courtyard housing
DESCRIPTION
Northeastern University School of Architecture studio on courtyard housing.TRANSCRIPT
FALL 2009
Northeastern University School of ArchitectureARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio
COURTYARDHOUSING
FALL 2009
Northeastern University School of ArchitectureARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio
EDITORS
ELIZABETH CHRISTOFORETTI
TIM LOVE
STUDENT EDITORS
MELISSA MIRANDA
AARON TRAHAN
COURTYARD HOUSING
©2010 Northeastern University School of Architecture
CONTENTThe work contained within this publication is drawn from the Fall 2009 North-eastern University School of Architecture ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggrega-tion Studio. All work was produced by fifth year architecture students, for whom the focus of the semester was infill courtyard housing in metropolitan Boston.
FACULTYElizabeth ChristoforettiTim LovePeter Weiderspahn
STUDENTSNathan Alekovsky, Josh Billings, Dan Marino, John Martin, Danielle Mc-Donough, Brad McKinney, Katie McMahon, Melissa Miranda, Jeffrey Montes, Michelle Mortensen, Jackie Mossman, Christine Moylan, Christine Nasir, Tom Neal, Barrett Newell, Luke Palma, Ji Park, Laura Poulin, Betty Quintana, Leo Richardson, Sara Rosenthal, Jonathan Sampson, Sarah Silverman, Ian Stabler, Scott Swails, Jamie Sweed, Thana Thaliep, Aaron Trahan, Tim Valich, Caitlin Wezel, Ken Workings
PRINTINGLULUlulu.com
Contents
A CASE FOR TYPOLOGICAL THINKINGTim Love 1
COURTYARD HOUSING: MANUAL AS MANIFESTOHubert Murray 9
SINGLE FAMILY & SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEXBetty Quintana 22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 15
Caitlan Wezel 25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 23
Aaron Trahan 29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 31
Christine Moylan 30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 39
Christine Nasir 32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 47
Jackie Mossman 40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 55
MULTI-FAMILY (SINGLE EXPOSURE)Sara Rosenthal 32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 65
Tim Valich 46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 73
John Martin 60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 81
Laura Poulin 67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 89
Josh Billings 69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 97
MULTI-FAMILY (DOUBLE EXPOSURE)Luke Palma 35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 107
Brad McKinney 35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 115
Thomas Neal 36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 123
Dan Marino 42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 129
Scott Swails 44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 137
Jeffrey Montes 45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 145
Ken Workings 46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 153
Melissa Miranda 55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 161
Michelle Mortensen 57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 169
Leo Richardson 62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 177
Danielle McDonough 66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 185
Katie McMahon 70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 193
Sarah Tarbet 77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 201
Barrett Newell 78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 209
Jaime Sweed 96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 217
SOUTH BOSTON MASTER PLANSChristoforetti Studio 227
Love Studio 231
Wiederspahn Studio 235
COURTYARD HOUSING: AFTERWORDJonathan Levi 239
1
2
Tim Love
A Case for Typological Thinking
Courtyard Building PrototypesThe buildings in this volume were designed as prototypical residential types by fifth-year students in the undergradu-ate architecture program at Northeastern University in Boston. While the wood-frame courtyard building is an untested building type in the northeastern US, the propos-als are consistent with the regulatory framework, econom-ics of construction, and scale of development that is being planned and built on former industrial parcels in the Bos-ton metropolitan area. The students innovated by working within the constraints of the building code and prevalent construction technologies rather than by exploring more radical (and unrealistic) approaches.
By aggregating the types into blocks and then urban dis-
tricts, the studio also tested a new model of high density urbanism that can be built primarily of wood at three to four stories tall. This urban paradigm is a potential alter-native to conventional North American transit-oriented-development, which tends to be comprised of steel frame residential buildings between nine and twelve stories tall. A wood-frame city1, with lower building heights and smaller parcel sizes, will allow a broader range of developers to participate in the build-out of a master plan and a larger percentage of walk-up units and building entries.
A Case for Typological ThinkingFor the past twenty-five years “contextualism” of one sort or another has been the prevalent framework for design studios in most American architecture programs. By con-textualism, I am not referring to the strategies of the ad-vocates of New Urbanism and other late manifestations of the design methodology conceived by Colin Rowe in the 1970s (although these approaches are certainly included in the definition). More broadly, I am considering all of the intentions, motivations, and arguments that conspire to make each architectural opportunity a one-off project with unique characteristics. A range of design methodologies has evolved in architecture schools to privilege this one-of-a-kind-ness. Perhaps the most prevalent approach results from mapping (in plan) all of the particular and idiosyncratic aspects of a site to divine the “site forces” that can help shape the project. In most cases, this technique results in a correspondingly idiosyncratic formal language, since every
3 twitch of eccentric geometry adjacent to the project site is used as a justification to generate complex three dimen-sional forms.
With this technique, the function of the building is almost irrelevant, or in some cases, symbolically linked to the com-positional connections made to the larger context through the mapping “analysis.” As a result, community centers and branch libraries were once popular programs inserted into the resulting forms. More recently, functions that both comment on the site and fix it, like recycling centers tied to bio-remedial landscape strategies, have been in vogue. But for the majority of contemporary buildings, the functional need for a building is typically the impetus for an architec-tural project and not simply an excuse or filler for expres-sive form.
In the nested set of relations that shape contemporary real estate and construction, the definition of the use-category of a building - whether an office building, apartment build-ing, or hospital wing - is the typical way that a building proj-ect is first conceived and design is launched. Even before design begins in earnest, the business plan for a building is developed and enriched through assumptions about the initial capital costs, potential revenue (generated by sales, leases, or number of patients), and future lifecycle costs. In the modern market economy, the use of the building, the building’s financial performance, and assurance that risk of financial failure is minimized, means that lending institu-tions and the underwriters of development financing favor
proven building configurations (termed “comps”). But can architecture schools engage this set of real-world econom-ic priorities and still find disciplinary relevance? Through a re-engagement of typological thinking, new creative and relevant territories for the discipline of architecture may be possible.
The analysis and reformulation of building types has been seen as a conservative approach in most university pro-grams. The academy has largely rejected methodologies that have persisted since the 1980s, when the theory of type was first adopted by practice as a way to verify and reinforce building patterns in particular communities and cultures. This has certainly been the rhetoric, if not fully the approach, of DPZ, Stefanos Polyzoides, and other pro-ponents of New Urbanism. Their research, which began as an interest in housing types such as the Charleston house and the Los Angeles courtyard type, is now focused on the vernacular tradition of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. However, a new formulation of type may be possible that does not embalm existing types but invents new durable building paradigms.
During the past four years, several architecture studios at the Northeastern School of Architecture have tested new design methodologies that foreground the market-driven logics of contemporary building types. Unlike conventional approaches to typology, we focus on the underlying prag-matics of contemporary building production to enable the design of more compelling and sustainable alternatives. In
4the Masters Degree Research Studio, for example, students have focused on office buildings, laboratories, parking ga-rages, and self-storage facilities. Through directed research, students become versant in the planning criteria and em-bedded design agenda of these types and gain a comprehen-sive understanding of the broader cultural, regulatory, and economic context of the contemporary real estate indus-try. The Fall 2009 Housing Studio is the first time that stu-dents have been asked to fully investigate a morphological type that does not yet commonly exist in Boston or other New England cities – infill wood-frame courtyard housing. Courtyard housing was chosen because there are no regu-latory or economic impediments to the implementation of the type and because well-designed courtyard housing could provide an alternative to the triple-decker: the wood frame, three-flats-stacked housing type that dominated the dense first-ring suburban growth in New England in the late 19th and early 20th Century.
North American Housing TypesWith housing, typological invention can more radically question long-standing cultural assumptions. For example, the courtyard type inverts the position and role of private open space in relationship to dwelling. The settlement and building culture in the British North American colonies was predicated on land sub-division first and then occupation by dwellings. Early maps of Boston and New York show ob-ject buildings in dense urban agglomerations. It was only with the first speculative redevelopment of urban property
that the British rowhouse was introduced to maximize land value.
Outside of Boston’s city center, the metropolitan area’s most extensive residential areas were built up with wood-frame buildings - the ubiquitous triple-decker - given the relatively low cost of wood-frame construction.2 Triple-deckers were either stand-alone buildings or were built as duplex pairs with a shared party wall. Prevalent codes al-lowed the free side of the buildings to be built within three feet of the property line – resulting in houses that were as close as six feet apart. The triple-decker type, and the neighborhoods that resulted from their proliferation, were the consequence of a high-stakes negotiation between fire officials, land speculators, builders, and elected officials.
Housing and Open SpaceThe private open space of the triple-decker was only a con-sequence of a desire for the building to meet the street coupled with a maximum reasonable building depth. Side yards were only wide enough to provide access to rear yards and as space for the storage of garbage cans and de-commissioned furniture and appliances. Because ownership of open space was never established by the logic of the type itself, the use of the rear yard was always in flux and var-ied widely even between adjacent properties. Despite the relative density of deployment of the triple-decker, as com-pared to other wood-frame building types, the relationship between building-as-object and the adjacent landscape is
5 typical to most American settlement patterns. Open space has the highest use-value where the landscape engages the house at porches and rear decks. As the landscape recedes from the building, it plays an increasingly visual role, as a buffer at the rear of the property and as a symbolic space at the front of the house.
Courtyard buildings radically displace the conventional po-sition of the landscape, thus requiring a cultural reassess-ment of the function and meaning of private open space. Through a simple reconfiguration of building mass, the exterior ground that is furthest from the building edge is converted from a peripheral condition to the symbolic and physical center of a residential community. At the same time, the urban expression of the dwelling, typically com-municated by the relationship of the iconic form of the house-as-object to the landscape, has been compressed into an urban façade. American townhouse precedent in districts like Boston’s Back Bay, where each parcel-owner sought self-expression of façade and small front yard, can serve as a model for the particular iconographic issues of a distinctly American courtyard type.
Studio PedagogyThe students were given six residential building types at the launch of the studio; the types varied in the number of units per floor and the way that the parcel was embed-ded in the hypothetical/prototypical urban context. The schemes within the matrix ranged from single-family court-yard housing with a single exterior exposure to relatively
large multi-family buildings with both a front (street) and back (alley) exposure. In addition to six plan variants, the matrix outlined the relevant building code regulations that would frame and inhibit circulation solutions and establish the maximum building height in each building category. The proto-schemes were equally distributed to the 33 students (in three studio sections) as a starting point for their own design investigations.
The courtyard building is an ideal pedagogical subject be-cause it raises design issues that are as much morphological as functional in nature. For example, the “inside” corner of the courtyard limits light and air to four specific embedded zones in the plan - requiring an inventive design response. This condition creates an ideal opportunity to understand the relationship between the iterative design process and the deeply embedded knowledge of the discipline. As a class, we looked at this condition in projects as diverse as the Palazzo Farnese in Rome (1534), and the Goldenberg House by Louis Kahn (1959, un-built). A close reading of any building with an inside corner will yield potential strate-gies and tactics. Possible solutions and traces of directions almost taken are evident in every building with a similar set of planning issues.
Generally, solutions to the inside corner fall into four cat-egories:
a. Assign functions in the corner that do not require light and air, such as elevator banks and storage rooms.
6Boston Courtyard Housing MatrixWood-frame construction
Single-exposure Double-exposure Egress Height: Construction Type
A Maximum height governed by egress requirements
Side-by-side duplex B Maximum height governed by egress requirements
Four or five units/floor C The total building height can be no taller than 60' d/ f i ( hi h i ll ) F i
One internal stair between floors is permitted. A single means of egress within a dwelling can be no longer than 75' before two routes of egress are provided. The dwelling unit must have egress doors on the front and back (courtyard).
One internal stair between floors is permitted. A single means of egress within a dwelling can be no longer than 75' before two routes of egress are provided. The dwelling unit must have egress doors on the front and back (courtyard). .
Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that l f h h 1/3 h di l f
D
Single family
and/or four stories (whichever is taller). Four stories can be placed on a ground level non-combustible parking structure as long as the total height of the building does not exceed 60'.
E The total building height can be no taller than 60' and/or four stories (whichever is taller). Four stories can be placed on a ground level non-combustible parking structure as long as the total height of the building does not exceed 60'.
Unit requirements Room requirements Window requirements
Apartment type Size (SF) Room/area Min. width of room (LF) Minimum area defined by code
500-700 Living area 14One Bedroom 700-900 Primary bedroom 12Two bedroom 900-1250 Secondary bedroom 11Three bedroom 1250-1475 Kitchens/baths per code
* Habitable rooms include living areas and bedrooms and can be no smaller than 100 SF.
Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that are equal to or further apart than 1/3 the diagonal of the area served (the floor or that portion of the floor served by the two stairs). At least one egress route must exit directly to the exterior (the other can exit into the building lobby).
are equal to or further apart than 1/3 the diagonal of the area served (the floor or that portion of the floor served by the two stairs). At least one egress route must exit directly to the exterior (the other can exit into the building lobby).
The minimum area of windows (or a window) in a habitable room* is 8% of the area of the room. Half the area of the windows must be operable.
FSix or more units/floor
Studio
7 b. Assign functions in the corner that can borrow light from skylights above, such as staircases.
c. Deform the corner (by chamfering or rounding the cor-ner) to create wall space for windows directly into the space.
d. Shift the corner room in one direction or the other to gain a window without the need to deform the geometry of the corner of the courtyard.
In addition to the issues posed by rooms embedded within
the inside corner of the courtyard, the depth and propor-tions of the courtyard space need to be carefully calibrated with the internal mechanics of the building plan, the accom-modation of adequate light and air, and the consideration of potential views between units across the courtyard space. The building type also requires a fuller agenda that under-stands the courtyard as part of a larger continuum of public and semi-public spaces including the street, buildings lob-bies, and thresholds. Students were also required to design building facades that announced (or not) the presence of the courtyard and propose solutions that establish a design agenda that articulated a position between the expression of individual units and a coherently designed street wall.
ConclusionIt is hoped that this collection of building proposals, essays on a singular theme, might have an impact on Boston and other North American cities. Will the diversity of compre-hensively-designed prototypes suggest a retroactive inevi-tability to this model of urban development? By packag-ing the work in an easy-to-use volume, the infill courtyard building is proposed as a viable alternative for dense urban redevelopment where building culture favors renewable and socially-equitable wood-frame construction.
Notes
1 See Jonathan Levi’s “City of Wood: A Speculation on Urbanism and Wood Housing,” published on the Jonathan Levi Architect website: http://www.leviarc.com/ under the heading Projects/Research. “The question then is whether light frame buildings with their bias against aggregation, are necessarily anti-urban or whether it would be possible to envision a dense wood construction which alleviates each of wood’s weaknesses one by one – it’s lack of durability, poor acoustics, and
susceptibility to fire, among others.”2 Wood frame construction is still the least expensive way to building multi-family housing in the Boston metropolitan area. In 2009, the aver-age cost of wood-frame construction in Boston’s residential neighbor-hoods was $175/SF. A comparable masonry building with a steel frame
would be budgeted at approximately $240/SF.
8Bibliography
Holl, Steven, Rural & Urban House Types, Pamphlet Archi-tecture 9, New York, 1982.
Macintosh, Duncan, The Modern Courtyard House: a His-tory, Architectural Association Paper Number 9, Published by Lund Humphries for the Architectural Association, Lon-don, 1973.
Pfiefer, Gunter and Per Brauneck, Courtyard Houses: A Housing Typology, Birkhauser Verlag, 2008.
Polyzoides, Stefanos, Roger Sherwood, and James Tice, Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1982.
Sherwood, Roger, Modern Housing Prototypes, Harvard University Press, 1978.
Schneider, Friederike, Floor Plan Atlas: Housing, Birkhauser Verlag, 1994.
9
10
The courtyard housing studio at Northeastern comes with noble pedigree. For the last generation or so urban hous-ing has not generally been regarded as a subject for seri-ous investigation in contemporary American architectural schools in which digital form-making has for so long held sway. Housing as a serious field of study and investigation for both students and practitioners has however an intel-lectual and professional lineage that can be traced to the urban demands and aspirations of nineteenth century and early modern Europe, a duality of formal technique and social reform, of manual and manifesto. The investigation is no less relevant here, in the United States, and now, as we attempt to resolve the contradictions of our centrifugal conurbations.
The ManualThe parentage on one side is the builder’s pattern book, the template used for swaths of speculative residential develop-ment in the rapidly expanding cities built on industry and commerce. Thomas Cubitt, builder and developer, made his fortune after the Napoleonic Wars developing entire Lon-don districts (Bloomsbury, Camden Town, Spitalfields) for the upper, middle and lower classes, accommodating them in row houses ordered by size and style from the gentle-man’s townhouse to the worker’s cottage. Such boilerplate solutions to housing the burgeoning population were stan-dard practice throughout the major cities of Europe, most often in the hands of private developers but, with the rise of twentieth century social democracy, increasingly under the auspices of municipal authorities. The design manuals of the Greater London Council1, are perhaps the culmination of this tradition. For the current epoch, it is Schneider’s Floor Plan Manual2 that provides the most comprehensive compendium of urban housing type-plans, public and pri-vate, ordered by urban planning category and building type (e.g. corner building / end of row).
Each of these, and many others of which they are exem-plars, can be thought of as technical manuals, recipe books providing economical, efficient and (in a restricted sense) elegant solutions to mass housing. Beyond density, floor plate, circulation, disposition and dimensioning of spaces for living, sleeping, cooking and dining there is no theory bar that of the efficacy of standardization.3
Hubert Murray
Courtyard Housing: Manual as Manifesto
11 The ManifestoIf this side of the marriage has its own austere heritage, there is another side, ideological and reformist, that seeks to promote the virtues of social housing as, at the very best, the expression of a full and meaningful life (the home for Karl Marx’s unalienated family) and, at the least, the guaran-tor of a life saved from squalor and degradation (as lived for instance in the fetid slums of Engels’ Manchester or the Ilot Insalubre No 6 of Le Corbusier).
Fourier, Owen, Muthesius and the Garden City movement can all be cited at greater length in the grand-parentage of social housing as a central preoccupation in architectural modernism but it is to the pre-war Bauhaus that one must look for more immediate influence in both Europe and the United States. In parallel with modernist experiments in high-rise slab housing during this period, Ludwig Hilber-sheimer, Hugo Häring, Hannes Meyer4 and others developed their own versions of low-rise high-density housing, and in particular variations on the courtyard house. Interestingly, for the resonance that still reverberates in the politics of the United States today, high-rise was associated in 1920’s Germany with socialism, low-rise with a more accommo-dationist approach to social improvement. This difference in emphasis however in no way belied the commitment of either camp to the role of urban social housing as a funda-mental building block of a progressive, healthy and modern society.
The political debate and the technical investigations by
which it is underwritten are still vibrant in European archi-tecture today. Urban housing is still viewed as a social enti-tlement in the majority of the mixed economies of modern Europe and therefore a common project type in most ar-chitectural practices. This is not so in the United States for whom mass housing provided by public agencies really only had its flowering in the disastrous era of urban clearances, confirming in the popular mind that public housing, so far from being a social entitlement open to all, should be no more than a last ditch provision for the feckless and indi-gent urban poor. The demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing development in St. Louis in 1972, a mere 18 years after its opening, represented the death of modern architecture and of the modernist project as a social program, a conjunction that had not traveled well in its journey from Europe. The unrelieved monotonies of Levittown and its progeny re-main intact, forgiven their sins because they are owner oc-cupied, each little box a testimony to American individuality and upward mobility.
Community and PrivacyThis volume, focusing on urban housing as a critical com-ponent in the urban fabric, and on courtyard housing in particular, as a valid physical form mediating at the cusp of community and privacy, between neighborhood and house, society and the individual, revives a discussion last given an airing in this country by Chermayeff and Alexander in their book Community and Privacy.5 Their discussion ends, not coincidentally, in a detailed analysis of courtyard housing
12plans, as if they were taking up the conversation from the Bauhaus and translating it into American terms. I emphasize this social vector in the conversation on courtyard housing, because mainly for reasons of space and time, it is not given such explicit treatment in the pages that follow.
One example will suffice to illustrate the conjunction of the technical and the social, in which the design manual neces-sarily carries within it the flame of the manifesto. One of the generic problems of the courtyard house is scale. If the dwelling unit is scaled within reasonable limits to be a single family house – between say, 1,000 to 1,800 square feet – then the true courtyard, a private space with rooms on all four sides, not only has four internal corner conditions but the court itself is severely restricted and in northern lati-tudes is a place in which, for considerable periods, the sun does not shine.6 If on the other hand, the perimeter is ex-panded to enlarge the court, shared to a greater or lesser extent with other units, then the discussion immediately becomes as much one of community as it is of privacy. The family house based on the Roman impluvium stands at one end of the spectrum, Cerda’s Barcelona grid with its com-munal courts serving hundreds of units, at the other.7 The dialectic between community and privacy, the social and the individual, is inherent in every one of the plans represented in this volume.
Pragmatism as ProgramTim Love’s suggestion, in his treatment of the methodology
of the studio, that the courtyard house is worthy of inves-tigation on the grounds that “it is a type that does not yet commonly exist in Boston…” and “because there are no regulatory or economic impediments to the implementa-tion of the type” is consonant with the broader aim of the studio – and Northeastern itself – that “seeks to uncover the underlying pragmatics of contemporary market driven building”. The combination of courtyard house plans pre-sented here and the urban forms they predicate shown in street and aerial views and blockplans, underwritten by this provocative methodological premise, all indicate a welcome revival of this subject on American soil, in American terms, with a long overdue alternative to the last generation of architectural pedagogy. This manual is surely a manifesto.
Notes1 The Greater London Council (1965-86) was the municipal authority for the entire metropolitan region of London, the heir to the Lon-don County Council (1889-1965) which had jurisdiction over a much smaller area. In addition to the Boroughs, both the LCC and the GLC had vast portfolios of public housing in the city and were responsible for pioneering design in social housing. Of its many publications the GLC’s Preferred Dwelling Plans published in 1978 set standards and provided design templates for low-rise, high density development in the city. 2 Schneider, Friederike, Floor Plan Atlas: Housing, Birkhäuser Verlag, 1994 (Third edition, 2004).3 The work of Sir Leslie Martin, Lionel March and others at the Cambridge Centre for Land Use and Built Form provided much of the theoretical underpinning through mathematical and quantitative analysis of patterns of residential densities and vehicular circulation.
13 4 For an excellent discussion of these contributions and others, see MacIntosh, Duncan, The Modern Courtyard House, Lund Humpries, London, 1973.5 Chermayeff, Serge and Alexander, Christopher, Community and Privacy, Doubleday, New York, 1963.6 There is a discussion to be enlarged upon regarding the climatic characteristics of the courtyard typology. A good start is made in Koenigsberger et al., Manual of Tropical Housing and Building – Part 1 Climatic Design, Longman, London, 1973.7 It may also be noted in this regard that the courtyard as social con-denser is perhaps more suited to a closed organic community, whether it be the family, nuclear or extended, or a broader homogeneous neighborhood. The street on the other hand presents an open system in which choices can be made with whom to associate.
14
Single Family and Side-by-Side Duplex Courtyard Housing
15
16
Duplexwith Interlocking Units
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
22.6
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BET
TY
QU
INTA
NA
17
Ground Floor Plan
18
Scale1 : 20
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
22.6
FAR
1.09
ORGANIZATIONAL
LOGIC
Interlocking Units
UNITS PER FLOOR
1
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 0, two bedroom: 1, three bedroom: 1
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
43’-0”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
80’-0”
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
30’-0”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
22.6
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BET
TY
QU
INTA
NA
Second Floor Plan
19
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
20
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
22.6
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BET
TY
QU
INTA
NA
21
Elevation Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective
22
Street Level Perspective
22.6
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BET
TY
QU
INTA
NA
23
24
Single Familywith Central Courtyard
Elevation
Sectional Perspective
25.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CA
ITLI
N W
EZEL
25
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
26DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
25.0
FAR
1.36
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Central courtyard acts as the focal point within every room.
UNITS PER FLOOR
1
UNIT BREAKDOWN
three bedroom: 1
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
44’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
37’-6”
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
32’-6”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Scale1:20
Third Floor Plan
25.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CA
ITLI
N W
EZEL
27
Block Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
28
Section through block
Second Floor Block Plan
25.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CA
ITLI
N W
EZEL
29
Elevation Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Section through minor street
30
Minor Street Elevation
Perspective of Minor Street
25.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CA
ITLI
N W
EZEL
31
32
Single Family with L-Type, Bookmatch Aggregation
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
29.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
AA
RON
TR
AH
AN
33
Second Floor Plan First Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
34
Scale1:20
Front Elevation
Corner Front Elevation
Corner Side Elevation
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
29.0
FAR
1.67
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
“L” type, bookmatch aggregation.
UNITS PER FLOOR
1
UNIT BREAKDOWN
three bedroom: 1
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
36’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
50’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
30’-6”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
29.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
AA
RON
TR
AH
AN
35
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
36
Elevation
First Level Block Plan
29.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
AA
RON
TR
AH
AN
37
Perspective Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective
38
Block Courtyard Perspective
29.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
AA
RON
TR
AH
AN
39
40
Single Familywith Stepped Decks
Front Elevation
Sectional Perspective
30.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CH
RIS
TIN
E M
OY
LAN
Elevation
41
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
42
Scale1:20
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
30.0
FAR
1.62
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Interior circulation wraps through the house in conjunction with the exterior ter-race circulation.
UNITS PER FLOOR
1
UNIT BREAKDOWN
three bedroom: 1
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
31’-9”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
42’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
32’-8”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
30.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CH
RIS
TIN
E M
OY
LAN
Third Floor Plan
43
Courtyard Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
44
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
30.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CH
RIS
TIN
E M
OY
LAN
45
Elevation Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective
BIRDS EYE BLOCK PERSPECTIVE
46
Courtyard Perspective
30.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CH
RIS
TIN
E M
OY
LAN
47
48
Duplexwith Adjoining Private Courtyards
Sectional Perspective Through Upper Unit
Sectional Perspective Through Lower Unit
32.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CH
RIS
TIN
E N
ASI
R
49
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
50
Scale1 : 20
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
32.0
FAR
1.40
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
U-shaped units wrap courtyard.
UNIT BREAKDOWN
two bedroom: 2
UNITS PER FLOOR
2
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
45’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
60’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
25’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
32.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CH
RIS
TIN
E N
ASI
R
Third Floor Plan Roof Plan
51
Short Block Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
52
Typical Block Street Elevation
Upper Level Block Plan
32.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CH
RIS
TIN
E N
ASI
R
53
Lower Courtyard View Sections Through Block
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Upper Courtyard View
54
Street Level Perspective
32.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
CH
RIS
TIN
E N
ASI
R
55
56
Single Familywith Stepped Section and Terraces
Longitudinal Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
40.1
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JAC
QU
ELIN
E M
OSS
MA
N
57
Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan
58
Scale1:20
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
40.1
FAR
2
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Private Entry/Circulation.
UNITS PER FLOOR
2
UNIT BREAKDOWN
three bedroom: 2
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
35’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
82’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
45’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1-2
40.1
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JAC
QU
ELIN
E M
OSS
MA
N
Fourth Floor Plan Third Floor Plan
59
South Elevation Detail
Ground Level Block Plan
60
North Elevation Detail
Typical Level Block Plan
40.1
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JAC
QU
ELIN
E M
OSS
MA
N
61
Concept Development Diagram
Birds Eye Block Perspective
62
Prototype Topographical Adaptation
OPTION ASTEEP TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE
(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS
OPTION BSHALLOW TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE
(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS1 STUDIO UNIT
OPTION CNO TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE
(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS1 STUDIO LOFT UNIT OR COMMERCIAL SPACE
40.1
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JAC
QU
ELIN
E M
OSS
MA
N
63
64
Multi-Family (Single Exposure) Courtyard Housing
65
66
Multi-Familywith Courtyard with View to the Street
Prototype Elevation
Sectional Perspective
32.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SAR
A R
OSE
NT
HA
L
67
Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan
68
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
32.0
FAR
2.20
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Point-load circula-tion entered through courtyard above parking plinth
UNITS PER FLOOR
6
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 12, two bedroom: 6, three bedroom: 0
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
110’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
91’ -4”
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’-6”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.72
32.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SAR
A R
OSE
NT
HA
L
Fourth Floor Plan Third Floor Plan
69
Ground Level Block Plan
Elevation
70
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
32.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SAR
A R
OSE
NT
HA
L
71
Section and Courtyard Elevations
Birds Eye Block Perspective
72
Prototype to Block CirculationPrototype to Block Massing
Section Perspective from Street
32.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SAR
A R
OSE
NT
HA
L
73
74
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
46.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
TIM
VA
LIC
H
Multi-Familywith Stepped Courtyard
Open to the Street
75
Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan
76
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
46.4
FAR
1.87
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Terraced courtyard open to
the street.
UNITS PER FLOOR
7
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 2, one bedroom: 18, two bedroom: 6, three bedroom: 0
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
175’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
105’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
5 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.44
46.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
TIM
VA
LIC
H
Fourth Floor Plan Third Floor Plan
77
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
78
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
46.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
TIM
VA
LIC
H
79
Prototype Figure Ground
Birds Eye Block Perspective
80
Street Perspective
46.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
TIM
VA
LIC
H
81
82
Multi-Familywith Courtyards within Courtyards
Street Elevation
Sectional Perspective
60.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JOH
N M
ART
IN
83
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
84
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
60.0
FAR
2.24
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Private courtyard spaces organized around a cen-tral public courtyard.
UNITS PER FLOOR
6
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 4one bedroom: 1two bedroom: 4three bedroom: 2
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
76’-6”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
113’-9”
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
50’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.5
60.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JOH
N M
ART
IN
Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan
85
Block Long Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
86
Block Short Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
60.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JOH
N M
ART
IN
87
Block Section
Birds Eye Block Perspective
88
Street Perspective
Courtyard Perspective
60.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JOH
N M
ART
IN
89
90
Multi-Familywith Skip-stop Corridor
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
67.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LAU
RA
PO
ULI
N
91
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
67.0
FAR
1.98
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Skip-stop corridor provides access to duplex units.
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 1one bedroom: 4two bedroom: 4three bedroom: 4
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
80’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
108’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
92
Scale1:50
67.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LAU
RA
PO
ULI
N
Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan
93
Longitudinal Block Section
Ground Level Block Plan
94
Typical Block Street Elevation
Corridor Level Block Plan
67.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LAU
RA
PO
ULI
N
95
Transverse Block Section
Birds Eye Block Perspective
96
Birds Eye Prototype PerspectiveCourtyard Perspective
Down Street Perspective
67.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LAU
RA
PO
ULI
N
97
98
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposurePrototype - Courtyard Side Elevation
Multi-Familywith a Semi-public Courtyard
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposurePrototype - Rear Courtyard Elevation
Transverse Section through Courtyard
Section through Courtyard
69.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JOSH
BIL
LIN
GS
99
Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan
100
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
69.0
FAR
1.87
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Four point load stairs, one skip-stop corridor serving floors 4 and 5.
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 8, two bedroom: 7, three bedroom: 2
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
113’-8”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
84’-4”
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
59’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
15
69.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JOSH
BIL
LIN
GS
Fourth Floor Plan Third Floor Plan
101
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureElevations & Section
B - Street Elevation - East
C - Section
A - Street Elevation - North
B C
A
Typical Block Street Elevation
Ground Level Block PlanHousing and Aggregation, Fall 2009
Josh BillingsInstructor: Peter Weiderspahn
Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureBlock Plan - 1st Floor
102
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureElevations & Section
B - Street Elevation - East
C - Section
A - Street Elevation - North
B C
A
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureBlock Plan - 2nd Floor
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
69.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JOSH
BIL
LIN
GS
103
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureDistrict Plan
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureDistrict Plan
Diagrammatic Section through District
District Figure/Ground Plan
104
Section through Block
Aerial Perspective
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter WeiderspahnType: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposureElevations & Section
B - Street Elevation - East
C - Section
A - Street Elevation - North
B C
A
69.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JOSH
BIL
LIN
GS
105
106
Multi-Family (Double Exposure) Courtyard Housing
107
108
Multi-Familywith Connected Community Courtyards
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
35.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LUK
E PA
LMA
109
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
110
Scale1:50
Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
35.4
FAR
1.85
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Courtyards are con-nected on each side to provide circulation for intra-block and domestic circulation.
UNITS PER FLOOR
5
UNIT BREAKDOWN
two bedroom: 10three bedroom: 10
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
90’-10”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
148’-4”
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
55’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
2
35.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LUK
E PA
LMA
111
Front Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
112
Back Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
35.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LUK
E PA
LMA
113
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Transverse Section Through SiteStreet Perspective
114
Section Through Park
35.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LUK
E PA
LMA
Figure Ground DiagramIntra-Block Circulation Interior Circulation
115
116
Multi-Familywith Filtered Mid-block Landscape
Street and Greenway Elevations
Sectional Perspective
35.5
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BRA
D M
CK
INN
EY
117
Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan
118
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
35.5
FAR
1.73
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Double courtyard sys-tem filters circulation and function.
UNITS PER FLOOR
6
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 3one bedroom: 2two bedroom: 8three bedroom: 2
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
115’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
160’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
36’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
6 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.8
35.5
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BRA
D M
CK
INN
EY
Fourth Floor Plan Third Floor Plan
119
Typical Street Elevations
Ground Level Block Plan
120
Greenway Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
35.5
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BRA
D M
CK
INN
EY
121
Pedestrian Walkway Elevations
Cornice Detail
122
Walkway DetailBirds Eye Block Perspective
Prototype Section
35.5
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BRA
D M
CK
INN
EY
123
124
Multi-Familywith Units Expressed as
Individual Buildings
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
36.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
TH
OM
AS
NEA
L
125
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
126
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
36.0
FAR
2.07
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Multi-family horseshoe shaped housing with inserted single family row houses to create a two tiered courtyard.
UNITS PER FLOOR
6
UNIT BREAKDOWN
two bedroom: 8three bedroom: 4
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
108’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
120’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
40’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.5
36.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
TH
OM
AS
NEA
L
Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan
127
Typical Block Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
128
Typical Block Street Section
Typical Level Block Plan
36.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
TH
OM
AS
NEA
L
129
130
Multi Family without Corridors Serving Six Stairs
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
42.2
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
DA
N M
AR
INO
131
Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan Third Floor Plan
132
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
42.2
FAR
1.99
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Point load stair system with staggered floors and half submerged parking below
UNITS PER FLOOR
5
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 2, two bedroom: 0,
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
111’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
117’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
45’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.75
42.2
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
DA
N M
AR
INO
Fourth Floor Plan Fifth Floor Plan
133
Section / Courtyard Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
134
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
42.2
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
DA
N M
AR
INO
135
District Perspectives
Birds Eye District Perspective
136
Massing Strategy
Privitization of open spaces
42.2
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
DA
N M
AR
INO
137
138
Multi-FamilyWith Adjacent Semi-Private Courtyards
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
44.9
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SCO
TT
SW
AIL
S
139
Ground Floor Plan Typical Floor Plan
140
Scale1:50
Ground Floor End Unit Typical Floor End Unit
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
44.9
FAR
1.39
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Inverted shape provides ideal amounts of light and privacy
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 6, two bedroom: 6, three bedroom: 0
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
91’4”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
86’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
30’6”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.75
44.9
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SCO
TT
SW
AIL
S
141
Standard Unit Main Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
142
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
44.9
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SCO
TT
SW
AIL
S
143
Commercial Street Elevation
Birds Eye Block Perspective
144
Sectional Axonometric ViewSectional Axonometric View
Typical Unit Axonometric
44.9
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SCO
TT
SW
AIL
S
145
146
45.8
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JEFF
REY
MO
NT
ES
Multi-Familywith a Courtyard Gateway
Sectional Perspective
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
147
Ground Floor Plan
148
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
45.8
FAR
1.52
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Ramps around interior face of courtyard pro-vide primary access to units
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 2, one bedroom: 7, two bedroom: 8
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
132’-9”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
78’-9”
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
33’-4”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
3 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.7
45.8
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JEFF
REY
MO
NT
ES
Second Floor Plan
149
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
150
Typical Block Street Elevation
45.8
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JEFF
REY
MO
NT
ES
Main Courtyard Perspective
151
Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation
Birds Eye Block Perspective
152
45.8
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JEFF
REY
MO
NT
ES
Main Courtyard Perspective
153
154
Multi-Familywith Cantilevered Volumes
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
46.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
KEN
WO
RK
ING
S
155
Third FloorSecond FloorGround Floor
156
Scale1:50
Fifth FloorFourth Floor
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
46.4
FAR
1.87
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Shifting volumes in both plan and section allow for maximum light pen-etration for mid-building units
UNITS PER FLOOR
12
UNIT BREAKDOWN
one bedroom: 16, two bedroom: 18
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
80’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
275’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
45’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.9
46.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
KEN
WO
RK
ING
S
157
Typical Level Block Plan
Long Block Street Elevation
158
End Block Street Elevation
Single Prototype ElevationElevational Variance Diagram
46.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
KEN
WO
RK
ING
S
159
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
160
Facade DetailRamp Landscaping Detail
46.4
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
KEN
WO
RK
ING
S
161
162
Multi-Familywith Ramps as Main Circulation
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
55.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
MEL
ISSA
MIR
AN
DA
163
Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan
164
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
55.0
FAR
2.30
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Ramps around interior face of courtyard pro-vide primary access to units and promote social interaction.
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 5, one bedroom: 3, two bedroom: 3, three bedroom: 3
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
98’-0”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
100’-0
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
50’-0”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
12/14
55.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
MEL
ISSA
MIR
AN
DA
Fourth Floor Plan Third Floor Plan
165
Boardwalk Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
166
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
55.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
MEL
ISSA
MIR
AN
DA
167
Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation
Birds Eye Block Perspective
168
Ramp Perspective
Single Bedroom Unit AxonInterior Perspective of Artists’ Studio
55.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
MEL
ISSA
MIR
AN
DA
169
170
Multi-Familywith Subtractive Terraces and Voids
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
57.7
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
MIC
HEL
LE M
ORT
ENSE
N
171
Ground Floor First Floor
172
Scale1:50
Second Floor Third Floor
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
57.7
FAR
2.06
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Individually articulated 3-Dimensional L-shaped, staggered units wrapped around a courtyard.
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 5, one bedroom: 3, two bedroom: 2 , three bedroom: 2
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
70’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
100’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
43’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.7
57.7
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
MIC
HEL
LE M
ORT
ENSE
N
173
South Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
174
Typical Block Transverse Section
Typical Level Block Plan
57.7
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
MIC
HEL
LE M
ORT
ENSE
N
175
Perspective
Sectional Perspective Progression Cut 4
176
Exploded Axon of Unit Types
Massing of interlocking units with cirulcation voids Massing of interlocking units with public space voids 57.7
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
MIC
HEL
LE M
ORT
ENSE
N
177
178
Multi-Familywith Passive Solar Orientation
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
62.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LEO
RIC
HA
RD
SON
179
Second Floor Plan
Ground Floor Plan
180
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
62.1
FAR
3.22
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Elevator access to all units with exterior stair-ways to roofdecks.
UNITS PER FLOOR
6
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 2one bedroom: 2two bedroom: 10three bedroom: 5
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
110’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
125’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
65’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
19
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.7
62.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LEO
RIC
HA
RD
SON
Fourth Floor Plan
Third Floor Plan
181
Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
182
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
62.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LEO
RIC
HA
RD
SON
183
Diagram of Accessible Interior Circulation
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Vertical Elevator CirculationHorizontal Corridor Circulation
184
Winter Sun Diagram
Trransverse Courtyard Section
62.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
LEO
RIC
HA
RD
SON
185
186
Multi-Familywith Two Distinct Urban Faces
Elevation - Vehicular Street Face
Sectional Perspective
Elevation - Pedestrian Street Edge
Sectional Perspective through Courtyard
66.6
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
DA
NIE
LLE
McD
ON
OU
GH
187
Second Floor Plan
Ground Floor Plan
188
Scale1:50
Fourth + Fifth Floor Plan
Third Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
66.6
FAR
2.76
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
A terraced strategy maximizes light and air and adapts to the pedes-trian scale.
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 2one bedroom: 10two bedroom: 5
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
125’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
115’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
54’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
All
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
8
66.6
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
DA
NIE
LLE
McD
ON
OU
GH
189
Street Elevation - Vehicular Street Face
Ground Level Block Plan
190
Street Elevation - Pedestrian Street Face
Typical Level Block Plan
66.6
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
DA
NIE
LLE
McD
ON
OU
GH
191
192
66.6
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
DA
NIE
LLE
McD
ON
OU
GH
193
194
Typical Elevation
Sectional Perspective
70.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
KAT
IE M
CM
AH
ON
Multi-Familywithout Corridors Served by Four Stairs
195
Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan
196
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
70.0
FAR
2.57
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Poit Loaded Circulation
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 2one bedroom: 4two bedroom: 2three bedroom: 6
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
120’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
99’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.4
70.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
KAT
IE M
CM
AH
ON
Fourth Floor Plan Third Floor Plan
197
Block Section
Ground Level Block Plan
198
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
70.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
KAT
IE M
CM
AH
ON
199
District Plan
Birds Eye Block Perspective
200
Sectional Perspective
Relationship of Facade to Interior
Sectional Perspective
70.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
KAT
IE M
CM
AH
ON
201
202
Multi-Familywith Figurative Courtyard
Prototype
Sectional Perspective
77.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SAR
AH
TA
RBE
T
203
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
204
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
77.0
FAR
2.63
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Living rooms facing courtyard, bedrooms facing street.
UNIT BREAKDOWN
one bedroom: 6, two bedroom: 16
UNITS PER FLOOR
6
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
243’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
250’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
46’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.7
77.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SAR
AH
TA
RBE
T
Third Floor Plan
205
Block Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
206
Unfolded Courtyard Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
77.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SAR
AH
TA
RBE
T
207
Block Section
Birds Eye Block Perspective
208
Interior CourtyardEntry Portal
Street Perspective
77.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
SAR
AH
TA
RBE
T
209
210
Multi-Familywith Individual Entry System
from External Circulation Tissue
Sectional Perspective
78.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BAR
RET
T N
EWEL
L
211
Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan Third Floor Plan
212
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
78.0
FAR
2.56
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Double entry system connecting two buildings into one courtyard
UNITS PER FLOOR
5
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 14, one bed-room: 4two bedroom: 6
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
82’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
171’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.83
78.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BAR
RET
T N
EWEL
L
Fourth Floor Plan Fifth Floor Plan
213
Block Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
214
Section and Courtyard Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
78.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BAR
RET
T N
EWEL
L
215
End Block Elevation
216
Section and Courtyard Elevation
78.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
BAR
RET
T N
EWEL
L
217
218
Multi-Familywith a Rotated Elliptical Courtyard
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
96.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JAIM
E SW
EED
219
Second Floor Plan Ground Floor Plan
220
Scale1:50
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
96.0
FAR
1.99
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Rotating ellipse court-yard provides alternating terraces to units
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom: 2, two bedroom: 8, three bedroom: 0
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
99’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
76’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
39’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.2
96.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JAIM
E SW
EED
Fourth Floor Plan Third Floor Plan
221
Corner Block Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
222
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
96.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JAIM
E SW
EED
223
Diagram of Prototype Courtyard Organization
Section Perspective
224
Facade Detail
Typical Unit Axonometric
96.0
DW
ELLI
NG
UN
ITS/
AC
RE
JAIM
E SW
EED
225
226
Site Masterplans by Studio
227
228SITE ACREAGE209.41
BUILDING COVERAGE0.26
UNITS/ACRE33.10
NUMBER OF UNITS6,931
NUMBER OF BEDS11,531
PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS19.8%
PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS37.6%
PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS14.2%
AREA (TOTAL SITE)9,122,045 SF
AREA (TYP FLOOR)2,381,135 SF
AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PUBLIC PROGRAM350,718 SF
CH
RIS
TOFO
RET
TI
STU
DIO
MA
STER
PLA
N
229 JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55SINGLE FAMILY40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
KATIE MCMAHON | 193MULTI-FAMILY70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
IAN STABER MULTI-FAMILY45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55SINGLE FAMILY40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
BARRETT NEWELL | 209MULTI-FAMILY78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185MULTI-FAMILY66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
LEO RICHARDSON | 177MULTI-FAMILY62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
230MELISSA MIRANDA | 161MULTI-FAMILY55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
IAN STABER MULTI-FAMILY45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
MICHELLE MORTENSEN | 169MULTI-FAMILY22.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
THANA TALIEP MULTI-FAMILY58.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
BRAD MCKINNEY | 115MULTI-FAMILY35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185MULTI-FAMILY66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
LEO RICHARDSON | 177MULTI-FAMILY62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
CH
RIS
TOFO
RET
TI
STU
DIO
MA
STER
PLA
N
231
232SITE ACREAGE209.41
BUILDING COVERAGE0.36
UNITS/ACRE22.87
NUMBER OF UNITS5,164
NUMBER OF BEDS10,523
PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS22.4%
PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS34.2%
PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS33.4%
AREA (TOTAL SITE)9,122,045 SF
AREA (TYP FLOOR)3,248,491 SF
AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PUBLIC PROGRAM)10,000 SF
LOVE
STU
DIO
MA
STER
PLA
N
233
AARON TRAHAN | 31SINGLE-FAMILY25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
CHRISTINE MOYLAN | 39SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
CHRSITINE NASIR | 47SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
THOMAS NEAL | 123MULTI-FAMILY36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
SARAH TARBET | 201MULTI-FAMILY55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
234
CAITLIN WEZEL | 23SINGLE-FAMILY29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
LAURA POULIN | 89SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
THOMAS NEAL | 123MULTI-FAMILY36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JI PARKMULTI-FAMILY36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
AARON TRAHAN | 31SINGLE-FAMILY25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JONATHAN SAMPSON MULTI-FAMILY55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JOHN MARTIN | 81MULTI-FAMILY60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
LOVE
ST
UD
IO M
AST
ERPL
AN
235
236SITE ACREAGE209.41
BUILDING COVERAGE0.31
UNITS/ACRE32.04
NUMBER OF UNITS6,710
NUMBER OF BEDS10,755
PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED UNITS 38.3%
PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED UNITS 45.7%
PERCENTAGE OF THREE BED UNITS 9.1%
AREA (TOTAL SITE)9,122,045 SF
AREA (TYP FLOOR)2,859,587 SF
AREA (COMMERCIAL/ PROGRAM PROGRAM)324,984 SF
WIE
DER
SPA
HN
ST
UD
IO M
AST
ERPL
AN
237
BETTY QUINTANA | 15SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX34.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JAMIE SWEED | 217MULTI-FAMILY96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
TIM VALICH | 73 MULTI-FAMILY46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
KEN WORKINGS | 153MULTI-FAMILY46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
238
DAN MARINO | 129MULTI FAMILY42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
NATHAN ALESKOVSKYMULTI-FAMILY56.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
LUKE PALMA | 107MULTI-FAMILY35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JEFFREY MONTES | 145MULTI-FAMILY45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
SCOTT SWAILS | 137MULTI-FAMILY44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JOSH BILLINGS | 97MULTI-FAMILY69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
SARAH ROSENTHAL | 65MULTI-FAMILY32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
WIE
DER
SPA
HN
ST
UD
IO M
AST
ERPL
AN
239
240
The design of housing has been among the most persistent topics in the pedagogies of schools of architecture since the rise of 20th Century modernism. Why housing? To begin, housing is at the core of the architect’s commitment to the discipline as an arena of action which goes beyond the intangible long term influences of aesthetic concerns to address a level of immediate cultural and even political service. Building on its original mid-20th Century meaning as a corrective to the damaging effects of industrialization, “housing” has also come to be closely associated with the framing of the architectural project within the larger subject of the city. Housing fabric is the basic stuff of cities and lies at the fundamental intersection between the architectural and urban scales.
These studios, taught at Northeastern by Tim Love and his colleagues, represent a recommitment to the ideal of housing introduced at the core of the moral and technical formation of the young architect. But with at twist: Where previous generations, consciously or not, embraced the implicit agenda of ‘social’ housing, Professor Love updates his approach with an expert nod to the contemporary realities of private development restrained, for public interest purposes, only by the primitive mechanisms of zoning ordinances and building codes. The projects themselves then represent a kind of purposeful gamesmanship, following the path of community building through graduated scales and individual dwelling differentiation while outwitting the numerous community-adverse obstacles presented by parking, egress
Jonathan Levi
Courtyard Housing: Afterword
241 paths, elevatoring and the like. At the literal center of this tactical endeavor, the interior-block garden or courtyard emerges, dispelling the anonymity of repetition, offering respite from the automobile and, hopefully, providing the germ of community. Underlying these very comprehensive and comprehensible proposals, there lays a challenge to contemporary social conditions in America which are generally inimical to the meaningful creation of semi-private space. It is a practical challenge - one of ownership - and a spiritual one. The latter, in essence, because we Americans do not like to be in clustered pigeonholes, we do not like to be told what groups to belong to and, for better or worse, we simply do not like to share. The students remind us that the need to change these conditions is unquestionable given the social and ecological alternative of further despoiling the country and further alienating ourselves from one another.
Remembering the identity of cities and their housing, this then brings us to that indefatigable urban default structure - the street, and also to its current status and the city that it implies. Those represented here are remarkable if only for their authors’ highly laudable attention to the details of elevations – an attention which is lacking in many schools of architecture today. In so doing, the students have been able to tangibly mediate the critical contest between automobiles and pedestrians, between garages and entries, which is at the heart of the nature of contemporary cities. They do so with optimism about the livability of public streets which is justifiable – but perhaps not so much for today as it is for tomorrow.
Certainly, the ordinary street today is nothing like it was in our distant memory or as it now sometimes exists in exotic places for wealthy people on the prowl for fun and purchases. It will never be exactly that. It will probably not be a place of walking to work or kids going to school or mothers congregating during the day with strollers. Workplace mobility, taken together with full employment outside the home and our affinity for spreading over the land, has overtaken all that in the form of the automobile. And the automobile, though it may eventually take more communally responsible form, is here to stay.
However, significantly, the workplace is changing. Mobility is increasingly virtual. Commuting is increasingly virtual. Commerce is increasingly virtual. There is a real possibility that the separated workplace, dwelling and commercial concentrations that have, in the last 50 years, driven the emptying of streets will someday be obsolete. There is a possibility that housing will not just be mostly the stuff of cities, but all of them. Then, in the ‘post vehicular’ city, we will see what streets will become. It will not be a city without cars, not a restoration of quaint pedestrianism, but where cars have a new and less fearsomely essential meaning. In their carefully scaled streets and cleverly configured courtyards these student proposals seek to heal the empty places of today’s cities and offer a view of the transformative importance of housing for the future. A future where, perhaps, dwellings will once again be fully occupied throughout the day and where streets are not just conduits but are themselves liveable and lived in gardens.
COURTYARD HOUSING
ARCH 5110 HOUSING AND AGGREGATION
FALL 2009
The projects in this volume were designed
as prototypical residential types and city
block plans by fourth-year students in the
undergradu ate architecture program at
Northeastern University in Boston.