Yiwen Yuan Architecture Portfolio by Yiwen Yuan

W Yiwen | Yuan Architecture Portfolio 2008 - 2014

CONTENTS

PROJECT 1

U.S EMBASSY IN AMMAN, JORDAN | ARCHITECTURE & REPRESENTATION GLOBAL PRACTICE, ARCHITECTURE AND DIPLOMACY, CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATION PROJECT 2

URBAN DEMOLISH SYSTEM | HYBRID RESIDENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN MUMBAI, INDIA GLOBAL PRACTICE, TYPOLOGICAL CORRECTION, CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATION PROJECT 3

REGENERATION | RECONSTRUCTION OF NO. 507 FACTORY

REVIT GREEN ARCHITECTURE COMPETITION, ARCHITECTURE AND TECHNOLOGY PROJECT 4

ON THE ROAD | HOTEL DESIGN FOR BICYCLE LOVERS ACADEMIC PROJECT, HOTEL DESIGN PROJECT 5

TANHUALIN GALLERY | DESIGN IN A HISTORICAL AREA ACADEMIC PROJECT, ARCHITECTURE AND REPRESENTATION PROJECT 6

P.W.P HOUSES | TIANXINZHOU VILLA DESIGN ACADEMIC PROJECT & PROFESSIONAL PROJECT COMPETITION PROJECT 7

MOVING UP THE BLUSHING HILL | TRACING THE CITY WORKSHOP

ACADEMIC PROJECT, CITY MAPPING, TYPOLOGICAL STUDY, CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SUPPLEMENTS

OTHER PROJECT FROM 2008 TO 2014

W YIWEN YUAN | RESUME desperuxyuan@gmail.com 00-1-917-370-0480 EDUCATION

Columbia University in The City of New York

Master of Science in Advanced Architecture Design | 05.2013-06.2014

Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China Bachelor of Architecture(five-year B.Arch Degree) | 09.2008-06.2013 SOFTWARE

Rhino, Revit, Google Sketch-Up, Autodesk CAD Grasshopper, Kangaroo, Lunchbox Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Indesign V-Ray, 3D-Max, Lumion, Podium Wood Fabrication LANGUAGE

English Mandarin Chinese(Professional)

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Archilier Architecture

Shanghai & New York | Graduation Internship | 08.2012-01.2013

Hangzhou Zhuoyue Pullman Hotel and Twin Towers & Ningbo Yuanda Mixed-Use Development Worked with the teams of Archilier Architecture of Shanghai and New York office Helped with designing concept and produced diagram models Developed and elaborated digital models Update Construction Drawings

China Construction Design International, CCDI Shanghai, China | Summer Internship | 07.2012-08.2012

Bozhou Urban Complex Competetion Proposed a design concept including a master plan for the competition team Helped with designing concept and produced diagram models, CAD drawings Work with the Renderings Companying

HUST Design & Research Group

Wuhan, China | Summer Internship | 07.2011-08.2011

Xuanen County Urban Complex, Enshi, China Main designer of a design team of five Developed design concept, diagram, Sketch-Up model and CAD drawings Develop the Final layout of the first-round presentation HONORS & AWARDS

Excellent Work Prize of Residential Architecture Competition of Cube Design Cube Architecture Designing Consultants Ltd | 09.2012

Excellent College Student Award Top 10% Students | 09.2010-09.2011

Excellent Academic Scholarship First Prize | 09.2010-09.2011 & 09.2009-09.2010 & 09.2008-09.2009

Top 10 Singer of the School of Architecture and Urban Planing 04.2009

U.S EMBASSY IN AMMAN, JORDAN | ARCHITECTURE & REPRESENTATION Individual Work Academic Project, Global Practice Type: Embassy Design Professor: Amale Andraos Site: Amman, Jordan, 12.2013

City Amman

Locals & Aliens

The Local Elements in Amman and The Hilly Environment Have Made the City a One Piece Landscape. 1

1. Odd Houses 2. Social Housing 3. Fences 4. Trees 5. Columns 6. Building Process 7. The Theater 8. Mosque The Alien Element Forms a Totally Building Typology of the City. 9. TV Tower 10. Tower of the Airport 11. Tiwn Tower 12. New Office Building

a. Landscape on the Ground b. A Proposed Horizontal Plinth

Precedent

Program Reversal

Comepared to the U.S embassy in the 1960s and 1990s, the U.S embassy in Amman becomes a representation of transparency.

1960s

By placing all the public program in the plinth which is hovering above the site, a place for cultrual exchange is formed. Beneath the plinth, private programs that have higher security level are hiding in the hill-like buildings.

1990s

??????? 2010s

PRIATE

PUBLIC

REVERSAL

PUBLIC

PRIATE

Street View | A Rethinking of Deplomacy

6.0

30.0 Meter Set-Back Perimeter Wall

Plinth

2.752.75

6.0 Meter Clear Zone

2.75

30.0

Landscape on Roof

Clear Zone

Landscape

Perimeter Wall

Embassy Property line

30.0

Perimeter Wall

2.75

Wating Area

EntranceLow-Security Standard Program X>9 m

Perimeter Wall

Y>1

Anti-Ram Wall

2.75 M

X>9

Embassy Property line

Embassy Property Line

30.0 Meter Set-Back

2.75 2.75

Embassy Property line

Landscape Strategy

Perimeter Wall

Embassy Property Line

Security Guildline

Perimeter Wall

Main Entrance

Service Entrance

Consular Entrance

Main Entrance

Service Entrance Residence Entrance

Consular Entrance Residential Entrance

DIPLOMATIC LOOP

VISITORS ENTRY LOBBY 2500sqft AUDITORIUM 4000sqft

SERVICE LOOP

3000 AMERICAN CLUB 1700 CAFE 600 MEN’S & WOMEN’S LOCKERS

CONFERENCE ROOM 1600sqft

FACULTY CETER

ft C MS LA 700 SE PAR SS sqf RO t VI KING W C O 1 M 80 VI BU ATE E C 80 SA H AM IL R A 00 AN 00 EX LO DI TA N sqf A E PP CE RE sq H R AD NG NK N t IC ft IB LI RY STR 18 & E IN IT AN KI CA O 00 PU X G C SU O TC A IO FF O S DO sq M T C N PE CA HE FE P IO IC MS L CK ft S SP UB N E(L 7 TO N P R 8 & OW 00s AC M 26 300 RA530 00 2 IM AR 0 qf G sq sqf 60 sq AD E 0 S t E ft 0s t PC MI EC KE sq ft M 32 5 qf 30 IN 0 AP GR UR T ft C sq IS 0s SW t 50 TR q ft ST HA 90 ATI ITY 00 I AT ft O ST M 0 A N s N M ND C sq IO AN q I C f N ft KI NG t AR E EN DA 18 C DD RE 00 D RY PO TE RD) ST HA I sq TA E O M R 32 O ft AN N FF (H P E IL L 0 ST 70 0 O IG M N’ I 5 DA C s 50 C O EN S 00 qf 00 H O M E E L & t 00 UL AR RD R ’S SE sq 0s 2 W 1 T 80 C s ft RE & W OM 80 qf AG I-U S O Y S O U ST CC qft SE MO TA CH FF (H O EN 0sq t E 0s RI M RE RO AP W 80 FI KE FF AN IC IGH EN S L ft qf TY G E A E ST OM R t 0 S OC CE LD S A 90 ITI SE 0s 3 R R SH K RY 85 C 0 NG O S7 60 PA DE qf O V sq A t M M 00s OWER 00 U 00 IL N F R C sq IO 18 C ft RE O qf S sq IT ER 125 A R f 7 N 0 t P 00 t ST A 1 SE HA Y EC ft 12 0sq 30 0sq 90 sq O 80 50 ft O C 0s ft O N AR 0 0s ft UR sq FF UR C qf AG sq ft t qf T I f E I t C TY R R t 71 E E 60 ET 00 Y S 1 M 00 sq 80 TA (H A sq I A f 00 N IG L t 17 RA ft 00 RI sq DA H 49 O 00 ft R 0s N PA sq D qf E RK ft t CM CM Q IN C G

00 CM sq R ft P

UA C R R M TE MRGARPOO COUR SE RT RV D R 88 ENL 20 IC 3 0

This new U.S Embassy in Amman strictly follows the security guildline. All the service programs that has a lower standard of security requirement forms a service loop around the site, including the waiting area, gift shop and some programs that can be shared with people on the street. The chancery and offices that requires higher security standard are inside the hilly buildings that forms a one-piece landscape. A diplomatic loop including American club, education center and exihibition space are inside the plinth that hovering above the site. A feeling of trasparency is formed.

VISITOR CENTER

SWIMMING POOL PLAYGROUND POOL MECHANICAL SHED KIDDIE POOL TENNIS COURT

2600 3400 600 300 3700

69000 CHANCERY 61800 CHANCERY ANNEX 60000 NEW OFFICE ANNEX

EXHIBITION 900sqft

EDUCATION CENTER

VISA APPLICANT ENTRY LOBBY 2500sqft LECTURE SPACE 1400sqft

ST O

STAFF PARKING CHANCERY FORECOURT CMR TENNIS CONSULAR GARDEN

CMR FORECOURT CMR GARDEN CMR POOL CMR TENNIS RAO PARKING OFFICIAL PARKING CMR SERVICE COURT

27800 7100 2800 30000

5400 3700 2000 2800 7400 5500 3900

9800 MARINE SECURITY GUARD QUATER

CCAP CMR PCAP SCAP PCAP SERVICE ANNEX

AR Y

17600 CMR

1250 200 2600 900 46900

300 SMOKER’S PAVILION 13000 STAFF GARDEN

2700 ELECTRICAL BUILDING 2700 WATER TANK & PUMP BUILDING

300 LOADING DOCK 21600 OFFICIAL PARKING 6100 MULTIUSE SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD

BO LI

Two Loops

70 E 00 37 0s CM 0s sq 00 qft qf 37 R ft sqf t 00 FO t sq R qf ft EC t G O YM TE UR T 6 PL NN

004 AY IS 00 G 0 q0f q RO t ft U

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

10 30

29 10

9 27

27 27

7 7

8 7

27 21

22 21

21 21

21 17

21 20

21 23

23 21

25 24

21 21

6 27 27

2727

21 21

21 22

21 21

1. CCAP 2 PUBLIC PARKIG 3. STORAGE 4. CMR PCAP 5. LOCKER 6. SHOWER 7. CLASSROOM 8. GYM 9.TENNIS 10. RETAIL 11. MCAP 12. PCAP 13. ELECTRICAL 14. WATER TANK 15. PUMP 16. CONTROLLING ROOM 17. SCAP 18. SUPPER MARKET 19. CASHIER 20. COURTYARD 21. OFFICE 22. RESTROOM 23. LOUNGE 24. CONFERENCE ROOM 25. GENERIC WORKING SPACE 26. KITCHEN 27. BEDROOM 28. CMR POOL 30. CMR GARDEN 31. STUFF PARKING

10 10

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

31 32 30

15 15 8 8 8

8 20

29 21 19 15 15

16 12

17 11

22 10 22 22

28 27

6 3

23 2 3

1 5 4

31 31

1. LOBBY 2. WAITING AREA 3. RECEPTION 4. LECTURE 5. EXHIBITION 6. INTERVIEW ROOM 7. VISA/IMMIGRANT 8. OFFICE 9. CONFERENCE ROOM 10.ARCHIVE 11. STORAGE 12. KITCHEN 13. CAFETERIA 14. AUDITORIUM 15. RESTROOM 16. SWIMMING POOL 17. KIDDIE POOL 18. WOMEN’S SHOWER 19. WOMEN’S LOCKER 20. MEN’S SHOWER 21. MEN’S LOCKER 22. CLASSROOM 23. BOOK STORAGE 24. LIBRARY 25. ROOF OF SERVICE ANNEX 26. ROOF OF ELEXRIC BUILDING 27. ROOF OF STORAGE 28. ROOF OF OFFICE BUILDING 29. ROOF OF MARINE QUATER 30. ROOF OF CMR 31. ROOF OF RETAIL 32. ROOF OF GYM

10 30

29 10

9 27

27 27

7 7

8 7

27 21

22 21

21 3

21 21

21 17

21 21

25 24

21 21

6 27 27

27 27

21 22

21 21

10 10 10

GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1. CCAP 2 PUBLIC PARKIG 3. STORAGE 4. CMR PCAP 5. LOCKER 6. SHOWER 7. CLASSROOM 8. GYM 9.TENNIS 10. RETAIL 11. MCAP 12. PCAP 13. ELECTRICAL 14. WATER TANK 15. PUMP 16. CONTROLLING ROOM 17. SCAP 18. SUPPER MARKET 19. CASHIER 20. COURTYARD 21. OFFICE 22. RESTROOM 23. LOUNGE 24. CONFERENCE ROOM 25. GENERIC WORKING SPACE 26. KITCHEN 27. BEDROOM 28. CMR POOL 30. CMR GARDEN 31. STUFF PARKING

31 32 30

15 15 8 8 8

8 20

29 21 19 15 15

16 12

17 11

22 10 22 22

28 27

6 3

23 2 3

1 5 4

31 31

FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1. LOBBY 2. WAITING AREA 3. RECEPTION 4. LECTURE 5. EXHIBITION 6. INTERVIEW ROOM 7. VISA/IMMIGRANT 8. OFFICE 9. CONFERENCE ROOM 10.ARCHIVE 11. STORAGE 12. KITCHEN 13. CAFETERIA 14. AUDITORIUM 15. RESTROOM 16. SWIMMING POOL 17. KIDDIE POOL 18. WOMEN’S SHOWER 19. WOMEN’S LOCKER 20. MEN’S SHOWER 21. MEN’S LOCKER 22. CLASSROOM 23. BOOK STORAGE 24. LIBRARY 25. ROOF OF SERVICE ANNEX 26. ROOF OF ELEXRIC BUILDING 27. ROOF OF STORAGE 28. ROOF OF OFFICE BUILDING 29. ROOF OF MARINE QUATER 30. ROOF OF CMR 31. ROOF OF RETAIL 32. ROOF OF GYM

URBAN DEMOLISH SYSTEM Hybrid Residential Infrastructure In Mumbai, India Juan Herreros Studio Academic Project & Global Practice Individual Work 05.2014

A Rethinking of the Urban Activators The idea of the ciity demolish system starts from a rethinking of the urban activators. They are usually the buildings and places that offers platform for collective activities. For example, in the city of Mumbai, they are churches, mosques, temples, schools, theaters, museums, green space in the middle of residential buildingsâ&#x20AC;Ś Some of them are own by one institution or just a few people. Some only serves a certain kind of people in a certain time. Compare to the chaos in most of the buildings in this city, these places are actually offering us a new opportunity for further development. This system is to tear down some of these buildings and introduce in high-rise housing project on the same site. And at the same time replace those programs at a higher level. This system is to explore a generic way of housing development in cites like Mumbai, but at the same being adaptive at different situations.

Chaos

Opportunities

Site Condition & Hidden Opportunities The chosen site of this project are four blocks standing in the south of Victoria Terminus.An office building owned by the government, a mosque, two elementary schools and some one-story retails are surrounded by high density residential buildings.

Existing Roof The very narrow gap between the buildings have nearly make a very big continuous roof. And the informal dwellings and the activities like people doing laundry, kids playing games have make the roof a very important part of peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s daily life. The roof is actually a public space in this city.

Site Strategy | Replacement My strategy for the site is to tear down a mosque, two elelmentary schools, an office building and some retails in the site and replace them at the roof top level. At the same place, six towers are built up: the tower of cars, the tower of bath rooms, tower of books, tower of praying rooms, tower of washing machines, and tower of cargos.

Tower of Cars, Level 4

Tower of bathrooms, Level 4

Tower of Books, Level 3

Tower of Praying Rooms, Level 4

Tower of Washing Machine, Level 3

Tower of Washing Cargos, Level 4

Backup Promgram inside the Tower By breaking the orders of these object, I am trying to invent a very special space experience for people who enter through the towers to the big open space at the roof level. The programs inside the tower are at the same time the back-up or serving part for the programs on top, Books for the Library, Laundrys for the Spa, Bathroom for the GYM, Cargos for Retail, Parking for Museum, Praying Rooms for the Church.

SPA

GYM

RETAIL MUSEUM CHURCH

BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS

LAUNDRYS LAUNDRYS

BATHROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM

CARGOS CARGOS CARGOS CARGOS

PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING

PRAYING ROOM PRAYING ROOM PRAYING ROOM PRAYING ROOM PRAYING ROOM PRAYING ROOM

LIBRARY

Roof Level Plan

Main Drawing | Representational Section

SUPPLEMENTS PROJECT 1

NORDIC PAVILION, SVERRE FEHN | STUDIES IN TECTONIC CULTURE MODLE MAKING, TECTONIC STUDY, ARCHITECTURE PHENOMENOLOGY

PROJECT 2

CORNER BUILDING AT WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK | RETHINKING BIM FACADE DESIGN, BIM, INTERAGATED PARAMETRIC DELIVERY, REVIT

PROJECT 3

Hangzhou Zhuoyue Pullman Hotel and Twin Towers HIGH-RISE, PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

PROJECT 4

Ningbo Yuanda Mixed-Use Development MASTER PLANNING, PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

THESIS

NORDIC PAVILION, SVERRE FEHN | STUDIES IN TECTONIC CULTURE Group Work with Zhao Gao, Liling Li Academic Project, 05.2014 Type: Modle Making, Tectonic Study Professor: Kenneth Framptom

CORNER BUILDING AT WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK RETHINKING BIM & INTEGRAGATED PARAMETRIC DELIVERY Academic Project Group Work with Lizabeth Mora Tutors: Brian Lee & John Lee 12.2013

Hangzhou Zhuoyue Pullman Hotel and Twin Towers Professional Practice Guided by Hyun Yu & Li Zhou 12.2013

Ningbo Yuanda Mixed-Use Development Professional Practice Guided by Hyun Yu & Li Zhou 12.2013

A New Space for Social Housing, A Comparison of Two Evens in New York Lower East Side Introduction Located in the southeastern part of the New York City borough of Manhattan, the Lower East Side is an immigrant, working-class neighborhood roughly defined by the East Houston Street to the north, Canal Street to the south, the Bowery to the west, and the East River to the east. It is a community with one of the largest concentrations of New York City Housing Authority apartments in the city, and also the birthplace of public housing. When looking at this area on Google maps, it is very easy for us to observe two kinds urban textures that are totally different from each other, the grid that follows the New York urban texture in the west and the tower-inthe-park residential buildings sited on large lots of open space, which planners today would refer to as “superblocks”, in the east part alongside the East River. I think it would be very interesting to compare these two universally familiar building typologies in this Lower East Side of New York and to rethink two different housing development methods (actions dealing with the squatter movement that take place in the tenement buildings in the Manhattan Grid and some new proposals for the tower-in-the-park housings) by reading the history of the last 50 years of this area. Towers in the park alongside the East River Taking a walk up the East River Park, we may see a series of high-rise residential buildings that belong to the tower-in-the-park typology. Originally derived from Le Corbusier’s scheme for Ville Radieuse, the model of the tower-in-the-park was trying to find a fix for the problems of urban pollution and overcrowding and attacking issues such as light and ventilation, recreational space, access and storage for the automobile - as well as those of mobility, isolation, and anonymity. And due to a large need for middle-class housing after the World War Two, “The cities in the park” ideology became the most economic answer for the mass production that was needed. During this time, cheap lands in rural area were bought and slums were demolished to make way for high-rise public housing projects. The public housing projects like the Smith Houses, LaGuardia Houses and Baruch Houses in Lower East Side is one of these examples. However the towers in the park soon became problematic. What we see today is a rising rates of vandalism and vacancy and considerable concerns about the concentration of poverty. As Jane Jacobs described, “Low-income projects that become worse centers of delinquency, vandalism, and general social hopelessness than the slums they were supposed to replace. Middle-income housing projects which are truly marvels of dullness and regimentation, sealed against any buoyancy or vitality of city life. Luxury housing projects that mitigate their inanity, or try to, with vapid vulgarity... This is not the rebuilding of cities. This is the sacking of cities."

It might be unnecessary to talk about the Tower-in-thepark in detail, since the notorious history of this housing typology has been very well known. But the latest news of NYCHA’s plan to build luxury housing on the Lower East Side right next to the towers of public housing soon draws my attention. According to a partial draft of the NYCHA proposal. The housing authority plans to build up eight apartment complexes, five of them on the Lower East Side: the Smith, Baruch, LaGuardia and Campos Plaza houses and Meltzer Towers, a senior housing complex on East First Street. All these high-rise luxury housings would be build on various sites adjacent to public housing, including parking lots, playgrounds and community centers. The plan would open the door for private developers to create about 4,300 new apartments. While 80 percent of the apartments would be market-rate, 20 percent would be reserved for affordable housing. a. high-rise plan for Smith Houses The biggest site under consideration is located at the Alfred E. Smith Houses, a 12-building superblock stretching along the East River that’s named after four-time New York governor. NYCHA plans to lease a parking lot along South Street, just to the north of the Brooklyn Bridge. This building could accommodate up to 700,000 square feet for residential development. The second space up for grabs at Smith is a playing field at Robert Wagner Place used by the tenant association for its annual “Family Day” picnic. Another 130,000 square feet is available on a site now used for parking at the LaGuardia Houses, on Madison Street, next to the Little Flower Playground. A parking lot on East Houston Street, now part of the Baruch Houses, is envisioned as a 175,000-square-foot development site. This plan has cause furious discussion in this community and ignited the next big battle in the Lower East Side’s long-running war over gentrification. The so-called “creative idea” have taken no consideration of the existing buildings with new buildings reducing the number o parking lots and green space and blocking the view and sunlight of the surrounding public housing. It is not surprising to know this kind of plan comes into being. During the past years, people start to realize the big potential hidden in the big open space around these towers. We have seen a lot of architecture studios working on redesigning the existing towers and the park. And new proposals are always eye-catching at the beginning. For example, designers usually will create several horizontal bridges containing housing and other infrastructure to connect the towers in the air, or build up skyscrapers in the green space… It seems that architects are always fascinating about the mega-structure and the utopia dreams related to them. But if we think twice about these proposals for public housing, we may find that they give no clue for us to deal with the problems we confront to. The scheme for the Lower East Site belongs to these architectural dreams. It is very easy to find it ridiculous if we try to imagine the result of the city following this urban developing sequence. The island will be enclave by the wall that’s created by the newly built luxury towers. Never mention the social problems it would cause in the future.

Maybe because it’s the most efficient way to make profit for the developers, this kind of situation is happening in a lot of cities all around the world. Homesteading Program and Squatter Movement in Tenement Buildings Squatting is defined as the illegal occupation of an uninhabited building, usually done by people who have insufficient housing aid from their government and cannot afford proper housing accommodations elsewhere. Starting from the 1970s, New York was met with serious depopulation, creating large mount of abandoned and desolate neighborhoods including the Lower East Side. This disinvestment attracts large mount of low-income people here for affordable housing. However the reinvestment related to gentrification coming next step increases the housing rent and land values. These people become homeless again. The squatter movement in New York Lower East Side occurred in this kind of situation. Squatters consist of a wide variety of races, ages, family types, class backgrounds, and places of origins. They were homeless people living on the streets, former rent-paying tenants abandoned by their landlords, immigrants, low-income families, working-class adults, and young people. They seized empty buildings without permission and provided alternative voices in local debates surrounding gentrification. This group is united under one principle that urban space belongs to the people, and that housing is a right. This movement attracted media attention, raising public support and urging other actors to take notice of the larger housing problem that exist in the United State. b. 11 spots for the homesteading program

walls, ceilings, electricity, or water. It would take the government a large mount of money and time for the renovation. Instead of government spending more than 1 million dollars on the renovation, most squatters renovated their buildings much quicker and cheaper than it would have taken the city, disrupting the streak of abandonment from dragging neighborhood into further decay. The public is actually benefit from the squatters’ informal transformation. Comparison and Rethinking It is very interesting to find two totally opposite way of thinking were applying to two different typologies in the same area of a city. Comparing these two events which one of them majorly take place in the tenement houses in the Manhattan Grid and the other happens in the tower-in-the-park public housing; one is a bottom-up movement with a strategic reformation from the city, and ended up with a optimistic outcome while the other is a relatively compulsory plan that takes no consideration of the existing condition, it’s easy to observe a conversation between the small and the big, the diverse and the generic. I’m not here to argue the squatter movement is definitely right or the strategy for the tower-in-the-park is absolutely wrong. After so many years of practice, we still haven’t figure out a very proper way to deal with the “towers” and the “park”. After all, when one is wrong at the starting point, it is nearly impossible to make it right. Maybe to tear down these towers is still the best way to renovate the city. Or we might imagine a situation when the situation now went into extreme: the grids are divided into much smaller blocks while the towers becomes higher and denser. Which part we prefer to live in, is totally a personal decision to make.

While the city’s response for decades has been eviction and forceful opposition, a homesteading program existed in New York City, granting legal title and financial assistance to prospective owner-occupiers in exchange for their labor in rehabilitating abandoned city-owned buildings. In 2002, 11 squats in the East Village and Lower East Side were sold to the squatters by the city for $1 each under an urban homesteading agreement. The squats would be turned into cooperatives with monthly maintenance fees as low as $500 per unit, and the apartments could never be sold at a profit. (All the 11 squats are tenement houses in the west part of LES) It is a historical moment for both the government and the squatters. Both sides find a balance point and reach their final agreement. The movement becomes legal to the city and the squatters accept the homesteading program. Now, the 11 squats turned into cooperatives still stand in the East Village and Lower East Side. They are filled with a diverse population, making their way through repairs and the UHAB program. Compared to the tower-in-the-park scheme, the squatting movement is anti-capitalism and totally different with the for-profit housing idea in the western world. Although this movement is definitely an unpleasant thing for the government, there are some facts we cannot ignore. In regards to physical status of these buildings, most were in poor condition with missing

Thesis for Course: A New Space For Housing Professor: Michael Bell, 05.2014