01
Theoretical Framework Sanne de Vries Tutor: Nelson Mota Msc Graduation Studio ExploreLab 19 TU Delft Faculty of Architecture 2015
Architecture Master Thesis Sanne de Vries 4005414
ExploreLab Graduation Studio Msc3 + Msc4 Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft
Tutors: Design + Research: Nelson Mota Building Technology: Ype Cuperus
January 2015, Delft
Preface One year ago, I started my graduation journey at the Architecture department of the TU Delft. The project has been supported by the ExploreLab studio: a laboratory where students have the chance to follow their fascination for a certain issue and turn it into their unique graduation project. This asks for discipline and responsibility and at the same gives an incredible amount of freedom for exploration. It has therefore definitely been one of the most stimulating undertakings so far. I was given the opportunity to gain so much knowledge in my field of interest and to perform research on site in Milan, Berlin and The Hague. The year has been both greatly valuable and enjoyable and I would like to show my appreciation to many who have contributed to this experience.
Acknowledgement First and foremost I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my main mentor, Dr. Nelson Mota. In the ExploreLab studio, students are granted the privilege of finding their own teachers. It is yet a dubious privilege, as this decision hugely influences the course of the project. I can sincerely say though that for me this worked out for the best; I could not have imagined a better teacher throughout process and I am very grateful for the willingness to guide me in both the research and design period. His endless enthusiasm, engagement and knowledgeability have never failed to keep me on the right track and encourage me after every tutoring session. Secondly, I would like to sincerely thank my second mentor, Ir. Ype Cuperus, for guiding me in the design; not only in the field of Building Technology but at
least as much in the design process itself. His interest and passion have provided me with new insight and his experience has helped to always keep the big picture in mind. I would also like to thank Marc Ottelé, who has always shown the readiness to advise me on my research, and Rolf Willemse and Peter van den Engel for their specialised knowledge in construction and climate design. I am thankful for the opportunity that the TU Delft and specifically the Faculty of Architecture has given me to study at this University. It has provided me a chance to grow educationally and has become a big part of my life, personally. I have grown attached to the building that has given me an excellent space for learning and being inspired. But I am mostly grateful for all the people that I have had the pleasure to get to know here. I would like to show my appreciation to the coordinators of ExploreLab; Robert Nottrot and John Heintz, and to all my fellow ExploreLab students who have made the last year at this faculty a more than pleasant one. Particularly I want to thank Lianne Klitsie and Anežka Prokopová for all the love, laughter and support we have shared in both enjoyable and tougher times; it would not have been the same without you. Also, I want to thank my close friends; Stephanie Samson, Christine Driessen, Judith Wonink, Laura Katharina Strähle, Job Wassenberg, Ernst de Groot, Nienke Benders, Annick Beekmans, Jessica Iachia, Eli Sumarroca, Ryan Hurcombe and Ha Duong; who have supported me – mostly by distraction from the capture that graduation can be, whether close or from a distance. The deepest gratitude I owe to my family, for this
would not have been possible without them. My grandparents, for their infinite interest and my brother and sister, Anton and Geiske, simply for being there throughout my life and being ble to share it all with them. But most of all to my parents, for their financial support and more importantly for standing by me and loving me unconditionally. The incredible wisdom, life balance and love of my father, RenĂŠ de Vries have made me strong as a person. And I want to deeply thank my mother, Wieneke de Vries, for being my unsurpassed and most enthusiastic companion; going to copy shops, constructing models until late in the night and even visiting every single possible courtyard with me in Berlin while bearing a temperature of minus ten degrees. It has meant the world to me. Lastly, but definitely not least, I would like to express my gratefulness to Alessandro Quintarelli, whom has given me the confidence and faith in times when I needed it most. Despite the distance, his closeness could not have been more present and despite the ever limited time, the frequent trips to Milan and to his warmhearted family in Rome have been the most welcome breathing space. They have filled me with enough memories and love to encourage me and give purpose to all of it. Thank you for believing in me.
Table of Contents
01.
Theoretical Framework
Problem Description
10
The Courtyard
13
Problem Statement
15
Research Question
16
Methodology
17
A selection of Cases
19
02.a Courtyard Patterns Den Haag
02.b Courtyard Patterns Berlin
02.c Courtyard Patterns Milano
03.
Synthesis + Conclusion
Synthesis
Conclusion
03 05
Problem Description
Social inclusion and architecture have often been explored in their relation to each other and, divergences in viewpoints set aside, strong ties between the two disciplines are indeed generally accepted. The pursue of building community, involving participatory processes and stimulating interaction in architectural projects are all descending from the notion of social inclusion as a noble goal to strive for, as it directly relates to the decline of serious social policy issues such as intolerance, segregation and discrimination. Exploring the relationship between spatial manifestation and a fostering of social inclusion forms a core purpose of this research thesis – which is why I would like to elaborate slightly on the relevance of social psychology of inclusion and exclusion. The importance of social inclusion in social policies of local governments nowadays is a widely acknowledged idea, and area-based and integrative policies are often targeted to overcome various problems related to exclusion.1 This assumption is then taken as a starting point for designers in enhancing the physical pillar of such policies, mainly aimed at the restructuring of housing stocks. Yet, in order to spatially influence societal structures of human motivation and behaviour – insofar possible – the objective first needs to be approached from a different angle; we need to understand human motivation and behaviour. Baumeister and Leary (1995) propose that the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation and that a Van Marissing, E., et al. (2006). "Urban governance and social cohesion: Effects of urban restructuring policies in two Dutch cities." Cities 23(4): 279-290. 1
great deal of human behaviour, emotion and thought is caused by this interpersonal motive.1 We take the assumption that social life is played out within a framework of relationships within which people seek inclusion and belongingness as a starting point. Relationships necessarily include people, but they also have boundaries that by definition exclude people.2 This paradox indicates the fundamentality, yet also the complexity of the concept. Streeck (2000) discusses the economic pillar of social cohesion, stating that it is sought, ‘not through equal outcomes, but through equal opportunity; (…) emphasizing individual effort and collective investment in competitiveness at least as much as social entitlements to minimum levels of reward or consumption.’3 I would like to adopt a similar interpretation when approaching the physical implications of social inclusion on a neighbourhood scale. If social inclusion is about relationships, architecture is about creating opportunity for neighbourhood relationships to flourish. According to Blokland (2003) such social interactions between neighbours can be identified into four types; interdependencies, transactions, neighbour attachments Baumeister, R. F. and M. R. Leary (1995). "The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation." Psychological bulletin 117(3): 497. 2 Abrams, D., et al. (2004). Social psychology of inclusion and exclusion, Psychology Press. 3 Streeck, W. (2000). "Competitive solidarity: Rethinking the European social model." Kontingenz und Krise: Institutionenpolitik in kapitalistischen und postsozialistischen Gesellschaften. Frankfurt aM: Campus: 245-262. 1
and bonds. At the very least, there is always some kind of interdependency among neighbouring residents; for example in degrees of social security or noise pollution. Transactions are contacts where some kind of exchange takes place, such as contact between a shopowner and his customers or when using a neighbour’s bicycle pump. Attachments to neighbours then are not established out of affection for them, but because having a good relationship with neighbours is often seen to be important. Bonds, finally, are relationships based on affection, like ties with family members and friends. The four certainly are intertwined and one could argue that there is a hierarchical relationship where one creates potential for initiating another, deeper form of connection. Blokland’s division emphasizes the complexity of relationships by showing that there is not one type of social cohesion to be found in a neighbourhood.1 Creating opportunity for social inclusion in a physical way is directly related to the notion of boundaries. The human passion for walls (e.g., Hadrian’s wall, the Berlin Wall, The Great Wall of China), fences (that between Mexico and the United States), dykes (e.g., Offa’s dyke), and ditches (around any number of British castles) is no accident – it is a material manifestation of our need to manage inclusion and exclusion.2 This need is fundamental in demarcating space; defining differences between the public, shared and the private. Yet, the configuration of those boundaries and their transitions need to be carefully studied and possibly manipulated when seeking optimal occasions for social interaction. Van Marissing, E., et al. (2006). "Urban governance and social cohesion: Effects of urban restructuring policies in two Dutch cities." Cities 23(4): 279-290. 2 Abrams, D., et al. (2004). Social psychology of inclusion and exclusion, Psychology Press. 1
This study will focus on an urban setting that manifests the issues of boundaries, inclusion and exclusion in all their complexity; the collective residential courtyard, defined by full or partial enclosure of the urban block. Such a space in principle has the potential ingredients to stimulate positive neighbour relationships through its physical manifestation. Occupying a central position within the block, the courtyard conjugates many dwellings at once and in this way forms a shared common ground used by its residents. Furthermore, these environments are to different degrees disconnected from busy street life, offering room for quiet contemplation and sheltered spaces where people can assemble and children can play. The courtyard takes up a substantial amount of area of the urban courtyard housing block, containing high potential for improving living quality for this housing type. When the space validates alternative modes of use – resembling a place for staying rather than passing through – opportunities for connection present themselves. Yet, instead of embracing the courtyard as a valuable extension of the indoor environment, it is often found to be curiously neglected.1
The Courtyard
There are several conditions that initially cause the collective courtyard to be an unsettled case. Firstly, this type of space can often be understood as a result of higher-level interventions that determine the outcome of the configuration of the space, rather than it being Newton, J. J. a. J. (2004). "A guide to using plants on roofs, walls and pavements." Green Building, London Ecology Unit. 1
purposefully shaped with the intention of creating an optimal environment. For example, in many cases street patterns in tight urban settings have largely determined the urban block. These blocks are again structures that typically remain constant for centuries, providing a stable backdrop for lower-level intervention. Within their periphery, buildings may have been transformed or even completely replaced over time. Volume may have been added inward or upward or, though less frequently, subtracted.1 The courtyard is thus the last to be considered – as a kind of left-over space – in this structure of transformational hierarchies. Related to this notion of hierarchical levels is the concept of control distribution. To exercise control is considered here as inhabiting an environment and engaging with it; changing and altering it according to what is pleased. The perception of control is thus of major importance for the comprehension of transformation. This way it can be understood that spaces dependent on a single agent are typically sensitive to change and thus tend to adopt new development relatively easy. The contrary is true for spaces that are subject to a horizontal distribution of control, meaning that multiple agents have the ability to exercise some form of control within the same hierarchical level. Such spaces have proven to be less likely to change because they are contingent on mutual agreement. This is often the case for the collective courtyard within the urban block, finding a number of buildings frequently under the control of different parties. Yet, it is exactly this feeling of freedom to exercise control that is considered crucial in creating opportunity for social interaction. Habraken, N. J. and J. Teicher (2000). The structure of the ordinary: form and control in the built environment, MIT press. 1
Problem Statement
The collective courtyard inside the urban block has the ability to highly contribute on effectively improving living conditions for residents in surrounding dwellings when incorporating the advantages of such green transformation. Up till now, however, such spaces frequently lack any form of strategy and do not enrich residents’ way of lives in the way they could when providing a pleasant and engaging environment. Due to the complexity of a setting which is subject to mutual agreement, active encouragement or intervention can sometimes be desired in order to fully embrace the potential of the courtyard. The importance of participation herein is acknowledged and thus an important aim for this study is to enable others to conceive ways of cultivating change that are able to be sustained socially. One of the most effective ways to tackle the primary constraints that get in the way of change is believed to be by example; the concept of catalyst – of practical analysis with strategic objectives, looking for starting points – is thus one of the primary objectives.1 In this study, the physical and social contexts of the collective courtyard in relation to the surrounding residential structure will be examined as the bases for design and programmatic propositions on intervention in the urban block that create opportunity for fostering social inclusion. The propositions are intended to provide definition to existing and potential levels of resident organisation and collective responsibilities, levels which are seen as essential when aiming for an increased involvement with the revitalisation, Hamdi, N. (2010). The Placemaker's Guide to Building Community, Earthscan. 1
well-being and upkeep of the non-private living environment.1
Research Question
What would optimally be the relation between the residential structure of an urban block and its collective courtyard, for the latter to actively perform a valuable role as stimulus for collective activity – cultivating a sense of belonging and responsibility for place and community? Emerging sub-questions are: -
What is the relation between structures that are designed and forms of inhabitation that able to – or forced to – emerge?
-
What is the shared context of meaning that is offered to the community through the structure of the block and the courtyard?
-
What are the implications of different transition configurations between the public, shared and private realm?
-
What activities or attributes cultivate a strong sense of belonging and responsibility? Does green function as an activator and if so; what kinds of green utilisation have which effects?
Acton, R. C. (1982). Settings for collective control: design and programmatic propositions for the reinforcement of resident serive capacity in low-income housing developments, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1
Methodology
In this paragraph, the disciplinary implications of the study will be described regarding the questions that are raised. The method that is selected in an attempt to find answers to the imposed questions, refers back to a book written by Alexander, Ishikawa and Silverstein; A Pattern Language. Although introduced into architecture more than twenty years ago, it is only recently that its significance is starting to be more widely recognised. In the book, Alexander and his colleagues extracted 253 patterns that recur in the built environment, defining them as ‘the core of the solution to a problem that occurs over and over again in our environment, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice’.1 The Alexandrine format fixing a pattern consists of a statement summarizing the philosophy about a specific topic, followed by an explanation that supports the pattern: statistical data; a scientific analysis; discovering the simultaneous occurrence of this pattern in totally different cultures; psychological, structural, or cultural reasons; etc. A pattern ends with some sort of prescription in practical terms, to help incorporate the pattern into an actual design.2 One of the reasons that it took such a long period of time for the Pattern Language as a method to receive its deserved recognition, is the amount of critique it received from different angles. Although these critiques Alexander, C., et al. (1977). "A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction." 2 Salingaros, N. A. (2000). "The structure of pattern languages." Architectural Research Quarterly 4(02): 149162. 1
might be valid to some extent, they do in no way entirely undermine its overall value. In this research however, an approach is adopted that varies from the Alexandrine format in two ways – which both relate back to an opposing perspective, pointed out by Dovey in ‘The pattern language and its enemies’. Dovey (1990) argues that the Alexander’s approach can be interpreted as an extension of modernism in the sense that – although deeply opposing massconstruction techniques and rigid forms of modernist view – it shares the totalitarianism of a meta-narrative through committing to a kind of universal rationality.1 The counter-perspective that is proposed here is one that values a pluralism of local narratives which cannot be judged in the terms of any meta-narrative.2 Following this perspective, the method will be adopted in such a way that the discovery of patterns is used as a tool for analysing several case studies. An empirical analysis will be performed through observation and communication on site visits, with the aim of identifying patterns. These case study results derive their meaning each from their specific context, where their cultural relativity and environmental plurality are to be understood. This leads to the next difference in the way of adopting the pattern language as a method; the objective. Alexander considers the proposed patterns as immediate design tools and regards them as universally applicable. It is not to say that they are not useful in the design process, yet the implication of a single right way of building denies the legitimacy of pluralistic values Dovey, K. (1990). "The pattern language and its enemies." Design Studies 11(1): 3-9. 2 Ibid. 1
and seems to be excessively constrictive of creativity.1 This problem does not present itself though when existing patterns are merely observed. The analysis of an environment through recognising patterns can be an extremely valuable tool in coming to understand it, leaving room for the reflection of a diversity of environmental values.
A Selection of Cases
Using patterns as a method for understanding a general concept such as ‘the collective courtyard’ while acknowledging the need for incorporation of pluralistic values, requires a collection of patterns in a broad range of settings. This way, forming an understanding of a set of concrete patterns and their reasons for existence in each of the specific contexts will not result into a direct translation of general courtyard patterns, but might bring forward a more theoretical framework of principles that apply to collective courtyards. Here, a case study will be performed on three different cases, which are located respectively in Den Haag, Berlin and Milan. These cases are selected for their diversity, not only concerning morphological and typological issues but also regarding the emergence and development of the blocks and intentions and alterations of the corresponding courtyard over time – all of which will be highlighted in the following paragraph. In the attempt to draw a rather complete picture of the three cases and their variety for which they are selected in this study, they will be discusses in the light of the historical development of the neighbourhood’s typical urban tissue, the dwelling and circulatory organisation, 1
Ibid.
the position of the courtyard in the urban block and lastly, the use of the courtyard. In the following paragraphs, they will be introduced according to these aspects. All of them are chosen by the criteria that they are performing successfully as spaces fostering social inclusion, yet each in their own way; as examples to learn from. The first case, located in Den Haag, is selected as a design by the admirable architect Alvaro Siza and for the close-to-home example of collective CASES initiatives that have emerged there. The Berlin case is chosen because of its highly a-typical development over time that has created a unique example of courtyard culture. The case in Milano at last has been selected with the idea that there might also be a lot to learn from historical tissue that has developed piecemeal over time.
Figure1. Case no.1 Schilderswijk, Den Haag DEN HAAG
BERLIN
Building naturally able to accomodate unforeseen activities inside courtyard.
Block morphology heavily altered through demolition of rental barracks by government planning.
Bottom-up initiative Allotment plots
Figure 2. Case no.2 Kreuzberg, Berlin
New kind of open space, top-down encouragement for courtyard as collective garden. One collective space integrating different sorts of horizontal and vertical gardening.
Figure 3. Case no.3 Porta Ticinese, Milano
Schilderswijk, Den Haag
Figure 4. Subject of analysis in urban block Figure 5. Urban tissue profile
Development of the urban tissue Early development of the Schilderswijk, located directly next to Den Haag’s urban city centre, started during the second half of the nineteenth century. The city’s population went from 72,500 to 200,000 inhabitants in that period, due to industrialisation attracting a big rural crowd. In an attempt to control the urban sprawl that had been going on, the Dutch government implemented in 1901 a Housing Act on working class housing. Yet, most of the Schilderswijk development had taken place before the act, which deeply contributed to defining some of the neighbourhood’s most notable characteristics; a densely populated social mix with the street as only social space.1 From the 1950’s until the 1980’s, the area has been under attention for the implementation of several urban renewal plans, which portrayed strong tendencies to erase the remnants of the past and instead proposed replacement with new, modernistic housing complexes.2 In the meantime, the neighbourhood struggled increasingly with social issues. It was then that architect Alvaro Siza was appointed to design an urban renewal plan for the Schilderswijk, which was then adopted in different phases. Siza’s approach emphasized the importance of collective memory – contrasting with former plans – and strived for strengthening social ties through preserving the area’s spatial qualities. One of the fundamental contributions to achieve that goal was an intense engagement with residents through participation in the design process.3 Mota, N. (2014). An Archaeology of the Ordinary: Rethinking the Architecture of Dwelling from CIAM to Siza, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 1
Kreuzberg, Berlin
Image 6. Subject of analysis in urban block Image 7. Urban tissue profile
Development of the urban tissue Kreuzberg is currently one of Berlin’s most well-known and vibrant areas, located south of the central borough Mitte. Throughout its relatively short yet tumultuous history however, the neighbourhood has had different faces. The development of the neighbourhood was initiated largely at the end of the nineteenth century, in the 1860’s. Rapid population growth due to industrialisation demanded extensive housing in order to provide for the needs of the working class. As a result, the area became the most populous of Berlin. Many of its buildings thus originate from this period and it became one of the poorest areas in the city.1 The apartment blocks that were built were often clustered around several courtyards, one behind the other, each reached through the outer courtyards. The larger, more expensive flats faced the street while the smaller, more modest dwellings were grouped around the inner courtyards. During WW2, bombardments altered the cities’ fabric – like that in Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg – immensely by destroying significant parts of the urban blocks. After the war, Kreuzberg became part of West Berlin and was soon found to be enclosed on three sides by the Berlin Wall. Due to its peripheral position at the borderline between East and West, Kreuzberg’s affordable housing space lead to its special mixture of inhabitants of German dropouts, so called “young creatives”, alternative subcultures and – mostly Turkish – “guest workers”.Nowadays, owed to its newly acquired central location, Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg has become a hot spot for tourism, culture, nightlife and fashion stores. Ewert, B. and A. Evers "City Report: Berlin-FriedrichshainKreuzberg." WILCO no. 15. 1
Porta Ticinese, Milano
Image 8. Subject of analysis in urban block Image 9. Urban tissue profile
Development of the urban tissue In order to understand how the Porta Ticinese district has developed itself over time, it is important to elucidate on city scale development – as the area originally sprouted ‘naturally’ from unplanned city growth. Milan’s transformation over time was illustratively formulated by Cesare Beruto as representing the cross-section of a tree; one can clearly see the outgrowth and the concentric layers.1 First, theoldest and most inner city belt of Milan, followed by the second ring; a medieval wall, perforated with gates opening up to the city. One was the former Porta Ticinese (Gate to the Ticino river) and directly connected to Milan’s two major canals. These were created during medieval period and of incredible significance to the city as they provided irrigation and transportation. Therefore, the area directly bordering the canals where goods were imported into the city – known as Porta Ticinese – grew out to be the medieval city’s working-class and craftsmen distric. The area has gone through two main phases of development. The first, in medieval period, was spontaneous, and consisted of adding one-family houses to the existing domus-type houses. The second, from the middle of the nineteenth century to around 1930, was based on a planned layout of apartment buildings that derived from the restructuring and amalgamation of houses in the medieval cities. This approach towards extension results in a clear reflection of the continuity of local typological processes inherited from the old neighbourhood.2 1
Behfar, A., et al. (2012). "Filtering corso Porta Ticinese."
Corsini, M. G. (1997). "Residential building types in Italy before 1930: the significance of local typological processes." Urban morphology 1(1): 34-48. 2
Schilderswijk, Den Haag
Dwelling organisation and circulation The whole block is designed as part of a bigger urban scheme. The outer appearance of the block was intended as a well-integrated facade that can be read as a monotonous repetition creating an anonymous impression; it is hard to tell whether an apartment is inhabited by Dutch residents, Moroccans or people from other cultural backgrounds. One type of window is chosen, framed through one type of brick, again framing one type of dwelling, clustered around the circulation system. An important aim was to connect in appearance and typology with the typical building traditions and collective memory of the city and neighbourhood. An evident translation of these values is the ‘Haagse Portiek’; an archetypical Den Haag circulatory system. It is the core repetitive element in the block, with a clustering of dwellings surrounding the half-open stairs. Dwellings on ground floor are accessible directly from the street. Other dwellings are entered each on their own floor in sets of two; one type of apartment on each floor. Unlike the outer shell of the block, the inner façade – oriented towards a large courtyard – has a very different articulation. It shows a wide variety of balconies, niches and galleries, doors and windows. While from the street one gets the impression of standing in front of a typical Dutch housing block, this sensation changes when entering one of the dwellings or the inner courtyard; cultural varieties and identities become visible.1 The repetitive dwelling types are standardised, yet allow for a great flexibility in spatial occupation – which makes them suitable to different (cultural) target groups. Egli, R., et al. (2015). Catering for ownership; Transition from house to home. Faculty of Architecture. Delft, Delft University of Technology. 1
Kreuzberg, Berlin
Dwelling organisation and circulation The shape and size of the urban block is determined by a grid of large streets which form big rectangular blocks. Within these straight boundaries, jointed housing blocks fill up the block and impose formality towards the street. Typically, this front house towards the street expands inward as a side wing is attached perpendicularly. The housing blocks are mirrored in turn, resulting in chains of courtyards that are enclosed by two jointed blocks – enclosed on at least three sides. Sometimes the courtyard is enclosed also at the back side by a third volume; the back house. These housing blocks, where the side wing and back house where originally intended to accommodate a poor working class, have undergone a ‘sanierung’ (reorganisation) after the second world war, in an attempt to drastically improve living conditions. Each of the volumes generally contains one stairwell, enclosing all dwellings in that wing, currently varying from one up till four apartments per floor. The staircase is a closed off compartment and the dwellings are enclosed with their doors towards it. Except for the few street-adjacent apartments, most are clearly courtyard-oriented. Most dwellings are even completely detached from the public. The apartments in the front house are reached without necessarily passing through the courtyard, for the others it is inevitable. The dwellings have stretched shapes, enfolding the courtyard; a quiet environment in the centre of the city. . The courtyard-oriented facades that characterise the houses, are traditionally simple but strict, hardly interacting with the outdoor space or with neighbouring apartments. In some cases, structures have been added by residents to provide some personal or shared outdoor space directly assessable from the dwelling.
Porta Ticinese, Milano
Dwelling organisation and circulation The urban block as it was formed in medieval period was formed by aggregating courtyard houses. During industrialisation period, accommodation for the growing population was provided by converting onefamily houses into multi-family dwellings rather than building new houses. The Milanese courtyard-type multi-family building was created by restructuring and amalgamating two adjoining courtyard houses. In some cases the two courtyards were retained, in others they became a single courtyard.1 This results in an urban block perforated by courtyards of different, sometimes odd, shapes and sizes. The specific case is one of the typical elements that makes up the total of the urban block. The plot only has a narrow street faรงade and then stretches inward. The building is an example of when each courtyard was retained; it is enclosing the courtyard in a u-shape on its side, linked to the next building at the open edge. This way, the courtyard is surrounded by three active facades and one blind wall. The conversion of building type was done by adding floors to the original house, so that each apartment has the same floor area as a one-family house. These are connected by galleries that simultaneously function as balconies, reachable by a partially enclosed staircase. The vertical circulation is only reached through first passing the courtyard.
Corsini, M. G. (1997). "Residential building types in Italy before 1930: the significance of local typological processes." Urban morphology 1(1): 34-48. 1
Schilderswijk, Den Haag
Position and use of the courtyard The courtyard functions as the connecting element of all surrounding dwellings, occupying a central position inside the urban block. It can be entered through a passageway that shapes a volumetric cut at the south end of the block, or directly as an extension of the dwelling. It does thus not necessarily fulfil a circulatory function. The courtyard itself can be divided into three kinds of uses, extending from the inside boundaries to the very centre of the space. The space along the building is, quite naturally, used as an outdoor extension of the private living environment. On the ground floor gardens are created and in upper apartments balconies are provided. A tendency can be witnessed of creating high levels of privacy and intimacy through fencing and coverage. Then, in the centre of the open space, a half-sunken and particularly shaped parking garage was designed, which’ roof is accessible. This element, together with the clustering of gardens along the side, leaves a rather spontaneous and informal area with corners and levels of concealment that feel comfortable for recreation. This ‘in-between space’ has received quite a peculiar function; it is divided up into vegetable plots. One of the residents initiated this use of space, which then catalysed initiatives of neighbouring inhabitants. Even if each plot is maintained and cultivated by its owner, such use plays a huge role in fostering social cohesion among residents recreating side by side. Collective measures are taken to provide basic needs for their plants, such as a water collection system.
Kreuzberg, Berlin
Position and use of the courtyard The urban block is made up of chains of courtyards, each enclosed by several housing blocks together. Depending on the specific situation, sometimes courtyards are divided up into smaller parts that belong to the housing blocks accordingly. On the other hand, sometimes when social connections flourish, an agglomeration of multiple courtyards emerges. In the case study, three courtyards are joint together in terms of access – ultimately necessary for residents to reach their apartment that is located further inward. Yet, what makes the case particular and, as I argue here, successful, is that even though they are physically separated, they are conceived as one system where each courtyard has received its own specific functions. This way, residents are able to employ the scale benefits of functions that are ultimately necessary, leaving space for functions that foster recreation and thus social cohesion. The first two courtyards, both connected to the street, are used for the collection of garbage, storage and parking of bikes. These necessary, yet not always aesthetically appealing functions are partially camouflaged or dressed up in coats of green. Then, passing through a second hallway, one reached the third courtyard. This space is bigger and differentiated into three parts through height differences, which allow for a complete overview of the space and yet create playfulness and informality. The differentiation of spaces also allows for a sense of ownership and empowers residents to find their own spot for articulation of the space. The first two spaces are mainly used for seating and green initiatives, while the last, deeper space is set up as a children’s playground.
Porta Ticinese, Milano
Position and use of the courtyard The historical character of the neighbourhood as a craftsmen district, is one that is still visible when paying attention to activities happening behind the street. Some courtyards are publicly accessible and although activities have moved towards tertiary industries like design, fashion and art – they function as a showcase for the work and workspace of artists.1 However, most courtyards are only reachable by residents of a particular building, that needs to be entered typically by an arched door and tunnel before entering the courtyard. The atmosphere of the courtyard thus is often one where a high level of privacy and social security is sensed, also because of the orientation of all apartments onto the courtyard. As the galleries are the only outdoor extension of the indoor living environment, they naturally function as balconies at the same time, activated by hanging of laundry, leaving personal attributes outside, smoking a cigarette or socialising with neighbours. Despite the high level of segregation from the street, due to this spatial layout levels of personal privacy are relatively low. This fact, together with cultural tendencies for aestheticizing and appreciation of the poetic sensation of the building type, have resulted in trends of greening one’s private and shared property mostly through use of green facades, plants and flower pots. The primary function of the courtyard typology is to provide sufficient ventilation and daylight for each apartment, and the typical configuration leaves little space for extensive other purposes. Yet, the courtyard also contains a major role for social cohesion through levels of intimacy, privacy and natural formation of social security, 1
Behfar, A., et al. (2012). "Filtering corso Porta Ticinese."