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 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
73
John Martin
81
Laura Poulin
89
Josh Billings
97

MULTI-FAMILY (DOUBLE EXPOSURE)
Contents
A CASE FOR TYPOLOGICAL THINKING

Tim Love
COURTYARD HOUSING: MANUAL AS MANIFESTO

Hubert Murray
Luke Palma
107
Brad McKinney
115
Thomas Neal
123
Dan Marino
129
Scott Swails
137
Jeffrey Montes
145
Ken Workings
153
Melissa Miranda
161
Michelle Mortensen
169
Leo Richardson
177
Danielle McDonough
185
Katie McMahon
193
Sarah Tarbet
201
Barrett Newell
209
Jaime Sweed
217
SINGLE FAMILY & SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX
SOUTH BOSTON MASTER PLANS
Betty Quintana
15
Christoforetti Studio
227
Caitlan Wezel
23
Love Studio
231
Aaron Trahan
31
Wiederspahn Studio
Christine Moylan
39
Christine Nasir
47
Jackie Mossman
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

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

BETTY QUINTANA
22.6
19
Elevation
Ground Level Block Plan
Typical Block Street Elevation
Typical Level Block Plan

BETTY QUINTANA
20
21
Elevation
Perspective
Birds Eye Block Perspective

BETTY QUINTANA
22
Street Level Perspective
23
with Central Courtyard
Elevation

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
44
DEPTH OF BUILDING
37-6
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
32-6
Third Floor Plan
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
Scale
1:20

CAITLIN WEZEL
25.0
27
Block Elevation
Section through block
Second Floor Block Plan

CAITLIN WEZEL
28
29
Elevation
Section through minor street

Perspective
Minor Street Elevation
Perspective of Minor Street

CAITLIN WEZEL
30
31
Single Family
with L-Type, Bookmatch Aggregation

AARON TRAHAN
32
33
Ground Floor Plan
First Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
34
FAR
1.67
L type, bookmatch
aggregation.
Front Elevation
UNITS PER FLOOR
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
Scale
1:20
Corner Side Elevation

AARON TRAHAN
29.0
35
Elevation
Elevation
AARON TRAHAN
36
First Level Block Plan
37
Perspective
Perspective

AARON TRAHAN
38
Block Courtyard Perspective
39
with Stepped Decks
Front Elevation
Elevation

CHRISTINE MOYLAN
Single Family
40
41
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
42
FAR
1.62
Interior circulation
wraps through the
house in conjunction
with the exterior terrace 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
Scale
1:20

CHRISTINE MOYLAN
30.0
43
Courtyard Elevation

CHRISTINE MOYLAN
44
45
Elevation
Perspective
BIRDS EYE BLOCK PERSPECTIVE

CHRISTINE MOYLAN
46
Courtyard Perspective
47
with Adjoining Private Courtyards
Sectional Perspective Through Upper Unit
Sectional Perspective Through Lower Unit

CHRISTINE NASIR
Duplex
48
49
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
50
FAR
1.40
U-shaped units wrap

courtyard.
UNIT BREAKDOWN
two bedroom: 2
UNITS PER FLOOR
2
45
DEPTH OF BUILDING
60
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
25
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1
Third Floor Plan
Roof Plan
Scale
1 : 20

CHRISTINE NASIR
32.0
51
Short Block Elevation
Upper Level Block Plan

CHRISTINE NASIR
52
53
Lower Courtyard View
Upper Courtyard View
Sections Through Block

CHRISTINE NASIR
54
Street Level Perspective
55
Single Family
with Stepped Section and Terraces
Longitudinal Section Through Courtyard

JACQUELINE MOSSMAN
56
57
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
58
FAR
2
Private Entry/
Circulation.
UNITS PER FLOOR
2
UNIT BREAKDOWN
three bedroom: 2
35
DEPTH OF BUILDING
82
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
45
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
0 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1-2
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan

Scale
1:20

JACQUELINE MOSSMAN
40.1
59
South Elevation Detail

JACQUELINE MOSSMAN
60
North Elevation Detail
61
Concept Development Diagram
62

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

SARA ROSENTHAL
Multi-Family
66
67
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
68
FAR
2.20
Point-load circulation 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
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.72
Scale
1:50

SARA ROSENTHAL
32.0
69
Elevation

SARA ROSENTHAL
70
71
Section and Courtyard Elevations
Prototype to Block Massing

SARA ROSENTHAL
72
Prototype to Block Circulation
Section Perspective from Street
73
with Stepped Courtyard

Open to the Street
74

TIM VALICH
Multi-Family
75
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
76
FAR
1.87
Terraced courtyard open to

the street.
UNITS PER FLOOR
7
UNIT BREAKDOWN

18, two bedroom: 6,
three bedroom: 0
175
DEPTH OF BUILDING
105
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
5 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
1.44
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan

Scale
1:50

TIM VALICH
46.4
77
Elevation

TIM VALICH
78
79
Prototype Figure Ground

TIM VALICH
80
Street Perspective
81
with Courtyards within Courtyards
Street Elevation

JOHN MARTIN
Multi-Family
82
83
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
84
FAR
2.24
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
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

JOHN MARTIN
60.0
85
Block Long Street Elevation
Block Short Street Elevation

JOHN MARTIN
86
87
Block Section

JOHN MARTIN
88
Street Perspective
89
with Skip-stop Corridor

LAURA POULIN
Multi-Family
90
91
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
92
FAR
1.98
Skip-stop corridor
provides access to
duplex units.
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 1
one bedroom: 4
two bedroom: 4
three bedroom: 4
80
DEPTH OF BUILDING
108
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
41
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
Scale
1:50

LAURA POULIN
67.0
93
Longitudinal Block Section
Corridor Level Block Plan

LAURA POULIN
94
95
Transverse Block Section

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

JOSH BILLINGS
98
99
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
100
FAR
1.87
Four point load stairs,

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
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
Scale
1:50

JOSH BILLINGS
69.0
101
A - Street Elevation - North
B - Street Elevation - East
C - Section
B
A
Elevations & Section
Block Plan - 1st Floor

Josh Billings
Type: six units per floor minimum,
single-sided
exposure
Housing and
Aggregation,
Fall 2009
Josh Billings
102
C - Section
B
A
Block Plan - 2nd Floor

Josh Billings

Josh Billings

JOSH BILLINGS
A - Street Elevation - North
103
District Plan
Housing
and Aggregation,
Fall 2009
Diagrammatic
Section through
District
Josh Billings
District Figure/Ground Plan
104
C - Section
B
Section through Block
A

Josh Billings
Aerial Perspective

JOSH BILLINGS
105
106
Multi-Family (Double Exposure) Courtyard Housing
107

LUKE PALMA
Multi-Family
with Connected Community Courtyards
108
109
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
110
FAR
1.85
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
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

LUKE PALMA
35.4
111
Front Elevation
Back Elevation

LUKE PALMA
112
113
Street Perspective
Transverse Section Through Site
Section Through Park
Intra-Block Circulation
Interior Circulation
Figure Ground Diagram

LUKE PALMA
114
115
with Filtered Mid-block Landscape
Street and Greenway Elevations

BRAD MCKINNEY
Multi-Family
116
117
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
118
FAR
1.73
Double courtyard system 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
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan

PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.8
Scale
1:50

BRAD MCKINNEY
35.5
119
Typical Street Elevations
Greenway Elevation

BRAD MCKINNEY
120
121
Pedestrian Walkway Elevations
Cornice Detail

BRAD MCKINNEY
122
Walkway Detail
Prototype Section
123
with Units Expressed as

Individual Buildings

THOMAS NEAL
Multi-Family
124
125
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
126
FAR
2.07
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
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

THOMAS NEAL
36.0
127
Typical Block Street Section

THOMAS NEAL
128
129
Multi Family
without Corridors Serving Six Stairs

DAN MARINO
130
131
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
Third Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
132
FAR
1.99
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,
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

DAN MARINO
42.2
133
Section / Courtyard Elevation

DAN MARINO
134
135
District Perspectives
Birds Eye District Perspective
Massing Strategy
Privitization of open spaces

DAN MARINO
136
137
With Adjacent Semi-Private Courtyards

SCOTT SWAILS
Multi-Family
138
139
Ground Floor Plan
Typical Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
140
FAR
1.39
Inverted shape provides

ideal amounts of light
and privacy
UNITS PER FLOOR
4
UNIT BREAKDOWN

bedroom: 0
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

SCOTT SWAILS
44.9
141
Standard Unit Main Street Elevation

SCOTT SWAILS
142
143
Commercial Street Elevation
Sectional Axonometric View

SCOTT SWAILS
144
Sectional Axonometric View
Typical Unit Axonometric
145
with a Courtyard Gateway

JEFFREY MONTES
Multi-Family
146
147
Ground Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
148
FAR
1.52
Ramps around interior

face of courtyard provide 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
Second Floor Plan
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
3 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.7
Scale
1:50

JEFFREY MONTES
45.8
149
Elevation
Main Courtyard Perspective

JEFFREY MONTES
150
151
Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation

JEFFREY MONTES
152
Main Courtyard Perspective
153
with Cantilevered Volumes

KEN WORKINGS
Multi-Family
154
155
Ground Floor
Second Floor
Third Floor
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
156
FAR
1.87
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
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

KEN WORKINGS
46.4
157
Long Block Street Elevation

KEN WORKINGS
158
End Block Street Elevation
Elevational Variance Diagram
Single Prototype Elevation
159
Ramp Landscaping Detail
Facade Detail

KEN WORKINGS
160
161
with Ramps as Main Circulation

MELISSA MIRANDA
Multi-Family
162
163
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
164
FAR
2.30
Ramps around interior

face of courtyard provide 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

MELISSA MIRANDA
55.0
165
Boardwalk Elevation

MELISSA MIRANDA
166
167
Diagram of Prototype Organization and Interior Circulation
Interior Perspective of Artists Studio

MELISSA MIRANDA
168
Single Bedroom Unit Axon
Ramp Perspective
169
Multi-Family
with Subtractive Terraces and Voids

MICHELLE MORTENSEN
170
171
Ground Floor
First Floor
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
172
FAR
2.06
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

MICHELLE MORTENSEN
57.7
173
South Elevation
Typical Block Transverse Section

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

MICHELLE MORTENSEN
176
177
Multi-Family
with Passive Solar Orientation

LEO RICHARDSON
178
179
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
180
FAR
3.22
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
110
DEPTH OF BUILDING
125
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
65
ACCESSIBLE UNITS
19
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
0.7
Fourth Floor Plan
Scale
1:50

LEO RICHARDSON
62.1
181
Street Elevation

LEO RICHARDSON
182
183
Vertical Elevator Circulation

Horizontal Corridor Circulation
Diagram of Accessible Interior Circulation
Winter Sun Diagram
Trransverse Courtyard Section

LEO RICHARDSON
184
185
Elevation - Pedestrian Street Edge
DANIELLE McDONOUGH
with Two Distinct Urban Faces
Multi-Family
186
Elevation - Vehicular Street Face
Sectional Perspective through Courtyard
187
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
188
2.76
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
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
189
Street Elevation - Vehicular Street Face
DANIELLE McDONOUGH
Street Elevation - Pedestrian Street Face
190
191
DANIELLE McDONOUGH
192
193
without Corridors Served by Four Stairs
Typical Elevation

KATIE MCMAHON
Multi-Family
194
195
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
196
FAR
2.57
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
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan
Scale
1:50

KATIE MCMAHON
70.0
197
Block Section

KATIE MCMAHON
198
199
District Plan
Relationship of Facade to Interior

KATIE MCMAHON
200
201
with Figurative Courtyard
Prototype

SARAH TARBET
Multi-Family
202
203
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
204
FAR
2.63
Living rooms facing

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
Third Floor Plan
1 at grade
PARKING SPACES/UNIT
.7
Scale
1:50

SARAH TARBET
77.0
205
Block Street Elevation
Unfolded Courtyard Elevation

SARAH TARBET
206
207
Block Section
Entry Portal

SARAH TARBET
208
Interior Courtyard
Street Perspective
209
Multi-Family
with Individual Entry System

from External Circulation Tissue

BARRETT NEWELL
210
211
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
Third Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
212
FAR
2.56
Double entry system

connecting two
buildings into one
courtyard
UNITS PER FLOOR
5
UNIT BREAKDOWN
studio: 14, one bedroom: 4

two bedroom: 6
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

BARRETT NEWELL
78.0
213
Block Elevation
Section and Courtyard Elevation

BARRETT NEWELL
214
215
End Block Elevation
Section and Courtyard Elevation

BARRETT NEWELL
216
217
with a Rotated Elliptical Courtyard

JAIME SWEED
Multi-Family
218
219
Ground Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
220
FAR
1.99
Rotating ellipse courtyard 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
Third Floor Plan
Fourth Floor Plan

Scale
1:50

JAIME SWEED
96.0
221
Corner Block Elevation

JAIME SWEED
222
223
Diagram of Prototype Courtyard Organization
Section Perspective

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
IAN STABER
MULTI-FAMILY
KATIE MCMAHON | 193

MULTI-FAMILY
BARRETT NEWELL | 209

MULTI-FAMILY
DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185
MULTI-FAMILY
JACQUELINE MOSSMAN | 55
SINGLE FAMILY
LEO RICHARDSON | 177

MULTI-FAMILY
IAN STABER
MULTI-FAMILY
THANA TALIEP
MULTI-FAMILY
BRAD MCKINNEY | 115
MULTI-FAMILY
230
DANIELLE MCDONOUGH | 185

MULTI-FAMILY
LEO RICHARDSON | 177
MULTI-FAMILY
MICHELLE MORTENSEN | 169

MULTI-FAMILY
CHRISTOFORETTI
STUDIO MASTERPLAN
MELISSA MIRANDA | 161

MULTI-FAMILY
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
THOMAS NEAL | 123

MULTI-FAMILY
CHRSITINE NASIR | 47
SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX
AARON TRAHAN | 31
SINGLE-FAMILY
SARAH TARBET | 201

MULTI-FAMILY
AARON TRAHAN | 31
SINGLE-FAMILY
LAURA POULIN | 89
SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX
JI PARK
MULTI-FAMILY
JOHN MARTIN | 81
MULTI-FAMILY
THOMAS NEAL | 123

MULTI-FAMILY
LOVE
STUDIO MASTERPLAN
CAITLIN WEZEL | 23
SINGLE-FAMILY
234
JONATHAN SAMPSON
MULTI-FAMILY
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
BETTY QUINTANA | 15
SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX
JAMIE SWEED | 217

MULTI-FAMILY
KEN WORKINGS | 153

MULTI-FAMILY
DAN MARINO | 129

MULTI FAMILY
SARAH ROSENTHAL | 65
MULTI-FAMILY
NATHAN ALESKOVSKY
MULTI-FAMILY
JEFFREY MONTES | 145

MULTI-FAMILY
238
LUKE PALMA | 107

MULTI-FAMILY
SCOTT SWAILS | 137
MULTI-FAMILY
WIEDERSPAHN
STUDIO MASTERPLAN
JOSH BILLINGS | 97
MULTI-FAMILY
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.

Courtyard Housing Issuu PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Courtyard Housing Issuu PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FALL 2009

2010 Northeastern University School of Architecture

MULTI-FAMILY (SINGLE EXPOSURE)

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

60.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

67.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

69.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

A CASE FOR TYPOLOGICAL THINKING

COURTYARD HOUSING: MANUAL AS MANIFESTO

35.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

35.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

36.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

42.2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

44.9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

45.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

46.4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

55.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

57.7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

62.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

66.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

70.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

77.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

78.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

96.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

SINGLE FAMILY & SIDE-BY-SIDE DUPLEX

SOUTH BOSTON MASTER PLANS

22.6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

25.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

29.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

30.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

32.0 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

40.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE

COURTYARD HOUSING: AFTERWORD

A Case for Typological

tricts, the studio also tested a new model of high density

A Case for Typological Thinking

the Masters Degree Research Studio, for example, students

North American Housing Types

that the British rowhouse was introduced to maximize land

Housing and Open Space

typical to most American settlement patterns. Open space

large multi-family buildings with both a front (street) and

Boston Courtyard Housing Matrix

Height: Construction Type

One internal stair between floors is permitted. A single

Maximum height governed by egress requirements

One internal stair between floors is permitted. A single

Maximum height governed by egress requirements

Four or five units/floor C

Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that

The total building height can be no taller than 60'

Six or more units/floor E

Each dwelling/unit requires two means of egress that

The total building height can be no taller than 60'

Min. width of room (LF)

Minimum area defined by code

The minimum area of windows (or a window) in a

Community and Privacy

plans, as if they were taking up the conversation from the

4 For an excellent discussion of these contributions and others, see

Single Family and Side-by-Side Duplex