Issuu on Google+

High Density LA Ego-Centric Housing


High Density LA

Ego-Centric Housing yannick mathews prof elizabeth kamell prof bruce coleman syracuse university school of architecture may 02, 2013


Contents

01. Introduction Los Angeles Growth Transportation Community Population Density Housing Density Privacy Environmental Impact Courtyard Housing 02. Precedents BIG Marcus Garvey


03. Site Site Selection Culver City Existing Program 04. Proposed Program 05. Selected Bibliography


Context:

Los Angeles has spread out too far and needs to adjust its urban strategy in terms of higher density develpments and compact urban nuclei.

Claim:

These nuclei will establish more defined city centers with locally available amenities, thereby decreasing Angelino’s reliance on an overtaxed private transportation infrastructure. To sustain these centers there is a need to increase both population and housing density. Courtyard housing is the ideal typological model to remedy the situation. The Courtyard model, additional allocation of public space, and encentivised public transportation are key to achieving the best possible results.

Method:

Re-evaluate Los Angeles through a Freudian filter, identifying what elements cater to the id, ego, and superego. An understanding that LA has traditionally been an id-centric city, will allows for a more intentional negotiation with the superego elements of design and how they can be applied to the courtyard house as a model for the the ideal ego.


Introduction

Abstract: The development of Los Angeles produced a variety of housing typologies: the single family home, the courtyard house, and the apartment tower. The rapid spread of Los Angeles resulted in the proliferation of low-density, single-family homes, which established the city as the least dense of most major US cities.1 This thesis examines the courtyard housing typology as a means to increase the density of Los Angeles through the establishment and intensification of urban nuclei through the implementation of a new topological model of the court.

1. United States Census Bureau, “Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports.� Last modified March 26, 2012.Accessed May 5, 2013. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html. 2. Reyner Banham, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies. Berkeley, (Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1971). 3. Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id, (New York: W. W. Norton and Company LLC, 1962).

Reyner Banham discusses the growth of a young Los Angles with regards to Sigmund Freud; the id deals primarily with self, satisfaction, and pleasure, and is no longer a viable model for the 21st century.2,3 The city of the ego operates with respect to sustainable design, environmental sensibility, navigable cities, and public space, while also providing a city that Angelinos can enjoy. The new urban nuclei will only succeed if necessary amenities are locally available, there are high enough concentrations of residents to support dense commercial developments, and the city is easily navigable by pedestrians.


Los Angeles

In his book, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies, Reyner Banham identifies one of these ecologies as “The Plains of Id... the central flatlands are where the crudest urban lusts and most fundamental aspirations are created.� In this sense the id that Banham had referred to was the rapid acquisition and subdivision of large tracts of land in environmentally promising areas of the Los Angeles valley.1 These lots were sold to masses of immigrants that arrived west as a step toward achieving the American Dream. Developed as neatly designed orthagonal neighborhoods stretching to the horizon this method of urban growth was appropriate for the time. However, there was no way that this outward expansion could continue forever. The growth of LA has hit the wall.

1. Reyner Banham, Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies. Berkeley, (Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1971).

Figure 1: The view south from Griffith Park;z Reyner Banham


Growth

Since the founding of Los Angeles in 1781, the city has expanded rapidly, spurred by the growth and development of modern transportation. Western expansion, the rise of advertising and the boom of the entertainment industry saw immigration to LA flourish. Between 1880 and 1930, the population doubled every ten years.1 With ample natural resources (wood, stone, oil and gold), a strong transportation infrastructure (The Pacific Electric Railroad) and a lack of geographical constraints the city expanded into a sprawling suburbia of single-family homes. In the 1920s, the courtyard housing typology arose as an ideal housing model for Angelinos. Almost a century later, while the style of homes have evolved, the same or similar suburban building practices exist. However, this is no longer a sustainable model for urban growth. LA’s natural and man-made infrastructures cannot support the current rate of consumption and expansion. Los Angeles must increase its density and adopt a model of development that lessens energy dependency, revitalizes urban centers, and ameliorates the issue of transportation. This starts at the level of domestic construction, as housing constitutes the bulk of our built environment.

1. Roger Sherwood, Stefanos Polyzoides, and James Tice, Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles, (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982).


40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 Los Angeles City 20,000,000

Los Angeles County California

15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Figure 2 (Above): Growth of LA; Reyner Banham.


Santa Clarita

San Fernando

Transportation

Burbank

Pasadena

In the same way that Los Angeles was able to expand witht the help of its tranportation systems, it can continues to function as a multi-nodal metropolis connected through it’s multi-layerd transportation network. From railroads, street cars, the California Cycleway, parkways, freeways, bus lines, LA Metro, and the new Expo Light Rail expansion, transportation has always been the backbone of Los Angeles. However, it is in need of an adjustment in the way we take advantage of it.

West Hollywood

South Pasadena

Beverly Hills

Malibu

East Los Angeles Culver City

Reliance on the privately owned automobile and an incredible car-culture has led the Los Angeles being the most congested city in North America. In order to adress this we need to decrease the need for personal modes of transportation. That means creating denser city centeres with more jobs close to workers homes. while simultaneously making those needs outside of your immediate neghborhood realisitically accessible and convenient by means of public transportation.

Santa Monica

Marina del Rey

Inglewood

Paramount Manhattan Beach

Compton

Hermosa Beach

Redondo Beach

Long Beach

1. 2.


Figure 3: LA Freeway Congestion; http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ lanow/2008/12/los-angeles-rec.html


Santa Clarita

San Fernando

Community

Burbank

Pasadena

The widespread low density nature of Los Angles also leads to the proclivity of placelesness. With no clear urban center elements of downtown grow without direction and wander across the landscape. Though we will see that even in this case their growth is most strongly influenced by the main tranportation corridor.

West Hollywood

South Pasadena

Beverly Hills

Malibu

As a result Los Angeles has divided iteslf into 87 neighborhoods and a number of additional incorporated cities and areas.1 Each neighborhood has its own essence of a downtown or center. Though most are lacking any substantial urban presence.

East Los Angeles Culver City Santa Monica

Marina del Rey

Inglewood

Paramount Manhattan Beach

Compton

Hermosa Beach

Redondo Beach

Long Beach

1. 2.


Santa Clarita

San Fernando Simi Valley

La Ca単ada Flintridge Altadena Glendale

Burbank Hidden Hills

Pasadena

Calabasas

West Hollywood

South Pasadena Alhambra

Beverly Hills

Monterey Park

Malibu

East Los Angeles Culver City Santa Monica

Commerce

Vernon

Bell Marina del Rey

Inglewood South Gate Lennox

Downey Lynwood

Hawthorne El Segundo

Manhattan Beach

Paramount

Gardena Lawndale

Compton

Bellflower

Hermosa Beach Lakewood

Carson

Redondo Beach

Palos Verdes Estates

Torrance

Lomita

Signal Hill Long Beach

Rancho Palos Verdes

Figure 4: 87 Neighborhoods of Los Angeles; The LA Times


Population Density

San Fernando

Glendale

While Los Angeles is the largest Metropolitan Area in the United States, it is also one of the least dense. Therefore there is a need to refocus the population of Los Angeles, particularly in existing areas of low density. The EPA reports that public transportation networks are only viable in neighborhoods of 50 dwelling units per acre.1 Yet, housing of this density or higher are only feasible in areas with a population to fill the units.

Malibu

Santa Monica

Culver City

Gardena


Boston

Miami

Chicago

New York City

Culver City

San Francisco

Los Angeles

= 1 000 people

Population NYC SanFran LA   Chicago Boston Miami

8,244,910 7,563,460

3,792,621 2,707,120 625,087 408,568

Density  (/sq  mi) 27,012.50 17,179.20 8,092 11,864.40 12,752 12,139.50

Area  (sq  mi) 468 231 502 234 90 55


Housing Density

Figure 5: Zoning Requirements; Zoning Manual of LA Figure 6: Housing Density; Zoning Manual of LA


As the largest stock of the built environment housing is a prime opportunity to afect the physical makeup of a city. Since LA has historically had an ample supply of buildable land it tended toward the lowest densities in order to provide ownership and privacy. Catering to the id of society. However, these luxuries come with drawbacks evident in energy loss, ‘wasted land’, and dependancy on commuter transportation. Although, each range of densities has perks and drawbacks. Single family homes for their inefficiency offer privacy, and ownership, as previously stated. Medium density development increases the performance efficiency of the buildings but tenants have to deal with neightbors and share communal space. High density development may be the most efficient method of constructions but it offers the least oppness, privacy, and retreat. Then, higher-density housing is preferable over lower-density housing for a more sustainable urban environment.This is because higher density developments allow for a consolidation of municipal services and utilities. Energy use per household is also reduced since shared walls inhibit energy waste through heat loss. High-density housing developments also have the advantage of promoting community within the development and fostering relationships between neighbors, which is a fundamental step in establishing an identity and sense of place.


Public Section

Private

Id Ego Super-ego

Program Analysis

25% Lot Coverage

Circulation

Semi-Public


Epps House (University Park) Building Footprint 1,783 sf Unit Size 1,400 sf Lot Size 7,222 sf Lot Coverage 25% Housing Units 1 Density 6 du/acre

Exploded Axon

Building Massing


Section

Public

Semi-Public

Unit Plan

Private Id Ego Super-ego

Program Analysis

50% Lot Coverage

Circulation


The Andalusia (Hollywood) Building Footprint 7,445 sf Lot Size 15,000 sf Unite Size 3,400 sf Lot Coverage 25% Housing Units 9 Density 26 du/acre

Exploded Axon

Unit Massing


1f

2f Id

3f

4f

Floor Plans & Program Analysis

Ego

Semi-Public

Super-ego

Public

Private

67% Lot Coverage

Building Massing

5f


Museum Tower (Downtown LA) Building Footprint 11,000 sf. Lot Size 22,000 sf. Lot Coverage 67% Housing Units 217 Density 473 du/acre

Exploded Axon


Privacy

While there is certainly value in provideing public space and encouraging interaction between neighbors in that particular realm and fostering connections and relationships that are the foundations of community, there is also a need to respect the privacy of the tenant in any housing development. Particularly in Los Angeles where the lifestyles of the citizens range from those who yearn for the limelight and those who would prefer a life of privacy, security, and seclusion (as seen in the many gated homes, communities, and country clubs in the hills of LA). Therefore, there must be a negotiation between the public and the private realm. In other words there are need for transitionary spaces and threshholds to separate public from semi-public and private. Within the individual housing unit, the most private component of a housing development, there is an opportunity to bolster the ideas of privacy, security and seclusion through the idea of “Frictionless Living.� In In this model there is an organization of the unit intereior such that members of a family do not have to unneccessarily compete over contested areas of the home such as the kitchen, bathroom, and living room.


KEY: M

MAN

W

WOMAN

T

TEENAGER MICRO LIFEFORM

MAJOR DEFENSIVE TERITORY

“As we all know but rarely publicise, the house is a scene of conflict. The domestic has always been at war. The battle of the family, the battle of sexuality, the battle of cleanliness, for hygiene, and, more recently, the ecological battle. With recycling, even the waste of the house is subject to classification. Domesticated.”

ASSULT PATH RETREAT PATH

ZONE OF REGULAR CONFLICT

HISTORICAL BATTLE[S]

ELEMENT OF MAJOR STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE

Colomina, Beatriz, Domesticity at War MIT Press 2007. p.296

DEFENSIVE LINE

M

M T M

W

W

In The House for Frictonless Living necessary movements remain entirely distinct and do not touch at all; paths literally never cross.

T

Dividing the house into two domains - an iner sanctuary of inhabited, sometimes disconnected rooms, and an unoccupied circulation space - worked in the same way as Mather’s sign (”Be Brief”), making it difficult to justify enterany room where you had no specific business.

W

In facilitating communication, the corridor reduced contact. 0

1

2

3

4

5

Certainly it would be foolish to sugest that there is anything in a plan which cold compel people to bahave in a specific way toward one another... It would be still more foolish, however, to suggest that a plan could not prevent people from behaving in a particular way, or at least to hinder them from doing so.

METRES

Architecture is employed more and more as a preventative measure; an agency for peace, security and segregation which, by its very nature, limits the horizon of experience. This advanced anatmy made it pssible to overcome the restrictios of adjacency ad localization. No longer was it neessary t pass serially through the intractible occupied territory f roms, with all the diversions, inidents and accidents that they might harbour.

0

1

2

3

4

5

METRES

Figure 7: House for Frictionless Living; Robin Evans, “Figures Doors and Passages”

An architecture arising out of the deep fascination tat draws people towards others; an architecture that recognizes passion, carnality and sociality. The matrix of connected roms might well be an integal feature of such buildings.


Environmental Impact

Los Angeles

Los Angeles Ecological Footprint

California

United States

World Average


California

4.5 4.0

Build-up Land

3.0

Forest Land 2.5 Fishing Grounds 2.0

Grazing Land

1.5

Carbon Footprint

0.1

Carbon Footprint

0.5

There is also an ecological impact to the Angelino lifestyle. ”The Ecological Footprint” of LA, or the amount (acreage) of resources that a region consumes, is more than four times that of the global average. Even within the region, LA is an ecological black hole consuming more than twice its allotted annual amount of fresh water from the Colorado River.1 There is a need to change the way that Angelinos live at a fundamental level that allows them to still enjoy the pleasures of thier id while still remaining sensitive to the environment and its affect on the global society.

0.0 Biocapacity

Ecological Footprint California

5

USA

4 Global hectares per capita

Global hectares per capita

3.5

3 2

1 0 Carbon Footprint

Cropland

Grazing Land

Fishing Grounds

Forest Land

Built-up Land

1. USC, “Sprawl Hits The Wall: Confronting the Realities of Metropolitan Los Angeles,” The Atlas of Southern California, 4 (2001)


Courtyard Housing

Courtyard housing as a building typology provides privacy while concomitantly establishing community. A courtyard operates as an oasis and respite from the homogenous desert of suburban sprawl that populates the LA basin. At the same time courtyards encourage social interaction as a place of gathering and exchange. The court becomes the main organizational element as well as the primary circulation space. Thus, a project may become less individually-oriented and more aligned with the idea of shared communal volumes. Although, even with these shared spaces courtyard housing has an inherent level of privacy and separation of public, semi-public and private spaces.

The high ceilings typical of the court typology take advantage of prevailing winds to promote cross ventilation and natural conditioning which improves indoor air quality and lowers the cost of utilities.

Courtyard housing is also optimized for the climate of southern California, such that it facilitates a happier, healthier and more sustainable mode of living. In a region that supports the idea of indoor/outdoor living there are plenty of examples of design features in homes that have been developed to take advantage of the local climate conditions. Courtyards, porticos, and porches are tectonic forms that take advantage of the consistently warm weather in southern California in order to improve living quality. Courtyards also incorporate planting in semi-public and private spaces that improve air quality and lower temperature in hot weather. 1. 2.


Figures 8-17: Redrawn Axonometric Courtyards, after Roger Sherwood, “Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles”


Precedents

The Mountain by BIG illustrates two key ideas to be studied and applied in the development urban housing in Los Angeles: programatic symbiosis and stackable courtyard housing. The project layers a series of L-Shape court houses on top of one another along the incline of the building. These courtyards then function in a number of ways. They allow for personal connections between neighbors to enhance a sense of community; they provide personal outdoor space and access to fresh air and light; and they maintain unobstructed views for each unit. Figures 18-22: BIG Projects; Bjarke Ingles


The MV Houses provide an excellent example of diversifying units within a development. Because of their irregular plan the units are able to accomodate over 80 unique housing units, all of which maintain access to major sightlines, air, and light.


Legado Crossing and Platform Dev are new housing and commercial developments respectively.They are located directly adjacent to the new Expo Light Rail station in dowtown culver city. These proposed projects show the potential for development of mixed use projects and Transport Oriented design in the area.

Figures 23-28: Proposed Projects in Culver City; http://la.curbed.com/


Housing Criteria Framework

Marcus Garvey Park Village, is a low-rise high-density housing development located in Brownsville, Brooklyn. The Urban Development Corporation, a group founded in 1968 was a short-lived housing production agency. They developed projects for low-to-middle income families in New York. The UDC was a major proponent of low-rise high-density housing developments as an alterative to the unpopular towers in the park. 1 Marcus Garvey was one of their most famous projects, and serves as a supreme precedent for the development of low-rise high-density housing in an urban environment. What is espeically noteworthy is their interest in social and community aspects of design. The seven main points of interest for the UDC when developing the Marcus Garvey Park Village were: Sense of Community; Child Supervision; Security; Maintenance; Livability; Responsiveness to Context; Flexibility. There were various unit sizes and orientations ranging from 1 to 4 bedrooms with access via the main street or sidestreets, calld “mews.� The diversity in units was intended to cater to a broader range of residents as well as establish a sense of identity for each individual unit. There was also great care taken in designing exterior spaces such that the units could overlook both private and public recreational space provided.

1. Inner Urban

1. Large Family

1. Dwelling Unit

2. Fringe Urban

2. Small Family

2. Project

3. Suburban

3. Elderly

3. Neighborhood

4. Rural

4. Others

4. City

A. CONTEXT

B. USER TYPE

context INNER URBAN

user group LARGE FAMILY

scale DWELLING UNIT

SELECTED CRITERIA PACKAGE

C. SCALE

1a

Issue:

date: rev:

The accessibility of Entry/Exit to other areas is complicated by the fact that Entry/Exit is an important physical and social interface. Not only must functional requirements be adhered to, but also consideration must be given to weather and control.

issue: ACCESSIBILITY activity: ENTRY / EXIT

Activity:

Criteria:

Design Aid:

Entering house wearing overclothes

Should be able to store clothes and boots quickly and without tracking up floor

ENTRY / EXIT

carrying groceries

Should be close to kitchen and/or pantry to unpack groceries

CIRCULATION children to play in private outdoors

PRIVATE OUT FOOD PREP EATING LIVING ACTIVE LIVING INACTIVE SLEEP / DRESS HYGIENE

If only one exit, should be close to private outdoor. If several, at least one close.

coming in from play Should be close to toilet and basin. stranger knocks, guests arrive, children return from school

Should be close to control point

MAINTENANCE

Should be far from sleeping /dressing Etc.

close far neutral

The formulation of the criteria begins with the housing criteria framework (at top). The user/site/context matrices are developed (as bottom) relating issues to specific activities, yielding the actual criteria.


Figures 29-36: Marcus Garvey; Policy and Design for Housing: Lessons of the Urban Development Coporation


Figures 37-38: Marcus Garvey Photos; Karen Kubey


Santa Clarita

Site

San Fernando Simi Valley

La CaĂąada Flintridge Altadena Glendale

Burbank Hidden Hills

In choosing a site there are two key characteristics that must be considered: the density of the area and the access to public transportation. Although Los Angleles is the densest metropolitan area in the United States, The City of Los Angeles is far behind in comparison to other major US cities including New York, San Francisco and Chicago. After comparing their relitve densities I identified 10,000 people/sq mi as the target density for LA. By comparing the average densities of the 87 neighborhoods of LA one can identify those with less than the target density that might be suitable for development.

Pasadena

Calabasas

West Hollywood

South Pasadena Alhambra

Beverly Hills

Monterey Park

Malibu

East Los Angeles Culver City Santa Monica

Commerce

Vernon

Bell Marina del Rey

Inglewood South Gate Lennox

While there is an extensive bus system in Los Angeles it has been described as unreliable. However, the city’s current expansion of the metro system provides an opportunity for additional connectivity throughout the city. Thus, overlaying the existing and projected extensions of the LA Metro onto the map of Low Density neighborhoods in Los Angeles a list of 9 potential neighborhoods presented themselves, from among these I chose Culver City as my project site.

Downey Lynwood

Hawthorne El Segundo

Manhattan Beach

Paramount

Gardena Lawndale

Compton

Bellflower

Hermosa Beach Lakewood

Carson

Redondo Beach

Palos Verdes Estates

Torrance

Lomita

Signal Hill Long Beach

87 Neighborhoods of LA

Rancho Palos Verdes


San Fernando

Glendale

Malibu

Santa Monica

Culver City

Gardena

Low Density Neighborhoods


§ ¦ ¨ 10

SAN TA MONICA F WY

W IL LA T A V

KE

W

AS

HIN

G

N TO

BL

P

NATIONAL

BL

P

BL

ER

Commercial Downtown

EXPOS ITION

CU

LV

Commercial Community

CD

BL

E

BL

AV

Commercial General

CC

NIC

ROBERTSO N BL

HO

Commercial Neighborhood

CG

E GH HU AV

RIN ON GT

N

BL

BL

SO

ON

ER

GT

FF

HIN

LOT Z

LN

JE

AS

BL

Residential Two Family

W

CU

LV

ER

R2

AV

AV

Residential Three Family

PL

E

R3

AN JE

IN

CRB Commercial Regional Business Park Residential Single Family

S

S

CLA

SM JA

CRR Commercial Regional Retail

R1

VE

NIC

E

P

BL

RLD Residential Low Density Multiple

P

S

RK PA

ND LA ER OV

RMD Residential Medium Density Multiple

AV

AV

P

RHD Residential High Density Multiple SE

IG

Industrial General

E

Cemetery

OS

Open Space

T

Transportation

P P

AS

GT

ON

PL

lo na Bal

ek Cre

BL

W

HIN

WA

SH

ING

TO

NB

L

BL

Studio

A

S

ED

Industrial Light

LV

Planned Development

IL

PU

PD

SO

N BL

P

JE FF

ER

DR

CU

LV

ER

S

Commercial Zero Setback Overlay City Boundary

S

School

IN

GT

ON

PL

SE

WASHING

§ ¦ ¨

PU

ND AV

Culver City Park

SH

OVERLA

WA

Ballona Creek

P

LV

ED

A

BL

405

TON BL

P

S

P IN

BL

S

P

LA US ON

S

P

AV

A AY PL

JE

! (

SO

N

BL

SLAUSON AV

SEPULVEDA

90

ER FF

ST

BL

SH

ON

SEPULVEDA BL

RT PO

WA

GT

TO

NB

L AV

ING

CI EN

EG

A

BL

VE

CN

SH

LA

FA X

WA

FA IR

ZONING MAP

P

E EW MARIN A FR

AY

CE NT

Figures 39: Culver City Zoning Map; www.culvercity.org/en/Government/

IN E

LA

AV

P


Culver City Station

Site

Walking Circles

5 min

5 min

10 min


Site Plan


Site Axon


Transportation

Bus Stop Expo Light Rail Station


Housing


Commercial


Office


Municipal


Parking

P

P P P P

P

P P

P P

P Parking Structure P Underground Parking


Existing Program Overlay


Site Outline


Id


Ego


Super-Ego


Freud Overlay


Program

An increase in density necessitates an increase in programmatic diversity around developments. Live/work models of housing that also incorporate grocers, transportation hubs, and other necessary amenities begin to establish the groundwork for new localized urban centers. This in turn reduces the need to commute to work or drive long distances for various services. As these urban centers develop there is also the possibility to begin to connect them with smarter more efficient modes of public transportation that lessens congestion on existing roadways and cuts down drastically on carbon emissions. Examples of other major metropolitan centers with varying degrees of urban density will provide a base for comparison with Los Angeles. All of these methods work toward creating a more sustainable urban system that can possibly serve as a model for other cities in the Southwest region of the United States. However, it all starts with addressing the most important element of the built environment: the home.

The main program will be high-density housing. While the Los Angeles Metropolitan area remains the densest metropolitan are in the country, the average density of the City of Los Angeles (8,092 residents/ sq mi) is lower than the average density of other major cities in the US including New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston and Miami. All of these cities have average densities of over 10,000 residents/sq mi. There is a need to increase the density of Los Angeles to a comparable level to accommodate the growing population in a city that has run out of vacant land. The other criteria for determining the program are reacting against the unsustainable impulse of the id. The superego traditionally reacts against the pleasure seeking Angelino in an attempt to balance the desires of the id, however it operates at the opposite extreme. This project will seek to find a balance between the two. Where other projects may favor complete privacy, intimacy and extreme pleasure, this new development is intended to be primarily ego-centric.


Housing units: 500 sf 850 sf 1, 100 sf 1,500 sf

x x x x

15 Studio Apts 15 1 BR Apts 50 2 BR 20 3 BR

Business: 40,000 sf x Culver Studios 5,000 sf x Commercial 2, 000 sf x Mech 500 sf x Loadig Dock

152,750 sf

Total Area

Landscape: Public Plaza Semi-Public Courtyards & Gardens Small Private Courtyards for luxury units


Selected Annotated Bibliography

Banham, Reyner, Los Angeles:The Architecture of Four Ecologies. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1971. This is an analysis of Los Angeles that categorizes the city into four realms: Surfurbia; Foothills; Autopia; Plains of Id. It is helpful in understanding the growth of Los Angeles and how it affected the body of architecture in the city. Crang, Mike. “Public Space, Urban Space and Electronic Space: Would the Real City Please Stand Up.” Urban Studies 37, no. 2 (2000): 301-317. Doi: 10.1080/0042098002203. This is an article examining of the metaphorical adoption of urban models in order to observe electronic social behavior. The author proposes four principle approaches: Dislocated cities set in or against world flows, suburban telecities, communitarian visions, and appeals toward a new public sphere. Evans, Robin, “Figures, Doors and Passages,” Architectural Design, April 1978. This is a study on the affect of spatial organization and social arrangements. Freud, Sigmund. The Ego and the Id. New York: W. W. Norton and Company LLC, 1962. Karen, Kubey. Urban Omnibus, “Low-Rise, High-Density Housing: A Contemporary View of Marcus Garvey Park Village.” Last modified July 18, 2012. Accessed April 9, 2013. http:// urbanomnibus.net/2012/07/low-rise-high-density-housing-a-contemporary-view-of-marcusgarvey-park-village/. This was a piece revisiting Marcus Garvey as a positive experiment in urban housing. Polyzoides, Stefanos, Roger Sherwood, James Tice, Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles. Berkeley

and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982. A history, catalogue, and comparison of various courtyard houses in Los Angeles and how they relate to the typology of courtyard houses around the world. Sherman, Roger, Re: American Dream, Six Urban Housing Prototypes for Los Angeles. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press; Los Angeles: Los Angeles Municipal Art Gallery Associates, 1995. A reconsideration of they prototypical Los Angeles home and how it might be reformatted for a modern context that addresses the ideas of housing, neighborhood and home. Sherwood, Roger. Modern Housing Prototypes. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press , 1978. This book provided plans, sections elevatons, and axonometric drawings of over 20 modern housing projects by notable architects. “Sprawl Hits The Wall: Confronting the Realities of Metropolitan Los Angeles.” The Atlas of Southern California. (2001): 3-64. Suisman, Douglas, Los Angeles Boulevard: Eight X-Rays of the Body Public. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design, 1989. This is an assessment of major Los Angeles arterial roads and the urban strategies with which they are addressed. United States Census Bureau, “Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports.” Last modified March 26, 2012. Accessed May 5, 2013. http://www.census.gov/ newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html.


Special Thanks

Shane Epps Jarred Grace Anastasija Gridneva Elizabeth Kamell Jonathan Louie Ryan Novi Amanda Parsons Nick Saponara Roger Sherwood



Thesis Prep Book