• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Hamza Ibrahim.Thesis Document2010
 

Hamza Ibrahim.Thesis Document2010

on

  • 1,118 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,118
Views on SlideShare
1,107
Embed Views
11

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 11

http://www.linkedin.com 10
https://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Hamza Ibrahim.Thesis Document2010 Hamza Ibrahim.Thesis Document2010 Document Transcript

    • THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA Integration and Interaction: Solving the Disjunction that Exists Within a Mixed-Use Environment. By: Hamza A. Ibrahim A THESIS Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Architecture and Planning Of The Catholic University of America In Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree: Master of Architecture January 2011
 1
|
P a g e 


    • This thesis by Hamza A. Ibrahim fulfills the thesis requirement for the Masters Degree in Architecture approved by Mathew L. Geiss, M.Arch, as Director, and by Kent Abraham, M.Arch, as Advocate, Lavinia Fici Pasquina, M.Arch, as Foundation Group, and Rauzia Ally, M.Arch, as Individual Advisor.
 2
|
P a g e 


    • 
00Contents01Acknowledgements02Thesis Introduction 02.1: Thesis Statement 02.2: Thesis Summary 02.3: Thesis Abstract 02.4: Thesis Goals03Concept Development 03.1: Space + Place 03.2: Urban Revitalization 03.3: Economic Development + Tax Revenues 03.4: Place-Making + Destination 03.5: Circulation + Orientation 03.6: Socio-Economic Sustainability04Project Proposal 04.1: Vision 04.2: The Lantern 04.3: Program Uses05Project Development 05.1: Site Plans 05.2: Sections 05.3: Perspectives 05.4: Vignettes06Project Finance

 3
|
P a g e 


    • 07Final Statement08Appendix 08.1: Thesis Presentation Boards 08.2: Existing Massing Site Model 08.3: Proposed Massing Site Model 08.4: 1/16th Scale Building Model
 
 08.5:
Thesis
Research
Submission

 
 

 4
|
P a g e 


    • 02Thesis Introduction02.1: Thesis Statement “Can the conversion of space into place and the integration of uses be the solution for thelack of interaction amongst people and for the disjunction that exists within a mixed-useenvironment?”02.2: Thesis SummaryI am proposing that the solution for the disjunction that exists within a mixed-useenvironment is an integrated urban space that encourages human interaction, as well asinteraction with their environment. The lack of vibrancy within mixed-use developmentprojects may be as a result of a low level of integration achieved in that particular project.The level of integration between program uses and circulation should be established atthe birth of any project.This thesis will strive to reignite the human interaction and engagement that can beevident from the creation of a sense of place by means of architecture and design.02.3: Thesis AbstractThe ordering of functions within a mixed-use development is in essence about theordering of relations between users. A properly arranged mixed-use development cancreate vibrancy particularly when a high level of integration among its program uses andusers is achieved. This is due to the fact that users travel between program uses, and if theconnections are not established as a place of interaction it reduces the chances of usersinteracting and as such exhibits a low vibrancy. Discouraging factors can be remedied byeradicating physical barriers such as solid walls, merging pedestrian circulation paths,and by encouraging visually oriented pedestrian circulation in order to encourageinteraction.In the communal place and in the interpersonal space of a mixed-use development alike,the focus is on the interaction and engagement among users, seen as a performance, in theproposed environment. Architecture will be used as a tool in developing a sense of placethat has a new and enlightening approach to encouraging interaction by first designing a
 5
|
P a g e 


    • place with a low familiarity and a high preference index; an unusual space yet appealingto users.The introduction of an engaging urban open space heightens the level of integration inmost mixed-use developments. It does this by first serving as an anchor for the project. Italso creates a space in which gathering, and subsequently interaction, is encouraged. Itserves as a point of reference for its users and the program uses that help shape its edges.Urban open spaces, such as squares or green fields, have assisted in the promotion of asense of place to which users may give value and may as well give cause for adevelopment’s successful branding.In conclusion, understanding the synergy that exists between program uses is an efficientand better attempt at integrating a project. There is much to learn from the symbioticrelationships that exist in nature that can be applied to real estate development and theprogramming of space. Creating enough synergy amongst program uses on a site is theinitial attempt at successfully taking a closer step to this thesis’ goals in creating a morevibrant and engaging mixed-use environment that encourages human interaction, andtherefore mediating the felt disjunction that exists between users and program uses.02.4: Thesis GoalsThis thesis project will seek to diminish the divide that exists within a mixed-useenvironment by: • Creating a sense of place in which others will attest value. • Designing a more engaging urban open space. • Encouraging human interaction. • Creating a more vibrant environment by employing principles of synergy. • Encouraging a high level of integration of program uses and physical form. • Promoting socio-economic sustainability, as a product of live-work-play, open space, and accessibility.
 6
|
P a g e 


    • 03Concept Development03.1: Space + PlaceThe distinction between space and place has long been debated. The difference betweenspace and place is solely based on the value we place on them.Space is more abstract than place, and is more experienced by the senses and the volumeit exists in. It may be regarded as a sense of freedom and the distance experiencedbetween and within planes; an impersonal dimension. Place, on the other hand, is spacewith added value; we feel the need to protect and identify with it.In terms of urban planning principles, space and place may be divided into: - the personal space of body - the exclusive space of property - the intimate place of the home - the interpersonal space of sociability - the communal place of neighborhood.From an urban perspective, the focus of this project is indeed on the interpersonal spaceof sociability, which deals with face-to-face interaction among strangers in a space; andon the communal place of neighborhood that gives added value to a place one canidentify with.03.2: Urban RevitalizationMany downtown and other urban or suburban districts suffer from multiple problems -underused or blighted areas, crime, aging infrastructure, and sterile office districts thatare deserted at night, a lack of vibrant retail space, and/or lack of attractive public spacesfor people.
 7
|
P a g e 


    • Mixed-use developments can address these problems by bringing retail, hotel, residential,cultural, restaurant, or entertainment uses to an area that can help to revitalize and enlivenblighted areas, or underused sites so prevalent in many urban and suburban districts.Even in strong districts, mixed-use developments offer the opportunity to bring uses tothe area and to shape attractive public open spaces that can further enliven and add asense of place to a downtown setting. And by virtue of scale, character, and impact,mixed-use projects can turn around blighted neighborhoods, stimulating additional newdevelopment. Many projects have been the initial and major force in revitalizingdeclining areas by creating exciting new, attractive, large-scale physical environments.Revitalization through mixed-use development is a goal in cities throughout the world.03.3: Economic Development + Tax RevenuesThe desire to foster economic development and increase tax revenues is an importantconsideration when implementing a mixed-use development project. Mixed-use projectscan stimulate the economy, generate jobs, and increase the tax base. For example, newoffice space can attract new office jobs to the area while also boosting the property taxbase. And new retail space can increase retail employment, the property tax base, andretail sales taxes.Mixed land uses can convey substantial fiscal and economic benefits. Commercial uses inclose proximity to residential areas are often reflected in higher property values andtherefore help raise local tax receipts. Businesses recognize the benefits associated withareas able to attract more people, as there is increased economic activity when there aremore people in the area to shop.In today’s service economy, communities find that by mixing land uses, they make theirneighborhoods attractive to workers who increasingly balance quality of life criteria withsalary to determine where they will settle.
 8
|
P a g e 


    • 03.4: Place-Making + DestinationThe inherent value that is evident in or among a series of spaces is what gives a place aSense of Identity. Place-making can also be seen as the “branding” for real estatedevelopment projects.It is important that people not only relate to your project but also be attracted to it. Thenorm among mixed-use developments is simply to insert a town center; however, thereare a series of ways to go about branding a development that encourages both a literal andsymbolic sense of identity.Branding a real estate development project also has another advantage. It makes yourproject more marketable by creating a niche that appeals to both homebuyers and theirlifestyles. It can simultaneously be addressed with the idea of creating a strongdestination that attracts homebuyers and other users to the lifestyle they want to live,work, and even shop in.It will be important for this thesis project to establish and design an urban space that willserve as a cohesive element, promote integration among program users, and encourageinteraction among people.03.5: Circulation + OrientationContext is a key factor in determining the character of the design concept. The use of anenclosed plan and/or an inward orientation versus a more open plan is often driven bycontext and location. The suburbs often have little in the surrounding landscape withwhich to connect, and thus a certain internal focus often prevails.The positioning of uses to optimize internal relationships must take into account theidentity and security of individual components, the importance of links between thevarious components, and any central space around which the components will bearranged. Because the relationship between uses is such an important aspect of a mixed-use development, the design of the project must reflect and promote the interconnectionsthat can occur yet maintain an identity for each use as well as strong connections to thesurrounding environment.
 9
|
P a g e 


    • Strong visual connections and sight lines can be achieved by well-designed central openspaces that facilitate spatial orientation. In a well-designed mixed-use project, it shouldbe easy to find the center of the project and then identify all or most of the majorcomponents.03.6: Socio-Economic SustainabilitySustainability is a concept that cuts across varying disciplines. Appealing to real estatedevelopment, socio-economic sustainability can be achieved on various levels, byproviding for a majority of the needs of its inhabitants within the project’s vicinity.Sites near one or more forms of transit offer relatively better access and density. It alsopermits and can support a variety of uses. A real estate development project located at atransit site becomes a node along transit paths.There is a concept of transit-oriented development along with fostering density that hasbeen adapted highly by Smart Growth in its principles. More importantly, are otherprinciples adopted such as promoting walkable neighborhoods, building a strong sense ofplace, mixed land uses etcSustainability in this setting also supports the notion of synergy; which refers to thecompatibility of various uses that support each other, and if there is enough demand foreach use then it is possible to assume that a project may be self-sustaining, a live-work-play environment.
 10
|
P a g e 


    • 04Project Proposal04.1: VisionTo create a mixed-use Town Center which promotes a sense of place in which others willattest value by designing a more engaging urban open space that encourages humaninteraction in a live-work-play setting.The Lantern will be a lively and active place for residents, workers, and visitors alike.The Lantern will also provide broad options of housing types to diversify the alreadyexisting array of ages, incomes, and interests.04.2: The LanternThis real estate development project has been coined “The Lantern” for two mainreasons. Firstly, the project serves as an anchor in the urban milieu; this is the onlymixed-use development project within a 1,500ft radius of the town center. Secondly, itsarchitecture is designed as a glass box that permits light to shine out from within; thismakes it an attractive destination, even at night, for viewers.Located in Old Town Kensington, Maryland, the ultimate intent of the project is to serveas a solution to a series existing problems. The Lantern strived to address a majority ofthe problems using architecture as the medium. Below are a list of the few issued deemedproblematic that were addressed. • Lack of Cohesiveness: The town’s urban planning was of a Distributory nature (Urban Association of ABCD Types) with a similar characteristic to a peripheral development typically found in sub-urban areas. The Lantern introduced and compounded on a “Town Center” model that served as a cohesive and central focus. • Lack of Connectivity: A Marc railroad runs through the middle of the town and borders on the south-west edge of the property. Due to the topography there exists a ridge 30feet deep in which the rail tracks have been placed, this serves as a physical barrier. To solve this disjunction between both sides of the track, and also the community, a bridge
 11
|
P a g e 


    • connecting both sides of the track was an important addition to the feasibility of the project. • Lack of Vibrancy: The key to most successful retail projects is vibrancy. Currently the existing retail establishments are dispersed and as such limiting visitor and customer traffic. The Lantern addresses this issue by concentrating the retail in the core of the proposed town center project to encourage traffic.04.3: Program UsesThe Lantern is comprised of three (3) main uses or functions: residential, office, andretail. From precedents and studies conducted, Synergy was an important factor indetermining the amount and relation of building functions and uses. Although Synergyserved as both a constraint and an opportunity to maximize efficiency, zoning was theinitial constraint on the size determinant of the program uses. Below is a Table thatsummarizes the square footage breakdown of the program uses. Category Uses Number of Units Square Feet % of DevelopmentResidential Block A 135 rooms 90,000 31.04 Block B 135 rooms 90,000 31.04Sub-Total 180,000sqft 62.08%Office Office Uses 90,000 31.04Sub-Total 90,000sqft 31.04%Retail Shopping and Restaurant 20,000 1.03 Kiosk 70 -Sub-Total 20,000sqft 6.9%Total Development 290,000sqft 100%(Gross)
 12
|
P a g e 


    • 

 13
|
P a g e 


    • 05Project Development05.1: Site Plans 
 Figure
1‐
Existing
Site
Plan 
 Figure
2‐
Proposed
Site
Plan
 14
|
P a g e 


    • 
 Figure
3‐
Aerial
Site
Plan
 15
|
P a g e 


    • 
 Figure
4‐
Architectural
Site
Plan
 16
|
P a g e 


    • 05.2: Sections 
 Figure
5‐
East
Elevation

 
 Figure
6‐
West
Elevation 
 Figure
7‐
Transverse
Section1 
 Figure
8‐
Transverse
Section2
 17
|
P a g e 


    • 
 Figure
9‐
Longitudinal
Section
(Partial)05.3: Perspectives 
Figure
10‐
Approach1

 
 
 
 Figure
11‐
Approach2
Figure
12‐
Approach3
 
 
 
 Figure
13‐
Approach4

 18
|
P a g e 


    • Figure
14‐
Connection1
 
 
 
 Figure
15‐
Connection2
Figure
16‐
Connection3
 
 
 
 Figure
17‐
Connection4
Figure
18‐
Destination1
 
 
 
 Figure
19‐
Destination2
Figure
20‐
Destination3
 
 
 
 Figure
21‐
Destination4

 19
|
P a g e 


    • Figure
22‐
Social1

 
 
 
 Figure
23‐
Social2
Figure
24‐
Social3

 
 
 
 Figure
25‐
Social4

 20
|
P a g e 


    • 05.4: Vignettes 
Figure
26‐
Vignette1
Figure
27‐
Vignette2

 21
|
P a g e 


    • Figure
28‐
Vignette3Figure
29‐
Vignette4

 22
|
P a g e 


    • 06Project Finance
 23
|
P a g e 


    • 
 24
|
P a g e 


    • 
 25
|
P a g e 


    • 
 26
|
P a g e 


    • 
 27
|
P a g e 


    • 
 28
|
P a g e 


    • 07Final Statement
Most urban design challenges including the design of mixed-use developments have allattempted to create a successful “place.” Its intention has been to introduce a focal pointin the project that is inviting to the visitor as well as encouraging interaction amongvisitors. Whether or not a project is successful can only be realized by firsthandexperience gained from visiting the project. It is difficult to place the blame of anunsuccessful project on just one factor alone; as such it assumed in this thesis that theintegral factor to any mixed-use project is its level of integration among program usesand subsequently among users.The physical configuration of uses serves as the initial step in achieving a fully integratedproject. This builds on the synergy being established among these various program usesand as such begins to influence a more vibrant space for users to interact. It is alsoimportant for all projects including mixed-use developments to adopt socio-economicsustainable aspects. These socio-economic sustainable aspects are centered on densedevelopments that provide most of its inhabitants needs within the vicinity. Thedevelopment should also be accessible to potential and current users by means of masstransit.It is also important to mediate any obstructions to integration and interaction that mayexist in a development. Physical barriers such as solid walls should be minimized andconverted into more transparent and porous surfaces that will allow for users to interactwith uses and users behind walls. Interaction should also be encouraged by merging andfusing pedestrian circulation paths within a development. A development can also engagea user or visitor by creating destinations through visually oriented vistas along pedestriancirculation paths.If these factors are included in the initial design phases of any project, there will be ahigher possibility of creating a more vibrant development, and as such an integrated placethat encourages interaction. In such a well planned scenario it is easier for users to attachvalue to the development which would eventually create a sense of place or community,which is much needed in branding any development.
 29
|
P a g e 


    • 08Appendix08.1: Thesis Presentation Boards
 30
|
P a g e 


    • 
 31
|
P a g e 


    • 08.2: Existing Massing Site Model
08.3: Proposed Massing Site Model
 

 32
|
P a g e 


    • 08.4: 1/16th Scale Building Model
 33
|
P a g e 


    • 
 34
|
P a g e 


    • 
 35
|
P a g e 


    • 
 36
|
P a g e 


    • 
 37
|
P a g e 


    • 
 38
|
P a g e 


    • 
 39
|
P a g e 


    • 08Thesis Reseearch00Contents01Acknowledgements02Abstract 02.1: Thesis Statement | Abstract 02.2: Thesis Goals03Thesis Article 03.1: Introduction | Space + Place 03.2: Cognition + Environment 03.3: Place-Making + Destination 03.4: Mixed-Use Development Historical Evolution of Scale 03.5: Integration | Physical Configuration of Mixed-Use Developments 03.6: Synergy 03.7: Socio-Economic Sustainability 03.8: Connectivity + Interaction 03.9: Final Statement04Precedence and Case Studies 04.1: Canal City | Jerde Partnership 04.2: Sony Center am Potsdamer Platz | Murphy/Jahn 04.3: Downtown Silver Spring | RTKL Associates 04.4: The Gateway | Jerde Partnership05Site Selection 05.1: Old Town Kensington, Maryland 05.2: Site Analysis 05.3: Program Analysis 3
|
P a g e 


    • 02Abstract02.1: Thesis Statement | AbstractI am proposing that the solution for the disjunction that exists within a mixed-useenvironment is an integrated urban space that encourages human interaction, as well asinteraction with their environment. The lack of vibrancy within mixed-use developmentsmay be as a result of a low level of integration achieved in that particular project. Thelevel of integration between program uses and circulation should be established at thebirth of any project.The ordering of functions within a mixed-use development is in essence about theordering of relations between users. A properly arranged mixed-use development cancreate vibrancy particularly when a high level of integration among its program uses andusers is achieved. This is due to the fact that users travel between program uses, and if theconnections are not established as a place of interaction it reduces the chances of usersinteracting and as such exhibits a low vibrancy. Discouraging factors can be remedied byeradicating physical barriers such as solid walls, merging pedestrian circulation paths,and by encouraging visually oriented pedestrian circulation in order to encourageinteraction.In the communal place and in the interpersonal space of a mixed-use development alike,the focus is on the interaction and engagement among users, seen as a performance, in the 4
|
P a g e 


    • proposed environment. Architecture will be used as a tool in developing a sense of placethat has a new and enlightening approach to encouraging interaction by first designing aplace with a low familiarity and a high preference index; an unusual space yet appealingto users.The introduction of an engaging urban open space heightens the level of integration inmost mixed-use developments. It does this by first serving as an anchor for the project. Italso creates a space in which gathering, and subsequently interaction, is encouraged. Itserves as a point of reference for its users and the program uses that help shape its edges.Urban open spaces, such as squares or green fields, have assisted in the promotion of asense of place to which users may give value and may as well give cause for adevelopment’s successful branding.In conclusion, understanding the synergy that exists between program uses is an efficientand better attempt at integrating a project. There is much to learn from the symbioticrelationships that exist in nature that can be applied to real estate development and theprogramming of space. Creating enough synergy amongst program uses on a site is theinitial attempt at successfully taking a closer step to this thesis’ goals in creating a morevibrant and engaging mixed-use environment that encourages human interaction, andtherefore mediating the felt disjunction that exists between users and program uses.02.2: Thesis Goals 5
|
P a g e 


    • This thesis project will seek to diminish the divide that exists within a mixed-useenvironment by:  Creating a sense of place in which others will attest value.  Designing a more engaging urban open space.  Encouraging human interaction.  Creating a more vibrant environment by employing principles of synergy.  Encouraging a high level of integration of program uses and physical form.  Promoting socio-economic sustainability, as a product of live-work-play, open space and accessibility. 03Thesis Article 6
|
P a g e 


    • “Can the conversion of space into place and the integration of uses be the solutionfor the lack of interaction amongst people and for the disjunction that exists withina mixed-use environment?”03.1: Introduction | Space + PlaceThe distinction between space and place has been long debated. The difference betweenspace and place is solely based on the value we place on them. Space is more abstractthan place, and is more experienced by the senses and the volume it exists in. It may beregarded as a sense of freedom and the distance experienced between and within planes;an impersonal dimension. Place, on the other hand, is space with added value; we feel theneed to protect and identify with it (Tuan 1977). According to Yi-Fu Tuan:“Places are centers of felt value where biological needs, such as those for food, water,rest, and procreation, are satisfied (Tuan 1977).”In other words: 7
|
P a g e 


    • “Place is a special kind of object. It is a concretion of value, though not a valued thingthat can be handled or carried about easily; it is an object in which one can dwell (Tuan1977).”In terms of urban planning principles, space and place may be divided into the personalspace of the body; the exclusive space of the property; intimate place of the home;interpersonal space of sociability; communal place of neighborhood; and the impersonalspace of the city (Madanipour 2003). From an urban perspective, the focus of this projectis indeed on the interpersonal space of sociability, which deals with face-to-faceinteraction among strangers in a space; and on the communal place of neighborhood thatgives added value to a place one can identify with. This thesis will strive to reignite thehuman interaction and engagement that can be evident from the creation of a sense ofplace by means of architecture and design.03.2: Cognition + EnvironmentThe 5 senses, in addition to human cognition, play an important role in how peopleperceive the environment. Along with cognition comes a sense of comprehension and thehuman ability to draw on past events that influence the decision-making ability (Kaplan1982). The decision-making ability is also influenced by past events, since human beingstend to draw on gained experience to help them make decisions. In an urban context thispool of cognitive inquiry is what leads to representation (object) and familiarity (space orplace) (Kaplan 1982). 8
|
P a g e 


    • According to Stephen Kaplan, there are four (4) aspects that leave their “mark” onperception (Kaplan 1982) as a form of recognized patterns:  Simplicity; the representation of a recognized form as a simple or basic pattern does not leave a lasting impression, and as such information is forgotten easily.  Essence; the representation of a recognized form as a stereotypical pattern allows the information to be regarded as reliable or characteristic of that representation.  Discreteness; the representation of a recognized form as an element that stands out, for example a landmark, that tends to brake the continuity of experience.  Unity; the representation of a recognized form that acts as a collection of patterns instead of single patterns. It enables the observer distinguish recognized patterns as a system and to cope with dissimilarities in the environment.These four aspects, now properties, contribute to the recognition of objects (patterns) andhow we view and remember our experiences in the environment; it helps in theconstruction of a cognitive map (Kaplan 1982). These properties all work simultaneouslyto enlighten the experience of the human and built environment. Associations betweenlearned or observed patterns are merely as a result of a chain-of-events experienced(Kaplan 1982).As mentioned above, familiarity also plays an important role in cognition. Most peopleprefer and are more comfortable around things or spaces they are familiar with. However, 9
|
P a g e 


    • these same people get tired of the same things, spaces, or chain-of-events that they arehighly familiar with and subsequently would rather enrich their experiences. In such asituation, one can only comprehend how to deal with this paradox by understanding therelationship that exists between familiarity and preference, as noted in the Familiarity XPreference Matrix (Kaplan 1982) below. Low Preference High PreferenceLow Familiarity That’s weird I’ve never seen anything like that before! Wow! That’s neat!High Familiarity That old stuff again No place like homeTable
1
–
Familiarity
X
Preference
Matrix
This thesis project will strive to accomplish a place of felt value by introducing designthat seeks a low familiarity threshold and a high preference threshold. In other words, thethesis project will seek to introduce a “wow factor” into the design of the builtenvironment by introducing the low familiarity and high preference built designthreshold; this would encourage and challenge the visitor to be more mentally involvedand engaged in the project.03.3: Place-Making + DestinationThe inherent value that is evident in or among a series of spaces is what gives a place aSense of Identity. Place-making can also be seen as the “branding” for real estatedevelopment projects. It is important that people be able to not only relate to your project 10
|
P a g e 


    • but also be attracted to it. The norm among mixed-use developments is simply to insert atown center; however there are a series of ways to go about branding a development thatencourage both a literal and symbolic sense of identity.Branding a real estate development project also has another advantage. It makes yourproject more marketable by creating a niche that appeals to both homebuyers and theirlifestyles. It can simultaneously be addressed with the idea of creating a strongdestination that attracts homebuyers and other users to the lifestyle they want to live,work, and even shop in. These two concepts can be achieved through developingalongside changing trends, preferences and tastes such as (Bohl 2002):  Evolving Retail Realms  New Workplace Environments  Advancing Leisure and Entertainment Concepts  Smart Growth, Sustainable Development, and Livable CommunitiesIt will be important for this thesis project to establish and design an urban open space thatwill serve as a cohesive element, promote integration among program uses, andencourage interaction among people. Typologies that have been explored include urbanopen spaces that occur at two scales; community urban open spaces (Zucker 1959) andindividual urban open spaces: 11
|
P a g e 


    •  Community Urban Open Space - Closed square Characteristics of a Closed Square - The layout is self evident and imposingly strong - There exists a strong repetition among the buildings and building types - Buildings face the square and therefore enclose it - Dominated square Characteristics of a Dominated Square - Originated from the closed square - One focal point toward which the space is directed such as a building or sculpture at the center - Buildings relate to this dominated square be it a church, palace, or town hall
 - Nuclear square Characteristics of a Nuclear Square - Originated from a dominated square - Openness is encouraged along with a central focal point such as a sculpture - Invincible or implied boundaries are used to complete space
 - Grouped square Characteristics of a Grouped Square 12
|
P a g e 


    • - “Individuation and Unity” (Zucker 1959) - Relation of successive or sequential squares - There could exist a non-axial organization; different shapes; or different organizations - Sequential squares could have an indirect physical connection - Amorphous square Characteristics of an Amorphous Square - Takes on the qualities of other squares
 - Typically formless and unorganized - Naturally occurring and is usually unplanned
  Individual Urban Open Space - Balconies - Terraces - Patios - Roof gardens03.4: Mixed-Use Development Historical Evolution of ScaleThe concept of mixed-use development has always been present yet unobserved throughthe history of human settlements and the growth of these settlements. Settlements havealways formed the nucleus for human activity and as such a variety of these activities, 13
|
P a g e 


    • evident of needs, had to be present within reasonable proximity. Mixed-use developmentswere also applicable in old settlements such as medieval towns that built defensive wallsor forts around themselves for protection; as such the necessary mix of uses and functionshad to be within these enclosures in order for a settlement to sustain itself.Mixed-Use Developments according to the Urban Land Institute are portrayed by three(3) different characteristics (Schwanke 2003):  Three or more significant revenue-producing uses that are mutually supporting;  Significant physical and functional integration of project components, including uninterrupted pedestrian connections; and  Development in conformance with a coherent plan, typology, scale of uses, and densities.This idea of a mixed-use development as a dense and sustained settlement has fadedaway over time due to the advent of the auto-mobile, as well as, zoning laws thatdiminish density. This has led to dispersed but concentrated nucleates of mixed-usedevelopments across America and the developed world at large. As such, a Mixed-UseDevelopment may be defined as any development that possesses three or more integratedrevenue-producing uses within a set area that results in an intensive use of land(Schwanke 2003). 14
|
P a g e 


    • The scale of mixed-use developments has evolved over its history; from intimate urbanvillages to impersonal “hardscaped” towers. It is important to understand the evolution ofthe varying scales in order to be able to match different scales to different site-specificcontexts. Listed below are a chain of evolutions that introduce scale:  1900s to 1969s | Small to medium density This ranges from early 20th century mixed-use developments such as Market Square in Lake Forest, Illinois, to early downtown complexes such as the Rockefeller Center in New York.  1970s to 1989s | Medium to large density This ranges from internally oriented mixed-use developments such as the old World Trade Center that was in New York, and postmodern more open developments such as Water Tower Place in downtown Chicago.  1990s to 2000s | A return to medium density This includes a return to less denser developments including town centers and urban villages such as Reston Town Center in Virginia.03.5: Integration | Physical Configuration of Mixed-Use DevelopmentsThe physical and structural configurations of mixed-use developments fall within three(3) major models; mixed-use towers, integrated multi-tower structures, and mixed-usetown centers, urban villages, and districts (Schwanke 2003). The configurations are moreof a response to context than design, and as such density is a key difference in stipulatingwhich configuration to be used and in what context. 15
|
P a g e 


    • However, a more important typology that can be generated when dealing with thephysical configurations of mixed-use developments, are their level of integration.Integration is synonymous with amalgamation, assimilation, combination, fusion,knitting, harmonization, incorporation, and unification. All these synonyms give rise tothe varying forms of integration that exist within a mixed-use development which occursover two broad spectrums; vertical and horizontal integration. Vertical integration occurscommonly in mixed-use towers while horizontal integration frequently occurs in towncenters and urban villages.It will be extremely important to thoroughly integrate this mixed-use development projectat all levels and for all program uses in order for the project to work coherently as one.This thesis project will seek to properly integrate conflicting elements in order to makethe proposed project act as an organism with all its integral parts working cohesivelytogether and fitting into its environment.03.6: SynergyThe word “synergy” is to real estate, as “symbiosis” is to biology. A symbioticrelationship is evident in nature, in which dissimilar organisms that live together benefitfrom their co-existence. There are two major types of symbiotic relationships. The first isMutualistic; both dissimilar organisms positively benefit from each other. A very good 16
|
P a g e 


    • example is the relationship between a clownfish and tentacles of sea anemones. Thesecond is Commensal in nature; a relationship where only one benefits from the otherprovided the other is not significantly disadvantaged. An example of this would bebetween a hermit crab which uses gastropod shells to protect its body.There is much to learn from this biological relationship because it gives some in-site intothe relationships existing among dissimilar functions and program uses within a mixeduse development, called synergy. Synergy is defined as “a mutually advantageousconjunction or compatibility of distinct business participants or elements, as resources orefforts” (Mirriam-Webster Online 2009). For synergy in a mixed-use development tooccur there has to be more than one element; there has to be combined effort, support, aswell as compatibility. The three (3) major types of synergy that can be achieved areaddressed below (Schwanke 2003):  Direct support; dependent on direct economic support from other functions or programs. In this case, the function or program use itself generates a demand for other functions or program uses. An example would be office workers or hotel guests supporting a nearby restaurant use but not vice versa.  Indirect support; dependent on the indirect benefit of functions or program uses as amenities for other functions or program uses, therefore making the other function or program more desirable. An example would be a parking garage that does not generate revenue for office workers or hotel guests, but serves as an amenity and makes the location more desirable. 17
|
P a g e 


    •  Place-making synergy; dependent on the activity and interaction that exists between varying functions or program uses that creates a sense of place. This is very important as it is one of the focuses of this thesis. Place-making synergy can be used to uplift the character of a neighborhood, blighted or not.The importance of market synergy cannot be over-emphasized enough. It is importantthat these varying functions, programs, and uses be able to support themselves and eachother. This interaction allows for vibrant mixed-use projects to develop that encouragesboth interaction among its users as well as its uses. Below is a Framework for EstimatingOn-Site Synergy (Schwanke 2003): Degree of SynergyOFFICE USE:Residential ▲▲Hotel ▲▲▲▲▲Retail/Entertainment ▲▲▲▲Cultural/Civic/Recreation ▲▲▲RESIDENTIAL USE:Office ▲▲▲Hotel ▲▲▲Retail/Entertainment ▲▲▲▲Cultural/Civic/Recreation ▲▲▲▲▲HOTEL USE:Office ▲▲▲▲▲Residential ▲▲▲Retail/Entertainment ▲▲▲▲Cultural/Civic/Recreation ▲▲▲▲RETAIL/ENTERTAINMENT USE:Office ▲▲▲▲▲Residential ▲▲▲▲▲Hotel ▲▲▲▲▲Cultural/Civic/Recreation ▲▲▲▲CULTURAL/CIVIC/RECREATION USE: 18
|
P a g e 


    • Office ▲▲▲▲Residential ▲▲▲▲▲Hotel ▲▲▲▲▲Retail/Entertainment ▲▲▲Table
2
–
Framework
for
Estimating
On‐Site
Synergy
(Schwanke
2003) Weak ▲ Very Strong ▲▲▲▲▲03.7: Socio-Economic SustainabilitySustainability is a concept that cuts across varying disciplines. For architects it signalssustainability on a building scale defined by the U.S. Green Building Council. However,socio-economic sustainability exists on a much larger scale. Appealing to real estatedevelopment, socio-economic sustainability can be achieved on various levels asexplained below.Sites near one or more forms of transit offer relatively better access and density. It alsopermits and can support a variety of uses. This is because it is easier for users to accessthe site through a variety of ways either by automobile, bus, or rail. A real estatedevelopment project located at a transit site becomes a node along transit paths, almostinterrupting people’s journeys, and because the transit modes are on a fixed path theytherefore have to pass through the node to get to where they are going. The density oftenassociated with transit stops also promotes the right amount of users for the uses,therefore matching supply with demand, and therefore making it sustainable. 19
|
P a g e 


    • There is a concept of transit oriented development along with fostering density that hasbeen adapted highly by Smart Growth in its principles (Smart Growth 2009). Moreimportantly, are other principles adopted by Smart Growth that address issues such asdesign, economics, environment, health, housing, quality of life, and transportation(Smart Growth 2009). Principles adopted include promoting walkable neighborhoods,building a strong sense of place, mixed land uses, preservation of the naturalenvironment, compact building design e.t.c. (Smart Growth 2009).Sustainability in this setting also supports the notion of synergy. As previously discussedsynergy refers to the compatibility of various uses that support each other, and if there isenough demand for each use then it is possible to assume that a project may be self-sustaining, a live-work-play environment. On a much smaller scale, an example of thiswould be the Sony Center am Potsdamer Platz which is an office-residential-retail andentertainment complex built in 2001 located in Berlin; some of its inhabitants/users areable work, live and shop within the same complex.03.8: Connectivity + InteractionEstablishing a connection within a mixed-use environment is the first step to encouraginginteraction among users. Human interaction can be encouraged when paths are crossed. Agood example would be a market place; interaction is self-evident between the buyersand sellers and possibly between sellers and sellers (familiarity), but how does asuccessful project begin to explore the buyer-buyer interaction? There is definitely a need 20
|
P a g e 


    • to “return to the agora” (Whyte 1988) as an attempt to reestablish public spaces whereusers, visitors, or buyers can “meet and talk” in order to create a sense of place (Whyte1988).The approach this thesis project will take would be to introduce gathering places, streetsand pathways that intersect. It will also adopt the use of interactive surfaces and thusinteractive spaces, and visual oriented pedestrian circulation. An attempt will be made tomediate the divide that exists in an environment by braking down physical barriers suchas walls, merging pedestrian circulation paths, and by encouraging visually orientedpedestrian circulation to encourage interaction. Visually oriented pedestrian circulationwill be paths directed and shaped by transparent or translucent materials to engage andconnect both sides of the project’s walls. It would also include pedestrian circulationguided by changing vistas of the “projectscape.”Gathering places such as town centers can be traced back to earlier ceremonial, religious,military, trade, and administrative centers of preindustrial settlements (Bohl 2002). Overthe course of history successful gathering places such as Piazza del Campidoglio in Romehave stood out, and as much as it has been studied it is important to realize that itssuccessfulness cannot be replicated because the conditions for which it exists in cannotbe reproduced or duplicated. However, attempts will be made to include proportions,ratios, and the human scale into the project. 21
|
P a g e 


    • Ratio Picture CommentRural 1:6 No sense of pedestrian enclosure. Difficult pedestrian crossings.Suburban 1:3 More sense of enclosure. Easier pedestrian crossings.City 3:1 Most sense of enclosure however too overbearing. Relatively easier pedestrian crossing due to shorter streets.Desired? 1:1 Open to discussion. May be applicable in all settings i.e. rural, suburban, city.Table
3
–
Building
Height
to
Street
Width
ProportionsSuccessful streets and pathways also offer enclosure and a relation to human scale as dosuccessful gathering places. It is important to understand the ratio of the height of thebordering buildings to the width of the streets or alleys (see Table 3). This ratio gives asense of density and enclosure, and can be applied to various settings; larger heights andsmaller widths are evident in dense cities while shorter heights and relatively longerwidths are evident in suburban to rural settings. Different ratios have their differentadvantages and disadvantages, however it is important to establish a sense of enclosureand human scale at all times.Type Example Pattern Typical Location Frontages Transport Era 22
|
P a g e 


    • A-type Alstadt Historic core Built frontages Era of pedestrian and horsebackB-type Bilateral Gridiron (central, or Built frontages Era of horse and extension, or citywide) carriageC-type Anywhere; including Built frontages or Any Era of publicCharacteristic/Conjoint individual villages or building set back in transport; car suburban extentions: space (pavilions) often astride arterial routesD-Type Distributory Peripheral Buildings set back in Era of the car development: off-line space, access only to pods or superblock minor roads infillTable
4
–
Urban
Association
of
ABCD
Types
(Marshall
2004)

The
ABCD
Typology
adopted
by
Stephen
Marshall
in
his
book,
“Streets
&
Patterns,”
seeks
to
reduce
the
multitude
of
street
patterns
into
four
basic
categories.
It
has
been
ordered
from
Type
A
to
Type
D
as
though
relating
to
the
evolving
street
arrangements
at
different
stages
of
growth
from
cities
to
towns
(See
Table
4).
This
typology
encompasses
the
centers
or
cores
of
cities
and
their
development
along
a
route
into
the
fringes
of
typically
a
suburban
layout,
but
could
include
a
rural
layout.
Composition
and
configuration
are
also
important
aspects
to
grasp
when
studying
the
typologies
of
street
patterns
(Marshall
2004):

“In
terms
of
composition,
we
can
distinguish
between
the
narrow
crooked
streets
of
the
A‐type,
the
straight
orthogonal
streets
of
the
B‐type
and
the
sprawling
curvilinear
patterns
of
the
D‐type
(Marshall
2004).”

 23
|
P a g e 


    • And:

“Alternatively,
in
terms
of
configuration,
we
could
draw
a
distinction
between
the
connective
properties
of
the
B‐type
versus
the
tributary
properties
of
the
D‐type
(Marshall
2004).”

 Composition ConfigurationA-type Irregular, fine scale angular, streets mostly Mixture of configurational properties, short or crooked, varying in width, going some cul-de-sac; moderate connectivity. in all directions.B-type Regular, orthogonal, rectilinear, streets of Mainly grid with crossroads; high consistent width, going in two directions connectivity. Continuity of cross routes.C-type Mixture of regularity and irregularity, Mixtures of configurational properties, streets typically of consistent width; some cols-de-sac; moderate connectivity. curved or rectilinear formations, meeting at right angles.D-type Based on consistent road geometry. Loop roads with many branching routes in Curvilinear or rectilinear formations, tree-like configurations, mainly culs-de- mostly meeting at right angles. sac; low connectivity.Table
5
–
ABCD
Composition
and
Configuration
(Marshall
2004)
In other perspectives, Table 5 begins to communicate an idea of permeability.Permeability serves as a synonym for connectivity and integration, and can begin to shed 24
|
P a g e 


    • light on how accessible a street pattern may be as well as how different routes connect toform a network.
03.9: Final StatementMost urban design challenges including the design of mixed-use developments have allattempted to create a successful “place.” Its intention has been to introduce a focal pointin the project that is inviting to the visitor as well as encouraging interaction amongvisitors. Whether or not a project is successful can only be realized by firsthandexperience gained from visiting the project. It is difficult to place the blame of anunsuccessful project on just one factor alone; as such it assumed in this thesis that theintegral factor to any mixed-use project is its level of integration among program usesand subsequently among users.The physical configuration of uses serves as the initial step in achieving a fully integratedproject. This builds on the synergy being established among these various program usesand as such begins to influence a more vibrant space for users to interact. It is alsoimportant for all projects including mixed-use developments to adopt socio-economicsustainable aspects. These socio-economic sustainable aspects are centered on densedevelopments that provide most of its inhabitants needs within the vicinity. Thedevelopment should also be accessible to potential and current users by means of masstransit. 25
|
P a g e 


    • It is also important to mediate any obstructions to integration and interaction that mayexist in a development. Physical barriers such as solid walls should be minimized andconverted into more transparent and porous surfaces that will allow for users to interactwith uses and users behind walls. Interaction should also be encouraged by merging andfusing pedestrian circulation paths within a development. A development can also engagea user or visitor by creating destinations through visually oriented vistas along pedestriancirculation paths.If these factors are included in the initial design phases of any project, there will be ahigher possibility of creating a more vibrant development, and as such an integrated placethat encourages interaction. In such a well planned scenario it is easier for users to attachvalue to the development which would eventually create a sense of place or community,which is much needed in branding any development. 26
|
P a g e 


    • 04Precedence and Case Studies04.1: Canal City | Jerde PartnershipLocation: Fukuoka City, JapanCompleted: April 20, 1996Total Cost: $1.4 BillionSite Area: 9 Acres Figure
1
‐
Canal
Acrobats
(Jerde
Partnership)Gross Building Area: 2,583,000 SqFtCost Per SqFt: $542Summary:Canal City Hakata serves as the largest, privately developed and financed project inJapan’s history (Jerde Partnership). Due to the presence of a great number of people and adying shopping district, Canal City served as a catalyst for redevelopment and economicgrowth in the commercial market. It has won several awards, but what it is most notablefor and its relevance to this thesis, is serving as a successful example of a public space.The circulation through Canal City occurs along its inner edges that are anchored by aseries of open spaces and engaging landscaping. Its most successful space is the NegSphere (Figure 1.) which serves as a space for performances and gatherings. 27
|
P a g e 


    • Apart from the successful open space realized in this project, the ratios of the varyingfunctions or uses is important to grasp in order to understand the interaction and synergythat exists between functions and possibly users of these functions. This mixed-usedevelopment has 4 functions – entertainment, hotel, office, and retail. Retail serves as itscore function followed by hotel, office and then entertainment functions (see Tables 6, 7,8). With retail as its core function, the ratio of retail-to-entertainment is 2.05; for everysquare foot of entertainment there exists 2 square feet of retail functions. The ratio ofretail-to-hotel is 0.99; which means that for every square foot of hotel there is an almostequal square footage of retail to serve it. Also, the ratio of retail-to-office space is 1.43;which means that for every square foot of office there are one and a half times as manyretail square feet to serve its users. Category Uses Number of Units Square Feet % of DevelopmentEntertainment Theater Uses 91,490 4.55 Cinema Uses 113,000 5.61 Other Entertainment Uses 102,300 5.08Sub-Total 306,790sqft 15.24%Hotel Luxury Hotel Uses 400 rooms 505,900 25.13 Business Hotel Uses 420 rooms 129,200 6.42Sub-Total 635,100sqft 31.55%Office Office Uses 441,300 21.93Sub-Total 441,300sqft 21.93%Retail Commercial Showroom Uses 75,350 3.74 Restaurant Uses 80,730 4.01 Shopping Retail Uses 473,600 23.53Sub-Total 629,680sqft 31.28%Total Development 2,012,870sqft 100%(Net)Table
6
‐
Canal
City
Summary
of
Uses

 28
|
P a g e 


    • 
 TOTAL
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
(thousands)
 700
 600
 500
 400
 300
 200
 100
 0
 Entertainment
 Hotel
 Office
 Retail
 CATEGORIES
 
Table
7
‐
Canal
City
Uses

 2500
 TOTAL
SQUARE
FOOTAGE(thousands)
 2000
 1500
 Net
Total
 Retail
 1000
 Entertainment
 Hotel
 500
 Office
 0
 Comp.
1
 Comp.
2
 Comp.
3
 CATEGORIES
 
Table
8
–
Canal
City
Comparison
Uses
 29
|
P a g e 


    • CATEGORIES
 Entertai nment
 15%
 Retail
 (31.28%)
 31%
 Hotel
 Office
 32%
 22%
 
Figure
2
–
Percentage
of
Canal
City
Uses
04.2: Sony Center am Potsdamer Platz | Murphy/JahnLocation: Berlin, GermanyCompleted: June 14, 2000Total Cost: $900 MillionSite Area: 6.5 AcresGross Building Area: 1,425,700 SqFtCost Per SqFt: $631 Figure
3
–
Sony
Center
Atrium
(Murphy
2001)Summary:The Sony Center served as a catalyst for redevelopment of Potsdamer Platz after WorldWar II. Its goal was to re-instate and encourage the sense of place of Potsdamer Platz as a 30
|
P a g e 


    • shopping, entertainment, and cultural destination. This Sony Center is an example of amodernist downtown mixed-use development planned around an enclosed public space(Schwanke 2003). The public space at the center of this development was made highlyaccessible through open-air passage ways. This interactive core of an open public space iscalled the Forum (Figure 3.), and is shaped in an elliptical fashion. The Forum isinteractive and engaging, with a fountain in the center, and also serves as a theater andperformance space.This mixed-use development has 4 functions – entertainment, office, residential, andretail. Office serves as its core function followed by residential, entertainment, and thenretail functions (see Table 9, 10, 11). With office as its core function, the ratio of office-to-entertainment is 4.01; for every square foot of entertainment there exists four times thesquare feet of office function. The ratio of office-to-residential is 2.57; which means thatfor every square foot of residential there is two and a half times the square footage ofoffice that may serve the same users. Also, the ratio of office-to-retail space is 8.41;which means that for every square foot of retail there is eight and a half times as manyoffice uses. According to Figure 2 – Framework for Estimating On-Site Synergy, out ofall these relationships at Potsdamer Platz the best synergy exists between the Officefunctions and the Retail and Entertainment functions; a synergy rating of 4 out of 5(Table 2.). A lesser synergy also exists between its other functions; the next would be thesynergy between Office uses and Residential uses which has a synergy rating of 2 out of5 (Table 2.). Although this may seem too low to have been considered, understandingthat this low rating makes up for the synergy relationship between Residential uses and 31
|
P a g e 


    • Retail and Entertainment uses which is marked as a synergy rating as either 4 out of 5 or5 out of 5 (Table 2.) depending on which function placed as the core function. Category Uses Number of Units Square Feet % of DevelopmentEntertainment Cinema Uses 182,920 14.2Sub-Total 182,920sqft 14.2%Office Office Uses 733,000 56.9Sub-Total 733,000sqft 56.9%Residential Residential Uses 26,500 285,140 22.13Sub-Total 285,140sqft 22.13%Retail Shopping Retail Uses 87,160 6.77Sub-Total 87,160sqft 6.77%Total Development 1,288,220sqft 100%(Net)Table
9
‐
Sony
Center
Summary
of
Uses 800
 TOTAL
SQUARE
FOOTAGE(thousands)
 700
 600
 500
 400
 300
 200
 100
 0
 Entertainment
 Office
 ResidenXal
 Retail
 CATEGORIES
 
Table
10
‐
Sony
Center
Uses
(Bar
Chart) 32
|
P a g e 


    • 1400
 TOTAL
SQUARE
FOOTAGE(thousands)
 1200
 1000
 800
 Net
Total
 Office
 600
 Entertainment
 400
 ResidenXal
 Retail
 200
 0
 Comp.
1
 Comp.
2
 Comp.
3
 CATEGORIES
 
Table
11
‐
Sony
Center
Comparison
Uses Retail
 7%
 CATEGORIES
 Entertai nment
 14%
 Residen Xal
 22%
 Office
 57%
 
Figure
4
‐
Sony
Center
(Pie
Chart) 33
|
P a g e 


    • 04.3: Downtown Silver Spring | RTKL AssociatesLocation: Maryland, USACompleted: October 18, 2000Total Cost: $320 MillionSite Area: 22 AcresGross Building Area: N/ACost Per SqFt: $216 Figure
5
‐
Downtown
Silver
Spring 
Summary:Unfortunately, relevant information as to the square footage break down of downtownSilver Spring was unavailable. There was only information on the office and retailfunctions’ square footages, and only unit quantifications to the cinema and hotel uses(Table 12). The sense of place experienced at this mixed-use development is moreimportant to discuss than the synergy and amount of square footage per uses. Althoughthis great atmosphere experienced in its open space is directly influenced by synergybetween uses, it is as well influenced by scale and good architectural design. The openspace in downtown Silver Spring primarily exists as a major pedestrian circulation artery,although performances and events may occur along this path. Downtown Silver Springserves as a great example of shaping a sense of place and its successful qualities will beemulated in this thesis. 34
|
P a g e 


    • Category Uses Number of Units Square Feet % of DevelopmentEntertainment Cinema Uses 14 screens N/A N/ASub-TotalOffice Office Uses 185,000 N/ASub-Total 185,000sqftHotel Hotel Uses 179 units N/A N/ASub-TotalRetail Shopping Retail Uses 444,000 N/ASub-Total 444,000sqftTotal Development 1,476,134sqft 100%(Net)Table
12
‐
Downtown
Silver
Spring
Summary
of
Uses
04.4: The Gateway | Jerde Partnership
Location: Utah, USACompleted: November 1, 2001Total Cost: $375 MillionSite Area: 30 AcresGross Building Area: 1,517,711SqFt Figure
6
‐
The
Gateway
(Jerde
Partnership)
Cost Per SqFt: $247 
Summary:The Gateway served as an urban redevelopment project to revive the Salt Lake City’sdowntown core. The Gateway is a mixed-use development that is sensitive to the publicrealm as an urban street lined with housing and office functions above two levels of 35
|
P a g e 


    • retail, entertainment and cultural facilities. Its anchor open public space is located at oneof the entrances and serves as a gathering space all year round. Although at too large ascale, this case study is admired for its contextualism, response to scale, and successfulimplementation of an open public space.In observing Tables 13, 14, and 15, it is plain to see the relationships between its varyinguses – cultural, office, residential, and retail. Its core function is retail which constitutes33.9% (Figure 7.) of its total square footage. The synergy that exists between retail andcultural uses has a rating of 4 out of 5 (Table 2.) and with a ratio of 4.09. The ratio ofretail-to-office is 1.36 and the synergy rating is 5 out of 5 (Table 2.). Lastly, the ratio ofretail-to-residential is 0.96 and the synergy rating is an obvious 5 out of 5 (Table 2.). Category Uses Number of Units Square Feet % of DevelopmentCultural Cultural Uses 118,403 8.09Sub-Total 118,403sqft 8.09%Office Office Uses 355,209 24.26Sub-Total 355,209sqft 24.26%Residential Residential Uses 500 505,904 34.56Sub-Total 505,904sqft 34.56%Retail Shopping Retail Uses 484,375 33.09Sub-Total 484,375sqft 33.09%Total Development 1,463,891sqft 100%(Net)Table
13‐
The
Gateway
Summary
of
Uses

 36
|
P a g e 


    • 600
 TOTAL
SQUARE
FOOTAGE(thousands)
 500
 400
 300
 200
 100
 0
 Cultural
 Office
 ResidenXal
 Retail
 CATEGORIES
 
Table
14
‐
The
Gateway
Uses
(Bar
Chart) 1600
 TOTAL
SQUARE
FOOTAGE(thousands)
 1400
 1200
 1000
 Net
Total
 800
 Retail
 600
 Cultural
 Office
 400
 ResidenXal
 200
 0
 Comp.
1
 Comp.
2
 Comp.
3
 CATEGORIES
 
Table
15
‐
The
Gateway
Comparison
Uses 37
|
P a g e 


    • Cultural
 CATEGORIES
 8%
 Retail
 33%
 Residen Xal
 35%
 Office
 24%
 
Figure
7
‐
The
Gateway
(Pie
Chart) 38
|
P a g e 


    • 05Site Selection05.1: Old Town Kensington, MarylandKensington is an old “Victorian-era garden suburban”town (Town of Kensington 2007) rich with history.Before Kensington, the land on which it sits and itssurrounding neighborhood once existed as a landgrant which was purchased, subdivided and sold offto farmers by Daniel Carroll; who was a signer of theDeclaration of Independence (Town of Kensington Figure
8
–
Montgomery
County,
MD
 (Montgomery
County
Planning
Department
 2008)2007). A notable farmer that purchased a parcel was George Knowles whose farmproperty was bisected by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in 1873. In 1891, KnowlesStation was coined in commemoration of George Knowles, since the rail station waslocated on his property. This metropolitan branch line connected Washington, D.C. toPoint of Rocks in Maryland and facilitated commerce to George Knowles and otherfarmers within the vicinity.The name “Kensington” was not used until 1894, and the town (then village) was thenreferred to as “Village of Knowles Station.” It was in 1894 that a bill was passed intoMaryland’s legislature to create the municipality known today as the “Town ofKensington.” The Kensington Park Subdivision was created when Brainard Warnerpurchased property just south of the station. Brainard Warner built a home there forsummer getaways from the city of Washington, D.C. and eventually sold parcels to 39
|
P a g e 


    • friends in order to build and re-create a “garden suburban” after his favored Kensingtonin England (Town of Kensington 2007).Although the name “Kensington” was not crownedtill around 1894 it retains a lot of its character,Kensington is still referred to as the Town where “thetrain still stops and the citizens still walk” (Town ofKensington 2007). The Town of Kensingtonmeasures 0.5 square miles in area and as of the 2000U.S. Census had a population of about 1,873 (Table Figure
9
‐
Sector
Plan
Boundary
 (Montgomery
County
Planning
Department
16). Kensington is transected by Connecticut Avenue, University Boulevard West and 2008)Knowles Avenue (Figure 10, 16.). Kensington has had a lot of developments take placearound its Town and fortunately remains equidistant to two Metrorail Red Line Stations –Wheaton Station and Grosvenor-Strathmore Station; it is also sustained by KnowlesStation, a MARC commuter rail that connects it to Washington, D.C. and Silver Spring.Currently, the West Howard Antique District is reason for the town’s status as a specialtyretail destination; however there is not enough activity present to sustain its shops.Kensington is located of Connecticut Avenue, a road that serves an average of 43,000-55,000 commuter vehicles/day in comparison to (Urban Land Institute 2008):  Rockville Pike north of Strathmore which carries 54,900 vehicles/day  Georgia Avenue in Silver Spring which carries 43,000 vehicles/day  Wisconsin Avenue in Bethesda which carries less than 40,000 vehicles/day. 40
|
P a g e 


    • There has been relatively little development in the Town of Kensington since 1978 whenthe Sector Plan was approved. Between 1978 and1990, the Planning Board approved just over225,000 square feet of non-residential space –shared between Kaiser Permanente medical facilitylocated on Connecticut Avenue and the Bakery,Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain MillersInternational Union headquarters also onConnecticut Avenue (Montgomery County PlanningDepartment 2008). By June 2008, Kensington hadbeen picked as a location to put a Safeway store,this now serves as Kensington’s main grocery storeand has provided a significant amount of jobs forthe Town of Kensington. Minor residential squarefootage has also been developed occurring as smallsubdivisions – 20 townhouses at KensingtonCrossing and 23 single-family detached houses atKensington Orchids, both located on Plyers MillRoad (Montgomery County Planning Department 2008). 41
|
P a g e 


    • Visiting Kensington helps one realize thesignificance of its historic shopping district. Itshistory is evident in fading store signages (ghostsigns), to benches and light poles, including thearchitectural language of the place. It is obvious thatOld Town Kensington has a “sense of place.” Thegoal of this thesis would be to capitalize on this richhistory and sense of place and, connect it to a newand responsive architecture that will encourageinteraction and catalyze the historic shoppingdistrict as a vibrant shopping and gatheringdestination.The Goals of the Sector Plan are as follows(Montgomery County Planning Department 2008):  Enliven the town center  Promote sustainability  Connect Kensington’s neighborhood to a revitalized town center  Continue to accommodate regional traffic passing through Kensington  Explore regulatory methods for retaining the scale and character of Kensington. 42
|
P a g e 


    • 
 Town
of
Kensington
 Maryland
Land
Area
 0.5
sq
mi
 9,802
sq
mi
Population
 1,873
 5,296,486
Households
 729
 1,980,859
Persons
per
Household
 2.6
 2.6
Jobs
(2005)
 10,268
 2,608,457
Median
Income
 $76,716
 $52,868
Density
(2005)
 3,666/sq
mi
 540/sq
mi

 
 
YEAR
2000
CENSUS
DATA
 
 
Age:
 
 
Under
18
 440
(23.5%)
 1,492,965
(20.0%)
18‐65
 1,055
(56.3%)
 3,204,214
(67.8%)
Over
65
 378
(20.2%)
 603,799
(11.4%)

 
 
Below
Poverty
Level
 39
(2.1%)
 1,350,604
(25.5%)

 
 
Racial
Composition:
 
 
White
 1,686
(90.0%)
 3,391,308
(64.0%)
Black
 47
(2.5%)
 1,477,411
(27.9%)
Hispanic
 86
(4.6%)
 277,916
(4.3%)

 
 
Tenure:
 
 
Owner
Households
 4,735
(80.6%)
 1,341,751
(67.7%)
Renter
Households
 1,142
(19.4%)
 639,108
(32.3%)

 
 
 43
|
P a g e 


    • Vacancy
Rate
 227
(3.7%)
 164,424
(7.7%)
Table
16
–
Kensington/Maryland
Demographics,
2000
U.S.
CensusTable 16: Kensington/Maryland Demographics Comparison (Kensington, MD; City-Data2008).  Median household income significantly above state average.  Median house value significantly above state average.  Unemployed percentage significantly below state average.  Black race population percentage significantly below state average.  Hispanic race population percentage above state average.  Median age significantly above state average.  Foreign-born population percentage significantly above state average.  Number of rooms per house above state average.  House age significantly above state average.  Number of college students below state average.  Percentage of population with a bachelors degree or higher significantly above state average.05.2: Site AnalysisIncluded in the site analysis is information relevant to grasping the specifity of thelocation in which this thesis will be located; that is Kensington, MD. Fortunately, due tothe density and ratio at the site there exists a sense of enclosure which frequently is hard 44
|
P a g e 


    • to find in a suburban setting. As much as this town is known for its scale, history, and 
Figure
10
‐
Border
of
the
Town
of
Kensington,
Maryland
(Map
from
USGS)
 45
|
P a g e 


    • feel, it still lacks the dimensions for a friendly walkable community along West HowardDistrict’s shop frontage. The presence of a rail road track serves as a man-made barrier toconnecting the north-boundside of the historic shoppingdistrict. Also, ConnecticutAvenue with 45,000 to55,000 daily commuters(Urban Land Institute 2008)in vehicles creates a serious Figure
11
‐
(Kensington,
MD;
City‐Data
2008)problem for pedestrians tocross over to the west-boundarea of Kensington.
Kensington’s
climate
is
stable
in
comparison
to
U.S.
or
Maryland’s
averages
(see
Figures
11,
12,
13,
14,
15),
 Figure
13
‐
(Kensington,
MD;
City‐Data
2008)
therefore
the
design
of
this
thesis
project
would
be
considered
with
good
design
principles
in
mind
in
reference
to
the
climate.

 Figure
12
‐
(Kensington,
MD;
City‐Data
2008)
 46
|
P a g e 


    • 
The
obstruction
posed
by
these
two
man‐made
barriers
–
the
railroad
track
and
Connecticut
Avenue,
has
influenced
the
site
selection
chosen
for
the
new
proposed
development.
Connecticut
Avenue
divides
the
 Figure
14
‐
(Kensington,
MD;
City‐Data
2008)
development
into
two
considerations
for
possible
sites.
Figure
10
shows
the
primary
and
secondary
site
areas
for
the
development
to
occur;
either
to
the
east
or
 Figure
15
‐
(Kensington,
MD;
City‐Data
2008)
west
of
Connecticut
Avenue.
Figure
16
goes
more
in‐depth
about
the
ranking
and
specifies
the
boundaries
in
which
the
development
is
to
occur.
The
primary
sites
are
labeled
1
through
3
in
Figure
16,
while
the
secondary
sites
are
labeled
sites
4
and
5.
It
is
important
that
sites
1
through
3
be
the
main
drivers
because
they
are
opposite
the
West
Howard
Shopping
District
as
well
as
Knowles
Station,
and
a
design
could
mediate
the
two
disjoined
areas
of
both
sides
of
the
railroad
tracks.

 47
|
P a g e 


    • 
Figure
16
‐
Analyses
of
Site;
Possible
Sites
Considered
Within
Kensington
(Map
from
USGS) 48
|
P a g e 


    • 
Figure
17
‐
Drainage
and
Sun
Analysis,
Topography
Overlay
(Map
from
USGS)
 49
|
P a g e 


    • From the site analysis, site visits, and reports, these are the challenges and key issues thatneed to be addressed:  Few
Linkages
across
the
Railroad
Tracks
(Between
Antique
Row
and
West
Howard
 Antiques
District)
  Dispersed
Retail
  No
Town
Center
or
Focal
Point
  Traffic

  Zoning
Disincentives
  Older,
Existing
Buildings
and
Shopping
Centers
  Poor
Signage
and
Town
Branding
  Build‐to‐Line
and
Defining
Street
Edge
 50
|
P a g e 


    • 
Figure
18
‐
Existing
Land
Use,
Kensington,MD
(Montgomery
County
Planning
Department
2008) 51
|
P a g e 


    • 05.3: Program Analysis The Urban Land Institute November 12-13, 2008 Technical Assistance Panel Report titled “Developing a Revitalization Strategy for the Town of Kensington” served as a source that offered the initial market report used in this program analysis. The panel concluded an existence of unmet market demand by both residents and commuters with the following market potential listed in Table 17, under “ULI TAP Report (Urban Land Institute 2008). From the TAP’s initial report on the market potential of the Town of Kensington an investigation was undertaken to break down the necessary functions that could best introduce a high level of synergy, and as such a high level of interaction and integration.ULI
TAP
REPORT:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Enclosed
Space:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Retail
 50,000‐75,000
sf
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Office
 60,000‐80,000
sf
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Hotel
 100
‐
125
keys
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Residential
 1,600
units
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROPOSED
FUNCTIONS:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Open
Space:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Town
Center
 5,000
sf
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Enclosed
Space:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Retail
 50,000
sf
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Crafts
Shop
 20,000
sf
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Restaurant
 10,000
sf
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Cinema/Theater
 5,000
sf
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Office
 60,000
sf
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Hotel
 100
keys
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Residential
 1,600
units
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table
17
–
Program
Distribution
 The Town of Kensington has a business community of over 300 businesses within the vicinity. There exists a newly built Safeway Grocery Store, multiple antique shops and 52
|
P a g e 
 

    • art galleries, few restaurants, two performing arts theaters, a dry cleaner, a fitness center,auto repair shops, a hardware store, a bookstore, the historic and popular Noyes Libraryfor young people, a medical facility, a bakery, and a union headquarters. Anotherinteresting factor to consider in the planning of this new development is theaccommodation of weekly, monthly, and yearly events that occur at the current Knowlesrailway station, these include a weekly farmer’s market, annual 8K race, Earth Arbor dayfestival, Labor Day parade and festival, and holiday lighting events.In light of this information, this thesis will propose a wider variety of functions to bringabout a more integrated space in order to spark interaction among people and create alively environment. In Table 17, the proposed brake down includes additional functionsto the TAP Report such as crafts shops, cinema/theater uses, and an all too necessaryopen space that will be crowned as the focal point and as the town center. It is importantas indicated in Table 17 for an immediate adjacency to occur between the town centerand the retail, the town center and the crafts shops, the town center and the restaurants,and the town center and the office; the open space termed as the “town center” is a veryimportant link for establishing a direct and successful synergy for place making andencouraging a vibrant mixed-use environment.The primary relationship that exists among these varying program uses is between theabove stated uses for a direct and successful synergy for place making; the synergy willconnect the town center, retail, crafts shop, restaurants and offices as one loop. In 53
|
P a g e 


    • reference to Table 18 – Framework for Estimating On-Site Synergy, there exists a highcompatibility between retail-restaurants and retail-offices; the crafts shop will be includedunder the category of retail. Within secondary relationships there exists positivecompatibility between hotel-office, hotel-retail, residential-retail, office-restaurants,recreational-office, recreational-residential, recreational-hotel, and mildly forrecreational-retail e.t.c. This program analysis will serve as the initial guide to arrangingthe spaces during the design stage. 54
|
P a g e 


    • 07: Works CitedBohl,
Charles
C.
Place
Making:
Developing
Town
Centers,
Main
Streets,
and
Urban
Villages.
Washington:
Urban
Land
Institute,
2002.
Kaplan,
Stephen
Kaplan
and
Rachel.
Cognition
and
Environment:
Functioning
in
an
Uncertain
World.
New
York:
Praeger
Publishers,
1982.
Madanipour,
Ali.
Public
and
Private
Spaces
of
the
City.
New
York:
Routledge,
2003.
Marshall,
Stephen.
Streets
&
Patterns.
New
York:
Spon
Press,
2004.
Mirriam‐Webster
Online.
April
2,
2009.
<a
href="http://www.merriam‐webster.com/dictionary/synergy">synergy</a>
(accessed
April
2,
2009).
Montgomery
County
Planning
Department.
Kensington
Sector
Plan.
Silver
Spring,
MD:
The
Maryland‐National
Capital
Park
and
Planning
Commission,
2008.
Murphy,
John.
Murphy/Jahn
Digital
Works.
2001.
http://www.murphyjahn.com/english/frameset_intro.htm
(accessed
March
21,
2009).
Partnership,
Jerde.
Canal
City
Hakata.
http://www.jerde.com/projects/project.php?id=40
(accessed
March
21,
2009).
Schwanke,
Dean.
Mixed‐Use
Development
Handbook.
2nd
Edition.
Washington,
DC:
Urban
Land
Institute,
2003.
Smart
Growth.
2009.
http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/default.asp
(accessed
April
2,
2008).
Town
of
Kensington.
Town
of
Kensington.
2007.
www.tok.md.gov
(accessed
March
7,
2009).
Tuan,
Yi‐Fu.
Space
and
Place:
The
Perspective
of
Experience.
Minneapolis:
University
of
Minnesota
Press,
1977.
Urban
Land
Institute.
Developing
a
Revitalization
Strategy
for
the
Town
of
Kensington.
TAP,
Washington,
D.C.:
Urban
Land
Institute,
2008.
Whyte,
William
H.
City:
Rediscovering
the
Center.
New
York:
Doubleday,
1988.
Zucker,
Paul.
Town
and
Square:
From
the
Agora
to
the
Village
Green.
New
York:
Columbia
University
Press,
1959.

 55
|
P a g e