|USFDC Home | USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
High-Rise Neighborhood: Rethinking Community in the Residential Tower by Benjamin Hurlbut of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture School of Architecture and Community Design College of Graduate Studies University of South Florida Major Professor: Theodore Trent Green, M. Arch. Timothy M Clemmons, M. Arch. Rick Rados, M. Arch. Date of Approval: May 12, 2008 Keywords: Modular, Family, Sustainability, Society, Mixed-Use Copyright 2008, Benjamin Hurlbut
ii ACKNOWLEDGEACKNOWLEDGEMENTSFirst, I would like to thank my parents, for their support in all of my studies, not only at the University of South Florida, but all of my life. Without their support in allowing me to follow my own dreams, this would have been I would then like to thank Jessica, your added modelbuilding assistance as well as your support when I needed it the most when I was about to fall apart was invaluable. I would like to thank my chair, Trent Green, for not only guiding me as I designed the project, but for also keeping me grounded in the real world I would also like to thank my committee members. Programming and site selection can be very frustrating, and without Rick Rados help it would have been much designing actual towers, my project would have remained very infeasible. Finally, I would like to thank my classmates from Introduction to Architectural Design and Graphics to Masters Thesis II; without your support, design help, and hilarious company, I would not have made it past Intro. This truly is an epic win for us all.
iCONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES v ABSTRACT xi RESEARCH: RETHINKING THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 Introduction 1 Context: Suburbia 1 Context: Urban 3 Leave Me Alone 4 A Third Dimension 7 RESEARCH: DEFINING COMMUNITY 9 Introduction 9 Place 10 Levels of Community 10
ii Interweaving Community 13 The Thesis 15 Conclusions 16 CASE STUDY: BEDOK COURT CONDOMINIUM 17 Abstract 17 Hypothesis 17 Methodology 17 Analysis 18 Conclusions 22 CASE STUDY: LE CORBUSIERS UNIT DHABITATION 23 Abstract 23 Hypothesis 23 Methodology 24 Analysis 24 Conclusions 31 SITE: SITE SELECTION 34 SITE: SITE ANALYSIS 40
iii SCHEMATIC: PROGRAMMING 49 Intent 49 Primary Programming Issues (Residential) 49 Secondary Programming Issues (Mixed-Use) 50 Residential Floor Count 51 Additional Program 53 Final Programing 53 SCHEMATIC: CONCEPT 60 SCHEMATIC: EXECUTION 63 Introduction 63 The City 63 The Neighborhood 72 The Block 81 The Unit 88 Technical 93 CONCLUSION 99 SOURCES: WORKS CITED 101
iv TABLESLIST OF TABLESTable 5.1. Site Selection Criteria 38 Table 7.1. Programming Chart 54 Table 7.2. Programming Chart Continued 55 Table 7.3. Programming Chart Continued 56
vFIGURESLIST OF FIGURESFigure 2.1. Levels of Community 12 Figure 2.2. Community as a Tree 13 Figure 2.3. City as a Semi-Lattice Versus as a Tree 14 Figure 2.4. High-rise 14 Figure 2.5. High-rise Forest 14 Figure 2.6. Semi-Lattice 15 Figure 3.1. Bedok Court, 17 Figure 3.2. Spacial Use Diagram 18 Figure 3.3. Bedok Court Forecourt Space 19 Figure 3.4. Bedok Court Forecourt Space 19 Figure 3.5. Survey Results 20 Figure 3.6. Typical plan for block 1 22 Figure 4.1. Unit dHabitation 23
vi Figure 4.2. Sketch by Le Corbusier Showing the Ocean Liner Inspiration 24 Source: Jenkins, David. Unit dHabitation. Singapore: Phaidon, 1993. 24 Figure 4.3. Unit dHabitation Use Diagram 25 Figure 4.4. Deck of an Ocean Liner 26 Figure 4.5. Roof of the Unit dHabitation 26 Figure 4.6. Unit dHabitation Rooftop Diagram 27 Figure 4.7. Shop within the Unit dHabitation 28 Figure 4.8. Space beneath the Pilotis 29 Figure 4.9. Residential Street 30 Figure 4.10. Corridor of an Ocean Liner 30 Figure 4.11. Three-Floor Dwelling Unit Diagram 31 Figure 4.12. Typical Bedroom 31 Figure 4.13. Typical Dwelling Unit Floor Plans 32 Figure 5.1. Aerial Photograph of Downtown Tampa 34 Figure 5.2. Land Use Diagram 35 Figure 5.3. Land Use Areas Diagram 36 Figure 5.4. Nodes Diagram 36
vii Figure 5.5. Existing Public Transit Diagram 37 Figure 5.6. Potential Site Diagram 38 Figure 5.7. Site 5 39 Figure 6.1. Site Map 40 Figure 6.2. Labeled Context Surrounding the Site 41 Figure 6.3. Contextual Photographs 42 Figure 6.4. Historic Land Division Map 43 Figure 6.5. Historic Land Division Map 44 Figure 6.6. Climate Diagrams 45 Figure 6.7. Transportation and Access 46 Figure 6.8. Negative Sound Sources 47 Figure 6.9. Positive Views Out 48 Figure 7.1. Massing Diagram 52 Figure 7.4. Overall Adjacency Diagram 57 Figure 7.5. Neighborhood and Dwelling Unit Adjacency Diagrams 58 Figure 7.5. Lobby and Building Community Space Adjacency Diagrams 59 Figure 8.1. Integration Model 60
viii Figure 8.2. Reconnect Diagrammatic Collage 62 Figure 9.1. Physical Model 63 Figure 9.2. Atrium Space 64 Figure 9.3. Pedestrian Node 64 Figure 9.4. Street Procession 1 65 Figure 9.5. Street Procession 2 66 Figure 9.6. Street Procession 3 67 Figure 9.7. Street Procession 4 68 Figure 9.8. Perspective from the River 69 Figure 9.9. Perspective from the Kennedy 70 Figure 9.10. Dual Gateway 71 Figure 9.11. Bottom Floor Usage Exploded Axonometric 72 Figure 9.12. Looking Down the Atrium 73 Figure 9.13. Outdoor Residential Common Area 74 Figure 9.14. First Floor Plan 75 Figure 9.15. Second Floor Plan 76 Figure 9.16. Third Floor Plan 77
ix Figure 9.17. Fourth Floor Plan 78 Figure 9.18. Fifth Floor Plan 79 Figure 9.19. Building Section 80 Figure 9.20. Module Circulation 81 Figure 9.21. Outdoor Residential Common Area 82 Figure 9.22. Outdoor Residential Common Area 83 Figure 9.23. First Typical Floor Plan of Block Module 84 Figure 9.24. Second Typical Floor Plan of Block Module 85 Figure 9.25. Third Typical Floor Plan of Block Module 86 Figure 9.26. Typical Section Through Two Module Floors 87 Figure 9.27. Unit Application Exploded Axonometric 88 Figure 9.28. Unit Application Exploded Axonometric 88 Figure 9.29. Layout Possibilities Diagram 89 Figure 9.30. Unit Jogging Diagrammatic Section 90 Figure 9.31. Front Porch 91 Figure 9.32. Rear Porch 92 Figure 9.33. Structural Diagram 93
x Figure 9.34. Structural Model 94 Figure 9.35. Vertical Circulation 95 Figure 9.36. Vertical Utility Stacks 96 Figure 9.37. Atrium Natural Ventilation 97 Figure 9.38. Perspective From Rooftops 98
xiABSTRACTHIGH-RISE NEIGHBORHOOD: RETHINKING COMMUNITY IN THE RESIDENTIAL TOWERWithin the United States, a growing sense of detachment exists. Conditions in both urban and suburban contexts have created a sense of social detachment where spaces do not exist which encourage social interaction. Without this social activity, neighbors become almost a disposable commodity as relationships never fully develop. This thesis will be an examination of environments which do and do not foster community relationships and an implementation of community into an urban multi-family residence. A major part of the problem is the recent move to the suburbs, but urban buildings also exhibit a lack of spaces which help encourage a community among neighbors. Suburban residents are separated by both spatial and physical boundaries. In addition to this, a social boundary is also created by a lack of interaction between the primary unit and the street as well as a reliance on the automobile which blocks any chance of spontaneous interaction. The typical urban multi-family building exists in a context that chance for spontaneous interaction, but provides these by accident as these spaces are usually provided only as a means to get to ones unit. To discover what community is and how it can thrive, many research methods will be used. Existing building projects which have dealt with this problem will be examined; these precedents include residential buildings such as the Bedok Court Condominium in Singapore and large scale urban areas such as New York City. Theory on community also be looked at to see what it is that fosters community, and what blocks it. Benjamin Hurlbut
xii At the end of the project, a model will be designed for an example site within a typical city of the Unites States neighborhoods. The model being sought will not simply be a multi-family building with community space, but an en vironment where the neighborhood community can grow and thrive.
1 RESEARCH Introduction The idea of the neighborhood is the idea of the community among homes. As the technology of mankind has evolved, so have the methods of residing, and so has the community of the neighborhood. What has resulted can be described as a socially dead place where spaces to promote an urban environments have increasingly favored this form where the individual is favored and the community of the neighborhood is either left out entirely or treated as merely a by-product. What this thesis will seek to do is to create an urban multi-family residence where the community is a vital aspect of living while the individual is not forgotten in the process. The negative environmental and economical impact of such living arrangements is becoming more and more apparent, so many have sought a return to urban living. The question then arises: can the positive and appealing aspects relating to both the community and the individual from the single family house be brought to the large-scale multi-family urban residence? This thesis will examine these aspects as the possible solution to improve the largescale residence. Context: Suburban Suburbia has become synonymous with complete disregard for civic affairs; it has even come to stand for the abolition of the whole idea of neighborhood. When one thinks of suburbia today, one does not think of small towns nestled around railway stations, or of gardened parks; one thinks of endless miles of dreary and dilapidated box houses Throughout history, human beings have lived in situations that widely vary on the spectrum between ur ban and rural. The majority of these people, however, lived RECONNECT: RETHINKING THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD
2 closer to the extremes of either side. Like many things in community planning and architecture and even life, these opposites complemented each other. The urban environment cultivated a complex life and was the seat of power of civilization; it was the center of culture, art, and new ways of thinking. The rural environment, on the other hand, was a simple life connected to nature and the great nurturer of civilization (Goldston 131-134). Located somewhere near the center of the spectrum, Suburbia grew as a response to the distaste of urban life, while still longing for a connection to it. This American dream typically consists of a detached, singlefamily house on a small plot of land in a relatively more rural context than within a traditional city. Although the suburban idea has existed for thousands of years, it has recently grown with the development of public transit systems such as the street car in the late nineteenth century, as well as new, industrialized methods of house construc however, escalated with the invention and mass produc tion of the automobile, which gave any person the freedom from restrictions posed by relative location to train tracks (Ames 1). Since then, the suburbs have continued to grow and rape the landscape, killing the environment. The automobile was seen as one of the great est inventions of the past few centuries. A vast amount of freedom from the open road as opened up to all who could afford one. The suburbs fed off of the types of environments created by this new invention, causing the pedestrian to be all but extinct. Because of this, many suburbs do not even contain sidewalks (Goldston 146). They lack any kind of civic center, which has been replaced by things such as the mall, which one can only reach by automobile (Katz 222). Before the modern automobile variant, suburbs had community centers as the communities were centered on the only convenient form of transport, the railway station (Goldston 21).Chance meetings between pedestrian neighbors become a near impossibility because of this. While being centrally located within the spectrum, this suburban environment lacks many of the positive aspects from both extremes. Goldston criticizes that the best of both worlds are lacking within this environment: the true wilderness of rural areas has been taken out to make way for perfectly manicured lawns, while the ease of access and closeness of the urban environment has been completely removed (130-135). The suburbs lack both the
3 availability of true, wild nature, and the type of recreation center found within an urban environment; both of these have the ability to release tensions which arise from daily living (151). Being at the cultural center for the area, ur ban environments can be said to have a kind of product tension where the tensions result in intellectual stimulation and creativity, but these seem to be lacking within the suburbs (148). Children play a major role in choosing a home, as parents naturally want to keep their children safe from the dangers of the outside world while providing an environment which helps create memorable relationships and nostalgic memories. It is thought that the suburbs would be the ideal community for the child to thrive, and this is one of the primary reasons parents are willing to move to a place where they must commute (Perin 61). Although it can be a good environment for children, it can be taken away as easily as putting up a fence. An example given by Perin stated that a group of families shared their backyards to make one large play area for the community, which soon died after fences were erected (33). According to the 2006 American Community Survey, over half the population of permanent residents within the United States live in detached, single-family houses (U.S. Census Bureau). The majority of these residents use their automobile as a primary source of transpor tation and have no need to walk anywhere. With the possibility of a major energy crisis looming over the country added to the obvious environmental impact of driving ones vehicle in and out of the city every day, the impracticality of suburban living becomes more apparent. This is why this project must be realized within an urban environment. Context: Urban There are many aspects that make living in a multi-family or even an attached single-family residence within the urban context an appealing prospect. The idea of close quarters increases the chances of spontaneous direct social interaction, unlike the suburban life which is dominated by separation caused by larger physical boundaries and the automobile. When physical mobility is constrained, the sense of community within the group is strengthened (Davies 74). This is in addition to the positive environmen within the core of a city. A certain amount of tensions also arise from whichever type of dwelling you choose to inhabit. One type,
4 which comes from suburban living, is the considerably large amount of driving involved with not only the daily commute, but with errands such as shopping (Goldston 148). What used to be a casual walk to the corner store now involves getting in ones car to drive several miles away to the nearest large-scale shopping center. Within the dense urban context, many major amenities, and often ones job are still located within a distance that can be easily reached by walking, bicycling, or taking public transit; this makes owning a car unnecessary and reduces commuting time and stress from commuting. Although stress and tension is unavoidable no matter where you live, it does require an outlet. One of the major reasons to reside within an urban context is relative location. Dense urban centers tend to have all the major amenities, such as grocery stores and Laundromats, within close proximity to residences. This makes pedestrian and bicycle travel a more-than-feasible alternative to the automobile. This can reduce the amount of tension and stress caused by a long commute (Goldston 148). Having to drive a relatively large vehicle (usually oc cupied only by one person) can have a terrible impact on of the owner, which can easily be avoided by walking, bicy cling, or using public transport. Community spaces are also more abundant within the urban context. Public centers, recreation centers, health clubs, parks, and many other such spaces can eas ily be located within walking distance in an urban context. Even within the building itself, casual meetings can occur in spaces such as the laundry room or pool area (Perin 76). Of course the multi-family residence typically lacks many of the features, whether real or perceived, that families and individuals search for: qualities such as privacy and security, privately owned land, and the per ceived calmness of living outside of the urban context. This is where the potential for a new residential type can be found: one that incorporates these ideals along with the ideas of community into the urban context in such a way that can institute a drive to stop needless horizontal sprawl and make a return to the city. Leave Me Alone Human beings desire varying levels of inter action as well as privacy. Different examples can be seen within the wide range of contexts where humans inhabit. Certain environments promote certain types of interaction,
5 or they can completely alienate one person form another. In her book, Perin wrote, Good neighbors leave you alone and they watch out for you (30). Privacy in the suburbs is created by the sheer amount of physical and psychological space between one familys home and the next. Nothing says keep out more than a literal wall, such as the fences often found in the suburbs. These suburban walls are not always tangible, however. As a result of the automobile, the majority of the residents do not use the street unless they are within the seclusion of their car. Front lawns are seen as merely for show, and to see children playing on them would be under what could only be described as odd circumstances. The lawn is seen as part of the public realm of the neighborhood, where the condition is just a continuance of the well kept suburb as a whole. Unless caring for his lawn, one hardly has an opportunity to speak to his neighbor from within the public realm of the street (Perin 30-32). Safety and security play an important role when in the suburbs is created by the homogeneousness of the houses, and thus the people, as well as a degree of privacy created by the nature of the dwelling and their inhabit ants (Baumgartner 10). This homogeneous idea is created by the thought that similar houses attract similar people. Suburban neighborhoods typically provide only a small variance between the selections of houses offered. The homogeneous nature of these developments attracts similar tastes and incomes, which leads the inhabitants to believe that it also attracts similar race and education backgrounds, who, they believe, would have similar moral backgrounds Goldston, a certain type of prejudice is reinforced by this way of thinking; a way of stereotyping that not only those brought up in certain, similar ways are morally correct, but that those of certain racial types can be viewed as a liability and even bring down property values (Goldston 141). This, however, is merely a perceived feeling of security built on false assumptions and stereotypes. If one is to assume that humans are social beings, the suburbs would not be their proper habitat. Suburbs are physically and socially structured in ways that allow a great deal of privacy and separation, and it is not uncommon for people to know few of their fellow residents (Baumgartner 9). The amount of walls, both literal and not, make sure tight bonds within the neighborhood rarely occur. Based
6 on several authors, those who live in the suburbs appear to be very dry and shallow people with few relationships; possible (Goldston 150-151) (Perin) (Baumgartner 9). Although this is not necessarily true, the environment does appear to cultivate social and community-based lifestyles. Social activity in the urban multi-family residence appears to be relatively nurtured compared to the limited-nature of the suburbs. As Perin discovered, it is more likely for one living within this context to invite some one into their home than in a suburban context (74). This is partly due to the increased chance of accidental faceto-face confrontation. To walk from unit to unit within the multi-family building can only be a matter of a few feet, while in a suburban neighborhood one must pass through yards and almost invade ones neighbors personal property. In the suburban environment, as mentioned earlier, there are many walls, both physical and not, which block the casual interaction between residents. These walls are not only the physical fences between houses, but also the social restrictions placed upon the inhabitants by the au tomobile. When leaving ones unit with a multi-family residence, one can merely bump into ones neighbor. In the typical suburban lifestyle, one enters his car far from his neighbor and is lost in his own world; all direct social inter action is cut off by the barriers created by the car itself. ed at all costs. What Baumgarner refers to as moral minimalism is the philosophy of avoidance when dealing with The tactics involved with this philosophy typically include: avoiding those who annoy them, approaching offenders in a passive manor, and complaining to an authority such as the government or neighborhood association rather than confronting the one causing the problem (11). This stems from the lack of social interaction and close relationships resulting from the suburbs (10). within the multi-family residence. Avoiding ones neighbor avoided due to a common sense of place. Because the condominium is seen as a shared investment, neighbors often confront each other at condominium meetings also (Perin 76). These means of interaction are only a by-product of
7 the conditions within the residence, however, and not a result of an environment designed to foster community interaction. A Third Dimension While many of the sources studied so far provided crucial information to support the ideas of this project, many questions still remain. One example would be the contradictions of the ideas of several authors: Baum gartner states that social interaction is more frequent due to more casual interaction within the suburbs (10), while Perin would state the opposite (76). Temporal and contex tual issues also arise from many existing books and studies More studies must then be examined to get a better idea of the thoughts of individuals in a more relevant context. After the initial research is done, and a general knowledge is obtained about the subject, a site will then be selected which shows a need for such a building. Although an exact site is not yet known, it will be located within an urban context. Possible cities are those which suffer from a large amount of suburban sprawl and horizontal growth; an example of which and probable site location is Tampa, Florida. Although the proposed building idea could be built anywhere, an exact site should be selected The proposed project will take on the task of creating a large-scale multi-family residence which incorporates ideas of community by providing spaces which foster such ideas. Using design and space planning strate gies, there will not only be more chances for spontaneous interaction, but chances for this interaction to grow into long-term, deep relationships. This environment where a sense of community will thrive will be created by examin ing ideas of permanence and community pride. These social and community-oriented ideas will create a new form of residential living where social relationships with neighbors will be held as a treasured possession, rather than an avoided confrontation. To supplement the primary goal, the aspects of the individual will be employed as well. Certain ideas of personalization from the suburban environment as well as privacy and security taken from both the urban and the suburban environments will be implemented. These not only act as a means to promote such positive aspects as individuality and permanence but also act to attract those who would never think to live in a multi-family residence.
8 While developing the project, several prece dents will be looked at. Moshe Safdes three-dimensional architecture will be a prime example as he was seeking to reach the same goals as this project (Safdie 4). In his architecture, Safdie sought out a city where transportation and growth would seek out verticality as much as horizontality with ideas such as neighborhood streets within build ings rather than corridors, and vertical public transportation rather than simply elevators (4). Other precedents include Paolo Soleris archology and the metabolism movement in Japan. Rather than expanding horizontally from the central core of a city, residential neighborhoods could ex pand vertically. A community module could be developed to incorporate these important aspects of the neighborhood within a large-scale multi-family residence. These modules could incorporate certain aspects of privacy and individu alization, while still promoting social interaction with the use of community spaces, and pedestrian walks. The idea of the neighborhood is the idea of the community among homes; this thesis will embrace this idea, and bring about a new means of urban dwelling.
9RESEARCHDEFINING COMMUNITY Introduction 1.a. A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government. b. The locality in which such a group lives. 2. A group of people hav ing common interests. 3. Similarly: a community of interests 4. Society as a whole. 5. Ecol A group of plants and animals living with one another in a The idea of community, however, is much more combeings can be anything from a group of children playing football after school to the population of an entire country. A single person can belong to multiple communities, from the community of his house, to the one of his country, to the one of his hobby group or church. This thesis is a focus on a permanent, built environment, thus the types of community involved are those based on a permanent dwelling situation. This means fo cusing on communities within the immediate context, while not completely ignoring other community types. These communities rely on close relative locations, rather than other aspects such as common interests. Transportation within these communities is a major issue, and the invention of the automobile has shown the importance of creating environments that are pedestrian friendly. As a result of Leydens study, neighborhoods designed to be more walkable over driveable had residents who were more likely to know their neighbors, participate politically, trust others, and be socially engaged (Leyden). Most new single-family neighborhoods are designed with a suburban mind-set; this involves a design where local shops are replaced by more centralized malls and markets which
10 require the inhabitants to travel by car to reach, rather than walk (Rivlin 3). Because the automobile is so heavily used, chances for spontaneous interaction among neighbors are lessened, and social bonds are harder to achieve. What follows is an analysis of the idea of community within and around the dwelling. It will be an inquiry into what is constituted community at different levels, and what is needed and desired within. Place Before detailing the types of community involved the various places that an individual encounters in his lifetime. According to Oldenburg, there are three places that this is the place that one calls home, where many indi vidual and family-oriented activities take place (16). The second is the workplace (16). Finally, the third place is a generic designation for a great variety of public places that host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work (16). The third place includes places such as churches, nightclubs, and bars. Levels of Community To isolate this thesis as the only type of community would be a mistake. It is true that a stronger community could be created among users who have their mobility constrained, but because the goal of this project is not to design the next model prison, the ideas of community must be as far reaching as humanly possible (Davies and Her bert 74). This involves not only these ideas of community within the neighborhood, but also at larger and smaller levels. Community within the family must not be forgot ten while, above the neighborhood, the greater levels of community such as the city, and even the country need to also be considered. One has a sense of belonging to each of these. Using Oldenburgs ideas of place as a general guideline, one can begin to dissect the levels of community involved with the place where one dwells. The smallest form of community is the dwelling with ones family, and is the most intimate of community levels. Typically, only those who live in the unit can enter here without the consent of the owner(s). This can be seen in existing models as the single family house, or the unit
11 within the apartment or condominium. The next level can be referred to as the block level. space or area that the residents do not necessarily own in a legal sense, but they still have a sense of ownership or belonging. They can easily get to know those living near them within this community so, although not as strong as the dwelling unit, the block has the potential to house a strong bond between the residents, as well as contain a strong sense of place and community. After the street community comes the neighbor hood. This level houses multiple block communities which form a larger area, containing destinations that can ideally be considered within walking distance. Examples of this can be seen as an entire multifamily building or, within the single-family realm, the entire subdivision or series of residential blocks. Although still consisting primarily of dwelling units, the neighborhood can, and should, consist of second and third places as well. When inhabitants utilize these plac es within their close general vicinity, they are given the opportunity to walk to destinations from their dwelling, rather than drive. The chances of spontaneous interaction between neighbors then increases, causing stronger rela tionships between inhabitants. This is especially true for children, who cannot rely on automobiles for transporta tion. The addition of parks, restaurants, bars, and other third places, as well as places to work, are a vital aspect to the neighborhood. From here, levels of community increase to a point beyond human scale. These consist of large, named districts, towns, cities, counties, states, and so on. Either it would take a substantial amount of time to traverse, or a vehicle is required. Although not completely forgotten, these types of community will not play a major role in the thesis.
12 MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY ABSTRACTIONFigure 2.1. Levels of Community
13 Figure 2.2. Community as a TreeInterweaving Community These communities are all indeed important to the individual, but their relation to each other is another important issue to be addressed. Organizing the structure of communities can be easily done by arranging the levels of community into a diagram resembling a tree. Figure 2.2. shows an example of how this can be accomplished with smaller levels of community being demonstrated as parts of a larger whole. There is a different mode of thinking, however, which shows a different way of organizing community which is linked to Christopher Alexanders method of thought. According to Alexander, the organizational method ural system of organization is the semi-lattice (A City is not a Tree 30). According to Alexander, the tree focuses on disassociation and compartmentalization, where the pieces of a unit cannot interact with any others except through the unit as a whole (31). The semi-lattice is the result of many years of development and have not been deliberately planned by designers (30).
14 to avoid as the high rise must be designed and built at once, and cannot organically develop and evolve like a typical community. Fig 2.4 shows the typical layout of a high-rise, with a vertical core that all inhabitants must use to reach the overall organizing element of the core to reach other Even using Alexanders theory of the semi-lattice, we can only assume that even though an organic city of high rises is not a tree, it can be called a forest (Figure 2.5.). The challenge then is to attempt to design for a semilattice within the high-rise. This could potentially allow the building to not just be its only separate entity within the network of the city, but to actually be woven into the urban fabric. An example of the semi-lattice at work can be seen in Figure 2.6. Within this diagram, the thicker, darker line represents the neighborhood boundaries, while the various dotted and dashed lines represent areas formed by nodes different areas belong to multiple communities, and few Figure 2.4. High-rise Figure 2.3. City as a Semi-Lattice Versus as a Tree, illustration from Christopher Alexander, A City is not a Tree, Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture, Eds. Charles Jencks and Karl Kropf (New York: Wiley Academy, 2006.) Figure 2.5. High-rise Forest
15 belong to the exact same ones. This demonstrates how multiple communities are not wholly contained within each other, but instead overlap to form the semi-lattice. The Thesis This brings to light the question of what type of community is, or can be, involved in a high-rise residential building. As mentioned above, the answer cannot be nar rowed down to a single level of community, however, as the occupants of the building are involved in many of the dif ferent aspects of community throughout their context. This includes not only the community within the building, but the community around it. The community within the high rise, as it relates to this thesis, involves the microcosm of direct interaction found within the neighborhood, as well as the block and dwelling levels. The neighborhood is the type of community that is created by a group of individuals sharing a common locality and a sense of place (Davies and Herbert 63). It is not only acknowledged by the residents, but also merchants and regular users of the area (Rivlin 2). The neighborhood is an environment where these users interact on an almost Figure 2.6. Semi-Lattice, illustration from Christopher Alexander, A City is not a Tree, Part 2. Architectural Forum Vo.122, No 2, May 1965: 58-62 (5 July 2008
16 of pre-historic man, where humanity stuck to groups for survival, the neighborhood community relies on the close relative location of neighbors for social interaction and security (Rivlin 3). This is more important for certain groups of people who are more dependent on their local environment, such as the elderly and the impoverished (Davies and Herbert 63). Going with Alexanders philosophy of the city not being a tree, the challenge is to create a commu nity that does not seek to exclude small localities, such as those at the block level, from the rest of the larger community as a whole. A sense of place is the second vital aspect of the neighborhood community. According to Rivlin, ones at tachment to place involves the development of roots, connections that stabilize and create a feeling of comfort and security, [and] words that people have used to describe their local areas (13). Being able to identify with ones own neighborhood adds an aspect of individuality among the community of neighborhoods that instills a sense of pride. This makes it harder for an individual to move away from the neighborhood, creating a sense of permanence which further enriches relationships within the neighbor hood. Conclusions The residential community is, in fact, a series of communities of various sizes. This research undertaking has dissected the levels of community into multiple levels which can be implemented into a residential high rise build ing. Furthermore, the addition of second and third place programming will ensure a better integration with the sur rounding context of the project. In conclusion, through this better understanding of the ideas of community, a better project can emerge which can be infused into the commu nity to not just be its own separate object, but an integral part of the community.
17 Abstract The Bedok Court condominium in Singapore was an attempt at creating a multi-family high-rise housing proj ect which incorporates the features of single-family houses found in traditional area villages. The major feature of this is the forecourt, an exterior space between the interior of the individual unit and the condominiums circulation. This case study will examine the process it took to develop this type of residence, as well as examine the success of the building. Hypotheses Community spaces within a high-rise building which are modeled after those from a traditional singlefamily house can function to foster community in a similar as privacy and security. Methodology Existing post-occupancy surveys of the residents of the condominium will be used to gain an understand ing of wether or not the forecourts function as community spaces.CASE STUDY BEDOK COURT CONDOMINIUM Figure 3.1. Bedok Court, photograph from J[oo]-H[wa] Bay, Sustainable Community and Environment in Tropical Singapore High-rise Housing: the Case of Bedok Court Condominium. Architectural Research Quarterly 8.3 (2004) 334
18 Analysis Singapore, a country plagued by a high popula tion within a small area, has a large percentage (81%) of its population living in public, high-rise housing projects (Housing 76). The majority of these residences were con structed solely to meet the needs of the population with out much consideration for the quality of community (Bay 333). The Bedok Court condominiums were designed by architect Cheng Jian Fenn in the early 1980s to deal with, among other things, community. This community connection was created by taking ideas from traditional houses in the area. Fenn looked at local traditional housing types from the area for inspira tion. These kampong, or village, houses incorporated angung and serambi spaces, which are exterior veranda spaces (Bay et al. 59). As illustrated in Figure 3.2., the typical layout of this style house involves these exterior space as a way for the inhabitants to interact with those who pass by and as a way to enact the social ritual of greeting and receiving neighbors and visitors (Bay 338). Fenn looked to incorporate these spaces into his residen tial high-rise complex. The result can be seen in the second part of Fig -Figure 3.2. Spacial Use Diagram
19 ure 3.2. which shows a typical section through Block 1 of Bedok Court. Involved is a series of forecourt spaces (Figure 3.3. and 2.4.) which provide the residents with their own personal outdoor space, which can be used as, among other things, a space to meet casual passersby, hold parties, or provide children with a place to play. The building replaces the role of the kampong as the larger social unit, with the corridors replacing the streets. Large voids within the building, seen in Figure 3.3., provide the ability to see users on other levels; this creates what can only be described as a three-dimensional kampong. The basic spacial layout of the traditional kampong houses remains intact, but can this simple infusion of program within the high-rise really foster community? A post-occupancy survey conducted by Joo-Hwa Bay reveals how the occupants use the spaces. A summary of the the majority (86%) of the occupants used the forecourt for social activities, receiving guests, gardening, hobbies, childrens play, study group activities, and parties more than once a week, and 80% observed that they see more of their neighbors from their forecourts (Bay 339). These statistics alone show the spaces to be a success. Figure 3.3. Bedok Court Forecourt Space, photograph from Joo-Hwa Bay, Na Wong, Qian Liang, and Ping Kong, Socio-Environmental Dimensions in Tropical Semi-open Spaces of High-rise Housing in Singapore, Tropical Sustainable Architecture (Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. 2006) 61 Figure 3.4. Bedok Court Forecourt Space photograph from Joo-Hwa Bay, Na Wong, Qian Liang, and Ping Kong. Socio-Environmental Dimensions in Tropical Semi-open Spaces of High-rise Housing in Singapore, Tropical Sustainable Architecture (Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. 2006) 61
20 SURVEY RESULTSFigure 3.5. Survey Results Source: J. H. Bay Sustainable Community and Environment in Tropical Singapore High-rise Housing: the Case of Bedok Court Condominium, Architectural Research Quarterly 8.3 (2004) 333-343, Figure 15
21 Gardening, an activity that can easily be over looked as a social activity, is a prevalent activity in Bedok Court; and as the forecourts are available to the occu pants as their own, personal spaces which they can do with as they please, gardening is encouraged. As seen from Bays survey, 80% of the occupants use their fore courts for gardening (Bay 339). In a later survey conduct ed by Bay, it was found that occupants with more plants on their forecourts tended to know more neighbors, thus having a stronger sense of community (Bay et al. 59). The time it takes to tend plants allows for more time in the forecourts, increasing the chances for spontaneous interaction with neighbors. Children, the one type of occupant that cannot leave the safety of the building without a guardian, must seek entertainment within the building. 72% of those surveyed used the forecourts for childsplay (Bay 339). If one was to assume that every unit within Bedok Court had at least one child as a resident, this would still remain a high percentage of users. According to the survey, 84% of those interviewed reported that the environment was good to bring up children (Bay 339). The forecourts are not solely for the adult to mingle with those passing by, but they also promote a sense of community among those not yet old enough to venture out into the real world as well. The ideas of community have been made very apparent, but what of the ideas of the individual? The aspects of individual include security, privacy, and person alization. The forecourts provide for the personalization aspect, as the occupants had the freedom to do almost anything with them. Of the 280 units, only one family decided to wall-up the forecourt to extend their interior space (Bay 341). The rest, however, choose to keep their forecourts as exterior gathering spaces. Being open by design, one would think the fore court would not have any element of privacy. Not only are they open to adjacent forecourts and circulation on the however, 90% of those surveyed did not feel a lack of privacy in the forecourt (339). Interior spaces still remain as spaces of total privacy, but the forecourts still function as a semi-private space. Security is always an important issue in dwell ing. It does not solely rely on how secure the dwelling is,
22 though, as community aspects also play an important role. In the case of Bedok Court, the high levels of community brought about by the rather large chance for spontane ous interaction led in turn to a strong sense of commu nity and security (Bay 338). The survey result for users who felt that there was a high sense of security was 96% (339). The sense of security is not only present, but it is also reinforced by the strong presence of community. Conclusions The residents use the term kampong to refer to both the spatial system and community within their buildings (Bay et al. 67). This fact alone could be seen as reason enough to prove that bringing the idea of the traditional, single-family house of the region into the high-rise development is more than a possibility. The results from the multiple studies, however, provide plenty of evidence to lead to the conclusion that this is a more-than-feasible idea. This still remains a theory, however, as the cli mate and culture of Singapore varies greatly from that of Tampa. The Bedok Court condominiums themselves cannot simply be transplanted, as Americans expect spacial condi tions that defer from the expectations of Singaporeans. This case study has proven that the implementation of community spaces from single-family homes into denser, high-rise developments can work, so a different study of American-style single-family homes will need to be con ducted. Figure 3.6. Typical plan for block 1 illustration from J[oo]-H[wa] Bay, Sustainable Community and Environment in Tropical Singapore High-rise Housing: the Case of Bedok Court Condominium. Architectural Research Quarterly 8.3 (2004) 336
23CASE STUDY Abstract Le Corbusiers Unit dHabitation in Marseilles, France is a monument to the modernist movement and has been looked highly upon by those in the architectural er sought to challenge the traditional ideas of the housing block and bring about his ideas of the vertical garden city and logements prolongs, or extended dwellings (Jenkins). The purpose of this case study is to examine this project in relation to the ideas of community established in the success, examining how the successful attributes of community from the Unit can be integrated into a new building within a new context. Hypothesis The Unit dHabitation in Marseiles, France succeeds research undertaking.LE CORBUSIERS UNIT DHABITATION Figure 4.1. Unit dHabitation
24 Figure 4.2. Sketch by Le Corbusier Showing the Ocean Liner In spiration, sketch from David Jenkins, Unit dHabitation (Singapore: Phaidon, 1993)Methodology To better understand this building, an understanding lowing this, an extensive analysis of the layout of the build ing will be conducted to understand where the community spaces are located and how they relate to other aspects of the building and the surrounding context. In addition to Analysis To understand the community within the Unit nal thoughts behind it. Going with his ideas of the machine for living, he sought to relocate the single-family dwelling within a collective mechanism that would allow it to be systemized and sustained (Jenkins). The ideal sought be Le Corbusier was a self-contained unit which mimicked the lifestyle of an ocean liner as seen in the sketch drawn by Le Corbusier in Figure 4.2. (Jenkins). This idea involved a virtually self-contained and self-sustaining unit, with many amenities incorporated within the building.
25 Figure 4.3. Unit dHabitation Use Diagram RESIDENTIAL UNITS COMMUNITY SPACES CIRCULATION CORE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPING
26 Perhaps the most notable of amenities taken from the cruise ship is the community deck space. A comparison can be seen in Figures 4.4. and 4.5. The features involved on the rooftop include an open-air theater, gymnasium, two solariums, a 300 meter running track, a childrens nursery, childrens pool, and a play area for children (Jenkins). A plan of the roof deck can be found in Figure 4.6. The idea of these spaces was to emphasise the socially self-support ive idea where the rooftop provides community space for the inhabitants of the building, and separates them from the rest of the surrounding context. The successes within the rooftop lie within the fact that there exists a space where community of the neighbor hood could use and feel that it is their space. Where it can be observed to be a failure, however, is when it is looked at in relation to Alexanders ideas of the city not being a tree discussed earlier. The intentional detachment of the users of the building to the rooftop implies segregation and compartmentalization, what Alexander refers to as part of the design pattern of a tree, and not the desired semi-lattice (A City is not a Tree 30-31). The high parapet wall further seeks to hide the surrounding environment, only revealing the distant scenery, further emphasizing a sense of the unit Figure 4.4. Deck of an Ocean Liner, photograph from Jim Zimmerlin, Carnival Cruise Lines: Elation Cruise Review & Photos, The Zim Fam California
27 Figure 4.6. Unit dHabitation Rooftop Diagram, illustration from David Jenkins, Unit dHabitation (Singapore: Phaidon, 1993) WIND-BREAKER AND STAGE FOR OPEN-AIR THEATER VENTILATION STACK GYMNASIUM 300 METRE LONG RUNNING TRACK EASTERN SOLARIUM UPPER TERRACE LEVEL WESTERN SOLARIUM BALCONY LIFT TOWER CR CHE CHILDRENS POOL CHILDRENS PLAY AREA ARTIFICIAL MOUNTAINS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
28 being its own, separate entity (Jenkins) The running track was also seen as an odd addition, as the surrounding green spaces were more suitable for runners than a mindless running track on a concrete roof (Woudstra 148). Clearly, the correct means to establish community. The commercial spaces halfway up the building were designed to provide services for the inhabitants of the building. These services include a 24 room hotel with a restaurant and bar, shops, laundry, bakery, butcher, hair (Jenkins). The shopping street was not very successful, how ever. One reason for this was a result of the lack of business since the shops had to rely solely on the occupants of the building, since they were housed at the seventh and eighth (Woudstra 148). Casual passers-by, as not have a opportunity to see storefronts unless already on one of the shopping levels for another purpose. To add to to the great distance between the shops and the loading areas (148). These spaces later became mostly architects Figure 4.7. Shop within the Unit dHabitation, photograph from LE COR BUSIER La Cit Radieuse Marseille. Villes-en-France.org (22 June 2008
29 To the casual observer, the way the building meets the ground must be one of the oddest features of the build busier opted to rise the building on pilotis, allowing the surrounding garden to go under the building (Tse). This added to the disconnect to the surrounding context as the entry. This left a space which is not very useful, rather than a function which engages the surrounding area, such programmatic function, it creates a feeling that the building is separate from not only the surrounding context, but even the ground plane itself, similar to a boat separating itself from the water. Figure 4.8. Space beneath the Pilotis photograph from LE CORBUSIER La Cit Radieuse Marseille. Villes-en-France.org (22 June 2008
30 as the priority while secondary uses, such as the corridors, were given little attention. These interior streets were merely simple interior corridors (Kostof 722). Although unlike a real street, they were just long, dark spaces used as a means to get to ones unit, leaving social interaction as an accidental by-product (Sherwood 125). A parallel can be seen to a contemporary suburban street, however, as the exclusive use of the car dissolves social interaction, and the social aspects are all but gone. As seen in Figures 4.10. and 4.12., there is little difference, other than size, between the corridors in the Unit dHabitation and an average cruise ship. The corridors in both contexts appear to function only as a whole prioritizes community spaces that are for the en Figure 4.9. Residential Street, photograph from David Jenkins, Unit dHabitation (Singapore: Phaidon, 1993) Figure 4.10. Corridor of an Ocean Liner photograph from nickherber, Deck 4 on QM2,
31 The units themselves, even though they contain a small, double-high space, are simple, narrow units which wrap around the central, double-loaded corridor so they can receive light from both the east and west sides of the building (see Figure 4.11.). The spaces suffer from the nar row overall size, as can be seen in one of the bedrooms in Figure 4.13. The most notable feature, however, is the layout of the units themselves. When entering the unit, one must go through several spaces before entering the hub, which, rather than some sort of community space, is a hallway. Similar to the means of entering the unit, the means of entering the bedrooms and bathrooms is through the use social function (see Figure 4.13. and 4.14.). Conclusions The cruise ship can be a good model for creating community within a single entity in a somewhat-extreme environment. Le Corbusiers Unit dHabitation, however, exists in an environment where space allows for social en vironments at smaller levels, such as at the dwelling level, and exists where the context does not and should not be separated from the building. The building only provides for community within Figure 4.11. Three-Floor Dwelling Unit Diagram Figure 4.12. Typical Bedroom photograph from LE CORBUSIER La Cit Radieuse Marseille. Villes-en-France.org (22 June 2008
32 ENTRY KITCHEN DINING STAIR BEDROOM BEDROOM TERRACE TERRACE HALLWAY MASTER BEDROOM LIVING TOILET SHOWER ENTRY KITCHEN DINING STAIR BEDROOM BEDROOM TERRACE TERRACE HALLWAY MASTER BEDROOM LIVING TOILET SHOWERFigure 4.13. Typical Dwelling Unit Floor Plans, illustration from David Jen kins, Unit dHabitation (Singapore: Phaidon, 1993) Figure 4.14. Typical Unit Adjacency Diagrams to occupy one of these parts of the building to encounter his neighbors in a pleasant environment. Within the dwell ing unit itself, one must navigate the corridor to reach the community space, rather than the community space itself being the node of social interaction. While the transition as pects of the street remain intact, the social aspects remain missing. Choosing to lift the building from the surrounding context to stand alone as its own entity proved to be a major downfall for the building. Opportunity for spontane ous interaction is next to impossible since those using the building are the only ones with a reason to inhabit it. Retail, rather than being on the ground level where it could be used by those living elsewhere in the city, was located in the center where it could only be used by inhabitants of the such as the play area and running track, were also forced where they did not belong. In conclusion, a building cannot exist on its own, as it is part of the city. At the same time, units rely on the larger whole to exist, but they also require their own levels of self-sustaining community. Le Corbusiers Unit
33 dHabitation relied on a single level of community, and thus did not wholly succeed. If community is a focus, all levels must be considered, and none should be left out.
34SITE SELECTION The intent of this thesis is to create a high-rise multi-family residence that not only promotes community within the neighborhoods of the building, but it also pro motes community within the surrounding area. The proj ect should be within a city suffering from large amounts of suburban sprawl. The site, therefore, is very important to the project. Any city could have potentially been chosen for the project; Tampa was chosen as the site as it suffers greatly from suburban sprawl and has a downtown with many vacant lots and abandoned buildings. The downtown area was selected because the high-rise building needs to have relative density within its vicinity to support the pedestri an-friendly environment desired. The community within the building obviously does the surrounding community is necessary, direct links to Figure 5.1. Aerial Photograph of Downtown TampaSITE
35 what is referred to as the second (work) and third (play) places should be sought out to weave the building into the urban fabric. Links to public transportation, both exist ing and proposed, should also be considered. These fac tors all add to the existing list of functions that should be taken into account when choosing a site for any residential high-rise such as locating away from industrial areas and selecting a site with pleasing views out. Site selection within the downtown area started with an analysis of land use (see Figure 5.2.). Keeping with an idea of sustainability, existing buildings were to be kept standing if possible, so prime site locations were either empty lots or parking lots, which downtown Tampa has many of. A further analysis of the areas can be seen authors understanding of the land use in relation to the of downtown which show importance to the project. Figure 5.2. Land Use Diagram COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL HOTEL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL PARKING STRUCTURE PARKING LOT PARK INTERSTATE (BARRIER)
36 Figure 5.4. Nodes Diagram Figure 5.3. Land Use Areas Diagram COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL PARKING LOT PARK INTERSTATE (BARRIER) TRANSIT HUB ARTS COMMERCE EDUCATION ENTERTAINMENT EDUCATION
37 Figure 5.5. Existing Public Transit Diagram HARTLINE BUS TROLLEY (BUS) TROLLEY (TRAIN)Existing public transit can be seen in Figure 5.5. Several proposals of either creating a public transportation system for downtown or extending the existing trolley sys tem have been developed, but none were concrete enough to be a consideration for the diagram. Potential sites were then selected, as seen in Figure 5.6., which were chosen primarily on relative location to the dense areas of downtown, current use, and the ability sites which hold the potential to house a larger complex of buildings were shaded darker, while sites which could handle little more than a single structure were shaded lighter. A small list of criteria was developed where each site location was graded on a scale of 1 to 10. The list with results can be found in table 5.1, and the diagram can be found in Figure 5.6. Site 5 was ultimately chosen, as it held the most potential across the board. The only aspect where other sites could possibly have substantially more potential was integration with the neighboring park as well as adding a ing. Other third place components are located nearby,
38 Figure 5.6. Potential Site Diagram BUILDING COMPLEX SITE NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 INTEGRATION INTO DENSE URBAN FABRIC OF DOWNTOWN 3 5 7 9 8 3 9 3 1 2 1 6 0 FEASIBILITY OF MIXED-USE ASPECT 8 8 9 8 9 5 7 8 6 8 8 8 9 WITHIN PROXIMITY TO 2ND PLACE 2 5 7 9 8 1 8 1 1 1 1 6 3 WITHIN PROXIMITY TO 3RD PLACE 8 7 9 8 6 7 6 10 1 0 1 7 1 CONNECTION TO CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSIT 2 3 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 3 3 VIEWS 3 3 3 3 6 3 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 UNBLOCKED SUNLIGHT ACCESS 8 5 7 4 9 7 8 9 9 7 10 9 9 ACCESS TO CITY COMMUNITY SPACES 7 9 9 9 10 7 9 9 10 4 6 7 7 VEHICULAR ACCESS 4 4 4 5 4 3 2 2 5 3 6 5 4 7 8 9 9 9 7 4 8 8 10 4 4 4 TOTAL 45 49 56 57 62 36 56 49 39 29 38 54 39Table 5.1. Site Selection Criteriaand would only require a walk or short bus ride to reach. These include the shops and nightlife on Franklin St. as well as facilities of the arts such as Tampa Museum of Art and the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center. The site was also chosen as a prime location to provide program which can give back to the community. The site is large enough in size to allow for ample space exist with a level of parking. The connection to the dense urban fabric allows for a street connection which can contain shops, cafes, and such to activate the street and incorporate the building into the surrounding community; areas with the potential to bring users for third place uses include The News Center to the south, the University of Tampa, the neighboring church, and the commercial, resi dential, and hotel uses of downtown right across the river.
39 The connection to the river has the potential for a river walk-type element which can easily connect with Plant Park on the other side of Kennedy Boulevard and possibly with the proposed river walk across the river. This site, although not necessarily located within potential to house a very strong mixed-use residential high-rise. Figure 5.7. Site 5
40SITE ANALYSISThis site, which can be seen highlighted in. 1, is located in what is referred to as the Downtown area. It consists of two lots which are currently used for parking and retention purposes. It is intersected in the middle by South Parker Street. Figure 6.2. shows the site with the by West Kennedy Boulevard to the North, West Keller Av enue to the South, the Hillsborough river to the East, and South Plant Avenue to the West. Figure 6.3. contains photographs of the immediate ly surrounding context, including the bridge which could potentially house a pass through underneath. Existing site conditions can be found in Figure 6.6. As seen in Figure 6.5., the site used to house several housing plots, but was later altered. Figure 6.6. contains basic climate data for the area, including a detailed sun chart. Data relating to how one would access the site can be found in Figure 6.7.; Figure 6.1. Site Map one important feature to note is the lack of crosswalks on West Kennedy Boulevard until South Hyde Park Avenue. Based on the authors visits to the site, Figure 6.8. dem onstrates the negative sound sources emanating into the Kennedy Boulevard. Finally, Figure 6.9 shows the posi tive views out, blocked at greater heights only by Tampa Baptist Manor.SITE
41 GRAND CENTRAL AVE GRAND CENTRAL AVE TAMPA BAPTIST MANOR WFLA TAMPA TRIBUNE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH RIVERGATE TOWER VENU SITE SHERATON HOTEL UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA HENRY B PLANT PARK SOUTH HYDE PARK AVE SOUTH PLANT AVE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER UNIVERSITY DRIVE WEST KENNEDY BLVD SOUTH PARKER ST WEST KELLER AVE Figure 6.2. Labeled Context Surrounding the Site
42 Figure 6.3. Contextual Photographs
43 Figure 6.4. Historic Land Division Map RETENTION POND PARKING CHAIN-LINK FENCE TREES FIRE HYDRANT
44 Figure 6.5. Historic Land Division Map
45 Figure 6.6. Climate Diagrams
46 AUTOMOBILE MAJOR AUTOMOBILE MINOR PEDESTRIAN BUS STOP BOATFigure 6.7. Transportation and Access
47 NOISE LEVEL +Figure 6.8. Negative Sound Sources
48 TAMPA BAY HILLSBOROUGH RIVER DOWNTOWN SKYLINE UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA AND PLANT PARKFigure 6.9. Positive Views Out
49 SCHEMATIC PROGRAMMINGIntent The intent of the project is to display the ideas of the thesis. The major ideas of the thesis lie within the community and neighborhood of the dwelling units within a high-rise, so the major part of the program will of course be a high-rise residential building. The secondary aspects, however, involve weaving the building into the ur ban fabric. This involves additional program which allows the building to join with and give back to the community. This program includes retail, restaurants, and nightclubs and possible future extension of the river walk. The tertiary aspects are those required by the primary and secondary programs which are not necessar ily linked to the ideas of the project. These include spaces such as parking (for the residences and businesses), load etc. Primary Programming Issues (Residential) The following goals will be used when developing the program for the project: The project will emphasize community at all levels 1. (City, Neighborhood, Block, Unit). The units will ideally be designed with families in mind, 2. Aspects from single-family detached homes will be 3. included. Play areas for children should be provided. 4. Adult amenities should be provided. 5. The following objectives will help bring about these objectives: Within each unit, all private spaces (bedrooms, etc.) will come from the central community space. A module will be needed which contains the main com
50 munity space(s) for the neighborhood that all individu al house units will be connected to directly. Each unit will have a transition space which is semi public to connect it to the neighborhood community space. Each Module will be directly connected to a vertical circulation community space. The vertical circulation space will have connections to building community functions such as the pool and parking. The vertical circulation spaces will have a direct con nection to the street through a transition space. The majority, if not all, of the units will be 2 to 3 bed room units. The building will not emphasize features which are available only in units from other buildings which cater only to the rich, such as many large bathrooms and oversized private balconies. To achieve goal 3, private, exterior spaces will be provided to allow for gardening aspects. The transition space can also be used for this. An area large enough to be the size of a single-family yard will be provided to allow for children to play. A larger playground for the entire building will be pro vided elsewhere in the building. A pool will be provided. A workout area will be provided. Secondary Programming Issues (Mixed-Use) The following goals will be used when developing the program for the project: The building will take advantage of sources of users for retail uses from the current and proposed sur rounding context. Space will be provided for utility access. Additional parking will be provided for employees. The following objectives will help bring about these objectives: As the main circulation corridor for the area, the Ken nedy Boulevard frontage will be given priority for at tracting users from off-site. The riverfront will be utilized for additional retail space. Plant Avenue provides an opportunity to allow for ad ditional retail program. Keller Avenue is optimally suited for utility and vehicular access.
51 Residential Floor Count Because of the unique nature caused by the addi tion of neighborhoods into the building, a unique problem arises with the programming requirements. The neigh borhood spaces each will have a certain number of units connected to them. This neighborhood module cannot be created simply by looking at existing buildings of a similar type, since none currently exist. Several limitations already exist for the site. One of which is the overall height limitation imposed by the FAA, which is currently 625 feet ( Jackovics). SkyPoint, a tion in downtown Tampa, is roughly 361 feet tall and 32 stories (SkyPoint). This translates into a little over 11 feet will have to be devoted to parking, however. One and a half parking spaces should be devoted to each unit, so for the sake of initial programming, two spaces per unit was assumed. The site itself is large enough to house two down town blocks, and while assuming a combination of the two blocks by eliminating Parker Street within the site is pos sible, the creation of a super block is not at all necessary. This then brings about the question as to whether or not the allocation of both blocks for the intervention of the project is necessary. To use only one block would leave an open gap on either the east or west side of the site, depending on which was chosen. The disconnect created by this gap would not only break the street frontage along West Kennedy Boulevard, but it would show the project as being a possession of either downtown or the University of Tampa area, not fully integrating the project with the entire surrounding community. In order to allow one block the freedom to easily issues of parking, one block is selected as the high-rise block, the massings of the buildings are stepped down from downtown to the University of Tampa area. This was fabric. The riverfront property is also better utilized with the residential building placed along its banks, rather than a parking garage.
52 Figure 7.1. Massing Diagram
53 Additional Program To further the idea of integration with the sur rounding urban fabric, a commercial aspect would be ideal. The addition of retail space can allow for uses such as small restaurants, a market, or shops which can cater to not only the residential users, but also to those of the nearby church, university, residential, and commercial uses. Additionally, users of the proposed river walk along the eastern shore of the Hillsborough River will have the opportunity to use the site. These uses will work to acti vate the street and reinforce the pedestrian connection between downtown and the University of Tampa area by giving pedestrians a reason to occupy this stretch of West Kennedy Boulevard. To further utilize the site location along the Hills borough River, attention should be given to boaters. Given a place to dock their boats, this can potentially bring a great many more users to the site. Automobile parking will be provided on the second ary site, with the upper levels dedicated to residents with a pedestrian bridge, while the lower levels are dedicated that many of the nonresidential users of the site will uti lize pedestrian and public transit modes of transportation. Final Programing The program that has been developed for the site can be found in Tables 7.1. through 7.3. This includes the programming for each site and both the residential the project, along with several bubble diagrams following which illustrate spacial relationships within the project.
54 HIGH-RISE BLOCK RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM UNIT x 378 1 BEDROOM x 126 2 BEDROOM x 126 3 BEDROOM x 126 INTERIOR MASTER BED 155 149 143 CLOSET 14 14 14 BED 2 120 137 CLOSET 12 12 BED 3 132 CLOSET 12 MASTER BATH 42 42 42 SECONDARY BATH 42 42 LINEN CLOSET 2.7 2.7 2.7 LAUNDRY (MINIMUM FOR 2 MA CHINES IN A CLOSET) 12 12 12 KITCHEN 100 100 100 DINING 60 60 60 LIVING 200 200 200 WATER HEATER + HVAC 8 8 8 STORAGE 36 36 36 INTERIOR TOTAL 675 860 1,045 EXTERIOR "PORCH" 120 150 300 PRIVATE BALCONY 58 73 86 EXTERIOR TOTAL 178 223 386 UNIT TOTAL 853 1083 1431 MODULE x 21 EXTERIOR COMMUNITY SPACE 2845Table 7.1. Programming Chart
55 INTERIOR COMMUNITY SPACE x 2 245 ELECTRICAL CLOSET 114 COMMUNICATIONS CLOSET 114 COMMON SPACE INDOOR COMMUNITY SPACE 9,030 FIRST FLOOR LOBBY 1,400 RECEPTION 225 240 MAIL ROOM 156 PACKAGE STORAGE 78 STAFF BREAK ROOM 260 STAFF TOILET x 2 37 FURNITURE STORAGE ROOM 325 TOTAL 11,788 RESIDENT DROP-OFF AS NEEDED POOL DECK 17,385 COMMERCIAL 34,660 OFFICE 47,580 TOTAL 82,240 SERVICE BUILDING MAINTENANCE OFFICE 190 225 TRUCK LOADING DOCK x 2 GENERATOR ROOM 170 MAIN ELECTRIC ROOM 165Table 7.2. Programming Chart Continued
56 METER ROOM 215 WATER PUMP ROOM 240 MAIN COMMUNICATIONS ROOM 100 ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ROOM x 4 AS NEEDED CHILLER x 4 AS NEEDED WATER STORAGE x 4 AS NEEDED IN-FILL BLOCK COMMERCIAL 5,700 OFFICE 147,600 TOTAL 153,300 PARKING PARKING x 580 SPOTS 195,200Table 7.3. Programming Chart Continued
57 Figure 7.4. Overall Adjacency Diagram BUILDING COMMUNITY SPACE NEIGHBORHOOD MODULE NEIGHBORHOOD MODULE CITY COMMUNITY CITY COMMUNITY CORE COMMUNITY SPACE UTILITY ACCESS UTILITY AC CESS RETAIL RETAIL PARKING PARKING BUILDING COMMUNITY SPACE WEST BUILDING EAST BUILDING
58 Figure 7.5. Neighborhood and Dwelling Unit Adjacency Diagrams 1 BEDROOM UNIT 2 BEDROOM UNIT 3 BEDROOM UNIT CORE COMMUNITY SPACE CORE COMMUNITY SPACE EAST BUILDING WEST BUILDING EXTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY SPACE EXTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY SPACE INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY SPACE INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY SPACE STORAGE STORAGE UTILITY CLOSET UTILITY CLOSET FLOOR CIRCULATION FLOOR CIRCULATION DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNIT MASTER BED ROOM MASTER BED ROOM MASTER BED ROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM PRIVATE BALCONY PRIVATE BALCONY PRIVATE BALCONY BATH BATH BATH BATH BATH KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN PORCH SPACE PORCH SPACE PORCH SPACE EXTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY SPACE FLOOR CIRCULATION
59 GYM WOMENS SHOWER WOMENS SHOWER POOL MENS SHOWER MENS SHOWER CORE COMMUNITY SPACE LOBBY PARKING MAIL ROOM ADMINISTRATION TOILET CITY COMMUNITY PACKAGE STORAGEFigure 7.5. Lobby and Building Community Space Adjacency Diagrams
60SCHEMATICCONCEPTThis thesis is intended to present a project that could possibly exist in multiple contexts. Built interven tions should be designed in relation to its context, how ever, so each project would still need to be individually designed to relate to its surroundings. This project will be incorporated into a context consisting of multiple factors including Downtown Tampa, the University of Tampa and Plant Park, the Hillsborough River, and the News Center. the surrounding context. As represented in the model in Figure 8.1., the horizontal elements are greeted at differ ent levels by the vertical elements of the intervention, not only allowing the continuation of the existing horizontal fabric, but also integrating a new element which does not simply stand alone. Figure 8.1. Integration Model
61 The second conceptual point relies heavily on the site, but can easily represent many urban sites. The thing that stands out the most about this site is its emptiness. This is especially noticeable when comparing it to the sur rounding context. The First Baptist Church and adjoining buildings along Kennedy Blvd. create a strong urban edge which is pushed up to the street, but is interrupted by this pair of large grass lots on the way to downtown. This disconnect of the urban edge acts as an understood barrier separat the University of Tampa area. This pedestrian barrier cre Added to this is the under-utilized riverfront. The potential exists of a connection to both the off-hours employees of the news center as well as a connection to Plant Park. Figure 8.2. demonstrates conceptually how a connection could work to not only reconnect the broken context, but to infuse a new branch of programming.
62 Figure 8.2. Reconnect Diagrammatic Collage
63 SCHEMATIC EXECUTIONFigure 9.1. Physical Model Introduction From the research previously gathered, it is impos sible to focus on any one scale to achieve a successful ur ban project. To describe the thesis project requires that it be broken down into sections related to the varying scales of the project. These scales, going from the macro scale to the micro, are the city, the neighborhood, the block, and the unit. An additional section has also been provided to discuss the technical aspects of the project. The City At the scale of the city, the most important issues involve the surrounding the context. This includes inter this project deals with each of these issues in relation to the thesis. The project is arranged around a central atrium
64 Figure 9.2. Atrium Space Figure 9.3. Pedestrian Nodespace which is illustrated in Figure 9.2. This space is used to connect the various functions of the building together and will be further discussed in the next section. For the purposes of the city scale, however, it needs to be under stood that it acts as the node of the project from which all things come from. the most important issues with any new construction. The and from the proposed river walk. Like any good urban project, the proposed intervention provides retail along ing the ideas of the thesis, however, this project seeks functions as well. This is done with the use of the central atrium space. As illustrated in Figure 9.3., the building the building by pulling the retail edges toward the center. This is also aided by the water and green edges also push ing pedestrians inward. Figures 9.4. 9.7. demonstrate a procession from the street edge to the river walk.
65 Figure 9.4. Street Procession 1
66 Figure 9.5. Street Procession 2
67 Figure 9.6. Street Procession 3
68 Figure 9.7. Street Procession 4
69 Figure 9.8. Perspective from the River
70 Figure 9.9. Perspective from the Kennedy
71 Existing natural features are important to any site and should not be ignored. The most important contextual features involved with the project are the Hillsborough River and Plant Park. Both of which are addressed by pro posing a river walk, which is rendered in Figure 9.8., along the waters edge. The primary focus of the river walk is connecting the pedestrians to the river, and it is also used as a marina where casual boaters as well as the proposed water taxi can dock so boaters have a chance to sued the functions of the river walk. The secondary focus is to pro vide a secondary function along the river which connects to plant park, which, although well kept, is mostly ignored by most pedestrians currently; this is especially due to the fact that the park does not lie on the way to any pedes trian destination. The river walk can act to activate both of these areas. Figuratively, what was sought was an interaction with the existing downtown skyline. The most notable connection is with the nearby Rivergate Tower. The interac tion between the two towers, which hold a similar shape in that they are both somewhat cylindrical, creates a gate way in two directions. This is illustrated in Figure 9.10., where the river is shown in blue and W. Kennedy Blvd. is Figure 9.10. Dual Gateway
72 Figure 9.11. Bottom Floor Usage Exploded Axonometricshown in orange. The project completes the gateway originally intended by the Rivergate Tower as well as creates a new gateway for one of the primary arteries into down town Tampa. At the city level, the tower successfully infuses itself into its surrounding context. It does not simply set itself back as a separate object, but instead, it not only draws passing pedestrians into it, but acts to activate oth erwise dead spaces. The Neighborhood The neighborhood level focuses on the building as a whole. This is primarily focused around the central atri um, which is rendered in Figure 9.12. Figure 9.11. shows space is provided for residents to use as common areas, including the pool area which is rendered in Figure 9.13. RETAIL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
73 Figure 9.12. Looking Down the Atrium
74 Figure 9.13. Outdoor Residential Common Area
75 A D E H F G I J K L O M N P C C C C B B B B B B B Q R S T U BGROUND FLOOR PLANA NEIGHBORHOOD ATRIUM B RETAIL SPACE C OFFICE SPACE D RESIDENCE LOBBY E FURNITURE STORAGE F G ADMINISTRATION OFFICE H PACKAGE STORAGE I MAIL ROOM J STAFF LOUNGE K BUILDING MAINTENANCE OFFICE L M TRUCK LOADING DOCK N O P PARKING GARAGE Q COMMUNICATIONS ROOM R WATER PUMP ROOM S METER ROOM T GENERATOR U ELECTRIC ROOM Figure 9.14. First Floor Plan
76 Figure 9.15. Second Floor Plan SECOND FLOOR PLANA NEIGHBORHOOD ATRIUM B RETAIL SPACE C OFFICE SPACE D PARKING GARAGE A C C C C C C B B B B B D
77 THIRD FLOOR PLANA NEIGHBORHOOD ATRIUM B OFFICE SPACE C RESIDENCE COMMON AREA D RESIDENCE POOL DECK E PARKING GARAGE A B B B B B C C E DFigure 9.16. Third Floor Plan
78 Figure 9.17. Fourth Floor Plan A NEIGHBORHOOD ATRIUM B OFFICE SPACE C RESIDENCE COMMON AREA D PARKING GARAGEFOURTH FLOOR PLAN A B B B B B C C D
79 Figure 9.18. Fifth Floor Plan A NEIGHBORHOOD ATRIUM B OFFICE SPACE C RESIDENCE COMMON AREA D PARKING GARAGEFIFTH FLOOR PLAN A B B B B B B C D
80 Figure 9.19. Building Section
81 This is similar to the effect seen in the Bedok Court Con dominiums in Singapore. Two additional interior spaces (one on each side) are provided and the use can be established by the resi dents of the block. which will be discussed in the next section. A typical sec tion between two modules can be found in Figure 9.26. The Block At the block level, the focus is on the module of residential units arranged around a central community linked to the central atrium, where the elevators can be located. Each typical block module consists of 18 units on The yard space is community-owned among the 18 units and the most important space on the block. The space is intended to be used as a yard for the residents, and thus can be used for virtually any use that a yard can be used. Some residents may want to use it as a park, some may wish to use it as a garden, while others may want to add a jungle gym for children. These uses are il lustrated in Figure 9.22. Circulation relies heavily on the level with the yard space and is illustrated in Figure 9.17. A user would exit at his block level and circulate into the yard space. From here, one would circulate up to his unit if it lies on an upper level of the block. This insures a more closely-knit group as one uses the public street in front of the unit and is seen by others, where one is provided with the chance for spontaneous interaction with ones neighbors. Figure 9.20. Module Circulation
82 Figure 9.21. Outdoor Residential Common Area
83 Figure 9.22. Outdoor Residential Common Area
84 Figure 9.23. First Typical Floor Plan of Block Module
85 Figure 9.24. Second Typical Floor Plan of Block Module
86 Figure 9.25. Third Typical Floor Plan of Block Module
87 Figure 9.26. Typical Section Through Two Module Floors
88 Figure 9.28. Unit Application Exploded Axonometric Figure 9.27. Unit Application Exploded AxonometricUnit The unit, or house level is the last scale looked at as part of this thesis. Each unit is meant to use the basic functions of a single-family home in a different manner. The units are meant to be from a series of prefabricated parts which can be inserted into the structure and have been jogged for reasons of community as well as privacy, and are intended to be changeable if desired. The units are intended to be taken from the ideas of the house. Figure 9.27. demonstrates what was done. The front yard, which is seen as a barrier in suburban neighborhoods, is removed to allow the front porch to connect directly to the street. The back yards are com bined and made a semi-public space away from the unit, while the privacy of the rear porch is retained. The nature of the units are that they are not bur dened by any of the load of the building. As illustrated in Figure 9.28., the units are meant to nestle inside the structure, and therefore do not have to be uniform. Al Figures 9.23. 9.25., Figure 9.29 demonstrates how a few different vertical layouts can be applied to the same struc YARD STREET FRONT PORCH INTERIOR REAR PORCH
89 Figure 9.29. Layout Possibilities Diagram
90 tural layout. This allows for different size units without too much additional cost. The units are jogged to allow for two social condi tions in the units, as shown in Figure 9.30. As shown, the residents have the ability to socialize in their front porch area by being able to interact with residents on differ residents from seeing or hearing each other, reinforcing the idea of privacy. These two conditions are illustrated in Figures 9.31. and 9.32. The idea of using prefabricated pieces allows for a modicum of design freedom where one could own ad ditional parcels within the condominium to switch out different pieces to have a larger unit to accommodate a larger family. This idea keeps with the idea of a typical single-family neighborhood.Figure 9.30. Unit Jogging Diagrammatic Section
91 Figure 9.31. Front Porch
92 Figure 9.32. Rear Porch
93 Figure 9.33. Structural Diagram Technical This last section is dedicated to the unique techni cal aspect associated with this building. With the unique nature of the units and open spaces, a structural system strong enough must be designed. Also, with a core that has basically been exploded to create an atrium, vertical stacks of circulation and utilities must be routed differ ently. Finally, some of the more sustainable aspects of the project will be examined. The structure, diagrammed in Figure 9.33., involves vertical columns in maroon, and horizontal and diagonal members in green. This allows for the large, uninterrupted openings in the facade. Metaphorically, the areas where the units are can be seen as the structural columns, with the yard spaces as bridges across. The structure was tested with a physical model, which can be seen in Figure 9.34. This structural system not only works to hold the building up, but also adds to the aesthetic of the diagonal movement of the jogging units. Due to the unusual nature of the building, the ver tical stacks need to be arranged differently. The elevators, being the primary mode of vertical circulation, are located
94 the units, as seen in Figure 9.35. To hide the vertical as illustrated in Figure 9.36. Located on the roof above each of the four vertical unit stacks is a chiller room and a water tank room, and each of the four are linked to each other. This allows for hiding these spaces, while they can still function properly. Several sustainable features have been imple mented into the project. The structure is designed to be a over the course of the life of the building. The atrium is designed to be non-air-conditioned, while the top of the atrium features electricity-producing aspects. As mentioned before, the structure is designed to allow for units to slip in and out, as the units are not meant to be structural. Potentially, all of the units in the building could be replaced with newer units without modi fying the structure. This is meant to be similar to a typical single-family neighborhood, allowing for more personal ization. Figure 9.34. Structural Model
95 PRIMARY CIRCULATION EMERGENCY EXITSFigure 9.35. Vertical Circulation
96 VARIANT 1 VARIANT 2 CHILLED WATER WASTE FIRE SUPPRESSION WASTE VENTILATION FRESH WATER ELECTRIC DATAFigure 9.36. Vertical Utility Stacks
97 The atrium is a large interior space, and therefore would require a large amount of energy if air conditioned. main relatively cool without adding a large energy burden. Finally, the top of the atrium features two energyproducing components. Since the atrium must be covered to shade from direct sunlight, the roof is covered in solar panels. Also, since the top of the atrium is already so high in the air, there are wind generators incorporated in the roof to produce additional electricity. These features can be seen in Figure 9.38.Figure 9.37. Atrium Natural Ventilation
98 Figure 9.38. Perspective From Rooftops
99CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONThere is a fairly healthy sense of social detachment which exists in most new residential developments in the United States of America, whether it is in single-family or multi-family dwellings. This thesis was an examination of community inspired by environment, and its implementa tion into a project. The idea was to create a project which infused itself into the community, while focusing on each level of ken link in the community, while providing functions which strengthen the fabric as well. Ultimately, it is impossible to say whether or not a project has succeeded. This is because the measure of success is almost completely subjective. Also, a project of this magnitude has many different aspects wherein some may fail and some may succeed. According to the consensus of the author and his committee, the project was largely a success. At the city scale, the project was a success. The urban edge of the church is continued to the riverfront, and linked to the river walk. The river walk, however, could have used more retail, but it was designed under the assumption that it would be a continuation of a larger retail edge along the riverfront. The connection to Plant Park functioned, but could have been made a more pleas ant space if it was open to the river more, rather than a simple tunnel that homeless may use as a shelter. In total, the project was a success at this scale. At the neighborhood scale, the project was largely a success. This scale mostly focuses on the atrium, as it spacially. A missed opportunity was later discovered upon the completion of the project where the upper atrium lev els used the atrium just as circulation, rather than imple
100 menting some sort of functions into the atrium, making and several other spaces did protrude out into the atrium. Other than this, the neighborhood scale was a success. At the block scale, the project was a success. Where is may have needed work is with ADA regulations Six units as well as the interior and exterior community spaces are all ADA accessible, however. Otherwise, the block scale was a complete success. Finally, at the unit scale, the project was a suc cess. More time could have been spent on how the pre fabricated modular pieces could be applied into the struc ture, but this was beyond the scope of the main ideas of the thesis. The unit scale ultimately was a success. The hope for this project is that it can show that there are possibilities in high-rise residential developments to provide spaces for community. It shows that a project can have spaces which allow community to thrive and grow at all levels, from the city to the individual dwellings. Overall, the author feels this project is success ful, and hopes that its ideas can be implemented into real world projects in the future.
101SOURCESAlexander, Christopher. A City is not a Tree. Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture Eds. Charles Jencks and Karl Kropf. New York: Wiley Academy, 2006. 30-32 ---, A City is not a Tree, Part 2. Architectural Forum Ames, David L. Interpreting Post-World War II Suburban Landscapes as Historic Resources. Service 14 April 2008. Baumgartner, M. P. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Bay, J[oo]-H[wa] Sustainable Community and Environment in Tropical Singapore High-rise Housing: the Case of Bedok Court Condominium. Architectural Research Quarterly 8.3 (2004): 333-343 Bay, Joo-Hwa, Na Wong, Qian Liang, and Ping Kong. Socio-Environmental Dimensions in Tropical Semiopen Spaces of High-rise Housing in Singapore. Tropical Sustainable Architecture Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. 2006 Community. The American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed. 1994 Davies, Wayne Kenneth David and David T. Herbert. Communities within Cities : An Urban Social Geography New York: Halsted Press, 1993. Fischer, Claude S. To Dwell among Friends : Personal Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Goldston, Robert C. Suburbia: Civic Denial; a Portrait in Urban Civilization New York: Macmillan, 1970. Housing & Development Board. 2006/2007 Annual Report. Singapore: Saik Wah Press Pte Ltd, n.d.WORKS CITED
102 Jackovics, Ted. Airport Prepares for City Expansion. James, Hughes W. and George Sternlieb. Americas Housing : Prospects and Problems New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1980. Jenkins, David. Unit dHabitation Singapore: Phaidon, 1993. Katz, Peter, Todd W. Bressi and Vincent Joseph Scully. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. Kostof, Spiro. A History of Architecture New York: Oxford University Press, 1995 Leyden, Kevin M. Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods. 2003. American Journal of Public Oldenburg, Ray. The Great Good Place New York: Marlowe & Company, 2006. Perin, Constance. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988. Rivlin, Leanne G. The Neighborhood, Personal Identity, Wandersman. Neighborhood and Community Environments. New York: Plenum Press, 1987. 1-34. Safdie, Moshe. For Everyone a Garden Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1974. Sherwood, Roger. Modern Housing Prototypes Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. SkyPoint. Emporis 22 June 2008 Tse, Anna. Le Corbusiers Five Points of Architecture. Art Resources U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. 31 March Woudstra, Jan. The Corbusian Landscape: Arcadia Or no Mans Land? Garden History 28.1, Reviewing the Twentieth-Century Landscape (2000): 135-51.
103 Wuthnow, Robert. in Amaricas Fragmented Communities Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998.
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 002007102
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090617s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002768
High-rise neighborhood :
b rethinking community in the residential tower
h [electronic resource] /
by Benjamin Hurlbut.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 103 pages.
Thesis (M.Arch.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
ABSTRACT: Within the United States, a growing sense of detachment exists. Conditions in both urban and suburban contexts have created a sense of social detachment where spaces do not exist which encourage social interaction. Without this social activity, neighbors become almost a disposable commodity as relationships never fully develop. This thesis will be an examination of environments which do and do not foster community relationships and an implementation of community into an urban multi-family residence. A major part of the problem is the recent move to the suburbs, but urban buildings also exhibit a lack of spaces which help encourage a community among neighbors. Suburban residents are separated by both spatial and physical boundaries. In addition to this, a social boundary is also created by a lack of interaction between the primary unit and the street as well as a reliance on the automobile which blocks any chance of spontaneous interaction.The typical urban multi-family building exists in a context that and provides some spaces which give pedestrian traffic a chance for spontaneous interaction, but provides these by accident as these spaces are usually provided only as a means to get to one's unit. To discover what community is and how it can thrive, many research methods will be used. Existing building projects which have dealt with this problem will be examined; these precedents include residential buildings such as the Bedok Court Condominium in Singapore and large scale urban areas such as New York City. Theory on community within other fields such as sociology and psychology will also be looked at to see what it is that fosters community, and what blocks it. At the end of the project, a model will be designed for an example site within a typical city of the Unites States where the majority of the area is defined by disconnected neighborhoods.The model being sought will not simply be a multi-family building with community space, but an environment where the neighborhood community can grow and thrive.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Advisor: Theodore Trent Green, M.Arch.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.