joming lau - urban planning and design portfolio
Post on 31-Mar-2016
234 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
joming.lau@gmail.com
857 NE 67th St. #102, Seattle, WA
206.849.1864
linkedin.com/in/jominglau
@
JOMING LAU Urban Planning and Design
!
!
! !!!
! ! !!
!!! !!
!!!!!! !!!! !!! !! !
!!
! !!
!
!!!
!! ! !! !
!!!
!!!!!! !! !!!!
!!! !
! !!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
! !!
!!
hg
I5 S
BI5
NB
I5 E
XPR
ESS
PINE ST
E PINE ST
8TH AVE
9TH AVE
E PIKE ST
E UNION ST
7TH AVE
BOREN AVE
12TH
AVE
PIKE ST
OLIVE WAY
STEWART S
T
6TH AVE
BRO
ADW
AY
DENNY WAY
FAIR
VIE
W A
VE N
E MADISON ST
MERCER ST
EAS
TLA
KE A
VE E 12
TH A
VE E
5TH AVE
WE
STLA
KE
AVE
N
15TH
AVE
E
E JOHN ST
BELL
EVU
E A
VE E
14TH
AVE
VIRGIN
IA ST
BRO
ADW
AY E
REPUBLICAN ST
E O
LIVE
WAY
15TH
AVE
HOWELL
ST
SENECA ST
WE
STLAKE AV
E
4TH AVE
E DENNY WAY
BELL
EVU
E A
VE
E ROY ST
I5 E
XPR
PIK
E AN
D 9
TH R
P
VALLEY ST
19TH
AVE
MERCER ST I5 NB ON RP
OLI
VE W
Y O
N R
P
HU
BBE
LL P
L
BELMONT AVE ELA
KEVI
EW B
LVD
E
3RD AVE
OLI
VE W
Y O
FF R
P
E THOMAS ST
LENORA S
T
YALE AVE
UN
IVER
SITY
ST
ON
RP
10TH
AVE
E
CO
NVE
NTI
ON
PL
MEL
RO
SE
AVE
11TH
AVE
FAIR
VIE
W A
VE
13TH AVE
I5 BUS TUNNEL RP
E ALOHA ST
Selecting a Pocket Park Site in Capitol Hill
Within southwest Capitol Hill, there are 2 parks,Plymouth Pillar Park and Cal Anderson Parkwithin 900 feet of the proposed site. While CalAnderson Park serves as a place for all residentsof Capitol Hill to enjoy green space, there is not asmall, quieter place that local residents aroundthe proposed site can use for passive,contemplative activities, or as an impromptuspace that allows for meaningful interactions tohappen.
The proposed pocket park site serves an unmetneed for green space within the Pike-Pine Districtof Capitol Hill. Tucked in between severalresidential buildings, the proposed pocket wouldalso provide a respite from the highly impervioussurfaces that characterize the area. Althoughduring the summer there is adequate canopycover from the street trees, during the winter,there is a feeling of starkness when the treeshave shed their leaves.
By taking the place of a parking lot, the proposedpocket park will satisfy the open space andrecreation needs of neighborhood residentswithin the surrounding blocks who may not beable to enjoy other park spaces slightly furtherfrom the proposed site. The site is also favorablysituated in terms of access by bicycle or bus,allowing residents to take a moment in their dailyroutine to enjoy a short break.
Pocket Parks: A Neighborhood Treasure
Pocket parks are one way to provide recreationor open space needs distinctive from other typesof park needs such as regional, community orneighborhood parks. Primarily aimed at offeringa small open-space/recreational venue of amore passive or intimate nature, servicing localresidents rather than citizens across the city (arole played by larger park types). Pocket parksmay be considered as an alternative to orreplacement of a neighborhood park whereproviding a typical neighborhood park isimpractical or not achievable.
Example: Formosa Park, West Hollywood, CA
Formosa Pocket Park in West Hollywood is a4,000 square foot park that was created forcitizens of a nearby mixed-use development.Containing a variety of plant types, a waterfountain and seating areas, the park wasdesigned out of a desire for more publicgathering spaces, and to be a recreationalhaven from the bustle of surrounding streets
SU
MM
AR
Y Joming Lau is an urban planner and designer with a keen interest in the nexus of planning, urban design and sustainability. He is a graduate of the Master of Urban Planning program at the University of Washington with a Certificate in Urban Design, and has a BSc in Environmental Sciences, and is a LEED AP. Joming brings his professional experience in project management, sustainability indicators, and research and combines it with his exceptional technical skills in Adobe Creative Suite, ArcGIS, and Microsoft Office.
First interested in the concept of sustainable communities after a visit in 2003 to Durika, a ecovillage and biological reserve in Costa Rica, where he stayed at a community that truly walked the talk of sustainability, he was inspired how its principles could be replicated elsewhere. This led to an interest in sustainability in regards to the built environment. In recognizing the large impacts that cities have on our natural environment, he became interested in how cities and urbanized spaces are planned, and how they can have a positive impact on the world.
PORTFOLIO
LPS Methodology Page 1 of 4 Project Title Vancouver Convention Center Expansion Project Methodology for Landscape Performance Benefits
� Created 1,500 linear feet of marine habitat showing marine development in 3 years comparable to a typical site of 8-10 years
Since the installation of the habitat skirt 3 years ago, monitoring of the habitat skirt and surrounding marine habitat has been done annually to fulfill Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) requirements for Fisheries Act Authorization. Monitoring by EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. includes biannually conducting an inventory and assessment of the dominant intertidal and sub-tidal biota, and comparing biota diversity/productivity with a known and accepted reference site (Marathon) adjacent to the project. Installed 8-10 years ago as new marine habitat, the Marathon reference site was determined by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to have achieved an acceptable marine habitat condition. In the most recent inventory and assessment conducted in March 2011 by EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., no significant difference was observed between the Marathon reference site (8-10 years of marine development), and the habitat skirt (3 years of marine development), in terms of species richness and diversity. As well, 43 species were found on the habitat skirt, compared with 46 species at the reference site, and schools of 500 or greater of the following salmonids: Chum, Coho, and possibly Chinook were observed at the habitat skirt.1
� Reduced Stormwater Runoff by 13% or 1.29 million gallons
Based on climate normal data, the average annual rainfall in Vancouver Harbour is 1474.9mm = 58.067 inches2,
Using this information, the following equation can be used to derive annual run off:
R = P * Pj * Rv
Where: R = Annual runoff (inches) P = Annual rainfall (inches) = 58.067 Pj = Fraction of annual rainfall events that produce runoff (usually 0.9) Rv = Runoff coefficient 3
1 Marine Compensation Habitat Survey Report - Vancouver Convention Centre West 2 Vancouver Harbour climate normal data 1971-2000 http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=888&lang=e&dCode=0&province=BC&provBut=&month1=0&month2=12) 3 The Simple Method to Calculate Urban Stormwater Loads. (2010, January). [Online]. Available: http://www.stormwatercenter.net/monitoring%20and%20assessment/simple%20meth/simple.htm
Capitol Hill Pocket Park Siting Project Site Selection Methodology 1Neighborhood Context 2Demographic Analysis 3
Lower Lonsdale West Waterfront Project 4Deep Energy Retrofit Case Studies 5Wedgwood Feasibility Study 6Woodinville Residential Cluster Plan 7Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District
Sketchup Building Models 8Building Relocation Analysis 9
Admiral Unreinforced Masonry Building Survey 10 Tianzhong Village Development Scheme 11 Daping Village Inventory Mapping 12Jiaju Village Inventory Mapping 13“Parks for the People” Design Competition 14Landscape Performance Series - Case Study Briefs 15 Central Puget Sound Region Food System Assessment 16
Capitol Hill Pocket Park Siting Project
University of Washington Digital Design Practicum
May 2011
This project sought to address the unmet need for green space within the Pike/Pine District of Capitol Hill by identifying potential sites for pocket parks. The goal of this project was to provide small spaces that would allow for a space that would allow for contemplation while also facilitating the occurrence of meaningful interactions. This project also provided an opportunity to develop expertise in integrating various software programs (including ArcGIS, Photoshop, Indesign, and Sketchup) into their workflow.
My role on this project included developing a methodology and criteria for the site selection process, management of parcel data with ArcGIS and Excel, demographic analysis to support the site selection methodology, and developing 3D visualizations (using Sketchup) of the neighborhood surrounding the proposed pocket park site.
!
!
! !!!
! ! !!
!!! !!
!!!!!! !!!! !!! !! !
!!
! !!
!
!!!
!! ! !! !
!!!
!!!!!! !! !!!!
!!! !
! !!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
! !!
!!
hgI5
SB
I5 N
BI5
EXP
RES
S
PINE ST
E PINE ST
8TH AVE
9TH AVE
E PIKE ST
E UNION ST
7TH AVE
BOREN AVE
12TH
AVE
PIKE ST
OLIVE WAY
STEWART S
T
6TH AVE
BRO
ADW
AY
DENNY WAY
FAIR
VIE
W A
VE N
E MADISON ST
MERCER ST
EAS
TLA
KE A
VE E 12
TH A
VE E
5TH AVE
WE
STLA
KE
AVE
N
15TH
AVE
E
E JOHN STBE
LLE
VUE
AVE
E
14TH
AVE
VIRGIN
IA ST
BRO
ADW
AY E
REPUBLICAN ST
E O
LIVE
WAY
15TH
AVE
HOWELL
ST
SENECA ST
WE
STLAKE AV
E
4TH AVE
E DENNY WAY
BELL
EVU
E A
VE
E ROY ST
I5 E
XPR
PIK
E AN
D 9
TH R
P
VALLEY ST
19TH
AVE
MERCER ST I5 NB ON RP
OLI
VE W
Y O
N R
P
HU
BBE
LL P
L
BELMONT AVE ELA
KEVI
EW B
LVD
E
3RD AVE
OLI
VE W
Y O
FF R
P
E THOMAS ST
LENORA S
T
YALE AVE
UN
IVER
SITY
ST
ON
RP
10TH
AVE
E
CO
NVE
NTI
ON
PL
MEL
RO
SE
AVE
11TH
AVE
FAIR
VIE
W A
VE
13TH AVE
I5 BUS TUNNEL RP
E ALOHA ST
Selecting a Pocket Park Site in Capitol Hill
Within southwest Capitol Hill, there are 2 parks,Plymouth Pillar Park and Cal Anderson Parkwithin 900 feet of the proposed site. While CalAnderson Park serves as a place for all residentsof Capitol Hill to enjoy green space, there is not asmall, quieter place that local residents aroundthe proposed site can use for passive,contemplative activities, or as an impromptuspace that allows for meaningful interactions tohappen.
The proposed pocket park site serves an unmetneed for green space within the Pike-Pine Districtof Capitol Hill. Tucked in between severalresidential buildings, the proposed pocket wouldalso provide a respite from the highly impervioussurfaces that characterize the area. Althoughduring the summer there is adequate canopycover from the street trees, during the winter,there is a feeling of starkness when the treeshave shed their leaves.
By taking the place of a parking lot, the proposedpocket park will satisfy the open space andrecreation needs of neighborhood residentswithin the surrounding blocks who may not beable to enjoy other park spaces slightly furtherfrom the proposed site. The site is also favorablysituated in terms of access by bicycle or bus,allowing residents to take a moment in their dailyroutine to enjoy a short break.
Pocket Parks: A Neighborhood Treasure
Pocket parks are one way to provide recreationor open space needs distinctive from other typesof park needs such as regional, community orneighborhood parks. Primarily aimed at offeringa small open-space/recreational venue of amore passive or intimate nature, servicing localresidents rather than citizens across the city (arole played by larger park types). Pocket parksmay be considered as an alternative to orreplacement of a neighborhood park whereproviding a typical neighborhood park isimpractical or not achievable.
Example: Formosa Park, West Hollywood, CA
Formosa Pocket Park in West Hollywood is a4,000 square foot park that was created forcitizens of a nearby mixed-use development.Containing a variety of plant types, a waterfountain and seating areas, the park wasdesigned out of a desire for more publicgathering spaces, and to be a recreationalhaven from the bustle of surrounding streets
!
!
! !!!
! ! !!
!!! !!
!!!!!! !!!! !!! !! !
!!
! !!
!
!!!
!! ! !! !
!!!
!!!!!! !! !!!!
!!! !
! !!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
! !!
!!
hg
I5 S
BI5
NB
I5 E
XPR
ESS
PINE ST
E PINE ST
8TH AVE
9TH AVE
E PIKE ST
E UNION ST
7TH AVE
BOREN AVE
12TH
AVE
PIKE ST
OLIVE WAY
STEWART S
T
6TH AVE
BRO
ADW
AY
DENNY WAY
FAIR
VIE
W A
VE N
E MADISON ST
MERCER ST
EAS
TLA
KE A
VE E 12
TH A
VE E
5TH AVE
WE
STLA
KE
AVE
N
15TH
AVE
E
E JOHN ST
BELL
EVU
E A
VE E
14TH
AVE
VIRGIN
IA ST
BRO
ADW
AY E
REPUBLICAN ST
E O
LIVE
WAY
15TH
AVE
HOWELL
ST
SENECA ST
WE
STLAKE AV
E
4TH AVE
E DENNY WAY
BELL
EVU
E A
VE
E ROY ST
I5 E
XPR
PIK
E AN
D 9
TH R
P
VALLEY ST
19TH
AVE
MERCER ST I5 NB ON RP
OLI
VE W
Y O
N R
P
HU
BBE
LL P
L
BELMONT AVE ELA
KEVI
EW B
LVD
E
3RD AVE
OLI
VE W
Y O
FF R
P
E THOMAS ST
LENORA S
T
YALE AVE
UN
IVER
SITY
ST
ON
RP
10TH
AVE
E
CO
NVE
NTI
ON
PL
MEL
RO
SE
AVE
11TH
AVE
FAIR
VIE
W A
VE
13TH AVE
I5 BUS TUNNEL RP
E ALOHA ST
Selecting a Pocket Park Site in Capitol Hill
Within southwest Capitol Hill, there are 2 parks,Plymouth Pillar Park and Cal Anderson Parkwithin 900 feet of the proposed site. While CalAnderson Park serves as a place for all residentsof Capitol Hill to enjoy green space, there is not asmall, quieter place that local residents aroundthe proposed site can use for passive,contemplative activities, or as an impromptuspace that allows for meaningful interactions tohappen.
The proposed pocket park site serves an unmetneed for green space within the Pike-Pine Districtof Capitol Hill. Tucked in between severalresidential buildings, the proposed pocket wouldalso provide a respite from the highly impervioussurfaces that characterize the area. Althoughduring the summer there is adequate canopycover from the street trees, during the winter,there is a feeling of starkness when the treeshave shed their leaves.
By taking the place of a parking lot, the proposedpocket park will satisfy the open space andrecreation needs of neighborhood residentswithin the surrounding blocks who may not beable to enjoy other park spaces slightly furtherfrom the proposed site. The site is also favorablysituated in terms of access by bicycle or bus,allowing residents to take a moment in their dailyroutine to enjoy a short break.
Pocket Parks: A Neighborhood Treasure
Pocket parks are one way to provide recreationor open space needs distinctive from other typesof park needs such as regional, community orneighborhood parks. Primarily aimed at offeringa small open-space/recreational venue of amore passive or intimate nature, servicing localresidents rather than citizens across the city (arole played by larger park types). Pocket parksmay be considered as an alternative to orreplacement of a neighborhood park whereproviding a typical neighborhood park isimpractical or not achievable.
Example: Formosa Park, West Hollywood, CA
Formosa Pocket Park in West Hollywood is a4,000 square foot park that was created forcitizens of a nearby mixed-use development.Containing a variety of plant types, a waterfountain and seating areas, the park wasdesigned out of a desire for more publicgathering spaces, and to be a recreationalhaven from the bustle of surrounding streets
!
!
! !!!
! ! !!
!!! !!
!!!!!! !!!! !!! !! !
!!
! !!
!
!!!
!! ! !! !
!!!
!!!!!! !! !!!!
!!! !
! !!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
! !!
!!
hg
I5 S
BI5
NB
I5 E
XPR
ESS
PINE ST
E PINE ST
8TH AVE
9TH AVE
E PIKE ST
E UNION ST
7TH AVE
BOREN AVE
12TH
AVE
PIKE ST
OLIVE WAY
STEWART S
T
6TH AVE
BRO
ADW
AY
DENNY WAY
FAIR
VIE
W A
VE N
E MADISON ST
MERCER ST
EAS
TLA
KE A
VE E 12
TH A
VE E
5TH AVE
WE
STLA
KE
AVE
N
15TH
AVE
E
E JOHN ST
BELL
EVU
E A
VE E
14TH
AVE
VIRGIN
IA ST
BRO
ADW
AY E
REPUBLICAN ST
E O
LIVE
WAY
15TH
AVE
HOWELL
ST
SENECA ST
WE
STLAKE AV
E
4TH AVE
E DENNY WAY
BELL
EVU
E A
VE
E ROY ST
I5 E
XPR
PIK
E AN
D 9
TH R
P
VALLEY ST
19TH
AVE
MERCER ST I5 NB ON RP
OLI
VE W
Y O
N R
P
HU
BBE
LL P
L
BELMONT AVE ELA
KEVI
EW B
LVD
E
3RD AVE
OLI
VE W
Y O
FF R
P
E THOMAS ST
LENORA S
T
YALE AVE
UN
IVER
SITY
ST
ON
RP
10TH
AVE
E
CO
NVE
NTI
ON
PL
MEL
RO
SE
AVE
11TH
AVE
FAIR
VIE
W A
VE
13TH AVE
I5 BUS TUNNEL RP
E ALOHA ST
Selecting a Pocket Park Site in Capitol Hill
Within southwest Capitol Hill, there are 2 parks,Plymouth Pillar Park and Cal Anderson Parkwithin 900 feet of the proposed site. While CalAnderson Park serves as a place for all residentsof Capitol Hill to enjoy green space, there is not asmall, quieter place that local residents aroundthe proposed site can use for passive,contemplative activities, or as an impromptuspace that allows for meaningful interactions tohappen.
The proposed pocket park site serves an unmetneed for green space within the Pike-Pine Districtof Capitol Hill. Tucked in between severalresidential buildings, the proposed pocket wouldalso provide a respite from the highly impervioussurfaces that characterize the area. Althoughduring the summer there is adequate canopycover from the street trees, during the winter,there is a feeling of starkness when the treeshave shed their leaves.
By taking the place of a parking lot, the proposedpocket park will satisfy the open space andrecreation needs of neighborhood residentswithin the surrounding blocks who may not beable to enjoy other park spaces slightly furtherfrom the proposed site. The site is also favorablysituated in terms of access by bicycle or bus,allowing residents to take a moment in their dailyroutine to enjoy a short break.
Pocket Parks: A Neighborhood Treasure
Pocket parks are one way to provide recreationor open space needs distinctive from other typesof park needs such as regional, community orneighborhood parks. Primarily aimed at offeringa small open-space/recreational venue of amore passive or intimate nature, servicing localresidents rather than citizens across the city (arole played by larger park types). Pocket parksmay be considered as an alternative to orreplacement of a neighborhood park whereproviding a typical neighborhood park isimpractical or not achievable.
Example: Formosa Park, West Hollywood, CA
Formosa Pocket Park in West Hollywood is a4,000 square foot park that was created forcitizens of a nearby mixed-use development.Containing a variety of plant types, a waterfountain and seating areas, the park wasdesigned out of a desire for more publicgathering spaces, and to be a recreationalhaven from the bustle of surrounding streets
!½
!½
!½ !½!½!½
!½ !½ !½!½
!½!½!½ !½
!½!½
!½!½!½!½!½ !½!½!½!½ !½!½!½ !½!½ !½!½
!½!½!½
!½!½
!½!½!½
!½!½ !½ !½!½!½
!½!½!½
!½!½!½!½!½!½ !½!½ !½!½!½!½
!½!½!½ !½
!½ !½!½
!½!½!½
!½!½
!½
!½!½
!½!½!½!½
!½!½
!½ !½!½
!½!½
hg
I5 S
BI5
NB
I5 E
XPR
ESS
PINE ST
E PINE ST
8TH AVE
9TH AVE
E PIKE ST
E UNION ST
7TH AVE
BOREN AVE
12TH
AVE
PIKE ST
OLIVE WAY
STEWART S
T
6TH AVE
BRO
ADW
AY
DENNY WAY
FAIR
VIE
W A
VE N
E MADISON ST
MERCER ST
EAS
TLA
KE A
VE E 12
TH A
VE E
5TH AVE
WE
STLA
KE
AVE
N
15TH
AVE
E
E JOHN ST
BELL
EVU
E A
VE E
14TH
AVE
VIRGIN
IA ST
BRO
ADW
AY E
REPUBLICAN ST
E O
LIVE
WAY
15TH
AVE
HOWELL
ST
SENECA ST
WE
STLAKE AV
E
4TH AVE
E DENNY WAY
BELL
EVU
E A
VE
E ROY ST
I5 E
XPR
PIK
E AN
D 9
TH R
P
VALLEY ST
19TH
AVE
MERCER ST I5 NB ON RP
OLI
VE W
Y O
N R
P
HU
BBE
LL P
L
BELMONT AVE ELA
KEVI
EW B
LVD
E
3RD AVE
OLI
VE W
Y O
FF R
P
E THOMAS ST
LENORA S
T
YALE AVE
UN
IVER
SITY
ST
ON
RP
10TH
AVE
E
CO
NVE
NTI
ON
PL
MEL
RO
SE
AVE
11TH
AVE
FAIR
VIE
W A
VE
13TH AVE
I5 BUS TUNNEL RP
E ALOHA ST
LegendIdentified_Potential_Sites1
Proposed Pocket Park Site
Study Area Boundary
!½ Bus Stopnm treespikepine
Existing Park
Zoning
High R
ise
Low ris
e
Mixed O
verla
y
Mid ris
e
Neighb
orhoo
d Com
mercial
¾¾½ Bicycle Route
Transit Route
Major Arterials
±Capitol Hill Green MapJoming LauURBDP 573
0 680 1,360 2,040 2,720340Feet
Selecting a Pocket Park Site in Capitol Hill
Within southwest Capitol Hill, there are 2 parks,Plymouth Pillar Park and Cal Anderson Parkwithin 900 feet of the proposed site. While CalAnderson Park serves as a place for all residentsof Capitol Hill to enjoy green space, there is not asmall, quieter place that local residents aroundthe proposed site can use for passive,contemplative activities, or as an impromptuspace that allows for meaningful interactions tohappen.
The proposed pocket park site serves an unmetneed for green space within the Pike-Pine Districtof Capitol Hill. Tucked in between severalresidential buildings, the proposed pocket wouldalso provide a respite from the highly impervioussurfaces that characterize the area. Althoughduring the summer there is adequate canopycover from the street trees, during the winter,there is a feeling of starkness when the treeshave shed their leaves.
By taking the place of a parking lot, the proposedpocket park will satisfy the open space andrecreation needs of neighborhood residentswithin the surrounding blocks who may not beable to enjoy other park spaces slightly furtherfrom the proposed site. The site is also favorablysituated in terms of access by bicycle or bus,allowing residents to take a moment in their dailyroutine to enjoy a short break.
Pocket Parks: A Neighborhood Treasure
Pocket parks are one way to provide recreationor open space needs distinctive from other typesof park needs such as regional, community orneighborhood parks. Primarily aimed at offeringa small open-space/recreational venue of amore passive or intimate nature, servicing localresidents rather than citizens across the city (arole played by larger park types). Pocket parksmay be considered as an alternative to orreplacement of a neighborhood park whereproviding a typical neighborhood park isimpractical or not achievable.
Example: Formosa Park, West Hollywood, CA
Formosa Pocket Park in West Hollywood is a4,000 square foot park that was created forcitizens of a nearby mixed-use development.Containing a variety of plant types, a waterfountain and seating areas, the park wasdesigned out of a desire for more publicgathering spaces, and to be a recreationalhaven from the bustle of surrounding streets
All lots
Raster Analysis using bike routes and bus stops
Ground-Truthing
SELECT BY ATTRIBUTES
BUFFER
CLIP ALL PARCELS CONTAINED
WITHIN
Visual Inspection to Maximize Distancefrom Existing Parks
Vacant or Parking Lot (Commercial)
Within 200 ft of a bus stop or 600 ft of a
bicycle route
Reasons to eliminate site-poor sense of enclosure-inadequate street frontage
Parcel Area5,000-10,000 sq. ft
At least 500 ft fromExisting Parks &
P-Patches
Reasons to include-area lacking street trees-high imperviousness (gathered from site visit)-complementary adjacent land uses-optimally located away from existing parks
Vacant/Parking Lot Parcels5,000 - 1000 sq ft
Vacant/Parking Lot Parcels5,000 - 1000 sq ft accessible by bus or bike and located away
from existing parks
SELECT BY ATTRIBUTES
Potential Pocket Park Sites
Proposed PocketPark Site
Site Selection Methodology
Capitol Hill Pocket Park Siting Project 1
TitleDate
ADD PROJ DESCRIPTION
ADD SKILLS
ADD ROLES
E Pike St
Boylston Ave
Belmont Ave
Proposed Pocket Park Neighborhood Context - Google Earth Massing Model
Proposed Pocket Park Immediate Context - Isometric View
Proposed Pocket Park Immediate Context - Plan View
2
Neighborhood Context
TitleDate
ADD PROJ DESCRIPTION
ADD SKILLS
ADD ROLES
I5 S
BI5
NB
I5 E
XPR
ESS
E PINE ST
E UNION ST
BOREN AVE
19TH
AVE
E
23R
D A
VE
15TH
AVE
E
E MADISON ST
E PIKE ST
BR
OA
DW
AY8TH AVE
SENECA STPIKE ST
PINE ST
FAIR
VIEW
AVE
N
6TH AVE
OLIVE WAY
SUM
MIT
AVE
EB
ELLE
VUE
AVE
E
MADISON ST
10TH
AVE
EB
RO
AD
WAY
E
DENNY WAY
23R
D A
VE E
5TH AVE
E OLIVE W
AY
15TH
AVE
STEWART ST
E THOMAS STE JOHN ST
±0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500
Feet
0 12,000 24,000 36,000 48,0006,000
Feet
Average Household Size
Demographic Comparison
LegendProposed Pocket Park Site
Study Area Boundary
Average Household Size0 - 1.61
1.62 - 2.03
2.04 - 2.39
2.40 - 2.88
2.89 - 3.78Joming Lau
URBDP 573
Compared with the rest of the City of Seattle, the
average household size of residents living in Capitol
Hill is relatively low, and homogenous in terms of its
distribution across the neighborhood, with much of the
neighborhood in the 0-1.61 category
A similar household is observed in Downtown Seattle
as well as U-District, while medium sized households
are situated in North Seattle, and large households to
the south.
I5 S
BI5
NB
I5 E
XPR
ESS
E PINE ST
E UNION ST
BOREN AVE
19TH
AVE
E
23R
D A
VE
15TH
AVE
E
E MADISON ST
E PIKE ST
BR
OA
DW
AY8TH AVE
SENECA STPIKE ST
PINE ST
FAIR
VIEW
AVE
N
6TH AVE
OLIVE WAY
SUM
MIT
AVE
EB
ELLE
VUE
AVE
E
MADISON ST
10TH
AVE
EB
RO
AD
WAY
E
DENNY WAY
23R
D A
VE E
5TH AVE
E OLIVE W
AY
15TH
AVE
STEWART ST
E THOMAS STE JOHN ST
±0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500
Feet
0 12,000 24,000 36,000 48,0006,000Feet
Population DensityDemographic Comparison
LegendProposed Pocket Park Site
Study Area Boundary
Population Density (person/acre)0 - 910 - 1819 - 3536 - 7273 - 151 Joming Lau
URBDP 573
Compared with the rest of the City of Seattle, the population densityof Capitol Hill is much higher, with population densities of 73-151near the intersection of E Olive Way and Summit Ave. There are avariety of densities throughout Capitol Hill, showing a variety ofhousing types, with greater variation than the rest of Seattle.
With such a high level of density, Capitol Hill wouldbenefit greatly from a pocket park that wouldallow for resident populations to have some accessto green space.
I5 S
BI5
NB
I5 E
XPR
ESS
E PINE ST
E UNION ST
BOREN AVE
19TH
AVE
E
23R
D A
VE
15TH
AVE
E
E MADISON ST
E PIKE ST
BR
OA
DW
AY
8TH AVE
SENECA ST
PIKE STPINE ST
FAIR
VIEW
AVE
N
6TH AVE7TH AVE
OLIVE WAY
SUM
MIT
AVE
E
BEL
LEVU
E AV
E E
9TH AVE
MADISON ST
10TH
AVE
EB
RO
AD
WAY
E
DENNY WAY
23R
D A
VE E
5TH AVE
E OLIV
E WAY
15TH
AVE
HOWELL
ST
E THOMAS STE JOHN ST
BELMONT AVE E
±0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500
Feet
0 12,000 24,000 36,000 48,0006,000Feet
HouseholdIncome
Demographic Comparison
LegendProposed Pocket Park Site
Study Area Boundary
Household Income0 - $35,313
$35,314 - $53,571
$53,572 - $73,125
$73,126 - $106,070
$106,071 - $200,001Joming LauURBDP 573
Compared with the rest of the City of Seattle, the household income ofresidents living in Capitol Hill appears to be relatively low (as is the restof Downtown Seattle), with more wealthy populations living to the northand connecting to Montlake to the north. One note of caution is thatthis income data is almost 10 years old, and this maps do not appear toreflect the shift in income that has happened in Capitol Hill.
In terms of what this means for the value of parcel parks, lower incomehouseholds often have less access to private green spaces such asbackyards as well as larger spaces such as neighborhood parks, andpocket parks could serve as an effective remedy to this issue.
I5 S
BI5
NB
I5 E
XPR
ESS
E PINE ST
E UNION ST
BOREN AVE
19TH
AVE
E
23R
D A
VE
15TH
AVE
E
E MADISON ST
E PIKE ST
BR
OA
DW
AY
8TH AVE
SENECA ST
PIKE STPINE ST
FAIR
VIEW
AVE
N
6TH AVE7TH AVE
OLIVE WAY
SUM
MIT
AVE
E
BEL
LEVU
E AV
E E
9TH AVE
MADISON ST
10TH
AVE
EB
RO
AD
WAY
E
DENNY WAY
23R
D A
VE E
5TH AVE
E OLIV
E WAY
15TH
AVE
HOWELL
ST
E THOMAS STE JOHN ST
BELMONT AVE E
±0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500
Feet
0 12,000 24,000 36,000 48,0006,000
Feet
Median Age
Demographic Comparison
LegendProposed Pocket Park Site
Study Area Boundary
Median Age17-29
29-35.3
35.4-40.9
41-51.8
51.8-78.5
Joming Lau
URBDP 573
Compared with the rest of the City of Seattle,
the median age of residents living in Capitol
Hill are relatively young, and homogenous in
terms of its age distribution, with much of the
neighborhood in the 29-35.3 age range.
A similar median age is observed in the
central portion of Seattle (U-District, Belltown,
Wallingford, etc..), while older populations are
situated to the south, and along the
shorelines.
Proposed Pocket Park Building Context
E PINE ST
E PIKE ST
BE
LL
EV
UE
AV
E
Legend
nm Street Trees
Proposed Parking Park Site
Date of Construction
0
1900-1919
1920-1939
1940-1959
1960-1979
1980-1999
After 2000
E PINE ST
E PIKE ST
BE
LL
EV
UE
AV
E
E PINE ST
E PIKE ST
BE
LL
EV
UE
AV
E
Legend
nm Street Trees
Proposed Pocket Park Site
Building Condition
Good
Average/Good
Average
Low/Average
Legend
nm Street Trees
Proposed Pocket Park Site
Present Use
Apartment
Condominium
Office Building
Restaurant/Lounge
Retail Store
Auto Showroom and Services
Industrial
± Joming Lau
URBDP 573
0 250 500 750 1,000125
Feet
Capitol Hill / Pike-Pine
Building Context Map
3
Demographic Analysis
Lower Lonsdale West Waterfront Project
Simon Fraser University Urban Design Certificate Program
January 2010
This illustrated site plan and the accompanying neighborhood diagrams and plans were part of a storyboard created as part of an assignment for a course on visual communication. The work here builds upon an existing urban design plan by adding several additional elements, including non-motorized mobility connections, programmatic open space along the pier and commercial corridors that warrant streetscape animation. The illustrated site plan also highlights the key aspects of the plan, including mobility, open space and attractions, as well as how the proposed design might incorporate the site’s maritime heritage into its design as a way to provide it with character and a sense of place.
My role on this project included generation of all plans and diagrams, which were first hand-drawn, and then finished using digital enhancements for specific text labels and spot vvcolor.
4
0 25 50
1: 1400 N
Neighborhood Concept Diagram
Mobility Plan
Open Space and Attractions Plan
Deep Energy Retrofit Case Studies
Preservation Green Lab/National Trust for Historic Preservation
December 2012
In furthering the discussion about high-performance historic buildings, the Preservation Green Lab set out to create a toolkit that would allow for the collection and distribution of case studies highlighting projects across five building types (single-family, multi-family, adaptive use, main street and public). These case studies weave together a narrative about the building’s history, impact, and sustainable features. Through a discussion about the lessons learned from the retrofit project, these case studies seek to demonstrate the effectiveness of deep energy retrofits in historic buildings.
My work on this project included the integration of technology (web and online surveys) and content collected through surveys and correspondence with building owners. Building performance data was gathered by working with building owners, and then entered into ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager. I also developed the web and InDesign templates to facilitate future case study development, and created a manual to walk through how to do so.
Project Type Energy Savings C
ost Savings
$
Overview
CASE STUDY: DEEP GREEN HISTORIC BUILDING RETROFITS
1
KEY FACTS Project Type Expected Energy Savings Expected Cost Savings
KEY FACTS
Public Building 101%102%
Location:400 Rood Avenue, Grand
Junction, CO, 81501
Year of Construction:
1918, 1939 (east addition):
2013 (targeted)
Building Size:
Historic Designation:
National Register for Historic
PlacesBuilding Cladding:
Reinforced Concrete
Building Structural: Indiana
Limestone Ashlar
Keywords: Adaptive Use,
Solar PV, Geothermal,
Second Renaissance Revival
CASE STUDY: Wayne Aspinall Federal Building and Courthouse | September 2012
acre site that houses a variety of federal tenants. The building has a place as one of the city’s most
the National Register of Historic Places.
With many of the building systems installed in the 1960s nearing the end of their useful life, the
scheduled upgrades and cosmetic renovations. The building received an American Recovery and
by the Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service. GSA Region 8 determined that both
sustainable design and historic preservation could be effectively coordinated for the project.
Project Impact
Working with the Grand Junction preservation council, the GSA presented the project to local
business groups and the community within the downtown area, and obtained feedback pertaining
ramp on the south facade. Located in the downtown district, the building is well connected to
public transportation and transportation alternatives. At the site level, the promotion of fuel
to neighborhood improvement and reduction of net energy impact.
Wayne Aspinall Federal
Building and Courthouse
Photo: Carlos Lazo
Summary
Building Program
Project Costs$15 million*other costs TBD, pending
project completion Jan 2013
This building houses a variety
of federal tenants with the
IRS occupying the largest
amount of space followed by
the U.S. Courts, Army Corps
of Engineers, U.S. Probation
Marshals, FBI, GSA, and the
Once complete, the Second
Renaissance Revival-style
Wayne Aspinall Federal
Building and Courthouse is
net-zero building on the
National Register of Historic
Places, with a large PV array,
and geothermal system for
heating and cooling the
building.
Project Details
better than the
national average
after incl. solar-PV
Funding Sources
American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
decrease in total utility
Photo: Scott Ely, Sunsense Solar Inc.
CASE STUDY: DEEP GREEN HISTORIC BUILDING RETROFITS
1
KEY FACTS
Project Details
Overview
$KEY FACTS
MainStreet
TBD
TBD
Location:
Year of Construction
Building Size
Historic Designation
Building Cladding:
Building Structural:
Keywords
CASE STUDY: Mission Zero House/Grocoff Residence | September 2012
Project Impact
Mission Zero House/Grocoff
Residence
Project Type Energy Savings Cost Savings
Single family
Residential112%
primarily
through FHA 203(k) rehab
loan
better than an average
single-family residence108% reductions in total utility
$
CASE STUDY: DEEP GREEN HISTORIC BUILDING RETROFITS
1
KEY FACTS
Overview
Project Details
Project Type Energy Savings C
ost Savings
Project Type Energy Savings Cost Savings
KEY FACTS
35%43%
Location:324 N Vermilion St., Danville, IL
Year of Construction:
1906; 1927 (southern additition)
:
2006 Building Size:
5 stories, 71,395 SF
Historic Designation:
National Register for Historic Places
(1988)Building Cladding and Structural:
Brick; timber and steel (addition)
Keywords: Multifamily, Geothermal,
Dutch Revival, Affordable
Summary
Building Program
Project CostsTotal for Project: $7.2 million
The building is dedicated to apartment-
style living, with 47 affordable
apartment units.
A winner of numerous national and
state awards for housing and historic
preservation, New Holland Apartments
is a LEED Gold project that shows
that historic preservation, green
building, and affordable housing can be
achieved on a single project.
CASE STUDY: New Holland Apartments | August 2012
Image Courtesy: Thom Pollock
Register of Historic Places.
Located on a 1.35-acre site in Danville, Illinois, near the Illinois-Indiana border, New Holland
Apartments is an ornate, red brick building with a strong feeling of Dutch Revival Architecture,
evoked by complex roof forms, stepped gables, corbels, dormers and oriels. The 5-story building
sits near the Danville Public Library and Elsworth Park, within a few blocks of senior and family
services, two blocks away from the downtown Danville business district, and within close proximity
of more than 75 percent of
the existing building, including structural, shell and interior elements. The Project includes a
tenant park and playground adjacent on the south, on the site of a former car dealership and
repair shop, with the former dealership showroom area serving as the primary park terrace and
the remainder of the site converted to landscape.
Since 2006, New Holland Apartments have provided a much needed affordable-housing option
in downtown Danville, with 47 units available to diverse tenants, including single occupants,
multiple person familiies, persons with mental illness problems, developmental disabilities,
substance abuse problems and persons who have been victims of domestic violence. When the
showing the strong demand for affordable housing that New Holland Apartments supplies.
Danville’s Mayor Scott Eisenhauer describes the effect of the New Holland Apartments on Danville:
“The building seems to be a barometer for the fortunes of the city and the outlook of our community
can be measured by the success of the New Holland Apartments. It was grand in Danville’s heyday,
but it hit bottom in the 1980’s and ‘90s and became a hulking, vacant derelict. The building itself is
so unique that even when it was vacant and in a blighted area of downtown, people looked up at it
and wondered, “When is someone going to bring it back? Will it ever come back?”, and in essence
wondered the same about the city. Both are back.”
Project Impact
New Holland Apartments
Funding Sources
IL Housing Development Authority:
HOME funds: $1.8 million
Enterprise Community Investment,
Low-income housing Tax Credit Equity
(9%): $2.86 million
Enterprise Community Investment,
Historic Tax Credits: $1.17 million
Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago:
Affordable Housing Program: $184,000
Enterprise Green Communities Grant
$46,000 Illinois Clean Energy Community
Foundation Grant: $211,402
Illinois Donation Tax Credits (for
donation of building): $214,000 (cover
LEED design process)
City of Danville, Community
Development Block Grant: $135,000
Enterprise Community Investment,
Reserves (9%): $177,150
Crosspoint Human Services
(developer): $249,816
Equity out of Escrow (9%): $166,500
Deferred Developer Fee: $ 43,500
Multifamily
Residential
*Better than the
national average
Project Type Energy Savings C
ost Savings
Holmberg and Johnson
Blacksmith & Wagonshop
$
Overview
CASE STUDY: DEEP GREEN HISTORIC BUILDING RETROFITS
1
KEY FACTS
Project Details
Project Type Energy Savings Cost Savings
KEY FACTS
MainStreet
67%77%
Location:
Year of Construction:
1900 :
2012 (in progress)
Building Size:
Historic Designation:
National Register for Historic
PlacesBuilding Cladding and
Structural: Reinforced brick/
masonryKeywords
Building Program
Project Costs
Total for Project: $67,500*
Historic Preservation: $61,665
Acquisition cost: $92,600
*additional costs pending
project completion in XX
This building is currently
the home of a family owned
coffee roasting company.
corrugated metal roof with an
generates enough energy
for the building to not require
natural gas for heating.
with a local source of historic
bricks and replacement of a
the same historic brick pavers.
CASE STUDY: Holmberg and Johnson Blacksmith & Wagonshop | August 2012
The interior retains the original forge, including its chimney, original ceiling fan, original sliding
raised seam roof.
Project Impact
occupied and renovated for the last four years and is considered an attractive destination in *The project was self-funded by
the building owner
better than the national
average (including savings
from solar PV)
decrease in total utility costs
average building type
Project Type Energy Savings Cost Savings
$Overview
CASE STUDY: DEEP GREEN HISTORIC BUILDING RETROFITS
1
KEY FACTS
Project Details
Project Type Expected Energy Savings Expected Cost Savings
KEY FACTS
AdaptiveUse 47%
Location:1420 Ogden Street, Denver, COYear of Construction:
1917 (1 story Cottage Annex):
2012 Building Size:
Historic Designation: National Register for Historic Places, Local Historic LandmarkBuilding Cladding and Structural: Wood and brick/masonryKeywords:
Reuse
Summary
Building Program
Project CostsTotal for Project: $3.2 million
Historic Preservation Costs: $1.4 millionSoft Costs: $800,000Hard Costs: $2.4 millionTax Credits Awarded: $0
The former school is now
including three historic preservation related organizations.
The 20,000-sq-ft school underwent a comprehensive, $3.2-million green overhaul that included installation of a geothermal heating and cooling system, and the restoration of over 200 original window sashes. The energy saving measures are targeting energy consumption
CASE STUDY: Emerson School | September 2012
Photo: Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation
Emerson School is a Denver landmark owned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) and is the oldest surviving example of a school designed by architect Robert Roeschlaub, who was known nationally for his school plans. Notable architectural features include large central
tall windows and all original wood wainscoting and wood interior lobby doors. Some classrooms
a sundial on a Colorado building and a prominent hipped roof, pierced by two brick chimneys that provided passive ventilation for the classrooms.
The Emerson School is located on a 46,000 sf lot, just one half block south of Colfax Avenue,
grid. The Emerson School site includes 42 parking spaces to the north side of the building. The original front entrance of the building faces directly south, toward 14th Street. The south side of the property has been re-landscaped as an urban garden, with new lighting, fencing, street trees, shrubs and benches. A new “B-Cycle” bike share station is scheduled to open along the 14th street side of the property in March, 2013.
The Emerson School is a well-known neighborhood landmark. The rehabilitation of the school and the surrounding landscape has enhanced the immediate area around it and has been positively received by the neighborhood. The 60 or so tenants of the building help bring activity to the area and help support a small sandwich shop across the street. Further community impact is anticipated when a new bike share station opens on the Emerson School property. This facility will bring an estimated 80 users to the property daily, providing an alternative to auto use for building tenants, visitors and area residents.
Project Impact
Emerson School
Colorado State Historical Fund Foundation grants Private donation Loan (incl. low interest construction loan from CO Historical Foundation)
Funding Sources
better than thenational average 48% modeled reduction in total
ENERGY
Climate zone
*U.S. Climate Zones based on 2009 IECC Code
2
ENERGY
2
Project Team
Building renovation/additionTenant Improvements
Building OwnerNational Trust for Historic Preservation Jim Lindberg, Field Director
jlindberg@savingplaces.org
ArchitectSLATERPAULL Architects Inc. Gary Petri, Principal(303) 607-0977gpetri@slaterpaull.com
EngineerRogers and Sons, Inc. Stacy Rogers, President(303) 296-2999stacy@rogershvac.com
Energy or sustainability consultantWhite Box Technologies, Inc. Moncef Krarti, (303) 771-8370krarti@yahoo.com
Project Scope
improvements to mechanical systems (heating, ventilation and cooling, or HVAC) and the building envelope, addition of renewable energy, and attention to tenant behavior. The ground-source heat exchange system has eliminated the need for on-site fossil fuel consumption entirely.
HVACGround-source heat exchange wells are buried beneath the north parking lot, consisting of 30
heat pumps serving the Main School and Cottage School, with a 27 ton cooling load and no back
each) are available for backup heating. Ventilation incorporates two original central chimneys and
Lighting/DaylightingThere was a strong effort to open up the building to harvest daylight as much as possible. The lighting design called for 0.9 W/sf overall. Several strategies were pursued to achieve this. The
Building EnvelopeR-40 insulation was added to the unoccupied attic. All but two windows are completely restored
The tenant space that remained occupied during rehabilitation will have windows restored in a later phase. The non-historic exterior doors were replaced with new, historically appropriate doors, the original hardware and closers reused, and all exterior trim painted. In this phase of the project, masonry repairs were limited, with both buildings set to be repointed in 2013.
Controls
lighting except the egress path and stairway areas is set to a default “off” mode. There are individual, programmable HVAC controls for each heat pump unit. Offsite, online monitoring and tracking functions are included for all units.
Tenant behavior
ongoing building performance monitoring and tenant engagement.
Commissioning and Retro-commissioningCommissioning of mechanical and lighting systems was crucial to helping the owner and contractors identify issues and improve installation of heating and cooking system
lighting controls. The project team did not conduct enhanced commissioning due to budget constraints.
CASE STUDY: Emerson School | September 2012
Cold
Whole Building EUI (Modeled Pre-Retrofit baseline + Modeled Post-Retrofit) vs. National Average
0
50
100
150
200
250
Pre
P
ost
Pre
P
ost
Pre
P
ost
Pre
P
ost
Pre
P
ost
Pre
P
ost
Pre
P
ost
Pre
P
ost
Pre
P
ost
Pre
P
ost
Pre
P
ost
Pre
P
ost
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gas
Electricity
Baseline
National Average = 147.55
3
Historic Designation
Historic Standards Historic Tax Credits Tax Credit Awarded
StateFederal
Secretary of the Interior Standards $
KEY FACTS
Building History
3
Historic Standards Historic Tax Credits
StateFederal
Secretary of the Interior Standards
KEY FACTS
master architect, Robert Roeshlaub, a specialist in school design. In 1917, the Cottage School
public school until 1979, when it was converted to a senior center and medical clinic. In 2009, the building was donated to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, with rehabilitation work done
restoration work on all of the original windows for both the Main and Cottage Schools. The non-historic stucco around the south entrance was removed, and the original facades either restored, or replaced with matching salvaged brick. In addition, there was extensive repair work and painting of the exterior eaves, gutters, trimwork, and the porches to the basement entryways. On the Cottage School annex, the original front doors were found in a crawl space in the building and reinstalled. Also, the non historic front porch was removed and the original features repaired.
Interior preservation work included removal of most of the non-historic interior walls and dropped
stairs throughout the building.
Historic Preservation Strategies
Historic Preservation Awards
Notable as the oldest surviving example of a school designed by architect Robert
architectural features include the large central lobbies
staircase. The building has all original wood wainscoting and wood interior lobby doors, with some classrooms having the original cabinetry and chalkboards still visible. The exterior includes the
a sundial on a Colorado building and a prominent hipped roof, pierced by two brick chimneys that provided passive ventilation for the classrooms.
National Register of Historic Places
Denver Landmark Designation
Community Preservation Award - Historic Denver, Inc.
CASE STUDY: Emerson School | September 2012
Photos Courtesy: Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation
Image Courtesy: Google Maps
“Older buildings like the Emerson School are sustainable because they are in the right place – in established, walkable and mixed-use neighbor-hoods with access to public parks, schools, libraries and transit.” -
Photos Courtesy: Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation
Photos Courtesy: Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation
4
This collection of Deep Green Historic Building case studies showcase unique buildings that successfully blend historic preservation and measured energy performance. These case studies provide inspiring stories and best practices, including detailed information about project
If you are interested in showcasing your building and contributing to our catalog of case studies, please visit the following url to submit an application: http://www.preservationnation.org/green-lab/casestudies/survey/
About the Case Studies
LESSONS
Resources
The Preservation Green Lab is a sustainability think tank and national leader in efforts to
of older and historic buildings. The Green Lab works with partners to develop innovative research, advance public policy and increase private investment to reduce demolitions and improve building performance. By providing proven solutions to policy makers and building professionals, the Green Lab works to cut carbon pollution and enhance the unique character of vibrant neighborhoods. A project of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Green Lab was launched in 2009 and is based in Seattle, Wash. For more information regarding this report, contact:
Preservation Green Labgreenpreservation@saving-places.org206.324.03971429 12th Avenue, Suite D, Seattle, WA 98122
About Preservation Green Lab
CASE STUDY: Emerson School | September 2012
Barriers and SolutionsA major challenge in this project involved working around one tenant who stayed in the building during construction. That space was not rehabilitated. Additionally, during demolition, two structural columns were exposed within a 1980s partition wall. The columns were kept in the existing location, in the middle of the main lobby, and reconditioned. The owner says the black steel columns “actually look like they belong there”.
FinancingNTHP received the building as a donation, raised $1.7 million toward rehabilitation costs, and
cover debt service plus operating costs.
Design ProcessThe design process for the project was constantly under budget pressure as the project team worked on both fundraising and a leasing pro-forma during the design phase. The considerable time spent evaluating design and tenant scenarios allowed the project to reach completion and occupancy goals on-time and on-budget. The owner deliberated whether to pursue LEED
an energy model, in part because it is required for LEED, but the results of the model were not
strategies, including enhanced commissioning.
Building Technologies
long-term ownership plans. The previously blocked off historic ventilation chimneys were also
lights (CFLs) and a strong emphasis on daylighting. The owner plans to install photovoltaic (PV)
historic character.
Site ImprovementsThe entire property has been re-landscaped as an urban garden, with new lighting, fencing, street trees, shrubs and benches. This work has greatly improved the pedestrian experience of the surrounding block and is helping to re-knit damaged urban fabric in the area. Ten surface parking spaces were removed from the south side of building. A new “B-Cycle” bike share station will provide a transportation alternative for building tenants, visitors and neighbors.
Photos: Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation
Lessons Learned
Preservation NationEmerson School Building Reopens After Green RestorationPreservation Nation - Going
SchoolMountain States - Green Rehab of Historic Denver School UnveiledDenver Business Journal -
old buildings work
5
Wedgwood Feasibility Study
University of WashingtonDepartment of Urban Design & Planning
December 2010
This feasibility study was conducted for a property in the Wedgwood neighborhood of Seattle, for a hypothetical client. As part of a five member team, using the financial and timing requirements as a framework, several development scenarios were developed based on neighborhood, submarket and trade area and zoning analysis. These scenarios would provide a framework to guide future development of the site.
Based on our analysis, a mixed use development with 2 floors of residential apartments would be the optimal use option, although the final recommendation was that given market conditions in the neighborhood, an alternate location would be the most appropriate action at the time.
My role on this project included zoning, neighborhood and demographic analysis, market area delineation. I also played secondary roles verifying financial calculations and report writing.
WEDGWOOD SITE ANALYSIS REPORTDecember 9, 2010
Team 7
6
4
STATIC ATTRIBUTES
Site Context
The site is located in northeast Seattle, on the north-west corner of the intersection of 35th AVE NE and NE 95th Street. This intersection marks the point where three distinct neighbor-hoods meet: to the north is the Meadowbrook neighborhood, to the east across 35th NE is the Matthew’s Beach Neighborhood, and to the south across 95th Ave is the Wedgewood Neighbor-hood. Of the three, Wedgewood is the largest and most clearly de ned (see Exhibits 1 & 2).
The intersection of 35th Avenue NE and NE 95th Street is the site of one of a number of small commercial nodes that exist along 35th Avenue NE between NE 55th and NE 95th streets (refer to Exhibit 14). These nodes have small businesses such as gas stations, restaurants, and various of ce uses, as well as large surface parking areas and larger retail outlets (see Exhibit 3). The buildings in these commercial nodes are largely single story, though there are some newer two and three story buildings (refer to Exhibits 5). The upper levels of the newer buildings contain apartments or condominiums. The neighborhood around the site is predominantly single-family houses and occasional multi-family buildings. Northgate Mall is located about 1 mile to the west of the site.
Exhibit 1: Context Map of Seattle. Data Source: WagdaExhibit 2: Context Map of NE Seattle. Data Source: Wagda
DOWNTOWNSEATTLE
SITE
UNIVERSITYDISTRICT
LAKE CITY
I-5
I-5
6
STATIC ATTRIBUTES
Exhibit 4: Northwest Veterinary Clinic
Exhibit 5: Bird’s eye view of the site.
SITE PROFILE DATA
Location: NW corner of 35th AVE NE
& NE 95th St
Address: 9505 35th Ave NE
Parcel #: 9553200035
Zipcode: 98115
Owner: JDR Property Management LLC
Current Use: Veterinary Clinic / Parking Lot
Lot Size: .63 acres / 27,491 SF
Land Value: $1,099,600
Improvement Value: $1,000
Building Size: 4,108 SF
Parcel size:
East west dim: 180ʼ
North south dim: 152ʼ
SE corner radius: 15ʼ
Zoning:
East 110ʼ: NC1-30
West 70ʼ: SF-7000
Context Map and Market Area Delineation
Alternative Use Scenarios
13
NEIGHBORHOOD, SUB-MARKET, & TRADE AREA ANALYSIS
Development
The neighborhood consists of mainly single-family homes with a small node of commercial build-ings at the intersection of 35th Ave. NE and NE 95th Street. The commercial node occupies approximately one-half a block in each direction from each corner of the intersection, creating a total area of approximately 1 square block. The businesses currently in this commercial node are fairly diverse and consist of a development company, an animal hospital (on the site we are cur-rently analyzing), a chiropractor, a re station, a pub, a Chinese restaurant, an auto repair shop, a gas station, and a barber shop. There are several similar commercial nodes along 35th Ave. NE, the closest of which is ten blocks to the south at the cross-section of NE 85th Street, and there are other nodes every ve to ten blocks continuing south on 35th Avenue NE.
Household CharacteristicsHousehold ownership in the Wedgewood neighborhood is signi cantly higher than the rest of King County, with roughly 75% of housing units occupied by the owner, compared with just under 60% in King County. Renter occupied housing units were less common, and interestingly vacant housing units were signi cantly lower than in the rest of King County, likely indicating that there was a demand for more housing in the area. Wedgewood has an average household size of 2.29, a similar value to King County at 2.38.
HousingUnits
% of TotalHousing
Units% of Total
HousingUnits
% of Total
2010 Average Household Size 2.4 2.29 2.382010 Owner Occupied 1574 76.52% 4762 73.93% 471278 59.13%2010 Renter Occupied 484 23.53% 1679 26.07% 325778 40.87%2010 Vacant Housing Units 81 3.94% 319 4.95% 58439 7.33%Total Households (excluding vacant units) 2057 6441 797056
.5 mile ring around site Trade Area King County
Transportation PatternsIn 2000, the Census collected information regarding commuting patterns in Wedgewood and found that over 75% of trips to work were in a car/truck or van, 14% by public transportation, 3% by bicycle and 1.2% by walking. 94.8% of workers did not work at home, and their commute required on average a total of 25.9 minutes. (Refer to the Appendix - Journey to Work) this is probably the most important piece of information in this section
Tapestry Segmentation:
Based on tapestry segmentation information obtained from ESRI Business Analyst Online (BAO), the largest market segment in Wedgewood is classi ed as Wealthy Seaboard Suburb, comprising 43% of households within Wedgewood. The second largest market segment are the Metropoli-tans, making up 31.8% of households in Wedgewood and 10.2% within 0.5 miles of the site (refer to Exhibit 13).
Exhibit 12: Household Demographics. Source - ESRI
11
NEIGHBORHOOD, SUB-MARKET, & TRADE AREA ANALYSIS
within walking distance of the project site. The intermediate area is de ned by the market area described above, and is comprised of the Wedgwood/View Ridge Community Reporting Area (CRA), and the northern half of the Ravenna/Bryant CRA. This area stretches from a few blocks west of the Lake Washington as the eastern boundary, Lake City Way on the west, Meadowbrook Park on the north, and NE 65th St. on the south. The largest scale of data incorporated in the analysis is King County as a whole, to show how the two smaller areas compare to the larger
region.
Neighborhood Analysis and Demographics
Population and Demographic Information
The population of the immediate project area in 2010 was 4,995 (in 2,057 households), while the larger Wedgewood neighborhood stood at 15,020 (in 6,441 households). At the largest market area described in the previous secion the population isn’t very dense. Currently, the population density is almost 3,000 people/square mile (about 4.5 people per acre). The majority of the area is single-family residential homes with several commercial nodes spread across the area. The area has seen steady growth since the year 2000 and is expected to see continued growth through the year 2015.
With a median age in the area of 43 years, residents here are generally older than in King County, where the median age is 37.8 year. Exhibit 8 shows the populations broken down into cohort segments.
Exhibit 15 indicates that the population in Wedgewood is predominately white, and more highly-educated (See Exhibit 9) than the rest of King County. Over 2/3 of Wedgewood residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher as compared with 44% in King County (see Exhibit 10). Ethnic composition is quite similar to the rest of King County, except for a lower percentage of African-Americans in Wedgewood.
0.5 mile ring around site Trade Area King County2010 Total Population 4995 15020 19368942010 Median Age 43.4 43.2 37.8
Exhibit 8: Population and Age Demographics. Source - ESRI
Ethnic Composition (%) .5 mi ring around site Trade Area King CountyCaucasian 78.44 77.48 70.05African American 2.32 1.84 6.01American Indian 0.54 0.49 0.93Asian 12.99 13.75 13.88Pacific Islander 0.12 0.13 0.61Other Race (single) 1.54 2.08 3.73Two or more Races 4.04 4.22 4.8
Exhibit 9: Ethnic Composition Demographics. Source - ESRI
12
NEIGHBORHOOD, SUB-MARKET, & TRADE AREA ANALYSIS
IncomeWedgewood has a median household income above $80,000 which is higher than the rest of King County, which was about $75,700 in 2010. The slightly higher average shows the possibility for expendable income and more purchases.
Exhibit 11: Income Demographics. Source - ESRI
.5 Mile Ring around the site
Trade Area King County
2010 Per Capita Income 39372 44001 385622010 Median Household Income 80075 80677 756932010 Average Household Income 93340 101742 927402010 Aggregate HH Income $192,000,511.00 $655,521,824.00 $73,918,471,544.00
2010 Household Income.5 Mile Ring around
the siteTrade Area King County
<$10000 (%) 2.87 2.55 4.8$10000-14999 (%) 3.01 2.5 2.47$15000-19999 (%) 2.67 2.27 2.87$20000-24999 (%) 3.26 2.53 3.4$25000-29999 (%) 2.72 2.31 3.12$30000-34999 (%) 3.4 3.82 3.66$35000-39999 (%) 3.06 3.17 3.39$40000-44999 (%) 3.5 3.37 3.38$45000-49999 (%) 2.97 2.95 3.61$50000-59999 (%) 6.42 6.75 8.62$60000-74999 (%) 10.89 12.42 9.89$75000-99999 (%) 19.54 18.37 19.75$100000-124999 (%) 15.9 15.01 12.27$125000-149999 (%) 7.63 6.57 6.37$150000-199999 (%) 5.79 7.31 5.93$200000-249999 (%) 3.74 3.99 2.97$250000-499999 (%) 2.28 3.23 2.71$500000+ (%) 0.34 0.92 0.8
Education Level (% of population)
.5 mi ring around site Trade Area King County
Less than 9th Grade 0.83 0.98 3.44Some High School 1.72 1.58 4.7High School Graduate 9.92 8.5 18.26Some College 17.37 15.42 20.83Associate Degree 4.62 4.38 8.43Bachelor's Degree 35.24 36.65 28.24Graduate Degree 30.27 32.49 16.1
Exhibit 10: Education Demographics. Source - ESRI
12
NEIGHBORHOOD, SUB-MARKET, & TRADE AREA ANALYSIS
IncomeWedgewood has a median household income above $80,000 which is higher than the rest of King County, which was about $75,700 in 2010. The slightly higher average shows the possibility for expendable income and more purchases.
Exhibit 11: Income Demographics. Source - ESRI
.5 Mile Ring around the site
Trade Area King County
2010 Per Capita Income 39372 44001 385622010 Median Household Income 80075 80677 756932010 Average Household Income 93340 101742 927402010 Aggregate HH Income $192,000,511.00 $655,521,824.00 $73,918,471,544.00
2010 Household Income.5 Mile Ring around
the siteTrade Area King County
<$10000 (%) 2.87 2.55 4.8$10000-14999 (%) 3.01 2.5 2.47$15000-19999 (%) 2.67 2.27 2.87$20000-24999 (%) 3.26 2.53 3.4$25000-29999 (%) 2.72 2.31 3.12$30000-34999 (%) 3.4 3.82 3.66$35000-39999 (%) 3.06 3.17 3.39$40000-44999 (%) 3.5 3.37 3.38$45000-49999 (%) 2.97 2.95 3.61$50000-59999 (%) 6.42 6.75 8.62$60000-74999 (%) 10.89 12.42 9.89$75000-99999 (%) 19.54 18.37 19.75$100000-124999 (%) 15.9 15.01 12.27$125000-149999 (%) 7.63 6.57 6.37$150000-199999 (%) 5.79 7.31 5.93$200000-249999 (%) 3.74 3.99 2.97$250000-499999 (%) 2.28 3.23 2.71$500000+ (%) 0.34 0.92 0.8
Education Level (% of population)
.5 mi ring around site Trade Area King County
Less than 9th Grade 0.83 0.98 3.44Some High School 1.72 1.58 4.7High School Graduate 9.92 8.5 18.26Some College 17.37 15.42 20.83Associate Degree 4.62 4.38 8.43Bachelor's Degree 35.24 36.65 28.24Graduate Degree 30.27 32.49 16.1
Exhibit 10: Education Demographics. Source - ESRI
Demographic Analysis
6
STATIC ATTRIBUTES
Exhibit 4: Northwest Veterinary Clinic
Exhibit 5: Bird’s eye view of the site.
SITE PROFILE DATA
Location: NW corner of 35th AVE NE
& NE 95th St
Address: 9505 35th Ave NE
Parcel #: 9553200035
Zipcode: 98115
Owner: JDR Property Management LLC
Current Use: Veterinary Clinic / Parking Lot
Lot Size: .63 acres / 27,491 SF
Land Value: $1,099,600
Improvement Value: $1,000
Building Size: 4,108 SF
Parcel size:
East west dim: 180ʼ
North south dim: 152ʼ
SE corner radius: 15ʼ
Zoning:
East 110ʼ: NC1-30
West 70ʼ: SF-7000
Site Attributes
25
Most Fitting Use Analysis
The following analysis analyzes the use components of the above 5 options to determine which is most tting on the site in question.
Key Assumptions:
- Size/Layout: There is a large tree in the middle of the property which needs to be built around.This diminishes the potential for of ce and retail complexes as it would not allow for thestripmall-esque development seen on 85th & 75th.
- Egress/Ingress: There’s an ingress that is approximately 15 ft. from a traf c light which mightmake it dif cult for retail customers to use effectively.
- Topo/Drainage: Drainage for the site is fair; however there is an approximate 3 foot downhillslope from to the street to the property.
- Public Linkages: There is a bus stop adjacent to the property. However it runs limited routes(Bus 64 & 65) and does not provide enough incoming traf c for retail or of ce projects.
- Pedestrian: The property is located in a residential neighborhood which allows people to walkto a potential retail development on the site. However, for a residential development, there islittle to walk to.
Factors/Attributes Office Retail Apartment Factors/Attributes WeightsStatic Static 40%Size, Layout 4 4 7 Environmental 30%Ingress/Egress 6 5 7 Linkages 30%Topo/Drainage 5 5 5
Subtotal 15 14 19
EnvironsLand Uses 7 5 6Quality/Value 7 6 8Safety/Security 8 6 7
Subtotal 22 17 21
Current LinkagesPublic Transit 3 4 5Vehicular 6 7 8Pedestrian 3 5 3
Subtotal 12 16 16
Weighted Total 29.76 30.08 37.84 The analysis shows that apartments are the most tting use on the site, followed by retail and of ce almost equally. Therefore, when considering the following nancial analysis, Mixed Use with residential above should be considered the optimal use option.
ALTERNATIVE USE ANALYSIS
Exhibit 28: Most Fitting Use AnalysisMost Fitting Use Analysis
5
STATIC ATTRIBUTES
Site Access
The site is bordered on two sides by minor arterial streets (as classi ed by the Seattle Comprehensive Transportation Program of 1984), and there is a traf c light at the their intersec-tion. Sidewalks are present along 35th NE, but they end at NE 96th. NE 95th has sidewalks only at the intersection. 35th Avenue NE is serviced by north-south travelling city busses, which connect the site with University Village and the University District to the south and Lake City to the north. NE 95th has no bus service but provides a direct vehicular connection to Lake City Way, about 1 mile to the west. Currently, vehicular access to the site is via one curbcut on 35th NE, one curbcut on NE 95th, and a driveway at the west end of the site off NE 95th (see Exhibit 5).
Existing Improvements
There is currently a one-story commercial structure on the site, the Northeast Veterinary Clinic. To the east and north of the building are paved driveway and parking areas. The driveway exits the site at the extreme west edge of the parcel, onto NE 95th Street. Between the existing building and the driveway on the west side of the site there is an unimproved grass / gravel area, apparently used for over ow parking. The existing building is approximately 35 years old and 4,108 SF in size (see Exhibit 4).
Exhibit 3: Site Context Map. Data Source: WagdaZoning and Land Use
Financial Analysis
23
ALTERNATIVE USE ANALYSIS
Building Size - 17,943 SFBuilding Footprint - 5,981 SFParking - 10,739 SF - approximately 24 stalls
Exhibit 24: One Story Retail
Building Size - 8,800 SFBuilding Footprint - 8,800 SFParking - 7,920 SF - approximately 18 stalls
Exhibit 25: Mixed Use - One Story Retail with Apartments Above
23
ALTERNATIVE USE ANALYSIS
Building Size - 17,943 SFBuilding Footprint - 5,981 SFParking - 10,739 SF - approximately 24 stalls
Exhibit 24: One Story Retail
Building Size - 8,800 SFBuilding Footprint - 8,800 SFParking - 7,920 SF - approximately 18 stalls
Exhibit 25: Mixed Use - One Story Retail with Apartments Above22
ALTERNATIVE USE ANALYSIS
The following section includes graphic representation of ve alternative use options Team 7 feels are worth investigating. In each case, it has been assumed that the area of the site zoned SF-7200 would be left undeveloped, for reasons explained in this document under static attributes(?). As is the case in most new development projects, a main driver of each of these alternatives is the location of on-site parking. The site’s small size and 3-story height limit will result in a small development that could not possibly generate enough income to justify the cost of locating parking below grade. For this reason, the four new-development alternatives described here have parking located in a surface parking lot. In each of the four new-develop-ment alternatives, the building is located at the street edge, with parking behind. This is es-sentially required by zoning regulations, but has the bene t of locating commercial space close to the streets, for high visibility.
The ve development options considered are:
• Leave the existing building as-is• Develop a 1-story commercial building (8,800 SF)• Develop a 3-story mixed use building with ground level commercial and residential above (17,943 SF)• Develop a 3-story mixed use building with ground level commercial and of ce above (17,943 SF)• Develop a 3-story building with ground level commercial and of ce above (21,345 SF)
These are all represented in graphic form on the following pages (Exhibits 23-27).
Building Size - 4,108 SFBuilding Footprint - 4,108 SFParking - 11,336 SF - approximately 20 stalls
Exhibit 23: Keep the existing building.
24
ALTERNATIVE USE ANALYSIS
Building Size - 21,345 SFBuilding Footprint - 7,115 SFParking - 9,605 SF - approximately 21 stalls
Exhibit 26: Mixed Use - One Story Retail with Of ces Above
Building Size - 17,943 SFBuilding Footprint - 5,981 SFParking - 7,920 SF - approximately 24 stalls
Exhibit 27: Three Story Of ce Building
24
ALTERNATIVE USE ANALYSIS
Building Size - 21,345 SFBuilding Footprint - 7,115 SFParking - 9,605 SF - approximately 21 stalls
Exhibit 26: Mixed Use - One Story Retail with Of ces Above
Building Size - 17,943 SFBuilding Footprint - 5,981 SFParking - 7,920 SF - approximately 24 stalls
Exhibit 27: Three Story Of ce Building
§Raw land cost:o $30/sf SF-7200 o $50/sf NC1-30
§NOI existing @ $20/sf§Construction period:o 1-story @8 monthso 3-story @ 14 months
§As-is cap rate: 10%§Vacancy ratios:o 1-story 10%, 3-story 6%
§Expense ratioso 1-story 14%, 3-story 12%
§Demolition costs @ $8/sf§Parking construction @$1.70/sf§Landscaping costs @ $2.50/sf§Construction costs:o 1 story @$95/sfo 3-Story@$110/sf
§Income rates foro commercial @ $20/sfo apt @$24/sf
Below is an analysis of the predicted financial performance of each of the five alternative development scenarios described above. In each case, the following assumptions were made:
Financial feasibility of five development scenarios
ingress/ egress points
Bird’s eye view of the site
Site Analysis Market Analysis Financial/Use Analysis
Woodinville Residential Cluster Plan
University of Washington Department of Urban Design & Planning
March 2011
The objective of this project was to reimagine the southern end of Woodinville, WA adjacent to the Tourist District. Given a scenario of explosive population growth in the Puget Sound region and the designation of the site as an important urban node, this site was redesigned keeping in mind the accommodation of neighborhood amenities and transit connections. Also included was the addition of office and retail space, while meeting minimum parking requirements, and improving the site’s ecological function through management of all stormwater onsite, and replacement of the existing low-density townhouses in the floodplain of the Sammamish River with riparian habitat.
My role here included all elements of this project , from background research, calculations of lot yield and parking requirements, to the development of the urban design concept and the more detailed site design.
Sketchup Massing Model Shadow Study (4pm on March 22)
Urban Design Concept
Site Statistics
7
Detailed Design Concept
Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District: Sketchup Building Models
University of Washington Digital Design Practicum
May 2011
This project explored design and rendering methods using 3D modeling software. Two different approaches were used in developing Sketchup building models for each of the two buildings. For the building at 619 E Pine St., building components and materials were applied to the surfaces of the building in order to create a model that approximated the original building. The building model at 501 E Pine St took another approach, using the Photo Match function to apply textures onto the building faces. These textures were derived from actual photos taken during site visits.
All element of this project were developed on my own, except for several building components (including doors and windows) which were publicly available on Google 3D Warehouse.
North ElevationEast ElevationWest ElevationSouth Elevation
South Elevation
East Elevation West Elevation
Bird’s Eye View & Roof Line
Paige Building at 619 E Pine StreetCreated by applying components
and materials
Bird’s Eye View & Roof Line
Building at 501 E Pine Streetcreated using Photo Match to apply photo textures to building faces
North Elevation
Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District 8
TitleDate
ADD PROJ DESCRIPTION
ADD SKILLS
ADD ROLES
Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District: Building Relocation Analysis
University of Washington Digital Design Practicum
April 2011
The images on the left were created as an experiment in visualizing the impact of a hypothetical relocation of the Comet Tavern building from its historical location at 922 E. Pike Street to a new location at 1422 11th Avenue.
Photographic surveying was used to document existing street and facade conditions, and Photoshop was used extensively in the creation of a photomontage, an elevation and an aerial view to simulate what such a relocation might look like.
N
Photo montage showing the Comet tavern building on the proposed site
NAerial view showing the Comet Tavern building on proposed site, and a P-Patch taking its place at its current location
N
Elevation of Comet Tavern Building in proposed location at 1422 11th Avenue
Original Building Location
9
Survey of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (URMs) in the Admiral Neighborhood
University of Washington Digital Design Practicum
June 2011
This final project of the Digital Design Practicum course developed a methodology for creating an inventory of URM buildings in Seattle neighborhoods. Because no municipal record of URM buildings exist, this required a combination of examining assessor’s parcel data. Working in groups of two, these results were cross-referenced against multiple lists of historic landmarks, and finally verified through site visits and photo documentation. The end product was an inventory of URM buildings for the Admiral neighborhood, ranked by priority for seismic retrofits, and shown graphically through maps and a Sketchup model of the neighborhood.
My primary role for this project included Sketchup modeling, conducting background historical research, site visits, managing large quantities of assessors data and creation of maps.
Joming Lau Virginia Werner
A Survey of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in the Admiral Neighborhood of West Seattle
Digital Design PracticumSpring 2011
Sketchup Model Sketchup ModelGoogle Streetview Image Google Streetview Image
Admiralty House Antiques (2141 California Ave SW)Fire Station No. 29 (2139 Ferry Ave SW)
Seismic Priority Assessment Flow Chart
Remove “uncertain” and “reinforced” building construction types from URM dataset
Assign Risk Levels
Risk Level 2 Risk Level 4Risk Level 3Risk Level 1
Sort by building quality
Sort by number of
stories
Sort by historical
significance
Assign priority number 1a-1?
Sort by building quality
Sort by number of
stories
Sort by historical
significance
Assign priority number 2a-2?
Sort by building quality
Sort by number of
stories
Sort by historical
significance
Assign priority number 3a-3?
Sort by building quality
Sort by number of
stories
Sort by historical
significance
Assign priority number 4a-4?
10
TitleDate
ADD PROJ DESCRIPTION
ADD SKILLS
ADD ROLES
Tianzhong VillageDevelopment Concepts
University of Washington and Sichuan University
July 2011
I was part of a 25 member group with backgrounds spanning planning, landscape architecture, architecture, China studies, historic preservation, real estate, engineering that went to China for a summer field study program. One month was spent at Tianzhong village in Fujian province, a region renowned for its tulou, a vernacular communal residence, developing precedent studies and conducting background research through site visits and interviews with residents and local officials. Three teams, working at regional, village and building scales explored design concepts grounded on our research. This included SWOT analysis of development opportunities that explored economic development strategies organic farming, tea cooperatives and cultural and eco-tourism.
My role on this project included co-developing a ‘full development’ concept for 120 dwelling units, and provided retail, restaurant, hotel space while retaining portions of the site for existing agricultural use. Other major tasks included GIS and GPS mapping, providing project management support for the larger team, coordination between regional and village scale teams, as well as 3D representation of design concepts in Google Sketchup.
Existing Conditions
‘Full Development’ Concept
B
A
Proposed Site Plan
Concept Diagram
Site Elevation ‘B’
Site Elevation ‘A’
11
22m
30m 30m5m42m 5m
4.8m6m 6m6m
9m
9m
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments
University of Washington • Sichuan University 25 July 20111 Daping Village
Tongji Town, Pengzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
POST-EARTHQUAKE RECONSTRUCTION IN DAPING VILLAGE
RECONSTRUCTION ON ORIGINAL SITES
How did the reconstruction of the original village change the built and social environment?What does the village look like now?
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments
University of Washington • Sichuan University 25 July 20117 Daping Village
Tongji Town, Pengzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
STUDY AREA This map illustrates how most of the growth in the village clusters has occured in the second cluster in the form of new buildings being built on agricultural land and increased building heights. Also shown is a shift of the second cluster southwards, concentrating buildings there and creating a node of activity.
Most of the households in this village cluster form the members of Production Team 11, and share Xie as a family name. In clusters one and two , there are also households with the family name Liu, and cluster one also has two households with the family name Ma.
For reconstruction, the government built a few storage facilities in the village and then stocked it with building materials from harvested timber in the government-owned forest. The villagers were then able to use those materials to rebuild their houses. They are also allowed to buy sections of the forest and either farm or log there, but they pay a tax on that land.
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments
University of Washington • Sichuan University 25 July 20118 Daping Village
Tongji Town, Pengzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
CULTIVATION AREAThe area under cultivation by the residents of our study area extends up to the peaks of the adjacent mountains to the northeast and downhill towards the river, and includes the flatter village clusters.
On the mountainside, the areas under cultivation include: berberine, a medicinal plant that is typically gathered wild; medicinal trees; and trees for timber. Other forest products are gathered, such as blackberries and fiddlehead ferns. Our guide told us that the Department of Forestry has a policy that dictates if a tree is cut down, a replacement tree must be planted although it does not have to be the same species.
Also on the mountainside are the older mountain village houses, which are now totally abandoned. The remaining buildings are accessible only by foot or donkey, and are now used for temporary storage and resting places.
In the village area, they cultivate a variety of crops including corn, berberine, potatoes, and cucumbers.
Corn
Berberine
Logging by hand
Logging by donkey
Abandoned structure: temporary storage
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments
University of Washington • Sichuan University 25 July 20119 Daping Village
Tongji Town, Pengzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
CLUSTER ONEAs the northwesternmost cluster of our study area, cluster one is farthest up the mountain. At the highest point of this cluster is the mountain spring which supplies the village with about 85 percent of its water.
Number of Houses in Use: 5Number of Public Buildings: 0Number of Abandoned Buildings: 1Population: 16
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He
College of Built Environments
University of Washington • Sichuan University
25 July 20113
Daping VillageTongji Town, Pengzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
Our methodology involved first gaining an understanding of our site through mental
mapping. Walking around the village, we observed that buildings were generally
arranged in clusters leading us to establish a study area as being from the temple
along the road southeast from the hotel to the mountain spring to the northwest.
The next step was in using the Trimble Juno GPS handheld devices with Arcpad 7.1
installed. The GPS tracking software was used to delineate roads and trails, as
well as to collect data on locations of buildings, driveways, points of interest (e.g.
temples), trash cans, and public bathrooms.
METHODOLOGY
Shapefiles were created with associated Quickforms, which enabled quick data
entry in the field. Buildings were numbered sequentially, with each building
having information collected on number of residents, age (indicated by pre or
post-earthquake status), and building materials. This detailed information was
gathered through short informal interviews as well as through observation.
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He
College of Built Environments
University of Washington • Sichuan University
25 July 20114
Daping VillageTongji Town, Pengzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
METHODOLOGYResidents were also asked questions on changes to building
size and location before and after the earthquake, and
their relationship with their neighbors.
Photographs were also used to document each building,
and keyed to their location in the village.
Notebooks were also used to provide detailed notes on
buildings, with sketches of building footprints, orientation,
and number of stories. Small site maps were also drawn to
show relationships between buildings.
All the information gathered from the Trimble GPS units
was consolidated within ArcMap 10 and then exported into
a PDF basemap. Using Adobe Illustrator, the basemap was
expanded upon using the details from the field notebooks
to show building footprints and associated information.
Through contact with locals, maps were obtained showing the 11 production
brigades within Daping village as well as the village boundary. By cross-referencing
roads on this map with the one we created using GPS and low resolution Google
Earth images, as well as conversations with our hiking guide, we had hoped to
delineate the boundary of the village. However, when we tried to align the roads on
the two maps to create the village boundary, we discovered large discrepancies in
the path of the road, and consequently we were unable to use this map to define the
village boundaries and we relied on our guide’s information.
GPS defined
road
Hand-drawn
road by
locals
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments
University of Washington • Sichuan University 25 July 201110 Daping Village
Tongji Town, Pengzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
CLUSTER TWOCluster two is centrally located, with the public buildings near the road (as specified by the governmental earthquake reconstruction guidelines). It is a larger cluster, with the houses more spread out. The earthquake memorial covered walkway is along the road in this cluster, as well as the memorial abandoned earthquake damaged buildings. The villagers are unhappy that the public buildings were sited on arable land, as was decided by Ms. Liao. Two of the buildings, the clinic and store, were never fully functional and now are abandoned. The guesthouse is still in use and the courtyard and meeting rooms serve as public gathering space for the villagers.
Number of Houses in Use:10Number of Public Buildings:3Number of Abandoned Buildings:3Population:29
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments
University of Washington • Sichuan University 25 July 201111 Daping Village
Tongji Town, Pengzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
Cluster three is the southeasternmost portion of our study area, adjacent to the temple. Almost all of the buildings are oriented away from the mountain and towards the road. Due to the stepped elevation of the buildings, and the denser and taller vegetation, buildings in this cluster have an increased sense of privacy from its surrounding buildings. This cluster also has a more extensive network of paths that connect the site.
Number of Houses in Use:8Number of Public Buildings:1Number of Abandoned Buildings:1Population:27
CLUSTER THREE
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments
University of Washington • Sichuan University 25 July 20118 Daping Village
Tongji Town, Pengzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
CULTIVATION AREAThe area under cultivation by the residents of our study area extends up to the peaks of the adjacent mountains to the northeast and downhill towards the river, and includes the flatter village clusters.
On the mountainside, the areas under cultivation include: berberine, a medicinal plant that is typically gathered wild; medicinal trees; and trees for timber. Other forest products are gathered, such as blackberries and fiddlehead ferns. Our guide told us that the Department of Forestry has a policy that dictates if a tree is cut down, a replacement tree must be planted although it does not have to be the same species.
Also on the mountainside are the older mountain village houses, which are now totally abandoned. The remaining buildings are accessible only by foot or donkey, and are now used for temporary storage and resting places.
In the village area, they cultivate a variety of crops including corn, berberine, potatoes, and cucumbers.
Corn
Berberine
Logging by hand
Logging by donkey
Abandoned structure: temporary storage
Inventory Mapping for Post-Earthquake Reconstruction in Daping Village
University of Washingtonand Sichuan University
July 2011
As part of a 25 member group that went to China for a summer field study program, a methodology was co-developed within a three-person teamto map and inventory buildings, paths, and cultural landmarks for Daping, a rural village in the Sichuan Province of China. In addition, changes to the physical and social-spatial environments that occurred as part of the reconstruction process after the Sichuan Earthquake of 2008 were documented, with the goal of informing economic development research by the rest of the larger team.
My role on this project included developing mapping methodology, producing GIS maps and Google Earth imagery, and conducting field data collection and photographic surveys.
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments
University of Washington • Sichuan University 25 July 20112 Daping Village
Tongji Town, Pengzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
CONTEXT
Approximate Village boundary
Study area
Road to Tongji Town
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments
University of Washington • Sichuan University 25 July 20115 Daping Village
Tongji Town, Pengzhou City, Sichuan Province, China
OUR SITE
Area under cultivation by our study area
Study area
Road to Tongji Town
Geographical Context
Site Documentation
12
• Northwesternmost cluster of our study area
• Farthest up the mountain• Mountain spring is highest point of
this cluster, and supplies village with ~85% of its water
# of Houses in Use: 5# of Public Buildings: 0 # of Abandoned Buildings: 1 Population: 16
CLUSTER ONE
CLUSTER TWO• Centrally located, with the public
buildings near the road (as specified by the governmental earthquake reconstruction guidelines)
• Larger cluster, with greater spatial distribution of houses
• Villagers are unhappy that the public buildings sited on arable land
• Guesthouse still usedand the courtyard and meeting rooms used by villagers as public gathering space.
• Clinic and store buildings were never fully functional and have since been abandoned.
• The earthquake memorial located in this cluster, and includes remnants of buildings damaged by earthquake
# of Houses in Use: 10#of Public Buildings: 3# of Abandoned Buildings: 3Population: 29
• Southeasternmost portion of our study area, adjacent to the temple
• Almost all of the buildings are oriented away from the mountain and towards the road
• Stepped elevation of the buildings, and the denser and taller vegetation results in increased sense of privacy for buildings.
• Has a more extensive network of paths connecting the site.
# of Houses in Use: 8# of Public Buildings: 1# of Abandoned Buildings: 1Population: 27
CLUSTER THREE
TitleDate
ADD PROJ DESCRIPTION
ADD SKILLS
ADD ROLES
Tourism Planning and Village Mapping in Jiaju Village
University of Washington and Sichuan University
August 2011
As part of a 25 member group that went to China for a summer field study program, I was part of a three person team that developed a methodology to map and inventory buildings, paths, and other infrastructure in Jiaju, a rural village in the Sichuan Province of China. During our time there, we examined the villages three clusters, to better understand its characteristics, and evaluate its tourism capacity. Accessibility, and the quality of building, road and water infrastructure was used as criteria. Information about each cluster was gathered through a combination of detailed notes, GPS data, and interviews with local villagers.
My role on this project included developing mapping methodology, producing GIS maps and Google Earth imagery, and conducting field data collection on village infrastructure through interviews, direct observation and photographic surveys.
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments University of Washington • Sichuan University
5 August 2011 Jiaju Village
TOURISM AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN THREE CLUSTERS IN JIAJU VILLAGE
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments University of Washington • Sichuan University
5 August 2011
1
Jiaju Village
Chengdu成都
Jiaju Village甲居
5 mi5 km
Jiaju Village甲居
1000 ft500 m
Jiaju Village甲居
REGIONAL CONTEXT
Source: Google Maps with modification by authors
Fig. 1 Jiaju Context Maps
Located at 30°92’N 101°87’E, at an upper altitude of approximately 2610m to a lower altitude of about 2122m, Jiaju village is located in Danba County, Sichuan Province, China and comprises 3 production teams.
Jiaju Village has experienced growing numbers of tourism, especially after their designation as a Tibetan village tourism zone, and while parts of the village have prospered as a result, the tourism dollars coming into the village have not been distributed equally throughout the village, with villagers nearest to the main paved road benefitting
most, as they are the most visible to tourists, and easiest to access by tour buses. At the same time, while most villagers were welcoming and interested in interacting with us, not all villagers seemed interested in partaking in tourism; they either were not set up to accommodate tourists, or did not appreciate tourists intruding into their lives.
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments University of Washington • Sichuan University
5 August 2011
2
Jiaju Village
Jiaju Village is divided into three parts: Jiaju 1, Jiaju 2, and Jiaju 3. We chose to study a cluster of five to seven households in each section of the village. We chose households based on their general proximity to each other, shared space and paths, and the presence of guest houses. Each cluster has its own character, which has been influenced by vehicular and pedestrian accessibility, slope of the site, where on the overall slope it is, vegetation, and the governmental designation as a mass tourist destination (resulting in more government investment into the cluster) or a “deep” tourism destination. “Deep” tourist locations are those that are not easily accessible by car or bus and do not receive the same level of governmental investment.
After defining the study area comprised of these three clusters, the next step was in using the Trimble Juno GPS handheld devices with Arcpad 7.1. The GPS tracking software was used to delineate roads and trails, as well as to collect data on locations of buildings, and other points of interest (e.g. water features, temples, etc.). A more extensive description of how this was done can be found in Appendix A: GIS/GPS Methodology. Shapefiles were created with associated Quickforms, which enabled quick data entry in the field. Buildings were numbered sequentially,
METHODOLOGY
Jiaju Village boundary
Main Road
River
River
Fig. 2 Jiaju Village
Source: Google Earth with modification by authors
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments University of Washington • Sichuan University
5 August 2011
6
Jiaju Village
Fig 7 CLUSTER 1 - GUEST HOUSES
Cluster 1 is part of the 2006 officially designated tourist area for mass tourism, and has received governmental assistance to pave paths and generally improve the area. The households were encouraged to build additions to accommodate guests and to modernize with such luxuries as running water and toilets. According to the 2006 aerial image and the government maps, there used to be another building in the center of the cluster, where the paths converge, but it has since been demolished in the past five years. It seems like the center of the cluster would be a natural gathering or social space, but it does not function that way at all - it only has crops and the paths. The slope on this site is fairly gentle and lends itself to crop-growing. It feels quite open and welcoming.
A1
A6
A2
A8
A7
A5
A4
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
B9
B4
B1
B3
B5
B2
B6
B7
B8
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
C5
C7
C1
C2
C6
C3
C4
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
Source: authors
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments University of Washington • Sichuan University
5 August 2011
6
Jiaju Village
Fig 7 CLUSTER 1 - GUEST HOUSES
Cluster 1 is part of the 2006 officially designated tourist area for mass tourism, and has received governmental assistance to pave paths and generally improve the area. The households were encouraged to build additions to accommodate guests and to modernize with such luxuries as running water and toilets. According to the 2006 aerial image and the government maps, there used to be another building in the center of the cluster, where the paths converge, but it has since been demolished in the past five years. It seems like the center of the cluster would be a natural gathering or social space, but it does not function that way at all - it only has crops and the paths. The slope on this site is fairly gentle and lends itself to crop-growing. It feels quite open and welcoming.
A1
A6
A2
A8
A7
A5
A4
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
B9
B4
B1
B3
B5
B2
B6
B7
B8
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
C5
C7
C1
C2
C6
C3
C4
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
Source: authors
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments University of Washington • Sichuan University
5 August 2011
7
Jiaju Village
Fig. 8 CLUSTER 2 - GUEST HOUSES
0 10 20 305Meters
Unknown
B9
B4
B1
B3
B5
B2
B6
B7
B8
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
C5
C7
C1
C2
C6
C3
C4
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
Source: authors
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments University of Washington • Sichuan University
5 August 2011
5
Jiaju Village
GENERAL CLUSTER CHARACTERISTICS
Fig. 4 Public versus Private Space
Fig. 5 Growth of Houses
Fig. 6 Familial Spatial Relationships
FIELDSSLOPE DN
LANDSLIDE AREA
SLOPE DN
The spaces that act as
public are the southern
sides of the houses, where
the entrances and paths are.
and where the latrines
are located. The interior
courtyards and rooftops
also act as a semi-public
space.
The original house is
built with the tower
oriented to the north
and the entrance
to the south. The
tower is three stories
and the rest of the
house is one or two
stories. Additions are
constructed as the family expands and with guest houses.
Most of the clusters
are related through
blood or marriage,
and will rebuild
in the same area,
outside the landslide
area, to stay near
their family.
Source: authors
Source: authors
Source: authors
To the north are the fields
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments University of Washington • Sichuan University
5 August 2011
8
Jiaju Village
Fig. 9 CLUSTER 3 - GUEST HOUSES
Unlike Clusters 1 and 2, Cluster 3 is not part of the 2006 officially designated tourist area for mass tourism, but part of the area for “deep” tourism. Only one household claimed to be a guest house, even though two other households had additions under construction. The roads are all dirt, but some of the paths have been paved. It is clearly less developed for tourism, and the residents were not particularly friendly towards us. It was difficult to see more than two houses at any one point in time due to the dispersed layout, the trees, and the topography. This site is hilly, but the overall slope is not very steep.
A1
A6
A2
A8
A7
A5
A4
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
B9
B4
B1
B3
B5
B2
B6
B7
B8
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
C5
C7
C1
C2
C6
C3
C4
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
Source: authors
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments University of Washington • Sichuan University
5 August 2011
8
Jiaju Village
Fig. 9 CLUSTER 3 - GUEST HOUSES
Unlike Clusters 1 and 2, Cluster 3 is not part of the 2006 officially designated tourist area for mass tourism, but part of the area for “deep” tourism. Only one household claimed to be a guest house, even though two other households had additions under construction. The roads are all dirt, but some of the paths have been paved. It is clearly less developed for tourism, and the residents were not particularly friendly towards us. It was difficult to see more than two houses at any one point in time due to the dispersed layout, the trees, and the topography. This site is hilly, but the overall slope is not very steep.
A1
A6
A2
A8
A7
A5
A4
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
B9
B4
B1
B3
B5
B2
B6
B7
B8
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
C5
C7
C1
C2
C6
C3
C4
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
Source: authors
Virginia Werner • Joming Lau • Zeya He College of Built Environments University of Washington • Sichuan University
5 August 2011
7
Jiaju Village
Fig. 8 CLUSTER 2 - GUEST HOUSES
0 10 20 305Meters
Unknown
B9
B4
B1
B3
B5
B2
B6
B7
B8
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
C5
C7
C1
C2
C6
C3
C4
°
0 10 20 305Meters
LegendBuildingsUse
Guest House
Residential
Unknown
Source: authors
Cluster Descriptions
13
Jiaju Village, Danba County, Sichuan Province, China
Location: 30°92’N 101°87’EAltitude (upper): 2610m (approx) Altitude (lower): 2122m (approx)Production Teams: 3
Jiaju Village has experiencedgrowing numbers of tourism, especially after their designation as a Tibetan village tourism zone, and while parts of the villagehave prospered as a result, the tourism dollars coming into the village have not been distributed equally throughout the village, with villag-ers neares to the main paved road
benefiting most, as they are the most visible to tourists, and easiest to access by tour buses. At the same time, while most villagers were welcoming and interested in interacting with us, not all villagers seemed interested in partaking in tourism; they either were not set up to accommodate tourists, or did not appreciate tourists intruding into their lives.
REGIONAL CONTEXT
THE INFORMED JOURNEY | points of departure
[on] board[on] line [on] island
DIGITAL JOURNEY | information + orientation
kioskweb
mobile
[on] site
JOURNEY | connections + portals
seattle
vancouver, b.c.
anacortesferry terminal
fridayharbor
tvvv```vvv
Upload | Share your park
[ON] LINE | social networking
APPROACH | ARRIVAL | RETURN
[ON] BOARD | kiosk
[ON] ISLAND | wayfinding
[ON] SITE | mobile
[ON] SITE | mobile
[ON] RETURN | mobile
The new approach we propose is a National Park experiential journey – a digitally-informed framework – intended to engage the next generation of National Park Stewards while enhancing a reverence for place.
APPROACH ARRIVAL
RETURN
SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
Demographic Trends
[ON] SITE| mobile THE INFORMED JOURNEY | digital stewardship & San Juan Island National Historical Park
For those who find the way, the journey to and through San Juan Island National Historical Park is a scenic and rare opportunity to experience a rich cultural and ecological resource.
TRADITIONAL JOURNEY
Gorgeous landscape, but…
+ Lack the sense of history and personal connections to the land + No programs and activities on the site+ Single narrative throughout the park+ Isolated from the rest of the island+ Hard to share experience with the rest of the world+ Where can I find more information?
[ON] RETURN
+ Non-interactive, static interface
+ One-way flow of information
+ Updated content, but difficult to navigate
+ Not well- integrated with social media
+ SJINHP lacks presence on the island, despite strong connections in established trail networks.
+ Not a clear wayfinding strategy
+ The opportunity to connect to other local parks is not realized
+ At San Juan Island National Historical Park, the approach lacks intrigue and the anticipation of arrival
+ A long ferry ride gives riders ample time to orient and gather information about the park, but the park does not extend its reach to the ferry
+ An approach without intrigue lacks drama for those who view the park as a destination while a lack of visual presence on the ferry ride misses an opportunity to opportunistically attract visitors
[ON] BOARD[ON] LINE [ON] LINE[ON] LINE [ON] ISLAND
[ON] SITE
+ Currently, the experience ends when visitors exit SJI-NHP+ There is no opportunity for reflection or feedback on experiences+ There are no places for visitors to create and share content relating to their visit
Parks for the People Design Competition University of Washington, Van Alen Institute, and the National Park Service
March 2012
The Van Alen Institute in partnership with the National Park Service held a design competition to reimagine America’s national parks. I was part of a collaborative team of 21 students including planners, architects, landscape architects, ecologists and museologist at the University of Washington in a quarter-long studio. We worked with staff from San Juan Island National Historical Park to find ways to provide improved accessibility and interpretive opportunities for park visitors and local residents. Further refinement of studio outcomes were used in the design submission, where the University of Washington placed as one of six finalist teams.
One important element of the project included a digital strategy that looked at new ways of engaging park visitors in the historical and ecological narratives of the park, by bringing the concept of the park visitor center into the landscape itself through digital technology.
My role on this project included developing the digital strategy with five other teammates, preparing mockups, presentation and display boards (using Photoshop, Indesign, Powerpoint and Prezi), providing GIS and GPS mapping, project management, and conducting field research.
14
TitleDate
ADD PROJ DESCRIPTION
ADD SKILLS
ADD ROLES
� $4.364 million in cost savings through installing a habitat skirt c
ompared with a 5m tall sea wall
hard structure measuring 477m in length
Given that the habitat skirt measures 5m in height, the assumption is u
sed that an equivalent sea wall hard
structure would have to have the same height. The capital cost of constructing a one-meter tall seawall
structure of one-meter length is estim
ated to be $5,310, with the costs of extending the wall’s h
eight
increasingly proportionally to height6 . Therefore, a 1m length of sea wall hard structure 5m in height would
cost $5,310/m * 5m = $26,550. Given that the habitat skirt has a linear length of 477 metres, th
e estimated
capital cost of a conventional seawall providing an equal level of support, would be $12,664,350.
$26,550/m x 477m = $12,664,350
This compares to the estimated $8.3 million for the design, fabrication, and installation of the habitat skirt at
the Vancouver Convention Centre7 ,
Cost savings = Base case – Actual case = $12,664,350 - $
8,300,000 = $4.364 million
6 Wei-Shiuen Ng and Robert Mendelsohn. 2005. The impact of sea level rise
on Singapore. Environment
and Development Economics 10: 201–215
7 Marine Compensation Habitat Survey Report - Vancouver Convention Centre West
used,) only during June, July and August, with an average of 4 million gallons used per month, or 12 million
gallons of water per year for the 6 acre site.
This is achieved through the use of a drip-irrigation system that is controlled by moisture sensors, which
activate only when predetermined moisture levels are reached.
Assumptions regarding calculated irrigation cost savings:
-Use of only potable water for site irrigation in the reference case, as a baseline, meaning that all 12 million
gallons of water used would need to be paid for.
-$1 CAD = $1 USD
Cost of water is $0.0008 per litre or $0.00303/gal5
12 million gallons /year * $0.00303/gal = $36,360
Methodology for Cost Comparison
� Cost savings of $72,720 annually in water for green roof irrigation
Assumptions regarding calculating irrigation cost savings:
Use of potable water for site irrigation in the base case,
$1 CAD = $1 USD
Cost of water is $0.0008 per litre or $0.00303/gal5
Annual water consumption from irrigation
Assumptions regarding a base case of no reductions in site irrigation (see above ‘Reduced on site irrigation
by 50%’ for more details)
Base Case: $72,720
4 million gallons/month x 3 months (june/july/aug) = 12 million gallons
Base irrigation usage x 50% (0.5) = 12 million gallons
Solving the equation for ‘Base irrigation usage’,
Base irrigation usage x 0.5 / 0.5 = 12 million gallons / 0.5 = 24 million gallons / year
= 24 million gallons /year * $0.00303/gal = $72,720
Actual Case: $0.
This project uses the on-site blackwater treatment system to first use on-site treated blackwater for irrig
ation.
In the case that there is inadequate supply on-site, the blackwater treatment system is designed to receive
City sewage for treatment, after which the water can be delivered to the roof for irrigation purposes. As
such, there is no cost associated with site irrigation due to use of potable water.
Cost savings = Base case – Actual case = $72,720
5 Metro Vancouver, Tap Water Campaign. [accessed Dec 2011]. [Online]. Available:
http://www.metrovancouver.org/region/tapwater/Pages/default.aspx
The following equation represents the best fit line for the dataset (N=47, R2=0.71).
Rv=0.05+0.9Ia
Where: Ia = Impervious fraction
Rvbase = 0.05+0.9*0.85 = 0.815 inches
Rvproj = 0.05 + 0.9*0.727 = 0.7043 inches
% reductions In runoff = (0.815 inches -0.7043 inches) / 0.815 inches = 13.6%
Roof area: 261.360 square feet = 24,281.1385 square meters 4
Volume runoff reductions
1.4749m * 13.6% X 24,281.1385 m2 = 4,870.5m3 = 1,286,650 gallons
� Reduced on site irrigation by 50% resulting in cost savings of $36,360/year
LMN Architect’s description of the roof stated reductions in site irrigation by 50%. According to Bruce
Hemstock, the project’s landscape architect, once the plant community is established, the roof will be
watered (using only treated blackwater from a combination of on-site and City sewage; no potable water is
4 Bruce Hemstock, PWL Landscape Architects (personal communications, October 23, 2011)
LPS Methodology Page 1 of 4 Project Title Vancouver Convention Center Expansion Project
Methodology for Landscape Performance Benefits
� Created 1,500 linear feet of marine habitat showing marine development in 3 years
comparable to a typical site of 8-10 years
Since the installation of the habitat skirt 3 years ago, monitoring of the habitat skirt and surrounding marine
habitat has been done annually to fulfill Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) requirements for
Fisheries Act Authorization. Monitoring by EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. includes biannually
conducting an inventory and assessment of the dominant intertidal and sub-tidal biota, and comparing biota
diversity/productivity with a known and accepted reference site (Marathon) adjacent to the project. Installed
8-10 years ago as new marine habitat, the Marathon reference site was determined by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans to have achieved an acceptable marine habitat condition. In the most recent
inventory and assessment conducted in March 2011 by EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., no significant
difference was observed between the Marathon reference site (8-10 years of marine development), and the
habitat skirt (3 years of marine development), in terms of species richness and diversity. As well, 43 species
were found on the habitat skirt, compared with 46 species at the reference site, and schools of 500 or
greater of the following salmonids: Chum, Coho, and possibly Chinook were observed at the habitat skirt.1
� Reduced Stormwater Runoff by 13% or 1.29 million gallons
Based on climate normal data, the average annual rainfall in Vancouver Harbour is 1474.9mm = 58.067
inches2,
Using this information, the following equation can be used to derive annual run off:
R = P * Pj * Rv
Where: R = Annual runoff (inches)
P = Annual rainfall (inches) = 58.067
Pj = Fraction of annual rainfall events that produce runoff (usually 0.9)
Rv = Runoff coefficient 3
1 Marine Compensation Habitat Survey Report - Vancouver Convention Centre West
2 Vancouver Harbour climate normal data 1971-2000
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?stnID=888&lang=e&dCode=0&province=
BC&provBut=&month1=0&month2=12) 3 The Simple Method to Calculate Urban Stormwater Loads. (2010, January). [Online]. Available:
http://www.stormwatercenter.net/monitoring%20and%20assessment/simple%20meth/simple.htm
Landscape Performance Series - Case Study Briefs
Landscape Architecture Foundation and University of Washington
December 2011
The Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) partnered with the University of Washington’s Sustainable Urban Landscapes class to develop a set of case study briefs featuring sustainable projects with quantified landscape benefits. Working closely with LAF staff, professional designers and other members of the project team, a set of robustly researched case studies was developed, documenting the measurable benefits of exemplary high performance landscapes that deliver ecological, social and economic benefit.
My role for this project included the developing a case study that quantified the benefits of the Vancouver Convention Center Expansion Project. In correspondence with the design team, a methodology was developed that quantified marine habitat creation, and reductions in stormwater runoff, on-site irrigation, heat gain and heat loss. A narrative describing the project was also synthesized, and additional imagery collected that would highlight the project.
15
Street Cross Sections
Simon Fraser University Urban Design Certificate Programand TechniCity Coursera (online course)
Various Dates
On the left are several examples of street cross sections that were initially created as products for visualizing streetscapes, and the allocation of streetsfcape elements. On the right, digital representations of the same street cross sections were developed using streetmix, a web-based tool created by Code for America that allows for easy creation of street cross sections.
These street sections on the right were part of an exploration of new and innovative tools that were presented through TechniCity, a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) that looked at how technology is used to engage with the public for supporting decison-making, and tools that can be used for analyzing the city.
West Broadway Street Section
Raven Woods Drive Road Redesign
16
Central Puget Sound Food System Assessment:Food Hub Research
University of Washington and Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
June 2011
The project is the final product of a 20 week graduate studio that included team members from urban planning and design, architecture, landscape architecture, real estate and public affairs backgrounds.
Enlisted by PSRC’s Regional Food Policy Council, the University of Washington studio team identified and pursued research topic areas examining the regional food system. These research areas would inform the development of early action items on the Council’s work plan. Products included an initial conditions report for the food system in the central Puget Sound region, as well as a set of reports that focused on six specific topics addressing emerging issues in the food system.
My role on this project included developing, with three other students, a chapter about food hubs. In particular, I co-developed a case study on the Everett Farmers market, to derive lessons to inform future regional food hub efforts. I also assisted with report layout, GIS mapping and led the development of the studio website. This report is also listed as a resource on a section on food hubs on the USDA website.
FOOD HUBS
Source: Jenny Ngo
What are Food Hubs?
“A centrally located
facility with a business
management structure
facilitating the
aggregation, storage,
processing, distribution,
and/or marketing of
locally/regionally
produced food products.”
-USDA working definition
Food Hubs
Wholesale/Aggregation
Active
Coordination
Permanent
Facilities
FOOD HUBS
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND
FOOD SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
REGIONAL FOOD POLICY COUNCIL
& UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
JUNE 2011
36
Volume 6: Food Hubs
Business Model: non-profit
Year Founded: Scheduled to open in 2013
Background
Snohomish County is actively trying to find ways to promote local agriculture and
maintain the economic viability of local farmers. According to Linda Neunzig, the
county’s agriculture coordinator, the county has been studying the prevalence
and strength of local farms and is beginning to develop policies and programs that
encourage agricultural sustainability. The county assembled the Snohomish County
Agricultural Economic Development Action Team and commissioned the Snohomish
County Agriculture Action Plan. At the county’s annual Focus on Farming Conference,
many participants said a major barrier to farming is inconsistent access to markets
and that a year-round farmers market would boost their ability to succeed as small to
medium-scale farmers. Snohomish County Growers Alliance, a non-profit organization
established in June 2010 and made up of local farmers, decided to pursue the creation
of this market with facilitation from Neunzig and political support from the county.
Snohomish County Growers Alliance consists of small to medium-scale farmers who
have been searching for ways to make local farming more economically viable.
Their mission is to bolster the economic vitality of agriculture in Snohomish County.76
At the time of writing, the Everett Farmers Market is still a
project in conception, but
its characteristics are exemplary of many of the necessary elements for an effective
food hub. It will be situated in downtown Everett, taking up an entire city block. It will
house not only a year-round indoor farmers market, but also an aggregation facility for
wholesale food distribution and a commercial kitchen and other processing facilities.
The entire food hub will be managed by SCGA. Carol Krause, the president of SCGA
explained that local farmers struggle to reach markets for their products. Thus, the goals
for SCGA include expanding markets, supporting local growers, raising awareness of
true costs of food as well as the benefits of local food, and creating an organization
of growers for greater political clout. Its purpose is support, represent, and provide
a voice for agriculture industry within Snohomish County. It has the potential to play
a significant role in working to improve agriculture’s economic viability, educating
consumers about the value of local food production, advocating with elected officials
on behalf of agriculture, and generally promoting local agriculture. The first action for
this private sector non-profit organization is the creation of this market.
Moreover, the proximity of the market to downtown Everett, combined with the
apartments that the developer will build above the ground floor, will contribute to
economic synergies that benefit both the market and the city.77 As an example of a
hybrid food hub (see “Typologies” side bar), the market combines elements of food
aggregation, processing, and retail, creating the potential for the market to become
a destination for consumers, wholesalers and restaurant owners from around the
central Puget Sound region.
Major Activities and Characteristics
The following activities will be the responsibility of the Snohomish County Growers
Alliance:
CASE STUDY: The Everett Farmers Market
Everett, Washington75
10
PUGET SOUND FOOD SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
• Food hubs typically have three major
components:
1. wholesale aggregation/distribution,
2. active coordination with food producers,
and
3. permanent facilities.
• Some food hubs provide additional services,
such as space for wholesale and retail vendors,
health and social service programs, community
kitchens, and community meetings.
• Key considerations in starting a food hub
include demand for locally and regionally
produced food, creativity with funding,
seamless systems for distribution and sales,
careful market analysis, and review of policies
to determine whether financial or regulatory
incentives may aid food hub development.
• The planned Everett Farmers Market in
Everett, Washington, which combines retail
and wholesale sales of agricultural products,
commercial kitchen facilities, distribution,
education, and other elements, offers lessons
for planning future regional food hub efforts.
• Two detailed case studies illustrate how food
hubs have developed in two areas that share
some of the central Puget Sound region’s
demographic and physical characteristics: the
Local Food Hub, a non-profit food aggregator,
distributor, and educational farm located
in Charlottesville, Virginia; and The Wedge,
a cooperative business with a retail store,
distribution warehouse and educational farm
located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
• In recent years, all four counties in the central
Puget Sound region have identified various
barriers for smaller farmers, ranging from
marketing and economic development to
access to commercial kitchens to mechanisms
for garnering wholesale clients. Food hubs
may help to meet these needs while filling
demonstrated consumer demands for locally
and regionally produced food.
Core Food Hub Components:
Distribution, Warehousing and
Aggregation, Processing, and Retail Sales
17
top related