Utopian typologies

UTOPIAN TYPOLOGIES

ARCH7130, Fall 2017 Professor Timothy Love Regina Benitez Cardenas Trey Buretz Sulafa Hariri Danielle Roberts Dominik Wit

Table of Contents Introduction Section 1: Urban Social Spaces

Social Infrastructure and Networks

Section 2: Utopian Community Prototypes

Typologies for Future Development

Section 3: Utopian Community Precedents A Selected Timeline of Precedents

Section 4: Invisible Cities

A Visual Interpretation of Italo Calvino’s Book

1 2 28 50 78

“But again, what is simplicity?

Do you think by any chance that I meant a role of yellow-brick, blue-slated houses, or a phalanstère like an improved Peabody lodging-house; and the dinner bell ringing into a row of white basins of broth with a piece of bread cut nice and square by each, with boiler-made tea and ill-boiled rice pudding to follow? No; that’s the philanthropist’s ideal, not mine; and here I only note it to repudiate it, and to say “vicarious life once more, and therefore, no pleasure.”

No, I say; find you yourselves what you find pleasant, and do it. You won’t be alone in your desires; you will get plenty to help you in carrying them out, and you will develop social life in developing your own special tendencies . . . First you must be free; and next you must learn to take pleasure in all the details of life; which, indeed, will be necessary to you, because, since you are free, you will have to do your own work. This is in direct opposite to civilization, which says “avoid trouble,” which you can do by making other people live your life for you. I say, socialists ought to say, “take trouble, and turn your trouble into pleasure: that I shall always hold is the key to a happy life.”

Morris, May, The Collected Writings of William Morris, 24 vols, London, 1910-15, pp. 458-9.

Introduction Rather than take the principles of “good urbanism” for granted, we need to swim much further upstream to shape both the vision and specifics of a new neighborhood. We can no longer accept that “activation” resulting from retail-lined sidewalks and the “innovations” inspired by foosball tables and free snacks are the baseline for 21st century urbanism. Instead, we need to interrogate the fundamentals of life and disentangle and rewire the social contract that gets us out of bed in the morning. Home, work, the activities we do in between, the quality of movement between these nodes, and the relationships we make and maintain constitute our lives. Are they satisfying? Could they be better? Architecture is one sphere to explore these questions and propose alternatives to the status quo.

By necessity, our architectural speculation needs to be both poetic and pragmatic. As a result, we will consider the logistics of trash collection (and recycling and composting), the impression of the skyline when the moon is full, the turning radii of the FedEx truck, the ways that indoor/outdoor relationships can be recaptured after seventy-five years of ubiquitous air conditioning systems, the quality of light and sound when strolling arm-and-arm in the evening. Architecture should be shaped by pragmatics and imagined experience – and not by formula!

- Tim Love

1

A utopia is reliant on the social interactions of its residents. This section is a catalog that captures different urban social spaces. From public amenities, to streets, to retail. These are spaces for potential interaction in cities and neighborhoods. These vibrant places are intermingled with buildings and are open to the community. They are vital to the spaces of live and work as they are the nodes for communication and the common ground for play and relaxation. “The measure of any great civilization is its cities and a measure of a city’s greatness is to be found in the quality of its public spaces, its parks and squares�. - John Ruskin

Urban Social Spaces

Section 1:

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

cafes + bars salons/barbershops laundromats hardware stores grocery stores

commercial third places (co) housing

ula circ ial c o s

soc ial circ ula

tion

tion

soc ial

ial soc

circ ul

atio

n

tion ula c r i c

(co) working

public/institutional third places necessities food energy sanitation

4

child care schools religious/spiritual venues cultural venues meeting + even spaces markets

Utopian Typologies

age cohorts millenials families/children empty nesters elderly

Urban Social Spaces

Section 1

Social Contract The social contract for a pragmatic utopia is a formula for a structured community. The social contract defines the interaction of (co) housing and (co) work with commercial third places and public/institutional third places. These components establish the cornerstones for orchestration and set the parameters for social regulation.

The conception of social circulation is one to form an integrated network facilitating social interaction.

This forms the mucilage of the neighborhood. Commercial third places can include hospitality, residential services, and retail. Public/institutional third places to facilitate program typologies like markets, schools or religious or cultural venues. Peripheral themes touch on age cohorts and other necessities offering comprehensive service to society.

The social contract defines the fundamentals of what it will be like to live within a pragmatic utopia. It sets the framework to not only define the society but also the architectural implications associated with it.

This agenda critiques the status quo, and reprograms how we might live towards a more utopian ideal.

Utopian Typologies

5

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

Open Space Network

Gleisdreieck Park, Berlin, Germany

RochetaillĂŠe banks of the Saone River, Lyon, France

Gleisdreieck Park, Berlin, Germany

6

Utopian Typologies

Urban Social Spaces

Section 1

Superkilen Urban Park, Copenhagen, Denmark

Gleisdreieck Park, Berlin, Germany

Gleisdreieck Park, Berlin, Germany

Park in Badalona, Barcelona, Spain

Utopian Typologies

7

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

Physical Activity

Parkour community of Denver Metro, Colorado

Les Corts Skatepark, Barcelona, Spain

Gleisdreieck Park, Berlin, Germany

Central Park, New York

8

Utopian Typologies

Urban Social Spaces

Section 1

Into the Wild, Rivierenbuurt, The Hague, Netherlands

Big Hockey Ski Resort, Kelowna, British Columbia

Darling Quarter, Sydney, Australia

Utopian Typologies

9

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

Playground

Aldo Van Eyck, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Aldo Van Eyck, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Aldo Van Eyck, Amsterdam, Netherlands

10

Utopian Typologies

Urban Social Spaces

Broadway Playfield, Seattle, Washington

Unité d’habitation, Marseille, France

Vintage swing, Bloomsbury, London

Central Park, New York

Unité d’habitation, Marseille, France

Isamu Noguchi Playscape, Atlanta, Georgia

Utopian Typologies

Section 1

11

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

Parklet

St. Louis County, Missouri

Interboro Partners, Boston, Massachusetts

Rebar Studio, San Francisco, California

12

Utopian Typologies

Urban Social Spaces

WBMstudio, London, England

Text

Sunset Parklet, San Francisco, California

Sunset Parklet, San Francisco, California

Utopian Typologies

Section 1

13

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

Social Infrastructure

Phu Quoc Night Market, Vietnam

Northern Plaza, Monash University, Australia

Bavarian Beer Garden, Munich, Germany

14

Utopian Typologies

Urban Social Spaces

Section 1

Fun Fair Amusement Park, Hamburg, Germany

Montreal Asian Food Festival, Canada

Night Noodle Market, Melbourne, Australia

Parque de los NiĂąos, Colombia

Utopian Typologies

15

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

Market

Market Hall, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Market Hall, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Market Hall, Rotterdam, Netherlands

16

Utopian Typologies

Market Hall, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Urban Social Spaces

Grand Bazaar, Istanbul, Turkey

Bhendi Bazaar, Mumbai, India

Miralles Market, Barcelona, Spain

Khan el-Khalili, Cairo, Egypt

Temple Street, Hong Kong, China

Milan Market, Milan, Italy

Utopian Typologies

Section 1

17

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

Retail

Regent Street, London, England

Regent Street, London, England

Regent Street, London, England

18

Utopian Typologies

Urban Social Spaces

Main Street, Disney’s Magic Kingdom

Rodeo Drive, Los Angeles, California

Downtown Mall, Charlottesville, Virginia

The Grove, Los Angeles, California

The Grove, Los Angeles, California

Downtown Mall, Charlottesville, Virginia

Utopian Typologies

Section 1

19

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

Street

La Rambla, Barcelona, Spain

Milan, Italy

La Rambla, Barcelona, Spain

20

Utopian Typologies

Urban Social Spaces

Madrid, Spain

Venice, Italy

Vauban, London, England

Paris, France

Giethoorn, Overijssel, Netherlands

Complete Streets, USA

Utopian Typologies

Section 1

21

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

Alley

Marrakech, Morocco

Chinatown, Mexico City, Mexico

Chefchaouen, Morocco

22

Utopian Typologies

Urban Social Spaces

London, England

Melbourne, Australia

Philadelphia, USA

Taxco, Guerrero, Mexico

Istanbul, Turkey

Marrakech, Morocco

Utopian Typologies

Section 1

23

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

Footpath

The Highline, New York

Highline, New York

Fire Island, New York

24

Utopian Typologies

Urban Social Spaces

Boston Common, Boston, Massachusetts

Sark, Bailiwick of Guernsey

Central Park, New York

Boston Common, Boston, Massachusetts

Versailles, France

Central Park, New York

Utopian Typologies

Section 1

25

Section 1

Urban Social Spaces

Public Amenity

Superkilen Urban Park, Copenhagen, Denmark

Freeway Park, Seattle, Washington

26

Utopian Typologies

Urban Social Spaces

Section 1

Brooklyn Bridge Park, New York

Paprocany Lake Redevelopment, Tychy, Poland

Philip Johnson Public Water Garden, Fort Worth, Texas

Brooklyn Bridge Park, New York

Utopian Typologies

27

Any community is dependent upon some combination of living, working, and community space. The proportions of each, how they interact, as well as the architectural character, are what makes each community unique. Here we have developed a variety of prototypes that could be deployed to form utopian cities. Some of these prototypes are meant to stand alone, and others can be aggregated and expanded to create neighborhoods. Questions of social contract, scale, proximity to work, and green space have all been considered to create varied typologies.

From a lonely cabin in the woods to a dense city block, these prototypes serve as inspiration for the development of future utopias.

Utopian Community Prototypes

Section 2:

Section 2

Utopian Community Prototypes

LEGEND Residential Work Community Spaces Occupiable Outdoor Spaces Occupancy Ratio

30

Utopian Typologies

dug out zipper tower

multipack

jewel tower

wafer blocks

Utopian Community Prototypes

Section 2

31

look out

Cabin in the Woods

The single-family house sits on a plot by itself. A lock blocks workshop is located in the backyard shed, and community is found elsewhere - peace and quiet are more important here.

jewel tower

POPULATION 3

cabin in the woods 1

WORK OCCUPANCY

hula hoop

30

15

more village

40

11

8

Utopian Typologies

dug out

Section 2

Utopian Community Prototypes

zipper tower

multipack

look outVillage More Based on Thomas More’s Utopia, this village jewel tower features row houses with shared gardens, and a lock blocks market.

One side of the homes is for families, the other for young couples or the elderly. The entire ground floor is shared kitchen and dining spaces, laundry, and other communal amenities. jewel tower This allows families and others to provide cabin in elder the woods childcare, care, and other support for each other. The end of each row is a market for daily needs with workshops above.

hula hoop

POPULATION 36

more village

WORK OCCUPANCY

wafer blocks

50

level 2

level 1

108

45

160

35

25

11 20

32

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Prototypes

Section 2

Utopian Typologies

33

Happy Village The four-family residence lies at the heart of this village, surrounded by ample gardens.

Work and community buildings are located on either side of the residences.

POPULATION

36

WORK OCCUPANCY

180

happy village

building blocks

staple city

all star court

agora

70

under one roof

multipack

70

zipper tower

40

64

64 jewel tower

15 20

jewel tower

wafer blocks 11

Section 2

Utopian Community Prototypes

Under One Roof This all-in-one building scheme contains residential, work and community spaces all in one building. The first level is dedicated to community spaces; the second and third levels have apartments on the edges and a doubleheight collaborative workspace in the center. happy village The fourth level has apartments andbuilding a terrace.blocks The buildings can be aggregated to create a live-work neighborhood.

POPULATION 72

under one roof72

staple city

all star court

agora

zipper tower

multipack

120

WORK OCCUPANCY

jewel tower

25

60

wafer blocks

11 15

jewel tower

34

Utopian Typologies

happy village All Star Court

Utopian Community Prototypes

Section 2

Utopian Typologies

35

building blocks

Two L-shaped buildings surround a central courtyard with space for gardens or sport courts. Offices and community spaces front under one roof city the open space, and residences and staple community rooms share the roof gardens that connect the buildings.

POPULATION

80

WORK OCCUPANCY

340

all star court

agora

multipack

jewel tower

wafer blocks

175

zipper tower

60

jewel tower 131

hula hoop 11 25

Section 2

Utopian Community Prototypes

Little House on a Plinth tetris

happy village

building blocks

120

145 Like traditional row housing, the individual units are adjacent to each other sharing party walls. However, the shared communal space in 145 between is bolstered over working spaces. These monastery under one roof units have the possibility of connecting to other units creating a second raised public realm.

120

staple city

POPULATION

90

WORK OCCUPANCY

130

little house

all star court

agora

dug out zipper25tower

145 145 120

look out

145

multipack

11

25 145

jewel tower

wafer blocks

120

lock blocks

jewel tower cabin in the woods 145 25

11

hula hoop

more village

36

11

145

Utopian Typologies 11

under one roof

little house

all star court

Lock Blocks

Two residential blocks loosely define dugL-shaped out a courtyard space. The circulation corridors face into the courtyard and connect the two tower zipper massing via a central spine. This delineates two massing on either side, one being work and the lookcommunal out other both with roof access. The two courtyards are open to the public.

jewel tower

POPULATION 130

lock blocks

WORK OCCUPANCY

staple city Utopian Community Prototypes

Section 2

37

agora

multipack

wafer blocks

35

87

jewel tower 132

30

cabin in the woods

more village87

hula hoop 87

30

132

87

30

132

87

87

11

11

Utopian Typologies

Section 2

Utopian Community Prototypes

tetris

happy village

building blocks

Dug Out The single building is set into the sloped ground monastery under one roof plane with the work massing set on one side of the complex. Communal spaces help define the central courtyard while the residential massing completes the courtyard on the upper levels. little house Circulation is distributed to offer varied access all star court options into and throughout the building.

staple city

agora

POPULATION 150

dug out

WORK OCCUPANCY

375

75

97

zipper tower

multipack

jewel tower

wafer blocks

look out 75

250

97

230

75

97

cabin in the woods

more village

jewel tower

230

250

230

250

lock blocks

hula hoop 11

25

38

Utopian Typologies 25

11

zipper tower

multipack

jewel tower Hula Hoop

wafer blocks

Utopian Community Prototypes

Section 2

Utopian Typologies

39

This complex is based on a monastery scheme; the four corners of the complex hold either workspaces or communal spaces. Single-loaded corridors of apartments connect the four jewel tower corners, the apartments are small and meant to promote communal living by having one of the corners house a large shared dining space.

POPULATION 160

hula hoop

210

60

120

WORK OCCUPANCY

160 60

15 25

Section 2

Utopian Community Prototypes

Building Blocks Intersecting buildings hold different types of program. Smaller working nodes connect to larger apartment buildings that have communal spaces on the first level. The buildings can be aggregated based on program need to create large courtyards in between the intersecting structures.

POPULATION 170

building blocks 160

WORK OCCUPANCY

staple city

60

agora 63

95

multipack

65 120

11 wafer blocks 15

40

Utopian Typologies

happy village

building blocks

Zipper under oneTower roof

staple city

Utopian Community Prototypes

Section 2

Utopian Typologies

41

The use of skip-stop circulation allows for each live or work unit to have two floors. Shared hallways ensure the commute to work is short, and ample community space lets individuals all star court engage with the community. Share agora green terraces complement the neighborhood feeling for residential tenants.

POPULATION 210

zipper tower

WORK OCCUPANCY

multipack

410

jewel tower

wafer blocks

jewel tower level 2

level 3

44

37

37

170

hula hoop

level 1

11 33

under one roof

staple city

Jewel Tower all star court

agora

Section 2

Utopian Community Prototypes

This courtyard building is raised on a plinth of offices. Residential units line the perimeter of the open courtyard. Hallways expand at the corner for enclosed community programs. The zipper tower entire central courtyard appears open-air, but multipack is enclosed by a glass roof in order to ensure comfort year-round.

POPULATION 260

jewel tower

WORK OCCUPANCY

wafer blocks

200

174

jewel tower

hula hoop 174

11

42

15 25

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Prototypes

Section 2

43

Monastery

POPULATION 300

monastery

WORK OCCUPANCY

little house

750

75 75

15

staple city

all star court

agora

127 127

25

11

zipper tower 20

multipack

jewel tower

wafer blocks

230

250

under one roof

230

250

dug out

building blocks

230

250

This monastery is a combination of residential 75 living attached to work.

The residential features 127 a single loaded corridor creating an open courtyard on village tetris over a third communal space happy the ground floor. Vertical circulation for both occupancies is housed within the work

look out

lock blocks

15 25

cabin in15the woods 25

11 jewel tower 20 11 20

Utopian Typologies

Section 2

Utopian Community Prototypes

Staple City This layered mega structure incorporates the living units on top and the working zone at the bottom with communal spaces in between as a building blocks separator. This configuration is ideal for those who prefer proximity between live and work with some separation between the two.

POPULATION 360

staple city

WORK OCCUPANCY

530

agora

332

multipack

wafer blocks 135

80

11 30

44

15

Utopian Typologies

tetris

happy village

monastery

under one roof

Look Out Tower

The tower is defined by two stacked rows of little house residential massing joining the central core on either side. Intermittent communal spaces on court all star either side provide outlook conditions on the way up to a work massing rooftop. The building form subtractive massing allowing dugincorporates out light to enter and providing additional exterior terraces. zipper tower

building blocks Utopian Community Prototypes

Section 2

45

staple city

agora

multipack

POPULATION 390

look out

WORK OCCUPANCY

120

jewel tower lock blocks

101

126

126

101

wafer blocks

jewel tower

cabin in the woods

hula hoop

more village

15

15

11

11

Utopian Typologies

Section 2

Utopian Community Prototypes

The Agora

building blocks

90

This scheme for a neighborhood has a central plaza inspired by the Greek agora. A colonnade flanks the plaza along the longer side, with community spaces on the ground floor andcity a level of small workspaces on a staple second level. The central plaza and work-area of the neighborhood is surrounded by rows of townhouses with individual gardens.

POPULATION 410

45

80 20

35

agora

WORK OCCUPANCY

30

multipack 11

40

wafer blocks

46

Utopian Typologies

240

building blocks

Utopian Community Prototypes

Section 2

Utopian Typologies

47

staple city Multipack City This layered mega structure incorporates the living units on top and the working zone at the bottom with communal spaces in between as a separator agora and a buffer for the living units from the work noises. This configuration is ideal for those who prefer proximity between live and work with some separation between the two.

POPULATION 470

multipack

WORK OCCUPANCY

860

45

wafer blocks

360

11 30 15

staple city

Section 2

Utopian Community Prototypes

Wafer Blocks agora

The buildings contain a stacked single space live/work units for the users who would like extreme proximity between live and work. The amount of space devoted to the areas depends multipack on the occupant’s needs. Each building have its own communal spaces which are connected visually and via central plaza.

POPULATION 530

wafer blocks

WORK OCCUPANCY

470

65

140

60

70

120

60

11 30

48

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Prototypes

95

Tetris Block

Section 2

49

65

90

219

219

65 This large structure95is defined by a double loaded residential “T� that attaches to an office block. The ground floor features tall work and third communal space. Which 90 also caps the work allocation of the building. Offering an opportunity for occupy able roof space that can connect with adjacent structures.

POPULATION 760

tetris

WORK OCCUPANCY

happy village

830

15

monastery

95 95

65 65

11

25

under one roof

15 25 219 219

little house

building blocks

20

staple city

11

90 90

20

all star court

agora

zipper tower

multipack

dug out

look out 15 15 25 25

lock blocks

11 11

jewel 20 tower 20

wafer blocks

Utopian Typologies

The desire to create a utopia has existed long before Thomas More coined the term, and has left us with a plethora of manifestos, stories, art, and architecture that seek to define utopia. In this section we present a selected timeline of architectural utopian precedents. These precedents showcase different perspectives on how neighborhoods and cities should be designed to create ideal societies. We explore company towns, and college campuses, as well as single building communities and monasteries. These precedents explore the relationships between living, working, and recreation in a variety of ways. The projects serve as both inspiration and warning for future utopian communities.

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3:

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

The Royal Saltworks Claude-Nicholas Ledoux France, 1775 Ledoux designed the Royal Saltworks as an ideal work village in the French countryside.

Situated near the Chaux Forest for easy access to fuel, and a river to source the water needed to produce salt, the industrial complex was built to be efficient. The semi-circular plan placed the Saltworks and Director’s house at the center of the complex, with an arc of laborer’s houses and additional work buildings surrounding it.

Originally planned as part of a larger ideal city, the Saltworks was one of the first examples of company towns that sought a rational and efficient relationship between live and work spaces. As part of the “Ideal City of Chaux,” the Saltworks would have been at the center of the larger city.

The buildings designed by Ledoux for the Saltworks, and Chaux, were highly rational and were meant to evoke the function of the building through the architecture. The plan of the buildings was also meant to be hierarchical, with prominent buildings being located at important focal points in the plan. Residents and visitors to Chaux would easily be able to find their way around the city based on the planning and architecture.

52

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

Utopian Typologies

53

Left: Plan of the unrealized Ideal City of Chaux.

Top Right: Ledoux’s plan for the Royal Saltworks.

Bottom Right: Current aerial view of the Saltworks. This was the only part of Ledoux’s ideal city that was constructed.

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

Lowell Massachusetts; 1820s Lowell is the oldest example of a company town in the US. The town was developed around a canal system that powered the textile mills that the town was built to support. The system of canals, sourced from the Merrimack River, were designed to provide space for various mills, and were expanded as the town grew. While the main labor force that built the town and canal system was made up of Irish immigrants, most of the workers that would work in the manufacturing floors of the textile mills were young women from neighboring towns, known as the Mill Girls.

Housing had to be designed around the expectations of society for the young women, and to allow for an efficient live-work relationship. The barracks that the Mill Girls lived in were built perpendicular to the mills, this allowed for the women to walk directly to the mills in the mornings and to go there and back quickly during meal times. This model for a direct connection between the mills and the living spaces was effective and would be adopted in later examples of company towns.

54

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

Above: Model showing layout of Boott Mill.

Far Left: Aerial drawing of the mill complex, showing the Mill Girls crossing over the canal from their barracks.

Left: 1845 map of Lowell, courtesy of the Lowell Historical Society.

Utopian Typologies

55

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

New Harmony Robert Owen Indiana; 1824 New Harmony was the brainchild of wealthy industrialist Robert Owen. Originally born in Wales, Owen made his fortune working in the textile industry and eventually immigrated to America around 1824. Owen had strong ideals about society, and first tested his ideas on the workers at the factory he and his partners owned in New Lanark. His philosophy was based upon ensuring his workers and their children had access to proper education, decent wages, and restricting access to alcohol.

Owen purchased the town of Harmony to test his theories on communal living. His “New Moral World� would be a utopia where children would be properly educated, and all would contribute to the town, which would be mostly self-sufficient, allowing for the community to develop without outside influence.

Drawing of New Harmony as envisioned

by Robert Owen.

56

Architecturally, New Harmony was a complex of houses and communal spaces enclosing a large courtyard, important community buildings were situated in the courtyard and pathways connecting the buildings allowed easy circulation for the residents of the town.

The architecture enforcing the idea of a selfsupporting and self-contained community.

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

57

Academical Village Thomas Jefferson University of Virginia; 1825 In designing his “academical village” Thomas Jefferson sought to foster a better educational system. The learning and living spaces are arranged around a central Lawn, which is crowned with the large library, or Rotunda, and across from the library a panoramic view of the mountains beyond the campus. Classrooms and living quarters are arranged on either side of the lawn, each faculty head living in a house with their classrooms, and students in individual rooms between the houses.

The proximity of the classrooms to the professor and students’ living quarters would encourage collaboration and conversation. Additionally, the Lawn created an area where all of the different disciplines of the University could interact, so that inter-disciplinary relationships could be formed. The plan was based not only on good architecture, but on an entirely new approach to didactic practice.

Jefferson’s architecture was highly influenced by the work of Andrea Palladio, shown in the classical style of the academic pavilions. Each pavilion is distinct, modeled after classical examples of architecture, and served as an educational tool for architecture department.

Above: Photograph of the Pavilions, as seen from the Lawn.

Right: Aerial view of Jefferson’s “Academical Village.”

Utopian Typologies

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

58

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

Familistère de Guise Jean-Baptiste André Godin Aisne, France; 1859-1884 Godin’s Familistère de Guise, or “Social Palace” was inspired by Charles Fourier’s phalanstère - a utopian community design meant to be self-contained and house people working together for their mutual benefit. The entire complex consisted of three large buildings that contained apartments for the workers and their families, buildings for schools and daycare, laundry facilities, shops, and a theater. The foundry was located across the river from the residential and social community spaces.

The three residential buildings were connected at the corners, and each had a central covered atrium where people could interact and children could play in any weather. Galleries on each floor provided access to the apartments. In total the complex housed about 900 workers and their families, a total of about 1,200 residents.

Above: Aerial sketch of site.

Top Left: Section of residential buildings.

Far Left: Site plan.

Left: Photograph of celebration inside a residential building atrium.

The community formed by the Familistère was meant to be mostly self-contained, and improved the lives of workers by providing not only decent housing, but also a community that integrated production, trade, supply, education, and recreation

Utopian Typologies

59

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

Riverside Calvert Vaux and Frederick Law Olmsted Cook County, Illinois; 1869 Riverside is a 1600 acre community developed along the Des Paines River with scenic preserved flood plains enhancing the recreation areas for its residents.

The inner roadways were organized with picturesque ideals, incorporating gentle topographical shifts to enhance the scenic views. Olmsted avoided regular perpendicular intersections to allow for more public spaces.

Transitional spaces between public roads and private houses was orchestrated for public functions like walking paths and vegetated open space. Vegetation was strategically used for scene setting and place making.

The general separation of functions to enhance residents experience incorporating connection to nature while still having convenient access to utilities and infrastructure. Urban centers were accessible via parkways and railroads.

60

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

61

Above: Town Center.

Far Left: Neighborhood plan.

Left: Open walking path.

Utopian Typologies

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

Radburn Clarence Stein, Henry Wright and Marjorie Sewell Cautley New Jersey; 1928 Radburn was designed as a garden city development by planners Clarence Stein and Henry Wright, and landscape architect Marjorie Sewell Cautley. The concept primarily separates transit modes, incorporating a pedestrian path network which never engaged the road network at grade. The urban plan was organized by culs-de-sac defining public access to the public greenways and then the central green spine.

The focus of Radburn is to create a desirable neighborhood aligned to social order and organization for the promotion of a self contained community lifestyle.

Radburn comprises of 469 single family houses, 48 townhouses, 30 two family houses and a 93 unit apartments complex. Other facilities include parks, playgrounds, sport facilities, pools and toddler playgroup areas. Additional community buildings include a library, gymnasium, clubroom, preschool and retail services.

62

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

Far Left: Neighborhood Plan.

Left: Town Plan.

Above: Photograph of walking paths.

Utopian Typologies

63

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

Right: Neighborhood plan.

Far Right: Concept sketches.

64

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

65

Neighborhood Unit Clarence Perry Proposal 1929 The Neighborhood Unit was designed by Clarence Perry as a planning model for residential development for industrializing cities in the early 20th century. This conceptual framework incorporated functional, selfcontained and desirable neighborhoods to serve as a virtuous urban existence.

shopping was also placed at the community’s edge or entrance to help non local or commercial intrusion into the neighborhood.

Parks and recreational open spaces were allocated to incorporate at least 10 percent of the neighborhood land use, promoting play and community interaction. Community health and welfare was the focus for this ideal community plan. Perry’s concepts ultimately influenced contemporary residential development.

The neighborhoods were predicated on community centric lifestyle removed from the toxic influences of the emblematic industrialized city. The schools were located central to the neighborhood to set children’s walking distances to no more than half a mile without intersecting a major arterial road. They were the nexuses for the neighborhood of 5000 to 9000 residents, incorporating 160 acres with 10 units per acre.

The schools provided facilities for a variety of community uses such as neighborhood meetings and activities as well as providing public access to large playgrounds.

Traffic was organized so that arterial streets were placed at the perimeter eliminating unwanted through traffic and increasing pedestrian safety. This boundary created a sense of place within the neighborhood. Local

Utopian Typologies

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

Unité d’habitation Le Corbusier Marseille, France; 1952 Le Corbusier’s classic Unité d’habitation is an example of how a community can function within a single building. Created as a response to need for housing after WWII, the Unité projects focused on communal living, where residents would be able to live, shop, and work within the same building. The communal functions of the building, a club, a gym, a kindergarten, are all located on the roof of the building, whereas the work and retail functions are interspersed amongst the living units in the building, with a retail ‘street’ located at the center of the building - equidistant from every resident of the building.

The residential units themselves were a creative solution to regular apartment flats, they were arranged on two floors and each unit spans through both sides of the building, allowing for light to enter from both sides and a double height living space. The arrangement of these two-level units meant that only every third floor of the building had corridors as the units had to span the entire width of the building on one of their levels, in such a way that the units intersect with each other.

66

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

Utopian Typologies

67

Above: Photograph of Unité roof, showing the building’s communal spaces.

Top Left: Photograph of Unité.

Bottom Left: Section of apartment layouts showing the double height spaces and skip-stop circulation “streets.”

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

La Tourette Le Corbusier Lyon, France; 1960 The Convent of La Tourette was constructed into the hillside at Eveux, near Lyon and is a definitive example of Le Corbusier’s modernist themes. The building presents an austere exterior massing with an introspective and reflective program distribution. Contemplative scenes to the surrounding environment define circulation moments throughout the single courtyard building.

The main church resides to the west, connected with the communal program on the lower level, which encases the central courtyard. The individual sleeping quarters, or cells, are located on the upper levels. Circulation through the building creates a dialog between its various programmatic uses as well as set moments for views to the exterior.

The monastery revolves around the worship space and is organized to promote communal living. The church includes chapels, a high altar and an oratory. There are study and relaxation halls, a library, and a communal refectory, with all of the sleeping cells on the upper floors.

68

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

69

Above: Exterior view from the South East corner.

Far Left: Entry stair on the East.

Right: Floor plans.

Utopian Typologies

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

Above: Drawing of public pathway.

Right: Neighborhood plan.

70

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

Reston Robert E. Simon Virginia; 1964 Reston is a planned community that used innovative concepts for land-use for residential and corporate developments in post-war America. Reston has a town center with business and commerce to support the surrounding residential community. The commercial town center incorporates a mix of building types, with uses ranging from shops, restaurants and offices, to a cinema and a hotel.

The Reston non-profit committee served as a municipal service for the residents. Quality of life was the focus, promoting a diverse range of residents to age within the community. Reston promoted the ideal community through a ‘back to the land’ movement to counter the post war era challenges of income segregation, bedroom communities for commuters often lacking in open spaces, and natural preservation.

Reston residents were given every opportunity to engage in leisure through culture and recreational facilities within an environment, as well as privacy and the possibility for a rooted long term place of home and community.

Diversity was ensured with diverse housing typologies for varied income requirements within this new town live/work community.

Top Left: Neighborhood plan.

Bottom Left: Commercial town center.

Utopian Typologies

71

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

72

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

Dominican Motherhouse Louis Kahn Media, Pennsylvania; 1968 This unbuilt monastery proposal was developed over a three year timeline for the Sisters of St. Catherine de Ricci. As a place for communal worship, the plan was organized by a ring of dormitory cells surrounding centralized communal programs, “wrapping ruins around buildings” (Kahn). The communal programs are composed of a chapel, refectory, auditorium, library, school, guest accommodations, and the entrance space.

The monastery as a introspective programmatic use defined the main challenge for this scheme. “…entrance place which happens to be a gate.

It is decorated in the invitation of all religions …only at the gate, because the sanctity of the monastery must be kept.” (Kahn) The sleeping quarters are characterized by light where the individual cells focus on the surrounding environment. “Each room has its own private relationship with the woods the serenity of the woods being felt to be in harmony with the nature of the cell.” (Kahn) The corner elements of the monastery are designated for shared living rooms to promote communal interaction.

Above: First floor plan.

Top Left: Model, view from the East.

Bottom Left: Model, view from the North.

Utopian Typologies

73

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

74

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

Googleplex Clive Wilkinson Architects Mountain View, California; 2005 Clive Wilkinson Architects completed Googleplex in Mountain View California in 2005. This facility is Google’s headquarters and functions by distributing the building plan into a neighborhood-like scheme. The ‘Main Street’ defines the main circulation spine. The concept is about connectivity, sharing all resources throughout the building.

The campus environment integrates highly focused technological functions with software engineering workspaces, systems of learning, and support to promote collaboration, as well as recreation and food facilities. The ‘Main Street’ promotes community and a mixing of ideas while surrounded by the more focused workspaces along the periphery.

Googleplex promotes an uber positive work environment for its employees including various amenities like a salon, game rooms, gyms/ aquatic equipment, massages, pet friendly offices, and childcare programs.

Far left: Massing and program diagrams.

Above: Spatial diagrams.

Diagrams courtesy of Clive Wilkinson Architects.

Utopian Typologies

75

Section 3

Utopian Community Precedents

Masdar Institute Foster + Partners Abu Dhabi; 2010 The Masdar Institute was designed for students and faculty to live, work, and study all in one building complex. It was the first part of the Masdar City plan to be built, and is the educational focus of the city. The Institute is focused on sustainability and community living. The program includes apartments, labs, classrooms, meeting rooms, a gymnasium, cafĂŠ, a canteen and social spaces. The goal of the Masdar Institute was to design a way to live that would reduce the footprint of rapidly growing urban developments by using sustainable methods to reduce energy, water, and waste.

The residential section of the Institute is comprised of two- and three-bed apartments housed in low-rise, high-density buildings.

The social environment of the residential and third place programs provides contrast to the research and laboratory work environment that is the core of the building’s program. Through passive and active environmental strategies, including solar shading and greenscaping, the Masdar Institute is the first building complex of its scale and type to be completely powered by renewable solar energy and will use a significantly reduced amount of water.

Photograph of Masdar Institute.

76

Utopian Typologies

Utopian Community Precedents

Section 3

Apple Park Foster + Partners Cupertino, California; 2017 Apple’s Corporate Campus in Cupertino, California is a 2.8 million square foot single building that accommodates 12,000 of Apple’s workforce and provides a variety of amenities for them. The idea is that employees will be able to have all types of conveniences provided for them without having to leave the campus, which would improve productivity and employee satisfaction. Amenities include a variety of dining spaces, a gym, walking and running paths, and an orchard. The only program lacking in this campus is housing for employees, for now they still have to commute in from the surrounding city.

Employees are encouraged to take an “Apple Shuttle” into work instead of driving, and bike paths intersect the building site to allow for employees to easily travel around the complex.

The new Apple Park isn’t unique in its model of a high-end suburban headquarters, but it strives to be the best. While the nature of the building is to be (mostly) self-contained, because it doesn’t include housing for the employees the complex is linked to, and has a huge impact on, the surrounding suburban fabric through their employee’s commute.

Above: Rendering of Applepark.

Left: Applepark site plan.

Utopian Typologies

77

Invisible Cities, published in 1972 by Italo Calvino, follows a fictional Marco Polo through his discovery of imaginary cities. The descriptions of these cities paint pictures of fantastical, enchanting, mysterious places that are all, ultimately, descriptions of Venice. However, the cities are also imaginative worlds that can stand alone as types of utopias, showing that utopia does not have a single definition. We embarked on the challenge of visually representing these worlds through the use of collage in order to explore the way ideas about a way of living can construct vibrant, varied cities. These collages were our attempt to capture the ineffable and whimsical nature of the cities described by Italo Calvino.

Invisible Cities

Section 4:

Section 4

Invisible Cities

Seifali Desai Cities & Memory 1: Diomira 80

Utopian Typologies

Invisible Cities

Utopian Typologies

Section 4

Taylor Place Cities & Desire 1: Dorothea 81

Section 4

Invisible Cities

Alex Goudy Cities & Desire 2: Anastasia 82

Utopian Typologies

Invisible Cities

Utopian Typologies

Section 4

Trey Buretz Cities & Signs 1: Tamara 83

Section 4

Invisible Cities

Regina Benitez Cardenas Thin Cities 2: Zenobia 84

Utopian Typologies

Invisible Cities

Utopian Typologies

Section 4

Danielle Roberts Thin Cities 3: Armilla 85

Section 4

Invisible Cities

Sulafa Hariri Thin Cities 4: Sophronia 86

Utopian Typologies

Invisible Cities

Utopian Typologies

Section 4

Dominik Wit Trading Cities 3: Eutropia 87

Section 4

Invisible Cities

Haneen Almohammad Thin Cities 5: Octavia 88

Utopian Typologies

Invisible Cities

Utopian Typologies

Section 4

Sara Schwartz Trading Cities 5: Esmeralda 89

Special thanks to: Robert O’Brien, Director of Economic Development, City of Revere, MA Paul Rupp, Community Reinvestment Associates, consultant to the City of Revere, MA Claire Ricker, Urban Renewal Project Manager, City of Lowell, MA George Proakis, Director of Planning, City of Somerville, MA Elizabeth Christoforetti, Design Critic, Harvard GSD, and Principal, Supernormal Amanda Lawrence, Associate Professor, Northeastern University School of Architecture Mary Hughes, Northeastern University School of Architecture Cory Berg, urban planner, Utile John McCartin, urban planner, Utile Jessica Robertson, transportation planner, Utile

Fall 2017

School of Architecture Northeastern University 151 Ryder Hall 360 Huntington Ave Boston, MA 02115 www.northeastern.edu/camd/ architecture/ 617.373.8589 Copyright Š 2017 School of Architecture Northeastern University The texts and images included in this booklet are intended for academic purposes only. No parts of this booklet may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way for commercial purposes.