Courtyard Housing Issuu PDF

FALL 2009
COURTYARD
HOUSING
Northeastern University School of Architecture
ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio
FALL 2009
COURTYARD
HOUSING
Northeastern University School of Architecture
ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation Studio
EDITORS STUDENT EDITORS

ELIZABETH CHRISTOFORETTI MELISSA MIRANDA
TIM LOVE AARON TRAHAN
©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
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
Contents Brad McKinney

Thomas Neal
35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
115
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
A CASE FOR TYPOLOGICAL THINKING
Katie McMahon 70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 193
Tim Love 1
Sarah Tarbet 77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 201
COURTYARD HOUSING: MANUAL AS MANIFESTO Barrett Newell 78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 209
Hubert Murray 9 Jaime Sweed 96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 217
SINGLE FAMILY & SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX SOUTH BOSTON MASTER PLANS

Betty Quintana 22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 15 Christoforetti Studio 227
Caitlan Wezel 25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 23 Love Studio 231
Aaron Trahan 29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 31 Wiederspahn Studio 235
Christine Moylan 30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 39
Christine Nasir 32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 47 COURTYARD HOUSING: AFTERWORD
Jackie Mossman 40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 55 Jonathan Levi 239
1
tricts, the studio also tested a new model of high density 2
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
Tim Love parcel sizes, will allow a broader range of developers to
participate in the build-out of a master plan and a larger
A Case for Typological percentage of walk-up units and building entries.
Thinking
A Case for Typological Thinking
For the past twenty-five years “contextualism” of one sort
or another has been the prevalent framework for design
Courtyard Building Prototypes studios in most American architecture programs. By con-
The buildings in this volume were designed as prototypical textualism, I am not referring to the strategies of the ad-
residential types by fifth-year students in the undergradu- vocates of New Urbanism and other late manifestations of
ate architecture program at Northeastern University in the design methodology conceived by Colin Rowe in the
Boston. While the wood-frame courtyard building is an 1970s (although these approaches are certainly included in
untested building type in the northeastern US, the propos- the definition). More broadly, I am considering all of the
als are consistent with the regulatory framework, econom- intentions, motivations, and arguments that conspire to
ics of construction, and scale of development that is being make each architectural opportunity a one-off project with
planned and built on former industrial parcels in the Bos- unique characteristics. A range of design methodologies
ton metropolitan area. The students innovated by working has evolved in architecture schools to privilege this one-of-
within the constraints of the building code and prevalent a-kind-ness. Perhaps the most prevalent approach results
construction technologies rather than by exploring more from mapping (in plan) all of the particular and idiosyncratic
radical (and unrealistic) approaches. aspects of a site to divine the “site forces” that can help
shape the project. In most cases, this technique results in a
By aggregating the types into blocks and then urban dis- correspondingly idiosyncratic formal language, since every
3 twitch of eccentric geometry adjacent to the project site proven building configurations (termed “comps”). But can
is used as a justification to generate complex three dimen- architecture schools engage this set of real-world econom-
sional forms. ic priorities and still find disciplinary relevance? Through
a re-engagement of typological thinking, new creative and
With this technique, the function of the building is almost relevant territories for the discipline of architecture may
irrelevant, or in some cases, symbolically linked to the com- be possible.
positional connections made to the larger context through
the mapping “analysis.” As a result, community centers and The analysis and reformulation of building types has been
branch libraries were once popular programs inserted into seen as a conservative approach in most university pro-
the resulting forms. More recently, functions that both grams. The academy has largely rejected methodologies
comment on the site and fix it, like recycling centers tied to that have persisted since the 1980s, when the theory of
bio-remedial landscape strategies, have been in vogue. But type was first adopted by practice as a way to verify and
for the majority of contemporary buildings, the functional reinforce building patterns in particular communities and
need for a building is typically the impetus for an architec- cultures. This has certainly been the rhetoric, if not fully
tural project and not simply an excuse or filler for expres- the approach, of DPZ, Stefanos Polyzoides, and other pro-
sive form. ponents of New Urbanism. Their research, which began as
an interest in housing types such as the Charleston house
In the nested set of relations that shape contemporary real and the Los Angeles courtyard type, is now focused on the
estate and construction, the definition of the use-category vernacular tradition of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.
of a building - whether an office building, apartment build- However, a new formulation of type may be possible that
ing, or hospital wing - is the typical way that a building proj- does not embalm existing types but invents new durable
ect is first conceived and design is launched. Even before building paradigms.
design begins in earnest, the business plan for a building
is developed and enriched through assumptions about the During the past four years, several architecture studios at
initial capital costs, potential revenue (generated by sales, the Northeastern School of Architecture have tested new
leases, or number of patients), and future lifecycle costs. design methodologies that foreground the market-driven
In the modern market economy, the use of the building, logics of contemporary building types. Unlike conventional
the building’s financial performance, and assurance that risk approaches to typology, we focus on the underlying prag-
of financial failure is minimized, means that lending institu- matics of contemporary building production to enable the
tions and the underwriters of development financing favor design of more compelling and sustainable alternatives. In
the Masters Degree Research Studio, for example, students that the British rowhouse was introduced to maximize land 4
have focused on office buildings, laboratories, parking ga- value.
rages, and self-storage facilities. Through directed research,
students become versant in the planning criteria and em- Outside of Boston’s city center, the metropolitan area’s
bedded design agenda of these types and gain a comprehen- most extensive residential areas were built up with wood-
sive understanding of the broader cultural, regulatory, and frame buildings - the ubiquitous triple-decker - given the
economic context of the contemporary real estate indus- relatively low cost of wood-frame construction.2 Triple-
try. The Fall 2009 Housing Studio is the first time that stu- deckers were either stand-alone buildings or were built as
dents have been asked to fully investigate a morphological duplex pairs with a shared party wall. Prevalent codes al-
type that does not yet commonly exist in Boston or other lowed the free side of the buildings to be built within three
New England cities – infill wood-frame courtyard housing. feet of the property line – resulting in houses that were
Courtyard housing was chosen because there are no regu- as close as six feet apart. The triple-decker type, and the
latory or economic impediments to the implementation neighborhoods that resulted from their proliferation, were
of the type and because well-designed courtyard housing the consequence of a high-stakes negotiation between fire
could provide an alternative to the triple-decker: the wood officials, land speculators, builders, and elected officials.
frame, three-flats-stacked housing type that dominated the
dense first-ring suburban growth in New England in the late
19th and early 20th Century. 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
North American Housing Types coupled with a maximum reasonable building depth. Side
With housing, typological invention can more radically yards were only wide enough to provide access to rear
question long-standing cultural assumptions. For example, yards and as space for the storage of garbage cans and de-
the courtyard type inverts the position and role of private commissioned furniture and appliances. Because ownership
open space in relationship to dwelling. The settlement and of open space was never established by the logic of the type
building culture in the British North American colonies was itself, the use of the rear yard was always in flux and var-
predicated on land sub-division first and then occupation ied widely even between adjacent properties. Despite the
by dwellings. Early maps of Boston and New York show ob- relative density of deployment of the triple-decker, as com-
ject buildings in dense urban agglomerations. It was only pared to other wood-frame building types, the relationship
with the first speculative redevelopment of urban property between building-as-object and the adjacent landscape is
5 typical to most American settlement patterns. Open space large multi-family buildings with both a front (street) and
has the highest use-value where the landscape engages the back (alley) exposure. In addition to six plan variants, the
house at porches and rear decks. As the landscape recedes matrix outlined the relevant building code regulations that
from the building, it plays an increasingly visual role, as awould frame and inhibit circulation solutions and establish
buffer at the rear of the property and as a symbolic space the maximum building height in each building category. The
at the front of the house. proto-schemes were equally distributed to the 33 students
(in three studio sections) as a starting point for their own
Courtyard buildings radically displace the conventional po- design investigations.
sition of the landscape, thus requiring a cultural reassess-
ment of the function and meaning of private open space. The courtyard building is an ideal pedagogical subject be-
Through a simple reconfiguration of building mass, the cause it raises design issues that are as much morphological
exterior ground that is furthest from the building edge is as functional in nature. For example, the “inside” corner of
converted from a peripheral condition to the symbolic and the courtyard limits light and air to four specific embedded
physical center of a residential community. At the same zones in the plan - requiring an inventive design response.
time, the urban expression of the dwelling, typically com- This condition creates an ideal opportunity to understand
municated by the relationship of the iconic form of the the relationship between the iterative design process and
house-as-object to the landscape, has been compressed the deeply embedded knowledge of the discipline. As a
into an urban façade. American townhouse precedent in class, we looked at this condition in projects as diverse as
districts like Boston’s Back Bay, where each parcel-owner the Palazzo Farnese in Rome (1534), and the Goldenberg
sought self-expression of façade and small front yard, can House by Louis Kahn (1959, un-built). A close reading of
serve as a model for the particular iconographic issues of a any building with an inside corner will yield potential strate-
distinctly American courtyard type. gies and tactics. Possible solutions and traces of directions
almost taken are evident in every building with a similar set
of planning issues.
Studio Pedagogy
The students were given six residential building types at Generally, solutions to the inside corner fall into four cat-
the launch of the studio; the types varied in the number egories:
of units per floor and the way that the parcel was embed-
ded in the hypothetical/prototypical urban context. The a. Assign functions in the corner that do not require light
schemes within the matrix ranged from single-family court- and air, such as elevator banks and storage rooms.
yard housing with a single exterior exposure to relatively
Boston Courtyard Housing Matrix 6
Wood-frame construction
Single-exposure Double-exposure Egress Height: Construction Type

Single family A One internal stair between floors is permitted. A single Maximum height governed by egress requirements
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).
Side-by-side duplex B One internal stair between floors is permitted. A single Maximum height governed by egress requirements
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). .
Four or five units/floor C D Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that The total building height can be no taller than 60'
are equall to or ffurther
h apart than
h 1/3 the h di
diagonall off and/or
d/ four
f stories
i (whichever
( hi h is
i taller).
ll ) Four
F stories
i
the area served (the floor or that portion of the floor can be placed on a ground level non-combustible
served by the two stairs). At least one egress route must parking structure as long as the total height of the
exit directly to the exterior (the other can exit into the building does not exceed 60'.
building lobby).
Six or more units/floor E F Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that The total building height can be no taller than 60'
are equal to or further apart than 1/3 the diagonal of and/or four stories (whichever is taller). Four stories
the area served (the floor or that portion of the floor can be placed on a ground level non-combustible
served by the two stairs). At least one egress route parking structure as long as the total height of the
must exit directly to the exterior (the other can exit into building does not exceed 60'.
the building lobby).
Unit requirements Room requirements Window requirements

Apartment type Size (SF) Room/area Min. width of room (LF) Minimum area defined by code
Studio 500-700 Living area 14 The minimum area of windows (or a window) in a
One Bedroom 700-900 Primary bedroom 12 habitable room* is 8% of the area of the room. Half the
Two bedroom 900-1250 Secondary bedroom 11 area of the windows must be operable.
Three bedroom 1250-1475 Kitchens/baths per code
* Habitable rooms include living areas and bedrooms

and can be no smaller than 100 SF.
7 b. Assign functions in the corner that can borrow light from Conclusion
skylights above, such as staircases. It is hoped that this collection of building proposals, essays
on a singular theme, might have an impact on Boston and
c. Deform the corner (by chamfering or rounding the cor- other North American cities. Will the diversity of compre-
ner) to create wall space for windows directly into the hensively-designed prototypes suggest a retroactive inevi-
space. tability to this model of urban development? By packag-
ing the work in an easy-to-use volume, the infill courtyard
d. Shift the corner room in one direction or the other to building is proposed as a viable alternative for dense urban
gain a window without the need to deform the geometry redevelopment where building culture favors renewable
of the corner of the courtyard. and socially-equitable wood-frame construction.
In addition to the issues posed by rooms embedded within
the inside corner of the courtyard, the depth and propor- Notes
tions of the courtyard space need to be carefully calibrated
1 See Jonathan Levi’s “City of Wood: A Speculation on Urbanism and
with the internal mechanics of the building plan, the accom- Wood Housing,” published on the Jonathan Levi Architect website:
modation of adequate light and air, and the consideration of http://www.leviarc.com/ under the heading Projects/Research. “The
potential views between units across the courtyard space. question then is whether light frame buildings with their bias against
The building type also requires a fuller agenda that under- aggregation, are necessarily anti-urban or whether it would be possible
stands the courtyard as part of a larger continuum of public to envision a dense wood construction which alleviates each of wood’s
weaknesses one by one – it’s lack of durability, poor acoustics, and
and semi-public spaces including the street, buildings lob-
susceptibility to fire, among others.”
bies, and thresholds. Students were also required to design
2 Wood frame construction is still the least expensive way to building
building facades that announced (or not) the presence of multi-family housing in the Boston metropolitan area. In 2009, the aver-
the courtyard and propose solutions that establish a design age cost of wood-frame construction in Boston’s residential neighbor-
agenda that articulated a position between the expression hoods was $175/SF. A comparable masonry building with a steel frame
of individual units and a coherently designed street wall. would be budgeted at approximately $240/SF.
Bibliography 8
Holl, Steven, Rural & Urban House Types, Pamphlet Archi-

tecture 9, New York, 1982.
Macintosh, Duncan, The Modern Courtyard House: a His-

tory, Architectural Association Paper Number 9, Published
by Lund Humphries for the Architectural Association, Lon-
don, 1973.
Pfiefer, Gunter and Per Brauneck, Courtyard Houses: A

Housing Typology, Birkhauser Verlag, 2008.
Polyzoides, Stefanos, Roger Sherwood, and James Tice,

Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles, University of California
Press, 1982.
Sherwood, Roger, Modern Housing Prototypes, Harvard

University Press, 1978.
Schneider, Friederike, Floor Plan Atlas: Housing, Birkhauser

Verlag, 1994.
9
The Manual 10
The parentage on one side is the builder’s pattern book, the
template used for swaths of speculative residential develop-
ment in the rapidly expanding cities built on industry and
commerce. Thomas Cubitt, builder and developer, made his
fortune after the Napoleonic Wars developing entire Lon-
don districts (Bloomsbury, Camden Town, Spitalfields) for
Hubert Murray the upper, middle and lower classes, accommodating them
in row houses ordered by size and style from the gentle-
Courtyard Housing: man’s townhouse to the worker’s cottage. Such boilerplate
solutions to housing the burgeoning population were stan-
Manual as Manifesto dard practice throughout the major cities of Europe, most
often in the hands of private developers but, with the rise
of twentieth century social democracy, increasingly under
the auspices of municipal authorities.The design manuals of
The courtyard housing studio at Northeastern comes with the Greater London Council1, are perhaps the culmination
noble pedigree. For the last generation or so urban hous- of this tradition. For the current epoch, it is Schneider’s
ing has not generally been regarded as a subject for seri- Floor Plan Manual2 that provides the most comprehensive
ous investigation in contemporary American architectural compendium of urban housing type-plans, public and pri-
schools in which digital form-making has for so long held vate, ordered by urban planning category and building type
sway. Housing as a serious field of study and investigation (e.g. corner building / end of row).
for both students and practitioners has however an intel-
lectual and professional lineage that can be traced to the Each of these, and many others of which they are exem-
urban demands and aspirations of nineteenth century and plars, can be thought of as technical manuals, recipe books
early modern Europe, a duality of formal technique and providing economical, efficient and (in a restricted sense)
social reform, of manual and manifesto. The investigation elegant solutions to mass housing. Beyond density, floor
is no less relevant here, in the United States, and now, as plate, circulation, disposition and dimensioning of spaces
we attempt to resolve the contradictions of our centrifugal for living, sleeping, cooking and dining there is no theory
conurbations. bar that of the efficacy of standardization.3
11 The Manifesto which it is underwritten are still vibrant in European archi-
If this side of the marriage has its own austere heritage, tecture today. Urban housing is still viewed as a social enti-
there is another side, ideological and reformist, that seeks tlement in the majority of the mixed economies of modern
to promote the virtues of social housing as, at the very best, Europe and therefore a common project type in most ar-
the expression of a full and meaningful life (the home for chitectural practices. This is not so in the United States for
Karl Marx’s unalienated family) and, at the least, the guaran- whom mass housing provided by public agencies really only
tor of a life saved from squalor and degradation (as lived for had its flowering in the disastrous era of urban clearances,
instance in the fetid slums of Engels’ Manchester or the Ilot confirming in the popular mind that public housing, so far
Insalubre No 6 of Le Corbusier). from being a social entitlement open to all, should be no
more than a last ditch provision for the feckless and indi-
Fourier, Owen, Muthesius and the Garden City movement gent urban poor. The demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing
can all be cited at greater length in the grand-parentage of development in St. Louis in 1972, a mere 18 years after its
social housing as a central preoccupation in architectural opening, represented the death of modern architecture and
modernism but it is to the pre-war Bauhaus that one must of the modernist project as a social program, a conjunction
look for more immediate influence in both Europe and that had not traveled well in its journey from Europe. The
the United States. In parallel with modernist experiments unrelieved monotonies of Levittown and its progeny re-
in high-rise slab housing during this period, Ludwig Hilber- main intact, forgiven their sins because they are owner oc-
sheimer, Hugo Häring, Hannes Meyer4 and others developed cupied, each little box a testimony to American individuality
their own versions of low-rise high-density housing, and in and upward mobility.
particular variations on the courtyard house. Interestingly,
for the resonance that still reverberates in the politics of
Community and Privacy
the United States today, high-rise was associated in 1920’s
Germany with socialism, low-rise with a more accommo- This volume, focusing on urban housing as a critical com-
dationist approach to social improvement. This differenceponent in the urban fabric, and on courtyard housing in
in emphasis however in no way belied the commitment of particular, as a valid physical form mediating at the cusp of
either camp to the role of urban social housing as a funda-
community and privacy, between neighborhood and house,
mental building block of a progressive, healthy and modern
society and the individual, revives a discussion last given an
society. airing in this country by Chermayeff and Alexander in their
book Community and Privacy.5 Their discussion ends, not
The political debate and the technical investigations by coincidentally, in a detailed analysis of courtyard housing
plans, as if they were taking up the conversation from the of the studio, that the courtyard house is worthy of inves- 12
Bauhaus and translating it into American terms. I emphasize tigation on the grounds that “it is a type that does not yet
this social vector in the conversation on courtyard housing, commonly exist in Boston…” and “because there are no
because mainly for reasons of space and time, it is not given regulatory or economic impediments to the implementa-
such explicit treatment in the pages that follow. tion of the type” is consonant with the broader aim of the
studio – and Northeastern itself – that “seeks to uncover
One example will suffice to illustrate the conjunction of the the underlying pragmatics of contemporary market driven
technical and the social, in which the design manual neces- building”. The combination of courtyard house plans pre-
sarily carries within it the flame of the manifesto. One of sented here and the urban forms they predicate shown in
the generic problems of the courtyard house is scale. If the street and aerial views and blockplans, underwritten by this
dwelling unit is scaled within reasonable limits to be a single provocative methodological premise, all indicate a welcome
family house – between say, 1,000 to 1,800 square feet – revival of this subject on American soil, in American terms,
then the true courtyard, a private space with rooms on all with a long overdue alternative to the last generation of
four sides, not only has four internal corner conditions but architectural pedagogy. This manual is surely a manifesto.
the court itself is severely restricted and in northern lati-
tudes is a place in which, for considerable periods, the sun
does not shine.6 If on the other hand, the perimeter is ex- Notes
panded to enlarge the court, shared to a greater or lesser 1 The Greater London Council (1965-86) was the municipal authority
extent with other units, then the discussion immediately for the entire metropolitan region of London, the heir to the Lon-
don County Council (1889-1965) which had jurisdiction over a much
becomes as much one of community as it is of privacy. The
smaller area. In addition to the Boroughs, both the LCC and the GLC
family house based on the Roman impluvium stands at one had vast portfolios of public housing in the city and were responsible
end of the spectrum, Cerda’s Barcelona grid with its com- for pioneering design in social housing. Of its many publications the
munal courts serving hundreds of units, at the other.7 The GLC’s Preferred Dwelling Plans published in 1978 set standards and
dialectic between community and privacy, the social and the provided design templates for low-rise, high density development in the
individual, is inherent in every one of the plans represented city.
2 Schneider, Friederike, Floor Plan Atlas: Housing, Birkhäuser Verlag,
in this volume.
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
Pragmatism as Program theoretical underpinning through mathematical and quantitative analysis
Tim Love’s suggestion, in his treatment of the methodology of patterns of residential densities and vehicular circulation.
13 4 For an excellent discussion of these contributions and others, see
MacIntosh, Duncan, The Modern Courtyard House, Lund Humpries,
London, 1973.
5 Chermayeff, Serge and Alexander, Christopher, Community and
Privacy, Doubleday, New York, 1963.
6 There is a discussion to be enlarged upon regarding the climatic
characteristics of the courtyard typology. A good start is made in
Koenigsberger et al., Manual of Tropical Housing and Building – Part 1
Climatic Design, Longman, London, 1973.
7 It may also be noted in this regard that the courtyard as social con-
denser is perhaps more suited to a closed organic community, whether
it be the family, nuclear or extended, or a broader homogeneous
neighborhood. The street on the other hand presents an open system
in which choices can be made with whom to associate.
14
Single Family and Side-by-Side Duplex

Courtyard Housing
15
16
Duplex
with Interlocking Units

BETTY QUINTANA
Transverse Section Through Courtyard
Sectional Perspective
17
Ground Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 18
22.6
FAR

1.09
ORGANIZATIONAL
BETTY QUINTANA
LOGIC
Interlocking Units
UNITS PER FLOOR

1
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 0, one bedroom:
0, two bedroom: 1, three
bedroom: 1
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

43’-0”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
80’-0”
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
30’-0”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade
Second Floor Plan
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Scale
1 : 20
19
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan

20

BETTY QUINTANA
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan

21
Elevation Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective

Street Level Perspective

22
BETTY QUINTANA
23
24
Single Family
with Central Courtyard

CAITLIN WEZEL
Elevation
25
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan

25.0
FAR

1.36
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC
CAITLIN WEZEL
Central courtyard acts
as the focal point within
every room.
UNITS PER FLOOR

1
UNIT BREAKDOWN
three bedroom: 1

44’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
37’-6”
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
32’-6”
Third Floor Plan ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Scale
1:20
27
Block Elevation

28

CAITLIN WEZEL
Section through block
Second Floor Block Plan

29
Section through minor street


30

CAITLIN WEZEL
Minor Street Elevation
Perspective of Minor Street

31
32
Single Family

with L-Type, Bookmatch Aggregation
AARON TRAHAN
33
Ground Floor Plan First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan

29.0
FAR

1.67
AARON TRAHAN
“L” type, bookmatch
aggregation.
UNITS PER FLOOR

Front Elevation
1
UNIT BREAKDOWN
three bedroom: 1

36’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
50’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
30’-6”
Corner Front Elevation ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Scale
1:20
Corner Side Elevation

35
Elevation

Elevation
First Level Block Plan

36
AARON TRAHAN
37
Perspective Perspective

Block Courtyard Perspective

38
AARON TRAHAN
39
40
Single Family
with Stepped Decks

CHRISTINE MOYLAN
Front Elevation
Elevation
41
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan

30.0
FAR

1.62
CHRISTINE MOYLAN
Interior circulation
wraps 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
Third Floor Plan 0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Scale
1:20
43
Courtyard Elevation

44

CHRISTINE MOYLAN

45
BIRDS EYE BLOCK PERSPECTIVE

Courtyard Perspective

46
CHRISTINE MOYLAN
47
48
Duplex
with Adjoining Private Courtyards

CHRISTINE NASIR
Sectional Perspective Through Upper Unit
Sectional Perspective Through Lower Unit

49

32.0
FAR

1.40
CHRISTINE NASIR
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/UNIT
1
Third Floor Plan Roof Plan
Scale
1 : 20
51
Short Block Elevation

52

CHRISTINE NASIR
Upper Level Block Plan

53
Lower Courtyard View Upper Courtyard View Sections Through Block

Street Level Perspective

54
CHRISTINE NASIR
55
56
Single Family

with Stepped Section and Terraces
JACQUELINE MOSSMAN
Longitudinal Section Through Courtyard
57

40.1
FAR

2
JACQUELINE MOSSMAN
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/UNIT
1-2
Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan

Scale
1:20
59
South Elevation Detail

60

JACQUELINE MOSSMAN
North Elevation Detail

61
Concept Development Diagram

OPTION A 62
STEEP TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE
(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS

JACQUELINE MOSSMAN
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
Prototype Topographical
Adaptation
63
64
Multi-Family (Single Exposure) Courtyard Housing

65
66
Multi-Family
with Courtyard with View to the Street

SARA ROSENTHAL
Prototype Elevation
67

32.0
FAR

2.20
SARA ROSENTHAL
Point-load circula-
tion entered through
courtyard 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
Scale
1:50
69
Elevation

70

SARA ROSENTHAL

71
Section and Courtyard Elevations

72

SARA ROSENTHAL
Prototype to Block Massing Prototype to Block Circulation
Section Perspective from Street

73
Multi-Family 74
with Stepped Courtyard

Open to the Street
TIM VALICH
75

46.4
FAR

1.87
Terraced courtyard open to
the street.
TIM VALICH
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
Scale
1:50
77
Elevation

78

TIM VALICH

79
Prototype Figure Ground

Street Perspective

80
TIM VALICH
81
82
Multi-Family
with Courtyards within Courtyards

JOHN MARTIN
Street Elevation
83

60.0
FAR

2.24
Private courtyard spaces
JOHN MARTIN
organized around a cen-
tral public courtyard.
UNITS PER FLOOR

6
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 4
one bedroom: 1
two bedroom: 4
three bedroom: 2

76’-6”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
113’-9”
Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan MAXIMUM HEIGHT

50’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.5
Scale
1:50
85
Block Long Street Elevation

86

JOHN MARTIN
Block Short Street Elevation

87
Block Section

88

JOHN MARTIN
Street Perspective
Courtyard Perspective
89
90
Multi-Family
with Skip-stop Corridor

LAURA POULIN
91

67.0
FAR

1.98
Skip-stop corridor
LAURA POULIN
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’
Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Scale
1:50
93
Longitudinal Block Section

94

LAURA POULIN
Corridor Level Block Plan
95
Transverse Block Section

96

LAURA POULIN
Courtyard Perspective Birds Eye Prototype Perspective
Down Street Perspective

97
98
Multi-Family

with a Semi-public Courtyard
JOSH BILLINGS
Transverse Section through Courtyard
Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009

Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn
Prototype - Rear Courtyard Elevation Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure
Section through Courtyard

99

69.0
FAR

1.87
Four point load stairs,
JOSH BILLINGS
one skip-stop corridor
serving floors 4 and 5.
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
bedroom: 2

113’-8”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
84’-4”
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
59’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
15
Scale
1:50
101
A - Street Elevation - North Typical Block Street Elevation
B - Street Elevation - East
C - Section
B C
A Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009

Josh Billings
Elevations & Section Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided
Housing and exposure
Aggregation, Fall 2009
Josh Billings
Block Plan - 1st Floor Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure
102
A - Street Elevation - North

JOSH BILLINGS
B - Street Elevation - East Typical Block Street Elevation
C - Section
B C

Josh Billings
Elevations & Section Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009
Josh Billings
Block Plan - 2nd Floor Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure
103
Housing and Aggregation,

Diagrammatic Fall 2009
Section through District
Josh Billings
District Plan Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure
District Figure/Ground Plan

104
B - Street Elevation - East

JOSH BILLINGS
C - Section Section through Block
B C

Josh Billings
Elevations & Section Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure
Aerial Perspective
105
106
Multi-Family (Double Exposure) Courtyard Housing

107
108
Multi-Family
with Connected Community Courtyards

LUKE PALMA
109

35.4
FAR

1.85
Courtyards are con-
LUKE PALMA
nected on each side to
provide circulation for
intra-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
Scale
1:50
111
Front Elevation

112

LUKE PALMA
Back Elevation

113
Street Perspective Transverse Section Through Site

114

LUKE PALMA
Section Through Park
Intra-Block Circulation Interior Circulation Figure Ground Diagram

115
116
Multi-Family
with Filtered Mid-block Landscape

BRAD MCKINNEY
Street and Greenway Elevations
117

35.5
FAR

1.73
BRAD MCKINNEY
Double courtyard sys-
tem filters circulation
and function.
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
Scale
1:50
119
Typical Street Elevations

120

BRAD MCKINNEY
Greenway Elevation

121
Pedestrian Walkway Elevations
Cornice Detail
122

BRAD MCKINNEY
Birds Eye Block Perspective Walkway Detail
Prototype Section
123
124
Multi-Family
with Units Expressed as

Individual Buildings
THOMAS NEAL
125

36.0
FAR

2.07
Multi-family horseshoe
THOMAS NEAL
shaped housing with
inserted single family
row houses to create a
two tiered courtyard.
UNITS PER FLOOR

6
UNIT BREAKDOWN
two bedroom: 8
three bedroom: 4

108’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
120’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
40’
Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.5
Scale
1:50
127

128

THOMAS NEAL
Typical Block Street Section

129
130
Multi Family

without Corridors Serving Six Stairs
DAN MARINO
131
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Third Floor Plan

42.2
FAR

1.99
Point load stair system
DAN MARINO
with staggered floors
and half submerged
parking below
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
Scale
1:50
133
Section / Courtyard Elevation

134

DAN MARINO

135
District Perspectives
Birds Eye District Perspective

136

DAN MARINO
Massing Strategy
Privitization of open spaces

137
138
Multi-Family
With Adjacent Semi-Private Courtyards

SCOTT SWAILS
139
Ground Floor Plan Typical Floor Plan

44.9
FAR

1.39
Inverted shape provides
SCOTT SWAILS
ideal amounts of light
and privacy
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
bedroom: 0

91’4”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
86’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
30’6”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.75
Ground Floor End Unit Typical Floor End Unit

Scale
1:50
141
Standard Unit Main Street Elevation

142

SCOTT SWAILS

143
Commercial Street Elevation

144

SCOTT SWAILS
Sectional Axonometric View Sectional Axonometric View
Typical Unit Axonometric

145
146
Multi-Family
with a Courtyard Gateway

JEFFREY MONTES
147
Ground Floor Plan

45.8
FAR

1.52
JEFFREY MONTES
Ramps around interior
face of courtyard pro-
vide primary access to
units
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
7, two bedroom: 8

132’-9”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
78’-9”
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
33’-4”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
Second Floor Plan
3 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.7
Scale
1:50
149
Elevation

150

JEFFREY MONTES
Main Courtyard Perspective

151
Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation

Main Courtyard Perspective

JEFFREY MONTES
152
153
154
Multi-Family
with Cantilevered Volumes

KEN WORKINGS
155
Ground Floor Second Floor Third Floor

46.4
FAR

1.87
KEN WORKINGS
Shifting volumes in both
plan and section allow
for maximum light pen-
etration for mid-building
units
UNITS PER FLOOR

12
UNIT BREAKDOWN
one bedroom: 16, two
bedroom: 18

80’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
275’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
45’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.9
Scale
1:50
Fourth Floor Fifth Floor

157
Long Block Street Elevation

158

KEN WORKINGS
End Block Street Elevation
Elevational Variance Diagram Single Prototype Elevation

159

160

KEN WORKINGS
Ramp Landscaping Detail Facade Detail
161
162
Multi-Family
with Ramps as Main Circulation

MELISSA MIRANDA
163

55.0
FAR

2.30
MELISSA MIRANDA
Ramps around interior
face of courtyard pro-
vide primary access to
units and promote social
interaction.
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
bedroom: 3

98’-0”
DEPTH OF BUILDING
100’-0
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
50’-0”
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
Third Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan PARKING SPACES/UNIT

12/14
Scale
1:50
165
Boardwalk Elevation

166

MELISSA MIRANDA

167
Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation

168

MELISSA MIRANDA
Interior Perspective of Artists’ Studio Single Bedroom Unit Axon
Ramp Perspective
169
170
Multi-Family

with Subtractive Terraces and Voids
MICHELLE MORTENSEN
171
Ground Floor First Floor

57.7
FAR

2.06
MICHELLE MORTENSEN
Individually articulated
3-Dimensional L-shaped,
staggered units wrapped
around a courtyard.
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
3, two bedroom: 2 ,
three bedroom: 2

70’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
100’
Second Floor Third Floor MAXIMUM HEIGHT

43’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.7
Scale
1:50
173
South Elevation

174

MICHELLE MORTENSEN
Typical Block Transverse Section

175
Sectional Perspective Progression Cut 4
Perspective
176

MICHELLE MORTENSEN
Massing of interlocking units with cirulcation voids Massing of interlocking units with public space voids
Exploded Axon of Unit Types

177
178
Multi-Family

with Passive Solar Orientation
LEO RICHARDSON
179
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan

62.1
FAR

3.22
LEO RICHARDSON
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
Third Floor Plan
three bedroom: 5

110’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
125’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
65’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
19
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.7
Scale
Fourth Floor Plan 1:50
181
Street Elevation

182

LEO RICHARDSON

183
Vertical Elevator Circulation

Horizontal Corridor Circulation
Diagram of Accessible Interior Circulation

184

LEO RICHARDSON
Winter Sun Diagram
Trransverse Courtyard Section

185
186
Multi-Family
with Two Distinct Urban Faces

DANIELLE McDONOUGH
Elevation - Pedestrian Street Edge Elevation - Vehicular Street Face
Sectional Perspective through Courtyard
187
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan

66.6

FAR
2.76
DANIELLE McDONOUGH
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
two bedroom: 5
Third Floor Plan WIDTH AT STREET WALL

125’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
115’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
54’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
All
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
8
Scale
1:50
Fourth + Fifth Floor Plan

189
Street Elevation - Vehicular Street Face

190

DANIELLE McDONOUGH
Street Elevation - Pedestrian Street Face

191
192
DANIELLE McDONOUGH
193
194
Multi-Family
without Corridors Served by Four Stairs

KATIE MCMAHON
Typical Elevation
195

70.0
FAR

2.57
KATIE MCMAHON
Poit Loaded Circulation
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 2
one bedroom: 4
two bedroom: 2
three bedroom: 6

120’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
99’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.4
Scale
1:50
197
Block Section

198

KATIE MCMAHON

199
District Plan

200

KATIE MCMAHON
Sectional Perspective Sectional Perspective
Relationship of Facade to Interior

201
202
Multi-Family
with Figurative Courtyard

SARAH TARBET
Prototype
203

77.0
FAR

2.63
Living rooms facing
SARAH TARBET
courtyard, bedrooms
facing street.
UNIT BREAKDOWN
one bedroom: 6, two
bedroom: 16
UNITS PER FLOOR

6

243’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
250’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
46’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
Third Floor Plan
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.7
Scale
1:50
205
Block Street Elevation

206

SARAH TARBET
Unfolded Courtyard Elevation

207
Block Section

208

SARAH TARBET
Entry Portal Interior Courtyard
Street Perspective
209
210
Multi-Family
with Individual Entry System

from External Circulation Tissue
BARRETT NEWELL
211
Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Third Floor Plan

78.0
FAR

2.56
BARRETT NEWELL
Double entry system
connecting two
buildings into one
courtyard
UNITS PER FLOOR

5
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 14, one bed-
room: 4
two bedroom: 6

82’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
171’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
4 at grade
Fourth Floor Plan Fifth Floor Plan
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.83
Scale
1:50
213
Block Elevation

214

BARRETT NEWELL
Section and Courtyard Elevation

215
End Block Elevation

Section and Courtyard Elevation

BARRETT NEWELL
216
217
218
Multi-Family
with a Rotated Elliptical Courtyard

JAIME SWEED
219

96.0
FAR

1.99
Rotating ellipse court-
JAIME SWEED
yard provides alternating
terraces to units
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
bedroom: 0

99’
DEPTH OF BUILDING
76’
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
39’
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.2
Scale
1:50
221
Corner Block Elevation

222

JAIME SWEED

223
Diagram of Prototype Courtyard Organization
Section Perspective
224

JAIME SWEED
Facade Detail
Typical Unit Axonometric

225
226
Site Masterplans by Studio

227
SITE ACREAGE 228
209.41
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)

9,122,045 SF
AREA (TYP FLOOR)

2,381,135 SF
AREA (COMMERCIAL/
PUBLIC PROGRAM
350,718 SF
STUDIO MASTERPLAN
CHRISTOFORETTI
229 JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55 BARRETT NEWELL | 209
SINGLE FAMILY IAN STABER MULTI-FAMILY
40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MULTI-FAMILY 78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
KATIE MCMAHON | 193 DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185
MULTI-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55 LEO RICHARDSON | 177

SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
230
MELISSA MIRANDA | 161 DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185
MULTI-FAMILY THANA TALIEP MULTI-FAMILY
55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MULTI-FAMILY 66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
IAN STABER BRAD MCKINNEY | 115 LEO RICHARDSON | 177
MULTI-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
MICHELLE MORTENSEN | 169

MULTI-FAMILY
STUDIO MASTERPLAN
CHRISTOFORETTI
231
SITE ACREAGE 232
209.41
BUILDING COVERAGE
0.36
UNITS/ACRE
22.87
NUMBER OF UNITS
5,164
NUMBER OF BEDS
10,523
PERCENTAGE OF ONE BED

UNITS
22.4%
PERCENTAGE OF TWO BED

UNITS
34.2%
PERCENTAGE OF THREE
BED UNITS
33.4%
AREA (TOTAL SITE)

9,122,045 SF
AREA (TYP FLOOR)

3,248,491 SF
AREA (COMMERCIAL/
PUBLIC PROGRAM)
10,000 SF
STUDIO MASTERPLAN
LOVE
THOMAS NEAL | 123
233
CHRISTINE MOYLAN | 39 MULTI-FAMILY SARAH TARBET | 201
SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX 36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MULTI-FAMILY
CHRSITINE NASIR | 47
SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX
AARON TRAHAN | 31
SINGLE-FAMILY
234
JONATHAN SAMPSON
AARON TRAHAN | 31 MULTI-FAMILY
SINGLE-FAMILY 55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
CAITLIN WEZEL | 23 JOHN MARTIN | 81
JI PARK
SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
MULTI-FAMILY
LAURA POULIN | 89
SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX THOMAS NEAL | 123
67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE MULTI-FAMILY
STUDIO MASTERPLAN
LOVE
235
SITE ACREAGE 236
209.41
BUILDING COVERAGE
0.31
UNITS/ACRE
32.04
NUMBER OF UNITS
6,710
NUMBER OF BEDS
10,755
PERCENTAGE OF ONE
BED UNITS
38.3%
PERCENTAGE OF TWO
BED UNITS
45.7%
PERCENTAGE OF THREE
BED UNITS
9.1%
AREA (TOTAL SITE)

9,122,045 SF
AREA (TYP FLOOR)

2,859,587 SF
AREA (COMMERCIAL/
PROGRAM PROGRAM)
324,984 SF
STUDIO MASTERPLAN
WIEDERSPAHN
237 TIM VALICH | 73 KEN WORKINGS | 153
MULTI-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
JAMIE SWEED | 217

MULTI-FAMILY
BETTY QUINTANA | 15 96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX
JOSH BILLINGS | 97 SARAH ROSENTHAL | 65 238
JEFFREY MONTES | 145
MULTI-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY
69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE 45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
LUKE PALMA | 107

NATHAN ALESKOVSKY MULTI-FAMILY
MULTI-FAMILY 35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
DAN MARINO | 129 56.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
MULTI FAMILY
42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE SCOTT SWAILS | 137
MULTI-FAMILY
STUDIO MASTERPLAN
WIEDERSPAHN
239
240
Jonathan Levi
Courtyard Housing:
Afterword
The design of housing has been among the most persistent These studios, taught at Northeastern by Tim Love and
topics in the pedagogies of schools of architecture since his colleagues, represent a recommitment to the ideal of
the rise of 20th Century modernism. Why housing? To housing introduced at the core of the moral and technical
begin, housing is at the core of the architect’s commitment formation of the young architect. But with at twist: Where
to the discipline as an arena of action which goes beyond previous generations, consciously or not, embraced the
the intangible long term influences of aesthetic concerns implicit agenda of ‘social’ housing, Professor Love updates his
to address a level of immediate cultural and even political approach with an expert nod to the contemporary realities of
service. Building on its original mid-20th Century meaning private development restrained, for public interest purposes,
as a corrective to the damaging effects of industrialization, only by the primitive mechanisms of zoning ordinances
“housing” has also come to be closely associated with the and building codes. The projects themselves then represent
framing of the architectural project within the larger subject a kind of purposeful gamesmanship, following the path of
of the city. Housing fabric is the basic stuff of cities and lies community building through graduated scales and individual
at the fundamental intersection between the architectural dwelling differentiation while outwitting the numerous
and urban scales. community-adverse obstacles presented by parking, egress
241 paths, elevatoring and the like. At the literal center of this Certainly, the ordinary street today is nothing like it was
tactical endeavor, the interior-block garden or courtyard in our distant memory or as it now sometimes exists in
emerges, dispelling the anonymity of repetition, offering exotic places for wealthy people on the prowl for fun and
respite from the automobile and, hopefully, providing the purchases. It will never be exactly that. It will probably
germ of community. Underlying these very comprehensive not be a place of walking to work or kids going to school
and comprehensible proposals, there lays a challenge to or mothers congregating during the day with strollers.
contemporary social conditions in America which are Workplace mobility, taken together with full employment
generally inimical to the meaningful creation of semi-private outside the home and our affinity for spreading over the
space. It is a practical challenge - one of ownership - and a land, has overtaken all that in the form of the automobile.
spiritual one. The latter, in essence, because we Americans And the automobile, though it may eventually take more
do not like to be in clustered pigeonholes, we do not like to communally responsible form, is here to stay.
be told what groups to belong to and, for better or worse,
we simply do not like to share. The students remind us that However, significantly, the workplace is changing. Mobility
the need to change these conditions is unquestionable given is increasingly virtual. Commuting is increasingly virtual.
the social and ecological alternative of further despoiling the Commerce is increasingly virtual. There is a real possibility
country and further alienating ourselves from one another. that the separated workplace, dwelling and commercial
concentrations that have, in the last 50 years, driven the
Remembering the identity of cities and their housing, this emptying of streets will someday be obsolete. There is
then brings us to that indefatigable urban default structure a possibility that housing will not just be mostly the stuff
- the street, and also to its current status and the city that of cities, but all of them. Then, in the ‘post vehicular’ city,
it implies. Those represented here are remarkable if only we will see what streets will become. It will not be a city
for their authors’ highly laudable attention to the details of without cars, not a restoration of quaint pedestrianism,
elevations – an attention which is lacking in many schools but where cars have a new and less fearsomely essential
of architecture today. In so doing, the students have been meaning. In their carefully scaled streets and cleverly
able to tangibly mediate the critical contest between configured courtyards these student proposals seek to
automobiles and pedestrians, between garages and entries, heal the empty places of today’s cities and offer a view of
which is at the heart of the nature of contemporary cities. the transformative importance of housing for the future.
They do so with optimism about the livability of public A future where, perhaps, dwellings will once again be fully
streets which is justifiable – but perhaps not so much for occupied throughout the day and where streets are not just
today as it is for tomorrow. conduits but are themselves liveable and lived in gardens.
COURTYARD HOUSING
ARCH 5110 HOUSING AND AGGREGATION
FALL 2009
The projects in this volume were designed

as prototypical residential types and city
block plans by fourth-year students in the
undergraduate architecture program at
Northeastern University in Boston.

Courtyard Housing Issuu PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Courtyard Housing Issuu PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FALL 2009

EDITORS STUDENT EDITORS

Contents Brad McKinney

SINGLE FAMILY & SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX SOUTH BOSTON MASTER PLANS

Single-exposure Double-exposure Egress Height: Construction Type

Unit requirements Room requirements Window requirements

* Habitable rooms include living areas and bedrooms

In addition to the issues posed by rooms embedded within

Holl, Steven, Rural & Urban House Types, Pamphlet Archi-

Macintosh, Duncan, The Modern Courtyard House: a His-

Pfiefer, Gunter and Per Brauneck, Courtyard Houses: A

Polyzoides, Stefanos, Roger Sherwood, and James Tice,

Sherwood, Roger, Modern Housing Prototypes, Harvard

Schneider, Friederike, Floor Plan Atlas: Housing, Birkhauser

Single Family and Side-by-Side Duplex

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

Ground Floor Plan

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

UNITS PER FLOOR

WIDTH AT STREET WALL

Ground Level Block Plan

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

Typical Level Block Plan

Birds Eye Block Perspective

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

UNITS PER FLOOR

WIDTH AT STREET WALL

Third Floor Plan ACCESSIBLE UNITS

Ground Level Block Plan

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

Second Floor Block Plan

Section through minor street

Birds Eye Block Perspective

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

Perspective of Minor Street

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

Ground Floor Plan First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

UNITS PER FLOOR

WIDTH AT STREET WALL

Corner Front Elevation ACCESSIBLE UNITS

Corner Side Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

First Level Block Plan

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

Birds Eye Block Perspective

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

Ground Floor Plan Second Floor Plan

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

UNITS PER FLOOR

WIDTH AT STREET WALL

Ground Level Block Plan

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

Typical Level Block Plan

BIRDS EYE BLOCK PERSPECTIVE

Birds Eye Block Perspective

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE