#HomeRECONSIDERED

[cmusoa-udbs]

Every Wednesday, the UDBS meets with our Reality Computing team to collaborate on the integration of a virtual reality environment into the HOME_Inc.UBATOR.  On one of those Wednesdays, the IDeATe Professor, Tom Corbett, walked us through navigation of a virtual reality experience within Google Earth.  In the video attached he shows briefly how to navigate the environment, change the time of day and shifting between google street views and aerial views. 

[gthakkar]

Tectonics of a House

There have been numerous posts on ‘What constitutes a house?’ or ‘What is it that makes a house a home?’ by teammates here at the UDBS. These questions constantly take me back to India, in the context I am familiar with, and I always keep comparing the answers to these questions to the answers that we get back home – in Mumbai. There might be many intangible aspects which might be familiar in both conditions, after all, a home for someone is as much a home in Mumbai as it is in Pittsburgh or London. But there are some tangible aspects about a house that are very peculiar to the local conditions of a city that really dictate the tectonics and have a huge impact on the way we think of design in each of the cities. These conditions can be driven by climate, the local socio-cultural values, formal values, the contextual setting, the way of living or the family dynamics.

These tectonics literally dictate how one designs a house in the city. In Mumbai, the primary construction methods are framed concrete structures with masonry infill walls, wood being limited to either interior finishes or doors and windows whereas here in Pittsburgh, its more about SIPs, steel framing, prefabricated or CNC milled wood panels, etc. The construction materials are much more lighter and modular than the wet wall masonry in Mumbai to keep out the lashing rains. In Mumbai one start measuring spaces through span of concrete beams, 6”/9”/12” walls, waterproofing, overhangs to block sun and rain and 6-8” thick concrete slabs. Pittsburgh house design conversations revolve around the 16” frame spacings, 2x4” wood section frames, SIPs, floor joists, and insulation sandwiched between walls and gypsum boards. The most important factor dictating the tectonics of a house is the weather – blocking the sun and keeping the rains at bay in Mumbai whereas increasing solar heat gain in North west of USA. The design principles change from internal courtyards and terraces to porches, pitched roof houses with limited openings. The spatial dynamics in Mumbai are balanced between the costs (value of land) and building with nature – getting as much light and air in. Materiality weighs more towards stones, bricks, wood and concrete which is expressed outside.

Being exposed to the design discussions for a house in Pittsburgh in the studios, helped me understand the vocabulary of building in the region. The value of design shifts from an idea of a courtyard to an idea of a porch culture that flourishes here. The idea of visual connectivity is reinforced as a mother keeps an eye on her child from the kitchen window while he or she is playing on the street across the house.

As the studio progresses towards thinking about schematic designs for the house RE_CON1, it is extremely essential to understand these tectonics which dictate the values of design and how they contribute to strengthening the community.

Picture above: The Chameleon house by Anderson and Anderson Architects, The cantilever house by Anderson and Anderson Architects

[cmusoa-udbs]

ORIGINS

The programming and development of the HOME IncUBATOR has been a process of exploration. Over the past year, the project, funded by Ford Motor, has been studied as a self contained crane-in module, as a virtual experience, as a permanent neighborhood amenity, as a mobile unit, and every combination of the previously mentioned forms. The decision to tie development to a bike chasis and trailer found its origin in a GIS mapping that exercise that started the 2017/2018 academic year.      

While working on the PLACE RE_CONSIDERED exercise, my group mapped  all the bike stations in Pittsburgh associated with the “Healthy Ride Pittsburgh” program. As can be seen in the image, the neighborhoods of East Liberty, Larimer, and Garfield have little or no access to these bikes. The nearest stations exist on Centre Avenue bordering Shadyside and/or on Negley Avenue bordering Friendship. Bikepgh.org notes that “The locations (station locations) were developed through a collaboration between the City of Pittsburgh and neighborhood groups.”

The UDBS looked at transportation access issues in the East Liberty, Garfield, and Larimer neighborhoods throughout the fall of 2017 to better understand the context of RE_CON 01 and the HOME IncUBATOR. The GIS data points and information included above points to low representation from the neighborhoods where the projects will be realized. At that point, the studio began discussing how the HOME IncUBATOR might raise awareness about bikes as an affordable and beneficial transportation option in these neighborhoods due to the limited access inner regions have to bus routes. That provided a springboard to explore what could be accomplished with a bike to raise awareness around all housing related issues; access to healthy food, access culture, access to transportation - access to opportunity. 

[cmusoa-udbs]

Early Saturday, October 21st, the UDBS group tasked with studying lots at 45 Carver Street met with its Reality Computing counterpart to pitch ideas for the HOME Inc.UBATOR (mentioned in previous posts). The time-lapse shows a story board coming together, including the potential uses of virtual reality and interactive applications to educate and inform both the class and the community.

[cmusoa-udbs]

What We Talk About, When We Talk About Mortgages

Today in the United States, when someone talks about a mortgage, there are commonly a few assumptions: 30-year, fixed rate, 20% down. However, this was not the case historically, and not always the case recently, or globally. For example, around the world, a 15-year mortgage is standard, potentially saving someone thousands of dollars in interest.

Mortgages only started being commonly available commercially in the 1920s. Prior to that, they were typically only issued to farmers. Only 25% Americans in urban settings owned a home. Mortgages were typically 5-7 year terms, and 50% down. Or, if from a Building and Loan (a la It’s a Wonderful Life), the term might be 10-12 years. However, in the wake of the Great Depression and the New Deal, mortgages came to be regulated by the government more heavily. The term was extended to 15-years, with only 20% down. This allowed more families to own homes and build wealth, but also exposed a far greater proportion of Americans to the financial of home ownership.

The WWII GI Bill also changed the mortgage market. Terms were changed to 30-year, 20% down, fixed rate. This allowed even more families to own a home. At this point, owning a home came to become fixed in the mindset of Americans as part of the “American Dream.” Home Builders came to make fortunes on this idea, and white families fled urban areas to the newly-constructed “suburbs.”

Later, the restrictions on mortgages were relaxed and privatized even more, variable-rate loans were offered, no-down-payment loans were offered. Debt-to-earnings ratios skyrocketed, eventually leading to the Great Recession. Yet, the evolution of the mortgage was never examined. The US mortgage market was never compared globally. We never saw how our mortgage market keeps people fixed geographically, not allowing them to move to new opportunities. We never saw how the 30-year-term results in billions of dollars of increased profits for banks, and never questioned if that was a good thing. All we saw is the “American Dream” of owning a home.

And never asked if it was worth it.

[cmusoa-udbs]

An attic or a basement?

The Cost of Culture: John discussed the role of storage in wealth building during the second week of the course. At the time we were reading Evicted, the Pulitzer Prize winning non-fiction book by Matthew Desmond. Citing examples chronicled in the narratives about people in the book, the UDBS had a discussion about ways in which storage could be physically implemented in a house design. Recently, we have been revisiting the conversations. He has asked each group to look at one scheme that incorporates a basement for storage, and another that incorporates an attic. The term “storage” is used loosely. In most cases, storage spaces are utilized for expansion. As a studio we have discussed the merits of work by Teddy Cruz, ELEMENTAL, and Louis Kahn that infrastructurally considers spaces for expansion by residents. In Pittsburgh, there is a cultural bias toward the use of basements. My colleagues who are from this city/region have explained that they cannot imagine a house without a basement. This is reflected in the construction and development strategies that persist to this date. However, during initial cost analyses that have been executed this semester it has been revealed that the same amount of space could be made available by providing a larger attic, for a fraction of the cost. The attic also has performative benefits of enhancing the ability to shed snow/water, provide access to natural light, increasing opportunity for passive ventilation, and provide prospect within the built landscape. Constructing a basement comes at the financial and environmental penalties associated with excavation, exposes the associated spaces to degradation associated with subterranean water, and limits opportunities for access to light. Basements are not just used for storage in this region, they are often spaces where people gather for regional rituals of social importance - Steelers, Penguins, and Pirates games. They are places of retreat and gathering. Couldn’t the same be done in a converted attic space? As we continue to work through the development of schemes, one of the things we will need to consider is the cost of culture. 

[cmusoa-udbs]

Factors to be considered for selecting a site

As outlined in previous posts, the Urban Design Build Studio (UDBS) has been exploring the potential of three sites for RE_CON 01: 416 N Euclid Ave (East Liberty), 318 N St. Clair St (East Liberty), and 45 Carver (Larimer). We will have to decide with partners, which is the best site to work on first for the implementation of the housing prototype. As the semester has progressed, the UDBS AECM cohort has been asked to explore some of the parameters which could influence the selection of site. These include:

1. Market-rate/Affordability Indices - Implications of placing a market-rate vs affordable index house on each of the three sites were compared in the context of adjacent properties. What we have concluded is that if nearby properties are rental dominant, a market-rate house will increase rents, having a negative impact on mixed income/economically diverse potential. However, in a situation where adjacent properties are predominantly owned by local residents, that same house can help increase the adjacent home values and aid in wealth building.

2. Environmental Factors - We are also investigating environmental factors like solar access and passive ventilation. A well-ventilated house with proper solar orientation can help in reducing operational costs of the house prototype by reducing energy bills.

3. Replicability – One of the major goals of this studio, aligned with the UDBS mission statement, is to construct a prototype which can be replicated by entities having ability to operate at scale. Therefore, we have bee utilizing site dimension constraints and setback criteria that can be utilized universally across a broad array of sites within the neighborhoods.  

These are only a few of the conditions being considered. Keep an eye out for future posts that will include others, plus posts that illustrate how these considerations have been put to use in design thinking and strategies. 

[cmusoa-udbs]

Precedent: Terner Center

Following up on my last post, as the UDBS examines proposed solutions to affordability, we are investigating current efforts and approaches utilized by others as comparative precedent. There are a number of pre-existing policy based obstacles that need to be understood.  

First, our US tax structure presents a difficulties. The mortgage-interest deduction (MID) is a much larger subsidy for housing than the Section 8 Housing voucher program.  And yet, it only benefits two-thirds of Americans wealthy enough to own a home.

The Terner Center at UC Berkeley has been exploring affordability for a long time, and is examining several different approaches, as can be seen here. The Terner Center is exploring both funding options and cost-reduction options.  For RE_CON 01, the UDBS is primarily exploring near term cost-reduction methods that can impact work scheduled for completion in 2018. But, we have also been asked to look at longer term policy based issues that might be tackled as housing efforts of the UDBS and PROJECT RE_ expand across a longer period of time. As part of the analysis, I have become intrigued by the exploration of Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs. They are colloquially referred to as “Granny flats."  These are especially relevant in a place like Pittsburgh, where the majority of garages are detached. It is fairly easy and cost effective to develop the attic space above a garage into a living space for a single person, couple, or small family. Terner found ADUs were successful in Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver, cities that had rapid, extreme changes in their housing markets.

[cmusoa-udbs]

The UDBS has been observing site conditions and factors that might create a boundary around a site since work began with the CONTEXT Component of work. Since then, each site group has been refining representational work based on enhanced understanding of conditions. 

These drawings are looking at an array of boundaries that the students were asked to define while developing work for the 45 Carver Street site in the Larimer neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Each site group has been required to identify and consider Spatial, Social, Environmental, Perceptual, and Cultural boundaries. The boundaries are informed by a variety of factors - specific community amenities, topographic characteristics, and socio-economic considerations related to home-ownership. 

Looking at these factors will help us to work with partners and residents in evaluating appropriate responses in residential design and development.