portfolio 2.0 full.opt

8/7/2019 portfolio 2.0 full.opt

1/62

JAMES CONLEYSyracuse UniversitySchool of Architecture


2/62

[email protected]

171 Quail Hollow LaneEast Amherst, NY 14051


3/62

INDEX

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.5

3.5

2.2

2.1

3.2

3.1

3.4

3.3

1.1


4/62


5/62

1.0 Academic Work


6/62

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

HARLEM

MORNINGSIDE GYM

MANHATTANVILLE

Columbia University Expansion

Due to growing needs for medical research, Colum-bia University has undergone plans to create an ad-ditional campus expanding their current universityinto West Harlem. The property for this project wasaccumulated through the use of eminent domainand coordinated efforts of individual purchasersguided by the university.In 2008 the campus plan as design by SOM andVinioli Architects, failed to take advantage of thesites dramatic topography and the design potentialsthat a superblock can afford. This in addition to thehistorically contentious relationship between the Uni-

versity and Harlem, as seen through the 1968 pro-tests and fortress like development of ColumbiasMornigside campus, prompted the desire to de-velop an alternative design which considered thisrelationship and looked to improve upon the currentcampus plan.Inspired out of the desire to make multiple social andinformation based connections, the proposedcampus plan looks to bridge the University more intothe fabric of Upper Manhattan, and to utilize the

superblock, not a divisional tool or urban micro-cosm, but as a means to engender stronger rela-tionships to urban life and improve upon publicaccess to the waterfront and riverside park.

1.1

1.1


7/62

MANHATTANCOMMONS

1.1


8/62

1.1


9/62

1.1


10/62

N

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

1 IN

2 IN

4 IN

3 IN

5 IN

6 IN

AVERAGE PRECIPITATION


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

AVERAGE RELATIVE HUMIDITY

MORNING

EVENING

AVERAGE TEMPERATURES

90F

80F

70F

60F

50F

40F

30F

20F

10F


AVG

DAILYHIGH

DAILYLOW

AVG LOW: 23 DEG F

AVG HIGH: 70 DEG F

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC AVG

MAX 31.4 33.3 42.5 54.9 68 76.8 81.5 79.7 71.9 59.9 47.6 36.6 57

AVG 23.7 25.1 33.8 45.3 57.6 66.7 71.2 69.6 62.1 50.9 40.4 29.7 48

MIN 16 16.9 25.1 35.7 47.2 56.5 60.9 59.4 52.2 41.9 33.2 22.7 39

ANNUAL AVERAGE

TEMPERATURE DATA

Case Study: Willard State Hospital1.2

The Willard State Hospital Administration building, designed in 1971 by Wiener Seligman is a classic exampleof post modernist design in the 1970s. The buildingas currently designed carries a heavy reliance upon me-chanical building systems such as artificial lighting, water intensive utilities, and due to l imited amounts insula-tion a forced air and radiation heating system make up for the heat loss deficit. The project was studied underour group during the advance building systems course to generate a better understanding of mechanical andstructural systems of existing buildings.After analysis of the existing structure was taken into account the projects second phase was to design modifi-cations to the existing building in order to produce greater energy efficiency and heavier reliance upon naturalsystems. The project took a wholistic approach to building design the through coupling passive building sys-tems together whenever possible to enhance material and energy efficiency. The proposed alterations alsomade sure to take into account site weather conditions, through preforming wind and sun studies to test thefeasibility of alternative energy solutions.

1.2


11/62

AHU 1: EXPLODED AXONFROM SOUTHWEST CORNER

AHU 2: EXPLODED AXONFROM SOUTHWEST CORNER

GROUND FLR AIR DIST PLAN - 1 / 32 = 1

SECOND FLR AIR DIST PLAN - 1 / 32 = 1

EXISTING HVAC SYSTEM

BASEMENT PLAN - 1 / 32 = 1

AHU 1 AHU 2

NORTH FACADE GLAZING AREA = 60.1%

NORTH FACADE MATERIALS

PORCELAIN STEEL ENAMEL PANELS

GLAZING

REINFORCED CONCRETE

VENTS

NORTH ELEVATION - 1 / 32 = 1

SOUTH FACADE GLAZING AREA = 17.2%

SOUTH FACADE MATERIALS

SOUTH ELEVATION - 1 / 32 = 1

PORCELAIN STEEL ENAMEL PANELS

GLAZING

REINFORCED CONCRETE

VENTS

1.2


12/62

GREEN ROOF SYSTEM

TRAYS

ROOT BARRIER

HDPE SUBSTRATE

VAPOR BARRIER

RIGID INSULATION

ABMS CONTROLLED VENTS

OPERABLE INNER LEAF

WINDOWS

AEROGEL IGU

ACCESS DOOR

SUPPLEMENTAL INSULATION

RADIANT FLOOR HEATING /

COOLING COILS

ACCESS GRATE

GRAVEL DRIP STRIP

PROPOSED NORTH FACADE SECTION CEXISTING NORTH FACADE 1 / 32 = 1 - 0

PROPOSED NORTH FACADE 1 / 32 = 1 - 0

BUILT UP BITUMINOUS

ROOFING OVER 2 RIGID

INSULATION ON METAL DECK

PORCELAIN ENAMEL STEEL

PANEL W/ 2 RIGID INSULATION

INTEGRATED LIGHT FIXTURE

DROP CEILING

GLAZING

HYDRONIC HEATING UNIT

CONCRETE FLOOR ON METALDECK

OPEN WEB JOISTS

CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE

WALL

CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE

SLAB

FOOTING

GRADE

EXISTING NORTH FACADE SECTION C

EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION - 1 / 32 = 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION - 1 / 32 = 1

PROPOSED SOUTH WALLSECTION

GREEN ROOF SYSTEM

TRAYS

ROOT BARRIER

HDPE SUBSTRATE

VAPOR BARRIER

RIGID INSULATION

ABMS CONTROLLED VENTS

OPERABLE INNER LEAF

WINDOWS

AEROGEL IGU

ACCESS DOOR

SUPPLEMENTAL INSULATION

ABMS VENTS

RADIANT FLOOR HEATING /

COOLING COILS

ACCESS GRATE

ABMS VENTS

GRAVEL DRIP STRIP

EXISTING SOUTH WALLSECTION

BUILT UP BITUMINOUS

ROOFING OVER 2 RIGIDINSULATION ON METAL

DECK

PORCELAIN ENAMEL

STEEL PANEL W/ 2 RIGID

INSULATION

DROP CEILING

GLAZING

CONCRETE FLOOR ONMETAL DECK

W14 SECTION

OPEN WEB JOISTS

GLAZING

CAST IN PLACECONCRETE WALL

CAST IN PLACECONCRETE SLAB

FOOTING

GRADE

PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION

PREVAILINGWINDS

PREVAILINGWINDS

EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION

HEAT LOSS

HEAT LOSS HEAT LOSS

HEAT LOSS

1.2


13/62

VIEW OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR

RED AND

BLUE ELEMENTSDENOTE SECONDARY

MECHANICAL

VENTILATION SYSTEM

NOTE:

PV SHOWN IN RENDERING

WE PROPOSE A MIX

OF PV AND SHW COLLECTORS;

HOWEVER BUILDING DEMAND IS

UNKNOWN, SO THE RATIO HAS NOTBEEN ESTABLISHED. A FULL PV FIT OUT

WOULD HAVE S GENERATION CAPACITY

OF 17 kW * 365 DAYS * 4.3 SUN HOURS

* 80% DERATE = 21,000 kWh ANNUALLY

1.2


14/62


15/62

Hostels blur our conventional sense of privacy. They create an environment wherethe intimate act of sleeping is done amongst strangers, and vulnerability is uncer-tain.

Fueled by this concept the design project explored the gradient nature ofpublic/private space, through strategically mixing various programs together. Theclimax of this dynamism occurs when the intersection of the hostel L and com-mercial slab result in a laundry mat bar; further blurring our understanding ofprivate versus public events. The project offers a below grade performance stagewhich is easily accessible by the public (including the homeless) at all times, andincorporates themed private rooms accessible through the hostel, located belowgrade.The project additionally explored the social environment of the hostel, and the wayin which technology can exceed spatial limitations. Designed into each bed is a

camera and screen which provides access into the hostels interactive networklinking guests together. Allowing architecture to design connections in spacelessenvironment.

NYC Hostel: Public.Private Space1.3

1.3


16/62

1.3


17/62

Forth Floor: 36 Above Grade

1.3


18/62

4 homes |1 courtyard :3 opportunities for exchange

4 homes | 4 courtyard :8 opportunities for exchange

Privatized Housing Model:0 opportunities for exchange



Privatized Housing Model :0 opportunities for exchange

What if a housing complex could be more than just where one dwells? What i f it could leadto sense of community, an exchange of ideas, and a place for entrepreneurial activity? Whatif you could create housing which was not only environmentally sustainable, but economi-

cally sustainable How would this new condition represent itself architecturally, while borrow-ing from proven spatial arrangements of the past?The Capitalist Commune contradictorily merges luxury housing with the business incubatormodel for the development of new sustainable technologies. Using a courtyard as a meansto generate social and intellectual exchange, the housing community aspires to act simulta-neously as a neighborhood and corporation. This hybrid model stationed on a de-industrialized pier in Redhook, NY hopes to rejuvenate the local economy and providesquality housing to the district.

The Capitalist Commune1.4

1.4


19/62

1.4


20/62

1.4


21/62

PRIVATE SPHERE

PUBLIC SPHERE

WORK

WORK

LIVELIVE

DWELL

DAMP

DRY

1.4


22/62

Considering architectural issues such as Branding and Event Space, the Under Armourheadquarters makes the transition from the citizen into the athlete as powerful an experi-ence as sporting events themselves. The buildings main entrance stationed at the tip of

a triangular lot doubles as a vomitory, bringing the companys staff and customers into anarena of their own. The monumental entrance doubles as a testing ground for new prod-ucts and staging for athletic events or showcases, allowing for advertisement and sales tooccur on a whole new playing field. This grand foyer allows for not only the creation of newprogramming, but for the company to create an iconic building in downtown Boston.As Under Armour represents the pursuit of the innovation and high performance, thedesign incorporated strategies for high environmental performance. Integrating passivecooling and lighting technology through operable louvers, continual atrium, and doublefacades, the building helps to lighten mechanical loads allowing for improved environ-mental stainability, and creates efficiencies which the company strives for in their own

work.

Under Armour Headquarters1.5

1.5


23/62

1.5


24/62


25/62

Winter Summer

90

30

311

anodized aluminum sheet

rubber sheathing

ventilation portal

rigid insulation

vapor barrier

interior double glazed glass

mechanically operated ventilation

exterior double glazed glass

gypsum encase steel column

rubber seal

reflective tile

reflective tile

operable louver

1.5


26/62

A B C D1 E1 F1 G1 H

a

b

c

d

aa

bb

cc

36 30 30 30 30 22.5 21.5

21.5

27

31

34

15

9

200

202

34.5

137.5

140

41

33.75

33.75

33.75

33.75

25

24.25

225

44

79

48

63.5

DISPLAY

GYMNASIUM

AEROBICS

ROOM

MENSL

OCKERROOM

WOMENSLOCKERROOM

AUDITORIUM

3rd floor|scale 1/8=1

1.5


27/62

2nd floor

3rd floor

4th floor

5th floor

6th floor

7th floor

8th floor

ground floor

57 0

69 0

9th floor

81 0

93 0

105 0

42 0

30 0

15 0

0 0

120

120

90

30

90

30

90

60

30

90

30

90

90

30

90

30

1170 1

290

20

16

16

40

80120

r oo f 1 17 0

parking -12 0

sky light glass enclosureparapet wall

ventilation fan

operable glass louver (heat diffusion)

operable glass louver

hung ceiling

truss constructed transfer beam

steel frame construction

glass curtain wall

concrete wall

concrete encased steel column

double facade vestibule

interior glass wall

structural concrete decking

1.5


28/62


29/62

2.0 Design|Development


30/62


31/62

In accordance with R-6 land zoning, area demographics, local market salesand a desire to maximize land use and value; I am proposing that 253 Pacific St in

Brooklyn, NY becomes the home to 15 new luxury studio condominiums. At a priceof $250,000, these 360 square foot units will be in competitive standing with neighbor-ing co-ops, and better fit the needs of the young single population.

253 Pacific Street, Brooklyn NY 112012.1

Estimated Land Costs: $123.44/sq ft ($750K)Estimated Construction Cost: $250/sq ft

Estimated Market Value: $695/sq ft

R-6 Zoning_FAR: 2.43

LandEstimated Land Costs: $123.44/sq ft

Lot size: 25 X 100 (2,500 sq ft)

Developable land: 6,075 sq ft

Estimated Apt Market Value: $695/sq ft

2.1


32/62

1st Floor:

-325 sq ft Studio-836 sq ft 1 Bedroom+1

2nd, 3rd, 4th Floor:

-410 sq ft Studio

-836 sq ft 1 Bedroom+1

2.1


33/62


34/62


35/62


36/62

Typical Office Floor [3-12]

1,400 sq ft

1,450sqft

1,700sqft

2,800 sq ft2,200 sq ft

2,300 sq ft

2,450 sq ft

1 Buisness Center2 Hotel Lobby3 Hotel Desk4 Luggage Storage

5 Resturant6 Kitchen7 Hotels Kitchen8 Hotel Office9 Tractor Tralior Below10 Data Center

1

23 3

4

56

7

8

9

10

4,900 sq ft

Hotel Lobby [Floor 2]

1

Hotel Profit & Loss StatementHotel P&L Assump ons

GrossSF Available to Hotel 280,000

NetSF Available to Rooms 174,720

NetSF to Ammenity 105,280

keys 460

GrossSF per Bed 609

NetSF per Room 380

AmmenitySF per Room 229

Maximum Room Nights 167,900

ADR $285

Average Occupancy 80.0%

2.2


37/62

STABALIZED / NIGHTS OCC NIGHT / ROOM %

Room Income

Gross Maximum Room Revenue 47,851,500$

Occupied Room Revenue 38,281,200$ $ 582$ 822 83,220$ 74%

Department IncomeSpa,Fitness or Other 5.0% 1,914,060$ $ 41$ 11 4,161$ 4%

Food & Beverage 15.0% 5,742,180$ 384,21$ 34$ 43 $ 11%

Telephone & Other 15.0% 5,742,180$ 384,21$ 34$ 43 $ 11%

Total Gross Revenue 51,679,620$ 743,211$ 583$ 803 $ 100%

Room Expenses

Rooms 20.0% (7,656,240)$ )446,61($ )75($ )64( $ 20%

Department Expenses

Spa & Fitness 80.0% (1,531,248)$ $ )11($ )9( (3,329)$ 4%

F&B (Banquet) 80.0% (4,593,744)$ $ )43($ )72( (9,986)$ 12%

Telephone & Other 65.0% (3,732,417)$ $ )82($ )22( (8,114)$ 10%

Subtotal (17,513,649)$ $ )031($ )401( (38,073)$ 47%

Unallocated Expenses

General & Admin 8.5% (4,392,768)$ $ )33($ )62( (9,549)$ 12%

Sales & Marke ng 10.0% (5,167,962)$ )532,11($ )83($ )13( $ 14%

Repairs & Maintenance 4.0% (2,067,185)$ $ )51($ )21( (4,494)$ 6%

U li es & Services 5.0% (2,583,981)$ $ )91($ )51( (5,617)$ 7%

Subtotal (14,211,896)$ $ )601($ )58( (30,895)$ 38%

Gross Opera ng Profit 39% 19,954,076$ $ 941$ 911 43,378$

Fixed Expeneses

Property Taxes (Allocated) 4.0% (2,067,185)$ $ )51($ )21( (4,494)$ 6%

Insurance 1.0% (516,796)$ )321,1($ )4($ )3( $ 1%

Replacement Reserve 3.0% (1,550,389)$ $ )21($ )9( (3,370)$ 4%

Management Fees 3.0% (1,550,389)$ $ )21($ )9( (3,370)$ 4%

Subtotal (5,684,758)$ )853,21($ )24($ )43( $ 15%

Total Expenses (37,410,303)$ $ )972($ )322( (81,327)$ 100%

Net Opera ng Income 28% 14,269,317$ $ 601$ 58 31,020$ 2.2


38/62

1,900 sq ft 2,400 sq ft

864 sq ft 892 sq ft

812 sq ft

2,300 sq ft

GROSS SF NET SF LOSS SF Loss Factor

Total 160,000 144,010 15,990 9.99%

Floor Unit NET SF BEDROOMS BATHS $ PSF TOTAL

39-41 A 1,900 3 2.5 2,150$ 4,085,000$

B 2,400 3 2.5 2,150$ 5,160,000$

C 890 1 1.5 2,050$ 1,824,500$

D 920 1 1.5 2,050$ 1,886,000$E 2,600 3 3.0 2,200$ 5,720,000$

F 820 2 1.5 2,100$ 1,722,000$

SUBTOTAL 61,192,500$

42-44 A 1,900 3 2.5 2,200$ 4,180,000$

B 2,400 3 2.5 2,200$ 5,280,000$

C 890 1 1.5 2,100$ 1,869,000$

D 920 1 1.5 2,100$ 1,932,000$

E 2,600 3 3.0 2,250$ 5,850,000$

F 820 2 1.5 2,150$ 1,763,000$


45-47 A 1,900 3 2.5 2,250$ 4,275,000$B 2,400 3 2.5 2,250$ 5,400,000$

C 890 1 1.5 2,150$ 1,913,500$

D 920 1 1.5 2,150$ 1,978,000$

E 2,600 3 3.0 2,300$ 5,980,000$

F 820 2 1.5 2,200$ 1,804,000$


48-50 A 1,900 3 2.5 2,300$ 4,370,000$

B 2,400 3 2.5 2,300$ 5,520,000$

C 890 1 1.5 2,200$ 1,958,000$

D 920 1 1.5 2,200$ 2,024,000$

E 2,600 3 3.0 2,350$ 6,110,000$

F 820 2 1.5 2,250$ 1,845,000$


51-53 A 1,900 3 2.5 2,400$ 4,560,000$

B 2,400 3 2.5 2,400$ 5,760,000$

C 890 1 1.5 2,300$ 2,047,000$

D 920 1 1.5 2,300$ 2,116,000$

E 2,600 3 3.0 2,450$ 6,370,000$

F 820 2 1.5 2,350$ 1,927,000$


Gross Income 321,687,000$

Table 38 [Floor 38]

Residential [Floor 39-53]

2.2


39/62

Cash Flow

Development Expense

Acquisition (81,756,040)$

Hard Costs (348,581,200)$

Soft Costs (22,452,920)$Marketing Costs (13,585,000)$

Financing Costs (20,165,027)$

Total (486,540,187)$

Capitalization Income

Income From Residence 321,687,000$

Opera ng Income

HOTEL Opera ng Income 12,249,984$

OFFICE Opera ng Income 15,192,684$27,442,668$

Cap Rate 6.25%

439,082,680$

Total Income 760,769,680$

Net 274,229,493$

2.2


40/62


41/62

3.0 Design|Build


42/62

3.1Dorm Modification

By the second year of college the increased desire for independent living conflicted with the

university policy of mandatory on campus housing. This issue coupled with the accumulation

of books, technology and kitchen supplies amassed amongst the roommates, lead to the

need for greater organization and increased spatial efficiency helping to establish two inde-

pendent zones; one entertainment center, and a kitchenette.

3.1


43/62

KITCHEN

Living room Hallway

87

6

168

11

87

ENTERTAINMENT

3.13.1


44/62


45/62

15.5

9.011.1

13.7

9.210.8

30.5

18.520.8

29.6

38.9

9.4

33.5

20.6

21.3

9.0

1.7

6.5

7.5

.55.5

30.8

7.8

7.8

7.8

7.8

18.5

33.5

15.8

13.2

40.3

3.1


46/62


47/62


48/62

3.2


49/62


50/62

3.3 Transitional Space: 325 S Warren St. Syracuse, NYAs a result of Storefront for Syracuses success during the Artstrong Gallery, the buildings

owner approached the group to see if we were willing to produce a mural for a parking garage

that was having its ground floor converted into viable retail storefronts. After some delibera-

tion, we determined that the most time and cost effective solution would be through applying

vinyl adhesive to a wood substrate that could help shield construction work behind the walland help to announce the buildings transition.

3.3


51/62


52/62


53/62

3.3


54/62


55/62


56/62


57/62

3.4


58/62

3.5 Flash Park: Near West Side|Syracuse, NY

In Fall of 2010, Syracuse Universitys AIAS chapter hosted a conference entitled: Reclaiming

Architecture, which focused on the marginalization of the architectural profession and

stressed the importance for architects to expand the definitions of practice through becoming

more entrepreneurial in spirit. As a concluding event, 12 students arrived and participated in

a design build exercise which constructed a 2,000 sf park on a portion of an old building foun-dation. The park now sits in an impoverished neighborhood across from a family community

center where many of the children utilize the table, benches and grass to relax outside of the

building.

3.5


59/62

3.5


60/62

3.5


61/62

3.5


62/62

3.4

portfolio 2.0 full.opt

Documents