Inclusionary Housing - Gowanus, NY

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING A CATALOG CASE STUDY PROVIDING ALTERNATIVES FOR FABRIC-SENSITIVE DESIGN: GOWANUS, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward

BACKGROUND

09

Regional Analysis Existing Building Types Population Densities Proposed Canal Connections Proposed Transit-Oriented Development Transit-Oriented Development: Introduction

CHALLENGE 1: LACK OF DENSITY

27

Existing Conditions Bond Street Development Transit-Oriented Development

CHALLENGE 2: STREET DECOMPOSITION

37

Existing Building Fabric Bond Street Development Transit Oriented Development

CHALLENGE 3: LACK OF AFFORDABILITY

47

Existing Building Types Bond Street Development Transit-Oriented Development

APPLICATION

63

Well-Considered Street Elevation Composition Under-Considered Street Elevation Composition

REFERENCES

79

CATALOG

83

Building Type 1: C - Shaped Courtyard Building Type 2: Triplex Maisonette Building Type 3: Mixed Use Mid Rise

FORWARD WHY DOES THIS BOOK MATTER? There’s a community, Gowanus, that’s facing impending development that would drastically change the neighborhood in a way that frightens the current residents. This book examines the neighborhoods historic background through recent development, the community itself, and community involvement, as an example to equip other communities responding to undesired changes in their own neighborhoods.

Gowanus, Brooklyn, New York City, New York, is an historically manufacturing and industrial area along the Gowanus Canal. Throughout the years, the canal has been transformed from a shipping quarter sending supplies to the heart of New York to an industrial wasteland full of toxic materials. This toxic wasteland is currently home to an automotive junkyard, abandoned concrete factory, metalwork factory and many others that call the canal “home.”

There is a current plan to clean up the canal, funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that has caused concern for residents that their beloved neighborhood will soon become something unrecognizable; and in extreme cases become something residence may abandon. EPA interest in the canal has intrigued developers to the point that they have already started building even before the cleanup has commenced.

Claiming stake on Gowanus has fed the heightened concern that residents have for the neighborhood at large.

The term neighborhood is somewhat superficial, but for some reason people cling to their neighborhood and take pride in all the quirks, pitfalls and surprises it has to offer. Each person, visitor or resident, engages it differently and that act of engagement implies a connection to that neighborhood. Gowanus is no exception to that ideal. It has many unique spaces that create a lively, connected and flourishing neighborhood.

Development pressure mounts in Gowanus even before the canal is cleaned but there is strong voice in the community that is standing up to “secure a pathway for responsible growth” and that is Bridging Gowanus. Even though there is a strong neighborhood engagement from organizations like Bridging Gowanus, change is happening and these organizations need all the help they can get. Other neighborhoods and cities will soon face this impending change as well, but understanding ways to adapt with the current situation, rather than alter it entirely, would be beneficial for everyone in the neighborhood.

Bridging Gowanus is a neighborhood advocacy organization trying to protect the neighborhood character that could soon disappear. Bringing to the discussion priorities such as:

• A sustainable, resilient, environmentally healthy community, • Invest in our parks, schools, transit, and waterfront • Strengthen the manufacturing sector and create good jobs

04

• Keep Gowanus creative and mixed-use • Preserve and create affordable housing for an exclusionary community • Secure a pathway for responsible growth

These priorities prove that Gowanus values its neighborhood and want to preserve the things valued most. Even though there are advocacy organizations in place, change is an eventuality but if we equip our communities with responsible change alternatives in response to development pressure, organizations like Bridging Gowanus can have more support in the discussion of change in the neighborhood.

It is the hope that this book can be used as a guide for how communities, like Gowanus, can investigate problems facing the neighborhood and lend insight that could help shape the future of their neighborhood. The future of the neighborhood can and should be in the hands of the community that resides in it. Development is and will continue to happen, so why not give communities support in “their” future home?

HOW TO USE THIS BOOK The intent of Inclusionary Housing is to provide a catalog of fabric-sensitive design alternatives and planning principles, specific to the neighborhood of Gowanus in Brooklyn, New York. This catalog seeks to inform developers and empower communities to think about their neighborhoods as spaces for community built on residents and users from a diversity of income strata.

Providing numerous buildings types and layouts creates increased diversity of economic classes, allowing developers to turn a profit while creating housing options for low-income residents and avoiding gentrification. Each building type plays a specific role in responding to each challenge(s) respectively. In providing a variety of options, this catalog explores the major challenges facing Gowanus’s development, guiding developers towards more fabricsensitive design solutions. This catalog is, in part, a response to the large scale construction rising up in Gowanus that are de-constructing the neighborhood identity.

Inclusionary Housing is a tool for communities and developers to use when trying to create fabric-sensitive design alternatives that seek to address needs for all parties involved in the process. To further understand how and why this tool was conceived, this book walks through the Urban Plan that was developed by myself as well as my colleagues, Justin Banda, Kay Havlicek, Tyler Hopwood, Marvin Reyes, and Andrew Witek. The urban plan revealed a series of challenges, three of which are explored here: lack of density, street decomposition, and lack of affordability. Each of these challenges is explored by examining the existing conditions of Gowanus, the recent Bond Street development, and the proposed Transit Oriented Development. Realistic applications for Gowanus were prepared in response to these challenges. This book concludes with the catalog of building types with design options that were used to generate the preceding application. Each building type tries to address a

05

different problem that is directly related to the challenges mentioned above.

This book intends to shed light on the growing issue of gentrification and inequitable housing and real estate conditions in our cities. By providing design alternatives that are both affordable and profitable, developers are better equipped to be more conscious and critical of their development strategies that directly impact the communities they should be working with.

CONCLUSION How the book matters to the community of Gownaus is very different than how it matters to the developers who are building there. If this book is to do anything, it is to help generate discussions that lead to more thoughtful design solutions that serve the community rather than the people turning the profit. The ability to do so hinges on the understanding the challenges that the neighborhood faces today and are as follows:

• Lack of density • Street decomposition • Lack of affordability

In order to do that, knowing how to use the book is paramount. The book gives and guides one through examples of options, but ultimately the community holds the key to the success of their neighborhood.

06

07

08

BACKGROUND

09

INTRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS Gowanus is located around the Gowanus Canal which is historical toxic dumping ground that is intended to be cleaned by the EPA. It is a well-connected neighborhood by streets (Union Street, 2nd Street and 9th Street East and West; 4th Avenue and Smith Street North and South) surrounded by four other neighborhoods (Red Hook, Carroll Gardens, Boreum Hill and Park Slope) whom each have access to New York City Subway system.

The existing building types in Gowanus feature a mix of industrial and residential that compose the image of the neighborhood.

The Rowhouse is typically 2-4 stories with a raised first floor with and English/Garden Basement.

The Flat is also 2-5 stories typically with on-grade access, while the Mixed-Use type has a commercial first floor and residences above. These types dominate the residential type that are just outside the 100-year flood plain.

The Mixed-Use Mid Rise, Open Interior Building, and Live/Work building types are the ones most commonly found near the canal due to the nature of their uses. Each one of these has its own purpose, but generally manufacturing is used in these types.

PROPOSED URBAN PLAN With the EPA’s intentions to clean up the canal in place, our focus for the urban plan was turned toward the canal with a vision for a connected, public space activated area that links the upper and lower parts of the canal. The once toxic wasteland would now become the hub of pedestrian activity that makes Gowanus a destination instead of a pass through neighborhood.

Six nodes of activity are designed along the canal that have public spaces anchored by public or civic buildings creating an engaged Gowanus. Each building seeks to provide a unique experience within each node and adds a sense of place that increases canal activity. Experience along the canal introduces modes of travel that include: bicycling, pedestrian and boating.

The node that is highlighted in this book is the Transit-Oriented Development that is located in the lower half of the canal. This node responds to the newly developed Bond Street that seem to undermine the neighborhood identity. The urban plan discourages the planned development currently being implemented and propose new land rezoning that suits the needs of the community rather than the developers.

10

11

REGIONAL ANALYSIS1

Connecting Streets

Surrounding Neighborhoods

Subway Lines To Site

Industrial Business Zone

Composite Map

Current Zoning Manufacturing Zoning Residential Zoning Downtown Zoning

12

EXISTING BUILDING TYPES1 Building Types

Rowhouse [R]

Rowhouse

A series of rowhouses along 1st Street, Gowanus, first floor removed from grade.

A. Description Rowhouses / townhouses.

The entire building may be a single dwelling unit, or there may be one dwelling unit per floor. First floor entrance may be either at grade or removed with an English/garden basement.

Width: 2-4 bays Height: 2-4 stories (plus basement) B. Use Residential C. Allowed Transects Existing to remain where possible, but not for new construction.

10 13

EXISTING BUILDING TYPES1 Flat

Building Types

Flat [F]

A. Description Stacked Flats on a Stair / Double-Loaded Corridor. from grade.

Flats

Mixed-Use

Width: 3-6 bays Height: 2-5 stories B. Use Residential C. Allowed Transects T5MS T5NS T5N T5F

T5T

11 14

EXISTING BUILDING TYPES1 Building Types

Mixed Use

Mixed Use [MU]

Series of mixed use buildings: commercial first floor, flats above, 4th Street, Gowanus.

A. Description Stacked Flats on a Stair / Double-Loaded Corridor

Flats

Mixed-Use

Width: 1-6 bays wide, 50% doors at least every 33’ Height: B. Uses (by floor) 1st Commercial 2nd Residential, Work, Commercial (T5MS only) 3rd+ Residential, Work C. Allowed Transects T5MS T5NS T5N T5F

T5T

12 15

EXISTING BUILDING TYPES1 Building Types

Mid Rise

Mid Rise [MR]

New mid rise building at 2nd Street and Bond Street, Gowanus by Lightstone Group A. Description Sub-Type A: Stacked Flats on a Stair Sub-Type B: Stacked Flats on a DoubleLoaded Corridor Width: Single Loaded [A], Double Loaded [B] Height: 2-6 stories 1st

Residential some Commercial (T5MS only) 2nd+ Residential only C. Allowed Transects T5MS T5NS T5N T5F

T5T

13 16

EXISTING BUILDING TYPES1 Building Types

Open Interior Building, Small

Open Interior Building, small

Small warehouse with off street parking.

A. Description Open Floor Plan Width: (small floor plates) Height: 1-4+ stories B. Uses (by floor) 1st: Work, Residential, Commercial 2nd: Work, Residential, Commercial Commercial reuse of the above building.

C. Allowed Transects T5MS T5NS T5N T5F

T5T

14 17

EXISTING BUILDING TYPES1 Building Types

Open Interior Building, Large

Open Interior Building, large

The Old American Can Factory, converted to Office spaces/apertments A. Description Open Floor Plan

B. Uses Work, Residential

Big warehouse converted to dwellings.

C. Allowed Transects T5MS T5NS T5N T5F

T5T

15 18

EXISTING BUILDING TYPES1 Building Types

Live/Work

Live / Work [LW]

A pair of live/work buildings on Sackett Street and Nevins Street.

A. Description Width: Single Loaded Height: 2-3 stories B. Uses (by floor) 1st Commercial, Work 2nd Residential, Work (3 story only) 3rd Residential C. Allowed Transects T5MS T5NS T5N T5F

T5T

16 19

POPULATION BEFORE PROPOSAL1

MOST DENSE

LEAST DENSE 20

3rd avenue

nevins street

smith street

hoyt street

bond street

POPULATION AFTER PROPOSAL1

union street

union street

carroll street

carroll street

3rd street

3rd street

MOST DENSE 9th stree

t

nu

se

xp

re s

sw

ay

/h

am

ilt

on

av

3rd avenue

wa

2nd avenue

go

4th avenue

hamilton plac e

9th street

en

ue

LEAST DENSE 21

PROPOSED CANAL CONNECTIONS1

Head of Canal

Market District

Arts District

Industrial Business Zone

Transit Oriented Development

Transit Station

22

PROPOSED TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT1

10.1

CURBLESS STREET, T.O.D. AND TRANSIT SHARED STREET, TOD AND TRANSIT STATION

existing EXISTING CONDITIONS AT PROPOSED TOD

23

STATION

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT2

Transit-Oriented Development, or TOD, is a type of community that includes a mixture of housing, office, retail and/or other amenities integrated into a walkable neighborhood and located within a half-mile of quality public transportation. A TOD creates better access to jobs, housing and opportunity for people of all ages and incomes. Successful TOD provides people from all walks of life with convenient, affordable and active lifestyles and create places where our children can play and our parents can grow old comfortably.

A Transit-Oriented Development is essential for a changing Gowanus because the walkable community fosters social connections that people from all walks of life can engage in.

Located within a half-mile of the proposed commercial transit center, the TOD contains a variety of unit types that serve a variety economic classes. As a response to the Bond Street Development, this creates the density needed to support a newly developed Gowanus, creates equitable opportunities, and requires no structured parking because of the proximity to the transit.

Transit Oriented Developments provide numerous possibilities. Here are a few of the positive results that make Transit-Oriented Development a natural fit for Gowanus.

• Reduced household driving and thus lowered regional congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions2

• Walkable communities that accommodate more healthy and active lifestyles2

• Potential for added value created through increased and/or sustained property values where transit investments have occurred2

• Improved access to jobs and economic opportunity for low-income people and working families2

• Expanded mobility choices that reduce dependence on the automobile, reduce transportation costs and free up household income for other purposes2

• Increased transit ridership and fare revenue2

24

25

26

CHALLENGE 1 LACK OF DENSITY

27

INTRODUCTION The first challenge that arose was the lack of density in the area. The proposed urban plan of Gowanus involves an increased amount of retail and commercial markets that need to be supported through increased density. Increased retail and commercial markets are essential for Gowanus and its residents’ desire for a sustainable future that fosters creative and mixed-use opportunities. In order for this to happen, multiple, mixed housing opportunities like the Transit-Oriented Development must be implemented. When talking about density, development uses the phrase Dwelling Units Per Acre (DUA), which simply means the number of housing units per 1 acre of land. Studies have shown the appropriate amount of DUA for an Urban Center, which Gowanus is in the proposed plan, is intended to be around 60 dwelling units per acre.

Currently, Gowanus’s density supports the existing commercial and retail, but with the proposed urban plan, the existing building types are far too limiting. To support the growing retail and commercial development in Gowanus new building types with higher densities would need to be added. For example, the typical Flat building in Gowanus has a density ranging from 3-8 units per building and only occupies 10-60 percent of the typical residential lot. Each building has its own backyard and a smaller front yard. Because of this, the typical block only reaches 48 DUA’s, far less than what is needed to support an Urban Core.

The new Bond Street development in Gowanus does solve the issue of density by exceeding the required amount per the proposed urban plan (170 DUA) but may create too much density that could cause problems in the future. It may require structured parking because of ifs distance from public transit and has a lack of open space that fosters community.

Unplanned development on the neighborhood scale could lead to sporadic building placement, based on available land, that hinders sustainable and planned spreading of density.

The Transit-Oriented Development also solves the issue of density through a building type that is implemented through planned density. It is designed to take shape of a typical Gowanus block from a vacant lot that is near the canal. The TOD block structure was created by extending existing streets to the canal that terminate at a shared street that runs along the canal. Although the block structure is similar, the buildings now occupy 75-90 percent of the lot in lieu of the 10-60 percent in existing conditions. By doing this, you increase the density needed for successful retail and commercial markets while fostering community built on social diversity in re-purposing the “backyard”as something that is shared among the users instead of one tenant.

The building type that tries to solve the issue of density is the C-Shaped Courtyard Building.

Creating opportunities for more dense housing, while being cognizant of gentrification to the area is the main intent for the C-Shaped Courtyard Building. The C-Shaped Courtyard Building achieves the appropriate density for Gownaus, as well as, provides options for a variety of economic and social strata. It has multiple ways to be rotated, mirrored and grouped with other like courtyard buildings, creating building relationships that generates greater diversity of units and price points that entice residents and developers. Providing

28

variety and equity is not impossible, but gaining developer interest on projects involving variety and equity is a hard sell. Crafting rooms and layouts to perfection helps generate the most profit which is a major force driving developments. *DUA = Dwelling Units per Acre

29

EXISTING CONDITIONS Typical Gowanus Block Dimensions

TYPICAL BLOCK LENGTH = 660ʼ

TYPICAL LOT WIDTH = 23ʼ TYPICAL BLOCK DEPTH = 200ʼ

TYPICAL LOT DEPTH = 100ʼ

TYPICAL GOWANUS BLOCK CONFIGURATION SCALE: 1” = 100ʼ

AERIAL OF TYPICAL GOWANUS BLOCK WITH DIMENSIONS SCALE 1” = 100’--0” *DUA = Dwelling Units per Acre

30

EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS Typical Gowanus Block Density3

EXISTING CONDITIONS 88 UNIT 44 UNIT UNIT UNIT

33 UNIT UNIT

22 UNIT UNIT

11 UNIT UNIT

60%

55%

50%

40%

40%

8 UNIT

4 UNIT

3 UNIT

2 UNIT

1 UNIT

60%

55%

50%

40%

40%

CURRENT UNITS AND LOT COVERAGES

48 DUA

TYPICAL GOWANUS BUILDING UNIT TYPES AND LOT COVERAGE SCALE: 1” = 100’ AERIAL OF TYPICAL GOWANUS BLOCK WITH DENSITIES

TYPICAL GOWANUS BUILDING UNIT TYPES AND LOT COVERAGE SCALE 1” = 100’--0”

SCALE: 1” = 100’

*DUA = Dwelling Units per Acre

31

BOND STREET DEVELOPMENT Before Development DUA

0 DUA

AERIAL BEFORE DEVELOPMENT SCALE 1” = 250’--0” *DUA = Dwelling Units per Acre

32

BOND STREET DEVELOPMENT After Development DUA4

170 DUA

AERIAL AFTER DEVELOPMENT SCALE 1” = 250’--0” *DUA = Dwelling Units per Acre

33

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT [TOD] Before TOD Development DUA

10 DUA

AERIAL BEFORE TOD DEVELOPMENT SCALE 1” = 250’--0” *DUA = Dwelling Units per Acre

34

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT [TOD] After TOD Development DUA5

80 DUA

AERIAL AFTER TOD DEVELOPMENT SCALE 1” = 250’--0” *DUA = Dwelling Units per Acre

35

36

CHALLENGE 2 STREET DECOMPOSITION

37

INTRODUCTION

The second challenge that concerns Gowanus residents is the decomposition of the existing street image and the urban fabric. Street Decomposition simply means that existing building fabrics are being replaced with something new that does not enhance the fabric that has been replaced. Usually this has two sides to consider: patterns and ownership. When a street is put together (composed) patterns between those buildings make the street a network of connected sequences, small and large, that shape the final street composition. There is no one sequence that can create a perfect network; many sequences that follow a similar broad stroke create better compositions than ones that don’t. The idea of a well composed street does more than look “good� it can also create a sense of unity, or oneness, that allows a diversity of people to connect with one another. Buildings in a street composition cannot have a singular type of economic and social engagement. Creating a mixed income neighborhood means there needs to be a mix of property types such as rental and ownership. The diversity in not only patterns, but property types are essential for successful mixed income neighborhoods.

Existing building types in Gowanus have a pattern that people in the neighborhood associate with and seemingly want to preserve. The Rowhouse, Flat, Open Interior Building, Live/Work and Mid-Rise all have a unique sequence, that when stitched together, create a pattern that looks seamless. Change one out for another in certain situations and the pattern maintains its cohesiveness.

The Bond Street development is one example of street decomposition. The buildings are unique to the area because the differ in height, size, street face, materials, etc. and bring a whole new sequence of patterns that do not fit nicely into the existing building fabric. The design of the buildings are well designed but do not increase the strength of the existing patterns located in Gowanus. There is an argument to be made that there was no existing fabric or patterns to take from in the design and that has a case as well. When looking globally (neighborhood) the Bond Street development uses its own vernacular for new development in Gowanus that does not increase the pattern language that the community desires.

When looking at the TOD in Gowanus, there is an implementation of two building types that have different sequences but still create a pattern in the street that aligns closer to what the mixed income community desires. The two building types that achieve this are the C-Shaped Courtyard building and the Triplex Maisonette. The C-Shaped Courtyard has an easily repeatable pattern with a single entry that can be manipulated by the building grouping desired. The Triplex Maisonette implements a pattern that includes multiple doors, indicating a sense of ownership that adds to the single entry C-Shaped Courtyard. Each one has a different sequences that work as parts, but better accomplished as a whole street composition.

38

39

EXISTING BUILDING FABRIC

40

41

BOND STREET DEVELOPMENT

LIGHTSTONE GROUP

42

DNAINFO.COM

BROOKLYNEAGLE.COM

43

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT [TOD]

TOD STREET COMPOSITION STUDY 44

45

46

CHALLENGE 3 LACK OF AFFORDABILITY

47

INTRODUCTION

The third and last challenge discussed in this book is the issue of affordability and its impact on a neighborhood. Neighborhoods that lack affordable housing options often fail as a whole because of the lack of wealth being spread equally. Strong neighborhoods are comprised of a diverse community of individuals that come from all cultural and income stratas working together for a common good; community. Gowanus already has a community identity, but in order for Gowanus to be the community of the future, embracing equitable diversity is highly important.

Current Gowanus building fabric is one that is highly sought after for its appearance, but lacks the affordability needed for a flourishing diverse neighborhood. Highly expensive Rowhouses and flats make moving to Gowanus a burden financially and thus tends to bring in affluent families that do not help enrich the community. While there are affordable housing available near Gowanus, it comes in the form of public housing towers. Although these buildings are affordable, they seem to be a barrier for greater neighborhood connection that are great detriments to the neighborhood at large.

The Bond Street development is an example of gentrification that has already started in Gowanus on the canal. A variety of unit options are included in the development, but the market for these particular units are geared towards a younger demographic looking to live outside Manhattan but to work inside the borough. Providing unit types and price points that only the wealthy can afford conflicts with the communities future for their neighborhood.

While the development meets the required twenty percent units being affordable, that number is minuscule compared to the number of people who applied for those units. The population desires to live in Gowanus, so providing housing options that are between the Rowhouse and Flats, the public housing towers and the Bond Street development is the challenge.

While each building type in this book serves a primary purpose, they all collectively try to solve the issue of affordability in a few ways. The C-Shaped Courtyard is one of the most dense buildings types but also offers a wide variety of unit layouts and prices geared towards the demographic looking to move to Gowanus; never married and under forty years old.

Variety and density work together to keep prices down for the buildings as a whole. The Triplex Maisonette offers similar density to the Rowhouses, but is geared towards small families requiring less real estate, which in turn leads to more affordability. The Mixed-Use Mid Rise is the most expensive of the building types, but offers more unit options with a mixture of office and retail floors that keep the unit prices lower.

Allowing developers to “have� a major money making property along the canal is meant to encourage most affordable options in the smaller scale development. For the most part, all of the buildings are more affordable compared to the existing buildings in Gowanus because: 1) they do not require costly materials or overly skilled labor to build them, 2) they do not require cranes on site, and 3) they implement durable and cost effective materials, such as super insulated metal studs, that do not require fire suppressions systems.

48

Overall, the C-Shaped Courtyard, Triplet Maisonette and Mixed-Use Mid-Rise offer very simple, yet durable means and methods of construction, along with creative design options that can vary enough to address the concerns put fourth by the neighborhood of Gowanus.

49

EXISTING BUILDING TYPES Rowhouse

AERIAL OF A SECTION OF GOWANUS SCALE 1” = 500’--0” 50

$3.1 - +M

$2.6 - 3.0M

$2.1 - 2.5M

$1.6 - 2.0M

$1.0 - 1.5M

AERIAL OF A BLOCK IN GOWANUS: PRICES PROVIDED BY ZILLOW IN APRIL OF 2017 SCALE 1” = 100’--0” 51

EXISTING BUILDING TYPES Public Housing Towers

AERIAL OF A SECTION OF GOWANUS SCALE 1” = 500’--0” 52

NEW YORK HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: INCOME ELIGIBILITY6

There are limits to ones income in order to apply for Affordable Housing and that is measured by Average Median Income[AMI]. For 2016, New York’s AMI was $90,000 for a family of four.

LOW INCOME AFFORDABLE MARKETPLACE PROGRAM 60% OF AMI

80/20 PROGRAM, MIXED INCOME PROGRAM 40 OR 50% OF AMI

MODERATE TO MIDDLE INCOME PROGRAM 100, 130 OR 165% OF AMI

53

BOND STREET DEVELOPMENT Market Rate

SITE PLAN OF BOND STREET DEVELOPMENT: NYC DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 54

365 BOND

365 BOND

A6

LIVING/DINING AREA 18’ X 19’

A20

365 BOND

FLOORS 2-6 A20

TOWNHOME

Lower Level

LIVING/DINING AREA 18’ X 19’

BEDROOM 2 11’ X 11’

W/D

D/W

UP

D/W

UP

REF REF

LIVING/DINING AREA 17’ X 17’ D/W

MASTER

Upper Level

Bond St.

REF

1 ST St.

2ND St.

Gowanus Canal

DOWN

W/D

Bond St.

DOWN

W/D

1 ST St.

Gowanus Canal

MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM 14’ X 12’ 14’ X 12’

BEDROOM 2

BEDROOM 2 11’ X 11’ 10’ X 10’

MASTER BEDROOM 13’ X 11’ WIC

2ND St.

1st fl

1st St.

RESIDENCE A20

1st fl

All dimensions are approximate and subject to construction changes and omissions.

Plans and dimensions may also contain minor variations from floor to floor.

ROOM LAYOUTS

$4,903/MO

1st St.

2nd-6th Floors 2 Bedrooms

N

2 Bathrooms

2nd St.

2nd fl

365BOND.COM 7 1 8 . B O ND 3 6 5

•

All dimensions are approximate and subject to construction changes and omissions.

Plans and dimensions may also contain minor variations from floor to floor.

Gowanus Canal

Bond St.

2.5 Bathrooms

365BOND.COM 7 1 8 . B O ND 3 6 5

•

N

Bond St.

$6,527/MO

2 Bedrooms

Gowanus Canal

Townhome A6

2nd fl

2nd St.

5"

9

11 43 "

5"

9

11 43 "

3-5 fl

55

3-5 fl

9

2 9

9

2 9

BOND STREET DEVELOPMENT Affordable

SITE PLAN OF BOND STREET DEVELOPMENT: NY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 56

56,000/130 DEMAND

SUPPLY

DEMAND AND SUPPLY FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS

447 UNITS

130 UNITS

AFFORDABLE VS. MARKET RATE UNITS 57

7

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT [TOD] Fabric Buildings

SITE PLAN OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DESIGN SCALE 1” = 150’--0” 58

FRONT

C-SHAPED COURTYARD ELEVATION SCALE 1/8” = 1’--0” Size

Cost per SF

TRIPLEX MAISONETTE ELEVATION

Rent Cost Per S.F. (2012-2013)

SCALE 1/8” = 1’--0”

RentRent Cost Per S.F. (2012-2013) Range Required Annual Earnings

Needed Annual Earnings (50% TOD Fee) Needed Annual Earnings (50% TOD Fee) $38,520.00 − $77,040.00

$5.35

/month (30% Standard Fee) Rent Range Required Annual Earnings /month (30% Standard Fee) $1,605.00 − $3,210.00 $64,200.00 − $128,400.00

300 601- -600sf 1000sf

$5.35 $2.74

$1,605.00 $1,646.74− −$3,210.00 $2,740.00 $64,200.00 $65,869.60− −$128,400.00 $109,600.00

$38,520.00 $39,521.76− −$77,040.00 $65,760.00

601 - 1000sf 1001 - 2000sf

$2.74 $1.98

$1,646.74 $1,981.98− −$2,740.00 $3,960.00 $65,869.60 $79,279.20− −$109,600.00 $158,400.00

$39,521.76 $47,567.52− −$65,760.00 $95,040.00

1001 - 2000sf

$1.98

$1,981.98 − $3,960.00

$47,567.52 − $95,040.00

Size

Cost per SF

300 - 600sf

$79,279.20 − $158,400.00

Income RENT COST PER S.F.8 per Age Group (2012-2013) Age

Income per Age Group (2012-2013) Income Household Income Levels

Age < 25

Income $51,785.00

<25-44 25

$51,785.00 $80,930.00

25-44 45-64

$80,930.00 $79,079.00

45-64 > 65

$79,079.00 $51,344.00

> 65

$51,344.00 $119,639.00

Household Income Levels

Average

$119,639.00 $78,883.00

Average Median

$78,883.00

Median

INCOME PER AGE GROUP

59

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT [TOD] Mixed Use, Mid-Rise

SITE PLAN OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DESIGN SCALE 1” = 150’--0” 60

MIXED USE MID-RISE EAST ELEVATION SCALE 1/16” = 1’--0”

61

62

APPLICATION

63

INTRODUCTION

Up to this point, Inclusionary Housing has covered existing conditions in and around Gowanus, the newly developed Bond Street along the canal and the proposed Transit Oriented Development. Each section seeks to address one of the three challenges set fourth in this book: lack of density, street decomposition and lack of affordability. Understanding what conditions exist currently, what the Bond Street development offers and what the Transit Oriented Development solves are all imperative to understand in order to apply the concepts proposed in this book. These concepts are revealed through the application of the building types provided in this book.

For instance, if the community and developers want to just maximize the density in the area, they would choose either the C-Shaped Courtyard building type or the Mixed-Use Mid-Rise.

Once a building has been chosen, determining how many units are desired for a particular building is the next step. The C-Shaped Courtyard can be arranged in three ways: two building stacked in the same orientation that looks like two “C”s together; a fully enclosed courtyard with a center atrium or the longest walls of the buildings against each other creating an “I” shape. These shapes and configurations allow for change on the street level and create more diverse relationships between buildings.

Once the shapes and configurations are chosen, deciding how many desired units per building is the next step. The C-Shaped Courtyard has three options for unit layouts: four (4) units per floor, three (3) units per floor and two (2) units per floor. The possibilities are endless with the variety of unit types and layouts that all create diverse options for the community to choose from. For developers the four unit per floor option would generate maximum profit, but for the community a mixture of these unit types and layouts offer the most equitable and diverse results.

After choosing the unit types and layouts for a particular street or block, choosing the appearance of the front of the building is the next step. There are many facade options applicable to the C-Shaped Courtyard that allow for variety of building fronts that start to define what the street can look like. The options provided in this book are intentionally limited. In order for a street to look and feel welcoming and safe, there needs to be some sort of order and rhythm that the buildings on that street create. Each facade option varies from the next, but when laid out together, the variety exists but doesn’t feel out of place or weird.

After the desired facade options are picked the detail options are the final step. Details of each building are unique and is what gives them character. The character of a building often gives residents something to call “their own” that is different from the neighboring buildings. Often we describe where we live by its characteristics rather than its physical location. It gives people a sense or ownership and pride to tell someone, “I live in the brick house, with the red door and arched windows.”

64

This process would be replicated for the Triplex Maisonette and the Mixed-Use MidRise building types if they meet the needs of the community and developers alike. This application tool allows the community to have fruitful conversations with developers and create the neighborhood that best meets the needs of the neighborhood.

65

ION P FO REL R C IMIN ON AR ST Y RU CT

PROFIT

C - SHAPED COURTYARD

TRIPLEX MAISONETTE

MIXED USE MID RISE

CITY, STATE

NO T

OWNERSHIP

XXX

COMMUNITY

PROJECT NAME 1

HOW TO USE THE CATALOG

DN

REF.

REF.

REF.

UP

REF.

UP

UP

DN

REF.

UP

REF.

REF.

DN

UP

DN

UNIT A

UNIT C

UNIT B

NORTH

4/14/2017 1:36:44 PM

C:\Users\tyler.wade\Desktop\COURTYARD BT_1\Courtyard BT.1.rvt

UP

1 A2.1B

GROUND FLOOR - R 1/8" = 1'-0"

1 A2.1A

2 SECOND FLOOR - R A2.1B 1/8" = 1'-0" GROUND FLOOR - C

2 A2.1A

1/8" = 1'-0"

3 THIRD FLOOR - R A2.1B 1/8" = 1'-0" SECOND FLOOR - C

4 UNIT

3 UNIT

4 FOURTH FLOOR - R A2.1B 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 THIRD FLOOR - C A2.1A 1/8" = 1'-0"

1/8" = 1'-0"

UNIT OPTIONS

3 UNIT

FACADE OPTIONS

TRIPLEX MAISONETTE FLOOR PLANS

4 A2.1A

UNIT OPTIONS 2 UNIT

UNIT D

2 UNIT

MICRO 1 A2.3A

THIRD FLOOR 1/8" = 1'-0"

STUDIO

ONE

1 BAY LEFT

PROJECTION

TWO

2 BAYS LEFT

PROJECTION - ABOVE

1 BAY DOWN

BAY

2 BAYS DOWN

BAY - ABOVE CORNER OPTIONS

ENTRY

MATERIALS

1 A6.01

STANDRD FRONT 1/8" = 1'-0"

TURRET 1

DETAIL OPTIONS WINDOWS 1 A6.01

ENTRY

MATERIALS

STANDRD FRONT 1/8" = 1'-0"

66

1/8" = 1'-0"

1 BR

ADDITION OPTIONS

STANDARD

WINDOWS

FOURTH FLOOR - C

UNIT OPTIONS

MAISONETTE QUANTITY

DETAIL OPTIONS

A2.1B

KEYPLAN

1 A4.02

EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"

TURRET 2

STREET COMPOSITION

Under-Considered Street Elevation Composition

• Varying large height changes between buildings makes the street profile look haphazard and under-considered • We tend to see patterns in pairs or threes, but when each building differs greatly it is hard to make the groupings out • The scale jump between the Mixed-Use Mid-Rise and the building adjacent is too different and creates a dwarfing pedestrian perspective

Well-Considered Street Elevation Composition

• Heights of buildings vary slightly and create a greater sense of cohesion within the street • Like patterns and colors within building groupings create different pairs, that together, create an rhythmic street front that is pleasing to pedestrians • Using different building types together but using similar colors between them help them read as a unit and not two different buildings and do not go together • Creating multiple levels of patterns starting at the street as a whole, then to the building pairs or threes groupings and then down to the colors and materials within those groupings make for a creative street presence. Simple at a cursory glance but more complex as you look closer 67

STREET COMPOSITION Under Considered Street Elevation Composition

PARTIAL STREET COMPOSITION STUDY SCALE 1/16” = 1’--0” 68

69

STREET COMPOSITION Under Considered Street Elevation Composition

PARTIAL STREET COMPOSITION STUDY SCALE 3/32” = 1’--0” 70

71

STREET COMPOSITION Well Considered Street Elevation Composition

PARTIAL STREET COMPOSITION STUDY SCALE 1/16” = 1’--0” 72

73

STREET COMPOSITION Well Considered Street Elevation Composition

PARTIAL STREET COMPOSITION STUDY SCALE 3/32” = 1’--0” 74

75

SITE PLAN

SCALE: 1/16” = 1’- 0” SITE PLAN

SCALE 1/16” = 1’--0” TYLER WADE APRIL 24, 2017

76

77

78

REFERENCES

79

NOTES 1. Gowanus, Brooklyn: From Resilience to Sustainability.

[Congress for the New Urbanism Illinois Charter Award 2016] Source: https://civismandcities.wordpress.com/portfolio/gowanus-brooklyn-from-resili

ence-to-sustainability-congress-for-the-new-urbanism-illinois-charter-award-2

016/ Source: https://issuu.com/tylerwade/stacks/766eaabf52a347a5b9f871a70024c7f8 2. Transit Oriented Development Background

Source: http://reconnectingamerica.org/what-we-do/what-is-tod/ 3. New York Zoning and Land Use Information Source: http://maps.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/template?applicationName=ZOLA 4. New York Department of City Planning Document: [363-365 Bond Street - Final Environmental Impact Statement]

Source: http://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/applicants/env-review/363-365-bond-

street.page 5. Appropriate density numbers were provided by Hank Dittmar.

Source: The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Hank

Dittmar and Gloria Ohland. Island Press, 2004.

Source: https://continuita.wordpress.com/density-and-transit/

Source: Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

6. New York Housing and Urban Development Income Limits Source: http://www.nychdc.com/pages/Income-Eligibility.html 7. Curbed New York Article

Source: https://ny.curbed.com/2017/3/20/14984568/gowanus-affordable-housing-lot

tery-363-bond-street 8. Urban Land Institute

Source: http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/MicroUnit_full_rev_2015.

pdf

80

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES URBAN LAND INSTITUTE Source: http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TP_AffordableHousing.ashx_.pdf LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY

Source: http://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/inclusionary-hous

ing-full_0.pdf LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE Source: https://living-future.org/affordable-housing/ CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER

Source: A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings and Construction. Oxford University Press

JANE JACOBS

Source: The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage Books STEVEN HOLL

Source: Pamphlet Architecture: The Alphabetical City

POLYZOIDES, SHERWOOD, AND TICE

Source: Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles. Princeton Architectural Press

81

82

CATALOG

83

BUILDING TYPE 1: C - SHAPED COURTYARD Introduction The C - Shaped Courtyard building type is a type that responds to the density required for a Transit Oriented Development. Like previously stated in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) section, one of the most important characteristics is making a community walkable. By doing this less cars are needed and leads to greater affordability.

Along with increased density, it also provides an alternative to the traditional building types from Gowanus, the Rowhouse and Flat. Increasing the density from the traditional building types allows for more affordable options. The buildings on a typical Gowanus block use about 40 percent of the lot, leaving 60 percent to backyard and front yard space for one unit. The C -Shaped Courtyard building takes up 85 percent of the lot and allows for more units in each lot with similar building heights as the exiting buildings. This provides an alternative, but contextually sensitive building type that meets the needs of the TOD. With increased density on any given lot, multiple unit types and unit sizes can be used in a variety of arrangements.

Turning the outdoor space from backyard and front yard in the existing block structure, to the inside of the C-Shaped Courtyard creates a greater sense of communal space that everyone can enjoy. Not only does is allow for a space for everyone to congregate, it provides adequate natural daylight into all the units.

84

85

UNIT TYPES 4 Unit - Ground Floor Plan

REF.

REF.

UP

REF.

REF.

SCALE: 3/32” = 1’ -0” 86

UNIT TYPES

REF.

4 Unit - Upper Floors Plan

REF.

REF.

REF.

SCALE: 3/32” = 1’ -0” 87

UNIT TYPES

REF.

3 Unit - Ground Floor Plan

REF.

REF.

UP

SCALE: 3/32” = 1’ -0” 88

UNIT TYPES

REF.

3 Unit - Upper Floors Plan

REF.

REF.

SCALE: 3/32” = 1’ -0” 89

UNIT TYPES

REF.

2 Unit - Ground Floor Plan

REF.

UP

SCALE: 3/32” = 1’ -0” 90

UNIT TYPES

REF.

2 Unit - Upper Floors Plan

REF.

DN

SCALE: 3/32” = 1’ -0” 91

92

FACADE OPTIONS Standard

1 A2.1A

GROUND FLOOR - C 1/8" = 1'-0"

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ -0” 93

Projection

1 A2.1A

GROUND FLOOR - C 1/8" = 1'-0"

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ -0” 94

Projection - Second Floor and Above

1 A2.1A

GROUND FLOOR - C 1/8" = 1'-0"

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ -0” 95

Bay

1 A2.1A

GROUND FLOOR - C 1/8" = 1'-0"

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ -0” 96

Bay - Second Floor and Above

1 A2.1A

GROUND FLOOR - C 1/8" = 1'-0"

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ -0” 97

DETAIL OPTIONS Windows Square Double Hung 3' - 4"

Lintel Banding

6' - 8"

Solid Lintel Solid Sill

Sill Banding

Solid Lintel

W01

W02

3' - 4" DOUBLE HUNG REGULAR

FIXED

3' - 4"

DETAILS LEGEND Lintel Banding 1/4" = 1'-0" 6' - 8"

Arched Double Hung

Solid Sill

Sill Banding

W02 *Options provided are not an exhaustive listW03 of options, but are options that are fabric W04 sensitive FIXED DOUBLE HUNG ARCHED DOUBLE HUNG SEG 98

Segmented Double Hung 3' - 4"

3' - 4"

Lintel Banding

6' - 8"

6' - 8"

Solid Lintel Solid Sill

Sill Banding

W03 Chicago Style

E HUNG ARCHED

W04 DOUBLE HUNG SEGMENTED

6' - 8"

Solid Lintel

GMENTED

Solid Sill

W05 CHICAGO WINDOW 99

CHIC

Entry Segmented Arch

Flat Projection

*Options provided are not an exhaustive list of options, but are options that are fabric sensitive 100

Arched Pediment

Mansard

101

Exterior Materials Brick Veneer

*Options provided are not an exhaustive list of options, but are options that are fabric sensitive 102

Stone Veneer

103

BUILDING TYPE 2: TRIPLEX MAISONETTE Introduction The Triplex Maisonette building type is a type that responds to the density required for a Transit Oriented Development. Like previously stated in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) section, one of the most important characteristics is making a community walkable. By doing this less cars are needed and leads to greater affordability.

The Triplex Maisonette responds to the issue of density in a different way than the C-Shaped Courtyard building. The Triplex Maisonette offers a smaller DUA than the C-Shaped Courtyard but does provide more DUAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s than the existing Rowhouse at a similar height. This added with the C-Shaped Courtyard provide a more dense solution than a combination of Rowhouses and Flats. Two Triplex Maisonettes are joined together to create one building that increases the density.

The Triplex Maisonetteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s street facade dimension is very similar to the Rowhouse in Gowanus to preserve street composition pacing. Street composition pacing is important because it also indicates the door pacing along that same composition, reinforcing the legibility of the street as a collection of buildings not singular ones.

104

105

LAYOUT TYPES

REF.

3 Unit - Ground Floor Plan

REF.

UP

esktop\COURTYARD BT_1\Courtyard BT.1.rvt

UP

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ -0” 106

3 Unit - Second Floor Maisonette Plan

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ -0” 107

3 Unit - Third Floor Plan

REF.

UP

REF.

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ -0” 108

3 Unit - Fourth Floor Plan

REF.

REF.

DN

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ -0” UNIT A

109 UNIT B

UNIT C

UNIT D

FACADE OPTIONS One Maisonette w/ 2 Units Above

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ -0” 110

Two Maisonettes

SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ -0” 111

DETAIL OPTIONS Windows Square Double Hung 3' - 4"

Lintel Banding

6' - 8"

Solid Lintel Solid Sill

Sill Banding

Solid Lintel

W01

W02

3' - 4" DOUBLE HUNG REGULAR

FIXED

3' - 4"

DETAILS LEGEND Lintel Banding 1/4" = 1'-0" 6' - 8"

Arched Double Hung

Solid Sill

Sill Banding

W02 *Options provided are not an exhaustive listW03 of options, but are options that are fabric W04 sensitive FIXED DOUBLE HUNG ARCHED DOUBLE HUNG SEG 112

Segmented Double Hung 3' - 4"

3' - 4"

Lintel Banding

6' - 8"

6' - 8"

Solid Lintel Solid Sill

Sill Banding

W03 Chicago Style

E HUNG ARCHED

W04 DOUBLE HUNG SEGMENTED

6' - 8"

Solid Lintel

GMENTED

Solid Sill

W05 CHICAGO WINDOW 113

CHIC

Entry Segmented Arch

Flat Projection

*Options provided are not an exhaustive list of options, but are options that are fabric sensitive 114

Arched Pediment

Mansard

115

Exterior Materials Brick Veneer

*Options provided are not an exhaustive list of options, but are options that are fabric sensitive 116

Stone Veneer

117

BUILDING TYPE 3: MIXED USE MID RISE Introduction The Mixed Use Mid Rise building type is a type that responds to the density required for a Transit Oriented Development. Like previously stated in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) section, one of the most important characteristics is making a community walkable. By doing this less cars are needed and leads to greater affordability.

The Mixed Use Mid Rise offers a solution to the density challenge and does so with very high DUAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Along with high density in this building type, there is the possibility of different unit types and layouts that can cater to the client specifically. The Mixed Use Mid Rise is designed so that additions can be made to it if needed, but limits the development to two lots. This allows other developers to come in and create variety on the new canal front. This building type is meant to be the densest while also becoming a new facade to the canal and its amenities.

Amenities is something that the Mixed Use Mid Rise addresses that people in the whole community can use. These amenities only strengthen the community that shares this street and canal front. This building type allows developers to make more profit compared to the C - Shaped Courtyard and Triplex Maisonette.

118

119

120

FLOOR PLANS Ground Floor Plan

UP

UP

SCALE 1/16” = 1’--0” 121

FLOOR PLANS Office Floor Plan

UP

UP

UP

UP

SCALE 1/16” = 1’--0” 122

FLOOR PLANS Residential Floor Plan

DN

UP

REF .

REF.

UP

DN

MICRO AND STUDIO/1 BEDROOM UNIT OPTIONS SCALE 1/16” = 1’--0” 123

ADDITION OPTIONS

UP

UP

ADDITION OPTION 1

UP

1 A2.3A

THIRD FLOOR 1/8" = 1'-0"

UP

ADDITION OPTION 2

*Only one option can be chosen. This maximizes different developer involvement.

124

UP

UP

ADDITION OPTION 3

1 A2.3A

THIRD FLOOR 1/8" = 1'-0"

UP

UP

ADDITION OPTION 4 125

CORNER OPTIONS

TURRET OPTION 1 126

TURRET OPTION 2 127

DETAIL OPTIONS Exterior Materials Brick Veneer

*Options provided are not an exhaustive list of options, but are options that are fabric sensitive 128

Stone Veneer

129