All posts by Andrew Barnett

The Future & Past of New York City Development

December 13, 2015 Andrew Barnett Leave a comment

Periodical: Harvard Design Magazine

Construction focuses on two site scenarios; an open site with minimal clearing before beginning construction and a site that has an existing building that must first be demolished. Aside from often being cheaper, the former option is also the easier option. This mentality has prompted increasingly unprecedented levels of construction every year, even in those of a slowly growing economy following the recession. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments estimates over 1,103,000 residential construction permits will be issued in the 2015 calendar year, a 5% increase from last year (US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development). This rate is implying an unsustainable trend; discarding older buildings in favor of their newer counterparts. This is where a third option prevails: an existing building subject to adaptive reuse. The modification and ultimate reuse of existing buildings in an urban context is pivotal for sustainable growth of New York City in both the immediate and long term planning conversations.

Between the 1930s and 1960s, Robert Moses was responsible for creating much of the gridwork that still defines New York as a city today. In addition, he was responsible for the creation of countless projects, with a total cost of over $184 billion in today’s dollars, all of which were new construction (Goldberger). During this timeframe, Moses was not alone on widespread construction with many developers undertaking ever-larger projects and constructing sprawling projects as a result. This massive influx of buildings is now ageing and is currently in one of two states. The first state is that these roughly fifty-year-old buildings simply no longer exist. This is most common of properties that had fallen into disrepair or were no longer large enough to meet the demands they we facing and were ultimately replaced by a building that was able to meet those needs. The second state is that the building is still standing, often in its original condition or with minimal updates over the years and possibly uninhabited; both of these represent a misusage of resources. Buildings and construction represent the largest portion of the U.S. produced carbon dioxide emissions—greater than that of industrial and transportation emission, combined (Architecture 2030). Much of this pollution, as well as waste material not counted in the previous statistic, stems from new construction and demolition of buildings.

The basis for choosing adaptive reuse as opposed to new construction traditionally falls under environmental factors or historic preservation. Simply not constructing an entirely new building can push the break-even point of a net positive building ahead by decades. The average LEED certified building takes twenty to thirty years to offset the initial carbon footprint from it simply being constructed. By simply reusing a building that is already extant, the industry can drastically reduce massive energy waste. While there is always some construction to be undergone in any Adaptive reuse project, it will be smaller than beginning a new project from a ‘tabula rasa’ site. The inherent characteristics of the existing building can also bear significance to the community and neighborhood as a whole as well as retain certain features after being adapted to gesture towards its former life. Utilizing a new program to preserve a significant building enables the building to be ensured to be cared for and as a space for it’s end users (Schropfer). New York has need for adaptive reuse for both of these reasons. In a city with an ever-expanding population there is constant need for construction, something that often looks to the sky for solutions. Looking back to the ground and evaluating what existing resources are not being used, or being underutilized in the form of existing structures can massively cut away from the carbon emissions associated with constructing a skyscraper. In addition to avoiding the carbon cost, this can also save historic buildings of New York’s nearly four hundred year old history by brining them back to the forefront of the city with a new life.

There have been many successful examples of adaptive reuse within the heart of New York City, three programmatically different examples include; Westbeth, Chelsea Market, and the High Line. Each represents a different level of conversion, scale, and the difference in their start and end program. Westbeth is a housing complex geared towards artists. It has been so successful in its second life that the waitlist for an apartment is twelve years and the list has not taken any new applicants since 2007. The structure originally functioned as the headquarters of Bell Telephone laboratories for nearly seventy-five years until 1966. At this point of vacancy, Richard Meier was handed the task of converting this large office building into a communal housing and community gathering space. With minimal alterations Meier was able to create a space that shed the negative components of a bygone era, yet retain the history of the building and complete the project at a minute carbon cost in comparison to a similar new building. This represents one typology of adaptive reuse; private space converted into another private space. This is the most common form of repurposing spaces and is potentially the easiest as there is often not irreconcilable differences between programmatic and formal structures of the building and its new and old usages.

Within Brooklyn exists a similar condition that still remains in disrepair. The Brooklyn Army Terminal is an enormous sprawling building that stretches over five blocks of waterfront property. With heavily glazed exterior walls and regular and grandly sized interior courtyards, it would fit a variety of programmatic scenarios. Due to the massive influx of people into Brooklyn over the past few decades as well as the skyrocketing price of housing, private residences may be a suitable fit for the property. The existing features are already conducive to a program of this type and would allow for surrounding areas to be turned into a park, potentially in conjunction with the Brooklyn Bridge Park. By converting the government-owned building into private residences, there can be minimal modifications, potentially function as a source of income and revitalization for the community, and ease the need for housing in Brooklyn.

Another excellent example of successful adaptive reuse is the Chelsea Market in Manhattan. This is a large food-centric multi-usage space that centers around a former factory complex for the National Biscuit Company (Nabisco). Both programmatically and formally, the building has not changed greatly over its hundred-year history. Consistently producing and serving food, the building was adapted for reuse with minimal changes as evinced by openings simply knocked out of existing brick walls and largely preserved building skin. This not only keeps many of the elements associated with the initial food production areas, but also resulted in a building that was simply modernized to meet current standards instead of constructed from the ground up. In the years following the factory’s reconstruction, there have only been minor changes to meet specifications of tenants. This example features a transition of the building from one privately owned space into a mixed private and public usage space. This method of transition is one of the more difficult options, yet potentially the most rewarding. Returning a building that is intended to be private, often specifically geared towards a singular function, into public usage is difficult and often requires a higher degree of intervention. For some cases this may mean expanding spaces from an individual and personal scale, to a much larger group or community scale.

This concept of transitioning a private space into one with a mixed set of private and public functions is one that could be applied to the New York Dock Company warehouses in Red Hook Brooklyn. These two large buildings have been standing for nearly one hundred years, but have been vacant for the past thirty. Recently one building was purchased by Christies Auction House and is now used to store priceless works of art produced by Van Gogh, Pollack, and Brancusi to name a few. This development not only shows that the remaining property is prime for reuse, but also the ease with which the project was completed implies the potential for still vacant building to easily transition into its new life. This building could function as a mixed commercial, public, and office space building to serve the nearby areas of dense population.

A final, and very well known example of adaptive reuse is the Highline in Manhattan by Diller, Scofidio, and Renfro. This repurposing of an existing elevated train track into a park is one of the most well-known and public focused examples of adaptive reuse. This was a high profile project that was constructed over a period of years with a large amount of funding from public and private groups. The park now serves as one of the largest tourist attractions in New York City and has added miles of greenery as a means of promoting a healthy city and giving back more space to the public while not edging out any existing residents. The Highline exemplifies the high level of success adaptive reuse can achieve through transforming a private space into a public area. These projects are best suited in scenarios where public spaces are being underutilized and not cared for, yet are in a desirable area.

The Highline by Diller, Scofidio, and Renfro

One instance of this transition of space from private to public is the proposed Brooklyn Field House associated with the development of the Brooklyn Bridge Park. This would take an existing warehouse bordering the park and convert it into a velodrome for both public use and competitions as a source of community unity and economic development. This would also programmatically enrich the parks offerings. The project was offered to be completely funded by an entrepreneur with and interest in cycling but was ultimately turned down by nearby residents against the project. The building is currently unused and surrounded by a major public transit corridor and the Brooklyn Bridge Park. Much as the high line connects the Chelsea Market and Westbeth, the Brooklyn Bridge Park connects all three of the proposed sites mentioned. This connection between public spaces and adaptive reuse spurring other instances of adaptive reuse gestures towards an overarching trend of more pedestrian cities and a new mentality towards urbanism.

While new construction may still be the first and only avenue many developers pursue, this too is not a flawless system. Jane Jacobs contends, “We expect too much of new buildings, and too little of ourselves.”, This statement is undoubtedly relevant to the question of urban re-use. Reinvesting time, planning, and resources into the second life of a building is pivotal to urban sustainability and redevelopment. New buildings have the same set of problems that an existing building may face, and also lack the innate historical integration into the site and have a lower potential for diminished environmental impact. Rather than a universal call to action, this should serve as a reminder. Carl Elefante said it most succinctly, “the greenest building is the one already built,”—no matter where it may be. There are situations where utilizing an existing building is not beneficial to the project as a whole, but far more times where adaptive reuse is simply an overlooked option in the planning phase. As New York grows to new heights in the coming years and decades, adaptive reuse my continually be considered as an option for environmentally responsible and culturally preserving development.

Works Cited

Goldberger, Paul. “Robert Moses, Master Builder, Is Dead at 92.” Editorial. The New York Times 30 July 1981: n. pag. The Learning Network. The New York Times, 2010. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1218.html>.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House,Print.

Schropfer, Thomas. Ecological Urban Architecture: Qualitative Approaches to Sustainability. Basel: Birkhauser, 2012. Print.

“The Environmental Value of Building Reuse.” Preservationnation.org. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, 24 Jan. 2012. Web. <http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/green-lab/valuing-building-reuse.html#.Vi1BZs7_T8E>.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. New Residential Construction in September 2015. Washington: n.p., 2015. US Census Bureau News. US Department of Commerce, 20 Oct. 2015. Web. <http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf>.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Release, Table 18 Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector and Source; http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm

Assignment Posts, Peer Design Review

David Ackerman Design Development Review

November 15, 2015 Andrew Barnett Leave a comment

Preservation of public usage of the site is a driving feature within David’s design. This concept is something that inspired both form and program throughout his project. The site is at the corner of two streets, resulting in an irregular corner. Dave began his formal organization by extruding along the axis (street) that travels from the east river towards Greenpoint. When the form arrives at the intersection at the corner of the site, it doubles over itself and travels back down the second axis (street) that travels roughly north to south. This ribbon-like folding is the primary formal gesture and shapes the building entirely. The buildings ends are defined by two streets that intersect with the axes of the building. The truncation of the building at these two streets creates an open passageway of view from both cross streets towards the inlet and the east river respectively. The ribbon-like movement is also following this preservation of public space and views. The east-west component of the building is along street level and facing the nearby residential spaces as well as some commercial areas. This side of the building is two stories and keeps with the scale of the buildings it borders. The north-south side (the folder portion of the ‘ribbon’) is elevated to a third level, leaving a two story clear underneath to function as community space. This also allows views from a nearby cross street to be framed towards the east river. This continual theme of the building as an anchor of public space is continued programmatically. At the intersection to the north east of the site, there is a major setback of the building to the point of creating a public plaza for use as a more urban open space on the site. This is connected directly to the park by a pass through the fire station. Programmatically, the portion of the building running east-west is comprised of the administration and apparatus portions where as the north-south volume is elevated and residential.

The critics appreciated the formal gesture of wrapping this project around the primary intersection that borders the site, but questioned some other aspects. One instance of this was the streets that shaped the ends of the building. While the east-west portion of the building is stopped at a historic street allowing for the continued view to the inlet, the other side does not follow this rule. The north-south portion of the building passed by two intersections before ultimate choosing one to end at; something the critics viewed as arbitrary and of another language from the rules of the other side. While there is spatial need for the continuation beyond the first cross street, this seems like a decision that is not coherent with the other side.

Another key issues brought up at the review was the usage of the roughly 60’ x 120’ space under the elevated north-south element. While it is completely open and could serve as a public space and access to the park, its not an enjoyable space as is. The roof above the space is solid and has no skylights, leading to a dark and undesirable space. Another critic voiced concern about possibly creating a wind tunnel coming from the east river and being channeled by the east-wet path. This is all topped off by the issue of this space currently not being programmed. The critic’s conclusion was that while it had a high potential to operate as a wonderful public space, it wasn’t at this point just yet.

Another point of talking during the review was the continuity of the concept throughout the project. The concept is centered around the ribbon like form that twists over itself to shape spaces. The critics believe that the ribbon motion of the building would not be apparent to users or onlookers of the project. Some of their suggestions about changing this was to either create a smaller element on the façade that wraps around the twisting or have a material connection that flows from the top of the east-west axis to the bottom of the north-south axis. This visual connection will strengthen the concept and continue to shape the form. Another item discussed during the crit was possibly switching elements orientations as the form folds on itself. This is a concept that may take the form of: window height, lights from ceiling vs. wall based locations, HVAC switching from ceiling hosted to floor hosted, and many other opportunities throughout the project. Conversely with the former discussion about façade, this would create an interior continuity for the intimate users of this space.

Dave’s presentation possibly tended slightly too much towards a walkthrough of the project. The description of the concept may have been a little too short and lead to some redundancy in the conversations following about what the concept truly was.

Overall, I think this critique represented a project in progress. Dave had taken quite a few steps back into the conceptual and formal design realms just before this crit. While this resulted in a product that may not be fully thought out yet, his new concept of a ribbon-like flow is incredibly strong (and definitely stronger than previous concepts) and is something that can inform decisions throughout the entire project. Currently there needs to be more work put into finalizing the concept in reference to form and program, and then it can applied to more technical elements. Some of these NAAB requirement including site, structure, precedents, and ADA will be integrated once there is a cohesive set of logic for the project, and can ultimately provide a productive dialogue between form and these requirements that will enrich both parts.

At this level of development, the critics focused the discussions mostly on the aesthetic orders of worth, as the more technical components were not fully developed yet. Inspired, Fame, and Civic are the orders that come first to mind with the project. Its scale, relation to the site, and ultimately formal logic gesture towards these orders. There is definitely possibility to transition towards other orders as the project progresses into the next, more technical components.

One of my first suggestions would be to program and spatially differentiate the space under the north-sough portion of the program. I believe that by adding openings in the building above to let light in and possibly raising or lowing the area underneath to differentiate it from the rest of the park will create an entirely different space. To deal with the problem of continuity of form and making the ribbon like motion apparent, I think the critics stated it best by having both a façade element that traces the trajectory as well as internal elements switching orientations as previously mentioned. Finally, I think the north-south portion should be truncated at the first cross street and then seek to relocate the extra program elsewhere to have a continuous formal logic. Overall I think the next step for this project is to first resolve these problems and then delve into finalizing structure and ADA considerations.

Photo: Milstein Hall by OMA, featuring a wonderful inhabitable space under an overhang (in this case a large cantilevered space.)

Assignment Posts

Multiple Logics

November 1, 2015 Andrew Barnett and Jomar Alfredo Santiago Leave a comment

Simon Guy and Graham Farmer are both English professors of architecture with a specialization in environmental studies into the interaction of the environment and architecture. Across the work they reference many authors, often only in a single instance. The professions of the referenced individuals include; architects, professors, critics, theorists, sociologists, and urban planners. All of these authors are united by their study of and viewpoints on green architecture. There are both supporters and dismissers of this movement and they provide a wide range of opinions.

The article was centered around the discussion of the past methods of construction and what needs to change in new construction to make buildings more green. This also includes dismissing many of the reasons some architects may use as an excuse to not build green. This piece was probably motivated by the authors noticing of how few professionals, both architects and builders, are including green elements into buildings. This is striving to both inform and motivate said professionals into changing their ways to benefit both the environment as well as the users of these spaces.

Much of the evidence used in this essay was based off of referencing past works, both successful and unsuccessful. It began by entailing many of the failings of a ‘standard’ building of the early 20th century that did not incorporate green technology. From there the author described two types of green architecture; technologically green and green by architectural design. The article was summed up by implying the best possible system is the one that combines both of these methods. This argument seems both logical and solid, and is supported by many strong references and examples.

The main competing argument to green building is that our current state of construction is fine as is. This is covered in the beginning of the article as the authors describe and then pick apart this type of building. From here they break down the problems and describe a solution for each issue that arises.

One assumption that the author makes is that everyone has a desire for green architecture. Some people may not value this to any degree or believe there is a reason to show concern for the environment or biophilic design. This assumption is never formally addressed, but is backed up enough by arguments in the article that is may even convert people with this viewpoint through the process of reading.

This article is important because it is capitalizing on the wave of green architecture and furthering it by expelling the many benefits and approaches to the ‘green’ problem that have arisen. This article is particularly import to us as young designers because if we start from the beginning of our designs with environmental techniques it will become second nature to use them over time.

Questions:

WHAT LEVEL OF OBLIGATION DO ARCHITECTS HAVE TO INCORPORATE GREEN INTO THEIR BUILDING?

IS TECHNOLOGY OR ARCHITECTURAL PLANNING MORE IMPORTANT? (PASSIVE VS ACTIVE GREEN)

Presentation Powerpoint

Project Statement

Design Development Statement

November 1, 2015 Andrew Barnett Leave a comment

The site is comprised of two streets forming an irregular angle on the north and east sides and the Bushwick Inlet cutting away to form the south and west sides. The irregular angle is due to the convergence of three city grids on our site, all of which are taking equal prominence and lacking order. My project seeks to define a new, rational set of rules for shaping the site and surrounding areas through the transition from old to new and overall gentrification of the area. Taking cues for the Neoplasticism movement, there is a bounding box subdivided into four zones, pertaining to program, that form a hierarchy from the street corner to the park. The spaces dividing these zones are large open atriums that imply a path from the city into the park by means of the building and encourage public interaction with the fire station. The building itself is subdivided into different spaces at regular angles and in ways that further imply a grid through the entire space.

Assignment Posts

Re-Introducing of Neglected Urban Sites

October 25, 2015 Andrew Barnett Leave a comment

Harvard Design Magazine

Construction focuses on two site scenarios; an open site with minimal clearing before beginning construction and an existing site that likely has a building on it that must first be demolished. Aside from being cheaper, the former option is also the easier of the two from a construction point of view. This mentality has prompted increasingly unprecedented levels of construction every year, even in the years of a slowly growing economy following the recession. The US Department of Housing and Urban Developments estimates over 1,103,000 residential construction permits will be issued in the 2015 calendar year, a roughly 5% increase from last year (US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development). This rate is implying an unsustainable trend; discarding the older building in favor of their newer counterparts. Enter option three in the initial site scenario debate; an existing building subject to adaptive reuse. The modification and ultimate reuse of existing buildings in an urban context is pivotal for sustainable growth of New York City in both the immediate and long term planning conversations.

Lowe Campbell Ewald Offices by Neumann Smith Architects

Between the 1930’s and 1960’s, Robert Moses was responsible for creating much of the gridwork that still defines New York as a city today. In addition, he was responsible for the creation of countless projects, with a total cost of over $184 billion in today’s dollars, all of which were new construction (Goldberger). During this timeframe, Moses was not alone on widespread construction with many developers undertaking transitional projects and constructing higher and larger buildings. This massive influx of buildings is now ageing and is currently in one of two states. The first option is that these roughly fifty-year-old buildings simply no longer exist. This is most commonly the case of properties that had fallen into disrepair or were no longer large enough to meet the demands they we facing and were ultimately replaced by a building that was able to meet those needs. The second option is that the building is still standing, often in its original condition or with minimal updates over the years and possibly uninhabited; both of these represent a misusage of resources. Buildings and construction represent the largest portion of the US produced CO₂ emissions and are greater than that of the other two sectors, industrial and transportation, combined (Architecture 2030). Much of this pollution, as well as waste material not counted in the previous statistic, stems from new construction and demolition of buildings.

The selection and active decision to choose existing buildings for adaptive reuse and modification to meet both current client and environmental needs solves both of these problems. By starting with and simply modifying an existing building there is a greatly lowered amount of initial construction costs and wastes. In a city like New York, its also likely to expedite the construction time and ease some of the logistics associated with the large infrastructure needed for the early/structural parts of the projects, e.g. those associated with pouring concrete slabs, structural steel framing, and masonry walls. Some may feel limited by working with an existing building, yet all of the same tactics that exist for new construction exist for adaptive reuse; vertical expansion, horizontal expansion, densification selective removal, etc. Not only is this avoiding higher costs for new materials, but also greatly diminishes the initial carbon impacts from construction; something that takes an estimated 20-30 years for even a green building to offset. The positive environmental impact can be even greater when combined with integrating new sustainable technology into an adaptive reuse situation.

The reuse of these buildings is also beneficial to the community. Many cities face issues of regionally high levels of uninhabited and under cared for buildings, New York included. The environment of a city or neighborhood can be greatly improved simply by adaptive reuse and inhabitation. Aside form removing the holes from an otherwise vibrant urban fabric, repurposing buildings into a new life allows for a structure to meet the most current needs of a situation. Jane Jacob’s work The Death and Life of Great American Cities often skirts around the idea that the community revitalization of formerly lacking areas of a neighborhood, when carried out by the residents, is almost always better than the initial planned usage of the building. Who could know a better usage for an uninhabited structure better than people who eat, work, and live within a block from it? Many projects within the city have repurposed previously industrial sites into new programs as diverse as; office space, residences, breweries, urban farms, and even concert halls with minimally invasive changes (Schropfer). The re-utilization of a building also allows the history of a site to be carried with it into its second life and provides a level of outward continuity for the immediate neighbors.

While new construction may still be the first and only avenue many developers pursue, this too is not a flawless system. Jane Jacobs stated it best by saying; “We expect too much of new buildings, and too little of ourselves”, something that is undoubtedly relevant to the question of urban re-use. Reinvesting time, planning, and resources into the second life of a building is pivotal is urban sustainability and redevelopment. New buildings have the same set of problems that an existing building may face, but also lack the innate historical integration into the site and have a lower potential for diminished environmental impact. Rather than a universal call to action, this should serve as a reminder. Carl Elefante said it most succinctly, “the greenest building is the one already built,” no matter where it may be. There are undoubtedly situations where utilizing an existing building is not beneficial to the project as a whole, but far more times where it is simply an overlooked option in the planning phase.

Works Cited

US Department of Housing and Urban Development. New Residential Construction in September 2015. Washington: n.p., 2015. US Census Bureau News. US Department of Commerce, 20 Oct. 2015. Web. <http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf>.

Goldberger, Paul. “Robert Moses, Master Builder, Is Dead at 92.” Editorial. The New York Times 30 July 1981: n. pag. The Learning Network. The New York Times, 2010. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1218.html>.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Release, Table 18 Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector and Source; http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm

“The Environmental Value of Building Reuse.” Preservationnation.org. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, 24 Jan. 2012. Web. <http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/green-lab/valuing-building-reuse.html#.Vi1BZs7_T8E>.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. Print.

Schropfer, Thomas. Ecological Urban Architecture: Qualitative Approaches to Sustainability. Basel: Birkhauser, 2012. Print.

ARCH 311w