Habitation Regimes

fold here

fold here

fold out flap

5.5 “

1.35 “

140 mm

34 mm

adjustable flap

5.5 “

This book documents work from the Arch_201 design studio conducted by Julian Varas at the Department of Architecture, College of Architecture, Art, and Planning, Cornell University, during the fall semester of 2007. It contains a selection of student work, representing projects and research articles by Evan Ahn, Thalia Chrousos, Matthew Drake, Elizabeth Hollywood, Tatum Lau, Christopher Parschalk, Winnie Poon, Lorena Quintana, Isaac Sharkan, Julio Torres-Santana, Eric Suntup, and Yao Wang.

varas.julian@gmail.com

Printed and bound in Ithaca, NY

After Miesuse (2006) and Architecturalisms (2007), Habitation Regimes is the closing chapter in a series of pedagogic experiments that seek to investigate the evolving relationship between the notions of diagram and type in architecture.

Whereas the diagram as a design instrument has acquired a renewed vitality in the last two decades, its ability to engender consolidated organizational patterns has emerged much more recently as a field of endeavor. In turn, typological thinking has been is stripped its normative implications, becoming a template for innovation rather than a frozen repertoire of architectural responses.

Having addressed - in the previous stages - the issues of proliferation and transposition of qualities through diagrammatic techniques, the present section in the series focuses on the production of innovative typologies as an extrapolation of specific urban conditions. The stage for the exploration is set in the area of Collegetown, adjacent to the campus of Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.

m

urbanis p u m o tt

All texts by Julian Varas except where noted

bo

Book layout: Julian Varas and Aldana Calligo Cover image: Elizabeth Hollywood

Spring 2008 edited

by ju lián

varas

trim here

5.5 “

1.35 “ 34 mm

fold

fold

fold

fold here

trim here

5.5 “

180 mm

Julian Varas (1971) is an architect, theorist, and educator based in Ithaca and Buenos Aires. Since finishing his post graduate studies at the Architectural Association in London, he has developed an interest in cross disciplinary practice, bridging the gaps between architecture, landscape, and urban design. Working across platforms, technologies, cultures, and languages, his research interrogates contemporary culture while attempting to destabilize the ever expanding base of the architectural discipline.

Julian received his professional degree at the University of Buenos Aires, and has worked and taught internationally, including at the Architectural Association, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich, and Cornell University.

7.08”

180 mm

trim here

habitation regimes

7.08”

trim here

fold here

fold here

fold out flap

5.5 “

1.35 “

140 mm

34 mm

adjustable flap

5.5 “

180 mm

Julian Varas (1971) is an architect, theorist, and educator based in Ithaca and Buenos Aires. Since finishing his post graduate studies at the Architectural Association in London, he has developed an interest in cross disciplinary practice, bridging the gaps between architecture, landscape, and urban design. Working across platforms, technologies, cultures, and languages, his research interrogates contemporary culture while attempting to destabilize the ever expanding base of the architectural discipline.

Julian received his professional degree at the University of Buenos Aires, and has worked and taught internationally, including at the Architectural Association, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich, and Cornell University.

This book documents work from the Arch_201 design studio conducted by Julian Varas at the Department of Architecture, College of Architecture, Art, and Planning, Cornell University, during the fall semester of 2007. It contains a selection of student work, representing projects and research articles by Evan Ahn, Thalia Chrousos, Matthew Drake, Elizabeth Hollywood, Tatum Lau, Christopher Parschalk, Winnie Poon, Lorena Quintana, Isaac Sharkan, Julio Torres-Santana, Eric Suntup, and Yao Wang.

varas.julian@gmail.com

Printed and bound in Ithaca, NY

habitation regimes

7.08”

trim here

After Miesuse (2006) and Architecturalisms (2007), Habitation Regimes is the closing chapter in a series of pedagogic experiments that seek to investigate the evolving relationship between the notions of diagram and type in architecture.

Whereas the diagram as a design instrument has acquired a renewed vitality in the last two decades, its ability to engender consolidated organizational patterns has emerged much more recently as a field of endeavor. In turn, typological thinking has been is stripped its normative implications, becoming a template for innovation rather than a frozen repertoire of architectural responses.

Having addressed - in the previous stages - the issues of proliferation and transposition of qualities through diagrammatic techniques, the present section in the series focuses on the production of innovative typologies as an extrapolation of specific urban conditions. The stage for the exploration is set in the area of Collegetown, adjacent to the campus of Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.

m

urbanis p u m o tt

All texts by Julian Varas except where noted

bo

Book layout: Julian Varas and Aldana Calligo Cover image: Elizabeth Hollywood

Spring 2008 edited

by ju lián

varas

5.5 “

1.35 “ 34 mm

fold

fold

fold

fold here

trim here

5.5 “

Student Units

HABITATION REGIMES BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Units

The studio would like to thank:

Paul Andersen, Leyre Asensio, AndrĂŠ Bideau, Lily Chi, Homin Kim, Branden Hookway, Mohsen Mostafavi, Ciro Najle, David Salomon, Aurel von Richthofen, and John Zissovicci, for the helpful criticism and support throughout the development of the semester. Thanks to Milton Curry for providing valuable documentation and photos of Collegetown, Ithaca. The publication of this book has been possible thanks to the generous support of the Chairman of the Department of Architecture.

This page and the previous one: Evan Ahn

HABITATION REGIMES BOTTOM-UP URBANISM

Architecture 201 Fall 2007 Architecture, Art, and Planning CORNELL UNIVERSITY

Edited By Julian Varas

8

STUDIO BRIEF

...................

framework 多HOG RI RSHUDWLRQ themes and phasing submission details

jv jv jv jv

URBAN PORTFOLIO chronology of collegetown typology sampler planning regulations program demographics

PROJECTS

12 14 16 21

.............

lq / tc / es wp / yw ea / is jt / eh / tl md / cp

md lq eh es yw is

31

32 70 84 110 120

................ ......

typology scrambler equalize & retain integrating networks sensitive surfaces interiorizer multidirectional exposure

11

145

148 174 188 218 234 262

FRAGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 community maker solar sculptor landscape enfolding

ea tc tl

288 292 298

9

FRAMEWORK

Recent experiences such as Bilbao, ICA Boston, etc, clearly demonstrate arFKLWHFWXUHœV DELOLW\ WR LQÀXHQFH XUEDQ OLIH HVSHFLDOO\ ZKHQ ZRUNLQJ DW WKH VHUvice of powerful cultural institutions. This studio asks whether a similar impact be achieved through more basic, minute, and localized, interventions on the residential fabric of a city. Furthermore, it suggests that this operation can generate a more robust urbanism, given that it caters directly to the ctiy’s fundamental progammatic brick: residence.

The studio has tried to address these questions during the semester by developing strands of residential proto-types: devices of urban interaction and lifestyle production. Suspending preoccupation with issues of expression, character, or atmosphere , the investigation has focused on the diagrammatics of DUFKLWHFWXUDO LQWHULRULW\ 0RELOL]HG E\ DQ LPSHUDWLYH WR SURGXFH ³¿WQHVV´ EHtween form and a generic user, the tradition of modernist collective residential architecture (which remains our main inherited body of knowledge) generated HI¿FLHQW VROXWLRQV ZLWKLQ D QRUPDWLYH HFRQRP\ RI UHSHWLWLRQ DQG SDWWHUQHG regularity.

12

7KH VWXGLR KDV GHYLVHG WHFKQLTXHV RI IRUPDO SURGXFWLRQ WKDW VSHFL¿FDOO\ FKDOlenge those notions, in an attempt to generate non-linear variation and a-periodic organizational logics. The underlying quest of the semester has been to raise the threshold of complexity (i.e: difference) established by the modernLVW OHJDF\ \HW WR SUHVHUYH LWV RYHUDOO DPELWLRQ WR LQÀXHQFH EHKDYLRXU WKURXJK the engineering of material organization. This was pursued by breeding innoYDWLYH UHVLGHQWLDO W\SHV ZKHUH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO YDULHW\ DQG ³H[FHVV´ VSDFH DUH generated in order to absorb unforeseen activities or modes of socialization.

On the background, the studio raises the question of what constitutes a progressive agenda in contemporary architecture, and suggests that such position can evolve neither from a project of pure self-expression, nor from an inWHOOLJHQW DQG FRJQL]DQW ³RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DSSHDUHQFHV´ ,W DGYDQFHV WKH QRWLRQ WKDW D SURJUHVVLYH SRVLWLRQ LQ DUFKLWHFWXUH PXVW UHO\ RQ D ÀXLG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ and incorporation of the discipline’s exteriority, in what could be termed a project of radical heteronomy.

Today, a renewed form of empiricism is gaining ground in architecture theory, especially among the second generation of complex-surface architects. This position, articulated primarily by Jeffrey Kipnis may represent an attack RQ DUFKLWHFWXUH DV D FRJQLWLYH SURMHFW DVVXPLQJ WKDW LWV PRVW VLJQL¿FDQW SHUIRUPDQFH LV WKURXJK VHQVDWLRQ WKDW LV QRQ UDWLRQDO DQG QRQ GLVFXUVLYH +HQFH LWV LQWHUHVW LQ FRQFHSWV VXFK DV ³DWPRVSKHUH´ ZKLFK RSHUDWH WKURXJK VHductive affection rather than exposition or argumentation. This position’s weakness lies in its return to an idealized concept of experience, one which is pure and immediate.

13

FIELD OF OPERATION

Situated on east hill, immediately south of the gorge, Collegetown is a small but dense urban area made up of mid-rise buildings, which houses and serves WKH VWXGHQW SRSXODWLRQ RI &RUQHOO 8QLYHUVLW\ 6LQFH WKH PLG œV VLJQL¿FDQW public and private investment has transformed the face or Collegetown, turning it into a small urban hub driven by the needs of CU students for social exchange and material sustenance. As an interface between the City of Ithaca and CU Campus, however, the northern tip of Collegetown is forced to congregate, within the space of just a few blocks, everything that campus urbanism has strived to obliterate. Effectively challenging Cornell’s original aspirations to isolation and retreat, the growth of the area has demonstrated the inviability of the original model in the context of contemporary lifestyles and modes of knowledge production. On the contrary, by offering a sudden burst of activitiy, Collegetown has become a transition zone between low-density areas to the south and the cleansed atmosphere of the Campus. Yet, its success at generating intensity is still very limited. Lacking a momentum of its own, the area has not been able to articulate an urban agenda, beyond its parasitic relationship with Cornell campus.

14

The studio projects sought to reformulate the current predicament of Collegetown by recourse to residential forms of asynchronous temporality: ie. mixed up, intertwined, overlapping and mutually reinforcing systems of use, sharing and tenure. We pursued the generation of a more complex urbanity by inserting residential architectures as a platform for social and programmatic experimentation.

15

THEMES AND PHASING 1. URBAN PORTFOLIO. (Two weeks / Due Friday September 14th )

Teams of two or three students each will collaborate in the production of an urban portfolio that will contain images, plans, quantitative information, and diagrams, about a selection of blocks in Collegetown. The construction of the portfolio will serve to identify sites with potential for development, as well as providing an excuse to introduce the software packages that we will be using throughout the semester.

Each team will have to contribute a section of the portfolio, which will cover the following topics: A. Historical development B. Buildings typologies (built footprints, imagery, construction) E. Planning regulations (massing, siting, land-use restrictions, etc.)

F. Programs and uses (existing) G. Demographics (population total, density, ages, etc.)

H. Public space.

C. Property subdivision D. Topography

References: Costa Iberica, and Metacity/Datatown, MVRDV AMO Atlas, in Content, pp 470-471 Hosoya-Schaefer maps. http://www.hosoyaschaefer.com/pdf/hosoyaschaefer051223.pdf

16

17

2. TOPOGRAPHIES OF INHABITATION

(positive / negative massing constraints)

(5 ½ weeks / Due on the mid-term review, Oct. 17th)

During this phase, we will investigate the existing planning constraints and confront them with our urban and architectural agendas. We will use Autocad modelling to visualize buildable envelopes and propose forms of occupation of selected urban plots. We will envision ways to modify the envelopes and to excavate usable space inside through subtractive techniques. This exercise will be initiated digitally. Later, the digital model will be utilized to generate vertical and horizontal sections as well as unfolded surfaces, from which a wooden or plastic formwork will be produced.

Suggested procedure: - Choose a plot that you would like to work on from the designated study area.

8WLOL]H WKH 3RUWRIROLR JHQHUDWHG E\ WKH VWXGLR LQ WKH ÂżUVW SKDVH WR MXVWLI\ \RXU choice by pointing at the potentials of the site and the value of the existing structures.

- Model the terrain and represent the maximum buildable envelope rendering it three dimensionally. Generate plans and sections at different levels to describe the space.

- Investigate ways to partition the solid into a number of sub-units. This num-

18

ber will vary from project ot project but it is estimated that it should remain with a range of 2 to 5 units.

- Generate drawings of the surfaces that delimit each zone - Determine local criteria for thickening those surfaces differentially according to issues of your choice (structural, circulatory, programmatic, etc ).

- Determine criteria for further differentiation of the solid primitives by WHFKLQTXHV VXFK DV LQĂ€DWLRQ WRUTXLQJ GHĂ€HFWLRQ EOXUULQJ WHVVHOODWLRQ HWF Final output of this phase: 1) A model at scales between 1:100 / 1:200

'LJLWDO SUHVHQWDWLRQ ÂżOHV LQFOXGLQJ GHWDLOHV GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH JHRPHWU\ RI the project in plans and sections. Rendering and wireframe images of the digital models, as well as high quality photographs of the the physical models.

References: The Metropolis of Tomorrow, by Hugh Ferris. (published in 1939) House Y2K, and Agadir Hotel and Convention Center, OMA / Rem Koolhaas.

Zollverein School of Management and Design, and Kitagata Housing Project , SANAA (Sejima and Nishizawa) Effenaar Cultural Center and Ypenburg Pation Houses, MVRDV.

19

3. TECTONICS

(skin/structure)

The last phase of the studio will focus on the exploration of the tectonic expression of the projects. The process of materially determining the form of the building will be carried to a level of further precision by establishing constraints that incorporate structural, environmental or visual control concerns. The previously generated programmatic and circulatory diagrams will be evaluated to check their structural consistency. Interior-exterior relationships will be assessed in order to create envelope and skinning techniques. The buildings will be represented and measured using conventional orthographic projection in plans, sections and elevations.

20

FINAL SUBMISSION DETAILS

General requirements 2D: It will consist of a detailed presentation of the site and the work process, including initial hypothesis (10%), intermediate experiments (40%) and the ¿QDO SURGXFW )LQDO SURGXFW GHVFULSWLRQ ZLOO LQFOXGH FRQYHQWLRQDO SODQV and sections of the project (as many as necessary to evaluate the project), elevations, and renderings or line perspectives. It is expected that some of these drawings will be inclusive of scalar and programatic information such as openings, circulation, structure, furniture, people, or other elements wherever applicable. The immediate urban context will be represented in the drawings DFFRUGLQJ WR UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ FRQYHQWLRQV WR EH GH¿QHG RQ D SHU SURMHFW EDVLV The drawings may vary in scale between 1:500 (urban scale) and 1:50 (architectural scale).

The presentation will typically be layed out on 11x17 sheets, landscape format. Additionally, each project will include at least one larger size drawing SORWWHG RQ ´ ZLGH E\ ´ KLJK

3D: A conceptual model will be presented at scale between 1:200 and 1:100

21

(this is to be determined on an individual basis). This model will include a white base with the entire urban block where the building is located. Please note that the ground surface around the building itself is part of the project WRR 6L]H VFRSH DQG WHFKQLTXHV RI PRGHO ZLOO EH VSHFLÂżF WR HDFK SURMHFW 3URcess models may be presented too.

'LJLWDO 7KH ÂżQDO VXEPLVVLRQ ZLOO EH PDGH LQ GLJLWDO IRUPDW DQG ZLOO FRQVLVW RI a pdf portfolio including all the prints corresponding to the presentation, as ZHOO DV KLJK TXDOLW\ SKRWRV RI WKH ÂżQDO PRGHOV VNHWFKHV DQG RWKHU UHOHYDQW materials.

Conditions for the drawings Required Information - Exterior envelope - Access & Circulation (entry doors, staircases, ramps, hallways, distribution areas, common areas etc.)

- Unit subdivision (with a focus on the party wall, or subdivision surfaces) - Interior/exterior relations (Facade conditions and openings) - Site conditions (conditions of design and usage for the outdoor areas of the site)

Optional - Structure - Interior unit organization (functional zoning, internal partitions when applicable, furniture) - Materiality

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

introduction

historical development Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 3

building types

planning regulations

programs

demographics

33

1860’s founding

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

initial settlement Cascadilla Hall Willow Pond

transportation development pedestrian paths Ithaca Street Railway Stone Arch bridge Eddy Gate

rapid growth

explosive growth in housing emergence of small businesses Sheldon Court LPSDFW RI ¿UHV

twentieth ce entu pro twentieth century

34

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

1990’s

introduction

0’s

2000’s

historical development

Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 3

building types

s

planning regulations

h ce entury progression ury progression

increase of land value civil rights protests new establishments

programs

redevelopment

Schwartz Center Eddygate Park Parking

demographics

contemporary transformation

35

1860’s

36

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

introduction

2000’s 1990’s 1980’s 1970’s 1960’s 1950’s 1940’s 0’s

historical development Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 5

building types

planning regulations

programs

demographics

37

1860’s 1870’s founding

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

View of Cascadilla Hall and its surroundings, 1868.

38

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

1990’s

introduction

0’s

2000’s

historical development

Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 7

building types

"Collegetown's early growth was inexorably linked to the growth of the university...There were only seven houses on Huestis Street [today's College Avenue] when Ezra Cornell began his institution."

planning regulations

The neighborhood known as Collegetown, located on East Hill east of downtown Ithaca, has throughout its history been a sort of extension of Cornell University and has played an integral role in Cornell’s history. The development of Collegetown is closely linked to the development of the University, yet its history begins before Cornell’s founding.

7KH ¿UVW &ROOHJHWRZQ VHWWOHPHQW ZDV FRPSULVHG RI D VPDOO FRWWRQ PLOO EXLOW E\ 2WLV Eddy, situated on the current site of Cascadilla Hall. The building appeared very much like Cascadilla as its stone was quarried from the nearby gorge. Eddy also built a dam on Cascadilla Creek and water from the pond was conveyed by a raceway up next to the mill, forming Willow Pond, located along what is today College Avenue. The pond was noted as being “famed and romantic.” Also included in this early settlement were small houses and a machine shop. Ezra Cornell served Eddy for a year as a mill mechanic in his shop.

programs demographics 39

1860’s 1870’s founding

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

“an ill-ventilated, ill-smelling, uncomfortable, ill-looking alms house�

-President White, resident of Cascadilla Hall

The construction of Cascadilla Place, now Cornell’s Cascadilla Hall, marked the beginning of a neighborhood development driven by the needs of Cornell’s faculty and students.

Cascadilla Place was originally built to serve as a water-cure sanatorium. The building, LQWHQGHG WR EHFRPH ,WKDFDÂśV ÂżUVW JUHDW KRVSLWDO IRU WKH WUHDWPHQW RI WKH VLFN DQG WKH HGXFDWLRQ RI ZRPHQ DV SK\VLFLDQV DQG QXUVHV UHSODFHG D IRUPHU PLOO EXLOW E\ 2WLV (GG\ +RZever, due to lack of funding, Ezra Cornell purchased the building and, upon the founding of Cornell University in 1865, Cascadilla Place became the only completed structure of the new university.

During these early years, Cascadilla Place played a pivotal role providing much needed space for administration purposes, dormitories, dining facilities, and a social center. Essentially, Cascadilla was a small neighborhood. Yet more importantly, Cascadilla established Collegetown as the center of student activity and paved the way for further development of the neighborhood.

40

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

1990’s

introduction

0’s

2000’s

historical development

Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 9

building types

“Life in it was perhaps not very luxurious; but it was very social.”

planning regulations

–Goldwin Smith, 1904

Photograph of Cascadilla Hall, programs

1868.

Today, Cascadilla Hall serves as one of two university-owned dormitories in Collegetown.

It is, however, somewhat more disconnected from the Cornell campus due to the construction of the Schwartz Centre and the removal of the road north of the structure leading to demographics

campus.

41

1860’s

1870’s 1880’s 1890’s 1900’s transportation development

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

Transportation between Collegetown and central campus has proved a pivotal issue ever since Cornell’s founding. Early utilitarian wooden bridges spanned Cascadilla Creek from Collegetown and provided pedestrian paths to campus. Nevertheless, the more preferred route into campus from downtown was to travel up University Avenue and enter campus on its north side. With advancements in infrastructure focused around Collegetown, the southern entrance became the more popular point of entry and created an explosion of development in the Collegetown neighborhood.

1876: Horse-drawn omnibus left from the Clinton House six times a day to Cascadilla Hall.

1893: Ithaca Street Railway ran a single track up East Hill. Later, a spur was added and trolleys gained access to central campus, opening up the southern end of campus for further expansion.

42

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

1990’s

introduction

0’s

2000’s

historical development

Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana

1895: Decision to drain Willow Pond; the dam was allowed to silt over.

11

building types planning regulations programs demographics

1896: Stone Arch bridge erected over the gorge; formed a permanent link between Collegetown and Central Campus.

43

1860’s

1870’s 1880’s 1890’s 1900’s transportation development

1910’s

1920’s

Eddy Gate, 1946.

44

1930’s

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

1990’s

introduction

0’s

2000’s

historical development

Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 13

building types planning regulations programs demographics

President White donated the 1896 structure spanning the original southern entrance to campus, informally known as ³(GG\ *DWH ´ EXW RI¿FLDOO\ DV ³7KH $QGUHZ 'LFNVRQ :KLWH 0Hmorial Gateway�. 7RGD\ WKH JDWH LV FORVHG WR YHKLFXODU WUDI¿F and is much less a part of the entry into campus.

45

1860’s

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s 1900’s rapid growth

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

The lack of housing provided by the university has throughout the Cornell’s history forced students and faculty to seek off-campus housing. President White believed that “the housing and feeding of students was a private matter.” Thus, students and faculty sought Collegetown’s close proximity to campus for housing, creating an explosion of growth. At Cornell University’s conception, there were only seven houses along Huestis Street (College Avenue). As Collegetown further developed in the 1880s and into the 1890s, large wood-framed houses were built along Huestis Street and many others around Eddy, State, Blair, and Catherine Streets.

There was such a dire need for housing that President White urged Ithacans to move from downtown Ithaca and build houses in Collegetown to house students and faculty.

Some houses still stand and were refurbished, such as the Peregrine House, a bed and breakfast, formerly the house of the architect John Snaith.

46

0’s

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

1990’s

2000’s

The four houses along Huestis Street housed almost 60 students.

These were eventually replaced by mixed-use structures including commercial spaces at street level and apartments above.

47

1860’s

48

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s 1900’s rapid growth

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

19

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

1990’s

2000’s

The emergence of small businesses provided services to students and faculty and established Collegetown as a commercial center. Just before the turn of the century, barbershops, food markets, restaurants, bookstores, pharmacies, a saddler and harness shop, and a shoemaker were established in Collegetown. Student Agencies was established at 405 Eddy Street. The two main commercial zones were focused around Huestis Street and Eddy Street, yet they were very different in appearance and services provided.

The Cascadilla School (1890) was founded by Lucien A. Wait to prepare students for entry into the university.

49

1860’s

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s 1900’s rapid growth

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

Fires posed serious dangers to Collegetown buildings and often destroyed large groups of KRXVHV EHFDXVH RI WKHLU ÀDPPDEOH ZRRG FRQVWUXFWLRQ )UDWHUQLW\ KRXVHV DQG SODFHV ZLWK varied activities were especially vulnerable.

7KH 3KL .DSSD 3VL IUDWHUQLW\ ZDV FRQVWUXFWHG LQ DQG GHVWUR\HG E\ ¿UH LQ $ ¿UH VWDWLRQ ZDV ODWHU EXLOW RQ WKDW VLWH ZKLFK ZDV DOVR GHVWUR\HG E\ ¿UH 7RGD\ 'LQR¶V The Nines and the Collegetown Fire Station Number 9 occupy the site. The devastating WKUHDW RI ¿UH FKDQJHG WKH ZD\ &ROOHJHWRZQ EXLOGLQJV ZHUH EXLOW 7KHUH ZDV D VKLIW IURP ZRRG IUDPH FRQVWUXFWLRQ WR PRUH ¿UH UHVLVWDQW PDWHULDOV OLNH FRQFUHWH DQG EULFN 1RWH the change of building types on the eastern side of College Avenue (picture).

50

0’s

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

1990’s

2000’s

The Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house was constructed in 1886 and destroyed by ¿UH LQ

Today, Dino’s, The Nines, and the City of Ithaca Collegetown Fire Station Number 9 occupy the site. Note the change in building type

51

1860’s

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s 1900’s rapid growth

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

In 1903, the university constructed Sheldon Court as a private men’s dorm and advertised LW DV EHLQJ ¿UH SURRI )XUWKHUPRUH WKH ¿UVW ÀRRU RI WKH GRUPLWRU\ ZDV JLYHQ D FRPPHUcial use, with The Triangle Book Store occupying the front left corner. Today, all of these spaces are vacant.

52

0’s

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

1990’s

2000’s

Progression of Sheldon Court throughout the years.

53

1860’s

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s 1930’s twentieth century pro

7KH ¿UVW KDOI RI WKH WZHQWLHWK FHQWXU\ VDZ OLPLWHG JURZWK DQG FKDQJH LQ &ROOHJHWRZQ &ROlege Avenue was narrow and lined with large trees until it was widened and the trees removed after the Second World War. The Collegetown population remained a working class community and continued to house students and faculty. However, increasing land value began to pressure the non-university population to surrender their houses to be converted into apartments or student rental houses.

The area nearest the campus remained as a commercial zone, yet two separate commercial streets continued to exist around College Avenue and Eddy Street. This would eventually allow for the possibility of further change and redevelopment of the space between the two streets.

The 1960s and 1970s brought an era of student protest fueled by America’s political and social climate of the time. Collegetown served as a site and center for social organization and protests. In 1972, following disorder involving student and police clashes, an Ad Hoc Committee was established. They presented recommendations in the form of letters and draft reports, claiming that “many students and other young people have gotten a disrespectful view of law and law enforcement,” and that “efforts should be made to bring them back into the mainstream of community responsibility.“ Drug dealing and drug abuse were also major problems in the area. Today, many similar issues such as pranks, drunken misbehavior, and boisterousness disturb the neighborhood.

54

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

1990’s

introduction

0’s 1940’s ury progression

2000’s

historical development

Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 23

building types planning regulations programs demographics

New Establishments: 1904: Cosmopolitan Club /XWKHUDQ &KXUFK RQ 2DN $YH 1919-1981: Johnny’s Big Red Grill 3UHVE\WHULDQ 0LVVLRQ $SDUWPHQW &RPSOH[ RSHQV RQ &DWKHULQH 6WUHHW 55

1860’s

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s

“But the formal push to congregate students in that neighborhood came in the 1970s and ‘80s with zoning changes. For several \HDUV LQ WKH V FLW\ RIÂżFLDOV even suspended the requirements to provide off-street parking to spark growth.â€?

The 1970s saw the beginnings of redevelopment that would continue more strongly in the ‘80s and ‘90s. This activity was due in part to new, less stringent building regulations and the desire to upgrade many of Collegetown’s older houses. Several of today’s popular establishments were founded in the 1970s, including Rulloff’s and Collegetown Bagels, enhancing the commercial zone in close proximity to campus and student life. An increasing student enrollment at Cornell also initiated a push to add more livable space as well as maintain and expand services in Collegetown.

56

1930’s

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s redevelopment

1990’s

introduction

0’s

2000’s

historical development

Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 25

building types

Study on Increased Enrollment: 1972: elimination of on-campus residence requirement; estimation that the percent of all students housed on campus will decline from 38% in 1971 to 33.6% in 1976.

1973: a report to the Senate Sub-Committee on Student Housing as requested in Senate Bill C-88 by the Ad Hoc Committee on Apartments and Future Student Housing estimates:

planning regulations

An increase of slightly over 400 students per year: if this begins with the academic year 1971-1972 when total enrollment was 15,493 (acFRUGLQJ WR WKH 5HJLVWUDU 2IÂżFH E\ WKH VWXGHQW SRSXODWLRQ ZRXOG be of 17500 Proportion of grads to undergrads will remain the same, 28.8% grads to 71.2% undergrads

programs

Upperclassmen will increase in the undergrad population due to transfers admitted at a rate of 150 per year Freshmen will remain at 24% of the total undergrad population

demographics 57

1860’s

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s

A multitude of factors led to the decision to begin major redevelopment projects intended to upgrade Collegetown. The declining state of houses, many of which were built around the turn of the century, were simply becoming inadequate to occupy. Developers recognized the oppertunity to redevelop the area and create an environment more suitable for Cornell’s students. A push for zoning changes, particularly relating to parking, and a drop in excessive interest rates of the late 1970s and early 1980s, provided the right political and economic stage for these changes.

7KH ÂżUVW SURSRVHG UHGHYHORSPHQW ZDV FRPSOHWHG LQ 6HSWHPEHU RI ZLWK SODQV to transform the block occupied by Cascadilla Hall and Sheldon Court. The complex would include a performing arts center built by Cornell, a public parking facility built by the city of Ithaca, and a housing project built by a private developer. Some other changes included the closing of the road north of Cascadilla along with the improvement of sidewalks, parking, and other municipal facilities.

58

1930’s

introduction

2000’s 1990’s 1980’s redevelopment 1970’s 1960’s 1950’s 1940’s 0’s

historical development Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 27

building types

planning regulations

programs

demographics

59

1860’s

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

7KH JRDOV RI HDFK FRPSRQHQW RI WKH SURMHFW ZHUH VSHFL¿F DQG DLPHG DW VROYLQJ VSHFL¿F issues: The Schwartz Center was intended to increase realestate pressures in Collegetown and LQLWLDWH UHGHYHORSPHQW RI WKH DUHD 7KH EXLOGLQJ &RUQHOO¶V ¿UVW PDMRU SUHVHQFH LQ WKH FHQWHU RI &ROOHJHWRZQ VLQFH 6KHOGRQ &RXUW ZDV ¿QLVKHG LQ ZDV D PDMRU VLJQDO E\ WKH XQLYHUVLW\ GHPRQVWUDWLQJ WKDW WKH\ ZHUH LQWHUHVWHG LQ UHDI¿UPLQJ &ROOHJHWRZQ DV the heart of student life and community.

The Collegetown Parking Garage would alleviate the parking problem by offering 217 parking spaces for the public and apartment residents. This in turn would centralize SDUNLQJ DQG IUHH XS VWUHHW SDUNLQJ 7KLV ZDV WKH ¿UVW RI PDQ\ SDUNLQJ VHWXSV RI LWV kind.

Eddygate Park Apartments would be the most crucial element of the complex and in UHGH¿QLQJ WKH LGHQWLW\ RI &ROOHJHWRZQ 7KH SODQQLQJ RI WKH FRPSOH[ FDOOHG IRU FORVLQJ the road north of Cascadilla Hall, in turn leaving Dryden Road as the main link between Collegetown and Cornell by default. Thus, developers saw the redevelopment of Dryden Road as the answer to connecting the two unique commercial zones along College AvHQXH DQG (GG\ 6WUHHW (GG\JDWH 3DUN $SDUWPHQWV ZRXOG EH WKH ¿UVW RI D QXPEHU RI mixed-use apartment complexes that would resusitate the area between these two DUHDV VHHQ IRU \HDUV DV ³XQGHU XVHG DQG XQGH¿QHG VSDFH ´ 7KH FRPSOH[ LQFOXGHG FRPPHUFLDO VSDFHV RFFXS\LQJ WKH ¿UVW ÀRRU DQG VWXGHQW DSDUWPHQWV DERYH VWUHHW OHYHO

60

introduction

2000’s 1990’s 1980’s redevelopment 1970’s 1960’s 1950’s 1940’s 0’s

historical development Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 29

building types

planning regulations

programs

demographics

61

1860’s

62

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s redevelopment

1990’s

introduction

0’s

2000’s

historical development

Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 31

Along with the increases in building came an increase in population. To accomodate WKLV LQÀX[ RI SHRSOH PRUH UHVWDXUDQWV DQG VKRSV PDQ\ SULFLHU WKDQ SUHYLRXV RQHV emerged, catering more towards the growing student population. A newer, more expensive, Collegetown was emerging. Note the doubling of Collegetown’s population between 1980 and 1990 and the percentage of population in college.

building types

1,462 529 33.24 34 2.43 521 44% 5.1% 52.5% 66.6 86.7% .07 43.98

Population, 1990 Housing Units Density (pop. per acre) Families Average family size Households % in labor force Unemployment rate % male % of pop. b/w 20-24 % in college square miles of land acres of land

2,827 851 64.27 41 2.76 814 38.53% 2.92% 55.01% 88.33% 94.67% .07 43.98

planning regulations

Population, 1980 Housing Units Density (pop. per acre) Families Average family size Households % in labor force Unemployment rate % male % of pop. b/w 20-24 % in college square miles of land acres of land

programs demographics 63

1860’s

64

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

introduction

0’s

1990’s 2000’s contemporary transformation

historical development

Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana

In 1994, developers proposed two projects that faced intense scrutiny and rose questions of whether further development of Collegetown could possibly become detrimental to the quality of the neighborhood. Concerns included the “bigger scale� of the buildings, the “diminished sense of community� as a result of these buildings, higher costs of living, decreasing population density, and the overwhelming parking problems that could result from further development.

33

building types

These projects, Collegetown Center, which opened in 1997, and 312 College Avenue, ZKLFK RSHQHG ODWHU RQ EHJDQ WR UHGHÂżQH WKH QHLJKERUKRRG DQG FUHDWH JUHDW KHVLtance towards further redevelopments.

In 1999, a moratorium on large-scale student housing was issued for one year to allow the city to study the impacts of large developments and issues such as parking DQG WUDI¿F LQ &ROOHJHWRZQ 0D\RU $ODQ &RKHQ EHOLHYHG WKDW WKH PRUDWRULXP ZDV ³FRQsistent with our philosophy of balancing economic development with neighborhood integrity and environmental preservation.�

planning regulations programs

Collegetown Center looking down Dryden Road

demographics

312 College Avenue 65

1860’s

66

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

introduction

1990’s 2000’s contemporary transformation 1980’s 1970’s 1960’s 1950’s 1940’s 0’s

historical development Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 35

building types

planning regulations

programs

demographics

67

1860’s

68

1870’s

1880’s

1890’s

1900’s

1910’s

1920’s

1930’s

1940’s

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

introduction

0’s

1990’s 2000’s contemporary transformation

historical development

Thalia Chrousos Eirc Suntup Lorena Quintana 37

building types planning regulations

The expansion of Collegetown has been generating increasing parking stress ever since the start of redevelopment in the 1980s. Solutions to alleviate the parking situation following the end of the year-long moratorium included increasing the number of parking spots that property owners must provide to their residents, ideally from 1:3 to 1:2, building a new parking garage, and limiting the number of stories of new residential buildings from 6 to 5 stories, thus limiting the increase in population.

Today, Collegetown remains in a sense very much as it was upon Cornell’s conception: the center of the university’s student life. Despite the various changes in neighborhood infrastructure, quality of services, building typologies, as well as the threat that redevelopment may pose to the character and function of Collegetown, the neighborKRRG KDV FRQWLQXHG WR VHUYH WKH &RUQHOO FRPPXQLW\ DQG IXOO¿OOV LWV UROH DV D KRPH WR businesses, permanent residents, and students.

programs demographics 69

introduction

Building Typologies Collegetown Ithaca,NY

Whether a building is an apartment complex with commercial-dwelling (Type A) on the ground ÀRRU or a house renovated to include a small business (Type C), this VSHFL¿F allocation of functionality HI¿FLHQWO\ maximizes the utility towards students and merchants alike.

39

building types

However, the opportunity for commerce did not eradicate the overwhelming demand for housing.

This priority towards housing is the catalyst to the construction of high rises and the combination of functions in buildings. The forms of the buildings began to change in order to appease the potential of commerce without compromising the need for housing. Of the 118 buildings in Collegetown only 5 are dedicated to commerce (2 of which are currently vacant).

Winnie Poon Yao Wang

historical development

Originally established as a purely residential site, students have found refuge in Collegetown as an alternative to campus housing. The area became densely populated by college students which yielded the ideal opportunity to establish commerce; merchants would only need to target one demographic to be sustainable.

planning regulations programs

Type Type Type Type Type Type

A. Multi-Function & High Rise B. Multi-Function & Mid Rise C. Multi-Function & Low Rise D. Single Function & High Rise E. Single Function & Mid Rise F. Single Function & Low Rise

demographics

Collegetown buildings can be divided into 6 typologies:

historical development

building types Winnie Poon Yao Wang 41

planning regulations

programs

Multipule Function Mid-Rise

introduction

Type A

Type E

demographics

73

Type A. High Rise Multi-Function 5 stories or more

Subdivisions Width

measured by the facade side 1 Plot: 5 Buildings 2 Plot: 2 Buildings More than 3 Plot: 5 Buildings

Function Residential & Commercial: 11 Residential & Parking: 1

Total: 12 Buildings All Type A buildings are apartment complexes. They include commercial GZHOOLQJV RQ WKH JURXQG ÀRRU ZLWK WKH exception of one complex that has an underground parking area.

74

introduction

historical development

building types Winnie Poon Yao Wang 43

planning regulations

programs

demographics

75

Type B. Mid-Rise Multi-Function 3-4 Stories

Subdivisions Width measured by the facade side 1 Plot: 12 Buildings 2 Plot: 2 Buildings

Function Residential & Commercial: 14 Residential & Parking: 0

Total: 14 Type B has a balanced mixture of apartment complexes and renovated houses with the majority of the widths limited to 1 plot.

76

introduction

historical development

building types Winnie Poon Yao Wang 45

planning regulations

programs

demographics

77

Type D. High Rise Single-Function 5 stories and above

Subdivisions Width measured by the facade side 1 Plot: 4 Buildings 2 Plot: 1 Buildings 3 or More: 3 Buildings

Function Residential: 7 Commercial: 0 Civic: 1 Parking: 0

Total: 8 Buildings Type D buildings are exclusively residential complexes with the exception of one civic building: The Performing Arts Center.

78

introduction

historical development

building types Winnie Poon Yao Wang 47

planning regulations

programs

demographics

79

Type E. Mid-Rise Single-Function 3-4 Stories

Subdivisions Width measured by the facade side 1 Plot: 46 Buildings 2 Plot: 4 Buildings

Function Residential: 50 Commercial: 0 Civic: 0 Parking: 0

Total: 50 Buildings Type E is the largest category. The majority of buildings in this category are 1 plot houses. Only 6 out of the 50 buildings are complexes.

80

introduction

historical development

building types Winnie Poon Yao Wang 53

planning regulations

programs

demographics

81

Type F. Low Rise Single-Function 1-2 Stories

Subdivisions Width

measured by the facade side 1 Plot: 9 Buildings 2 Plot: 4 Buildings 3 or More: 3 Buildings

Function Residential: 8 Commercial: 5 Civic: 2 Parking: 1

Total: 16 Buildings Type F is the most diverse category.

82

introduction

historical development

building types Winnie Poon Yao Wang 55

planning regulations

programs

demographics

83

introduction historical development building types planning regulations

“Planning regulations are to promote public health, safety and welfare and the most desirable use of land and to conserve the value of buildings and enhance the value and appearance of land throughout the city of Ithaca.� (City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance)

Isaac Sharkan Evan Ahn

Intent of Planning Regulations

57

programs demographics 85

86

introduction

historical development

building types

planning regulations Isaac Sharkan Evan Ahn 59

programs

demographics

87

introduction

Height Regulation VII: Above Grade Secondary Structures

historical development

Secondary structures wholly or parWLDOO\ DERYH Âżnished grade are permitted in any side or rear yard but not in the front yard.

building types planning regulations

Isaac Sharkan Evan Ahn

Height Regulation VIII: Below Grade Secondary Structures

71

programs

Any secondary structure may be placed anywhere on a EXLOGLQJ ORI LI LW LV HQWLUHO\ EHORZ WKH ¿QLVKHG JUDGH RU HQWLUHO\ EHORZ WKH ¿UVW ÀRRU OHYHO SURYLGHG WKDW LW GRHV QRW obstruct light and air from adjacent property

demographics 99

introduction

Parking Regulation III: Number of Parking Spaces Required

historical development

Required off-street parking in R-3a,b zones and the B2a,b zones shall be increased from 1 parking space per 3 residents to 1 per 2 residents

building types planning regulations

Isaac Sharkan Evan Ahn

Parking Regulation IV: Screening

79

programs demographics 107

DEMOGRAPHICS Christopher Parshalk Matthew Drake

120

introduction historical development

The demographic information acquired proves quite clearly that Colbuilding types

legetown is composed of individuals sharing a common bond, a strong DIÂżOLDWLRQ ZLWK WKH &RUQHOO FDPSXV 7KH Lnvestigation of Collegetown is DSSURDFKHG WKURXJK WKH LGHQWLÂżFDWLRQ RI GDWDVFDSHV HVVHQWLDOO\ WKH UHSresentation of statistical evidence that composes a particular region or regions. Using a given census table allowed for the visual arrangement of this data on a block-by-block basis.

planning regulations

One outcome is that an uneven distribution of variables such as median age or number of home owners demonstrates the importance of proximity to campus for students of Cornell University. The same is found true for population, which is generally higher for areas close to the campus; however, not so for percentages of male/female, where there no noticable pattern is observed. The hard quantitative data is complimented with case-based

programs

qualitative interaction involving a series of interviews and posed photographs.

demographics

Matthew Drake Christopher Parschalk 107

121

COLLEGETOWN: CENSUS TRACTS 1 AND 13

CT 2

BG 1

GEO_ID

SUMLEVELGEO_NAME

P001001 P012002 P012026 P013001 P014001 P015001 P016001 P0170001 P0

Geography Identifier

Geographic Summary Level

Total population: Total

10000US361090002001000 10000US361090002001001 10000US361090002001002 10000US361090002001003 10000US361090002001004 10000US361090002001005 10000US361090002001006 10000US361090002001007 10000US361090002001008 10000US361090002001009 10000US361090002001010

BG 2

10000US361090002002000 10000US361090002002001 10000US361090002002002 10000US361090002002003 10000US361090002002004 10000US361090002002005 10000US361090002002006 10000US361090002002007 10000US361090002002008 10000US361090002002009

BG 3

10000US361090002003000 10000US361090002003001 10000US361090002003002 10000US361090002003003 10000US361090002003004 10000US361090002003005 10000US361090002003006 10000US361090002003007 10000US361090002003008 10000US361090002003009 10000US361090002003010

10000US361090013005000

CT 13

10000US361090013005001 10000US361090013005002 10000US361090013005003 10000US361090013005004 10000US361090013005005 10000US361090013005006 10000US361090013005007 10000US361090013005008 10000US361090013005009 10000US361090013005010 10000US361090013005011 10000US361090013005012 10000US361090013005013 10000US361090013005014

122

Geography

Total population: Male

Total population: Female

Total Population Households: Population in Househollds: Fa population: under 20 Total households: Average Av Median age; years: Total householdd fam Total Both sexes size

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Block 1000, Block Group 1, Census Tract 2, T Block 1001, Block Group 1, Census Tract 2, T Block 1002, Block Group 1, Census Tract 2, T Block 1003, Block Group 1, Census Tract 2, T Block 1004, Block Group 1, Census Tract 2, T Block 1005, Block Group 1, Census Tract 2, T Block 1006, Block Group 1, Census Tract 2, T Block 1007, Block Group 1, Census Tract 2, T Block 1008, Block Group 1, Census Tract 2, T Block 1009, Block Group 1, Census Tract 2, T Block 1010, Block Group 1, Census Tract 2, T Block 2000, Block Group 2, Census Tract 2, T Block 2001, Block Group 2, Census Tract 2, T Block 2002, Block Group 2, Census Tract 2, T Block 2003, Block Group 2, Census Tract 2, T Block 2004, Block Group 2, Census Tract 2, T Block 2005, Block Group 2, Census Tract 2, T Block 2006, Block Group 2, Census Tract 2, T Block 2007, Block Group 2, Census Tract 2, T Block 2008, Block Group 2, Census Tract 2, T Block 2009, Block Group 2, Census Tract 2, T Block 3000, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, T Block 3001, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, T Block 3002, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, T Block 3003, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, T Block 3004, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, T Block 3005, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, T Block 3006, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, T Block 3007, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, T Block 3008, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, T Block 3009, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, T Block 3010, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, T

428 0 0 173 47 78 241 957 111 367 355 191 149 216 87 92 122 11 143 112 60 152 0 35 25 13 36 67 166 67 62 7

206 0 0 93 34 48 150 450 47 177 206 62 69 121 48 57 78 3 73 48 31 89 0 23 12 9 21 35 98 36 38 4

222 0 0 80 13 30 91 507 64 190 149 129 80 95 39 35 44 8 70 64 29 63 0 12 13 4 15 32 68 31 24 3

21,5 0 0 20,9 21,5 21,6 21,5 21,6 21,6 21,7 21,7 21,8 21,6 21,8 21,5 22,2 22,6 21,9 21,6 21,6 22 21,7 0 24,2 28,5 19,8 34 26,1 22,3 22,1 22,4 20,9

39 0 0 29 1 3 26 77 7 12 20 7 6 2 5 5 1 1 16 5 5 19 0 2 1 7 0 9 20 4 3 0

166 0 0 66 20 38 97 505 52 155 113 59 47 86 31 47 52 4 59 48 17 64 0 15 19 5 28 34 94 31 29 6

415 0 0 173 47 78 241 957 111 367 355 191 149 216 87 92 111 11 143 112 60 152 0 35 25 13 36 67 166 67 62 7

22,5 0 0 2,62 2,35 2,05 2,48 1,9 2,13 2,37 3,14 3,24 3,17 2,51 2,81 1,96 2,13 2,75 2,42 2,33 3,53 2,38 0 2,33 1,32 2 2,6 1,29 1,97 1,77 2,16 2,14 1,17

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Block 5000, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5001, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5002, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5003, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5004, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5005, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5006, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5007, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5008, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5009, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5010, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5011, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5012, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5013, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13, Block 5014, Block Group 5, Census Tract 13,

57 85 111 59 81 109 39 86 13 59 0 36 36 30 39

29 42 63 25 27 31 15 38 7 29 0 17 16 15 15

28 43 48 34 54 78 24 48 6 30 0 19 20 15 24

22,4 21,4 23 32,5 21,9 21,6 23,2 31 36,3 41,5 0 38 36,5 28,8 32,5

4 10 5 7 9 3 0 22 5 21 0 8 8 3 7

11 15 79 26 35 39 20 30 5 22 0 15 15 13 19

43 85 111 59 81 109 39 86 13 59 0 36 36 30 39

3,91 5,67 1,41 2,27 2,31 2,79 1,95 2,87 2 2,6 2,68 0 2 2,4 2 2,4 2,31 2,05

0170001 P033001 H001001 H003001 H003002 H003003 H004001 H004002 H004003 H013002 H013003 H013004 H013005 H013006 H013007 H013008 ousehollds: Families: verage Average ouseholdd family size ze

Housing units: Total

Housing units: Total

Housing units: Occupied

Housing Occupied units: Vacant housing units: Total

22,5 0 0 2,62 2,35 2,05 2,48 1,9 2,13 2,37 3,14 3,24 3,17 2,51 2,81 1,96 2,13 2,75 2,42 2,33 3,53 2,38 0 2,33 1,32 2 2,6 1,29 1,97 1,77 2,16 2,14 1,17

2,6 0 0 2,3 0 2 6 2,11 2 2 2,7 3 3,33 0 2 2 2 2 2,75 3 2,75 2 0 2,5 2,33 4 2 2,5 3 2,5 2,5 0

169

169

166

3

66 22 38 99 510 60 159 117 60 47 86 32 49 52 4 62 48 17 64

66 22 38 99 510 60 159 117 60 47 86 32 49 52 4 62 48 17 64

66 20 38 97 505 52 155 113 59 47 86 31 47 52 4 59 48 17 64

16 23 5 28 36 98 31 29 6

16 23 5 28 36 98 31 29 6

15 19 5 28 34 94 31 29 6

1 4

3,91 5,67 1,41 2,27 2,31 2,79 1,95 2,87 2 2,6 2,68 0 2 2,4 2 2,4 2,31 2,05

3 0 2 2,43 2,75 2 2,5 3,1 3,67 3,25 0 3,29 2,58 2,43 3

12 15 81 28 36 41 20 30 5 23

12 15 81 28 36 41 20 30 5 23

11 15 79 26 35 39 20 30 5 22

1

16 15 13 20

16 15 13 20

15 15 13 19

2 2 5 8 4 4 1

1 2

3

2 4

2 2 1 2

1 1

1

Occupied housing units: Owner occupied

Occupied Occupied housing housing units: Renter units: 1occupied person household

Occupied housing units: 2person household

Occupied housing units: 3person household

Occupied housing units: 4person household

Occupied housing units: 5person household

Occupied housing units: 6person household

Occupied housing units: 7-ormore person household

166

3

163

78

25

24

18

9

4

66 20 38 97 505 52 155 113 59 47 86 31 47 52 4 59 48 17 64

2

64 20 38 97 503 52 154 105 56 46 86 29 37 52 3 56 45 12 62

6 6 14 36 297 32 73 27 20 14 42 13 23 22 2 21 20 2 28

28 8 14 20 90 5 28 16 7 7 17 5 12 20 1 15 14 3 15

21 1 5 16 62 7 19 41 8 8 6 5 8 3

8 4 4 17 26 2 13 12 9 4 9 1 1 2

2

1 1

1 2 7 2 6 3 3 7 5 3 1 2

14 4 5 5

2 5 3 9

3 1 2 3

14 19 2 23 28 92 31 28 6

4 14 2 21 13 58 13 13 5

5 4 1 6 10 16 8 5 1

4 1 1 1 10 11 6 7

1

1

8 15 76 9 33 37 16 9 1

11 15 79 26 35 39 20 30 5 22

3 58 6 12 12 8 6 2 5

2 2 12 11 12 13 7 8

15 15 13 19

5 1 2 10

15 19 5 28 34 94 31 29 6

2 1 8 3 1 2 10 1 3 3 5 2 1 3 5 6 2 1

11 15 79 26 35 39 20 30 5 22

3 3 17 2 2 4 21 4 22

15 15 13 19

11 13 6 11

4 2 7 8

4 18 1 14 3 4 4 1 2 2

1 1 2

8

2 5 3 2 11 8 3 6 2 3 1 3 3 2 2

1 1 4 2 2

4

1 2

2

5

2 4 8 7 4 3 3 7 1 5

1 1 1 1 5 1 2 6 2 6

3 9 6 3

4 3 4 2

2 2 1 3

1 2

2 6

1 1 6 2

1

1 3 1

1 1

1

123

Total Population

Population Density increases closer to campus.

124

introduction historical development

Total Housing Units

building types planning regulations programs

Housing units are in great quantity closer to campus in order to accomodate a high population density. demographics

Matthew Drake Christopher Parschalk 109

125

Male Percentage

The distribution of males throughout Collegetown is fairly homogenous.

126

introduction

historical development

Female Percentage

building types

planning regulations

programs

Sinilar to the male population, female population throughout Collegetown is also fairly homogenous.

demographics

Matthew Drake Christopher Parschalk

111

127

Resident Owners

As distance increases from the Cornell campus, there is an apparent increase in resident ownership.

128

introduction

historical development

Median Age

building types

planning regulations

programs

Older Collegetown residents are situated further from campus.

demographics

Matthew Drake Christopher Parschalk

113

129

130

introduction

historical development

building types

planning regulations

programs

demographics

Matthew Drake Christopher Parschalk

115

131

Kelly McGuire

Kelly McGuire, 33. Has lived at this residence for 3 months. Plans to stay for at least one year. “I did not really want to live in Collegetown. There’s not really a community in Collegetown comprised of non-students. My daily routine: I work from home. I occassionally walk into C-town for bars and restaurants, but mainly will go out of my neighborhood for these types of activities, as well as shopping, etc. I travel by car and walking equally.”

132

Brad We

B 6 le C S I a a

introduction

rad Weiss

planning regulations

Brad Weiss, 36, Cornell Alum: Hotel school graduate. Has lived at this current residence for 6 years. Plans to stay for 2 - 5 more years. “ Factors that persuaded me to move to Collegetown: Proximity to campus, bars, grocery stores, and other students. There are several Cornell Professors and staff as well as locals in the collegetown area, which blends into Belle Sherman. As far as non-Cornellians in Collegetown: There are several businesses - of which I am a member. A private boarding school with several students, and a few residents here and there. As far as a non-student community: I don’t think it compares much to the social activity of the undergraduate Cornell students. My daily routine: Get up at noon, work 4pm DP ¿YH GD\V D ZHHN DW D EDU , WUDYHO E\ IHHW DQG FDU VXY ´

demographics

Matthew Drake Christopher Parschalk 117

133

134

introduction

Jeanne B. Grear, 79.

Has rented this current space for 15 years. “ I plan to stay Until death. I have a great RI¿FH LQ P\ KRPH 0\ daily routine? Patient LQWHUYLHZV DOO GD\ 0\ main mode of transportation is my Car.” demographics

0DWWKHZ 'UDNH Christopher Parschalk 119

135

Lori, 21, Cornell student: biological sciences with minor in development sociology. Has lived at this current residence for 2 months. Plans to stay until May. “ It was my aim to live in Collegetown, my apartment is very nice, clean, and quiet. Some factors that persuaded me to move to Collegetown: Accessibility to food/services, social scene, it’s where all my friends were living, not wanting to live on campus. Is there a comPXQLW\ FRPSULVHG RI QRQ &RUQHOOLDQV" 'H¿QLWHO\ no, I know very few non-Cornellians that live in C-town. I participate in the Cornell community, but there really is not a separate C-town community. My daily routine: Wake up, coffee, class, class, class, work, run, study/read, relax, bed.

My main mode of transportation are my feet (predominantly) and my car which is parked on the street.”

136

introduction 121

137

demographics

Matthew Drake Christopher Parschalk

Sarah Porter, 20, Cornell student: Biology. Has lived at this residence for one month. Plans to stay at this residence for 1 - 2 years. “It my goal to live in Collegetown, especially in the residence I wanted to. Factors that persuaded me to move to collegetown: Location and money. My daily routine. Wake up, breakfast, check mail, get ready for class, walk to campus, classes, home, library, fun, sleep. My main mode of transportation are my Feet!�

Jack

Jack Becker, 19, Cornell student: Architecture. Has lived at this current residence for RQH PRQWK 3ODQV WR VWD\ XQWLO -XQH ³(GG\JDWH ZDV RXU ¿UVW FKRLFH :KDW SHUVXDGHG XV to move to Collegetown were the nice places to dine out and the exceptional night-life,

138

Faisal Ahmad, 29, Cornell student: physics. Has lived at this current residence for 3 years. Plans to stay for 6 more months. “ Do I live in the residence I wanted to? Yes. Factors that persuaded me to move to collegetown: the proximity to campus and the

introduction

ck

planning reg

of course! Is there a community in Collegetown of non-Cornellians? Let me put it this way; without Cornell, there’d be no Collegetown! My daily routine: wake up, shower, class, studio, relax, bed. I get around town with my legs.”

Faisal

123

139

demographics

Matthew Drake Christopher Parschalk

social life. My daily routine: Breakfast, research, dinner, entertainment, work, sleep.

My main mode of transportation is walking.”

140

introduction programs 125

141

demographics

Matthew Drake Christopher Parschalk

Gabriel Suddeth, 19, Cornell student: Biology. Has lived at this current residence for 2 weeks. Plans to stay for 9 months. “Was it my aim to live in Collegetown? No. I do enjoy the food locations and being off campus (somewhat). My daily routine: Wake up, eat, walk to class, work/study, walk home, eat, sleep. My main mode of travel is walking.�

“I wasn’t particular about where to live, but collegetown was always an attractive option.”

- Maurice Chammah

Maurice Chammah, 19, Cornell student: Music and College Scholar. Has lived at current residence since July, 2007. Plans to stay until the end of May, 2008. --- “I wasn’t particular about where to live, but collegetown was always an attractive option. Is this the residence I wanted to live in? I didn’t really have a set of choices. My current roommates found the house and invited me in. Factors that persuaded me to move to Collegetown: The closeness to central campus, where my classes are. The freedom of living off-campus. Is there

142

Alexander Kopache, 19 years old, Cornell Student: Biological and Environmental Engineering. Has lived at the current residence for 2 weeks. Plans to stay until next June. “Factors that persuaded me to move to Collegetwon: Proximity to campus,

D DY ba m fo DU

introduction planning regul

D QRQ &RUQHOO DIÂżOLDWHG FRPPXQLW\" 7KHUH PLJKW EH EXW QRW WKDW , NQRZ RI , OLYH RQ FROOHJH DYHQXH SUHWW\ FORVH WR &RUQHOO VR , ÂżJXUH WKLV FRPPXQLW\ ZRXOG EH IDUWKHU GRZQ WKH KLOO 0\ basic daily routine: I wake up around 9am, and after getting ready at home, I spend most of my day on campus, going to class, studying, practicing, and seeing people. I might stop home for a brief time during the day for various reasons, but most of my work/social life revolves DURXQG FHQWUDO DQG ZHVW FDPSXV , ZDON DOPRVW HYHU\ZKHUH 2FFDVLRQDOO\ , WDNH D EXV Alexander

“Proximity to camSXV VRFLDO OLIH DQG 12 5 $ ÂśV ´ - Alexander Kopache

127

143

demographics

0DWWKHZ 'UDNH Christopher Parschalk

VRFLDO OLIH DQG 12 5 $ œV 0\ GDLO\ URXWLQH :DNH XS VKRZHU FRRN EUHDNIDVW FODVV OLEUDU\ ELNLQJ KRPH FRRN GLQQHU KRPHZRUN EHG 0\ PDLQ PRGH RI transportation is my Bycicle.�

project location map

Thalia T lia Chrousos Chr usos sos

tsc27@cornell.edu @cor

Solar Sculptor Sc

Mathew Drake | p.148 Mrd37@cornell.edu

Typology Scrambler

Elizabeth Hollywood | p.188 Eah62@cornell.edu

Integrating Networks

Winnie P Poon

w wp38 wp38@cornell.edu

Typology o ogy Sampler

Tattum tum mL La au

tl269@corn o ne ell.edu

Landscape dscape scape pe E En Enfol folllding

Christopher opher Parschalk

cgp22@cornell cgp22@cornell.edu

Filt Filters

Julio Torres jft47@cornell.edu ornell.ed

Surfacer ce

Evan Ahn da79@cornell.edu 9@

Community mmunity Maker

Eric Suntup | p.218 Eps22@cornell.edu

Sensitive Surfaces

Yao Wang | p.234 Yw238@cornell.edu

Interiorizer

Isaac Sharkan | p.262 Ibs4@cornell.edu

Multidirectional Exposure

Lorena Quintana | p.174 Lmq2@cornell.edu

Equalize & Retain

MATTHEW DRAKE Typology Scrambler At the most critical intersection in Collegetown, the question raised by the project is how to densify the area without compromising the privacy of the occupants. It proceeds by deploying a gradient of funcG G R WLRQDO FRPSRQHQWV DFFRUGLQJ WR D ÂżHOG RI H[SRVXUH WR WKH VWUHHW DQG date te e circulatory and other comthen reorganizes these to accommodate ne e modes of socialization by mon areas. The organization fosters new ypes pe with unusual distributions generating many different housing types, and relationships between components.

148 | Matthew Drake

SITE LOCATION: College llege Av Ave. and Dryden Rd. +(,*+7 ÀRRUV LOT SIZE: 550m2 NUMBER OF UNITS: 20 (14 types) TOTAL BUILT AREA: 2200m2 PRIVATE AREA: 1288m2 COMMON AREA: 912m2

149 | Matthew Drake

Proposed gradients of occupation and privacy

150 | Matthew Drake

151 | Matthew Drake

152 | Matthew Drake

153 | Matthew Drake

Volumes and circulations

154 | Matthew Drake

155 | Matthew Drake

156 | Matthew Drake

157 | Matthew Drake

Circulation techniques: unfolding and refolding

158 | Matthew Drake

5HVXOWLQJ ÀRRU SODQV

*URXQG ÀRRU

6HFRQG ÀRRU

7KLUG ÀRRU

)RXUWK ÀRRU

159 | Matthew Drake

Functional components

Volumes

160 | Matthew Drake

Circulatory volumes

Circulation

161 | Matthew Drake

Structural techniques Determination of vertical load path

162 | Matthew Drake

Gorund plan

6HFRQG ÀRRU SODQ

7KLUG ÀRRU SODQ

)RXUWK ÀRRU SODQ

163 | Matthew Drake

Unit type: one person Floors located: 1, 2, 3, 4 Max height: 3.5m Min height: 1.8m Entrance located: diningroom Number of stairs: 0 Livingroom square footage: 26.6 Diningroom square footage: 32.1 Kitchen square footage: 56.6 Bedroom square footage: 66 Bathroom square footage: 57.4 Padlo square footage: 231.9 Total square footage: 470.6

Unit type: Two-person Floors located: 1 Max height: 3.8m Min height: 2.5m Entrance located: livingroom Number of stairs: 0** Livingroom square footage: 46.9 Diningroom square footage: 45.1 Kitchen square footage: 62.3 Bedroom square footage: 88.6 Bathroom square footage: 67.4 Padlo square footage: 271.8 Total square footage: 582.1 **Handicap accesible

Unit type: Two-person Floors located: 2, 3 Max height: 4.4m Min height: 2.5m Entrance located: kitchen Number of stairs: 12 Livingroom square footage: 54.6 Diningroom square footage: 33.7 Kitchen square footage: 62.8 Bedroom square footage: 62.4 Bathroom square footage: 55.6 Padlo square footage: 177.1 Total square footage: 446.2

Unit type: Two-person Floors located: 4 Max height: 4.0m Min height: 1.9m Entrance located: kitchen Number of stairs: 10 Livingroom square footage: 58.7 Diningroom square footage: 56.0 Kitchen square footage: 70.9 Bedroom square footage: 83.0 Bathroom square footage: 96.9 Padlo square footage: 203.2 Total square footage: 446.2

Unit type: Three-person Floors located: 1 Max height: 4.4m Min height: 2.2m Entrance located: kitchen Number of stairs: 13 Livingroom square footage: 86.5 Diningroom square footage: 69.8 Kitchen square footage: 90.2 Bedroom square footage: 78.0 Bathroom square footage: 421.8* Padlo square footage: N/A Total square footage: 746.3 * Bathroom located below ground

Unit type: Two-person Floors located: 2 Max height: 6.5m Min height: 2.2m Entrance located: diningroom Number of stairs: 23 Livingroom square footage: 91.0 Diningroom square footage: 106.6 Kitchen square footage: 104.2 Bedroom square footage: 86.5 Bathroom square footage: 81.4 Padlo square footage: 237.6 Total square footage: 707.3

Unit type: Three-person Floors located: 3

164 | Matthew Drake

Max height: 6.1m Min height: 2.9m Entrance located: diningroom Number of stairs: 13 Livingroom square footage: 75.8 Diningroom square footage: 112.6 Kitchen square footage: 46.2 Bedroom square footage: 132.3 Bathroom square footage: 101.4 Padlo square footage: 155.7 Total square footage: 624.0

Number of stairs: 9 Livingroom square footage: 93.8 Diningroom square footage: 117.0 Kitchen square footage: 109.4 Bedroom square footage: 100.0 Bathroom square footage: 111.4 Padlo square footage: 242.0 Total square footage: 773.6

Unit type: Four-person Floors located: 1 Max height: 4.0m Min height: 3.0m Entrance located: livingroom Number of stairs: 13 Livingroom square footage: 81.7 Diningroom square footage: 94.5 Kitchen square footage: 122.9 Bedroom square footage: 353.5* Bathroom square footage: 102.0 Padlo square footage: N/A Total square footage: 754.6 *Bedroom located below ground

Unit type: Four-person Floors located: 2 Max height: 6.3m Min height: 3.0m Entrance located: diningroom Number of stairs: 19 Livingroom square footage: 26.6 Diningroom square footage: 32.1 Kitchen square footage: 56.6 Bedroom square footage: 66.0 Bathroom square footage: 57.4 Padlo square footage: 231.9 Total square footage: 470.6

Unit type: Four-person Floors located: 3 Max height: 6.3m Min height: 3.0m Entrance located: kitchen Number of stairs: 3 Livingroom square footage: 86.7 Diningroom square footage: 110.9 Kitchen square footage: 137.7 Bedroom square footage: 135.8 Bathroom square footage: 150.3 Padlo square footage: 194.5 Total square footage: 815.9

Unit type: Four-person Floors located: 4 Max height: 6.3m Min height: 3.0m Entrance located: livingroom Number of stairs: 0** Livingroom square footage: 112.8 Diningroom square footage: 154.2 Kitchen square footage: 178.0 Bedroom square footage: 134.0 Bathroom square footage: 166.7 Padlo square footage: 198.7 Total square footage: 944.4 ** Handicap accesible

Unit type: Five-person Floors located: 1 Max height: 5.2m Min height: 2.9m Entrance located: livingroom Number of stairs: 14 Livingroom square footage: 144.0 Diningroom square footage: 245.2 Kitchen square footage: 247.5 Bedroom square footage: 277.7* Bathroom square footage: 146.7 Padlo square footage: N/A Total square footage: 1061.1 *Bedroom located below ground

Unit type: Five-person Floors located: 3,4 Max height: 5.9m Min height: 3.2m Entrance located: livingroom Number of stairs: 10 Livingroom square footage: 150.9 Diningroom square footage: 286.7 Kitchen square footage: 284.8 Bedroom square footage: 173.4 Bathroom square footage: 128.7 Padlo square footage: 167.1 Total square footage: 1191.6

Unit type: Five-person Floors located: 3,4 Max height: 5.9m Min height: 3.2m Entrance located: livingroom Number of stairs: 10

165 | Matthew Drake

Structural components

166 | Matthew Drake

*URXQG ÀRRU

6HFRQG ÀRRU

7KLUG ÀRRU

)RXUWK ÀRRU

167 | Matthew Drake

168 | Matthew Drake

169 | Matthew Drake

Section

170 | Matthew Drake

Section

171 | Matthew Drake

LORENA QUINTANA Equalize & Retain Situated at the corner of College Avenue and Catherine street, the project organizes buildable space according to a logic that equalizes unit surface area at 50 m2, and guarantees a minimal faรงade allocation of 3 meters per unit. The depth of each unit varies as a result of the sequential nature of the allocation process. A circulatory system of ramps and a staircase is then run through the seams created by the unit boundaries (paths of least resistance). The residual spaces are absorbed by the circulation system and utilized as spaces for socialization.

174 | Lorena Quintana

SITE LOCATION: College Ave. and Catherine Street +(,*+7 ÀRRUV LOT SIZE: 306m2 NUMBER OF UNITS: 16 (6 types) TOTAL BUILT AREA: 918m2 PRIVATE AREA: 794m2 COMMON AREA: 124m2

175 | Lorena Quintana

Subdivision logic: preliminary experiments

)LUVW ÀRRU Single apartments - 50 squared metres aprox.

Minimum 3 metres of facade for every apartment Minimum 3 metres width for every apartment

6HFRQG ÀRRU Single apartments - 50 squared metres aprox.

Minimum 3 metres of facade for every apartment Minimum 3 metres width for every apartment

7KLUG ÀRRU Single apartments - 50 squared metres aprox.

Minimum 3 metres of facade for every apartment Minimum 3 metres width for every apartment

176 | Lorena Quintana

177 | Lorena Quintana

Circulation System Along the X-Y plane 1. One single starting point 2. turns are 90º 'HDOV ZLWK RQH ÀRRU DW D WLPH 3HQHWUDWHV WKURXJK D VLQJOH ÀRRU DV PDFK DV SRVVLEOH 5. Does not cross onto itself ¿QLVKLQJ SRLQW RI D JLYHQ ÀRRU HVWDEOLVKHV WKH VWDUWLQJ SRLQW RI WKH QH[W ÀRRU XS

1. Contained

within the building

2.Alternating

between the inside and the outside of the building

3. Coiling

178 | Lorena Quintana

throughout the building

Circulation System Along the Z axis 6WDUWLQJ DQG ¿QLVKLQJ SRLQWV RI D FLUFXODWLRQ V\VWHP ZLWKLQ RQH JLYHQ ÀRRU HVWDEOLVK D KHLJKW LQFUHDVH DFFRUGLQJ WR LWV DGMDFHQW VSDFHV &LUFXODWLRQ V\VWHPV ZLWKLQ RQH JLYHQ ÀRRU PXVW DVFHQG LWV HQWLUH KHLJKW LQFUHDVH E\ PHDQV RI D UDPS ZLWK DQ HYHQ VORSH 3. Circulation system will only slope in inner sections of the building - outer sections will work at landings 4. There must be at least 1 metre of landing before every turn

1. Contained

2. Alternating

3. Coiling

along the Z axis

along the Z axis

along the Z axis

179 | Lorena Quintana

Entry level plan

Catherine Street

180 | Lorena Quintana

Plan View at 3.00m

Plan View at 6.00m

Plan View at 9.00m

Plan View at 12.00m

181 | Lorena Quintana

Elevation

182 | Lorena Quintana

183 | Lorena Quintana

Elevation

184 | Lorena Quintana

185 | Lorena Quintana

Section

186 | Lorena Quintana

187 | Lorena Quintana

ELIZABETH HOLLYWOOD Integrating Networks On a deep, topographically uneven site, the building is organized around two independent circulatory systems, and third one which interconnects them. The lower network permeates the building creating o the block. The upper network an urban shortcut through the middle of ning n ng g points where unobstructed shapes up a peripheral loggia by joining d. T d views of the landscape can be obtained.

The housing units are treated V DV LQ¿OO EHWZHHQ WKH FLUFXODWLRQ URXWHV

SITE LOCATION: Eddy Street and Catherine Street +(,*+7 ÀRRUV LOT SIZE: 1700m2 NUMBER OF UNITS: 46 (46 types) TOTAL BUILT AREA: 5100m2 PRIVATE AREA: 2550m2 COMMON AREA: 2550m2

188 | Lisa Hollywood

189 | Lisa Hollywood

Plots with existing buildings

College Avenue

Eddy Street

Dryden Road

apartment

ent

rtm

apa

Edd

y St

190 | Lisa Hollywood

reet

Plots with buildable envelope

apartment

College Avenue

Eddy Street

Dryden Road

3.9

Restrictions determining envelope: - rear yard 3.0 meters - fire lane [width 3.9m] clear for vehicles - setback from apartment on property: over 5.7m - maximum height 17.2 m

ent

rtm

apa

Edd

y St

reet

191 | Lisa Hollywood

Views from perimeter of site eter of Site (Exploded)

buildable envelope

buildings obstructing views adjacent buildings

nvelope onto site ne height limits for ground level

Eddy Street

plot boundary

192 | Lisa Hollywood

distant buildings

193 | Lisa Hollywood

Views from perimeter of site in a line

fold line

(Unfolded)

buildable envelope

Eddy Street

adjacent buildings

distant buildings

groung level

2 perimeter of site

1

2

1

Habitation Regimes: Collegetown, Ithaca Lisa Hollywood Internal Subdivisions/Views from Perimeter of Site in a Line Cornell University College of Architecture, Art and Planning Studio Instructor: Julian Varas Fall 2007

2

1

4

194 | Lisa Hollywood

4

3

2

3

4

2

3

4

195 | Lisa Hollywood

View connection points

centroids based on vertical discrepancies

centroids based on horizonal discrepancies

buildable envelope

Eddy Street

adjacent buildings

196 | Lisa Hollywood

ground level

Circulation connection points

proposal increases the plots accessibility to collegetown

Eddy Street

College Avenue

Dryden Road

Catherine Street

197 | Lisa Hollywood

Connection types 1. Top - view to view (p. 78) connect view points around the perimeter of the site cronologicaly to form a continuous circuit allows occupant to experience site with a long route conecting unobstracted views

2. Bottom - access to access (p. 82) connect each access point to all access points on the opposite side allows occupant to quickly pass through the entire site

3. Intermediate - connect top and bottom routes (p. 86)

Buildable envelope divided into three portions each portion can hold two stories portions correspond to corridor type

5.74 m 5.74 m

intermediate corridor apartments top corridor apartments

bottom corridor apartments

198 | Lisa Hollywood

199 | Lisa Hollywood

Top - View to view

200 | Lisa Hollywood

201 | Lisa Hollywood

Apartment subdivisions - Top corridors D C B A

Each apartment is two stories and has one entrance to a corridor Floor heights of apartments determined by portions; ramps within apartPHQWV SURYLGH DFFHVV IURP FRUULGRU OHYHO WR ÀRRU OHYHO Apartments occupy the buildable volume not used by the corridors Divide remaining space equally until cannot divide further without comproising apartment size

A

B

C

D

202 | Lisa Hollywood

Eddy Street

E

E

203 | Lisa Hollywood

Bottom - Access to access

Ed dy

St re

et

routes across site after moved within buildable envelope

204 | Lisa Hollywood

shift people routes where intersect car routes

shift people routes where intersect other people routes

people

CARS

Original connections

Corridors moved within buildable envelope

Corridors shifted to account for intersections between them

205 | Lisa Hollywood

Apartment subdivisions - Intermadiate corridors C B

FRUULGRUV ZLWK KRUL]RQWDO ÀRRUV DGGHG WR WKH HQWLUHO\ VORSHG LQWHUPHGLDWH FRUridors these corridors provide entrances to apartments shown in gray below

A

A

space connecting to horizontal corridors divided

terraces shown in darker gray positioned so that occupy areas where views not obstructed by adjacent buildngs

B

C

206 | Lisa Hollywood

Eddy Street

C

C

207 | Lisa Hollywood

Intermediate - Connect top and bottom routes

Intermediate connections

Connections between top and bottom

futher corridors were added to connect bottom corridors that never intersect to promote ease of movement throughout the site

two corridors connect outside with top corridor

208 | Lisa Hollywood

two corridors connect the central area, dense with corridors, to the top corridor

209 | Lisa Hollywood

Apartment subdivisions - Bottom corridors D C B A

remaining space in bottom portion

A

areas that connect to horizontal corridors divided into apartments B

p

C

D

terraces darker shade

210 | Lisa Hollywood

Eddy Street

F

F

211 | Lisa Hollywood

All corridors

eet Eddy Str 212 | Lisa Hollywood

Corridors with apartments in purple and terraces in green

eet Eddy Str 213 | Lisa Hollywood

214 | Lisa Hollywood

215 | Lisa Hollywood

216 | Lisa Hollywood

217 | Lisa Hollywood

ERIC SUNTUP Sensitive Surfaces Sensitive surfaces exploits the particularity of its location (across from the beginning of Delaware Ave.) by diversifying its interior in relation to the its degree of exposure. It further translates this strategy into sb the design of a faรงade system, which is based on an orthogonal patchhe system s work of grids of varying densities. The relates to the ground rty rtya y plane through a series of sunken courtyards and sloping planes that rou o serve to organize semi-public areas around the building.

218 | Eric Suntup

SITE LOCATION: Dryden Rd. and Bryant Ave. +(,*+7 ÀRRUV LOT SIZE: 727m2 IITS: TS:: 13 T 1 (6 types) NUMBER OF UNITS: EA: 2908m2 E 29 TOTAL BUILT AREA: 2 1m 2071m PRIVATE AREA: 2071m2 COMMON AREA: 837m2

219 | Eric Suntup

220 | Eric Suntup

South - North section

East - West section

221 | Eric Suntup

222 | Eric Suntup

8QLW VSHFWUXP DOO SRVVLEOH VL]HV IRU JLYHQ ÀRRU DUHD IURP YHUWLFDO WR KRUL]RQWDO DQG VTXDUH WR UHFWDQJXODU

223 | Eric Suntup

Grid division and qualities

224 | Eric Suntup

horizontal and vertical site lines projection

horizontal and vertical site lines projection

horizontal and vertical site lines projection

horizontal and vertical site lines projection

225 | Eric Suntup

Unit/facade union possibilities

226 | Eric Suntup

227 | Eric Suntup

Facade details

Ideal units

228 | Eric Suntup

Maximized units

229 | Eric Suntup

)LUVW ÀRRU SODQ

7KLUG ÀRRU SODQ

6HFRQG ÀRRU SODQ

_ (ULF 6XQWXS

IRXUWK ÀRRU SODQ

_ (ULF 6XQWXS

232 | Eric Suntup

233 | Eric Suntup

YAO WANG Interiorizer 7KH SURMHFW SURORQJV WKH XUEDQ YHFWRUV RI GHQVL¿FDWLRQ DQG SULYDF\ WR WKH LQWHULRU RI WKH EXLOGLQJ HQYHORSH ,W SURSRVHV WR GHSOR\ LQGLYLGXDO SRGV RI PLQLPDO RFFXSDQF\ DORQJ D SODQLPHWULF JUDGHG ¿HOG DQG DORQJ R RG D V\VWHP RI FLUFXODWLRQ UDPSV 7KH SRGV YDU\ WKHLU FRQ¿JXUDWLRQ DFUHQ HQ Q FRUGLQJ WR D JUDGLHQW GH¿QHG E\ GLIIHUHQWO\ VL]HG IXUQLWXUH 7KH\ DUH V\V V KHOG PLG DLU E\ KDQJHUV DWWDFKHG WR V\VWHP RI SHULSKHUDO ULEV ZKLFK um m buildable envelope. re-construct the shape of the maximum

234 | Yao Wang

SITE LOCATION: Dryden Rd. and Linden Ave. +(,*+7 ÀRRUV LOT SIZE: 375m2 180%(5 2) 81,76 W\SHV

TOTAL BUILT AREA: 1875m2 PRIVATE AREA: 1200m2 COMMON AREA: 675m2

235 | Yao Wang

236 | Yao Wang

237 | Yao Wang

Concept Gradual change in Urban Density observed at the site at the site intersects buildable envelope and affects the interior spatial density. a new building typology can be created which incorporates this gradual change in urban density into a single volume Sub-units are created by individual’s activities.

Units are created by grouping of sub-units through social activities.

Increasing Mattress Size (Private Axis ) Single

2 people

Increasing Dinning Table Size

(Public Axis)

238 | Yao Wang

3 People

4 People

5 People

Twin

Queen

System of measurement

Person Standing or Lying

Sitting

mattress

Single

Twin

Queen

King

Arm Span Standing

Sitting

Dining Table -- Height at 0.7 m

2 persons

3 persons

4 persons

5 persons

239 | Yao Wang

Construction and grouping of sub-units Sub-units variations

Single

Plan

Elevation 1

Elevation 2

240 | Yao Wang

Twin

Queen

Development - Sectional shift to create comunal spaces

New Height Original Height

1

New Height Original Height

2

4

The basic units are grouped in a way that in plan they overlap. However, in section the space become overlapped also hence not habitable. Therefore, the operation of sectional shifts is performed to bring the overlapping units to different levels for them to function.

1

2

4

At the same time, more spaces are created through this shifting which become potential comunal spaces.

241 | Yao Wang

UNIT CONSTRUCTION Single bed two persons

Sectional Shift Unit plan

Unit height: 5m Unit elevation

Single bed three persons

Unit plan

Sectional Shift

Unit height: 5.7m Unit elevation

Single bed four persons

ional Shift ale 1: 200

Unit plan

Sectional Shift

Unit height: 8.1m Unit elevation

6LQJOH EHG 多YH SHUVRQV Scale 1: 200

Unit plan

Sectional Shift Unit Height: 9 m vation :100

Unit elevation

242 | Yao Wang

Unit height: 9m

Twin bed two persons

Unit plan

Sectional Shift

Unit height: 4.6m

Unit elevation

Twin bed three persons

Unit plan Sectional Shift

Unit height: 6m

Unit elevation

Twin bed four persons

Unit plan Sectional Shift

Unit elevation

Unit height: m

7ZLQ EHG 多YH SHUVRQV

Unit plan it Elevation cale 1:100

Sectional Shift

Unit height: 6m

Unit elevation

243 | Yao Wang

Density

In Plan

In Section

In Elevation

244 | Yao Wang

Gradient of space

Private

Volumn occupied by units

Public

Volumn available for Communal use

Interstitious Space among sub-units

Interstitious Space among units

245 | Yao Wang

246 | Yao Wang

Internal subdivision exploded

247 | Yao Wang

Internal systems

Structure

Intra-unit circulation

248 | Yao Wang

Inter-unit circulation

Units

249 | Yao Wang

250 | Yao Wang

251 | Yao Wang

252 | Yao Wang

Structure

e 1: 200

253 | Yao Wang

254 | Yao Wang

255 | Yao Wang

256 | Yao Wang

257 | Yao Wang

haca

ng

258 | Yao Wang

259 | Yao Wang

260 | Yao Wang

261 | Yao Wang

ISAAC SHARKAN Multidirectional Exposure Understanding the site as a virtual space characterized by six different conditions of orientation (front, back, two long sides, ground, and sky), the project proposes a technique of bundling and torquing that po p pos allows eight different units to have exposure to each of the conditions, tics s. The self-intersection of the while maintaining unique characteristics. s w torqued tubes generates poche zones which are taken up as an opportunity to create service areas and to provide structural rigidity to the building.

262 | Isaac Sharkan

SITE LOCATION: College Ave. and Catherine Street +(,*+7 ÀRRUV P

/27 6,=( P 180%(5 2) 81,76 W\SHV

727$/ %8,/7 $5($ P 35,9$7( $5($ P &20021 $5($ P

263 | Isaac Sharkan

264 | Isaac Sharkan

265 | Isaac Sharkan

Unit aggregation

266 | Isaac Sharkan

267 | Isaac Sharkan

Exterior access

Interior access

268 | Isaac Sharkan

Projected geometry

269 | Isaac Sharkan

Structure endoskeleton

270 | Isaac Sharkan

Facade

271 | Isaac Sharkan

Red unit

Unfolded plan

272 | Isaac Sharkan

Unfolded section

Yellow unit

Unfolded plan

Unfolded section

273 | Isaac Sharkan

Green unit

Unfolded plan

274 | Isaac Sharkan

Unfolded section

Cyan unit

Unfolded plan

Unfolded section

275 | Isaac Sharkan

Blue unit

276 | Isaac Sharkan

Magenta unit

277 | Isaac Sharkan

Dark grey unit

Unfolded plan

278 | Isaac Sharkan

Unfolded section

Light grey unit

279 | Isaac Sharkan

282 | Isaac Sharkan

283 | Isaac Sharkan

284 | Isaac Sharkan

285 | Isaac Sharkan

288 | Evan Ahn

289 | Evan Ahn

Horizontal surface

Vertical partition

Transition system

Horizontal/vertical surface + Transition system

Building with horizontal surface, vertical partition, transition system enclosed by skin 290 | Evan Ahn

tion

tem

291 | Evan Ahn

292 | Thalia Chrousos

293 | Thalia chrousos

294 | Thalia Chrousos

295 | Thalia chrousos

296 | Thalia Chrousos

297 | Thalia chrousos

298 | Tatum Lau

CORNELL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, ART AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

w

Svante Myrick '09 (D-4th Ward) agreed that the issues brought up by Pendall and his class were key to improving Collegetown.

"Everybody's impressed by what they are doing. A lot of what they did is stuff we came up with as well, so it shows us that we're on the right track," Myrick said, adding that the groups picked up on one of the key things he thinks Collegetown lacks - open spaces to socialize.

However, Myrick disagreed with an issue that both classes brought up in their work - the need to diversify Collegetown by attracting non-college students to the area. Pendall's class found that 95 percent of the neighborhood's residents are Cornell students.

"I'd be wary of forcing diversity in terms of housing," Myrick said. "I'm not sure students want it and I'm not sure young professionals [who would conceivably move in] want it," Though the studies done by both classes have shown that there is much work to be done in Collegetown, little of it will happen over the next few months while the moratorium on building in the neighborhood is in effect. Passed by the Common Council in October, the halt on construction will continue until this coming November so that professional consultants can come in and create their own master plan for Collegetown.

On the need for a moratorium, Tomlan said, "While consultants are analyzing and coming up with the design, the area [should not be] changing. In my mind, that would be a waste of money."

The work of Pendall's class raises questions as to why the proposed modifications to Collegetown were not completed earlier. According to many, including Myrick, both Cornell and the City of Ithaca are hesitant to take responsibility for the areas bordering Cornell's campus. As evidenced last fall with the controversy over ownership of University Ave. behind the new Milstein Hall, neither side wants to pay for the repairs and construction necessary to keep these areas operational. Milstein Hall has yet to begin construction and much work remains to be done in Collegetown.

However, Cornell and the City of Ithaca have each given $75,000 towards hiring the consultants for Collegetown - an attempt on both sides to compromise. And while the work of the AAP students may not be carried out exactly as planned, it represents another opportunity for Cornell and the City to reach out to each other to improve Collegetown.

More Articles in College »

Tips To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry.

INSIDE NYTIMES.COM HEALTH »

OPINION »

OPINION »

When a Murderer Wants to Practice Medicine Home

World

U.S.

N.Y. / Region

U.S. »

Purple States: Security and the War Business

2008 Cornell Daily Sun via U-WIRE

Technology Privacy Policy

Science Search

Health

Sports

Corrections

Opinion RSS

Arts First Look

MUSIC »

WORLD »

‘Porgy’ Meets Katrina, and Life’s Not So Easy

In Turkey, a Step to Allow Head Scarves

Style Help

Travel

Jobs

Real Estate

Automobiles

Contact Us

Work for Us

Site Map

Back to Top

303

HOME PAGE

MY TIMES

TODAY'S PAPER

VIDEO

MOST POPULAR

Get Home Delivery

TIMES TOPICS

College WORLD

U.S.

N.Y. / REGION

BUSINESS

TECHNOLOGY

SCIENCE

HEALTH

Log In

Register Now

College All NYT SPORTS

OPINION

ARTS

STYLE

TRAVEL

JOBS

REAL ESTATE

AUTOS

Students Propose New Design Concepts for Town

By BEN EISEN, Cornell Daily Sun Published: January 24, 2008

(U-WIRE) ITHACA, N.Y. -- Collegetown - often thought to be a quintessential part of the upperclassman experience - is little more

More Articles in College Âť

SIGN IN TO E-MAIL OR SAVE THIS PRINT

than a clustered group of houses, restaurants and bars. But professors and students alike are working to shape it into something more. Classes in the College of Architecture, Art and Planning have begun using Collegetown as a model on which to recommend innovative and lasting changes.

This past semester, Prof. Julian Varas, architecture, assigned his design studio to choose different Collegetown properties on which to develop proposals for residential concepts. The idea was to create spaces that are open and available as social configurations, allowing for a diverse group of people to live in the neighborhood.

"I view Collegetown as too homogenous. It is parasitic to the point that it doesn't have its own economy. Its identity is way too easily linked to that of the campus, and not enough

MOST POPULAR E-MAILED

BLOGGED

SEARCHED

to the city, when it should be performing as an interface between both," Varas said. "These

1. David Brooks: The Kennedy Mystique

projects are really about how you can put different people together in terms of housing.

2. The World: Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

Housing is like the glue of a city. If you have dense, good quality housing, everything follows more or less smoothly. Housing is the base material to activate urban life."

After looking at their sites, student groups came up with unique residences that they felt would give life to Varas's vision while also aptly fitting into their locations. Examples ranged from Eric Suntup '10's glass enclosed cubes of varying density to Isaac Sharkan '10's intertwined apartment complexes to Yeo Wang '10's house with pod-like rooms.

3. Op-Ed Contributor: A President Like My Father 4. Memo From Berlin: Germany Confronts Holocaust Legacy Anew 5. Eli Manning Took Cues From Mother 6. Hawaii on a Dime 7. Frank Rich: The Billary Road to Republican Victory 8. Waving Goodbye to Hegemony 9. An Uncommon Wealth of Success Hits Boston

"What it does is it picks up on the idea of a student culture. It picks up on the idea that

10. Paul Krugman: Lessons of 1992

young people like to socialize," Varas said, emphasizing that students truly created models

Go to Complete List Âť

for other students like them.

In the process, Varas said that students working on these projects learned a lot about the abstract framework of Collegetown. nytimes.com/tech

Working on a broader level, Prof. Rolf Pendall's city and regional planning class on methods of planning analysis studied the inner workings of Collegetown this past semester to come up with solutions for many of the neighborhood's problems.

In 12 different groups, the class studied transportation, parking, maintenance, social infrastructure, trash and housing. On the topic of transportation, they suggested that sidewalks should be widened, bicycle lanes should be added and bus stops should be relocated. On housing, they suggested that Collegetown work to bring in a more diverse group of residents than the mostly college-aged Cornellians.

The end for analog TV Also in Tech: New tools to bolster Mac's world YouTube on the go John Donahoe's plan to save eBay

"The students' work reveals a wide range of possibilities for Collegetown," said Pendall.

"They have in common the recognition that two kinds of investments will help the neighborhood thrive. First, the neighborhood needs improvements to its infrastructure especially the sidewalks and bike facilities - and to the area around the Schwartz Center.

ADVERTISEMENTS

Second, the neighborhood needs investments in new social institutions, including

Free Trial - print edition on PC. Exact replica of The Times

organizations, relationships and physical spaces."

All the news that's fit to personalize.

The students presented their work to the Upstate American Planning Association in

Political news.

50% off Times delivery.

November.

"The Collegetown Vision Implementation Committee saw it and absorbed a number of the ideas," said Mary Tomlan '71 (D-3rd Ward), a member of the CVIC who watched the presentation. "There isn't any systematic means of incorporating these ideas, but it's important because now they are in the mix."

302

301

300

fold here

fold here

fold out flap

5.5 “

1.35 “

140 mm

34 mm

adjustable flap

5.5 “

This book documents work from the Arch_201 design studio conducted by Julian Varas at the Department of Architecture, College of Architecture, Art, and Planning, Cornell University, during the fall semester of 2007. It contains a selection of student work, representing projects and research articles by Evan Ahn, Thalia Chrousos, Matthew Drake, Elizabeth Hollywood, Tatum Lau, Christopher Parschalk, Winnie Poon, Lorena Quintana, Isaac Sharkan, Julio Torres-Santana, Eric Suntup, and Yao Wang.

varas.julian@gmail.com

Printed and bound in Ithaca, NY

After Miesuse (2006) and Architecturalisms (2007), Habitation Regimes is the closing chapter in a series of pedagogic experiments that seek to investigate the evolving relationship between the notions of diagram and type in architecture.

Whereas the diagram as a design instrument has acquired a renewed vitality in the last two decades, its ability to engender consolidated organizational patterns has emerged much more recently as a field of endeavor. In turn, typological thinking has been is stripped its normative implications, becoming a template for innovation rather than a frozen repertoire of architectural responses.

Having addressed - in the previous stages - the issues of proliferation and transposition of qualities through diagrammatic techniques, the present section in the series focuses on the production of innovative typologies as an extrapolation of specific urban conditions. The stage for the exploration is set in the area of Collegetown, adjacent to the campus of Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.

m

urbanis p u m o tt

All texts by Julian Varas except where noted

bo

Book layout: Julian Varas and Aldana Calligo Cover image: Elizabeth Hollywood

Spring 2008 edited

by ju lián

varas

trim here

5.5 “

1.35 “ 34 mm

fold

fold

fold

fold here

trim here

5.5 “

180 mm

Julian Varas (1971) is an architect, theorist, and educator based in Ithaca and Buenos Aires. Since finishing his post graduate studies at the Architectural Association in London, he has developed an interest in cross disciplinary practice, bridging the gaps between architecture, landscape, and urban design. Working across platforms, technologies, cultures, and languages, his research interrogates contemporary culture while attempting to destabilize the ever expanding base of the architectural discipline.

Julian received his professional degree at the University of Buenos Aires, and has worked and taught internationally, including at the Architectural Association, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich, and Cornell University.

7.08”

180 mm

trim here

habitation regimes

7.08”

trim here