BACKFILL: 2009

April 15, 2009

Interim Review

Today's postings are drawings that were presented @ my interim review: April 7, 2009.

Design w/in Existing Fabric

EXISTING [topo + property]

REGULATING [visual+ built boundries]

-----------------------------------INTERVENTION-------------------------------------
CONTAINER WALLS [permanent masonry]

ENCLOSURE WALLS [temporary + transparent]

SNAPSHOT IN TIME [variety of uses + mutations]

Shared Space

Overall Shared Space Plan:

Zoom in: Transition Zones

Sharing Scenarios

March 26, 2009

Since the argument here is the evolution of the alley, it was important to suggest an architecture that is not static. A 3-bay grid is shared among all units. Horizontal (along the axis of the alley) movement within the buildings is limited while Vertical movement (from alley--intervention--existing home) has various levels of permeability, dependent of the programmatic use at any given time.

The program is divided into three categories: Work, Live, and Share. All units have LIVE as the function of the upper floors, to provide constant surveillance and give life to the alley during non-work hours. WORK units vary in type, some can be rented by people who don't live upstairs, or be shared among neighbors. Others are meant to be occupied by the same tenant as the upper unit. SHARE units are those that are open to the neighborhood. Examples of this include, Laundry Facilities, Community Kitchen, Vegetable Prep and Tool Storage, and a Corner Store/Market.

Below are my current iterations of these interventions. (click to enlarge)

LIVE

(Roomates or Student housing)

WORK/LIVE

2 Office Units w/ shared printing and supply rooms
2 One bedroom Living Units Above

Artist Studio. Work/Live.

Split Level- Work/Live.

March 24, 2009

Urban Agriculture

http://sidewalksprouts.wordpress.com/

http://www.sla.dk/byrum/vmbjerggb.htm

March 14, 2009

GWL TERREIN

Car-free community: [precedent study]

http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies/gwl-terrein

"In Amsterdam, the GWL-terrein housing development shows how keeping a community car-free can foster strong community spirit and encourage residents to live in a more sustainable way. Masterplan by KCAP."

March 13, 2009

Design Strategy.

FUNCTION [concentric rings]

TRAFFIC [before, linear: vehicular]

TRAFFIC [after, social network:pedestrian]

SHARE [center acts as glue for both sides of neighborhood]

CENTER [divides block into manageable social networks]

UTILITY [parking and garbage at either end, eliminates thru-traffic]

Alley Evolution.

In 1940, 63% of this neighborhood was constructed. It was built for typical working-class Milwaukee families. At this time the typical family model was a nuclear family. In this era, the alley was not occupied completely by garages and the automobile.

As you can see below, the current alley is occupied completely by the automobile. It is used as a linear through street for the machine, and a place to house it. The family model of this neighborhood is also changed. Only 39% of the households in the neighborhood are occupied by families, a growing portion of which are non-traditional. And only 20% of households have kids.

The alley and the garage was developed as a response to American culture. It is a vernacular developed to service the car-culture that currently exists here.

However, cultural trends are continually evolving. Since there is a growing pressure to conserve precious natural resources, we will no longer be able to rely on the car as much as we currently do. Also there are movements to support locality by eating local and patronizing local businesses, take full advantage of resources we do have and to share them.

This project proposes an alley for this next step of cultural evolution. An alley that sustains social as well as ecological systems by harvesting and sharing the natural systems of the site and encouraging interactions with neighbors.