Northeastern University School of Architecture Publications
School of Architecture
January 01, 2010
Courtyard Housing Northeastern University School of Architecture
Recommended Citation Northeastern University School of Architecture, "Courtyard Housing" (2010). School of Architecture Publications. Paper 3. http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20003487
This work is available open access, hosted by Northeastern University.
FALL 2009
COURTYARD HOUSING Northeastern University School of Architecture ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio
FALL 2009
COURTYARD HOUSING Northeastern University School of Architecture ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio
EDITORS
STUDENT EDITORS
ELIZABETH CHRISTOFORETTI
MELISSA MIRANDA
TIM LOVE
AARON TRAHAN
Š2010 Northeastern University School of Architecture CONTENT The work contained within this publication is drawn from the Fall 2009 Northeastern University School of Architecture ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio. All work was produced by fifth year architecture students, for whom the focus of the semester was infill courtyard housing in metropolitan Boston. FACULTY Elizabeth Christoforetti Tim Love Peter Weiderspahn STUDENTS Nathan Alekovsky, Josh Billings, Dan Marino, John Martin, Danielle McDonough, Brad McKinney, Katie McMahon, Melissa Miranda, Jeffrey Montes, Michelle Mortensen, Jackie Mossman, Christine Moylan, Christine Nasir, Tom Neal, Barrett Newell, Luke Palma, Ji Park, Laura Poulin, Betty Quintana, Leo Richardson, Sara Rosenthal, Jonathan Sampson, Sarah Silverman, Ian Stabler, Scott Swails, Jamie Sweed, Thana Thaliep, Aaron Trahan, Tim Valich, Caitlin Wezel, Ken Workings PRINTING LULU lulu.com
MULTI-FAMILY (SINGLE EXPOSURE) Sara Rosenthal
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
65
Tim Valich
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
73
John Martin
60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
81
Laura Poulin
67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
89
Josh Billings
69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
97
MULTI-FAMILY (DOUBLE EXPOSURE)
Contents
A CASE FOR TYPOLOGICAL THINKING Tim Love
1
COURTYARD HOUSING: MANUAL AS MANIFESTO Hubert Murray
9
Luke Palma
35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
107
Brad McKinney
35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
115
Thomas Neal
36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
123
Dan Marino
42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
129
Scott Swails
44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
137
Jeffrey Montes
45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
145
Ken Workings
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
153
Melissa Miranda
55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
161
Michelle Mortensen
57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
169
Leo Richardson
62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
177
Danielle McDonough
66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
185
Katie McMahon
70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
193
Sarah Tarbet
77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
201
Barrett Newell
78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
209
Jaime Sweed
96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
217
SINGLE FAMILY & SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX
SOUTH BOSTON MASTER PLANS
Betty Quintana
22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
15
Christoforetti Studio
227
Caitlan Wezel
25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
23
Love Studio
231
Aaron Trahan
29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
31
Wiederspahn Studio
Christine Moylan
30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
39
Christine Nasir
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
47
Jackie Mossman
40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
55
235
COURTYARD HOUSING: AFTERWORD Jonathan Levi
239
1
Tim Love
A Case for Typological Thinking Courtyard Building Prototypes The buildings in this volume were designed as prototypical residential types by fifth-year students in the undergraduate architecture program at Northeastern University in Boston. While the wood-frame courtyard building is an untested building type in the northeastern US, the proposals are consistent with the regulatory framework, economics of construction, and scale of development that is being planned and built on former industrial parcels in the Boston metropolitan area. The students innovated by working within the constraints of the building code and prevalent construction technologies rather than by exploring more radical (and unrealistic) approaches. By aggregating the types into blocks and then urban dis-
tricts, the studio also tested a new model of high density urbanism that can be built primarily of wood at three to four stories tall. This urban paradigm is a potential alternative to conventional North American transit-orienteddevelopment, which tends to be comprised of steel frame residential buildings between nine and twelve stories tall. A wood-frame city1, with lower building heights and smaller parcel sizes, will allow a broader range of developers to participate in the build-out of a master plan and a larger percentage of walk-up units and building entries.
A Case for Typological Thinking For the past twenty-five years “contextualism” of one sort or another has been the prevalent framework for design studios in most American architecture programs. By contextualism, I am not referring to the strategies of the advocates of New Urbanism and other late manifestations of the design methodology conceived by Colin Rowe in the 1970s (although these approaches are certainly included in the definition). More broadly, I am considering all of the intentions, motivations, and arguments that conspire to make each architectural opportunity a one-off project with unique characteristics. A range of design methodologies has evolved in architecture schools to privilege this one-ofa-kind-ness. Perhaps the most prevalent approach results from mapping (in plan) all of the particular and idiosyncratic aspects of a site to divine the “site forces” that can help shape the project. In most cases, this technique results in a correspondingly idiosyncratic formal language, since every
2
3
twitch of eccentric geometry adjacent to the project site proven building configurations (termed “comps”). But can is used as a justification to generate complex three dimen- architecture schools engage this set of real-world economsional forms. ic priorities and still find disciplinary relevance? Through a re-engagement of typological thinking, new creative and With this technique, the function of the building is almost relevant territories for the discipline of architecture may irrelevant, or in some cases, symbolically linked to the com- be possible. positional connections made to the larger context through the mapping “analysis.” As a result, community centers and The analysis and reformulation of building types has been branch libraries were once popular programs inserted into seen as a conservative approach in most university prothe resulting forms. More recently, functions that both grams. The academy has largely rejected methodologies comment on the site and fix it, like recycling centers tied to that have persisted since the 1980s, when the theory of bio-remedial landscape strategies, have been in vogue. But type was first adopted by practice as a way to verify and for the majority of contemporary buildings, the functional reinforce building patterns in particular communities and need for a building is typically the impetus for an architec- cultures. This has certainly been the rhetoric, if not fully tural project and not simply an excuse or filler for expres- the approach, of DPZ, Stefanos Polyzoides, and other prosive form. ponents of New Urbanism. Their research, which began as an interest in housing types such as the Charleston house In the nested set of relations that shape contemporary real and the Los Angeles courtyard type, is now focused on the estate and construction, the definition of the use-category vernacular tradition of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. of a building - whether an office building, apartment build- However, a new formulation of type may be possible that ing, or hospital wing - is the typical way that a building proj- does not embalm existing types but invents new durable ect is first conceived and design is launched. Even before building paradigms. design begins in earnest, the business plan for a building is developed and enriched through assumptions about the During the past four years, several architecture studios at initial capital costs, potential revenue (generated by sales, the Northeastern School of Architecture have tested new leases, or number of patients), and future lifecycle costs. design methodologies that foreground the market-driven In the modern market economy, the use of the building, logics of contemporary building types. Unlike conventional the building’s financial performance, and assurance that risk approaches to typology, we focus on the underlying pragof financial failure is minimized, means that lending institu- matics of contemporary building production to enable the tions and the underwriters of development financing favor design of more compelling and sustainable alternatives. In
the Masters Degree Research Studio, for example, students have focused on office buildings, laboratories, parking garages, and self-storage facilities. Through directed research, students become versant in the planning criteria and embedded design agenda of these types and gain a comprehensive understanding of the broader cultural, regulatory, and economic context of the contemporary real estate industry. The Fall 2009 Housing Studio is the first time that students have been asked to fully investigate a morphological type that does not yet commonly exist in Boston or other New England cities – infill wood-frame courtyard housing. Courtyard housing was chosen because there are no regulatory or economic impediments to the implementation of the type and because well-designed courtyard housing could provide an alternative to the triple-decker: the wood frame, three-flats-stacked housing type that dominated the dense first-ring suburban growth in New England in the late 19th and early 20th Century.
North American Housing Types With housing, typological invention can more radically question long-standing cultural assumptions. For example, the courtyard type inverts the position and role of private open space in relationship to dwelling. The settlement and building culture in the British North American colonies was predicated on land sub-division first and then occupation by dwellings. Early maps of Boston and New York show object buildings in dense urban agglomerations. It was only with the first speculative redevelopment of urban property
that the British rowhouse was introduced to maximize land value. Outside of Boston’s city center, the metropolitan area’s most extensive residential areas were built up with woodframe buildings - the ubiquitous triple-decker - given the relatively low cost of wood-frame construction.2 Tripledeckers were either stand-alone buildings or were built as duplex pairs with a shared party wall. Prevalent codes allowed the free side of the buildings to be built within three feet of the property line – resulting in houses that were as close as six feet apart. The triple-decker type, and the neighborhoods that resulted from their proliferation, were the consequence of a high-stakes negotiation between fire officials, land speculators, builders, and elected officials.
Housing and Open Space The private open space of the triple-decker was only a consequence of a desire for the building to meet the street coupled with a maximum reasonable building depth. Side yards were only wide enough to provide access to rear yards and as space for the storage of garbage cans and decommissioned furniture and appliances. Because ownership of open space was never established by the logic of the type itself, the use of the rear yard was always in flux and varied widely even between adjacent properties. Despite the relative density of deployment of the triple-decker, as compared to other wood-frame building types, the relationship between building-as-object and the adjacent landscape is
4
5
typical to most American settlement patterns. Open space has the highest use-value where the landscape engages the house at porches and rear decks. As the landscape recedes from the building, it plays an increasingly visual role, as a buffer at the rear of the property and as a symbolic space at the front of the house.
large multi-family buildings with both a front (street) and back (alley) exposure. In addition to six plan variants, the matrix outlined the relevant building code regulations that would frame and inhibit circulation solutions and establish the maximum building height in each building category. The proto-schemes were equally distributed to the 33 students (in three studio sections) as a starting point for their own Courtyard buildings radically displace the conventional po- design investigations. sition of the landscape, thus requiring a cultural reassessment of the function and meaning of private open space. The courtyard building is an ideal pedagogical subject beThrough a simple reconfiguration of building mass, the cause it raises design issues that are as much morphological exterior ground that is furthest from the building edge is as functional in nature. For example, the “inside” corner of converted from a peripheral condition to the symbolic and the courtyard limits light and air to four specific embedded physical center of a residential community. At the same zones in the plan - requiring an inventive design response. time, the urban expression of the dwelling, typically com- This condition creates an ideal opportunity to understand municated by the relationship of the iconic form of the the relationship between the iterative design process and house-as-object to the landscape, has been compressed the deeply embedded knowledge of the discipline. As a into an urban façade. American townhouse precedent in class, we looked at this condition in projects as diverse as districts like Boston’s Back Bay, where each parcel-owner the Palazzo Farnese in Rome (1534), and the Goldenberg sought self-expression of façade and small front yard, can House by Louis Kahn (1959, un-built). A close reading of serve as a model for the particular iconographic issues of a any building with an inside corner will yield potential stratedistinctly American courtyard type. gies and tactics. Possible solutions and traces of directions almost taken are evident in every building with a similar set of planning issues. Studio Pedagogy The students were given six residential building types at Generally, solutions to the inside corner fall into four catthe launch of the studio; the types varied in the number egories: of units per floor and the way that the parcel was embedded in the hypothetical/prototypical urban context. The a. Assign functions in the corner that do not require light schemes within the matrix ranged from single-family court- and air, such as elevator banks and storage rooms. yard housing with a single exterior exposure to relatively
6
Boston Courtyard Housing Matrix Wood-frame construction Single-exposure
Double-exposure
Egress
Height: Construction Type
Single family
A
One internal stair between floors is permitted. A single means of egress within a dwelling can be no longer than 75' before two routes of egress are provided. The dwelling unit must have egress doors on the front and back (courtyard).
Maximum height governed by egress requirements
Side-by-side duplex
B
One internal stair between floors is permitted. A single means of egress within a dwelling can be no longer than 75' before two routes of egress are provided. The dwelling unit must have egress doors on the front and back (courtyard). .
Maximum height governed by egress requirements
Four or five units/floor C
D
Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that h apart than h 1/3 the h di are equall to or ffurther diagonall off the area served (the floor or that portion of the floor served by the two stairs). At least one egress route must exit directly to the exterior (the other can exit into the building lobby).
The total building height can be no taller than 60' and/or d/ four f stories i (whichever ( hi h is i taller). ll ) Four F stories i can be placed on a ground level non-combustible parking structure as long as the total height of the building does not exceed 60'.
Six or more units/floor E
F
Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that are equal to or further apart than 1/3 the diagonal of the area served (the floor or that portion of the floor served by the two stairs). At least one egress route must exit directly to the exterior (the other can exit into the building lobby).
The total building height can be no taller than 60' and/or four stories (whichever is taller). Four stories can be placed on a ground level non-combustible parking structure as long as the total height of the building does not exceed 60'.
Unit requirements
Room requirements
Window requirements
Apartment type
Size (SF)
Room/area
Min. width of room (LF)
Minimum area defined by code
Studio One Bedroom Two bedroom Three bedroom
500-700 700-900 900-1250 1250-1475
Living area Primary bedroom Secondary bedroom Kitchens/baths
14 12 11 per code
The minimum area of windows (or a window) in a habitable room* is 8% of the area of the room. Half the area of the windows must be operable. * Habitable rooms include living areas and bedrooms and can be no smaller than 100 SF.
7
b. Assign functions in the corner that can borrow light from Conclusion It is hoped that this collection of building proposals, essays skylights above, such as staircases. on a singular theme, might have an impact on Boston and c. Deform the corner (by chamfering or rounding the cor- other North American cities. Will the diversity of comprener) to create wall space for windows directly into the hensively-designed prototypes suggest a retroactive inevitability to this model of urban development? By packagspace. ing the work in an easy-to-use volume, the infill courtyard d. Shift the corner room in one direction or the other to building is proposed as a viable alternative for dense urban gain a window without the need to deform the geometry redevelopment where building culture favors renewable and socially-equitable wood-frame construction. of the corner of the courtyard. In addition to the issues posed by rooms embedded within
the inside corner of the courtyard, the depth and proportions of the courtyard space need to be carefully calibrated with the internal mechanics of the building plan, the accommodation of adequate light and air, and the consideration of potential views between units across the courtyard space. The building type also requires a fuller agenda that understands the courtyard as part of a larger continuum of public and semi-public spaces including the street, buildings lobbies, and thresholds. Students were also required to design building facades that announced (or not) the presence of the courtyard and propose solutions that establish a design agenda that articulated a position between the expression of individual units and a coherently designed street wall.
Notes 1 See Jonathan Levi’s “City of Wood: A Speculation on Urbanism and Wood Housing,” published on the Jonathan Levi Architect website: http://www.leviarc.com/ under the heading Projects/Research. “The question then is whether light frame buildings with their bias against aggregation, are necessarily anti-urban or whether it would be possible to envision a dense wood construction which alleviates each of wood’s weaknesses one by one – it’s lack of durability, poor acoustics, and susceptibility to fire, among others.” 2 Wood frame construction is still the least expensive way to building multi-family housing in the Boston metropolitan area. In 2009, the average cost of wood-frame construction in Boston’s residential neighborhoods was $175/SF. A comparable masonry building with a steel frame would be budgeted at approximately $240/SF.
Bibliography Holl, Steven, Rural & Urban House Types, Pamphlet Architecture 9, New York, 1982. Macintosh, Duncan, The Modern Courtyard House: a History, Architectural Association Paper Number 9, Published by Lund Humphries for the Architectural Association, London, 1973. Pfiefer, Gunter and Per Brauneck, Courtyard Houses: A Housing Typology, Birkhauser Verlag, 2008. Polyzoides, Stefanos, Roger Sherwood, and James Tice, Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1982. Sherwood, Roger, Modern Housing Prototypes, Harvard University Press, 1978. Schneider, Friederike, Floor Plan Atlas: Housing, Birkhauser Verlag, 1994.
8
9
Hubert Murray
Courtyard Housing: Manual as Manifesto The courtyard housing studio at Northeastern comes with noble pedigree. For the last generation or so urban housing has not generally been regarded as a subject for serious investigation in contemporary American architectural schools in which digital form-making has for so long held sway. Housing as a serious field of study and investigation for both students and practitioners has however an intellectual and professional lineage that can be traced to the urban demands and aspirations of nineteenth century and early modern Europe, a duality of formal technique and social reform, of manual and manifesto. The investigation is no less relevant here, in the United States, and now, as we attempt to resolve the contradictions of our centrifugal conurbations.
The Manual The parentage on one side is the builder’s pattern book, the template used for swaths of speculative residential development in the rapidly expanding cities built on industry and commerce. Thomas Cubitt, builder and developer, made his fortune after the Napoleonic Wars developing entire London districts (Bloomsbury, Camden Town, Spitalfields) for the upper, middle and lower classes, accommodating them in row houses ordered by size and style from the gentleman’s townhouse to the worker’s cottage. Such boilerplate solutions to housing the burgeoning population were standard practice throughout the major cities of Europe, most often in the hands of private developers but, with the rise of twentieth century social democracy, increasingly under the auspices of municipal authorities.The design manuals of the Greater London Council1, are perhaps the culmination of this tradition. For the current epoch, it is Schneider’s Floor Plan Manual2 that provides the most comprehensive compendium of urban housing type-plans, public and private, ordered by urban planning category and building type (e.g. corner building / end of row). Each of these, and many others of which they are exemplars, can be thought of as technical manuals, recipe books providing economical, efficient and (in a restricted sense) elegant solutions to mass housing. Beyond density, floor plate, circulation, disposition and dimensioning of spaces for living, sleeping, cooking and dining there is no theory bar that of the efficacy of standardization.3
10
11
The Manifesto If this side of the marriage has its own austere heritage, there is another side, ideological and reformist, that seeks to promote the virtues of social housing as, at the very best, the expression of a full and meaningful life (the home for Karl Marx’s unalienated family) and, at the least, the guarantor of a life saved from squalor and degradation (as lived for instance in the fetid slums of Engels’ Manchester or the Ilot Insalubre No 6 of Le Corbusier). Fourier, Owen, Muthesius and the Garden City movement can all be cited at greater length in the grand-parentage of social housing as a central preoccupation in architectural modernism but it is to the pre-war Bauhaus that one must look for more immediate influence in both Europe and the United States. In parallel with modernist experiments in high-rise slab housing during this period, Ludwig Hilbersheimer, Hugo Häring, Hannes Meyer4 and others developed their own versions of low-rise high-density housing, and in particular variations on the courtyard house. Interestingly, for the resonance that still reverberates in the politics of the United States today, high-rise was associated in 1920’s Germany with socialism, low-rise with a more accommodationist approach to social improvement. This difference in emphasis however in no way belied the commitment of either camp to the role of urban social housing as a fundamental building block of a progressive, healthy and modern society.
which it is underwritten are still vibrant in European architecture today. Urban housing is still viewed as a social entitlement in the majority of the mixed economies of modern Europe and therefore a common project type in most architectural practices. This is not so in the United States for whom mass housing provided by public agencies really only had its flowering in the disastrous era of urban clearances, confirming in the popular mind that public housing, so far from being a social entitlement open to all, should be no more than a last ditch provision for the feckless and indigent urban poor. The demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing development in St. Louis in 1972, a mere 18 years after its opening, represented the death of modern architecture and of the modernist project as a social program, a conjunction that had not traveled well in its journey from Europe. The unrelieved monotonies of Levittown and its progeny remain intact, forgiven their sins because they are owner occupied, each little box a testimony to American individuality and upward mobility.
Community and Privacy This volume, focusing on urban housing as a critical component in the urban fabric, and on courtyard housing in particular, as a valid physical form mediating at the cusp of community and privacy, between neighborhood and house, society and the individual, revives a discussion last given an airing in this country by Chermayeff and Alexander in their book Community and Privacy.5 Their discussion ends, not The political debate and the technical investigations by coincidentally, in a detailed analysis of courtyard housing
plans, as if they were taking up the conversation from the Bauhaus and translating it into American terms. I emphasize this social vector in the conversation on courtyard housing, because mainly for reasons of space and time, it is not given such explicit treatment in the pages that follow. One example will suffice to illustrate the conjunction of the technical and the social, in which the design manual necessarily carries within it the flame of the manifesto. One of the generic problems of the courtyard house is scale. If the dwelling unit is scaled within reasonable limits to be a single family house – between say, 1,000 to 1,800 square feet – then the true courtyard, a private space with rooms on all four sides, not only has four internal corner conditions but the court itself is severely restricted and in northern latitudes is a place in which, for considerable periods, the sun does not shine.6 If on the other hand, the perimeter is expanded to enlarge the court, shared to a greater or lesser extent with other units, then the discussion immediately becomes as much one of community as it is of privacy. The family house based on the Roman impluvium stands at one end of the spectrum, Cerda’s Barcelona grid with its communal courts serving hundreds of units, at the other.7 The dialectic between community and privacy, the social and the individual, is inherent in every one of the plans represented in this volume.
Pragmatism as Program Tim Love’s suggestion, in his treatment of the methodology
of the studio, that the courtyard house is worthy of investigation on the grounds that “it is a type that does not yet commonly exist in Boston…” and “because there are no regulatory or economic impediments to the implementation of the type” is consonant with the broader aim of the studio – and Northeastern itself – that “seeks to uncover the underlying pragmatics of contemporary market driven building”. The combination of courtyard house plans presented here and the urban forms they predicate shown in street and aerial views and blockplans, underwritten by this provocative methodological premise, all indicate a welcome revival of this subject on American soil, in American terms, with a long overdue alternative to the last generation of architectural pedagogy. This manual is surely a manifesto.
Notes 1 The Greater London Council (1965-86) was the municipal authority for the entire metropolitan region of London, the heir to the London County Council (1889-1965) which had jurisdiction over a much smaller area. In addition to the Boroughs, both the LCC and the GLC had vast portfolios of public housing in the city and were responsible for pioneering design in social housing. Of its many publications the GLC’s Preferred Dwelling Plans published in 1978 set standards and provided design templates for low-rise, high density development in the city. 2 Schneider, Friederike, Floor Plan Atlas: Housing, Birkhäuser Verlag, 1994 (Third edition, 2004). 3 The work of Sir Leslie Martin, Lionel March and others at the Cambridge Centre for Land Use and Built Form provided much of the theoretical underpinning through mathematical and quantitative analysis of patterns of residential densities and vehicular circulation.
12
13
4 For an excellent discussion of these contributions and others, see MacIntosh, Duncan, The Modern Courtyard House, Lund Humpries, London, 1973. 5 Chermayeff, Serge and Alexander, Christopher, Community and Privacy, Doubleday, New York, 1963. 6 There is a discussion to be enlarged upon regarding the climatic characteristics of the courtyard typology. A good start is made in Koenigsberger et al., Manual of Tropical Housing and Building – Part 1 Climatic Design, Longman, London, 1973. 7 It may also be noted in this regard that the courtyard as social condenser is perhaps more suited to a closed organic community, whether it be the family, nuclear or extended, or a broader homogeneous neighborhood. The street on the other hand presents an open system in which choices can be made with whom to associate.
14
Single Family and Side-by-Side Duplex Courtyard Housing
15
with Interlocking Units
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BETTY QUINTANA
Duplex
16
17
Ground Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
18
FAR
1.09 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Interlocking Units UNITS PER FLOOR
1 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 0, two bedroom: 1, three bedroom: 1 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
43’-0” DEPTH OF BUILDING
80’-0” MAXIMUM HEIGHT
30’-0” ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade Second Floor Plan PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Scale 1 : 20
22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BETTY QUINTANA
22.6
19
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BETTY QUINTANA
20
21
Elevation
Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective
22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BETTY QUINTANA
22
Street Level Perspective
23
with Central Courtyard
Elevation
Sectional Perspective
25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CAITLIN WEZEL
Single Family
24
25
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
26
FAR
1.36 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Central courtyard acts as the focal point within every room. UNITS PER FLOOR
1 UNIT BREAKDOWN
three bedroom: 1 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
44’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
37’-6” MAXIMUM HEIGHT
32’-6” Third Floor Plan
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Scale 1:20
25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CAITLIN WEZEL
25.0
27
Block Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Section through block
Second Floor Block Plan
25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CAITLIN WEZEL
28
29
Elevation
Section through minor street Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Minor Street Elevation
Perspective of Minor Street
25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CAITLIN WEZEL
30
31
Single Family
with L-Type, Bookmatch Aggregation
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE AARON TRAHAN
32
33
Ground Floor Plan
First Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
34
FAR
1.67 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
“L” type, bookmatch aggregation. Front Elevation
UNITS PER FLOOR
1 UNIT BREAKDOWN
three bedroom: 1 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
36’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
50’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
30’-6” Corner Front Elevation
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Scale 1:20 Corner Side Elevation
29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE AARON TRAHAN
29.0
35
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Elevation 29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE AARON TRAHAN
36
First Level Block Plan
37
Perspective
Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective
29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE AARON TRAHAN
38
Block Courtyard Perspective
39
with Stepped Decks
Front Elevation Elevation
Sectional Perspective
30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE MOYLAN
Single Family
40
41
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
42
FAR
1.62 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Interior circulation wraps through the house in conjunction with the exterior terrace circulation. UNITS PER FLOOR
1 UNIT BREAKDOWN
three bedroom: 1 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
31’-9” DEPTH OF BUILDING
42’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
32’-8” ACCESSIBLE UNITS Third Floor Plan
0 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Scale 1:20
30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE MOYLAN
30.0
43
Courtyard Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE MOYLAN
44
45
Elevation
Perspective
BIRDS EYE BLOCK PERSPECTIVE
Birds Eye Block Perspective
30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE MOYLAN
46
Courtyard Perspective
47
with Adjoining Private Courtyards
Sectional Perspective Through Upper Unit
Sectional Perspective Through Lower Unit
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE NASIR
Duplex
48
49
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
50
FAR
1.40 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
U-shaped units wrap courtyard. UNIT BREAKDOWN
two bedroom: 2 UNITS PER FLOOR 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
45’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
60’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
25’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1 Third Floor Plan
Roof Plan
Scale 1 : 20
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE NASIR
32.0
51
Short Block Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Upper Level Block Plan
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE NASIR
52
53
Lower Courtyard View
Upper Courtyard View
Sections Through Block
Birds Eye Block Perspective
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE NASIR
54
Street Level Perspective
55
Single Family
with Stepped Section and Terraces
Longitudinal Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JACQUELINE MOSSMAN
56
57
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
58
FAR
2 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Private Entry/ Circulation. UNITS PER FLOOR
2 UNIT BREAKDOWN
three bedroom: 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
35’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
82’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
45’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1-2
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan Scale 1:20
40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JACQUELINE MOSSMAN
40.1
59
South Elevation Detail
Ground Level Block Plan
40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JACQUELINE MOSSMAN
60
North Elevation Detail
Typical Level Block Plan
61
Concept Development Diagram
Birds Eye Block Perspective
62
40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JACQUELINE MOSSMAN
OPTION A STEEP TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE (2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS
OPTION B SHALLOW TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE (2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS 1 STUDIO UNIT
OPTION C NO TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE (2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS 1 STUDIO LOFT UNIT OR COMMERCIAL SPACE
Prototype Topographical Adaptation
63
64
Multi-Family (Single Exposure) Courtyard Housing
65
with Courtyard with View to the Street
Prototype Elevation
Sectional Perspective
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARA ROSENTHAL
Multi-Family
66
67
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
68
FAR
2.20 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Point-load circulation entered through courtyard above parking plinth UNITS PER FLOOR
6 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 12, two bedroom: 6, three bedroom: 0 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
110’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
91’ -4” MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’-6” Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.72
Scale 1:50
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARA ROSENTHAL
32.0
69
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARA ROSENTHAL
70
71
Section and Courtyard Elevations
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Prototype to Block Massing
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARA ROSENTHAL
72
Prototype to Block Circulation
Section Perspective from Street
73
with Stepped Courtyard Open to the Street
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
74
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE TIM VALICH
Multi-Family
75
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
76
FAR
1.87 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Terraced courtyard open to the street. UNITS PER FLOOR
7 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 2, one bedroom: 18, two bedroom: 6, three bedroom: 0 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
175’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
105’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
5 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.44
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan Scale 1:50
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE TIM VALICH
46.4
77
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE TIM VALICH
78
79
Prototype Figure Ground
Birds Eye Block Perspective
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE TIM VALICH
80
Street Perspective
81
with Courtyards within Courtyards
Street Elevation
Sectional Perspective
60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOHN MARTIN
Multi-Family
82
83
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
84
FAR
2.24 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Private courtyard spaces organized around a central public courtyard. UNITS PER FLOOR
6 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 4 one bedroom: 1 two bedroom: 4 three bedroom: 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
76’-6” DEPTH OF BUILDING
113’-9” Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
50’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.5
Scale 1:50
60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOHN MARTIN
60.0
85
Block Long Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Block Short Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOHN MARTIN
86
87
Block Section
Birds Eye Block Perspective
60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOHN MARTIN
88
Street Perspective
Courtyard Perspective
89
with Skip-stop Corridor
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LAURA POULIN
Multi-Family
90
91
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
92
FAR
1.98 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Skip-stop corridor provides access to duplex units. UNITS PER FLOOR
4 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 1 one bedroom: 4 two bedroom: 4 three bedroom: 4 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
80’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
108’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’ Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Scale 1:50
67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LAURA POULIN
67.0
93
Longitudinal Block Section
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Corridor Level Block Plan
67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LAURA POULIN
94
95
Transverse Block Section
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Courtyard Perspective
67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LAURA POULIN
96
Birds Eye Prototype Perspective
Down Street Perspective
97
Multi-Family
with a Semi-public Courtyard
Transverse Section through Courtyard
Prototype - Rear Courtyard Elevation
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure
Section through Courtyard
69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOSH BILLINGS
98
99
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
100
FAR
1.87 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Four point load stairs, one skip-stop corridor serving floors 4 and 5. UNITS PER FLOOR
4 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 8, two bedroom: 7, three bedroom: 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
113’-8” DEPTH OF BUILDING
84’-4” MAXIMUM HEIGHT
59’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
15 Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
Scale 1:50
69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOSH BILLINGS
69.0
101
A - Street Elevation - North
Typical Block Street Elevation
B - Street Elevation - East
C - Section B
C
A Elevations & Section Block Plan - 1st Floor
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Ground Level Block Plan Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure
102
B - Street Elevation - East
Typical Block Street Elevation
C - Section B
C
A Elevations & Section
Block Plan - 2nd Floor
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure
Typical Level Block Plan Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure
69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOSH BILLINGS
A - Street Elevation - North
103
District Plan
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Diagrammatic Section through District Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure
District Figure/Ground Plan
104
C - Section B
Section through Block
C
A Elevations & Section
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure
Aerial Perspective
69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOSH BILLINGS
B - Street Elevation - East
105
106
Multi-Family (Double Exposure) Courtyard Housing
107
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LUKE PALMA
Multi-Family
with Connected Community Courtyards
108
109
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
110
FAR
1.85 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Courtyards are connected on each side to provide circulation for intra-block and domestic circulation. UNITS PER FLOOR
5 UNIT BREAKDOWN
two bedroom: 10 three bedroom: 10 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
90’-10” DEPTH OF BUILDING
148’-4” MAXIMUM HEIGHT
55’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
2
Scale 1:50
35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LUKE PALMA
35.4
111
Front Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Back Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LUKE PALMA
112
113
Street Perspective
Transverse Section Through Site
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Section Through Park
Intra-Block Circulation
Interior Circulation
Figure Ground Diagram
35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LUKE PALMA
114
115
with Filtered Mid-block Landscape
Street and Greenway Elevations
Sectional Perspective
35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BRAD MCKINNEY
Multi-Family
116
117
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
118
FAR
1.73 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Double courtyard system filters circulation and function. UNITS PER FLOOR
6 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 3 one bedroom: 2 two bedroom: 8 three bedroom: 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
115’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
160’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
36’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
6 at grade Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.8
Scale 1:50
35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BRAD MCKINNEY
35.5
119
Typical Street Elevations
Ground Level Block Plan
Greenway Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BRAD MCKINNEY
120
121
Pedestrian Walkway Elevations
Cornice Detail
Birds Eye Block Perspective
35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BRAD MCKINNEY
122
Walkway Detail
Prototype Section
123
with Units Expressed as Individual Buildings
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE THOMAS NEAL
Multi-Family
124
125
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
126
FAR
2.07 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Multi-family horseshoe shaped housing with inserted single family row houses to create a two tiered courtyard. UNITS PER FLOOR
6 UNIT BREAKDOWN
two bedroom: 8 three bedroom: 4 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
108’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
120’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
40’ Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.5
Scale 1:50
36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE THOMAS NEAL
36.0
127
Typical Block Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Section
Typical Level Block Plan
36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE THOMAS NEAL
128
129
Multi Family
without Corridors Serving Six Stairs
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE DAN MARINO
130
131
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
Third Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
132
FAR
1.99 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Point load stair system with staggered floors and half submerged parking below UNITS PER FLOOR
5 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 2, two bedroom: 0, WIDTH AT STREET WALL
111’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
117’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
45’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.75 Fourth Floor Plan
Fifth Floor Plan
Scale 1:50
42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE DAN MARINO
42.2
133
Section / Courtyard Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE DAN MARINO
134
135
District Perspectives
Birds Eye District Perspective
Massing Strategy
Privitization of open spaces
42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE DAN MARINO
136
137
With Adjacent Semi-Private Courtyards
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SCOTT SWAILS
Multi-Family
138
139
Ground Floor Plan
Typical Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
140
FAR
1.39 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Inverted shape provides ideal amounts of light and privacy UNITS PER FLOOR
4 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 6, two bedroom: 6, three bedroom: 0 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
91’4” DEPTH OF BUILDING
86’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
30’6” ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.75
Ground Floor End Unit
Typical Floor End Unit Scale 1:50
44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SCOTT SWAILS
44.9
141
Standard Unit Main Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SCOTT SWAILS
142
143
Commercial Street Elevation
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Sectional Axonometric View
44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SCOTT SWAILS
144
Sectional Axonometric View
Typical Unit Axonometric
145
with a Courtyard Gateway
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JEFFREY MONTES
Multi-Family
146
147
Ground Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
148
FAR
1.52 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Ramps around interior face of courtyard provide primary access to units UNITS PER FLOOR
4 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 2, one bedroom: 7, two bedroom: 8 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
132’-9” DEPTH OF BUILDING
78’-9” MAXIMUM HEIGHT
33’-4” Second Floor Plan
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
3 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.7
Scale 1:50
45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JEFFREY MONTES
45.8
149
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Main Courtyard Perspective
45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JEFFREY MONTES
150
151
Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation
Birds Eye Block Perspective
45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JEFFREY MONTES
152
Main Courtyard Perspective
153
with Cantilevered Volumes
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KEN WORKINGS
Multi-Family
154
155
Ground Floor
Second Floor
Third Floor
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
156
FAR
1.87 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Shifting volumes in both plan and section allow for maximum light penetration for mid-building units UNITS PER FLOOR
12 UNIT BREAKDOWN
one bedroom: 16, two bedroom: 18 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
80’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
275’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
45’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.9
Scale 1:50 Fourth Floor
Fifth Floor
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KEN WORKINGS
46.4
157
Long Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KEN WORKINGS
158
End Block Street Elevation
Elevational Variance Diagram
Single Prototype Elevation
159
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Ramp Landscaping Detail
Facade Detail
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KEN WORKINGS
160
161
with Ramps as Main Circulation
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MELISSA MIRANDA
Multi-Family
162
163
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
164
FAR
2.30 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Ramps around interior face of courtyard provide primary access to units and promote social interaction. UNITS PER FLOOR
4 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 5, one bedroom: 3, two bedroom: 3, three bedroom: 3 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
98’-0” DEPTH OF BUILDING
100’-0 MAXIMUM HEIGHT
50’-0” ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
12/14
Scale 1:50
55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MELISSA MIRANDA
55.0
165
Boardwalk Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MELISSA MIRANDA
166
167
Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Interior Perspective of Artists’ Studio
55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MELISSA MIRANDA
168
Single Bedroom Unit Axon
Ramp Perspective
169
Multi-Family
with Subtractive Terraces and Voids
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MICHELLE MORTENSEN
170
171
Ground Floor
First Floor
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
172
FAR
2.06 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Individually articulated 3-Dimensional L-shaped, staggered units wrapped around a courtyard. UNITS PER FLOOR
4 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 5, one bedroom: 3, two bedroom: 2 , three bedroom: 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
70’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
100’ Second Floor
Third Floor
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
43’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.7
Scale 1:50
57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MICHELLE MORTENSEN
57.7
173
South Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Transverse Section
Typical Level Block Plan
57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MICHELLE MORTENSEN
174
175
Sectional Perspective Progression Cut 4
Perspective
Massing of interlocking units with cirulcation voids
Massing of interlocking units with public space voids
Exploded Axon of Unit Types
57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MICHELLE MORTENSEN
176
177
Multi-Family
with Passive Solar Orientation
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LEO RICHARDSON
178
179
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
180
FAR
3.22 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Elevator access to all units with exterior stairways to roofdecks. UNITS PER FLOOR
6 UNIT BREAKDOWN
Third Floor Plan
studio: 2 one bedroom: 2 two bedroom: 10 three bedroom: 5 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
110’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
125’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
65’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
19 PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.7
Fourth Floor Plan
Scale 1:50
62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LEO RICHARDSON
62.1
181
Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LEO RICHARDSON
182
183
Vertical Elevator Circulation Horizontal Corridor Circulation
Diagram of Accessible Interior Circulation
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Winter Sun Diagram
Trransverse Courtyard Section
62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LEO RICHARDSON
184
185
Elevation - Pedestrian Street Edge
DANIELLE McDONOUGH
with Two Distinct Urban Faces
66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
Multi-Family
186
Elevation - Vehicular Street Face
Sectional Perspective through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
187
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
188
2.76 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
A terraced strategy maximizes light and air and adapts to the pedestrian scale. UNITS PER FLOOR
4 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 2 one bedroom: 10 two bedroom: 5 Third Floor Plan
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
125’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
115’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
54’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
All PARKING SPACES/UNIT
8
Scale 1:50 Fourth + Fifth Floor Plan
DANIELLE McDONOUGH
FAR
66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
66.6
189
Street Elevation - Vehicular Street Face
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Level Block Plan
DANIELLE McDONOUGH
Street Elevation - Pedestrian Street Face
66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
190
191
DANIELLE McDONOUGH
66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
192
193
without Corridors Served by Four Stairs
Typical Elevation
Sectional Perspective
70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KATIE MCMAHON
Multi-Family
194
195
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
196
FAR
2.57 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Poit Loaded Circulation UNITS PER FLOOR
4 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 2 one bedroom: 4 two bedroom: 2 three bedroom: 6 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
120’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
99’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.4 Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
Scale 1:50
70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KATIE MCMAHON
70.0
197
Block Section
Ground Level Block Plan
70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KATIE MCMAHON
198
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
199
District Plan
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Sectional Perspective
Sectional Perspective
Relationship of Facade to Interior
70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KATIE MCMAHON
200
201
with Figurative Courtyard
Prototype
Sectional Perspective
77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARAH TARBET
Multi-Family
202
203
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
204
FAR
2.63 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Living rooms facing courtyard, bedrooms facing street. UNIT BREAKDOWN
one bedroom: 6, two bedroom: 16 UNITS PER FLOOR 6 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
243’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
250’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
46’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS Third Floor Plan
1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.7
Scale 1:50
77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARAH TARBET
77.0
205
Block Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Unfolded Courtyard Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARAH TARBET
206
207
Block Section
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Entry Portal
77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARAH TARBET
208
Interior Courtyard
Street Perspective
209
Multi-Family
with Individual Entry System from External Circulation Tissue
Sectional Perspective
78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BARRETT NEWELL
210
211
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
Third Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
212
FAR
2.56 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Double entry system connecting two buildings into one courtyard UNITS PER FLOOR
5 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 14, one bedroom: 4 two bedroom: 6 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
82’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
171’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS Fourth Floor Plan
Fifth Floor Plan
4 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.83
Scale 1:50
78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BARRETT NEWELL
78.0
213
Block Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Section and Courtyard Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BARRETT NEWELL
214
215
End Block Elevation
Section and Courtyard Elevation 78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BARRETT NEWELL
216
217
with a Rotated Elliptical Courtyard
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JAIME SWEED
Multi-Family
218
219
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
220
FAR
1.99 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Rotating ellipse courtyard provides alternating terraces to units UNITS PER FLOOR
4 UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 2, two bedroom: 8, three bedroom: 0 WIDTH AT STREET WALL
99’ DEPTH OF BUILDING
76’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT
39’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.2
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan Scale 1:50
96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JAIME SWEED
96.0
221
Corner Block Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JAIME SWEED
222
223
Diagram of Prototype Courtyard Organization
Section Perspective
96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JAIME SWEED
224
Facade Detail
Typical Unit Axonometric
225
226
Site Masterplans by Studio
227
SITE ACREAGE 209.41
228
BUILDING COVERAGE 0.26 UNITS/ACRE 33.10 NUMBER OF UNITS 6,931 NUMBER OF BEDS 11,531 PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS 19.8% PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS 37.6% PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS 14.2% AREA (TOTAL SITE) 9,122,045 SF AREA (TYP FLOOR) 2,381,135 SF
CHRISTOFORETTI STUDIO MASTERPLAN
AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PUBLIC PROGRAM 350,718 SF
229
JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55 SINGLE FAMILY 40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
IAN STABER MULTI-FAMILY 45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
KATIE MCMAHON | 193 MULTI-FAMILY 70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
BARRETT NEWELL | 209 MULTI-FAMILY 78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185 MULTI-FAMILY 66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55 SINGLE FAMILY 40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
LEO RICHARDSON | 177 MULTI-FAMILY 62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
IAN STABER MULTI-FAMILY 45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
THANA TALIEP MULTI-FAMILY 58.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BRAD MCKINNEY | 115 MULTI-FAMILY 35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
230
DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185 MULTI-FAMILY 66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LEO RICHARDSON | 177 MULTI-FAMILY 62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
MICHELLE MORTENSEN | 169 MULTI-FAMILY 22.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
CHRISTOFORETTI STUDIO MASTERPLAN
MELISSA MIRANDA | 161 MULTI-FAMILY 55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
231
SITE ACREAGE 209.41
232
BUILDING COVERAGE 0.36 UNITS/ACRE 22.87 NUMBER OF UNITS 5,164 NUMBER OF BEDS 10,523 PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS 22.4% PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS 34.2% PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS 33.4% AREA (TOTAL SITE) 9,122,045 SF AREA (TYP FLOOR) 3,248,491 SF
LOVE STUDIO MASTERPLAN
AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PUBLIC PROGRAM) 10,000 SF
233
CHRISTINE MOYLAN | 39 SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX 36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
THOMAS NEAL | 123 MULTI-FAMILY 36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
CHRSITINE NASIR | 47 SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX 67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE AARON TRAHAN | 31 SINGLE-FAMILY 25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
SARAH TARBET | 201 MULTI-FAMILY 55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
AARON TRAHAN | 31 SINGLE-FAMILY 25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
LAURA POULIN | 89 SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX 67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JI PARK MULTI-FAMILY 36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JOHN MARTIN | 81 MULTI-FAMILY 60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
THOMAS NEAL | 123 MULTI-FAMILY 36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
LOVE STUDIO MASTERPLAN
CAITLIN WEZEL | 23 SINGLE-FAMILY 29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
234
JONATHAN SAMPSON MULTI-FAMILY 55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
235
SITE ACREAGE 209.41
236
BUILDING COVERAGE 0.31 UNITS/ACRE 32.04 NUMBER OF UNITS 6,710 NUMBER OF BEDS 10,755 PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS 38.3% PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS 45.7% PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS 9.1% AREA (TOTAL SITE) 9,122,045 SF AREA (TYP FLOOR) 2,859,587 SF
WIEDERSPAHN STUDIO MASTERPLAN
AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PROGRAM PROGRAM) 324,984 SF
237
TIM VALICH | 73 MULTI-FAMILY 46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
BETTY QUINTANA | 15 SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX 34.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JAMIE SWEED | 217 MULTI-FAMILY 96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
KEN WORKINGS | 153 MULTI-FAMILY 46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
DAN MARINO | 129 MULTI FAMILY 42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
SARAH ROSENTHAL | 65 MULTI-FAMILY 32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
NATHAN ALESKOVSKY MULTI-FAMILY 56.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JEFFREY MONTES | 145 MULTI-FAMILY 45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
238
LUKE PALMA | 107 MULTI-FAMILY 35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SCOTT SWAILS | 137 MULTI-FAMILY 44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
WIEDERSPAHN STUDIO MASTERPLAN
JOSH BILLINGS | 97 MULTI-FAMILY 69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
239
240
Jonathan Levi
Courtyard Housing: Afterword The design of housing has been among the most persistent topics in the pedagogies of schools of architecture since the rise of 20th Century modernism. Why housing? To begin, housing is at the core of the architect’s commitment to the discipline as an arena of action which goes beyond the intangible long term influences of aesthetic concerns to address a level of immediate cultural and even political service. Building on its original mid-20th Century meaning as a corrective to the damaging effects of industrialization, “housing” has also come to be closely associated with the framing of the architectural project within the larger subject of the city. Housing fabric is the basic stuff of cities and lies at the fundamental intersection between the architectural and urban scales.
These studios, taught at Northeastern by Tim Love and his colleagues, represent a recommitment to the ideal of housing introduced at the core of the moral and technical formation of the young architect. But with at twist: Where previous generations, consciously or not, embraced the implicit agenda of ‘social’ housing, Professor Love updates his approach with an expert nod to the contemporary realities of private development restrained, for public interest purposes, only by the primitive mechanisms of zoning ordinances and building codes. The projects themselves then represent a kind of purposeful gamesmanship, following the path of community building through graduated scales and individual dwelling differentiation while outwitting the numerous community-adverse obstacles presented by parking, egress
241
paths, elevatoring and the like. At the literal center of this tactical endeavor, the interior-block garden or courtyard emerges, dispelling the anonymity of repetition, offering respite from the automobile and, hopefully, providing the germ of community. Underlying these very comprehensive and comprehensible proposals, there lays a challenge to contemporary social conditions in America which are generally inimical to the meaningful creation of semi-private space. It is a practical challenge - one of ownership - and a spiritual one. The latter, in essence, because we Americans do not like to be in clustered pigeonholes, we do not like to be told what groups to belong to and, for better or worse, we simply do not like to share. The students remind us that the need to change these conditions is unquestionable given the social and ecological alternative of further despoiling the country and further alienating ourselves from one another. Remembering the identity of cities and their housing, this then brings us to that indefatigable urban default structure - the street, and also to its current status and the city that it implies. Those represented here are remarkable if only for their authors’ highly laudable attention to the details of elevations – an attention which is lacking in many schools of architecture today. In so doing, the students have been able to tangibly mediate the critical contest between automobiles and pedestrians, between garages and entries, which is at the heart of the nature of contemporary cities. They do so with optimism about the livability of public streets which is justifiable – but perhaps not so much for today as it is for tomorrow.
Certainly, the ordinary street today is nothing like it was in our distant memory or as it now sometimes exists in exotic places for wealthy people on the prowl for fun and purchases. It will never be exactly that. It will probably not be a place of walking to work or kids going to school or mothers congregating during the day with strollers. Workplace mobility, taken together with full employment outside the home and our affinity for spreading over the land, has overtaken all that in the form of the automobile. And the automobile, though it may eventually take more communally responsible form, is here to stay. However, significantly, the workplace is changing. Mobility is increasingly virtual. Commuting is increasingly virtual. Commerce is increasingly virtual. There is a real possibility that the separated workplace, dwelling and commercial concentrations that have, in the last 50 years, driven the emptying of streets will someday be obsolete. There is a possibility that housing will not just be mostly the stuff of cities, but all of them. Then, in the ‘post vehicular’ city, we will see what streets will become. It will not be a city without cars, not a restoration of quaint pedestrianism, but where cars have a new and less fearsomely essential meaning. In their carefully scaled streets and cleverly configured courtyards these student proposals seek to heal the empty places of today’s cities and offer a view of the transformative importance of housing for the future. A future where, perhaps, dwellings will once again be fully occupied throughout the day and where streets are not just conduits but are themselves liveable and lived in gardens.
COURTYARD HOUSING ARCH 5110 HOUSING AND AGGREGATION FALL 2009 The projects in this volume were designed as prototypical residential types and city block plans by fourth-year students in the undergradu足ate architecture program at Northeastern University in Boston.