William Toohey III | Architecture Portfolio by William Toohey III

William Toohey III

Architecture Portfolio Harvard University MAUD, CPC, 2020 Wentworth Institute of Technology M.Arch, 2018 w/ distinction BSA, 2017 magna cum laude tooheyiii@gsd.harvard.edu www.williamtooheyiii.com

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/bill-toohey-iii-864840a8/

Contents Climate Resilience - 2017 Yale Divinity School - 2017 Affordable Housing Competition - 2019 Liberty Museum Competition - 2016 MITâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Vertical Corridor - 2016 Boston University Art Museum - 2016 KUKA Robotic Arm - 2016 American Folk Art Museum - 2015 Gensler - 2017 Sasaki - 2018 GSD MAUD Thesis - 2020 Miscellaneous - 2016

An existing dry dock volume and the above constructed landscape serve as a system for community storm surge overflow and rain water storage (for later distribution)

Through the Dry Dock Merging Life, Work, & Water

CLIMATE RESILIENCE 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 opportunities, 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)

Walls built up for increased storm surge protection

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

Leasable Office Space

B | to North to Configuration South Configuration B | North South

Housing & Community Program

| East to West Configuration C |CEast to West Configuration

| Hybrid Configuration D |DHybrid Configuration

A.1

B.1

C.1C.1

D.1D.1

A.2

B.2

C.2C.2

D.2D.2

A.3

B.3

C.3C.3

D.3D.3

A.4

B.4

C.4C.4

D.4D.4

A.5

B.5

C.5C.5

D.5D.5

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

C.4

D.4

Public & Private Amenities

Leasable Office Space C.5

D.5

Housing & Community Program

E | Program Modules Arranged throughout Massings | New Pier Emerges

E.1

Program Massing

Proposed

Exploded

Existing

Building Section A

Floor Plan at Level 6

Floor Plan at Level 1

Building Section B

Building Section A

Frame [0001]

Frame [0240]

Frame [0440]

Frame [0510]

Frame [0715]

Frame [0770]

Frame [1242]

Frame [1272]

Frame [0360]

Frame [0657]

Frame [0950]

Frame [1370]

Animation Frames from Autodesk Maya Aerial Flight and Sectional Cutting

YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL Studio IX: 5th-Year Graduate, Fall 2017 Project Type: Community-Oriented Campus Extension Location: New Haven, Connecticut Professor: Carol Burns, Associate Professor

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 physical form. The configuration of massing, informed by an array of interior and exterior program, allows for layers of activities and circulation to weave themselves into both the Hill and the 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, views to the natural environment are framed in new light. A contemporary stage is set to support the ever-growing needs and desires of a progressive YDS community.

01 01 Bike Storage 02 Ramp Down to Hill

03 Below the Bridge

04 Community Dining 05 Community Cafe 06 Descending Plazas

07 Restrooms

08 Study Room

13 05

10 11

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

From Pavement to Boardwalk: Prioritizing Pedestrians

A Sterling Divinity Quad B East Quad C The Hill D Community Center E Campus Entry F The Square G Student Housing

Proposed Extension Conceptual Site Plan

D S-1 P-1 90Â°

G A Sterling Divinity Quad B East Quad C The Hill D Community Center E Campus Entry F The Square G Student Housing

Proposed Extension Conceptual Site Plan

EMBEDDED & INTERCONNECTED: ARCHITECTURE FOR COMMUNITY Axonometric Massing of Program & Primary Circulation

SNOW DAY Children At Play

ild

Existing Site Existing

Existing

Public

Public Program Public

Proposed

Existing

Proposed

Semi-Public

Semi-Public Program Semi-Public

Semi-Public

Primary Circulation

Proposed

Primary Circulation

Private Program Private

Primary Circulation

Private

Primary Circulation

Private

AXONOMETRIC MASSINGS CIRCULATION + PROGRAM WTIII AXONOMETRIC MASSINGS CIRCULATION + PROGRAM WTIII AXONOMETRIC MASSINGS CIRCULATION + PROGRAM WTIII

Existing

Circulation Primary Circulation

All

Proposed

First Floor +154'-8"

Ground Floor +143'-7"

Basement +130'-6"

Sub-Basement +123'-0"

S-1

FHLB BOSTON’S 19TH ANNUAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPETITION Competition: Spring 2019 Location: New Bedford, Massachusetts Developer: Michael Galasso Team Members: Zayba Abdulla (HKS), Chichi Anyoku (HKS/HBS), Natalia Chavez (BU), Edward Delman (HLS), Jeffrey Dike (WIT), Stephanie Peña (MIT), David Robinson (MIT), Esti Shapiro (WIT), Kristopher Steele (MIT), Danny Stevens (WIT), YunJung Yang (HKS) Place: 3rd

LIBERTY MUSEUM Competition: 4th-Year Undergraduate, Fall 2016 Project Type: Museum Location: Liberty Island, New York City, New York Advisors: Carol Burns, Michael Macphail, Troy Peters Team: Qiang Wang (M.Arch 2018), Paul Arduini (M.Arch 2018) Honorable Mention: Ranked 6th /268 teams

The monolithic volume that rests on the site represents the people of the cause for social justice and civil rights; constantly surrounded by external pressure from society. A subterranean element organized with a procession of depiction galleries is seen rising, wrapping, cutting and fracturing the form, creating a powerful contrast between the two major programs of depiction and activism. The overall composition of the Liberty Museum represents a holistic group of people bruised and fractured by violence and injustice but through strength and perseverance can remain standing through devastating hardship. The Fracture becomes a reminder of the scars left behind by tyranny and oppression, but the voids are cloaked in light and transparency to symbolize healed wounds of a determined group of activists constantly engaging in The Fight. Depressing the existing ground plane creates opportunities for new and exciting green-spaces within the context and is instrumental in reducing total building/lot coverage. An open-air theater, landscaped zones, and various types of gathering spaces are choreographed along the procession to the museum. Exhibits for depiction follow a subterranean procession that ramps up past the existing ground plane around the south and west facades. Public program with activism spaces exist within the main volume seen from afar. Circulation terminates at the northwest corner, rewarding panoramic views to Lower Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty. The Liberty Museum succeeds in responding to a complex site context and harnesses a unique and modest aesthetic for not only New York City but the world.

3D Visualization by Paul Arduini

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-twentiethcentury 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. Verticallyfocused 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.

West Campus Master Plan Axonometric Massing

Reconstructing Eero Saarinenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mid-twentieth-century master plan for West Campus 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 perspectives seen here are framed views from the never fully-realized master plan.

Plaza-A Winter Conditions

Public Space

Auditorium

Student Expo

MIT Pavilion MIT Chapel

Bridge

Plaza-C

Plaza-C Pathway Centered on the MIT Chapel

1-Story Dwelling Elevated Corridor

Vertical City Square Student Expo MIT Athletic Hub

Saarinen St.

Journey Below an Elevated Corridor

3-Story Dwelling

Kresge Auditorium

Event Space

Elevated & Sloped Infinite Corridor

00 Site Axonometric 1954

01 Site Axes

02 Major Nodes

03 Path + Network

04 Vertical Separations

2030

Site Axes + Footprint Of Interest

Gestures To Context

The Missing Campanile

Public Auditorium + Event Spaces

Public Merges With Student Life

Student Dwellings

05 Landscape/Hardscape

06 Blurring The Line

07 Framed Views

08 Campanile Procession

09 Volume + Density

Activate West Campus @ Ground Plane

Entry At Base

Student Exposition | Gesture To Charles

Create Common Space Between Dwellings

Public Amenities + Interstitial Space

Vertical City Squares

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

Between the Columns View from Building 7

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 opportunities for open plazas and desirable landscaped/hardscaped zones. Considerations of the temporal quality of the site, due to its rich Saarinen history and local monolithic building materials (e.g. masonry and concrete), inspired a vision for seasonal transformations of the surrounding public space that would maintain West Campusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

A series of conceptual perspectives are used to understand scale, space, and qualities of daylight. Interior renderings help illustrate volumetric relationships and connections between levels. Exterior renderings explore a variety of vantage points from new plazas, birdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s-eye views, and neighboring structures.

View to East-01

View to North-04

14 View to East-02

View to South-05 13 1

12 1

11 1 10

View to East-03

View to South-06 9 8

West Campus Site Sections

6 5 7

4 2

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

Late-Night Stroll Along Mass Ave Connection Between Buildings 9 & W20

Boston

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

Fishâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s-Eye View Charles River

West Campus

BOSTON UNIVERSITY ART MUSEUM Studio VII: 3rd-Year Undergraduate, Spring 2016 Project Type: Museum Location: Brookline, Massachusetts Professor: Thomas Lesko, Architect Team: Qiang Wang (M.Arch 2018), Jake Springer (M.Arch 2018), Grace Santos (BINT 2016), Tyler Som-Dubreuil (BINT 2016)

Given Albert Kahnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Peter Fuller Building at 808 Commonwealth Avenue as a canvas for design, the objective for this project was to renovate the ground level and supplement it with a new addition. These new and revitalized spaces would create the Boston University Art Museum. Understanding the surrounding context was a critical factor during the conceptual phase. The siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s location at a physical intersection where layers of circulation and activity exist inspired the direction for design. Utilizing what the building already has to offer, there was an increasing desire to link external site forces through internal phenomena. Exposing movement and creating a holistic system of paths throughout the interior became a driving force behind the form and function of the museum.

Floor Plans | 5 Levels | Rendered by Qiang Wang

6 10 11

16 17

4 5

Building Sections | Rendered by Jake Springer

1. BU Entry

6. South Gallery

2. Ramp Gallery

7. Open Offices

3. Administrative Office

8. Vertical Circulation

4. BU Theater Lobby

9. Office Bridge

5. BU Theater

10. Public Gathering

18 2

6 19 20 21

11. Hall to Elevator

16. Private Elevator

12. Public Restrooms

17. Administrative Lobby

13. East Gallery

18. Atrium Connector

14. Administrative Cafe

19. Private Collections

21. BU Library (beyond)

15. Administrative Lobby

20. Exterior Garden

22. Commonwealth Ave.

1. East Facade | Old to New Connection 2. Private Student Library 3. Commonwealth Ave. Entry

1. Atrium Connector | Final Iteration 2. Parametric Study | Alternative Design Option 3. Parametric Study | Alternative Design Option

KUKA ROBOTIC ARM Elective: 4th-Year Undergraduate, Fall 2016 Project Topic: Computational Design Location: Boston, MA Professor: Austin Samson, Designer (SCI-Arc M.Arch 2014) Team: Stefan Burnett (M.Arch 2018), Dylan Bush (M.Arch 2018), Jason Hasko (M.Arch 2018)

With the addition of the Kuka Robotic Arm to Wentworth’s Architecture Department during the summer of 2016, this elective course aimed to explore, design, and fabricate “end-of-arm” tools that would be used long term as tools for fabrication with the robotic arm. Our team chose to develop a brick gripper and explore opportunities for using computational design to generate brick walls using the robotic arm. We 3D-modeled in Rhino and used Grasshopper to animate the wall’s construction. We spent most of our time in Grasshopper testing several variations of the brick wall; the wall could be driven by patterns, images, signal waveforms, lofted curves, and more.

Axonometric View | From Hopper to Wall

AMERICAN FOLK ART MUSEUM Studio V: 3rd-Year Undergraduate, Fall 2015 Project Type: Museum Size: 40,000sf Location: New York City, New York Project Year: Constructed 2001, Demolished 2014 Professor: Aaron Weinert, Architect Team: James T. Fan (BSA 2017)

bli

iva

1. Axonometric View | Private/Public Organization 2. Axonometric View | Primary Circulation

5. Material Coding | Concrete Central Stair

3. Exploded Massing | Building Components

6. Material Coding | Plaster + Transparent Rail

4. Material Coding | Ground Level Pavers

7. Material Coding | Unique Cast Copper Facade

â&#x20AC;&#x2122; sp

an 7

GENSLER Studio: Lifestyle, Summer Internship 2017 Office: Boston, Massachusetts Supervisor: J.F. Finn, III, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Principal

• Member of Lifestyle Studio: mixed-use / retail / commercial projects • Responsible for generating permit & construction sets for multi-phase TD Garden ticket offices & rendering TDG Premium Lobbies • Contributed to autonomous vehicle research • Developed presentation materials • Programming & pre-design sketching • 10-person Intern Project: Urban Gondola • Renderings & design work aired on WGBH News in Boston

Premium Lobbies & Ticket Queuing TD Garden Boston

Premium Lobby Garage Entry TD Garden Boston

Conceptual Sketching Pre-Design for Phase 3 Premium Lobby Ticket Entry & General Ticket Office

Sketch Number

SKA-111

Description

TPO DOWNSPOUT & SCUPPER - RFI 651

Prepared by

WJT

Scale

Issue/Rev

Issue Date

3" = 1'-0"

07/06/17

6" OR 9" PRESSURE-SENSITIVE COVER STRIP & HP-250 PRIMER ADHERED TO PANEL TAPERED RIGID INSULATION

16 GAUGE GALVANIZED CHANNEL FILLED WITH 3/8" THICKNESS OF WATER CUT-OFF MASTIC IN WARM SIDE CORNER, PRIOR TO SETTING ON PANEL (BY OTHERS). FASTEN WITH #8 X 3/4" TRUSS HEAD TEK SCREWS SPACED 12" O.C. (BOTH SIDES). FASTEN EXTERIOR SIDE OF CAP FIRST SO CAP IS TIGHT TO EXTERIOR OF PANEL

ROOF MEMBRANE COVER BOARD

INSTALL 9" WIDE PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ELASTOFORM FLASHING & HP-250 PRIMER

BLACK ALUMINUM COLLECTOR

FASTEN MEMBRANE EDGE WITH TERMINATION BAR & #8 X 3/4" TEK SCREWS SPACED 6" O.C. METAL DECK

3" BLOCK ALUMINUM DOWNSPOUT

4 3/4" CONCRETE SLAB

WALL BRACKET

One Beacon Street Third Floor Boston, MA 02108 United States

Sketch Number

SKA-114

Description

FIRE-RATED CEILING UPDATE

Prepared by

WJT

Scale

As indicated

SHEET NOTES (PARTIAL) A

Issue/Rev

RFI-654

Issue Date

07/10/17

3.6

FIRE RATED CEILING, UL CEILING K506

Tel 617.619.5700 Fax 617.619.5701

6' - 9 7/16"

12 RISERS

8' - 0"

9' - 0 9/16"

16' - 8"

16 RISERS

6' - 0"

TDG LEVEL 02 29' - 6"

STAIR 3 E01-13

15' - 10"

STAIR 3 E01-13

GROUND LEVEL - TOC @ 12' 11 1/2" 12' - 11 1/2"

LEVEL 01 - RCP (EAST) - (REF. A2.601E) 1/8" = 1'-0"

STAIR 3 SECTION - LEVEL 01 - (REF. 04/A6.408) 1/4" = 1'-0"

One Beacon Street Third Floor Boston, MA 02108 United States

Tel 617.619.5700 Fax 617.619.5701

EQ W8x13

6" x 6" x 1/2” ANGLE

TENSION BAR - A

TDG LEVEL 06 87' - 3"

W12x30 6" x 6" x 1/2” ANGLE

2 1/2"

3 1/8"

TENSION BAR - B

2” MODULE CHAIN LINK

W12x30 TENSION BAR TO BE CONTINUED @ COLUMNS SPLICE @ ANGLE ONLY

FASTENERS

CHAIN LINK

PLAN DETAIL

3" = 1'-0"

SECTION DETAIL 3" = 1'-0"

CHAIN LINK SCREEN - DETAILS Boston Properties / Delaware North Companies

05/10/2017

THE HUB ON CAUSEWAY

1 W8x13

CHAIN LINK 2"

W12x30

TDG LEVEL 06 87' - 3"

6" x 5-1/4" x 1/4" ANGLE

TENSION BAR - A TENSION BAR - B

CHAIN LINK

6" x 5-1/4" x 1/4" ANGLE

W12x30

TENSION BAR

PLAN DETAIL

1 1/2" = 1'-0"

EX6

TDG LEVEL 07 97' - 0"

SECTION DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

EX6

TDG LEVEL 06 87' - 3"

1.3

________ ________ 3 xCR-13 TDG LEVEL 05 78' - 0"

EX6

1 1

CHAMPIONS ROW LEVEL 6 SOUTH - PARTIAL PLAN

________ ________ 4 xCR-13

1/8" = 1'-0"

PORTAL SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0"

CHAIN LINK SCREEN Boston Properties / Delaware North Companies

THE HUB ON CAUSEWAY

05/09/2017

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

THE LINK: URBAN GONDOLA 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 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 enticinglynew urban vision that would help alleviate public transit congestion in Boston, flying above the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. By drawing the longest and least amount of straight lines along the Greenway, understanding the limits of a variety of differing gondola systems, distinct site nodes 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.

Transit Hub to Support Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s New Gondola System Sectional Perspective through Dewey Square / South Station

FERRY SERVICE First form of public transportation in Boston: 3-mile route to Chelsea across the harbor

1630

OMNIBUS Longer than conventional stagecoach with bench seating running lengthwise along the vehicle

1680

BOSTON TRANSIT TIMELINE

I-93 TUNNELS Created to mitigate traffic congestion and allow opportunities for new public spaces

2030

1730

Response to the demand for land transportation due to ambitious landfilling projects HORSE-DRAWN VEHICLES

MOTOR BUS Boston establishes motor bus route

1980 Connection from Boston to East Boston/Logan Airport TED WILLIAMS TUNNEL

1780

THE EL Boston Elevated Railway Company (BERY) expands the network of railway lines, adding new carhouses and terminals

1830

1880

1930 Existing tracks utilized as ideal framework for new transportation system ELECTRIC STREETCAR

Rails added to planned routes along street RAILS & HORSECARS

Top Left Image: Digital model by Tianyi Sun; Base rendering by Luis Negron; Post-process by author Data: https: //www.mbta.com/history

Key design strategies for proposed South Station / Dewey Square Gondola Station: 1. Preserve existing public space that supports farmerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

SASAKI Internship: Summer 2018 Office: Watertown, Massachusetts Supervisor: Bill Massey, AIA, LEED AP, Chair of Marketing & Business Development, Board of Directors, Principal Architect Projects: New York Community Center Competition; The North End (Boston) Community Center Site & Program Massing Study; Lehigh University West Bridge Housing

• Member of interdisciplinary design teams in a variety of phases: conceptual, schematic, & design development • Collaborated directly with principals, associates, & designers • Utilized Rhino, V-Ray 3.6, & Photoshop for rendering night view of community center competition proposal • Led Rhino-Enscape virtual reality model efforts for Lehigh University West Bridge Housing (DD) • Contributed to Lehigh’s 100% design development package: Revit modeling & annotating • Explored clear methods of graphically communicating workflow instructions for Revit-to-Rhino-to-render processes

Program Massing Study

PATHWAYS BETWEEN HOME AND SCHOOL Thesis #2: 3rd-Year Graduate, Spring 2020 Project Type: Urban Design Thesis Location: Portsmouth, New Hampshire Advisor: Stephen Gray, Assistant Professor at GSD

In 1996, the United Nations Children’s Fund launched The Child Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCI), “to respond to the challenge of realizing the rights of children in an increasingly urbanized and decentralized world” (UNICEF, 2018). As contemporary architects, urban designers, and planners seek improved understanding of their roles and projects, there emerges an opportunity to advocate for child-centered global agendas by realizing goals at the local level. Focused around health, education, and affordable housing, this urban design thesis is interested in adapting existing suburban infrastructure to better meet the needs of children from low-income housing developments and households in the United States. An analysis of relationships between three different local housing developments in the City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Gosling Meadows, Wamesit Place, and Winchester Place Apartments) and three respective elementary schools (New Franklin, Dondero, and Little Harbour) reveals two primary concerns for the urban designer: firstly, the proximity and lack of pedestrian infrastructure between home and school makes it difficult and rather unrealistic for children and adolescents to actively commute; and secondly, diverse programmatic elements that structure fun and healthy places are absent in low-income areas of the city, often with more gas stations and highways than crosswalks and spaces for recreation. Pivoting on the complexity of socioeconomic structures, learning and child-developmental inequities, behavioral and health challenges, and the often neglected voice of children in the American democracy, this thesis offers an agenda to center suburban and urban development on the development of the child.

New Greenleaf Recreation Center

Greenleaf Skatepark

Wamesit Place Housing (PHA)

K-5 Elementary School

American Red Cross

Cross Roads House (Transitional Housing Services)

Leasable Office Space

Mixed-Income Housing

Sensory Path

Wamesit Place Housing (PHA)

Elementary School K-5 Dondero Elementary School

Atlantic Ocean

Sagamore Creek

Restaurant

Commercial Commercial

ia dr xa n Ale

ite

ll S

St.

. Dr od wo ge Le d

Office Office Office Office Daycare

Home Home Home Home

Home Home Home Home Home

Portsmouth KinderCare American Red Cross

Seacoast Community School

Leasable Office Space

Mixed-Income Housing

Wetlands

Home Home

Av af nle Gr ee

fay

ett

K-5 School K-5 School

Misc.

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

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

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

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

CMU WALL

STAIR 15 DETAIL

1" = 1'-0"

PROVIDENCE PLACE RENOVATIONS

STAIR 15 STEEL BEAM DETAIL

1" = 1'-0"

KEY PLAN (LEVEL 1 STAIR 15) 1/4" = 1'-0"

1 PROVIDENCE PLACE PROVIDENCE, RI 02903

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

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

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

3'-7 3/4"

PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL

SEE DETAIL 4 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

W27x84; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

EXISTING W30x116; SEE STRUCTURAL

15'-4 1/4"

W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

STEELCL

11'-0"

CL STEEL 3'-7 3/4"

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"

STEEL CL

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

CL STEEL

STEELCL

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM STEELCL

15'-4 1/4"

11'-0"

CLSTEEL 3'-7 3/4"

10'-11"

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION

7 5/8"

9' - 8" CLEAR

W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

7 5/8" 2' - 3" 7 5/8" 9" CLEAR

CL STEEL

STEEL CL

15'-5 1/4"

3'-7 3/4"

10'-11"

CL STEEL

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

STEEL CL

W10X12 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL

W24x76; ; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

CL STEEL

STEEL CL

15'-4 3/4"

W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL EXISTING W33x118; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

10'-11 1/2"

3'-7 3/4"

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

W21x44; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

15'-6"

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION LEVEL P3 49' - 4" W21x44; SEE STRUCTURAL

W18x40; SEE STRUCTURAL

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

EXISTING W33x130; SEE STRUCTURAL CLSTEEL

10'-9 1/4"

CL STEEL 3'-8 3/4"

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

7 5/8" NEW CMU WALL

9' - 8" CLEAR

7 5/8"

C12x25

W10x12 BEYOND

STAIR 15 CROSS SECTION 1 P2 - L3 1/4" = 1'-0"

Date

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 SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 2/S2.01 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

CLSTEEL

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 3' - 0 1/4"

3' - 7 5/8"

9' - 8" CLEAR

STAIR 15 CROSS SECTION 2 P2 - L3 1/4" = 1'-0"

STAIR 15 SECTIONS

LEVEL P2 38' - 4" STEEL CL 1' - 0 3/8"

Drawing Title

7 5/8"

30' - 0"

NEW CMU WALL

30'-0"

No.

LEVEL L1 60' - 4"

LEVEL P2 38' - 4" 7 5/8"

15' - 5 1/8"

Revisions

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-B FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-A1 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION LEVEL P3 49' - 4"

STEELCL

NCM 07/11/2016

EXISTING W21x101

PROPOSED SLAB TO ALIGN WITH CURB

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR SLAB CONNECTION

Issue date

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

LEVEL L1 60' - 4"

EXISTING W33x118; SEE STRUCTURAL

CL STEEL 3'-7 3/4"

15065

PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-F FOR SLAB CONNECTION

W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

10'-11 1/2"

LEVEL 1.5 71' - 4"

W10x12 BEYOND

GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0

16" x 62" VERTICAL DUCTWORK FROM L1 TO L3; SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL 4 / S3.02 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

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

3'-7 3/4"

LEVEL L1 60' - 4"

STEEL CL

SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

PRESSURIZATION SHAFT

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR SLAB CONNECTION

Author Checker

LEVEL 1.5 71' - 4" SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

Project Number

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-C1 FOR SLAB CONNECTION

W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL STEEL CL

CL STEEL

EXISTING W21x83 W/ NEW PLATES; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

PROPOSED SLAB; SEE STRUCTURAL

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-E FOR SLAB CONNECTION

SEE DETAIL 4 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

W21x48 CL STEEL

STEEL CL

15'-5 1/4"

15'-4 3/4"

PROPOSED W27x84 BEYOND; SEE STRUCTURAL SEE DETAIL 5 / A5.05A FOR FIREPROOFING AT STEEL BEAM

CLSTEEL

LEVEL 1.5 71' - 4"

STEELCL

W10x12 BEYOND C12x25 GWB BEYOND; SEE DTL. 5 / SKA 02.0

EXISTING W21x101 W/ NEW PLATES; SEE STRUCTURAL

CONTINUOUS CMU WALL FROM L1 TO L2

SEE STRUCTURAL DETAIL SSK-D FOR SLAB CONNECTION

W21x4; 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 LEVEL L2 82' - 4"

LEVEL L2 82' - 4" W21x48; SEE STRUCTURAL

W27x84; SEE STRUCTURAL

CONTINUOUS CMU WALL FROM L1 TO L2

STEELCL

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

STAIR 15 LONG SECTION P2 - L3 1/4" = 1'-0"

CL STEEL

25' - 4" CLEAR 7 5/8" NEW CMU WALL

28'-6"

7 5/8" NEW CMU WALL

10 3/8"

SCALE Drawing Number

As indicated

A5.05A

Misc.

William Toohey III

2020