Paul Gruber

Project Design in Collaboration with Molly Bennett

Faculty Advisor – Peter Sprowls

Honors Thesis – Spring 2019

Tradition Versus Progress: Designing Residency in TriBeCa, Gruber 1

ABSTRACT

As New York City continues to grow, residential towers are drastically changing the urban fabric in the past several decades. With housing more exclusive than ever, these architectural feats are only serving a certain demographic with no consideration for the past history of the area it plans to inhabit. “Tradition Versus Progress: Designing Residency in

TriBeCa, New York City” investigates this design issue. Through the elaboration of a Design

Seven studio course project, done in collaboration with Molly Bennett, an urban residential tower was created for the TriBeCa district. TriBeCa is now the district with the highest average housing costs in all of , and these new elite structures have changed the unique history of the area. Ultimately, the investigation of the tower project led to a question of how to design for an evolving community, while still adhering to cultural traditions and demographic diversity of an area.

Gruber 2

INTRODUCTION

Known for its prominent film festival and its reputation as one of New York City’s most expensive districts, TriBeCa is a sought-after suburb for many. TriBeCa is a nickname for the phrase “Triangle Below Canal Street”1 with its boundaries defined as the , Vessey

Street, and Canal Street (Figure 1). Formerly known as “Washington Market,” the district originated as a heavy industrial area and housed a famous produce market.2 After the commercial industry of TriBeCa was relocated elsewhere, the abandoned infrastructure of the area was eventually inhabited by local artists. TriBeCa developed into a huge hub for the arts, promoting creativity and the sharing of artist culture in New York City.

After the , the district suffered a huge depression due to its proximity to the World Trade Center. Through efforts, such as the

TriBeCa Film Festival, which started in 2002, the area has since been revived. However, a new problem has emerged;

TriBeCa has become too exclusive. With the construction of large-scale residential project and rents rising to twice the average of New York City (the median sale price for residences is $3.85 million)3, the demographics of TriBeCa have shifted drastically creating a loss of its once unique artist culture and a surplus of upscale retail and residencies.

Although TriBeCa has become more unapproachable than ever before, there is an exciting opportunity to reintroduce a

Figure 1 – Map depicting general boundaries of diversity to the area that was once so prevalent. TriBeCa’s unique district shape.

Win, Nieminn. 2015. Tribeca Map. New York. https://www.behance.net/gallery/29963839/Neig hborhood-Map-of-Tribeca-New-York-City

1 Feirstein, Sanna. Naming New York: Manhattan Places & How They Got Their Names. New York: NYU Press, 2001. 2 Yarrow, Andrew L. "Tribeca, A Guide to its Old Styles and its New Life." The New York Times. October 18, 1985. Accessed March 16, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/18/arts/tribeca-a-guide-to-its-old-styles-and-its-new-life.html. 3 Walker, Ameena. "These Were NYC's Most Expensive Neighborhoods in 2018." Curbed NY. December 13, 2018. Accessed March 16, 2019. https://ny.curbed.com/2018/12/13/18139332/nyc-most-expensive-neighborhood-2018-tribeca. Gruber 3

THESIS

With New York City’s ever-growing population and need for large scale constructions, how can designers create projects that inspire growth and development, while maintaining a tradition of its place? This design problem was addressed, in collaboration with Molly Bennett, for the Design Studio 7 Course Tower project. The project proposes a design for a new residential tower in TriBeCa that reintroduces the artist culture that had previously permeated the district. Through contemporary design, the tower aims to inspire new creativity for the area, while still respecting the architectural traditions of the district. In addition, the aim of the tower is to bring a diverse economical demographic back into the area.

The concept of the live-work studio has been taken to the extreme providing a shifting vertical volume featuring programmatic blocks for artists to express their creativity through a variation of social interaction. The tower allows for inspiration of the artists of New York City using intimate, human scale spaces for inward reflection. However, the tower does not only impose an individualistic spatial experience as it also utilizes constructive collaboration within the community spaces, fostering a connection to the expansive views of . The slenderness of the design aims to work with the site and not distract from the already congested skyline of the city. Ultimately, the goal is to create spaces, where internal creativity can be expressed and projected into the community externally.

Gruber 4

THE SITE

The chosen site for the investigation of this design issue is 102 Chambers Street, New

York City, New York (Figure 2). The site’s narrowness and access from three distinct street edges, the longest being Church Street, pose a challenge for the tower. The treatment for each façade and position at the end of a block establish the need for a strong presence at the street level. The site is zoned for Mixed Residential and Commercial buildings, which would enforce the need for intersection programs with the housing component of the building. In addition, issues of setbacks from the street edges and gross floor area were restricted due to its zoning regulations and informed the height of the project.4

As previously mentioned, the district of TriBeCa has undergone immense transformation in the last several decades. The rising rents and elite reputation of the area have made residence there impossible for most, especially the people who brought the district to the peak of its creative prominence. In “Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto,” Architect Rem

Koolhaas states:

“Not only are large parts of [New York’s] surface occupied by architectural mutations, utopian fragments and irrational phenomena, but in addition each block is covered with several layers of phantom architecture in the form of past occupancies, aborted projects and popular fantasies that provide alternative images to the New York that exists.” (10).5

Koolhaas discusses the palimpsest of New York City. Each construct built on the urban fabric of New York City seems unnatural and an attempt to impose an architectural idea where it may not fit. Architecture must acknowledge its precedents; there is a need to explore what existed before. This “phantom architecture” hints at the past lives of New York City. There is a

4 "NYC's Zoning & Land Use Map." ZoLa. Accessed March 16, 2019. https://zola.planning.nyc.gov. 5 Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto. New York: Monacelli, 1994, 10.

Gruber 5 history with the idea of a city. There are fictional lives that have been ignored or waiting to be realized. A designer must acknowledge these traditions and provide analysis of how a block has achieved its present form. There is a need to synthesize these architectural moments at various points in time and then decide to what extent to utilize the precedents. This analysis allows the architect to understand the culture and provided an intent for how to approach the design on this particular site. He or she can choose to design with tradition in mind, or completely ignore the context and create something drastically new and exciting.

In 2017, Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron completed 56 Leonard Street, a residential tower project in TriBeCa. The building has been nicknamed the “Jenga Building” for its design of stacked volumes and is the tallest building in TriBeCa at 821 feet (Figure 3). While many found the project exciting, and quite modest for new projects that had been proposed in the city, it seemed those familiar with the district found concern. Julie Menin, now a

Commissioner of the New York City Mayor's Office of Media and Entertainment argued, "I don't really see how asymmetrical stacked glass boxes reflect the architecture you tend to see in

Tribeca…This building is absolutely non-contextual with the rest of Tribeca."6 This project is an example of architecture that wants to progress an area through its contemporary design. The reverse argument champions for traditional architecture and sees the imposition of these massive towers as an attack on the extensive history of an area.

With these opposing concepts, how can architects begin to mediate the needs of a community through design? Architecture should not be required to mimic the past, as if the city were merely a static museum. Yet, the architecture cannot ignore its context. The design proposal for the tower at 102 Chambers Street provides the opportunity to create a multifaceted structure. The goals were to bring back cultural activity of the area, creating a design that works with its context, but also a design that inspire new exploration in architecture.

6 Arak, Joey. "A Bad 56 Leonard Review." Curbed NY. September 19, 2008. Accessed March 16, 2019. https://ny.curbed.com/2008/9/19/10559356/a-bad-56-leonard-review. Gruber 6

Figure 2 – Satellite Image showing the site footprint at 102 Chambers Street, New York, NY.

Accessed from Google Earth. 2018. “102 Chambers Street”

56 Leonard Project Herzog and de Meuron

Figure 3 – Image of 56 Leonard in the context of TriBeCa. It dominates the landscape and does not seem to fit with its surroundings.

Accessed from https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/market-insight/features/future-nyc/as-56-leonard-awaits-its-anish-kapoor- sculpture-look-inside-its-most-incredible-listings/20444

Gruber 7

PROGRAM

The program of the tower’s design is inspired by diagrammatic concepts from the

Downtown Athletic Club, which was a recreational building built in the 1930’s for

Executives to participate in various sports and activities. In the Downtown Athletic Club

Designation Report, a detailed description of the building is provided. It is noted that “The idea of an athletic club in a skyscraper, with different functions on each floor, has been called ‘the apotheosis of the Skyscraper as instrument of the Culture of Congestion.’ This building was called the ultimate machine for living, encouraging desirable forms of human intercourse and the pursuit of bodily perfection.”7 The building, its setbacks, and facades provided an expression for its purpose and created an efficient sequence of space (Figure 4). For the design at 102

Chambers, this expressive program was an integral component to the design. The intention would parallel that of the Downtown Athletic Club but with creativity as the focus. The need for a “machine for living,” that begins to serve more than one purpose and a promotes a heightened level of human interaction.

Collaboration is a key component of the program.

The design of 102 Chambers has multiple key systems that work with the context to create this intersection of public and private spaces. The intention of these interlocking programs seeks to mediate the progression of the TriBeCa district, while providing a space for artistic and cultural traditions to thrive. The sequence of these Figure 4 – The distinct diagram of the program is expressed from the exterior of the Downtown Athletic Club. spaces has been broken down into five parts (Figure 6). Cahill, John W. /CTBUH. The Downtown Club. http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/the- downtown-club/3479

7 New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Downtown Athletic Club Designation Report, New York City, 2000. 5. Gruber 8

Figure 5 – Speculative Section Perspective drawing depicting the design intent of the tower at 102 Chambers Street. Distinct programmatic moments have been highlighted to showcase the itinerary.

Section Perspective, in collaboration with Molly Bennett.

Gruber 9

1. PUBLIC BASE

The massive base of the tower is reminiscent of the traditional townhouses that have

become integral to TriBeCa. The design employs heavy materials to create a grounded feel

but utilizes moments of transparency to invite the public to enter from the street level. The

base also works with the scale of the adjacent houses to respect the typical height of the

district and employ a sense of continuity. This grounded space is an important public area

for the design. This intersection provides an entry point for the residents, but it also acts as a

gallery space for those living there to present their artwork to people in the community. The

base of the tower modernizes the concept of the townhouse through its design, by

transforming into a space of inspiration for the public. It celebrates creativity and inspires

and educates those who participate. Its presence at the street level works with the context,

while still providing a new statement of progression for the area (Figure 7).

Figure 7 – Perspective Rendering showing the base of the tower approaching from Church Street. The massive base can be seen in relation to its surroundings, not to disrupt the block’s edge.

Entrance Render, in collaboration with Molly Bennett.

Gruber 10

2. INTERLOCKING UNITS

Each floor consists of four interlocking rooms, that vary in height from the bedroom space to the living space (Figure 8). The units are connected by an internal courtyard and provide distinct views on all four sides of the tower. The complexes provide spaces for intimacy as well as spaces for discussion among the resident artists that live there. The intersection of these units creates an interesting sectional quality that enforces the projects main theme of collaboration (Figure 9). In addition, the screened façade allows for a modulation of light and a filtration of specific views to Lower Manhattan.

Figure 8 (Left) – Diagram depicting the unit geometry and their interlocking among floors.

Figure 9 (Above) – Section Elevation showing the human scale quality of the residential units.

Unit Diagrams, in collaboration with Molly Bennett.

Gruber 11

The inspiration for the design of the units comes from Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitiation

project (Figure 10). This housing project, completed in 1952, offered a new approach to living,

where people could gather in a community and live, work, shop and play. Le Corbusier was

concerned with the human scale and wanted to establish a module that effectively and

efficiently organized the units. In an address to M. Claudius Petit, Corbusier states, “…here is

the finished work: “the Unité d'Habitation” built without restrictions, and built contrary to certain

of the normal disastrous restrictions. Made for men, it is made to the human scale. It has also

the robustness which is inherent in modern technique, and it shows the new splendour of bare

concrete. It brings into the home sensational modern resources."8

The units and organization Le Corbusier achieved revolutionized modern, public housing.

His approach to the design allowed for the creation of a city within the building. He celebrated

materiality and geometries allowing for an innovation, while maintaining a structural quality that

worked with its place. Not only was it used for residencies, but the project also housed retail, a

hotel, and public gathering spaces at the top. Le Corbusier’s ability to create this “…machine for

living in”9 inspired the design of 102 Chambers Street. The simple sectional diagrams of the

units seeks to modernize public housing in New York and promote a sense of community

through living and working (Figure 11).

Figure s 10 and 11 – Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation residential project. Accessed from https://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/15/le-corbusier-unite-d-habitation-cite-radieuse-marseille-brutalist-architecture/

8 Fondation Le Corbusier. Accessed March 16, 2019. http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbuweb/morpheus.aspx?sysId=13&IrisObjectId=5234&sysLanguage=en- en&itemPos=58&itemCount=78&sysParentId=64&sysParentName=home. 9 Frearson, Amy. "Brutalist Buildings: Unité D'Habitation by Le Corbusier." Dezeen. June 28, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2019. https://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/15/le-corbusier-unite-d-habitation-cite-radieuse-marseille-brutalist-architecture/. Gruber 12

3. CORE + CIRCULATION

The core remains a constant datum for the tower as the volumes shift and the slenderness of the profile increases. It helps to structurally support the building while giving the systems connective tissue. At the base, the lobby circulation pays homage to the iconic fire stairs of TriBeCa. The circulation is an important element that reinforces the connection of public to private for the artists who live in the tower. It provides easy access to those living there to transition into the various spaces.

4. COLLABORATION SPACE

Above the units, a unique joint space collides into the tower. This space provides a place for presentation and discussion between the residents. Views of Battery Park, Lower

Manhattan and the Brooklyn Bridge encompass the viewer. Ultimately, this space is what creates the dramatic shift between living and working. This is where the two programmatic elements collide. Education and spectacle become important to the life of the space and artists can inspire each other internally, while fostering a connection to their surroundings.

The collaboration space can become a place of celebration as well, which can be used for events that open to the public occasionally, reinforcing the project’s inclusion of community.

5. STUDIO

Lastly, the journey ends in the studio spaces. These spaces are contained in the volume above the collaboration space and appear to float. The all glass curtain wall construction provides a single art studio per floor, where the artist can produce his or her work raised above the city. There is a sense of privacy but also comfort from the panoramic aerial views. The transparency gives the illusion of the tower fading into the sky, preventing a distraction on the skyline. This addition of space solidifies the tower’s presence in the district and becomes a landmark for the tradition of TriBeCa and a promise for the future.

Gruber 13

Figure 6 – System diagram highlighting the five major components of the tower project alongside an image of a physical study model that was constructed for the project.

System Diagram, in collaboration with Molly Bennett.

Gruber 14

CONCLUSION

The design 102 Chambers Street becomes a distinct marker for TriBeCa. Its reach invites the public and artist community to interact and inform each other. The slender tower refuses to overpower the dense urban fabric, but instead accentuates its intricacies. The vertical studio acts as an organizational system bringing a new perspective to an area with immense history. Through materiality, spatial organization, and transparency, the sequence and journey of the tower is reinforced. The tower becomes a place not just for sleeping, but a place that engages a larger part of community; a tower designed for living.

Ultimately, this project seeks to mediate the ideas of tradition and progress. With the drastic changes that have taken place in TriBeCa, it is necessary for new projects to acknowledge their locations. Architecture can blend this tradition with progress to create designs that are of a place but inspire growth in the profession. It will be necessary to consider how the public engages with a project as well. Buildings can no longer serve a single function, but must provide a crucial integration of programs to bring efficiency to an urban fabric. 102

Chambers Street is a landmark to celebrate the extensive history of

TriBeCa and provides a driver for how the area can acknowledge its history of diversity while sustaining a serious level of growth.

Approach Perspective Rendering, in collaboration with Molly Bennett.

Gruber 15

Bibliography

Arak, Joey. "A Bad 56 Leonard Review." Curbed NY. September 19, 2008. Accessed March 16,

2019. https://ny.curbed.com/2008/9/19/10559356/a-bad-56-leonard-review.

Feirstein, Sanna. Naming New York: Manhattan Places & How They Got Their Names. New

York: NYU Press, 2001.

Frearson, Amy. "Brutalist Buildings: Unité D'Habitation by Le Corbusier." Dezeen. June 28,

2016. Accessed March 16, 2019. https://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/15/le-corbusier-unite-d-

habitation-cite-radieuse-marseille-brutalist-architecture/.

Fondation Le Corbusier. Accessed March 16, 2019.

http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbuweb/morpheus.aspx?sysId=13&IrisObjectId=523

4&sysLanguage=enen&itemPos=58&itemCount=78&sysParentId=64&sysParentName=home

Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto. New York: Monacelli, 1994, 20.

"NYC's Zoning & Land Use Map." ZoLa. Accessed March 9, 2019. https://zola.planning.nyc.gov.

"TriBeCa a New York." NewYorkCity.it. September 11, 2018. Accessed March 16, 2019.

https://www.newyorkcity.it/tribeca-a-new-york/.

Walker, Ameena. "These Were NYC's Most Expensive Neighborhoods in 2018." Curbed NY.

December 13, 2018. Accessed March 16, 2019.

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/12/13/18139332/nyc-most-expensive-neighborhood-2018-tribeca.

Yarrow, Andrew L. "Tribeca, A Guide to its Old Styles and its New Life." The New York Times.

October 18, 1985. Accessed March 16, 2019.

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/18/arts/tribeca-a-guide-to-its-old-styles-and-its-new-

life.html.