The Housing Public Space in Milan A Research on Projects’ Typologies
Author: Xudong Zhu Mentor: Prof. Fabris Luca Maria Francesco The Graduation Thesis of Double Degree Programme Politecnico di Milano & Tongji University
The Definition of Housing Public Space - In the urban context - In the residential block / the block which mainly contains residential function - Open to all the residents and citizens - Principally developed simultaneously with the residential project
1
CONTENT 01 RESEARCH'S INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................
3
02 RESEARCH'S DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................
7
03 A SELECTION OF PROJECTS ........................................................................................ 11 04 DATA FROM PROJECTS ................................................................................................. 21 05 CONCLUSION 1 - PROJECTS' DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................... 93 06 CONCLUSION 2 - TYPOLOGIES OF PROJECTS .......................................................... 121
2
01 RESEARCH'S INTRODUCTION
3
In recent decades, in China, especially some large cities, the gated residential community has become the most Chinese typical urban collective living mode. This kind of community often occupies a large land area, thus forming a super-scale block. Besides that, it is totally closed externally, which means the outdoor space in the community is only open to the residents, excluding other citizens. For a long time, these two characteristics bring several urban issues. For instance, first of all, large-scale block lead to a decrease in road network density. Due to the lack of urban branch roads, traffic jams can easily occur during morning and peak hours, especially in metropolises like Shanghai and Beijing; Secondly, due to restrictions on policy of land use pattern, most of residential communities do not have corresponding commercial service facilities, especially the small number of living service facilities, which brings great inconvenience to the daily consumption of the community residents. Lastly, in order to maximize the benefits, the developer will increase the land use rate as much as possible. The purpose of commercialization is to increase the area of the gated residential community, causing the fact that the connection between communities is mostly limited to traffic functions. From my point of view, we can attribute the origin of these problems to the relationship between the community and the urban public space. It is precisely because of the lack of urban public space of residential community that these problems occur and evolve. How to deal with the problem of current residential communities in China has become one of the most critical issues in our country. On the other hand, in June 2016, the Chinese policy, called SEVERAL OPINIONS OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA AND THE STATE COUNCIL ON FURTHER STRENGTHENING THE MANAGEMENT OF URBAN PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION, proposed that in principle, the gated residential communities will no longer be built and the completed residential community and unit compound should be gradually opened, in order to realize the internal publicization of roads and promote the use of land. Obviously, this policy would bring many positive influence, such as to increase urban branch roads, improving urban transport; to increase block muti-function, improving consumer environment; to realize the sharing of urban greening and landscape; to improve interpersonal relationships and the connection between communities. However, from the practice of the past two years, the new residential communities in the market do not have good implementation of the policy. There must be other reasons such as property rights, economy, and land openness, but in my opinion, from the perspective of urban space, in order to establish an open block, designers have to add urban public functions in the originally closed community. Hence, the biggest problem is how to deal with the contradiction between private and public in the housing public space, by which I mean, how to design the open residential block in China? In Milan, from the map with the same scale, we could easily find that its block is much smaller than that of Shanghai, and sometimes only about one-tenth. In these pleasant neighborhoods, we can often find many open residential blocks. They come in different forms and scales. Some are worked by famous architects, and there are a lot of written records. Some are ordinary houses, and it is difficult to find an introduction even on the Internet. But in any case, these projects can be a reference for China to implement open blocks. As far as this graduation thesis is concerned, I am going to conduct research on the core space of the open block, which is housing public space, in order to find the typology and characteristics of the housing public space in Milan.
4
The Reason Why I Did This Research - The Current Housing Issue in Chin
5
na & The New Policy in China & The Advanced Housing Design in Milan
6
02 RESEARCH'S DEVELOPMENT
7
In order to do the research on housing public space in Milan, under the advice of my mentor, professor Fabris, I started to study on some reference. In my opinion, the most influential to my research are THE ART OF BUILDING CITIES: CITY BUILDING ACCORDING TO ITS ARTISTIC FUNDAMENTALS, written by Camillo Sitte in 1889 and THE IMAGE OF THE CITY and GOOD CITY FORM, published by Kevin Lynch in 1960 and 1981. Generally speaking, As far as the subject, the housing public space in Milan is concerned, Camillo Sitte provided the basis for the spatial material level for my research. Furthermore, Kevin Lynch offered the possibility of focusing on the humanistic spirit of the research. In the literary work THE ART OF BUILDING CITIES: CITY BUILDING ACCORDING TO ITS ARTISTIC FUNDAMENTALS, Sitte mentioned that the key element of successful city planning is the plaza or public square. There exists a context and history of use in these public spaces which make them vital to cities. Therefore, he investigated a large number of squares and streets in medieval European cities and summed up the artistic principles of urban construction adapted to the conditions at that time, which are the relationship between buildings, monuments and public squares; public squares which are empty in the center; closed feature of public squares; forms and sizes of public squares; irregularities in ancient public Squares; the group of public squares. Correspondingly, in my opinion, housing public space is the link between residential area and urban context, which is the most important element if a designer is going to create a successful open residential block. According to Sitte’s classification criteria and principle, I also sum up six points in terms of the housing public space, which are the relationship between building and public space; the program in public space; open features of public space; the dimension of public space; the layout of public space; the group of public space. On the other hand, simply studying the properties of the physical space does not seem to fully summarize the characteristics of the housing public space. In the book THE IMAGE OF THE CITY, Kevin Lynch proposed the definition of the image of the environment, which could be conclude as legibility, building the image, structure & identity, and imageability. He stated that Our need for the environment is not only well structured, but it should also be poetic and symbolic. It should design individuals and their complex societies, design their ideals and traditions, design the natural environment and the complex functions and movements in the city. Clear structure and vivid personality will be the first step in developing a strong symbol. Through a prominent and well-organized location, the city provides a venue for gathering and organizing these meanings. This sense of place itself will enhance every human activity that takes place there and inspire the precipitation of memory traces. The description of the environmental image above do remind me of whether there is such a feeling in the housing public space. If so, the first question is what is it? After streamlining the theory Kevin proposed, I came up with three conditions for the image of the housing public space, which are identity, structure and implication. I believe there is such a space, what I call the active public space, and it could be distinguishable from the surrounding things, be recognizable as an independent individual, have spatial or morphological association between objects & observers or Objects & Objects, and most importantly, provide practical or emotional implication for the citizens. The second question is how to find it or how to define it? Similarly, I also find the criteria from Kevin’s book GOOD CITY FORM, which include five elements, vitality, sense, fit, access, and control. He used this principle to describe a good city. For me, it is also possible to regard it as five main standards of the active housing public space. To be specific, vitality means sustainant, safe and consonant; Sense means identifiable, structured, congruent, transparent, legible and significant; fit means manipulable and resilient; access means diverse, equitable and local manageable; control means certain, responsible and intermittently loose.
8
9
10
03 A SELECTION OF 32 PROJECTS
11
While sorting out the theoretical knowledge, in order to get a more comprehensive understanding of the housing public space in Milan, I tried to find as many cases as possible to conduct research. Since there is no exact research on the housing public space in Milan in the existing literature, the main source of the projects in this study are from the following aspects, 11 books, 5 websites, 2 professors and Google Map. First of all, it is easy to search housing projects in Milan, but difficult to recognize if these projects have urban public space that deserve to study. Therefore, after selecting lots of projects, I checked their information on the Internet or in the library, and finally picked 47 projects, which could have public space from the literature. After that, I conducted on-site research and analysis on these 47 cases, and integrated the same plot project, eventually finding 32 projects that met the requirements. In these cases, most projects are designed or completed after 2000, which means more and more architects and clients are concerning the relationship between private housing and public urban context. On the other hand, there are also some of the social housing communities which are designed after The Second War in order to solve survival problems.
12
13
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Location
14
15
Residenze - Via Angelo Rizzoli Residenze - Via Franco Russoli Quartiere QT8 Quartiere INA Casa Harar Quartiere Gratosoglio Quartiere Sant'Ambrogio Quartiere San Felice Residenze dell'Esplanade Comparto multifunzionale "La piazza" Residenze in Via Emanueli Residenza Arcimboldi Srl nell'area ex Innocenti Maserati Residenze al Portello Residenze - Parco Adriano Torre Piazza Tirana PRU ex-OM Pompeo Leoni Residenze sociali - Via Gallarate Comparto residenziale R1, R3 Residenze sociali - Via Senigallia Residenze sociali - Via Civitavecchia Uffici e Galleria Campari The "Bosco Verticale" UnitĂ di Intervento II.6 - Torre Dacia Residenze sociali - Via Ovada Nuove residenze in Corso Como Residenze sociali in Via degli Appennini Residenze Libeskind, Residenze Hadid Residenza libera Residenze alte, Torre Solea, Ville urbane Milano via Cenni Residenze di housing sociale Borgo Assistito 16
01 Residenze - Via Angelo Rizzoli
02 Residenze - Via Franco Russoli
03 Quartiere QT8
04 Quartiere INA Casa Harar
09 Bicocca - Comparto multifunzionale "La piazza"
10 Bicocca - Residenze in Via Emanueli
11 Bicocca - Residenza Arcimboldi Srl
12 nell'area ex Innocenti Maserati
17 Residenze sociali - Via Gallarate
18 Comparto residenziale R1, R3
19 Residenze sociali - Via Senigallia
20 Residenze sociali - Via Civitavecchia
25 Nuove residenze in Corso Como
26 Residenze sociali in Via degli Appennini
27 Residenze Libeskind, Residenze Hadid
28 Residenza libera
17
05 Quartiere Gratosoglio
06 Quartiere Sant'Ambrogio
07 Quartiere San Felice
08 Bicocca - Residenze dell'Esplanade
13 Residenze al Portello
14 Residenze - Parco Adriano
15 Torre Piazza Tirana
16 PRU ex-OM Pompeo Leoni
21 Uffici e Galleria Campari
22 The "Bosco Verticale"
23 UnitĂ di Intervento II.6 - Torre Dacia
24 Residenze sociali - Via Ovada
29 Residenze alte, Torre Solea, Ville urbane
30 Milano via Cenni
31 Residenze di housing sociale - Via alla Stazione
32 Borgo Assistito
18
19
20
04 DATA INFO FROM PROJECTS
21
After conducting site investigations on 32 cases, I was more convinced of the previous assumption that there is indeed some so-called active public space in each project, in which people prefer to stay here and be able to give their actual or spiritual sustenance. Therefore, I have refined the theoretical part mentioned in the chapter 2. For each case, I have drawn a set of analysis charts, and each case has been imaged and quantified, including the master plan of the project, photos on the site, the area and proportion of the block, the area and proportion of the architecture, the area and proportion of the vegetation, the area and proportion of open space (hosing public space), the area and proportion of active public space, the form of the block, the form of the architecture, the form of the vegetation, the form of open space, the form of active public space, and the species of program and activity in public space.
22
Project
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
23
Open space
Active Space
Project
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
24
Open space
Active Space
Project
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
17 01
18 02
19 03
20 04
21 05
22 06
23 07
24 08
25
Open space
Active Space
Project
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
25 09
26 10
27 11
28 12
29 13
14 30
31 15
32 16
26
Open space
Active Space
27
The page on the left shows the template for each project analysis that contains information about the image and the data. The second half of this page shows the classification of public program in housing projects. Through on-site observations and interviews, I summarized a total of 20 public activities and events in 32 projects. In these categories, firstly, public transportation, school, public park and parking belong to municipal administration, which are invested by Italian government; secondly, repast, cinema, supermarket, shopping mall and some kinds of sports belong to commerce, which are charging; thirdly, library, activity room, church, stadium and community service belong to indoor activity, which are free to the public; lastly, walking the dog,exercise, culture and art, rest, recreation for children, and recreation for the aged belong to free outdoor activity.The following icons correspond to the homologous activities and programs, which will appear in the diagram of each case. The black color indicates that the project has this function, and light gray indicates no. These public activities represent the richness of housing public space and, hence, are one of the focuses of this research.
28
01
0M
50M
Residenze - Via Angelo Rizzoli
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
27848M2
3898M2- 14.0%
12257M2- 44.0%
29
Unknown / Unknown / Via Angelo Rizzoli, Via Vittorio Capraro
Open Space
Active Public Space
24194M2- 86.9%
10271M2- 36.9% 30
02
0M
50M
Residenze - Via Franco Russoli
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
25681M2
3630M2- 14.1%
12558M2- 48.9%
31
Unknown / Unknown / Via Franco Russoli, Via Santander
Open Space
Active Public Space
22073M2- 86.0%
11469M2- 44.7% 32
03
Quartiere OT8
0M 100M 200M 300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
359425M2
32555M2- 9.1%
173953M2- 48.4%
33
Piero Bottioni / 1946 / Via Diomede, Via Salmoiraghi, Viale Elia
Open Space
Active Public Space
238845M2- 66.5%
60030M2- 16.7% 34
04
0M
100M
Quartiere INA Casa Harar
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
82406 M2
19934M2- 24.2%
15128M2- 18.4%
35
Figini & Pollini , Ponti / 1951 / Via Harar, Via Novarar, Via San Giusto, Via Dessie
Open Space
Active Public Space
27962M2- 33.9%
7101M2- 8.6% 36
05
Quartiere Gratosoglio
0M 100M 200M 300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
186025M2
28260M2- 15.2%
84103M2- 45.2%
37
BBRP / 1962 / Via dei Missaglia, Via Saponaro, Via Baroni
Open Space
Active Public Space
131498M2- 70.7%
13898M2- 7.5% 38
06
0M
100M
Quartiere Sant'Ambrogio
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
94190M2
18078M2- 19.2%
38994M2- 41.4%
39
Arrigo Arrighetti / 1962 / Via San Vigilio, Via San Paolino
Open Space
Active Public Space
76839M2- 81.6%
15701M2- 16.7% 40
07
0M
100M
Quartiere San Felice
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
406256M2
53760M2- 13.2%
169500M2- 41.7%
41
Caccia Dominioni, Magistretti / 1967 / Via San Bovio, Segrate
Open Space
Active Public Space
275528M2- 67.8%
40016M2- 9.8% 42
08
0M
50M
Bicocca - Residenze dell'Esplanade
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
65948M2
16502M2- 25.0%
15956M2- 24.2%
43
Gregotti Associati / 1985 / Viale Sarca, Viale Piero e Alberto Pirelli
Open Space
Active Public Space
32506M2- 49.3%
23967M2- 36.3% 44
09
0M
50M
Bicocca - Comparto multifunzionale "La piazza"
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
28338M2
8104M2- 28.6%
3186M2- 11.2%
45
Gregotti Associati / 1985 / Via Vizzola, Viale Piero e Alberto Pirelli, Via Piero Caldirola
Open Space
Active Public Space
20234M2- 71.4%
8352M2- 29.5% 46
10
0M
50M
Bicocca - Residenze in Via Emanueli
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
17183M2
5096M2- 29.7%
2020M2- 11.8%
47
Gregotti Associati / 1985 / Via Luigi Emanueli, Piazzale Egeo, Viale dell'lnnovazione
Open Space
Active Public Space
9706M2- 56.6%
2910M2- 16.9% 48
11
0M
50M
Bicocca - Residenza Arcimboldi Srl
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
29037M2
4178M2- 14.4%
3536M2- 12.2%
49
Gregotti Associati / 1985 / Via Sesto S.Giovanni, Viale dell'lnnovazione
Open Space
Active Public Space
16515M2- 56.9%
6368M2- 21.9% 50
12
0M
50M
Il PRU Rubattino e il Parco dell'Acqua nell'area ex Innocenti Maserati
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
163788 M2
34847M2- 21.3%
51574M2- 31.5%
51
Alfio grifoni, Alpina Spa, LAND / 1995 / Via Caduti di Marcinelle, Via Riccardo Pitteri
Open Space
Active Public Space
121219M2- 74.0%
46222M2- 28.2% 52
13
0M
50M
Residenze al Portello
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
26871M2
5938M2- 22.1%
3077M2- 11.5%
53
CZA Cino Zucchi Architetti / 2002 / Via Luigi Maria Brunelli, Via Marco Ulpio Traiano
Open Space
Active Public Space
17128M2- 63.7%
4308M2- 16.0% 54
14
0M
50M
Residenze - Parco Adriano
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
120824M2
10484M2- 8.7%
37612M2- 31.1%
55
Franco Giorgetta, Caputo Partnership / 2003 / Via Roberto Tremelloni, Via Ugo Tognazzi
Open Space
Active Public Space
60100M2- 49.7%
9823M2- 8.1% 56
15
0M
50M
Torre Piazza Tirana
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
64247M2
4358M2- 6.8%
27586M2- 42.9%
57
Quattroassociati / 2003 / Via Francesco Gonin, Piazza Tirana
Open Space
Active Public Space
47908M2- 74.6%
8404M2- 13.1% 58
16
0M
50M
PRU ex-OM Pompeo Leoni
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
183846M2
20997M2- 11.4%
88260M2- 48.0%
59
Autori Vari / 2005 / Via Giovanni Spadolini, Via Corrado ll il Salico, Via Pompeo Leoni
Open Space
Active Public Space
130240M2- 70.8%
38399M2- 20.9% 60
17
0M
50M
Residenze sociali - Via Gallarate
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
32977M2
4752M2- 14.4%
13197M2- 40.0%
61
MAB arquitectura / 2005 / Via Gallarate, Via Appennini
Open Space
Active Public Space
28183M2- 85.5%
3855M2- 11.7% 62
18
0M
100M
Comparto residenziale R1, Edificio residenziale R3
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
130902M2
38526M2- 29.4%
42065M2- 32.1%
63
Open Building Research, Camillo Botticini / 2005 / Via Cascina Venina
Open Space
Active Public Space
109326M2- 83.5%
33980M2- 26.0% 64
19
0M
50M
Residenze sociali - Via Senigallia
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
14327M2
2611M2- 18.2%
4423M2- 30.9%
65
OdA Officina di Architettura / 2005 / Via Senigallia
Open Space
Active Public Space
11097M2- 77.5%
5382M2- 37.6% 66
20
0M
50M
Residenze sociali - Via Civitavecchia
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
24058M2
2841M2- 11.8%
15277M2- 63.5%
67
Consalez Rossi Architetti Associati / 2006 / Via Carlo Cazzaniga, Via Molfetta, Via Pusiano
Open Space
Active Public Space
20882M2- 86.8%
6493M2- 27.0% 68
21
0M
50M
Uffici e Galleria Campari
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
18053M2
5661M2- 31.4%
3988M2- 22.1%
69
Mario Botta / 2006 / Via F.Sacchetti, Viale A.Gramsci, Via Davide Campari
Open Space
Active Public Space
6473M2- 35.9%
4654M2- 25.8% 70
22
0M
50M
The "Bosco Verticale"
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
17350M2
3274M2- 18.9%
5841M2- 33.7%
71
Boeri Studio / 2007 / Via Gaetano de Castillia, Via Federico Confalonieri
Open Space
Active Public Space
13926M2- 80.3%
3742M2- 21.6% 72
23
0M
50M
UnitĂ di Intervento II.6 - Torre Dacia
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
55112M2
20197M2- 36.6%
3078M2- 5.6%
73
Caputo Partnership / 2008 / Via Marcello Mastroianni, Via Ugo Tognazzi
Open Space
Active Public Space
49007M2- 88.9%
27284M2- 49.5% 74
24
0M
50M
Residenze sociali - Via Ovada
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
33264M2
2567M2- 7.7%
19959M2- 60.0%
75
Cecchi & Lima Architetti Associati / 2008 / Via Ovada, Via S.Vigilio
Open Space
Active Public Space
29866M2- 89.8%
12878M2- 38.7% 76
25
0M
50M
Nuove residenze in Corso Como
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
9408M2
2075M2- 22.1%
2394M2- 25.4%
77
MuĂąoz + Albin Architecture and Planning inc. / 2009 / Via Vincenzo Capelli
Open Space
Active Public Space
8392M2- 89.2%
3668M2- 39.0% 78
26
0M
50M
Residenze sociali in Via degli Appennini
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
28505M2
3789M2- 13.3%
10776M2- 37.8%
79
Alessandra Macchioni / 2009 / Via Bolla, Via Appennini
Open Space
Active Public Space
25544M2- 89.6%
5706M2- 20.0% 80
27
0M
50M
Residenze Libeskind, Residenze Hadid
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
248441M2
23457M2- 9.4%
77018M2- 31.0%
81
Daniel Libeskind, Zaha Hadid / 2009 / Viale Duilio, Viale Eginardo, Viale Ezio
Open Space
Active Public Space
136844M2- 55.1%
85493M2- 34.4% 82
28
0M
50M
Residenza libera
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
34730M2
9943M2- 28.6%
4709M2- 13.6%
83
Guido Canali / 2009 / Via Ignazio Gardella, Via Marco Ulpio Traiano
Open Space
Active Public Space
14799M2- 42.6%
4647M2- 13.4% 84
29
0M
50M
Residenze alte, Torre Solea, Ville urbane
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
37235M2
9671M2- 26.0%
6581M2- 17.7%
85
Arquitectonica, Caputo Partnership, Studio M2P Associati / 2010 / Via Joe Colombo
Open Space
Active Public Space
26726M2- 71.8%
8839M2- 23.7% 86
30
0M
50M
Milano via Cenni
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
16471M2
4361M2- 26.5%
5781M2- 35.1%
87
Rossiprodi Associati / 2011 / Via Quinto Cenni, Via Domokos, Via Giuseppe Gabetti
Open Space
Active Public Space
12285M2- 74.6%
1017M2- 6.2% 88
31
0M
50M
Residenze di housing sociale - Via alla Stazione
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
13831M2
2707M2- 19.6%
7660M2- 55.4%
89
Guidarini & Salvadeo / 2012 / Via del Santuario, Via alla stazione, Fraz. Seggiano
Open Space
Active Public Space
13201M2- 95.4%
9447M2- 68.3% 90
32
0M
50M
Borgo Assistito
100M
200M
300M
500M
Block
Architecture
Vegetation
45781M2
11296M2- 24.7%
18485M2- 40.4%
91
Giacomo Penco, Matteo Rossetti / 2016 / Via Giovanni Battista Rasario
Open Space
Active Public Space
34382M2- 75.1%
8658M2- 18.9% 92
05 CONCLUSION 1 - PROJECTS' DATA ANALYSIS
93
In the previous chapter, I summarize the research for each case into six parts, namely block, architecture, vegetation, open space, active public space and program & activity. In this chapter, as the first conclusion of my research, I have compiled the above data and statistics according to each category, hoping to find the regular pattern of each quantity. Block: Except for some large post-war residential areas and modern development projects, the average area of open-plan residential blocks is about 24,000 square meters, mostly in the shape of squares, supplemented by long strips. The size of a large residential area can even reach 400,000 square meters. Open Space: The proportion of public space occupied by each project is generally high, with an average of 70%, or 17,000 square meters. However, in some districts with relatively high commercial development, the proportion of open space is relatively low due to the introduction of office functions, sometimes is around 40%. Program & Activity: In the case of research, rest, recreation for children, exercise and dog walking are the most common activities in public space, and they are also the most popular place. Relatively speaking, there are few indoor public space. Except for some commercial functions, other programs such as activity rooms, libraries, etc. are not usual. Therefore, it can be observed that more residents are willing to perform activities outdoors. Architecture: The density of buildings in the block is generally low, averaging 19.2%. In some extreme cases, the density is as low as 6.8% due to the fact that the building is located in an urban public park or a large green area. The layout of the building presents a rich diversity, with determinants, enclosures, interlaces, etc., thus forming a rich public space style. In addition, the density of the building is generally inversely proportional to the area of the block. To be specific, the greater the density of the block, the lower the density of the building. Vegetation: The proportion of public vegetation density in each project changes largely, depending on the main functions of the block except for living. When the commercial office is the main one, the density of greening is relatively low, but when it is mainly for leisure, the density of greening is relatively high. In addition, the data also shows that the proportion of vegetation is often inversely proportional to the proportion of buildings. Active Public Space: The active public space is a more subjective aspect. The selection criteria are mainly based on Kevin's arguments combined with my observations and interviews in the survey. From the data, it can be found that active public space generally do not exceed half of the open space, with an average of 35%. The reason why the minimum is only 8.3% is that many public space are composed of traffic space and a large number of vegetation space, in which citizens often do not stay and do not have actual or emotional sustenance.
94
95
The Data of Each Project - Basic Information
96
The Data of Each Project - Basic Information / The Area of Block
97
The Data of Each Project - Basic Information / The Area of Open Space
98
The Data of Block 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Block Active Public Space Open Space
99
Tendency
45781 M2
The Area of Block
13831 M2
Mean.......82574 M2 Median....33997 M2 Max.......406256 M2 Min............9408 M2
2
16471 M
37235 M2 34730 M2 248441 M2 28505 M2 9408 M2 33264 M2 55112 M2 17350 M2 18053 M2 24058 M2 14327 M2 130902 M2 32977 M2 183846 M2 64247 M2 120824 M2 26871 M2 163788 M2 29037 M2 17183 M2 28338 M2 65948 M2
406256 M2 94190 M2 186025 M2 82406 M2 359425 M2 25681 M2 27848 M2
100
The Data of Open Space 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Open Space
Tendency
Open Space / Block Active Public Space / Open Space
101
34382 M2
The Area of Open Space
13201 M2
Mean...........56045 M2 Median........27344 M2 Max...........275528 M2 Min................6473 M2
2
12285 M
26726 M2 14799 M2 136844 M2 25544 M2 8392 M2 29866 M2 49007 M2 13926 M2 6473 M2 20882 M2 11097 M2 109326 M2 28183 M2 130240 M2 47908 M2 60100 M2 17128 M2 121219 M2 16515 M2 9706 M2 20234 M2 32506 M2
275528 M2 76839 M2 131498 M2
27962 M2 238845 M2 22073 M2 24194 M2
102
75.1 % 95.4 % 74.6 % 71.8 % 42.6 % 55.1 % 89.6 % 89.2 % 89.8 % 88.9 % 80.3 % 35.9 % 86.8 % 77.5 % 83.5 % 85.5 % 70.8 % 74.6 % 49.7 % 63.7 % 74.0 % 56.9 %
Open Space / Block
56.5 %
Mean........71.3 %
71.4 % Median.....74.3 %
Max..........95.4 % Min...........33.9 %
49.3 % 67.8 %
81.6 % 70.7 % 33.9 % 66.5 % 86.0 % 86.9 %
103
104
The Data of Architecture 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Architecture
Tendency
Architecture / Block Architecture / Open Space
105
11296 M2
The Area of Architecture
2707 M2 4361 M
Mean..........13073 M2 Median.........7021 M2 Max............53760 M2 Min...............2075 M2
2
9671 M2 9943 M2 23457 M2 3789 M2 2075 M2 2567 M2 20197 M2 3274 M2 5661 M2 2841 M2 2611 M2 38526 M2 4752 M2 20997 M2 4358 M2 10484 M2 5938 M2 34847 M2 4178 M2 5096 M2 8104 M2 16502 M2
53760 M2 18078 M2 28260 M2 19934 M2 32555 M2 3630 M2 3898 M2
106
24.7 %
Architecture / Block
19.6 %
Mean.........19.2 % Median......19.0 % Max...........36.6 % Min.............6.8 %
26.5 % 26.0 % 28.6 % 9.4 % 13.3 % 22.1 % 7.7 % 36.6 % 18.9 % 31.4 % 11.8 % 18.2 % 29.4 % 14.4 % 11.4 % 6.8 % 8.7 % 22.1 % 21.3 % 14.4 % 29.7 % 28.6 % 25.0 % 13.2 % 19.2 % 15.2 % 24.2 % 9.1 % 14.1 % 14.0 %
107
75.1 %
Architecture / Open Space
95.4 %
Mean.................29.9 % Median..............23.5 % Max...................87.5 % Min......................8.6 %
74.6 % 71.8 % 42.6 % 55.1 % 89.6 % 89.2 % 89.8 % 88.9 % 80.3 %
35.9 % 86.8 % 77.5 % 83.5 % 85.5 % 70.8 % 74.6 % 49.7 % 63.7 % 74.0 % 56.9 % 56.5 % 71.4 % 49.3 % 67.8 % 81.6 % 70.7 % 33.9 % 66.5 % 86.0 % 86.9 %
108
The Data of Vegetation 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Vegetation Vegetation / Block Vegetation / Open Space
109
Tendency
18485 M2
The Area of Vegetation
7660 M2 5781 M
Mean.......30642 M2 Median....12878 M2 Max.......173953 M2 Min............2020 M2
2
6581 M2 4709 M2 77018 M2 10776M2 2394 M2 19959 M2 3078 M2 5841 M2 3988 M2 15277 M2 4423 M2 42065 M2 13197 M2 88260 M2 27586 M2 37612 M2 3077 M2 51574 M2 3536 M2 2020 M2 3186 M2 15956 M2
169500 M2 38994 M2 84103 M2
15128 M2
173953 M2
12558 M2 12257 M2
110
40.4 %
Vegetation / Block 55.4 %
Mean......33.0 % Median...32.9 % Max........63.5 % Min...........5.6 %
35.1 % 17.7 % 13.6 % 31.0 % 37.8 % 25.4 % 60.0 % 5.6 % 33.7 % 22.1 % 63.5 % 30.9 % 32.1 % 40.0 % 48.0 % 42.9 % 31.1 % 11.5 % 31.5 % 12.2 % 11.8 % 11.2 % 24.2 % 41.7 % 41.4 % 45.2 % 18.4 % 48.4 % 48.9 % 44.0 %
111
53.8 %
Vegetation / Open Space
58.0 %
Mean...............46.4 % Median............49.9 % Max.................73.2 % Min....................6.3 %
47.1 % 24.6 % 31.8 % 56.3 % 42.2 % 28.5 % 66.8 % 6.3 % 41.9 % 61.6 %
73.2 % 39.9 % 38.5 % 46.8 % 67.8 % 57.6 % 62.6 % 18.0 % 42.5 % 21.4 % 20.8 % 15.7 % 49.1 % 61.5 % 50.7 % 64.0 % 54.1 % 72.8 % 56.9 % 50.7 %
112
The Data of Active Public Space 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Active Public Space
Tendency
Active Public Space / Block Active Public Space / Open Space
113
34382 M2
The Area of Active Public Space
13201 M2 12285 M
Mean.......................16656 M2 Median......................8749 M2 Max.........................85493 M2 Min............................1017 M2
2
26726 M2 14799 M2
136844 M2
25544 M2 8392 M2 29866 M2 49007 M2 13926 M2 6473 M2 20882 M2 11097 M2 109326 M2 28183 M2 130240 M2 47908 M2 60100 M2 17128 M2 121219 M2 16515 M2 9706 M2 20234 M2 32506 M2 275528 M2 76839 M2 131498 M2 27962 M2 238845 M2 22073 M2 24194 M2
114
18.9 %
68.3 %
Active Public Space / Block
Mean....................24.8 % Median.................21.7 % Max......................68.3 % Min.........................6.2 %
6.2 % 23.7 % 13.4 % 34.4 % 20.0 % 39.0 % 38.7 % 49.5 % 21.6 % 25.8 % 27.0 % 37.6 % 26.0 % 11.7 % 20.9 % 13.1 % 8.1 % 16.0 % 28.2 % 21.9 % 16.9 % 29.3 % 36.3 % 9.8 % 16.7 % 7.5 % 8.6 % 16.7 % 44.7 % 36.9 %
115
25.2 % 71.6 % 8.3 % 33.1 % 31.4 % 62.5 % 22.3 % 43.7 % 43.1 % 55.7 % 26.9 % 71.9 % 31.1 % 48.5 % 31.1 %
Active Public Space / Open Space
13.7 %
Mean....................35.0 % Median.................31.1 % Max......................73.7 % Min.........................8.3 %
29.5 % 17.5 % 16.3 % 25.2 % 38.1 % 38.6 % 30.0 % 41.3 %
73.7 % 14.5 % 20.4 % 10.6 % 25.4 % 25.1 % 52.0 % 42.5 %
116
The Area of Architecture & Block
Tendency Tendency
The Density of Architecture & Block
Tendency
The Area of Vegetation & Block
Tendency Tendency
The Density of Vegetation & Block
Tendency
117
The Area of Open Space & Block
Tendency
The Density of Open Space & Block
The Area of Active Public Space & Block
Tendency
The Density of Active Public Space& Block Tendency 118
Tendency
The Area of Architecture & Open Space
Tendency Tendency
The Density' of Architecture & Open Space Tendency
The Area of Vegetation & Open Space
Tendency Tendency
The Density' of Vegetation & Open Space Tendency 119
The Area of Active Space & Open Space
Tendency
The Density' of Active Space & Open SpaceTendency
The Area of Block & Open Space
Tendency
The Program and Activity & Open Space 120
Amount
06 CONCLUSION 2 - TYPOLOGIES OF PROJECTS
121
According to the analysis of each case in chapter 4 and the statistical comparison of the sub-categories in chapter 5, in this chapter, I summarize the second conclusion of my research, the typologies of housing public space in 32 cases in Milan. Generally speaking, it could be divided into two parts, first is the basic typologies of housing public space in Milan, which explore the relationship between a single building and a public space. The second one is about the combined typologies of housing public space in Milan. Both of these two part are based on the concept of topology space, which was mentioned in SPACE SYNTAX by Bill Hillier in 1970. The first part could be regarded as the essence of this research. In order to conclude the typology of housing public space, I think it’s necessary to comprehensively consider the different sorts of block, architecture, open space and program. It is not just a simple spatial visualization relationship, but should contain all the elements that should be. Just as Bill Hillier mentioned that Individual spatial elements cannot fully influence social and economic activities, and the complex relationship between the overall spatial elements is the spatial factor for the development of social economic activities. Therefore, after I combine all the spatial factors together, I classify the spatial relationship between residential and public space, and summarize 7 basic types of organization, which are the house is juxtaposed with the public space; the house is half surrounded by the public space; the house is surrounded by three quarters of the public space; the house is totally surrounded by the public space; the public space is half surrounded by the house; the public space is surrounded by three quarters of the house; the home is surrounded by public space and has a spatial penetration. When I add the public activity factor into consideration, eventually I get 32 different basic types of housing public space in Milan. However, most residential projects are formed by a group of buildings. Whether the basic typologies could be arranged and combined into different or more complex types is a deeper question. Personally, through the understanding of the relevant theories in SPACE SYNTAX published by Bill Hilier, based on the concept of topology space for the discussion of continuity and connectivity, I think this is possible. In order to prove this point, I use 32 types above as the most basic unit, and try to combine some of them and apply them into the 32 projects which I studied before. In this process, sometimes, the size and scale of each unit might change, but the continuity and connectivity of each unit are always the same. In the end, I eliminate some of the possibilities of repetition, and I map out the types of 21 combinations.It is thus proved that the type of residential public space can be combined through 32 basic modes above, but this does not mean that there are countless possibilities. Because of the limitation of spatial relationship between continuity and connectivity, the number of the constants must be limited.
122
01 02 03 04 05 06 07
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
The Combined Typology
123
124
125
126
Thanks to Prof. Fabris Luca Maria Francesco for helping this research and my study in Polimi.
127