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.

Urban Scan: Philadelphia

The purpose of showing the previous videos was to give myself and others an idea of what I would be producing after my trip to Philadelphia this past weekend. However, I seem to be having problems capturing the video I took from the camera and getting it on to a computer so that I can edit and upload it.

I am still in the process of trying to figure out what the problem is and then try to fix it.
Hopefuully, I'll get some video up soon for the area of Lower North Philadelphia, which visualizes much of the trends and information that will follow in the next post.

Urban Scan - Manchester / Liverpool

Urban Scan - Halle / Leipzig

Urban Scan - Detroit

Making Part 2

'Terrain Vague' / Economics

Ones perception of a space begins with what one sees.  By way of perception we receive signals and impulses that steer our opinion of things, of specific places in a particular direction. (Ignasi)   

Abandoned spaces, or vacancies, are occurrences that seem to take control of our eye and direct opinions of neighborhoods socially.  Economically, vacancies induce declining property values for their surroundings.  “…researchers from Philadelphia found that houses within 150 feet of a vacant or abandoned property experienced a net loss of $7,627 in value.  Properties within 150 to 300 feet experienced a loss of $6,819 and those within 300 to 450 feet experienced a loss of $3,542.” (Vacant Properties)

This somewhat shows the process I am defining as ‘societal construction.’  We perceive spaces to be degraded socially; this then translates economically, degrading property values.  A vacancy then, has no presence either socially or economically.  If it has no presence, then what is it and what can it become?

...

‘Terrain Vague’

Terrain – the first instance of ground fit for construction.

Vague 1 – movement, instability, fluctuation

Vague 2 – vacuous, empty, unoccupied

Terrain Vague – void as a space fit for movement

Vague 3 – indeterminate, blurred, uncertain

Terrain Vague – void, fit for uncertain movement

Terrain Vague –a void, fit for presence

Yes, it’s kind of a paradox that may not make any sense but as I’ve stated earlier, ‘vacancies do not provide the results we expect from architecture, instead acting as spaces of disorder that serve as a critique of regulated urban space.’

 "... we are talking here of politics for the individual in conflict with himself, desolately despairing at the rapidity with which the whole world is transformed, and nevertheless aware of the need to live together with others, with the other." (Ignasi)

Vacancy is a void waiting for something to happen; it’s in conflict with itself.  Economics and society have left it behind, have created it; but both are what it needs to become a presence within a neighborhood again.  Architecture can facilitate this process.

This poses a significant question

"How can architecture act in the terrain vague without becoming an aggressive instrument of power and abstract reason"? (Ignasi)

How can architecture act within vacancies without becoming what vacancies are wholly contradictory to?  How can architecture act within vacancies without defining that vacancy as a new regulated urban space?  How can it act as something that critiques it instead?

(I’m not even sure if the questions make sense to me right now.  Most likely the question and it’s logic needs to be clarified)

 _________________________________________________________________

Sola-Morales, Ignasi. "Terrain Vague." Anyplace. Ed. Cynthia Davision. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995. 118-23.

“Vacant Properties: The True Cost to Communities.” National Vacant Properties Campaign Report, 2005

Bibliography

Interest

*experience within Homewood during the Urban Design Build Studio; this is still on going.

Have Read

Solà-Morales, Ignasi. “Terrain Vague.” Anyplace. Ed. Cynthia Davidson. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995. 118-23.

Hardy, Hugh. “The Romance of Abandonment: Industrial Parks.” 2005.

The above have helped me to narrow down my focus to abandonment in residential neighborhoods, as well as the beginnings of the 'parts’ to which I am currently defining.

Argument

Edensor, Tim. “Industrial Ruins: Space, Aesthetics and Materiality.” Berg Publishers, 2005.

Jakle, John A and David Wilson. “Derelict Landscapes: The Wasting of America’s Built Environment.” Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1992.

These two books helped me to define my thesis statement; a vacancies ability to serve as a critique of regulated urban space and that it needs both economics and social atmospheres to be transformed into something that can help a dilapidated neighborhood.

Reading

Economics/Vacancy

Mittleman, Hallie and Catherine Lamb. “Vacant Property Reclamation and Neighborhood Change in Southwest Center City Philadelphia.” July 2008.

“Vacant Properties: The True Cost to Communities.” National Vacant Properties Campaign Report, 2005

From these reports, I will be able to tie economics and vacancy together, as relevant to my argument, and allow my process to focus on the vacancy itself.

Place

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

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

For these reports, the focus is on the cause, effect and potential re-use of vacant lands pertaining to distressed residential neighborhoods.  This will help me to further define my site within Philadelphia and will provide a basis from which I can create my own taxonomy of types and patterns of vacancy.

To Read

Program

http://www.vanalen.org/urbanvoids/

The Urban Voids competition centered in Philadelphia allows me to study others choices of program in relation to vacancy within my chosen site.

Methodology - part 2

… this week.

My last methodological post led me to defining parts upon which I can insert into typical types of vacancy and models of those pieces; metal/materiality, wood/structure, string/movement, and nails/areas of conglomeration as seen through photo of those models.

However, it is still needed that I study and define in greater depth those parts, as well as defining what a typical vacant lot is.  To do this I will be taking photographs of my previous models, which have stirred up a lot of thought, and then diagramming a greater understanding of the parts (hopefully) on top of this. 

… upcoming weeks.

Once those parts are better defined it will be possible to place those parts into sites, or typical vacancies.  But before this can be done, it is necessary to identify a taxonomy relative to vacancy, whether that be vacant lots, vacant buildings or perhaps both is as yet undecided.  I am proposing that I do this by taking a look at Philadelphia and a selection of block sectors that were chosen to describe generalities in a Philadelphia City Planning Commission report done in 1995.  The census information is taken from 1990, and to get me started this is okay.  I will, however, need to update all of this information and chosen block sectors relative to the most recent census; to do this GIS will be utilized.  In the end this process will define the site as Philadelphia.

In conjunction with these two courses of action, and rather sooner than later, I intend on grounding my argument with economic/vacancy claims that will allow me to focus on the vacancies themselves throughout the rest of the process.

Also, a critique suggested that the models imply a tension between framework and program and what happens with the parts in these vacancies; so perhaps that is something to explore in more depth in a few weeks as I define ‘program’.

One (3) Three Nine - Revised

~1 (plus 2)

Abandoned buildings within neighborhoods reveal the enormity of our capacity for ruination.  Today decline is a societal construction, where the problem is that neighborhoods are defined as either an economic space or a social space when it is the case that a neighborhood must be both.  Abandoned buildings, or vacancies, serve as neither, and thus increase degradation.

+3

The increasing rates at which vacancies have been produced across the urban landscape disclose a narrative of society that has become overly concerned with financial gain (economic space), rather than social networks (social space). Building today has surrendered itself to the circumstances of accelerated markets, technologies and developments. As a result, building has grown into something that has become more global, generic and market driven, leaving behind that which is no longer of any use.

+9

These vacancies do not provide the results we expect from architecture, instead acting as spaces of disorder that serve as a critique of regulated urban space. Spaces in which the interpretation of the city becomes liberated from constraints which determine what should be done and where.  Instead, the aesthetics of abandoned sites offer a unique perspective that stand in contrast to commodified social ways of being. There is no economic space. They create an alternative world in which we as spectators, with our assumptions and expectations, are strangers. Thus, there is no connection between the barren structures and their communities, since they have never fulfilled their intended function. There is no social space.  Spaces of disorder can critique the highly regulated urban spaces which surround them, as sites which can combine both the economic and social spaces into one. They are indispensable eyesores.