Alleviating Homelessness in Chicago REVENUE GENERATING NODES
A revenue generating node which combines commerce and a support system to alleviate homelessness in Chicago.
Alleviating Homelessness in Chicago REVENUE GENERATING NODES
JUSTIN DeGROFF MASTER’S PROJECT IIT 2011
Homelessness in Chicago:
Self Sufficiency:
There are over 76,000 homeless citizens within the boundaries of Chicago, yet the city spends very little to remedy the situation, when compared to other cities. Of those 76,000 people 52% are homeless families, usually consisting of a mother and child.
The current shelter deficit can begin to be alleviated by creating a network of revenue generating and non-revenue generating shelter and support nodes which can be inserted within the existing infrastructure.
Currently there are about 11,000 shelter beds available. Of the people who have sought shelter, over 22% were turned away at least once in the last year.
How can we alleviate the shelter deficit without further straining the city’s budget?
Revenue generating nodes are located in areas with high commerce and access to public transportation. These nodes provide on-site vocational training, shelter, support and adjacencies to jobs outside the node. Non-revenue generating nodes are located in areas where the demand is greatest, keeping residents close to their families and to their established personal life. A well balanced network of the two nodal types has the opportunity to provide a substantial amount of housing and support while providing much needed vocational training - allowing residents to acquire jobs which can truly support an entire family.
A Revenue Generating Node:
Homeless Funding (2005):
to building operations San Francisco New York City Philadelphia Chicago
$102.78 $37.30 $10.93 $2.96
$$$ to other nodes cost per capita
shelter
wrap around support
to support + shelter programs threshold: community interaction equal ground
Homelessness in Chicago: Of the 73,656 homeless in Chicago:
76,656
Number of homeless in Chicago. (Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, 2006)
52% = 26,413 homeless children 12,007 homeless adults in families
permanent housing units interim housing emergency shelter beds transitional shelter
21,089 - calls received from domestic violence victims: 43% sought shelter
6,004 2,110 2,492 1,039
43% = 32,105 homeless single adults
11,645
Number of shelter beds in Chicago.
10% - homeless single adults are chronically homeless 25% - homeless single adults suffer from severe mental illness 26% - homeless single adults are struggling with substance abuse
10% = 7,243 homeless unaccompanied youths
22%
Number of shelter residents who were turned away at least once in 2006.
34% - homeless youths served by a shelter (2004) 60% - homeless youths reported being victimized or abused (2007) 15.7 - average age homeless youth becomes homeless for the first time (2007)
Homeless families often are made up of a mother and one or more children. Homelessness for women is incredibly dangerous - an experience fraught with sexual and physical abuse. The city only has 112 shelter beds specifically for domestically abused women - because of this these women often have to make the decision to go back to a violent home or live on an equally violent street.
Homeless single adults account for almost half of the homeless population and are mostly transitional homeless. The top stressors reported, leading to homelessness are: inability to pay rent, job loss, drug or alcohol problem, and family disagreement.
Unaccompanied homeless youths are between the ages of 13 and 21, and have run away usually due to domestic violence, sexual assault, pregnancy, conflict over sexual orientation, death or disability of parent, or discharged from the foster system. Currently in the system, there are very few beds specifically for homeless minors.
“10 year plan to end homelessness”: Homelessness became a recognizable city problem in the 1980’s. Throughout the last thirty years organizations have been able to fully grasp the cause, effects, and solutions to homelessness. Currently the agreed upon method to help someone off of the streets and back to stability is to immediately provide them with a permanent affordable residence, and work. Once these two main components of a person’s life are in place, they can then deal with any other problems they might be struggling with. This solution is called “Housing First”, and is template for the city if Chicago’s “10 year plan to end homelessness”.
Conventional Shelter System:
household crisis homelessness
emergency shelter (30 day ave.)
transitional shelter (up to 120 days)
second stage (up to two years)
permanent housing
The city’s “10 year plan to end homelessness” was signed by Mayor Daley in 2003. Seven years later the number of homeless in Chicago is around 74,000 people. The 10 year plan proposed reducing the number of temporary and transitional shelters, and to provide an adequate quantity of affordable permanent housing. Unfortunately, while many of the temporary and transitional shelters are being eradicated, the promised number of permanent housing which was to be provided is seriously short. participants often cycle through the programs multiple times The plan’s potential failure is based upon the numbers the city used to finance and secure financing. The budget for the plan is bases upon the latest point-in-time survey which puts the number of homeless in Chicago around 6,000. However, this number does not take into account all of the people that were not on visibly on the street or in a shelter at the time of the survey. This number also does not take into count the large number of residents that are on the brink of homelessness and will require immediate financial relief. Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, a not for profit, independent organization, is requesting that the city halts closures of transitional and emergency shelters until the city invests $50 million in permanents housing, $3 million in prevention assistance, $2 million in housing linked supportive services, and until there is a 25% shelter vacancy for at least 6 months.
Chicago’s “10 year plan to end homelessness”:
prevention
permanent housing
household crisis homelessness
interim housing
with wrap-around support services: substance abuse training health care employment case management legal services
Housing First: The direct costs of homelessness include tax payer dollars for the housings, social support system, food, jails, police work, medical care and clean up after the homeless. This is compounded with the loss of revenue, access to green space, and safety in neighborhoods where the homeless congregate. For those who are homeless, the cost of being homeless often means a stressful survival in a cold world where everyday activities in a home such as using the rest room and drinking a cocktail are illegal in public and must be done with shame and disgrace. In addition physical and mental health, family ties, and employment opportunities quickly disintegrate. For a child the toll of being homeless is compounded, and often permanent. Malnutrition and lack of sleep effect physical growth, while the lack of a stable or comfortable place to learn and play effects mental development. The most economically and socially beneficial way to alleviate homelessness is to cut it off at the source and prevent the loss of a home. This means spending more money, resources, and support up front. Prevention will almost always be more cost effective than allowing someone to cycle through the homelessness support system of emergency shelters, assistance, and services.
“Housing First” - Chicago case study: Chicago’s Street-to-Home Initiative, part of the “10 year plan to end homelessness” has successfully provided permanent housing to 154 homeless individuals. With continuous wrap around support 80% of the original 154 residents have remained stably housed after two years (2007) By immediately stabilizing factors such as housing and employment the support STHI’s support system is able to assist residences with physical and mental health, legal issues and public benefits. Also, the immediate housing of these individuals saved over $460,000 in tax dollars alone by minimizing emergency room visits, overnight hospital stays, and incarcerations.
Chicago’s “Street-to-Home” initiative for 154 homeless individuals: public service costs
supportive housing costs
pre-housing costs post-housing costs
$100
= Total amount of money it costs to keep a family in an emergency shelter per night, versus $23 a day to rent a subsidized NYC apartment at $700 a month. (2001)
$1,380,906 $47,498 $307,255
28% have increased their incomes emergency room visits decreased by 54% inpatient hospitalizations decreased by 52% arrests decreased by 78% days spent incarcerated decreased by 93% = public service cost savings of: $75,663 in inpatient hospitalizations $19,890 in mental health hospitalizations $151,020 in jail costs
$660,000
$967,255
$1,429,404
Becoming Homeless: Apart from issues of domestic violence, homeless families are often produced from a cycle of little education, low paying jobs, and unaffordable housing. Many families struggle just to make ends meet, and an unexpected emergency often times is what pushes these families over the brink. The least expensive way for to lessen family homelessness is to provide preventative funding and counseling.
education
594,000 Number of people between the ages of 25 - 54 in Illinois who do not have a high school diploma or GED.
=
employment
71.5% Percentage of jobs offering family sustaining wages in Illinois that requires at least an associates degree.
=
$
Zip Code Demographic Ranges:
$ %
housing
Percentage of household income spent on rent.
3%
Percentage of households below the poverty level.
0%
$19.03 Hourly rate needed in order to spend only 30% of your income on shelter - versus the $8.25 minimum wage.
1
1
1.5 Average household size.
Percentage of residents over the age of 25 without a high school diploma or GED.
1
0% 1
6%
9% 12% 15% 18% 21% 24% 27% 30% 33% 36% 39% 42% 45% 48%
3
5
6%
10% 14% 18% 22% 26% 30% 34% 38% 40%
3
5
7
7
9
9
11
11
13
13
15
15
17
17
19
21
23
25
19 20
1.96 2.42 2.88 3.34 3.8 3
5
7
9 10
11% 18% 25% 32% 39% 46% 53% 60% 67% 73% 3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19 20
Mapping Family Homelessness (right): The wrong combination of household income, cost of rent, education level, and household size can quickly devastate a family. These factors are mapped out per Chicago zip codes to illustrate the where homeless families might emerge. These locations need accessibility to shelter and support options. The mapping project assigns a value system to the ranges of each category, allowing the system to weight factors which have a stronger impact. A value of 5 indicates a little chance producing a homeless family, while a total value of 90 indicates an extremely high chance of producing a homeless family.
Percentage of residents with 80% a bachelor’s degree or higher. 1
64% 47% 31% 14% 5% 3
5
7
9 10
Total Value: 90 = Extremely high possibility of producing homeless families. 5 = Extremely low possibility of producing homeless families.
27
29 30
Homeless Demographics: 60601
$ $ %
60603
60605
$86,863 $104,393 $77,680
60606
60607
60608
$153,438 $56,574
$37,969
60611
60612
60613
60614 60614
60615
60616
60618
60619
60620
60621
60622
60623
60624
60626
$31,117 $81,339
$32,540
$64,188
$86,458
$40,030
$43,467
$56,938
$35,679
$37,683
$24,516
$58,773
$33,165
$22,300
$39,302
60609
60630
60631
60632
60634
60636
60637
$56,205 $67,744
$41,950
$56,826
$28,720
$29,534
60640
60641
60644
60647
$44,069 $48,457
$26,495
$48,430
60653
60656
60657
$23,711 $56,408
$72,242
60660
60661
Chicago
$41,441 $65,929 $45,734
17%
27%
24%
14%
23%
11%
11%
19%
27%
12%
15%
13%
22%
13%
19%
27%
15%
10%
9%
15%
10%
17%
22%
15%
11%
21%
13%
30%
11%
11%
14%
16%
27%
1%
16%
25%
32%
3%
36%
8%
3%
18%
25%
12%
15%
16%
39%
18%
29%
33%
18%
4%
2%
13%
4%
27%
33%
20%
8%
27%
20%
41%
4%
3%
15%
5%
15%
1.6
1.6
2.2
3.3
3.5
1.5
2.8
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.8
2.5
3.0
3.1
2.4
3.8
3.3
2.4
2.5
2.4
3.6
2.8
3.6
2.5
2.0
2.0
3.2
2.9
2.6
2.2
1.7
2.0
1.5
2.6
0%
9%
2%
18%
52%
49%
2%
39%
9%
6%
16%
32%
32%
21%
25%
39%
30%
56%
41%
25%
21%
15%
50%
24%
36%
27%
23%
28%
39%
73%
37%
18%
5%
17%
7%
28%
71%
20%
59%
80%
52%
9%
8%
73%
18%
61%
78%
45%
24%
23%
18%
14%
6%
35%
6%
6%
32%
22%
28%
7%
16%
5%
25%
38%
18%
7%
22%
12%
25%
73%
39%
72%
25%
22
24
23
10
38
72
74
20
67
23
18
41
61
42
42
45
71
43
70
73
43
31
27
55
35
59
59
41
40
63
60
76
30
19
35
24
45
13%
11%
14%
9%
0%
2%
1.6
1.9
1%
6%
Possibility of producing homeless families: 90 (high) 5 (low)
$
Average household income.
$
Percentage of household income spent on rent.
%
Percentage of households below the poverty level. Average household size. Percentage, age of 25 w/o a high school diploma or GED. Percentage with a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Homeless Demographics:
Existing Shelter Network: Cicero Ave.
Cicero Ave.
Damen Ave.
94
90
94
90
Damen Ave.
60626 60631
60660
60656
60640 60630 60641
Addison Ave.
60613
60618
Addison Ave.
60657 60647
60614 60634
60622
294 60644
60624
60611
60612
294
60601 60602 60603 60604
60607
Roosevelt Rd.
60605 60623
60608
60606 60661
Roosevelt Rd.
60616
60653 60632
60609 60615
51st St. 60636
5-25: Extremely low possibility of producing homeless families. 26-45: Medium possibility of producing homeless families.
60621
51st St.
60637
Existing transitional family housing 60620
60619
95th St.
Permanent family housing 95th St.
45-65: High possibility of producing homeless families. 66-90: Extremely high possibility of producing homeless families. State St.
State St.
Stake Holders:
Nodal Network: Cicero Ave.
Damen Ave.
not for profit organization
npo staff + social services
State St.
“We would like to be able to provide the very best care,support, and safety for those who enter the facility” Maximize visual and audio connections and access to both public and private spaces, as well as street frontage and other outdoor space.
“Our goal is to provide the best possible shelter, services, and community outreach programs, by creating a financially self-sufficient system. ”
“I would like to have a place to call "home", if only for a night, and the opportunity to get back on my feet.”
Maximize quantity of leasable, training and employment space while still providing the best quality shelter and support facilities.
Alleviate the stress and fear of being on the street with the privacy, comfort, and safety of a home.
Minimize utility costs and building maintenance costs.
revenue nodes: Roosevelt Rd.
$
commerce + vocational training
homeless families
Access to services and shelter for those in need at all times. Reinstate self-determination, and pride by enabling community outreach and common ground.
investors
less need =
Revenue generating programs which can allow for job training and employment.
neighborhood
"We want to ensure that our investment will be turned around within the agreed amount of time."
“We want our neighborhood to remain safe, inviting, and economically viable.” Layered and transparent entry sequences keep lines within the facility property and allow for visual safety.
Ensure that the leasable space and amenities within the building are as lucrative as possible to potential tenants.
shelter nodes: most need =
51st St.
$
government funding
Energize the street with ground floor shops and employment opportunities. lease holders
"We are looking to lease a space that will ensure business profitability, and provide a safe and comfortable environment to all of our employees and clients."
Create programs in which the neighborhood and homeless clients can find a common ground.
Generic Node Program:
Qualitative Parameters:
housing g
amenities entry sequence: d d) outdoor space ((courtyard) open lobbyy (12 sfpp) large desk g reception p day room (20 sfpp) men'ss toilet rm. rm (1 per 75 @ 65 sfpp) men women's ' toilet t il t rm. (1 per 75 @ 65 sfpp) f ) family toilet (65 sq. ft.)
permanent public housing: 2 bedroom apts.: living g space p kitchen full bathroom bedroom b d mechanical space closet total:
20 units
14,000 sf.
emergency housing: family beds (45 beds): 9 person dorm (60 p ( sfpp) pp) women s shower (1 per 8 @ 25 sfpp) women's women'ss locker rm. women rm (2x showers @ 50 sfpp) rm. (1 per 10 @ 65 sfpp) toilet rm iindividual di id l family ½ l shower h / toilet il rm. (65 sff each) h) total housing g
5 dorms 6 12 5 4 80± p people p
community art g galleryy / exhibition space: p exhibit space fund raiser space Community C i bene½ts: b ½ neighborhood short cut g desirable green g open p space p
2,700 , 150 600 325 260
sf. sf. sf sf. sf. sf f sf.
stuff: rm. (2 LF per person) secured storage rm kennel - dog d rm. (16 sq. ft. f per dog) d ) - dog run (60 sq. ft. per dog) - cat rm. - of½ce / storage rm. food: di i rm. (12 sfpp) f ) dinning kitchen (50% of dinning rm.)
g/p training pro¿t 100 20 3 3 2
60 people 4 4
1200 sf. 400 195 195 130
sf. sf sf sf. sf. f sf.
sf. 250 sf 80 240 50 100
sf. f sf. sf. sf.
errands: laundry rm. la ndr rm bank b k - counseling g / waiting g space p - secured space w// staff entrance health clinic - waiting rm. rm i ti rm. - examination - storage court rm. recreation: (50' x 50') 1/2 basketball (50 50 ) exercise i rm. locker rm. outdoor rec. space p
salon reception ti + rental t l - 20% service - 50%, 100 sfpp station g restroom - 20% break, storage, woodshop open shop of½ce f½ rest rm.
00 100 2
9 stations
1
education: youth study room (20 sfpp) children'ss reading rm. children rm (20 sfpp) t rm. (20 sfpp) f ) computer adult training / support rms. (20 sfpp)
f 2040 sf. 1020 sf.
50 50 4 2 1
2 rooms
1750 1750 200 130 100
sf sf. sf. sf f sf. sf. sf.
sf. 500 sf 200 sf. 100 sf.
3 rooms 1 room
10 20
200 300 50 300
sf. sf f sf. sf. sf.
sf 2500 sf. 1000 sf. f 1000 sf.
3-4 3 4 lounges lo nges 20
building maintenance building g engineer's g of½ce storage
sf 2500 sf. 80 sf. f 65 sf.
sf. per year) core + shell of¿ce space (20$ per sf l bb lobby - reception desk - elevator bank / core open ¾oor plate restrooms (1 per 25 at 65 sfpp) rm. mechanical rm
100 sf. 50 sf.
50 4 2
400 350 5000 260 200
sf. sf. sf. sf sf. sf. sf
1 1 1 3 12 5 1 1 1 6
100 100 100 450 900 300 300 200 200 300
sf. sf sf. sf f sf. sf. sf. sf. sf sf. sf sf. sf. f sf.
npo of¿ces program organization (100 sf. sf of½ce) building management (100 sf. sf of½ce) ffund d raising i i (100 sf. f of½ce) f½) management (150 sf. of½ce each) case workers / supervision (shared 150 sf. of½ces) p social workers (60 sf. each - work stations) conference rm. rm (10 person) pantry storage / ½les ½l / copy ¾ex workstations (50 sf. each)
25 25 35 4 rooms
600 sf. f
500 500 700 1200
sf. sf sf sf. sf. f sf.
personal space: non denominational sacred space library total amenities
300 sf. f 900 sf. 300 sf.
day care
total training / pro¿t fun: lounge communal lo nge / comm nal space art rm. (30 ( sfpp) f )
f 300 sf. 1300 650 sf. 130 sf.
facility operations 200
19,035 , sf. day care: indoor play space (secured) (35 sfpp) outdoor place space (secured)(75 SFPP / 2) kid' restroom kid's adult restroom of½ce
restaurant i dinning di i area - 13-16 3 6 sfpp f main kitchen - 1/2 sf of dinning area restrooms (1 ( per p 75 at 65 sfpp) pp)
17,360 sf.
program p g ttotal: t l 48 48,350 ,350 SF
11,955 sf.
The constant physical and mental stress weighing down on someone who is homeless, due to worries about food, shelter, personal safety, sleep, health, loved ones, money, and comfort is unimaginable.
Stress Reduction, Safety, Trust and Comfort:
The qualitative aspects of the node design should maximize stress reduction while providing a constant sense of safety, trust, and comfort to its users. This can be done by creating a multi-sensory environment which is a translation of the natural world.
motion
Stress reduction has been shown to occur when a person under a great amount of stress views a natural scene. Roger Ulrich believes that "the roles of a natural contents and visual characteristics in this process (viewing a scene) have evolutionary underpinnings...Humans are biologically prepared to respond rapidly and positively to environmental features that signal possibilities for survival".
serendipity
Ulrich’s studies in health care prove that viewing and experience nature can have on an undeniably positive effect on a person's metal and physical well being. Built spaces that embodies the essence of the natural world should then too have restorative properties, which when placed throughout a person daily path can have a positive influence. The following qualitative parameters, when working together, have the potential to create a multi-sensory environment which can begin to reduce stress, while providing a safe and comfortable living environment: motion, serendipity, freeness, prospect and refuge, and enticement.
freeness
prospect + refuge
enticement
South Loop Figure Ground: L
L
L
Congress Parkway
A 320’ by 140’ (44,000 sq. ft.) city owned lot is selected as the site for the first revenue generating node within the network.
L
The site’s immediate adjacency to the CTA loop provides access from the neighborhoods with the most need, which are located to west and the south of Chicago’s downtown.
L
This location is also an area of rapidly growing commerce and will not only easily be able to support the node’s self-sufficiency requirements, but will also provide access to the area’s countless job opportunities.
9th Street
L
L
Roosevelt Road
L
State Street
Roosevelt Road
9th Street
200’ State Street
N
Revenue Node Diagram in Site:
market rate apartments
$$$
subsidized permanent housing
rotate me
$
State Street
transitional housing support services
$$ $$$$
vocational services retail
9th Street
200’
N
9th Street
other $ tonodes
vocational training
State Street
11th Street
Revenue Node Diagram in Action:
Sculpt Mass:
The revenue generating node diagram is expanded from lot line to lot line in order to maximize the site’s retail and vocational training potential. Residents and support functions are brought off the street level immediately, while a housing tower rises above the site taking advantage of consistent exposures while not over shadowing the rest of the program mass.
Excess program mass is cut away, maximizing each floor’s access to day lighting and outdoor space.
St. th 11
St. 9th t. State S
A limited amount of the ground floor is cut away allowing parallel pedestrian access to second floor vocational programs.
Apply Camoflauge:
Extend Edges:
The mass is wrapped with a facade designed to bring anonymity to the program and to the residents.
The edges of the facade are extended up, past the mass, creating protective parapet walls. The parapet walls are highest at locations where the users will desire feelings of enclosure, safety and anonymity.
Existing Facade Language:
balconies glazing in-fill
opaque in-fill structural bays 9th Street
State Street
11th Street
Existing Facade Language:
Anonymous Facade:
The developer driven facades on State Street, adjacent to the site, all have four elements in common: a grid of structural bays, opaque in-fill, glazing in-fill and balconies (often at residential programs).
By layering the four facade elements into two separate planes, a system is created which can handle all of the programmatic and user needs consistently along all four exposures.
The consistent use of this language provides a predictable rhythm and experience, both on the interior and exterior.
The layered facade allows for a gradation of privacy within the building while handling sun shading and residential balconies in a consistent fashion. The use of the structural bay and typical facade elements continues the rhythm of State Street while bringing a certain degree of anonymity to the program and residents inside.
structural bays opaque in-fill glazing in-fill structural bays
balcony (often perforated)
perforated panel glazing in-fill opaque in-fill
Gradation: The juxtaposition of seemingly contradictory programs, user groups, and site variables is handled through gradation, at various scales, from program adjacencies to facade densities. This theme throughout the building allows the residents to experience a gradual transition from the street to self-sufficiency at their pace by allowing them to navigate their own exposure to other residents,to other building users groups, and to the neighboring community.
Facade Gradation: 0%
100%
privacy
State Street Elevation Looking East
Unfolded Camoflauge:
Section Looking East:
Ground Floor Plan: Leasable Retail Space: (includes restaurant + day care): 29,070 sf. X $30 per sf. per year = +$872,100 Day Care Operations: 75 children at a 70% occupancy = 53 children 53 children X $35.25 per day X 260 working days = $485,745 $487,745 - Expenses (50% of profit to cover food, rent, payroll, utilities, ect.) = +$243,873 loading
day care - 5,350 sf (75 children)
9th Street
L tracks above
market rate apartments
down to parking permanent subsidized housing
storefront for homelessness chapel
temporary supportive housing
lobby for homeless families lobby market rate apts.
retail
parking
gym / dining + theater
20’
lobby for vocational school + office space
leasable retail space 3,430 sf
leasable retail space 4,240 sf
leasable retail space 4,300 sf
leasable retail space 4,350 sf
State Street
restaurant 7,400 sf
20’
N
lobby for homeless families
Third Floor Plan:
Profitable Vocational Space: 19,900 sf. X $20 per sf. per year = +$379,000
Leasable NPO Starter Office Space: 17,050 sf. X $20 per sf. per year = +$341,000
tailor + cleaners vocational space - 3,950 sf
salon + massage vocational space - 6,350 sf
L tracks
leasable office space - 5,800 sf
day care outdoor space
culinary vocational space - 8,600 sf
outdoor courtyard children’s garden
leasable office space - 5,850 sf
20’
N
vocational classrooms
npo offices
leasable office space - 5,400 sf
theater
kitchen
gym + dinning space
20’
N
Second Floor Plan:
Fourth Floor Plan:
Fifth Floor Plan:
Wrap Around Support Space: The wrap around support costs are factored into the transitional housing costs.
Transitional Family Shelter (Floors 5 + 6): Each of the two transitional shelter floor can accommodate up to 13 families or about 39 residents. 39 people x 75$ per person, per day x 360 days = -$1,012,500 (This costs factors in running the wrap around support space)
reception + waiting rm.
exterior courtyard
npo offices + caseworkers
theater
fitness rm. + locker rm.
transitional family shelter
exterior courtyard
enclosed mechanical space
court rm. health clinic
library
rec. rm.
20’
20’
N
class rms. + computer rm.
N
financial counseling + banking
A Kit of Parts:
Sixth Floor Plan:
The transitional housing floors are designed for ultimate flexibility in order to best serve the unknowns that the shelter is bound to navigate. The floor plate is grided into 80 square foot squares with an array of 6 permanent toilet + shower rooms.
Transitional Family Shelter (Floors 5 + 6): Each of the two transitional shelter floor can accommodate up to 13 families or about 39 residents.
This grid allows a system of demountable partitions and modular furniture to be set up especially for each family type entering the shelter. The approach not only best serves the residents inside their rooms, but also outside their rooms, in the common corridor, by creating informal meeting and play spaces.
39 people x 75$ per person, per day x 360 days = -$1,012,500 (This costs factors in running the wrap around support space)
transitional family shelter
chapel terrace
8’-6”
8’-6”
80 sf.
20’
N
chapel
Seventh Floor Plan:
Ninth Floor Plan:
Subsidized Permanent Housing (Floors 7 -8):
Market Rate Apartments (Floors 9 -14):
16 total apartments with an average apartment size of 780 sf. $8.25 min. wage X 40 hours X 4 weeks X 30% = 400$ per month ($.51 per sf., per month) 16 apartments X $400 a month X 12 months = +$76,800
48 total apartments with an average apartment size of 660 sf. 31,750 sf. X $1.75 per sf. per month x 12 months = +$666,750
N
20’
20’
N
market rate apartments with balcony spaces
subsidized permanent housing with access to wrap around support
Financial Analysis:
31,750 sf
Market Rate Housing (Floors 9-14)
$666,750
M. Rate Housing: Perm. Housing: Vocational: Day Care Center: Retail:
+$666,750 +$ 76,800 +$719,000 +$407,500 +$872,100
Total Profit:
$2,742,150
Support + Shelter: -$2,025,000 Subsidized Permanent Housing (Floors 7 +8)
Profit into nodal network:
12,480 sf
$717,150
$76,800 Transitional Housing (Floors 7 +8)
9,160 sf
49,620 sf
Wrap Around Support (Floors 3-6, serves 126 residents)
-2,025,000 35,950 sf
Ground Floor Retail (Floor 1)
$719,750
29,070 sf $407,500 (day care) $872,100
Vocational Training (Floors 2 + 3)
Appendix
Inhabitable Facade: Inhabitable facade explores thickening the facade in order to provide the required shelter space while being able to maximize the leasable floor plate square footage.
State Street Elevation, Looking East
Alley Elevation, Looking West
Inhabitable Structure: The unique opportunity for the juxtaposition of large span public spaces and small personal space encouraged the exploration of using the depth of the large spanning members as an area to house the required shelter program, again freeing up the floor plates for public support spaces and leasable, revenue generating, space.
Centrality: Unlike the previous two explorations, both with a dispersed shelter program, centrality focuses on a vertical gradation of program monitored by a central tower of support program which is intrinsically connected to all other program. The three separate towers increases desirable north / south solar orientation.
State Street Elevation, Looking East
Shell: Shell begins to define the required quantitative relationships between revenue generating and non-revenue generating programs. This model also explores safety through enclosure, and anonymity.
Los Angeles Mission
Free Park-inn
location: architect:
location: any urban environment architect: Office for Unsolicited Architecture completed: competition
Los Angeles Scott MacGillivary Virginia Tanzmann completed: 1992 “The Los Angeles Mission treats the homeless not as an anonymous collective of people with problems that need to be overcome, but rather as individuals engaged in a process of education.� They have formalized this process of education into what they call the Urban Training Institute.
ground floor
Participation in the training program takes about two years, but leaves the participants with the skills, training, potential employment, independence and confidence needed to get back on their feet. From 1992 - 2002 over two thousand people have graduated from the Urban Training Institute.
Free Park-inn is an exploration in using existing space to temporarily house homeless. Spaces such as fire escapes, alleyways, sides of buildings, and roof tops are in abundance throughout the urban environment, but hardly utilized. Free Park-inn focuses on the use of parking garages to house homeless at night when the garage is not being used.
The mission it’s self is highly structured and formalized with many of the amenities a small college campus might have.
second floor
third floor
Bibliography: 120 Days. Wang, Marian. The Chicago Reporter
www.city-data.com
2009 Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness. U.S. Conference of Mayors.
www.rentrange.com
Architecture of Fear. Nan, ed. Ellin. Princeton Architectural Press, 1st edition. 1997.
Interview: Michael Hermann, Chicago House
Biophilic Design, The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Stephen R. Kellert, Judith H. Heerwagen, Martin L. Mador. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey. 2008.
www.huduser.org - Schedule B
The Chicago Alliance for the Homeless. www.thechicagoalliance.com
Program:
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless. www.chicagohomeless.com Designing for the Homeless, Architecture That Works. Davis, Sam. University of California Press. Berkeley. 2004 The Facts Behind the Faces. Chicago Coalition for the Homeless. 2008. Getting Housed, Staying Housed - A Collaborative Plan to End Homelessness. Chicago Continuum of Care. If You Lived Here: The City in Art, Theory, & Social Activism. Rosler, Martha. New Press. 1998.
Architectural Graphic Standard, Student Edition. Brassler, ed. Bruce. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2000 City of Chicago Building Code. City of Chicago. 2010. http://www.entrepreneur.com/startingabusiness/businessideas/startupkits/article79550.html http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_doc.php?d=3916 http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/earlychildhood/forms/floorplansquarefootagereport.pdf IL Dept. of Human Resouces - Center Pay Rates
Project #4 - Free Park-inn, Addressing the Homeless. Journal. Issue 14. 2007 Images Reckoning with Homelessness. Hopper, Kim. Cornell University Press. 2003. There’s No Place Like a Home, Chicago’s Plan to End Homelessness - State of the Plan. City of Chicago. 2007. Unaccompanied Homeless Youth in Illinois: 2005. Johnson, Timothy P. Graf, Ingrid. Survey Research Laboratory. University of Illinois at Chicago. December, 2005 Unaddressed, Why Chicago’s 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness Will Not Work. Chicago Coalition for the Homeless. www.factfinder.census.gov
Tomas Castelazo, http://commons.wikimedia.org; blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com; archicentral.com; fapyd.unr.edu.ar; pisoonline.com; intbau.org; commons.wikimedia.com; modresdes.blogspot.com