Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

The Wellington Destructor V4 : Productive Futures for Superannuated Infrastructures Whitten, Trevor 2019-04-25

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


42591-Whitten_Trevor_ARCH_549_Wellington_Destructor_2019.pdf [ 33.45MB ]
JSON: 42591-1.0378520.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0378520-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0378520-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0378520-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0378520-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0378520-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0378520-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE WELLINGTON DESTRUCTOR V4Productive Futures for Superannuated Infrastructures byTrevor WhittenB.A.S. Design, Carleton University, 2015Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture in The Faculty of Applied ScienceTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAVancouverApril 2019© Trevor Whitten, 2019       John Bass Roy Cloutier James Huemoeller(Chair)  (Committee)  (Committee)iiiiiOver the past 150 years, urban areas have been actively combating the problem of garbage and its relation to the city. This has lead to civic movements, protests and environmental consciousness. Over the decades the development of new technologies, materials and public awareness have shaped how and where we deal with this inevitable urban problem. In recent years the detrimental effects of garbage  have been suppressed from public consciousness, as the impacts of waste are pushed further out of the city limits. Since the conception of waste management infrastructure, the ambition of these systems has been to carry out tasks with efficiency, comfort and convenience. Ensuring these conditions has contributed to the externalization of territories of waste from within cities. While this perception of infrastructure has served the general population well, it has also obscured the many less favourable realities of these systems.As society trends towards a more sustainable future, this thesis looks for new ways to engage material waste within the public realm.Through the adaptive reuse of a 1920’s era garbage incinerator known as the Wellington Destructor, the project employs the building as a new kind of infrastructure oriented around alternative solutions to waste diversion. Opportunistic adaptations to the building’s spaces facilitate circular economies of waste, while also creating new opportunities for public engagement with the building’s past and proposed future.ABSTRACTivvTABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract ................................................................................................iiiList of Figures........................................................................................viiThesis Statement ...................................................................................1Field of Inquiry .......................................................................................3Section One Context + History ..............................................................7Section Two Precedents + Ideas..........................................................47Section Three Graduation Project II......................................................79Bibliography........................................................................................136 viviiLIST OF FIGURESFig. 1:  26-28 Tecumseth Street  1938. webcat/request/Action?ClientSession=755f19f3:1677d1499eb:-7b89&TemplateProcessID=6000_3355&CMD_(pg.10) Fig. 2:  Garrison Creek Toronto 1916. Toronto Archive, Series 372, s0372_ss0041_it0505.(pg.11)Fig. 3: Garbage in Lake Circa 1910. systems/toronto.arch/resource/fo1244/f1244_it0641.jpg (pg.13)Fig. 4:  Vaughan TownshipNewspaper Clipping 1967. City of Vaughan Archives. (pg.15)Fig. 5:  Ariel View of Site 1994.(Author 2018) (pg.17)Fig. 6: Chewett 1831 Map. Map. (pg.18)Fig. 7: Fleming 1852 Map. (pg.20)Fig. 8: Goad’s 1899 Map. (pg.20)Fig. 9:  Wellington Destructor1925. (pg.22)Fig. 10: 1926 Fairchild Aerial Views of Fort York. (pg.22)Fig. 11: Waste 1910 vs 1970. (Author 2018) (pg.24)Fig. 16: Wellington Destructor Loading Ramp . (Author 2018) (`pg.26)Fig. 17:  Wellington Destructor Weight Scale + Tipping Floor. (Author 2018) (pg.27)Fig. 18: Wellington Destructor Tipping + Charging Floor. (Author 2018)  (pg.28)Fig. 19: Wellington Destructor Charging Floor+ Charging Container.(Author 2018) (pg.29) Fig. 20: Wellington Destructor Furnaces + Stocking Floor. (Author 2018) (pg.30)Fig. 21:  Wellington Destructor Ash Run + Rail Cart (Author 2018) (pg.31)Fig. 22: Wellington Destructor Elevator + Ash Bin (Author 2018) (pg.32)Fig. 23:  Wellington Ash Bin Dumping + Removal (Author 2018) (pg.33)viiiFig. 24: Wellington Destructor FlueSystem. (Author 2018) (pg.34)Fig. 25: Chimney Diagram (Author 2018) (pg.35) Fig. 26:  Image of Tipping Floor. (pg.36)Fig. 27: Image Showing Foundation. Image Showing Foundation. (pg.37)Fig. 28: Photo Essay. (Author 2018) (pg.42)  Fig. 29: Photo Essay. (Author 2018) (pg.43)  Fig. 30: Le Fresnoy National Studio For Contemporary Art. (pg.49)Fig. 31: Design Approach Diagram. (Author 2018) (pg.50) Fig. 32: The Ethics of Dust West Minster Hall. (pg.53)Fig. 33:  Fragile Lands, View of Scale Model. (pg.56)Fig. 34: Gordon Matta-Clark,Conical Intersect, 1975. (pg.59)Fig. 35: Exterior of Ruhr Museum. Exterior of Ruhr Museum. (pg.62)Fig. 36: Tschumi Operation Diagram. (Author 2018 (pg.64)Fig. 37: Jorge Otero-Pailos Operation Diagram. (Author 2018)(pg.66)Fig. 38: Judah Operation Diagram. (Author 2018) (pg.68)Fig. 39: Gordon Matta-Clark Operation Diagram. (Author 2018) (pg.70) Fig. 40: Koolhaas Operation Diagram. (Author 2018) (pg. 72) Fig. 41: Abandoned Incinerators. (Author 2019) (pg.84)Fig. 42: Site Network. (Author 2019) (pg.88)Fig. 43: Site Axo. (Author 2019) (pg.89)ixFig. 44: Ground  Plan. (Author 2019) (pg.90)Fig. 45: Top Plan (Author 2019) (pg.91)Fig. 46: Long Section. (Author 2019) (pg.92)Fig. 47: Cross Section. (Author 2019) (pg.93)Fig. 48: Interventions. (Author 2019) (pg.95)Fig. 49: Exchange Space. (Author 2019) (pg.97)Fig. 50: Tipping Floor. Tipping Floor (pg.98)Fig. 51: Render Exchange Space. (Author 2019) (pg.99)Fig. 52: Market Hall Partitions. (Author 2019) (pg.100)Fig. 53: Communal Workshop Partitions. (Author 2019) (pg.101)Fig. 54: Partitions Axo. (Author 2019) (pg.102)Fig. 55: Render Market Hall. (Author 2019) (pg.103)Fig. 56: Salvage Yard. (Author 2019) (pg.105)Fig. 57: Salvage Yard Axo. (Author 2019) (pg.106)Fig. 58: Ash Hopper. (pg.107)Fig. 59: Salvage Yard Orthographic. (Author 2019) (pg.107) Fig. 60: Salvage Yard Axo. (Author 2019) (pg.109)Fig. 61: Public Gallery Axo. (Author 2019) (pg.110)Fig. 62: Render Of Salvage Yard. (Author 2019) (pg.111)Fig. 63: Public Atrium. (Author 2019) (pg.113)Fig. 64: Ovens 1929. (pg.114)Fig. 65: Render of Ovens. (Author 2019) (pg.115)    Fig. 66: Amphitheater Axo. (Author 2019) (pg.116)Fig. 67: Axo of Innervations Off Atrium. (Author 2019) (pg.117)Fig. 68: Charging Floor. (pg.118)Fig. 69: Atop Oven. (Author 2019) (pg.119)xFig. 70: Workshops. (Author 2019) (pg.121)Fig. 71: Axo Workshops. (Author 2019) (pg.122)Fig. 72: Render of Workshops. (Author 2019) (pg.123)Fig. 73: Flue Hall. (pg.124)Fig. 74: Render Storefront. (Author 2019) (pg.125)  Fig. 75: Exploded Axo Workshop.(Author 2019) (pg.126) Fig. 76: Board 1. (Author 2019) (pg.128)Fig. 77: Board 2. (Author 2019) (pg.129)Fig. 78: Board 3. (Author 2019) (pg.130)Fig. 79: Board 4. (Author 2019) (pg.131)Fig. 80: Board 5. (Author 2019) (pg.132)Fig. 81: Board 6. (Author 2019) xixiiINTRO 1Infrastructure has played a fundamental role in enabling social and cultural habits of consumption and production of waste. The response of  rapid technological advancements to address the challenges posed by this issue has produced artifacts that quickly render themselves obsolete. The potential to engage these artifacts with the complex social and urban issues that surround them can be done through the act of preservation. This thesis seeks to challenge conventional notions of architectural preservation that go beyond the artifact, instead focusing on the histories, contexts and processes in order to address contemporary urban and social issues they engage with.THESIS STATEMENT INTRO 3Dealing with the issues of urbanity is no new task for cities across the globe. The challenges of urbanization in relation to issues of sanitation, overpopulation, transportation and others, have been traditionally thought of as  purely infrastructural problems, when actually they are just components in a larger and more complicated cultural and social network.  As a result, society’s advancements in combating these issues has created  conditions in which they have fallen victim to their own successes. The continual growth which these infrastructures have facilitated has  lead us to series of wicked problems. Challenges such as the depletion of natural resources, destruction of natural habitat and climate change. These new challenges have to be met with creative innovations from all fields and disciplines. Combating these issues over the last century has produced numerous sites and artifacts loaded with histories which tell stories of these conditions of urbanity.This thesis will focus on the adaptive reuse of an early 20th-century garbage incinerator known as the Wellington Destructor, focusing in on the role of architectural preservation in it’s broader relationship with social and urban issues. This thesis will extend the preservation of the building to engage the preservation of its historic  relationship to waste production, consumption and urbanity at large. These historic relationships are at threat in urban areas as the societal relationship to waste is removed due to the detrimental effects of waste being pushed further from urban centers. The Wellington Destructor, which was thought of as one of the greatest advancements in waste disposal at the time of it construction, was rendered obsolete after 60 years of operation. This failure of the plant  speaks more largely to the rate that societies need to progress technologies in order to sustain their current consumptive trajectories. This also signifies the suppression of unwanted and undesirable effects of our consumption-driven habits in close vicinity to urban settlement.FIELD OF INQUIRY  INTRO4In a larger context, this thesis seeks to challenge traditional ideas of preservation and conservation which heavily focus on architectural value. Previous architects and designers have established ways which preservation can become a form of mediation between the viewer and the artifact. Deploying these modes of operations can further expand the understanding of artifacts, serving as a way to situate contemporary conditions into this larger historical narrative. SECTION ONE 7SECTION ONECONTEXT + HISTORYContextualizing The Wellington Destructor.............................................9Site History............................................................................................16Timeline.................................................................................................19The Infrastructure of the Wellington Destructor....................................26Photo Essay..........................................................................................42Notes.....................................................................................................44SECTION ONE 9Garbage has long been a issue of urbanity in the North American city. In the late 19th century the problem of garbage disposal in the city had escalated to an issue that could no longer be ignored. As American society grew more affluent, the refuse problem grew in magnitude and complexity. The scale of urban growth after 1920, the changing economy after WWI and the impact of technological innovations contributed to garbage disposal becoming a monumental issue1. For many cities in North America sanitary and health concerns lead to the to rise of garbage disposal in the 1880s. Garbage became perceived as a community-wide danger, especially after it became common knowledge that there was a direct relationship between waste and disease2. Initial solutions to the problem were met through means of dumping garbage in low lying depressions in the landscape, dumping in water and using the garbage as animal feed.  “These early measures of waste disposal led to initial success at combating the problem, but through their methods created a marginalization of populations who lived most closely to their impacts. Giving rise to a public awakening of the people impacted by the issues that stemmed from primitive methods of disposal.“The reason why the problem of refuse disposal is receiving an ever-increasing amount of attention from engineers, municipal authorities, and from the American public does not lie in the newness of the problem, but rather in an intellectual awakening of the people. The same spirit that leads men to realize the corruption of politics and business, and to attempt to remedy conditions by adopting new methods of administration and new laws, also leads to a realization of the primitiveness of the methods of wastes disposal still employed by many communities, and to a consequent desire for improvement.” 3 CONTEXTUALIZING THE WELLINGTON DESTRUCTORSECTION ONE 10Fig. 1:26-28 Tecumseth Street 1938 House Neighbouring the Wellington Destructor 26-28 Tecumseth Street 1938.SECTION ONE 11Fig. 2:Garrison Creek Toronto 1916Garrison Creek Toronto 1916, ravine was early dumping ground for garbage.SECTION ONE 12During this time there was a rise in civic organizations around the issue of sanitary reform among the groups most affected. The public awareness arose from a direct understanding of the production of waste and its impacts. Much of the efforts of civic organized groups at the time were concerned with bringing the refuse problem into the attention of the broader public4. With the success of the movement to engage the larger population by the turn of the 20th century, there was a large sense of self-pride and responsibility in urbanites committed to municipal improvement. The increased public awareness of the physical environment and had positive effects.5By the 1920s significant advancements in technologies introduces the modern garbage destructor as a efficient and effective way to deal with municipal garbage. The incinerating destructor was considered to be such an improvement  over first  generation garbage crematories it was compared as the difference between the ox team vs the automobile.6 It had the capability to reduce waste to 10 to 20 percent of the original volume. The substantial improvement in waste management was quickly overshadowed by the consumer-driven economy which was beginning to emerge during the same period. Estimates show that after WWI the amount of waste produced by urbanites increased about five times as rapidly as the population.7 The same advancements in technology impacted the compositional impact of waste, the 1920s saw the introduction of synthetics, paper and other toxic chemicals.Over the next 50 years after the 1920’s the production of garbage increased by an estimate of 45 percent. By the 1970s as a result of rampant consumerism, packaging represented 50 percent of municipal refuse in the United States.8 Such a dramatic increase in waste pushed incinerating facilities to their capacities with many in operation 24/7 to meet the demands. It was at this point that the impacts of incineration started to become fully understood. Incinerators were responsible for SECTION ONE 13Fig. 3:Garbage in Lake Circa 1910.Garbage In Lake Circa 1910.SECTION ONE 14producing toxins such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, and heavy metals, in the air and soil. Many facilities including the Wellington destructor operated with no emissions controls.9 The issue which had largely been ignored at the turn of the century now met civil resistance and led to the decommissioning of many plants including the Wellington destructor in the 1970s.The decommissioning of incinerators saw a increased reliance on municipal dumps. At this point in time, it was becoming increasingly difficult for municipalities to acquire a dumping site. Cities were forced to seek sites further and further from the city center.10 Many municipalities condemning the thought of landfills being moved into their neighborhoods. At the turn of the twenty first century, one hundred percent of Toronto’s garbage was shipped out of the city limits. With an estimated 10,000 tons being shipped to Michigan between 2003 and 2010 and now to London, Ontario for the expected next 25 years.SECTION ONE 15Fig. 4:Vaughan TownshipNewspaper Clipping 1967.Newspaper clipping 1967, of Vaughan Townships opposition to proposed dump. SECTION ONE 16The Wellington destructor sits on the site of what was once a part military reserve land that was established as part of Fort York in 1793. The strategic positioning of the site was partly to do with the natural embankment created by Garrison Creek, a small creek which flowed through the site at the time. The introduction of the railway in the mid 19th century severed both the creek and the current site of the Wellington Destructor from the military reserve. By the late 19th century the neighborhood began to become an industrial zone in the city. A remaining small military hospital and surgeons residence, which had been part of Garrison Commons, were removed and the site became Toronto’s Western Cattle market. During this time, Garrison Creek was converted into one of the city’s first sewers and the low lying ravine became a popular dumping ground for the city. The cattle Market operated for thirty plus years on the site before it was bought by the city to become the Wellington Destructor; the second high-temperature garbage incinerator in the city. The Wellington destructor operated from the 1920s to the 1980s before it was shut down and abandoned. Today both the Wellington Destructor and the Garrison creek sewer remain on the site. Currently, the site is situated at the interstice between Toronto’s Niagara, Fort York, and Liberty village neighborhoods. Bounded by Wellington street West to the North, the Canadian Pacific Rail lines to the south, Niagara street to the east and Stanley Terrace to the west. The site was designated a Historic Property in 2005 and plans for redevelopment are in process. SITE HISTORYSECTION ONE 17Fig. 5:Ariel View of Site 1994.Ariel View of site 1994, Wellington Destructor Shown on top right. SECTION ONE 18Fig. 6:Chewett 1831 Map Chewett 1831 Map, Site of Wellington Destructor approximately Central. SECTION ONE 19TIMELINEFort York established at the mouth of garrison creek  the site of Wellington destructor becomes a part of Garrison military reserve.Many buildings at Fort York destroyed during the American invasion. Surgeons residence and military hospital appear on site of what is now the Wellington destructor. Garrison Reserve is served by the introduction of the railway line. Separating the site of the Wellington destructor from Fort York Southernmost portion of garrison creek buried.Toronto begins formal garbage collection after a cholera outbreak. Military hospital and surgeons residence demolished. Garrison  creek becomes a popular dumping ground for garbage by city dwellersEmergence of the industry begins around the surrounding site of the Wellington destructorSite becomes Toronto Western Cattle marketGarrison creek used as a dumping ground for the city going hand-in-hand with its burial and conversion into a sewer below site of the destructor.179318131816185118561860s1870s1880sSECTION ONE 20Fig. 7:Fleming 1852 Map Fig. 8:Goad’s 1899 MapGoad’s 1899 Map, Showing Western Cattle Market approximately Central. Fleming 1852 Map, Site of Wellington Destructor approximately Central. SECTION ONE 21City dwellers begin to address the refuse problem, marks awareness of refuse as an environmental issue.Garrison creek turned into a sewer.Low-temperature garbage Crematory opened slightly east of the Wellington destructor’s current location.City constructs a new portion of its seawall, the portion of the lake that was filled during this time was for the primary use of garbage.Report by R.C. Harris attacks Toronto’s unsanitary and unjustifiable approach to waste management.Report released in favor of high temperature incinerating destructors.Western Crematory destroyed by fire, the crisis fire of the facility instigated many debates around the subject of garbage disposal. Livestock pens at the Western Cattle Market demolished to build Destructor on site.The Society of Street Cleaning was established in the United States and Canada. Taking responsibility for better street conditions and managing the refuse problem.Small plant opened on Toronto Island with a capacity of 18 tonnes.18851884189319091910191219131915SECTION ONE 22Fig. 9:Wellington Destructor1925 Fig. 10:1926 Fairchild Aerial Views of Fort York Wellington Destructor opening year in 1925.Aeriel photograph 1926, Wellington Destructor top left. SECTION ONE 23The Don Destructor opens with a capacity of 275-tonnes.Per capita 2.75 pounds of garbage produced daily.Construction began on the Wellington destructor. At the time in combination with along with its predecessor the Don, incinerating all of the city’s garbage.Introduction of synthetic materials, plastic and paper packaging into garbage. The Wellington Destructor opens as city’s second garbage incinerator.San Francisco city engineer M.M. O’Shaughnessy after North American Tour concluded that the wellington destructor was the most notable accomplishment of garbage collection and disposal of the time.Numerous complaints filed against the emissions from the Destructor regarding flaming  paper and ash. Incineration makes up 20% of pollution in North American Cities.The Goldenberg Report calls for the phasing out of old incinerators in Toronto Municipalities.Per capita 5 pounds of garbage produced daily.Metro Toronto produced 1400,000 tons of garbage a day.19171920s1923192519291950s+1960s1960s19661970s1965SECTION ONE 24PAPER0% 0%41%59%31%27%5%37%PAPERINORGANIC INORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC TEXTILESTEXTILES(1910)Municipal Waste Composition  (%)(1970)Municipal Waste Composition (%)Fig. 11:Waste 1910 vs 1970.SECTION ONE 25Incineration demand increases from 4200 tons to 6800 tons plant starts operation 24/7.Records show the annual disposal of 1.4 millions tons of garbage in landfills and 760,00 tons of garbage incinerated in Toronto. The Wellington destructor decommissions two furnaces as public concern mounted over the plant.Entire plant stop incineration process and is turned into a waste transfer station for sanitary items on their way to the landfill.Per capita 8 pounds of garbage produced daily.Poor configuration the plant and risk to worker safety force the wellington destructor to close.Toronto ships 100% of its garbage to Michigan State.Wellington destructor listed as a heritage property.Michigan State stops accepting Toronto’s Garbage.Toronto begins shipping garbage to London Ontario.19661967 197219731980s1986200320052010SECTION ONE 26The Wellington destructor is connected to Wellington Street by a 4% grade ramp which spans the 250ft approach to the building. The ramp which is 24ft wide was designed to accommodate the delivery of refuse by horse and wagon and electric freight cars. THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE WELLINGTON DESTRUCTORFig. 16:Wellington Destructor Loading RampSECTION ONE 27Upon entrance to the building, the garbage and is weighed on a 25-ton scale. The scale, which is approximately 9 ft by 24ft, is designed to accommodate the garbage and the means which it was delivered either by truck or wagon. The ‘tipping floor’ has two sides about 35ft wide which are connected by a central bridge forming an ‘H’ shape in plan. The volume has a clear span of 180 feet by 100 feet allowing for easy navigation within the building and has the capacity to accommodate 40 deliveries simultaneously.Fig. 17:Wellington Destructor Weight Scale + Tipping FloorSECTION ONE 28The floor is lined with steel bumpers to accommodate the tipping of wagons on to what is called the ‘charging floor’. The charging floor runs along the central axis of the building and is located 10ft below the level of the tipping floor.Fig. 18:Wellington Destructor Tipping + Charging FloorSECTION ONE 29The charging floor runs the full length of the building and is approximately 30ft wide. The charging floor is where the garbage is sorted and inspected. Once ready, manually laborers push the garbage into the charging containers which act as hoppers that feed into furnaces directly below.Fig. 19:Wellington Destructor Charging Floor+Charging Container SECTION ONE 30The charging containers are controlled by the furnace operator who works on the stocking floors. When needed the containers are opened and the furnaces are recharged. The stocking floor which is located under the charging floor is equipped with four separate furnaces units each cell has four combustion chambers.Fig. 20:Wellington DestructorFurnaces + Stocking FloorSECTION ONE 31Located below the stacking floor is the ash run floor.  When full, the furnace operator deposits the ash build up from the furnaces through small chutes into a small rail cart which runs below the furnaces. The rail cart operates on small gauge tracks which brings it to an electric elevator.Fig. 21:Wellington Destructor Ash Run + Rail CartSECTION ONE 32Once the rail cart is moved down the tracks to the elevator it is lifted up to what is called the ash bin building. The ash bin building has a large hopper which the ash from the furnaces is deposited into. Fig. 22:Wellington DestructorElevator +Ash Bin SECTION ONE 33The ash bin building is able to hold a large capacity of ash from the furnaces, the ash deposit is held here until it is taken off-site by trucks. When the hopper is full, a truck will back-in to the space below the hopper and is filled through chutes.Fig. 23:Wellington Ash Bin Dumping + Removal SECTION ONE 34The exhaust fumes from the furnaces funnel into large concrete flues buried under the grade level of the building. The flues are assisted by blowers which aid the exhausting of fumes through two 175ft chimneys. The chimneys which use a combination of natural ventilation and mechanical assistance to create and a draft.Fig. 24:Wellington Destructor FlueSystem SECTION ONE 35FoundationCooling Air Intake Plinth 1/4 to 1/6 chimney height Cavity wall Outer wallExhaust High temperature brickAir ChannelFig. 25:Chimney Diagram SECTION ONE 36The above image on the left is of the tipping floor of the building, in the center of the floor are a row of posts on the dumping level. The posts indicate that there is a hopper on the floor, each located directly abovethe incinerators below. The worker in the image of the dumping floor is holding a long pole presumably for feeding garbage into the hoppers. The timber bumpers lining the tipping floor allow the wagons to dump the refuse onto the lower floor.Fig. 26:Image of Tipping FloorSECTION ONE 37The exhaust system as shown in the above image, links the incinerating furnaces to the two chimneys (top left) that once stood outside the building’s south facade. The incinerators were divided along the length of the ground level floor into four segments indicated by the four concrete pads shown in the center of the image.Fig. 27:Image ShowingFoundation SECTION ONE 38Wellington Destructor Site Plan, 1924. Fig. 12:Wellington Destructor Site Plan 1924 SECTION ONE 39Wellington Destructor  Ground Level Plan, 1924Fig. 13:Wellington Destructor Ground Level Plan 1924 SECTION ONE 40Wellington Destructor Tipping Floor Plan, 1924. Fig. 14:Wellington Destructor Tipping Floor Plan, 1924SECTION ONE 41Wellington Destructor Cross sections, 1924Fig. 15:Wellington Destructor Cross sections, 1924SECTION ONE 42PHOTO ESSAY OF CONSTRUCTIONFig. 28:Photo Essay SECTION ONE 43Fig. 29:Photo Essay  NOTES44NOTES1. Melosi, Martin V. Garbage in the Cities: Refuse, Reform, and the Environment: 1880-1980 . Dorsey Press, 1987, p.189.2. Ibid, p.232.3. Venable, and William Mayo. Garbage Crematories in America. , 1906. p.1.4. Melosi, Martin V. Garbage in the Cities: Refuse, Reform, and the Environment: 1880-1980 . Dorsey Press, 1987, p114.5. Ibid, p.152.6. Joseph B Rider, “Public Refuse Destruction a Municipal Asset, Not a Liability.” Fire and water Engineering 54 (15 October 1913), p.311.7. Melosi, Martin V. Garbage in the Cities: Refuse, Reform, and the Environment: 1880-1980 . Dorsey Press, 1987, p.190.8. Ibid, p.192.9. O’Donohue, Tony, and Canadian Publishers Collection. The Tale of a City: Re-Engineering the Urban Environment. Dundurn Group, Toronto, 2005, p.221.10. Melosi, Martin V. Garbage in the Cities: Refuse, Reform, and the Environment: 1880-1980 . Dorsey Press, 1987, p.220.SECTION TWO 47SECTION TWO PRECEDENTS + IDEASPreservation to Public Space ...............................................................48History Beyond the Artifact...................................................................52The Creation of a Ruin..........................................................................55Subtraction...........................................................................................58Camo Preservation...............................................................................61Learning From Tschumi........................................................................65Learning From Jorge Otero-Pailos.......................................................67Learning From Gerry Judah..................................................................69Learning From Gordon Matta-Clark.....................................................71Learning From Rem Koolhaas..............................................................73Precedent Analysis................................................................................74Notes....................................................................................................78SECTION TWO48Project: Le Fresnoy National Studio For Contemporary ArtDesigner: Bernard TschumiYear: 1997Location: Le Fresnoy, FranceBernard Tschumi incorporates a series of 1920’s buildings that had been part of a leisure park that included a skating rink, dance hall and cinema which were popular with the surrounding working-class neighborhood. The series of buildings were used to create a large ensemble of workshops, galleries and event spaces for new art studios. The project objectifies the existing building through the internalization of them under one large roof. Through the consolidation of the buildings, the design unifies the previously freestanding structures into a single assembly. The architect takes advantage of the proximity of the buildings to each other, creating linkages through a series of elevated walkways. The walkways create new connections between building while housing amenity spaces such as an open-air cinema, and a suspended amphitheater.  What had historically been the exterior walls in the original building are made into interior partitions, dividing the old building into new spaces which facilitate new programs. The new roof provides protection for the building from the elements, relieving the historic buildings of this previous requirement. Through this action, the architect is given more agency to strategically work with the historical element of the site. Tschumi says the “‘strategy of the in-between’ is tantalizing in the evocation of found space”.1  Through the creation of these interstitial spaces the project successfully re-frames the inhabitant’s perception of the preserved buildings. The between spaces of the project blur any distinction between the public and private realms through the blending of the interior and exterior of the project. The interstice between buildings gives the public access to spaces which were uninhabitable PRESERVATION TO PUBLIC SPACE SECTION TWO 49Fig. 30:Le Fresnoy National Studio For Contem-poraryArt Le Fresnoy National Studio For Contemporoary Art, between Space.SECTION TWO50Fig. 31:Design Approach Diagram NEW ROOFEXISTING BUILDINGSINTERSTITIAL SPACESNEW BUILDINGSSECTION TWO 51previously through the historical uses of the site. The new spaces bring new understandings and purposes to building elements which lose their original purposes through the intervention. The transformative uses of the old building bring a new perspective of the building to the inhabitant.2 Tschumi’s project is one example that begins to inspire the opportunity to make public space through the layering of history on a site. Architecture that was deemed worthy of preservation is often linked to a sense of collective value or identity to its surrounding community. This connection can be a result of serving as a place of employment, historical significance, regional identity among other things. When buildings are preserved as entirely private their removal from the public realm inhibits participation in a collective identity or perceptible value within the surrounding region. Cultivating public value is essential to the success and longevity of historic buildings. Tschumi’s preservation tactics in this project are successful in finding balance of the space between the public and private realm. SECTION TWO52Project: Ethics of DustDesigner: Jorge Otero-PailosYear: 2016Location: London, England The work of Jorge Otero-Pailos’s uses the act of preservation to tell new stories from an old building. Through the act of preservation, his work becomes a mediating device, helping to provide an architectural form with cultural significance.3 Through his series Ethics Of Dust, Otero-Pailos’s is able to discover a new narrative to tell stories from existing buildings. The work carefully transfers pollution from monuments onto a series of latex casts, through the process of stripping centuries of pollution and dust off of building walls. What is collected by the cast is evidence of the building’s life and a record of its inhabitation over the years of its use. The work challenges the ethics of modern restoration which insist the material itself isn’t harmed or discoloured by the restoration efforts but does not consider the value in the dust itself as a record of the building history. As part of the series the project, Otero-Pailos’s took casts from Westminster Hall, a building who’s history serves as a microcosm for the scope of his work. The dust produced in the building may tie back to many of its histories that took place London’s Great Stink of 1858 or the German blitz of 1940 or the smog of 1952.4 The work brings relevance to the natural patina of this  building as a byproduct of these events, casting its history in a new light for the public. The action is able to recover the history of that object forging a connection to contemporary culture.The Soviet preservationist, Evgenii Mikhailovskii, foreshadowed this shift in the field of preservation arguing that the practice did not HISTORY BEYOND THE ARTIFACTSECTION TWO 53Fig. 32:The Ethics of Dust West Minster hallImage of latex cast from Ethic of Dust Series.SECTION TWO54involve changing architecture but changing the way that architecture is perceived.5 This philosophy is central to Otero’s work as a preservationist and his ideas around the field. In an interview with the Journal for the National Trust for Historic Preservation he expresses these ideas:“what happens when you turn a historic site into a historic property. It goes from being used as a farm to, now, a historic farm. That is a total change in how we use it, how we relate to it. So how it remains part of culture becomes a question mark, which is where we get into questions of authenticity—are we making this farm into something inauthentic by preserving it? There’s this sense that preservation participates in estranging us from historic places, and that rift is where artists come in—not necessarily to heal it, but to interrogate it and cast it in a new light. I love the idea of “enlivening” places, because that word seems central to me.” 6 A rift that opens up an opportunity for intervention. The “Preservation” that Otero-Pailos is critical of in this statement, is the preservations that shift a place from being looked at as a part of our contemporary culture, to thinking of it as part of a historic culture. Preservation through the act of reinstating buildings creates a museumification of the artifact. Through this process, historic spaces are not able to engage with the culture that is evolving around it. This is the type of preservation which is estranging people from historic places. Although history may be relevant, preservation can remove us from our relation to historic objects/buildings in day-to-day life. Preservation of histories is really about changing the way which those histories are perceived as relevant to society. The history might not always lie in the object, but the object is part of a greater history that can be told. SECTION TWO 55Project: Fragile LandsDesigner: Gerry JudahYear: 2016Location: London, EnglandThere is a tougher, more critical edge to the acceptance of decay of buildings. The inevitability of ruins places architecture in a unique position to inform our understanding of the human condition and enhance its experience.7 The ruined state of a building offers a counterpart to constant growth and newness, opposing the flows of profit and capital which shape the fabrics of contemporary cities. Buildings left to ruins can be a result of economic down turns, technological progression or sudden forms of devastation. What can be learned from ruins is  the conditions which produced them through an understanding of why they were left to decay. In the creation of economic productive space or the complete erasure of ruins from the urban landscape, exemplifies attitudes which frame progress as the erasure of history, poverty and neglect.8 The decay of buildings can serve as a reminder of these conditions and their implications on the built environment. The work of London based artist Gerry Judah uses the creation of artificial ruins to encompass major issues such as climate to the war in the middle east. His work Fragile Lands uses large scale architectural models to portray ravaged cities which he meticulously composes and then destroys. His methods include roughing the model by throwing debris on the canvas and literally blowing up pieces of his models. The use of gesso and acrylic paint present the works as monochromatic abstractions of ravaged cities, not as true representation of any particular place but rather a bi-product of some form of destruction. A high level of detail communicates the complex fabrics of the places which he destroys. Representations of balconies, satellite dishes, windows and THE CREATION OF A RUINSECTION TWO56Fig. 33:Fragile Lands,View of Scale Model Fragile Lands 2016, closeup view of Scale model SECTION TWO 57floor plates communicate a condition of each place before and after the destruction. In this way telling the viewer something of these imagined landscapes histories and the places they may have once been. The dismantling of the place through the condition of the ruin creates a didactic understanding of theses condition. The aim of Judah’s work is to show that everything is vulnerable, breakable and temporary. Though his process he expresses the fragility of the human condition, and the balancing act of the contemporary life. 9Judah works exemplifies the value within the state of decay as a productive space. The tendency of preservationist and conservationist to revive buildings to a condition of their past is contrary to notions of Judah’s work. What can be shown through the condition of the ruin is evidence of histories which may be lost through the urge the suppress what can be seen as unproductive modes of the building’s past. While the ruins can offer understanding into the building’s past at multiple points of it existence.SECTION TWO58SUBTRACTIONProject: Conical IntersectDesigner: Gordon Matta ClarkYear: 1975Location: Paris, FranceThe work Conical Intersect by Gordon Matta Clark in the 1970’s was intended to be a form of counter-monument. The ‘Non-U-ment’ offered an expression of the commonplace which was counter to grand self-glorifying monuments of his time.10 Clark uses a historic apartment block located in the Les Halles neighborhood in Paris. The buildings which are slated for demolition create a temporal nature for the project and as a result lend themselves to a series of mediums including photography collage, drawings and sculpture. Known for his operative motive of subtraction, Clark  initiates a form of ruin while creating a series of new spaces which become the subject of the work. The insertion of a conical void in the side of a Parisian apartment block cuts through walls windows and floor plates. The void space reveals the buildings inner workings and creates new relationships between spaces that once had existed in the apartment. In the process opening up new passages and sight-lines  through the space.Clark looks beyond the bodily architecture of buildings that we encounter everyday, concerned more with the ability of spaces or objects to evoke questions that extend beyond their own obvious, mute materiality.11 Creating monuments through a series analytical operations on found object is counter to traditional heavy handed approaches. To Clark, questions could be evoked through processes of reduction and re-framing the ways in which viewers experienced the spaces of the everyday. SECTION TWO 59Fig. 34:Gordon Matta-Clark,Conical Intersect, 1975Exterior view of Gordon Matta-Clark’s Conical Intersect, 1975.SECTION TWO60Matta-Clark enacts a building cut, the result is ‘a kind of … “anti-monument,” but one whose task is to reconstitute memory, not conventional memory as in the traditional monument, but that subversive memory which has been hidden by social and architectural façades’.12His process is uncovering and revealing what is hidden in plain sight of the public realm, while subverting the ways which places are understood. His work emphasis the idea that past structures can become open to different meanings as a result of these operative measures. What might have been a wall or a floor which constituted a room or apartment no longer creates a sense of division which had previously defined a space. Rather acting  in defining a new space which is within the original structure. Offering to renew the spectator’s understanding and experience of spatiality, or an experience that might produce a transformation of the viewers’ relation to space and time.13 This form of operation looks at the potential of what is existing rather than creating new meaning through the construction of new artifacts. This raises critical questions on the value of the way spaces can be perceived,  elevating the value of the qualities and characteristic of buildings that aren’t obviously observed. SECTION TWO 61CAMO PRESERVATIONProject:  Ruhr museumDesigner: Rem KoolhaasYear: 2007Location: Essen, GermanyWith the commissioning the Ruhr museum OMA was instructed not to change the building but re-frame the way it was perceived by the public. The site was at a time the largest coal mining site and coking plant in Europe. The building was in poor condition and unfit for a new use as a museum but had been deemed by the German government as a culturally significant site. The project embodies Rem Koolhaas’s ideas of preservation and its role in the architectural profession. Koolhaas deployed strategies of supplementation and challenges perceptions of architect’s roles in the production of new forms. When the project was commissioned, the coal coking plant represented more of a machine than a building. A labyrinth of concrete bunkers and transport machinery designed to sort mine waste from coal. The partitioning of the building is left relatively unchanged, apart from the addition of mezzanines floors, stairways and doorways. Koolhaas’s programmatic arrangement of the museum follows the same trajectory through the museum as the coal once had. While the inner working of the facility was left relatively intact and supplementation was used to compensate for any deficiency in the ability for the building to house the new program.The Idea of supplementation as a tactic of preservation dates back to the mid 19th century with the work of Violet-le-Duc’s who’s believed that “the best means of preserving a building is to find a use for it, to satisfy its requirements so completely that there shall be no occasion to make any changes.”  Through this process of supplementation, architecture is able to find new relevance. Koolhaas states that architectural form SECTION TWO62Fig. 35:Exterior of Ruhr Museum Exterior of Ruhr Museum showing entrance escalator.SECTION TWO 63alone is unable to provide what demands it culturally and lends itself to a form of supplementation. The act of the preservation was to not impose new forms which would contrast with the old building, but rather to supplement building elements with improved more functional versions. The old coal belt transportation bridge was reintroduced as an escalator serving the functioning as  the main point of entry into the building. The escalator takes on a formless aesthetic camouflaging consistent with the form of the old. Rather than removing this from the building or aestheticising the coal belt, Koolhaas supplements the belt with this new purpose. The new use does not monumentalize the element, rather it gives it a new form of reliance while evoking the idea of the old. Koolhaas’s interventions challenges the perception of architecture as the production of the new. He offers a new path of cultural relevance for architects by changing the core belief that architectural creativity should be focused on the production of new forms. Daniel M abrasion has noted is that  architecture is threatened by obsolescence not really as a result of cultural progression but really as a result of a cultural mode of perception. What Koolhaas’s approach reminds of is that architecture is in constantly in need of supplementation in order to overcome obsolescence. Supplementation as an act of preservation can help prolong the life of buildings while maintaining the cultural significance of the building’s past.SECTION TWO64Fig. 36:Tschumi Operation Diagram SECTION TWO 65LEANING FROM TSCHUMIWhat would the creation of “strategy of the in-between” look like if were executed on the Wellington Destructor? This sort of intervention could take advantage of the large open spaces on the tipping floor to create interstices between the old and new and interior and exterior of the building. Utilizing the existing building’s large roof to house and protect interior and exterior spaces. Like the cat-walks used by Tschumi to forge new connections between the existing buildings at Le Fresnoy, ramps could take occupants through the inter-workings of the Destructor. It could give new access to the tipping floor, furnaces and ducting flues while creating a continuation of the existing park next to the building. The connecting network could become home to new public programs. These sorts of interventions with the building could give access to a broader scope of occupants while finding spaces to house more private programs. The process of forging new connections and exposing the historic use of the building as a garbage incinerator, would allow the occupants access to elements which would not be possible if the building was left in it’s historic state.  Access to PublicPreservation of History Preservation of ArtifactSECTION TWO66Fig. 37:Jorge Otero-Pailos Operation Diagram SECTION TWO 67LEANING FROM JORGE OTERO-PAILOSWhat kind of information would arise through a series of casts inside historical equipment used in the process of garbage incineration. This sort of intervention on the incinerating furnaces could collect and preserve evidence of the kinds of garbage once burned in the facility. A cast inside the ventilation flues could become an indelible communication of the kind of pollutants that once spewed from the chimneys. The re-framing of these histories could call attention to the process which once took place in the building. Akin to Jorge Otero-Pailo’s work which challenges the work of preservationists and conservationists to restore building to a pristine state. These sort of operations could call attention to parts of the building’s history which are not determined by any physical form but rather dictated by the sort of events that once took place there. Framing the history of the building as more of a history of a relationship to the management of waste than as an artifact of its time. Access to PublicPreservation of History Preservation of ArtifactSECTION TWO68Fig. 38: JudahOperation Diagram SECTION TWO 69LEARNING FROM GERRY JUDAHThe creation of a ruined site from the Wellington destructor might evoke the ideas of poverty and neglect which are intertwined with the building’s history. An acceleration of the conditions of abandonment which has been the reality of the site for the last 40 years, or a reflection of the derelicted state which plagued the neighborhood during the time of the buildings operation. This sort of operation gets at an idea of the fragility of technology and infrastructure which is relied on to sustain the conditions of urbanity. Only able to be destroyed because of the rate at which technology is elapsed to facilitate conditions of growth. The sort of advancement which rendered what was perceived as one of the best technologies of it time to being obsolete in matter of 50 years. This sort of operation could be used to expose the systematic inner workings of the facility, offering a sort of didactic learning through its dismantling. While externalizing the entire building for the complete use by the public realm.  Access to PublicPreservation of History Preservation of ArtifactSECTION TWO70Fig. 39:Gordon Matta-ClarkOperation Diagram SECTION TWO 71LEARNING FROM GORDON MATTA-CLARKThe work of Clark uses the process of subtraction to create new meaning from found objects. Similarly to Clark’s Conical Intersect, subtraction can be used on the Wellington Destructor to reveal relationships which may historically have been out of site. Extending past the most obvious material and architectural qualities of the historic building, presenting it in ways the occupants may have never thought of or realized. The void space acts as an inhabitable dissection of the Wellington Destructor encompassing multiple operational components of the building, unifying them in a single space. Expressing relationships between space which may not have been understood before, as well as new understanding of material and space qualities which facilitated the buildings operations. Access to PublicPreservation of History Preservation of ArtifactSECTION TWO72Fig. 40:KoolhaasOperation Diagram SECTION TWO 73LEARNING FROM REM KOOLHAAS The work of Clark uses the process of subtraction to create new meaning. The Wellington Destructor modified through the methodology of the Ruhr Museum might see the reintroduction of building elements as a means of preservation. Koolhaas’s idea of supplementation could be a creative way to bring back the 175’ chimneys which were lost during the time of abandonment. Similarly to the coal belt of the Ruhr Museum which was supplemented by the entrance escalator, the chimneys could be resurrected to serve a new function. Through the duration of their existence they served as a signifier of the buildings industrial occupation in the city, and the supplementation of new chimneys could remain as a signifier of that past. Similarly to Koolhaas challenging architecture as the perception of new form, the creative act comes from the reinvention of chimneys to serve a new function. This sort of operation allows the building to maintain relatively unaltered from its original state but through the act of reprogramming giving new relevance to the space as a means of preservation.Access to PublicPreservation of History Preservation of ArtifactSECTION TWO74Access to PublicLearning From Rem Koolhaas Leaning From TschumiLeaning From Jorge Otero-PailosLearning From Gerry JudahLearning From Gordon Matta ClarkDesign approaches through the lens of Joges Otero-Pailos and Gerry Judah’s work create spaces which would be most accessible by the public. These two approaches along with Tschumi’s work well with a park-scape approach, making the space entirely or largely exterior. Matta Clark’s approach also is generally accessible to the public but makes spaces that are very hard to fully occupy. Rem Koolhaas’s approach would rely on a kind of public oriented program to make it accessible. Even with a program that facilitated public access it would probably only be for certain parts of the day. Tschumi’s approach is the most balanced between having publicly accessible spaces and allowing for the accommodation of private spaces.PRECEDENT ANALYSIS SECTION TWO 75Preservation of History Learning From Rem Koolhaas  Leaning From Tschumi Leaning From Jorge Otero-PailosLearning From Gerry JudahLearning From Gordon Matta ClarkApproaches which dissect the building and expose its inner functions are successful in bringing attention to its prior use as a garbage incinerator. These kinds of approaches which are similar to the work Gordon Matta Clark and Gerry Judah lend themselves to this didactic understanding of the history. While an approach such as Jorge Otero-Pailos is able to further elevate that history creating something new out of it. As for a approach in the lens of Tschumi and Koolhaas, these are more concerned with the artifact itself as a communication of that history.SECTION TWO76Learning From Rem Koolhaas Leaning From TschumiLeaning From Jorge Otero-PailosLearning From Gerry JudahLearning From Gordon Matta ClarkPreservation of ArtifactPreserving the Wellington destructor as an artifact is done through approaches similar to Tschumi and Koolhaas. These approaches are able to work with the existing conditions of the project as a means of a preservation of its history. In the case of Koolhaas, this kind of approach is an augmentation to bring back parts of the building’s past architectural form. Clark and Judah’s approaches are more successful at preserving the history of the Destructor but it seems much of that is at the sacrifice of the building’s condition. While an approach akin to Jorge Otero-Pailos is able to operate outside of the artifact and is not really dependent on it at all to exist, in that way it does both a good and bad job of preserving the artifact. This sort of operation is more of byproduct of the artifact.SECTION TWO 77Findings In conclusion it seems that the projects that do the best at preserving the history of the wellington destructor do poorly at preserving the building as an artifact. While the projects which do a better job at preserving the artifact of the building are less able to communicate the history. The two that possess these qualities are both the ones that are true buildings in the sense that they house programs and have building envelopes. While the projects which operated in a realm that is less concerned about a function as a building and could be considered to be more monumental. These projects that were more accessible to the public at large have characteristics which would work well as exterior spaces. NOTES78NOTES1. Bollack Françoise Astorg, and Kenneth Frampton. Old Buildings New Forms: New Directions in Architectural Transformations. The Monacelli Press, 2013, pp.118.2. Ibid, pp.119.3. Malone-France, Katherine & Otero-Pailos, Jorge. “Preservation Art: An Interview with Jorge Otero-Pailos.” Forum Journal, vol. 30 no. 3, 2016, pp. 7-18. Project MUSE, Searle, Adrian. “The Ethics of Dust: a Latex Requiem for a Dying Westminster.” The Guardian, 29 June 2016.5. Koolhaas, Rem, et al. Preservation is Overtaking Us. GSAPP Books, New York, NY, 2014. 91.6. Malone-France, Katherine & Otero-Pailos, Jorge. “Preservation Art: An Interview with Jorge Otero-Pailos.” Forum Journal, vol. 30 no. 3, 2016, p.10. Project MUSE, “Inevitable Architecture” Lebbeus Woods, 9 July 2012, Fraser, Emma. “Unbecoming Place: Urban Imaginaries in Transition in Detroit.” Cultural Geographies , vol. 25, no. 3, July 2018, pp. 441–458, doi: 10.1177/1474474017748508 .9. Ditmars, Hadani. “Gerry Judah.” Wasafiri , vol. 31, no. 1, Feb. 2016, pp. 31–39.10.  From an interview with David Wall, ‘Gordon Matta-Clark’s Building Dissections’, reproduced in Diserens, ed., Gorden Matta-Clark, pp. 183.11. Muir, Peter. Gordon Matta-Clark’s Conical Intersect: Sculpture, Space, and the Cultural Value of Urban Imagery. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, Surrey, 2017, pp. 105.12. Matta-Clark, Gordon, et al. Gordon Matta-Clark: Moment to Moment: Space. Verlag für Moderne Kunst Nürnberg, 2012.13.  Muir, Peter. Gordon Matta-Clark’s Conical Intersect: Sculpture, Space, and the Cultural Value of Urban Imagery. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, Surrey, 2017, pp. 116.NOTES 7914. Hauser, Walker. The Ruhr Museum at the Zollverein Colliery in Essen, Germany. vol. 52, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2011.15. Bressani, Notes on Viollet Le Duc’s Philosophy of History, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians , 1989.16. Koolhaas, Rem, et al. Preservation is Overtaking Us. GSAPP Books, New York, NY, 2014, pp. 96.17. Ibid, pp.95.18. Daniel M abrasion, “obsolescence: notes toward a history Praxis: Journal of Writing + Building 106-112SECTION THREE 81SECTION THREEGRADUATION PROJECT IITerritories of Waste...............................................................................83Project Overveiw...................................................................................87Interventions .........................................................................................94The Exchange Space ...........................................................................96The Salvage Yard ...............................................................................104The Public Atrium ...............................................................................112The Workshops...................................................................................120Presentation Layout ...........................................................................130Notes...................................................................................................134SECTION THREE 83TERRITORIES OF WASTEWaste management has always been a key part of urban life and the urban fabric — over time changing in terms of technology, scale, and approach. Since the inception of modern w aste management infrastructure at the turn of the 20th century,the ambition of these systems has been to carry out tasks with efficiency, comfort and convenience for the general population.This desire for ever-increasing scale and efficiency of operation has contributed to the externalization of spaces of waste—pushing them to the margins of cities. Spaces of waste management have evolved from the feeding of livestock, mobile incinerating ovens, local dump sites, and municipal incinerators. To mega-landfills and international waste disposal and recycling economies.  As waste disposal scales up, we increasingly find that there is no longer an ‘away’ in which to ‘throw things away.’ This desire for an ‘away’ has fundamentally been challenged lately, as its global ramifications become clearerAs said by John May,“Today we are told that our modern lives are in crisis, and that our infrastructures are mostly to blame. That although they undoubtedly once served us well, our infrastructures are in need of a generalized modernization—a G reen Modernization , what ever that may mean—so that their capacity for resolving the calamities of modern life might be made commensurate with our expanded scope of influence.” 1Yet, as May goes on to suggest, as long as we remain locked into singular, centralized, brittle infrastructures of waste management and the toxic ideologies that give rise to them, addressing these challenges raises further issues, Rather, change must come at a more fundamental level: shifting and pluralizing our understanding of waste management, and more fundamentally, of waste itself. Altering both the role of these SECTION THREE84Abandoned incinerators, City of Toronto.Fig. 41:Abandoned Incinerators SECTION THREE 85infrastructures to the people they serve as well as changing a long held relationship by which they have operated.Continual efforts, to more efficiently manage our waste through new methods and infrastructures has left behind obsolete sites within the built environment: both territories of waste and w asted territory .These are spaces where ‘value’ is no longer seen by politicians and engineers — but with an alternative approach, lead to an opportunity where design has the capacity to intervene within and reclaim these territories of waste, reworking their role within the city. The physical ruins on these sites act as remnants and reminders of a past relationship between the built environment and its waste—in turn serving as historically-loaded, conceptually-potent ground on which to test new relationships and attitudes.SECTION THREE 87 PROJECT OVERVIEW This project proposes the adaptive reuse of a 1920’s era garbage incinerator known as the Wellington Destructor. The building has passed through several lives: In its prime, t he building was  considered to be one of the most advanced facilities for processing waste in North America. Only 60 years later, however, it was considered technologically obsolete, as it no longer met environmental regulations. The project proposes a fourth life to the building; repurposing this building around new processes that promote public engagement and alternative solutions to waste diversion.Building off of the upcoming trends of repurposing and reuse — practices which are diverting waste from landfills and promoting circular economies. This project is an intervention into both —proposing new forms of waste systems and, an alternative form of conceptual engagement with waste. It challenges the notion of waste itself -- breaking down what it means for us to think of something as w asted , be it an object or a building. It rebuilds itself around the notion of r e-use  — finding, in this seemingly commonplace concept, a world of conceptual, operative and architectural potency.  Preservation in this thesis is driven by the goal of revealing latent value in neglected buildings. The specificity of the old program becomes generative as it sets up conditions for new uses. This project also seeks to challenge the tendency, and the construct of what is considered ‘waste’.SECTION THREE88Fig. 42:Site Network Site Network, Site with surrounding park network. SECTION THREE 89Fig. 43:Site AxoSite axo, showing park context. SECTION THREE90Fig. 44:Ground PlanGound Plan, showing Workshops and Salvage Yard.SECTION THREE 91Fig. 45:Top PlanTop plan, showing Exchange Space and Public Gallery. SECTION THREE92Long Section. Fig. 46:Long SectionSECTION THREE 93Fig. 47:Cross Section Cross Section. SECTION THREE94INTERVENTIONSThe building itself is programmed to accommodate the needs of a repair based organizations. Types of volunteer based groups which are emerging in many cities across the globe. Which provide repair services, teach repair skill and offer advice to people seeking to repair broken or damaged items.  The objective of these organizations are to reduce waste, to maintain repair skills and encourage their practices. Groups which currently operate out of store fronts. Which are primarily thought of as nouvel rather than a civic infrastructure. Based on a  2018 data collection study by Stephen Privett on the organization known as RepairCafe.The most common repairs undertaken by theses facilities are, Re-stitching of clothing and textiles at 28% followed by the repair of Faulty Electrical Connections at 14% while other i tems bought for repair included coffee machine, vacuum cleaners, bicycles, lamps, sewing machines, clocks, irons and laptops etc. When repairs are beyond the scope of these facilities the organization acts as a directory for other more specialized repair shops to accommodate these activities, the new program for the Wellington Destructor consists of four main parts.The way that the new program interacts with the existing building is opportunistic and informed by the highly specific functional processes of the historic facility. The interventions are meant to re-inhabit the old building with new program rather than to generate new forms.SECTION THREE 95Intervention space timeline. Fig. 48:InterventionsSECTION THREE96The Exchange Space occupies what in the original facility was the tipping floor which later was used as a large storage space as well and now become s flexible communal space for both public education and public markets. The exchange floor, which is an inherently flexible space, was historically designed around the maneuverability of garbage trucks and horse drawn wagons. This open spanning space is now divided up by hanging partitions which can be arranged to accommodate multiple events from large scale market exchanges to Communal workshops where knowledge and skills are transferred. This level can be accessed from the street by the original circulation ramp, which also provides easy access for vendors moving their materials in and out of the building.THE EXCHANGE SPACESECTION THREE 97Fig. 49:Exchange SpaceTimeline of Exchange Space. SECTION THREE98Fig. 50:Tipping FloorHorse and wagon 1929, Tipping Floor.SECTION THREE 99Fig. 51:Render ExchangeSpaceRender of communal workshop in Exchange Space, view from bridge.SECTION THREE100Fig. 52:Market HallPartitions Partitions pulled back to accommodate market. SECTION THREE 101Fig. 53:CommunalWorkshopPartitions Partitions used to facilitate rooms for communal workshops.SECTION THREE102Fig. 54:Partitions AxoPartitions Axo. SECTION THREE 103EXCHANGE SPACESuspended partitions pulled back to provide large open space for exchange market of repaired goods.TIPPING FLOORTipping floor Wellington Destructor circa  1920’s.MarketFig. 55:Render MarketHallExchange Space as Market. SECTION THREE104The Salvage Yard occupies the former Ash Bin hopper of the original facility, where ash from the incinerating ovens was loaded into trucks and shipped out to landfill sites. The second use of the space was for similar purposes, during the time of the waste transfer station. Instead though it became the loading zone for unprocesses waste to be shipped from the facility. The new proposal makes the area the intake of refuse into the building. Items are dropped off on the ground level at the salvage yard. Next items can be assessed before being repaired and eventually exchanged on the market floor. As items are received here they are catalogued, sorted and stored. The materials here act as a resource library that feeds into the repair spaces. The sorting and storage of materials is overlooked by tiered seating which occupies what was once a pitched floor that acted as the large ash hopper in the original facility.THE SALVAGE YARDSECTION THREE 105Timeline of Salvage Yard. Fig. 56:Salvage YardSECTION THREE106Axo of Salvage Yard.Fig. 57:Salvage Yard Axo SECTION THREE 107Fig. 58:Ash HopperVeiw of Ash Hopper 2012.SECTION THREE108Fig. 59:Salvage Yard Orthographic Salvage Yard Orthographic. SECTION THREE 109Fig. 60:Salvage Yard Axo Salvage Yard Axo. SECTION THREE110Axo detail Of Public Galley seating on Ash Hopper.Fig. 61:Public GalleryAxoSECTION THREE 111Fig. 62:Render Of Salvage Yard View of Salvage Yard activities from public gallery.SECTION THREE112The Public Atrium occupies the original Incineration hall and charging floor of the original building. Where piles of garbage were shoveled into the incineration ovens. In this proposal three of the four former ovens are kept in this central corridor of the building, becoming the basis for interventions in this public space. The public atrium becomes the central circulation into and around the building. The two main entrances lead into this space, making the space an extension of the surrounding parks.Workshops face onto this central forum, The ovens become repurposed as artefacts within the public parkscape, acting as visible signifers of the buildings past. These ovens are given new functions, both as the at the foundation for public amphitheater as well as being repurposed as heaters, providing a place of refuge within the park network in the winter months. The old incineration hall which was historically fundamental to the building past, is given new meaning as it becomes the central space in the proposal and the main point of engagement between the public realm and the new program.THE PUBLIC ATRIUMSECTION THREE 113Fig. 63:Public AtriumTimeline of Public Atrium. SECTION THREE114View of Incinerating Ovens 1929.Fig. 64:Ovens 1929 SECTION THREE 115Fig. 65:Render of Ovens   Incinerating Ovens in Public Atrium.SECTION THREE116Fig. 66:Amphitheater Axo Axo of Ovens and Public Amphitheater. SECTION THREE 117Fig. 67:Axo Of innervations off atriumPublic Atrium with interventions. SECTION THREE118Fig. 68:Charging FloorView of Charging Floor 2012. SECTION THREE 119Fig. 69:Atop Oven View atop oven. SECTION THREE120The Workshops reinhabit the space of the building that was first used as a flue hall which housed the large exhausts for incineration ovens. During the time of the waste transfer station the chimneys and exhausts were demolished to make room for a large open storage space. The workshops take advantage of this open space and integrate into the structural bays. Workshops operate on a residency premise, where they are occupied by volunteer organizations, during which they can cater the space to their specific needs. For example, a small household appliance repair service, taking over a workshop would require spaces for soldering and large disassembly areas for diagnostics. Each workshop provides both public and private zones for multiple types of work and have the option to be fully opened to the public realm or fully closed off. During designated times, the public would be able to bring items directly to the repair workshops for service. And the workshops would be fully open onto the public atrium forming a street storefront condition.THE WORKSHOPSSECTION THREE 121Fig. 70:WorkshopsTimeline of Workshops. SECTION THREE122Axo view of Workshops as located in building.Fig. 71:Axo Workshops SECTION THREE 123Fig. 72:Render of Workshops.View of Workshops from Public Atrium.SECTION THREE124Fig. 73:Flue Hall View of emptied Flue Hall 2012. SECTION THREE 125Fig. 74:RenderStorefront. Render inside Workshop storefront. SECTION THREE126Fig. 75:Exploded axoWorkshop Exploded Workshop Axo. SECTION THREE 127As we transition towards what many people perceived as more sustainable methods of waste management, what is the role of things that are no longer perceived as valuable? A s we come to grapple with the consequences of our current managerial systems and our dependence on convenience and efficiency, we start to think of theses infrastructures in different and more productive ways.  When we stop perceiving theses infrastructures as wasted, or obsolete from there original function were able to uncover the latent value in their histories. CONCLUSION SECTION THREE128Fig. 76:Board 1 PRESENTATION LAYOUTSECTION THREE 129Fig. 77:Board 2SECTION THREE130Fig. 78:Board 3 SECTION THREE 131Fig. 79:Board 4SECTION THREE132Fig. 80:Board 5SECTION THREE 133Fig. 81:Board 6NOTES134NOTES1. May, John. “Infrastructuralism: The Pathology of Negative Externalities.” Quadernsde, no. 262, 135BIBLIOGRAPHY136BIBLIOGRAPHY Barthel, Diane L. Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity. Rutgers University Press, 1996.Baum, Martina, and Kees Christiaanse. City as Loft: Adaptive Reuse as a Resource for Sustainable Urban Development. GTA Verlag, Zürich, 2012.Benton-Short, Lisa, and John R. Short. Cities and Nature. vol. 1, Routledge, New York;London [England];, 2008;2013;.Bollack, Françoise, Astorg, and Kenneth Frampton. Old Buildings New Forms: New Directions in Architectural Transformations. The Monacelli Press, 2013.Bonnell, Jennifer, Reclaiming the Don: An Environmental history of Toronto’s Don River Valley .Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2014.Bressani, Notes on Viollet Le Duc’s Philosophy of History, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 1989.Callender, Jassen, and Taylor & Francis eBooks A-Z. Architecture History and Theory in Reverse: From an Information Age to Eras of Meaning. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2018.Clapp, Jennifer, and Thomas Princen. “Out of Sight, Out of Mind.” Alternatives Journal, vol. 29, no. 3, 2003.Crinson, Mark, Urban Memory: History and Amnesia in the Modern City, Routledge, 2005.Daniel M abrasion, “Obsolescence: notes toward a history Praxis: Journal of Writing + Building 106-112.Ditmars, Hadani. “Gerry Judah.” Wasafiri , vol. 31, no. 1, Feb. 2016.Engels, J. Building upon Building. NAI010 Publishers, 2016.Fezer, Jesko, and Martin Schmitz. Lucius Burckhardt Writings. Rethinking Man-made Environments: Politics, Landscape & Design. SpringerWienNewYork, 2012Fraser, Emma. “Unbecoming Place: Urban Imaginaries in Transition in Detroit.” Cultural Geographies , vol. 25, no. 3, July 2018, pp. 441–458, doi: 10.1177/1474474017748508..BIBLIOGRAPHY 137Gee, Marcus. “Toronto’s Garbage Woes Have Long, Smelly History.” The Globe and Mail, 2 Aug. 2004.Ghosn, Rania, and El H. Jazairy. Geographies of Trash. Actar Pulbishers, New York, NY, 2015.Hauser, Walker. The Ruhr Museum at the Zollverein Colliery in Essen, Germany. vol. 52, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2011.Koolhaas, Rem, et al. Preservation is Overtaking Us. GSAPP Books, New York, NY, 2014.Lebbeus Woods, “Inevitable Architecture” 9 July 2012,, Benjamin A. Garbage Mountains: The use, Redevelopment, and Artistic Representation of New York City’s Fresh Kills, Greater Toronto’s Keele Valley, and Tel Aviv’s Hiriya Landfills, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2015.Looser, Thomas D. “Deconstruction/Construction: The Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project in Seoul Edited by Joan Busquets (Review).” Journal of Korean Studies, vol. 18, no. 2, 2013, pp. 407-410. Malone-France, Katherine & Otero-Pailos, Jorge. “Preservation Art: An Interview with Jorge Otero-Pailos.” Forum Journal, vol. 30 no. 3, 2016, pp. 7-18. Project MUSE,, Gordon, et al. Gordon Matta-Clark: Moment to Moment: Space. Verlag für Moderne Kunst Nürnberg, 2012.May, John. “Infrastructuralism: The Pathology of Negative Externalities.” Quadernsde, no. 262,, William, Garbage Crematories in America. , 1906.McGuire, Randall H., and Robert Paynter. The Archaeology of Inequality. B. Blackwell, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A, 1991.Meeks, Stephanie, and Kevin C. Murphy. The Past and Future City: How Historic Preservation Is Reviving America’s Communities. Island Press, 2016.BIBLIOGRAPHY138Melosi, Martin V. Garbage in the Cities: Refuse, Reform, and the Environment: 1880-1980 . Dorsey Press, 1987.Miller, Marla, Bending the Future: Fifty Ideas for the next Fifty Years of Historic Preservation in the United States . University of Massachusetts Press, 2016.Muir, Peter. Gordon Matta-Clark’s Conical Intersect: Sculpture, Space, and the Cultural Value of Urban Imagery. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, Surrey, 2017.O’Donohue, Tony, and Canadian Publishers Collection. The Tale of a City: Re-Engineering the Urban Environment. Dundurn Group, Toronto, 2005.Reeves, Wayne. “Burying and Burning Trash on Toronto’s Military Reserve.” The Fife and Drum, pp. 8–10.Rider, Joseph B, “Public Refuse Destruction a Municipal Asset, Not a Liability.” Fire and water Engineering 54 (15 October 1913), p.311.Roth, Michael S., et al. Irresistible Decay: Ruins Reclaimed. vol. 2.;2;, The Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, Los Angeles, CA, 1997.Sandberg, Allen and Wallace, Lisa, Conversations and Development: “From Rouge Park to Oak ridge Moraine,” Urban Explorations: Environmental Histories of the Toronto Region, Hamilton, ON: L.R Wilson Institute for Canadian History, 2013.Searle, Adrian. “The Ethics of Dust: a Latex Requiem for a Dying Westminster.” The Guardian, 29 June 2016.Shackel, Paul A. Myth, Memory, and the Making of the American Landscape. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2001.Wall, David, ‘Gordon Matta-Clark’s Building Dissections’, reproduced in Diserens, ed., Gorden Matta-Clark.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items