RISING WITH THE TIDE: AN URBAN RESPONSE TO RISING SEA LEVELS AND DEMANDS FOR MIXED-USE GROWTH
William J. Toohey III Spring 2017
RISING WITH THE TIDE: AN URBAN RESPONSE TO RISING SEA LEVELS AND DEMANDS FOR MIXED-USE GROWTH Final Undergraduate Studio 08 | Wentworth Institute of Technology Bachelor of Science in Architecture | Spring 2017
Professor: Matthew B. Matteson Author: William J. Toohey III
“...support job growth and new housing opportunitites, add amenities, and create active, mixed-use centers for residents, workers, and visitors” (Imagine Boston 2030 127). Abstract: While climate change continues to reveal our vulnerabilities as a species, rising sea levels come to the forefront as a crippling force that will undoubtedly compromise our city’s infrastructure, unless we are prepared. Focusing on the city of Boston, this research is mainly concerned with connecting future implications of rising sea levels with increasing demands for mixed-use growth. Water and architecture can work together to enhance where we live, work, and play. Data from NASA and NOAA provides ample reason to respond to our ever-changing
environments: this presents an opportunity for architecture and urban planning to respond in a meaningful way. Rather than barricading our city, why not accept this influx of water and adapt to new urban environments? By examining international and local precedents, along with future plans for resilient design, a framework can be established for an investigation into the notion of “rising with the tide.” While understanding the needs of Boston and the city’s 2030 objectives, this approach aims to achieve the manifestation of urban resilience and mixed-use architecture.
Keywords: Urban // Resilience // Climate Change // Infrastructure // Mixed-use // Influx // Data
Fig. 01. North End Boston Waterfront During Hurricane Sandy (2012) - Photo by Matt Conti
“...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).
Argument: Climate change is altering the way designers, developers, owners, and various stakeholders consider waterfront properties. With Imagine Boston 2030’s vision to respond to rising sea levels and accommodate a quickly growing population, designers have an opportunity and responsibility to effectively respond. There are many opportunities in Boston to engage the waterfront and add to growing areas, activating both public and private realms through the addition of night-life, businesses, dwellings, and flexible exterior space. Urban interventions need not only consider the addition of space but acknowledge that Boston’s high tide is estimated to increase in elevation by 2.4 to 7.4 feet by the year 2100 (Climate Ready Boston 2016 Report). It is also apparent that there will be an increase in severe and frequent storm surges, due to climate change. Mixed-use development and resilient design can be addressed on similar terms, and meaningful design solutions will ensure Boston’s continued growth and contribute to positive environments to live, work, and play.
Problem: 1. Increasing population 2. Demands for mixed-use growth 3. Rising sea levels (climate change)
Solution: Resilient community to live, work, and play
Research Statement: Rather than viewing the built environment along our city’s coastlines as vulnerable real estate, what if the places we lived, worked, and played became the infrastructure we needed to combat rising sea levels? What if resilient design served as a catalyst for successful urban mixed-use centers?
Relevance: Boston’s Innovation District is experiencing a surge of mixed-use development. While mixeduse and resiliency are the primary topics of interest throughout this research and design, this surge of new construction presents ample reason to address resiliency and mixed-use, all the while effectively responding to Imagine Boston 2030 objectives. This development is ongoing for the city of Boston, and responding to rising sea levels is crucial for the area, although the proper steps for combating the influx of water may not be addressed properly among individual buildings planned for Seaport Square. The master plan for Seaport Square began in 2010, with Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates leading the charge. An ambitious 6.3 million square feet was planned for the growing district; the current state of the area is actively working towards the vibrant and dense urban vision. The research and design throughout this booklet will contribute to a meaningful and relevant addition to this vision for the Innovation District. Specific site selection will be determined, but as climate change continues to impact the environment and affect coastal cities such as Boston, a proper response shall take shape in the form of a new model for urban resilience and mixed-use architecture.
Fig. 02. Aerial View of Existing Seaport Square Boundary - Courtesy of Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (Top) Fig. 03. Aerial View of Proposed Seaport Square Master Plan - Courtesy of Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (Bottom)
Site Selection: Dry Dock 4 + Pier 5 + Pier 6 301 Northern Avenue Boston, Massachusetts The Innovation District
Selection Criteria: 1. Ability to engage waterfront 2. Close proximity to Downtown 3. Intensive growth area for mixed-use program 4. No current plans for development
Overall Project Objectives: This project strives to respond to various climatic and local site forces and work as a new model for future development along the Innovation District’s waterfront. A successful design outcome to this research will result in a clear manifestation of urban resilience and mixed-use architecture. In order to continue the ambitious future vision for the Innovation District, Dry Dock 4, Pier 5, and Pier 6 will serve as the foundation for a new mixed-use center. At the termination of the newly desired “main street,” currently known as a combination of Seaport Boulevard and Northern Avenue, a solution for the outlined design problems will find itself building upon the future Seaport’s 24/7 live, work, and play themes.
Fig. 04. Aerial Photograph of South Boston Naval Annex, circa 1958, active 1920-1974 (Top) Fig. 05. Historical Map of South Boston Naval Annex, active 1920-1974 (Bottom)
Fig. 06. Site Extents
SELECTED PRECEDENT STUDIES 01 Floatyard
02 Urban Rigger
03 Danish National Maritime Museum
04 Pier 17
05 BLOX
06 Amphibious Town
William Toohey III
A ||Stacked Stacked Configuration A Configuration
B||North North to South Configuration B to South Configuration
A.1
B.1
A.2
B.2
A.3
B.3
A.4
B.4
A.5
B.5
C||East East West Configuration C to to West Configuration
D||Hybrid Hybrid Configuration D Configuration
C.1
D.1
C.2
D.2
C.3
D.3
C.4
D.4
C.5
D.5
Office Housing Public Amenities
01
Program Massing
N
E | Program Modules Arranged throughout Massings | New Pier Emerges C.5
D.5
E | Program Modules Arranged throughout Massings | New Pier Emerges
E.1
Office Housing Public Amenities
01
Program Massing
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’ +14’
CLIMATE RESILIENCE
PUBLIC REALM
CIRCULATION
Site Axon | Existing
Site Axon | Proposed
Exploded Axonometric
Steel Piles
Dry Dock as Overflow Tank
Ground Plane
Primary Structure
Housing + Office Walls
Glazing + Mullions
Copper Panel Facade
Mechanical Equipment
Floating Farms / Escape Boats
Retail
Retail
Retail
Entry
Retail
Restaurant
Resilient Decline / Vegetated Public Realm (Overflow Tank Below)
Entry
Cafe
Community Library
L1
S1
Community Market
Cultural Center
Office
Office
Social Connector
L6
Floating Farms / Escape Boats
S2
S1
Frame [0001]
Frame [0240]
Frame [0360]
Frame [0440]
Frame [0510]
Frame [0657]
Frame [0715]
Frame [0770]
Frame [0950]
Watch Animation Here
Frame [1242]
Frame [1272]
Frame [1370]
Reflection & Critical Evaluation: I believe that the framework established for the design process was successful, but the full execution and presentation of solutions for the 4 main design principles (or “criteria�) failed. There were many underdeveloped concepts regarding resilience, which made it difficult to present a convincing argument that this project really was a solution to a problem. There needed to be more diagrams actually illustrating resilient solutions
for the site, or they at least should have been pointed out during what I felt was a clear animation that broke down the assembly of the proposal, but it may have been too fast to understand. Solutions such as floating farms/on-site food production, a built-up Harborwalk for flood protection, rooftop-only mechanical equipment, foundation walls surrounding ground-level retail, water collection
methods, and passive heating and cooling were all concepts that were meant to be clearly presented by the time of the final review; the lack of these diagrams hurt the overall presentation of the project. The presentation simply lacked clarity from the beginning, and there was certainly a better way to present the process, problem, and solution, so this inevitably hindered the perception of everyone engaged in the presentation/discussion.
Overall, I believe the project is an appropriate solution for designing resilient, mixed-use architecture in Boston’s Innovation District. The project successfully takes rising sea levels, storm surges, and relationships between various program into account. The ideas and concepts were explored during the design process, but they should have been presented with diagrams and clear explanations.
Thank You.