Citation
Lower downtown housing

Material Information

Title:
Lower downtown housing
Creator:
Gregory, Penelope A
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
66 unnumbered leaves : illustrations, charts, maps, plans (some folded) ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Housing -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Architecture, Domestic -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Architecture, Domestic ( fast )
Housing ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaf 55).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Architecture, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
Penelope A. Gregory.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
15522959 ( OCLC )
ocm15522959
Classification:
LD1190.A72 1986 .G754 ( lcc )

Full Text
environmental design auraria library
LOWER
DOWNTOWN
HOUSING
DENVER CO.


LOWER DOWNTOWN HOUSING
/
An Architectural Thesis presented to the College of Design and Planning, University of Colorado, at Denver, in partial fullfillinent of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture.
Penelope
Fall 1986


THESIS OF PENELOPE A.
Date Due

. ...

GREGORY APPROVED
Ccrnmittee Chairman
Principle Advisor


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Proposal
Introduction
Background
Site
Regional Context Site Context Site Description Circulation Land Use Natural Forces Views and Vicinity Site Photographs
Climate
Description
Data
Solar Chart Heating and Cooling Wind
Zoning and Codes Zoning
Building Code Search
Spatial Analysis
Building-Sq. Ft. Analysis Residences-Sq. Ft. Analysis Conceptual Analysis
Progranming
Building/Site Residential Units
Sunmary
Bibliography
Appendix
Site Map Soils Report
Periodical Articles-Urban Housing


IVSOcdOdcd
WWW


INTRODUCTION
In dealing with the relationship of man to his environment,the intent of this thesis is to develop, through the design process, a hierarchy of spaces, fran public urban space to private dwelling space.
Although attention has been drawn to the social aspect of urban settlements we continually fail to produce satisfactory environments for the activity they contain.
"The city dweller is socialized not just by people, personalities and social groups, but by spaces and places; by physical systems that are internalized as conceptions of time, distance, movement, familiarity, safety, beauty and purpose that provide structure for the individual(and his existence) we call the 'urban dweller.
These spaces must be clearly defined and organized to avoid chaotic and unvaried experiences. In Carmunity and Privacy, it is expressed that "In this modem industrial society, there is clear physical expression of the need for varying degrees of privacy and the integrity of domains corresponding to these."


These danains are categorized in terms of the urban environment as such:
1. URBAN-PUBLIC
2. URBAN-SEMI-PUBLIC
3. GROUP-PUBLIC
4. GROUP-PRIVATE
5. FAMILY-PRIVATE
6. INDIVIDUAL-PRIVATE
Design of dwellings in an urban setting
includes interpretations of these vary-
ing degrees of privacy. This interpre-
tation deals with the defining of both public and private activity spaces and their relationship to each other. It involves a study of the way varying components of an urban structure, both new and existing, work together.


BACKGROUND
Denver's downtown business district is virtually at the same location as it was originally in 1858. It has only shifted a little to the southeast. The dominant streets (such as Wazee, Blake, Market and Larimer) were laid out parallel to the South Platte River. These were intersected by the numbered streets (15th, 16th, 17th). This pattern extended south to ColfaxAve. and east to Broadway. By the 1960's, this area had become the city center of an expanding metropolitan area.
Denver's economic boom in the 1970's brought a high increase in downtown office construction, followed by a growing concern for a revitalization of retail and residential growth within the city core. As a result of this concern came the development of the 16th Street Mall, the Tabor Center and several residential high-rises. The problem of downtown housing, however, has not been eliminated. This high-rise construction boom left many"qual-ity of life" issues unattended to.
Steps are now being taken to humanize the CBD, improve urban design, preserve and revise older buildings.
An important area of present concern in downtown Denver is the Lower Downtown District. This area was once a center for all activity in the city, but during the 1900's, became a service and storage


area for Upper Downtown. An attempt to preserve its historical character and scale came in 1982 with its designation of B-7 Zoning. The directions of development for the future of Lower Downtown is being influenced by highrise development in the CBD, moving into Lower Downtown, insensitive to its scale and character and also by sensitive development and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. The planning process must now work to control the first influence and encourage the latter. With the present economic slump and a significant drop in land costs, there is an opportunity to look at housing options, not in terms of additional high-rise development, but in terms of sensitive development, relating to the scale and character of Lower Downtown.


3-LIS
WWW


' Regional activity centers and Denvei CBO




SITE DESCRIPTION
Legal Description: Lot 25 to 32 inc.
Block 42 E. Denver Square Footage: 25,000 Sq. Ft.
The site is located on Market St. at 16th Street. It lies in a historic district referred to as Lower Downtown. This district is bordered by Speer Blvd., Upper Downtown and on the northwest by the railroad yards at the edge of the Central Platte Valley.
The site is directly across from Market Street Station, located at the terminous of the 16th Street Mall. The site lies within a one mile radius of various retail, recreational and entertainment centers. These include:
Larimer Street Tabor Center 16th Street Mall Auraria Campus Denver Center for the Performing Arts Tivoli Center Cherry Creek Bikeway The neighborhood surrounding the site is of an uneven character. The nearby buildings are largely two and three story brick structures, but also present are infill projects which are inconsistent with the existing texture and mass.


I_______________L
CD
1

)

l 1 LO-JI
vr z
Wazee St.
Blake St.

Market St.
01
Larimer St.
r
1JU-
JL
V'Xv
SITE
U1TL5.
or
rrp
T 1 p-rw~p-u-|

SITE ANALYSIS Circulation
one way traffic heavy pedestrian traffic
4


T3
>
CD


'\4 Ch St.
I_____________L
U
p
CD
£
P
ID
1l 111
v /
p
CD
£
P
CD
UJJ-
JL
Wazee St.
p
CD
£
P
*. ith it

-} 1 rTK^i*-
v
SUM
WGtrHB
JUk)g?2 Lea
_J
o
i~\ \W1
SITE ANALYSIS-Natural Forces
f=2!


Larimer St.
C
r\
4
. _
^__c
SITE ANALYSIS-Views & Vicinity
i"=gnp'



Sfii
' iifrii-71 V&-v-'-'yffigfftji jV^ #£*%
HW-iM i*:c?yi ^iiif np L^rf r"r1 SjsL flHH ^ ^^JC'vS BUBBUiy r\jWk i- ??*!--.!- h\:^ca:^ \ > L i ^ 1 M ** *-* <4 V- S."* j;



CLIMATE


CLIMATE
Denver is located on the Eastern Slope of the Central Rocky Mountains. The Central Business District is located adjacent to the confluence of Cherry Creek and the Platte River. The characteristics of Denver's climate include mild average temperatures with wide daily and seasonal extremes, moderate winds, low relative humidity, light precipitation and considerable sunshine.
In the city center of Denver, the local climate is altered due to the combination of paved surfaces and air pollution. The air pollution, high, est in the winter months, interferes with the receipt of solar radiation.
In the summer, the core of the city is usually hotter than the surrounding suburbs.
CLIMATE ANALYSIS DENVER, CO
LATITUDE 39.45 N.
LONGITUDE 104.52 W.
ELEVATION 5280 ft.
AVE. YEARLY TEMP. 50.2 F
AVE. YEARLY PREC. 14.53 Inches
AVE. RELATIVE HUMIDITY 40% DEGREE DAYS Heating Cooling
% OF SUNSHINE/YEAR
6016
623
58%


CLIMATIC DATA
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE (F I
AVERAGE PRECIPITATION (Inches]
AVERAGE SNOWFALL {inchesi
% POSSIBLE SUNSHINE [%J


SOLAR CHART-DENVER
LAT. 3950'N
LONG10450'W
ELEVATION 5280 FT.


HEATING DEGREE DAYS, BASE 65* F COOLING DEGREE DAYS
HEATING AND COOLING CHART, DENVER, COLORADO
1-200
70*1
0 65KsEP^OCT^ NOV 1 DEC 1 JAN 1 FEB 1 MAR A
200
400
800
1-800
1000
^^88^ NORMAL HEATING DEGREE DAYS NORMAL COOLING DEGREE DAYS SUN ANGLE o-
DATA SOURCE: U S. WEATHER BUREAU 1941-1970, DENVER
SUN ANGLE


IIUAL FREQUENCIES OF WINOS Of VARIOUS VELOCITIES at STAPLETON AIRPORT, OENVER COLORADO
legend
1 wind speed
troneest Wind 4 -12mph
13-24mph t=L
rora northwest every month of year >24mph ET3
rth and northwest wind arctic air from Canada and Alaska
uth and southeast wind warm, moist air from Gulf of Mexico
uth and auuthvest wind warm, dry air from Mexico
;t wind Pacific air modified by passage over Rocky Mountains.
The Primary Wind
From the south every month of the year
The Secondary Wind
From north-northwest in winter
Prom north-east iD spring and summer
ver is located in the belt of the prevailing westerlies.
From north in fall



ZONING and CODES


ZONING
____________________________! I I i till
Major downtown districts


;
The site lies within the B-7 business restoration zone. The intent of this zone is to preserve and improve older buildings of historical or architectural significance.
USES
Light Industrial General Retail Wholesale Services Office
High-Density Residential
MAXIMUM GROSS AREA: Base 2:1 F.A.R.
Additional floor area is allowed with the development of residential units, underground parking or open spaces.
MAXIMUM: 6:1 with premiums
' 1 v-o.-l 'l, I
Yv'-.vp y
Mli Mli
OFF-STREET PARKING
Required for office 1/750 s.f.
OFF STREET LOADING
Requirement varies with square feet of service
Land use and density


BUILDING CODL SLARCH
Pr Ojcct Name: lower Downtown Housing Location: 16th St. & Market St. Denver, CO
Applicable Code Name: Denver Building Code, 1982 Edition Date. March, 1986
Item Section
1. Fire Zone 2
2. Occupancy Classification h-2
Principal occupancy Apartrrents/Condcrniniums
1601
Table 5-A Sect. 511
Others (specify)
Open/Closed Parking Structure: G-3 Office/Retail: F-2
3. Occupancy Separations required
Table 5-B
H-2 tO G-3 2 hours
Ramainintg' = 1 hours
to = hours
to = hours
to r hours
Construction type: Type 1 (h-2)
Type II (G-3) (F-2)


i 1j -.)l'lUiri .li loVvcil'k 1 )00f cif ( n
Unlimited
Sect. 506(b)
!i ad; cut it to c| i ar to or two or root i sidt .
If ovt-r one story, if sprinkierea
G f ia) iniui11 al iOWc-ule height:
F eel 75
Sect. 1903 (A) (B) Table 17-9
Stories: G-3 6 stories F-2 6 stories
7. Fire resistance of exterior wall (see occupancy type and construction type)
Group H-2 Type I
Group F-2 Type II
Group G-3 Type II
8. Openings in exterior walls (see occupancy type and construction type).
H-2, F-2, G-3; 20' setback
1. Non-bearing walls fronting on streets or yards having a width of at least 40' may be of unprotected non-canbustible material.
2. Groups F,G & H occupancies
Exterior bearing walls may be 2 hr. fire resistive where openings permitted.
Sect. 1903 (A) (B) Table 17-C
9. Windows required in rooms Every Sleeping rocm below the 4th floor shall have at least 1 operable window or exterior door. AAll escape or rescue windows shall have a net clear opening of window area: 5.7s.f.
enclosed or semi-enclosed courts size required
At least 7' high and not more than 7' deep, w/ 2 sides 50% open. At least 3' high adding 6" per story above 2 stories.
11. Minimum ceiling heights in rooms:
7' in at least 50% of area.
No less than 5' anywhere.


Sect. 1701
I?. I 'iFiHfi'jrO f i00T ared Of ru-'lTl:.
1 3. F ire resistive requirements
Fxterior bearing walls 4 hours
interior bearing walls 3 hours
exterior non-bearing walls 4 hours
structural frame 3 hours
permanent partitions 1 hours
vertical openings 2 hours
floors 2 hours
roofs hour s
exterior doors hours
inner court walls hours
mezzanine floors (area allowed) hours
roof coverings hour s
boiler room enclosure hours
Structural requirements:
framework. 2 hours
stairs: hours
Table 17-A


1
fr.r : s
Table 17-A
iUi 'r
r 001 S 1 hours
par t it ions 1 t tours
Exits Sect. 33-A
Occupancy lead basis (squ: are feet/occupart) 300 s.f./ occupant
Occupancy type Basis H-2 Actual load
Number of exits required. Not less than 2 At least the total occupant load divided by 50. Sect 3302
Minimum width of exits. 3' Sect. 3302-
Exit, separation arrangement
Sect 3302-k
Minimum travel distance between exit doors shall be 25' for a story.
To minimize any possibility that both may become blocked by any one fire or emergency condition.


Sect. 3302
! 'i:i1 r nur; i a Ik wnble travel (list Hue u. exit
Entrance door to any unit shall be within 100'
v\ ith sprint U-r -
150'
Allow able e^it St queno e
Exits from a roan may open into an adjoining or intervening roan or area, provided adjoining roan is accessory to the area served and provides a direct means of egress to an exit corridor, exit stairway, exterior exit, horizontal exit, exterior exit balcony or exit passageway.
Exit doors.
Minimum width
3 ft. wide
Maximum leaf width.
4 ft.
Width required for number of occupants
Same as exit
Exit corridors: sect. 3304
Every public corridor serving as a required exit
maximum allowable width
At least 44"
required to have exit at each end of corridor?
Yes, except for dead end corridors
Dead end corridors allowed? yes Maximum length 20'
1 f r- r. r- r- l tr-. r- r/v lir ft H
Wdi i i ii v i csiMdiictr i equii cu 1
1 hr.


door : ci!id fr ome? t1i ( I esistnru > ?qui ed 1 hr.
1b f't fit! S Sect. 3305(b)
minimum w icit h 44" ore load ot 50 or more
36" occ loaded 50 or less
30" occ load of less than 10
maximum riser allowed sect. 3305(c)
7 V (8" Residential)
minimum tread allowed
10" (9" Residential) *
are winders allowed?
Within units
landinqs:
Equal to width of stair
minimum size maximum size required
Sect. 3305(g)
maximum vertical distance between landings 12 6"
minimum vertical distance between landings
required height of rails
between 30" and 34"
Handrails:
required at each side
yes (if open on both sides)
intermediate rails required at stairs
For stair wider than 88"
maximum width between int rails
exceptions applicable
Stairs within unit with less than 4 risers height above cft^'i1fv;feed risers-
30-34"
balusters required


tiiiei mediate i cm i rquu rn-?i> jrnum post span no allowed
hsridrails return to wall at ends
At least one must be returned
handrails extend beyond stair
At least one shall extend 6"
Stair to root required''
If more than 4 stories
Stair to basement restrictions
Stair access to roof required? sect. 3305(n)
Access to roof required?
Stair enclosure required?
Horizontal exit requirements Sect. 3307(c)
Ramps
Sect. 3306
maximum slope
1 vertical to 12 horizontal
handrails required 1 side
exit signs required
At every required exit (unless distinguishable balcony rails main exits) . Sect. 1714
where required
17.
height required
At least 42"
balusters or intermediate rails required
Every 6"
f r. t I ^ r- w r. r* > l i r rv-\ / .. .4 i
i ui it-i i uum i t'uUn ciiitii15 \cuuc tu
11
zed?)


I (i*p 1
pm tTm hi
Sect. 509
men basis arUi'n
iavator ifs water closet: un rials
women
lavatories water closets
dnnMno fountain requirements
showers required
handicapped requirements
18. Use of public property
doors prohibited from swinging into city property? restrictions on marquees, canopies, etc..
other projections


SPATIAL ANALYSIS


BUILDING
lot Size: 25,000 Sq. Ft.
Assume a 6:1 F.A.R. with premiums
6 x 25,000 = 150,000 Sq. Ft.
150,000/1.2 (effic. ratio)=
125,000 net Sq. Ft.
Assume 13,000 S.F. Retail ( 50' Front Lot Zoning)
125,000 - 13,000 = 112,000 S.F. Net Assume 100% Housing
112,000/1,000 (ave. unit size) = 112 units
Parking: 1.5 x 112 = 168 spaces
(residential requirement)
With Open Space Provided Assume a 4:1 F.A.R.
4 x 25,000 = 100,000 Sq. Ft. 100,000/1.2 = 83,000 net Sq. Ft.
Assume 10,000 Sq. Ft. Retail
83,000 - 10,000 = 73,000 S.F.
Assume 100% Housing (on remainder) 73,000/1,000 = 73 Units Parking: 1.5 x 73 = 110 spaces


CONCEPTS
Anatomy of Urban Realms
PUBLIC
Highways
Streets
Paths
Civic Parks
SEMI-PUBLIC Parking Lots
Transportation Exchanges Post Offices Restaurants Retail
Ccrrnercial/Office
SEMI-PRIVATE
Reception/Lobby
Circulation
Laundry
Storage
Shared Open Space/Playgrounds
Anatomy Of Urban Realms
PRIVATE
Individual Duelling


CONCEPTS
Lamp
<^\YV^cP\^Oi.
APPLK^fl PP LL4JMJIKATIT4.
6|fSAlLAT 10 Ml*
C^MriUN(6ATioM
^PUip/l|TIUT1^

*
H
Links between the dwelling and the city what is the nature of the connection between the residential realm and the larger environment?
-Accomodation and Land Use Spaces for group occupancy -Protection security devices frcm society and safety from accidents -Responsibility ownership and maintenance, clarity of these boundaries
-Climate Control
-Illumination safe and pleasant visibility, day and night -Acoustics transition and insulation from the noise
-Circulation transition between vehicles and pedestrians -Ccmnunication
-Equipment and Utilities adequate accomodation and access


RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Approximate Square Footages- Residences
Size One Bedrocm/900 Sq. Ft.
Entry
Living
Dining
Kitchen
Bath
Bath
Bedrocm
Study
Storage
40 s.f. 150 s.f. 130 s.f. 130 s.f. 25 s.f. 40 s.f. 140 s.f. 85 s.f. 40 s.f.
Circulation 15% = 117 + 780 = 897 S.F.
Size Two Bedrocm/1150 Sq. Ft.
Entry
Living
Dining
Kitchen
Bath
Bath
Bedrocm
Bedrocm
Study
Storage
40 s.f. 150 s.f. 150 s.f. 130 s.f. 30 s.f. 50 s.f. 150 s.f. 175 s.f. 85 s.f. 50 s.f.
Circulation 15% = 150 + 1000 = 1150 S.F.


PROGRAMMING


BUILDING
SPACES SHOULD BE STACKED TO FIT BLDG. ON SITE-NOT STACKED FOR OPEN SITE
VIEWS SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND ENHANCED
T£ft1lN*u
CORNER AT 16TH STREET MALL IS ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT


PUBLIC SPACE (RETAIL,RESTAURANT) SHOULD FRONT MARKET STREET AT GROUND LEVEL
R rr

T 4=r\-
PARKING SHOULD BE BELOW GRADE REQUIREMENTS: 1.5/RESIDENTIAL UNIT
BUILDING MASS SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO EXISTING SIZE AND SCALE OF OIDER. STRUCTURES


BUILDING SHALL FOLLOW EXISTING SETBACKS ON MARKET STREET
BUIIDING MATERIALS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING OLDER STRUCTURES
PARTIAL TERRACING OF BUILDING MASS CAN PROVIDE OUTDOOR DECKS INCREASING DESIRABILITY AND MARKETING


ROOFTOPS SHOULD BE UTILIZED AS OPEN SPACE




n* 4
BUILDING ENTRIES ON MARKET STREET SHOUID BE AT GRADE TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING BUILDING TYPES
DAYLIGHT INTO STREETSCAPE IS TO BE MAXIMIZED


SERVICE ENTRY SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR OFF OF THE ALLEY



RESIDENCES
UNITS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE URBAN NOISE AND NOISE FROM OTHER UNITS
MECHANICAL SPACE MUST HAVE EASY ACCESS AND BE SEPARATED ACOUSTICALLY FROM LIVING UNITS
UNITS SHALL HAVE A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP TO THE URBAN CONTEXT-NOT ISOLATED WITHIN A SHELL AND NOT DISRUPTIVE TO LIVING


SECURITY FOR RESIDENTS MUST BE PROVIDED POR-BOTH PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
LAUNDRY AND STORAGE MUST BE PROVIDED POR-INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY
UNIT ENTRIES MUST BE INDIVIDUALIZED TO SOME EXTENT


THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM OF TWO BASIC TYPES AND/OR SIZES
ill
Jii
ii
LOBBY SPACE FOR RESIDENCES IS TO ACCOMODATE CIRCULATION ACTIVITY.
IT IS NOT TO BE A LARGE SCALE SPACE EXHIBITING A HIGHRISE
ENTRY TO RESIDENTIAL MUST BE EXHIBITED AS SUCH FROM THE STREET


LUL 3 ana
oa c

DDC j mm
par i iid
UNITS MUST PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY BOTH AS A UNIT AND WITHIN THE UNIT
DAYLIGHTING IN UNITS SHOULD BE MAXIMIZED
UNITS SHOULD HAVE PRIVATE, OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE


SUMMARY
The thesis program which has been developed and presented here is to serve as the basis for the design of housing in Lcwer Downtown Denver. It is to serve as a source for further development and is not meant to be totally inclusive of available information.
The design process involved in developing housing in an urban context provides the opportunity to explore and develop my thesis: An urban environment is based on a hierarchy of spaces which must be defined and articulated, fran public urban space to private dwelling space.


DRAWINGS


CONCLUSION


CONCLUSION
For my thesis, I chose to design housing in an environment where a housing type, as I envisioned, does not presently exist. Therefore, in addition to individual unit design, I had to deal with a variety of contextual issues.
It was my objective in this thesis to design housing patterned after the courtyard housing built in Denver around the turn of the century. This building type is prevalent in the Capitol Hill District of Denver. Because of the site I had chosen in downtown Denver, this building type had to be modified to deal with the contextual issues.
When designing with a specific building type in mind, you discover elements of that type which stand out in your mind as desirable elements. The desirable elements I discovered in the courtyard building type are "semi-private" courtyard, "semi-private" entrance off the street, low to midrise mass and private exterior spaces.
Due to the fact that the siting of this project is a very public urban environment, the privacy issues related to housing caused me to somewhat alter the building type.
In my thesis, I was able to manipulate this building type, creating the desirable Qualities while dealing with the issues of privacy.
The basic ideas I began with were carried


out in the project, seme more thoroughly and successfully than others. Trade-offs I made throughout the development of the project were minor and became workable trade-offs. I feel the project was a successful endeavor, both in learning process and end result.
I wish to thank all those who assisted and guided me through this thesis, especially my advisors, Paul Heath and Dick Farley.



BIBLIOGRAPHY


Bibliography
Alexander, Christopher and Chermayeff, Serge, Carmunity and Privacy,
New York, Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963.
Caminos, Horacio, Urban Dwelling Environments, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1969.
CBT/Crane Associates, Denver, Co., Denver's Close-In Housing Dilemna. Cullen, Gordon, The Consise Townscape, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
1961.
Davis, Sam (Editor) The Form of Housing, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
1977.
Denver Planning Office, Historic Building Inventory, Denver, Co., 1981
Gamham, Harry Launce, Maintaining The Spirit of Place, PDA Publishers Coorporation, Mesa, Arizona, 1985.
Lang, Burnette, Moleski, Vachon, Designing For Human Behavior, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1974.
Laseau, Paul and Crowe, Norman, Visual Notes for Architects and Designers, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., 1984.
Lynch, Kevin, Good City Form, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1981.
Moore, Charles, Allen, Gerald, and Lyndon, Donlyn, The Place of Houses,
New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974.
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Old and New Architecture, Washington, D.C., The Preservation Press.
Newman, Oscar, Defensible Space, New York, MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc.,
1973.
Pena, William, Problem Seeking, Boston, Mass., Cauners Books International,
1977.
Sherwood, Roger, Modem Housing Prototypes, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1978.



APPENDIX


A NEW AMERICAN HOUSE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN., 1984
NEW NEEDS IN URBAN HOUSING
Minneapolis competition shows new approaches to designing for non-traditional households in traditional settings.
Best Design: Troy West and Jacqueline Leavitt were particularly interested in integrating nature and architecture. Thus, open courtyards, located between the three-story main living units and the one-story work-space near the end of each lot, are an integral par' of the units. A trellis spans the yard to the work space and, in good weather, the yard may be used as an outdoor room. The work space is connected to the house with a spine that is an efficient, linear kitchen.
a/vA
16


TYPE An open, international, one-stage design competition. 3^6 entries.
PROGRAM Design for six infill urban housing units 1,000 sq. ft. or less, for non-traditional, professional households, each of which will function as both residential and principal workplace for its occupants.
SPONSORS Minneapolis College of Arts and Design, National Endowment for the Arts, Daytons Department Store. Associate Sponsors: Madsen & Kuester,
Inc. and Nicollet Island Inn.
JURY Michael Brill, President, BOST1, Inc., Buffalo, NY., Professor of Architecture, SUNY at Buffalo, NY. Thomas H. Hodne.Jr., President of Thomas Hodne Architects, Inc., Minneapolis, MN., Professor and Head, School of Architecture, Univ. of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. David Stea, Distinguished Professor of Architecture, Univ. of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wl. Cynthia Weese, Principal, Weese, Hickey, Weese Architects, LTD, Chicago, IL. James Wines, President, SITE Projects, Inc., NewYork, NY., Chairman, Department of Environmental and Interior Design, Parsons School of Design, New York, NY.
WINNERS Best Design: Troy West, Architect, Wakefield, RI., andjacqueline Leavitt, Faculty, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Second: Jill Stoner, Architect, Philadelphia, PA. 13000.
Third: Carlo Pelliccia, Architect, Professor of Architecture at University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 51,750.
AWARDS OF Bob Burnham, Architect, Virginia Cart-MERIT wright, Architect and William C. Miller,
Architect, Manhattan, KS Michael Pyatok, Architect, Oakland, CA. Richard C. Erickson, Architect/Landscape Architect, Boston, MA. Awards of merit at 1750 each.
STATUS The first prize of 56,000 was not awarded
because the Best Design violated competition presentation guidelines. However, a contract was negotiated with the winning team and design development is proceeding. Minneapolis College of Arts and Design has negotiated an agreement with a housing developer and construction is expected to commence in 1985.
Third Place: Carlo Pelliccia's design (right) proposed that the groups of houses become small communities, surrounded by gardens and wails and creating their own pedestrian streets. A communal garden is dominated by a roof terrace that protects the garages. Within the house, the connecting axis between the studio and living area becomes a place around which special events occur, such as a lounge around the purposely massive fireplace.
image of garage, house and garden, the units are designed to provide entrances to work space and living space on the different
levels of the bridge. Staircases from the garage allow the front and back door to become one, each marked by the chimney location.
17
PHOTO: COURTESY OF Uf'VERSITY OF VIRGINIA PRINTING SERVICES


Architectural design itation
An American diplomatic omplex in France pays lomage to distinguished periods in French architecture.
Credits
Architects: James Stewart Polshek &- Partners, New fork. Paul S. Byard, partner n charge; James Stewart Polshek, design partner; James Garrison, senior designer. Consultants: Tor, Shapiro & Vssociates, structural; Thomas A. Polise, mechan-cal/electrical; Glitec, S.A., onsulting engineer. Modelmaker: D. Cutso-george.
Vlodel photographer: Gil
\miaga.
Rcnderer 8c graphics: M.
Baez, A. Kalla.
Client: Office of Foreign Buildings, U.S. Dept, of State, Washington, DC.
James Stewart rolshel & Partners
Project: U.S. Consular residence and office, Lyon, France.
Program: Publicly accessible consular office building of 11,400 sq ft and Consul Generals 7600 sq-ft four-bedroom home.
Site: Vi acre on a boulevard in an urban residential neighborhood, with one edge across from a public park.
Solution: The complex combines references to both early masterpieces of French Modernism, including Maison Jaoul and Maison de Verre, and the florid style of the Belle fcpoque. Density of wall surfaces varies according to the level of privacy required within
and the exterior__*nrrrm ruling* Walls are
densest facing the street and adjacent to apartment buildings. Facing the park and the solariums of neighboring villas, the wall is faceted and glassy. Parking is concealed be-neatli the building.
Costruction methods and materials: Cast concrete structure, precast concrete wall panels with glazed ceramic tile facing. Aluminum curtain wall with infill of clear glass, translucent glass, and insulated aluminum panels. Domestic hot water and space heating provided by solar panels with heal reclaim units in combination with gas/ oil-fired boiler. South and east facades are clad in light-colored reflective glass.
Jury comments
Frasca: Its got the hard outside that stresses the street and soft inside which makes some nice spaces.
Giurgola: It never gets to a bureaucratic scale, and it has a very precise discipline in plan, a good sequence of open space. Hartman: On the negative side, its very unlikely that this has anything to do with whats liable to be in Lyon. 1 also have reservations when a house and office building look so much alike. They are very, very similar in their aesthetic.
Stein: There are a couple of things that arent handled that well in the building. One of them is the window treatment on the brick wall in the elevation. The other is the use of the wall as a screen beyond the face of the building, which seems to be an unnecessary and rather contrived gesture.
Legend
Office
1 Guard
2 Office
3 Reading room
4 Multipurpose
5 Library
6 Waiting
7 Msas
8 Terrace
9 Consul general 10 Coffee
SECOND FLOOR PLAN


north elevation
WEST ELEVATION
hir i 10/3m


fssivt Architecture 1:81
LOWER FLOOR



£
£
(S)
a:
5
FIRST FLOOR
FIRST FLOOR
Jury comments
Giurgola: In the recycling of the fabric of the city, this is a very concrete answer because it does well in preserving the whole fagade on 10th Street and produces a good end to Gay Street. The fagade certainly conveys the sense of residence, it responds to the parti of the interior, and it even introduces, with the skylights, an added value to the masonry wall. The overall result is more than simple good-sense architecture, it really enhances the entire attitude to the street.
Hartman: This project is an excellent example of an urban infill building in a historic district. The flexibility of response to the different conditions of the two fagades is especially commendable. The new fagade is not only well designed but is also a good neighbor to the varying scales surrounding it. The addition of this fagade unifies the street at which it is placed while also acting as an accent when seen at right angles from a distance. Very nice.
Giurgola: It certainly makes a good presence in the street in good scale.
Stein: It does it, really, in a way that actually enhances the pattern of the city street. Theres nothing difficult or distinguished about the plan except that it works.
An existing garage building on West 10th Street (facades, opposite) will receive a facelift and conversion into apartments. The other end of the development (this page) is a new building on a former parking lot fronting on Christopher Street, at the intersection with Gay Street. From that direction, perspective tricks at the lower level create vanishing points in the two outside bays.


\rch
Citation
Graham Guild Associates
Adaptive reuse transfigures a churchs sanctuary to a quiet garden refuge.
Credits
Architects: Graham Guild Associates, Cambridge, Ma. Graham Guild, principal in charge; Peter E. Madsen, principal/management; Lowell A. Warren 111, project manager; David T. Perry, Leonard J. Bertaux, design team; Andrew Weiser.Jane Harrington, assistants. Consultants: Le Messurier Associates/SCl, structural engineer.
Modelmaker: The Model Shop.
Model photographer: Steve Rosenthal.
Client: Mt. Vernon Church Condominiums, Inc., Boston, Ma.
Et
Project: Mt. Vernon Church Condominiums. Program: The trustees hoped to use the remaining walls of a Neo-Romanesque church, most of which had been destroyed by fire, as a framework for a new residential quadrangle on the site. Hoping to maintain some sense of continuity on the site, they evaluated several dif ferent plans before selecting this scheme. Site: A historic neighborhood in Boston, Ma, overlooking a river on one side, a residential street on another, and a major thoroughfare on the third.
Solution: A Luge private garden, framed by the existing stonework, makes these urban residences havens from the busier pace of the city. Confined on two sides by church walls and on the other two sides by a new L-shaped building that acts as a foil to the ruins, the garden as sanctuary keeps a semblance of the church and becomes the core of the design. Remaining unobtrusively low, the new building accommodates two- and three-bedroom units. Townhouses are built into the steeple and portals, integrating residential scale into the ruin itself .
New and old play off each other as well. The new facades are textured with projecting bays that echo the past. In contrast, the old ruin is developed with newer elements such as the trellises, which sketch parts of the burned-out roofs.
Construction materials and methods: Concrete block and red face brick.
Jury comments
Hartman: This project represents an appropriate response to an unusual existing condition. It is a very good example of urban infill where the existing work is incorporated into the new. The city benefits from the preservation, and the new work benefits from the richness af forded by the context. This is what should happen more of ten.
Giurgola: The basic merit of the project is the focus on the value of open urban space and its connotations of architec t ural configtiration and memories. Everything is somehow precious in the urban landscape, if it has a proper relationship. This project makes the architecture of the residence important as it relates to the ruin and vice-versa. The tower is a hinge, extremely valuable in the urban configuration, and could hardly be replaced. This relationship succeeds in making the place altogether new and, as a consequence, is a real contribution. Obviously, if this kind of at-
commonplace, it would not be good: each case must be carefully considered. Frasca: I think weve been careful in this not to bless the hearts" of the architects because they saw fit to save the carcass i wonderful old church. The ruin uses apartment as a foil to regain some of former stature. The ruin returns the favo dignifying the otherwise ordinary apartu beyond what it could achieve on its o Where they come together, their rcspei architectures do so quietly, making a nice tie garden space on the way.
7*nrft



Jalb.
MOf I vr Jl&gp


gresstve Architecture 1 :S I


I'
CIRCULATION
DOMAINS
0000 ooo
_n
ENTRY
DESIGN CONCEPTS
LOIAIER DOIAINTOIAIN HOUSING
1BTH & MARKET DENVER. CO


SITE PLAN
SCALE 1 100
C

SITE ELEVATION
SCALE 1 30