Made in New York by Stuart Beattie

MADE IN NEW YORK

MA D

PARK

TE R

CA RM EL. MT.

C6 -4A

-9 C1

100

118

CL PROL.

100

AV E.

80 S. 5 TH

ST.

S. 5 TH

-2

FRANKLIN

AV E.

ST N. . 10 10

ST .

R6A ST .

M R6 1-2 B /

A SC SQ E NZ . I

ST .

R6 B

M12/R F IL 6A AVR LI M E. O

PB B. POATH OL

100

MX-8

ST .

AV E.

BE RR Y

ST . ST .

MX-

P L. RE

100

HO PE

-2/R

ST.

100

6B ST.

MX-8

S. 2

DR IGG S

117

150

CL PROL. OF BROADWAY

SND T.

ST.

100

U.S.

R7A

KENT

R7-3

ST .

MX-8

100

R R66 ST. N RM6ETROPOBB . 3 RD R6A LITAN 100

ST .

2/ R6 B

AV E

ST .

2/ R6 ST . A

INA L RM TE

M1 R6 -2/

M1R6A4/ 210

.1 S

M TH 1-

AV E.

25 0

12/ R6 A

M1-2/R6A N

AGRA

DIS TR IC T

EA ST ER N

10 0

14 0

M3- 0 1

M1 -2/R 6

1-2/R 6B 200

MX-8 W

100

S. 1 TH

M3-

150

CL PRO L.

10 T

100

S. 3 RD S. 4 TH

10 0

DF O

150

M1 ST . -2/ R6A 100 R6 M B

S. 2 ND

C L PROL

15 0

PO LIT AN

100

CL PR OL. 235

C6-2

10 0

100

AV E.

C6-2 C6-2 CL PR R8 PROLOL. .

GRAN D

T PIT

-1

5 55 55 5

15 0

AV E.

CL PR OL

R8 R6

11 T

RR Y

GRAND FERRY PARK

KE NT

CELIC PLAZ A

M3-1

ST .

ST.

100

ST .

C6-2

IN R.

PR OL .

BK LY N.

CL PR O

BIA LY PL.- ST OK WILLE ER TT

.L.

ST.

N.S

100

ST.

PR O

INLET PARK

R7 A

AV EN UE

ST. ST.

ORN EY

LC P RO

N. 3

MA RT

ER MES V A

ME T

ST .

NCEY

ST.

AD BU LK HE

ST .

AT T

R8A

NCEY

100 100

QUAY

R7 A LO ISA IDA C

R7 A

100

10 0

AT T

CLINT ON

ST . ST .

R7-2

100

CALYER

M3-1

300

ST .

ORNE ST . Y

SUF FOLK

ST .

NOR F

AV EN UE

R7 A

100

ST.

R8 B

EN AV

10 0

FIR ST

ST.

OLK

DE LA 150

SUFF

HA R D ORC

100

ST.

75 S

225

ST.

DE LA

LUD LOW

ALL EN

ELD R

C6- GE 2G

C61 ESS EX

100

SYTH CHR

F OR

S AR A

100

R8 A

R7A

2A 100

C4-

R8 B

100

OLK

10 0

BRO O ME

YS TI E

ST.

ST .

C4-

TON

C6-

100

140

SQ .

PROL.

-2A ST.

125

150

130

10 0

ST.

PA RK

ST.

200

RO OS EV ELT

RIV IN G

100

C L

100 TZ

R8 B

PROL.

100

SE CO ND

C6-1 130

100

EMAN

C61

C63A 10

TON ST.

ST.

PE RE

AL.

FRE

100

R7 B

R7 A

PL .

100

S TO N

RID

ST .

100

H OU

C L

OL.

100

OL.

75 ST.

100

100 400 OAK

AVE.

NK BA ST.

NTO N ST.

14 0

NOBLE

100

RIV IN G

135

120

E. 1

150

E. 8

M1-2/R6A

100

ST A

80 120

150

100

150

E. 9

100

MILTON 400

R6 LC PR

100

150

210

R7 -2

ST .

100

M1-1

R8X

100

120

R7 -2

100

GREENPOINT

100

ST.

100

ST .

R8 B

100

275

KENT 150

100

R8 B

100

ST.

R6B ST.

JAVA

100

PR OL .

100

ST.

100

EX TR PL A .

R8 CL PROL.

PR OL .

100

275

100

R8 B

HURON

INDIA

100

STUYVESANT ST.

150

455

M1-2/R6B

100

ST.

100

R8 B E. 7

EA ST

100

ST.

100

CL PROL.

125

100

E. 9

100

ST .

GREEN

R6B

100

ST.

320

125

M1-2/R6A

-6A

100

-2A

100

CL PROL.

R6B

R6A

125

100

NT PK GREENPOI

100

FREEMAN 480

M1-1

C6 9 -3

100

M1-1

-1

100

R7 A

EAGLE

100

CLAY ST. 430

A M1-2/R6 ST. ST.

10 0

AVE

E. 1 2 TH

L C IA ER MM

DUPONT 200

125

M1-2/ R6 C

100

ST .

C1 -7

. ST

ST.

AV E.

AS RE SER CT CR EA LEVY R. TIO N

ST .

UA RD IA

0 15

707 7606 60

0 10

R6 R6

12 T

2 ND

150

-2

AVE.

AVE

125 101205

100

C1-9A

R8A

530

R7-3

75 AVE.

PARK

W17 TH

75 55 TH

5 EN 6 TH

50 50

100

125

100

11 T

R10

PL.

AVE.

M1-4 695

E-1

75 75 54 TH

100

100 AVE.

100

-6 C4

DIVI

CL PROL.

100

CL PROL.

M1-2

ST.

100

ST .

400

M1-2 400

PEARL

ST.

400

ST.

100

225

125

200

330

TAAFFE

C6-2

. AVE

50 DUFFIELD

SKIL LMAN

ST.

M1-2

100

-1

KENT

C4-3

FLUSHING

ST.

BILT

100

PL .

M1-2 VANDER

100 FR. JAMES F. HINCHEY C.O.

TILLAR Y

R6B

ST.

GE ED

ABOUT WALL

NT CLERMO

SH TBU

C6-2

M1-4 680

C4-3

106

M1-2/R6A

R6B

FLA CONCORD

NAVY

CL PROL.

NASSAU

175

R6B

235

150

300

235

C6-4

170

IDGE

ST. ST.

L IT TL E

AL.

ST.

M1-2/ R6

ADAMS

EVANS ST. H AR R ISON

ST.

90 0

YORK

AVE.

ST.

M1-5/R9-1 M1-2/R8

ST.

100

M1-2

R6B

400

FRONT

M1-4/ 200 R7A 125

ST.

150

ST.

WATER

HUDSON

M1-2/R8A

100

ST.

HOWARD AL.

ST.

100

BRIDGE

ST.

ST. 230

MAIN

DO CK ST.

M1-2/ R8

150

M1-4/R8A

E RAG HO ANC PL.

WATER

C6-2A

ST.

ADAMS ST.

JOHN

PLYMOUTH

SION

BRIDGE

MANHATTAN

100

DUPONT

EAGLE

ST.

RUSSELL

N AT TA

ST.

49 T

VAN DAM

R6 100

ST.

(GRAHAM

ST. AVE.

ST.

STAGG

100 SCHOLES

R6 B

ST.

R6B

MAUJER

100 TEN EYCK

AVENUE

ST.

100

CT.

ST.

WIC

100

LR OS

TIE

SANT

EC-4

AVE.

STUYVE

100

AVE. BE

110

AV E.

100

M 11 10

ISS

RENA

C4-4L cL

ANCE

R6A

100

AVE

ARLINGTON

R7A

R6A

100

ST.

R7A

NOLL

F. R

. T ST

100

DY DR. SAN

100

ES FORR

AVE. -

D BEDFOR

MYRTLE

R7A

ST.

100

0 ST

AVE.

100

R7D

ST.

R7D

C4-4L

GARVEY

-2

LEWIS

DNER-

R6A

STOCKTON cL

ST.

AVE.

JR. PL.

ELLERY

EC-4

HER KING

MARTIN LUT

R6A

WIX

ST.

MARCUS

ELLERY

DR. GAR

ST.

HOPKINS

R6B

REV.

PARK

THROOP

TOMPKI

FLUSHING

L IPP

cL .MARCY AVE

R7-1

A R7

100

100 IETH NT

100

R6A BE

100

STAN

COOK

ST.

RIM

R7A

AVE.

M1-2

ST.

VARET 100

RICO)

T WALLABOU CL PROL.

AVE.

MID

11 7-7RR

SQ.

ST.

PUERTO

51 ST

100

ST.

ST. CL

100

M SQ ACR I .

AVE. ST.

ST.

ST .

A ST. R6 2/

ST.

PR OL .

ST .

AVE.

ST. CL

CATHERINE

. E ST OL IV E OLIV

R6B CL

CL PROL

ST.

R7A 100

ETH

SHARON

AVE.

JUD

ST.

R6B

100

R6A

MA SP

R6B

125

100

R6A

GORE ER PK.

ORIE

100

200 CL

COOP

150

2 C8- 1500

R6B

R6B AVE.

MAS

RIAL

MEMO SQ.

WIC

ST.

E VO IS AVE.

R6 A PETH R6A

BUSH

M1 R6 -2/

DEBE

ST.

AVE.

OL .

AV E.

TH E

RY BE R LC

LC LC

R6 FO

BE D

0 10

MO RG

1 00

100

NTS

DR IG

ST.

R6B 80

E. AV

ARE AVE. - GRANDP

100

ST.

ST .

KINGSLAND

HUMBOLDT

100

MAS

KO SZ CIU

ST.

100

120

AVE.

ST.

R7A

100

C4-4A

125

100

0 10

R6B

POWERS

GRAND

R6B

R6A

DEVOE

100

170

NRY NORTH HE

AINSLIE

ST.

100 CL

SLIE

ST.

R6B

R7A

ITAN

100

ST.

250

AVE.

METROPOL 100

M1 R6 -2/ A

R6B

UCCI - VIA VESP GRAHAM AVE.

100

AIN

ST.

100

. R6 AVE.

100 SKILLMAN

CONSELYEA

R6A

100

8T ST H .

100 100

WITHERS

100

-8

L ME AR ER CARMEL . C EK MT. . MT ME SQ SQ.

MX-8

100

R6 2/ 1-

100

MANHATTAN

WITHERS ST. ER EK ME

YN KL OO

OUR LADY OF THE SNOWS SQ.

150

R6B

T ER RB

100

NS EE

ARD ST. LEON

100

RICHARDSON

ST. LORIME

10 0

AVE.UNION

ST . N.

ST. CONO STRA

FROST

10 0 ST .

A R6 E. -2/ AV

ST. RICHARDSON

M1-2/ R6A

100

ST.

R6 2/ 1M HE

100

TH O

MAS

PK.

Y PW EX

BAYARD

ST .

100

R6B

FIDELITY MEM.

. ST 0 10

WT NE

. ST

ST .

10 T

M1-2/ R6B

10 0

AVE.

100

ST . TH O

AVE.

DRIGGS

AVE.

M1-2/R6

100

UNION

M R7 1-2 A /

Y ARIT LID

HER SQ. F ATINSKI DZ ST U D. BLV

SO ES AWAL ARE SQU

100

ENGERT

M1-2/ R6

R6B

75 100

100

R6A

ST.

100

10 0

MX-8

12 T

11 T

M1-2/ CL R6B

SAU NAS

ST.

ST .

100

25 0

100

CL TH

100

ST.

100

R VE.

RNS GUE

100

A R7

100

K BRAN KE

ST.

M1-1 OLE

M1-2/ R6

50 TH

100

IMER

100

LOR

ST.

300

100

R6B

170

IDG E CL

C4 -

125

MANH

150

NA LEO

150

MILTON

CLCLPPR ROOL. L.

100

AVE.

100

GREENPOINT

NO. HENERY

ST. 100

KENT

GSRT A. ND

48 TH

ST.

R6B

45 TH

ST.

JAVA

R5D

. AVE

R6B

INDIA

44 TH

KINGSLAND

HURON

ST.

GREEN

R6A

R7A

McGUINNESS

ST.

GREEN

105

ST.

ST.GREEN APEN GEORGE

150

AVE .

ST.

FREEMAN

100

ST.

100

M1-2/R6

PAID GE

100

-2/1-2/R6A M1M

43 RD

MX-8

ST.

100

200 145

M1-2

. ST BOX ST. BOX 300 300

M3-1

PULASKI

ST.

ASH

40 TH

M1-2

373

M1-2

IN PO

CLAY

125

39 TH

M1-5/R7X

M1-4

100

M1-4/R6A

/R6B

100

M1-4

AVE.

MADE IN NEW YORK

-4

Stuart Beattie, University of Cambridge Department of Architecture, Sidney Sussex College A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MPhil in Environmental Design in Architecture (Option B) 2014 - 15,754 words 4

MADE IN NEW YORK EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL OF VERTICAL URBAN INDUSTRY

Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Centre, Brooklyn MADE IN NEW YORK

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank a number of people who have contributed towards the completion of this design thesis. Firstly Ingrid Schroder, Alex Warnock Smith and Joris Fach of the University of Cambridge for their assistance and direction throughout the development of the design project and thesis. I would also like to extend special thanks to Ben Huff and Mark Breeze for their continued support throughout the thesis. Mark Breeze, University of Cambridge Department of Architecture Ben Huff, Analyst at New York City Department of Environmental Protection, formerly of NYCEDC Laura Wolf-Powers, Assistant Professor City & Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania Graham Stirk, Head of Design, Rogers, Stirk, Harbour + Partners Jesper Eis Eriksen, University of Cambridge Department of Architecture Tanvir Shams Qureshi, University of Cambridge Department of Engineering Cory Nestor, Architectural Researcher and Designer Karl Larocca, Kayrock Screenprinting, Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Centre, Brooklyn Jesse Kane-Hartnett, Photographer, Brooklyn Steve Romaleski, Center for Urban Research at the City University of New York Graduate Center Finally, I am extremely grateful to my family and friends for their patience and support throughout. S.B. July, 2014

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. 8

Collapsed warehouse, Greenpoint

MADE IN NEW YORK

ABSTRACT In the past few decades the world economy has seen a global shift of industry and manufacturing eastwards to the emerging markets of China and India purely for economic efficiency and not innovation. The rate at which urban populations are expanding will impact upon how we perceive the strategies of sustaining our cities with regards to supply and demand. The rise of global cargo shipping has seen the ability of local industries to move their production to areas of low labour, tax and land costs. However, the onset of rising labour costs in East Asia, higher transportation costs, a weaker dollar, rising U.S. productivity and cheaper energy are only enhancing the argument for more localised production that is closer to the consumer. The population of New York City is forecast to grow by 12% to 9.4 million people in the next two decades resulting in a current city-wide acute affordable housing shortage. Manufacturing land in the city is perceived by planners as a viable outlet for the expansion of residential development, forcing a gradual decentralisation and extinction of local industries which are inherent to a wider network of urban ecologies within New York. In addition to a declining manufacturing sector, not aided by recent re-zonings or passive policy measures, the pressure on manufacturers to relocate in the face of development-led socio-spatial conflicts will only grow exponentially with a burgeoning population and an ever increasing reliance on imports. Economically diverse cities such as New York, with a substantial inventory of old, functionally unsuitable factory structures have the capacity to look at the new innovative and flexible industrial methods to revive manufacturing locally and regionally. However, the assumption that the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s manufacturers are a dying breed or an anachronism epitomises the enormous challenge that the sector faces. This project investigates, in a world of free trade and rapid globalisation, the possibility of an alternative to inefficient horizontal industrial sprawl by considering the prospect of a new vertiginous architectural typology in the form of a vertical factory devoted to the stabilisation and re-integration of manufacturing in inner city Brooklyn. These interventions aim to act as a compromise to residential development aspirations and the shortage of suitable industrial land. The new typological approach speculates the re-establishment of the once prominent manufacturing economy in the face of malign policy neglect and the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s focus to sustain New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economy primarily through finance, insurance and real-estate initiatives.

MADE IN NEW YORK

GLOSSARY NYCDCP - (New York City Department of City Planning) - A governmental agency of New York City responsible for setting the framework of Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s planning methods. The department is responsible for land-use and environmental reviews, preparing in-depth planning regulations, zoning and policies. NYCEDC - (New York City Economic Development Corporation) - Non-profit organisation that oversees the sale and development of city-owned property through the use of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s assets IBZ - (Industrial Business Zone) - Creating a competitive advantage over locating in areas outside of New York City. The IBZs are supported by tax credits for relocating within them, zone-specific planning efforts, and direct business assistance from Industrial Providers of NYC Business Solutions Industrial and Transportation Empire Zones - 82 within NYC - Free enterprise zones set-up in 1999 in order to encourage businesses, including manufacturers, to locate within the designated area in order to receive tax benefits in a time of economic hardship. Up-zoning - Classifying property as having higher usage than it was considered to have before IPIPS - (In Place Industrial Park) - Formerly 8 within NYC - provides businesses with assistance in purchasing city-owned land, area improvements, marketing, financing and utility programs ULURPS - Uniform Land Use Review Procedure - A standardized procedure whereby applications affecting the land use of the city would be publicly reviewed through several administration reviews and hearings. Creative Class - A new socio-economic class, coined by social theorist Richard Florida, whose ability to spur regional economic growth through innovation is key in the post-industrilaised cities of the United States. 12

CONTENTS

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

O5 THE VERTICAL FACTORY

Aims and Objectives Methodology and Limitations Existing Literature What Does Manufacturing Mean to New York City?

Design Re-Evolution Project #1 Project #2 Masterplan Resisting Residential Development Accumulation An Industrial Paradigm Study Area Site 003 - Residential Context Site 002 - Industrial Context Site 001 - East River Design Drawings Programmatic Layout Interior Composition The Facade of Industry

O1 AN INDUSTRIAL RE-EVOLUTION De-centralised Industrial Shifts An Industrial Framework Reshoring Manufacturing Made Out of New York City

O2 GREENPOINT, BRKLYN Greenpoint, Brooklyn Characteristics Local Industrial Fabric Photographic Analysis

O3 A NEW INDUSTRIAL URBANISM The Rise of the Creative Class The Cluster The Tower - A pre-conceived design discourse? Massing Strategies Strategic Approach

CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH Bibliography Interviews Image Credits Appendix

Typological Analysis Vertical Factory Typology Local Industrial Fabric Global Industry Typology Manufacturing Process Analysis

04 ZONING AND THE IMPACT ON THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT Problem Pressuring Brooklyn Land Use Policy Industrial Zoning and Acquisition Planning Policy and Zoning IBZ Ratification Zoning Amendments Mass Redevelopment Scenarios

MADE IN NEW YORK 13

Oak Street, Greenpoint. Looking west towards Manhattan

MADE IN NEW YORK

INTRODUCTION

New York is a global city - A capital of capital. The City has a burgeoning population which has stemmed from huge investment and development input. The rise of developing countries, particularly China due to inexpensive workforces as well as land and tax incentives, has brought about a gradual expulsion of manufacturers from New York. In addition, the inability to compete with cheaper imports is resulting in what it referred to as a crisis in the manufacturing sector. In order to facilitate the continued success that the city has encountered based upon rapid local and global socio-economic shifts, urban planning has concentrated on residential, commercial and tertiary service sectors with the goal of maintaining economic momentum whilst passively addressing the City’s manufacturing base. In 2007, then Mayor Bloomberg announced PlaNYC1 which planned to accommodate population growth up to the year 2030 with the ambition to provide 265,000 affordable housing units through radical zoning reform particularly in zones designated for industrial use (New York City Department of Planning, 2010). Current passive zoning and urban planning policies have been ineffective towards the retention of manufacturers, resulting in scarcer industrial spaces and further up-zoning uncertainty supported by diminishing government funding (McEnery, 2014). New York is at a crossroads of residential development and industrial retention. As post-industrial development proliferates in the outer boroughs, the Brooklyn waterfront is slowly being purged of its manufacturing roots in favour of boxy residential towers (Burdett, 2010). The new focus towards rezoning with emphasis towards residential and commercial developments as primary economic stimuli is inadvertently forcing local manufacturers to relocate. Although it can be argued that the creative industries, FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) services have helped to improve New York City’s employment, a solid manufacturing base would continue to keep it stable (Huff, 2012). With the recent change of administration in the City in early 2014 after one of the most concentrated construction periods for generations, those manufacturers who are being threatened by the constant uncertainty of up-zoning are hopeful, at least, that new Mayor Bill De Blasio’s political agenda will retain and build upon the city’s industrial base. However the local policies themselves seem to be embedded in the administration’s holistic rhetoric of global economic imperatives for the city as a whole that will, without doubt, further the expulsion of manufacturing in the city. This research project aims to encourage a more self-sufficient urban manufacturing sector by investigating the notion of a vertical factory archetype in Greenpoint/ Williamsburg, Brooklyn and how such a proposal can be integrated into the city’s economy. It examines the importance of small-scale manufacturers to the urban economy, arguing that flexibility, creativity and innovation deemed to be the hallmarks of the new creative economy are augmented in comparison to traditional manufacturing enclaves. Learning from an examination of the conditions that inform the new manufacturing typology, the design is used as an instrument in parallel with academic debate and political rhetoric, to explore the reintroduction of industry in New York

PlaNYC is a legislation to prepare the city for one million more residents, to strengthen the economy, and combat climate change, and enhance the quality of life for all New Yorkers

2011 Import Volume

% of NY/NJ Trade

China Italy India Germany Netherlands France Japan Brazil

27.2% 6.6% 6.3% 5.9% 3.3% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0%

The Port Authority of NY & NJ [PANYNJ] The Port Authority of NY & NJ (PANYNJ)

US Exports $5,800 million

U.S. - China Trade Balance

US Imports $27,914 million US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division

70 60 50 40 30 20

Imports

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

Exports 1991

Oceanborne Bulk and General Cargo (millions tns)

Port Authority of New Jersey and New York Trade Statistics, 2011

MADE IN NEW YORK 17

Population per square mile - 500 - 1000 - 1000 - 2500 - 2500 - 5000 - > 5000

25m

Source: US. Census Bureau Census 2000 Summary File 1 population by census tract.

New York State industry is located outside the major population centres of Buffalo and Syracuse in the north and New York City in the south. Expense, economies of scale, room for expansion amongst others encourages industry to locate out of the compact, high priced inner city areas. 18

- Major Manufacturing and Service Nodes, NY State

Advanced Machinery, Medical Equipment and Supplies, Transportation, Equipment and Vehicle Parts

Food processing, Wood Processing, Plastic Products, Transportation Equipment

Food Processing

Warehouse and Distribution

Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical 25m Computers/ Electronic Components and Equipment

Source: NYSEG, 2011

Advanced Materials, Ceramics, Optics and Imaging

MADE IN NEW YORK

44°N NEW YORK STATE

BOSTON

43°N

42°N

41°N

PHILADELPHIA

BALTIMORE

NEW YORK CITY

40°N

40°34’N - 73°59’ W 8.33 million people 3.6% zoned manufacturing (5,498 acres) 6,500 manufacturers 81,000 manufacturing jobs 39°N

WASHINGTON D.C.

38°N

37°N

36°N

35°N N

34°N

N WIDER INTERRELATED URBAN ECOLOGIES AND PRINCIPLE SHIPPING ROUTES

MADE IN NEW YORK

WOOD, PAPER AND PRINTING

16.0%

12.3%

COMPUTERS % ELECTRONICS

9.9%

CHEMICAL, PLASTIC AND MATERIAL

12.3%

TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT

9.9%

MISCELLANEOUS

MACHINERY

13.9%

FURNITURE

4.8%

FOOD AND BERVERAGE

3.5%

TEXTILES & APPAREL

24.4%

US MANUFACTURING CLUSTERS: EMPLOYMENT BREAKDOWN, 2012 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

9.25

1,000,000

NYC Manufacturing Jobs

8.75

800,000 8.50

600,000

8.25

8.00

400,000 7.75

7.50

200,000

7.25

1942

1947

1952

1957

1962

1967

1972

1977

1982

1987

1992

1997

2002

2007 2010

2020

2030

7.00

New York State Department of Labour New York Department of City Planning

UNITED STATES

NEW YORK CITY

Small Size - majority employ fewer than 10 workers

Small Size - Majority have fewer than 10 workers

Well Established Value - U.S. share of global manufacturing value has held steady since 1980 at 22%

Well Established Firms - 60% have operated in NYC more than 20 years

Aging workforce - Average age of worker is 56

Rental Market - 60% lease their industrial properties

Competitive Pay - The average hourly wage is $24.47

Family Owned - Almost 75% of firms are family owned

NYCEDC, 2013

NYC Population Projection (millions)

9.00

FOOD AND BEVERAGE Transformation of livestock and plants into products for consumption, including alcohol and tobacco

MISCELLANEOUS Production of items such as sports goods and jewelry that require specialised manufacturing processes

TEXTILE APPAREL & LEATHER Production of apparel or materials for apparel, including weaving, tanning, cutting and sewing

GA RM EN TD IST

E ID

N ,M CT RI

CI T

BROOKLYN

T TAN/ NHA MA

FURNITURE AND RELATED PRODUCTS

Production of wood products, converting pulp to paper products and pritning such as newspapers

KLY

TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT Production of equipment for transporting people and goods, including cars, trains and trucks

WOOD, PAPER & PRINTING

LYN

QUEENS

BR O OK

Production of furniture and related articles, including design and developemnt of such products

NHA T TAN

S EEN

COMPUTERS AND ELECTRONICS

METALS AND MACHINERY

Production of computers and electronics of their components

Transformation of ore into metal products by way of refining, smelting, heat treating, assembly et al

PETROLEUM, CHEMICAL, PLASTIC & MINERAL Transformation of raw materials such as petroleum, mineral and rubber into useable products

NYCEDC, 2013

THE INDUSTRIES OF NEW YORK

Percent of total NYC Manufacturing Sector by Employment, 2012

>5%

~10%

2002 - 2012 NYC Employment

~20%

MADE IN NEW YORK

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The following body of research will address the following questions: 01 How can an architectural approach be adopted to support and promote local and city wide manufacturing through the creation of a new industrial spatial paradigm and urban ecology within the diverse urban eclecticism of New York? 02 In constrained, dense urban environments could certain industries be designed to act vertically to prevent unnecessary horizontal manufacturing sprawl and to be integrated on a wider urban ecology involving multiple production networks? 03 Can alternative policy and zoning measures be suggested to alleviate the onset of non-industrial development and up-zoning speculation? METHODOLOGY The subsequent design research will establish a framework from which an alternative academic discourse can be explored through both urban and social parameters, drawing upon various intrinsic areas of theoretical debate. Drawing on extensive academic literature within the field, urban policy and real estate data, this design research aims to convey an alternative method of sustaining and stabilising the declining manufacturing sector. I will draw upon local, global and vertical precedents of the factory dynamic that will inform the basis from which a well versed design response can be established. The initial pilot research resulted in a series of extensive industrial volumes that catered towards large multinationals whose â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;onshoringâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; process would require stacked manufacturing provision. This design/ research thesis not only seeks to build upon the initial findings and principles but to act as a bridge between the quantitative and qualitative constraints subsequently revealing further parameters that would otherwise be unobserved. Prior to the completion of the final scheme proposal, I was employed for seven months with Wilkinson Eyre Architects in London on the Crown Sydney Skyscraper which, once built, will be the tallest skyscraper in Sydney. This placement period offered invaluable experience with regards to skyscraper procurement, design, structure, faĂ§ade systems, the sensitive focus on ground condition and logistics all which have been explored within the final design scheme. During this period I conducted widespread academic research supported by the thorough investigation surrounding principle issues within the study area of Greenpoint, Brooklyn supported by primary insights into the nature of the design proposal.

Noble and West Street, Greenpoint, Brooklyn MADE IN NEW YORK

In February 2014, a one week period of field research was conducted in New York. This consisted of a series of interviews with local planners, manufacturers and those who have been indirectly connected with the pressing urban situation which provided further curious insights into the wide-ranging effects of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disregard of local industry. Additionally, extensive primary field research was conducted through the analysis of industry with the Greenpoint and Williamsburg district of Brooklyn along with thorough photographic surveys. Consequently, the research is grounded in primary observations along with a understanding over the policy and zoning dynamics with regards to industry in the city. This thesis does not aim to provide a conclusive design solution but to offer a prospective manifesto that challenges the current political and social perceptions around inner city manufacturing. Additionally, the research aims to promote the architectural rhetoric as a viable pragmatic alternative as opposed to passively dislodge the substantial underutilised potential that the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s manufacturing sector has to offer. The iterative process, through which the design approach was developed, investigates the impact on a range of fundamental scales that concentrates on the sensitive residential ground condition to the aesthetic factory paradigm that the project exhibits within the eclectic citywide scale. Each configuration of the production ecology is assessed through readdressing key areas of academic research that supports the design interventions. This design proposal intends to provide an alternative political and planning approach which responds to both the issues encountered by overlooked local manufacturers and to challenge long established trends associated with the political economic preference of neo-liberal development policies.

North 10th Street and Wythe, Greenpoint, Brooklyn

MADE IN NEW YORK

EXISTING LITERATURE The following design research aims to engage with the state of the manufacturing sector in New York City through several distinct avenues of academic discourse highlighting the role that the built environment could have on the circumstances of New York's manufacturers. This will be conducted through addressing the works of urban theorists along with current academic debate surrounding various interconnected urban issues. The analysis revolves around the debate of New York's neoliberal urban policies2 and the apparent disregard of the manufacturing sector as a whole in the city's impending economic stimulus plans in order to sustain a global city standing (Sassen, 2001). Experiencing a policy culture of a new neoliberal urbanism (Harvey, 2011) with the primary focus on FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate), the manufacturers of New York are considered obsolete and a hindrance (Tabb, 1982) for economic progression. However, in studies by Todtling and Trippl (2008), who advocate the reintroduction and retention of industry, and especially the works of Campo (2010) and Curran (2010) through their in-depth studies of the socio-economic spatial qualities of the Williamsburg waterfront of Brooklyn, who argue for the re-appropriation of new industry within the area and the protection of informal community spaces that have resulted in a vibrant economic and cultural base that should not be gentrified in conjunction with other large FIRE building projects occurring throughout the city. The argument is further enhanced by Jacobs (1993) and Glaeser (2005) who claim the existence of manufacturing in an area has always spurred innovation, for manufacturing and its multiplier effects created employment opportunities that drew migrants to the city and led to further manufacturing by creating the potential for social, cultural and economic innovation. Current debate tends to argue that a focus on the global financial and cultural sectors as the most important, and indeed only, source of economic prosperity leads urban governments to ignore the diversity and potential of local urban economies (Curran and Hanson, 2005; Brandes Gratz, 2010). Other cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles have enacted successful policies to preserve manufacturing without compromising their viability as global cities (Curran and Hanson, 2005). This issue is also referred to in Jane Jacobs' book, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Economy of Citiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, in which she argues that economies that do not add new kinds of goods and services, but continue only to repeat old work, do not expand much nor do they by definition develop (Jacobs, 1969) - advocating for mixed use districts; a situation resembling the current economic rhetoric of the New York Planning Department. Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in the nature of localised growth in the urban spatial economy. An intense focus on a new form of urban agglomeration in the form of innovative regional clusters, a concentration of interconnected companies, has been extensively researched and praised through such studies by Porter (1995); Katz and Muro (2010); Cumbers and MacKinnon,(2004); Gordon and McCann (2000), and Glaeser, (2000) amongst others. In Porter's much revered articles (1995, 2000) he 2

a form of urbanism subordinated to the idea of capital, where urban powers attempt to position their cities in higher positions of a hierarchical global city network in which competitiveness is key

argues that US cities continue to display advantages in a new 'creative economy' which could revitalise the local urban economy and sustain global competitive advantage, once remedial policy actions are implemented. Yet the majority of studies, however, have been mostly empirical: aside from the critical analysis by Todtling and Trippl (2005), Milligan (2003) and, Rappaport, (2011) and Crespo, (2013), there has been little academic consideration from the perspective of the built environment as a significant catalyst within the role of potential inner city industrialisation in conjunction with the popular clustered economic model. Following from Porter's articles the research aims to provide an alternative approach on how manufacturing can be re-introduced into a clustered industrial hub within inner city New York which serves to enhance the role of industry within the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s numerous entwined urban ecologies. Amin states, the contemporary city finds its realised or potential strengths in new advantages of agglomeration and proximity serving clusters or interrelated industries, strategic resources of the information economy, and 'node' and 'hub' functions in networks of global flow (Amin, 2010). In conjunction with a resounding focus towards regional industrial clusters as an untapped urban resource, a subsidiary notion that requires inclusion is, according to such works most notably of Florida (2004); Peck, (2005) and Lucas (1988), the creative capital or 'Creative Class' that would otherwise allow these regional industrial clusters to thrive. However as Sawidei (2003) and Land and Danielsen (2005) state, Florida's arguments are largely based on some suggestive correlations and that Florida fails to sufficiently justify how and why geography and place matter in the making of the Creative Class. Glaeser (2005) points to New York's historical agglomerations in the garment and publishing industries and the relationship that the 'creative' clusters had to the city's role as the nation's premier port. The continued dialogue that echoes the support for alternative socio-economic and political standpoints pertains to the fact that the city has an untapped array of industrial potential that has the ability to be a major provocation in stabilising the regional economic and cultural base against a perceived notion of neglect. The majority of the literature in the field re-iterates the need for manufacturing to remain as a foundation of any western de-industrialised city; and retain and utilise the vast economic potential that migrants have on the industrial sector. However, it is generally considered from academic rhetoric concerning the situation of industrial New York that the immediate future has no consideration of the remaining 'obsolete' manufacturers in New York's outer boroughs, as the current economic initiatives that attempt to alleviate the pressing onset of gentrification will take decades to implement. A new, innovative focus from the perspective of the built environment in the form of pioneering vertical industrial agglomerations would hope to stimulate further alternative discourse in what appears like an ever futile outcome for the city's manufacturers. This discussion will aim to not only to bolster the perceived physical domain of the manufacturing sector but also to politicise the built environment opportunity as a viable alternative to the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s neoliberal urban attitudes.

MADE IN NEW YORK

Noble and West Street, Greenpoint, Brooklyn. The former location of the Greenpoint Terminal Market

WHAT DOES MANUFACTURING MEAN FOR THE FUTURE OF NEW YORK CITY?

NYC Manufacturing Workforce 78% are people of colour 64% are immigrant 82% live in the outer boroughs 2000 Census; 2004 American Community Survey

The manufacturing sector across the whole country has been a topic of much deliberation with the focus on industries outsourcing jobs to countries who offer cheap labour, land and tax incentives which has dramatically affected the once burgeoning domestic blue collar workforce. Manufacturing has long been associated with the dominance of New York City as a powerhouse of the nation providing employment for a large percentage of the City’s population. Of the imports that come through the ports of New York and New Jersey, over 27% originate solely from China (PNJNY, 2012) highlighting the over-reliance on overseas goods. With the rising shipping and oil costs, the growth of the middle class in China and a weaker U.S. dollar, there is a foreseeable equilibrium in the inter-urban global city competition between the world’s largest economies, thus providing an opportunity for a revival of manufacturing in the United States. In New York’s post-Fordist, de-centralised urban condition, the focus on manufacturing is directed towards high tech industries that require a highly skilled labour force and smaller building footprints that contribute towards the transient modernisation and evolution of the sector as a whole. The industrial spatial demand tends towards the small and medium sized properties for single use tenants, however these spaces are limited and becoming scarcer. In a 2003 interview with the Financial Times then Mayor Bloomberg stated that ‘if you are a pharmaceutical company or a steel company, you do not need to be here. New York City should not waste its time on manufacturing’ which epitomises the pre-determined strategy for Bloomberg’s tenure. The administration’s focus towards re-zonings, with a passive preference towards residential developments as catalysts for economic stimuli, are forcing manufacturers to relocate due to excessive rental costs, incremental upzoning and prolonged uncertainty over potential ambiguous policy and zoning measures. To counter-act the issue the Bloomberg administration has employed a passive pro-manufacturing Zeitgeist brought about through 22 initiatives in addition to the inclusion of Industrial Business Zones (IBZ), financial aid and business support to preserve valuable manufacturing districts. However the success of these measures are unsubstantiated in the newly formed De Blasio administration. As stated in a report ‘Designed in New York/Made in New York’ (1997) (Gratz, 2010) “Although manufacturing in New York struggles with high costs and a continual need to reinvent itself, the frequent public pronouncements of its demise are premature. Twelve thousand firms employing a quarter of a million production workers endow New York with what is still one of the densest concentrations of manufacturing in the United States.” However, the decline of the industry since was unremitting and was being exacerbated politically and financially by the former administration to facilitate a mass city-wide housing shortage. The City’s 6000 manufacturing sector firms employ more than 81,000 New Yorkers (Made in NYC, 2011) and provides vast underutilised economic potential which should not be dismissed as obsolete. The demand for locally produced goods remains strong yet the potential is being undermined by policies that do not contribute sufficiently towards the prospective retention of local manufacturers.

MADE IN NEW YORK

THE PERCEPTION OF INDUSTRY The dynamic of the manufacturing sector within New York has undergone dramatic shifts in both the functional and spatial requirements that are resulting a potential for new innovative factories that are more dispersed and less segregated by zoning and land-use regulations. Small, niche light industries are evolving to the pressures of operating in the city through locating in renovated, state owned, industrial property such as Industry City and the Brooklyn Navy Yard3, however, the planning and zoning policy is eroding the ability of manufacturers to easily operate elsewhere in the city. It is important to rethink what is meant by ‘manufacturing’ particularly in the wider urban ecologies and not the broad perceptions and outmoded associations of industry with hermetic, high polluting industrial environments. Contemporary factories today are comprised of small, local, high tech workshops, bio-technology firms and neo-cottage industries that are contributing to the diverse nature of New York’s economy. These are cleaner, sustainable environments that are slowly beginning to occur more frequently throughout the city in response to an ever-changing economic and political landscape. The following chapters will aim to establish an alternate method and perception as to the evolution of vertical urban manufacturing; one that results in a scenario where manufacturing can occur more frequently across the city; less bound by the neoliberal land-use policies and to engage and educate the public with industry as an integrated, didactic system.

The Brooklyn Navy Yard provides a unique model for urban industry. It preserves stable space and advanced infrastructure for its tenants on Brooklyn’s waterfront whilst public subsidies are invested in upgrading other buildings to accommodate smaller, more nimble manufacturers.

Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Centre, Brooklyn

MADE IN NEW YORK

O1 AN INDUSTRIAL RE-EVOLUTION â&#x20AC;&#x153;Urban manufacturing is often unrecognised by economic development experts and planners, or misunderstood as an anachronism [...] This is a mistakeâ&#x20AC;? Sakia Sassen, Economist, November 2010, The European Magazine

MADE IN NEW YORK 35

DE-CENTRALISED INDUSTRIAL SHIFTS

Once industrial heartland of the nation, New York possessed the largest manufacturing sector of any city within the United States. It owes its rapid urban expansion to the construction of the expansive railroad networks, ports, canals and a constant influx of immigrants. This contributed towards a burgeoning population upon which the city flourished to become an international trade capital capable of responding to broad geo-economic global transformations. The early 20th Century vertiginous, capitalist extrusions of Manhattan intermixed with clusters of polluting factories led to the momentous 1916 zoning resolution which forced many manufacturers to relocate beyond Manhattan to ‘unrestricted’ areas outside of the borough. Post-war prosperity brought along a steady decentralisation of firms to the suburbs of the city to overcome land and building constraints. This resulted in abandoned, industrial structures scattered throughout central areas of the city which were considered obsolete in a new industrial age, such as those in Red Hook and Long Island City, showing the transition away from a manufacturing-centric economy. With little competition from the European economy in the post-war era, it enabled New York to preside as a major global financial centre stimulated by international trade from the emerging international economic markets. This triggered the primary focus of New York’s development towards fiscal and tertiary service industries such as finance, insurance and real estate. “Since the 1950s, the city has lost more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs in industries such as clothing, publishing and electronics. In the 1970 census, workers in service industries outnumbered workers in manufacturing activities for the first time.” (Nestor Rodriguez, p40, 2006) GLOBALISATION With the suburbanisation of industry, rise in containerised global shipping and telecommunications, the global market became easily accessible for many firms. Proximity to the main consumer bases no longer needed to be local resulting in the outsourcing of many manufacturers to countries that offered financial incentives, inexpensive swathes of unoccupied land, tax incentives and cheap mass labour. Since the advent of globalisation there has been industrial reorganisation responding to the current dynamic of economic prosperity in the city due to the relocation abroad of many of the city’s former manufacturers. The sector is stagnating, with fewer jobs, scarcer space and weak, almost passive policies that threaten the prominence and confidence in the manufacturing sector in a 21st century fiscally orientated New York.

1964

29%

1980

20%

2005

only

Burnett, 2010 Percentage of New York’s population employed in the manufacturing sector

Abandoned asphalt factory, Newtown Creek, Long Island City, Queens

MADE IN NEW YORK

AN INDUSTRIAL FRAMEWORK Built upon a foundation of what was a burgeoning manufacturing sector, when, at the turn of the 20th Century the city had 12,000 firms employing more than 500,000 workers, New York City has seen rapid urbanisation amid periods of serious economic, social and political change. In an age of a globalised market and shifting economic influences, New York City’s over-reliance on importing (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 2012) in addition to higher supply chain expenditures only enhances the argument for sourcing production closer to the consumer - a return to localised production and a potential change to the industrial urban landscape. The following section will focus on the key land-use zoning breakthroughs and subsequent issues from 1900 through to the present day. The nature of this study necessarily limits its scope to the effects on the manufacturing sector and how certain zoning measures can, if possible, be applied in order to alleviate pressures on the industry thus preserving the possibility of localised production. With the ‘inadvertent’ expulsion of manufacturing in New York City due to recent zoning changes brought on by socio-economic and geo-political shifts, how could the industrial sector respond once more to changes in policy and economic uncertainty? MADE IN NEW YORK CITY Factories have been markers: of revolution, technical and social, of innovation, in design and in process, of their moment, politically and economically. (Darley, 2003, p. 8). The advent of a ‘Culture of Congestion’ (Koolhaas, 1978, p. 125) in the New York metropolis has brought about a transformation towards a highly technological and automotive dependant society. This society is intermixed with the symbolic capitalist archetypes of authority that determine the paradigm for a post-Fordist westernised city. When mass industrialisation took hold in the early 20th century, New York was the trade capital of the United States attracting large numbers of economic migrants from Europe which provoked rapid urban expansion and the beginnings of a city built on manufacturing. The industrial heritage of New York is primarily built around its infrastructural network of ports, railroads and canals that enabled swift transportation of goods and services in a capitalist consumer era. Links were vast extending from the Erie Canal (1825),which connected industrial Buffalo and the Great Lakes in the north and the connection of Boston and New York with Chicago and St Louis with the New York Central Railroad (1869).

1. Looking towards downtown Manhattan with the dense smog hanging over the city, 1953 2. New York manufacturing at its height - The Garment District - West 35th Street , looking east between Seventh and Eighth Avenues, 1938

MADE IN NEW YORK

ARCHETYPE The early archetypal manufacturing buildings, brought about purely by proximity to the new infrastructural networks, specialising mainly in textiles, sugar refinement and machinery production, were multi-storey brick construction. Ranging from four to seven storeys; long and narrow; reliant on natural daylighting requirements with tall expanses of sidewall glazing they represent the earliest attempts to generate an industrial archetype that was efficient and could be easily repeated (Wilkinson, 1996). These typified the localisation of production; being close to the consumer and to the workforce for maximum productivity and efficiency. The advent of electricity in the factory condition was a major breakthrough when introduced with regards to productivity and social welfare. In addition, the pioneering mass production methodology of ‘Fordism’ that established mechanised assembly lines and division of labour reduced the economies of scale within manufacturing through innovative industrial projects. Factories often become archetypes of their era where product, fabrication, technology and location determined the most efficient cost effective approach for the recurrent design of industrial forms. By the turn of the 20th century the manufacturing sector was intermixed with a complex vertiginous formation of commercial and financial land uses devoid of planning, theory and debate. Lower Manhattan’s ‘manufactories’ were encroaching on sought after areas of the city therefore urgency was required to regulate the rapid physical growth. Furthermore, the monolithic extrusions, typified by the Equitable Building (1915), obstructed daylight and air from the street level prompting calls for regulation of the bulk and land use of future developments leading to the first major zoning ordinance for the city. A natural desire to preserve the physical embodiment of progress in an area of purist ideological expansion of New York. 1916 ZONING RESOLUTION In the wake of the implementation of the 1916 zoning law there was a rapid hierarchical reorganisation of the manufacturing sector and workforce throughout New York. The swift upward nature of the skyscraper in New York brought about specific districts in which manufacturing could occur in addition to a right to light and air levy that re-configured the extents to which taller developments could build, thus incurring what Koolhaas describes as “not only a legal document; it is also a design project [...] suggesting a whole new idea of a metropolis.” (Koolhaas, 1978, p. 107). The functions within each factory were categorized into imposed external costs. Therefore an early aspect of the 1916 resolution forced many manufacturers, such as refineries, smelting plants and distilleries out of the business districts of Manhattan to ‘unrestricted’ zones; areas with no regulation whatsoever (City of New York, 1916, p. 4).

1. J.P.Hale Piano Factory, New York 2. Royal Tourist Motor Cars Factory, New York 3. Garment District, circa 1925 4. 1916 zoning resolution set-back extents, Hugh Ferris

MADE IN NEW YORK

RECESSION The 1920s proved to be an era of economic prosperity in the city particularly in manufacturing and fiscal services. However, overproduction was one of the main contributors for the financial crash with many manufacturers supplying more than the demand which had dire implications with mass unemployment and limited production output. As New York was built on a widely diversified economy at the time of the 1929 depression, unlike cities such as Detroit who were dependant on a single industry, it did not have a comparatively devastating effect that was otherwise witnessed elsewhere. THE GARMENT INDUSTRY AND A NEW INDUSTRIAL FABRIC Located between 35th to 41st Streets and Sixth and Ninth Avenues in midtown Manhattan was the largest concentration of skyscraper factories in the world. Eighteen blocks containing 125 skyscraper ‘lofts’ provided employment for nearly 100,000 workers manufacturing apparel for the rest of the United States (Dolkart, 2012). The nature of these industrial towers was to maximise all available space on each floorplate as well as take advantage of natural light and ventilation. Localised production had culminated in a microcosm of industries with one primary function in close proximity to retail outlets. Following the zoning resolution of 1916, industrial production was limited to specific manufacturing areas that resulted in restricting those industries now in business districts to only 25% of the total floor area (Dolkart, 2012). In conjunction with rising rents and the apparent disenfranchisement of the manufacturing sector, many businesses had to relocate in accordance with the latest zoning boundaries. This ultimately shifted the garment district to the west of Eighth Avenue (fig 4) that, as a consequence of bulk regulations, resulted in the stepped topographical forms now synonymous with the city. The eventual shift in one of Manhattan’s major industrial districts symbolised the end of centralised manufacturing expansion. This prompted manufacturers to relocate outside of Manhattan to unrestricted areas with new opportunities for innovative methods of industrial expansion. Industrial architecture embraced the principles of the international style with such functional, machinist archetypes corresponding to the ideals of Gropius and Behrens, amongst others. Koolhaas states, Manhattan had become an enigmatic heritage that the next generation could no longer decipher [...] susceptible to the ravages of European idealism (Koolhaas, 1978, p. 285). An overlooked opportunity perhaps for a unique manifestation of industrial architecture incorporating the ideology of New York; economy presiding over innovation.

1,2. Garment District - steam from processing plants 3. 14th Street Between Sixth and Seventh Avenues - stepped profile enforced by the 1916 zoning law 4. Zoning plan governing height and land use becomes the principal method for the principle form of the Garment District 5. Elevation, 530 Seventh Street, Garment District, Manhattan

MADE IN NEW YORK

POST-WAR DECENTRALISATION The era of post-war development brought on by suburbanisation and infrastructural renovation, (influenced heavily by the projects of Robert Moses), (US News and World Report, 1957) in addition to limited competition from the post-war European markets, prompted a portion of the manufacturing sector to follow workers into the suburbs. It offered inexpensive land to expand horizontally for large assembly line industries as well as access to the growing infrastructural network (fig.3-6). In an attempt to modernise the 1916 zoning ordinance, consultants were given the task in 1950 of developing recommendations which proved to be the elemental basis for the 1961 resolution. Incorporated into those recommendations were gauging the city’s future demands for manufacturing and highlighting the suburbanisation of industry in an age of higher automotive use. It stated that factory production will offer the basic employment required to sustain the city’s economy but only if sound planning and zoning supply protected sites for these purposes can be fostered (Harrison, 1950). In 1952 the Regional Plan Association, after surveying 2,658 plants built between 1946 and 1951 reported “a post-war trend to decentralise manufacturing throughout the metropolitan area” noting that five sixths of the new factories were built beyond the limits of major industrial districts existing at the close of World War Two (Stern, 1995) highlighting the extent and perhaps the onset of a contemporary decentralised, post-Fordist, post-industrialised city. 1961 ZONING RESOLUTION The framework that New York City urban planning was based upon since 1916 was reconsidered due to revised densities brought about by an unforeseen vehicular centric lifestyle, in addition to wide-ranging socio-political and economic changes and a burgeoning population. The new resolution coordinated use and bulk regulations that were to determine the built extent of future developments. Previously ‘unrestricted’ zones were given grades of manufacturing (M1, M2, M3) that limited the scale and type of industry that could be constructed. It ensured safety and a insulation of industrial nuisances from residential areas in addition to offering ‘incentive’ zoning that encouraged the creation of public space or desirable public amenities by providing the opportunity to create greater density in exchange. This generated the tower and public plaza model that often resulted in wide open spaces hardly infringed by the public. The promoted inclusion of apparent unplanned public realms was an inevitable programmatic risk. OFFSHORING The City’s emphasis on economic fiscal stimulus in the late 20th century prompted the steady decline of the manufacturing sector as opportunities arose with the advent of globalisation inducing an exodus to East Asia in search for lower costs. Offshoring became a symbol of the City’s evolution into a post-industrialised urban economy. Only those industries who either could not afford to relocate or whose business was reliant on a place-in-product remained in the City supporting the vestiges of New York’s manufacturing heritage. However, the offshoring cost-benefit is quickly eroding.

1,2. The location of industry in New York highlighting the suburbanisation and subsequent decline of the sector since 1922 3-6. Barkin and Lewin & Co. Inc. Clothing Factory, Long Island City, New York, 1958. Suburbanisation of industry and workers enabled new methods of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;efficientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, low rise industrial sprawl that is all too regularly seen around the periphery of the city.

2 1922 - Centralised Industry

4 2012 - De-centralised Industry

MADE IN NEW YORK

RESHORING MANUFACTURING Innovation suffers from the distance between manufacturing and design which has an eventual effect on quality. Soaring middle class wages in China, (in some cases more than 15 - 20% per annum) have prompted a methodical, quiet relocation by many small and prominent manufacturers back to US soil: an equilibrium of globalisation. Examples range from Ford and General Electric which last year moved manufacturing of washing machines, fridges and heaters back from China to a factory in Kentucky which not long ago had expected to close (The Economist, 2013). Currency fluctuations and a weaker dollar, along with reduced transportation costs and cheaper energy - in part to the current U.S. natural gas expansion - has been a major draw in relocating back to America. However, most of the multinationals involved are only reshoring a small proportion of their production to the American market. Much of what they have moved over the past few decades remains overseas. Furthermore, the amount of produce being outsourced overseas still outweighs the amount being brought back onshore (The Economist, 2013). As costs rise exponentially abroad, then it makes logical economic sense to relocate to areas that offer the best competitive advantage. In a recent report by the Boston Consulting Group, it states that by 2015 it will cost a similar amount to manufacture goods for the American market in certain parts of of the United States as in China in many industries including computers and electronics, machinery, appliances, electrical equipment and furniture (BCG Perspectives, 2012)(The University of Pennsylvania, 2012). Most affected by the destabilising cost benefit offered by China are low ‘value density’ manufacturers who specialise in consumer goods, appliances and furniture; a scale of production that New York can easily accommodate that benefits from being closer to the consumer. Through the gradual reshoring of principal urban manufacturing, it aims to reestablish the disenfranchised manufacturing sector of New York.

“The offshoring of manufacturing is now rapidly moving towards equilibrium [zero net offshoring],” - Michel Janssen, Hackett Group

Reasons When Re-shoring -

49% Reduce Delivery Times

49% Improve Product Quality

44% Increase Certainty of Delivery Times

1. TIME Magazine, April 2013 - ‘American workers are busy making things that customers around the world want to buy–and defying the narrative of the nation’s supposedly inevitable manufacturing decline.’

MADE IN NEW YORK

1909 - AEG HIGH TENSION FACTORY, BERLIN, PETER BEHRENS

1915 - INDUSTRIAL WORKS, MICHIGAN, ALBERT KAHN 1917 - FORD RIVER ROUGE COMPLEX, ALBERT KAHN

1920

NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 5,620,000 - 1920

1915

STANDARDISATION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAME - 1914 EQUITABLE LIFE BUILDING - 1915 1916 ZONING RESOLUTION - 1916

1910

NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 4,766,000 - 1910 TRIANGLE SHIRTWAIST FACTORY FIRE - 1911

1905

IRT SUBWAY - 1904

1900

NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 3,437,000 - 1900

1925 1930

REGIONAL PLAN OF NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS - 1929 STARRETT LEHIGH BUILDING - 1930 COMMON USE OF ELECTTRIC LIGHTING IN FACTORY CONDTIONS - 1930s

1929 - GREAT DEPRESSION 1930 - NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 6,930,000 1930 - GARMENT DISTRICT NEW YORK

1935 1940

SUBURBANISATION OF INDUSTRY - 1940s onwards

1940 - NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 7,454,000 1941 - LOWER MANHATTAN EXPRESSWAY PROPOSAL, ROBERT MOSES

1945 1950

NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 7,891,000 - 1950

1951 - UNITED NATIONS RELOCATION

1955

BARKIN LEWIN & CO INC CLOTHING FACTORY- 1958 1960

1961 ZONING RESOLUTION - 1961

1965 1980

NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 7,071,000 - 1980

1975

GERALD FORD REFUSES BAIL-OUT FOR NEW YORK CITY- 1975

1970

1970 CENSUS - WORKERS IN SERVICE INDUSTRY OUTNUMBER WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES FOR THE FIRST TIME- 1970

1960 - NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 7,781,000 1964 - 29% POPULATION EMPLOYED IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR 1967 - 27% OF MANUFACTURNG EMPLOYMENT WAS IN THE GARMENT INDUSTRY 1970 - NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 7,894,000

1977 - I LOVE NEW YORK CAMPAIGN CREATED 1980 - 20% POPULATION EMPLOYED IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR

1985 1990

NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 7,322,000 - 1990

1995

NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 8,008,000 - 2000 MAYOR BLOOMBERGASSUMES OFFICE- 2002

2000

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS ZONES INTRODUCED- 2005

2005 2010

NEW YORK CITY POPULATION - 8,175,000 - 2010

1999 - EMPIRE ZONES INTRODUCED 2000 - 4% POPULATION EMPLOYED IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR

2007 - PLANYC 2030 2007 - MAYOR BLOOMBERG ANNOUNCES 22 NEW INITIATIVES TO PRESERVE MANUFACTURING 2015 - CHINA SET TO OVERTAKE U.S. AS WORLDS FOREMOST ECONOMIC POWER

Nobel and West Street, Greenpoint - Abandoned industrial warehouse

MADE IN NEW YORK

Manufacturing Land Use 1922 - 2012 These maps highlight the de-centralisation of New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s manufacturing industry. Originally located centrally in Manhattan and along the coastlines of Queens and Brooklyn, zoning laws, globalisation and other socio-economic aspects have caused a wide distribution of firms to the peripheral areas of the city 50

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, 2011

MADE IN NEW YORK

“Manufacturing adds substantially to the city’s coffers and offers gateway employment for non-English speaking immigrants and New Yorkers with little education and minimal job skills. These workers feed into and bolster the city’s disappearing middle class, particularly in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens.” Newsday, Jan. 31, 2005

Looking northwest across the East River towards Manhattan from the Hunters Point Railyard. The LIRR remains as an integral part of the local manufacturing area providing a fast and reliable logistics network

MADE IN NEW YORK

MADE OUT OF NEW YORK CITY With New York’s shift towards high tech industries and the exclusion of primary and secondary manufacturing, can a new approach be adopted in order to combat the decline of these industries? The current market New York City is primarily a tertiary service economy overtly reliant on Wall Street. The focus tends towards re-zonings for commercial and residential developments for economic stimulus, yet, as Gratz argues “Real estate development doesn’t create economic growth - It follows it (Gratz, 2010). Diversification of the city’s economy, providing a basis for export earnings as well as a source of blue collar jobs is essential for the resilience of New York to have a stable and prosperous manufacturing sector. Manufacturing in New York today is unlike the Fordist mass production of the past; a focus towards high tech production and green technologies resulting in smaller, high productivity businesses; a transferral to an import reliant economy concentrating on the fabrication of specialised products employing 105,000 New Yorkers (Pratt Centre for Community Development, 2008). A mass horizontal sprawl of industrial warehouses - the junkspace or drosscape (Berger, 2007) as it could be described - that consume immense areas of land on the periphery of New York’s boroughs will undoubtedly be affected by the city’s focus towards high tech industry. As stated in a report by the Centre for an Urban Future “In 2006, I wouldn’t have put New York anywhere on the map [of leading tech hubs] [...] Now it is literally number two. If there is any second to Silicon Valley, it’s now New York, not Boston.” (Centre for an Urban Future, 2012). High tech industries generally require small building footprints due to high productivity and small specialised workforces therefore the prominence of the peripheral lowrise assembly industries could give way to a modern diversified but specialised manufacturing sector. The realisation by Mayor Bloomberg’s Department of Planning that there is not only a impending city-wide affordable housing shortage of 265,000 units but a shift towards more economically efficient, high productivity, high tech manufacturing has meant that space allocated for further manufacturing has decreased with subsequent re-zonings. In a statement by the Pratt Centre for Community development it declares that “When Mayor Bloomberg came into office in 2002, New York City had 12,542 acres of [physical] land where manufacturing businesses could legally operate. Today, it has fewer than 10,746 and another 1,800 acres would be converted to other uses under additional re-zonings proposed by the Bloomberg administration” (Pratt Centre for Community Development, 2008) clearly highlighting the focus of re-zonings in the city. The New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) has proposed 22 initiatives in order to prevent industry from moving

“No question, manufacturing has experienced a drastic decline. The cost of doing business here (particularly labor, energy and taxes) has driven away many manufacturers who depend on high volume and narrow profit margins. Land costs discourage companies that need to expand, particularly those that want large, single floor production facilities, and environmental regulations have hampered others. The manufacturers who thrive here offer a wealth of lessons the city can use to stabilise, or even expand, its manufacturing base.” - Sara. P. Garretson - President of The Industrial & Technology Assistance Corporation (ITAC)

out of the city by preserving underutilised space in addition to supporting and strengthening the industrial sector by other means. This however is on a small scale with limited funding and with the intention of using existing older structures, such as Industry City in Brooklyn, in which to set up local businesses essentially dissuading larger, specific industries that require more than just an empty, inefficient envelope. As Jacobs and Porter both reiterate, that investment in clustered, high density inner city areas is the only way to stimulate successful manufacturing districts. “If the neighbourhoods were to lose the industries it would be a disaster for us residents. Many entrepreneurs, unable to exist on residential trade by itself, would disappear. Or if the industries were to lose us residents, enterprises unable to exist on the working people by themselves would disappear.” (Jacobs, 1993) ZONING OBSTRUCTIONS 1. Kent and Grand Street, Williamsburg

The subsequent issues surrounding the development of the struggling manufacturing sector highlights the challenging situation that continues to deter industry hoping to establish within the city. 1. Scarcity of industrial space in appropriate size and condition. 2. Limited financing resources for smaller industrial businesses 3. Lack of entrepreneurial support. The issue of up-zoning in manufacturing areas such as Long Island City, which erodes the physical manifestation of manufacturing zoned plots, allows large real estate developments to be constructed essentially as a method for regional gentrification and economic stimulus, resulting in a passive expulsion of older secondary industries due to rising rents. Therefore, proposals to underwrite the predictable rent increases by the developer, subsidize their relocation and encourage the development of new rental properties purely for the purpose of manufacturing could be addressed by the planning department (Gratz, 2010). In 2005, Mayor Bloomberg’s new administration introduced Industrial Business Zones (IBZs) to stabilise industrial districts in New York under pressure from commercial and residential speculation. The IBZs offered tax incentives for businesses that chose to relocate in these zones yet uncertainty towards the long term status of the IBZ remains as they aren’t codified on zoning maps that would require a public land use action for further change (Brad Lander, 2009) therefore the next administration could feasibly remove them.

MADE IN NEW YORK

Looking west towards Manhattan along North 13th Street, Greenpoint Brooklyn

MADE IN NEW YORK

Another proposal could entail Planned Manufacturing Districts (PMDs), pioneered in Chicago, which reflects, similarly, the extent of a declining manufacturing sector in a post-industrialised city. These have proved to be very successful providing a steady rate of industrial growth since their introduction. Any changes within the PMD districts would go before the citywide level of the Planning Commission of Chicago rather than smaller ward agencies. This ensured stability and assurance to any manufacturing business reducing real estate speculation. There needs to be a comprehensive approach including investment to make the corridors safe, accessible and functional, competitive and marketable, manageable and attractive (ICIC, 2012). Planning policies must change in order to facilitate more restrictive zoning such as “Manufacturing Sanctuaries”, similar to those implemented in Chicago, within IBZs that are protected from real estate speculation, preserve space and prevent the conversion pressures from spreading (Gratz, 2010). The New York Industrial Retention Network (NYIRN) recommended such proposals in the form of Industrial Employment Districts (IEDs) that were to provide security from the volatility and uncertainty created by the potentially limited lifespan of IBZs that have fallen on the deaf ears of the Planning Department. The insecurity over IBZs, even with financial incentives, is causing further decentralisation of the manufacturing sector, yet Jacobs argues “Cities are places where adding new work to older work proceeds vigorously. Indeed any settlement where this happens becomes a city” (Jacobs, The Economy of Cities, 1969). Jacob’s view is also reiterated by urban theorist Michael Porter who states “clusters represent critical masses of skill, information and infrastructure in a given field [...] provide newcomers with access to expertise, connections [...] it is clusters that drive economic development (Porter, 1995). The apparent, be it inadvertent, decentralisation of these industrial clusters will only aid the erosion of the manufacturing sector until further secure zoning measures are introduced. However as Ellison states in a empirical report of agglomerated industrial development that the results are clearly not as proconcentration as some previous statements (Ellison, 1997) highlighting that in a hypothetical analysis the strength of industrial clusters may not have such a positive outcome. However, this study had not been applied in rigour to any specific urban condition which would undoubtedly, in a city like New York, have varying outcomes that may not correlate with those of Ellison. Additional measures include ‘Superfund’ designation prompting a successful manufacturing surge in areas such as Red Hook and Industry City, Brooklyn by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ensuring that the area, contaminated with pollutants, will receive long term strategies for remediation and eventual reoccupation. The term “manufacturing” has a wide spectrum connotations from storage facilities, sanitation, small ad-hoc craft businesses, power production etc which further adds to the confusion and the passive erosion through malign planning policy. The definitions distinguishing the variations between manufacturing, industry, craft and storage would have to be addressed in order to easily assign initiatives for regeneration. It is often the case that when, on the rare occasion, suitable industrial land is available then larger, wealthier companies, such as

1,2. Protests against Trump Tower Soho construction due to the apparent illegal development in a manufacturing area resulting in a more extreme response towards zoning issues by local preservation groups. The construction of such projects only enhance the uncertainty on other large developments being proposed causing average lot prices to rise therefore creating an unsustainable environment in which manufacturers can operate.

“The Bloomberg administration is committed to supporting the city’s industrial sector and facilitating the development of quality space for industrial and manufacturing firms,” - Joshua Sirefman, former interim president Economic Development Corporation (EDC)

those dealing in ‘big box’ retailing, will be able to outcompete smaller, minor industries for use of increasingly significant areas of land. This is illustrated again in older large structures suitable for multiple start-up industries which invariably are converted into condominiums and not allocated towards the much needed manufacturing sector due to the higher rental returns gained from residential clients. This adds to the difficulties of the City’s manufacturing sector being unable to compete for suitable land which could by all means be re-zoned for real estate purposes in the future. Although New York has long been associated with Euclidean and incentive zoning, a new approach that incorporates the performance based method which zones towards the cumulative effect of the development on the local area could be introduced. This allows flexibility in the land use theoretically promoting more mixed use zones. Performance zoning also periodically reviews the area in question to evaluate the economic and social status allowing for further recommendations if required. In light of the measures that the New York City Planning Department could theoretically utilise with regards to mitigating the systematic decline of the local manufacturing industry, it would be irresponsible to micromanage out of preference towards commercial and residential development as a basis for economic growth. In a city where manufacturing is decentralised it must be seen to preserve and encourage industrial clusters in accordance with protection based zoning and policy measures. Industrial forms have responded efficiently to the critical dynamics of geo-political shifts and socio-economic issues by being able to adapt to the dynamic urban surroundings. However, circumstances currently channel the future of existing and potential entrepreneurial start-ups into the re-use of potentially unsuitable older structures or to locate themselves in peripheral districts of the city. Therefore, in addition to zoning ordinance amendments, there also is an architectural perspective that could further enhance the argument for more localised production and the reappropriation of industry into inner city areas. Any such change or addition, be it politically, economically or perhaps architecturally, would have to be holistically implemented with infrastructural improvements in order for the best possible foundations from which manufacturing businesses could develop. Such suggestions as looking into the use of alternate modes of distribution as nearly 90% of the City’s industrial distribution is currently transported by road. Through utilising the vast waterways and rail networks in the city, transit-orientated industrial hubs would be more efficient and have potential to compete and survive. Industrial areas around New York, such as Industry City in Brooklyn and Newtown Creek in Queens, former intensive zones of manufacturing, must be preserved to ensure that remediation and renovation can be implemented to attract new sources of industry. The iconic New York manufacturer faces an uncertain future unless a range of innovative amendments are put into place in an attempt to further diversify the city’s economy. The manufacturing sector, although evolving to the current economic demands, is still integral to both the employment potential and economic support for New York and should not be perceived as redundant in the city’s future strategy.

MADE IN NEW YORK

Noble and West Street, Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Semi-occupied warehouse

Palestine Water Tower, Greenpoint, Brooklyn

Looking eest along N 14th Street, Brooklyn MADE IN NEW YORK

O2 GREENPOINT, BRKLYN “A city is a settlement that consistently generates its economic growth from its own local economy.” Jane Jacobs, The Economy of Cities,1969

MADE IN NEW YORK 63

GREENPOINT Brooklyn was the fourth largest manufacturing centre in the country by the early twentieth century, home to makers of Brillo, Heinz ketchup, Spalding sports goods, Eberhardt-Faber pencils, Domino Sugar, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Pechter Fields Rye Bread, Topp’s Chewing Gum, Rockwell Chocolate, Brooklyn Lager, Gretsch musical instruments, Corning Glass Works, Esquire Shoe Polish, Meri Lei’s in addition to the variety of coffee, tea, machinery, paint, paper boxes, shoes and soap manufacturers (Brandes Gratz, 2010). Low-rise brownstones, small apartment houses, tenements and small local retailers intermixed with former warehouses and factories are infrequently scattered throughout Greenpoint as the last remaining strongholds of industry. Traditionally an immigrant, working-class neighbourhood it experienced serious economic decline as a result of the widespread deindustrialisation in New York in the 1960s (Curran, 2010). Despite that, it retains a sizeable light manufacturing sector. Immigrants continue to flood to the city from all over the world - a recent city study noted that New York City’s foreign born population had reached a record high: 3.1 million people, or 37 percent of the city. The majority of those who are poorly trained tend to be employed within the manufacturing sector in Staten Island, New Jersey, Queens South, Brooklyn West or Greenpoint. But advocates wonder where these individuals will actually find employment. Located in the north-western most point of Brooklyn, just across the East River from the Lower East side of Manhattan, Greenpoint stands as a relatively gritty, mixed use district. Bordering New York’s most concentrated industrial areas, Greenpoint is at a transient point of rapid gentrification that would threaten the resilience of the local manufacturing sector through rising real estate values. The area has excellent infrastructural networks including the waterways of Newtown Creek and the East River, three subway lines, the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) and the Long Island Expressway which has no doubt been essential to the continued persistence of industry to operate in the area. Current manufacturing zoning in Greenpoint is a mixture of M1, M2 and M3 manufacturing which is being slowly eroded due to recent real estate upzonings. The area remains at the crossroads of residential and industrial development as the re-zonings implemented by former Mayor Bloomberg in 2005 selected the ‘abandoned’ industrial waterfront of Greenpoint and Williamsburg as a prime real estate opportunity in the face of an acute housing shortage in accordance with the eye opening waterfront development PlaNYC 2030. Old industrial volumes are largely invisible to policymakers, receiving none of the attention lavished on the new economy (Curran, 2010). What potential residents value in Greenpoint and other nearby industrial neighbourhoods is the proximity to the East River waterfront with its views of the New York Harbour and easy access to Manhattan’s East Village. Greenpoint’s industrial heritage seems to be predetermined through the development-led construction of mass residential tower blocks and any manufacturing based alternative would be politically unpalatable. Real estate presides in New York.

98% of all NYC manufacturers employ less than 100 people

84% employ less than 25 people

New York City Department of Labor, 2004

Industrial Employment as a percent of Total Boroughwide Employment Total Boroughwide Industrial Employment

Staten Island 22%

Manhattan 14%

Bronx 22%

Queens 38%

ES-202 Data, New York Department of Labor, 2012

Brooklyn 26%

QUEE

KLYN

BROO

EAST RIVER

HUDSON

RIVER

GREENPOINT STUDY AREA

3.00

MADE IN NEW YORK

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 miles

1.00

2.00

Districts of Greenpoint and Williamsburg, Brooklyn

TOTAL - 5498 ha 3.6%

796 ha 3.8%

1770 ha 4.6%

BRONX

BROOKLYN

218 ha 2.0%

1823 ha 3.4%

891 ha 2.9%

QUEENS

STATEN ISLAND

% Industrial land per borough MANHATTAN

ATT

QUEENS

Miles 0

BROOKLYN

AVERAGE INDUSTRIAL RENTS

$5.14 sqm

$4.47 sqm

NEW JERSEY

NATIONWIDE

$13.16 sqm

NYC

Ronda Kaysen, New York Times, 2012, Newmark Grubb Knight Frank, 2012

MADE IN NEW YORK

‘GREENPOINTERS’ Greenpoint and Williamsburg is a neighbourhood of incredible diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, religion and class (Curran,2010). As the area has become increasingly gentrified, the displacement of industrial businesses has become more frequent with only small scale operations being able to successfully operate in the district. Consequently, with the rise of development-led residential building projects and the slow demise of a comparatively low-paid manufacturing sector there is a substantial polarisation in earnings with 25.3% earning under $10,000 and 4.6% earning over $100,000. Industrial employment remains important for working-class residents of Williamsburg and Greenpoint. Manufacturing and wholesale trade still account for a significant number of jobs, with 17.6% of Williamsburg’s residents involved in these activities, compared with 10% for the city as a whole. Small scale manufacturers stay in Williamsburg through a combination of will, business and personal networks, flexibility and a need for a New York City location (Curran, 2010). Any such manufacturing proposal within Greenpoint and Williamsburg has the opportunity to actively engage and interact with the highly diverse labour market. Given the scale of the design/research scheme and the pressing unemployment statistics within the area (Fig 2.0) the prospect of providing a range of manufacturing spaces and vocational centres can be easily achieved. This would enable a variety of industrial spatial scales to operate in response to the demand of local businesses and entrepreneurs. Vocational centres within each residential proposal would aim to teach the necessary skills required for the established industries in the vertical factory proposal, prolonging the success and durability of the scheme as a whole.

Average earnings by sector Manufacturing - $52,000 Retail - $36,500 Food Service - $25,000 New York State Department of Labor

ONLY 51.1% OF ADULTS OVER 16 ARE EMPLOYED IN THE LABOUR FORCE

Fig 2.0

Curran, 2010

MADE IN NEW YORK

MANUFACTURING LAND-USE The manufacturing land use of the area is primarily located along the banks of Newtown Creek Industrial Waterway and the Brooklyn coastline. Dense concentrations are also attributed to the free enterprise IBZ designation in South Greenpoint and the Newtown Creek district boundary The buildings vary widely in size, age and function although it is predominantly light industry consisting of one story structures less than 5000 sqft (New York City Department of City Planning, 2012) that are most frequent which are clustered around the major infrastructural networks of highways, railroads and artificial creeks. The primary functions of the majority of the industrial structures have been altered to other such uses that relate to the pressing economic and political situation of the current manufacturing climate. Storage, metal plating and polishing, component manufacture, oil refineries, natural gas storage, carpenters et al operate in the dense cluster of inner city industrial homogeneity providing the city with a vast range of goods and services fabricated and supplied by local inner city manufacturers.

Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Centre 2.

Industrial Tenement, Box Street , Greenpoint 3.

Fortune Metal Inc, Provost Street, Greenpoint 4.

Film Studio, Franklin Street, Greenpoint 70

NEW

TOW

N CR

EEK

EAST

RIVER

ens Que oklyn Bro

BROOKLYN NAVY YARD

MANUFACTURING STRUCTURES

IBZ BOUNDARIES

MADE IN NEW YORK

ZONING Formerly an area of unrestricted zoning after the 1916 resolution, the districts of Greenpoint and Williamsburg remain one the most densely concentrated manufacturing districts in New York due to the proximity to primary infrastructural networks and the main consumer base in Manhattan. The manufacturing zoning Greenpoint and Newtown Creek is predominantly M1 zoned with M2 and M3 zoned land becoming more frequent down the periphery of the creek as the proximity from residential developments increase. Heavy industries (M3-1) are located along the periphery of Newtown Creek waterway with low external impact industries (M2-1 and M1-1) in closer proximity to residential zones (R6B). The coastline of Greenpoint and Williamsburg has a mix or low rise industrial warehouses of which many are abandoned or unoccupied. Recent zoning measures have allocated coastal areas previously zoned towards manufacturing to residential land uses in the face of an affordable housing shortage. Such amendments to the Brooklyn waterfront highlights the shifting focus away from a local manufacturing economy and the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attempt to stimulate growth through mass development-led gentrification. The waterfront now has been earmarked for large residential developments with an allowable tower FAR of 10 (R8) and 6 (R6).

% Manufacturing Zoned Land

56%

GREENPOINT

15%

BROOKLYN

13%

NEW YORK CITY Curran, 2005

M1-2 MX-8 ens Que oklyn Bro

R8 M1-2/ R6 R6B

M3-1

M1-1

R6B

R7A R6B

M1-2/R6B

M3-1

R6B

M1-1 M1-2 R6

C4-3A

M3-1

R6B RIVER

R6B

EAST

M3-1 R6B

M1-1

M3-1

R6-A M2-1

R6B MX-8

M1-2/ R-6

R6 M1-2/ R6-A

R6B M1-2/ R6-A

M3-1 MX-8 R8

C4-3 M1-2/ R6

BROOKLYN NAVY YARD

CURRENT AND PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ZONING MANUFACTURING STRUCTURES

MADE IN NEW YORK

CONTEXTUAL HEIGHT The urban topography of the area is fairly low-rise with a large proportion of residential and industrial properties below five storeys. Late 19th century/ early 20th century manufacturing structures with two to five storeys are frequent in the region yet it is the 20th century residential and commercial structures that tend to dominate over the surrounding context. Residential developments in response to revised zoning and planning policies have prompted the area to be one of the main focuses for development led-gentrification. The Williamsburg and Hunters Point residential tower clusters (80m+) (R6/R8 zoning and R6 respectively) remain some of the tallest structures in the region outside of Manhattan. 1. Proposed Greenpoint Landing Development

2. Proposed Hunters Point Residential Complex

Hunters Point Residential Cluster, Queens

Proposed Hunters Point Development

ens Que oklyn Bro

EAST

RIVER

Proposed Greenpoint Landing Development

Williamsburg Residential Cluster, Brooklyn

BROOKLYN NAVY YARD

STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 10 STOREYS STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 5 STOREYS

MADE IN NEW YORK

PRIMARY INFRASTRUCTURAL NETWORKS Primary methods of product transportation

Water 9.7% Rail 0.89% Air 0.13%

TRUCK 89.2%

The main method of freight distribution within New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s manufacturing network is primarily by truck (fig 2.1) with water, rail and air transportation less preferable. However the spatial characteristics of the surrounding dense residential street pattern and unsuitable industrial structures causes difficulty for large vehicular access. Fig 2.1

94.2% 77.1% 88.5%

NYMTC, 2004 Primary methods of manufacturing distribution

Inbound 4.9% 21.0% 11.4%

The success of any large scale manufacturing proposal would hinge upon the strength of the local and regional infrastructural networks, not only for supply and distribution but also for employee access. Embedded within the Greenpoint peninsula there are a sufficient number of infrastructural options in order to accommodate a range of industries that require direct access and a large source of labour.

0.9% 1.4% 0.1%

The area of Greenpoint and Williamsburg is served by a number of primary transportation routes that serve as gateways to Brooklyn and Manhattan with the Long Island Railroad, Williamsburg Bridge, Brooklyn - Queens expressway and the L subway line amongst others. This has encouraged industry to thrive in the suburban area of the city with easy access a huge employee base, railroads, waterways and other major land based arterial networks.

Negligible

Internal Outbound

Truck

Water

Rail

Air Primary directional distribution 2004 NYMTC

Car Water Taxi LIRR Subway Stops and Lines Circle 7 Parks??? Towers PLanted on

Main Subway Locations

Car Water Taxi LIRR Subway Stops and Lines Circle 7 Parks??? Towers PLanted on

Principal Access Routes

NYC Water Taxi

MADE IN NEW YORK

1. Williamsburg, Brooklyn - Looking south over the Brooklyn/ Queens Expressway

2. Noble Street, Greenpoint. Former location of Greenpoint Terminal Market

3. Calyer Street, Greenpoint, Brooklyn

4. North 10th Street, Greenpoint, Brooklyn

MADE IN NEW YORK

1. Domino Sugar Factory, Williamsburg Coastline, Brooklyn Domino Sugar Factory, Williamsburg, Brooklyn

2. Palestine Water Tower, Greenpoint

3. Manhattan Avenue, Greenpoint Brooklyn Manhattan Avenue , Greenpoint

4. 2nd Street - 54 Avenue - Hunters Point, Long Island City, Queens

MADE IN NEW YORK

1. Greenpoint Avenue, Greenpoint, Brooklyn

2. Manhattan Avenue, Greenpoint, Brooklyn

3. McCarren Park Market, Greenpoint

4 Jewel Street, Greenpoint

MADE IN NEW YORK

MATERIALITY

1. NYCHA Vehicle Repair and Print Shop. Small steel frame construction and brick facade with small ribbon apertures.

3. Small scale brick warehouse with glass block fenestration. Natural ventilation grilles installed in fenestration pattern. Loading bay directly on street.

2. Abandoned medium sized warehouse. Near full height operable windows. Retrofitted airconditioning units applied to the fenestration.

4. Small scale food distributor. Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Large steel framed apertures with a brick facade. Loading directly on street.

5. Small scale warehouse. Long Island City. Operable glazing with a brick facade. Water tower structure situated on roof; a common iste in the city. 6. Interlink fencing threshold. A frequent method of division between industrial premises for security and site separation. Further detrimental to the hermetic, low rise structures within the area.

7. Greenpoint Manufacturing Centre fenestration. Near full height operable fenestration with wide brick piers. 8. Newtown Creek Water Treatment Plant, Greenpoint A recent construction comprising of zinc, brick and polycarbonate cladding on a large steel structure. 9. Billboard over the Midtown-West expressway. A frequent occurrence around the Long Island City area.

MADE IN NEW YORK

Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Looking south towards the Williamsburg Bridge and the encroaching residential development

MADE IN NEW YORK

O3 A NEW INDUSTRIAL URBANISM â&#x20AC;&#x153;Form...was not the imposition of one particular figure or image onto each of these city parts; form was understood as the possibility of association between existing situations and city paradigms. Thus, city form is not one particular image of the city but the possibility of forming movements within the city on the basis of architectural examples.â&#x20AC;? - Pier Vittorio Aureli, The Possibility Of An Absolute Architecture

MADE IN NEW YORK 89

THE RISE OF THE CREATIVE CLASS ‘Be creative or die. Cities must attract the new ‘creative class’ […] or they’ll go the same way of Detroit’. – Christopher Dreher, 2002 Coined by social theorist Richard Florida, the Creative Class is imperative for economic growth in the post-industrialised cities of the United States consequently there is a national inter-urban competition for talent. Florida argues that the Creative Class is socially relevant because of its members’ ability to spur regional economic growth through innovation (Florida, 2002). No more important to the continued competitiveness of the manufacturing sector is the acquisition of well-educated, highly skilled workers who can contribute to the localised growth in the shifting industrial spatial economy in the City. Florida states that the Creative Class is composed of scientists and engineers, academics and architects, and also includes “people in design, education, arts, music and entertainment, whose economic function is to create new ideas, new technology and/or creative content” (Florida, 2002). Through changing the dynamic of a majority of those who would be employed in new, contemporary local manufacturing industries then the likelihood for those industries to settle and bolster their market share within the struggling economic climate of the City compared with other competitive domestic and international industrial districts is substantially greater than the current economic rhetoric for New York’s industrial legacy. DIVERSIFY/ SPECIALISE Fewer smaller, inner city manufacturers require the once prevalent mass labour forces of the 20th Century as the demand focuses towards niche, locally produced products that require a small labour force and/ or are completely automated. The variety of manufacturers, even today is huge while the individual scale of each often modest. Many big companies that started small and expanded and subsequently left the city did so because at a certain scale, large companies don’t need advantages cities offer small companies (Brandes Gratz, 2010). As the Creative Class migrates to the locations that provide the economic and lifestyle options they desire, this could be threatening to local economic and regional unity as voids in the necessary skills gap in nearby urban conurbations will become slowly apparent. Florida calls for the three Ts of ‘Technology, Talent and Tolerance, which are necessary to ignite the economic sparks of creativity (Peck, 2005). However the social theory developed by Florida still fails to suggest the mechanisms of change and is entirely based upon modest ‘suggestive correlations’ (Peck, 2005). The theory forms a new aspect of capitalism focussed on human creativity that calls for supply side intervention measures as cities now find themselves in a globalised competition for development in order to prolong or enter into the economic status of a global city.

1. A worker from Situ Fabrication translates digital form to a physical model in the companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new 10,000 square-foot manufacturing space in the Brooklyn Naval Yard. 2. An Ares Printing & Packaging worker at the Brooklyn Navy Yard

MADE IN NEW YORK

In order to further the economic and industrial diversity of prime manufacturing districts the City must realize the untapped reservoir of potential creativity, not only with the current underutilised manufacturers but the potential to be global forerunners within specialised areas of industry. This represents another opportunity for New York to reinforce the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;place in productâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; based upon the potential competitive industrial advantage in order to progress as a leading national manufacturing hub that further specialises in unique goods and services that can be traced to the nature of the city rather than relying solely on imports. For example, Detroit surpassed Toledo, Ohio to become the centre of U.S. car production, and Silicon Valley overcame the Boston areas for information technology (Molotch, 2002). By focussing on the changing dynamic of industry then the City can diversify and specialise in specific economies of scale offered by the evolution of local industry. Although New York has a comparatively diverse market economy that does not rely on one particular industry, the focus to supplement a Creative Class into a revived industrial sector would enable the City to build upon the brand of New York through an augmented localised manufacturing sector. In the creative economy, regional advantage comes to places that can quickly mobilise the talent, resources and capabilities required to turn innovations into new business ideas and commercial products. Leading regions establish competitive advantage through their capabilities (Florida, 2005). New York as vast, multi-faceted urban system has the capacity and capability to nurture and retain industrial creativity even with the accelerating retreat of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s post-Fordist manufacturers. Furthermore, David Harvey (1989) states that in order for the interurban competition within post-industrialised cities to prosper then the city has to appear as an innovative, exciting, creative and safe place to live or visit, to play and consume in (Harvey, 1989); an aspect of the manufacturing sector that is lacking due to the entrepreneurial neglect and apparent policy vacuum by successive administrations. To merely protect and retain the invaluable manufacturing sector in Brooklyn and Queens would only prolong intermittently the viability of industry in the area. However, change in the diversity and specialisation of new light industry in the city would have to be manipulated in order for a strong socio-economic foundation to prosper. The realignment of employment offered by the Creative Class theory with regards to a new industrial urbanism would be intrinsic to the realisation of competitive industrial clusters within Greenpoint and Williamsburg.

Palestine Water Tower, West Street, Greenpoint

MADE IN NEW YORK

THE CLUSTER Current industrial spatial agglomeration patterns within the deindustrialised urban realm of New York indicate that the majority of the remaining industry centres along the Newtown Creek district boundary between Brooklyn and Queens, and Staten Island. Recent zoning and planning policies by the former Bloomberg administration reiterated the former free enterprise initiative of Empire Zones with the new IBZ which attempted, through financial and business support incentives, to locate manufacturers within a set singular boundary essentially paving the way for mass re-zoning in the adjacent areas and subsequent huge residential developments to counter the impending housing shortage in the City. However, whilst it is generally accepted that a co-location of industry represents a fundamental necessity of economic life (Benneworth & Danson, 2003) (Glaeser, 2000) (Feldman, 2000) (Porter, 1990) (Steiner, 1998), the proposed scope and scale of new development within Greenpoint and Williamsburg would not prevent the inevitable upzoning pressures and IBZ policy uncertainty that manufacturers are currently facing. Tabb (1982) argued that manufacturing has been viewed as a nuisance by successive New York City administrations that were happy to see these land uses diminish so that corporate offices and support services could follow. The garment and publishing clusters within Manhattan in the 20th Century were leading examples on how the interactions and relationships between the vertiginous clusters developed the City’s role as the nation’s premier port, yet radical zoning reform was to lead to the eventual dispersal beyond Manhattan. CONCEPT Associated closely with the work of Michael Porter, the Harvard business economist, the cluster concept has become an object of desire for many cities and regions, resting on the widely accepted assumption that increased levels of specialisation will lead to increased levels of productivity, growth and employment (Steiner, 1998). Along with the aforementioned social concept of the Creative Class, it provides a compelling notion for an alternative socio-economic theory of reviving the dormant manufacturing capability in inner city New York. In ‘The Economy of Cities’, Jane Jacobs connects innovation and growth when she claims that innovating economies expand and develop. Economies that do not add new kinds of goods and services but continue only to repeat old work do not expand much nor do they, by definition, develop (Jacobs, 1969). Reiterated by Amin and Thrift (1992), the primary reason for the City’s competitive survival is its central role in the construction of financial discourses supported by its roles as a centre of interaction and as a proving ground for new, innovative products. The cluster, which is defined by Porter as geographical concentrations of interconnected companies, specialised suppliers,

Opposite: Proposed vertical factory cluster aligned to the Greenpoint and Williamsburg coastline as a physical and political buffer against the onset of development-led economic policies

MADE IN NEW YORK

service providers, firms in related industries and associated institutions that compete but also co-operate (Porter, 1998), facilitates the exchange of complex bundles of specialised, tacit knowledge through collaboration between co-located firms (Cumbers & MacKinnon, 2004). A location offering proximity to suppliers and consumers is essential in order for New York City manufacturers to survive (Wolf-Powers, 2005). Any such proposal to retain the local manufacturing base within Brooklyn would have acquire a resistant attitude that would directly oppose the onset of residential and commercial development as the threat of upzoning would undoubtedly continue to erode the already ambiguous delineation between development zones. A multi-clustered approach investigated on a comparatively micro level to current academic discourse would have a unique set of parameters to work with, be they product lifecycle, location within the metropolitan hierarchy and centrifugal forces such as congestion and variable rental and land costs. Colocation is fundamentally a spatial concept which contributes to the overall efficiency, probability of trading linkages and employment matches being realised. As innovation is an inherently creative act and not only traceable to those who meet a certain educational threshold […] then high densities of ‘creative capital’, i.e. the creative class as an urban commodity, leads to frequent face to face interactions amongst individuals, thus facilitating ‘creative spillovers’ and subsequent innovations between manufacturers which is further enhanced by population density (Knudsen, Florida, Stolarick, & Gates, 2008). NODE This thesis’ design proposal centres on the creation of multiple vertiginous industrial clusters within Greenpoint and Williamsburg. Defined by the frequency of adjacent manufacturing locations under a predetermined distance from the focal point of each tower; the height, floorplate and diversity of the industrial specification for each agglomeration is established. Through the dissemination of industrial agglomerations around the current Newtown Creek IBZ, each vertical cluster would act as a physical socio-economic buffer to the encroaching proposed residential development, thus, in theory, discouraging incremental development-led gentrification and the constant upzoning threat to manufacturers. The place-specific cluster would be inherently dependant on the proximity to consumers and infrastructure and other nodes of similar industrial density.

Opposite: Each tower would act as a vertical industrial node in which the economic, cultural and social interrelationships between each one form the basis for a wider embedded industrial agglomeration

MADE IN NEW YORK

THE TOWER - A PRE-CONCEIVED DESIGN DISCOURSE? This study explores a small proportion of the variety of realised towers from around the world that exhibit different approaches of design from pure ideological manifestations, functional aspects and symbolic gestures. The typical use of taller structures is generally commercial and mixed use therefore to propose a tall manufacturing tower would perhaps require an alternate mass and form atypical from the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;skyscraper as a economic symbolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. The form of the tower would have to be tectonically appropriate to both the context and the interior functionality.

McGraw Hill Building 148m/ 33 storeys Raymond Hood New York - 1931

Nagakin Capsule Tower 54m/ 13 storeys Kisho Kurokawa Tokyo - 1972

New York Times Building 220m/ 52 storeys Renzo Piano, New York - 2007

Pepsi Cola 47m/ 10 storeys SOM New York - 1960

Post Tower 162m/ 41 storeys Helmut Jahn Bonn - 2004

Messeturm 148m/ 63 storeys Helmut Jahn Franfurt- 1990

Tour Montparnasse 210m/ 59 storeys Cabinet Saubot-Jullien Paris - 1972

Ryugyong Hotel 330m/ 105 storeys Baikdoosan Architects Pyongyang - 1992

Rockefeller Centre 266m/ 70 storeys Raymond Hood New York - 1939

Seagram Building 157m/ 38 storeys Mies Van Der Rohe et al New York - 2004

London Bridge Tower 309m/ 95 storeys Renzo Piano London - 2013

Shanghai WFC 492m/ 101 storeys KPF Shanghai - 2008

Taipei 101 509m/ 101 storeys C.Y.Lee Taipei - 2004

Tokyo City Hall 243m/ 48 storeys Kenzo Tange Tokyo - 1991

Transamerica Pyramid 260m/ 48 storeys William L. Pereira San Fransico - 1972

Trellick Tower 98m/ 31 storeys Erno Goldfinger London - 1972

UN Headquarters 155m/ 39 storeys Oscar Niemayer New York - 1952

Torre Velasca 106m/ 26 storeys BBPR Milan - 1958

Woolworth Building 241m/ 57 storeys Cass Gilburt New York - 1913

NY World Trade Centre 526m/ 110 storeys Minoru Yamasaki New York - 1973

MADE IN NEW YORK

New technologies that push the boundaries of engineering and architecture are enabling tower constructions to become ever more structurally and environmentally efficient, taller and more adventurous in both form and program. The size, program and technology that would necessarily be introduced into a new industrial typology would not have to conform to the pre-conceived attributes of previous ideological skyscraper designs but be able to propose new innovative measures of design and operation. PARADIGM The new industrial tower cluster would be seen as not just another egotistical attempt to surpass height or imposition but for the project to serve as an example for the city, an industrial paradigm or archipelago to be read as one single entity within the eclectic mix of New York. An absolute architecture. One that consists in the alteration of the atypical dialectic by reclaiming separation, not only as part of the principle urban management but as a form that exceeds it (Aureli, 2011).

100

Yokohama Landmark 296m/ 73 storeys Hugh Stubbins, Yokohama - 1993

Al Faisaliyah Centre 267m/ 44 storeys Foster and Partners, Riyadh - 2000

Canton Tower 600m/ 108 storeys IBA Architects, Guangzhou - 2010

Bahrain WTC 240m/ 50 storeys Atkins, Manama - 2008

CCTV Headquarters 234m/ 44 storeys OMA, Beijing - 1993

Chrysler Building 296m/ 77 storeys William Van Allen, New York - 1930

Equitable Building 164m/ 38 storeys Ernest R. Graham, New York - 1915

Jin Mao Tower 421m/ 88 storeys SOM, Shanghai - 1999

Johnson Wax Research 43m/ 14 storeys Frank Lloyd Wright, Racine,WS - 1939

Commerzbank Tower 300m/ 56 storeys Foster and Partners, Frankfurt - 1997

Lake Shore Drive 254m/ 26 storeys Mies Van der Rohe, Chicago - 1949

122 Leadenhall Street 225m/ 48 storeys RSHP, London - 2014

Lloyds Building 95m/ 14 storeys Rogers and Piano, London - 1986

HSB Turning Torso 190m/ 54 storeys Calatrava, Malmo - 2005

Bank of China 367m/ 72 storeys I.M.Pei, Hong Kong - 1990

Federation Tower 506m/ 93 storeys BDA, Moscow - 2013

Barbican Centre 122m/ 40 storeys Chanberlain, Powell and Bon London -1982

30 St Mary Axe 180m/ 41 storeys Foster and Partners London - 2004

Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank 178m/ 44 storeys Foster and Partners Hong Kong - 1986

MADE IN NEW YORK 101

MASSING STRATEGIES This study is based upon the programattic arrangement of industry on a vertical plane and the range of responses in form that could, in theory, be attributed to the processes within a factory typology. These are only a few iterations of the many possible alternatives yet a number represent the most efficient, methodical way in which a factory could be developed. The form would be dependant on the manufacturing zoning laws which for this proposal would have to be amended to accommodate such a structure. Orientation for daylighting, minimising wind loading, programmatic and logistical efficiency and exhaust dispersion amongst others are all main determinants of the primary massing and height of the vertical factory in order to minimise the socio-physical impacts that it would have on the Greenpoint coastline. PROGRAMMATIC EFFICIENCY The development of a vertical factory structure on a large scale that has no preconceived discourses of design but can, however, relate to earlier precedents and principles of vertical industry and the primary logistical methods that in most cases informs the structural aesthetic. For a sustainable, generic approach to the design of a factory, a layered option would be most suitable due to the intentions of accommodating a wide variety of different industries at many scales. An integrated option would be most suited to a factory that had a singular use that could utilise the vertical logistical methods. (See overleaf)

102

1. Long, narrow extrusion with separate service cores to reduce service runs and acting as lateral bracing

2. Series of individual floors that cater to different variations of industry. Unsustainable in the long term

3. Singular exterior core with semi-circular floorplate as a response to a top-down appraoch to fabrication

4. Simple narrow, double extrusion employing a generic appraoch to a vertical factory design. Repetative floor plates.

5. Wedge shaped form with small components being assembled as they decend through the tower requiring larger floor plates

6. Conical form - awkward approach to factory design. Focussed on statement rather than programmatic function

7. Form based on uniform daylighting that would allow for a larger floorplate in a top down production process

8. Form based on uniform daylighting. Larger floorplates towards the apex allow for a top down fabrication method

9. Functional zoning through section. Distribution, fabrication, storage and services

10. Hexagonal extrusion based on the allowance of daylight further into the floorplate. Limited industrial flexibility.

11. Form based upon daylight admission. Top down approach to fabrication. Limited flexibility on upper levels

12. Simple extrusion with exterior core. Maximum flexibility. Small floorpalte.

13. Subtractive form allowing for daylight admission and distribution from cutaway volumes

14. Separate entities with an exterior core and distribution connections

15. Cantilevered floor plate with primary access core and subsiddiary distribution cores

MADE IN NEW YORK 103

LAYERED The more generic form of operation is the layered operation (A) which houses one or more companies on the same floorplate sharing the same services and facilities. Usually these layered industries would occupy the whole building or be situated with those which require similar facility support. Examples of this are in New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Garment District (Starrett Lehigh) (B) or Hong Kongâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s high-rise garment factories. These structures are designed for maximum flexibility rather than for a individual function therefore commanding higher rents.

Above: Starrett Lehigh - layered spatial volumes

INTEGRATED With an integrated system the production is top down, or vice versa,as deliveries or commodities are filtered by the labour force then carried by conveyors to the end of the process for transport. The gravity method of production (C), which was later mechanized, is most common in a multi-story building of a single company, such as the Van Nelle Factory in Rotterdam. The Lingotto factory in Turin exhibits the opposite production method by assembling the automobiles bottom-up eventually terminating in the iconic test track situated on the roof (D).

Above: Lingotto Factory - integrated spatial volume

104

LAYERED

INTEGRATED

D Rappaport, 2012

MADE IN NEW YORK 105

LOCAL TYPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS The following study highlights the typical industrial and manufacturing typologies from across the city. These exhibit archetypal volumetric and aesthetic functions that have enabled these antiquated structures to endure the dynamic change of industry economically and physically for generations. The range of examples chosen does not represent the vast wealth of manufacturing structures but aims to represent the basic principles and evolution assigned towards the majority of industrial spatial requirements.

106

GREENPOINT MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN CENTRE, BROOKLYN

25m

Access

THE BROOKLYN ICE CREAM FACTORY One of two locations in the borough Floors - 4 Constructed - 1931 Lot Area - 48,500 sqft Gross Floor Area - 87,277 sqft Zoning - R6

GREENPOINT MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN CENTRE 99 Small businesses employing 500 people Floors - 6 Constructed - 1906 Lot Area - 102,811 sqft Gross Floor Area - 361,000 sqft Zoning - M1-2

MADE IN NEW YORK 107

INDUSTRY CITY, BUSH TERMINAL, SUNSET PARK, BROOKLYN, NY

25m Access

INDUSTRY CITY DISTILLERY Small scale micro-distillery Established - 2010 6000 square feet 5 employees manufacturing high quality local vodka.

INDUSTRY CITY Former abandoned shipping warehouses 17 Original Building 6.5 million square feet Located close to major highways, ports and railroad networks Currently providing space for small scale manufacturers

108

NEWTOWN CREEK MANUFACTURING DISTRICT, QUEENS

25m

Access

PLATED PLASTIC INDUSTRIES Floors - 1 Constructed - 1965 Lot Area - 14,450 sqft Gross Floor Area - 12,400 sqft Zoning - M3-1

GLOBAL PAPER TRADING CORP Floors - 1 Constructed - 2004 Lot Area - 20,057 sqft Gross Floor Area - 11,153 sqft Zoning - M3-1

KING C IRON WORKS Floors - 1 Constructed - 1930-1 Lot Area - 88,877 sqft Gross Floor Area - 83,800 sqft Zoning - M3-1

AMERICAN CONVEYOR CORP Floors - 1-2 Constructed - 1926-47 Lot Area - 106,050 sqft Gross Floor Area - 109,452 sqft Zoning - M1-1

MADE IN NEW YORK 109

RARITAN CENTRE, INDUSTRIAL PARK, EDISON, NEW JERSEY HORIZONTAL INDUSTRIAL SPRAWL

SUPER STUD BUILDING PRODUCTS

Raritan Railroad

Structural Steel Stud Manufacturer Relocated from Astoria in 2008 Lot Area 20 acres Gross floor area 200,000 sq ft Railroad provision 200 + employees

Raritan Railroad

25m Access

RARITAN CENTRE, NJ Industrial Park 2350 acres of land 15 million square feet of rentable space Easy access to major highways, airports, railroads and ports. Over 3000 tenants 100 structures for office, manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, and industrial space requirements

110

EAGLE TRANSFER CORPORATION, LONG ISLAND CITY, QUEENS,

NS EE

QU OW DT MI Y WA SS RE XP NE 25m Access

EAGLE TRANSFER CORPORATION Storage for business transferrals Floors - 7 Constructed - 1928 Lot Area - 119,700 sqft Gross Floor Area - 656,241 sqft Zoning - M1-4

GLIMOUR PIPE AND SUPPLY COMPANY Pipework, valve and sprinklers Floors - 1 Constructed - 1965 Lot Area - 36,000 sqft Gross Floor Area - 35,400 sqft Zoning - M3-2

MADE IN NEW YORK 111

LOCAL INDUSTRIAL FABRIC 1.

1. Lunar Lighting - Calyer and Jewel Street, Brooklyn. One storey industrial brick warehouse - occupied

3. North 14th Street - Two storey industrial warehouse - occupied

2. 42 West Street, Greenpoint Brooklyn - A former 50,000sqft abandoned rope and twine factory - unoccupied, undergoing renovation

4. Greenpoint Avenue - Six storey concrete framed industrial structure - occupied

5. North 13th Street - Two storey industrial warehouse. Stair core and delivery bay detail. - occupied

112

1. West Street, Greenpoint coastline - Large abandoned and unoccupied industrial warehouses. Earmarked for mass residential development 2. Box and Commercial Street, Greenpoint Former lighting supplier - now occupied by a variety of small manufacturers and residential tenants

4. Kent and North 10th Street , Greenpoint - Abandoned residential property beyond the threshold of the residential zone. 5. Kent Street, Greenpoint - An array of multistoried industrial properties are more frequent towards the main infrastructural networks, in this case, the Williamsburg Bridge.

3. West and Quay Street, Brooklyn - Two storey building merchant supply warehouse

MADE IN NEW YORK 113

GLOBAL TYPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Through examining recent global typologies of industrial design, various intrinsic aspects towards the contemporary urban factory can be established. New forms of production, fabrication, storage and technology have all informed the basis on which the following examples have been designed. The factory structures tend to involve a large majority of the production processes in order to reduce costs and improve overall efficiency, however these developments are normally associated with large multinationals who specialise in current high volume, high demand, low risk product ventures such as automobile manufacturing and wind turbine fabrication.

114

VW GLASMANUFAKTUR, AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTION, DRESDEN, SAXONY, GERMANY

25m Access

VW GLASMANUFAKTUR VW Phaeton/ Touareg Specialist Manufacturer 55,000 sqm production area Production Floors - 2 Constructed - 2007 140m length - 20m height 800 employees 40m glazed tower for 280 vehicles Located in the centre of Dresden

Finished product storage tower

Visitor building/ Vehicle collection

‘Travelling ‘Production Floors

Delivery entrance

MADE IN NEW YORK 115

FOUR FILMS PRINTING PLANT, SABHAN INDUSTRIAL PARK, KUWAIT CITY, KUWAIT

Distribution facility towards rear of structure

4m Access

Sawtooth Roof

Pre-press/ Management/ Design

Post Press Production Department Press Floor Stock Room Vertical Production Process

FOUR FILMS PRINTING PLANT Floors - 5 Construction - In progress Lot area - 4000 sqm Employees - < 40

116

SUZLON WIND ENERGY, TURBINE MANUFACTURING, PIPESTONE, MINNESOTA

Blade Storage

25m Access

Production Facilities

SUZLON ROTOR CORPORATION Nosecone and rotor blade manufacturers 40 acre manufacturing facility Floors - 2 Constructed - 1996 Gross Floor Area - 160,000 square ft 110 Employees

MADE IN NEW YORK 117

MERCEDES BENZ MANUFACTURING PLANT, CHAKAN, PUNE, INDIA

Production Facilities Sawtooth Rooflights

Vast single storey production plants

25m

Access

MERCEDES BENZ PRODUCTION PLANT Floors - 1 Gross Floor Area - 220,000 sqft Constructed - 2009 Flexible processes allow manufacturing of other products on the same assembly line Amongst he fastest green-field operations ever to be created

118

MACKMYRA GRAVITY DISTILLERY, GAVLE, SWEDEN,

5m Access

Goods Lift Fermentation Vats

‘Sky Bar’

Mashing Unit

Fermentation Vats

Mashing Unit above Raw material storage

Primary Stair Core Distillation Stills

Distillation Stills x 2

MACKMYRA GRAVITY DISTILLERY Floors - 10 Height - 37m Constructed - 2011 Gross Floor Area - 1,460 sqm Copper Stills - 2 Employees - <10 employees

MADE IN NEW YORK 119

KERRY CARGO CENTRE, WING KEI ROAD, KWAI TSING, HONG KONG

Spiral ramp allowing fast distribution by truck from all floors

25m Access

Ramp leading up the rear of the building

Manufacturing/ Warehousing area Typical Floor Plan

KERRY CARGO CENTRE Cargo warehouse for storage and distribution Floors - 20 Constructed - 1998 Gross Floor Area - 12,500 sqm Lot Area - 731,000 sqm Height - 96.25m Floor to ceiling height - 5.20m / 6.20m in warehouses

120

Section

ADAPTATION Basic principles involve wide, unobstructed spatial volumes, efficient vertical transportation methods, ample amounts of indirect natural light and direct access to primary infrastructural networks. Through investigating various contemporary manufacturing typologies there is a predetermined, well-defined design consideration focussed primarily around the production method. Perhaps to present an alternate perception of manufacturing, the exclusive schemes have become individualistic symbols that further disassociates the former homogeneity of an industrial architecture and presents further opportunities for more innovative, efficient factories on smaller scales. Even though there is a distinct lack in homogeneity in contemporary industrial design, in order to ensure the durability of a macro scale manufacturing proposal then the notions of flexibility and genericism are paramount to the success of the any diversified large scale industrial project. Any idiosyncrasies within the applied uniformity of the project would in itself have to be devised to a certain level of homogeneity to ensure the longevity of the industrial volume.

MADE IN NEW YORK 121

MANUFACTURING PROCESS ANALYSIS The concept of a vertical factory is entirely reliant on the ability of the project to deliver the necessary capability and flexibility to adapt and accommodate a range of industries. Although, at present, New York is forecast to invest in specific industries such as 3D printing, machinery and turbine fabrication amongst others, the lifetime of the building will far outweigh those of the current primary industries, for example, with the historic Garment District in central Manhattan. Therefore, to design a project purely for a limited range of functions would be naive and unsustainable. An applied genericism would be required in order to support the feasibility of a vertical factory. This will be based upon the set dimensions from static, and assembly line processes to larger, heavier industries resulting in a set series of spaces that, in theory, could accommodate the future requirements of a wide variety of manufacturers who would choose to set-up or re-locate in inner city New York.

122

mm or y ve on e Lin m r 5 m yo 90 onve s C ces Ac

LIGHT MANUFACTURING - STATIC

27 00 mm mm r 00 la 15 hicu s Ve ces Ac m nt mm 0 m ne 50 ay 20 po 17 alkw 1 Com ess c W Ac

mm on 00 ati 52 bric

15 5 Wo 00 m Ca 500 rkd m r H mm ois es ks t

mm ent 00 on 12 omp s C ces Ac

29 In 50 Sto term mm rag edia e ry

15 Wo 00 m rkd m es ks

6800 mm F-C Height

Modular system of intensive, high labour workforces. Commonly used in garment, small goods and microprocessing industries amongst others. Low-level lighting providing uniform lux levels for dexterous fabrication methods. Efficient logistical networks parrallel to the desk clusters allow for rapid transfer of products to additional manufacturing stages if required. Intermediary storage space for completed products and materials provided inbetween workspaces.

Lin e

ASSEMBLY LINE MANUFACTURING Linear method of fabrication with division of labour being paramount to the efficiency of the production times. Commonly used in mass produced industries. Usually mechanical for greater efficiency and speed. Low level lighting providing uniform lux levels to prolong concentration in such a repetative process. Strip zoning allowing for ample space for workers, machinery and logistics to operate.

m r 5 m yo 90 onve s C ces Ac r

mm 00 yo 30 onve C e Lin m r 5 m yo 90 onve s C ces Ac

HEAVY MANUFACTURING - DYNAMIC

6800 mm F-C Height

Linear method of fabrication with division of labour being paramount to the efficiency of the production times. Continuous movement of large machinery with at least 82 seconds for the workers to complete their tasks. Commonly used in mass produced industries such as car manufacturing. Usually assisted through robotics for greater efficiency and speed. Large floor to ceiling heights to accomodate for sizeable products and structural support. High level, intensive lighting strategies to provide a high lux level for efficient fabrcation and safety.

55 Ca 00 m rH m ois t

15 Wo 00 m rkd m es ks

mm ent 00 on 12 omp s C ces Ac mm ent mm 00 on y 12 omp s 1750 lkwa C ces Wa Ac

Lin

15 Wo 00 m rkd m es ks

mm on 00 ati 52 bric Fa

29 In 50 Sto term mm rag edia e ry

mm mm r 00 la 15 hicu s Ve ces Ac

MADE IN NEW YORK 123

Component for product completion applied via hand or by robotic measures. Ample space around product allowing easy access

Motorised production floor gradually transporting the car frame through factory

‘Fractal’ structural column providing maximum structural support with minimal structural intrusion at ground level

High level of factory maintenance and cleanliness ensuring maximum product efficiency and satisfaction

Large rooflight providing adequate natural daylight above the fabrication area

Main production line and ‘fractal’ roof support system, Skoda Modular Factory, Mlada Boleslav, Czech Republic 124

Use of robotics for fabrication and direct service provision.

Secondary steel structure suspended by tie-rods from roof construction supporting services required for production

Secondary minimal boxsection structural columns

Primary workspace with non-permanent workspace furniture ensuring a flexible, multi-functional space for further industries and product fabrication.

Lightweight, thin structural steel truss with integrated secondary structural members and service provision

High level of factory maintenance and cleanliness ensuring maximum product efficiency and satisfaction

Large glazed frontage providing maximum natural daylight for a good working environment. Direct visual link to exterior encouraging the production line to be transparent rather than hermetic

Minimal electric lighting suspended off secondary steel members at low level for detailed production processes

Ribbon windows at high level providing further natural daylight for intricate textile production

Manufacturing Floor, Ipekyol Textile Factory, Erdine, Turkey MADE IN NEW YORK 125

High level of factory maintenance and cleanliness ensuring maximum product efficiency and satisfaction

Robotic delivery system transporting entire engine, frame and fuel system to be inserted to the underside of the frames in the car hoists.

Maple clad production floor. Slowly travels down the production line providing electrical power to stand alone distribution tool ‘towers’ for smaller electrical tools

Ceiling mounted production line transporting car frames for component installation. Car hoists can be rotated to allow maximum access all areas of the product with minimal effort

Main Production Line, VW Gläserne Manufaktur (Glass Factory), Dresden 126

Clad entirely in glass the factory has ample amounts of natural daylight provision in addition to reversing the conception of a hermetic factory environment allowing the public to view the entire production process

Long span structural steel with integrated service build-up supporting car hoists and secondary production floor

Lit partially by electric lighting for intricacy of component installation directly above fabrication area

Light-weight nacelle surrounding being prepared for installation

Lateral Crane Hoists - capable of nacelle and tower transportation along the production line

High level of factory maintenance and cleanliness ensuring maximum product efficiency and satisfaction

Individual areas adjacent the main production line allowing for direct access around each of the nacelle motors

Structural steel truss. Very high floor to ceiling height lit by electric lighting with minimal natural daylight

Structural X braced column and beam construction supporting the weight of the roof plus lateral movements of product transfer through factory

Nordex Wind Turbine Manufacturing Plant, Arkansas, U.S - Nacelle Fabrication MADE IN NEW YORK 127

128

‘If you are a pharmaceutical company or a steel company, you do not need to be here. New York City should not waste it’s time on manufacturing.’ Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, 2003

MADE IN NEW YORK 129

O4 ZONING AND THE IMPACT ON THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT “The most direct threat to the manufacturing community is not international global competition but urban policies that privilige those economic functions that have a global image over those businesses that serve a primarily local market.” - Winifred Curran “If planned re-zonings go through New York will have lost 20 percent of all its manufacturing space in the span of just a few years” - Pratt Center for Community Development, April, 2009

130

MADE IN NEW YORK 131

PROBLEM

The inadvertent decentralisation of New York’s already dwindling manufacturing sector has been aggravated by the current administration’s passive support towards commercial and real estate development for neoliberal economic stimulus. Between 2002 and January 2012, the City Planning Commission and City Council approved re-zonings of manufacturing districts to better reflect local characteristics and to guide new investment. The emphasis on a global city economy has led to homogenised urban development policies that seek to attract producer services and the “Creative Class” (Florida, 2002). In 2013, with only 75,000 manufacturing jobs in the city, (a 30% decrease compared to only 2006), the recent implementation of these re-zonings and industrial policies have shown to have been undermined through insufficient regulation and diminishing financial support. Subsequently these measures, along with hollow planning policies, planning loopholes and volatile up-zoning speculation near manufacturing based districts, have resulted in a unwavering uncertainty amongst local manufacturers towards the expulsion of manufacturing in their area. In order to augment and support the basis from which manufacturers can once again prosper in the city, in addition to an architectural response, revised zoning and definitive policy measures must be explored in order to retain the huge employment potential that the city’s manufacturing workforce has to offer. With reference to one of the recently created IBZs in Williamsburg, Brooklyn and current zoning policies, the following section will aim to suggest how certain policies and strategies could be reinterpreted. In addition, this aims to promote the a re-assessment of these areas primarily towards industrial retention and expansion and not those of authorised non-industrial uses such as storages warehouses, superstores and hotels amongst others. In the context of a wider design research project, this chapter will focus primarily on the issues surrounding the passive planning policies that encompass the Greenpoint and Williamsburg area of Brooklyn whilst examining the current zoning measures in place. This chapter will therefore aim to identify and discuss alternative proposals in the methods of existing planning policy and zoning with regards to advocate towards the retention of industry.

132

1. 46th Street between Vernon Boulevard and Fifth Street, Long Island City, Queens 2 . Converted industrial property - North Fifth Street between Berry and Wythe, Williamsburg

MADE IN NEW YORK 133

42 West Street, Greenpoint Brooklyn - A former 50,000sqft abandoned rope and twine factory during conversion into 59 loft apartments

134

EVOLUTION

Since the Commissionerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Plan in 1811 that envisaged a cartesian street layout in order to cope with the rapid expansion of New York City, there have been several prominent zoning mechanisms that have been introduced into the overall planning strategy at a citywide level that have shown to be prime catalyst for how New York has evolved. Zoning has not always kept up with the prevailing land uses within the city itself. As the socio-political landscape changed along with the trends in the economy, the rapid urbanisation of New York along with the surrounding boroughs has seen dramatic shifts in land use requirements. Planning policy has evolved with the changing state of urban planning theory, political priorities and legal constraints particularly with the zoning resolutions of 1916 and 1961 which aimed to establish and update a model for the expanding the urban communities not only in New York but throughout the United States. The principal force behind development initiatives was the non-profit New York City Economic Development Corporation4 (NYCEDC). Many manufacturers view the current situation as an urban policy of neglect that passively supports the gradual decentralisation of industry. The incentives behind residential development over industrial is clear to see when a waterfront condominium can sell for over $1,500 per square foot in the outer boroughs, the market gives little incentive to develop industrial space that goes for closer to $10 per square foot (Yang, 2014). Although it can be argued that the creative industries, FIRE services have helped to improve New York Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s employment, a solid manufacturing base will continue to keep it stable (Huff, 2012). The most direct threat to the manufacturing community is not international global competition but damaging urban policies that privilege those economic functions that have an agenda over those businesses that serve and support a primary market, i.e. manufacturers.

NYCEDC was formed in 1991 as an amalgamation of two non-profit organisations - The Public Development Corporation (PDC) and the Financial Services Corporation (FSC) MADE IN NEW YORK 135

Source: Courtesy of Pratt Center for Community Development. PLUTO.

- Industrial Business Zone (IBZ)

Diminishing Manufacturing Land, New York City, 2008 (fig 3.2)

- Manufacturing within IBZs - Manufacturing outside IBZs - Re-zonings 2002-2008 - Proposed Rezonings

10 136

Essay 5.indd 10

4/16/2014 9:55:25 PM

PRESSURING BROOKLYN

Williamsburg has long been the main location of many major industries to establish themselves in the city such as Standard Oil, Domino Sugar and Schaefer Beer amongst others. Since the decline of the maritime sector there has been a gradual decay of large industry with geo-political and socio-economic pressures forcing business to relocate and tertiary service provisions to be allocated in their place. The recent aggressive re-zonings along the coastlines of Brooklyn and Queens (fig 3.0) prompt further planning issues that raises the problem that these former industrial or under-zoned areas were never expected to have a large populace. Evidence of declining industrial employment in the area has provided underlying justification for the re-zonings that have subsequently been implemented (Wolf-Powers, 2005). The proposal calls for two residential towers of 30 and 40 storeys respectively on ‘underutilised’ manufacturing zoned land in NW Greenpoint (fig 3.0 & 3.1) which will inevitably drive out the residual industry due to upzoning pressures (fig 3.2). However as Dennis Holt rightly states, “the sidewalks are narrow, there aren’t enough schools, there isn’t enough park space and major utilities will need to be installed...We cannot build out of this recession and we are giving away space that is only being rethought of by entrepreneurs...” (Holt, 2013).

1. IBZ Boundary Signage

2. Greenpoint Landing Development - Zoning R-8 (fig 3.0)

3. Hunters Point Development - Zoning R-10 (fig 3.1)

New York is experiencing a chronic housing shortage, and any attempt to protect manufacturing rather than support expanded housing is politically unpalatable (Curran & Hanson, 2005). Additionally, manufacturing properties have been exploited by landowners and developers respectively who assume that they would be granted a ‘back door’ legal zoning variance from the Boards of Standards and Appeals (BSA) (Curran & Hanson, 2005) due to the inability to get a adequate return in the existing zoning provision which thus encourages illegal conversions that together further erodes the unstable industrial boundary. The current re-zoning in Williamsburg is not only a nod to the real-estate speculators but an outcome of the former administrations focus of the chronic housing shortage. Speculations and BSA conversions have slowly altered the former industrial prominence in the area, relinquishing towards a higher-income population and consequently rapid up-zoning growth. In the case of Williamsburg-Greenpoint, Wolf-Powers suggests that at the least, city planners and others charged with regulating land use should consider how their actions may have worked to accelerate a trend that has negative repercussions for business owners and their employees (Wolf-Powers, 2005). Sceptical zoning measures, waning financial support, adverse local policy measures and overheated development speculation, generate a dismal outlook for those manufacturers who wish to remain in Williamsburg and Greenpoint. It is the city planner’s view that it is satisfactory to imagine an urban economy based entirely on tertiary services, tourism and retail and has largely been unquestioned in mainstream discourse. Therefore, the study suggests that they require further investigation.

MADE IN NEW YORK 137

FABRICATING PLANNING

The symbolic zoning resolution of 1916 first categorised manufacturing use and location through the perceived external impact placing them in ‘unrestricted’ zones primarily outside Manhattan in the surrounding boroughs. This enabled a foundation for the holistic Euclidean framework through which the City’s physical urban environment has developed. Subsequent zoning modifications have generated an in depth, but only horizontal, specification for the present-day and planned economic growth. Former administrations have long been aware of the post-industrial development engendering a spatial conflict with industrial zones which has been most recently addressed by the former Bloomberg administration with their creation of incentive based IBZs as a enhanced replacement for the outmoded In-Place Industrial Parks (IPIPs). New York’s planning and development policy relies heavily on the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURPS) (fig 3.5) which is derived from a series of governmental tiers involving the Department of City Planning (DCP), the CPC, Community Boards, Borough Presidents, Borough Boards, the city council and finally the Mayor. This establishes a rigorous assessment of development proposals from zoning amendments, disposition of land use and extensive renewal plans amongst others. Increasingly policy decisions are made within a neoliberal ideological framework in which urban space is mobilised for market-orientated economic growth and elite consumption practices (Brenner & Theodore, 2002). An extensive 1993 study conducted by the City Planning Commission (CPC) concluded that the Queens and Brooklyn coastline housed the largest concentration of manufacturing jobs outside of Manhattan claiming that 63% of total industrial sector employment is located within a three mile radius of Manhattan’s central business district highlighting the need for industrial sector businesses to be in close proximity to the city’s CBD (New York City Department of Planning, 1993) (Curran & Hanson, 2005). The city’s focus on tertiary service sectors to prolong current economic trends has estranged the local manufacturing sector’s already waning socio-economic confidence. The zoned manufacturing districts, according to the CPC and DCP have the aim to promote the most desirable use of land and direction of building development in accord with a well considered plan, to promote stability of manufacturing and related development, to strengthen the economic base of the city (Article IV)(The City of New York, 2014), however planners’ passive support of industrial decentralisation stems from their allegiance to the influential property led economic development policies (Wolf-Powers, 2005).

138

1. City Planning Commission - Department of City Planning

“The IBZ doesn’t really have any teeth to it. It’s really a designation, but there’s no enforcement or legal component to the IBZ,” ... “And because of that a budget can just go up and down and really take the funding out of the program.” Jean Tanler (Sheppard, 2013)

"An urban location offering proximity to suppliers and customers is essential to New York City manufacturers." (Curran & Hanson, 2005)

MADE IN NEW YORK 139

The dissemination of the IBZs into planning policy in 2005 included several initiatives that were intended to promote and retain the declining manufacturing base and to alleviate the main concerns of space constraints, real estate uncertainty, high costs and lack of a supportive business environment (City of New York, 2005). 1. The Bloomberg administration will guarantee not to re-zone IBZs to allow residential uses. - The IBZ boundaries will be provided to the Board of Standards and Appeals, and the board will consider the impact of any proposed variances in the context of industrial character of these neighbourhoods and the effect of any land use changes on surrounding businesses. 2. Additional incentives for businesses relocating from within New York to an IBZ will be created. 3. Area-planning studies for each IBZ will be conducted. 4. IBZs will be marketed to new, expanding or relocating businesses. (City of New York, 2005)

The City will also implement additional initiatives to further stabilise the uncertainty such as discouraging illegal conversions, promote existing incentive programs and to leverage city owned industrial assets purely for industrial uses. Additionally, the creation of the Office of Industrial and Manufacturing Businesses (OIMB) is intended to oversee the progression of the IBZs. Similar to Empire Zones, IBZs were aimed to better reflect the most productive industrial districts in the city through the introduction of financial incentives and planning support along with a adaptation of former IPIP boundaries which highlight the administration’s less stringent malleable zoning measures. Through the spatial clustering of industry it has been shown widely in academic discourse (Porter E, 1995, Cumbers, 2004, Gordon & McCann, 2000, Funderburg & Boarnet, 2008, Brookings Institution, 2013 et al) that there is an overall competitive advantage to be located within concentrated industrial agglomerations other which emphasized the importance of local knowledge and contacts on growth and innovation. Precedent for the IBZs emerged through the national study of similar methods for the retention of industrial land such as Chicago with Planned Manufacturing Districts (PMDs), Los Angeles with the Clean Tech Corridor and the Industrial Incentive Program (Mistry & Byron, 2011). However these ‘protected’ zoning districts have not been codified by NYC DCP zoning regulations (Crespo, 2013) and theoretically, De Blasio’s administration could reverse the operation. Further assessment of industrial zoning strategy would have to incorporate a Chicago style PMD guideline as Crespo states, a permanent “Super M zone-type policy”. In a recent study to review the perceived negative effects that the IBZs have on the immediate areas, Ben Huff, formerly of the NYCEDC, highlights that in the 1 mile ‘buffer zone’ around each IBZ studied in his report there is a higher rate of neighbourhood

140

Opposite: Article IV Manufacturing District Regulations highlighting the protection of the manufacturing districts from any residential development which has fallen drastically short.

New York City Planning Department, 2013

MADE IN NEW YORK 141

development compared to the average borough development (Huff, 2012). Also real estate land prices have surprisingly risen significantly over a four year study period but slow in comparison with a borough average which still allows for the space to remain affordable which goes against the idea that designated manufacturing zones will deter residential development. At a city wide level, more branding is needed in order to portray these areas as sustainable industrial communities rather than underutilised land. Invasive uses of residential and retail need to be curbed or appropriately enforced. How can these industrial policies be better incorporated not only into the fabric of the City but into the City’s zoning maps? Even with Huff’s persuasive statistical argument, the rhetoric of IBZs are generally not accepted due to the perceived pollution, noise, sanitation and infrastructural pressures that come with any such industrial land-use proposal. Furthermore these zones (Fig 3.3) are not currently exclusive towards manufacturing with ‘big box stores’, hotels, waste management and warehousing permitted within the boundaries. Only 3.6% of New York City land is dedicated towards ‘manufacturing’ (New York City Department of Planning, 2010) yet the term incorporates various other land uses that occupy a significant proportion of the already scarce amounts of land available creating further competition for adequate industrial space. Until stricter zoning regulations with regards to nonconforming uses are implemented then the outlook of these ‘dedicated’ industrial zones remains uncertain.

“The city’s policymakers are actively creating a hostile business environment for New York’s manufacturers and actively contributing to the sector’s demise in favor of higher end uses.” (Curran & Hanson, 2005)

“Our businesses report that about 40 percent of their workforce lives locally [...] Our community needs these jobs.They (manufacturers) could go to New Jersey, but we think it's really important they stay in business here because they employ so many of our community's residents.” - East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Corporation

1. Fifth Street and 47th Road in Long Island City

1. 142

Vacant lot - prime real esate opportunity Illegal conversion to residential lofts erodes extent of IBZ and M zoned land

$ Former industrial property renovated for residential use for higher rental returns

‘Big box’ warehouse - legally allowed within IBZ however further erosion of suitable manufacturing space is accelerated by ambiguous ‘manufacturing’ definitions

IBZ DESIGNATION

Unoccupied industrial property with potential for residential conversion through ‘upzoning’ pressures

Tax Incentives + Direct Business Assistance +

$ 100,000 per business

IBZ

IBZ boundary is not legally ratified on any zoning document

Fig 3.3 Industrial Business Zone

$ 1000 per employee IBZ Incentives (NYCEDC, 2012)

MADE IN NEW YORK 143

INDUSTRIAL ZONING AND ACQUISITION

The basis for the spatial parameters that have been inherent in the city’s planning policy has been through the implementation of Euclidean zoning. This enables segregation of land-uses and further subsidiary restrictions on development, however, the flexibility and performance standards of these zones, in order to keep up with prevailing land uses, have often been criticised. Further industrial expansion would necessitate the exploration of performance and incentive zoning in order to provide an updated means for zoning rather than a seemingly antiquated method that offers limited flexibility. In this spatial conflict we see that two competing interests are central to the planning policy of the city. On one hand, local government and non-profit organisations try to lend assistance to the manufacturing sector, providing real estate speculation security whilst hoping for the benefits of a diversified economy and jobs for the targeted demographic of the underemployed and undereducated; on the other hand, real estate developers and structural speculators trying to leverage the demand for mass housing in order to build large-scale projects on cheaper re-zoned manufacturing land through both propertyled economic development strategies, and the protracted breakdown of industry within the IBZs. This aims to drive the post-industrial scenario absolving any concern over moderating the local socio-economic market. Atlantic Yards, Brooklyn; Hunts Point, Bronx, and Willets Point, Queens have all similarly been subject to recent intense developmental pressure to manoeuvre construction towards a post-industrial overhaul of the region. Not only does the redevelopment side have more money, they have support from politically connected groups, as Huff argues: “Active entrepreneurs look to capture rents by putting themselves in locations that will become increasingly strategic over time. Structural speculators do not wait for a market to show value in land, but simply alter the conditions that structure the market, with the hope of having a monopoly or the best position to capture rents. Structural speculators ignore regulation on land, in this case the current zoning, and may use political connections to accomplish their goals of changing the neighbourhood” (Huff, 2012) Large scale publicly-led industrial development in the city is best explored through such examples of industrial ‘incubators’ such as the Brooklyn Naval Yard and the Greenpoint Manufacturing Design Centre (GMDC, 2009). Through the involvement of the NYCEDC

144

“Not all of these individuals are creating Googles or startups. You need to have a place for individuals to work and provide for a family, otherwise you’re going to have a very divided and stagnant economy.” - Carl Hum, former director of Office of Industrial and Manufacturing Businesses (OIMB)

it has created an up-scaled industrial cluster from the agglomerations of small industrial firms in addition to creating a self-styled insularity from real-estate pressures and speculation (Crespo, 2013). Despite their somewhat controversial reputation, NYCEDC’s use of public assets to leverage private development has been instrumental in keeping New York City the business hub of the region. As Crespo states, land use policy must go hand in hand with the City’s efforts to promote manufacturing and must not be mutually exclusive whilst providing a foundation on which other pro-industrial policies should be based (Crespo, 2013). Policies to increase the viability of industry in the mixed-use neighbourhoods (Jacobs, 1993) where it has the greatest chance of thriving should be a high priority for city officials. The fact that these neighbourhoods are also appealing spots for high-end residential and commercial development makes the challenge harder--but it is a challenge that should not be ignored (Wolf-Powers, Center for an Urban Future, 2003). New York relies primarily on incentives in order to stimulate small amounts of new construction from developers, consequently the city could, in theory, underwrite or subsidise the costs of acquiring industrial property and transfer it to a non-profit entity through a long term lease although it is widely known that public funding for manufacturing is limited. Otherwise, joint ventures between private and non-profit entities through a Public Private Partnership (P3s) should be proposed, as it presents the most attractive and reliable method for any potential large industrial expansion. As opposed to private or outsourcing initiatives, a P3 arrangement allows the NYCEDC to merge public and private assets while maintaining oversight of the project’s inception, implementation and development (NYCEDC, 2011) whilst dividing risk, responsibility and incentives. Furthermore, NYCEDC funding should be re-assessed to update and generate additional revenue streams that would be aimed at a broader proportion of manufacturers who currently do not have sufficient access to relevant funding.

MADE IN NEW YORK 145

G GRR EEEE N N PP O O IIN N TT

EEAA SSTT W WIILL LL IIAA M M SSBBU U RR G G N EX WY

W WIILL LL IIAA M M SSBBU U RR G G

BBU U SSH HW WIICC KK

BK-Q

N N AAVVYY YYAA RRD D

CCYY PP RREE SSSS H HIILL LL SS H HIIG GH HLL AA N ND D PPAARR KK

BBRRO OO OKK LLYYN N H HEE IIG GH H TTSS CCO O BBBB LL EE H HIILL LL

FFO O RRTT G GRR EEEE N N EE

EEAA SSTT N N EE W W YYO O RRKK

W WEEEE KKSSVV IILL LL EE PPRR O OSS PPEE CC TT H HEE IIG GH H TTSS

CCRR O OW WN N H HEE IIG GH H TTSS

G GO OW WAA N NU U SS

N N EEW W LLO OTT SS

Y EASTERN PKW

PPAARR KK SSLL O OPP EE

PPRR O OSS PPEE CC TT LL EEFF FF EE RR TTSS G GAA RRD D EEN N SS

EX W Y S GO W AN U

SSU UN N SSEE TT PPAARR KK

SSPP RRII N NG G CCRR EE EEKK

BBRRO OW WN N SSVVII LL LL EE

W WIIN NG GAATT EE RRU UG G BBYY

W WIIN ND DSS O ORR TTEE RR RRAA CC EE

PPRR O OSS PPEE CC TT PPAARR KK SSO OU UTT H H

CCII TTYY LL IIN N EE

BBRRO O AAD DW WAAYY JJU UN N CC TT IIO ON N

O OCC EEAA N N H HIILL LL

BBO O EERR U UM M H HIILL LL

CCAA RR RRO O LL LL G GAA RRD D EEN N SS

RREE D D H HO OO O KK

BBEE D DFF O ORR D D SSTT U U YYVV EESSAA N N TT

D DIITT M MAA SS PPAARR KK

SSTTAARR RR EETT TT CCII TTYY

RREE M MSS EEN N VVIILL LL AA G GEE

CCAA N N AA RRSSII EE

EEAA SSTT FF LL AATT BB U USS H H

PPAAEE RR D DEEG G AATT BBAA SSIIN N

KKEEN N SSIIN NG G TTO ON N FF LL AATT BB U U SSH H FF LL AATT LL AA N ND D SS EA OC

G GEEO O RRG G EETT O OW WN N

BBO O RRO OU UG GH H PPAARR KK

Y KW

M MIID DW WO OO OD D M MIILL LL BBAA SSIIN N

BBAAYYRRIID DG GEE O OCC EEAA N N PPAARR KKW WAAYY

D DYY KKEE RR H HEE IIG GH H TTSS

M MAA N NH HAATT TTAA N N TTEE RR RRAA CC EE M MAA D DIISS O ON N

M MAA RRIIN N EE PPAA RRKK

BBEE N N SSO ON NH HU U RRSSTT

FFO O RRTT H HAA M MIILLTT O ON N

H HO OM M EECC RR EESSTT BELT

PKW Y

BBAATT H H BBEE AACC H H

G GEE RRRR IITT SSEE N N BBEE AACC H H

G GRR AAVVEE SSEE N ND D

Unchanged 2002 M-Zones: SSH HEE EE PP SSH HEE AAD D BBAAYY

BBRR IIG GH H TTO ON N BBEE AACC H H SSEEAA G GAATT EE

M MAA N NH HAATT TTAA N N BBEE AACC H H

Rezonings affecting 2002 M-Zones: M to C M to Mixed Use M to R New M or New Mixed Use M to M or Mixed Use to Mixed Use

CCO ON N EEYY II SSLL AA N ND D

Re-zonings affecting Brooklyn Manufacturing Districts, 2002 - 2012 (fig 4.0) Fig 3.4 Re-zonings affecting Brooklyn Manufacturing Districts, 2002 - 2012

146

Legend

NYC Planning Department, 2013 New York City Planning Department 2013

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Many empty promises were made to the industrial sector by the previous administration and now was the time to turn it around.â&#x20AC;? - Brad Lander, 2014, former director of the Pratt Center for Community Development

The systematic, almost predetermined approach with which the New York City Planning Department has submissively guided the policy of the global city economy has shown to disregard the pressing urban decline of the manufacturing sector. The City is at a crucial point whereby with increasing political and developmental pressure, the existing passivity of city planners against the manufacturing sector would become more direct and pro-active thus expelling industrial jobs and not aligning appropriate space with the wider interests of the City in mind (Lander, 2009). Coexistence between manufacturers would offer security in not only policy and physical boundaries, but also the encroaching onset of post-industrial development. Critics of the property-driven approach suggest that industrial activities cannot be stripped from the economic base without leaving the City dangerously vulnerable to fluctuations in the finance and producer services industries. Concerning a proposal that would aim to provide an alternate physical approach to industrial retention through vertical expansion (Crespo, 2013) ( , 2011), a substantial reassessment of the spatial configuration of manufacturing policy in the city would have to be executed: Qualitative form and performance based vertical urban planning codes could be explored as an alternative and a compromise for the current spatial conflict and unavoidable post-industrial urban expansion (fig 3.4). Existing methods of zoning and planning policy highlight the substantial physical and political challenges that must be addressed in order to avoid further industrial regression in the inner city. The statements presented in this chapter represent an opportunity to launch a new political and academic discourse that would promote and establish rhetoric for the retention of city-wide industry. This would, in theory, involve the modification of industrial funding streams and an in-depth reappraisal of the political and policy enforcement of IBZs. A 2013 report on the future of industrial neighbourhoods in Brooklyn advocated the re-assessment of these areas and more involvement from a broad-based local coalition and Community Development Corporations (Crespo, 2013). However, any dramatic industrial stimulus would be a risky political gamble given the ever-pressing affordable housing shortage. Both developers and non-profit organisations present contrasting viewpoints on the economic consequences that will inevitably restrict any positive growth of the industrial sector in a time of alternate economic priorities. In the case of Williamsburg-Greenpoint, as Wolf-Powers suggested, the city planners should consider how their actions have accelerated the negative repercussions on business owners and their employees (Wolf-Powers, 2005). As manufacturers vacate the areas in question, the zoning that remains presents an opportunity for the the new administration of Bill de Blasio radically rethink how the City approaches industrial retention and development. Through investigating the proposition of vertical urban planning codes concerning the preservation and support of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s manufacturers, it may result in not only the potential to alleviate the pressing zoning and planning issues of those currently facing involuntary relocation but the possibility of a new industrial urbanism. Although the initial approach to the design thesis is policy driven, the conclusions presented aim to act as an instrument to further inform the practical design iteration.

MADE IN NEW YORK 147

ULURP - Uniform Land Use Review Procedure GLOSSARY -

(fig 3.5)

DCP - Department of City Planning

CPC - City Planning Commission

CB - Community Board

BP - Borough President

CC - City Council

BB - Borough Board

CITY MAP CHANGES - MAPS OF SUBDIVISIONS - ZONING MAP - CPC SPECIAL PERMITS - REVOCABLE CONSENTS FRANCHISE RFP’S MAJOR CONCESSIONS NON-CITY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - HOUSING AND URBAN RENEWAL PLANS - LANDFILLS - DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY - ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY - SITE SELECTION DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING

PROCESS DURATION

Application and Pre-Certification Receives application and related documents - Forwards application and documents wihtin 5 days to CB, BP, and CC - Certifies application as complete

NO SPECIFIC TIME LIMIT (after 6 months, applicant or BP in some cases, may appeal to CPC for certification)

COMMUNITY BOARD Notifies public - Holds public hearing - Submits recommendation to CPC, BP AND BB - Can waive rights on franchise RFPs and leases

_____________________________________ 60 DAYS

BOROUGH PRESIDENT AND BOROUGH BOARD BP submits recommendation to CPC or waives right to do so - If project affects more than one CB a public hearing may be held and submit recommendation to CPC or waive right to do so

___________________30 DAYS

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Holds public hearing - Approves, modifies or disapproves application - Files approvals and approval with modifications with City Council - Disapprovals are final, except for zoning map changes, special permits and urban renewal plans

_____________________________________ 60 DAYS

CITY COUNCIL Can review application, hold public hearing and vote to approve, approve with modifications or disapprove - Refers any proposed modifications to CPC for an additional 15 day review - If council does not act, CPC decision is final.

_______________________________50 DAYS

MAYOR ___ 5 DAYS Reviews application - May veto Council action - If council does not act, may veto CPC decision

CITY COUNCIL May override Mayor’s veto by 2/3 vote

22 148

______ 10 DAYS

Deindustrialisation is defined as - “widespread, systematic disinvestment in the nation’s basic productive capacity.” (Bluestone & Harrison, 1984)

26 Essay 5.indd 26

MADE IN NEW YORK 149 4/16/2014 9:56:20 PM

ZONING ALLOCATION The wide-ranging diversity of zoning within New York reflects the complexity and dynamism of the City’s urban districts and the recent updates provide a framework for industrial development that builds upon the unique qualities of each of those neighbourhoods. Manufacturing zones are based upon performance standards that apply a minimum/maximum allowable limit on noise, vibration and smoke amongst others and restrictions in specific industrial land uses. The intensity of the industry is also regulated by the FAR (floor area ratio) of which four are applicable to manufacturing (1.0, 2.0, 5.0 and 10) that restricts the permissible height allocating for the low-rise topography of industrial areas. As the majority of the Greenpoint and Williamsburg is zoned M1-1 - M1-3 the set back heights and floor areas are limited which have caused a large amount of low-rise light industry with an average floor area of less than 5000 sqft (New York City, Department of Planning, 2011). ‘The Zoning Handbook is intended to make zoning more accessible to all, and to help New Yorkers advocate for their neighborhoods’. New York City Planning Department, 2011

150

Sky exposure plane

60ft 85ft

85ft

30ft

Zoning - M1 - 1 FAR - 1.0 Building cannot penetrate sky exposure plane, which begins 30 ft above street level. Common in Greenpoint and Williamsburg

Zoning - M1 - 4 FAR - 2.0 Building cannot penetrate sky exposure plane, which begins at 60 ft above street level. Common in Greenpoint and Williamsburg

Zoning - M1 - 5 FAR - 5.0 Building cannot penetrate sky exposure plane, which begins 85 ft above street level. Common in mixed use residential areas

Zoning - M1 - 6 FAR - 10.0 Building cannot penetrate sky exposure plane, which begins at 85ft above street level. Common in central Manhattan - Garment District New York City Department of Planning, 2012

MADE IN NEW YORK 151

ZONING AMENDMENTS The current zoning allocation towards manufacturing structures would have to be less stringent in accordance with land use regulations to accommodate a clustered vertiginous manufacturing proposal. The M1-6M allocation would be best suited to a unobstructed manufacturing tower due to the FAR allocation and the bonus with regards to a plaza FAR of +2 that would allow an waterfront development plan to be integrated. However, the sky exposure plane, the point at which a set-back would be required for light exposure, would be based on proximity to another adjacent structures which in this case would be a minimum 50 metres. The M1 allocation indicates that those industries that occupy the tower would have a minimal external impact in terms of noise and pollution which in accordance with the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contemporary manufacturing trend. The transfer of unused development rights (TDR)5 (i.e. air rights) could also be purchased to increase the structural height of any given proposal from adjacent areas that are subsequently re-zoned with a larger mass allocation which is somewhat analogous to current efforts to encourage affordable housing by giving developers a bonus toward market rate housing if they build affordable housing offsite (Crespo, 2013). Furthermore, an ascending program of zoning would be implemented to enforce sectional performance zoning in order to mitigate the perceived external impacts of certain industrial processes such as exhaust gases and vibrations. The advocation for the aforementioned performance zoning methods rather than Euclidean zoning would also ensure that additional socio-economic measures and can be enforced after the proposal has been constructed.

A transfer of development rights (TDR) allows for the transfer of unused development rights from one zoning lot to another in limited circumstances (New York City Department of Planning, 2011)

152

Manufacturing District Floor Area Ratios Manufacturing FAR M1-13 M1-23 M1-33 M1-43 M1-53 M1-5A M1-5B M1-5M M1-64 M1-6M M2-1 M2-2 M2-3 M2-4 M3-1 M3-2

1.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.02 10.02 2.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 2.0FAR with bonus 2 Up to 12.0 2.0

New York City Department of Planning, 2011

$ Sky Exposure Plane Unused air rights can be purchased and transferred to a new development

100ft/ 30m

Sky exposure plane

50m Area re-zoned M1-6M

M1-6M (Revised Vertical Manufacturing Proposal) FAR - 10 (+2 FAR bonus for plaza) Maximum Street Wall -

- 30m

- 50m Minimum spacing between structures to avoid sky exposure plane Maximum Building Height - No limit

MADE IN NEW YORK 153

EXISTING THRESHOLDS The current state of the IBZs in Greenpoint and Williamsburg are solely located in the last remaining concentrations of industry in south-west Greenpoint and the Newtown Creek waterfront. These free enterprise zones have not encompassed the majority of the manufacturing based land-uses along the coastline of the East River as the areas have been designated to be a major development-led focus for huge 20+ storey residential developments. Consequently, these areas are subject to intense development speculation and up-zoning precipitating further dispersal of the local manufacturers and erosion of manufacturing zoned land.

Opposite: Current IBZ Boundary Locations

1. North Fifth Street between Berry and Wythe avenues in Williamsburg. Renovated industrial property for residential purposes.

154

ens Que oklyn Bro

EAST

RIVER

GREENPOINT

BROOKLYN NAVY YARD

IBZ BOUNDARY

MADE IN NEW YORK 155

FABRICATING THRESHOLDS In conjunction with the vertical factory proposal arrayed along the Greenpoint and Williamsburg coastline, the manipulation of planning and zoning policy in the district is strongly advised in order to alleviate the aforementioned development-led speculation and up-zoning pressures. This is suggested by an policy ratification to extend and strengthen the current IBZ boundary thresholds and policies to include the coastal manufacturing agglomerations currently zoned for residential purposes. This would further embolden the manufacturing sector from the onset of commercial and residential developments, however, as the IBZ is not codified by zoning regulations it could be easily withdrawn. As reiterated by Crespo, specific industrial zones could also be placed under significant restrictions in order to protect industrial firms from displacement. and gentrification based upon Chicagoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Planned Manufacturing Districts (Crespo, 2013). Greenpointâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s manufacturers must be seen as a valuable asset to the City and not simply an anachronism, however, any such suggestion that potential prime real-estate land is advocated for industrial purposes in the face of a pressing city-wide housing shortage is politically unpalatable. The study area represents the polarised conflict between contemporary urban development and passive city planners and the embedded local manufacturers. Yet the City has an opportunity to unearth the potential of the local manufacturing sector in Greenpoint through the support of a major industrial hub within the heart of New York.

156

Opposite: Proposed IBZ Boundary Ratification

ens Que oklyn Bro

GREENPOINT

IBZ EXTENSION #001

EAST

RIVER

IBZ EXTENSION #003 & #004

IBZ EXTENSION #002

BROOKLYN NAVY YARD

IBZ BOUNDARY IBZ BOUNDARY RATIFICATION PROPOSAL

MADE IN NEW YORK 157

THE CHANGING FACE OF INDUSTRY Although the presence of IBZs are meant to prevent re-zoning to commercial and residential land uses, the manufacturers located in and around the boundary will become subject to future uncertainty due to inevitable land price rises. Unless the IBZs are protected and located on zoning diagrams the insecurity and volatility over the future of manufacturers will continue to persist. The advertisements by real estate developers around Brooklyn are emblematic of how the area is developing. Large commercial and residential tower blocks highlight a clear shift from a heavily industrialised area to one dedicated towards an apparent real estate catalyst for growth. However, the importance of the manufacturing sector should not be overlooked due to its economic and employment potential.

158

Opposite: Real estate condo developments, following re-zonings, are being frequently proposed throughout the area. Gentrification of old industrial sites has seen Long Island City become an opportunity for developers due to the inexpensive land and close proximity to Manhattan.

MADE IN NEW YORK 159

MASS REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS The coastline of Queens and Brooklyn on the East River has been outlined for mass residential developments integrated into a wider waterfront development plan. The onset of mass development led gentrification, not only is evicting manufacturing land uses but permanently transforming the informal mixed use vibrancy on which Greenpoint and Williamsburg are renowned (Jacobs, 2005, Brandes Gratz, 2010, Holt, 2013, Campo, 2010). Within the past decade large tower clusters have arisen in Hunters Point, Queens and Williamsburg, Brooklyn as the slow erosion of manufacturers along with development led strategies of unoccupied stretches of waterfront. The past 15 years have been the biggest building period in Brooklyn’s history (Holt, 2013) and it shows no sign of stopping with recent rezonings prompting further banal tower proposals. The coastline of Queens and Brooklyn looks set to be enveloped with numerous towers that do not contribute to the mixed use but strain inadequate facilities and existing infrastructure. Jacobs herself, as seen with the correspondence opposite, highlights the pressing need to preserve the existing fabric and not supplant it with “visually tiresome, unimaginative and imitative luxury project towers”. Alternatively, through augmenting assets already in place through what Brandes Gratz describes as ‘urban husbandry’ (Brandes Gratz, 2010), it develops a model of local economic development based on adding new types of work to old, promoting small businesses, and supporting the creative impulses of urban entrepreneurs over time rather than a definitive Euclidean approach to urban development.

160

Opposite: A letter sent to former Mayor Michael Bloomberg by activist Jane Jacobs encouraging the use of mixeduse neighbourhoods in the face of the city-wide development-led initiatives Below: 1. New York Dock Company, Red Hook. Renovation into 70 residential loft apartments 2. Due to high fiscal returns from converting to residential apartments, even local manufacturers are contributing to the demise of the sector

April 15, 2005 Mayor Michael Bloomberg and all members of the City Council c/o City Council President Gifford Miller Dear Mayor Bloomberg, My name is Jane Jacobs. I am a student of cities, interested in learning why some cities persist in prospering while others persistently decline; why some provide social environments that fulfill the dreams and hopes of ambitious and hardworking immigrants, but others cruelly disappoint the hopes of immigrant parents that they have found an improved life for their children. I am not a resident of New York although most of what I know about cities I learned in New York during the almost half-century of my life here after I arrived as an immigrant from an impoverished Pennsylvania coal mining town in 1934. I am pleased and proud to say that dozens of cities, ranging in size from London to Riga in Latvia, have found the vibrant success and vitality of New York to demonstrate useful and helpful lessons for their cities—and have realized that failures in New York are worth study as needed cautions. Let’s think first about revitalization successes; they are great and good teachers. They don’t result from gigantic plans and show-off projects, in New York or in other cities either. They build up gradually and authentically from diverse human communities; successful city revitalization builds itself on these community foundations, as the community-devised plan 197a does. What the intelligently worked out plan devised by the community itself does not do is worth noticing. It does not destroy hundreds of manufacturing jobs, desperately needed by New York citizens and by the city’s stagnating and stunted manufacturing economy. The community’s plan does not cheat the future by neglecting to provide provisions for schools, daycare, recreational outdoor sports, and pleasant facilities for those things. The community’s plan does not promote new housing at the expense of both existing housing and imaginative and economical new shelter that residents can afford. The community’s plan does not violate the existing scale of the community, nor does it insult the visual and economic advantages of neighborhoods that are precisely of the kind that demonstrably attract artists and other live-work craftsmen, initiating spontaneous and self-organizing renewal. Indeed so much renewal so rapidly that the problem converts to how to make an undesirable neighborhood to an attractive one less rapidly. Of course the community’s plan does not promote any of the vicious and destructive results mentioned. Why would it? Are the citizens of Greenpoint and Williamsburg vandals? Are they so inhumane they want to contrive the possibility of jobs for their neighbors and for the greater community? Surely not. But the proposal put before you by city staff is an ambush containing all those destructive consequences, packaged very sneakily with visually tiresome, unimaginative and imitative luxury project towers. How weird, and how sad, that New York, which has demonstrated successes enlightening to so much of the world, seems unable to learn lessons it needs for itself. I will make two predictions with utter confidence. 1. If you follow the community’s plan you will harvest a success. 2. If you follow the proposal before you today, you will maybe enrich a few heedless and ignorant developers, but at the cost of an ugly and intractable mistake. Even the presumed beneficiaries of this misuse of governmental powers, the developers and financiers of luxury towers, may not benefit; misused environments are not good long-term economic bets. Come on, do the right thing. The community really does know best. Sincerely, Jane Jacobs (Jacobs, Letter to Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council , 2005)

MADE IN NEW YORK 161

42 West Street, Greenpoint Brooklyn - A former abandoned rope and twine factory earmarked for residential conversion

162

MADE IN NEW YORK 163

“There’s an advantage to being close to your customers, and most of our customers are here. We depend on coming up with new ideas and concepts. By being in New York, we can more easily hear what our marketplace wants.” Harold Friedman, CEO, National Elevator Cab & Door, manufacturer of interior parts for elevators, Queens

Newtown Creek, looking south east towards J.J. Bryne Bridge. Prince Metal Recycling Plant. 164

MADE IN NEW YORK 165

OO5 THE VERTICAL FACTORY â&#x20AC;&#x153;If industrialists and urban planners reconsider the potential for building factories vertically in cities, this, in turn, would reinforce and reinvest in the cycles of making, consuming, and recycling for sustainable cities.â&#x20AC;? - Nina Rappaport, Vertical Urban Factory, 2011

166

MADE IN NEW YORK 167

THE VERTICAL FACTORY In order to progress the analysis it is critical to discuss the architectural and spatial characteristics of the proposed vertical factory. The notion of a vertical factory represents an opportunity to investigate the feasibility of a new industrial architecture within the postindustrialised city of New York. As there are no pre-conceived large scale vertiginous design strategies for such a proposal then various methods of form, spatial organisation, structure, function and programmatic efficiency can be explored. The perception of industry, particularly with new builds, is beginning to evolve from a homogenous, hermetic, polluting environment to a more transparent, sustainable operation. This is usually integrated on a wider socio-economic level with the broader community which supports and promotes local manufacturing in addition to absolving the former segregated industrial communities and creating the means for more self-sufficient cities. This design project has the potential to develop and improve upon prevailing patterns of urban industrial zoning and clustered production areas through a return to the vertical factory as a space of innovation and renewed urbanisation (Rappaport, 2009). The following chapter presents the design proposals of two vertical factories that respond to both intensive heavy manufacturing and light industry within inner city Brooklyn and Queens in an attempt to create a new spatial paradigm of production, consumption and inter-urban exchanges whilst further augmenting the city-wide industrial ecologies.

168

MADE IN NEW YORK 169

170

What if manufacturing could once again be a prominent economy in post-industrialised cities? Why not build them tall? And how might we return to innovative design?

MADE IN NEW YORK 171

Heavy Industry - Vertical Factory Proposal #01 Light Industry - Vertical Factory Proposal #02

172

Initial Industrial Masterplan - Intended to promote the entire coastline of Queens and Brooklyn as a interconnected hub of manufacturing activity with specific provison for light and heavy industry

DESIGN RE-EVOLUTION Both vertical factory projects exhibit similar defining principles that enable the stabilisation, retention and propagation of New York’s inner city industries. However, the user groups to which they respond form the basis of their disparity. Each scheme represents a polycentric inter-urban nodal relationship defined by either a transit orientated development or an applied ‘urban acupuncture’. Their integration into the surrounding industrial and residential contexts are paramount to the success as, unlike peripheral urban factory proposals, the scheme must utilise existing or restore alternative methods of transportation. PROJECT #1

181 Creek Manufacturing Node #001 - Looking across the East River towards midtown Manhattan from Newtown

Initially sought as a holistic resolution for all facets of industry in the city, the proposal explored a clustered agglomeration of multiple industries within a homogenised volume. Three 158m high towers perched on the Newtown Creek peninsula in Queens (see overleaf and appendix) aimed to create a new paradigmatic urbanism within the eclectic idiosyncrasy of the city. The repeatable industrial cluster provided a range of flexible manufacturing spaces that could accommodate a variety of large-scale industries. An exterior mega structural frame, variable large floor to ceiling heights and exterior structural lift cores allowed for maximum spatial allowance and adaptability. A reintroduction of the iconic finger pier was utilized in order to re-establish alternate distribution methods that have become uncommon in the city with 90m high projections into the East River to enable waterborne traffic to once again freely interact directly with a large agglomeration of manufacturers on a small footprint in the heart of the city.

Project #1 Newtown Creek, Queens

PROJECT #2 Expanding upon the established principles of a vertical heavy industrial proposal, the notion to employ an entirely top-down industrial provision would only estrange those light industrial manufacturers who are under extensive political and development-led economic pressure in order for residential construction to reappropriate the vacated properties. The towers would cater for the requirements of light industry though the provision of smaller, intimate volumes akin to those existing within the local area that provides a flexible series of homogenised spaces which can be occupied by a wide range of industries. The manufacturing nodes would intend to act as a physical socio-political barrier to counteract the adverse affects of the current administration’s inadequate industrial assistance and the onset of encroaching developments in Greenpoint and Williamsburg. Project #2 Greenpoint/ Williamsburg, Brooklyn

The subsequent section exhibits the first heavy industrial proposal followed by the final design realisation of the Greenpoint and Williamsburg vertical factory array.

MADE IN NEW YORK 173

PROJECT #01 A heavy industrial cluster located on Hunters Point peninsula, Queens aimed to cater towards every facet of the disregarded local manufacturing sector through the provision of multiple manufacturing based volumes. However, whilst establishing the basic principles and parameters of vertical urban industry, further constraints and suggestions were identified that have informed the basis for the final design iteration. By including heavy industry in the initial proposal, it would further estrange those small local manufacturers who were also intended to be accommodated through sheer fiscal disparity. Subsequently, the final vertical factory scheme is principally orientated towards the provision of more intimate spatial volumes in which only light industries can occupy.

174 180

Manufacturing Node #001 - Looking across the East River towards mid-town Manhattan from Newtown Creek 181 Creek Manufacturing Node #001 - Looking across the East River towards midtown Manhattan from Newtown MADE IN NEW YORK 175

Site Plan - PROJECT #01 Staggered along the coastline of Hunters Point, Queens, the three factories utilised the adjacent Long Island Railroad and reestablished the outmoded finger pier as primary methods of supply and distribution. Transit-orientated development initiatives with regards to clustered factory program ensures for the durability and efficiency of the industrial scheme which has been augmented into the final design scheme.

176

MADE IN NEW YORK 177

PROJECT #01 PRODUCTION VOLUMES

Generic Industrial HVAC Supply and Extract Systems

Large Goods Lifts

Low level electric lighting

Recreation/ Office space

Vertical Assembly Line

Small goods/ Employee Lifts

Dynamic Heavy Manufacturing - Car Fabrication

178

1. Double decker small goods/ employee 2. Large goods lifts for transportation of lifts situated on the southern and central components with wide or heavy loads. cores of the structure Primary distribution for component supply and fabrication.

3. Vertical Assembly Line - Components are fabricated horizontally and then applied to successive larger components on the ascending assembly line.

4. Primary exoskeletal structural columns distribute the loads from the vierendeel trusses ensuring no columns in the manufacturing space providing maximum flexibility.

5. Exoskeletal cross-bracing providing 6. Full height glazing/ polycarbonate/ 7. Optional low-level lighting for small, 8. Two main exterior cores lateral stability from direct and indirect kalwall panelling ensure a transparent intricate fabrication methods. with central concrete core loading serve effectively as lateral factory and uniform lighting levels. bracing and reduces the Transforms a typical factory away from a service runs. dark, hermetic environment.

9. Primary beams with a concrete infill distribute the loads to the primary structural columns whilst providing the necessary loading for a wide variety on industries that may choose to locate within the factory.

10. 2.4m deep vierendeel truss acts as the primary floor structure that will cater towards the machinery loading requirements of most industries.

11. Series of generic industrial HVAC service requirements. Further additions can be installed either within the truss space itself or retrofitted on the facade to create the optimum conditions in which a specific industry can operate.

MADE IN NEW YORK 179

Exterior Structural Megaframe - PROJECT #01 A vertical factory raises the opportunity to explore a new aesthetic paradigm within the iconic skyline of New York. Responding to the interior functionality and the interior spatial parameters, an exoskeletal support frame combined in conjunction with separated cores and service system results in a series of column free interior volumes that are flexible and durable for manufacturing programs. The new industrial aesthetic engenders a new architecture that is a notable exception within the eclecticism of the city. This principle, although smaller in scale with Project #02, is a necessity to the vertical industrial archetype and consequently, has been further developed.

180

Manufacturing Tower #02 - Perspective MADE IN NEW YORK 181

PROJECT #01 - LATERAL SECTION

182

MADE IN NEW YORK 183

Interior Volume - PROJECT #01 Primarily for heavy or intensive labour industries the volume, with large floor to ceiling heights of 6-12 metres, generic HVAC provision and a vertical assembly line, repeats over 12 storeys providing spatial allowance for a maximum of 120 manufacturers within inner city New York.

Level 03 Manufacturing Tower #03 - Unoccupied Fabrication Space 134

184

135 MADE IN NEW YORK 185

Level 03 Manufacturing Tower #03 - Car Component Manufacturing 140

186

141 MADE IN NEW YORK 187

188

Supply and Distribution - PROJECT #01 Through reinventing the antiquated finger pier typology it enables the extension of the city-wide production ecology. This would be able to support a macro scale industrial project in what is a generally unsuitable, dense urban area in which to locate a steady flow of industrial freight. The concept has been refined in Project #02 through investigating the intricacies of the wider production ecology when numerous manufacturing nodes are located throughout Greenpoint and Williamsburg and how the finger pier as a reestablished typology can contribute to the wider production system MADE IN NEW YORK 189

1. Pig City, MVRDV, 2000 2. Plan Voisin, Le Corbusier, 1925 3. Downtown Athletic Club, New York, __Starrett and Van Vleck, 1931

190

PROJECT #02 INDUSTRIAL PRECEDENT The holistic strategy of the final design iteration focuses on a variety of scales, in particular the city-wide composition and the function of the wider urban ecology. In the idea of the scheme, the strategy exceeds the mere act of building and acquires a meaning in itself; an autonomy and function of the project. A top-down imposition of vertiginous manufacturing nodes on a Cartesian grid echoes, amongst others, the Corbusian rhetoric for Paris. However, the integration of the project within the urban context is more entwined rather than a complete disregard for the existing urban realm. Recent vertical factory or farm proposals have included MVRDVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposition for a more sustainable urban consumption ecology that combines production related activities within a series of towers in order to save space. Essentially, the premise for the subsequent vertical factory scheme that exhibits a variety of multiple production volumes. This is further emphasised in the iconic Downtown Athletic Club, New York. The residential tower acts as a constructivist social condenser (Koolhaas, 1978) where thirteen floors offered a abstract diversity of activity and volumes. This expresses a disassociation of the repetitive stacking of the tower typology offering an combination of volumes and activities within a seemingly homogenised tower. The theoretical notion of a vertical factory typology has the opportunity to further augment this interior arrangement on a range of scales with numerous possibilities.

MADE IN NEW YORK 191

MASTERPLAN Arrayed along the Greenpoint coastline and orientated to the formalised Cartesian street grid, the agglomeration of towers are manifested as an archipelago of site-specific interventions which are encompassed by an essential infrastructural network of highways, trainlines and ports that aids the stability of the industrial ecology. Acting as a spatial clustering of industry, the proposal aims to incubate and augment current inter-urban relationships emphasising the importance of local knowledge and contacts on steady growth and innovation forming what Porter states as a competitive advantage (Porter, 1995). The masterplan, therefore, aims to bolster Greenpoint and Williamsburgâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s once burgeoning manufacturing heritage through the provision of new innovative factories that cater towards the needs of 21st century industry. Although the project is an ideological interpretation, it is intended to provoke discussion as to an alternate approach to retain the local manufacturing sector and how these small industries can be encouraged in the face of alternative urban, political and neoliberal economic imperatives.

Above: Initial concept sketches (See appendix)

192

MADE IN NEW YORK 193

Looking south over the East River towards Brooklyn and the new manufacturing cluster

194

MADE IN NEW YORK 195

RESISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT In order to retain and build upon a semblance of manufacturing within the contested waterfront of Greenpoint, the proposal not only stands as a physical statement of industrial durability but as a political assertion to the resistance of residential development. An industrial buffer. The project, therefore acts to reduce overall land prices and to intentionally advocate the idea of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;NIMBYISMâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. By locating an industrial agglomeration throughout Greenpoint and Williamsburg, the attraction within the study area for mass residential towers will be less favourable with city planners and developers resulting in a contraction of nearby land and rental costs. This in turn will benefit those disenfranchised manufacturers who wish to relocate back into the inner city thus transforming the planned residential banality into a more vibrant, mixed use district. By not adding new goods and services to the local economy, as Jacobs states, it does not expand much nor does it, by definition, develop (Jacobs, 1969). INCUBATION The buffer, along with the IBZ ratification, attempts to limit the encroaching large residential developments, incubating manufacturers from such pressures as up-zoning speculation, high rental costs and the wider spatial conflict. Through the reappropriation of smaller industries and wider urban ecologies within the threshold, the competitive industrial advantage (Porter, 1990) between manufacturers through inter-urban relationships would undoubtedly strengthen.

196

Opposite: Greenpoint, Brooklyn. The introduction of a large agglomeration of industrial towers would create a perceived buffer against any areas outlined for residential expansion

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

INDUSTRIAL BUFFER ZONE

MADE IN NEW YORK 197

ACCUMULATION Aligned towards the formalised cartesian grid of Greenpoint and Williamsburg, the distribution of the towers are based upon a radial accumulation of local industry. The towers act as a compromise between the prolonged land-use conflict of residential developments and the local manufacturing sector through the gathering of industries within the set proximity parameter of 650m (fig 5.0). With the towers acting as solitary industrial nodes, the immediate area around which low-rise industry used to remain can be re-appropriated for alternative residential or commercial use. The aforementioned resistance of development-led construction through the advocation of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;NIMBYISMâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; by the development of these towers should result in the scenario where only low-rise, low impact residences are proposed, rather than the current residential tower upsurge as a prime economic catalyst. The height of the towers are also determined by the initial number of industries within the set radial proximity the city in addition to the contextual height of neighbouring typologies.

325

Fig 5.0 - Radial extent of towers accumulative affect on surrounding light industry

198

Opposite: The radial accumulation of local light industries resulting initially in a vertiginous manufacturing sector.

MADE IN NEW YORK 199

STRATEGIC APPROACH The diminishing importance of the New York manufacturing sector is forcing many companies to find more appropriate, cheaper land in which to operate around the periphery of the city or to source their manufacturing operations abroad which results in what Braungart describes as a series of bland uniform structures isolated from the particulars of place - from local culture, nature, energy and material flows (Braungart, 2009). The critical design initiative would be based upon the programmatic layout in response to the local context, infrastructure function and primary structure as the product flow from arrival to fabrication to distribution will have to be carefully designed. CORES The arrangement of the service cores in response to served and servant spaces will be critical to the flow of material within the structure. For this initial design response I have chosen to omit the primary central core parameter due to the programmatic issues faced with regards to flexibility and internal structure within an industrial volume. STRUCTURE Column free spaces are essential for an efficient industrial spatial volume. In order to achieve this the interior load paths have to be transferred to an exterior structure. With the absence of a primary core on which the stability of the tower can be based, full height outrigger trusses are required periodically throughout the tower proposal. PROGRAM The relative spatial requirements in relation to structural height will determine the frequency of towers designed on site. In order to ensure the durability of the vertical factory project, an applied genericism must be incorporated. This enables the continued sustained cycle of occupation and re-use over the lifetime of the proposal. HEIGHT Structural height will be based upon the contextual relationship with the Hunters Point development (~110m) and the Williamsburg residential district (~140m). Cost will also be a major factor as in order to augment more industries over the production cluster, the increased height, width and frequency of the tower iteration would inevitably raise costs in the long run. An unsustainable option for the potential creation of P3 (Public Private Partnership) based manufacturing space. Therefore, the height will be a another major determinant in the success of the proposal as a whole.

200

Initial Core Layout Sketches

MADE IN NEW YORK 201

Looking north towards the Greenpoint peninsula and Manhattan showing the northern extent of the Brooklyn vertical factory cluster

202

MADE IN NEW YORK 203

STUDY AREA

204

MADE IN NEW YORK 205

SITE 001 - EAST RIVER

MANUFACTURING NODE #008

206

SITE 002 - INDUS

STRIAL CONTEXT

SITE 003 - RESIDENTIAL CONTEXT

Study Area: Manufacturing Cluster #004 Greenpoint, Brooklyn

MADE IN NEW YORK 207

MANUFACTURING NODE #001 - EAST RIVER -161.4m

180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0m

208

MANUFACTURING NODE #002 - I

INDUSTRIAL CONTEXT, NOBLE AND WEST ST - 128.8m

MANUFACTURING NODE #003 - RESIDENTIAL CONTEXT, MANHATTAN AVENUE 99.2m

180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0m

Manufacturing Cluster #004 - Greenpoint, Brooklyn The overall proportion of each tower becomes sequentially smaller, responding to the local industrial fabric, major infrastructural networks and anticipated internal manufacturing operations.

MADE IN NEW YORK 209

INDUSTRIES OF NEW YORK The current dynamic of industry in New York is light, small scale manufacturing with larger assembly line industries located on the periphery of the city. Shifts in manufacturing economies over the past century have seen rapid expansions and contractions in major industries that has resulted in an overall decline of the sector. Current trends are towards small, high tech, high skilled industries such as 3D printing as a new form of additive manufacturing. The proposal aims to introduce a district wide production ecology in which each tower is able to respond to multiple inter-urban production relationships on a series of scales. Each tower would become adept in being able to cope with certain industrial requirements based upon their location and proximity to specific infrastructural networks. Function responding to the city-wide context becomes inherent to the dynamic and success of the overall production system. Consequently, the masterplan of industrial towers would be introduced based upon the following stages: STAGE 01 - INTEGRATION WITH EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ON GRID Location based upon existing access and distribution points including subways, highways __________ and ports. In this case, the iconic finger pier is reestablished to provide for the anticipated __________ agglomeration of industries within each nodal relationship STAGE 02 - IMPLEMENT A NEW PRODUCTION FABRIC Methods for certain stages of production can be assigned to various towers based upon location, __________spatial provision and anticipated industries. STAGE 03 - NEW PRODUCTION GRID IS INTERCONNECTED WITH DIFFERENT SCALE OF NEW __________ PRODUCTION FABRICS Production relationships are established according to interconnected production grids that act to __________ensure the efficiency of manufacturing on a range of light industrial scales

210

Opposite: An early investigation into the holistic assembly process of a turbine (excluding tower) that utilises the various scales of production fabric made available with the vertical factory proposal

NACELLE TURBINE ASSEMBLY

HUDSON CANYON WIND FARM

HUDSON CANYON WIND TURBINE

ASSEMBLY

TYPICAL FLOOR PLATE

SITE SECTION

DELIVERY/ DISTRIBUTION

CRAWLER CRANE GANTRY CRANE

GANTRY CRANE

16m

10 - 12m

DISTRIBUTION - LARGE GOODS

BARGE TRANSPORTATION VIA EAST RIVER TO HUDSON CANYON WIND FARM FOR FINAL ASSEMBLY

ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTION AVAILABLE VIA LONG ISLAND CREEK, QUEENS

GANTRY CRANE UNDERNEATH RAISED PODIUM FOR DISTRIBUTION INDIVIDUAL BLADES LOWERED ONTO BARGE

MADE IN NEW YORK 211

Building Envelope

-5%

EAST RIVER TOWER

-5%

INDUSTRIAL CONTEXT TOWER

RESIDENTIAL CONTEXT TOWER

INDUSTRIAL PARAMETERS Further to the aforementioned systematic organisation of the industrial tower cluster, the proportion of each factory node reduces incrementally based upon the land-use zoning and contextual location. This results in a clear staggering of the physical form and industrial function of the typology over the study area.

212

-5%

-9.75%

-5%

-9.75%

-5%

-9.75%

-5%

-9.75%

-5%

-9.75%

MADE IN NEW YORK 213

AN INDUSTRIAL PARADIGM

One World Trade Center

432 Park Avenue

Empire State Building

Bank of America Tower

426.1m 541.3m SOM

214

Rafael Vinoly

443.2m

365.8

William F.Lamb

COOKFOX

Chrysler Building

Citigroup Centre

GE Building

4 Times Square

MetLife Building

318.9m

278.9m

259.8m

340.7m

246.3m

William Van Alen

Hugh Stubbins

Raymond Hood

Bruce Fowle

Walter Gropius

Woolworth Building 241.4m Cass Gilbert

Three World Financial Centre

Sony Tower

One Court Square

197.3m 225.2m Cesar Pelli

Hearst Tower

200.5m Philip Johnson

Manufacturing Tower #003

182m SOM

Seagram Tower

161.4m Fosters +Partners

United Nations Building

American Radiator Building

157m Stuart Beattie

Mies Van der Rohe, P.Johnson

153.9m

103m

Oscar Niemeyer

Raymond Hood

Lever House

Statue of Liberty

94m

93m

Gordon Bunshaft

Bartholdi, Eiffel

Manufacturing Tower #003 In terms of a city-wide contextual height. the tallest manufacturing tower does not contend egotistically with other prominent skyscrapers throughout the city. Instead, its prominence is derived from the rigorous architectural uniformity of the industrial archipelago within the eclectic mix of New York. Outside of Manhattan, the tallest structure is One Court Square in Queens, yet the sheer repetition of the new vertical manufacturing typology in a predominantly low-rise area of Brooklyn would be contextually imposing.

MADE IN NEW YORK 215

MANUFACTURING NODE #003

MANUFACTURING NODE #002

MANUFACTURING NODE #001

MANUFACTURING NODE #005

MANUFACTURING NODE #006

ONE WORLD TRADE CENTRE

Union Avenue and Withers Street, Williamsburg, Brooklyn - Looking west towards Manhattan and the new vertical manufacturing cluster

216

MANUFACTURING NODE #004

MANUFACTURING NODE #010

MANUFACTURING NODE #011

MANUFACTURING NODE #012

MANUFACTURING NODE #009 MANUFACTURING NODE #013

MANUFACTURING NODE #008

MANUFACTURING NODE #007

EMPIRE STATE BUILDING

MADE IN NEW YORK 217

218

MADE IN NEW YORK 219

220

MADE IN NEW YORK 221

GROUND CONDITION

When considering the sensitivity that the tower proposal has to adopt with regards to the numerous socio-spatial relationships throughout the Greenpoint and Williamsburg study area, the ground condition and how the spatial requirements of the scheme can be integrated with the surrounding context becomes inherent to its success. The podium (overleaf) is arranged around a semi internal courtyard surrounded by a variety of peripheral industrial volumes and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;pavilionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Loading and distribution is entirely segregated from the neighbouring residential context whilst manufacturing operations are solely located within the vertical factory typology. Adjacent to the tower lies a series of small, rentable industrial spaces in which local micro-manufacturers6 can offer intermittent, informal pop-up trading opportunities. A north-south axial delivery and distribution cycle with storage and assembly areas ensure the maximum efficiency within the allotted plot whilst vocational training centres and large manufacturing volumes are located above. Skills and vocations can be orientated to those industries that are accommodated within the vertical factory engendering a robust, direct socio-economic relationship with urban industry. Whilst distinctly different in terms of function and material to the surrounding context, the modular proportions respond accordingly to lessen the anticipated impacts of freight movement and noise pollution.

Micro-manufacturers generally refer to an industry with less than three employees. Typically a family or start-up firm

222

Opposite: Early ground condition iterations investigating form, program, visibility and site constraints. Below: Podium plan indicating the segregation and modularity of industrial space.

Linear organisation of ‘served and servant’ spaces aligned to manufacturing tower. Problematic with tower position and programmatic layout

Courtyard principal applied in order to shield industrial processes from neighbouring context. Natural light provision and unimpeded industrial activity. Suitable scenario

Tower aligned to street access with courtyards positioned either side. Spatial requirements for delivery, distribution and general operation would be inhibited.

Maximum use of plot. Hermetic environment that doesn’t respond to local context alienates the success of the proposal’s integration into the local area.

Tower aligned to primary loading ‘arm’. Maximum use of plot with ample natural daylight provision. Too introverted for an ‘integrated responsive’ program.

Large loading dock and tower separated by axial administrative block. Limited provision of alternative industrial volumes to occupy.

Cruciform administrative block separating loading and distribution bays. Unimpeded access to manufacturing tower. Provision of pavilions around tower and bays for alternative industrial space

Cruciform administrative block separating loading and distribution bays. Unimpeded access to manufacturing tower. Separate open air volumes for storage. Limited loading and distribution.

Large loading and distribution bays. Small threshold between public and private realms. Opportunity for a non-hermetic environment and integration with surrounding context. Limted alternative industrial provision.

Tower set back from delivery with courtyards positioned either side. Provision of alternative industrial spaces possible.Large loading and distribution bay. Suitable scenario

Covered courtyard volumes separated by administrative spine. Large loading and distribution bay. Suitable scenario. Limited application of variable industrial volumes

Linear access routes with raised pavilions and encompassing perimeter block. Unimpeded access and daylight provision. Provision of alternate industrial volumes. Limited loading distribution.

Perimeter block dissassociation forming a variety of block and courtyard conditions. Limited loading and distribution. Limited provision of alternative industrial spaces

Tower aligned south. Primary employee access and loading bays are orientated accordingly. Limited provision of industrial space. Unimpeded access and daylight provision.

Large loading dock and tower separated by axial administrative block. Limited provision of alternative industrial volumes to occupy. Set back threshold in perimeter block for unque visual contact

MADE IN NEW YORK 223

224

RENTABLE INDUSTRIAL SPACES

2ND FLOOR GANTRY ACCESS

ADMINISTRATION

RETAINED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES

LARGER INDUSTRIAL SPACES ABOVE PRODUCTION SPACE

VEHICULAR ACCESS

VOCATIONAL SPACES

DELIVERY/ DISTRIBUTION

LARGE VEHICLE STORAGE

TOP-LIT PRODUCTION VOLUMES

PROGRAM SPINE

MADE IN NEW YORK 225

Opposite: South-west corner of podium iteration Below: Sections through podium highlighting various industrial spatial volumes

226

Industrial Volume #001 - Informal Trading

Industrial Volume #002 - Loading Dock

Industrial Volume #003 - Vocation/ Variable

Occupied by micro-industries and sole operators, the pedestrianised pathway adjacent to the west of the podium accommodates a bi-weekly pop-up trading market in which small industries can promote their products and services

A 11.5m double height loading dock with elevated gantrys caters for large vehicular and product movement during the cyclical production process in the vertical factory and podium

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Pavilionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; line the eastern side of the podium providing alternative rentable industrial volumes that also accommodates vocational training centres in order to provide employment within the factory for the high proportion of local unemployed residents (Curran, 2010)

MADE IN NEW YORK 227

Looking west along Calyer Street, Greenpoint

228

Proposed ground condition of residential tower iteration showing primary access to loading bay from Calyer Street

MADE IN NEW YORK 229

230

MADE IN NEW YORK 231

232

MADE IN NEW YORK 233

234

Noble and West Street, Greenpoint. Looking west towards Manhattan underneath vertical factory #002 MADE IN NEW YORK 235

236

MADE IN NEW YORK 237

238

MADE IN NEW YORK 239

By elevating the support programs for the vertical factory within the structural skirt, an unobstructed modular loading bay around base of the finger pier platform is provided. Therefore, numerous loading and assembly operations can be conducted to multiple vehicular or barge points around the periphery of the finger pier.

Triple height industrial volume

Structural outrigger truss for lateral support in absence of structural lift cores

Peripheral administration/ storage volumes

Solar controlled glazing units with angled insert to provide uniform natural daylight levels within structural skirt

Support crane for large product transportation

8m high loading, assembly and storage volume

7.0m deep structural vierendeel truss

2.6M deep tapered beam

Escape stair Lateral and Longitudinal Gantry Crane

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Megacolumnsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; supporting the loads of both the tower and the cantilevered skirt

Principle dock loading bay

Friction pile foundations for finger pier platform support Sunken caisson foundation

240

Double height industrial volume

Peripheral administration/ storage volumes

40230mm cantilever

Goods Lift

Principle ‘skirt’ loading bay

Goods Lift

MADE IN NEW YORK 241

LOADING AND DISTRIBUTION

STORAGE AND ASSEMBLY

ADMINISTRATION

RECREATION

STRUCTURAL OUTRIGGER

PRODUCTION FLOORS

TRIPLE HEIGHT VOLUME

DOUBLE HEIGHT VOLUMES

PLANT FLOORS

LIFT CORES

LIFT OVERRUNS

STAIRCORE

HEAVY LOADING ZONE

LIGHT INDUSTRY VOLUMES

IMPACT INDUSTRY VOLUMES

MEGASTRUCTURE

TOP LIT VOLUMES

PRODUCTION LINE

244

Looking north from the Williamsburg waterfront towards Manhattan with the new manufacturing complex in the East River. ‘You take my factory. I’ll take your condo.’ - The anodised aluminium exhaust panelling on the factory facades reflects light at certain angles which temporarily plays on the fenestration aesthetic of nearby residential complexes creating an ephemeral glare to the industrial facade.

MADE IN NEW YORK 245

East River Vertical Factory, Level 26 Plan Interior spatial dynamics are based upon ‘served’ and ‘servant’ spaces that ensure for the maximum flexibility and efficiency within the floor plate. The space, in comparison to the preceding vertical factory scheme employs a more intimate spatial volume, akin to the existing provision of local light industries.

19585mm

25805mm

246

East River Vertical Factory, Level 26 Plan In comparison to the tower’s assembly and storage ‘skirt’, the plan of the tower accounts for just over 9% of the skirt’s floorplate. This is due to the enormous requirements of storage, loading, assembly and distribution in comparison to the main intimate manufacturing volumes within the tower.

MADE IN NEW YORK 247

PROGRAMMATIC LAYOUT The layout of the building with response to programmatic efficiency, fabrication, storage and structure is integral to the success of the factory as a vertiginous means of industrial production. The subsequent study highlights significant aspects of the towerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s floor plate that contribute to the productivity and adaptability of the industrial volume. FLOOR PLATE

Production Volume - 85%

Logistics and Miscellaneous 15% 1. Exterior Terraces

STRUCTURE An exoskeletal megaframe structure with exterior service cores allow for an open flexible, column-free industrial volume to accommodate a variety of manufacturers and prospective machinery ensure maximum flexibility and adaptability. CORE Exterior passenger and loading cores ensures for lateral stability and a structural congruity without physically interrupting the efficiency of the industrial volume.

2. Riser Locations

LOGISTICS A peripheral logistical layout in the form of a layered program results in an efficient cross axial method of supply, production and distribution. The inclusion of JIT7 production is also integral to the overall efficiency with regards to lean manufacturing with mechanised industries. FACADE A double facade of either polycarbonate, kalwall or solar controlled glazing with direct external walkway access ensure for a transparent facade and uniform lux levels in the production volume.

3. Passenger and Goods Lifts

4. North aligned facade grating

Just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing is a production model in which items are developed to meet demand, not created in surplus or in advance of need. The purpose of JIT production is to reduce the waste associated with overproduction, waiting and excess supply. By proposing that the vertical factory intervention will pursue a JIT method of production, space can be attributed to other functions that would further benefit the factory.

248

5. Available production volume

HOMOGENISED INDUSTRIAL HVAC SUPPLY AND EXTRACT SYSTEM

SECONDARY FRAME FACADE HANGER SYSTEM

PRIMARY MULLION HANGAR SYSTEM

SMALL GOODS/ PASSENGER LIFTS

PRIMARY MESH FACADE SYSTEM

VOLUME IN WHICH A RANGE OF LIGHT INDUSTRIES CAN OCCUPY

SECONDARY MESH FACADE SYSTEM

HIGH VOLUME GOODS LIFTS

STAIR CORE

PRIMARY EXOSKELETAL STRUCTURE

UNOCCUPIED SPATIAL VOLUME

MADE IN NEW YORK 249

HOMOGENISED INDUSTRIAL HVAC SUPPLY AND EXTRACT SYSTEM

SECONDARY FRAME FACADE HANGER SYSTEM

PRIMARY MULLION HANGAR SYSTEM

SMALL GOODS/ PASSENGER LIFTS

PRIMARY MESH FACADE SYSTEM

INTENSIVE LABOUR PROVISION

SECONDARY MESH FACADE SYSTEM

HIGH VOLUME GOODS LIFTS

STAIR CORE

PRIMARY EXOSKELETAL STRUCTURE

INTENSIVE LABOUR SPATIAL VOLUME

250

HOMOGENISED INDUSTRIAL HVAC SUPPLY AND EXTRACT SYSTEM

SECONDARY FRAME FACADE HANGER SYSTEM

PRIMARY MULLION HANGAR SYSTEM

SMALL GOODS/ PASSENGER LIFTS

PRIMARY MESH FACADE SYSTEM

LOW LABOUR ASSEMBLY LINE PRODUCTION

SECONDARY MESH FACADE SYSTEM

HIGH VOLUME GOODS LIFTS

STAIR CORE

PRIMARY EXOSKELETAL STRUCTURE

MECHANISED SPATIAL VOLUME

MADE IN NEW YORK 251

INDUSTRIAL SPATIAL VOLUMES

252

1. Full height mesh panelling on southern facade. Northern facade mesh panels aligned to maximise northlight admission

2. Full height glazing/ polycarbonate/ kalwall panelling to ensure uniform lighting levels

3. Goods lifts on the south facade. Primary distribution for component supply and fabrication

4. A secondary framing system on which the primary mesh panels are hung surround the periphery of the building envelope

5. Homogenised industrial HVAC installation to further the durablility and flexibility of the spatial volume

6. The cores act as lateral bracing for primary wind loading and reduces service runs

7. Interchangable low-level lighting for a range of production methods

8. Three small goods/ passenger lifts are located on the southern side of the floorplate to cater for the large volume of vertical transportation within the tower

9. Primary exoskeletal structure in conjunction with the outriggers ensure for a column free production space.

10. Stair core acts as further stability to the structure from exterior loading

11. Prefabricated vierendeel truss system acting as primary floor structure. Penetrations in truss allow for flexible service additons.

MADE IN NEW YORK 253

INDUSTRIAL IMPACT The average employer in New York employs less than 43 people on industrial lots (Curran, 2010), particularly in Greenpoint and Williamsburg, of less than 5000 sqft (New York City Department of City Planning, 2012). Through the allocation of a volume that can cater towards multiple industries, this provides a comparable substitute that can accommodate at least 27 individual manufacturers within each vertical factory. The floorplate dimensions of the factory proposal are not designated towards any particular industry but serve to provide a more intimate series of generic industrial spatial volumes, in contrast to the former heavy industrial scheme, with basic support services and vertical transportation, in which a manufacturer can occupy and retrofit. Capable of supporting a variety of small light industries and low-scale assembly lines on a modular basis, the production volume promotes a contemporary, flexible alternative to the current supply of ageing, unsuitable structures dispersed throughout the Greenpoint.

New York City Employment Average NYC Manufacturing Employment per company < 43 people Average floorplate area - < 5000 sqft Proposal Factory #001 - Manufacturing Node #001, Greenpoint, Brooklyn Typical Floor Area - 3850 sqft/ 1173 m2 Typical Volume - 1430m3 Floor to ceiling height - Varies - typically 4m Floor Count - 27 floors (East River Tower Maximum) Maximum employee capacity per floor - 48 people (Static Labour Intensive Industry) Typical employee capacity per floor - <25 people Current Proposal Employee Count - 1161 people per tower (excluding support and management staff) Capacity to accommodate the equivalent of 27 local businesses (people/business) Tower Cluster #001, 002, 003 - Manufacturing Node #001, Study Area, Greenpoint Maximum 3483 jobs, in theory, created through the construction of Manufacturing Node #001 81 light industry manufacturers based on a total floor plate size of 3,850 sq ft

254

NYC AVERAGE

43 employees

MANUFACTURING PROPOSAL #01 NEWTOWN CREEK, QUEENS

MANUFACTURING PROPOSAL #02 GREENPOINT, BROOKLYN

Average Floorplate - 7470sqft Static Industry Capacity - 352 employees

Average Floorplate - 3850sqft Static Industry Capacity - 48 employees

Mechanical Industry Capacity - 51 employees

Mechanical Industry Capacity - 10 employees

Typical Volume - 27,324m3

Typical Volume - 1,430m3

MADE IN NEW YORK 255

Typical Floorplate - Unoccupied

256

MADE IN NEW YORK 257

258

Castellated steel beam for service provision Goods lift Facade (please refer to pages 266 -275)

3700mm

Low-level pendant luminaires Centralised storage location

Intensive labour industrial volume

INTENSIVE LABOUR INDUSTRY

Generic industrial HVAC system

Castellated steel beam for service provision Low-level pendant luminaires Facade (please refer to pages 266 -275) 3700mm

Goods lift Peripheral storage location Exterior terrace Mechanised industrial volume

MECHANISED INDUSTRY

MADE IN NEW YORK 259

260

Generic industrial HVAC system Castellated steel beam for service provision Low-level pendant luminaires Facade (please refer to pages 266 -275) 3700mm

Goods lift

Central storage location

Niche Manufacturing Volume

NICHE LIGHT INDUSTRY

Castellated steel beam for service provision

Generic industrial HVAC system 3700mm

Exterior Terrace 7800mm

Facade (please refer to pages 266 -275)

Mezzannine Cat Ladder Low-level pendant luminaires

Assembly Line 3700mm

Goods lift

ASSEMBLY LINE INDUSTRY

MADE IN NEW YORK 261

Typical Occupied Floorplate

262

MADE IN NEW YORK 263

THE FACADE OF INDUSTRY Economy has presided over innovation with rapid development of banal, low rise, hermetic, spatial volumes. Aforementioned examples of vertical factories exhibit specific modern interpretations of smaller, less homogenised, visually transparent, cleaner and innovative structures that are quickly becoming efficient, sustainable icons in their contextual environment. However, the icon, in terms of contemporary industrial design would not be appropriate to a vertiginous industrial proposal as the scheme will be planned to accommodate a variety of light industries over a long duration. Therefore, to design the facade based upon a set of specific industrial parameters would be naive due to the prospective unknown industrial trends. Similar to the flexible aesthetic of older factory structures, the tower has been planned to have a non-specific uniformity akin to 33 Thomas Street in Manhattan and on a purely conceptual basis, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Stop Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; by DOGMA. Form and aesthetic in this case is intended as an urban paradigm and not purely for imposition. It is devoid of any figurative or individualistic feature ensuring that it will be perceived in the most rational uniform way (Aureli, 2011). Through reducing the tower to a repeatable generic uniformity then the cluster would be perceived as a singular entity on a city-wide scale.

264

1. 33 Thomas Street, Manhattan 2. Stop City - DOGMA (Pier Vittorio Aureli and Martino Tattara)

MADE IN NEW YORK 265

UNIFORMITY A vertical factory represents an opportunity to develop a new formal vocabulary associated with a utilitarian industrial aesthetic. Uniformity, transparency and a subtle play on the contextual fenestration were paramount for this design proposal in order to convey distinctions between the associated city paradigms. The tower exhibits a near full height anodised mesh panel facade system that responds to interior volumes and natural daylight provision. The proportion of the mesh panelling along with the expressed shadow gap between the lift shafts and small scale reflective application to the periodic exhaust panels aim to provide a subtle take on the identity of New York whilst preserving the unique industrialised uniformity. With multiple towers imposing on New York’s skyline, the applied uniformity within the archipelago generates an association between each paradigm that is read as a city-wide single entity. FRACTURE Terminating before the intersection of the tower’s envelope, the primary mesh facade is set back revealing the autonomous glazing skin behind. These ‘fractures’ not only allow a visual transparency into the industrial volumes but alter offer a periodic series of ephemeral transparencies throughout the tower. ‘BIGNESS’ The fundamentals the vertical factory in relation to Koolhaas’ concept of ‘Bigness’ have been augmented. He states that beyond a certain critical mass, architecture acquires the properties of bigness. Such a mass can no longer be controlled by a singular architectural gesture, or even by any combination of architectural gestures. Only through Bigness can architecture dissociate itself from the exhaustive ideological movements of modernism and formalism to regain its instrumentality as vehicle of modernization (Koolhaas, 1995). The tower has attempted, through the conception of a new aesthetic organisation, to progress the idea of ‘bigness’ that disassociates from the city-wide formal composition.

266

Opposite: Facade rational. Four sets of anodised aluminium mesh form the elevation of the tower’s facade

Double Height Spatial Volumes

Exhaust Panelling

Free Area - 96%

Free Area - 89%

For large volumes the admittance of natural daylight is enhanced through the increase in free area between the panel bars.

Spacing between the mesh bars a generate a gradual aesthetic transition across the elevation juxtaposing the nearby residential tower fenestration.

Northern Facade Elevation

Mesh Panelling

Northlight admittance

Free Area - 91%

Free area - 95%

Enveloping the majority of the tower, the panels provide a range of transparencies throughout the elevation whilst retaining a constant free area.

The northern elevation responds to the industrial requirements of north lit volumes. Arranged perpendicular to the building envelope the mesh panels admit ample amount of antural light into the production spaces.

Southern Facade Elevation

MADE IN NEW YORK 267

ELEMENT A clear dichotomy between the facade system and interior volume is one of complexity and simple efficiency. The glazing envelope is set back from the primary support hangar system and mesh panelling for shading, services and maintenance access. The facade dissipates towards the ‘fractures’ and floor plates occupied by mechanical services and outrigger trusses. As Rappaport states, the urban factory could educate city dwellers through the display of its production processes, eventually promoting an ethic of making things locally. (Rappaport, 2011). The manipulation of transparencies throughout the three tower paradigms with regards to the former statement are most evident within the podium and ‘skirt’ compositions.

268

Opposite: Facade detail highlighting various key elements that form the basis of the unique industrial aesthetic repeated on a large vertiginous scale

ENCLOSED SPANDREL PANEL LOW LEVEL LIGHTING EXTERIOR LIFT CORE

4090mm

FULL HEIGHT GLAZING - PRIMARY BUILDING ENVELOPE

560mm

EXTERIOR MVHR (MECHANICAL VENTILATION AND HEAT RECOVERY) SYSTEM

PRIMARY MESH PANEL FACADE SYSTEM

SECONDARY FACADE HANGAR SYSTEM

EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS

LOW LEVEL LIGHTING PRIMARY EXTRACT DUCT 4450mm

SUPPORT ARMATURE CASTELLATED I BEAM

DOUBLE HEIGHT MESH PANELLING

1:100 @A1

MADE IN NEW YORK 269

Opposite: Exploded exhaust panel detail. An angled mirror blade insert into the exhaust panel plays on the residential fenestration patterns by providing an ephemeral glare to the facade that is observed at certain angles of reflected light

270

Primary Building Envelope

Exterior HVAC flues Support Armature

Primary Exhaust Flues

Brushed Aluminium Exhaust Panel

Angled mirror insert

Sag Rod

Secondary Facade Support Frame

MADE IN NEW YORK 271

Opposite: Detail depicting the complexity to the exterior layers of the industrial facade that once perceived on a larger scale would become strictly uniform reducing the complexity to the autonomous idea of the project as a whole.

272

50MM x Varies SUPPORT ARMATURE 2852mm x 1387MM WELDED ALUMINIUM GRATE 15MM BAR EXTRUSION

SERVICE ZONE

ROLLER BLIND UNIT 3610MM x 830MM SOLAR CONTROLLED GLAZING UNIT 2852mm x 1387MM WELDED ALUMINIUM GRATE 15MM BAR EXTRUSION

2752mm x 1387MM WELDED ANODISED ALUMINIUM GRATE 3MM BAR EXTRUSION

1608MM PENDANT LUMINAIRE

1550MM CAVITY

4020MM 50MM Ø THREADED TENSION SAG ROD FOR LATERAL FRAMING SUPPORT

1100MM X 50MM STEEL HANDRAIL

3580MM (Varies)

20MM EPOXY RESIN COATING 10MM SUBSTRATE ACOUSTIC MEMBRANE

800MM MAINTENANCE GANTRY 400MM X 250MM ENCLOSED SPANDREL PANEL 330MM X Varies ALUMINIUM EXTRACT VENT PANEL 220MM X 400MM CASTELLATED I BEAM 275MM X 515MM CASTELLATED I BEAM

1:10 @A1

MADE IN NEW YORK 273

Southern Elevation Perspective, Manufacturing Tower #006, Greenpoint, Brooklyn Perspective highlighting the facade composition and an applied genericism that manifests itself as an associative form within the paradigmatic cluster of vertical factories in Brooklyn.

274

1:200 Physical Model MADE IN NEW YORK 275

1:200 Physical Model 276

1:200 Physical Model MADE IN NEW YORK 277

278

MADE IN NEW YORK 279

Looking south along the FDR freeway at East 51st highlighting the new vertical manufacturing cluster in Greenpoint, Brooklyn

280

MADE IN NEW YORK 281

Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Centre, Greenpoint, Brooklyn

282

Domino Sugar Factory, Williamsburg, Brooklyn MADE IN NEW YORK 283

SUMMARY

284

MADE IN NEW YORK 285

286

CONCLUSION The current issues faced by the City’s manufacturing sector stem from the passive, almost malign, neglect by successive administrations identifying the residual industry as an anachronism to the City’s economic development strategy. This thesis highlights the pressing situation of what remains of New York’s manufacturing sector and how certain physical, political and socio-spatial methods could be employed to alleviate those concerns primarily through the reinterpretation of industrial planning policy and the principle design proposal to array a series of vertiginous industrial clusters along the coastline of Greenpoint and Williamsburg. The gradual escalation of domestic ‘onshoring’ by successive multinational enterprises from East Asia back to America raises the prospect of a gradual equilibrium of globalisation and a potential revival of manufacturing in the City. Through relying on development-led expansion to sustain the City’s economic progress, the City has distanced itself from not only an underutilised economic opportunity but a sector which has remained the backbone of the city for years, providing stable employment for the legions of immigrant workers that have perennially flocked to New York. The disregard for small-scale manufacturing has been largely ignored by policy makers due to the heteronomy of a neoliberalised urbanism based on inter-urban competition, property and market-led development, gentrification and socio-spatial inequality. Attempts to curtail uncertainties through the implementation of policies such as IBZs have since failed to stem the continued erosion of industry as a result of illegal conversions and the occupation by non-industrial operations in addition to waning financial support. Any sustained action towards the manipulation of industrial planning policy must codify and ratify the extent of the IBZs or promote the creation of the aforementioned alternative of ‘Super M’ zones (Crespo, 2013). Recent industrial developments such as Industry City in Red Hook, East Williamsburg Valley Industrial Park, the Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Centre and the Brooklyn Naval Yard have shown that the acquisition of prime real-estate in conjunction with a local developer and other government bodies can promote and reinforce alternative industrial incubators which light manufacturers can occupy. However, the scarcity of similar manufacturing opportunities remains yet another obstacle. Rather than focusing solely on zoning and planning policy amendments to counteract the gradual decline of industry, an architectural proposition raises a series of social, cultural, economic and political implications that, in theory, could provide a new framework for how industry can once again be introduced into the inner city at a considerable scale. The

MADE IN NEW YORK 287

288

approach aims to stabilise and sustain industrial growth through a series of vertical manufacturing nodes through reinstating and establishing new connections between the residential and manufacturing community on a local and borough-wide scale which has wide-ranging implications that are beyond the scope of this thesis. The aesthetic uniformity of the design scheme also raises the opportunity to challenge long established trends of the archetypal high polluting, hermetic, industrial environments to create visually transparent and more innovative factories that have a wide ranging inter-urban collaboration with the public that promotes a contemporary dynamic to 21st century hightech manufacturing. Although the physical acquisition of land, zoning parameters and the sensitive political context will remain large barriers to the procurement of the project, the potential socio-economic benefits would raise once more the strategic importance of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s manufacturers and promote further academic and political discourse concerning the retention of industry and a new industrial urbanism in New York. By responding to the challenges of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;inadvertentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; expulsion and persistent negligence by the City, the design exploration exercises a unconventional, almost resistant nature in response to the impending real-estate dominated urban landscape of Greenpoint. Whilst the array of manufacturing towers on the Greenpoint and Williamsburg coastline represents an almost idealistic interpretation on how vertiginous industry could operate, the scheme intends to instil and provoke the argument around how the conservation of industrial space, on a range of scales, could be aligned within the wider urban ecological system whilst absolving former segregated industrial networks and stringent zoning framework. By reconsidering the potential for a new urban spatial paradigm, through the reintroduction of a vertical factory archetype in post-industrialised inner cities, it could dramatically alter how we perceive strategies of making and consuming ultimately as an instrument for the retention of the local manufacturing base culminating in a more economically diverse, stable New York.

MADE IN NEW YORK 289

290

WORKS CITED Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (1992). Neo-Marshallian nodes in global networks. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 571-587. Amin, A. (2010). The Economic Base of Contemporary Cities. In G. Bridge, & S. Watson, The Blackwell City Reader (pp. 60-71). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (2002). Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Oxford: Blackwell. BCG Perspectives. (2012). Move Manufacturing Back to the U.S.? Do the Math. Retrieved June 2014, from bcg perspectives: https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/podcasts/manufacturing_supply_chain_management_move_manufacturing_back_to_us_do_the_math/ Benneworth, P., & Danson, M. (2003). Confusing Clusters? Making sense of the clusters approach in theory and practice. European Planning Studies, 511-520. Berger, A. (2007). Drosscape: Wasting Land in Urban America. Princeton Architectural Press. Bluestone, B., & Harrison, B. (1984). Deindustrialization of America. New York: Basic Books. Brandes Gratz, R. (2010). The Battle for Gotham - New York in the Shadow of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs. New York: Nation Books. Braungart, M. (2009). Cradle to Cradle - Re-making the way we make things. London: Vintage Books. Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and Geographies of “Actually Existing Neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34 (3), 349-379. Brookings Institution. (2013, July 9). Economic Cluster Policy Begins to Work.nRetrieved February 4, 2014, from Brookings: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2013/07/09-economiccluster-policy-muro Burdett, R. (2010). The Endless City. London: Phaidon Press. Campo, D. (2002). Brooklyn’s Vernacular Waterfront. Journal of Urban Design, 7(2), 171-199. Centre for an Urban Future. (2012, May). New Tech City. Retrieved November 2012, from http:// nycfuture.org.

MADE IN NEW YORK 291

City of New York. (2005). Protecting and Growing New York Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Industrial Job Base. New York: New York City Planning Department. City of New York. (1916). Building Zone Resolution. New York: City of New York. Crespo, P. (2013). The Future of Industrial Brooklyn. New York: Pratt Center for Community Development. Cumbers, A., & MacKinnon, D. (2004). Intoduction: Clusters in Urban and Regional Development. Urban Studies, 41(5/6), 959-969. Curran, W. (2005). Getting Globalised: Urban Policy and Industrial Displacement in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Urban Geography, 461-482. Curran, W. (2010). In Defense of Old Industrial Spaces: Manufacturing Creativity and Innovation in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 871-85. Dolkart, A. S. (2012). The Skyscraper Museum. Retrieved December 2012, from http://www. skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/URBAN_FABRIC/walkthrough_intro.php. Donald, B., & Blay-Palmer, A. (2006). The urban creative food economy: producing for the urban elite or social inclusion opportunity? Environment and Planning, 1901-20. Dreher, C. (2002, June). Be creative â&#x20AC;&#x201D; or die . Retrieved June 2014, from Salon: http://www.salon. com/2002/06/06/florida_22/ E, G. (2000). The Future of Urban Research: Nonmarket Interactions. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 101-50. Glenn Ellison, E. L. (1997). Geographic Concentration in US Manufacturing Industries: A Dartboard Approach. Journal of Political Economy , 921. Gordon R., I., & McCann, P. (2000). Industrial Clusters: Complexes, Agglomeration and/ or Social Networks? Urban Studies, Vol.37, No. 3, , 513-532. Gratz, R. B. (2010). The Battle For Gotham. New York in the Shadow of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs. New York: Nation Books. Feldman, M. (2000). Location and innovation: the new economic geography of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration. Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, 373-394.

292

Florida, R. (2002). The Rise Of The Creative Class: And How Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community And Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge. Fromhold-Eisebith, M., & Eisebith, G. (2005). How to Institulionalize Inovative Clusters? Comparing explicit top-down and implicit bottom-up approaches. Salzburg: Elsevier. Funderburg, R. G., & Boarnet, M. G. (2008). Agglomeration Potential: The Spatial Scale of Industry Linkages in the Southern California Economy. Growth and Change , 39 (1), 24-57. Glaeser, E. (2000). The new economics of urban and regional growth. Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, 83-98. Garretson, S. P. (n.d.). The Changing Face of Manufacturing in New York City. GMDC. (2009). Greenpoint Manufacturing Design Centre. Retrieved 16 February, 2014, from Greenpoint Manufacturing Design Centre: http://www.gmdconline.org/ Gordon, I., & McCann, P. (2000). Industrial Clusters: Complexes, Agglomerations and/or Social Networks. Urban Studies , 37, 513-532. Harrison, B. a. (1950). Plan for Rezoning New York. New York: Harrison, Ballard and Allen. Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation of governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, 71B, 3-17. Harvey, D. (2011). The Enigma of Capital. Profile Books. Holt, D. (2013). Brooklyn Broadside: Downtown Building Boom Could Be a Planning Nightmare. New York: Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Huff, B. (2012). Analyzing the Effects of Industrial Retention Policy on New York City Neighbourhoods. New York: Columbia University. ICIC. (2012). Protecting Chicagoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Industrial through Planned Manufacturing Districts. Retrieved December 2012, from http://www.icic.org/connection/blog-entry/bp-protecting-chicagos-industrialthrough-pmds/bp. Jacobs, J. (1969). The Economy of Cities. New York: Vintage.

MADE IN NEW YORK 293

Jacobs, J. (1993). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books. Jacobs, J. (2005). Letter to Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council . Retrieved 6 2014, from The Brooklyn Rail: http://brooklynrail.org/2005/05/local/letter-to-mayor-bloomberg Katz, B., & Mark, M. (2010). The New ‘Cluster Moment’: How Regional Innovation Clusters Can Foster The Next Economy. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute. Knudsen, B., Florida, R., Stolarick, K., & Gates, G. (2008). Density and Creativity in U.S. Regions. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98(2), 461-478. Koolhaas, R. (1978). Delirious New York. New York: The Monacelli Press. Koolhaas, R. (1995). Bigness (or the problem of Large). In B. Man, Small, Medium, Large, ExtraLarge. New York: Monacelli Press. Lander, B. (2009, March 19). Uncertain Industry - The Decline of Manufacturing in New York City. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from Thirteen - New York Public Media: http://www.thirteen.org/ uncertainindustry/content/does-nycindustrial-zoning-policy-preserve-local-manufacturing/ Lucas, R. (1988). On the Mechanics of Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economics 22 , 3-42. Made in NYC. (2011, November). http://www.madeinnyc.org/about.cfm. Retrieved December 2012, from Made in NYC. McEnery, T. (2014, February 19). Mayor kills funding for Industrial Business Zones. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from Crain’s New York Business: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140218/ SMALLBIZ/140219867/mayor-kills-funding-for-industrial-business-zones Mistry, N., & Byron, J. (2011). The Federal Role in Supporting Urban Manufacturing. New York: Pratt Centre for Community Development. Molotch, H. (2002). Place in Product. International Journal or Urban and Regional Research, 26.4, 665-88.

294

New York City Department of Planning. (1993). Citywide Industry Study Zoning. New York. New York City Department of Planning. (2010). New York City Land Use. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from New York City Department of Planning: www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/landusefacts/landuse_tables.pdf New York City Department of Planning. (2012). Re-zonings 2002-2012. Retrieved March 16, 2014, from Brooklyn Manufacturing District Rezonings, 2002-2012: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/manufacturing_district/bk.pdf NYCDCP. (2014, January 14). plaNYC - Housing and Neighbourhoods. Retrieved March 14, 2014, from plaNYC: http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/ html/theplan/housing.shtml NYCEDC. (2011). Managing Public Private Partnerships in New York. Retrieved March 2014, from Impact Infrastructure LLC: http://impactinfrastructurellc.com/assets/managing-public-private partnerships-in-newyork-brochure1.pdf NYCEDC. (2012). NYC Industrial Business Zones Background. Retrieved December 2012, from http://www.nycedc.com/industry/industrial/industrial-business-zones. Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the Creative Class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29.4, 740-770. PNJNY. (2012). www.panjny.gov. Retrieved October 2012, from Port of New Jersey and New York. Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Porter, M. (1995). The Competitive Advantage of the Inner City. Harvard Business Review , 55-71. Porter, M. (1998). On Competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Pratt Centre for Community Development. (2008). Protecting New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Threatened Manufacturing Space. New York. Rappaport, N. (2009). The Vertical Urban Factory. Parsons School of Design Journal, 16-23.

MADE IN NEW YORK 295

Rappaport, N. (2011). The Vertical Urban Factory. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from Vertical Urban Factory: http://www.ninarappaport.com/VerticalUrbanFactory/OVERVIEW/index.html Rodriguez, Nestor J. R. (2006). The Era of U.S. Hegemony. In R. K. Neil Brenner, The Global Cities Reader. New York: Routledge. Sassen, S. (2001) The Global City. Princeton: Princeton University Press Sheppard, C. (2013). Future of NYC Industrial Business Zones Looks Bleak. Retrieved February 9, 2014, from NYC Biz News: http://nycbiznews.journalism.cuny.edu/2013/10/future-of-nyc-industrial-business-zones-looksbleak/ Steiner, M. (1998). The discreet charm of clusters: an introduction. In M. Steiner, Clusters and Regional Specialisation (pp. 1-18). London: Pion. Tabb, W. (1982). The Long Default: New York City and the Urban Fiscal Crisis. New York: NY: Monthly Review Press. The City of New York. (2014, February 10). Article IV: Manufacturing District Regulations. Retrieved March 16, 2014, from Zoning Resolution of the City of New York: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ dcp/pdf/zone/art04c01.pdf The Economist. (2013, January 19). Reshoring manufacturing - Coming Home. Retrieved July 4, 2014, from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21569570-growingnumber-american-companies-are-moving-their-manufacturing-back-united The University of Pennsylvania. (2012, February 15). Why BCGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hal Sirkin Is Bullish on the Future of American Manufacturing. Retrieved June 2014, from Knowledge@Wharton: https:// knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-bcgs-hal-sirkin-is-bullish-on-the-future-of-americanmanufacturing/ Todtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2008). Regional Innovation Cultures. Vienna: Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. US News and World Report. (1957). New Race Problem is Changing Nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Biggest City. New York.

296

Vittorio Aureli, P. (2011). The Possibility of An Absolute Architecture. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Wilkinson, C. (1996). Supersheds. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Wolf-Powers, L. (2003, November). Center for an Urban Future. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from Twilight Zoning: http://nycfuture.org/research/ publications/twilight-zoning Wolf-Powers, L. (2005). Up-Zoning New York Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Mixed Use Neighbourhoods: Property-Led Economic Development and the Anatomy of a Planning Dilemma. Journal of Planning, Education and Research, Volume 34, Issue 4 , 379-393. Yang, C. (2014,. Industrial Business Zones Gain Support. Retrieved June 28, 2014, from Epoch Times: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/748206-industrial-business-zones-gain-support/?photo=2

MADE IN NEW YORK 297

INTERVIEWS Interview #01 - Brooklyn, New York - 21st February 2014 Professor Laura Wolf-Powers, City and Regional Planning, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania Author - With this proposal how much influence would you say an alternative architectural perspective could have on the retention of the city’s manufacturing base rather than the atypical standpoint of economic and political based wrangling influenced primarily by politicians and developers? LWP - I teach in the school of design, I’m not a designer or an architect myself, I’m just a planner who teaches social policy but I think that teaching in the school of design has really sensitised me to the impact that visualisation can have on policy process. I think that some of the work already done on vertical factories, you mentioned Nina Rappaport who has already investigated the theory, just having the schematic and potential building designs, it adds a dimension to the conversation because it’s perfectly possible to envision in words as policy makers often do what the social effects of growing manufacturing in cities would be but to pair that with an architectural vision is powerful. So I would say that depending on certain people on their own teaming up with planners and policy advocates, often what happens are that architects end up being aligned with the developers who have visions for residential construction or commercial construction and this is an alternative but I think what’s tough is that there are developers whose imagination has been captured by this but they tend to be developers like the Greenpoint Manufacturing Design Centre which essentially have a social mission but your typical industrial developer is building one-storey boxes on greenfield sites and partly that’s because it really is easier to do that. That part of the development industry doesn’t generally attract the most innovative developers who really consider architecture are very high end developers who want to build skyscrapers and what’s in those skyscrapers is the most lucrative use possible. I don’t know if you have interviewed any industrial developers but they tend to be fairly, in my experience at least, focussed on a standard product and this kind of insertion into the urban landscape is anything but standard. To do something in the urban environment that’s industrial, it has to be very custom like in the same way to producing something in the urban environment it also is highly customised products. It actually doesn’t make a lot of sense to process car components in the centre of the city because they are standardised enough and the profit margins are quite low and there is a lot of competition in the auto parts market and so every single expense counts and so they will optimise on real estate and labour etc. Part of the light industrial business model is to produce unique objects very close to a high-end market with residents who have a lot of disposable income so that doesn’t describe a lot of industrial production processes. Author - Since the 1961 zoning resolution, Mayor Bloomberg has introduced the largest zoning changes of any administration and one of those is to try and retain the industrial base of manufacturers from New York City. Instead of relying of the finance, insurance and real estate for economic stimulus there has to be a primary workforce on which the majority of low skilled immigrants can rely on for employment. With investment in the IBZs are dwindling year on year, no immediate protection from inadvertent up-zoning plus the fact that none of these IBZs are on any zoning plans, would you say you’re optimistic for the future of manufacturers in the city or would you say that it will continue to be difficult for businesses who would wish to set-up in the city even with De Blasio’s administrative push to protect jobs in his ‘tale of two cities’? LWP - I think I would use the word hopeful rather than optimistic. I think De Blasio’s social agenda seems to be right in line for the objective for containing manufacturing. It’s true that Mayor Bloomberg established the IBZ program but the support from his administration was, in my view, tepid at best. I mean the IBZs were great literally but as you say it was never put into the zoning code and it was not funded properly nor was it ever integrated with the other functions of city government. People had hoped that when the IBZs came into being was that for each IBZ that there would be an individual planning process that would involve the Department of Transportation, Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Sanitation so that all of the focus of making it easier and more possible for manufacturing to thrive through the use of infrastructure investments and I think that it is fair to say that the NYCEDC didn’t see manufacturing as its main concern - it’s not a high margin real estate proposition. Even though Mayor Bloomberg did focus of diversifying the city’s economy, a lot of the signature projects were large commercial developments or large entertainment, recreation and retail complexes so the amount of resources and attention given to manufacturing by Bloomberg, I think there are many people who are advocates for industrial retention who aren’t happy with the Bloomberg administration. I’m not saying that there was zero attention but there was limited attention and the big vision was always with Hunts Point, Atlantic Yards and Willets Point. There’s a lot of opportunities that industrial retention advocates are putting out there like doing planning in the IBZs, incorporating protective zoning 298

into the zoning code. I’m hopeful that they will move forward with that but time will tell. I mean it’s early days, De Blasio only named his planning commissioner 2 weeks ago and from what I understand, Carl Weisbrod is appreciative of the role that manufacturing can play in an urban economy but how that plays out is anyone’s guess at this point. One thing that they can do immediately is that currently in the IBZs there are certain exceptions, so you can build hotels in industrial zones as of right which is not in concert with the objective with increasing manufacturing activity. Of course hotels offers a lot more cash than manufacturing tenants and hotels will bring in people who will no doubt complain about noise and odour. Advocates have for a long time been trying to get that provision removed and they were not successful under Bloomberg but may have more luck under De Blasio. Author - I believe you mentioned in one of your earlier papers that if there was a choice for residents to choose either large residential towers or a power plant then they would always choose the towers. Would you say that there is an issue with the social perception of industry in New York especially as there is a large body of light industry and any proposal that would be in close proximity to residential/ commercial developments would automatically create a natural aversion to a manufacturer being so close? LWP - The point I made in the paper you referred to is that manufacturing zones have always been the lowest ones on the zoning map. You can’t build residential in them but they are the only place where you can build transportation, power plants or a wastewater treatment plant. So these are a lot of noxious uses that communities don’t want for understandable reasons which is a whole other discussion about burdens on inequalities in terms of the communities’ environmental infrastructure. Everyone uses the wastewater system and only a few communities have the burden of a waste water system, one of which is in Newtown Creek. Understandably those communities who are close to these type of utilities have to deal with the potential impacts and therefore if they had to choose then they would go for an apartment tower every time. Author - Thank you very much for spending the time to discuss these issues.

MADE IN NEW YORK 299

Interview #02 - Brooklyn, New York - 22nd February 2014 Benjamin Huff, Analyst at New York City Department of Environmental Protection, formerly of NYCEDC Author - With this proposal how much influence would you say an alternative architectural perspective could have on the retention of the city’s manufacturing base rather than the atypical standpoint of economic and political based wrangling influenced primarily by politicians and developers? BH - Adding density and space to our small manufacturing land will really help get some competition in the manufacturing sector. As I see it vacancy rates are very low and there is a constant trend to rezone what little manufacturing land we have left. Adding high rise manufacturing buildings will increase space and work to help lower cost per sq. ft. which could help reverse the trend of businesses moving in theory. But another question is can we retain the important networks that make manufacturing successful. It’s all about moving product in and out very quickly, so in order for a high rise manufacturing building to succeed it will need to be located in an area where transit of products is easy to move things in and out. In addition to the loss of manufacturing land, parking and roads are being re designed for people rather than businesses. Williamsburg would no longer be competitive as a manufacturing district just because of all the one way streets, bike lanes, and new cars taking up what used to be great parking for trucks. Author - Since the 1961 zoning resolution, Mayor Bloomberg has introduced the largest zoning changes of any administration and one of those is to try and retain the industrial base of manufacturers from New York City. Instead of relying of the finance, insurance and real estate for economic stimulus there has to be a primary workforce in which the majority of low skilled immigrants are employed. With investment in the IBZs are dwindling year on year, no immediate protection from inadvertent up-zoning plus the fact that none of these IBZs are on any zoning plans, would you say you’re optimistic for the future of manufacturers in the city or would you say that it will continue to be difficult for businesses who would wish to set-up in the city even with De Blasio’s administrative push to protect jobs in his ‘tale of two cities’? BH - Unfortunately I think our government will constantly be focused on other big ticket issues. What most upsets me is the Tale of Two Cities dialogue is way more focused on getting affordable housing rather than good jobs. In the fight for space I think we are going to lose a lot of physical land to affordable housing that could have been used for good paying commercial/manufacturing space. I can’t speak to Mayor De Blasio’s current motives, I know he supported IBZ’s as a speaker and as a candidate but I think it was never a priority or an issue that no matter what he does he will be held accountable one way or the other. He could support them or he could cut funding from them, it won’t change his ratings because too much of the public doesn’t know about IBZ’s and what they mean to the city. Affordable housing has numbers that people look at and critique. At the same time I think the real estate industry and housing focused groups are way more vocal and have a much stronger ability to influence him and his policies. Carl Weisbrod’s appointment as head of DCP is also telling, he made a lot of money from converting industrial and commercial space in Hudson Square to residential, so he doesn’t seem inclined to protect manufacturing areas. I feel Weisbrod’s ties are very close to the housing industry. Author - Would you say that there is an issue with the social perception of industry in New York especially as there is a large body of light industry and any proposal that would be in close proximity to residential/ commercial developments would automatically create a natural aversion to a manufacturer being so close? BH - I don’t think there has been an outright concern amongst citizens to fight industrial areas. Most new manufacturing construction comes within areas that are already zoned manufacturing and have historically been manufacturing so there isn’t much a fight to stop new development. Rather it is people moving in to historically industrial neighborhoods and complaining about noise and smells and pushing out existing manufacturers. This has most certainly been the case in Greenpoint. Light industry might even have the ability to fight negative perception because people will think it is cool to have a brewery, distillery, or bakery nearby. Many resident’s in Bushwick love the constant presence of the Boar’s Head deli meat manufacturing plant. It is bigger issues, like Port expansions that have people worried about trucks and truck fumes. A supertall structure could be fought because of height, noise, shadows created, and those type of things that people fight for any tall building. It also would have a lot of trucks moving in and out and that would be irksome to neighbors. Again I would like to stress it is not just about space but the other pieces necessary for manufacturing businesses to thrive. Author - Given the unusual nature of the proposal, in your opinion, where would such a project be based as many manufacturers will be using the same location for many different operations which according to the your thesis the IBZ provide a ‘positive accomplishment for the Bloomberg administration’.

300

BH - I think a proposal like this will be successful in an any location that is historically manufacturing, is popular for people who can still work in vertical buildings and is in a transit rich area for trucks to move products (think proximity to ports and highways). A supertall structure means it will be the type of manufacturing that happens at a lower scale and doesn’t require trucks to come directly in and out of the warehouse. I can’t see metal fabricators being located on the 10th floor per se, but certainly high end cabinetry, jewellery makers, custom products, 3-D printing, etc. I think Greenpoint, Brooklyn towards the Newtown Creek area, Sunset Park, Brooklyn along the waterfront, Maspeth, Queens. Definitely the South Bronx would be an attractive option. These are just locations in NYC that I could see but it may be a model that works even better in a city like Newark, Philadelphia, Bridgeport. Cities that have large industrial areas without too much residential conversion where you have competing uses. Author - Thank you very much for your time.

Interview #03 - Brooklyn, New York - 22nd February 2014 - Karl Larocca Kayrock Screen Printing, Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Centre, Brooklyn Author - How long have you been in the GMDC and did you find it difficult to locate yourself in Brooklyn? KL - I have been in Brooklyn since 1998 and in GMDC since November 2011 Author - Were you looking at any particular area in which to set-up beforehand or were you forced to locate in the GMDC based on governmental financial incentives? Scarce, unsuitable industrial property? Or that the GMDC was offering a unique business opportunity that would give the business a good start in a competitive environment? KL - I was just looking for an affordable space where I could work, have elevator access, water. I did not receive any direct incentives, although their rent is reasonable because of government subsidies. I had to relocate because they tore down our old building for residential development. Author - What has been your opinion on the International Business Zones (IBZs) that were introduced by Bloomberg in 2005 and have you noticed an overall improvement in the opinions of manufacturers in the area since its introduction? KL - I don’t really know enough about it to comment. Author - Are you optimistic/ hopeful for the future of specialized manufacturers being able to set-up in prime inner city locations given a change of administration? KL - I have been assured that I can stay here as long as I want and I am expanding to take over the space next door for a total of 3600 sq ft next month. I know that there are very few openings in our building, so not sure how easy it is for new people to set up shop. Author - Do you receive any business support from any administrative agencies and if so from whom? Is it enough or would you expect more support? KL - No business support. I could have used help when Hurricane Sandy shut off our power for 6 weeks but all I could qualify for were loans Author - Given the recent re-zoning of the Greenpoint coastline to build a series of large residential towers next to the GMDC do you feel that you will need to relocate due to potential up-zoning pressures and if so could you remain in the area or would you have to look further afield? KL - I have been assured that our zoning will not change and that I can stay here until I retire. Whether we will want to be around what greenpoint becomes is another question. I am very glad to not be located on Kent and Metropolitan anymore, that neighborhood has changed beyond recognition in the last few years.

MADE IN NEW YORK 301

IMAGE CREDITS Front Cover - Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Centre [photograph] - By Author (2014) Page 2,3 – New York Zoning Map – New York City Department of Planning (2012). Available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_zmaptable.shtml Page 6,7 – Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Centre Detail [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 9 - Abandoned Factory [photograph] - Unknown Author (2012). Available at http://www.inspiringcities.org/tag/new-york/. Accessed October 2012. Page 10 – Brick chimney [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 11 – Manufacturing Concepts [images] ¬– Courtesy of Gary Neill (2013) Available at http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21569570-growingnumber-american-companies-are-moving-their-manufacturing-back-united Page 14, 15 – Oak Street, Greenpoint [photograph] – Courtesy of Jesse KaneHartnett (2014) Page 25 – Noble and West Street, Greenpoint [photograph] – Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 27 – North 10th Street and Wythe, Greenpoint [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 30 – Noble and West Street, Greenpoint [photograph] – Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 33 – Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Centre, Greenpoint [photograph] – Courtesy of Cory Nestor (2013) Page 37 - Abandoned asphalt factory [photograph] - Mitch Waxman (2012). Available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mitchwaxman/sets/. Accessed January 2013 Page 39 - [1] Photograph by Eliot Elisofon. Available at http://www.flickriver.com/ photos/13964815@N00/4911187633/. Retrieved December 2012 [2] Courtesy of the New York City Department of Records, Municipal Archives. Available at www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/URBAN_FABRIC/case04.php. Retrieved December 2012 Page 41 - [1-2] Courtesy of the New York Public Library. Retrieved December 2012 [3] Garment District Aerial. Courtesy of the Regional Plan Association. Retrieved December 2012 Page 43 [1] Garment District, Berenice Abbott. Available at www.museumsyndicate. com/artist.php?artist=810. Retrieved December 2012 [2] Garment District, Feininger, Andreas. Available at http://www.geh.org/fm/ feininger/htmlsrc/feininger_sum00005.html. Retrieved December 2012 [3] Garment District, Berenice Abbott. Available at www.skyscraper.org/ EXHIBITIONS/URBAN_FABRIC/wall05.php. Retrieved December 2012 [4] Zoning Guidelines, Courtesy of the Skyscraper Museum. Available at http://www. skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/URBAN_FABRIC/nw10.php. Retrieved December 2012 Page 45 [3-6] Barkin and Lewin & Co. Inc. Clothing Factory - Henn, Walter., 1961. Buildings for Industry. Illiffe Books, 1965. Retrieved November 2012 Page 47 – TIME Magazine Cover – (2013). Available at http://img.timeinc.net/time/ magazine/archive/covers/2013/1101130422_600.jpg Page 49 – Noble and West Street, Greenpoint [photograph] – Courtesy of Jesse

302

Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 52 - 53 Hunters Point Railyard [photograph] Courtesy of Mitch Waxman. (2012). Available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mitchwaxman/sets/. Accessed January 2013 Page 56, 57 – North 13th Street, Greenpoint [photograph] – By Author (2014) Pg 58-59 [1-2] Courtesy of the Greenwich Village Society for Historical Preservation.Trump Soho Tower protests. Available at http://www.gvshp.org/trump. htm. Retrieved October 2012 Page 60 – Noble and West Street, Greenpoint [photograph] – Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 61 – Palestine Water Tower, Greenpoint [photograph] – Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 65 – New York City Satellite Image [photograph] – Courtesy of NASA. Available at http://lightbox.time.com/2012/04/30/nasa/#1. Retrieved March 2013 Page 69 – ‘Greenpointers’ [photograph] – Courtesy of Greenpointers. Available at https://www.facebook.com/greenpointers/photos_stream. Retrieved March 2014 Page 70 – Local Industrial Fabric [1,2,3,4] [photographs] - By Author (2014). Page 78 – [1] Local Industrial Fabric [photograph] Courtesy of Mitch Waxman. (2012). Available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mitchwaxman/sets/. Accessed January 2013 Page 78 – [2] Noble Street [photograph] - Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 79 – [3] Noble Street [photograph] - Courtesy of Ben Huff (2014) Page 79 – [4] N10th Street [photograph] - By Author (2014) Page 80 – [1] Domino Sugar Factory [photograph] - By Author (2014) Page 80 – [2] Palestine Water Tower [photograph] - By Author (2014) Page 81 – [3] Manhattan Avenue [photograph] - Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 81 – [4] 2nd Street – 54 Avenue [photograph] - Courtesy of Mitch Waxman. (2012). Available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mitchwaxman/sets/. Accessed January 2013 Page 82 – [1] Greenpoint Avenue [photograph] - Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 82 – [2] Manhattan Avenue [photograph] - Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 83 – [3] McCarren Park [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 83 – [4] Jewel Street [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 84 - Materiality [photographs] 1,3,4 courtesy of Cory Nestor (2012). Page 85 - Materiality [photographs] 6,7,8 courtesy of Cory Nestor (2012). Page 85 - Materiality [photograph] 9 courtesy of Joe Desiderio (2012). Available at http://greenpointers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/newtown_creek_nature_ walk_greenpoint_-Joe_Desiderio.jpg Page 86 - 87 – Greenpoint Panorama [photograph] - By Author (2014) Page 91 – [1, 2] Manufacturers [photograph] – Available at http://ny.curbed.com/ archives/2014/01/16/how_nycs_decade_of_rezoning_changed_the_city_of_ industry.php (2014) Page 93 – Palestine Water Tower [photograph] - Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 112 – [1,3,4,5] Local Industrial Fabric [photograph] – By Author (2014)

Page 112 – [2] 42 West Street [photograph] - Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 113 – [2,4,5] Local Industrial Fabric [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 113 – [1] Local Industrial Fabric [photograph] – Courtesy of Ben Huff (2014) Page 113 – [3] Local Industrial Fabric [photograph] – Courtesy of Jesse KaneHartnett (2014) Page 124 - Skoda Modular Factory Interior [photographs]. Courtesy of HENN Architects (2012). Available at http://www.henn.com/cms/data/1/5170.jpg. Accessed January 2013 Page 125 - Interior Ipekyol Textile Factory [photograph], Dresden. Courtesy of Dave Pinter (2012). Available at http://dome.mit.edu/handle/1721.3/59210. Accessed January 2013 Page 126 - Interior VW Glaserne Manufaktur [photograph], Dresden. Courtesy of Dave Pinter (2012). Available at http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ davepinter/5203183331/. Accessed January 2013 Page 127 - Nordex Turbine Facility Interior [photographs]. Unknown Author. Available at http://business-harvest.org/about-2/Accessed January 2013 Page 129 – Greenpoint Perspective [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 133 – [1,2] Greenpoint and Williamsburg [photographs]. Will Femia. Available at http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/01/16/how_nycs_decade_of_ rezoning_changed_the_city_of_industry.php Page 134 – 42 West Street [photograph] - Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 139 – N10th Street Warehouse [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 142 – [1] Greenpoint and Williamsburg [photographs]. Will Femia. Available at http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/01/16/how_nycs_decade_of_rezoning_ changed_the_city_of_industry.php Page 154 – [1] Greenpoint and Williamsburg [photographs]. Will Femia. Available at http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/01/16/how_nycs_decade_of_rezoning_ changed_the_city_of_industry.php Page 159 - Condo Advertisements [photograph] Courtesy of Liqcity. (2012). Available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/liqcity/sets/. Accessed November 2012 Page 160 – [1] New York Dock Company Courtesy of AA Studio. [photograph] (2014). Available at http://www.archdaily.com/524744/aa-studio-designsredevelopment-of-disused-dock-building/53bb3c4ac07a8005ce000336_aa-studiodesigns-redevelopment-of-disused-dock-building_a_11-06-14-jpg/ Page 162 – 63 West Street [photograph] - Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 164 - Prince Metal Recycling Plant [photograph] Courtesy of Mitch Waxman. (2012). Available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mitchwaxman/sets/. Accessed January 2013 Page 169 - Keystone Iron and Wire Works [photograph] Courtesy of Cory Nestor (2012). Page 217 – Union Avenue and Withers Street Pananoramic [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 228 – Calyer Street [photograph] – Courtesy of Ben Huff (2014) Page 235 – Noble and West Street [photograph] - Courtesy of Jesse Kane-Hartnett (2014) Page 245 – Domino Sugar Factory [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 265 [1] – 33 Thomas Street [photograph] – John Carl Warnecke (1974).

Available at http://quadraturarchitecture.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/img_0179s. jpg Page 265 [2] – Stop City [image] – DOGMA (2011) Available at http://socks-studio. com/img/blog/immagine5.jpeg Page 276, 277 – Panoramic [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 278 – Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Centre [photograph] – By Author (2014) Page 279 – Domino Sugar Factory [photograph] – Paul Raphaelson (2014) Available at http://www.archdaily.com/514373/in-images-the-domino-sugar-factorys-beautiful-decline/53959efbc07a803df40004bd_in-images-the-domino-sugarfactory-s-beautiful-decline_raphaelson-42-jpg/ Page 284 – West Street, Greenpoint - Background [photograph] – Courtesy of Ben Huff (2014)

LIST OF FIGURES 2.0 Greenpoint and Williamsburg Demographic Statistic Source: Curran, W. (2010). In Defense of Old Industrial Spaces: Manufacturing Creativity and Innovation in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. International Journal of Urban anad Regional Research, 871-85. 2.1 Primary Methods of Transportation Source: http://www.nymtc.org/ 3.0 Greenpoint Landing Development Source: Adapted from http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/507849598 5216d20150067f7/2.jpg 3.1 Hunters Point Development Source: Adapted from http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/images/misc/ hunterspoint-pic.jpg 3.2 Diminishing Manufacturing Land in Brooklyn 2002 - 2012 Source: Adapted from Pratt Centre for Community Development. (2008) Pg 3. Protecting New York’s Threatened Manufacturing Space. New York. Available at http://prattcenter.net/sites/default/files/ threatened_manufacturing.pdf 3.3 Industrial Business Zone Diagram Source: By Author 3.4 Rezonings Brooklyn Manufacturing District 2002 - 2012 Source: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/home.html 3.5 Uniform Land Use Procedure. Source: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/ap/step5_ulurp.shtml 5.0 Radial Proximity Parameter to Vertical Factory Tower Source: By Author

All photos and satellite imagery have been adapted from their original format between 01-10-2012 to 25-07-2014 All satellite images courtesy of Google Maps, Bing Maps and Google Earth All images and diagrams created by author unless stated above. MADE IN NEW YORK 303

APPENDIX

304

CONCEPT

MADE IN NEW YORK 305

CONCEPT

306

CONCEPT

MADE IN NEW YORK 307

MERCEDES BENZ MANUFACTURING PLANT, CHAKAN, PUNE, INDIA

Production Facilities Sawtooth Rooflights

Vast single storey production plants

25m

Access

308

MACKMYRA GRAVITY DISTILLERY, GAVLE, SWEDEN,

5m Access

Goods Lift Fermentation Vats

‘Sky Bar’

Mashing Unit

Fermentation Vats

Mashing Unit above Raw material storage

Primary Stair Core Distillation Stills

Distillation Stills x 2

MACKMYRA GRAVITY DISTILLERY Floors - 10 Height - 37m Constructed - 2011 Gross Floor Area - 1,460 sqm Copper Stills - 2 Employees - <10 employees

MADE IN NEW YORK 309

PROJECT #01 - MASTERPLAN CONCEPT

310

Above: Further socio-spatial conflicts will inevitbly arise from the constrution of a large vertiginous factory in close proximity to residential areas

MADE IN NEW YORK 311

312

PROJECT #01 - Facade Perspective. Hunters Point Manufacturing Node #001

MADE IN NEW YORK 313

314

MADE IN NEW YORK 315

PROJECT #01 - Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park, Roosevelt Island East River showing the new manufacturing complex on the Hunters Point peninsula 316

hbarchitectural MADE IN NEW YORK 317

PROJECT #01 - Hunters Point Manufacturing Node #001

318

MADE IN NEW YORK 319

Hunters Point Manufacturing Node #001 Located at the former termination point of the Long Island Railroad, the vertical factory utilises the current infrastructural networks and a re-interpreted finger pier facility to accomodate dozens of industries in suitable, contemporary manufacturing space.

320

MADE IN NEW YORK 321

MADE IN NEW YORK

MA D

PARK

TE R

CA RM EL. MT.

C6 -4A

-9 C1

100

118

CL PROL.

100

AV E.

80 S. 5 TH

ST.

S. 5 TH

-2

FRANKLIN

AV E.

ST N. . 10 10

ST .

R6A ST .

M R6 1-2 B /

A SC SQ E NZ . I

ST .

R6 B

M12/R F IL 6A AVR LI M E. O

PB B. POATH OL

100

MX-8

ST .

AV E.

BE RR Y

ST . ST .

MX-

P L. RE

100

HO PE

-2/R

ST.

100

6B ST.

MX-8

S. 2

DR IGG S

117

150

CL PROL. OF BROADWAY

SND T.

ST.

100

U.S.

R7A

KENT

R7-3

ST .

MX-8

100

R R66 ST. N RM6ETROPOBB . 3 RD R6A LITAN 100

ST .

2/ R6 B

AV E

ST .

2/ R6 ST . A

INA L RM TE

M1 R6 -2/

M1R6A4/ 210

.1 S

M TH 1-

AV E.

25 0

12/ R6 A

M1-2/R6A N

AGRA

DIS TR IC T

EA ST ER N

10 0

14 0

M3- 0 1

M1 -2/R 6

1-2/R 6B 200

MX-8 W

100

S. 1 TH

M3-

150

CL PRO L.

10 T

100

S. 3 RD S. 4 TH

10 0

DF O

150

M1 ST . -2/ R6A 100 R6 M B

S. 2 ND

C L PROL

15 0

PO LIT AN

100

CL PR OL. 235

C6-2

10 0

100

AV E.

C6-2 C6-2 CL PR R8 PROLOL. .

GRAN D

T PIT

-1

5 55 55 5

15 0

AV E.

CL PR OL

R8 R6

11 T

RR Y

GRAND FERRY PARK

KE NT

CELIC PLAZ A

M3-1

ST .

ST.

100

ST .

C6-2

IN R.

PR OL .

BK LY N.

CL PR O

BIA LY PL.- ST OK WILLE ER TT

.L.

ST.

N.S

100

ST.

PR O

INLET PARK

R7 A

AV EN UE

ST. ST.

ORN EY

LC P RO

N. 3

MA RT

ER MES V A

ME T

ST .

NCEY

ST.

AD BU LK HE

ST .

AT T

R8A

NCEY

100 100

QUAY

R7 A LO ISA IDA C

R7 A

100

10 0

AT T

CLINT ON

ST . ST .

R7-2

100

CALYER

M3-1

300

ST .

ORNE ST . Y

SUF FOLK

ST .

NOR F

AV EN UE

R7 A

100

ST.

R8 B

EN AV

10 0

FIR ST

ST.

OLK

DE LA 150

SUFF

HA R D ORC

100

ST.

75 S

225

ST.

DE LA

LUD LOW

ALL EN

ELD R

C6- GE 2G

C61 ESS EX

100

SYTH CHR

F OR

S AR A

100

R8 A

R7A

2A 100

C4-

R8 B

100

OLK

10 0

BRO O ME

YS TI E

ST.

ST .

C4-

TON

C6-

100

140

SQ .

PROL.

-2A ST.

125

150

130

10 0

ST.

PA RK

ST.

200

RO OS EV ELT

RIV IN G

100

C L

100 TZ

R8 B

PROL.

100

SE CO ND

C6-1 130

100

EMAN

C61

C63A 10

TON ST.

ST.

PE RE

AL.

FRE

100

R7 B

R7 A

PL .

100

S TO N

RID

ST .

100

H OU

C L

OL.

100

OL.

75 ST.

100

100 400 OAK

AVE.

NK BA ST.

NTO N ST.

14 0

NOBLE

100

RIV IN G

135

120

E. 1

150

E. 8

M1-2/R6A

100

ST A

80 120

150

100

150

E. 9

100

MILTON 400

R6 LC PR

100

150

210

R7 -2

ST .

100

M1-1

R8X

100

120

R7 -2

100

GREENPOINT

100

ST.

100

ST .

R8 B

100

275

KENT 150

100

R8 B

100

ST.

R6B ST.

JAVA

100

PR OL .

100

ST.

100

EX TR PL A .

R8 CL PROL.

PR OL .

100

275

100

R8 B

HURON

INDIA

100

STUYVESANT ST.

150

455

M1-2/R6B

100

ST.

100

R8 B E. 7

EA ST

100

ST.

100

CL PROL.

125

100

E. 9

100

ST .

GREEN

R6B

100

ST.

320

125

M1-2/R6A

-6A

100

-2A

100

CL PROL.

R6B

R6A

125

100

NT PK GREENPOI

100

FREEMAN 480

M1-1

C6 9 -3

100

M1-1

-1

100

R7 A

EAGLE

100

CLAY ST. 430

A M1-2/R6 ST. ST.

10 0

AVE

E. 1 2 TH

L C IA ER MM

DUPONT 200

125

M1-2/ R6 C

100

ST .

C1 -7

. ST

ST.

AV E.

AS RE SER CT CR EA LEVY R. TIO N

ST .

UA RD IA

0 15

707 7606 60

0 10

R6 R6

12 T

2 ND

150

-2

AVE.

AVE

125 101205

100

C1-9A

R8A

530

R7-3

75 AVE.

PARK

W17 TH

75 55 TH

5 EN 6 TH

50 50

100

125

100

11 T

R10

PL.

AVE.

M1-4 695

E-1

75 75 54 TH

100

100 AVE.

100

-6 C4

DIVI

CL PROL.

100

CL PROL.

M1-2

ST.

100

ST .

400

M1-2 400

PEARL

ST.

400

ST.

100

225

125

200

330

TAAFFE

C6-2

. AVE

50 DUFFIELD

SKIL LMAN

ST.

M1-2

100

-1

KENT

C4-3

FLUSHING

ST.

BILT

100

PL .

M1-2 VANDER

100 FR. JAMES F. HINCHEY C.O.

TILLAR Y

R6B

ST.

GE ED

ABOUT WALL

NT CLERMO

SH TBU

C6-2

M1-4 680

C4-3

106

M1-2/R6A

R6B

FLA CONCORD

NAVY

CL PROL.

NASSAU

175

R6B

235

150

300

235

C6-4

170

IDGE

ST. ST.

324

L IT TL E

AL.

ST.

M1-2/ R6

ADAMS

EVANS ST. H AR R ISON

ST.

90 0

YORK

AVE.

ST.

M1-5/R9-1 M1-2/R8

ST.

100

M1-2

R6B

400

FRONT

M1-4/ 200 R7A 125

ST.

150

ST.

WATER

HUDSON

M1-2/R8A

100

ST.

HOWARD AL.

ST.

100

BRIDGE

ST.

ST. 230

MAIN

DO CK ST.

M1-2/ R8

150

M1-4/R8A

E RAG HO ANC PL.

WATER

C6-2A

ST.

ADAMS ST.

JOHN

PLYMOUTH

SION

BRIDGE

MANHATTAN

100

DUPONT

EAGLE

ST.

RUSSELL

N AT TA

ST.

49 T

VAN DAM

R6 100

ST.

(GRAHAM

ST. AVE.

ST.

STAGG

100 SCHOLES

R6 B

ST.

R6B

AVENUE OF

E. E.

ST.

. .

100

CT.

ST.

WIC

100

LR OS

TIE

SANT

EC-4

MADE IN NEW YORK 325

AVE.

STUYVE

100

AVE. BE

110

AV E.

100

M 11 10

ISS

RENA

C4-4L cL

ANCE

R6A

100

AVE

ARLINGTON

R7A

R6A

100

ST.

R7A

NOLL

F. R

. T ST

100

DY DR. SAN

100

ES FORR

AVE. -

D BEDFOR

MYRTLE

R7A

ST.

100

0 ST

AVE.

100

R7D

ST.

R7D

C4-4L

GARVEY

-2

LEWIS

DNER-

R6A

STOCKTON cL

ST.

AVE.

JR. PL.

ELLERY

EC-4

HER KING

MARTIN LUT

R6A

WIX

ST.

MARCUS

ELLERY

DR. GAR

ST.

HOPKINS

R6B

REV.

PARK

THROOP

TOMPKI

FLUSHING

L IPP

cL .MARCY AVE

R7-1

A R7

100

100 IETH NT

100

R6A BE

100

STAN

COOK

ST.

RIM

R7A

AVE.

M1-2

ST.

VARET 100

RICO)

T WALLABOU CL PROL.

AVE.

MID

11 7-7RR

SQ.

ST.

PUERTO

AV ST

MAUJER

100 TEN EYCK

51 ST

100

ST.

ST. CL

100

M SQ ACR I .

AVE. ST.

ST.

ST .

A ST. R6 2/

ST.

PR OL .

ST .

AVE.

ST. CL

CATHERINE

. E ST OL IV E OLIV

R6B CL

CL PROL

ST.

R7A 100

ETH

SHARON

AVE.

JUD

ST.

R6B

100

R6A

MA SP

R6B

125

100

R6A

GORE ER PK.

ORIE

100

200 CL

COOP

150

2 C8- 1500

R6B

R6B AVE.

MAS

RIAL

MEMO SQ.

WIC

ST.

E VO IS AVE.

R6 A PETH R6A

BUSH

M1 R6 -2/

DEBE

ST.

AVE.

OL .

AV E.

TH E

RY BE R LC

LC LC

R6 FO

BE D

0 10

MO RG

1 00

100

NTS

DR IG

ST.

R6B 80

E. AV

ARE AVE. - GRANDP

100

ST.

ST .

KINGSLAND

HUMBOLDT

100

MAS

KO SZ CIU

ST.

100

120

AVE.

ST.

R7A

100

C4-4A

125

100

0 10

R6B

POWERS

GRAND

R6B

R6A

DEVOE

100

170

NRY NORTH HE

AINSLIE

ST.

100 CL

SLIE

ST.

R6B

R7A

ITAN

100

ST.

250

AVE.

METROPOL 100

M1 R6 -2/ A

R6B

UCCI - VIA VESP GRAHAM AVE.

100

AIN

ST.

100

. R6 AVE.

100 SKILLMAN

CONSELYEA

R6A

100

8T ST H .

100 100

WITHERS

100

-8

L ME AR ER CARMEL . C EK MT. . MT ME SQ SQ.

MX-8

100

R6 2/ 1-

100

MANHATTAN

WITHERS ST. ER EK ME

YN KL OO

OUR LADY OF THE SNOWS SQ.

150

R6B

T ER RB

100

NS EE

ARD ST. LEON

100

RICHARDSON

ST. LORIME

10 0

AVE.UNION

ST . N.

ST. CONO STRA

FROST

10 0 ST .

A R6 E. -2/ AV

ST. RICHARDSON

M1-2/ R6A

100

ST.

R6 2/ 1M HE

100

TH O

MAS

PK.

Y PW EX

BAYARD

ST .

100

R6B

FIDELITY MEM.

. ST 0 10

WT NE

. ST

ST .

10 T

M1-2/ R6B

10 0

AVE.

100

ST . TH O

AVE.

DRIGGS

AVE.

M1-2/R6

100

UNION

M R7 1-2 A /

Y ARIT LID

HER SQ. F ATINSKI DZ ST U D. BLV

SO ES AWAL ARE SQU

100

ENGERT

M1-2/ R6

R6B

75 100

100

R6A

ST.

100

10 0

MX-8

12 T

11 T

M1-2/ CL R6B

SAU NAS

ST.

ST .

100

25 0

100

CL TH

100

ST.

100

R VE.

RNS GUE

100

A R7

100

K BRAN KE

ST.

M1-1 OLE

M1-2/ R6

50 TH

100

IMER

100

LOR

ST.

300

100

R6B

170

IDG E CL

C4 -

125

MANH

150

NA LEO

150

MILTON

CLCLPPR ROOL. L.

100

AVE.

100

GREENPOINT

NO. HENERY

ST. 100

KENT

GSRT A. ND

48 TH

ST.

R6B

45 TH

ST.

JAVA

R5D

. AVE

R6B

INDIA

44 TH

KINGSLAND

HURON

ST.

GREEN

R6A

R7A

McGUINNESS

ST.

GREEN

105

ST.

ST.GREEN APEN GEORGE

150

AVE .

ST.

FREEMAN

100

ST.

100

M1-2/R6

PAID GE

100

-2/1-2/R6A M1M

43 RD

MX-8

ST.

100

200 145

M1-2

. ST BOX ST. BOX 300 300

M3-1

PULASKI

ST.

ASH

40 TH

M1-2

373

M1-2

IN PO

CLAY

125

39 TH

M1-5/R7X

M1-4

100

M1-4/R6A

/R6B

100

M1-4

AVE.

-4

MADE IN NEW YORK DESIGNED IN THE UK