THE RECYCLING OF STRUCTURES FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
by
Shepperson A. Wilbun, Jr.
B.A. Dartmouth College
1974
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the
Degree of
Master of Architecture
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
February 1980
Shepperson A. Wilbun, Jr. 1980
11
Signature of the Author
/ eprtment 9
Architecture
Certified by
f David/Lee, t'ror
s
oYArchTecture
Ti esis Supervisor
Accepted by
'
Imire
(.
Ii
Halas;z,Chairman
Departmental Committee for Graduate Students
THE RECYCLING OF STRUCTURES FOR LOW- AND MODERATE
INCOME SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
by
Shepperson A. Wilbun, Jr.
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the
Degree of
Master of Architecture
This thesis is a design process evaluation which focuses on the special problems associated
with addressing the duality of user needs for tenants and developers (where the definition of
user is broadened to include the general public, tenants, developers, government entities, etc.)
when recycling structures for low- and moderate income subsidized family housing.
The intent
of the thesis is to identify design constraints and conflicts resulting from this duality of
user needs, establish a framework within which the costs/benefits of various trade-offs can
be analyzed, and then generate a set of general guidelines applicable as a performance
specification for projects of this type.
Using this set of guidelines as a typical user need
1
program, I will then compare this need program to the design responses of three types of
recycled buildings which are being converted for subsidized family housing:
a) a school;
b) a factory;
c) a garage.
This comparison will produce a set of guidelines which then has applicability to buildings
being recycled for low and moderate income supydi/ed family housing.
Thesis Supervisor:
David Lee
Title: Professor of Architecture
2
PR=FACE
This thesis is the culmination of four years of research and involvement with Housing
Innovations, Inc., a Boston-based real estate development company.
Begun in the summer of my
first year in the Masters of Architecture Program as a summer job, this involvement continued
throughout the course of my studies, as a consultant part-time during the school years, full
time during the summers, and finally as a member of the staff beginning in September of 1978.
During this span of time, I performed in a field survey capacity with responsibility for
determining the extent of construction work required to rehabilitate 379 units of housing; in
a consulting capacity responsible for the preparation of housing rehabilitation proposals for
Section 8 funding (of which 3 were funded including the Schoolhouse '77 project mentioned in
this thesis); and finally in a project coordination capacity where I was responsible for preparation of preliminary construction cost estimates, scheduling, design and construction monitoring
(as a 'clerk of the works'), and for coordinating the team members during construction.
these roles came much of the experience and information which facilitated this thesis.
From
Likewise,
Housing Innovations' president is an architecture graduate, and the company's perspective
reflects an acute awareness of principles of good design.
The opportunity as an architectural
student to be involved with and a part of a development company such as this has been a dimension
3
of my studies which fulfilled a personal growth need and which certainly was just as important
to me as my formal studies.
Assumptions made and assertions presented within this thesis are
based upon this experience and represent my opinions, except as otherwise noted.
Hopefully, I
present attitudes and points of view which accurately reflect the reality of subsidized housing
development and the value of this experience to me.
4
ACKNOWL
EDGEMEN
T
As always with any endeavor of this type, there are a great many acknowledgements that need to
be made.
While it is impossible to thank everyone who contributed to the production of this
document, it is necessary to thank certain individuals.
This I shall do at this time.
I am deeply indebted to the staff of Housing Innovations, Inc. and its affiliate, Tenant Services,
Inc. for many of the ideas and much of the information presented in this thesis.
of HII,
As President
Denis Blackett provided me with the opportunity to work with this staff and allowed me
to participate in all of the aspects of the company, particularly the Schoolhouse '77 project.
Similarly, certain other staff member deserve special mention--Al Middleton for sharing his vast
construction knowledge with me and for aiding in my adjustment to performing as a 'clerk of the
works'; Beverly Herbert for providing a sounding board for ideas and for her assistance with
the Historical Designation Aspects of Schoolhouse '77; and Tom Welch for his faith in me, his
patience with me, and his support in supervising my overall participation with the Schoolhouse
'77 project and, for sharing with me his wealth of development information and expertise.
5
I am likewise indebted to the faculty and staff of the Department of Architecture and Leon
Groisser for their patience and tutelage in helping me to pursue a program of study leading
toward this thesis and for supporting my growth in this direction, even when in disagreement.
Similarly, thanks are in order to the staff of Stull Associates, to Don Stull, Randy Lewis, and
all of the others who provided either information or assistance, especially concerning Anderson
Park, of which I knew very little.
A very special thank you is in order for the following:
David Lee, who, as my Advisor, had to tolerate my coming to grips with the mass of information
that I possessed and had to prod, push, and force me to get it in this form.
Without his patience, guidance, and 150% cooperation, this thesis would never have
been possible.
Simon Wiltz, who because of his unyielding faith and support made this day possible when five
years ago while sitting in an apartment in Atlanta, Georgia, he called to inform me
of my acceptance to M.I.T.'s Architecture Department and the circumstances surrounding that acceptance, culminating a two year effort by him on my behalf to achieve
that end.
This thesis is as much a tribute to his efforts as it is to mine.
6
All of my friends, who gave me encouragement and inspiration when I was overwhelmed by the
magnitude of this endeavor, and depressed by my inability to seemingly make satisfactory progress.
Finally, I must thank God Almighty for giving me the strength and perseverance to see this
effort through and for enabling me to harness all of the required resources to generate this
thesis.
As with anything that I do or have done, this effort is dedicated to my ancestors, my
family, and my descendants, and all those who have or will help them or me.
7
1.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Preface
I.
I
OF
T
Acknowledgements
Contents
INTRODUCTION--THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
A.
B.
C.
D.
PARI
TA
BLE
C
E
Statement of the Problem
Scope of Thesis
Objectives
References
I--THE HYPOTHESIS
CHAPTER l--"PERFORMANCE SPEC": WHAT IS IT AND WHY IS ONE NEEDED?
l.A. Context of Residential Design: The Project Life Cycle
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Briefing
Design
Working Drawings
Construction
Occupancy
Feedback
l.B. The Design Process and the Role of the Architect Within the Context
of the Project Life Cycle
l.C. The User Need Assessment
1.D. References
8
II.
CHAPTER 2--TOWARD A "PERFORMANCE SPEC" FOR LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME
HOUSING: USER NEED ASSESSMENT
2.A. Tenant User Needs
1. Security
2. Lighting
3. Unit Layout
4. Circulation Spaces
5. Landscaping
6. Interior Finishes
7. Private Open Space
8. Building Entries
9. Communal Space and Facilities
10. Amenities
11. Unit Mix
12. Neighborhood Conditions
2.B. Developer User Needs
1. Security
2. Lighting
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Unit Layout
Circulation Spaces
Landscaping
Interior
Finishes
Private Open Space
Building Entries
Communal Space and Facilities
Amenities
11. Unit Mix
12. Neighborhood Conditions
9
2.C. Comparison of User Needs
1. Similarities, Conflicts, and Trade-Offs
2. Review of User Needs by Areas
3. Conflict Resolution Matrix
2.D. A Composite User Need Program
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Security
Lighting
Unit Layout
Circulation Spaces
Landscaping
Interior Finishes
Private Open Space
Building Entries
Communal Space and Facilities
Amenities
Unit Mix
Neighborhood Conditions
2.E. References
PART 2--THE TEST
III.
CHAPTER 3--AN ANALYSIS OF THREE RECYCLED PROJECTS UTILIZING THE
COMPOSITE USER NEED PROGRAM
3.A.
Project Information
1. Anderson Park
2. Dillaway School
3. Berger Factory
10
3.B. Comparison of the Three Project's Design Responses to the
Composite User Need Program
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Security
Lighting
Unit Layouts
Circulation Spaces
Landscaping
Interior Finishes
Private Open Space
Building Entries
Communal Space and Facilities
Amenities
Unit Mix
Neighborhood Conditions
PART 3--CONCLUSIONS
IV. CHAPTER 4--CONCLUSIONS AND DESIGN IMPLICATIONS
4.A. Revisions to the Composite User Need Program
4.B. The 'Performance Specification' for Recycling Structures for
Low- and Moderate-Income Subsidized Family Housing
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Security
Lighting
Unit Layout
Circulation Spaces
Landscaping
Interior Finishes
Private Open Space
Building Entries
Communal Space and Facilities
11
10. Amenities
11. Unit Mix
12. Neighborhood Conditions
4.C. Design Implications of the Performance Specification
v.
APPENDICES
12
INTR OUCTIO
A.
N
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
There has been considerable dissatisfaction with and criticism of much of our recently
constructed built environment and the design process that produced it.
Much of the dissastis-
faction has been centered around the architectural profession's inability to satisfy the needs,
values, and expectations of the building's users.
The criticism has been that many recent
buildings "inhibit desired and desirable patterns of behavior and encourage or allow undesired
or undesirable ones."2
Although recent research has indeed justified this criticism, architects
have shunned any attempt to analyze the process by which building design is generated for fear
that such an evaluation may in some way saddle creativity--the architect's sacred domain.
However, the profession's responsibility is not limited to providing "interesting spaces" but
includes the obligation to also make these spaces as responsive to the needs of its users as
expertise and knowledge will allow.
Jon Lang, in his article "Architecture for Human Behavior"
presents a criteria for a properly designed building which, he says, is one where the environment
provides the "physiological and psychological states" necessary for people to attain their goals
and facilities the "specific patterns of behavior" required by those people for the attainment
13
of their goals.3
Some, such as H. G. Irwig (the Building Design Process: An Investigation of
Productivity), have questioned the structure of the design process and its failure to function
satisfactorily within the process by which buildings come to be built.
Central in Irwig's evalu-
ation is the architect's resultant loss of control over the final design product because of the
Still others, such as Clare Cooper,
lack of early utilization of correct user need assessments.
have documented the fact that without correct user need assessments, architects have incorrectly
applied their personal set of values in making assumptions about user goals.
Even where the
architect possesses correct user need assessments, the information does not get interjected into
the development process at the critical
initial decision-making stage.
The nature of the problem then would seem to be two-fold.
First, the design process needs to
be re-oriented to be 'behavior-deterministic' where "design goals stem from the needs, desires,
and values of those who are affected by the buildings rather than simply from the values of
those who believe that they know what is good for the rest".
Such a re-orientation must
endeavor to identify user needs and provide for their realization and not just adjust typological
solutions which is the present emphasis.
Second, this 'behavior-deterministic' design informa-
tion must be brought into the development process at an early enough time so that it can impact
the decision-making process at the conceptual stage of the project.
For the full value of such
14
behavior-deterministic design to be realized, a framework for weighing different sets of needs,
goals, and values must be established at the project's inception.
B.
SCOPE OF THESIS
The design process then should seek to acquire correct user need assessments, compile these
assessments, and get them interjected in the development process early enough to influence the
project's initial decisions and direction.
This analysis represents an attempt to approach design from such a perspective.
The following
examination is a design process evaluation which focuses on the special problems associated
with addressing the duality of user needs for tenants and developers when recycling existing
physical structures for low- and moderate-income subsidized family housing. (The definition of
user has broadened to include all groups interfacing with the building--general public, tenants,
developers, government entities, etc.)
The intent of this thesis is to identify design con-
straints and conflicts resulting from this duality of user needs, establish a framework within
which the costs/benefits of various trade-offs can be analyzed, and then generate a set of
general guidelines applicable as a performance specification for projects of this type.
Using
this set of guidelines as a typical user need program, I will then generate a prototypical design
15
for projects of this type.
The analysis begins with a problem statement (Introduction), develops an hypothesis (Part 1),
tests that hypothesis (Part 2), and draws evaluations (Part 3) concerning how the design process
should function within the boundaries of our context and, concludes with a design (Part 4) which
illustrates the information derived from the previous examination.
This paper focuses upon the recycling of structures for low- and moderate-income subsidized
family housing and thus must also encompass a discussion of subsidized family housing development.
But this dissertation will not present a detailed exploration of real estate development, nor
will this exploration attempt to present a comprehensive evaluation of subsidized housing programs and processes.
This dissertation by necessity must address certain areas of real estate
This
development and subsidized family housing programs in order to illuminate specific points.
analysis assumes that its readers possess a certain basic knowledge concerning real estate
development and (Federal) subsidized housing programs;for those who need a primer, the author
suggests Philip David's Urban Land Development and any United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (H.U.D.) material on subsidized housing programs, especially the Section 8
subsidy program.
16
C.
OBJECTIVES
This analysis has as its objectives, the following:
A.
To identify both sets of user needs,
To identify those needs common to both sets,
To identify those needs unique to each set, and
To identify those needs in conflict
B.
To structure how trade-offs can and should be approached from a cost/benefit
point of view,
C.
To illustrate how this approach to resolution of user need conflicts can be used
to develop a preliminary performance specification which will improve the satisfaction with the final housing product by both the users.
D.
To then compare this performance spec to the designs for the following types of
recycled buildings:
a. A school
b. A factory
c. A garage,
17
E.
To use the comparison to generate a performance specification for buildings being
recycled for subsidized family housing and to develop a design from this spec for
buildings of this type.
(It is the assumption of the author that given a greater understanding of user need priorities,
the architect will be able to facilitate a more responsive housing product.)
The areas in which user needs will be investigated are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
security
lighting
unit layouts
circulation spaces
landscaping
interior finishes
private open space
building entries
communal spaces and facilities
amenities
unit mix
neighborhood conditions
These areas are chosen because of my belief that they drastically impact all users' satisfaction
with the final housing product, and that they are perhaps easier to investigate than certain
other areas.
Likewise, these areas appear to lend themselves more readily to compilation in a
performance specification form.
However, instead of twelve areas this thesis could just as
easily have encompassed 8 or even 20 areas; twelve was just an arbitrary number that I selected.
18
D.
REFERENCES
Lang, Jon, "Architecture for Human Behavior: The Nature of the Problem", Architecture for Human
Behavior: Collected Papers From a Mini-Conference, Philadelphia Chapter/American Institute of
Architects, Philadelphia, 1971, p. 5.
2
Ibid.
3Ibid.
4
Ibid., p. 6.
19
PART
ONE
CHAPTER 1:
"PERFORMANCE SPEC": WHAT IS IT AND WHY IS ONE NEEDED?
The designer does not design in a "vacuum" but rather "in the context of the policies, plans,
and procedures of individuals, groups and enterprises, their expectations for the future and
their commitment to investments made in the past."
He works within an environment where many
elements set objectives and constraints for design, some directly, others not so directly.
These include the building industry's clients,
the industry itself, professional service pro-
viders, government agencies, and community groups.
According to a recent Professional Builder's
article, the number of government entities involved in getting residential housing built can be
as many as 49.
Thus to appreciate fully how residential design comes to be, one must have an
understanding of the life cycle of a residential project, the level of decision-making within
this life cycle, the responsibilities incumbent with various levels of decision making, the roles
played within this process, the relationship of the roles, and the overlaps.
20
l.A.
CONTEXT OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN: THE PROJECT LIFE CYCLE
The design of a residential project takes place within a framework of processes which ultimately
produces, uses, and demolishes buildings within a varying time frame.2
This framework is
implicitly known to architects and accepted by them, although it is neither sequential nor
without variation.
In its simplest form, these processes can be categorized according to their
affect upon the design process.
Such a categorization would produce the following groupings:
1.
Decisions made previous to design
2.
Design decisions
3.
Decisions and instructions about how to implement design decisions
4.
Decisions about construction and site operations
5.
Decisions as to the readiness of the building for occupancy
6.
Decisions as to how successful the design has been
The usual terminology for each of the above sets of decisions, from the architect's perspective
would be:
1.
Briefing or project formulation and programming
2.
Design or schematics
3.
Working drawingsor design realization
21
1.A.l.
4.
Construction or construction management activities
5.
Occupancy
6.
Feedback or design evaluation.
Briefing
Briefing is the generation of a set of requirements and goals that the project must satisfy.
This 'problem statement' usually reflects the financial parameters which govern the project.
It involves two parts: policy-making and programming.
At the policy-making stage, the project's
form and feasibility (functional, technical, and financial) are determined.
stage, user need assessments are made in response to policy-making decisions.
At the programming
The brief or
proposal may be of many forms; it may be detailed to the point of stipulating requirements as
to the time, money, material, and design constraints.
It may also identify who shall participate
in the project's development process and what the relationships of the participants is to be.
l.A.2.
Design
The design process is itself a family of decision-making processes.
It includes intelligence
(programming), design, choice,implementation, and evaluation phases as shown in Diagram-l.
Jon Lang states:
22
As
DIAGRAM
Lang's
INTELLIGENCE
Model
of the
DESIGN
Design
CHOICE
I
Process
IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION
A general model of the designing process
23
It begins with an intelligence phase aimed at identifying and structuring
problem situations. This is followed by the design phase in which alternative solutions are developed and the choice phase during which the decision
is made that one of these alternatives is best. The final phase is generally
regarded as implementation, but some scholars suggest a cybernetic model in
which the implemented solution is analyzed (evaluation) and the solution
modified if necessary. Models of decision-making should not be thought to
be purely linear or circular. There is considerable feedback from one phase
to the previous ones. Each phase consists of intelligence, design, and choice
activities as each is, in itself, a decision making process. 3
Because of the feedback between phases, as pointed out by Lang, it is often difficult to
distinguish between the phases, especially the intelligence/programming and design phases since
these are continuous and not linear, and the evaluation and feedback phases since they are continuous throughout the process.
Likewise, the design process, the architect's chief responsibility, takes place within the
constraints of the brief.
This brief, as previously noted, is the project's 'problem statement'.
The intelligence phase of design involves an assessment of user needs and thus should commence
at the project's inception but, usually does not.
Compounding this situation is the number of
participants involved in the intelligence phase of the design process.
As Lang says, "The
larger the scale of the potential project, the more disparate these groups are likely to be and
the wider the range of values and the more contradictory the design requirements".
These
groups, he identifies on a general level, as being the following:
24
1.
The client or sponsor of the project (developer)
2.
Users (Occupants)
3.
City officials, legislative bodies, etc.
4.
Non-users likely to be affected by the project
5.
Architects.and other design professionals
6.
Contractors
In a realistic sense, all of these groups are Users of the project, and as such must have their
needs, goals, and values reflected in the design alternatives.
It becomes the role of the
architect, therefore, to ensure that the design implications of different goals are understood,
and that appropriate alternatives are investigated.
l.A.3.
Working Drawings
According to Irwig, the working drawing or design realization process is the one which intervenes between design and production (construction) where design decisions are translated into
an ordered form which facilitates co-ordinated and safe subsequent processes.
In its simplest
form, this process encompasses the organization of previous decisions into instructions for
implementation and mobilization of the necessary resources--"men,
money, machines, and detailed
25
and clear instructions."5
Usually the process generates the 'Contract Documents'--working
drawings, specifications, cost estimates, and 'closing' information.
(Closing is the signing
of all contracts and financing commitment papers.)
1.A.4.
Construction
This phase relates to all of the off-site and on-site construction operations.
It not only in-
volves the operations themselves, but also all of the coordination and decisions through which
these operations become executed.
During this phase, which commences with the obtainment of
building permits by the contractor, the architect's role is to monitor and manage the
building's construction and adjucate conflicts in the interpretation of contract documents.
He also decides the degree of completion of the work, approves the dispersal of payments
accordingly, and gives approval to any changes required in the contract documents.
l.A.5.
Occupancy
Occupancy is the stage where the building, now completed, is given over to the users.
After a final
inspection and acceptance of the building by the developer and government regulatory agencies, the
building is occupied. This is the phase during which the developers and/or investors begin to
26
receive the financial rewards for the creation of the building.
It is during this stage also,
that the previous decisions which generated the building and, the success of that building in
meeting the needs of all users, can be gauged.
1.A.6.
Feedback .
This phase, if indeed it can be categorized as a distinct phase, is the evaluatory stage.
For
all of the project's participants, this stage represents the review of decisions, processes of
decision-making, and implementation of those decisions.
Poor decisions will be evidenced by
high maintenance costs, high vacancy rates, high tenant dissatisfaction, and little or no
project income, all of which are negations of the project's stated goals.
Although occupancy
generally provides the laboratory for evaluation, this phase can be said to occur at each of
the previously discussed stages of the project life cycle, as interpretation of previous actions
and decisions is a continuing factor in subsequent actions and decisions.
*(NOTE:
Demolition as a stage has not been included here since re-use of existing structures
cast doubts as to whether it is indeed a separate phase or a part of construction.)
27
l.B.
THE DESIGN PROCESS AND THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT
WITHIN CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT LIFE CYCLE
Having identified the processes involved in the project life cycle, we now turn our attention
to how this cycle functions and what the role of the architect should be within its context.
Irwig, in his dissertation, develops the hypothesis that the generally accepted model for the
project development process as dictated by the fee structure of the architectural profession
varies from the way the process actually unfolds.
As part of that hypothesis he further pro-
claims that building design context not only includes the policies set by the developer but also
the technologies of all the parties participating in the project, contrary to the much narrower
perspective held by architects.6
His comparison of the existing models of the project procure-
ment (development) process (see Diagram-2) revealed numerous discrepancies between reality and
these models and led to his creation of a new model which defines the phases of the process by
levels of decision-making.
His model of the process involves "two distinct systems of
activities", the 'conceptual area' and the 'operational area'.
The Irwig model is very useful and significant since it divides the project development process
into two planning activities and two implementation activities.
The brief and design phase
are combined as being the 'first planning activity' with working drawings (design realization)
28
_________~D
__
_
_
_
t2.. 4
PUPWIM- or, M=
AMIN Mcistolz To Ju
USUAL l\jm~
AGRAM
_D
2
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
--- i. -
(W10)
(11974-)
LOWJ
129ACM-13
'10
ccc
C
C=flS211j CMT-
-
-
r.
V21uX
F-N
soa1 umjr,
OVU9N Pt2PO)M A
APP-
0JMN1N
fltUWt~IlSA
OUTL!Ns WEC.
W13 O
OSICAM
SCUL"~ IOMWI
(WAT103 Klgc
irnc mcr
___________________
or-sr."i
____________
To10or ON 0X14 V PAXT=1
t~CLAlt3 10 OtSC 4
1, sm.
MThL
xMTML
VSICH
t3TAJL O0MIN
DESCN,
10 CON,40T Tut4. nssW4
W012IWAC
MMWIMC4
cip cosr wAreNS
CCtTA
6NOMACI
Sr
.1LLS CC UW TICS
1ILLINCA
Pti'NN INCA mu~
CON1MO14S;
1WC
MPCOS
MiLL OQUANTT
LNIGM
Ctl
10 COAPT.I5 VXA0'4*u
IC
,TO M~LOW rUwus T740.X
Sfl~OPL2A~ION
10=01"ICL COAPLCT-
omml1ous cm S
IOU crs 1'4 W1LDIMO .
'TO UA.HO OV~tZ
10OCTM
"TI)
CNTITINO
IE
OSIW
COMIOLCTONK
Al c*CTS &ztrrrL Wy
Ftus& ArC"UNI4T AND
COMJ'LOT A.L WOMK.
+
+
Tur LksT'
P420CU-S
\
t?.vJG&'g! VIP1A
01:TUC *2. 1 Is -A,.
tomc1' S~xat
&S, IT IS ASSUMED1
CfM
=UT MW~L;I=
cLX13TlNCi
IS IPMzICAV
MMM 15OITTR)
AS A- O31SrU4G
ocr.um-,iog
INrACI
MgOM~S Op IV[~ PVO3VT PIZCCL)2M
IrA*4 pcSs
29
as its implementation.
However, design is incorporated with design realization to form the
'second planning activity' with construction and occupancy as its implementation activity.
In other words, design falls within the domain of all the planning activities for the project.
His grouping of design with briefing as the first planning activity places the architect in
the position of being involved in all decisions made from project conception to construction,
and generates a totally different task function and role in the process than that commonly
assumed (see Diagram-3).
The tasks of the architect involves his participation in decision-making at four levels-1) information, 2) conclusion, 3) decision, and 4) execution.
Irwig's diagram of tasks within
In
the process illustrates how this works with his project development model (see Diagram-4).
order to understand fully the implications of his diagram, it must be compared to a diagram of
the traditionally assumed tasks for architects (Diagram-5).
From this comparison, it is
obvious that what Irwig has done is to include the architect in the policy-making stage of
briefing.
It is assumed that the architect is involved in briefing at the programming stage,
but never at the initial policy-making level.
A closer examination of his diagram reveals
that this involvement consist of the provision of information and conclusions at the policymaking stage; in essence he is engaged in a dialogue with the developer about the implications
of his goals and needs to the other project users.
From this initial dialogue, the architect
30
DI AGRAM 3
lrwig's-New Model
T
12I~t LP4
r
r
-
No0e1s (1974)
PLINE12 (MO)
LOUW (19%4)
iwwr, (1m)
INCEPTION4
BOWr ANO SG
(w.,uC*IC.
(@IIhmIA
UkI IILITY
CoC.mntium"
RSI
PWuRING
K404
OUTLINC
UGTCI
MUGAN
INIT14J
oDES'cIi
OSU
f~ta
ZDESGN
IXTLO
UM
CTMIGH
tXC
WO
i%!.
*imwteJ
%ilZA1we
W
~1
"MAY"
3" no
Nct
P~a~btO'4 100
Ot
vr~r
:1 um
OIW
P51OCi17O114
CO4M LINC
tAllm
(IT
16U.
C 4ufOK
ODRT1O1&M
I
cc
cONLriONg
ONVCC~bQULIO1
P12txxnON CCNWMT
po0l4O
k0c
A WO~
-I
i
w~NI
+4
@4N0
DWIO&TIOI4
P20CLU:
I
&W~
OccUokra
TUC POWLCT MOOCU=KRT
camcxx
iwAAm"
(Perm"
31
DIAGRAM
Irwig's
Model
of
4
Relationshi ps and
Tasks
32
D IAG RA M
Co mparis on of
Ai'$umep
e:5rEbAEF-AL-TiV~E
L)JUAL
~
~
5
Tas ks I Irwig and
Tr adi tionali
#
P3P~~- v 0t4 ,4l '*6M.
Wtf- Of
TMU itM~
PL.4%," Fu tJRA- NC4Ic.D4
OUTU
%Vu*J.d4
"bAIU
I
t~tAV.IA144
AcietzLLWs
OcJTLIMC~
Et'JI-.Vq
PO~LtcMf-vtA' *T1
r~It.6zT
4
Oh
I
P 61I
OV,4l
\AOUT LjC'
o
/7
obM4
i-7 rA4
I
c- Mefw p
0
To c
ItV4
IJTu 1 Le %-e_, p,"
o#
9
~TO Pr-.
M~~ 0 -eg'
T e VF rr641;'
TO
P6~ciX6(A ~'\..A
j
PP&4
'"~~~
Clft*'Kgwi- C4 -61fe
V
MATE-
i
SA1
c*ss eert-t
fucb41
4,f
P~tVLfL
4.
1464 V
Otwowtq~4L~
I.............
I[--
NL~~ UNsvi 0 CA
fr--eLPt'A4*:- VO&4 CT.6'
Tcm-'3xiod
*rIrWWNx~~-
AM1V
~Th'TLXTt(A
1.-
0./a14
Ce*4-
1i4At.~odJ4fl~,Ar-4
6t.J 0 " e-(
IkiIa
~~LA1M)
To Q~
-r' o"m
I
j
I
I
k~ir~w~4~
I,
MDd4r~s..s c
_
33
-
then assumes the responsibility for compiling information, drawing conclusions, and executing
those decisions in the form of a design.
In other words, this dialogue provides the framework
for programming, and subsequently design.
Similarly, it is also important to note that in the Irwig diagram, the architect acquires more
decision-making functions as the development process progresses.
Beginning with responsibility
for only information and conclusions during the initial policy-making stage of briefing, he
gains the execution function at the programming stage of briefing and ends up with responsibility
for all levels of decision-making during construction.
However, Irwig predicates this accumula-
tion of responsibility upon the initial assumption of the architect's involvement during the
policy-making stage of briefing.
Without such involvement, programming conclusions are limited
and thus design alternatives reduced.
Since his involvement in the briefing phase during the
policy-making level lays the foundation for his programmatic involvement ( to the degree that
his input at the policy-making stage helps determine the form which the project will proceed in,)
this involvement determines the amount of control that he will have over the final design
product.
If he is excluded or only minimally involved at this time, then he loses control over
design.
It is not at all surprising that Jon Lang's Model of a 'Behavior-Deterministic' Approach to
34
Architecture Designing, which he suggests as an alternative to the assumed model (Diagram-1),
coincides with the levels of decision-making required during the briefing and design phases of
the Irwig model.
An examination of Lang's models reveals that the architect's information to
the developer (his dialogue) should be based upon the identification of the people involved and
the determination of their goals and objectives, which to arrive at, involves the understanding
of the value systems of the participants.8
(See Diagram-6)
Lang's assertion that this knowledge
is vital to initial policy making is noteworthy and gets to the root of this Section-"Performance Specs"--the assessment of user needs by the architect in the generation of building
design.
l.C.
"PERFORMANCE SPEC": THE USER NEED STATEMENT
In its simplest form, a performance specification is a guideline for the process of building
a project.
This technique is often employed on a competitive-bid type of project where all.
the requirements, objectives, and constraints for the design and construction of subsystems or
components are outlined for desirous project participants.9
For our purposes, a performance
specification involves the identification of the needs and goals of the building's users and
the subsequent compilation of this information into a form which allows the architect to generate
35
DIAGRAM
L ang's
Model
-present
Problem
idniiain
recognition
of the
groups
involved
of
Analysis of
"states
of nature"
Dtriain
C of "needs,"
"desires" and
value systems
6
Behavior- Determ inisti c
--
-
-
Predictions
Inputs from
regarding
future "states
of nature"
environmental
psychology and
the natural sciences
DtrianDetermination
of "activity
patterns" and
psychological
requirements
to achieve
these objectives
of design
"goals" and
"objectives"
Design
Not an
architectural
problem
Layout requirements for
Does
1. Maintaining physiological
states
2. Providing for "activity
patterns"
3. Fulfilling psychological
needs
present
layout
fulfill
these
requirements?
No
Develop
architectural
program
to
transform
layout
Political Process(formal and/or informal)
L-------------+--------
--Behavioral
Contestual variables
a (e.g., building codes)
variables
PREDOMINANTLY ANALYSIS
PREDOMINANTLY SYNTHESIS
PREDOMINANTLY EVALUATION
AND CHOICE
A model of the Intelligence phase. The directional arrows indicate only the main order of activities and flows of information. Feedbacks and secondary flows of information are not indicated.
36
building elements based upon the knowledge of which design requirements are more important
when contradictions must be resolved.10
Certainly, the creation of designs which support the
desired activity patterns and psychological requirements are highly unlikely without this
knowledge.
Therefore, the following sections of this paper try to generate such a document for
low- and moderate-income subsidized family housing.
37
1.D.
REFERENCES
Irwig,
H. G.
"The Building Design Process: An Investigation Into Productivity."
Thesis
submitted to the Faculty of Architecture, University of Witwatersand for Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, Johannesburg, 1977, p. 23.
2
Ibid., p. 30.
3
Lang, "Architecture for Human Behavior: The Nature of the Problem," p. 8.
4
Ibid.,
5
Irwig, p. 34.
6
Ibid.,
7
Ibid., p. 32.
8
Lang, p. 10, (Figure 4).
p. 10.
p.
30.
9
Irwig, p. 110.
Lang,
p.
12.
38
CHAPTER 2:
TOWARD A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION
This chapter focuses on the user needs of the two most important characters in the generation of
the design program--tenants and developers.
The aim is to identify those user needs relevant to
each group and to identify constraints and conflicts resulting from the duality of users.
Section 2A--addresses goals and preferences desired by the tenants; Section 2B--those desired
by developers.
Section 2C categorizes tenant and developer needs in terms of similarities, con-
flicts, and uniquenesses.
Section 2D presents a prototypical user need program for subsidized
family housing in response to information derived from Sections 2A, 2B, and 2C.
Areas of user needs examined in this analysis are:
1)
Security - How is the problem to be handled?
security do tenants want?
2)
What amount/s and kind/s of
What do developers want?
Lighting (Exterior and Interior) - What concerns the tenant most?
developer?
The
What impact does selection of lighting fixtures have on final
product?
3)
Unit Layout - Are there preferred unit layouts desired by tenants?
By developers?
What types of spaces do tenants desire and where in the unit should they be
located.
What spaces for developers?
39
4)
Circulation Space - How important is treatment of circulation spaces to
To developer's?
tenant satisfaction with building?
treatments?
Are there preferred
Are there preferred treatments which satisfy both sets of user
needs?
5)
Landscaping - What special landscaping treatments are most satisfactory for
low and moderate income families?
able to developers?
certain treatments,
6)
To what degree are these treatments accept-
Are there preferential cost/benefit efficiencies for
if
so which ones?
Interior Finishes - Are there preferential cost/benefit efficiencies to the
use of certain finishes, hardware, and treatments?
7)
Private Open Space -
What are the options?
Are some more preferable?
is the satisfaction continuum for each alternative?
What
The cost efficiencies for
each?
8)
Building Entries - How important are building entries to tenants?
What are the preferred treatments?
To developers?
Is there a/some treatment/s which satisfy
both sets of user need requirements?
9)
Communal Space and Facilities (Recreation and Community Rooms, etc.) - What spaces
are desired?
How do these spaces affect building image and occupancy?
How should
they be treated?
40
10)
Amenities - What are the preferred amenities for tenants?
For developers?
What are the cost efficiencies of each?
2.A.
11)
Unit Mix - Tenant preferences?
12)
Neighborhood Conditions - What do tenants want?
Developer?
Developers?
TENANT USER NEEDS
Tenant user needs and goals in subsidized family housing have been the subject of much research
and documentation.
Most of this research has focused on resident dissatisfaction.
Some
research has examined projects where tenants are contented and documented the factors which contributed to that satisfaction.
In addition, a significant volume of literature has been written
regarding health needs and the problems of overcrowding.
From all of these sources, we are
able to deduce what tenants want and need or, do not want and need in their residential environments.
From all sources, it appears that the most important tenant needs involve a) security, b) unit
flexibility, c) adequate communal and recreation facilities, and d) interiors which can withstand family life rigors.
Of slightly less importance are the neighborhood conditions, landscap-
ing and open space provisions, and the absence of 'institutionality' in the environment.
41
(Overcrowding and provision of adequate space to conduct family activities is also a well
documented need.)
Yet for some reason, these needs often are not adequately provided for in
the development of most projects.
In attempting to identify exactly what tenants want in subsidized family housing, public housing
may be used as a yardstick.
Public housing is assumed to be the housing which least satisfies
tenant needs due to the tenants' financial inability to barter for desired qualities.
If this
assumption is true, then public housing tenants' dissatisfaction with certain designs and
building elements should be representative of other tenants' dissatisfaction, since both subsidized and market tenants possess greater financial resources.
This analysis of tenant user
needs therefore focuses on four informational sources which reflect this circumstance, and from
which the bulk of the assertions made within this section originated.
1)
Clare Cooper, Noel Day and Beatrice Levine's study of Resident Dissatisfaction in MultiFamily Housing which examines three public housing projects, one middle income cooperative
housing project, and one middle income project in the San Francisco area;
2)
Clare Cooper and Phyliss Hackett's Analysis of the Design Process at Two Moderate-Income
Housing Projects which details how these projects evolved and how that evolution either
42
produced satisfaction or dissatisfaction among the residents in these two San
Francisco area projects;
3)
D. Pierce's study of User Needs in Housing: Low-Income Resident Talk About Their Homes,
an evaluation of how residents of three Massachusetts subsidized low-income developments
feel about their home;
4)
The "Method Group" study done by students in the Graduate School of Design at Harvard
University (1971) which focuses on (1) Housing Generated by User Needs and (2) Development
of User Needs from General Statements to Specific Guidelines for the Physical Setting; a
look at a subsidized family project in the Allston area of Boston.
2.A.l.
Security
The value of security to the users of low- and moderate-income housing has been well documented
by a great many social and environmental psychologists.
If not the most important feature
desired, it is certainly among the top three qualities rated important in the residential environment.
In Pierce's evaluation of the user needs of the residents at the three federally subsidized
Massachusetts developments,she found that security ranked as the most important quality desired.1
In their study, "Resident Dissatisfaction in Multi-Family Housing", the authors, Clair Cooper
et al., point out that 'crime' was a major problem in the two public housing projects and, that
43
some of the crime was caused by poor design and the utilization of improper design elements. 2
Similarly, the Method Group's study applied a set of hypothetical security needs to a housing
development and found that while these need assumptions were correct, the residents felt that
the design elements only partially satisfied those assumptions.3
Thus, the question is what
are the specific security goals and/or physical elements--site, building, and unit--that lowand moderate-income residents want in their housing environments?
Project-Site Security:
The Method Group in hypothesizing what users want in a housing development's site security
state:
All the common facilities such as parking, informal gathering areas,
play areas, etc. should be properly [my emphasis] lighted during the
dark hours to enhance security and safety. 4
Similarly, having parking spaces off-street, near to the apartment, and on-site with some type
of controlled access appears to be a very desired goal.5
within the site is a very desired goal.
In fact, control of access to and
Cooper et al., in "Resident Dissatisfaction in Multi-
Family Housing", found that lack of design elements that provide for control of entry contributed
to the residents' dissatisfaction, although no specific element--guards, gatehouses, fencing-was explicitly desired.
Likewise, it was also important to 'feel' that the site design
"discouraged strangers from wandering through" and established some sort of territoriality
44
and sense of community for the site's open spaces. 6
Building Security:
The control points of access into the building are even more important to residents than site
security.
The placement of mailboxes and intercom system, in a safe location inside the
building, and the provision of a semi-private space which allows visitors to notify residents of
their presence, brings them in from the weather, but does not allow them access to the building
is the goal of residents for building security.
The Method Group identifies building security
needs as follows:
Provide a controlled entrance to the building for people as well as service
to enhance security. . . . Visual supervision is desired so that a resident
can see who is in the vestibule, elevator lobby, and the stairhalls. In
general all these areas should be well lit. 7
Similarly, Cooper et al. provide that laundries, daycare centers, function rooms, and all
communal spaces should be well lighted, have controlled access, and provide for "casual surveillance from passers by".
8
Unit Security:
An apartment must be a secure home, "especially for populations that have not formed a sense of
"9
community" , before people feel confident about venturing into public spaces and take pride in
the neighborhood.
The apartment entry door then should be tamper-proof and discourage forced
45
entry as much as possible.
Thus, it is imperative that the points of access to each dwelling
unit be provided with a "strong and reliable security device." 1 0
As a minimum, it appears that the provision of a jimmy-proof lock is a must.
Yet even when this
type of lock is provided, it is still not enough of a security measure in the minds of the
tenants, as is evidenced by the installation of other locks, usually a dead-bolt or New York
Police style, by the tenants themselves.
Further, it also seems to be important for the door and
its construction--material, frame, bolts, hinges, etc.--to be solid and durable enough to discourage forced entry which bypasses the lock(s).
Likewise, chain locks and/or peep holes are
required so as to determine who is outside of the apartment door without having to open it.
Where apartments are at street level, there is the problem of entry through windows and sliding
glass doors.
In these circumstances, Pierce found that residents want an "inconspicuous
fortress."Il
Certain types of window security screens have been found to be very popular with
residents, to satisfy the egress problem, and to be a very attractive window treatment.12
Sliding glass doors, when utilized at street-level apartments which do not have private, enclosed
open space areas, are generally frowned upon by residents. 1 3
46
2.A.2.
Lighting
The importance of lighting to the subsidized housing resident appears to be less than certain
other areas being considered in this evaluation.
Lighting is generally related to the issues of
security, aesthetics, and maintenance, for most residents.
Although the selection of lighting
fixtures and their placement is usually made by the Architect, pinpointing specific types of
fixtures desired by residents is almost impossible.
Nevertheless, some general goals can be
identified.
Security-Related Lighting Goals:
As previously mentioned in the section on security, it is important that all public and semipublic areas be well-lit.
Those lighting fixtures in these areas should be durable, easily
replaced and maintained, vandal-proof, high enough to not be readily accessible, have high
wattage bulbs, and provide an un-interruptable source of light.14
The number of fixtures and
their location should be such that all areas that they service are uniformly lit and that
visual supervision into and within the spaces is maintained.
Aesthetic-Related Lighting Goals:
Not withstanding the security purposes of lighting fixtures, tenants want those fixtures to be
as attractive as possible.
In Fact, Cooper et al. point out that low-income tenants want their
47
development to look as "non-institutional" as possible, and that to these residents the treatment
of the public and semi-public spaces provides the perception of what their living environment is
like, not only for the residents but also for outsiders.15
Certainly, the amount of light, the
type of fixtures provided, and the placement of those fixtures contributes to the atmosphere of
those spaces and the images that are developed concerning them.
Maintenance-Related Lighting Goals:
Lighting goals within the apartment unit basically are maintenance-oriented.
of the fixtures and the ease of bulb replacement are residents' main concerns.
The accessibility
The provision
of flourescent light fixtures in the bathroom and kitchen areas seems to be well received by the
residents.
Similarly, where attractive lighting is provided in the dining areas (in units with
separate dining areas), resident satisfaction with the unit tends to increase, although the
provision of such is not a quality strongly desired. 1 6
2.A.3.
Unit Layouts
The main concern of most tenants is the provision of sufficient space and the flexibility of
that space.
Most frequent complaints are that "all rooms are too small", "more storage space
is needed", and "not enough privacy within the unit." 1 7
Residents, in fact, have some very
48
definite goals and needs which they feel are not being met.
Requirements for Children:
(1) Residents want larger bedrooms and living areas.
Most secondary bedrooms do not have enough room for studying or playing and
consequently, forces these activities to be conducted elsewhere. Likewise,
the living room, although large enough for these activities, when used for
such purposes, prevents the adults in the family from being able to entertain
guests.18
(,2) Additional storage space is needed for children's games, toys, etc.
Requirements for Community Living of the Family:
(1) Residents want kitchens large enough to eat in.
The optimal design would have 3 separate rooms--living, dining, kitchen.
Where separate rooms are not provided (as is usually the situation in
subsidized housing), residents want the living room separated from dining
areas.19
(2) If separate dining room is provided it must function as a convertible room, since the
main problem for families with children is "the inability to have two different activities occurring simultaneously without having one interfere with the other."20
(3) With increasing family size, there is a preference for 'duplex' or 'townhouse'
apartment arrangements which is perceived by residents to be more conducive to the
performance of more than one activity simultaneously and to generate more privacy.
49
(4) Special places for privacy.
Contrary to the popular architectural idea of open planning, tenants prefer well
defined areas. This is especially true in the larger units where, as family size
2
increases, the need for privacy over quiet increases. 1
Requirements for the Accommodation of Visitors:
(1) Users want a foyer or entry area.
Pierce relates this need when he states:
The main entry into an apartment says a great deal about the residents which they
often would rather not say. As the first point of contact with an apartment, the
viewer bases an impression of the family on what is seen from the door. Many lowincome families are ashamed . . . or embarrassed when their apartment looks untidy
to a surprise visitor.
.
.
.
Thus the living room becomes a showplace and no longer
22
a useable room--quite a sacrifice to make in apartments of this size.
(2) Residents want to be able to isolate the function of entertaining guests from disrupting
other family activities in progress.
2.A.4.
Circulation Spaces
The treatment of circulation spaces is very important to residents in two respects--security
within the building and "image" of the housing environment.
The lobby, corridors, stairhalls,
and/or elevator represent the building's last line of 'defense' before the unit itself.
As
50
semi-private spaces (semi-private being defined here as one primarily accessible to only residents
of the units and guests moving to units), if shared by a large number of residents, the tendency
is to feel less relaxed when in the space.
In fact, it is the lack of control of access to these
spaces that causes residents to view these areas as unsafe, threatening and a catalyst for crime
within the building.23
Cooper et al. point out that at Yerba Buena Plaza, "locations where
residents felt most unsafe were in the elevator, stairwells, and hallways"24 because of a lack of
controlled access.
Therefore, circulation spaces should have controlled access for residents
and their guests to feel comfortable in moving through them.
Further, there seems to be a rough correlation between the number of families sharing common
interior circulation space and the perception of 'institutionality' towards the residential
environment.25
The greater the institutionality or deviation of the physical form of housing
from the American ideal of the free standing single family home with its own individual
entrances, the greater the dissatisfaction with the housing and the poorer the image of the
residential environment.
If the overall form of the residential environment is reminiscent of
other institutional buildings, either in terms of mass, materials, height, etc. or as a result of
the absence of qualities usually associated with the common ideal of housing--private entrances,
private open space, controlled access and circulation, etc., people (residents and the general
public) will view the environment as institutional.
In fact, resident satisfaction seemed to be
51
highest and social interaction greater when a small number of families are clustered around a
26
common stairhall as illustrated in Cooper's St. Francis Square study.
We can thus begin to summarize resident goals for circulation spaces as follows:
(1) Security--circulation spaces should have controlled access, be well lit, provide
for visual surveillance within and for entrance into, and an overall feeling
of securedness;
(2) Image--circulation spaces should be efficient, shared by a minimum number of units,
aesthetically pleasant--softly lit, visually attractive, reminiscent of the private
entry and circulation space in a single family home.
2.A.5.
Landscaping
Perhaps the second most valued quality tenants want in their housing environments is abundant
landscaping.
In Pierce's study, 65.9% of all the responding resident's at all three projects
felt it was "very important" and 94% felt that it was important in some way to have trees and
grass near one's home.27
Similarly, Cooper's study of St. Francis Square showed that 70% of
28
those who rated features of the Square felt that landscaping was "very important."
Further,
more than 60% when asked how they would have chosen--at the design and planning stage--if they
52
had the choice between trees and larger unit rooms, said they preferred trees to an "improvement"
in the apartment.29
Likewise, Cooper et al.'s study of residential dissatisfaction illustrates
the "institutional feeling" and consequential dissatisfaction that is generated when ground level
spaces between buildings is treated in the typical 'housing project' manner with minimal tree
growth and open spaces, and huge expanses of asphalt.
Thus, having treed areas, not only for
aesthetic reasons but also because of their recreational value (discussed further in this
section) is a very important tenant need.
Tenant goals for landscaping can therefore be summarized as follows:
1.
To provide attractive, scenic, open spaces with trees and a variety of natural elements;
2.
To provide for outdoor informal gathering places with trees, flowers, benches, etc.
3.
To integrate planters, fencing, trash cans, site lighting, and other attractive site
improvements which enhance the site's natural state and generate a sense of pride in the
way it looks;
4.
To provide a minimum of asphalt or concrete, leaving as much of the site in its natural
state as possible;
5.
To provide effective, usable, and attractive pedestrial pathways to and from the
building so that the image and feeling of being in these spaces is "scenic";
53
6.
To provide a variety of open spaces, some of which are play areas, others for informal
gathering, all of which are well landscaped and attractive.
2.A.6.
Interior Finishes
The interior finish of the apartments represents the most identifiable area of resident needs
and goals.
Areas of specific interest are floors, walls, and ceilings.
The treatment of these
areas, the resulting amount of flexibility allowed the resident user for expression of individuality, and the ease of maintenance most concern the resident.
Pierce states in his study
that since most of the changes that residents usually desire to make in their homes "concern
cosmetic effects such as painting,.paneling, wall-to-wall carpeting, and full length curtains,
the use of appropriate finish materials and hardware can facilitate" such gestures.
He also
shows that nearly half of all of the residents in all three of the developments studied value
as a desired quality, being able to decorate or paint the apartment and, over two-thirds value
'having a home that is easy to take care of' as a desired quality.31
Similarly Cooper et al.
state the provision of design features which allow residents to express their individuality
lessens the feeling of 'institutionality'.3 2
54
Floors:
1.
According to Pierce's study, carpeting is the preferred floor covering in living rooms
and bedrooms and on unit stairways and entries.33
This carpeting should be wall-to-wall
and can be either shag or the indoor-outdoor variety.
2.
Hardwood floors are preferred "where food and wet stains might occur",34 although V.A.T.,
desired by only 5% or less of Pierce's study group, is an acceptable substitute in the
food preparation, dining, and wet areas since ease of maintenance seems to be the overriding
concern in
those areas.
Walls:
1.
The biggest problem with wall treatment is maintenance.
Where paint is used, it is often
(A) drab; and (B) difficult to keep clean because washing it removes its finish.
As a
result, some residents apply wallpaper and other easily cleaned surfaces.
2.
In kitchens, the problem is especially compounded because of the absence of a maintainable
backsplash surface around the sink and range.
Residents often apply wallpaper, tile, or
paint to these areas to remedy the problem.
Ceilings:
1.
The major concern with ceilings is the quality of construction.
Leaks and noise control
are the most frequent problems.
55
2.A.7.
Private Open Space
. . . The need for man to extend territorial rights from his home onto a
piece of ground or section of outdoors, seems to be a strong and immutable
need. 3 5
The need for private open-space by low-income residents is a well documented one.
Cooper et al.
point to the value of fenced backyards and their use at the Easter Hill Project; the provision
of patios and balconies as being "very important" to resident satisfaction at St. Francis Square;
and the successful push to have small fenced backyards at half the ground floor units at the
Hunter's View project as examples of this need.
The absence of private open space likewise leads
to the development of an "institutional" image for the project.
However, the provision of balconies receives a mixed reception by resident users.
The reception
at St. Francis Square was very good and over 2/3 of the residents found them 'very important' in
contributing to their satisfaction with living there.36
Conversely, at Geneva Towers (a high-
rise structure) and in the Pierce study, balconies were not as well received because of concern
with children falling from balconies.
The separation of the balcony from the ground and other
open space also contributed to supervisory problems regarding kids playing below.
Thus while
some form of private open space is desired, balconies were not the desired solution in highrise and some mid-rise buildings.
56
2.A.8.
Building Entries
Building entries are very important to users as part of the overall building's image.
As a
result, many of the goals that resident users desire in regards to lighting and security also
apply to building entries.
It is the exterior appearance of the building which provides resident
and visitor alike with their first impression of the housing environment and, is the one feature
37
which is most difficult for the resident to change.
The ease of access into the building by
outsiders forms the basis for perception of security by residents.
Thus resident user needs and goals for building entries can be defined as follows:
1)
To provide an attractive space through which to enter the building;
2)
To have this space or rather this system of spaces gradually lead the entrant from the
domain of the public street, through a semi-public receiving area (vestibule, etc.)
to the semi-private interior circulation spaces since the movement from public space
directly to interior circulation space is considered "abrupt" and contributes to a
feeling of less security;
3)
To provide mailboxes on the inside of the locked entry door in the semi-private space;
4)
To have the outside of the entry, the receiving area, and the interior circulation.
spaces leading from the receiving area well lit to allow for visual surveillance (provide
transoms and sidelights) and, attractive;
57
5)
To provide adequate, durable entry door hardware and study tamper-proof doors;
6)
To provide easily readable building identification which is well lighted and visible
from the street and, within the receiving area, directories or other unit identification;
7)
To provide the look and feel of a private entry (single-family entry) as much as possible
utilizing exterior lighting, structured walkways leading from the street to the receiving
area, planting, and an attractive building facade for the entry elevation.
2.A.9.
Communal Space and Facilities
An important question which always concerns architects and developers alike is what amount and/or
types of shared facilities do resident users desire?
The most frequently assumed types are play-
grounds or play spaces, laundries, community/function room, and daycare centers.
Are these in
fact the facilities that low-income family users want?
1.
Common Kid's Play Area:
In the Pierce study, when residents were asked to identify the communal facilities most
desired for their developments, nearly 45% chose as their first choice more kid's play
areas.
The number choosing this facility was 3 times the number who chose the second
most desired facility--community rooms.38
Similarly, Cooper et al. in their study of
58
Geneva Towers state that lack of adequate play spaces for kids and a general
disregard as to how children would live in such an environment was a major cause
of resident dissatisfaction with the project.39
However, at St. Francis Square,
in contrast, the play spaces were pleasant, frequently used, and a source of
communality for the development.
Thus it is deducible that the number one resident
goal for communal space and facilities is the provision of adequate, defineable,
kid's play areas.
2.
Common Play and Social Areas for Kids of All Ages
While the provision of adequate kid's play areas may be the number one resident goal,
provision of recreational space for all ages is vital if kid's play areas are to be
effectively and safely used.
Cooper et al. study of Hunters View, Easter Hill and
Yerba Buena indicate that the non-provision of teenage play areas forces this age
group to seek other less desirable play locations and often results in their taking
over of the play spaces provided for younger children.40
Both Pierce and Cooper et
al. state that "most people want a number of different types of facilities, located
#141
This
in different areas of a site and meant for use by different age-groups.
diversity of facilities should include conventional types of play equipment--swings,
slides, sand boxes, basketball courts, hockey nets, seesaws, and, very importantly,
59
benches, to encourage informal gathering and allow for supervision and observation
of play activities.
3.
Community/Function/Recreation Room
An indoor space for gathering, play, etc. for residents is another communal space
goal.
Although this facility ranked second in the Pierce study (after Kid's play
areas), there was not a very strong priority attached to it.
In fact, as Cooper
et al. point out, management policies contribute greatly to the use or non-use,
availability and general attitude toward this space.42
In general, however, where
such a space is provided, residents want toilet and kitchen facilities integrated
into its layout, since it is basically used for entertaining a larger group than
could comfortably be accommodated within one's own apartment.
4.
Communal Laundries/Laundry Room
Laundry rooms are another low priority communal facility.
Pierce's study shows
that residents would prefer their own individual hook-ups within the apartment to
laundry rooms.
Similarly, Cooper et al. discovered that laundry rooms do not
function as meeting places or encourage casual associations but on the contrary
can be both a supervisory and security problem.
However, when weighed against having
60
to leave the development to get the laundry done, residents prefer some sort of onsite laundry facilities.
Also, Pierce found that common laundry facilities were
more acceptable to the elderly and small families while larger families preferred
to own washers and dryers. 4 3
5.
Other Communal Facilities
The other communal facilities thought to be desired by subsidized housing residents are
nurseries, hobby/workshop spaces, and bulk storage.
While there is no indication that
the provision of a nursery is a high-priority goal, the value of an on-site nursery
tends to correlate with the availability of those services within the surrounding community and the economic status of the tenant, i.e., number of working female heads of
household within the development.
The provision of workshop/hobby space and bulk storage
space are, however, very important resident goals.
Both these spaces are acutely needed
as the result of limited space within the apartments themselves.
Workshop/hobby space
ranked third in Pierce's study to kid's play areas and community rooms as the communal
space most deisred.
Lack of bulk storage space for accumulated but not used items is
a well documented cause of resident dissatisfaction.
61
2.A.10. Amenities
The image or appeal of a development to a prospective resident is based upon the 'inclusion of
items commonly associated with the American ideal of the single-family home and/or those items
associated with 'good-living'.
The items include all of the previously discussed areas of
concern and also such items as air conditioning, dishwashers, disposals, range hoods, swimming
pools, tennis courts, and elevators.
The provision of air conditioners, swimming pools, and
tennis courts, while enhancing the appeal of the development for residents are not high priority
goals because of the acknowledged economies of the project and the tenant's concern with other,
more mundane goals.
Where provided, these items are seen as 'bonuses'.
On the other hand,
dishwashers, disposals and range hoods are higher priority items since each item aids in the
day-to-day process of family living.
Elevators are a unique item in that if the building is
over three stories, residents view them as a necessity.
are not critical.
However, in walk-up buildings, they
Perhaps the most desired amenity is the availability of on-site management
agent to handle resident problems and complaints.
Most studies have shown that management
response to residents' problems either enhances their satisfaction or contributes directly to
their dissatisfaction with their housing.
62
2.A.ll.
Unit Mix
In most subsidized family housing, there is a lack of homogeneity among residents.
of homogeneity results in a lack of community.
This lack
Cooper et al., with reference to Easter Hill,
state the problem as follows:
. . . many tenants have varied perceptions of their own and their neighbor's
social class, have strong misgivings over how others raise their children and
keep up their yards, and in fact, have little in common with each other except
44
a current inability to find housing in the private sector.
Lack of homogeneity, then, can be said to be the result of poor unit mix, among other things.
Pierce's study shows that when residents considered most of their friends to live in the same
development, it was because of similarity of apartment size.
In other words, "people are more
likely to have common interest with others whose circumstances are similar to their own,"45
or two-bedroom families will find most of their friends in other two-bedroom families.
homogeneity is
Thus
a very crucial resident goal, and the unit mix of the development should allow
for apartments to be clustered homogeneously by size.
63
2.A.12. Neighborhood Conditions
The importance of the surrounding community to residents of a subsidized housing development is
sometimes overlooked when identifying resident goals.
Developers are acutely aware of the
effect that proximity to shopping facilities, schools, places of employment have on marketing
appeal, even when the development is a subsidized one.
Prospective residents, even for subsidized
housing, want the necessary neighborhood support facilities close at hand.
Cooper relates that
much of the satisfaction with St. Francis Square is the result of its location,46 and that dissatisfaction with the other projects that she and her associates investigated stemmed in part
from their isolation or poor location with regard to neighborhood facilities.
Pierce's study
revealed that almost half of all the residents surveyed at the three projects rated as 'very
important' in choosing an apartment--being near the job, being near stores, being near schools,
near restaurants and cinemas, and that nearly two-thirds of all residents rated as important,
living in a quiet and attractive neighborhood.
Thus, it would seem that those standards
regarding neighborhood conditions applicable to market housing (shopping facilities within walking distance, schools 2 to 5 miles away, job--less than 45 minutes commuting time,.etc.)
should also be applicable to subsidized housing.
64
2.B.
DEVELOPER NEEDS
While much research has provided a wealth of information concerning low- and moderate-income
family housing needs and goals, not much information is available regarding the user needs of
developers of subsidized family housing.
The very nature of the project development process
has divorced developers from involvement in the generation of specific design elements and building manifestations.
Usually, the developer gives to the architect a list of general objectives
for the proposed residential development and leaves it to the architect to physically translate
these objectives into design goals and specific building elements.
This set of general objec-
tives, in subsidized housing, is supplemented by the programatic requirements imposed by the
subsidy program and subsidizing entity which must be incorporated as part of the user needs of
the developer.
The single most important regulation that the subsidy program introduces is
the maximum allowable rents under the program, from which gross annual income can be projected
for the project by the developer.
Working backwards from this projected income, developers
then can determine the maximum possible mortgage the project can sustain, the dollars available
for construction, and thus the ability of the project to incorporate certain design goals and
building elements.
65
To ascertain specific developer user needs and goals requires that not only the subsidizing
entity's (whether F.H.A. or state housing finance agency) requirements upon the developer be
reviewed, but also those that he himself imposes upon the proposed development in order to
achieve his development goal.
Such requirements generally are rooted in the 'image' that he
wants the development to have.
Often this 'image' is conveyed in phrases such as "suburban
setting within the city", "low-keyed", etc., very ambiguous terms which the architect must
translate into concrete design goals.
However other programatic needs are usually provided
which help the architects to understand these desired goals.
Yet ultimately, the developers
approach--whether he is doing the project for the development fees, whether he plans to do
other subsidized housing with the same or other subsidizing agencies, whether he views the project as a long-term investment, or whether he has previous experience with this type of
housing--are crucial variables in the generation of needs and goals for the project.
Similarly many of the developer's goals stem from the concerns of the management entity and the
desire to keep operating costs within the constraints of the project operating budget.
Management goals are very important since they affect not only the marketability of the project
but also cash flow and construction cost.
It is generally assumed that the higher the quality
of construction, the lower the maintenance costs for operating the project.
Often, the
provision of certain slightly more expensive design elements initially, results in lower project
66
operating costs over the project's life-span.
Yet, many developers who do not have in-house or
affiliate management companies never consult the proposed management entity for assistance in
formulating objectives for the development, and thus effectively eliminate those concerns that
such entities may have.
Thus, any examination of developer user needs and goals must concern itself with: requirements
of both the subsidizing agency and the management entity; with the developer's approach and
general development strategy; and with costs--whether they be initial, long-term, operating,
or deferred.
No one will argue that of these, costs are the most important aspect in the
developer's formulation of needs and goals.
by the above-mentioned factors.
All costs are all interrelated, and all are affected
Initial costs are the immediate cost to develop the project
(construction costs, financing costs, fees, acquisition costs, etc.).
They definitely affect
long-term project costs (usually measured by the rate of return), operating costs (maintenance,
etc.), and deferred costs (costs related to useful life of building elements, syndication
proceeds, and the hidden cost to the company for having done the project).
costs all impact the initial cost.
In turn, these other
Obviously, a reduction in any or all of these costs will
increase the financial profitability of the project, and to the extent that developer goals
can result in this end, developers strive for such a result.
67
Finally, in light of all of these concerns, our investigation of developers' user needs in
subsidized family housing must utilize a developer who modus operation incorporates these
features.
Housing Innovations, Inc., a Boston-based development company, with its management
affiliate, Tenant Services, Inc., provides us with such a developer.
As developers and managers
of over 1100 units of subsidized housing, of which at -least half are family units, this development company's operation certainly incorporates all of the necessary concerns that have been
presented above.
Although the
(See Appendix A for detailed information concerning HII.)
developer goals presented in this section represent the specific goals of HII,
the majority of
these can be considered common to most subsidized family housing developers.
2.B.1.
Security
The goals that tenants have with regard to security have previously been presented and certainly
developers are cognizant of and sympathetic to these goals.
It can be assumed therefore that
developers seek to incorporate as many of those goals as cost limitations allow.
Yet while
developers share these goals, the specific design elements desired by developers in attaining
these goals are sometimes very different from those tenants would prefer.
Indeed it is this
difference in desired design elements which often results in tenant dissatisfaction with the
securedness of their living environments.
68
Developer Goals for Project/Site Security:
Certainly adequate high-quality lighting is a must; mercury vapor fixtures are popular for
stanchion types (although very expensive, only a few are required), and floodlights are preferred where lights are attached to the building.
For control of access to the site, fencing
is usually the least expensive and most effective means.
Protection for cars through the pro-
vision of on-site parking is a requirement of the subsidizing agency.
Developer Goals for Building Security:
The critical element of building security is control of access.
Since most building entries
involve aluminum storefronts and/or solid core wood doors with side light panels, visual
supervision is generally good.
(See Section 2.B.8.--Building Entries.)
The building entry
system usually preferred is either a double entry pattern involving an open door, interior
vestibule, and a locked door or, a single entry with a covered stoop/exterior vestibule.
Critical elements are the intercom, building identification, and door release mechanism.48
1.
Intercom
system--the system should consist of a panel with call buttons, speaker
microphone and appropriate index panel housed in a sturdy, tamper-proof metal (usually
stainless steel) frame, to be located either in the vestibule (in double entry systems)
or under the stoop before the door at single entry systems.
A directory is also desired. 49
69
2.
Building identification system--address identification should be readily visible,
well illuminated, and straightforward (fancy lettering and numbers tend to obfuscate
discernment by passers-by and visitors).
3.
Door release mechanisms--door closures must be sturdy, "comparable to those hinges,
door closure, etc. which are used in commercial establishments.
Buzzer-operated
bolts are preferable to buzzer-operated latches in the door frame which are subject
to jimmying."50
Visual control of access to all communal areas of the building and circulation spaces must be
provided.
Laundries, community rooms, and elevator lobby must have glass or storefront walls
to allow for visual supervision and, seldom used areas must be locked.
Corridors and elevator
lobby must have no blind spaces where persons can hide.
Developer Goals for Unit Security:
The requirements that developers have concerning unit security of course revolve around the
apartment entry doors.
These requirements can be summarized as follows:
Apartment entry doors should be hollow metal with hollow metal frames.
Frames to be securely reinforced with studs to prevent being sprung.
Two locks--l" deadbolt and jimmy-proof. 16" stud space (between last
stud and door frame) should be filled with 3/4" plywood to prevent entry
by breaking hole in wall and reaching through to open door . . .51
70
Likewise, apartment entry door hardware should also include removable cores, lock out (plug),
feature peephole and 3" high metal door numbers.52
provided at ground floor apartment windows.
2.B.2.
Security screens (Kane type) must be
No sliding glass windows at 1st floor levels.
Lighting
Lighting, as an area of concern for developers, is critical in the generation of the desired
'project image'.
The "feel" of the building is a result of lighting.
However, as with any
building element, lighting fixture selections and placement, are made within the parameters of
project cost-efficiencies.
Thus, it can be assumed that developers' goals regarding lighting
can be categorized in two general groups--"image"-related lighting goals (includes security,
aesthetics, and 'feel') and cost-efficiency related lighting goals.
Image-Related Lighting Goals:
Lighting is very much a part of a project's security.
Fixtures which are located in entries,
elevators, lobby, corridors, building exteriors, walkways, vestibules, and parking lots must be
53
bright enough to provide the visual supervision necessary yet not provide a flood light feel.
Similarly, they must be so located so as to not be readily accessible to the general populace.
Site lighting as much as possible should have bulbs of long life (mercury vapor, etc.) and be
71
mounted to aid building identification.
Lighting stanchions should be attractive and of such
height, either taller or shorter depending upon type, that foliage does not interrupt light and
create dark spots.
Circulation space lighting, because it must operate continuously, is
usually flourescent since it has a longer life than incandescent lighting.
Flourescent lighting
also to discourage tenants from utilizing corridor lighting within their apartments as is the
case with incandescent bulbs.54
Building entry and vestibule lighting, as part of the
building's exterior appearance must be subtle and attractive in addition to being durable and
providing for visual supervision.55
Unit lighting receives the smallest amount of attention;
bathroom and kitchen fixtures are usually flourescent because of frequency of use, and where
living room and dining area are combined, attractive chandelier-type lighting often is provided
in the dining area.
Cost-Efficiency Related Lighting Goals:
The concern with costs, which is so prominent in developers' thoughts concerning all areas, is
especially evident where lighting is concerned.
In general, developers want a minimum number of
fixtures, which are as attractive as possible, have inexpensive long-lived bulbs, are durable
and vandal-proof, and yet provide adequate light of a quality which is aesthetically pleasing.
Likewise, because of the concern for saving energy lighting fixtures must also involve energysaving measures--timers, flourescent lights wherever possible, and electricity cost being borne
by the tenants.
72
2.B.3.
Unit Layouts
The main concern that developers of subsidized family housing have with unit layouts is size.
Theoretically, the smallet the units, the more units the development can incorporate.
Realistically, only building structure and government regulations (HUD Minimum Property Standards-M.P.S.) prevent this occurrence.
Although the HUD M.P.S. is only a minimum, developers generally
only provide this minimum amount of space in units.
Often they seek waivers so as to not even
comply with this requirement, although where existing structures are being re-used, structural
elements often create a circumstance where some waivers are negessary.
Similarly, developers prefer less defined spaces to well-articulated ones.
partitions, the greater the cost of construction.
The more interior
Thus developers tend to prefer unit layouts
which combine activities--living and dining areas, kitchens with dining areas, and when possible
living and dining areas with no separation from kitchens, combined closets, living rooms which
receive guests directly (no foyer).
Since there is no requirement that kitchens and bathrooms
receive natural light, developers like layouts which locate these rooms on interior walls and
which 'stack' them, since this results in a lower plumbing cost.
Galley kitchens are generally
preferred over other style kitchens because they require less space, and don't involve any
corner cabinets which are more costly than other cabinet units.
Compartmentalized baths are
73
frowned upon since they involve more interior partitioning and plumbing runs.
2.B.4.
Circulation Spaces
The circulation spaces--lobby, corridors, stairhalls, the elevator are important to developers
of subsidized family housing for the same reasons that they are for tenants--security and
'image' of the development.
for casual contact.
These spaces must be efficient, not encourage lingering, but allow
While tenants prefer circulation spaces which serve a limited amount of
units and thus require that more space be devoted to this purpose, developers prefer that these
spaces service as many units as possible.
Access to these spaces should be limited by security
devices and visual surveillance within them is very much desired.
comfortable and attractive.
Yet, these spaces should be
These spaces are therefore often luxuriously treated--floors
carpeted, walls either painted in an appealing fashion or vinyl wall covered (exposed brick
if structure allows), lighted with wall mounted globes or high lites in ceiling, and have
expensive wood railings along the wall.
Elevators are special; wherever possible developers try to include elevators within their
projects.
The reason for this is that elevator structures are allowed the highest rents by
the subsidizing agency (see Appendix B).
While the cost of constructing an elevator may seem a
74
very high price to pay in order to get a few more dollars of rent a month, indeed it is not,
for the mortgage resulting from the higher gross annual rents is substantially higher than it
would be without the inclusion of an elevator.
This mortgage thus generates more dollars for
construction which usually more than pays for the elevators.
Likewise, the larger the mortgage,
the greater the possible syndication proceeds, since the increased mortgage produces more
depreciation write-off.
The higher mortgage also results in more development proceeds (monies
received at closing of the project) since the Builders and Sponsor Risk Allowance (BSPRA) is
a percentage of the mortgage.
Also, in recycled structures elevators are usually necessary to
provide circulation to units as the existing circulation system generally is not effective for
residential purposes.
The inclusion of handicapped units, also justifies the provision of an
elevator.
Similarly, locating large family units at ground level and providing them with separate access
allows them to be segregated from the circulation system for the rest of the building.
Usually, this also means preventing these units from having access to the elevator.
However,
their inclusion in an elevator building, and the fact that they have separate entries enables
developers to argue for and justify higher rent allowances.
Units with more than 2 bedrooms are
not allowed in an elevator building by H.U.D. and thus only the rents for walk-up structures is
allowed. But when large family units are located on the ground level in these buildings,
75
developers argue that higher townhouse rents should be allowed.
(See Appendix C, for the
allowed fair market rents for the Boston area by different building types.)
Most structures
recycled for subsidized family housing include elevators and ground-level large family townhouses.
2.B.5.
Landscaping
Landscaping is an area that developers of subsidized family housing usually barter with in
reducing construction costs.
Indeed, as the development process progresses toward the final
proposal, negotiations between Architect, Contractor, and Developer often commence with cuts in
the langscaping budget as a way of reducing construction costs or of getting more dollars for
some other area of construction.
Much of the disdain for landscaping exemplified by subsidized
family housing developers stems from maintenance considerations--with the large number of
children on site landscaping will be subjected to much destruction unless well protected, and
thus will have to constantly be replaced.
For this reason, architects tend to physically
translate this developer disdain into vast areas of asphalt or blacktop, unless the developer
shows a strong inclination otherwise.
(The developers of St. Francis Square in the Cooper study
56
decided to skimp on the interiors and have high standards of landscaping and exterior design.)
76
Most
However, developers do realize the value of landscaping to the 'image' of the project.
developers of subsidized family housing, while attempting to minimize landscaping costs, do not
want their developments to be so void of landscaping that they assume the 'institutional'
quality commonly associated with public housing developments.
While most are not interested in
having their developments assume a 'park-like' or 'botanical garden' look, developers do want
their projects to have at least the residential quality of the surrounding neighborhood.
This would include providing pedestrian pathways, fencing, some trees and shrubs, and informal
gathering places with benches and tree protection from the sun.
Of course, when recycling struc-
tures, the ability to provide these qualities is governed by size of the site and amount of
building site coverage.
But unless the existing structure encompasses all of the site, some of
these qualities are desired in order to attain the desired 'image'.
2.B.6.
Interior Finishes
Just as interior finishes is one of the most identifiable areas of resident goals, so it is also
one of the areas where developers have very strong needs and goals.
Indeed, it has been the
interior finishes, along with amenities and communal facilities, that have received the most
attention by developers of subsidized family housing.
The reason for this attention is two-
fold:
77
(A)
Developers know that resident's 'image'
of the development begins
with the resident's own unit;
(B)
Even more importantly, apartment finishes affect maintenance
(both by the tenant and by management) and thus operating costs.
Developers realize that their tenants want units with finishes which require minimal maintenance,
which are durable enough to withstand the rigors of family living, and which are as attractive
as possible.
Since,
also,
subsidizing agencies emphasize unit appearance,
willing to spend a little more on interior finishes.
developers are
Cooper and Hacket substantiate this fact.
They state that the developer's objective for St. Francis Square were to generate "high standards
of liveability and amenity--to attract residents and to reflect on the prestige of the sponsor"
(my emphasis) and that this translated itself physically into the "addition of high quality
extras in interiors, e.g.,
fitted carpets" and the "selection of durable, hard-wearing materials,
finishes, and ground cover."
57
Similarly, the concern with maintenance, especially in terms of
apartment preparation for a new tenant once a unit has been vacated (a prominent management
concern), compells useage of hard-wearing, easily replaced or repaired, long-lived surfaces
which will not excessively tax operating budgets.
78
1.
Floors 5 8
For small family units, living rooms, foyers (if any), and bedroom, carpet (usually
some type of shag) is the preference.
In large family units, V.A.T. (vinyl asbestos
tile) or wood parquet floors are better.
In all family units, VAT is the floor
material for kitchens, and ceramic tile for the bathrooms.
2.
Walls 5 9
In livingroom, bedroom, foyer, study, and all non-wet rooms, drywall with paint
(semi-gloss is preferable although latex is frequently used).
In kitchens, walls should
be drywall with a more resistive paint (glazed or epoxy--epoxy longer wearing but also
more expensive) and have back-splashes (ceramic tile or formica).- Bathrooms should
have painted drywall (high gloss paint) on all walls, except in tub enclosure area
which should be ceramic tile to the ceiling.
3.
Special Items 6 0
Wherever possible closet doors should be either wood swinging or metal bi-folds.
metal bifold, should have both top and bottom rails.)
(If
Bathroom assessories should be
metal.
79
2.B.7.
Private Open Spaces
In subsidized family housing, private open space is a very low goal of developers.
This
situation should not be interpreted to mean that developers do not have the provision of private
open space as a desired goal generally.
To provide balconies on any existing exterior wall
usually requires the introduction of numerous beams or more intricate structural members, which
obviously boost construction costs but does not improve the rental income picture because the
maximum rents are already being utilized.
There is also the safety consideration of small
children playing on balconies and falling, a liability that any developer would wish to avoid.
Similarly, the non-provision of private open space is not a penalized offense on the part of
the subsidizing agency, and thus is encouraged.
The usual occasion when private open space is
provided in subsidized family housing is when large units are at ground level or when such space
is shared by more than one unit.
2.B.8.
Building Entries
As the 'showpiece' and focal point of visual observation of the development, building entries
warrant special attention by developers.
Obviously, the appearance of building entries either
enhances or negates the 'image' that the project portrays.
Resultingly, developers strive to
80
maximize the aesthetics of these spaces.
Yet there are function considerations--security,
control of access, weather protection, building identification and entry focus, directory and
door bell provisions, visual supervision, and others--that also must be provided for.
Similarly, the treatment of building entries, and the hierarchy of spaces they encompass, interacts with the treatment of many other areas--security, lighting, circulation spaces, landscaping,
and general exterior appearances, since aspects of all these areas impact the 'feeling' that the
entry to building provides.
Indeed, it is this combination of functional and aesthetic
requirements that manifest the specific treatments that developers desire for this area.
Functional Requirements:
In general, building entries include three distinct, though not separate, spaces--the approach
area, the receiving and holding area, and the dispersal area.
The approach area involves the
transition from street to building door and involves the walkway and/or steps, any landscaping
encountered as one proceeds along such paths, porch, building identification, entry lighting,
entrance doors, and the general entry elevation of the building.
is either an interior or exterior vestibule.
The receiving and holding area
When an interior vestibule, it includes entry mat
and/or vestibule floor, vestibule walls and ceiling, intercom system and building directory,
and sometimes mailboxes, although this is a very bad location for these.
If exterior vestibule,
and wall area
space only includes intercom, stoop or covered platform (sometimes not covered),
81
surrounding the entrance doors.
The dispersal area is the door to the building interior with
its accompanying locks, door release, and vision panels.
Where entry has exterior vestibule,
it is the entrance doors, otherwise it is usually the second set of doors after proceeding
through the interior vestibule.
The Approach Area:
The approach to the building entrance has to be well-delineated so as to direct persons to the
building's points of access.
This delineation would include address identification, clear
demarkation of the area from the general grounds, and accent lighting.
The building address has
to be readily visible, well illuminated, and straightforward (fancy lettering and numbers tend
to obfuscate discernment by passers-by).
So too, the entrance doors must be clearly framed by
light fixtures and/or some other means of segregation (often either a step up or down will do)
and either be recessed or have a canopy for weather protection.
Where there is more than one
entry to the building, the major entrance has to be obvious.
The Receiving and Holding Area:
The vestibule area, whether exterior or interior, receives tremendous traffic.
Similarly, of the
three areas comprising the building entry, this is the one where persons remain for the longest
amount of time.
Exterior vestibulesused with scattered site rehab. of small buildings,
82
usually have only "an exterior area in which the intercom and apartment directory are located
and which are usually recessed 2 or 3 feet from the front of the building and which have a
61
single locked door through which you must be buzzed."
Interior vestibules often lead directly to the elevator lobby (if elevator structure), once
through the locked door, and thus much of the treatment for one is carried through to the other.
(Note: "Comments on interior vestibules and elevator lobbies refer primarily to large single
site buildings which have a vestibule (a set of double doors, the first of which are always
open and the second of which are locked and includes the intercom system and apartment directory).
The Dispersal Area:
Having previously discussed the door release mechanism in the section on security, we will not
repeat that examination.
and the vision panels.
However, something needs to be said about the door itself, the frame,
The locked door obviously has a key cylinder, door release, and handle
or push paddle (on the inside).
Lock guards and horizontal strengthening at the level of the
lock must be provided so that forced entry cannot be gained by springing the frame apart.62
83
Aesthetic Requirements:
Simply put, the goal for building entries is to "create a feeling of luxury," and "small
additional expenditures of money can accomplish this end without severely impacting total costs."16
The Approach Area
The elevation which has the building's major entrance should be aesthetically pleasing (i.e.,
bricks pointed if brick building).
The Receiving Area
Exterior vestibules should have the following finishes:
a) Floors - either cement, quarry tile, ceramic tile or paving brick;
- ceramic tile or brick;
b) Walls
c) Ceilings -
64
stucco.
Interior vestibules should be the following:
a) Floors
-
Hard-surfaced (either quarry tile, brick pavers, or solid vinyl tile)
with rubber (or other slip-resistant) entrance mat;
b) Walls
-
Either brick, tile, cloth, plaster or other attractive hard-wearing
surface;
65
c) Ceilings - Suspended (preferably spineless) acoustical, drywall, or plaster.
84
Subtle, indirect lighting and plants can be utilized to increase the 'luxurious feel'.
The Dispersal Area
Building entries usually are aluminum storefronts.
or tempered for safety reasons.
The glass in the storefront should be lexan
Where the entry is of the exterior vestibule type, often a
solid wood door with side light panels is substituted.
the adjacent frame often require metal edge protectors.
In these instances, the door edge and
Lock guards are a must.
(Note:
If
there is to be a change in the floor surface, it should occur at the dispersal area or locked
door; and mailboxes in all cases should be on the inside of that door.)
2.B.9.
Communal Space and Facilities
The nature of subsidized family housing requires that developers provide a certain amount of
shared space and facilities.
Whereas developers find the provision of some building elements
cost prohibitive individually, these elements are usually provisable if they can be shared by
units.
Similarly, certain kinds of shared spaces and facilities are desirable in order to attain
the project 'image' that is so important to developers of subsidized family housing.66
Family housing obviously involves children, and children's play areas are both desirable for
the development's image and necessary as a prevention against the project's interior circulation
85
space being utilized as play areas.
Developers of subsidized family housing therefore include
tot lots for small kids in their projects.
Likewise, developers usually realize the need for
play areas for larger kids and incorporate some type of common open space for them.
Since
however, there is a concern with landscaping being destroyed, these areas are usually readily
identifiable and enclosed.
Basketball courts are usually included if the project is large
enough and if the site permits, but in areas where there is no basketball court close by, this
play area is frowned upon since it will draw teenagers from outside the development and thus
cause a security problem for the site.
Sometimes, where site size and economics allow,
developers will even provide recreational area for adults, tennis courts, etc.,
but usually
provisions for adults are limited to sitting areas, informal gathering spaces, and other nonexerting recreation spaces.
The provision of play areas and informal gathering places usually is not limited to outdoor
types, since inevitably in the Boston area, cold weather will render these areas unuseable during
winter months.
For this reason, some interior or covered play area is also usually provided.
However, this space may serve dual purposes by also functioning as a meeting and function room
for adults.
Sometimes, it even includes ping pong tables and/or billiards tables, but most
usually not, however kitchen facilities and bathrooms are generally included.
86
Other types of shared spaces and facilities are also important to developers.
laundry rooms and bulk storage areas for the tenants.
These include
Both of these communal facilities would
be very difficult to provide individually within units; laundry hook-ups would be especially
costly and generate a maintenance problem and bulk storage would require too much space.
Workshop/hobby space and nurseries are usually viewed by developers as luxuries which projects
cannot afford.
2.B.10. Amenities
The provision of amenities by developers of subsidized housing is most often a function of
economics and, requirements by the subsidizing entity.
Unlike their market counterparts, sub-
sidized housing developers generally have limited choices as to whether to include such items
as carpeting, disposals, air conditioning, bath and kitchen exhaust fans, among others.
Also,
many of the previously discussed areas of concerns--communal facilities, security, interior
finishes, and others are viewed by developers as amenities.
Developers tend to not want to
of
provide air conditioning, dishwashers, swimming pools, tennis courts, and balconies, because
their excessive costs and maintenance problems when not required.
Even when certain items
such as air conditioners and dishwashers are-provided, they may be provided in a limited way
such as dishwashers in only 2-bedroom and greater units or window air conditioning units as
opposed to central air.
87
The goals that developers have in the area of amenities can be summarized as follows:
1)
Dishwashers (where provided)
Ease of maintenance, water conservation, color usually white (white appliances usually
cheaper and easier to clean), water conservation features.
2)
Disposals
In 3-bedroom units and over, 1/2 horsepower batch feed (only runs until load is disposed of) with a reset button; in 2 units less than 3 bedrooms, 1/2 horsepower
67
continuous feed (more powerful but less often used).
3)
Appliances for the Handicapped
(Because of non-discrimination requirements)
Side by side refrigerator freezers, built in wall ovens, built in cooktops, bathroom
fixtures, elevators, ramps, and railings.
4)
Carpeting
In either living room and dining area and bedrooms or in living room only; usually
wall to wall for maintenance purposes.
(Note: This feature is considered an amenity
by developers.)
5)
Kitchen Backsplashes
Either ceramic or formica, for maintenance purposes since tenants will install either
wallpaper or epoxy paint themselves if not provided.
88
6)
Electric Appliances
Since tenants pay electricity/utility costs there is little concern for useage and
thus appliances are electric.
Meters are installed for each unit to allow for indi-
vidual unit utility readings.
7)
Playground Equipment and Benches
Inexpensive, easy to maintain, vandal-proof.
8)
On-Site Management Agent & Maintenance Crew
Usually Resident Manager who shows apartments to prospects, handles immediate complaints
(lock-outs, etc.) and janitorial staff.
2.B.ll. Unit Mix
In most subsidized family housing developments, developer needs in the area of unit mix is a
matter of economics.
Within the square footage limitations of any structure, developers strive
to generate the most possible units, and as the spatial requirements increase with bedroom
size, it is not surprising that developers shy away from large units.
Not only does keeping
unit size small result in more units and thus increase rental income, but a look at the allowable rents by unit size shows that there is little incentive for the developer to provide large
units since to do so would result in a smaller rental income, thus a smaller mortgage, and fewer
89
dollars in development proceeds.
The Fair Market Rents (FMR's) for
Here is an example.
elevator buildings (the type of building with the highest rent) in the Boston area as published
in the Federal Register dated June 13, 1978 were $316.00 per month for 0-bedroom units,
$396.00 for 1-bedroom units, $467.00 for 2-bedroom units, $567.00 for 3-bedroom units,
$627.00 for 4-bedroom units and above.*
If one were to take a hypothetical 5-story building
of 30,000 square feet, use a factor of 1/3 for circulation and other nonresidential space, the
total available or net residential space would be 20,000 square feet.
Assume further that an
efficiency requires 500 sq. ft., a 1-BR 600 sq. ft., a 2-BR 900 sq. ft.,
a 3-BR 1,200 sq. ft.,
and a 4-BR 1800 sq. ft., one could get approximately 40 efficiencies, or 33 1-BR's, 22 2-BR's,
16 3-BR's, 11 4-BR's, or some combination.
At the above rents, the provision of all
efficiencies as compared to all 4-BR's would result in an increase of $5,743 in gross monthly
rents and an increase in gross annual rents of $68,916.
Thus developers obviously would attempt
to provide only as many large units (3-BR and larger) as required by the subsidizing agency.
Subsidizing agencies do require that unit size be compromised to include a spectrum of unit
sizes.
This mixing of unit sizes is usually along heterogeneous lines with the major break
occurring between 2-bedroom units and those larger.
Because of the number of children inherent
in units larger than 2-bedrooms, some separation of these large family units from the smaller
*Rents for 3-bedroom, and 4-bedroom and above are based upon the rents for semi-detached/row type
90
ones is usually desired for maintenance reasons.
If there is one design goal that most developers
have with regard to unit mix it is that access to the building's circulation spaces and areas
with smaller units be isolated from large units.
Generally this results in the larger units be-
ing located at ground level and having relatively little access to the rest of the building.
2.B.12. Neighborhood Conditions
There is an adage that the most important aspects of real estate development are location,
location, location.
development.
Indeed, site selection is vitally critical to the success of any residential
In market housing developments, proximity to support facilities--shopping, schools,
recreation areas, transportation routes--can literally make or break the development, and even
in subsidized housing, proximity to support facilities is very important to the subsidizing
agency's decision to undertake the project.
Obviously, locations within the center of metro-
politan areas generate fierce competition, not only among housing developers but often from other
types of developers as well.
But, unlike their competitors, developers of subsidized family
housing have limited resources with which to compete for the better locations, and usually must
concentrate their attention on more peripheral or less central locations.
However, even these
peripheral locations within existing residential neighborhoods must have a close proximity to
of structures. All F.M.R.'s are constantly being adjusted upward (due to inflation, etc.) in
each new issue of the Federal Register (see Appendix B for an example of Boston-area F.M.R.'s.)
91
necessary support facilities in order to gain approval from the subsidizing agency.
In the Boston area, both the two primary subsidizing agencies, M.H.F.A. and HUD, require
detailed information regarding neighborhood conditions.
Not only are maps showing the site's
location and the neighborhood's racial composition a part of the requirements for submission
of the preliminary proposal (see Appendix D Item #2),
but the project selection criteria employed
by HUD also has location as one of its eight selection criteria (see Appendix C, Item #2).
Likewise, the provision of support developments--street improvements, lighting, community improvement programs--by the city or others within the neighborhood serves to further enhance the
chances of a developer's proposed project in the eyes of the subsidizing agency.
In fact, the
role of the city, through its housing assistance plans, serves to direct development to those
areas earmarked for improvement, and since compliance with the local Housing Assistance Plan
is a HUD requirement for proposed projects (see Appendix C, Item #8),
subsidized housing
developers seek to find suitable structures or locations in such areas.
Needless to say,
developments which will aid in the revitalization of a city-targeted neighborhood are given city
support and consequently, a high priority by the subsidizing agency.
Thus developer goals in
terms of neighborhood conditions reflect all of these concerns.
92
2.C.
COMPARISON OF USER NEEDS
Having identified the needs and goals of both tenants and developers of subsidized family
housing, I will now compare these needs and goals in hopes to being able to generate an overall
user need scenario.
By examining the similarities, conflicts, and importance of these goals,
I will develop a user need program, which satisfies as many of these needs as possible, and
which should be applicable to typical subsidized family housing developments.
This user need
program can thus become the foundation for a binding performance specification for the development of these types of projects and certainly aid the architect in this generation of design
and construction documents.
2.C.l.
Similarities, Conflicts, and Trade-Offs
The chart on the following page, Exhibit 1--User Needs, list all of the user needs presented for
both developers and tenants and attributes them to the group which desired those needs. Casual
observation shows that a number of these needs are common to both developers and tenants, some
are unique to each, and that some desired by tenants clash with those avocated by developers.
The arrangement of the chart is such that for each of the twelve (12) areas of treatment,
general goals are listed.
These 12 areas are ranked 1-12 (1= most important) by both developers
93
EXHIBIT
1
6
PaAD~
e6rPA
W&iAI4,14 4&1
roz ,t"I404L
V
4.
m 04T
jPI~v4pp
P
FIL4M.LA94t
416 1 L
Flgw'-,
M At-
WNW
URWp
14
~
4~t1,
-
WtLAI~'LL
L
0
1~
"41
P4
WLI,
'
p
LA~t~.
M
PAI i.aJv
r4WU1H
Cf"'TA
W'+
'IkI6co
t
15PFAce
L~Jbfl
1jGL#L
F
T
I
i
V4iL
LP
dsav~ ~Ca)v~(
Lwi t'ml f
CL
WtPI
--
p.--of__________L....L..L
4.
IL ILIL
4-
L ['4
+
+
LP U4.
e4ftPlAOLILIS
i
L
L
F kl(r Gvti~4~ ~
Alf
p
E~-fIIU-l~L
_______________
I
91q4k
-~-'~
*1III
IL
Ii9u
I____A.
ws~Ai~'W'
-
_______________________
1!11..
IL.
1
V
'~~:
1-
'4
1~
+
__4_
La"Ie~t r
tu -Yiij
,4116
"
--
ig
rI
L
~ sIIr 4)-"A
INfI1*10K
I l
.~~&N
___121-LI-
VIUL
,
VAT 14KL Ck-111
LI
IL
LeMiw4~~H
L
~AP
wp
L I,
A 71
-'4
IOAL,
ffTtw___j6wf% lzv_4,po"6e6-
-IF - I
~e~C~
A~E~
t-t-~-I~.~u~'-,------
--
I
-
AL~
6.o
& om,
-f-4vbim __~vvs"I w
DOW--"
__
__
_
F,.-)UkLvlkv:t
Egi-pir'-5
46AVO)
~~4TO4L
Io
:MV~TL
i
I
--
__
Ljt
~
_
5.6hmmA)L
H
M19"~-
L
PAk4X
-U
OLw
M*IT%4W
Ise'-.
z7
Lzwi
k
rfI
A"""
74A
e~
41Vg.
fi
tr
bdLI JA 6(
--
-
GOF
((QOVrp )
W---
IVAo4
AMO
Et P
4~1~{
zzzzzzzL
w4*Ur~v jjI-
H
.1-
M
T"EA
-v
LA
rr
G, n
&
OV-4w0
A
J&CID
M
12TIA&
1M"'
1.
ti-
(tvt_
P'LAY( ARKEA
4DItAwimu,
4-iic~
PIV,
L
rtli EQUIOM~T
&6va
eoulzrl, ,
IDl--
k aLjEr._.__
4A4;iolfllu!!A
pf",
KUEAP%
-P I A #,r tA
p
L
kA
95
L
KlEtt24.2
7 1
rn
IwILqtIIt
I
~
u #A V
J
-1-
wrAT4 I
VF--.
I=
U4O2
A0-6
P
+k~s~e
V.
kAor
b% -,
pI~tIWv
w5Oj..
t*L"2 6e
"-L1
0
(Tea.)'T
-
*w t-
+-W4vREv
LioA.L.
~~~~/-te"r
MI\L
~~
1146P OM
6f4 -
CLbMr
/-I-
T
4
H A
iD4b'LHI
I~4%LL
r
14i
I~>T-
ze
M
-
kEF4LJIA 991RIr
-Gx-xu~T
i L~~i i ~~ i lA~
c-)L
-ea,
.
AU-#-
" -
.
i
f
v
v
6VckLg
~ L~ i
~O A) MO-1-T
LV(MA~rA_
i
6 "'O
w~
-
~f
1-~j
I
i~~TtA
TdM-MOv~~w
t-
L
i
I&±aI.
-a
i-~
A g Ao
L IA
i-IT
--
96
and tenants.
Then the attitude of both the tenants and developers toward those goals is shown
(+ = desired goal, - = negative goal, /-tenant-motivated developer goal, and no symbol = not
indicated as a goal, either desired or strongly opposed, by that group).
Next the priority
accorded the goal by each group is signified by either H-high, M-medium (not too strongly desired),
L=low (minimally desired) or no symbol--not indicated as having importance to that group.
(Where H* occurs in the developer's priority column, it means that the goal is given a strong
priority for an opposing reason to that of the tenants.)
ments employed to satisfy the stated goals is listed.
Afterwards, the specific design ele-
This is followed by the feeling that each
group has for these elements' ability to satisfy the stated goals and is identified by "L",
indicating a strong satisfaction with the element, "D" indicating a strong dissatisfaction with
the element; or a dash (-)
which indicates either a lack of a strong feeling one way or the
other, or that no feeling for that element was expressed.
Similarities in Goals
Where a particular goal is shown to be desired by both developers and tenants (both "+'s") or
where a particular goal is shown to be desired by tenants (+)
and a tenant-motivated developer
goal (V), it is reasonable to assume that that goal should be included in any user program.
Likewise, if this goal is ranked high by both groups in priority ("H's", not H*) then that
particular goal has a high value to both.
If it is ranked high by one group (H), and medium (M)
97
by the other, then it can be assumed that one group gives it a high value while the other agrees
that it has some value.
Although that group does not feel it is as important as the "H" group,
this group nonetheless wants the goal to be one for the project.
Trade-Offs in Goals
When one group gives a goal a high priority (H) and the other gives it a low priority (L), it
is reasonable to assume that the particular goal is one that can be included in the user need
program.
However, the group which feels that it is not that important will view it within the
context of other goals before determining whether they should oppose its inclusion in a user
need program.
Likewise when a goal is desired by one group (+),
but the other has expressed
no feeling (no symbol), this particular goal can also be considered a tradeable goal.
(This
would not be the case if both groups strongly like the design element employed--"L's", since this
would indicate that no feeling as expressed by no symbol,
was actually tacit desire for that
goal.)
Conflicts in Goals
Obviously, where one group desires a goal (+),
conflict exists.
and the other strongly dislikes that goal (-),
a
This conflict is heightened if both groups accord the goal high priority
("H and "H*") since this means that both groups have strong feelings toward either their desire
98
for the goal or their dislike of the goal.
Later in this section we will discuss conflict
resolution and develop a conflict resolution matrix.
Similarities, Conflicts, and Trade-Offs of Design
Elements
Exhibit 1 shows that both groups can give a goal different priority and still be satisfied with
the same design elements ("L's").
The design elements presented represent those that at least
one group indicated an attitude toward with regards to satisfaction ("L") or dissatisfaction
("D").
If one group is satisfied with a design element and the other is dissatisfied, then
the particular design element is questionable.
However, if the design element represents the
only form that a strongly desired goal can be provided in, then any element, even the disliked
one, is preferable to none at all (in most cases) and should be included in the user need
program.
Likewise, if one group feels strongly about a particular design element, either "L"
or "D", and the other group either has no feeling or no strong feeling as indicated by no
symbol, then the element is an includeable one for the User Need Program.
It may also be a
tradeable item, if the goal that it satisfies has a strong priority by the group expressing no
feeling toward the design element.
99
2.C.2.
Review of User Needs By Areas
Security-Site
1.
The goal of having common facilities (open space), and site areas well lighted is a tenant
desired goal which is acknowledged by the developer to be a desirable goal.
Since not of
extreme importance to either group (medium for tenants and low for developers), this goal
should receive minimal inclusion in any user need program.
However, the two design elements
employed to satisfy this goal evoke different levels of satisfaction--mercury vapor stanchion
fixture are liked by the developers while tenants express no feeling one way or the other
toward these fixtures, and building mounted floodlights which developer also like but which
tenants dislike suggest that an alternative design element needs to be found.
If, however,
no such alternative is possible, then tenants will accept floodlights since the goal is
important to them.
2.
Off-street parking is a goal of both tenants and developers.
While it is a medium priority
goal for tenants for security reasons, it is a high priority goal for developers because it
satisfies subsidizing agency requirements.
No specific design element is given because it
is assumed that financial and construction constraints will dictate the choice for individual project situations.
3.
Control of site access--desired by both tenants and developers; is of extreme importance to
100
tenants, medium importance to the developer and thus should be included in the user need
program as a goal.
site fencing.
While tenants do not specify specific design elements, developers prefer
This element is not strongly disliked by tenants, and can be included as the
principal design element employed to satisfy this goal.
Security - Building
1.
Control of Building Access - a goal desired by both groups and one rated extremely important
(high) by both.
Thus this goal should be included in the user need program.
Specific
design elements discussed under "Building Entries".
2.
Mailboxes in Safe Location Inside the Building - same as above.
3.
Provision of a Structured Entry System into the Building is a tenant goal recognized as
important by developers but only of medium importance to both.
discussed under "Building Entries".
4.
Specific design elements
(Should be included in user need program.)
Visual Supervision - a goal desired by both groups; discussed more fully under "Building
Entries".
5.
Communal Facilities and Building Common Spaces Well Lit and Providing for Visual Supervision
basically a tenant goal; but not opposed by developers (tenant - motivated) although neither
has very strong feelings toward the goal.
(Perhaps this is because minimization of communal
and common facilities reduces the need for this goal.)
The design elements employed usually
101
-
involve vision panels and/or storefront walls for these areas, locked doors for nonfrequently used rooms, and adequate lighting.
Security -
1.
Unit
Sturdy, Tamperproof Entry Door - desired by both groups, but only medium priority since
it is felt that the door hardware is more important to unit security than the door itself.
Likewise, since the door is usually either solid core wood or hollow metal (preferred by
developer; tenants express no preference), then the door is felt to be fairly sturdy.
2.
Adequate, Durable Apartment Entry Door Hardware - desired and important to both groups.
Tenants usually desire at least one jimmy-proof lock; developers usually provide that plus
a second lock (deadbolt) and want both locks to have removable cores (for ease of repair).
Tenants express no feeling one way or the other toward these elements.
3.
Identification of Visitors at the Door Without Opening It - desired by both groups but not
considered very important since most apartment entry doors are provided with either chain
locks and/or peepholes (most frequent solutions).
4.
"Inconspicuous Fortress" for Windows at Ground Level - strongly desired by tenants,
accepted by developers (tenant-motivated goal), and both are satisfied with security screens
like that manufactured by Kane of New England.
Likewise, tenants dislike sliding glass
doors at ground level and since developers have no concern with this goal, then it should
102
be acceptable as a non-design element.
Lighting
1.
All Public and Semi-Public Spaces Should be Well Lit, With Vandal-Proof Fixtures, Sufficient
Wattage, and be Aesthetically Pleasing - desired goal of both groups, although of less
importance to tenants than developers, because of the latter's concerns with maintenance,
project 'image', and energy saving.
The design elements employed--flourescent lights and
high hats on the interior and outside lights as listed under site security--are liked by
developers whereas
2.
tenants tend to lack serious concern.
Easy Maintenance Lighting in Frequently Used Unit Areas - desired goal for both groups but
extremely important to developers (for same reasons as above).
Flourescent lights used in
baths and kitchens,and both groups seem to like them.
3.
Special Attractive Lighting in Dining Areas - basically a tenant goal; one which developers
are not strongly opposed to but which they give low priority (cost being the governing
factor).
The specific design element tenants want is chandelier-type dropped lighting.
Unit Layout
1.
Larger Units With More Space - strongly desired by tenants, strongly opposed by developers.
Tenants want larger bedrooms and living areas, additional storage space, kitchens large
103
enough to eat in, foyers or entry halls, well defined spaces, and laundry hook-ups.
Developers are opposed to all these design elements since they are opposed to larger
units.
(This opposition is due to the increase in construction costs and the reduction
in the number of units that this goal would result in.)
Both developers and tenants do
however, prefer that large family units be duplexes or townhouses.
Likewise, developers
prefer galley kitchens on interior walls as a cost efficiency measure, tenants express no
particular sentiments toward this design element.
It is important to note that developers oppose the provision of more space in general but
do like galley kitchens on interior walls as a design element.
It is possible, therefore,
that a way of resolving the unit layout conflict would be to force the developer to accept
one of the tenant's design elements as part of a trade-off.
Well articulated spaces is
probably the best item for the tradeoff since this item would only mean the addition of
one or two interior partitions per unit (usually between kitchen and living area) and would
not hurt financially as much as most other solutions.
Unit laundry hookups is the second
most suited since it also will only minimally increase construction costs.
Circulation Spaces
1.
Control of Access to Circulation Spaces - desired by both tenants and developers and
104
important to both.
Both tenants and developers tend to like storefront with wire-glass
in corridors and the other devices employed as part of the building security system, see
"Building Entries".
2.
Circulation Spaces by a Minimum of Residents - desired strongly by tenants, opposed strongly
by developers.
In order to achieve 'single family' entrance feel, tenants want more
entrances and circulation areas; of course the more area devoted to circulation the less net
residential space available for developers and thus fewer units.
exists.
3.
Thus a serious conflict
(No specific design elements identified for either group.)
Lack of Institutionality - a tenant goal which developers accept as desired.
However,
tenants rate this goal as extremely important, while developers rate this goal low.
Since
the above goal is a derivative of this goal, it would seem that this is a trade-off item
but that the above goal is not.
Both have the 'single family private entrance look' as
either an implicit or explicit design manifestation, yet what these goals taken in tandem
seem to imply is that developers would be willing to minimize the institutional look as
long as it does not require devoting more space to circulation area.
4.
Visual Supervision - a goal desired by both groups (more strongly by tenants) and one
to be included in user need program.
5.
No specific element desired by either group.
Aesthetically Pleasing - also desired by both groups (more strongly by developers) and the
105
design elements (carpeting for floors, exposed brick or wall covering on walls, and
special lighting) are touches of luxury that developers want and tenants also like.
6.
Elevators - desired by both groups.
Viewed as an amenity by tenants when building is less
than 4 stories (thus the medium* rating), but strongly desired in buildings 4 stories or
greater.
Strongly desired by developers in all cases because impact on rent levels. Design
elements are usually developer-generated and generally satisfy tenants.
Landscaping
1.
Provide attractive open space areas with trees and natural elements - desired by both groups;
strongly by tenants, low priority for developers.
shrubs, and grass areas.
Developers will provide some of these to the extent it does not
tremendously tax development costs.
2.
The design elements being lots of trees,
(Design element is a trade-off item for developers.)
Provide a variety of open space areas - strongly desired by tenants; opposed by developers
because the provision of such a variety of spaces will increase costs during construction.
The design elements associated with this goal are considered amenities by developers.
(See Communal Facilities.)
3.
Provide a minimum of asphalt and concrete - a strong tenant goal; one that developers do not
express a feeling toward.
(Trade-off item for developers.)
106
4.
Provide effective, attractive pedestrian pathway networks - another strong tenant goal
which developers show no feeling toward.
The design elements of asphalt paths, lighted and
delineated by foliage are those liked by the tenants.
Since developers do not express any
feeling, it is reasonable to assume that this goal and its design elements are tradeable
items for developers.
Interior Finishes
1.
Floors in living rooms and bedrooms to be carpeted - desired by both tenants and developers;
very important to tenants and moderately important to developers.
The design manifestations
are shag carpeting in both rooms in small family units, which satisfies both groups.
V.A.T. (vinyl asbestos tile) in large family unit living rooms is liked by developers but
disliked by tenants who want carpeting.
Bedrooms should be carpeted in all cases.
(Large
family living room floors are a tradeable item for developers.)
2.
Easy maintenance floors for kitchens and baths - also desired by both; more strongly by
developers.
The design elements - ceramic tile in baths and V.A.T. in kitchens are equally
liked by both.
3.
Walls should be easy to maintain - strongly desired by both groups.
Design elements include:
a) epoxy or gloss paint in kitchens and baths (desired by developers), b) easy to clean
paint (flat) on other walls (liked by tenants), and c) bath walls with ceramic tile from
107
floor to ceiling around tub area with paint elsewhere (liked by both).
4.
Kitchen should have backsplashes around sink area - desired by both; either formica or
ceramic tile (especially liked by tenants).
5.
Ceiling should be leak-proof and attractive - extremely important to the tenants, no feelings
expressed by developers.
6.
Closets durable, easy to clean - a developer goal.
Primary elements are metal bi-folds which
are developer-generated.
Private Open Space
1.
Provide unit private open space - basically a tenant goal, implicitly acknowledged by
developers.
High priority for tenants, low priority for developers.
The design elements
employed are open balconies (disliked by both groups in high-rises, otherwise liked by
tenants while developers express no feeling), enclosed balconies (disliked by developers
because of costs, but liked by tenants) and ground level terraces (liked by tenants but no
feeling expressed by developers).
All of these elements except open balconies in high-
rises would be acceptable to tenants.
For developers, this would seem a tradeable item
except for enclosed balconies which increase construction costs.
108
Building Entries
1.
Provide a system of transitional spaces with the following features:
Functional Requirements:
A.
Secure with control of access - desired by both groups strongly.
The approach area design
elements likewise also are liked by both groups - lighting fixtures framing the doors,
building address, landscaping, walkway delineation, and attractive entry elevation facade;
B.
Protection from weather - basically a tenant desired goal of high priority to them; no
feeling by developers.
Design elements are recessed or canopied entrance (recessed preferred
by developers, no specific preference indicated for tenants).
C.
Ease of contacting unit and identification of entrant -
strongly desired by both groups.
The design elements for the receiving area includes vestibules, either exterior or interior.
D.
Visual Supervision - strongly desired by both groups; elements include vision panels and
accent lights with wood doors, and storefront with interior vestibules which are liked by
both groups.
E.
Mailboxes in safe location in private space inside building - desired by both groups,
strongly by tenants, moderately by developers; placement is behind dispersal area door and
both groups like this employment;
F.
Aesthetically Pleasing - desired by both groups.
Design elements as stated in the finishes
for the receiving area.
109
Aesthetic Requirement:
A.
For exterior vestibules, these design elements are employed -
a) floors, either cement,
ceramic, brick, or quarry tile (the only preferred item is cement and/or ceramic tile by
developers; tenants express no preference); b) walls, ceramic tile or brick (brick being
especially liked by tenants, again no particular feelings expressed by developers); and
c) no specific element mentioned by either with regard to ceilings.
B.
For internal vestibules,
the elements are -
a) floors, hard-surfaced
either brick, quarry tile, carpet, or solid vinyl tile
(with entry mat)
(both groups want the mat, developers
like brick, quarry tile or solid vinyl and dislike carpet.
Tenants prefer carpet, strongly
oppose solid vinyl, and express no feeling for brick and quarry tile) brick or quarry tile
seems to be most acceptable to both; b) walls with exposed brick, clothed, or other attrac-
tive finish (liked by both); c) ceiling to be suspended with indirect lighting (desired by
developers, no preference expressed by tenants);
planting and benches in the space (desired
by tenants, no feeling on the part of developers).
C.
The dispersal area design elements are basically developer-generated and include the
following: aluminum storefront with wire glass (liked) or tempered glass (disliked) at
interior vestibules and solid wood doors on exterior vestibule doors, keyed cylinder door
release, push paddles and lock guards, all of which tenants express no feeling toward and
which can be considered tradeable items for the tenants.
110
Communal Facilities
1.
Provision of common kids play areas - strongly desired by tenants, developers also place high
priority on this goal because of subsidy agency requirements.
Design elements employed
include: enclosed (preferred by developers to open) playground with conventional equipment
as opposed to free-form or sculptured equipment (extremely liked by both groups).
2.
Provision for kids of all ages - strong tenant goal; not of much importance to developers.
Design elements include basketball courts (disliked by developers, no feeling expressed by
tenants), tennis courts (also disliked by developers and no feeling from tenants), benches
and sitting areas (liked by tenants and developers), community/recreation rooms with kitchen
and bath (liked by both), workshop and hobby space (desired by tenants, disliked by
developers).
3.
Provision of communal laundry facilities - strongly desired by developers; disliked by
tenants since they would prefer laundry hook-ups in units.
4.
Provision for bulk storage - basically a tenant goal; no feelings is expressed by developers.
Amenities
1.
Provide elements which enhance the project's image - strongly desired by both.
Elements
include air conditioning - window (developer preference), dishwashers - white (developer
preference), disposals - energy efficient (desired by both), and swimming pool (desired by
111
tenants, vehemently opposed by developers).
(Many of the previously mentioned design
elements for other areas are considered amenities by developers.)
2.
Provide elements which enhance the project's liveability - strongly desired by both groups.
Design elements include elevators (desired by both) and on-site management (also desired by
both).
Unit Mix
1.
Homogeneit.y of tenants - basically an important tenant goal; no feeling expressed by
developer and thus low priority.
Design elements includes units of same size and type
(liked by both groups).
2.
Segregation by family type - basically a tenant goal, although developers do like for large
units to be located at ground level with separate entries.
Neighborhood Conditions
1.
Close proximity to support facilities - desired by both strongly.
2.
Quiet, safe neighborhood - strongly desired by tenants; no feeling expressed by developers
since developers have to take parcels in whatever areas where they find them.
112
2.C.3.
Conflict Resolution Matrix
The comparison of user needs, revealed that certain conflicts exist in both the goals and the
satisfaction with design elements employed to satisfy goals.
sidered more serious than conflicts of design elements.
Conflicts of goals can be con-
Therefore attention needs to be focused
on these conflicts first.
Goal Conflicts
The area of greatest conflict between the two groups is unit layout.
Clearly the goals of more
space and larger units desired by tenants are the antithesis of less space per unit, more units
as desired by developers.
In terms of importance in the total goal program, tenants rate the
area of unit layout 4th after security, landscaping, and building entries.
other hand rate this area second, behind only building entries.
Developers on the
Since this goal has greater
importance to developers, the prospect for trade-off by developers is virtually nil, and it
should be assumed that developers will get their way.
This should not be interpreted to mean
that all of the design elements usually employed to satisfy this goal from the tenants' point of
view are, unacceptable to developers.
Possibilities for trade-offs do exist, but only within
the area itself, and only on a one for one basis when the design element itself is not in
opposition to their stated goal.
(An example of this would be the tenants' seeking well-defined
113
spaces in return for allowing developers to provide galley kitchens on interior walls.
However,
a trade would not be possible if tenants insisted upon larger bedrooms.)
The second area of conflict is circulation space.
circulation space shared by a minimum of residents.
The goal that is the cause of conflict is
Again, since circulation space is rated
higher in the overall goal program by developers (3rd most important) than by tenants (5th),
developers will be unyielding in their opposition.
Tenants may, however, be able to force
developers to do more with regard to some other goal they rank higher by trading this goal off.
In fact, tenants want a variety of open spaces, but developers are opposed (the third area of
conflict).
As landscaping is a higher ranked area for tenants (2nd) than developers (9th),
tenants can force this item to be included in much the same way that developers did with their
prevention of the above goal from being included.
In general then, a rule-of-thumb for resolving conflicts of goals can be stated as follows:
Whenever the goal occurs in an area of treatment which is ranked higher overall by one group
as compared to the other, the group ranking the area of treatment highest will usually get
their way.
(See Figure 1)
114
Design Element Conflicts
Design element conflicts are different from goal conflicts in that they represent different
alternatives to satisfying an accepted goal.
As a result, a less desirable element may be
accepted by one group because the goal that it satisfies is extremely important.
Likewise, a
tremendous amount of trade-off possibilities exist since one group may accept a les§ desirable
element in one area in return for a strongly desired element in another area.
In other words,
design element conflicts allow for both a) intra-area and b) inter-area trade-offs.
In determin-
ing resolution of design element conflict the procedure should involve the following:
a)
consideration of the importance of the area to the group
b)
consideration of the ranking of the goal to the area
c)
consideration of trade-off within the goal, then the area
d)
consideration of trade-off with items in other areas ranked higher
e)
because developers have a number of items which tenants implicitly accept,
trade-off of tenant desired items need not be one-for-one indeed.
Indeed tenants may hold fast on specific items because of their implicit
acceptance of others.
(Figure 1 on the next page illustrates how design element conflicts can be resolved by this
trade-off method.)
115
FIGURE
WAOt4 -.AT ) -- www
tIV: -
Z-10
,I
~eV4
I
-r
%-rr
1
r
MSA
6
etZMliM
6?\
15"A 1lk6 AWc WTI P44EA
116
2.D.
A COMPOSITE USER NEED PROGRAM
Utilizing the conflict resolution matrix, the resulting compromise of needs and goals, should
be the most acceptable user need program for both groups.
This program becomes the user need
guide for low- and moderate-income subsidized family housing.
While Exhibit 2 presents this com-
posite User Need Program, a brief summation is nonetheless in order.
Afterwards this User Need
Program will be tested in the context of re-cycled structures--Part 2 of this analysis.
2.D.l.
Composite User Need Program Summation
Site Security
1)
Goals
a) That common site facilities and open spaces (parking lots, play areas, informal gathering
places, pedestrian pathways) be well lit;
b) That parking be on-site;
c) That access to the site be limited.
2)
Design Responses
a) Stanchion fixtures should be mercury vapor or similar, and building mounted lights
(floodlights a possibility) also to be provided;
117
EX HI BIT
IA ,jvOPE ci'e4E( BE WEtL M'4(
5
Vvtw'ti)-
~AWiT5F- MOVSIM
1z I
2
6,l' A1f; I_______
0
W49"jMj
WAM
______ ---
?
'~,
~
A~JD
*L~FbF..
'rbU
E
~l6%Th
VV'i(
Li vaIJ~ p
who4
A4~~~ieV
It'
W--~ I-A eT
~IOI1
TP 0
I
" TE
0 4-
AND
A
ALC
WI~~WLV~A ft.S4&
~.,u~a&~r-AG(EI
-
~
R-4.W41
O
wfV" 0
LTS
D
I
p
j
E
6zAtuf
L-
~6A4
-
'L ( S grr I____ ____ _____ ___
$I~7
o EM
r
P90\11pe mx--14eArA. W1414-44
"Ne mtax's tl-o4e
%aem%[T611AW-64
:Cjkc.
63vr-T,!!.J,
It
hLL)MLl,1LA
~
JCZO~
11=
rXT,
'V-W
N1 cluAi"0~
-IV~
Love I(
-ZVTWLI~Pir
eLA~&-ro0A
IDA,
~
-i~M-VA
U~4 ~-r
-
MUL
Vw
I%y
M?5zfruo v;;
'Nvv-1
EO\A VIFA
4LUF -Al1
FL-
4-OSJ6 1'~tMB('(- To
6u
TIPMT(W
Iq v
c
I
aI~jLg
6VV40,L \I'ttAA,
Di4lr
FL
tiaAjkL^%M4.OP 2
'UW ,41L3;V
Oec- -
f J
JcI
A.
4ffV-rb "VoI ___________________
ToWI
popi~d
ALLb-fLKlr vNiml im mm-w
A*f.A,,S, lAt fn V1A %,oipip WA
MT6. W'T*Vk
LijaNAW
tt
~t4
FAIR
A.
I~
~-4.RP~
ISULtE 1D(oV i-t1M
I
01M t AW
"'1042, A440 T1141" TO Ot ca&wtw MMV, Agt^ 92 (MN-0,12
1vP~~*
tm(
MMAMA-t-DsIW
0
I
I F-APAIIDNAI
EWIL-01"4
5FI&CL6
eIxTIAL4.W
L-
_______
t
V
mrr m;.
UNI
P
TFA
1W
JEE14 fiz Ie.s.
i-1t~ mild
NO"
~40
O]
6Ab
-01
£uOO$4L
___________
w
uM1Hitut~r*LFr.br ov.T
VISA010A
~W= Li-r(a
41
TIWU
C-ONT9Ot-CK-WlWM4Cx A"FvS6
VUr %VA~i
1M
rt'>\bvr.
Atu
6,
jo:W04
________
a.
A)PJW
r-F-
VIltAL
I~~
py-
r
~
U M -- :
L1CMi~
I;-Y- LA
118
b) To be determined by circumstance;
c) Fencing (chain-link, wrought-iron) best solution.
Building Security
1)
Goals
a) control of building access;
b) provision of structured entry space;
c) visual supervision;
d) well lighted communal facilities.
2)
Design Responses
a) provision of vestibule--either exterior or interior with locked door;
b) same as above (vestibules);
c) aluminum storefront or vision panels;
d) storefront wall along vision side or locked door, with sufficient lighting.
Unit Security
1)
Goals
a) secure entry door;
b) adequate, durable entry door hardware;
119
c) means to identify visitors without opening door;
d) "inconspicuous fortress" at ground level windows.
2)
Design Responses
a) hollow-metal doors and frames;
b) at least one jimmy-proof lock (preferably two locks or even three);
c) peep-holes and/or chain locks (at least peep-holes);
d) security screens at ground level units, and no sliding glass door at ground level.
Lighting
1)
Goals
a) that interior circulation and semi-public spaces be well-lit, with fixtures which
are vandal-proof, of sufficient bulb wattage, and aesthetically pleasing;
b) that easy maintenance lighting be used in frequently utilized unit areas;
c) that special, attractive lighting be used in dining areas.
2)
Design Responses
a) 150-watt lights, either high hats or accent lights, and community rooms should be
recessed flourescent ceiling fixtures;
b) wall-mounted (ceiling acceptable) flourescent fixtures;
120
c) attractive lighting (architect's discretion).
Unit La yout
1)
Goa Is
a) provide more space wherever possible for living areas and storage;
b) spaces should be well-defined;
c) kitchens should be on interior walls, stacked, and as much as possible be of the
'galley type';
d) large family units should be of the 'duplex' or 'townhouse' style;
e) living and dining areas should be combined.
2)
Design Responses
a) self-explanatory;
b) kitchen separated from living/dining area (pass-through acceptable);
c) self-explanatory;
d) same;
e).where possible, separate living, dining, and kitchen areas (where not possible,
make living/dining area oversized).
121
Circulation Spaces
1)
Goals
a) control of access to and within;
b) generate as much of single family entry 'feel' as possible;
c) provide visual supervision;
d) create 'luxurious feel' for these spaces;
e) provide elevator.
2)
Design Responses
a) aluminum storefront;
b) break up corridors, provide large family units with separate entrances;
c) storefront for corridor partitions or wire-glass or tempered glass vision panels
in egress and elevator lobby doors;
d) finish area with carpet on floors, painted dry wall on walls, and special lighting
(see Section 2.D.1 - Lighting).
e) self-explanatory.
Landscaping
1)
Goals
a) Provide a variety of attractive open space elements with natural element;
122
b) provide a minimum of asphalt and concrete;
c) provide an effective and attractive pedestrian network.
2)
Design Responses
a) provide conventional play equipment;
b) limit asphalt and concrete to pathways;
c) provide planting, lights, and structured walkways.
Interior Finishes
1)
Goals
a) Floors--carpet in living rooms and bedrooms, ceramic tile or other hard-wearing
surface in bathrooms, and VAT in kitchens;
b) Walls--drywall with flat paint in non-wet areas, drywall with high-gloss paint
in kitchens with formica or ceramic tile backsplashes, and ceramic tile (floor to
ceiling) in the tub area of the bathroom;
c) Ceilings--leak-proof and attractive;
d) Special Items--metal bathroom assessories and closet doors should be metal bi-folds.
2)
Design Responses
(All self-explanatory)
123
Private Open Spdce
1)
Goals
a) provide private open space wherever possible.
2)
I
Design Responses
a) private balconies when not high-rise structures.
Building Entries
1)
Functional Requirements
a) provide a system of transitional spaces with the following features:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
2)
secure with control of access;
protection from weather;
ease of contacting unit and identification of entrant;
visual supervision;
mailboxes in safe location inside the building.
Aesthetic Requirements
a) Exterior Vestibules-i. Floors--cement, ceramic tile, brick, or quarry tile;
ii. Walls--brick or ceramic tile.
b) Interior Vestibule-i. Floors--hard-wearing surfaces (either brick, quarry tile, carpet, solid vinyl
tile) with rubber entrance mats;
124
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
3)
Walls--brick, cloth, or other attractive finishes;
Ceiling--suspended with indirect lighting;
Benches;
Plants.
Design Responses
a) Functional Requirements
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vestibule provision;
recessed entry or canopied entry;
intercom and building directory in vestibule;
aluminum storefront or vision panels;
self-explanatory.
b) Aesthetic Requirements
(self-explanatory)
Communal Spaces and Facilities
1)
Goals
a) provision of a common kid's play area;
b) provision of play space for kids of all ages;
c) provision of communal laundry facilities;
d) provision of bulk storage area.
2)
Design Responses
a) playground with conventional equipment;
125
b) sitting area and informal gathering spaces;
c) laundry rooms;
d) (where possible).
Amenities
1)
Goals
a) provide elements which enhance the project's image;
b) provide elements which enhance the project's liveability.
2)
Design Responses
a) air conditioning, where provided should be of the window type;
b) dishwasher (provided in only 2-bedroom and larger units) should be white-colored;
c) disposal should be energy-efficient;
d) provide elevators;
e) provide on-site management persons.
Unit Mix
1)
Goals
a) homogeneity of tenants;
b) clustering of units by family type.
126
2)
Design Responses
a) provide units of the same size and type;
b) separate large family units from small family units, and provide them with
their own separate entries.
Neighborhood Conditions
1)
Goals
a) close proximity to support facilities;
b) quiet, safe neighborhood.
2)
Design Responses
a) none;
b) none.
127
2.E.
REFERENCES
1
Pierce, D., "User Needs in Housing: Low-Income Residents Talk About Their Homes", p. 43.
2
Cooper, Clare; Noel Day, and Beatrice Levine, "Resident Dissatisfaction in Multi-Family
Housing," Institute of Urban and Regional Development; Working Paper #160, University of
California, Berkeley; March, 1972, p. 26-27.
3
Method Group.
(Harvard University Graduate School of Design) Study of Housing Generated
by User Needs--A student survey; Masters of Architecture, II; Cambridge, Mass.; January 1971.
4
Ibid., Chapter 2--Development of User-Needs from General Statements to Specific Guidelines
for the Physical Setting.
5
Pierce, p. 43.
6
Cooper, Clare and Phyllis Hackett, "Analysis of the Design Process at Two Moderate-Income
Housing Developments," Institute of Urban and Regional Development; Working Paper #80, University
of California, Berkeley; June, 1968, p. 52 (last assumption about behavior).
128
7
Method Group, Chatper 2.
8
"Resident Dissatisfaction Multi-Family Housing", p. 35.
9
Pierce, p. 44.
10
Specification Manual for Housing Innovations, Inc.; prepared by Alta Management Consultants,
Inc., Newton, Mass.; Division 8--Door and Windows, Locks--Apartment Door.
1
Pierce, p. 43.
12
Specification Manual;
Division 10-Specialties;
Security Screens.
13
Pierce, p. 43.
14
Method Group; Chatper 2.
15
"Resident Dissatisfaction in Multi-Family Housing", p. 13.
16 Specification Manual; Lighting.
17
Pierce, p. 18.
129
19 Ibid., p. 23.
20
Ibid., p. 22.
21
Ibid., p. 24.
22
Pierce, p. 30.
23
"Resident Dissatisfaction in Multi-Family Housing", p. 46.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid., p. 19.
27
Pierce, p. 51.
28
"Resident Dissatisfaction in Multi-Family Housing", p. 16.
29 "M
"Analysis of the Design Process at Two Moderate-Income Housing Developments"
130
30
Pierce, p. 35.
31
Ibid., p. 51.
32
"Resident Dissatisfaction in Multi-Family Housing", p. 19.
33
Pierce, p. 32.
34
Ibid.
35
"Resident Dissatisfaction in Multi-Family Housing", p. 18.
36
Ibid.
37
Pierce, p. 44.
38
Ibid., p. 20.
39"Resident Dissatisfaction in
Multi-Family Housing", p. 28.
40
Ibid., p. 33-34.
41
Pierce, p. 21.
131
42
"Resident Dissatisfaction in Multi-Family Housing", p. 36.
43
Pierce, p. 38.
44"Resident Dissatisfaction in Multi-Family Housing", p. 37.
45
Pierce, p. 49.
46"Resident Dissatisfaction in Multi-Family Housing", p. 14.
47
Pierce, p. 57.
48
Specification Manual.
49
Specification Manual.
50 Ibid.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid., Doors and Windows
53
"Residential Dissatisfaction in Multi-Family Housing", p. 48.
Doors and Windows.
132
54
Specification Manual.
55
Ibid.
56
"Analysis of the Design Process at Two Moderate-Income
Housing Developments," p. 32.
577
58
59
Ibid., p. 37.
Specification Manual; Division 19, finishes.
Ibid.
6
0Ibid.
6
0Ibid
6
2Ibid.
6Ibid.
6
5Ibid.
66
"Analysis of the Design Process at Two Moderate-Income Housing Developments,"
p. 37.
133
PART
TWO
CHAPTER 3:
AN ANALYSIS OF THREE RECYCLED STRUCTURES
UTILIZING THE COMPOSITE USER NEED PROGRAM
This section examines three redevelopment projects in Boston, Massachusetts which are re-using
existing structures for low- and moderate-income subsidized family housing.
Because of the
newness of recycling non-residential structures for residential use, special attention must be
given to its applicability and the particular development issues it entails.
Likewise, this
section must also focus on those special problems associated with the production of low- and
moderate-income subsidized family housing.
However, before beginning this discussion, certain
terms must be defined.
For the purposes of this analysis, Redevelopment will be defined as follows:
The injection of new life into an obsolete environment where such new
life includes financial viability, physical responsiveness to the new
users, and social flexibility such that desired social interactions
and behaviors are facilitated.
Recycling is the re-use of an existing structure for a new purpose which
utilizes its structural members and/or shell, and involves extensive new
interior construction. In essence, recycling is a conversion; it is much
more extensive than general rehabilitation.
(Redevelopment thus is more than just a physical rehabilitation.)
134
Having defined these terms, it is now important to look at those special problems of redevelopment
and low- and moderate-income housing production.
Where
Of particular importance is Financing.
low- and moderate-income housing is concerned, production is usually unprofitable unless some
financial incentive is provided to
income housing is subsidized.
the developer.
As a result, almost all low- and moderate-
This subsidy takes the form of rent supplements (such as
Section 8), mortgage guarantees and below-market interest rate loans (such as the 221(d)(4)
Program and Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency's 7 1/2% permanent mortgages), provision of
profit to the developer or development fees (Builder's and Sponsors Profit Risk Allowance at
approximately 15% of the development costs or M.H.F.A.'s 10%), accelerated depreciation allowances, and favorable property tax agreements such as 121A tax agreements which allow for a percentage of gross rents to be paid as opposed to assessed value payments.
Subsidized housing
involves most, if not all, of these forms of subsidy, and sometimes more.
Since, generally,
municipalities play a critical role in providing general social services and public improvements
(streets, lighting, sidewalks, etc.)
in the development's neighborhood, this too can be con-
sidered a form of subsidy.
However, the most important of these subsidies remains rent supplements,
This form allows the
developer to charge market rents and permits the tenant to pay up to 25% of his income with
the difference between that amount and the market rent being provided through a subsidy
135
(Section 8).
Because of this subsidy, apartments can be made available to tenants at affordable
rents without the project losing its financial profitability to the developer.
Likewise, this
subsidy helps the developer acquire long-term financing since gross rents available for debt
service are semi-guaranteed.
The acquisition of these funds is not an easy thing.
Proposals are
the amount appropriated regionally, developers must compete for these funds.
ranked
Based upon
based upon the selection criteria (or something similar) shown in Appendix C.
Obviously, it is extremely important for a developer and his professional team to understand
how the subsidized housing process works.
For this reason, the selection of development team
members--architect, contractor, and management agency, their attitudes toward the final product,
previous experience, and ability to work effectively within the system used to generate subsidized housing--is one of the most critical decisions that the developer must make.
Not only
does the make-up of the team affect the project's ranking with the subsidizing agency, but it
is the team which must manifest the developer's desired image for his project.
It is important
that the development team members have previous experience with low- and moderate-income subsidized housing and possess the know-how to generate responsive developments while satisfying
cost constraints.
Recycling, also demands a special competence from development team members.
Both the architect
136
and contractor must understand the nature of recycling; they must understand that it is much
more intensive than general rehabilitation since it involves a great many "unforeseen conditions".
Similarly, they must work closely with each other in order to keep costs down and make use of
as much of the existing structure as possible.
In recycling, the areas of major costs--
mechanicals, structural alterations, and interior partitions--dictate that quick, on the spot,
innovative decisions be made by these team members in order to control those costs.
The demoli-
tion period is critical; as many problem conditions as possible must be identified previous to
or during that time.
Too many architects and contractors view recycling as the 'stripping of
the entire interior and starting again'; it is not.
Thus, previous experience and familiarity
with recycling is a must for team members.
Using the user need program formulated in Chapter 3 as a basis of comparison, this section
investigates three redevelopments to see how those 12 areas of concern in this paper were
addressed in these projects.
First, background information for the projects, highlighting the
important aspects for each, will be presented.
Then, I will look at how the hypothetical user
need profile compares to the user program and design response in these projects.
137
3.A.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The three projects involved in this analysis include a school, a factory building, and a garage-all have been converted to low- and moderate-income subsidized family housing.*
cover the spectrum of re-use.
These structures
The school involves no substantial new construction other than an
exterior elevator added to the rear.
The factory, which is actually two separate buildings,
involves some new construction in the form of a third floor addition to the main building and
an entry area connecting the two structures.
The garage building is actually two adjacent
buildings, one six stories with an underground garage and one two stories, and involves substantial new construction with the existing two-story building built up to the six-story level of the
adjacent building and the rear of the entire
open space.
structure is carved out to create terraces and
While all three projects involve 100% Section-8 subsidy, two (the school and
factory) are F.H.A. processed while the garage building is M.H.F.A. processed.**
Likewise,
the school and factory are part of a larger package--school-house '77, involving another school
and a new structure, both for elderly residents.
Both the school and factory are also under
consideration for placement on the National Register of Historical Buildings, and thus are
constrained in the kinds of alterations which can be made to their facades.
Notwithstanding, the three projects are very similar in many respects.
All three accommodate
138
less than 65 units; in fact, if the elderly units are excluded at the garage building, all
involve less than 35 units and cost less than $1.1 million dollars to construct.
Because all
involve Section 8 rent subsidies, the general development process is similar for all, and
certainly the restrictions and criteria for all reflect the commonality of federal guidelines.
They are all located within the center-city (Boston city limits) and reflect the general market
considerations of this area.
The school is the Dillaway School, located at 6
Boston.
Roxbury.
Kenilworth Street in the Roxbury section of
The factory is the Berger Instrument Factory, located at 37 Williams Street, also in
The garage building is Anderson Park, located at 250 Cambridge Street in the Beacon
Hill section of Boston.
* Anderson Park has mixed 32 units of elderly housing with 32 units of family housing, and
although not totally a family development certainly can be examined as a family development
because of those 32 family units and the necessary provisions the project has made on their
behalf.
**The development process for projects processed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development under a Federal Housing Administration program varies from that for those processed
the
by the state of Massachusetts through the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency because of
139
different statutory regulations and enabling legislation, even though both agencies administer
the Section 8 Program.
3.A.l.
Dillaway School
Description:
The Dillaway School is located in the Roxbury Highlands section of Boston and is also a short
distance away from the Dudley Station transportation and commercial center.
Kenilworth Street, a loop street away from through traffic.
It is located on
It is surrounded by a paved
schoolyard.
The Dillaway School is built of brick with stone trim.
The central portion of the building is
two stories high with a "mansard" type of roof; the "mansard" is not continued on the rear
elevation, which has a plain brick third story.
wings with pitched roofs.
There are two slightly projecting three-story
The plain brick surface of the building is set off by prominent
string courses and other contrasting detail.
The building is stylistically electric, but
Renaissance motifs predominate, especially in the central entrance bay, the arches over the
second-story windows and the symmetrical massing and fenestration of the building as a whole.
The facade of the Dillaway School faces northwest on Kenilworth Street.
The entrance bay
140
DI LLAWAY
SC
OOL
I go
7
1-41
projects slightly from the central section of the building, as does the portion of the thirdstory "mansard" roof over it.
porch.
The main door to the building is recessed within the entrance
On the first floor level, there are simplified pilasters made of stone blocks supporting
a stone entablature.
Stone brackets inside the door frame also support the entablature.
The
same kind of pilaster treatment is continued in the second floor of the entrance bay, which
contains three windows surmounted by a large lunette.
with wood.
The glass in the lunette has been covered
The architrave over the lunette displays the name of the school.
The entrance bay
There
has its own cornice slightly above that of the rest of the central portion of the facade.
is one small dormer.
The main facade is completely symmetrical.
On either side of the entrance bay, there are four
windows each at basement, first floor and second-floor levels.
There are stone arches over the
second-floor windows and stone string courses above and beneath the windows on both floors.
At roof level, there is one recessed window at the extreme end on either side.
On either side
of the central section of the building is a slightly projecting, three-story wing.
The string
courses of the central section continue across the wings and the windows are of the same type,
although wider.
At the roof level, each wing has a Baroque style dormer with scrolls, contain-
ing an oculus.
142
The end elevations of the Dillaway School are symmetrical in massing and asymmetrical in
fenestration.
The central sections contain the staircases and project slightly from the wall
and are surmounted by two chimneys.
There are two windows each between basement and first-
floor, first-floor and second-floor, and second-floor and third-floor levels.
The topmost pair
of windows is surmounted by a large lunette similar to the one on the main facade of the
building, except that the original small-paned glass is visible.
the main cornice is a small oculus.
Over the lunette and above
The fenestration of the facade is continued on the half of
the end elevations closest to the street.
The other half is a plain brick wall surface with no
windows.
The rear elevation of the Dillaway School consists of a central block corresponding to that on
the facade and the two wings which project considerably further in the rear than they do in
the front.
Each of the wings has four windows on each floor, and there are rounded projections
with windows on the insides of the wings.
There is a curving bay (plain brick except for the
first floor) in the center of this elevation.
floor.
There were originally two lunettes on the second
There are only minimal window openings in the center portion of this elevation.
There have been virtually no significant exterior alterations to the Dillaway School.
On the
second floor of the entrance bay, a large lunette window has been blocked up.
143
History:
The Dillaway Grammar School, constructed 1882-3, is a particularly fine example of a 19thcentury building type that is rapidly disappearing from the city.
Built of brick and two to
three stories in height, it was larger, more elaborate and more expensive than most of the
grammar school buildings constructed at that time.
In the treatment of the central entrance
bay and the second-floor windows, Renaissance motifs are used predominantly, but the building
is stylistically eclectic and also includes a "mansard" roof and unusual Baroque-inspired
dormer windows in the wings.
The plain brick surface of the building is set off by prominent
string courses and other contrasting detail.
The architect, George A. Clough, son of a Maine shipbuilder, was associated first with the
Boston firm of Snell and Gregerson.
held the office for ten years.
Boston.
standing.
In 1875, he became the first City Architect of Boston and
He is said to have designed more than 25 school buildings in
Except for the Dillaway and the Prince School on Newbury Street, few of these remain
Clough is also said to have been the first to introduce the German method of school-
building construction around an open courtyard, although this method was not used in the
Dillaway.
He designed schoolhouses elsewhere in the State.
Clough was also the architect of
the Suffolk County Courthouse.
144
Development Information:
As previously mentioned, the Dillaway School is part of the Schoolhouse '77 project developed
by Schoolhouse '77 Associates, which has Housing Innovations, Inc. as managing general partners.
The development team for the Schoolhouse '77 project include:
Developer--HII, 50 Franklin Street, Boston.
Architects--Schoolhouse '77 Associates Architects (a joint venture of the following:
Boston Architectural Team, High Street, Boston--Garrison and Dillaway Schools;
Equity Design, 34 Williams Street, Roxbury--Berger Factory; and Richard
Walwood Architects, Inc., Blue Hills Parkway, Milton, MA--Lowell Mason School.)
Contractor--Keyes Construction Corporation, 2 Main Street, Avon, MA
Managing Agent--Tenant Services, Inc. (A HII affiliate).
All are very adept in recycling and subsidized family housing construction. Exhibit 3 represents the Project Income Analysis and Appraisal Evaluation for the Schoolhouse '77 project.
As is evident, the project is a 221(d)(4), and the project proposal was submitted in response
to a notification of Funds Availability
(for Section 8 funds by the Boston area H.U.D. office)
in the spring of 1977.
The Schoolhouse '77 project includes 2 schools being rehabilitated--Dillaway and the William
145
S
Feasibility (Rehab)
R
(FL
PROJECT INCOMEANALYSISAND APPRAISAL
317
e.~
4.$.
4
cm
O
-.-.
g a
-I-
,
I" aS.9.. .
e..a ... asysee,,
., .e
~44."
JIsct.IlISIab
QJs..i.la
JsI.b On cde
14
Ig ...
R.. -
128
I
er.ae...
*-
e
asm.e..,
it..ta....
Masonry
sl
p~~s,
.
0
-i
II
57
565 - 607
9
643 - 74
4
v 2 0
**_'*
.
ge
.
9.1
Pil
limit.
"""_Pei
8g eIle
1 479
650 - 945
2BR-Elderly
884 - 956
2BR - Faoily_
k)JA..raded
see.Polks~ 6speese71
kJS-~*
ae,
a, e -
0
Level
Asee-Cr9ald
oth, Lels
___________
q S _
s
___e
0
4
e~
,
e~ee
se.
-r-
--.
Ic.ee
.g1wes,.foery
E
hIIaI
'oo
Es.e...ae
Swee e
nye"
*53 Dishwashers 3/4
)Disk0skee
(jcsq..I1
R
76e800
1
.
246 044
TOTAL FEES ---36..41.42 a 49 - -
49.
50. T1OT.1IIr an
Imprs.1tlees
350
C.5
'r
C.-.37
r1
.... -i . Fe-
5-
- --
- -
.
.- T,28677
-5
Fee
%7.1944F..a..
Let. As-es-ed
So.0
6
Fe I 10
..
-
ir
2490
-5
- MIK--- A ---
01 A
66e450
in-p
i
i.FNA/CNM'A I'I E
& E . .....--.. . -3-Title
63.TOTALCARRYIMGCMGS.A FINANCING.----L.EGAL.ORGANI5ZAT10N,
64
,
--
- 78- S.275.083
e4.
F
AUIT
.
....
96jnsg.3g8
(Lie
.
Lane 331
---
j 3,
-
-
.
.0D
...
J
S
0,s.. .......
S---- 5 M
64.C.. C..UlIsI..A.464Foe .
FEEsS
AUDIT
ORGANIZAI.,
LEGAL.
67.TOTAL
.
I.11.
wild". a.. 949..,40 lalI9 011.1i
Vl.
C.Ie, .ee ........
. ..
9494.
T1. S.ypu6e.- e m...g..I
Pe.acepe--------------------.
IL C..946g...Um I
~76,54T-.Sil'
(Laf.e 30 - tLf4
Css$ I9ecoe
291- .33.Totl P...c E.pe.ars
(Li.e 32 34. Ne,
20 + Li.. V- ......-.
Is. Empa-se 2.aI.d.e
162lo
%
2
797,400
32. Elfe-en
l-----------~...............
---
T
.o m542..
of
-- 72. TOTAL EST.DEVELOPMENTCOSTyE.c
5.888.629
5I.A7IAA.eV920794
Lead o, Off..it C;ist,
58....13.Wre.t.ed
Price of Lnd
--- 14(3)
P $9~4.fa
1,
- sq.
C
14. TOTAL ESTIMATED3EPLACREN
--.------COSTOf PROJECT (44412 4
230.333
jA
S4,-
PERMISSIBLERENTAL ANALYSIS,
N. MAEiMUM
.
/I
1s9
mn F.wi.
-
2.
2A
-
Ju
qq9 '*.
-None
~etop"I
4. Adb..l.9 ..
a11900104
MOOM
S
..liqi--.-------- .
4.e
fr.
.
.
9UE4D4OM *3ODNOOM
EDROOM
S
ed
s *.,
ats Limits.
L...
Prncpale
1e
Q e-Ppyti
fAIr Co.a1itionsep
(-)
Us'
LI Beat Cotrlet El-c
CI.E (Jc..g
ittto. Acodiisa asse g
A CS93hie49n
LOYM
og
.et.
C3.t
Ft'ElCOnes
OTNSER
Trom _
An4oTu.
IS,.
P94rA226s
Frim-....---*9op
Rr9sby
4ookK.A.ee
t.
7. U.....ey....byC.1.I...
**** r * EM*e
1L ESThKATEOF OPERATN ....
"'asee0....
JI.
-
3. 2.1
11__
S
62-
-1
*0*
714400
9
pe-------------be...t
".*mhse
--.-- F t.-..---..
S. vsee li..et es...
s.----o--"---P
j
7
Per Mouth.
Movelbls Admix il9stti
l-ack imfit II t e
.-* a
A.S..
go.
3 a g etsaer.
ResideatialTotal R'.
APANMgNy vp
66,450
L ANNUAL RENT (Wt Ita 17 0-189
4
-, ST
10.3%)
44
lp..sxFee
n.4P
0. ASIr
Oetrwy (Easke
tSedesePojc
a..
S .
2h -
1.45
gi-19659
E....sd P9..,i..
St.
11I
CA
_
..
-----IS -L _ . %
4........9
..
.......
V.1 FN. IIIe
-s.
-it
-- A,
S9.TOTAL EXPENSE(AA si- .
P. INCoAE
CoMPUTA TION!............
iNCLUDI. SIIAL AWESS I.11W
4
t
...0-170
erb...s
-
-
a....
...
As. Areh. Fee-nesi
-tE. C..
.i'I'..
S
- -25. Elset. Payel
er ---------------.
..
26.0
_
37.0OL.6.. ..........
X -----------TOTAL
1.
SPACE
PROCUCI;IG
NomREVENUE
0 EQUIPMENTAND SERItCES
37 101- P E NT -
repl.
Soe
1.300
2 -RfR
100%
OCCUPANCY 1
98,947
151,944541
[jJ
g4. Persessil
RealT
q. h./10.
pe
I
-
1
en
Fer meat
R...~.A~.
Aft-*6l
-- - ----
418
-
51.200
# 1.2
------40;000'-' S'ba '' '- ----- -- ~ --- - F.
. -....-..-.Oke.
44.
Eo.
Assessed
Re"E.:
3.
S-s
786800
...
P
46. Atc. Fee..
---.--MAINTENANCE
TOTAL OPERATINS ExPENSE----
1.
III-4.
93 810
. *
t- R.hP.ec-aw
I...... 4.0060
9 11"ume'"List 411
- -- --- - --
163.9H
73)
TOTAL ESTIMATEDGRO0SPROJECTINCOMEAT
1,,e
TOTAL
-305-
3
22.02
-
.
Ce..Ov.eread
111J.86
3e
IF-
I AIF'-
Iollo
18-570
650
717
..
s.
..-
n
n.
pe_____ 6
9
.
-'
.
0110e6
.4
0 Re'aiae
4.095
563
IR~TIiihs - Fam11y
OR -14 Baths- Fmily
Ce.ered Spce
nlnee
I1I. 0,6
s27.33
455
B -LFamIly
1.3.41e4ie
--. --.-
- -- -- -- aw.uer.%- .-. .---a1.overs
... ..
e.--
P
FartLailType_-
TOT L ESTIMATEDRENTALSPOR ALL FAMILY UNIT1
Aitchen
Table
Meil,
T
1101h
)OR- Elderly
1749!!
g. .ces
(i AIanaced
1o.s ela
s
***
.
nt
2Ar
F....u.....4
3aNock
1
.1
C.e.li
1112
z
De1sV ag
Q0tberhs..h
C. ESTIMATE OF INCOME:
.
,
..k
71
I &modl,Typet'i. 154jF.)
23
6
* -iRg
Pern d r.01 en
e-vTilCn
-0-
Rk
FES-
16cok*ralml,. . . . . -.-._
.. 1
I.
------
e----------....
39. Cat
40. All O.e. avil4., ..--.-.-.TOTALSTRUCTURES----.e1.
.e.------.....
42. C.Ieerst
te-
.0.
t1. ISr.. . .
Z'
Iel..
s-s--
a
--
02
---------.....-
27. Mai. i-dig
nd
se IS.
e.
Brick/Unnd
nA.
IFin.o
Jet
0
.
ConCrete
Tb
a-e---" Si---t -
L] Cao
,,
4.
I
qlred IS 223,200 I 5,00
IS. 14... - .111. a e.a St..--
--
.MusceseVd.
-2220e
L.oa
-.t.--.
tre..e.
stR'C rt;1ES-
270
Othe.P
r ---------------.-.-.TOTAL OPERATING
slle
FJCa.,esei..n
"ool
(_3 b,.eci.t o ..
MAIONT ETUCE-.
-.
-IAS. Defr... . ...-.*-- R
' - ImlAl
] C...p..e.m
a'-
'-
as..
eeAreosereme
Coast
Cominunt
ty Area Laundry
Office
V...*-
Boorina
t
,,
Nece.an.e
INFORMATION
BUILDING
LAND ORPROPERTY
0. INFORMATIONCONCERNING
if4 L.2.
.
I.
.
4
C.w
A4iissomal
Parebese Price Pe0id
33
,,
614-
Residential 121A Corp.
be.r
-**4
None
147I; IL3 -
a....a...e,.
Co
.491.
Fall
.
I. ,
it. by
Paert
0.1.
9. LW.A.....p394,.. badA'.. Is.. L.II
*"''-
4
-
-0
-"-s-e
..
-43
ADMINISTRATIVE-
Maio. gap. S
S..
4. FeelfNe.neg
N*"*e
l"'"";
Umise. Pr -ve -.1.Lii.te
8-S ..-* - --....
*
.-.
9. C.
-------.-.
_
Cab. a TWA. Reneral .. .
S0.
Suffolk
~
flE.11p
SITEINRMA,,ON
4..a
..
.4 Sites
fPpose..d
TOTAL
)f6.
36e. TegaLo.m
COST:
tep'..mes
ama.eI..4
Opt.O1140G-
lses
Boston
~
4.
2
I.. Ce.ee T..$ N*.46.PI.tsee.eCeo
3.
... ,. .....-. . ..
IS
''9.C60l House '77"
I
34a.
{--] Cooditlomal
RENTALHOUSINGENTAL
HUSIN
A. LOCATIONAND DESCRIPTIONOF PROPERTY:
1.1%e
S.1149-14
9. 81..M
I. 0...04M .
G.ESTIMATEDREPLAEMENT
ATE OF ANNUAL EXPENSE:
Ur.S.DEPARTN"I Of NOUINGANDU4S# DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISINAIDOse
0AL HOUSING
FEDER
Project
Schoolhouse '77
Analysis for
Financial
3
EXHIBIT
I
S.1."
IsI-
146
3. TOTAL
?ING DE
ak
Lloyd Garrison School (50 units of elderly), a factory--the Berger Instrument Factory, and a
wood-framed schoolhouse being demolished for 40 units of elderly housing--the Lowell Mason
School, all as one mortgage.
and Dillaway has 17 of these.
Of the 128 units, 38 are family (at only Dillaway and Berger)
The construction costs of the Dillaway (approximately $650,000*)
are rather high for 17 units, and a disproportionate portion of the overall Schoolhouse '77
construction costs ($648,336*/$3,679,418* vs 17/128 units).
The construction cost per unit is
$38,132 compared to the overall Schoolhouse '77 cost per unit of $28,745.
The site was
acquired from the City of Boston Department of Public Facilities, through bid, for $45,000.
The unit breakdown for the Dillaway is as follows:
(2)
(11)
1-bedrooms @ $455 mthly
2-bedrooms @ $535
(0)
3-bedrooms @
(4)
4-bedrooms @ $717 mthly
$9663 mthly
As is.obvious, the units for the Dillaway include (4) 4-bedroom duplexes which are fairly
large and result in the small unit count of 17 units.
2-bedroom units, increasing the unit count to 21.)
(Each of the duplexes could become (2)
However, the existing school layout is
such that it facilitates duplex units at the lower two levels very well.
Likewise, the school
147
has a double-loaded corridor system with classrooms on each side which are just large enough to
accommodate a 2-bedroom unit.
(See Exhibit 4 and 5.)
*This figure represents the 'brick and mortar' cost and does not include general requirements,
builder's overhead, profit, bond premium or other fees.
Neither is acquisition cost included.
The construction cost figures given for all of the three projects represents this 'brick and
mortar' figure.
3.A.2.
Berger Instrument Factory Building
Description:
The Berger Factory is located on Williams Street in Roxbury between Shawmut Avenue and
Washington Street.
It is a few blocks away from the Dudley Station commercial and transportation
center.
The main block of the Berger Factory, constructed in 1902, is a three-story brick structure,
measuring approximately 100' x 45'.
The two-story brick wing added in 1907 is approximately
60' x 40' and forms an ell with the main block.
Both sections have flat roofs.
The Berger
Factory is simple but well proportioned, a typical factory building of its period.
148
EXHI BIT
4
066Ma rM
VAT
I'I~,.go'9
14 9
E X H IBI*T
L W~OU T $
5
s
O~m 39 t~owLeleA
23LLkvM
gsce 4'4ooU-
Vie
?~LJ&.,150
The facade faces southwest on Williams Street and consists of three stories and a basement.
There is no door on this side.
Each floor has a band of ten windows; those of the first and
second floors have stone sills and segmental brick arches, and those of the third floor have
stone sills and lintels.
All are eight over eight.
The bay at the extreme left contains stairs
and is differentiated from the rest of the facade in several ways.
There is one window at the
first floor level (four over four), which has a stone sill and segmental arch, and there is
a round window at the third-floor level.
at right angles to the building.
Between the two, the Berger Factory sign is displayed
At second- and third-floor level, there are two brick pilaster
strips, and there is corbelled brick detailing near the cornice and at the base of the pilaster
strips.
The courtyard elevation of the original wing has two doors at either end.
They are of different
types and are at slightly different levels: one has a segmental brick arch and the other a
heavy cast stone lintel (not original).
On the third floor level, there is a door with a
bracket to support a pulley for hoisting up freight.
The windows are of the same type as on
the facade but vary in size.
The other elevations of this building are of minimal interest and have no significant decorative
detail.
There have been no important exterior alterations to the Berger Factory.
15 1
BERGER
FACTORY
C4
U
152
History:
The Berger Building is a typical turn-of-the-century vernacular factory building.
Little is
known about either George Moffette, the architect of the main building, or about Henry J.
Preston, the architect of the wing, except that both practiced in Boston from about 1865 to
1912.
The few buildings attributed to them include stores, banks, houses and tenements.
Although the Berger Factory is an attractive building, it is significant primarily for nonarchitectural reasons.
Roxbury has had a long history of industrial development, and the Berger
Company was an important part of a late phase of that development.
The Berger Company, manufacturers of engineering and surveying instruments, was founded in 1871
by Christian Louis Berger.
Berger was born in Germany and served as an instrument-making
apprentice with the firm of Cooke, Troughton and Simms in England.
The firm was first located in downtown Boston and was known as Buff and Berger.
In the 1890's,
Buff and Berger dissolved their partnership, and the firm was known as C. L. Berger and Sons.
In 1902 they moved to Roxbury and built the building at 37 Williams Street, which was occupied
by the firm until it moved to Mattapan in 1976.
Before 1871 precision engineering and surveying instruments were nearly all imported from Germany
153
or England.
The Berger Company was one of the first American firms to manufacture them, and
it quickly became the leader of the field.
Berger Instruments were used in the surveying and
construction of the Panama Canal and in the construction of many New York City skyscrapers.
They were also used in the polar expeditions of Byrd and Peery and in the United States Coast
and Geodetic Survey.
During World War II, the firm established design level standards for
engineering instruments.
Berger Instruments were also used at the highest point in North
America during Bradford Washburn's expedition to Mount McKinley.
Another important use was in
the construction of the Boulder and Hoover Dams and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Development Information:
The Berger Factory building is also a part of the Schoolhouse '77 project.
As such the
development team is the same as that for the Dillaway School (except that the architect responsible is Equity Design).
The financial data for Berger is the same as that given in Exhibit 3.
The Berger includes 21 units at a construction cost of $32,873 per unit or a total construction
cost of $690,327.
The unit breakdown for the Berger building is:
(7)
(12)
1-bedrooms @ $455 mthly
2-bedrooms @ $535 mthly
154
(2)
3-bedrooms @ $650 mthly
(0)
4-bedrooms
$10,905 mthly
(See Exhibits 6 through -7 for unit layout of apartments at the Berger.)
What is unique about
the Berger's design is that it connects the two existing building with a new entry and extends
the third floor of the main building so as to make it 3 stories over its entire length (providing two new units).
The Berger, although a factory with pulleys and other equipment which need
demolition, is a column and beam structure and thus requires minimal demolition but much
interior new construction.
3.A.3.
Anderson Park
Description and History:
Anderson Park was originally a 150-car parking garage structure in two adjacent buildings owned
by Massachusetts General Hospital.
The 2-story portion is concrete and the 6-story portion is
concrete and brick with the first two floors and underground portion being concrete.
entire two structures encompass a total of 16,103 square feet, the entire site areas.
The
The
parcel(s) were purchased from Mass. General by Anderson Park Associates in 1975 for $100,000.
The structure is located at the corners of Cambridge and Anderson Streets in the Beacon Hill
155
EXHIBIT
t
6
ew E- w Ol.
Wriv)
AU)j
C-14441"6q
to-kc*, ..
eCAe0e
FAM0TO 9f~i1OL
?Lo
156
EXI4IBI-T
7
rLOO
I
Z't
IT:oor-
FOIL ft*Iu.AWt
I694ert
OWM44d AW
LaO~JP
Z UNIT*,)
A' JLLW (
1W LP I ~
ANDERSON
H IM
PARK
I I W-IM
im
N
0
A U NO= UFAW
i;6
1
1
11 MINIM
I I II I I I I 1
2
-3-------
vlk
mw*
loll
111116
4917
IV
11'
VA
is few o, 22
wM
MW#44g A=
=w
mi'Ah MM111 IMMi I Irdi
Anderson Park, 250 Cambridge Street
Anderson Street
155
section of Boston.
It is located a short distance from Government Center and Mass. General
Hospital complex and, within walking distance of the State House, Boston Common, and downtown
Boston.
Development Information:
Anderson Park is a limited dividend development financed through the Massachusetts Housing
Finance Agency (project number 74-151-B).
Housing Economics, 806 Mass. Avenue, Cambridge is
the managing general partner of Anderson Park Associates, the developer.
Stull Associates,
431 Marlborough Street, Boston, is the architect; George B. H. Macomber Construction Company is
the contractor, and Abrams Management Company is the managers.
(See Appendix E for information
on the developer.)
The 64 units are 100% Section 8, and the replacement cost is $3,182,777.
the financial data for Anderson Park.
Exhibit 16 presents
The construction cost is $2,128,635 or $33,250 per unit.
Of the 64 units, 32 are new construction (being added on the 2-story portion to make it six)
and 32 are rehab units.
Likewise, 32 units are family and 32 units are elderly, with the
elderly units being mixed throughout the project.
(32)
(30)
(2)
The unit distribution is as follows:
1-bedrooms
2-bedrooms
3-bedrooms
159
16
EXHIBIT
Financial
Analysis for
Anderson
Park
Project
MONTHL Y RENTAL SCHEDULE
sSCacseU5s
,,oua..a
Ae
Project Number
74-151-B
Date 111(11m1 (w.piser)
New Construction (X) Rehab CK)
Non Profit ( ) Limited Dividend (I)
es,.ci
APPLICATION FOR MORTGAGE FINANCING (Mortgage Increase of $334,500)
Anderson Park
Name of Project
Address of Project 250 Cambridge Street
Name of Mortgagorndexacn Park Aneiares
Addressof Mortgagor c/o Housing Economics/806 Mass Ave / Cambridge. MA 02139
Mortgage AppI page 2
1 BRedoomIs
I
F 0 SF)
RE NT
NO
E
i Bedeooms
1 1025 SF)
NO. RENT
321
500
30
398
30
32
358
ACTUAL RENTS
4. With 236 Subsidy
(or State Subsidy)
5. MHFA Rents
(Adjusted Upward)
6. Section 8 Rents
6.scIon8Rns
(excluding electric) 32
STATUTORY RENT
COMPUTATIONS
I.
Market Rate
9.5 %025 yrs.
10.5 constant
2. MHFA Below Mkt. Rate
4
7.5 % @ 0 yrs.
32
8. 0 constant
3. MHFA Rents adjusted
Down 10%
I Bedrooms
( 1340 SF)
O. RENT
I50
2
670
487
2
577
30
438
2
519
398
30
487
2
577
20
30
24
2
28
Bedrooms
SF}
NO. RENT
Signed
Title
Equity Amount S 318.277
3.182.777
Total Replasement Cost S
Loan Amount S
Construction (K) Rate
2,864,500
Rate
Permanent Loan It)
74 %
-
No. Units Leased
8
40
Term
yrs.
. No. of months.2
%
Constant
6-7 -- No. Units 236
No. Apt. Units..__ No. Bldgs. __I_ No. stories
No. Units Rent Sypp.
General Partner
64
No. Units Elderly
8.0
64
S.
(oriented)
(V) Type IV.V or VI ( ), Union Contract ft)
Type I (X),Type Itor IIl
39,800 (89)9
*Adjusted Mtge/Unit
Land Value/Unit S 1,560+
Land Value S 100,000
44,750
$
AmtJUnit
Mortgage
Total Sq. Footage 84. 80Q
Gross Area/Apt. 840
Const. Cost/Sq. Ft. $
7.Renttob
aid by
Local Housing Auth.
8. Rent paid by Tenants
for electric usage
32
9. Rent paid by Tenants
under Section 8
32
25% of
30
2
25Z of
Residential Rents - totals from lines 4 thru 7 X12 -1
Plus 236 subsidy
.42
Spaces/Unit
. ene....
Avg. No. Bedrooms 1.5 No. Parking Spaces: outdoor Less residential vacancy
SUB-TOTAL RESIDENTIAL RENTS
Special Featuresof Project rehabilitation of existing parking garage and associated Commercial: ground 3775 sq. ft. @E /sq.I/yr.
new construction as part of larger community renewal.
other
1850 sq. ft. @3../sq.It/yr.
Less
7 % Commercial vacancy
(electric to be separately metered)
Equipment and Services to be Included in Rent:
SUB-TOTAL COMMERCIAL
2
Parking:20
(of
71paces@
$
45
month X 12'
light ( ), cooking (I ), electric heat ( ). gas heat (x), oil heat ( ), refrig. (x), elevators (no2).
Less
7 % Parking Vacancy
gas range ( ), elec. range (). dish"wasgt). disposal (x), exhaust fan (x), central a.c. I I,
Other Income:
window a.c. (:). carpet (), drapes Ix), swimming pool I ),
SUB-TOTAL OTHER INCOME
TOTAL ESTIMATED INCOME
community spaces, laundry room. access to adjacent playOther Tenant Amenities
ground.
Expenses: total operating expenses (line 1, page 3)
real estate taxes
FOR AGENCY USE
site fee amt. S
presented to Board by
(line 2. page 3)
2
25% of
income
$
$
($
342,000
$
30 200
(
2,502
$
(S
10,800
756
7,115
S_
appl. fee amt. $
late approved by Board
*Note: commercial and parking contribute Il+ of income
and approximately same proportion of costs
date rec'd
'Debt Service:
S
82L860
$
U7,0W
annual payment for interest & principal to MHFA
Dividend Distribution:
6% on S _1
33,248
$
S
378,177
(1)
$
129,920
(2)
$_
229 160
-
TOTAL EXPENSES
date rec'd_
$
j1.277 _equity) (line 3. page 3)
Combination of lines I thru 4 should equal "0"
$
10 ,044
19097
- - ----
Note: Owner will establish suitable escrow to cover $15,000 annually until commercial
income is stabilized (the amouit of the increase in such income shown above);
letters of intent are forthcoming from two potential tenants (a convenience
food store and a hook/record store) who would .ahsorb all 5,625 s.f.
160
(3)
4)
Mortgage Appl.
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSE SCHEDULE
page 3
Management Fee
-
3.5%
aroifi, sq. ft.
(6: 9i 1
community sq. ft. ( 1,100)
commercial sq. It. ( 5,625 )
total sq. ft.
I 84,80)
demolition and site work
residential space or building
community space or building
commercial space or building
+parking
13,235
5,000
500
GEL
Payroll Expenses - including taxes and fringes
Legal
1,500
Audit
Marketing Expenses
Telephone
Office Supplies
Other administrative Expenses
200
200
265
Sub-total - Administrative
Note: no major changes
proposed in approved
drawings and specs.
($25/s.f. cosercial and
$12.50/s.f. parking)
259.375
2.388.000
Construction Fees
Payroll Expenses - Including taxes and fringes.
Janitorial Materials
Landscaping
Decorating (Interior only)
Repairs (Interior 1 Exterior)
Elevator Maintenance
Garbage and trash removal - by City
Snow Removal
Exterminating
Pool Maintenance
Miscellaneous
500
3,200
3,200
2,500
-220
2,340
construction loan interest
' 14.mos.._7.2on$ 1.432.250
real estate taxes
insurance
MHFA site inspection fee
MHFA application fee
MHFA financing fee (_1%)
title & recording expenses
organizational & accounting
rent-up and marketing expenses
relocation
funded replacem't reserve
credit for rental Income
2,000
4
16,000
1,500
REPLACEMENT RESERVE:
12,000
- $2300 pupa)
.. 1)
15.000
7 , son
150
350
28,645
16,000
7.600
12.000
15.000
30,000
TOTAL REPL ACEMENT COST
(lines 1. 2, 3. 4)
Less Equity Amounts (itemize)
6,000
46,260
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES ($2030 pupa + utility allowances
S -2,553,.300
116,980
Develope'sFee( 10%)oflinesl &2
) sq. ft. @$
per square foot
Land
(
TAXES & INSURANCE:
(11 residential;
' 251 commercial)
Sub-total - Taxes & Insurance
165,300
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS
19,500
121A
-
15,000
legal fees
Sub-total - Utilities
-
' , M
U
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
4
Electricity - public only; individual metering
of units w/ utility allowances
Gas
per month as follows:
I BR $20
24
2 DR
Oil
3 BR 28
Water & Sewer
total$17,000* /yr.
90, 225
General Development Costs
22,420
UTILITIES:
000
A-non
Subtotal Construction Fees
500
300
watchman service (nightly + extra weekend visits
@ $5 per visit); also t.v. system in construction
12
surveys, permits, etc.
uind premium (._%)
architects fee-design L.....%)
architects fee inspection (%)
clerk of works
11,500
500
Sub-total - Maintenance
Insurance
Real Estate Taxes
32
32
64
($33.250 per unit)
2.128.625
Subtot al Direct Costs
21,400
MAINTENANCE :
SECURITY:
rehab units
new units
total
Construction Costs
ADMINISTRATIVE:
Mortgage Appl. page 4
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
280.252
38.02
$
249, 225
(2)
$
280.252
13)
$
100,000
14)
$ 3.182.777
.15)
fee
land
52,260
129,920
Less total equity
TOTAL LOAN AMOUNT
(line 5 less line 6)
$
318,277
$ 2.864, 500
16)
(7)
Because of the operational procedures of M.H.F.A. and its earlier construction time, Anderson
Park has lower rents that either Berger or Dillaway (see Exhibit 1G).
These rents represent
the highest allowable rents utilizing the 7.5%, 40 year, below market rate at which M.H.F.A.
will finance the project.
This construction
Anderson Park is basically of column and beam construction (typical garage).
allows for substantial alteration of the rear facade to provide private open spaces, however
there is (like the Berger) substantial new interior construction.
The unique quality of
Anderson Park is that the existing structure of the two-story portion allows for the construction of additional floors (roughly 35,000 new square feet).
Likewise, Anderson Park has
approximately 6000 sq. ft. of retail space at the ground level.
3.B.
3.B.1.
(See Exhibits
8-10).
COMPARISON OF THE COMPOSITE USER NEED PROGRAM
WITH THE DESIGNS OF THE THREE RE-CYCLED PROJECTS
Security
Site:
The Composite User Need Program list as goals for site security the following:
162
EXHIBIT
8
&MMZQ4A-L
O0SLVtI~rW
MA"
TILe
eOMMS*NE1ZL4AL
ANveg7r.iF V
m v Q1.cr
Loe~liat4
163
EXHIBIT
9
164
EXHIBIT
10
To rAsO,
I
PO
Sol
g.-
|PI
hglt.
Li te
-
3-- O 4
wNu
T
Y6e
165
I~
1.
That common site facilities and open space (parking lots, play areas,
informal gathering places, pedestrial pathways) be properly lit during
dark hours;
2.
That parking be on-site;
3.
That access to the site be limited.
All three projects address these goals.
Anderson Park
Although Anderson Park has few site open areas (a public stairway leading through the site to
the adjacent playground and some shared terraces), all are well lit.
On-site parking is pro-
vided by utilizing some of the existing basement and 1st floor garage space.
Access to the
site is limited by site coverage--Anderson Park's building area covers the entire site and
there are adjacent building on two sides with a retaining wall on the other (the building fronts
the street on the site frontage).
Dillaway School
The Dillaway School has both Boston Edison pole-mounted lights and building attached floodlights
to illuminate site facilities and open areas.
An asphalt parking area is provided on site.
166
Chain link fencing limits access to the site on the sides and in the rear and, the existing
wrought-iron fence does the same in the front.
(See Exhibit 11.)
Berger Factory
The Berger Factory utilizes all of the features of the Dillaway School to satisfy the User
Need Program's goals.
(See Exhibit 12.)
Building:
The Composite goals for building security are: a) control of building access; b) provision of
structured entry space into building; c) visual supervision; and d) well lighted communal
facilities.
All three of the projects exhibit design responses to these goals.
Anderson Park
The primary entrance employs an aluminum storefront entry with an interior vestibule for visual
supervision.
The second door is locked.
Television surveillance and nightly watchman service
also served to control access to the building.
The secondary entrances for the large family
units are also aluminum storefront with covered exterior vestibule.
The community room likewise
has a storefront wall for supervision and is well lit (see 3.B.2.--Lighting.)
Exhibits 8-10
illustrate the building security element at Anderson Park.
167
I~~
i -
N______
I0 TUWN MW:I W r"IACZ ISM AN VeTiA SOIL SOSOTONOA ALLA M
Tc:S- WO11 AA
A0SASON1 ARE NEMAAA0L TO AIPWM PTXZ A.ATED
WUMA&NEQSOL 'A 55 ;APox r5 "DL A-r
LEAT 4! oEP.
2
Z-%LN - 1GIZW
-S
SLRAT PLARAC TO Af, CLOT
AS STARLE
A' LC 42 ir
TIC.
PLNT KPY
PtANMA
iALS
Q.0,~LL
_-
to
tu" o--
-O MM
4:4 E P9E0T[)MOSCCSTWlD,
FINICL~~~2
Lfl - A.W -NA
IO0 6N rLAPLACf.
CETTOCAOSO TA .
'0LLY~AblAM*AAf,''
"
AO46!
OS1
AwW
is
IVMTA
is'
'
®
4
,
t"s 5.57
'
s
e
q9
0!0
ItLLA SWAYSII
~IN~~
S
K L W O R h 5 T~
_ _ _ _
5CALG
_
_ _
_
05-
W 5,
DS
EXHIBIT 1
S
T
ER
L
2
I
"
G
6
Bergef
.
S
Site
E .T
rR
~'
A~SA.~
z
u --
ar
____--____-
_S
-
.....
T
R
E E.
T
wLDN5
FJp7
yL
AN
4
--
-dL.
2
-
24-
-
-
-45LC,
.
TMr
m
eK
4AD169
a
Dillaway School
The Dillaway School has two entrances.
The primary front entrance employs the original wooden
school doors with vision panel inserts for visual supervision.
The rear entrance, which is
primarily for handicipped access, is storefront for the same reason.
Access through both en-
trances is limited by an interior (rear) and exterior vestibule area with locked doors.
The
Dillaway recreation room does not provide visual supervision since it is locked to limit access.
Where duplex units entries are located at exteriors at the basement level, heavy-duty, hollowmetal doors and frames are employed as an added security measure.
(See Exhibit 4.)
Berger Factory
The Berger also has two entrances: a) the primary entrance has wood doors (see Exhibit 24); and
the secondary entrance is aluminum storefront, both with locked doors.
Likewise, there is also a
structure to the entry areas--the primary entrance leads one from an exterior vestibule to an
interior lobby to a corridor which leads to the elevator.
The secondary entrance leads to the
4 units in the old auxilliary building and serves as the primary entry for the (2) 2-bedroom and
(2) 3-bedroom units that the auxilliary building encompasses.
supervision (vision panels).
Both entries provide for visual
The community room and the laundry facilities adjacent to the primary
entrance have storefront walls (for visual supervision) and are well lighted.
(See Exhibit 6.)
170
Unit:
The goals for unit security are: a) secure entry door; b) adequate, durable entry door hardware;
c) means to identify visitors without opening door; and d) "inconspicuous fortress" at windows
on ground floor.
These goals are incorporated in the designs of all three projects, although
in different ways.
Anderson Park
The entry door is sturdy, tamper-proof, hollow-metal.
A
Entry door hardware is a lockset.
peep-hole is provided to identify visitors without having to open the door.
There are no units
at ground-level, thus this is not a concern.
Dillaway School
The unit doors at the Dillaway are hollow-metal also.
There are 2 locks on the apartment
doors with removable cores--one jimmy-proof, and one deadbolt.
provided.
Door knockers and peep-holes are
Security screens are provided for ground-level units.
Berger Factory
The Berger has the same elements as the Dillaway School.
1 71
3.B.2.
Lighting
The assumptions made about lighting goals in the composite User Need Program include:
1.
That interior circulation and semi-public spaces be well-lit, with fixtures
which are vandal-proof, of sufficient bulb wattage to provide uniform light,
and aesthetically pleasing;
2.
That easy maintenance lighting be used in frequently utilized unit areas;
3.
That special, attractive lighting be used in dining areas.
All three projects employ elements which satisfy these goals.
Anderson Park
The lighting in the lobbies and entry is 150-watt accent lights.
The corridors have flourescent
lights; the community room has recessed ceiling flourescent lights.
Kitchen and bath fixtures,
which are heavily utilized, are recessed ceiling flourescent (kitchens) and shatter-proof
globes (baths).
Dining area lighting (in 3-bedrooms only, since they are the only units with
dining areas) are also globe-type fixtures.
Dillaway School
The interior vestibule and elevator lobby lighting is 150-watt high hats.
The corridors have
shatter-proof glass drums, and the recreation room has recessed flourescent fixtures.
Building
172
entry lights are lexan globes.
type.
Kitchen and bath fixtures are both the wall-mounted flourescent
Dining area lighting is an attractive brass chandelier.
Berger Factory
(Same as the Dillaway School.)
3.B.3.
Unit Layouts
The goals for unit layouts have to do with space; that units should provide more space wherever
well defined with galley
possible for living areas and storage and that the spaces should be
kitchens on the interior walls.
The general arrangements for large family units should be
duplex or townhouse types, and living and dining areas should be combined.
Anderson Park
Looking at Anderson Park, it is obvious that the units are very large (1-bedrooms--640 sq. ft.,
2-bedrooms--1025 S.F.; 3-bedrooms--1340 S.F.) and the combined living and dining areas are
ft.
huge--approximately 300 sq. ft. for 1-bedroom units, 350 sq. ft. for 2-bedrooms, and 500 sq.
for 3-bedrooms.
(H.U.D.'s Minimum Property Standards place the minimum combined living/dining
areas at 180 S.F. for 1- and 2-bedroom units and 200 S.F. for 3-bedroom or larger units.
See
Exhibit 13.) Likewise, the tenant goals of additional storage space and provision of foyer/entry
1 73
HUD
EXHiBIT 13
Property Standards-
Minimum
Rehabilitation
TABLE R4-1
ROM SIZES
Name of
Space(1)
LR
DR
K
Kette
DR (Double)
DR (Single)
LR-DA
LR-DA-E
LR-DA-SL
LR-SL
K-DA
K'ette-DA
NOTES:
(1)
Minimum Area (Sq. Ft.)(2)
0-BR LU 162 DR LU 3 or more DR LU
-NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
NA
NA
220
190
80
60
150
100
60
40
110
70
200
250
NA
NA
110
90
140
80
50
25
110
70
I80
220
NA
MA
80
60
Least
Dimension(2)
l0'-0"
7'-8"
5'-4"
3'-6'
o'-o"
7'-0"
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
Abbreviationst
Katte
= Kitchinette
DR - Bedroom
SL - Sleeping Area
NA - Not Applicable
0-1R No separate bedroom
LU- Living Unit
LLiving Room
DR = Dining Room
DA- Dining Area,
K a Kitchen
(2)
Variations to these areas and dimensions may be
permitted when existing partitions preclude precise
compliance, and the available area or dimensions do
not hinder furniture placement and the normal use
of the space.
(3)
The least disension of each room function applies,
except for the overlap or double use of space in
combination rooms.
Page 4-11 (and 12)
uo-V...,
D. C.
174
area (in most units) are incorporated in the Anderson Park units, even though the composite
User Need Program had eliminated these goals.
(See Exhibit 2.)
Kitchens are basically either
galley or "L" types on interior walls, and spaces are generally well defined.
The large family
units (3-BR's) are not of the duplex or townhouse type and, laundry hook-ups are provided in
these units.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Dilloway School
At the Dillaway, the units are likewise rather huge (784 S.F.--l BR's, 950 S.F.--2 BR's, and
1794 S.F.--4 BR's) with huge combined living and dining areas (329 S.F.--l BR's, 340 S.F.-2 BR's, and 380 S.F.--4 BR's).
Similarly, additional storage space, -(able to be provided
because the structural and design layout of the school), and entry/foyer areas are also included
in each unit.
Kitchens are either "U"'s, "L"'s, or galley types on interior walls, in general
all spaces are well articulated, large family units are duplexes with living area at 1st floor
and bedrooms at basement level, and no laundry hook-ups are provided for the duplexes (although
the laundry room is located at the 1st floor level).
Exhibits 4 and 5 illustrate the typical
unit layouts at the Dillaway School.
Berger Factory
The units at the Berger building are the smallest of the 3 projects, but still very spacious
175
(1-BR--600 S.F., 2 BR--850 S.F., and 3 BR--1l86 S.F.)
The combined living/dining areas although
smaller than the other 2 projects, are much larger than the H.U.D. minimum--260 S.F. for 1 BR's,
346 S.F. for 2 BR's, while 3 BR units have separate dining areas.
Likewise many of the 1-
bedroom units have separate dining rooms and some 2-BR units have combined kitchen/dining
areas.
(If the reader will recall, the preferred tenant goal for unit layout was to have
living/dining/kitchen areas as separate rooms although the Composite User Need Program traded
this goal off.)
Kitchens at the Berger are of all types--"L"'s, "U"'s, and galley; some units
have entry halls, but most do not.
Storage space is at a minimum, and because of the original
factory structure, spaces are for the most part well articulated.
duplex type nor are laundry hook-ups provided.
3.B.4.
The 3-bedroom units are not
(See Exhibits 6-7.)
Circulation Spaces
The goals for circulation spaces are for the most part adopted in the three projects.
Control
of access to circulation spaces, (the most important goal) is evidenced in all three projects
and will be discussed more fully in 3.B.8.--Building Entries.
The correlated goals--circulation
shared by a minimum of residents and eliminating 'institutionality' by providing as much of a
single family entry look as possible--are responded to with varying degrees of success in the
three projects.
176
Anderson Park
There is a primary entrance which services the bulk of the units and a secondary entrance
which serves the large-family units.
At the
Also there is a public walkway to the playground.
second level, a bridge crosses this walkway and connects sections "A" and "B" of the project
(See Exhibit 9).
Two elevators provided circulation from the lobby to all floor levels.
Storefront in the corridors and elevator lobby provides visual supervision, and these spaces
are finished with carpeted floors, painted drywall walls, and special lighting.
(See
Exhibit 8-10.)
Dillaway School
Although all units share a common primary entrance at the 1st floor level, the large family
units have individual secondary entrances at the basement level.
The upper floor smaller units
have access at both the 1st floor and basement levels through the elevator lobbies, which are
not accessible to the large family units.
The upper floors have the corridors divided by
storefront (which serves to fire-proof the elevator lobby area at each floor), and, yields a
tri-plex 'feel' since no corridor wing serves more than 3 units.
Circulation spaces are
carpeted with painted drywall walls (some exposed brick), with special lighting.
(See
Exhibit 4 & 5.)
177
Berger Factory
The Berger is similar to the Dillaway in that although there is a primary entrance, the 4 units
in the auxilliary building (2 2-bedroom and 2 3-bedroom units) have an entrance of their own.
The entrance provided through the elevator lobby is actually their 2nd means of egress.
these 4 units, there is certainly a 'four-plex feel'.
For
For the other units in the main building,
the corridor fire partitions and changes in the level of the corridor serve to produce a
'tri-plex feel'.
As with the Dillaway, the circulation spaces are carpeted, with walls of
painted drywall, and special lighting is provided.
Note:
Elevators are included in all three projects.
(See Exhibit 6.)
Elevator lobbies, vestibules,
and building entries will be discussed in 3.B.8.--Building Entries.
3.B.5.
Landscaping
Landscaping goals as presented by the User Need Program are incorporated to differing degrees
in
the three projects.
178
Anderson Park
Anderson Park, because of its site coverage, has very little site open space.
there are virtually no trees, shrubs, or grass areas.
As a result,
However, Anderson Park does have outdoor
informal gathering spaces with benches and sitting areas.
There are no asphalt areas and the
breezeway, exterior walkways, and shared terrace areas are of attractive paving tile and
scored concrete.
There is no variety of open spaces, other than the breezeway and terraces;
no basketball courts, playground areas, etc. are provided since a neighborhood playground is
located directly in the rear of the project.
(See Exhibits 8-10.)
Dillaway School
The Dillaway School does have open spaces with lots of trees and natural elements.
Exhibit 11
As
illustrates, there are plenty of trees and shrubs, both in the front of the building
and in the rear, and that a variety of open space areas--informal gathering places, playground
with conventional equipment, and grass areas--are included.
Pedestrian pathways, although
concrete, are attractive and abound with benches and sitting areas.
In essence then, the
Dillaway incorporates all of the goals presented in the User Need Program.
Berger Factory
The Berger Factory also has open space with trees and natural elements.
With the imminent
179
acquisition of the adjacent lot, parking will be shifted to the right side of the building and
the proposed parking lot will become a playground with conventional equipment and sitting
areas.
While the pedestrian paths are concrete, there is not much of it.
there is, is accentuated by shrubs and planting.
And, what little
Both with or without the adjacent parcel's
acquisition, the Berger satisfies the User Need Program's goals for landscaping.
(See Exhibit
12.)
3.B.6.
Interior Finishes
Section 2.C. illustrated the many satisfactory design responses possible in this area.
Composite User Need Program (Section 2.D.)
The
illustrates the goals and design responses assumed
to best satisfy both tenants and developers.
The three projects being investigated however,
cast doubts on some of those assumptions.
The finishes according to the Composite User Need Program should be as follows:
Floors
1)
Carpet in living areas and bedrooms
2)
Bathrooms--hard-wearing surface (ceramic tile preferred)
3)
Kitchens should be vinyl asbestos tile (VAT);
180
Walls
1)
Drywall with flat paint in non-wet areas
2)
Drywall with high-gloss paint in kitchens, with backsplashes (either
formica or ceramic tile)
3)
In bathrooms, tub area to be floor to ceiling ceramic tile (other walls
painted drywall);
Ceilings
1)
leak-proof
2)
attractive
Special Items
1)
Metal bathroom assessories
2)
Closet doors should be metal bifolds.
All three projects employ these finishes with one exception--Anderson Park has sheet vinyl
bathroom floors.
181
3.B.7.
Private Open Space
The Composite User Need Program lists as the goal for private open space the following--to
provide if possible.
at Anderson Park.
In the three projects being examined, private open space is provided only
There, private balconies and shared terraces are provided at the rear of
the building where the facade could be altered.
The other facades do not have these spaces
since they are load-bearing and would be too expensive to alter.
The Dillaway School and
Berger Factory are 'historical structures and cannot have their facades substantially altered.
As a result their treatment with regards to private open space cannot be considered typical and
thus must be disregarded.
3.B.8.
In their circumstances, the 'if possible' is not possible.
Building Entries
Building entries must satisfy two sets of requirements according to the Composite User Need
Program: a) functional, and b) aesthetic.
1)
The functional requirements include:
Provide a system of transitional spaces with the following features:
a) secure with control of access;
b) protection from the weather;
c) ease of contacting unit and identification of entrant;
182
d) visual supervision; and
e) mailboxes in safe area inside building.
Aesthetic requirements represent the following desired finishes for this space:
1)
Exterior Vestibules
a) Floors--cement, ceramic tile, brick, or quarry tile;
b) Walls--ceramic tile or brick;
2)
Interior Vestibules
a) Floors--hard-wearing surfaces (either brick, quarry tile, carpet, solid
vinyl tile) with rubber entrance mat;
b) Walls--Brick, cloth, or other attractive finish;
c) Ceiling--suspended with indirect lighting;
d) Benches;
e) Plants.
Most of these design responses appear in the three projects.
Anderson Park (See Exhibits 8-10.)
Functional Requirements:
There is an exterior lobby which leads to an interior vestibule, then the elevator lobby, and
finally the corridor.
The main entry is recessed for weather protection, and the interior
183
vestibule houses the doorbells and building directory.
The entire entry area is storefront for
visual supervision, and the mailboxes are located in a mail room off the elevator lobby (inside
the locked door).
Aesthetic Requirements:
The exterior lobby and vestibule floor are paving tile.
Two of the interior vestibule/elevator
lobby walls are aluminum storefront; the other two are painted drywall.
(non-suspended) with a textured finish.
The ceiling is drywall
Minimal planting and benches are also provided.
Dillaway School (See Exhibit 4 & 14.)
Functional Requirements:
The main entrance at the Dillaway involves an interior vestibule.
The entry through the existing
wood doors is recessed for weather protection and, gradually introduces the entrant to the
vestibule area.
The vestibule provides direct access to the duplexes and the elevator lobby
(1st floor level) for the smaller units on the upper floors.
At the basement level, a second
entry provides direct access to the lower levels of the duplexes and the basement elevator
lobby.
While the access to the duplexes is direct, the access to the elevator lobby is again
through an interior vestibule.
As previously stated, this entry (which is also recessed) is
primarily for the handicapped, although keyed access is provided to the upper level units, since
184
this is the entrance closest to the parking area.
The intercom system and building directory
are in the primary 1st floor, interior vestibule with the exception of the special buzzer to the
resident manager's apartment for the handicapped unit which is located in the basement level
vestibule.
Visual supervision for both vestibules is provided through storefront walls.
Mailboxes are located next to the recreation room on the 1st floor, behind the storefront door
leading to the duplexes on one side.
Residents of the upper level units have keys to this
door.
Aesthetic Requirements:
The primary building entry doors are the existing wood school doors with light panel inserts.
(Exhibit 14.)
The basement level entry is storefront.
to the entry doors has a rubber entrance mat.
In both the areas immediately adjacent
The front vestibule has a brief area of quarry
tile then carpeted stairs and landing, and the rear vestibule has a floor of all quarry tile.
The front vestibule walls are painted drywall and the ceiling is spineless suspended acoustical.
The lower level vestibule has walls of storefront and the ceiling is the same as the primary
vestibule.
At the 1st floor and above, the elevator lobby has an exposed brick rear wall,
with vinyl wall covering on the other walls,
and spineless suspended acoustical ceilings.
185
Dillaway
EXHIBIT 14
School's Primary
Plan View
Entrance
ICIOOLOOU§
KSVM
7.1
WI6MG WQOP
Front Elevation
186
*AL&: Vq
4 a'1?
1 86
Berger Factory (See Exhibit
7
.)
Functional Requirements:
The entry system here involves an exterior vestibule.
by the building overhang.
This vestibule is recessed and covered
It includes the intercom and building directory.
door is solid wood with side vision panel provided (See Exhibit 15.)
Likewise, the
Mailboxes are inside (in
the interior lobby) behind the locked door.
Aesthetic Requirements:
The exterior vestibule floor is concrete (cement) with rubber mat; the walls are exposed brick;
and the ceiling is stucco.
The interior lobby area (which leads to the corridor to the elevator)
has a quarry tile floor (as does the corridor), exposed brick on one wall and storefront
along the side with the community room, and a spineless suspended acoustical ceiling.
3.B.9.
Communal Spaces and Facilities
The goals for communal spaces: a) providion of a common kid's play area; b) provision of play
space for kids of all ages; c) provision of communal laundry facilities; and d) provision of
bulk storage,are satisfied to varying degrees in the three projects.
187
EXHIBIT 15
Berger
Factory's
hi
Primary
Entrance
L4~44iI
.L
~7
-I
--
ELL
ftz =--
FVi4W 1
7=--= :
J
F
'O..--
-j
PtujctY-
ADI~*
I
-I
I
1.
up (I. taIas
*oAqwe..L)
tom
a
1H'- 4" CAW ture. 1::1
I.
.1
-1
*1
1 88
Anderson Park
Since a playground is located adjacent to the site, no kid's play area is needed.
Likewise, a
community room and shared terraces represent the response to provision of areas for all persons.
A laundry room is provided (has its own terrace), and some bulk storage (albeit a small amount)
is also included.
Dillaway School (See Exhibit 11.)
The Dillaway School includes a common kid's play area.
playground equipment.
This area is composed of conventional
A recreation room is also provided, and informal sitting areas are
likewise scattered around the site.
Communal laundry facilities are located next to the
recreation room,however, no communal bulk storage space is provided as sufficient space is
provided within the units for such purposes.
Berger Factory (See Exhibit 122.)
The Berger has the same features as the Dillaway with the exception that a minimal amount of
communal bulk storage is provided.
189
3.B.10. Amenities
The goals and design responses presented for this area in the Composite User Need Program
are general enough so that any project's design responses would incorporate them.
The provision
of elements which enhance the project's a) image and b) liveability is equally desirable for
developers and tenants alike.
Although a conflict exist with regard to design elements, the
Composite User Need Program's assumptions are validated by these three projects.
The User
Need Program list as goals and design responses, the following:
a)
That air conditioning where provided be the window-type;
b)
That dishwashers be provided only in
the 2-bedroom and above units and be
white colored;
c)
That disposals be energy-efficient;
d)
That elevators be provided; (even in buildings less than 4-stories); and
e)
That an on-site management person or facility be provided.
All three projects address these goals and incorporate these concerns in their designs.
In
addition, both Dillaway and Berger also provide range hoods and exhaust fans, and Anderson
Park provides drapes.
190
3.B.11. Unit Mix
The two goals the Composite User Need Program presents for unit mix are:
a)
Homogeneity of Tenants, accomplishable by providing units of the same
size and type; and
b)
Clustering of units by family type, attainable by separating large family
units from small family units.
These goals evidence themselves in the design responses of all of the three projects.
In all,
there is a similarity of unit size and type--Anderson Park is predominantly 1- and 2-bedroom
units (62 of the 64 units) with (2) 3-bedroom units; Dillaway 13 of its 17 units as 1- and 2bedroom units with (4) 4-bedroom duplexes; and Berger has 19 1- and 2-bedroom units, and (2)
3-bedroom units.
Likewise, all three of the projects separate the large units (3-bedroom and
larger) from the rest of the units, and provide them with their own entrances.
3.B.12. Neighborhood Conditions
All three projects are located close to support facilities (their locations would be very good
even for market housing), and are in relatively quiet and safe neighborhoods.
191
/
CHAPTER 4:
ONCLUSIONS AND DESIGN IMPLICATIONS
PAR
THREE
From the coluparison of the Composite User Need Program to the design responses in the three
recycled projects investigated, it is clear that most of the goals and design responses of the
Composite User Need Program are also goals and design responses in the three projects.
Howev9j2, some goals and design responses for the three projects differ from the Composite
User Need Program.
Exhibit 17 illustrates the differences that exists.
I shall now relate these
differences and revise the Composite User Need Program accordingly so that the program becomes
applicable as a performance specification for recycling structures for low- and moderate-income
subsidized family housing.
.A.
REVISIONS TO THE COMPOSITE USER NEED PROGRAM
Building Site--Caused Compromises
Nearly all of the differences that exist between the Composite Need Program and the design
responses of the three re-cycled projects can be categorized as building or site-caused.
192
The areas where discrepancies occur are: a) unit layouts; b) landscaping; c) private open
space; and d) communal facilities.
In these areas, the building and/or site precipitated design
responses for the three projects that the User Need Program disregards as unacceptable.
However, these previously rejected design responses were originally desired by one group
(either tenants or developers) of users, before being replaced by more satisfactory ones.
Unit Layouts:
The goal of larger units with more space is assumed by the Composite User Need Program to be
very difficult to satisfy.
The design responses of the User Need Program exclude the
following: a) larger living areas; b) additional storage space; c) foyers and entry halls;
or d) separate dining areas or eat-in kitchens.
Interior-wall galley kitchens and large family
units as duplexes are some of the design responses that were included.
Significantly, the three re-cycled projects include all of the excluded responses and modify
the two above-mentioned included responses.
enormous living/dining areas.
All three include larger than usual units, with
Two (Dillaway and Anderson Park) have units with a separate
dining area and entry foyers, and all provide large amounts of unit storage space.
Likewise,
kitchens are not all 'galley' style, but include a variety of styles (all, however, are on
interior walls).
These design responses all result from utilizing the buildings' original
193
layouts; the existing structure of each lends itself to the provision of these qualities.
Thus, the Composite User Need Program, to be applicable for recycled structures, must be
modified to include these design responses where the recycled building's structure permits.
Landscaping:
The User Need Program trades-off the goal of providing a variety of open spaces.
of the three projects provide for this goal (Dillaway and Berger).
Anderson Park, because of
its coverage of the entire site, has no substantial treed or grass areas.
Anderson Park does provide a variety of open spaces
balconies),
However, two
Nonetheless,
(shared terraces, sitting areas, and
and has treed and grass areas close at hand in
the form of the playground.
Therefore, the User Need Program should include this goal, and where situations exist in which
the building covers the entire site, the User Need Program should allow for alternative design
responses.
Private Open Space:
The provision of private open space is critically influenced by the building's structure.
Anderson Park,
rear.
which is
Both Dillaway
column and beam construction, has balconies
(bearing wall construction) and Berger
and terraces at the building's
(combination bearing wall and
column and beam construction) which do not provide private open space, must be disqualified
194
because of the special conditions (Historical Structures) surrounding their facades.
The
important point is that column and beam structures are obviously easier to modify for the
provision of private open space than bearing wall buildings.
When recycling these types of
structures, some private open space should be provided in some form (balconies or terraces).
Bearing wall structures would seem to not be feasible for provision of private open space.
The Composite User Need Program must reflect these circumstances.
Communal Facilities:
The inclusion of play areas for kids of all ages, like the provision of a variety of open
spaces (landscaping) is governed by site coverage.
However even where the site allowed
(Dillaway and Berger), play areas for teenagers and adults were not provided.
As both these
recycled projects are less than 30 units, the size of the project appears to influence the
provision of these spaces.
(Anderson Park is adjacent to the playground and as such is not
typical; however where structured which are being recycled are similarly located with regard
to playgrounds, these spaces can be excluded.)
The Composite User Need Program should be
revised to reflect these conditions.
195
Other Compromises
Circulation Spaces:
The goal of circulation spaces shared by a minimum of residents is not included in the User
Need Program as being a feasible goal if utilizing private individual entries as design
responses.
However, the design responses at the three recycled projects indicate that through:
a) provision of separate entries for the large family units, and b) inclusion of corridordividing partitions (which also serve fire-proofing purposes), "Tri-plex and quadra flex feels"
can be generated.
These 'feels' represent the best possible solutions considering the pro-
hibitive costs of providing a "single-family individual entry" for each unit.
As a result,
these design respon-ses should be included in the Composite User Need Program.
Interior Finishes:
Anderson Park employs sheet vinyl as a design element for bathroom floors.
Since this material
is an easy-maintenance item, which will satisfy tenants, and, is cheaper than ceramic tile
which satisfies developers, the use of this material should be allowed as an acceptable alternative for ceramic tile in the User Need Program.
196
4.B.
4.B.l.
THE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION FOR RECYCLING STRUCTURES FOR
LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME SUBSIDIZED FAMILY HOUSING
EXHIBIT 17
Site Security
1)
Goals
a) That common site facilities and open spaces (parking lots, play areas, informal
gathering places, pedestrian pathways) be well lit;
b) That parking be on-site;
c) That access to the site be limited.
2)
Design Responses
a) Stanchion fixtures should be mercury vapor or similar, and building mounted lights
(floodlights a possibility) also to be provided:
b) To be determined by circumstances;
c) Fencing (chain-link, wrought-iron) best solution.
Building Security
1)
Goals
a) control of building access;
b) provision of structured entry space;
197
c) visual supervision;
d) well lighted communal facilities.
2)
Design Responses
a) provision of vestibule--either exterior or interior with locked door;
b) same as above (vestibules);
c) aluminum storefront or vision panels;
d) storefront wall along vision side or locked door, with sufficient lighting.
Unit Security
1)
Goals
a) secure entry door;
b) adequate, durable entry door hardware;
c) means to identify visitors without opening door;
d) "inconspicuous fortress" at ground.level windows.
2)
Design Responses
a) hollow-metal doors and frames;
b) at least one jimmy-proof lock (preferably two locks or even three);
1 98
c) peep-holes and/or chain locks (at least peep-holes);
d) security screens at ground level units, and no sliding glass door at ground level.
4.B.2.
Lighting
1)
Goals
a) that interior circulation and semi-public spaces be well-lit, with fixtures which
are vandal-proof, of sufficient bulb wattage, and aesthetically pleasing;
b) that easy maintenance lighting be used in frequently utilized unit areas;
c) that special, attractive lighting be used in dining areas.
2)
Design Responses
a) 150-watt lights, either high hats or accent lights, and community rooms should be
recessed flourescent ceiling fixtures;
b) wall-mounted (ceiling acceptable) flourescent fixtures;
c) attractive lighting (architect's discretion).
4.B.3.
Unit Layouts
1)
Goals
a) provide more space wherever possible for living areas and storage;
199
b) spaces should be well-defined;
c) kitchens should be on interior walls, stacked, and as much as possible be of the
'galley type';
d) large family units should be of the 'duplex' or 'townhouse' style;
e) living and dining areas should be combined.;
f) to -then utilize the existing structure to provide larger living areas,
additional storage space, entry foyers, and other types of special spaces
where the structure permits.
2)
Design Responses
a) self-explanatory;
b) kitchen separated from living/dining area (pass through acceptable);
c) self-explanatory;
d) same;
e) where possible, separate living, dining, and kitchen areas (where not possible,
make living/dining area oversized);
f) self explanatory.
200
4.B.4.
Circulation Spaces
1)
Goals
a) control of access to and within;
b) generate as much of single family entry 'feel' as possible;
c) provide visual supervision;
d) create 'luxurious feel' for these spaces;
e) provide elevator;
f) provide circulation space, shared by a minimum of residents.
2)
Design Responses
a) aluminum storefront;
b) break up corridors, provide large family units with separate entrances;
c) storefront for corridor partitions or wire-glass or tempered glass vision panels
in egress and elevator lobby doors;
d) finish area with carpet on floors, painted dry wall on walls, and special lighting
(see Section 3.B.1, Heading Lighting).
e) self-explanatory.
201
f) Use separate large family unit entrances and corridor partitions to
create 'tri-plex and quadraplex feels'.
4.B.5.
Landscaping
1)
Goals
a) Provide a variety of attractive open space elements with natural element;
b) provide a minimum of asphalt and concrete;
c) provide an effective and attractive pedestrian network;
d) in projects not within easy walking distance of a playground, and where site
coverage allows, landscaping area should include treed and grass areas.
2)
Design Responses
a) provide conventional play equipment;
b) limit asphalt and concrete to pathways;
c) provide planting, lights, and structured wallways;
d) self explanatory.
202
4.B.6.
Interior Finishes
1)
Goals
a) Floors--carpet in living rooms and bedrooms, ceramic tile or other hard-wearing
surface in bathrooms, and Vat in kitchens;
b) Walls--drywall with flat paint in non-wet areas, drywall with high-gloss paint
in kitchens with formica or ceramic tile backsplashes, and ceramic tile (floor to
ceiling) in the tub area of the bathroom;
c) Ceilings--leak-proof and attractive;
d) Special Items--metal bathroom assessories and closet doors should be metal bi-folds.
2)
Design Responses
(All self-explanatory.
4.B.7.
Note bathroom floor finish can also be sheet vinyl.)
Private Open Space
1)
Goals
a) provide private open space wherever possible;
b) where proposed recycled structure is of column and beam construction,
203
provide balconies and/or terraces for as many of the units as possible.
Where structure is bearing wall, unless developer desires, do not attempt
to provide private open space.)
4.B.8.
Building Entries
1)
Functional Requirements
a) provide a system of transitional spaces with the following features:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
2)
secure with control of access;
protection from weather;
ease of contacting unit and identification of entrance;
visual supervision;
mailboxes in safe location inside the building.
Aesthetic Requirements
a) Exterior Vestibules-i. Floors--cement, ceramic tile, brick, or quarry tile;
ii. Walls--brick or ceramic tile.
b) Interior Vestibule-i. Floors--hard-wearing surfaces (either brick, quarry tile, carpet, solid vinyl
tile) with rubber entrance mats;
ii. Walls--brick, cloth, or other attractive finishes;
iii. Ceiling--suspended with indirect lighting;
204
iv. Benches;
v. Plants.
3)
Design Responses
a) Functional Requirements
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vestibule provision;
recessed entry or canopied entry;
intercom and building directory in vestibule;
aluminum storefront or vision panels;
self-explanatory.
b) Aesthetic Requirements
(self-explanatory)
4.B.9.
Communal Space and Facilities
1)
Goals
a) provision of a common kid's play area;
b) provision of play space for kids of all ages;
c) provision of communal laundry facilities;
d) provision of bulk storage area;
e)
in
projects 30 units or larger which arerntwithin
easy walking distance of
playground, provide play spaces for teenagers and adults--architect to decide.
205
2)
Design Responses
a) playground with conventional equipment;
b) sitting area and informal gathering spaces;
c) laundry rooms;
d) (where possible).
4.B.10
Amenities
1)
Goals
a) provide elements which enhance the project's image;
b) provide elements which enhance the project's liveability.
2)
Design Responses
a) air conditioning, where provided should be of the window type;
b) dishwasher (provided in only 2-bedroom and larger units) should be white-colored;
c) disposal should be energy-efficient;
d) provide elevators;
e) provide on-site management persons.
206
4.B.11. Unit Mix
1)
Goals
a) homogeneity of tenants;
b) clustering of units by family type.
2)
Design Responses
a) provide units of the same size and type;
b) separate large family units from small family units, and provide them with
their own separate entries.
4.B.12. Neighborhood Conditions
1)
Goals
a) close proximity to support facilities;
b) quiet, safe neighborhood
2)
Design Responses
a) none;
b) none.
207
4.C.
DESIGN IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The document generated in 4.B. is a set of guidelines outlining user needs when developing
This
low- and moderate-income subsidized family housing through the recycling of structures.
set of guidelines for satisfying tenant and developer needs in those twelve (12) areas can now
be utilized for design purposes.
Although this document is called a performance specification,
it should be understood that its purpose is to provide a means for identifying user needs; it
should not be viewed as an end nor as a final product.
the users and their needs.
Every project is different and so are
Some goals and needs presented here as being very important, may
be less important in individual particular circumstances.
However, even in circumstances
where such is the case, this document provides a starting point for negotiation and thus is
extremely valuable for architects.
The processes presented for deciding trade-offs and con-
flicts is certainly open to further examination and experimentation, and are suggestions which
could definitely stand further refinement.
Hopefully however, this document will be of some
assistance to those attempting to present and identify user needs for the types of projects
this exploration examined, and will inspire other architects, developers, and tenant groups to
investigate this subject further.
208
In concluding, I would like to make the following observations.
First, as previously stated,
some of the design responses of the recycled projects differed from those in either the
Composite User Need Program or the Performance Specification, i.e.,
under unit security,
Anderson Park had only one lock instead of the two provided at the Dillaway and Berger as
suggested.
This fact was not overlooked; however not knowing the crime situation of Anderson
Park's neighborhood, I cannot say that it is under-designed even though in general, any project
with only one lock I would consider under-designed.
are only applicable to the Boston area; any
Second, this examination and its results
utilization of the 'Performance Specification'
outside this area will not be accurate because of the particular unique market considerations
in dffect in those areas.
Finally, as an investigation this paper has been very subjective.
The areas of user needs selected for investigation and the goal/design responses reflect my
biases, even if substantiated by others.
Neither the Composite User Need Program nor the
Performance Specification provide a detailed list of design alternatives available; only those
that I am most familiar with and those with which I have been involved.
Therefore the reader
should qualifyithis evaluation of this investigation considering these factors.
209
APPENDIX
A
HOUSING INNOVATIONS, INC.
Since 1966, Housing Innovations, Inc. (HII) has specialized in housing development and has
developed as owner-developer over $23 million of housing.
developer in over 650 units of rehabilitation.
They have been involved as owner-
Each of their ventures, whether it be rehabilita-
tion or new construction, is typified by a strong development team--including the architect,
contractor, and management company.
It is their belief that a competent development team will
minimize any problems arising during each of the development phases--conceptualization, construction and operation.
Even though HII strives to assemble as strong a professional team as possible, the staff of
HII tightly and continuously controls and monitors the development process from site selection
through management.
This process is necessary and valuable in order to insure that the projects
evolve as originally conceived, and so that HII can monitor and solve those developmental
problems--big and small--which arise and may result in additional costs or even the failure
of the project itself.
21 0
To this end, HII has a balanced, but small, staff that includes a registered architect, a
former senior mortgage analyst from the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, a business school
graduate, a licensed builder, and a real estate finance and feasibility specialist.
HIIl also
has two affiliates--Tenant Services, Inc. (TSI), which manages over 1,100 units of housing
including the 650 units developed by HII; and HII Consulting Services, Inc., which specialized
in transportation and land use planning.
This staff, with its wide range of specialties,
allows us to focus on all of the critical developmental issues of site selection, feasibility,
control of the pre-construction and construction piocesses, relocation, rent-up and property
management.
During the development and construction periods, a project manager, experienced in real estate
development, is responsible for each project.
During the construction period he is aided by
a full-time on-site owner's representative--usually an architect or licensed builder.
A
property manager from TSI is assigned to the project from inception and is heavily involved in
design and specification decisions, marketability considerations and the establishment of
operating budgets.
The property manager assumes full responsibility for the project at the
completion of construction.
In the case of the rehabilitation of occupied and vacant buildings
there is considerable overlap between development, construction, and management responsibilities.
For example, the property manager controls existing occupied properties and must relocate
211
existing families and empty buildings in a timely fashion for construction.
HI1presently follows a similar process for controlling the development and management of our
other projects.
Moreover, throughout this process, various members of the staff are involved
in periodic reviews of each project and in solving unusual problems as they arise.
their philosophy is
In sum,
and will be the utilization of a strong development team subject to the
continuous control of HII to insure a strong development.
Previous HII Projects
Rehabilitation
The rehabilitation of existing, already tenanted properties is an extremely complex construction
and management process.
vacant units.
Construction must be carefully coordinated- with the availability of
The relocation of existing tenants intorehabilitated buildings requires sensi-
tivity and tact.
Contingencies must be carefully provided for in the initial financing, and
the owner/developer and property manager must play a much more active role than is required in
new construction.
HII has developed four'rehabilitation projects financed by the Massachusetts Housing Finance
Agency (MHFA):
21 2
(1)
Intervale Associates has 14 dwelling units and was completed in
1970 (mortgage - $189,180).
(2)
Norfield Associates has 45 dwelling units and was completed in
1972 (mortgage - $714,000).
(3)
Lawrenceville Associates has 149 dwelling units and was completed
in 1974 (mortgage - $3,024,293).
(4)
Franklin Park Associates, Ltd. has 220 dwelling units and was
completed in 1977 (mortgage - $6,785,513).
HII is in the process of acquiring two scattered-site projects of 142 and 88 units from a
developer who had rehabilitated them with MHFA financing.
MHFA will provide additional financ-
ing so that these units which were inadequately rehabilitated and which have suffered neglect
may be rehabilitated as needed.
The total mortgage on these two projects will be increased
to $6,632,087 pursuant to a commitment from MHFA.
Franklin Park Associates, Ltd., their most recent rehabilitation development, typifies the quality
and scope of rehabilitation that can be achieved in a Section 8 development.
It consists of
220 units on 12 scattered sites in Roxbury and Dorchester and includes 95 one-bedroom, 99 twobedroom, 20 three-bedroom, 5 four-bedroom and 11 five-bedroom apartments.
All of the buildings
213
except for those at one site are brick, and all of the neighborhoods are strong--typified by
one and two family owner-occupied wood frame homes.
All of the large family units
(i.e.,
over two bedrooms) are located on the first floor of the buildings and most have entries
directly to the street.
By keeping the large units on the first floor, the number of children
in the general circulation of the building is minimized.
The amenities provided in this
development include closed circuit T.V. security in the larger buildings, dishwashers in units
of two or more bedrooms, disposals, window air conditioners, carpeting, a laundry in each
building and controlled community space for each building.
*Since this brochure was originally published in 1977, HII has expanded to encompass the
Schoolhouse '77 Prcoject in Boston, a hotel conversion in Oakland, California, a rehabilitation
in Annapolis, Md. (Kenmarr Apts.), a rehabilitation project in Atlanta, Ga.,
project in Baltimore, Md.,
a rehabilitation
and one in New York City.
New Construction
Concord Houses is a 181-unit project in Boston's South End and was completed in 1976.
has provided mortgage financing in an amount of $5,272,648.
MHFA
HIIwas initially invited to
participate in the project by a neighborhood group which acted as the sponsor of the project and
214
worked with us through the initial design, construction, and tenant selection phases.
Concord
Houses consists of two seven-story brick buildings, one primarily for the elderly and the other
for small families.
Built in an historic district of Victorian bow front townhouses, the
buildings have brick facades and projecting bay windows and are carefully designed to complement
the neighborhood's 19th century architectural character.
The three- and four-bedroom apartments
have off-the-street entries completely separate from the elevator circulation for upper floor
one- and two-bedroom apartments.
The development is within walking distance of the Prudential
Center and the Hancock Tower.
Located in Springfield, Massachusetts, Bergen Circle consists of 201 units, 91 of which are
designed for the elderly.
by MHFA.
The total mortgage amount is $7,381,100, which has been provided
The project includes a seven-story high-rise with 161 one- and two-bedroom units,
seven two-story townhouse buildings which contain 40 three- and four-bedroom units and a commercial building which has approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of floor space.
Prior to HII's
participation, the project suffered from a checkered development history, with numerous
architectural, construction and development groups having tried and failed on the same site.
HII took over the "distressed" project in 1974, completely restructured the development team
and redesigned the project.
The development was successfully completed in 1976.
Special ameni-
ties' include a swimming pool and tennis courts.
215
The City of Boston Infill Program, initiated in 1971, involved the construction and sale to
the Boston Housing Authority of 54 dwelling units of "Turnkey" housing on scattered sites in
the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston.
Contracts totaled $2,101,490.
Under this program, 1111
designed, developed and constructed two-family, six-bedroom, prefabricated woodframe houses on
lots ranging in size from 6,000 to 15,000 sq. ft.
The houses were carefully designed to fit
unobtrusively into neighborhoods of predominantly one- and two-family houses.
to the BHA for occupancy by large, low-income families.
cessful, meeting with widespread tenant enthusiasm.
They were sold
The program has been extremely suc-
It remains one of the few examples of
adequate rehousing of large low-income families.
HII is the development constultant to the Lower Roxbury Community Corporation (Madison Park
Houses).
The client is a non-profit community group which the Boston Redevelopment Authority
chose in 1970 as the developer of 15 acres in the Campus High School Renewal Area in the Lower
Roxbury section of Boston.
Since that time, HII Consulting has planned a staged development
program for Madison Park Houses.
HII Consulting prepared financial feasibility analyses for
the development, coordinated the efforts of the architects, engineers and the administrative
personnel representing both the owner and the BRA, and handled the processing of the project
through the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency.
At present, 132 units for the elderly and 131
216
units for small families are completed and occupied, and 120 family units of townhouses are
under construction.
When construction of the townhouses is complete, Madison Park Houses will
have 383 units of elderly, small-family, and large-family apartments on an inner city site
containing public open space, private yards, recreation areas and parking.
The total mortgage
value of these three projects is $11,528,087.
21 7
APPENDIX
FAIR
MARKET
B
RENTS
Proposed revised Fair Market Rents for New Construction and Substantial
Rehabilitation were published in the Federal Register dated April 25,1977.
'!he proposed Fair Market Rents are as follows:
Market Area
BOSTON
CAPE COD
FALL RIVER
Structure Type
0
1
2
3
hor
Valkup
-
382-
47:
567
295
372
316
396
404
434
Elevator
627
500
-
Semi-Detached/Row
Detached
467
-
Semi-Detached/Row
-
-
463j
496
447
583
367
256
323
334
372
287
364
411
-
410
Elevator
Semi-Detached/Row
Walkup
-
337
308
-
339
424
374
420
467
290
-
-
-
357
339
'396
429
374
472
487
451
586
530
Semi-Detached/Row
Walkup
Elevator
271
316
more
-
Walkup
Elevator
SALEM
Number of Bedrooms
498
-
406
4908
432
YOU AIE CAUTIONED TEAT THESE RENTS ARE ONLY PROPOSED ANDABE SDBJET TO
CHANGE EITHER UPWARD OR DOWNWARD
PRIOR TO FINAL PUBLICATION FOR EFFET.
If the revised FMRs become effective prior to the deadline date of this
NOFA, all developers or sponsors who have received a Developer's Packet
will be notified by addendum that the revised FMsR shall be applicable
to this NOFA.
,
If the revised FMRs become effective after you have submitted a proposal but
before the deadline, you will have the right to withdraw the proposal and replace it with an amended proposal.
If the revised FtRs become effective so
close to the published or modified deadline that there id inzufficient
time to accomplinh such a revision, the field office will grant you a reasonable period of time (not to exeed 10 days) beyond the deadline to submit an amended proposal.
YOU ABE RlMMERD THAT TEE FIELD OFFICE MAT NOT ACCEPT PROPOSALS WHICH HAVE
GROSS RENTS HILMR THAN 120 PERCENT OF TE CURENTLY APPLICABLE 2Mus
C
21 8
APP
SUBMISSION
Joh, T.
REQUIREMENTS
1..16 W-*P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AREAOFFICE
SULFINCHSUILING, 15NEVCHARDONSTREET
REGION I
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS02114
e.nndy Fedel
FOR
DEVELOPER'S
PROPOSALS IHUDI
SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROCRAM
DEVLOPu' S PACKET
Notification of Fund Availability
uilding
IN
REPLY
me
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
C
ENDIX
M~AKc
-03
No.W
To Whog It ay Concern:
we To,
1.1p
NOTIFICATION OF FUND AVAILBILTT
You have indicated an interest in constructing housing to be assisted
by housing assistance payments pursuant to Section 8 of the U.S. Housing
- SECTION 8
Act of 1937, as amended..
Developer's Packet.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development will accept Preliminary
Proposals for newly constructed and/or substantially rehabilitated
housing units under the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program,
to be located in the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) district,
the Southeastern Massachusetts Regional Planning district, and the
Cape Cod (and Islands) Regional Planning district.
If you wish t4%ubmit a Preliminary Pro sal in response to the Notification, you ust submit to this office
copies of your Preliminary
Proposal in conformance with the submission requirements of this
Developer's Packet. Before preparing your Preliminary Proposal you
should carefully review the program requirements and the regulations
,(24 CYR, Part 880) included in this Packet.
Proposals may be submitted by private owners or Public Housing Agency (PHA)
Owners for direct contracting with HUD, or by PHA's on behalf of Owners
with whom the PHA proposes to contract pursuant to an Annual Contributions
Contract with HUD.
Contract Authority (funding) is not presently available to this office.
However, in anticipation of receipt of Contract Authority in the near
future, we expect to make available:
(1) in MAPC $6,680,700 to provide
assistance for an estimated 745 units for the elderly and handicapped,
265 units for lar
families (3 or more bedrooms), and 325 units for
other families; (2) in Southeastern Massachusetts $127,500 for an
estimated 25 units for the elderly and handicapped; and (3) in Cape Cod $547,2O0
an estimated 105 units for the elderly and handicapped.
The copies of your completed Preliminary Proposal must be submitted to
this office, either by hand delivery or by certified mail, by the
deadline date and time set forth in the Notification of Fund Availability or that earlier or later deadline which is established by
EUD with appropriate notification to those parties who have registered
with the Field office so that they =ay be so notified.
.
Proposals
for projects
is nonmetropolitse area, .nd Proooeals for oripqcrjp.izhjwsh
the
number of assisted units will be limited to 20 or less of dwellinunits should be so labeled on the outer envelope.
preference will be given to projects in which housing assistance is
limited to 202 or less of the units.
*
Thank you for your interest in the Section 8 lousing Assistance
?ayumms Program.
'ra
Appropriate instructions, forms, and other program information are
contained in a Developer's Packet which may be obtained from the Boston
Area Office, 15 New Chardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 3rd floor.
Please refer all questions to the HUD Multifamily Housing Representative
at (617) 223-4166.-
UeepeeeI
This office reserves the right to reject any or all of the Preliminary
Proposals submitted. Pursuant to Section 880.104 of the regulations,
Proposals must be received by 5:00 PM on June 15, 1977. This deadline
may be shortened or extended by HUD.
In such case HUD will notify all
parties who have previously registered with the field office requesting
such notification.
Submission deadlines shall not apply to Proposals for projects in which
the number of assisted units will be limited to 20 percent or less of the
dwelling units or for projects to be located in non-metropolitan areas.
However, such proposals received after the deadline will be reviewed only
if sufficient contract authority remains from this Notification to fund
the proposal.
This letter and enclosures constitute the
N~3.e~4
c
s
21 9
DEVELOPER'S PACKET - PART I
7420.1 Cr.
District
1.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)
2.
Tour Preliminary Proposal may be submitted for any number of units up to
745 units for the elderly and handicapped, 265 units for large families
(3 or more bedrooms), and 325 units for other families.
3.
The following types of housing are unacceptable:
1.
2.
4.
APPENDIX 1
DEVELOPER'S PACKET - PART II
SUBMISSION REQUIRIEENTS FOR PRELINART PROPOSALS
Your Preliminary Proposal shall contain the following:
Mobile Homes
High rise elevator structures for families with children.
1.
There are no special requirements as to location, density and site
planning.
5.
Please contact the Planning Department or the Chief Executive Officer
6.
See the qchedule below for the Fair Market Rents (FMRs) applicable to the
of the locality to determine specific Housing Assistance Plan requirements.
structure and unit sizes as published in the Federal Register dated
April 6, 1976:
Market
Area
Boston
Salem
Structure
Number of Bedrooms
2
-
3
-
0
-
1
-
Semi.Detaobed/ov
-
364
410 '520
575
Walkup
290
364
400,
430
495
levator
312
384
462
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
340
394
47
538
Walkup
268
332
370
447
525
Elevator
312
384
462
-
-
Detached
Semir
Detached/Row
. -
See addendu attached for information on revisions proposed to the FMRa.
7.
Please refer to Attachment A for the preferred utility combination. If you
do not desire to utilie this combination, you must submit HUD
Form 51994
and attachments.
8.
Please refer to the attached information pertaining to Project Selection
Criteria.
1
of Form 2013 completed as follows:
Part
Part
Part
Part
HITE:
A,
B,
C,
D,
in its entirety.
Items 25 and 26.
in its entirety.
Items 37 and 38.
If you propose to use HUD mortgage insurance, your
Proposal should comply with item 17 instead of this item 1.
-2.
A map shoving the location of the site and the racial comoosition
of the neighborhood, with the areas of racial concentration
delineated. (Not required in case of a New Commnities project.)
3.
A sketch of the site plan showing the general development of the
site including the location of the proposed buildings, streets,
parking areas and drives, service areas, and play areas.
4.
Sketches of the main elevation of each type building and sketch
floor plans of each typical living unit.
5.
A description of special amenities,. if any.
6
The utilities
and services to be included in the contract rent and
those utilities and services not included. For any utility and
service not included in the Contract Rent, include an estimate of
the average monthly cost (for the first year of occupancy) to the
occupants by unit size and structure type.
4 or more
-
Type
Detached
Page
a.
b.
c.
d.
7. Documentary evidence that you have title to the site or a copy of
the site option agreement(s), contract(s) of sale, or other legal
coitment(s) for the sites.
(Only the proposed price is required
for a New Communities project.)
8.
A shoving that your Proposal meets the requirements or restrictions
necessary for compliance with the provisions of the local Bousing
Assistance Plan, if any.
9.
Evidence that the proposed construction is permissible under
applicable zoning ordinances or regulations, or a statement of the
proposed action to make the construction permissible and the basis
for belief that such action will be successfully completed prior
11/76
220
7420.1 CHG
7420.1
APPENDIX 1
CBG
APPENDIX 1
to submission of the architect's certification required by
Section 880.211(b) of the regulations (i.e., a summary of results
of any recent requests for rezoning on land in similar zoning
classifications and the time required for such resoning,
preliminary indications from zoning bodies, etc.).
10. A statement as to whether the proposed project will displace site
occupants.
If so, state the number of families, individuala, and
business concerns to be displaced (identified by race or minority
group status, and whether they are owners or renters), and show
that relocation is feasible. In the case of a PEA-Owner Proposal,
S6. A statement as to the proposed method (e.g., conventional
mortgage, HUD insured mortgage, bonds) and terms (e.g., interest
rates, discounts, amortization period) of financing together with
evidence of review and interest by a lender, or bond underwriter
or counsel or similar evidence that financing would likely
be available should be Proposal be selected.
(Such evidence of
financing is not required if the Owner proposes to utilize mortgage
insurance or the Farmer's Home Administration (FuRA) Section 515
Rural Housing Program.)
17.
a statement shall be included as to how the necessary relocation
If HUD mortgage insurance is proposed, a Form 2013 mast be
completed as follows:
payments will be funded.
11.
a.
b.
A signed certification, (Form-HUD-917, Appendix -1-1), of the
Owner's (or in the case of a Private Owner/PA project, the
Owner's and the PEA's) intention to comply with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of ±964, Title VIII ot the Civil Rights Act
of 1968, Executive Order 11063, Executive Order 11246, and
If
Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Devlopment Act of 1968.
the proposed project is to be loca ted within the area of a Local
Housing Assistance Plan, include certification that the Owner
will take affirmative action to provide the opportunity to
apply for units in the proposed project to persons expected to
reside in the community as a result of current or planned. employment
as indicated in the Local Housing Assistance -Plan..
12. A 'statement iasto' theientit
c.
d.
In addition to the application, the required exhibits for a
SAMA application identified under "Attachments" in the Form
2013 instructions must also be provivided. Particular attention
must be given to the proper completion of the Site Information
portion of Section A and all of Section B relating to land
acquisition.
All required information must be entered on
Form 2013.itself and not by reference to other sources, documents.
or' exhibits extept as specified in-the. Fia 2013 instrructine-, -
ot the Omer,- 'Aeveloper; 'bilder-
(if known) and architect (tf known) and the qualifcations end
. '
- experience of each.
,
18.
If financing by the FmHA $ection 515 Rural Rousing Progrse is
proposed, provide a copy of FuHA Form AD-621, Preapplication
for Federal Assistance (without attachments), that has been
submitted to the FmHA.
19.
A statement as to whether the Owner intends to pledge or offer
the Agreement and/or Contract as security for any loan or
obligation.
20.
As an alternative to basic OMB Circular A-95 procedures, where
BUD submits copies of proposals received to the appropriate
Clearinghouses, the Owner may submit his proposal directly to
the appropriate State and Areawide Clearinghouses prior to submitting it to HUD. In such cases, a copy of the Clearinghouse's
comments, if received by the Owner, will accompany the application.
A list of the appropriate Clearinghouseh and their addresses may
be obtained from the Field Office.
13. A completed Form 2530. Previous Participation Certificate, shall'
be submitted for officials and principal members, shareholders
and investors, and other parties having substantial interes4.
14.
A statement as to whether the Owner intends to prdvide management
In the latter case,
services or to contract with a managing agent.
if the identity of the managing agent is known, provide a state"
ment as to his qualifications and experience and submit a
completed Form 2530 for parties having a substantiil interest In the
managing agent's firm.
15. A statement as to whether the Owner Proposes to limit the number
of assisted units to 20 percent of the dwelling mite in the
project.
11/76
Page 1, in its entirety.
Page 2, only Section E and Line 73 of Section G (or its
equivalent), "Land (Estimated Market Price of Site)."
Page 2, Section I, Items 4 and 5 only if applicable.
Page 3, Section I, to the extent known.
Page 3, Section J.
11/76
221
PROJECT
APPEN\DIX
SELECTION
CRITERIA
FOR
SECTION
8
0
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
0
A-E AOFFICE
BULFINCH BUIlt tit"..
1$ NEW CHARDON STREET
I
G
..
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS02114
mOE
N
yO,
RIEF904
1.1F
2
PLV
(b)
Ifanarecent
(c)
Equal Oncortnity Performance:
includes past perf:rmance in,
all EO requirements, the extent to which the curant proposai
will generate jobs for minorities and project area residents,
the extent to which opportunities will be provide! to minority
and project area businesses, and the ability to market to a
racially varied population.
Project Selection Criteria
Section 8 New Cbnstruction/Substantial Rehabilitation
Rating Scores (except for I-Rents):
Excellent = 5 points
Good
= 3 points
Fair
= 1 point
Unacceptablo = 0 points
V.
Criteria:
I.
Rentq (maximum of 4 points): rating is based cn the relative amount
of "savings" resulting from the difference between (1) the proposed
Contract Rents (plus Utility Allowance if applicable) and (2) the
reasonable rents as determined by HUD (plus Util'ity Allowance if
applicable).
(a)
b
c
d
Rents above reasonable rents Savings of 0'- 5%
Savings greater than 5%
Savings greater than 10%.
-
0 points
1 point
2 points
4 points
VI.
VII.
VIII.
-
ability:
'cludes past record of finari::al success,
physical condition cI buildings, and tenant satisfaction.
(Includes managing agent, if known.)
A-95 and Section 21) Comments (maximum of 5 points): rati-ng will
consider A-95 clearinghouse and local chief executive ccmments,
particularly as they relate to consistency of the prcposal with
a proved Housing Assistance Plans, environmental concerns, etc.
he terms,
Financinr (maximum of 5 points): rating will consider -.
conditions, and likelihood of financing, with highest ratings
given to proposals with binding coamitments for financing.
Overall Fearibility (maximum of
5
points)
BONUS POIWTS
Project proposes Section 8 assistance for 20% or less of the
units - 4 points
Project proposed Section 8 assistance for 80% or less of the
(b)
units - 2 points
Project has firm proper zoning (including a comprehensive
(c)
-permit under M.G.L. ch. 774) - 3 points
roject will use conventional financing - 5 points
d)
eV Project will support - or be supported by - other urban renewal/
community development or improvement programs - 5 points
(f) Overall management feasibility in design, location, and proposal
concept - 10 points
(g) Equal Opportunity Performance and Potential - 10 points
(a)
CI.
rating will consider the following%
Location (maximum of 5 points):
a) Accessibility to schools, shopping, etc. q
Extent of concentration of low-income or assisted families
&b)
c) Amount of displacement of site occupants involved (only proposals
/
not involving displacement can earn 5 points under Location).
Sitability of site for intended use
Freedom from adverse environmental conditions.
4
Design Concent (maximum of 5 points): rating will consider treatment
of site, design, layouts, special amenities,-energy conservation,durability, provision for security, and scope of rehabilitation
(if applicable).
III.
I.
Maximum Score = 81 points
V,
IV. Owner Experience (maximum of 5 points for each):
(a) Development ability: includes demonstrated timely processing and
construction, financial capacity, and past history of design
excellence.
222
APPENDIX
E
HOUSING ECONOMICS
In response to the demand for more and better housing in this country, federal and state housing
assistance programs have been created for low and moderate income housing.
These programs
operate to reduce the impact of the inflation in construction costs, financing terms, and oeprating expenses, making available housing to families who otherwise could not afford it.
In
addition to direct forms of assistance, the federal government has also created tax incentives
for investment in housing.
Recent changes in the tax laws have enhanced these incentives,
especially for housing which is government assisted, by favoring the tax treatment of residential
construction over other real estate and by reducing the tax shelter opportunities in other
industries.
The Company
To realize the financial and tax advantages available through the development of low and moderate
income housing requires a willingness to deal with government agencies, specialized knowledge
of housing programs and tax provisions, and a generally more sophisticated approach to housing
development.
Responding to these conditions, Housing Economics was formed in 1970 in Cambridge,
223
Massachusetts to offer consulting services to sponsors of low and moderate income housing.
The company's clients range from established real estate development organizations to citizens'
groups who wish to initiate housing in their communities.
In addition to developmental prin-
cipals, Housing Economics works with architects, lawyers, accountants, financial institutions,
and other housing professionals involved in the development process.
The consulting services offered by Housing Economics are based in part on package of computer
models which evaluate the feasibility of FRA or other housing projects and which project
the tax consequences of such projects.
Services in addition to the computer models include
preparing the necessary mortgage applications, assisting the project architects in the site and
unit design, and generally expediting the processing of a project.
Housing Economics will also
assist the project's general partnership with tax shelter syndications, project management, and
other activities required to develop and operate suitable housing.
224
The Principles
Mr. Robert H. Kuehn, Jr. has specialized in the area of low and moderate income housing since
1965.
He holds degrees in Architecture and Urban Planning from Yale University and was awarded
a Fulbright Fellowship to study housing economics at the University of London.
He co-authored
An Economic Analysis of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 which was published by
the Harvard Business School where he was formerly a Research Associate.
He is also the author
of several papers related to low and moderate income housing and has taught a series of seminars
on housing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mr. Kuehn worked as a housing
consultant for various private companies and government agencies in New York City, New Haven,
Connecticut, and Boston before forming Housing Economics in 1970.
Mr. James E. Rouse has been involved in business management consulting since graduating from
the Harvard Business School.
He has worked on all aspects of general management problems
associated with small businesses, specializing in the design of information and control systems.
Mr. Rouse has worked closely with a number of housing developers in the design of a computerized
apartment management program.
He is also experienced in the organizational and tax structures
required of companies engaged in housing development.
Mr. Rouse has held management positions
in a number of films in Boston before forming Housing Economics.
225
Mr. Sheldon L. Baskin is an associate of Housing Economics in Chicago, Illinois.
He holds
degrees in economics from Princeton University (A.B.) and from the London School of Economics
(Ph.D.) and is a graduate of the Harvard Law School.
From 1963-1970, Mr. Baskin was an
executive with the First Reality Co. of Boston, Inc. and its affiliated housing development
and management companies.
He served as an advisor to the President's Committee on Urban
Housing (Kaiser Committee) and is the author of several articles on the financial and tax
aspects of low and moderate income housing.
Mr. Baskin maintains his own legal and consulting
practice in addition to representing Housing Economics in the Midwest.
Great Eastern Building Company is an architectural design and construction firm in which
Housing Economics has a financial interest.
GEBCO currently spe'ializes in the development of
condominium units for New England vacation areas.
The company employs innovative design and
engineering techniques which allow for rapid on-site construction.
GEBCO is also experienced
with housing rehabilitation.
226
Clients
Developers:
Berkshire Housing
Development Corporation
Pittsfield, Mass.
Continental Wingate
Boston, Mass.
Development Corporation of America
Boston, Mass.
East Boston Community Development Corp.
Boston, Mass.
First Realty Company of Boston, Inc.
Boston, Mass.
Developers:
(continued)
Piatelli Construction Company
Braintree, Mass.
State Street Development, Inc.
Boston, Mass.
Architects and Planners:
Great Eastern Building Company
Cambridge, Mass.
Kent, Cruise, & Partners
Providence, Rhode Island
Genpart Corporation
Norfolk, Virginia
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Planning Office
Cambridge, Mass.
Gilbane Building Company
Providence, R.I.
Neal Mitchell Associates
Cambridge, Mass.
Greater Boston Community Development, Inc.
Boston, Mass.
PARD Team
Boston, Mass.
*Housing Innovations, Inc.
Boston, Mass.
Rogers, Moore & Associates
Cambridge, Mass.
Phipps Houses
New York City, New York
227
Lawyers, Accountants and Consultants:
Tufo, Johnston & Zuccotti
New York City, New York
Boise Cascade Center for Community Development
Washington, D.C.
Investment Counsel:
Center for Community Economic Development
Cambridge, Mass.
Boston Equity Planning, Inc.
Boston, Mass.
Community Housing, Inc.
New Haven, Connecticut
Industrial National Bank
Providence, Rhode Island
Downs, Mohl & Company
Chicago, Illinois
National Corporation for Housing
Partnerships
Washington, D.C.
Ooodman-Segar-Hogan
Norfolk, Virginia
Kuras & Company
Cambridge, Mass.
Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwarth
Boston, Mass.
Packer Wilbur
New York City, New York
Van Alstyne, Noel & Company
New York City, New York
Venture Management, Inc.
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Much & Shelist
Chicago, Illinois
National Council for Equal Business Opportunity
Washington, D.C.
Peabody, Brown, Rowley & Storey
Boston, Mass.
Stavisky & Shapiro
Boston, Mass.
228