experiments in public housing

Experiments in Public Housing: Appendix A Reexamination of Subsidized Housing Policy & Design

Prepared by: Pamela Andrade, Daniel Artiges, Assia Belguedj, Michael Bivas, Alexandra Bradley, Alexander Davis, Brett Ekusuzian, Sara LaPorte, Erica Lelievre, Yifan Liu, Aaron Honsaker, Marc Janty, Philip Viana, Kathryn Reynolds

Northeastern UniversityGraduate Program of ArchitectureMasters Research StudioLittell I Fall 2011

2

Public, affordable and subsidized housing, is a topic that has been thoroughly studied and examined. Experiments in Public Housing focuses on the architecture of housing projects over time.In addition, this publication recognizes other associated realities of public housing and their potential infl uence on design. Through the careful analysis of mostly local precedents, this study searches for points of departure for innovation within the typology. This book is not an outright biased critique nor is it a detached survey. Where warranted, a position is taken to provoke new ideas and possibilities. The main objective is the identifi cation of themes, issues and patterns that could possibly bear fruit in terms of generating new ideas for public and subsidized housing.

IntRodUctIon

The second volume of Experiments in Public Housing is a catalog of mostly local precedents which act as the basis for this publication’s research. A myriad of housing projects located in Boston’s Lower Roxbury are used as a lab for research due to its diverse mix of projects spanning many periods in housing history. A total of sixteen housing projects were isolated and analyzed, ranging from post-war construction of brick super-block developments to present day townhomes directed at individualism. Architectural plans were re-drawn according to a graphical and scaled standard so that they could be evaluated side by side of each other. In addition, text and diagrams supplement the drawings and begin to analyze the different features of each project.

In addition, our proximity to Lower Roxbury gave the class the opportunity to interview, in person, various people and organizations who are heavily involved with current and previous housing projects in the city. They design, manage, and fund public housing projects and therefore were a crucial asset in our research. We give many thanks to these individuals who propelled our research.

ReseaRch Methodology & scope

4

acknowledgeMentsKathryn BennettSpecial Assistant to the AdministratorPlanning & Real Estate DevelopmentBoston Housing Authority

Christine Capone-CinelliExecutive Secretary, Real Estate DevelopmentBoston Housing Authority

Alberto Cárdenas, AIAPrincipalDHK Architects

Rob Chandler, AIAPrincipalGoody Clancy

Diane ClarkProject ManagerNuestra Comunidad Development Corporation

Janet Haines, LEED APProject ManagerNuestra Comunidad Development Corporation

Hank Keating, AIAVice President, Design & ConstructionTrinity Financial

David KovenFinancing Pro-forma Expert

Sean McReynoldsFinance & AcquisitionsCorcoran Jennison Companies

Chad PerryAssociate, Planning & Urban Design ManagerGoody Clancy

David PriceExecutive DirectorNuestra Comunidad Development Corporation

St. John SmithAssistant Director Capital Construction Department Boston Housing Authority

Joseph SpinelliProject Manager, Capital Construction DepartmentBoston Housing Authority

Russell Tanner Director of Real Estate Madison Park Development Corporation

Marcia ThornhillDirector, Real Estate DevelopmentNuestra Comunidad Development Corporation

6

precedents

Abbey Apartments

7

Mission Main

Orchard Gardens

Starrett City

Tent City

Twin Parks Northwest

137153179193

Villa VictoriaWalnut Park

209225243

table of contents

Harbor Point

LenoxBromley Heath 17

37496371

Madison Park Village

Maverick Landing

91109125

Whittier Street

Camfield EstatesDavenport Commons

Lenox/ cAMDenDate Built/Renovated:

Developer:

owner: Architect:

Financing:

Total cost: Per Unit cost:

efficiencynet/Gross:

overall size: number of units:

Parking:

1939 (Lenox), 1949 (camden)

BHA

BHABoston Housing authority & United States Housing Authority

State and Federal Government

--

86.2%

6.44 (Lenox)/ 1.26 (camden) acres376

0.21 car / unit

Unit Density

51

Lowrise Units

31-80% AMI

11-30% AMI

00-10% AMI

3 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

Building Type

Unit Type

Units Per Acre

Rental Type

14%

34%

52%

36%

15%

47%

100%100%

52%

40%

8%

51

Lenox/camden | Precedents

History

Lenox Street is a conveniently located family development and Camden Street is a small family development within the Lenox/Camden complex in the South End. Lenox/Camden is really two developments that sit next to each other and were built 10 years apart. Lenox, a federally funded development, was built in 1939. Camden, funded by the state, was built in 1949. However, the same group of BHA employees manages both and residents consider themselves all part of one family and share a tenant task force.

Lenox Street includes 306 units of the total 376 apartments within Lenox/Camden, Camden Street includes 70 units of the total 376 apartments within Lenox/Camdenconsisting of one, two and three-bedroom apartments. Both devleopments are three story walk up style

buildings. Rents are calculated at 30% of a resident’s income. Residents have the option of choosing a flat rent as well.

8

1”= 200’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

1”=200’

Kendall St

Ditmus

Ct

Lattim

ore C

t

Trotte

r Ct

Trotte

r Ct

Lenox St Brannon Haris Way

Camden St

Shawmut

Ave

Site Plan


Site analysis

As a open community, Lenox/Camden does not have fences. But it uses its building’s location to make several separated blocks. All these areas are a step higher than the street and cars are not allowed in. It provides a safy environment for kids to play around their homes.

Green Space

Walking Path

Trafi c Line

10

F

Front Door

Back Door

Back Door

Back home from outside

Communicate place

BUILDInG enTRAnce AnALYSISFor security issues, 2 units share an entrance.


Lenox Building Plan

Type 1Type 2Type 3

1 BDUnit c

2 BD Unit D

2 BDUnit c

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’ 12

Unit c: 2 BR1 Bathroom

693 Square Feet

Unit c: 1 BR 1 Bathroom514 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

DN UP


Unit D: 2 BR1 Bathroom 617 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

UP DN

3/32”=1’

14

BHA 2011 “Boston Housing Authority.” http://www.bostonhousing.org/

Images:

Google 2011 http://maps.google.com/

Sources

Lenox/camden | Precedents 16

BROMLEY HEATH Boston, MA

Lowrise Units

Midrise Units

61-80% AMI

81-100% AMI

31-60% AMI

00-30% AMI

3 Bedroom

5 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

Units Per Acre

46Unit Density

Building Type 30%

70%

30%

4%15%

51%Unit Type

Rental Type

13%

4%4%

79%

Date Built/Renovated:

Developer: Owner:

Architect:

Financing:

Total Cost: Per Unit Cost:

EfficiencyNet/Gross:

Overall size: Number of units:

Parking:

Heath Street - 1941, Bromley Park - 19541996 - 1997

BHA

Bromley-Heath Tenant Management Corporation

Heath Street - M.A. Dyer Architects, Bromley Park - Thomas F. McDonough

Government funding through Mass Housing Authority Act (1938) using private contractors, suppliers, tradesmen and real estate brokers

Heath Street - $2.4 Million, Bromley Park - $10 MillionHeath Street - $1,750, Bromley Park - $1,953

81%

24.2 acres983

.4 spaces/unit

18 18 Bromley Heath | Precedents

History

Bromley-Heath is made of two developments managed as one entity. Heath Street was developed in 1941 to house low-income families in a self-sustaining development, including playgrounds, daycare, elderly services, and a social hall, in the wake of the Great Depression. Architecturally, the buildings were a mixture of Zeilenbau and International Styles and Garden City Developments. They were oriented north to gain the maximum amount of daylight and spaced far enough apart to proper light and ventilation and to create play and social areas. Buildings are void of decoration to convey the cleanest sense of rationality, functionality, and standardization.As a reaction to the greater need for

low-income housing for unemployed, elderly and minority households after WWII, Bromley Park was built more densely. It was loosely modeled after Le Corbusier’s “Towers in the Park,” incorporating small amounts of greenspace between each block, though the landscape is mostly dominated by parking lots. Unlike the strict layout of Heath Street, Bromley Park shows little organization in their relation to each other or the development as a whole, sacrificing the original Zeilenbau and International Style aesthetic. Closely spaced, the seven story buildings dwarf the three story buildings, as well as the surrounding low context, creating an endless brick maze.During the 1990’s the development

was brought up to modern standards through comprehensive modernization, or “comp-mod,” adding fences, covering entries and updating units for greater security.Bromley-Heath is significant in that it is one

of the few tenant-managed developments remaining in the country, adding a level of community and residential responsibility.

1”= 400’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Site Plan

20 20

N Heath Street consistently oriented for best exposure to sun

Bromley Park arrayed with no relationship to street or other buildings

Abstracted LayoutRepetition and Organization

Bromley Heath | Precedents

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Heath Streettypical lowrise plan after comprehensive modifi cation

3 BR Flat A

3 BR Flat B

1 BR Flat

22 22 3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

1 BR Flat 1 Bathroom

498 Square Feet


3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

2 BR Flat 1 BR Flat*Pre Comp-Mod1 Bathroom 1 Bathroom766 Square Feet 485 Square Feet

24 24 3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

3 BR Flat A*Post Comp-Mod

1 Bathroom1,200 Square Feet


3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

3 BR Flat B1.5 Bathroom1,120 Square Feet

26 26 1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’ Bromley Heath | Precedents

Bromley Parktypical lowrise plan

5 BR Flat

2 BR Flat 3 BR Flat

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

2 BR Flat1 Bathroom632 Square Feet

28 28 3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’ Bromley Heath | Precedents

3 BR Flat1 Bathroom

781 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

5 BR Flat1.5 Bathroom1,207 Square Feet


Bromley Park

typical midrise plan

2 BR Flat A

2 BR Flat B

3 BR Flat A

3 BR Flat B

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

2 BR Flat A1 Bathroom592 Square Feet


2 BR Flat B1 Bathroom

610 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

3 BR Flat A1 Bathroom738 Square Feet

34 34 Bromley Heath | Precedents3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

3 BR Flat B1 Bathroom

745 Square Feet

Boston Housing Authority. “The Learning Center at Bromley Heath.” 12 Dec 2004.

Heath, Richard. “Bromley-Heath Public Housing Development History.” Jamaica Plain Historical Society. 2005. http://www.jphs.org/locales/2005/10/15/bromley-heath-public-housing-develop-ment-history.html

Images:

“Bing Maps.” Microsoft. 2011. http://www.bing.com

Sources

36 36 Bromley Heath I Precedents

WHITTIER STREET Boston, MA


Developer:

Management:

Financing:

Total Cost:


Number of units:

Parking:

Open Spaces:

# of Stories:

1951

Boston Housing Authority

Boston Housing AuthorityHope VI Funding & Low Income Housing

Subsidized public housing

$11 million

91%

331

73 spaces on sitestreet parking (with resident sticker)

Inner courtyard and playground

4 & 8

27%

14%

15%

27

%17%

Midrise Units

27-35% AMI

36-60% AMI

Market Rate

15-26% AMI

00-14% AMI

3 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

Building Type

Unit Type

Units Per Acre

Rental Type

Unit Density 5322%

35%

34%

9%

100%

38 38 Whittier Street | Precedents

History

This collection of buildings is located right on the edge of Roxbury Crossing and Boston proper. The four buildings, which each feature both eight and four story parts, are arranged around the perimeter of the plot with some common outdoor space and on-site parking lots for residents. Additionally, each building has at least one main and one backdoor or emergency exit. The semi-public outdoor courtyard features some landscaping with sidewalks and a central playground.The property is located on Tremont Street,

directly across from Northeastern University’s International Village. This is a college dorm that also features commercial services on the ground floor such as a coffee and a smoothie shop. There are several other amenities that surround the property which include the St. Katharine Drexel Parish center. Additionally, there is also the recently built Boston Police Headquarters across the street and the Reggie Lewis Track and Field Center nearby. Health care is available close by at the Whittier Street Health Center which is attached to the Whittier Health Pharmacy.

1”= 200’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Site Plan

40 40 Whitter Street | Precedents

PART IN PLANPART IN AXON APPROX. AREA EFFICIENCY VERTICAL ACCESS # OF STORIES

3,179 SF 87% stairs/elevator 8

1,692 SF 94% stairs/fi re escape 4

1,368 SF 91% stairs/fi re escape 4

567 SF -- -- 4

all the buildings are comprised from a set, or “kit”, of different building parts that includes a cross-shaped building, two bars, and a single add-on unit.

Kit of PartsAggregation Analysis

South Building

typical fl oorunit distinction

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’


South Building typical floorcross & bar

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Cross: 2 BR Stacked Flat1 Bathroom 640 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’


Cross: 3 BR Stacked Flat1 Bathroom

795 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Bar: 2 BR Stacked Flat1 Bathroom610 Square Feet

46 46 Whittier Street | Precedents3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Bar: 3 BR Stacked Flat1 Bathroom

765 Square Feet

Boston Housing Authority: http://www.bostonhousing.org/detpages/devinfo64.html

City of Boston Tax Accessors: http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/default.asp

Sources

48 Whittier Street | Precedents

TWIN PARKS NORTHWEST Bronx, NY

Location:


Developer:

Architect:

Financing:


Overall size:

Number of units:

Floors:

Parking:

Open Space:

Bronx, New York

1970

Twin Parks,BSA Management

Prentice & Chan, Olhausen

Middle Income HousingMitchell Lama

93%

3/4 acre

113

19 Skip/Stop Configuration

On Street Parking

Front Garden

Highrise

3 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

Building Type

Unit Type

Units Per Acre

22%

Unit Density

150

5%

5%

4%

3

2%

3

2%

5 Bedroom

Studio

50 50

History

Twin Parks Northwest is the tower in a collection of buildings called Twin Parks in the Bronx, New York. While the other buidlings are mid-rise, this is the tallest at 19 stories. They are all run by the same management company, however they do not act as a complex, but instead as freestanding self suffi cient buildings. Twin Parks Northwest is a part of the

Mitchell-Lama Housing Program for New York. The Mitchell-Lama program was created in 1955 through the Limited Profi t Housing Companies Act, and provides affordable rental and cooperative housing to moderate and middle-income families. In New York, there are 97 city-sponsored moderate and middle-income rental developments through this program, with more than 44,600 units. Twin Parks Northwest is exclusively a rental property and is a federally assisted section 236 property. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) establishes maximum admission income limits for Section 236 developments.

Twin Parks Northwest | Precedents

FOLI

N ST

REET

TIEB

OU

T AV

ENU

E

TIEB

OUT

AVEN

UE

EAST 181ST STREET

VALE

NTI

NE

AVEN

UE

WEB

STER

AVE

NU

E

1”= 100’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Site Plan

52 52 Twin Parks Northwest | Precedents

Twin Park’s entry is on the ground floor through an exterior public walkway that connects Folin Street and Webster Ave which passes underneath the building

Entry from Folin Street Entry from Webster Ave.

Twin Parks Typical Floor PlansFloor AFloor BFloor C

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

FLOOR A 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17

FLOOR B3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18

FLOOR C4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19


The individual units are accessed only on the B and C fl oors leaving the A fl oor to be completely occupiable by units with no circulation space - creating a skip-stop fl oor confi guration. All of the units that occur on the A fl oors are duplex units which are accessed on the B fl oors. The absense of public circulation space on the A fl oors creates an incredibly high net/gross ratio of almost 93%.

Twin Parks is made up of a module of three fl oor types - A, B, C that are repeated six times to create 18 fl oors of tenant space. Floors A & B interlock to create duplex units, while fl oor C consists of fl ats.

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

1-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (6 per module)-only occurs on 3rd and 4th floors-unit occupies only 1 floor

2-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (6 per module)-all units occur on 4th floors-all living space of units only occupy 1 floor, except where entry is on 3rd floor

3-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (5 per module)-all units enter on 3rd floor-all living rooms and kitchens are located on 3rd floors-all bedrooms and bathrooms are located on 2nd floors


5-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan (1 per module)-units enters on 3rd floor-living room and kitchen is located on 3rd floors-bedrooms and bathrooms are located on 2nd floors

1 BR Unitsonly occurs on fl oors B and Cunit occupies only 1 fl oor






1 Bedroom Unit Locations


56 56 Twin Parks Northwest | Precedents3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

2 BR Unitsonly occurs on floor C

unit occupies only 1 floor






3 & 4 BR Unit “B” Floorall units enter on B fl oorsall living space on B fl oors






3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’




3 & 4 BR Unit “A” Floorbeds and baths on A floors

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’






5 BR Unit “B” Floorall units enter on B fl oorsall living space on B fl oorsbeds and baths on A fl oors



5 BR Unit “A” Floorbeds and baths on A floors

http://housingprototypes.org/project?File_No=USA005

http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/apartment/mitchell-lama.shtml

http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/apps/hsgdevls/hsgdevls.asp

Christian Canshirt, Oliver Heckmann, Bettina Vismann, and Friederike Schneider, Floor Plan Manual: Housing (Switzerland: Birkhauser, Publishers for Architecture, 1994)

Sources

walnut park Boston, MA

Date Built/renovated:

Developer:

Owner: architect:

Financing:

total Cost: per unit Cost:

Efficiencynet/Gross:

Overall size: number of units:

parking:

1970

BHa

Boston Housing authorityIsador richmond & Carney Goldberg architects

low Income Housing tax Credit; private Equity

$6,113,100$36,387

89.4%

1.3 acres168

.15 car / unit

27%

14%

15%

27

%17%

Highrise Units

27-35% AMI

36-60% AMI

Market Rate

15-26% AMI

00-14% AMI

1 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

Studio

Building Type

Unit Type

Units Per Acre

Rental Type

Unit Density 2353%

27%

20%

100%

64 64 walnut park | precedents

History

Walnut Park Tower is a highrise elderly and disabled development located on Columbus Avenue near Eagleston Square. It is unique among most all highrises in Boston because it is the only pure circular masonry tower in the city.

1”= 400’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

walnut park

was

hing

ton

stre

et

columbus ave.

columbus ave.

Site plan

66 66 walnut park | precedents1”= 400’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

1 BD Studio

walnut park tower1 BR Flat

1 BD Studio

1 BrFlat

1 BD Studio1 BathroomX Square Feet

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

1 Br Flat1 Bathroom

Boston Housing Authority

http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?pid=1101630000

Bing.com Aerial Image

Sources

VILLA VICTORIA Boston, MA

Date Built/Renovated:Phase IPhase IIPhase IIIPhase IVPhase V

Developer: Owner: Architect:

Financing:


Phase IPhase IIPhase IIIPhase IVPhase V

Efficiency:Net/Gross:


Parking:

19721974197619771981

Boston Housing AuthorityInquilinos Boricuas en AccionJohn Sharratt Associates, Inc.

HUD Section 221d3 and 236 subsidiesSection 8 subsidiesMass Housing Finance Agency

$25.7 Million

$1.3 mil / 71 Units - $18,309$4.6 mil / 204 - $22,549$5.6 mil / 181 - $30,939$2.2 mil / 36 - $61,111$12 mil / 2000 - $600 (this phase is ignored here)

78%204,119 Net / 260,197 Gross(Phases II and III: Townhouses and High Rise)

11.2 acres492 .82 car / unit (405 spots)

Midrise Units

Highrise Units

Townhouse Units

3 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

6 Bedroom

44 Units Per Acre

Building Type 22%

37%

41%

Unit Type33%

11%

22%

11%22%

Unit Density 29%

72 72

A large community of Puerto Rican immigrants had just entered this area and was enjoying its many benefits - low rent, close access to public transit, low skill jobs and good welfare benefits - when in 1965 HUD planned to demolish low-income communities in the South End to make room for high-end residential development (“Urban Renewal”). To stay in the South End, they enlisted the help of John Sharratt Associates Architects, formed the Emergency Tenants Council and mobilized support from every known organization in Boston to prevent HUD from designating their parcel as an urban renewal area, and won. The ETC preserved several row houses and churches. Sharratt incorporated unique strategy of urbanism to distinguish the project. The most distinctive is U-shaped roads which serve to discourage through-traffic, fortifying a sense of private community. A 16 story tower brings together affordable elderly housing with live-in assistants. The most common housing units are small groups (4-10 units each) of townhouses ranging from 1 bedroom flats to 6 bedroom triplexes. The townhouses provide the proximity of community housing while retaining a distinct individuality meant to empower the residents with a sense of ownership.

Villa Victoria | Precedents

1”= 200’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Site Plan

74 74

Thresholds

Private

Public

Thresholds

Private

Public

1. Most public (Sidewalk)

2. Threshold (grade level entry)

3. Semi-private (sub-level entry)

4. Private (upper level entry)

3

41

2Villa Victoria | Precedents

Phase II: “Torre Unidad”floor 1

1 BD Apartment

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

2 BD Studio

1 BD Studio

76 76

Phase II: “Torre Unidad”floor 2

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’ Villa Victoria | Precedents

Phase II: 2 BR Studio1 Bathroom 686 Square Feet

Misc. Floors

Phase II: 1 BR Apartment1 Bathroom 532 square Feet

All Floors

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

78 78

Phase II: 1 BR Studio1 Bathroom

390 Square Feet

All Floors


1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Phase III: “Viviendas” TownhousesSub-Floor (Flats)First Floor (Duplexes and Triplexes)

2 BD Flat

4 BDTriplex

6BDTriplex

4BDDuplex

3BDDuplex

80 80 1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Phase III: “Viviendas” TownhousesSecond Floor

Third Floor

4 BDTriplex2nd floor

4 BDTriplex3rd floor

6BDTriplex2nd floor

6BDTriplex3rd floor

4BDDuplex2nd floor

3BDDuplex2nd floor


3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Phase III: 2 BR Flat1 Bathroom 741 Square Feet

Sub-Floor

82 82 3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Phase III: 1 BR Flat1 Bathroom

531 Square Feet

Sub-Floor


Phase III: 6 BR Triplex2.5 Bathrooms 2,003 Square Feet

First Floor

Phase III: 6 BR Triplex2.5 Bathrooms 2,003 Square Feet

Second Floor

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

84 84

Phase III: 6 BR Triplex2.5 Bathrooms

2,003 Square Feet

Third Floor


Phase III: 4 BR Triplex2 Bathrooms 1,595 Square Feet

First Floor

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

86 86

Phase III: 4 BR Triplex2 Bathrooms

1,595 Square Feet

Second Floor

Phase III: 4 BR Triplex2 Bathrooms

1,595 Square Feet

Third Floor


Phase III: 3 BR Duplex1 Bathroom 1,224 Square Feet

First Floor

Phase III: 3 BR Duplex1 Bathroom 1,224 Square Feet

Second Floor

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

88 88

Phase III: 4 BR Duplex1 Bathroom

1,504 Square Feet

First Floor

Phase III: 4 BR Duplex1 Bathroom

1,504 Square Feet

Second Floor


Mario Luis Small. Villa Victoria: The Transformation of Social Capital in a Boston Barrio (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2004).

Sharrett, John. “Urban Design Case Studies: Villa Victoria, Boston,” Urban Design International, Volume 2, Issue 2, 1981, 34-35.

Schmertz, Mildred F. “Building Types Study: Housing,” Architectural Record, February, 1978, 78-95.

Sources

90 90 Villa Victoria | Precedents

Starrett city Brooklyn, NY

Date Built/renovated:

Developer:

Owner:

architect:

Financing:

total cost:

efficiencyNet/Gross:


Parking:

1974

Starrett Housing corporationNational Kinney corporation

Starrett city associates

Herman J. Jessor

Mitchell-Lama Programreduced-interest New york State Mortgage Program

$360 million

79%

153 acres5,881

.85 car / unit

Townhouse Units

Midrise Units

3 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

Unit Type

Units Per Acre

23%

41.5%35.5

%

Building Type

Unit Density

39

92Starrett city | Precedents

History

Originally Twin Pines Village, the envisioned solution to New York’s housing crisis in the 1960s changed its name to Starrett City after the Starrett Housing Corporation became involved as a developer. The development changed its name once again in 1992 to Spring Creek Towers. Herman J. Jessor (1894-1990), designer of about 40,000 housing units in New York, used Modernist principles for the housing development. The project is the antithesis of Jane Jacob’s lessons, described as a vertical suburb.Eight cul-de-sac-like loops, named Ardley,

Bethel, Croton, Delmar, Elmira, Freeport, Geneva, and Hornell, are situated around three city streets. An 8-floor parking garage anchors each loop. The 46 11-. 17-, and 20-story buildings are situated on superblocks, surrounded by well-maintained green spaces. The project breaks from traditional Modernist design in that it boasts a number of amenities, including a commercial center, schools, a private security force, a community center, recreational facilities, and its own power plant.Poor and minority families were amazed at

Starrett City at the time of its opening. The apartment rooms were large and nearly all of the ample green space was accessible. The recreational facilities could be used late into the night due to the presence of the private security guards. Seventy-six percent of the occupants who first moved in were from elsewhere in Brooklyn. The remainder consisted mostly of white, working class families escaping the deteriorating conditions in the Bronx.Spring Creek Towers is one of the few

successful Modernist housing developments. The project remains both the largest housing development and statically one of the safest places in the nation.

1”= 200’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

GARAGE

HORNELL LOOP

PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE

BALL COURT

BALL COURT

PLAYGROUND

Site Plan

94 94 Starrett city | Precedents

www.starrettcitypics.com

CORE

type a

2 BD Stacked Flat

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

1 BD Stacked Flat

3 BD Stacked Flat

96 96

type a: 1 Br Stacked Flat1 Bathroom

820 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’ Starrett city | Precedents

type a: 2 Br Stacked Flat1 Bathroom 950 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

98 98

type a: 3 Br Stacked Flat1.5 Bathrooms

1,320 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’ Starrett city | Precedents

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

type B

CORE

1 BD Stacked Flat

3 BD Stacked Flat

100 100 3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

type B & c: 1 Br Stacked Flat1 Bathrooms

730 Square Feet

Starrett city | Precedents

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

type B: 3 Br Stacked Flat1.5 Bathroom 1290 Square Feet

102 102 Starrett city | Precedents1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

CORE

1 BD Stacked Flat

type c

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

type c: 1 Br Stacked Flat1 Bathrooms700 Square Feet

CORE

TYPE A TYPE A TYPE CTYPE B

C1B2B1A5A4A3A2A1

106 106

A1

A1 A1

A1

A1A1

A1

A1

A2

A2

A3

A3

A3

A3 A3

A3

C1

C1

C1C1

C1

A4A4 A4

A4

A4A4

A5

A5 A5 A5

A5A5

A5

A5

A5

B1

B1

B1

B2

B2

B2

B2 B2

B2

B2

Starrett city | Precedents

Fried, Joseph P., “People Move In, And Starrett City Is Homey at Last,” New York Times,May 23, 1976, R1.

Fried, Joseph P., “Planners Preparing for Starrett City’s Tenants,” New York TimesOctober 13, 1974, 91.

Horsley, Carter B, “Housing for 24,000 Begun in Brooklyn,” New York Times July 16, 1972, 46.

Lichtenstein, Grace, “5,881 Unit Project Is Dedicated Here,” New York Times October 14, 1974, 1.

Roberts, Steven V., “Project for 6,000 Families Approved for Canarsie Site,” New York TimesJune 28, 1967, 1.

www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter02-07.html

www.springcreektowersny.com

Sources

Madison park village Boston, MA

date Built/renovated:

developer: smith HouseHaynes HouseMpv iiiMpv iv

owner: architect:

Financing:

Total Cost:

efficiencynet/gross:


parking:

1973 (smith House), 1974 (Haynes House), 1978 (Madison park village iii), 1980 (Madison park village iv)

BHaMadison park developers Corporation & Trinity Financial

Madison park iv inc. / Mpd corp.elton & Hampton architects

low income Housing Tax Credit; private equity

$ 28.4 million

87%

13.4 acres(263) 243; 506 on site

street parking for residents, 60 slots in the Haynes House lot

27%

14%

15%

27

%17%

Townhouse Units

Midrise Units

Highrise Units

27-35% AMI

36-60% AMI

Market Rate

15-26% AMI

00-14% AMI

3 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

Building Type

Unit Type

Units Per Acre

Rental Type

Unit Density 3832%

44%

19%

5%49%

25%

26%

110 110 Madison park village | precedents

History

Madison Park Village is a series of four developments that mark the beginning of Madison Park Development Corp. They are a community oriented developer who seeks to reclaim and enhance the culture and lifestyle of the Lower Roxbury area. The first project on this site was the Smith

House, a multi story high-rise tower primarily serving the elderly and disabled. Soon to follow was the Haynes House, a midrise development serving small families and couples. Next in line was Madison Park Village III, a 120 unit townhouse development that covers a little less than half of the site today. Finally filling in the rest of the site is Madison Park Village IV, a 123 unit townhouse development - it is slated for renovations during or shortly following 2011.

1”= 400’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

SHAW

MU

T AV

ENU

E

WAS

HINGT

ON S

TREE

T

TABER STREET

MADISON PARK COURT

RUGGLES STREET

WILLIAMS STREET

VERNON STREETPALMER STREET

MAD

ISON

PAR

K CO

URT

EASTABROOK ROAD

CABOT STREET

MARVIN STREET

DEW

ITT

DRIV

E

DEWITT DRIVESH

AWM

UT

AVEN

UE

RUGGLES STREET

GREENWICH STREET

MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD

KERR

WAY

RAYN

OR C

IRCL

E

WINDSOR STREET

BALL STREET

MELNEA CASS BOULEVARD

TREMONT STREET

SOJOURNER TRUTH

CABO

T ST

REET

BROO

KE-M

ARSH

ALL

ROAD

SHAW

MUT

AVE

NUE

DEW

ITT

DRIV

E

site plan

112 112 1”= 400’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Smith House

Haynes House

MPV Phase III

MPV Phase IV

Madison park village | precedents

Mpv iii2 BR Townhouse3 BR Townhouse4 BR Townhouse

4 BrTownhouse

2 BrTownhouse

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

3 BrTown-house


Mpv iii: 3 Br duplex1.5 Bathroom

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

MVP3-AMVP3-AMVP3-A

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Mpv iii: 4 Br Townhouse1 Bathroom

MVP3-CMVP3-C

116 116 Madison park village | precedents3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Mpv iii: 2 Br Townhouse1 Bathroom

MVP3-BMVP3-B

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Mpv ivGarden LevelDuplex A & BTownhouse

2 Brgarden Flat

2 Brduplex a

2 Brduplex B

3 BrTownhouse

118 118 3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Mpv iv: 2 Br garden Flat1 Bathroom


3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Mpv iv: 2 Br duplex a1 Bathroom

120 120 3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Mpv iv: 2 Br duplex B1 Bathroom


3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Mpv iv: 3 Br Townhouse1.5 Bathroom

Tanner, Russell. Interview. Madison Park Development Corporation. September 12, 2011.

City of Boston Tax Assessor http://hubmaps1.cityofboston.gov/egis/Map.aspx?PropertyID=1101630000

sources

HARBOR POINT Boston, MA


Developer:

Owner: Architect:

Financing:

Total Cost:Cost Per SF:


Density:


Buildings:

Parking:

Amenities:

1990

Corcoran, Mullins, Jennison

Boston Housing AuthorityGoody Clancy Architects

Hope VI FundingPublic/ Private Equity

$250 million$131/ SF total

86%

30 Units/Acre

44 acres1,283

56

1.16/ Unit

Clubhouse RoomFitness CenterSwimming poolsTennis courtsHarbor walkConvenience storeControlled access buildingsJFK LibraryUMass BostonRedline JFK/UMass

Townhouse

3-Story Garden

5-7-Story Midrise

Market Rate

00-40% AMI

3 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

5 Bedroom

6 Bedroom

Building Type

Unit Type

Units Per Acre

14% 69%

29%

65%

15%

20%

Unit Density 26

Rental Type 69%

31%

29%

51%

13%

5%1%

1%

126 126 Harbor Point | Precedents

History

This successful, mixed-income community for 1,283 families was developed on the 50-acre site of Columbia Point, once New England’s largest public housing project, a 1500-unit development where only 350 units were occupied, the rest, boarded up and condemned. The new design combines townhouses and mid-rises with renovated thee and seven story existing buildings in a dramatic new street pattern that recalls traditional city layouts.Two-thirds of the mostly abandoned buildings

were demolished. A new, rotated street grid replaces the “towers-in-the-park” layout of the original housing project, creating vistas to the water, Boston skyline, and a new linear waterfront park and harborwalk.Columbia Points previous plan included

very little green and recreational space. Harbor Point’s plan includes a long, formal mall, lined with trees and midrise garden apartments that were scaled closely to Boston’s historic Commonwealth Ave. This central spine is flanked by two tennis courts and a recreation center.Simple architectural details such as dormers,

bay windows, pitched roofs, and balconies evoke traditional New England housing types. The development features a diversity of unit types and sizes, market rate and subsidized apartments are seamlessly integrated. This simple dynamic has proven to create a safe and enjoyable community in the realm of public housing.

1”= 400’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Site Plan


PRIMARYENTRANCE

SECONDARYENTRANCE

VIEWS OF SKYLINE

VIEWS OF HARBOR

WATERFRONT PARK

1”= 400’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

REHABBED BUILDINGS

NEW 5, 6 or 7- STORY

NEW TOWNHOUSES

NON-RESIDENTIAL

Site Diagram

Townhouse

floor 2floor 1

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

HARBOR POINT

5’ 10’ 20’ 40’ 80’

50’ 100’ 200’ 400’Second Floor Plan Townhouse First Floor Plan Townhouse

Site Size

Building Size

Buildings

Amenities clubhouse room

swimming poolstennis courtsharbor walkconvenience storecontrolled access buildingsJFK LibraryUMass BOSTONRedline (JFK/Umass)

ParkingOn-Site


1BR Flat - Townhouse1 Bathroom

617 Square Feet

2 BR Flat - Townhouse1 Bathroom713 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

2 BR Mingles - Townhouse2 Bathroom 718 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’


2 BR Duplex - Townhouse2 Bathrooms

516 Square Feet

floor 2floor 1

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

3 BR Triplex - Townhouse2 Bathrooms483 Square Feet

floor 2floor 1

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

134 134 Harbor Point | Precedents3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

3 BR Triplex - Townhouse2 Bathrooms

483 Square Feet

floor 3

“The Harbor Point Experiment,” The Boston Globe (28 January 1987)

Breitbart Margulies, Myrna & Pader F., Ellen, “Transforming Public Housing: Conflicting Visions for Harbor Point,” Places (Profile: Harbor Point) p. 34-41

Goody E., Joan “From Project to Community: The Redesign of Columbia Point,” Places p. 20-33

Images:

http://www.harborpointonthebay.com/

http://www.bostonapartments.com/harbor.htm

Sources

TENT CITY Boston, MA

Unit Density

84

Townhouse Units

Midrise Units

Market Rate

Medium-Income

Low-Income

3 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

Building Type

Unit Type

Units Per Acre

Rental Type

25%

25%

50%6%

35%

34%

25%

35%

65%

1986-1990

Tent City Corporation (Building) JMB/Urban Development Co. (Parking)

Leighton Park Limited Partnership

Goody Clancy & Associates

Public/Private

$36 million$110 total / $99 residential hard costs

1,200

3.2 acres269

.48 cars / unit

Date Built:

Developer:

Owner:

Architect:

Financing:

Total Cost: Cost per SF:

Residents:


Parking:

138 138 Tent City | Precedents

History

Located at the threshold of Boston’s South End and Back Bay neighborhoods is Tent City, one of the city’s most recognized housing projects. In the late 1960s the site consisted of a parking lot which was slated to become luxury housing. Unhappy with the general loss of low-cost housing to urban redevelopment in the area, South End residents and activists staged the ‘Tent City’ sit-in. This protest led to the formation of Tent City Corporation - a community controlled development organization in 1979. TCC then acquired designation from the BRA as a developer of the site by partnering with Macomber Development and Housing Associates. As a result of strong support from the community and eventually from the city, the project was started in 1986. Financing was made possible through a mix

of private and public sources including the MHFA, City of Boston, MA Chapter 707 and an Urban Development Action Grant. The project consists of low-income, moder-

ate-income and market rate apartments as well as retail space on the ground floor. Through a stepped massing, the buildings are designed to transition gradually from the low-rise, residential character of the South End to the taller buildings surrounding Copley Place. Tent City has received numerous

commendations including a United Nations World Habitat Award, Urban Land Institute’s Award for Excellence and Architectural Record’s In the Public Interest Award.

1”= 100’ 5’ | 15’ | 30’ | 50’ | 75’

Columbus Avenue

Dar

tmou

th S

treet

Yarm

outh

Str

eet

Yarmouth Place

140 140 1”= 100’ 5’ | 15’ | 30’ | 50’ | 75’

Figure-Ground

The drawing (right) shows the ground floor of Tent City and its surroundings, illustrating public and private space. Public areas include the main Tent City lobby and restaurant/retail space along Dartmouth Street.Semi-public areas include offices and

housing amenities as well as stairways/entry ways. Private space includes all interior apartment area.

Private

Semi-Public

Public

Tent City | Precedents

Townhouse Building

floor 1 floor 2

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UPUP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UPDN

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UPUP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UPDN

DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

142 142

Midrise: Studio Flat1 Bathroom

543 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’ Tent City | Precedents

Midrise: 1BR Flat1 Bathroom 643 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

144 144

Townhouse: 1BR Flat1 Bathroom

614 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’ Tent City | Precedents

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Midrise: 2BR Flat1 Bathroom 643 Square Feet

146 146 3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Townhouse: 2BR Flat1 Bathroom

853 Square Feet


3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Townhouse: 3BR Flat1.5 Bathrooms 1,146 Square Feet

148 148 3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Townhouse: 3BR Duplex1.5 Bathrooms

1,290 Square Feet


DN

DN

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

DN

UP

Townhouse: 3BR Duplex (Corner)1.5 Bathrooms 1,340 Square Feet

150 150 3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

DN

UP

Townhouse: 4BR Duplex2.5 Bathrooms

1,642 Square Feet


Anderson, Grace M. “From Tents to Town Houses: Mixed-Income Housing, Tent City, Boston, Goody, Clancy & Associates.” Architectural Record 176 (1988): 90-93.

Boston Redevelopment Authority. “The Boston Atlas.” Accessed November 4, 2011. http://www.mapjunction.com/bra/.

Goody Clancy. “Tent City.” Accessed September 15, 2011. http://www.goodyclancy.com/arch?categoryId=9&view=project&layout=image&projectid=4 8&image=1.

Google. “Google Maps Satellite.” Accessed September 12th, 2011. http://maps.google.com/.

“Low-cost housing: eleven proejcts by eight architects represent a range of building types, from emergency shelters to single-room occupancy hotels to four-bedroom townhouses.” Progressive Architecture 69 (1988): 70-86.

Maloney Properties, Inc. Tent City Sample Floorplans. Obtained September 12, 2011. 130 Dartmouth St, Boston, MA, 02216.

Posner, Joshua. “Tent City: Creative Financing for Affordable Housing.” Urban Land 48 (1989): 6–11.

The Community Builders. “Tent City.” Accessed September 14 20th, 2011. http://www.tcbinc.org/what_we_do/projects/tent_city.htm.

Tsai, Freda. “A New Attitude Towards Provision of Affordable Housing: A Case Study on the Tent City Project in Boston’s South End.”(1991), Accessed September 10, 2011, http://www.archive.org/details/newattitudetowar00tsai.

Sources

152 152 Tent City | Precedents

orchard gardens Boston, MA

date Built/renovated:

developer: Phase IPhase II & III

owner: architect:

Financing:

Total cost: Per Unit cost:

Phase IPhase IIPhase III

efficiencynet/gross:


Parking:

1996 (Phase I), 1998 (Phase II), 2000 (Phase III)

BhaMadison Park developers corporation & Trinity Financial

Madison Trinity Venturesdomenech hicks & Krockmainic architects

hope VI Funding & Low Income housing Tax credit; Private equity

$30 million

$145,000$135,000$135,000

89.4%

27 acres331

.75 car / unit

Rental Type

Unit Type

Townhouse Units

Midrise Units

21-40% AMI

11-20% AMI

00-10% AMI

3 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

Units Per Acre

41-60% AMI

61-80% AMI12%

5 Bedroom

1224%

34%

33

%

7%

12%23%

41%

12%

Duplex Units

Building Type 8%41%

51%

Unit Density

154 154 sub-section | section

history

Orchard Gardens was born out of community activism and continues to thrive today due to that involvement. Thirty percent of the previous development, Orchard Park, was vacant in 1992 due to the serious state of disrepair. The area was littered with violence and crime and the super-block configuration only aided these downfalls. Due to increasing pressure from the

community, the Boston Housing Authority began a “Comprehensive Modernization” of the existing super-block buildings. Later know as “Phase I”, it created 126 renovated units and focussed on alleviating shared entries in addition to defensible space. These measures, however, proved extremely expensive and was ruled unsuccessful. In 1995, HUD’s hope VI program allowed for

the redevelopment of the original 15 acre site. Along with the development of new housing, there was a focus of re-connecting the area with the urban fabric. As a result, new streets were created. Each and every unit was given their own street address. Phase II included both 2 & 3 story townhomes in addition to 8 two-family duplexes, making up 90 new units. Likewise, Phase III consisted of 115 new units configured as garden-style townhomes centered around a large public park.In the end 331 units were created and

were located in a “typical neighborhood environment.” Buildings fronted on streets, backyards offered a space to play, and garden space added to a sense of individuality. Daily resident activity on the streets provided eyes on the street and helped combat pre-existing crime. Additionally, a hierarchy of space existed, ranging from front stoops to individual entries and private backyards. In the end Orchard Gardens became a community again.

orchard gardens | Precedents

HA

RR

IS

ON

A

VE

NU

E

AL

BA

NY

ST

RE

ET

DE

AR

BO

RN

S

TR

EE

T

D U D L E Y S T R E E T

EU

ST

IS

S

TR

EE

T

HA

MP

DE

N

ST

RE

ET

AD

AM

S S

TR

EE

T

DE

GA

UT

I ER

WA

Y

S HA B A Z Z W

A Y

BE

TH

UN

E

WA

Y

WH

EA

TL

EY

W

AY

Z E I G L E R S T

A M B R O S E S T

OR

CH

AR

D

PA

RK

S

T

KE

EG

AN

S

T

PR

ES

CO

TT

ST

1”= 400’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

site Plan

156 156 orchard gardens | Precedents

HA

RR

IS

ON

A

VE

NU

E

AL

BA

NY

ST

RE

ET

DE

AR

BO

RN

S

TR

EE

TD U D L E Y S T R E E T

EU

ST

IS

S

TR

EE

T

HA

MP

DE

N

ST

RE

ET

AD

AM

S S

TR

EE

T

DE

GA

UT

I ER

WA

Y

S HA B A Z Z W

A Y

BE

TH

UN

E

WA

Y

WH

EA

TL

EY

W

AY

Z E I G L E R S T

A M B R O S E S T

OR

CH

AR

D

PA

RK

S

T

KE

EG

AN

S

T

PR

ES

CO

TT

ST

PHASE I renovated Orchard Park buildings

PHASE II two family homes2 & 3 story townhomes

PHASE III 2 story townhomes

1”= 400’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

UP

UPUP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

Phase I rehab

floor 3floor 2floor 1

1 Bd stacked Flat

2 Bd stacked Flat

3 Bd duplex

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’


DN

UP

Phase I: 1 Br stacked Flat1 Bathroom

685 Square Feet

Phase I: 1 Br 3rd Fl Flat1 Bathroom695 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Phase I: 2 Br stacked Flat1 Bathroom 1,010 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’


UP

DN

Phase I: 3 Br duplex1.5 Bathrooms

1,320 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DNDN

UP

DNDN

UP

DNDN

Phase II duplexes


Duplex A | Duplex B

162 162 orchard gardens | Precedents3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Phase II duplex ‘a’: 4 Br2 Bathrooms

2,170 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2

DN

UP

DN

UP

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

DN

UP

Phase II duplex ‘a’: 4 Br

floor3


DN

UP UP

Phase II duplex ‘a’: 3 Br1.5 Bathrooms

1,685 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

DN

UP

DN

UP

Phase II duplex ‘B’: 5 Br2 Bathrooms2,485 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2


DN

Phase II duplex ‘B’: 5 Br

floor 3

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

UP

DN

UP

Phase II duplex ‘B’: 2 Br1 Bathroom1,400 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2


Phase II duplex ‘a’4 BR l 3 BR

Phase II duplex ‘B’5 BR l 2 BR

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

DN DNDN DN

DN DN

DN DN

UP UP

UP UP

DN

DN

DN

DN DN DN DN DN DN DN DN DN

UP UP UP UP

UP UP

UP UP

DN

DN

DN

DNDN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

Phase II Townhomes



Phase II Townhome1 Br stacked Flat

1 Bathroom 855 Square Feet

floor 1

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

DN

UP

DN

Phase II Townhome2 Br duplex1 Bathroom1,445 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2


DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

Phase II Townhome3 Br Triplex

1.5 Bathrooms 1,970 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2 l floor 3

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

UP UPUP

UPUP UPUP UPUPUP

UPUP

UPDN UP DN

UP DN

DNDNDNDNDNDNDNDN

UPDN

DN

DN

DN

DN

Phase III Townhomes



UP

UP

Phase III Townhome1 Br stacked Flat

1 Bathroom 950 Square Feet

floor 1

UP

DN

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Phase III Townhome 2 Br duplex2 Bathroom1,425 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2

176 176 3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

UP

DN

Phase III Townhome3 Br duplex

1 Bathroom 1,625 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2

Boston Housing Authority 1992. “Orchard Park Redevelopment.” 1-9.

Boston Housing Authority. “Orchard Park: Phase I Comprehensive Modernization.” Hard Copy.

Cárdenas, Alberto. Interview. DHK Architects. September 15, 2001.

DHK Architects. Orchard Gardens “Floorplans 1,2,3.” Digital Copy.

DHK Architects. “Orchard Gardens (on-site), Boston, MA.”

DHK Architects. Orchard Gardens “Typical Unit Plan.” Digital Copy.

DHK Architects. “Orchard Park Homeownership, Roxbury, MA.”

DHK Architects. “OP New Site Plan FINAL Presentation Board.” Digital Copy.

Orchard Park, Boston, MA. Mixed-Finance Guidebook: Case Study Narrative. 1997.

Tanner, Russell. Interview. Madison Park Development Corporation. September 12, 2011.

Trinity Financial. “Project Description.”

Images:

Bing 2011. “Bing Maps.” http://www.bing.com/maps

sources

178 178 Tent city | Precedents

CAMFIELD ESTATES Boston, MA


Developer: Owner: Architect:

Financing:




Parking:

1969, 1999

Mass Housing Finance AgencyCamfield Tenants AssociationDomenech Hicks & Krockmainic Architects

Publicly subsidized with HUD funded mortgages and rental subsidy vouchers

$15 million$147,000

79.3%

3.9 acres102

.5 car / unit

Rental Type

Unit Type

Townhouse Units

21-40% AMI

11-20% AMI

00-10% AMI

3 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

Units Per Acre

41-60% AMI

61-80% AMI12%

2623%

39%

19% 19%

12%64%

12%

Building Type

Unit Density

180 180 Sub-Section | Section

History

Camfield Estates is a privately owned affordable housing development. Originally built in 1969 under the name Camfield Gardens, the development was a combination of 136 low and mid-rise buildings. Thirty years after its creation, the project greatly suffered from poor design and construction. The buildings were initially constructed of pre-cast concrete that suffered from poor craft and joints which resulted in serious leaking. In addition, the grim super-block design didn’t relate to the existing neighborhood or street pattern while also lacking defensible space due to shared corridors and entry. In reaction to the substandard housing,

Camfield Gardens was chosen to participate in HUD’s Demolition Disposition program. The program focused on rehabilitating or demolishing failed housing. The “demo-dispo” program looked to address shortcoming in multi-family housing and was initiated in 1993. As a result, Camfield Gardens was completely demolished in 1996. The design process for the new Camfield

Estates heavily relied on community involvement. Buildings and unit types that fit the existing resident profile were highly desired. In addition, design features such as the importance of fronting on a street and defensible space. One entrance to three units is the largest shared entry. Parking was included but did not act as a central focus. As a result, a cul-de-sac was created that provided each module with a street address and freed the development from its previous land-locked state.

Camfield Estates | Precedents

1”= 400’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Site Plan

182 182

2 Families

3 Families

Community Center

Camfield Estates | Precedents

Typical Floor Plans

fl oor 3fl oor 2fl oor 1

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

1 BRStacked Flat

2 BR Duplex A 4 BR Triplex

2 BR Flat

3 BR Triplex2 BR Duplex B

184 184 Camfi eld Estates | Precedents

Apartment Aggregation

1 BD Flat

2 BD Flat

2 BD Duplex A

2 BD Duplex B

4 BD Triplex

3 BD Triplex

1 BR Stacked Flat1 Bathroom 832 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

186 186 Camfield Estates | Precedents

2 BR Flat1.5 Bathrooms

1,144 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

2 BR Duplex1 Bathroom996 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

188 188 Camfield Estates | Precedents3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

3 BR Triplex 1.5 Bathrooms

1,575 Square Feet


3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

4 BR Triplex2 Bathrooms1,754 Square Feet

floor 1 l floor 2

190 190 Camfield Estates | Precedents3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

4 BR Triplex

floor 3

Cárdenas, Alberto. Interview. DHK Architects. September 15, 2001.

DHK Architects. Camfield Gardens “Floorplans.” Digital Copy.

DHK Architects. Camfield Gardens “Site Plan 01.” Digital Copy.

Images:

Bing 2011. “Bing Maps.” http://www.bing.com/maps

Sources

192 192 Camfield Estates | Precedents


Developer:

Architect:

Financing:

Total Cost:

Per Unit Cost:


Overall size:

Number of units:

Parking:

2001

Northeastern University, BHA

DHK Architects

Public/Private (Trinity Financial Group, Madison Park Community Development)

$36 million

$125/SF Student Housing, $130/SF Family Housing

87%

284,396 SF (206,000 SF Student Housing, 78,396 SF Family Housing)

39 Units of Family Housing

63 Surface Parking Spaces

Midrise Units

3 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

Building Type

Unit Type

Units Per Acre

Rental Type 121-175% AMI

81-120% AMI

0-80% AMI

62% 18%

20%

15%

85%1240Unit Density

DAVENPORT COMMONS Boston, MA

194 194 Davenport Commons | Precedents

History

The Davenport Commons Development is unique in that it houses a mix of Northeastern University students and affordable housing residents. While these two groups reside in separate buildings on the complex, they share certain outdoor spaces, including a courtyard. The affordable housing is a series of

interconnected modules, each containing four dwelling units in the form of a pair of side by side duplexes, stacked in a four story building.The massing of Davenport Commons

reinforces the existing urban grid. The taller structures are located on the northern edge of the site in order to relate to Northeastern University , while the residential townhouses on the southern edge respond to the and housing density of the adjacent residential neighborhoods.Typical units are stacked duplexes mirrored

along a thickened party wall which houses the circulation for the units.

Site Plan

T R E M O N T S T R E E T

C O L U M B U S A V E N U E

BU

RK

E S

TR

EE

T

BE

NT

ON

ST

RE

ET

DA

VE

NP

OR

T S

TR

EE

T

DO

UG

LA

S P

AR

K

1”= 200’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’


Building PlanGround Floor

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Building Floor PlanSecond Floor

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’


Building PlanThird Floor

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Building Floor PlanFourth Floor

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’


UNIT A | LEVEL 1LIVING AREAS, KITCHEN

UNIT B | LEVEL 2LIVING AREAS, KITCHEN

Typical Unit

Floor 1

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

Typical Unit

Floor 2

DN DN

UNIT A | LEVEL 22 BEDROOMS

UNIT B | LEVEL 22 BEDROOMS

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’


Typical Unit

Floor 3

DN

DN

UP UP

UNIT C | LEVEL 1LIVING AREAS, KITCHEN

UNIT D | LEVEL 1LIVING AREAS, KITCHEN

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

DN DN

UNIT C | LEVEL 2 2 BEDROOMS

UNIT B | LEVEL 23 BEDROOMS

Typical Unit

Floor 4

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’


WET ZONE LOCATED ON EITHER SIDE OF PARTY WALL

CIRCULATION CORE

2-STORY STACKED DUPLEX UNITS

3 BEDROOM UNITSTACKED ABOVE 2 BEDROOM UNIT

SHAREDCIRCULATION CORE

PRIVATE CIRCULATION (WITHIN UNIT)

TYPICAL UNIT CONFIGURATION

Typical Unit Configuration

Unit Aggregation

UNIT AGGREGATION

1 STORY, 2 BEDROOM UNITS




Domenech, Hicks & Krockmalnic Architects:Davenport Commons drawing setCase Study: Urban Mixed Use Housing Project

Images:

http://www.bing.com/maps/

Sources

Mission Main Boston, MA


Developer:

owner:

architect:

Financing:

Total Cost:

Per Unit Cost:

Efficiencynet/Gross:

overall size:

number of units:

Parking:

1995 - 2001

Winn Development Company (50%)Ea Fish & associates (35%) Cruz Development (15%)

Boston Housing authority (BHa) Limited Partnership agreement

Chia Ming sze architects

$50 Million Grant from Hope Vi Program$28 Million Comprehensive Grant4% and 9% Low income Tax Credits

$127 Million

$228,453

91%

23 acres

535

1.06 car / unit

27%

14%

15%

27

%17%

Townhouse Units

Midrise Units

27-35% AMI

36-60% AMI

Market Rate

15-26% AMI

00-14% AMI

3 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

Building Type

Unit Type

Units Per Acre

Rental Type

Unit Density 2322%

35%

34%

9%78%

22%

210 210 Mission Main | Precedents

History

Mission Main was first built as a Federal Housing Project in 1940 to provide low-cost public housing. The project was designed as a “superblock” development and consisted of 38 three-story buildings arranged in rows without any through streets.By 1993 Mission Main became one of the

most crime ridden properties of the BHA due to an extensive drug trade and the violence it bred. As a result the development had become largely vacant. An assessment of the buildings at this time found only 3% to be in good condition with an overwhelming 56% considered in poor condition. A vigilent group of Mission Main residents banded together to form The Mission Main Task Force (MMTF) to make a difference in their community. The MMTF joined with the BHA to develop a vision for Mission Main’s future.The BHA and MMTF submitted an

application to become part of the HOPE VI program. The application proposed the demolition of the 38 existing structures and construction of 535 new housing units of which 83% were to serve public housing eligible households while the remaining 17% were to be available at market price. The site was to be reorganized as to eliminate the institutional feel of the “superblock” and to introduce public streets and neighborhood greenspaces. The buildings were to be designed to reflect the neighborhood pattern and building type of Mission Hill and consist of town-house style homes in addition to one midrise building.

1996 2011

Tremont St.

Smith St.

McGreevey Way

Longwood Ave

Tetlow St.

Horadan Way

Ward St.

Ruggles St.

Park

er S

t.

Huntington Ave.

St. A

lpho

nsus

St.

Ore

gon

Ct.

Pala

ce R

d.

Vanc

ouve

r St.

San

Juan

Way

Turq

uois

St.

1”= 400’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

site Plan

212 212 Mission Main | Precedents1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Building 1Floor 3Floor 2Floor 1

DN

DN

DN DN

DN

DN

UP

UP

UP UP

UP UP

DN DN

DN

DN

DN DN

DN

DN

DN DN

UP UP

UP UP

UP

UP

Phase i: 2 BR stacked Flat1 Bathroom 963 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

214 214

UP

DNDN

UPUP

DNDN

UPUP

DNDN

UP

Mission Main | Precedents

3BR Townhouse1.5 Bathrooms

1,428 Square Feet

Floor 1 I Floor 2 I Floor 3

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Building 2Floor 2 & 3Floor 1

UP

UP

UP UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

DN

DNDN

DN

UP UP

UP UP


3BR stacked Flat 1.5 Bathrooms

1,202 Square Feet

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

3BR Economy Flat1.5 Bathrooms1,208 Square Feet


Building 3Floor 3Floor 2Floor 1

UP

UP

UP UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP UP

UP

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN DN

DN

DN

UP UP

UP

DN

UP

DN DN

UP UP

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN DN

DN DN

DN DN

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

2BR Flat1 Bathroom989 Square Feet

DN

DN

UP

DN


2 BR Duplex1 Bathroom

1,069 Square Feet

Floor 1 l Floor 2

DN

DN

UP

DN

Typical Unit Circulation

Unit 1

Unit 2

Unit 3


2 BR Duplex Circulation

Unit 1

Unit 2

Unit 3

“Boston Housing Authority,” date accessed September 7, 2011, http: //www.bostonhousing.org/detpages/devinfo40.html.

“EA Fish Companies,” date accessed September 18, 2011, http: //www.eafish.com.html.

United States General Accounting Office, “HOPE VI Progress and Problems in Revitalizing Distressed Public Housing” (Report to Congressional Committees, July, 1998).

Honlin, Mary Joel et al. “Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program Cross-Site Report” (prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., September 19, 2003).

sources

MAVERICK LANDING Boston, MA


Developer:

Owner: Management:Architect: Landscape:Contractor:

Financing:

Total Cost: Per Square Foot:

Efficiency Net/Gross:


Parking:

2003-2006

Trinity East Boston Partnership

Trinity East Boston PartnershipWinn ResidentialICON Architecture Geller DeVellisCWC Builders

Hope VI FundingTrinity East Boston PartnershipMass Tech Collaborative

$54 million$140

89.0%

9 acres396

.83 cars / unit

Townhouse Units

Midrise Units

31-60% AMI

Market Rate

11-30% AMI

00-10% AMI

3 Bedroom

4 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

1 Bedroom

23%

29%

34%

14%

28%

40%

26%

6%

Building Type

Unit Type

Rental Type

52%

48%

Units Per AcreUnit Density

44

Maverick Landing | Precedents 226

History

Located on the previous site of the distressed 1941 Maverick Gardens Project, Maverick Landing offers 396 new residential units just two blocks west of Maverick Square. These units range from one-bedroom mid-rise apartments to four-bedroom town homes available as monthly rental or resident owned dwellings. The Boston Housing Authority (BHA) in conjunction with the Trinity East Boston Partnership and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided the construction funds allowing for the transformation of the site into a currently vibrant and positive living environment. Although constructed as one project, the street grid and unit variety through materials and color pallets, imitate a naturally occurring residential neighborhood. This helps blend the new neighborhood into its surroundings, creating an environment that feels like it has been within the neighborhood all along. ICON Architecture and Geller DeVellis worked to provide a unique neighborhood that will positively effect future development adjacent to Maverick Landing.Along with the physical transformation, the

BHA and HUD executed various programs including home ownership fi nancing, which allows income-eligible families to take out a $20,000 loan through a special Hope VI grant, leading to ownership once the loan is paid off. This strategy of home ownership coupled with other strategies [i.e. employment programs, training courses etc.] is a new direction that HUD is using to try stabilize and improve previously distressed neighborhoods. The architectural design provides a positive environment for families to live, work and make the most of the social programs offered.

1884

The site is comprised almost entirely of dense 4-6 story residential units providing laborers for the near by industrial uses. The residents are primarily working class and from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds.

1935 The city of Boston claims the site through a loosely established Eminent Domain and clears the site for future development. This movement of working class minority populations impacts the adjacent industry.

1941 Maverick Gardens, one of Boston’s first public housing projects is constructed on the site. The three story brick barrack style buildings housed 413 families that were comprised of primarily low income minorities.

Historical Site Development

Maverick Landing | Precedents 228 1”= 200’ 10’ | 30’ | 60’ | 100’ | 150’

Maverick Street

Sumner Street

Cunard Street

Lombardi Park

Lo Presti Park

[In Conjunction]

New

Str

eet

Car

lton

Wha

rf

(In

Con

junc

tion)

Mid

-Ris

e

Bor

der

Stre

et

Lond

on S

tree

t

Par

is S

tree

t

Hav

re S

tree

t

Landing Street Community Center

2006 Maverick Landing, Boston’s most recent public housing projects is constructed on the site. Through a variety of unit types, material palette and various green space, the site becomes a vibrant mixed income neighborhood.

Waterfront Row Houses

floor 2floor 1

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP UP

UP

UPUP

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

UP

DN

DN

UP

DN

DN

UP

DN

DN

UP

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN DN

DNDN


Waterfront Row Houses

floor 3

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP UP

UP

UPUP

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

DN

UP

UP

DN

DN

UP

DN

DN

UP

DN

DN

UP

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN

DN DN

DNDN

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Neighborhood Mid-Rise

floor 1

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

DN

UP

DNUP

DN

UP

UP


Neighborhood Mid-Rise

floor 2-6

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

DN

UP

DNUP

DN

UP

UP

Unit Totals

3 BR Triplex ‘A’ 50 Units

4 BR Triplex ‘B’ 24 Units

3 BR Flat ‘C’ 54 Units

2 BR Duplex ‘D’ 70 Units

1 BR Flat ‘E’ 110 Units

2 BR Flat ‘F’ 88 Units

B

B

B

B

B

BB

AA

B

BB

AA

ABB ABB

B

B

A

AA

AAA A A A

A

B

A

A

AA

AAA A A A

AA

A

A A A A

A

B B

BB

B

A

A

AA

AAA A A A

A

B

AA

AAA A A A

AA

A A A A

A

BC+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+DC+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+E+F

C+D

C+D

C+D

C+D

AA

AA

AA

C+D

DN

UP

DN

UP

First Floor4 Bedroom Triplex 1,450 SQ. FT.

Second Floor Third Floor

DN

DN

UPUP


Second Floor

UP

UP

UP

First Floor3 B

edroom FLA

T 1,220 SQ

. FT.


UP

DN DN

2 Bedroom Duplex 970 SQ. FT.

DN

1 Bedroom Flat 690 SQ. FT.



3 BR Triplex ‘A’1.5 Bathrooms

1,240 Square Feet


3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

DN

DN

UPUP


Second Floor

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

4 BR Triplex ‘B’2 Bathrooms1,450 Square Feet floor 1 l floor 2 l floor 3

DN

UP

DN

UP



Maverick Landing | Precedents 2363/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

3 BR Flat ‘C’1.5 Bathrooms

1,220 Square Feet

floor 1

UP UP

UP

First Floor3 Bedroom FLAT 1,220 SQ. FT.

3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

2 BR Duplex ‘D’1 Bathroom970 Square Feet floor 2 l floor 3


UP

DN DN

2 Bedroom Duplex 970 SQ. FT.

DN

Maverick Landing | Precedents 2383/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

1 BR Flat ‘E’1 Bathroom

690 Square Feet

floor varies


3/32”=1’-0” 15’ 30’5’

2 BR Flat ‘F’1 Bathroom860 Square Feet fl oor varies


Bennett, Kathryn. Interview. Boston Housing Authority. September 12, 2011.

BHA 2011. “Boston Housing Authority.” http://bostonhousing.org

BRA 2011. “Boston Redevelopment Authority: Atlas.” http://mapjunction.com/bra

CWC 2011. “CWC Builders Inc.” http://cwcbuilders.com/

HUD 2011. “U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.” http://portal.hud.gov

ICON 2011. “ICON Architecture.” http://www.iconarch.com

ICON Architcture 2006. “Construction Documents.” Hard Copy.

Trinity 2011. “Trinity Partners.” http://www.trinitypartners.com

Images

Google. 2011. “Google Maps.” http://www.maps.google.com

ICON 2011. “ICON Architecture.” http://www.iconarch.com

Sources

Date Built/Renovated: Developer:

Architect:

Financing:




Parking:

2009

Skidmore Row Housing Trust

Koning Eizenberg Architects

Private investments & funding from Los Angeles Department of Housing

$20, 800, 000$180,870

89.7%

51, 230 sq ft115 units

0 spots for residents26 spots for employees

Midrise Units

80-100% AMI

00-10% AMI

1 Bedroom

Studio

Building Type

Unit Type

Units Per Acre

Rental Type

82%

Unit Density

68%10%

90%

ABBEy APARTmENTS Los Angeles, CA

244 244 Abbey Apartments | Precedents

History

The Abbey Apartments housing project was built in 2009 in Los Angeles, California for theSkidmore Row Housing Trust as an effort to pro-vide ‘fi rst stepp off the street’ citizens of the Los Angeles, California area with a home and accesss to basic medical, mental and social services. It is the 21st project developed and managed by the Skid Row Housing Trust and the fi rst affordable housing project in the Los Angeles area to provide such a range of on-site affordable services to both displaced and local residents. The apartment complex was built in hopes to serve as a solution to the problem of homelessness in the community, by pairing a bed with access to affordable health care ser-vices. The project is settled on an odd shaped site

and is confi gured to provide 115 cost effective effi ciency units, along a few communual spaces such as lounges, shared kitchens, and offi ces for the supportive health services. A central outdoor courtyard is elevated one level from the street to provide a communual outdoor recreation area and further emphasise a sense of community by creating a communual outdoor green space. It also acts as a core from which stairs and hallways lead to the resident’s apartments. The building also encompasses strategies

in being more sustainable and consume less energy with passive shading for each aparrtment, hydronic heaters, natural cross ventilation for cooling, low water consuming landscaping, and exterior circulation.

Site Plan

San

Jul

ian

St.

San

Ped

ro S

t.

E 6th St.


Building PlanGround Floor

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’


1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’



Building PlanThird Floor

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Building Floor PlanFourth Floor

250 250 Abbey Apartments | Precedents1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Building PlanFifth Floor

1 BR - manager’s Unit1Bathroom580 Square Feet

floor 2floor 3

Studio Unit 1Bathroom392 Square Feet

all floors

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’


Hanidcap - Accessible Unit 1 Bathroom

410 Square Feet

all floors

Hanidcap - Accessible Unit 1 Bathroom

450 Square Feet

all floors

1/32”=1’-0” 30’ 60’10’

Sectional AxonCirculation

main access points


Sectional AxonCirculation

main circulation pathsecondary circulation path

http://www.kearch.com/ Koning Eizenberg Architects

http://roybal-allard.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=125412

Images:

http://www.kearch.com/ Koning Eizenberg Architects

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=koning+eizenberg+architects+abbey+apartments&fb=1&gl=us&hq=koning+eizenberg+architects+abbey+apartments&cid=0,0,15571130311595049640&ei=5JG1Tv6uDaHj0QGI9ZnSBw&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&ved=0CAgQ_BI

Sources