New(er) Urbanism

A Thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Architecture

In the School of Architecture and Interior Design

In the College of Design Architecture Art and Planning

By Quinn KummerBS Arch, University of Cincinnati

May 2011

ii

ABstrAct

Currently, federal urban policy is focused on the deconcentration of poverty, with the implicit notion that mixed-income living may allow upward mobility for the urban poor. A crucial assumption behind this mixed-income strategy is that social ties will form across socio-economic lines. The New Urbanist theory that guides housing design today espouses an ‘architecture of engagement’ that supports a sense of ‘community,’ but the requisite cross-cultural interaction remains to be seen. Through an analysis of theoretical and empirical works from the environmental-behavioral field, I suggest that building-scale design strategies may, in fact, encourage the formation of cross-cultural social ties. Specifically, I propose a reconfiguration of traditional circula-tion and threshold conditions on an existing rowhouse development in Cincinnati, the Glencoe Place apartments. These dwellings provide an ideal backdrop for innovative architectural strategies, because they represent, on multiple levels, a ‘failed’ housing strategy.

iv

cONtENts

01 Introduction 1

02 the social History of Public Housing 9 Early Public Housing 10 Modernism 11 Postmodernism 15 Public Housing Today 17

03 the case for Mixed Income communities 21

04 the case for traditional Neighborhood Design 31

05 the case for Defensible space 39

06 contemporary socio-spatial theories 49

07 Precedents 57 Weinstein Copeland Architects 60 Jean Renaudie 66 Giancarlo De Carlo 72 Moisei Ginzburg 78

08 Project site 87 History 88 Physical Context 94 Current Conditions 96 Social Context 100 09 New(er) Urbanism 103

v

Image credits01 Koyaanisqatsi: Life Out of Balance. DVD. Directed by Godfrey Reggio. Los Angeles:

MGM, 1983.02 Ramroth, William G. Planning for Disaster: How Natural and Man-made Disasters

Shape the Built Environment. Kaplan Publishing, 2007. 166.04 Timeline Images in chronological order:

1800s Riis, Jacob. (1890). Hells Kitchen and Sebastopol. From Wikipedia. JPG, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jacob_Riis_-_Hells_Kitchen_and_Sebastopol_-_photograph_.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

1898 Photograph of Ebenezer Howard. Accessed May, 17 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ebenezer_Howard.jpg

1924 Stein, Clarence. (1924). Toward New Towns for America. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

1925 http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/2005/05/rein vent-ing_pub.html (accessed May 17, 2011).

1928 http://www.memo.fr/Media/Le_Corbusier.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

1929 (left) Held, Louis. (1919). Portrait of Walter Gropius. From Wikipe-dia. JPG, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WalterGropius-1919.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011) (right) Rowe, Peter G. Modernity and Hous-ing. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993. Fig. 138.

1932 Kopp, Anatole. Constructivist Architecture in the USSR. London: Acad-emy Editions, 1985. p 71.

1933 Goldensky, Elias. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 1933. From Wikipedia. JPG, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FDR_in_1933.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

1937 Newman, Oscar. Creating Defensible Space. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996. Fig IV-6.

1949 Levittown, Pennsylvania. From The Urban Times. JPG, http://static.theurbn.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/09/LevittownPennsylvania.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

1953 Smithson, Alison and Peter. Ideogram of a net of human relations. From Team 10 1953-81: In Search of a Utopia of the Present, edited by Max Risselada and Dirk van den Heuvel. Rotterdam: NAi, 2005. p 244.

1961 From Bloomberg Businessweek. JPG, http://images.businessweek.com/mz/04/33/0433_12innova.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

1972 Newman, Oscar. Creating Defensible Space. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996. Fig I-9.

1972 Ramroth, William G. Planning for Disaster: How Natural and Man-made Disasters Shape the Built Environment. Kaplan Publishing, 2007. 166.

1979 From Coastal Family Living. JPG, http://coastalfamilyliving.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Seaside-FL.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

1987 http://www.nndb.com/people/478/000062292/w-wilson-sm.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

1987 Newman, Oscar. Creating Defensible Space. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996. Fig IV-10.

vi

1996 From Zillow Blog. JPG, http://www.zillow.com/blog/mortgage /files/2010/01/hud_logo.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

1996 http://i.bnet.com/blogs/henry-cisneros-lower-res-200x300.jpg (ac-cessed May 17, 2011).

1999 Courtesy Bing Maps. http://www.bing.com/maps (accessed May 17, 2011).

05 Rankin, Bill. Flavors of Blur. 2009. JPG, http://www.radicalcartography.net/chica-godots_income_big.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

06 Rankin, Bill. A Taxonomy of Transitions. 2009. JPG, http://www.radicalcartogra-phy.net/chicagodots_race_big.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

07 Illustration based on Kleit, Rachel G. “HOPE VI New Communities: Neighborhood Relationships in Mixed-Income Housing.” Environment and Planning A 37, no. 8 (2007): 1413-1441. Fig. 1.

08 Robert Moses and the modern city : the transformation of New York. edited by Hil-ary Ballon and Kenneth T. Jackson. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2007. p 128.

09 Robert Moses and the modern city : the transformation of New York. edited by Hil-ary Ballon and Kenneth T. Jackson. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2007. p 262.

12 Original Image from Wikipedia. JPG,http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Pruitt-igoeUSGS02.jpg/800px-Pruitt-igoeUSGS02.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

13 Newman, Oscar. Creating Defensible Space. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996. Fig I-9.

14 Newman, Oscar. Defensible space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan, 1972. Fig. 150.

18 Hillier, Bill, and Julienne Hanson. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Fig. 121.

20 Jowers, James. New York Public Library. Rochester: George Eastman House Col-lection, 1967. From Flickr. JPG, http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2987740376_d219204a1c_o.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

21-25 Images courtesy of Weinstein Copeland Architects, Seattle.26 Scalbert, Irénée. A Right to Difference: The Architecture of Jean Renaudie. London:

Architectural Association, 2004. p 110.27 Scalbert, Irénée. A Right to Difference: The Architecture of Jean Renaudie. London:

Architectural Association, 2004. p 151.28 Scalbert, Irénée. A Right to Difference: The Architecture of Jean Renaudie. London:

Architectural Association, 2004. p 153.29 Team 10 1953-81: In Search of a Utopia of the Present, edited by Max Risselada

and Dirk van den Heuvel, 220-224. Rotterdam: NAi, 2005. p 22030-31 Team 10 1953-81: In Search of a Utopia of the Present, edited by Max Risselada

and Dirk van den Heuvel, 220-224. Rotterdam: NAi, 2005. p 223.32 Team 10 1953-81: In Search of a Utopia of the Present, edited by Max Risselada

and Dirk van den Heuvel, 220-224. Rotterdam: NAi, 2005. p. 221.33 Kopp, Anatole. Constructivist Architecture in the USSR. London: Academy Editions,

1985. p 67.35-37 Kopp, Anatole. Constructivist Architecture in the USSR. London: Academy Edi-

tions, 1985. p 73.38 Kopp, Anatole. Constructivist Architecture in the USSR. London: Academy Editions,

1985. p 71.42 Cincinnati Dept. of Urban Development. Glencoe Place: Mount Auburn Neighbor

vii

hood Development Program. Cincinnati: Cincinnati Dept. of Urban Development, n.d. 43 Cincinnati City Planning Commission. Glencoe Place General Plan. Cincinnati,

1964.44 (top 3) Courtesy Google Maps http://maps.google.com (accessed May 17, 2011)

and (bottom) Courtesy Bing Maps http://www.bing.com/maps (accessed May 17, 2011).

51 From ArchDaily. JPG, http://cdn.archdaily.net/wp-content/up-loads/2010/12/1292513155-03.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

1

01introduction

One of the most enduring images of American public housing comes from director Godfrey Reggio’s 1982 film, Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of Bal-ance. In a sequence entitled “Pruitt-Igoe,” a grave, foreboding score by Philip Glass sets the tone as the camera pans through various urban scenes, beginning with the canyons of Manhattan’s financial district. Af-ter briefly visiting a block of faceless, dilapidated tenements, the viewer is once again whisked away to an eerily abandoned urban setting. As the musical accompaniment turns a shade darker, the camera reveals various signs of urban decay: a rubble strewn playground, a broken streetlamp swaying gently in the breeze. The strings enter, then slowly languish in a descending minor scale.

01 scenes of Pruitt-Igoe from the film Koyaanisqatsi: an enduring image of a failed social and architectural ideology.

2 3

Today, American public housing bears little resemblance to its be-hemoth ancestors. As outlined by a group called the New Urbanists, current design guidelines eschew the massive scale and alien form of Modernist housing schemes in favor of a more traditional urban mod-el. By rebuilding American inner cities with historically-flavored row-houses and other low-rise housing typologies, the New Urbanists seek to expunge the stigmatized image of mid-century public housing so elo-quently portrayed in Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of Balance. While they have been largely successful in this endeavor, it seems that the New Urban-ists have also abandoned the socially-transformative ideals of Modernist architecture in their retreat towards traditional neighborhood design. This thesis seeks to reintroduce some of the social aspirations that seem to have left public housing discourse in recent years.

In order to establish a contemporary social agenda for public hous-ing, one must first consider how the program has changed over the years. The first section of this thesis thus explores the history of American pub-lic housing and its various social goals. This historical account reveals an interesting trend in federal urban policy towards mixed-income pub-lic housing. Antithetical to previous models of urban development, this mixed-income paradigm suggests that a diverse socio-economic milieu may allow upward mobility for the urban poor. Rather than to challenge this assumption (as indeed many have), this thesis embraces it, and pos-its that a contemporary agenda for public housing may be interpolated from this mixed-income model.

The next section thus probes at the sociological underpinnings be-hind the mixed-income development model. A review of available theo-retical and empirical research suggests that socioeconomic diversity is by no means a panacea for the urban poor. Most of the hypothetical so-cial benefits of income-mixing require a certain degree of cross-cultural social interaction. In other words, a low-income household has little to gain from a nearby middle-income household if there is no contact be-tween the two. The research to date finds that diverse socioeconomic groups tend to keep to themselves within mixed-income communities.

Suddenly, the music becomes urgent and violent. The woodwinds and the strings join in tumultuous arpeggios, punctuated by a strident trumpet call. The viewer is once again transplanted, now to the skies above a seemingly endless field of identical 11-storey apartment build-ings. As the tempestuous score rages on in the background, the camera pans quickly through the towers, revealing monotonous brick walls and row upon row of broken windows. There is clearly something sinister about this place.

As the scene unfolds, the camera settles on a wide-angle shot of a single building. A white cloud escapes from the lower windows, and soon the mammoth structure begins to collapse upon itself. The build-ings that seemed so menacing seconds earlier are now reduced to a fleeting cloud of dust.

This is St. Louis’s Pruitt-Igoe housing project, one of the largest and most notorious of its kind in American history. Completed in 1956, this development was once hailed as a paragon of Modernist architecture. Project architect Minoru Yamasaki envisioned the pristine, massive tow-ers as “vertical neighborhoods” in which community life would thrive along deep hallways or “galleries” (Von Hoffman, 433) at each level. The massive scale and hyper-rational layout of the complex was an idealistic attempt to bring adequate housing to the greatest possible number of people. Clearly, behind the radical image of these towers was an equally radical social agenda.

Before long, however, Pruitt-Igoe fell into a deplorable state of disre-pair, marred by extreme poverty, crime, and vandalism. The demolition, immortalized in Reggio’s film, occurred on July 15, 1972, a mere 16 years after the project was completed. Architectural theorist Charles Jencks would famously conclude that “modern architecture died” (Jencks 1977, 9) at this exact moment, as the utopian ideals imbued in Pruitt-Igoe were literally scrapped. For many, the remarkable rate of decline at Pruitt-Ig-oe and other high-rise public housing projects across the country served as a glaring indication of a failed social and architectural ideology.

02 Pruitt-Igoe demolition, July 15, 1972. the utopian ideals of Modernist architecture are literally scrapped.

4 5

It stands to reason, then, that the social benefits of income-mixing are largely unrealized due to a lack of interaction among residents. This the-sis thus seeks to rethink the design of mixed-income public housing with an explicit emphasis on increased resident interaction.

In order to rethink the design of public housing, one must first con-sider the status quo. As the historical account within this thesis will at-test, the trend towards mixed-income development is not the only ideo-logical thread that guides housing design today. In fact, the principles of traditional neighborhood design and defensible space remain highly in-fluential, each officially recognized by federal housing design guidelines. Springing from a Postmodern backlash against mid-century urbanism, these theories were cultivated in the 1960s and 1970s. While there are valuable insights to be gleaned from each line of thought, the current income-mixing agenda requires a new perspective in housing design. Therefore, chapters 4 and 5 critically examine the tenets of traditional neighborhood design and defensible space, respectively. Rather than to throw these theories out altogether, these chapters weigh the sociologi-cal implications of each.

After sifting through today’s well-established design ideologies, it then seems pertinent to consider recent developments in the environ-mental-behavioral field. In recent years, designers and theorists have developed new understandings regarding environmental design and its social implications. Chapter 6 will explore some of the contemporary socio-spatial theories that seem most applicable to the issue at hand. Much of the research within this section identifies the threshold as the operative architectural device that mediates diverse social realms. As this thesis seeks to encourage interaction between diverse households, it is now evident that the threshold, at its various scales, acquires a new-found significance. Along with the insights from the previous chapters, these contemporary theories help to inform the design process devel-oped within this thesis.

Before delving into a practical design exercise, it is first useful to consider a few applicable architectural precedents. Throughout recent history, several architects have approached housing design with an ex-pressed emphasis on social interaction. Chapter 7 explores four of these projects and seeks to objectively evaluate each. By indentifying venues for social interaction and their relative location, it is possible to analyze the probability and nature of social interaction within each environ-ment. Along with the theoretical works discussed thus far, the success-ful architectural strategies observed in this section help to create a de-sign methodology for practical application.

03 city West, cincinnati: today, American public housing bears little resemblance to its Modernist ancestors.

6 7

Before salient findings from the research may be applied to a prac-tical design, it is first necessary to chose an appropriate building site. Chapter 8 introduces the chosen location, the Glencoe Place Apartments in Mount Auburn, Cincinnati. This collection of 19th-century rowhouses serves as a challenging yet apt backdrop for an architectural interven-tion. Now abandoned, Glencoe Place has served as a low-income hous-ing development in the past. A recurring history of social decline sug-gests that the otherwise sturdy rowhouses on site may be lacking in many respects. In light of the research conducted thus far, this section will critically examine the existing housing on site, and identify some of the shortcomings that may require adjustment.

The ninth and final chapter of this thesis serves to summarize the principal findings from the research and to apply them to a practical de-sign. Through a series of architectural interventions, the Glencoe Place Apartments are redeveloped into a socially-engaged, mixed-income public housing development. Precedents and theoretical concepts are synthesized into a New(er) Urbanism that promotes new opportuni-ties for social interaction. At multiple scales, threshold conditions are reconfigured at the Glencoe Place Apartments, promoting a more nu-anced boundary between private and public spaces. Though many of the design considerations are tempered by specific site considerations, the resulting New(er) Urbanist scheme may serve as a model for future mixed-income public housing projects.

9

02tHE sOcIAl HIstOry Of PUBlIc HOUsINg

From its inception, public housing has always been intrinsically linked to social theory. By studying and interpreting society, architects and policymakers have long sought an understanding of urban poverty and its spatial implications. Public housing has thus emerged in vari-ous forms throughout history as an environmental solution to the social pathologies ascribed to the urban poor. Consequently, public housing ideology has often carried an air of environmental determinism, or “a belief that an ideal or improved residential environment will better the behavior as well as the condition of its inhabitants” (von Hoffman 1996, 423-424). In many ways, this notion of environmental determinism per-sists to this day. A look at the history of public housing reveals that ac-cepted architectural models tend to reflect the prevailing social values of the time. In order to best understand contemporary housing, it is es-sential to consider how these shifting values have shaped, and continue to shape the public housing program in the United States.

1924 19281925

Modernism

1800s 1898

garden city Movement

IDEOlOgyPrActIcE

04 timeline showing significant events in American public housing and the ideological threads involved.

10 11

Consistent with Howard’s model, the first realized examples of public housing were located within swaths of green space, far from the squalor of the urban center. Architecturally, early public housing was often indistinguishable from other housing. Characteristically low-density, these projects were often detached, single-family residences or low-rise ‘garden-style’ apartments. As these early projects were exclu-sively funded by local philanthropists and social reformers, they were typically small-scale and community based.

Though various philanthropies would create a modest stock of so-cial housing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, federally funded public housing did not appear until 1933, as part of Franklin D. Roos-evelt’s Public Works Administration. While this legislation was origi-nally conceived as a means to employ idle workers, the federal govern-ment would commit in earnest to a public housing program with the Wagner-Steagall Housing Act of 1937. Consistent with earlier forms of social housing, projects built under this legislation strove to “create an environment antithetical to the urban slum” (von Hoffman 1996, 426). Though this was originally achieved through traditional architectural styling, designers and policymakers would become increasingly influ-enced by the European avant-garde, who offered a radical departure from urban squalor.

ModernismThe definition of the street which has held good up to the present day is ‘a road-way that is usually bordered by pavements, narrow or wide as the case may

be.’ Rising straight up from it are walls of houses, which when seen against the sky-line present a grotesquely jagged silhouette of gables, attics and

zinc chimneys. At the very bottom of this scenic railway lies the street,

Le Corbusier proposes Plan Voisin for Paris, advocating widespread demolition of original urban fabric for high-speed automobile thor-oughfares and high-rise towers

CIAM (International Congresses of Modern Architecture) founded by Le Corbusier, origi-nally conceived as an instrument of propaganda to advance developing European avant-garde architectural theory.

Development begins in Sunnyside Gardens in Queens, New York. The project is an early example of the garden apartment.

Early Public HousingBefore there was public housing, there were slums. The rapid ur-

banization following the Industrial Revolution brought with it an acute housing shortage in American cities. Fueled by a lack of funds and a desire to live near industrial centers, increasing numbers of urban immi-grants found residence in grossly overcrowded, precariously built slum settlements. These areas were characterized by incredibly dense config-urations of tenement or rowhouse dwellings, amounting to a “wholesale superimposition of sub-human living conditions” (Frampton 1975, 24).

To many, the sordid image of these informal settlements was a clear indication of social pathology. Indeed, social reformers of the time “firmly believed that the slums of the city were a malevolent environ-ment that threatened the safety, health, and morals of the poor who in-habited them” (von Hoffman 1996, 424). Interestingly, the etymology of the word ‘slum’ suggests that the term has always denoted moral deg-radation. Before ‘slum’ acquired its spatial implications, it was used in the early 19th century to describe ‘racket’ or ‘criminal trade’ (Davis 2007, 21). The notion that ‘slum’ became a derogatory term for both place and action underscores the perceived link between environment and behav-ior held by society at this time.

The urban slum has thus been the polemical target of public housing advocates from its inception. Early housing designers looked to Ebene-zer Howard, who promoted his Garden City model as a “panacea for all our social and economic ills” (Frampton 1975, 24). In essence, Howard proposed that the central business district of cities be circumscribed by undeveloped, arable land. Most of the urban population would reside in small, self-contained, satellite communities connected to the central city by radial boulevards.

Industrial Revolution causes rapid urbanization. High-density slums develop near manufacturing centers in Northeastern urban areas.

Ebenezer Howard publishes Garden Cities of To-Morrow, encouraging a suburban model for urban development, away from the social ills of the industrialized city center

1937 19531949

garden city MovementModernism

1933-19381929 1932

12 13

(Rowe 1993, 48). By abstracting the subject of their design into an ide-alized, platonic figure, Modernists were able to develop universal stan-dards of design. They explored the concept of existenzminimum, or minimum subsistence dwelling, in an effort to maximize efficiency and affordability.

These minimal dwelling units were then formulaically arranged to maximize hygiene and constructability. One result from this hyper-ra-tional approach to site planning was the barracks-style Zeilenbau (line building), which would greatly influence American public housing. The most influential product of CIAM’s urban discourse, however, was the advocacy for the high-rise apartment tower. This building type repre-sented the logical culmination of scientific site planning. CIAM member Walter Gropius made the most compelling argument for high-rise liv-ing, citing “the biologically important advantages of more sun and light, larger distances between buildings, and the possibility of providing extensive, connected parks and play areas between the blocks” (Mum-ford 2000, 38). This fateful formula would create the paradigm for the isolated, high-rise housing project that “for better or worse, gave public housing its distinctive image” (von Hoffman 1996, 426).

In the United States, Modernist theories of urbanism were realized through the Housing Act of 1949, which paved the way for the whole-sale demolition of urban slums and their subsequent redevelopment. Based loosely on Modernist theory, the resulting ‘urban renewal’ pro-grams gave housing reformers and real estate developers an opportu-nity to abolish the urban slum on a grand scale. Of the thousands of projects built under this legislation, the vast majority were designed at a human scale, rarely exceeding three stories in height. Nonetheless, a handful of conspicuous “high-rise projects came to dominate the im-

The City of Yonkers Municipal Housing Authority opens Mullford Gardens. Comprising 550-units across 17 buildings, the complex typi-fies the isolated, barracks-style housing prevalent in the 1940s and 1950s.

Construction begins on Levittown, New York. Often cited as the first mass-produced suburb, Levittown sets a new paradigm for suburban living in the United States.

Younger attendees of the CIAM IX conference in Aix-en-Provence form Team 10, offering a loosely sociological critique of Modernist architecture.

plunged in eternal twilight. The sky is a remote hope far, far above it. The street is no more than a trench, a deep cleft, a narrow passage. And although we have been accustomed to it for more than a thousand years, our hearts are always oppressed by the constriction of its enclosing walls… It is the well-trodden path of the eternal pedestrian, a relic of the centuries, a dislocated organ that can no longer function. The street wears us out. And when all is said and done we have to admit it disgusts us. Then why does it still exist? (Le Corbusier 1946).

The above quote from Le Corbusier illustrates the extreme distaste for traditional urban form held by the European avant-garde. This dys-topian portrayal of the traditional street, as a morally and physically op-pressive environment, resonates with the prevailing conception of the American slum. It also indicates an animosity towards traditional ar-chitectural features (gables, chimneys, etc.), which Modernist architects would render obsolete through new building methods.

Like Ebenezer Howard and his followers, Le Corbusier and other Modernist architects looked to reform the unsavory traditional city through radical urban design strategies. In 1928, Le Corbusier organized the first meeting of the Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM), or the International Congress for Modern Architecture. In the following decades, the group would define “a new and perhaps overly ambitious socially transformative role for architects and architecture by combining certain design strategies with a passionately held convic-tion that architecture should serve the many and not the few” (Mumford 2000, 4-5).

Though the Modernists had their aesthetic proclivities, their urban design discourse was firmly grounded in positivist science. Inspired by Frederick Winslow Taylor’s methods of scientific management (Tay-lorism), Modernists believed that “living could now be studied in terms of population norms, means, and other measures of central tendency”

At CIAM 2, Walter Gropius provides the definitive argument for high-rise housing, citing the advantages of increased sunlight and recreation space.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal spurs the first fed-erally mandated public housing program in the United States.

Moisei Ginzburg’s Narkomfin Building completed as the first realized social condenser, a housing type meant to socialize its inhabitants by bringing several lifestyle activities into communal spaces.

1979 19871987

concentrated Poverty theory1961 1972 1972

garden city Movement

Defensible space theory

Modernism

Postmodernism

14 15

PostmodernismAs the most visible symbols of public housing fell into severe dis-

repair, a growing number of critics began to question both the public housing program and its underlying Modernist doctrine. One of the most outspoken critics to emerge from this backlash was Jane Jacobs, who decried the extensive urban renewal taking place in Robert Mo-ses-era New York City. In her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs uncovered the rich social life flourishing in her native Greenwich Village. Her call for social and architectural diversity flew in the face of Modernist notions of universality and standardiza-tion. By refusing to discount dense, diverse neighborhoods as ‘slums,’ Jacobs brought traditional urban form to a new light, and subsequently ushered in a Postmodern era of urban design.

Architecturally, affordable housing began to take the counterform of its behemoth ancestors. Whereas Modernist housing design con-sciously rejected its urban context, Postmodern urban theorists uncov-ered the severe sociological effects of this practice. Stylistically, it was now commonly believed that Modern housing’s “sturdy but sparse and characterless architecture effectively stigmatized residents as low-aid, down on their luck, racially dissimilar, or on the dole” (Rowe 1993, 62). Accordingly, designers began to emulate traditional neighborhood de-sign in terms of scale, site layout, and architectural treatment. In an at-tempt to “break down the distinctions that had stigmatized projects and their occupants” (Calthorpe 2009, 61), Postmodern designers adopted a neotraditional model of urbanity that starkly contrasted that of their

Modernist predecessors.

Sociologist William Julius Wilson publishes The Truly Disadvantaged, alerting politicians and academics to the deleterious effects of concen-trated poverty.

Oscar Newman proposes prefabricated, diligently separated row houses for new public housing in Yonkers. This type of project would later influence the HOPE VI program.Development begins in Seaside,

Florida, the first New Urbanist com-munity.

age of American public housing” (von Hoffman 1996, 431). Due to their stark appearance and massive scale, Modernist-inspired projects such as St. Louis’s Pruitt-Igoe and Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes became the stereotypical representation of American public housing.

In addition to the physical changes to housing design during the 1950s and 1960s, various structural issues would drastically shape the public housing program. The proliferation of the automobile and the standardization of building methods brought unprecedented growth to American suburbs. The suburban outmigration of American families was systematically denied to African Americans, however, as the critical Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans were explicitly withheld from blacks through a process known as ‘redlining.’ Public housing was likewise relegated to the urban center, as attempts to locate new proj-ects in outlying areas were met with stiff, not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) protests from concerned property owners.

As a result, a growing association emerged between public hous-ing, the inner city, and African Americans. As public housing became estranged from the mainstream, suburban lifestyle, it became politically unpopular, and thus woefully underfunded. Skyrocketing construction costs often prevented housing projects from reaching adequate design specifications. Maintenance funding also languished, as it was tied to the rents of an increasingly poor tenant base. This caused housing proj-ects to experience accelerated rates of decline.

With these underlying structural problems, it is not surprising that, during the 1960s, “public housing had begun to project an image of di-saster” (von Hoffman 1996, 436). With millions of dollars and thousand of households on the line, it became clear that federal urban policy was in need of a new direction. The self-evident failure of mid-century urban renewal was soon to give way to the Postmodern critique of urbanism.

Jane Jacobs publishes The Death and Life of Great American Cities, a widely influen-tial critique of Modernist urban planning.

Oscar Newman publishes Defensible Space, col-lecting theories about crime prevention in public housing projects based on natural surveillance and territoriality.

Demolition begins at St. Louis’s Pruitt-Igoe housing project, 16 years after its completion.

1996 Present1999

Defensible space theoryconcentrated Poverty theory

Postmodernism

1993 1993 1996

16 17

Public Housing todayThough urban policy in the United States remains heavily depen-

dant on private-sector production, federally-funded housing lives on through the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) program. Established in 1993 by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), this program funds the demolition of ‘se-verely distressed’ housing projects, and their subsequent reconstruction in situ. This practice not only halts escalating maintenance costs in ail-ing housing projects, but it also helps to erase the stigmatized symbols of a failed era in public housing. Recognizing that the problems facing public housing transcend architectural treatment, the HOPE VI program requires that designers “pay attention to the economic and social needs of the residents as well as the physical condition of the housing” (Cisne-ros 2009, 7).

Federal urban policy has responded to this call to address the so-cial and economic needs of the urban poor by advocating mixed-income communities. The logic behind this approach is largely based on the work of sociologist William Julius Wilson, who alerts readers to the del-eterious effects of spatially concentrated poverty in his 1987 work The Truly Disadvantaged. In this influential publication, Wilson postulates that the concentration of poverty leads to downward mobility as com-munity support structures are systematically removed from impover-ished neighborhoods. This suggests that the corralling of urban poor in public housing towers is a fundamentally flawed approach, as it neces-sarily concentrates poverty. Following this logic, “many housers believe that they can address the problems of the poor by placing them in eco-nomically and ethnically heterogeneous residential areas” (von Hoffman

HUD secretary Henry Cisneros meets with the Congress for New Urbanism to establish design guidelines for public housing

The Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority receives two HOPE VI grants to demolish and redevelop Lincoln Court and Laurel Homes, two distressed housing projects on Cincinnati’s West End.

The emerging Postmodern doctrine adopted a complex and hetero-geneous worldview in contrast to previous notions of positivism and universality. Under this paradigm, the housing problem could no longer be abstracted into statistics and minimum standards. It became appar-ent that people needed more than just housing; rather “they needed a home, an environment they could call their own and associate proudly with a broader socio-cultural enterprise” (Rowe 1993, 172). Without the possibility of a universal subject, the Modernist notion of universal space was now obsolete. This sentiment was brought to the fore in the 1970s, when architect Oscar Newman first suggested that ambiguously defined, universal space fostered rampant crime and antisocial behav-ior in public housing. From his analysis of failed Modernist housing projects, Newman developed guidelines for his defensible space theory. Based on the socio-spatial concept of territoriality, Newman’s theory re-jected universal space in favor of clearly-defined denominations of pub-lic and private space.

Politically, the self-evident failure of public housing prompted a new direction for social housing. Following President Nixon’s 1973 morato-rium on all federal housing programs, the government shifted the onus of low-income housing to the private sector. Through legislation such as Section 8 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing became heav-ily subsidized to private developers. As a result, low-income housing would lose some of the top-down, overly-bureaucratized nature that plagued the program in the 1950s and 1960s. In keeping with the ethos of Postmodern urban design, this supply-side approach would allow for the architecture of low-income housing to become more locally respon-sive and diverse.

The Congress for the New Urbansim (CNU) forms to promote livable, pedestrian-scaled communities.

Oscar Newman publishes Creating Defensible Space for HUD, outlining specific defensible space guidelines for public housing.

Congress initiates the HOPE VI program, seeking a wider range of incomes for public housing residents through the demolition of distressed inner city housing.

18 19

directly caused immorality and vice, as if by osmosis. Later, Postmodern critics such as Oscar Newman suggested that specific spatial arrange-ments could encourage or deter crime. In this way, urban pathology was still very much a product of the physical environment. In the past quar-ter century, however, academics such as William Julius Wilson have ar-gued that the plight of the urban poor must be considered in social and economic terms, as well as spatial terms. According to this recent ideo-logical thread, concentrated poverty creates a socio-spatial condition in which crucial support structures are unavailable to the urban poor. To address this situation, federal urban policy has made the deconcentra-tion of poverty an explicit goal. By developing a mixed-income model for public housing in the HOPE VI program, HUD seeks to improve the lives of the urban poor by diversifying their socioeconomic milieu.

In this way, current public housing ideology is shaped by three dis-tinct, sometimes divergent theoretical strands. First, the mixed-income paradigm seeks to combat the deleterious effects of concentrated pover-ty that have plagued public housing in the past. Next, the New Urbanist model seeks to correct the failures of Modernist planning by emulating traditional neighborhood design. Finally, a continued emphasis on de-fensible space techniques seeks to deter crime and promote a sense of safety in public housing design. In order to fully understand the ideolog-ical thrust of public housing today, it is necessary to discuss these three influences in further detail. The following three chapters will thus un-pack each of the three ideological strands behind current housing policy, starting with the case for mixed-income development.

1996, 439). Accordingly, the HOPE VI program has made poverty de-concentration an explicit goal, officially recognized in the 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act.

Today, the design of social housing remains widely influenced by Postmodern urban theory. In recent decades, the principles of neo-traditional urban design have been absorbed and codified by a group called the New Urbanists, officially formed in 1993. Much like Le Cor-busier’s International Congress for Modern Architecture, the Congress for the New Urbanism meets annually to exchange ideas and to promote a new, socially responsive form of urban design. Drawing heavily from the work of Jane Jacobs, the New Urbanists advocate dense, pedestrian-scaled neighborhoods that “encourage walking and enable neighbors to know each other and protect their communities” (Congress for the New Urbanism 2001). This socially-transformative vision of urban design piqued the interest of then HUD secretary Henry Cisneros. When Cisne-ros met with leading New Urbanists in 1996, the group established de-sign guidelines for the HOPE VI program that espoused an “adaptation of New Urbanism through such practical concepts as ‘defensible space’” (Cisneros 2009, 8). As a result, contemporary public housing design re-mains firmly grounded on the defensible space and traditional neighbor-hood design principles established by Postmodern critics in the 1960s and 1970s.

conclusionAfter reviewing the various eras of public housing ideology, it is clear

that a degree of environmental determinism has always been present. Through the years, accepted models of urbanism have taken a critical, almost combative stance towards the perceived social ills of a given envi-ronmental condition. In the fledgling years of public housing, the polem-ical target was the urban slum. To varying degrees, the Garden City and Modernist models of urbanism proposed an environment antithetical to the congested, unsanitary slum. Along these lines, urban renewal pro-grams razed cluttered, informal urban areas to make way for sleek, mod-ern towers surrounded by greenery. Ironically, these towers would be demolished decades later, after Postmodern critics decried public hous-ing for its isolation and alien form. Today, New Urbanist-inspired public housing seeks to emulate the traditional urban forms that were rejected decades earlier, often on the same site. In each of these instances, public housing ideology repudiates that which directly precedes it.

Also evident in this historical account is a shifting understanding of urban pathologies. Early reformers believed that the slum environment

21

03tHE cAsE fOr MIxED-INcOME cOMMUNItIEs

A relatively recent thread in public housing ideology, the mixed-in-come development paradigm is of central importance to this thesis. As history has shown, federal urban policy has shifted dramatically from the advocacy of isolated high-rise housing projects to that of integrated, economically and ethnically diverse communities. At the core of this mixed-income strategy is the theory, first outlined by sociologist Wil-liam Julius Wilson, that concentrated poverty precludes upward mobil-ity. Thus, federal urban policy seeks to reverse the deleterious effects of concentrated poverty through its ‘deconcentration.’

05 concentrated poverty in chicago, 2000. Note the segregation of income along community lines.

22 23

and ensuring social norms, the black middle-class also served as a “so-cial buffer” which allowed for social institutions to remain in the ghetto, even if the truly disadvantaged could not support them. Thus, crucial institutions such as schools, churches, and businesses remained viable largely because of the black middle class. As restricted covenants were lifted, the eventual out-migration of these supportive figures resulted in a “disproportionate concentration of the most disadvantaged segments of the urban black population, creating a social milieu significantly dif-

Unfortunately, as the following section will attest, the effects of con-centrated poverty are not so straightforward that they may be reversed by simply ‘deconcentrating’ low-income households. The social fabric of a community is a complex phenomenon in which income is merely one component. In order to understand the potential benefits of mixed-income development, it is first essential to understand the myriad socio-logical forces that have caused decline in impoverished neighborhoods.

Thus, the following section will first summarize the influential con-clusions about urban decline made by William Julius Wilson in The Tru-ly Disadvantaged. This review will introduce some of the socio-spatial concepts that remain crucial components of today’s mixed-income para-digm. Next, a review of Mark L. Joseph’s article entitled “Is Mixed-In-come Housing an Antidote to Urban Poverty?” will serve to further un-pack these socio-spatial concepts. By weighing relevant theoretical and empirical research on the subject matter, Joseph’s article seeks to outline the realistic expectations for mixed-income development. More impor-tantly, this section serves to identify instances in which architectural de-sign may promote the potential benefits of mixed-income development.

literature reviewMuch of the current theory behind mixed-income public housing can

be attributed to sociologist William Julius Wilson. In the 1980s, Wilson began to study startling trends in urban poverty resulting from the dein-dustrialization of American cities and the restructuring of capital. At this time, sociologists and policymakers were acutely aware of the grow-ing social pathologies in America’s inner cities, but few could agree upon the genesis of these problems. A common theory pointed to a ‘culture of poverty’ by which “basic values and attitudes of the ghetto subculture have been internalized and thereby influence behavior” (Wilson, 1987 61). Wilson rejects this theory, however, suggesting instead that the so-cial pathologies of the ghetto stem from a structural-spatial condition. This is the foundation of Wilson’s influential theory regarding the con-centration of poverty and its deleterious effects.

In The Truly Disadvantaged, Wilson contends that the turning point for the ghetto occurred when the black middle-class began to leave the inner city. Before the Civil Rights Movement, various restrictive cove-nants ensured that blacks of all economic standings inhabited the same urban spaces. Thus, unemployed and low-income blacks constantly en-countered blacks, whose “very presence provided stability to inner-city neighborhoods and reinforced and perpetuated mainstream patterns of norms and behavior” (Wilson 1987, 7). While providing role models

06 De facto racial segregation in chicago, 2000. Note similarities to income segregation.

24 25

income development. Joseph categorizes these propositions under the four headings of social networks, social control, culture and behavior, and the political economy of place. Through an extensive review of exist-ing theoretical and empirical studies, Joseph finds varying amounts of support for the four arguments. Though some claims appear plausible, Joseph ultimately finds a “tremendous amount of hyperbole” (Joseph 2006, 222) associated with mixed-income development.

ferent from the environment that existed in these communities several decades ago” (Wilson 1987, 58).

Wilson’s theory thus draws from two important sociological con-cepts: neighborhood effects and social capital. In general neighborhood effects theory describes the “myriad ways that neighbors influence one’s behavior” (Freeman 2006, 129). Neighborhood effects thus loosely de-scribe the guidance of role models, the influence of peer effects, the for-mation of social ties, and overall notions of collective efficacy. Also at work is the concept of social capital, defined by sociologist Robert Put-nam as “the norms and networks of civil society that lubricate coopera-tive action among both citizens and their institutions” (Putnam 1998, 5). In other words, social capital is a sort of abstract means by which com-munity cohesion may be measured. According to Wilson, meaningful social capital resides in the hands of the middle class, and thus, “poverty concentration has the effect of devaluing the social capital of those who live in its midst” (Wacquant and Wilson 2005, 133).

criticismConcentrated poverty theory has become widely influential in both

policy and academia. Though Wilson ultimately recommends a compre-hensive program of social services and economic incentives for the inner city, federal urban policy has focused on the more blunt approach of ‘de-concentrating’ poverty. Wilson’s theory has thus been oversimplified to the following equation: “if the problems of the inner city are the result of the spatial concentration of inner-city poverty then the solution is obvi-ous: ‘deconcentrate’ the poor” (Crump 2002, 582). Wilson never uses the term ‘deconcentrate,’ nor does he suggest that drastic demographic change be brought to the inner city; however, his argument for mixed-income neighborhoods has often been construed as an endorsement for such measures.

One of the most obvious platforms for poverty deconcentration is public housing. In light of Wilson’s theory, public housing projects are “singled out as the most egregious example of how spatial concentration of poverty leads to welfare dependency, sexual promiscuity, and crime” (Crump 2002, 581). A mixed-income approach to public housing has thus been adopted in order to address these social pathologies. While mixed-income development is partially grounded on a naïve reversal of Wilson’s concentrated poverty thesis, there is a growing volume of so-ciological theory that supports this strategy.

In a recent article for Housing Policy Debate, Mark L. Joseph exam-ines some of the more widely accepted arguments in favor of mixed-

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS SIMILARITY

EQUAL-STATUS CONTACTS

sOcIAl INtErActIONAMONg DIsPArAtE INcOME grOUPs

PrOxIMIty

TIME

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND INVOLVEMENT

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF NEIGHBORS

07 Heuristic model: correlates of social interaction in mixed-income housing. In an extensive study, rachel g. Kleit finds that proximity plays the most important role in cross-income neighboring.

26 27

the social networks thesis. In this study, Rachel G. Kleit performs a post occupancy evaluation of NewHolly, a HOPE VI project in Seattle. The site is particularly germane to the study of social mixing, as it is home to an incredibly diverse population, both ethnically and economically. NewHolly has also won several awards, both for its New Urbanist design, and its innovative approach to community building. The complex boasts a branch of the Seattle Public Library, classrooms for a community college, youth and child care centers, and even employs a full-time ‘community builder.’ In other words, NewHolly represents “an ideal locale to study whether, in the best of situations, overlapping social worlds for those of different housing tenures and socioeconomic status occur in a HOPE VI site” (Kleit 2007, 1418).

Following an extensive set of phone interviews and group meetings, Kleit finds mixed support for the social networks thesis. For instance, though the community makes ample use of the on-site library, it does not appear that this facility promotes substantial interaction across so-cioeconomic lines. Kleit also suggests that NewHolly’s extensive com-munity event planning does not produce its desired social mixing ef-fects. On the other hand, analysis shows that children often act as social bridges, creating relationships between adults of different social and economic standing. In addition, Kleit finds that “proximity plays an im-portant role in the creation of ties to public housing residents. People know their near neighbors, and common local activities, such as garden-ing, enable those proximate contacts” (Kleit 2007, 1439). Essentially, this observation espouses contact theory on a local level, suggesting that diverse socioeconomic groups will in fact form social ties if they are ar-ranged in close proximity. This finding carries clear design implications. If mixed-income housing can be designed in such a way that disparate groups may experience frequent, equal-status contact, then it is conceiv-able that these groups will form meaningful social ties across socioeco-nomic boundaries.

The next theory evaluated by Mark L. Joseph is the social control thesis, which posits that “the presence of higher-income residents—in particular, homeowners—will lead to higher levels of accountability to norms and rules through increased informal social control and thus to increased order and safety for all residents” (Joseph 2006, 214). In other words, residents with a greater vested interest in their neighbor-hood, such as homeowners, are more likely to take actions that benefit the community as a whole. A key concept to this theory is that of collec-tive efficacy, which describes the perceived level of trust and cohesion among residents. Various empirical studies have shown a positive cor-relation between collective efficacy and factors such as homeownership,

Joseph first evaluates the social networks thesis, which suggests that by courting higher-income households back to the inner city, “mixed-income development can facilitate the re-establishment of effective so-cial networks and social capital for low-income residents” (Joseph 2006, 213). In other words, by diversifying their immediate social milieu, it is more likely that low-income residents will form social ties with up-wardly mobile individuals. Though research shows that strong social ties rarely form across socioeconomic lines, sociologist Mark Granovet-ter suggests that ‘weak ties’ may be instrumental in creating social capi-tal. Formed by the overlapping of social networks, ‘weak ties’ are “more likely to link members of different small groups than are strong ones” (Granovetter 1973, 1376). Thus, the spatial proximity of diverse social networks within mixed-income communities may increase the likeli-hood that these secondary contacts will form.

A related sociological concept is that of contact theory, which sug-gests that “people of different backgrounds will be more likely to interact if the two groups have equal-status interactions within a given situation” (Kleit 2007, 1416). Thus the programming of communal spaces may be-come instrumental in the formation of social ties. These considerations attach an added significance to the design of space, as “opportunities for contact, proximity to others, and appropriate space in which to interact are key factors that can promote and shape social interaction” (Joseph 2006, 214).

As Joseph explains, few empirical studies have found mixed-income development to substantially increase social interaction among disparate income groups; however, a recent study provides modest support for

28 29

ior. On the other hand, he finds the social control and political economy of place propositions to be more compelling. The salient difference be-tween these theories is that the former require an element of social in-teraction across social and economic lines, while the latter rely simply on the mere presence of the middle class. Thus, one might conclude, as many sociologist have, that meaningful social ties resist the bridging of socioeconomic boundaries. While this is true in many respects, Rachel G. Kleit’s analysis of NewHolly shows some promising examples of social mixing, especially between immediate neighbors.

conclusionRather than to reject the social networks and culture and behavior

theories altogether, Joseph suggests that “there seems to be a great po-tential to think creatively about design in order to facilitate more inter-action among residents” (Joseph 2006, 223). This call to rethink mixed-income housing is essentially the basis for this thesis. Though it appears that mixed-income development has some inherent benefits, a lack of social interaction among residents prevents their full realization. With-out an emphasis on increased social interaction, current federal urban policy will continue to fall short of its goals.

As Joseph’s article makes clear the need for more social interaction, Kleit’s study provides clues as to what type of interaction may be most beneficial. For instance, while planned events at NewHolly have not ful-filled their social mixing potential, informal activities such as communi-ty gardening have proven successful in this manner. Though the library rarely brings people together, children’s play often has this effect. This suggests that meaningful social ties are formed opportunistically. This conclusion is further reinforced by Kleit’s finding that proximity plays a major role in the formation of cross-cultural social ties. People form relationships with their immediate neighbors because these are the peo-ple with whom they interact fortuitously and consistently.

This suggests that a true architecture of engagement must begin at the building scale, at the level of immediate proxemics. The New Ur-banist doctrine behind current federal housing policy touts traditional neighborhood design as a means to build social capital and engage resi-dents. While some elements of traditional urban design effectively en-courage social interaction, the evidence thus far suggests that further measures must be taken. The following chapter will discuss the social implications of neotraditional urban design in further detail.

economic class, and residential stability. For this reason, Joseph deems the social control thesis plausible, despite a lack of compelling evidence from studies at HOPE VI sites.

The next proposition, that of culture and behavior, suggests that “the presence of higher-income residents in mixed-income developments will lead other families to adapt more socially acceptable and construc-tive behavior” (Joseph 2006, 214). Examples of such behavior include showing respect for property, seeking regular employment, and abiding by established social norms. This proposition relies heavily on the afore-mentioned neighborhood effects thesis, which suggests that behavior is partially shaped by immediate social context. The culture and behavior thesis also relies on a degree of role-modeling. This may occur through direct mentoring, but may also take the form of distal role-modeling, which occurs when patterns of positive behavior are observed remotely.

The culture and behavior thesis thus encapsulates many of the con-cepts that William Julius Wilson uses to describe the social decline of the American inner city. Indeed, many have come to accept that an absence of the middle class leads to negative neighborhood effects, but little em-pirical evidence shows the inverse of this condition to be true. As Joseph explains, “there is no evidence in the limited research on mixed-income developments as to whether role-modeling is taking place and, if so, what effect it has” (Joseph 2006, 221). Though this finding casts serious doubt over the culture and behavior argument, it should be noted that such concepts as distal role-modeling are extremely difficult to quantify empirically.

The final argument for mixed-income development regards the po-litical economy of place, a concept first developed by sociologists John Logan and Harvey Molotch in a 1987 essay of the same name. The politi-cal economy of place suggests “the influence of higher-income residents will generate new market demand and political pressure to which ex-ternal political and economic actors are more likely to respond” (Joseph 2006, 215). This argument relies less on sociological theory and more on an understanding of structural economic and political forces. It sug-gests that the middle class is endowed with a higher social standing, and thus, may command better goods and services. This may amount to bet-ter schools, improved crime prevention, and increased retail options. In short, the market force of the middle class brings positive externalities to the community. Though Joseph finds little empirical evidence to sup-port this thesis, he nonetheless finds the political economy of place to be a compelling argument for mixed-income development.

Mark L. Joseph’s exhaustive literature review finds little convincing evidence for theories involving social networks and culture and behav-

31

04tHE cAsE fOr trADItIONAl NEIgHBOrHOOD DEsIgN

In many ways, the design of American public housing remains firmly grounded in Postmodern urban theory. Following the conspicuous fail-ures of post-war Modernist planning, neotraditional urban design now serves as the preeminent model for public housing. As the following section will show, this return to traditional design was more than a mere aesthetic knee-jerk from Modernism. In fact, as Jane Jacobs argues in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, traditional neighborhoods provide a socio-spatial condition that is ideal for social interaction and its subsequent benefits.

09 site of Manhattantown, 1958: A robert Moses-era urban renewal project on the Upper West side.

08 A Brochure showing the proposed lower Manhattan Expressway, 1959: One of robert Moses’s slum-clearing infrastructure projects.

32 33

urban renewal projects and the expansion of the interstate highway sys-tem -- both of which can be tied indirectly to Modernist urban discourse. Despite (or perhaps because of) her non-architectural background, Ja-cobs makes poignant observations about urban life in The Death and Life of Great American Cities. The influence of this book can not be under-stated as it relates to public housing, and urban design in general.

In opposition to conventional planning wisdom, Jacobs establishes low- to middle-income urban neighborhoods such as Greenwich Village and Boston’s North End as the quintessential urban model. She extols these areas for their physical and social diversity. By meeting the needs of a diverse population, Jacobs argues, these neighborhoods are able to keep people coming and going at all times of the day, maintaining a vi-brant, communal, and above all, safe atmosphere. In exposing the vi-brancy of dense, traditional urban settings, Jacobs seeks to debunk the ‘towers in the park’ paradigm of Modernist urbanism. Perhaps most importantly, she brings a newfound importance to the street as a social setting. According to Jacobs, the traditional street so easily dismissed by Modernist planning is in fact the lifeblood of vibrant and safe urban communities.

Though Jacobs eschews technical jargon, she nonetheless touches on some of the major sociological concepts that have been presented thus far. For instance, when Jacobs explains, “the trust of a city street is built up over time from many, many little public sidewalk contacts” (Jacobs 1961, 56), she evokes the concept of collective efficacy. Fur-

The following chapter will outline Jane Jacobs’s arguments for tra-ditional urban design, and will review her explicit design guidelines and their social implications. Next, an article by Emily Talen will evaluate some of these design guidelines, as adopted by the New Urbanists. In particular, Talen’s article helps to set realistic expectations for neotra-ditional urban design and its ability to create a sense of community. Fi-nally, a case study of Diggs Town in Norfolk, Virginia provides a practi-cal assessment of New Urbanist design in the context of public housing revitalization. As discussed in the previous chapter, public housing’s current mixed-income model requires an increased emphasis on social interaction in order to reap its potential social benefits. Thus, the fol-lowing chapter seeks to uncover the possibilities and the limitations of traditional urban design from a sociological perspective.

literature reviewThe most impassioned, and also most influential call for traditional

neighborhood design comes from Jane Jacobs’s 1961 publication, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Living in Robert Moses-era New York City, Jacobs was confronted with the potentially disastrous effects of Modernist planning on a daily basis. Strong ethnic neighborhoods, such as her native Greenwich Village, were continually endangered by

34 35

stability, and environmental health be sustained without a coherent and supportive physical framework” (Congress for the New Urbanism 2001).

In a somewhat defensive article for Housing Policy Debate, Em-ily Talen seeks to clearly define the social goals of New Urbanism. She evaluates each of the 27 principles of the Charter for the New Urbanism within the framework of three general social goals: community, social equity, and ‘the common good.’ The notion of community is understood to have both a “social component, consisting of various types of social interaction, and an affective component, involving a whole range of psy-chological and emotional responses” (Talen 2002, 167). Talen considers the next category of social equity in terms of neighborhood resources and their equitable distribution. Finally, the notion of ‘the common good’ encompasses overarching concerns such as health, safety, and the envi-ronment, as well as civic engagement and social responsibility. In her line-by-line assessment of the charter, Talen concludes that 8 of the prin-ciples strive for social equity and 19 address ‘the common good.’ Though there are “instances in which notions of community are used as descrip-tive material to support a given principle” (Talen 2002, 178), none of the New Urbanist principles explicitly centers around this concept.

Of the three criteria, the notion of community is most akin to the social networks argument for mixed-income development, discussed in the previous chapter. Both arguments contend that a certain spatial ar-rangement may increase social interaction and that this interaction is desirable. One of the charter’s principles makes this connection fair-ly clear, claiming “a broad range of housing types and price levels can bring people of diverse ages, races, and incomes into daily interaction, strengthening the personal and civic bonds essential to an authentic community” (Congress for the New Urbanism 2001).

As discussed in relation to the social networks thesis, empirical re-search finds the correlation between environment and social ties to be dubious. Indeed, Talen concedes, “in practical terms, the attempt to link physical design to community introduces problems that are beyond the control of New Urbanist design” (Talen 2002, 180). Perhaps this ex-plains her eagerness to downplay the importance of community within the greater social goals of New Urbanism. Nevertheless, the explicit and implicit thought remains that “when diverse groups are in proximity to each other, there is no requirement for social interaction, but the situ-ation allows the possibility of mixing divergent groups” (Talen 2002, 178). This argument remains central to the mixed-income, New Urban-ist paradigm in public housing today.

Of course not all New Urbanists have hedged their optimism to the extent that Emily Talen has. Some designers and theorists strongly be-

thermore, the seemingly trivial, quotidian sidewalk contacts to which Jacobs refers represent the frequent, ‘equal-status interactions’ neces-sary within the framework of contact theory. Jacobs also alludes to the concept of concentrated poverty when she explains the need for socially diverse neighborhoods. Her claim that “diversification of income alone makes a difference in the range of possible commercial diversification” (Jacobs 1961, 286) resonates with the political economy of place thesis. Thus, Jacobs finds in the traditional neighborhood many of the sociologi-cal conditions thought to promote upward mobility for the urban poor.

The Death and Life of Great American Cities espouses a notion of en-vironmental determinism. Much like her predecessors, Jacobs suggests that certain social and physical environments have behavioral implica-tions. Her arguments, however, seem so self-evident that few question their validity. Jacobs argues that traditional neighborhoods are uniquely capable of fostering social interaction and maintaining moral order. In particular, she presents three design guidelines for safe streets that con-tinue to guide housing design today. First, she insists, “there must be a clear demarcation between what is public space and what is private space” (Jacobs 1961, 35). Next, “buildings […] must be oriented to the street. They cannot turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave it blind” (Jacobs 1961, 35). And finally, “the sidewalk must have users on it fairly continuously” (Jacobs 1961, 35) in order to maintain an adequate level of surveillance. These guidelines have since become thoroughly engrained in public housing design, and provide the foundation for de-fensible space and New Urbanist theory.

criticismAs mentioned, the widely influential New Urbanist movement ad-

vocates an environmentally and socially conscious brand of urban de-sign that traces its roots to The Death and Life of Great American Cities. The New Urbanists have adopted from Jane Jacobs not only a procliv-ity for traditional neighborhood design, but the belief that this environ-ment encourages social interaction and fosters a sense of community. This environmental determinist stance has come under fire from critics, who fault New Urbanism for perpetuating “the idea that the shaping of spatial order is or can be the foundation for a new moral and aesthetic order” (Harvey 1997, 2). Perhaps in response to such criticisms, the Congress for the New Urbanism intentionally distances itself from overt environmental determinist claims. The group’s official charter explains, “we recognize that physical solutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality, community

11 Diggs town, birds-eye aerial: Additional porches and storage units highlighted.

10 Diggs town, Norfolk, VA: Before (above) and After (below). Note additional street frontage, new porches, and fencing to dilineate outdoor spaces.

36 37

architectural details. The site design seeks to increase pedestrian and automobile traffic through the site by weaving in new streetscapes be-tween existing buildings. Incorporating defensible space techniques, the designers also seek to “distinguish the private territory of residents from the public realm of the community” and to “enable residents to establish a secure environment for themselves and their families.” (Bothwell et al. 1998, 109).

In their evaluation of Diggs Town, Bothwell, Gindroz, and Lang find the addition of individual front porches to be of particular significance, as these architectural elements allow the mediation between private and public space. The distinction between private and public is further reinforced by low fences and strategically placed landscaping. The ad-dition of porches also creates a new venue for interaction among resi-dents. Bothwell, Gindroz, and Lang contend that these modest design modifications create an ‘architecture of engagement.’ They explain, “the architecture of engagement restores public venues. These venues lead to the formation of social capital, which in turn benefits communities by providing the links between the individual and society that are essential to economic and social life” (Bothwell et al. 1998, 111). This assessment recalls Mark L. Joseph’s social networks thesis, suggesting that a spatial arrangement may encourage beneficial social ties.

In all, Bothwell, Gindroz, and Lang find that the simple design modi-fications of Diggs Town create a substantial rise in social capital. A post-occupancy survey finds promising trends in levels of income, welfare dependence, and education attainment. Unlike Rachel G. Kleit’s study of NewHolly, however, this survey is not equipped to measure levels of neighborly association and overall social interaction. In addition, one must interpret the authors’ enthusiasm with caution, as co-author Ray-mond Gindroz was also the project’s lead designer. Nonetheless, it is clear that the redesign of Diggs Town has created new opportunities for interaction among residents.

lieve that design can enhance a sense of community. In a post-occupan-cy evaluation of an early New Urbanist project, Stephanie E. Bothwell, Raymond Gindroz, and Robert E. Lang describe how specific elements of traditional neighborhood design “can restore a sense of community to distressed neighborhoods” (Bothwell et al. 1998, 89). The authors also evaluate the design in terms of Robert Putnam’s concept of social capital, a measure of community cohesion.

The project in question is the 1990 redevelopment of Diggs Town in Norfolk, Virginia, a low-rise, barracks-style public housing project origi-nally built in the 1950s. Unlike subsequent HOPE VI projects, the rede-velopment of Diggs Town did not sacrifice existing units. Instead, the redesign, lead by Raymond Gindroz of Urban Design Associates, relies on additive design features, such as front porches and other traditional

38 39

conclusionThe proponents of traditional neighborhood design provide varying

emphasis on its sociological implications. While Bothwell, Gindroz, and Lang assert that simple design modifications may create social capital, Emily Talen washes her hands of any environmental determinist rhet-oric in the Charter for the New Urbanism. Like the charter itself, this thesis espouses a casual link between environment and social behavior. While people will invariably interact with one another at their own will, residential design must be informed by the complexities of human in-teraction. At best, as noted by Bothwell, Gindroz, and Lang, architecture can create the venue for social interaction. At least, architecture must not preclude neighborly associations, for these hold the potential for up-ward mobility in mixed-income development.

In terms of social interaction, it seems as though the salient charac-teristics of traditional neighborhood design deal with spatial adjacen-cies, and not with a style or aesthetic. The front porch may act as a tradi-tional architectural detail on one level, but its sociological value lies in its ability to mediate between the private and the public realm. Likewise, the value of the traditional streetscape lies in its ability to bring pedes-trians, commuters, and households into close proximity. Thus, by weav-ing new streets into the existing Diggs Town project, Raymond Gindroz and the Urban Design Associates created a new social interface where once there was none.

In creating a true architecture of engagement, it is clear that tradi-tional neighborhoods offer some valuable insights. That being said, the research indicates that current design standards have failed to foster adequate levels of social interaction in mixed-income developments. It stands to reason, then, that residential spaces must be more opportunis-tic in their design, so that residents may encounter even more people in more ways. At some point, however, there is a tradeoff between public accessibility and safety. This observation is one of the tenets of defensi-ble space, another major thread in current public housing ideology. The following chapter will further explore the concept of defensible space and its social implications.

05 tHE cAsE fOr DEfENsIBlE sPAcE

When Oscar Newman began formulating his defensible space theory in the 1970s, American public housing was in crisis. Large housing de-velopments across the country became conspicuous symbols of failure, plagued by crime and vandalism. As these massive, ailing projects be-gan to project an image of failure on multiple levels, a silent majority of public housing complexes remained relatively safe and desirable. To make sense of this disparity, Oscar Newman analyzed numerous hous-ing developments across the country, correlating physical design charac-teristics to levels of crime. The following chapter will discuss the salient findings of Newman’s research, as outlined in his seminal work Defen-sible Space.

13 sketches by Oscar Newman showing the ill-defined spaces in a traditional high-rise apartment (above) versus the gradient of privacy allowed by detached or row house type dwellings (below).

12 Pruitt-Igoe, st. louis, c. 1965. Note the stark contrast to adjacent carr square Village, a traditional urban neighborhood.

40 41

early urban sociologists Émile Durkheim and Ferdinand Tönnies, New-man suggests that the density and heterogeneity of the urban environ-ment has eroded societal norms and support structures. In this way, Newman links recurring sociological concepts such as community and collective efficacy to crime levels. Thus, like the New Urbanists, Oscar Newman emphasizes the need to create a sense of community, explain-ing, “means must be found for bringing neighbors together, if only for the limited purpose of ensuring survival of their collective milieu” (Newman 1972, 2). According to Newman, this may be achieved through the pro-duction of defensible space, defined as “an environment in which latent

Given the troubled state of American public housing at this time, it is not surprising that federal urban policy quickly adopted Newman’s defensible space techniques. Along with the general ideological shift away from Modernist site planning, these design guidelines no doubt led to safer, more livable public housing communities. As history has shown, however, the ideological thrust behind public housing design has changed in recent times. While design and safety were of primary con-cern at the advent of Newman’s theory, the mixed-income development paradigm has since brought neighborly interaction to the fore. In the following chapter, Karen A. Franck and Teresa Caldeira suggest that an overly-defensible environment may actually preclude social interaction by detracting from the collective realm. In addition, Clare Cooper-Mar-cus explains the sociological benefits of common spaces in her article “Shared Outdoor Spaces and Community Life.” These arguments sug-gest that contemporary public housing requires a more nuanced appli-cation of defensible space techniques.

literature reviewLike Jane Jacobs, Oscar Newman believes that the physical urban

environment greatly affects social interactions. Also drawing from the increasingly apparent failures of Modernist planning, Newman shares his theory and criticism in his seminal work Defensible Space, published in 1972. In this publication, Newman gives a sensational account of sky-rocketing violence and crime in American cities. Echoing the theory of

14 Oscar Newman’s proposed courtyard modifications for classon Point gardens, a housing project in the Bronx. low concrete walls and other sturdy landscape features are used to segregate spaces.

42 43

diminishes as space becomes more public. A common space outside a small cluster of dwellings, such as a circulation corridor, would be con-sidered semiprivate. The lobby of a high-rise apartment building, on the other hand, would be considered semipublic, as it is less associated with the individual dwelling units above. As Newman explains, “the larger the number of people who share a territory, the less each individual feels rights to it” (Newman 1996, 17). Therefore, it is beneficial to keep common spaces well-defined, so that nearby residents may appropriate them and care for them accordingly.

These observations about territorial definition constitute the first of Newman’s four principles for the design of defensible space. After exten-sive statistical and empirical research, he suggests the following:

The territorial definition of space in developments reflecting the areas of in-fluence of the inhabitants. This works by subdividing the residential environ-ment into zones toward which adjacent residents easily adopt proprietary attitudes.

The positioning of apartment windows to allow residents to naturally survey the exterior and interior public areas of their living environment.

The adoption of building forms and idioms which avoid the stigma of pecu-liarity that allows others to perceive the vulnerability and isolation of the in-habitants.

territoriality and sense of community in the inhabitants can be trans-lated into responsibility for ensuring a safe, productive, and well-main-tained living space” (Newman 1972, 3).

In formulating the defensible space theory, Newman, like so many in his field, found a wealth of information in the catastrophic failures of ‘el-evator’ high-rise housing projects. As a professor at Washington Univer-sity in St. Louis, Newman’s muse was the notorious Pruitt-Igoe complex. Though touted as an architectural triumph at its inception, the complex quickly fell into decay, terrorized by its own inhabitants. In 1972, Pruitt-Igoe was demolished after only 17 years of existence. Newman postu-lates, “because all the grounds were common and disassociated from the units, residents could not identify with them. The areas proved unsafe” (Newman 1996, 10). As a glaring counterpoint, Newman found that in-dividual housing units were often clean and well maintained on the in-side. Likewise, areas of limited access, such as a landing that serves only two households, appeared safe and well-tended. These observations are evidence of the socio-psychological concept of territoriality, defined as the “universal, biological impulse in individuals to claim and defend a clearly marked ‘territory,’ from which others will be – at least selectively –excluded” (Hillier and Hanson 1984, 6).

Like Jane Jacobs, Newman looks for further inspiration at so-called slums. Newman juxtaposes Pruitt-Igoe with Carr Square Village, a neighboring row house development with a similar tenant profile. He notes the comparative lack of crime, and relative success of the low-rise project, and suggests that the crucial difference must be physical. New-man’s abstract feeling of safety in Carr Square Village is amplified in the gated, well-to-do neighborhoods of St. Louis, where the streets show no evidence of crime or vandalism. Newman suggests that these private streets are endowed with a certain sense of safety because they have been claimed, and thus defended by their residents. In other words, the streets have become an extension of the residents’ territory.

Territorial definition is perhaps most straightforward in the de-tached single family dwelling, where the immediate outdoor environ-ment is clearly defined as a front or back yard. In this instance, it is most likely that residents will treat their yard as a reflection of themselves and care for it accordingly. Though it is often economically impossible to provide detached single family homes in public housing schemes, Newman suggests that territoriality may nonetheless be exploited in multi-family arrangements. In these instances, spaces may be classified within a hierarchy ranging from private to semiprivate, semipublic, and public. This hierarchy represents the sense of association between the individual dwelling unit and its surrounding space, where territoriality

44 45

between private and public. It is essential to differentiate these spaces from the public realm, however, as they serve a more defined social net-work. According to Marcus, “People have a need to relate to a group which is larger than the family unit but smaller than a planner-designat-ed neighborhood. In brief, there is a need for community life as distinct from public life” (Marcus 2003, 36). In other words, these spaces create the venue for a smaller, more cohesive social network among residents. Within the mixed-income development paradigm, this type of neighborly interaction is essential for the upward mobility of low-income residents.

A number of architectural devices may be used to define the col-lective realm and promote community life. Citing a number of success-ful examples, Marcus offers guidelines for the deign of shared outdoor spaces. Typically, these spaces are bounded by a cluster of neighboring dwellings which communicate a clear sense of ownership over the space by orienting inward. This inward orientation also allows the surveil-lance of the common shared space. Narrow entry passages may help to distinguish the shared space from the public realm of the street, adding a degree of exclusivity. Marcus also suggests that clearly-defined private outdoor spaces, such as patios, may facilitate the transition between shared space and individual dwellings.

It is important to note that this spatial arrangement is in some ways antithetical to prevailing neotraditional urban models. Though the New Urbanist guidelines for HOPE VI developments acknowledge the need for shared outdoor space, specific guidelines recommend accessibility by bike and footpath, and also suggest that these spaces be separated from homes by a street. This open accessibility and symbolic detach-ment from the home, in essence, surrenders the shared space to the public realm, as opposed to the collective realm. In addition, the New Urbanist privileging of the street-as-social-venue requires that individ-ual dwellings orient towards the street, while Marcus suggests that an inward orientation may enhance the collective realm.

In a compelling argument for shared outdoor spaces, Marcus cites a case study comparing two adjacent residential blocks in Berkeley, Cali-fornia. Once statistically identical, the two blocks became an interesting dialogue in neighborly interaction when a real estate developer bought out one of the blocks and began removing backyard fences and extrane-ous outbuildings between dwellings. The formerly private outdoor spac-es in this experimental block then became a landscaped shared space, technically open, yet clearly belonging to the 27 surrounding dwellings. A subsequent study of this development showed that, compared to the fenced ‘control’ block, residents in the modified block had considerably more social ties. Not surprisingly, these ties tended to bridge the shared

The enhancement of safety by locating residential developments in function-ally sympathetic urban areas immediately adjacent to activities that do not provide continued threat (Newman 1972, 9).

These four elements resemble in many ways the design guidelines for safe streets set out by Jane Jacobs. Both authors stress the impor-tance of window placement and the definition of private and public space. Furthermore, Newman’s principles regarding urban milieu and context have become fundamental tenets of New Urbanism. Incidental-ly, Oscar Newman’s influence reaches beyond the theoretical, as he has personally redesigned several public housing projects and developed design standards for the federal Department of Housing and Urban De-velopment (HUD). In this way, contemporary public housing design can be both directly and indirectly attributed to defensible space theory.

criticismThough Oscar Newman finds a crucial link between a sense of com-

munity and a sense of safety, others suggest that these sociological needs may be mutually exclusive. Karen A. Franck, an environmental-behavioral theorist and former colleague of Newman’s, suggests that defensible space theory can be taken too far. For instance, in an effort to territorially define space in public housing projects, open areas are often extensively fenced. Franck suggests that this may be “too extreme and too automatic a response” (Franck 1998, 90) as it has the potential to preclude children’s play and other spontaneous social activity.

As history has shown, the ideology behind American public housing has a tendency to repudiate that which immediately precedes it. Karen A. Franck identifies the collective value shift towards defensible space in housing design as an example of this tendency. The Modernist prin-ciples of openness and universality have been decried in favor of closed, privatized outdoor spaces. Franck warns that “an exclusive emphasis on the individual realm rather than the universal realm bypasses the middle ground of the collective realm – of a local community within the development” (Franck 1998, 90). This ‘collective realm’ is precisely the socio-environmental condition sought by New Urbanists for its potential to create a sense of community.

The collective realm is further discussed in a 2003 article for Places by architect Clare Cooper Marcus. According to Marcus, the venue for community life is the ‘shared outdoor space,’ which is owned and acces-sible to a relatively small number of households. In terms of Newman’s hierarchy of spaces, the successful shared outdoor space lies somewhere

46 47

intended to promote collective safety, but it fundamentally requires a language of exclusion. Thus defensible architecture, by nature, under-mines the socially inclusive agenda of the HOPE VI program, creating a disconnect between ideology and implementation.

conclusionThe current mixed-income development paradigm requires a more

nuanced understanding of defensible space techniques. Oscar Newman suggests that a degree of territorial definition is necessary to promote safety and well-being, while others note the deleterious effects of over-zealous fencing. Consistent throughout the literature, however, is the notion that territoriality profoundly influences social interaction. It is possible, as noted by Franck and Caldeira, that overly privatized outdoor space may undermine the socially inclusive rhetoric of contemporary public housing ideology. While a certain amount of exclusivity may be necessary, the nature and specificity of exclusion becomes more pivot-al within the context of mixed-income development. With this under-standing, the boundaries within public housing design take on an added importance.

Of particular interest in this section is Clare Cooper Marcus’s celebra-tion of the ‘shared outdoor space.’ The sociological nature of such spac-es seems well-suited for the type of cross-cultural interaction necessary within the mixed-income development paradigm. Interestingly, Marcus seems to denounce defensible space techniques on one scale, while ad-vocating them on another. At one level, Marcus specifically evokes New-man’s language in stressing the importance of “territorial clarity and the delimitation of shared space that is not accessible to ‘outsiders’” (Marcus 2003, 40). In this case, the operative boundary exists between the col-lective realm and the public realm. Meanwhile, the transition between shared space and private space is more fluid, and less defensible. Thus, by embellishing the semiprivate realm, Marcus reinterprets Newman’s defensible space techniques, which tend to privilege the private realm. This nuanced territorial definition may very well be the key to increased social engagement and its purported benefits.

The literature in this chapter suggests that the urban boundary or threshold serves an integral sociological function. The unique nature of the threshold remains a crucial thread in contemporary socio-spatial discourse. The following chapter will discuss some of these contempo-rary theories.

outdoor space, while residents of the ‘control’ block rarely interacted with their neighbors to the rear. This case study calls into question the traditional division of private outdoor space, and suggests that success-ful outdoor spaces may be defined symbolically, without extensive fenc-ing.

An essay by sociologist Teresa P. R. Caldeira similarly challenges the role of fencing in housing design. Citing the effects of the increasingly-popular gated community, Caldeira suggests defensible space mecha-nisms may serve to stratify social relations. She explains, “when some people are denied access to certain areas and when different groups are not supposed to interact in public space, references to a universal prin-ciple of equality and freedom for social life are no longer possible, even as fiction” (Caldeira 2005, 334). In mixed-income HOPE VI communi-ties, where diverse socioeconomic groups share the same neighborhood, defensible architecture may be seen as a bane to social interaction, or worse, a form of elitism. Newman’s defensible space theory is mainly

15 social ties within two adjacent blocks in Berkeley, cA. Where backyard fences separate dwellings (above) residents rarely associate with neighbors to their rear. Where fences are removed (below) this condition is reversed.

49

06cONtEMPOrAry sOcIO-sPAtIAl tHEOrIEs

As history has shown, federal urban policy became explicitly con-cerned with the deconcentration of poverty in 1998. Meanwhile, public housing design remains grounded in Postmodern urban theories estab-lished during the 1960s and 1970s. This thesis argues the current social agenda of public housing requires a re-evaluation of Postmodern ideolo-gies. In recent years, a number of theorist have continued to develop an understanding of the urban environment and its sociological impli-cations. The following chapter will outline some of the contemporary socio-spatial theories that seem most relevant to public housing design.

REALM OF STRANGERS

REALM OF VISITORS

REALM OF INHABITANT

THRESHOLD

opaque urbanism translucent urbanism transparent urbanism

50 51

Of Course, Nan Ellin is not the first theorist to recognize the socio-logical importance of the threshold. In their 1984 work, The Social Logic of Space, Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson recognize the threshold as a fundamental component to the archetypal dwelling unit, or ‘elementary cell.’ In their attempt to systematically analyze the myriad ways that so-cial forces affect spatial arrangement, Hillier and Hanson first define the fundamental types of spaces and their sociological implications. They describe the ‘elementary cell’ as “a boundary, a space within the bound-ary, an entrance, and a space outside the boundary defined by the en-trance, all of these spaces being part of a system which was placed in a larger space of some kind which ‘carried’ it” (Hillier and Hanson 1984, 19). They continue:

All these elements seemed to have some kind of sociological reference: the space within the boundary established a category associated with some kind of inhabitant; the boundary formed a control on that category, and main-tained its discreteness as a category; the world outside the system was the domain of potential strangers, in contradistinction to the domain of inhabit-ants; the space outside the entrance constituted a potential interface between the inhabitant and the stranger; and the entrance was a means not only of establishing the identity of the inhabitant, but also a means of converting a stranger into a visitor (Hillier and Hanson 1984, 19).

Within this framework, the threshold, or the entrance and its adjacent outdoor space, is understood as the setting for interaction among strang-ers, and potentially for the creation of social ties.

17 the ‘elementary cell’ as defined by Hillier and Hanson. Here the threshold is seen as the operative device that converts a stranger into a visitor.

While contemporary housing design remains in many ways wedded to the Postmodern, defensible architecture paradigm, a growing number of designers and theorists have sought out new solutions to familiar ur-ban design problems. Urban theorist Nan Ellin catalogues some of these new approaches and their theoretical underpinnings in her recent work Integral Urbanism. According to Ellin, Western society is experiencing a “gradual reorientation toward valuing slowness, simplicity, sincerity, spirituality, and sustainability in an attempt to restore connections that have been severed over the last century” (Ellin 2006, 1). In addition, the Western worldview has become more receptive to notions of complex-ity and interconnectivity; as evidenced in the range of work from Gilles Deleuze to chaos theory. Using Deleuze’s vocabulary, Ellin explains, “the goal of Integral Urbanism is to achieve flow” (Ellin 2006, 6), which can be understood spatially as an equilibrium between overstimulation and monotony. Ellin introduces five qualities that contribute to this spatial condition of flow: hybridity, connectivity, porosity, authenticity, and vul-nerability.

Of these, porosity is most relevant to the schism between ideology and practice in housing today. As history has shown, the Postmodern movement reacted to the openness and universality of Modern urbanity by erecting borders between the private and public realm. Ellin likens this practice to a shift from ‘transparency’ to ‘opacity.’ The contempo-rary response to this dichotomy may be described as ‘translucent ur-banism,’ which “does not eliminate or fortify borders, boundaries, and edges. Rather, it engages and enhances them to reintegrate (or integrate anew) places without obliterating difference” (Ellin 2006, 82). With this understanding, the boundary between spaces is no longer conceived as a border, but as a porous membrane or threshold that mediates, and consequently enhances diversity. Thus, the threshold acquires a new sociological significance, as it controls, and potentially encourages inter-action between diverse social worlds.

16 translucent urbanism as an alternative to the overly fortified, opaque urbanism (Postmodern) and the ambiguously defined, transparent urbanism (Modern).

THRESHOLD

INTERIORPRIVATEINTROVERTEDRESTRAINT

EXTERIORPUBLICEXTROVERTEDFREEDOM

18 An early attempt at mapping human relations by Hillier and Hanson: Elementary cells arranged at random within a set of simple parameters.

52 53

vens 2007, 75). Within these spaces, uses and activities overlap, and new stimuli are introduced. In this way, the threshold becomes a sort of crucible for equal-status, social interaction among diverse socio-cultural groups. As previously noted, this is precisely the type of interaction that is thought to unlock the potential benefits of mixed-income develop-ment. Therefore the design of the threshold carries immense sociologi-cal implications. Echoing Nan Ellin’s notion of porosity, Stevens suggests that individuals must be able to modulate the nature of the threshold. He explains:

People use the architecture of the threshold to adjust both their own percep-tions and the extent to which they are perceived by others in public. Using various threshold conditions, through small-scale movements, individuals can readily and subtly calibrate their exposure to others on a variety of reg-isters: visual, auditory and bodily. This control over gradients of perception and exposure gives people the freedom which is a necessary prerequisite to play” (89).

In his analysis of urban thresholds in London, Berlin, and Melbourne, Stevens observes and records playful behavior, in its various forms, as evidence of liminality. He suggests that forms of play, such as street per-formance or skateboarding, are indicative of the loosened socio-psycho-logical restrictions experienced at the threshold.

Closely related to the threshold are the spaces between buildings, which Hillier and Hanson also address in The Social Logic of Space. While the threshold and its function may be fairly consistent across so-cio-cultural boundaries, Hillier and Hanson find a significant cross-cul-tural variation in the spaces between buildings. They believe that this larger space that ‘carries’ individual dwellings is largely shaped by social

19 the threshold not only concentrates activity, but modulates a psychological transition between interior and exterior, where perceptions and actions may be temporarily affected.

While the threshold performs an integral social function, it may also elicit a unique socio-psychological response from those navigating between social realms. Urban theorist Quentin Stevens addresses this phenomenon in an essay entitled Betwixt and Between: Building Thresh-olds, Liminality, and Public Space. Within this text, Stevens contemplates thresholds in terms of liminality; an anthropological term that describes the “intermediate stage in rituals of progression from one social status to another” (Stevens 2007, 73). According to Stevens, the threshold me-diates a significant behavioral transition between interior and exterior, or private and public realms. Therefore, “thresholds are sites of signifi-cant shifts in people’s status, their perceptions and their actions” (Ste-vens 2007, 74). In this way, the threshold may promote a liminal state, in which social hierarchies are blurred, and barriers to interaction are lifted.

Another crucial characteristic of the threshold is that it physically connects people. Stevens explains, “the threshold is a constrained site which gathers people together, channeling their movement, focusing their attention and forcing them into close contact with others” (Ste-

20 An example of heightened activity at the threshold: people gathered on the steps of the New york Public library.

54 55

and open-ended. Thus, “settlement space is richer in its potential, in that more people have access to it, and there are fewer controls on it. We might say it is more probabilistic in its relation to encounters” (Hillier and Hanson 1984, 19). By this logic, dense, clustered settlements pro-vide the ideal setting for constructive social interaction between diverse social groups.

conclusionAbove all, the literature in this chapter places a newfound impor-

tance on the urban threshold. Hillier and Hanson identify the thresh-old as the boundary between the realm of the inhabitant and that of the stranger. Thus, social ties are necessarily created at this boundary, where a stranger may potentially become an acquaintance. Quentin Stevens elaborates on this understanding, noting the unique socio-psy-chological condition that occurs between the public and private realm. He claims that the liminal nature of the threshold creates a condition in which social hierarchies become blurred, and interaction may become more opportunistic. In mixed-income housing, where social hierarchies tend to limit interaction, it may be beneficial to exploit this liminal state.

In the previous chapter, it was suggested that a disconnect exists between the socially inclusive ideology of public housing and its overly defensible form. Nan Ellin responds to this dichotomy, suggesting that urban boundaries should not exclude people, but rather filter them as a porous membrane. Ellin’s concept of urban porosity envisions the thresh-old not as a barrier, but as an opportunity for social realms to overlap. While the threshold fundamentally separates discrete elements, it also brings them into contact. With this understanding, the urban threshold has a rich potential to promote interaction between diverse groups, ful-filling the social agenda of contemporary public housing. Accordingly, this thesis seeks to create a true architecture of engagement through a nuanced treatment of threshold conditions at multiple scales.

Of course, this thesis is not the first attempt to create a housing en-vironment that encourages residential interaction. Indeed, this is one of the stated goals of the current New Urbanist paradigm. Through an analysis of built precedents, the social logic of this model, and several others will be evaluated in the following chapter.

solidarity, or cohesion, a concept first developed by early urban soci-ologist Émile Durkheim. According to Durkheim, there are two distinct forms of solidarity: “an ‘organic’ solidarity based on interdependence through differences, such as those resulting from the division of labor: and a ‘mechanical’ solidarity based on integration through similarities of belief and group structure” (Hillier and Hanson 1984, 18). Organic solidarity also relies on strong social ties to produce and enforce societal order. Therefore, the concept of organic solidarity correlates highly with such qualities as social capital, collective efficacy and sense of community. In addition, this form of solidarity allows for the phenomenon of natu-ral surveillance, as described by Jane Jacobs and Oscar Newman. Thus, under Durkheim’s framework, HOPE VI developments would be an at-tempt to create organic solidarity, as the mixed-income paradigm seeks to foster interdependence among diverse groups.

Hillier and Hanson argue that the cross-cultural differences in out-door space stem from the way that the alternate structures of organic and mechanical solidarity generate and control social interaction. Organic solidarity favors a dense, tightly-woven community, whereas mechanical solidarity often produces dispersed and segregated space. Furthermore, there are sociological implications to the method by which dwelling units, or ‘elementary cells’ are arranged. Hillier and Hanson differenti-ate between the subdivision of the elementary cell into a ‘building,’ or the accumulation of cells into a ‘settlement.’ The former model is often highly defined, and less permeable, while the latter is more accessible

57

07PrEcEDENts

Throughout history, a number of architects have created residential environments with an explicit focus on social interaction. This chapter will present and evaluate four examples of these. Though the following projects share the goal of increased resident engagement, the impetus for this varies. For instance, Moisei Ginzburg’s Narkomfin Building, an example of the Soviet ‘social condenser,’ was conceived as a means to assimilate its inhabitants to a new, communal way of life. On the other hand, architects Giancarlo De Carlo and Jean Renaudie both looked to the structure of human interaction as a fundamental design tool. Addi-tionally, the current New Urbanist model seeks to foster a sense of com-munity among inhabitants through traditional neighborhood design. Each of these approaches offers valuable insight towards creating a true architecture of engagement.

PEDE

STRIAN

PORCH

WINDOW

APPROACH

WINDOW

PEDE

STRIAN

PORCH

WINDOW

APPROACH

WINDOW

primary contacts secondary contacts tertiary contacts

PEDEstrIAN

POrcHWINDOW

APPrOAcHWINDOW

58 59

Analytical Processstep 1: Identify Nodes

step 2: Evaluate connections

step 3: Map connections

As the following examples attest, there are a number of architec-tural strategies that may encourage social interaction. Some schemes provide added amenities such as balconies or porches, while others em-ploy novel programmatic arrangements. In other instances, windows and circulation corridors are strategically placed to bring residents into contact.

In an attempt to objectively analyze these strategies, the following method is proposed. First, venues for interaction, or nodes, are identi-fied for each scheme. These nodes represent locations in which residents may visually or physically interface with the public realm. Examples of such nodes include balconies, porches, windows, streets, sidewalks, and approach sequences. In general, a greater number of these nodes signi-fies a more socially opportunistic design; however, it is also essential to consider the relative location of these nodes to gauge their ability to promote interaction.

The next step addresses this variable by gauging the relative prob-ability of interaction between individual nodes. While social interaction is, of course, determined by one’s free will, it is reasonable to assume that proximity and visibility greatly affect the opportunity for interac-tion between two nodes. Thus, if two residents are relatively nearby and separated by no physical or visual barriers, one may conclude that these individuals are most likely to interact. Likewise, if nodes are further away, and obscured by some sort of architectural feature, it follows that interaction is less probable. Therefore, this method of analysis employs a hierarchy of associations to gauge the relative probability for interac-tion between nodes. Primary contacts, where interaction is most likely, are represented by a thick line. Secondary contacts are often nearby, but screened by some sort of architectural device, such as a window. These are represented by a line of medium thickness. Finally, tertiary contacts are relatively far apart, or located at an oblique angle from one another. These contacts are represented by a thin line.

For ease of comparison, this method of analysis is applied to four adjacent dwelling units for each of the following precedents. Nodes for each dwelling unit are first identified, then evaluated in terms of interac-tion opportunity. Primary, secondary, and tertiary contacts are identi-fied, then mapped three-dimensionally. This step helps to visualize the sphere of interaction for a given architectural design. To further ease comparison, these opportunities for interaction are then mapped two-dimensionally, maintaining their relative line weight. The resulting web-like diagram helps to gauge the overall structure and complexity of the social network within a given project.

S MORGAN STREET

BEACON AVENUE

S WARSAW STREET

S MYRTLE STREET

28TH

AVE

NUE

S

HOLLY PARK DRIVE S

Van Asselt Playground

ALLE

Y

3 2ND AVENUE S

3 2ND AVENUE S

3 2ND AVENUE S

31ST

AVE

NUE

S

32ND

AVE

NUE

S

33RD

AVE

NUE

S

NUE

S

SHAF

FER

AVEN

UE S

29TH

AVE

NUE

S

30TH

AVE

NUE

S

Community Center

Power Line Right of Way

050 50 100 200

EXISTING SITE PLAN - 1996

S MORGAN STREET

S HOLLY PLACE

BEACON AVENUE

S WARSAW STREET

SHAF

FER

AVEN

UE S

S FRONTENAC ST S FRONTENAC STREET

32ND

PLA

CE S

S MYRTLE STREET

28TH

AVE

NUE

S

S HOLLY STREET

32ND AVENUE S

29TH

AVE

NUE

S

HOLLY

ALLEY ALLEY

ALLE

Y

ALLE

YALLE

Y

ALLE

Y

ALLE

Y

ALLEY ALLEY ALLEY

ALLE

Y

ALLEY

ALLE

Y

ALLEY ALLEY

32ND AVENUE S

3 2ND AVENUE S

29TH

AVEN

UE S

3 2ND AVENUE S

ALLE

Y

S WILLOW STREET

30TH

AVE

NUE

S

S BRIGHTON STREET

ALLEY

32ND AVENUE SDRIVEPARK S

30TH

AVE

NUE

S

31ST

AVE

NUE

S

31ST

AVE

NUE

S

32ND

AVE

NUE

S

33RD

AVE

NUE

S

Family CenterCampus of Learners

CENTRAL PARK

Van Asselt Playground

Power Line Right of Way

Community Center

050 50 100 200

NEW SITE PLAN - 1999

22 NewHolly Phase I site plan before demolition (left) and after redesign (right). Architects Weinstein copeland attempt to reconnect street grid with surrounding neighborhoods.

23 NewHolly Phase I: elevations and sections showing typical duplex and rowhouse configurations. Windows and outdoor porches are oriented towards the street.

21 Birds-eye aerial of NewHolly Phase I, a New Urbanist HOPE VI project in seattle. Note traditional urban design features.

60 61

coordinates social services and community events. Another key social component is the on-site Neighborhood Campus, which boasts a branch of the Seattle Public Library, classrooms, child care, and other neighbor-hood-based amenities.

Of particular interest to this thesis are the passive, architectural strategies for social interaction. As an exemplar of the New Urbanist, HOPE VI model, NewHolly borrows heavily from traditional urban de-sign techniques. Weinstein Copeland Architects eschew the open, cur-vilinear streets of the old Holly Park housing development, and opt instead for a dense urban street grid. This common New Urbanist tech-nique promotes vehicular connectivity with neighboring communities,

Weinstein copeland ArchitectsNewHolly Phase I / seattle

In 2003, NewHolly was awarded the “New Face of America’s Public Housing Award” by HUD and the Congress for the New Urbanism. In-deed, this mixed-income HOPE VI development exemplifies, in many ways, the current model for American public housing. NewHolly is lo-cated about 6 miles southeast of downtown Seattle, and occupies the former site of the 893-unit Holly Park Public Housing Development, built in 1941. Designed by Weinstein Copeland Architects, and com-pleted in 1999, NewHolly Phase I includes 476 housing units. Of these, about 30% are available for homeownership, while the remaining units are either public housing or low-income rental units. While this alloca-tion of units ensures an economically diverse residential profile, there is also an impressive ethnic diversity at NewHolly. The development is also of particular interest to this thesis because it has been extensively researched by Rachel G. Kleit in a 2005 post-occupancy evaluation. As discussed previously, this report is the most thorough empirical analysis of social interaction within the New Urbanist, HOPE VI model.

Social interaction is encouraged at NewHolly in many ways. Some of the more active strategies for social mixing include community gar-dening initiatives, block clubs, activity clubs, and other neighborhood-wide activities. NewHolly employs a full-time ‘community-builder,’ who

CONSTRUCTION STRATEGY DEMONSTRATING 3 DISTINCT ROOF OPTIONS WITH SIMILAR FIRST FLOOR AND FOUNDATION

DESIGN DIVERSITY:

Standardized duplex (two-family) lower floor plans accommodate differing upper floor plans to yield dramatically different roof forms. Variation of these roof forms, together with variation of exterior siding patterns and colors and the detailing of exterior porches and railings, provides a further level of diversity within the system.

4 Bedroom Single Family Unit

4 Bedroom Duplex Units

4 Bedroom Townhouse End Unitswith 2 Bedroom Interior Units

SINGLE UNIT USED IN 3 TYPICAL CONFIGURATIONS

DESIGN DIVERSITY:

Standardization of the essential construction dimensions, assemblies and materials generates a "system" of repetitive unit plans that are put together in different combinations to yield diverse buildings - individual 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom units are constructed as single family houses or are put together in combinations as duplex units or as four unit townhouses.

24 Exploded axon showing different architectural variations for the same foundation, a cost-saving device used by the architect.

25 site plan and section showing the public, street-facing orientation of each dwelling unit and private backyard separated by low fencing.

62 63

Like all contemporary public housing projects, NewHolly also em-ploys defensible space techniques. The architects exploit the spatial hi-erarchy of the traditional streetscape by promoting a progression which “begins at the public street, moves to the semipublic front yard and porch, and ends in private backyards” (Atkin 2001). The privacy of each backyard is ensured by fences, but the architects intentionally kept these physical barriers low. In this way, the fences “provide each household a sense of security and ownership […] but still allow for visibility and con-versation with neighbors” (Seattle Housing Authority 2011). Thus, the private outdoor spaces at NewHolly maintain a certain degree of visual porosity.

Analysis (see next page)

Of the precedents discussed in this chapter, NewHolly appears to have the most opportunistic social network. The analytical maps for this scheme show a dense, evenly distributed web of interconnectivity between adjacent residents. Also of note is the strong interface between the individual dwelling and the street. By arranging the street, sidewalk, porch, and entry sequence into a tightly-knit streetscape, this scheme ensures a dense overlap of social realms. It is important to note, though, that the New Urbanist scheme arranges dwellings in such a way that there is little opportunity for chance interaction between adjacent front porches. This may be a substantial shortcoming, considering that the porch is the node at which residents are most likely to linger.

and brings households closer to the public realm of the street. Every dwelling unit at NewHolly features a street-facing porch, providing an interface between the private and public realms. Generous sidewalks encourage pedestrian traffic, further activating the threshold between the street and the individual dwelling.

WINDOW (FRONT)

WINDOW (FRONT)

PEDE

STRI

AN

AUTO

MOBI

LE

APPROACHWINDOW (FRONT)

PORCH

APPROACH

WINDOW

(FRONT)

PORCH

APPROACH

PORCH

APPROACH

PORC

H

64 65

27 givors housing project, rhone, france, 1974-1980.

26 3rd floor plan of Jean-Baptiste clement House, Ivry-sur-seine, france, 1973-1975. Note fractal-like geometry that allows for rich diversity, but also complicates design/build process.

66 67

this paradoxical condition by employing an extensively stepped, radial massing. Dwellings are thus connected by circulation and services at the core, while each unit is given outdoor exposure in multiple orientations. The stepped form also allows for an impressive number of balconies, many of which contain extensive roof gardens.

It is clear that these outdoor terraces and their complex intercon-nectivity are of central importance to Renaudie’s design. If the entire complex is understood as a social network, then each terrace represents an individual link in its intricate structure. Renaudie explains, “the ter-race encourages contact between people […] they can call from one ter-race to another and hold conversations with a neighbor on the terrace above” (Renaudie 1980). By positioning these terraces at every exterior fold, it is as if the threshold condition, the venue for social interaction, is extended across the entire building envelope. The opportunity for inter-action is further enhanced as Renaudie weaves semi-public plazas and outdoor circulation systems throughout the project. Ground-level retail and public spaces add another element to the social milieu. The overall effect of Renaudie’s design is such that, “the overlapping of spaces, the interface between dwellings, the prospect from one terrace onto anoth-er, the continuity of circulation from one building to the next: all were augmented in his work so that the opportunities for social contact could be in turn multiplied” (Scalbert 2004, 46).

Jean renaudie Various Works / france

One of the most unique and intriguing architects of his time, Jean Renaudie designed a handful of social housing projects in southern Paris and the south of France during the 1960s and 1970s. Immediately recog-nizable for their complex form and idiosyncratic geometry, these hous-ing blocks were “a radical, visionary departure from the modernist idea of ‘existence minimum’” (Mostafavi 2010, 45). Though Renaudie was critical of Modernist grands ensembles (high-rise projects), he did not revert to neotraditional urban design, as Postmodern urbanists would. Rather, Renaudie adopted a structuralist worldview from thinkers such as Claude Levi-Strauss, and found inspiration in complex organic struc-tures. Thus, the organism became Renaudie’s analogy for the complex spatial and social relations inherent in urban dwelling. Renaudie be-lieved that form could be molded by social networks, explaining, “ar-chitecture is the materialization of the complex structure according to which human relations are organized” (Renaudie 1968, 32).

The manifestations of this structuralist paradigm are incredibly complex, yet coherent on a larger scale. This is in part due to Renaudie’s conviction that “architecture and urbanism are one and the same thing” (Renaudie 1968, 32). Thus, each building is conceived as a city, and each dwelling unit an integral part of this structure. In this way, Renaudie’s projects transcend Hillier and Hanson’s ‘settlement’ versus ‘building’ dialectic, simultaneously displaying the outward permeability of the ‘settlement’ and the interconnectivity of the ‘building.’ Renaudie creates

28 stepped terraces at givors. Vegetation is used as an adaptable privacy screen.

68 69

Though Renaudie was able to create an incredibly rich, socially re-sponsive architecture, his highly articulated forms came at a consider-able cost. His angular, fractal-like plans were structurally inefficient, and construction costs were often drastically over budget. In addition, there were no economies of scale inherent in Renaudie’s designs: every indi-vidual dwelling unit was unique. This required an inordinate amount of design deliberation, as “the effect of one apartment configuration upon another necessitated never-ending adjustments between inside and outside, between one space and the next” (Scalbert 2004, 45). In addi-tion, the jagged geometric language that allows for such a diverse set of orientations and connections also creates awkward interior spaces.

On the other hand, the unique nature of each unit invites residents to “meet the idiosyncrasies of the plan with their own and in this way appropriate their space” (Scalbert 2004, 50). Therefore, Renaudie’s projects foster a sense of individuality and ownership: qualities that were deplorably absent in the Modernist grands ensembles. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that Renaudie’s distinctive designs have proven popular enough to attract upper-income residents. Renaudie’s projects maintain a substantial portion of their originally intended social hous-ing residents, though, and “today, […] the buildings represent a desirable community of mixed-income residences” (Mostafavi 2010, 47).

Analysis (see next page)

The particular project analyzed here is the Villa Jean-Baptiste Clem-ent in Ivry-sur-Seine. Though it is relatively small, comprising only ten units, it nonetheless typifies the geometry and spatial arrangements common in Renaudie’s oeuvre. As the mapping shows, Renaudie’s ter-races offer an incredibly rich network of associations along the exterior of the building. The relative complexity of the mapping also suggests that interaction is relatively opportunistic in this scheme, with several nodal connections at varying levels. A notable shortcoming of the Villa Jean-Baptiste Clement is its isolation from the life of the street, or the public realm. It should be noted, however, that the lowest level of this complex (not shown) begins to interface with the street below.

TERR

ACE

2

TERR

ACE 1

WINDOW 2

WINDOW 1

TERRACE 3

TERRACE 2

TERRACE 1

WINDOW

1 TERRACE 3

TERRACE 2

TERRACE 1

WINDOW 2

WINDOW 1

TERRACE 2

TERRACE 1

WINDOW 4

WINDOW 3

WIN

DOW

2

WIN

DOW

1

70 71

30 All units at Villagio Matteotti have a dual orientation, allowing frontage to both the street and a pedestrian courtyard. Here, terraces step away from the courtyard.

31 An elevated walkway separates pedestrians from automobile traffic, and provides a lateral connection between units. communal facilities center around this raised network.

29 roof plan of Villagio Matteotti. Note organization of units along horizontal bands of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

72 73

giancarlo De carlo Villagio Matteotti / terni, It

Giancarlo De Carlo was one of the founding members of Team 10, a group of like-minded young architects who dissented from CIAM (the International Congress for Modern Architecture) in the 1950s. Long before the Postmodern movement caught on, these architects formed “some of the first really penetrating critiques of Modernism – of place-lessness, mindless zoning, repetition” and “the poverty of the existen-zminimum” (Jones 1992, xi). Like the Postmodern urbanists in the years to come, Team 10 rejected the universality of the Modern movement in favor of a locally-scaled, socially-responsive architecture. A profound interest in the relationship between space and society lead De Carlo to pursue a participatory design process in many of his projects. Indeed, resident involvement was the driving force behind De Carlo’s design for Villagio Matteotti, a social housing project in Terni, Italy.

Villagio Matteotti was commissioned by the Italian National Steel Corporation in 1969. Through a series of meetings with potential resi-dents, De Carlo established design parameters that would ultimately inform the collective design of the complex. For instance, every dwell-ing was to have covered parking, an entrance to the street, and an out-door garden. Within these parameters, De Carlo developed five distinct apartment types, which through variations in interior and exterior ar-rangement produced 45 unique dwelling varieties. In concert, these differentiated dwelling types create a pleasing milieu that avoids the stigmatizing uniformity attributed to Modernist public housing. Lush

32 site sections and site plan, showing dual-orientation of units along alternating bands of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

74 75

Analysis (see next page)

The social network mapping of Villagio Matteotti is, at first, not as impressive as other precedents. Though there is a strong connection between individual units and the public realm, interaction between ad-jacent units is limited. It seems that De Carlo took painstaking efforts to ensure that private balconies do not leer over one another. That being said, De Carlo intentionally weaves public corridors and semipublic ter-races through the complex, enhancing the opportunity for passing en-counters. It should also be noted that the reductive analysis used here fails to address interaction opportunities across the semipublic pedes-trian courts. These nearby dwellings present several nodes of interac-tion.

outdoor gardens also serve to soften the hard edges of the cast-in-place concrete structures, while allowing residents to appropriate and further differentiate their dwellings. In this way, De Carlo was able to create a rich architectural diversity without the painstaking deliberation that plagued Jean Renaudie’s housing projects. Nonetheless, the highly ar-ticulated design and substantial amenities at Villagio Matteotti required a “higher allocation of resources than was usual for subsidized housing” (Zucchi 1992, 106).

Much like Jean Renaudie, De Carlo worked simultaneously at the in-dividual and collective scales, blurring the distinction between architec-ture and urbanity. At Villagio Matteotti, De Carlo works within a struc-tural framework to create “an organized composition on a large scale that facilitates individual expression on a smaller scale” (Mulder 2005, 220). In this case, the overall structure is determined by alternating bands of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The individual units are ar-ranged within these bands in such a way that each dwelling enjoys front-age on both a street and a pedestrian courtyard. This dual orientation enables surveillance in all directions, extending a sense of ownership to the public spaces, and increasing solidarity among residents. Further-more, De Carlo creates a valley section within the pedestrian court, ex-tending and carving away the mass of the apartment blocks to create stepped-down terraces for each unit. This creates a semi-enclosed pub-lic realm in which neighbors may visually or physically connect with one another. Of course, various dividing walls and vegetative screens allow residents to increase privacy, if desired.

Perhaps the most intriguing element of De Carlo’s design is the three-dimensional network of pedestrian circulation within the com-plex. Elevated walkways segregate foot traffic from automobile traf-fic, while pedestrian bridges provide lateral links between the rows of dwellings. This network not only acts as a “mediating organizational system” (Mulder 2005, 220), but also serves to connect inhabitants to public and semi-public amenities. In essence, this adds another venue for interaction between residents, another opportunity for social mix-ing. One might argue, however, that this pedestrian network is overly deterministic, as it does not allow the same freedom of motion inherent in the ground plane. In addition, it is possible that the segregation of pedestrian and automobile traffic may actually preclude certain types of social interaction. While De Carlo retains the Modernist notion of the street-as-infrastructure, Postmodern urbanists would soon celebrate the street as the quintessential venue for social life. Nonetheless, highly-nuanced interaction between private and public space, interior and ex-terior, ensures that Villagio Matteotti is a socially integrated community.

PORCH

APPROACH

COMMON SPACE

AUTO

MOBILE

PEDE

STRI

AN 2

PEDE

STRI

AN 1

PORCH

PORC

H

WINDOW (STREET)

WINDOW (COURT)

PORCH APPROACH

WINDOW

(STREET)

WINDOW (COURT)

WINDOW (STREET)

WINDOW (COURT)

APPROACH

APPR

OACH

WINDOW (STREET)

WINDOW (COURT)

7776

34 Exploded axonometric drawing of split-level ‘type f’ Unit, as seen in the Narkomfin Building.

33 Plan of dormitory-style ‘type f’ Unit, first applied to the Narkomfin Building. living space is minimized in an effort to transplant domestic functions into communal areas.

78 79

maining functions are condensed into an auxiliary building that contains “communal kitchens and dining-rooms, laundries, cleaning services, kindergartens, gymnasiums, libraries and rooms for ‘intellectual work,’ and summer dining-rooms on the roof” (Kopp, 71). Ginzburg also en-courages social interaction by reducing the number of hallways through an inventive, split-level arrangement of units. This has the effect of in-tensifying pedestrian traffic, thus increasing the opportunity collective exchange amongst residents.

By removing essential spaces from the private realm, Ginzburg re-flects on one hand an economic necessity, but also an ideological shift away from the family structure. Indeed, Soviet ideology at the time ac-tively sought the destruction of the family unit, in favor of a new com-munal social structure. Unfortunately, this vision did not mesh with the inhabitants of the Narkomfin Building. Residents vehemently rejected the Soviet attempt at social engineering, underscoring the fundamental need for privacy and domestic life in social housing.

While the obscure programming of the social condenser no doubt led to the building type’s demise, it nonetheless represents an architec-tural strategy that brings residents into social interaction quite effec-

Moisei ginzburgNarkomfin Building / Moscow

In the wake of the Russian Revolution, Soviet architects were forced to drastically reconsider social housing. On one hand, the chronic hous-ing shortage in the Soviet Union required the utmost efficiency in housing production. On the other hand, the political ideology of the time called for a radical reconfiguration of social structures. The Soviet avant-garde responded to this challenge with the social condenser, a new building type meant to “influence users through its use of space so as to introduce a new way of life into their social habits” (Kopp 1985, 70). This new form of social housing was intended to socialize its inhabitants, and convert them into a productive, self-sufficient community. Thus, the social con-denser represents a case were social interaction is taken to the extreme. Though this short-lived housing typology was regarded as “a total fail-ure” (Kopp 1985, 80), it nonetheless offers an intriguing example of an architecture with the sole purpose of enhancing a sense of community.

One of the few realized examples of the social condenser, Moisei Ginzburg’s Narkomfin Building was completed in Moscow in 1930. Ar-chitecturally, the Narkomfin Building is of the Constructivist style, with its bold rectilinear massing and stripped-down aesthetic. Unlike the precedents discussed thus far, Ginzburg’s building encourages interac-tion not through architectural amenities, but through its unusual pro-gramming. In essence, private space is reduced to the bare minimum, while day-to-day functions are transplanted into collective spaces. Thus, the individual dwelling units are little more than a dormitory, while re-

35 Narkomfin Building: short elevation and transverse section

36 Narkomfin Building: 2nd floor plan, showing upper level of the more traditional, ‘K-type’ maisonette-style units.

37 Narkomfin Building: 4th and 5th floor plan, showing split-level ‘f-type’ units.

38 Narkomfin Building: perspective rendering, showing large block of residential units (right) and auxiliary ‘social condenser’ for communal functions (left).

80 81

tively. By displacing essential domestic tasks to communal areas, Soviet architects ensured that residents would come into contact quite often. Perhaps a similar programmatic strategy could be employed today, without detracting from the domestic realm. Tasks such as gardening, mail collection, and garbage disposal occur on a daily basis, and are of-ten performed near the dwelling unit, but outside of the private realm. If these quotidian tasks were assigned to a defined common area, this space would become a social condenser of sorts. The crucial difference between such a space and its Soviet predecessor, of course, is the fact that the former does not encroach upon the domestic realm. In this way, neighborly interaction may be incentivized without being compulsory.

Analysis (see next page)

The Narkomfin Building is not as interesting for its architectural strategies as it is for its programmatic arrangement. Individual dwell-ing units here are, for the purpose of this analysis, devoid of interaction nodes. All opportunities for interaction are confined to either the circu-lation corridors, or the ancillary building. Not surprisingly, the mapping reveals a very regimented social network. Opportunities for interaction are quite strong, yet highly predictable. The research on social networks suggests that chance, opportunistic encounters with proximate neigh-bors are the most beneficial for the purpose of this thesis. Therefore, the social condenser may not be the best architectural model, but it raises intriguing programmatic possibilities.

DINING

LEISURE (INDOOR)

LEIS

URE

(OUT

)

APPR

OACH

LEISURE (OUT)LEISURE (INDOOR)

DINING

APPROACHLEISURE (OUT)

LEISURE (INDOOR)

DINING

APPROACH

LEISURE (OUT)

APPROACH

DINING

LEIS

URE

(INDO

OR)

82 83

DINING

LEISURE (INDOOR)

LEIS

URE

(OUT

)

APPR

OACH

LEISURE (OUT)

LEISURE (INDOOR)

DINING

APPROACH

LEISURE (OUT)

LEISURE (INDOOR)

DINING

APPROACH

LEISURE (OUT)

APPROACH

DINING

LEIS

URE

(INDO

OR)

PORCH

APPROACH

COMMON SPACE

AUTO

MOBILE

PEDE

STRI

AN 2

PEDE

STRI

AN 1

PORCH

PORC

H

WINDOW (STREET)

WINDOW (COURT)

PORCH APPROACH

WINDOW

(STREET)

WINDOW (COURT)

WINDOW (STREET)

WINDOW (COURT)

APPROACH

APPR

OACH

WINDOW (STREET)

WINDOW (COURT)

WINDOW (FRONT)

WINDOW (FRONT)

PEDE

STRI

AN

AUTO

MOBI

LE

APPROACH

WINDOW (FRONT)

PORCH

APPROACH

WINDOW

(FRONT)

PORCH

APPROACH

PORCH

APPROACH

PORC

H TERR

ACE

2

TERR

ACE 1

WINDOW 2

WINDOW 1

TERRACE 3

TERRACE 2

TERRACE 1

WINDOW

1 TERRACE 3

TERRACE 2

TERRACE 1

WINDOW 2

WINDOW 1

TERRACE 2

TERRACE 1

WINDOW 4

WINDOW 3

WIN

DOW

2

WIN

DOW

1

giancarlo De carlo / Villagio Matteoti Moisei ginzburg / Narkomfin BuildingWeinstein copeland / New Holly Jean renaudie / Ville Jean-Baptiste clement

39 summary diagrams showing overall realm of interaction (above) and mapped network (below) for each precedent.

84 85

into a specifically programmed ancillary building, separate from individ-ual dwellings. This creates a highly concentrated and structured venue for social exchange.

The comparison of each scheme’s mapped network is also telling of their idiosyncrasies. NewHolly predictably has a dense map, with a particularly strong connection to the public sphere, represented by the street and the sidewalk. Villa Jean-Baptiste Clement, on the other hand, lacks a connection to the street, but presents a dense, opportunistic web of connections between neighboring dwellings. The map of Villagio Matteotti shows a sparse connection between individual dwellings, but a rich connection to the public realm, represented by public walkways and stairwells. Finally, the map of Moisei Ginzburg’s Narkomfin Building shows strong connections between nodes, but no spontaneity in their structure.

In short, every map indicates both weaknesses and strengths in their respective schemes. By objectively analyzing each precedent and identifying their operative architectural features, it is now possible to apply these methods in concert with the research conducted thus far. Before this may be done in earnest, however, a site must be established. The following section will thus introduce the Glencoe Place Apartments in Mt. Auburn, Cincinnati as the chosen location for the practical applica-tion of this thesis.

conclusionThe architectural precedents in this section approach social inter-

action in various ways. Of the projects researched, the New Urbanist example seems to create the most engaging environment. By condens-ing venues for interaction along a tightly-knit streetscape, NewHolly cre-ates a rich interface between the private and public realms. While the analysis indicates that this scheme provides the most opportunistic so-cial network, there are important considerations to be gleaned from the other precedents.

As the summary diagrams below indicate, each scheme manipulates the realm of interaction in a unique way. As discussed, NewHolly clearly establishes the street and sidewalk as the operative interface between private and public. Alternately, Jean Renaudie articulates the exterior of the Ville Jean-Baptiste Clement in such a way that the entire build-ing envelope may be considered the realm of interaction. Giancarlo De Carlo, on the other hand, uses common circulation routes as the medi-ating device between private and public at Villagio Matteotti. Though De Carlo maintains a degree of privacy for each individual terrace, he intentionally introduces common stairwells and elevated walkways into their sphere, creating an opportunity for passing encounters. Finally, the Narkomfin Building channels all opportunities for social interaction

87

08PrOJEct sItE

Nestled away into one of the many folds in Cincinnati’s glaciated landscape lies Glencoe Place, a truly remarkable and unique location. Almost in defiance of the site’s extreme grade, seven tenement-style rowhouses are strung along a tight gridiron street pattern. Though the individual rowhouses are conspicuously devoid of ornamentation, to-gether they create an intriguing cascading form as they conform to the hill’s steep slope. In this way, Glencoe Place is quite impressive, and cer-tainly unlike any other block in Cincinnati.

40 (Opposite) current conditions at glencoe Place, overgrown foliage and vandalism mar the appearance of this 19th-century rowhouse complex.

88

Yet the site lies in complete abandonment. Overgrown foliage seeks to engulf the ancient rowhouses, while graffiti and other forms of van-dalism make a mockery of the once-stately complex. Numerous broken windows transform the austere façade of the typical Glencoe rowhouse into an eerie, off-putting sight. Thus, the apartments at Glencoe Place send a mixed message, hinting at a vibrant past while evidencing years of disappointment.

This unique and challenging site serves as an apt backdrop for this thesis on multiple accounts. First of all, the Glencoe Place apartments have served as federally operated low-income housing in the past. In addition, the site has been earmarked for mixed-income development in recent years, but progress has stalled. More importantly, the exist-ing dwellings on site represent a failed architectural strategy, as the site has fallen into decline twice during its history. Almost paradoxically, the Glencoe apartments seem to represent multiple eras of public housing ideology. Their stripped-down, monotonous detailing is reminiscent of early Modernist architecture, while their rowhouse typology and nar-row setbacks could easily be considered New Urbanist. Thus, a success-ful architectural intervention must consider these conflicting influences, while simultaneously considering the new ideological thrust of Ameri-can public housing.

HistoryThe site’s neighborhood of Mount Auburn is considered by many to

be Cincinnati’s first suburb. Developer James Key built the neighbor-hood’s first residence in 1819, and a number of exclusive residences were constructed shortly thereafter. The well-heeled pioneers of Mount Auburn were notable for their philanthropy, founding an impressive number of social services, such as the Cincinnati Orphan Asylum, the German Deaconess Home, and Christ Hospital. Originally known as Key’s Hill, the neighborhood acquired its current title in 1837, named after the Mount Auburn district of Boston for its similar landscape fea-tures. Public transportation via horse drawn street car first reached the site in 1867. This improved accessibility would cause Mt. Auburn’s population to spike, necessitating the construction of several hotels, in-cluding the Glencoe.

The Glencoe Hotel and Apartments were commissioned by Truman B. Handy and Jethro Mitchell in 1875. Wherein the original impetus for construction was the local demand for a hotel, the residential rowhouses were seen as a means to bring steady income flow to the project (Cin-cinnati Dept. of Urban Development n.d., 11). When property owners

1 2

3

2

3

1

42 glencoe Hotel and Apartments, c. 1970. Highlighted regions represent structures demolished during Model cities renovation.

43 site photos, c. 1970. locations keyed on site map (above).

41 glencoe Place from Auburn st, the site’s main approach (outline of existing buildings highlighted). the extreme grade change and lack of street frontage have obscured the complex from its inception.

90 91

In the 1970s, major revitalization attempts were directed towards Glencoe Place and other surrounding properties as part of the federal Model Cities program. Redevelopment efforts included structural re-inforcement, interior renovation, increased parking, and improved site planning. Some of the construction on site was deemed beyond repair, and a series of demolitions was carried out. These demolitions allowed

refused to sell Handy and Mitchell street frontage along Auburn Avenue, the developers were forced to locate on View Court (hence removed), to the west. Some speculate that Handy and Mitchell intentionally built the rowhouses to a lower-class standard to spite neighboring proper-ty owners. By attracting a less reputable clientele, it is reasoned, the developers might bring down the property values of those landowners that denied the hotel prominent street frontage (Cincinnati City Plan-ning Commission 1964). As a result, over 200 tenement-style units were hastily constructed to minimal structural and architectural standards.

Despite its obscured position, the Glencoe Hotel and Apartments thrived through the turn of the century. Over time, however, the pres-tige of Mt. Auburn began to wane as the automobile pushed urban de-velopment further away from the city center. The property had begun to deteriorate by the 1920s, and slum-like conditions began to set in, continuing through the 1960s. A site report at this time notes that the Glencoe Place tenants were “generally poor” and that “many families are quite large, and living on welfare” (Cincinnati City Planning Commission 1964, 17). Of the few remaining (white) middle-class residents, the re-port notes, “They express a certain satisfaction with the location, but the racial transition is exerting a new pressure on the residents” (Cincinnati City Planning Commission 1964, 16).

44 (Opposite) site aerials and birds-eye, c. 2010.

92

for the designation of new public spaces, and lessened the overall feeling of enclosure to some extent. Overall, the renovations were hailed as a success, winning several urban renewal awards.

Instrumental in the renovation of Glencoe Place was a grassroots, nonprofit organization called the Mount Auburn Good Housing Founda-tion, who acquired the site at this time. The group’s visionary leader, Carl Westmoreland, was determined to rebuild his native Mount Auburn from the ground up. In a 1978 interview, he explained “I see beauty where I live, and I’m responsible for the filth in the streets. My neigh-bors are responsible for it. We cannot depend upon the benevolence of people who live outside our community” (Watkins, 1978).

Though Westmoreland was clearly not lacking in good intentions, the Mount Auburn Good Housing Foundation ultimately lacked the fund-ing and business expertise necessary to maintain a prosperous Glencoe Place (P. Van der Haer, personal communication, Feb. 23, 2011). Poor management and chronic underfunding ensured the gradual decline of the property. A growing backlog of maintenance issues drove discern-ing residents away from the site, and the Glencoe Apartments began to house an increasingly-distressed tenant profile. By the 1990s, the area had once again earned an unsavory reputation, due largely to conspicu-ous drug trafficking on site (P. Van der Haer, personal communication, Feb. 23, 2011).

Though it would be logical to assume that escalating crime and dete-riorating conditions drove Glencoe Place to its present state of abandon-ment, this is not entirely the case. In actuality, the complex was ordered vacant in 2002 on a technicality when the on-site heating system failed. By this time, Glencoe Place was under the ownership of HUD, which was legally obligated to provide adequate heating to its low-income tenants. Unable to make the necessary repairs, HUD issued Section 8 vouchers to remaining residents, and promptly relinquished ownership of the site. The Glencoe Place Apartments have not been inhabited since.

Courted by the site’s historical character and close-out price tag, lo-cal developer Pauline Van der Haer soon purchased the property with hopes to redevelop the site as low-income housing. The redevelopment plan, which later changed to market-rate condominiums, would also in-clude the provision of additional parking facilities and the much-needed repair of existing building shells. After negotiating with City Council for various incentives, Van der Haer agreed to move forward with an $18.4 million redevelopment plan with the understanding that $5.4 million would come from the City of Cincinnati. After Van der Haer renovated a few model units on site, the City of Cincinnati rescinded its promised

3

5

7 8

6

4

21

4

7

8

5

312

6

46 Photos of selected neighboring buildings. locations keyed on context map (opposite).

45 context map, showing construction date of existing structures.

94 95

1975 - PrEsENt

1950-1975

1925-1950

1900-1925

1875-1900

1850-1875

funding in 2009. The two parties have since been in a legal battle, and it appears unlikely that renovation plans will be realized.

Physical contextLike the Glencoe rowhouses, surrounding neighborhood institutions

have seen various degrees of redevelopment over the years. Since the 19th century, the Christ Hospital has certainly been one of the more dom-inant fixtures in Mount Auburn. The main economic engine of the neigh-borhood, Christ Hospital has been acquiring neighboring properties for decades. In fact, the hospital has considered channeling expansion onto the Glencoe Place site since the 1960s (Cincinnati City Planning Commis-sion, 1964). The influence of Christ Hospital can be seen in the several neighboring medical institutions that surround the site. Despite this in-fluence, the hospital does not appear to support any nearby commercial functions, with only a few storefronts lining the immediate section of Auburn Avenue. The remaining context is entirely residential, reflecting the neighborhood’s suburban nature at its inception. These residences are typically smaller-scale, and most were constructed around the turn of the 20th century. The non-residential buildings in the area are typi-cally larger, newer, and closer to Auburn Avenue. The relative lack of commercial functions in the neighborhood suggests that residents must commute to shopping centers in neighboring communities.

Architecturally, the neighborhood is very eclectic. Many of the older residences along Auburn Avenue have been beautifully restored to their

DERONDA CT

ADNORED CT

AUBURN AVE

visual / physical buffer

AC

CE

SS

steep grade

site lines

GLENCOE PL

LEROY CT

INW

OOD PL

buffer

buffer

canyon effect

1

2

1

2

47 site topography map.

48 site sections showing notable site features. locations keyed on map (above)

96 97

AU

BU

RN

AV

E

GLENCOE PL

AD

NO

RE

D C

T

LEROY CT

GILMAN AVE

ALBION PL

MCGREGOR AVE

VALENCIA ST

JUSTIS ST

INWOOD PL

DE

RO

ND

A C

T

original splendor; however, there are a number of modern structures that eschew the intricate detailing of their neighbors. Stylistically, the Italianate or Queen Anne style may be the most prevalent. There are also nearby examples of Gothic Revival and Romanesque architecture. The nearby Planned Parenthood building blends in rather seamlessly with its Postmodern style and material nods to surrounding buildings. From a massing perspective, the most dominant building is the neigh-boring tower of Christ Hospital. At 13 stories, the hospital rises well above all surrounding structures, including the once-dominant Mt. Au-burn Baptist Church.

current conditionsThe most immediately recognizable feature of this site is, no doubt,

the steep terrain that gives Glencoe Place its characteristically stepped form. The precipitous grade of the site poses several advantages and disadvantages to potential users. On one hand, the topographical varia-tion necessitates a degree of architectural complexity amongst the oth-erwise stoic existing rowhouses. In fact, the National Register for His-toric Places recognized the Glencoe-Auburn Hotel and Row Houses in 2003 as “a fine example of a vintage architectural style conforming to Cincinnati’s hilly topography” (Radel 2004).

Despite the added aesthetic intrigue, the steep grade of the site pos-es several urbanistic disadvantages. First of all, the trek up the hill is arduous for pedestrians and, one can imagine, nearly impossible for el-derly or handicapped individuals. In addition, the sunken position of the site leaves the existing 3-4 story structures nearly invisible from Auburn Avenue, the site’s primary approach. Buffered by vegetation and other low-rise structures, the complex has no public frontage. The site is also heavily screened from Inwood Park, to the west.

Of course, the existing buildings themselves also impact the site ex-perientially. Within the site, the built form augments the sense of enclo-sure caused by the valley-section of the terrain. The steep, sheer walls and narrow spacing of the rowhouses leads to a ‘canyon effect’ that is not particularly pleasing to pedestrians. The situation of the buildings on the site is such that many views are entirely framed by these relent-less urban walls.

The overall dense, enclosed nature of the site brings to mind the distinction made by Rudolf Moos and James Kulik between the terms density and crowding. In describing the deleterious socio-psychological effects of crowding, an important distinction is made between these two terms: “Density denotes a physical condition involving limited space,

1

23456 78

3

5

7 8

6

4

21

49 Photos showing progression through site. locations keyed on context map (opposite).

98 99

whereas crowding has the additional requirement of perceived spatial inadequacy” (Moos and Kulik 1976, 144). Though historical population figures for Glencoe Place are not entirely clear, records show that at least 200 dwelling units existed on the four-acre site. Thus, the rowhouses at Glencoe Place were drastically more dense than their immediate subur-ban context.

In light of Moos and Kulik’s definition, however, one might also say that, when inhabited, Glencoe Place seemed crowded. The arrange-ment of streets on site is such that one is confronted with a four-story urban wall around each corner. Where apartment buildings align along the same street or corridor, the spacing between facing units is often exceedingly narrow. One might also contend that the architectural de-tailing of the rowhouses serves to heighten this sense of crowding. The monotonous, relentless appearance of the rowhouses somehow makes them seem more numerous, if not infinite. In concert, these spatial char-acteristics most likely created a ‘perceived spatial inadequacy’ among the former residents of Glencoe Place. If it is true that this “cognizance of spatial inadequacy […] evokes psychological and physiological stress in the individual” (Moos and Kulik 1976, 144), it is possible that these characteristics were at least partially responsible for the site’s demise.

Another striking feature of the rowhouses is their overwhelming conformity. Though constructed long before the Modernist movement, Glencoe Place bears the unmistakable mark of cheap, efficient construc-tion. This stripped-down, unadorned aesthetic is thought to cause “a vi-sual stigma” (Calthorpe 2009, 59) for inhabitants. Furthermore, the uni-

100 101

spectacle worth preserving. On the other hand, a number of shortcom-ings suggest that changes must be made to promote a successful mixed-income housing development. Though it would be naïve to assume that the demise of Glencoe Place was solely a matter of design, the site’s troubled history nonetheless seems to justify the need for architectural intervention.

Within the sociological context of this thesis, Glencoe Place appears to be a viable framework for nuanced intervention. The site’s tradition-al urban streetscape creates a strong interface between the private and public realm, but individual dwellings fail to appropriately engage one another. While there are public spaces on site, there are none that pro-mote a more intimate ‘collective realm.’ In general, the existing context at Glencoe Place requires a more sophisticated treatment of its many threshold conditions. The following chapter addresses this need, by ap-plying the wealth of socio-spatial considerations discussed heretofore to a viable site-specific architectural strategy.

formity of appearance precludes the psycho-sociological need for one to create “general symbolic and emotional ties with the house” (Rapoport 1986, 303) through appropriation and personalization.

social contextThough Glencoe Place has its shortcomings, the site provides an

intriguing opportunity for intervention. As a traditional urban setting, Glencoe Place is endowed with many of the social qualities that Post-modern urbanists now emulate. For instance, all dwelling units are ori-ented towards the street, and plentiful windows provide an opportunity for natural surveillance. The narrow setbacks and low-rise form of the rowhouses also allow residents to extend their sphere of influence onto the streets. Furthermore, the Glencoe apartments represent a relatively dense arrangement of dwellings compared to their pseudo-suburban context. This high density intensifies the opportunity for social interac-tion, and also increases the number of ‘eyes upon the street.’

On the other hand, the Glencoe rowhouses are lacking in a number of respects. Most notably, the dense configuration of dwellings on site leaves little room for outdoor common space. Though the renovations in the 1970s opened a few crucial venues for outdoor interaction, these spaces can only be described as ‘public’ by defensible space standards. As the existing open spaces cannot be symbolically tied to nearby dwell-ings, there are no instances of ‘shared common space,’ as described by Clare Cooper Marcus. Likewise, the various threshold conditions are generally abrupt, and do not act as porous membranes, as Nan Ellin rec-ommends. A modest stoop marks the entrance to each unit, but this feature serves little more than its utilitarian function. There are no ar-chitectural devices that exploit the threshold’s liminality by encouraging interaction.

Another glaring deficiency is the lack of private outdoor spaces, such as terraces or balconies. As evidenced in the precedent analysis, these spaces successfully create an interface between the private and public realm. Terraces also allow residents to easily appropriate and individu-alize space. Most importantly, these spaces may be considered a venue for interaction between immediate neighbors.

conclusionGlencoe Place offers a number of opportunities and challenges. On

one hand, the unique historical buildings on site are an architectural

103

09NEW(Er) UrBANIsM

As history has shown, the ideological thrust of American public hous-ing has shifted to include income-mixing as a fundamental objective. Federal urban policymakers have assumed, perhaps too readily, that a diverse socioeconomic milieu may prove beneficial for the urban poor. Though the theoretical advantages of income-mixing have proven some-what elusive in practice, this thesis posits that a nuanced use of archi-tectural devices may help to exploit the potentialities of mixed-income living. Specifically, it is argued that the design of mixed-income public housing must tactfully encourage social interaction between economi-cally diverse households. While the current New Urbanist guidelines for housing design seek to promote a sense of community among residents, this thesis offers a New(er) Urbanism that incorporates new ideas about social interaction in space.

51 An example of visual porosity: Distance of fog House by studiogreenBlue, Japan.

50 Urban porosity as an analogy for the threshold condition. A porous membrane creates a hybrid condition between discrete realms by allowing each to seep into one another.

104 105

A porous membrane not only mediates two discrete realms, but creates a hybrid condition in which these realms overlap and slowly seep into one another. Similarly, a porous urban threshold must clearly demarcate social territories, while allowing and even enhancing the exchange be-tween diverse social spheres. Changes in grade or pavement patterning may act as a subtle indication of territorial boundary, while low fences or architectural screening devices represent a more defined, yet suitably porous boundary. The concept of urban porosity also connotes a slow passage from one state to another, prolonging the liminal state between social realms described by Stevens. With this consideration, the archi-tecture of the threshold should encourage lingering by providing seating areas and other amenities wherever possible.

While urban porosity presents a useful conceptual framework for threshold design at all scales, the New(er) Urbanism recognizes that specific thresholds must be tailored to their particular function. In her analysis of NewHolly, Rachel G. Kleit found that residents interact most frequently with their immediate neighbors, regardless of socioeconomic status. In other words, cross-cultural interaction occurs most naturally at the local level. This finding underscores the importance of the space between proximate dwellings, as this is the presumed setting for the most efficacious social contact. Accordingly, the threshold that mediates adjacent dwellings must be adequately porous to allow a fluent inter-face between neighbors. Paradoxically, this freedom of exchange must not come at the expense of personal privacy. In order to mediate these disparate criteria, it seems necessary to offer multiple orientations for

In order to apply the theoretical concepts discussed thus far, an ar-chitectural intervention is proposed at the Glencoe Place Apartments in Mount Auburn, Cincinnati. The design proposal aims to convert the existing 19th-century complex into a socially-engaged, mixed-income public housing development through the use of New(er) Urbanist tech-niques. With its traditional urban form, the Glencoe Place development represents in many ways the current New Urbanist model for public housing design. Thus, the redesign of Glencoe Place seeks to preserve the latent possibilities of traditional urbanism, while enhancing these sociological potentialities through strategic New(er) Urbanist interven-tions. It is hoped that the resulting design will create an architectural dialogue between past practices and current thinking.

In pursuit of an architecture of social engagement, the threshold has emerged as the operative architectural feature. At its various scales, the threshold is situated at the literal and figurative overlap of social realms. According to Quentin Stevens, the threshold not only collects people, but offers a liminal condition in which one is temporarily freed from social restraints. In this way, the threshold becomes a sort of crucible for equal-status social interaction among diverse socio-cultural groups. This is precisely the type of interaction that is thought to unlock the po-tential benefits of mixed-income development. Therefore, the New(er) Urbanism seeks to embellish the threshold condition in order to exploit its innate sociological function.

The research conducted within this thesis not only identifies the po-tentialities of the threshold, but provides valuable insights into how this condition might formally operate. In general, Nan Ellin’s concept of ur-ban porosity serves as a useful analogy for the design of the threshold.

52 site strategy showing selective demolitions to increase connectivity and porosity.

106 107

each dwelling, each with varying degrees of porosity. In this way resi-dents may chose to acknowledge neighbors, or to remain in privacy, thus modulating public exposure.

Beyond the level of immediate neighbors, the next threshold of con-cern is that between the communal and public realm. According to Clare Cooper Marcus, this threshold should be clearly defined, or less porous, in order to promote a shared common space that is symbolically attached to nearby dwellings. In other words, Marcus suggests that the operative threshold between public and private be pushed beyond the individual dwelling, so that a small cluster of dwellings may feel equally entitled to a communal open space. This type of space may then become a sort of forum for collective exchange, in which social ties between next-door neighbors are defined and fortified. By privileging the shared common space, the New(er) Urbanism actively seeks to cultivate contact between proximate households.

Beyond the communal realm, it is now appropriate to consider the Glencoe Place development as a whole. In general, one of the problems with Glencoe Place is that it lacks a sense of flow. Nan Ellin explains, “Places that are truly in flow […] have interesting and unexpected de-tours and zigzags. We might call these ebbs or the rocks around which the flowing stream navigates” (Ellin 2006, 6). The relentless urban walls and awkward public spaces at Glencoe Place fail to deliver an interesting urban milieu. This fact is underscored by the uniformity of architectural treatment throughout the complex. A New(er) Urbanist site strategy seeks to create new, distinguished open spaces and to promote a greater sense of visual and circulatory porosity. This in turn creates new av-enues by which residents may connect with one another.

site strategyThe New(er) Urbanism calls for a calculated relationship between

interior and exterior, or public and private. Currently, the densely ar-ranged dwellings at Glencoe Place preclude some of the nuanced spatial transitions discussed thus far. It is thus proposed that a series of se-lective demolitions be performed. By demolishing roughly every third rowhouse, a greater degree of porosity may be achieved on the site, al-lowing for increased visual and physical connection between residents. Furthermore, this strategy gives the remaining units an additional ori-entation, so that they may now open to the street and to their adjacent neighbors. Perhaps most importantly, the space between remaining units becomes a new venue for interaction, or a shared common space.

front e

ntrance

public

EXISTING PROPOSED

public semi-public semi-private privateprivate

circu

lation sp

ace balc

ony

entra

nce

front e

ntrance

public

EXISTING PROPOSED

public semi-public semi-private privateprivate

circu

lation sp

ace balc

ony

entra

nce

54 Proposed entry sequence. residents are brought into communal space before entering individual dwelling units. this increases the opportunity for interaction and enriches the entry sequence by adding a pronounced privacy gradient.

53 Existing entry sequence. Passage between public and private realm is abrupt.

108 109

dwelling now interfaces the communal realm with an outdoor private space. In this way, each terrace operates much like a traditional front porch, but the close proximity of these spaces increases the opportunity for social interaction between immediate neighbors.

While the closely situated terraces create a socially opportunis-tic space, they also raise concerns over privacy. To address this issue, each terrace is designed with varying degrees of visual porosity. Where terraces directly face one another, a full-height perforated metal panel screens direct views. The remaining edges of each terrace are intention-

In order to fully exploit the unique nature of this newly-reclaimed space between dwellings, a new entry sequence is proposed. Currently, each rowhouse at Glencoe Place connects to the street through a small stoop and a single, street-facing front door. This rather abrupt transition between private and public space is not unusual in traditional urban de-sign. The New(er) Urbanist approach instead converts the void between adjacent rowhouses into an embellished entry sequence, in which each unit enters from the side. Integral to this new sequence, each dwell-ing unit also acquires a terrace at its front door. With this feature, each

56 Interior sectional elevation of proposed entry sequence. the stairs and terraces are torqued slightly to create a limited overlook between neighbors, offering an opportunity for interaction.

55 Perspective of proposed entry sequence. stairs act as a screen between terraces, but also serve to juxtapose circulation space and private space. this creates a fortuitous opportunity for interaction between neighbors, but only in passing.

110 111

ally left open, to allow overlooking and thus interaction between ter-races. To subtly enhance this overlooking condition, the terraces torque slightly as they rise from floor to floor. This formal operation deliberate-ly skews the vertical relationship between adjacent terraces so that up-per tenants may catch glimpses of those below, and vice versa. A similar arrangement of stepped terraces was found to create fortuitous encoun-ters between residents at Jean Renaudie’s Villa Jean-Baptiste Clement.

Another key consideration within this common shared space is the vertical approach to each entrance. To make efficient use of lim-ited space, and to supplement the screening between facing balconies, a staircase bisects the space between dwellings. The resulting juxtapo-sition between circulation space and private outdoor space is a direct reference to the strategy used by Giancarlo De Carlo at Villagio Matteotti. This strategy ensures that residents will come into close contact with one another routinely, but only in passing. Thus, an opportunity for in-teraction arises when a resident approaches his or her unit, but an ap-propriate level of screening ensures that contact is optional. This subtle manipulation of traditional entry sequences epitomizes the New(er) Ur-

58 Proposed site modifications, showing new parking and design modifications at newly-formed nodes.

57 threshold condition at street. A perforated metal screen serves to clearly define the shared common space between dwellings, but also allows a degree of porosity to the street. In addition, the form of the screen maintains the stepped form of remaining rowhouses.

112 113

worked within, and challenged the existing urban framework at Glencoe Place. The resulting scheme thus preserves an architectural legacy while creating a dialogue between traditional urbanism and New(er) Urban-ism. Without the site-specific constraints of Glencoe Place, New(er) Ur-banist techniques may likely be employed more seamlessly on a tabula rasa. In this way, it is hoped that the principles employed here may serve as a model for future mixed-income public housing developments.

This design exercise has showcased the many ways by which archi-tectural strategies may encourage social interaction. Through a practi-cal application of the research within this thesis, the New(er) Urbanism seeks to bring people together in such a way that meaningful social ties are formed between diverse neighbors. Though people will ultimately associate with whomever they please, the new income-mixing agenda of public housing demands this type of informed, nuanced emphasis on resident interaction.

banist objective to bring residents into fortuitous contact with one an-other.

This attempt to encourage chance interaction is also employed at the neighborhood scale. Currently, the overall flow through Glencoe Place is rather linear, extending predictably from the top of the hill to the bottom. In order to enrich this circulation pattern, the New(er) Ur-banist approach introduces lateral flows through the site that encour-age intersection and overlap. To create new movement patterns on site, parking facilities are proposed at the northernmost and southernmost borders of the complex. Where circulatory routes converge, a node is created, and the potential for interaction is increased. Perhaps the most prominent node within this new framework is the intersection between Glencoe and Adnored Court. Given its central and prominent location, this intersection is an appropriate location for a few programmed com-munity spaces. Thus, a small, neighborhood-run café and an enclosed community function space are proposed here. It is hoped that these new amenities will not only bring residents of Glencoe Place together, but also draw people from other communities to the site.

conclusion In some ways, the chosen site of Glencoe Place has strained the appli-

cation of New(er) Urbanist techniques. In practical terms, it would likely be more efficient to raze the entire site than to selectively demolish in-dividual rowhouses. Nonetheless, this design exercise has purposefully

114 115

Marcus, Clare Cooper. “Shared Outdoor Space and Community Life.” Places 15, no. 2 (2003): 32-41.

Moos, Rudolf, and James Kulik. “Population Density, Crowding and the Use of Space.” In The Human Context: Environmental Determinants of Behavior, edited by Rudolf Moos, 141-174. New York and London: John Wiley and Sons, 1976.

Mostafavi, Mohsen. “Why Ecological Urbanism? Why Now?” In Ecological Urbanism, edited by Mohsen Mostafavi, 12-55. Baden: Lars Muller, 2010.

Mulder, Suzanne. “Villaggio Matteotti Housing Estate, Terni 1969-74.” In Team 10 1953-81: In Search of a Utopia of the Present, edited by Max Risselada and Dirk van den Heuvel, 220-224. Rotterdam: NAi, 2005.

Mumford, Eric. The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.

Newman, Oscar. Creating Defensible Space. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996.

Newman, Oscar. Defensible space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan, 1972.

Putnam, Robert D. “Foreward.” Housing Policy Debate 9 (1998): 5-8.Radel, Cliff. “Glencoe ‘Hole’ Now Historic.” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 2004 26-January.Rapoport, Amos. “The Personal Element in Housing: An Argument for Open-ended

Design.” Royal Institute of British Architects’ Journal 75, no. 7 (1968): 300-307.Renaudie, Jean. “Urbanism is Architecture.” L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, 1968 June-

July: 32-33.Renaudie, Jean. “The Terrace.” Unpublished manuscript. 1980.Scalbert, Irénée. A Right to Difference: The Architecture of Jean Renaudie. London:

Architectural Association, 2004.Seattle Housing Authority. NewHolly: Redevelopment Plan. 2011. http://www.

seattlehousing.org/redevelopment/newholly/plan (accessed 2011 4-April).Stevens, Quentin. “Betwixt and Between: Building Thresholds, Liminality, and Public

Space.” In Loose Space, edited by Karen A. Franck and Quentin Stevens, 73-92. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Talen, Emily. “The Social Goals of New Urbanism.” Housing Policy Debate (Routledge) 13, no. 1 (2002): 165-188.

Von Hoffman, Alexander. “High Ambitions: The Past and Future of American Low-Income Housing Policy.” Housing Policy Debate 7, no. 3 (1996): 423-446.

Wacquant, Loic J. D., and William J. Wilson. “The Cost of Racial and Class Exclusion.” In The Urban Sociology Reader, edited by Jan Lin and Christopher Mele, 124-133. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Watkins, T.H. “Out of the Shadow of Ruins.” American Heritage Magazine, 1978.Wilson, William J. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City and the Underclass, and

Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.Zucchi, Benedict. Giancarlo De Carlo. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture, 1992.

Works citedAtkin, Ross. “Public Housing Gets a New Look in Seattle.” The Christian Science

Monitor, 2001 14-February.Bothwell, et al. “Restoring Community through Traditional Neighborhood Design: A

Case Study of Diggs Town Public Housing.” Housing Policy Debate 9 (1998): 98-114.

Caldeira, Teresa P. R. “Fortified Enclaves.” In The Urban Sociology Reader, edited by Jan Lin and Christopher Mele, 327-335. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Calthorpe, Peter. “HOPE VI and New Urbanism.” In From Despair to Hope, 49-63. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2009.

Cincinnati City Planning Commission. Glencoe Place General Plan. Cincinnati, 1964.Cincinnati Dept. of Urban Development. Glencoe Place: Mount Auburn Neighborhood

Development Program. Cincinnati: Cincinnati Dept. of Urban Development, n.d.Cisneros, Henry G. “A New Moment for People and Cities.” In From Despair to Hope:

HOPE VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America’s Cities, edited by Henry G. Cisneros and Lora Engdahl, 3-14. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2009.

Congress for the New Urbanism. “Charter of the New Urbanism.” Chicago, 2001.Crump, Jeff. “Deconcentration by Demolition: Public Housing, Poverty, and Urban

Policy.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20 (2002): 581-596.Davis, Mike. Planet of Slums. New York: Verso, 2007.Ellin, Nan. Integral Urbanism. New York: Routledge, 2006.Frampton, Kenneth. “The Evolution of Housing Concepts, 1870-1970.” Lotus

International, 1975: 24-31.Franck, Karen A. “Changing Values in U.S. Public Housing Policy and Design.” In New

Directions in Urban Public Housing, edited by David P. Varady, Wolfgang F. E. Preiser and Francis P. Russel. New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1998.

Freeman, Lance. There Goes the ‘Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2006.

Granovetter, Mark S. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” The American Journal of Sociology 78, no. 6 (1973): 1360-1380.

Harvey, David. “The New Urbanism and the Communitarian Trap.” Harvard Design Magazine 1 (1997): 1-3.

Hillier, Bill, and Julienne Hanson. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, Inc., 1961.

Jencks, Charles. The Language of Post-modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli, 1977.Jones, Peter Blundell. “Foreward.” In Giancarlo De Carlo, by Benedict Zucchi, ix-x.

Oxford: Butterworth Architecture, 1992.Joseph, Mark L. “Is Mixed-Income Housing an Antidote to Urban Poverty?” Housing

Policy Debate (Routledge) 17, no. 2 (2006): 209-234.Le Corbusier. “The Street.” In Oeuvre Complete 1910-1929. Erlenbach and Zurich,

1946.Kleit, Rachel G. “HOPE VI New Communities: Neighborhood Relationships in Mixed-

Income Housing.” Environment and Planning A 37, no. 8 (2007): 1413-1441.Kopp, Anatole. Constructivist Architecture in the USSR. Translated by Sheila de Vallée.

London: Academy Editions, 1985.