Gro[ve] 1140 William Zenk

GRO[ve] 1140HIGH DEMAND MARKETS AND AFFORDABILITY

W I L L I A M Z E N KHousing Terminal Studio Winter/Spring 2014University of OregonProfessor; M. Fifield

TABLE OF CONTENTSPURPOSE STATEMENT

PROGRAM SUMMARY PROGRAM SUMMARY

PROJECT DESIGN SITE INFORMATION FLOOR PLANS RENDERINGS

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PODIUM PREFAB CLT CLT DETAILS

CODE RESEARCH ZONING CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE

FAIR HOUSING ACT ADA & EGRESS UNIT FHA COMPLIANCE BATHROOM FHA COMPLIANCE

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS HVAC STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

CLT LIVING FLEXIBLE LIVING BICYCLE ORIENTED LIVING

1

9

13

29

45

51

59

67

PURPOSE STATEMENT

1

PURPOSE STATEMENTIntroduction San Francisco has the second highest density of any US metropolitan area next to New York city. The high demand for space results in one of the highest costs of living. Housing in the city is often not available to the working or middle-classes except through government subsidized affordable, low income, or mixed income projects. The city, it seems, is designing housing that does not reflect its own needs. One demographic study of the Bayview-Hunters Point region shows that less the 3% of the residents could afford any of the new listings on the market.

To begin thinking about what type of new construction could help these issues two questions were posed. First, How can market rate housing be made more affordable in San Francisco? Next, How can a market-rate project in SF counteract gentrification in a city with such a high and rising cost of living? After posing these questions explorations into the way these questions have been responded to in the architectural world began.

Making Market-rate More Affordable It is important to clarify the choice to focus specifically on how market-rate housing can be made affordable. It is, of course, possible to create Affordable, low, and mixed income projects in San Francisco. In fact, in the cities own master plan 40% of all new housing should be for low income households and 32% for middle-class earners. However, current city law only mandates that 12% of all new development be sold Below Market Rate (BMR). Housing development in the city is dominated by high cost market-rate units. Current subsidized housing projects, while very necessary, are a small solution to a much larger problem. Affordable, low and mixed income projects have a harder time acquiring necessary funding and often incur extra requirements mandated by government subsidies, private institutions, etc. This makes challenging the ‘traditional’ idea of a housing unit, very difficult. By exploring this specifically in a market-rate context, it becomes more possible to challenge that idea.

Density is one of the easiest ways in which the cost of housing for the consumer can be reduced, that is, density in two similar but different ways. The first being, to increase the number of units designed for at least two or more occupants. The cost of Rent and ownership is significantly reduced as the number of possible occupants per unit is increased, the relationship considering current SF housing costs is quite significant. The other way to increase density is by focusing on decreasing the amount of square footage per person overall. In most cases if you accomplish one, you are accomplishing the other. The average size of a one bedroom apartment in SF is 680 square feet and average cost per square footage $3.73. The equation is seemingly simple, decrease size and decrease cost. There are of course many more factors that affect unit price, the above figures are simply to illustrate the principle.

In late 2012 the City of San Francisco approved an amendment to the building code allowing 220 square feet as the new minimum size for a studio apartment. This micro-housing trend is a modern example of a solution to higher density living, and can be successful. The original intent of this code amendment was to offer studio apartments for $1200-1500 dollars a month in areas where a one bedroom would rent for $2,500 or greater. However, these types of developments result in a much higher cost per square foot to construct, and now renters are seeing some of these micro units rivaling rents of their lager, slightly older, predecessors. This shows that increasing density per individual is only cost effective up to a certain point under current building practices. When considering these factors of density it becomes apparent that exploring non-traditional multiple occupancy micro-living units may prove to be the most promising model for reducing market-rate housing costs in San Francisco.

PURPOSE STATEMENTReducing Gentrification The primary consequence of the high cost of living in the city of San Francisco is gentrification, a purpose of this housing project will be to counteract that gentrification. The median San Francisco household salary is $70,000 dollars. The average price of a one bedroom rental in SF is roughly $2,750, meaning that on the typical San Francisco resident yearly income almost 47% goes directly to housing costs. The costs of ownership are even more shocking requiring more than a two-income household on the average yearly income to obtain the cheapest new build condo on the market at $175,000. The median monthly mortgage rate is $3,200 consuming 55% of the median household yearly income.

These high housing costs can be attributed to the large increase of a high income workforce, currently 35% of SF residents are in the 100-200k+ income range. This results in the working-Class citizens of San Francisco living either on the outskirts of the city or in other cities of the bay area altogether. New housing projects only support this model as developers can continue to build high end projects with demand showing no sign of slowing. As stated earlier, affordable projects like low income, inclusionary, and mixed income housing, only provide a small solution to a much bigger problem. In other words, large amounts of middle-class residents are still being forced out of the city by high housing costs regardless of these projects. The question again becomes; How can a market-rate project in SF counteract gentrification in the city?

Mixing income levels seems to be the most promising method in reducing gentrification, as it is extremely difficult, and politically sensitive, to single out any other demographic criteria for housing placement. Developers are going to continue to build for the high end market, so designing ways in which these projects can become more accessible to a broader range of incomes is crucial. This poses a particular problem in a purely market-rate project that can no longer rely on government programs for mixed-income and Below Market Rate (BMR) inclusionary units. The two primary ways in which the income level of occupants can be mixed are, highly varied unit types and mixed ownership models. By its very nature the latter suggests varying income levels. Take for example two traditional three-bedroom units with the exact same floor plan. Renters of this property could range from families with children, to three unrelated tenants, or even six depending on the property management. Conversely, in an condominium model it is relatively easy to assume that the tenants would be a family or set of related tenants, as unrelated people rarely enter into ownership agreements together.

MEDIAN INCOME OF A SAN FRANCISCAN





PURPOSE STATEMENT Highly varying unit types is the other method available to market rate projects for mixing income levels. Highly varied unit types and sizes are often resisted by developers simply because, in general, it makes the project much more expensive and time consuming to construct. The method can accommodate different income levels simply because the highly varied units would also contain varied densities. Ideally the units in these projects would be designed in such a way as to permit varying levels of occupancy, that is not only determined by the number of bedrooms. For the method to be successful this suggests challenging the idea of what constitutes a traditional housing ‘unit.’ Does a unit require kitchen, full bath, and occupancy determined by the number of bedrooms to be complete or can that model be challenged? If we accept a new idea of what a ‘unit’ could be, the amount of variation can be greatly increased. Ideally this project will combine both of the methods above. If applied in a well designed project, one can easily see how it could result in an extremely wide range occupants. There are problems inherent with this model, specifically; In a housing project with such variety both physically and economically how do you foster a sense of community and wholeness? Learning from cohousing may be the most promising solution to creating viable community spaces throughout the project. The re-visitation of the ‘unit’ will likely suggest shared spaces between tenants such as kitchens, lounge spaces, etc. to which cohousing precedents can offer solutions. The rent and owner ship mix would suggest that the community spaces include aspects of permanence as well as adaptability. A mixed-use aspect could also begin to play a role fostering that sense of community.

Sustainable Strategies In a market rate project that is trying to be affordable sustainability becomes more difficult. Many sustainable systems and building materials are the first things to be cut from the budget of a housing project. Photo voltaic arrays and other active sustainable energy methods are often not cost effective for housing developers. This leaves the architect with the option of passive strategies for heating and cooling the project sustainably. Fortunately San Francisco’s mild climate is very receptive to these types of passive strategies. Most housing projects in the area require no mechanical cooling and, if the site has adequate solar access, a very large amount of the mechanical heating need could be eliminated using passive solar strategies. Deciding to heavily depend on these passive strategies means committing to them very early on in the design process as they need to be integrated into the core of the design. Affordable building materials are another aspect of the design that will influence both sustainability and affordability. Affordable sustainable building materials need to be the focus when selecting finishes for this project. As affordability is not usually the case with sustainable building materials this could prove to be a determining factor for the aesthetics of the project, therefore should be selected early on.

The sustainability aspect of the design could also help to foster community and a sense of wholeness in the design. Incorporating design elements like community gardens, storm water catchment, and sustainable building materials begin to form a ‘eco’ theme for the community. The ‘eco’ aspects of the design become reflected in the residents ideals and, in the case of the garden, become elements of physical value. The ‘eco’ community becomes a reason for people wanting to live there, a way of promoting common values among the very diverse range of residents.

PURPOSE STATEMENTMicro Housing Considerations As stated above existing micro housing projects pose an excellent example of high density living. Previous case studies illustrate a number of issues to consider when trying to implement those strategies into the proposed design. Changeable built-ins and spaces are obviously one of the top considerations with micro-units. As a rule of thumb every aspect of the design should serve at least two functions. Bathrooms can also pose an issue as building codes tend to resist the very compact bathrooms that are seen in non US micro developments.

Building Codes in general will create issues for this type of housing. In San Francisco, at least, the code allows for a minimum 220 sq ft studio apartment. However the desire to apply the micro housing model to multiple occupancy units - like the Nada House case study - in the project will likely pose code issues. Those issues either need to be resolved in a way that can manipulate the code or it must be challenged.

Cohousing Considerations Cohousing offers up very promising examples when considering a number of aspects of the high density proposal. They offer a great examples of what communal and community spaces can become with both the common house and outdoor spaces. This is very helpful for the proposed design in two ways. First, challenging the idea of a traditional ‘unit’ will likely mean some communal service spaces between units, such as kitchen, larger bathrooms, etc. of which cohousing can be the precedent. Second, the proposed program will include a community outdoor space. Broad street commons offers a great example for outdoor space, providing a small park and pool next to the common house.

The biggest issue with the cohousing model for the purposes of the proposed building is, given the ownership model, it would be difficult to make in a market-rate context. Cohousing starts with a group of people raising funds in order to design and build a community, rarely if ever are cohousing projects constructed speculatively in a market-rate context. The United States market has shown that it is reluctant to accept the cohousing idea at a large scale, likely because Americans, in general, are accustom to excess space, privacy, and individual ownership, especially when it comes to housing.

PURPOSE STATEMENTSustainability considerations All of the case studies offer examples sustainability and sustainable design, BedZED of course being the most extreme utilizing many highly active strategies of sustainability as well as passive ones. Both cohousing and micro-housing inherently offer a response to sustainability. The former through the fact that the consolidated and shared services largely reducing energy consumption. The latter’s response is mainly through the increased level of density on the scales of the development and the city. There were two informative aspects of sustainability pervasive throughout all of the case studies that will likely prove most useful in the proposed building, for aspects both sustainability and affordability. The first is the use of passive strategies for cooling and solar heating inherent in the form an skin of the design. The second is the very conscious use of local and sustainable building materials. Both need to be considered very early on in the design process.

Prefabrication Considerations: Prefabrication as a model for the proposed project may prove to be very useful as a model for the proposed building. However there are a number of very important issues when considering the viability of prefabrication for a project of this scale. The first large consideration of a prefabrication project is on what scale modularity and structure will be integrated. In other words, is the modularity of the project occurring within an existing structure or does the modularity become the structure. In the case of the Loblolly house, the modularity became the structure of the project with the prefabricated aluminum structural frame around panelized infill ‘cartridges.’ This was extremely appropriate for the scale of the single family detached home. On the larger multifamily scale larger modules forming structure may prove to be the most cost effective. Other large issues to consider with prefabrication are the obvious ones, manufacturing and transportation. As my site is located in San Francisco a manufacturer should be found within at least 100 miles of the site to keep the sustainability aspect of the carbon emissions from transportation reasonable. A primary limiting factor of the design with regards to transportation will be size. The state of California has a limit of 14 feet in width for anything transported on a state highway. All aspects of prefabrication need to be within that limit. It is also important to note that if the city of San Francisco is to merely maintain its current market rates they need to double the current production of housing units per year (currently about 6,000). Prefabrication may offer a solution to this great need for increased speed and volume of housing production.


PURPOSE STATEMENT

Proposed building Type Considering all of the factors stated above the proposed building type would be a mixed use, medium density housing development. The result would likely be a project of four to five stories with a combination of retail and other uses on the ground floor. The purpose behind my proposed housing design is threefold. First, to show that market-rate housing can be made more affordable in San Francisco, using density as a primary strategy. This density achieved by using micro housing as a model for density per person while increasing the number of multiple occupancy units. Second, to show that a market-rate project can reduce income based gentrification in the SF housing market. Accomplishing this by using a combination of prefabrication and higher density units. This will also likely mean challenging the idea of a traditional ‘unit,’ as well as incorporating aspects of cohousing to create a holistic sense of community. Lastly, to use passive solar, sustainable building materials, bioswales, and other sustainable strategies to create a ‘eco’ community identity for the residents.

PROGRAM SUMMARY

9

PROGRAM SUMMARYProgram: Mixed-Use Market Rate Housing

Commercial Space 3,000 - 6,000 sq ft Multiple retail spaces will be provided. Minimum of two in order to encourage public interaction with the project.

Parking N/A Per the sites Zoning, no on-site parking for residents will be provided. Emphasis will be placed on transit oriented living and bicycle friendly design.

Bicycle Parking 600-1000 sq ft (150% of all residents 1.5 bicycle parking capacity for each resident)

Units Types The two different zonings of the site may prescribe more than one ownership model on the site. Rental ownership on the Folsom street portion of the project and Condominium ownership on the Rausch street side.

50%- 1 bed or Studio units 250-500sq ft Ownership: Rental only 25% - 2 bed 800-1000 sq ft Ownership: Rent & Own 25% - 3 bedroom 1000-1400 sq ft Ownership: Rent & Own Given the size of the site, the project should aim for a total size of about 100 dwelling units. The project is limited to 3 bedroom units as largest available size. Advice from many reviewers and case study research suggests that units larger than3bedroomsareverydifficulttoleaseorsell.

Amenity Spaces Entry Lobby 500-1000 sq ft This space will set the tone for the entire project. It must represent the identity of the housing project as well as provide access to vertical circulation, elevator lobbys, and likely common amenity spaces. Mail Room New code requirements dictating the size and height of mailboxes in multifamily housing means that this function requires much more space than it once did. The space will likely take the form of an alcove or small room off of the main entry lobby, to which adjacency is key.

PROGRAM SUMMARY Lounge / Multipurpose room 1000-1500 sq ft This program element can serve as common space for general activities, likely includes small kitchen so residents with smaller unit can host larger events. The room also serves as a gathering space for community wide events. Outdoor Lounge 600 - 1000 sq ft In a city as dense as San Francisco outdoor common spaces are of great importance. This is especially true in areas of the project where individual unit outdoor areas cannot be provided. Recreation Room 1000 - 1500 sq ft Interior and exterior relationship is important for this space as it will likely be adjacent to common outdoor space. Also spatial arrangements large enough for activities like billiards must be considered Laundry 300 sq ft Combination of this function with other community spaces is ideal. This will help to encourage community interaction.

Mechanical

Electrical Room 300 sq ft (fire code requires this room have direct access to the exterior) Central boiler room 300 sq ft Elevator mech room 300 sq ft (size of project likely prescribes an electric elevator) Trash collection 600 sq ft (adjacency to exterior and frequency of trash pickup must be considered) Trash room (1 per floor) 120 sq ft Minimum Loading/Deliveries varies (At minimum area for trucks to pull off roadway must be provided.)

Total of all spaces should be no more than2-5% of total floor area Circulation Spaces

5-10% of total floor area (typical for Multifamily housing projects) Most developers will seek at a floor plate efficiency level of at least 80% (floor plate efficiency the ratio leasable area to no leasable area.) This factor makes the stringent and efficient planning of both mechanical and circulation spaces very important.

PROPOSED DESIGN

13

SAN FRANCISCO

SoMA DISTRICT

SITE INFORMATION

LOT SIZE: 32,670 SQ FT / .75 Acre

TOTAL UNITS: 99 UNITS

DENSITY: 131 DUA

STATISTICS

RAUSCH STREET

LANGTON STREET

FOLS

OM STREE

TSCALE: 1/64”-1’-0”

SITE INFORMATION

SITE INFORMATION SchoolsParks and RecreationBuilding SiteGrocery

Civic Buildings

DiningNight Life

LEGEND

FOLSOM STREET

MARKET STREET

RAUSCH PL

1000

Feet 15

00 Fe

et

2000

Feet

SchoolsParks and RecreationBuilding SiteGrocery

Civic Buildings

DiningNight Life

LEGEND

FOLSOM STREET

MARKET STREET

RAUSCH PL

1000

Feet 15

00 Fe

et

2000

Feet

SITE INFORMATION

E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S : F O L S O M

E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S : R A U S C H

SITE INFORMATION

CLIMATE INFORMATION

FLOOR PLANS

GROUND PLAN

1

1

2

2

3

4

5

6

2 Bed unit1040 Sq ft



1. COMMERCIAL2. LOBBY3. LOUNGE

4. COMMUNITY ROOM5. BICYCLE REPAIR6. LOADING SCALE: 1/32”-1’-0”

2 Bed unit988 Sq ft

FLOOR 2-5 PLANFLOOR 2-3 PLAN

FLOOR PLANS

1

1

2



2 Bed unit822 Sq ft

Studio411 Sq ft

1. BICYCLE PARKING2. TRASH


SCALE: 1/32”-1’-0”

2 Bed unit988 Sq ft

FLOOR PLANS

SIXTH FLOORSCALE: 1/32”-1’-0”

2 Bed unit822 Sq ft

Studio411 Sq ft

1. BICYCLE PARKING2. TRASH3. COMMUNITY DECK

1

1

2

FOLSOM AND RAUSCH CORNER

RAUSCH STREET RENDER

EXTERIOR ENTRY COURT

ENTRY LOBBY AND LOUNGE

EXTERIOR COURT

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

29

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

The structure of the project is broken up into two distinct parts. The low rise portion of the project along Rausch street is completely made up of the CLT prefabricated blocks. The mid-rise portion of the project along Folsom Street is 5 over 1 construction with 5 levels of Prefabricated CLTs over a two-way solid slab site cast concrete podium.

CLT Prefabricated blocks

Two-way solid slab podium

PODIUM STRUCTURE

The structural grid is roughly 30 by 30 feet shifting slightly to accommodate for the loading entrance and holding the columns back along the commercial edge. The required column size is increased from 14 inch square to 18 inch square in order to compensate for the increased weight of the CLT system above, compared to traditional stick frame.

Column

Shear/Bearing wallsStructural Grid

CLT (CROSS LAMINATED TIMBER)

WHY CLT?

SPAN CAPABILITIES

When studying CTLs in relation to a prefabricated system the advantages become quite clear. The clear spanning capabilities combined with the thin floor plates make the material ideal for housing. Allowing a relatively unrestrictive unit designs. Also know as mass timber CLTs have an inherit bearing and shear capacity making its costs comparative to concrete structures of similar scale. The viability compared to concrete structures also means that the speed of construction can be greatly increased. This means that structures as high as 10-20 stories can be assembled in a matter of weeks. CLTs even have the advantage of becoming the finish surface on the interior of units.

These material properties above as well as the panelized nature of its as-sembly make it a promising material for prefabricated housing systems like the one designed for this project. The site utilized for this project is intended to be a demon-stration of how a system like this may be utilized in different scales. Some may say that at the scale of this project CLT aren’t cost effective. However, the speed of construction is intended to offset the added costs of building in this material at the current scale of the project.

CLT (CROSS LAMINATED TIMBER)

FIREPROOFINGBuilding code has not yet adopted CLTs in its entirely. As a result there are numer-ous ways to deal with fire code and fire separation in a housing project construct-ed of CLTs. CLTs more than meet the required fire separation ratings using the three methods described below.

Encapsulation method:

The encapsulation method is quites straight forward. Encapsulate all struc-tural members exposed to fire with Gypsum board. In a CLT application this can be-come quite cumbersome, as every exposed piece is technically structural. Added cost of fireproofing.

Charring Method:

Since CLT is often classified as heavy timber which uses a charring system to rate its fire performance. In a fire heavy timber can be burned through a certain depth of material called the sacrificial layer which becomes char. This char us then assumed to have enough insulative properties to protect the stability of the inner structure enough to hold until the fire burns out or is extinguished.

Hybrid Method:

The hybrid method encapsulates some surfaces of the CLT members where there may not be enough material to meet the required depths for the sacrificial charring layer. This has the advantage of eliminating extra CLT material needed to wrap other structural elements.

This project relies heavily on the charring method. The structural redundan-cy that is inherent in a prefabricated system means that the thickness of CLT mem-bers between units, floors, roofs is increased. Using data from research into heavy timber charring rates the assemblies meet the required fire separation ratings for each of theses conditions. This is all of course assuming the building is sprinklered. This method would also require that the cladding material be non combustible.

PREFAB SYSTEM

Studio411 Sq ft

All-in-one WB/AB/VB barrier

3-ply CLT wall panel

Aluminum composite rainscreen panel

Window wall assembly

3” rigid insulation

Racking for rainscreen panels

3-ply CLT Floor panels

Kitchen/ Bath & storage assemblies

3-ply CLT Ceiling panels

Soffit for ventilation chasing

3-ply CLT wall panels

3 1/2” Cavity for MEP Chasing and Acoustical buffering

3 1/2” Cavity for MEP Chasing and Acoustical buffering

1” rigid insulation /w air gap for acoustical buffering

Pressure treated Lumber for fastening adjacent units

Steel angles

3/4” Plywood subfloor

Finish Floor Surfaceinterior trim6-ply CLT Panel w/ Entry door

Custom Shading device w/ Operable shades

PREFAB SYSTEM



Steel connection plate/ shear transfer connection

32’14

’14” through bolts

Composite aluminum infill panel at block connections

GRO[wth]

1 2STAGING AREA

PREFABRICATED UNIT BLOCKS

MIXED-USE CONCRETE PODIUM

3 4STAGING AREA

SOLAR COLLECTORS

GREENROOF ASSEMBLY

3 FOOT GRADE PLINTH

STAGING AREA

PREFABRICATED UNIT BLOCKS

5 6

STAGING AREA

FOLSO

M STREE

T

RAUSCH STREET

GREENROOF ASSEMBLY

SOLAR COLLECTORS

7

CLT DETAILS

EXTERIOR WALL @ PARAPET

OCCUPIABLE ROOFUNOCCUPIED ROOF

SCALE 1-1/2”=1’-0”

*All Prefabricated block meeting points to be sealed with engineered wood adhesive and sealant at all joints. Blocks must be delivered and stacked in completely dry conditions

Insulated CLT roof panel

2x decking over 4x4 purlins.

Rubber strips

Rainscreen cladding

Parapet cap block

Insulated CLT roof panel

3”Rigid insulation



5-ply CLT panel

Steel Anchor plate

Parapet cap flashing

Garland Intensive greenroof system

CLT DETAILS

PARTY WALL @ FLOOR

SECTION

PLAN

SCALE 1-1/2”=1’-0”

3-ply CLT panel

3-ply CLT panelCLT as finish ceiling

3-ply CLT panel

1 1/2” rigid insulation 1 1/2 rigid insulation

lag bolt connection to en-gineered wood member cntsk’ and plugged

3” floor cavity w/ acoustic baffling and MEP chase

3” MEP Chase w/ acoustic baffling

3/4” Ply Sub-floor

Finish Floor

Wall finish (where occurs)

Steel angle bracket w/ (4) 2 1/2” lags @ 48” o/c

Floor to floor connection rod @ 48” o/c

Steel angle bracket w/ (4) 2 1/2” lags @ 48” o/c

Prefab Block Connection point*

Prefab Block Connection point*Prefab Block Connection point*


CLT DETAILS

EXTERIOR WALL @ FLOORSCALE 1-1/2”=1’-0”


3-ply CLT panel

3-ply CLT panel

3-ply CLT panel


Rainscreen infill panel

3” floor cavity w/ acoustic baffling and MEP chase

3/4” Ply Sub-floor

Finish FloorAll-in-one WB/AB/VB barrier

Prefab Block Connection point*

Wall finish (where occurs)

Rainscreen cladding panel (non-combustible)

Aluminum rainscreen panel clips

Steel shear transfer plate w/ 6” lag bolts @ 10” o/c staggered

Steel angle bracket w/ (4) 2 1/2” lags @ 48” o/c (typical)

GRO[ves]

The added structural capabilities of this CLT prefabricated system means that it is, to a certain extent, not limited by scale. This system could easily construct a project of between 10 and 15 stories, with little to no alteration. As a result this system is intended to spread to other housing districts within the city. Within each district multiple projects would be constructed, thus creating a series of GRO[ves]. The shear volume and speed of production increase that this could provide to the city would play a huge role in reducing housing market rates. As the level of production increases in each of these areas more people are also flooding in. This could potentially help to spur on civic projects like parks, schools, etc. Essentially acting as a catalyst for Urban Revitalization, and reversing the flow of the mass exodus that San Francisco residents have seen over the past years.

CODE RESEARCH

45

CODE RESEARCH

ZONING COMPLIANCE

F-NCT REDHeight and Bulk District Height limit

Dwelling Unit Mix

Residential Density

FAR for non-residential

Usable open space / Dwelling Unit

Open Space for non-residential

On-site Parking

Subdivision of Dwelling units

Retail Space

65x

65 feet

40% 2bed required, 10% 3Bed

No density limit by lot area. Density deter-

mined by Height and Bulk District require-

2.5:1

80sf if private, 106 if common

N/A

None required, .75 cars / unit allowed

Can be Considered

Permitted (required on ground level)

40x

40 feet

40% 2bed required, 10% 3Bed

No density (813.03)

2.5:1

80sf for either

N/A

None required 3-4 cars / unit allowed

Can be Considered

Not Permitted

Other massing restrictions apply but are N/A in this design.

Proposal 24% 2 bedroom, 21% 3 bed-room, 54% Studios.

131 Dwelling Units per Acre

Proposed design .14 FAR

Proposed design more than compliant

No open space for non-residential space is proposed or required

No on-site parking is proposed.

Legal pending extensive design review by city.

2 Retail Spaces provided along Folsom.

CODE RESEARCH

ZONING MAPS

Site boundaries

CODE RESEARCH

CBC (CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE)

Occupancy Mix

Construction Type

Allowable height

Common Path Egress

Maximum Allowable Egress Length

Ventilation

Bathrooms

Minimum Ceiling Height

Minimum room size

R-2 (Residential Occupancies containing 2 or more dwelling units)

A-2 (Restaurants, Cafeterias and similar dining facilities)

M (The use of a building for the sale of merchandise)

IVA Heavy Timber frame Construction with non combustible outer walls.

I Concrete podium

R-2 Height restriction 65’ pr 4 stories over ground plane. 20’ and 1 more story if sprinklered

75’, 125’ if sprinklered

200’, 250’ if sprinklered

.6 Cfm, or 4% of floor area operable facade

50ft3/min intermittently or 20ft3/min constantly

7’-6” for occupied spaces, 7’-0” for bathrooms kitchens, etc..

All units need to have at least one room of 120 sqft, all other rooms need to be 70 sqft

The mixed-use components of the proposed design will likely be able to include a cafe or small restaurant as well as Merchandising. The spaces will be Constructed so that both will be able to occur in either space.

CLT are not yet recognized in the CBC. Research suggests better fire perfor-mance than typical wood frame be-cause of charring. Will use IVA Timber frame as a more stringent example of how CLT can meet code.

In order to do the 5 over 1 portion on Folsom the building will be sprinklered

N/A

97’ is longest path to vertical egress enclosure

This figure means clear from any obstruction

Applies to habitable rooms (non bathrooms kitchens, etc..

CODE RESEARCH

Minimum room width

Lighting

Minimum STC

All habitable rooms with have dimension of no less than 7 feet in both directions

10 floor candles artificial, or 8% of floor area in Glazing

Minimum STC 45 between units

Does not apply to bathrooms

This figure applies per unit

CLT assemblies reach as high as 60 STC between units

CBC (CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE)

CEC (CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE)

Maximum Fenestration Area

Maximum Fenestration U-factor

Roof solar Reflective index

20% of total floor area

.36

N/A

Low-Rise (Rausch street)

40% WWR

.46 operable.36 fixed

75

Mid-Rise (Folsom Street)

The 40% window wall ratio needs to be addressed on the Folsom street side of the project.

Greenroofs may reach as much as 45 SRI.

FAIR HOUSING ACT

51

FHA FAIR HOUSING ACT

All ground units in the low rise portion of the project need to be accessible and compliant with the FHA. All units in the 5 over one portion of the project need to be accessible and compliant with FHA. The diagram below illus-trates the units in the project that are required to be accessible in compliance with the Fair housing act.

Accessible ground level

Accessible 5 over 1 units

+3’

+3’+3’

+3’

+3’

+3’

+2’+2’

+2’

0’

0’

0’


Everything on the ground floor must be compliant with ADA with the excep-tion of residential units. All ramps do not exceed the maximum slop of 1:12 and have adequate railing. All of the bathrooms on the ground floor are ADA compliant as well.

Wheelchair turnaround

Accessible path

Door switch

GROUND FLOOR ACCESSIBILITY PLANSCALE 1/32”=1’-0”

FLOOR PLATE COMPLIANCE


FLOORS 2-6 ACCESSIBILITY PLANSCALE 1/32”=1’-0”

Wheelchair turnaround

Accessible path

FLOOR PLATE COMPLIANCE


UNIT ACCESSIBILITY

3 BEDROOM PLAN 1

30” x 48” fixture clear space requirement

18” x 48” entry door clear space requirement

36” accessible path requirement

3 BEDROOM PLAN 2STUDIO PLAN 2 BEDROOM PLAN

SCALE 1/16”=1’-0”

1040 SQ FT 411 SQ FT 822 SQ FT 1431SQ FT

UNIT/KITCHEN COMPLIANCE

All kitchen meet the required 42” clear space between counter in island and peninsula situations. A 60” turnaround clear space is not required in either three bed plans or the stu-dio plan since there are no operable fixtures at then end. If the kitchen were a ‘U’ shape configuration this turnaround space would be required,


BATHROOM COMPLIANCE

BATHROOM ACCESSIBILITY PLANSSCALE 3/16”=1’-0”

BATHROOM PLAN 1

30” x 48” clear space requirement (not within door swing)

42” x 56” clear space requirement for toilet

30” x 48” clear space requirement for fixtures. (Must be centered on fixture)

BATHROOM PLAN 2ANSI TYPE B ANSI TYPE A

The bathrooms in this project are kept to two very similar layouts. This is mainly because in a prefabrication process the more similar things like bathrooms can become the assembly can be streamlined. Streamlining assembly lowers costs by reducing the time of manufacturing and likely increasing quality of finish prod-uct. The main difference between the two plans is that plan two is slightly longer due to some changes in constraints of the unit module for the low rise portion of the site. All of the fixture sizes and types remain the same throughout the entire project, with respect to the bathrooms.

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

59

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

MECHANICAL GROUND FLOOR PLAN

Central boiler room & electrical room

HVAC ducts for commercial and common spaces

Trash collection

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

MECHANICAL 2nd FLOOR PLAN

Vertical chases for hot water supply from below and minisplit HVAC systems above

Water supply and electrical lines in floor running to chases for floors above

HVAC ducts for corridor service HVAC chases for corridor service

Trash chutes

Cooktops vented directly to exterior

The image to the left is a typical ductless heat pump systems also known as a ‘minisplit’ heat pump sytem. One small roughly 15”x30”x30” unit is provided per unit. Installed on platforms under solar collectors over the top of common chases provided in the prefab systemSolar collectors over mini split HVAC

equipment platforms

HVAC equipment for corridor service

Elevator penthouse

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

MECHANICAL ROOF PLAN

ROOF DRAINAGE PLANSCALE 1/32”=1’-0”

STORMWATERAll storm-water on the site is brought to the central courtyard running between the two narrow bars parallel to the Rausch street portion of the project. The plantings around the boardwalk through the courtyard act as a bioswale, providing natural water filtration. The space becomes a sort of rain garden celebrating the stormwater as it makes its way from the roof to the ground.

Bioswale planter for stormwa-ter runoff

Drainage Point

Solar collectors over HVAC equipment platforms

Ventilation stacks; servicing laundry and cook-tops

Stormwater runoff

Mini Split HVAC heating and cooling system

Bioswale planters for stormwater runoff

The low rise portion of the site uses many of the same mechanical systems as the high rise portion. The main difference is localized water heating, each unit having there own water heating system. There is also a greater need for ventilation as each unit also has localized laundry.

Winter Solsti

ce

Equin

ox

Sum

mer

Sol

stic

e

LOW-RISE MECHANICAL DIAGRAM

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

CLT LIVING

67

STUDIO UNIT411 Sq ft

C L T L I V I N G

LOUNGE

The zoning of GRO[ve] 1140’s did not require any on site parking. In fact, in the district overlay description of the area it seemed to be encouraged. The adjacencies to public transportation with BART and adjacent bus lines make the site easily accessible to the city around. In order to encourage bicycle friendly, and transit oriented living, racks are provided along the corridors of each floor. This ‘Bicycle Corridor’ is intended to be a new, much more sustainable, alternative to unit adjacent vehicular parking.

BICYCLE CORRIDORS

PROJECT THANKS

75

GRO[ve] 1140 would not have been possible with out much assistance and guidance from many people along the way. Much gratitude to David Israel and BAR Architects for sponsoring this studio, providing funding for valuable field trips and project materials. Thanks to all of my reviewers from both terms, Richard Sugar, Christina Bollo, Paul Destrud, Judith Sheine, David Israel, Bill Snyder, Jim Givens and any others that I may have missed. Special Thanks to Michael Bonn, Isaac Johnson and all others at Ankrom Moisan Architects for there guidance and advice throughout the design process. Most of all, Thanks to Michael Fifield for his continued guidance and an excellent terminal studio experience.

PROJECT THANKS

GRO[ve] 1140

Gro[ve] 1140 William Zenk

Documents

Transcript of Gro[ve] 1140 William Zenk