Deconstructing Pattern Logics
Kirsten Goedeker
Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Design I Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts I Washington University in St. Louis Design Thinking I Spring 2014 I Instructor: Jonathan Stitelman I TA: Shaun Dodson
Deconstructing Pattern Logics
Kirsten Goedeker
Special Thanks to Jonathan Stitelman and Shaun Dodson for their guidance and help in crafting this book. The readers who take the time to peruse my thoughts and research - I’m grateful for your consideration.
Contents Introduction ................................................................................ 3 Concept ........................................................................................ 15 Defining the Module ............................................................. 17 Modules as Scalable Aggregations ............................... 18 Aggregations as Regions ..................................................... 22 Pattern Variations ..................................................................... 24 Extracted Pattern Hierarchies ........................................... 28 Patterns and the Edge .......................................................... 30 Wrapping Space via the Edge .......................................... 32 Value of Patterns and Modules in Architecture ..... 34 Site .................................................................................................... 37 St. Louis as a Pattern ............................................................... 38 St. Louis Historic Grid Clash ............................................... 40 Site Selection: Clinton Peabody ...................................... 43 Selection Parameters ............................................................. 44 Corridor Activity ........................................................................ 45 Patterns of Ownership .......................................................... 46 Quality of Public Space ......................................................... 48 Vacancy .......................................................................................... 50 Inactive Landscapes ............................................................... 52 Clinton Peabody Site Pattern ............................................ 54 Possible Deployment Sites ................................................. 55
Site Panoramas .......................................................................... 56 Clinton Peabody History ...................................................... 68 Site Typologies ........................................................................... 69 Regional Site Amenities ....................................................... 70 Site Amenities ............................................................................ 72 Final Parcel Selection ............................................................. 74 Program ........................................................................................ 77 Program Patterns ...................................................................... 78 Program Patterns in the Site .............................................. 88 Defining the User ..................................................................... 93 Homelessness in St. Louis ................................................... 96 Median Income in St. Louis ............................................... 98 Public Housing in St. Louis ................................................. 99 Public Housing Typologies .............................................. 100 Public Housing Precedents ............................................. 102 Public Housing Adjacencies ........................................... 104 Program Proposal .................................................................. 106 Program in the Site ............................................................... 110 Programmatic Relationship Matrix ............................. 112 Program Parameters ............................................................ 114 Potential Networks ............................................................... 118 Project Conclusion ............................................................... 120 Sources ....................................................................................... 123
Kirsten Goedeker Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Design I Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts I Washington University in St. Louis Design Thinking I Spring 2014 I Instructor: Jonathan Stitelman I TA: Shaun Dodson
Introduction
As an architectural component, modules have the means to operate in both large and small scales of aggregated particulates, dissolving into different patterns and hierarchies of form and use dependent on the scalar perspective. The flexibility, yet contrasting rigidity of these complex systems allows for intriguing architectural juxtapositions in the formal, programmatic, and contextual realms.
5
Using the modular framework of pattern studies, a site was selected in the Clinton Peabody neighborhood due to the patterned juxtapositions in its neighborhood context with the adjacent Lafayette Square Park neighborhood. In addition to the pattern logic, the demographic make up of the neighborhood was an important factor in site selection as well. Finding an area that fell within a demographic need for affordable design solutions to serve a consistent low-income resident user-base was important to the project.
Wards in Financial Need of Affordable Housing
7
Wards with Income with 50% or more Residents Below the Posted Median
Wards with Income Level Below the National Median
Overlaying patterns of ownership and activity gradients of public space across the Clinton Peabody neighborhood in contrast with those of the adjacent Lafayette Square Park neighborhood brought to light both large and small pockets of space where modular architecture could be inserted. Aggregations of variously scaled programs can be woven into the existing pattern into areas of disengaged public space (or vacant space) in the hopes of bringing a resiliency to the neighborhood context.
9
Broadly, modulated and patterned architecture would manifest itself on the site in three main programmatic means: affordable housing, job training / vocational education facilities, and childcare facilities. Using the module of a single person as the basis of needs based design, the target user would be a homeless individual (or family) or an individual that is currently in a low-income situation. As the basis of design, the needs of a single individual will also be applied to the means of parceling out the supplementary programs of job training and childcare, resulting, not in a single megastructure, but smaller sets of programmed aggregations that can be read across the site (and eventually across different parts of the city) as a scalable and networked whole.
Affordable Housing Block
~ 6500 sf per block, 300 per unit
Job Training / Vocational Center ~16000sf
Childcare Center
~8000 sf indoor, 4000 sf outdoor
11
The combination of the deconstructed pattern logic with the public housing program aims to break down the current notions that the built form creates, like the inclusion / exclusion dichotomy, and to form new conclusions about public, private space, and existing context. Through the placement of the multi-scalar program in the site the realms of residents and non-resident neighbors and community members can combine. This can happen in plan with the edge condition between old / existing and new and in the in-between spaces in new program interventions. The same ideas can continue in section by providing thresholds of interaction between the public open to the community and the private for residents. Creating new sectional relationships can help to break down stereotypical interactions of segregation, or “us versus them� and to create welcoming interactions on the site. Flexible notions of circulation in the overlaid patterning of the program and the site are the strongest means to break through stigma to create a functional system out of a stagnated, policy formed public housing condition.
Program and Edge Blending Existing Edge Blending Hybrid Sectional Program Relationships
Semi-Private Public
Semi-Private
Private
Existing Public
Existing Private
Existing Semi-Private
Public
13
Concept
mod ule .
(n.)
1. each set of standardized parts or independent units that can be used to construct a more complex structure, such as an item of furniture or a building 2. any number of distinct but interrelated units from which a program may be built up or into which complex activity may be analyzed
As architectural components, modules have the means to operate in both large and small scales of aggregated particulates, dissolving into differing patterns and hierarchies of form and use dependent on the scalar point of view. The flexibility, yet contrasting rigidity of these complex systems allows for intriguing architectural juxtapositions in the formal, programmatic, and contextual realms. Using the modular frameworks and pattern studies in this examination, broadly, I would like to explore as a concept the use of modular design toward creating an efficient form of deployable housing for the homeless and low-income populations of St. Louis. 17
Breaking down this image, the simplest patterns of aggregated modules (based on the hexagonal geometry) can be found, dissolving and appearing dependent on the scale of reference. Nesting patterns are also possible through a process of subdivision, achieving a set of varied conditions.
19
Even the smallest portion of the pattern (the central swath, or a singular hexagon) contains a multitude of modular components that can be read at multiple scales.
21
The abstraction of a similar technique of blending different scales of the same modular shape can evoke small relational details of differing parts and regional conditions of similar pattern types.
23
Although a modular pattern may seem rigid in its inherent structure...
25
... variations can exist that enhance the spatial quality of the system.
27
Hauer
Once the scalar facets of modules and modular patterns are understood, a hierarchy can be applied creating design rules for the differing components. These rules range from the accumulation of the smallest particulate to the conglomeration of the system as a whole.
Extracted Pattern Hierarchies
4-6 blocks per superblock
6-10 parcels per block
10-20 units per parcel
4-6 modules per unit
The interface of the hierarchical module can also yield relationships between volumes and aggregations:
The negative space between the figure ground of the modules that bodes an important question:
How can the relationship form a framework that plugs in rules for interactions with the landscape, infrastructure, and buildings? How can it subdivide into a working human scale? 29
As patterns terminate, there is often a juxtaposition between two typified planes. When modules are present, this edge condition is an opportunity to address new relationships within and outside of the pattern region. How the module addresses the edge is critical to understanding programmatic and contextual relationships.
Hard Barriers
Gradual Transitions
Layered Interactions
promote no interaction between sides
recognize the integration of one context into another
maintain the independence of the module, and allow for volumetric overlays
31
“It is that magical moment when facades stop shaping surrounding buildings and join hands to become the outer surface of the space they enclose.” - Robert Gatje, Great Public Squares, An Architect’s Selection
Christo
As all patterns come to an end, the module continues to give form and meaning to that around it. The modular edge should aim to wrap the public space around it to form complex modular relationships within itself and with its context. 33
C O N T I N U I T Y
Exclusional Enclave
Disruption of Continuity
Static and Stagnant Typical St. Louis Block Structure
The value of patterns and modules in architecture is to provide a sense of continuity within the built fabric, preventing needless disruptions. In the case of affordable housing (the focus of this research) the current methodology of building large block scale conglomerations of apartment buildings cuts the neighborhood off from the city grid both through the severing street circulation and the construction of gates and fences at the sidewalk juncture. This differing pattern is contrary to the natural pattern of the city and is both a visible and psychological disruption. Different patterns at the regional scale can co-exist together when they overlap and create patterned variations, providing richness to the city. However, this same logic, cannot operate on the block scale as contemporary affordable housing attempts to do. The block scale is too fine a grain to generate new pattern relationships when there is no reference or connection to the context, and only a stagnant relationship between the housing block and the city fabric remains.
Typical St. Louis Affordable Housing Block
The Value of Patterns and Modules in Architecture Finding methods for new patterns to relate to the existing context is critical to begin to replicate the blended overlapping that occurs at the regional scale in a smaller block context. Nestling into contextual city patterns in complimentary geometries and relying on regional services will better help to stitch affordable housing neighborhoods into the surrounding contexts. “Continuity Machine”
Intersections for localized amenities
At the larger neighborhood scale, using existing voids within the city pattern is a viable means to insert new pattern logics and to create new connective pathways between different patterns and neighborhoods. Inserting armatures for orientation will help to highlight the new relationships that affordable housing can have with existing neighborhoods and can assist in folding in modular amenities and infrastructure into existing communities (underprivileged or otherwise). At the architectural scale, modules and the patterned configurations that they can be arranged in can lead to the inventive embedding of assets and amenities into the built form, as well as new spatial configurations that can begin to break down the conventional relationships between affordable housing and its context (the traditional “us versus them” paradigm. 35
Site
At the macro-scale, St. Louis is comprised of a variety of patterns in the landscape, most notably, the means in which the city grid has expanded from the riverfront node in an arterial manner via highway corridors.
39
Bridgeton, 1794
The city did not always exist as one metropolitan whole - it was formed by the clash of four city centers. Each center had an independent grid - most commonly working along the lines of tangents to the river, oriented in the best manner to bring goods into the city via the ports.
Florissant 1785
North St. Louis, 1816
St. Louis City, 1764
41
Old North St. Louis Carr Square Norwood Clinton Peabody
Using areas of grid clash and patterning as a means to focus in on the city, four tentative site neighborhoods were chosen, ultimately highlighting one neighborhood, showing the most promise for improvement and intervention.
I-64
Park A venue
Lafayette
Avenue
h Stre et
oulev
S. 14t
Trum a
n Par
kway
teau A venue
Tucke rB
Chou
ard
S. Jeff erson
Ave.
Site Selected: Clinton Peabody
I-55
I-44
43
Social, spatial, and pattern parameters were established for site selection to determine the nature of a specific neighborhood’s hidden patterns. These patterns, much like those of the conceptual module, are scalar, appearing and dissolving dependent on the view. The parameters are as follows: An area with arterial connections to the metropolitan area as a whole An area with access (or potential access) to multi-modal transport An area with multiple scales of building ownership, preferably with large, block scale residential components (both market rate and subsidized) An area with institutions like churches and schools to make potential connections An area with both lively streetscapes and public parks, in contrast and in the same site as areas with inactive and sparse streetscapes and semi-public green space (in both user base and vegetation) An area with poorly programmed parking allotments and semi-public green space that can be potentially re-thought as a focus of scalable intervention An area with vacancy in both building stock and open land An area with a variety of potential intervention sites at multiple scales across the broad site region with the ability to connect to other areas in the city in a networked intervention
Active, Inactive, and Overactive Corridors
Active Inactive Overactive 45
The patterning in the two opposing neighborhoods reveals the vibrancy and variation in the housing stock on one side, and the monotony of the superblock on the other.
Patterns of Ownership
Individual Ownership vs Superblocks 47
One of the problems in this neighborhood is the quality of public space. Although Lafayette Square Park is adjacent to the Clinton Peabody area, the public space allotted for residents does not have any visual or formal connections to the park. Much of the landscaped area is used for parking and is laid out in traditional suburban fashion, opposing the vibrant urban density of buildings and foliage next to it. The inactive spaces lack tree cover, plants, and armatures for people to inhabit, creating a very unwelcoming feeling. Ideally, public space should be an extension of inhabitable private space, fostering new relationships and connections.
Perception and Quality of Public Space
Active Inactive 49
While the vacancy patterns in this neighborhood are not as dense as in other areas of the city, when combined with the previous mapping’s inactive public space...
Vacancy: Fields, Parks, Landscapes
Gradients of Park Space vs Vacancy 51
The pattern of inactive landscapes becomes much more apparent. These landscapes can then begin to create points of entry for modular intervention.
Inactive Landscapes
53
Site Pattern: Clinton Peabody and Lafayette Square
With all of the analysis layers overlaid, the grain of the site begins to emerge. Patterns of ownership merge with qualities of space, indicating potential areas of intervention in their overlap.
I-64
S. Jeff erson
Ave.
Potential Deployment Sites Chou
oulev ard Tucke rB
Trum a
n Par
S. 14t
kway
h Stre
et
teau A venue
Park Ave nu
e I-55
I-44
The end goal is the selection of an area with several parcels of potential deployment for modular design interventions. These areas should be in the overlapped zone of inactivity and large parcel ownership, adjacent to active corridors, maximizing the design impact. 55
Truman Parkway
Clinton Peabody Housing Looking East
Looking West
Vacant Site
Clinton Peabody Housing Construction Careers Center
St. Mary’s Assumption Catholic Church
Vacant Site 57
S. 14th Street
Clinton Peabody Housing Looking East
Clinton Peabody Housing Looking West
Les Chateaux Senior Housing
Clinton Peabody Housing Peabody Elementary School
Al Chapelle Community Center 59
S. 14th Street (continued)
King Louis Square Housing Looking East
Looking West
City Hospital
Perpetual Life Church
61
Tucker Boulevard
Looking East
Clinton Peabody Housing Looking West
Mestres Park
La Salle Baptist Church
63
Chouteau Avenue
Vacant Site St. Mary’s Infirmary Looking North
Clinton Peabody Housing Looking South
Salama Supermarket
Les Chateaux Senior Housing
Vacant Site Park Chop Suey
Clinton Peabody Housing
65
Park Avenue
Clinton Peabody Housing Looking North
King Louis Square Housing Looking South
Perpetual Life Church
City Hospital
67
Clinton Peabody
Site History Clinton-Peabody, formerly Clinton Peabody-Terrace, was a low-rise public housing project first constructed in 1942 by St. Louis City (it has since been remodeled in 2006) . Located in the Peabody Darst Webbe neighborhood (named for the Joseph Darst high-rise housing photographed on the right), the project was constructed to mediate and control tuberculosis disease in the city center and high infant death rates in tenement housing. At its peak, Clinton Peabody had 53 buildings, 675 units, 2972 rooms, over 27.49 acres. Currently the site holds 358 units that range between one to five bedrooms. As of 2010, the neighborhood has a total of 2,378 residents: 10.3% White, 87.5% Black, 0.5% Hispanic, 0.1% American Indian, 0.3% Asian, and 1.5% Mixed Race.
Fox, Where We Live: A Guide to St. Louis Communities
Site Typologies
Single Family Park House
Single Family Detached
Single Family Townhouse
Multi-Family Detached
Multi-Family Courtyard
Multi-Family Low-Rise
Multi-Family Apartments
Senior Housing Complex
69
Regional Amenities
Transit MetroLink Planned MetroLink Schools Government Buildings Churches Institutions 71
Site Amenities
Transit MetroLink Planned MetroLink Schools Churches Institutions
73
Clinton Peabody Neighborhood
St. Ma ry Catho ’s Assump t lic Ch urch ion Hicko
Final Parcel Selection
ry Stre
et
Clinto
n Pea
Lafay e Com tte Squar mun e ity G arden
Zittl
(curr e
osen
ntly
Man
vaca
ufac
nt, b
Parkw ay Trum an
~360 ’
Appr oxim ate
Dole
man
Site A rea: 6
Stree
t
4,800
sf
~180’
body
Housi
ng
Const ru Caree ction rs Cente r
turin
ut in
goo
g Co . Bui
d co
ndit
lding
ion)
75
Program
Modular patterns can be applied to program through a series of juxtapositions between different pattern regions or patterned content. A number of scalable modules can be read as individual pieces, or as a larger modular unit, creating a new logic which can be applied to programmatic relationships.
79
Scalable aggregations of parts can be combined to create new modules and pattern interactions.
81
Programmatic patterns can first be understood by accumulations of different scales of shapes (triangles, hexagons, hexagon groupings) as means to delineate program differentiations across a site.
As an example of program relationships, the pattern has been noted as follows: Public
Semi-Private
Private 83
Programmatic patterns can also be understood as regions of “smoothness� and perforation as means to delineate program differentiations across a site.
Public
(Smooth/Closed)
Semi-Private
Private
(Semi-Open)
(Open)
85
Finally, programmatic patterns can be understood, not just as regions, but as the small aggregations of perforated shapes as means to delineate program differentiations and dimensions across a site. These small clusters of patterned modules allow for a linked intervention of small program clusters across the site at different scales. The modules are organized by the base unit of one individual user, which, can be expanded as needed.
Public
Semi-Private
Private 87
47
Bridgeton
42
Berkeley
Ferguson
22
44
Jennings
25 St. John
20
Maryland Heights
43
Glasgow Village
24
23 St. Ann
Bellfontaine Neighbors
Castle Point
19
41 40
27
31
30
28
18
Overland 21
27
38
37
34
35
36
39
33
16
Pagedale
Olivette
32
46
29
17
2
45
26
1
22
21
15
University City
Creve Coeur
3
4
26
Venice City
18 Brooklyn Village
5
Clayton
Ladue
17
Brentwood
4
Huntleigh
24
7
23 Shrewsbury
7
9
15 20
14
16
13 12
9
Cahokia Village 11
12
Affton
13
10
East Carondelet Village
11
Lemay
Green Park
Dupo Village Mehlville
Sauget Village
25
14
8
Crestwood At the regional scale, the city can be understood as a conglomeration of patterns that intersect at neighborhood boundaries and overlap where city Sunset Hills Sappington fabric grids collide. This creates a unique dichotomy of continuity and differentiation.
East St. Lo
8
Glendale Webster Groves
6
10
Maplewood
Rock Hill
6
Kirkwood
19
28
Richmond Heights
Frontenac
5
Different patterns of life co-exist in the same district
Regions of Amenity Services (bus, electricity, parks, public safety, schools, wi-fi)
Zooming in closer at the district scale, amenities begin to cluster to serve specific portions of the pattern. These secondary patterns stand out as variations in the whole, but are distinct patterns of the city in and of themselves. 89
Large Areas Open for Intervention
Small Aggregations of Singular Ownership
Large Block-Scale Ownership
Mid-Size Aggregations of Ownership by Building
On the site, program patterns can be read at a larger neighborhood scale, relating to the existing site conditions of ownership and open space activity levels.
Additionally, program patterns appear at a smaller clustered block scale, relating to the planned programmatic interventions arranged across the site. 91
Defining the User
Riis, How the Other Half Lives
What is the Pattern of Life?
“It meant this, and nothing less, that these children had come at last to their rights; that every baby is entitled to one pair of mother’s arms around its neck; that its God-given right is a home - a home...” Jacob Riis How the Other Half Lives “And this home, how does it look to me? The ideal, always in my mind, is that of a man with his feet upon soil and his children growing up there... But that ideal is not attainable in our cities. We must find another there. And I ask, as the minimum standards, less than which I will not take, isolation enough in the teeming crowds to secure the privacy without which individuality cannot grow and character is fearfully handicapped. I ask light and air, at least plentiful and as good as they have it in the great cattle barns... I ask an environment in which a man may think himself a respectable citizen, an environment that has no suggestion of the pigsty.” Jacob Riis, Our Sins of the Past
Ultimately the goal of this project is to provide a complimentary program within the existing Clinton Peabody housing context. Defining the user of the proposed program as an existing resident of the area was important to the concept of working with the pattern and grain of the site and ultimately, the focus of the project became housing the homeless and low-income residents of St. Louis. 95
From 2007-2012 (the period of time when homelessness data began to be collected), the number of homeless individuals in Missouri has increased 67%, from 6,139 to 10,237 individuals. St. Louis City has recorded (from 2012) 1,506 homeless individuals (579 of which are part of families) - 1,381 sheltered and 125 unsheltered. Many of these people are sub categorized as those who suffer from: chronic substance abuse, severe mental illness, domestic violence victims, veterans, and persons with HIV/AIDS. Additionally, two other key subcategories exist: unaccompanied youth (under 18) and the chronically homeless. Weakness in the economy has spurred a recent change in the demographic make up of Missouri’s homeless population - more families, particularly with small children, are finding themselves on the streets. There has also been an increase in the unsheltered homeless population in the last year, yet there was a measurable decrease in those that identified as chronically homeless. The 2013 Missouri Statewide Homeless Study reports data from the 2011-2012 biennial period.
47
42
Berkeley
Castle Point
Ferguson
Bellfontaine Neighbors
43
Glasgow Village
44
24 Jennings
25
ohn
40
27
45
26
31
30
28
18
21
32
38
37
46
34
29
17
41
35
36
39
33
16
Pagedale
15
University City
Venice City Brooklyn Village
Clayton
hmond Heights
wood
East St. Louis City Maplewood
Sauget Village Shrewsbury
ves
14
8
Cahokia Village 12
Affton
13
10
East Carondelet Village
11
Lemay
Green Park
Dupo Village Mehlville
Homeless Shelters and Amenities contrasted with Established Congregation Locations 97
47
42
Berkeley
Castle Point
Ferguson
Bellfontaine Neighbors
43
Glasgow Village
44
24
ohn
45
26
31
30
28
18
32
38
37
46
34
29 21
41 40
27
17
According to the 2010 Census, need for living solutions for low-income residents becomes a visible pattern across St. Louis City.
Jennings
25
35
36
39
33
16
Pagedale
15
University City
Venice City
The smaller maps note the census tracts that record income levels falling below the St. Louis Median Household Income average: $39,000.
Brooklyn Village
Clayton
hmond Heights
wood
East St. Louis City Maplewood
Sauget Village
Additionally, the tracts that have 50% or more of their residents falling below the posted Median Household Income recorded.
Shrewsbury
ves
14
8
Cahokia Village
Results indicate a region of need for affordable housing for up to 83,000 residents due to low-income levels.
12
Affton
13
10
East Carondelet Village
11
Lemay
Green Park
Mehlville
10k
30k
50k
70k
Dupo2010 Village Median Income ranging to
90k
$100,000 annually
47
42
Berkeley
Castle Point
Ferguson
Bellfontaine Neighbors
43
Glasgow Village
44
24 Jennings
25
40
27
45
26
31
30
28
21
32
38
37
46
34
29
17
41
35
36
39
33
16
Pagedale
15
University City
Venice City Brooklyn Village
Clayton
nd Heights
d
East St. Louis City Maplewood
Sauget Village Shrewsbury 14
Current Public Housing trends tend to fall within the regions of need based on income mapping.
8
Cahokia Village 12
Affton
13
10
East Carondelet Village
11
Lemay
een Park
Dupo Village Mehlville
Currently the St. Louis Housing Authority has approximately 3,900 units, serving roughly between 4,900 and 13,600 residents, compared to the 2010 Census data, there are still 70,000 residents (57% of the population) in St. Louis City that qualify for assistance. Addressing this discrepancy of need is a goal for this project. 99
Cochran Gardens
The Gardens at Renaissance Place
High Rise
Mid-Rise
Examples:
Examples:
Cochran Gardens, 1952 Pruitt Igoe, 1956 Darst-Webbe, 1961 Blumeyer, 1967
The Gardens at Renaissance Place, 1968 Euclid Plaza, 1990 Cambridge Heights, 2003 Les Chateaux, 2005
Pro: Aimed to achieve a level of density that was compatible with the “current� urban trends of downtown living.
Pro: More manageable interior public circulation space than in the high rise situation.
Con: Lack of defensible space due to the grossly over-scaled building size and lack of connection to the existing city fabric in the truncating of existing city roads through the complex.
Con: Not enough density to maintain an urban neighborhood context. Many residents must rely on transit to reach goods and services as opposed to walking.
Public Housing Typologies
Cochran Plaza
Courtyard Compound
Town Home
Examples:
Examples:
Lookaway
Carr Square, 1942 LaSalle Park, 1971 Cochran Plaza, 2000 King Louis Square III, 2001
Lookaway, 1983 Mcmillan Manor II, 2005 Clinton Peabody, 2006 North Sarah I, 2012
Pro: Provides more of a sense of small building community than the town home does as there is shared outdoor space.
Pro: Gives residents the most sense of ownership and responsibility. Promotes good tenant habits with the possibility to own units as opposed to renting them.
Con: Shuts off the development from the neighborhood context around it; introverts residents and promotes a disconnect between the building, residents, and the street.
Con: Replicates the suburban condition in an urban context - uses the generic detached home type, rather than the prevalent St. Louis Row House. Least dense building type; requires more sq ft for more units. 101
Pruitt Igoe, 1956
Darst-Webbe, 1961
Issues: operated at too large of a scale, lacked defensible space
Issues: monolithic scale did not respond to the local datum
Hard edges made the ability for local and site patterns to overlap impossible
How can there be a relationship between buildings when the scale between them is outrageously sized?
Ideal shared space scales are smaller, 3 floors is too large
No project exists in a vacuum, and much can be learned from public housing projects of the past. Through the lens of patterning, public housing precedents reveal their shortcomings in their lack of response to pattern conditions. How then, can they improve?
Carr Square, 1942
Les Chateaux, 2005
Issues: exclusionary form
Issues: perceived quality of space
no connection
SAME
SAME
barren land
Where is public space located? How is it accessed?
What is the face presented to the street? Who does it serve, the public or the residents?
Fences are exclusionary
barrier
SAME
Inactive space does not breed a sense of community or activity
103
The proximity to the proposed Clinton-Peabody site of other subsidized housing projects, reinforces the intent to work with the current demographic of residents. The range of programmatic intervention will be able to cross the site at a variety of scales and is intended to be a weaving of three different patterns across the site: the existing Lafayette Square singular pattern of ownership the current block ownership patterns of the Clinton-Peabody apts. and the new proposed program
King Louis Square Clinton-Peabody
LaSalle Park Les Chateaux
Program Intervention Region 105
Program Proposal
Affordable Housing Block
~ 6500 sf per block, 300 per unit
Job Training / Vocational Center ~16000sf
Childcare Center
~8000 sf indoor, 4000 sf outdoor
Additional Amenities and Services within Housing
individual private spaces i.e. bedrooms individual storage spaces
living / sleeping spaces, wash rooms, kitchenettes, access to the outdoors
bicycle parking
outdoor play spaces
possibly car parking
shared communal spaces both indoors and outdoors for neighborhood socialization
All units and buildings should be within a walkable distance to transit 107
Additional Amenities and Services within Job Training Center administrative space
computer labs open to neighborhood residents job service and employment assistance office
wash rooms
classrooms for seminars
student lounge spaces
rentable / reservable social halls for neighborhood gatherings / meetings (both indoor and outdoor)
cafe spaces open to students / residents (both indoor and outdoor)
workshops for hands-on learning
Additional Amenities and Services within Childcare music room music performance outdoor spaces for snacks
lunch / snack rooms
outdoor classrooms
child cubby storage
small gardens water play sand play
employee break room and kitchenette cycling
outdoor play spaces with playground equipment
classrooms for learning and indoor play
administrative office
art room nap space
109
In the site, the three programs fit proportionally with the existing building stock in this manner: Although the programmed sf allotments are clustered here, the ideal scheme would be an aggregation of all of the components across the site. Mixing the housing, job training, and childcare components together with the existing context would be an ideal site-wide composition. Utilizing a range of housing across the site, both affordable and market rate, allows for an aspirational psychology to permeate the site. Residents will no longer feel separated from their neighbors and stagnated in the “us versus them� paradigm. Modules in this context lend themselves to create a new language for housing, whether it be clustered or infill affordable units, or market rate housing that can flexibly work for differing income levels based on demand. As long as the dialogue and relationships between different unit incomes stays fairly consistent, gentrification can be avoided and the Clinton Peabody neighborhood can maintain its richness and diversity.
Childcare Center: ~8000 sf indoor, 4000 sf outdoor
Park Aven ue
S. 14
th St
reet
Trum a
n Par
kway
Affordable Housing Block: ~6500 sf
Job Training / Vocational Center: ~16000 sf
111
The mixture of programs and existing site context would begin to form complex relationships between residents, the built form, and the site. In the matrix, relationships can be social, physical, visual, and functional, which means that work coherently together to form a programmatic space. Landscape Space they Context Social Physical Visual Functional
S V
P F
User
Housing
Job Training Childcare Public Space Landscape
Context
User / Resident Housing
Job Training Childcare Public Space Landscape Existing Context
113
The combination of the deconstructed pattern logic with the public housing program aims to break down the current notions that the built form creates, like the inclusion / exclusion dichotomy, and to form new conclusions about public, private space, and existing context. Through the placement of the multi-scalar program in the site and either the parcel in-fill level. The existing inactive “public� space (i.e. parking lots) or the adjacent vacant plots, the realms of residents and non-resident neighbors and community members can combine. This can happen in plan with the edge condition between old / existing and new and in the in-between spaces in new program interventions. There should be no hard physical barriers like fences that keep people both out and in physically and psychologically, but instead a juxtaposition of small urban, public spaces to create defensible space.
Program and Edge Blending Existing Edge Blending Small Parcel Condition Parking Lot Condition
Vacancy Parcel Condition
115
The same ideas can continue in section by providing thresholds of interaction between the public open to the community and the private for residents. Creating new sectional relationships can help to break down stereotypical interactions of segregation, or “us versus them� and to create welcoming interactions on the site. Flexible notions of circulation in the overlaid patterning of the program and the site are the strongest means to break through stigma to create a functional system out of a stagnated, policy formed public housing condition.
Hybrid Sectional Program Relationships
Semi-Private Public
Semi-Private
Private
Existing Public
Existing Private
Existing Semi-Private
Public
117
47
42
Berkeley
Castle Point
Ferguson
Bellfontaine Neighbors
43
Glasgow Village
44
24 Jennings
25
40
27
45
26
31
30
28
21
32
38
37
46
34
29
17
41
35
36
39
33
16
Pagedale
15
University City
Venice City Brooklyn Village
Clayton
nd Heights
d
East St. Louis City Maplewood
Sauget Village Shrewsbury 14
8
Cahokia Village 12
Affton
13
10
East Carondelet Village
11
Lemay
een Park
Dupo Village Mehlville
Ideally, the multi-scalar approach to the portioning out of the program will create a site-wide network. The nature of modules and their ability to be used in various site conditions, could ultimately allow this scheme to appear and be used across the whole city in similar areas of low-income need as previously mapped. 119
Overall, the blend of patterns and programs aims to create new notions of community and active space in the site. The spatial relationships forged through this project will evoke new and exciting interactions between the public and private realm that the site as it is now is sorely missing. Using modules as the base unit of efficient design, public housing can evolve past the large block scale of implementation, and can begin to operate at a finer grain across the current Clinton-Peabody site, and across the city as a whole.
121
Sources
2014 Annual Action Plan, St. Louis City Community Development Administration, 2014. <<https://stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/community-development/documents/2014-Annual-Action-Plan-Draft.cfm>>. (With a focus on Housing and Homelessness)
“Building, Dwelling, Thinking”, Basic Writings, Martin Heidegger, (Harper Perennial Modern Classics: New York), 1993. City of St. Louis 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan, St. Louis City, 2014.
<< https://stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/community-development/documents/2010-14-consolidated-plan.cfm>>.
Great Public Squares, An Architect’s Selection, Robert F. Gatje, (W.W. Norton and Co.: New York), 2010. “Homelessness in Missouri”, University of Missouri-St. Louis, Public Policy Research Center, “ Statewide Homelessness Study 2013. June 2013. How the Other Half Lives, Jacob Riis, (Dover Publications, Inc.: New York), 1901. “No Shelter?”, William Powell, St. Louis Magazine, 2014. << http://www.stlmag.com/St-Louis-Magazine/January-2014/No-shelter/>>.
Public Housing that Worked: New York in the Twentieth Century, Nicholas D. Bloom, (University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia), 2008. Reclaiming Public Housing: A Half Century of Struggle in Three Public Neighborhoods, Lawrence Vale, (Harvard University Press: Cambridge), 2002.
Sources St. Louis Housing Authority, 2014. << http://www.slha.org/>>. “St. Louis, MO Income Map, Earnings Map, Wage Data”, City-Data.com, 2014. << http://www.city-data.com/income/income-St.-Louis-Missouri.html>>. “St. Louis Promises Homes for Chronically Homeless Veterans”, Lindsay Toler, River Front Times, Jan. 30, 2014. <<http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/01/st_louis_homeless_veteran.php>>.
Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness for the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County, St. Louis City and County Departments of Human Services, 2005. << http://files.meetup.com/334536/Homelessness.pdf>>. The Peril and the Preservation of the Home, Jacob Riis, (George W. Jacobs and Co.: Philadelphia), 1903. “The Pruitt Igoe Myth”, Katherine G. Bristol, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 163-171, May 1991. When Public Housing Was Paradise: Building Community in Chicago, J.S. Fuerst, D. Bradford Hunt, John H. Franklin, (University of Illinois Press: Champaign), 2005. Where are Poor People to Live?: Transforming Public Housing Communities (Cities and Contemporary Society), Larry Bennet, Janet Smith, Patricia Wright, (M.E. Sharpe: New York), 2006. Where We Live: A Guide to St. Louis Communities, Tim Fox, (University of Chicago Press: Chicago), 2005.
Kirsten Goedeker Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Design I Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts I Washington University in St. Louis Design Thinking I Spring 2014 I Instructor: Jonathan Stitelman I TA: Shaun Dodson
Image Credits Page 17: http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/65/04/
ba/6504bafebfb5af47db4932f29ca9f661.jpg Page 24-25: http://muratibrahim.tumblr.com/post/62131659463 www.spoonflower.com/fabric/1563422 http://hlembrugel.tumblr.com/post/73872116114 Page 27: http://kurbik.tumblr.com/image/28538831653 Page 28: Hauer, www.probehead.com/log/luc/2006/09/week- three-project-two.html Page 30: http://ladyinbluejeans.tumblr.com/post/51915517472 Page 32: Christo, http://christo.vaesite.net/__ data/39437c49f59b87a8c41055cfdf7ab0b5.jpg
Page 68: Fox, Tim, Where We Live: A Guide to St. Louis Communities, 1995. Page 94: Riis, How the Other Half Lives Pages 100-101: www.builtstlouis.net/cochrangardens01.html
www.slha.org/housing-locations/gardens-at- renaissance-place/ www.slha.org/housing-locations/lookaway/ Pages 102-103: www.pruitt-igoe.com/urban-history/ www.stlouiscitytalk.com/2011/01/peabody-darst webbe-neighborhood.html
Cover Image: Elijah Porter, http://www.novastructura.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Elija-Porter-5287895632_c1268d0077_b1.jpg All maps and aerial views courtesy of Google Maps, 2014.
First published in the USA in 2014 by Kirsten Goedeker, 731 Limit Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63130 All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior consent of the publisher. Printed and bound in the USA by Lulu Press Inc.