Stealing_Manhattan_booklet

STEALING MANHATTAN
“A good composer does not imitate; he steals.”
Igor Stravinsky
Scott Meekings
300258919

EXPLORING MULTIPLE CITIES
Kyrgyzstan
Bishkek
Spain
Barcelona
Denmark
Aarhus
Burkina Faso
Ouagadougou
Germany
Nuremberg
America
New York
Italy
Venice
New Zealand
Wellington
Internationally cities vary greatly,
understanding what makes one city
different to another was the concept
initiator. By taking into account data
that can be extrapolated from the urban
fabric, one aspect of these differences
could be mapped. These maps indicate
the different densities of buildings,
complexities of building footprints
and the differing proportional size of
buildings.
Height
density
Radius
area
No. of sides + colour
complexity

WHY MANHATTAN?
European Settlement:
Manhattan: 1624
Wellington: 1840
New York is possibly the most famous city in the world,
epitomizing much of the draw metropolitan living exerts
on the public. In many ways it is the most ‘city’ a place
can be.
Manhattan is convenient as it is a centre to a more
widespread urban layout - similar to Wellington as the
centre of the surrounding suburbs. The nature of being
a hub of a surrounding area is a driving force intent on
creating high density as the populous pushes consistently
inwards. Similarly to Wellington, Manhattan has strict
geographical boundaries, increasing the effect of this
push for density.
Manhattan is a much more mature city than Wellington
and suggests some of the problems and successes all
cities will eventually encounter - arguably it presents a
blueprint for the future of all cities.
By stealing the nature of Manhattan, I am trying to guess
what the future of Wellington could look like from an
urban-design perspective.

VALUE DIFFERENCES
While I aim to take aspects of Manhattan these must then
be referenced to Wellington, in an attempt to generate
a new typology - not simply transplant Manhattan to
Wellington’s location.
The most obvious difference between the two urban
fabrics is the scale. Manhattan is larger than Wellington -
but by how much?
By using available data on building areas (Manhattan:
Pluto Project, Wellington: Wellington City Council) we can
compare the two. The results are highlighted in the graph
below.
Both cities have similarly sized smallest buildings but
there are far fewer of these in Manhattan as shown by the
much larger lower quartile value. On average Manhattan’s
buildings are just over 65% larger in floor area than
Wellingtons. While the maximum floor area size is almost
double that of Wellington’s largest building area, this is
uncommon as shown by a lower upper quartile value than
mean value for Manhattan.
As a whole, the average building is 65% larger in
Manhattan.
The largest buildings are almost 100% larger.
There is a tendency for small buildings to be
20% less common and large buildings to be 60%
more common.
Percentage Difference in Building Area
Lower Quartile
100%
Mean
20%
20%
Max
Upper Quartile
Minimum

LAYOUT DIFFERENCES
While the scales are clearly different, so is the layout of the
cities as can be seen at both a macro scale (this page) and
a per block scale (following page). These different layouts
are a key aspect which cannot be traced from Manhattan
onto Wellington. The relational pattern between
buildings can be used, however.
Areas of interest are groupings, for example are
all of the large buildings clustered in a single
area? Where is this area compared with the
smallest buildings, etc.
Manhattan
Building Areas
Area Maps
Scale 1:100,000
Wellington
Building Areas
Larger
Smaller

Manhattan
Building Areas
Area Maps
Scale 1:10,000
Larger
Smaller
Wellington
Building Areas

LAYOUT PATTERNS
Looking at Manhattan data we can create patterns from the
urban fabric.
These patterns are based on groupings and
demonstrate areas where one building size is the
dominant typology.
By creating patterns from both Manhattan and
Wellington, I plan on cross-referencing these to
translate building size proportions between the
two cities.
Then initial plan was to use Street
Frontage, Depth from street and
building height/ floor number to
generate multiple patterns which
could then be overlaid. A lack
of ability to extract this data
from the available Wellington
shapefiles meant accurate
data could not be acquired,
see attempt below.
Wellington
Street Frontage
Manhattan
Street Frontage
Manhattan
Depth from Street
Manhattan
Number of Floors
Smaller
Larger

Manhattan
Street Frontage Pattern
Manhattan
Depth from Street Pattern
Manhattan
Number of Floors Pattern

LAYOUT PATTERNS
Wellington
Building Areas Pattern
Manhattan
Building Areas Pattern

By overlaying and comparing the patterns, we can
estimate the building fabric at each of the patterns
recorded points by correlating it with the Manhattan
equivalent. This produces somewhat of a map of areas
and grouping we could expect.
Multiply
by scale
factor
Wellington
Predicted Area Pattern

POTENTIAL URBAN LAYOUTS
Taking the predicted areas pattern for wellington these
can be extrapolated to predict the buildings within the
areas, creating a full estimate of the city planning
Overlaying these plans with the terrain and street
mapping creates a more resolved understanding,
however patterns for building height have not been
defined and overlaid, meaning the height estimation
shown is currently based on building area/scale factor
also.
Further advances could come in the form of road
changes. Manhattan has a very regular grid which would
not align well with the current Wellington layout. However
the nature of the roads continuing until they meet another
crossroads could be applied.
A similar concept could be applied at a smaller scale,
by aiming to understand the main cause of iconic
architecture and replicate it in a new built project for
Wellington.

CONNECTIVE LAYOUT
Following Manhattans gridded layout
would be impoissible in Wellington.
Topography, current layout and the
essence in general would not allow it.
Instead a parameter should be used for
conversion - in this case connectivity. All
of the roads connect through to another
road, resulting in no dead-end streets. In
Wellington, there are many streets with
no option of thoroughfare. By taking this
connectivity parameter a new Wellington
layout can be devised.

High
SPACE SYNTAX
High
Connectivity
Low
Connectivity
Adjusted Wellington
Space Syntax Patterns
Low
High
Connectivity
Adjusted Wellington
Space Syntax
Low

CENTRAL PARK
To choose a site the theme of central park has
been choosen. The main parameters of central
park are:
1. Disruption of the grid system
2. Bordered by the grid system
3. Provide greenspace in the central metropolis
The site choosen disrupts Courtenay Place to
traffic but will allow the potential for walking and
cycling to be uninhibited. The site is bordered
by intensive building on all sides and takes
advantage of a disruption of the most intensively
connected area of roads.

ADJUSTED SPACE SYNTAX
High
Connectivity
Adjusted Wellington
Space Syntax with Site
Low

Wellington Site
Visual Connectivity Experiement
Low
Connectivity
High
Wellington Site
Agent Release Experiement
N

LAYOUT PATTERNS
The layout of trees has been analysed with
the an eye to using these patterns to create
layouts within the site.
The layout of trees in Manhattan has been
extrapolated from public New York data.
Each circle represents a tree and is
organised in colour by the street it is
on.
Areas which portray signifigant
or valuable patterns have been
examined in detail. Made
into three dimensional line
diagrams and explored
with multiple levels of
connection.

LAYOUT OF GRAPEVINES
SPACE SYNTAX PATHWAYS
SITE
VINEYARD
Due to the large site and the given
program of an urban winery there
is the potential to supplement the
winery with a (very) local vineyard
from which to source grapes.
This non traditional vineyard will
avoid the linear rows that are typical
of vineyards instead basing the
layout of vines on the patterns
developed from Manhattan tree
layouts.
The space syntax explorations will
be used to define areas dedicated to
pedestrians and cyclists through the
site

Vineyard
Grapevine Layout
Vineyard
Grapevines Laid out on Lines
Vineyard
Grapevines Laid Out On Lines

WINE MAKING PROCESS
The process behind wine making will drive the
parameters for the program and in turn the formal
realisation of the architecture. To decide on the size
and placement of rooms, the individual tasks have
been extracted into volume requirements and other
parameters.
The amount of grapes that need to be processed
will effect the machine sizes so assumptions have
been made: At about 5lb or 2.3kg of grapes per
vine and 2011 vines around 4625kg per year will
need to be proccessed.
1.
De-Steming and
Crushing
2.
Primary
Fermentation
3.
Wine
Pressing
4.
Secondary
Fermentation
5.
Fining and
Clarification
6.
Filtration and
Blending
7.
Bottling
Stems are removed
and the grapes are
prepared by crushing
them into a liquid.
The grapes are
fermented to create
the alcoholic content
The grapes crushed to
extract between 15-
30% more juice from
the skins.
The grapes are aged
in barrels to add
flavour and reduces
particles in the wine.
A fining agent is
added which clumps
any remaining small
particles making them
larger so they fall to
the bottom of the tank.
Any remaining
particles are filtered
out and different grape
juices can be blended
together to make
better or cheaper wine.
The wine is bottled and
corked without being
exposed to the air.
Machine:
Machine:
Machine:
Machine:
Machine:
Machine:
Machine:
Centrifugal Destalker-Crusher
Dimensions:
Fermentation Tank
Dimensions:
Basket Type Wine Press
Dimensions:
Oak Barrels
Dimensions:
Generic Tank
Dimensions:
Electric Pump Driven Filterer
Dimensions:
Wine Monobloc
Dimensions:
2420 x 1110 x 1450
Total Process Time:
25.7hours/year
Other Factors:
Must have space to feed
grapes. Loud.
6012.5L (1555 x 650 x 650)
Total Process Time:
5-14 Days
Other Factors:
Must be temperature controlled
1400 x 600 x 1300
Total Process Time:
3 Hours
30L x 40 (500 x 300 Dia)
Total Process Time:
5-14 Months
Other Factors:
Requires low light, controlled
humidity and controlled
temperature.
6012.5L (1555 x 650 x 650)
Total Process Time:
7 Days
490 x 260 x 460
Total Process Time:
5 Hours (227.5L/Hr)
Other Factors:
Minimal air exposure, requires
changing of filtering pads.
2000 x 1400 x 800
Total Process Time:
1 Hour(600 Bottles/Hr)
Other Factors:
Needs space for packing,
storgage and the ability to load
onto transport.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Program
Approximate Room Sizes per Process
Estimated Room
Estimated Machine
Site
Potential Areas for Locating Program

3.
4.
2.
1.
6.
5.
7.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
7.
6.
5.
3.
2.
1.
4.
1. De-Steming and Crushing 2. Primary Fermentation 3. Wine Pressing 4. Secondary Fermentation 5. Fining and Clarification 6. Filtration and Blending 7. Bottling
PROGRAM PLACEMENT
Locating the program within the site has been
done through three parameters:
1. No overlap with vines
2. No overlap with paths
3. Maximization of useful free space
These three parameters require the volumetric
representations to fit between vines as closely as
possible without overlapping - this ensures the
remaining areas are as large as possible and can
therefore can be made the most use of, likely as
public space.
The inspiration for this style of layout is the
New York tendency to fit buildings into even the
smallest sites such as the Flat Iron Building and
High Line 23.
Left: Flatiron Building, Daniel
Burnham, Frederick P. Dinkelberg
Right: High Line 23, Neil M. Denari
Architects

Treating the volumes is a key aspect
of formalising the architecture.
The parameters set to draw out
the formal treatment was originally
based on the extremely vertical
facades of the many Manhattan
skyscrapers. A second parameter
was then added which drew the
concept of the city and the vineyard
together - growth. The laplacian
growth of cities and vines can both
be modelled similarly. The addition
of this parameter aims to generate
vertical struture based on the
growth of cities and vines.
Right: Vertical Exageration of the Empire
State Building facade in Manhattan
FORMAL
TREATMENT

PROGRAM LAYOUT
Using the existing street blocks
the urban layout has been
projected into the site to provide a
way of arranging the programatic
blocks.
These blocks are then intersected
with a straight path cutting them
at right angles to provide a
connection between each volume.
7. Bottling
6. Filtration and Blending
5. Fining and Clarification
4. Secondary Fermentation
3. Wine Pressing
2. Primary Fermentation
1. De-steming and Crushing
Vertical Circulation cut into
existing building.

STRUCTURE LINES
The angles from which people can
flow into the site have been distilled
into key directions. Where these
angles meet the site perimeter will
be the location of the structural
nodes.

Using the program
blocks and structural lines
a proposal has been created.
This proposal ‘flows’ the structure
into the site, congregating in a large mesh
web in the center to levitate the program
above the vines. The tensile structure clings to the
surrounding buildings as a parasitic architecture.

Program
Vineyard
Mast + Tie Structure
Density of ‘Trees’ around mast
Higher = More Ties
Distance from ‘Tree’ placement
Closer = Taller Mast
Context Buildings
Manhattan Tree Layout Pattern
MAST AND TIE LAYOUT
The addition of masts throught he site helps provide
a conection between the context and program. For
this reason the masts will continue out from the site
into the context. Placement of the masts is based on
a pattern developed from the layout of trees within
Manhattan.
In an attempt to have the masts refelct the nature of
the pattern, they become taller when they are sited
near a a ‘tree’ in the pattern. Similarly they have an
added level of tie density based on the density of the
tree layout surrounding them.
A greater density of ties has been artificially added
surrounding the program to provide for the structural
needs of the hanging program.

Panels above roof
Panels enclosing walls
Program
Panels below floor
PANEL SYSTEM
To realise the vision of a simple, rectilinear program
panels will be used to visually simplify the outer
shape of the program. Naturally the program requires
roof slope, windows, joins and so forth. To hide
these complicated additions to the simple box steel
perforated mesh panels will be used around each
face of the program.
The panels are detailed with the horizontal pattern
which was used to layout the vineyard. This means
when viewed from above or below the pattern aligns
with the layout of the vines. The vertical panels have
the same pattern but realise this in vertical lines
only due to the horizontal pattern. This simplifies the
system visually. The pattern will be realised as cuts
through the panels allowing people to see into and
out of the program in a very specific and defined way.

Test Sheet
A 1:5 Scale test of the panels was
undertaken to explore potential
perforation patterns. Due to the nature
of the panels pattern small sections
result, requiring attachment to the larger
panels which are in turn attached to the
inhabited volumes. This creates the need
for a combination of perforated and non
perforated areas within each panel.
Preferred Perforation Panel

PANEL SHADING SYSTEM TEST

Can see workers but
not machine.
Can see workers
and machines.
Reasonable open
process. Requires
good lighting for
workers.
Can see some stacked
wine barrels but not all.
Can see wine pressing
process.
Can see vats but not
workers.
Can see workers
and out side glazing.
Cannot see low down
machines.
7. Bottling
6. Filtration and Blending
5. Fining and Clarification
4. Secondary Fermentation
3. Wine Pressing
2. Primary Fermentation
1. De-steming and Crushing
Panels.
Glazing.
WINDOW
LOCATIONS
Locating the glazing is key aspect
of how the park inhabitants interact
with the built space. The glazing
has been used as a way of showing
some aspects of the process but
not all from the central path where
most of the parks inhabitants will be.
The goal is to draw people off the
path and into the surrounding parks
to inhabit the space. The ability for
people to change their view into the
building by changing their location is
key. The panel and glazing
combination enforces the
need for movement in order
to see into all of the spaces.

1.0
1.1
1.2
0.0
2.1
5.2
6.3
2.2
2.0
2.4
2.3
3.0 3.1
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.2
5.1
5.0
5.2
6.1
6.0
6.2
Plan
Scale 1:100
0.0 Access Walkway
1.0 Access Stairwell within Existing Building
1.1 Services Core
1.2 Access Bridge
2.0 De-Stemming and Crushing Room
2.1 Preperation Table
2.2 Crusher and Stemmer
2.3 Collection Bath
2.4 Primary Fermentation of Must
3.0 Wine Pressing Room
3.1 Wine Press
4.0 Secondary Fermentation Room
4.1 Barrels for Fermentation
4.2 Limited Run // Test Room
4.3 Limited Run Fermentation Barrels
5.0 Fining and Clarification Room
5.1 Paper-work Station
5.2 Fining and Clarfication Vats
6.0 Bottling Room
6.1 Bottling Table
6.2 Bottling Machine
6.3 Space for Stacking Boxes for Delivery