Team NY: Package 2

transcript

GUDC N Y C

To assess all measures and parameters deemed necessary to ultimately select a singular site for a proposed Stanford Auxiliary Science and Engineering campus in the City of New York.

Purpose

Mayor Questions

Developed Property with Existing Neighborhood Infrastructure (Large Capital Investment, Small Infrastructure Investment)

Area of low economic and social vitality with a promise for

opportunity (Large Infrastructure Investment, Small Capital Investment)

Vision

The Stanford’s NYC campus is poised to become one of the world’s leading schools for business and engineering, establishing New York City as the East Coast’s center for entrepreneurship and innovation. Collaboration with local universities will reinforce the learning environment, enhance human capital, and foster the advancement of human ingenuity. In partnership with the city government, local community, and area high-tech firms, the Stanford NYC campus will become integral in addressing some of today’s most challenging technological issues, infusing sustainability and integrity at its core philosophy, and promoting a spirit of passionate pursuit for the betterment of mankind.

I. Site Analyses and Sustainability Program II. Matrix and Parameter Guidelines III. Financial Report IV. Final Selection V. Process

Outline

SITE ANALYSES AND SUSTAINABILITY POTENTIALS

Site Map

Site Analyses Parameter Analyses Financial Report Final Selection Process

5 West End Avenue

1 Quay Street

666 1st Avenue 46 - 08 5 Street

22 Flushing Street

water source heat pumps and cooling systems

differnet green roof systems and urban farming

solar power and solar heating

shading and greenhouse solutions

smart grid systems and proper insulation

density and program mixing

public places

creating an education cluster with other universities nearby

renewable material for construction

cooperation with local Stewardship organisations

Sustainability Aspect

5 West End Avenue (Manhattan)

Main sustainable potentials of the site: (2 FAR bonus for adding Inclusionary housing) (Lincoln Square Neighbourhood Center and Committee for Environmentally Sound Development) (Columbia University, NYU and Fordham University) (2 FAR bonus for constructing an open plaza) (tax abatement up to $100.000) (tax abatement up to $62.500)

5 West End Avenue

666 1st Avenue (Manhattan)

Main sustainable potentials of the site: (extra 2 FAR bonus for Inclusionary housing) (Lincoln Square Neighbourhood Center and Committeefor environmentally Sound Developement) (Columbia University, NYU and Fordham University) (2 FAR bonus for constructing an open plaza) (tax abatement up to $100.000) (tax abatement up to $62.500)

666 1st Avenue

1 Quay Street (Brooklyn)

Main sustainable potentials of the site: (extra 2 FAR bonus for Inclusionary housing) (Habitatmap, North Brooklyn Compost Project, Open Space Alliance Of North Brooklyn) (Water Access Program, Local Stewardship Programs) (underground gasoline tanks)

1 Quay Street

46-08 5 Street (Queens)

Main sustainable potentials of the site: (Friends of Gantry Neighbourhood Parks at Hunters point and Habitatmap) (tax abatement up to $100.000) (tax abatement up to $62.500)

46-08 5 Street

22 Flushing Avenue (Brooklyn)

Main sustainable potentials of the site: (buildings once owned by the Navy) (possibility to enhance the strong character of the Old Navy Yard) (tax abatement up to $100.000) (tax abatement up to $62.500)

22 Flushing Avenue

MATRIX and PARAMETER ANALYSIS

MATRIX AND PARAMETER GUIDELINES

Matrix Methodology

Matrix Stakeholder Allotment and Rationale

Stanford university (Parametric Weight Allotment)

Stanford University

Grading based on how many museums, galleries, libraries, institutes, high-tech companies and high-tech stores exists in

the area, radius of 1 miles (15 minute walk). Famous museums, galleries etc. count double.

Public Education Facilities in the Area (10%)

0 10 20 30

museum

gallery

library

institute

high-tech company

hight-tech store

Stanford University

Public Education Facilities in the Area (10%)

Considerations about safety are based on a Sterling agency’s calculations.

Stanford University

Safety (20%)

0 3 6 9 12 15

zip code area violent crime

zip code area property crime

Stanford University

Safety (20%)

Aesthetics of the Area is a parameter that measures the state of the streets, parks and other public spaces in the surrounding 1 mile radius (15 minutes walk).

Reputation of the Area is connected with how city residents see the area as a whole.

Desired New York Character of the Area as seen from non-residents (image of the city which the NY City has as a trademark).

Stanford University

Outside impression (15%)

0 3 6 9 12 15

aesthetics of the area

reputation of the area

desired New York character

Stanford University

Outside impression (15%)

Describes the access to public transportation in the area. Different distances to the nearest transportation service (2miles=30mins, 1mile=15mins, 0,5mile=8 mins). Overall accessibility indicates any other transportation service than bus or subway.

Stanford University

Public Transportation (15%)

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

subway

overall accessibility

Stanford University

Public Transportation (15%)

Parameters indicate how well the zoning parameters of the area and chosen plot suit the Brief

requirements according to the program (in both sense, land use and footprint) and volume spacing. ZoLa - Zoning and Land Use Application With the Department of City Planning's Zoning and Land Use (ZoLa) application you can find the zoning for a property, discover new proposals for your neighborhood and learn where City Planning initiatives apply across NYC.

Stanford University

Zoning Regulation (10%)

0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00

new building height

land use

surrounding existing land use

surrounding existing building height

Stanford University

Zoning Regulation (10%)

Sea Level Rise

Proximity to large, green open space/park

Offers a possibility for a retreat and therefore it is certain benefit for the university to advertise itself, or also a possibility to do a research in it.

As a result of a study that has shown poor condition of city air on Manhattan one of the main goals of PlanYC is to improve air quality

Plots within the plausible sea level rise will need to be design in a way, to achieve higher grounds. This is connected with higher expenses. Higher grounds, above the street level is also a design challenge which prioritize plots with higher altitude.

Plots in the zone area A will most likely need to evacuate the area in a case of a bigger hurricane. This is connected with expenses and certain degree of uncertainty.

Stanford University

Natural Factors (15%)

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

hurricane flooding

sea level rise

air quality

national or regional park nearby

Stanford University

Natural Factors (15%)

Examines:

I.Diversity of Demographic

II.Pace and Vivacity/Social Vitality

III.Existing Educational Facilities

IV.Existing Business Environment

Stanford University

Human Capital Increase Potential (10%)

0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00

variety of people

existing educational enviroment existing business enviroment

Stanford University

Human Capital Increase Potential (10%)

University Student (Parametric Weight Allotment)

Educational Institutions (25%)

University Students

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

library

university

high-tech company

college

events

Educational Institutions (25%)

University Students

Examines Number of and Proximity to:

I.Sports Fields

II.Jogging Tracks

III.Bicycle Lanes

IV.Water Sport Facilities

V.Group Activity Facilities/Recreation Centers/Gyms

Recreational and Leisure Space (10%)

University Students

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

sport fields

jogging tracks

bicycle lanes

water sports

group activities

Recreational and Leisure Space (10%)

University Students

Number and proximity of places to leisure and frequent in 1 mile radius.

Shopping and Entertainment (25%)

University Students

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

restaurants

theaters

cinemas

bowling

cafees

student apartments

open public spaces

Shopping and Entertainment (25%)

University Students

Examines:

I.Age Structure (favoring younger generation)

II.Work Environment

III.Diversity of nearby nodes, facilities, and public spaces and

demography

Existing Community (5%)

University Students

0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00

age structure

work enviroment

diversity

Existing Community (5%)

University Students

Examines Proximity to: I.Rivers II.Lakes/Ponds III.Riverside IV.Forests V.Large green areas and open space

*measures unregulated versus regulated areas*

Nature (5%)

University Students

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

unregulated

regulated

Nature (5%)

University Students

Describes access to public transportation in the area/different distances to the nearest transportation service.

Transportation (15%)

University Students

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

subway

bicycle

University Students

Considerations about safety are based on crime ratings of bestplaces.net/crime and neighborhoodlink.com. All ratings were assessed against the National Average. Proximity to a Hospital was also assessed.

Safety (15%)

University Students

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

violent crime

health care

Safety (15%)

University Students

Local Community (Parametric Weight Allotment)

University Students

Amenities that local community lacks in existing situation. Parameters try to define what would be the best “treat” for local residents to become positive about the project. In Not integrated scenario, the values are sometimes 0, disregarding the table.

Amenities (30%)

Local Community

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

green areas

public places

recreation

cultural events

urban improvements

Amenities (30%)

Local Community

Examines:

I.FAR (Floor Area Ratio) and New Building Heights

II.Noise Pollution

III.Incompatibility of Programs*

*in low density neighborhoods private interests are usually source of unpreparedness for urban change. The scale of the

university it can also be problematic when approaching to single house scale area. At the other hand, it can be welcome for

residents to get some new programs in the neighborhood.*

Regulation and Zoning Compatibility (30%)

Local Community

0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00

the new building height

incompatibility of the programs

Regulation and Zoning Compatibility (30%)

Local Community

Population structure can be problematic when the density of the area is low. Further more, both high and low density areas with mixed age structure are being better accepted. This measure looks at Floor to Area Ratios (High FAR = high rating in our scale)

Housing (10%)

Local Community

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

population struct. in new housing units

Housing (10%)

Local Community

Assessment based on density of area and land use zoning of area. This metric assesses FAR having a negative relationship with our scale (HIGH FAR = Low Rating in our scale)

Jobs (10%)

Local Community

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

new jobs created

Jobs (10%)

Local Community

This metric assesses the abundance of public transportation opportunities at a low scale, implying that there is no room for improvement/the community lacks in its existing situation/potential for growth.

Local Community

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

new bus lines, bike lanes ...

Local Community

University attracts people with certain knowledge, ambition or wealth. By doing that it improves the neighborhood. *High FAR, Lower Score*

Human Capital Increase (10%)

Local Community

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

entrepreneurship, innovation, education

Human Capital Increase (10%)

Local Community

MATRIX RESOULTS

Final Comparison

Stanford StudentsLocal

communityTotal

5 WEST END

AVENUE,

Manhattan

2,12 1,45 0,19 3,77666 1 AVENUE,

Manhattan2,04 1,37 0,23 3,64

QUAY STREET,

Brooklyn1,53 1,07 0,34 2,94

46 AVENUE,

Queens1,52 0,97 0,33 2,82

22 FLUSHING

AVENUE,

Brooklyn

1,35 0,78 0,39 2,52

Matrix

Stakeholders

FINANCIAL REPORT

Financial report

Location

footprint

combined

Program

footprint

needed

purchasable

density

MIN land

needed

MIN land

needed

Approximate

construction

Construction and

land price

Total assessed

value (45 % of total

value is TAX

Unit sq.ft. sq.ft. $/sq.ft. $/sq.ft. FAR sq.ft. $ 200.41 $/sq.ft $ $ %5 WEST

AVENUE,

Manhattan

366.936 330.000 109,33 117,86 10+2+2 33.000 3.607.952 66.135.300 70.024.583 31.384.463 10

AVENUE,

Manhattan255.375 330.000 257,97 301,58 10+2 33.000 8.513.164 66.135.300 76.087.570 33.591.809 10

FLUSHING

AVENUE,

Brooklyn

1.543.330 360.000 21,86 45,81 2+0 180.000 3.935.337 72.147.600 80.392.706 34.237.322 10

STREET,

Brooklyn595.391 360.000 11,85 49,14 6+1.2 60.000 710.712 72.147.600 75.096.150 32.786.240 10

46 AVENUE,

Queens243.773 360.000 78,86 70,01 2+0 180.000 14.194.257 72.147.600 84.749.734 38.853.836 10

FINAL SELECTION

Survey

Stanford StudentsLocal

communityTotal

Construction and

land price

Total assessed

Questioners'

votes5 WEST END

AVENUE,

Manhattan

2,12 1,45 0,19 3,77 $ 70M $ 31M 28

666 1 AVENUE,

Manhattan2,04 1,37 0,23 3,64 $ 76M $ 34M 25

QUAY STREET,

Brooklyn1,53 1,07 0,34 2,94 $ 75M $ 33M 20

46 AVENUE,

Queens1,52 0,97 0,33 2,82 $ 85M $ 39M 17

22 FLUSHING

AVENUE,

Brooklyn

1,35 0,78 0,39 2,52 $ 80M $ 34M 15

Matrix Financial report

Stakeholders

Final comparison

Site on the Map

5 West End Avenue

ACCESSIBILITY

DENSITY

CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINBILITY

SAFETY

OPPORTUNITY

PROCESS

GoToMeeting Skype

•Document Sharing and Viewing Capabilities •Instant Chat

•6 Way Face-to-Face communication (GoToMeeting) •Main medium for organized and planned weekly meetings

Web Conferencing Tools

Document Collaboration Tools

•Package 2 items and documents collected in one collection (GoogleDocs) •Easy, multi-user editing

•Near seamless compatibility with Microsoft Suite •Multiple viewer capability

Research tools

Improvement Points (over Package 1 Process)

Increased frequency of meetings (at least twice/week) +

Time-allotted agenda distributed before meetings +

Faster email response +

Clear delineation and equal distribution of responsibilities +

Collaborative work ethic and increased drive (shortened time period)

= Better Performance, Better Presentation, Better Results

GUDC N Y C

Team NY: Package 2

Design