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