The OMA-designed Greenpoint Landing Towers in northern Brooklyn recently topped out. Photos and announcement over here. If you aren't familiar with the project, it's very OMA. What I mean by that is that there's a kind of simple rationality to it. (I just made up this architecture speak.) Big bold moves with a certain logic behind it. Here's the story and thinking behind Greenpoint Landing:
Supposedly this project is in a part of Brooklyn that stipulates a maximum tower floor plate size of 11,000 square feet. Following this rule, you get a two-tower design that looks something like image number one in the top left hand corner of the above diagram. The resulting tower separation would be 40 feet, or just over 12 meters. (Are you seeing these numbers, Toronto?)
What OMA did was taper one tower (diagram image #2) and then create an inverted ziggurat form for the second tower (diagram image #3). The effect is two towers that look like they were almost one giant tower that had been simply pulled apart. The resulting tower separation distance in this final scenario is 60 feet, or just over 18 meters.
I am assuming that there's some area loss in this design because of the increased tower separation, though maybe the larger podium makes it up. Either way, from what I can tell, there are two main benefits to this design: (1) you get a tower with stepbacks facing the water (so places for outdoor spaces) and (2) it breaks up the visual monotony of two equally extruded towers.
If any of you are more familiar with this project, I would welcome your thoughts in the comment section below.
Image: OMA
Here are a few interesting stats from a brief report that New York City published this month about their supply of new housing units:
From January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2020, New York City delivered 205,994 net new housing units across the five boroughs.
This total includes 202,956 units from new construction and 29,161 units from the alteration/conversion of existing buildings. However, it also factors units that were lost as a result of demolition (-17,400) or alteration (-8,723).
Brooklyn saw the most supply, followed by Manhattan. The four highest-growth Community Districts were responsible for 1/3 of all new housing additions. These CDs are all formerly non-residential areas that were rezoned to allow living.
Manhattan saw the greatest loss in housing units as a result of alterations (people combining units). This was most prevalent in wealthy neighborhoods such as the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, and Greenwich Village.
What is interesting about this last point is that it shows you that cities are far from static. New York City lost 26,123 housing units during the above time period, with 8,723 units being lost to alterations and people combining units.
The orange areas on the above map are neighborhoods which actually became less dense over the last decade. And of course, this phenomenon is not unique to New York City. We are seeing the same thing play out in some/many neighborhoods in Toronto.
What this mean is that the role of new development is really twofold. It allows a city to grow (i.e. house new New Yorkers), but it also replaces lost housing and relieves some of the pressures on the existing housing stock. I don't think many people appreciate this dynamic -- or perhaps they don't care.
For a copy of the full report (it's only two pages), click here.
Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) and Joanne Wilson (also an investor) have been working on a passive house apartment building in Brooklyn for the last five years. Their development company is called Frame Home. And this past week they received a pretty great Christmas gift in the form of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy from NYC Buildings.
At 5 storeys and with only 10 two-bedroom units, you could classify this building as the kind "missing middle" housing that gets so much air time here in Toronto. And so not only have they managed to build relatively small, but they've done it using passive house design principles.
Here are some of the apartment building's features:
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) structure
Passive house design approach
Triple-pane windows
Interior polished and insulated concrete walls (presumably to act as a thermal mass to moderate heating/cooling throughout the year)
Solar panels installed on the upper facade and roof (passive house design should, in theory, allow these to supply a big chunk of the building's energy needs)
No fossil fuels used throughout the building -- everything is electrical
Fully sub-metered units
Outdoor circulation spaces/stairs, providing access to a shared rooftop courtyard (I'm assuming these also serve as required egress for the building)
Dedicated elevator entrance for every suite (i.e. no interior circulation/corridor spaces)
Composting facilities within the building
Bike room connected to the ground-floor lobby
There's also a co-working and community space planned for the ground floor called "Framework." Interestingly enough, they have already responded to the current pandemic. Instead of open-air desks, you rent fully enclosed 8' x 8' pods that are sound-proofed and come with their own HVAC systems.
Congratulations Fred and Joanne on such an exciting and pioneering project. (I would love to see the development pro forma!) If you'd like to learn more about Frame 283, here is their website and here is a profile that the New York Times did on the project back in January. Building with CLT is apparently prohibited in NYC. Frame 283 got an exemption.