Territorial Transgressions: The (new) New Jersey

TERRITORIAL

TRANSGRESSIONS

A COLLECTION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANNING INVESTIGATIONS BY:

RYAN OECKINGHAUS B. ARCH THESIS

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

CO2019

TERRITORIAL

TRANSGRESSIONS THE (NEW) NEW JERSEY

RYAN OECKINGHAUS SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS THE (new) NEW JERSEY B. ARCH THESIS Honorable Mention: Thesis Prize Jury CO2019 SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY School of Architecture

RYAN OECKINGHAUS CONTACT: rsoeckin@syr.edu roeckinghaus.me@gmail.com +1-(908)-328-7621 ryanoeckinghaus.com

PRIMARY ADVISOR: Prof. Mitesh Dixit SECONDARY ADVISORS: Prof. Lawrence Chua Prof. Lawrence Davis

Understanding the operation of a Territory as opposed to conceiving solely of urban and non-urban/rural areas illuminates the underlying flaws present in the built environment that are caused by this assumption.

Infrastructure is a vital component of planning that is significantly downplayed and disjointed when looking at areas independently, and as such should be linked back into a proper understanding of the territory.

This Thesis seeks to provide an example of a possible territorial reconfiguration in New Jersey that utilizes an updated conception of territory, creating a Holistic Proposal to remedy outdated planning and infrastructural practices stemming from the misconception of an urban and rural divide.

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

ix

C O N T ENTS

PAGE

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 18 22 38 40 42 48 52 58 60 68

THE CONTEXT Territory & Planetary Urbanization New Jersey Background Ladders Method - Territorial Transgressions THE TERRITORY Mapping the Conditions Re-Planning the Territory Infrastructure Reorganization THE BLOCK Infrastructural Framework Program Data Block Studies Possible Build-out THE BUILDING Infrastructural Objects Transportation Center

110

THE ATLAS Existing New Jersey Re-Planning Steps Building Atlas

122

References

124

Continuing On

82 84 100

“The urban problematique is thought to be embodied, at its core, in cities - conceived as settlement types characterized by certain indicative features that make them qualitatively distinct from a non-city social world (suburban, rural and/or “natural”) located “beyond” or “outside” them.”

- Neil Brenner

02

THE CONTEXT Territory & Planetary Urbanization New Jersey Background Ladders Method - Territorial Transgressions

TERRITORY & PLANETARY URBANIZATION There is a widespread, intense focus on the city that has been negatively materialized in urban planning and design.

While broad, this statement provides a clear and concise starting point for this thesis investigation.

The city as the center of importance in design has allowed for non-city, non-urban areas to succumb to market driven and introverted planning practices that sacrifice necessary connections to outside systems and networks. The urban and rural divide, or the misconception of the urban and rural as separate entities, has created immense, disjointed networks of these introverted centers.

My thesis takes this overarching problem of the misconception of cities, as it has been materialized in New Jersey, and presents an overhaul of the state’s organization and infrastructure. It does this so that New Jersey can function not as a relegation of market demand, not as an interstitial real estate project, but within the broader territory.

Neil Brenner’s Implosions/Explosions, in which he expands on Lefebvre’s term “Planetary Urbanism,” unveils the root of the problem and reframes how to conceive of the urban and rural as a cohesive, interlinked system inherently connected to a broader planetary network.

Conceptually, the urban and rural divide does something simple yet extremely detrimental; it grossly oversimplifies. While simplification can be used to clarify the complex political, social, economic networks between cities and the countryside, the oversimplifications and generalizations that are linked to urban and rural divide are actually used to reduce the understanding of how areas function. It creates broad categories with minimal specific criteria to place emphasis on the urban, and take focus away from anything outside.

The most clear example of this oversimplification is the 50% myth, the statement that more than half of the world’s population lives in cities. What this

04

statement does is reduce the conversation around development and planning to that of the urban.

The city is the focal point, it is where the people live. It paints a picture of 50% of the world living in areas like Manhattan or Hong Kong, extremely dense urban fabrics, when the material reality is drastically different.

When looking at the origin of this statement, famously published by TEDx, it can be seen that the determinations for these statistics are extremely non-prescriptive. The city is not understood through any clear criteria, and there are broad standards, especially varying from country to country. The Demographic Yearbook published by the UN was cited as the source for developing this statement, and it gives some insight into the incredibly broad conditions necessary for a city.

The United States considers cities to be “agglomerations of 2,500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1,000 persons per square mile or more.” Canada’s criteria are similar, stating that a cities are “places of 1,000 or more inhabitants, having a population density of 400 or more per square kilometre.” Certain countries like Japan stipulate a much larger amount of people, deeming a city to require 50,000 or more inhabitants, while Iceland determines a city to have a minimum of 200 people. Switzerland’s definition includes the suburbs, which is often see as inherently contradictory, and Indonesia simply states that a city is “a place with urban characteristics.” This all paints a rather unclear picture about cities and how they function, an unclear picture which is unfortunately a common presupposition that guides an understanding of our world.

Planetary Urbanization is a theory of urbanization without an outside, which sees the city and rural, indeed the entire world, linked by socio-economic, political, ideological processes.

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

This thesis breaks from this unclear characterization and the urban and rural divide.

It instead focuses on Neil Brenner and Henri Lefebvre’s concept of Planetary Urbanization, whcih, as stated on the previous page, is a theory of urbanization without an outside, which sees the city and rural, indeed the entire world, linked by socio-economic, political, ideological processes. There is no inside or outside, there is a network. This understanding of both the existing status of the built environment as well as the future process of expansion is the basis for how I develop this thesis project; considering areas not as independent, bordered, or categorized, but within and defined by a network of relationships.

The concept of planetary urbanization leads to the most important term/concept of my thesis: Territory. By Stuart Elden’s definition, territory is a moving picture, not defined by state created soft or hard boundaries or by lines drawn on a map. A territory is an area defined politically or through an ideology, meaning that a territory is defined by the mechanisms and operations that unite it. It is through this lens that I investigate New Jersey.

NEW JERSEY BACKGROUND The unveiling of New Jersey’s issues begins with how the state developed in terms of infrastructure, urban planning, industry, housing, and agriculture. New Jersey’s development is almost completely due to its relationship with New York City and the city of Philadelphia, two of the largest urban centers on the Eastern seaboard. It is named the Garden State, surprising to many now, because of a recognition of its fertile soil in the 18th Century, but has since aggressively shifted its emphasis on agriculture to industry and the transportation of goods to, from, and between its neighboring powerhouse cities. Post-war, New Jersey developed as a manufacturing and distribution center, with its major cities Trenton, Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth, Paterson and Camden all expanding to fill its economic role. Most of this manufacturing developed from emerging technologies such

THE CONTEXT

as radio and telecommunications, with RCA and Western Electric playing primary roles.

This trend of the manufacturing of emergent technologies continued with Bell Labs locating themselves in the state, as well as Exxon Mobil, and a new precedent began to be set of the industrial laboratory; in this paradigm, research and development are closely linked to the manufacturing process. This all led to the development of New Jersey’s cities in proximity to their neighbors New York and Philadelphia, where the technology and production could be implemented at increasingly large scales.

The key negative shift of New Jersey’s development then took hold as the nation began to enter the information age economy at the end of the 70’s, sparking the notion of “edge cities;” while people saw the suburbs as an increasingly opportune place to live and suburban sprawl took its full grip, companies determined that suburban sites would be ideal to host regional offices. This took advantage of the middle class demographic, mostly college educated and white dominated, that were moving to the suburbs. In this period of growth in the 1980’s, 80% of all offices in New Jersey were built, primarily along major highways like Route 1, I-287, I-78, I-80, and most importantly the New Jersey Turnpike, which connects NYC and Philadelphia. This backed the automobile emphasis that came from suburban sprawl, and further cordoned off these higher paying research jobs from those in New Jersey’s urban centers who couldn’t afford a vehicle. Now, New Jersey is entering a stage where manufacturing is mostly outsourced due to the global economy and internet-dependent global supply chains. The state is seeing a decline in the dominant pharmaceutical industry and telecommunications.

This development all leads to the picture of New Jersey as it is now, a state with the highest population density in the US contained in the fourth smallest land area. The population of the state is roughly equivalent to that of New York City and has grown recently at a similar rate. In addition, the state is predominantly forest covered due to the preserved pineland and highland regions. Urban land coverage follows forest coverage as the second largest area, followed by a continually diminishing land use for agriculture.

TERRITORY & PLANETARY URBANIZATION

05

NEW JERSEY BACKGROUND There is a high volume of dense suburban living that has only expanded as New Jersey grew, along with an equal decrease in urban living as people continue to leave the cities for the American Dream of home ownership. This leads to a heavy dependence on the automobile throughout the state, where most people travel between twenty and thirty-five miles a day, but through poorly developed, heavily trafficked infrastructure.

What are the underlying issues then that can be drawn from this history and the current picture of New Jersey? Possibly the most important is infrastructure and planning. The automobile dependent state precludes many people in the lower economic range from opportunities. This comes linked with the primary public transit systems. The trains are constantly argued to be beneficial to New Jersey development, and while there is a current trend of growth near transit hubs, the majority of trains go to one place - New York City. It is incredibly difficult to maneuver through the state using the rail system, as all paths converge on the nearby city. Additionally, the emphasis on home ownership has led to an ineffective use of land for sprawling suburbs, drastically cutting down land for agriculture.

The state is unfortunately continuing with this trend of sprawl, as it exists in a period where “land consumption is increasing faster than the population is growing.” As in other parts of the country, land is consumed three to four times faster than the population grows.

People are merely spreading out into new built areas. The primary cause of this, again, is the infrastructure; the traffic plagued highway system, the large suburban plots with poorly planned, snaking roads, and the train system nearly only useful for NYC commuters.

The suburban sprawl has also pushed other issues such as environmental decline due to oil reliance and automobile dependence, failing cities, and a decrease in farmland in order to accommodate ineffectual suburban growth.

All of these issues spring from poor planning pushed by the state’s development and need to be reexamined, but instead simply continue.

06

In summary, New Jersey has succumbed to planning practices based on the false urban and rural divide, leading to an automotive dependent state of both high density and high sprawl. The need for “urban design” has been relegated to the urban, the neighboring cities of New York Philadelphia, relinquishing a focus on public space, streetscapes, public program, and connective infrastructure in the state. This emphasis has been replaced by a focus on the market in the form of the home ownership and car ownership paradigm that has created a disjointed network within the territory, one that serves the people less than the market, one that is marked by a purveyance of ineffective and dilapidated infrastructural systems.

The problem reaches to a critique by Herbert Marcuse, summarized in the statement that any decision made in isolation will create an absurd outcome, or one step further, that rational decisions made in isolation create an irrational whole. New Jersey is emblematic of a broader problem of planning without understanding territory; that the whole is simply not considered. The parts are looked at independently. The towns of the state are planned and adjusted by rational market based decisions that create closed infrastructural systems, disjointed neighborhoods, no cohesive statewide transit, and in short a confused combination of introspective networks. New Jersey is in this way an object exemplary of plan-as-you-go outlooks linked directly to the market economy and the false distinction between urban and rural.

The understanding of territory that I bring to New Jersey seeks to fix the closed systems prevalent in the state. One of the main ideas/ statements that I latch onto is the “creation of parallel systems that allow for maximum degree of freedom.” This is taken from a lecture by the Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis, here talking about economic policy. However, I think it applies to built form as well, and to each scale of my thesis.

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE CONTEXT

NJ BACKGROUND

07

LADDERS WITHIN NEW JERSEY The material reality of the state is understood through the lens of Albert Pope’s Ladders, and his writing on closed infrastructural systems by the same name. My understanding and interpretation of the book begins with the quote: “The city is tied together not by space and form, but by an itinerary executed through space in real time.”

The itinerary currently being executed is the proliferation of Ladders, closed loops that serve interior purposes and limit access and freedom for those in the “outside.” He categorizes ladders within a grouping of urban “pieces,” the line, the ladder, and the grid, where ladders are being implemented ever more frequently in urban planning , removing the openness of the grid and the directness of the line. These pieces are reconstituted in Pope’s understanding of linear city types, the band, spine, and grid, or as I will refer to them the line, line and ladders, and line and grid. I investigate precedents for the realization of similar linear city schemes to extrapolate information to assist in this scale and the urban scale of my planning, specifically honing in on the line and grid system, the multiplicity of programs in proximity, mid rise building types, and campusesque planning.

The main concepts of the book that I latch onto are within the chapters “The Open City” and “Urban Implosion.” These sections seek to show the dissolution of urban form, and explain the fundamental shifting principles that have led to the state of our current cities. Most importantly, Pope coins the term “Ladders” as an oppositional urban form to the grid. He introduces his book with an analysis of urban thought and planning as it has progressed post-war, honing in on “the dissolution of urban form into the temporal values of transportation and communication networks.”

This evolution of urban strategies has changed the way the city functions and how architectural form functions within the urban scenario.

The privileged status of these transportation and communication networks has begun to close the city and has challenged the privileged status of architectural form itself. The city is no longer characterized by its form, as an abstract, autonomous logic, but by individual itineraries

08

executed within the form itself, which has been playing against the positive qualities of the city’s original spatial logic.

He writes with an obvious push for and bias towards the grid as the open and centrifugal system, and explains how it began to function differently as urban planning shifted post-war.

Pope explains that the grid is an inherently open form for the city as opposed to the relative closure of contemporary urban space, which houses closed and exclusive urban forms.

The new closed, centripetal grid is the urban precursor to the later term the Ladder, and leads to what Pope calls “urban implosion” and spatial closure. By erasing segments of the grid, one is not only changing the physical organization, but also dramatically changing how people move through the space and the fundamental effects and perceptions linked to the spatial organization itself, leading from an open to a closed grid.

Once these grid segments are erased and the grid begins to close, the grid shifts to a new urban typology: the Ladder. The ladder is essentially a grid fragment cut off from the existing spatial field, a segment that has grid elements but is without its context. While this object is grid-like in its characteristics, there is a complete change it how it functions as an urban form. It is finite, divisible, and notably hierarchical in a way that the open grid is not. This object is both isolated and closed. There is typically a singular, exclusive route for transit, and the layout produces a very prescribed response, dividing and classifying its content. There are hard and soft boundaries, implied or made explicit in the form, and a limitation of what the user can choose to do within it. The ladder truly embodies the closed nature of the centripetal grid that Pope sees as its root.

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

It is this holistic understanding of ladders within the current planning of the state that will dictate design decisions at the appropriate scales. Pope’s writing outlines effectively the current status of areas like New Jersey that have been deeply affected by the urban and rural misconception. The state has become a disjointed network of these ladders, and as I seek to reconfigure the state based on an adjusted conception of the territory, I will implement changes based on the understanding of the material reality of the state.

The next section opens on how this thesis will operate, the methods and scales at which the interventions and reconfigurations will occur, and how each scale ties back into the concepts laid forward by Elden, Brenner, and Pope.

THE CONTEXT

LADDERS

09

TERRITORY

Norm: A disjointed network of introspective nodes serving isolated needs.

Transgression: A linear city centered on high speed railways that densifies the state along the key city to city connection that it currently serves.

BLOCK

Norm: The proliferation of ladders and closed systems.

Transgression: The use of the grid as an open system and the reappropriation of ladders for networks of goods, not people.

BUILDING

Norm: The transit hub as a gateway to the city.

Transgression: The transit hub as a functional object derived from the overlapping forces of the area.

10

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS - New norms that transgress the existing conditions and planning of the area, to adjust the built environment so that its function at each scale is in line with how the area should function within the territory. These are seen at each of the project’s scales.

THE CONTEXT

METHOD - TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

11

“Territory is a historical question: produced, mutable and fluid. It is geographical […] It is a word, a concept and a practice, where the relation between these can only be grasped genealogically. It is a political question, but in a broad sense: economic, strategic, legal and technical.”

- Stuart Elden

12

THE TERRITORY Mapping the Conditions Re-Planning the Territory Infrastructural Reorganization

MAPPING THE CONDITIONS This section is dedicated to the representation of the existing conditions in New Jersey and drawing from them a proposal for the redistribution of people, resources and infrastructure in the state.

The maps on the left and the coming page show first these initial conditions: major roadways, the railway system, key industrial sites, preserved land, urban centers, population density, the spread of blue collar workers, and the key connective corridor, the New Jersey Turnpike. These all provide the basis for a planning understanding of New Jersey, and exemplify the points stated previously.

New Jersey is running out of develop-able land due to the large preserved areas, leading to a decrease in farmland used for increased sprawl.

Urban centers tentatively follow the heavily trafficked roads, and the existing train system does not effectively connect the state. Automobile reliance allows only the middle and upper class to expand into the suburbs.

New Jersey’s ineffective sprawl is the most evident conclusion from this series of maps, and my proposal at this scale seeks to remedy it.

The last map overlays past maps, making evident a seam between the Pinelands and Highlands preserved areas, where the turnpike corridor connects New York and Philadelphia, home to key industry sites, open areas for development, as well as the state’s most populated cities and a proliferation of the aforementioned suburban sprawl to be fixed. There is a zone between the cities that has the potential for densification and for providing a basis for a clear reorganization of a territory that is so clearly sprawled and deeply flawed by its misconception of urban planning and the city / rural dichotomy.

“Mapping is fundamental to the process of lending order to the world.”

- ROBERT RUNDSTRUM

14

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

ROADWAYS

URBAN CENTERS - AREAS FOR REDEVELOPMENT

RAILWAYS

PRESERVED LAND

*SEE ATLAS FOR COMPLETE MAP SET

THE TERRITORY

MAPPING THE CONDITIONS

15

FARMLAND

STATE LAND

REGIONAL LAND

FEDERAL LAND

*SEE ATLAS FOR COMPLETE MAP SET

16

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

COMBINED NEW JERSEY CONDITIONS

THE TERRITORY

MAPPING THE CONDITIONS

17

RE-PLANNING THE TERRITORY The proposal for New Jersey at the state scale centers on the alteration of the primary corridor, the New Jersey Turnpike.

effectively tripling the land area of agriculture in the state. These zones are also determined by the constraints listed previously; they do not infringe on the rising sea level zones, they stay outside of the densified corridor, and they are situated along some existing railways that can be adapted to fit the new territorial scheme.

This vital connective piece between New York and Philadelphia is where the urban centers and the population should be redistributed, as seen from the maps of the current conditions.

This connective tissue harbors key industry development, minimal preserved land to avoid when developing, as well as the state’s most populated cities and a proliferation of the aforementioned suburban sprawl to be fixed.

The statewide proposal goes through a few key steps: relocating urban centers along the primary corridor, increasing the farmland, locating industry sites, and placing secondary transit hubs.

The next step highlights the locations of new industry zones, near some of the more dense regions, where the existing planning could be latched onto and slightly modified for accommodating the pharmaceutical, transport logistics and distribution, and advanced manufacturing sectors that are spread through the state. A few industry zones are already located in these highlighted areas, and the existing infrastructure will be streamlined to fit out the now vacant areas and bring these goods back into the new corridor. Linked to the industry and agriculture zones is the final step, placing secondary transit hubs to bring back the goods and resources produced into the newly densified urban corridor. They can be spread to the residents of the state, to Philadelphia and New York, or exported.

As stated previously, the proposal latches on to the existing New Jersey Turnpike, which will be transformed into a set of high-speed rails connecting Philadelphia and New York through the area. Taking the current locations of urban centers from the New Jersey State Development Plan, the first stage is re-densifying the state’s population along this corridor. Shown in the maps to the left, the proposal takes the existing area of the state development plan’s urban centers and shifts them to flank the new Turnpike rails. Within this zone will be a proliferation of housing and necessary amenities for the people living along the corridor.

Now that the population has been relocated along the corridor, the newly vacant sprawl areas take the focus of the next step; increasing farmland. Seen in the maps on the next page, this process begins by overlaying the location of public wellheads that would be useful for irrigation, I begin shifting the existing agriculture to prescribed zones. Then I outline expansion zones within which more agriculture could take over,

18

This new scheme, seen on the right of the next spread, shows a more effective overall layout of the territory, redistributing people and resources through some of the existing infrastructure to combat the misuse of land and closure of the suburban sprawl paradigm. This system rejects the use of typical city planning paradigms and in doing so seeks to project a case study for the reinterpretation of other similar landscapes. The specifics of the replanning and new operation of this corridor will be outlined in the next section, as this proposal calls itself what it is, a linear city, and takes notes from the similar theoretical exercises that came before it, as well as Albert Pope’s insights into urban planning.

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

URBAN CENTERS

URBAN CENTERS - MOVED 1

URBAN CENTERS - MOVED 2

URBAN CENTERS - FINAL

*SEE ATLAS FOR COMPLETE MAP SET

THE TERRITORY

RE-PLANNING THE TERRITORY

19

FARMLAND

FARMLAND MOVED

FARMLAND EXPANDED

INDUSTRY AND TRANSIT NODES

*SEE ATLAS FOR COMPLETE MAP SET

20

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

TERRITORIAL SCHEME

THE TERRITORY

RE-PLANNING THE TERRITORY

21

INFRASTRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION The pieces described in this section are the building blocks of this urban proposal. Derived from Albert Pope’s writing, each piece has different pros and cons, and are applicable therefore to different scenarios within the redistributed New Jersey, to make a cohesive and functioning overall system. The pieces are derived directly from the previous sections, and are as follows: the line, the ladder, and the grid.

These pieces are necessary to the proposal because of how they will be implemented into the site in a critical fashion. A key failure by modernism and in fact by many of the architects behind the linear city proposals that were examined was the application of modernist ideals everywhere.

Not every area with increased density needs a modernist housing block, not all locations require highway systems and vast expanses of green space. By learning from the previous linear city proposals, as well as learning from the flaws of our current cities, the pieces outlined in this section can be re-examined to fulfill alternative and beneficial roles for the territory.

The line has the qualities of the linear city category with the same name; it is a point A to point B piece of infrastructure with program directly attached. As stated previously, this piece can be easily shut down, causing traffic backups or a stop altogether. Therefore, the line should not solely be used for moving goods or people; there have to be multiple options, constituting either a supplementary piece or multiple lines.

This piece can be effectively employed along the main linear city axis as a simple effective way for joining territory, as long as it is paired with the later piece, the grid. It can also be used for the basis to key branches that enter the periphery of the New Jersey territory.

The next piece, the ladder, is a vital piece due to a reinterpretation of use. Albert Pope denounces the ladder as a piece of the urban fabric, specifically due to its implications for the user, as it becomes an exclusionary and closed system. However, this fragment of the grid can be effective in planning when used in a different context.

This closed system functions well for the

22

consolidation of goods, allowing sources on the branches to feed back into the main cross axis that intersects with the line. As long as this piece is not used for the organization or movement of people and it feeds back to the reformatted linear city, the ladder can be implemented to effectively structure certain processes. This would be applied when reaching out into the agriculture and industry zones to move goods back to the central corridor, adaptively sustaining the redensification of the state.

The final piece, the grid, is a necessary form for the organization of the linear city. Its openness of circulation and its ambiguous nature hosting heterogeneous programming makes it a vital addition to the first piece placed, the line. This grid will therefore be applied to the new corridor to promote an urban fabric capable of adaptively sustaining the re-densification of the territory.

However, when applying this in practice it is important to make sure the grid does not become adapted to any closed system. Also, with a consideration of current cities, there must be a max width that the grid expands off of the line in either direction so there remains convenient and effective access to the central infrastructural line.

THE LINE

THE LADDER

THE GRID

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

This proposal takes a fraction of New Jersey along the outlined corridor and re-plans it according to the previous principles and pieces.

The section taken for this portion was chosen because it captures the key elements of New Jersey; the coastline, pinelands, suburban sprawl, the (edge of ) failed cities, industry, agriculture zones, as well as the key Turnpike corridor.

EXISTING CONDITION This portion of the proposal begins by applying the line to the site. The line takes the form of the new high speed railway from New York to Philadelphia along the Turnpike. Once this primary circulation path is established, the next step is an investigation of the existing train lines. Some of these segments are then reappropriated for use within the scheme, starting to create connections into the broader territory where agricultural and industrial program will be allocated. From there, key intersections are noted among this new system, creating locations for ladders to feed back to. This secondary system is then fully linked with the addition of minor railways to the key intersections.

ADDING LINES After the line infrastructure is added, the next step is adding the grid, which is necessary to expand outward from the main line. This circumvents the issues with the line paradigm by eliminating ease of breakdown and allowing for cross axial connections. The grid is added and set to grow as people are brought in to the new scheme. The gridded spatial field extends two and a half miles to either side, undulating within these parameters as it responds to elements in the context. The limit of the grid’s extent is necessary to keep away from current city issues of overexpansion into the field with poor infrastructure to circulate back into the center. The benefit of the grid also extends into the field of Albert Pope’s description, as it is capable of hosting heterogeneous program, density and openness of built form.

THE TERRITORY

ADDING THE GRID The grid is implemented within the existing context. While the area surrounding it will be modified in the next steps, the grid will not simply end at the edge of its field. Between the newly added lines, the ladders, or the existing roads that are not yet cleared out, there is still connection back to the grid. The periphery of the grid interacts with them, connecting to their truncated infrastructure and mediating the edge condition. With the grid in place, ladders are then extended into the areas necessary for reclaiming agriculture. These ladders are only used for the movement of goods and solely people who work in agricultural labor, keeping their negative effects as pieces of the urban fabric at bay. These closed systems now effectively bring products back along the secondary transportation routes added in the Line step to the main corridor and the grid, for dispersion to the populace.

ADDING LADDERS Along the coast, seen on the edge of the drawing, a region is given over to re-wilding to assist with the rising sea level and land lost. This is the area devoid of roads and circulation. The final step of this scheme continues to add ladders, but this time based on existing infrastructure to support industry. This step acknowledges the existing roadways within the planned industrial zones and highlights the major routes that will be kept for the movement of goods. Then, the sprawl accented in red will be removed and reconfigured for the effective movement of goods back to the primary corridor, piggybacking on the existing system.

REPLANNED TERRITORY Now, a new picture of the region is developed, a new hierarchy of movement, with a free, open, gridded system along the main corridor, and a takeover of agricultural and industrial production all feeding back into the densified line. Each piece has been adjusted and used to combat past failures, whether it was used poorly in city planning, modernist development, post-war grid dissolution, or it was a negative aspect of the linear city examples.

INFRASTRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION

23

EXISTING CONDITION

24

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE TERRITORY

INFRASTRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION

25

ADDING LINES

26

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE TERRITORY

INFRASTRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION

27

ADDING THE GRID

28

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE TERRITORY

INFRASTRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION

29

ADDING LADDERS

30

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE TERRITORY

INFRASTRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION

31

REPLANNED TERRITORY

32

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE TERRITORY

INFRASTRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION

33

34

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE TERRITORY

INFRASTRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION

35

36

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE TERRITORY

INFRASTRUCTURAL REORGANIZATION

37

“The city is tied together not by space and form, but by an itinerary executed through space in real time.�

- Albert Pope

38

THE BLOCK Infrastructural Framework Program Data Block Studies Possible Build-out

INFRASTRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK It is at this point that I make an important note for understanding the transition of scales.

This process will be done to anticipate and accommodate further growth and adaptation.

Due to the territorial scheme presented, the construction of a linear city as described would allow for variations and new interpretations as it grows.

The city is NOT seen as a closed system that is constructed in entirety and then inhabited.

Within the new framework, the next stage of the design starts to build out the transportation network of the linear city, attempting to create parallel systems, leading to an overall scheme of metro and train systems with multiple coordinating and overlapping transit routes. The diagrams to the right shows the overall division of the ½ by Ÿ mile transportation grid into 4 different systems.

The next step is showing a possible fit-out of this infrastructural framework based on land area and program calculations. Seen on the next page, these calculations are based on standards and metrics for different program occupancies as well as a need to relocate 70% of the population.

The key programs are all calculated: Housing, Education, Offices, Retail, Medical, Government, and Assembly. The chart on the following page brings in more levels of prescription for the program, such as FAR, lot coverage, and urban formation.

These programs will be allocated in concentrations on the territorial scale, for those that should be point or polycentric. At the Block scale however, the emphasis is on formal arrangements, which leads to an investigation of possible block arrangements, showing different internal connections, organizations of adjacent programs, and allocations of open space.

These can begin to be combined, reinforcing adjacencies and flow, and are brought back into the infrastructural framework, showing a possible build-out, a possible allocation of program based on adjacencies, open systems and transit flow.

The first is the high speed Maglev rail, which connects NYC and Philadelphia through the territory. This line has an approximate 300 mph top speed, 40+ miles between stops, and requires an isolated track The next set is the local rail, with 70-80 mph travel speeds and stops between one and two miles. This also includes express lines. The last two are vertical and horizontal tramlines, keeping about a half mile in between stops. They are spaced to be within acceptable walking distances, which is about 1/4 mile for shorter distance transport and 1/2 of a mile for long distance (local or high speed rails).

40

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

HIGH SPEED RAILWAY

LOCAL RAIL

TRAMLINE

TRAMLINE

THE BLOCK

INFRASTRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK

41

H OU S I N G

Housing

Education

Number of Households - 3.427 million Number of Units for each Type: Office

1 Person - 300k

Retail 2 Person - 1.1 mil

3 Person - 800k

4 Person - 400k Medical

5 Person - 120k Government Square Footage for each Type:

Studio - 500 sf Assembly

1 Bed - 800 sf

2 Bed - 1100 sf

3 Bed - 1500 sf

4 Bed - 2000 sf

H O U S I N G TOTA L L A N D A R E A - 3.02 billion square feet = 108 square miles

Housing

E DU CAT I O N

Education

Office Square Footage per student - 180 sf

Number of students in new scheme - 1.65 mil

Retail Elementary/Secondary School Land Area - 327 million square feet = 11.73 square miles Medical Square Footage per FTE student - 95sf

Number of FTE students in new scheme - 275k

Government Higher Education Land Area = 29.7 million square feet = 1.03 square miles Assembly Housing E D U CAT I O N TOTA L L A N D A R E A - 257 million square feet = 12.76 square miles Education

O F F I C ES

Office

Retail Square Footage of office space per person - 150 sf Number of people with office jobs - 1.358 mil

Medical

O F F I C E TOTA L L A N D A R E A - 204 million square feet = 7.32 square miles Government

Assembly

42

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

Education Office

R E TA I L

Retail

Medical Number of Retail Employees - 406k

Number of Food Service Employees - 305k

Government Total Number of Service Employees - 711k Housing 2.5 employees per 1,000 square feet Assembly Education R E TA I L TOTA L L A N D A R E A - 284 million square feet = 10.2 square miles Office Retail

M E D I CA L

Medical

Government Housing 8 Beds per 1,000 people

Total Number of Beds - 9,468

Assembly Education Square Footage per Bed - 2,500 Office M E D I CA L TOTA L L A N D A R E A - 24 million square feet = 0.86 square miles Retail Medical

G OV E R N M ENT

Government Housing Assembly Number of Government Jobs - 16% - 640k Education

Square Footage per person - 150 square feet Total Square Footage - 96 million square feet Office Additional 30% for other program/courts/etc

Retail G OV E R N M E N T TOTA L L A N D A R E A - 125 million square feet = 4.48 square miles Medical Government

AS S E M B LY

Assembly

Square Footage per person - 5 sf

A S S E M B LY TOTA L L A N D A R E A - 16.9 million square feet = 0.6 square miles

THE BLOCK

PROGRAM DATA

43

44

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BLOCK

PROGRAM DATA

45

46

PEOPLE

GFA

LAND AREA

HOUSING

6.76 MIL

3.02 BIL SF

108 SQ MI

EDUCATION HIGHER/LOWER

1.65 MIL/ 287,000

327 MIL SF/ 29.7 MIL SF

11.73 SQ MI/ 1.03 SQ MI

OFFICE

1.36 MIL

204 MIL SF

7.32 SQ MI

RETAIL

711,000

284 MIL SF

10.2 SQ MI

MEDICAL

9,468 BEDS

24 MIL SF

0.86 SQ MI

GOVERNMENT

640,000

125 MIL SF

4.48 SQ MI

ASSEMBLY

3.88 MIL

16.9 MIL SF

0.6 SQ MI

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

URBAN FORMATION

FAR

ADJACENT PROGRAM

DISTRIBUTED

4.0

TRANSPORT

POINT/DISTRIBUTED

1.5

ASSEMBLY

DISTRIBUTED

3.0

HOUSING RETAIL

POLYCENTRIC

2.0

HOUSING

POLYCENTRIC

1.0

HOUSING

POINT

1.5

ASSEMBLY

DISTRIBUTED

2.0

GOVERNMENT EDUCATION

THE BLOCK

PROGRAM DATA

FOOTPRINTS

47

48

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Parcel

Program

Adj. Size

Figure Ground

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Parcel

Program

Adj. Size

Figure Ground

PRIMARY

SECONDARY

TERTIARY

PARCEL

PROGRAM

FOOTPRINT

FIGURE GROUND

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Parcel

Program

Adj. Size

Figure Ground

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Parcel

Program

Adj. Size

Figure Ground

PRIMARY

SECONDARY

TERTIARY

PARCEL

PROGRAM

FOOTPRINT

FIGURE GROUND

THE BLOCK

BLOCK STUDIES

49

50

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BLOCK

BLOCK STUDIES

51

52

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BLOCK

POSSIBLE BUILD-OUT

53

54

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BLOCK

POSSIBLE BUILD-OUT

55

56

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BLOCK

POSSIBLE BUILD-OUT

57

“Transit hubs are also social centers and expressions of civic identity that can boost or damage local pride.�

- Caroline Bos

58

THE BUILDING Infrastructural Objects Transportation Center

60

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BUILDING

INFRASTRUCTURAL OBJECTS

61

62

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BUILDING

INFRASTRUCTURAL OBJECTS

63

INFRASTRUCTURAL OBJECTS The previous pages exhibit a catalogue of infrastructural pieces, taken from different construction standards. This catalogue includes multiple options for each line within the new transit scheme, from tramlines to bridge sections to tunnels. The catalogue is simply of the pieces; it does not take a stance nor adapt the standard design to fit any alternative needs.

The existing infrastructural pieces in the catalog are the material realization of infrastructural necessity, fitting trams and trains and people into physical systems for efficiency, comfort, etc.

Where typically there would be car lanes on either side, a bike lane, sidewalk, and possibly dividers all on the same plane as street front program and building entrances, here I seek to create multiple levels and layers of opportunity not only for circulation but for public program and public access. This includes both on grade systems and elevated systems for pedestrians, metros, long range transit, and railways for the movement of goods and waste.

These systems are not inherently detrimental to the urban fabric, but the way they are often applied (systematically and at the human scale) creates closed and divisive systems and spaces.

Therefore, I not seek to change these objects themselves, but I seek to change the way that they are applied within the urban fabric. These examples show an attempt at overlapping these systems and pieces into new infrastructural objects that enforce the open grid transit and block system.

64

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BUILDING

INFRASTRUCTURAL OBJECTS

65

66

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BUILDING

INFRASTRUCTURAL OBJECTS

67

TRANSPORTATION CENTER The Transportation Center is an exercise in built form, attempting to expand from the other scales and create a building that functions in line with the updated conception of New Jersey as a territory.

The building is designed to be an object derived from the forces of the site. It is an incredibly porous building, lifted off of the ground to allow for free pedestrian circulation as well as tram transport through the site. Overall, the hub is the junction of 4 different lines, the high speed Maglev above, freight and countryside transit below, and tramlines on the ground level. As seen in the drawing on the right, the different elements that interact with the ground plane are situated as such to interact with the people on site. The top left is the community entrance, located nearest to housing in the area. This features a sculptural spiral stair that gives the pedestrian the only true view of the interior depth with a 4 level cut. It also has an amphitheater that reaches up to the first level. The opposing corner is located near commercial buildings, and lifts those requiring different, more secluded working programs up into the building. The subway punctures the ground outside of the building footprint, and those looking to get directly to the Maglev platform are able to enter through escalators extending outside the building envelope.

70

As the users work their way up the building, their entry becomes more distinct. The high speed train lines whose platforms are on the upper floors cut the floor slabs, leaving isolated sections on the two platform levels. The distinct entries all have access to the same lower, completely open floors with public program, retail, food service and the likes, but then part. The business side features secluded offices, work rooms and conference areas, while the opposing side has waiting areas and ticketing for the trains as well as community assembly areas and rooms for other gatherings and activities. The third level is given over mostly to mechanical, and the uppermost floor is predominantly office and control areas to service the trains.

The building itself has no clear envelope; it is open air. The entryways and programs are seen as reflective, enclosed glass boxes within the concrete skeleton.

The material reality of this project therefore seeks to function along a new conception of territory in the New Jersey region. At each scale, down to the building, the focus is on creating connectivity and openness that supports the overall territorial reorganization. Instead of allowing New Jersey to fall victim to land misuse, disconnection and infrastructural chaos as a result of the focus on cities, a planning emphasis is reinstated, and a Holistic Proposal is put forth, to remedy such outdated planning and infrastructural practices.

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BUILDING

TRANSPORTATION CENTER

71

72

3 - LOWER PLATFORM

2 - UPPER PLATFORM

G - GROUND LEVEL - POPULATED

G - GROUND LEVEL

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

5 - CONTROL

R - ROOF PLAN

1 - ENTRY & COMMUNITY PLATFORM

2 - COMMUNITY PLATFORM

*SEE ATLAS FOR FULL SIZE PLAN SET

THE BUILDING

TRANSPORTATION CENTER

73

74

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BUILDING

TRANSPORTATION CENTER

75

76

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BUILDING

TRANSPORTATION CENTER

77

78

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE BUILDING

TRANSPORTATION CENTER

79

“...productive work is the process by which man’s consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one’s values.”

- AYN RAND

82

THE ATL AS EXISTING NEW JERSEY Replanning New Jersey Building Atlas

STATE BOUNDARIES

COUNTY BOUNDARIES

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

84

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

BOUNDARIES - COMBINED

THE ATLAS

EXISTING NEW JERSEY

85

TURNPIKE & GARDEN STATE PARKWAY

PRIMARY

SECONDARY

86

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

ROADWAYS - COMBINED

THE ATLAS

EXISTING NEW JERSEY

87

PASSENGER RAILWAYS

PASSENGER RAILWAY STOPS

FREIGHT RAILWAYS

88

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

RAILWAYS - COMBINED

THE ATLAS

EXISTING NEW JERSEY

89

90

FARMLAND

STATE LAND

REGIONAL LAND

FEDERAL LAND

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

PRESERVED AREAS - COMBINED

THE ATLAS

EXISTING NEW JERSEY

91

IMPORTANT INDUSTRY SITES

92

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

TRAFFIC - DAILY AVERAGE

THE ATLAS

EXISTING NEW JERSEY

93

MOST POPULOUS CITIES

94

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

URBAN CENTERS & AREAS FOR REDEVELOPMENT

THE ATLAS

EXISTING NEW JERSEY

95

PINELANDS & HIGHLANDS

96

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

CONTAMINATED SITES

THE ATLAS

EXISTING NEW JERSEY

97

COMBINED NEW JERSEY CONDITIONS

98

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

TERRITORIAL SCHEME - INTUITIVE MAP

THE ATLAS

EXISTING NEW JERSEY

99

100

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE ATL AS Existing New Jersey REPLANNING NEW JERSEY Building Atlas

THE ATLAS

101

102

URBAN CENTERS

URBAN CENTERS - MOVED 1

URBAN CENTERS - MOVED 2

URBAN CENTERS - MOVED 3

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

URBAN CENTERS - FINAL

THE ATLAS

REPLANNING NEW JERSEY

103

104

FARMLAND

FARMLAND - MOVED 1

FARMLAND - MOVED 2

FARMLAND - MOVED 3

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

FARMLAND EXPANDED

THE ATLAS

REPLANNING NEW JERSEY

105

FARMLAND EXPANDED

INDUSTRY ZONES

TRANSIT NODES

106

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

TERRITORIAL SCHEME

THE ATLAS

REPLANNING NEW JERSEY

107

COMBINED NEW JERSEY CONDITIONS

108

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

TERRITORIAL SCHEME - INTUITIVE MAP

THE ATLAS

REPLANNING NEW JERSEY

109

110

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

THE ATL AS Existing New Jersey Replanning New Jersey BUILDING ATLAS

THE ATLAS

111

112

3 - LOWER PLATFORM

2 - UPPER PLATFORM

G - GROUND LEVEL - POPULATED

G - GROUND LEVEL

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

5 - CONTROL

R - ROOF PLAN

1 - ENTRY & COMMUNITY PLATFORM

2 - COMMUNITY PLATFORM

THE ATLAS

BUILDING ATLAS

113

G - GROUND LEVEL - POPULATED

114

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

G - GROUND LEVEL

THE ATLAS

BUILDING ATLAS

115

1 - ENTRY & COMMUNITY PLATFORM

116

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

2 - COMMUNITY PLATFORM

THE ATLAS

BUILDING ATLAS

117

3 - LOWER PLATFORM

118

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

2 - UPPER PLATFORM

THE ATLAS

BUILDING ATLAS

119

5 - CONTROL

120

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

R - ROOF PLAN

THE ATLAS

BUILDING ATLAS

121

122

R E F E R E N C ES

Linear City on the Volga River N.A. Milutin

PREC E D E NT R ES E A RCH The linear city model was first developed in 1895 by Soria y Mata with his plan for Madrid, called Ciudad Lineal. This scheme called for a connective tram-line that would have housing plots along its length, spanning to and from existing urban areas. Ciudad Lineal and the proposition Roadtown by Edgar Chambless both envisioned the corridor as a contrast to the open fields surrounding it, and both conceived of a more modest style of architecture stemming from housing vernacular.

Chambless’ and Mata’s designs opened up the discussion for more modernist proposals, centered around the primary transportation axis with increasingly urban conditions. Some notable proposals came from socialist architects in Russia, such as the Linear City proposal on the Volga River by N. A. Milutin.

He speculated on a scheme of parallel strips of program on either side of the core circulation. Also notable was Magnitogorsk by Ivan Leonidov, the project that first included a truly gridded system of organization in the linear city paradigm.

The proposals that came after were often coupled with other modernist ideals, with housing blocks evident in Le Corbusier’s Algiers plan and Hilberseimer’s replanning proposal for Rockford, Illinois. However, the precedents all follow the same simple formula: A core transit system between existing urban centers that has attached program and housing. While an extreme example, even the movie Snowpiercer has the same typology, except the main transit system, the train, is what houses all the necessary programs. These precedents, coupled with the upcoming investigation into Albert Pope’s Ladders, create the foundational knowledge of linear cities and urban planning that my proposal stems from, including my characterization of pieces of urban forms and different types of linear cities.

The types of linear cities I derived from the investigation of the aforementioned precedents are the Line, Line + Ladder, and Line + Grid, which correlate with Pope’s categories the band, spine, and linear grid, respectively. Each category takes a different stance on how transportation infrastructure, program allocation, and density should be linked.

Line The line paradigm is the most simple, a connective transportation corridor with program disbursed directly adjacent, limiting any cross axial movement. This mode features a consolidated movement of goods and people along this efficient throughway, as well as constant direct access to housing and amenities, however it fails in its complete lack of lateral movement, and in that it’s easy to break down, as seen in both the movie Snowpiercer and J.G Ballard’s novel High-Rise.

A point A to B connection is easily disconnected.

124

The proposal by N.A. Milutin along the Volga River was a scheme developed in the Soviet Union in 1929. This was the first linear city to make famous the Line type, and it was the first to do it so purely and at a large scale, succeeding Roadtown and Ciudad Lineal. This proposal is seen to roll without constraint or limit, infinitely between two points. The main infrastructural line runs parallel to other bands of program, with housing, agriculture, industry, and natural greenspace peeling off in layers.

While this plan was not realized by the Russians, it did lead to an offshoot of built form near the Stalingrad tractor plant. This is a key precedent because it shows most clearly the Line model of linear cities, and even a basic analysis of the plan shows its intense limitations, with minimal if any clear cross axial paths.

However, the division of industrial and residential program with massive spans of greenspace is a concept taken up by many other planners, including Hilberseimer in his replanning proposals.

Line + Ladders The line + ladders category begins to touch on these downfalls, with ladders extending from the transportation core out into the landscape. This creates connections away from the main transportation, allowing for a lateral reach of program, with many schemes emphasizing these ladders as potential connections to a natural landscape. Within this outer context, the ladders support a greater spacing of units and interstitial space for alternative uses. However, these ladders come with their issues, many of which are outlined by Pope. They are inherently hierarchical and closed systems that manipulate and limit the flow of people, which in turn is linked to many suburban issues such as congestion, reliance on non-public transit, and an isolation of elements from the core system.

The Settlement Unit Ludwig Hilberseimer The Settlement Unit is essentially the first broadly used ladder in planning. While the dissolution of the grid was occurring at this time, Hilberseimer seemed to predict how development would proceed in the far future. The Settlement Unit is essentially a copy and paste blueprint for development across the United States. In his book The New City, Hilberseimer shows how he got to this scheme and more importantly how it could be adapted, producing diagrams showing how to locate this housing near industry based on the site’s prevailing winds, or how to space the rungs of the ladder based on building height to allow for ample greenspace and sunlight in the apartments.

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

The scheme is related to the Garden City but not oriented based on a central piece, instead each settlement unit is attached simply to broader infrastructure, connecting all the systems with a few main routes. This planning mechanism also came off of his earlier city concepts which were incredibly dense urban fabrics with little to no light access or greenspace. He almost took the opposite approach when shifting to this method, focusing on creating an open feel.

Replanning Rockford Illinois Ludwig Hilberseimer This proposal is an example of the application of the principles set out by the Settlement Unit, but it takes Hilberseimer’s very accurate predictions of the future to new heights. The replanning of Rockford Illinois is a series of drawings, of which the start and end stages are shown here, describing how to take the existing urban fabric and adjust it, step by step, to create a settlement that was in line with his urban planning principles and goals. This was a premonition of sorts of how existing urban fields would begin to integrate closed systems within the grid. It also shows a fairly accurate plan of how suburban plans were developed, with long, central corridors breaking off into increasingly small branches. While this plan definitely has its flaws, due to being a plan based on the proliferation of ladders, it still shows a successful paradigm for altering existing urban fabrics. The multiple stages of design show a knowledge of the city and how it functions, and it slowly adapts its major infrastructure, working from a few small areas and changes out until the city has completely evolved. This periodic, slow change is necessary in any development.

Line + Grid The final category, which is the basis for my intervention, is the line + grid. An offshoot of the linear grid Magnitogorsk pointed to by Pope, the line + grid locates the linear transport core within a centrifugal grid system. The grid spans out from the center, allowing for multiple cross axis circulation paths, as well as additional circulation parallel to the main transit line.

This method creates ambiguity and openness for the occupants and cuts down on prescribed pathways inherent in the line + ladder method, while also maintaining a (though somewhat shorter) reach out into the “countryside.”

However, my proposal does not simply suggest a reliance on this system and the central corridor. In order to create an effective system, everything cannot be connected solely through the line + grid system, which brings the reintegration of the fundamental “Pieces” back into the urban fabric.

REFERENCES

Une Cite Industrielle Tony Garnier Tony Garnier’s proposal, Une Cite Industrielle, is the first linear city to fall into the Line + Grid category. Like Hilberseimer, although in a more radical execution, Garnier wants to keep industrial production away from residences and the core urban fabric, separating the “dirty” and polluting process from where the people are. The way he does this is the main downfall of the scheme, because it breaks down the linear city aspect; there are two almost independent rail systems and routes, and possibility for disconnect between industrial production and the city. The overall scheme though has many benefits, keeping the buildings predominantly low rise, even though it is a very dense urban fabric. It also puts leisure program nearby for escape from the city conditions. The grid is the clear overarching structure, and adjusts its distance from the core based on the siting/context.

This scheme surprisingly did not take the new modernist style of buildings for the cityscape, and instead featured predominantly vernacular forms for housing.

Magnitogorsk Ivan Leonidov Ivan Leonidov’s proposal for Magnitogorsk is the best example of the Line + Grid linear city paradigm. While it does have its drawbacks, it most clearly exemplifies the key aspects of the scheme and sets itself apart from any other linear city plans. The use of the grid in this scheme allows Leonidov to accomplish many of Hilberseimer’s, Milutin’s, and Garnier’s goals. The grid allows for him to mix high-rise, mid-rise and lowrise buildings withing a field of greenspace. The programs all receive enough light and air due to spacing. The planning is also extremely heterogeneous. There are a few principles that guide development, but overall this scheme feels the most organic and improvised, allowing for interesting programmatic adjacencies and interactions. The biggest pros and cons come from this plan’s circulation. The main issue is that the grid still functions as an offshoot of the main line, reaching out cross axially. This limits ease of transportation through the territory as well as the movement and division of goods and people. However, the grid as a circulation system allows easy transit from any one place to another, and even features a branch on the exterior edge to allow people to circumvent large chunks of the gridded system, freeing up more movement.

125

126

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

REFERENCES

127

128

Ciudad Lineal Arturo Soria y Matta 1895 Line 0.5 Residential, Agriculture Villa Rural Families Street Tram

Une Cite Industrielle Tony Garnier 1904 Line + Grid 2.0 Residential, Industry Mid-Rise & Villa Urban Working Class Industrial Campus

Magnitogorsk Ivan Leonidov 1930 Line + Grid 3.0 Residential, Industry High-Rise Campus Family, Working Class Isolated Towers

Algiers Plan Le Corbusier 1933 Line + Ladder 2.0 Residential, Industry Mid-Rise Campus Immigrants Highway atop Housing

The Settlement Unit Ludwig Hilberseimer 1944 Line + Ladders 1.0 Residential, Industry, Agriculture Mid-Rise Campus Element Repetition

Replanning Rockford Illinois Ludwig Hilberseimer 1950 Line + Ladders 1.0 Residential, Industry, Agriculture Mid-Rise Campus Element Repetition

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

Roadtown Edgar Chambless 1910 Line 1.0 Residential, Agriculture Mid-Rise Rural Open Fields

Linear City on the Volga River N.A. Milutin 1929 Line 2.0 Residential, Industry, Agriculture Mid-Rise Campus Parallel Strips

La CitĂŠ LinĂŠaire Industrielle Le Corbusier 1938 Line + Ladder 1.5 Residential, Industry, Agriculture Mide-Rise Rural Connecting Existing Centers

Plan for London MARS 1942 Line + Grid 1.0 Residential, Industry, Agriculture High-Rise Campus Redistrubute Space

New Jersey Corridor Project Michael Graves 1965 Line 4.0 Residential, Industry High-Rise Rural Level Program Seperation

Snowpiercer Bong Joon-ho 2013 Line 1.0 Residential, Industry, Agriculture Apartment Rural Survivors Train

REFERENCES

129

DEFINITION OF “URBAN�

SOURCE: Demographic Yearbook 2005, table 6

AFRICA Botswana: Agglomeration of 5 000 or more inhabitants where 75 per cent of the economic activity is non-agricultural.

Burundi: Commune of Bujumbura.

Comoros: Administrative centres of prefectures and localities of 5 000 or more inhabitants.

Egypt: Governorates of Cairo, Alexandria, Port Said, Ismailia, Suez, frontier governorates and capitals of other governorates, as well as district capitals (Markaz).

Equatorial Guinea: District centres and localities with 300 dwellings and/or 1 500 inhabitants or more.

Ethiopia: Localities of 2 000 or more inhabitants.

Liberia: Localities of 2 000 or more inhabitants.

Malawi: All townships and town planning areas and all district centres.

Mauritius: Towns with proclaimed legal limits.

Niger: Capital city, capitals of the departments and districts Senegal: Agglomerations of 10 000 or more inhabitants.

South Africa: Places with some form of local authority.

Sudan: Localities of administrative and/or commercial importance or with population of 5 000 or more inhabitants.

Swaziland: Localities proclaimed as urban.

Tunisia: Population living in communes.

United Republic of Tanzania: 16 gazetted townships.

Zambia: Localities of 5 000 or more inhabitants, the majority of whom all depend on non-agricultural activities.

AMERICA, NORTH Canada: Places of 1 000 or more inhabitants, having a population density of 400 or more per square kilometre.

Costa Rica: Administrative centres of cantons.

Cuba: Population living in a nucleus of 2 000 or more inhabitants.

Dominican Republic: Administrative centres of municipalities and municipal districts, some of which include suburban zones of rural character.

El Salvador: Administrative centres of municipalities.

Greenland: Localities of 200 or more inhabitants.

Guatemala: Municipality of Guatemala Department and officially recognized centres of other departments and municipalities.

Haiti: Administrative centres of communes.

Honduras: Localities of 2 000 or more inhabitants, having essentially urban characteristics.

Mexico: Localities of 2 500 or more inhabitants.

Nicaragua: Administrative centres of municipalities and localities of 1 000 or more inhabitants with streets and electric light.

Panama: Localities of 1 500 or more inhabitants having essentially urban characteristics. Beginning 1970, localities of 1 500 or more inhabitants with such urban characteristics as streets, water supply systems, sewerage systems and electric light.

Puerto Rico: Agglomerations of 2 500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1 000 persons per square mile or more. Two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50 000 or more inhabitants and urban clusters of at least 2 500 and less than 50 000 inhabitants.

United States: Agglomerations of 2 500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1 000 persons per square mile or more. Two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50 000 or more inhabitants and urban clusters of at least 2 500 and less than 50 000 inhabitants.

U.S. Virgin Islands: Agglomerations of 2 500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1 000 persons per square mile or more. Two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50 000 or more inhabitants and urban clusters of at least 2 500 and less than 50 000 inhabitants. (As of Census 2000, no urbanized areas are identified in the U.S. Virgin Islands.)

AMERICA, SOUTH Argentina: Populated centres with 2 000 or more inhabitants.

Bolivia: Localities of 2 000 or more inhabitants.

Brazil: Urban and suburban zones of administrative centres of municipalities and districts.

Chile: Populated centres which have definite urban characteristics such as certain public and municipal services.

Ecuador: Capitals of provinces and cantons.

Falkland Islands (Malvinas): Town of Stanley.

1 Paraguay: Cities, towns and administrative centres of departments and districts.

Peru: Populated centres with 100 or more dwellings.

Suriname: Paramaribo town.

Uruguay: Cities.

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic: Centres with a population of 1 000 or more inhabitants.

ASIA

130

Armenia: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Azerbaijan: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Bahrain: Communes or villages of 2 500 or more inhabitants.

Cambodia: Towns.

China: Cities only refer to the cities proper of those designated by the State Council. In the case of cities with district establishment, the city proper refers to the whole administrative area of the district if its population density is 1 500 people per kilometre or higher; or the seat of the district government and other areas of streets under the administration of the district if the population density is less than 1 500 people per kilometre. In the case of cities without district establishment, the city proper refers to the seat of the city government and other areas of streets under the administration of the city. For the city district with the population density below 1 500 people per kilometre and the city without district establishment, if the urban construction of the district or city government seat has extended to some part of the neighboring designated town(s) or township(s), the city proper does include the whole administrative area of the town(s) or township(s).

Cyprus: Urban areas are those defined by local town plans.

Georgia: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

India: Towns (places with municipal corporation, municipal area committee, town committee, notified area committee or cantonment board); also, all places having 5 000 or more inhabitants, a density of not less than 1 000 persons per square mile or 400 per square kilometre, pronounced urban characteristics and at least three fourths of the adult male population employed in pursuits other than agriculture.

Indonesia: Places with urban characteristics.

Iran (Islamic Republic of): Every district with a municipality.

Israel: All settlements of more than 2 000 inhabitants, except those where at least one third of households, participating in the civilian labour force, earn their living from agriculture.

Japan: City (shi) having 50 000 or more inhabitants with 60 per cent or more of the houses located in the main built-up TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS areas and 60 per cent or more of the population (including their dependants) engaged in manufacturing, trade or other urban type of business. Alternatively, a shi having urban facilities and conditions as defined by the prefectural order is considered as urban.

Kazakhstan: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of

per kilometre or higher; or the seat of the district government and other areas of streets under the administration of the district if the population density is less than 1 500 people per kilometre. In the case of cities without district establishment, the city proper refers to the seat of the city government and other areas of streets under the administration of the city. For the city district with the population density below 1 500 people per kilometre and the city without district establishment, if the urban construction of the district or city government seat has extended to some part of the neighboring designated town(s) or township(s), the city proper does include the whole administrative area of the town(s) or township(s).

Cyprus: Urban areas are those defined by local town plans.

Georgia: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

India: Towns (places with municipal corporation, municipal area committee, town committee, notified area committee or cantonment board); also, all places having 5 000 or more inhabitants, a density of not less than 1 000 persons per square mile or 400 per square kilometre, pronounced urban characteristics and at least three fourths of the adult male population employed in pursuits other than agriculture.

Indonesia: Places with urban characteristics.

Iran (Islamic Republic of): Every district with a municipality.

Israel: All settlements of more than 2 000 inhabitants, except those where at least one third of households, participating in the civilian labour force, earn their living from agriculture.

Japan: City (shi) having 50 000 or more inhabitants with 60 per cent or more of the houses located in the main built-up areas and 60 per cent or more of the population (including their dependants) engaged in manufacturing, trade or other urban type of business. Alternatively, a shi having urban facilities and conditions as defined by the prefectural order is considered as urban.

Kazakhstan: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Korea, Republic of: Population living in cities irrespective of size of population.

Kyrgyzstan: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Malaysia: Gazetted areas with population of 10 000 and more.

Maldives: Malé, the capital.

Mongolia: Capital and district centres.

Pakistan: Places with municipal corporation, town committee or cantonment.

Sri Lanka: Urban sector comprises of all municipal and urban council areas.

Syrian Arab Republic: Cities, Mohafaza centres and Mantika centres, and communities with 20 000 or more inhabitants.

Tajikistan: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Thailand: Municipal areas.

Turkey: Population of settlement places, 20 001 and over.

Turkmenistan: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Uzbekistan: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Viet Nam: Urban areas include inside urban districts of cities, urban quarters and towns. All other local administrative units (commues) belong to rural areas.

EUROPE Albania: Towns and other industrial centres of more than 400 inhabitants.

2 Austria: Communes of more than 5 000 inhabitants.

Belarus: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Bulgaria: Towns, that is, localities legally established as urban.

Czech Republic: Localities with 2 000 or more inhabitants.

Estonia: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Finland: Urban communes. 1970: Localities.

France: Communes containing an agglomeration of more than 2 000 inhabitants living in contiguous houses or with not more than 200 metres between houses, also communes of which the major portion of the population is part of a multicommunal agglomeration of this nature.

Greece: Population of municipalities and communes in which the largest population centre has 10 000 or more inhabitants. Including also the population of the 18 urban agglomerations, as these were defined at the census of 1991, namely: Greater Athens, Thessaloniki, Patra, Iraklio, Volos, Chania, Irannina, Chalkida, Agrinio, Kalamata, Katerini, Kerkyra, Salamina, Chios, Egio, Rethymno, Ermoupolis, and Sparti.

Hungary: Budapest and all legally designated towns.

Iceland: Localities of 200 or more inhabitants.

Ireland: Cities and towns including suburbs of 1 500 or more inhabitants.

Latvia: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Lithuania: Urban population refers to persons who live in cities and towns, i.e., the population areas with closely built permanent dwellings and with the resident population of more than 3 000 of which 2/3 of employees work in industry, social infrastructure and business. In a number of towns the population may be less than 3 000 since these areas had already the states of “town” before the law was enforced (July 1994) Netherlands: Urban: Municipalities with a population of 2 000 and more inhabitants. Semi-urban: Municipalities with a population of less than 2 000 but with not more than 20 per cent of their economically active male population engaged in agriculture, and specific residential municipalities of commuters.

Norway: Localities of 200 or more inhabitants.

Poland: Towns and settlements of urban type, e.g. workers' settlements, fishermen’s settlements, health resorts.

Portugal: Agglomeration of 10 000 or more inhabitants.

Republic of Moldova: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Romania: Cities, municipalities and other towns.

Russian Federation: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

Slovakia: 138 cities with 5 000 inhabitants or more.

Spain: Localities of 2 000 or more inhabitants.

Switzerland: Communes of 10 000 or more inhabitants, including suburbs.

Ukraine: Cities and urban-type localities, officially designated as such, usually according to the criteria of number of inhabitants and predominance of agricultural, or number of non-agricultural workers and their families.

OCEANIA American Samoa: Agglomerations of 2 500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1 000 persons per square mile or more. Two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50 000 or more inhabitants and urban clusters of at least 2 500 and less than 50 000 inhabitants. (As of Census 2000, no urbanized areas are identified in American Samoa.)

Guam: Agglomerations of 2 500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1 000 persons per square mile or more, referred to as “urban clusters”.

New Caledonia: Nouméa and communes of Païta, Nouvel Dumbéa and Mont-Dore.

New Zealand: All cities, plus boroughs, town districts, townships and country towns with a population of 1 000 or more.

Northern Mariana Islands: Agglomerations of 2 500 or more inhabitants, generally having population densities of 1 000 persons per square mile or more. Two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50 000 or more inhabitants and urban clusters of at least 2 500 and less than 50 000 inhabitants.

Vanuatu: Luganville centre and Vila urban.

REFERENCES

3

131

PRINT Ballard, J. G. High Rise. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 1975. Print.

Benjamin, Walter. “Paris - Capital of the Nineteenth Century.” New Left Review I/48, March-April, 1968.

Berardi, Franco. “Futurability Map: Reframing the Conceptual Couple Utopia/Dystopia.” Utopia/Dystopia.

Mousse Publishing, 2017. Print.

Bertolini, David. “ Kant, Sade, Ethics and Architecture.” Architecture Post Mortem. New York: Ashgate Publishing, 2013. Print.

Braidotti, Rosi. “Affirmative Ethics, Sustainable Futures.” Utopia/Dystopia. Mousse Publishing, 2017. Print.

Brenner, Neil. “Introduction: Urban Theory Without an Inside.” Implosions / Explosions. Jovis Publishers, 2014. Print.

Brenner, Neil. “What is critical urban theory?” City, Vol. 13, No. 2-3, June-September 2009. Routledge.

Claeys, Gregory. Dystopia: A Natural History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Print.

Coleman, Nathaniel. “Building Dystopia.” Newcastle University.

Collins, George R. “Linear Planning Throughout the World.” Vol. 9, No. 54, April 1960, pp. 240-253. JSTOR. Constant, Caroline. “Hilberseimer and Caldwell.” CASE: Hilberseimer/Mies van der Rohe Lafayette Park Detroit. Waldheim, Charles. Prestel Publishing, 2004.

Deutinger, Theo. Handbook of Tyranny. Zurich: Lars Müller Publishers, 2018. Print.

Easterling, Keller. “Impossible.” Utopia/Dystopia. Mousse Publishing, 2017. Print.

Foucault Michel, “Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias,” Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité, October 1984.

Fourier, Charles. “New Material Conditions.” The Utopian Vision of Charles Fourier: Selected Texts on Work, Love, and Passionate Attraction, Jonathan Beecher and Richard Bienvenu. Boston: Beacon, 1972.

PDF.

Gadanho, Pedro. “Utopia/Dystopia: A Brief History of an Uncomfortable Duality.” Utopia/Dystopia. Mousse Publishing, 2017. Print.

Ghosn, Rania and El Hadi Jazairy. Geostories. New York: Actar Publishers, 2018. Print.

Hartoonian, Gevork. “Progress: Re-Building the Ruins of Architecture.” Architecture Post Mortem. New York: Ashgate Publishing, 2013. Print.

Harvey, David. Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

Holl, Steven. Pamphlet Architecture #13: Edge of a City. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991.

Print.

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. Communist Manifesto. New York: Prometheus Books, 1988. Print.

Moore, Alan and Dave Gibbons. Watchmen. DC Comics, 1986. Print.

Moore, Alan and David Lloyd. V for Vendetta. DC Comics, 1989. Print.

More, Thomas. Utopia. New York: Penguin Books, 2003. Print.

Pope, Albert. Ladders. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. Print.

Rice, Johnathan. Farewell, My Dudes: 69 Dystopian Haikus. Los Angeles: Hat & Beard Press, 2017. Print.

Tafuri, Manfredo. Architecture and Utopia. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1976.

Waldheim, Charles. “Weak Work: Andrea Branzi’s ‘Weak Metropolis’ and the Productive Potential of an ‘Ecological Urbanism.’”

132

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS

WEB Ahmed, Nazeef. “ This is how UN scientists are preparing for the end of capitalism.” The Independent. 12 September 2018. Web. Amadeo, Kimberly. “Late Stage Capitalism, It’s Characteristics, and Why the Term’s Trending.” The Balance. 24 August 2018. Web Anderson, Darren. “Future Shock in the Countryside.” The Atlantic. 2 November 2018. Web. Astudillo, Carla. “4 big ways that New Jersey’s demographics are changing.” NJ Advance Media. NJ.com, 10 December 2016. Web Dobbin, Murray. “The Crisis of Extreme Capitalism.” The Tyee. The Tyee, 15 July 2013. Web. Fatton, Dan. “Trends in New Jersey Land Use.” New Jersey Trends. November 2011. Web. Hughes, James W. and Joseph J. Seneca. “The State’s Many Economic Transformations.” New Jersey Business. New Jersey Business and Industry Association, 6 March 2014. Web. Mansnerus, Laura. “New Jersey Is Running Out Of Open Land It Can Build On.” New York Times. 24 May, 2003. Web. McLaughlin, John, et al. “New Jersey.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc, 2018. Web. “New Jersey Key Industry Clusters.” Office of Labor Planning and Analysis. Web. “New Jersey Population 2018.” World Population Review. September 2018. Web. United States Census Beureau. 2017.

PROJECT Hilberseimer, Ludwig. Vertical City. 1924.

Wright, Frank L. Broadacre City. 1932.

Rudolph, Paul. Lower Manhattan Expressway. 1971.

Dogma & OFFICE. A Grammar for the City. 2005.

Dogma. Stop City. 2008.

Soria y Matta, Arturo. Ciudad Lineal. 1895.

Garnier, Tony. Une Cite Industrielle. 1904.

Chambless, Edgar. Roadtown. 1910.

Milutin, N.A. Linear City on the Volga River. 1929.

Leonidov, Ivan. Magnitogorsk. 1930.

Le Corbusier. Algiers Plan. 1933.

Le Corbusier. La Cité Linéaire Industrielle. 1938.

MARS. Plan for London. 1942.

Hilberseimer, Ludwig. The Settlement Unit. 1944.

Hilberseimer, Ludwig. Replanning Rockford Illinois. 1950.

Graves, Michael. New Jersey Corridor Project. 1965.

REFERENCES

133

TERRITORIAL TRANSGRESSIONS THE (new) NEW JERSEY B. ARCH THESIS Honorable Mention: Thesis Prize Jury CO2019 SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY School of Architecture

RYAN OECKINGHAUS CONTACT: rsoeckin@syr.edu roeckinghaus.me@gmail.com +1-(908)-328-7621 ryanoeckinghaus.com

PRIMARY ADVISOR: Prof. Mitesh Dixit SECONDARY ADVISORS: Prof. Lawrence Chua Prof. Lawrence Davis

TYPEFACES: ADOBE TYPEKIT FONT PACK For Documentation with Adobe Live Curated by: Kendall Henderson

LAYOUT REFERENCES: MIGRANT JOURNAL PAMPHLET ARCHITECTURE 30 & 33 COMPARATIVE URBAN ATLAS IN CHICAGO - Domain Office

“Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth.”

- ALBERT CAMUS

RYAN OECKINGHAUS

B. ARCH THESIS

ryanoeckinghaus.com

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

CO2019