Photography: Small

Photography: Medium

Photography: Big

Urban Voids Competition: Program Analysis

PROJECTS NEAR THE TOP OF THE WINNERS LIST WERE FRAMEWORKS THAT ALLOWED FOR GROWTH, WITH REFERENCE TO THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

GREEN

Urban arboretum – forest
Continuous green ribbons, programmed vertical planes
Farmland, parcels classified into ‘readiness’ and are phased into remediation
Connecting the green, ecologies

STREAMS

Vacant Lots = new urban watersheds – urban voids act as green filters, byways for new urban streams.
Fertilization, local systems – open framework to reveal Philadelphia underpinnings, ridges, streams, revitalize dormant space, capitalizing on nodes of activity
Revive streams – bioremediation to clean land and make it viable for future use

FRAMEWORK(S)

Supermarket of spaces: spaces are exposed publicly, physically inside a city store or virtually through an online catalog, where anyone can look up the options and take them for free to the play where they are needed. (framework for spaces?)
Fabrication and assembly of simple construction modules that can be placed within vacant lots

LOCALITY

Conventional park, garden, recreational programs (urban programs to take advantage of the social, cultural, economic and institutional infrastructures already present?) Locality
Draw upon history, commerce and infrastructure of the past (Brewerytown), program that reflects this
Layers of Program: Storm water layer, agricultural layer, recreational layer

SUBURBAN / URBAN

Suburbia combined with urbanism, organizing urban grid but less dense

EVENTS

Landscape of events
waterways, economic nodes (of activity), public realm, infrastructure

MISCELLANEOUS

Typologies – gap tooth, lone pine, valley desert
Glass boxes  - micro climates
Deform the void – mold, distort, open

Background: Defining the Problem

Defining the problem:

Over the past few decades, Philadelphia has experienced a quick and enduring urbanization, or sprawl.  New residential and commercial development has pushed outward to undeveloped land farther from the city center.  Between 1950 and 1990, the populations of suburbia surrounding the city have more than doubled, while the total housing units has tripled.  At the same time, the city’s population and housing units has decreased by approximately 23%, and in some of Philadelphia’s most distressed neighborhoods, the loss of population and housing unit’s stands around 50%.  Because of this trajectory, a large number of properties, both land and building, have been abandoned.  Many of these properties both land and buildings, not sit vacant and unused. 

“As urbanization has overtaken underdeveloped land far outside the City, the incidence of developed inner-city land becoming vacant has increased.” (1)

Most of the cities abandoned structures will have be demolished eventually, further adding more land to an already high stock of unused, vacant land.  Individual lots created by demolition are rarely, if ever, redeveloped and because vacant lots are usually scattered amongst occupied structures, they becomes difficult and expensive to redevelop.

However, demolition of abandoned structures is not the root cause of vacant land.  The main cause can be found from economy, location and the physicality of the structures. 

1)      Economic Uselessness

The fast paced movement of new technology in the production, distribution and marketing of goods has resulted in the underutilization and abandonment of the city’s large stock of commercial and industrial properties.  Physical and environmentally complication make these older properties uneconomical to modern day businesses.  Sitting unused, these properties become a blight on the surrounding neighborhood and residential blocks opening themselves up to vandalism and further damage.  Because of this many of these properties have little to no market value and no hope of redevelopment.

2)       Locational Uselessness

Suburban residential construction has lessened the need for a central city center location as a retail and business center.  While locational choices has increased for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses surrounding the city, a demand for such properties within the City has decreased.  Thus, many properties and structures s go unused and eventually are reverted back to vacant land

3)      Physical Uselessness

Aging infrastructure, housing stock and dense pattern of neighborhood development has not fared will against newer suburban developments, including, housing styles, features, larger lots, more private open space and modern heating, plumbing and electrical systems.  Although Philadelphia’s housing stock is usually less expensive and more affordable, it also involves considerable repair and maintenance that needs to be factored in the overall cost.   Many of these structures fall into disrepair and are demolished; adding vacant lots throughout the city’s already distressed neighborhoods.

Sources:

1 “Vacant Land in Philadelphia.”  Philadelphia City Planning Commission Report, 1995.

2 "Demolition / Vacant House Treatment Study" Philadelphia City Planning Commission report, 1984.

Three Neighborhood Samples: Existing Conditions

Background Information: Philadelphia

State of Housing in Philadelphia

• From 1950-1980, the population of Philadelphia has declined 23%; from a population of 2, 071,605 to 1,585,577.  From 1970-1980, the decline was 13.4% alone.
• In the 1950-1980 period, population loss has been greatest in Lower North Philadelphia (-60%), South Philadelphia (-45%) and West Philadelphia (33%).
• The number of households in the city, the basis of housing demand, declined by 3.5% from 1970-1980.
• As of 1980, 72% of the city's housing units were built before 1949; over 58% were built prior to 1939.
• Overall vacancy rates increased from 4.6% in 1970 to 9.5% in 1980 and to 10.64% in 1990.
• The overall vacancy rate is a result of decline in both  the number of households in the city (-3.5% from 1970-1980) and an increase in the number of housing units overall.
• As of 1992, long-term residential structures, basically abandoned, totaled 26,916 and long-term vacant lots totaled 15,825.
• Between 1970 and 1990, a total of 21,437 abandoned residential structures had been demolished.

Sources:

“Vacant Land in Philadelphia.”  Philadelphia City Planning Commission Report, 1995.

"Demolition / Vacant House Treatment Study" Philadelphia City Planning Commission report, 1984.