UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff TTeennnneesssseeee,, KKnnooxxvviillllee TTRRAACCEE:: TTeennnneesssseeee RReesseeaarrcchh aanndd CCrreeaattiivvee EExxcchhaannggee Masters Theses Graduate School 8-2014 BBLLOOCCKK 227711,, RReevviivviinngg aann IInndduussttrriiaall AArrttiiffaacctt Jared Thomas Pohl University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the American Art and Architecture Commons, Environmental Design Commons, Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons, Other Architecture Commons, Physical and Environmental Geography Commons, Place and Environment Commons, and the Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn Pohl, Jared Thomas, "BLOCK 271, Reviving an Industrial Artifact. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2014. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2840 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Jared Thomas Pohl entitled "BLOCK 271, Reviving an Industrial Artifact." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture, with a major in Architecture. Tricia Stuth, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: T.K. Davis, James Rose Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official student records.) BLOCK 271, Reviving an Industrial Artifact A Thesis Presented for the Master of Architecture Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Jared Thomas Pohl August 2014 i August 2014 Copyright © Jared Thomas Pohl All rights reserved. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Without the support and direction of the incredibly brilliant architects on my advisory committee, this proposal could not have happened. Thank you Tricia Stuth for being a great mentor, for your patience as the document evolved, and for pushing me to put in that extra 5% again, and again. Thank you T.K. Davis for explaining the intricacies of urban design to me, and for your enthusiasm and positive reinforcement. Thank you James Rose for working with me on many projects during my studies. I hope some day we will put a green roof on the College of Architecture + Design. To the one who is always there to listen to me complain, then tells me to get it together and get moving. Lauren, my best friend and wife to be; thank you for everything. Most importantly, thank you for being an inspiration. Finally to my mother the designer, and my father the builder; it’s all coming together. iii ABSTRACT Vacant industrial sites are scattered throughout our cities all across the country. These sites, these remnants of industry, are occupied by a very interesting category of buildings. They are artifacts from an industrial era that served very unique and specific functions. These service buildings suffered programmatic failure and have lost their vitality. They have entered a form of hibernation, waiting for the post-industrial epoch to wake them up. The building stock under investigation makes up a large portion of the city’s structures. Identifiable by their heroic scale, clean articulated lines and tendency to be vacant, these service buildings raise arguments for both historic preservation and demolition. The framing of the thesis identifies the environmental opportunities and cultural benefits of salvaging these buildings in the post-industrial city. In the supporting section, architectural tactics are used as filters to examine preservation as it pertains to the material form of industrial artifacts, the culture and heritage of an industrial place, and the evolution of these topics in contemporary times. The investigation focuses on how to assess the value of the artifacts’ material, function and historical significance. This system will suggest answers to the question of how to revitalize these industrial artifacts. The site for the project is the Produce Terminal Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Originally a produce yard organized to the function of the railcar, the site evolved to a wholesale distribution center for the entire city. The 1533 linear foot Produce Terminal built to support distribution is considered by some to be a preservation worthy, architectural spectacle in the Art Deco style; by others it is seen as a hard edge in the urban fabric that is preventing development from reaching the waterfront. To further complicate the site, the building is located in a neighborhood that is currently pursuing Historic District status, which creates tension for prospective developers, newly elected politicians and the residents of the city. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 FRAMING 1 Preface 2 Environmental Sustainability - Site 4 Environmental Sustainability - Buildings 6 Cultural Sustainability 7 PART 2 SUPPORTING 9 Reuse 10 Adapt 12 Redefine 16 PART 3 SITUATING 19 Strip District 20 Transformation of the Terminal Site 23 Assets and Constraints of Terminal Building 24 Analysis Diagrams 25 PART 4 PROGRAMMING 28 PART 5 FORMING 30 PART 6 REFERENCING 36 LIST OF REFERENCES 38 APPENDIX 40 VITA 53 v LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 01 Forge Department 1 Fig. 02 Worker Housing 1 Fig. 03 Exploring Remnant Spaces 1 Fig. 04 Industrial Architecture - Penn Station 2 Fig. 05 Water Harvesting Park 5 Fig. 06 Stormwater Management Park 5 Fig. 07 Lifecycle Analysis Diagram 6 Fig. 08 Reuse, Adapt, Redefine Form 9 Fig. 09 John Ruskin for Authentic Preservation 10 Fig. 10 Landshaftspark I 11 Fig. 11 Landshaftspark II 11 Fig. 12 Viollet-le-Duc for Restoration 12 Fig. 13 Evolution of the B-52 Stratofortress 13 Fig. 14 Interior View of the Ecotrust Building 14 Fig. 15 Exterior View of the Ecotrust Building 14 Fig. 16 Alvaro Siza on Architecture 16 Fig. 17 Choreographic Mapping 16 Fig. 18 The High Line, NYC 17 Fig. 19 The High Line, NYC 17 Fig. 20 The High Line, NYC 17 Fig. 21 Global Location, USA 19 Fig. 22 Location, PA 19 Fig. 23 Regional Location, Allegheny County 19 Fig. 24 District Location, Pittsburgh 20 Fig. 25 Terminal Location, Strip District 21 Fig. 26 Aerial View of Terminal Site 22 Fig. 27 Working in the Terminal Building 22 Fig. 28 1923 Map 23 Fig. 29 1929 Map 23 Fig. 30 1934 Map 23 Fig. 31 Existing Conditions, Smallman Street 24 Fig. 32 Existing Conditions, Loading Docks 24 Fig. 33 Diagramming Connections 25 Fig. 34 Natural Edges 26 Fig. 35 Existing Figure Ground 26 Fig. 36 Existing Arteries 27 Fig. 37 Site Response 27 Fig. 38 Proposed Activity Zones 29 Fig. 39 Proposed Program Types 29 vi Fig. 40 Proposed Program Zones 29 Fig. 41 Urban Strategy - Existing 30 Fig. 42 Urban Strategy - Infrastructure 30 Fig. 43 Urban Strategy - Corridors 30 Fig. 44 Urban Strategy - Views 31 Fig. 45 Urban Strategy - Program 31 Fig. 46 Urban Strategy - Amenities 31 Fig. 47 Proposed Plan of Terminal Building 32 Fig. 48 Existing Plan of the Society for Contemporary Craft 33 Fig. 49 Proposed Plan for the Fabrication Shops 33 Fig. 50 Proposed Plan for the Artisan Market 34 Fig. 51 Proposed Plan for the Market House 34 Fig. 52 Proposed Plan for the Urban Big Box 35 Fig. 53 Cutflower Trusses 36 Fig. 54 Cutflower Industrial Plant 36 Fig. 55 Moore Design’s Proposal for Cutflower 37 Fig. 56 View of Fabrication Shops from Sculpture Park 41 Fig. 57 Fabrication Shops - Penthouse Adaptation 42 Fig. 58 Fabrication Shops - Interior Architectural Response 43 Fig. 59 Artisan Market - Interior View 44 Fig. 60 Artisan Market - Reused Spaces 45 Fig. 61 Market House - View from Street 46 Fig. 62 Market House - Peel Back Layer 47 Fig. 63 Market House - New Layer 48 Fig. 64 Urban Big Box Store - Site Section 49 Fig. 65 Urban Big Box Store - Redefined 50 Fig. 66 New Connection to 16th St. Bridge 51 Fig. 67 View of Artisan Market and Market House 51 Fig. 68 Perspective View of Proposal 52 Fig. 69 Urban Plan of Proposal 52 vii PART 1 FRAMING Fig. 01 - Forge Department Source: William J. Gaughan Collection Fig. 02 - Worker Housing Source: Pittsburgh & Lake Erie RR Company Photographs Fig. 03 - Exploring Remnant Spaces Source: Author 1