Streetscape Territories: Coney Island. A Resilient Network by rubenjanssens

Streetscape Territories: Coney island

A RESILIENT NETWORK

Ruben Janssens

International Master of Architecture â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Architecture & Sustainability Master Dissertation Studio 2013-14: Coney Island Revisited Prof. Dr. Kris Scheerlinck, prof. Laurens Luyten

Streetscape Territories: Coney island

A RESILIENT NETWORK

Ruben Janssens

International Master of Architecture â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Architecture & Sustainability Master Dissertation Studio 2013-14: Coney Island Revisited Prof. Dr. Kris Scheerlinck, prof. Laurens Luyten

Coney Island: A resilient network A publication about a master dissertation project in Coney Island, NY for the international master of architecture 2013-2014 at KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture, Campus Ghent

This publication presents a combination of research and analysis to build up my project, with a reflection about the architectural project itself. It is an attempt on showing what the challenges and opportunities of the site are and how the proposed architecture utilizes these elements. Brought as a coherent story, this publication offers an insight into the progress, and outcome of my master dissertation project. This issue is a revised version including some captions from my personal logbook showing the working progress on the project. The following people provided academic input and guided the development of this project and publication: KRIS SCHEERLINCK LAURENS LUYTEN FERRAN MASSIP PEDRO DACHS GIOVANNA VADALÀ STEWART PERTZ CATHERINE MENGÉ

Layout & editing: RUBEN JANSSENS Printed & bounded by: ‘t Atelier Genk Bochtlaan 5 B-3600 Genk www.atelier.be

This project was developed for the master dissertation project, within the project of Streetscape Territories: Coney Island Revisited, proposed by KRIS SCHEERLINCK.

Proofreading: VAN ROMPAEY LIEKE All rights reserved under International Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo-copying, recording or by any information storage retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or specific copyright owners. Work and publication made during the course of a personal master dissertation project.

KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture Campus Sint-Lucas (LUCA), Ghent Class of 2013-2014 www.arch.kuleuven.com www.internationalmasterofarchitecture.be

Contact: RUBEN JANSSENS

7 Paardenweideweg B-3511 Kuringen Belgium ruben.janssens@me.com rjanssens.com

Streetscape Territories

Streetscape Territories is the name given to an international research and design project that deals with the way buildings and properties are related to streets and how their inhabitants can give meaning to them.

kris.scheerlinck@streetscapeterritories.com streetscapeterritories.wordpress.com

Content

Introduction 5 Coney island 6 Clarifying the context of the project and the various challenges and opportunities.

Materiality & Configuration

Existing architectural language and materiality + new interpretations.

Creek side - Neptune Ave

A facilitating platform in the heart of the neighborhood.

Building a framework

The search for a basic method to build up a design task and formulate a basic framework for a project.

Transition to a layered network

Introducing the method of analyzing in layers and

Stillwell Ave - 15th street

A place for distribution of goods and knowledge.

Bayview Ave

A new transport link for the bayview Ave area.

networks, and build an argumentation for invention.

Research question 23 Statement about the essence of the design challenge and how to proceed on developing a proposal.

Concluding and reflecting on the project.

Reflections

A resilient network 24 The strategy is to, on top of the existing structure, build up a new resilient network to enhance the neighborhood’s resilience.

Personal reflections + Thank you

Appendix

Logbook & work progress.

‘Platforms’: A first step towards a design strategy 30 Zooming in on the creek + a first step towards finding a system for architecture.

Project methodology: a case

Strategic waterfront

An example of a similar approach and idea in commencing a project: Interboro.

Strategies to enhance the creek side and its function.

Conclusions 90

Credits Bibliography + Figure list.

122

When we search for a challenge, we move outside our comfort zone. If we ask: “where lie the challenges for the nearby future?”, we end up with a list which is quite extensive. As a new generation of architects and planners pursues new challenges, we have to find a new way of thinking about old systems struggling with changing conditions. We do this because those systems are in themselves substantially valuable to rethink the way we use them. The urbanized waterfront is one of those challenges where you have to move outside the comfort zone, to propose a more sustainable and productive way of living. Coney island is one of numerous places that are in need of a new way to cope with changing environment, urban livability/ productivity and crisis. ‘Coney island: A resilient network’ proposes a new layer on top of the existing neighborhood structure to enhance it and help the area cope with crisis situations. A system of architectural interventions woven into the existing urban fabric that facilitates an enhancement of the existing activities, but also resilience in case of floods and emergency situations. A resilient network for Coney island west.

< Fig. 01 Fences at the Coney Island creek

Coney Island: Clarifying the context of the project and the various challenges and opportunities.

The location for this project is Coney Island, a peninsula situated on the southern tip of Brooklyn, NYC. Mostly known for its rich history on themeparks and leisure industries, the context for this project is a little more complex; it is set up around two areas: Sheepshead bay and Coney island creek. I decided to focus my research on west Coney island and thus the creek area. The neighborhood is characterized by low income NYCHA housing blocks and old bungalow-like houses. On the beachside there are elderly homes, mostly build by Jewish communities, while the residential area is occupied by Afro-Americans. On the creek side there is a zone with some productive businesses, mostly car and body shops. The strong relation with water and the ocean is almost inevitable when you are living in a place like this. The community however, has turned its back to the waterfront because the ocean has always been linked to leisure and mass-tourism, and the creek water to industries and pollution. Heavily affected by flooding and changing conditions, the area proves to be a challenging place to live in. Nevertheless it is an interesting place to develop a view on how the area can learn to cope with, and build up a resilience against the changing living environment.

“Resilience is not so much about prevention anymore, it’s about fast recovery and coping with a situation.”

– Stewart Pertz

Fig. 2 21st Street, Coney Island

Defining a project location: Seagate on the left, Stillwell Ave/ amusement zone on the right; Belt parkway in the north, and Coney Island sound at the beach. Coney Island West: An interesting mix of high-rise NYCHA social housing and lowrise bungalow type houses, of commercial areas, neighborhood hot-spots and small businesses. Fig. 03 Situating a project location. ÂŠ2014 Google maps images

Building a framework: The search for a basic method to build up a design task and formulate a basic framework for a project.

As a first step for this research, building a framework to work in for this project is based on experiences on site, but also on readings, maps, etc., trying to understand the neighborhood and its conditions better. While we were visiting the area, the choice to work in the western neighborhood came mostly from the contrasts that I experienced while walking through the area. My impression of the site happened in a section (see fig. 04 and 05) through the island from the Boardwalk towards the creek. On this section I pointed out all different spheres existing next to each other. Starting on the Boardwalk, there’s the world-on-its-own of the amusement park area: a seasonal attraction where Manhattan and the world come to escape the city heat. Bordering this area, there’s a low income NYCHA high-rise development zone surrounded by empty lots that are used seasonally for parking and storage. Further down the road, Mermaid Avenue crosses the section and brings a commercial heart into the neighborhood. This commercial ‘strip’ will play an important role further into the research as it is one of the important inputs into the area’s structure. After this combination of commercial and community functions, a mix of low-rise housing and warehouses appears. Here the residential layer overlaps with the remains of a productive area on the creek side. At the creek itself, it becomes clear that the water has become more of a backside then a functional thing. A few elements from this on-site experience are really important. Starting with strong overlap between all the different functions or types in the neighborhood. Contrasts between housing types, access and fenced, local community vs. seasonal amusement industry, build environment vs. water side. It is interesting to think about the way how all these different elements are (dis)connected from each other and how they work together to form a neighborhood. Another interesting aspect is that of the collective memory. There’s a gap between the memory of the local and that of the visitor; each one does not completely understand the other, and because of this there is tension between the two. Could an intervention also bridge the gap between what people think about the neighborhood and what it actually has to offer, and affect the neighborhood image in a good way. Even further, how can an intervention enlarge the connection with the surroundings again and make the neighborhood take full advantage again of its assets. Another more often occurring issue is the changing environment: floods and other environmental changes affect the area in a devastating manner. An intervention should take into account a way to cope with these changes and crisis situations, not only in such a way that it enhances the whole neighborhood, but also in a sustainable way. Can an architecture form the connection between productivity, economy and community structure while coping with changing living conditions, and offer a certain resilience to the neighborhood of west Coney island? From this question onwards, it seems useful to look into the building use and occupancy to identity different structures in the neighborhood. Looking into all the contrasting elements from first experience, and transform them into not contrasting, but coexisting territories forming the neighborhood.

Fig. 04 Sketch of 21st Street as a section. > Next page: Fig. 05 Collage of experienced frames at 21st Street, Coney Island.

Transition to a layered network: Introducing the method of analyzing in layers and networks, and build an argumentation for invention.

Analyzing the overlap scenarios in the neighborhood, based on the building use and occupancy, it proved to be worth looking at the area as a layered system of interests and demands. So, instead of looking at it in the sense of territories, it could also be interesting to use the same principle but by using the term networks? Combined with the first experience on site and analysis using government maps, there are a few interesting layers in the Coney island West neighborhood. Three main elements build up the neighborhood; the first one is the strong presence of a (central) commercial heart, being Mermaid Avenue. Around the avenue multiple shops, small and larger, gather to form a sort of corridor through the neighborhood, providing a distribution of food and goods (the only large supermarket is also on this avenue). Secondly there is a cluster of productive activities in the north-east of the neighborhood, with mainly auto-repair and body shops on the one side, and mainly food distribution halls and workshops/storage on the other. As a third point, it is also noticeable how spread out the community facilities like schools, community spaces, places for worship, etc. are. In some parts of the area thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a lack of these spaces so no real opportunity for community-minded activities or movement. So taking into account these three main elements, a mapping divided in three layers can be built-up to map the opportunities and needs in the neighborhood. The three layers of interest, are to following:

COMMERCIAL INTEREST

On the commercial layer (see fig. 06a), the strength of the central commercial corridor appeals as a central place throughout the whole neighborhood, offering a place for economics, supply, and distribution. It guides a movement starting at Stillwell Avenue station all the way through the neighborhood, overlapping with the main bus service across the neighborhood towards Seagate. One could envision a stronger corridor with also perpendicular interest towards the Boardwalk, the Coney island creek and even the Home Depot site just north of the water. This last relation also hints to a new way of local transport using the creek as a guidance. A new transport system, and the commercial strength of Mermaid Avenue could be exploited as an opportunity for the neighborhood to rebuild a local economy, but also to enlarge the access to food and goods in the area.

PRODUCTIVE INTEREST

The main productivity in the area is clustered in the NE corner, at the creek (see fig. 06b). Consisting of mostly auto-repair/car shops and workshops/warehouses, it is an overlooked asset to the neighborhood considered as a system separated from the rest. Mapping this layer creates an image on how this activity could be a potential source of knowledge and skills that can be beneficial for the whole area. Considering the issues with storage and distribution of goods, but also knowledge about their use could be a productive input. Also the clusterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s connection to the creek is an asset which is now (like in many Brooklyn cases) seen as a backwater. Instead, it could be a productive relation again, creating local jobs and resilience.

COMMUNITY NETWORK

This â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;networkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (see fig. 06c) forms a sort of community cohesion by providing services and space for community activities. The existing neighborhood-network is dense in the center of the area, but could be improved in a number of way addressed on the map. Could it be improved in such a way that it offers even more opportunities for a feeling of community to emerge? The community infrastructure that is present now, consists of schools, a library, child care, places of worship. It lacks places to meet or do activities, sharing knowledge and information about current affairs. In this way the existing network could be enlarged and enhanced to create a higher sense of community.

Supermarket

Cross-island access

Commercial + Residential Commercial â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Naturalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; resources Amusement area

Water access

Home Depot

Water access

Stillwell Ave Station

ve Commerce

Mermaid A

Amusementpark area

Fig. 06a Mapping of the commercial activities

Cross-island access

Productivity â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Naturalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; resources Amusement area

Productive cluster

Water access

Fig. 06b Mapping of the productive activities

Stillwell Ave Station

‘Natural’ resource

Community network?

Residential Community utilities Elderly homes ‘Natural’ resources Amusement area

Community network?

‘Natural’ resource

Articulation towards Boardwalk?

Fig. 06c Mapping of the existing community network

Stillwell Ave Station

Fig. 07 Rollercoaster in the water. ÂŠMichael Reynolds

Research question: Statement about the essence of the design challenge and how to proceed on developing a proposal.

Having analyzed the neighborhood in three functional layers, a discission on how to proceed on developing a proposal can be made; The overall need for a higher resilience and changing living conditions are an important factor in this discission, as is the equal involvement of all the different layers. So the question is: Can there be a cooperation in between the different networks to enhance the whole system? Or otherwise stated:

How can a system of architectural interventions form a new strong network taking in account the existing neighborhood structure, and articulate the multiple layers/interests in a dayto-day scenario of overlap, aiming at a unified resilience in flood scenarios?

A resilient network: Formulate an urban strategy that, on top of the existing structure, builds up a new resilient network to enhance the neighborhood’s resilience.

By defining the commercial interest, productive interest and a community utilities network, a conceptual vision about a new network can be envisioned. This network forms an articulation of a new awareness and a stronger resilience of a neighborhood that needs to cope with a changing living environment. All three of the analyzed layers play a great role in building up this awareness and a certain amount of communal resilience. One can imagine a series of platforms spread throughout the neighborhood on strategic locations, creating literally a platform for commercial distribution, knowledge (and awareness) sharing, community activities, etc. In a normal day-today scenario, these platforms act as an open community space, and depending on there location, focus on market space/food distribution, productivity enhancing/resilience raising workshops, or just community activities. When a flood scenario occurs, the infrastructure will be built-up in such a way that it allows for the water to come inland without destroying of devaluing the plot or any activities on it. On the other hand they will be equipped with the possibility to ensure alternative transport via water, space for possibility evacuation and emergency equipment. To build up this network, a series of points-of-interest are selected to suggest the placement of the platforms (see fig. 08 Mapping the points of interest for intervention). Location 1 is conceived as a ‘main’ hub, combining the opportunity of mobility via water (towards the parks and the Home Depot site) with an interesting location for commercial and productive input. This can be a prime location for import of goods, but also emergency equipment and food distribution during flood scenarios. Location 2 is also combining the waterfront opportunities with a productive input but more specifically bound to the need for a community space for the block. 1 and 2 together form the main input of knowledge and productive program into the network, sharing this on the other platforms. Location 3 is situated next to the NYC job center on 21st street, and forms together with this existing building, an information and training hub for the local community to create jobs and raise self-sufficiency in terms of knowledge. It also forms the other side of the commercially interesting 21st street axis (connection between the creek transport hub and the Boardwalk), and could help the community to articulate and express itself again towards the beach and in a reaction against the amusement park area. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are location in the commercial corridor area and are mainly focussed on strengthening this entity, by provided ground floor temporary commercial space (markets, etc.), and infrastructure for food and goods distribution. By strengthening the center of the neighborhood, its influence on the whole area will be more positive again and there could emerge a new level of interaction. 8 is located at the boardwalk on the end of 33rd street, and focusses on the opportunity of the neighborhood claiming Coney island beach again. By creating a space for small temporary commerce in combination with a public function, in could create a new interest for the community to head to the beach/Boardwalk again. 9 is placed at Neptune Ave close to the Keyfoods market and enhances the food distribution supporting this existing shop, but also acts as a new community output towards the block. Lastly there’s 10, which acts as a community information points but is mainly focussed on the access to the northern park and the more inland part of the creek. So all together these ten platforms contributed to a stronger community in multiple ways, they work together in what can be called a resilient network.

OVERALL the platforms are mostly equipped for a temporary claim on the ground floor (markets, workshops, parking,…), and a storage/distribution(/evacuation) function in emergency situations.

SPECIFIC functions for each location focus on three programs: enhancing local commerce by facilitating distribution, enhancing productivity and resilience by knowledge and skill sharing, and forming new space for the neighborhood’s groups to sit or comes together and build on a stronger community.

“Strengthen the cohesion and resilience of the neighborhood, enhancing the commercial, productive and community aspect through the introduction of a new network of platforms that facilitate a number of specific programs linked to these aspects. Connect the community better to ‘natural resources’ and existing attractions, but at the same time use simple interventions to protect and enhance these ‘natural’ resources (creek waterfront). Lastly, create an opportunity for citywide transport systems to reach the neighborhood better and in a way show how this community can overcome the challenges posed by nature, an learns to tackle changing living conditions.” (see fig. 09)

‘Natural’ resource

10 Ccommunity network?

Supermarket

6 5

Residential Commercial + Residential Commercial Community utilities

8Cross-island access

Elderly homes Productivity Points of interest ‘Natural’ resources Amusement area

2 Cmmunity network? Water access

Home Depot

‘Natural’ resource Water access ‘Natural’ resource

Stillwell Ave Station

ve Commerce

Mermaid A

Cross-island access

3 Articulation towards Boardwalk?

Amusementpark area Fig. 08 Mapping the points of interest for intervention.

Fig. 09 Scheme of the urban strategy.

‘Platforms’: A first step towards a design strategy Zooming in on the creek + a first step towards finding a system for architecture.

As the urban strategy involves a network of ten architectural interventions, it is important to search for a system to realize these interventions in a coherent way. This coherency is shown in a few properties and for a number of reasons. As the strategy is to build up a new network, the architecture should also be conceived as a whole. This means that the architectural language and way of intervening is the same for all ten interventions. They are seen as platforms that facilitate the three specific programs derived from the neighborhood analysis. A first sketch (see fig. 10) shows the idea of to basic types facilitating different function on different levels, but being publicly accessible on all levels. The specific programs have a more temporary character than the platform itself, so the platform structure can be a more permanent structure that is in its principle the same for all ten. This structure consists of a bolted steel structure made from standard sections and measurements for economical and practical reasons (grid: 25x6,25m), on which floor plates are created. These floors than house the more temporary functions as a independent structure with a less permanent feel (see fig. 11). The way the platforms related to the streetlevel and surroundings depends on its location and the layers that it interacts with the most. The platform can be free-standing, placed on an extension of the streetlevel or placed on a pedestal above flood level. In the first two cases, the ground floor is conceived as a floodable plane. It can flood without damage to the structure, and afterwards be re-occupied without devaluation of the floor area. In case of the pedestal – which originates from practical reasons such as loading bay height – the ground floor is lifted and thus permanently dry. Another important feature is the accessible roof. In all cases, the roof can be used as an additional surface for storage and equipment. This plays a role especially in emergency situations when there’s a need for auxiliary goods, tools and equipment like for example also temporary boilers and communication devices. In some cases the roof is also (partly) publicly accessible for community or leisure reasons. Something which also applies to all interventions is that the platform extends the collective space in height. This means that the space configuration is made as such that there’s always multiple ways of entering and moving through the space. Movement – even if not important or necessary – is made possible, hereby also enlarging the complexity of the space, making it more absorbing to experience. The platforms articulate themselves in all direction, every side has a certain value or quality. Developing the platforms as systematic and repetitive structures, allows to develop two or three cases which define the repetitive elements but also show how the specific functional spaces are placed on. Based on this methodology, the other platforms could be envisioned. Based on the added value of working in relation with an upgraded waterfront, I chose to work out three platform at the creekside: A transport hub at Bayview Avenue, a distribution hub at 15th Street and Stillwell Avenue, and a larger general facilitating platform at the creekside on Neptune Avenue and 21st Street (see fig. 12). They will show how the platforms are appropriated, and work in different scenarios; also the local (and possible citywide) watertaxi system operates within this case. The system, elements and use of these platforms can then act as an example of how the whole network will work.

DRY

Storage Utilities Auxiliary equipment Specific functions: Food/Goods distribution Workshops Community space Temporary functions: Market/work/activity space Storage/Parking

WET

Flood level

Fig. 10 First principle sketches for a platform.

Polished finish concrete screed Profiled steeldeck (span: 3,125m) ACB 500 Steel profile

500mm

Total permanent floor package:

650mm

150mm

IPE 500

ACB 500

IPE 500

ACB 500

IPE 500

ACB 500

IPE 500

ACB 500

Fig. 11a (above) Structural detail, steel structure. Fig. 11b (below) Structure scheme, basic module.

Floor – 15cm Polished concrete screed Profiled steeldeck – Span: 3,125m

Secundary structure, ACB 500 – Span: 12,5m

Main structure, IPE500 – Span: 25m/4

Steel columns, HEB 200 –Height: 4,00m

Fig. 11c Structural principe – Exploded build-up.

Built environment Interventions â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Proposed water access Logistial water movement Fig. 12 Focus on the Coney Island creek, system of interventions.

Project methodology: a case. An example of a similar approach and idea in commencing a project:

INTERBORO

A New York based office with a lot of experience in working with systems of interventions for a larger goal are Interboro, led by Tobias Armborst, Daniel D’Oca and Georgeen Theodore. In 2013, they developed a project called Grassroots Regionalism: Resiliency building in low- and medium density lowland communities. It’s a project for HUD’s Rebuild by Design initiative, which invited ten teams to propose between three and five design opportunities for making coastal communities damaged by Hurricane Sandy more resilient.1 We are pleased to present four design opportunities–each based on a different coastal typology–that offer a menu of options for vulnerable, low and medium income, low and medium density communities in New Jersey, Staten Island, and Long Island. So in this case the project also involves a system of interventions working together as a whole. By this they want to give critique to short-term local plans, and work on long-term, realistic solutions that include whole systems and create win-win situations for the whole area. First, we identified instances in which what’s right for the region could be tailored to help meet local needs and achieve local goals. Protecting the Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant from flooding helps insure that Bay Park’s streets, waterways, and homes won’t be inundated with unprocessed sewage, but it also insures that the 500,000 Nassau County residents it serves will be able to flush their toilet. In our design opportunities, we have identified many such “win-wins.” Second, we centered each of our design opportunities on a natural feature–a freshwater marsh, a bay, a creek, and the beach– that is inhabited by multiple municipalities. In each instance, irresponsible, unsustainable development practices have led to the erosion of the natural feature, a fact that has undermined their ability to protect residents from severe weather events, as well as decreased their recreational potential. In our design opportunities, we propose to leverage the inter-municipal connections that these natural features provide by restoring them in a way that simultaneously enhances them as regionally significant public spaces.2 (see fig. 13) In their approach, Interboro envisions a proposal that offers a solution and added value on all levels. All interventions work together for a more livable whole. Also the focus on natural systems as a more ‘buffering’ solution is an interesting idea. Especially because it combines a higher quality of living environment with solutions for the water problems. When they propose an architectural intervention, multiple types and structural methods are explored to search for the best solution. Projecting these elements onto my proposal for Coney Island west, the idea of having not one solution but a system of interventions is definitely similar. How they think about the emergent and the everyday scenario as equally important creates a certain multifuncionality needed in the situation of an urban waterfront. Also the use of natural buffer systems for the water problematic is also applicable to the idea of having a ‘hard’ upgrade on one water edge, but a ‘buffering’ enhancement on the opposite side. The thoughtful and inclusive way that Interboro build up their projects is a quality that should be incorporated in all urban waterfront projects.

1 HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2 http://www.interboropartners.net/2013/grassroots-regionalism-resiliency-building-in-low-and-medium-density-lowland-com munities/nggallery/thumbnails

Fig. 13 Diagrams from: Grassroots Regionalism: Resiliency building in low- and medium density lowland communities. ÂŠ2013 Interboro

Strategic waterfront. Strategies to enhance the creek side and its function.

The management of the waterfront is an important element in the development on the Coney Island creek. Degradation of the water edge often contributes to easy flooding of the land at the waterside, and makes it less functional, productive and safe (see fig. 14a). The strategy here is not to fend of the water completely, as this would totally change the relation of the street level with the water. A relation which is nowadays seen as a negative and threatful connection. Because of building orientation and pollution through time, the creek has become an unclean environment and a backwater. Within this project, a three-step strategy for the creek and its sidings could provide a solution for the environmental, economical and mental qualities of the water in this neighborhood. As in the somewhat similar case of the Gowanus canal, this strategy could be financed by a Superfund1 if substantial proof of contamination and risk for human health can be found in and around the creek. A first step is to remove the shipwrecks and large objects in the creek to create more navigable water surface, and eliminate contamination from large waste. As discussed, because mechanical dredging might make the problem worse, a biological way of cleaning the water should be considered. By for example bringing cleaning organisms in the water, including filtering water plants, etc. into the water. The use of water taxis should not be a problem, considering the depth of the water is sufficient for boats to pass without stirring up the bottom to much. By not walling or closing in the creek for the sea, the minimal tidal movement is preserved, also supporting the existing biodiversity on the creek side. Secondly, in areas where businesses are active the edge of the water is upgraded in a way that it is raised to street level by creating a more sustainable infrastructure. Using a steel sheet pile and concrete edge system, a more accessible water edge is developed (see fig. 14b & 14c), forming a long-term protection against easy flood and erosion. Because the accessibility of the waterfront enlarges, new connections can be envisioned in the neighborhood. People will move along the water and maybe discover its qualitative input in the urban environment again. Contrasting to the ‘economical’ way of upgrading the water edge, there will be an ecological enhancement and redevelopment wherever possible. Especially on the north side, the whole water edge will be re-shaped in a natural way and filled up with waterplants and indigenous trees further on the banks (see fig. 14d). In this way, one side always compensates as a natural buffer for the opposite side which is designed as an infrastructure. Developing the waterfront is such a way also creates a sort of bufferzone against rising water levels and – in combination with a biological cleaning process – supports the biodiversity on the creeksides. Apart from that, it will also create an added value for the living quality around the creek, and form an attraction for people accessing the waterfront across.

Superfund = The U.S. Federal government’s to clean up uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. – http://www.epa.gov/superfund/

Fig. 14a Water edge upgrades, existing situation.

Fig. 14b Water edge upgrades, better access.

Fig. 14c Water edge upgrades, ecomonical enhancement.

These three examples (fig. 14a-d) show how the three step strategy will result in a more productive, attractive but also ecological Coney Island creek waterfront. Within the same mindset as the system of architectural intervention, the whole site (see fig. 15) will be enhanced on multiple levels, and create a fresh view on the waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in the neighborhood. The water strategy also builds up a base for the architectural interventions to benefit from the possibilities of being at the creek, and use all aspects of it ranging from visual to environmental qualities. A waterfront project that does not reject the water â&#x20AC;&#x201C; even in flood scenarios â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but learns to live with it and take advantage of its positive influence on the whole area and its inhabitants.

Fig. 14d Water edge upgrades, ecological buffer system.

Fig. 15 Overview: water strategy for Coney Island creek. Green = Ecological importance â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Red = Economic/access enhancement.

Materiality & Configuration Existing architecture language and materiality + new interpretations.

Across Coney Island different systems of boundaries and space configurations appear. Configurations which are most of the time simple and conservative in form. Sidewalks are plain concrete, light posts and electrical wires seem randomly ordered in the streets. This kind of simplicity makes for an easy functioning of the streetscape and its actors. In most of the occasions, the border of this street is an open-mesh fence. The fence is one of the easiest ways to create a bordered space. Some poles with a fence against it and your border has its form. It can resist winds, rain, storms, floods,... The banality and simplicity of the fence is a nice method to use in forming a flexible space that doesn’t have to be totally excluded from the surroundings, but yet clearly defined. At the point where we see the fence as a more flexible border, we also think about the visual connection that it offers between spaces. Normally this connection would be broken by putting some sort of plastic curtain or a hedge against it, to ensure privacy, etc. But we can also use the visual connection as a positive element. If for example a space needs to be flexible in configuration yet not visually closed of from the surroundings, we can use the fence as a flexible ‘wall’ to form a defined area. This makes it a suited element to use for fencing for example a small market space or outdoor workspace that should be seen from around, but sort of defined. In another case, the fence can offer a controlled environment for handling and storing goods. But because there is still a visual connection, the spacial quality and atmosphere of this space and process don’t get lost but are part of the larger area. In a samilar way as fencing, the simplicity of the street- and sidewalk surfaces comes from practical reasons. The plain concrete surface of the sidewalk makes for easy functioning and accessibility. When creating an extension of the streetscape – like this system of interventions intents to do – this simplicity yet certain level of detail and quality needs to be continued into the intervention. Although the spacial complexity of a platform gives a certain experience, the spacial relation from street to platform or for example street-platform-water should be simple to read. This can be achieved by extending the street into the intervention in a similar language and atmosphere as the existing. Even the first seemingly random placed street light or tree can have a certain spacial quality at a really local scale, but also in the overall streetscape. Therefor, when adding a landscaping item such as a tree or sitting element, it should be detailed and reasoned upon so that it is justified inside the existing streetscape. Textures of sidewalk can mark zones, create a certain pattern. Native trees have a trustworthy effect on the landscape and give a certain quality to it. The simplicity of the streetscape also allows it to be flexible in unplanned scenarios like floods. When flood hits the water takes over the street, but afterwards the quality from before returns without degradation. The platform do not protect the streets from the water, but will act in two ways: the street level will react in a similar way as the existing situation. It is floodable, but without devaluation. Above streetlevel they form an extension of collective and productive space, only this space is permanently functional and operative. Overall it is important to think about the way that the idea of a system and a conservative, simple configuration make for a easily readable and usable space configuration. In this way the architectural intervention can become a true extension of the streetscape.

Fig. 16 (Left) Fence at the creek. (Right) Neptune Avenue sidewalk. >

When looking at the neighborhood, temporary structures appear everywhere in the form of scaffolding, precipitous repairs, delayed construction sites, etc. These temporary structures are often not so temporary anymore but have gotten another status through time. In the same mind-set, the platform offers an open and more permanent place for more temporary functional blocks. These ‘blocks’ are also formally worked out in a more temporary way than the base structure. They can be added on to or broken down and replaced, but they could also undergo the same process as other some add-on structures and become less temporary when they prove to be functioning well. The materialization of these ‘temporary’ blocks asks for a more tactile and textured feel then the solid frame of the platform. One element important in deciding on the materials are the existing temporary structures. Being mostly build up from steel elements and timber, they articulate a flexibility on both structural and functional level. A second element to consider is the use of infrastructural material as a structural and visual element for architecture. Best example for this is the implementation of sheet piles as a individual structural to create space. Because of their shape and linking possibilities, you can build up an independent structure, and modify it for openings and attachments. Their material properties allows for a use in floodable areas and for a large loads. Opposite to the mass of the sheet piles, a timber structure can provide the same temporarily feel to a structure, but be lightweight enough to configuration large functional spaces that are insulation to provide a certain indoor comfort. These spaces are built up with a simple timber frame filled in with insulation, and a treated timber plank finish. In this way they also feel like something which is easily built and adapted to current conditions. Having a system of evanescent volumes inside a durable structure contributes to the facilitating character of the platform. It articulates the possibility of these platforms to be a base for diverse functions and applications that are needed in the new resilient network.

Fig. 17 (Left) Third wave kiosk. ©Tony Hobba Architects (Right) Historic Child’s restaurant, with scaffolding. >

Creekside - Neptune Ave A facilitating platform in the heart of the neighborhood.

As a central hub in the neighborhood, the platform at 21st Street and Neptune Ave facilitates units that interact with all the analyzed layers in the existing neighborhood, forming a new mobility access and a catalyst for resiliency in the area. The groundfloor is conceived as an extension of the street, forming a solid pedestal going onto the water. The platform stands on this pedestal at the waterside, forming a public and functional space on multiple levels. Connections to the neighboring waterfront are made to make circulation opportunities from the waterside via the platform possible. Vertical circulation is divided into a public and a productive circulation. Central staircases provide public access to the upper decks, while a controlled staircase in the productive area ensures a separate connection to all the storage and distribution space. Separate linear connections are made front the street onto two floating piers. A central one for watertaxis to dock and form a new public transport link into the neighborhood, and a separate pier for logistical use. This logistical pier is connected to a loading area and a temporary storage space on the street level, and storage and distribution spaces on the first floor and the roof. Goods can be replaced by use of a separate elevator, of with a loading crane which is placed on top of the platform structure. At street level there is a small office and shop space where a supervisor can have a desk and people from the neighborhood can come to get DIY materials and goods. This functional volume is built up from metal sheet piles, to make it floodable in emergency scenarios. The office function can in that case be shifted to the first floor where there is another office space. Here the office is linked to a room for meetings and knowledge-sharing activities. Also a basic sanitary function is integrated as well as the structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main technical space. The technical installations are placed on the first floor so the power grid can enter above flood level, and it forms an opportunity to build an emergency power grid or network. On the first floor there is also a larger functional volume that houses a large meeting/multifunctional space, dividable workspaces and a sanitary block. Here, community workers can organize anything from neighborhood meetings and activities to information sessions on oncoming decisions or situations. The workspaces are provided for people from all layers of the neighborhood who want to undertake something creative and/or productive and need some space to work in. They can than also use the platformâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s other spaces to show their ideas/work to the neighborhood and visitors. Vertical public circulation is not only possible via the central staircase, but also with a public elevator which also goes up to the roof. Part of the roof is publicaly accessible. The amount of space that is publicly accessible depends on how much of the roof surface is used for storage. The border public - controlled storage is arranged by the supervisor of the productive activities and defined by a movable fence. This movable fence principle is also used at street level, where a covered flexible space is set-up to host neighborhood meetings, markets, workspace, etc. Using the structure of the platform and the street as attachment, multiple configurations are possible using open-meshed fence to border the used space. This allows to easily expand onto the sidewalk and the street, the same thing that happens with the car shops expanding there workspace onto the street. Allowing these spontaneous actions to happen is one of the important aspects in what this platform should be: an existing of the street and collective space onto the waterfront and into height, facilitating and enhancing the existing strengths of the neighborhood structure and be a new access point into the area.

Fig. 18 Isometric view of the platform at Neptune Ave and the Coney Island Creek.

Fig. 19 Street level plan, showing the configuration of the groundfloor as an extention of the street.

Fig. 20a First floor plan, showing the multifunctional community space on the left, and a storage compartment + office on the right.

Fig. 20b Roof plan. The roof is partly accessible for the public, but mostly used as a storage deck.

Concrete screed on steeldeck floor –15cm; Steel structure, IPE 500 –50cm.

Insulated timber structure – 30cm. (Technical equipment integrated)

Double glazing in a wooden windoz frame.

2x Timber plank floor finish – 2,4cm; Insulation panel – 6cm; Air gap – 2cm; Concrete screed on steeldeck floor –15cm; Steel structure, IPE 500 –50cm.

Fig. 21 Detail section of the insulated timber structure placed on the platforms for functional space that has to be heated.

Fig. 22 (above) Section through the productive side of the platform, showing the controlled entrance to the work floor. (middle) Section showing the sequence from W21 Street and Neptune Ave through the platform onto the new watertaxi stop. (below) Section through the community activities, with the groundfloor being used as a market extending onto the street, above is the work- and meeting space.

Fig. 23 Drawing of the Neptune Ave streetscape with the new platform integrated.

Fig. 24 Isometric drawing showing the Neptune Ave platform from the street, with a conceptual hint to the materiality.

Fig. 25 Model close-up: Extention of the street and the community spaces.

Fig. 26 Model close-up: Logistical area with loading crane and public overpass.

Stillwell Ave - 15th street A place for distribution of goods and knowledge.

Placed inside the cluster of productivity in the north-east of the neighborhood, the platform at Stillwell Ave and 15th Street focusses on distribution of goods and knowledge. It fuels knowledge and resources onto the new resilient network and enhances the productive ability and knowledge for the local area again. The platform is placed on a 1,30 meter pedestal and is build up from two main parts. The first and more permanent space in a storage- and distribution space. This space is built up from sheet piling material for an infrastructural feel, and hosts three loading bays, a 575m2 hall and a platform to pier sequence for storage and further distribution into the neighborhood via land or water. There is an access from the main hall to the front of the building that acts as a loading bay at 15th Street. Linked to the groundfloor distribution infrastructure is another Âą990m2 roof surface available for storage and equipment, accessible by staircase and activated by a loading crane via the pier or a movable roof light. The neighboring distribution hall can also benefit by having an access onto the platform roof, and an opportunity to foresee a new loading bay at the back of the building. A second more flexible volume is placed in front of the distribution space at the street side of the platform. It hosts a supervising office, sanitary unit and a multifunctional space. This multifunctional space can be used for meeting and temporary office extensions, but also for lectures and gathering for knowledge sharing about the goods, equipment and distribution into the neighborhood. It can be a place where the knowledge and skills from the productive cluster can be put into the neighborhood network as a part of resiliency building on a socio-economical level. More activities around this can be organized on at the platform because a the space opens up towards the street side. A public access to the waterfront is foreseen as a flexible space which can expand and reduce as the capacity of outdoor storage space does not always have to be the same. The platform and configuration of the flexible borders is overseen by a supervisor. This person can live in the house that is incorporated in the project site. In this way, constant supervision, public access and an extensive productive progress can go hand-to-hand on this platform site. It is an important step in facilitating a better distribution of goods as well as knowledge about materials and how to use them.

Fig. 27 Isometric view of the platform at 15th Street and Stillwell Ave.

Fig. 28 Street level plan showing the access to the water both collective and exclusive. The platform is occupied by two functional volumes: An office and meeting block at the street side and a storage/distribution unit behind it.

Fig. 29 Roof plan. Showing roof hatch and light, loading crane and an optional connection to the nearby roofs.

Concrete screed on steeldeck floor â&#x20AC;&#x201C;15cm; Steel structure, ACB 500 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;50cm.

Closing plate, provides airtightness, and creates a technical space inside.

Plexi glazing in metal frame.

Steel sheetpiles used as architectural element, attached with brackets to a concrete pedestal (130cm above street level).

Waste water sewage.

Fig. 30 Detail section. Showing the structural build-up of the pedestal, and the steel sheet piles used as an architectural feature.

Fig. 31 (above) Section through the distribution unit, showing the sequence from loading bay for trucks to the loading dock for barges. (below) Section from 15th Street towards the water at the Stillwell Ave bridge, showing the offices at the street with the distribution behind it.

Fig. 32 Facade showing the streetscape of 15th Street with the new platform integrated, and the public access towards the Coney Island Creek.

Fig. 33 Isometric conceptual impression of the platform at 15th Street and Stillwell Ave. Showing placement in the surroundings and the flexible access to the water.

Fig. 34 Model: Platform at Stillwell Ave and 15th ST in its environment.

Bayview Ave A new transport link for the Bayview Ave area.

The area around Bayview Avenue lacks a place for community, a link to the neighborhood network. Thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s no real commercial activity nor a good connection to the center of the island and the existing natural resources. To answer to a certain need for a catalyst in this area, a platform is implanted off the streetside on the newly emerging beach in front of Bayview Avenue. Focussing on mobility and access, this platform inserts a new link for this area towards the centre of the neighborhood and the natural resources across the creek. Accessible via a walkbridge, the platform facilitates two main spaces. One is a semi-outdoor working space. It is built up from a niche which containes technical equipment on one side, and an open workspace on the other side. This space can be used for anything from repairing bicycles and equipment, to technical space in case of an emergency. Realized in a anodized steel frame structure and finsihed with rusted steel plates, it gives a raw technical feel to the volume. The other space on the platform is waiting- and meeting space. There is room for a small ticket boot/machine for the watertaxi, seats for the waiting and a place to enjoy the view. The room is concieved as an indoor space, that could be heated in the cold season. Constructed from an insulated timber frame with timber finish, it articulates the temporarity and flexibility of the volume constrasting to the solid frame of the platform. The configuration of the platform allows for multiple ways of approach and circulation. As a result, all levels of the platform and the public transport are accessible at all times, even if the functional volumes should be closed. The linear access from the street towards the floating pier acts as an extention of the street, providing waterfront accesibility in day-to-day situations but also in flood scenarios. The staircase going up from the beach to the roof, extents the public space in height. The roof is accessible for people to enjoy the view and experience the place, but can be claimed for storage and equipment in emergency situations.

Fig. 35 Isometric view of the platform at Bayview Ave.

Concrete screed on steeldeck floor –15cm; Steel structure, ACB 500 –50cm.

Metal frame construction with metal plate finish – 20cm.

Lockable niche for materials and work equipment.

Cantilevered walkway.

Fig. 37 Detail section through the workstation with closable material niche. < Fig. 36 Street level plan. Showing the extention above the beach towards a water taxi pier.

Fig. 38 Section, showing the sequence from Bayview Ave onto the platform, with the workstation first and a waiting area.

Fig. 39 Sideview showing the movement from the water taxi pier towards the street.

Fig. 40 Isometric conceptual impression of the Bayview Ave transport hub.

Fig. 41 Model: Platform at Bayview Avenue in its environment.

Conclusions Concluding and reflecting on the project.

The new system of platforms forms a strong new local network that uses the existing neighborhood structure as a base to build up a unified resilience. By developing a structural principle and the same visual base-platform idea, a common image in the existing urban fabric can be achieved. The flexibility to facilitate all three different layers of the neighborhood articulates the equal importance of them for the strength of the area. Local transport and connection to the city-wide network are enhanced with infrastructure for watertaxis, which is also usable in wet scenarios for temporary emergency transport. Communities are given space to meet, do activities, share experiences, etc. (Local) commercial activities are stimulated and related to the street like in some existing situations. Productivity is brought onto the new network by: facilitating storage and distribution of goods and emergency equipment. Knowledge sharing is also an important part of the productive process, raising skills within the neighborhood to do repairs and work with basic materials. By articulating and integrating these functions better into the existing neighborhood structure, a common resilience can be build up not only depending on large organizations, but from the local knowledge and skill. Hereby the neighborhood itself becomes the base for a unified resilience. The platform structure forms a solid base for temporary volumes facilitating different neighborhood functions, it can be seen as an extension to the functional and collective space of the street level. Like the idea of a unitary urbanism1, the architecture is able to be adaptable to changing situations, in terms of needs, conditional, etc. It can cope with a constantly changing living environment. The architecture allows for a new accessibility to the waterfront, a new way of thinking about and experiencing the Coney island creek, but also the to the whole neighborhood. It wants to be the catalyst to a new awareness about the changing conditions and a certain resilience towards that. The platforms are configured to function in dry and wet conditions. They do now resist against the rising water, they learn to work with it and articulate that idea to the neighborhood. The platforms add quality to the experience and functionality of the area, and could be seen as a system of urban artefacts2, articulating a new vision for the neighborhood. A unified architectural language, an identifiable network that enhances the structure of the area on all levels, in dry and wet scenarios: A new resilient network for Coney Island west.

1 2

Nieuwenhuys, C., “Unitary urbanism” in Avermaete, T. et al., “Architectural positions:...”, p. 239-241 Rossi, A., “The architecture of the city” in Avermaete, T. et al., “Architectural positions:...”, p. 257-264

Fig. 42 Zoom in on Neptune Ave market.

Reflections Personal reflections.

To shortly reflect on this whole project, I can start by saying that it was an amazing experience for me. Having the opportunity to continue my interest for this framework starting from the Gowanus workshop into a paper and now my master dissertation was really great. I experienced an interesting way of looking into a design strategy where I could link my own interests and style to the streetscape territories research method and the result is satisfying after the 17 weeks of work. It started of with an interesting site visit in February. We did a lot of walking around, experiencing the atmosphere, the feeling of the place and how it works in daily life. Apart from that we also did a lot of research. We went to MAS NYC (Municipal Art Society New York City) to gather historical information but also had really inspiring talks with academics at Pratt Institute and in the city. All the information gathered in the field provided us with a great base for proceeding into the project. The guidance further into the project and the team were superb, I really enjoyed the working atmosphere and was able to overcome some hard moments quite easily. We used a number of different ways of working, discussion and presentation, and this made for a new and creative way of output and dealing with the development of a research and an architectural project. Seeing the result now, it is satisfying to look back at the process, and concluding that all we did got us to get the most out of our projects and ourselves as architects. For my project personally, I feel that I developed a specific way of critically dealing with sustainability in a way that there is always a balance between ecological/utopical thinking and economical/post-crisis reality. Using this vision to think about a common resilience, I could develop a project that contributes to the existing environment and learns to cope with changing conditions. I have been given the opportunity to develop my own interests and vision, and for me that is what makes this master dissertation very valuable.

Thank you to all people who made this project possible. They guided and supported me in the progress and contributed to five months of special experiences. Thank you for a nice and productive atmosphere, an overall great opportunity and all the help: Kris Scheerlinck Laurens Luyten Ferran Massip Pedro Dachs Giovanna Vadalà Hannes Van Damme the whole NY team Stewart Pertz David Burney Beth Bingham Catherine Mengé Philip Lefèbvre Lieke Van Rompaey Patrick Willems my parents, and many others.

Appendix Logbook & work process.

Working and recording that work into a logbook is for me a must to record my progress. Always having your record with you to write down input and information, sketch down visions or sights, etc. is something that is highly undervalued I think. To show in what manner I take advantage of this way of working, I included an appendix with some captions from my working logbook.

First experience on site in Sheepshead Bay.

Mapping of Sheepshead Bay and some vital elemtens.

First experience on site of Coney Island West.

Mapping of Coney Island West.

100

101

Mapping of individual experience of Coney Island West â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 21st Street.

102

103

Skype-session with Stewart Pertz as a mid-semester input.

104

105

Working out a bigger scale water strategy.

106

107

Research on interventions around the Coney Isalnd Creek.

108

109

Research on architectural typology amd building method.

110

Intervention #1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A multifunctional transport hub.

111

Intervention #2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A case for a facilitating platform for the whole neighborhood; Intervention #3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A logistical distribution platform for goods and knowledge.

112

Structural concepts.

113

Functional concepts.

114

Functional concepts.

115

Construction detailing and calculations.

116

Construction and project references.

117

Sectional research, feedback.

118

119

Work on final presentation material.

120

Text

121

Work on final presentation material, critical review.

Credits Bibliography + figure list.

Bibliography 01 Mironova, O., “West of Nathan’s: Coney Island’s Residential Community” in Urban Omnibus. Date: 25/01/14. URL: http://urbanomnibus.net/2014/01/west-of-nathans-planning-coney- islands-residential-community/ 02 Habraken, N.J., “The structure of the ordinary”, MIT Press Cambridge, 1998. 03 Gregotti, V., “The form of the territory” in Oase #80, NAi Publishers Rotterdam, 2009, p 7-21. 04 Lynch, K., “The image of the city”, MIT Press Cambridge, 1960. 05 Koolhaas, R., “Delirious New York”, Monacelli Press, 1997. 06 Scheerlinck, K., “Streetscape Territories notebook: Collective spaces”, KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture: LUCA, Ghent 2013. 07 Thys, T. & Verbakel, W., “Breuckland: Design interventions for a post-crisis Brooklyn”, KU Leuven, 2013 08 Avermaete, T. et al., “Architectural positions: Architecture, modernity and the public sphere”, SUN Publishers Amsterdam, 2009. 09 de Solà-Morales, M., “A matter of things”, NAi Publishers Rotterdam, 2008. 10 Shannon, K. & Smets, M., “The landscape of contemporary infrastructure”, NAi Publishers Rotterdam, 2010. 11 Rossi, A., “The architecture of the city”, MIT Press Cambridge, 1982.

122

Figure list 01 02 03 04 05 06a 06b 06c 07 08 09 10 11a 11b 11c 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20a 20b 21 22

Fences at the Coney Island creek. – Ruben Janssens 21st Street, Coney Island. – Ruben Janssens Situating a project location. ©Google map data. – maps.google.com (edit: Ruben Janssens) Sketch of 21st Street as a section. – Ruben Janssens Collage of experienced frames at 21st Street. – Ruben Janssens Mapping of the commercial activities. – Ruben Janssens Mapping of the productive activities. – Ruben Janssens Mapping of the existing community network. – Ruben Janssens Rollercoaster in the water. ©Michael Reynolds. – European Pressphoto Agency/The LA Times: http://framework.latimes.com/2012/10/29/hurricane-sandy/#/18 Mapping the points of interest for intervention. – Ruben Janssens Scheme of urban strategy. – Ruben Janssens Sketches for typology. – Ruben Janssens Structural detail, steel structure. – Ruben Janssens Structural scheme, basic module. – Ruben Janssens Structural principle, exploded build-up. – Ruben Janssens Focus on the Coney Island creek, system of interventions. – Ruben Janssens Diagrams form: Grassroots regionalism:... ©Interboro – interboropartners.net Water edge upgrades, simple systems. – Ruben Janssens Overview: water strategy for Coney Island creek – Ruben Janssens (Left) Fence at the creek. – Ruben Janssens (Right) Neptune Avenue sidewalk. – Ruben Janssens (Left) Third wave kiosk. ©Tony Hobba Architects. – archdaily.com/338211 (Right) Historic Child’s restaurant, with scaffolding. – Ruben Janssens Isometric view of the platform at Neptune Ave and the Coney Island Creek. – Ruben Janssens Street level plan, showing the configuration of the ground floor as an extension of the street. First floor plan, showing the multifunctional community space on the left, and a storage compartment + office on the right. – Ruben Janssens Roof plan. The roof is partly accessible for the public, but mostly used as a storage deck. – Ruben Janssens Detail section of the insulated timber structure placed on the platforms for functional space that has to be heated. – Ruben Janssens (above) Section through the productive side of the platform, showing the controlled entrance to the work floor. (middle) Section showing the sequence from W21 Street and Neptune Ave through the platform onto the new water taxi stop. (below) Section through the community activities, with the ground floor being used as a market extending onto the street, above is the work- and meeting space. – Ruben Janssens

123

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Drawing of the Neptune Ave streetscape with the new platform integrated. – Ruben Janssens Isometric drawing showing the Neptune Ave platform from the street, with a conceptual hint to the materiality. – Ruben Janssens Model close-up: Extention of the street and the community spaces. – Ruben Janssens Model close-up: Logistical area with loading crane and public overpass. – Ruben Janssens Isometric view of the platform at 15th Street and Stillwell Ave. – Ruben Janssens Street level plan showing the access to the water both collective and exclusive. The platform is occupied by two functional volumes: An office and meeting block at the street side and a storage/ distribution unit behind it. – Ruben Janssens Roof plan. Showing roof hatch and light, loading crane and an optional connection to the nearby roofs. – Ruben Janssens Detail section. Showing the structural build-up of the pedestal, and the steel sheet piles used as an architectural feature. – Ruben Janssens (above) Section through the distribution unit, showing the sequence from loading bay for trucks to the loading dock for barges. (below) Section from 15th Street towards the water at the Stillwell Ave bridge, showing the offices at the street with the distribution behind it. – Ruben Janssens Facade showing the streetscape of 15th Street with the new platform integrated, and the public access towards the Coney Island Creek. – Ruben Janssens Isometric conceptual impression of the platform at 15th Street and Stillwell Ave. Showing placement in the surroundings and the flexible access to the water. – Ruben Janssens Model: Platform at Stillwell Avenue and 15th Street in its environment. – Ruben Janssens Isometric view of the platform at Bayview Ave. – Ruben Janssens Street level plan. Showing the extension above the beach towards a water taxi pier. – Ruben Janssens Detail section through the workstation with closable material niche. – Ruben Janssens Section, showing the sequence from Bayview Ave onto the platform, with the workstation first and a waiting area. – Ruben Janssens Side view showing the movement from the water taxi pier towards the street. – Ruben Janssens Isometric conceptual impression of the Bayview Ave transport hub. – Ruben Janssens Platform at Bayview Avenue in its environment. – Ruben Janssens Zoom in on Neptune Ave market. – Ruben Janssens

p87-113 (Appendix) – Scans from personal logbook with comments. – Ruben Janssens

124

Notes

125