The in-betweenness of the block in the XX century

Research paper

The in-betweenness of the block in the XX century

Group 8: BELATTI Sofia DALL’ARA Anna PETROVSKA Angela SIBAJA MATAMOROS Andrea Elena

Subject: Urban History Professor: CARAMELLINO Gaia Teaching Assistant: DE TOGNI Nicole School of Architecture Urban Planning Construction Engineering Politecnico di Milano 2021/22

INDEX

ABSTRACT

3

INTRODUCTION

5

HAMPSTEAD GARDEN SUBURB

6

AMSTERDAM

10

NEW FRANKFURT

14

USA AND NEW URBANISM

18

CONCLUSION

22

GRAPHIC SYNTHESIS

26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

28

ICONOGRAPHY

29

ABSTRACT

This essay aims to explore how, throughout the XX century, thresholds have evolved, mainly by observing the element of the entrance and garden/courtyard highlighted in several case studies from different geographies and periods. The reason of such interest is the fact that thresholds of space between private and public present unique points of interaction and mirror the personas of the inhabitants. The book Urban Forms by P. Panerai, J. Castex, J. C. Depaule explores segments of such topic, but through the wider perspective of the disintegration of the urban block; while it mentions how thresholds are implemented in various contexts, mainly European, it does not delve into them in concise details nor graphically presents them clearly.

Hence, this paper’s main goal is not to create an overview of the chronological development of the mentioned elements, but to see how various geographies have influenced them in parallel to the modern movements in architecture that presented the dissolution of the block. Accordingly, the case studies put forward introduce turning points in urban planning and architectural design in their respective geographies that are mainly European apart from the last chapter, located in the American context.

Even though the latter has a quite different structure as the other cases analyzed, it was still important to add it in order to follow the same composition of the book and exploring it fully, distancing itself from the purely Eurocentric view.

In regards to the possible vastness of the topic of thresholds, a selection was made to focus on and examine the entrance and the garden/courtyard as the main points where public and private meet. These semipublic zones mirror the way architects modified how everyday life occurred in the XX century and presented models of development of a new society. But how did the residents play into this change and what further changes did they make to them? This is what has been mainly analyzed, in order to highlight the state of in-betweenness that is key to also further examine what is presented as public versus private space. Parking and relationship of the block with the street present points of further elaboration on the topic when needed.

Another focal point is the sense of community that the different architectural solutions for entrances and semi-public spaces create inside of the block alongside the relationship and interactions among the inhabitants as generated by them. The latter is being explored from the analysis of the cases studies under specific variables that will help understand the morphology of the block and the elements already present as subject of interest. The analysis will be accompanied by the development of a graphic comparison of the cases, rendering it more comprehensible, while the use of secondary sources will help examine the existent knowledge of the topic.

As part of the analysis, the paper expects to develop a guide which allows the further exploration of other cases. While it does investigate the topic through various perspectives, there remains an open-ended point of development with the possibility of enlarging the scope of geographies and time-points where similar or different results were produced.

3

4

INTRODUCTION

The following paper represents a research based and lead by the principles presented in the book ‘Urban forms’ by P. Panerai, J. Castex, J. Charles Depaule and I. Samuels, with a focus on one aspect touched upon in the original text.

As such, a knowledge of the main idea of the book is to be presented before elaborating on the topic of analysis.

The book “Urban Forms” was first published in 1977 in French, under the title ‘Formes urbaines: de l’îlot à la barre’ and then was translated in English in 2004 with an additional chapter written by Ivor Samuels, which was the publication analysed. The book explores the topic of the urban forms, more precisely the urban block, its definition of public and private space, as well as the change of the meaning of the street. Its main line of research lies within the transformation of said spaces, and their development (disintegration) from the XIX into the XX century. Presenting several case studies of the ‘state of art’ of said period, it re-evaluates the urban design of the time through various perspectives. The research question that the authors explore is how the form of the urban block changed through the last century, and alongside it its meaning. The block is presented as being in slow disintegration, when looking at it through various points of view. The book presents a topic that is still relevant, reflecting on the capability to design a useful city, one with the best intentions for its inhabitants, mostly considering block and street design and the divide of public and private realm.

The motivation for a deeper understanding of the topic stems from this, comprehending how the space in between, the threshold, has evolved and what are the implications of it in the presented case studies. Due to its various meanings, here the term threshold is intended as the approach through which the design of the entrance is merged with the common space, but it can also act as an imaginary line between the condition of private and public. “If the threshold between the house and the street facilitated the most instinctive of social activities, from food gathering to play, each successive scalar shift negotiated transitions more related to the state of culture than the last.’1 ‘It was at the threshold, at points of interconnection, that architecture could restore continuity to the fragmented urban experience in which the experience of community was torn asunder.”2 With this we see how historically the research and work at the threshold has manifested, especially in retrospect to the work of CIAM, Team X and their contemporaries. Amongst them Aldo van Eyck discussed the topic of the threshold and its manifestation, creating a ‘doorstep philosophy’, covering the resolution of spatial division between inside-outside phenomena and perception of this space as a place of conflicting polarities.3 This may be enriched by Hertzberger’s philosophy, included in Chapter 6: The ‘In-Between’ of his book ‘Lessons for Students in Architecture’, stating that the threshold is ‘the key to transition and connection’4 and elaborating it as ‘a platform in its own right, a place where two worlds overlap, rather than a sharp demarcation’.5 Following the above-mentioned statements, within this paper the goal of understanding is how the users themselves have managed to utilize the threshold spaces, and whether the space in between is one that will initiate collectivism or on the other hand divide the inhabitants and reduce their communications. Reducing our scope of research, the entrance and the garden/courtyard will be the elements analysed, with an elaboration of their forms, utility, and dispositions within the grander scheme of the urban block. To be seen are the state of in-betweenness and the sense of community that are key to further examine what is presented as public versus private space. Narrowing it down to the case studies of the XX century – the London Garden cities, Amsterdam development, May’s New Frankfurt and the US suburbs development, an elaboration of the threshold elements shall be made with the end goal of seeing how they evolved over time. A conscious choice has been made to look into the US case although there is a significant time jump between it and the other case studies, but this is so as to see how models have expanded onto other soils and evolved with time. A cue is taken from the afore-mentioned book within this inclusion, and as such a reflection on how the case studies function in recent times is to be included as well.

1 2 3 4 5

Hadas Steiner, Life at the Threshold, Vol. 136, New Brutalism (The MIT Press, 2011), 145.

Hadas Steiner, Life at the Threshold, Vol. 136, New Brutalism (The MIT Press, 2011), 154.

Veronica Ng, Jia Pey Lim. Tracing Liminality: A Multidisciplinary Spatial Construct (Journal of Engineering and Architecture, June 2018, Vol. 6, No. 1), 83 Herman Hertzberger, Lessons for Students in Architecture (010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2005), 32 Herman Hertzberger, Lessons for Students in Architecture (010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2005), 32 5

Fig 1. Map of Hamstead Garden Suburb by 1909 C. Wade 6

HAMPSTEAD GARDEN SUBURB

What happened in the London ‘garden cities’ movement between 1905 and 1925 was seen as an urbanization process that led to new configurations, among which can be noticed the experiment that was the city of Hampstead, where a systematic approach was first used. Starting from this, in 1909, it was possible to outline Unwin’s idea of plan which started from precise rules such as “a clear overall organization, consisting of dense and easily legible centers, some morphologically differentiated districts, a limit and barrier to the city’s growth, an axis, a landmark (special building, entrance etc.), then more picturesque local buildings.”6 The period was characterized by a growth in financial and commercial activities that made the people move from the city to the periphery, making the suburbs a place of residence of a large population, also thanks to the establishment of high-capacity suburban transport networks. This growth was partly made possible by the construction of estates, row houses of a codified typology.7 Hampstead Garden Suburb was a turning point for Raymond Unwin, at first seen as a suburb because of its dependency on commuting, and then, because of the growth of neighbouring suburbs, it was integrated into the city of London. It has been, from the beginning, a planned community. It has not grown up gradually, or through the work of speculative builders, but was carefully designed in terms of architecture, landscape and town planning thanks to the Trust fund done by Dame Henrietta Barnett in 1907. It is recognized worldwide as one of the most important utopian developments of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Trees and landscape were of particular importance to the design and philosophy of the Suburb. Hampstead has a very clear differentiation of space between city and countryside, a division is made by a long wall. This symbolic replication of a fortification is the allegory in stone of the need for a limit, where the city both begins and ends. In general, the layout of Hampstead was irregular, with curving streets and a variety of housing types, with the aim to design traffic out.

The block typology is defined by the “close” which represents a group of houses around a blind alley or a small culde-sac square and this generally develops into a street. Once this system is defined, there is an indefinite number of possible variations and Hampstead is an attempt in the typology of the system and its implementation. The configuration of the “cul-de-sac” leads only to private houses; this restriction, a reduction of the street to a service access, clearly defines the front space as a property of the residents. There is the effort of trying to define the threshold as a as semi-public space, because the people who use it are those who live there, since inside the front space on one side there is the street and on the other it is in direct contact with the house. There is also a strip of land which becomes the responsibility of the resident with a difficulty to see where each piece of land begins and ends, but then a definition of territory with subtle markings made it possible to identify what was belonging to whom, resulting in the transformation of the front space into a common garden. For what concerns the back gardens, these are usually well isolated from the front and have different accesses; depending on the level of privatization of the place, some can be reached only by passing through the houses, others through a path surrounded by high hedges, with small doors here and there, while each garden is separated from the next one by a hedge. The back–front differentiation is clearly noticeable: the family functions of the garden are moved here from the front socializing space. Otherwise, there can be a back passage crossing the gardens that links them into a collective image. The appropriation is more discreet, the front gardens, of a reduced size, give a greater impression of privacy than those of houses that have private back gardens. All these observations give evidence to the relationship between differentiated spaces and to a differentiation in attitudes towards these spaces.8 A different typology is evident in the configuration of Asmuns Place, a street in the Hamstead suburb, where a setback announces a close; the cul-de-sac slopes slightly up and then, after two semidetached houses, it makes a small bend before one then enters the close properly. The design of the block here sees a T-shaped series of houses connected in two groups interrupted by a courtyard with a double row of houses. One emerges then into the end of the close, which is a rectangle built on three sides with a setback on the side opposite the entrance. A wall ensures the continuity of the façade that differentiates two spaces: the front one on the cul-de-sac and the back one, which cannot be seen by the people walking down the street.

6 7 8

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 37.

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 31.

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 45.

7

The close reproduces the back/front contrast, even though the front does not relate to the whole city, but rather to a community of neighbours. It is evident the spatial contrast symbolized by the wall that connects the houses and the subtle game of the entrances to the back paths, but also how in this type of grouping the back passage begins to create an inversion of the scheme and it is visible that the back gardens are providing the private representational space. Since its inception, the close has undergone several changes and has also been a source of inspiration for subsequent block designs, interationally speaking. The evolution of the close introduces a new hierarchy in relation to the traditional tissue and the space of the cul-de-sac produces new relations and allows different activities to take place in this new form of community, shaped as if it is growing elitarian.

The garden city showed the transition from a space where public life is privileged, with a need of support for private activities, to one which put forth private activities demanding carefully supported public space. It brings energy to the neighbourhood community that has the intention to provide a technical answer to urban growth and the social answer to the necessary reproduction of bourgeois cultural models.9 The history of the Suburb is 100 years of a managed environment where the character and appearance of the architecture and landscape have been successfully protected. The Suburb has an exceptionally active community life, supported by the “Residents Association” and a web of community groups of many kinds. In recent years the combination of a vigilant Residents Association, local authority control and the guidance, influence and close control of the Trust has proved exceptionally effective. The need for this cooperation and care continues.

Fig 2. Asmuns Place configuration

9

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 55.

8

Fig 3. Cotman Close

Fig 4. Asmuns Place house typology

Fig 5. Asmuns Place ‘cul-de-sac’ 9

Fig 6. Block distribution developed by different architects 10

AMSTERDAM

The development of colonial trading combined with the impact of industrialization allowed the Netherlands to grow a lot between XIX and XX century; with Amsterdam’s population that increased by almost three times from 1850 and 1920. With such development Amsterdam had one goal, the construction of mass housing. Amsterdam, just like many other cities in the Netherlands, has always faced a land problem, which depends entirely on technical intervention. The geographical characteristics of this country make decisions on land organization very crucial and encourage the concentration of buildings to insure more stability. In 1875, the Kalf’s plan was executed, being the very first extension plan since the realisation of the three canals. In fact, Amsterdam had not increased in size since the XVII century, with population still housed within the perimeter of the old city and with most of the it living in very small houses known as ‘alcove housing’. The new plan proposed a development around the agglomeration, favouring an orthogonal layout and casting aside the radio concentric one. As Bruno Taut said: ‘The miracle of the creation of a collective architecture . . . The isolated and one-family house type lost its importance in favour of a group of buildings sited along a street and belonging to a larger group, which contained a network of roads, conceived as a whole and carried out by different architects’.10 The demographic growth of that period put a huge pressure on the already overcrowded small houses, which lead to attempts to find solutions to this situation. There was also governmental and parliamentary intervention, which, in 1901, gave birth to a law on housing called ‘Woningwet’, which determined a structure favouring urban growth and housing construction. The extension to the south is more of a superimposition of a large-scale layout on a neutral road network, connected to the east with the old tissue.11 In Amsterdam, the block is not a unity in the architectural project and in most cases, it was developed in several parts by various architects. The Amstel block on the other hand, is a recognizable type with its own qualities and its own development through time. A continuous perimeter of buildings surrounds an inner, usually rectangular, unbuilt space. The block’s buildings are no more than four floors high and are commonly made of bricks. In the beginning, the housing units in a way mirrored the characteristics of the traditional Dutch houses, trying to give to the workingclass families’ individuals dwellings with a direct access from the street and a little garden at the back.12 Similarly, in the blocks of Berlage’s plan13, all the dwellings of the buildings have a direct access from the street, in the back private gardens for those who live at the ground floor and balconies for the residents at the upper floors.

An example is in Block II, located in the south part of Berlage’s plan in Transvaalplein, which is composed of a group of five flats. The two which are at the ground level are accessible directly from the street, the threshold line therefore sharply marks the distinction between street public space from the inner private one, these entrances flanked by doors make way to the upstairs units. The multiplicity of entrances is common in Dutch dwellings, in fact, they used to avoid buildings accessible from one single entrance to lower the chances of contacts in the common hall in order to decrease the possibility of disease and immorality.14 Going back to the Amstel block, its central area has a double role: on one side it incorporates all the private back spaces of the ground floor dwellings, on the other side, the multiplicity of the gardens form a big courtyard that, however, is not accessible for the residents of the upper levels. Decorations, paving, flowers and plants, statues, but also greenhouses and sheds, are elements used to define someone’s garden. Before 1930, this kind of organization of the block is common in other parts of Amsterdam’s south plan and in other cities of the Netherlands, with only some exceptions. The status of the central space evolved through the years: the area of private gardens in the back decreased in favour of shared central space where plants were added in order to maintain some privacy by avoiding overlooking. This common area, accessible from the dwellings, could be finally used by the residents of the upper levels, who had always been disadvantaged compared to those living at the ground floor. Thus, what used to be a threshold regarded from afar, became an inclusive semi-public space. The changes in the central area (courtyard) 10 11 12 13 14

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 57.

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 78.

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 81.

Helen Searing. Berlage and Housing, ‘The Most Significant Modern Building Type.’ Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek (NKJ) / Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 25, (Bill, 1974), 147.

Helen Searing. Berlage and Housing, ‘The Most Significant Modern Building Type.’ Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek (NKJ) / Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 25, (Bill, 1974), 147.

11

are fundamental in order to define a new concept of the block. The space, now occupied by a collective space, is reachable from the street through a path, making the contrast between inside and outside blurred. After 1930, the central space evolved again, this time towards the disintegration of the block. The central area increased even more, to the point that the individual gardens became mere balconies and eliminating any difference between people living at the ground floors and those living at the upper ones.

B. Pingaud gives a description about the way of living in Holland in the 1950s where he states that “Dutch people tend to the isolation of activities; they internalise the division of work to such an extent that they do not undertake do-ityourself-jobs. This must have consequences for the use of space and in the forms of its appropriation” and he adds “Nowhere else is the sphere of private life so solid and impenetrable”.15 This statement sounds like a contradictory aspect when considering how transparent Dutch houses are. But when looking at the Amstel’s block evolution of the central common area, it seems that Dutch people gave more importance to the rejection of unequal privileges between people living on different levels of the same dwelling building over their own privateness. As such, perhaps the threshold evolved to a mere linear element, one that unlike the zone in previous examples, here was manifested solely as a wall or path.

Fig 7. Amstel block configuration

15

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 125.

12

Fig 8. Amstel block, configuration of the inner space

Fig 9. Berlage, entrances block typology 2 13

Fig 10. Nidda Valley development map 14

NEW FRANKFURT

In the case of New Frankfurt, as developed by Ernst May between 1925 and 1930, an extension of the existing city can be seen. The idea was that the siedlungen were segments of the larger city instead of isolated communities, although basic facilities were supplied within the estates. “May wanted to preserve the urban unity.”16The siedlungen presented were housing districts architectonically translated using row housing and slab buildings positioned in greenery and designed by various collaborating architects through the different estates. A hierarchy of spaces was achieved, especially if we regard the Romerstadt estate, where the highest point of the terrace-like landscape design has the most private element (housing) placed, whilst going at lower levels we see the semi-public (gardens) and public (parks). Although there was an evolution in the design of urban form and standardization at the time, the transition of the threshold and its development provided the real image of New Frankfurt. Andrea Porotto, author of the paper ‘Utopia and Vision’ and researcher focused on New Frankfurt, calls this threshold the ‘collective space’ in the aforementioned paper, stating that it “...interacts with the city and with the house at the same time.”17 In its urban choices, clear links through roads are drawn to the center, whilst still pertaining some differentiation from the ‘old’ Frankfurt through the utilization of nature. The green zones present points of discussion dependent on placement and use, divided into rural land zones, private gardens meant for the housing and public parks. The public park in the Nidda valley project presents a link between villages and city through the siedlungen as intermediary estates providing housing for workers.18 Siedlungen define the boundaries, yet segments of the design were not fully implemented, leaving vague boundaries of this threshold between urbanity and rurality. On the other hand, it presents a limit of the built tissue of Frankfurt, a green belt enclosing the city.

A bigger differentiation of the internal spaces meant for greenery can be seen when looking at the Romerstadt slabs. Subzone differentiation can be found according to Panerai, et al.: “There is a part connected with the cellars for untidy activities, which is masked by embankments and pergolas, a zone for games and promenading with lawns and lanes surrounded by groups of private gardens (for the tenants of the flats), treated like the woods of a classical park.”19 Governed by their own set of rules and accessible to the building’s residents as collective spaces, they are to be viewed and highlighted on one side with the balconies of the flats and on the other with the alley. On the other hand, in Westhausen’s slabs «There was a tidy and controlled zone on the northern side along the access lane, which was subdivided and planted with a hidden zone on the southern side appropriated by the gardens of the groundfloor dwellings. Between the gardens and the entrance zone of the adjacent building there was another series of plots for the inhabitants of the upper floors.»20 Here the differentiation of front and back is vaguer, with balconies on both sides. The change of approach is linked to the simplification of design in line to lower costs of construction.

But these open semi-public spaces are not the only green thresholds, as another approach is seen when looking into the row housing. The rational design implemented by Migge is one heavily reliant on historical approach and habits of the German citizen during World War I. Acknowledging the ‘kleingartenkolonien’ (small garden colonies)21 he focused on realizing small vegetable gardens for the row houses in New Frankfurt.22 In Romerstadt, the houses are with their main façade oriented towards the street while the internal space is occupied by private gardens.

Links to the belvederes are created within them through the utilization of lanes. The housing is highlighted through unique end design. In Westhausen the idea of row housing pertains, with division of family units as top and bottom ones. Yet both have a garden on the internal side of the housing. The tall buildings’ arrangement of subzones is reinterpreted through “...the sequence of service lane/ house/ ground-floor garden/ garden of the upper-floor dwelling...”23 Although private and dedicated to units, the garden’s disposition gives an effect of a collective good.

A network of pedestrian paths crosses the siedlungen, providing links and play spaces. With that in mind, here we see the threshold’s manifestation as a play space, a zone for interaction. A differentiation between front and back according to the use is present, the front linked to the public (street), and the back to the community housed within 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 95.

Alessandro Porotto, Utopia and Vision: Learning from Vienna and Frankfurt (Joelho, 2016), 92.

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 96.

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 102.

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 102.

Mullin, John Robert. City Planning in Frankfurt, Germany, 1925-1932: A Study in Practical Utopianism. (Journal of Urban History, November 1960), 13.

Alessandro Porotto, Utopia and Vision: Learning from Vienna and Frankfurt (Joelho, 2016), 92.

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 106.

15

the zone. This semi-public threshold was originally conceived with a service lane, grazing the houses, dividing the gardens from the built form. With the possibility for easy modifications and the wish to gain more privacy soon enough changes by the bottom floor inhabitants are seen through the enclosure of this zone, creating direct links of dedicated garden and house. A segment of the communal space is forever lost, top-floor unit inhabitants having a harder time reaching their garden spaces. Accordingly, contact between inhabitants is limited and the upper-floor gardens under-utilized. Due to the lack of end-of-row specific designs for the housing, the gardens in this case are visible to the street. Inhabitant participation creates the clear boundaries of public and private, by planting hedges or building walls. At the end, throughout the whole estate of New Frankfurt modifications had been made to accompany the needs of those living in the units.24 Beyond the green zones of the estate, the entryways and their arrangements present another threshold between private and public. Presenting linear markers of division, they still pertain the character of collective space especially when regarding the high buildings of New Frankfurt. In Westhausen a single-loaded corridor on the external building face can present a meeting point for the inhabitants of the building. On the other hand, the row housing has a different disposition of entrances. “The house entrances, grouped in twos and marked by small steps, define a front space, emphasized by a flower bed, which gives some privacy to the ground-floor windows. In front of each entrance, an enclosure in the gardens conceals the dustbins.”25 Although communication between inhabitants here differs, contact of next-door neighbours is still possible due to entrance placement, continuing the idea of the threshold as a social agregator.

In the end, even within the construction and development of New Frankfurt we see an evolution of the design of the threshold and its utilization. The relationship with the street and differentiation between front and back of the building was lost with time, as was the privacy of the inhabitants’ gardens, which at the end evolved into public space meant for the whole block instead of divided by units. Still, the greenery design implemented within the estates can be perceived as a base and case study when approaching the current ‘urban agriculture’ practice, rendering it successful on many levels. It is even interesting to mention how the need of car parking did not eliminate the threshold spaces of the front garden, although it was not originally considered in the design.26

Fig 11. Westhausen and its two housing typologies (slab and row house)

24 25 26

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 107.

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 107.

Alessandro Porotto, Utopia and Vision: Learning from Vienna and Frankfurt (Joelho, 2016), 101.

16

Fig 12. Romerstadt block configuration

Fig 13. Westhausen block configuration 17

Fig 14. King Farm, masterplan

Fig 15. King Farm, block typologies 18

USA AND NEW URBANISM

As it happens in the book on which this paper is based, the following segment presents the ideas in a different structure, in contrast with the above-mentioned cases. The aim was to propose a contrast both geographically and temporally by taking as a model the London garden cities, exporting it to a different continent and therefore a different context and culture. It follows the case of the evolution of the urban block in the context of the United States, beginning with the most important predecessor the Radburn Superblock, following then with creation of the Congress of New Urbanism and discussing in detail one of the projects that follows the principles of the CNU Charter for urban developments: King Farm. The US urban cases should be studied in conjunction with UK cases since a transatlantic exchange point of view is to be observed, due to their similarities in language, history and culture.27 These cases consider the urban block and the role of the street as a key element of its structure that allows a kind of interaction between the human settlements and its inhabitants. So, it is clear where private and public activities take place and how space changes depending on the function the users give to it.28 What is key to highlight is the emergence of the car as a constant, an element that will lead the design practice in the US. When comparing the cases of the US and the UK other similarities are evident. An example is the tendency of the evolution of the suburb both countries present, where it’s common for people to tend to live in individual houses with gardens or terraces. As a difference, in the US, the houses tend to be bigger and cheaper than in the UK and the same happens for the street, due to the important role of the car. Another important difference leans into the legal framework projects that must follow; while in the US case it’s more about the local ordinances which establish strict guidelines in a very detailed way, in the UK its more of a centralized policy that comes from the main government with more flexibility regarding the detail.

After World War II, methods as the Radburn superblock and the neighbourhood unit29 (which has its origins in the garden city) were used for reconstruction and building of cities in the UK, which were directly transferred from the US. The Radburn superblock can be consider as the predecessor of how urban developments are currently designed in the US since it was the first one to mark out the importance of the car, but which has suffered some changes throughout the years. In its moment of conception, due to the ongoing growth of the presence of the car, in housing developments open space was regarded as desirable and avoiding congested streets was a must. Originally the houses had two entrances, one that was facing the “cul-de-sac” where the car circulation was present, and another entrance facing the pedestrian road system. Eventually the green pedestrian space was reduced due to its difficulty to maintain it and because the space could be used to build, causing the pedestrian space to reduce. The traffic aspect of the superblock was maintained as well, the economic activities were concentrated in specific areas, which due to the lack of pedestrian connection, caused problems of accessibility. Finally, the concept of houses with two entrances was disregarded as well due to the increase of criminal activity in the cities and its suburbs, which lead to the creation of gated communities causing an even stronger disconnection of the urban developments.

For the study of urban tendencies, the establishment of the Congress of the New Urbanism (CNU) in 1992 not only caused critiques to the urban development practices of the time but also brought new proposals and ideas of how to create quality spaces for the US cities. The CNU criticized the development patterns caused by the evolution of the Radburn superblock saying they caused atomization of the society where people were interacting only with people from their same background and income level, losing the social aspect of the city. Contrasting the principles of the gated community, the New Urbanists sought to replace these physical barriers with socially based mechanisms, looking for smaller housing areas well connected to each other not only from a car-centred system but also from a pedestrian connection system. The incorporation of green open spaces, that provides security without physical barriers and the interaction face to face to build a sense of community were the main goals of the New Urbanism proposals.

The name of the CNU bears a similarity to the one of CIAM, these two are having a parallelism since the latter is the one who proposed some of the principles the CNU is criticizing. The New Urbanism takes inspiration mainly from the 27 28 29

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 168 Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 168 Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 170.

19

small American town and the XIX century tradition of the city beautiful.30 The CNU elaborated the Charter of New Urbanism which was published in 1998 where they inscribed some principles that influenced both public policy and the professional practices.

An example of the CNU principles recent application, the project of King Farm can be analysed as a result of the evolution of the latter. The project, located in the northern part of Washington D.C., corresponds to a 400-acre urban development involving mixed use program, primarily residential, where pedestrian and vehicle paths intertwined together. The proposal is an award-winning design by Torti Gallas and Partners developed during the beginning of the 2000’s and which is constantly transforming. King Farm is of interest because it is a large scheme that shows how the urban block was transformed in several ways to accommodate the car. The general design consists of a central boulevard from which a grid street pattern emerges, organized into neighbourhoods with a mix of housing types and a commercial area linked perpendicularly with the boulevard and easily accessible by all the housing.

King Farm presents three typologies of urban block for housing. The first consists of a low density block typical from the US that presents a central alleyway which gives access to outdoor car parking spaces. This typology follows the two-entrance system where one is accessible from the main road, with both car and pedestrian circulation, and the other is accessible from the car parking space which also provides the house with a backyard area ideal for social activities. The backyard, presenting an open space for social activities allows the inhabitants of the block to build a sense of community and interaction. The second type of housing consists of a series of three-storey terraced buildings with double-entrance system where, differently to the first typology, the car space takes large part of the ground floor of the housing unit and is protected by the roof of the first floor with the addition of a private deck for each house with serves as a car port. There is no private garden for each house, only a small area of greenery in the front entrance of the house and sometimes a common green space its inserted in the interior of the block. Finally, the third typology consists of a hybrid solution between housing and car parks, where the interior of the block is transformed into a garage. The block consists of two different volumes of several floors, one perimetral for the housing units and another one in the centre for the parking, both separated by a three-meter gap to allow natural ventilation. In this case the double-entrance system, the presence of greenery and private social spaces has been sacrificed to prioritize the car parking space.

Being King Farm the most recent example, it should serve as a reference for future projects and new residential developments, both with negative and positive connotations. The first two cases propose a model where both community life and space reserved for cars coexist, while in the latter the presence of greenery and private social spaces has been sacrificed to prioritize the car parking area. One should take cue from these different manifestations of thresholds and pinpoint which would be more fruitful for harboring social interactions within this transitional zone.

30

Philippe Panerai, Jean Castex and Jean-Charles Depaule, Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004), 180.

20

Fig 16. King Farm, Block Typology 1

Fig 17. King Farm, Block Typology 1 view

Fig 18. King Farm, Block Typology 2

Fig 19. King Farm, Block Typology 2 view

Fig 20. King Farm, Block Typology 3

Fig 21. King Farm, Block Typology 3 view 21

CONCLUSION

The analysis of the presented cases helps to understand how independently of the span of time and geography there are diverse ways in which the typologies of urban forms can adapt and take advantage of the context conditions, and how such elements that characterized the evolution of the threshold can be identified. As a final appreciation of this paper, a comparison between the urban blocks mentioned in the different segments is made. Going through the different scales of the urban form, similarities and contrasting points are intended to be drawn. As a constant factor of discussion, the concepts of privateness, publicness and the social aspect of the urban forms enhancing or not the sense of community are considered.

The block was seen in very different ways in terms of the architectural project where in some moments was an effort from the private sector as the cases of the US and UK, unlike Amsterdam or Frankfurt where the urban developments were an effort from the public sector only. In Amsterdam, the block was not considered as a unity, intended to be developed in several parts by various architects, in contrast of what happens in Frankfurt, Hampstead Garden Suburb or King Farm archetypes, where the layout was fully planned by one architect or office and the design unity of the block follows commonly a row house system. For the dwelling disposition, three general ways explored in the cases can be defined: the individual dwelling (detached houses), the individual dwelling row housing (attached houses) and the apartment block housing (building composed of different levels of apartments).

The Hampsted Garden Suburb, being the garden cities archetype a precedent for several of the cases discussed, present both the individual dwellings and small volumes of row houses disposed in different ways like the culde-sac. Frankfurt and King Farm following the garden cities, present systems of row housing to build the block in contrast to the Amstel case where different apartment buildings composed it. The decisions the architects took on how to configurate the dwellings in the block resulted in the creation of backyards and courtyards that explore the duality of publicness and privateness. In the case of the Hampsted dwellings houses used to have enclosed backyards where high levels of privateness are reached, as a contrast to King Farm’s first typology where the houses count with open backyards enhancing the opportunities of social exchange. In addition, the courtyard transforms into a semi-public space for the inhabitants of the block, as happens in Amstel where the courtyard is planned as a collective space but elements like decorations, paving, flowers and plants define someone’s back gardens. A slightly different layout is the one of Berlage’s plan and the Frankfurt case, where the back gardens are private for the users at ground floor and the same concept applies to the balconies for the upper floors’ users which in the German case convert into secondary gardens.

The front zone might be the most public element of all the cases explored, where it still pertains the threshold character. As such, we see a development and variation through the case studies, whose elements are linked to the social construct of the location. In London an effort is given to define this space as semi-public, enriched with a strip of land with ominous character and blurred boundaries left to transition into a common garden by the inhabitants.

Comparingly, this space is lost in Amsterdam due to the city’s character and culture. The front of the building itself is marked by the entryways, which are multiplied to the number of flats, so as each inhabitant has his own. New Frankfurt can be seen as a merger, an in-between of these practices. When considering the row houses, as the tall buildings are characterized by a single-loaded external corridor, entrances are grouped in twos, with a soft boundary between – the flowerbox. But the buildings are not laid directly on the street like in Amsterdam, instead they are enriched with a small frontal green space. The multiple entry system is further modified in the case of King Farm, where at the beginning front and back entrances were favoured, but as time moved on many of these thresholds were simplified, and the semi-public construct of the front greenery was lost due to the focus on the car and its accommodation within the block.

Regarding the social aspect of the urban block, in the case of the Amstel we see an evolution of the way the central common area has been treated, creating a space that could be used by everyone living in the block, a space with greenery, areas for children and for parking the inhabitants’ bikes. The attempt to improve everyone’s life, without favouring the one’s living at the ground floor show the interest of Dutch people of community over privacy. Even the case of Hampstead shows a strong sense of society, but in this case, we see no development but rather a closed community that becomes more and more elitist as the case of King Farm. Even though the latter holds different 22

similarities with the English case, the importance given to cars and car parking has affected the social community life of its inhabitants. New Frankfurt aimed to produce a ‘wohningkultur’ centred around the collective space, but as time moved on the privatisation of the included gardens has seemed to drive away from the original construct. As such, the collective spirit perhaps remains stronger in those zones with tall buildings, where a common green space is given instead of individual gardens.

From the analysis of the features of publicness and privateness of the cases exposed some guidelines of reflection emerge that can be applied to other cases. As an interpretative consideration a brief reflection about the Casa di Ringhiera Milanese31 is made. The reference used does not spend many words about the architectural/design features of the dwelling agglomeration but rather on the social aspects and the life around the core of the building.

On the contrary the book “Urban Forms” has a very architectural approach, the design of the block extensively described, in the sense that the social aspect is not deepened as much as the descriptive design aspects. The parallelism between large and small scale was made despite the clear difference of approaches necessary when dealing with such strategy. The Milanese case essentially is not an urban block but a component of it, highlighting the strong sense of community that is enhanced due to its physical characteristics. In this case going further in detail of what is happening inside of the residential space, we can consider the Casa di Ringhiera as a reflection of the urban block, referring to how each apartment can be considered as an individual house inside of it. The courtyard has the same social nature as the empty space inside, as seen in the cases exposed in the paper and being built as a result of the architect’s decisions in order to define a perimetral disposition of the dwellings, it becomes a shared space that reflects the interior of the urban block enhancing the sense of community. Further on, the concept of the front gardens is not conceived since the houses are accessed from the central space. The architecture of the Casa di Ringhiera, strongly influences the life of its inhabitants due to the fact it physically forces them to interact with each other. The blurred border between publicness and privateness is embodied in the common spaces like the terraces, the stairs, the courtyards, which is where the real community life happened. These thresholds can be seen as generators of social life in relation to the previously analyzed cases as well. One might reflect on the single loaded corridor in New Frankfurt or the Amsterdam courtyard to immediately find similarities. Due to this, although formally described as one building, the ringhiera presents a microblock within itself, if seen through the perspective of the threshold.

A possibility is given to expand this analysis with many more examples, such as the urban block ‘hof’ in Vienna, then the ‘khrushchovka’ of the former USSR, etc. Due to this endlessness of the topic, the paper is left with an open ending, one that invites the reader to extend the research of the threshold considering more geographies and comparing their urban peculiarities from the XX century.

Fig 22. Community life in the Casa di Ringhiera Milanese 31

John Foot. Micro-history of a house: memory and place in a Milanese neighbourhood, 1890–2000. Urban History 34, no. 3, Cambridge University Press, 2007, 431–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44614624.

23

INVESTMENT

BLOCK LAYOUT

DWELL DISPOS

private sector

one architect

public sector

multiple architects

public sector

one architect

row houses

private sector

one architect

detached, ro

LONDON

detached & ro

AMSTERDAM

flats

NEW FRANKFURT

USA AND NEW URBANISM

24

LING SITION

Legend:

private

semi-public

public

GARDENS / BLOCK INTERIOR

FRONT ZONE / ENTRANCES

SOCIAL ASPECT

ow houses

private gardens

shared front zone

closed community

s

shared greenery

individual entrances

shared courtyard

s & flats

private & shared green

shared & public zone

individual & shared areas

ow & flats

open backyards

all zone typologies

closed community

25

GRAPHIC SYNTHESIS

THE IN-BETWEENESS OF THE

Hampstead Garden Suburb London

Harmoniehof Amsterdam

26

E BLOCK IN THE XX CENTURY

Westhausen Frankfurt

King Farm Washington D.C

27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carnisio, Virgilio and Lumbau, Nino. La Ringhiera. Grafiche Nava, 1960 Casciato, Maristella, Panzini, Franco and Polano, Sergio. Funzione e senso: architettura, casa, città, Olanda 1870-1940.

Milan: Electa, 1979 Deschermeier, Dorothea. Two Rooms, Kitchen, Avantgarde - The New Frankfurt. Bauhaus kooperation https://www.bauhauskooperation.com/kooperation/project-archive/magazine/understand-the-bauhaus/tworooms-kitchen-avantgarde/ Foot, John. Micro-history of a house: memory and place in a Milanese neighbourhood, 1890–2000. Urban History 34, no.

3, Cambridge University Press, 2007, 431–52 http://www.jstor.org/stable/44614624 Hall, Peter. Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. Wiley-Blackwell, 1988 Hampstead Garden Suburb Heritage. Hampstead Garden Suburb Archival pictures: Virtual Museum. Hampstead Garden Suburb Heritage Hampstead Garden Suburb Virtual Museum (hgsheritage.org.uk) Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust. Hampstead Garden Suburb Archives. Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust The Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust (hgstrust.org) Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students in Architecture. 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2005 Miller, Mervyn. English Garden Cities – An introduction. English Heritage, 2010 Morbelli, Guido. Città e piani d’Europa. La formazione dell’urbanistica contemporanea. Dedalo, 1997 Mullin, John Robert. City Planning in Frankfurt, Germany, 1925-1932: A Study in Practical Utopianism. Journal of Urban History, November 1960, 3-28 Ng, Veronica and Lim, Jia Pey. Tracing Liminality: A Multidisciplinary Spatial Construct. Journal of Engineering and Architecture, June 2018, Vol. 6, No. 1, 76-90 http://jea-net.com/journals/jea/Vol_6_No_1_June_2018/8.pdf Panerai, Philippe, Castex, Jean and Depaule, Jean-Charles. Urban Forms: The death and life of the urban block. Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004 Porotto, Alessandro. Utopia and Vision: Learning from Vienna and Frankfurt. Joelho, 2016, 84-103 Recami, Francesco. La casa di ringhiera. Sellerio Editore Palermo, 2011 Searing, Helen. Berlage and Housing, ‘the Most Significant Modern Building Type.’ Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek (NKJ) / Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 25, Bill, 1974, 133–79 http://www.jstor.org/stable/24705905 Steiner, Hadas. Life at the Treshold. Vol. 136, New Brutalism, 2011, 133–155 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23014874

28

ICONOGRAPHY

Fig. 1 - Map of Hamstead Garden Suburb by 1909 C. Wade Source: image recovered from the website of Hampstead Garden Suburb Heritage https://hgsheritage.org.uk

Fig. 14 - King Farm, masterplan Source: image recovered from the website Torti Gallas https://tortigallas.com/portfolio/king-farm Fig. 15 - King Farm, block typologies Source: image recovered from the book Urban Forms

Fig. 2 - Asmuns Place configuration Source: made by author

Fig. 16 - King Farm, block typology 1 Source: made by author

Fig. 3 - Cotman Close Source: image recovered from the website of Hampstead Garden Suburb Heritage https://hgsheritage.org.uk

Fig. 17 - King Farm, view of block typology 1 Source: image recovered from Google Streetview Fig. 18 - King Farm, block typology 2 Source: made by author

Fig. 4 - Asmuns Place house typology Source: image recovered from the website of Hampstead Garden Suburb Heritage https://hgsheritage.org.uk

Fig. 19 - King Farm, view of block typology 2 Source: image recovered from Google Streetview

Fig. 5 - Asmuns Place ‘cul de sac’ Source: image recovered from the website of Hampstead Garden Suburb Heritage https://hgsheritage.org.uk

Fig. 20 - King Farm, block typology 3 Source: made by author Fig. 21 - King Farm, view of block typology 3 Source: image recovered from Google Streetview

Fig. 6 - Block distribution developed by different architects Source: image recovered from the book Urban Forms

Fig. 22 – Community life in the Casa di Ringhiera Milanese Source: image recovered from “Ringhiera community.”

Digital Image. Macchiedichina. https://macchiedichina.com/2018/01/29/balla-toio/

Fig. 7 - Amstel block configuration Source: made by author Fig. 8 - Amstel block, configuration of the inner space Source: image recovered from the book Urban Forms Fig. 9 - Berlage, entrances block typology 2 Source: image recovered from the book Urban Forms Fig. 10 - Nidda Valley development map Source: image recovered from the book Urban Forms Fig. 11 - Westhausen and its two housing typologies (slab and row house) Source: image recovered from the website ernst-maygesellschaft https://ernst-may-gesellschaft: das neue frankfurt.de Fig. 12 - Romerstadt block configuration Source: made by author Fig. 13 - Westhausen block configuration Source: made by author 29