Anda di halaman 1dari 248

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 Northeastern University School of Architecture ARCH 5110 Housing and Aggregation 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 McDonough, 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)

Contents

A CASE FOR TYPOLOGICAL THINKING


Tim Love

COURTYARD HOUSING: MANUAL AS MANIFESTO


Hubert Murray

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

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

Christine Moylan

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

39

Christine Nasir

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

47

Jackie Mossman

40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

55

235

COURTYARD HOUSING: AFTERWORD


Jonathan Levi

239

Tim Love

A Case for Typological


Thinking
Courtyard Building Prototypes
The buildings in this volume were designed as prototypical
residential types by fifth-year students in the undergraduate architecture program at Northeastern University in
Boston. While the wood-frame courtyard building is an
untested building type in the northeastern US, the proposals are consistent with the regulatory framework, economics of construction, and scale of development that is being
planned and built on former industrial parcels in the Boston 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 alternative to conventional North American transit-orienteddevelopment, 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-five years contextualism of one sort
or another has been the prevalent framework for design
studios in most American architecture programs. By contextualism, I am not referring to the strategies of the advocates of New Urbanism and other late manifestations of
the design methodology conceived by Colin Rowe in the
1970s (although these approaches are certainly included in
the definition). More broadly, I am considering all of the
intentions, motivations, and arguments that conspire to
make each architectural opportunity a one-off project with
unique characteristics. A range of design methodologies
has evolved in architecture schools to privilege this one-ofa-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

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 economsional 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 prothe 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 prosive 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 buildings financial performance, and assurance that risk approaches to typology, we focus on the underlying pragof 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


have focused on office buildings, laboratories, parking garages, and self-storage facilities. Through directed research,
students become versant in the planning criteria and embedded design agenda of these types and gain a comprehensive understanding of the broader cultural, regulatory, and
economic context of the contemporary real estate industry. The Fall 2009 Housing Studio is the first time that students have been asked to fully investigate a morphological
type that does not yet commonly exist in Boston or other
New England cities infill wood-frame courtyard housing.
Courtyard housing was chosen because there are no regulatory or economic impediments to the implementation
of the type and because well-designed courtyard housing
could provide an alternative to the triple-decker: the wood
frame, three-flats-stacked housing type that dominated the
dense first-ring suburban growth in New England in the late
19th and early 20th Century.

North American Housing Types


With housing, typological invention can more radically
question long-standing cultural assumptions. For example,
the courtyard type inverts the position and role of private
open space in relationship to dwelling. The settlement and
building culture in the British North American colonies was
predicated on land sub-division first and then occupation
by dwellings. Early maps of Boston and New York show object buildings in dense urban agglomerations. It was only
with the first speculative redevelopment of urban property

that the British rowhouse was introduced to maximize land


value.
Outside of Bostons city center, the metropolitan areas
most extensive residential areas were built up with woodframe buildings - the ubiquitous triple-decker - given the
relatively low cost of wood-frame construction.2 Tripledeckers were either stand-alone buildings or were built as
duplex pairs with a shared party wall. Prevalent codes allowed the free side of the buildings to be built within three
feet of the property line resulting in houses that were
as close as six feet apart. The triple-decker type, and the
neighborhoods that resulted from their proliferation, were
the consequence of a high-stakes negotiation between fire
officials, land speculators, builders, and elected officials.

Housing and Open Space


The private open space of the triple-decker was only a consequence of a desire for the building to meet the street
coupled with a maximum reasonable building depth. Side
yards were only wide enough to provide access to rear
yards and as space for the storage of garbage cans and decommissioned furniture and appliances. Because ownership
of open space was never established by the logic of the type
itself, the use of the rear yard was always in flux and varied widely even between adjacent properties. Despite the
relative density of deployment of the triple-decker, as compared to other wood-frame building types, the relationship
between building-as-object and the adjacent landscape is

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.

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
Courtyard buildings radically displace the conventional po- design investigations.
sition of the landscape, thus requiring a cultural reassessment of the function and meaning of private open space. The courtyard building is an ideal pedagogical subject beThrough 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 faade. American townhouse precedent in class, we looked at this condition in projects as diverse as
districts like Bostons Back Bay, where each parcel-owner the Palazzo Farnese in Rome (1534), and the Goldenberg
sought self-expression of faade 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 stratedistinctly 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 catthe launch of the studio; the types varied in the number egories:
of units per floor and the way that the parcel was embedded 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


Wood-frame construction
Single-exposure

Double-exposure

Egress

Height: Construction Type

Single family

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).

Maximum height governed by egress requirements

Side-by-side duplex

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). .

Maximum height governed by egress requirements

Four or five units/floor C

Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that


h apart than
h 1/3 the
h di
are equall to or ffurther
diagonall off
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 total building height can be no taller than 60'


and/or
d/ four
f
stories
i (whichever
( hi h
is
i taller).
ll ) Four
F
stories
i
can be placed on a ground level non-combustible
parking structure as long as the total height of the
building does not exceed 60'.

Six or more units/floor E

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).

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

Studio
One Bedroom
Two bedroom
Three bedroom

500-700
700-900
900-1250
1250-1475

Living area
Primary bedroom
Secondary bedroom
Kitchens/baths

14
12
11
per code

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.
* Habitable rooms include living areas and bedrooms
and can be no smaller than 100 SF.

b. Assign functions in the corner that can borrow light from Conclusion
It is hoped that this collection of building proposals, essays
skylights above, such as staircases.
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 comprener) to create wall space for windows directly into the hensively-designed prototypes suggest a retroactive inevitability to this model of urban development? By packagspace.
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
and socially-equitable wood-frame construction.
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 proportions of the courtyard space need to be carefully calibrated
with the internal mechanics of the building plan, the accommodation 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 understands the courtyard as part of a larger continuum of public
and semi-public spaces including the street, buildings lobbies, 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.

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 against
aggregation, 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 fire, among others.
2 Wood frame construction is still the least expensive way to building
multi-family housing in the Boston metropolitan area. In 2009, the average cost of wood-frame construction in Bostons residential neighborhoods was $175/SF. A comparable masonry building with a steel frame
would be budgeted at approximately $240/SF.

Bibliography
Holl, Steven, Rural & Urban House Types, Pamphlet Architecture 9, New York, 1982.
Macintosh, Duncan, The Modern Courtyard House: a History, Architectural Association Paper Number 9, Published
by Lund Humphries for the Architectural Association, London, 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.

Hubert Murray

Courtyard Housing:
Manual as Manifesto
The courtyard housing studio at Northeastern comes with
noble pedigree. For the last generation or so urban housing has not generally been regarded as a subject for serious investigation in contemporary American architectural
schools in which digital form-making has for so long held
sway. Housing as a serious field of study and investigation
for both students and practitioners has however an intellectual 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 development in the rapidly expanding cities built on industry and
commerce. Thomas Cubitt, builder and developer, made his
fortune after the Napoleonic Wars developing entire London districts (Bloomsbury, Camden Town, Spitalfields) for
the upper, middle and lower classes, accommodating them
in row houses ordered by size and style from the gentlemans townhouse to the workers cottage. Such boilerplate
solutions to housing the burgeoning population were standard practice throughout the major cities of Europe, most
often in the hands of private developers but, with the rise
of twentieth century social democracy, increasingly under
the auspices of municipal authorities.The design manuals of
the Greater London Council1, are perhaps the culmination
of this tradition. For the current epoch, it is Schneiders
Floor Plan Manual2 that provides the most comprehensive
compendium of urban housing type-plans, public and private, 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 exemplars, can be thought of as technical manuals, recipe books
providing economical, efficient and (in a restricted sense)
elegant solutions to mass housing. Beyond density, floor
plate, circulation, disposition and dimensioning of spaces
for living, sleeping, cooking and dining there is no theory
bar that of the efficacy of standardization.3

10

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 guarantor of a life saved from squalor and degradation (as lived for
instance in the fetid slums of Engels Manchester or the Ilot
Insalubre No 6 of Le Corbusier).
Fourier, Owen, Muthesius and the Garden City movement
can all be cited at greater length in the grand-parentage of
social housing as a central preoccupation in architectural
modernism but it is to the pre-war Bauhaus that one must
look for more immediate influence in both Europe and
the United States. In parallel with modernist experiments
in high-rise slab housing during this period, Ludwig Hilbersheimer, Hugo Hring, Hannes Meyer4 and others developed
their own versions of low-rise high-density housing, and in
particular variations on the courtyard house. Interestingly,
for the resonance that still reverberates in the politics of
the United States today, high-rise was associated in 1920s
Germany with socialism, low-rise with a more accommodationist 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 fundamental building block of a progressive, healthy and modern
society.

which it is underwritten are still vibrant in European architecture today. Urban housing is still viewed as a social entitlement in the majority of the mixed economies of modern
Europe and therefore a common project type in most architectural practices. This is not so in the United States for
whom mass housing provided by public agencies really only
had its flowering in the disastrous era of urban clearances,
confirming in the popular mind that public housing, so far
from being a social entitlement open to all, should be no
more than a last ditch provision for the feckless and indigent urban poor. The demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing
development in St. Louis in 1972, a mere 18 years after its
opening, represented the death of modern architecture and
of the modernist project as a social program, a conjunction
that had not traveled well in its journey from Europe. The
unrelieved monotonies of Levittown and its progeny remain intact, forgiven their sins because they are owner occupied, each little box a testimony to American individuality
and upward mobility.

Community and Privacy


This volume, focusing on urban housing as a critical component in the urban fabric, and on courtyard housing in
particular, as a valid physical form mediating at the cusp of
community and privacy, between neighborhood and house,
society and the individual, revives a discussion last given an
airing in this country by Chermayeff and Alexander in their
book Community and Privacy.5 Their discussion ends, not
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


Bauhaus and translating it into American terms. I emphasize
this social vector in the conversation on courtyard housing,
because mainly for reasons of space and time, it is not given
such explicit treatment in the pages that follow.
One example will suffice to illustrate the conjunction of the
technical and the social, in which the design manual necessarily carries within it the flame of the manifesto. One of
the generic problems of the courtyard house is scale. If the
dwelling unit is scaled within reasonable limits to be a single
family house between say, 1,000 to 1,800 square feet
then the true courtyard, a private space with rooms on all
four sides, not only has four internal corner conditions but
the court itself is severely restricted and in northern latitudes is a place in which, for considerable periods, the sun
does not shine.6 If on the other hand, the perimeter is expanded 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 communal courts serving hundreds of units, at the other.7 The
dialectic between community and privacy, the social and the
individual, is inherent in every one of the plans represented
in this volume.

Pragmatism as Program
Tim Loves suggestion, in his treatment of the methodology

of the studio, that the courtyard house is worthy of investigation 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 implementation of the type is consonant with the broader aim of the
studio and Northeastern itself that seeks to uncover
the underlying pragmatics of contemporary market driven
building. The combination of courtyard house plans presented 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.

Notes
1 The Greater London Council (1965-86) was the municipal authority
for the entire metropolitan region of London, the heir to the London County Council (1889-1965) which had jurisdiction over a much
smaller area. In addition to the Boroughs, both the LCC and the GLC
had vast portfolios of public housing in the city and were responsible
for pioneering design in social housing. Of its many publications the
GLCs 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.

12

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 condenser 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

with Interlocking Units

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


BETTY QUINTANA

Duplex

16

17

Ground Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

18

FAR

1.09
ORGANIZATIONAL
LOGIC

Interlocking Units
UNITS PER FLOOR

1
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0, one bedroom:


0, two bedroom: 1, three
bedroom: 1
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

43-0
DEPTH OF BUILDING

80-0
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

30-0
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade
Second Floor Plan
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

Scale
1 : 20

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


BETTY QUINTANA

22.6

19

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


BETTY QUINTANA

20

21

Elevation

Perspective

Birds Eye Block Perspective

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


BETTY QUINTANA

22

Street Level Perspective

23

with Central Courtyard

Elevation

Sectional Perspective

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CAITLIN WEZEL

Single Family

24

25

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

26

FAR

1.36
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Central courtyard acts


as the focal point within
every room.
UNITS PER FLOOR

1
UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 1
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

44
DEPTH OF BUILDING

37-6
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

32-6
Third Floor Plan

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

Scale
1:20

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CAITLIN WEZEL

25.0

27

Block Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Section through block

Second Floor Block Plan

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CAITLIN WEZEL

28

29

Elevation

Section through minor street


Perspective

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Minor Street Elevation

Perspective of Minor Street

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CAITLIN WEZEL

30

31

Single Family

with L-Type, Bookmatch Aggregation

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


AARON TRAHAN

32

33

Ground Floor Plan

First Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

34

FAR

1.67
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

L type, bookmatch
aggregation.
Front Elevation

UNITS PER FLOOR

1
UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 1
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

36
DEPTH OF BUILDING

50
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

30-6
Corner Front Elevation

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

Scale
1:20
Corner Side Elevation

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


AARON TRAHAN

29.0

35

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Elevation
29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
AARON TRAHAN

36

First Level Block Plan

37

Perspective

Perspective

Birds Eye Block Perspective

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


AARON TRAHAN

38

Block Courtyard Perspective

39

with Stepped Decks

Front Elevation
Elevation

Sectional Perspective

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CHRISTINE MOYLAN

Single Family

40

41

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

42

FAR

1.62
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Interior circulation
wraps through the
house in conjunction
with the exterior terrace 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
Third Floor Plan

0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

Scale
1:20

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CHRISTINE MOYLAN

30.0

43

Courtyard Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CHRISTINE MOYLAN

44

45

Elevation

Perspective

BIRDS EYE BLOCK PERSPECTIVE

Birds Eye Block Perspective

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CHRISTINE MOYLAN

46

Courtyard Perspective

47

with Adjoining Private Courtyards

Sectional Perspective Through Upper Unit

Sectional Perspective Through Lower Unit

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CHRISTINE NASIR

Duplex

48

49

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

50

FAR

1.40
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

U-shaped units wrap


courtyard.
UNIT BREAKDOWN

two bedroom: 2
UNITS PER FLOOR
2
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

45
DEPTH OF BUILDING

60
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

25
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1
Third Floor Plan

Roof Plan

Scale
1 : 20

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CHRISTINE NASIR

32.0

51

Short Block Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Upper Level Block Plan

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CHRISTINE NASIR

52

53

Lower Courtyard View

Upper Courtyard View

Sections Through Block

Birds Eye Block Perspective

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


CHRISTINE NASIR

54

Street Level Perspective

55

Single Family

with Stepped Section and Terraces

Longitudinal Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JACQUELINE MOSSMAN

56

57

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

58

FAR

2
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Private Entry/
Circulation.
UNITS PER FLOOR

2
UNIT BREAKDOWN

three bedroom: 2
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

35
DEPTH OF BUILDING

82
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1-2

Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan


Scale
1:20

40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JACQUELINE MOSSMAN

40.1

59

South Elevation Detail

Ground Level Block Plan

40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JACQUELINE MOSSMAN

60

North Elevation Detail

Typical Level Block Plan

61

Concept Development Diagram

Birds Eye Block Perspective

62

40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JACQUELINE MOSSMAN

OPTION A
STEEP TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE
(2) 3 BEDROOM UNITS

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

with Courtyard with View to the Street

Prototype Elevation

Sectional Perspective

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SARA ROSENTHAL

Multi-Family

66

67

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

68

FAR

2.20
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Point-load circulation entered through


courtyard above parking
plinth
UNITS PER FLOOR

6
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0, one bedroom:


12, two bedroom: 6,
three bedroom: 0
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

110
DEPTH OF BUILDING

91 -4
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41-6
Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.72

Scale
1:50

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SARA ROSENTHAL

32.0

69

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SARA ROSENTHAL

70

71

Section and Courtyard Elevations

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Prototype to Block Massing

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SARA ROSENTHAL

72

Prototype to Block Circulation

Section Perspective from Street

73

with Stepped Courtyard


Open to the Street

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

74

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


TIM VALICH

Multi-Family

75

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

76

FAR

1.87
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Terraced courtyard open to


the street.
UNITS PER FLOOR

7
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 2, one bedroom:


18, two bedroom: 6,
three bedroom: 0
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

175
DEPTH OF BUILDING

105
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

5 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.44

Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan


Scale
1:50

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


TIM VALICH

46.4

77

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


TIM VALICH

78

79

Prototype Figure Ground

Birds Eye Block Perspective

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


TIM VALICH

80

Street Perspective

81

with Courtyards within Courtyards

Street Elevation

Sectional Perspective

60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JOHN MARTIN

Multi-Family

82

83

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

84

FAR

2.24
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Private courtyard spaces


organized around a central public courtyard.
UNITS PER FLOOR

6
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 4
one bedroom: 1
two bedroom: 4
three bedroom: 2
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

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

60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JOHN MARTIN

60.0

85

Block Long Street Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Block Short Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JOHN MARTIN

86

87

Block Section

Birds Eye Block Perspective

60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JOHN MARTIN

88

Street Perspective

Courtyard Perspective

89

with Skip-stop Corridor

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LAURA POULIN

Multi-Family

90

91

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

92

FAR

1.98
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

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
Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

Scale
1:50

67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LAURA POULIN

67.0

93

Longitudinal Block Section

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Corridor Level Block Plan

67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LAURA POULIN

94

95

Transverse Block Section

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Courtyard Perspective

67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LAURA POULIN

96

Birds Eye Prototype Perspective

Down Street Perspective

97

Multi-Family

with a Semi-public Courtyard

Transverse Section through Courtyard

Prototype - Rear Courtyard Elevation

Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009


Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn
Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

Section through Courtyard

69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JOSH BILLINGS

98

99

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

100

FAR

1.87
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Four point load stairs,


one skip-stop corridor
serving floors 4 and 5.
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0, one bedroom:


8, two bedroom: 7, three
bedroom: 2
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

113-8
DEPTH OF BUILDING

84-4
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

59
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

15
Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

Scale
1:50

69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JOSH BILLINGS

69.0

101

A - Street Elevation - North

Typical Block Street Elevation

B - Street Elevation - East

C - Section
B

A
Elevations & Section
Block Plan - 1st Floor

Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009


Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn
Ground Level Block Plan
Type: six units per floor minimum,
single-sided
exposure
Housing and
Aggregation,
Fall 2009
Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn
Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

102

B - Street Elevation - East

Typical Block Street Elevation

C - Section
B

A
Elevations & Section

Block Plan - 2nd Floor

Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009


Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn
Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

Typical Level Block Plan


Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009
Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn
Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JOSH BILLINGS

A - Street Elevation - North

103

District Plan

Housing
and Aggregation,
Fall 2009
Diagrammatic
Section through
District
Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn
Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

District Figure/Ground Plan

104

C - Section
B

Section through Block

A
Elevations & Section

Housing and Aggregation, Fall 2009


Josh Billings
Instructor: Peter Weiderspahn
Type: six units per floor minimum, single-sided exposure

Aerial Perspective

69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JOSH BILLINGS

B - Street Elevation - East

105

106

Multi-Family (Double Exposure) Courtyard Housing

107

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LUKE PALMA

Multi-Family

with Connected Community Courtyards

108

109

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

110

FAR

1.85
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Courtyards are connected on each side to


provide circulation for
intra-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
Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

Scale
1:50

35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LUKE PALMA

35.4

111

Front Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Back Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LUKE PALMA

112

113

Street Perspective

Transverse Section Through Site

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Section Through Park

Intra-Block Circulation

Interior Circulation

Figure Ground Diagram

35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LUKE PALMA

114

115

with Filtered Mid-block Landscape

Street and Greenway Elevations

Sectional Perspective

35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


BRAD MCKINNEY

Multi-Family

116

117

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

118

FAR

1.73
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Double courtyard system filters circulation


and function.
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
Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan


PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.8

Scale
1:50

35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


BRAD MCKINNEY

35.5

119

Typical Street Elevations

Ground Level Block Plan

Greenway Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


BRAD MCKINNEY

120

121

Pedestrian Walkway Elevations

Cornice Detail

Birds Eye Block Perspective

35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


BRAD MCKINNEY

122

Walkway Detail

Prototype Section

123

with Units Expressed as


Individual Buildings

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


THOMAS NEAL

Multi-Family

124

125

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

126

FAR

2.07
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

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

6
UNIT BREAKDOWN

two bedroom: 8
three bedroom: 4
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

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

36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


THOMAS NEAL

36.0

127

Typical Block Street Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Section

Typical Level Block Plan

36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


THOMAS NEAL

128

129

Multi Family

without Corridors Serving Six Stairs

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


DAN MARINO

130

131

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

Third Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

132

FAR

1.99
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Point load stair system


with staggered floors
and half submerged
parking below
UNITS PER FLOOR

5
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0,
one bedroom: 2,
two bedroom: 0,
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

111
DEPTH OF BUILDING

117
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.75
Fourth Floor Plan

Fifth Floor Plan

Scale
1:50

42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


DAN MARINO

42.2

133

Section / Courtyard Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


DAN MARINO

134

135

District Perspectives

Birds Eye District Perspective

Massing Strategy

Privitization of open spaces

42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


DAN MARINO

136

137

With Adjacent Semi-Private Courtyards

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SCOTT SWAILS

Multi-Family

138

139

Ground Floor Plan

Typical Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

140

FAR

1.39
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Inverted shape provides


ideal amounts of light
and privacy
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0, one bedroom:


6, two bedroom: 6, three
bedroom: 0
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

914
DEPTH OF BUILDING

86
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

306
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.75

Ground Floor End Unit

Typical Floor End Unit


Scale
1:50

44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SCOTT SWAILS

44.9

141

Standard Unit Main Street Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SCOTT SWAILS

142

143

Commercial Street Elevation

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Sectional Axonometric View

44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SCOTT SWAILS

144

Sectional Axonometric View

Typical Unit Axonometric

145

with a Courtyard Gateway

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JEFFREY MONTES

Multi-Family

146

147

Ground Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

148

FAR

1.52
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Ramps around interior


face of courtyard provide primary access to
units
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 2, one bedroom:


7, two bedroom: 8
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

132-9
DEPTH OF BUILDING

78-9
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

33-4
Second Floor Plan

ACCESSIBLE UNITS

3 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.7

Scale
1:50

45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JEFFREY MONTES

45.8

149

Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Main Courtyard Perspective

45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JEFFREY MONTES

150

151

Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation

Birds Eye Block Perspective

45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JEFFREY MONTES

152

Main Courtyard Perspective

153

with Cantilevered Volumes

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


KEN WORKINGS

Multi-Family

154

155

Ground Floor

Second Floor

Third Floor

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

156

FAR

1.87
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Shifting volumes in both


plan and section allow
for maximum light penetration for mid-building
units
UNITS PER FLOOR

12
UNIT BREAKDOWN

one bedroom: 16, two


bedroom: 18
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

80
DEPTH OF BUILDING

275
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

45
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.9

Scale
1:50
Fourth Floor

Fifth Floor

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


KEN WORKINGS

46.4

157

Long Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


KEN WORKINGS

158

End Block Street Elevation

Elevational Variance Diagram

Single Prototype Elevation

159

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Ramp Landscaping Detail

Facade Detail

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


KEN WORKINGS

160

161

with Ramps as Main Circulation

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


MELISSA MIRANDA

Multi-Family

162

163

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

164

FAR

2.30
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Ramps around interior


face of courtyard provide primary access to
units and promote social
interaction.
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 5, one bedroom:


3, two bedroom: 3, three
bedroom: 3
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

98-0
DEPTH OF BUILDING

100-0
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

50-0
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade
Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

PARKING SPACES/UNIT

12/14

Scale
1:50

55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


MELISSA MIRANDA

55.0

165

Boardwalk Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


MELISSA MIRANDA

166

167

Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Interior Perspective of Artists Studio

55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


MELISSA MIRANDA

168

Single Bedroom Unit Axon

Ramp Perspective

169

Multi-Family

with Subtractive Terraces and Voids

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


MICHELLE MORTENSEN

170

171

Ground Floor

First Floor

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

172

FAR

2.06
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

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

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 5, one bedroom:


3, two bedroom: 2 ,
three bedroom: 2
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

70
DEPTH OF BUILDING

100
Second Floor

Third Floor

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

43
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.7

Scale
1:50

57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


MICHELLE MORTENSEN

57.7

173

South Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Transverse Section

Typical Level Block Plan

57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


MICHELLE MORTENSEN

174

175

Sectional Perspective Progression Cut 4

Perspective

Massing of interlocking units with cirulcation voids

Massing of interlocking units with public space voids

Exploded Axon of Unit Types

57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


MICHELLE MORTENSEN

176

177

Multi-Family

with Passive Solar Orientation

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LEO RICHARDSON

178

179

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

180

FAR

3.22
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Elevator access to all


units with exterior stairways to roofdecks.
UNITS PER FLOOR

6
UNIT BREAKDOWN

Third Floor Plan

studio: 2
one bedroom: 2
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

Scale
1:50

62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LEO RICHARDSON

62.1

181

Street Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LEO RICHARDSON

182

183

Vertical Elevator Circulation


Horizontal Corridor Circulation

Diagram of Accessible Interior Circulation

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Winter Sun Diagram

Trransverse Courtyard Section

62.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


LEO RICHARDSON

184

185

Elevation - Pedestrian Street Edge

DANIELLE McDONOUGH

with Two Distinct Urban Faces

66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

Multi-Family

186

Elevation - Vehicular Street Face

Sectional Perspective through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

187

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

188

2.76
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

A terraced strategy
maximizes light and air
and adapts to the pedestrian 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

Scale
1:50
Fourth + Fifth Floor Plan

DANIELLE McDONOUGH

FAR

66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

66.6

189

Street Elevation - Vehicular Street Face

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Level Block Plan

DANIELLE McDONOUGH

Street Elevation - Pedestrian Street Face

66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

190

191

DANIELLE McDONOUGH

66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

192

193

without Corridors Served by Four Stairs

Typical Elevation

Sectional Perspective

70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


KATIE MCMAHON

Multi-Family

194

195

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

196

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
DEPTH OF BUILDING

99
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

0.4
Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan

Scale
1:50

70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


KATIE MCMAHON

70.0

197

Block Section

Ground Level Block Plan

70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


KATIE MCMAHON

198

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

199

District Plan

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Sectional Perspective

Sectional Perspective

Relationship of Facade to Interior

70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


KATIE MCMAHON

200

201

with Figurative Courtyard

Prototype

Sectional Perspective

77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SARAH TARBET

Multi-Family

202

203

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

204

FAR

2.63
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Living rooms facing


courtyard, bedrooms
facing street.
UNIT BREAKDOWN

one bedroom: 6, two


bedroom: 16
UNITS PER FLOOR
6
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

243
DEPTH OF BUILDING

250
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

46
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
Third Floor Plan

1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.7

Scale
1:50

77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SARAH TARBET

77.0

205

Block Street Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Unfolded Courtyard Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SARAH TARBET

206

207

Block Section

Birds Eye Block Perspective

Entry Portal

77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


SARAH TARBET

208

Interior Courtyard

Street Perspective

209

Multi-Family

with Individual Entry System


from External Circulation Tissue

Sectional Perspective

78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


BARRETT NEWELL

210

211

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

Third Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

212

FAR

2.56
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Double entry system


connecting two
buildings into one
courtyard
UNITS PER FLOOR

5
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 14, one bedroom: 4


two bedroom: 6
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

82
DEPTH OF BUILDING

171
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

41
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
Fourth Floor Plan

Fifth Floor Plan

4 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

.83

Scale
1:50

78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


BARRETT NEWELL

78.0

213

Block Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Section and Courtyard Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


BARRETT NEWELL

214

215

End Block Elevation

Section and Courtyard Elevation


78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
BARRETT NEWELL

216

217

with a Rotated Elliptical Courtyard

Transverse Section Through Courtyard

Sectional Perspective

96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JAIME SWEED

Multi-Family

218

219

Ground Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan

DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

220

FAR

1.99
ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC

Rotating ellipse courtyard provides alternating


terraces to units
UNITS PER FLOOR

4
UNIT BREAKDOWN

studio: 0, one bedroom:


2, two bedroom: 8, three
bedroom: 0
WIDTH AT STREET WALL

99
DEPTH OF BUILDING

76
MAXIMUM HEIGHT

39
ACCESSIBLE UNITS

2 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT

1.2

Third Floor Plan

Fourth Floor Plan


Scale
1:50

96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JAIME SWEED

96.0

221

Corner Block Elevation

Ground Level Block Plan

Typical Block Street Elevation

Typical Level Block Plan

96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JAIME SWEED

222

223

Diagram of Prototype Courtyard Organization

Section Perspective

96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE


JAIME SWEED

224

Facade Detail

Typical Unit Axonometric

225

226

Site Masterplans by Studio

227

SITE ACREAGE
209.41

228

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

CHRISTOFORETTI
STUDIO MASTERPLAN

AREA (COMMERCIAL/
PUBLIC PROGRAM
350,718 SF

229

JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55
SINGLE FAMILY
40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

IAN STABER
MULTI-FAMILY
45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

KATIE MCMAHON | 193


MULTI-FAMILY
70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

BARRETT NEWELL | 209


MULTI-FAMILY
78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185
MULTI-FAMILY
66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55
SINGLE FAMILY
40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

LEO RICHARDSON | 177


MULTI-FAMILY
62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

IAN STABER
MULTI-FAMILY
45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

THANA TALIEP
MULTI-FAMILY
58.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
BRAD MCKINNEY | 115
MULTI-FAMILY
35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

230

DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185


MULTI-FAMILY
66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
LEO RICHARDSON | 177
MULTI-FAMILY
62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

MICHELLE MORTENSEN | 169


MULTI-FAMILY
22.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

CHRISTOFORETTI
STUDIO MASTERPLAN

MELISSA MIRANDA | 161


MULTI-FAMILY
55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

231

SITE ACREAGE
209.41

232

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

LOVE
STUDIO MASTERPLAN

AREA (COMMERCIAL/
PUBLIC PROGRAM)
10,000 SF

233

CHRISTINE MOYLAN | 39
SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX
36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

THOMAS NEAL | 123


MULTI-FAMILY
36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

CHRSITINE NASIR | 47
SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX
67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
AARON TRAHAN | 31
SINGLE-FAMILY
25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

SARAH TARBET | 201


MULTI-FAMILY
55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

AARON TRAHAN | 31
SINGLE-FAMILY
25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

LAURA POULIN | 89
SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX
67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JI PARK
MULTI-FAMILY
36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JOHN MARTIN | 81
MULTI-FAMILY
60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

THOMAS NEAL | 123


MULTI-FAMILY
36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

LOVE
STUDIO MASTERPLAN

CAITLIN WEZEL | 23
SINGLE-FAMILY
29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

234

JONATHAN SAMPSON
MULTI-FAMILY
55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

235

SITE ACREAGE
209.41

236

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

WIEDERSPAHN
STUDIO MASTERPLAN

AREA (COMMERCIAL/
PROGRAM PROGRAM)
324,984 SF

237

TIM VALICH | 73
MULTI-FAMILY
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

BETTY QUINTANA | 15
SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX
34.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JAMIE SWEED | 217


MULTI-FAMILY
96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

KEN WORKINGS | 153


MULTI-FAMILY
46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

DAN MARINO | 129


MULTI FAMILY
42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

SARAH ROSENTHAL | 65
MULTI-FAMILY
32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

NATHAN ALESKOVSKY
MULTI-FAMILY
56.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

JEFFREY MONTES | 145


MULTI-FAMILY
45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

238

LUKE PALMA | 107


MULTI-FAMILY
35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
SCOTT SWAILS | 137
MULTI-FAMILY
44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

WIEDERSPAHN
STUDIO MASTERPLAN

JOSH BILLINGS | 97
MULTI-FAMILY
69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

239

240

Jonathan Levi

Courtyard Housing:
Afterword
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 commitment
to the discipline as an arena of action which goes beyond
the intangible long term influences of aesthetic concerns
to address a level of immediate cultural and even political
service. Building on its original mid-20th Century meaning
as a corrective to the damaging effects of industrialization,
housing has also come to be closely associated with the
framing of the architectural project within the larger subject
of the city. Housing fabric is the basic stuff of cities and lies
at the fundamental intersection between the architectural
and urban scales.

These studios, taught at Northeastern by Tim Love and


his colleagues, represent a recommitment to the ideal of
housing introduced at the core of the moral and technical
formation of the young architect. But with at twist: Where
previous generations, consciously or not, embraced the
implicit agenda of social housing, Professor Love updates his
approach with an expert nod to the contemporary realities of
private development restrained, for public interest purposes,
only by the primitive mechanisms of zoning ordinances
and building codes. The projects themselves then represent
a kind of purposeful gamesmanship, following the path of
community building through graduated scales and individual
dwelling differentiation while outwitting the numerous
community-adverse obstacles presented by parking, egress

241

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


tactical endeavor, the interior-block garden or courtyard
emerges, dispelling the anonymity of repetition, offering
respite from the automobile and, hopefully, providing the
germ of community. Underlying these very comprehensive
and comprehensible proposals, there lays a challenge to
contemporary social conditions in America which are
generally inimical to the meaningful creation of semi-private
space. It is a practical challenge - one of ownership - and a
spiritual one. The latter, in essence, because we Americans
do not like to be in clustered pigeonholes, we do not like to
be told what groups to belong to and, for better or worse,
we simply do not like to share. The students remind us that
the need to change these conditions is unquestionable given
the social and ecological alternative of further despoiling the
country and further alienating ourselves from one another.
Remembering the identity of cities and their housing, this
then brings us to that indefatigable urban default structure
- the street, and also to its current status and the city that
it implies. Those represented here are remarkable if only
for their authors highly laudable attention to the details of
elevations an attention which is lacking in many schools
of architecture today. In so doing, the students have been
able to tangibly mediate the critical contest between
automobiles and pedestrians, between garages and entries,
which is at the heart of the nature of contemporary cities.
They do so with optimism about the livability of public
streets which is justifiable but perhaps not so much for
today as it is for tomorrow.

Certainly, the ordinary street today is nothing like it was


in our distant memory or as it now sometimes exists in
exotic places for wealthy people on the prowl for fun and
purchases. It will never be exactly that. It will probably
not be a place of walking to work or kids going to school
or mothers congregating during the day with strollers.
Workplace mobility, taken together with full employment
outside the home and our affinity for spreading over the
land, has overtaken all that in the form of the automobile.
And the automobile, though it may eventually take more
communally responsible form, is here to stay.
However, significantly, the workplace is changing. Mobility
is increasingly virtual. Commuting is increasingly virtual.
Commerce is increasingly virtual. There is a real possibility
that the separated workplace, dwelling and commercial
concentrations that have, in the last 50 years, driven the
emptying of streets will someday be obsolete. There is
a possibility that housing will not just be mostly the stuff
of cities, but all of them. Then, in the post vehicular city,
we will see what streets will become. It will not be a city
without cars, not a restoration of quaint pedestrianism,
but where cars have a new and less fearsomely essential
meaning. In their carefully scaled streets and cleverly
configured courtyards these student proposals seek to
heal the empty places of 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.

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.