Air Rights by Northeastern School of Architecture

Fall 2012

Air Rights Northeastern University School of Architecture ARCH 7130 Graduate Research Studio

Northeastern University Graduate Program of Architecture Masters Research Studio Fall 2012 Professor Matthew Littell Research Team Drew Cunningham Kevin Conway Rachel DeBaun Frank Delledera Christopher Gallo Timothy Glickman Pablo Juarez Allison Marschilok Katherine Murphy Haiyang Xu

Introduction The concept of air rights is believed to have begun in 13th Century philosophy: “Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos” [For whoever owns the soil , it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell]. Notable air rights projects include: Ponte Vecchio in Florence, Italy, Grand Central Station in New York City, One Prudential Plaza in Chicago, the Prudential Center in Boston, Copley Place in Boston, the Hancock Garage in Boston, and the Star Market in Newton. Construction over air rights parcels offers the potential triple benefit of increasing density in prime locations, concealing unsightly and noisy infrastructures, and establishing connections in the public realm. In Boston, there are 23 air rights parcels along I-90 (aka. the Mass Pike or the Turnpike) that, despite several attempts, are yet to be developed. Why? This book is the result of research conducted by ten students in the Master’s Research Studio at Northeastern University School of Architecture. Our research was aimed at analyzing and understanding the underlying causes of these 23 vacant parcels and the possibilities for future development. We also question the assumptions about air rights developments to “stitch the city back together”. All aspects of the topic were considered in our research. While we looked at projects around the globe, we used Boston as a focal point for analysis of: Context history, city vision

reports, urban morphology, successful projects, and unsuccessful project proposals in Boston; Determinants technical, structural, legal, and economical constraints; and Design typologies and notable precedents. We spoke with architects and engineers that are working or have worked on air rights projects (both in and out of Boston) studied public documents (such as environmental impact reports, feasibility studies, Requests for Proposals, community responses, etc.), and investigated technical infrastructural requirements. Our research is not intended to propose a design solution to air rights projects. Instead, we aim to expose themes and question assumptions associated with air rights design and construction in order to develop new approaches and scales of future intervention. We would like to give a special thanks to: Li Wang and James Gray from ADD Inc., Roy Avellaneda and Robin Blatt from massDOT, Andrew Grace from the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), Peter Reilly and Gerald Friedman from HDR Engineering, Inc., Jerry Belair from Meredith Management Company, David Hancock from CBT Architects, George Leventis from Langen Engineering, George Ghusn Jr from BJG Architecture + Engineering, and Rami El Samahy from Over, Under. We appreciate your contributions which furthered our research immensely.

CHAPTER 1

Context Why Air Rights Projects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 What Is

History of Air Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Urban Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Projects That Could . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

What Is Not

Visions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Projects That Could Not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

Determinants Technical

Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Federal Highway Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Highway Construction Logistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Design Typology

Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Case Studies

Permits and Parcel Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Ownership Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Hudson Yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Columbus Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174 Unique Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Non Air Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Economic

Precedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Legal & Regulatory

Cost Premium . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Market Interests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Transfer of Development Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Economic Feasibility . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Subsidy Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Context Why Air Rights? What Is What Is Not

Why Air Rights?

4 // context

Are the disruptions in the urban fabric caused by highways truly problematic? Will air rights projects impact the environment of the city positively or negatively? How will the experience of the highway drivers change with the implementation of air rights projects? Who supports air rights projects and for what reasons? Why is building on air rights an attractive endeavor? What additional costs are associated with air rights projects and how can they be compensated for?

why air rights // 5

Typical Urban Condition

Urban Context / Air Rights Ignoring Highway

Mass Pike at Mass. Ave, Boston, MA

Hynes Convention Center, Boston, MA Air Rights Project

Existing Context

Highway

Highways that dissect urban areas inevitably cause a relationship to form between the highway and the surrounding urban context. This relationship can be seen as something positive or negative, depending on perception of the experience.

Existing Context

Highway

Air rights projects span so far that the highway is no longer perceived from the level of the air rights project or the urban context surrounding it. In these cases, the focus of the project is fostering a relationship with the urban context and ignoring that there is a highway below.

6 // context Air Rights Project

Air Rights Project

Air Rights Project Existing Context

Air Rights / Urban Context Acknowledging Highway

Existing Context

Air Rights / Highway

Highway

Shawâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Market, Newton, MA

Hancock Garage, Boston, MA Air Rights Project

Existing Context

Air Rights Project Existing Context

Highway

Some air rights projects do not choose to ignore the highway that they envelop and still allow it to be perceived, but nonetheless focus on the relationship between the air rights project and the urban context.

Existing Context

Highway

Perhaps both the most and least obvious situation is when air rights projects focus on connecting with the highway which they span to encourage interaction between the highway and the air rights development without having to encounter the urban context. why air rights // 7

aesthetics (re)connect neighborhoods prestige transit / traﬃc urban fabric patch / repair $$

value creation environmental land creation cultural pedestrian connectivity importance of location

8 // context

Air rights projects aim to make use of unclaimed development space above other infrastructure, whether it be rail, road, or building. This practice is becoming increasingly more popular and necessary with the world’s population growing rapidly. The development of air rights projects have the potential to alleviate many existing cultural, economic, and political problems within society. While many expressways were developed after neighborhoods were established, compromising the integrity of the particular community, other applicable sites occur where neighborhoods have grown up among the infrastructure and seek to expand further utilizing the undeveloped space. While the initial cost may be steeper than building upon terra firma, if funding is available the results are quite compelling. Traﬃc in most urban areas, Boston included, is already quite dense and diﬃcult to navigate, especially during the morning and evening

commute times. Developing air rights parcels atop the turnpike have the potential to address crowded vehicular and pedestrian jams that often occur, as well as create improved traffic patterns. Public transportation would also benefit from additional transit oriented infrastructure over I-90. Affording pedestrians better access to different parts of the city would inevitably connect neighborhoods and start to form larger communities within the city. The air rights developments have potential for significantly more that just an increase in connectivity. In fact, in order for them to be economically feasible, it is likely that they will consist of multi-story buildings that will bring in enough revenue to accommodate the increased construction costs. The addition to the built environment will be able to economically stimulate the surrounding neighborhood by providing jobs and selling goods and services. It would also result in an increase to surrounding property values by

MassDOT

Most Important

Municipality

Developer

Drivers

Pedestrians

improving the performance and aesthetics of the neighborhood. Additionally, these developed parcels would generate property tax revenue for the government. Alternatively, there is potential for the parcels to be filled in a more aďŹ&#x20AC;ordable fashion with green spaces that would contribute to the existing urban fabric. Regardless of the former or latter being adopted, the result will be an increase in developable land that did not previously exist. While many Air Rights projects already exist, the concept is still being developed and is far from perfected. A successful Air Rights project that fulfills a combination of economic and cultural needs, while avoiding political and community uprising, has become a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Holy Grailâ&#x20AC;? in Urban Planning circles.

Least Important

why air rights // 9

Highway Barrier / Neighborhood Rejuvenation

The primary incentive for air rights development is creating value, which needs to take into consideration the additional cost of decking versus terra firma. The highway barrier typology envisions breaking the relationship between the highway and the urban context by constructing buildings that sever the visual, auditory, and physical connection between the neighborhood and the busy highway traďŹ&#x192;c. Additionally this typology connects the established urban fabric on either side of the highway creating a continuity of the buildings and a new roadway that provides access for both vehicular and pedestrian traďŹ&#x192;c. The vehicles on the highway, however, lose their connection to the urban landscape enough to potentially obscure the legibility of the city for highway motorists. The tunnel condition does have the opportunity to redirect carbon emissions from vehicles so they are vented above the urban context.

10 // context

Urban Landmark While the objective of every development project is to create value for the municipality and generate revenue for the developer, the additional eďŹ&#x20AC;ort required to successfully complete an air rights projects warrants wanting more than just a financial gain. Developers want credit for creating a beacon within the city that everyone can easily recognize and utilize as a point of reference as well as a point of interest. These kinds of projects typically gain a lot of prestige for developers and opens up future opportunities for them. The usefulness of the building to both pedestrians and drivers in the neighborhood as well as drivers on the highway proves to be quite valuable.

why air rights // 11

Embracing the Highway It is often assumed that one of an air rights projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s primary objective is to alleviate the negative presence of the highway within the urban fabric. It is important to acknowledge the positive attributes that the highway provides for the city though, and as a result it is not uncommon for an air rights project to embrace the highway and utilize the potential to add to the value and usefulness of the project. It enables the highway vehicles to have a relationship with the urban environment without having to traverse the often congested city streets. These projects have the ability to encompass on and oďŹ&#x20AC; ramps and work in conjunction with the highway to provide parking for the vehicles utilizing those ramps and an opportunity to U-turn and get back on the highway.

12 // context

What Is History of Air Rights Urban Morphology Projects That Could

History of Air Rights Air Rights - noun (1) legal term in highway terminology to describe that area above or below the plane of the transportation facility and located within the right-of-way boundaries. (2) right to control, occupy, or use the vertical air space above a property, subject to necessary and reasonable use by others. It is believed the concept of air rights originated in the 13th century philosophy under “Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos” [For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven

16 // context

and down to Hell]. It is commonly thought that the Ponte Vecchio, a bridge with many shops in Florence, Italy, which dates back to the 14th century, was the first air rights project in written history. The 150 mile long Arno River which the Ponte Vecchio spans was the equivalent of a present day interstate used to transport goods and people all over the region. Other examples from antiquity inlcude the Rialto Bridge in Venice, Italy, similar to Ponte Vecchio, and the Old London Bridge in London, England. Le Corbusier discussed the concept of raising residential

and commercial activities above transit in his 1915 book Towards a New Architecture. He sketches “Ville Pilotis,” which shows his vision of reconciliation between the automobile and buildings.

The concept of air rights was first utilized in the United States above railroad property, but has also been utilized with roadways and other buildings. While the concept had been around since antiquity, it was not until trains were electrified that air rights projects became feasible and warranted within the United States. The first notable project within the United States was Grand Central Station and the adjacent blocks in New York, New York. The completion of this project resulted in the Park Avenue neighborhood, a very prestigious area within the city.

Above The Old London Bridge, 1209 included dwellings and shops, but were demolished in 1650â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s due to the fire hazard and need for wider traffic lanes. Opposite Ponte Vecchio, Florence, Italy, the first air rights project in written history was at one point an extension of the market adjacent to the river.

what is // 17

Above Rialto Bridge, Venice, Italy Far Right Apartments and bus terminal over Trans-Manhatten Expressway near the George Washington Bridge in New York, New York. Right Grand Central Station, New York, New York was the first American Air Rights project.

18 // context

The Prudential Buidling in Chicago, Illinois was at one time been the tallest building in Chicago and the first building built in the city post WWII, but more importantly it was one of first and most significant Air Rights projects in the country, paving the way for many more projects of its kind to be built not only in Chicago, but across the nation. Designed by the architecture firm Naess & Murphy, it was completed in 1955.

A 48-acre plot of land protruding into Lake Michigan was first occupied solely by the Illinois Central Railroad and was once stated to be â&#x20AC;&#x153;the most valuable undeveloped landâ&#x20AC;? in the city. The land valued in 1964 at $100 million was split into four parcels, the first of which was developed by the Prudential Life Insurance Company and would be home to the Prudential Building.

what is // 19

There was a big push in the 1960s for air rights projects when funding for the Interstate Highway System became available and new highways and expressways started to appear all over the United States. The idea of air rights projects assisted in convincing many cities that were hesitant about new freeways destroying the integrity of the city fabric of their city. It was common for an air rights project to be constructed simultaneously with the roadway it would cover. This was the case with the Prudential Center in Boston, Tollway Oases in Illinois, and the George Washington Bridge Bus Terminal and Apartments in New York. The latter of the three is exemplary in showing why air rights projects are pursued including mitigation, for the highway went right through the Washington Heights neighborhood destroying existing street side bus stops. Additionally, the project created land in the crowded NYC, and was an important location at the terminus of the George Washington Bridge coming from New Jersey. Above / Opposite Prudential Building in Chicago soon after completion before the other Chicago rail yard air rights parcels were filled in with other buildings and greenspaces.

20 // context

what is // 21

Notable American Air Rights - Early 20th Century

1900

1902 - NYC law passed requiring all steam trains must be converted to electric by 1910 passed after an accident caused by smoke and debris killed 17 people.

1909 - Chicago began outlawing steam engines and started converting to diesel or electric engines.

1902

1910

1908 1909

1908 - Grand Central Terminal, New York, NY

22 // context

1922 - In anticipation of the future Congress Expressway the federal government required the design for the Chicago Post Office to be altered.

1920

1922

1927

1929

1930

1932

1929 - Merchandise Mart Chicago, IL

1927 - Terminal Tower Cleveland, OH

1932 - Old Chicago Main Post Office Chicago, IL what is // 23

Notable American Air Rights - Mid 20th Century

1941 - President Roosevelt appointed a National Interregional Highway Committee to evaluate the need and potential for a national highway system.

1940

1941

1950

1956 - President Eisenhower enacted the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 to help fund interstate highways.

1956 1958

1960

1962

1958 - Illinois Tollway Oases, Illinois 1962 - Pan-Am Building New York, NY

1962 -Chase Tower El Paso, TX 24 // context

1965 - Boston extension of the Massachusetts Turnpike is completed extending from Rt 128 to the Central Artery.

1963

1964 1965

1968

1970

1976 - Hancock Garage Boston, MA

1968 - Madison Square Garden, New York, NY

1963 - Apartments & Bus Terminal, New York, NY

1964 - Prudential Center Boston, MA

1976

1970 - Lehman HS Bronx, NY

1976 - City Hall Fall River, MA what is // 25

Notable American Air Rights - Late 20th Century / Early 21st Century

1986 - Federal Highway Administration published policy encouraging air rights development and marketing and offering technical assitance to states engaged in air rights activities.

1980

1983

1986 1988

1990

1993 1994

1994 - Bartle Hall, Kansas City, MO 1988 - Washington State Convention Center, Seattle, WA 1983 -Copley Garage Boston, MA 1993 - New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY 26 // context

2000 - BRA publishes A Civic Vision Plan for Turnpike Air Rights rejuvenating the desire to develop the established twenty three parcels along I-90 within Boston proper.

2000

2008

2010

2010 - Target Field Minneapolis, MN 2008 - Springfield Clinic Springfield, IL

what is // 27

Urban Morphology This analysis focuses on the development over time of a specific area of Boston within the Back Bay neighborhood. This area is a good case study for the overall morphology of Boston because, similar to other parts of the city, it was not part of the original landmass, instead, it a wetland. Before any land was even developed, a railroad was constructed through the bay to connect different parts of Boston. Subsequently, land was filled in around the railroad. Eventually, with the increased use of automobiles, the railroad corridor was turned into I-90. On this specific area of land, three major Air Rights projects have occurred. This section will illustrate and further develop details on this short summary of the urban morphology of Back Bay.

28 // context

1 188 ce: Sour

The

Bosto

las n At

Copley Place (1983) 1 185 ce: Sour

2013 Hancock Garage (1976) and Prudential Center (1964)

5 177 Sourc

e: Th

e Bo

ston

The

; Atlas

Bosto

Librar

las n At

y of

; Bo

sto

n Pu

Lib blic

rary

ress Cong

1980 City blocks removed for rail yard

1957 City blocks infilled

1881 Railroads

1851 Wetlands

1775 what is // 29

1775 Originally, the Back Bay neighborhood of Boston was the back bay of the Charles River. In other words it was a wetland instead of the solid, built up land that it is today. The original Back Bay was split by a marshy peninsula.

30 // context

1851 In the 1830s, two railroad tracks were built across the Back Bay: The Boston & Worcester line, which had depots in South Cove, and the Boston & Providence line, with a depot near the current intersection of Church Street and Stuart Street. The railroad companies built embankments on which the tracks would be built since there was no solid land in the area at the time. This is significant because when considering of air rights projects, it is often a misconception that they always reconnect parts of the city. However, the Back Bay was never connected across I-90. Projects over this highway will be connecting the city across this chasm for the first time.

View from The Old State House to Back Bay

what is // 31

1881 The filling in of the Back Bay did not occur all at one time. Some land around the Boston Commons was filled in by 1861. This map shows that by 1881 the land around the modern day Prudential Center was created. However, some areas of the Back Bay had yet to be infilled. It was not until approximately 1890 that all 570 acres of the Back Bay were filled in. During previous landfill projects, the land from leveling off the original three hills that composed Boston (Fort Hill, Copps Hill, and Trimountain) was used. However, all of the convenient land was already distributed by the time the Back Bay project occurred. Therefore, fill was transported to Boston via the railroads from Needham Heights. The Back Bay land infill accounts for more square footage than the entire original landmass of Boston.

32 // context

S ou

rce:

T he

1957 City blocks were cleared in order to make space for the Exeter Rail Yard. This large site eventually becomes the location of the Prudential Center.

Detailed map of Exeter Rail Yard - Boston and Albany Railroad

View of Exeter Rail Yard

what is // 33

1980 As early as the 1950s, transportation authorities within Massachusetts were planning a Boston extension of I-90. When the Boston-Albany Railroad Company decided to sell their land, including the original Boston & Worcester Rail Road, transportation authorities determined the corridor would be ideal for the I-90 extension. Additionally, the land that the Exeter Rail Yard occupied was for sale which planners thought could be the location of a highway interchange. However, Prudential Financial also wanted to purchase the Exeter Yard property. In the end, transportation authorities reached an agreement with Prudential Financial and both projects were constructed concurrently. This map shows that the John Hancock garage, a subsequent air rights project, had been built but Copley Place has not yet been constructed over the I-90 exit ramp.

34 // context

: rce Sou

T he

2013 With the completion of Copley Place, the section of I-90 that intersects this study area is completely covered by air rights projects. There are three major air rights projects that were completed in the second half of the 20th century: the Prudential Center, Copley Place, and the Hancock Garage. These three projects will be studied in the next section.

what is // 35

Projects That Could There are few completed air rights projects in Boston. Some that have been constructed are very successful and occupy prime real estate in the increasingly crowded city. These projects include the Prudential Center, Copley Place, and the Hancock Parking Garage. An indepth look into the qualities of these projects will attempt to conclude how they, unlike many others, have become successful, integral components of the city.

36 // context

gt on

ue Av en

ue ven ts A uset sach Mas

Hu nt in

e Stre

reet

t on S

uth

tmo

end Clar

Dar

e Stre ton s l y Bo

what is // 37

The Prudential Center Client Prudential Financial Designer Charles Luckman and Associates Completion 1964 Use Multi-use (offices, shops, apartments, parking) Height 749’ (without radio mast) Overpass height 18’ Area of site 1,470,000 sq ft Over terra firma 1,174,000 sq ft Over air 296,000 sq ft

Site of Prudential Center before construction began

Span 100’ Between supports 48’ Highway width 100’ Structural material Steel

1964 Prudential Tower just after completion

38 // context

1963 Prudential Tower during construction

When the Boston and Albany Railroad sold the rail yard in Back Bay, Prudential Financial decided Boston would be a good location for a new building. However, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority saw the site as vital to its plans to connect the Turnpike from Route 128 to downtown Boston. Prudential indicated that if the Pike was to run through the site as originally conceived, as an elevated highway with interchange, that it would abandon its purchase agreement. A deal was swiftly made. The Prudential Center bought the land and provided an easement for a tunneled highway segment (an interchange was located adjacent to the property). Prudential Financial agreed to purchase approximately a quarter of the $180 million in bonds for the construction on the Boston extension of the turnpike in exchange for tax exemption.

Boston skyline circa 1963

The Prudential Center has had a profound impact on the Back Bay Neighborhood and the city of Boston. After completion, initial oppositions to the design were faced. The massive tower did not reflect the typical Back Bay language. However, the connective qualities of the Prudential Center proved to be an overwhelming benefit.

Boston skyline today

what is // 39

Retail Circulation Hotel (The Belvedere) South Parking Garage Prudential Tower Food Court Hynes Convention Center Service Interstate 90 Pedestrian Tunnel Raised Outdoor Seating Area North Parking Garage

40 // context

what is // 41

Hancock Garage Designer I.M. Pei Owner John Hancock Mutual Community Parking Garage Completion 1976 Use Parking Overpass height 18’ Area of site (includes tower) 271,240 sq ft Over terra firma 197,900 sq ft Over air 73,340 sq ft Span 78’ Between supports 36’ Highway width 72’ Structural material Reinforced concrete

Aerial view of Hancock Garage with I-90 entrance ramps labeled

42 // context

The Hancock Parking Garage was constructed in 1976 as part of the existing Hancock Tower. The garage was initially designed to be located under the tower, however, due to unfit ground conditions, this location was not possible. The closest available location for a parking garage was directly over the highway.

Hancock Garage circulation

Map of Hancock Garage and Tower

Hancock Garage with highlighted entrance ramp to I-90 at lower right

what is // 43

John Hancock Tower John Hancock Parking Garage Entrance Ramp Interstate 90

44 // context

what is // 45

Copley Place Designer The Architects Collaborative Sponsor Urban Investment and Development Company Owner Simon Property Group Completion 1983 Use Multi-use (offices, shops, hotels, parking) Overpass height 18’ Area of site 413,820 sq ft Over terra firma 312,590 sq ft Over air 101,230 sq ft

Copley Place during construction

Span 100’ Between supports 48’ Highway width 100’ Structural material Steel

Site of Copley Place before the I-90 exit ramp was constructed

46 // context

With a 99 year lease, created in 1978 and amended in 1980, the Urban Investment and Development Company created Copley Place. The complex was built over the I-90 exit ramp, effectively restitching 9.5 acres of previously unusable land into the urban fabric. The project cost $318 million, $19,724 of which was covered by an Urban Development Grant. The 3 million square foot complex contains 359,000 sf of retail, 641,000 sf of low rise office space (7 levels), a 756 room luxury hotel, a 1,000 room convention hotel, 150 units of housing, and 1,500 enclosed parking spaces. Additionally, the project created 6,280 permanent jobs. One of the concerns of the project was that it would detract from the retail in the developing downtown neighborhood. However, the location and the high end retail proved to be beneficial to Boston. Copley Place was built on a site that seemed unbuildable. With the existing raised exit ramp from I-90, the design had to navigate difficult foundation heights and locations.

Preliminary sketch for design of Copley Place

Map of site for Copley Place

Preliminary sketch for design of Copley Place

Aerial view of I-90 exit ramp. Copley Place occupies this site.

what is // 47

Offices Retail Parking Garage

Interstate 90 Exit Ramp Interstate 90 48 // context

what is // 49

TOTAL

What made these projects not only feasible but also successful? Big-ness The Prudential Center and Copley Place were constructed because of their scale. The scale not only applies to the physical size of the complexes, but also to the multiple uses. The Prudential Center occupies the 1.47 million sf site of the old Exeter Rail Yard, owned and operated by the Boston and Albany Railroad Company. Copley Place occupies the 414,000 sf area over and around the I-90 off ramp, adjacent to the Prudential Center. These projects would not have been possible if the developers had thought smaller. Connectivity Commonly, Air Rights projects address connecting pieces of the city that are disassociated from each other. However, the scale of these three projects does not fit into the neighborhoods in which they are located. Instead, all three of these buildings have a strong connection to the highway. Users can drive from outside the city via I-90 and immediately access these buildings without interacting with the city. Proximity of Site The proximity of these Air Rights sites to Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vibrant downtown was the major reason that the sites were chosen. When Prudential Financial was looking to expand their company, they chose Boston as their desired location. The proximity of the highway and a lack of terra firma surrounding The Hancock Tower presented an opportunity for the garage to become an air rights project. 50 // context

Total square footage over I-90

18.5%

Total square footage

Ground floor square footage over I-90 21.8%

Ground floor square footage

PRUDENTIAL CENTER

HANCOCK TOWER AND GARAGE 12%

COPLEY PLACE 16.8%

38.5%

27% 20%

47%

what is // 51

What Is Not Visions Projects That Could Not

Visions Throughout Boston’s history, the landscape has been forever growing and changing. Today, there is little opportunity to expand any further. As a result, there is increasing interest in developing the twenty-three air rights parcels over I-90. The concept of air rights, as we have discussed in the previous sections, is not a new one. There are many examples of successful air rights projects, both inside and outside of Boston’s city limits. In an attempt to explore the potential development opportunities on the air rights parcels, the City of Boston and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA), now known as MassDOT, have written several vision plans. Sometimes, even the best laid plans go awry. Despite the efforts put forth in the vision plans, many recently proposed projects have not progressed beyond the design phase into the construction process because of high costs or the lack of clear zoning ordinances. Here we look at the vision plans and these failed Boston

1957 Prudential Financial purchased a 30 acre rail yard site in Boston to build one of their seven regional home offices. Early 1960s The construction of I-90, specifically the Mass Pike Extension project, began under the MTA’s Chief, William Callahan. The Prudential Financial negotiated with Callahan and constructed their building complex in conjunction with the Mass Pike Extension, which benefited both parties.

54 // context

Phase 2: Boston Extension of the Pike and the Prudential Center

1968 The Prudential is completed and the Mass Pike Extension is nearly completed. 1993 The MTA created an Air Rights Feasibility Study.

“MTA Air Rights Study”, 1993

1998 Mayor Thomas Menino created a Strategic Development Study Committee (SDSC) to work with the community, city/state agencies, and developers to create general development goals and strategies, which were compiled in the “A Civic Vision for Air Rights in Boston”. 2000 “A Civic Vision for Air Rights in Boston” was released to the public.

opposite Air rights parcels at Mass Ave and Boylston Streets

Phase 1: Boston Extension of the Pike

“Civic Vision”, 2000

what is not // 55

Boston Extension of the Pike In the 1960s, construction began on the Boston Extension of the Massachusetts Turnpike (I90) to provide access to downtown Boston from the West. The section of this extension between the Boston University Bridge and downtown Boston is 2.75 miles long, 300 feet wide, and contains approximately 44 acres of air rights space. In 1962, the MTA sold $180 million in bonds to lure investors and, two months later, finally broke ground on the extension. Two years later, the project was completed. The railroad that previously existed in the Turnpikeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s path (the Boston and Albany Railroad) was reduced to only two tracks and is now the MBTA Framingham-Worcester commuter rail line. In 2003, the Big Dig further extended the Turnpike to Boston Logan Airport. Today, the Turnpike carries approximately 105,000 vehicles through Boston per day.

opposite middle Widening Turnpike between exits 9 & 13 opposite right, opposite left 1960s construction of the Turnpike Extension left 1960s construction of the Turnpike Extension

56 // context

During the 1960s, Boston, like many American cities, was in a crisis of decentralization. As a result, city officials were doing everything possible to revitalize the city and draw people downtown. Therefore, MTA Chief and Chairman, William Callahan, planned to extend the Mass Pike through the city of Boston. However, Callahan faced many legal obstacles in the process. There was also a significant amount of public disapproval to the idea of an eight lane highway cutting directly through the city and causing destruction in the process. Fortunately, Callahanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s respected and lasting reputation with city and government officials helped him to gain legislative support that was necessary to approve the project. Callahan believed that the site of the old Albany and Boston Railroad would be the most opportunistic location to modernize transportation within the city, and would revitalize Boston by providing

connections and access to surrounding areas. Eventually, in conjunction with Prudential Insurance Companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan to construct a new building complex on the rail yard site, the extension through Boston was approved. Due to several delays and outstanding legal issues, construction occurred simultaneously with the Prudential Center. In the end, Callahanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision of knitting together parts of the city and the surrounding areas was successfully completed. Today, although the Mass Pike is well-used and a convenient means of access to the city, it has proven to be a disruption to the urban fabric and surrounding neighborhoods. Nevertheless, it was a necessary componant to the success of the Prudential Center construction: a much more respected and supported project that was developing at the same time.

what is not // 57

58 // context

Howard Johnsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (no longer existing)

Old Boston and Albany Railroad

Old Boston and Albany Railroad replacement Carlton St. overpass construction Boston University (BU) parking lot structure

left Mass Pike Extension at Boston University

what is not // 59

Boston Extension of the Mass Pike and the Prudential Center “[It is the] Largest single metropolitan site ever purchased for redevelopment” - Carrol Shanks, Prudential President During the Boston Extension construction process, the Prudential Financial undertook a major air rights project in Back Bay. The company had purchased the land in 1956 from the Boston and Albany Railroad and began construction on their “city within a city” in conjunction with the Turnpike Extension. The Prudential Company purchased nearly one quarter of the $180 million bonds that the MTA sold, further demonstrating the close relationship between the Turnpike Extension and the Prudential Complex’s construction. This area over the Pike is the only air rights property the MTA does not own. The massive scale of the complex - the tower was the tallest building outside of NYC upon its completion in 1965 - has become a source of much debate. However, the project played a key role in revitalizing Boston’s city center and was widely supported.

opposite above Mechanics Hall on the present day Prudential site with the Christian Science Church beyond and the Boston and Albany Railroad yards. The future site of the Pike is parallel to the railroad , but is not pictured (to the right of the railroad site shown here) opposite below Boston and Albany Railroad at the future Prudential site right 1968 aerial view of the complete Turnpike and the Prudential

60 // context

“There perhaps has not been a single more significant event in the history of MA” -Governor Foster Furcolo

“The Prudential project would transform the dingy Boston and Albany rail yards area into a spacious, picture book vista of clean lined structures...” -A.S. Plotkin, Boston Globe

what is not // 61

Prudential Financial was decentralizing their Newark corporate headquarters and building seven regional home offices throughout the country. In 1957, Prudential Financial announced Boston would be the location of the Northeast Home Office. Boston saw this as a tremendous opportunity to revitalize the city and bring businesses and residents back downtown. Prudential Financial was equally as excited about the opportunity. The design visions shown here depict some of the many ideas designers, Boston, and Prudential Financial had for the site. Formerly old railroad tracks, the site would become an active complex with retail, a hotel, commercial space, open plaza space, and an office tower. Each iteration depicts the building as a gleaming glass and steel structure that brings new life and modernization to Boston - something everyone was eagerly awaiting.

opposite One of many visions of the Prudential Center complex right above Another vision of the Prudential Tower right below Completed Prudential complex and tower

62 // context

what is not // 63

“MTA Air Rights Study”, 1993 In 1993, the MTA created a feasibility study to inform public decision and design on air rights parcels. The study looks at potential development on the parcels as well as the surrounding neighborhoods’ characters and specific needs and restrictions. The study is only intended to be a source of reference and does not advocate for specific results. Although this document is only a study of current conditions and potential opportunities, it is an attempt at tackling the severe and numerous problems the Turnpike had created among neighborhoods. This document contains visions of a hopeful future that patches key air rights parcels, revitalizing neighborhoods and improving transportation in the process.

right Cover of the MTA Study opposite above View of air rights parcels opposite below Air rights parcel map

64 // context

what is not // 65

In one of several site analyses, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;MTA Air Rights Studyâ&#x20AC;? looks in depth at Kenmore Square (opposite), presenting a new plaza, T station, and parking with direct access to the Turnpike. This concept also proposes a new pedestrian mall for easier and more convenient access by all modes of transportation. Aside from improved transportation features, a factor emphasized in all the proposals throughout the document, this concept incorporates new office buildings and atrium spaces. As a result, Fenway Stadium becomes a celebrated space, no longer hidden and hard to access. This would help to revitalize the Kenmore Square neighborhood, currently divided by the Turnpike and separated from Fenway (right).

66 // context

what is not // 67

In another study, the MTA looks at Massachussets Avenue (Mass Ave) Parcels 1015. This time, the proposal was less visual and more conceptual, studying two alternatives of building massings, heights, and relationships to the surroundings and the Turnpike. In both options, the most intensive development would occur on Parcel 12 to offset costs of development on other parcels. In Option 1, the relationship between Boylston Street and Mass Ave would be improved, hundreds of parking spaces would be developed, and institutions and nearby businesses could expand and develop. In Option 2, the existing Newbury Street on ramp would be removed to reduce traffic in the area. This option proposes similar development ideas that also incorporate towers to demarcate an entrance into the city from the Turnpike.

68 // context

option 1

option 2

what is not // 69

“Civic Vision”, 2000 In 1997 during the Big Dig, the state legislature instructed the BRA and MTA to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for air rights development. In 1998, Mayor Thomas Menino created a Strategic Development Study Committee (SDSC) to set standards of review for MOU projects and to work with the community, city/state agencies, and developers to create general development goals and strategies, which were compiled in the “Civic Vision”. Goody, Clancy & Associates were brought in as planning consultants for the process. This document and the MOU acted like zoning regulations, since air rights parcels are legally exempt from zoning. The SDSC set out to create a realistic yet exciting urban design vision for the Turnpike corridor that took into account the varied characters of the surrounding neighborhoods. They devised a mission to improve public transportation, enhance neighborhoods, invest in city building, and promote the public realm to ultimately revive and support Boston’s culture and economy. In the “Civic Vision”, general design strategies and guidelines are explained and then

opposite Watercolor view from the “Civic Vision” of air rights parcels

70 // context

supplemented with more detailed descriptions of each neighborhood and its corresponding air rights parcels. However, this document is still a guideline and cannot regulate what projects should be constructed. The “Civic Vision”, much like the “MTA Air Rights Study”, looks at individual parcels to make arguments for or against certain building types, heights and neighborhood needs. Unlike the “MTA Study”, the “Civic Vision” goes into much more

depth about each neighborhood. This report was organized more comprehensively with the hope of making progress towards developing design goals and standards. As a result, architects and builders would encounter fewer obstacles with the community and would also have a starting point for design. Unfortunately, it has not proven successful in the few proposals presented to date.

what is not // 71

The “Civic Vision” breaks the report into main goals of the air rights parcels, such as transportation improvements, increased parking and bike storage requirements, neighborhood aesthetics, and building height relationships. Looking at the same Kenmore Square parcel that the MTA studied, the “Civic Vision” was able to develop more thorough design goals. Through analysis of the neighborhood’s built environment and needs, general height suggestions were developed (below right). In addition, watercolor perspectives were drawn to showcase the potential of this currently unused air rights parcel (opposite). Like the “MTA Study”, the “Civic Vision” also found it beneficial to create a plaza at Kenmore Square with adequate pedestrian, vehicular, and public transit access to revitalize the area and reunite the divided neighborhood (above right).

72 // context

what is not // 73

On the parcels at the intersection of Mass Ave and Boylston Street, Parcels 11-15, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Civic Visionâ&#x20AC;? proposes several taller buildings, especially on Parcel 15, to match the taller heights of the nearby Prudential and John Hancock tower. This study included the standard height massing diagram as well as a perspective of an activated Mass Ave/ Boylston Street (below right). In addition, a new technique of collaging over existing photos is an attempt to quickly show how the existing landscape could be transformed without taking away character or key views. The study emphasizes view corridors and program, but, as a result, the guidelines produced for each parcel tend to be vague and hard to distinguish, except in a few key parcels. In this neighborhood, Parcel 15 is strongly suggested to contain the tallest building, while others are suggested to be below fifteen stories to maintain views. Improved pedestrian access and increased public transportation is also emphasized for this neighborhood (opposite).

74 // context

what is not // 75

Projects That Could Not Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision plans attempted to lay out a framework for designing, proposing, and developing designs on air rights parcels along I-90. However, as we saw in the previous subsection, both of the vision plans were very schematic. While it provides a useful start towards site analysis, it is in no way enough to create a successful project from. Infamous projects such as Columbus Center and Millennium Tower (also known as Boylston Square) have attempted to propose designs over various parcels with no luck. Columbus Center faced severe financial problems along with community resistance. Millennium Tower also faced harsh neighborhood reactions. Although the vision plans were a good step towards addressing the air rights parcels, the lack of progress in construction is grounds for concern. What factors are holding back proposals and construction? What needs to be done, either on a broad scale or within each project, to allow for

opposite Site of the proposed Columbus Center

76 // context

success? These questions can not be answered easily, but through studying a few projects that could not make it through the design process to completion, we hope to make some conclusions as to the major flaws. To begin, there seem to be three main categories that are standing in the way of projects being completed successfully: 1. The Community 2. Technical Issues 3. Financial Issues While these are all obstacles that are difficult to overcome, the public sentiment in Boston is growing in favor of air rights projects. This is helped by the fact that many proposals are becoming realized on the Greenway, and Fenway Center has been approved and will be underway within a year. Air rights present a huge opportunity for Boston to provide jobs and amenities and, as a result, bring more people and resources into the city.

Boylston Square (1997) Boylston Street, Parcel 12-15 Millennium Group CBT Architects, Handel Architects Condos/Movie Theater $400,000,000 Columbus Center (1997-2010) 101 Clarendon Street, Parcel 16-18 Winn Development CBT Architects Mixed Use $800,000,000

what is not // 77

Boylston Square, 1997 Millennium Partners filed plans with the City of Boston and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs to build a 50-story tower over the Mass Pike, and chose Childs Bertman Tseckares (CBT) and Handel Architects as the architects. The design was to include a 250room hotel, 110 extended-stay apartments, 250 condos, and a 3,600 seat movie theater. In total, the project was an estimated 1,000,000 square feet and $400,000,000. Mayor Thomas Menino, speaking much like Callahan and Mayor Hynes did about the Prudential, believed that the project had the potential to change Boston for the better by recapturing the historic appeal of the area and making the district dynamic and vibrant once again. However, the neighborhood did not have the same positive reactions. The Back Bay and Fenway residents contested the size of the project, which at one point was proposed to soar 50 stories. The shadows cast by the proposed tower was of particular concern for the community and they feared a nuclear winter.

78 // context

As a result, legislation was passed declaring shadows could not be cast on Commonwealth Ave or the Charles River Esplanade for more than half an hour on October 24th. This made development much more complicated on these air rights parcels. After six months of design and an additional six months of public process, Millennium Partners decided to stop pursuing the project. Instead, they proposed a similar project on a terra firma site in Boston’s theater district. Over the past ten years, the BRA has issued an RFP to foster a competition for the air rights parcels, as the “Civic Vision” suggests. In July 2012, the BRA re-issued the RFP to account for fee proposals. There still has not been an architect chosen to pursue a design proposal.

what is not // 79

Columbus Center, 1997-2010 Winn Development proposed Columbus Center in 1997 as a thirty-five story, five building complex on Parcel 16 that would help stitch the Back Bay and South End neighborhoods together. They chose CBT as the architect because of their prior experience on the Boylston Square project. The idea was appealing on paper, but throughout the process, the feasibility of the design came under debate. There were nearly 130 meetings held with the city and community, but Winn was never able to convince the community of the Columbus Center design. After 10 years and a projected cost of $800,000,000, the project was declared officially dead. The financial backers were no longer in a position to fund the project and the community was not in favor of the scale of the proposed design. Columbus Center started with the best intentions, but the drawn out process left the community in limbo and cost millions of dollars. As a result, the neighborhood was left skeptical and discouraged about the potential of air rights projects.

opposite right The proposed Columbus Center opposite left The site of the proposed Columbus Center

80 // context

However, even if the project had started after the “Civic Vision” of 2000 was released, Parcel 16 was proposed to have a taller building since it is part of the high spine in Boston which includes the Prudential Tower and the Hancock Tower. David Hancock, a principal at CBT who worked on the project, explains that there were many challenges faced at Columbus Center. One major issue involved decking and foundation construction. Lawyers realized much of the terra firma that was assumed to be part of Parcel 16 was actually owned by the Hancock Tower, leaving a severe shortage (only 10’ to the West of the Pike) of sufficient terra firma on Parcel 16. This raised many problems relating to the cost of decking and foundation for the proposed building over the railroad and Turnpike and discouraged the community about the potential of air rights projects. However, Hancock points out that much of the financial trouble that Columbus Center faced was due to the 2007 economic depression that forced the financial backers to back out and kill the project. Otherwise, the BRA, the City of Boston, and the Mayor were in support of the project and Hancock believes it could have continued through to completion.

what is not // 81

A Comparison of Columbus Center and Boylston Square

Boylston Square

1997 - Approximately one year

The time period was too short for economic cycles to affect the project.

Columbus Center

key factors leading to project demise 82 // context

1997-2010 - Approximately thirteen years -1997: Mass Turnpike Authority Chairman announces deal with developer Arthur Winn to build Columbus Center -2003: Boston officials approved the project -2007: Construction begins -2008: Construction stalls because Winn fails to provide funding -2010: Transportation officials issue notice of default to developers

The project began in good economic conditions but, in 2007, an economic depression began that resulted in many financial backers abandoning the project. Since the project spanned a decade, it was greatly affected by economic cycles. The economic decline, and the loss of financial backers as a result of it, ultimately caused the failure of the project.

The design was to include a 250-room hotel, 110 extended-stay apartments, 250 condos, and a 3,600 seat movie theater. In total, the project was an estimated 1,000,000 square feet. The project was estimated to cost around $400 million dollars.

The movie theater would span the Turnpike and a separate tower was proposed on terra firma.

The project was estimated to cost around $400 million dollars and quickly rose to $800 million dollars by 2007 because of unforeseen construction obstacles, especially in regards to the railroad, and difficulty securing financial backers.

The design proposed a thirty-five story building on Parcel 16 in addition to four other buildings. Included would be affordable housing, apartments, a hotel, and parking in a total of approximately 1,000,000 square feet.

It was not until the economic depression that the value of condos decreased and cost of construction increased. That, in combination with financial backers (especially Calpers) leaving made the project financially unfeasible. what is not // 83

Boylston Square

Columbus Center

84 // context

The community greatly opposed the development because of the height and potential shadows.

The community greatly opposed the development because of the height in fear that it would not compliment the surrounding neighborhoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s character.

State, local, and Turnpike authorities supported the project.

State, local, and Turnpike authorities supported the project. The railroad proved to be a large obstacle to overcome because of the restrictions and requirements that would be implemented in the construction phase.

Spanning the Turnpike with the movie theater was a challenge, but the architects and engineers developed a long-span method to make it work. In the end, although the technical construction details didn’t cause the project’s failure, a terra firma site proved more profitable.

There was very little terra firma to work with - only 10 feet on the west side of the Turnpike. This made foundation construction extremely difficult. The developers had to negotiate with the John Hancock tower owners to gain rights to access a portion of their terra firma. In addition, there were three different decks that were required.

The environmental impact study for this project proved to be a major cause of failure. The shadow study revealed the potential for Back Bay to be in shadow. As a result, legislation was passed that declared shadows could not be cast on Commonwealth Ave or the Charles River Esplanade for more than half an hour on October 24th.

An extensive environmental impact report was generated for this project studying noise, traffic, ventilation, lighting, etc. Several massing schemes were tested in order to ensure CBT’s proposal was the best choice.

The construction aspect of this project proved to be the most complicated obstacle.

what is not // 85

Not all air rights projects have failed in recent years. For example, the 1.3 million square foot Fenway Center has completed several stages of approval and should be starting construction in 2013. Why has this project succeeded when Columbus Center could not? Both projects were seeking to revitalize Boston, bring jobs, and stitch neighborhoods together that are separated by both the railroad and then later the Turnpike. The Fenway Center, however, has more terra firma available to work with and includes many programs that can create money, such as a state-funded new Yawkey Commuter Rail station, residential space, offices, retail, and parking. The project has been split into two phases to make it more attainable and will create an estimated 1,700 construction jobs.

The Fenway Center project: - Is 50% on terra firma - Covers two rail lines - Has no electrified lines to cover - Has a wide stretch of highway below allowing for more construction space and better traffic flow

86 // context

The Columbus Center project: - Is on 5% terra firma - Covers seven rail lines - Must cover electrified rail lines - Has a narrow stretch of highway below which creates less construction space and tighter traffic flow

what is not // 87

Chapter 1 Credits “Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review” < http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1019&context=ealr> “Proposal for Air Rights Parcels 14 and 15” < http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/0/docs/infoCenter/ realEstate_assetDev/airRights_Carpenter_14_15.pdf> “Why Develop Air Rights?” < http://www.bostoninformer.com/winter_2008-9.pdf> “Mass Turnpike Historic Overview” < http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/mass-pike/> “Millenium Tower May Still Rise Over the Pike” < http://www.archboston.org/archive/viewtopic.php?t=285&sid=7 2c6387bb4226e655e2b5f695deaae11> BRA: “1282 Boylston Street Project” <http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/DevelopmentProjects/ PipeDocs/1282%20Boylston%20Street%20(McDonald’s)/1282%20Boylston%20Street%20(McDonald’s)_NPC. pdf> “Millenium’s Boylston Square Proposal” < http://www.fenwayaction.org/issues.html> “Movies and Shakies” < http://www.specialtyretail.net/issues/january99/loews.htm> “Columbus Center: What Was Planned “ The Boston Globe <http://www.boston.com/news/specials/columbus_ center/flash_graphic/> “Columbus Center’s Plug Pulled” The Boston Globe < http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/03/11/ columbus_center_developer_pulls_the_plug/> “Developer Winn Pleads Guilty” The Boston Globe <http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11/09/developerwinn-pleads-guilty/DHUD8vSrsfenrbHZ7aQGHJ/story.html> “10 Million More Sought for Columbus Center” The Boston Globe < http://www.boston.com/business/globe/ articles/2007/07/13/10m_more_sought_for_columbus_center/?page=full> “Over-the-Pike Plans” The Boston Globe < http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/07/27/pike_air_rights_ projects_in_works/?page=2> “Columbus Center Complaints Intensify” The Boston Globe< http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/ articles/2009/08/01/columbus_center_project_complaints_intensify/>

Seasholes, Nancy S. Gaining Ground: A History of Landmaking in Boston. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2003. Print. Rubin, Elihu. Insuring the City:The Prudential Center and the Postwar Urban Landscape. New Haven:Yale UP, 2012. Print. Boston Redevelopment Authority’s Stuart Street Study Task (Back Bay) < http://www. bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/planning/PlanningInitsIndividual.asp?action=ViewInit&InitID=127 > Amended and Restated Lease: Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to Urban Investment and Development Do. of Copley Place, Boston, Massachusetts (1980) < http://www20.us.archive.org/details/amendedrestatedl00mass > Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application (1980) < http://archive.org/details/ copleyplaceurban00bost > Copley Place Project Information (1980) < http://archive.org/details/copleyplaceproje00urba > Experimental Study of the Air Pollution Impact of the Turnpike and Garage Ventilation Systems Proposed for the Copley Place Project, Boston, MA (1980) < http://archive.org/details/experimentalstud00urba > Copley Place Comprehensive Design Submission (1981) < copleyplacecompr1981urba > Amended and Restated Lease: Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to Urban Investment and Development Co. of Copley Place, Boston, Massachusetts (1980) < http://archive.org/details/amendedrestatedl00mass > “Air Rights” Goldschmidt, Leopold A. <http://www.planning.org/pas/at60/report186.htm> “The Development 0f Roadway Air Rights: Boston’s Future, A Slave to its Past” Schulte, Andrew <http:// lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=ealr> “Air Rights” Information Report No. 186, American Society of Planning Officials, May 1964. “What was before – What once occupied the site of today’s Pru? “ <http://forgottennewengland.com/2012/03/31/ what-was-before-what-once-occupied-the-site-of-todays-pru/> “Creating Sustainable Air Rights Development Over Highway Corridors: Lessons from the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston” < http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/35695/60250140.pdf?sequence=1> “Ventura Village Initiatives” < http://www.venturavillage.org/masterplan/air-rights-summary.PDF>

Determinants Technical Legal + Regulatory Economic

Technical Structure Utilities Federal Highway Standards Highway Construction Logistics

Structure

Supporting Strategies

Spread Footing Spread footings support vertical supporting members and disperse loads to a larger footprint. While this foundation is inefficient for high rise structures, it works well up until seven stories at which the weight limit is reached. The ability to create steps in this type of foundation makes it perfect for sloped sites. Spread footings are perfect for above tunnels because sound dampening pads can be inserted and allow the building to virtually float, reducing vibrations and noise. Caisson This foundation is typically used for high rise construction. Once seven stories is reached the foundation design calls for caissons because of the weight dispersal. Caissons may be sealed and pressurized for use in soft ground, or open to above to allow for water pumping. Caissons can range anywhere from a few feet to any desired dimension. This is a very expensive foundation costing an estimated $300,000 per footing to install. This requires lane closures drill in the median. Pylons This foundation is the perfect way to vertically disperse weight when only a small space on the ground can be penetrated. This is a way of inserting structure in between narrow medians on the highway. The pylons can be poured concrete that act as the foundation as well as the vertical structure. In other cases a steel pylon can be attached to a footing. This footing is used in a typical bridge construction. It can be used in any soil condition.

94 // determinants

Column This vertical member is used to help load distribution. Where multiple foundations can not be inserted, a column is placed to help remove the load from the spanning members above. Also used when trying to avoid the visual impediment when using any of the larger structural members. Columns in tension are used to hang the first floor from a raised truss, allowing for a smaller beam on the first floor. Slurry Wall To construct a slurry wall, an excavator is brought in to create a trench starting around half a meter wide. The machine’s dimensions start off around 15’x20’ plus the extension length of the excavation arm. The machine moves along the border, digging the trench to the desired depth of the pit. The site must allow complete rotation of the machine’s arm, as well as space for a 10’x10’ slurry machine, and a dump truck to remove the excavated soil. Standard machines can dig down to 200’.

technical // 95

Spanning Strategies

Direct Transfer Loads are directly dispersed through stacked columns. This allows for smaller vertical members and occur less frequently.

Single Beam Transfer Loads are transferred through the beams that span out to the surrounding terra firma. Beams must become deeper to accommodate the larger loads.

96 // determinants

Multi-Beam Transfer Beams stretch from one side to another. The columns disperse their weight through spread footings. This is used in shallow situations, such as on the roof structure of the Rose Kennedy Greenway.

Suspended Transfer The columns below the truss are in suspension, causing the loads to move through the truss above and down the larger columns. This allows for large spans to be created without a vertical support at the highway level, as well as smaller spanning members on the first floor.

technical // 97

Decking Strategies Pre-Fabricated Concrete Pre-fabricated concrete panels allow for off site fabrication. The construction site must allow for a crane and flatbed to transport and assemble the panels. A piece of land on site is preferred to store panels before construction. This process allows for quick assembly with the flexibility of running utilities through openings created in the panels. Easy maintenance is possible because panels can be cut away and replaced by a new one.

Poured in Place By pouring the concrete in place, it is not necessary to order custom sized panels, creating the most flexibility. The process must account for the delivery of the concrete and the delayment of further construction. There are no dimensional limits, and different consistencies can be made for different strengths. Poured concrete is not directly set on the beams, but instead needs metal decking underneath.

98 // determinants

technical // 99

Utilities

Water and Sewage Lines Water and sewage companies have to remove and process the rain water which falls on properties and then flows into the public drainage systems. This essential service is known as surface water drainage. Without good upkeep of the drainage system, the likelihood of surface water and sewer flooding would increase dramatically. Several solutions exist for specific site situations. For instance, bridges over highways often carry multiple utilities including water mains and sewer force mains but not gravity lines. Gravity lines are laid underneath highways and if there is an underpass, one may need to design a siphon (sewage pump). Typically, buildings built over tunnels get their utilities from their abutting streets. Underpasses often need drain pipes that to prevent flooding from occuring. The drainage is then pumped back into the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s drainage system. Water and sewerage is necessary only when those systems overlap and each are designed as part of the roadways. Electrical lines for the building and its adjacent street lighting fixtures need to be tunneled from the street and rerouted to incorporate the new entities into the system.

100 // determinants

Highway Gully Collects S.W. Runoff Surface Water Sewer (Water Authority - Adopted sewer or Highway drain)

Highway Gully Collects S.W. Runoff

Surface Water Sewer (Water Authority - Adopted sewer or Highway drain)

Potential Building

Adjacent Building

Pictured below are strategies utilized in order to bring piping and conduits through existing infrastructure. The pipes need to be wrapped within a rigid insulation placed within a PVC pipe properly sealed to be watertight. That strategy is typically used for penetration through a foundation, however, when coming through a slab, the use of foam and roof felt would prove equally as reliable. Slab conditions usually utilize a special insulation like Armorflex or the vinyl sleeving.

Electric Lines Gravity Lines

Highway Overpass / Tunnel

Sewer Line

technical // 101

Park Park design over highways and tunnels should consider similar design fundamentals found within todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s green roof strategies. To the left is an example of the layering found over the road infrastructure. Some things to consider are the types of plantings found above and how to properly drain within it. Adjacent Building

Potential Park

Gravity Lines

Highway Overpass / Tunnel

Sewer Line To Harbor or Body of Water 102 // determinants

Intensive Green Roof There are intensive and extensive green roofs. Intensive typically have deeper soil depths that allow for the planting of trees and shrubs. There can be soil depths of two to four feet over a drainage mat and structural decking.

Soil with Large Trees / Plantings (4’ - 9’) Drainage Map Structural Decking

Extensive Green Roof Extensive typically have 10” or less of soil and support Sedum or other low growing small plants. There is considerable weight differences that impact the structural design supporting the roof or bridge in this case. Nine feet of soil typically weighs the equivalent of one building story. Soil with Small Plantings (10” - 4’) Drainage Map Structural Decking

technical // 103

Ventilation Ventilating is the process of replacing air in any space to provide high quality air. This includes controlling temperature, replenishing oxygen, or removing moisture, odors, smoke, heat, dust, airborne bacteria, and carbon dioxide. Ventilation is also used to remove unpleasant smells and excessive moisture, introduce outside air, to keep interior building air circulating, and to prevent stagnation of the interior air.

Ventilation includes both the exchange of air to the outside as well as circulation of air within the building. It is one of the most important factors for maintaining acceptable indoor air quality in buildings. Methods for ventilating a building may be divided into mechanical/ forced and natural types.

Grating

104 // determinants

Highways have been utilizing localized exhaust ventilation strategies that address the issue of avoiding the contamination of indoor air by specific high-emission sources. This is done by capturing airborne contaminants before they are spread into the environment.

Natural Ventilation A naturally ventilated tunnel is as simple as the name implies. The movement of air is controlled by meteorological conditions and the piston effect created by moving traďŹ&#x192;c pushing the stale air through the tunnel. This effect is minimized when bi-directional traďŹ&#x192;c is present. Longitudinal Ventilation Longitudinal ventilation is similar to natural ventilation with the addition of mechanical fans, either in the portal buildings, the center shaft, or mounted inside the tunnel. Longitudinal ventilation is often used inside rectangular-shaped tunnels that do not have the extra space above the ceiling or below the roadway for ductwork. Semi-Transverse Ventilation Semi-transverse ventilation uses mechanical fans for movement of air, but it does not use the roadway envelope itself as the ductwork. A separate plenum is added either above or below the tunnel with flues that allow for uniform distribution of air in or out of the tunnel. This plenum or ductwork is typically located above a suspended ceiling or below a structural slab within a tunnel with a circular cross-section. Full-Transverse Ventilation Full-transverse ventilation uses the same components as semi-transverse ventilation, but it incorporates supply air and exhaust air together over the same length of tunnel. This method is used primarily for longer tunnels that have large amounts of air that need to be replaced or for heavily traveled tunnels that produce high levels of contaminants. technical // 105

Boston Precedents

Ventilation Building Map

Section - Ventilation Building 4

106 // determinants

90ft

15 11

technical // 107

Boston Precedents Throughout the Rose Kennedy Greenway, or Central Artery, there are several Ventilation buildings. These ventilation buildings utilize large fans to pull the contaminated air from the tunnels into the air above.

Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s InterContinental hotel and condominium building on Atlantic Avenue is isolated on rubber pads. Originally when the greenway was constructed, this site was a vacant lot with massive concrete vent stacks rising 237 feet above grade to discharge air from the Central Artery tunnel. These vent shafts are now concealed inside the hotel. Some guest rooms are directly against the vent shafts, and the four-diamond hotel has very high standards for comfort.

To control the effects of vibration from the fans, the entire building is isolated from the foundation piles on rubber pads. The rubber alone cost over $1 million. Cavanaugh Tocciâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design of each pad had to take into account vertical loads, lateral loads, and seismic loads in all three axes. Large steel bolts and plates act as stops to limit deflection.

4 1 The Central Artery tunnel lies underground, next to the foundation of the InterContinental Hotel. Giant fans (1) suck exhaust air from the tunnels and send it more than 200 feet up through vent stacks (2) . Custom-designed rubber pads separate the stacks from the hotel floors, while additional pads (3) isolate the building columns from the foundation. Large vents at the ground floor (4) resupply the highway tunnels with fresh air. Drawing by David Butler

108 // determinants

Ar chitectureBoston

New York Precedents

In the Holland Tunnelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transverse-flow system, fresh air is drawn from the outside through one of four ventilation buildings and blown by fans into a fresh air duct located under each tunnel roadway. The air enters the tunnel proper through narrow slots just above the curb, spaced 10 to 15 feet (3 to 4.5 m) apart.

it into the open air through the roof of one of the ventilation buildings. The four ventilation buildings (two in New Jersey and two in New York) house a total of 84 fans, of which 42 are blower units, and 42 are exhaust units. They are capable, at full speed, of completely changing the tunnel air every 90 seconds.

Exhaust fans (also located in the ventilation buildings) pull the exhaust-laden air through openings in the ceiling into an exhaust duct located above the ceiling slab, and discharges

technical // 109

Federal Highway Standards Signage Structure Types EXIT

Allston Brighton Cambridge 1/2

Full Span Structure

110 // determinants

EXIT

90 Boston

Allston Brighton Cambridge 1/2

Cantilever

EXIT

Allston Brighton Cambridge 1/2

90 Boston

Uneven Cantilever

EXIT

Allston Brighton Cambridge

1/2

Boston

90 Boston 90

Boston

Balanced Butterfly

Bridge mounted

Copley Prudential

Tunnel mounted

90 Boston

Bridge

U-Post Support

technical // 111

Urban Highway Conditions

A A

Bridge Condition

Retaining Wall Condition

A: Minimum vertical clearance is 14’ - 16’ B: MassDOT posts a 13’ 9” minimum vertical clearance for tunnels. C: Width should be at least 44’, which consists of two 12’ wide lanes, 10’ outside and 5’ inside shoulders, and 2’ 6” safety walkways on each side. If there is no safety walkway, a 3’ offset is acceptable. D

112 // determinants

Flat Condition

Tunnel Condition D: Along primary highways, a sign structure shall not be placed closer than 500â&#x20AC;&#x2122; to another sign structure. This is to ensure that only one sign located within the spacing distance is visible from the highway at any time. This rule can be modified if signs are separated by a building or other visual obstruction.

technical // 113

Standard Highway Dimensions The Federal Highway Administration defines a bridge as “a structure including supports erected over a depression or an obstruction, such as water, highway, or railway, and having a track or passageway for carrying traffic or other moving loads, and having an opening measured along the center of the roadway of more than 20 feet between under copings of abutments or spring lines of arches, or extreme ends of openings for multiple boxes; it may also include multiple pipes, where the clear distance between openings is less than half of the smaller contiguous opening.”

A: Minimum outside shoulder width (exception for highways built before or during the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956) - 10’

E: Minimum clearance for sign supports and pedestrian overpasses - 17’

B: Minimum inside shoulder width (exception for highways built before or during the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956) - 4’

G: Minimum vertical clearance for rail (Diesel engine) - 22’ 6” Minimum vertical clearance for rail (Electric engine) - 26’

C: Minimum lane width - 12’ Maximum lane width - 16’ D: Minimum clearance under overhead structures (rural) - 16’ Minimum clearance under overhead structures (urban) - 14’

F: Typical 18 wheeler height - 13’ 6”

H: Minimum horizontal clearance to any side obstruction - 8’ 6” I: Typical Jersey barrier dimensions W: 2’ 8” H: 3’ 9”

114 // determinants

90 Boston 12 ft MIN.

6 ft MIN.

5 ft MIN.

8 ft MIN.

Shoulder

EXIT

Allston Brighton Cambridge 1/2

90 Boston

90 D

Boston

F H

technical // 115

Standard Highway Dimensions The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) definition of a tunnel is defined as “an enclosed roadway with vehicle access that is restricted to portals regardless of type of structure or method of construction. Tunnels do not include highway bridges, railroad bridges or other bridges over a roadway. Tunnels are structures that require special design considerations that may include lighting, ventilation, fire protection systems, and emergency egress capacity.”

Clearance: MassDOT posts a 13’ 9” minimum vertical clearance for tunnels. Width: The width should be at least 44’, which consists of two 12’ wide lanes, 10’ outside and 5’ inside shoulders, and 2’ 6” safety walkways on each side. If there is no safety walkway, a 3’ offset is acceptable. Grade: Maximum grades in roadway tunnels should not exceed 4%, although grades up to 6% have been used where necessary.

Horizontal Curves: When horizontal curves are needed, the minimum acceptable horizontal radii should consider traffic speed and sight distances. For planning purpose, the curve radii should be as large as possible and no less than 850’ to 1000’ radius. Maintenance cost: The current estimated cost to maintain tunnels is $1.7 million each year for every lane mile.

116 // determinants

A: Safety walkway - 2’ 6” B: Minimum inside shoulder - 5’ C: Minimum outside shoulder - 10’ D: Minimum total width - 44’ E: Minimum clearance for signage supports in tunnels - 17’ F: Minimum clearance under overhead signage in tunnels - 16’

90 Boston

E F

technical // 117

Construction Logistics Essential Construction Equipment Tower Cranes

Mobile Cranes

Average cost of operation: $40,000 / month or $1336 / day Lifting capacity range: 4 tons - 500 tons Radius range: 131’ - 328’

Average cost of operation: $16,650 / month or $555 / day Lifting capacity range: 13.2 tons - 1,179 tons Radius range: 131’ - 446’

257’ max

13 1’

-4 46 ’

131’ - 328’

118 // determinants

Pros Can move larger structural members Typically has a longer swing arm radius Cons Expensive Longer swing time Precise construction material areas

Construction material zone

Pros Mobile capabilities allow for dispersed material storage Cheaper cost per day Short swing time allows for faster construction Pros Cons Limit on structural member size Typically have shorter swing arms technical // 119

Lane Closures

Typical Interstate Lane Closure

Highway construction work is typically done during late night hours when there is minimal traffic. Full highway closures may occur in 2060 min. increments in order to lift heavy structural members into place.

Key Direction of travel Channelizing device (cone/barrel) Work space Sign Downstream Taper Buffer space (see chart)

Buffer Space Distance Chart Speed

Distance

20 mph

115 feet

25 mph

155 feet

30 mph

200 feet

35 mph

250 feet

40 mph

305 feet

45 mph

360 feet

50 mph

425 feet

55 mph

495 feet

60 mph

570 feet

65 mph

645 feet

70 mph

730 feet

75 mph

820 feet

Traffic space allows traffic to pass through the activity area

Termination area lets traffic resume normal operations

Work space is set for workers, equipment, and material storage

Activity area is where work takes place

Buffer space (see chart) provides protection for traffic and workers

Transition area moves traffic out of its normal path

Buffer space chart is based off of the posted speed prior to work starting. Shoulder Taper

Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing Road Type

Distance Between Signs A

Rural

500 feet

Urban (high speed)

350 feet

1,000 feet

1,500 feet

2,640 feet

Interstate

120 // determinants

B C

Advance warning area tells traffic what to expect ahead

Exit ramp with construction before and after the ramp

Exit ramp with construction after the ramp

Temporary edge lines

100’ 100’

1,000’

Temporary edge lines

Shoulder taper

Temporary edge lines

Shoulder taper

technical // 121

Entrance ramp with added lane

Entrance ramp where a merge is required

Temporary edge line

500’ 500’

Shoulder taper

122 // determinants

500’

technical // 123

Legal + Regulatory Permits and Parcel Disposition Ownership Types

Permits and Parcel Disposition Air rights projects, especially in Boston, have to get approval from various entities before construction may begin. The most important approval process comes from the Boston Redevelopment Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Article 80 review. Article 80 is a part of the BRAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s zoning code that calls for an in-depth examination of all real estate development proposals in order to understand their potential impact on a neighborhood and the city of Boston as a whole. Since the dissolution of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority in 2009, air rights parcels have come under the zoning regulations established by the BRA. Air rights developments have the unique necessity of having to acquire permits to work along the highways and railways during construction of the decking and foundation. The main concerns for the transportation entities issuing these permits are safety and uninterrupted service; these priorities are reflected within the granting of permits. For example, MassDOT requires all architects, engineers and contractors to be pre-qualified to work with them before any projects can receive approval by the department of transportation. Other than the pre-qualification process, each proposed development must obtain access permits in order to use MassDOT property for construction purposes. Other entities also have their own requirements in order to grant access to construction crews and developers must apply separately to each of these entities, such as the MBTA, Amtrak, and Conrail. 126 // determinants

The disposition process for the air rights parcels over the Massachusetts Turnpike is controlled by MassDOT in conjunction with the guidelines set forth by the BRA in the 2000 Civic Vision for Air Rights in Boston. As stated in the Civic Vision the process is as follows: 1. MassDOT notifies the BRA and announces potential air rights development opportunity. 2. Turnpike authority, after consultation with the BRA, issues a Request for Qualifications. 3. Mayor of Boston appoints a Citizens Advisory Committee (“CAC”), as provided by the memorandum of understanding. 4. Potential developers submit qualifications submissions. 5. CAC solicits community comments and reviews the developers’ qualifications submissions. 6. CAC submits comments on developers qualifications submissions to the Turnpike Authority. 7. Turnpike authority, after consultation with the mayor, selects the short list of developers. 8. Short-listed developers submit detailed development and design proposals. 9. CAC reviews the developers proposals and solicits community comments. 10. CAC submits comments on developers’ proposals to the Turnpike Authority. 11. Turnpike Authority selects developer after consultation with the Mayor. Following the designation of a developer for the parcel(s), the developer will submit an Environmental Notification Form/Project Notification Form to the BRA. legal + regulatory // 127

Ownership Types The American Planning Association identified in, a 1964 report, four main ways of acquiring development rights for air rights parcels. Only one involves leasing while the other three involve granting the developer varying degrees of fee interest. Leasing, the most commonly used way of granting development rights, involves a lease agreement between the land owner and the developer for the air rights and necessary ground space to put down foundations for the decking needed to support a building. Other standard provisions for air rights leases include duration of lease, tax, insurance and maintenance apportionment,

128 // determinants

as well as the rights and responsibilities of each party. MassDOT is exclusively dealing with leases on all of their air rights parcels outlined in the civic vision. The first type of fee transfer involves selling the land as well as the air rights to the developer, while maintaining an easement for the original surface use. This method is ideal for the developer as it offers increased flexibility during the construction phase and the original surface use ends up with a lower priority in terms of land use disputes. The second type of fee transfer requires the original land owner to sell the air rights and grant

easements for the foundations of the proposed air rights project to meet the ground. This results in two adjoining fee titles in the same parcel but gives legal priority to the land owner. In the last type of fee transfer, the original land owner can sell both the air rights as well as caisson lots to the developer under the premise that land can be platted and subdivided both horizontally as well as vertically. This type of deal has the clearest division of rights and responsibilities as well as legal liabilities.

Ambiguous ownership of land occurs where an air rights project foundation comes down into the land ownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s property. Legal resolutions to this issue include: Partial groundlease accompanying air rights lease. Easement (to either original land owner or air rights owner). Sale of land rights as caisson lots.

ete

R Air

x ts e igh

td ten

y F.A.R db . ca p

ne mi

s, h e

igh t li

ts,

etc .

legal + regulatory // 129

Economic Cost Premium Market Interests Transfer of Development Rights Economic Feasibility Subsidy Types

Cost Premium There is an inherent cost premium associated with developing air rights parcels, which often makes these types of projects difficult to complete. For example, in order to build over an urban corridor, such as a highway, a deck must be built to support a building. Constructing a building while trying to keep the highway open also adds significant costs. The value of air rights is the value of the unencumbered land less the sum of the additional costs of developing the air rights and the capitalized value of the reduced utility of the building. These value-reducing factors may include the following:

Additional Construction Cost This additional cost of construction proposed on an air rights site, including the additional architectural and engineering cost incurred. Examples of these costs could be extra foundations and suspension systems, and more elaborate access systems to street level.

Longer Construction Period The additional carrying and financing charges (particularly interest) caused by the longer construction period resulting from the fact that the holder of the air rights may be required to construct his project around and/or above existing or simultaneous construction.

Functional Inutility The economic value lost due to functional inutility caused by the design requirements of the proposal to allow its operation on the air rights site. One example of this could be the displacement of available space by ventilation shafts to serve the existing facilities at ground level. This loss would be measured by the capitalization of the net rent loss.

Legal and Organization Costs Any increase in legal and organization costs required above those incurred to produce the same number and type of residential units on a fee simple site at ground level.

132 // determinants

Air Rights Premium: Summary of Costs Rail & Highway Construction $1.2 Million Ventilation Operating Lighting Operating Life Safety Operating $1.2 Million Rail & Highway Operation Ventilation Operating Lighting Operating Life Safety Operating Constructability Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Temporary Facilities Staging Area Deck Costs

$0.4 Million

Total Premium (40,000 sf site)

$10.8 Million

$8.0 Million

Tunnel Operations Premium Construction of Tunnel System Constructability Premiums Parking and Accessibility Premium Additional Building Construction Complexity

Conventional Building Costs

Cost of decking = $175-$600/sf Cost of maintenance/closures = $75-$150/sf economic // 133

Market Interests

Non-Available Property The market and land value interests across the city of Boston is much higher than the national average. Specifically, along the Back Bay area, the cost is $302 per square foot. Following the properties in Downtown, this is the second highest market rate in the city.

Available Air Rights Property Due to the high land value of the surrounding neighborhood, it is easy to comprehend why Air Right properties would be considered the best â&#x20AC;&#x153;bang for your buck.â&#x20AC;? With respect to the parcel size, in theory the idea of developing an air rights project is exponentially smaller than if it was to be built within the city parcels.

134 // determinants

economic // 135

Transfer of Development Rights The cost of air rights, although hard to estimate, has been steadily rising in urban areas for many years and often becomes a major factor in the cost of development. While the cost of air rights in New York City is often in the $200-$300 per square foot range, it peaked in 2005 when two developers, William and Arthur Zeckendorf paid the equivalent of $430 per square foot, or $37 million for the air rights of neighboring parcels. In November 2007, Vornado Realty Trust paid the NYC Port Authority $500 million for a 99 year lease of the air rights over the port authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bus terminal on 42nd street, or the equivalent of $3.88 per square foot per year. These prices are indicative of transfer of development rights, or purchasing the air rights of one property and applying them to an adjacent property in order to make a larger development.

$500 Million

Leased at $3.86/s.f./ year in 2008

$37 Million

Sold at $430/ s.f. in 2005

136 // determinants

Economic Feasibility

LOT AREA = 100,000 S.F. F.A.R. ZONING ALLOWANCE = 4 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA = 400,000 S.F. NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE

LOT AREA = 100,000 S.F. F.A.R. ZONING ALLOWANCE= 5.6 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA = 560,000 S.F. ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE

Economic feasibility is the overall determining factor that makes a project buildable or not. Along with the ability to build densely enough to result in enough leasable space to be profitable, the developer must also be able to acquire the land at a fair market value, which is hard to determine with air rights parcels. To calculate this, one must employ a formula which provides the payment of Fair Market Value (FMV) of the land and air-rights, based on FAR, either in up-front payments to the owner or lease payments over the term or a combination. The FAR FMV must account for the excess costs of creating the land over the air rights (the deck) as it exceeds the cost for the same amount of square footage were it not a deck created by the lessee. One way of calculating the feasibility for example is as such; the costs of building the deck, minus the benefit of the deck offset for foundation costs which would be required on land and which the deck provides, minus the FMV of land, plus the deck maintenance costs over the term. If, for example, the deck is 50,000 square feet and costs $500 per square foot to construct, or $25M and the fair market value of land with a FAR of 6 is $300 per square foot , there would be a difference of $200 per square foot. In this case there would be a negative value of $10M. With the deck we have a foundation which benefits any buildings constructed on it, and if those buildings on land would cost $12M then there is a positive difference of $2M. In this case, the FMV is $2M and if the deck maintenance costs are $1 per square foot, then the annual rent on the $2M of value would be reduced by $50,000. economic // 137

Subsidy Types

138 // determinants

Concessions Many subsidies available to air rights projects come in the form of concessions instead of grants; the final cost of a project is lowered through these concessions to meet the current funding as opposed to the funding getting contributed to, to meet the final cost. An often mentioned concession in various air rights deals is the payment of the lease and how that affects a project. There are various ways in which a lease can be structured so as to not detract from the funding, often by deferring payments until construction is complete or by linking lease payments to performance of the development. This maximizes the available equity available to fund construction and temporarily lowers the cost of a project.

er m al g un ra ici nts pa st lb at ui e l ta x c ding re cr di ed le ts its as in g co nc es sio ns

in te re s lo w

eq ui ty

fu nd

tf ed

er al

lo a

Other options that help with the financing of projects are the availability of tax breaks to a developer in order to make a project economically feasible and bring in enough revenue to attract investors. this also allows for the procurement of low interest loans gained through urban development programs. These tax breaks will mainly manifest at the state and municipal level, while the low interest loans come mainly from federal and state funding

Building Credits In certain situations, the planning board will make special concessions in order to make a project economically feasible without necessitating the need for utilizing government or municipal funding, or tax breaks, all of which divert actual money away from other programs that need funding. In the case of The Fenway Center, the BRA allowed the floor area ratio (FAR) to exceed what is allowed by the local zoning ordinance. The Kenmore/ Fenway neighborhood has a maximum allowable FAR of 4. The city has allowed has allowed Meredith Management to develop Parcel 7 with a maximum FAR of 5.6 which is the minimum FAR that would make the project profitable for the investors.

fe d

In a more general definition of subsidy that is not exclusive to air rights projects, developers have the option of utilizing public funds to help cover any deficit in funding that they may be facing before beginning construction. This may come in many forms such as, Federal Grants from HUD or the FHA, or from state and local funds specifically earmarked for urban renewal, public works, highway improvements, etc.

Chapter 2 Credits Belair, Jerry. “Fenway Center and Development over the Turnpike.” Telephone interview. 17 Oct. 2012. Campbell, Bonnie E. Creating Sustainable Air Rights Development Over Highway Corridors: Lessons from the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T., 2004. Print. Clancy, Sean P. Air Rights Development: Is It Different Than Traditional Land Development? Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1998. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T., 2004. Print. Federal Highway Administration. N.p., 11 2012. Web. 10 Oct 2012. <http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_ millennium_eng.htm>. Grace, Andrew. “BRA interview”. In person interview. 27 Sept. 2012. Gray, James. “The Victor Interview”. In person interview. 27 Sept. 2012. Hancock, David. “Columbus Center interview”. In person interview. 8 Nov. 2012. Savvides, Andreas. Reclaiming Ground: Joint Development of Urban Highway Corridors. Thesis. Harvard University, 2002. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2002. Print. “Air Rights”. Information Report No. 186. American Society of Planning officials. Print. “Planning, Environment, & Realty.” Federal Highway Administration. N.p., 18 2012. Web. 09 Oct 2012. <http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/index.htm>. “Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions.” Federal Highway Administration. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct 2012. <http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/index.htm>. “MassHighway Supplemental Sign Policy.” Mass Department of Transportation. N.p.. Web. 08 Oct 2012. <http:// www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/traffic/signPolicy&sid=about>. “The 13 Controlling Criteria.” Federal Highway Administration. N.p.. Web. 25 Oct 2012. <http://safety.fhwa.dot. gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_shoulderwidth.htm>. Massachusetts Department of Transportation. N.p. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/ highway/Main.aspx

Design Typology Case Studies Precedents

Typology Plan Section

Plan Typologies Plan Typology 1 - Overhanging Building constructed over the highway

This is the most common air rights type where part of the building is constructed on a deck over the highway. This type is usually applied to large scale public or apartment projects which span a long distance over interstate highways. Examples: New York Presbyterian Hospital Bartle Hall Convention Center Seattle Convention Center

Plan Typology 2 - Connecting Building constructed with infrastructure over the highway

This type is usually seen in small scale projects built with the bridge over the highway and act as infrastructure (transportation stops) or street edge reconnection. Examples: High Street Cap MARTA Civic Center Station

144 // design

Plan Typology 3 - Embedding Building embeds the infrastructure

This is usually seen in the dense urban area where the highway or other types of infrastructure go through the building. Examples: Osaka Gate Tower The Standard Hotel High Line

Plan Typology 4 - Decking Building constructed on the platform over infrastructure

This typology usually happens in large scale projects where the deck is built over an entire area of infrustructure and provides a base for the buildings to be constructed on it. Examples: New York Hudson Yards Project

typology // 145

Plan Typology 1 - Overhanging

Typology

146 // design

New York Presbyterian Hospital

Seattle Convention Center

Example: New York Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell Medical Center, Greenberg Pavilion New York City, New York, USA

278

Air-Rights Construction Pathway to the Hospital (Ground level) 20

Retaining Wall

Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive (6 Lanes) 64

typology // 147

Plan Typology 2 - Connecting

Typology

148 // design

High Street Cap

MARTA Civic Center Station

Example: The High Street Cap Columbus, Ohio, USA

High Street

Street level Retailing 74' 218'

Retaining Wall

' 78' 54

Road Connecting Highway and City streets Interstate 670 Highway (8 Lanes)

typology // 149

Plan Typology 3 - Embedding

Typology

150 // design

Osaka Gate Tower

The Standard High Line

Example: Gate Tower Osaka, Japan

Hanshin Expressway No. 11 Ikeda Route (1 Lanes)

Access to Gate Tower (Ground Level) 94'

Gate Tower

22'

67'

59'

Hanshin Expressway No. 11 Ikeda Route (4 Lanes)

typology // 151

Plan Typology 4 - Decking

Typology

152 // design

New York Hudson Yards Project

Example: Hudson Yards Project New York City, New York, USA

High Line

11th Street

32nd Street West Side Highway 50

33rd Street

30th Street

10th Avenue 31st Street Platform (Ground Level) Western Rail Yard (Under the Platform)

typology // 153

Sectional Typology Section Typology 1 - At Grade Issues to mitigate: - bridging grade difference - maintaining highway and rail clearance - electrical catenary lines - adjacent roads

Section Typology 2 - Sloping Grade Issues to mitigate: - bridging inconsistent grade difference - difficult access - complex parcel geometries - maintaining highway and rail clearance - electrical catenary lines - adjacent roads

154 // design

Section Typology 3 - Narrow Valley Issues to mitigate: - small parcels - limited footing availability - existing infrastructure - interfacing with existing retaining walls - electrical catenary lines - adjacent roads

Section Typology 4 - Wide Valley Issues to mitigate: - large parcels - long structural spans - maintaining highway and rail clearance - interfacing with existing retaining walls - electrical catenary lines - adjacent roads

typology // 155

Type 1: Boston University

Mountfort St.

Cummington Mall

The air rights condition at Boston University is particularly challenging due to the site context. On the Southern side of the site, Mountfort St. is level with the highway and railway. On the Northern side of the site, a Boston University campus building directly abuts the highway. Air rights projects must address the grade change between the at grade elevation on the Southern side and the adjacent building on the Northern side. The railway tracks at this site are not electrified, though clearance must be kept in-case they are electrified in the future.

Eastbound

12’

50’

156 // design

Westbound

48’

”

14’ 6 ”

14’ 6 22’

22’

typology // 157

Type 2: Bowker Overpass

Ipswich St.

Interstate 90

Newbury St.

Westbound

Eastbound

12’

110’ 158 // design

Conrail Tracks

The Bowker Overpass also is another challenging air rights site. The overpasses cannot bear any additional load, so all structure must be independent of the overpass. This creates a gap that must be present for an expansion joint. Overpasses are rarely level conditions, and create a geometric issue that abutting air rights projects must address.

40’

48’

14’ 6”

14’ 6” 22’

22’

typology // 159

Type 3: Massachusetts Avenue The Bowker Overpass also is another challenging air rights site. The overpasses cannot bear any additional load, so all structure must be independent of the overpass. This creates a gap that must be present for an expansion joint. Overpasses are rarely level conditions, and create a geometric issue that abutting air rights projects must address. Also, due to the spans of the highway, all spans and footings must be located on median or adjacent terrafirma.

Westbound

Eastbound

12’

12’ 100’

160 // design

40’

14’

6”

22’ 22’

typology // 161

Type 4: Chinatown

Marginal Rd.

Interstate 90

MBTA Tracks

Hearald St.

The Chinatown and South End air rights sites pose another problem due to their large size and long spans. These sites have been recommended to have intermediate streets to break up the blocks. Furthermore, these sites have retaining walls. Retaining walls occur all along the Pike. Although they may not be the same condition, they are necessary factor for mitigating the elevation changes on each side of the highway. Thus creating a problematic factor that air rights projects must address when considering construction.

Eastbound Westbound

12’ 110’ 162 // design

12’ 92’

”

22’

14’ 6”

14’ 6

typology // 163

Case Studies Hudson Yards Columbus Center Unique Structures Non Air Rights

Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project

166 // design

Hudson Yards - New York City, New York Cost $15 billion Size 26 acres Use Commercial, convention center, residential, retail, theater Precedent Park Drive, Grand Central Station Goals Extend 7 train to West Side, rezone West Side, reconnect neighborhoods Status Under Construction Architects Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates Developer Hudson Yards Development Corporation (HYDC) Financing Bonds issued by HYDC and local developers

case studies // 167

168 // design

Phase 1

Phase 2

Not only planned to be one of the largest air rights projects, the redevelopment of the Hudson Rail Yards will also be the largest building project in New York City since Grand Central Station. The project broke ground in December 2012 after a lengthy financing and design process. This undertaking will be accomplished using revolutionary bridge technology to span the Hudson Rail Yards. Columns will be constructed in between the tracks after service is suspended each night. A staging area will be created on the terra firma of the site. From there, the beams will be placed across the site. A mechanized system will place prefabricated panels on top of the beams to create a deck. When complete, the project will include a complex that will house twelve skyscrapers. Other facilities will include a theater, retail complex, mixed income housing, a business complex, and over twelve acres of open space.

case studies // 169

170 // design

A. Prefabricated concrete deck B. Prefabricated steel structural deck C. Steel columns and trusses D. Tower 1 pillars E. Hudson Rail Yard trench

Concrete Deck Construction Step 1: Cranes assemble large scale prefabricated columns and beams that will span in between the train tracks and create a staging area.

(left to right) World Trade Center 1 - 1776 ft, Empire State Building - 1455 ft, Hudson Yards Tower 1 - 1170 ft

Step 2: Cranes on street level place prefabricated concrete slabs on the bridge deck as a staging area for further construction.

Step 3: Large scale mechanized slab machines place decking over the length of the yard.

case studies // 171

Construction Once the prefabricated decking is laid on the first portion of the site, the construction of the two towers will begin. The North tower will reside on the only substantial terra firma of the site. The South tower will be created using a series of caissons that will support the foundation. The column grid along with the floor slabs add to the rigidity of the structure. The construction of the new development will be divided into two phases. The first phase will include the North and South towers, new green space, and Hudson Park on the east side of the property. Phase two will consist of the West tower, high line, and other low lying buildings. In addition to the two phases of new construction, the city has agreed to extend the number seven subway line to the Hudson Yards site via a tunnel following 11th Street, the dividing line between phase one and two of the construction.

172 // design

Financing This site has been a constant source of heated debate in New York City. The city has gone through multiple designs and proposals starting in 2002. As the process was gaining traction, the city was hit with the 2008 financial crisis and the floor fell out from under the project. At that point the whole project was tabled. It was not until a group of designers including firms Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, David Rockwell, and New York restaurateur Danny Meyer became involved that a cohesive vision was created for the site. In a similar fashion to the Prudential Center, this project was only possible with the direct involvement of financial institutions. In the case of Hudson Yards, an agreement was created between many international and US based banks and the city of New York. Hudson Yards is relying heavily on bonds and tax exemptions to fund the project.

Terra firma area of site case studies // 173

Columbus Center: A Case Study The story of Columbus Center is a chronology of converging events that happened to ultimately condemn the project. Several themes emerge when researching the ultimate demise of the project, including: zoning and permit issues, economic in-feasibility, along with the rising costs of building materials, and the failure to secure financial support.

Zoning

Columbus Center initially was proposed by the Winn Companies in the early 1990s when they purchased the lease of the air rights for Parcels 16-19. This purchase arose from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority advertising the the air rights parcels to developers for development in 1992.

174 // design

The Prudential Center set a legal precedent for no zoning over air rights parcels which carried over to the initial stages of the Columbus Center development. The land in which Columbus Center was sited on was owned by the MTA and therefore was not subject to the same process that other Boston development must undergo. The un-zoned air rights parcels over the turnpike highlighted a loophole in the zoning laws. The development of Columbus Center also predated the Civic Vision Plan and the Mass Environmental Policy Act (implementing regulations & Article 80 of the Boston Zoning Code). The City of Boston had no legal power to enforce city zoning ordinances on any air rights projects. However, the city used utilities access and police and fire protection as leverage to get the turnpike authority and the Columbus Center developers

to adopt city zoning regulations. Due to this pressure, Winn Companies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the city of Boston and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority on June 1st, 1997. This issue required the project to submit to an approval process. Because of this agreement, the project was required to hold a public review for the project. The zoning set in the Civic Vision was also understood to effectively dictate the zoning for the site. The approval process involved over 80 meetings to gather public comment and weighed down a project that faced a tremendous amount of community opposition. Much of the public criticism surrounding the project centered on the size of the project and the subsequent

Caption Proposed Rendering of Columbus Center

case studies // 175

impact on neighborhood density. The adjacent communities believed that the project was too large and would become a burden to existing urban neighborhoods. Although Winn Companies agreed to follow the guidelines set forth by the Civic Vision Plan and adopted height guidelines that were in accordance with the planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s zoning for the parcels, the community still believed the project was larger then what was required to achieve economic feasibility. This assertion by the community was likely misguided. The proposed development project in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (2003) was almost identical to the CACâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s massing and height analysis. Furthermore, the inability of the project to attract equity investors alludes to the risk of the project. In order to appease adjacent communities, a complex restructuring of building massing took place. More residential units were added to low level Parcels 17 and 18 to offset the residential units being lost on Parcel 16. This proposition was the only way for the developer to alleviate community concerns.

Left Five studied design alternatives

176 // design

Deck Cost & Technical Hurdles

Air rights projects have tremendous amounts of technical hurdles to solve in order to be constructed. Columbus Center was no different from other air rights projects in this sense. The project, however, was not presented with any particular challenges that would have rendered the development unbuildable. The cost premium for the deck was identified by the turnpike authority as associated with five different cost aspects: tunnel operations and maintenance premiums, construction of tunnel systems, constructability premiums, parking and accessibility premiums, and additional building construction complexity. These are all additional costs that have to be incorporated into the project in addition to the costs to construct the building on top of the highway. In 2003, the Summary of Additional Costs in the FEIR listed the additional cost premiums associated with Columbus Center as $10.8 million for the 40,000 sf site (including $8.0 million for the Deck Costs).

Above A rendering of the Civic Vision Planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ideal for air-rights development. Below A rendering of the second proposed Columbus Center development.

Without paying for the decking of the open space on Parcel 19, the project was recommended by the Civic Vision to have a FAR 6 (within the FAR 5 to 7 of the zoning). Decking cost premium estimates range from $250/sf for the low-rise building to $550-$700+/ sf for mid rise and high rise buildings for the square footage of the deck. These costs include

case studies // 177

178 // design

the cost of maintaining highway operations throughout construction, cost of additional highway infrastructure (lighting, ventilation, signage, etc), and deck maintenance costs (mitigation of deck weathering and associated structural impacts). At this price, for Parcel 16 alone, the decking cost premium is equivalent to approximately $24 million. However, after the price of steel began to steeply climb after 2005, the cost of the deck was incalculably higher. Each parcel had a unique deck condition and design. The decking strategy for Columbus Center was therefore unique and somewhat inefficient. The differing deck conditions were

necessary to address different site conditions for the respective parcels. Parcel 18â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s deck was the simplest to construct with single beams spanning from caissons to form the deck of the parking structure above. Parcel 17 used pre-cast concrete panels that were placed over the highway and railroad tracks to create its deck. The tower on Parcel 16 was the most complicated deck design and utilized a lightweight concrete deck. One particular hurdle for the project related to the deck of the ground floor of Parcel 16â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Columbus Center tower. The tower on the parcel was difficult to construct largely due to site conditions. Since the overpass is

particularly low at this site, it was impossible for transfer beams to be constructed and still maintain clearances for the highway and railway. The design required the ground floor deck to be hung from transfer beams by tensile columns. The transfer beams were then able to be located on the second floor so that the ground floor could be flush with street level and highway clearances maintained. Another hurdle for the project resulted from the difficult in obtaining construction easements on an adjacent parcel. After the sale of the air rights to the Columbus Center developer it was discovered that the land adjacent to the highway associated with Parcel 16 was

Left A perspective view of the cooridor park on Parcel 17. Below A groundfloor site plan for the development.

case studies // 179

300 Dow Jones Iron & Steel Index 250

Boston Indicators Project Median Housing Price Cost of Colubus Center Project in financial trouble

200 Project infeasible 150

$500 million

FEIS is submitted

$400 million

100

$300 million 111.8

$100 million

1997

2001

2003

Winn Companies enter into MOU with City of Boston. Agree to redesign project and participate in public review.

Winn submits plan to build 38 story tower

FEIS issued for project at $400 million

180 // design

$800 million

202.16 $650 million

200

150.15

149.31

2006

2008

Plan Development Agreement reached between developer and BRA

Irish Bank withdraws funding. CalPERS also reduces funding

Project Construction halted

2011

2005

100

Developer is notified of default case studies // 181

actually owned by the John Hancock Insurance Corporation. When this was discovered, the John Hancock Corporation was in the process of selling its properties and exercised the right this land. This was a difficulty for the project in that the tower on Parcel 16 could no longer be anchored to terra firma and that the tower would have to be constructed completely over the highway. Further compounding the situation was the stubbornness of the John Hancock Corporation in refusing to allow the Columbus Center access to the disputed parcel for construction phasing.

The economic slowdown that resulted from the economic crisis had a tremendous impact on the development of Columbus Center. In particular, the high end residential market drove the development of the project. All three parcels contained residential units and were, in the eyes of the developer, the driving force of the project. As construction costs increased over time, the rising cost of housing was able to offset this. However, in 2005 when the Boston median home price steeply decreased as a forewarning to the housing bubble, the project was in trouble.

Financial Support & Economic Feasibility

A major blow was dealt to the pending success of Columbus Center when the Anglo-Irish Bank withdrew $500 million of financial support in 2006. The withdrawal of capitol investment by the Anglo-Irish bank made other investors nervous at a time when the real estate market was anticipating a recession. Subsequently, CalPERS (the investment branch of Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s retirement fund for public employees) that was already in trouble with an investment into a Southern California real estate project, threatened to withdraw its support of the project. It became a challenge in the market conditions to attract outside investment without a fully committed equity partner. Unable to attract an equity partner and other outside investors, the project had no funding.

One of the carryovers of the public review process was the amount of financial disclosures that the Winn Companies was required to release about the project. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s difficult to ultimately say what failed to attract investors to the Columbus Center project, though risks exposed by the financial disclosures certainly was not a promoting factor. The developer predicted an Internal Rate of Return of 18%, which, if achieved, would have made the project very lucrative. As the demand for land in downtown Boston in the previous decade skyrocketed, land values in Boston reached unprecedented highs. The attractiveness of air rights development was born from the economic conditions of the Boston development climate. In the mid 2000s, a typical FAR 4 market price hovered around $150 to $160 / sf ($30/sq FAR ft). 182 // design

The economic crisis and resulting real-estate market crash of the late-2000s seem to be a huge force behind the disintegration of the Columbus Center development. With the collapse of the residential real estate

Mortgage Crisis Recession

Dot-com Recession

Gulf War Recession

Iranian Energy Crisis

Energy Crisis Recession

OPEC Recession

Nixon Recession 8%

-2%

-4% 1965

1970

Duration of Columbus Center Development

1975

1980

US Recession

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2011

US GDP Growth case studies // 183

market, the project turned from profitable to unfeasible. The careful economic balance struck by the developer between the various parcels of the project was too dependent on the profits from the condo and townhouse sales to offset construction premiums. In 2008, the project economics were in complete disarray and therefore the project became unfeasible to many investors. Without investment from private sources, the Columbus Center project needed public subsidy to offset the ballooning costs. The developer cited a need for a $35 million subsidy for the project. Officials rejected public subsidy for the project over lack of political support for private development. The request for public subsidy by the developer completely contradicted and broke initial promises made by the developer to complete the project without public money. This compounded distrust in the developer by the community.

Right A chart showing the denied and recinded subsidies for Columbus Center. Far Fright A site photo from September 2009 showing the abandoned project.

184 // design

case studies // 185

Unique Structures About In some air rights projects, the special or unique structures such as steel truss or giant concrete pylons were used to create flexibility or to decrease the load of the decking or bridge which support the building. Precedents: 1. Bartle Hall Convention Center 2. Walgreens, Reno, Nevada

Bartle Hall Convention Center

Walgreens, Reno, Nevada 186 // design

case studies // 187

Bartle Hall Convention Center Basic Information Location Year built Use Architect Number of stories Square feet Cost

Kansas, Missouri 1990 - 1994 Convention Center HNTB Architects 1 202,500 $ 140 million

Lanes spanned 6 Lanes Span distance 328 feet Structural approach Concrete Deck and Pylons Clearance Unknown

188 // design

Site

case studies // 189

About The H. Roe Bartle Hall is the primary exhibition and convention facility owned and operated by the city of Kansas City, Missouri. It is administered by the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Convention and Entertainment Centers Department (CECD) to provide expanded economic impact and public relations for the city. The original H. Roe Bartle Hall structure was completed on July 8, 1976. This structure contained approximately 186,000 square feet of exhibition space. The expansion project, begun in 1990, added an additional 202,500 square feet of exhibition space plus a new 133,000 square foot conference center. The new building was completed on September 24, 1994. View from north

View from south (before the expansion)

190 // design

View from south (after the expansion)

The expansion of Bartle Hall was a significant technical challenge. Construction of the additional convention space was built over a continuously open six-lane freeway, (Interstate 670), which runs underneath the convention center. Construction required the installation of four, 300-foot (90 m) pylons to support the facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s roof. The result was the creation of the largest, column-free convention environment in the world. The building also was designed and constructed to meet green building standards and achieved a LEED Silver rating, the first in Kansas City, Missouri.

Construction Sequence

1. The Old Bartle Hall and the I-670 Freeway

2. Concrete Columns, Beams and the Giant Pylons

3. Decking

215’ - 0”

65’ - 0”

Original Bartle Hall

4. Enclosure

75’ - 0” Interstate 670 16’ 29’ - 6”

Section

89’ - 7”

74’ - 8”

346’

5. Roofing case studies // 191

Plan

Giant Pylons Concrete Columns and Beams I-670 Freeway

192 // design

case studies // 193

Walgreens, Reno, Nevada Basic Information Location Year built Use Architect Number of stories Square feet Cost

Reno, Nevada 1998 - 2000 Retailing BJG Architecture 1 15,067 $ 4 million

Lanes spanned 6 Lanes Span distance 110 feet Structural approach Triangular trusses Clearance 15â&#x20AC;&#x2122;-6â&#x20AC;?

194 // design

Site

case studies // 195

About This Walgreens is in the heart of Reno's "Strip." This project includes an airspace lease agreement with the State of Nevada, subleased to Walgreen Co. (with over 50 years of term remaining), along with all of the improvements, signage and structure. The primar y structure is the giant steel triangular truss system which supports the building below. Besides the truss system, a metel decking was put in place early in 1973 during the construction of bridges and was originally meant for a tower, however, the idea finally fell through. Before the building of the Walgreens, the original decking had water damage that also reached the fire proofing, so some decking was replaced and all of fire proofing was redone. Thus, any of the highway didn't have to close during construction because the decking was pretty much in place already. Some customers said they can feel the building sway when there is heavy traffic.

196 // design

Construction Sequence

1. The Interstate 80 freeway

2. Concrete supportings

3. Bridge construction

4. Steel decking construction

case studies // 197

5. Steel triangular truss system

6. Building which hung by the truss system

198 // design

Non Air Rights About This sec tion focuses on the long span buildings which are not over highway conditions, however, their structure system can be researched and applied to the potential air rights constructions. Precedents: 1. Unilever Nederland BV 2. Bridge House

Unilever Nederland BV

Bridge House case studies // 199

200 // design

Unilever Nederland BV Basic Information Location Year built Use Architect Number of stories Square feet Cost

Rotterdam, Netherlands 2007 Office JHK Architecten 4 150,695 â&#x201A;Ź 50 million

Span distance 164 feet (max) Structural approach Steel and concrete frame Clearance 82 feet

case studies // 201

Site

202 // design

About The office spans the current factory complex. Together with the existing historic building, it is the crowning glory of a multitude of industrial forms, buildings and materials. Thanks to its size and direction, it is an imposing presence at the entrance via the Maasboulevard, the first building in Rotterdam. It also benefits from the view of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s skyline. The new office has four levels measuring 32Ă&#x2014;133 meters. The lowest floor is 25 meters above the sidewalk. The main entrance is on the sidewalk, next to the classical 19th century office building. The elevator and staircase are in the inner court, opening up the stories.

View from West

The offices offer a breathtaking, panoramic view of the city centre on the other side of the Maasboulevard. Atriums and patios allow light to enter throughout the building. The vacant spaces are strategically located to ensure adequate illumination in the central zone. Transparency is not only used on the outer faĂ§ade, but it is also used on the inside to give the entire building a communicative character. The building therefore adequately responds to the need for a dynamic office organization in which consultations can be held in an informal atmosphere.

Interior View

case studies // 203

Construction Sequence

1. Existing factories

2. Entrance Space

5. Concrete circulation cores

6. Floors and roof

204 // design

3. Steel and concrete supportings

4. Steel freme

7. Enclosure

Perspective

case studies // 205

Typical Plan

Elevation

206 // design

Section 1

Section 2

case studies // 207

208 // design

Bridge House Basic Information Location Year built Use Architect Number of stories Square feet Cost

Adelaide, Australia 2008 Home / Office Max Pritchard Architect 1 1,184 A$ 222,000

Span distance 38 feet Structural approach Steel trusses Clearance Unknown

case studies // 209

Site

2 1 3 4

210 // design

About The clients required a permanent home/office on their small property, located one hour from Adelaide. A bend in the winter creek that divides the property creates a billabong (a deep waterhole) bounded by a high rocky bank. A house was required that would allow appreciation of the site without spoiling its beauty, but at a budget comparable with a “prefabricated” dwelling or an “off the plan” developers design (approximately A$220,000).

A narrow house form spans over the creek. Glazing each side opens the house to views in both directions, giving the feeling of living amongst the trees.

View from north 3

The two steel trusses that form the primary structure were fabricated off site and erected by two men and a crane in two days. They were anchored by four small concrete piers, poured on each side of the creek. Spanning between the trusses is a concrete floor slab on steel decking with a layer of rigid insulation. The enclosure is plantation pine.

case studies // 211

Construction Sequence 1. The river

2. Concrete Piers

3. Steel Trusses

4. Beams

5. Steel Decking

6. Building

212 // design

Floor plan 38' - 0"

14' - 5"

h 83' - 6"

a Entry b Home Office / Guest Bed c Laundry d Kitchen e Lounge / Dining f Bath g Bed h Balcony

case studies // 213

Precedents

The Cap at Union Station Location Columbus, OH Completed October, 2004 Client Continental Real Estate Properties Designer Meleca Architecture & Urban Planning Builder N.A. Site area 1.12 acres Total floor area 25,496 s.f. Structure Steel frame const. over steel bridges Height 1 story Purpose Retail, Speculative Located over Interstate 670, The Cap at Union Station was built in 2004 as a retail center to heal the scar left by the construction of the Interstate in the 1960â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. It was constructed as three separate bridges, with the outer two serving as the foundation for the buildings and the central one for vehicular traffic. By erecting building frontage adjacent to both sides of the overpass, a perception of continuous urban fabric is created and the highway is effectively erased while traveling along High Street. Originally conceived in 1996, it took six years of planning and getting approvals before construction started in 2002. It is one of the few speculative retail air rights projects over an interstate and it is a good example of private development using air rights over a highway. 216 // design

precedents // 217

Civic Center MARTA Location Atlanta, Georgia Completed December 4, 1981 Client Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Designer Not available Builder Not available Site area 52,000 sqft Total floor area 104,000 sqft Cost Not available Structure Steel Height 23’ Purpose Extension of subway system The MARTA Civic Center Station is the only subway station in the world to be built above a highway. The station was completed in 1981 as part of the extension of the north-south line and the “freeing the freeway” movement in Atlanta. The station is elevated over the 13 lanes of traffic of the I-75/85 highway. The stations spans approximately 230’ across the highway with a support touching down in the middle median. Peachtree Street which passes over top the station provides direct access down to the platform where an underpass provides movement between the two sides of the tracks. 218 // design

precedents // 219

Fall River Location Fall River, MA Completed 1976 Client Government of Fall River Designer Continental Engineering Corp. Builder Continental Engineering Corp. Construction area 85,000 s.f. Total floor area Not Available Cost $9,200,000 (1976) Structure Steel Platform over Concrete Piles Height Six Stories Purpose City Hall The city of Fall River decided to build a new government center over Interstate-195 in 1962 and in essence, replacing an entire city blook that had been taken over by the highway. Due to delays both in construction and in approval phases, it was under construction until 1976. The steel decking that supports the six-floor structure over the highway creates a 900-foot tunnel on I-195, which partially collapsed in 1998 due to faulty bracing that was holding up prefabricated concrete slabs on the underside of the deck. This resulted in a multimillion dollar rennovation in 2008. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s an example of how unforseen issues often make building over a highway very problematic. 220 // design

precedents // 221

Gate Tower Location Osaka, Japan Completed 1992 Client Suezawa Sangyo Co. Ltd. Designer Azusa Sekkei and Yamamoto-Nishihara Kenchiku Sekkei Jimusho Builder Sato Kogyo Co. Ltd. Construction area 2,493 sqft Total floor area 26,102 sqft Cost not available Structure Reinforced concrete / steel frame Height 235’ Purpose Office Building The Gate Tower Building was the result of a five year discussion between the Hanshin Expressway and the client who had owned rights to the land since the late 1800’s. Neither party was willing to budge on their desire to develop the parcel and so the resulting compromise was decided upon and built serving both parties’ needs. The Expressway exit occupies floors 5-7 and pays rent as the tenants of these floors. In order to reduce the physical stress upon the building’s structure, the roadway is completely self supported by two structures that are adjacent to the opening on both sides of the building. 230 // design 222

precedents // 223 231

Illinois Tollway Oasis Location 7 Interstate Highways in Northern IL Completed Orginally 1959 / Renovated 1980 / Rebuilt 2000 Client Illinois State Toll Way Authority Designer Originally PACE / Builder Wilton Partners Construction area not available Total floor area 110,000 sqft each Cost $95 million rebuilding cost Structure Originally concrete / currently steel Height 1 story Purpose Commercial rest stops for motorists The Illinois Tollway Oases is a series of seven rest stops along Interstates 90, 88, 294, 94, & 80 in the northern Illinois. Five of the seven were constructed in 1959 when the tollroads were being built. In the beginning the unique concept of being atop the highways proved quite novel and many customers came strictly to experience the oases. The architect was PACE associates. The first five oases were made of concrete with a pier coming down in the median between traffic lanes. The sixth oasis was built in 1967 and was constructed with steel enabling the building to span the entire highway without touching down in the middle. 232 // design 224

precedents // 225 233

New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical Center, Greenberg Pavilion Location Location New New York York City, City, FDR FDR Drive/East Drive/East 69 69ththSt. St. Completed Completed 1997 1997 Client Client NY NY Presbyterian Presbyterian Hospital Hospital Designer Designer Taylor Taylor Clark Clark Architects Architects Builder Builder Langan Langan Engineering Engineering && Environmental Environmental Services Services Construction Construction area area N/A N/A Total Total floor floor area area 110,000 110,000 square square feet feet Cost Cost $750M $750M (1/3 (1/3 of of cost cost raised raised in in cash cash pledges) pledges) Structure Structure steel steel truss truss platform platform over over 66 lanes lanes Height Height 99 stories stories (115 (115 feet) feet) Purpose Purpose 880-bed 880-bed inpatient inpatient facility facility An An addition addition was was proposed proposed for for the the existing existing NY NY Hospital Hospital as as itit began began to to grow grow beyond beyond its its facilities. facilities. To To do do so, so, itit was was necessary necessary to to span span FDR FDR Drive: Drive: aa feat feat that that required required complying complying with with the the proviso proviso that that any any building building spanning spanning FDR FDR Drive Drive had had to to break break ground ground by by 1993. 1993. In In order order for for construction construction to to be be approved approved over over FDR FDR Drive, Drive, itit was was mandatory mandatory that that the the client client obtain obtain aa CON CON (certificate (certificate of of need) need) for for construction, construction, not not disrupt disrupt pedestrian pedestrian or or vehicular vehicular traffic, traffic, maintain maintain neighborhood neighborhood character, character, and and not not block block views. views. In In order order to to construct construct over over FDR FDR Drive, Drive, aa platform platform was was designed designed and and built built to to bridge bridge the the road road to to 226 // design

support support the the building. building. To To do do this, this, thirteen, thirteen, 900900ton, ton, custom-built custom-built steel steel trusses trusses from from Toronto Toronto were were transported transported to to NJ NJ to to be be assembled. assembled. From From there, there, they they were were then then shipped shipped to to the the East East River. River. For For the the next next two two months, months, aa barge barge with with aa crane crane lifted lifted trusses trusses from from the the East East River River over over FDR FDR Drive Drive between between midnight midnight and and 6AM 6AM when when there there was was no no wind wind or or strong strong tides. tides. This This process process cost cost $40M, $40M, but but saved saved six six months months time time and and brought brought the the cost cost down down from from the the estimated estimated $1 $1 billion billion to to $750M. $750M.

Toronto Toronto

Lake Lake Ontario Ontario

Erie Erie Canal Canal

Hudson Hudson River River

New New Jersey Jersey

Hudson Hudson River River

East East River River

opposite oppositeabove aboveView View from from accross accross the the East East River River opposite oppositebelow belowAerial Aerial view view with with air air rights rights building building outlined outlined in in black black above aboveleft leftFDR FDR Drive Drive approaching approaching from from Southwest Southwest above aboveright rightDiagram Diagram of of construction construction from from Langan Langan Engineering Engineering above aboveDiagram Diagram of of steel steel truss truss platform platform assembly assembly and and installation installation

precedents // 227

Reno Nevada Wallgreens Location Reno, Nevada Completed 1998-2000 Client Walgreens Designer BJG Architecture and Engineering Builder Not Avaliable Construction area 17,000 s.f Total floor area 15,067 s.f Cost $4,000,000 Structure Steel triangualar trusses, concrete Height 18 ft Purpose Reconnect two strees and house a Wallgreens and parking lot Constructed over Interstate-80 on a pre-built concrete deck. The Walgreens and its parking lot spans over eight lanes of the highway and in between two adjacent overpasses. The concrete deck was built in 1973 during the construction of the overpasses, in anticipation of an air-rights project that would be constructed in the future. Once the building commenced in 1998, the architect used steel triangular trusses to support the weight of the roof as well as to limit the vehicle heights that could enter the site in order to maintain the load capacity of the concrete deck. 236 // design 228

precedents // 229

Shawâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Star Market Location 33 Austin St, Newton, MA 02460 Completed 1962 Client Star Market president Stephen Mugar Designer not available Builder not available Construction area 90,926 sq. ft. Total floor area 82,762 sq. ft. Cost $ 5,690,000 Structure Concrete columns and steel deck Height 1 storey Purpose Supermarket The original Star Market in Newton had to be demolished for the construction of the Boston extension of the Mass. Pike, so the Turnpike Chairman William Callahan made a deal with Star Market president Stephen Mugar bo build a new Star Market during the highway construction. Because be built during the highway construction, the building, which spans 6 lanes of highway, was not interfering with traffic.

230 // precedents // design

precedents precedents // 231 //

The Victor Location Boston, Massachusetts Completed Under Construction Client Simpson Housing Designer ADD Inc Builder Suffolk Construction Site area egular font not bold Total floor area 377,000 s.f. Cost $92,000,000.00 Structure Steel and concrete piles Height 12 Stories Purpose Housing Currently under construction on parcel 1 of the Rose Kennedy Greenway, The Victor is a 12-story 286 unit apartment building. Built over both the MBTA tunnels as well as the I-93 Southbound lanes. This has led to three separate foundation conditions; a continuous footing on top of a slurry wall adjacent to the MBTA tunnel, concrete piles that go down into the terra firma, and ultra-wide concrete footings that rest on top of the highway tunnel, which was designed to absorb the load of a building on top of it.

240 // design 232

EXISTING CONDITIONS

precedents // 233 241

Washington State Convention and Trade Center Location Seattle, WA Completed 1988 Client Washington State Convention Center Designer Danadijeva & Koenig Architects, TRA Architects, HNTB Architects Builder not available Construction area site + highway Total floor area 727,000 Cost $186 million Structure Multi-chord Steel Truss & Concrete Height 6 stories Purpose Convention Center The Washington State Convention and Trade Center was built on a sloping site spanning the Interstate 5 between Capitol Hill and Downtown Seattle.The building connects to the adjacent Freeway Park that also provides a link over the freeway between the two neighborhoods. Careful consideration was made to address the 50-foot grade separation between the two sides of the freeway. Built over 12-lanes of traffic, steel trusses compose the main convention space which situated 60 ft above traffic. The design has been heralded for providing a connecting link for Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban fabric. 234 // design

8th Ave University Street Offramp

I-5 Southbound

I-5 Northbound

Access Ramp

I-5 Express Lanes

Ball Room Atrium

Parking Garage

8th Ave

I-5 Northbound

Access Ramp

I-5 Southbound I-5 Express Lanes

precedents // 235

Chapter 3 Credits Chapter 3 Credits Works Cited Works Cited “From 0 to 12 Million Square Feet.” NYMag.com. Conde Nast, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://nymag. com/homedesign/urbanliving/2012/hudson-yards/>. “From 0 to 12 Million Square Feet.” NYMag.com. Conde Nast, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://nymag. com/homedesign/urbanliving/2012/hudson-yards/>. “Hudson Yards - New York City Department of City Planning.” Hudson Yards - New York City Department of City Planning. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/ “Hudson Yards - New York City Department of City Planning.” Hudson Yards - New York City hyards/hymain.shtml>. Department of City Planning. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/ hyards/hymain.shtml>. “Hudson Yards Development Corporation.” Hudson Yards Development Corporation. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www.hydc.org/html/home/home.shtml>. “Hudson Yards Development Corporation.” Hudson Yards Development Corporation. N.p., n.d. Web. “Hudson Yards Work Likely to Start Before Lease Closes.” : Curbed NY. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www.hydc.org/html/home/home.shtml>. <http://ny.curbed.com/tags/hudson-yards>. “Hudson Yards Work Likely to Start Before Lease Closes.” : Curbed NY. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://ny.curbed.com/tags/hudson-yards>. “Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates.” Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http:// www.kpf.com/project.asp?T=6>. “Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates.” Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http:// www.kpf.com/project.asp?T=6>. `“100 Berkeley Street, 101 Clarendon Street, 171 Arlington Street : Final Environmental Impact Report, Final Impact Report.” Boston, MA - Columbus Center Associates, n.d. Web. Nov.-Dec. 2012. `“100 Berkeley Street, 101 Clarendon Street, 171 Arlington Street : Final Environmental Impact Report, Final Impact Report.” Boston, MA - Columbus Center Associates, n.d. Web. Nov.-Dec. 2012. “Boston Indicators Project: Housing Index.” Case Schiller Home Price Index. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.bostonindicators.org/indicators/housing/how-are-we-doing/7-1retaining“Boston Indicators Project: Housing Index.” Case Schiller Home Price Index. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. boston-competitive-advantage-in-housing/7-1-1-home-prices>. 2012. <http://www.bostonindicators.org/indicators/housing/how-are-we-doing/7-1retainingboston-competitive-advantage-in-housing/7-1-1-home-prices>. Campbell, Bonnie E. “Creating Sustainable Air RIghts Development Over Highway Corridors: Lessons from the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston.” Diss. MIT, 2004. Print. Campbell, Bonnie E. “Creating Sustainable Air RIghts Development Over Highway Corridors: Lessons from the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston.” Diss. MIT, 2004. Print. “Dow Jones Industrial Average Index.” MSNMoney. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://investing. money.msn.com/investments/print-chart?CA=0>. “Dow Jones Industrial Average Index.” MSNMoney. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://investing. money.msn.com/investments/print-chart?CA=0>. Schulte, Andrew. “”The Development of Roadway Air Rights: Boston’s Future, A Slave to Its” by Andrew Schulte.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 36.2 (2009): 607-36. Schulte, Andrew. “”The Development of Roadway Air Rights: Boston’s Future, A Slave to Its” by v“The Development of Roadway Air Rights: Boston’s Future, A Slave to Its” by Andrew Schulte. Web. Andrew Schulte.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 36.2 (2009): 607-36. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol36/iss2/12/>. v“The Development of Roadway Air Rights: Boston’s Future, A Slave to Its” by Andrew Schulte. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol36/iss2/12/>. “A Civic Vision for Turnpike Air Rights in Boston.” Boston Redevelopment Authority, n.d. Web. <http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/pdf/PlanningPublications/Turnpike%20Air%20 “A Civic Vision for Turnpike Air Rights in Boston.” Boston Redevelopment Authority, n.d. Web. Rights%20Civic%20Vision.pdf>. <http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/pdf/PlanningPublications/Turnpike%20Air%20 Rights%20Civic%20Vision.pdf>.

Works Cited Official site of Kansas City Convention Center Bartle Hall Convention Center

<http://www.kcconvention.com/>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Hall_Convention_Center>

Unilever Nederland BV / JHK Architecten nederland-bv-jhk-architecten/> Bridge House / Max Pritchard Architect pritchard-architect/> The NY Presbyterian cfm?sectionID=4&detailID=23>

<http://www.archdaily.com/261202/unilever-

<http://www.archdaily.com/27470/bridge-house-max-

Hospital-Weill

Cornell

<http://bcostella.com/content.

High Street Cap over I-670 Praised by Chicago Tribune Architecture Critic <http://www. columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/high-street-cap-over-i-670-praised-by-chicagotribune-architecture-critic> Project Mitigation and Design Enhancement Plan, I-670 Corridor, Columbus, Ohio, MSi Myers Schmalenberger, 2001. Connections, Volume 8 Number 2, The high street cap: Bridging the cap, Spring 2005 Hudson Yards, New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s next great neighborhood, Hudsonyardsneryork.com.