Upload
mircea-dubenco
View
232
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
1/63
Shared SpaceSIGNS OF COMMUNITY LIFE IN THE DANISH SUBURBAN LANDSCAPE
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
2/63
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
3/63
Shared SpaceSIGNS OF COMMUNITY LIFE IN THE DANISH SUBURBAN LANDSCAPE
FULBRIGHT INVESTIGATION 2005–2006
RYAN SULLIVAN
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
4/63
© 2006 Ryan Sullivan
is work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://cre-ativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ or send a letterto Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, SanFrancisco, California, 94105, USA.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
5/63
Prologue
Signs of Life in the Suburban Landscape 1
Identifying the Parochial Realm 5
Defining Shared Open Space 7
A Brief History of Shared Open Space in Suburbia 9
Timeline 14
Case Studies 16
Project Catalog 28
Design Characteristics 34
ree in One 40
Eight Acre Shared-division 44
Backyard Retrofit 48
1: EssaysSuburbia and Shared Open Space
2: Case StudiesShared Open Space in Denmark
Contents
3: ConceptsThree Proposals Using
Shared Open Space
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
6/63
Acknowledgements
is project was possible thanks to the Fulbright program
which funded the investigation during the 2005–06 aca-
demic year. I would like to thank the Danish Fulbright Com-
mission and Marie Mønsted and Barbara Lehman for their
assistance and continued support throughout the year. I am
also especially thankful for the opportunity to learn from Jan
Gehl, Lars Gemzøe, Susanne Andersen, Birgitte Bundesen
Svarre, Camilla Damm van Deurs, Britt Sternhagen Søn-
dergaard, Solvejg Reigstad, Sia Kirknæs and Javier Corvalán.
anks so much for hosting me at the Center for Public
Space Research and your insights, feedback and support.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
7/63
Prologue
is investigation of shared open spaces in Danish subur-
ban environments is grounded in the belief that suburbs aredeserving of the same nuanced study as cities themselves.
A cursory look at Copenhagen’s suburbs shows an environ-
ment consisting of the same types of buildings, infrastruc-
tures, behaviors and attitudes found in suburban America
and other parts of the world. But, a closer examination of
Copenhagen’s suburban landscape reveals that this envi-
ronment exhibits its own unique characteristics. One such
example, and the subject of this work, is shared open space,a type of outdoor space found in many suburban residential
neighborhoods. Although these spaces are not mainstream,
they are abundant, and their presence suggests to me that
suburban environments can exhibit moments of architec-
tural significance.
is study is also inspired by the waning provision of shared
open spaces in new Danish projects. As changing lifestylesevolve towards increasingly privatized lives, it is important to
document the shared open space tradition, ask if it is still rel-
evant today and, if so, explore contemporary interpretations.
Furthermore, a rigourous study of shared open space and
the parochial realm can be used to address architects’ general
distrust for spaces that are neither exclusively public or
private, due in part to Oscar Newman’s Defensible Space;Crime Prevention through Urban Design. Newman’s research
was especially important at its time, when undefined and
poorly designed outdoor spaces were inserted into many
public housing projects. But, unfortunately, his criticisms of
shared open spaces have been so influential among architects
that they unthinkingly avoid designing spaces that are not
exclusively public or private.
Ultimately, it is my hope that this research will lead to
further investigations of suburban landscapes and their
unique characteristics. When architects and planners makegeneralizations about suburbia and base design and policy
recommendations on these generalizations, we risk ignoring
the unique characteristics of these environments. And we
miss opportunities to build on and draw inspiration from
these distinctive aspects.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
8/63
Suburbia and
Shared Open Space
1: Essays
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
9/63
1
Signs of Life in theSuburban Landscape
Suburbia’s Changing FaceTraditionally, architects, historians, sociologists, geogra-
phers and planners have been extremely critical of subur-
ban culture and development despite suburbia’s enormous
popularity among the general public. Outspoken critiques
can be traced back to the middle part of the 20th century in
the writings and observations of Lewis Mumford and Wil-
liam Whyte. e arguments have become more frequent in
recent years, as an increasing number of books, articles andtelevision broadcasts have condemned sprawl and suburbia.
ese scholars and journalists most often criticize suburbia
for being culturally homogenous, environmentally damaging
and physically unattractive.1
Inspired by these critiques, a handful of American architects
began to directly challenge the suburban environment with
design proposals, several of them organizing themselves asthe Congress for the New Urbanism in the early 1990’s.
Despite their work, few other architects have contributed
to the field through research or practice.2 And while the
critique itself of suburbia made by the New Urbanism and
architecture profession at-large reflects the arguments made
by Mumford, Whyte and others, most architects remain
critical of the specific design strategies employed by the New
Urbanism.3
Over the past three years, a number of written works have
begun to question many of the assertions made by the critics
of suburbia. is is partly because the suburban landscape
has changed enormously since the 1950’s, yet contemporary
critiques of suburbia frequently rely on the same arguments
made fifty years ago. A wide and diverse range of scholars
such as Dolores Hayden, Robert Bruegmann, Ellen Dun-ham Jones, Joel Kotkin and Edward Soja have questioned
many traditional assumptions about suburbia, pointing outthat their research frequently contradicts the low-density,
homogenous environment described by earlier critics.4 eir
arguments suggest that there is more to suburbia than meets
the eye and illustrate a number of research findings that
contest traditional views of suburbia, such as:
1. Suburban environments are becoming denser. As
measured by the census bureau, sprawling Los Angeles
is the most densely populated urbanized area in theUnited States.5
2. Suburban environments can be extremely culturally
diverse. e largest immigrant communities in the
United States are no longer found in cities, but in
suburbs outside of Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and
Houston.6
3. e typical suburban family no longer consists of two
parents and children.7
4. Physical boundaries and edges between cities and
suburbs are becoming less clear.8
Whether or not one agrees with the specific points outlined
above or those argued in their books, this new scholarship is
significant because it takes a fresh look at the suburban land-
scape and strives to avoid repeating the typically anti-sub-
urban rhetoric of the last fifty years. But just what does thisnew wave of written work mean for architectural and urban
design practice and research? Can we expect new architec-
tural and planning strategies inspired by this recent wave of
suburban research? If so, what form will they take?
Architects and Suburbia
New architectural proposals within the suburban landscape,
prompted by recent scholarly research, should accept thatsuburbs are complex, idiosyncratic environments, deserv-
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
10/63
2
ing of the same nuanced study as cities themselves. Two
specific strategies used in the scholarly research might also
be of use to architects and architectural researchers. First,
architects could learn from the way that the scholars have
focused on the lived experience and everyday characteristicsof suburban places and lifestyles. Rigorous analysis from
this perspective might reveal unique or unusual opportuni-
ties for new design strategies that are otherwise overlooked
when generalizing the suburban experience and landscape.
Second, architects could benefit from placing existing sub-
urban conditions within a historical context that stretches
beyond the last 50 years of post-World War II sprawl. e
written works by Robert Bruegmann and Dolores Haydenbenefit from stretching the history of suburbia to include
many examples of exurban growth that occurred before the
advent of the automobile. Enlightened by an understanding
of suburbia characterized by an awareness of its history and
lived experience, it is likely that architects may find their role
to be more focussed on researching and retrofitting suburbia,
rather than replacing it.
Although a significant amount of research has explored the
cultural and historic characteristics of the suburban land-
scape, there is little in-depth research of the existing suburbs’
formal and aesthetic characteristics. While it could be argued
that the New Urbanists have contributed in this respect, it is
important to note that their research has focused primarily
on historic urban precedent rather than existing suburban
conditions (although they have developed an understandingof contemporary suburban zoning and real estate practices).
Nevertheless, a small number of examples do exist. Writings
by architects Rem Koolhaas, Peter Rowe, Keller Easter-
ling and Lars Lerup have explored strategies for describing
the physical suburban environment, frequently focusing
on typology.9 Additionally, Brenda Case Scheer and Anne
Vernez Moudon are using GIS to explore formal attributes
of contemporary suburban environments.10
A recent issue ofPlaces Journal was dedicated to the theme of retrofitting sub-
urbia.11 But more research is sorely needed; in their haste to
criticize suburbia as unworthy of attention, architects have
become blind to the suburban landscape’s changing face. And
unlike other disciplines investigating suburbia, architecture
is uniquely qualified to provide insight into the formal andaesthetic characteristics of this environment.
e second contribution that architects could make in
response to the recent scholarship on suburbia is through
specific design proposals that engage and build on existing
conditions. Architects could invent new suburban typologies
or develop new strategies for retrofitting existing suburbs.
Due to their utopian vision, few New Urbanist proposalshave retrofitted existing suburban conditions; most of their
plans for existing suburbs call for completely transforming
or rebuilding these environments. However, a few design
proposals for retrofitting suburban environments or creating
new suburban typologies do exist. A handful of New Urban-
ist schemes have involved transforming regional shopping
malls into walkable, mixed-use communities and Duany,
Plater-Zyberk and Company is developing a proposal fortransforming a corporate office park into a neo-traditional
neighborhood.12 W. Jude LeBlanc and Michael Gamble in-
vented a proposal for retrofitting suburban strips into more
sustainable, pedestrian friendly environments.13 Similarly,
Darren Petrucci developed public amenities facilitating
walking, playing and displaying art along a commercial strip
in Scottsdale, Arizona.14 e architecture firm Lewis.Tsuru-
maki.Lewis created a concept for a new suburban typologythat combines the big box with residences into a single
structure.15 is diverse range of projects suggests that op-
portunities exist for creativity and innovation in the design
of the suburban landscape.
Signs of Life in Suburbia?
One specific aspect of the suburban landscape that could
benefit from architects’ insight is public space. Architectshave a strong tradition of researching and designing urban
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
11/63
3
public spaces, in part because they are particularly quali-
fied to work with their spatial characteristics. However,
investigating public space and the public realm in suburbia
is an especially difficult task. Unlike many urban environ-
ments, suburbs lack clearly defined public plazas, squaresand streets. Furthermore, an increased emphasis on private
development and private lifestyles has led to an environment
in which few truly public activities and places exist. erefore,
suburbia’s public realm is less clearly defined both in terms of its
spatial definition as well as the degree to which it is truly public
when compared to traditional urban environments.
Scholars have criticized suburbia’s emphasis on privateproperty and private lifestyles since the 1960’s. Recently,
architects such as Margaret Crawford and Michael Sorkin
have critiqued the pseudo-public spaces found in suburban
shopping malls.16 But rather than bemoaning what Sorkin
describes as the “end of public space”, architects and architec-
tural scholars should consider exploring existing examples
and new possibilities for the public realm in suburbia. In
fact, examples of vibrant life in suburbia do exist. Ethniccommunities outside of Los Angeles, Houston, Miami and
Washington D.C. exhibit characteristics of public life in
their suburban environments. Recent census data indicates
that suburban residents are more involved in community
groups and activities than urban residents. Perhaps these
traces of public life in suburbia could serve as a starting point
for new architectural research and design investigations into
suburbia’s public realm.
In their recent book In Search of New Public Domain,
Maarten Hajer and Arnold Reijndorp explore how archi-
tects and designers might contribute to the design of public
space. ey urge architects and scholars to stop discussing
the public realm in terms of “loss” and “decline” because this
pessimistic approach may prevent new ways of identifying
and designing public space. Furthermore, they suggest thatarchitects should question traditional definitions of public
space and seek out “which other unexpected places possibly
manifest themselves as a public domain.”17 Likewise, archi-
tect Michael Brill argues that there is a tendency to overlook
some types of public life because they do not fit the tradi-
tional definition. He recommends investigating the realm ofvirtual communications (which replaced the town crier, town
hall meeting and other physical venues for public discourse),
public life that takes place in private spaces and public life
centered on performance, spectacle and consumption.18
Adopting a spirit of optimism and open-mindedness with
respect to defining and identifying public life could be more
advantageous than current practices for two reasons. First,it builds on existing behavior and lifestyles rather than at-
tempting to physically-determine future activity. Second, it
could allow for interventions in existing suburban communi-
ties rather than additional greenfield development.
New Directions
Designing and researching within the suburban landscape is
enormously challenging. e environment’s formal char-acteristics lack the clarity of those found in cities. It is a
complicated environment that is constantly changing, grow-
ing and evolving, yet most architects regard it as unworthy of
study. New directions in architectural practice and research
should focus on this environment and seek out a deeper
understanding of its characteristics. After all, seventy-five
percent of new construction takes place in suburbia.19 e
recent wave of revisionist research suggests that it may betime for architects to reevaluate their (lack of ) involvement
in critically engaging the suburban landscape.
Notes:1 Alex Kriger, “e Costs—and Benefits?—of Sprawl” in Sprawl and Suburbia,
ed. William S. Saunders, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005),44–49.
2 Less than 1% of licensed architects in the United States are also members of theCongress for the New Urbanism.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
12/63
4
18 Michael Brill, “Mistaking Community Life for Public Life,” Places 14, no. 2(2001): 53.
19 Dunham-Jones, “Seventy-five Percent: e Next Big Architectural Project”, 1.
3 Ellen Dunham-Jones, “Seventy-five Percent: e Next Big Architectural Proj-ect” in Sprawl and Suburbia, ed. William S. Saunders (Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 2005), 1–3.
4 Jennifer Howard, “Revising the Suburbs: A New Wave of Scholars ChallengesCommon Assumptions about Sprawl and Urban Growth,” e Chronicleof Higher Education 52, no. 29 (2006), http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=j88qk4jh36gr2zvp82f27f6z1kf5qgz8.
5 Robert Bruegmann, Sprawl: A Compact History (Chicago: e University ofChicago Press, 2005), 5 and Edward Soja, “Regionalization and the RegionalCity” (lecture, e Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of Architec-ture, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 30, 2005).
6 Susan Rogers, “Superneighborhood 27: A Brief History of Change” Places 17,no. 2 (2005): 36–41.
7 Dolores Hayden, Redesigning the American Dream: e Future of Housing,Work, and Family Life (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1984).
8
Robert Bruegmann, Sprawl: A Compact History (Chicago: e Universityof Chicago Press, 2005), 49–50 and Edward Soja, “Regionalization and theRegional City” (lecture, e Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School ofArchitecture, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 30, 2005).
9 Rem Koolhaas, “Junk Space” in Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping , ed.Rem Koolhaas, (New York: Taschen, 2003), 408–421; Peter Rowe, Makinga Middle Landscape (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991); Keller Easterling,Organization Space: Landscapes, Highways, and Houses in America (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1999) and Lars Lerup, After the City (Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 2000).
10 Jacqueline Tatom, “Radial Street as a Timeline” in Suburban Form: An
International Perspective, ed. Brenda Case Scheer and Kiril Stanilov, (NewYork: Routledge, 2004) and Anne Vernez Moudon, “Pedestrian LocationIdentification Tools: Identifying Suburban Areas With Potentially HighLatent Demand For Pedestrian Travel,” Transportation Research Record 1818(2002): 94–101.
11 Ellen Dunham-Jones, ed., Places 17, no. 2 (2005).12 Several notable examples of New Urbanist retrofits do exist, including pro-
posals to transform office parks into loft-like residences and shopping mallsinto neighborhoods. However, these proposals generally require so muchtransformation and are so disconnected from the cultural environment theyreplace that it is debatable whether they can be considered retrofits.
13 Julie Kim, “Incremental Urbanism: e Auto and Pedestrian Reconsidered inGreyfield Reclamation—Atlanta, Georgia,” Places 16, no. 3 (2002): 18–21.
14 Darren Petrucci, “Stripscape: Pedestrian Amenities along 7th Avenue” Places 17, no. 2 (2005): 42–44.
15 Paul Lewis, Marc Tsurumak and David J. Lewis, “Portfolio: New Suburban-ism,” Lewis.Tsurumaki.Lewis, http://www.ltlarchitects.com/pages/portfolio/speculations/newsub.html (accessed June 8, 2006).
16 Margaret Crawford, “e World in a Shopping Mall” in Variations on a emePark: e New American City and the End of Public Space, ed. Michael Sorkin,(New York: Hill and Wang, 1992) 123–53 .
17 Maarten Hajer and Arnold Reijndorp, In Search of New Public Domain: Analy-sis and Strategy (Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2001).
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
13/63
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
14/63
6
it is difficult to pinpoint the specific connections between
community and the built environment, urban planner Emily
Talen argues that American architects’ first priority should
be to strengthen and provide open spaces that can facilitate a
variety of activities, regardless of whether they are public orcommunity–oriented.4 She also points out that community
itself is not dependent upon local, physical places and that
the notion of community is in fact resisted and considered
undesirable by some. Despite these compelling arguments,
it is curious that a culturally diverse range of built environ-
ments throughout history have included spaces designed
specifically for parochial uses, such as courtyards, cloisters
and campuses.
Several architects have argued that architects should design
for distinctions between public and parochial uses. For
example, architect Michael Brill maintains that the parochial
realm is distinct from public and private realms and that
it requires a distinct physical environment. He writes that
“increased emphasis on physical and social isolation and
the private sphere” has led to increasing confusion betweenthe public realm and parochial realm. Brill says that these
two realms “operate at very different scales and densities”,
have their own “purposes, mechanisms and customs” and
require “different physical environments”. Additionally, Brill
argues that suburban neighborhoods need parochial spaces
rather than public spaces. Specifically, he criticizes Peter
Calthorpe and other New Urbanists for designing public
spaces inspired by the classical urban tradition rather thancreating spaces for community interaction, better suited to
the densities and lifestyles New Urbanists envision in their
new towns.5
Architect Clare Cooper Marcus also argues that parochial
spaces have their own design characteristics. Specifically, she
identifies shared outdoor spaces as one type of parochial
space and has documented built examples on the WestCoast of the Untied States. Cooper Marcus argues that
these types of spaces can serve a number of important roles
such as providing a transition between public and private
spaces, a setting for social life and play space for children.
Cooper Marcus also criticizes New Urbanist developments
for not including these types of spaces in their projects.6
Ultimately, both arguments are valid. It is commonsensical
that the public, private and parochial realms can occupy a
variety of physical spaces and locations. But there is also a
rich tradition of designing specific spaces to facilitate specific
types of activities and groups of users. While the realms of
human behavior themselves are transient, the spaces they
occupy are necessarily fixed and determined. When it comesto designing and building a space, the best an architect can
do is to match the needs and desires of potential users with a
space that facilitates them. But as Brill points out, it may be
problematic for architects to generalize space as either public
or private. It is into this gap that shared open space should
be considered, along with other types of hybrid spaces that
exist along the continuum between private and public spaces.
While more research may be unable to pinpoint the specific
relationships between the parochial realm and semi-public
spaces, it seems foolish for designers to ignore the history of
these spaces and simplistic for them to consider designing
for exclusively public and private realms.
Notes:1 Jan Gehl and Lars Gemzøe,New City Spaces (Copenhagen: Danish Architec-tural Press, 2000), 10–13.
2 Lyn H. Lofland, e Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential SocialTerritory (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1998), 11–14.
3 Lyn H. Lofland, 10.4 Emily Talen, “A Matter of Priorities: New Urbanism and Community Life,”
Places 15, no. 3 (2003): 77–80.5 Michael Brill, “Mistaking Community Life for Public Life,” Places 14, no. 2
(2001): 50.6 Clare Cooper Marcus, “Shared Outdoor Space and Community Life” Places 15,
no. 2 (2003): 32–41.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
15/63
7
Defining Shared Open Space
is series of project-related definitions borrows from the
fields of sociology, architecture and urban design.
Public Realm consists of exchanges among a collection of
individuals who are unknown to one another.
Private Realm consists of intimate connections between
individuals within a family or close personal network.
Parochial Realm consists of connections between friends
and neighbors sharing something in common.
Public Space is a physical location that facilitates activities
of the public realm.
Parochial Space is a physical location that facilitates activi-
ties of the parochial realm.
Private Space is a physical location that facilitates activitiesof the private realm.
Shared Open Space is a type of parochial space that facili-
tates interaction between residents of a community. ese
common outdoor areas are frequently jointly owned and
maintained by the residents.
Also called Shared Outdoor Space or Community Greens.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
16/63
8
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
17/63
9
A Brief History of SharedOpen Space in Suburbia
Shared open spaces can be found in many different culturesthroughout history. Courtyards, surrounded and shared by
several dwellings can be traced as far back as the Incas in the
13th century, BC. More recent, western examples of shared
open space include monastic courtyards and the green spaces
surrounded by academic buildings in the American campus
planning tradition beginning with omas Jefferson at the
University of Virginia.
In both northern Europe and the United States, contempo-
rary examples of shared open space can be found in a small
number of residential developments. ese spaces can be
traced throughout the brief history of suburban expansion in
these countries, to the early 19th century. Shared open space
has generally been a more suburban than urban phenom-
enon.1
Shared Open Space in the United States
Shared open spaces are conspicuous in Dolores Hayden’s
history of American suburbia, Building Suburbia: Green
Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000. From the beginnings
of suburban expansion, Hayden writes that Americans were
enamored with building the “triple dream”: house, nature and
community.2 As the story unfolds it becomes clear that third
component, community, is always the first to suffer when de-velopers and builders try to increase their profits. e small
presence of community spaces in the suburban landscape
may also suffer from an increased focus on private lifestyles.3
Nevertheless, a surprisingly rich collection of shared open
spaces can be found in several periods of American suburban
expansion.
e first examples of shared open space in the American
suburban landscape were built during the 1840’s, 50’s and
60’s in communities labeled picturesque enclaves by Hayden.
Unlike the ad-hoc initial phase of suburban expansion, this
second period of growth involved the construction of sub-
divisions; communities consisting of detached homes, parks
and streets were built cohesively. Reacting to the isolationfound in the first suburbs, these builders actively incorporat-
ed shared parks and common spaces into their plans, hoping
to encourage a sense of community.4 Some of these neigh-
borhoods were constructed by religious groups and others
associated with the communitarian movement. ey aspired
to build a new model capable of reforming society and be-
lieved that “shared open space was essential to a new kind of
community life.”5
Llewellyn Park, located near Eagleswood,New Jersey was one such communitarian project. Led by
the religious Perfectionist Llewellyn Haskell and designed
by Alexander Jackson Davis, the community consisted of
private detached homes set in a shared landscape of forests
and meadows.
Nearly fifty years later, two new types of American commu-
nities integrated shared open spaces into their plans: gardencities and greenbelt towns. roughout the interim period,
streetcar suburbs and unplanned communities consisting
of mail-order houses had developed along the city’s fringes.
ese two new models reacted to the unplanned growth of
suburban areas and suggested new models for communities
that considered open space, different modes of transit and
a mixture of housing types, things frequently missing in the
street car and mail–order suburbs. e garden city move-
ment originated in England in 1898 but achieved a modest
level of success and a great deal of publicity in the United
States during the 1920’s and 30’s. e most well-known
community is Radburn, New Jersey which conspicuously
features a network of shared open spaces. Houses face the
spaces and are served by small, alley-like streets. A net-
work of pedestrian and bicycle paths link the shared spaces
together.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
18/63
10
Twenty Greenbelt towns were constructed beginning in the
1930s. ese communities, such as Greenbelt, Maryland,
benefitted from federal funding and frequently included
shared open spaces, a mix of housing types and cooperative
grocery stores, drugstores and gas stations.
Few American suburbs built after World War II include
shared open spaces. Although the co–housing movement in
Scandinavia caught on in the United States, its presence was
fairly modest. New suburban model communities such as
Columbia, Maryland and Reston, Virginia include commu-
nity parks, but they cannot be accurately labeled as shared
open spaces. Likewise, the most significant critical reactionto post-World War II development, the New Urbanism,
includes neighborhood parks and town squares in their plans
but avoids the inclusion of shared open space.
Shared Open Space in Denmark
In Denmark, shared open space has enjoyed a much longer
and more recent place in the history of suburban develop-
ment. ese spaces premiered in several medical-housing,worker-housing and cooperative-housing projects in the
mid-nineteenth century such as Brumleby and the Classen
Trust project just outside of Copenhagen’s city walls. Shared
open space was a tool used to provide fresh air and sun-
light to the residents as well as space for outdoor activities.
However, many projects during this time, such as Kartoffel-
rækkerne, did not include shared open spaces because they
were more profit-driven, rather than led by philanthropic
organizations. It is important to note however, that at Kart-
offelrækkerne and in some other projects, the narrow streets
eventually took on the role of a shared open space. ese
pre-automobile, neighborhood streets were not comfort-
able for through traffic and residents eventually removed a
number of parking spaces, replacing them with trees, picnic
tables and playgrounds.
Shared open spaces were rediscovered again by Danish
architects in the 1950’s and 60’s as a tool in new, large-scale
housing developments. A housing shortage at the time was
addressed by government programs that encouraged pre-
fabrication and other industrial building techniques. Early
projects usually consisted of high-rise multi-family towerssurrounded by parking lots and parks. e negative impact
that these projects had on social interaction was quickly
identified by some architects and a new movement called
dense-low began. High-density housing areas of two-three
stories were achieved using the same industrial building
methods. Architects focused on creating courtyards, shared
open spaces and pedestrian networks between the buildings.
Projects such as Albertslund and Galgebakken are strongexamples from this period.
e most recent Danish projects to incorporate shared open
spaces are the co-housing dwelling types developed in the
1970’s and 1980’s. ese projects were a critical response
to the single-family detached suburban developments and
appealed to middle class homebuyers seeking a sense of
community. e co-housing concept called for a series ofprivate dwellings surrounding shared open spaces and shar-
ing a common house. Residents assisted each other with
various chores as well as social activities. e common house
included a shared kitchen and dining room, for optional
nightly community dinners, play areas for children, laundry
facilities and other common uses.6
Common emes
Within the context of a historic framework, shared open
space can be seen as a critical strategy used by architects and
visionaries to critique the urban and suburban environments
of their day. e earliest examples of suburban shared open
spaces in Denmark reacted to the crowded and unhealthy
living conditions in Copenhagen’s city center. In the United
States, the picturesque enclaves developed during the same
period were extremely critical of the ad-hoc suburban expan-
sion that directly preceded it and its lack of community. e
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
19/63
11
Danish projects in the 1950’s and 60’s were a reaction to the
tower in the park visions advocated by Le Corbusier and
CIAM. Likewise, the co-housing movement sought to recre-
ate a sense of community within the context of increasing
autonomy and private lives led in suburbia.
In this sense, it is useful to identify that the shared open
space typology is characterized by an ideology that advocates
community life and seeks to provide for the diminishing
importance of community life in suburban development and
contemporary lifestyles.
Notes:1 Emily Talen, “A Matter of Priorities: New Urbanism and Community Life,”
Places 15, no. 3 (2003): 77.2 Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000
(New York: Vintage Books, 2003), 5-9.3 Michael Brill, “Mistaking Community Life for Public Life,” Places 14, no. 2
(2001): 50.4 Dolores Hayden, 45.5 Dolores Hayden, 45.6 For more about the history of housing in Denmark, see Jorn Orum-Nielsen,
Dwelling: At Home, In Community, On Earth (Copenhagen: e Danish Archi-tectural Press, 1996).
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
20/63
12
Shared Open Space
in Denmark
2: Case Studies
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
21/63
13
The Danish Tradition ofShared Open Space
When Copenhagen demolished its fortification walls half-way through the nineteenth century, development spilled out
and eventually sprawled fairly neatly along the five fingers of
the 1947 regional plan. Although rigid planning regulations
were in place, the new suburban residential building typolo-
gies consisted primarily of market-driven suburban villas
and modern residential high-rises, resulting in suburban
living environments that are fairly similar to those in other
western countries. But amid the market-oriented develop-ment, a series of critical reactions led to the invention of
several experimental living models. ese innovations, such
as the co-housing and dense-low strategies, are especially
unique because of their well-designed shared open spaces.
For Danish architects, the provision of shared open space
was a tactic with which to challenge the increasingly priva-
tized lifestyles found in Copenhagen’s suburbs.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
22/63
14
Timeline Danish Shared Open Space
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
23/63
15
is timeline identifies the primary
types of Danish projects that most often
incorporate shared open space: worker
and medical housing, dense-low housingand co-housing. Related economic, po-
litical and architectural events are noted
to provide context.
Projects highlighted in green are investi-
gated in further detail as case studies.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
24/63
16
Early Suburbs: Brumleby
During the 19th century, a number of plans emerged for new
housing projects built outside of Copenhagen’s old fortifica-
tion walls. ese projects fall into three categories: workerhousing served factory employees and military personnel;
medical housing explored strategies to replace unhealthy
urban living conditions; and low-income, co-operative hous-
ing models sought affordable housing for a growing popula-
tion of industrial workers. Despite the variety of intents, the
projects that emerged from these three groups were relatively
similar in form. Generally, they each included a series of tra-
ditional Danish row-houses facing streets with varying pro-visions for private yards and shared outdoor spaces. Today,
many of these projects are considered among Copenhagen’s
most desirable living areas.
Built outside of the city walls in 1853 as a response to a
cholera epidemic and cramped urban living conditions,
Brumleby can be thought of as one of Copenhagen’s first
planned suburban developments. Designed by architectMichael Gottlieb Bindesbøll, this project challenged the
congestion, noise and unsanitary conditions found in typical
housing projects of the day.
e significant difference between Brumleby and other Dan-
ish worker housing projects is that Bindesbøll incorporated
many common spaces and facilities into the masterplan.
His strategy for this unusual approach offered a numberof advantages: first, he managed to keep project costs low
by sharing outdoor amenities rather than providing them
separately for each dwelling unit, second, the shared spaces
served to encourage community interaction and finally, the
provision of open spaces created opportunities for sunlight
to reach every dwelling.
e plan organizes dwelling units in narrow facing rows,separated by different types of open space: streets, front
stoops, private gardens, and common lawns. Access to the
project is through gates on the east side of the site and a
narrow opening to the west. e character of these entrance-ways is significant because it indicates that the spaces inside
are not for explicit public use, yet they do not completely
bar access to visitors and non-residents. e dwelling units
open to two very different environments on either side. eir
fronts face onto small stoops and the street while the backs
open to small private gardens and the common green.
A behavioral study of stationary activities on a sunny sum-mertime afternoon revealed that nearly all human activity
occurred on the sunny side of the buildings and in the soft
edges adjacent to the shared open spaces, such as the front
stoops and backyards. Private outdoor yards that did not
face shared open spaces were not active. is suggests that
the design of the edges of a shared open space is just as
important as the provision of the shared space itself.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
25/63
17
Facts
Built: 1853
Architect: Michael Gottlieb Bindesbøll
Developer: Medical Housing Association
Dwelling Units: 236
Site Area: 3.764 hectares (9.3 acres)
Density: 62.7 units/hectare (25.4 units/acre)
Building Height: 2 stories
Ownership Type: Rental
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
26/63
18
0 100 200 300m0 5000 10000 15000m
0 10 20 30m
Shared Open Spaces
StreetStreet Lawn Lawn Street
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
27/63
19
0 25 50 75m
Shared Open Space[park–like character]
Shared Open Space[street–like character]
Soft Edge
[private backyard]
Soft Edge[front stoop]
Buildings
Open Entry[clear demarcation]
Adult Sitting
Adul t Standing Adul t Ac tivi ty (doing something)
Child Playing
Child Standing
Child Sitting
Stationary Activity DataSUNNY SATURDAY AFTERNOON6 JUNE 2006
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
28/63
20
Dense–Low: Galgebakken
In the 1950’s and 60’s, Danish architects constructed
modern, high-rise residential towers in response to a hous-
ing shortage. Before long, critiques of the living conditions
found in these International Style buildings led the govern-
ment to encourage new approaches. Several architectural
competitions and experimental projects explored low-rise
communities while adhering to the low-cost housing laws
and industrialized housing production process used in the
high-rise projects.
In the winning entry of a 1969 design competition, archi-
tects A. & J. Ørum Nielsen and Storgaard and Marcussen
applied industrial building technologies to a high-density,
low-rise community. Like many of the dense-low communi-
ties, Galgebakken successfully incorporates several different
types of shared space between the dwelling units. Together,
these different areas create a hierarchy of increasingly public
spatial types. Each one-story rental unit opens onto a pe-
destrian lane. is four meter wide path provides pedestrian
access to the dwellings and widens into a small courtyard at
each dwelling’s entryway. e pedestrian lanes connect to a
larger network of neighborhood lanes that are also pedes-
trian-oriented. ey provide space for common facilities
such as playgrounds and workshops and serve to connect
the pedestrian lanes to the larger community, including a
neighborhood park. Parking is accommodated in several lots
and connected to the dwelling units through the network
of pedestrian lanes and neighborhood lanes. e pedestrian
lanes, neighborhood lanes and park represent three different
scales of shared open space. Although each is accessible, their
proportions and architectural character indicate varying
degrees of privacy.
Interviews with current and former residents indicated that
the pedestrian-friendly character of this environment pro-
vided children with an enormous amount of independence
compared to traditional residential neighborhoods. One
father recalled how he allowed his two-year old daughter to
walk alone to her friend’s house. Now an adult and living
in a typical neighborhood consisting of detached homes
and streets, she doubts that her children will have the same
experience.
One of the most unusual aspect of Galgebakken, is its archi-
tects’ sincere desire to encourage residents to feel responsibil-
ity for their homes and community through adaptation of
the pedestrian lane courtyards. Residents were allowed to
paint their homes, build small additions and landscape their
front courtyards. Additionally, the neighborhood lanes of-
fered space for future common facilities.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
29/63
21
Facts
Built: 1972
Architect: A. & J. Ørum Nielsen and Storgaard and
Marcussen
Dwelling Units: 644
Site Area: 20 hectares (50 acres)
Density: 32.2 units/hectare (12.9 units/acre)
Building Height: 1–2 stories
Ownership Type: Rental
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
30/63
22
0 5 10 15m
0 100 200 300m0 5000 10000 15000m
Shared Open Spaces
Pedestrian Lane Pedestrian Lane
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
31/63
23
0 25 50 75m
Shared Open Space[neighborhood lane]
Shared Open Space[pedestrian lane]
Soft Edge[private outdoor space]
Parking Area
Open Entry[clear demarcation]
Private Backyard
Adult Sitting
Adul t Standing Adul t Ac tivi ty (doing something)
Child Playing
Child Standing
Child Sitting
Stationary Activity DataSUNNY SATURDAY AFTERNOON6 JUNE 2006
Shared Open Space[common space]
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
32/63
24
Co-housing: Trudeslund
A more radical approach to shared open space emerged in
the 1960’s and gained momentum in the 1980’s. In 1964,
Architect Jan Gudmand-Høyer organized a group of friends
and together they endeavored to create a neighborhood
characterized by the sense of community lacking in contem-
porary suburban developments. Inspired by omas More’s
Utopia and Danish communities such as Brumleby, they en-
visioned a new housing model in which each family lived in a
separate home yet shared common facilities, some meals and
services. By the early 1970’s the idea had caught hold and
many groups began discussing the co-housing concept and
by 1980 twelve communities had been successful. In 1981
a new law established by the Ministry of Housing provided
a new method for financing co-housing. roughout the
1980’s, the co-housing concept grew in popularity.
Trudeslund, located in a quiet neighborhood of single-fam-
ily houses in a northern Copenhagen suburb, was designed
by the architecture firm Vandkunsten and constructed in
1981. Like many other co-housing projects, Trudeslund was
initiated by a group of like-minded individuals who were
interested in an alternative, community-focused lifestyle.
Vandkunsten, an architecture firm inspired, in part, by the
social values characteristic of the 1960’s cultural revolution,
was also the architect of many other co-housing projects
throughout the 1970’s and 80’s.
At Trudeslund, Vandkunsten repeated a parti used in several
of their other projects. e dwellings are organized into an
L-shape with the community house and common facilities
located in the center. By clustering the homes in this format,
two narrow pedestrian-only streets are created. Each dwell-
ing fronts a shared pedestrian street and on the other side,
opens to quieter, backyard patio areas. By locating parking
in one portion of the site and placing several shared facili-
ties (such as the group kitchen and laundry) in one area, resi-
dents are required to walk between their cars, the common
facilities and their home. Residents use the pedestrian streets
for this purpose. is formal organization of parking, dwell-
ings and common building encourage chance encounters
between neighbors. e pedestrian scale of the streets and
restriction of automobiles also creates a human-scaled, child-
safe environment. ese characteristics encourage social
interactions that are absent in most suburban environments.
Unlike the previous case studies, Trudeslund’s dwellings are
for sale and located in a relatively wealthy suburb—proving
that successful shared open spaces can be found in housing
areas regardless of socio-economic status. An interview with
one current resident revealed that the Trudeslund lifestyle
represented an attractive alternative to the privatized char-
acter of the adjacent suburban areas.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
33/63
25
Facts
Built: 1981
Architect: Vandkunsten
Dwelling Units: 33 (plus one common building)
Site Area: 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres)
Density: 23.6 units/hectare (9.4 units/acre)
Building Height: 1–2 stories
Ownership Type: For Sale
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
34/63
26
0 100 200 300m0 5000 10000 15000m
0 5 10 15m
Shared Open Spaces
Park and Woods Pedestrian Street
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
35/63
27
0 25 50 75m
Parking Area
Private Backyard
Buildings
Shared Space[pedestrian street]
Shared Common Building[kitchen, dining, play room, laundry]
Shared Space[woods and playground]
Adult Sitting
Adul t Standing Adul t Ac tivi ty (doing something)
Child Playing
Child Standing
Child Sitting
Stationary Activity DataSUNNY SATURDAY AFTERNOON6 JUNE 2006
C t l f Sh d O
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
36/63
28
NyboderCopenhagen
1631 (extended in 18th century)
Nyboder was an extension of Copenhagen ex-ecuted by King Christian IV. e dwellings werebuilt for the Royal Navy and originally includedshared open spaces between the buildings. Today,
these spaces have been converted into privatebackyards. e diagram to the right shows whatNyboder might look like today if the shared openspaces had remained.
Catalog of Shared OpenSpacese examples illustrated in this catalog represent several
critical Danish projects that include shared open spaces
located in Copenhagen and its suburbs.
Brumleby Copenhagen
1853
Brumleby was a new type of dwelling area builtoutside Copenhagen’s city walls in response to thecity’s cholera epidemic. Shared open spaces be-tween the buildings provide for both recreationalactivities as well as access to sunlight and fresh air.
See page 16 for further details.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
37/63
29
The Classen ProjectFrederiksberg
1866
e Classen Project, inspired by Brumleby,included many shared paths and open areasbetween buildings. It was one of the first Danishprojects to address Copenhagen’s mid-19th cen-tury demand for suitable working class housing.e buildings were gradually demolished duringthe 20th century.
KartoffelrækkerneCopenhagen
1873–89
e “Potato Rows” were built by an organized as-sociation of working class people for themselves.Because the development was more market-ori-ented than Brumleby and the Classen Project,there was no provision for shared open space.However, during the second half of the 20thcentury, the residents converted several parkingspaces in the middle of each street into a sharedoutdoor space featuring trees, picnic tables andgrills.
City BlocksCopenhagen
early 1900’s
Many city blocks were retrofitted in order to cre-ate shared open spaces, provide better daylightingto apartments and remove industrial buildingsfrom the middle of the blocks. As industriesmoved their operations from the city into thesuburbs and countryside, their inner block build-ings could be demolished and replaced with openspace.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
38/63
30
SøndergårdsparkenGladsaxe
1949–50
Søndergårdsparken is a large neighborhood oftraditional Danish dwellings organized arounda network of shared open spaces. A series ofnarrower shared areas link to one larger sharedopen space.
SolgårdenCopenhagen
1930
Solgården is a typical example of the new trendto incorporate shared open spaces inside urbanblocks.
Hornbækhus Copenhagen
1922–23
Designed by prominent architect Kay Fisker,Hornbækhus is a classic example of a new trendin the 1920’s and 1930’s to build landscaped areasinside city blocks, rather than building additionalbuildings in the courtyards. e open spaceprovided both a recreational amenity and betterdaylighting to units.
Albertslund Syd
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
39/63
31
Albertslund SydAlbertslund
1963–68
Albertslund was one of the first mid-century
housing projects to work within the constraints ofthe prefabrication techniques used for high-riseconstruction but configured in a high-density,low-rise arrangement. Shared open spaces figureprominently in the strategy and are used as anorganizing device for single-story, L-shapedcourtyard dwelling units.
Solbjerg HaveCopenhagen
1977–80
Solbjerg Have arranges dwelling units, a kinder-garten and elderly center around pedestrian-onlyshared open spaces. Playgrounds and sitting areasare provided at various points along the streetand its edges are defined by private terraces andbalconies.
GalgebakkenAlbertslund
1972
Galgebakken improved upon the conceptsdeveloped at Albertslund Syd. A sophisticatednetwork of 3 uniquely scaled types of shared openspaces organizes the dwelling units in this high-
density, low-rise project. e transitions betweenprivate indoor spaces, private outdoor spaces andshared spaces are especially successful.
See page 20 for further details.
Tinggården 1 & 2
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
40/63
32
Jystrup Savværk Jystrup
1983–84
At Jystrup Savværk, Vandkunsten transformedthe shared outdoor space into a covered, climate-controlled space. It functions similarly as do theshared pedestrian streets in their other projects,but can be used throughout the year and ininclement weather.
TrudeslundBirkerød
1981
Also designed by Vandkunsten, Trudeslund isa co-housing community of attached dwellingsarranged around an L-shaped shared open space.Private outdoor balconies and terraces line the
shared pedestrian way as well as the rear side ofthe homes. A common building with kitchen andlaundry facilities is in the center of the plan. isarrangement can be found in many of the 1970’sand 80’s co-housing projects.See page 24 for further details.
Tinggården 1 & 2Herfølge
1971–78; 1978–84
e projects at Tinggården were a continuationand advancement of ideas explored at the begin-ning of the dense-low movement. At Tinggården,the architects, Vandkunsten, worked very closelywith the future residents to create spaces andbuildings that reflect an unusual degree of user-participation while maintaining the architect’screativity. e architectural language drew fromvernacular Danish forms and materials.
Sibeliusparken
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
41/63
33
Diana’s HaveHørsholm
1991-92
Diana’s Have maintains its site’s former naturalsetting by delicately positioning the buildingswithin a shared open space. Narrower spacesbetween the buildings connect the automobiledriveway with the front entrances of the dwell-
ings.
SibeliusparkenRødovre
1986, 1994
Sibeliusparken organizes attached dwellings forlow-income families along shared open spaces.Small private yards and balconies line the spaces,which have a pedestrian street-like character.ese soft edges contribute to enhancing “eyes onthe street” and have helped to reduce crime in thiscommunity.
Design Principles
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
42/63
34
Design Principlese principles illustrated below describe several strate-
gies employed by many of the most successful shared open
spaces. While it is unlikely that a single space would incor-
porate all of these principles, most of the spaces studied inthis report include most of these strategies.
Boundaries: Provide cleardemarcations between public
space, shared open spaceand private space.
Shared spaces are separated from public spaceand streets by architectural elements that clearlydistinguish a threshold such as archways, stepsand gates. Shared spaces are separated fromindoor dwelling areas by “soft edges”, privateoutdoor areas such as terraces, stoops, porchesand small yards. Threshold
Definition: Define sharedopen space by the dwellingsit serves.
Proximity of homes and shared open space canencourage use, increase interaction betweenresidents and build a sense of ownership andresponsibility.
Soft Edge
Scale: Design and
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
43/63
35
Scale: Design anddimension the space forhuman activity.
Unlike grand public squares or auto-oriented
streets, shared open spaces can be places that areintimately scaled for human experience. e per-ceived size and proportions of the space shouldrelate to the activities within.
Connections: Provide aline of sight between dwellingunits and shared open space.
A clear line of site between private areas andthe shared open space provides an opportunityfor adults and children to see each other and in-creases safety. Because parents can safely monitortheir children from indoors, they are also more
likely to allow them to play in the space.
Flexibility: Create opportu-nities for customization and
personalization.
By allowing residents the freedom to custom-ize their environment (for example, choosingpaint colors, landscaping outdoor areas, etc.), anincreased sense of pride and responsibility can beachieved among residents.
Accountability: Allow for
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
44/63
36
yboth shared use and sharedresponsibility.
A sense of ownership can be encouraged by
requiring the residents themselves to constructand/or maintain the shared open space.
Activity: Encouragenecessary outdoor activitiesby grouping shared amenitiestogether.
If automobile parking, bicycle parking, rubbish re-ceptacles and other functional needs are groupedtogether rather than provided for separately ateach dwelling unit, residents will be required tomove through the shared open spaces, therebyactivating them.
Typical Development Shared Open Space
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
45/63
37
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
46/63
38
Three Proposals Using
Shared Open Space
3: Concepts
Design Concepts
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
47/63
39
In Denmark, the presence of shared open spaces in new
projects is waning and in the United States, few shared
open spaces have been constructed since the 1960’s. Butas American metropolitan areas embrace the principles of
smart growth, cities and counties are seeking strategies that
increase dwelling densities in existing communities with-
out damaging existing architectural character and property
values—an especially difficult task. American developers,
planners and architects need to explore new models for liv-
ing within this context. In cities such as Portland, Palo Alto
and Los Angeles, zoning revisions and design competitionshave been used as tools to develop new typologies for infill-
ing existing residential neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, many of the new projects constructed within
this context pay little attention to the quality of the spaces
between buildings and their relationship to adjacent build-
ings. Developers’ desire to accommodate the automobile at
the expense of the human experience and their unwilling-ness to pursue strategies untested by the market has led to
the construction of many un-inspiring new projects. Shared
open space is a tool that has been used in the past to achieve
modest dwelling densities while allowing for quality outdoor
space and access to light and air.
e following three proposals are concepts for new develop-
ment in existing neighborhoods. Each builds on the lessonslearned from the Danish tradition of shared open space and
seeks to re-appropriate it for the contemporary American
context.
Three in One
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
48/63
40
As cities and their inner suburbs densify many municipali-
ties (including Portland, Oregon and Palo Alto, California)
are rewriting their zoning ordinances to allow for higher-density, context-sensitive development in neighborhoods
that were originally first-ring and second-ring streetcar
suburbs. Municipalities can increase tax revenue and supply
the demand for housing using this strategy, but they also
risk alienating current residents who may not be in favor
of higher density development and its perceived negative
impact on property values. e challenge is to find a way to
introduce higher density residential projects on single-familylots while simultaneously respecting the context and charac-
ter of adjacent properties.
In order to increase density, lot coverage inevitably increases,
leaving little room for attractive, usable outdoor spaces.
Shared open space can be a tool to provide needed outdoor
areas and for the spatial organization of the design.
Lot sizes in the old, first and second ring suburbs can vary
between 15–20m (50’–75’) wide by 30–45m (100’–150’) in
length, allowing for three basic configurations, illustrated on
the following pages.
Providing on-site parking creates a particularly difficult
challenge. In the unlikely case that a municipality allows
the parking provision to be fulfilled on street, more site areacan be used as shared open space. When parking must be
provided on site, it is useful to design and detail the parking
and driving areas so that they are primarily pedestrian areas
that are simply shared with automobiles.
Private outdoor spaces should be generously provided and
can serve as a transition between the buildings and adja-
cent open spaces such as the street, shared open space andadjacent lots.
From a market perspective, it is important for these infill
projects to respond to their context, in order to mitigate the
concerns of existing residents and the potential for dropsin adjacent property values. However, contextual sensitivity
should be achieved by consciously respecting the scale and
materials found in adjacent buildings rather than mimicing
architectural style. Many recent infill projects have failed
because they have essentially packed the contents of a higher
density, infill building typology into the clothes of a tradi-
tional single family detached home—symbolizing “home”,
but failing to provide quality craftsmanship and well-de-signed outdoor space.
Proposals for this type of infill development will require
adjustments to existing zoning ordinances in order to allow
for higher densities and smaller setbacks. e proposals
illustrated here, supplemented by additional studies, could
be used to help identify appropriate setbacks, minimum
dimensions between buildings, drive lane dimensions andadditional parameters for this type of development. Adjust-
ing existing zoning and development standards is the first
step in encouraging this type of development.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
49/63
41
Double-LoadedDwellings are organized
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
50/63
42
Dwellings are organizedaround a central, linearshared open space.
Four 1600 sf dwellings face a shared open spacewhich can also be used to provide auto access tothe units. By eliminating curb-cuts and integrat-ing auto access, pedestrian access and play areasinto one unified space, quality outdoor space canbe provided in this narrow plan. If automobileaccommodation is required, a minimum lot widthof 75’ is needed to provide sufficient dimensionsfor turning radii and parking.
Single-LoadedDwellings are situated on oneside of a linear shared openspace.
ree dwellings (2 @ 1200 sf and 1 @ 1600 sf )are aligned on one side of a shared open space.Curb-cuts are eliminated to integrate auto accessand pedestrian-oriented space. A minimum 50’
wide lot is required. If two adjacent lots can beacquired, this layout can be used on each lot tocreate one larger shared open space (i llustrated onthe previous page). In this case, auto access couldbe provided on the rear side of the dwellings.
SplitA shared open space in the
middle of the site organizesdwellings to either side.
Four 1000 sf dwelling units can be arrangedaround a shared open space. e dwellings arebased on a traditional row-house model. Curb-cuts are eliminated to integrate auto access andpedestrian-oriented space. A minimum 50’ widelot is required.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
51/63
43
Eight Acre Shared-division
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
52/63
44
In many suburbs opportunities to infill small, in-between
sites that were not developed by larger development com-
panies are becoming increasingly common. In other cases,changes in zoning policy or property ownership may make a
small site desirable for small-scale residential development.
Although the conventional suburban model is market-prov-
en, it is fairly in-efficient in density and does not create an
active public realm. Its wide streets are designed for exclusive
automobile use and the open spaces between the dwellings
themselves are each privately owned.
A New Urbanist approach to the 8 acre site could be more
efficient by clustering the buildings closer together. is
would also create more formal definition for the streets.
Shared driveways and rear alleys help to minimize the visual
impact of automobiles. However, because these types of infill
sites are so small, there is no opportunity for the mixed-use
buildings, public buildings parks. Without these elements, itis difficult to create a comprehensive New Urbanist plan in
this context.
e shared open space alternative arranges the dwell-
ing units around a series of spaces. is approach creates
uniquely human-scaled spaces and can actually enhance the
natural environment by encouraging more compact building
development, preserving more natural areas and reducingimpervious surfaces. e pedestrian access lanes create a hu-
man-scaled environment and an appropriate place for chil-
dren to play. is space is contrasted by a larger, preserved
natural area on the site that is also shared by residents.
Private outdoor spaces for terraces and gardens are provided
adjacent to the dwellings and create a “soft edge”.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
53/63
45
Conventional Subdivision
Shared Open Space Sub-division
Pedestrian Street
Private Yards and Terraces
Auto Parking and AccessLane
Shared Park Space
Conventional SuburbanModel
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
54/63
46
is conventional suburban development modelis based on an existing subdivision outside of
Baltimore, Maryland.
Dwellings: 20Density: 2.5
New Urbanist Model
A reinterpretation of the existing develop-ment model based on New Urbanist principlescan achieve a higher density and improvedstreetscape.
Dwellings: 30Density: 3.75 units/acre
Shared Open SpaceModel
e shared open space approach to conventionalsuburban development achieves higher densityand drastically reduces the amount of impervioussurfaces on the site. A radically different, human-oriented streetscape is also created.
Dwellings: 30Density: 3.75 units/acre
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
55/63
47
Backyard Retrofit
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
56/63
48
In the United States, suburban homes are growing larger and
lot sizes smaller. Smart Growth principles—favoring denser
development—and developers’ desire to maximize profits areresponsible for this trend. In many communities, frontyards
and backyards are so small that they are almost unusable for
many activities and fulfill only a symbolic role. By consoli-
dating a portion of each backyard on a block, a larger, more
useful space can be created for residents while still maintain-
ing private backyard terraces, gardens and decks.
Additionally, the shared open spaces can contain bioswalesfor excess stormwater runoff, wind-generated power devices
and other sustainable features, providing strategies for
transforming suburban neighborhoods into more environ-
mentally–friendly communities. In this sense, this concept
could not only generate a forum for community life—so
desperately needed in many suburban neighborhoods—but
also serve as a strategy for transforming existing subdivisions
into environmentally sustainable communities.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
57/63
49
Pedestrian Street
Wind Turbines for LocalPower
Shared Park Space
Wind Turbines for LocalPower
Conventional SuburbanBackyardsPrivate backyards are
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
58/63
50
Private backyards aretypically defined by a highfence and contain a small
patio and lawn.
Shrinking backyards in contemporary suburbandevelopments are sometimes as small as 15 ft by10 ft. ese yards provide very little space forrecreational activities and children to play.
Terrace and Shared
Open Space Strategy A private patio opens onto ashared park.
A private patio can be defined by fences andhedges, therby providing the same level of privacytypical of conventional backyards. By combiningthe reamining backyard areas together, a largerand more functional space is created.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
59/63
51
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
60/63
52
Bibliography
B ill Mi h l “P bl i h Mi ki C i Lif G hl J Lif B B ildi U i P bli S C
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
61/63
53
Brill, Michael. “Problems with Mistaking Community Life
for Public Life.” Places 14.2 (2001): 50.
Bruegmann, Robert. Sprawl: A Compact History. Chicago:
e University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Cooper Marcus, Clare. “Shared Outdoor Space and Com-
munity Life.”Places 15.2 (2003): 34.
Cooper Marcus, Clare. “Shared Outdoor Spaces.” Lecture
presented at Center for Public Space Research LectureSeries. e Center for Public Space Research. e Royal
Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture, Copenhagen.
7 October 2005.
Crawford, Margaret. “e World in a Shopping Mall.” in
Variations on a eme Park: e New American City and the
End of Public Space, ed. Michael Sorkin, 123–53. New York:
Hill and Wang, 1992.
Dunham-Jones, Ellen, ed. Retrofitting Suburbia. Places 17.2
(2005): 8–67.
Dunham-Jones, Ellen. “Seventy-five Percent: e Next Big
Architectural Project.” in Sprawl and Suburbia, ed. William
S. Saunders, 1–3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 2005.
Easterling, Keller. Organization Space: Landscapes, Highways,
and Houses in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
Kriger, Alex. “e Costs—and Benefits?—of Sprawl” in
Sprawl and Suburbia, ed. William S. Saunders, 44–49. Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.
Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Copen-
hagen: e Danish Architectural Press, 2003.
Gehl, Jan and Lars Gemzøe. New City Spaces. Copenhagen:
Danish Architectural Press, 2000.
Hajer, Maarten and Arnold Reijndorp. In Search of New
Public Domain: Analysis and Strategy. Rotterdam: NAI
Publishers, 2001.
Harris, Richard and Peter J. Larkham, ed. Changing Suburbs:Foundation, Form and Function. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Hayden, Dolores. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban
Growth, 1820-2000. New York: Vintage Books, 2003.
Hayden, Dolores. Redesigning the American Dream: e
Future of Housing, Work, and Family Life. New York: W. W.
Norton and Company, 1984.
Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: e Suburbanization
of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press,
1985.
Kim, Julie. “Incremental Urbanism: e Auto and Pedes-
trian Reconsidered in Greyfield Reclamation—Atlanta,
Georgia.” Places 16.3 (2002): 18–21.
Koolhaas, Rem. “Junk Space” in Harvard Design School
Guide to Shopping, ed. Rem Koolhaas, 408–421. New York:
Taschen, 2003.
Lerup, Lars. After the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2000.
Lofland, Lyn H. e Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quint-
essential Social Territory. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc.,
1998.
Vernez Moudon, Anne. “e Subdivision of the Single-Fam-
ily House in the United States.” Nordisk Arkitekturforskning
Nr. 3 (1995): 59-78.
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
62/63
54
McCamant, Kathryn, Charles R. Durrett and Ellen Hertz-
man. Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to HousingOurselves. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, 1993.
Monderman, Hans. “Shared Space.” Lecture presented at
Center for Public Space Research Lecture Series. e Center
for Public Space Research. e Royal Academy of Fine Arts
School of Architecture, Copenhagen. 5 January 2006.
Soja, Edward. “Regionalization and the Regional City.” Lec-ture presented at e Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts
School of Architecture, Copenhagen. 30 September 2005.
Orum-Nielsen, Jorn. Dwelling: At Home, In Community, On
Earth. Copenhagen: e Danish Architectural Press, 1996.
Rowe, Peter. Making a Middle Landscape. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1991.
Scheer, Brenda Case and Kiril Stanilov, ed. Suburban Form:
An International Perspective. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Southworth, Michael and Eran Ben-Joseph. Streets and the
Shaping of Towns and Cities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Talen, Emily. “A Matter of Priorities: New Urbanism andCommunity Life.” Places 15.3 (2003): 77–80.
Talen, Emily. “Exorcising the Ghost of Emily Latella.” Places
15.1 (2002): 69.
Vernez Moudon, Anne. Ed. Public Streets for Public Use. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc., 1987.
Illustration Credits
Photographs
8/20/2019 Fulbright Final
63/63
55
PhotographsFrom Jorn Orum-Nielsen, Dwelling: At Home, In Community, On Earth. (Co-penhagen: e Danish Architectural Press, 1996), 143. Frederiksberg Library
(page 28 middle
From Jorn Orum-Nielsen, Dwelling: At Home, In Community, On Earth.(Copenhagen: e Danish Architectural Press, 1996), 122. Copenhagen’s CityMuseum (page 29 top)
From http://193.89.24.223/arkfo/kanon/top12stat.aspx (page 30 bottom)
Lars Gemzøe (page 32 top and bottom)
From http://www.vandkunsten.com (page 33 middle)
Ryan Sullivan: All other photographs.
Drawings and Diagrams:Based on a diagram by Jan Gehl. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space.Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press, 2003, 128. (page 36 middle)
Ryan Sullivan: All other drawings and diagrams.