Msc Thesis booklet 03

03

Synthesis + Conclusion Sanne de Vries Tutor: Nelson Mota Msc Graduation Studio ExploreLab 19 TU Delft Faculty of Architecture 2015

Synthesis

In previous chapters, the cases of this study have been understood in their typological and morphological configuration and have each been subject to the observation of occurring patterns. As was expected, each case has presented its own, ‘signature’ set of patterns. Some of them are typo- or morphological features in itself; such as the Haagse Portiek in Den Haag or the access galleries in Milano, some are direct or indirect effects of inhabiting these particular configurations in the way they exist and came into existence. Here, the patterns and their correlation with the built structure will be discussed and compared among the different cases. This will be done in a similar order as the way the patterns were perceived: starting in the public sphere and gradually permeating the increasingly private realms.

Each of the cases is located directly bordering a city centre. Yet, a big distinction can be made between on the one hand Kreuzberg in Berlin and Porta Ticinese in Milano where both neighbourhoods are attracting a high amount of visitors and tourists, whereas the Schilderswijk in Den Haag has quite an opposite reputation. Interestingly, the porosity of the boundary between street and courtyard reveals a correspondence with the different forms of street life; where in Berlin and Milano one enters through the building by passing multiple doors or gates, the Den Haag courtyard is reachable and visible through a cut in the building that forms an outside passageway. This relation shows the different ways of dealing with porosity depending on levels of need for accessibility control.

Another significant difference is the circulatory path that one has to follow in order to reach the dwelling.

Again, Den Haag distinguishes itself from the other two examples; whereas in Berlin and Milan some apartments can only be entered after crossing the courtyard, entrances in Den Haag are on the street side. This difference is closely related to the courtyard function. It is, for example, a simple explanation for the difference of where bikes are parked; at street side in Den Haag (pattern 7, Den Haag) and inside the courtyard in Berlin (pattern 10, Berlin).

Several patterns were reoccurring in each of the settings, albeit in various appearance. One feature that was to be found in every case is seating space; benches, moveable chairs and steps. Never where they situated in the centre – instead they were placed around the edge or even more frequently in a corner, and often marked and to some degree protected by one or multiple trees.

This relates to the second aspect to be recognised in all the cases; greenery. This pattern can take many shapes and serve many purposes. An abundance of green in the first place contributes highly to the experience of the courtyard as a space very different from street life. And, like indicated before, it provides pleasant qualities such as shade, cooling and protection from the exposure that is naturally present in a collective courtyard. Another characteristic is that greenery needs, to various degrees, to be maintained. It requires human intervention, stimulates long-term activity and in this way accommodate social interaction.

The two reoccurring patterns arguably play a very important role in the social performance of the collective courtyard, as they provide the right conditions for the space being used for recreational purposes; a place to stay rather than solely passing through.

Conclusion

As a result of the study of three cases that were evaluated, differences among them have become explicitly clear. Yet, comparing both the variety and similarities of occurring patterns in relation to their typological and morphological structure has led to the understanding of a set of behavioural principles that are found to be more generally true. The understanding of these principles can function as guidelines when starting design interventions related to the collective courtyard or even extending beyond this particular setting. These guidelines will then allow for own interpretation and application in each particular situation.

The resulting principles generated from the case study will be elucidated in the following.

1. Need for Control Part of the identified problem of the courtyard that can cause obstacles is the distribution of control, as described in the problem description. In order for any change or use – in the broadest sense – there needs to be an understanding of who can alter the space. It was stated that generally, the more people are involved in the transformation of a space, the less likely it is to happen.

This is understood instinctively, and is one of the reasons for humans feeling the need for marking territory.

One of the observations from the empirical research is that when inner block open spaces are made up of an amount of dwellings too high, subdivision of some sort is a natural consequence. There are obviously many

practical reasons involved. Interestingly, every typological structure has turned out to portray different results in terms of subdividing ‘left-over’ space.

When looking at Milan, it can be seen that courtyards are generally enclosed by one or, at maximum, two housing blocks. The fine-grain organisation of the block results in a similar fine-grain division of control of spaces, naturally organised through the built structure. Control over the use of the courtyard can be organised relatively easy. An additional sensation of the site visit of Milan in general was the high barrier of entering any courtyard; the social security factor is extremely high. People know each other, suggesting a high sense of community.

In Den Haag, where the urban block is equal to the housing block, the story is very different. The lay-out did not actually change much; we are still considering a more or less squared courtyard that is enclosed by a single housing block. Yet the scale of the block and thus the courtyard differs dramatically. The spaciousness allows for each ground floor apartment to extend their house inward, causing part of the courtyard to be transformed into backyards, a natural occurrence according to peoples need, and in this case desire, for demarcation. But even then, there was left-over space between the central parking garage and the housing block. With their initiative in mind – to create productive farmland – it was both easy and necessary to divide it into little pieces. Necessary because value is created in the shape of food, which would otherwise become messy to divide. Easy because the layout of the building could almost literally be translated onto the courtyard ground through the logic of the space.

In Berlin, in contrast with the other two examples, the notion of need for control relatively often causes obstacles rather than opportunity. As for Milan and

Den Haag – regardless of whether the urban tissue came about gradually or was designed at once – a certain logical system can be understood in which a natural division of control came about. In Berlin, alteration of the tissue due to war bombardments and government policy, caused a disruption in arrangement of control that developed organically.

Sudden disappearance of accidental parts of the urban block caused merging of multiple inner open spaces together, leading to irregular courtyard spaces without any clear definition. The idea of ‘need for control’ becomes very obvious in these situations; without clear understanding of what belongs to who, territories are often marked per housing block – even if this evidently disturbs opportunity of use for such spaces.

2. Hierarchy of Use Another principle that became clear through identifying patterns and that worked in each of the cases – adapted to the specific circumstances – is what will be referred to as ‘hierarchy of use’. In the research, the three cases were selected as performing successfully in fostering social inclusion. Important herein has appeared to be the catering for activities and attributes that make the space engaging and appealing as a place for recreation and relaxation; such as greenery, seating and playing opportunities. Interestingly, these elements were mostly found in so-called left-over spaces; meaning area’s that were not yet occupied with other, more functional purposes. A certain hierarchy became apparent where necessity is the first (unconscious) assessment criteria. This way the space is used firstly according to what is needed most, all the way down to merely recreational purposes – depending on the amount of space left. This notion actually seems quite obvious, but it is of major importance to take into account when designing housing or arranging the courtyard in order for it to make it work. The

analysis of a specific cultural context then becomes very relevant. Conventions dictate primary uses of the courtyard; in Berlin for example, where bicycles are a major transportation vehicle, bike parking is one of the first priorities. Another one is separated waste collection, one of Berlin’s sustainable focuses. In Den Haag, the edges of the courtyard are occupied by fenced off gardens as private extensions of the ground floor dwellings. The space that is then left is used for other, more collective forms of gardening. In Milano, the primary function in terms of courtyard use is circulation. This goes for all courtyards that provide access to dwellings, for example in Berlin. In Milano the space is so small though that often only the edges allow for some greenery, bikes etc.; the main space is taken up by routing and does not cater for other, recreational purposes.

3. Informality The last principle that is considered to play a major role in any courtyard setting for it to come alive is informality. This idea is defined as not being in accord with prescribed regulations or forms; unofficial; not of a stiffly conventional nature; appropriate to everyday life or use. Finding oneself in a collective courtyard, one is naturally exposed, obstructing the comfortableness of carrying out activities that are not ‘of a stiffly conventional nature’. It is therefore important that the feeling of exposure diminished.

Informality and protection are factors that play a major role and are intrinsically related to each other.

Informality is created when the opportunity is provided for inhabitation and appropriation, protection is supported through full or partial coverage. Niches for example have shown to work very well; providing both coverage and opportunity for appropriation while maintaining a close relationship with the courtyard.

Greenery, in particular trees, also fulfil a key role for

protection and breaking possible architectural formality through its ever-changing nature.

In conclusion, several principles have been interpreted through investigation of patterns in collective courtyards of different cultural backgrounds and different configurations. These principles are, depending on the specific variations among the cases and in general, executed in different ways and can accordingly have positive or negative consequences for the social performance of the space. They are therefore highly significant to understand in potential design processes with aspirations of fostering social inclusion.