Integrated Futures for the Built Past by Kevin Easterling

MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE THESIS PROJECT - KEVIN EASTERLING

Master of Architecture Thesis Project Kevin Easterling Thesis Advisors George Proctor, RA, Professor Dennis McFadden, FAIA Graduate Coordinator Kip Dickson, RA, Professor California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Spring 2016

to my family

for being my inspiration my encouragement my motivation my support

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

01 | RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION PATTERNS OF GROWTH + MOVEMENT + DENSITY SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT 02 | IDEAS

14 20-2 28 30

PROJECT BUILDING

PROGRAM

FORMAL STRATEGIES

03 | DESIGN

DESIGN NARRATIVE

PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION

PLANS + SECTIONS + ELEVATIONS

50-65

VIGNETTES

66-71

PHYSICAL MODEL

72-75

04 | APPENDIX

After years of economic decline, Downtown Los Angeles is experiencing a period of explosive growth made possible in large part by the adaptive reuse of Downtownâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s historic buildings. While this process of giving new futures to existing buildings brought life, vitality, and value back to the city, its effectiveness has waned in recent years. The restrictions and incentives imposed by public policies created a normative development model for reusing existing buildings. Sixteen years after its introduction, public policy still requires that new reuse projects remain focused on the original goal of creating housing opportunities.

ABSTRACT

By disallowing flexibility in the functions that adaptive reuse projects can provide, public policy has limited the ability of adaptive reuse to provide new solutions in meeting the changing demands of Downtown. Despite rising levels of new development in Downtown, the number of adaptive reuse projects has declined in recent years. With underutilized and vacant historic buildings representing a significant portion of the building stock in Downtown, there is a clear need for new strategies in reusing existing buildings. The discourse of this thesis is an investigation into how this new model of adaptive reuse is realized and fostered by the built form. It is an exploration of accommodating the need for radicalized adaptive reuse strategies at a building-specific level.

ABSTRACT

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The current method in which existing buildings are adapted for reuse in Downtown Los Angeles is outdated, inflexible, and overly restrictive. The intense focus adaptive reuse policies placed on the creation of housing is largely responsible for encouraging the return of a living population and the rebirth of Downtown, but has also proven to be a myopic constraint which limits the reuse of existing buildings to a specific subset of project types excluding commercial, industrial, or mixed-use functions. The accepted model of adaptively reusing buildings does not allow flexibility in giving new futures to old buildings while accommodating the changing needs of Downtown Los Angeles.

CLAIM

By rejecting the normative manner in which existing buildings are adapted for reuse in Downtown Los Angeles it is possible to instead enable a practice of embracing programmatic flexibility in the process of giving new futures to the past in our built environment.

TYPOLOGY

This claim is examined in the adaptation of an existing 12-story building to accommodate a fine-grained composition of uses and functions determined by local market demand rather than the restrictions of adaptive reuse policies. Although the programmatic composition of this project is generated with the goal of better serving the needs of its surrounding urban environment, its internal organization serves to create an environment which encourages interaction, vitality and transparency in an effort to enmesh the building in the character of its urban environment.

PREMISES

The Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse ordinance requires that projects incorporate a change in use to residential, live-work, or hotel functions. This requirement denies incentives provided by the ordinance to projects that donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t fit the overly restrict use descriptions it employs, and has established what has become a normative typology for adaptive reuse projects in Downtown: largely single-use residential or hotel buildings featuring retail or commercial uses only on the first-floor which are ancillary to and often disconnected from uses located on upper floors. Although adaptive reuse projects are widely credited with facilitating the rebirth of Downtown Los Angeles, steep declines in the number of adaptive reuse projects in Downtown reveal that a new method of adapting buildings for reuse is essential in ensuring that the remaining existing building stock is adaptable to the changing needs of the growing Downtown environment.

PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

The existing buildings stock of Downtown Los Angeles represents an immeasurable wealth of cultural, economic, and environmental resources. As the built environment continues to change with the rapid growth of Downtown, and as these existing buildings continue to age and become obsolete, it is imperative that the methodology used in adapting these buildings for reuse is responsive to and reflective of the changing needs and demands of Downtown.

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

RESEARCH

SECTION TITLE | KEVIN EASTERLING

INTRODUCTION

Beginning in the late 1920s, Downtown Los Angeles began to suffer the effects of a shift in commercial focus that left it in a continuously degrading state of economic decline. As the effects of urban decentralization led to suburban sprawl, the commercial vitality of Downtown transformed from that of the prominent central business district it had been since the 1890s, to one which played host to a state of economic depression.1 Although periods of redevelopment breathed life back into the city, much of downtown continued to suffer from lack of vibrancy, high vacancy rates, and outright abandonment.2 However, by 1999 the City of Los Angeles had identified a method to bring new life back to the Downtown area by making it a more desirable place for residential development, thereby bringing the economic investment that Downtown so desperately needed. With the help of a team of developers, politicians, and property owners known as the Adaptive Reuse Task Force, the City adopted the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (the â&#x20AC;&#x153;AROâ&#x20AC;?) in 1999, and set to work addressing the blight that had plagued the historic building stock of Downtown Los Angeles for decades. By reducing the restrictions imposed on adaptive reuse projects and streamlining the associated approval process, the ARO made the adaptive reuse of existing buildings easier, quicker, and more financially viable. The ARO does not require projects to undergo an entitlement phase, nor does it require the construction of new parking. These projects are also given more flexibility with fire and life safety, structural, and disabled access requirements; which ultimately provides an expedited approval process and ensures that adaptive reuse projects are not subjected to the same zoning and code requirements that apply to new construction. In doing so the ARO has provided significant incentives that were originally designed to encourage economic investment in what had historically been a failing Downtown economy.3 Since its adoption in 1999 the ARO has been credited with accelerating development activity Downtown with a total influx of over $17 billion in private sector investment.4 Projects completed under the ARO have created over 14,000 new residential units between 1999 and 2012 alone.5 Most recently the ARO has seen a new trend of adaptive reuse projects developing as boutique hotels. In addition to bringing a living population back to Downtown and spurring economic development, the ARO also successfully brought the concept of adaptive reuse to the forefront of the vocabulary in revitalizing Downtown. In doing so adaptive reuse was established as a proven development model, shifting the conversation surrounding it in a positive direction by demonstrating that historic preservation can serve as a powerful engine for economic revitalization. Aside from its economic advantages, the benefit the ARO has had on the preservation of culturally and historically significant resources in Downtown is immeasurable. To many the success of the ARO has been undeniable, and most

RESEARCH | INTRODUCTION

assessments of its effects have been significantly positive.5 Even with this widespread success, both economic and otherwise, the flourishing development seen in the early 2000s has lessened in recent years as ARO projects have been limited to an established development model that has yet to adapt to the changing needs of Downtown. The success of the ARO has long been dependent on the premise that the incentives it provides make adaptive reuse projects economically feasible in situations where they otherwise would not be. It is these incentives and restrictions which have guided the process of adaptively reusing existing buildings in Downtown Los Angeles, producing what has become an established normative model of development. Since its introduction in 1999, a total of 80 projects have been completed in Downtown Los Angeles under the ARO. Of these 80 projects, 74 include residential housing, and 64 provide publicly accessible uses at the ground level only [see Table 1 in Appendix]. Only five projects provide publicly accessible uses above the ground level. This data describes what has become a normative typology for adaptive reuse projects in Downtown: residential or hotel buildings featuring retail or commercial uses on the first-floor which are ancillary to and often disconnected from uses located on upper floors. As a result of the ARO requirement that new projects incorporate a change in use to residential, live-work or hotel functions, the majority of adaptive reuse projects in Downtown have followed this model with little variation. Recent declines in the number of adaptive reuse projects in Downtown indicate that this model is no longer effective in its ability to accommodate the changing needs of the Downtown development market. The rise of adaptive reuse in Downtown began with the completion of the first ARO projects in 2000 at the Old Bank District.6 After this initial success, the yearly number of ARO projects increased until 2005 when a total of 20 projects were completed (see Table 1 in Appendix). Three years later the number of projects plummeted to just two in 2008, and has yet to increase to levels seen before the effects of the economic recession set in.7 With current trends in new development having successfully risen above the influence of the economic downturn, the lack of new adaptive reuse projects can no longer be explained by a slump common to all development activity. Instead, the low number of adaptive reuse projects has been attributed to difficulties present in building reuse. Barriers described by a number of sources include limitations imposed by high property prices, unavailability of financing due to high risk, technical and functional challenges posed by existing buildings, and regulatory barriers in adaptive reuse policies.8 Common among all of these barriers is the issue that the ARO ultimately allows little flexibility in permitting projects which provide functions other than the currently allowed

residential, live-work, or hotel uses. Although limiting the applicability of the ARO specifically to these projects served the original vision of creating housing, revisions are needed in order to once again make it adaptable and better able to respond to the ever-changing demands of the city it serves. The purpose statement of the ARO describes that it will “encourage mixed commercial and residential uses”.9 Analyzing the effects of the ARO on a broad scale confirms that it has done just that on a macrolevel. By introducing residential opportunities in commercial and industrial areas without requiring rezoning or zoning variances, the ARO has incentivized the framework for the integration of residential, commercial, and industrial uses on an urban scale. However, the same policy has also relegated the inclusion of commercial uses within adaptive reuse projects to ancillary uses located on the ground floor. By preventing the creation of internally integrated mixed-use projects, the ARO has effectively disallowed a wide range of innovative or flexible adaptive reuse strategies that could better maximize the potential of the remaining underutilized building stock in Downtown. While the ARO incentivizes the creation of new hotel and residential opportunities, it effectively denies such incentives to projects that don’t fit the overly restrictive use descriptions it employs. It is critical that the adaptive reuse of existing buildings is responsive to the need for buildings to accommodate a variety of uses in order to both support and survive in the economies in which they exist. In response to the diminishing effectiveness of the ARO, a variety of revisions to the policy have been proposed. In their 2013 report, the National Trust for Historic Preservation offered a number of solutions to encourage reuse development. These suggestions included revisions of the City’s zoning code, parking requirements, complex and lengthy entitlement and permitting processes, residential unit size requirements, and open-space requirements.10 While many of these suggestions deal specifically with the nuanced requirements of the adaptive reuse process, one criticism of the ARO stands out as representative of the larger issue of building reuse as a whole: The ARO does not apply unless a project proposes a change to residential or hotel use.10 In doing so the ARO allows limited flexibility in the functions adaptive reuse projects can provide, which in turn disadvantages the projects it produces as well as the occupants and environment of the surrounding neighborhood. Creating legislation which encourages the development of adaptive reuse projects that are socially inclusive has long been a difficult goal to achieve, especially considering that public access to many urban buildings is inadequate or even prohibited.11 This is a problem inherently present with many adaptively reused buildings in Downtown, given that the nature of the functions allowed to be contained within them

fundamentally disallows the inclusion of publicly accessible uses. Residential and hotel uses are by nature not accessible to the general public. By broadening the applicability of the ARO to allow a wider range of uses, future revisions to the ordinance could improve the ability of adaptive reuse in conserving not only buildings, but also the urban landscapes that tell the stories of the history of the communities in which they reside.11 Since its adoption in 1999, city officials have maintained a flexible attitude towards revising the ARO, updating it over the years to accommodate changing market conditions, criticism, and new opportunities. From 2001 through 2010 a series of 10 amendments and official interpretations clarified and refined the ARO, broadening its geographic scope, and amending fire and life safety provisions.12 Most recently, in 2013 City officials introduced the Historic Broadway Commercial Reuse Guidelines; a new piece of legislation aimed at facilitating the conversion of existing buildings along Broadway for commercial uses.13 Although separate from the ARO, these guidelines provide a more determined path for developers in the permitting and approval process, and do not include restrictions that buildings be converted to residential, live-work, or hotel uses as is the case with the ARO. However, these guidelines are applicable only to buildings located along Broadway between 1st and 12th Streets, and they do not explicitly provide incentives for the inclusion of publicly accessible nor mixed-use functions. These guidelines are a step in the right direction for providing more opportunities for innovative solutions in adaptive reuse projects, but fall short of enabling the citywide flexibility necessary for encouraging future waves of adaptive reuse development in Downtown. Not only do these amendments and changes to the ARO indicate that such strategies are open to negotiation, they represent a first step in adaptive reuse policies allowing and encouraging flexibility in the functions and solutions adaptive reuse projects provide. Although the positive effects of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance have been instrumental in the rebirth of Downtown Los Angeles, its narrow focus has limited the reuse of existing buildings to residential and hotel functions. Renegotiating the restrictions of the ARO to allow for and encourage flexibility in uses, specifically commercial and mixeduse functions, would enable the introduction of innovative and contemporary adaptive reuse solutions that better respond to the needs of a constantly changing city. Further research and careful examination of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance coupled with the consideration of a potentially new model of internally integrated mixed-use in adaptive reuse projects could allow for greater flexibility in accommodating and determining the growth and evolution of Downtown Los Angeles for future generations.

2 1

4 3

1 Timeline of adaptive reuse in DTLA 2 ARO projects by year 3 Connective patterns of DTLA 4 DTLA growth by year

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

1906 ANTIQUITIES ACT 1916 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1925 WESTERN PACIFIC BUILDING 1927 WESTERN PACIFIC BUILDING ADDITION 1929 ECONOMIC DECLINE OF DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES 1931 LOS ANGELES STOCK EXCHANGE 1933 HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDING SURVEY 1935 HISTORIC SITES ACT 1949 NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1952 HARBOR FREEWAY 1954 HOLLYWOOD FREEWAY 1955-1970 COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY SHIFT FROM HISTORIC CORE 1959 BUNKER HILL RENEWAL PROJECT 1960 FIRST NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK 1965 SANTA MONICA FREEWAY 1966 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES) 1971 LOS ANGELES CONVENTION CENTER 1974 ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT 1976 SECRETARY OF INTERIOR GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING OLD BUILDINGS 1980 FLIGHT OF FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES SPURS DOWNTOWN VACANCY 1997 ADAPTIVE REUSE TASK FORCE CREATED 1995 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES CODIFIED 1999 ADAPTIVE REUSE ORDINANCE ADOPTED 1999 STAPLES CENTER OPENED 2002 THE STANDARD 2008 L.A. LIVE 2013 ACE HOTEL 2016 FREEHAND LA 2016 HYDE HOTEL 2017 EMPIRE HOTEL 2017 DOWNTOWN LA HOTEL PROPER 2017 801 BROADWAY 2018 NOMAD LA

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

TOTAL

In order to best investigate new strategies in adaptive reuse, this project seeks to locate itself at the intersection where new growth engages the existing urban fabric of the city. It is at these intersections where new development has begun the process of rewriting past histories, and where an intervention has the greatest potential to alter the course of this process.

GROWTH

Although growth in Downtown is sprawling and widespread, patterns of new development are identifiable. While the majority of new development is taking place on the west side of Downtown, that development is slowly pushing to the south and the east as previously vacant buildings and lots are being developed. These areas of Downtown are in a period of transition as new development is slowly taking over previous uses. As new construction and redevelopment continues to spread further south from the Downtown Urban core, the crossing of the Broadway corridor with the redevelopment of 11th Street represents a nodal intersection at which to investigate both new opportunities and past histories. It is at this intersection where the project building is located.

RESEARCH | PATTERNS OF GROWTH

34°4'

34°3'30"

34°3'

34°2'30"

34°2'

34°1'30"

34°1'

-118°17'30"

-118°17'

-118°16'30"

-118°16'

-118°15'30"

-118°15'

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST -118°14'30" -118°14'

ORIGINAL GRID JEFFERSONIAN GRID DTLA BOUNDARY

BROADWAY FUTURE BROADWAY DTLA BOUNDARY

RESEARCH | PATTERNS OF GROWTH

1849

1908

BROADWAY FUTURE BROADWAY DTLA BOUNDARY

1884

1928

THRESHOLD BETWEEN OLD AND NEW GROWTH

NEW RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL REUSE NEW COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL REUSE

BOUNDARY

NEW DEVELOPMENT

NEW GROWTH CORRIDORS IN TRANSITION THRESHOLD BETWEEN OLD AND NEW GROWTH

NEW PUBLIC PROJECT

GROWTH

BROADWAY FUTURE BROADWAY DTLA BOUNDARY

PUBLIC PROJECTS

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

E BLUE EXPO GOLD PURPLE RED STATION

METRO

PARKING

PROPOSED ROUTE

RESEARCH | PATTERNS OF MOVEMENT + DENSITY

PROPOSED STREETCAR

BIKE ROUTE MYFIGUEROA

BIKE ROUTES

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

HEIGHT

INDUSTRIAL

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

26 RESEARCH | SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT

NINTH

EIGHTH

NINTH

EIGHTH

OLYMPIC

ELEVENTH

OLYMPIC

TWELFTH

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

THIRD

FOURTH

FIFTH

FOURTH

SIXTH

SEVENTH

SIXTH

SEVENTH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

GRAND PARK CALIFORNIA PLAZA ANGELâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S KNOLL BIDDY MASON PARK PERSHING SQUARE SPRING STREET PARK GRAND HOPE PARK SAN JULIAN 6TH AND GLADYS PARK

Served

Under-Served

RESEARCH | OPEN SPACE ACCESS

OPEN SPACE ACCESS

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

IDEAS

SECTION TITLE | KEVIN EASTERLING

It is at this intersection of the historic Broadway corridor and newly developing 11th Street where the project building is located: The Western Pacific Building. Built in 1925, and enlarged in 1926, the 12-story reinforced concrete structure originally served as commercial and government office space. It now sits largely vacant with approximately 40% of the building leased as light-garment manufacturing and retail.

PROJECT BUILDING

The area surrounding the Western Pacific Building was once at the Southern end of the bustle and glitz of the Broadway theater district. Office buildings lined the Broadway corridor, nestled between what had historically been a light industrial manufacturing zone in the adjacent South Park and Fashion Districts. These uses are quickly disappearing as new commercial and residential development moves in. With the success of the Bringing Back Broadway movement, Broadway is slowly becoming a destination where people can once again come to play, visit, and live in Downtown. This corridor of new activity will soon be directly connected not only to the most dense areas of the Downtown urban core to the north, but also to the LA Live Entertainment and Staples Center District to the East. The opening of the proposed LA Streetcar will provide reliable, quick transportation. These conditions provide a rich and fulfilling urban fabric surrounding the project building; strategically positioned at the intersection of two corridors which serve a multitude of diverse needs.

IDEAS | BUILDING LOCATION

RESEARCH | PROJECT BUILDING COMPONENTS

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

STRATEGIES In considering design constraints imposed by the existing building, several formal strategies emerge as possible techniques to facilitate the accommodation of new program in a manner which best activates the building. Ultimately the project utilizes a combination of each of these strategies.

P R O T

ANALYSIS

V E R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

RESEARCH | FORMAL STRATEGIES + ANALYSIS

R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

A thorough analysis of the project building reveals a multitude of pre-existing conditions which serve to constrain new design. The building as it currently exists is composed of a grid-like framework of poured-in-place concrete columns, beams, joists, and floors. The combination of this concrete grid with hollow clay tile infill walls serves to subdivide the building into a compartmentalized grid. This grid is interrupted by a vertical circulation core, a firewall separating the original and expansion, and two light well courts around which the building is organized in sort of an h-shaped plan. The south facade of the building is cropped at an angle by Broadway, a result of Los Angeleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s original farm-grid layout intersecting with the later Jeffersonian grid.

A D

S O

L O

R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 B

R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

R 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 B

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

PROGRAM

The project begins by enacting a new programmatic composition dictated by the demands and needs of its urban surroundings rather than the restrictions of public policy. This mixture of program can be summarized as serving three major uses. First, in response to the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s direct connection to the L.A. Live entertainment district, the project first serves as a hotel destination for both urban travelers and business professionals. Second, in response to the growing business activity along the Broadway Corridor, the project provides both open collaborative, and traditional office environments. And third and finally, in response to the unrelenting density of the Downtown urban core the project provides a publicly accessible fitness center and rooftop park. Each of these program elements are arranged within the project according to a variety of factors; each of which are indicated visually in both matrix and relationship diagrams. The individual space making operations of this project are driven by an overall subtractive formal strategy. Specifically this involves the removal of existing floor plates, non-load bearing interior infill walls, and non-structural exterior infill walls in order to create space, connections, and opportunities for the internal mixing of program. Exploiting the systematic nature of the universal grid existent within the building provides a framework upon which the overall strategies can be further refined on a local level.

IDEAS | PROGRAM STRATEGIES

SUPPORT

RESTAURANT

HOTEL

Lobby

800

Reception Bag Storage Office Storage

150 50 100 50

HOTEL Guest Room

HOTEL

RESTAURANT

400

300

Employee Lounge

140

Men’s Lockers

Restaurant Seating

2000

Lobby Women’s Lockers

140

Offi ce

130

300

500

Bar

SYSTEMS 100

Electrical

Kitchen

Restaurant Seating

4000

1000

100 50

Janitor Building Engineer

400

Office Space Server Station

Guest Room

CREATIVE OFFICE

1200

Conference Room

250

Employee Lounge

400

Men’s Restroom

200

Women’s Restroom

200

IDF Room Reception

100 150

Ballroom

3000 Server Station

100

Bar

500

Kitchen

2000

FITNESS CENTER 300

Fi re Pump

Weight Training

CAFE

Domestic Pump

Fuel Storage

Walk-In Cooler

200

Walk-In Freezer

150

Storage

200

100

Men’s Restroom Women’s Restroom Office

120 120 75 CAFE

200

DWP Vault

500

Cafe Prep

100

150

MDF Room

Janitor

Cafe

BACK OF HOUSE 50

Trash

Grease Interceptor

100

150

RETAIL Retail Sales

500

Retail Office

100

Retail Storage

200

Electrical Fire Control Receiving Trash

Housekeeping

Housekeeping Office Linen

300

Janitor Storage

200

Activity Room

Men’s Lockers

Women’s Lockers

500

Guest Suites

Support Kitchen

800

Storage

150

Men’s Restroom

200

Women’s Restroom

200

Housekeeping Electrical

100 100

1000

Walk-In Cooler

400

Walk-In Cooler Storage Men’s Restroom Women’s Restroom Office

50 200 200 200 75 POOL

1000

650

Pool Deck

2500

Pool Equipment

150

Men’s Locker Room

650

Women’s Locker Room

650

COMMON SPACE Storage

100

Housekeeping Spa Deck

100

COMMON

1000

25 25

SYSTEMS Spa Equipment Electrical

150 100

Outdoor Courtyard

2000 Electrical

100

Elevator Lobby

160

Garden

2000

Mechanical Equipment

1200

100 Atrium

Elevator Lobby

SYSTEMS 100 100 100

Aerobics Room

500

160

Outdoor Courtyard

1100

260 Elevator Lobby

160

Elevator Lobby

160

Elevator Lobby

160

Lobby Reception Guest Room Guest Suite Ballroom Support Kitchen RESTAURANT Restaurant Seating Bar Cafe Cafe Prep

Lobby Office Space Conference Room SYSTEMS Fire Control Receiving Mechanical Electrical Fi re Pump Domestic Pump Fuel Storage

RETAIL

DWP Vault

Retail Sales

SUPPORT

Reception Weight Training Activity Room Spa Deck

Employee Lounge Office Men’s Restroom Women’s Restroom Men’s Lockers

COMMON SPACE

Women’s Lockers

Outdoor Courtyard

BACK OF HOUSE

Stairs Garden Pool Deck Atrium Elevator Lobby

IDEAS | PROGRAM STRATEGIES

Reception

Kitchen

FITNESS CENTER

CREATIVE OFFICE

Janitor Trash Grease Interceptor Housekeeping Linen

Terrestrially Dependent

Vertically Dependent

Movement Encouraging

Regularly Occupied

Exterior Dependent

Adaptable

Visually Dynamic

Publicly Accessible

Pedestrian Dependent

Movement Encouraging

Regularly Occupied

Exterior Dependent

Adaptable

Visually Dynamic

Publicly Accessible

Pedestrian Dependent

Terrestrially Dependent

Vertically Dependent

HOTEL

INNER

Kitchen

Cafe Prep

Support Kitchen

Retail Storage

Guest Suite

Activity Room

Guest Room

Weight Training

Conference Room

Office Space

Spa Deck

Ballroom

Reception

Elevator Lobby

Fire Control

Men’s Lockers

Grease Interceptor

Mechanical

Women’s Lockers

Trash

Electrical

Men’s Restroom

Janitor

Receiving

Women’s Restroom

Linen

DWP Vault

Office

Housekeeping

Lobby

TRANSITIONAL

Employee Lounge

Atrium

Reception

Pool Deck

Lobby

Stairs

Garden

Cafe

Outdoor Courtyard

OUTER

Bar

Retail Sales

Restaurant Seating Restaurant

Hotel

Common Space

Fitness Center

Retail

Creative Office

Systems

Support

Back of House

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

IDEAS | FORMAL STRATEGIES

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

DESIGN

SECTION TITLE | KEVIN EASTERLING

The individual programmatic elements of the project are structured around an open atrium which encourages the building to operate as a whole. Which inspired the namesake of this project: Union. So, from top to bottom, the elements of this Union are identified as shop, fare, fit, co-lab, work, stay, and connect. The open atrium piercing the project first connects the stratified layers of the building vertically, and then blurs this connection horizontally in response to the program it connects. In this manner, the horizontal disturbance in section operates as a dominant mode of discourse rather than the vertical extrusion.

DESIGN NARRATIVE

The atrium is punctuated by skip-stop escalators connecting every other floor, which operate in combination with a continuous secondary local circulation pathway. FaĂ§ade interventions invert the closed nature of the building, exposing its function and projecting it to the public as accessible and open. Major public spaces surrounding the atrium are defined as absences of the building, as voids carved from the solid. These voids are conceived of as a critique of reuse precedents, placing greater importance on transparency, usability, and function in the relationship between the subject and the object of reuse architecture. Circulation pathways are malleable and pliable, and are no longer specifically related to the ground or the existing floor plates. They instead take an alternative path connecting horizontal datums in a vertical continuum guided by the restrictions of the building, lifting up the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fabric. The resultant path and the peripheral views it affords shift the focus from the physicality of the building to the subject, becoming a part of a different kind of spatial relationship enacted within the confines of past architecture.

DESIGN | DESIGN NARRATIVE

DESIGN | PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

DESIGN | SITE PLAN

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

DESIGN | ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

DESIGN | ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

DESIGN | ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

basement 0

DESIGN | FLOOR PLANS

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

DESIGN | LONGITUDINAL SECTION AT LIGHT COURTS

vertical circulation

datums divided

datums identified

local circulation

skip-stop escalators

exposed circulation

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

SECTION TITLE | KEVIN EASTERLING

DESIGN | TRANSVERSE SECTION AT ATRIUM

63 INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

south

DESIGN | EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

east

north

west

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

DESIGN | VIGNETTES AT ATRIUM + ROOF + STREET FACADE

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

SECTION TITLE | KEVIN EASTERLING

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

SECTION TITLE | KEVIN EASTERLING

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

DESIGN | PHYSICAL MODEL

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

DESIGN | PHYSICAL MODEL

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

APPENDIX

SECTION TITLE | KEVIN EASTERLING

20 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23

20 20 20

20 8

LEVEL 04-05 [TYPICAL]

PUMP ROOM MAINTENANCE STORAGE EMPLOYEE LOUNGE BAR DANCE FLOOR OFFICE ELECTRICAL ROOM TRASH BAR PREP COOLER KITCHEN RESTAURANT CAFE DWP ROOM RECEIVING RECEPTION HOUSEKEEPING GUEST ROOM BANQUET ROOM GUEST ROOM SUITE

24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

PROJECT PROGRAM

POOL ENCLOSURE POOL EQUIPMENT HOUSEKEEPING POOL ELECTRICAL ROOM POOL EQUIPMENT COOLER STORAGE OFFICE KITCHEN DANCE FLOO SPA LOUNGE BAR ELEV EQUIPMENT

GROSS AREA [SF] HOTEL RESTAURANT

119

4,293

BAR

839

SUPPORT

15,559

GROSS BLDG AREA

QUANITITY

64,224

1,400

2,123

3,639

1,587

15,561

5 [FLOORS]

115,374

GROSS LOT SIZE

7,974

FLOOR-AREA-RATIO

6.076

PROPER HOTEL

21 20 3

1 1:0.58

5 7

8 6

10 3

LEVEL 00 [BASEMENT] 50

APPENDIX | CASE STUDIES

2 3 9

160FT

LEVEL 11-13 [TYPICAL]

130FT

LEVEL 01 [GROUND]

1068 S BROADWAY

URBAN SECTION [W 8TH ST] 10

60FT

PROPER HOTEL

1111 S BROADWAY

LEVEL 15 [ROOF]

30FT

LEVEL 04

160FT

6 1

LEVEL 07 [TYPICAL]

1:0.58

URBAN SECTION [W 8TH ST] 10

MAX [SF]

400

10 20

MIN [SF]

[ROOMS]

60FT

W AY

BR O AD

HI LL

RESTAUARANT SUPPORT POOL 14 13 12 11 10 09 08

HOTEL

125

250

500FT

PROPER HOTEL

07 06

POOL

OMGIVNING ARCHITECTURE | 2017 | DESIGN

Located just a block South of Union, the Proper Hotel is proposed to be Downtown Los Angeles’ newest lifestyle boutique hotel, targeting Downtown’s growing population of creative professionals and leisure travelers. The hotel will occupy an existing 13-story building, home to many prior tenants including the YWCA and Case Hotel. Considered an important part of the redevelopment of South Broadway, the hotel will help connect the Broadway District with the Fashion District, the Historic Core, LA Live, and the Convention Center.

HOTEL

SUPPORT 05

BANQUET ROOM

SUPPORT

04 03 LEVEL 02

HOTEL

HOTEL BAR

LEVEL 01

HOTEL

RESTAURANT

RESTAURANT W

SUPPORT

AY W AD O BR

SUPPORT

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

PROJECT PROGRAM GROSS AREA [SF] PUBLIC MARKET RESTAURANTS BARS

20 6

58,646

130,495

196

OFFICE

561,369

RETAIL

561,369

GROSS BLDG AREA

MECHANICAL

41,507 118,083

HOTEL

SUPPORT

RESTAURANT

QUANITITY

GROSS LOT SIZE

[STALLS]

[ROOMS]

5 [FLOORS] 16

[SUITES]

MIN [SF]

MAX [SF]

400

1,400

2,123

3,639

1,587

15,561

1,587

739

900

6,400

25,681 1,137,378 117,403

FLOOR-AREA-RATIO

7.97

OUTDOOR LOUNGE

MAIN ENTRANCE PRIVATE CLUB OUTDOOR DINING

BAR

COMMUNITY PLAZA

LEVEL 7-10 [ROOF]

S HILL ST

STREET DINING

155FT

W 8TH ST

SUPPORT

801 BROADWAY

ANJAC FASHION BLDG

RESTAURANT

MARKET

HOTEL

RETAIL

1:0.58

LEVEL 01 [GROUND] 10 20

APPENDIX | CASE STUDIES

S BROADWAY AVE

URBAN SECTION [BROADWAY] 10

85FT

30FT

W AY

HI LL

RI NG

125

250

500FT

BROADWAY TRADE CENTER OMGIVNING ARCHITECTS | 2016

HOTEL 09 08 LEVEL 07

HOTEL RETAIL

Located in heart of the historic Broadway Theater District in Downtown Los Angeles, 801 Broadway is an adaptive reuse of the former Hamburgerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and May Company Department Store. Proposed improvements include ground floor retail, restuarants, bars, and a market collective. A sprawling rooftop complex featuring restaurants, bars, an urban garden and various outdoor public spaces.

MARKET

BAR

RESTAURANT BAR

OFFICE 06 05 04 03 LEVEL 02

RESTAURANT CIRCULATION

L IL

H T

OFFICE

LEVEL 01

RETAIL

RESTAURANT SUPPORT HOTEL

RESTAURANT SUPPORT

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

PROJECT PROGRAM GROSS AREA [SF]

HOTEL 1

5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

POOL POOL DECK ROOF DECK BAR RESTAURANT KITCHEN POOL EQUIP ROOM

LEVEL 13 [ROOF]

QUANITITY

86,854

226

RESTAURANT

3,710

BAR

1,480

600

RETAIL SUPPORT

12,778

GROSS BLDG AREA

MIN [SF]

720

1,300

2,100

150

200

[SUITE]

5 [FLOORS]

117,178

GROSS LOT SIZE

9,004

FLOOR-AREA-RATIO

12.98

1 1 1

FREEHAND LA

1 GUEST ROOM 2 SERVICE 3 ELECTRICAL ROOM

155FT

LEVELS 2-13 [TYPICAL]

3 2

1 RESTAURANT 2 MECH EQUIPMENT 3 OFFICE

LEVEL 01 [MEZZANINE] 1:0.58

85FT

URBAN SECTION [W 8TH ST]

LEVEL 01 [GROUND]

5 2

LEVEL 00 [BASEMENT] 10 20

APPENDIX | CASE STUDIES

85FT

155FT

RESTAURANT KITCHEN BAR LOBBY RETAIL OFFICE

431 W 8TH ST

1 2 3 4 5 6

FREEHAND LA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

DWP VAULT UTILITY ROOM ELEV EQUIP ROOM SUPPORT KITCHEN OFFICE STORAGE FIRE PUMP ROOM EMPLOYEE BREAK FITNESS ROOM LOUNGE

1:0.58

URBAN SECTION [W 8TH ST] 10

MAX [SF]

200

[ROOMS]

65FT

RI NG

W AY

HI LL

125

250

500FT

FREEHAND LA KILLEFER FLAMMANG ARCHITECTS | 2017 | DESIGN 15 14

Located on the corner of 8th and Olive streets in Downtown Los Angeles, the 13-story Commercial Exchange Building is soon to be the home of the new Freehand LA hotel. Funded by the Sydell Group, the hotel is to be developed as a hostel-style hotel for young urban travelers; a property that combines the social culture of a hostel with the amenities of a trendy hotel. Freehand LA is to be the third hotel in the Freehand franchise after the existing properties in Miami Beach and Chicago. The hotel is intended to provide a unique option to group, international, youth travelers, and those seeking a creative, social experience as they explore Downtown Los Angeles.

SUPPORT RESTAURANT

SUPPORT 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02

HOTEL

RETAIL 01 S O E

L T

HOTEL RESTAURANT 8T

RETAIL BAR

LEVEL 00

HOTEL

RESTAURANT

HOTEL

SUPPORT

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

TAIPEI CITY MUSEUM OF ART LTL ARCHITECTS | 2001 | DESIGN

LEVEL 08

LEVEL 07

LEVEL 03

LEVEL 06

LEVEL 02

LEVEL 05

LEVEL 01

LEVEL 04

APPENDIX | CASE STUDIES

A resolution of simultaneous opposites, the museum is at once an object building and an extension into its surroundings. Program is raised above a porous plinth, and the terrain below is sculpted to engage points of access and multiple approaches. A continuous lobby containing a grand staircase and pairs of escalators, spirals up through the eight floors of the building. The stairs extend into public gathering spaces at each level and link to the central elevator core, which provides a means to shortcut the spiraling ascent. Constantly changing, and complex in section, the continuous lobby forms a legible figure in plan.

TYPICAL GUEST ROOM

NEW YORK EDITION

PROPER HOTEL

FREEHAND LA

321 SF

4 6 125 STANDARD KING

5 11 49 SHARED QUAD

SHARED QUAD

STANDARD KING

SUPERIOR

5 11 50

STANDARD KING

DELUXE

LOFT SUITE

INTEGRATED FUTURES FOR THE BUILT PAST

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bernstein, K. 2012. “A Planning Ordinance Injects New Life into Historic Downtown.” In Planning Los Angeles, by D. Sloan, 253-264. American Planning Association. Brown, I. 2009. Adaptive Reuse as Economic Development in Downtown Los Angeles: A Resource Guide for Start-up Developers, Community Based Organizations, and Stakeholder Groups. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Davis, M. 2006. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. London; New York: Verso. Fennell, Ryan. 2003. “Better Downtown Living Through Adaptive Reuse.” Planning Forum 9: 4-25. Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. 2013. “Historic Broadway Commercial Reuse.” Information Bulletin. Los Angeles Department of City Planning. 2014. L.A. Rising - How the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Transformed Downtown Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Department of City Planning. Los Angeles, California. 2016. Municipal Code Section 12.22-A, 26. Mayor’s Office of Housing and Economic Development. 2006. Adaptive Reuse Handbook. Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles. Shigley, P. 2009. “Downtown L.A.: The Rise, Fall and Plateau.” California Planning & Development Report, March. Accessed October 29, 2015. http://www.cp-dr.com/node/2273. The Partnership for Building Reuse. 2013. “Learning from Los Angeles.” ULI. 2013. South Park Business Improvement District Technical Assistance Panel Report. Los Angeles: Urban Land Institute Advisory Services Technical Assistance Panel. Yung, E, and E Chan. 2012. “Implementation Challenges to the Adaptive Reuse of Heritage Buildings: Towards the Goals of Sustainable, Low Carbon Cities.” Habitat International 3 (36): 352-361.

ENDNOTES

APPENDIX | REFERENCES

1. Davis 2006, 118 2. Bernstein 2012, 253, Shigley 2009 3. Brown 2009, 2, Mayor’s Office of Housing and Economic Development 2006 4. Los Angeles Department of City Planning 2014 5. The Partnership for Building Reuse 2013, 39 6. Fennell 2003, 13 7. The Partnership for Building Reuse 2013, 19 8. The Partnership for Building Reuse 2013, 7, Yung and Chan 2012, 357 9. Municipal Code Section 12.22-A, 26 2016 10. The Partnership for Building Reuse 2013, 24 11. Yung and Chan 2012, 358 12. Los Angeles Department of City Planning 2014 13. Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety 2013