Download - 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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
2/248
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
6/248
1
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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.
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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.
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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.
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
14/248
9
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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.
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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.
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
19/248
14
Single Family and Side-by-Side DuplexCourtyard Housing
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
20/248
15
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
21/248
16
Duplexwith Interlocking Units
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
22.6
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
BETTYQUINTAN
A
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
22/248
17
Ground Floor Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
24/248
19
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
25/248
20
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
22.6
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
BETTYQUINTAN
A
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
26/248
21
Elevation Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
27/248
22
Street Level Perspective
22.6
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE
BETTYQUINTAN
A
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
28/248
23
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
29/248
24
Single Familywith Central Courtyard
Elevation
Sectional Perspective
25.0
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE
CAITLINWEZEL
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
30/248
25
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
32/248
27
Block Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
33/248
28
Section through block
Second Floor Block Plan
25.0
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE
CAITLINWEZEL
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
34/248
29
Elevation Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Section through minor street
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
35/248
30
Minor Street Elevation
Perspective of Minor Street
25.0
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE
CAITLINWEZEL
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
36/248
31
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
37/248
32
Single Familywith L-Type, Bookmatch Aggregation
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
29.0
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE
AARONTRAHA
N
33
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
38/248
33
Second Floor PlanFirst Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
34DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
39/248
34
Scale
1:20
Front Elevation
Corner Front Elevation
Corner Side Elevation
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
29.0
FAR
1.67
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
L type, bookmatchaggregation.
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
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE
AARONTRAHA
N
35
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
40/248
35
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
41/248
37
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
42/248
Perspective Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective
38
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
43/248
Block Courtyard Perspective
29.0
DWELLING
UNITS/ACRE
AARONTRAHA
N
39
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
44/248
40
Si l F il
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
45/248
Single Familywith Stepped Decks
Front Elevation
Sectional Perspective
30.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
CHRISTINEMO
YLAN
Elevation
41
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
46/248
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
42DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
30 0
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
47/248
Scale
1:20
30.0
FAR
1.62
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Interior circulationwraps 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
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
CHRISTINEMO
YLAN
Third Floor Plan
43
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
48/248
Courtyard Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
44
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
49/248
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
30.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
CHRISTINEMO
YLAN
45
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
50/248
Elevation Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective
BIRDS EYE BLOCK PERSPECTIVE
46
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
51/248
Courtyard Perspective
30.0
DWELLIN
GUNITS/ACRE
CHRISTINEMOYLAN
47
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
52/248
48
Duplex
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
53/248
Duplexwith Adjoining Private Courtyards
Sectional Perspective Through Upper Unit
Sectional Perspective Through Lower Unit
32.0
DWELLIN
GUNITS/ACRE
CHRISTINENASIR
49
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
54/248
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
50DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
32.0
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
55/248
Scale
1 : 20
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/UNIT1
32.0
DWELLIN
GUNITS/ACRE
CHRISTINENASIR
Third Floor Plan Roof Plan
51
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
56/248
Short Block Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
52
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
57/248
Typical Block Street Elevation
Upper Level Block Plan
32.0
DWELLIN
GUNITS/ACRE
CHRISTINENASIR
53
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
58/248
Lower Courtyard View Sections Through Block
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Upper Courtyard View
54
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
59/248
Street Level Perspective
32.0
DWELLIN
GUNITS/ACRE
CHRISTINEN
ASIR
55
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
60/248
56
Single Family
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
61/248
Single Familywith Stepped Section and Terraces
Longitudinal Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
40.1
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
JACQUELINE
MOSSMAN
57
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
62/248
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
58DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
40.1
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
63/248
Scale
1:20
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/UNIT1-2
40.1
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
JACQUELINE
MOSSMAN
Fourth Floor PlanThird Floor Plan
59
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
64/248
South Elevation Detail
Ground Level Block Plan
60
E
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
65/248
North Elevation Detail
Typical Level Block Plan
40.1
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
JACQUELINE
MOSSMAN
61
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
66/248
Concept Development Diagram
Birds Eye Block Perspective
62OPTION ASTEEP TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE
(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS
RE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
68/248
64
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
69/248
Multi-Family (Single Exposure) Courtyard Housing
65
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
70/248
66
Multi-Familywith Courtyard with View to the Street
CRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
71/248
y
Prototype Elevation
Sectional Perspective
32.0
DWELL
INGUNITS/AC
SARAROSENTHAL
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
72/248
68DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
32.0
FAR
2 20 AC
RE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
73/248
Scale
1:50
2.20
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Point-load circula-
tion entered throughcourtyard 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
DWELL
INGUNITS/A
SARAROSENTHAL
Fourth Floor PlanThird Floor Plan
69
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
74/248
Ground Level Block Plan
Elevation
70
ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
75/248
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
32.0
DWELL
INGUNITS/A
SARAROSENTHAL
71
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
76/248
Section and Courtyard Elevations
Birds Eye Block Perspective
72
/ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
77/248
Prototype to Block CirculationPrototype to Block Massing
Section Perspective from Street
32.0
DWELLINGUNITS/
SARAROSE
NTHAL
73
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
78/248
74
/ACRE
Multi-Familywith Stepped Courtyard
Open to the Street
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
79/248
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
46.4
DWELL
INGUNITS/
TIMVALICH
p
75
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
80/248
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
76DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
46.4
FAR
1.87S/
ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
81/248
Scale
1:50
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
DWELL
INGUNITS
TIMVALICH
Fourth Floor PlanThird Floor Plan
77
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
82/248
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
78
TS/ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
83/248
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
46.4
DWELLINGUNIT
TIMVALICH
79
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
84/248
Prototype Figure Ground
Birds Eye Block Perspective
80
TS/ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
85/248
Street Perspective
46.4
DWELLINGUNIT
TIMVALICH
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
86/248
82
Multi-Familywith Courtyards within Courtyards
NITS/ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
87/248
Street Elevation
Sectional Perspective
60.0
DWELLINGUN
JOHNMAR
TIN
83
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
88/248
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
89/248
85
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
90/248
Block Long Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
86
NITS/ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
91/248
Block Short Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
60.0
DWEL
LINGU
JOHNMAR
TIN
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
92/248
88
UNITS/ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
93/248
Street Perspective
Courtyard Perspective
60.0
DWEL
LINGU
JOHNMARTIN
89
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
94/248
90
Multi-Familywith Skip-stop Corridor
UNITS/ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
95/248
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
67.0
DWELLING
LAURAPO
ULIN
91
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
96/248
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
67.0
FAR
1.98
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
S
92
GUNITS/ACRE
N
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
98/248
Longitudinal Block Section
Ground Level Block Plan
94
T ical Bl ck Street Ele ati n GUNITS/ACRE
N
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
99/248
Typical Block Street Elevation
Corridor Level Block Plan
67.0
DWELLING
LAURAPO
ULIN
95
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
100/248
Transverse Block Section
Birds Eye Block Perspective
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
101/248
97
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
102/248
98
Multi-Familywith a Semi-public Courtyard
NGUNITS/ACRE
GS
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
103/248
Transverse Section through Courtyard
Section through Courtyard
69.0
DWE
LLIN
JOSHBILLING
99
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
104/248
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
100DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
69.0
FAR
1.87
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Four point load stairs,NGUNITS/ACRE
GS
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
105/248
Scale
1:50
one skip-stop corridor
serving oors 4 and 5.
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom:
8, two bedroom: 7, three
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
Fourth Floor PlanThird Floor Plan
101
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
106/248
Typical Block Street Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
102
LINGUNITS/ACRE
NGS
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
107/248
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
69.0
DWELL
JOSHBILLIN
103
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
108/248
Diagrammatic Section through District
District Figure/Ground Plan
104
LLINGUNITS/ACRE
NGS
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
109/248
Section through Block
Aerial Perspective
69.0
DWEL
JOSHBILLIN
105
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
110/248
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
111/248
107
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
112/248
108
Multi-Familywith Connected Community Courtyards
ELLINGUNITS/ACRE
LMA
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
113/248
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
35.4
DW
E
LUKEPA
L
109
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
114/248
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
110DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
35.4
FAR
1.85
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Courtyards are con-
nected on each side toELLINGUNITS/ACRE
LMA
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
115/248
Scale
1:50
Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan
provide circulation forintra-block and domestic
circulation.
UNITS PER FLOOR
5
UNIT BREAKDOWN
two bedroom: 10
three 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
LUKEPA
111
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
116/248
Front Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
112
ELLINGUNITS/ACRE
LMA
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
117/248
Back Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan
35.4
DW
LUKEPA
113
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
118/248
Birds Eye Block Perspective
Transverse Section Through SiteStreet Perspective
114
W
ELLINGUNITS/ACRE
LMA
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
119/248
Section Through Park
35.4
DW
LUKEPA
Figure Ground DiagramIntra-Block Circulation Interior Circulation
115
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
120/248
116
Multi-Familywith Filtered Mid-block Landscape
DW
ELLINGUNITS/ACRE
DM
CKINNEY
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
121/248
Street and Greenway Elevations
Sectional Perspective
35.5
DW
BRADM
117
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
122/248
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
118DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
35.5
FAR
1.73
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Double courtyard sys-
tem lters circulation
and function. DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
DM
CKINNEY
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
123/248
Scale
1:50
UNITS PER FLOOR
6
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 3
one bedroom: 2
two bedroom: 8
three 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
D
BRADM
Fourth Floor PlanThird Floor Plan
119
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
124/248
Typical Street Elevations
Ground Level Block Plan
120
Greenway Elevation
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
ADMCKINNEY
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
125/248
Typical Level Block Plan
35.5BRA
121
P d W lk El
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
126/248
Pedestrian Walkway Elevations
Cornice Detail
122
Walk a DetailBirds E e Bl ck Pers ecti e 5DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
ADMCKINNEY
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
127/248
Walkway DetailBirds Eye Block Perspective
Prototype Section
35.5BRA
123
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
128/248
124
Multi-Familywith Units Expressed as
Individual Buildings
T S Th h C d.0
DW
ELLINGUNITS/ACRE
HOMASNEAL
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
129/248
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
36TH
125
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
130/248
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
126DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
36.0
FAR
2.07
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Multi-family horseshoe
shaped housing with
inserted single family
row houses to create a6.
0DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
HOMASNEAL
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
131/248
Scale
1:50
two tiered courtyard.
UNITS PER FLOOR
6
UNIT BREAKDOWN
two bedroom: 8
three bedroom: 4
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
108
DEPTH OF BUILDING
120
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
40
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.5
36T
Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan
127
Typical Block Street Elevation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
132/248
Ground Level Block Plan
128
Typical Block Street Section
36.0D
WELLINGUNITS/ACRE
THOM
ASNEAL
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
133/248
Typical Level Block Plan
3T
129
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
134/248
130
Multi Familywithout Corridors Serving Six Stairs
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
42.2D
WELLINGUNITS/ACRE
DANM
ARINO
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
135/248
Sectional Perspective
131
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
136/248
132DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
42.2
FAR
1.99
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Point load stair system
with staggered oors
and half submerged
parking below
42.2D
WELLINGUNITS/ACRE
DANM
ARINO
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
137/248
Scale
1:50
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
Fourth Floor Plan Fifth Floor Plan
133
Section / Courtyard Elevation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
138/248
Ground Level Block Plan
134
Typical Block Street Elevation
42.2D
WELLINGUNITS/ACRE
DANMARINO
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
139/248
Typical Level Block Plan
135
District Perspectives
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
140/248
Birds Eye District Perspective
136
Massing Strategy
42.2D
WELLINGUNITS/ACRE
DANMARINO
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
141/248
Privitization of open spaces
137
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
142/248
138
Multi-FamilyWith Adjacent Semi-Private Courtyards
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
44.9D
WELLINGUNITS/ACRE
SCOT
TSWAILS
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
143/248
Sectional Perspective
139
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
144/248
Ground Floor Plan Typical Floor Plan
140DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
44.9
FAR
1.39
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Inverted shape provides
ideal amounts of light
and privacy
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
44.9D
WELLINGUNITS/ACRE
SCOT
TSWAILS
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
145/248
Scale
1:50
Ground Floor End Unit Typical Floor End Unit
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom:
6, two bedroom: 6, three
bedroom: 0
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
914
DEPTH OF BUILDING
86
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
306
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.75
141
Standard Unit Main Street Elevation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
146/248
Ground Level Block Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
147/248
143
Commercial Street Elevation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
148/248
Birds Eye Block Perspective
144
Sectional Axonometric ViewSectional Axonometric View
44.9
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
SCOTTSWAILS
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
149/248
Typical Unit Axonometric
145
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
150/248
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
151/248
147
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
152/248
Ground Floor Plan
148DWELLING 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
45.8
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
JEFFR
EYMONTES
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
153/248
Scale
1:50
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
Second Floor Plan
149
Elevation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
154/248
Ground Level Block Plan
150
Typical Block Street Elevation45.8
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
JEFFR
EYMONTES
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
155/248
Main Courtyard Perspective
151
Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
156/248
Birds Eye Block Perspective
152
45.8
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
JEFFREYMONTES
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
157/248
Main Courtyard Perspective
153
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
158/248
154
Multi-Familywith Cantilevered Volumes
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
46.4
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
KEN
WORKINGS
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
159/248
Sectional Perspective
155
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
160/248
Third FloorSecond FloorGround Floor
156DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
46.4
FAR
1.87
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
161/248
Scale
1:50
Fifth FloorFourth 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
157
Long Block Street Elevation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
162/248
Typical Level Block Plan
158
End Block Street Elevation
46.4
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
KEN
WORKINGS
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
163/248
Single Prototype ElevationElevational Variance Diagram
159
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
164/248
160
Facade DetailRamp Landscaping Detail 46.4
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
KEN
WORKINGS
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
165/248
161
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
166/248
162
Multi-Familywith Ramps as Main Circulation
Transverse Section Through Courtyard 55.0DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
MELISSAMIRANDA
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
167/248
Sectional Perspective
163
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
168/248
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
164DWELLING UNITS/ACRE55.0
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
55.0DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
MELISSAMIRANDA
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
169/248
Scale
1:50
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
Fourth Floor PlanThird Floor Plan
165
Boardwalk Elevation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
170/248
Ground Level Block Plan
166
Typical Block Street Elevation
55.0DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
MELISSAMIRANDA
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
171/248
Typical Level Block Plan
167
Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
172/248
Birds Eye Block Perspective
168
Single Bedroom Unit AxonInterior Perspective of Artists Studio
55.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
ME
LISSAMIRANDA
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
173/248
Ramp Perspective
169
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
174/248
170
Multi-Familywith Subtractive Terraces and Voids
Transverse Section Through Courtyard 57.7
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
MICHELLEMORTENSEN
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
175/248
Sectional Perspective
171
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
176/248
Ground Floor First Floor
172DWELLING UNITS/ACRE57.7
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:
57.7
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
MICHELLEMORTENSEN
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
177/248
Scale
1:50
Second Floor Third Floor
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
173
South Elevation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
178/248
Ground Level Block Plan
174
Typical Block Transverse Section
57
.7DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
MICHELLEMORTENSEN
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
179/248
Typical Level Block Plan
175
Sectional Perspective Progression Cut 4
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
.7DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
MICHELLEMORTENSEN
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
181/248
Exploded Axon of Unit Types
177
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
182/248
178
Multi-Familywith Passive Solar Orientation
Transverse Section Through Courtyard 62
.0DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
LE
ORICHARDSON
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
183/248
Sectional Perspective
179
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
184/248
Second Floor Plan
Ground Floor Plan
180DWELLING 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: 2
one bedroom: 2
two bedroom: 10
62.0DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
LEORICHARDSON
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
185/248
Scale
1:50
two bedroom: 10
three bedroom: 5
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
186/248
Ground Level Block Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
187/248
183
Diagram of Accessible Interior Circulation
Vertical Elevator Circulation
Horizontal Corridor Circulation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
188/248
Birds Eye Block Perspective
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
189/248
185
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
190/248
186
Multi-Familywith Two Distinct Urban Faces
Elevation - Vehicular Street FaceElevation - Pedestrian Street Edge
6
6.6DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
D
ANIELLEMcDONOUGH
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
191/248
Sectional Perspective
Sectional Perspective through Courtyard
187
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
192/248
Second Floor Plan
Ground Floor Plan
188DWELLING 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: 2
one bedroom: 10
t b d 5
6
6.6DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
D
ANIELLEMcDONOUGH
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
193/248
Scale
1:50
Fourth + Fifth Floor Plan
Third Floor Plan
two bedroom: 5
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
125
DEPTH OF BUILDING
115
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
54
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
All
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
8
189
Street Elevation - Vehicular Street Face
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
194/248
Ground Level Block Plan
190
Street Elevation - Pedestrian Street Face
66.6
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
D
ANIELLEMcDONOUGH
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
195/248
Typical Level Block Plan
191
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
196/248
192
66.6
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
DANIELLEMcDONOUGH
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
197/248
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
198/248
194
Typical Elevation70.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
KATIEMCMAHON
Multi-Familywithout Corridors Served by Four Stairs
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
199/248
Sectional Perspective
195
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
200/248
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
196DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
70.0
FAR
2.57
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
Poit Loaded Circulation
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 2
one bedroom: 4
two bedroom: 2
three bedroom: 6
WIDTH AT STREET WALL
120
70.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
KATIEMCMAHON
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
201/248
Scale
1:50
120
DEPTH OF BUILDING
99
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.4
Fourth Floor PlanThird Floor Plan
197
Block Section
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
202/248
Ground Level Block Plan
198
Typical Block Street Elevation
70.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
KATIEMCMAHON
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
203/248
Typical Level Block Plan
199
District Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
204/248
Birds Eye Block Perspective
200
Sectional Perspective Sectional Perspective
70.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
KATIEMCMAHON
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
205/248
Relationship of Facade to Interior
201
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
206/248
202
Multi-Familywith Figurative Courtyard
Prototype
77.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
SARAHTARBET
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
207/248
Sectional Perspective
203
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
208/248
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
204DWELLING 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
77.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
SARAHTARBET
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
209/248
Scale
1:50
DEPTH OF BUILDING
250
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
46
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.7
Third Floor Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
210/248
206
Unfolded Courtyard Elevation
77.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
SARAHTARBET
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
211/248
Typical Level Block Plan
207
Block Section
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
212/248
Birds Eye Block Perspective
208
Interior CourtyardEntry Portal
77.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
SARAHTARBET
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
213/248
Street Perspective
209
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
214/248
210
Multi-Familywith Individual Entry System
from External Circulation Tissue
78.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
BARRETTNEWELL
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
215/248
Sectional Perspective
211
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
216/248
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan Third Floor Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
217/248
213
Block Elevation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
218/248
Ground Level Block Plan
214
Section and Courtyard Elevation
78.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
BARRETTNEWELL
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
219/248
Typical Level Block Plan
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
220/248
216
Section and Courtyard Elevation
78.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
BARRETTNEWELL
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
221/248
217
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
222/248
218
Multi-Familywith a Rotated Elliptical Courtyard
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
96.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
JAIMESWEED
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
223/248
Sectional Perspective
219
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
224/248
Second Floor PlanGround Floor Plan
220DWELLING 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
96.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
JAIMESWEED
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
225/248
Scale
1:50
DEPTH OF BUILDING76
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
39
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.2
Fourth Floor PlanThird Floor Plan
221
Corner Block Elevation
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
226/248
Ground Level Block Plan
222
Typical Block Street Elevation
96.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
JAIMESWEED
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
227/248
Typical Level Block Plan
223
Diagram of Prototype Courtyard Organization
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
228/248
Section Perspective
224
Facade Detail
96.0
DWELLINGUNITS/ACRE
JAIMESWEED
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
229/248
Typical Unit Axonometric
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
230/248
226
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
231/248
Site Masterplans by Studio
227
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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)
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
235/248
CHRISTOFORETTI
STUDIOMASTER
PLAN
231
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
236/248
232SITE ACREAGE209.41
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
239/248
LOVE
STUDIOMASTERP
LAN
235
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
240/248
236SITE ACREAGE209.41
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
KEN WORKINGS | 153MULTI-FAMILY
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
SCOTT SWAILS | 137MULTI-FAMILY44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JOSH BILLINGS | 97MULTI-FAMILY
69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
SARAH ROSENTHAL | 65MULTI-FAMILY
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
243/248
WIEDERSPAHN
STUDIOMASTERPLAN
239
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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.
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
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.
-
8/9/2019 Courtyard Housing issuu.pdf
248/248