A continuation of this thread

 

 

Kent State University

Jack Kremers (Faculty Advisor)

Tony Mustachio

Rob Maschuke

Von-Lee Chan

Hong Bieng Chan

Siew Ong

 

Design Synopsis

 

1  Existing Environment

1. Historic Center of the city is located at Third and Main Streets.  This is the center point of the community

2. The river provides opportunity for development and community activity

3. Patterson Boulevard and Commons form a meaningful historic wall.

4. Oregon district provides successful housing restoration and thus serves as a valuable node.

 

II  Problems

1. The city focuses inwardly and turns its back on the river and suburbs

2. There is a lack of affordable housing in Dayton

3. There is a lack of entertainment and social places for evening activities

4. Vehicular and pedestrian path relationships are not clearly defined.

 

III Goals

1. To energize the city by providing nodes of act ivies which link the larger downtown  area through pedestrian movement and residential units to institutional, commercial, and entertainment areas.

2. To tie the perimeter residential areas, both existing and potential, to the city core.

3. To develop the community in phases to reflect change as a continuum an as an expression of energies and resources.

 

IV Objectives

1. Develop initial residential/commercial concept at Southwest corner of Second and St Clair Streets.

2. Develop movement  directions toward the river from initial residential development as a catalyst for concentration of entertainment and cultural activities along the river.

3. Develop movement directions toward Ludlow St to link to major paths with new development.

 

V  Future Phases

1. Develop infill housing on the west side at Patterson Boulevard to strengthen residential character.  Existing housing is too scattered and disparate.  Continue development of low rise and scale housing with emphasis on good design and character.   Provide for low and middle income groups of residents. 

2. Develop infill housing on the east side of Patterson Boulevard and at Patterson Commons.  Strengthen fabric and wall of central development.

3. Strengthen pedestrian links from new housing toward Main Street and toward the river.

4. Develop riverfront with entertainment areas and a museum.  Consider an entry tower to Dayton at Main Street and the River.  Restaurants would also be a valuable asset.

5.

VI  Summary

 

Our concept is to initiate relatively modest scale unit size and overall quantity housing units at St Clair and Second Street and from these ties provide movement and energy links to the larger community.  Over time these ideas will generate increasingly larger developments which ultimately unite and express what Dayton can be.[/i]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(the Kent team took the design brief pretty seriously, taking a block and really developing it out as urban housing.   I notice they do do some funky things with the site planning though, too, similar a bit to OSU, by playing around with the river shore at the intersection of Patterson and Monument.)

 

(im not sure I am really that fond of this design, but it does address parking, with that sunken parking garage)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miami University

Tom Briner (Faculty Adivsor)

Pete Coffin

Jeff Paddock

Mary Rogero-Merritt

John Fabelo

Shou Ning

 

Our group walked the area and found little in the way of scale, use, or character that provided fabric into which might be woven housing development.  Consequently, our approach was to think about housing that could produce its own appeal.  Another assumption was made with regard to scale: the team to did not believe that tall “high-rise” housing would be accepted, i.e. marketable.  We presumed that the Cooper Park housing represented a density that a) locals favor and b) keeps development costs in line with what the housing market can support.  As we thought about alternatives, we considered 30 units per acre to be the minimum density.  In fact our sketch proposal, on average, exceeds that minimum.  We figured about 850 additional units to the area. made up of 800 in new construction, and perhaps 50 units as studio/apartments (possibly condominium) units in existing buildings east of Patterson Blvd.

 

At the present Mendelson parking lot, south of Monument and west of Webster (we thought Webster came closer to being a natural boundary to this community), the team  put together a parti of the three story units (duplex and four-plex type) approached by a narrow walk separating garages and open parking areas form the street.  Thus, pedestrians would have a similar, intimate scale walking environment that we had hoped would recall some of those narrow tree, protected walks in the Oregon area.  To the rear of these units would be a common space which would only be slightly noticed through the narrow openings or side yards between the housing units.  Again, in the spirit of what we saw in happening in the Oregon area.  the exception to this would be the housing on Monument Avenue, which would be more compact and, at points, taller in order to look over River Bend Park.

 

The team thought that other larger scale housing development could be supported by the context of Third Street.  Between  Second and Third are proposed six to eight story buildings with interior courts, two story living units stacked above one another with exposure to a “mall” extending from Webster to Patterson Boulevard.  The team was quite taken with the existing rear elevations of the Third Street buildings.  We believe that this “wall” of buildings made a terrific edge to the open space.  This mall would then connect across Patterson Boulevard to Cooper Park and to the CBD beyond.  There could be about 400 units in this housing.

 

The variety of housing, type, and scale, provides potential for alternative development strategies.  The walk-up housing could be developed in increments of half blocks.  We assumed that this housing must be successfully developed in order for the private impetus, market interest- and time for demolition that might be required for the larger development behind Third Street.  An idea was to have one developer commit to projects in both area, in essence: constructing the first phase, walk-up type “at cost”, in order to acquire development rights for the larger projects.

 

Our group thought to acknowledge, strengthen, or create visual and circulation connections.  Third St. as a main entry to downtown  lacks mass on the south side.  Our drawings suggest adding a building here, perhaps a warehousing facility.  Other than the retail that is created by the increased housing, nothing is suggested that could dilute the retail activity within the CBD.  What retail that might occur would be on Third St.  As the only bus route into the CBD, we saw this as a collector serving the residents of walk-ups, who would walk south to the “Church District” and cross the mall to Third St.

 

Patterson Blvd was seen as a barrier between the study area and the CBD.  Our group thought the street is too wide and the one-way traffic makes the street a wasteland except when business let out (At which time it become curb-to-curb raceway- not conducive to pedestrian crossings).  Our proposal takes one lane from the street and locates buildings close to the new eastern edge.  These buildings might house movie theatres and other night life activities that could relate to the Victoria Theatre and Memorial down  First St., and perhaps become a link or deflector of this kind of activity towards a new Performance Center at the head of Patterson Boulevard bridge.

 

At the south end of Patterson Boulevard, the group proposed utilitizing one of the old canal buildings as restaurants which might enjoy a new environment created by a produce/open market a la Haymarket Square, Boston, or the old Les Halles district of Paris.  This would tie into the diner district and further tie into the dining/entertainment areas within Oregon.  By creating some popular attractions along Patterson we hoped for a connection between Oregon housing (old) and new housing previously described.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(When I first saw this scheme I didn’t think it was too inspired, but now I like it more, and can appreciate what they where trying to do with the scale of buildings, using these blocky loft-like buildings near Third to fit in with the context of the remnant loft building), and the lower townhouse style elseswhere,  trying to recreate the feel of the Oregon district.   And that mall connecting with Cooper Park seems like a nice touch too.)

 

(I now can appreciate what they where trying to do along Patterson, using that area as sort of a market to connect with the Oregon and the “Diner district” (the area around the Neon and the Pearl.   This would have been historically accurate, too, as the area along St Clair and Kenton was Dayton’s old wholesale produce district.  The desolation along Patterson is one of the things that separates the Oregon activity from the rest of downtown.  Unfortunatly the "canal buildings" mentioned in their text where torn down in the early 1990s)

Diner District, heh.