Lafayette Greens Compuware & Ken Weikal javier pastor gutiĂŠrrez
DETROIT’S DOWNTOWN
DETROIT’S DOWNTOWN A productible garden that also works as link of public space, green zone and square of bussinessman socializing .
DETROIT’S DOWNTOWN A productible garden that also works as link of public space, green zone and square of bussinessman socializing .
? Lafayette Office Building (1923-2009)
1700 m2
Edible-social landscape
DETROIT’S DOWNTOWN A productible garden that also works as link of public space, green zone and square of bussinessman socializing .
? Lafayette Office Building (1923-2009)
1700 m2
Edible-social landscape
The project tries to make aware people about environmental conscience and showing how to work in a cooperative effort between private and public sectors.
CONTEXT
CONTEXT
The Detroit decline . Brief history.
CONTEXT 1950
The Detroit decline . Brief history. -Lively and prosper city -Automotive industry
- 1.8 million inhabitants
CONTEXT 1950
The Detroit decline . Brief history. -Lively and prosper city -Automotive industry
- 1.8 million inhabitants 1960
-High taxes downtown for small bussiness -Capital flight to suburbs
Dormitory town
CONTEXT 1950
The Detroit decline . Brief history. -Lively and prosper city -Automotive industry
- 1.8 million inhabitants 1960
-High taxes downtown for small bussiness
1967
-Social controversial, disturbance
-Capital flight to suburbs
-Start of degradation
Dormitory town Lack of security
CONTEXT 1950
The Detroit decline . Brief history. -Lively and prosper city -Automotive industry
- 1.8 million inhabitants 1960
-High taxes downtown for small bussiness
1967
-Social controversial, disturbance
1970 2000
-Motor companies moved to Asia (cheaper labor costs) -High unemployment -Closed workshops -Lack of investors Migrational movements -Abandonded houses 700.000 inhabitants nowadays -Empty plots
-Capital flight to suburbs
Dormitory town Lack of security
-Start of degradation
CONTEXT 1950
The Detroit decline . Brief history. -Lively and prosper city -Automotive industry
- 1.8 million inhabitants 1960
-High taxes downtown for small bussiness
1967
-Social controversial, disturbance
1970 2000
-Motor companies moved to Asia (cheaper labor costs) -High unemployment -Closed workshops -Lack of investors Migrational movements -Abandonded houses 700.000 inhabitants nowadays -Empty plots
2008
-Capital flight to suburbs
Dormitory town Lack of security
-Start of degradation
-Corruption scandal
CONSEQUENCES
CONSEQUENCES Population and educational problems
CONSEQUENCES Population and educational problems
61%
loss 1950-2012
CONSEQUENCES Population and educational problems
61%
loss 1950-2012
CONSEQUENCES Population and educational problems
61%
loss 1950-2012
Access and mobility problems
CONSEQUENCES Population and educational problems
61%
loss 1950-2012
Access and mobility problems
CONSEQUENCES Excessive abandonment problem
CONSEQUENCES Excessive abandonment problem
CONSEQUENCES Excessive abandonment problem
Infrastructure degradation problem
CONSEQUENCES Excessive abandonment problem
Infrastructure degradation problem
CONSEQUENCES Excessive abandonment problem CONTEXT ANALYSIS SAN ANTĂ“N
DETROIT
Similar premises before the project
Infrastructure degradation problem
Unemployment
Capital flight
Loss of population Town dormitory
Abandonded houses Empty plots
Low commerce
Lack of security Marginality
AGENTS ECONOMICAL
-Compuware Corporation.The main investor. An software company placed in downtown
Detroit. They wanted to create a outside space where their workers could meet out their timetables and reinforce the teamwork.
-Peter Karmanos Jr. The founder of Compuware Corporation with addition knowledge as a master gardener.
CONSTRUCTION
-Kenneth Weikal Landscape Architecture designed the project. The
studio try to improve degradated urban sites with easy and inexpensive design interventions in the Detroit area.
-Tooles Contracting Group was the general contractor.They dedicate mostly in fit-
ting out the plot .
-Gwen Meyer is the manager and coordinator of the garden full time. -Megan Heeres manages the Community Art and Garden Program Manager. She also collaborates in Compuware encouraging social activities to the workers.
-Compuware’s Urban Green Group volunteers -Zeimet Wozniak & Associates.
A local company of Civil Engineering and Permitting got the built permission of the City Council .
-Michigan Wildflower Farm produced thousands
of transplants for the garden.
AGENTS THIRD PART BENEFICIARIES
-Gleaners Community Food Bank. This food bank association of Southeastern Michigan recieves monthly the exccess of production.
-Alternatives for Girls. A nonprofit association serving homeless and high-risk
girls and young women, they also get the exccess. ACTORS
-Detroit downtown residents. Anyone can take part in the garden. Besides of the ma-
terial benefits they get, their style of urban life have been improved.
-Detroit downtown workers. They now count with a relaxing spaces to disconnect with the working monotony. In addition the community work helps in affective relations and have a positive effect on the company work teams.
-Art designers. They now have a special area in the garden to show their pieces and
works. Monthly Megan Heeres contact with them and organizes expositions of their artworks.
SUCCESS
SUCCESS
800
KG/YEAR
SUCCESS
800
KG/YEAR
+1000
VOLUNTEERS
SUCCESS
800
KG/YEAR
+1000
VOLUNTEERS
+2500
working hours
SUCCESS
SUCCESS
INTEGRATION SORROUNDINGS -V shape -Similar image’s downtown -Optimal sound exposure -Visuals from buildings nearby
SUCCESS
FLOW MOVEMENTS -Obligated path -Transverselly movements -Big lavender promenade -Stancial zones on the way
SUCCESS
ART CHILD.PR
SHEDS/TALKS
PROGRAMME ORGANIZATION -Aside programme -Local artist expositions -One day week children activities -Talks/conferences grownment
FAILURES
FAILURES -Security : would have preferred to leave the site open, but the City Coucil insisted
on putting a fence. The garden locked up at night and most weekends, and camera surveillance 24 hours
-Reduced timetable: the host volunteer hours are only from 11 am to 1 pm, and just Tuesday , Wednesday and Thursday. No opening at weekends.
FAILURES -Security : would have preferred to leave the site open, but the City Coucil insisted
on putting a fence. The garden locked up at night and most weekends, and camera surveillance 24 hours
-Reduced timetable: the host volunteer hours are only from 11 am to 1 pm, and just Tuesday , Wednesday and Thursday. No opening at weekends.
CONCLUSIONS -Including new group of population.With the proximity to the city centre,bussiness people, creating place for socializing each other would improve the neighborhood image.
-Social labour. Promoting environmental and nutritional education, donating food to third parts associations. Cultural aspect, from children workshops to local art expositions
-The construction of the garden can be a beggining of co-working of all the neighbors community and in our case the proportion of handyman or self-sufficient workers is really high. -It can also be a great activator for collaborating with all the multiple associations the neighborhood has and involve them with the garden activities. -By regenerating an abandoned plot, the neighbors get an extra social space and with the co-working inside reinforce the community relation between them.