriated or generally appropriated by everyone.

Low restricted access

Kaiser Park is a larger collective area on Coney Island. When we want to enter Kaiser Park, we also come across some borders. We start at the street and pass the pavement, a fence, an intermediate zone and another fence. The first fence is merely territorial to emphasize where the park starts and ends. The intermediate zone has a public tendency but stays unused because of the unconventional dimensions. The second fence however, is not territorial but installed for safety while practising sports. The tolerance on general appropriation is high because there is no feeling of privacy or ownership by any of the users. Every user is experienced as equal with an identical right to linger at the park. This benefits the general feeling of comfort but decreases a feeling of responsibility. Here, the borders are less strict than in the building blocks. They mark the function and territory, but less the gradient between public and private. Here, the appropriation of the territory is intentional, because it is designed to be used by visitors. An example of explicit intentional appropriation in Kaiser Park can be a baseball game at the baseball field, or a movie night for the children. The use of the space is exactly what it was designed or organized for.

For a building block, appropriation by the inhabitants is necessary to create a feeling of responsibility. Now, the different zones are very defined with almost no room for interpretation. By appropriating the space differently for your own benefit, you might disadvantage others. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s why it is important to create room for spontaneous actions. Those spaces should not completely be private but also not fully exposed to the public. In the building block, the intervention should only benefit on a small radius. The spaces should be well-designed and give opportunity for individual, as well as collective actions.

Fig 25/ First type of appropriation (private) in Collective Space, Neptune Avenue, General photos

But we can also see a lot of subtle intentional appropriation occur in the park. We call it subtle because the user decides what he uses the space for, but we also call it intentional because the area was designed to be temporary appropriated. Next to the Mark Twain school, an oval court is located. It is made out of grass with a concrete oval in the middle and benches on the edges. In summer, we could witness people bringing their barbecues, tables, chairs and sunshades to enjoy a sunny day together. Families were having a picnic, children were playing tag or hide and seek. The subtle appropriation had a more individual benefit while the intentional appropriation is meant for a rather collective benefit. By using the space freely, the connection with the area grows on temporary basis. A feeling of privacy or ownership is missing.

Fig 26/ Second type of appropriation (public) in Collective Space, Kaiser Park, General photos

Manufacturing area Mixed level of accessibility street. This makes the sign a very strong border of territory and therefore the appropriation is almost merely by the manufacturers and people involved with this. I categorize this as accidental appropriation because the area is not designed to be appropriated by industry but it lends itself to it perfectly and has grown to it in time.

A third collective space that often occurs on Coney Island is the manufacturing space. Manufacturers benefit from the American urban planning system of the grid. The end of the axes result in dead end streets that do not have to be used as a passage ways. Companies are located here so they can appropriate the street to benefit their industry. If we look at the permeability of this area by visitors, we see less visually and physically marked territories and more insinuative borders. When we want to enter the manufacturing area we have to pass the street, a pavement and a sign that says ‘dead end street’. Because of the collective tendency of the area -a street- there are barely any fences. Although, the insinuative border is at least as strong as the physical ones of the private and public collective areas. The sign is in theory easy to pass, but the inscription proves otherwise. When you pass through a street at the private building blocks, you might just be using it as a passage way to the creek or the beach. But by passing a sign ‘dead end street’, you imply that you have a specific purpose to be in that particular

Designing here would have an economical tendency. It does not benefit in a recreative way, but in an educational and economical way. There are options for import from the water and by truck. A distribution can benefit the neighbourhood by supplying services and working opportunities. An architectural intervention in this area should be very flexible and functional. It has to be adaptable in time, but also in different conditions throughout the year.

manu ring factu

recre

ation

living

Fig 27/ Manufacturing area, West 27th Street, General photos

Fig 28/ Houses on Coney Island, General photos

COLLECTIVE STRUCTURES

A structure of designed collective spaces, and Structures that benefit the collective spaces Collective Structures Research question Sustainable design Streetscapes

COLLECTIV E STR UCTU RES

This discourse focuses on â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;collective structuresâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. We can interpret this in two different ways. First, there has been a research on existing structures of collective spaces, how they function and how human behaviour and architecture are influenced by them. In the urban strategy, the design anticipated with these findings and optimalizes the qualities of collective public spaces. New urban areas are created by reforming streets and the materials of everyday locations, giving the opportunity to appropriate the space in a more sufficient way. This creates a structure of designed collective spaces to benefit the social, ecological and economical aspect of everyday life. The second interpretation focuses more on the scale of the architectural intervention. The interventions are structures that will benefit the collective spaces and the other way around. Collective areas will continue in-between, inside and around the new buildings and they will be in a constant interaction with the new functions. The design will focus on three locations, a living area, a recreational area and a manufacturing area. All designs originate from the new configuration of collective spaces. In the project, only the manufacturing area will be developed into detail because this intervention will have the biggest and most important impact on the community. The new urban development in this area will become a concrete surface with a slope towards a working platform so the manufacturing can stay active, even in extreme weather conditions. The program will answer to the current and future needs of this specific area. In previous chapters it has already been explained that the people on Coney Island have a strong sense of entrepreneurship. In combination with the ideal location for petrol industry, this results in many successful, but rather small businesses. The design in the manufacturing area will anticipate with this, together with the problem of education and flooding. This will be elaborated about on the following pages.

Fig 29/ Current collective space in front of houses, General photos

This design is developed with a constant consciousness about the needs and potentials of this specific area. The design proposal will be an answer to this area specifically and how it can positively grow in the future. The design started from researching about the potentials of the existing streetscapes, the current proximics, appropriation, permeability and way of living. Growing towards a design that uses these valuable insights to create an area that also becomes sustainable and a socio-economical improvement of the area.

Fig 30/ Signs prohibit appropriation in collective spaces, General photos

Business

Science & Technology

Medical

BIO

Engineering

Fashion

Kitchen

Entrepreneurship

Arts

Media

Makerspace

Garage Fig 31/ Map of Manhattan, Brooklyn + Coney Island, World of Buildings, website The purple dots show the current locations of coworking spaces in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Staten Island. These coworking spaces can be biospaces, techspaces, entrepreneur spaces, and many more. The purple dot in the bottom left corner is the Staten Island Maker Space. The function and working of this coworking location will be elaborated about as a case study on the next pages. The red dot shows where a new coworking space will be added as an architectural intervention on Coney Island. Data from â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Incubators and Workspace in NYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; www.nycedc.com

T H E S T R E E T S C A P E A S A M A N U FA C T U R I N G A R E A Introduction to the design proposal

In 2012, after super storm Sandy, a lot of businesses were damaged and there was a general negative feeling along the people of New York. Initiatives started to rise to change this. One of these initiatives was the Staten Island Maker Space. Here, a few people wanted to stop complaining and mean something for their neighborhood. Because many businesses, including their own, were damaged because of destroyed equipment by the storm, they wanted to give them a boost to continue working. This is also what Coney Island might need. The businesses on the Island are working, but very small in surface and limited by equipment. Skills and knowledge is spread over the different shop owners. Also, in America, craft work is almost a last option for students. Everyone wants to go to college and when this fails they will look for an alternative. On Coney Island some families might not have the means to send their children to the University, so learning and practising craft work is perfect for them and can provide a secure future.

Coney Island is culturally very diverse. Before 2010, the areas with a large cultural diversity had the strongest economical growth. Also in comparison to the rest of Brooklyn, Coney Island was doing very well economically. From 2000 to 2008, the number of businesses in Coney Island and Brighton Beach increased by 21,4%, this is much more than the 5,5% in the rest of the city. The number of paid employees grew with 31.8%, compared to 3,7% in other places. In 2010, there was a recession and 3080 jobs were lost, but quickly, the private sector gained 1840 jobs, or 60% back. This was a quick recovery for Coney Island in comparison to the other areas. 2/3 of all jobs are in the private sector. For instance retail is the second largest source of employment in Coney Island. Also transportation, warehouses and education are an important source. 35,3% of the jobs in Coney Island are blue collar jobs, compared to 29,1% in the rest of brooklyn. Coney Island

Brooklyn

A Coworking Maker Space can provide a warm and dry environment for shop owners and their employees to practice their job when their own space is too limited. Also equipment can be provided in a main hall in exchange for a small fee. Work spaces can also be rented for smaller projects or meeting spaces can be offered for interaction between the worker and the client. From time to time, workshops can be organized to teach how the machinery works or how to create a specific artefact. This is a win-win situation. It has an educational purpose which can serve children from participating schools, but also other blue collar workers to gain expertise. On the other hand the workshops can charge fees so the craftsman can also profit from it.

29,1%

35,5% 64,5%

70,9%

Blue collar workers White collar workers Fig 32/ Employment statistics, point2homes A large amount of people in Coney Island are selfemployed or work as blue collar employees for these entrepreneurs. A lot of these businesses are rather small and employ less than 5 or 10 people. Mostly the car industry is popular in the neighborhood.

Fig 33/ Logo, Staten Island Makerspace

Fig 34/ SI Maker Space, Metalshop, Open House New York

C ASE ST U DY

STATEN ISL AND M AK E R S PAC E The Staten Island Maker space is a work incubator on Staten Island, NY. In 2013, it was founded to function as a positive initiative after super storm Sandy. The building is a former locomotive repair shop and now holds 550 square meters of coworking space to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;make your own ideas happenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. It houses several different rooms and ateliers.

workingspace for putting ideas together. A larger rentable room for concert rehearsals, short term projects, meetings or other larger happenings over a short term is available, they call this the project space. A conference room functions as a coworking desk space. This is also rentable for private reasons on an hourly basis. Finally, there are several studios and workplaces in two sizes which can be rented by individuals. They also offer workshop programs in collaboration with schools for an educational purpose.

The metalshop has many kinds of welders and cutters. Also an expert of the machinery is available at any time for help. Workshops are organized for an extra fee to make users familiar with the welders and cutters or learn how to make specific things in metal. The woodshop has table saws, chop saws, track saws, but also many hand tools and working tables. Here too is an expert present at all times to help and guide when needed and workshops are also organized. A computer lab is equipped with computers, large format printers, a laser cutter and a 3D printer. The sewing studio is perfect for fibre arts and textiles. It has sewing machines and cutting and layout tables. A large open space functions as a shared

Fig 35/ SI Maker Space, Metalshop, Open House New York

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

Can new spatial interventions intentionally suggest an appropriation of different kinds of collective spaces creating a sense of responsibility and involvement that triggers a socio-economical improvement of the Kaiser Park area, in everyday routines as well as in extreme conditions? 62

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

Fig 36/ Kaiser Park, General photos

RES EARCH QUE ST I ON

“Can new spatial interventions intentionally suggest an appropriation of different kinds of collective spaces, creating a sense of responsibility and involvement that triggers a socio-economical improvement of the Kaiser Park area, in everyday routines as well as in extreme conditions?”

without discriminating. 3. Manufacturing spaces: The third intervention is focussed on the economical sector and will stimulate the growth of businesses on the island. It gives enough space for individuals to appropriate and share, depending on their personal needs.

It is important that the design proposal will be a clear and thought-through answer to all the aspects of this research question.

- “A sense of responsibility and involvement”: Involving people by filling in the program of the interventions and give them the freedom to use the space for personal benefit, they will create a larger feeling of responsibility for the space. The interventions are not merely distant from peoples property, but they interfere with their needs and the users are allowed to appropriate the spaces freely. A growing responsibility feeling means a growing respect, resulting in less neglectance and better maintenance.

- ”New spatial interventions”: The design adds changes to the neighborhood on an urban scale, as well as on a domestic scale to answer to all the needs and current issues in the area. - “Intentionally suggest an appropriation”: Coming from the theory of appropriation in different collective spaces (chapter 2), the design focuses on the term ‘intentional appropriation’. The urban planning as well as the division of the building plans focus on a balance between defining space and leaving it open for interpretation. There is a constant interaction between the current fixed program and the adjustable areas that can be appropriated for work, leisure, commercial purposes, ...

- “A socio-economical improvement”: The design will stimulate the social behaviour of people in collective spaces and on the other hand push them to cowork and share in their way to money and success. - “in extreme conditions”: The interventions will be lifted to secure them from flash floods. the functions of the new buildings will always be able to continue, even after a storm or heavy rainfall. They will offer safe spaces and rescue platforms.

- “Different kinds of collective spaces”: 1. Living spaces: The first intervention will be located in a private housing block and stimulate the appropriation of space in this area. This intervention has an impact on a small radius and focuses merely on the owners of one of the surrounding properties. 2. Recreational spaces”: The second intervention will be located in Kaiser Park, a public space. It will be accessible for inhabitants, as well as for visitors. It will be a new entrance towards Kaiser Park which will stimulate the purpose of this collective space. On the other hand it will function as a cultural and religiously neutral ground which can become a sanctuary in case of emergencies for everyone,

SUSTAINAB LE DESIGN

Contemporary architecture is ought to fulfil many requirements concerning sustainable building. In America though, these standards are generally much lower than in Europe. This is the reason why this design will be a pilot project, showing European building standards to the people of Coney Island. It will be moulded towards the way of building and typical idiom of the specific area, but simultaneously showing renewed options. All of this for the building sector, but also for the petrol industry. The design will answer to the three pillars of sustainability.

S O C I A L S US TA I N A B I L I TY One of the pillars is the social sustainability of the design. A first element of this in the design will be the stimulation of appropriation and the ability to organize and use public spaces for your own benefit. Also the new urban design will make the public park more accessible. Where people would first only go outside in the collective spaces close to their property, they can now meet at the more public collective spaces. This will stimulate interaction between people. Children will play together and parents would get to talk to each other. Sports can be played together and friends have a place to meet up. A second element can be found in the productivity, where co-working and sharing will be daily business. Workers will share the same spaces, tools, machinery, offices, ... The design is very open and transparent so the people are in constant interaction with each other. On the other hand there will be possibilities to share skills with one another. For small fees, workshops will be organized where experienced craftsmen can share their knowledge and skill while teaching students or other interested parties.

Fig 37/ Current state of manufacturing area, General photos

E C O NO M I C AL SU STAINABILIT Y These workshops are not only a social gain, but also economically they are positive. The market is though and because of these small initiatives, entrepreneurs have a way to make some extra money. The machinery is available at the new building and the participants will pay a small fee directly to the teacher. Of course this is only a small part of the economical factor, the entire architectural intervention serves the economy well. The co-working space offers job opportunities because they provide space and means. Small businesses can expand and take on more employees without having to buy a new property. It will offer options for the car repair industry, but also for bike repair stores, food markets, boat repair shops and businesses that need office space in general. It can give the people the boost they need after super storm Sandy and in view of their current living and working conditions. The new buildings also offer facilities to rent like private offices, parking spots, electrical cars and bikes, spaces to open a shop on the street side and much more. The profit of this helps to repay to cost to build this project.

drinking water. This drinking water, together with power supply batteries and the lifted, dry spaces make sure the area can serve to flight to in case of emergencies. The frame structures of which the buildings are made are extremely flexible and can change through time. There are options to use two buildings together as one, but they can also serve as individual structures. But the building will also be an example of a new and better way of petrol and car industry. Electrical cars and bikes are being rented out to employees to drive from the makerspace to their property and back. They have a covered parking space where they can be charged with the energy of the solar panels on the roof. The workers can have a (first) meeting with renewable energy used in the car industry. On top of this parking space will be a research centre where academics can be housed while they investigate new ways of using cars. This can again also be educational for the schools close by or other people that are interested. The buildings will be self-sufficient examples of future proof designing, working, driving and living, while stimulating the economical growth of the environment and pushing positive social interactions between inhabitants, visitors and workers.

E C O L O GI C A L SU STAINAB ILIT Y A third pillar is the ecological sustainability. The manufacturing buildings will be an example for the users of how it can be done better than today. First of all concerning the way we build. The area with the new buildings will be completely self-sufficient. Its configuration makes it easy to have diffuse Northern lighting inside the buildings and enough roof surface in the South to gain solar energy. A double ventilated glazed facade in the south functions as a buffer between public and private. The most important working area is lifted 1.25m above ground level to avoid water to enter the building in case of flash floods or even storms. Underneath this platform is mostly a hollow space that can flood in cases if emergency. Though some of this space is made out of capsuled concrete to catch rainwater to serve as fire fighting water and some tanks will contain fresh

Fig 38/ Appropriated pavement on Neptune Avenue

S TR EETS CA PE T E RRI T ORI ES

As introduced in the prologue, this Master dissertation is developed within the framework of the Streetscape Territories project. This project is the initiative of Prof. Dr. Kris Scheerlinck.

it is to discuss where the street starts and ends. This gives many opportunities. For instance at the manufacturing areas, they can keep appropriating the streets, but now it will be designed to do so. Also the inhabitants will have the chance to extend their territory onto the streets by small actions. Based on the current use of the dead end streets next to the Creek, several manufacturing alleys are created inbetween the working spaces. The interior of the manufacturing and the exterior lanes will interweave in program and use. Buildings on other sides of the lanes will be connected with each other on ground level because the exterior space inbetween becomes free to appropriate. The architectural interventions will be at all time in interaction with the streets. Program and use interweave within the architecture and the urban planning.

This ‘collective structures’ design discourse is also created with Streetscape Territories as its guiding framework. This is manifested on several levels in the design. By the theory on different kinds of appropriation in collective spaces on Coney Island (chapter 2) is already investigated how people and their property connect with the streets. There has been made a differentiation between the feelings of privacy, proximity and responsibility for different collective spaces, related to the use of space that results out of this. These findings have been used to create a new urban planning for one of the main streets -Neptune Avenue- which would benefit the daily use of the streetscapes. The results that were found concerning the reaction of people within different kinds of collective spaces, were beneficial to anticipate with and create a more positive structure of collective spaces. In the new urban development, the street will no longer be an empty obstacle in the public area, but it will adept to the needs of the users or the private properties. The street will claim its own function of driving, parking and cycling in a less dominant way and the space that will become available will be open for interpretation by the user. Private properties can be temporary extended towards the streetscape and interfere with the activities that are already taking place there. The streetscape will interact better with the activities in the buildings and offer the space to appropriate that the shopowners and inhabitants clearly long for. Sometimes the streetscape will be extended towards the water for recreational purposes and sometimes for economical purposes. A higher level of accessibility will be created and stimulate the social interaction and even the economical growth by offering opportunities for the use of space. Also on the more domestic scale, the scale of the intervention, the streetscapes were the foundation of the design. At certain places, the boundary of ‘a street’ becomes less strict and sometimes

The new buildings will not function as an encapsulation of new program and use. They will merely be a continuation and support of what already happens on the streets of Coney Island today.

FINAL DESIGN PROPOSAL

Final output schemes images models sections and plans Isometrics sustainable concept

TEXTUAL EX PLANATION

The goal of this design is to improve the socioeconomical activities in and around the Kaiser Park area on Coney island, New York. This will be achieved by a new urban development of Neptune avenue and by architectural interventions in the manufacturing area. The current possibilities and opportunities of the peninsula are taken into account and will be strengthened and improved by the design to create a sustainable and resilient solution for the growing manufacturing on the island.

STRUC TURAL PRINC IPL E The architectural intervention is built up out of a configuration of several buildings and pavilions, following the lines of the existing buildings. In between the constructions, lanes are created to serve the manufacturing program. This is based on the current appropriation of the dead end streets, perpendicular on Neptune Avenue. Manufacturers are offered not only interior, but also exterior space to work with. These lanes are not only accessible for the program in the new interventions, but also the existing companies in the area can benefit from this new outside working space. All buildings are structurally independent and by the change of materials, the function and experience will change too. A benefit that arises from this is the opportunity to build up the area gradually. If the budget allows it to only afford two buildings, this can be a start. The buildings can already be used as a coworking area and through time this can be expanded and the adjacent buildings can be created too. The structures are visible from the inside and form a repetitive character which brings along some interesting architectural qualities. Also the partition of interior space and the boat dock are determined by the configuration of the columns. The density and use of the structure will determine the program inside. The wooden truss structures will allow a larger open area where cars can enter, while the wooden frame-building adjacent to it has a cosier

character and will most likely be used as offices and smaller working spaces. The open space inside continues through the several structures without having separating walls in between. However, due to its independent character, the program will change, depending on the material of the structure.

provided to process everything. Also white collar workers can find a place in this concept. Offices with adjacent working space can be rented for meetings and workshops and also a computer lab is offered. A research centre will cooperate with clean tech companies and schools to co-work about sustainable architecture and sustainable petrol and car industry. An exhibition space can communicate this to the bigger public and create a larger awareness of a more sustainable use of the economy.

P RO G RA M In this area of Coney Island, the car industry is an important economical factor due to it is perfect location. However, there are many different stores, all offering the same service to the customer. The stores are also very small due to limited accommodations and have only 5 or less employees. Skill and development is very divided and also the equipment has to be bought for every store separately. After super storm Sandy, a lot of these equipments and accommodations were severely damaged by the water. For the small entrepreneurs it was very hard to restart their business and it took some time before they were recovered.

WATERSCAPE The project is very realistic about the constant threat concerning flash floods and storms that can cause a lot of damage. A storm like Sandy is very destructive for the local economy and history should not repeat itself. That is why the design is located on a platform that rises 1,25m above sea level. Line foundations will guide the raising water underneath the building and the platform will stay dry. In this way, the area can also be an escape for inhabitants when emergencies strike. A part of the dock is floating on the water so it will rise along with the sea level. After a severe flood or storm, the area might not be accessible anymore by car or foot, but it will be by boat. Rescues and food supply can happen through the water.

This design offers a makerspace. This is a coworking area for the car industry, for vegetable gardening, bike repair, boat repair, offices for young entrepreneurs and a research centre for sustainable design and car use. The co-working areas provide space and equipment that can be used for a small fee. Stores can hire more employees and take on more assignments because they can send out some of their workers towards the co-working space. Rentable electric bikes and cars make the connection towards the existing stored easier. Who does not have an accommodation yet had the opportunity to rent one of the new stores on the street side that the intervention offers. People who master a skill in this field, can organize workshops in the workshop areas, earn a little money and educate fellow entrepreneurs and students. This will stimulate the local economy, but also the social interaction between the workers. Vegetables can be planted and harvested for commercial of recreational benefits. A kitchen is

The design offers a dry, safe and affordable space where people can work together and learn from each other, based on the current events and programs on Coney Island. This will stimulate the socioeconomic elements on the island and offer a resilient, future proof opportunity. The design starts from the current use of the streetscapes and the current programs and reinforces and improves this idea. The opportunities that are already present on Coney Island are used to improve the area.

F R AMEW O R K & URBA N ST RATEGY

APPROPRIATION OF COLLECTIVE SPACES

CLOSE TO PRIVATE PROPERTIES

FURTHER FROM PRIVATE PROPERTIES

LOW TOLERANCE ON APPROPRIATION OF SPACE

HIGH TOLERANCE ON APPROPRIATION OF SPACE

ACCIDENTAL APPROPRIATION

INTENTIONAL APPROPRIATION

SIDEWALK

DEAD END STREETS

KAISER PARK EXPLICIT: BASEBALL FIELD

SUBTLE: BBQ AREA

Plan of the South-West side of Brooklyn, NY with Coney Island 0

100

200

300

500m

Current situation on Neptune Avenue

New situation on Neptune Avenue

Low traffic area

Temporary high traffic area

Medium traffic area

Plan of Neptune Avenue, Coney Island 0

75m

High traffic area

Isometric view in larger environment

125m

SI T UAT I ON OF AR CHITECTUR AL INTERV ENTION

Isometric view of architectural intervention in relation to the streetscape and outside activities.

Implantation plan of architectural intervention

Inside surface [m2] CO-WORKING SPACES

2.098

OFFICES

605

GARDENING

243

STORAGE

275

RESEARCH CENTER RENTABLE STORES

Outside surface [m2] Occupation inside [m2/p] 1482

15 10

945

2538

1890

780

650

243M2

1008M2

735M2 348,7M2

Functions and program of intervention

845M2

2626M2

STR UCTUR AL CONCEPT

Pavilion 1, working pavilion for vegetables, wooden structure

Storage building, steel structure, lifted 75cm of ground level by concrete structure

Connection point of wooden and wooden structure

Pavilion 2, meeting pavilion connecting school and quare, steel structure

Connection point of steel and wooden structure

Research centre, rentable stores, lecture and exhibition halls

6,5m

Joint of wooden structure

Joint of steel structure

9,5m

Exploded view of structural principle

INT E RVENTI O N PA R T 1

CA R M A N U FA C T UR I N G BUI LDI N GS

Zoom in: Isometric view of car manufacturing buildings

Plans of groundfloor car manufacturing buildings 0

2,5

7,5

12,5m

Plans of first floor car manufacturing buildings 0

2,5

7,5

12,5m

Section through car manudacturing buildings

SURFACE IDA-VALUE OCCUPATION FLOWRATE Scheme for ventilation, solar1022,8 energy andIDA-VALUE water storageOCCUPATION of car manufacturing SURFACE FLOWRATE M2 72m3/h/p 69 pers 4968m3/h SURFACE IDA-VALUE OCCUPATION FLOWRATE 1022,8 M2 72m3/h/p 69 persair. 4968m3/h Ventilation is type C - mechanical extraction of polluted 1022,8 M2 72m3/h/p 69 pers 4968m3/h

Building left: Ventilated volume 1

Ventilated volume 2 Ventilated volume 2

SPEED buildings SPEED 5m/sec SPEED 5m/sec 5m/sec

NEW FLOWRATE NEW FLOWRATE 1,38m3/sec NEW FLOWRATE 1,38m3/sec 1,38m3/sec

SECTION TUBE SECTION TUBE 0,28m2 SECTION TUBE 0,28m2 0,28m2

SURFACE SURFACE 260m2 SURFACE 260m2 260m2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 36M3/h/p IDA-VALUE 36M3/h/p 36M3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION 26 pers OCCUPATION 26 pers 26 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 936m3/h FLOWRATE 936m3/h 936m3/h

SPEED SPEED 2m/sec SPEED 2m/sec 2m/sec

NEW FLOWRATE NEW FLOWRATE 0,26m3/sec NEW FLOWRATE 0,26m3/sec 0,26m3/sec

SECTION TUBE SECTION TUBE 0,13m2 SECTION TUBE 0,13m2 0,13m2

SURFACE SURFACE 735m2 SURFACE 735m2 735m2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 72M3/h/p IDA-VALUE 72M3/h/p 72M3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION 49 pers OCCUPATION 49 pers 49 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 3528m3/h FLOWRATE 3528m3/h 3528m3/h

SPEED SPEED 5m/sec SPEED 5m/sec 5m/sec

NEW FLOWRATE NEW FLOWRATE 0,98m3/sec NEW FLOWRATE 0,98m3/sec 0,98m3/sec

SECTION TUBE SECTION TUBE 0,20m2 SECTION TUBE 0,20m2 0,20m2

SURFACE SURFACE 350m2 SURFACE 350m2 350m2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 43M3/h/p IDA-VALUE 43M3/h/p 43M3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION 35 pers OCCUPATION 35 pers 35 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 1505m3/h FLOWRATE 1505m3/h 1505m3/h

SPEED SPEED 5m/sec SPEED 5m/sec 5m/sec

NEW FLOWRATE NEW FLOWRATE 0,42m3/sec NEW FLOWRATE 0,42m3/sec 0,42m3/sec

SECTION TUBE SECTION TUBE 0,09m2 SECTION TUBE 0,09m2 0,09m2

SURFACE SURFACE 420m2 SURFACE 420m2 420m2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 36M3/h/p IDA-VALUE 36M3/h/p 36M3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION 42 pers OCCUPATION 42 pers 42 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 1512m3/h FLOWRATE 1512m3/h 1512m3/h

SPEED SPEED 2m/sec SPEED 2m/sec 2m/sec

NEW FLOWRATE NEW FLOWRATE 0,42m3/sec NEW FLOWRATE 0,42m3/sec 0,42m3/sec

SECTION TUBE SECTION TUBE 0,21m2 SECTION TUBE 0,21m2 0,21m2

SURFACE

IDA-VALUE

OCCUPATION

FLOWRATE

SPEED

NEW FLOWRATE

SECTION TUBE

1022,8 M2

72m3/h/p

69 pers

4968m3/h

5m/sec

1,38m3/sec

0,276m2 0,28m2

Building right: Ventilated volume 1

Ventilated volume 2

SURFACE

IDA-VALUE

OCCUPATION

FLOWRATE

SPEED

NEW FLOWRATE

SECTION TUBE

260m2

36M3/h/p

26 pers

936m3/h

2m/sec

0,26m3/sec

0,13m2

SURFACE

IDA-VALUE

OCCUPATION

FLOWRATE

SPEED

NEW FLOWRATE

SECTION TUBE

735m2

72M3/h/p

49 pers

3528m3/h

5m/sec

0,98m3/sec

0,20m2

SURFACE

IDA-VALUE

OCCUPATION

FLOWRATE

SPEED

NEW FLOWRATE

SECTION TUBE

350m2

43M3/h/p

35 pers

1505m3/h

5m/sec

0,42m3/sec

0,09m2

SURFACE

IDA-VALUE

OCCUPATION

FLOWRATE

SPEED

NEW FLOWRATE

SECTION TUBE

420m2

36M3/h/p

42 pers

1512m3/h

2m/sec

0,42m3/sec

0,21m2

Ventilation plan of groundfloor car manufacturing building on waterside

Scheme for lighting in the co-working buildings Section through different buidlings LIGHT TYPE 1 working spaces Industrial LED lighting

LIGHT TYPE 2 office spaces fluorescent lighting

LIGHT TYPE 3 Outside working space Flood lights

LIGHT TYPE 4 Greenhouse HPS (High pressure sodium) light

COOLING by industrial fan

LIGHT TYPE 5 Carworking spaces Floor spots

Scheme for lighting in the co-working buildings Section through building on the waterside

Interior image to illustrate the working of the car-working space on the streetside. Combination of steel and wooden structure.

Interior image to illustrate the working of the car-working space on the waterside. Combination of wooden structures.

INT E RVENTI O N PA R T 2

R ES EAR C H C E N T RE A N D ST OR E S O N STREET SIDE

Zoom in: Isometric view of research centre and stores on the streetside

SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE 1022,8 M2 M2 1022,8 1022,8 M2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 72m3/h/p 72m3/h/p 72m3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION 69 pers pers 69 69 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 4968m3/h 4968m3/h 4968m3/h

SPEED SPEED SPEED 5m/sec 5m/sec 5m/sec

NEW NEW FLOWRATE FLOWRATE NEW FLOWRATE 1,38m3/sec 1,38m3/sec 1,38m3/sec

SECTION SECTION TUBE TUBE SECTION TUBE 0,28m2 0,28m2 0,28m2

SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE 260m2 260m2 260m2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 36M3/h/p 36M3/h/p 36M3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION 26 26 pers pers 26 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 936m3/h 936m3/h 936m3/h

SPEED SPEED SPEED 2m/sec 2m/sec 2m/sec

NEW FLOWRATE FLOWRATE NEW NEW FLOWRATE 0,26m3/sec 0,26m3/sec 0,26m3/sec

SECTION TUBE TUBE SECTION SECTION TUBE 0,13m2 0,13m2 0,13m2

SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE 735m2 735m2 735m2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 72M3/h/p 72M3/h/p 72M3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION 49 pers pers 49 49 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 3528m3/h 3528m3/h 3528m3/h

SPEED SPEED SPEED 5m/sec 5m/sec 5m/sec

NEW NEW FLOWRATE FLOWRATE NEW FLOWRATE 0,98m3/sec 0,98m3/sec 0,98m3/sec

SECTION SECTION TUBE TUBE SECTION TUBE 0,20m2 0,20m2 0,20m2

SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE 350m2 350m2 350m2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 43M3/h/p 43M3/h/p 43M3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION 35 35 pers pers 35 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 1505m3/h 1505m3/h 1505m3/h

SPEED SPEED SPEED 5m/sec 5m/sec 5m/sec

NEW FLOWRATE FLOWRATE NEW NEW FLOWRATE 0,42m3/sec 0,42m3/sec 0,42m3/sec

SECTION TUBE TUBE SECTION SECTION TUBE 0,09m2 0,09m2 0,09m2

SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE 420m2 420m2 420m2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 36M3/h/p 36M3/h/p 36M3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION 42 pers pers 42 42 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 1512m3/h 1512m3/h 1512m3/h

SPEED SPEED SPEED 2m/sec 2m/sec 2m/sec

NEW NEW FLOWRATE FLOWRATE NEW FLOWRATE 0,42m3/sec 0,42m3/sec 0,42m3/sec

SECTION SECTION TUBE TUBE SECTION TUBE 0,21m2 0,21m2 0,21m2

Ventilated volume 1

SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE 1175m2 1175m2 1175m2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 43M3/h/p 43M3/h/p 43M3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION 48 48 pers pers 48 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 2544m3/h 2544m3/h 2544m3/h

SPEED SPEED SPEED 5m/sec 5m/sec 5m/sec

NEW FLOWRATE FLOWRATE NEW NEW FLOWRATE 0,7m3/sec 0,7m3/sec 0,7m3/sec

SECTION TUBE TUBE SECTION SECTION TUBE 0,14m2 0,14m2 0,14m2

Ventilated volume 2

SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE 21m2 21m2 21m2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 36M3/h/p 36M3/h/p 36M3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION pers 44 pers 4 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 144m3/h 144m3/h 144m3/h

SPEED SPEED SPEED 2m/sec 2m/sec 2m/sec

NEW NEW FLOWRATE FLOWRATE NEW FLOWRATE 0,04m3/sec 0,04m3/sec 0,04m3/sec

SECTION SECTION TUBE TUBE SECTION TUBE 0,02m2 0,02m2 0,02m2

Ventilated volume 2

SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE 63m2 63m2 63m2

IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE IDA-VALUE 42M3/h/p 42M3/h/p 42M3/h/p

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION 13 13 pers pers 13 pers

FLOWRATE FLOWRATE FLOWRATE 546m3/h 546m3/h 546m3/h

SPEED SPEED SPEED 3m/sec 3m/sec 3m/sec

NEW FLOWRATE FLOWRATE NEW NEW FLOWRATE 0,15m3/sec 0,15m3/sec 0,15m3/sec

SECTION TUBE TUBE SECTION SECTION TUBE 0,05m2 0,05m2 0,05m2

Exterior image to illustrate the working of the lanes for appropriation by the research centre (left) and the existing building (right).

FLOODED AR EA AFTER FLASH FL OO D , SEV ER E FLASH FLOOD AND S TO RM

Normal situation

Situation after a small flash flood

Situation after a severe flash flood

Situation after a super storm

Exterior image to illustrate the interaction between the vegetable gardening and the car manufacturing are with a green house inbetween.

Fig 39/ Coney Island Beach on Creek side, General photos

CONCLUSIONS & REFLECTIONS

Personal position as an architect Sustainable architecture Resilient architecture Streetscape Territories Reflection on the research and design process

POS I T I ON A S A N A RCHI T E C T

I have been participating in the world of architecture for seven years now; two years in high school and 5 years of University. During those seven years, I have come a long way in finding out what my position is as an architect and what I want to achieve once I graduate. Especially in the last two years, I finally dared to be critical towards lectures and feed backs and form my own opinion, even if it differs from the opinion of more experienced architects. I know now that architecture for me is not only about beauty in the eye of the passersby, but about the beauty that lies beyond the first glimpse. To me, not every design needs to be an eye catcher or a strong formal statement, but rather successful to the people who benefit from the function that it houses. It is more than okay for architecture to blend in into the environment. I believe this is a proof that the design is based on the specific area and its characteristics. Though I also believe that a new building should not merely be a copy of the environment. It can use the area as a starting point and function as an added value, as one step more in the right direction. Also in choice of material and building techniques I am always very critical. I try to look for the best solution for the program, with the best values in terms of sustainability while keeping the building cost as low as possible. I think it is really important to create a building that answers to the values of this time and is also realistic in terms of development. In the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;collective structuresâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; design project, I believe I stood by my beliefs and created a proposal that answers to what I think is important.

Fig 40/ Personal picture on Neptune Avenue, General photos

S U STAINAB L E AND R E S I L I E NT

S T REE T S CA PE T E RRI T ORI E S

My design proposal is created with sustainability and resilience constantly in mind. I believe it answers to this because the new buildings will not function as an encapsulation of new program and use. They will be a continuation and support of what already happens on the streets of Coney Island today. The design also answers to all the pillars of sustainability in a correct and thoughtful way. The social pillar is filled in by the stimulation of appropriation and benefits for the social interaction and feeling of responsibility in the neighborhood. The design also benefits the education and it stimulates to co-work and share within the working environment. The economical pillar is an important factor because of all the small businesses in the area. The design answers to this by the function of a makerspace, anticipating with the needs of the local stakeholders. As a third part of the sustainability concept, there is the ecological factor. The design focuses a lot on ecology. The buildings are self-sufficient , for instance because of water storage, electricity through solar energy, solar boilers and natural lighting. They are also a positive example to the neighborhood of how we can work and live in a sustainable way. Also for the popular car industry on Coney Island, it offers better alternatives and examples of how it can be done better. The renting of electric cars and bikes and natural drainage of rain water are ecological and educational. The research centre in one of the buildings works on a sustainable future for the neighborhood and beyond. The design is resilient in many ways. It adapts on shorter periods of time to the conditions of the weather with hot summers, freezing winters, floods and storms. On the other hand, all the structures are working individually and are adaptable through time. They can work together or apart, have one floor or two and can separately be altered or even taken down when wanted without influencing the other buildings. Because they are structurally independent, they do not have to be built all at once. If the budget does not allow to build everything at the same time, we can start with the most important parts and gradually finish the area in time.

I believe that my design also fits into the framework of streetscape territories because the interaction with the streets from the buildings and the use of the streetscapes by the inhabitants and visitors are a central subject in the design proposal. The way people appropriate the streetscapes, depending on the surrounding architecture is the first element that supported the urban design proposal. There has been made a differentiation between collective spaces close to private properties and further away from this feeling of ownership. The way the collective structures in these places are handled depend on the results of this research. At the architectural interventions, the boundaries between the functions of the street and the functions inside the buildings fade away. The buildings function as flexible interventions that can be opened up towards the outside areas in front of them. The activities inside will continue outside and will also make a connection towards the other buildings. The entire area will function as one large manufacturing place with a constant interaction between all the factors, irrespectively if the action takes place inside or outside. The design of the collective structures adapts itself to the needs and habits in the different zones. The architectural interventions will be at all time in interaction with the streets. Program and use interweave within the architecture and the urban planning.

R E S E AR C H AN D DE S I G N PROCE S S For me, this project already started in the summer of 2014 when I participated in the Common Streetscapes, Coney Island Revisited workshop of Kris Scheerlinck. During these 10 days of researching, lectures, site visits, talking to stakeholders and many group sessions we created a total of 40 postcards with research findings, solutions and proposals for Coney Island. Together with my group of 4 participants (Maria Ilia, Maria Ortega, Irida Redzepi and myself) we already worked on the Kaiser Park neighborhood. My personal topic during the summer was whether the space defined the use or the use defined the space. I looked for different kinds of collective spaces where the use was designed by the architect or where the space got defined by (improvised) use of the people. Later we elaborated in group about the appropriation of space and the wishes and needs of the stakeholders. During the first semester of the academic year 20142015, I elaborated about my personal topic in a paper I wrote for my elective ‘participation international project’. It was in this paper that I developed the theory on appropriation in different kinds of collective spaces. I elaborated with examples on Coney Island and already did a first try to come up with possible solutions for the neighborhood, based on this theory. When I heard that the Master Dissertation would also be about the Kaiser Park area, I was very excited. In November we went to New York with a group of 10 students to do the first research. I was lucky because of the head start and expected the ideas to pop up the moment I would be back on Coney Island. This was a little overestimated so I decided to take it slow and start with all options open. The first week in February, I elaborated about the results of my paper and reflected it on the specific area. From then off, I did a lot of research concerning appropriation, responsibility feeling, proxemics, permeability and so on. I reflected all of this on different zones in the Kaiser Park Neighborhood. Low and high rise buildings, public spaces, educational functions and the manufacturing areas have been investigated. I was very interested about all the things I learned while doing this research that at a certain point I realized that I hadn’t been designing anything yet.

My promotor pointed this out and that was the moment I took the step towards the urban strategy. I believe this was a valuable step in my process. This was also the time that I decided to have architectural interventions in three of the investigated areas of before: the low rise building blocks, the public area and the manufacturing area. Shortly after was the midterm review, a first big test. I received many valuable comments and tips about the urban strategy that helped me to bring it to a higher level. It pushed me to compare my idea with existing streets and develop it more in a New York way of urban planning. Also during the collaboration with the campus of Brussels and the University of Umea in the week before the Easter break, I received many helpful feedbacks from fellow students. In the three weeks that followed, I had to work without any feedback of promoters. This was an important time because I saw it as the period where my architectural design had to take a first big step. And I believe it did. I developed the future program and was able to argument it properly. Also a first try of models, plans and sections helped me to get grip of the scale and division of space. I also had to do a lot of research about the program because I was not very familiar with the car industry. This period of time gave me a more clear view on what I wanted to reach with my design and how it would be developed as a coherent story and design. After the Easter break, I had an interesting discussion with three teachers. My promotor Kris Scheerlinck, Sandy De Bruycker , who helped me concerning the sustainability and building techniques and Jeroen de Conceicao, a teacher who guided me in decisions about building materials and orientation. After this week I was able to develop the most important elements of my design. After this, it was a matter of tightening the design. Every week since then I took another step forward to change and improve the design. I added pavilions to connect the manufacturing area with the school or to interact with the needs of the gardening area. Also my meeting with enginere Guy Mouton helped me to make my project more realistic in terms of structure and he was able to help me forward in how my design could handle the constant threath of flash

100

floods and storms in the area. Towards the end I was positive about how my project had developed. The only struggle I kept coming back on, was the huge open space in front of my buildings that so far I described as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;a public squareâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Realising this would never function as a proper square, I decided to add a building with the proportions equal to the pavilions, for storage of equipment. By doing this I solved the problem of the square and added a part of the program that was still missing. The final big test was the pre-jury where my promotor and two alumni gave a last feed back on my project before it was time to start developing. The final mistakes were pointed out and after this, I was ready to develop the project into presentable images and models. During the three last weeks of finalizing, we had two more short sessions with our promotor before it was time to hand in the final version and present it to an external jury.

101

102

T HANK YOU

First of all, I would like to thank Kris Scheerlinck, my promotor and founder of the Streetscape Territories research and design project. His lectures, theories, discussions and many valuable insights have led me to bring my project to the level where it is today. I would also like to thank Sandy De Bruycker, Guy Mouton, Jeroen de Conceicao, Marc Dujardin, Hannes Vandamme and Ruben Janssens, all teachers or alumni of KU Leuven who were so kind to discuss about my design during the process and help me take steps in the right direction. Also, during the visit to New York, we were guided and informed very well by Stuart Pertz, Eric Wyche, Charlie Denson, Beth Bingham and many more. Also my fellow students have been a great support during the weekly sessions where we discussed our ideas and helped each other. A sincerest thank you to Pieter-Jan Oris for all the unconditional support and patience during my years as a student. Also thank you to my parents for giving me the opportunity to become what I have always wanted to be and for supporting me every day, from start to finish. A general, but sincere thank you to all of my family and friends, for their interest in my projects, discussions about my insights and for supporting me along the way.

Thank you.

103

FIGURE LIST

In chronological order of appearance

NOTE: All pictures marked by ‘General photos’ are taken by one of the following students: Nina Bockx, Sophie de Pourcq, T homas Geldof, Maria Ilia, Lieze Mor tier, Bahareh Rezayi, Nikki Schotte, Gitte Schreurs or T homas Van Imschoot.

General photos Fig 14/ Map of K aiser Park Area, Bing Maps Fig 15/ Collag e with inter pretation of K aiser Park area. By Gitte Schreurs Fig 16/ Appropriation of the sidewalk of Neptune Avenue by car manufacturing, General photos

Front pag e imag e, made by T homas Geldof

Fig 17/ Cur rent section + proposal sections of Ne ptune Avenue, Gitte Schreurs

Fig 01/ Wonder W heel, maskins, Website Fig 02/ Parachute jump couple, Snipview, Website Fig 03/ Map of Manhattan, Brooklyn + Coney Island, World of Buildings, website

Fig 18/ First proposal for Ne ptune Avenue in plan, Gitte Schreurs Fig 19/ Ne ptune Avenue today, a wide and under used street, General photos

Fig 04/ Map of Coney Island, CAD file

Fig 20/ Map with adjusted streets: Ne ptune, Bayview and Parkshor e Avenue

Fig 05/ Aerial view of Coney island, Bing Maps

Fig 21/ Cur rent section + proposal sections of Shore Parkway, Gitte Schreurs

Fig 06/ Parachute jump with sea, T he Standard Edition, Website

Fig 22/ House on Coney Island, General photos

Fig 07/ Coney Island Beach after Superstor m Sandy, Jarek Mazur

Fig 23/ First sections of new Ne ptune Avenue with proper ty vs ter ritor y, Gitte Schreurs

Fig 08/ Coney Island Jennifer Robinson

Wonder

W heel,

Fig 09/ Coney Island cross-streets + houses, g eneral photo s Fig 10/ Lar r y’s radiator shop, Coney Island, General photos

Fig 24/ Obser ved appropriation of space on Coney Island, Gitte Schreurs Fig 25/ First type of appropriation (private) in Collective Space, Ne ptune Avenue, General photos

Fig 11/ Car re pairing on sidewalk, General photos

Fig 26/ Second type of appropriation (public) in Collective Space, K aiser Park, General photos

Fig 12/ Man bringing barbecue to K aiser Park, General photos

Fig 27/ Manufacturing area, West 27th Street, General photos

Fig 13/ Ne ptune Avenue, Coney Island,

Fig 28/ Houses on Coney Island, General

104

FIGURE LIST

In chronological order of appearance

photos Fig 29/ Cur rent collective space in front of houses, General photos Fig 30/ Signs prohibit appropriation in collective spaces, General photos Fig 31/ Map of Manhattan, Brooklyn + Coney Island, World of Buildings, website Fig 32/ Employment statistics, point2homes Fig 33/ Log o, Staten Island Makerspace Fig 34/ SI Maker Space, Metalshop, Open House New York Fig 35/ SI Maker Space, Metalshop, Open House New York Fig 36/ K aiser Park, General photos Fig 37/ Cur rent state of manufacturing area, General photos Fig 38/ Appropriated pavement on Ne ptun e Avenue Fig 39/ Coney Island Beach on Creek side, General photos Fig 40/ Personal picture on Ne ptune Avenue, General photos

NOTE: All imag es and drawings in chapter 6 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Fi nal design proposalâ&#x20AC;? are created by Gitte Schreurs

105

L I T E R AT U R E L I S T BOOKS

A R TI CL ES A N D PA P ERS

HABRAKEN, N.J. (1998) Str ucture of the ordinar y (edited by Jonathan Teicher). Cambridg e and London: MIT press.

DINAPOLI, D.P. And BLEIWAS, K.D. (2014), An economic snapshot of Coney Island and Brighton Beach [Ar ticle] Available from www.osc.state.ny.us

Alphabetical

HALL, E.T. (1966) T he hidden dimension. United States: Anchor Books, a division of Random House, inc. JACOBS, J. (1961) T he Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Rando m House. LYNCH, K. (1960) T he Imag e of the City. Cambridg e and London: MIT press. NEWMAN, O. (1972) Creating defensib le space. Washington, DC: Policy Development and Research.

Alphabetical

KALOGERESIS, N. (2014), Incor porating Sustainability into Downtown Master Plans & Codes. [Ar ticle] Washington, D.C.: National tr ust for Histor ic Preser vation. PRATT INSTITUTE AND RAMP (2013), Coney Island, Sustainable Communities Studio. [Studio re por t] New York THE NEW SCHOOL (2013), Good Jobs New York, Accessing the Needs of Small Businesses Post-Hur ricane Sandy [Re por t] Milano: Inter national Affairs, Manag ement and Urban Policy.

SCHEERLINCK, K. (2014) Coney Island Streetscape Ter ritories Notebook. Gent: KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture. SORKIN, M. (2008) Indefensible space. New York: Tailor and Francis Group

106

L I T E R AT U R E L I S T WE B S I TES

On chronological order of first visit

STREETSCAPE TERRITORIES, By Kris W.B. Scheerlinck P.hD [online] Availab le from: www.streetscapeter ritories.wordpress. com [First accessed: Febr uar y 2014]

Make it work in New York City [online] Available from: www.nycedc.com [First accessed: April 2015]

CONEY ISLAND, Defending the honour of American popular culture [online] Available from: www.coneyisland.com [First accessed: October 2014] FRIENDS OF KAISER PARK. Friends of K aiser Park and Alliance of Calver t Vaux Park. [online] Available from: www. friendsof kaiser park.com [first accessed: October 30th 2014] CITY IN ENVIRONMENT. T he disappearance of Coney Island / Impacts of sea level rise. [online] Available from: www.cityinenvir onment.blogspot.be [first accessed: December 6th 2014] CITY ATLAS, THE CITY ATLAS. New York, the city atlas. [online] Available from: www. newyork.thecityatlas.org [first accessed: Januar y 4th 2015] BROOKLYN RAIL, Br ooklyn Historic Railway Association (BHRA) Transit system [online] Available from: www.brooklynrail. net [first accessed: Febr uar y 2015] CONEY ISLAND HISTORY. T he Coney Isl and Histor y Project [online] Availab le from: www.coneyislandhistor y.org [first accessed: March 2015] PPS UNITED STATES, Project for Public Spaces, Placemaking. [online] Available from: www.pps.org [First accessed: March 2015] INCUBATORS AND WORKSPACES NY,

107

KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture Campus Sint-Lucas, Ghent www.arch.kuleuven.be www.internationalmasterofarchitecture.be

108