Making Room at the Japan Society

As a member of the Board of Directors for the Citizen’s Housing & Planning Council (CHPC), a non-profit research organization founded in 1937 to improve housing and neighborhood conditions throughout New York City, I have been fortunate to help organize and participate in a number of unique programs.

Two years ago, CHPC Executive Director, Jerilyn Perine, and Senior Policy Analyst, Sarah Watson, launched a program, “One Size Fits Some,” which examined housing standards in New York City, in comparison to other regions of the country as well as the world. The objective was to learn from other cultures as a means of redefining allowable housing units in New York City, in response to changing lifestyle and demographic patterns. Subsequent investigations identified key parts of New York City housing laws and codes that are currently acting as regulatory barriers to the development of new housing types, critically needed for the safety and continued prosperity of New York City.

This past week, CHPC in collaboration with The Architectural League presented a sequel to the previous analysis, “Making Room,” a daylong program that was presented on Monday, November 7, 2011, at the Japan Society. Making Room included presentations from four New York City teams of architects led by Peter Gluck, Stan Allen and Rafi Segal, Deborah Gans, and Jonathan Kirschenfeld, which suggested ways of redefining how we live in New York.

The program opened with an introduction from Linda Gibbs, New York City Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services. As she explained, “the major issue is that the traditional household is changing; New York has more people living alone than ever before.” Additionally, as the baby boomer population is aging, we are about to enter a period where there will be more people over 65 than below 18 years of age, for the first time in New York City’s history.

It was explained that most housing units in New York are designed to serve the typical nuclear family; however we are increasingly living in more diverse, non-traditional household configurations. As a consequence, young professionals, low wage workers, and members of the “creative class,” have highly limited housing options that are safe, legal, affordable, and suit their needs. Additionally, the typical unit does not support the lifestyle of a single parent, a transient worker, or our ever-increasing aging population.

As part of the program, I participated as a respondent to Jonathan Kirschenfeld’s presentation, “The Pleasures of Density: Flexible Single and Shared Housing Typologies.” Kirschenfeld began the presentation by showing how affordable housing options for single persons have disappeared over the last 50 years. He explained that supportive housing regulations in Use Group 2 permit small unit sizes and reduced areas for rearyard courtyards in community facilities. However, for the typical residential tenant, housing standards are defined by Use Group 3 that requires a much larger unit and an extensive rear-yard setback and/or courtyard. Additionally, shared facilities are not easily accommodated.

Plan and perspective cut at the duplex apartment level of ‘The Mix’ building, showing a planted roof terrace and coffee bar, overlooking a ‘greened’ Grand Concourse. Such shared amenities for building residents link the individual dwelling units to the dense city beyond.

As a consequence, Kirschenfeld suggested that if we were allowed to design residential buildings for single tenants under Use Group 2, we could create greater densities, create more affordable units, and offer more housing options. He showed a scheme for a new residential building, “The Mix,” on the Grand Concourse in the Bronx. The building included very small single room units with shared common space. It also included live-work duplexes and loft units for a multiple of lifestyles. What was unique about Kirschenfeld’s approach was that it also suggested an attitude about blurring the distinction between inside and outside by greening the Grand Concourse and creating more opportunities to let activity to spill out on the street.

I reminded the participants of the quote from Eliel Saarinen, “Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context–a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, and an environment in a city plan.” By embracing the city as a whole as a part of the program, we are creating a city that supports our future needs.

What I appreciated most about the “Making Room” discussion is that architects are having a voice in public policy in the City. Five years ago, when I was President of the AIA New York Chapter, my theme was “Architecture and Public Policy,” and I spoke about the need for architects to have a voice, as policy decisions are defined by our governing bodies. What has been great about working with CHPC and the Architectural League in concert with City officials on this program is that there is an appreciation that architects are part of the dialogue as we define the city to respond to our future needs. Now we need to stop talking and make some of these ideas really happen.