Programming Charrette Summary 1 August 2016

This report summarizes the programming charrette for the Arts & Creativity Center held on August 1, 2016. More than twenty practicing artists, creative professionals, and representatives of arts non- profits were invited to participate in this visioning discussion for the project. A full project summary can be found at the end of this report.

Charrette Agenda 5:00 food/beverage/mingle 5:20 introduction from the project team 5:40 project overview and charrette process from the design team

6:00 session I: breakout groups to talk about different aspects of the development (housing, site amenities, shared resources) 6:40 break 6:50 session I review

7:00 breakout session II 7:40 break 7:50 summary / overall review

8:30 done!

The BIG Questions What physical things do you need to be creative? Space? Circulation? Infrastructure?

What are the aspects of the built environment that inspire creativity? Think more broadly here, this is more abstract aspects of the built environment- light, views, etc.

How can arts and creativity be embedded into the DNA of the project? How do “art/creativity” and “home” come together? How do “art/creativity” and “community” come together? How can the local creative community collaborate in the design and construction process?

Participants Michael Barela Razelle Benally Mi’jan Celie Jesse Deluxe Ginger Dunnill Micayla Duran Zane Fischer, MAKE Santa Fe John Flax, Theater Grottesco Israel Haros-Lopez Jared Antonio Justo-Trujillo Kristen Keilman Julian Lovato Justice Lovato Michael Lujan James Lutz Alex Neville, High Mayhem Isabel Ribe Laura San Ramon Carlos Santistevan, High Mayhem Carmen Selam Edie Tsong Erika Wanenmacher Jerry Wellman, Axle Contemporary

Development Team Jamie Blosser Cyndi Conn, Creative Santa Fe Yuki Murata, Creative Santa Fe Shannon Murphy Katelyn Peer, Creative Santa Fe Daniel Werwath, New Mexico Inter-Faith Housing

Design Team Miguel DaSilva, Miguel DaSilva Architects Sanda Donner, Surroundings Shawn Evans, Atkin Olshin Schade Architects Will Iadevaia, Surroundings Trey Jordan, Trey Jordan Architecture Tamar Terrell, Atkin Olshin Schade Architects/Surroundings Tushita Vavas, Trey Jordan Architecture Garron Yepa, Atkin Olshin Schade Architects THE DWELLING What physical things do you need to be creative? What are the aspects of the built environment that inspire creativity? How do “art/creativity” and “home” come together? How does “making/creating” influence daily life? How do families fit in? How do we provide for flexibility in live/work lifestyles while meeting bedroom requirements? Raw vs. finished Private outdoor space? Private outdoor work space?

DISCUSSION SUMMARY The two sessions focused on “dwelling” had distinctly different emphases. Whereas the first group focused on general relationships between the dwelling, workspace, and automobile, the second group focused more on specific studio requirements.

As with the two other discussion topics, the first group spent time coming to understand the basic program of the project – that this would be rental housing at very affordable rates. Despite the need for cost-effective construction, attention should be given on aspects of design that don’t necessarily create cost – proportions and daylight.

In terms of the car, there was consensus on the importance of vehicles to the residents in practical matters. Keeping the automobile close was a goal shared by the group. An interesting discussion was held on the possibility of utilizing vehicular space as an extension of the studio space. This happens frequently at the Second Street Studios where table saws and other equipment is sometimes pulled into an immediately adjacent parking space. Distinct possibilities were discussed, both of which may be worth exploring further. Providing parking below the dwelling could provide protected space, whereas providing parking adjacent to the units would provide more convenient extension of studio space. This idea of vertical separation continued into the discussion of the relationship between living space and studio space. Should these spaces be on the same level with a flexible transition between, or should they be separated with the dwelling being a living loft above the studio space below, or a crow’s nest workspace over kitchen and bathroom, looking over the living space below. The concept of malleable adjacent space that could be used either way to suit varying practices and living styles gained traction. This group achieved consensus with regard to the need for garden space, children’s play area (both private and communal), sound segregation, and the need for flexibility of space.

The second group focused on studio requirements such as a sound-proof central room, built-in storage, overhead doors, rolling partition walls, smooth walls (with a plywood substrate for secure connections), no carpet, and an open floor plan to maximize flexibility. There was also consensus with regard to the need for a dog park, a playground designed by artists, and use of courtyards to help establish a public/private separations. The group advocated for sustainable design and solar power to minimize utility bills for residents. Providing covered access to the studio was discussed as important for loading art. They questioned the general security of the project ground, with concern over access that non-residents would have. The public/private delineation was clearly on their mind.

Whereas the first group believed there was a strong need for multi- generational housing where three generations could live together in four-bedroom units, the second group doubted the market need for such units and moreover made the case that the units should be seen as “short term” housing, to encourage the residents to make the most of the live/work arrangements prior to relinquishing the space to the next deserving candidate. This group saw value in creating variable studio types – detached, attached, separate, open, but all to be flexible and capable of evolution.

CONSENSUS • Varied units provide for different creative practices. • Creative residents will want flexibility in units to fine-tune them to their own needs. • The units should be raw and constructed of durable materials. • Configuration of the development must provide for both community and security. • The automobile must be well integrated into the plans and be allowed close to the units. • Shared and private outdoor space are equally important.

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION • Is the housing intended as a long-term community or short-term residency? • Will the development be geared towards youth? • What is the feasibility of providing true live-work space within financial constraints? • Should laundry facilities be provided within the dwellings or in the residential amenity facility? THE SITE What physical things do you need to be creative? What are the aspects of the built environment that inspire creativity? How do “art/creativity” and “community” come together? How can the local artistic community collaborate in the design and construction process? How should the site link to and through the community? What is the potential of the acequia? Community gardens? How should privacy be balanced with collectiveness? Should the development be designed to facilitate studio tours? Public/shared outdoor workspace? What is the appropriate place for vehicles? bikes, cars, trucks, vans

An interactive model was prepared by Zane Fischer to facilitate exploration of the site. This playful arrangement by Edie Tsong explored public and private space.

DISCUSSION SUMMARY The site discussion objectives were an attempt to uncover the organizational and physical requirements that can help foster a creative, productive and yet residential environment. These uses are admittedly in conflict with each other, at certain levels. How does the relationship between residential dwellings and creative endeavors work and not work? These objectives were captured in the fundamental questions of the charrette’s site discussion listed above.

From these questions evolved a discussion covering the topics of the site’s city context, the site’s edge conditions and neighboring property uses, appropriate programmatic distribution and the ultimate adjacencies of the site structures.

An interactive model was intended to allow the groups to explore arrangement of program on the site, but the groups were more interested in discussion of the program.

PROGRAM DISCUSSION Parking: − Parking areas could double as event space − Parking spaces should be near dwelling units − Use parking as buffer between residences and adjacent industrial properties − Rear loaded parking

Work Space: − Shared/subdivided workspace − Communal workspaces/tool sharing can breed conflict − Parking space doubles as personal workspace − Variety of spaces some connected studios/some separate studios − Outdoor work paddocks can provide workspace flexibility and may mitigate noise conflicts − Creating restrictions with noise and workspaces may set precedent of restriction that is in conflict with spirit and intention of workshop community, could lead to further restriction − Some residents might prefer the separation of work/creative space and residential unit − Architecture/construction method as a solution to the noise concerns. Super Adobe? − Outdoor workspaces need summer shade, should be usable year round − In unit and workspace storage is very important − Workspaces should be oriented with solar orientation in mind

Micro Economy: − Radio station/Coffee shop/Gallery/Laundry − Rentable venue - Dividends − Solar power generation − Use The Brewery Art Colony (Los Angeles) as a model for revenue − Shared storefront on Siler Rd. − Lightning powered light show

Public vs. Private: − Use workspaces to separate residential and public space − Need strategies for creating boundaries between public and private spaces. How to prevent public visitors from wandering into resident areas of site.

Open Space: − Include the acequia as a cultural artifact; incorporate historical ditch culture into site − What are the current constraints with the acequia, ditch rights? − Opportunities to connect acequia to trail system − Close relationship to acequia open space and community food production. − Open space as a venue for horticultural experimentation − Open space as a place of decompression to recharge creativity, do not over program with active spaces − Use open space to connect residential areas to acequia − Include edible landscapes − Use roofs as gardens/open space − Use berms/landforms to block offsite noise

CONSENSUS The level of interface and separation between the public venues and the private residences was found to be a strong concern among the participants. The importance of privacy and personal space will need to be addressed in the site planning and programming. Strong consensus was also found in the utilization of the existing acequia as a foundational armature for the project open space; a combination of connected and separate studio spaces, the possibility of outdoor performance and exhibition, proximity of parking to the units and the potential for entrepreneurial enterprises throughout the site.

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION • Can space devoted to parking be harnessed for larger event purposes? • How can open space be programmed for the public without opening the entire site to non-residents? • How can outdoor workspace be designed and sited, in an affordable manner, that avoids creating an artist petting zoo? • Can open space provide effective linkages to adjacent land and possible future developments?

THE AMENITIES What physical things do you need to be creative? What are the aspects of the built environment that inspire creativity? How do “art/creativity” and “community” come together? How can the local artistic community collaborate in the design and construction process? What amenities (shared/public and residential) are needed/desired? How might the shared/public amenities and residential amenities relate? Public/shared outdoor workspace?

DISCUSSION SUMMARY The two primary recurring issues were ‘commons’ and ‘flexibility’. Various spaces should be thought of as commons – outdoor open space, meeting space, gallery, shared workspaces, etc. These spaces should be designed to permit the free-flow and exchange of ideas. Participants wanted flexibility in both living and amenities spaces, i.e.: movable walls, open space plan, bare bones apartments, multi-purpose amenities buildings, as well as flexible outdoor space. Participants were most concerned with the flexibility of entire complex. Size and flexibility of work space is more important than ‘living’ areas; most would prefer an open plan, loft-like space rather than traditional apartment space. Sharing resources and exchanging ideas is very important. There was also an emphasis on integrating with the larger SF community in some way while maintaining privacy. The public amenities building should provide space for: • Shared space would allow for dialogue through artistic practices. • A non-competitive partnership with Meow Wolf, where the shop has different equipment, in order to share resources. Some thought we should not spend money on high tech equipment but focus on craft based needs. • Shared Studio/Shop: plasma cutters, welding, sewing/upholstery equipment for autos, mechanics tools, big machinery hard to find in SF, kilns, etc. • Theater rehearsal space and performance space: need flexible light grid/risers, which can be moved around; flexible flooring; lighting and sound equipment. It was recognized that provision of rehearsal space was more likely as it could be used for other purposes as well. Outdoor performance/theater/music space is important and both indoor and outdoor space should be flexible, ie: should be mobile/located in a variety of possible locations. There was a repeated emphasis on the need for sufficient electrical outlets both inside and out, and on roofs, for theater/performance/music and workshop equipment. • Mercado to sell wares. • Space for pop-up events. • Gallery space especially for those without representation. • Several mentioned generating income from renting shop facilities and performance spaces to the public as well as theater/performance/music shows open to the public. • Outdoor space should be designed to be functional for events such as low-rider shows that embrace a larger view of what it means to be creative. • Residents should have priority access to resources. Would there be resident user fees to support operations and maintenance? The private amenities building should provide for: • Library/Resource Center/Meeting Space (residents can house and share personal books), a shared space to exchange ideas, share knowledge, engage with other residents and possibly the public (lectures/presentations).

Consensus was not clear on whether laundry facilities should be provided within the dwellings or in one of the amenities building. Great potential was seen for a laundry facility to serve the residents (and perhaps non-residents), build community, and serve as a venue for discussion and events. However, a number of participants expressed the need for laundry in the units, particularly for the three-bedroom units.

Design of amenities buildings and shared work space will impact dwellings. A strong case was made that the quality/size of work space is more important than living space. Someone expressed that if units had outdoor space, living spaces could be smaller. CONSENSUS • The amenities will define the culture of the project and will impact who lives there. Amenities are key to interaction of residents and construction of community. • When asked about including collaborating artists in the design and fabrication of the buildings and landscape in the development, the group saw more value in use of the buildings as blank canvases for rotating murals, new media/projections, and public engagement art. A public wall would provide the image of a dynamic and ever changing creative community and a means for young artists to gain visibility. • Storage, storage, storage! Both private and shared! • The amenities must be carefully programmed to complement and not compete with existing resources in the neighborhood. • Sustainable design and alternative energy should be implemented with the goal of lowering utility costs. • Acoustics, soundproofing, and security must be carefully controlled. • Shared outdoor workspace should be explored while maintaining some privacy.

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION • Are the amenities the heart of the development or the interface with the larger community? Should the amenities be on the street in a consolidated facility or distributed and integrated into the residential buildings? • How will shared spaces be managed and scheduled? • Who will own the tools, equipment, lights, sound boards, etc? • It’s obvious that this project can’t be everything to everyone. Perhaps the types of artists targeted needs to be limited (4 or 5 types?) so the amenities provided will be made the most of and result in a more productive and harmonious live/work environment.

PROJECT SUMMARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING+WORKSPACE+ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT The Arts+Creativity Center (A+CC) represents a completely novel approach to community development that will combine affordable live/work rental space with shared workshop and community facilities, all amplified through on-site economic development support programming. The A+CC will serve lower-income creative entrepreneurs and their families. People from diverse backgrounds working in the visual arts, music, theater, dance, media arts, applied arts, healing arts, designers, entrepreneurs, writers, craftsmen, builders, makers, and people in related industries that support those professions. By integrating community resources such as shared workshop spaces, meeting rooms, exhibition spaces, performance spaces, and public open space, the A+CC will support the surrounding neighborhood and the broader creative economy, and create a new kind of place that serves as a vibrant intersection of Santa Fe creative culture.

PROJECT PARTNERS Non-Profit Developers/Owners: Creative Santa Fe and New Mexico Inter-Faith Housing Design Team: AOS/Trey Jordan/da Silva Architects/Onion Flats Outreach Team: After Hours Alliance (Shannon Murphy)/Michael Santillanes

TARGET BENEFICIARIES

This project aims to assist low and very low-income residents. Our goal is to target an average income level among all households of below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI), and we will include units affordable to residents who earn below 30% AMI. For example an individual who makes no more than 30% AMI ($13,110 a year) will have to pay no more than $351 a month in rent. A two-person family qualifying for a unit set aside for those earning 50% of the area median income can earn no more than $25,000 a year, and will pay no more than $702 in rent for a two-bedroom live/work unit. Income limits and maximum rents are adjusted annually by HUD.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH Thanks to the receipt of a prestigious National Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” planning grant, this project will invest over $300,000 in connecting with the community around design, programming and amenities for A+CC. We plan to use this funding to have creatives from diverse background produce events to prototype elements of the project and gather further information for the design team.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The A+CC is dedicated to creating the lowest environmental impact possible throughout the development process. We will at a minimum meet the 2015 Enterprise Green Communities green building standard. Our design team includes two firms that specialize in Passive House construction, and one team, Onion Flats, is a national leader in Passive House tax credit funded multi-family housing. We are exploring the potential for energy generation, micro-grid distributions, and cutting edge water recycling strategies in addition to the high standards set by Green Communities.

PROJECT COMPOSITION

The following building program represents three years of planning and outreach work and is the general program that we are using for planning purposes. Final programming will not be determined until after extensive public input.

Up to 70 Units on 5 acres: Between 51 and 61 units of very affordable and up to 9 units of moderately-priced market rate live/work rental units.

• ranging from 1-3 bedroom • estimated sizes of 700-1100 square feet; larger than typical because of need for workspace • 2-story height

Residential Shared Amenities Building: 2500 square feet • for use of residents and their guests • laundry facility, meeting space, computer lab, etc. • office for resident services coordinator and provision of resident- specific services

Dedicated Open Space: .5-1.5 Acres • .5 is minimum required under green building guidelines • 1.5 acres of open space is the most desirable amount and earns the largest number of points under the green building criteria • more is preferred given the lack of public outdoor space in the Siler area • an asset to nearby city employees and the entire neighborhood as well

Community Shared Resources: 6000+ square feet • shared workshops for types of work that is too messy/loud/dirty to include in residential, other non-profit/community organizations and retail/micro retail spaces • open to the public as a neighborhood and community asset • other assets as determined by the NEA Our Town grant project outreach process

PROJECT COST

Total project cost for the residential component of the project will be approximately $13-14 million, with an additional $1-2m for the shared resource spaces depending on the scale. Total predevelopment costs necessary for a Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) application will be approximately $400,000, which will be provided by Creative Santa Fe and New Mexico Inter-Faith Housing from organizational funds and grants.

PROJECT TIMELINE 2016-2017

NEA Grant Community Outreach, Planning and Dec 2015- Sept 2017 Design Rezoning Summer 2016 Conceptual Design- required for LIHTC Oct 2016-Dec 2016 application Submit Tax Credit Application Jan/Feb - 2017 Notice of Tax Credit Award May 2017 Syndication of Tax Credits, Secure Private Apr 2017- Apr 2018 Financing Fundraising for Shared Resource Space 2016 - 2017 Construction Starts on Live/Work March 2018 Live/Work Completion/Lease-up Spring 2019

WHY SILER ROAD?

The Siler Road area was the highest scoring of all sites analyzed as part of a City-sponsored process to identify possible locations for the project. The location is a natural fit for compatibility of existing uses in the area, which include artists and craftsmen studios, tradespeople, entrepreneurs, and a high number of non-conforming live/work units.

! The Siler site has the highest likelihood of being awarded low- income housing tax credits based on the Mortgage Finance Authority scoring model. ! It is located in a majority low- and moderate-income census tract, which makes it eligible for 30% more development subsidy than other areas studied. The census tract does not currently contain any formal affordable housing, although there is a concentration of “naturally affordable” rentals off Rufina. ! Its location in the center of the city makes access to community- shared resources easier for all residents of the city. ! The site has access to two major bus lines, the Acequia Trail and the future extension of the Santa Fe River Trail. ! With rising rents and building prices in the area, long-term affordable live/work space is direly needed to stem gentrification.

Project Contact: Daniel Werwath, [email protected] 505-467-8340