N E G O T I A T I N G A D J A C E N C I E S RESOLVING THE INTRICACIES OF A MULTIFACETED PROGRAM
Credits Northeastern University School of Architecture 360 Huntington Ave. Boston, MA 02144 2009 Spring Semester http://www.architecture.neu.edu
Northestern Student Team: David Swetz Justin DiCristofalo Case Study Advisor: Daniel Hewitt
Special Thanks To: Ron Druker, The Druker Company Jordan Warshaw, The Davis Companies Frederick A. Kramer, AIA, ADD inc. Susan Hartnett David Hacin, AIA, Hacin and Associates inc. Max Moore, Associate, Machado and Silvetti Associates Calderwood Pavilion Staff
INTRODUCTION mission statement learning objective
6 8
A B S T R A C T mixed-use defined mixed use precedents project brief
12 14 18
COMPLEXITIES site competition team planning
22 26 32 36
REFLECTIONS negotiating adjacencies role of architect
46 48
INTRODUCTION mission statement learning objective
6 8
6
INTRODUCTION mission statement
As a central pillar of the professional practice course at Northeastern University’s Graduate School of Architecture, students were given the task of analyzing a project through the scope of a specific learning objective. This learning objective was crafted through the evaluation and examination of a complex problem that architects faced in their own professional experiences. Specifically, the case study below engages the adjacencies of a mixed-use project which were investigated through interviews, research of publications, and trusted and honest opinions from the individuals involved.
This particular case study is an investigation of complex issue that both young designers as well as experienced professionals will face at some point throughout their career. The intention is to identify that premise and allow the designer to gain an understanding of the strategies used to navigate the issue throughout the lifetime of a project. The obstacles a designer is required to overcome are abundant and seemingly endless, though by understanding what has been done in the past, potential problems can be avoided.
7
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
8
INTRODUCTION learning objective
In today’s urban setting there is a demand to satisfy a wide range of needs, necessitating the combination of multiple programs within a single building type. The need to combine programs within a single building type is supported by the lack of available land as well as the cost of available land. Each program has its own unique criteria that need to be satisfied, and resolving the adjacencies between programs is a complex, yet necessary undertaking.
Outside influences such as a schedule and budget, make it especially hard for an architect to successfully balance every program component. In most cases, one specific user takes priority over the rest, detracting from the ultimate objective of a mixed use project. Success of these projects depends heavily on equally integrating every program component.
9
So how can architects negotiate the complex adjacencies of a mixed use development while successfully achieving individual user expectations?
10
11
A B S T R A C T mixed-use defined mixed use precedents project brief
12 14 18
12
ABSTRACT mixed-use defined
What is Mixed-Use? A mixed-use development is
is used. The classic office building is a
Obstacles There are several obstacles that
a complex intertwining of multiple
good example of this scenario; where
need to be addressed when assuming a
distinct programs into a singular
the building is inhabited from 9:00-5:00
mixed-use development. These include
cohesive means
development. combining
Often
this
on weekdays, but lies vacant all other
appropriate siting, balancing program,
typologies
that
hours.
resolving adjacencies, designing with
normally exist independently into a
budget in mind, and trusting the project
singular building, or at the very least
A mixed-use development creates
team. The most difficult and often the
a singular site. The most common
density within an urban context. The
most important is placing your trust in
combination is retail, residential, and
combination of typologies activates
another team members hands, though
office programs; though the integration
a specific area, thus revitalizing a
it is essential to collaboration.
of hotel, entertainment, civic, and
neighborhood. This strategy deters a
cultural institutions is also common.
sprawling landscape, where a city is
Striking a balance between the five
Benefits
divided into a commercial, residential,
obstacles is essential to a successful
The benefits of a mixed-use
and industrial sectors. It establishes a
mixed
project over a primary-use project are
level of convenience, where residents
illustrates
numerous and expansive. A primary-use
are allowed to live, work, and play in a
challenges.
project is restrictive in how the property
single area.
(
use
project. the
The
details
diagram of
these
)
A mixed-use development is the appropriate combination of multiple typological programs within a single structure or site.
13
This diagram illustrates the five components that are essential to a mixed-use project along with the details imbedded within each obstacle.
14
ABSTRACT mixed-use miscues
Crosstown Center Crosstown Center in Roxbury, MA is a mixed-use development that was completed in 2008. The purpose of the development was to revitalize the area and attract near-by residents. The strategy employed was to include various program elements that could supplement each other. The placement of parking garage, hotel, and office are intelligent arrangements coupled with public retail establishments. The miscue here was the siting strategy. An overall lack of pedestrian density as well as a general lack of interest in retail has detracted from a otherwise sound project.
(
name
crosstown center
program
hotel, retail, parking garage, office space
site
roxbury, ma
project brief first part of new master plan in developing area main issue
lack of appropriate density
)
15
One Franklin Place One Franklin Tower located in
Downtown Crossing in the heart
of Boston, MA was slated to be a condominium and hotel development with several floors of retail. The goal of the project was to revitalize the feeble neighborhood of Downtown Crossing. The hope was that the 166 planned condos as well as a hotel would infuse much needed activity after business hours. The miscue here was an unfortunate credit collapse, thus rendering the developer unable to secure funding.
(
The project looks to remain on halt for
name
one franklin tower
program
condominiums, hotel, retail
site
downtown crossing, boston, ma
project brief revitalization of neighborhood through mixed-use main issue
)
the for seeable future.
financial instability/lack of funders
16
ABSTRACT mixed-use miscues
Lafayette Place Lafayette Place located just two blocks down Washington Street from One Franklin Tower was an attempt to bring a suburban shopping mall to the downtown area of Boston. The
curious
design
is
strangely
uninviting for a shopping mall, which is a primary reason it has remained vacant for nearly a decade. The fact that an outdoor retail district exists just outside does not help the project. Several attempts to resurrect the project by changing its program to first multi-screen cinemas and then offices have failed. The vacant building now lowers adjacent property values.
(
name
lafayette place
program
shopping mall, hotel, parking garage
site
downtown crossing, boston, ma
)
project brief an indoor mall in the heart of downtown crossing main issue
poor design
17
Waterside Place Waterside Place is a proposed development for the Fort Point district known as the Core Block. The block is located directly adjacent to the World Trade Center. The proposed development includes a 19 story luxury condo building, a 300room hotel, big box retail, parking, and street level shops. The cost estimate was initially pegged at $600 million. The developer then adjusted the budget to almost $800 million. The overruns were so outrageous that investment
(
partners are now suing the developer,
name
waterside place
program
luxury condominiums, hotel, retail, parking
site
fort point, boston, ma
project brief new development in growing neighborhood main issue
)
potentially derailing the project.
lack of trust within project team
18
ABSTRACT project brief
Brief Many
mixed
use
projects
order to understand how each obstacle
exist around the Boston metropolitan
was handled. The project selected
area as a result of sparse buildable
is an example of a successful mixed
land. With land and buildable space
use development; however there were
at a premium, the need to develop a
many intricacies that were faced during
successful mixed use project becomes
conception, design and construction.
all the more important. Unfortunately, The previous four examples of built
The following section will illustrate,
work
in detail, the specific challenges and
demonstrate
the
common
miscues associated with a mixed
complexities
confronted
use project. Therefore it is important
completion of Parcel 8 and Atelier 505.
to understand the challenges and
Through detailed analysis, interviews,
obstacles associated with a project
and
consisting of multiple programs.
understanding of the project can be
perspectives,
a
with
the
complete
achieved. From these conclusions, we This case study will look at a project that
can realize how important the value of
includes many levels of complexities in
trust is to the level of success.
19
Overview The development of Parcel 8
strike
was a multi-leveled, highly intricate
economics, program, and design.
the
right
balance
between
system. The project had to negotiate the complexities of a brownfield site,
By digging beneath the surface of
the subsidy of a cultural arts facility,
Atelier|505
the relocation of existing parking, the
Pavilion, the realization of the project
defense and preservation of a registered
can be understood. What role does
historical building, addition of luxury
the architect play in a highly complex,
condos into a close-knit community,
mixed-use project? What is the nature
and the economic revitalization of an
of a public-private relationship? How
area.
is budget handled? Who manages
and
the
Calderwood
scheduling? These are only some of the issues that the project team was faced with
These are the issues this case study
throughout the development. These
seeks
issues are all site specific, though
complexities section analyzes these
mixed-use projects always have to
issues in detail.
to
unlock.
The
following
20
21
COMPLEXITIES site competition team planning
22 26 32 36
22
COMPLEXITIES site
Demographics Ever since the filling of Boston’s
has maintained its racial and ethnic
Back Bay in 1870, the South End neigh-
diversity by incorporating many subsi-
borhood has been home to a diverse
dized low-income housing. Such proj-
array of people. The first tenants were
ects include Villa Victoria, Cathedral
immigrants from overseas, comprising
Housing and Methunion Manor. These
of Irish, Lebanese and Greek decent.
large contemporary urban projects are
The neighborhood was also home to
surrounded by historical row-houses
fairly wealthy residents, including busi-
dating back to the mid nineteenth cen-
ness owners, bankers and industrial-
tury. The Uniform five story, red-brick,
ists. During the mid 20th century peo-
mixed use structures line a majority of
ple of African American and Hispanic
streets in the South End.
decent moved into the area.
With real estate in the area at a premium, there has been a push to maintain
In addition to a diverse ethnic popu-
cultural identity of the South End. In or-
lation, homosexual men and woman
der to accomplish this, affordable live-
also called the South End home dur-
work housing including artist lofts and
ing the early twentieth century. A large
studio spaces have been developed.
number of single homosexuals moved
In addition, mixed use projects have
into the area due to the availability of
been proposed, incorporating residen-
single sex rooming houses.
tial housing with cultural centers. Par-
Architecture The neighborhood of the South End
cel 8 is one site in which a mixed-use cultural landmark was to be proposed.
24
COMPLEXITIES site
Contaminated Site Beyond just being a BCA
to spread the price tag around to
reserved plot, Parcel 8 was a formerly
include the future developer as well as
contaminated
the BCA.
site.
It’s
long
and
complex history as a filling and repair station left areas of the site with over
At one point the BRA tried to take
2.5 inches of VOC’s (volatile organic
advantage of the BCA’s lack of formal
compounds).
understanding about site conditions,
Brownfield Remediation
offering to sell the parcel to them for
One of the first hurdles to
$1. The deal was never taken seriously,
overcome was the clean-up of the
and language was put into the RFP
valuable property, and who would be
that would ensure that the developer
responsible. With early cost estimations
chosen would help the BRA split the
exceeding several hundred thousand
cost for a clean-up program.
dollars, no party was interested in being the primary funder.
An EPA fund known as the Brownfield Revolving Clean-Up Loan was also
images by the Bostonian Society
At the time of discovery, the BRA
used as a supplement to the cost. This
(Boston
Authority)
program awards the city of Boston a
held the deed to the land, and so was
loan at 0% interest for 5 years with only
legally responsible. Not surprisingly,
a single payment due at the end of
Mayor Menino was not interested in
those 5 years. The final cost of clean-
picking up the entire tab, and wanted
up was tagged at $2.8 million.
Redevelopment
25
Parcel 8 Parcel 8 was part of a master-
theatre spaces to take its place.
planning initiative by the BRA to reserve the site for cultural institutions.
Subsequently, the BCA and BRA who
Immediately adjacent to the site was,
held the title to the site, collaborated to
and still is, the celebrated Cyclorama
create an RFP (Request for Proposal) to
and other Boston Center for the Arts
be sent out to Boston area developers.
institutions.
The criteria for potential developers was long and detailed, and is outlined
The earliest and most important siting
on the sidebar of this page.
challenge that needed to be negotiated was the complete preservation of
While the priority for Parcel 8 was
these
while
always the theatre spaces, the strategy
Depiction of various BRA owned parcels and
simultaneously adding new facilities
of outlining additional programs into
planned, proposed, and built developments
immediately adjacent. In order to
levels of priority was a weak strategy.
accomplish this, the existing National
This led to the future exclusion of nearly
Theatre, a 4,200 seat performance
every program that was received a
theatre that succumbed to fire, had to
“LOWER PRIORITY� designation.
existing
institutions,
be safely demolished in 1997. A developer’s primary concern is always Mayor Menino gave the go ahead
maximizing revenues, and creating
to the BCA to demolish the structure
such a weak RFP often lets that person
and begin the planning phase for new
cut out a lot of the program.
26
COMPLEXITIES competition
Competition Conception As was previously mentioned,
BCA Concerns The Boston Center for the Art’s
Parcel 8 in the South End was a BCA
was the primary beneficiary for the
reserved site owned by the city. In
development. The land had long been
order for a development to proceed
dedicated to the development of a
on this site, several departments and
cultural arts facility, and the BCA was
permits would have to be negotiated.
looking to turn heads with its property.
The City formed a panel consisting of
Susan Hartnett, the director of the BCA
key members of the BRA, BCA, BLC,
at the time, was looking for facilities to
This diagram illustrates the panel responsible
and a Task Force assembled by the
enhance the programming capacity for
for Parcel 8 as well as the subsequent judging
Mayor.
visual, performing, literary, and media
of competition entries. Community involvement
BRA Concerns
arts. The BCA was also looking for the
was encouraged through public meetings.
The department responsible
development to produce a significant
for the oversight of the property was
subsidy from the sale or lease of units
the Boston Redevelopment Authority
on-site.
headed by assistant director James
BLC Concerns
Kostaras. The BRA’s primary concern
The Boston Landmarks Commission, headed by executive director Ellen Lipsey, was responsible for ensuring the overall design and proposal was something that could comfortably nestle within the historical context of the South End. A significant challenge for the BLC was responding
BRA task force BCA
BLA community
before handing over the property to a potential developer was the remediation of the site as well as an economic revitalization of the South End.
27
to the re-zoning of the site to allow
Competition Brief The Task Force
for proposals to exceed 10 stories. A
integrally with Susan Hartnett, James
strategy that was implemented was to
Kostaras, and Mayor Menino developed
make Parcel 8 an Article-80 site.
a Request For Proposal released in
working
October of 1996. This RFP was based Article-80 comprises of development
on a tiered system of priorities including
review
highest priority, medium priority, and
and
addressing
approval. issues
transportation, environment,
urban
Specifically relating
to
lower priority. The benefit of this was
planning,
flexibility it offered potential developers,
infrastructure,
and
leading to a variety of submissions.
historical aspects of a proposal. If a
HIGHEST PRIORITY theatres medium size formal theatre (400-500 seats) large “black box� theatre (200 seats) adequate loading, backstage, support facilities functional enhancements sufficient parking to replace existing parking access elevator to Cyclorama
proposal was approved, this permit
All of the submissions were to be
would ensure a developable solution
submitted by Boston based developers
for the South End.
only. Additionally, all submissions had
rehearsal spaces (750-2250 sq. ft.)
Task Force Concerns
to have a team in place consisting of
ADA studios (300 sq. ft.)
The Task Force appointed by the Mayor was a diverse group whose purpose was to review submissions based on design, feasibility, financing, as well as examining alternative options as they relate to both the parcel and the neighborhood beyond. Essentially
developer - architect - contractor. The
classrooms (2 to 3 @ 350-800 sq. ft.)
an unbiased jury to judge proposals.
members to collaborate.
full loading dock for entire complex
MEDIUM PRIORITY
benefit of this being two-fold. First, a level of trust will have already been established by the time a team is chosen. Secondly, it relieves the client from the stress of hiring individual team
LOWER PRIORITY exhibition gallery (1-2 spaces @ 1500-200 sq. ft.) one or more residential studios @ 1200 sq. ft. set shop arts related tenants retail space managed by BCA
28
COMPLEXITIES competition
Proposals
BRA task force BCA + huntington
to elderly living spaces, the program
BLA
community
theatre
druker
machado and silvetti turner
boylston properties elkus|manfredi shawmut
south gate partners architect contractor keen development architect contractor renaissance properties architect contractor
South Gate Partners
consisted of 82 rental units and 35
The South Gate Partners proposal
townhouses.
included a 63,500 Square foot space for
with interconnected stages, and arts
The Massachusetts Communications
facilities would encompass 23,000
College. This for-profit institution is self
square feet of space.
sustainable, therefore would not need
takes up a bulk of parcel 8, with 54,000
to generate money from the residential
square feet allotted to restaurants and
program. Retail space, located on the
medium-sized retail. Total cost was
ground level, would take up 20,000
projected at 55.7 million dollars.
Two theatre spaces,
Retail space
square feet. Two theatres and other program relating to the BCA’s needs
Keen Development Corporation
comprised of a 14,000 square feet
Keen Developments 44 million dollar
space. Total project cost was estimated
proposal had the least amount of
at 41.5 million dollars.
retail space, with 10,000 square feet designated. However, Keen proposed
Renaissance Properties
200 thousand square feet of residential
The driving element of the Renaissance
space, including an array of apartment
Properties proposal was the inclusion
layouts. 30,000 square feet of space
of assisted and independent living for
was to be used for two theatres and
seniors, specifically marketed to the
other BCA program.
gay and lesbian community. In addition
29
Short list End’s historical district. On December 9, 1997 two developers were chosen out of a group of five
Boylston’s proposal was the strongest
by the appointed task force.
Each
of the five and seven first place votes
developer was voted on the proposals
was the most received by any team.
benefits to the BCA, compatibility with
The developer and architect also had
the neighborhood and developers
the most experience out of the five.
experience. Boylston Properties and
Previous projects relating to Parcel 8
The Druker Company received a
include the Longwood Galleria, The
majority of first place votes and the two
Trilogy, and The Longwood Research
proposals were clearly most popular
Center.
+
design captures the “essence of the BCA” feels integrated into the BCA’s purpose developer has indicated willingness to work with BCA
-
Significant portion of revenue must be paid up-front
COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
+
successful massing and creation of plaza real feel for the South End
among the BRA, BCA, Community and Boston Landmarks Commission.
BENEFITS TO THE BCA
Boylston’s financial proposal was the
-
only element criticized by the task
Warren Avenue side needed more attention
Boylston Properties
force, who felt that financial resources
impact of billboard will be negative to residents
Boylston’s 400 thousand square foot
appeared limited. Apartments were the
housing is completely dedicated to rental
proposal included two theatre spaces,
main source of income and would not
residential space, retails space and a
generate as much money as condos.
+
parking garage. a majority of space
Elkis Manfredi also proposed expensive
all parties have experience
would comprise of rentable apartments.
architectural elements, including glass
Walk-up residences located on the
facades and a plaza.
Warren Street side reflected the South
DEVELOPERS EXPERIENCE
-
first market rate housing project financial resources appear limited
30
COMPLEXITIES competition
Short list each facade reflected its surroundings.
BENEFITS TO THE BCA
+
2 million dollar payment up-front shows solid revenue
-
condo fees present concern overall square footage of BCA facilities is limited plans for sharing freight elevator will not work
COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
+
Druker Company
The Warren Street side stepped down
The Druker proposal called for 150
in size to relate to the five story walk-
thousand square feet of high-end
ups. The Tremont Street side increases
residential condo space. The income
in height while also including a plaza
from up-front condo fee’s benefited the
for the community, making it the only
BCA.
project to do so.
Large retail spaces, including
letters of commitment from retail tenants, were proposed for the site.
Drukers up-front payment of 2 million
Tenants
Auction
dollars was the most striking difference
a real landmark for the South End and Boston
House, which would take up 42
from other proposals. This generous
speaks to the creativity of artists
thousand square feet.
payment illustrated the teams financial
-
included
Skinner
stability and dedication to the project.
tilting of glass walls was “too dramatic”
Drukers proposal received five first
proposed retail use was too large and “high end”
place votes, placing it second behind
Questions
Boylston Properties. However it was
proposal to instill condo fee’s was a
Machado and Silvetti’s contemporary
concern for the Task Force. This would
massing and Drukers financial stability
limit the BCA’s income, therefore
that set it apart from the rest.
making it hard to succeed as a non-
DEVELOPERS EXPERIENCE
+
financial stability, overall financial scope is the largest
profit organization.
good track record in developing market rate housing
-
questions concerning developers experience at Castle Square
concerning
The massing of the proposed project related to existing site conditions and
Drukers
image by Machado and Silvetti Associates
Winning proposal The Druker Company’s proposal was
million dollars up-front. The Financial
any of the other four schemes. The
stability of the Druker project team,
contemporary massing provided by
chosen by the Task Force mainly
including Machado and Silvetti with
Machado and Silvetti also related more
because of Drukers contribution of two
Turner Construction was greater than
to the South End.
32
COMPLEXITIES team
The Evolution Of A Team After the selection of Ron
one of the most respected architectural
Druker and his collaborators as the
firms in Boston. Their designs are
winning selection, the team found it
always captivating and interesting,
necessary to expand and evolve. With
though at that point in their careers
Machado and Silvetti were already in-
(1998), Machado and Silvetti had
place as the principle architect with
completed only small cultural works.
Turner Construction on board as the
Never had they attempted a project to
contractors the team was in a good
the scale and magnitude of the Parcel
position to begin the early phases of
8 project.
design. Enter ADD Inc. Machado’s massing and skin was in place, and the Druker Company had
The first and most significant evolution
secured funding for both the BCA
of the Druker team was the addition of
theatres as well as the rest of his
a second architectural firm; ADD Inc.
proposed development. The “Who?”
ADD Inc. was contracted by Ron Druker
“What?” “Where?” and “When?” were
to be the Architect Of Record, to which
established, and the biggest challenge
Machado and Silvetti subcontracted
facing the team at that point was the
to. Naturally, this had the potential to
“How?”.
disrupt the chemistry and trust that was established between the Druker
Machado and Silvetti was, and still is,
Company and Machado and Silvetti.
33
Transfer Of Trust ADD Inc.’s title was officially
and budgeting they allowed the team
designated Architect Of Record, but
to function at an extremely high level.
they were responsible for much more than producing technical drawings.
As the Architect of Record Add Inc.
They were attractive to the Druker
was responsible for the execution and
Company because of their reputation
realization of Machado and Silvetti’s
as
organizers.
initial design, technical and detailed
Machado and Silvetti lacked those
drawings of interior conditions and
intangibles necessary in realizing such
adjacencies,
a large and complex development.
consultants and contractors, as well
collaborators
and
collaboration
with
as budgeting and scheduling. It would ADD Inc. initially worked hard to earn
be nearly impossible for a firm such as
the trust of new team members by
Machado and Silvetti to execute all of
not altering Machado and Silvetti’s
these tasks and still generate such a
initial massing and skin design, and
compelling design motif. The addition
allowing them to progress their own
of Add Inc. freed them of these
design. By focusing their attention
responsibilities, allowing the design
strictly on collaboration, scheduling,
architect to focus strictly on design.
“
”
Machado and Silvetti designed an ingenious urban scheme and we just made it work.
-Fred Kramer AIA, ADD Inc.
34
COMPLEXITIES team
BRA community
BLA BCA wilson butler
huntington theatre
druker turner
ADD Inc
Evolving Project Team Beyond changes taking place
Wilson Butler was contracted through
in the developers team, forces were
the Huntington Theatre, meaning that
shaping the dynamic of other project
ADD Inc. and Machado and Silvetti
collaborators. The necessity of funding
had little control over the design
for the arts facilities beyond what the
of the interior of the theatres and
Druker
accompanying spaces.
Company
could
subsidize
meant that another beneficiary had
Wilson Butler Effect
to be added. The BCA was aware of
this throughout the process, but had
firm who specialized in cruise ship
not settled on a partner for the theater
design was a difficult pill to swallow
spaces until the Huntington Theatre
for the Druker team. In order to avoid
allotted over $18 million. Naturally, there
tension and detriment amongst team
financial contribution coupled with
members, it was ADD Inc. who acted
their reputation made them a mutually
as a facilitator between groups. By
beneficial partner for the BCA.
bridging the gap between various
machado and silvetti
Trusting
a
young
design
designers and clients ADD Inc. freed The addition of the Huntington had
Wilson Butler to achieve a high quality
a resounding effect on the project.
design without affecting the overall
Their expertise in performance spaces
proposal. Clear communication and
coupled with the BCA’s desire for
efficient
innovative spaces led to the hiring of a
essential to avoid a design competition
third architect, Wilson Butler Architects.
between Machado and Wilson Butler.
collaboration
again
were
35
Diagram illustrating chain of decision making, with priority on Druker, ADD Inc, and the BCA.
Competing Interests Architects were not the only
ideas and so these considerations had
it was ADD Inc’s responsibility once
professionals that had staked a claim
to be negotiated.
again to address this issue. Naturally
in the design of the project, all parties
Fred Kramer could not outright choose
were deeply involved. Ron Druker
The tension came to fruition during the
one solution, and was tasked with the
prides himself on his commitment
discussion of the location of a loading
challenge of playing the middle man. It
to design, and with buildings such
dock serving the property. Ron Druker
was essential to clearly communicate
as the Colonadde Residences and
had his opinion, and Susan had hers,
to each party in order to avoid a
Longwood Galleria on his resume, that
both with their own benefits and
messy situation. Ultimately the issue
commitment is clear. On the opposite
shortcomings. On a project with two
was never completely resolved, but
end, Susan Hartnett of the BCA was also
clients such as Atelier|505 there is no
ADD Inc. negotiated a tight rope of
invested in the design, and had her own
correct answer, and negotiation is the
trust between the two thus allowing
design considerations in mind. These
only means to an end. As an architect,
the project and parties to continue
ideas were often contradicting of Ron’s
and as a facilitator of communication,
functioning effectively.
36
COMPLEXITIES planning
Contextual Massing The development of Parcel
a high facade encroaching over the
located on the Tremont Side as well as
8 had to contend with a variety of
street and impeding views out to the
a plaza where people can socialize and
external
with
city. Therefore Machado and Silvetti
interact with each other. Off the plaza
negotiating issues within the project
planned for a structure that would act
are retail shops and restaurants.
team, the team had to contend with
as a walk-up, adding continuity to the
the surrounding context and existing
street.
The Druker teams scheme underwent
buildings.
Silvetti’s
The BRA re-zoned parcel 8 in order
little community opposition during
massing for Atelier 505 directly relates
to incorporate a tower, therefore its
the review process because of an
to the surrounding neighborhood. Their
placement became very crucial within
ingenious massing that breaks down,
design elegantly utilizes the parcel 8
the massing.
reacting to each particular elevation.
lot, with every programmatic element
opted to position the tower at the
being expressed uniquely.
intersection of Warren
At
the
complexities.
Machado
Warren
Along
and
Street
side,
the
structure steps down and reacts
Machado and Silvetti and Tremont
Understanding the complexities of
Streets. The tower allows for additional
the site, as well as program, enabled
condos while also becoming a gateway
Machado and Silvetti to develop a
into Boston’s South End.
successful massing that could be
to the surrounding five story walk ups.
“
The community was afraid of
The Calderwood Pavilion entrance is
further enhanced throughout design and construction.
”
You can take a large structure and make it smaller by breaking it into an aggregation of four buildings
-Rodolfo Machado, AIA
37
images by ADD inc.
38
COMPLEXITIES planning
Early Tension Before demolition
of
the
to negotiate this tension and create a
National Theatre, a loading dock and
solution for both the loading dock and
fly loft were located on Warren Avenue.
fly loft.
Warren Avenue residents disliked the
Fly Loft
loading dock because trucks would
The fly loft was a major concern
line up on the street, blocking vehicles
for the BCA. They felt that it was a
and making noise.
Also located on
necessary part of the theatre however
the street was a seventy foot high fly
the Residents of Warren Avenue and
loft. A fly loft is a large opening above
the Druker team both opposed it. A
a theatre that allows a system of
debate between Susan Hartnett and
ropes and pulleys to quickly move set
Ron Druker pursued, with the Druker
pieces, lights and microphones off the
team coming out on top. A seventy
stage. The blank wall was an eye sore,
foot high blank wall, interrupting the
restricting views and blocking light.
Warren Avenue Facade as well as the proposed condo’s above, would have
These two issues created tension
been too detrimental to the project. A
between the residents of Warren
solution was devised, however damage
Avenue and the BCA
was done to the relationship between
before the
project competition for parcel 8 even began.
Residents did not trust the
BCA and their way of managing the site. Therefore the Druker team had image by Wilson Butler Architects
Susan Hartnett and Ron Druker.
39
Loading Dock Tension between Susan
continued,
and
Ron
and
Druker team disagreed, feeling that it
differences
would ruin the Calderwood Pavilion
between placement of a loading dock
entrance and plaza space.
Tension
nearly scrapped the project entirely.
became so significant that Mayor
The Druker team proposed to combine
Menino held a meeting in order to
two loading docks into one, satisfying
resolve the issue.
both Atelier 505 and the Calderwood Pavilion. Initial placement of the dock
The solution to the problem was to
was in a alley abutting the Cyclorama,
divide the loading dock. A loading dock
located off of Warren Avenue. Susan
located on Warren Avenue, embedded
Hartnett did not agree with this
into the massing, would satisfy Atelier
placement and felt that the alley way
505.
would not compliment the historic
on Tremont Street, utilizing a service
Cyclorama.
elevator inside the Cyclorama, would
Another loading zone located
satisfy the Calderwood Pavilion. The Residents of Warren Avenue were not opposed to the loading docks
The sub-par solution to the loading
placement, however Susan Hartnett
dock illustrated a lack of trust between
would not budge, feeling the Druker
Susan Hartnett and Ron Druker. Susan
team was not cooperating with the
felt that Ron had ulterior motives and
BCA. Susan wanted the loading dock
was not willing to compromise with the
to be placed on Tremont Street but the
BCA.
image by Google Earth
40
COMPLEXITIES planning
Adjacencies With a project scope consisting
Acoustics On the other hand, High end residential
of retail, theatre space, residential
condos were being designed above
and parking, the need to resolve
the theatre spaces and other programs
adjacencies becomes essential. The
outlined by David Hacin.
BCA required their own program which
resolving issues such as acoustics
was incorporated into the residential
becomes indispensable.
design of Atelier 505.
Therefore,
In order to
accomplish this, a clear understanding
In
order
to
accomplish
this,
an
between developer, architect and client
acoustical consultant was brought
was established.
onto the team.
The consultant, in
collaboration with ADD Inc., developed During the competition phase of parcel
an innovative solution that eliminates
8, Task Force member and practicing
noise transfer from theatre to residential
architect, David Hacin, developed a
condo.
program diagram for BCA facilities.
cavities and floors of condos that were
David Hacin was capable of creating
located directly above or adjacent to
such document and did so as a favor
the Calderwood Pavilion. In this case,
to the BCA and Task Force members,
team members worked innovatively in
the diagram illustrates what types of
order to reach a solution to a problem
programs were needed, including
that easily could have resulted in an
typical
unsuccessful mixed-use project.
dimensions
importance. image by Hacin and Associates Inc.
and
level
of
Sand was poured into wall
41
Program Adjacencies Retail Performance Residential Parking
Condo Condo Temont St.
Rehersal
Main Theatre
Black Box
Warren Ave.
42
COMPLEXITIES planning
Bordering Cyclorama Along with neighborhood
Ron Druker and Fred Kramer of ADD
considerations, the team also had
Inc. to negotiate the multifaceted
to contend with an existing historic
adjacencies. The issue was four-fold,
structure. The Cyclorama is designated
with theatres, restaurant space, the
as a historic structure, and therefore by
Cyclorama, and luxury condos above
law had to be protected. Of course, the
all adjoining one another.
team working with the BCA sought to protect a supplement the existing arts
Structurally and acoustically all team
facility with new ones.
members were required to collaborate deeply on such a unique dilemma.
The Calderwood Pavilion as well as
Again, ADD Inc. was best suited for the
Atelier|505 both directly engage the
leadership role in this position. Their
Cyclorama. This presented structural as
unique skill set as project delivery
well as integration challenges that had
experts allowed them to successfully
to be addressed. On the lower levels,
cross-pollinate
the BCA desired a means to access
strategies to devise the best solution.
multiple
ideas
and
the Cyclorama from inside the new
plan by Wilson Butler Architects
development, but also had to consider
The collaboration of team members
how the theatres integrated with the
helped to completely preserve a
neighboring arts facility. Wilson Butler
historically
Architects working with the Huntington
minimizing the effects on necessary
and the BCA had to collaborate with
interventions.
valuable
building,
with
43
Cyclorama
(
Restaurant Calderwood Pavilion
Atelier|505
)
The Cyclorama, a large rotunda meant to house panoramic
paintings was originally built in 1884 by Charles Cummings and Willard Sears and included large turrets resembling a castle.
image by Machado and Silvetti
44
45
REFLECTIONS negotiating adjacencies role of architect
46 48
46
REFLECTIONS negotiating adjacencies
Developer - Ron Druker develop a successful residential condominium that could simultaneously subsidize a cultural arts center while also generating revenue. revitalize neighborhood of the South End, creating a landmark for the area.
Client - Boston Center for the Arts Creating a new cultural arts center for the South End and Boston. Inclusion of all program outlined during competition. A space that can satisfy the needs of the BCA
Architect - Machado and Silvetti Wanted a successful building that reacted to the neighborhood and site. Satisfy the needs of the developer, as well as the client
47
Negotiating adjacencies Complex adjacencies located
who was concerned with the Condos
within the mixed use development of
and Atelier 505, satisfied her needs as
Atelier 505 and the Calderwood pavilion
well.
illustrate how
architects, developer
and client each achieved individual
The two parties disagreed at times,
expectations. Team members worked
specifically with issues such as the
together in order to successfully
loading dock and fly wall.
achieve this goal.
However, the
to resolve these issues, each team
success of Atelier 505 did not come
member set aside individual user
without opposition and disagreement.
expectations in order to reach a
In order
common ground. A common ground Susan Hartnett and Ron Druker clashed
used to develop a successful mixed
at times because their expectations
use building. The architect moderated
differed. Susan’s state of mind was
the two groups and in the end each
geared toward the BCA and a new
individual user need including architect,
cultural center. Therefore she wanted
developer, and client was incorporated
to make sure the developer Ron Druker,
into the finished product.
(
)
so how can architects negotiate the complex adjacencies of a mixed use development while successfully achieving individual user expectations?
48
REFLECTIONS conclusion
Role of Architect of Record The role of the architect is the outcome. Though a successful constantly evolving to keep up with
developer is usually not concerned
the building industry. With so many
with peoples feelings. A developer is
aspects to the planning, design, and
a highly motivated personality, who is
execution of a project, team dynamics
concerned primarily with the monetary
can become clouded.
success of their project. This is not to say that a developer’s only concern is
In order for a project team to function as
asset procurement, though generally
effectively as possible, it is absolutely
they are not the type to ensure that
necessary for each member to place
trust transferred throughout the project
trust in each other. In some cases,
team.
trust may already be established from a prior relationship. This was the case
Simultaneously, a client on a project
with Ron Druker and Rodolfo Machado,
such as Susan’s position at the BCA,
as they both had worked at Harvard
is an intimidating one to be in. It
University.
is natural to feel threatened by the scale of a developer’s propositions,
More often then not, trust has to be
and that a client’s desires may be
earned. It could be said that Ron
overshadowed.
Druker never quite earned the trust of the BCA’s Susan Hartnett despite
It becomes apparent that in order
the fact that both were pleased with
to instill confidence in other team
49
members, that an architect possesses the best skillset. Beyond that though, and specifically in this project, two distinct types of architects were hired; one to handle design and another to tackle delivery. ADD Inc. is a firm that specializes in project delivery. This is something that they have devoted so much effort to, that it has become marketable for them. In today’s building industry, the level of complexity is so high, that an architect who can specialize in team dynamics, organization,
and
scheduling
has
become invaluable. Not always will the title of this position be Architect Of Record, and it does not necessarily have to be an architect, but the addition of someone who can focus on the intangibles is crucial.