Bronx - Park Avenue Green is a 15-story Passive House certified housing complex designed by New York City-based Curtis + Ginsberg Architects. The 154-unit complex is considered the largest Passive House certified building in North America as well as the largest Passive House affordable housing complex on the continent.
Developed by Omni achieved Passive House with $48.4 million in funding provided by the New York City Housing Development Corporation and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the development represents an example of a private-public partnership.
The spartan, brick-and-metal-panel-wrapped tower features structural insulation that helps maintain a high level of environmental performance for the building alongside high-performance windows and energy recapture systems developed by sustainability consultant Bright Power. The apartment complex was certified by the Passive House Institute in March 2019.
The project team writes: "What’s impressive about this project is the dedication to affordable sustainability. While many developers are still boasting sustainability as a luxury feature, Omni New York believes that it is critical to providing quality housing to a community."
The architects explain that the building's insulating and air handling capabilities make it so that only 5 to 10% of the overall building energy consumption is taken up by winter heating. For conventional multifamily buildings in New York City, according to the designers, that figure is typically upwards of 38%.
The project includes 35 units that are reserved for formerly homeless individuals as well as a 4,300-square-foot gallery space to be used by local artists.
35 Comments
This is awesome! More of these, please!
It's aesthetically infuriating.
agreed. They could have at least had some balconies. Geezuz.
Compare to this: https://archinect.com/news/article/150084606/world-s-tallest-passive-house-completed-by-varquitectos-in-spain
what makes you think affordable housing developers are willing to pay for balconies and fancy cladding?
I don't, but maybe, just MAYBE the developer will see these posts and realize, "shit, I have no soul or empathy for the people living there, or for the human condition as a whole."
one can dream
Developer: "Thank God these wankers are on this forum and not in charge of my money."
Is that the lobby? Seems disappointingly small -- and with weird propaganda artwork. These affordable buildings need better interior-public spaces for community building.
ARTWORK THAT SHOWS DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAN I PREFER IS WEIRD. FACT.
Propaganda artwork? Really?
The caption says it's a gallery space. That usually means its a space to showcase art ... of all kinds, weird or not.
I'm not sure how you jumped from, 'maybe it's a lobby?' to judging the space as a lobby, to propaganda, to somehow concluding that there aren't interior-public spaces for community building. Seems like it might be in your head. I mean the only thing seemingly correct in your train of thought is that there is artwork.
Whether you agree or disagree, it is artwork to convey a biased political message -- that many are prone to disagree with. It is "weird" in that you usually don't see propaganda in affordable housing lobbies. Though I've also see military artwork in veteran housing, that is not "weird" in that it fits the purpose of the building.
people find the murder of innocent children political? the cynicism of the right is scary today..
Nice backtrack Chemex but your adjective (weird) is intentionally placed before its noun (artwork) so your bullshit is bullshit.
All art is political.
"... you usually don't see propaganda in affordable housing lobbies." Again, not a lobby ... it's a gallery space.
Ahh, so it's a "gallery space" with an entrance/exit. With propaganda artwork that both distracts you from there being no lobby as well as making affordable housing into a niche interest of far left groups. Check and check.
Yes, I suppose most spaces do have a way to enter and exit them. If this one has an entrance and exit to the exterior through a vestibule, I don't see that as being an issue that would warrant you intentionally misrepresenting it to suit your narrative.
I can also make things up to suit a narrative too. This is a gallery space showcasing residents' artwork that they've created in the housing complex's community building rooms (not pictured) where residents can interact with one another in addition to the many lobby spaces (also not pictured). The art on the wall in the photograph is simply a snapshot in time and in a month's time it will be replaced with other artwork you might find more appropriate.
You see how this is all in your head?
How much do you want to bet this is NOT resident artwork. $50? $100? Wanna take it?
How would you feel if you walked into an affordable housing complex and found Pro-life artwork? Would you find that weird?
I just admitted that I made up that statement to make a point about yours. The only difference is that I know that I'm making it up, whereas apparently you think you've divined the true meaning from a couple of photographs. Neither of us has any further information to back it up given what's on the page here. So, no, I'm not interested in the bet because it wouldn't change anything. I'm not opposed if you want to put in some more time researching the project if it means that you get some actual information rather than simply making it up. You shouldn't need a $50 bet as an incentive to do that. You probably should have done that before making your statement in the first place. If you had, and it showed you're correct, I wouldn't be calling you out on it.
To your other question, if I walked into a gallery space (in any type of building) and found pro-life artwork I wouldn't find that weird at all. I've walked into plenty of galleries in the past and found artwork that might be just as controversial ... it would be thought provoking, but that doesn't make it weird. Some might make the argument that that is what makes it art.
You're also assuming people's beliefs regarding abortion. But that's par for the Chemex course.
"The project features a community facility composed of approximately 4,000 sqft of affordable studio and gallery space for local artists..." "Spaceworks is a nonprofit that builds and operates spaces for artists (particularly artists of color, LGBTQIA artists, disabled artists, and those living on low to modest incomes), cultural workers, creative entrepreneurs, and cultural organizations." (https://thenyhc.org/projects/park-avenue-green/)
"the space offers 15 artist studios, office, community project space, and an exhibition space spread across 4,597 square feet on the ground floor of the building." (https://www.welcome2thebronx.com/2019/01/10/spaceworks-to-open-first-bronx-location-bringing-subsidized-studios-for-local-artists/)
It appears the photo in question is of the Spaceworks exhibition room, not the lobby (they might be connected? It's not immediately clear). Unfortunately, it seems that Spaceworks is shutting down as of this month, so the nature of the program might change soon.
Anyway, next time I have to do your homework for you I'm sending an invoice.
Thanks tduds ...
... [drops mic]
Chemex, you mean like at a Catholic Charities, or Salvation Army Housing?
This article would definitely be served by a closer, critical, look at how this project was funded, what those 'affordable' rents are, and who stands to benefit from the profits made (aka, who owns it, who owns the land, etc.).
I don't claim that I would have done a better job given the constraints
of budget, FAR etc. and institutional paralysis, but in order to
address inequities in housing we have to work from a different paradigm.
Housing is a human right, and it is a valid argument to take the profit
motive out of affordable housing projects altogether, or to build with co-operatives so the community can build equity and get out of the rent trap.
agreed, but good luck asking architects to do this. c+g do a pretty good job within the constraints they're facing. at the end of the day, architecture is mostly the result of a lot of decisions made elsewhere, hence the reason most affordable housing in nyc looks like this. architects are relatively weak when it comes to these matters.
To add to the tangential discussion that's already started in these comments, I read this excellent article the other day on the successes, failures and byzantine structure of American affordable housing.
https://harpers.org/archive/2020/06/grand-designs-affordable-housing/
I'm sure the system(s) described in here had at least something to do with the, let's say underwhelming, architecture of this building.
The article you link to is a good one. There are a few things that stood out to me, on the one hand the the dogma that the only viable solution to housing in the USA has to be a market driven solution, and secondly that being in an affordable unit somehow points to a personal failure of some kind, or in the words of Ben Carson:
“We want to change the focus . . . from how many people can we get into
this program, to how many can we get out in a state of
self-sufficiency,” Carson says.
What is infuriating is that Hudson Yards is massively benefiting from public subsidies in kind (land) and in tax breaks, while at the same time the working poor are being chastised as if their precarity is somehow their own fault. When I am talking about a paradigm shift I am also talking about that kind of prejudice leveled at low-income workers. The transfer of wealth in the housing market needs to flow the other way, the financial industry should be forced to help communities grow rather than allowed to siphon off profits to Wall Street. I think one way to do this is that people will have the means to build equity through their homes. A community land trust, for instance can be set up in such a way that equity is built up.
"Everything points to a need for more nonmarket housing; the only barrier, it seems, is ideology."
Couldn't agree more!
That's one depressing looking housing complex, oh wait it's "spartan"...all know how that ended.
This social housing complex in Amsterdam is now partly a museum:
designed by Michel de Klerk and built in 1917–20
It becomes extremely important that the design here include large lobby and community space so as it doesn't resemble one of the many colorful, boxy storage spaces sprouting up all over NY and the USA. There is something great about seeing affordable housing, but something unsettling about the design. Even if it is energy efficient.
Perhaps the paradigm is too singularly focused on one typological solution? Why can't HUD, along with states, create multiple solutions, why does it seem focused on "warehousing" people? We cannot get at the systemic issues plaguing us without creating value - and consequently generational wealth - and jobs. The government should be in the business of giving any African American and Indigenous persons - with or without a family - a home if they want one. Free and clear, and off the property tax roll for at least 3 generations. I would also propose a 1% sales tax that would fund all existing First Nation's reservations for the next 50 years - to be adjusted for inflation in every census year.
Let's put it this way, black wealth, cannot come from one bucket, policies aren't enough. Here's an example of what I'm seeing where I live; one of my client's - yep, mine - asked if I could find black owned general contractor to bid/build their project. I found one! ONE! One fairly large GC/Developer, and it just so happened the CEO was from the same neighborhood, and would cut them a break on fees - AWESOME! - then the unimaginable happened. It turns out that there was some serious malfeasance - bad deals I think - in the business, and after the bidding, the contractor went bankrupt! Fuck. Bad, but good for the client, they weren't out any monies.
Here's the thing though, there were no other options for Black Owned Commercial GCs. They were it - found out later that a African Immigrant Owned - Woman Owned too!! - doing HUD remodels is my future goto, as she wants to do commercial projects, and I want to assist.
Back to my point.
The Big Fish failing is a big deal, when the market is lacking in BOGCs, it makes it harder to get work, and when white people doing remodels don't see black owned contractors - and let's be honest - the generational wealth - old money and new - white people are less inclined to have black workers in their homes, building their additions/remodels; where are black GCs going to get work, and from whom, if there aren't black owned single family homes for them to work in?
We need not only a jobs/skills/training program, but we need to also give a home to everyone that graduates from these programs. Then maybe we can start to turn a tide?
Two more things; not everyone is going to want a single family home, so maybe a small scale multi-families? Also, I've been trying to find MBE contractor for my remodel, no luck.
I don't know if this is related, but America has a real hangup about inheritance being something you MAY NOT FUCK WITH, but refuse to help anyone with nothing to hand down in the first place. Makes for an imbalance at birth.
...and they're the same ones given a tax break. So while I'm all down for the performative - because we can walk and chew gum - I want the Dems to tax the living fuck out of the inheritance class, because nothing goes better with confederate monument toppling like white tears.
With a sunset in the inheritance tax as soon as we figure out how to address the historical imbalances? Or do we only tax cash inheritance? That leads to bullshit ploys. Goddamn unintended consequences. I don't think that genuine, real, and reasonable inheritances should be penalized, but that's now where we are.
Interesting thing I just realized. Righties tend to demonize those on support, saying without thinking THEY NEVER WORK, THEY DON'T WANT TO WORK. I say the same thing about children of the disgustingly wealthy. Am I as wrong as they are? Never looked into it.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.