WILLIAM TOOHEY III M.Arch 2018, in-progress BSA 2017, magna cum laude tooheyw@wit.edu +1 603.973.9152 williamtooheyiii.com
POINT OF VIEW & BRIEF BACKGROUND Awareness as an Observer: It is apparent that human beings, among other living organisms, play a role in society that only exists because of the influences that have preceded their time. To accept that role, without questioning at least why and who seems dangerously-complacent. This inherently simple perception of the world serves as the foundation for many of my lines of inquiry, architectural or not: an endless curiosity about why things are the way they are. 13 Homes: From what I can recall between my first memories and now, I have experienced living in at least thirteen different places that I have considered home: the deepest lot in a North Hampton, New Hampshire mobile home park; a suburban home in Skokie, Illinois; family friend’s house (#1) in Epping, New Hampshire; a finished basement in Lawrence, Massachusetts; low-income housing in Portsmouth, New Hampshire; a house in Rochester, New Hampshire; family friend’s house (#2) in Rochester; a two-bedroom apartment in Rochester; a onebedroom apartment in Rochester; a duplex in Haverhill, Massachusetts; a mobile home in Wells, Maine; a house in Newmarket, New Hampshire; and finally, an apartment in Boston. I spent most of my childhood with my mother and sister in Southern New Hampshire, but my experience with the notion of home, in conjunction with the integral members of the communities I grew up in, has influenced my desire to understand what home means to others. Professional Influence & Experience: From June 6, 2014 to the present, along with studying architecture at the undergraduate and graduate level at Wentworth Institute of Technology, I have been lucky enough to gain professional experience in the offices of TMS Architects, Arrowstreet, and Gensler. I have been influenced by the processes of designing residential homes in New Hampshire, understanding seven-story parking garage structures in Providence, and realizing how complicated a mixed-use development touching the southern facade of TD Garden is. In addition to working in offices and studying at Wentworth, I was given an opportunity to design a single-family home in Dover, New Hampshire as a nineteen-year-old, following my freshman year: an intense yet rewarding experience of how to understand the needs of future building inhabitants, translate ideas to drawings, and attempt to convey enough information to a contractor. Many of these experiences have influenced my own design processes and interests as a professional and student. Overall, the places in which I have lived and worked, with the people whom I have met along the way, whether neighborhood friends or colleagues, have shaped who I am and how I view the synergistic interaction between people and place. After a variety of experiences in multiple contexts, I have discovered that life, in all of its complexity and unanticipated variability, is inevitably embedded in architecture, and vice versa. Thank you for taking the time to read and view this work. Sincerely, Billy
Links to Digital Media: http://www.williamtooheyiii.com https://issuu.com/williamtooheyiii https://www.instagram.com/tooheyiii https://www.behance.net/williamtooheyiii https://www.pinterest.com/williamtooheyiii https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-jtoohey-iii-864840a8 https://www.youtube.com/channel/
December 2017
UC6uWjBDUKIm4nL0zDpQNo2g
01
YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL
02
RISING WITH THE TIDE
03
MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR
04
THE LINK: URBAN GONDOLA
STUDIO IX — 5th-Year M.Arch FALL 2017 — Wentworth w/ Carol Burns, FAIA, LEED AP, (Yale B.Arch, 1983)
STUDIO VIII — 4th-Year BSA SPRING 2017 — Wentworth w/ Matthew B. Matteson, PhD, (GSD MAUD, 2005)
STUDIO VII — 4th-Year BSA FALL 2016 — Wentworth w/ Alberto Cabre, Architect, (MIT M.Arch, 1997)
LIFESTYLE STUDIO — Internship SUMMER 2017 — Gensler, Boston
Supervisor: J.F. Finn, III, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Principal
Intern Team Members: Addison Silva—UConn Marketing Lily Shi—Cornell Design & Environmental Analysis Lindsay Hague—Endicott Interior Design Longshao Xiao—WashU Architecture Luis Negron—UPR Rio Piedras Architecture Peijin Shi—Parsons Interior Design Rebecca Resnic—WashU Architecture Tianyi Sun—UPenn Architecture Yang Zhao—Cornell Architecture Article by Jim Stanislaski 2017.10.10: http://www.gensleron.com/cities/2017/10/ 10/envisioning-bostons-transit-future-its-abird-its-a-plane-it.html 05
RESPONSIBLE ARCHITECTURE: A SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE TOWER IN THE PARK THESIS — 5th-Year M.Arch FALL 2017 — Wentworth
Thesis Prep Professors: Carol Burns, FAIA, LEED AP, (Yale B.Arch, 1983) Jack Cochran, Architect, (UofV M.Arch + MUEP, 2012) Thesis Advisor: Robert Cowherd, PhD, (MIT, 2002) Independent Advisor: Austin Samson, Adjunct Faculty, (SCI-Arc M.Arch, 2014) 06
MISCELLANEOUS PROOF OF POTENTIAL Models, Graphics, & Construction Documents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Program Coordinators: Adam Harper, Project Architect, Associate Diana Vasquez, Architect, Senior Associate
THE HALLWAY OF EDUCATION Extended Axis: Old to New
YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL Studio IX: 5th-Year Graduate, Fall 2017 Project Type: Community-Oriented Campus Extension Location: New Haven, Connecticut Professor: Carol Burns, FAIA, LEED AP, (Yale B.Arch, 1983) Previous faculty positions at GSD, MIT, Yale, UVA, & Dalhousie
This contemporary and connected extension of the Yale Divinity School strives to foster a sense of community, embedded in the existing landscape. The design process views the existing landscape and its steep topography as an exciting opportunity for the Divinity School’s future campus. The configuration of massing, informed by an array of interior and exterior program, allows for layers of activities and circulation to weave itself into both the Hill and its architecture. Delicate physical connections are made to connect “old” to “new,” and by positioning the architecture in a 90-degree, asymmetrical orientation to the east of the site, views to the context are framed in a new light; a contemporary stage is set to support the ever-growing needs and desires of a progressive YDS community.
01
01 01 Bike Storage 02 Ramp Down to Hill
02
03 Below the Bridge
03
04 Community Dining 05 Community Cafe 06 Descending Plazas
04
07 Restrooms
06
08 Study Room
13 05
07
08
10
12
11 09
09 Egress Stair 1 14
10 Egress Stair 2 11 Flexible Classroom 1 12 Flexible Classroom 2 13 2HR-Rated Passage 14 120-Seat Auditorium
P-1
GROUND LEVEL Architectural Plan
PLAN AND SECTION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” WTIII
FROM PAVEMENT TO BOARDWALK: PRIORITIZING PEDESTRIANS Campus Form Follows Walkable & Accessible Routes
01 C The Hill D Community Center E Campus Entry F The Square G Student Housing
PROPOSED EXTENSION Conceptual Site Plan
G
B
C
D S-1 P-1 90°
YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL
E
FALL 2017
F
A
STUDIO IX
B East Quad
06-07
From Pavement to Boardwalk: Prioritizing Pedestrians
A Sterling Divinity Quad
Sn
EMBEDDED & INTERCONNECTED: ARCHITECTURE FOR COMMUNITY Axonometric Massing of Program & Primary Circulation
SNOW DAY Children At Play
ow
Da
y:
Ch
ild
re
n
at
Pl
ay
01 STUDIO IX Existing Site Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Public
Public
Public Program Public
YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Semi-Public
Semi-Public Program Semi-Public
Semi-Public
Primary Circulation
Proposed
Private
Primary Circulation
Private
Primary Circulation
Private
AXONOMETRIC MASSINGS CIRCULATION + PROGRAM WTIII AXONOMETRIC MASSINGS CIRCULATION + PROGRAM WTIII AXONOMETRIC MASSINGS CIRCULATION + PROGRAM WTIII
Existing
Circulation
FALL 2017
Primary Circulation
All
Proposed
08-09
Primary Circulation
Private Program
01 STUDIO IX YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL First Floor +154'-8"
Ground Floor +143'-7"
Basement +130'-6"
Sub-Basement
S-1
10-11
FALL 2017
+123'-0"
An existing dry dock volume and the above constructed landscape serve as a sytem for community storm surge overflow and rain water storage (for later distribution)
THROUGH THE DRY DOCK Merging Life, Work, & Water
RISING WITH THE TIDE Studio VIII: 4th-Year Undergraduate, Spring 2017 Project Type: Mixed-Use, Resilient Community Location: Innovation District, Boston, Massachusetts Professor: Matthew B. Matteson, PhD, (GSD MAUD, 2005)
While climate change continues to reveal our vulnerabilities as a species, rising sea levels come to the forefront as a crippling force that will compromise city infrastructure, unless we are prepared. Understanding the needs of Boston and the city’s 2030 objectives, this project is mainly concerned with connecting future implications of rising sea levels with increasing demands for mixed-use growth in the Innovation District. Call to Action: “...support job growth and new housing opportunitites, add amenities, and create active, mixed-use centers for residents, workers, and visitors” (Imagine Boston 2030 127). Criticism: “...we remain dangerously disingenuous about our urban resilience objectives and risk catastrophic social and economic consequences for Boston...” - Stephen Gray (Assistant Professor of Urban Design at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, serves as a Cochairman for Boston’s 100 Resilient Cities Resilience Collaborative, and is Associate Director on the Board of the Boston Society of Architects).
Walls built up for increased storm surge protection
02
14-15
SPRING 2017
RISING WITH THE TIDE
STUDIO VIII
02
N N
N
Public & Private Amenities A | Stacked Configuration A | Stacked Configuration
| Stacked Configuration A |AStacked Configuration
| North to South Configuration B |BNorth to South Configuration
A.1A.1
B.1B.1
A.2A.2
B.2B.2
A.3A.3
B.3B.3
A.4A.4
B.4B.4
A.5A.5
B.5B.5
N
Leasable Office Space
B | to North to Configuration South Configuration B | North South
Housing & Community Progam
| East to West Configuration C |CEast to West Configuration
| Hybrid Configuration D |DHybrid Configuration
A.1
A.1
B.1
B.1
C.1C.1
D.1D.1
A.2
A.2
B.2
B.2
C.2C.2
D.2D.2
A.3
A.3
B.3
B.3
C.3C.3
D.3D.3
A.4
A.4
B.4
B.4
C.4C.4
D.4D.4
A.5
A.5
B.5
B.5
C.5C.5
D.5D.5
02 STUDIO VIII RISING WITH THE TIDE Tapered Ground Plane, Rising 14’ Above Existing Ground Level
Harborwalk Extended + Lifted
Main Interior Stairways
Floating Farms Production for On-site Market
Constructed Wetlands + Pathways
Egress Stairs
Mechanical Equipment Located at Safe Elevation in Case of Severe Storm Surges + Sea Level Rise
Waterfront Green Space + Rooftop Gardens
Elevator Cores (x2)
00’
+07’
+14’
+14’
PUBLIC REALM
CIRCULATION
16-17
CLIMATE RESILIENCE
SPRING 2017
+14’
C.4
D.4
Public & Private Amenities
Leasable Office Space C.5
D.5
Housing & Community Progam
E | Program Modules Arranged throughout Massings | New Pier Emerges
E.1
Program Massing
Proposed
Exploded
Existing
02 STUDIO VIII A
Floor Plan at Level 1
18-19
SPRING 2017
Floor Plan at Level 6
RISING WITH THE TIDE
Building Section A
20-21
SPRING 2017
RISING WITH THE TIDE
STUDIO VIII
02
Frame [0001]
Frame [0240]
Frame [0440]
Frame [0510]
Frame [0715]
Frame [0770]
Frame [1242]
Frame [1272]
02 STUDIO VIII RISING WITH THE TIDE
Frame [0360]
Frame [0657]
Frame [1370]
ANIMATION FRAMES FROM AUTODESK MAYA Aerial Flight and Sectional Cutting
23-23
SPRING 2017
Frame [0950]
MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR Studio VII: 4th-Year Undergraduate, Fall 2016 Project Type: Mixed-Use, High-Rise & Additional Structures Location: MIT West Campus, Cambridge, Massachusetts Professor: Alberto J. Cabre, Architect, (MIT M.Arch, 1997)
A new grand gesture in both vertical and horizontal dimensions allows for a redirection of MIT’s Infinite Corridor. The proposed master plan operates as a response to Eero Saarinen’s 1954 vision, the current site context, and MIT’s needs and desires as a leading institution in science and engineering. Identifying 9 concepts visible through the lens of a mid-twentieth-century architect allowed for setting the framework for a design process relevant today, with great hopes for the future built environment. The current state of West Campus presents a few problems: a lack of identity and loosely defined/underutilized public space. Maintaining awareness of these site circumstances, in conjunction with MIT’s increasing demands for on-campus housing, provided the necessary elements for what led to the proposed master plan. The blending of landscape with the architecture helps create a social platform for engaging dialogue between students and the general public, awarding the community diverse perspectives that contribute to West Campus’s new identity. Vertically-focused architecture within the immediate context of Kresge Auditorium, the MIT Chapel, and the Student Center encourages a new dynamic of social interaction on campus and responds to a spectrum of scales: from city to room. The Vertical Corridor generates a new and exciting social exchange between the student body and its local Cambridge community.
03
26-27
WEST CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Axonometric Massing
FALL 2016
MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR
STUDIO VII
03
03 served as an investigation into the history of the site. By extrapolating dimensions from a 1954 site plan, a digital massing model was constructed and analyzed. The series of
STUDIO VII
Reconstructing Eero Saarinen’s mid-twentieth-century master plan for West Campus
28-29
FALL 2016
MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR
perspectives seen here are framed views from the never fully-realized master plan.
PLAZA-A Winter Conditions
Auditorium
Student Expo
MIT Pavilion
03
Public Space
STUDIO VII
Public Space
MIT Chapel
Bridge
Plaza-C Plaza-C Pathway Centered on the MIT Chapel
1-Story Dwelling Vertical City Square Student Expo MIT Athletic Hub Saarinen St.
MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR
Elevated Corridor
Journey Below an Elevated Corridor
3-Story Dwelling
FALL 2016
Event Space
Elevated & Sloped Infinite Corridor
30-31
Kresge Auditorium
00 Site Axonometric 1954
01 Site Axes
02 Major Nodes
03 Path + Network
04 Vertical Separations
2030
00
01
02
03
Site Axes + Footprint Of Interest
Gestures To Context
The Missing Campanile
Public Auditorium + Event Spaces
Public Merges With Student Life
Student Dwellings
04
03 STUDIO VII 05 Landscape/Hardscape
06 Blurring The Line
06
08 Campanile Procession
07
09 Volume + Density
08
09
MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR
05
07 Framed Views
Entry At Base
Student Exposition | Gesture To Charles
Create Common Space Between Dwellings
Public Amenities + Interstitial Space
Vertical City Squares
32-33
FALL 2016
Activate West Campus @ Ground Plane
34-35
FALL 2016
MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR
STUDIO VII
03
Public Space
Cambridge Observatory
El. 700’ - 0”
3-Story Dwelling
2-Story Dwelling
Vertical Neighborhood
1-Story Dwelling
Public Space
Vertical City Square
Public Mingle
SCALE / STRUCTURE / HIERARCHY Building Section
Volumetric Study Model: 8-Part Layering
36-37
BETWEEN THE COLUMNS View from Building 7
FALL 2016
MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR
STUDIO VII
03
4
3
2
1
03 STUDIO VII MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR The above site plan illustrates the drastic transformation proposed for a future West Campus. An obtrusive row of existing tennis courts, along the lower portion of the site, currently occupy much of where proposed Plaza C (#1) is, as well as across from proposed Saarinen Street (#2). The MIT Athletic Hub (#3) is a solution for removing 12 existing exterior tennis courts and a large structure currently housing 4 additional courts. Concentrating interior and exterior courts within a smaller footprint results in new
transformations of the surrounding public space that would maintain West Campus’s positive atmosphere, year-round. For example, Plaza A (#4) has the ability to transform from a studious summer lawn to a winter wonderland, filled with activities like public skating for the community during winter months.
38-39
to its rich Saarinen history and local monolithic building materials (e.g. masonry and concrete), inspired a vision for seasonal
FALL 2016
opportunities for open plazas and desirable landscaped/hardscaped zones. Considerations of the temporal quality of the site, due
03 STUDIO VII MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR illustrate volumetric relationships and connections between levels. Exterior renderings explore a variety of vantage points from new plazas, bird’s-eye views, and neighboring structures.
40-41
scale, space, and qualities of daylight. Interior renderings help
FALL 2016
A series of conceptual perspectives are used to understand
View to East-01
View to North-04
14 View to East-02
View to South-05 13 1
12 1
11 1 10
15
View to East-03
View to South-06 9
WEST CAMPUS SITE SECTIONS
8
6 5 7
4 2
3
01. Vertical City Squares
06. Flexible Event Space
11. 4-Core Elevator Shaft
02. Pedestrian Bridge
07. Main Entry Lobby
12. 7-Story Segment of Internal Corridor
03. Amphitheater
08. Private 3-Level Dwelling
13. 4-Story Segment of Internal Corridor
04. Student Exposition
09. Public Interstitial Space
14. MIT Pavilion
05. Rooftop Plaza
10. Entry to Vertical Neighborhood
15. MIT Athletic Hub
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Charles River
03 STUDIO VII MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR
LATE-NIGHT STROLL ALONG MASS AVE Connection Between Buildings 9 & W20
Boston
42-43
FALL 2016
NORTH-TO-SOUTH CONCEPTUAL URBAN SECTION Cambridge-Boston High-Rise Dialogue
East Campus
EAST-TO-WEST CONCEPTUAL URBAN SECTION Cambridge-Boston High-Rise Dialogue
Main Campus
44-45
FALL 2016
MIT’S VERTICAL CORRIDOR
FISH’S-EYE VIEW Charles River
West Campus STUDIO VII
03
NORTH STATION 1.5 min stop
NORTH END 0.
56
m
ile
s
BEACON HILL
-2
m
in
No rth
-S
ou th
via
su bw ay :1
0
-2
0
m
in
97'
FINANCIAL DISTRICT
For images of the team and final presentation, please visit: http://www.
in
williamtooheyiii.com/professional/#/ gensler/
les
i 7m
0.2
NOTE: Overall site plan graphics by Rebecca Resnic / Master plan by team / North Station architecture by Longshao Xiao & Rebecca Resnic / Parcel 18 architecture by Yang Zhao & Luis Negron
SOUTH STATION 1.5 min stop
m -1
THE LINK: URBAN GONDOLA
D
Studio: Lifestyle, Summer Internship 2017 Project Type: Master Plan & Gondola Stations Office & Project Location: Boston, Massachusetts Supervisor: J.F. Finn, III, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Principal Program Coordinators: Adam Harper, Project Architect, Associate / Diana Vasquez, Architect, Senior Associate Intern Team Members: Addison Silva—UConn Marketing, Lily Shi—Cornell Design & Environmental Analysis, Lindsay Hague—Endicott Interior Design, Longshao Xiao—WashU Architecture, Luis Negron—UPR Rio Piedras Architecture, Peijin Shi—Parsons Interior Design, Rebecca Resnic—WashU Architecture, Tianyi Sun—UPenn Architecture, Yang Zhao— Cornell Architecture
With the task of connecting a currently disconnected North and South Station in Boston, Massachusetts, this proposal speculates about an efficient, economical, yet ambitious
LONG WHARF 1.5 min stop
option that challenges the already explored notion of a multi-billion-dollar process of boring tunnels for subterranean connections: an airborne alternative via cable-propelled transit. Executed by a diverse team of ten, inside and (voluntarily) outside of Gensler’s Boston office, this demanding intern project involved a historical survey, site analysis, and design process that led to an enticingly-new urban vision that would help alleviate public transit
0.34 m
congestion in Boston, flying above the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. By drawing the longest and least amount
iles -
of straight lines along the Greenway, understanding the limits of a variety of differing gondola systems, distinct site nodes
1 min
were generated at their intersections. Utilizing a 3S cable car system to provide the necessary infrastructure to move 3,600 people per/hour, per/direction, following suit with cities such as New York and London, this proposal continues an international trend but sparks a local, city-wide dialogue about the future of public transit.
PARCEL 18 1.5 min stop
SEAPORT LINE 1.5 min stop 0.9 3m ile s-
04
TRANSIT HUB TO SUPPORT BOSTON’S NEW GONDOLA SYSTEM Sectional Perspective through Dewey Square / South Station
I-93 TUNNELS Created to mitigate traffic congestion and allow opportunities for new public spaces
2030
Connection from Boston to East Boston/Logan Airport TED WILLIAMS TUNNEL
04
Response to the demand for land transportation due to ambitious landfilling projects HORSE-DRAWN VEHICLES
MOTOR BUS Boston establishes motor bus route
1980
1780
THE EL Boston Elevated Railway Company (BERY) expands the network of railway lines, adding new carhouses and terminals
1930 Existing tracks utilized as ideal framework for new transportation system ELECTRIC STREETCAR
1830
1880 Rails added to planned routes along street RAILS & HORSECARS
THE LINK: URBAN GONDOLA
BOSTON TRANSIT TIMELINE
1730
Top Left Image: Digital model by Tianyi Sun / Base rendering by Luis Negron / Post-process by author Data: https://www.mbta.com/history
SUMMER 2017
1680
48-49
1630
OMNIBUS Longer than conventional stagecoach with bench seating running lengthwise along the vehicle
GENSLER
FERRY SERVICE First form of public transportation in Boston: 3-mile route to Chelsea across the harbor
Key design strategies for the proposed South Station / Dewey Square Gondola Station: 1. Preserve existing public space that supports farmer’s markets, food trucks, and other tactical urbanism at street-level 2. Allow existing site lines (e.g. pathways, greenspace edges, and tree lines) to generate an appropriate building footprint that leads to a building that belongs in its immediate site context 3. Utilize existing tunnel infrastructure to support new gondola station loads 4. Design the rooftop and various interior elements to play the role as an extension to the Greenway 5. Create a pedestrian bridge that allows easy access to the gondola loading dock from High Street. Based off of the placement of the Parcel 18 (Urban Arboretum) station and an existing building between Dewey Square and Congress Street, the gondolas would have to be received above the road where Purchase Street terminates at Summer Street. With 26 feet of clearance above the road, the gondola station would not interfere with any traffic, and the station form would serve as a new threshold for commuters to experience on Purchase Street.
04 GENSLER THE LINK: URBAN GONDOLA NOTE: White building skin scripted by Yang Zhao / Gondola vehicles designed primarily by Tianyi Sun / Detailed gondola system modeled by Luis Negron / Building programming, form, general structure, photograph, modeling & rendering by author
PROPOSED GONDOLA STATION South Station / Dewey Square
50-51
SUMMER 2017
mechanical areas for
PORTION OF CABRINI-GREEN
SOUTH OF HILLIARD TOWERS
RESPONSIBLE ARCHITECTURE: A SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE TOWER IN THE PARK M.Arch Thesis: 5th-Year Graduate, Fall 2017 Keywords: Social, Environmental, Urban, Mixed-Use, Mixed-Income, Tower in the Park, High-Rise, Public Housing, the Functional City, the International Congress of Modern Architecture (CIAM), the American Midwest Location for Design Testing: Chicago, Illinois Thesis Prep Professors: Carol Burns, FAIA, LEED AP Jack Cochran, Architect, (UofV M.Arch + MUEP, 2012) Thesis Advisor: Robert Cowherd, PhD, (MIT, 2002) Independent Advisor: Austin Samson, Adjunct Faculty, (SCI-Arc M.Arch 2014)
This thesis seeks to critically reassemble an alternative to Chicago’s former public housing towers: a low-to-high-rise building typology that embodies the social and environmental responsibility of contemporary, urban architecture. By highlighting and learning from the historical and contemporary pitfalls of the Corbusier-inspired “tower in the park,” entangled in architectural, social, environmental, political, and economic forces, a revised and conscientious design process emerges for the American Midwest. With hopes of developing a universal kit of parts, the architecture of “reassembly” strives to redefine the initial purpose of what was once a precarious model for single-use public housing in American cities, isolated from the ground plane and its immediate context: at times, in the case of Chicago, providing residents with a rather ominous view of the skyline through a chain-link screen on the edge of an open-air gallery. The introverted architecture of the past that housed thousands of the city’s poorest citizens, many of which were low-income families remaining well below the poverty line, is given new Astronaut photograph
life through an architectural thesis that applies a
ISS041-E-103791, captured
contemporary lens to the complexities of the tower-in-the-
from the International
park model. Testing new configurations of diverse uses,
Space Station on October
spaces, materials, resident income levels, and activity on and
28, 2014 with a Nikon D4
above the ground plane inspires an interconnected
digital camera and 800
architecture on the vacant blocks of Chicago’s former public
mm lens, shows 16 miles
housing tower sites. With an emphasis on the responsibility
of the Lake Michigan
of architecture, to create an encouraging setting for human
shoreline, Chicago, Illinois,
potential and ensure the success of passive and active
https://earthobservatory.
performance of building/landscape systems, the design
nasa.gov/IOTD/view.
outcomes of this thesis advocate for a socio-environmental
php?id=84943
alternative to the tower in the park.
05
Figure 001. Partial site plans: super blocks that made a continuous 2-mile stretch of public housing high-rises, Robert Taylor Homes, digital scan of drafted plan by Shaw, Metz and Associates, the Art Institute of Chicago Ryerson & Burnham Archives: Archival Image Collection, original image altered for black and white representation, accessed 25 November 2017, http:// digital-libraries.saic.edu/ cdm/singleitem/collection/ mqc/id/16358/rec/3
Figure 002. Axonometric: Private dwellings Figure 003. Axonometric: Communal laundry Figure 004. Axonometric: Communal open-air gallery Figure 005. Axonometric: Entry Figure 006. Axonometric: Vertical circulation Figure 007. Axonometric: Horizontal circulation
05 THESIS 2
liv
ea
ov
ov
sC
OM
UN
IT
OU
GH
1
4
liv
sC
OM
M
UN
IT
Y
2 FALL 2017
HR
Y
P
ea
eT
Y
M
eU
7
ov
IL
3
liv
ea
m
AM
N
6
m
sF
eI
PRE-FRAMING: RECONSTRUCTING ROBERT TAYLOR HOMES Analytical Methodology: Bronzeville, South Side, Chicago, IL
54-55
m
RESPONSIBLE ARCHITECTURE: A SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE TOWER IN THE PARK
5
56-57
FALL 2017
RESPONSIBLE ARCHITECTURE: A SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE TOWER IN THE PARK
THESIS
05
MANIPULATING AN EXISTING MODEL—ROBERT TAYLOR HOMES
RAPID-FIRE QUESTIONS EXERCISE: INFLUENCING DESIGN WORK TO COME
05 THESIS
Recent questions from my M.Arch thesis draft, preparing for a wave of design tests:
CHICAGO AS A LABORATORY FOR DESIGN TESTING Why cannot Near Side neighborhoods benefit from public realm activities closer to home, compared to the variety of public places/socially-stimulating activities prevalent in the area of the Loop? How does one transplant experience? Catalog viable options for public and private amenities that offer
Instead of blaming economics and politics, can simple ideas for higher quality public places, in neighborhoods deprived of them, spark productive dialogue and engagement with future interventions? ··Ice Rink for the South Side—good or bad? Why? ··Neighborhood stage: a physical built structure for performances and a range of other activities, specified by community opinions ··Constructed landscapes that stimulate vacant blocks— could embracing landscape urbanism principles enhance the experience of residents in the Near Side neighborhoods of the North, West, and South Side of Chicago? ··Solutions at this scale need not match the building scale What are the temporal qualities of public placemaking ideas? Take advantage of the ever-changing, Midwest climate. Can a completely new approach to planning the two-mile stretch of what once was the area of Robert Taylor Homes help activate this portion of the city? Grappling with the term “gentrification,” what are the essential ethical practices and/or
variables (e.g., program, people, space, material, landscape,
questions to answer for this scenario? (This was ethical question
et cetera) inherently flawed? I would like to believe (and thus,
#1) ^
so does this thesis) that contemporary architecture has the ability to create more unified and optimistically-amalgamated
Is gentrifying without displacement of low-income families
environments that support and encourage diverse
an acceptable strategy in contemporary cities? Are there any
experience; this is truly the heart of the notion of “responsible
ongoing studies of planning strategies that strive to retain
architecture.” To improve a deteriorating or vacant block/
low-income residents upon the act of “gentrifying?” It may be
series of blocks, what is or is not ethical about the process
that the negative connotation of the word “gentrification” is too
needed to actually improve the conditions?
RESPONSIBLE ARCHITECTURE: A SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE TOWER IN THE PARK
formerly-neglected neighborhoods more.
In an attempt to develop universally-deployable design
mindedness is key, especially for this topic.
processes, how can concepts of program, space, form, material, and landscape adapt to a variety of metropolitan
Informed by a rigorous process that leads to the tower-in-
contexts? How does this evolve as more of a thesis and less of
the-park alternative, is the notion of unifying a variety of
a studio project? Be concise and methodical.
58-59
made about the discussion that would follow; open-
FALL 2017
influential towards the immediate opinions or assumptions
06 C
GARAGE SIDE
SHEET NOTES:
UL RATING: DESIGN NO. N502
3" DECKING
2-HOUR RATED SPRAY FIREPROOFING
(2) LAYERS 5/8" GWB FLUSH W/ CMU FACE
GROUT FILL
CENTERLINE OF BEAM TO INSIDE FACE OF CMU WALL DEPENDENT UPON LOCATION OF (2) 5/8" GWB, CHANNEL BRACKET, AND RUNNER CHANNEL ASSEMBLY.
CL ALIGN
SEISMIC CLIPS;SEE STRUCTURAL DETAILS S3.01; PROVIDE 2-HR SPRAY-APPLIED FIREPROOFING
A5.05A
CHANNEL BRACKET
+/-
HEAD JOINT SYSTEM AT CMU WALLS: RATED UL HW-D-1078 OR HW-D-1069
GROUT FILL
1
RUNNER CHANNEL
4-1/2" CONC. SLAB PROVIDE 2 HOUR LAYER OF FIREPROOFING FOR STEEL BEAM SIZE BEAM SIZE VARIES
STEEL BEAM
SEISMIC CLIPS; SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWING S3.01
SEISMIC CLIPS; SEE STRUTURAL DETAILS S3.01; PROVIDE 2-HR SPRAY- APPLIED FIREPROOFING GROUT FILL
CL
4
MAINTAIN 1/2" AT ALL CONDITIONS BETWEEN FLANGE AND CHANNEL
UL RATING: DESIGN NO. N715
GROUT FILL
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A, SIMILAR
1. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING SLAB CONDITION AT EACH PROPOSED SLAB CONNECTION. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 2. T/O SLAB AT STAIR ON EACH LEVEL TO ALIGN WITH T/O PROPOSED AND / OR EXISTING CURB ADJACENT TO THE STAIR. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 3. WHERE EXISTING STEEL BEAMS AND COLUMNS ARE TO REMAIN, MAINTAIN OR PROVIDE FIREPROOFING AS REQ'D; PRIME STEEL PRIOR TO FIREPROOFING. 4. PROVIDE 2-HOUR RATED SPRAY FIREPROOFING AS REQ'D ON ALL NEW STEEL BEAMS, POUR STOPS, BENT PLATES AND SEISMIC CLIPS. 5. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWING S3.01 FOR SEISMIC CLIP DETAILS; GROUT BLOCK AT ALL SEISMIC CLIP LOCATIONS. 6. ALL NEW CMU WALLS TO BEAR ON STRUCTURAL SLABS. DO NOT BEAR CMU ON CURBS. 7. STAIR TO BEAR ON CMU WALL AS PER CONTRACTOR'S SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION. CMU TO BE GROUTED AT BEARING POCKETS; SEE STRUCTURAL. COORDINATE POCKET DETAIL WITH CMU SHOP DRAWINGS.
1/2"
HEAD JOINT SYSTEM AT CMU WALLS: RATED UL HW-D-1078 OR HW-D-1069
HEAD JOINT SYSTEM AT CMU WALLS: RATED UL HW-D-1078 OR HW-D-1069
REFERENCE THE EXISTING ISSUED CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: • CONTRACT DOCUMENTS • STRUCTURAL CLARIFICATION SKETCHES • CMU & STEEL SHOP DRAWINGS
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 3/S3.02 FOR POUR STOP DETAIL. LEVEL L1 60' - 4"
SEISMIC CLIPS, SEE STRUCTURAL DETAILS S3.01; PROVIDE 2-HR SPRAY-APPLIED FIREPROOFING
STEEL BEAM
27.9 EJ.2 28.1
SEE STRUCTURAL FOR CMU WALL REQUIREMENTS PROVIDE FIRE RESISTIVE JOINT SYSTEM AT FLUTES OF METAL DECK
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR DECK CLOSURE
PRESSURIZATION DUCT 16" x 62"; MAINTAIN REQ'D CLEARANCE, CONSULT ARCHITECT W/ ANY DISCREPANCIES
2 A5.05A
STAIR SIDE
SEE STRUCTURAL SSK-A, SIM. POUR STOP LEVEL L2 82' - 4"
3 A5.05A
EXTRAS
© Copyright Arrowstreet Inc.
27
CMU WALL
STAIR 15 DETAIL
5
1" = 1'-0"
PROVIDENCE PLACE RENOVATIONS
C
STAIR 15 STEEL BEAM DETAIL
6
1" = 1'-0"
KEY PLAN (LEVEL 1 STAIR 15) 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 PROVIDENCE PLACE PROVIDENCE, RI 02903
B
C
B
C
3
27
2
A5.05A
27.9 EJ.2 28.1
A5.05A 15' - 10"
CL STEEL
PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-A
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION
SEE DETAIL 4 / SKA 02.0 FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
STEEL CL
CL STEEL 15'-5 1/4"
10'-11"
CL STEEL 3'-7 3/4"
LEVEL 3 104' - 4"
W21x55; SEE STRUCTURAL
W21x55; SEE STRUCTURAL CL STEEL
CL STEEL
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-G FOR SLAB CONNECTION
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION
20'-0"
LEVEL 3 104' - 4"
W21x55; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
STEEL CL
15'-5 1/4"
CL STEEL
STEEL CL 10'-11"
CL STEEL
C12x25
W21x55; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
3'-7 3/4"
CLARIFICATION SKETCH
12' - 8"
CL STEEL
LEVEL 3 104' - 4"
W10x12 BEYOND
EXISTING W27x84 W/ NEW PLATES; SEE STRUCTURAL
GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0 EXISTING W36x182 W/ NEW PLATES; SEE STRUCTURAL
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL
CONTINUOUS CMU WALL FROM L2 TO L3
CONTINUOUS CMU WALL FROM L2 TO L3
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR SLAB CONNECTION
STEELCL
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION
SEE DETAIL 4 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM LEVEL 2.5 93' - 4" W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL
W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL
CL STEEL
CL STEEL
15'-5 1/4"
10'-11"
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION
STEEL CL
CL STEEL
3'-7 3/4"
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
CL STEEL
STEEL CL
15'-5 1/4"
10'-11"
CL STEEL
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-C, SIM. FOR SLAB CONNECTION
PLATE AND HANGER; SEE STRUCTURAL
LEVEL 2.5 93' - 4" W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL
W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
W18x45; SEE STRUCTURAL
C12x25
PROPOSED W21x48 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL
LEVEL 2.5 93' - 4"
W10x12 BEYOND
W18x45; SEE STRUCTURAL
GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
3'-7 3/4"
PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL
SEE DETAIL 4 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
CL STEEL 3'-7 3/4"
CL STEEL
STEELCL
STEELCL 15'-4 1/4"
11'-0"
CLSTEEL 3'-7 3/4"
10'-11"
7 5/8"
9' - 8" CLEAR
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL
7 5/8" 2' - 3" 7 5/8" 9" CLEAR
CL STEEL
STEEL CL
15'-5 1/4"
10'-11"
CL STEEL
15'-4 3/4"
EXISTING W33x118; SEE STRUCTURAL
CL STEEL 3'-7 3/4"
CL STEEL
STEEL CL
W10X12 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL
W24x76; ; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION
W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL EXISTING W33x118; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
CL STEEL
STEEL CL
15'-4 3/4"
10'-11 1/2"
3'-7 3/4"
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR SLAB CONNECTION
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION
STEELCL
15'-6"
W18x40; SEE STRUCTURAL
10'-9 1/4"
CL STEEL 3'-8 3/4"
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM STEEL CL
CLSTEEL
15'-6"
STEEL CL
10'-9 1/4"
CL STEEL 3'-8 3/4"
LEVEL P2 38' - 4"
7/11/2016 5:28:13 PM
CL
7 5/8" NEW CMU WALL
9' - 8" CLEAR
7 5/8"
STAIR 15 CROSS SECTION 1 P2 - L3 1/4" = 1'-0"
Description
EXISTING W21x73
GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0
SEISMIC CLIPS; SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWING S3.01
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
PROPOSED W24x76 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL
PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL
W18x40; SEE STRUCTURAL EXISTING W33x130; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
4" HIGH CURB SLAB TO ALIGN WITH T/O STAIR LANDING; SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR CURB EXTENTS SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-A
LEVEL P3 49' - 4"
PROPOSED W21x44 BEYOND SEE STRUCTURAL
W24x117
C12x25
EXISTING W21x44
GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0
PROPOSED W24x162; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
CL
CL 3' - 0 1/4"
3' - 7 5/8"
9' - 8" CLEAR
STEEL CL 1' - 0 3/8"
2
STAIR 15 CROSS SECTION 2 P2 - L3 1/4" = 1'-0"
STAIR 15 SECTIONS
7 5/8"
30' - 0"
NEW CMU WALL
Drawing Title
LEVEL P2 38' - 4"
30'-0"
3
Date
LEVEL L1 60' - 4"
W10x12 BEYOND
LEVEL P2 38' - 4" 7 5/8"
15' - 5 1/8"
CLSTEEL
C12x25
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 2/S2.01 FOR SLAB CONNECTION
LEVEL P3 49' - 4" W21x44; SEE STRUCTURAL
EXISTING W33x130; SEE STRUCTURAL CLSTEEL
No.
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-B FOR SLAB CONNECTION
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-A1 FOR SLAB CONNECTION
PROPOSED SLAB TO ALIGN WITH CURB
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION
LEVEL P3 49' - 4" W21x44; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
Revisions
EXISTING W21x101 SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
LEVEL L1 60' - 4"
W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL
10'-11 1/2"
LEVEL 1.5 71' - 4"
NCM 07/11/2016
PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-F FOR SLAB CONNECTION
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION
STEEL CL
WT
Issue date
W10x12 BEYOND
GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0
16" x 62" VERTICAL DUCTWORK FROM L1 TO L3; SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS
LEVEL L1 60' - 4" W24x76; ; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
C12x25
W24x55; SEE STRUCTURAL PROPOSED W21x48 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
PRESSURIZATION SHAFT
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR SLAB CONNECTION
STEELCL
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
3'-7 3/4"
15065
Checker
LEVEL 1.5 71' - 4"
STEEL CL
CL STEEL
3'-7 3/4"
Author
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION
W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL
W21x48 CL STEEL
STEEL CL
15'-5 1/4"
Project Number
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-C1 FOR SLAB CONNECTION
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION
SEE DETAIL 4 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
EXISTING W21x83 W/ NEW PLATES; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL
LEVEL 1.5 71' - 4" W21x4; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
PROPOSED W27x84 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
CLSTEEL
CONTINUOUS CMU WALL FROM L1 TO L2
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR SLAB CONNECTION
STEELCL
C12x25 W10x12 BEYOND GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0
EXISTING W21x101 W/ NEW PLATES; SEE STRUCTURAL
1
1/4" = 1'-0"
CL STEEL
25' - 4" CLEAR 7 5/8" NEW CMU WALL
STAIR 15 LONG SECTION P2 - L3
28'-6"
7 5/8" NEW CMU WALL
10 3/8"
SCALE Drawing Number
As indicated
A5.05A
MISCELLANEOUS PROOF OF POTENTIAL
11'-0"
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
2015-2017
STEELCL
SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM
CONTINUOUS CMU WALL FROM L1 TO L2
4" HIGH CURB SLAB TO ALIGN WITH T/O STAIR LANDING; SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR CURB EXTENTS LEVEL L2 82' - 4"
LEVEL L2 82' - 4" W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL
W27x84; SEE STRUCTURAL
EXISTING W30x116; SEE STRUCTURAL
60-61
15'-4 1/4"
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-F FOR SLAB CONNECTION SIMILAR TO DETAIL 3/S3.02
LEVEL L2 82' - 4" W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL
W27x84; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM STEEL CL
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-B FOR SLAB CONNECTION
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-A, SIM.
SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-A FOR SLAB CONNECTION SIMILAR TO DETAIL 3/S3.02
WTIII williamtooheyiii.com