TALKS

CONCLUSION

2008-05-16T17:25:00.003-04:00

After all these weeks of investigation it is difficult to think it is time to look back and make sense of all in a holistic way. I started creating three street sections (see appendices pages 92, 93 & 94) that showed (1) the existing challenges that Norvella Heights face to be accessible, (2) a diagrammatical section with possible solutions for those challenges, and (3) the location of the access spaces that need to be redesigned for accessibility. Using this section I was able to establish the way in which accessibility works in an intergenerational neighborhood.

Accessibility works at the different areas of the neighborhood:

• District- allows for easy access to the neighborhood. Mass and vehicular transportation.
• Block – creates a correlation between blocks and a hierarchy of spaces.
• Lot – creates a relationship between them and allows for easy access to all areas.
• Unit – permits accessible and visitable houses to be part of the neighborhood originally created with physical barriers.
• Sidewalk – connect all areas of the neighborhood from a pedestrian view.
• Streets – create a mainframe of spaces and places that are useful for every person.
• Open Spaces – serves as anchors for the social interactions and are barrier free.

After my investigation I found that accessibility is the key element of an intergenerational neighborhood. Therefore, my original hypothesis was valid. We can create intergenerational neighborhoods in which the elders can be housed adequately, if we design for accessibility. With this, I was able to develop the characteristic of the intergenerational neighborhood. They are as follows:

I. Conceptually

• Its residents; when people of different generations live in the different units.

II. Physically

• Center – it has a defined central area that provides social interactions and physical activities.
 The center does not need to be in the middle of the neighborhood
 It should have a high density during the day and be a safe ‘live’ area at night
 It should provide activities of all ages
 It has to be on a walking distance or provide transportation
 Should incorporate green elements

• Commercial areas – needs to have some source of commercial activity that it is related to the neighborhood social needs.
 Examples
• Coffee shop, bakery bodega
• Library, bookstore
• Small eating place with outdoor area
 Located at a walking distance

• Open & Green Spaces – at all blocks or shared by two.
 Provide shelter from the elements
 More than a grass area
 Security provide by residents
 Located in the interior streets

• Block- two or more block types have to be present.
 Each block most have a social interaction area
 Some Single family residential blocks must be kept
 Mix residential use should be implemented
 Commercial and civic institutions should be together
 Civic and residential can be together
 Work elements are not enforced
 Most have pick up/drop off areas for school buses
 Smaller blocks will eliminate the need of alleys

• Lots - should flow with the block configuration and keep its relationship.
 Fenced areas should allow interaction between neighbors
 Green areas should be proportional with the built areas
 An ‘accessible transitional space’ should be integrated to create a semi public/private area before the right of way
 Can be combine to allow space for more units
 Front yard concept should be keep

• Unit – all new units will be accessible or visitable
 Design individuality will be maintain
 Multi family units will be added as infill and combined in blocks with single family units
 Visitors entrance will be accessible and face the most dense/high traffic areas
 The unit high should be relative to the surrounding units
 All existing units will be analyzed and renovate if needed
 Units can be clustered to allow for more open space

• Sidewalk – all sidewalks will be surfaced and redeveloped.
 All curbs will be continuous with the next block
 Surface material will be different from lot and street to allow for easy identification
 No stepped areas will be created
 Walking paths will be marked

• Street – the number of principal streets will be reduced.
 All streets will be interconnected; no dead ends or cul-de-sacs
 Pedestrian crossing will be added
 Speed will be reduce in existing roads
 Bike paths will be created
 Green areas will separate the street from the sidewalk
 On street parking will be marked
 Street gutters will be replaced with more efficient elements

These characteristics together with the identified ‘access spaces’ are the tools to develop the intergenerational neighborhoods. These areas need to be redesigned, taking accessibility and the user into account. They need to be an integral part of the design process instead of guidelines and/or standards to meet in order to get a construction/development permit.

As we discussed this topic in an open forum, I had to answer various questions in relation with current standards as ADA and design models as New Urbanism. My answer was simple…current models do not integrate accessibility as a standard for design in which all persons can be equal in the use of all public areas. Plus, ADA and other design guidelines are for multi family complex and public buildings, not for ‘suburban’ residential areas. The intention of my thesis was to start a movement for accessibility in residential areas using existing guidelines together with the ‘access spaces’ and characteristics I identified. I affirm that all communities can allow for independent living in active neighborhoods that are environmentally responsible and functional, if we integrate accessibility into current models and guidelines as a widely agreed on standard regardless of economics and politics. Now it is in our hands, as new architects, the responsibility to integrate these elements in our design projects and to be active advocates for social issues that can be solved through architecture.

ACCESSIBILITY

2008-03-19T09:21:00.001-04:00

Good discussion about Accessibility. Please feel free to read and interact.

http://www.myarchn.com/forum/topic/show?id=672283%3ATopic%3A16243

THE REALIZATION

2008-02-25T22:42:00.001-05:00

Time to back track...When looking at my work development I realized I have some areas that needed more consideration. The other day I had a magic realization: I was trying to redevelop the Norvella Heights neighborhood. Now, I understand the big picture. I need to use the neighborhood as a guideline to design the intrinsic elements that will create an intergenerational neighborhood. I have to study the relationships of the area to determine the needs of the community based on accessibility. Then, those concepts can be applied to Norvella Heights and any other neighborhood in order to create accessible neighborhoods.

When I mention accessibility I am not only referring to 1:12 ramps and 1/4” entrances. I am talking about the concept of accessibility as areas that can be use by anyone regardless of their age or disability. I see the concepts of my investigation in a diagrammatical perspective and not as a technical exercise. As architects we learned many ways to react to accessibility and there are many codes and books that go into great details of how to achieve the minimal standards. In this quest, I am proposing accessibility as an important component in order to create an active community. The overall experience can be created when combining the minimal standards and the real needs of the community.

During this week I will be revisiting the main concepts of my work (accessibility, active & independent life) in terms of community composition. My goal will be to discover the gaps of my previous investigations and clarify some areas. I will be working with the neighborhood footprint and characteristics in relation with accessible neighborhoods. Then, those findings will be the design patterns and methods I will use to create my contribution to the architectural field.

FINALLY AT MIDTERMS: The Discussion of the Revision

2008-02-18T23:10:00.002-05:00

First, I have to apologize for not keeping my promise. I was to busy discovering the neighborhood that I was not able to update the website as I will like to. I did write my findings, but did not post them. With that said…now, I am going to give you a summary of the last 5 weeks. Therefore, it is going to be long; sorry, comprehensive.

After writing my previous reflective essays I moved to work with the units and their relationship to accessibility. I went around the neighborhood and took pictures of different units’ thresholds. Then, I started looking at those using sections, but the information I collected was minimal. The results were incomplete because I was just staying in the main entrance without taking into consideration what happens after the thresholds. Looking to gain better information for my design process I worked with diagrams to establish the relationships I needed. I looked at activities and spaces to determine a better path of action. I found that in order to design functional thresholds I had to design the whole transition between the spaces beyond them. I took the decision of rearranging my proposal once again and work with lots and units in conjunction.

I observed that the connection between the unit and the lot creates a space that needs to be defined. I called those “access spaces” in other words areas that allow connectivity between the main parts. The access spaces are the areas in my investigation that need to be re-designed in terms of accessibility. Another characteristic I discovered was that access spaces are often semi-private (semi-public) areas. Therefore, activities will occur with and without the need of planning. In the lot/unit access space the most common activities are (1) in/out of residents, (2) mail collection, (3) trash collection, (4) announced visitors, (5) casual meetings, and (6) leisure. These activities created a relationship for me to focus my work more because they serve as markers for the areas to design.

After one week of ups and downs I understood the challenges of Design as Research and the importance for flexibility in the process. Ideas normally come when we are not expecting them and we need to be willing to incorporate them in the process. I finished the week with a concrete area of investigation called “access spaces” and the activities that happen in terms of lot and units.

I started the second week of design at the library. I found a book called Between the Edges written by Milos Bobic. In which he discussed the relationship between street and block and the interaction between house and street. It helped me to see ways to show my findings diagrammatically and with a sense of reference. After this, I went back to the neighborhood and took pictures of the different units concentrating in main entrances and front yards. I collected over 100 pictures and I divided them into five groups with their correspondent subdivisions (based on pedestrian and vehicular paths) in order to create a design typology. The first group was ground level entrances and it had 5 subdivisions. Group two was ramp entrances and had 3 subdivisions. Group three was front porches and had 9 subdivisions. Group four was stepped entrances and had 6 subdivisions. And the last group was multi unit entrances and had 3 subdivisions.

With this system in place I started creating diagrams to represent their plan views, view from the street, thresholds and paths. I ended up with 26 categories with 4 diagrams each. I found similar patterns and took design decision that will affect my end product; like, the need for connective paths. Unfortunately, after this process, I concluded that I need to find a way to bring my research back to a more manageable scale and a new way to re-design the existing pedestrian and vehicular paths. The plan I presented during material investigation (peer review) for the following week was to create proposals to develop accessible entrances for all twenty six subdivisions. I can only say, it did not happen.

The third week started with divine intervention. It was suggested to create a chart looking diagram to redefine my findings. It really helped me understand the discoveries I did during the previous two weeks. I kept four groups (1) ground level entrances, (2) ramp entrances, (3) front porches, and (4) stepped entrances, but I reduced the subdivisions to four per group. The four charts had the same type of diagrams (a) unit in lot, (b) paths, (c) view from the street, and (d) thresholds. After all this diagramming I needed a creative break. I went out and took pictures of the sidewalks and streets I will be using for week number five. I also found the neighborhood lot map and the redevelopment plans for Military Highway; which includes the Norvella Heights area.

Then back to diagramming…I created three design patterns out of the groups’ charts. The first one was accessible main entrances “zero-step”. I proposed two ways to achieve level terrain and landscape integration. The second pattern was separate, but connected paths. In which I integrate the ramps and paths to the parking areas. The third pattern was path and sidewalk connections in which an activity area serves as a connector. I will set all patterns together to create the accessible neighborhood concept around week nine.

Another area I worked during this week was the lot distribution. I selected two block types that helped me developed the patterns above. I kept the main entrances in relation to the main street and decided not to create a mew or alley. I found out that these decisions will need more process to be justified and maybe incorporate in a modified way. With this I can say that week three was a long and creative week. I was able to start establishing the patterns to use and bases for my final concept.

Week four started at week five. I had to create a section related to my thesis for a theory class. So, I started working in what I had schedule for week five. I created a cross section in which I created an accessible street gutter. It allowed for water infiltration in the driveway areas and easy transition from the street to the driveway apron. I did multiple diagrams to investigate and design this section. I also, went out and took the measurement of the current gutters, depth and overflow. Then, I moved back to week four to work in the development of models for my patterns proposals.

I started measuring one unit and lot to have a starting point. I created various digital models to show the level terrain pattern. I was able to create a ramp/landscape integration model in which I develop the three previous patterns. I then moved to physical models. I decided to use foam core and clay in order to transfer the digital models. Everything worked fine until the model dried up. The foam core absorbed the humidity of the clay and the base ben. At the same time, the clay cracked and the paths were no longer defined. I tried to create all clay models, but they were not to successful. I concluded that the scale needed to be at least 50 % of the original in order to make a visible reference.

I set the physical modeling work aside and started working on a suggestion I received from two different sources. I selected three blocks in the neighborhood and took pictures of them. Then I mapped them in relationship to their entrances and paths. This opened the opportunity for block development and community interaction. I created different ways to increase the interaction of the neighborhood based on their pedestrian and vehicular paths. I even integrated the use of alleys/mew in one of my solutions. The restructuration of these blocks allowed me to create accessible areas that are independent and active too.

With four and half weeks of work I can say I am half way through my design development. Now, I am going to continue working with the sidewalk/street relationship. I will be using a similar method that the one presented above. The good part is that now it is going to be more refined and will allow me to move quicker and precisely. The two weeks after that I will put together all these design patterns to create the accessible neighborhood that is needed to adequately house the elderly in an intergenerational community. And, I promise (once again) that I will keep you posted.

A PLAN FOR MIDTERMS: The Revision

2008-01-19T12:46:00.000-05:00

After three weeks of joy and one of creative effort I think it is time to get back to thesis work. I used the break to meditate about the changes and clarifications my work needed. I can honestly say, I am pretty happy with the fall semester outcome, but I want to push my thesis further. I consider it has a potential that needs to be developed and bound.

My original plan was to work with the neighborhood current and historic analysis and to create a diagrammatic model with my findings during the break. When I was going to start with these tasks I realized that in order to institute the contextualization elements of my thesis I had to create a medium to document and express what the thesis represents. Since I like web design and I know how fast information moves on the Internet, I decided to create a website.

ArquiTalks.com is a comprehensive website with the purpose of uniting all the areas of my investigation. My contextualization includes three main elements (1) community development power by residents (2) positive benefits of intergenerational communities and, (3) support systems for accessible housing. In other words, all these concepts have to be achieved in order to adequately house the elderly.

The website will allow me, as a Norvella Heights resident, to start a community redevelopment effort, in which, I will investigate the importance of my involvement in the process. The benefits of the intergenerational communities will be represented by the various people accessing the website and providing their feedback. I have to say that personal interaction can never be replaced by cyber chatting, but a metaphor between the two can be established. That is why the areas in which the personal interactions occur need to be accessible to all ages. In the past many have created a diversity of options for accessible housing, but it is time to integrate those units to the rest of the community development.

After I was able to combine those elements and provide the information about my work, I was ready to move on. Now, I am concentrating in revising my plan of action for the next 4-5 weeks. I previously proposed a structure, but I think it needs to be more focused and tied more to conventional architectural elements. During the past week, I have been revising the scale of my work and, therefore the schedule.

As I mentioned before, I substituted the current/historic investigation with the website creation. Now, I am back on track. For the first week I am going to look to the neighborhood “as is”, including the investigations I have skipped. Then, out-of-track again because I was analyzing the specifics of my work and I concluded that I needed to reverse my scale. I used the diagram showed here to create a sense of relation between the scales I am using. First, I was going from the macro element –activities and services- to the micro element –housing unit-. But during a class discussion I realized the need for my work to move to the edge of community design and relate to architectural design. That, was when I decided to start with the housing unit.

In that way, I can investigate the relationship between the access to the unit and the neighborhood to develop. Previously, I had trouble deciding if I needed to work with the creation of accessible housing or accessible neighborhoods. Inadvertently, I added an important element to my thesis name “Accessible In-Between”. Now I know the accessible in-between is the relationship between the unit and the neighborhood, the area that allows the residents to move independently from one area to another. I am not saying I am going to work only with entrances; on the contrary, I am going to be working with access from the unit to all the parts of the neighborhood.

For midterms, I hope to accomplish a profound design research of the neighborhood “as is”; the housing unit (location, massing and entry), the lot (setbacks and composition) and the streetscape (heights, open spaces and relationships). I consider those topics as the core elements of access in relationship with the architectural unit. After midterms, I will be exploring the use of community design in public areas in Prague, Czech Republic (bonus addition). And finally, I will continue the journey with the investigation of streets (landscapes, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, sidewalks, curbs, roads and parking), neighborhood usages (civic, residential and commercial) and activities and services (that create connections between the neighborhood and the surrounding areas).

My finalization process will start with the integration of all the finding of previous areas into one diagrammatic neighborhood model. It will serve as an accessibility model for community redevelopments and new construction. My goal is to create a pattern or guidelines that can be used by community residents to power changes in their communities. They will benefit from their effort and at the same time it will create intergenerational communities across their areas.

Now for the big questions: How I will plan to do all this? And, how I am going to measure my findings? The answer is simple: I say it is right and that is the end of it. Seriously, I will be using the Design as Research method. Others have described the process as:

“Design experimentation reflects a range of practices and methodologies that are drawn from a variety of disciplines. However, the broad array of methods, claims, theoretical stances, and intellectual traditions makes it extremely difficult to articulate exactly what design experimentation is and how it can advance as a coherent field of study.” ~ The Design Based Research Collective definition funded by the Spencer Foundation[1]

In my case, I see Design as Research from the context of my thesis work. I can say it is “the process in which I will collect all the background information I need before I start my investigation. The design is the tool which I will use to experiment (proof and error). The combination of them creates a systematic analysis that can be measured by the standards I created”.

My design process will start taking pictures that reflect the areas of my investigation. Then, I will create street section for those areas in order to create a sense of scale and place and at the same time investigate its possibilities. All the information collected will be use to create a model –using different medias- that reflect the more effective way to deal with the accessibility issues of the area.

In order to measure my findings, I developed three elements that have to be presented in order for the area of investigation to be successful. All the areas have to be or provide for independence, active life and accessibility. I defined them as follows: (1) independence – allows for its use without the need of constant help (2) active life – encourage activities outside the housing unit and (3) accessible – any person will be able to use it, regardless of age or disability.

I developed this process to be specific to my thesis work. I did not referenced to any current Design as Research method used currently. During my time as an architectural student I have always looked at the work of Zaha Hadid for inspiration, but I cannot say I will be using her methods to develop my thesis work. I will have her free lines and massive structures in mind when I am working, but I can proudly say I am trying to develop a way of work that is based on each project and not in my style.

Well, after all this I can say I have a plan for midterm or at least that is what I think. The next couple of weeks will be fundamental to the development of my thesis and I promise to keep you informed at least once a week. Now, I have to go. I think is time to dive in the creative pool once again.

[1] http://www.designbasedresearch.org/index.html (Accessed January 17, 2008)

A THIRD PERSON CRITIQUE: One Life, One Neighborhood and the Accessible In-Between Thesis Review

2008-01-16T23:12:00.000-05:00

In One Life, One Neighborhood and the Accessible In-Between the author tried to create a relationship between housing the elderly and the design of neighborhoods. The context of the thesis work was based in the amount of people turning sixty years old in the next years and their determination to stay active and independent.

The author argued that “adequately housing the elderly requires designing neighborhoods for an intergenerational community. This way life in community can be easily accessible for people of all ages”. In other words, she presented accessibility as the key element to remain active and independent. The main difference with other movements as Universal Design (used as reference in the paper) was the need to extend accessibility to the whole neighborhood and not to limit it to the elderly.

One problem identified was the need for neighborhoods that can sustain accessible houses. She focused on three elements to achieved neighborhoods for intergenerational communities “independent living should be possible in every community. Mobility may decrease with time, but adaptable areas allow for independence. Also, accessibility needs to be the invisible standard because it is more than economics and politics. And finally, neighborhoods in which to be active can be developed with the use of environmental elements taking into consideration functionality”.

The author presented independent living facilities as displacement areas for the elderly; with emphasis in the dislocation of communities and promoting the benefits of growing older in place. She talks about the politics and economics surrounding current accessibility issues. She provides a historical vision of issues and added her possible solutions to incorporate accessibility as a common element in current construction. The author also compares accessibility and the current “boom” of environment friendly designs; all of these are taken into consideration, functionality for all generations and areas in the neighborhood.

She wrapped all the discussions in the need for the community to get involved in the neighborhood development. In an effort to investigate this aspect she chose her own community as an exploration medium. The author created http://www.arquitalks.com to create awareness of the issue and present information to others. She considered intergenerational communities to be beneficial to all generations/residents. And, she presented the need for a support system for accessible houses; a neighborhood that is more than streets and lots.

All this takes me to the research process presented by the author in order to explore her claim. She presented an organized method to brake and investigate the elements of the neighborhood. The only part missing is the explanations of what “accessible in-between” means and the specific areas she will be analyzing with the street sections and the models. For example, she mentioned streets, sidewalks and lots, but did not mention the relationship between them and her expectations.

The concept of intergenerational communities has to be better defined and its connection with the elderly needs further explanation. Also, the author needs to consider the difference between community design and community planning and keep her investigation in the design spectrum. A connection between architecture and the neighborhood elements has to be established.

After attending her final review, I can say that the author needs to keep the audience concentration in the main aspects of her thesis and to not open the door for misunderstanding and preconceptions. She was not able to present all her ideas because the time was used to answer questions that were not pertinent to the discussion. For example, the idea of assisted living was introduced by both reviewers and the author was not able to clarify that her work does not take into consideration the additional services needed for this type of care. It is the author’s responsibility to clarify this aspect and to investigate more the concept behind assisted living and its relationship with the concept of aging in place; as this is part of that process.

I had the opportunity to speak with the author and asked some questions pertinent to her work process and the way she achieved the maturity of her thesis work. She told me that in her class group discussions always ended up talking about some other aspect of elderly living, not her current focus; just like her final review. She was going to work on that aspect during the spring semester (we will see). The assigned readings allowed her to see other positions and how to present researched work. By the end of the fall semester she found the assignments for her community design class very helpful and inspiring. She was able to focus her conceptualization using many of them as examples.

In her midterm discussion she remembered receiving good feedback and was able to identify her thesis as a viable topic that will have positive repercussions in the profession. She thinks the best feedback came from individual conversations with students and faculty. They were able to provide her with some specific aspects to research. They also helped her to clarify the main ideas of her work.

The author read the book Flow at the beginning of the semester. Since I knew the book, I was able to discuss its influence on her work. She considered the concept of FLOW as an important aspect to achieve during her work, but a difficult one to get. She lacked the time to immerse herself into her thesis work, but when she did, she developed the most important points of her work. For example, the conceptualization elements on her work were created during a Flow moment.

She explained that “flow was achieved during studio conversations. I remember answering questions in my sketch book when others were presenting them for their own work. I was impressed to know that we all have the same basic questions in common.” She told me she will like to achieve a higher state of flow during the spring semester in order to redefine her work. I think the author needs to pass more time meditating about her work and less time trying to achieve a goal. She needs to see her thesis work as the journey of flow and not force herself to produce a final statement. She needs to take into consideration the importance of the process for her thesis work.

My recommendation to all of you is to continue accessing http://www.arquitalks.com and get more familiar with her work. You will find a good sum of work and a project in its middle stage. I will be writing more about One Life, One Neighborhood and the Accessible In-Between in the future and you will be able to learn if she applies my critic to her work.