ABSTRACT 
 
 
 
 
Title of Document: PREPARING FOR LIFE AFTER 
HOMELESSNESS: TRANSITIONAL 
HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS 
  
 Katarina E Svensson, M.Arch, 2015 
  
Directed By: Associate Professor Ronit Eisenbach, Chair 
University of Maryland, School of Architecture, 
Planning and Preservation 
 
 
Homelessness is a state to recover from, not a problem to fix. Currently in the 
United States, there are three main strategies provided for aiding the homeless: 
emergency shelters, permanent housing, and transitional housing. Emergency shelters 
provide temporary services, however they are often associated with crime, filth, and 
danger1. Permanent housing programs aim to get the homeless of the street and into 
housing while providing social services, yet places the burden of proof on applicants. 
Transitional housing however provides temporary living situations and supportive 
services with an ultimate goal of helping homeless individuals and families prepare to 
reenter permanent housing, transition to independent living, and become productive 
members of society.  
This thesis focuses on models of transitional and supportive housing, and how 
through design, the needs of homeless individuals and families are best provided for 
through services. This thesis explores how locating programs and facilities in the 
underserved community of Harlem Park Baltimore, MD can integrate two 
communities that have been isolated and neglected. 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 Sam Davis, Designing for the Homeless: Architecture that Works (California: University of 
California Press, Nov 29, 2004), 18-19. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By 
 
 
  Katarina Svensson 
 
 
 
 
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the  
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of 
[Master of Architecture] 
[2015] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisory Committee: 
Associate Professor Ronit Eisenbach, Chair 
Clinical Associate Professor  Michael Ambrose 
Professor Steven Hurtt 
 
 
 
 
 
PREPARING FOR LIFE AFTER HOMELESSNESS: 
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
\ 
 
© Copyright by  
Katarina Svensson 
[2015] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The thesis document that follows has had referenced material removed in respect for 
the owner’s copyright. A complete version of this document, which includes said 
referenced material, resides in the University of Maryland, College Park’s library 
collection
  ii 
 
Dedication 
I dedicate this project to my mom, Denise Svensson. Without her strength and 
support I would not be here today finishing my thesis and addressing a topic so close 
to home. 
  iii 
 
Acknowledgements 
I thank Ronit Eisenbach, Michael Ambrose, Michael Sisson, and everyone who has 
helped me through this process. Thank you for encouraging me and challenging me to 
discover as much as I can during this process. Thank you for supporting me and my 
love for Architecture.  
  iv 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Dedication ..................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... iii 
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... iv 
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. vi 
Introduction ................................................................................................................... x 
Chapter 1: Homelessness in the United States .............................................................. 1 
Section 1: Defining Homelessness............................................................................ 1 
Section 2: Homeless Populations in the United States ............................................. 2 
Homeless in the United States: ............................................................................. 2 
The State of Homeless in Baltimore, Maryland.................................................... 4 
Section 3: History of the Homeless in the United States from the 1930’s to the 
Present ..................................................................................................................... 10 
1930’s Homeless ................................................................................................. 10 
Homeless from 1940’s – 1970’s ......................................................................... 11 
Homeless from 1980’s to the Present ................................................................. 11 
Section 4:Causes of Homelessness ......................................................................... 12 
Section 5: The Stigma of Homelessness ................................................................. 14 
Chapter 2: On Home and Homelessness ..................................................................... 17 
Section 1: Vernacular .............................................................................................. 17 
Section 2: What Makes Home?............................................................................... 17 
Section 3: Loss of Home ......................................................................................... 21 
Chapter 3: Housing the Homeless in the United States .............................................. 23 
Section 1:Types of Programs .................................................................................. 23 
Section 2:Transitional Housing............................................................................... 24 
Section 3:Architectural Precedence and Typology ................................................. 27 
The Bridge Homeless Assistance Center ............................................................ 27 
Shelter Home for the Homeless .......................................................................... 29 
Residential Home for the Elderly  ...................................................................... 34 
Society of St. Vincent de Paul ............................................................................ 36 
Chapter 4:  Program Development ............................................................................. 43 
Section 1: Overall Program ..................................................................................... 43 
Section 2: Program Process .................................................................................... 44 
Chapter 5: Site Selection and Analysis ....................................................................... 49 
Section 1:Criteria and City Selection ...................................................................... 49 
Section 2: Harlem Park ........................................................................................... 56 
History of Harlem Park Neighborhood ............................................................... 56 
Harlem Park Project ............................................................................................ 61 
Harlem Park after the Demostration Project ....................................................... 68 
Section 3:Harlem Park a Homeless Neighborhood ................................................ 72 
Section 4:Harlem Park Site Selection & Analysis .................................................. 74 
Typologies........................................................................................................... 77 
Areas of Opportunity .......................................................................................... 79 
  v 
 
Chapter 7: Design Development ................................................................................. 86 
Section 1: Program Development ........................................................................... 86 
Section 2: Program and Massing ............................................................................ 89 
Section 3: Incubator Retail……..…………………………………………………96 
Section 4: Social Services ....................................................................................... 97 
Section 5: Transitional Housing Units .................................................................. 101 
Section 6: Education and Community Center ....................................................... 107 
Section 7: Conclusion ........................................................................................... 109 
Chapter 8: Response to Public Presentation ............................................................. 111 
Section 1: Panel Response .................................................................................... 111 
Section 2: Funding ................................................................................................ 111 
Section 3: Urban and Site Planning ...................................................................... 112 
Section 4: The Courtyard ...................................................................................... 113 
Section 5: Space Planning ..................................................................................... 114 
Section 6: Conclusions from Public Presentation ................................................. 116 
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 119 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  vi 
 
List of Figures 
 
Figure 1: US Map of Estimates of Homeless People.  
Figure 2: Bar graph of Homeless Populations and Subpopulations 
Figure 3: Bar Graph of Homeless Populations in Maryland and its Cities 
 
Figure 4: Table of Homeless Household Compositions in Baltimore 
Figure 5: Graph of Race and Education in Baltimore 
Figure 6: Graph of Homeless in Baltimore 
Figure 7: Graph of Unemployment Rates in Baltimore 
Figure 8: Renters in Baltimore Spending More Than 30% of Income on Rent   
Figure 9: Causes of Homelessness 
Figure 10: Program Use of Space in The Bridge Homeless Assistance Center 
Figure 11: Types of Housing Units 
Figure 12: Programmatic Use by the Transitional Shelter 
Figure 13: Programmatic Use by the Hostel 
Figure 14: Separation of Populations 
Figure 15: Program and Building Parti 
Figure 16: Shared Spaces 
Figure 17: Levels of Privacy 
Figure 18: Unit Types 
Figure 19: Housing Site Organization 
Figure 20: Building Type and Spatial Organization 
Figure 21: Programmatic Use of Space 
Figure 22: Floor Plans and Use of Space 
  vii 
 
Figure 23: Sectional Division of Space 
Figure 24: Stages of Transitional Housing 
Figure 25: Program and Spatial Connections for 1 Bedroom Units 
Figure 26: Program and Spatial Connections for Studio/Dormitory Units 
Figure 27: Program and Spatial Connections for Family Units  
Figure 28: Neighborhoods in Baltimore, MD with High Numbers of Homeless 
Populations 
 
Figure 29: Public Transportation in Baltimore, MD 
Figure 30: Services for the Homeless in Relation to Homeless Neighborhoods in 
Baltimore, MD 
 
Figure 31: Status of Baltimore Neighborhoods 
Figure 32: Harlem Park Neighborhood Baltimore, MD 
Figure 33: Upton Neighborhood Baltimore, MD 
Figure 34: Harlem Park 1870 
Figure 35: Harlem Park Building Typology 1800-1900’s 
Figure 36: Harlem Park Project Intervention 
Figure 37: Row House Floor Plans from the Harlem Park Project 1965 
 
Figure 38: Torti Gallas Charleston House Intervention in Harlem Park 
Figure 39: Harlem Park 1993 
Figure 40: Harlem Park 2000 
Figure 41: Homeless Process for the Individual or Family 
Figure 42: Intervention comes to Harlem Park 
Figure 43: Harlem Park Neighborhood Zoning Code 
Figure 44: Harlem Park Ammenities 
Figure 45: Site Figure Ground 
  viii 
 
Figure 46: Block Typology Changes 
Figure 47: Comparison of needs between the housed and homeless 
Figure 48: Areas of Opportunity 
Figure 49: Public Transportation 
Figure 50: Public Buildings in Harlem Park 
Figure 51: Religious Buildings in Harlem Park 
Figure 52: Commercial Buildings in Harlem Park 
Figure 53: Residential Buildings in Harlem Park 
Figure 54: Final Site Conditions 
Figure 55: Final Site Selection 
Figure 56: Vacant Land and Properties Near and on Site 
Figure 57: Building Program and Program Connections 
Figure 58: Integration of Transitional Housing, Communal Spaces, and 
Communities 
 
Figure 59: Bringing the Housed and Homeless Together through Space 
Figure 60: Program Placement on Site 
Figure 61: General Massing on Site 
Figure 62: Courtyard Typology of Harlem Park and Site Intervention 
Figure 63: Aerial View of Harlem Park Mariposa House 
Figure 64: Site Plan 
Figure 65: Program use of Site Plan 
Figure 66: Floor Plans of Levels 2-5 
Figure 67: Retail Program 
Figure 68: Incubator Retail 
  ix 
 
Figure 69:  Social Services Program  
Figure 70: Social Services Plan 
Figure 71: Social Services Entrance 
Figure 72: Therapy Room 
Figure 73: Floor Plan of Social Services 
Figure 74: Floor Plan of Second Floor Health Center  
Figure 75: Analysis of Housing and its Facades 
Figure 76: Program of Living Units  
Figure 77: Ground Floor of Living Unis 
Figure 78: Unit Types found in Mariposa House 
Figure 79: Second Floor Plan of Living Units 
Figure 80: Childcare Services 
Figure 81: Family Living Unit 
Figure 82: Individual Living Unit 
Figure 83: Common Room 
Figure 84: Level 1-4 of Education and Community Center 
Figure 85: Public Library 
  x 
 
Introduction 
This thesis explores the state of homelessness that provides a transition from 
being placeless to one of strength and independence. Homelessness is a state to 
recover from, not a problem to fix. People become homeless when they lose their 
residence, are unable to find new dwelling accommodations, and cannot convince 
anyone to provide shelter. It is a state that plagues all cities, for which current policy 
relies on shelters and subsidized housing to alleviate conditions. In providing for the 
homeless two main issues must be approached; housing and supportive services. 
Permanent housing is currently seen by the State of Maryland as the singular 
and ultimate solution to homelessness. Current programs provide temporary shelter, 
supportive services, and subsidized housing. But permanent housing solutions are 
primarily for the chronically homeless, and often require proof of a permanent 
disability that will keep a person or family from recovering. This does not provide for 
the recently homeless or for individuals and families that do not need long term 
support or do not fit the criteria. Transitional housing provides stable living 
arrangements combined with professional support and education with the intent that 
residents become independent once more. 
This thesis will analyze the psychological and sociological impacts of 
homelessness and how they can be alleviated through architecture. The main focus 
will be on three points; the first, of reintegrating the homeless with the surrounding 
community by designing a shelter as a community asset. The second consideration 
must be meeting the specific needs of the homeless. Finally the design must take into 
account the concept of home and loss. While transitional housing is a temporary 
  xi 
 
accommodation it is important that the architecture provide a sense of stability and 
safety:  a place like home. 
  1 
 
Chapter 1: Homelessness in the United States 
 
Section 1: Defining Homelessness 
People become homeless when they lose their residence, are unable to find new 
dwelling accommodations, and cannot convince anyone to provide shelter. According 
to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, a person is 
considered homeless when he or she resides in one of the following places or 
conditions listed: 
 places not meant for human habitation (cars, parks, sidewalks, abandoned 
buildings) 
 emergency shelters 
 supportive housing 
 supportive programs after hospitalization or incarceration 
 evicted from a residence with no subsequent housing or support 
 or fleeing domestic violence with no subsequent housing or support 
Homelessness is further defined as an individual who lacks housing, including one 
whose primary residence during the night is a supervised public or private facility that 
provides temporary living accommodations; an individual who is a resident of 
transitional housing, or an individual who has as a primary residence in a public or 
private place not designated for, or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping 
  2 
 
accommodation for human beings2. To be homeless, is to feel “the absence of 
belonging to a place and with the people settled there”3. 
Section 2: Homeless Populations in the United States 
Homeless in the United States: 
Currently in the United States at any one point there are approximately 
633,782 people who are experiencing homelessness. Of the 633,782 the majority of 
the population consists of individual adults, approximately 394,379.  Individuals are 
defined by the HUD as people who are not part of a family and may include 
unaccompanied youth under the age of 24 during their episode of homelessness. 
Veterans and unaccompanied are another set of subpopulations accounting for 
approximately 62,619 individuals. Families make up 38 percent of the homeless 
population, broken down to 239,403 people in 77, 157 households. 
                                                 
2 " Homelessness - Homeless Assistance - CPD - HUD." Homes and 
Communities - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 29 Feb. 
2009 <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/chronic.cfm>. 
 
3 Hart, Mechthild U. Psychological, Political, and Cultural Meanings of Home. New York: Haworth, 
2005. 
 
  3 
 
022 
Figure 1: US Map of Estimates of Homeless People.  
Image by AHAR The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
  
 
Figure 2: Bar graph of Homeless Populations and Subpopulations  
Image by AHAR The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
 
  4 
 
Of the various populations and subpopulations, the HUD defines various 
states of homelessness based on how long one has been homeless and their state of 
shelter. These states include: 
Sheltered: one must be staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing 
programs, or safe havens 
Unsheltered: include people with primary nighttime residence that is a public 
or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping 
accommodation for human beings 
Chronically Homeless: one must be continuously homeless for a period of one 
year or more; or experienced a minimum of four episodes of homelessness 
within the past three years. 
A term not defined by the HUD but important to consider, is the category of the 
newly homeless. These are individuals or families that have been homeless for less 
than half a year and are experiencing their first episode. The newly homeless and 
those at risk of becoming homeless receive less assistance from programs, and often 
their situation are chronic symptoms of issues that have lead others becoming 
homeless. The newly homeless are also more likely to seek help and services as well 
as desire to reenter permanent housing. 
The State of Homeless in Baltimore, Maryland 
In the State of Maryland, including the District of Columbia approximately 
15,070 residents are homeless. As of January 27, 2013 approximately 2,638 homeless 
persons were counted during the City of Baltimore’s Point in Time (PIT) census of 
the homeless. Upon analyzing the PIT count it was found that “Over four of every 
  5 
 
1,000 Baltimore City residents are homeless – more than three times the rate of 
homelessness in the State of Maryland as a whole…Despite having only 11% of 
Maryland’s population, 32% of homeless persons in the state reside in Baltimore 
City”4  
Figure 3: Bar Graph of Homeless Populations in Maryland and its Cities 
Image by the 2013 Homeless Point in Time Count Report."  Mayor’s Office of 
Human Resources 
 
Baltimore City has a high rate of homelessness that surpasses the overall State 
of Maryland’s rate. The homeless population of Baltimore City is mainly comprised 
of adults without children as shown in Figure 4. These are individuals or households 
that are primarily African American or Caucasian in demographic, and have primarily 
received a high school education or similar equivalent (Figure 5). 
 
                                                 
4 "2013 Homeless Point in Time Count Report."  Mayor’s Office of Human Resources. 
City of Baltimore 2013. 
 
  6 
 
 
` 
 
Figure 4: Table of Homeless Household Compositions in Baltimore 
Image by the 2013 Homeless Point in Time Count Report."  Mayor’s Office of 
Human Resources 
 
 
 
Figure 5: Graph of Race and Education in Baltimore 
Image by the 2013 Homeless Point in Time Count Report."  Mayor’s Office of 
Human Resources 
 
 
Within Baltimore’s homeless population, various subpopulations and their specific 
needs become prominent. The largest subpopulations include those with chronic 
health problems, the formerly institutionalized, and those who lack in education and 
income. These populations have the greatest need for assistance 
A number of factors contribute to Baltimore’s high volume of homelessness.  
  7 
 
While increased federal spending on solutions and the implementation of a 10 year 
plan to end homelessness has kept numbers from rising substantially, continuous 
trends in housing cost burden and slow economic recovery has prevented substantial 
decreases in homelessness. This can be seen in Figures 6, 7, and 8. As stated by the 
Baltimore City’s 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness: 
 
 “Homelessness is a complex problem caused primarily by a lack of 
affordable housing, lack of affordable healthcare, low incomes, and a lack 
of comprehensive services.” 
 
 
Figure 6: Graph of Homeless in Baltimore 
Image by the 2013 Homeless Point in Time Count Report."  Mayor’s Office of 
Human Resources 
  8 
 
 
 
Figure 7: Graph of Unemployment Rates in Baltimore 
Image by the 2013 Homeless Point in Time Count Report."  Mayor’s Office of 
Human Resources 
 
 
  9 
 
 
Figure 8: Graph of Renters in Baltimore Spending More Than 30% of Income on 
Rent  Image by the 2013 Homeless Point in Time Count Report."  Mayor’s Office of 
Human Resources 
 
 
As a part of the mayor’s “The Journey Home” campaign and the city’s 10-Year Plan 
to End Homelessness, the City of Baltimore calls for the expansion of “Housing 
First” to 500 units; increasing access to employment and training for homeless 
persons, and increase healthcare services. The plan avoids shelters in favor of placing 
homeless individuals in supported apartments and housing units. However according 
to those who responded to the PIT census of 2013, up to 35% were on a waitlist for 
subsidized permanent housing and stayed in emergency shelters5. While the plan has 
been successful in keeping numbers from rising, the lack in services and funding has 
kept the plan from making substantial impacts in the city. Thus this project proposes 
                                                 
5 "2013 Homeless Point in Time Count Report."  Mayor’s Office of Human Resources. City of 
Baltimore 2013. 
 
  10 
 
transitional housing as a means to provide shelter and services while preparing to 
enter permanent housing.  
 
Section 3: History of the Homeless in the United States from the 1930’s to the Present 
Homelessness is a state that has most likely always existed in the United 
States and elsewhere. However it is a state that has developed and changed with time. 
This section will analyze the patterns of social awareness and reactions to the 
problem of homelessness in the United States. 
1930’s Homeless 
The Great Depression of the 1930’s marked one of the first times 
homelessness became a wide spread and highly prominent problem in American 
society, that also lead to some of the first social programs for the homeless. The 
‘Depression Homeless’ were often single men or families, whose loss of home 
followed their loss of employment. Often they were housed in police station lodgings, 
warehouse shelters, or most iconic, the Hoovervilles (shanty towns). As previously 
stated, the Great Depression during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency led to the 
implementation of social programs, primarily the Civilian Conservation Corps 
(CCC). This program provided men with skills and work while working towards 
solving the ecological problem of the dust bowl which aggravated the economic 
situation of the United States. 
 
  11 
 
Homeless from 1940’s – 1970’s 
Following the Great Depression, the period of time between 1940 and 1970 
continued to see trends of homelessness in the population and society finding ways to 
house and aid the homeless. This became known as the Skid Row Era of the ‘Old 
Homeless’.  The Old Homeless were still primarily single men. However many of 
these men were sheltered and had listed residences, some managing to retain 
employment. These men were considered homeless primarily due to living outside of 
what was considered the traditional family environment. During the Skid Row Era, 
emergency shelters were available to the homeless, but most resided in Single Room 
Occupancy (SRO) hotels, more commonly known as Flop Houses. SRO’s are 
successful at housing the homeless, as they provide an affordable address. However, 
simply providing affordable housing did not help the homeless with other problems 
such as obtaining or maintaining employment, physical health issues, and one of the 
main causes of homelessness: substance abuse. 
 
Homeless from 1980’s to the Present 
The Skid Row Era was followed by another drastic increase in homelessness 
during the 1980’s. Starting with the Reagan Era and continuing through today, is 
what is now considered the ‘New Homeless’ marked by social problems associated 
with poverty and lack of affordable housing.  Cuts to social services, cuts to spending 
programs for the poor, urban renewal linked to gentrification, and loss of affordable 
housing have all contributed to the increase in homelessness. The Reagan Era 
specifically closed many institutions that housed people with mental and physical 
  12 
 
disabilities. Due to these disabilities they were unable to care for themselves or 
survive in society independently. At the time they were both placed in these 
institutions as well as the time they were forced out, they were considered threats to 
themselves and to society. This time period is called the New Homeless, because a 
new population arose. While men still made up a large part of the homeless 
population, now there was an increase in women, children, families, and minorities. 
While the Reagan era saw cuts to social services, more recently the primary focus has 
been supportive housing with inclusive services. There are three forms of supportive 
housing: emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent housing. With 
increased awareness of the homeless, more has been done to aid and find shelter. The 
form and program of services however is heavily influenced by society’s views. 
 
Section 4:Causes of Homelessness 
Starting with the 1980’s analysis of contemporary homelessness and 
continuing to today, there have been two prevailing explanations for the cause of 
homelessness. The first explanation was based on the prominent population of the 
homeless who were ‘troubled’ or ‘troublesome’; the  assumption in this case being 
that people were homeless because something was wrong with them. The response to 
this characterization of homelessness among policy makers was that either the system 
had failed to help people, or that the homeless should shoulder the burden and take 
responsibility for getting better. This path has resulted in laws that make conditions or 
results of homelessness illegal, such as: squatting, panhandling, and loitering in 
public spaces. Housing and services are currently in more demand than can be met. 
  13 
 
The proposed solution to this problem has been efforts to increase the construction 
and supply of low-income housing and services. Today this has been implemented as 
the primary solution to homelessness,. 
The causes of homelessness can further be found in two categories: economic 
factors and or personal factors. Economic factors often include: availability of 
affordable housing, the burden of rent, availability and access to social services, and 
availability of employment. Personal factors are more extensive and include: loss of 
employment, eviction by family or others, domestic violence, incarceration, mental 
and physical disabilities, changes in family status, substance abuse, and the 
experience of situational crises. A person’s past history with poverty, homelessness, 
or institutionalization may also contribute.  
 
Figure 9: Causes of Homelessness 
  14 
 
Image created by Katarina Svensson, Data from AHAR 2013 Census 
All these factors put people at risk, and while it is feasible for any one of these 
factors to trigger homelessness, most often it is a combination of them. Factors can be 
bundled together based on how they are interrelated, and it is common for people of 
all status or income level to acquire any number or combinations of factors. While 
these can be identified, determining the probability of becoming homeless cannot be 
assigned.  
There is no single or simple solution to homelessness. Identifying the factors 
that contribute to homelessness in this thesis will impact the architecture of the 
project including choices made in site and program. This project is particularly 
program driven, for it is in program and use of space that architecture can begin to 
resolve or alleviate the causes of homelessness. Elements such as educational 
facilities for adults and children, and mental or physical health facilities will influence 
the integration and manipulation of spaces within transitional housing. What cannot 
be programmed on site should then be found or located nearby. 
Section 5: The Stigma of Homelessness 
What has been alluded to in the previous section and will be further covered in this 
and other chapters is the stigma of homelessness and how it has affected the political 
and sociological responses. Stigma is defined as a mark of disgrace associated with a 
particular circumstance, quality, or person6. Goffman describes it as “an attribute that 
                                                 
6 Gove, Philip Babcock. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English 
Language. Unabridged ed. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam, 1967. 
  15 
 
is socially defined as ‘deeply discrediting’, spoiling one’s identity and disqualifying 
one from full social acceptance”7. 
 In the past, homelessness was romanticized. There was freedom in not having 
a home; one could travel the rails, go where one pleased, and chose what work to do. 
Today we have panhandlers and bag ladies.  The homeless are considered a 
marginalized and liminal population, whose place in society is close to nonexistent. 
Theirs is a state that is unresolved and characterized by instability. This is a view that 
is revealed in society’s call for assimilation or criminalization of the homeless. It is 
further reflected in how the homeless have come to view themselves:  
“There is no place for a homeless person. I always feel out of place, no 
matter where I am. I feel I shouldn’t be there, I’m not wanted there… I 
feel I’ve lost my citizenship. I have not rights and no responsibilities. 
No one cares what I do. I have no connection with the society I grew 
up in.” 
 -A homeless person, quoted in Eliot Liebow, Tell Them Who I Am 
Society fears the homeless and often feels the need to protect themselves from 
those who have lost their place. This comes from the concept that the homeless 
represent the pathologies of mankind including: alcoholism, drug abuse, poor 
parenting, abuse, violence, and squalor; resulting in the many stigmas of today. Some 
of the more common stigmas include the beggar as a parasite and consuming agency, 
another useless mouth to feed. There is also the thought that their situation is one they 
have brought on themselves and they are in this state because something is wrong 
with them. On the other hand, there is also the notion of the victim of circumstance. 
Society tries to aid the homeless through social programs and shelters. While 
                                                 
7 Goffman, Erving. Stigma; Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, 
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. 
  16 
 
intentions are well meant, decisions are made by communities and policy makers with 
the implicit attitude of Not in My Backyard.  
With the understanding that stigmas of homelessness are prevalent in 
American society, this thesis must take into consideration societal acceptance, and 
strategies for gaining acceptance. It is common for people to want to ignore the 
existence of problems, returning to the theme of Not in My Backyard. How to select a 
site for this thesis will heavily depend on overcoming the views and opinions of the 
surrounding community. Beyond societal acceptance, the internalization of stigmas 
amongst the homeless must also be considered. By reimagining transitional housing 
and shelters as community assets, social barriers between the homeless and 
communities will begin to lessen and a debunking of the myth and stigma of 
homelessness.  
  17 
 
Chapter 2: On Home and Homelessness 
 
 
Section 1: Vernacular 
By federal definition, homelessness is residing in a place not normally meant 
for human habitation. The homeless can be considered sheltered or unsheltered, but 
until they are residing in a form of housing independently, will continue to be 
homeless.  At the heart of this lies the concept of place and identity. Place, according 
to Augé, “can be defined as relational, historical and concerned with identity”8. Place 
has a connotation of belonging, and with the loss of home often comes a loss of place. 
Homelessness is not only marked by the loss of physical location, but also the loss of 
status and belonging within a community. With this understanding homeless and 
placeless as descriptors can become more synonymous. To be homeless, by another 
description is to be houseless; returning to the concept of physical loss. A house is not 
the same thing as a home, in that a house acts as a vessel for the things that constitute 
home. Which lends us to question what is home? 
 
Section 2: What Makes Home? 
The root of the word homeless is home. To understand what it means to be 
homeless, one must understand what home is, what makes a home, and what loss of 
home means. Home as a precondition for citizenship is a notion that has infused many 
cultures. For example one condition of citizenship and enfranchisement in Greece and 
                                                 
8 Auge, Marc, and Turhan Ilgaz. Yer Olmayanlar: Üstmodernliğin Antropolojisine Giriş. 
İstanbul: Kesit Yayıncılık, 1997 
  18 
 
Rome, was the possession of land and simultaneously home. The right to participate 
in the body of politics was also dependent on land and home. Today home is defined 
by Merriam-Webster dictionary as: 
Home n.  the place where a person lives; one’s place of residence; a familiar 
or usual setting :  congenial environment :  the focus of one's domestic 
attention; or a place of origin” 
While society has done its best to define home, the definition does not carry 
nor embody the true feel and meaning attributed to the word. ‘What is home?’ is a 
question not unlike asking What is a room? What makes a fish fish-shaped? Why do 
people behave in certain patterns? What makes trees grow in certain patterns and 
forms? Looking at Rupert Shedrake’s The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance 
and the Habits of Nature, the answer is memory. We do not simply store our 
memories in our brains but in objects, rooms, and possibly other people. A house 
devoid of objects and people has no meaning other than that of an object or structure 
itself. It is in interacting and the personal association that the inhabitants bring that 
makes it a home. According to Clare Cooper Marcus home is a place of self-
expression, a vessel of memories, and refuge from the outside world. The framework 
for home is found in needed amenities, but home itself is found in a personal spatial 
sense.  
If memories are the first layer that makes home, then rules come next. Rules 
and ritual mark how we interact and use space. No running in the house, feet off the 
table, don’t open the door to strangers, always put clean dishes away, make sure the 
door is locked. As children we learn the household rules not only to control our 
  19 
 
actions, but to protect ourselves and to protect the objects we use. Rules teach us how 
to act, and are then further enforced by location and space. As adults, rules become a 
matter of comfort and an ingrained way of life. After so many years of following the 
rules we were taught, it is normal to get up early, make the bed, get dressed, make 
coffee etc. We then realize when something seems off or wrong because the rule or 
ritual has been broken. For example coming home to find the door unlocked. The rule 
that became the ritual was to lock the door whenever one leaves; now that the rule is 
broken there is a sense of intrusion. As Wood and Beck would state in Home Rules, 
the Voice of Comfort speaks when we analyze and go through the rituals of home and 
the day9.  
The final element that makes a place home, are people. An empty house 
would not be considered a home for lack of objecst that would lend towards the 
reading of home. Likewise it is arguable that the staged house is not a home. It now 
has the objects within, which by the previous statement would make this seem like a 
home. However it is the lack of personal spatial quality or personal attachment to 
these objects that disqualify it from being considered home. When one invests time 
and bits of themselves in a space it becomes their own. Home is also made for others 
and it is in the making and the connection to kin that makes the place home for the 
creator. One particular view of home being made by the people who inhabit it is made 
by Helen, a woman interviewed in Home and Loss. 
                                                 
9 Wood, Denis, and Robert J. Beck. Home Rules. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 
1994. 
 
  20 
 
“…the home and children go together… I create belonging by creating 
a space which was mine, which was always decorated in a very 
particular way which is mine, and which was my place of belonging 
for me and my kin… that’s my home – it’s just absolutely essential to 
me.”10 
For some, home is a place where they can sleep safely. For others it is a place 
to store keep-sakes and other objects imbued with memory and meaning. For others 
yet it is a place of routine, where one cooks, cleans, participates in hobbies etc. Home 
is a place that holds memories. Home is a place to be shared with family and friends, 
and creates a social status within a community. This is best shown in Qu and 
Hasselarr’s opinion on home and housing in Making Room for People: 
The Home and the Neighborhood: Making room for people - Lei Qu 
and Evert Hasselaar 
"In its most basic form, housing provides protection against outdoor 
influences and is a living and meeting place for a household including 
friends and family. Besides providing a home, the owner-occupied 
house is an asset, a means to build capital and to create a financial 
buffer for 'later'. Dwellings express the identity and socio-economic 
status of the household. This status is conveyed both by the dwelling 
itself and by its neighborhood."11 
                                                 
10 Thompson, Susan. "Home and Loss." Renegotiating Meanings of Home in the Wake of 
Relationship Breakdown 10, no. 4 (2007). 
11 Qu, Lei, and Evert Hasselaar. Making Room for People Choice, Voice and Liveability in 
Residential Areas. Amsterdam: Techne Press, 2011. 
 
  21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 3: Loss of Home 
Home has been described as “a place to be one’s self”12.  It is a place of not 
only physical shelter, but an emotional shelter where one can “relax away from the 
rest of the world”13. It has been described by participants in interviews by Sarah 
Thompson in Loss of Home, as home creating sense of belonging and understanding, 
a place to nurture relationships. It is a physical place of dwelling, and adorning space 
with personal identity. What does it mean then to lose one’s home and how does that 
affect a person let alone a family.  
It has been found that in the wake of losing home objects such as photos, 
artifacts, pets, and other symbols of home and the shared place it was, take on much 
greater meaning. Helen, who lost her home fleeing domestic abuse to live in an 
apartment states 
“I did take things from the house. I took all the things I’d hidden in 
cupboard that were not used or second-hand… things that weren’t used 
every day  or on display or anything… things I’d take like if you were 
going camping… I wasn’t at home… it was awful…[but gradually]… 
I put things around… to make it homely for me and I would spend 
                                                 
12 Qu, Lei, and Evert Hasselaar. Making Room for People Choice, Voice and Liveability in 
Residential Areas. Amsterdam: Techne Press, 2011. 
 
13 Qu, Lei, and Evert Hasselaar. Making Room for People Choice, Voice and Liveability in 
Residential Areas. Amsterdam: Techne Press, 2011. 
 
  22 
 
hours doing it, just hours… paintings on the wall are important, and a 
stereo system and music was important. My books were important… 
and photographs became very important.”14 
 
Furthermore, some definitions of home extend to the surrounding community, 
neighborhood, and the network of relationships that have been built. With the loss of 
home these relationships become strained and more times than not severed 
completely, leading to isolation and loneliness in most people who become homeless. 
Loss of home greatly impacts the emotional state of people. Fear is a 
prevailing emotion. Fear of not finding shelter, fear of what is to come, and more 
importantly a fear of never having another home again along with a realization of 
taking things for granted. Greg in Home and Loss states about his loss of home during 
divorce as:  
“There was also a loss in the sense of not having a physical space 
which I kind of wanted to live in… [I] don’t like living in small units 
or rented rooms… I just prefer what I see as a proper house…so 
downsizing [my accommodations] just kind of makes the whole 
emotional situation worse… there was [also] a lack of domesticity, and 
the kind of sharing of meals and so on that does…make you feel some 
sort of warmth…”15 
 
                                                 
14 Thompson, Susan. "Home and Loss." Renegotiating Meanings of Home in the Wake of 
Relationship Breakdown 10, no. 4 (2007). 
15 Thompson, Susan. "Home and Loss." Renegotiating Meanings of Home in the Wake of 
Relationship Breakdown 10, no. 4 (2007). 
  23 
 
In order for people to transition from homelessness to permanent housing, the 
issue of loss and home must be brought to closure. Becoming homeless is a 
transformation itself, and a lost home is something that can never be returned 
to. Too much change has occurred, and the only thing left is to continue the 
transformation of self. Only this time from homeless back to having a home. 
This is a strong driver that this project will handle. 
 
Chapter 3: Housing the Homeless in the United States 
 
Section 1:Types of Programs 
 Currently in the United States, there are three main programs provided for 
aiding the homeless. These are: emergency shelters, permanent housing, and 
transitional housing. Emergency shelters are generally organized into dormitory style 
wards. There are on site social services available. Often different homeless 
populations are housed separate from others. Duration of stay at an emergency shelter 
can last anywhere from a few weeks to a number of months. Emergency shelters are 
not a popular solution with the homeless, as they are often associated with crime, 
filth, and danger. Permanent Housing Programs aim to get the homeless off the street 
and into housing efficiently. Social services are often provided.  However permanent 
housing places the burden of proof on those applying. Applicants must prove need, 
and fit the criteria of the program. Funding and availability of affordable housing 
often limits the number of people who receive aid. Transitional housing however 
  24 
 
focuses on temporary living situations and supportive services with the ultimate goal 
of helping the residents prepare to reenter permanent housing, achieve independence, 
and become productive members of society. 
  
Section 2:Transitional Housing 
In order to bring individuals out of homelessness, transitional housing must tackle the 
isolation of the homeless in conjunction with the stigmatization of their situation, 
provide services for the needs of the homeless, and provide stable conditions that 
allow for rehabilitation and the right situation/opportunity for the homeless to 
improve themselves  
 Homelessness is a social situation that affects not only individuals, but the 
surrounding community. ‘Not in my backyard’ (NIMBYism) is often the response to 
proposals for shelters and housing programs. The homeless often find themselves 
isolated from their original community as well as the homeless community they find 
themselves now a part of. By reimagining transitional housing as a community asset, 
the stigmatization of the homeless and shelter type will begin to lessen. This project 
proposes program elements and spaces that match the needs of the homeless with the 
surrounding community. Transitional housing as a community hub that provides 
socialization between diverse groups of people will be achieved by integrating people 
through the integration of spaces. The connection of key program spaces and how 
they are operated to accommodate daily activities will be analyzed and implemented 
in the design. How the spaces connect will be indicative of how residents and 
member s of the community will interact. While integration will have strong 
  25 
 
architectural implications in form and program, it is important to note that levels of 
privacy and security of spaces will vary as individuals and families will be in a range 
of stages in transitioning from homelessness as residents.  
 Housing programs today still seek ways to strictly monitor its residents. One 
common critique is that the goals of the resident are not acknowledged but rather the 
goals of the program are imposed upon them. Besides providing temporary 
accommodations, transitional housing focuses on providing educational programs and 
services with the purpose of resolving the factors that led to each resident’s loss of 
home. This often requires a period of time for stabilization, learning, and planning for 
residents to leave homelessness and stay housed.  Duration of programs and residency 
are dependent on each case presented, as there is no single solution or cause for 
homelessness. Currently programs offer residency and programs for a maximum of 
24 months. While limits can be placed on residency to ensure transition, complacency 
is an issue that must be addressed. This leads to the question: Does the transitional 
housing provide a space for the homeless to assemble, or does it provide a way for 
the homeless to transition to permanent housing? The goal then, is through in-depth 
analysis of program, spaces that are flexible, efficient, and conducive to the transition 
to permanent housing are designed.  
 It is through home that we create a sense of identity and self-awareness.  As 
previously defined, home is made through memory, rules and ritual, and people. All 
this is lost in the transition of becoming homeless. As stated in In the Absence of 
Home by Suzanne Dumbleton: 
  26 
 
“To be without a home is more than a technical problem or legal 
challenge. It is, rather, an individual hurdle so great as to be almost 
insurmountable in the quest for a meaningful life.”16 
 
To transition the homeless into permanent housing residents must be allowed the 
opportunity to learn independence. In learning to become independent one needs their 
own space to reestablish routine and responsibility. Allowing residents to create a 
place like home will alleviate many of the symptoms and effects of homelessness 
such as a loss of purpose, identity, and place. Not all homeless people experience 
homelessness the same way, and the architecture must then reflect this through 
flexible spaces that can be customized and adapted based on the unique needs. As 
residents transition through the program, spaces will likewise transition and adapt 
with them. Considerations to take into account when allowing residents create a place 
like home are the extents to which residents can manipulate space. Transitional 
housing units should not appear institutional. By allowing residents to have a hand in 
making spaces their own, they gain a sense of purpose and achievement. This can 
take the form of belongings that residents bring with, or allowing the choice of paint 
within units. Since this is a transitional facility, the permanence of the changes must 
be taken into account and limits placed on what can be done, returning to the 
consideration of fostering complacency versus transitioning out of homelessness. 
 
                                                 
16 Hart, Mechthild U. Psychological, Political, and Cultural Meanings of Home. New York: 
Haworth, 2005. 
 
  27 
 
Section 3:Architectural Precedence and Typology 
The Bridge Homeless Assistance Center 
 
Graphic Created by Katarina Svensson 
 
 The Bridge Homeless Assistance Center by Overland Architects is a shelter 
for the homeless that provides both emergency and transitional shelter to the 
homeless of Dallas, Texas. Taking up an entire city block, the shelter creates its own 
complex and community through a series of buildings focused on an interior 
courtyard. This provides a strong sense of security for the residents of the building as 
they transition out of homelessness. For those that The Bridge, cannot house on site or 
do not become part of the program services, placement offices are offered to help find 
shelter and housing. While designed to aid and house up to 600, today it services up 
to 1,400 people per day. The success of this program is due to the comprehensive 
nature of the services offered and the different forms of housing. For those reluctant 
to stay indoors, an exterior sleeping pavilion is offered. There are dormitory units, 
studio units, and apartment units offered based on need and preference. This can be 
  28 
 
seen in Figures X and Y. This precedence offers a successful typology of courtyard 
and building complex that avoids complacency with its residents and aids in the 
homeless regaining independence. 
 
Figure 10: Program Use of Space in The Bridge Homeless Assistance Center 
Diagram Created by Katarina Svensson,  
Plans by "The Bridge Homeless Assistance Center / Overland Partners." ArchDaily. 
March 1, 2011. Accessed December 13, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/115040/the-
bridge-homeless-assistance-center-overland-partners/. 
 
Figure 11: Types of Housing Units 
Diagram Created by Katarina Svensson,  
  29 
 
Plans by "The Bridge Homeless Assistance Center / Overland Partners." ArchDaily. 
March 1, 2011. Accessed December 13, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/115040/the-
bridge-homeless-assistance-center-overland-partners/. 
 
 Shelter Home for the Homeless, Pamplona, Spain 
 
Graphic Created by Katarina Svensson 
 
 Shelter Home for the Homeless by Larraz Architectos is a transitional shelter 
in Pamplona Spain that combines the function of housing for the homeless and a 
hostel for visitors to the city. Studio units with supportive services located within one 
building makes up the typology of this transitional shelter. 27 rooms are provided for 
residents; 18 double rooms to those who are part of the transitional program, and 9 
double rooms to short term residents. Services provided beyond shelter include: 
counseling and therapy; recreational spaces including gardens; dining and kitchen 
services; and offices for education and work. Larraz Architectos describes the 
program as 
“The user center takes the ground and the whole of the first floor, and 
accounts for a total of 18 double rooms. It is complemented with the 
  30 
 
corresponding toilets and bathrooms, an occupational workshop where 
the users are offered the possibility of developing several types of work 
during the day, a dry-cleaners service, a social dining room with a 
capacity of up to 48 seats, leisure rooms, administration, reception and 
locker.” 17 
 
 
Figure 12:  Programmatic Use by the Transitional Shelter 
Diagrams created by Katarina Svensson 
Plans by "Shelter Home for the Homeless / Javier Larraz." ArchDaily. April 5, 
2011. Accessed December 13, 2014. 
http://www.archdaily.com/124688/shelter-home-for-the-homeless-javier-
larraz/. 
                                                 
17 "Larraz Arquitectos." Larraz Arquitectos. Accessed December 13, 2014. 
http://www.larrazarquitectos.com/detalle-proyecto.php/idioma/en/nombre/centro-de-acogida-
para-personas-sin-hogar/idp/3. 
  31 
 
 
Figure 13: Programmatic Use by the Hostel 
Diagrams created by Katarina Svensson 
Plans by "Shelter Home for the Homeless / Javier Larraz." ArchDaily. April 5, 
2011. Accessed December 13, 2014. 
http://www.archdaily.com/124688/shelter-home-for-the-homeless-javier-
larraz/. 
 
 
Residents as part of their stay must work within the shelter to maintain the 
building through cleaning, painting, gardening etc. They can also create work as 
previously quoted through workshops and offices. This method provides the homeless 
with a sense of purpose as they transition through the shelter. While Shelter Home 
provides services for two different populations, there is a strict divide between the 
two, with the notion that the two programs should not interact. This is shown most 
clearly in the separate entrances and division of space. 
  32 
 
 
Figure 14:  Separation of Populations 
Diagrams created by Katarina Svensson 
Plans by "Shelter Home for the Homeless / Javier Larraz." ArchDaily. April 5, 
2011. Accessed December 13, 2014. 
http://www.archdaily.com/124688/shelter-home-for-the-homeless-javier-
larraz/. 
 
 
 
 
  33 
 
 
Figure 15: Program and Building Parti 
Diagrams created by Katarina Svensson 
Plans by "Shelter Home for the Homeless / Javier Larraz." ArchDaily. April 5, 
2011. Accessed December 13, 2014. 
http://www.archdaily.com/124688/shelter-home-for-the-homeless-javier-
larraz/. 
 
 
 The main purpose of the division is to instill a sense of security and safety from 
unwanted intrusions. But one may critique that there is not as strong a sense of 
community or socialization as a result. It is important when designing for the 
  34 
 
homeless to consider the levels of separation and privacy needed to make residents 
comfortable. 
 Shelter Home for the Homeless is considered a successful project in its aim to 
improve living conditions in society and contribute to the well-being of the people it 
can help reach beyond the homeless. 
 
 
 Residential Home for the Elderly in Masans Architect: Peter Zumthor 
 
Graphic By Katarina Svensson 
 
 It is important to consider other successful supportive housing typologies 
when housing the homeless. Housing for the elderly is one example of a population, 
that while aiming to be independent, requires some assistance in housing and 
everyday life. The Residential Home for the Elderly by Peter Zumthor is a precedence 
that gives its residents independence while offering subtle support. Each resident has 
an individual apartment with kitchen and living space. Extra services such as 
healthcare and programs are offered elsewhere on site in a retirement house. When 
  35 
 
supportively housing individuals, fostering a sense of community is important. These 
individuals are transitioning from households to supported living, and go through a 
sense of loss of home and change. This can lead to isolation among some. To create a 
sense of community all units share a ‘front porch’. Running the length of the exterior 
of the building is an interior circulation corridor that each unit is accessed by. 
Residents are encouraged to make the space their own while sharing the overall space 
with each other. While it is important to include communal space in design, security 
and privacy must be considered.  Privacy is achieved in each unit by placing 
supportive spaces on either side of unit entrances off the communal space. Living and 
sleeping quarters are pushed to the back with access to the exterior creating a private 
zone. These layers of public and private space are shown in Figure 16. This 
precedence provides the opportunity to understand different ways of creating 
community within supportive housing.  
 
Figure 16: Shared Spaces 
Diagram by Katarina Svensson 
Plans by: "Multiplicity and Memory: Talking About Architecture with Peter Zumthor." 
Architecture Photography: Residential Home for the Elderly in Masans Section (85712). 
Accessed December 13, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/85656/multiplicity-and-memory-
  36 
 
talking-about-architecture-with-peter-zumthor/residential-home-for-the-elderly-in-masans-
section/. 
 
Figure 17: Levels of Privacy 
Diagram by Katarina Svensson 
Plans by: "Multiplicity and Memory: Talking About Architecture with Peter Zumthor." 
Architecture Photography: Residential Home for the Elderly in Masans Section (85712). 
Accessed December 13, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/85656/multiplicity-and-memory-
talking-about-architecture-with-peter-zumthor/residential-home-for-the-elderly-in-masans-
section/. 
Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Malahide County Dublin Architect: Paul Keogh 
Architects 
 
Graphic By Katarina Svensson  
  37 
 
The Society of St. Vincent de Paul by Pau Keogh Architects provides a model 
for combining sheltered housing with housing for ageing populations. This model 
shows that through the typology of the almshouse and co-housing, different 
populations can live together successfully. While residents are coming from different 
places in life, they share commonalities in the need for supportive services, housing, 
and community. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is organized, as seen in Figure 18, 
around an interior public space flanked by 2 housing options and ends on a communal 
building. The two housing types include houses with 3 separate units and entrances in 
one detached building; and a row-house unit that can be accessed from the courtyard 
or from a private hallway leading to a services area. Dining, chapel services, and 
offices are offered on site to meet the main needs of the residents. Other services can 
be found in the nearby community. 
 
Figure 18: Unit Types 
Diagram by Katarina Svensson 
  38 
 
Plans by Paul Keogh Architects. Case Studies in Sheltered Housing in Ireland 1, no. 
1 (2010): 1-41. 
 
Figure 19: Housing Site Organization 
Diagram by Katarina Svensson 
Plans by Paul Keogh Architects. Case Studies in Sheltered Housing in Ireland 1, no. 
1 (2010): 1-41. 
 
 
  39 
 
 
Figure 20: Building Type and Spatial Organization 
Diagram by Katarina Svensson 
Plans by Paul Keogh Architects. Case Studies in Sheltered Housing in Ireland 1, no. 
1 (2010): 1-41. 
 
 
 
Figure 21: Programmatic Use of Space 
Diagram by Katarina Svensson 
  40 
 
Plans by Paul Keogh Architects. Case Studies in Sheltered Housing in Ireland 1, no. 
1 (2010): 1-41. 
 
 
 
 Bud Clark Commons 
 
Graphic By Katarina Svensson 
 
 The Bud Clark Commons by Holst Architecture is located in Portland, Oregon 
and acts as the Housing Authority for the region. This model combines a homeless 
shelter and a center of supportive services, with subsidized housing. While there is 
the provision for two populations to use this building, there are separate entrances for 
those who come for services, those requiring shelter, and those looking for permanent 
housing; which can be seen in Figures X and Y. 
 
  41 
 
 
Figure 22: Floor Plans and Use of Space 
Plans by "Bud Clark Commons / Holst Architecture." ArchDaily. December 7, 2011. 
Accessed December 13, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/189376/bud-clark-
commons-holst-architecture/. 
 
 
Figure 23: Sectional Division of Space 
Plans by "Bud Clark Commons / Holst Architecture." ArchDaily. December 7, 2011. 
Accessed December 13, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/189376/bud-clark-
commons-holst-architecture/. 
 
 
To house the homeless there must be a strong understanding of the needs of 
individuals and families; as well as an understanding of the needs of the community. 
What can be taken from this analysis, are the considerations to privacy and security, 
the creation of community, and the connections of spaces and the services they house. 
  42 
 
These precedence studies will be used to inform the different methods of housing, 
creating community, and the architectural program of this thesis.
  43 
 
 
Chapter 4:  Program Development 
 
 
Section 1: Overall Program 
Having analyzed precedence in transitional housing, cohousing, senior 
housing, and mixed income housing, I decided that the program should be divided 
into three main parts: cohousing, an education and support center, and community 
center. Housing will be broken up into 4 groups; supportive group housing for those 
without children, supportive housing for families, market rate 1 bedroom units, and 
market rate 2-3 bedroom units. Supportive housing will include flexible private and 
community spaces for socializing and reflection. It will also include the option for 
group dining and cooking. While the primary focus of the units should be in housing 
the homeless a certain percentage of the units will be available to low income and 
poverty level residents. The education and support center would comprise of offices 
for therapy and case management; flexible classrooms and studios specifically for 
residents of the project. A community center of flexible recreation rooms, community 
classrooms and studios (making spaces), and rentable entrepreneurial space would be 
accessible by residents and have access to street traffic. The community center would 
provide opportunities and facilities to recipients with the necessary support for a 
greater chance at success and independence.   These program choices are based on 
successful transitional housing precedents and input by the site’s community of its 
  44 
 
needs. The program of both the community center and transitional housing will be 
highly influence by the choice of site. The intent of the program is to take advantage 
of the successful community building transitional housing provides and expanding 
this to the surrounding community to create inclusion as opposed to isolation and 
exclusion.  
Section 2: Program Process 
 To program transitional housing, consideration should be taken in how 
residents move through the program, how much time is spent in each stage of 
transitioning, and how to celebrate the milestones of the program architecturally. 
Figure 24 shows the time and stages of moving through the proposed housing of this 
thesis. The first stage that residents encounter is titled incoming. This is the first 
translation from homelessness that includes residents proving that they are committed 
to completing the program by staying for 1-2 months and working while receiving 
guest housing. After two months residents reach the re-stabilizing stage which 
introduces residents to the program and provides full services and transitional housing 
to the residents in the form of studio units or up to 2-3 bedroom units depending on 
each situation. The next two stages are stabilization and program completion. Here 
residents will spend up to a year learning independence and receiving the aid needed 
from case management. Upon completing the program residents receive aid in finding 
housing, jobs, and certification of the program. The end result should then be 
  45 
 
residents finding permanent housing. 
 
Figure 24: Stages of Transitional Housing Program 
Graphic By Katarina Svensson 
After considering the stages of movement and time spent in transitional 
housing, the programmed spaces that these events will take place in must be 
designed. As previously stated this project will include three programmatic 
categories: housing, education and supportive services, and a community center. How 
these spaces are connected will influence how residents and members of the 
community respond and use the spaces. A brief listing some of the possible 
programmatic uses of spaces can be found below. 
Program: 
Lobby and entrance 
Public areas 
Communal rooms 
Health clinic 
Kennels 
Banking 
Courtroom 
Classrooms 
 Training facilities 
 Educational facilities 
  46 
 
Offices 
 Staff 
 Case management 
Dining room 
Kitchen 
Sleeping arrangements 
 Dormitory 
 Apartments 
 1 Bedroom Units 
 2-3 Bedroom Units 
Storage 
 Building equipment 
 Lockers/areas to store personal belongings 
 
In terms of the community aspect of the program, this project seeks to match 
the needs of the homeless with the needs of the community. This will be highly 
influenced by the site chosen, and then speaking firsthand with the community to find 
out what they need. More broadly though one can take the needs common to all 
people and begin to list possible programs. The need for job placement, spaces to 
express ones self, spaces to be active, spaces to learn in can be used to connect the 
homeless with a community. This could take the form of making spaces, art studios, 
workshops, offices, gyms, and classrooms. Some of which, these programs can be 
used to help finance the housing aspect of the project. 
In beginning to analyze the connection of spaces and levels of privacy Figures 
25, 26, and 27 are some of the first iterations of program analysis. These diagrams 
explore the different forms of housing and the services required to support each. 
During the design process the program will be further developed. 
  47 
 
 
Figure 25: Program and Spatial Connections for 1 Bedroom Units 
Graphic By Katarina Svensson 
 
  48 
 
 
Figure 26: Program and Spatial Connections for Studio/Dormitory Units 
Graphic By Katarina Svensson 
 
Figure 27: Program and Spatial Connections for Family Units 
Graphic By Katarina Svensson
  49 
 
Chapter 5:  Site Selection and Analysis 
 
Section 1: Criteria and City Selection 
Homelessness is a social situation and/or crisis affecting hundreds of 
thousands of people on any given night in the United States. The density of urban 
areas gives way to the largest rate of homelessness. This thesis project will be located 
on a site that takes advantage of the qualities that are inherent in a city. The criteria 
for site include: a need for shelter, mass public transportation systems, public school 
accessibility, the proximity of civic services, and a diverse demographic of dwellers. 
In analyzing sites, Washington DC and Baltimore, MD were explored for 
opportunities. Baltimore, MD is a city that has for the past decades experienced flight 
from the city, and currently gentrification as a means to bring residents back to the 
city. While the city acts to improve the city and bring new residents in, the existing 
residents must endure slow economic recovery, and slow improvement to existing 
neighborhoods with the fear that improvement will bring a loss of home. Baltimore 
has a homeless population of over 2,000, with a 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. 
Even with this plan there has been little decrease in homelessness. As recently stated 
in a census of the Baltimore homeless:  
“While increased federal spending on effective solutions has kept 
homelessness from rising, persistent trends in housing cost burden and 
slow economic recovery has prevented significant overall decreases in 
homelessness. According to the Baltimore City’s 10-Year Plan to End 
Homelessness, “Homelessness is a complex problem caused primarily 
  50 
 
by a lack of affordable housing, lack of affordable healthcare, low 
incomes, and a lack of comprehensive services.”18 
 
This lends to the question: How does a city attempting growth through new 
populations deal with its existing residents who are not leaving the city and 
require aid? With a surplus of housing, and a need for services and housing for 
the homeless, Baltimore, MD was deemed the opportune locale for this project. 
Using the criteria, neighborhoods of Baltimore, MD were outlined with 
emphasis on location of homeless populations. Existing homeless shelters and food 
kitchens were noted and their proximity to one another became visible (figure 30). 
Neighborhoods that are distressed or receiving aid are displayed in a color spectrum. 
Public schools are highlighted in conjunction with diagrams of public transportation. 
Access to public services such as healthcare, food, and transportation are displayed 
over neighborhoods. 
 
                                                 
18 "2013 Homeless Point in Time Count Report."  City of Baltimore 2013. 
 
  51 
 
 
 
Figure 28: Neighborhoods in Baltimore, MD with High Numbers of Homeless 
Populations 
Graphic By Katarina Svensson 
  52 
 
 
Figure 29: Public Transportation in Baltimore, MD 
Graphic By Katarina Svensson 
  53 
 
 
Figure 30: Services for the Homeless in Relation to Homeless Neighborhoods in 
Baltimore, MD 
Graphics by Katarina Svensson 
  54 
 
 
Figure 31: Status of Baltimore Neighborhoods 
Image By : Yeebo, Yepoka. "Baltimore Decides Some Neighborhoods Just Aren't 
Worth Saving." Business Insider. February 24, 2012. Accessed December 13, 2014. 
http://www.businessinsider.com/baltimore-has-decided-some-neighborhoods-just-
arent-worth-saving-2012-2?op=1. 
 
After analyzing the overall site of Baltimore and looking at areas in need of 
transitional housing, there are two neighborhood sites that are proposed. The Harlem 
Park and Upton neighborhood in North-West Baltimore are considered possible sites.  
Harlem Park is a primarily African American neighborhood that has history going 
back to the Civil War. It has a unique neighborhood design of several inner block 
parks that are framed by row-houses. Currently the neighborhood experiences 45% 
vacancy of its buildings and is in need of residents and support. It is also the proposed 
site for a new Redline stop. This would bring new amenities and traffic to the Harlem 
Park neighborhood. With existing schools and shopping centers, and nearby health 
services, Harlem Park is a site to consider. 
  55 
 
 
Figure 32: Harlem Park Neighborhood Baltimore, MD 
Map by googlemaps.com 
 Upton is another neighborhood in need of supportive housing. Upton is a 
low-income African American neighborhood located roughly between Freemont 
Avenue and McCullgy Street. It extends from Dolphin Street to Bloom Street with its 
principal thoroughfare Pennsylvania Avenue. This site has nearby health services and 
schools available to residents. Nearby parks provide recreation. The typology of 
Upton differs greatly from Harlem Park. Where Harlem was a courtyard park 
typology, Upton consists of long narrow lots and alleys built with row-houses. It also 
has a high vacancy rate and is in need of redevelopment.  
  56 
 
 
Figure 33: Upton Neighborhood Baltimore, MD 
Map by googlemaps.com 
These sites provide the opportunity to re-populate the neighborhoods and 
provide much needed services to current residents. Of these sites it was deemed that 
the Harlem Park neighborhood to be in the most need of intervention and allowed 
good opportunities for architectural program to develop through its history, 
community, block typology, and location. 
 
Section 2: Harlem Park 
 History of Harlem Park Neighborhood 
Harlem Park today is located between W Lafayette and N Freemont Avenues 
and Highways 1 and 40. Originally an estate owned by Adrian Valek and later Dr. 
Thomas Edmondson, Harlem included fifty-six acres of land. Upon Edmondson’s 
  57 
 
death in 1856 the estate was entrusted to John Latrobe as executor19. The trustees of 
the estate first donated nine and three-fourths acres of land bounded by Gilmor and 
Calhoun Streets and Harlem and Edmondson Avenues to the city as a public park.20 
The park itself was designed by E. A. Hohn who also designed Druid Hill Park in 
Baltimore MD. The idea for Harlem Park came from the previous donation of land to 
the city for park space known today as Lafayette Square, located two blocks above 
Edmondson’s properties. “The success of development around Mount Vernon Place 
and Franklin Square encouraged local property-owners to place parks at the center of 
any new suburban development.”21   After the park was gifted to the city, the first 
block of land from the estate would be sold at $27,000 to the Maryland Consolidated 
Land Company for the construction of public housing.  
 
Figure 34:Harlem Park 1870 
The covenants of the property bought stipulated that houses be three stories tall and a 
minimum of sixteen feet wide. First construction was also stipulated to begin by 
                                                 
19 Scharf, J. Thomas. History of Baltimore City and County. Baltimore: Regional Pub., 
1971. 
20 Hayward, Mary Ellen, and Charles Belfoure. The Baltimore Rowhouse. New York: 
Princeton Architectural Press, 1999. 
21 "Harlem Park - Baltimore Heritage." Baltimore Heritage. Accessed January 
10, 2015. http://baltimoreheritage.org/history/harlem-park/. 
 
  58 
 
October 1, 1868. In the end primary streets would be developed with three-story row 
houses while alleys and side streets would be developed with two-story alley houses. 
Over the span of thirty years several different land companies and builder Joseph 
Cone would develop over 800 houses. The majority were designed by Cone who 
began building in Harlem around 1874.  
“By 1878 Cone had built 145 houses near Harlem Park. All were 
three-story Italianates, sixteen feet to eighteen feet wide, with pressed-
brick facades, elaborately detailed cornices, and arched doorways. All 
had two- or three-story back buildings…His houses looked much like 
those of his competitors.” 
While Cone’s work may have matched his competitors it was the Italianate 
style that became prominent in Harlem and the rest of West Baltimore. 
 
Figure 35: Harlem Park Building Typology 1800-1900’s 
  59 
 
Upon the completion of construction the Harlem Park Neighborhood 
was primarily a White German neighborhood. It became known as one of 
Baltimore’s finest Gentlemen Communities. As the neighborhood parks drew 
more residents, so too did they draw churches and schools to the area. Before 
each moved from the area, Harlem Park housed schools such as The Maryland 
Normal School (later became Towson), The Maryland School for the Blind, 
Morgan State University, and Grammar School No. 1822. However at the turn 
of the 19th-20th century the neighborhood began experiencing flight of its 
residents to other neighborhoods such as Easterwood Park and Rosemont. 
These neighborhoods provided larger estate homes as opposed to the Italianate 
row homes. Flight of residents would be a problem the neighborhood would 
have into the present day. As White Flight occurred, Harlem Park continued to 
be considered a Gentlemen’s Community, but now home to the Black elite. 
However, original residents of Harlem Park sought to exclude African-
Americans through deed restrictions and harassment. Moving into the 1920’s 
residents were now of mixed incomes with the elite in grand row house 
mansions measuring 20 feet by 70 feet deep, and the working class taking 
residence in the “alley homes”.  
With the Great Depression, flight of the majority of the elite occurred 
leaving lower income residents to take care of Harlem. With World War II, 
Harlem saw the most deterioration of properties due to use, abuse, and 
overcrowding. There was an influx of war workers to the neighborhood that 
                                                 
22 "Harlem Park - Baltimore Heritage." Baltimore Heritage. Accessed January 10, 
2015. http://baltimoreheritage.org/history/harlem-park/. 
  60 
 
prompted the conversion of single family row houses to multiple dwellings or 
rooming houses.23 
After World War II Harlem Park became primarily a44 black 
neighborhood with little influx of new residents. During the 50’s and 60’s 
much of Baltimore saw slum elimination come in the form of Interstate 
Construction. It was also during the late 50’s and early 60’s that Harlem 
underwent rehabilitation of properties and a plan for urban renewal that 
became known as the Harlem Park Project or the Demonstration Project. 
Today the Harlem Park Neighborhood is known for its unique city 
block configuration. Unlike most Baltimore city blocks that are composed of 
row houses with alley access, city blocks in Harlem contain interior city parks 
that each house’s backyard faces onto. This courtyard configuration resulted 
from an urban renewal plan known as the Demonstration Project in 1956. The 
focal point of the urban renewal plan for the total Harlem Park Renewal Area 
was an interior park that would be built in each of the 29 blocks24. It was 
hoped that the creation of inner parks would reduce population density, 
increase intensity of land coverage, remove ugly interior streets and alleys 
used for trash, provide open space to beautify the neighborhood, and provide a 
symbol of renewal. All of this in the hope of inspiring residents to aspire to 
                                                 
23 McKeldin, Theodore. A Demonstration of Rehabilitation Harlem Park Baltimore, 
Maryland. Baltimore: City of Baltimore, 1965 
24 McKeldin, Theodore. A Demonstration of Rehabilitation Harlem Park Baltimore, 
Maryland. Baltimore: City of Baltimore, 1965 
  61 
 
better living standards25. This project was met with minor success at first but 
overall unsuccessful in implementation. 
Harlem Park Project: 
 While in the planning process the project was met with approval from 
residents and the Harlem Park Neighborhood Committee, but in construction and 
implementation the project was met with resistance and many problems. Overall, 
many residents of Harlem Park were bitter over the perceived notion that they were 
“guinea pigs of urban renewal in Baltimore”26. The plan for renewal began with the 
Demonstration Block that was selected based on the following criteria: 
1. It should have a relatively stable population so that before and after factors 
could be measured against as many of the same families as possible 
2. It should require as little demolition as possible in order to minimize the 
problems associated with that operation 
3. It should require as little dislocation of residents as possible. 
4. It should contain a reasonable percentage of owner occupancy 
5. It should also include a variety of types, sizes, uses, and conditions of 
structures to make possible a variation of approaches to rehabilitation 
                                                 
25 McKeldin, Theodore. A Demonstration of Rehabilitation Harlem Park Baltimore, 
Maryland. Baltimore: City of Baltimore, 1965 
26 McDougal, Harold. Black Baltimore: A New Theory of Community. Philadelphia: 
Temple University, 1993. 
  62 
 
Of the houses located on the block 66 were to be rehabilitated by owners and 16 
appropriated for developer rehabilitation. The city provided inspectors and counseling 
services to aid owners in restoring their properties. The first step was to bring 
structures up to the Housing Code and later meet further requirements. Most of these 
houses were the typical three-story row house.  
 
Figure: 36 Harlem Park Project Intervention 
Images from A Demonstration of Rehabilitation Harlem Park Baltimore, Maryland, 
Theodore McKeldin 
 
However within many of the buildings there were anywhere from one to ten units that 
could be occupied. The average row house contained three units with one apartment 
on each floor.  Many of these buildings had code violations such as illegal heating 
units, faulty plumbing, and not enough or incorrectly installed electric outlets. 
Inspectors provided owners with lists of violations that were then translated by 
counseling services to the owners who often did not understand the documents they 
received. Even when owners understood what work was required many did not 
understand that they were given 30 days to see the repairs made. It then became the 
city’s responsibility to remind and ensure that owners complied. As a result, ensuring 
that work was completed through multiple visits by inspectors, lead to a great deal of 
  63 
 
resentment.  Furthermore, vandalism of properties undergoing rehabilitation became a 
problem. In the end, the properties were rehabilitated but not without facing problems 
of a lack of incentive or funds to complete the work. 
 The 16 properties appropriated by the city to be renovated likewise had their 
struggles and successes. These properties, once acquired, were set to be resold to 
redevelopers and 6 kept for the agency to rehabilitate. Developers interested in the 
properties were given packets of prospectus material and given a little over a month 
to place offers. “In addition to the price bid, offers were to include a certified check 
for 10 percent of the amount bid, a preliminary sketch plan of proposed rehabilitation, 
general specifications, and an estimate of the total cost of the work to be done on the 
property.”27 While there was great interest from developers at first, most properties 
ended up being given to the developer Gorn Brothers Inc. They consistently made 
bids in Harlem Park and as time went on there was less and less interest shown by 
other developers in bidding on properties. When inquiries were made it was found 
that most who had shown interest felt that they could not compete with large-scale 
developers such as Gorn Brothers. The other factor leading to the lack of interest was 
the availability of financing, a problem faced both by developers and home owners at 
the time. 
 While most homeowners sought to fix their homes and update the buildings to 
meet current codes, developers (primarily Gorn Brothers) approached the 
rehabilitation by gutting the interiors of row-houses and producing new floor plans. 
Gorn especially would remove all stairs, walls, and floors leaving a shell of a 
building. This allowed for not just changes to be made in window and floor height, 
but allowed for new plumbing and electricity to be run through the building before 
walls would be built. With new plans, newly painted facades, and the installation of 
                                                 
27 McKeldin, Theodore. A Demonstration of Rehabilitation Harlem Park Baltimore, 
Maryland. Baltimore: City of Baltimore, 1965 
 
  64 
 
air conditioning units, the Demonstration Office began receiving multiple inquiries 
about rent and when the units would be put on the market. This instance brought hope 
that new residents would be willing to move to and repopulate Harlem Park, and that 
this project might be successful. 
  65 
 
Figure 37: Row House Floor Plans from the Harlem Park Project 1965 
Images from A Demonstration of Rehabilitation Harlem Park Baltimore, Maryland, 
Theodore McKeldin 
  66 
 
 
 Beyond the rehabilitation of housing, the creation of the inner block parks 
should be examined. As previously stated the parks, in the end, took up the back half 
of each property’s back yard. The appropriation of this land was difficult to achieve 
through the city and caused delays. This delay caused problems with home owners 
working on rehabilitation of their houses, as they felt that they should not be required 
to work within time limits when the city could not stick to its own. In the end, 
however the idea and creation of parks did generate interest and good will amongst 
residents. The overall design after polling amongst residents and multiple revisions by 
the city and planning committee was to focus on eight points: 
1. A ten-foot concrete walk to run all the way around the outer 
border of the open space so that utility trucks could enter to 
make repairs if needed. 
 
2. A chain link fence42 inches high to surround the park space 
on the city side of the property line with a three foot opening 
at the entrance to each property where the owner could supply 
a gate if he wished. 
3. A play space for tots 
4. A black-topped area for hopscotch or roller skating in place of 
a games court (previously in the design) 
5. A pavilion for quiet adult games such as checkers or chess 
6. An ample supply of park benches 
7. A certain amount of grass area which would be sodded rather 
than seeded, and hardy trees and shrubs to make the area 
attractive. 
8. Chains that would block the entrances through the former 
streets to keep out vehicular traffic.28 
                                                 
28 McKeldin, Theodore. A Demonstration of Rehabilitation Harlem Park Baltimore, 
Maryland. Baltimore: City of Baltimore, 1965 
 
  67 
 
Before the construction of the park there had been studies made of nearby 
neighborhoods with similar inner block parks. Some were successful and others were 
not. It was noted that neighborhoods with associations or committees of residents 
who oversaw the maintenance of the park were the more popular. The association 
running the project concluded that a neighborhood association would need to be put 
into place to ensure the success of the new inner block parks.  
While the associations did help at first with the maintenance of the park, long run 
maintenance did not occur. It was assumed from the very beginning of the project that 
the park would remain city property and would be maintained by the Department of 
Recreation and Parks. But while the Department of Recreation and Parks could afford 
to maintain the park of the Demonstration Park it did not have the budget to do so for 
the other 28 parks. This left maintenance in the hands of residents. The problem here 
of course was that as residents did not have ownership of the park, they did not feel 
the need to invest time and money into the park. There had been talk of making 
maintenance part of the lease agreement, but this brought on too many issues of 
liability should injury occur in the parks. In the end there was no clear resolution and 
the parks remained city property with optional maintenance to be done by residents. 
 A review of the project was made in 1965 after the completion of renovations 
and the construction of the 29 parks. It concluded that with financial aid and guidance 
rehabilitation was feasible, however voluntary rehabilitation was not. It also 
concluded that while initial interests in parks were high, after construction interest 
decreased. Maintenance then became a large issue as residents did not wish to be 
responsible for property they did not own. Finally it was concluded that residents are 
  68 
 
most productive and prepared to rehabilitate their properties when given ample 
guidance and have the benefit of relying on neighborhood committees set up in 
advance. 
Harlem Park after the Demonstration Project 
 Since the Demonstration Project, Harlem Park has continued to see the flight 
of its residents. As of 2000 nearly 32% of the area’s housing was vacant29. As part of 
PlanBaltimore! and the city’s demolition strategy each neighborhood would create a 
new revitalization plan to determine what would be demolished and what could be 
rehabilitated. Plans were again made to rehabilitate Harlem Park. This time there 
were options for altering the existing blocks and unit sizes. Torti Gallas was the 
design consultant on this matter. The focus would be on a new type of duplex 
housing, by widening lots through combining two existing row houses. Instead of 
setting building fronts directly on the street there would now be set backs with 
possible small parks in front of homes, eliminating the inner block parks. Torti Gallas 
suggested rehabilitating homes that were adjacent to vacant lots or structures in need 
of demolition to create side yards. Their description states: 
“Using the side yard ‘Charlestown house’ as a prototype, the proposal 
creates side-yard houses by demolishing every third or fourth house 
and giving the vacant land over to the adjacent house. Rather than a 
                                                 
29 Cohen, James R. "Abandoned Housing: Exploring Lessons from 
Baltimore." Housing Policy Debate 12, no. 3 (2001): 415-48. 
  69 
 
vacant ownerless parcel, the new side yard becomes an integral part of 
the existing home”30 
 
Figure 38: Torti Gallas Charleston House Intervention in Harlem Park 
Images courtesy of Matt Bell and Torti Gallas 
                                                 
30 Cohen, James R. "Abandoned Housing: Exploring Lessons from 
Baltimore." Housing Policy Debate 12, no. 3 (2001): 415-48. 
  70 
 
The Bank of America CDC, which was funding the new rehabilitation project 
of Harlem Park determined that 230 row houses would be demolished lowering the 
number from 390 to 160. While a number of properties were demolished between 
1999 and 2002, rehabilitation per the plans suggested by Torti Gallas were never 
implemented. This has left Harlem Park with a raw snaggle tooth appearance of 
streets with as few as 2 row houses or large gaps between. While it was hoped that 
demolishing vacant structures would help remove properties that were diminishing 
the value of the surrounding properties, today there are even more vacant properties. 
It is through neglect, lack of follow through, and an overall lack of communication 
between city and residents that has brought Harlem Park to its current state. 
The density of the Demonstration Project and the current status of Harlem Park as a 
result of demolition of vacant building can be seen in the following maps. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  71 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 39: Harlem Park 1993 
Image courtesy of Google Earth 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 40: Harlem Park 2000 
Image courtesy of Google Earth
  72 
 
 
 
It is the block typology created from the Harlem Park Demonstration 
Project and current lack of density within the site that has inspired and 
informed the site selection and later development of the thesis. 
 
Harlem Park a Homeless Neighborhood; A large scale comparison to the 
experiences of a Homeless Person 
 Becoming homeless is not an instantaneous event, but a series of 
events and situations that accumulate to the point that a person loses their 
home and at times their belongings. This usually occurs over a period of time 
when due to economic, personal, or cultural factors a person is unable to pay 
rent, falls behind on payments, and loses support to the point where they lose 
their home. At this point the person, or family in some instances, loses its 
community and sense of place. They transition from one community to a 
liminal state of being neither part of a homeless community or their old 
community. If one stays homeless long enough often there is another 
transition to becoming a part of the homeless community. The state of 
homelessness can range from a short period of time to a chronic situation of 
being unable to support oneself. In the United States, methods and programs 
are employed in an attempt to aid homeless people and provide them with the 
services needed to become independent and rejoin society. For some these 
interventions are successful and people are able to leave homelessness. For 
  73 
 
others however the programs are not able to facilitate the transition between 
homelessness and living independently and the people return to the streets to 
homeless lives. 
Figure 41: Homeless Process for the Individual or Family 
This can be compared to the experiences of the Harlem Park 
neighborhood that once was thriving with an elite community. However due 
to changing population dynamics, war, and loss of industry in Baltimore, 
Harlem Park’s community began to change and lose its strength. Where 
Harlem Park was once an elite white neighborhood, it slowly became an elite 
African American neighborhood. It would continue to experience flight and 
deteriorate to become a more dangerous and poverty stricken neighborhood. 
With the flight of its residents, Harlem Park became full of more and more 
vacant and under maintained properties. So, just as the average person can go 
through events, become homeless and fraught with poor conditions, the same 
can be said to have happened to Harlem Park. 
  74 
 
Just as the United States provides services and programs for the 
homeless, the same happened at the urban scale of Harlem Park. In the 1960’s 
as previously stated, the Demonstration Project was developed as a means of 
aiding the neighborhood and providing a solution to many problems. However 
the urban plans and interventions failed leaving Harlem Park to experience 
further decline in population and structural state.  
Figure 42: Intervention comes to Harlem Park 
This site being devoid of place and having experienced a similar 
situation and process to the individuals and families who become homeless 
makes it ideal for a program to aid the homeless and community. 
 
Harlem Park Site Selection & Analysis 
 Harlem Park is located above Rte. 40, and near to the MLK Jr. Boulevard that 
is home to a number of homeless camps. Harlem Park with its decline in residents and 
care can similarly be seen as homeless. While nearby neighborhoods include 
amenities such as community centers and functioning commercial areas, Harlem Park 
has small scattered amenities that can barely support the community as seen in Figure 
X. The lack of amenities is primarily due to the zoning of the neighborhood as R-8 
with two small areas zoned for business and one for offices, FigureX.  R-8 zoning 
  75 
 
creates a district defined as high density residential, where single-family and 
multifamily dwellings are commingled and certain open areas where similar 
residential development will be a viable land use. Through zoning and accessibility, 
the site is an ideal ground for matching the needs of both the homeless and the 
existing community through an institutional intervention.  
 
Figure 43: Harlem Park Neighborhood Zoning Code 
Yellow = R-8 
Blue = 0-1 
Red = B-1-2 
  76 
 
 
Figure 44: Harlem Park Ammenities 
According to the 2010 census tract, Harlem Park has a population of 2,515, of 
whom 2,427 are African American and 1,718 over the age of 18. The average 
education level of residents is a high school degree or equivalent. This contributes to 
the low medium incomes and  levels of poverty in the region. The median income of 
residents is $23,000 annually.  This puts residents at just above the poverty level 
which according to the US Poverty Guidelines of 2015 is $20,00031. When matched 
to property and housing values of $16,000 - $42,000 make maintenance and ability to 
afford properties difficult for residents as seen in the decline of Harlem Park over the 
years. Since lack of education and poverty levels are part of the cycles that contribute 
                                                 
31 "201 
5 Poverty Guidelines." 2015 Poverty Guidelines. February 1, 2015. Accessed May 10, 2015. 
  77 
 
to the state of homelessness, a transitional housing facility and educational center 
would contribute to meeting the needs of both residents and homeless people. 
Typologies: 
 Harlem Park has a unique set of block typologies that make it appropriately 
suited for supportive housing and defensible space. As stated in the history of Harlem 
Park, due to the Demonstration Project of the 60’s, the blocks which were once 
developed as a series of row houses and alley houses became courtyard blocks lined 
by row houses, Figure X and Y. 
 
Figure 45: Site Figure Ground 
  78 
 
 
Figure 46: Block Typology Changes 
This block typology sets up a space that allows residents of the block to feel a sense 
of ownership and ability to keep security through eyes and access to public space. 
The current parks are failing, however, due to a lack of maintenance and sense of 
ownership. Current owners have their own backyards to maintain, and since the city 
cannot afford to maintain the (city owned) parks it falls to the residents to maintain 
them. As this is more than they can handle, the parks have fallen into disrepair and 
abandonment. This is a challenge the project must address, how to create a public 
space that engenders a sense of ownership and safety for residents. This will be 
achieved through the proper program types having access to the courtyard.  
  79 
 
 
Areas of Opportunity & Need 
In considering a final site, the needs of the Harlem Park community and 
homeless people of Baltimore were measured against the opportunities each block 
provided. The primary needs considered in site selection included: public space, 
opportunities for business and amenity growth, access to public transportation, and 
access to education and community spaces. In speaking with multiple community and 
neighborhood design centers within Baltimore, there was a consensus that what 
Harlem Park needed was an urban center that would bring new life and a new face to 
the neighborhood 
 
Figure 47. Comparison of needs between the housed and homeless 
 
Harlem Park, while primarily zoned for residential use, does have a series of 
streets and regions that are zoned and set up as incentive zones for commercial 
business owners and developers. These areas are ideal for a transitional housing 
program with employment opportunities in the form of incubator retail space. 
  80 
 
 
Figure 48: Areas of Opportunity 
In addition to considering areas of possible growth and redevelopment within the 
neighborhood, it is important to consider access to public transportation. Harlem Park 
is slated as one of the neighborhoods to receive a stop for the new Baltimore Redline 
(see figurex). Along with the redline stop, the neighborhood has a series of bus stops 
(figure x), a necessary amenity transitional housing needs access to. 
 
Figure 49. Public Transportation 
  81 
 
While a transitional housing facility will provide many needed programmatic 
services, existing services and centers are also taken into consideration when 
determining site. The main categories studied were public buildings, churches, 
commercial buildings, and residential typology. 
 
Figure 50: Public Buildings in Harlem Park 
  82 
 
 
Figure 51: Religious Institutions in Harlem Park 
 
Figure 52: Commercial Buildings in Harlem Park 
  83 
 
 
Figure 53: Residential Building Typology 
 
Final Site Seletction 
 Based on the criteria and analysis of the previous section, the final site 
selection was Block N104, bounded by W Lanvale St., N Fremont Ave, and Harlem 
Ave. Due to its adjacency to the next neighborhood Upton, the site was ideal for 
creating a center that could benefit multiple communities. Its placement along a 
business zoned street, its inner city block park, and existing low income housing 
units, also made the site ideal for a transitional housing program. 
  84 
 
 
Figure 54: Final Site Conditions 
 
Figure 55: Final Site Selection 
  85 
 
The Harlem Park neighborhood currently has a vacancy rate of up to %4032. In spite 
of the flight, there are a number of residents who have stayed.  In approaching site 
conditions and placement of buildings, it is therefore important to honor the current 
residents and not displace them through architectural interventions. In determining 
the site and what interventions are possible, a study of vacant properties and lots was 
made. Properties that were currently occupied were to be left intact and vacant 
buildings would either be incorporated or removed from the site during the design 
process. 
 
Figure 56: Vacant Land and Properties Near and on Site
                                                 
32 "Welcome to CityView 1.6." CityView. Accessed May 10, 2015. 
  86 
 
 
Chapter 7:  Design Development 
 
Program Development 
As stated previously in this paper, the goal of the program of this thesis is to 
match the needs of the community with the needs of the homeless. Through studying 
the community of Harlem Park it has become apparent that the community needs aid 
in higher education, job opportunities, community space and access to supportive 
services. This overlaps with the needs of homeless people who in addition to shelter 
and medical assistance also need aid in education, employment and supportive 
services. The goal of the program is to foster self-sufficiency and independence 
through transition for both homeless residents and community residents. Currently 
most programs and facilities for the homeless are segregated from the rest of society. 
Society at large knows of the existence of soup kitchens, shelters, and transitional 
housing, but its people do not actively socialize or mingle with those who use these 
facilities or make use of them themselves. By creating a space where both the housed 
and homeless can actively use together, there is the opportunity to create a stronger 
community. More importantly it provides a gateway for the homeless residents to 
interact again and equally with a community they would otherwise be isolated from.  
 
 
  87 
 
 
Figure 57: Building Program and Program Connections 
 
 
 
  88 
 
 
Figure 58: Integration of Transitional Housing, Communal Spaces, and Communities 
 
Figure 59: Bringing the Housed and Homeless Together through Space 
Through the analysis of transitional housing precedents, retirement facilities, 
and co-housing communities and the analysis of the many needs of different groups 
of people, I decided that the program should be broken down into four major parts: 
housing and shelter, social services, an educational center, and community center 
with employment opportunities. These four categories would make up the program. 
The housing would include child care and dining services, and be broken into three 
parts: supportive group housing for residents without children and not wanting to live 
alone, childcare housing for families transitioning out of homelessness, and market 
rate one to two bedroom units for individuals or couples. 
  89 
 
 Social services would be provided to both residents and the community in the 
form of supportive services, therapy, case management, and healthcare. The 
educational center seeks to share knowledge with any who come to the site through a 
public library, auditoriums, classrooms, offices, and workshops. The community 
center provides spaces for gathering and recreation in the form of galleries, art rooms, 
rentable rooms, and a gym. Sharing program between education and community is a 
job center providing aid to those in need of employment. Included is space for 
incubator retail which would be small low-rent spaces for the community to invest or 
as training ground for residents of the transitional housing. These program choices are 
intended to provide opportunities for growth, transition, and socialization while 
through architecture providing limits and safety to the spaces within which these 
activities occur. 
Program and Massing 
 The design proposal was broken into four distinct parts on the site: the social 
services mass, the housing and retail mass, the community center mass, and 
educational center mass. Each mass was sited and arranged based on its relationship 
to site, other programmatic elements, and creation of the courtyard. The interaction 
between programmatic spaces is important as they will inform how residents and 
outside community members will socialize with each other. Through precedent 
analysis it is apparent that there are typically two approaches to organization. One is a 
courtyard scheme and the other a bar scheme of linear spaces in progression. In order 
to integrate transitional housing with the surrounding community it is important to 
take into consideration the existing typology of the site. In this case a courtyard 
  90 
 
organization was most appropriate, as it gives opportunity for a controlled defensible 
space. While the argument can be raised that the current courtyard scheme existing in 
Harlem Park has failed and thus the likelihood of another courtyard being successful 
as slim, I argue in this thesis that the success of the courtyard typology is dependent 
upon scale and the type of program that surrounds the courtyard. Where the existing 
courtyards are surrounded by residences and their private yards, the proposed 
intervention places residences as well as a variety of other programmatic uses facing 
the courtyard. In transitional housing the courtyard is also essential in how it acts as a 
secure threshold to gather residents and disperse them through the rest of the facility. 
It is also a space to gather them as a community to socialize and celebrate 
achievements. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 60: Program Placement on Site 
  91 
 
 
Figure 91: General Massing on Site 
 
Figure 92: Courtyard Typology of Harlem Park and Site Intervention 
  92 
 
 Baltimore’s culture of socialization and activity occurs on the street, or more 
specifically from the stoop. The street edge and condition creates the life and energy 
for the buildings and stores. One of the challenges faced in approaching a courtyard 
site with a front door culture is where the front and back of a building exist. In the 
case of the site intervention it became important to create two fronts, a street front and 
a courtyard front. The first front would be the most public face and accessible to most 
of the community. The latter would serve as the private face for residents of the 
program. Current context surrounding and including the site showed a saw tooth 
development. The final massing of the design is a result of the desire to create a 
uniform street front along W Lanvale St, N Fremont Ave, and Harlem Ave. Retail, 
social services, education and community spaces are placed on the ground floor to 
take advantage of pedestrian traffic, and create prominent access to the surrounding 
community so as to generate a neighborhood center.  The final intervention is titled 
the Harlem Park Mariposa House. 
 
Figure 63: Aerial View of Harlem Park Mariposa House
  93 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 64: Site Plan
  94 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 65: Progam use of Site Plan 
  95 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 66: Floor Plans of Levels 2-5 
  96 
 
Incubator Retail 
 Along N Fremont Ave, incubator retail is located as part of the job center and 
commercial funding aspect of the project. Incubator retail is sized based on the 
structural bay widths of 20’x20’ (Figures X, X).Harlem Park lacks the amenities 
found in stores such as cafes, clothing, grooming needs. The retail aspect of this 
project will supply the neighborhood with much needed business but also 
opportunities for employment and investment. Residents of Harlem Park will be 
given the opportunity to invest in the Mariposa House by renting space for business. 
Businesses not run by neighborhood residents will be run by the transitional housing. 
All shops provide practice work ground for residents of transitional housing as well 
as employment, but also employment opportunities to the rest of the neighborhood. 
 
Figure 67: Retail Program            Figure 68: Incubator Retail 
  97 
 
Social Services 
Along W Lanvale St, the most residential street of the site, the social services 
center is located. There is a small and subtle entrance placed along the street 
referencing the style of the surrounding row houses. Off the entrance is a small public 
courtyard where the residents of the neighborhood along with residents of Mariposa 
House can congregate. The social services center consists of a day room for visiting 
homeless individuals, rooms for therapy and case management (figure X), work space 
for residents to meet with case workers, and a health center located on the second 
level of the building.(See Figure X and X) 
 
Figure 69: Social Services Program         Figure 70: Social Services Plan 
  Guests, residents, and community members enter the social services center 
they are directed from the courtyard to a large atrium (figure X) where they are 
  98 
 
greeted and directed through the building according to the reason for visit. Moving 
through the building there are a series of thresholds and moments of reflection. Along 
the main hallway and entrance into the center is a gabion wall constructed of 
demolished buildings that were previously on the site. Light is allowed to filter 
through the wall, a reference to the past of individuals coming to the site and that 
while one can look to the past there is now the opportunity to move forward to a new 
life, referenced by the glimpses that are allowed into the private courtyard. There is a 
life beyond that can be reached but first there is work to be done. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figures 71 Social Services Entrance   Figure  72: Therapy Room 
  99 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 73: Floor Plan of Social Services 
  100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 74: Floor Plan of Second Floor Health Center 
  101 
 
Transitional Housing Units 
An important portion of the program is the development of the housing units. 
While most of the supportive housing occurs on the upper levels of the building a 
small portion of the housing creates a front on W  Lanvale St. As the most residential 
of the three streets surrounding the site, by placing a number of units on the street, 
residents ready to return to permanent housing can begin the transition by having 
their own front door and socializing with neighbors across the street. Since the 
building contains multiple types of housing and set in a residential neighborhood, it is 
important to blend the housing with the surrounding typology. There is a balance that 
must be maintained within the housing between the needs of the resident based on 
their many varied backgrounds and reasons for coming, and the existing community’s 
view on housing. The question can be raised as to how iconic a new building should 
be? These residents are already dealing with the stigma of homelessness and it is my 
opinion that then this is a building we do not want to draw too much attention to. This 
is achieved by honoring the existing building typology surrounding the site. The row 
house typology is adapted then in the façade (see figure X).
  102 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 75: Analysis of Housing and its Facades
  103 
 
              The most private function of the transitional housing program are the living 
units for residents. Housing units are broken up into three types: one to two bedroom 
units for individuals or couples, family units, and group units( Figure X). While it is 
important for residents to feel safe in their own units, there are a series of common 
rooms and terraces on each floor to foster community interactions. The first floor of 
units has the most public interaction as they open up onto the courtyard and street. 
The upper levels provide more security and limited interaction to the other residents 
of the building. Following the model of co-housing the first floor has a bar of 
program that acts as the main house for residents to use. The main house bar includes 
a common room for relaxation, a day care for children of families in the program, and 
a dining hall and kitchen through which residents can learn to cook and share meals. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
:  
Figure 76: Program of Living Units  Figure 77: Ground Floor of Living Unis 
  104 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Figure 78: Unit Types found in Mariposa House 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 79: Second Floor Plan of Living Units 
As previously stated there are three unit types found within Mariposa House: 
one to two bedroom units, family units, and group units (Figure X). Looking at the 
floor plans of the second level and levels above (Figure X), the distribution of unit 
types becomes apparent. Unit types are grouped based upon the types of residents and 
the interactions the program hopes to foster.  
Family units can range from 2-4 bedroom units and are grouped together near 
common rooms so that children can form friendships within the housing(figure X). 
  105 
 
While parents can rely on each other and the community to care for the children in the 
common room, they are also able to make use of the childcare services located on the 
first floor (figure X). In the end it is the opportunity to create home and a sanctuary 
(figure X) that is a great relief to families that have become homeless. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 80: Childcare Services 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 81: Family Living Unit 
  106 
 
Group units are then clustered with individual units. These units are for adult 
individuals and couples. For those who wish to live alone, the single units are offered 
(figure X). For those who feel unsafe by themselves the safety of numbers is offered 
in the form of roommates and a shared apartment. These two are clustered together 
with close relation to the family units to try to create as many possible moments of 
interaction as possible. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 82: Individual Living Unit 
 
Figure 83: Common Room 
  107 
 
Education and Community Center 
Located along Harlem Ave, is the education and social services center. These 
are the two most public buildings on the site as they are meant to be the main space of 
interaction between the homeless residents and neighborhood residents. The first 
floor of the education center is programmed to meet communal needs such as 
gathering, learning, and relaxing. This space is a space to share concerns and 
knowledge. As the closest public library is 10 miles away, it was important to provide 
such a sanctuary and amenity to the public (figure X). It will also serve as a quiet 
space for residents to relax in other than their living units. The two upper levels are 
dedicated to classrooms, workspace, offices, and study rooms. There is courtyard 
located on the second level of the education center on which all classroom look out 
into. This creates a private space for socializing outdoors while within the education 
center. 
The community center then focuses on the creation of recreational spaces for 
residents including a gym and basketball court. The upper floors of both centers are 
more quiet spaces of meeting, work and education. Due to the public nature of the 
center, there is a public courtyard located on the first floor on which entrances to the 
building sits. This building sits on one of the most prominent corners of the site at the 
intersection of N Fremont Ave and Harlem Ave. Thus it was important to create a 
welcoming yet institutional face for the communities. Where the rest of the site is 
dedicated to living and aid, the heart of the community, the education and community 
center are the soul and brain. 
 
  108 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 84: Level 1-4 of Education and Community Center
  109 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
F 
Figure 85: Public Library 
Conclusion: 
 
 Homelessness is a state to recover from, not a problem to fix. It is through 
architecture and the multifaceted nature of building and constructing space that we 
can heal social issues. The innovations proposed in this project of approaching the 
city block as a center for healing, living, and socializing are but one way to approach 
the tremendous undertaking that the state of homelessness is to fix. It is not 
something that architecture alone can impact. It is through empathy and an 
understanding of the many situations the individual can experience that architecture 
can then begin to make an impact. For me, empathy came from a personal experience 
of homelessness. In understanding the need, the fear, the want for help, I could 
approach this subject with a gravitas and respect that allows for a very sensitive 
  110 
 
subject to create a thesis that presented a holistic solution. This thesis is site and 
situation specific.  The process of research, experience, and narrowing the scope of a 
project in order to redefine the way we approach supportive housing and the city 
block to relieve social tension is a valuable approach that can be applied globally. It is 
for us, the designer to use our skills to better the quality of life for all in need.
  111 
 
Chapter 8: Response to Public Presentation 
 
 
Panel Response 
 
After a year of research and design development, the accumulation of work 
was presented to a public audience. The project received both positive and negative 
feedback. The project was commended for its depth and scope, as well as the 
understanding of the needs and program of the thesis. The project was also questioned 
for its scale, source of funding, and choice of typology. The following sections will 
summarize the panel’s comments and both their and my response. 
Funding 
 One of the fundamental questions asked in response to this thesis was that at 
the scale of an urban block development, where and how would this project be 
funded? The answer to this question during the panel discussion was federal funding 
and income from the rentable space given to incubator retail. While this was 
considered a viable option  in funding transitional housing, it was suggested to look at 
the existing community groups such as the many churches near the site. Churches 
already fund soup kitchens and sanctuaries for the homeless. They have expanded 
such funding, in the past, to supportive housing programs as well. By working jointly 
with the church community there will be greater interaction between the 
neighborhood community and the homeless community, which is a main goal of the 
thesis. 
 
 
  112 
 
Urban and Site Planning 
 While the focus of this thesis was specifically transitional housing, another 
approach might have been to state that the desire to design a city block as a center for 
the many communities of Baltimore MD, led to the program of transitional housing 
mixed with service centers aimed at creating interactive spaces. A question to pose 
would be: can the city block be solved through program and institution. While there 
are many different lenses to approach the concept of housing and the urban block, the 
aspiration of the project and its extents was considered admirable. 
 In terms of the scale of the project, the question was raised about whether the 
homeless residents would be comfortable in such a large facility, and how the project 
helped to transition residents through the shock of being housed.  My response to this 
concern would be to agree that in continuing the development of this project rather 
than the use of large communal spaces, smaller clusters of units and public spaces are 
an approach that could be explored as another intervention. It is my opinion that the 
issue of creating transitional housing can be approached from a multitude of scales. 
However to create the most impact within a city the center of services is necessary to 
construct. The current design proposal holds 75 units capable of housing 200 
residents. With the current homeless population numbering over 2,000, they could be 
housed with the development of 10 city blocks with this design. A more subtle 
approach in further developing this project would look at developing a city block as 
the first transitional center where those in the most crises would receive aid. 
Throughout the neighborhood smaller transitional housing programs could develop in 
the abandoned row houses owned by the city. By rehabilitating these properties 
  113 
 
different level of aid and housing can be offered. Residents once they have completed 
the program and training offered by the main housing program, could pool their 
resources to rehabilitate some of the many abandoned buildings in Baltimore and 
create ownership. From the scale of the apartment, the row house to the city block, 
the issue of homelessness can be addressed at many scales. 
The Courtyard 
 One element of the program that has been met with debate and much iteration 
over the course of this project is the courtyard. The fact that all the surrounding inner 
city block courtyard-parks had failed raised the question of the possible success of 
another. It was argued that with the right program facing a courtyard the chance of 
success increased. The project also argued for a scenario where a large exterior space 
of multi-function would create an atmosphere where community interaction could 
occur. While this idea is accepted and understood by the panel the question of size 
and scale was questioned. It was suggested that perhaps through a number of units 
clustered around multiple courtyards, a stronger sense of small knit communities 
would be formed. This is attempted through the connection of units to common room 
within the building in the current design. With this idea in place it is possible to 
divide up the large exterior courtyard to better accommodate function and interaction. 
The final level of detail that could be developed through the use of the courtyard 
would be the concept of transition and privacy. This is a function that would speak to 
the nature of the project in a finishing detail. 
 
 
  114 
 
Space Planning 
 The use of communal space creates an area of interaction where community 
can form. The use of program along it dedicated to residents creates a center for 
celebration. Yet there is tension between the public and private access/use of the 
courtyard that limits interaction.  
 The childcare center for instance should have a greater connection and 
relationship to the neighborhood. Currently residents of the transitional housing have 
exclusive access to the center through the courtyard. Is this a program that should be 
isolated? Perhaps there is opportunity for residents of the neighborhood to be 
employed in the childcare center. This would require a new placement of the daycare 
along the street edge while still spanning to the interior courtyard to provide space for 
play. In looking at past iterations of program placement the childcare center could 
return to the street front, provided it still had access to resident housing. 
 Another instance of public-private interaction occurs in the commercial bar of 
program along N Fremont Ave. This commercial bar is programmed to include 
incubator retail. Residents or community members can chose to invest in the space to 
start business or gain employment opportunities and practice. This program however 
could be sized differently. It was suggested by the panel that the right scale of 
incubator retail could be found through a study of rentable market space. This would 
begin with the smallest market stall (40 sf) to the scale of commercial stores 
(2,000sf).This incremental approach to space would allow for the generation of 
multiple plans, businesses, and variety of opportunities. 
  115 
 
 This incremental approach previously mentioned is also challenged by the 
panel to occur further within the housing and unit development. Currently there are 
four unit types: the single, double, family, and group unit. This approach focuses on 
the apartment unit typology. Is this practical for the variety of people and groups of 
people coming to the site? Another question raised was the typology and appearance 
of the housing. Should the housing be uniform, or designed to match the type of 
housing residents can expect to find upon leaving transitional housing? To develop 
this further I would study what it means sectionally as well as in plan to create units 
that are multi-level or take the scale of an entire row house floor. This would be based 
on the many different typologies found in housing within Harlem Park and the rest of 
Baltimore. 
 In considering the new possibilities and needs of a new scale of project, one 
must also consider the scale of the program. By removing programmatic elements and 
moving them to a nearby site within the neighborhood, the site would open up to the 
opportunity of smaller communal spaces (looking back to the argument of the scale of 
the courtyard). By removing an element such as the library, which takes up 10,000 sf, 
there becomes the chance to create spaces of private ownership among residents as 
opposed to the current ownership. The challenge in this approach however is 
balancing the need for security and defensible space with the goal of creating porous 
interactive spaces. Another challenge would be the panel’s proposal for placing units 
around small public spaces. By doing so, there is the chance that important street 
fronts that are needed for other program elements would be lost to housing. The 
  116 
 
balance between program elements and the spaces they create on site has been a topic 
of much iteration in this project. 
 With the question of scale and what programmatic elements could stay on site 
depending on an alternate intervention, the question was raised as to the creation then 
of new/more spaces of communal interaction. While there is implied ownership of the 
space, residents of the housing program do not have their own personal exterior space 
to cultivate during their stay. As seen with the failure of the existing parks, it is 
understood that for public space to be successful within transitional housing residents 
must feel a sense of private responsible ownership of some spaces as opposed to 
public communal space. 
Conclusions from Public Presentation 
 It is my conclusion from the public presentation that this thesis while showing 
a strong understanding and interpretation of the situation of homeless individuals and 
their needs, there are many additional interpretations and approaches that can be 
taken to further develop the design of the project. The key points I would further 
develop within this thesis includes the scale of programmatic elements, pushing the 
layers, barriers, and moments of interaction between homeless residents and 
community, and the creation of private owned space with the tension of public space. 
I would further push the concept of transition and its representation through space and 
architecture.  Most importantly I would consider how the typology of transitional 
housing within the city can branch out to other communities in order to heal 
communities that have long seen disinvestment. 
 
  117 
 
  118 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  119 
 
Bibliography 
 
Alexander, Christopher, and Sara Ishikawa. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, 
Construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. 
Auge, Marc, and Turhan Ilgaz. Yer Olmayanlar: Üstmodernliğin Antropolojisine 
Giriş. İstanbul: Kesit Yayıncılık, 1997 
Baumohl, Jim. Homelessness in America. Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Press, 1996. 
Beider, Harris. Race, Housing & Community Perspectives on Policy & Practice. 
Chichester, West Sussex [England: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. 
"Bud Clark Commons / Holst Architecture." ArchDaily. December 7, 2011. Accessed 
December 13, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/189376/bud-clark-commons-
holst-architecture/. 
Davis, Sam. Designing for the Homeless: Architecture That Works. Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 2004. 
Ellen, Ingrid Gould. How to House the Homeless. New York: Russell Sage 
Foundation, 2010. 
Goffman, Erving. Stigma; Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood 
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. 
Glasser, Irene, and Rae Bridgman. Braving the Street: The Anthropology of 
Homelessness. New York: Berghahn Books, 1999. 
"Harlem Park - Baltimore Heritage." Baltimore Heritage. Accessed January 10, 2015. 
http://baltimoreheritage.org/history/harlem-park/. 
 
  120 
 
Hart, Mechthild U. Psychological, Political, and Cultural Meanings of Home. New 
York: Haworth, 2005. 
Hayward, Mary Ellen, and Charles Belfoure. The Baltimore Rowhouse. New York: 
Princeton Architectural Press, 1999. 
Hellegers, Desiree. No Room of Her Own: Women's Stories of Homelessness, Life, 
Death, and Resistance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. 
Henry, Meghan, and Dr. Alvaro Cortes. "The 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment 
Report (AHAR) to Congress." 1, no. 1, 1-64. 
Hombs, Mary Ellen. Modern Homelessness a Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, 
Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2011. 
Irvine, Leslie. My Dog Always Eats First: Homeless People and Their Animals. 
Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2013. 
Israel, Toby. Some Place like Home: Using Design Psychology to Create Ideal 
Places. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Academy, 2003. 
"Larraz Arquitectos." Larraz Arquitectos. Accessed December 13, 2014. 
http://www.larrazarquitectos.com/detalle-
proyecto.php/idioma/en/nombre/centro-de-acogida-para-personas-sin-
hogar/idp/3. 
McCamant, Kathryn, and Charles Durrett. Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to 
Housing Ourselves. Berkeley, Calif.: Habitat Press, 1988. 
  121 
 
McDougal, Harold. Black Baltimore: A New Theory of Community. Philadelphia: 
Temple University, 1993. 
McKeldin, Theodore. A Demonstration of Rehabilitation Harlem Park Baltimore, 
Maryland. Baltimore: City of Baltimore, 1965 
"Multiplicity and Memory: Talking About Architecture with Peter Zumthor." 
Architecture Photography: Residential Home for the Elderly in Masans 
Section (85712). Accessed December 13, 2014. 
http://www.archdaily.com/85656/multiplicity-and-memory-talking-about-
architecture-with-peter-zumthor/residential-home-for-the-elderly-in-masans-
section/. 
Nietzke, Ann. Natalie on the Street. Corvallis, Or.: Calyx Books, 1994. 
Paul Keogh Architects. Case Studies in Sheltered Housing in Ireland 1, no. 1 (2010): 
1-41. 
Porteous, J. Douglas, and Sandra Eileen Smith. Domicide the Global Destruction of 
Home. Montreal, Que.: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001. 
Qu, Lei, and Evert Hasselaar. Making Room for People Choice, Voice and Liveability 
in Residential Areas. Amsterdam: Techne Press, 2011. 
Rawlings-Blake, Stephanie. "Baltimore City 10-year Plan." 1, no. 1 (2008): 1-69. 
Scharf, J. Thomas. History of Baltimore City and County. Baltimore: Regional Pub., 
1971. 
Seyda, Barbara. Nomads of a Desert City: Personal Stories from Citizens of the 
Street. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2001. 
  122 
 
"Shelter Home for the Homeless / Javier Larraz." ArchDaily. April 5, 2011. Accessed 
December 13, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/124688/shelter-home-for-the-
homeless-javier-larraz/. 
"The Bridge Homeless Assistance Center / Overland Partners." ArchDaily. March 1, 
2011. Accessed December 13, 2014. http://www.archdaily.com/115040/the-
bridge-homeless-assistance-center-overland-partners/. 
Thompson, Susan. "Home and Loss." Renegotiating Meanings of Home in the Wake 
of Relationship Breakdown 10, no. 4 (2007). 
Waterston, Alisse. Love, Sorrow, and Rage Destitute Women in a Manhattan 
Residence. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1999. 
Williams, Jean Calterone. "A Roof over My Head": Homeless Women and the Shelter 
Industry. Boulder, Colo.: University Press of Colorado, 2003. 
Wood, Denis, and Robert J. Beck. Home Rules. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University 
Press, 1994. 
Wright, Talmadge. Out of Place Homeless Mobilizations, Subcities, and Contested 
Landscapes. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. 
"2013 Homeless Point in Time Count Report."  City of Baltimore 2013. 
Yeebo, Yepoka. "Baltimore Decides Some Neighborhoods Just Aren't Worth 
Saving." Business Insider. February 24, 2012. Accessed December 13, 2014. 
http://www.businessinsider.com/baltimore-has-decided-some-neighborhoods-
just-arent-worth-saving-2012-2?op=1. 
 
 
 
  123