Courtyard Housing

Northeastern University

School of Architecture Publications School of Architecture

January 01, 2010

Courtyard HousingNortheastern University School of Architecture

This work is available open access, hosted by Northeastern University.

Recommended CitationNortheastern University School of Architecture, "Courtyard Housing" (2010). School of Architecture Publications. Paper 3.http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20003487

http://iris.lib.neu.edu/arch_pubs

http://iris.lib.neu.edu/architecture

http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20003487

FALL 2009

Northeastern University School of ArchitectureARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio

COURTYARDHOUSING

FALL 2009

Northeastern University School of ArchitectureARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio

EDITORS

ELIZABETH CHRISTOFORETTI

TIM LOVE

STUDENT EDITORS

MELISSA MIRANDA

AARON TRAHAN

COURTYARD HOUSING

©2010 Northeastern University School of Architecture

CONTENTThe work contained within this publication is drawn from the Fall 2009 North-eastern University School of Architecture ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggrega-tion Studio. All work was produced by fifth year architecture students, for whom the focus of the semester was infill courtyard housing in metropolitan Boston.

FACULTYElizabeth ChristoforettiTim LovePeter Weiderspahn

STUDENTSNathan Alekovsky, Josh Billings, Dan Marino, John Martin, Danielle Mc-Donough, 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

PRINTINGLULUlulu.com

Contents

A CASE FOR TYPOLOGICAL THINKINGTim Love 1

COURTYARD HOUSING: MANUAL AS MANIFESTOHubert Murray 9

SINGLE FAMILY & SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEXBetty Quintana 22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 15

Caitlan Wezel 25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 23

Aaron Trahan 29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 31

Christine Moylan 30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 39

Christine Nasir 32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 47

Jackie Mossman 40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 55

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)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

SOUTH BOSTON MASTER PLANSChristoforetti Studio 227

Love Studio 231

Wiederspahn Studio 235

COURTYARD HOUSING: AFTERWORDJonathan Levi 239

2

Tim Love

A Case for Typological Thinking

Courtyard Building PrototypesThe buildings in this volume were designed as prototypical residential types by fifth-year students in the undergradu-ate architecture program at Northeastern University in Boston. While the wood-frame courtyard building is an untested building type in the northeastern US, the propos-als are consistent with the regulatory framework, econom-ics of construction, and scale of development that is being planned and built on former industrial parcels in the Bos-ton 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 alter-native to conventional North American transit-oriented-development, 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 ThinkingFor 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 con-textualism, I am not referring to the strategies of the ad-vocates 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-of-a-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

3 twitch of eccentric geometry adjacent to the project site is used as a justification to generate complex three dimen-sional forms.

With this technique, the function of the building is almost irrelevant, or in some cases, symbolically linked to the com-positional connections made to the larger context through the mapping “analysis.” As a result, community centers and branch libraries were once popular programs inserted into the resulting forms. More recently, functions that both comment on the site and fix it, like recycling centers tied to bio-remedial landscape strategies, have been in vogue. But for the majority of contemporary buildings, the functional need for a building is typically the impetus for an architec-tural project and not simply an excuse or filler for expres-sive form.

In the nested set of relations that shape contemporary real estate and construction, the definition of the use-category of a building - whether an office building, apartment build-ing, or hospital wing - is the typical way that a building proj-ect is first conceived and design is launched. Even before design begins in earnest, the business plan for a building is developed and enriched through assumptions about the initial capital costs, potential revenue (generated by sales, leases, or number of patients), and future lifecycle costs. In the modern market economy, the use of the building, the building’s financial performance, and assurance that risk of financial failure is minimized, means that lending institu-tions and the underwriters of development financing favor

proven building configurations (termed “comps”). But can architecture schools engage this set of real-world econom-ic priorities and still find disciplinary relevance? Through a re-engagement of typological thinking, new creative and relevant territories for the discipline of architecture may be possible.

The analysis and reformulation of building types has been seen as a conservative approach in most university pro-grams. The academy has largely rejected methodologies that have persisted since the 1980s, when the theory of type was first adopted by practice as a way to verify and reinforce building patterns in particular communities and cultures. This has certainly been the rhetoric, if not fully the approach, of DPZ, Stefanos Polyzoides, and other pro-ponents of New Urbanism. Their research, which began as an interest in housing types such as the Charleston house and the Los Angeles courtyard type, is now focused on the vernacular tradition of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. However, a new formulation of type may be possible that does not embalm existing types but invents new durable building paradigms.

During the past four years, several architecture studios at the Northeastern School of Architecture have tested new design methodologies that foreground the market-driven logics of contemporary building types. Unlike conventional approaches to typology, we focus on the underlying prag-matics of contemporary building production to enable the design of more compelling and sustainable alternatives. In

4the Masters Degree Research Studio, for example, students have focused on office buildings, laboratories, parking ga-rages, and self-storage facilities. Through directed research, students become versant in the planning criteria and em-bedded design agenda of these types and gain a comprehen-sive understanding of the broader cultural, regulatory, and economic context of the contemporary real estate indus-try. The Fall 2009 Housing Studio is the first time that stu-dents 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 regu-latory 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 TypesWith 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 ob-ject 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 wood-frame buildings - the ubiquitous triple-decker - given the relatively low cost of wood-frame construction.2 Triple-deckers were either stand-alone buildings or were built as duplex pairs with a shared party wall. Prevalent codes al-lowed 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 SpaceThe private open space of the triple-decker was only a con-sequence 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 de-commissioned 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 var-ied widely even between adjacent properties. Despite the relative density of deployment of the triple-decker, as com-pared to other wood-frame building types, the relationship between building-as-object and the adjacent landscape is

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.

Courtyard buildings radically displace the conventional po-sition of the landscape, thus requiring a cultural reassess-ment of the function and meaning of private open space. Through a simple reconfiguration of building mass, the exterior ground that is furthest from the building edge is converted from a peripheral condition to the symbolic and physical center of a residential community. At the same time, the urban expression of the dwelling, typically com-municated by the relationship of the iconic form of the house-as-object to the landscape, has been compressed into an urban façade. American townhouse precedent in districts like Boston’s Back Bay, where each parcel-owner sought self-expression of façade and small front yard, can serve as a model for the particular iconographic issues of a distinctly American courtyard type.

Studio PedagogyThe students were given six residential building types at the launch of the studio; the types varied in the number of units per floor and the way that the parcel was embed-ded in the hypothetical/prototypical urban context. The schemes within the matrix ranged from single-family court-yard housing with a single exterior exposure to relatively

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 design investigations.

The courtyard building is an ideal pedagogical subject be-cause it raises design issues that are as much morphological as functional in nature. For example, the “inside” corner of the courtyard limits light and air to four specific embedded zones in the plan - requiring an inventive design response. This condition creates an ideal opportunity to understand the relationship between the iterative design process and the deeply embedded knowledge of the discipline. As a class, we looked at this condition in projects as diverse as the Palazzo Farnese in Rome (1534), and the Goldenberg House by Louis Kahn (1959, un-built). A close reading of any building with an inside corner will yield potential strate-gies and tactics. Possible solutions and traces of directions almost taken are evident in every building with a similar set of planning issues.

Generally, solutions to the inside corner fall into four cat-egories:

a. Assign functions in the corner that do not require light and air, such as elevator banks and storage rooms.

6Boston Courtyard Housing MatrixWood-frame construction

Single-exposure Double-exposure Egress Height: Construction Type

A Maximum height governed by egress requirements

Side-by-side duplex B Maximum height governed by egress requirements

Four or five units/floor C The total building height can be no taller than 60' d/ f i ( hi h i ll ) F i

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).

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). .

Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that l f h h 1/3 h di l f

D

Single family

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'.

E 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

500-700 Living area 14One Bedroom 700-900 Primary bedroom 12Two bedroom 900-1250 Secondary bedroom 11Three bedroom 1250-1475 Kitchens/baths per code

* Habitable rooms include living areas and bedrooms and can be no smaller than 100 SF.

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).

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 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.

FSix or more units/floor

Studio

7 b. Assign functions in the corner that can borrow light from skylights above, such as staircases.

c. Deform the corner (by chamfering or rounding the cor-ner) to create wall space for windows directly into the space.

d. Shift the corner room in one direction or the other to gain a window without the need to deform the geometry 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 propor-tions of the courtyard space need to be carefully calibrated with the internal mechanics of the building plan, the accom-modation 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 under-stands the courtyard as part of a larger continuum of public and semi-public spaces including the street, buildings lob-bies, 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.

ConclusionIt is hoped that this collection of building proposals, essays on a singular theme, might have an impact on Boston and other North American cities. Will the diversity of compre-hensively-designed prototypes suggest a retroactive inevi-tability to this model of urban development? By packag-ing the work in an easy-to-use volume, the infill courtyard building is proposed as a viable alternative for dense urban redevelopment where building culture favors renewable and socially-equitable wood-frame construction.

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 aver-age cost of wood-frame construction in Boston’s residential neighbor-hoods was $175/SF. A comparable masonry building with a steel frame

would be budgeted at approximately $240/SF.

8Bibliography

Holl, Steven, Rural & Urban House Types, Pamphlet Archi-tecture 9, New York, 1982.

Macintosh, Duncan, The Modern Courtyard House: a His-tory, Architectural Association Paper Number 9, Published by Lund Humphries for the Architectural Association, Lon-don, 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.

10

The courtyard housing studio at Northeastern comes with noble pedigree. For the last generation or so urban hous-ing has not generally been regarded as a subject for seri-ous 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 intel-lectual 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 ManualThe parentage on one side is the builder’s pattern book, the template used for swaths of speculative residential develop-ment in the rapidly expanding cities built on industry and commerce. Thomas Cubitt, builder and developer, made his fortune after the Napoleonic Wars developing entire Lon-don districts (Bloomsbury, Camden Town, Spitalfields) for the upper, middle and lower classes, accommodating them in row houses ordered by size and style from the gentle-man’s townhouse to the worker’s cottage. Such boilerplate solutions to housing the burgeoning population were stan-dard 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 pri-vate, 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 exem-plars, 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

Hubert Murray

Courtyard Housing: Manual as Manifesto

11 The ManifestoIf 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 guaran-tor 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 Hilber-sheimer, 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 accommo-dationist 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 funda-mental building block of a progressive, healthy and modern society.

The political debate and the technical investigations by

which it is underwritten are still vibrant in European archi-tecture today. Urban housing is still viewed as a social enti-tlement in the majority of the mixed economies of modern Europe and therefore a common project type in most ar-chitectural 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 indi-gent 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 re-main intact, forgiven their sins because they are owner oc-cupied, each little box a testimony to American individuality and upward mobility.

Community and PrivacyThis volume, focusing on urban housing as a critical com-ponent 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 coincidentally, in a detailed analysis of courtyard housing

12plans, 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 neces-sarily 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 lati-tudes is a place in which, for considerable periods, the sun does not shine.6 If on the other hand, the perimeter is ex-panded 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 com-munal 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 ProgramTim Love’s suggestion, in his treatment of the methodology

of the studio, that the courtyard house is worthy of inves-tigation 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 implementa-tion 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 pre-sented 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.

Notes1 The Greater London Council (1965-86) was the municipal authority for the entire metropolitan region of London, the heir to the Lon-don 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.

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 con-denser 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

16

Duplexwith Interlocking Units

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

22.6

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BET

TY

QU

INTA

NA

17

Ground Floor Plan

18

Scale1 : 20

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

22.6

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

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

22.6

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BET

TY

QU

INTA

NA

Second Floor Plan

19

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

20

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

22.6

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BET

TY

QU

INTA

NA

21

Elevation Perspective

Birds Eye Block Perspective

22

Street Level Perspective

22.6

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BET

TY

QU

INTA

NA

24

Single Familywith Central Courtyard

Elevation


25.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CA

ITLI

N W

EZEL

25

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

26DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

25.0

FAR

1.36

ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Central courtyard acts as the focal point within every room.

UNITS PER FLOOR

1

UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 1


44’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

37’-6”

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

32’-6”

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

Scale1:20

Third Floor Plan

25.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CA

ITLI

N W

EZEL

27

Block Elevation


28

Section through block

Second Floor Block Plan

25.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CA

ITLI

N W

EZEL

29



Section through minor street

30

Minor Street Elevation

Perspective of Minor Street

25.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CA

ITLI

N W

EZEL

32

Single Family with L-Type, Bookmatch Aggregation



29.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

AA

RON

TR

AH

AN

33

Second Floor Plan First Floor PlanGround Floor Plan

34

Scale1:20

Front Elevation

Corner Front Elevation

Corner Side Elevation

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

29.0

FAR

1.67


“L” type, bookmatch aggregation.

UNITS PER FLOOR

1

UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 1


36’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

50’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

30’-6”

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

29.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

AA

RON

TR

AH

AN

35

Elevation


36

Elevation

First Level Block Plan

29.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

AA

RON

TR

AH

AN

37

Perspective Perspective


38

Block Courtyard Perspective

29.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

AA

RON

TR

AH

AN

40

Single Familywith Stepped Decks

Front Elevation


30.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CH

RIS

TIN

E M

OY

LAN

Elevation

41

Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan

42

Scale1:20

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

30.0

FAR

1.62


Interior circulation wraps through the house in conjunction with the exterior ter-race circulation.

UNITS PER FLOOR

1

UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 1


31’-9”

DEPTH OF BUILDING

42’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

32’-8”

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

30.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CH

RIS

TIN

E M

OY

LAN

Third Floor Plan

43

Courtyard Elevation


44



30.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CH

RIS

TIN

E M

OY

LAN

45



BIRDS EYE BLOCK PERSPECTIVE

46

Courtyard Perspective

30.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CH

RIS

TIN

E M

OY

LAN

48

Duplexwith Adjoining Private Courtyards

Sectional Perspective Through Upper Unit

Sectional Perspective Through Lower Unit

32.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CH

RIS

TIN

E N

ASI

R

49

Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan

50

Scale1 : 20

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

32.0

FAR

1.40


U-shaped units wrap courtyard.

UNIT BREAKDOWN

two bedroom: 2

UNITS PER FLOOR

2


45’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

60’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

25’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

32.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CH

RIS

TIN

E N

ASI

R

Third Floor Plan Roof Plan

51

Short Block Elevation


52


Upper Level Block Plan

32.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CH

RIS

TIN

E N

ASI

R

53

Lower Courtyard View Sections Through Block


Upper Courtyard View

54

Street Level Perspective

32.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

CH

RIS

TIN

E N

ASI

R

56

Single Familywith Stepped Section and Terraces

Longitudinal Section Through Courtyard


40.1

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JAC

QU

ELIN

E M

OSS

MA

N

57

Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan

58

Scale1:20

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

40.1

FAR

2


Private Entry/Circulation.

UNITS PER FLOOR

2

UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 2


35’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

82’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1-2

40.1

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JAC

QU

ELIN

E M

OSS

MA

N

Fourth Floor Plan Third Floor Plan

59

South Elevation Detail


60

North Elevation Detail


40.1

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JAC

QU

ELIN

E M

OSS

MA

N

61

Concept Development Diagram


62

Prototype Topographical Adaptation

OPTION ASTEEP TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE

(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS

OPTION BSHALLOW TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE

(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS1 STUDIO UNIT

OPTION CNO TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE

(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS1 STUDIO LOFT UNIT OR COMMERCIAL SPACE

40.1

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JAC

QU

ELIN

E M

OSS

MA

N

64

Multi-Family (Single Exposure) Courtyard Housing

66

Multi-Familywith Courtyard with View to the Street

Prototype Elevation


32.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SAR

A R

OSE

NT

HA

L

67


68

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

32.0

FAR

2.20


Point-load circula-tion entered through courtyard above parking plinth

UNITS PER FLOOR

6

UNIT BREAKDOWN



110’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

91’ -4”

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41’-6”

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.72

32.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SAR

A R

OSE

NT

HA

L


69


Elevation

70



32.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SAR

A R

OSE

NT

HA

L

71

Section and Courtyard Elevations


72

Prototype to Block CirculationPrototype to Block Massing

Section Perspective from Street

32.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SAR

A R

OSE

NT

HA

L

74



46.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

TIM

VA

LIC

H

Multi-Familywith Stepped Courtyard

Open to the Street

75


76

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

46.4

FAR

1.87


Terraced courtyard open to

the street.

UNITS PER FLOOR

7

UNIT BREAKDOWN



175’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

105’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

5 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.44

46.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

TIM

VA

LIC

H


77

Elevation


78



46.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

TIM

VA

LIC

H

79

Prototype Figure Ground


80

Street Perspective

46.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

TIM

VA

LIC

H

82

Multi-Familywith Courtyards within Courtyards

Street Elevation


60.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JOH

N M

ART

IN

83


84

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

60.0

FAR

2.24


Private courtyard spaces organized around a cen-tral public courtyard.

UNITS PER FLOOR

6

UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 4one bedroom: 1two bedroom: 4three bedroom: 2


76’-6”

DEPTH OF BUILDING

113’-9”

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

50’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.5

60.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JOH

N M

ART

IN

Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan

85

Block Long Street Elevation


86

Block Short Street Elevation


60.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JOH

N M

ART

IN

87

Block Section


88

Street Perspective

Courtyard Perspective

60.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JOH

N M

ART

IN

90

Multi-Familywith Skip-stop Corridor



67.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LAU

RA

PO

ULI

N

91


DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

67.0

FAR

1.98


Skip-stop corridor provides access to duplex units.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN



80’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

108’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

92

Scale1:50

67.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LAU

RA

PO

ULI

N


93

Longitudinal Block Section


94


Corridor Level Block Plan

67.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LAU

RA

PO

ULI

N

95

Transverse Block Section


96

Birds Eye Prototype PerspectiveCourtyard Perspective

Down Street Perspective

67.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LAU

RA

PO

ULI

N

98

Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009Josh Billings

Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposurePrototype - Courtyard Side Elevation

Multi-Familywith a Semi-public Courtyard


Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposurePrototype - Rear Courtyard Elevation

Transverse Section through Courtyard

Section through Courtyard

69.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JOSH

BIL

LIN

GS

99


100

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

69.0

FAR

1.87


Four point load stairs, one skip-stop corridor serving floors 4 and 5.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN



113’-8”

DEPTH OF BUILDING

84’-4”

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

59’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

15

69.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JOSH

BIL

LIN

GS


101


Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureElevations & Section

B - Street Elevation - East

C - Section

A - Street Elevation - North

B C

A


Ground Level Block PlanHousing and Aggregation, Fall 2009

Josh BillingsInstructor: Peter Weiderspahn

Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureBlock Plan - 1st Floor

102




C - Section


B C

A


Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureBlock Plan - 2nd Floor



69.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JOSH

BIL

LIN

GS

103


Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureDistrict Plan


Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureDistrict Plan

Diagrammatic Section through District

District Figure/Ground Plan

104

Section through Block

Aerial Perspective




C - Section


B C

A

69.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JOSH

BIL

LIN

GS

106

Multi-Family (Double Exposure) Courtyard Housing

108

Multi-Familywith Connected Community Courtyards



35.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LUK

E PA

LMA

109


110

Scale1:50


DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

35.4

FAR

1.85


Courtyards are con-nected on each side to provide circulation for intra-block and domestic circulation.

UNITS PER FLOOR

5

UNIT BREAKDOWN

two bedroom: 10three bedroom: 10


90’-10”

DEPTH OF BUILDING

148’-4”

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

55’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

2

35.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LUK

E PA

LMA

111

Front Elevation


112

Back Elevation


35.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LUK

E PA

LMA

113


Transverse Section Through SiteStreet Perspective

114

Section Through Park

35.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LUK

E PA

LMA

Figure Ground DiagramIntra-Block Circulation Interior Circulation

116

Multi-Familywith Filtered Mid-block Landscape

Street and Greenway Elevations


35.5

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BRA

D M

CK

INN

EY

117


118

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

35.5

FAR

1.73


Double courtyard sys-tem filters circulation and function.

UNITS PER FLOOR

6

UNIT BREAKDOWN



115’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

160’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

36’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

6 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.8

35.5

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BRA

D M

CK

INN

EY


119

Typical Street Elevations


120

Greenway Elevation


35.5

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BRA

D M

CK

INN

EY

121

Pedestrian Walkway Elevations

Cornice Detail

122

Walkway DetailBirds Eye Block Perspective

Prototype Section

35.5

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BRA

D M

CK

INN

EY

124

Multi-Familywith Units Expressed as

Individual Buildings



36.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

TH

OM

AS

NEA

L

125


126

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

36.0

FAR

2.07


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: 8three bedroom: 4


108’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

120’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

40’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.5

36.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

TH

OM

AS

NEA

L


127



128

Typical Block Street Section


36.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

TH

OM

AS

NEA

L

130

Multi Family without Corridors Serving Six Stairs



42.2

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

DA

N M

AR

INO

131

Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan Third Floor Plan

132

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

42.2

FAR

1.99


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,


111’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

117’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.75

42.2

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

DA

N M

AR

INO

Fourth Floor Plan Fifth Floor Plan

133

Section / Courtyard Elevation


134



42.2

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

DA

N M

AR

INO

135

District Perspectives

Birds Eye District Perspective

136

Massing Strategy

Privitization of open spaces

42.2

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

DA

N M

AR

INO

138

Multi-FamilyWith Adjacent Semi-Private Courtyards



44.9

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SCO

TT

SW

AIL

S

139

Ground Floor Plan Typical Floor Plan

140

Scale1:50

Ground Floor End Unit Typical Floor End Unit

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

44.9

FAR

1.39


Inverted shape provides ideal amounts of light and privacy

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN



91’4”

DEPTH OF BUILDING

86’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

30’6”

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.75

44.9

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SCO

TT

SW

AIL

S

141

Standard Unit Main Street Elevation


142



44.9

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SCO

TT

SW

AIL

S

143

Commercial Street Elevation


144

Sectional Axonometric ViewSectional Axonometric View

Typical Unit Axonometric

44.9

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SCO

TT

SW

AIL

S

146

45.8

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JEFF

REY

MO

NT

ES

Multi-Familywith a Courtyard Gateway



147

Ground Floor Plan

148

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

45.8

FAR

1.52


Ramps around interior face of courtyard pro-vide primary access to units

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 2, one bedroom: 7, two bedroom: 8


132’-9”

DEPTH OF BUILDING

78’-9”

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

33’-4”

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

3 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.7

45.8

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JEFF

REY

MO

NT

ES

Second Floor Plan

149

Elevation


150


45.8

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JEFF

REY

MO

NT

ES

Main Courtyard Perspective

151

Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation


152

45.8

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JEFF

REY

MO

NT

ES

Main Courtyard Perspective

154

Multi-Familywith Cantilevered Volumes



46.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

KEN

WO

RK

ING

S

155

Third FloorSecond FloorGround Floor

156

Scale1:50

Fifth FloorFourth Floor

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

46.4

FAR

1.87


Shifting volumes in both plan and section allow for maximum light pen-etration for mid-building units

UNITS PER FLOOR

12

UNIT BREAKDOWN

one bedroom: 16, two bedroom: 18


80’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

275’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.9

46.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

KEN

WO

RK

ING

S

157


Long Block Street Elevation

158

End Block Street Elevation

Single Prototype ElevationElevational Variance Diagram

46.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

KEN

WO

RK

ING

S

159


160

Facade DetailRamp Landscaping Detail

46.4

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

KEN

WO

RK

ING

S

162

Multi-Familywith Ramps as Main Circulation



55.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

MEL

ISSA

MIR

AN

DA

163


164

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

55.0

FAR

2.30


Ramps around interior face of courtyard pro-vide primary access to units and promote social interaction.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN



98’-0”

DEPTH OF BUILDING

100’-0

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

50’-0”

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

12/14

55.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

MEL

ISSA

MIR

AN

DA


165

Boardwalk Elevation


166



55.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

MEL

ISSA

MIR

AN

DA

167

Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation


168

Ramp Perspective

Single Bedroom Unit AxonInterior Perspective of Artists’ Studio

55.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

MEL

ISSA

MIR

AN

DA

170

Multi-Familywith Subtractive Terraces and Voids



57.7

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

MIC

HEL

LE M

ORT

ENSE

N

171

Ground Floor First Floor

172

Scale1:50

Second Floor Third Floor

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

57.7

FAR

2.06


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


70’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

100’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

43’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.7

57.7

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

MIC

HEL

LE M

ORT

ENSE

N

173

South Elevation


174

Typical Block Transverse Section


57.7

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

MIC

HEL

LE M

ORT

ENSE

N

175

Perspective

Sectional Perspective Progression Cut 4

176

Exploded Axon of Unit Types

Massing of interlocking units with cirulcation voids Massing of interlocking units with public space voids 57.7

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

MIC

HEL

LE M

ORT

ENSE

N

178

Multi-Familywith Passive Solar Orientation



62.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LEO

RIC

HA

RD

SON

179

Second Floor Plan

Ground Floor Plan

180

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

62.1

FAR

3.22


Elevator access to all units with exterior stair-ways to roofdecks.

UNITS PER FLOOR

6

UNIT BREAKDOWN



110’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

125’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

65’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

19

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.7

62.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LEO

RIC

HA

RD

SON

Fourth Floor Plan

Third Floor Plan

181

Street Elevation


182



62.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LEO

RIC

HA

RD

SON

183

Diagram of Accessible Interior Circulation


Vertical Elevator CirculationHorizontal Corridor Circulation

184

Winter Sun Diagram

Trransverse Courtyard Section

62.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

LEO

RIC

HA

RD

SON

186

Multi-Familywith Two Distinct Urban Faces

Elevation - Vehicular Street Face


Elevation - Pedestrian Street Edge

Sectional Perspective through Courtyard

66.6

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

DA

NIE

LLE

McD

ON

OU

GH

187

Second Floor Plan

Ground Floor Plan

188

Scale1:50

Fourth + Fifth Floor Plan

Third Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

66.6

FAR

2.76


A terraced strategy maximizes light and air and adapts to the pedes-trian scale.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 2one bedroom: 10two bedroom: 5


125’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

115’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

54’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

All

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

8

66.6

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

DA

NIE

LLE

McD

ON

OU

GH

189

Street Elevation - Vehicular Street Face


190

Street Elevation - Pedestrian Street Face


66.6

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

DA

NIE

LLE

McD

ON

OU

GH

192

66.6

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

DA

NIE

LLE

McD

ON

OU

GH

194

Typical Elevation


70.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

KAT

IE M

CM

AH

ON

Multi-Familywithout Corridors Served by Four Stairs

195


196

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

70.0

FAR

2.57


Poit Loaded Circulation

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN



120’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

99’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.4

70.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

KAT

IE M

CM

AH

ON


197

Block Section


198



70.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

KAT

IE M

CM

AH

ON

199

District Plan


200


Relationship of Facade to Interior


70.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

KAT

IE M

CM

AH

ON

202

Multi-Familywith Figurative Courtyard

Prototype


77.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SAR

AH

TA

RBE

T

203

Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan

204

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

77.0

FAR

2.63


Living rooms facing courtyard, bedrooms facing street.

UNIT BREAKDOWN

one bedroom: 6, two bedroom: 16

UNITS PER FLOOR

6


243’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

250’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

46’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.7

77.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SAR

AH

TA

RBE

T

Third Floor Plan

205

Block Street Elevation


206

Unfolded Courtyard Elevation


77.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SAR

AH

TA

RBE

T

207

Block Section


208

Interior CourtyardEntry Portal

Street Perspective

77.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

SAR

AH

TA

RBE

T

210

Multi-Familywith Individual Entry System

from External Circulation Tissue


78.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BAR

RET

T N

EWEL

L

211

Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan Third Floor Plan

212

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

78.0

FAR

2.56


Double entry system connecting two buildings into one courtyard

UNITS PER FLOOR

5

UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 14, one bed-room: 4two bedroom: 6


82’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

171’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.83

78.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BAR

RET

T N

EWEL

L

Fourth Floor Plan Fifth Floor Plan

213

Block Elevation


214

Section and Courtyard Elevation


78.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BAR

RET

T N

EWEL

L

215

End Block Elevation

216

Section and Courtyard Elevation

78.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

BAR

RET

T N

EWEL

L

218

Multi-Familywith a Rotated Elliptical Courtyard



96.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JAIM

E SW

EED

219


220

Scale1:50

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

96.0

FAR

1.99


Rotating ellipse court-yard provides alternating terraces to units

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN



99’

DEPTH OF BUILDING

76’

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

39’

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.2

96.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JAIM

E SW

EED


221

Corner Block Elevation


222



96.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JAIM

E SW

EED

223

Diagram of Prototype Courtyard Organization

Section Perspective

224

Facade Detail

Typical Unit Axonometric

96.0

DW

ELLI

NG

UN

ITS/

AC

RE

JAIM

E SW

EED

226

Site Masterplans by Studio

228SITE ACREAGE209.41

BUILDING COVERAGE0.26

UNITS/ACRE33.10

NUMBER OF UNITS6,931

NUMBER OF BEDS11,531

PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS19.8%

PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS37.6%

PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS14.2%

AREA (TOTAL SITE)9,122,045 SF

AREA (TYP FLOOR)2,381,135 SF

AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PUBLIC PROGRAM350,718 SF

CH

RIS

TOFO

RET

TI

STU

DIO

MA

STER

PLA

N

229 JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55SINGLE FAMILY40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

KATIE MCMAHON | 193MULTI-FAMILY70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

IAN STABER MULTI-FAMILY45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55SINGLE FAMILY40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

BARRETT NEWELL | 209MULTI-FAMILY78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185MULTI-FAMILY66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

LEO RICHARDSON | 177MULTI-FAMILY62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

230MELISSA MIRANDA | 161MULTI-FAMILY55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

IAN STABER MULTI-FAMILY45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

MICHELLE MORTENSEN | 169MULTI-FAMILY22.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

THANA TALIEP MULTI-FAMILY58.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

BRAD MCKINNEY | 115MULTI-FAMILY35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185MULTI-FAMILY66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

LEO RICHARDSON | 177MULTI-FAMILY62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

CH

RIS

TOFO

RET

TI

STU

DIO

MA

STER

PLA

N



UNITS/ACRE22.87



PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS22.4%

PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS34.2%

PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS33.4%



AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PUBLIC PROGRAM)10,000 SF

LOVE

STU

DIO

MA

STER

PLA

N

233

AARON TRAHAN | 31SINGLE-FAMILY25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

CHRISTINE MOYLAN | 39SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

CHRSITINE NASIR | 47SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

THOMAS NEAL | 123MULTI-FAMILY36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

SARAH TARBET | 201MULTI-FAMILY55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

234

CAITLIN WEZEL | 23SINGLE-FAMILY29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

LAURA POULIN | 89SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

THOMAS NEAL | 123MULTI-FAMILY36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JI PARKMULTI-FAMILY36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

AARON TRAHAN | 31SINGLE-FAMILY25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JONATHAN SAMPSON MULTI-FAMILY55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JOHN MARTIN | 81MULTI-FAMILY60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

LOVE

ST

UD

IO M

AST

ERPL

AN



UNITS/ACRE32.04



PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS 38.3%

PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS 45.7%

PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS 9.1%



AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PROGRAM PROGRAM)324,984 SF

WIE

DER

SPA

HN

ST

UD

IO M

AST

ERPL

AN

237

BETTY QUINTANA | 15SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX34.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JAMIE SWEED | 217MULTI-FAMILY96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

TIM VALICH | 73 MULTI-FAMILY46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

KEN WORKINGS | 153MULTI-FAMILY46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

238

DAN MARINO | 129MULTI FAMILY42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

NATHAN ALESKOVSKYMULTI-FAMILY56.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

LUKE PALMA | 107MULTI-FAMILY35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JEFFREY MONTES | 145MULTI-FAMILY45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

SCOTT SWAILS | 137MULTI-FAMILY44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JOSH BILLINGS | 97MULTI-FAMILY69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

SARAH ROSENTHAL | 65MULTI-FAMILY32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

WIE

DER

SPA

HN

ST

UD

IO M

AST

ERPL

AN

240

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

Jonathan Levi

Courtyard Housing: Afterword

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 ate architecture program at

Northeastern University in Boston.

Courtyard Housing

Documents

Transcript of Courtyard Housing