Streetscape Territories: Coney Island. A Resilient Network

Streetscape Territories: Coney islandA RESILIENT NETWORK

Ruben Janssens

International Master of Architecture Architecture & SustainabilityMaster Dissertation Studio 2013-14: Coney Island RevisitedProf. Dr. Kris Scheerlinck, prof. Laurens Luyten

Coney Island: A resilient networkA publication about a master dissertation project in Coney Island, NYfor the international master of architecture 2013-2014at KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture, Campus Ghent

This publication presents a combination of research and analysis to build up my project, with a reflection about the architectural project itself. It is an attempt on showing what the challenges and opportunities of the site are and how the proposed architecture utilizes these elements. Brought as a coherent story, this publication offers an insight into the progress, and outcome of my master dissertation project.

This issue is a revised version including some captions from my personal logbook showing the working progress on the project.

The following people provided academic input and guided the development of this project and publication:

KRIS SCHEERLINCKLAURENS LUYTENFERRAN MASSIPPEDRO DACHSGIOVANNA VADALSTEWART PERTZCATHERINE MENG

Layout & editing: RUBEN JANSSENSPrinted & bounded by: t Atelier GenkBochtlaan 5B-3600 Genkwww.atelier.be

Proofreading: VAN ROMPAEY LIEKE

All rights reserved under International Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo-copying, recording or by any information storage retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or specific copyright owners. Work and publication made during the course of a personal master dissertation project.2014 by RUBEN JANSSENS

Contact:RUBEN JANSSENS7 PaardenweidewegB-3511 KuringenBelgium

[email protected]

This project was developed for the master dissertation project, within the project of Streetscape Territories: Coney Island Revis-ited, proposed by KRIS SCHEERLINCK.

KU Leuven Faculty of ArchitectureCampus Sint-Lucas (LUCA), GhentClass of 2013-2014www.arch.kuleuven.comwww.internationalmasterofarchitecture.be

Streetscape TerritoriesStreetscape Territories is the name given to an interna-tional research and design project that deals with the way buildings and properties are related to streets and how their inhabitants can give meaning to them.kris.scheerlinck@streetscapeterritories.comstreetscapeterritories.wordpress.com

Introduction 5

Coney island 6Clarifying the context of the project and thevarious challenges and opportunities.

Building a framework 10The search for a basic method to build up a design task and formulate a basic framework for a project.

Transition to a layered network 14Introducing the method of analyzing in layers and

networks, and build an argumentation for invention.

Research question 23Statement about the essence of the design challenge and

how to proceed on developing a proposal.

A resilient network 24The strategy is to, on top of the existing structure,build up a new resilient network to enhance the neighborhoods resilience.

Platforms: A first step towards a design strategy 30Zooming in on the creek + a first step towards finding

a system for architecture.

Project methodology: a case 36An example of a similar approach and idea in commenc-ing a project: Interboro.

Strategic waterfront 38Strategies to enhance the creek side and its function.

Content

Materiality & Configuration 46Existing architectural language and materiality + new interpretations.

Creek side - Neptune Ave 50A facilitating platform in the heart of the neighborhood.

Stillwell Ave - 15th street 66A place for distribution of goods and knowledge.

Bayview Ave 80A new transport link for the bayview Ave area.

Conclusions 90Concluding and reflecting on the project.

Reflections 92Personal reflections + Thank you

Appendix 94Logbook & work progress.

Credits 122Bibliography + Figure list.

When we search for a challenge, we move outside our comfort zone. If we ask: where lie the challenges for the nearby future?, we end up with a list which is quite extensive. As a new generation of architects and planners pursues new challenges, we have to find a new way of thinking about old systems struggling with changing conditions. We do this because those systems are in themselves substantially valuable to rethink the way we use them. The urbanized waterfront is one of those challenges where you have to move outside the comfort zone, to propose a more sustainable and produc-tive way of living. Coney island is one of numerous places that are in need of a new way to cope with changing environment, urban livability/productivity and crisis. Coney island: A resilient network proposes a new layer on top of the existing neighborhood structure to enhance it and help the area cope with crisis situations. A system of architectural interventions woven into the existing urban fabric that facilitates an enhancement of the existing activities, but also resilience in case of floods and emergency situations. A resilient network for Coney island west.

5

< Fig. 01 Fences at the Coney Island creek

6Coney Island:Clarifying the context of the project and the various challenges and opportunities.

The location for this project is Coney Island, a penin-sula situated on the southern tip of Brooklyn, NYC. Mostly known for its rich history on themeparks and leisure industries, the context for this project is a little more complex; it is set up around two areas: Sheeps-head bay and Coney island creek. I decided to focus my research on west Coney island and thus the creek area. The neighborhood is characterized by low in-come NYCHA housing blocks and old bungalow-like houses. On the beachside there are elderly homes, mostly build by Jewish communities, while the resi-dential area is occupied by Afro-Americans. On the creek side there is a zone with some productive busi-nesses, mostly car and body shops. The strong relation with water and the ocean is almost inevitable when you are living in a place like this. The community however, has turned its back to the waterfront because the ocean has always been linked to leisure and mass-tourism, and the creek wa-ter to industries and pollution. Heavily affected by flooding and changing conditions, the area proves to be a challenging place to live in. Nevertheless it is an interesting place to develop a view on how the area can learn to cope with, and build up a resilience against the changing living environment.

Resilience is not so much about prevention anymore, its about fast re-covery and coping with a situation.

Stewart Pertz

7Fig. 2 21st Street, Coney Island

Defining a project location: Seagate on the left, Stillwell Ave/amusement zone on the right; Belt parkway in the north, and Coney Island sound at the beach. Coney Island West: An interesting mix of high-rise NYCHA social housing and low-rise bungalow type houses, of commercial areas, neighborhood hot-spots and small businesses.Fig. 03 Situating a project location. 2014 Google maps images

10

Building a framework:The search for a basic method to build up a design task and formulate a basic framework for a project.

As a first step for this research, building a framework to work in for this project is based on experiences on site, but also on readings, maps, etc., trying to understand the neighborhood and its conditions better. While we were visiting the area, the choice to work in the western neighborhood came mostly from the contrasts that I experienced while walking through the area. My impression of the site happened in a section (see fig. 04 and 05) through the island from the Boardwalk towards the creek. On this section I pointed out all different spheres existing next to each other. Starting on the Boardwalk, theres the world-on-its-own of the amusement park area: a seasonal attraction where Manhattan and the world come to escape the city heat. Bordering this area, theres a low income NYCHA high-rise development zone surrounded by empty lots that are used seasonally for parking and storage. Further down the road, Mermaid Avenue crosses the section and brings a commercial heart into the neighborhood. This commercial strip will play an important role further into the research as it is one of the important inputs into the areas struc-ture. After this combination of commercial and community functions, a mix of low-rise housing and warehouses appears. Here the residential layer overlaps with the remains of a productive area on the creek side. At the creek itself, it becomes clear that the water has become more of a backside then a functional thing.

A few elements from this on-site experience are really important. Starting with strong overlap between all the different functions or types in the neighborhood. Contrasts between housing types, access and fenced, local community vs. seasonal amusement industry, build environment vs. water side. It is interesting to think about the way how all these different elements are (dis)connected from each other and how they work together to form a neighborhood. Another interesting aspect is that of the collective memory. Theres a gap between the memory of the local and that of the visitor; each one does not completely understand the other, and because of this there is tension between the two. Could an intervention also bridge the gap between what people think about the neighbor-hood and what it actually has to offer, and affect the neighborhood image in a good way. Even further, how can an intervention enlarge the connection with the surroundings again and make the neighborhood take full advantage again of its assets. Another more often occurring issue is the changing environment: floods and other environmen-tal changes affect the area in a devastating manner. An intervention should take into account a way to cope with these changes and crisis situations, not only in such a way that it enhances the whole neighborhood, but also in a sustainable way. Can an architecture form the connection between productivity, economy and community structure while coping with changing living conditions, and offer a certain resilience to the neighborhood of west Coney island? From this question onwards, it seems useful to look into the building use and occupancy to identity differ-ent structures in the neighborhood. Looking into all the contrasting elements from first experience, and transform them into not contrasting, but coexisting territories forming the neighborhood.

Fig. 04 Sketch of 21st Street as a section. >Next page: Fig. 05 Collage of experienced frames at 21st Street, Coney Island.

14

Analyzing the overlap scenarios in the neighborhood, based on the building use and occupancy, it proved to be worth looking at the area as a layered system of interests and demands. So, instead of looking at it in the sense of territories, it could also be interesting to use the same principle but by using the term networks? Combined with the first experience on site and analysis using government maps, there are a few interesting layers in the Coney island West neighborhood. Three main elements build up the neighborhood; the first one is the strong presence of a (central) commercial heart, being Mermaid Avenue. Around the avenue multiple shops, small and larger, gather to form a sort of corridor through the neighborhood, providing a distribution of food and goods (the only large supermarket is also on this avenue). Secondly there is a cluster of productive activities in the north-east of the neighborhood, with mainly auto-repair and body shops on the one side, and mainly food distribution halls and workshops/storage on the other. As a third point, it is also noticeable how spread out the community facilities like schools, community spaces, places for worship, etc. are. In some parts of the area theres a lack of these spaces so no real opportunity for community-minded activities or movement. So taking into account these three main elements, a mapping divided in three layers can be built-up to map the opportunities and needs in the neighborhood. The three layers of interest, are to following:

COMMERCIAL INTERESTOn the commercial layer (see fig. 06a), the strength of the central commercial corridor appeals as a central place throughout the whole neighborhood, offering a place for economics, supply, and distribution. It guides a move-ment starting at Stillwell Avenue station all the way through the neighborhood, overlapping with the main bus service across the neighborhood towards Seagate. One could envision a stronger corridor with also perpendicular interest towards the Boardwalk, the Coney island creek and even the Home Depot site just north of the water. This last relation also hints to a new way of local transport using the creek as a guidance. A new transport system, and the commercial strength of Mermaid Avenue could be exploited as an opportunity for the neighborhood to rebuild a local economy, but also to enlarge the access to food and goods in the area.

PRODUCTIVE INTERESTThe main productivity in the area is clustered in the NE corner, at the creek (see fig. 06b). Consisting of mostly auto-repair/car shops and workshops/warehouses, it is an overlooked asset to the neighborhood considered as a system separated from the rest. Mapping this layer creates an image on how this activity could be a potential source of knowledge and skills that can be beneficial for the whole area. Considering the issues with storage and distribu-tion of goods, but also knowledge about their use could be a productive input. Also the clusters connection to the creek is an asset which is now (like in many Brooklyn cases) seen as a backwater. Instead, it could be a productive relation again, creating local jobs and resilience.

Transition to a layered network:Introducing the method of analyzing in layers and networks, and build an argumentation for invention.

15

COMMUNITY NETWORKThis network (see fig. 06c) forms a sort of community cohesion by providing services and space for commu-nity activities. The existing neighborhood-network is dense in the center of the area, but could be improved in a number of way addressed on the map. Could it be improved in such a way that it offers even more opportunities for a feeling of community to emerge? The community infrastructure that is present now, consists of schools, a library, child care, places of worship. It lacks places to meet or do activities, sharing knowledge and information about current affairs. In this way the existing network could be enlarged and enhanced to create a higher sense of community.

Supermarket

Supermarket

Cross-island access

Commercial + Residential

Commercial

Natural resources

Amusement area

Home Depot

Mermaid Ave Commerce

Water access

Water access

Cross-island access

Stillwell Ave Station

Amusementpark area

Fig

. 06a

Map

pin

g o

f the

co

mm

erci

al a

ctiv

ities

Productivity

Natural resources

Amusement area


Productive cluster

Water access

Fig

. 06b

Map

pin

g o

f the

pro

duc

tive

activ

ities

Natural resource

Community network?

Residential

Elderly homes

Natural resources

Amusement area

Community utilities


Natural resource

Natural resource

Community network?

Articulation towards Boardwalk?

Fig

. 06c

Map

pin

g o

f the

exi

stin

g c

om

mun

ity n

etw

ork

Fig. 07 Rollercoaster in the water. Michael Reynolds

Having analyzed the neighborhood in three functional lay-ers, a discission on how to proceed on developing a pro-posal can be made; The overall need for a higher resilience and changing living conditions are an important factor in this discission, as is the equal involvement of all the differ-ent layers. So the question is: Can there be a cooperation in between the different networks to enhance the whole sys-tem? Or otherwise stated:

How can a system of architectural interventions form a new strong net-work taking in account the existing neighborhood structure, and articulate the multiple layers/interests in a day-to-day scenario of overlap, aiming at a unified resilience in flood scenarios?

Research question:Statement about the essence of the design challenge and how to proceed on developing a proposal.

23

By defining the commercial interest, productive interest and a community utilities network, a conceptual vision about a new network can be envisioned. This network forms an articulation of a new awareness and a stronger resilience of a neighborhood that needs to cope with a changing living environment. All three of the analyzed layers play a great role in building up this awareness and a certain amount of communal resilience. One can imag-ine a series of platforms spread throughout the neighborhood on strategic locations, creating literally a platform for commercial distribution, knowledge (and awareness) sharing, community activities, etc. In a normal day-to-day scenario, these platforms act as an open community space, and depending on there location, focus on market space/food distribution, productivity enhancing/resilience raising workshops, or just community activities. When a flood scenario occurs, the infrastructure will be built-up in such a way that it allows for the water to come inland without destroying of devaluing the plot or any activities on it. On the other hand they will be equipped with the possibility to ensure alternative transport via water, space for possibility evacuation and emergency equipment. To build up this network, a series of points-of-interest are selected to suggest the placement of the platforms (see fig. 08 Mapping the points of interest for intervention). Location 1 is conceived as a main hub, combining the opportunity of mobility via water (towards the parks and the Home Depot site) with an interesting location for commercial and productive input. This can be a prime location for import of goods, but also emergency equipment and food distribution during flood scenarios. Location 2 is also combining the waterfront opportunities with a productive input but more specifically bound to the need for a community space for the block. 1 and 2 together form the main input of knowledge and productive program into the network, sharing this on the other platforms. Location 3 is situated next to the NYC job center on 21st street, and forms together with this existing building, an information and training hub for the local community to create jobs and raise self-sufficiency in terms of knowledge. It also forms the other side of the commercially interesting 21st street axis (connection be-tween the creek transport hub and the Boardwalk), and could help the community to articulate and express itself again towards the beach and in a reaction against the amusement park area. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are location in the commercial corridor area and are mainly focussed on strengthening this entity, by provided ground floor tem-porary commercial space (markets, etc.), and infrastructure for food and goods distribution. By strengthening the center of the neighborhood, its influence on the whole area will be more positive again and there could emerge a new level of interaction. 8 is located at the boardwalk on the end of 33rd street, and focusses on the opportunity of the neigh-borhood claiming Coney island beach again. By creating a space for small temporary commerce in combination with a public function, in could create a new interest for the community to head to the beach/Boardwalk again. 9 is placed at Neptune Ave close to the Keyfoods market and enhances the food distribution supporting this existing shop, but also acts as a new community output towards the block. Lastly theres 10, which acts as a community information points but is mainly focussed on the access to the northern park and the more inland part of the creek. So all together these ten platforms contributed to a stronger community in multiple ways, they work together in what can be called a resilient network.

A resilient network:Formulate an urban strategy that, on top of the existing structure, builds up a new resilient network to enhance the neighborhoods resilience.

24

OVERALL the platforms are mostly equipped for a temporary claim on the ground floor (markets, workshops, parking,), and a storage/distribution(/evacuation) function in emergency situations.

SPECIFIC functions for each location focus on three programs: enhancing local commerce by facilitat-ing distribution, enhancing productivity and resilience by knowledge and skill sharing, and forming new space for the neighborhoods groups to sit or comes together and build on a stronger community.

Strengthen the cohesion and resilience of the neighborhood, enhancingthe commercial, productive and community aspect through the introduc-tion of a new network of platforms that facilitate a number of specific programs linked to these aspects. Connect the community better to natu-ral resources and existing attractions, but at the same time use simple interventions to protect and enhance these natural resources (creek wa-terfront). Lastly, create an opportunity for citywide transport systems to reach the neighborhood better and in a way show how this community can overcome the challenges posed by nature, an learns to tackle changing liv-ing conditions. (see fig. 09)

25

xResidential

Commercial + Residential

Commercial

Community utilities

Elderly homes

Productivity

Natural resources

Amusement area

Points of interest

5

6

7

8

9

10

Natural resource

Ccommunity network?

Supermarket

Supermarket

Cross-island access

12

3

4

Fig

. 08

Map

pin

g t

he p

oin

ts o

f int

eres

t fo

r int

erve

ntio

n.

Amusementpark area

Natural resource

Natural resource

Cmmunity network?

Articulation towards Boardwalk?

Home Depot

Mermaid Ave Commerce

Water access

Water access

Cross-island access


Fig

. 09

Sch

eme

of t

he u

rban

str

ateg

y.

Platforms: A first step towards a design strategyZooming in on the creek + a first step towards finding a system for architecture.

As the urban strategy involves a network of ten architectural interventions, it is important to search for a system to realize these interventions in a coherent way. This coherency is shown in a few properties and for a number of reasons. As the strategy is to build up a new network, the architecture should also be conceived as a whole. This means that the architectural language and way of intervening is the same for all ten interventions. They are seen as platforms that facilitate the three specific programs derived from the neighborhood analysis. A first sketch (see fig. 10) shows the idea of to basic types facilitating different function on different levels, but being publicly acces-sible on all levels. The specific programs have a more temporary character than the platform itself, so the platform structure can be a more permanent structure that is in its principle the same for all ten. This structure consists of a bolted steel structure made from standard sections and measurements for economical and practical reasons (grid: 25x6,25m), on which floor plates are created. These floors than house the more temporary functions as a indepen-dent structure with a less permanent feel (see fig. 11). The way the platforms related to the streetlevel and surroundings depends on its location and the layers that it interacts with the most. The platform can be free-standing, placed on an extension of the streetlevel or placed on a pedestal above flood level. In the first two cases, the ground floor is conceived as a floodable plane. It can flood without damage to the structure, and afterwards be re-occupied without devaluation of the floor area. In case of the pedestal which originates from practical reasons such as loading bay height the ground floor is lifted and thus permanently dry. Another important feature is the accessible roof. In all cases, the roof can be used as an additional surface for storage and equipment. This plays a role especially in emergency situations when theres a need for auxiliary goods, tools and equipment like for example also temporary boilers and communication devices. In some cases the roof is also (partly) publicly accessible for community or leisure reasons. Something which also applies to all interventions is that the platform extends the collective space in height. This means that the space configuration is made as such that theres always multiple ways of entering and moving through the space. Movement even if not important or necessary is made possible, hereby also enlarging the complexity of the space, making it more absorbing to experience. The platforms articulate themselves in all direc-tion, every side has a certain value or quality. Developing the platforms as systematic and repetitive structures, allows to develop two or three cases which define the repetitive elements but also show how the specific functional spaces are placed on. Based on this methodology, the other platforms could be envisioned. Based on the added value of working in relation with an upgraded waterfront, I chose to work out three platform at the creekside:A transport hub at Bayview Avenue, a distribution hub at 15th Street and Stillwell Avenue, and a larger general facilitating platform at the creekside on Neptune Avenue and 21st Street (see fig. 12). They will show how the platforms are appropriated, and work in different scenarios; also the local (and possible citywide) watertaxi system operates within this case. The system, elements and use of these platforms can then act as an example of how the whole network will work.

30

Fig. 10 First principle sketches for a platform.

Flood level

StorageUtilities

Auxiliary equipment

Specific functions:Food/Goods distribution

WorkshopsCommunity space

Temporary functions:Market/work/activity space

Storage/Parking

DRY

WET

32

Polished finish concrete screedProfiled steeldeck (span: 3,125m)ACB 500 Steel profile 500mm

Total permanent floor package: 650mm

150mm

ACB 500

ACB 500

ACB 500

ACB 500

ACB 500

IPE

500

IPE

500

IPE

500

IPE

500

HEB

200

HEB

200

HEB

200

HEB

200

HEB

200

Fig. 11a (above) Structural detail, steel structure.Fig. 11b (below) Structure scheme, basic module.

Fig. 11c Structural principe Exploded build-up.

Floor 15cmPolished concrete screedProfiled steeldeck Span: 3,125m

Secundary structure, ACB 500 Span: 12,5m

Main structure, IPE500 Span: 25m/4

Steel columns, HEB 200 Height: 4,00m

33

34

Fig. 12 Focus on the Coney Island creek, system of interventions.

Interventions

Proposed water access

Logistial water movement

Built environment

Project methodology: a case.An example of a similar approach and idea in commencing a project:INTERBORO

A New York based office with a lot of experience in working with systems of interventions for a larger goal are Interboro, led by Tobias Armborst, Daniel DOca and Georgeen Theodore. In 2013, they developed a project called Grassroots Regionalism: Resiliency building in low- and medium density lowland communities. Its a project for HUDs Rebuild by Design initiative, which invited ten teams to propose between three and five design opportunities for making coastal communities damaged by Hurricane Sandy more resilient.1 We are pleased to present four design opportunitieseach based on a different coastal typologythat offer a menu of options for vulnerable, low and medium income, low and medium density communities in New Jersey, Staten Island, and Long Island. So in this case the project also involves a system of interventions working together as a whole. By this they want to give critique to short-term local plans, and work on long-term, realistic solutions that include whole systems and create win-win situations for the whole area. First, we identified instances in which whats right for the region could be tailored to help meet local needs and achieve local goals. Protecting the Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant from flooding helps insure that Bay Parks streets, waterways, and homes wont be inundated with unprocessed sewage, but it also insures that the 500,000 Nassau County residents it serves will be able to flush their toilet. In our design opportunities, we have identified many such win-wins. Second, we centered each of our design opportunities on a natural featurea freshwater marsh, a bay, a creek, and the beachthat is inhabited by multiple municipalities. In each instance, irresponsible, unsustainable development practices have led to the erosion of the natural feature, a fact that has undermined their ability to protect residents from severe weather events, as well as decreased their recreational potential. In our design opportunities, we propose to leverage the inter-municipal connections that these natural features provide by restoring them in a way that simultaneously enhances them as regionally significant public spaces.2 (see fig. 13) In their approach, Interboro envisions a proposal that offers a solution and added value on all levels. All interventions work together for a more livable whole. Also the focus on natural systems as a more buffering solu-tion is an interesting idea. Especially because it combines a higher quality of living environment with solutions for the water problems. When they propose an architectural intervention, multiple types and structural methods are explored to search for the best solution. Projecting these elements onto my proposal for Coney Island west, the idea of having not one solu-tion but a system of interventions is definitely similar. How they think about the emergent and the everyday scenario as equally important creates a certain multifuncionality needed in the situation of an urban waterfront. Also the use of natural buffer systems for the water problematic is also applicable to the idea of having a hardupgrade on one water edge, but a buffering enhancement on the opposite side. The thoughtful and inclusive way that Interboro build up their projects is a quality that should be incorporated in all urban waterfront projects.

1 HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development2 http://www.interboropartners.net/2013/grassroots-regionalism-resiliency-building-in-low-and-medium-density-lowland-com munities/nggallery/thumbnails

36

37

Fig. 13 Diagrams from: Grassroots Regionalism: Resiliency building in low- and medium density lowland communities. 2013 Interboro

38

Strategic waterfront.Strategies to enhance the creek side and its function.

The management of the waterfront is an important element in the development on the Coney Island creek. Deg-radation of the water edge often contributes to easy flooding of the land at the waterside, and makes it less func-tional, productive and safe (see fig. 14a). The strategy here is not to fend of the water completely, as this would totally change the relation of the street level with the water. A relation which is nowadays seen as a negative and threatful connection. Because of building orientation and pollution through time, the creek has become an unclean environment and a backwater. Within this project, a three-step strategy for the creek and its sidings could provide a solution for the environmental, economical and mental qualities of the water in this neighborhood. As in the somewhat similar case of the Gowanus canal, this strategy could be financed by a Superfund1 if substantial proof of contamination and risk for human health can be found in and around the creek. A first step is to remove the shipwrecks and large objects in the creek to create more navigable water surface, and eliminate contamination from large waste. As discussed, because mechanical dredging might make the problem worse, a biological way of cleaning the water should be considered. By for example bringing cleaning organisms in the water, including filtering water plants, etc. into the water. The use of water taxis should not be a problem, considering the depth of the water is sufficient for boats to pass without stirring up the bottom to much. By not walling or closing in the creek for the sea, the minimal tidal movement is preserved, also supporting the existing biodiversity on the creek side. Secondly, in areas where businesses are active the edge of the water is upgraded in a way that it is raised to street level by creating a more sustainable infrastructure. Using a steel sheet pile and concrete edge system, a more accessible water edge is developed (see fig. 14b & 14c), forming a long-term protection against easy flood and ero-sion. Because the accessibility of the waterfront enlarges, new connections can be envisioned in the neighborhood. People will move along the water and maybe discover its qualitative input in the urban environment again. Contrasting to the economical way of upgrading the water edge, there will be an ecological enhancement and redevelopment wherever possible. Especially on the north side, the whole water edge will be re-shaped in a natural way and filled up with waterplants and indigenous trees further on the banks (see fig. 14d). In this way, one side always compensates as a natural buffer for the opposite side which is designed as an infrastructure. Develop-ing the waterfront is such a way also creates a sort of bufferzone against rising water levels and in combination with a biological cleaning process supports the biodiversity on the creeksides. Apart from that, it will also create an added value for the living quality around the creek, and form an attraction for people accessing the waterfront across.

1 Superfund = The U.S. Federal governments to clean up uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/

Fig. 14a Water edge upgrades, existing situation.

39

0 1m

40

Fig. 14b Water edge upgrades, better access. 0 1m

Fig. 14c Water edge upgrades, ecomonical enhancement.

41

0 1m

42

Fig. 14d Water edge upgrades, ecological buffer system.

These three examples (fig. 14a-d) show how the three step strategy will result in a more productive, attrac-tive but also ecological Coney Island creek waterfront. Within the same mindset as the system of architec-tural intervention, the whole site (see fig. 15) will be enhanced on multiple levels, and create a fresh view on the waters role in the neighborhood. The water strategy also builds up a base for the architectural in-terventions to benefit from the possibilities of being at the creek, and use all aspects of it ranging from visual to environmental qualities. A waterfront project that does not reject the water even in flood scenari-os but learns to live with it and take advantage of its positive influence on the whole area and its inhabit-ants.

43

0 1m

44

Fig. 15 Overview: water strategy for Coney Island creek. Green = Ecological importance Red = Economic/access enhancement.

46

Materiality & ConfigurationExisting architecture language and materiality + new interpretations.

Across Coney Island different systems of boundaries and space configurations appear. Configurations which are most of the time simple and conservative in form. Sidewalks are plain concrete, light posts and electrical wires seem randomly ordered in the streets. This kind of simplicity makes for an easy functioning of the streetscape and its actors. In most of the occasions, the border of this street is an open-mesh fence. The fence is one of the easi-est ways to create a bordered space. Some poles with a fence against it and your border has its form. It can resist winds, rain, storms, floods,... The banality and simplicity of the fence is a nice method to use in forming a flexible space that doesnt have to be totally excluded from the surroundings, but yet clearly defined. At the point where we see the fence as a more flexible border, we also think about the visual connection that it offers between spaces. Normally this connection would be broken by putting some sort of plastic curtain or a hedge against it, to ensure privacy, etc. But we can also use the visual connection as a positive element. If for example a space needs to be flexible in configuration yet not visually closed of from the surroundings, we can use the fence as a flexible wall to form a defined area. This makes it a suited element to use for fencing for example a small market space or outdoor workspace that should be seen from around, but sort of defined. In another case, the fence can offer a controlled environment for handling and storing goods. But because there is still a visual connection, the spacial quality and atmosphere of this space and process dont get lost but are part of the larger area. In a samilar way as fencing, the simplicity of the street- and sidewalk surfaces comes from practical rea-sons. The plain concrete surface of the sidewalk makes for easy functioning and accessibility. When creating an extension of the streetscape like this system of interventions intents to do this simplicity yet certain level of detail and quality needs to be continued into the intervention. Although the spacial complexity of a platform gives a certain experience, the spacial relation from street to platform or for example street-platform-water should be simple to read. This can be achieved by extending the street into the intervention in a similar language and atmo-sphere as the existing. Even the first seemingly random placed street light or tree can have a certain spacial quality at a really local scale, but also in the overall streetscape. Therefor, when adding a landscaping item such as a tree or sitting element, it should be detailed and reasoned upon so that it is justified inside the existing streetscape. Textures of sidewalk can mark zones, create a certain pattern. Native trees have a trustworthy effect on the landscape and give a certain quality to it. The simplicity of the streetscape also allows it to be flexible in unplanned scenarios like floods. When flood hits the water takes over the street, but afterwards the quality from before returns without degradation. The platform do not protect the streets from the water, but will act in two ways: the street level will react in a similar way as the existing situation. It is floodable, but without devaluation. Above streetlevel they form an extension of collective and productive space, only this space is permanently functional and operative. Overall it is important to think about the way that the idea of a system and a conservative, simple configuration make for a easily read-able and usable space configuration. In this way the architectural intervention can become a true extension of the streetscape.

Fig. 16 (Left) Fence at the creek. (Right) Neptune Avenue sidewalk. >

48

When looking at the neighborhood, temporary structures appear everywhere in the form of scaffolding, precipi-tous repairs, delayed construction sites, etc. These temporary structures are often not so temporary anymore but have gotten another status through time. In the same mind-set, the platform offers an open and more permanent place for more temporary functional blocks. These blocks are also formally worked out in a more temporary way than the base structure. They can be added on to or broken down and replaced, but they could also undergo the same process as other some add-on structures and become less temporary when they prove to be functioning well. The materialization of these temporary blocks asks for a more tactile and textured feel then the solid frame of the platform. One element important in deciding on the materials are the existing temporary structures. Being mostly build up from steel elements and timber, they articulate a flexibility on both structural and functional level. A second element to consider is the use of infrastructural material as a structural and visual element for archi-tecture. Best example for this is the implementation of sheet piles as a individual structural to create space. Because of their shape and linking possibilities, you can build up an independent structure, and modify it for openings and attachments. Their material properties allows for a use in floodable areas and for a large loads. Opposite to the mass of the sheet piles, a timber structure can provide the same temporarily feel to a structure, but be lightweight enough to configuration large functional spaces that are insulation to provide a certain indoor comfort. These spaces are built up with a simple timber frame filled in with insulation, and a treated timber plank finish. In this way they also feel like something which is easily built and adapted to current conditions. Having a system of evanescent volumes inside a durable structure contributes to the facilitating character of the platform. It articulates the possibility of these platforms to be a base for diverse functions and applications that are needed in the new resilient network.

Fig. 17 (Left) Third wave kiosk. Tony Hobba Architects (Right) Historic Childs restaurant, with scaffolding. >

50

Creekside - Neptune AveA facilitating platform in the heart of the neighborhood.

As a central hub in the neighborhood, the platform at 21st Street and Neptune Ave facilitates units that interact with all the analyzed layers in the existing neighborhood, forming a new mobility access and a catalyst for resiliency in the area. The groundfloor is conceived as an extension of the street, forming a solid pedestal going onto the water. The platform stands on this pedestal at the waterside, forming a public and functional space on multiple levels. Connections to the neighboring waterfront are made to make circulation opportunities from the waterside via the platform possible. Vertical circulation is divided into a public and a productive circulation. Central staircases provide public access to the upper decks, while a controlled staircase in the productive area ensures a separate connection to all the storage and distribution space. Separate linear connections are made front the street onto two floating piers. A central one for watertaxis to dock and form a new public transport link into the neighborhood, and a separate pier for logistical use. This logistical pier is connected to a loading area and a temporary storage space on the street level, and storage and distribution spaces on the first floor and the roof. Goods can be replaced by use of a separate elevator, of with a loading crane which is placed on top of the platform structure. At street level there is a small office and shop space where a supervisor can have a desk and people from the neighborhood can come to get DIY materials and goods. This functional volume is built up from metal sheet piles, to make it floodable in emergency scenarios. The office function can in that case be shifted to the first floor where there is another office space. Here the office is linked to a room for meetings and knowledge-sharing activities. Also a basic sanitary func-tion is integrated as well as the structures main technical space. The technical installations are placed on the first floor so the power grid can enter above flood level, and it forms an opportunity to build an emergency power grid or network. On the first floor there is also a larger functional volume that houses a large meeting/multifunctional space, dividable workspaces and a sanitary block. Here, community workers can organize anything from neighbor-hood meetings and activities to information sessions on oncoming decisions or situations. The workspaces are pro-vided for people from all layers of the neighborhood who want to undertake something creative and/or productive and need some space to work in. They can than also use the platforms other spaces to show their ideas/work to the neighborhood and visitors. Vertical public circulation is not only possible via the central staircase, but also with a public elevator which also goes up to the roof. Part of the roof is publicaly accessible. The amount of space that is publicly accessible depends on how much of the roof surface is used for storage. The border public - controlled storage is arranged by the supervisor of the productive activities and defined by a movable fence. This movable fence principle is also used at street level, where a covered flexible space is set-up to host neighborhood meetings, markets, workspace, etc. Using the structure of the platform and the street as attachment, multiple configurations are possible using open-meshed fence to border the used space. This allows to easily expand onto the sidewalk and the street, the same thing that happens with the car shops expanding there workspace onto the street. Allowing these spontaneous actions to happen is one of the important aspects in what this platform should be: an existing of the street and collective space onto the waterfront and into height, facilitating and enhancing the existing strengths of the neighborhood structure and be a new access point into the area.

51

Fig. 18 Isometric view of the platform at Neptune Ave and the Coney Island Creek.

Fig. 19 Street level plan, showing the configuration of the groundfloor as an extention of the street.

54

Fig. 20a First floor plan, showing the multifunctional community space on the left, and a storage compartment + office on the right.

Fig. 20b Roof plan. The roof is partly accessible for the public, but mostly used as a storage deck.

55

Fig. 21 Detail section of the insulated timber structure placed on the platforms for functional space that has to be heated.

Concrete screed on steeldeck floor 15cm;Steel structure, IPE 500 50cm.

Insulated timber structure 30cm.(Technical equipment integrated)

2x Timber plank floor finish 2,4cm;Insulation panel 6cm;

Air gap 2cm;Concrete screed on steeldeck floor 15cm;

Steel structure, IPE 500 50cm.

Double glazing in a wooden windoz frame.

Fig. 22 (above) Section through the productive side of the platform, showing the controlled entrance to the work floor. (middle) Section showing the sequence from W21 Street and Neptune Ave through the platform onto the new watertaxi stop. (below) Section through the community

activities, with the groundfloor being used as a market extending onto the street, above is the work- and meeting space.

Fig. 23 Drawing of the Neptune Ave streetscape with the new platform integrated.

Fig. 24 Isometric drawing showing the Neptune Ave platform from the street, with a conceptual hint to the materiality.

Fig. 25 Model close-up: Extention of the street and the community spaces.

Fig. 26 Model close-up: Logistical area with loading crane and public overpass.

66

Stillwell Ave - 15th streetA place for distribution of goods and knowledge.

Placed inside the cluster of productivity in the north-east of the neighborhood, the platform at Stillwell Ave and 15th Street focusses on distribution of goods and knowledge. It fuels knowledge and resources onto the new resil-ient network and enhances the productive ability and knowledge for the local area again. The platform is placed on a 1,30 meter pedestal and is build up from two main parts. The first and more permanent space in a storage- and distribution space. This space is built up from sheet piling material for an infrastructural feel, and hosts three load-ing bays, a 575m2 hall and a platform to pier sequence for storage and further distribution into the neighborhood via land or water. There is an access from the main hall to the front of the building that acts as a loading bay at 15th Street. Linked to the groundfloor distribution infrastructure is another 990m2 roof surface available for storage and equipment, accessible by staircase and activated by a loading crane via the pier or a movable roof light. The neighboring distribution hall can also benefit by having an access onto the platform roof, and an opportunity to foresee a new loading bay at the back of the building. A second more flexible volume is placed in front of the distribution space at the street side of the platform. It hosts a supervising office, sanitary unit and a multifunctional space. This multifunctional space can be used for meeting and temporary office extensions, but also for lectures and gathering for knowledge sharing about the goods, equipment and distribution into the neighborhood. It can be a place where the knowledge and skills from the productive cluster can be put into the neighborhood network as a part of resiliency building on a socio-economical level. More activities around this can be organized on at the platform because a the space opens up towards the street side. A public access to the waterfront is foreseen as a flexible space which can expand and reduce as the capacity of outdoor storage space does not always have to be the same. The platform and configuration of the flexible borders is overseen by a supervisor. This person can live in the house that is incorporated in the project site. In this way, constant supervision, public access and an extensive productive progress can go hand-to-hand on this platform site. It is an important step in facilitating a better distri-bution of goods as well as knowledge about materials and how to use them.

67

Fig. 27 Isometric view of the platform at 15th Street and Stillwell Ave.

Fig. 28 Street level plan showing the access to the water both collective and exclusive. The platform is occupied by two functional volumes: An office and meeting block at the street side and a storage/distribution unit behind it.

70

Fig. 29 Roof plan. Showing roof hatch and light, loading crane and an optional connection to the nearby roofs.

71

Fig. 30 Detail section. Showing the structural build-up of the pedestal, and the steel sheet piles used as an architectural feature.

Concrete screed on steeldeck floor 15cm;Steel structure, ACB 500 50cm.

Closing plate, provides airtightness, and creates a technical space inside.

Steel sheetpiles used as architectural ele-ment, attached with brackets to a concrete

pedestal (130cm above street level).

Plexi glazing in metal frame.

Waste water sewage.

72

Fig. 31 (above) Section through the distribution unit, showing the sequence from loading bay for trucks to the loading dock for barges. (below) Section from 15th Street towards the water at the Stillwell Ave bridge, showing the offices at

the street with the distribution behind it.

Fig. 32 Facade showing the streetscape of 15th Street with the new platform integrated, and the public access towards the Coney Island Creek.

Fig. 33 Isometric conceptual impression of the platform at 15th Street and Stillwell Ave. Showing placement in the surroundings and the flexible access to the water.

Fig. 34 Model: Platform at Stillwell Ave and 15th ST in its environment.

80

Bayview AveA new transport link for the Bayview Ave area.

The area around Bayview Avenue lacks a place for community, a link to the neighborhood network. Theres no real commercial activity nor a good connection to the center of the island and the existing natural resources. To answer to a certain need for a catalyst in this area, a platform is implanted off the streetside on the newly emerg-ing beach in front of Bayview Avenue. Focussing on mobility and access, this platform inserts a new link for this area towards the centre of the neighborhood and the natural resources across the creek. Accessible via a walk-bridge, the platform facilitates two main spaces. One is a semi-outdoor working space. It is built up from a niche which containes technical equipment on one side, and an open workspace on the other side. This space can be used for anything from repairing bicycles and equipment, to technical space in case of an emergency. Realized in a anodized steel frame structure and finsihed with rusted steel plates, it gives a raw technical feel to the volume. The other space on the platform is waiting- and meeting space. There is room for a small ticket boot/machine for the watertaxi, seats for the waiting and a place to enjoy the view. The room is concieved as an indoor space, that could be heated in the cold season. Constructed from an insulated timber frame with timber finish, it articu-lates the temporarity and flexibility of the volume constrasting to the solid frame of the platform. The configura-tion of the platform allows for multiple ways of approach and circulation. As a result, all levels of the platform and the public transport are accessible at all times, even if the functional volumes should be closed. The linear access from the street towards the floating pier acts as an extention of the street, providing waterfront accesibility in day-to-day situations but also in flood scenarios. The staircase going up from the beach to the roof, extents the public space in height. The roof is accessible for people to enjoy the view and experience the place, but can be claimed for storage and equipment in emergency situations.

81

Fig. 35 Isometric view of the platform at Bayview Ave.

83

Fig. 37 Detail section through the workstation with closable material niche.< Fig. 36 Street level plan. Showing the extention above the beach towards a water taxi pier.

Concrete screed on steeldeck floor 15cm;Steel structure, ACB 500 50cm.

Metal frame construction with metal plate finish 20cm.

Lockable niche for materials and work equipment.

Cantilevered walkway.

Fig. 38 Section, showing the sequence from Bayview Ave onto the platform, with the workstation first and a waiting area.

Fig. 39 Sideview showing the movement from the water taxi pier towards the street.

Fig. 40 Isometric conceptual impression of the Bayview Ave transport hub.

Fig. 41 Model: Platform at Bayview Avenue in its environment.

90

ConclusionsConcluding and reflecting on the project.

The new system of platforms forms a strong new local network that uses the existing neighborhood structure as a base to build up a unified resilience. By developing a structural principle and the same visual base-platform idea, a common image in the existing urban fabric can be achieved. The flexibility to facilitate all three different layers of the neighborhood articulates the equal importance of them for the strength of the area. Local transport and connection to the city-wide network are enhanced with infrastructure for watertaxis, which is also usable in wet sce-narios for temporary emergency transport. Communities are given space to meet, do activities, share experiences, etc. (Local) commercial activities are stimulated and related to the street like in some existing situations. Productiv-ity is brought onto the new network by: facilitating storage and distribution of goods and emergency equipment. Knowledge sharing is also an important part of the productive process, raising skills within the neighborhood to do repairs and work with basic materials. By articulating and integrating these functions better into the existing neighborhood structure, a common resilience can be build up not only depending on large organizations, but from the local knowledge and skill. Here-by the neighborhood itself becomes the base for a unified resilience. The platform structure forms a solid base for temporary volumes facilitating different neighborhood functions, it can be seen as an extension to the functional and collective space of the street level. Like the idea of a unitary urbanism1, the architecture is able to be adaptable to changing situations, in terms of needs, conditional, etc. It can cope with a constantly changing living environment. The architecture allows for a new accessibility to the waterfront, a new way of thinking about and experi-encing the Coney island creek, but also the to the whole neighborhood. It wants to be the catalyst to a new aware-ness about the changing conditions and a certain resilience towards that. The platforms are configured to function in dry and wet conditions. They do now resist against the rising water, they learn to work with it and articulate that idea to the neighborhood. The platforms add quality to the experience and functionality of the area, and could be seen as a system of urban artefacts2, articulating a new vision for the neighborhood. A unified architectural language, an identifiable network that enhances the structure of the area on all levels, in dry and wet scenarios: A new resilient network for Coney Island west.

1 Nieuwenhuys, C., Unitary urbanism in Avermaete, T. et al., Architectural positions:..., p. 239-2412 Rossi, A., The architecture of the city in Avermaete, T. et al., Architectural positions:..., p. 257-264

Fig. 42 Zoom in on Neptune Ave market.

92

ReflectionsPersonal reflections.

To shortly reflect on this whole project, I can start by saying that it was an amazing experience for me. Having the opportunity to continue my interest for this framework starting from the Gowanus work-shop into a paper and now my master dissertation was really great. I experienced an interesting way of looking into a design strategy where I could link my own interests and style to the streetscape territories research method and the result is satisfying after the 17 weeks of work.

It started of with an interesting site visit in February. We did a lot of walking around, experienc-ing the atmosphere, the feeling of the place and how it works in daily life. Apart from that we also did a lot of research. We went to MAS NYC (Municipal Art Society New York City) to gather historical information but also had really inspiring talks with academics at Pratt Institute and in the city. All the information gathered in the field provided us with a great base for proceeding into the project.

The guidance further into the project and the team were superb, I really enjoyed the working atmosphere and was able to overcome some hard moments quite easily. We used a number of different ways of working, discussion and presentation, and this made for a new and creative way of output and dealing with the development of a research and an architectural project.

Seeing the result now, it is satisfying to look back at the process, and concluding that all we did got us to get the most out of our projects and ourselves as architects. For my project personally, I feel that I developed a specific way of critically dealing with sustainability in a way that there is always a bal-ance between ecological/utopical thinking and economical/post-crisis reality. Using this vision to think about a common resilience, I could develop a project that contributes to the existing environment and learns to cope with changing conditions. I have been given the opportunity to develop my own interests and vision, and for me that is what makes this master dissertation very valuable.

93

Thank you to all people who made this project possible. They guided and supported me in the progress and contributed to five months of special experiences. Thank you for a nice and productive atmosphere, an overall great opportunity and all the help:

Kris ScheerlinckLaurens LuytenFerran MassipPedro DachsGiovanna VadalHannes Van Dammethe whole NY teamStewart PertzDavid BurneyBeth BinghamCatherine MengPhilip LefbvreLieke Van RompaeyPatrick Willemsmy parents,and many others.

AppendixLogbook & work process.

94

Working and recording that work into a logbook is for me a must to record my progress. Always hav-ing your record with you to write down input and information, sketch down visions or sights, etc. is something that is highly undervalued I think. To show in what manner I take advantage of this way of working, I included an appendix with some captions from my working logbook.

96

Firs

t exp

erien

ce on

site

in S

heep

shea

d Ba

y.

97

Map

ping

of

Shee

pshe

ad B

ay a

nd so

me v

ital e

lemten

s.

98

Firs

t exp

erien

ce on

site

of C

oney

Isla

nd W

est.

99

Map

ping

of

Con

ey Is

land

West

.

101

Map

ping

of

indi

vidua

l exp

erien

ce of

Con

ey Is

land

West

2

1st S

treet.

103

Skyp

e-sess

ion w

ith S

tewar

t Per

tz a

s a m

id-se

mest

er in

put.

105

Wor

king

out

a b

igge

r sca

le wa

ter st

rateg

y.

107

Rese

arch

on

inter

vent

ions a

roun

d th

e Con

ey Is

alnd

Cre

ek.

109

Rese

arch

on

arch

itectu

ral t

ypolo

gy a

md

build

ing m

ethod

.

110

Inter

vent

ion #

1

A m

ultif

uncti

onal

tran

spor

t hub

.

111

Inter

vent

ion #

2

A ca

se for

a fa

cilita

ting p

latfo

rm fo

r the

who

le ne

ighbo

rhoo

d;In

terve

ntion

#3

A

logis

tical

dist

ribut

ion p

latfo

rm fo

r goo

ds a

nd k

nowl

edge

.

112

Stru

ctura

l con

cepts.

113

Func

tiona

l con

cepts.

114

Func

tiona

l con

cepts.

115

Con

struc

tion

deta

iling

and

calcu

latio

ns.

116

Con

struc

tion

and

proje

ct re

feren

ces.

117

Secti

onal

resea

rch, f

eedba

ck.

119

Wor

k o

n fin

al p

rese

ntat

ion

mat

eria

l.

120

Text

121

Wor

k o

n fin

al p

rese

ntat

ion

mat

eria

l, cr

itica

l rev

iew.

CreditsBibliography + figure list.

Bibliography

01 Mironova, O., West of Nathans: Coney Islands Residential Community in Urban Omnibus. Date: 25/01/14. URL: http://urbanomnibus.net/2014/01/west-of-nathans-planning-coney- islands-residential-community/02 Habraken, N.J., The structure of the ordinary, MIT Press Cambridge, 1998.03 Gregotti, V., The form of the territory in Oase #80, NAi Publishers Rotterdam, 2009, p 7-21.04 Lynch, K., The image of the city, MIT Press Cambridge, 1960.05 Koolhaas, R., Delirious New York, Monacelli Press, 1997.06 Scheerlinck, K., Streetscape Territories notebook: Collective spaces, KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture: LUCA, Ghent 2013.07 Thys, T. & Verbakel, W., Breuckland: Design interventions for a post-crisis Brooklyn, KU Leuven, 201308 Avermaete, T. et al., Architectural positions: Architecture, modernity and the public sphere, SUN Publishers Amsterdam, 2009.09 de Sol-Morales, M., A matter of things, NAi Publishers Rotterdam, 2008.10 Shannon, K. & Smets, M., The landscape of contemporary infrastructure, NAi Publishers Rotterdam, 2010.11 Rossi, A., The architecture of the city, MIT Press Cambridge, 1982.

122

123

Figure list

01 Fences at the Coney Island creek. Ruben Janssens02 21st Street, Coney Island. Ruben Janssens03 Situating a project location. Google map data. maps.google.com (edit: Ruben Janssens)04 Sketch of 21st Street as a section. Ruben Janssens05 Collage of experienced frames at 21st Street. Ruben Janssens06a Mapping of the commercial activities. Ruben Janssens06b Mapping of the productive activities. Ruben Janssens06c Mapping of the existing community network. Ruben Janssens07 Rollercoaster in the water. Michael Reynolds. European Pressphoto Agency/The LA Times: http://framework.latimes.com/2012/10/29/hurricane-sandy/#/1808 Mapping the points of interest for intervention. Ruben Janssens09 Scheme of urban strategy. Ruben Janssens10 Sketches for typology. Ruben Janssens11a Structural detail, steel structure. Ruben Janssens11b Structural scheme, basic module. Ruben Janssens11c Structural principle, exploded build-up. Ruben Janssens12 Focus on the Coney Island creek, system of interventions. Ruben Janssens13 Diagrams form: Grassroots regionalism:... Interboro interboropartners.net14 Water edge upgrades, simple systems. Ruben Janssens15 Overview: water strategy for Coney Island creek Ruben Janssens16 (Left) Fence at the creek. Ruben Janssens (Right) Neptune Avenue sidewalk. Ruben Janssens17 (Left) Third wave kiosk. Tony Hobba Architects. archdaily.com/338211 (Right) Historic Childs restaurant, with scaffolding. Ruben Janssens18 Isometric view of the platform at Neptune Ave and the Coney Island Creek. Ruben Janssens19 Street level plan, showing the configuration of the ground floor as an extension of the street.20a First floor plan, showing the multifunctional community space on the left, and a storage compartment + office on the right. Ruben Janssens20b Roof plan. The roof is partly accessible for the public, but mostly used as a storage deck. Ruben Janssens21 Detail section of the insulated timber structure placed on the platforms for functional space that has to be heated. Ruben Janssens 22 (above) Section through the productive side of the platform, showing the controlled entrance to the work floor. (middle) Section showing the sequence from W21 Street and Neptune Ave through the platform onto the new water taxi stop. (below) Section through the community activities, with the ground floor being used as a market extending onto the street, above is the work- and meeting space. Ruben Janssens

124

23 Drawing of the Neptune Ave streetscape with the new platform integrated. Ruben Janssens24 Isometric drawing showing the Neptune Ave platform from the street, with a conceptual hint to the materiality. Ruben Janssens25 Model close-up: Extention of the street and the community spaces. Ruben Janssens26 Model close-up: Logistical area with loading crane and public overpass. Ruben Janssens27 Isometric view of the platform at 15th Street and Stillwell Ave. Ruben Janssens28 Street level plan showing the access to the water both collective and exclusive. The platform is occupied by two functional volumes: An office and meeting block at the street side and a storage/ distribution unit behind it. Ruben Janssens29 Roof plan. Showing roof hatch and light, loading crane and an optional connection to the nearby roofs. Ruben Janssens30 Detail section. Showing the structural build-up of the pedestal, and the steel sheet piles used as an architectural feature. Ruben Janssens31 (above) Section through the distribution unit, showing the sequence from loading bay for trucks to the loading dock for barges. (below) Section from 15th Street towards the water at the Stillwell Ave bridge, showing the offices at the street with the distribution behind it. Ruben Janssens32 Facade showing the streetscape of 15th Street with the new platform integrated, and the public access towards the Coney Island Creek. Ruben Janssens33 Isometric conceptual impression of the platform at 15th Street and Stillwell Ave. Showing placement in the surroundings and the flexible access to the water. Ruben Janssens34 Model: Platform at Stillwell Avenue and 15th Street in its environment. Ruben Janssens35 Isometric view of the platform at Bayview Ave. Ruben Janssens36 Street level plan. Showing the extension above the beach towards a water taxi pier. Ruben Janssens37 Detail section through the workstation with closable material niche. Ruben Janssens38 Section, showing the sequence from Bayview Ave onto the platform, with the workstation first and a waiting area. Ruben Janssens39 Side view showing the movement from the water taxi pier towards the street. Ruben Janssens40 Isometric conceptual impression of the Bayview Ave transport hub. Ruben Janssens41 Platform at Bayview Avenue in its environment. Ruben Janssens42 Zoom in on Neptune Ave market. Ruben Janssens

p87-113 (Appendix) Scans from personal logbook with comments. Ruben Janssens

125

Notes

Streetscape Territories: Coney Island. A Resilient Network

Documents

Transcript of Streetscape Territories: Coney Island. A Resilient Network