Courtyard Housing

FALL 2009

COURTYARD HOUSING Northeastern University School of Architecture ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio

FALL 2009

COURTYARD HOUSING Northeastern University School of Architecture ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio

EDITORS

STUDENT EDITORS

ELIZABETH CHRISTOFORETTI

MELISSA MIRANDA

TIM LOVE

AARON TRAHAN

Š2010 Northeastern University School of Architecture CONTENT The work contained within this publication is drawn from the Fall 2009 Northeastern University School of Architecture ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio. All work was produced by fifth year architecture students, for whom the focus of the semester was infill courtyard housing in metropolitan Boston.

FACULTY Elizabeth Christoforetti Tim Love Peter Weiderspahn STUDENTS Nathan Alekovsky, Josh Billings, Dan Marino, John Martin, Danielle McDonough, Brad McKinney, Katie McMahon, Melissa Miranda, Jeffrey Montes, Michelle Mortensen, Jackie Mossman, Christine Moylan, Christine Nasir, Tom Neal, Barrett Newell, Luke Palma, Ji Park, Laura Poulin, Betty Quintana, Leo Richardson, Sara Rosenthal, Jonathan Sampson, Sarah Silverman, Ian Stabler, Scott Swails, Jamie Sweed, Thana Thaliep, Aaron Trahan, Tim Valich, Caitlin Wezel, Ken Workings PRINTING LULU lulu.com

MULTI-FAMILY (SINGLE EXPOSURE) Sara Rosenthal

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

65

Tim Valich

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

73

John Martin

60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

81

Laura Poulin

67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

89

Josh Billings

69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

97

MULTI-FAMILY (DOUBLE EXPOSURE)

Contents

A CASE FOR TYPOLOGICAL THINKING Tim Love

1

COURTYARD HOUSING: MANUAL AS MANIFESTO Hubert Murray

9

Luke Palma

35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

107

Brad McKinney

35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

115

Thomas Neal

36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

123

Dan Marino

42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

129

Scott Swails

44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

137

Jeffrey Montes

45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

145

Ken Workings

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

153

Melissa Miranda

55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

161

Michelle Mortensen

57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

169

Leo Richardson

62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

177

Danielle McDonough

66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

185

Katie McMahon

70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

193

Sarah Tarbet

77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

201

Barrett Newell

78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

209

Jaime Sweed

96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

217

SINGLE FAMILY & SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX

SOUTH BOSTON MASTER PLANS

Betty Quintana

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

15

Christoforetti Studio

227

Caitlan Wezel

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

23

Love Studio

231

Aaron Trahan

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

31

Wiederspahn Studio

Christine Moylan

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

39

Christine Nasir

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

47

Jackie Mossman

40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

55

235

COURTYARD HOUSING: AFTERWORD Jonathan Levi

239

1

Tim Love

A Case for Typological Thinking Courtyard Building Prototypes The buildings in this volume were designed as prototypical residential types by fifth-year students in the undergraduate architecture program at Northeastern University in Boston. While the wood-frame courtyard building is an untested building type in the northeastern US, the proposals are consistent with the regulatory framework, economics of construction, and scale of development that is being planned and built on former industrial parcels in the Boston metropolitan area. The students innovated by working within the constraints of the building code and prevalent construction technologies rather than by exploring more radical (and unrealistic) approaches.

By aggregating the types into blocks and then urban dis-

tricts, the studio also tested a new model of high density urbanism that can be built primarily of wood at three to four stories tall. This urban paradigm is a potential alternative to conventional North American transit-orienteddevelopment, which tends to be comprised of steel frame residential buildings between nine and twelve stories tall. A wood-frame city1, with lower building heights and smaller parcel sizes, will allow a broader range of developers to participate in the build-out of a master plan and a larger percentage of walk-up units and building entries.

A Case for Typological Thinking For the past twenty-five years “contextualism” of one sort or another has been the prevalent framework for design studios in most American architecture programs. By contextualism, I am not referring to the strategies of the advocates of New Urbanism and other late manifestations of the design methodology conceived by Colin Rowe in the 1970s (although these approaches are certainly included in the definition). More broadly, I am considering all of the intentions, motivations, and arguments that conspire to make each architectural opportunity a one-off project with unique characteristics. A range of design methodologies has evolved in architecture schools to privilege this one-ofa-kind-ness. Perhaps the most prevalent approach results from mapping (in plan) all of the particular and idiosyncratic aspects of a site to divine the “site forces” that can help shape the project. In most cases, this technique results in a correspondingly idiosyncratic formal language, since every

2

3

twitch of eccentric geometry adjacent to the project site proven building configurations (termed “comps”). But can is used as a justification to generate complex three dimen- architecture schools engage this set of real-world economsional forms. ic priorities and still find disciplinary relevance? Through a re-engagement of typological thinking, new creative and With this technique, the function of the building is almost relevant territories for the discipline of architecture may irrelevant, or in some cases, symbolically linked to the com- be possible. positional connections made to the larger context through the mapping “analysis.” As a result, community centers and The analysis and reformulation of building types has been branch libraries were once popular programs inserted into seen as a conservative approach in most university prothe resulting forms. More recently, functions that both grams. The academy has largely rejected methodologies comment on the site and fix it, like recycling centers tied to that have persisted since the 1980s, when the theory of bio-remedial landscape strategies, have been in vogue. But type was first adopted by practice as a way to verify and for the majority of contemporary buildings, the functional reinforce building patterns in particular communities and need for a building is typically the impetus for an architec- cultures. This has certainly been the rhetoric, if not fully tural project and not simply an excuse or filler for expres- the approach, of DPZ, Stefanos Polyzoides, and other prosive form. ponents of New Urbanism. Their research, which began as an interest in housing types such as the Charleston house In the nested set of relations that shape contemporary real and the Los Angeles courtyard type, is now focused on the estate and construction, the definition of the use-category vernacular tradition of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. of a building - whether an office building, apartment build- However, a new formulation of type may be possible that ing, or hospital wing - is the typical way that a building proj- does not embalm existing types but invents new durable ect is first conceived and design is launched. Even before building paradigms. design begins in earnest, the business plan for a building is developed and enriched through assumptions about the During the past four years, several architecture studios at initial capital costs, potential revenue (generated by sales, the Northeastern School of Architecture have tested new leases, or number of patients), and future lifecycle costs. design methodologies that foreground the market-driven In the modern market economy, the use of the building, logics of contemporary building types. Unlike conventional the building’s financial performance, and assurance that risk approaches to typology, we focus on the underlying pragof financial failure is minimized, means that lending institu- matics of contemporary building production to enable the tions and the underwriters of development financing favor design of more compelling and sustainable alternatives. In

the Masters Degree Research Studio, for example, students have focused on office buildings, laboratories, parking garages, and self-storage facilities. Through directed research, students become versant in the planning criteria and embedded design agenda of these types and gain a comprehensive understanding of the broader cultural, regulatory, and economic context of the contemporary real estate industry. The Fall 2009 Housing Studio is the first time that students have been asked to fully investigate a morphological type that does not yet commonly exist in Boston or other New England cities – infill wood-frame courtyard housing.

Courtyard housing was chosen because there are no regulatory or economic impediments to the implementation of the type and because well-designed courtyard housing could provide an alternative to the triple-decker: the wood frame, three-flats-stacked housing type that dominated the dense first-ring suburban growth in New England in the late 19th and early 20th Century.

North American Housing Types With housing, typological invention can more radically question long-standing cultural assumptions. For example, the courtyard type inverts the position and role of private open space in relationship to dwelling. The settlement and building culture in the British North American colonies was predicated on land sub-division first and then occupation by dwellings. Early maps of Boston and New York show object buildings in dense urban agglomerations. It was only with the first speculative redevelopment of urban property

that the British rowhouse was introduced to maximize land value.

Outside of Boston’s city center, the metropolitan area’s most extensive residential areas were built up with woodframe buildings - the ubiquitous triple-decker - given the relatively low cost of wood-frame construction.2 Tripledeckers were either stand-alone buildings or were built as duplex pairs with a shared party wall. Prevalent codes allowed the free side of the buildings to be built within three feet of the property line – resulting in houses that were as close as six feet apart. The triple-decker type, and the neighborhoods that resulted from their proliferation, were the consequence of a high-stakes negotiation between fire officials, land speculators, builders, and elected officials.

Housing and Open Space The private open space of the triple-decker was only a consequence of a desire for the building to meet the street coupled with a maximum reasonable building depth. Side yards were only wide enough to provide access to rear yards and as space for the storage of garbage cans and decommissioned furniture and appliances. Because ownership of open space was never established by the logic of the type itself, the use of the rear yard was always in flux and varied widely even between adjacent properties. Despite the relative density of deployment of the triple-decker, as compared to other wood-frame building types, the relationship between building-as-object and the adjacent landscape is

4

5

typical to most American settlement patterns. Open space has the highest use-value where the landscape engages the house at porches and rear decks. As the landscape recedes from the building, it plays an increasingly visual role, as a buffer at the rear of the property and as a symbolic space at the front of the house.

large multi-family buildings with both a front (street) and back (alley) exposure. In addition to six plan variants, the matrix outlined the relevant building code regulations that would frame and inhibit circulation solutions and establish the maximum building height in each building category. The proto-schemes were equally distributed to the 33 students (in three studio sections) as a starting point for their own Courtyard buildings radically displace the conventional po- design investigations. sition of the landscape, thus requiring a cultural reassessment of the function and meaning of private open space. The courtyard building is an ideal pedagogical subject beThrough a simple reconfiguration of building mass, the cause it raises design issues that are as much morphological exterior ground that is furthest from the building edge is as functional in nature. For example, the “inside” corner of converted from a peripheral condition to the symbolic and the courtyard limits light and air to four specific embedded physical center of a residential community. At the same zones in the plan - requiring an inventive design response. time, the urban expression of the dwelling, typically com- This condition creates an ideal opportunity to understand municated by the relationship of the iconic form of the the relationship between the iterative design process and house-as-object to the landscape, has been compressed the deeply embedded knowledge of the discipline. As a into an urban façade. American townhouse precedent in class, we looked at this condition in projects as diverse as districts like Boston’s Back Bay, where each parcel-owner the Palazzo Farnese in Rome (1534), and the Goldenberg sought self-expression of façade and small front yard, can House by Louis Kahn (1959, un-built). A close reading of serve as a model for the particular iconographic issues of a any building with an inside corner will yield potential stratedistinctly American courtyard type. gies and tactics. Possible solutions and traces of directions almost taken are evident in every building with a similar set of planning issues.

Studio Pedagogy The students were given six residential building types at Generally, solutions to the inside corner fall into four catthe launch of the studio; the types varied in the number egories: of units per floor and the way that the parcel was embedded in the hypothetical/prototypical urban context. The a. Assign functions in the corner that do not require light schemes within the matrix ranged from single-family court- and air, such as elevator banks and storage rooms. yard housing with a single exterior exposure to relatively

6

Boston Courtyard Housing Matrix Wood-frame construction Single-exposure

Double-exposure

Egress

Height: Construction Type

Single family

A

One internal stair between floors is permitted. A single means of egress within a dwelling can be no longer than 75' before two routes of egress are provided. The dwelling unit must have egress doors on the front and back (courtyard).

Maximum height governed by egress requirements

Side-by-side duplex

B

One internal stair between floors is permitted. A single means of egress within a dwelling can be no longer than 75' before two routes of egress are provided. The dwelling unit must have egress doors on the front and back (courtyard). .

Maximum height governed by egress requirements

Four or five units/floor C

D

Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that h apart than h 1/3 the h di are equall to or ffurther diagonall off the area served (the floor or that portion of the floor served by the two stairs). At least one egress route must exit directly to the exterior (the other can exit into the building lobby).

The total building height can be no taller than 60' and/or d/ four f stories i (whichever ( hi h is i taller). ll ) Four F stories i can be placed on a ground level non-combustible parking structure as long as the total height of the building does not exceed 60'.

Six or more units/floor E

F

Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that are equal to or further apart than 1/3 the diagonal of the area served (the floor or that portion of the floor served by the two stairs). At least one egress route must exit directly to the exterior (the other can exit into the building lobby).

The total building height can be no taller than 60' and/or four stories (whichever is taller). Four stories can be placed on a ground level non-combustible parking structure as long as the total height of the building does not exceed 60'.

Unit requirements

Room requirements

Window requirements

Apartment type

Size (SF)

Room/area

Min. width of room (LF)

Minimum area defined by code

Studio One Bedroom Two bedroom Three bedroom

500-700 700-900 900-1250 1250-1475

Living area Primary bedroom Secondary bedroom Kitchens/baths

14 12 11 per code

The minimum area of windows (or a window) in a habitable room* is 8% of the area of the room. Half the area of the windows must be operable. * Habitable rooms include living areas and bedrooms and can be no smaller than 100 SF.

7

b. Assign functions in the corner that can borrow light from Conclusion It is hoped that this collection of building proposals, essays skylights above, such as staircases. on a singular theme, might have an impact on Boston and c. Deform the corner (by chamfering or rounding the cor- other North American cities. Will the diversity of comprener) to create wall space for windows directly into the hensively-designed prototypes suggest a retroactive inevitability to this model of urban development? By packagspace. ing the work in an easy-to-use volume, the infill courtyard d. Shift the corner room in one direction or the other to building is proposed as a viable alternative for dense urban gain a window without the need to deform the geometry redevelopment where building culture favors renewable and socially-equitable wood-frame construction. of the corner of the courtyard.

In addition to the issues posed by rooms embedded within

the inside corner of the courtyard, the depth and proportions of the courtyard space need to be carefully calibrated with the internal mechanics of the building plan, the accommodation of adequate light and air, and the consideration of potential views between units across the courtyard space.

The building type also requires a fuller agenda that understands the courtyard as part of a larger continuum of public and semi-public spaces including the street, buildings lobbies, and thresholds. Students were also required to design building facades that announced (or not) the presence of the courtyard and propose solutions that establish a design agenda that articulated a position between the expression of individual units and a coherently designed street wall.

Notes 1 See Jonathan Levi’s “City of Wood: A Speculation on Urbanism and Wood Housing,” published on the Jonathan Levi Architect website: http://www.leviarc.com/ under the heading Projects/Research. “The question then is whether light frame buildings with their bias against aggregation, are necessarily anti-urban or whether it would be possible to envision a dense wood construction which alleviates each of wood’s weaknesses one by one – it’s lack of durability, poor acoustics, and susceptibility to fire, among others.”

2 Wood frame construction is still the least expensive way to building multi-family housing in the Boston metropolitan area. In 2009, the average cost of wood-frame construction in Boston’s residential neighborhoods was $175/SF. A comparable masonry building with a steel frame would be budgeted at approximately $240/SF.

Bibliography Holl, Steven, Rural & Urban House Types, Pamphlet Architecture 9, New York, 1982.

Macintosh, Duncan, The Modern Courtyard House: a History, Architectural Association Paper Number 9, Published

by Lund Humphries for the Architectural Association, London, 1973.

Pfiefer, Gunter and Per Brauneck, Courtyard Houses: A Housing Typology, Birkhauser Verlag, 2008.

Polyzoides, Stefanos, Roger Sherwood, and James Tice, Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1982.

Sherwood, Roger, Modern Housing Prototypes, Harvard University Press, 1978.

Schneider, Friederike, Floor Plan Atlas: Housing, Birkhauser Verlag, 1994.

8

9

Hubert Murray

Courtyard Housing: Manual as Manifesto The courtyard housing studio at Northeastern comes with noble pedigree. For the last generation or so urban housing has not generally been regarded as a subject for serious investigation in contemporary American architectural schools in which digital form-making has for so long held sway. Housing as a serious field of study and investigation for both students and practitioners has however an intellectual and professional lineage that can be traced to the urban demands and aspirations of nineteenth century and early modern Europe, a duality of formal technique and social reform, of manual and manifesto. The investigation is no less relevant here, in the United States, and now, as we attempt to resolve the contradictions of our centrifugal conurbations.

The Manual The parentage on one side is the builder’s pattern book, the template used for swaths of speculative residential development in the rapidly expanding cities built on industry and commerce. Thomas Cubitt, builder and developer, made his fortune after the Napoleonic Wars developing entire London districts (Bloomsbury, Camden Town, Spitalfields) for the upper, middle and lower classes, accommodating them in row houses ordered by size and style from the gentleman’s townhouse to the worker’s cottage. Such boilerplate solutions to housing the burgeoning population were standard practice throughout the major cities of Europe, most often in the hands of private developers but, with the rise of twentieth century social democracy, increasingly under the auspices of municipal authorities.The design manuals of the Greater London Council1, are perhaps the culmination of this tradition. For the current epoch, it is Schneider’s Floor Plan Manual2 that provides the most comprehensive compendium of urban housing type-plans, public and private, ordered by urban planning category and building type (e.g. corner building / end of row).

Each of these, and many others of which they are exemplars, can be thought of as technical manuals, recipe books providing economical, efficient and (in a restricted sense) elegant solutions to mass housing. Beyond density, floor plate, circulation, disposition and dimensioning of spaces for living, sleeping, cooking and dining there is no theory bar that of the efficacy of standardization.3

10

11

The Manifesto If this side of the marriage has its own austere heritage, there is another side, ideological and reformist, that seeks to promote the virtues of social housing as, at the very best, the expression of a full and meaningful life (the home for Karl Marx’s unalienated family) and, at the least, the guarantor of a life saved from squalor and degradation (as lived for instance in the fetid slums of Engels’ Manchester or the Ilot Insalubre No 6 of Le Corbusier).

Fourier, Owen, Muthesius and the Garden City movement can all be cited at greater length in the grand-parentage of social housing as a central preoccupation in architectural modernism but it is to the pre-war Bauhaus that one must look for more immediate influence in both Europe and the United States. In parallel with modernist experiments in high-rise slab housing during this period, Ludwig Hilbersheimer, Hugo Häring, Hannes Meyer4 and others developed their own versions of low-rise high-density housing, and in particular variations on the courtyard house. Interestingly, for the resonance that still reverberates in the politics of the United States today, high-rise was associated in 1920’s Germany with socialism, low-rise with a more accommodationist approach to social improvement. This difference in emphasis however in no way belied the commitment of either camp to the role of urban social housing as a fundamental building block of a progressive, healthy and modern society.

which it is underwritten are still vibrant in European architecture today. Urban housing is still viewed as a social entitlement in the majority of the mixed economies of modern Europe and therefore a common project type in most architectural practices. This is not so in the United States for whom mass housing provided by public agencies really only had its flowering in the disastrous era of urban clearances, confirming in the popular mind that public housing, so far from being a social entitlement open to all, should be no more than a last ditch provision for the feckless and indigent urban poor. The demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing development in St. Louis in 1972, a mere 18 years after its opening, represented the death of modern architecture and of the modernist project as a social program, a conjunction that had not traveled well in its journey from Europe. The unrelieved monotonies of Levittown and its progeny remain intact, forgiven their sins because they are owner occupied, each little box a testimony to American individuality and upward mobility.

Community and Privacy This volume, focusing on urban housing as a critical component in the urban fabric, and on courtyard housing in particular, as a valid physical form mediating at the cusp of community and privacy, between neighborhood and house, society and the individual, revives a discussion last given an airing in this country by Chermayeff and Alexander in their book Community and Privacy.5 Their discussion ends, not The political debate and the technical investigations by coincidentally, in a detailed analysis of courtyard housing

plans, as if they were taking up the conversation from the Bauhaus and translating it into American terms. I emphasize this social vector in the conversation on courtyard housing, because mainly for reasons of space and time, it is not given such explicit treatment in the pages that follow.

One example will suffice to illustrate the conjunction of the technical and the social, in which the design manual necessarily carries within it the flame of the manifesto. One of the generic problems of the courtyard house is scale. If the dwelling unit is scaled within reasonable limits to be a single family house – between say, 1,000 to 1,800 square feet – then the true courtyard, a private space with rooms on all four sides, not only has four internal corner conditions but the court itself is severely restricted and in northern latitudes is a place in which, for considerable periods, the sun does not shine.6 If on the other hand, the perimeter is expanded to enlarge the court, shared to a greater or lesser extent with other units, then the discussion immediately becomes as much one of community as it is of privacy. The family house based on the Roman impluvium stands at one end of the spectrum, Cerda’s Barcelona grid with its communal courts serving hundreds of units, at the other.7 The dialectic between community and privacy, the social and the individual, is inherent in every one of the plans represented in this volume.

Pragmatism as Program Tim Love’s suggestion, in his treatment of the methodology

of the studio, that the courtyard house is worthy of investigation on the grounds that “it is a type that does not yet commonly exist in Boston…” and “because there are no regulatory or economic impediments to the implementation of the type” is consonant with the broader aim of the studio – and Northeastern itself – that “seeks to uncover the underlying pragmatics of contemporary market driven building”. The combination of courtyard house plans presented here and the urban forms they predicate shown in street and aerial views and blockplans, underwritten by this provocative methodological premise, all indicate a welcome revival of this subject on American soil, in American terms, with a long overdue alternative to the last generation of architectural pedagogy. This manual is surely a manifesto.

Notes 1 The Greater London Council (1965-86) was the municipal authority for the entire metropolitan region of London, the heir to the London County Council (1889-1965) which had jurisdiction over a much smaller area. In addition to the Boroughs, both the LCC and the GLC had vast portfolios of public housing in the city and were responsible for pioneering design in social housing. Of its many publications the GLC’s Preferred Dwelling Plans published in 1978 set standards and provided design templates for low-rise, high density development in the city.

2 Schneider, Friederike, Floor Plan Atlas: Housing, Birkhäuser Verlag, 1994 (Third edition, 2004).

3 The work of Sir Leslie Martin, Lionel March and others at the Cambridge Centre for Land Use and Built Form provided much of the theoretical underpinning through mathematical and quantitative analysis of patterns of residential densities and vehicular circulation.

12

13

4 For an excellent discussion of these contributions and others, see MacIntosh, Duncan, The Modern Courtyard House, Lund Humpries, London, 1973.

5 Chermayeff, Serge and Alexander, Christopher, Community and Privacy, Doubleday, New York, 1963.

6 There is a discussion to be enlarged upon regarding the climatic characteristics of the courtyard typology. A good start is made in Koenigsberger et al., Manual of Tropical Housing and Building – Part 1 Climatic Design, Longman, London, 1973.

7 It may also be noted in this regard that the courtyard as social condenser is perhaps more suited to a closed organic community, whether it be the family, nuclear or extended, or a broader homogeneous neighborhood. The street on the other hand presents an open system in which choices can be made with whom to associate.

14

Single Family and Side-by-Side Duplex Courtyard Housing

15

with Interlocking Units

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BETTY QUINTANA

Duplex

16

17

Ground Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

18

FAR

1.09 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Interlocking Units UNITS PER FLOOR

1 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0, one bedroom: 0, two bedroom: 1, three bedroom: 1 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

43’-0” DEPTH OF BUILDING

80’-0” MAXIMUM HEIGHT

30’-0” ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade Second Floor Plan PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

Scale 1 : 20

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BETTY QUINTANA

22.6

19

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BETTY QUINTANA

20

21

Elevation

Perspective

Birds Eye Block Perspective

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BETTY QUINTANA

22

Street Level Perspective

23

with Central Courtyard

Elevation

Sectional Perspective

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CAITLIN WEZEL

Single Family

24

25

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

26

FAR

1.36 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Central courtyard acts as the focal point within every room.

UNITS PER FLOOR

1 UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 1 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

44’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

37’-6” MAXIMUM HEIGHT

32’-6” Third Floor Plan

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

Scale 1:20

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CAITLIN WEZEL

25.0

27

Block Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Section through block

Second Floor Block Plan

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CAITLIN WEZEL

28

29

Elevation

Section through minor street Perspective

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Minor Street Elevation

Perspective of Minor Street

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CAITLIN WEZEL

30

31

Single Family

with L-Type, Bookmatch Aggregation

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE AARON TRAHAN

32

33

Ground Floor Plan

First Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

34

FAR

1.67 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

“L” type, bookmatch aggregation.

Front Elevation

UNITS PER FLOOR

1 UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 1 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

36’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

50’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

30’-6” Corner Front Elevation

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

Scale 1:20 Corner Side Elevation

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE AARON TRAHAN

29.0

35

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Elevation 29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE AARON TRAHAN

36

First Level Block Plan

37

Perspective

Perspective

Birds Eye Block Perspective

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE AARON TRAHAN

38

Block Courtyard Perspective

39

with Stepped Decks

Front Elevation Elevation

Sectional Perspective

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE MOYLAN

Single Family

40

41

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

42

FAR

1.62 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Interior circulation wraps through the house in conjunction with the exterior terrace circulation.

UNITS PER FLOOR

1 UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 1 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

31’-9” DEPTH OF BUILDING

42’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

32’-8” ACCESSIBLE UNITS Third Floor Plan

0 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

Scale 1:20

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE MOYLAN

30.0

43

Courtyard Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE MOYLAN

44

45

Elevation

Perspective

BIRDS EYE BLOCK PERSPECTIVE

Birds Eye Block Perspective

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE MOYLAN

46

Courtyard Perspective

47

with Adjoining Private Courtyards

Sectional Perspective Through Upper Unit

Sectional Perspective Through Lower Unit

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE NASIR

Duplex

48

49

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

50

FAR

1.40 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

U-shaped units wrap courtyard.

UNIT BREAKDOWN

two bedroom: 2 UNITS PER FLOOR 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

45’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

60’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

25’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1 Third Floor Plan

Roof Plan

Scale 1 : 20

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE NASIR

32.0

51

Short Block Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Upper Level Block Plan

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE NASIR

52

53

Lower Courtyard View

Upper Courtyard View

Sections Through Block

Birds Eye Block Perspective

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE CHRISTINE NASIR

54

Street Level Perspective

55

Single Family

with Stepped Section and Terraces

Longitudinal Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JACQUELINE MOSSMAN

56

57

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

58

FAR

2 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Private Entry/ Circulation.

UNITS PER FLOOR

2 UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

35’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

82’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1-2

Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan Scale 1:20

40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JACQUELINE MOSSMAN

40.1

59

South Elevation Detail

Ground Level Block Plan

40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JACQUELINE MOSSMAN

60

North Elevation Detail

Typical Level Block Plan

61

Concept Development Diagram

Birds Eye Block Perspective

62

40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JACQUELINE MOSSMAN

OPTION A STEEP TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE (2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS

OPTION B SHALLOW TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE (2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS 1 STUDIO UNIT

OPTION C NO TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE (2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS 1 STUDIO LOFT UNIT OR COMMERCIAL SPACE

Prototype Topographical Adaptation

63

64

Multi-Family (Single Exposure) Courtyard Housing

65

with Courtyard with View to the Street

Prototype Elevation

Sectional Perspective

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARA ROSENTHAL

Multi-Family

66

67

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

68

FAR

2.20 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Point-load circulation entered through courtyard above parking plinth UNITS PER FLOOR

6 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0, one bedroom: 12, two bedroom: 6, three bedroom: 0 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

110’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

91’ -4” MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41’-6” Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.72

Scale 1:50

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARA ROSENTHAL

32.0

69

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARA ROSENTHAL

70

71

Section and Courtyard Elevations

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Prototype to Block Massing

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARA ROSENTHAL

72

Prototype to Block Circulation

Section Perspective from Street

73

with Stepped Courtyard Open to the Street

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

74

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE TIM VALICH

Multi-Family

75

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

76

FAR

1.87 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Terraced courtyard open to the street.

UNITS PER FLOOR

7 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 2, one bedroom: 18, two bedroom: 6, three bedroom: 0 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

175’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

105’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

5 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.44

Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan Scale 1:50

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE TIM VALICH

46.4

77

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE TIM VALICH

78

79

Prototype Figure Ground

Birds Eye Block Perspective

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE TIM VALICH

80

Street Perspective

81

with Courtyards within Courtyards

Street Elevation

Sectional Perspective

60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOHN MARTIN

Multi-Family

82

83

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

84

FAR

2.24 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Private courtyard spaces organized around a central public courtyard.

UNITS PER FLOOR

6 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 4 one bedroom: 1 two bedroom: 4 three bedroom: 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

76’-6” DEPTH OF BUILDING

113’-9” Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

50’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.5

Scale 1:50

60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOHN MARTIN

60.0

85

Block Long Street Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Block Short Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOHN MARTIN

86

87

Block Section

Birds Eye Block Perspective

60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOHN MARTIN

88

Street Perspective

Courtyard Perspective

89

with Skip-stop Corridor

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LAURA POULIN

Multi-Family

90

91

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

92

FAR

1.98 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Skip-stop corridor provides access to duplex units.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 1 one bedroom: 4 two bedroom: 4 three bedroom: 4 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

80’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

108’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41’ Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

Scale 1:50

67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LAURA POULIN

67.0

93

Longitudinal Block Section

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Corridor Level Block Plan

67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LAURA POULIN

94

95

Transverse Block Section

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Courtyard Perspective

67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LAURA POULIN

96

Birds Eye Prototype Perspective

Down Street Perspective

97

Multi-Family

with a Semi-public Courtyard

Transverse Section through Courtyard

Prototype - Rear Courtyard Elevation

Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

Section through Courtyard

69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOSH BILLINGS

98

99

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

100

FAR

1.87 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

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

UNITS PER FLOOR

4 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0, one bedroom: 8, two bedroom: 7, three bedroom: 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

113’-8” DEPTH OF BUILDING

84’-4” MAXIMUM HEIGHT

59’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

15 Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

Scale 1:50

69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOSH BILLINGS

69.0

101

A - Street Elevation - North

Typical Block Street Elevation

B - Street Elevation - East

C - Section B

C

A Elevations & Section Block Plan - 1st Floor

Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Ground Level Block Plan Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

102

B - Street Elevation - East

Typical Block Street Elevation

C - Section B

C

A Elevations & Section

Block Plan - 2nd Floor

Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

Typical Level Block Plan Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOSH BILLINGS

A - Street Elevation - North

103

District Plan

Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Diagrammatic Section through District Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

District Figure/Ground Plan

104

C - Section B

Section through Block

C

A Elevations & Section

Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009 Josh Billings Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

Aerial Perspective

69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JOSH BILLINGS

B - Street Elevation - East

105

106

Multi-Family (Double Exposure) Courtyard Housing

107

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LUKE PALMA

Multi-Family

with Connected Community Courtyards

108

109

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

110

FAR

1.85 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

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

UNITS PER FLOOR

5 UNIT BREAKDOWN

two bedroom: 10 three bedroom: 10 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

90’-10” DEPTH OF BUILDING

148’-4” MAXIMUM HEIGHT

55’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

2

Scale 1:50

35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LUKE PALMA

35.4

111

Front Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Back Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LUKE PALMA

112

113

Street Perspective

Transverse Section Through Site

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Section Through Park

Intra-Block Circulation

Interior Circulation

Figure Ground Diagram

35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LUKE PALMA

114

115

with Filtered Mid-block Landscape

Street and Greenway Elevations

Sectional Perspective

35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BRAD MCKINNEY

Multi-Family

116

117

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

118

FAR

1.73 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Double courtyard system filters circulation and function.

UNITS PER FLOOR

6 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 3 one bedroom: 2 two bedroom: 8 three bedroom: 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

115’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

160’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

36’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

6 at grade Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.8

Scale 1:50

35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BRAD MCKINNEY

35.5

119

Typical Street Elevations

Ground Level Block Plan

Greenway Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BRAD MCKINNEY

120

121

Pedestrian Walkway Elevations

Cornice Detail

Birds Eye Block Perspective

35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BRAD MCKINNEY

122

Walkway Detail

Prototype Section

123

with Units Expressed as Individual Buildings

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE THOMAS NEAL

Multi-Family

124

125

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

126

FAR

2.07 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Multi-family horseshoe shaped housing with inserted single family row houses to create a two tiered courtyard.

UNITS PER FLOOR

6 UNIT BREAKDOWN

two bedroom: 8 three bedroom: 4 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

108’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

120’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

40’ Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.5

Scale 1:50

36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE THOMAS NEAL

36.0

127

Typical Block Street Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Section

Typical Level Block Plan

36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE THOMAS NEAL

128

129

Multi Family

without Corridors Serving Six Stairs

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE DAN MARINO

130

131

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

Third Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

132

FAR

1.99 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Point load stair system with staggered floors and half submerged parking below UNITS PER FLOOR

5 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0, one bedroom: 2, two bedroom: 0, WIDTH AT STREET WALL

111’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

117’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.75 Fourth Floor Plan

Fifth Floor Plan

Scale 1:50

42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE DAN MARINO

42.2

133

Section / Courtyard Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE DAN MARINO

134

135

District Perspectives

Birds Eye District Perspective

Massing Strategy

Privitization of open spaces

42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE DAN MARINO

136

137

With Adjacent Semi-Private Courtyards

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SCOTT SWAILS

Multi-Family

138

139

Ground Floor Plan

Typical Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

140

FAR

1.39 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Inverted shape provides ideal amounts of light and privacy UNITS PER FLOOR

4 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0, one bedroom: 6, two bedroom: 6, three bedroom: 0 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

91’4” DEPTH OF BUILDING

86’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

30’6” ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.75

Ground Floor End Unit

Typical Floor End Unit Scale 1:50

44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SCOTT SWAILS

44.9

141

Standard Unit Main Street Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SCOTT SWAILS

142

143

Commercial Street Elevation

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Sectional Axonometric View

44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SCOTT SWAILS

144

Sectional Axonometric View

Typical Unit Axonometric

145

with a Courtyard Gateway

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JEFFREY MONTES

Multi-Family

146

147

Ground Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

148

FAR

1.52 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Ramps around interior face of courtyard provide primary access to units UNITS PER FLOOR

4 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 2, one bedroom: 7, two bedroom: 8 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

132’-9” DEPTH OF BUILDING

78’-9” MAXIMUM HEIGHT

33’-4” Second Floor Plan

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

3 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.7

Scale 1:50

45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JEFFREY MONTES

45.8

149

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Main Courtyard Perspective

45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JEFFREY MONTES

150

151

Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation

Birds Eye Block Perspective

45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JEFFREY MONTES

152

Main Courtyard Perspective

153

with Cantilevered Volumes

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KEN WORKINGS

Multi-Family

154

155

Ground Floor

Second Floor

Third Floor

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

156

FAR

1.87 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Shifting volumes in both plan and section allow for maximum light penetration for mid-building units UNITS PER FLOOR

12 UNIT BREAKDOWN

one bedroom: 16, two bedroom: 18 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

80’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

275’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.9

Scale 1:50 Fourth Floor

Fifth Floor

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KEN WORKINGS

46.4

157

Long Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KEN WORKINGS

158

End Block Street Elevation

Elevational Variance Diagram

Single Prototype Elevation

159

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Ramp Landscaping Detail

Facade Detail

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KEN WORKINGS

160

161

with Ramps as Main Circulation

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MELISSA MIRANDA

Multi-Family

162

163

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

164

FAR

2.30 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Ramps around interior face of courtyard provide primary access to units and promote social interaction.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 5, one bedroom: 3, two bedroom: 3, three bedroom: 3 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

98’-0” DEPTH OF BUILDING

100’-0 MAXIMUM HEIGHT

50’-0” ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

12/14

Scale 1:50

55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MELISSA MIRANDA

55.0

165

Boardwalk Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MELISSA MIRANDA

166

167

Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Interior Perspective of Artists’ Studio

55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MELISSA MIRANDA

168

Single Bedroom Unit Axon

Ramp Perspective

169

Multi-Family

with Subtractive Terraces and Voids

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MICHELLE MORTENSEN

170

171

Ground Floor

First Floor

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

172

FAR

2.06 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Individually articulated 3-Dimensional L-shaped, staggered units wrapped around a courtyard.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 5, one bedroom: 3, two bedroom: 2 , three bedroom: 2 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

70’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

100’ Second Floor

Third Floor

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

43’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.7

Scale 1:50

57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MICHELLE MORTENSEN

57.7

173

South Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Transverse Section

Typical Level Block Plan

57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MICHELLE MORTENSEN

174

175

Sectional Perspective Progression Cut 4

Perspective

Massing of interlocking units with cirulcation voids

Massing of interlocking units with public space voids

Exploded Axon of Unit Types

57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MICHELLE MORTENSEN

176

177

Multi-Family

with Passive Solar Orientation

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LEO RICHARDSON

178

179

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

180

FAR

3.22 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Elevator access to all units with exterior stairways to roofdecks.

UNITS PER FLOOR

6 UNIT BREAKDOWN

Third Floor Plan

studio: 2 one bedroom: 2 two bedroom: 10 three bedroom: 5 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

110’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

125’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

65’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

19 PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.7

Fourth Floor Plan

Scale 1:50

62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LEO RICHARDSON

62.1

181

Street Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LEO RICHARDSON

182

183

Vertical Elevator Circulation Horizontal Corridor Circulation

Diagram of Accessible Interior Circulation

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Winter Sun Diagram

Trransverse Courtyard Section

62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LEO RICHARDSON

184

185

Elevation - Pedestrian Street Edge

DANIELLE McDONOUGH

with Two Distinct Urban Faces

66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

Multi-Family

186

Elevation - Vehicular Street Face

Sectional Perspective through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

187

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

188

2.76 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

A terraced strategy maximizes light and air and adapts to the pedestrian scale.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 2 one bedroom: 10 two bedroom: 5 Third Floor Plan

WIDTH AT STREET WALL

125’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

115’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

54’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

All PARKING SPACES/UNIT

8

Scale 1:50 Fourth + Fifth Floor Plan

DANIELLE McDONOUGH

FAR

66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

66.6

189

Street Elevation - Vehicular Street Face

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Level Block Plan

DANIELLE McDONOUGH

Street Elevation - Pedestrian Street Face

66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

190

191

DANIELLE McDONOUGH

66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

192

193

without Corridors Served by Four Stairs

Typical Elevation

Sectional Perspective

70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KATIE MCMAHON

Multi-Family

194

195

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

196

FAR

2.57 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Poit Loaded Circulation UNITS PER FLOOR

4 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 2 one bedroom: 4 two bedroom: 2 three bedroom: 6 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

120’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

99’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.4 Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

Scale 1:50

70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KATIE MCMAHON

70.0

197

Block Section

Ground Level Block Plan

70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KATIE MCMAHON

198

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

199

District Plan

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Sectional Perspective

Sectional Perspective

Relationship of Facade to Interior

70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE KATIE MCMAHON

200

201

with Figurative Courtyard

Prototype

Sectional Perspective

77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARAH TARBET

Multi-Family

202

203

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

204

FAR

2.63 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Living rooms facing courtyard, bedrooms facing street.

UNIT BREAKDOWN

one bedroom: 6, two bedroom: 16 UNITS PER FLOOR 6 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

243’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

250’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

46’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS Third Floor Plan

1 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.7

Scale 1:50

77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARAH TARBET

77.0

205

Block Street Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Unfolded Courtyard Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARAH TARBET

206

207

Block Section

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Entry Portal

77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SARAH TARBET

208

Interior Courtyard

Street Perspective

209

Multi-Family

with Individual Entry System from External Circulation Tissue

Sectional Perspective

78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BARRETT NEWELL

210

211

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

Third Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

212

FAR

2.56 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Double entry system connecting two buildings into one courtyard UNITS PER FLOOR

5 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 14, one bedroom: 4 two bedroom: 6 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

82’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

171’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS Fourth Floor Plan

Fifth Floor Plan

4 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.83

Scale 1:50

78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BARRETT NEWELL

78.0

213

Block Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Section and Courtyard Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BARRETT NEWELL

214

215

End Block Elevation

Section and Courtyard Elevation 78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BARRETT NEWELL

216

217

with a Rotated Elliptical Courtyard

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JAIME SWEED

Multi-Family

218

219

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

220

FAR

1.99 ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Rotating ellipse courtyard provides alternating terraces to units UNITS PER FLOOR

4 UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0, one bedroom: 2, two bedroom: 8, three bedroom: 0 WIDTH AT STREET WALL

99’ DEPTH OF BUILDING

76’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT

39’ ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.2

Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan Scale 1:50

96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JAIME SWEED

96.0

221

Corner Block Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JAIME SWEED

222

223

Diagram of Prototype Courtyard Organization

Section Perspective

96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE JAIME SWEED

224

Facade Detail

Typical Unit Axonometric

225

226

Site Masterplans by Studio

227

SITE ACREAGE 209.41

228

BUILDING COVERAGE 0.26 UNITS/ACRE 33.10 NUMBER OF UNITS 6,931 NUMBER OF BEDS 11,531 PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS 19.8% PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS 37.6% PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS 14.2% AREA (TOTAL SITE) 9,122,045 SF AREA (TYP FLOOR) 2,381,135 SF

CHRISTOFORETTI STUDIO MASTERPLAN

AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PUBLIC PROGRAM 350,718 SF

229

JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55 SINGLE FAMILY 40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

IAN STABER MULTI-FAMILY 45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

KATIE MCMAHON | 193 MULTI-FAMILY 70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

BARRETT NEWELL | 209 MULTI-FAMILY 78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185 MULTI-FAMILY 66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55 SINGLE FAMILY 40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

LEO RICHARDSON | 177 MULTI-FAMILY 62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

IAN STABER MULTI-FAMILY 45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

THANA TALIEP MULTI-FAMILY 58.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE BRAD MCKINNEY | 115 MULTI-FAMILY 35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

230

DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185 MULTI-FAMILY 66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE LEO RICHARDSON | 177 MULTI-FAMILY 62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

MICHELLE MORTENSEN | 169 MULTI-FAMILY 22.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

CHRISTOFORETTI STUDIO MASTERPLAN

MELISSA MIRANDA | 161 MULTI-FAMILY 55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

231

SITE ACREAGE 209.41

232

BUILDING COVERAGE 0.36 UNITS/ACRE 22.87 NUMBER OF UNITS 5,164 NUMBER OF BEDS 10,523 PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS 22.4% PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS 34.2% PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS 33.4% AREA (TOTAL SITE) 9,122,045 SF AREA (TYP FLOOR) 3,248,491 SF

LOVE STUDIO MASTERPLAN

AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PUBLIC PROGRAM) 10,000 SF

233

CHRISTINE MOYLAN | 39 SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX 36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

THOMAS NEAL | 123 MULTI-FAMILY 36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

CHRSITINE NASIR | 47 SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX 67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE AARON TRAHAN | 31 SINGLE-FAMILY 25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

SARAH TARBET | 201 MULTI-FAMILY 55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

AARON TRAHAN | 31 SINGLE-FAMILY 25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

LAURA POULIN | 89 SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX 67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JI PARK MULTI-FAMILY 36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JOHN MARTIN | 81 MULTI-FAMILY 60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

THOMAS NEAL | 123 MULTI-FAMILY 36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

LOVE STUDIO MASTERPLAN

CAITLIN WEZEL | 23 SINGLE-FAMILY 29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

234

JONATHAN SAMPSON MULTI-FAMILY 55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

235

SITE ACREAGE 209.41

236

BUILDING COVERAGE 0.31 UNITS/ACRE 32.04 NUMBER OF UNITS 6,710 NUMBER OF BEDS 10,755 PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS 38.3% PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS 45.7% PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS 9.1% AREA (TOTAL SITE) 9,122,045 SF AREA (TYP FLOOR) 2,859,587 SF

WIEDERSPAHN STUDIO MASTERPLAN

AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PROGRAM PROGRAM) 324,984 SF

237

TIM VALICH | 73 MULTI-FAMILY 46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

BETTY QUINTANA | 15 SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX 34.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JAMIE SWEED | 217 MULTI-FAMILY 96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

KEN WORKINGS | 153 MULTI-FAMILY 46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

DAN MARINO | 129 MULTI FAMILY 42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

SARAH ROSENTHAL | 65 MULTI-FAMILY 32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

NATHAN ALESKOVSKY MULTI-FAMILY 56.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JEFFREY MONTES | 145 MULTI-FAMILY 45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

238

LUKE PALMA | 107 MULTI-FAMILY 35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SCOTT SWAILS | 137 MULTI-FAMILY 44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

WIEDERSPAHN STUDIO MASTERPLAN

JOSH BILLINGS | 97 MULTI-FAMILY 69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

239

240

Jonathan Levi

Courtyard Housing: Afterword The design of housing has been among the most persistent topics in the pedagogies of schools of architecture since the rise of 20th Century modernism. Why housing? To begin, housing is at the core of the architect’s commitment to the discipline as an arena of action which goes beyond the intangible long term influences of aesthetic concerns to address a level of immediate cultural and even political service. Building on its original mid-20th Century meaning as a corrective to the damaging effects of industrialization, “housing” has also come to be closely associated with the framing of the architectural project within the larger subject of the city. Housing fabric is the basic stuff of cities and lies at the fundamental intersection between the architectural and urban scales.

These studios, taught at Northeastern by Tim Love and his colleagues, represent a recommitment to the ideal of housing introduced at the core of the moral and technical formation of the young architect. But with at twist: Where previous generations, consciously or not, embraced the implicit agenda of ‘social’ housing, Professor Love updates his approach with an expert nod to the contemporary realities of private development restrained, for public interest purposes, only by the primitive mechanisms of zoning ordinances and building codes. The projects themselves then represent a kind of purposeful gamesmanship, following the path of community building through graduated scales and individual dwelling differentiation while outwitting the numerous community-adverse obstacles presented by parking, egress

241

paths, elevatoring and the like. At the literal center of this tactical endeavor, the interior-block garden or courtyard emerges, dispelling the anonymity of repetition, offering respite from the automobile and, hopefully, providing the germ of community. Underlying these very comprehensive and comprehensible proposals, there lays a challenge to contemporary social conditions in America which are generally inimical to the meaningful creation of semi-private space. It is a practical challenge - one of ownership - and a spiritual one. The latter, in essence, because we Americans do not like to be in clustered pigeonholes, we do not like to be told what groups to belong to and, for better or worse, we simply do not like to share. The students remind us that the need to change these conditions is unquestionable given the social and ecological alternative of further despoiling the country and further alienating ourselves from one another.

Remembering the identity of cities and their housing, this then brings us to that indefatigable urban default structure - the street, and also to its current status and the city that it implies. Those represented here are remarkable if only for their authors’ highly laudable attention to the details of elevations – an attention which is lacking in many schools of architecture today. In so doing, the students have been able to tangibly mediate the critical contest between automobiles and pedestrians, between garages and entries, which is at the heart of the nature of contemporary cities.

They do so with optimism about the livability of public streets which is justifiable – but perhaps not so much for today as it is for tomorrow.

Certainly, the ordinary street today is nothing like it was in our distant memory or as it now sometimes exists in exotic places for wealthy people on the prowl for fun and purchases. It will never be exactly that. It will probably not be a place of walking to work or kids going to school or mothers congregating during the day with strollers.

Workplace mobility, taken together with full employment outside the home and our affinity for spreading over the land, has overtaken all that in the form of the automobile.

And the automobile, though it may eventually take more communally responsible form, is here to stay.

However, significantly, the workplace is changing. Mobility is increasingly virtual. Commuting is increasingly virtual.

Commerce is increasingly virtual. There is a real possibility that the separated workplace, dwelling and commercial concentrations that have, in the last 50 years, driven the emptying of streets will someday be obsolete. There is a possibility that housing will not just be mostly the stuff of cities, but all of them. Then, in the ‘post vehicular’ city, we will see what streets will become. It will not be a city without cars, not a restoration of quaint pedestrianism, but where cars have a new and less fearsomely essential meaning. In their carefully scaled streets and cleverly configured courtyards these student proposals seek to heal the empty places of today’s cities and offer a view of the transformative importance of housing for the future.

A future where, perhaps, dwellings will once again be fully occupied throughout the day and where streets are not just conduits but are themselves liveable and lived in gardens.

COURTYARD HOUSING ARCH 5110 HOUSING AND AGGREGATION FALL 2009 The projects in this volume were designed as prototypical residential types and city block plans by fourth-year students in the undergradu足ate architecture program at Northeastern University in Boston.