courtyard housing issuu.pdf

8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf

1/248

FALL 2009

Northeastern University School of ArchitectureARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio

COURTYARDHOUSING


2/248


3/248

FALL 2009

Northeastern University School of Architecture

ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio

EDITORS

ELIZABETH CHRISTOFORETTI

TIM LOVE

STUDENT EDITORS

MELISSA MIRANDA

AARON TRAHAN

COURTYARDHOUSING


4/248

2010 Northeastern University School of Architecture

CONTENT

The 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.

FACULTY

Elizabeth Christoforetti

Tim Love

Peter Weiderspahn

STUDENTS

Nathan 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

PRINTING

LULU

lulu.com


5/248

Contents

A CASE FOR TYPOLOGICAL THINKING

Tim Love 1

COURTYARD HOUSING: MANUAL AS MANIFESTO

Hubert Murray 9

SINGLE FAMILY & SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX

Betty 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 PLANS

Christoforetti Studio 227

Love Studio 231

Wiederspahn Studio 235

COURTYARD HOUSING: AFTERWORD

Jonathan Levi 239


6/248

1


7/248

2

Tim Love

A Case for TypologicalThinking

Courtyard Building Prototypes

The buildings in this volume were designed as prototypical

residential types by fth-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 Thinking

For the past twenty-ve years contextualism of one sortor 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 denition). More broadly, I am considering all of the

intentions, motivations, and arguments that conspire tomake 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


8/248

3 twitch of eccentric geometry adjacent to the project site

is used as a justication 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 x 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 ller for expres-

sive form.

In the nested set of relations that shape contemporary real

estate and construction, the denition of the use-category

of a building - whether an ofce building, apartment build-

ing, or hospital wing - is the typical way that a building proj-

ect is rst conceived and design is launched. Even beforedesign 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 buildings nancial performance, and assurance that risk

of nancial failure is minimized, means that lending institu-

tions and the underwriters of development nancing favor

proven building congurations (termed comps). But can

architecture schools engage this set of real-world econom-

ic priorities and still nd 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 rst 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 fullythe 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


9/248

4the Masters Degree Research Studio, for example, students

have focused on ofce 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 rst 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 inll 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 housingcould provide an alternative to the triple-decker: the wood

frame, three-ats-stacked housing type that dominated the

dense rst-ring suburban growth in New England in the late

19th and early 20th Century.

North American Housing Types

With housing, typological invention can more radicallyquestion 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 rst 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 rst speculative redevelopment of urban property

that the British rowhouse was introduced to maximize land

value.

Outside of Bostons city center, the metropolitan areas

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 reofcials, land speculators, builders, and elected ofcials.

Housing and Open Space

The 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 rearyards 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 ux 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


10/248

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 reconguration 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 sametime, 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 faade. American townhouse precedent in

districts like Bostons Back Bay, where each parcel-owner

sought self-expression of faade and small front yard, can

serve as a model for the particular iconographic issues of a

distinctly American courtyard type.

Studio Pedagogy

The students were given six residential building types at

the launch of the studio; the types varied in the number

of units per oor 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 specic 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 directionsalmost 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.


11/248

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'

i i i ll 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 i l

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 14

One Bedroom 700-900 Primary bedroom 12

Two bedroom 900-1250 Secondary bedroom 11

Three bedroom 1250-1475 Kitchens/baths per code

* Habitable rooms include living areas and bedroomsand 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


12/248

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.

Conclusion

It 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 inll 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 Levis 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 againstaggregation, are necessarily anti-urban or whether it would be possible

to envision a dense wood construction which alleviates each of woods

weaknesses one by one its lack of durability, poor acoustics, and

susceptibility to re, 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 Bostons residential neighbor-

hoods was $175/SF. A comparable masonry building with a steel frame

would be budgeted at approximately $240/SF.


13/248

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, Publishedby Lund Humphries for the Architectural Association, Lon-don, 1973.

Pefer, Gunter and Per Brauneck, Courtyard Houses: AHousing 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, HarvardUniversity Press, 1978.

Schneider, Friederike, Floor Plan Atlas: Housing, BirkhauserVerlag, 1994.


14/248

9


15/248

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 eld 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 Manual

The parentage on one side is the builders 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, Spitalelds) for

the upper, middle and lower classes, accommodating them

in row houses ordered by size and style from the gentle-

mans townhouse to the workers 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 underthe 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 Schneiders

Floor Plan Manual2that 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, efcient and (in a restricted sense)

elegant solutions to mass housing. Beyond density, oor

plate, circulation, disposition and dimensioning of spaces

for living, sleeping, cooking and dining there is no theory

bar that of the efcacy of standardization.3

Hubert Murray

Courtyard Housing:Manual as Manifesto


16/248

11 The Manifesto

If this side of the marriage has its own austere heritage,

there is another side, ideological and reformist, that seeks

to promote the virtues of social housing as, at the very best,

the expression of a full and meaningful life (the home for

Karl Marxs 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 mustlook for more immediate inuence in both Europe and

the United States. In parallel with modernist experiments

in high-rise slab housing during this period, Ludwig Hilber-

sheimer, Hugo Hring, Hannes Meyer4and 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 1920sGermany 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 onlyhad its owering in the disastrous era of urban clearances,

conrming 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 conjunctionthat 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.5Their discussion ends, not

coincidentally, in a detailed analysis of courtyard housing


17/248

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 sufce to illustrate the conjunction of the

technical and the social, in which the design manual neces-

sarily carries within it the ame 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 butthe court itself is severely restricted and in northern lati-

tudes is a place in which, for considerable periods, the sun

does not shine.6If 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, Cerdas Barcelona grid with its com-munal courts serving hundreds of units, at the other.7The

dialectic between community and privacy, the social and the

individual, is inherent in every one of the plans represented

in this volume.

Pragmatism as Program

Tim Loves 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 uncoverthe 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 theGLCs 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, Birkhuser 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.


18/248

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.


19/248

14

Single Family and Side-by-Side DuplexCourtyard Housing


20/248

15


21/248

16

Duplexwith Interlocking Units

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

22.6

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

BETTYQUINTAN

A


22/248

17

Ground Floor Plan


23/248

18

Scale

1 : 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 UNITS0 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

22.6

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

BETTYQUINTAN

A

Second Floor Plan


24/248

19

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan


25/248

20

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

22.6

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

BETTYQUINTAN

A


26/248

21

Elevation Perspective

Birds Eye Block Perspective


27/248

22

Street Level Perspective

22.6

DWELLING

UNITS/ACRE

BETTYQUINTAN

A


28/248

23


29/248

24

Single Familywith Central Courtyard

Elevation


25.0

DWELLING

UNITS/ACRE

CAITLINWEZEL


30/248

25

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan


31/248

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 WALL44

DEPTH OF BUILDING

37-6

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

32-6

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

Scale

1:20

Third Floor Plan

25.0

DWELLING

UNITS/ACRE

CAITLINWEZEL


32/248

27

Block Elevation



33/248

28

Section through block

Second Floor Block Plan

25.0

DWELLING

UNITS/ACRE

CAITLINWEZEL


34/248

29



Section through minor street


35/248

30

Minor Street Elevation

Perspective of Minor Street

25.0

DWELLING

UNITS/ACRE

CAITLINWEZEL


36/248

31


37/248

32

Single Familywith L-Type, Bookmatch Aggregation



29.0

DWELLING

UNITS/ACRE

AARONTRAHA

N

33


38/248

33

Second Floor PlanFirst Floor PlanGround Floor Plan



39/248

34

Scale

1:20

Front Elevation

Corner Front Elevation

Corner Side Elevation

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

29.0

FAR

1.67


L type, bookmatchaggregation.

UNITS PER FLOOR

1

UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 1


36

DEPTH OF BUILDING

50

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

30-6

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

29.0

DWELLING

UNITS/ACRE

AARONTRAHA

N

35


40/248

35

Elevation



41/248

37


42/248

Perspective Perspective


38


43/248

Block Courtyard Perspective

29.0

DWELLING

UNITS/ACRE

AARONTRAHA

N

39


44/248

40

Si l F il


45/248

Single Familywith Stepped Decks

Front Elevation


30.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

CHRISTINEMO

YLAN

Elevation

41


46/248

Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan


30 0


47/248

Scale

1:20

30.0

FAR

1.62


Interior circulationwraps through the

house in conjunction

with the exterior ter-

race circulation.

UNITS PER FLOOR

1

UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 1


31-9

DEPTH OF BUILDING

42

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

32-8

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

30.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

CHRISTINEMO

YLAN

Third Floor Plan

43


48/248

Courtyard Elevation


44


49/248



30.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

CHRISTINEMO

YLAN

45


50/248



BIRDS EYE BLOCK PERSPECTIVE

46


51/248

Courtyard Perspective

30.0

DWELLIN

GUNITS/ACRE

CHRISTINEMOYLAN

47


52/248

48

Duplex


53/248

Duplexwith Adjoining Private Courtyards

Sectional Perspective Through Upper Unit

Sectional Perspective Through Lower Unit

32.0

DWELLIN

GUNITS/ACRE

CHRISTINENASIR

49


54/248

Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan


32.0


55/248

Scale

1 : 20

FAR

1.40


U-shaped units wrap

courtyard.

UNIT BREAKDOWN

two bedroom: 2

UNITS PER FLOOR

2


45

DEPTH OF BUILDING

60

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

25

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT1

32.0

DWELLIN

GUNITS/ACRE

CHRISTINENASIR

Third Floor Plan Roof Plan

51


56/248

Short Block Elevation


52


57/248


Upper Level Block Plan

32.0

DWELLIN

GUNITS/ACRE

CHRISTINENASIR

53


58/248

Lower Courtyard View Sections Through Block


Upper Courtyard View

54


59/248

Street Level Perspective

32.0

DWELLIN

GUNITS/ACRE

CHRISTINEN

ASIR

55


60/248

56

Single Family


61/248

Single Familywith Stepped Section and Terraces

Longitudinal Section Through Courtyard


40.1

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

JACQUELINE

MOSSMAN

57


62/248



40.1


63/248

Scale

1:20

FAR

2


Private Entry/

Circulation.

UNITS PER FLOOR

2

UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 2


35

DEPTH OF BUILDING

82

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT1-2

40.1

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

JACQUELINE

MOSSMAN

Fourth Floor PlanThird Floor Plan

59


64/248

South Elevation Detail


60

E


65/248

North Elevation Detail


40.1

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

JACQUELINE

MOSSMAN

61


66/248

Concept Development Diagram


62OPTION ASTEEP TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE

(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS

RE


67/248

Prototype Topographical

Adaptation

OPTION B

SHALLOW TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE

(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS

1 STUDIO UNIT

OPTION C

NO TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE

(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS

1 STUDIO LOFT UNIT OR COMMERCIAL SPACE

40.1

DWELLINGUNITS/ACR

JACQUELINE

MOSSMAN


68/248

64


69/248

Multi-Family (Single Exposure) Courtyard Housing

65


70/248

66

Multi-Familywith Courtyard with View to the Street

CRE


71/248

y

Prototype Elevation


32.0

DWELL

INGUNITS/AC

SARAROSENTHAL


72/248


32.0

FAR

2 20 AC

RE


73/248

Scale

1:50

2.20


Point-load circula-

tion entered throughcourtyard above parking

plinth

UNITS PER FLOOR

6

UNIT BREAKDOWN


12, two bedroom: 6,

three bedroom: 0


110

DEPTH OF BUILDING

91 -4

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41-6

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.72

32.0

DWELL

INGUNITS/A

SARAROSENTHAL


69


74/248


Elevation

70

ACRE


75/248



32.0

DWELL

INGUNITS/A

SARAROSENTHAL

71


76/248

Section and Courtyard Elevations


72

/ACRE


77/248

Prototype to Block CirculationPrototype to Block Massing

Section Perspective from Street

32.0

DWELLINGUNITS/

SARAROSE

NTHAL

73


78/248

74

/ACRE

Multi-Familywith Stepped Courtyard

Open to the Street


79/248



46.4

DWELL

INGUNITS/

TIMVALICH

p

75


80/248



46.4

FAR

1.87S/

ACRE


81/248

Scale

1:50


Terraced courtyard open to

the street.

UNITS PER FLOOR

7

UNIT BREAKDOWN


18, two bedroom: 6,

three bedroom: 0


175

DEPTH OF BUILDING

105

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

5 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.44

46.4

DWELL

INGUNITS

TIMVALICH


77


82/248

Elevation


78

TS/ACRE


83/248



46.4

DWELLINGUNIT

TIMVALICH

79


84/248

Prototype Figure Ground


80

TS/ACRE


85/248

Street Perspective

46.4

DWELLINGUNIT

TIMVALICH


86/248

82

Multi-Familywith Courtyards within Courtyards

NITS/ACRE


87/248

Street Elevation


60.0

DWELLINGUN

JOHNMAR

TIN

83


88/248



89/248

85


90/248

Block Long Street Elevation


86

NITS/ACRE


91/248

Block Short Street Elevation


60.0

DWEL

LINGU

JOHNMAR

TIN


92/248

88

UNITS/ACRE


93/248

Street Perspective

Courtyard Perspective

60.0

DWEL

LINGU

JOHNMARTIN

89


94/248

90

Multi-Familywith Skip-stop Corridor

UNITS/ACRE


95/248



67.0

DWELLING

LAURAPO

ULIN

91


96/248


DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

67.0

FAR

1.98


S

92

GUNITS/ACRE

N


97/248

Skip-stop corridor

provides access to

duplex units.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 1

one bedroom: 4

two bedroom: 4

three bedroom: 4


80

DEPTH OF BUILDING

108

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41

ACCESSIBLE UNITS1 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1

Scale

1:50

67.0

DWELLING

LAURAPO

ULIN

Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan

93


98/248

Longitudinal Block Section


94

T ical Bl ck Street Ele ati n GUNITS/ACRE

N


99/248


Corridor Level Block Plan

67.0

DWELLING

LAURAPO

ULIN

95


100/248

Transverse Block Section



101/248

97


102/248

98

Multi-Familywith a Semi-public Courtyard

NGUNITS/ACRE

GS


103/248

Transverse Section through Courtyard

Section through Courtyard

69.0

DWE

LLIN

JOSHBILLING

99


104/248



69.0

FAR

1.87


Four point load stairs,NGUNITS/ACRE

GS


105/248

Scale

1:50

one skip-stop corridor

serving oors 4 and 5.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN



bedroom: 2

WIDTH AT STREET WALL113-8

DEPTH OF BUILDING

84-4

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

59

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

15

69.0

DWE

LLI

JOSHBILLIN


101


106/248



102

LINGUNITS/ACRE

NGS


107/248



69.0

DWELL

JOSHBILLIN

103


108/248

Diagrammatic Section through District

District Figure/Ground Plan

104

LLINGUNITS/ACRE

NGS


109/248

Section through Block

Aerial Perspective

69.0

DWEL

JOSHBILLIN

105


110/248


111/248

107


112/248

108

Multi-Familywith Connected Community Courtyards

ELLINGUNITS/ACRE

LMA


113/248



35.4

DW

E

LUKEPA

L

109


114/248



35.4

FAR

1.85


Courtyards are con-

nected on each side toELLINGUNITS/ACRE

LMA


115/248

Scale

1:50


provide circulation forintra-block and domestic

circulation.

UNITS PER FLOOR

5

UNIT BREAKDOWN

two bedroom: 10

three bedroom: 10


90-10

DEPTH OF BUILDING

148-4

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

55

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

2

35.4

DW

LUKEPA

111


116/248

Front Elevation


112

ELLINGUNITS/ACRE

LMA


117/248

Back Elevation


35.4

DW

LUKEPA

113


118/248


Transverse Section Through SiteStreet Perspective

114

W

ELLINGUNITS/ACRE

LMA


119/248

Section Through Park

35.4

DW

LUKEPA

Figure Ground DiagramIntra-Block Circulation Interior Circulation

115


120/248

116

Multi-Familywith Filtered Mid-block Landscape

DW

ELLINGUNITS/ACRE

DM

CKINNEY


121/248

Street and Greenway Elevations


35.5

DW

BRADM

117


122/248



35.5

FAR

1.73


Double courtyard sys-

tem lters circulation

and function. DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

DM

CKINNEY


123/248

Scale

1:50

UNITS PER FLOOR

6

UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 3

one bedroom: 2

two bedroom: 8

three bedroom: 2


115

DEPTH OF BUILDING

160

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

36

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

6 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.8

35.5

D

BRADM


119


124/248

Typical Street Elevations


120

Greenway Elevation

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

ADMCKINNEY


125/248


35.5BRA

121

P d W lk El


126/248

Pedestrian Walkway Elevations

Cornice Detail

122

Walk a DetailBirds E e Bl ck Pers ecti e 5DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

ADMCKINNEY


127/248

Walkway DetailBirds Eye Block Perspective

Prototype Section

35.5BRA

123


128/248

124

Multi-Familywith Units Expressed as

Individual Buildings

T S Th h C d.0

DW

ELLINGUNITS/ACRE

HOMASNEAL


129/248



36TH

125


130/248



36.0

FAR

2.07


Multi-family horseshoe

shaped housing with

inserted single family

row houses to create a6.

0DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

HOMASNEAL


131/248

Scale

1:50

two tiered courtyard.

UNITS PER FLOOR

6

UNIT BREAKDOWN

two bedroom: 8

three bedroom: 4


108

DEPTH OF BUILDING

120

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

40

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.5

36T


127



132/248


128

Typical Block Street Section

36.0D

WELLINGUNITS/ACRE

THOM

ASNEAL


133/248


3T

129


134/248

130

Multi Familywithout Corridors Serving Six Stairs


42.2D

WELLINGUNITS/ACRE

DANM

ARINO


135/248


131


136/248


42.2

FAR

1.99


Point load stair system

with staggered oors

and half submerged

parking below

42.2D

WELLINGUNITS/ACRE

DANM

ARINO


137/248

Scale

1:50

UNITS PER FLOOR

5

UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0,

one bedroom: 2,

two bedroom: 0,


111

DEPTH OF BUILDING

117

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.75

Fourth Floor Plan Fifth Floor Plan

133

Section / Courtyard Elevation


138/248


134


42.2D

WELLINGUNITS/ACRE

DANMARINO


139/248


135

District Perspectives


140/248

Birds Eye District Perspective

136

Massing Strategy

42.2D

WELLINGUNITS/ACRE

DANMARINO


141/248

Privitization of open spaces

137


142/248

138

Multi-FamilyWith Adjacent Semi-Private Courtyards


44.9D

WELLINGUNITS/ACRE

SCOT

TSWAILS


143/248


139


144/248

Ground Floor Plan Typical Floor Plan


44.9

FAR

1.39


Inverted shape provides

ideal amounts of light

and privacy

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

44.9D

WELLINGUNITS/ACRE

SCOT

TSWAILS


145/248

Scale

1:50

Ground Floor End Unit Typical Floor End Unit

UNIT BREAKDOWN



bedroom: 0


914

DEPTH OF BUILDING

86

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

306

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.75

141

Standard Unit Main Street Elevation


146/248



147/248

143

Commercial Street Elevation


148/248


144

Sectional Axonometric ViewSectional Axonometric View

44.9

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

SCOTTSWAILS


149/248

Typical Unit Axonometric

145


150/248


151/248

147


152/248

Ground Floor Plan


45.8

FAR

1.52


Ramps around interior

face of courtyard pro-

vide primary access to

units

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

45.8

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

JEFFR

EYMONTES


153/248

Scale

1:50

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN


7, two bedroom: 8


132-9

DEPTH OF BUILDING

78-9

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

33-4

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

3 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.7

Second Floor Plan

149

Elevation


154/248


150

Typical Block Street Elevation45.8

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

JEFFR

EYMONTES


155/248

Main Courtyard Perspective

151

Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation


156/248


152

45.8

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

JEFFREYMONTES


157/248

Main Courtyard Perspective

153


158/248

154

Multi-Familywith Cantilevered Volumes


46.4

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

KEN

WORKINGS


159/248


155


160/248

Third FloorSecond FloorGround Floor


46.4

FAR

1.87


Shifting volumes in both

plan and section allow

for maximum light pen-

etration for mid-buildingunits

UNITS PER FLOOR

12

46.4

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

KEN

WORKINGS


161/248

Scale

1:50

Fifth FloorFourth Floor

12

UNIT BREAKDOWN

one bedroom: 16, two

bedroom: 18


80

DEPTH OF BUILDING

275

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.9

157

Long Block Street Elevation


162/248


158

End Block Street Elevation

46.4

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

KEN

WORKINGS


163/248

Single Prototype ElevationElevational Variance Diagram

159



164/248

160

Facade DetailRamp Landscaping Detail 46.4

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

KEN

WORKINGS


165/248

161


166/248

162

Multi-Familywith Ramps as Main Circulation

Transverse Section Through Courtyard 55.0DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

MELISSAMIRANDA


167/248


163


168/248


164DWELLING UNITS/ACRE55.0

FAR

2.30


Ramps around interior

face of courtyard pro-

vide primary access to

units and promote social

interaction.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

55.0DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

MELISSAMIRANDA


169/248

Scale

1:50

UNIT BREAKDOWN



bedroom: 3


98-0

DEPTH OF BUILDING

100-0

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

50-0

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

12/14


165

Boardwalk Elevation


170/248


166



MELISSAMIRANDA


171/248


167

Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation


172/248


168

Single Bedroom Unit AxonInterior Perspective of Artists Studio

55.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

ME

LISSAMIRANDA


173/248

Ramp Perspective

169


174/248

170

Multi-Familywith Subtractive Terraces and Voids

Transverse Section Through Courtyard 57.7

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

MICHELLEMORTENSEN


175/248


171


176/248

Ground Floor First Floor

172DWELLING UNITS/ACRE57.7

FAR

2.06


Individually articulated

3-Dimensional L-shaped,

staggered units wrapped

around a courtyard.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 5 one bedroom:

57.7

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

MICHELLEMORTENSEN


177/248

Scale

1:50

Second Floor Third Floor


3, two bedroom: 2 ,

three bedroom: 2


70

DEPTH OF BUILDING

100

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

43

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.7

173

South Elevation


178/248


174

Typical Block Transverse Section

57

.7DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

MICHELLEMORTENSEN


179/248


175

Sectional Perspective Progression Cut 4


180/248

Perspective

176

Massing of interlocking uni ts wi th ci rulcat ion vo ids Massing of interlocking uni ts wi th publ ic space voids 57


MICHELLEMORTENSEN


181/248

Exploded Axon of Unit Types

177


182/248

178

Multi-Familywith Passive Solar Orientation

Transverse Section Through Courtyard 62


LE

ORICHARDSON


183/248


179


184/248

Second Floor Plan

Ground Floor Plan


62.1

FAR

3.22


Elevator access to all

units with exterior stair-

ways to roofdecks.

UNITS PER FLOOR

6

UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 2

one bedroom: 2

two bedroom: 10


LEORICHARDSON


185/248

Scale

1:50

two bedroom: 10

three bedroom: 5


110

DEPTH OF BUILDING

125

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

65

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

19

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.7

Fourth Floor Plan

Third Floor Plan

181

Street Elevation


186/248



187/248

183

Diagram of Accessible Interior Circulation

Vertical Elevator Circulation

Horizontal Corridor Circulation


188/248



189/248

185


190/248

186

Multi-Familywith Two Distinct Urban Faces

Elevation - Vehicular Street FaceElevation - Pedestrian Street Edge

6


D

ANIELLEMcDONOUGH


191/248


Sectional Perspective through Courtyard

187


192/248

Second Floor Plan

Ground Floor Plan


66.6

FAR

2.76


A terraced strategy

maximizes light and air

and adapts to the pedes-

trian scale.

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 2

one bedroom: 10

t b d 5

6


D

ANIELLEMcDONOUGH


193/248

Scale

1:50

Fourth + Fifth Floor Plan

Third Floor Plan

two bedroom: 5


125

DEPTH OF BUILDING

115

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

54

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

All

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

8

189

Street Elevation - Vehicular Street Face


194/248


190

Street Elevation - Pedestrian Street Face

66.6

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

D

ANIELLEMcDONOUGH


195/248


191


196/248

192

66.6

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

DANIELLEMcDONOUGH


197/248


198/248

194

Typical Elevation70.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

KATIEMCMAHON

Multi-Familywithout Corridors Served by Four Stairs


199/248


195


200/248



70.0

FAR

2.57


Poit Loaded Circulation

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 2

one bedroom: 4

two bedroom: 2

three bedroom: 6


120

70.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

KATIEMCMAHON


201/248

Scale

1:50

120

DEPTH OF BUILDING

99

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.4


197

Block Section


202/248


198


70.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

KATIEMCMAHON


203/248


199

District Plan


204/248


200

Sectional Perspective Sectional Perspective

70.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

KATIEMCMAHON


205/248

Relationship of Facade to Interior

201


206/248

202

Multi-Familywith Figurative Courtyard

Prototype

77.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

SARAHTARBET


207/248


203


208/248



77.0

FAR

2.63


Living rooms facing

courtyard, bedrooms

facing street.

UNIT BREAKDOWN

one bedroom: 6, two

bedroom: 16

UNITS PER FLOOR

6


243

77.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

SARAHTARBET


209/248

Scale

1:50

DEPTH OF BUILDING

250

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

46

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.7

Third Floor Plan


210/248

206

Unfolded Courtyard Elevation

77.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

SARAHTARBET


211/248


207

Block Section


212/248


208

Interior CourtyardEntry Portal

77.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

SARAHTARBET


213/248

Street Perspective

209


214/248

210

Multi-Familywith Individual Entry System

from External Circulation Tissue

78.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

BARRETTNEWELL


215/248


211


216/248

Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan Third Floor Plan


217/248

213

Block Elevation


218/248


214

Section and Courtyard Elevation

78.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

BARRETTNEWELL


219/248



220/248

216

Section and Courtyard Elevation

78.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

BARRETTNEWELL


221/248

217


222/248

218

Multi-Familywith a Rotated Elliptical Courtyard


96.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

JAIMESWEED


223/248


219


224/248



96.0

FAR

1.99


Rotating ellipse court-

yard provides alternating

terraces to units

UNITS PER FLOOR

4

UNIT BREAKDOWN



bedroom: 0


99

96.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

JAIMESWEED


225/248

Scale

1:50

DEPTH OF BUILDING76

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

39

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.2


221

Corner Block Elevation


226/248


222


96.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

JAIMESWEED


227/248


223

Diagram of Prototype Courtyard Organization


228/248

Section Perspective

224

Facade Detail

96.0

DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE

JAIMESWEED


229/248

Typical Unit Axonometric


230/248

226


231/248

Site Masterplans by Studio

227


232/248

228SITE ACREAGE209.41

BUILDING COVERAGE

0.26

UNITS/ACRE

33.10

NUMBER OF UNITS

6,931

NUMBER OF BEDS

11,531

PERCENTAGE OF ONE

BED UNITS

19.8%

PERCENTAGE OF TWO

BED UNITS

37.6%

PERCENTAGE OF THREE

BED UNITS

14.2%

AREA (TOTAL SITE)


233/248

AREA (TOTAL SITE)9,122,045 SF

AREA (TYP FLOOR)

2,381,135 SF

AREA (COMMERCIAL/

PUBLIC PROGRAM

350,718 SF

CHRISTOFORETT

I

STUDIOMASTERPLAN

229JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55SINGLE FAMILY40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

KATIE MCMAHON | 193MULTI-FAMILY70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

IAN STABERMULTI-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


234/248

230MELISSA MIRANDA | 161MULTI-FAMILY55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

IAN STABERMULTI-FAMILY45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

MICHELLE MORTENSEN | 169MULTI-FAMILY22.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

THANA TALIEPMULTI-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


235/248

CHRISTOFORETTI

STUDIOMASTER

PLAN

231


236/248


BUILDING COVERAGE

0.36

UNITS/ACRE

22.87

NUMBER OF UNITS

5,164

NUMBER OF BEDS

10,523

PERCENTAGE OF ONE BEDUNITS

22.4%

PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED

UNITS

34.2%

PERCENTAGE OF THREE

BED UNITS

33.4%

AREA (TOTAL SITE)

9 122 045 SF


237/248

9,122,045 SF

AREA (TYP FLOOR)

3,248,491 SF

AREA (COMMERCIAL/

PUBLIC PROGRAM)

10,000 SF

LOVE

STUDIOMASTERP

LAN

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


238/248

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 SAMPSONMULTI-FAMILY

55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JOHN MARTIN | 81MULTI-FAMILY60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


239/248

LOVE

STUDIOMASTERP

LAN

235


240/248


BUILDING COVERAGE

0.31

UNITS/ACRE

32.04

NUMBER OF UNITS

6,710

NUMBER OF BEDS

10,755

PERCENTAGE OF ONEBED UNITS

38.3%

PERCENTAGE OF TWO

BED UNITS

45.7%

PERCENTAGE OF THREE

BED UNITS

9.1%

AREA (TOTAL SITE)

9,122,045 SF


241/248

AREA (TYP FLOOR)

2,859,587 SF

AREA (COMMERCIAL/

PROGRAM PROGRAM)

324,984 SF

WIEDERSPAHN

STUDIOMASTER

PLAN

237

BETTY QUINTANA | 15SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX34.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JAMIE SWEED | 217MULTI-FAMILY96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

TIM VALICH | 73MULTI-FAMILY


KEN WORKINGS | 153MULTI-FAMILY



242/248

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-FAMILY


SCOTT SWAILS | 137MULTI-FAMILY44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JOSH BILLINGS | 97MULTI-FAMILY


SARAH ROSENTHAL | 65MULTI-FAMILY



243/248

WIEDERSPAHN

STUDIOMASTERPLAN

239


244/248

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 architects commitmentt th di i li f ti hi h b d

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: Wherei ti i l t b d th

Jonathan Levi

Courtyard Housing:Afterword


245/248

to the discipline as an arena of action which goes beyond

the intangible long term inuences 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 liesat the fundamental intersection between the architectural

and urban scales.

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 individualdwelling differentiation while outwitting the numerous

community-adverse obstacles presented by parking, egress

241 paths, elevatoring and the like. At the literal center of this

tactical endeavor, the interior-block garden or courtyard

emerges, dispelling the anonymity of repetition, offering

respite from the automobile and, hopefully, providing the

germ of community. Underlying these very comprehensive

and comprehensible proposals, there lays a challenge to

contemporary social conditions in America which are

generally inimical to the meaningful creation of semi-private

space. It is a practical challenge - one of ownership - and a

spiritual one. The latter, in essence, because we Americans

do not like to be in clustered pigeonholes, we do not like to

be told what groups to belong to and, for better or worse,

we simply do not like to share. The students remind us that

the need to change these conditions is unquestionable given

the social and ecological alternative of further despoiling the

country and further alienating ourselves from one another.

Remembering the identity of cities and their housing, this

then brings us to that indefatigable urban default structure

h d l d h h

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 afnity 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, signicantly, 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

f b ll f h Th h h l


246/248

- 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 justiable but perhaps not so much for

today as it is for tomorrow.

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

congured courtyards these student proposals seek to

heal the empty places of todays 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.


247/248

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

undergraduate architecture program at

Northeastern University in Boston.


248/248

courtyard housing issuu.pdf

Documents