ROOSEVELT ISLAND / NYC
by
Anthony Louis Guaraldo
Bachelor of Science (Architecture)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia I December 1996
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASSACHUSETTS INSTMIE.
OF TECHNOLOGY
JUL
MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE
AT THE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
9 2004
JUNE 2004
LIBRARIES
Anthony Louis Guaraldo. All rights reserved.
Th a hor hereby grants MIT permission to reproduce and
dist'ib e publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis
document in whole or in part.
Signature of Author:
'V
V-
A
Anthony L Guaraldo
Department of Architecture
February 27, 2004
Certified by:
Shun Kanda
Senior Lecturer in Architecture
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by:
Bill Hubbard
of
Adjunct Associate Professor Architecture
Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Students
ROTCH
Stanford 0. Anderson
Professor of History and Architecture
Head, Department of Architecture
Thesis Reader
John P De Monchaux
Professor of Architecture and Urban Planning
Thesis Reader
0
0
-
~
F-,.
I
ET~FTF~i
~
BETWEEN SPECTACLE: ROOSEVELT ISLAND
by
Anthony Louis Guaraldo
Submitted to the Department of Architecture on January 15, 2004 in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture
ABSTRACT
A clear discontinuity with the larger city of New York and with the present community exists at the site. Accepting the fragmentation and
aggregation (the unfinished quality) of the existing context represents the beginning of the design process. Promoting diversity, evoking
sensuality through form and materiality and promoting a sense of heterogeneity will be interfused with the existing discontinuity.
The design process shall be committed to a changing role in types and degrees of a variety of generative sources, depending on the
relationships of these factors that arise when addressing the specific problem. All of the possible generative sources will be developed
and assigned equal weight, developing numerous architectural elements or fragments. Atemporary strategy requiring flexibility as to the
role and the degree of influence of each of the sources will be developed and defined. Through these operations, a catalogue of inclusive
solutions were made available and fused to produce a rational and calibrated design attitude. Aprogramming and formal strategy evolved
through discovery rather than implementation.
Diagramming exercises mapping circulation, form plausibility, existing and expected context and the hybrid program was developed
with wellness as the point of programmatic departure. Reflecting both fact/science or tangible (subtly fixed generative) and intuition/
idiosyncrasy or intangible (element of contradicting generative) the diagramming establishes points of formal/spatial departure.
The design process will focus on a continuous matrix of architecture mediating between 'built' and 'found.' The built can be explained
as that which dominates the sky or air. The found, explained as dominating surface or ground. Setting a mediating datum will be
necessary given the overwhelming horizontal datum set by the bridge.
Thesis Supervisor: Shun Kanda
Title: Senior Lecturer in Architecture
for natalie
ROOSEVELT ISLAND | NYC
O
O
CONTENTS
This thesis takes an entire site beneath and beside the Queensboro
Bridge on Roosevelt Island as one built environment and creates a new
and integrated urban environment. Inthis 36-acre project; architecture,
landscape, transportation infrastructure, and an urban street system (actual
and geometric perception/graphing) are integrated to become a catalyst for
future urban spaces, both built and open.
By choosing to frame a thesis proposal within the context of Roosevelt
Island I Manhattan/Queens I New York City several important questions
arise. What does this multi-episodic environment need that is not already
available? How does Roosevelt Island fit (or not) into the larger context of
complexity and contradiction? Is it possible to develop a new (and better)
planning and architectural typology for Roosevelt Island? How does
the seemingly obvious potential of Roosevelt Island begin to be tapped
into? Can architectural design or design in a larger sense augment the
islands existing and future context to better both the community and its
self-sustainability? How can the river be better used and integrated to an
island that while surrounded by the river is physically disconnected with
it? How can issues of gentrification and open space be addressed without
becoming the only driving (and possible ultimate death) design issues?
How is it possible any place in New York City is isolated? These are just a
few of the questions that are necessary to propose and understand. The
island's present condition is difficult to ascertain by simply looking at its
perceived potential. The politics and history of the island are driven mostly
through emotion with the ability to see a proposal accepted and created
then quickly doomed to failure. Without understanding the 'power' of the
community and the way decisions are made for the island, all a proposal
can hope for is discussion.
INITIAL PLANNING
II||Tor
At the outset of defining Roosevelt Island as the site and central focus to
this thesis, an initial and/or single program was difficult to define. Desiring
to allow the environment and context of the island to act as catalyst for a
typology and necessary programmatic elements, research was initiated
to understand the islands history, context and present trajectory for the
future. The research documented the island as a site/contextual condition,
connected to the island's history within the larger context of the city,
defined the social and political structure at present, as well as its historic
development, and began to develop possible design paths. The largest
impediment to the island (without defining the community, its politics and
its aversion to change as the overpowering impediment) is the lack of
dedication given to 1968 master plan by Philip Johnson and John Burgee.
The Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC) has, more or less,
dedicated itself to seeing the 1968 plan through without reassessing the
islands current conditions and pressures in 2003. Simply put, times have
changed. It may be argued that, other than wanting to see the master
plan completed for posterity sake, there have been and continue to be
decisions made that either disrupt the overall ideas of the master plan or
hamper its desired goals of creating a self-sufficient, socially dynamic and
interesting community. The 1968 plan attempted to create an 'urban village'
interrupted with strips of parks responding to a necessary and desired
density of built space and persons while maintaining important open
spaces and historical treasures.
Philip Johnson and John Burgee described the Town Center/Town Square
(Southtown) as the heart, essential and the link between centers of activity.
The design's self-defined most important spaces, the Town Center/Town
Square, has not and will not be constructed under recently accepted
urban plans (Southtown). The decision to abandon this portion of the
master plan, in essence, questions (and ends) the advancement of the
important elements of the master plan defined as, "its spatial and functional
organization, its massing, the development of open and closed spaces
and the recognition that multi-mix occupancy and multi-mix use." Without
the addition of program elements such as office space, hotel space and
increased retail space, the island's historically isolated character will without
doubt be maintained. But this can be seen as precisely what the present
community desires, to remain isolated from Manhattan and Queens without
truly aspiring to the original idea of multi-mix occupancy and putting into
doubt, the possibility of a wholly vibrant community.
e$ Owvo
OM
-------------
The initial 1968 master plan called for additional uses including but not yet
proposed or constructed:
1.+200,000 square feet of office space
2. 100,000 square feet shopping facilities
3. 300 room hotel
4. 7.5 acre sports park below the Queensboro Bridge
5.22,500 square foot pedestrian plaza and harbor
6.Two elevator connections to the Queensboro Bridge
7.Location of a town center at the subway within the Southtown development
acreage,
M
im
i
=
figure 01
PAST PROPOSALS
INI
II
[-] e I
Louis Kahn : In1973, Kahn presented his design for the Roosevelt
Memorial, expected to be located at the most southern tip of the island,
Kahn point of departure for the memorial design was, "a room and a
garden. The garden is somehow a personal nature, a personal kind of
control of nature, gathering of nature. And the room was the beginning of
architecture." The memorials location was chosen to allow views only south
while screening the undulating Manhattan skyline to the west and to be the
"quiet at the end of a journey." Again, the RIOC has the intention to see
the project to completion but neither the money or the planning exists to
allow for its occurrence. The present southern tip of the island is a poorly
maintained knoll of grass facing south. Since its reopening earlier this year
(2003) many groups from Manhattan have planned and executed events
at the poorly defined park, including the MOMA (art initiative) and the Van
Alen Institute (film series), Also, the southern point has been, and expected
to continue to, used as the best vantage point to see the Macy's July 4th
fireworks. These new uses call into question the Kahn design, as the best
use or location for the Roosevelt, who the island was renamed for in 1973,
Memorial. The fate of the Kahn design remains unclear, even though the
RIOC is committed to realizing the memorial.
Rem Koolhaus : As part of his book Delirious New York, Koolhaus proposed
the use of the southern tip of the island by extending the Manhattan grid
(eight new blocks) over the river and onto the island's surface. Koolhaus
also extends the island further into the river by positioning a linear "elevated
travelator" with attached floating buildings. Much of the newly designated
space was to be left undeveloped for future architectural consideration
however Koolhaus developed a few large programmatic elements. These
proposed elements are a convention center, an auditorium, a sport and
entertainment center, a harbor, a park complete with swimming pool, a hotel
(titled - the Welfare Palace Hotel), and a "Counter UN" building opposite
the existing United Nations Building. He further develops the programmatic
details of the Welfare Palace Hotel describing the proposal as a city within
a city at the most southern edge of the island. The design, expressed
by four towers and two partial towers, all being capped with clubs with
differing themes associated with the differing programs at their base
and multiple references to Manhattan, rising from a base complete with
a large semicircular outdoor plaza. Koolhaus weaves many metaphors/
themes (sinking ships, lifeboats, a sandy island representing Manhattan,
etc.....) into the design that speak about Manhattan and the desolation of
Roosevelt Island. Overall, Koolhaus' proposal continues the dense growth
of Manhattan unabated onto the island with hard urban plazas and little
to no discussion of natural space except reintroducing the natural edge
of the river at its southern extreme. This proposal has not and will not be
promoted as an option to the future development of the island. There are,
however, some interesting metaphoric readings Koolhaus documented with
his proposal.
figure 02
0)
,,,,i~TI lii
Santiago Calatrava : In 1994, Calatrava designed a restaurant for
southtown, expected to reside on the edge of the island facing Manhattan.
At this point, the RIOC has expressed its desire to see the design built,
however neither the density of people nor the necessary economics exist
to move the project forward. The island currently has only one sit down
restaurant for the over 8,000 inhabitants. Of the population, the Johnson/
Burgee plan called for, "30% of all housing to be low-income - and one
third of these units will be designed for the elderly; 25% of all units are to be
moderate-income; and 20% of the total will be middle-income; the balance
will be conventionally financed," With this structure in place, the Calatrava
design would need to rely on persons and economy from Manhattan to
frequent the restaurant for success. It is unclear whether the Calatrava
design will ever be realized.
Octagon Tower: A development team has proposed new housing to the
north of the island, located and centering around the Octagon Tower ruins.
Initially the team planed for biotechnology research and office space at
the same location, however, the Roosevelt Island community was wholly
against the proposal thereby dooming its possibility. The team redesigned
the biotech plan to allocate 100% housing while renovating the ruin to is
previous grandeur. The RIOC has tentatively backed the proposal but the
community isagainst the design (some residents have noted that only few
are truly against the proposal). The community has cited the Johnson/
Burgee master plan as not allocating space for housing at this location,
rather agiant eco-park. The RIOC does not have a plan or he necessary
funding to renovate the Octagon Tower, an important historical building both
to the island and New York city as awhole. This proposal has attempted
to appeal both to the needs of the community and the overall idea of the
island as a place for housing and community. Again, the future of this
proposal is unclear and the community pressure may doom its realization,
even with its attempts at appealing to the community and their (unclear)
goals.
figure 03
Van Alen Institute: Devoted to the understanding, development and
enhancement of the public realm in Manhattan, the Van Alen Institute has
explored the future use of the East River (actually a tidal basin) and its
edges. In 1998, Van Alen issued a competition with Roosevelt Island being
defined as one of the potential sites among many other sites along the
East River corridor in Manhattan. At same time, Van Alen asked Reiser +
Umemoto Architects (RUR) to develop designs for the river artery. RUR
focused their research and design along the Manhattan river edge and
its interaction with FDR Drive. Their proposal situated a large elevated
boardwalk immediately across from Roosevelt Island however no direct
links to the island were created. The honored entries of the competition
contained little or no direct design interaction with Roosevelt Island. The
entries, in stead, focused heavily on the Manhattan and Brooklyn edges
with Roosevelt Island usually serving as a geographic location and
background graphics to the proposals. The Van Alen Institute, to this date,
has focused on the larger East River but has not defined Roosevelt Island
as a focused initiative. They have, however, used the Southpoint Park for
public interaction and promotion with hopes Roosevelt Island enters into to
larger planning proposals of the city in the future.
Southtown :Based upon the October 1969 master plan, this portion was
expected to be the heart of the community. Defined as the Town Center, the
Town Square at the middle was designed to be an arcade that connected
to the river: a place for the community to interact and connect to the water.
However, what has been accepted for construction does not connect to the
river, instead simply adds further banality to the island with seven 16 to 28
floor apartment buildings. The initial ideas of community and place have
been ignored for simply creating more housing. Johnson/Burgee explain
the town center by recalling the Galleria Vittorio Emmanuele inMilan and
highlighting its importance as "an essential, pedestrian link between two
important centers of activity." They describe the space as a "dumbbell
plan" connecting the Manhattan side (the Town Square) to the queens
side (the Harbor) with a narrow covered mall, the Arcade. Central to the
design idea isthe coming and going of pedestrians, necessary to activate
the space. Itwas expected that, "every inhabitant passes through the
Town Square once or twice aday. The Center isa very dense development,
multi-mix incharacter." The accepted plan for Southtown, however, has
not remained true to these high aspirations. The density has been heavily
reduced, the center has been ignored and the direct connection to the river
has been abandoned. The addition of a large open within the new planning
has disrupted the overall master plan as well. Beneath the 5 9th street bridge
a large sportspark was planned between southtown and the hospital. The
new planning used one quarter of the acreage for open space. Again,
this has greatly reduced the possible density, thereby reducing the inherit
positives associated with a larger community.
figure 04
The New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan proposal responds to the
potential of all of the waterfront within the city, Its attempts to balance the
public desires, environmental sensitivity, and functional necessity required of
the complex water edges of the five boroughs.
Roosevelt Island is encircled by a (almost) continuous pathway that follows
the East River edge and allows for continuous open space at the water.
Most of this pathway is undefined for use except where parks have been
placed to edge the river. The natural edge exists only at the southern tip of
the island. This limited natural edge could easily and with public benefit be
augmented to include more natural edges. The working edge is completely
ignored on the island, having no ferry service or piers. Again, using the
waterfront plan as purpose, the island would benefit by a direct connect
and use of the waterfront. The addition of ferry service and a public harbor
component will increase both valuable public space and connection to the
larger transportation system of New York City.
The public component of the waterfront plan is fairly well represented
presently however better design and definition of the natural and spatial
qualities can be increased to the benefit of the community. Finally, the
redevelopment of water edges has been determined unnecessary by the
community and seen as a detriment. A sensibly scaled intervention (not
a high rise) can increase the use and value of the waterfront, By allowing
sensitivity to determine a single or limited employment of design strategies
at the edge, the interest of open space and determined uses can be
created and increased,
LOCATION + SITE
III
I Iu
~I
Roosevelt island is located roughly equal-distant and in between Manhattan
and Queens, splitting the East River. The Queensboro Bridge (at 59th
Street I Manhattan) and several MTA subway lines cross it, however there
is only one subway stop on the island, The shoreline is about 9,250 linear
feet (1.75 miles) on each side and 800 feet at its widest point, The entire
waterfront is accessible to pedestrians. The primary shipping channel for
large vessel is located inthe west waterway while smaller vessels, such as
ferries, use the east channel. The entire edge of the island has a concrete
bulkhead wall lined with riprap, however no access to water vessels. The
southern most tip of the island returns to natural and is extended by two
small islands reaching into the east river.
Now York
0
4mms
New Jersey
Regional Metropolitan New York City Area
WFP
To the west, on the Manhattan side, the island stretches from 45th street
(just above the United Nations |42"d to 49th street) to 86th Street (just
below Gracie Mansion I 8 8th Street). The Manhattan edge iscompletely
developed with the East River Esplanade, the FDR Expressway and dense
multi-floor buildings, Most of the structures are residential or mixed-use
residential typologies but there is also limited light-industrial uses (Con
Edison) represented, The heights of the buildings along the edge vary
between two and fifty floors while maintaining avery high level of density.
Almost the entirety of the waterfront is accessible except for the area
immediately around the base of the Queensboro Bridge and the area
defined by the United Nations (security concerns). The entire edge of the
river mirroring Roosevelt Island is constructed bulkhead (natural edge at 1st
Avenue I south of 59th Street).
To the east, the Queens side, the island isdefined from 44th Drive to Hallots
Cove. The Queens edge isinterspersed with park space (eight waterside
parks and public walkways), small industrial sites and a massive and
imposing Con Edison plant. Except for the Con Edison plant, most of the
waterside structures are less than three floors inheight with moderate to
light density. Much of the waterfront isaccessible north of the Queensboro
Bridge (Queensboro Park fenced off at water's edge?) however south of the
bridge isaccessible at only one pier location. The entire edge of the river is
constructed bulkhead (pierhead line) however at and south of the bridge is
indisrepair and a small beach has formed to the north at Hallots Cove,
figure 05
WEST
JMANHATTAN
p
-n
EAST
QUEENS
figure 06
in
iii~
i~
Itiriflhl
ill I
!~
Presently, due to recent planning strategies and construction, as well as,
ignoring the original 1968 urban design, the island has become ill-defined:
it suffers from a lack of identity, continuity, and hierarchy; it is hampered
by difficult, unresolved or non-existing crossings: it isoften inaccessible
from the adjoining housing density or via transportation; and it does not
capitalize on interface opportunities with potential urban fabric and a
potentially rich and active city/island-life. Such problems are structural
- they may not be solved with mere surface treatments spread evenly and
thinly along the project site, Instead they require an alterative framework of
landscape-infrastructural integration and intervention, one that focuses on
the energies and precious resources of community and its organizations in
this discrete but highly charged location.
Roosevelt Island development has been dormant for more than two
decades, until recently with the new development at Southtown. Due to
this, the community has developed without the dynamics of growth and
has positioned itself to deny change. The community's primary desires
are to fend off ANY gentrification and develop as much open space as
possible without much use of the existing open space albeit the child
playground portions. Secondarily the community seems to base their
decisions primarily on emotion as opposed to rationalization and necessity
of economics. This has created a caution that can been seen as good but
seemingly at a high price. Decisions have, inthe recent past, ignored the
General Development Plan (GDP), only allowing for that which maintains a
lack of change on the island.
I I! II
I
HOUSE 377unite
ISLAND
pool(PRIVATE)
idoor aWimmng
1 1003u/ets RIVERCROSS
Nopiacal -aity space
1 371uita
WESTVIEW
ndoorswomin pol (PUBUC)
12%openspace
publicopenspaceatriver dge
no other puli uses
680.338s total
-
I
hospital buildig
173.014oW
21% ta l age
-1Y. p-
sp.
-n
SOUTHTOWN
I 400
------activity space
Nophyatoal
ove rage
-
bl
MANHATTANPARK
I 1.107/units
Outdoorswmig pool(PRIVATE)
Fitnes Cater(PRIVATE)
Auditorum
Nursery School
Elderly Housin
OCTAGON
1 1.107unit
6
oudor1eneScourts(PUBUICI
Conmnty Center
PublicSchool
1 400units
EASTWODO
Nophyical actiity
space
PublicSchool
ElderlyHousing
18 42 acrem
1q0to380pople: ace
Apoq/e redenalti
1 93to2 92 peope 'rt
34 500
-7
OAK0 pe-oe
000 redenml
4 34,acre
230 o460peopi acr0
units
500 residen
1 9 o 2 92 eoplepe
22 74 ares
ace
418 People
A 258reidentail ui
'-Ia
2 92 people
37 - 10 Acres
2
un0s
1 93 people urt
1000n
9.520people
3 NO peple
523.8oa
dabontat
cotonhfi
0,
10/
01,0cre
33p~0/
peple/'acr
w04/
23po107I
on ofcurentddoelopment/tr-ato/
V
2 43 people'ur(
13.380 total
populaton
at
conclusion
of
curren
development
tajctory
0o
2.00
K
umIt
J~flf~fl~F
1
The project site is located beneath and to either side of the Queensboro
Bridge. Geographically, this is the center of the island. The two modes of
public transportation, the F-Line subway and the Roosevelt Island Tramway,
are located here with little else. Located beneath the bridge are athletic
facilities housing a tennis center and pool/gymnasium. The tennis center
is currently in use while the pool and gymnasium to the south seem to be
used limitedly. Further to the south is the Goldwater Hospital a large and
expansive terminal patient care facility. To the north of the bridge is the area
that forms the southern edge of the Southtown development. Also located
immediately beneath the Queensboro Bridge is an aging power plant
facility.
The Queensboro Bridge clearly dominates the site. The bridge, with its
monumental scale along with the collection the buildings beneath, creates a
visual/perceptual barrier. The movement to the southern side of the bridge
is accomplished by one of two extremely narrow sidewalk along the edge of
roadways.
Access to the river is available along most of the edges of the site. This,
however is the only location around the perimeter of the island that has
inaccessible portions.
-
-
--
---
C N A N N
-
t
L
figure 07
figure 08
@
I@
JamaIca- 179 ft
1
m.I Sentinue
o
to
mle"3
0mile.
00:09:00 min from center
The Roosevelt Island MTA Subway Station opened on October 29, 1989.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority first considered this station In
the 1960s and began construction in1971. The line's construction turned
out to be a more massive project than anticipated. While estimated at
$28 million, its final cost amounted to over $800 million. Bear inmind that
other subway (N/R/W, 7 and EN) lines, connect Manhattan and Queens
under the East River without stopping. Subways coming to Roosevelt
Island, however, must stop beneath the river, making this station one of the
deepest inthe city's system (some 100 feet). This means that construction
workers not only built a tunnel under the river but also penetrated bedrock
to accommodate the station's eight escalators, two elevators and platform
area.
2.0
mile
.00
I
I@
/--"*x
I®
I@
O.
@
1@
@
Av-n- -
ne 2.0
00:09:00 min from center
Connection to and from Roosevelt Island and connectivity on the island are
limited. As mentioned earlier, the island has a subway connection and the
only public tramway inthe United States. Although both of the modes of
transportation are useful, passengers must exit the metropolitan system for
them to be of great use. This begins to explain the continued isolation of
Roosevelt Island.
IS
@0
irle 1.0
QUEENS I MANHATTAN
0@
@
X
Nt~on.1d
- A-n
liede IaCite + lieSaint-Louis, ParisI Seine River
1,750n x 300m
1/amilo
figure 09
10.akm - 10min walk
Noorderelland, Rotterdam
1,200m x 200m
I RiverMaas
- 10 minwalk
1/2 mila 10.0 kmn
Bus stops on Island
Buses cross Island
1 Bus stop on Island
3 Buses cross Island
Subway stop on island
o Subway stop on Island
Bridges connect to island
2 Bridges connect to
island
figure 10
'I
fret
-- T
'I
I
I
/
I
Mueumnsel, BerlinI Spree River
1,400m x300m
-10 min*Wk
1/2 mIN 10. km
figure 11
New York | East River
Island,
Roosevelt
317Sm x 220m
minwalk
1/2i16 I O. m -m10
Bus stops on island
Buses cross island
Bus stop on island
Buses cross island
Subway stop on island
Subway stop on island
Bridges connect to island
Bridge connects to island
Bridge crosses island
figure 03
DESIGN PROCESS + PROPOSAL
H
PURPOSE
To examine a new strategy for making public urban space whose formal
arrangements provide for the integration of architectural design and
supporting uses.
To use this strategy in designing a proposal for the project site, which isthe
possibly the most important piece of potential land development inNew
York City region.
To relate the character of architectural decisions to the emerging
complexities, diversity, and ambiguities of the Roosevelt Island community
and, where possible, the larger community of New York using 'wellness' as
adetermined use.
With the expectation that this will represent a catalyst to further and future
development.
RESPONSE
The creation of formal moves that emphasize connectivity and interaction
between the shape of place and a collection of necessary and determined
uses. The organizational strategy isbased on an armature, due to the
narrowness of the island and programmed uses, of public space running
predominately north and south but crisscrossed east and west. The
character of the space and adjacent buildings will be determined by a
singular architectural vision related to existing context and urban design or
its consequence.
-
The central principle of organization is a new kind of park and centralized
urban moment or node continuously infused with a great variety of public
recreational, wellness operations, limited private commercial, and cultural,
social, and educational uses. These are positioned in and spatially integrate
with the park, and also occupy adjacent buildings continuous with the park
surface and in locations beneath and in relation the Queensboro Bridge.
The orientation of the park, at the center of Roosevelt Island, almost
perpendicular to the solar east-west axis and hence respondent to the
alignment of the Manhattan and Queens grids to optimize and specialize
the penetration of sunlight to public areas and greenery. The new park
terminates at both the east and west edges of the island supporting a
variety of individual and group uses. The park and buildings are linked
to a newly located ferry and the existing but reallocated transit links by
numerous pathways or movement corridors.
Some of the buildings are 'conventional' in form; others derive their
unconventional shape from new conditions of connection and support
generated by the new park and nodal center of activity and travel across the
island.
The ferry terminal serving the newly available increasing residential
population on the island will be located beneath the bridge to promote
movement amongst the bridge. (triangulation of the transit)
ASSUMPTIONS
The emergence of public space as connected to or supported by uses that
promote wellness as the basic generative component.
The demolition and reallocation of Goldwater Hospital and athletic facilities
may be carried out in order to achieve an internal coherence of architectural
and urban form.
The southward direction of development should be continued south with
east to west connections created or maintained. This will locate new
density adjacent transportation and protect the existing high-density
residential community to the north.
The determined uses coincide with the General Development Plan of
Roosevelt Island, as well as, meet the goals of the community for its
maintenance while achieving a better way of life.
ASSERTION
The non-traditional, hybridized urban paradigm proposed, is determined by
a complex system of relationships, events and contextural/spatial readings
rather than static composition. These complex systems are referred to as
'fragments' that are collapsed together to determine formal, spatial and
programmatic effects. This requires that the site be organized by a set of
independent components influenced by formal actions arising from their
interaction. The site, with direct connection to water, light and air may
be mutated to achieve a greater diversification of uses and possibilities.
Roosevelt Island represents a new urban typology determined by its
historical facts (and reaction) and its overwhelming potential both through
its isolation from and its connection to the larger urban structure.
FRAGMENTS
The building blocks of the project are contained inthese elements, a nonhierarchical field of fragments. Conditions of complexity and differentiation
are created to produce irregular geometries and conflicts between
competing systems.. All of the elements interact and compete to intersect,
overlap, mesh, and fuse through out the process to express relationships
between differing elements as opposed to the rigid development of a single
formal operation. Continuous exchange of individual representations react
to additions during the collective process creating hierarchies of process
that become blurred.
All recorded fragments are collapsed together, then divided into two
somewhat distinct categories: spatial boundaries (including the in-between)
and infrastructure elements. Using readings and idiosyncrasy an order
of structure and infrastructure are layered onto the site. The concepts of
structure and infrastructure are considered greater than "normal" definition.
They are employed as independent (and sometimes dependent) but
generic and formal elements. The roles of representation are defined
through surface (tentatively defined as landscape) and volume.
The spatial juxtaposition and adjacencies promotes an organization across
urban space and promote a more complex organization.
Metaphorical transformations: shadow studies
Traces of the Queensboro Bridge recorded at different times of the
day and year with rates of motion to reflect the experience of place as
perceived by physical body movement or leisure. Shadows represent
a hidden axonometric of the vertical object onto the horizontal ground
surface.
Translation techniques: vector and formal studies
Surrounding geometries - overlapping of the Manhattan and Queens
urban grids - accepting the island as middle ground and necessary
coupling (bridge piers) between.
View paths - New building block centered linear view path to bridge
and beyond - preference clear view at edges and constrained but
interesting views at center.
Elevation of the in-between: open spaces
Distinction between building versus landscape with a meshing of both,
creating a fluidity of movement through and among.
Signature view directors - United Nations Building - placement of
related elements per geometric vectors
Assembled experience: sampled and charted magnitudes
The realities of space as produced in practice perhaps always involve
relationships among physical and sensual 'PERCEPTIONS', mental
or intellectual 'conceptions', and lived and imaginative 'experiences'
of what space is or might be. Henri Lefebvre has proposed a general
schema that would pull together spatial references from a number of
different arenas and fields of production. The architectural work can
suggestively be the locus of these dimensions in space. Physical
movements in space are fundamental to the ways we are able to
perceive architecture; the construction of a place is predicated upon the
bringing together of thoughts and PERCEPTIONS.
sense experience + conceptually consumable
encounter
I linkage and pause of vehicular networks
| averaged continuous built environment
lived HUMAN encounter I primary focus of physical movements inspacs
encounter I non-specific or residual 'greened use' spaces
FORMal encounter
I collected formal experience
of existing built environment
'assembled' experlen C I sampe magnitude
I II
I I I.
The General Development Plan of Roosevelt Island is designed for 20,000
residents. As designed, the current development potential equals a total
population of only 13,380. By collapsing Goldwater Hospital into a single
structure, 18.42 acres will be made available for residential and open space
potentials. This acreage could be used to create residential units with a
total population of between 3,500 and 7,00 persons. As well as meeting
the GDP of Roosevelt Island for population and increased open space,
Goldwater Hospital's densification will allow for its modernization which has
been considered since the 1960's. Using this option as the beginning for
design allows two important goals to be achieved. First, the integration of
Goldwater Hospital to the larger community may be studied and achieved.
Second, approaching the site as the actual physical, community and
transportation center may be achieved.
62% Building coverage on ground surface
u.itm~
?:uuOn
5.630 acre
U
1
..........
'I
4
ffh5E-
I
-
-
3.7986 acre
11.4345 acre
36.8233 acre
18.4218 acre
3.1684 acre
EXISTING
Goldwater Hospital
Gymnasium
Tennis Courts
Power Plant
Sport Field
PROPOSED
6 Residential towers
2,527,244 sf
69,900 sf
The existing Goldwater hospital and any existing program that isnecessary
to "glue" the hybrid together will derive this program element. The existing
hospital with its sprawling layout prohibits any further use of the 18+
acres of land, The athletic element will merge with the health element as
numerous nodal points both directly and indirectly connected. All program
elements removed are reallocated across the coherent site. The medical
facility will be integrated with health therapy and athletics to offer services
connected to wellness and prevention as opposed to only terminally ill
patient. This integration also occurs on the larger scale of the community
by placing the hospital among the community as opposed to its current
location of isolation.
The athletics are redispersed to take advantage of organizational principles
and to allow for greater connection to light and air. The tennis courts have
been depressed into the ground to allow for greater viewing angles across
the site and panoramas away from the site. Their current location detracts
from the character and use of the land beneath the bridge. Also, the new
location allows for wintertime use of some of the courts for ice staking. This
allows the space to function year-round.
124,775 sf total
680,338 sf total
Certified Beds:
MEDICAL-SURGICAL
AIDS
Total Medical/Surgical Beds:
201
96
297
PHYS MED &REHAB
Total Certified Beds:
120
417
Total of 986 beds - 442 chronic care
patients, 544 nursing patients
Located in seven connected buildings
- minimum security area maintained for
chronic-care inmates
Precedents:
-
Peckham Health Experiment
Certified Beds:
TENNIS COURTS
POOL
INDOOR BASKETBALL
OUTDOOR 1/2 COURT
WORKOUT AREA
PRO SHOP
Oll..
60-~~
ss
.
C
A
CCo
..
-.
alt
4
ua
053
C)'
C)
vwJ1~I&
AN- li
iSML
m~
I
Fragmented nature of Southtown Urban plan is used contextually then re-centralized
towards an interesting semi-dense urban environment
Roosevelt Island becomes a dumbbell type of urban plan with residential on either end
and transportation, services and community at the center
CR*.
M"~
601ffl!
0
Lai
Conceptual Massing Model I sept. 2003
Volumetric Topography Study Model I nov 2003
Final Presentation Model I dec 2003
LO)
0O
IlilFilfi Dl
The newly constructed Southtown building cut off all views from the existing
residential community to the bridge. On axis with the roadway, the new
building stands like a blinder both for views and by shading available sun.
By treating the ground surface as a volume, multiple heighten points were
established to accentuate views and the overall experience of the park.
There are raised locations for panoramic views towards Manhattan and
Queens but there are also raised locations for spectators to watch athletics
contests. View corridors were maintained to allow for visual permeability
throughout the site and to offer additional nodal points and points for
interaction.
if
4!iV~
I
-
~
ull'
nodes |
Existing where east/west sections of pedestrian movements are interrupted
by another pathway or object. These occur at points where numerous
persons travel such as at a transportation node. When moving through the
building small retail will be located st these nodes in order to activate the
crossing further.
-----------
n
y,
)()
forest |
A natural ecosystem, which grows at its own rate and creates urban
ecology. The organization and choice of the tree cover was determined
by safety, use and location. Birch trees were chosen for the tactility and
beauty of their white bark and their tall canopies allowing the surface to
remain shaded but open. The noted arrows on the image describe the
organizational strategy of the tree placement from un-programmed to
heavily programmed uses allowing for a multitude of varying uses.
Programmed exterior space
Linear individual programmed uses
small individual scale
BENCH + TREE CANOPY
U-
Un-programmed exterior space
Area individual programmed uses
medium to multiple group scale
U'
*1
Un-programmed exterior space
Linear individual programmed uses
large group to small individual scale
RIVER EDGE
NON ATTACHED SEATING
Programmed exterior space
Area group programmed uses
Medium to large scale
ATHLETIC FIELDS
ii B 11'~
conduits I
Open space corridors that lie adjacent to water and connections to
destinations and transportation. Several of these were place in order to
move through the building, allowing the building be represented as both
containment and welcoming. These were positioned primarily in the
east/west axis of the site in order to facilitate movement and possibility for
interaction. Each of the three transportation nodes has been located to take
advantage of these primary movement paths allowing for visual connection
from multiple location around the site.
."
'I
I
entry point I
Entry points are situated to take advantage of nodes, crossings and
conduits. Entry points are either used to emphasize a certain node or
maintain a dynamic to a path. Ideally, the entry point can be approaches
from multiple directions.
I
working elements I
These include all of the possible transportation choices. A ferry terminal
has been added to augment the movement to and from the island. These
uses will need to be fused together for maximum public gain. By fusing
them together it will be possible to discuss the public benefit of open space
while incorporating a transportation service that will appear and feel less like
it is detriment to the existing community and culture of the island.
I
.. . . .
.m....
.
..
........
.
....
.....
1
......
iiillTFrnifrnilnhlfT I
!I~I
TI~if~Wfl
natural elements I
Reconnection to east river on east side of island (non shipping channel).
Reintroduction of the natural river edge including an athletic and park space
expressing both the desire for open space and the introduction of a new
use benefiting the existing populace.
'I>
I
-
.
iIII11F11TFi1~I1fF[F1
I Ii
ririrnItlIr
redevelop/public elements I
This hybrid type may also be able to serve as a centering location for the
islands community. By incorporating existing health club program, park/
open space program, medical program and reasonable connectivity (ferry/
subway/tram services) the proposal can be the catalyst to future planning
and growth initiatives without suffering the pains of gentrification. Goldwater
Hospital can be incorporated into the overall program thereby freeing up
the land currently occupied by the facility. Inturn this land can be used for
lower-income housing and market rate housing which could be develop to
support many of the stalled initiatives of the island (memorials, park space,
renovations, etc.,,.). The attachment of the medical program can allow the
proposal to increase to a renowned facility.
FERRY
TRAMWAY
NATATORIUM
HEALTH
I
U"
LOCKER ROOMS
FITNESS CENTER
TENNISSMALL BALL COURTS
GYMNASIUM (2 COURTS)
PHYSICAL THERAPY
RETAIL
.
...
...
..
l''..
''I'l
......
.......
...
. ......
..
.....
..
..
......
..
....
.....
..
...
- .11,11,
...
..
.....
movement - pedestrian I
Pedestrian movement is explored as a formal function, it is something
of a pile of ribbons. The necessary east - west axial connections have
a transformative effect on the general expression and coherence of the
building and volumetric surface geometries. The differences created
support differing spatial characters and interchangeable use variety over
time.
-
-
DFfIJlIIlIrrT
lIP,..I~TI]TiIlll.lII
movement - formal and conceptual I
The formal nature of the building responds to the nature of the site and its
future growth. The building is restrained beneath the bridge and forcefully
moves southward toward the potential future residential growth. The scale
and mass follow this charge and begin to fracture at the end of the form.
The restraint beneath the bridge is respondent to the monumentality and
the heavy shadows the structure casts. This also defines the primary node
and movement path through the site.
-- - -
-t.....
tU
*
A0
..
...
4.....
....
..
..
1 ...
..
- -.....
geometries |
Multiple layers of geometry assisted in the design of the formal aspects of
the site. Simple geometries were useful in establishing new conditions of
complexity and differentiation. The connection and displacement to the
surrounding city is embedded within the geometric organization. Although
the planimetric view is the basic method of transfer, volumetric possibilities
were immediately folded into the design process for application and/or
adaptation. The primary node of the building is located to capture the
shadow from the bridge each afternoon in the summer season, thereby
cooling the most intense interface between pedestrian and architecture.
LLO
Building scale relation to landscape scale
birds eye from Queens
birds eye from Manhattan
arriving on tramway
view from Queensboro Bridge [north]
pedestrian views from the site
view tennis court seating [west]
view at corner (west]
view from tennis court bridge [west]
view from Ferry Terminal [east]
view from Ferry Terminal [east]
view from subway [south]
view from Southpoint [north]
FRAME 010
14:30
FRAME 009
12:55
FRAME 008
11:00
FRAME 007
9:22
FRAME 006
8:05
FRAME 005
6:55
FRAME 004
5:12
FRAME 003
3:30
FRAME 002
2:10
FRAME 001
0:00
I
nk
#w4
093
IMAGE CREDITS
*NOTE: Unless otherwise mentioned below all drawings and photographs are by the author
01
Roosevelt Island Competition, 1975. The Architectural League of New York
02
New Welfare Island. delirious new york. New York 1975. p 302.
03
Octagon Apartments, 1999. RIOC + BBA.
04
Southtown Site Plan, 1998. Gruzen Samton LLP
07
New York City Sanborn Map, 1974. New York City Public Library.
06
AirPhoto USA via the PhotoMapper Software.
07
New York City Sanborn Map, 1974. New York City Public Library.
08
AirPhoto USA via the PhotoMapper Software.
09
ibid, lie de la Cite and Ile Saint-Louis.
10
ibid, Noordereiland, River Maas.
11
ibid, Museuminsel, Spree River.
o-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
01
Department of City Planning, City of New York. New York City
Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, Reclaiming the City's Edge. 1992.
Gastil, Raymond W. Beyond the Edge, New York's New Waterfront. New
02
York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002.
Hoke, John Ray Jr. Architectural Graphic Standards. Ninth Edition. New
03
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994.
Ignasi de SolA-Morales. Differences: Topographies of Contemporary
04
Architecture. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997.
Jackson, Kenneth T editor. Empire City: New York through the Centuries.
05
New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
06
Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York. New York: The Monacelli Press, 1994
07
New York City Sanborn Map, 1974. New York City Public Library.
New York State Urban Development Corporation. The Island Nobody
08
Knows. New York, 1969..
Nevins, Deborah editor. The Roosevelt Island Housing Competition, The
09
Architectural League of New York. New York: Wittenborn Art Books, Inc., 1975.
Pearse, Innes H. The Peckham Experiment, a study in The Living Structure
10
of Society. Rushden: The Northamptonshire Printing & Publishing Company,
1947.
I offer heartfelt thanks to any persons who helped or contributed to this project
whether directly or indirectly.
To my parents and family for having the patience and the support for all of the
things I've ever really wanted to do.
To my advisor Shun, who always offered focus, clarity and concern; especially the
times when I was too burned out to take care of myself. Thank you for believing in
me and allocating time during your time away, I am very gracious.
Thanks to those friends of mine I've seen very little of due to this academic process
but may have suffered through an earful of my opinions.
To my readers John and Stan, for there differing and always challenging
perspectives and recommendations.
Finally, thank you Natalie for your constant love and commitment. You made this
challenge worth completing (sooner rather than later). You are the world to me.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
muI-