1
ABSTRACT
 Title of Thesis: MASS PRODUCING AMERICA, 
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITILIZATION IN 
NORTH LAWNDALE - CHICAGO 
Marcus A. Cross, 
Master of Architecture, 2005
Thesis Directed By: Professor Ralph Bennett, 
School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation
This thesis, which has been branded the MPA Project (Mass Producing America) 
is an exploration into the creation of an in? ll affordable housing solution to meet the 
needs of the North Lawndale Community of Chicago.    Plagued by crime, violence, 
and economic disinvestment, it has been a victim of extreme urban blight. Economic 
conditions are now favorable for revitalization and the area is ideal for an exploration 
such as this. Within the project area are over two-hundred available building sites.  This 
project explores how contemporary construction ideas can be used to make affordable, 
? exible and customizable homes.  Moreover, since this problem is not unique to Chicago, 
it is possible that this solution could be applied in any number of cities throughout the 
country.
i
MASS PRODUCING AMERICA:
 NEIGHBORHOOD REVITILZATION IN NORTH LAWNDALE - CHICAGO 
By
Marcus A. Cross
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial ful? llment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Architecture
2005
Advisory Committee:
Professor Ralph Bennett, Chair
Associate Dean John Mauldin-Jeronimo
Assistant Professor Deborah Oakley
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
?Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it??
- Psalm 127:1a
I would ? rst like to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ for His strength and 
direction throughout this process.  
I would also thank my parents.  Without their continued love, support, 
encouragement, and above all prayers I could never have hoped to ? nish.  My father?s 
compassionate listening ear and wise advice have served to calm my nerves more times 
than I can count over the past year.  My mother?s warm witty sense of humor, energetic 
passion for life, and sincere concern for the well-being of others has been a constant 
motivation for me.  Moreover, the memory of her clicking away at a typewriter long into 
the night during my youth to ? nish her Master of Social Work has frequently brought a 
smile to my face in studio at 3:00am. Thank you both.
I would like to acknowledge my extended family (especially my Grandmother, 
Betty Stripling and Aunt, Emma Cross), the members of the All Nations Church of God 
in Christ, and the other residents of the North Lawndale Community who have taught 
me through their unwavering example that in life, you do the best you can with what you 
have been given.  
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to all of the Spring 2005 M. Arch. 
Candidates.  This past semester we?ve pushed each other to do some outstanding work.  
It is rare to ? nd a group of ? rst-class designers who are as encouraging, caring, and 
supportive as you all have been.  It has been my pleasure to participate in this process 
with you all. 
iii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .........................................................................................................iii
List of Figures ..............................................................................................................iv
Section I Introduction
Chapter 1: Conceptual Design Goals and Problems ................................................ 1
Moving on Up ? and Out?  ................................................................................ 3
Custom Made or Mass Customization? ............................................................... 5
Are We Done Building Yet? ................................................................................. 8
Chapter 2: Design Issues ........................................................................................ 12
Section II The Site 
Chapter 3: Site History ............................................................................................. 3
Chapter 4: Site Physical Condition ........................................................................ 16
Building Typology ............................................................................................. 16
Zoning ................................................................................................................ 20
Land Use ............................................................................................................ 23
Chicago Boulevard System ................................................................................ 26
Streets ................................................................................................................. 28
Topographyv ...................................................................................................... 28
Section III The Design
Chapter 5: Precedents ............................................................................................. 30
Homan Square Development ............................................................................. 30
Murray Grove Apartments ................................................................................. 33
PATH Concept House ........................................................................................ 35
Operation Breakthrough ..................................................................................... 37
Chapter 6:  Design Guidelines ................................................................................ 38
Typology  ........................................................................................................... 38
Lot Development ............................................................................................... 39
Fa?ade Articulation ............................................................................................ 39
Location of Major Spaces .................................................................................. 41
Accessibility ....................................................................................................... 41
Affordability & Gentri? cation ........................................................................... 41
Chapter 7:  Design Schemes ................................................................................... 43
Chapter 8:  System Design ..................................................................................... 52
Reason ................................................................................................................ 52
Site ..................................................................................................................... 56
Construction ....................................................................................................... 61
Image and Flexibility ......................................................................................... 65
Chapter 9:  Conclusion ........................................................................................... 75
Works Cited ............................................................................................................ 78
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1 Steward Brand?s Six S?s 9
Figure 2 Conceptual Diagram 11
Figure 3 Chicago?s 77 Communities 13
Figure 4 MPA Figure Ground 14
Figure 5 Vacant Lot on 13
th
 Street 15
Figure 6 Vacant Lot on Roosevelt Rd. 15
Figure 7 Vacant Lot on Independence Blvd. 15
Figure 8 Diagrammatic Aerial Photo 16
Figure 9 Typical Residential Street 16
Figure 10 Typical Section Through Independence Blvd. 17
Figure 11 Typical Section Through Roosevelt Rd. 17
Figure 12 Typical Section Through Residential St.  17
Figure 13 Section of Typical Two-Flat 18
Figure 14 Aerial Photo of Independence Square 19
Figure 15 Vacant Lots on MPA Site  19
Figure 16 Zoning Map of N. Lawndale 20
Figure 17 Residential Zoning Restrictions 21
Figure 18 Business/Commercial Zoning Restrictions 21
Figure 19 Commercial Land Use 23
Figure 20 Commercial Buildings on Roosevelt Rd. 23
Figure 21 Religious Land use 23
Figure 22 Typical Storefront Church 24
v
Figure 23 Church on Independence Blvd.  24
Figure 24 Educational Land Use 24
Figure 25 Henson School 25
Figure 26 Herzl School 25
Figure 27 Chicago Boulevard System 26
Figure 28 Gar? eld Park 26
Figure 29 Independence Square 27
Figure 30 Chicago Major Street Grid 28
Figure 31 MPA Street and Alley Network 28
Figure 32 Original Sears? Tower 39
Figure 33 Homan Square Master Plan 39
Figure 34 Homan Square Block Con? guration 31
Figure 35 Block Con? guration Comparison Diagram  31
Figure 36 Unit Size Study 31
Figure 37 Homan Square Units 31
Figure 38 Homan Square Unit Type ?B? 32
Figure 39 Homan Square Unit Type ?D? 32
Figure 40 View of Murray Grove Apartment 33
Figure 41 Murray Grove Apartments Under Construction 33
Figure 42 Murray Grove Apartments Under Construction 33
Figure 43 Exploded Axon of Unit 34
Figure 44 Murray Grove Units Diagram 34
Figure 45 Murray Grove Modules Diagram 34
Figure 46 PATH Concept House Plan 35
vi
Figure 47 PATH Utility Separation 36
Figure 48 Typical Two Flat Floor Plan 38
Figure 49 Typical Two Flat Elevation 39
Figure 50 Diagram of Street Fa?ade on In? ll Lot 40
Figure 51 Diagram of Street Fa?ade on Corner Lot 40
Figure 52 Diagram of ?Book Shelf? Approach  43
Figure 53 Diagram of ?Lego? Approach  43
Figure 54 Study Model - 9? x 18? Structural Frame 44
Figure 55 Study Model - Front Building with Structural Expansion to Rear 44
Figure 56  Study Model - Lego Approach 44
Figure 57 Study Model - Base Building with Flexible Interior  45
Figure 58 Study Model - Base Building with dedicated expansion areas 45
Figure 59 Study Model - Context Buildings 45
Figure 60 Building Block  Concept Board 47
Figure 61 Scaffolding/In? ll System Concept Board 49
Figure 62 Weathering Shed / Internal Pods Concept Board 51
Figure 63 Presentation Board ?Reason 1? 53
Figure 64 Presentation Board ?Reason 2? 54
Figure 65 Presentation Board ?Reason 3? 55
Figure 66 Presentation Board ?Site 1? 57
Figure 67 Presentation Board ?Site 2? 58
Figure 68 Presentation Board ?Site 3? 59
Figure 69 Presentation Board ?Site 4?  60
Figure 70 Presentation Board ?Construction 1? 62
vii
Figure 71 Presentation Board ?Construction 2? 63
Figure 72 Presentation Board ?Construction 3? 64
Figure 73  Presentation Board ?Flexibility 1? 67
Figure 74  Presentation Board ?Flexibility 2? 68
Figure 75  Presentation Board ?Flexibility 3? 69
Figure 76  Presentation Board ?Flexibility 4? 70
Figure 77  Presentation Board ?Image 1? 71
Figure 77  Presentation Board ?Image 2? 72
Figure 77  Presentation Board ?Image 3? 73
Figure 77  Presentation Board ?Image 4? 74
1
PART I:
INTRODUCTION
2
Chapter 1: Conceptual Design Goals and Problems
?Eradicate from your mind any hard and fast conceptions in regard to the 
dwelling-house and look at the question from an objective and critical angle, and you 
will inevitably arrive at the ?house machine,? the mass produced house, available for 
everyone, incomparably healthier than the old kind (and morally so, too) 
and beautiful ?? 
-- Le Corbusier, 1931
This thesis seeks to address three main issues through the design of an affordable 
housing building system.  First, this thesis challenges the traditional notion that, within 
urban settings, people ?grow out of,? or want to move out of neighborhoods as their 
families develop.  Second, this thesis proposes that given the current state of technology, 
everyone can afford to have a custom house.  Finally this thesis will explore the idea 
that a house is never ? nished being built. That is, families are ever-changing, and the 
structures that house them should be as well. 
3
Moving on up? and out?
?Well we?re moving on up, to the east side?  To a deluxe apartment in the sky?. 
We?ve ? nally got a piece of the pie.?  
-- ?The Jeffersons? Theme Song
Those words found in the famous theme song of the 1970s sitcom, ?The 
Jefferson?s? echo the long held American ideal that if you work hard and really ?play 
the game right,? anyone, especially minorities and immigrants, can ?move up.?  You can 
have a bigger apartment, nicer furnishings, and even a maid.  Traditionally in America the 
realization of this dream comes with the stipulation that you also physically move. This 
thesis, however, poses the question, can you have all of these luxuries and not leave the 
community and the support system that has allowed you to become who you are?    
According to the US Census Bureau, over forty-million Americans (14%  of the 
overall population) moved between 2002 and 2003 (Schachter 2).  Of these, 59% were 
moves within the same county. Moreover, when asked why they moved the leading 
response was ?housing-related reasons.?  Most were interested in home ownership, new 
or better housing, or cheaper housing.   Amazingly, only 4.7% said that they were moving 
because they wanted to live in a better neighborhood or an area with less crime.
This data suggests that most people enjoy the stability that comes with living 
in the same area over an extended period of time.  The reasons for this are manifold.  
Residential longevity results in stronger bonds and relationships with neighbors, children 
can develop within the same peer group, and the longer one stays in a given location, the 
more personal investment in the neighborhood increases.  It can also be argued that from 
4
a physiological perspective most people feel safer (regardless of how ?safe? the area may 
be) in an area that they are familiar with.  
This thesis proposes that architecture can be a tool to aid in neighborhood 
stabilization.   By developing a housing system that is adaptable to people at various 
times in their life, they can stay in the same neighborhood from their younger twenties 
to old age.  As their family needs change, their house can expand or adapt to suit them.  
Also as their ? nancial income improves and their taste is ?upgraded,? the house can 
simultaneously be ?upgraded? to accommodate them.
5
Custom-Made or Mass-Customization
?Mass production was the ideal of the early twentieth century.  Mass customization 
is the recently emerged reality of the twenty-? rst century.?  
-- Stephen Kieran & James Timberlake
In the early decades of the twentieth century, the founders of modernism, especially 
Le Corbusier and Gropius, looked to the then new manufacturing industries to somehow 
transform our profession and society.  They envisioned architecture, especially housing, 
being elevated to a point where good design would be available to the masses.  In our 
contemporary society where only 2% of new home buyers have the luxury of working 
directly with an architect (Bell 36), the time has ? nally come for us to adopt the methods 
and practices of other industries to make architecture available to the masses. 
In their Book, ?Refabricating Architecture,? Stephen Kieran and James Timberlake 
draw a number of comparisons between the automotive industry and the architectural 
profession.  They point out that the automotive industry has in recent years abandoned the 
traditional assembly line approach to manufacturing automobiles and has instead moved 
to a system of integrated modules (Kieran and Timberlake 17).  For example, the front 
suspension is conceived of as a module, as is the engine, the cockpit, and the front fascia.  
Each of the these modules may be manufactured in separate places. They arrive at the 
main assembly plant in largely complete form and are joined together to make the ? nal 
car.  
The advantages to this approach are higher quality, less manufacturing time, and 
less cost.  Car manufactures have found that since each module is manufactured by a 
6
plant that specializes only in its particular module, the overall quality of the module and 
the car is higher than a plant that was attempting to specialize in an entire car.  Kieran and 
Timberlake point out that since adopting this method the overall time for moving a car 
from conceptual design to production has been reduced from 58 months to 38 months.  
Also, since the modules can be simultaneously produced at various locations, the overall 
time of assembly is reduced and the savings can be passed onto consumers.  
If then, this analogy was carried to the next step, one could envision a large amount 
of ? exibility being introduced into process.  For example, one could imagine that the 
cockpit module plant began designing and producing several different types of cockpits.  
Also, each of these different types of cockpits was made in such a way that they could be 
interchangeable, so a car could have either ?Cockpit A,? ?Cockpit B,? or ?Cockpit C? and 
each could seamlessly replace the other.  Now, let?s assume that all of the other module 
plants followed suite and began producing multiple designs for each of their modules.  
Lastly, one could suppose that the car manufacturer allowed the consumer to dictate 
which modules he wanted in his car.  One begins to perceive a situation where Tom may 
decide to have Cockpit A, Engine F, and Front Suspension D.  While Tina may decide to 
have Cockpit F, Engine A, and Front Suspension C.  We now have the makings of mass-
customization.  
Public demand for choice currently makes the ideal of mass-customized architecture 
more of a possibility than ever before.  The furniture store, Ikea offers several furniture 
7
lines where the consumer can pick and choose different parts of an overall furniture 
system and simply put the ones they want together.  For more than a decade Dell 
computers has been giving the consumer the choice to have a customized computer 
delivered to their door.   Social critic, Mark Andrejevic, proposes that ?it is the givenness 
of the rules that keeps the ?mass? in ?mass customization?? (Andrejevic 49)  Ikea and 
Dell have set up the basic ?rules? or framework that the consumer must work in, but 
beyond that the individual has the option of deciding what particular elements they 
want.  Architect Frank Lloyd Wright began to tap into this idea when he developed his 
Usonian Houses which, while not modular, were designed based on a grid that conformed 
to the basic framing dimensions of wood construction.  This system gave the architect 
maximum ? exibility while working with wood, and also helped to visually unify the 
Usonian Houses.
The housing industry, more than any other segment of architecture has embraced 
the idea of prefabrication.  Today, even in traditional ?stick-built? homes, large segments 
of roof trusses, ? oor joist and wall framing segments, are constructed off-site and 
simply shipped to the site. This thesis will propose the development of a standard three 
dimensional measurement system, or grid.  All of the components of the house (structure, 
exterior walls, interior partitions, cabinetry, etc.) would be manufactured based off of this 
?module.?  Working within this set module will allow for maximum ? exibility in design 
and future manipulation of the units. This system would combine the virtues of modular 
construction, prefabrication, and mass customization.
8
Are we done building yet? 
?One of the things which we are searching for is a form of architecture which, 
unlike classical architecture is not perfect and ? nite upon completion?
-- Sir Richard Rogers
The ? nal question that this thesis seeks to address derives from the earlier question 
of neighborhood stabilization.  If one contends that a person or a family can live in the 
same neighborhood for extended periods of time, how does the architecture accommodate 
the change that occurs in their lives.  In his book, How Buildings Learn, Steward Brand 
makes an argument that the most successful and beloved buildings have traditionally 
been those that can adjust to change quickly.  
More often than not, when a family has the luxury of working directly with an 
architect, the house is designed and customized to meet their needs at that particular 
moment in time.  While occasionally a spare room may be designed for a child not yet 
born, little thought is given to how the special needs of that family may change, ? ve, 
? fteen or twenty-? ve years down the road.  This thesis claims that in reality a house is 
never truly complete.  
The Open Building Movement provides a good conceptual base to help understand  
how one could arrive at a realistic house that meets the demands of ever-changing 
occupants.  This movement which dates back to the 1960s was pioneered by N. John 
Habraken. Habraken suggested that a ?natural relationship? existed in healthy living 
environments.  This relationship was characterized by both the community and the 
individual having a clearly marked ?scope of control and responsibility? (Kendall 3).  In 
9
other words, a building has two sets of obligations; one to its owner or occupant and one 
to the larger community.  Those obligations which involve the larger community deal 
with siting and exterior appearance while decisions about interior layout belong to the 
occupant.
More speci? cally within a building, the movement proposes that a house is actually 
composed of a number of different systems, each with its own challenges and lifespan.  
Expanding on the work of Frank Duffy, Brand makes a case for viewing a building as a 
composition of six layers (Brand 13) 
The ? rst three of Brand?s S?s 
deal with the larger and more external 
functions of a building.  The Site
comes ? rst and  is considered the 
most stable layer, since the earth will 
be around long after the building.  
Structure is the second layer.  It 
sometimes considered to be the most 
expensive part of the building, however 
within housing construction it should be noted that interior ? nishes typically consume a 
considerable portion of the budget and sometimes surpass structure in construction cost.  
Even so because of the implications of moving structural elements, most people try to 
avoid changing the structure of a building when renovating.  Skin is considered the next 
important because of the crucial role it plays in actually enclosing the structure and the 
home, however over the life of the building it is more vulnerable to being changed or 
[Fig 01. Diagram of Steward Brand?s ?Six S?s]
 from How Buildings Learn
10
adapted to match current aesthetic trends.  Brand claims that on average a building?s skin 
changes every 20 years whereas structure can last from 30 to 300 years. Unlike structure, 
which people go out of their way to avoid changing, it is very common for home owners 
to use vinyl siding or new windows to dress up an old building.  
The last three S?s deal speci? cally with the interior workings of the home and 
those systems which help to make the space more comfortable.  Services is the ? rst of 
these and it deals with ?the guts? of the building.  Plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and 
HVAC fall into this category.  Given the ever changing world of technology and how 
soon new innovations in the building industry are out-dated, these systems may need to 
be upgraded as often as every 7 to 15 years.  The Space Plan is the next layer and it is 
comprised of partition walls, ceilings, doors and ? oors.  These are among the ? rst victims 
of the house to meet with the ax when renovation plans begin.  The ? nal layer is what 
Brand had termed Stuff.  Stuff includes tables, chairs, desks, lamps. couches, ect.  All the 
things that people buy and place in their homes to help de? ne space.  Depending on the 
nature of the home and its owners these may change anywhere from weekly to yearly.   
Once one understands the principles of Open Building, the next step is for the 
architect to do everything in his power to keep these layers as separate as possible.   
Architects often spend hours and hours in their of? ces resolving details to bury the 
services in the walls and ceilings.  If, however, one anticipates that the walls will likely 
change before the electrical wiring and plumbing, it is only logical to keep the systems 
out of the wall so one can in fact move walls without major repercussions.  
11
Chapter 2: Design Issues
The design issues of this thesis are derived from the realization that many of 
the goals and question raised in the previous section do not belong exclusively to the 
discipline of architecture, but rather are shared by sociology, economics, and psychology.  
Even so, architecture can be used as a tool to stimulate a discussion about these ideas.  
While architecture alone may not solve any of these problems, it can help us arrive at a 
better understanding of the problem. 
To this end, this thesis seeks to produce the schematic and conceptual design of 
an affordable housing building system.  As discussed in the Design Goals section, this 
system is perceived as being ever-changing and ever-growing.  This design will hinge on 
an exploration of available technical and structural innovations that would make such a 
design plausible. 
Also, in keeping with the desire that this system be used to aid in neighborhood 
stabilization, this thesis seeks to introduce this system into an existing community, 
displacing as few residents as possible.  Therefore, a primary objective of this thesis will 
be to keep as many of the functional existing structures as possible.  
[Fig 02. Conceptual Diagrams] Proposed expansion of a house over time
12
PART II:
THE SITE
13
Chapter 3: Site History
The site chosen for this thesis, the 
MPA Project (Mass Producing America), 
lies within the North Lawndale community 
of Chicago.  The area is located roughly 
12 minutes (5 miles) due west of the down 
town central business district (commonly 
known as ?the Loop?).  The neighborhood 
traces its roots to 1870 when the real-estate 
? rm of Millard and Deeker subdivided 
what was then an open prairie land on the 
city edge.  In the early decades of the 20
th
century the population grew rapidly.  At this 
time, the area was heavily populated with 
Jewish immigrants of Russian descent (HICA 2).  
In the 1950s the City of Chicago found itself on the receiving end of ?the great 
migration? of African Americans relocating from the south.  The North Lawndale 
neighborhood became a major settling spot for these newcomers.  The future of the area 
was dramatically altered as the more established Jewish community ? ed, leaving a once 
thriving commercial and retail center (Roosevelt Road) barren.  
The area reached its peak population of over one-hundred-and-twenty-? ve-thousand 
[Fig 03. Chicago?s 77 Neighborhoods]
14
residents in the 1960s.  By this time, the area was mostly comprised of African Americans 
who either lacked the ? nancial resources to maintain the housing stock or withheld those 
funds.  As a result, many of the buildings fell into disrepair and were abandoned.  Another 
devastating effect occurred in 1968 when residents rioted following the assassination 
of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Many structures were lost to ? re during the protest.  The 
grim situation was exacerbated in the 1970s when Sears Roebuck & Co. relocated its 
international headquarters from North Lawndale to the Sears Tower taking some ? fteen-
thousand jobs with it.  
In the 1990s the city took a ? rm stance on abandoned property, citing it as a public 
hazard and began an aggressive demolition campaign.  Today there are over ? ve-thousand 
vacant parcels (see ? g. 15, p. 
20) in the area and over half 
of them are owned by the city.  
Since 1960 the area has lost 
roughly 40% of its housing 
stock and its population has 
declined from one-hundred-
and-twenty-? ve-thousand to 
a meager forty-one-thousand 
(Keating and Krumholz 67).  
[Fig 04. Figure Ground of the MPA site] This image il-
lustrates the abundance of vacant land in the area
15
[Fig 05. Vacant lot on 13th street]
[Fig 06. Vacant lot on Roosevelt Rd.]
[Fig 07. Vacant lot on Independence Blvd.]
16
Chapter 4: Site Physical Condition
The MPA site is located centrally 
to the North Lawndale Community.  
The hard site boundaries are de? ned by 
Roosevelt Road to the north, 14
th
 Street 
to the south, Pulaski Road to the west, 
and Lawndale Ave to the east.  The 
Eisenhower Expressway has an exit 
located on Independence Boulevard 
roughly one mile north of the site, thus 
Independence acts as the front door to 
the North Lawndale Community.
Building Typology
Vacant lots aside, the physical 
character of the site has the potential 
to be rather attractive.  The majority of 
the surviving housing stock dates from 
the turn of the 20
th
 century.  The fabric 
of the area is dominated by two-? ats 
with the occasional apartment building, 
[Fig 08. Diagrammatic Aerial Photo] MPA 
Site in Red, I-290 to the north, Gar? eld Park 
to the far north, Douglas Park to the east
[Fig 09. Typical Residential Street]
17
the ? rst ? oor is generally 6? feet above grade.  This arrangement allows for a generous 
amount of light to enter the basements.  The height also encourages the use of porches 
throughout the site.  The most commonly used building materials are limestone and brick.  
All of the lots in the area are rear loaded (accessibly by alley) and three foot gangways 
are prevalent.  As is the case throughout the city, electricity and phone lines reach the site 
via the alleys, while gas and water mains are located off of the street.  
[Fig 10. Typical Section through Independence Blvd.] 119? green strip with 40? streets 
on either side, three traf? c lanes in either direction, 270? building face to building face
[Fig 11. Typical Section through Roosevelt Rd.] Street width is 65? curb to curb, 104? 
building face to building face, 4 lanes of traf? c, 20? sidewalks
[Fig 12. Typical Section through Residential Street.] Street width is 28? curb to curb, 
12? planting strip, 6?4 sidewalks, 15? - 25? building setbacks, 107? building face to build-
ing face 
18
The two-? at building type is essentially a stacked duplex in which the lower 
? oor and basement are lived in by the owner, while the upper ? oor is rented out.  One 
generally enters into a common vestibule from the porch.  Each unit then has a door (one 
leading into the ? rst ? oor and the other leading to a stair well).  While the upper unit can 
be rented out, frequently the same family owns and lives in both the upper and lower 
units.  For example, it is not uncommon for children to get married and live above the 
parents.  
[Fig 13. Section of Typical Two-Flat] 
19
[Fig 14. Aerial Photo of Independence Square]
[Fig 15. Vacant Lots within MPA Site] - Darkened Lots are Vacant
20
Zoning
The governing zoning ordinance for the City of Chicago was enacted on November 
1, 2004.  Most of the site falls into the category of RT-4 residential zoning.  This zoning 
is intended to accommodate detached housing, two-? ats, townhouses, and low-density 
multi-residential buildings (See ? g. 17, p. 22).  Most of the building sites are located on 
lots which are 25? by 125? (3,125 sq. ft.)  The minimum lot area for this zone is 1,650 
sq. ft.  A lot must be able to accommodate 1000 sq. ft. for every dwelling unit proposed 
on a given site (500 sq. ft. per Single Room Occupancy), and the maximum Floor Area 
Ratio is 1.2.  Front setbacks are dictated by the average setback of the neighboring lots 
or 20?, whichever is less.  Minimum rear setbacks are dictated by the lot depth and range 
[Fig 16. Zoning Map of N. Lawndale] 
21
from 24% to 28% of the lot depth, or 
50?, whichever is less.  There must be 65 
sq. ft. of open rear yard space for every 
dwelling unit on a given lot, or 6.5% 
of the lot area, whichever is greater.  If 
multiple buildings are proposed on a 
single lot, there must be a minimum of 
30? separation.  Building heights are 
restricted to 38.?  17.5% of the front 
fa?ade must be composed of doors or 
windows.
The two major streets on the 
site, Roosevelt Road and Pulaski 
Road are zoned C1-2 commercial 
and B3-2 business.  C1 and B3 zones 
are intended to accommodate retail, 
service, and commercial uses that are 
compatible with the existing character 
of the neighborhood. Commercial and 
Industrial uses may not exceed 25,000 
sq. ft. of the ground ? oor and may not be 
smaller than 800 sq. ft. or 25% of the lot 
area, whichever is greater.  Residential 
dwelling units are allowed above the 
[Fig 17. Residential Zoning Restrictions] 
[Fig 18. C1-2 and B3-2 Commercial /  Busi-
ness  Zoning Restrictions] 
22
ground ? oor in both zones.  The lot must contain at least 1000 sq. ft. per residential 
unit.  There is a maximum 2.2 Floor Area Ratio.  There are no required front setbacks 
and the minimum rear setback is 30?.  There are no side setback requirements.  Building 
height restrictions vary between 47? to 50? depending on if the ground ? oor is used for 
commercial activity.  
23
Land Use
Based upon the zoning code, four 
basic types of uses have developed 
within the MPA site.  Naturally, the 
predominate use is residential, the 
nature of which has been discussed 
previously.  
The second major use would be 
commercial.  As ? gure nineteen shows, 
most of the commercial activity in 
the area is on Roosevelt Road.  The  
commercial activity is composed of 
small shops, restaurants, fast food 
establishments, and gas stations. Most 
of these buildings contain residential 
units above the ground level.  
The third major use would be 
religious.  There are currently fourteen 
churches located within the site.  These 
range in size from small ?storefront? 
congregations to large churches that 
have moved into structures that were 
originally designed to serve as Jewish 
[Fig 19. Commercial Land Use] 
[Fig 20. Commercial Buildings on Roosevelt 
[Fig 21. Religious Land Use] 
24
synagogues at the turn of the century.  
The latter of these serve as local 
landmarks for the community.  
The last major land use is 
education.  There are six educational 
institutions located within the site 
boundaries.  Henson School (? gure 
25), located in the center of the site 
area is a elementary school housing up 
to grade six.  Herzl (? gure 26), located 
just to the east of Independence 
Square is a middle school for 7
th
 and 
8
th
 Grades.  Herzl?s Classical Greek 
revivalist building is considered to 
be historically signi? cant by the City 
of Chicago Commission on Chicago 
Landmarks? Historical Resources 
Survey.
[Fig 24. Educational Land Use] 
[Fig 22. Typical Storefront Church on 
Pulaski Rd.] 
[Fig 23. Church on Independence Blvd.] built 
to serve as a synagogue
25
[Fig 25. Henson School] 
[Fig 26. Herzl School] 
26
City Boulevard System
In 1837 the City of Chicago was 
incorporated with its motto, ?Urbs et Horto,? 
or ?city in a garden.?  This vision was 
realized in 1869 when the state of Illinois 
created three park districts (north, south, and 
west) and charged them with the creation 
of nine large parks that would be connected 
through a system of boulevards, forming 
an ?emerald crown? around the city center.  
The three large parks on the city?s west 
side  Douglas, Gar? eld, and Humboldt were 
designed by Chicago architect, William 
LeBaron Jenney. 
Gar? eld park (184 acres) lies about 
one mile to the north of the MPA site, 
while Douglas park (174 acres) is located 
about one mile to the east. Independence 
Square marks the turning point where 
Douglas Boulevard turns north to meet 
Gar? eld Park and becomes Independence Boulevard.  While the boulevard system 
was initially designed to accommodate carriage rides and leisurely Sunday afternoon 
promenades, today Independence and Douglas Boulevards are major traf? c ways for cars.  
[Fig 27. Chicago Boulevard System] 
[Fig 28. Gar? eld Park] 
27
One unfortunate effect of this has been that 
Independence Square has become a traf? c 
circulation zone that is extremely uninviting 
to pedestrians or residents.  The square was 
further compromised by the addition of a 
one story learning center that was built by 
the Chicago Public School system in the late 
1960s.    
[Fig 29. Independence Square] 
28
Streets
In character with the City of Chicago, all streets within the site are arranged on a 
grid.  Within the city major streets are located every mile and roughly eight city blocks 
(long dimension) can ? t between two major streets.  The grid in this area has a north-
south bias with blocks that are roughly three-hundred feet by six-hundred-and-thirty feet.  
Topography 
For building purposes, the topography of the site can be considered ? at.  There is 
a slight 1? slope down to the west that is spread out over the entire area.  The site is not 
located in a ? ood plain.  
[Fig 31. MPA Site Street and alley Network] 
[Fig 30. Chicago Major Street Grid]
29
PART III:
THE DESIGN
30
Chapter 5:  Precedents
Homan Square, Chicago 
Nagle Hartray Danker Kagan McKay 
Architects Planners Ltd. 
Completed in 1999 the Homan Square 
development was the ? rst major housing 
development undertaken in North Lawndale since 
the early nineteen hundreds.  Located on the 
site of the original world headquarters of Sears 
Roebuck and Co.,  the development included nine 
city blocks (55 acres) and introduced 600 new 
housing units into the area.  One major objective 
of the developers was to create a ? fty-? fty mix of 
rental units and owner mixed-income level units. 
[Fig 32. Original Sears? Tower]
The tower stands in Homan Square 
as a reminder of Sears? ties to the 
history of the area
[Fig 33. Master Plan of Homan Square Development] 
31
To this end, the plan included a mix of single 
family detached, duplex, and rental units.  
Contrary to the typical Chicago block 
layout, with units lined up at the block edge, 
the Homan Square developers chose to create 
communal front lawns with the units lining the 
edges.  While this arrangement allows for a 
larger continuous green space and more ?eyes 
[Fig 35. Block Con? guration Comparison 
Diagram] Typical N. Lawndale block laid 
on top of Homan Square Block
[Fig 34. Homan Square Block Con? guration] 
[Fig 36. Unit Size Study] Typical 
N. Lawndale Two-Story Two-Flat 
Next to Two-Story Homan Square
Unit
[Fig 37. Homan Square Units] View from 
Street
32
on the street,? the de? nition of the street is completely lost, having no de? nable edge. Homan 
Square has reached a density of 11.2 dwelling units per acre, compared to 17 dwelling units per 
acre in the majority of North Lawndale.
Since Homan Square is less than one mile away from the MPA site, it offers an excellent 
example of what is expected in market-rate housing in the area.   Ranging between 1,000 and 
1,670 square feet, the units are considerably smaller than other units in the North Lawndale 
neighborhood.  
[Fig 38. Homan Square Unit Type ?B?] [Fig 39. Homan Square Unit Type ?D?] 
33
Murray Grove, London 
Cartwright & Pickard, Architects 
The Murray Grove apartment 
building is an excellent example of 
what can be done with a prefabricated 
modular building system.  The thirty 
unit structure is composed of seventy 
four modules, each with the same 
overall dimensions.  The single-
bedroom units are composed of two 
modules, while the two-bedroom are 
composed of three modules (Figures 44 
& 45).  The modules were constructed 
off site by Yorkon Limited, then 
shipped to the site and hoisted into 
place by cranes.  Once the modules 
were in place, a prefabricated deck and 
cladding system was installed over the 
units.  Finally the central stair piece 
was put in place (also constructed using 
prefabricated modules).  The overall 
time of construction on-site was only 
ten days.
[Fig 40. View of Apartments] 
[Fig 41. Apartments Under Construction] 
[Fig 42. Apartments Under Construction] 
34
[Fig 43. Exploded Axon of Unit] 
[Fig 44. Units] [Fig 45. Modules] 
35
PATH, Concept House 
Torti Gallas and Partners, Architects with
US Department of Housing and Urban Development 
The Partnership for Advancing Technology in 
Housing, or PATH is a program of HUD that seeks to 
accelerate the integration of innovative technologies 
in the housing construction market.  Developed in 
2004, the PATH Concept Home was a non-built 
project intended to demonstrate how a home could 
evolve with a family.  The objective was to design a 
house that could accommodate changing lifestyles, 
could adapt to technological advances, be easily 
repaired or remodeled, and look custom built.  In 
addition to these, the architects proposed that by 
the year 2010, such a house could be built from the 
ground up in 20 days.  
To accomplish their objectives, the designers made use of four concepts.  The 
?open building? concept discussed in the conceptual design goals section of this thesis 
was a leading idea.  Structure, utilities, and ? oor plan are viewed as separate systems.  
The utilities and ? oor plan are designed to anticipate change, while the structure is 
conceived as being ? xed.  The second theme was to organize the utilities in a way that 
they are easily accessible.  This is accomplished by creating open pathways for the 
piping and wiring and also by creating easily removable, ? oor, and ceiling panels to 
[Fig 46. PATH Concept House 
Floor Plans] These diagrams show 
how the Concept house is designed 
to change
36
conceal them.  The third concept is to push for 
industry standardization of measurements and 
product sizes.  Standardized measurements will 
allow components to be built by a variety of 
manufactures in different locations and ensure 
that they will all come together on site.  The 
? nal idea was to integrate subsystems, or allow 
elements of the house to do more than one thing.  
For example, the PATH house proposes that 
?wall coverings double as conduit for electricity, 
and roof shingles collect solar energy while they 
protect your house.?
[Fig 47. Utility Separation] 
37
Operation Breakthrough 
US Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Began in 1969, Operation Breakthrough was a HUD sponsored initiative that sought 
to modernize the housing industry though ?facilitating volume production of quality 
housing for people of all incomes? (HUD Challenge June 1972 p4).  During the initial 
stages of the program, twenty-two different housing system producers (HSPs) were 
selected to participate.  These HSPs represented a mixture of wood-framed modules, pre-
cast concrete, plastic, and metal systems.  
The organizers of Breakthrough realized that site planning was of the utmost 
importance.  To this end, eleven different sites were chosen throughout the country (only 
nine were actually developed due to budget cuts).  Each of these sites would play host 
to a mix of HSPs and would serve as demonstration grounds for the general industry.  
Within the sites, the Planned Unit Development approach to site planning was utilized 
to provide maximum ? exibility in site layout and also minimizing the amount of paving, 
utilities, and recreation areas.  
The main objective of Breakthrough was not necessarily to push the ?architectural 
envelope,? but rather to stimulate and aid the industry by ?breaking-through? legislative, 
transportation, and labor policies that were hindering the realization of a modernized 
housing industry.    One major obstacle that HUD faced in development of the program 
was that of transportation.  ?The best factory built dwelling unit is of little value unless 
it can reach its destination intact and be economically competitive with those building 
products produced locally by conventional means? (HUD Challenge pp12).  
38
Chapter 6:  Design Guidelines
Because of the nature of the MPA building system being ?ever-adaptable? and 
customizable it is necessary to establish a set of design guidelines.  These guidelines will 
serve two purposes.  First they will ensure that the overall character of the street is well 
de? ned and orderly.  It is not the intention of these guidelines to regulate style, but rather 
to mandate a set of minimum requirements that each of the building sites will adhere to.  
A second purpose for the guidelines is to direct the development of the design process.  
The proposition of a house which is perpetually changing and possibly expanding is a 
rather vague pursuit.  It is the objective of the following six sections to aid the designer 
and point him in a direction towards an end product.
Typology
While the MPA building system is 
not a traditionally constructed building, in 
its matured form it is conceived as being 
most similar to that of a typical Chicago 
two-? at.  The two-? at is characterized 
by two dwelling units stacked vertically.  
There is usually an entrance hall located 
directly behind the main entrance which 
will lead either directly into the main level 
unit or to a stair hall which leads to the 
upper unit (See typical section, ? g. 13, p. 
[Fig 48. Typical Two-Flat Floor Plan] 
39
19 and ? g 68, p. 59).  Customarily, the owner of the lot lives on the lower level (which 
is usually slightly higher in quality) while the upper level is either rented out or used for 
extended family members.  
Lot development
One of the larger goals of the MPA Project is to increase the number of rental 
properties available in the North Lawndale Community.  One of the ways this will be 
accomplished is through the construction of accessory apartments when ever possible.  
This will make the inevitable gentri? cation process less offensive for the current 
residents, as there will be more alternatives available for them to remain in the area.  It 
will also help the owners of the land, by giving them some amount of income to help 
defray the cost of maintenance and upkeep.
Fa?ade Articulation
Within the MPA site there is a strong 
tradition of building facades being staggered 
through the use of major and minor bays.  In 
keeping with this tradition, the street fa?ade 
of all MPA units shall be divided into two or 
three non-equal bays indicated by a setback 
of no less than 2?.  Where a corner building is 
being designed, with two street facades, these 
guidelines are intended to apply to the short 
[Fig 49. Typical Two-Flat Elevation]
40
side, or the faced that is parallel to the fa?ade of the neighboring in? ll houses.  Where 
two bays are used, the larger bay should occupy 54% - 60% of the total width of the 
fa?ade. Where three bays are used, the larger bay should occupy 50% - 65% of the total 
width of the fa?ade and should be located between the two minor bays.  The larger bay 
should be the closest to the street.  A single primary entrance to the building should be 
accommodated through the principle fa?ade and should be located a minor bay.  
For in? ll units, the street fa?ade must appear to be two to three stories and may 
be no less than 30? in height (height is restricted to 38? by the city zoning ordinance).  
Corner units should appear taller and may utilize the entire 38? height limit.  The street 
fa?ade need not enclose space, however it should maintain the street edge.  For example 
the fa?ade could be used to screen a roof deck on the second level.   In keeping with the 
character of the area, roofs should appear to be ? at from the street.  
[Fig 50. In? ll Lot Street Facade] [Fig 51. Corner Lot Street Facade] 
41
Location of Major Spaces
Kitchens, bathrooms, and storage areas should be placed to the rear of the initial 
development.  At no time may these spaces have window openings on the street fa?ade.
Accessibility 
In accordance with the MPA Project intention that one be able to inhabit a MPA 
building system house from youth to old age, it is desirable that all MPA buildings have 
at least one unit that is accessible in accordance with ADA standards or designed to easily 
be converted to an accessible unit.
Affordability & Gentri? cation
The MPA Project acknowledges the fact that a redevelopment of this magnitude 
could be a major sponsor of gentri? cation within the larger community.  Even so, one 
major objective of this thesis is to provide a mechanism whereby the existing community 
could continue to exist without being forced to leave.  Ideally the new units that are being 
constructed would be purchased by persons who have some connection to the area (either 
through family, friends, or because they grew up there).  In line with the idea of the ?ever-
adaptable? house, it is also assumed that the ideal new resident would be a young adult 
who may not yet be married and can grow a family with their home.
In order to allow this speci? c market the opportunity to buy these units and also to 
try to not escalate property value and taxes too rapidly, it is our intention that the initial 
development on the sites be built to be ?affordable?  Affordable housing is generally 
considered to be housing where the owner spends no more than 30% of his/her untaxed 
42
income on housing.  According to the Census, the median family income in Chicago for 
the year 2000 was $42,724.00.  This means that no more than $1,068.10 should be spent 
on housing and utilities per month.  As of December 13, 2004 the average mortgage rate 
in the City of Chicago was 5.42% (Chicago Tribune).  If a family took out a thirty year 
mortgage for $140,000.00 at 5.5% interest their monthly payment would be $794.90.  
Using the Homan Square precedent (see p. 31), where square footages were as high as 
1670gsf, the actual cost per square foot for the MPA initial development should be around 
$83.00.
43
Chapter 7:  Design Schemes
Conceptual Beginnings
Initially this thesis explored two different conceptual approaches to the design of a 
modular structure.  The ? rst method could be described as the ?Book-in-Shelf? approach.  
In this scenario, a developer would fund the building of a scaffolding system on each site.  
The owner would then be able to buy pods or modules to ? ll in this scaffolding.  In this 
approach, the initial framework would be built up to a point where it could accommodate 
the maximum amount of development allowed under the zoning.  
The second method could be 
described as the ?Lego? approach.  
In this scenario a developer would 
fund the building of a plinth on each 
site.  This plinth would connect to 
city utilities and house the unit?s 
furnace and water heater.  The 
developer would then sell the land 
and the plinth to the owner who 
could expand by buying pods that 
would stack onto each other.
These two initial ideas 
[Fig 52. Diagram of ?Book Shelf? Approach]
[Fig 53. Diagram of the ?Lego? Approach]
44
eventually evolved into a set of ? ve 
study models which were each a 
variation on one or both of the above 
stated themes.  During this stage a basic 
3? x 3? x 3? module was used for size.  
The intent of these study models was to 
look at the potential impact of massing 
in relation to the existing buildings in the 
area.  
Pre-Schematic Design Parties
The next stage was the 
[Fig 55. Study Model] - Front building 
with expansion to rear
[Fig 54. Study Model] - 9? x 18? 
structural frame
[Fig 56. Study Model] - Lego approach
45
[Fig 57. Study Model] - Base building 
with ? exable interior space
[Fig 58. Study Model] - Base building 
with dedicated expansion areas
[Fig 59. Study Model] - Study model of existing buildings in 
area
46
development of three pre-schematic building system approaches.  A concept board was 
designed based on each system and the ?pros and cons? of each system were evaluated.  
Each building system was developed on the same 3? x 3? x 3? module as the study models.  
Additionally, initial ideas on ?components? for each system were proposed.  
The ? rst system was named the ?Building Block System? (? g. 63)  It had its roots 
in the ?Lego? approach described above.  In this system, the basic component was the 
9? x 18? x 12? frame.  A skin cladding system would be used to complete the enclosure.  
Additionally, non-structural partitions and furnishings would be developed on the 3? 
x 3? module to de? ne interior space.  In this system, the section of the frame would be 
designed in such a way as to allow for dedicated mechanical runs.  The house would 
expand based on the 9? x 18? x 12? increment and could theoretically expand vertically as 
well as horizontally.   
The second system was the ?Scaffolding/In? ll System? (? g. 64)  In this system 
the components were a modulated structural frame, a cladding system, and lastly, a 
47
[Fig 60. Building Block System Concept Board][Fig 60. Building Block System Concept Board]
48
number of ?plug-in-play space? components.  The cladding system and the ?plug-in-play 
space? components were conceived being able to snap into the structural frame.  The 
?plug-in-play space? components would be composed of spaces such as kitchens, stairs, 
bathrooms, and bedrooms.  The structure and mechanical systems would be designed in 
such a way as to be able to receive these ?plug-in-play space? components in any given 
bay.  Thus with a number of prefabricated parts, the owner could easily layout his/her 
house to their individual wishes.  It is conceived that multiple variations on each of the 
standard ?plug-in-play space? components would be developed (ie, one could choose 
from any of twelve possible bathroom components).
The ? nal system was named the ?Weathering Shed / Internal Pod System? (? g. 
65).  In this system a more traditional shell or base building would be built, but not ? tted 
out with interior spaces.  All interior spaces would be developed as individual pods. The 
owner could then select which pods he/she wanted to in their home and arrange them in 
49
[Fig 61. Scaffolding / In?
 
ll System Concept Board]
[Fig 61. Scaffolding / In?
 
ll System Concept Board]
50
whatever manner best suited their family.  In this system the structure would be more or 
less ? xed, but the mechanical systems would be designed to allow the user to move the 
pods around in any way they wanted.
51
[Fig 62. 
Weathering Shed / Internal Pods Concept Board]
[Fig 62. 
W
eathering Shed / Internal Pods Concept Board]
52
Chapter 8:  System Design
Included in this chapter are the ? nal drawings for the MPA Project Housing System.  
These are the boards, in their original format (although reduced from 24? x 36? size), 
from the thesis defense held at the University of Maryland School of Architecture, 
Planning and Preservation on the 16
th
 of May, 2005. 
Reason Boards
The ?reason? or justi? cation for this project has largely been laid out over the past 
six chapters.  The purpose of these boards was to familiarize the guest jury to the area.  
Figure 64 begins to show in a more objective manner how critical this project is to the 
North Lawndale Community by emphasizing the more striking statistics.  
Figure 65 shows the housing matrix which was conceived during the pro-thesis 
semester and was used throughout the design semester to guide programmatic needs. 
Because this project has been conceived as an ever-changing house, it is not possible to 
propose a traditional ? xed program.  Certain rooms would be present at all stages, such 
as bathroom and kitchen, but sizes would never be ? xed.  Additionally certain people at 
different stages in life need different amenities.  Figure 65 shows how conceptually the 
unit and spaces could evolve with the owner over time
53
Reason
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Streets & Expressways Neighborhood Divisions
O
?
H
a
r
e
 
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
W
r
i
g
l
e
y
 
F
i
e
l
d
O
a
k
 
P
a
r
k
N
o
r
t
h
 
L
a
w
n
d
a
l
e
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
 
B
u
si
n
e
ss 
D
i
st
r
i
ct
 
(
T
h
e
 
L
o
o
p
)
M
i
d
w
a
y
 
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
U
S
 
C
e
l
l
u
l
a
r
 
O
n
e
 
F
i
e
l
d
(
C
o
m
i
sk
e
y
 
P
a
r
k
)
I
l
l
i
n
o
i
s 
I
n
st
i
t
u
t
e
 
o
f
 
T
e
ch
n
o
l
o
g
y
I
 
-
 
9
4
(
E
d
e
n
s 
E
x
p
y
)
I
 
-
 
9
4
(
K
e
n
n
e
d
y
 
E
x
p
y
)
I
 
-
 
2
9
0
(
E
i
se
n
h
o
w
e
r
 
E
x
p
y
)
N
o
r
t
h
 
L
a
w
n
d
a
l
e
I
 
-
 
5
5
(
S
t
e
v
e
n
so
n
 
E
x
p
y
)
I
 
-
 
9
4
(
D
a
n
 
R
y
a
n
 
E
x
p
y
)
I
 
-
 
9
0
(
S
k
y
w
a
y
)
I
 
-
 
9
4
(
B
i
sh
o
p
 
F
o
r
d
)
Mass Producing America Neighborhood Revitalization in North Lawndale - Chicago, IL Marcus A. Cross
[Fig 63. Pr
esentation Board ?Reason 1?]
54
Reason
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Proposed Figure Ground
Existing Figure Ground
Commercial Land Use
Educational Land Use
Religious Land Use
Current Area P
opulation
 
41,000
P
eak P
opulation
 
125,000 (1960)
Chicago Median F
amily Income 
 
$43,848
Area Median F
amily Income
 
$20,253
T
otal Area Housing Units
 
14,620
Owner Occupied Units  
22%
R
enter Occupied Units
 
62%
V
acant Units
 
15%
T
ypical Existing Densit
y
 
18 Dwelling Units / Acre
Proposed Densit
y
 
24 Dwelling Units / Acre
North Lawndale ZoningKey Statistics
[Fig 64. Pr
esentation Board ?Reason 2?]
55
Reason
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
[Fig 65. Pr
esentation Board ?Reason 3?]
56
Site Boards
Figure 66 shows that three-hundred-and-? fty-two lots within the MPA Project area 
have been identi? ed as potential building sites.  The majority of these lots are currently 
vacant (no structure standing on the site).  The remainder are either under-developed or 
are occupied by abandoned buildings.  
Given the size of the project area, the number of vacant parcels, and the vast variety 
of building types needed to ? ll those vacancies, it becomes necessary to develop some 
over-arching framework within which the architect can work.  To this end, the MPA 
Project is seen as a part of a larger revitalization effort encompassing the entire North 
Lawndale Community as described in chapter two.  Figure 66 shows how the project area 
will be divided. Corner and in? ll housing sites would be covered by the MPA Project.  
Retail and Commercial sites are left to a future, un-named developer.  Additionally, 
some sites located on Independence Boulevard which seem to be better suited for larger 
multi-family development are left for a future developer.  To this end the MPA Project is 
exclusively concerned with the development of in? ll and corner units (see ? g 67). 
Figures 68 and 69 show the response to the design guidelines proposed in chapter 6.  
The basic typology structure of a Chicago Two-Flat has been used as the starting point of 
the in? ll units.  The street facades have been treated in a way that is in keeping with the 
general character of the North Lawndale Community.  The exception would be the retail 
space that has been added to the ground ? oor of the corner building.
57
Site
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
S
t
u
d
y
 
A
r
e
a
 
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
 
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
 
S
i
t
e
s
Existing Conditions
139 In?
 
ll Unit Building Sites
1
3
9
 
I
n
?
 
l
l
 
U
n
i
t
 
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
 
S
i
t
e
s
33  Corner Unit Building Sites  
  Future Other Residential Sites
 
  Future Retail/Commercial Development
 
  Buildings to be Demolished 
[Fig 66. Pr
esentation Board ?Site 1?]
58
Site
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
[Fig 67. Pr
esentation Board ?Site 2?]
59
Site
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Unit Comparison
Typical Two-Flat Main Level
Zoning Restrictions
Typical Existing Section
Typical Facade
[Fig 68. Pr
esentation Board ?Site 3?]
60
Site
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Proposed Street Perspective
Parti In?  ll Site Strategies Street Edge
[Fig 69. Pr
esentation Board ?Site 4?]
61
Construction Boards
The major innovation of the MPA system can be seen in the construction drawings.  
As Fig 70 shows much of the construction process is traditional.  Through the use of SIPs 
(Structurally Insulated Panels), the overall time of construction would be reduced.  The 
use of sips has been restricted to the exterior structure of the home.  This was done to 
allow for exterior and interior ? nishes to be built to custom.  
Figure 71 highlights another key innovation, namely the use of a central distribution 
core in which all plumbing and HVAC are run.  The ? oor is composed of 4? wide 
prefabricated hollow slab that allows air to circulate through, creating a plenum.  The 
HVAC supplies are run through the core and simply end at the ? oor deck, thus there is no 
duct work required.  To maximize the ? exibility of the units, vents can be ?punched? in 
the ? oor deck as needed.  In the winter more air would be directed at the lower level since 
warm air rises and in the summer more air would be directed at the upper level since cool 
air will fall.
Plumbing is also handed through this distribution core. All plumbing needs are 
stacked around the core to keep from running pipes through partition walls.  All supply 
is handled through PEX ( PolyEthylene) piping.  This plastic tubing is more ? exible and 
allows the piping to weave between the studs of the core.  Additionally with this system, 
every ? xture in the house has its own individual shutoff valve located at the manifold in 
the basement.  This is a great bene? t if at anytime the piping needs to be replaced, as you 
can leave all unaffected ? xtures on and simply turn off the one that you are working on.
62
Construction
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Exterior Finishes
Excavation
Foundation
SIPs Construction
SIPs Construction
Item 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Material 
 
 
Labor 
 
 
 
Equipment 
 
T
otal 
 
 
 
% of T
otal 
Item 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Material 
 
 
Labor 
 
 
 
Equipment 
 
T
otal 
 
 
 
% of T
otal 
R
ough Carpentry 
 
 
 
$14,002.00 
 
$22,695.00 
 
-- 
 
 
 
 
$36,697.00 
 
17.8
Insulation 
 
 
 
 
 
$2,622.00 
 
$1,968.00 
 
-- 
 
 
 
 
$4,590.00 
 
2.2
Plumbing R
ough-in 
 
and Connection 
 
 
$2,132.00 
 
$5,686.00 
 
$324.00 
 
 
$8,142.00 
 
3.9
Heating and Cooling  
S
ystems 
 
 
 
 
 
$4,452.00 
 
$6,678.00 
 
-- 
 
 
 
 
$11,130.00 
 
5.4
Traditional Construction Cost
Structurally Insulated Panel
7/16? Skin7
/
1
6
?
 
S
k
i
n
 
(t
yp
. plywood,  
 
 
(
t
y
p
.
 
p
l
y
w
o
o
d
,
 
 
 
 
or osb)
 
o
r
 
o
sb
)
5-5/8? Core5
-
5
/
8
?
 
C
o
r
e
 
(F
oam 
 
(
F
o
a
m
 
 
Insulation)
 
I
n
su
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
2? Core R
ecess
2
?
 
C
o
r
e
 
R
e
ce
ss
F
oam Spline
F
o
a
m
 
S
p
l
i
n
e
2
x
 
B
o
t
t
o
m
 
P
l
a
t
e
P
artition W
alls
 
(
f
r
a
m
e
d
)
2
x
 
T
o
p
 
P
l
a
t
e
V
e
n
t
s
 
(
p
l
a
ce
d
 
a
s 
 
n
e
e
d
e
d
)
Interior FinishesI
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
 
F
i
n
i
sh
e
s
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
 
F
i
n
i
sh
e
s
Structural Air Plenum Floor Slab
3/4? Deck Hollow Core  (for passage of air) 1? W
ood T
russ Joists
[Fig 70. Pr
esentation Board ?Construction 1?]
63
Construction
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
HVAC Distribution
Plumbing Distribution
G
a
s 
V
e
n
t
R
eturn Air Duct
R
e
t
u
r
n
 
A
i
r
 
D
u
ct
Second Floor Deck / PlenumS
e
co
n
d
 
F
l
o
o
r
 
D
e
ck
 
/
 
P
l
e
n
u
m
S
e
co
n
d
 
F
l
o
o
r
 
D
e
ck
 
/
 
P
l
e
n
u
m
Second Floor SupplyS
e
co
n
d
 
F
l
o
o
r
 
S
u
p
p
l
y
S
e
co
n
d
 
F
l
o
o
r
 
S
u
p
p
l
y
2? x 4? Studs2
?
 
x
 
4
?
 
S
t
u
d
s
First Floor Deck / PlenumF
i
r
st
 
F
l
o
o
r
 
D
e
ck
 
/
 
P
l
e
n
u
m
F
i
r
st
 
F
l
o
o
r
 
D
e
ck
 
/
 
P
l
e
n
u
m
First Floor SupplyF
i
r
st
 
F
l
o
o
r
 
S
u
p
p
l
y
F
u
r
n
a
ce
Main SupplyM
a
i
n
 
S
u
p
p
l
y
Gas V
ent
G
a
s 
V
e
n
t
Air Admitance V
ent
A
i
r
 
A
d
m
i
t
a
n
ce
 
V
e
n
t
2? x 4? Studs2
?
 
x
 
4
?
 
S
t
u
d
s
W
aste Dr
ain
W
a
st
e
 
D
r
a
i
n
Flexible PEX Piping (Supply)F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
 
P
E
X
 
P
i
p
i
n
g
 
(
S
u
p
p
l
y
)
Main W
aste
M
a
i
n
 
W
a
st
e
Fresh W
ater Supply Manifold
F
r
e
sh
 
W
a
t
e
r
 
S
u
p
p
l
y
 
M
a
n
i
f
o
l
d
T
ank
-less Hot W
ater Heater
T
a
n
k
-
l
e
ss 
H
o
t
 
W
a
t
e
r
 
H
e
a
t
e
r
Heating Diagram Cooling Diagram Distribution Core
[Fig 71. Pr
esentation Board ?Construction 2?]
64
Construction
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Typical Facade SectionT
y
p
i
ca
l
 
F
a
ca
d
e
 
S
e
ct
i
o
n
F
l
a
sh
i
n
g
 
/
 
C
o
u
n
t
e
r
 
F
l
a
sh
i
n
g
4
?
 
P
a
r
a
p
e
t
F
o
a
m
 
I
n
su
l
a
t
i
o
n
 
(
S
l
o
p
e
d
 
f
o
r
 
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
)
P
r
e
-
f
a
b
r
i
ca
t
e
d
 
S
t
e
e
l
 
S
h
a
d
i
n
g
 
M
e
m
b
e
r
P
r
e
-
f
a
b
r
i
ca
t
e
d
 
R
o
o
f
 
D
e
ck
P
r
e
-
f
a
b
r
i
ca
t
e
d
 
F
l
o
o
r
 
D
e
ck
B
r
i
ck
 
V
e
n
e
e
r
 
F
a
ca
d
e
S
I
P
P
r
e
f
a
b
r
i
ca
t
e
d
 
P
o
r
ch
 
D
e
ck
L
o
w
e
r
 
T
e
r
r
a
ce
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
 
C
o
n
cr
e
t
e
 
F
o
o
t
i
n
g
C
M
U
 
R
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
 
W
a
l
l
Flashing /Counter Flashing W
aterproo?
 
ng Membr
ane
F
oam Insulation 
(Sloped for dr
ainage)
Pre-fabricated roof deck Standard W
ood Flooring
Pre-fabricated ?
 
oor deck
4-Hour CMU Fire W
all
SIPs Exterior Circulation Prefabricated Steel Deck 2? x 4? Internal P
artition 
W
all
Exterior Stor
age
Standard concrete footing
Typical In?
 
ll Cross Section
[Fig 72. Pr
esentation Board ?Construction 3?]
65
Image Boards & Flexibility Boards
Finally, the Image and ? exibility boards are intended to give an idea of what the 
system could produce.  It is not necessarily the case that there is a one for one match up 
between the facades and the unit plans, rather the idea is that any of the facades could be 
interchangeable with almost any of the unit plans.  
The major difference in the in? ll plans are the sections.  In research it became clear 
that the difference between an ?affordable? house and a luxury home was determined 
in large part by the presence of a double height space.  Since the MPA system is aimed 
at providing housing for everyone from a large family to newlyweds, the sectional 
difference became critical.
All plans show an accessory apartment option over the garage, some show an 
English basement accessory apartment as well.  In other instances the basement has been 
used as a home of? ce or a large family room.  
The retail space in the corner building is conceived as a small caf? or other 
establishment to be used primarily by the local residents.  No additional parking is 
provided as it is anticipated that all patrons would be in walking distance.  Moreover 
because of the limited amount of square footage, the type of retail is highly limited to 
things which would not offend the neighbors.
The facades are the result of the design guidelines and design development over the 
course of a semester.  Some options are better suited for units with double height space 
in the front, while other are better suited for units with two independent ? oors.  One 
option shows the possibility of a root top terrace, where the railing actually completes the 
66
requirement of making the building appear to be 30? tall.  
The interior perspectives are intended to show the variation of space created 
through the location of the double height space.  Interior ? nishes are not speci? ed in too 
much detail, as these are options that are best left to the owners? individual taste.
67
Flexibility
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
BasementMain LevelUpper Level
Alternative Alternative Main Unit: 2,180 sf  
3 Bedrooms
 
2.5 Bath
 
Kitchen/Living/Dining
 
Family Room
 
Study Area
 
Home Of?
 
ce
Rear Accessory Unit: 456 sf
S
i
n
g
l
e
 F
a
m
i
l
y
 O
p
t
i
o
n
[Fig 73. Pr
esentation Board ?Flexibility 1?]
68
Flexibility
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
BasementMain LevelUpper Level
Alternative Alternative
Main Unit: 1,413 sf  
2 Bedrooms
 
3.5 Bath
 
Kitchen/Living/Dining
 
Family Room
Lower Level Accessory Unit: 560 sf Rear Accessory Unit: 456 sf
Lofted OptionL
o
f
t
e
d
 O
p
t
i
o
n
[Fig 74. Pr
esentation Board ?Flexibility 2?]
69
Flexibility
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Alternative Alternative
Main Unit: 2,472 sf  
5 Bedrooms
 
3.5 Bath
 
Kitchen/Living/Dining
 
Family Room
 
Study Area
Rear Accessory Unit: 456 sf
M
o
d
i
f
e
d
 T
w
o
 -
 F
l
a
t
 O
p
t
i
o
n
BasementMain LevelUpper Level
[Fig 75. Pr
esentation Board ?Flexibility 3?]
70
Flexibility
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Main Level
Alternative
Corner Mixed - Use Option
Alternative A l t e r n a t i v e
[Fig 76. Pr
esentation Board ?Flexibility 4?]
71
Image
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Interior View of Living Room
Lofted Option
[Fig 77. Pr
esentation Board ?Image 1?]
72
Image
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Interior View into Dining Room & Kitchen
Single Family Option
[Fig 78. Pr
esentation Board ?Image 2?]
73
Image
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Interior View of English Basement Unit
Modified Two - Flat Option
[Fig 79. Pr
esentation Board ?Image 3?]
74
Image
university of maryland . school of architecture, planning, & pr
eservation . 2005 spring thesis
050516 MPA PROJECT
Interior View of Ground Level Cafe
Corner Mixed-Use Option
[Fig 80. Pr
esentation Board ?Image 4?]
75
Chapter 10:  Conclusion
The question of affordable housing is not new.  It has been and continues to be a 
heated source of discussion and debate amongst architects.  Le Corbusier?s worker?s 
housing at Pessac France, Walter Gropius and Konrad Wachsmann?s General Panel 
System, Buckminster Fuller?s Dymaxion House, The Luxston Housing Corporation, 
Operation Breakthrough, the list goes on and on.  All of these were architectural attempts 
to provide good housing to the masses relying primarily on cutting edge technology, 
gadgetry, and in some cases technology that was simply insuf? cient to match industry 
demands.  All these provided provocative architectonic and aesthetic solutions to the 
question of housing that continue to inspire the architectural community.  While each of 
these projects can and should be praised for advancing the cause of affordable housing, 
one cannot overlook the simple fact that if judged by their own initial claims of greatness, 
each of them failed.
I propose that there are at least two major lessons that can be learned from this 
phenomenon.  The ? rst is that, any serious attempt to solve the housing problem in 
this country will be one that works with and advances standard, conventional building 
technologies and practices ? not one that attempts to replace them.  This is a hard and 
disturbing fact for many of us to face (especially those in the world of academia).  The 
creative and idealistic side of us begs to believe that we can and should re-invent the 
wheel, and that somehow we can make it better.  The truth that I have discovered in this 
process is that the housing industry already makes an exceptionally good ?wheel?.  The 
traditional stick-built house is fast to construct, relatively cheap to build, and really quite 
76
easy to customize to an owner?s personal taste.  It is exceptionally dif? cult to ? nd a 
reason for the housing industry to embrace any other form of construction.  
The second lesson is that the link between modular, panelized, prefabricated 
systems and the affordable housing problem tends to be much stronger conceptually than 
it is in reality.  In exploring these options I was continuously confronted by the problem 
of designing overly complicated connections that would actually drive the cost of the 
unit up.  Not to mention the cost and complications of moving large blocks of buildings 
to the site (this is not at all impossible, however it can not be denied that it adds another 
layer of complexity and potential cost to the problem).  These problems tend to magnify 
themselves considerably when one moves down in scale from multi-family housing to 
single family housing.  The economics of these systems do not seem to work at the scale 
of this project.  
The system proposed by the MPA Project takes advantage of both of these lessons.  
Through the use of SIPs, labor and onsite construction cost are reduced.  Through the use 
of the heating/cooling core, material cost on duct work and labor are reduced.  Moreover 
this system, by providing a fairly generic shell of a building and allowing complete 
customization of select key elements (the street fa?ade, and interior organization) could 
easily compete with the ? exibility of a stick-built home.
In the end, the project may be criticized for being too ?traditional,? both in its 
construction and its aesthetics.  However, in the course of design I arrived at a fork in 
the road.  To the left was the alluring possibility of designing a ?new way? of doing 
things ? a strictly prefabricated modular home, better than all of the systems proposed in 
the past century (not an easy task to accomplish in one semester).  To the right was real 
77
problem of a neighborhood in desperate need of a viable housing solution.  For many of 
the reasons already discussed, it became clear that these two options were not compatible.  
It was not a light decision to choose the right side, but it should be understood that 
this decision was quite deliberate.  While the resulting system may be criticized for its 
traditional nature, it can only be praised for its honest solution to a real problem.
78
Works Cited
Andrejavic, Mark.  Reality TV the Work of Being Watched.  Boulder: Rowman and 
Little? eld, 2004
Arieff, Allison, and Burkhart, Bryan.  Prefab. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 2002
Bell, Bryan, ed. Good Deeds, Good Design: Community Service Through Architecture.  
New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2004
Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn, What Happens After They?re Built. New York: 
Penguin, 1995.
Duffy, Francis, et al.  Design for Change: The Architecture of DEGW.  Haslemere: 
Watermark Publications, 1998
Graf, John.  Images of America: Chicago?s Parks.  Chicago: Arcadia, 2000
Herbers, Jill.  Prefab Modern.  New York: Harper Design International, 2004
HICA, Inc.  H.I.C.A. West Side Redevelopment Plan.  Chicago, HICA, Inc., 1992
Keating, W. Dennis, and Krumholz, Norman.   Rebuilding Urban Neighborhoods: 
Achievements, Opportunities, and Limits.  New York: Sage Publications, 1999
Kendall, Stephen. Open Building, A New Approach to Multifamily Architecture, 
Interior Design, and Construction.  [USA]: n.p., 1994
Kieran, Stephen, and Timberlake, James. Refabricating Architecture: How 
Manufacturing Methods are Poised to Transform Building Construction. New 
York: McGraw-Hill, 2004
Moudon, Anne Vernez.  Built for Change: Neighborhood Architecture in San 
Francisco.  Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1986
Reisley, Roland, and Timpane, John.  Usonia, New York: Building a Commuinity with 
Frank Lloyd Wright.  New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2001
79
Schachter, Jason P. ?Geographical Mobility: 2002 to 2003, Population 
Characteristics.?  Washington DC: US Census Bureau, 2004
Suchman, Dian R. ?Homan Square Chicago, Illinois.? The Urban Land Institute 
Project Reference File  26.11 (July-September 1996)
Urban Land Institute. North Lawndale Chicago, IL: An Evolution of Potential and 
Strategies.  Washington DC: Urban Land Institute, 1986
Wittman, Timothy N.  Five houses on Avers Avenue district : 1942, 1950, 1952, 1958, 
and 2102 South Avers Avenue, Chicago, Illinois : preliminary staff summary of 
information.  Chicago: City of Chicago, 1990