Ian Rosenfield Architecture Thesis Document by Ian Rosenfield

SAN FRANCISCO: AUTOCORRECTED IAN ROSENFIELD

THESIS RESEARCH / ANALYSIS

SPRING 2015

ADVISOR: CORDULA ROSER GRAY

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

(cover image source: Ben Wiseman)

CONTENTS

THESIS

abstract statement essay annotated bibliography

CASE STUDIES inspiration design

PROGRAM case study implementation

SITE

site research

6 6 8 - 29 30 - 31

34 - 39 40 - 45

50 - 57 58 - 61

64 - 79

PROPOSAL implementation

80 - 95

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

THESIS

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

ABSTRACT A transportation network company founded in San Francisco, Uber, produces a mobile app that allows passengers to connect with drivers for hire. Recently, Google has developed, produced, and implemented self-driving (autonomous) technology into a new line of vehicles. The integration and combination of these two concepts is at the forefront of a technological and mobile revolution within and throughout San Francisco. The effects of this revolution will be immense; including faster, safer, cheaper, more efficient vehicle transportation, coupled with extensive urban modifications. In a city steeped in innovation and technology, how can architecture respond to and influence these imminent changes? The emergence of automated vehicles will be gradual. Architectural interventions can begin to respond to vehicle introduction, implementation, and tenability. As the use of automated vehicles steadily grows, the use of other, now irrelevant, urban amenities and transport frameworks will appropriately shrink. Most notably, personal parking spaces, lots, and garages will eventually prove redundant. As a result of new networks of driverless vehicles, however, an architectural solution and typology will still be in order. In fact, parking lots in the classical sense will not be disposed, but instead carefully replaced, or superseded, by new transit (or holding) facilities. Depending on fluctuating supply and demand, a series of transit hubs or nerve centers can serve as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;home baseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for the vehicles. The new model can appropriately respond to shifting norms: a new model of mobility that will certainly prove unsuccessful without proper underpinning and integration at an architectural and urban scale.

STATEMENT This thesis seeks to explore ways in which architectural infrastructure, systems, and solutions may respond to, influence, and serve the future of San Franciscoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s autonomous transportation network.

THESIS: abstract

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

THESIS: essay

SAN FRANCISCO: AUTOCORRECTED “DOES IT SEEM STRANGE? UNBELIEVABLE?” In 1939, visitors stood in lines up to two miles long to see the General Motors Futurama exhibit at the World’s Fair in New York. Within the exhibit, quests were placed on a conveyer belt lifted above a glass domed, miniature landscape. Superhighways full of radio-guided cars laced together its suburbs and skyscrapers. “Does it seem strange? Unbelievable?” the announcer asked. “Remember, this is the world of 1960.”1

fig. 1: General Motors Futurama Exhibit, 1939, New York

It is now 2014: superhighways and skyscrapers seem to have made the deadline, but where are the driverless cars? Countless failed schemes and fizzled technologies of the past sprinkle the progressive evolution of the personal automobile. Driverless vehicles have the powerful potential to allow safe roads, efficient and inexpensive networks, eliminate parking spaces and clear highways.2 With a rapidly urbanizing global population of several billions, cars today fail to meet transportation needs. “Parking is perhaps the most mismanaged of all our resources,” says Donald Shoup, urban planning professor at the University of Los Angeles.3 However, with autonomous technology and new transportation networks, the relevance of personal parking spaces are drastically diminished. Nevertheless, the supply of this new transportation network will be constantly shifting as it responds to fluctuations in demand. Architectural and infrastructural approaches to underpin and integrate this new model of mobility are required.

WHAT IS THE ISSUE? Americans love cars; they drive nearly 3 trillion miles each year.4 In 1789, the first automobile patent was granted in the US, and following advancements, notably Henry Ford’s assembly production line, soon revolutionized the world. In essence, automobiles represent a call to the open road, a freedom that is definitional for most Americans. There is a difference, however, between the tranquility of driving across a great landscape and the tension of multi-hour traffic jams. Indeed, “driving across the country is a joy; driving to work is a folly.”5

1. Bilger, Burkhard. “Auto Correct.” The New Yorker, November 25, 2013. http:// www.newyorker.com/ magazine/2013/11/25/autocorrect. 2. ibid. 3. Wells, Katherine, writer. “Parking Is Hell: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast.” Transcript. In Freakonomics. March 13, 2013. http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/13/ parking-is-hell-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/. 4. Chakrabarti, Vishaan. A Country of Cities: A Manifesto for an Urban America. Metropolis Books, 2013. 5. ibid.

fig. 1

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

THESIS: essay

Troublesome Facts: The Power of Statistics Since the early 20th century, the US has led the world in motorization. With over 80% of passenger trips by automobile and light truck, the US, Canada, and Australia are among the most car-dependent nations in the world. Compare that to Western European countries, where statistics range from 45% to 70%.6 A majority of Americans do not live near their workplace. 44.3% live less than 20 minutes away while 55.7% live more than 20 minutes away.7 Indeed, a worldwide traffic crisis looms on the horizon. Worldwide, drivers report more stress and frustration related to commuting. Roadway traffic increases levels of personal stress and anger, negatively affects performance at work or school, and negatively impacts stress levels, physical health, and productivity. The cost of boredom and distraction while driving is powerful, considering 28% of all accidents involve electronic devices. And in the US alone, almost 90% of automobile accidents were a result of human error, leading to 30,000 deaths and $450 billion in damages.8 Ecologically, one third of all Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in the US and one fifth of worldwide GHG emissions stand as a direct result of transport. In England, France, and Germany alone, road gridlocks account for an estimated 1,894 additional kilo-tons of emitted carbon dioxide. This is equivalent to the emissions from 120,000 households or 5,000 flights from London to New York.9 Financially, these gridlocks are heavily inefficient. In Germany, traffic jams cost 7.5 billion euros each year; While in the US, estimates point to an economic loss of close to a staggering 87 billion dollars.10 The Role of the Personal Automobile According to a recent study by the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Germans, on average, move their cars 3.4 times daily, drive 9.1 miles, and spend 71 minutes doing so.11 The average German car stands stationary for 22 hours and 49 minutes daily. In other words, the car is parked for 94% of the day. British cars are parked on average 162 hours a week and move for only 6 hours, yielding a quota of 96.5%. In the US, the parking quota floats around 95%.12 Ultimately, parked cars are as challenging for cities as cars on the move. If parking space is slim, the search for parking increases traffic, resulting in congested road conditions - a vicious cycle. Searching for a Spot In Manhattan and Brooklyn, drivers who were presently stopped at traffic lights were asked if they were cruising for parking. 28% of the drivers responded affirmatively. San Francisco conveys similar results with 30%. It should come as no surprise that roughly 40% of all gasoline used in congested urban areas is burned by people simply circling for a parking spot.13 A similar experiment was tested in Westwood Village in Los Angeles with, unsurprisingly, very similar results. The average time it takes to find a space is only 3 minutes; two and a half times around a block; or about half a mile.14 However, when calculated collectively, numbers exceed 3,600 vehicle miles per day. In other words, over a year, one can make 36 trips around the Earth from solely hunting for parking within just a 15-block area of Westwood, California. 10

6. Buehler, Ralph, and John Pucher. “Sustainable transport in Freiburg: lessons from Germany’s environmental capital.” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 5.1 (2011): 43-70. 7. Chakrabarti, A Country of Cities 8. Baydere, Bora, Kelechi Erondu, Daniel Espinel, Siddharth Jain, and Charlie Madden. The Future of the Automobile: Car-Sharing Service Using Autonomous Automobiles. Stanford University. March/April 2014. http://web. stanford.edu/class/me302/ PreviousTerms/2014-06CarSharingServiceUsingAutonomousAutomobiles(paper).pdf. 9. Stresing, Laura. “Congestion Comes at a Price.” Audi Urban Future Initiative. September 12, 2014. http:// audi-urban-future-initiative. com/blog/congestion-costsprice-london. 10. ibid. 11. Meier-Burkhert, Friederike. “Piloted Parking Future Mobility.” Audi Urban Future Initiative. September 5, 2014. http://audi-urban-futureinitiative.com/blog/pilotedparking-future-mobility. 12. ibid. 13. Wells, Parking is Hell 14. ibid.

fig. 2

fig. 2: traffic illustration source: Brian Biggs fig. 3: the average German car is parked for 94% of the day. fig. 4: the average German car is moving 6% of the day fig. 5: the average German car travels only 9.1 miles and 71 minutes each day fig. 6: 30% of vehicles in use are cruising for a parking spot.

fig. 5

fig. 6

fig. 3

fig. 4

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

A Country of Parking Spaces There are an estimated 600,000,000 passenger cars in the world; and counting.15 As the number of cars manufactured grows, so too does the supply of parking spaces. Parking lots cover more than one third of the metropolitan footprint in some cities.16 More often than not, parking lots are nothing but vast fields of asphalt occupying prime urban real estate. Although an exact number is unknown, past estimates of the number of parking spaces in the Unites States alone range from about 100 million to over 2 billion. Only counting surface lots, which constitute 60% to 70% of the overall parking supply, there exist about 3 non-residential parking spaces for every car in the US. This yields almost 800 million parking spaces, comprising a total area larger than the country of Puerto Rico. When expanded to the remaining 30% to 40% of the supply, the figure shifts to a range of 5 to even 8 parking spaces for every single car in the US.17 Indeed, there simply exist too many parking spaces. Civil engineers and planners commonly use rules of thumb regarding the number of parking spaces required to be build per capita that seem to vastly overstate the actual needs of the population. Moreover, cheap and plentiful parking essentially holds urban areas hostage to car dependency with collateral social, economic, and aesthetic drawbacks.

THESIS: essay fig. 7: there exist 3 nonresidential parking spaces for every car in the United States. fig. 8: parking lots cover almost 30% of the metropolitan area of some cities. fig. 9: 800 million parking spaces (the United States supply) can cover the surface area of Puerto Rico. fig. 10: it costs $4,000 per single public parking space fig. 11: it costs $20,000 per above-ground garage parking space fig. 12: it costs $30,000 $40,000 per below-ground garage parking space

Although every city has its own parking requirements, typical construction mandates convey a seemingly vehicle dependent system. To build a shopping center, for example, requires 4 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of store. A public swimming pool requires 1 space for every 2,500 gallons of water. A beauty shop even requires 3 spaces per beautician.18 The list goes on and on. The resulting required parking ultimately spreads buildings apart and frequently removes the formerly pleasant option of walking. If cities were to reduce or even eliminate minimum parking requirements, many parking lots could be utilized as invaluable infill development. Financial Repercussions Parking spaces cost money. In the US, It costs around $4,000 per single public parking space, $20,000 per above-ground garage space, and as much as $30,000 to $40,000 per underground garage space.19 In 2002, a public subsidy for drivers of at least $127 billion was a direct result of parking requirements. To put that into perspective, in 2002, federal Medicare spending was $231 billion and military spending around $349 billion. In fact, the value of off-street parking is priced at approximately $12,000 per vehicle, roughly the total capital cost of all vehicles plus all roads in the US.20 Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s easy to forget the value of the automobile. Automobiles are assets. These assets currently sit idle. Clearly, a more efficient system exists if idle assets are instead connected to people who are willing to pay to rent them.

14. ibid. 15. Ben-Joseph, Eran. ReThinking a Lot: The Design and Culture of Parking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012. 16. ibid. 17. Dizikes, Peter. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Lots of Trouble.â&#x20AC;? MIT News. March 13, 2012. http://newsoffice. mit.edu/2012/parking-lotredesign-0313. 18. Wells, Parking is Hell 19. Meier-Burkhert, Piloted Parking Future Mobility 20. ibid.

fig. 8 fig. 9

fig. 7

fig. 10

fig. 11

fig. 12

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

WHAT IS AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGY? Human beings make terrible drivers. Humans run red lights and talk on the phone, signal to the right and turn to the left. Worldwide, car accidents kill 1.24 million people each year, and injure another 50 million. 9.5 million of the 10 million accidents that Americans endure every year are simply their own fault.21 Humans vs. Robots

THESIS: essay

fig. 13: illustration of a driverless vehicle network (source: Google) fig. 14: evolution from current traffic to driverless, controlled traffic. autonomous vehicles will soon take to the streets and respond to surrounding cars.

From self-parking to adaptive cruise control and steering assist, semi-autonomous systems are already found in cars today. Companies such as Nissan, Volvo, Daimler, and Google will have fully autonomous vehicles ready for market introduction by as early as 2020.22 However, Google illustrates a more optimistic, nearer future.

fig. 15: eventually, autonomous vehicles will become standard, thus creating a more efficient network.

Google Car

fig. 16:

“They want to make cars that make drivers better. We want to make cars that are better than drivers.” Anthony Levandowski, Google car developer, explains. “Once you make the car better than the driver, it’s almost irresponsible to have him there. Every year that we delay this, more people will die.”23 The Google car knows every turn, never gets drowsy or distracted, or wonders who has the right of way. It knows every turn, tree, and streetlight ahead in precise, three-dimensional detail. Most accidents are caused by what Volvo calls the 4 D’s: distraction, drowsiness, drunkenness, and driver error. The Google car does not get distracted, drowsy, drunk, and is, most importantly, driver-free.24 A self-driving car can recognize and interpret the behavior of participants in traffic: what is the other car going to do next? For example, if the car in front brakes when approaching a crossing, then the computer can conclude that it is probably about to turn the corner. To this end, researchers have fed countless “if X, then Y” situations into the vehicle computer’s system.25 From laser scanners and sensors, to 360 degree cameras, progressively advancing technology make autonomous driving possible. Platooning, for instance, the act of keeping cars at close proximity at steady speeds to avoid congestion, reduces fuel consumption by 30% while the minimization of unnecessary braking reduces this figure by another 15%.26 Steadily, components are getting smaller and better, and can be manufactured at ever lower costs. The prerequisite and technical precondition of ubiquitous car-to-car and car-to-cloud communication in cities will soon collectively exist, allowing autonomous cars to take to the streets. Thus, Google’s goal is not to create a glorified concept car that will never make it to the street, but instead a polished commercial product. The Google car has now driven more than 500,000 miles without causing an accident, about twice as far as the average American driver goes before crashing. Levandowski envisions each step: the first cars will emerge into market within 5 to 10 years.27 Though small in numbers to begin, territory is slowly mapped street by street and sensors collect the lay of the land. Thereon spreading and multiplying, sharing maps and road conditions, from accident alerts to traffic updates. Historically, driverless cars were once held back by their technology, then by ideas. The limiting factor today is not technology or ideas, but the law. However, strictly speaking, the Google car is already legal. “Drivers must have licenses; no one said anything about computers.”28 14

average fuel consumption will be reduced by 45% occurence of car accidents will decrease by 90%

21. Bilger, Auto-Correct 22. Tan, Christopher. “A World Without Cars.” Torque Magazine, April 2014. 23. Bilger, Auto-Correct 24. ibid. 25. ibid. 26. ibid. 27. ibid. 28. ibid.

fig. 13

fig. 14 Self-driving technology combines data collected by sensors installed on a car with existing mapping software to speed up, brake, and steer to a destination. “Accident rates will plummet, parking problems will vanish, streets will narrow, cities will bulk up, and commuting by automobile will become a mere extension of sleep, work, and recreation.”

fig. 15

“In 5 years, cars will be quicker to intervene; in 20, they won’t need your advice; and in 30, they won’t take it.” Philip E. Ross. Driverless Cars: Optional by 2024, Mandatory by 2044

fig. 16

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

THESIS: essay

Why Autonomous Driving Technology? In the US alone, almost 90% of automobile accidents were a result of human error, leading to 30,000 deaths and $450 billion in damages.29 With the reduction of human errors (the leading cause of traffic incidents), liberation from the more demanding tasks of driving, and position analysis technology, safety, “driver” convenience, and traffic efficiency is maximised. Damage costs, labor costs, maintenance costs, parking costs, and fuel costs can be considerably reduced with the implementation of an automated fleet. Increased customer safety and improved land-use can be heightened with widespread implementation. How Does This Affect Parking? Parking, the vertical storage of vehicles, is clearly an important and space-extensive land use in all urban areas. Negative consequences arise if poorly handled. The two ends of the vehicles storage spectrum are: the traditional garage and the automated garage.30 Drivers park themselves in the traditional garage; Although traditional garages require relatively low construction costs, they also demand more space for maneuvering, ramps, stairs, and elevators, as well as security technology, lighting, and ventilation costs. Ceiling height rests at around 8.8 feet and spot area around 135 square feet.31 An automated garage, however, implements a much more efficient use of space. Nevertheless, high initial investment and maintenance technology, increased energy requirement, and more supervisory personnel detract from the initial efficiencies.

fig. 17: traditional garage measurements versus piloted parking garage measurements fig. 18: with self driving and self parking cars, parking garages can accommodate 2.5 times more vehicles in the same area. parking spot surface area can be reduced by 30 square feet per car. fig. 19: chronological evolution of driverless technology (source: Google)

But what if cars could park themselves? Self-parking, or piloted parking, technologies could ease the strain on cities in the future. Piloted parking implements forward-looking technology to use parking storage space in the most efficient manner possible. In fact, if cars park themselves, parking garages accommodate 2.5 times more vehicles in the same area, with ceiling height closer to 6.3 feet and spot area at 113 square feet.32 Thus, as space for maneuvering and for letting passengers get in and out is no longer required, the use of piloted parking reduces the surface required by 30 square feet per car.33

WHAT IS THE VISION? “As you look outside, and walk through parking lots and past multilane roads, the transportation infrastructure dominates,” Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, said. “It’s a huge tax on the land.” Most cars are used only for an hour or two a day, he said. The rest of the time, they’re parked on the street or in driveways and garages. But if cars could drive themselves, there would be no need for most people to own them. A fleet of vehicles could operate as a personalized public-transportation system, picking people up and dropping them off independently, waiting at parking lots between calls. They’d be cheaper and more efficient than taxis—by some calculations, they’d use half the fuel and a fifth the road space of ordinary cars—and far more flexible than buses or subways. Streets would clear, highways shrink, parking lots turn to parkland. “We’re not trying to fit into an existing business model,” Brin said. “We are just on such a different planet.”34

29. Baydere, The Future of the Automobile 30. Meier-Burkhert, Piloted Parking Future Mobility 31. ibid. 32. ibid. 33. ibid. 34. Bilger, Auto-Correct

fig. 17

fig. 18

fig. 19

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

HOW ARE URBANIZATION TRENDS SHIFTING? Sharing Economies Cities face the challenge, in light of ongoing urbanization trends, of maintaining the services and infrastructure necessary to keep pace with the growing transportation demands of a growing population. According to United Nations estimates, urban population will double in the next 30 years.35 Private automobiles prove an unsustainable solution for the future of personal urban mobility given the limited availability for additional roads and parking spaces in current cities. Appropriate, even necessary, new and potentially transformative transportation solutions should be considered.

THESIS: essay

fig. 20: illustration of a driverless vehicle network, responding to changing environment. (source: The New Yorker) fig. 21: one shared autonomous vehicle can replace 11 conventional vehicles.

Americans have been the world’s greatest consumers for most of the past century. Often times, consumption equates with ownership: preceding the Great Recession, the average American household had more television sets than people, and owned 2.28 cars. Presently, a host of new companies have signaled a shift of the paradigm: “offering the benefits of consuming without the costs of ownership.”36 Car Sharing By 2020, it is estimated that the global car-sharing revenue will grow from $1 billion to $6.2 billion; more than a 600% increase in 7 years. Transportation network companies like Lyft, Sidecar, and Uber, depend on smartphone apps to link customers with rides.37 Thus, the ride-sharing companies themselves do not own a single car. Instead, ordinary car owners sign up. Technology can transform the casual driver into a professional with startups like these. Reduced car ownership not only clears congestion, but also minimizes the construction of parking structures. With the minimization of emissions and noise, environmental impact can be reduced. Financially, car sharing scatters that cost of purchasing, maintaining, and insuring vehicles across a large user-base, thereby leveraging economies of scale in an effort to reduce the cost of personal mobility. Considering one shared autonomous vehicle can replace 11 conventional vehicles, autonomous vehicles can enable this widespread car sharing model its byproducts.38 In the US, of people who drive to work, around 76% drive alone.39 Americans in particular value their privacy. However with growing economic and ecological instability, “the sharing economy” is becoming prevalent in countless cities across the globe. For instance, Airbnb showcases 300,000 listings; RelayRides and Getaround let a user rent cars from their owners; SnapGoods allows people to borrow consumer goods from other people in surrounding neighborhoods or social networks; Boatbound offers boat rentals, Desktime office space, ParkatmyHouse parking spaces, and so on. “Sharing” is becoming commonplace in modern society. In fact, time and time again, based on the success of websites such as Netflix and Spotify, Millennials are less interested in owning cars than previous generation have been. Renting, or sharing, can trump ownership.41

35. Zhang, Rick, and Marco Pavone. Control of Robotic Mobility-On-Demand Systems: A Queueing-Theoretical Perspective. Stanford University. Robotics Proceedings. Accessed September 20, 2014. 36. Surowiecki, James. “Uber Alles.” The New Yorker. September 16, 2013. http:// www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/16/uber-alles-2. 37. Baydere, The Future of the Automobile 32. Fagnant, Daniel J, and Kara M Kockelman. “The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agentbased model scenarios.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 40 (2014): 1-13. 39. Chakrabarti, A Country of Cities 40. Surowiecki, Uber Alles 41. ibid.

fig. 20

fig. 21

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

WHAT’S OUT THERE? Car-sharing services are growing worldwide. If cars were to be programmed to return to parking or charging stations, or expectantly seek the next waiting customer, sharing would provide a similar level of convenience as private cars, while providing the sustainability of public transport. The shift from a driver-based fleet to a service-based autonomous fleet controlled by a central hub leads to faster and more efficient services, and greatly attracting more users. Models Zipcar is an example of a round trip vehicle rental model: vehicles must be returned to the same station they were rented from. Thus, by fielding larger vehicle fleets, patrons can easily rent a vehicle from a nearby station. This, in turn, attracts new users. Ultimately, to maintain the high level of service that initially attracted users, more vehicles are required.42 Another model, Car2Go, is a one-way car-sharing service: a vehicle can be returned conveniently to any one of multiple stations throughout the city. Like bikes, however, unchecked cars create asymmetries in travel patterns. These asymmetries create a surplus of vehicles at select stations, while leaving other stations underserved. In order to realign the supply of vehicles with the demand, rebalancing mechanisms shuffle vehicles between stations.43

THESIS: essay fig. 22: a round trip vehicle rental model. Vehicles must be returned to the same station they were rented from. fig. 23: a one-way car sharing service. Vehicles can be returned to any one of multiple stations. Uber fig. 24: a user requests an Uber driver fig. 25: closest Uber driver accepts user request. fig. 26: Uber driver navigates to destination fig. 27: user is dropped off; transaction is completed by app.

Uber A transportation network company base in San Francisco, Uber, produces an app that allows passengers to connect with drivers for hire; an app that lets you hail a car. A car, with a driver, shows up wherever you are with a tap of the screen. By sending a text message or by directly using the app, users can reserve a vehicle that is in their vicinity. The closest available driver is notified once the request is sent. The driver may accept or decline the request. If the request is declined, the next closest available driver is notified of the potential pickup.44 It is estimated that, each week, people worldwide are taking about 800,000 Uber rides; a worthy candidate for the introduction of autonomous vehicles to the consumer market.45

42. Baydere, The Future of the Automobile

There are several issues that exist with the Uber business model in its current, human operated, form however. Drivers sign on as independent contractors and use their own vehicles; Uber receives a 20% commission on each fare.46 Uber drivers set their own hours, which inconsistently affects the amount of drivers in a certain area at any given time, thus resulting in unpredictable rates. Uneven driver distribution also leads to longer wait times and lower utilization rates. And finally many liability issues exist, including sexual harassment, altercations, and accidents through the use of human drivers.

43. ibid.

The taxi and ridesharing industry can be dramatically reshaped as a result of autonomous vehicles. Self-driving cars can provide significant benefits to both consumers and businesses through higher utilization rates, safer rides, and lower costs by utilizing autonomous technologies. 20

44. ibid. 45. Tiku, Nitasha. “Leaked: Uber’s Internal Revenue and Ride Request Numbers.” Valleywag. December 4, 2013. http://valleywag.gawker. com/leaked-ubers-internalrevenue-and-ride-requestnumber-1475924182. 46. Baydere, The Future of the Automobile

fig. 22

fig. 23

fig. 24

fig. 26

fig. 27

fig. 25

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

THESIS: essay

Autonomous vehicle technology is crucial to car-sharing applications. If cars can be freed from their human counterpart, they can theoretically be utilized 100% of the time. Machines can outperform faster and more accurately than humans.

fig. 28: there are 5,400,000 citizens of Singapore

HOW WOULD IT WORK?

fig. 29: waiting times are kept below an acceptable threshold and set as bounds: 3 minutes from user booking to arrival of vehicle

One-way vehicle sharing with electric cars (referred to as Mobility-On-Demand, or MoD), directly targets the problems of parking spaces, pollution, and low vehicle utilization rates. On-demand mobility is provided by driverless cars shared by the customers. Systems would take the form of lightweight electric vehicle fleets, feeding at and to strategically distributed electrical charging stations throughout a city. Considering robotic vehicles can rebalance themselves, enable system-wide coordination, free passengers from the task of driving, and potentially increase safety, autonomous driving holds great promise for MoD systems.47 Mobility-on-Demand Systems: A Case Study in Singapore To simulate the foreseeable introduction, further implementation, and feasibility of a shared-vehicle mobility-on-demand system, the city of Singapore can be used as an appropriate case study. Utilizing a design-oriented approach, fleets can be rigorously sized for an automated MoD service to meet the transportation demand of an actual city.

fig. 30: changes in maximum wait times (in minutes) as size of fleet increases fig. 31: current state of Singapore; 779,890 passenger vehicles operating. potential future of Singapore; 300,000 autonomous vehicles operation; ane third the size of total passenger vehicles currently in operation.

Singapore is an island city-state of 5,400,000 people inhabiting an area one quarter the size of Rhode Island, 276 square miles. For the sake of the case study, the city-state’s road network is partitioned into 100 regions, each corresponding to an average driving time from booking to driveway of no more than 2.3 minutes (leaving 0.7 minutes for the cell phone booking). The minimum number of vehicles required to meet the transportation demand in Singapore and keep waiting times below an acceptable threshold are set as bounds.48 In effect, a fleet of 200,000 autonomous vehicles distributed among Singapore’s 100 regions yield a maximum wait time of an hour or more; 250,000 autonomous vehicles yield a maximum wait time of 30 minutes; with 300,000 vehicles, the peak wait times are reduced to less than 15 minutes. Compared to the 2011 figure of 779,890 passenger vehicles operating in Singapore, a fleet of 300,000 autonomous vehicles would cut traffic 38% of its current state, coupled with remarkable reductions of congestion. On average, private vehicle owners in Singapore spend 458 hours per year driving. This figure increases to 747 hours per year when factoring in the time for parking and other related activities. Effectively, the total mobility cost of a shared autonomous vehicle is roughly half that of a conventional human-operated car. A shared-vehicle mobility solution can meet the personal mobility needs of the entire population with a fleet approximately one third the size of the total number of passenger vehicles currently in operation.49

47. Spieser, Kevin, Kyle Ballantyne, Treleaven, Rick Zhang, Emilio Frazzoli, Daniel Morton, Marco Pavone. “Toward a Systematic Approach to the Design and Evaluation of Automated Mobility-on-Demand Systems A Case Study in Singapore.” Forthcoming in Road Vehicle Automation, Springer Lecture Notes in Mobility series 48. ibid. 49. ibid.

fig. 28

fig. 29

fig. 30

fig. 31

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

THESIS: essay

WHAT ABOUT SAN FRANCISCO? San Francisco proves an equally plausible and promising candidate for replacing existing modes of land transport with an Automated Mobility-On-Demand system; case study analysis results are certainly not limited to Singapore. Like Singapore, San Francisco’s rate of private vehicle ownership and corresponding traffic congestion continues to increase.50 Given the city’s diminutive size and high population density, officials are limited in the extent to which traditional measures, like roadway expansion, can alleviate rising congestion. As for vehicle data, San Francisco holds 379,898 registered automobiles. When expanded to trucks, motorcycles, and trailers, not to mention 35,400 visiting vehicles daily, the number quickly jumps to 505,733; that’s over 10,000 vehicles per square mile.51 An Industry Town, An Ethos of Disruption San Francisco has become a magnet for hundreds of software start-ups as the Silicon Valley remains the center of engineering breakthroughs.52 Keep in mind, however, as in the sense of New York, which media and finance have shaped for well over a century, San Francisco has not been considered an industry town. “It is not like Washington, D.C., or Los Angeles, whose dreams are dominated by one Hydra-headed business. San Francisco has never been dominated by anything, but it’s always ended up preeminent in something. Gold, for instance. Free Love, Microchips. People do not move to San Francisco as much as swarm to it. Those irked by change rarely stay long.”53 Lately the pattern has begun to crack. San Francisco is an industry town: this industry is simply called “tech.” Anything from computers, the Internet, digital media, social media, smartphones, electronic data, crowdfunding, or new business design; an industry that has become the substrate of most things changing in urban culture. “We now have hundreds of millions of consumers who are carrying in their pockets powerful computers that are always connected to high-speed networks. That makes it possible for people to rethink the way they consume,” says to Arun Sundararajan, professor at N.Y.U.’s Stern School of Business and expert on the sharing economy.54 Sharing is a much more plausible business model. With digital technology, buyers and sellers find each other quickly, as well as evaluate the people they’re trading with more easily. Particularly amongst younger people, the ties between consumption and ownership are loosening. As a result, the cost of launching a company has been driven down by the same systems that make outsourcing of small tasks more efficient. For example, before 2005, an entrepreneur would go to a venture capitalist for an initial, say, $5 million funding round: money that was necessary for hardware costs, software costs, marketing, distribution, customer service, sales, etc.55 Today, following vast technological advances, the cost to build and launch a product is now closer to just $50,000. With these figures at hand, the number of newly conceived companies on the Peninsula have suitably skyrocketed: you don’t need to be a venture-capital firm to afford early equity. Scaling down in crucial, encouraging more rewarding lifestyles and motivating startups to stay lean and private; to thrive in downtown offices as opposed to giant campuses.56

50. “Growth in Auto Ownership by Bay Area Counties.” Metropolitcan Transportation Commission. Accessed November 15, 2014. http:// www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_ data/datamart/forecast/ao/ tablea1.htm#features. 51. ”San Francisco Transportation Fact Sheet.” Municipal Transportation Agency, November 2009. http://sf.streetsblog.org/ wp-content/upload1/SFFactSheet2009_November2009_ FINAL.pdf. 52. Packer, George. “Change the World.” The New Yorker. May 27, 2013. http://www. newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/change-theworld. 53. Heller, Nathan. “Bay Watched.” The New Yorker. October 14, 2014. http:// www.newyorker.com/ magazine/2013/10/14/baywatched. 54. Surowiecki, Uber Alles 55. ibid 56. ibid. 57. Ross, Philip E. “Driverless Cars: Optional by 2024, Mandatory by 2044.” IEEE Spectrum. May 29, 2014. http://spectrum.ieee.org/ transportation/advancedcars/driverless-cars-optional-by-2024-mandatoryby-2044. 58. ibid

High-tech start-ups, commonly called “nerdistans,” 57 are prevalently clustered in suburban office parks along freeways. Recently, however, San Francisco’s rise as a tech center signals a shift in the locus of venture-capitalfueled innovation; since the financial crisis, start-ups have taken an urban turn. Over the past several years, Pinterest has moved from Silicon Valley to San Francisco, Twitter has established its headquarters downtown, and even Yahoo has created a new facility in the old San Francisco Chronicle building in the South of Market neighborhood. “For all its power, Silicon Valley has a great weakness,” wrote Silicon Valley investor Paul Graham in 2006: “its soul-crushing suburban sprawl.”58

fig. 32

fig. 32: illustration. (source: How Google Works) fig. 33: lately, by a wide margin, San Francisco proper tops Silicon Valley as a center for venture-capital investment.

fig. 33

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

The Silicon Valley conveys what is termed an ethos of disruption: technological innovation developed to simply challenge the standard. Technology-powered car services are just a few of the many leading agents of Silicon Valley’s rather disruptive endeavors. Indeed, the San Francisco Bay Area proves a likely instigator and agitator of looming social, technological, and automotive advances.

THESIS: essay fig. 34: illustration. (source: Ben Wiseman) fig. 35: illustration. (source: The New Yorker)

SO WHAT? Is Architecture the Solution? Architecture is not the solution. Architecture is, instead, one solution of many; a crucial piece of a complicated puzzle. “Approximately every two generations, we rebuild the transportation infrastructure in our cities in ways that shape the vitality of neighborhoods; the settlement patterns in our cities and countryside; and our economy, society, and culture,” writes Marlon G. Boarnet, a specialist in transportation and urban growth at the University of Southern California.59 If we assume that fully autonomous vehicles mature and standardize within the next decade, what would happen? As when cars were first introduced, our roads, our cities, and the frames of our lives will change. Although the emergence of automated vehicles will be gradual, architectural interventions can begin to respond to vehicle introduction, implementation, and tenability. As the use of automated vehicles steadily grows, the use of other, now irrelevant, urban amenities and transport frameworks will appropriately shrink; personal parking spaces, lots, and garages will eventually prove redundant. Clearly, parking structures, the storage of cars, is not a new concept. However as a result of new networks of driverless vehicles, the purpose of existing parking structures are shifting; an architectural solution and typology is in order. Build Out or Build Up? All of the above and more: build down. Currently, parking is relatively unregulated and decentralized. An effort to recentralize parking would require both upward and downward vertical expansion within an urban context. Parking lots in the classical sense will not be disposed, but instead carefully replaced, or superseded, by new transit or holding facilities. These facilities, depending on fluctuating supply and demand, will serve as transit hubs or nerve centers; ‘home base’ for automated vehicles. To simply reoccupy or replace existing parking structures with even more parking structures is ineffective and undermines a common goal: efficient and practical utilization of limited real estate. A simple economic cost-benefit analysis can shed some light on potential advantages and disadvantages concerning vertical expansion, both above and below the surface. The common mindset that buildings are designed for solely human habitation is, historically, true. However, this mindset is quickly evolving. With developing technologies underway and fast approaching, an opportunity is created: a catalyst for a new architectural typology. In the case of driverless vehicles, this typology would manifest itself less as a building for people as it would a building for cars. Thus, common architectural solutions frequently implemented, from natural light to thermal comfort, are seemingly antiquated. Instead, new and relevant architectural opportunities and challenges give way. 26

59. Ross, Driverless Cars: Optional by 2024, Mandatory by 2044.

fig. 34

fig. 35

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

THESIS: essay

A typology can be created emphasizing programmatic functions that prioritize parking, but freely allow for a myriad of civic endeavors. Good planning should be guided by desired objectives as opposed to prescribed physical outcomes; allowing for flexible uses, densities, and building form in response to dynamic market conditions. As population grows, housing density increases. San Francisco, like many expanding cities with deeply constrained borders, is not cheap. With roughly 69.1% of the city’s homes selling (sometimes $1 million) above their asking price, land is valuable.60 That is: land above ground is valuable. Efficient density allocation in the form of vertical organization is crucially inevitable. Naturally, building up should be reserved for people, while building down should be reserved for machinery or, in this case, cars. Simply put, the modern city street exists for people in their cars, not the cars themselves. If people are removed from the picture, the city street is no longer an appropriate avenue of transportation. Driverless cars do not require many of the physical constraints once implemented to guide, direct, and influence drivers. In fact, the common street grid, for all of its efficiencies, is rather inefficient. Of course, the fastest way to travel from point A to point B is not by way of point C. In other words, if there could exist an integrated and effective web of direct connection between source and destination, mobility within the city can drastically change. Architectural interventions in the form of underground transit hubs can begin to construct this framework. In doing so, a new, transportation network is naturally taking form, replacing an obsolete transportation network; Developing a subterranean, direct network as opposed to a street network. Nevertheless, “smart architecture is as smart about money as it is about design.”61 Factors inhibiting underground construction include, most notably, financial costs and unique engineering feats. But as with standardization of any construction technique, cost and construct inefficiencies diminish as skill improves and pervasiveness heightens. In other words, like Henry Ford’s production line, as a ‘product’ becomes more prevalent, associated costs become less and less a constraining factor. Cost is simply a non-issue. With this in mind, the broad benefits of improved land vastly outweigh the perceived financial costs of digging down, thus proving a worthwhile endeavor.

60. Stone, Madeline. “13 Recent Home Sales That Show How Crazy San Francisco Real Estate Has Become.” Business Insider. July 5, 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com/13-crazy-san-francisco-home-sales-2014-7. 61. Chakrabarti, A Country of Cities 62. Perry, Chris. “Fast Company: Architecture and the Speed of Technology.” Bracket 2: Goes Soft, 2012. 63. ibid.

What Would it Look Like? An Architectural Solution In 1982, Reyner Banham, an architectural critic and prolific writer, developed a the concept of â&#x20AC;&#x153;anticipatory design.â&#x20AC;?62 Anticipatory design, a renewed architecture of instrumentality, carries two connotations for the discipline of architecture. The first addresses the potential of a building to incorporate flexible and adaptable technology as a means of anticipating and responding to changing programmatic and environmental conditions. The second addresses an implicit futurism and an approach to design rooted less in architectural precedent than technological extrapolation. In Banhamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eyes the building must be a reflexive system or environment, one capable of responding to a variety of both internal and external pressures.63 When applied to the challenge of automated parking within and throughout San Francisco, anticipatory architecture allows for positive programmatic and formal repercussions. Parking hubs that increasingly respond to programmatic and environmental flux, stations that, like the most rudimentary of biological specimen, exhibit flexibility, adaptability, and basic intelligence, may prove an appropriate model for wide scale urban intervention and development. Thus shifting the discipline of architecture away from an exclusive preoccupation with form, space, and meaning, to one of temporality and instrumentality, thereby introducing contigency, responsivity, and feedback into the very performance of architecture itself: imagine a reconfigurable campus in a constant state of flux. Spatially efficient infrastructures can serve constantly shifting flexible hubs, strategically located throughout the urban fabric. A new model can appropriately respond to shifting norms: a new model of mobility that will certainly prove unsuccessful without proper underpinning and integration at an architectural and urban scale.

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Charlesworth, Esther Ruth. Cityedge: Case Studies in Contemporary Urbanism. Oxford: Architectural Press, 2005. Esther Charlesworth identifies the role of mobility: a daily pursuit. Aside from the usual traffic jams, asphalt, delays and tollgates, a sensory experience is derived from everyday mobility. Charlesworth concedes that public space of cities and villages have suffered from the car, thus the architects’ task is to come up with solutions that break new ground -- to produce designs that answer the steadily growing demand for mobility; a demand that should not be resisted, but rather channelled along the right lines. Dewar, David, and Fabio Todeschini. Rethinking Urban Transport after Modernism: Lessons from South Africa. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate, 2004. Dewar and Todeschini use South Africa as a context for a very applicable topic: the primacy of private vehicles and potential progress toward positive change. In addition to examining the many challenges associated with rethinking urban transport, the subject of parking (the storage of vehicles) and its negative environmental consequences is investigated. The authors stress the importance of transportation as more than an end in itself; but rather an integral element of the urban whole including: the web of linkage, access and stopping, and works in association with numerous other elements and layers of public structure and private responses. Ingels, Bjarke. “(Driver) Less Is More - Driverless City.” Audi Urban Future Initiative. December 06, 2012. http://audi-urban-future-initiative.com/blog/bjarke-ingels-group. In conjunction with the Audi Urban Future Initiative, Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) proposes a concept that transforms the city pavement into a re-programmable surface, replacing fixed elements of driveway, sidewalk or square into a digital street surface that will result in a re-animated city. Efficiency of the current urban transit system can and should be harnessed and manipulated in an effort to respond to a constantly evolving city. The real barrier to autonomous driving lies in infrastructure as opposed to technology. The article proposes a ‘smart infrastructure’ solution to a ‘smart vehicle’ question. Meier-Burkert, Friederike. “Piloted Parking: How Will Cars of the Future Park?” Audi Urban Future Initiative. May 09, 2014. http://audi-urban-future-initiative.com/blog/pilotedparking-future-mobility. The Audi Urban Future Initiative is committed to providing a discussion about urban mobility as well as sustainable ways to simply move from one place to another. The initiative focuses on “stimulating new visions for cities and urban mobility;” a collective and interdisciplinary think tank. Piloted Parking: How Will Cars of the Future Park? expresses how new technologies (such as piloted parking) could bring relief to the urban environment. What happens when parking spaces disappear from the city? Is there a more efficient model that proves an alternative to the traditional parking garage? The article proceeds to answer these questions with compelling data as well as possible design solutions. 30

THESIS: annotated bibliography

Richards, Brian. Moving in Cities. London: Studio Vista, 1976. Brian Richards depicts and describes how new transport technology could help solve the problems of movement as well as what can be done to enable existing transport systems to work better. Considering the book was written in 1976, the information may appear outdated and perhaps irrelevant. However, many topics are certainly prevalent today, many issues still exist, and many potential solutions suggested are in effect presently. From the history of mobility in cities and traffic congestion relief to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;cutting egdeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; automatically controlled vehicle systems and cars for hire, Richards expounds upon the revival of interest in public transport.

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

CASE STUDIES

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

CASE STUDIES: inspiration The integration and combination of these two concepts, autonomous technology and car-sharing economies, is at the forefront of a technological and mobile revolution within and throughout cities around the world. The effects of this revolution will be immense; including faster, safer, cheaper, more efficient vehicle transportation, coupled with extensive urban modifications. Streets will narrow, cities will bulk up, accident rates will plummet, parking problems will vanish, and commuting by car will become a “mere extension of sleep, work, and recreation… Where infrastructure is designed with robocars in mind, many of the hardest problems will be easy to solve. Cars will talk to the road, to the traffic signs, and to one another. What one car up ahead can see, all will know about.” In future cities steeped in innovation and technology, architecture can respond to and influence these imminent changes. A designed, physical manifestation of this fast approaching future requires close inquiry and analysis regarding present and past design strategies.

architectural inspiration images (source: ArchDaily)

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

FILENE’S ECO PODS ANTICIPATORY ARCHITECTURE Boston, Massachussetts 2009 Howeler + Yoon Architecture Designed to immediately stimulate the economy, and the ecology, of downtown Boston, Eco-Pod (Gen1) is a temporary vertical algae bio-reactor and new public Commons. The pods serve as micro-incubators and biofuel sources for flexible research and development programs. The voids between pods form a network of vertical public parks/ botanical gardens, innate throughout the open and reconfigurable structure. An on-site robotic armature reconfigures the modules to maximize algae growth conditions and to accommodate evolving spatial and programmatic conditions; The structure and units transform to meet changing programmatic and economic needs. An instant architecture, the armature allows the structure to transform to meet changing programmatic and economic needs, while the continuous construction on the site will broadcast subtle semaphore of constructional activity and economic recovery. The immediate deployment of a “crane ready” modular temporary structure houses experimental and research based programs. In an effort to infill empty sites, test new proposals, and develop initiatives with other communities, the modules can be disassembled and redistributed to various neighborhoods around Boston. As such, the flexible modularity of the units anticipated future deployments on other sites.

CASE STUDIES: inspiration information and images provided by: “Eco-pods by Howeler + Yoon Architecture.” Dezeen Magazine. October 2, 2009. http://www.dezeen. com/2009/10/02/eco-podsby-howeler-yoon-architectureand-squared-design-lab/. “Filene’s Eco Pods.” Höweler + Yoon Architecture. Accessed November 17, 2014. http://www.hyarchitecture. com/projects/59.

REDESIGNING DETROIT

information and images provided by:

A NEW VISION FOR AN ICONIC SITE Detroit, Michigan 2013 H Architecture

Furuto, Alison. “Redesigning Detroit: A New Vision for an Iconic Site.” ArchDaily. June 22, 2013. http://www. archdaily.com/390904/redesigning-detroit-a-new-visionfor-an-iconic-site-competition-entry-h-architecture/.

Designed by H Architecture, the Incubator Matrix: Live/Work/Play proposal consists of a facility for a new industrial ecosystem to revitalize downtown Detroit. The design consists of a live/work station for creative young artists and high-tech start-up companies to continuously challenge each other and spark innovation. Using the downtown’s large high-tech company offices, entertainment facilities, and shopping areas as a foundation, living spaces are connected to work and play: Seeds. Two large transformable facades exist to provide grid structures for ‘planting’ Seeds. Units can be added as Seeds grow. As the growth of companies and the ections of units shift, the units change the density of the facade, visualizing the rebirth of Detroit.

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

THE BIG U REBUILD BY DESIGN Manhatten, New York City 2014 Bjarke Ingels Group

CASE STUDIES: inspiration information and images provided by: “BIG U.” Rebuild by Design. Accessed November 17, 2014. http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/project/bigteam-final-proposal/.

In an effort to protect lower Manhattan from future storm surges and natural disasters, Bjarke Ingles Group (BIG) proposes the ‘Big U.’ The Big U is a systematic approach that encircles Manhattan in response to needs and concerns of surrounding communities, defending the region’s low-lying and vulnerable topography. Social, environmental, and economic advantages also arise by establishing the waterfront as a valuable and engaging public realm. The proposal is comprised of compartments: separate but coordinated plans for three regions of the waterfront and associated communities. Each compartment consists of a physically separate flood-protection zone, each a field for integrated social and community planning. The compartments work in simultaneously to protect as well as enhance the city.

FIETSENPAKHUIS

information and images provided by:

BICYCLE WAREHOUSE Zaandam, The Netherlands 2011 Nunc Architecten

Blyth, Gavin. Velo Architecture Building for Bikes. München: Prestel, 2014.

Designed to help take congestion and clutter from Zaandam’s main shopping avenue, Amsterdam’s Fietsenpakhuis (bicycle warehouse) houses free-of-charge daily parking facilities for 700 bikes. Considering its location in Amsterdam’s historic industrial area of Zaadam, the warehouse retrieves its inspiration from the surrounding traditional warehouse typology, characterised by wooden post-and-beam construction and brick facades. In addition to passive solar heating and natural ventilation, the highly sustainable building also generates its own electricity.

http://ecologicalurbanliving. blogspot.com/

Designed as a public space, all cyclists are invited to enter. The transparent street facade displays the building’s main function: stored bicycles. The ground level reveals a large window, framing the mechanic workshop. integrated social and community planning. The compartments work in simultaneously to protect as well as enhance the city.

http://gebouwvanhetjaar.nl/

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

AUTOSTADT VOLKSWAGEN FACTORY Wolfsburg, Germany 1998-2000 HENN Architekten

CASE STUDIES: design fig. 1: diagrammatic section; a building for cars. fig. 2: images of exterior aesthetics and interior mechanics (source: www.autostadt.de)

Volkswagen’s production facility and Autostadt (German for “Car City”) visitor attraction in Wolfsburg, Germany contains two temporary vertical parking lot silos designed by international firm HENN Architekten. Composed of glass and galvanized steel, the silos (Autotuerme) stretch 60 meters / 200 ft, or 16 levels, and can accommodate 400 cars at a time. The purpose of the building is simple: transport finished cars directly from the adjacent manufacturing plant to the tower’s basement. Each silo delivers approximately 600 vehicles each day. The solution is fully automated: at a speed of 1.5 meters per second, cars are lifted into position via mechanical arms that rotate and run along a central beam, moving vehicles in and out of their respective bays. The silo stores new cars, temporarily, to be collected in person at the Autostadt customer center. Once lowered to the basement, cars move through a 700 meter underground/internal tunnel that connects the two buildings. An internal track carries the car through licence plate fitting and subsequently to the waiting owner, without having driven a single meter, the odometer reads: “0.”

information and images provided by: Medina, Samuel. “Volkswagen’s Autostadt, Engineered for a Good Show.” Architizer. January 31, 2012. http:// architizer.com/blog/volkswagens-autostadt-engineeredfor-a-good-show/. Google Earth map underlay

fig. 1

fig. 2

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

CASE STUDIES: design

PARK TOWER

fig. 3: diagrammatic section

A PROTOTYPICAL AMERICAN CITY Venice Architecture Biennale 2004 Lewis Tsurumaki Lewis

fig. 4: sectional perspective (source: LTL Architects) fig. 5: building DNA (source: LTL Architects)

In 2004, Architectural Record commissioned Lewis Tsurumaki Lewis (LTL) to envision the future of the parking garage for the US Pavilion at the Venice Architectural Biennale. Park Tower implements a drive-up skyscraper, interweaving a parking garage with mixeduse program space, while using the possible future of clean and quiet hydrogen fuel (without noxious fumes or excessive engine noise) as a catalyst. Both suburban patterns and an urban building type and footprint are coupled to transform the time-consuming suburban commute into an attractive urban ascent. With the ubiquitous nature of automobiles, LTL notes the complex relationship between type and size of architectural programs as well as the necessary parking sizes and numbers. LTL asks: “What if the interdependence of spatial function and parking space become the catalyst for architectural intervention?” Essentially, what if automobile parking is intertwined into each level of a building, instead of solely allocating parking to the underground? Taking the fashion of a double helix, the Tower intertwines amongst and between a commonplace mix of programs, including ground level retail spaces, middle level hotel and office spaces, and top level residential spaces. Based on specific ratios of parking to program, the sectional pairings of each program’s function and parking are maximized. An additional speed-lane snakes through the tower in order to facilitate rapid ascent and descent.

information and images provided by: “Park Tower.” LTL Architects. Accessed November 25, 2014. http://ltlarchitects.com/ park-tower/.

fig. 3

fig. 4

fig. 5

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

1111 LINCOLN ROAD MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Miami Beach, Florida 2005-2010 Herzog & De Mueron

CASE STUDIES: design fig. 6: diagrammatic section; program shifts throughout the day fig. 7: images of structure as multifunctional venue (source: Herzog & De Meuron)

According to Herzog & De Meuron, a car park is a public facility (akin to a train station or an airport) where users switch modes of transportation. Their project, 1111 Lincoln Road, is designed to accommodate Lincoln Road Mall visitors: a very alive, urban experience. Herzog & De Meuron avoids creating another standard parking structure on a retail base, complete with a masking facade and recessed penthouse atop, to instead answer the urban requirements of the site in a distinctive manner. Therefore, maximum allowable height is used advantageously: higher ceilings, better air circulation, panoramic views, and simply aesthetic leverage. 1111 exemplifies a fully open concrete structure with varying ceiling heights between standard, double, and triple parking height in an effort to accommodate other permanent and temporary programs. Complete with a landscaped backdrop, parties, photo or film shoots, fashion shows, concerts, and other social and commercial activities catalyze the building when emptied of vehicles. The upper levels house retail units and a private residence. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation proves a panoramic, even ceremonial, experience. “The structure is the architecture. The car park is an organism made up of a family of concrete slabs, deployed as floor plates, columns and ramps. The location and form of these elements result from a series of forces acting upon each other, a complex overlapping of site and building code requirements, combined with program choices…” roof, capping the program and providing panoramic views.

information and images provided by: “1111 Lincoln Road.” Architecture Design for Architects. Accessed November 25, 2014. http://archrecord. construction.com “1111 Lincoln Road” Dezeen 1111 Lincoln Road by Herzog De Meuron Comments. Accessed November 25, 2014. http://www.dezeen.com Google Earth map underlay

fig. 6

fig. 7

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM A New Architectural Typology The common mindset that buildings are designed for solely human habitation is, historically, true. However, this mindset is quickly evolving. With developing technologies underway and fast approaching, an opportunity is created: a catalyst for a new architectural typology. In the case of driverless vehicles, this typology would manifest itself less as a building for people as it would a building for cars. Thus, common architectural solutions frequently implemented, from natural light to thermal comfort, are seemingly antiquated. Instead, new and relevant architectural opportunities and challenges give way. A typology can be created emphasizing programmatic functions that prioritize parking, but freely allow for a myriad of civic endeavors. Good planning should be guided by desired objectives as opposed to prescribed physical outcomes; allowing for flexible uses, densities, and building form in response to dynamic market conditions.

For this investigation, program precedents and proposals are guided and relatively confined to at least one, if not all, of the following criteria parameters: Program Criteria 1. Parking: program includes permanent and flexible storage of passenger vehicles. 2. Support: program includes maintenance and testing space; laboratory 3. Work: program includes leasable office space; start-up incubator 4: Active: program includes space for leisure; amenities; play

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: case study

BOSTON INNOVATION DISTRICT An urban environment that strives to foster innovation, collaboration, and entrepreneurship, Boston’s Innovation District encompasses over 1,000 acres and is quickly expanding. Since its launch in 2010, it has added 5,000 new jobs in over 200 new companies. The Innovation District acts as a hub and development space for emerging and new ideas. While in close proximity to each other, people innovate faster and share technologies and knowledge more easily. Both small and large firms alike generate ideas and intermingle in a supportive and close-knit environment, in an effort to foster creative ideas. Thus, the campus is composed of collaboritve venues and open spaces, innvation housing, and live-work spaces. Three Core Principles: Urban lab (testing groundbreaking technologies), Sustainable leadership (establishing new ground for sustainable growth), Shared innovation (a shared economy). Three Key Strategies: Promote collaboration (create clusters of innovative people), Provide public space and programming (a social infrastructure to foster innovation), Develop a 24-hour neighborhood (provide amenities for flexible lifestyles). ‘Program’ Among 9 Shared workspaces, 11 event spaces, and 7 coffee and catering venues include:

fig. 2: list of companies who either utilize or plan to utilize space(s) fig. 3: a typical section of program distribution fig. 1: Boston Innovation District. Located to the east of central Boston fig. 4: District Hall, Innovation District

Drydock Shared Labs: a leasable, entrepreneurial space where tenants can ‘grow’ businesses. Factory 63: a 25,000 square foot co-working space. Also includes innovation housing units Boston Convention and Exhibition Center: a 2.1 million square foot flexible space Space with a Soul: a 3,000 square foot meeting, presentation, conference, art exhibit, or fundraising space.

information and images provided by: “Innovation District.” Innovation District. Accessed November 25, 2014. http:// www.innovationdistrict.org/. http://smgworld.bu.edu/ Google Earth map underlay

50 fig. 1

fig. 3

fig. 2

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: case study

BMW CENTRAL BUILDING Zaha Hadid Architects Leipzig, Germany 2003 - 2006 43,000 sq.ft $47,000,000 Considered the last link in a chain of buildings created for the BMW plant at Leipzig, the BMW showroom references surrounding structures, local processes, and the BMW car through its dynamic shape. The Central Building is part showcase, pat offices, part laboratory, part canteen; mediating between factory floor and office, between product and process. Production Movement is converged and funnelled on the site, compressing and linking the three main segments of production: fig. 5: BMW Central Building, Leipzig, Germany (source: Google Earth map underlay)

Body in White Paint Shop Assembly Program The showroom serves a delivery unit of company cars (650 vehicles each day) and contains both a garage and training academy. Identical work stations are allotted given to each of the 740 Central Building employees, from trainee to CEO. In fact, technical and testing areas on the ground floor are the only enclosed spaces. Organizational transparency is achieved by a layering and interpenetration of space; a scissors section that

fig. 6: diagram of spatial layout. Movement is directed through ‘body in white,’ ‘paint shop,’ and ‘assembly.’ fig. 7: interior hall / offices fig. 8: interior bridge / offices

fig. 5

information and images provided by: “Zaha Hadid Architects.” BMW Central Building. Accessed November 25, 2014. http://www.zaha-hadid.com/ architecture/bmw-centralbuilding/.

fig. 6

fig. 7 fig. 8

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: case study

9x18 PLAN Miriam Peterson, Sagi Golan, Nathan Rich New York City, New York 2014 With 20,360,000 square feet of surface level parking in New York City, space is vastly underutilized. Rethinking the role of parking as an agent of change in the current affordable housing discourse, 9x18 brings into light neighborhoods, lifestyle choices, mobility, and social justice. Current parking requirements in the NYC zoning regulations have embodied underutilized space and problematic urban design. A fine-grain approach to parking requirements are reflected in revisions to existing zoning regulations. The goal: build 200,000 affordable housing units within the next 10 years. Each development would ideally be able to construct more units in an effort to provide additional housing units to meet demand. Instead of relating parking requirements to the overall quantity of units, parking requirements could instead be related to the affordability and size of units constructed. A strategic, infrastructural infill project can be implemented to replace a vast land bank of surface parking area. If surface lots were replaced with strategically sited higher density parking solutions, leftover lots could also be adapted to new opportunities; from generating income, to creating more affordable housing units, to including community amenities. Program

fig. 9: 9x18 Plan, East Harlem (source: Google Earth map underlay) fig. 10: diagram of proposed program distribution fig. 11: block infill before

Using the typical parking dimension, 9x18, micro, 1 bedroom, and 2 bedroom units can be developed. These housing typologies, as well as new neighborhood amenities and shared parking strategies, can spur opportunities and support a community. In terms of parking, PiYN (Park in Your Neighborhood) allows residential developments to bank parking into one site. These parking hubs serve as an agent of change, and, more importantly, provide neighborhood amenities. Commercial and community activities, such as food stores, car share rental space, and training centers are inserted on the street level. The middle levels house parking, the top level not-for-profit entities, and the roof storage and storm-water runoff collection.

fig. 12: block infill after

fig. 9

information and images provided by: â&#x20AC;&#x153;9x18: Affordable Housing Research.â&#x20AC;? Peterson Rich Office. Accessed November 25, 2014. http://www.pro-arch. com/.

fig. 10 fig. 11

fig. 12

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: case study

PARK TOWER A PROTOTYPICAL AMERICAN CITY Venice Architecture Biennale 2004 Lewis Tsurumaki Lewis With the ubiquitous nature of automobiles, LTL notes the complex relationship between type and size of architectural programs as well as the necessary parking sizes and numbers. LTL asks: “What if the interdependence of spatial function and parking space become the catalyst for architectural intervention?” Essentially, what if automobile parking is intertwined into each level of a building, instead of solely allocating parking to the underground? Taking the fashion of a double helix, the Tower intertwines amongst and between a commonplace mix of programs, including ground level retail spaces, middle level hotel and office spaces, and top level residential spaces. Based on specific ratios of parking to program, the sectional pairings of each program’s function and parking are maximized. An additional speed-lane snakes through the tower in order to facilitate rapid ascent and descent. Program

fig. 13: 100 sq ft residential = 12 sq ft parking 100 sq ft office = 60 sq ft parking

Retail

100 sq ft hotel = 80 sq ft parking

A strip mall spliced with an urban shopping street compromises the retail ‘district.’ Parking spaces have close proximity to stores, and a series of escalators that rotate bwteen the central atrium allow shoppers to move between levels.

100 sq ft retail = 135 sq ft parking

Hotel

(source: LTL Architects image underlay)

Placed between the retail and office districts exists Park Tower’s hotel. The two most common activities of business travellers, shopping and work, thus cap the hotel. A guest may enjoy the spatial amenities of an urban hotel, while also benefit from the motel convenience of below-room parking. Office The office district is defined by an increased three-dimensional perviousness and greater amounts of exterior space relative due to decreasing parking requirements. All superfluous parking surface is converted to green space. Residential The residential district boasts cantilevered housing units. The bulk of parking needs can be accommodated by the driveway as a result of reduced demand for parking in residential areas. Suburban features, such as the driveway and front lawn, are combined into a new form of a high-density vertical neighborhood. An SUV testing ground exists on roof, capping the program and providing panoramic views. 56

information and images provided by: “Park Tower.” LTL Architects. Accessed November 25, 2014. http://ltlarchitects.com/ park-tower/.

fig. 13

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: implementation

A building holds no meaning without a user, as users grant architecture purpose. The same way autonomous technology has the power to affect vehicles, vehicles have the power to affect their users. With fast approaching technologies, a new opportunity and architectural typology is catalyzed. In the case of driverless vehicles, this typology would manifest itself less as a building for people as it would a building for cars. Although the primary function of this new typology is, as it should be, vehicle storage, people as users are the activators; the agitators.

fig. 1

The previous programmatic case studies offer a perspective into possible physical manifestations of the four basic program elements: Parking, Support, Work, and Active. Unlike the case studies, however, this typology requires a dutiful combination and integration of all four elements

As priority of program components increases, specificity of user group also increases. In other words, a user base specificity spectrum exists with programmed parking on one end (where users are limited to vehicles only) and programmed active space on the other (where users are simply not limited). In this sense, it would be relatively simple to construct a bifurcated; a building divided in two, with one side for people and the other for cars. However, if commuting by car truly becomes a â&#x20AC;&#x153;mere extension of sleep, work, and recreation,â&#x20AC;? a physical connection must exist, then, between people and their cars. That is: despite the priority of programmatic elements or specificity of user groups, all spaces should be architecturally treated in an equal fashion, with a similar design approach. fig. 1: Primary program components and respective user groups. fig. 2: A look at existing parking structure techniques: person-operated, mechanical, and piloted parking specifications and requirements. From left to right, a decrease in area, ceiling height, and maneuvering space allows for more vehicle storage, thus maximizing efficiency.

fig. 2

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: implementation fig. 3: By examining the inefficiencies of a typical parking structure, architectural design opportunities and decisions aimed at mitigating these inefficiencies emerge, directly influencing program massing and distribution. fig. 4: exhibit A

fig. 3 fig. 4

Exhibit A depicts a typical parking structure and floor plate. As designed, the structure, which serves driver operated cars, holds 164 vehicles total. As a result, superfluous spaces, thoroughfares, ramps, and stairs consume the structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s volume. Here lies the largest inefficiency: circulation. 44% or 27,000 square feet of Exhibit Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 61,000 square foot floor plates is circulation, thus leaving only 34,000 square feet for parking, the buildings seemingly primary purpose. fig. 5: Using Exhibit Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s floor plate as a basis, a significant amount of usable parking space is gained in the same 61,000 square foot area as a result of the implementation of automated parking. Circulation bound to the periphery constitutes 18% of total floor plate area.

fig. 5

fig. 6

fig. 6: If circulation is, on the other hand, limited centrally, efficiency increases even further. With a central circulation core, concentric parking rings circle the core, allowing more parking spaces as the cylinder expands.

fig. 7: Considering a likely urban context, site suitably molds form. Land above ground is valuable. Efficient density allocation in the form of vertical organization is crucially inevitable. As parking is relatively unregulated and decentralized, an effort to recentralize parking would require both upward and downward vertical expansion within an urban context. fig. 8: Typical vertical distribution of potential program. The circulation core establishes the framework of flexible program distribution, allowing for underground parking, maintainance, surplus parking, work, activity, and future expansion.

fig. 7

fig. 8

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

SITE

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

SITE fig. 1: Top 10 most congested cities in the United States; The top 3 most congested cities in California are San Francisco, San Jose, and Los Angeles; The many cities that compose the San Francisco Bay Area; San Francisco sits, densly populated, at the tip of a peninsula and serves as a gateway to the North Bay and the East Bay. fig. 3: San Francisco housing density. (underlay source: Eric Fischer, Flickr.com) fig. 4: Transportation movement. Includes all public, private, and water transport. (underlay source: Eric Fischer, Flickr.com)

fig. 1

fig. 2

Currently, taking into account all registered and visiting cars, trucks, trailers, motorcycles, and bicycles, San Francisco holds approximately 580,733 vehicles, or basic individual modes of transportation. For this investigation, however, only the collective 435,442 passenger vehicles matter, as this figure directly corresponds to the targeted community affected. Over the next decade, as user base increases, driverless vehicles are expected become the prevalent form of transportation. Considering the efficiency of autonomous technology and shared economies, a fleet of driverless cars necessary to serve the entire city floats around one third the number of existing passenger vehicles, or: a fleet of 140,000 cars.

fig. 3

fig. 4

fig. 3

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

SITE fig. 5: Accessibility contours from 3rd and Market by taxi. Each color represents 5 minutes travel time. (underlay source: Eric Fischer, Flickr.com) fig. 6: Taxis with and without passengers. Taxis traveling with passengers represented by blue marker; Taxis traveling without passengers represented by red marker. (underlay source: Eric Fischer, Flickr.com)

fig. 5

fig. 7: Deadzones and Corridors Orange strips represent verified commercial strips; Blue areas represent zones for commercial activity. fig. 8: Traffic congestion. Weekday PM peak automobile delay conditions

fig. 6

fig. 7

fig. 9: Traffic congestion. Weekday PM peak municipal bus speeds. Speeds range from 7 mph to 15 mph on average.

fig. 8

fig. 9

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

SITE fig. 10: Zones for commercial activity fig. 11: Housing density fig. 12: In an effort to properly recentralize, serve, and respond to future mobility demand, preemptively constructing the framework or infrastructure for such an endeavor is key. Derived from major street arteries, San Francisco can be partitioned into 13 zones; each zone unique in its commercial activity and housing density patterns. These zones establish the basic parameters for appropriate parking hub distribution.

fig. 10

fig. 13: Taxi hotspots and destinations fig. 14: Approximate locations of ideal automated transit hubs. fig. 11

fig. 12

fig. 15: 5 Minute Rule From request to arrival, no user should have to wait for more than 5 minutes for an allocated automated vehicle. Current traffic patterns and potential user demand informs the amount of suggested hubs required in order to ensure that no user, whichever district he may be, waits for more than 5 minutes for a vehicle: 46 driverless vehicle hubs can be strategically placed within and throughout all 13 zones.

fig. 13

fig. 14

fig. 15

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

SITE fig. 16: Hub locations fig. 17: Housing density fig. 18: Zoned hubs If scaled down even further, only one or two (appropriately sized) hubs are needed to serve each zone. In accordance to housing density within each of the 13 zones, 16 conveniently located hubs spread between the 13 zones can serve all users within each respective bounded zone, without violating the 5 minute rule. All 16 hubs, for the sake of efficiency, come in three sizes: small, medium, and large; 6 small, 5 medium, and 4 large.

fig. 16

fig. 17

fig. 18

Fluctuating every hour as demand for urban mobility shifts, current traffic volume trends and data convey that at any given time, no less than 5% of the entire driverless fleet will be in motion, or no more than 95% will be stationary. In other words, the demand for a car at 4 a.m. is substantially lower than it is at 4 p.m. As a result, during peak hours (6 a.m. - 10 a.m., 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.), the majority of driverless cars will be active, thus not requiring a parking space and thereby lowering the number of individual parking spots by 5%, or: 135,000 spaces. Thus, 135,000 spaces measuredly spread between 16 hubs amounts to at least 3,300 per small hub, 9,400 per medium hub, and 16,700 spaces per large hub, requiring approximately 370,000 square feet, 1,060,000 square feet, and 1,880,000 square feet, per hub respectively.

fig. 19

fig. 19: using three different block types from three different zones, potential site interventions can be analyzed. Blocks will be segmented and hubs will be sized accordingly. fig. 20 a large hub; massing opportunities. Building up will infill the block; building down will make available an entire block; building up and tall will make available half a block; building up and down will respond to and relate existing context. fig. 21 a medium hub; massing opportunities. Building down; infilling existing urban fabric; infilling fabric and building down.

fig. 20

fig. 21

fig. 22 a small hub; massing opportunities. Building down; building up. fig. 22

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

SITE fig. 23: Off street parking options within the northeastern quadrant of San Francisco. With over 10,000 vehicles per square mile, paking structures populate along Market Street and The Embarcadero, and densify throughout the Financial District. fig. 24: The Northeastern Quadrant Based off of current traffic patterns and congestion, urban density, and need base, all four large transit hub interventions would inhabit San Franciscoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s northeastern quadrant. Bisected by the Financial Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Market Street, this area of focus is densly populated. Startup investment has increased more than 300% since 2009. Each blue marker represents a new startup. fig. 25: Traffic congestion patterns suggest areas in most need of traffic abatement.

fig. 23

underlay sources: Google Earth

fig. 24

fig. 25

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

SITE fig. 26: Area of focus The San Francisco Transit Center District Plan is an extensive redevelopment plan for the neighborhood surrounding the Transbay Transit Center site, South of Market Street. The Transbay Transit Center, currently under construction, will replace the since-demolished San Francisco Transbay Terminal. The Transit Center District Plan, adopted in 2012, allows increased height limits for several parcels in the vicinity of the Transit Center. Thus, in combination with the sale of several land parcels, new skyscrapers will take advantage of these height increases.

fig. 26

Accompanying the Transbay Terminal is also bus, light-rail, subway, and ferry transport avenues, as well the urban headquarters of both Uber and Google. fig. 27: Considering the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dense locus of transit, on street and off street parking options aggregate between and within surrounding blocks. Many of the parking structures are set to be demolished in favor of mixed-use high-rise projects.

underlay sources: Google Earth

fig. 27

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

SITE fig. 28: Up For Grabs The city of San Francisco requires 135,000 spaces measuredly spread between 16 hubs. The area surrounding South of Market Transit Center District would require one large hub of at least 1,880,000 square feet of parking space for 16,700 vehicles. Within a two-block radius, flanking the Embarcardero, stand 3 possible sites; Two existing parking lots, one existing parking garage. fig. 29:

fig. 28

Developing three sites in close proximity to one another offers design and massing opportunities and advatages. Using just one site may allow complete block infill and substantial vertical expansion. On the other hand, if program and parking spaces were to be spread between three sites, construction and fleet dispersal efficiency may be maximised. In an effort to mitigate traffic congestion, centralized zone boundaries coupled with separately allocated sites and structures can effectively respond to and act upon fluctuating user demand.

underlay sources: Google Earth

fig. 29

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

SITE fig. 30: Site option 3 massing fig. 31: Site option 2 massing fig. 32: Site option 1 massing

fig. 30

fig. 33: Transit hubs or nerve centers; ‘home base’ for automated vehicles; A reconfigurable campus in a constant state of flux. Spatially efficient infrastructures serve constantly shifting flexible hubs, strategically located throughout San Francisco’s urban fabric, responding to shifting norms: a new model of mobility.

fig. 31

fig. 32

underlay sources: Google Earth

fig. 33

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

SITE

PROPOSAL

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: implementation The following is an architectural design proposal; the result of the preceding research and development. The design parameters did shift slightly from semester to semester, although the goal stayed consistent: to explore ways in which architectural infrastructure, systems, and solutions may respond to, influence, and serve the future of San Franciscoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s autonomous transportation network.

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: implementation

The goal is to recentralize, serve, and respond to future mobility demand. In order to do so, we must divide and conquer. As the use of automated vehicles steadily grows, urban amenities and transport frameworks (personal parking spaces, lots, and garages) will eventually prove redundant, signalling a shift to centralized parking. Depending on fluctuating supply and demand, a series of transit hubs or nerve centers can serve as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;home baseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for the vehicles. Infrastructural voids, spaces within and between highway interchanges, are currently cut off from the rest of the city, devoid of people and cars; an ideal site for a parking hub. The site itself exists at one of the most congested intersections: where the bay bridge meets the city. The sharing, or access, economy is key. In a driverless city, sharing would provide a similar level of convenience as private cars, while providing the sustainability of public transport. And it shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t only be limited to transport; but also extended to living. With increasing housing prices and shifting family dynamics, the efficient storage of people, like cars, may begin to take form.

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: implementation When looking at architectural responses we have a few options: A building strictly for cars requires no light or air, can be placed underground allowing for development above, and does not have to be seen A building for cars and people would ideally house parking underground and people above ground. Within an urban context like San Francisco, a building for cars and people allows for an almost symbiotic relationship: a building built by people for the storage of publicly used driverless vehicles as well as the research and development of its autonomous technology. Thus, this buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s program is composed of parking primarily, vehicle support spaces, living spaces, and general work space. Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the potential? A standard parking layout could house at most 120 cars. If, however, we build down and out, in an effort to fill the site to maximize underground spatial opportunities: over 6,000 cars can be stored. Vehicle access by way of two overpasses are placed to allow vehicles to flow in and out the central circulation core

The vehicle circulation core, a structurally gridded tower, serves the entire building: below and above ground. Visitors enter through the overpass and subsequently brought up to their level by car. A service ribbon, consisting of all mechanical and plumbing services, plugs into and sandwiches the circulation core, while also allowing for spatial compartmentalization. The forms weave in and out depending on human or vehicle occupation. Human horizontal circulation tubes penetrates the vehicle shaft to allow access from one side to the other, without disturbance from moving vehicles. And two-way ramps scale the far side of the building; placed for more local movement between adjacent floors as well as placed infrastructure to potentially serve as circulation future expansion. Live/work program sandwiches the core, with sleeping units on one side, and live/ work spaces on the otherâ&#x20AC;Ś connected by the horizontal circulation tubes. Vehicle support spaces (Facilities for building, maintaining, testing, controlling, and washing the vehicles) are interspersed throughout the building, allowing for direct physical and visual interaction between live and work spaces. Lastly, above ground parking spaces are conveniently located for quick storage and convenient access by building occupants.

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: implementation This hub would induce as well as facilitate constant movement, day and night. And considering vehicle occupants outnumber human occupants, building circulation is best understood through the perspective of a car and itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s user. All users start and end on ground level. If the vehicle is empty or requires a charge, it will proceed underground, to be stored, charged, or even washed. As we move upwards, vehicles can transport users to living spaces as well as work spaces. These are typical floor arrangements for a sleep/live/play space, a work/ test/control space, and a build/maintain/testing space. At the top exists a space for everyone: the occupant and public alike; a space for visiting, observing, and entertaining. At the bottom exists space for geothermal energy harnessing and storage, included to power all electric vehicles.

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: implementation

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

PROGRAM: implementation Zooming out, this building can theoretically be conceived as a prototype: a prototype that can be replicated, scaled, and potentially deployed throughout the city. A travel network certainly exists beyond the walls of this hub, throughout and between user’s various origins, destinations, and other parking hubs. At it’s most basic form, this design is a simple kit of parts: a structural core (sized to fit) is drilled into the earth, extruded above, filled with program, and potentially expanded linearly (depending on site restrictions). On city-wide scale, depending on fluctuating supply and demand, these series of transit hubs or nerve centers can serve as ‘home base’ for vehicles. Hybrid live/ work campuses, designed to create, support, and, most importantly, progress autonomous technology: an urban prototype constructed to serve a new model of mobility.

San Francisco: Auto-Corrected Ian Rosenfield

a challenge

“

The average car stands stationary for 22 hours and 49 minutes daily, parked for 94% of the day. Ultimately, parked cars are as challenging for cities as cars on the move. If parking space is slim, the search for parking increases traffic, resulting in congested road conditions - a vicious cycle.

san francisco: autocorrec

A solution PARKING: centralized inefficiencies

ian rosenfield advisor: cordula roser gray

WHAT IS THE ISSUE? How will architectural infrastructure, systems, and solutions respond to, influence, and serve the future o transportation network. The integration and combination of the access economy and driverless technology is and mobile revolution within and throughout San Francisco. The effects of this revolution will be immense; more efficient vehicle transportation, coupled with extensive urban modifications. In a city steeped in inno architecture respond to and influence these imminent changes?

HOW CAN ARCHITECTURE HELP? As the use of automated vehicles steadily grows, urban amenities and transport frameworks (personal par will eventually prove redundant, signalling a shift to centralized parking. Depending on fluctuating supply and or nerve centers can serve as ‘home base’ for the vehicles. A hybrid live/work campus, designed to create, progress autonomous technology, takes the form of a spatially efficient vertical tower with subterranean veh constructed to serve a new model of mobility.

THE ISSUE: car and driver

PROGRAM: LIVE / WORK

THE VISION: an automated economy

PROGRAM: PARKING

“

A fleet of vehicles could operate as a personalized publictransportation system, picking people up and dropping them off independently ... They’d be cheaper and more efficient ... they’d use half the fuel and a fifth the road space of ordinary cars—and far more flexible than buses or subways. Streets would clear, highways shrink, parking lots turn to parkland ... We’re not trying to fit into an existing business model, we are just on such a different planet.

SERVICE RIBBON

PROGRAM: SUPPORT

“

SAN FRANCISCO: gridlocks and gadgets

HUMAN CIRCULATION

VEHICLE CIRCULATION

BUILD UP

BUILD DOWN

EXISTING LINKS

POTENTIAL

STANDARD

IDEAL

THE SITE: highway interchange

THE STRATEGY: zoned hubs

cted

A prototype

of San Franciscoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s autonomous at the forefront of a technological ; including faster, safer, cheaper, ovation and technology, how can

rking spaces, lots, and garages) d demand, a series of transit hubs support, and, most importantly, hicle storage: an urban prototype

DEPLOYMENT / TRAVEL / RE-CENTRALIZATION A KIT OF PARTS: structural core / plug-in components

PHYSICAL MODEL ASSISTANCE: Magda Magierski, Braham Berg, Reed Smith