«Mrn O.S. design of the housing site ( MAiVt .V 1967 J a critique of American practice . Robert D. Katz The studies and field work which formed the basis for this report were jointly financed by the Federal Housing Ad¬ ministration under its Technical Studies Program, by the Urban Renewal Ad¬ ministration, and by a contribution from the Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association. The publication of this report was made possible through an Urban Renewal Demonstration Grant awarded by the Urban Renewal Administration, Depart¬ ment of Housing and Urban Develop¬ ment, under the provisions of Section 314 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, to the University of Illinois. The Housing and Home Finance Agency, including its constituents, the Public Housing Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Urban Renewal Administration, was superseded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Reference to the HHFA and its constituents, therefore, should be read in this context. Department of Housing and Urban Development Robert C. Weaver, Secretary Urban Renewal Administration William L. Slayton, Commissioner This report is the product of the Univer¬ sity of Illinois and does not necessarily represent or coincide with the standards or policy of the Federal Housing Admin¬ istration. design of the housing site a critique of American practice Robert D. Katz IJ WSOB m i'--' ä y]. ■m wêêê mm wfi M sj Ihhhhhhmh mtmm Distributed by Small Homes Council-Building Research Council, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 1966 Acknowledgments Many people throughout the United States contributed to this publication in a variety of different ways. I am in¬ debted to all of them. I am particularly grateful for the encouragement and helpful criticism I received from James R. Simpson and Bernard T. Craun of the Architectural Standards Division of the Federal Housing Administration; Howard Cayton and Don I. Patch of the Urban Renewal Administration; and Morris E. Trotter, Jr., of the Public Housing Admin¬ istration, all of Washington, D.C. Of my University of Illinois colleagues, special thanks go to Dean Allen S. Weiler and Professors William I. Good¬ man, Rudard A. Jones, and Louis B. Wet- more. I was fortunate in having a staff of very able assistants. Those who made an outstanding contribution are: Russell V. Keune, DeWayne H. Anderson, and Gary A. Hack, in charge of mobile home park research, site plan preparation, and report production, respectively. Additional thanks go to Judith H. Eckert and my wife, Lubitsa, for their invaluable editorial assistance. It is with profound respect that I acknowledge the contribu¬ tion of Robert P. Kentgen, who, before his tragic death, designed the cover and the format of this book. Contents Summary 9 1 Nature of the Study u Background and Objectives 11 Methodology 12 Graphics 14 2 Housing Types and Residential Density 17 Reasons for Increasing Housing Density 17 Definitions and Classification of Housing Types 20 Multifamily Dwelling Types — Vertical Attachment 21 Multistory Apartment Buildings — Elevator 21 Multistory Apartment Buildings — Walk-up 23 Duplexes 29 Multifamily Dwelling Types — Horizontal Attachment 30 Row Houses 30 Single-Family Dwelling Types 35 Atrium-, Court-, Patio-House 35 Traditional Detached Single- Family Houses 37 Mobile Homes 38 Mixing of Dwelling Types 40 Measures of Housing Intensity and Residential Density 42 Housing Intensity 42 Residential Density 42 3 The Site 45 A Site and Its Immediate Neighborhood 46 Site Size and Shape 52 Special Considerations for Large Sites 57 Topography and Climate 57 Buildable Qualities 59 Conservation 64 4 The Plan — Private and Communal Aspects 67 Relation of Housing Type to Site 67 Relation of Housing Site to Community 67 Relation of Housing to Occupant Needs 73 Relation of Buildings to Buildings 77 Adequate Light and Air 77 Vistas 78 Spatial Enclosures 78 Usability of Space 89 Privóte Outdoor Space 89 Communal Spaces 94 Waste of Open Space 98 Structuring of Open Space 104 5 The Plan — Functional Aspects 113 On-Site Traffic 113 Pedestrian Circulation 115 Vehicular Circulation 121 Vehicular Storage 123 Utilities 130 Landscape Treatment and Site Furniture 132 On-Site Growth and Change 135 6 Innovations 139 Innovations by Location 140 Inner-City Areas 140 By-Passed Sites and Older Neighborhoods 146 Scattered Locations 148 Outlying Areos 150 Innovations by Occupant Characteristics 156 Housing for the Elderly 156 Young Adults 158 Innovations by Site and Construction Characteristics 158 On-Site Parking and Circulation Systems 158 Open Space 162 Industrial Houses 165 7 Site Planning Regulations and Design Incentives 169 Historic Precedents 169 Sound Community Development 169 Protection of Property Values 170 Reflection of Commonly Held Values 170 Keeping Pace with Changes 171 Types of Controls 172 Building Codes 172 Zoning Ordinances 173 Subdivision Ordinances 184 Other Regulations 186 Design Incentives 187 8 Conclusions 191 Practice of Site Planning 191 Land 191 Circulation and Vehicular Storage 196 Building Design and Type 200 Occupant Needs 202 Site Size 203 Multiple Use of Sites 204 Housing Densities 204 Residential Environment 205 Site Design Responsibilities and Process 206 Coordination 206 FHA's Role 208 URA's Role 208 PHA's Role 210 Regulations and Controls 210 Towards Improved Site Planning 212 Public Expectations 212 Public Leadership 212 Designers' Role 212 Experimentation 213 Criticism 213 Appendix I. Project Staff and Major Contributors 21 Appendix II. Selected References 216 List of Illustrations 219 summary The goal of this report is threefold: to identify factors, both technical and pro¬ cedural, essential to high quality resi¬ dential site planning,- to document cur¬ rent practices throughout the United States; and, where appropriate, to rec¬ ommend ways of improving site plan¬ ning. The focus is on design and its relation to livability. Prior to the preparation of this report, extensive field work was undertaken with major emphasis on the metropolitan areas where the greatest amount of housing is being built. During the field- work phase, two objectives were pursued with special interest: 1. Investigation of development factors and physical characteristics influenc¬ ing the quality of site planning of multifamily housing projects. 2. Investigation of single-family housing to determine ways of increasing in¬ tensity without sacrificing livability. The conclusions listed below are the most important ones of the study. Their order does not indicate any priority, but in¬ stead follows the organization of the body of the report. 1 The bulk of current site planning in the United States is of mediocre quality. Exceptions are random since they do not seem to fall into any discernible geographic pattern or relate to any particular housing program. Good practice is attrib¬ utable to a combination of skillful designers and motivated developers. 2. Open space voids are receiving dis¬ proportionately less design study than structural masses. The result is that sites lack spatial organization even though individual building fa¬ çades may be pleasing. 3. Failure to plan open space for use causes waste of land. 4. Multifamily housing offers little real privacy. Usable private outdoor spaces are not provided. In addi¬ tion, interior privacy is jeopardized by uncontrolled access to communal outdoor areas. 5. In lay and official circles, multifam¬ ily housing is considered a poor second to living in or owning a sin¬ gle-family detached house. This opinion discourages efforts to im¬ prove the quality of design for 10. multifamily housing. ó. Mobile home parks are generally of uninspired design because nei¬ ther the homes nor the parks are designed by professionals and be¬ cause community attitudes toward mobile homes are derisive. ^ ^ • 7. Generally little effort is made in advance of occupancy to determine the needs of tenants of multifamily ^ ^ housing. Design decisions take in¬ adequate account of family differ¬ ences in size, type, and values. 8. Traditional concepts of single-use planning dominate and prevent many efforts to mix uses and hous- ] 3 ing types on a single site. Lack of variety produces monotonous phys¬ ical appearances and also pre- 14 eludes any focal points for social activities. 9. An examination of site neighbor¬ hoods should be a precondition for plan approval. Site plans are often prepared and evaluated with little respect for project environments. Efforts should be made to attract more talented designers into public service by offering them positions with substantial responsibilities. Government employment is not held in high esteem by most design pro¬ fessionals. Design review by qualified perma¬ nent staff or consultants should be mandatory for all federally aided programs. Existing regulations should be re¬ vised to minimize inconsistencies and bureaucratic complexities, and to place the emphasis on design goals instead of quantitative measures. Less overriding concern with risks and more financing of site planning experiments are needed. Discussion of design shortcomings should be as common as publicity of good design. Professional criti¬ cism of site planning and housing is rare. nature of the study . . It is criticism that pushes towards quality."1 Background and Objectives The goal of this study is to identify tech¬ nical and procedural factors essential to high quality development and to docu¬ ment current residential site planning practice in the United States. It is against the background of increasing criticism of the physical quality of hous¬ ing environments in this country that the goal has been set. While major empha¬ sis is placed on site planning and its re¬ lation to livability, it is hoped that the findings and recommendations pre¬ sented here will be useful to all profes¬ sionals working in design and associated fields, and will culminate in a more cre¬ ative handling of the total — physical, 1 Jerzy W. Soltan, "The Eternal Seesaw," Pro¬ ceedings of 1965 Urban Design Conference {Cambridge, Mass.- Harvard University Graduate School of Design), p. 57. economic, and social — housing environ¬ ment. The first part of the study, which con¬ sisted of field work, had the following objectives: 1 investigation of the development fac¬ tors and physical characteristics in¬ fluencing the quality of site planning design of multifamily housing proj¬ ects, and 2. investigation of single-family housing developments to determine ways of increasing intensity without sacrific¬ ing livability. Field work entailed extensive travel and site inspection — over 700 separate housing sites in thirty metropolitan areas. The data assembled include more than 6,000 photographs and close to 500 site plans. The second part of the study, the evalu¬ ation of data and the preparation of this report, had the following objectives: 1 evaluation of current site planning — good [1-3], poor [4-6], and medi¬ ocre [7-9] —of publicly assisted and privately financed housing pro¬ grams; 2. evaluation of older housing sites that have retained their high quality to determine site design factors relevant to today's housing needs,- 3. examination of the influence of zon¬ ing and other regulatory and proce¬ dural devices on the quality of site design; 4. identification of significant site plan¬ ning factors applicable to a range of housing types and locations, includ¬ ing experimental projects, that sug¬ gest new techniques for site plan¬ ning; and NATURE OF THE STUDY 1 5. recommendation of ways to improve both the practice and process of site planning in the United States. The report is primarily descriptive — profusely illustrated so that the reader will be able to "see" for himself what the characteristics of current site plan¬ ning are. It is not intended that the re¬ port prescribe "ideal" site planning standards or be limited to detailed dis¬ cussion of a few specific sites. Both pos¬ itive and negative aspects of current practices are included, with no particu¬ lar program or group of individuals be¬ ing singled out for responsibility. 2 It is hoped that the study will achieve its objectives by: (1) creating a point of departure for setting of higher standards so that a choice will exist between al¬ ternative high quality sites and not be¬ tween commonplace solutions, and (2) serving as background for continuing examinations of housing practice and policy. Methodology Early consultations were held with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Urban Renewal Administration (URA), the sponsors of this study, and the Public Housing Administration (PHA), to shape the basic objectives and 12 NATURE OF THE STUDY procedures to be followed. At these consultations the target cities for inves¬ tigation were selected. A final list com¬ prising a range of practice in all sections of the United States was compiled. In addition to geographic considerations, cities were chosen with an eye to the special interests of FHA, URA, and PHA. These respective interests were satisfied by the inclusion of the following: areas experiencing the greatest volume of new building,- cities with active local urban renewal agencies, particularly those uti¬ lizing different design-review and site- control procedures; and finally, small- and medium-sized communities within larger metropolitan areas notable for a lower intensity of housing than that typ¬ ically found in central city projects. 3 As work progressed, periodic meetings with representatives of government and professional organizations were held in Washington, D.C.~ Much excellent help and advice came from them and the study was reshaped accordingly. Many written materials — familiar references from the literature of housing — were consulted. These provided useful back¬ ground information and perspective. Sgl- Appendix I. See Appendix II. Field work began in June, 19Ó3, and continued intermittently through Octo¬ ber, 1965. Approximately 700 sites (ranging from eleven to forty-one per metropolitan area) were visited. The travel itinerary was arranged to permit inspection of sites under both favorable and unfavorable weather conditions to give as accurate a picture of year-round living as possible. In each major city a uniform procedure was followed. Approximately one week was spent in discussions with local offi¬ cials and designers and inspecting and photographing sites. Meetings were held at the FHA insuring office in each city. These were arranged by FHA's Architectural Standards Division, and at¬ tended by representatives of FHA, URA, PHA, and the American Institute of Ar¬ chitects (AIA) as well as by local devel¬ opers. At these meetings, the objectives of the study were explained and a basic set of questions was posed: 1 What types of multifamily housing are being constructed and what are the characteristics of the sites? 2. What, if any, innovations in single- family housing are being built or planned which permit higher densi¬ ties than traditionally associated with such housing? 3. Are sites being developed with a mixture of housing types and/or a mixture of uses'3 4. Do local ordinances and administra¬ tive practices (especially zoning and FHA review) influence site planning? The following categories of sites were identified: 1. multifamily sites representing high, average, and poor quality planning for the community in question; 2. single-family sites having potential for increased density without loss of I i v a b i I i t y ; and 3. older sites of timeless good quality where the planning is not out-of-date by present standards of individual and community needs. NATURE OF THE STUDY 13 Sites were also selected on the basis of financing to include: 1 PHA high- and low-rise housing for families with children and for the elderly; 2. housing built in urban renewal areas,- 3. FHA insured projects at central city and outlying locations; 4. conventionally financed housing; and 5. housing financed under special pub¬ lic programs and/or posing unique site planning problems because of occupant characteristics, such as col¬ lege dormitories and housing for the elderly. Finally, three other kinds of sites re¬ ceived special attention: 1. projects that have received awards and national publicity for excellence of design; 2. projects still in the planning state that show promise of new directions in design techniques; and 3. mobile home parks, including exam¬ ples of FHA insured parks. About one year after the outset of field work it was decided to expand the study to include representative examples of the three major types of mobile home parks (housing, service, and resort) wherever possible in the original twenty- five metropolitan areas. This allowed for a comparison of a range of housing types within a particular locality. Even¬ tually five more metropolitan areas with mobile home parks worthy of study were added, bringing the total list to thirty [10]. Mobile home parks that were vis¬ ited were recommended by the national manufacturers' associations, state trade organizations, local housing officials, and professionals acquainted with mo¬ bile home parks in their respective areas. In many of the cities where housing in urban renewal areas was under con¬ struction, separate meetings were called to inquire of the role of design profes¬ sionals in site planning for these renewal projects. To this end, the following spe¬ cific questions were asked: 1. Who was responsible for the site de¬ sign (the developer's architect, the staff of the urban renewal agency, u consultant, etc.)? 2. What procedure was followed for land disposition of parcels desig¬ nated for housing use? 3. What design advisory services and plan review were provided by the staff of the urban renewal agency or its consultants? NATURE OF THE STUDY 4. What site design controls exist in the urban renewal plan? Graphics The photographs and plans of sites that appear in this report document typical current site practice. They are intended to illustrate the various principles and points discussed in the text. They are not intended to focus attention on or to supply damaging evidence against spe¬ cific developments and individuals. As a consequence, identifications are with¬ held in the body of the report. The lo¬ cations of all sites appear in the List of Illustrations on page 219. The names of well-designed projects and the archi¬ tects involved are given where known. Virtually all of the site plans have been drawn to the same scale, 1 inch equals 100 feet, to facilitate comparisons. The few exceptions, which are readily iden¬ tifiable, are drawn at 1 inch equals 500 feet and are so noted in the List of Illus¬ trations. Except where noted otherwise, north is toward the top of the page on all plans. The plans show principal build¬ ings on-site, pedestrian circulation sys¬ tem, vehicular circulation system and parking lots, and screening walls. No effort is made to distinguish ground materials other than paved and planted areas. The plans are based on archi¬ tects' and landscape architects' draw¬ ings, published plans, photographs, and field notes. Minneapolis-j St. Paul, Minn. Detroit. Coturobos, Indionapc •Donvor, Colo Kansas Cil Colorado w\anW, fucjon. Dallas-Fl. Worth, Texas Houston, Texas • Metropolitan areas where the full range of housing types were visited o Metropolitan areas where a range of housing types, excluding mobile home parks, were visited □ Metropolitan areas where only mobile home parks were visited NATURE OF THE STUDY 15 housing types and residential density "The best characteristics of higher density are social complexity with¬ out congestion.'" Chapters Two, Three, Four, and Five pro¬ vide a setting against which current site planning practices in the United States may be viewed and evaluated. In addi¬ tion to personal experience and obser¬ vations from field investigation, housing reports and design references have been used as bases for the material presented here. The various elements of site de¬ sign, from considerations of economy and location to purely creative ones, are treated in turn, and documentation in the form of photographs and site plans of a range of prevailing housing types is pre¬ sented. Rather than to prescribe a par¬ ticular housing type, location, or site plan as being "best," the primary con- 1 Lewis Mumford, from the film series, "The City in History," produced by Ihe National Film Board of Canada. cern in these chapters is to describe what actually exists. From this some final con¬ clusions are drawn and some suggestions expressed in the last chapter. Chapter Two includes: 1. reasons for increasing housing den¬ sity, 2. definitions and classifications of hous¬ ing types, and 3. measures of housing intensify and residential density. Reasons for Increasing Housing Density Continuing urbanization, growth of met¬ ropolitan areas, increases in population, rising building costs, and shrinking sup¬ plies of buildable land make the provi¬ sion of adequate and economical urban housing a difficult problem to resolve. An obvious solution is the construction of well-designed multifamily and dense single-family housing. "Density" is a measurement of the num¬ ber of housing units or people for a specific area of land. The term "high- density" is a relative one; it differs in meaning from community to community. However, it is used here to refer to hous¬ ing in excess of approximately twenty- five dwelling units per net residential acre. This term should not be mistakenly equated with "over-crowding." Indeed, high-density housing has some very posi¬ tive and unique advantages. If carefully planned and executed, it can offer in¬ door living space comparable to that of low-density single-family dwellings, and HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY even greater outdoor space. This space, when properly planned and equipped, can serve the outdoor needs of a num¬ ber of families in u highly satisfactory manner. Economically, an advantage of high- density housing lies in reduced costs of utility networks and transportation sys¬ tems. Sewers, water mains, electric power lines, for example, are frequently less costly for clustered, compact hous¬ ing than for housing scattered at low densities. High-density housing that is concentrated in groups at various places throughout a community can provide a ready, built-in market large enough to support some form of public transporta¬ tion. The higher the density, presumably the greater the number of potential cus¬ tomers and the more economical the services. As it now stands, urban and suburban sprawl are responsible for ris¬ ing transportation costs in terms of both dollars and time. The commuter and taxpayer alike bear the brunt of expen¬ sive highway networks and mass transit systems required to connect city centers and outlying areas. Another toll is taken through the sacrifice of open space land for parking facilities for private auto¬ mobiles. Additional advantages of high-density housing are these: it engenders a com¬ munity feeling and identity by virtue of the fact that a number of people live in close proximity, and it facilitates the conservation of land resources for use as recreation space. To large segments of the population — the elderly, the childless couple, the single adult, and small groups of working adults — high- density housing has a special appeal. An apartment can be cheaper than a house. It does not require any individ¬ ual responsibility for maintenance of either the dwelling unit or outdoor grounds. It enhances opportunities for sociability afforded by ease of contact with others of similar age and interests. For the elderly in particular, such accom¬ modations may be preferable to the single-family house which can be physi¬ cally demanding and lonely. A house emptied of children and activity might be for some a sad reminder of fuller days. Since the American population is a highly mobile one, multiple housing serves another useful purpose. It offers opportunities for attractive rental apart¬ ments throughout the country, a real boon to those moving into a new com¬ munity. The value of high density as a counter¬ balance to the spread of American cities is by no means a recent concept. As early as the 1920's, Le Corbusier was advocating increasing net residential densities in his "Plan for a Contempo¬ rary City of 3 Million Inhabitants," with tower apartments of low coverage to allow abundant park and recreation land for the enjoyment of center city residents. Unlike the congested tene¬ ments they were intended to replace, these skyscrapers would have light and air, while parks and playgrounds would be close at hand at the base of the apartment towers [11-14]. HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY The new technology that excited men of vision like Le Corbusier, unfortunately, in the hands of thoughtless builders and their designers, has resulted in overstan- dardization and design monotony. To¬ day, large concentrations of identical housing — the apartment building [15], the mobile home [16], the small home [17] —are an all-too-familiar sight in our cities. If high-density housing is dull and if it takes a back seat to single-family hous¬ ing (that the latter is the preferred hous¬ ing type in the United States seems clearly established), the fault is not with any theory or technical knowledge. Rather the inadequacies lie in policy, programming, design conception, and execution. The responsibility for the quality of our housing environments be¬ longs to designers, developers, and in some measure to the consumer public. Definitions and Classification of Housing Types Housing types may be classified accord¬ ing to-. 1 . number of dwelling units per build¬ ing; 2. size of building (either by dimensions or by number of stories); 3. generic name — e.g., high-rise, gar¬ den apartment, town house; 4. physical relation of structures—e.g., detached, attached, row. 20 HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY The individual dwelling units within a building type also bear different labels — e.g., apartment or flat in high-rise. A generic classification of housing types has certain limitations because of the inconsistent, confusing way terms are sometimes used. "Town house," for ex¬ ample, can refer to a dwelling, two or more stories in height, that is attached to other dwellings along one, two, or three common walls. In some communi¬ ties it is used to distinguish rental from owner-occupied accommodations with little reference to dwelling unit charac¬ teristics or site planning features. It is now in vogue with developers who use it as a substitute for the term "row house" which apparently in the eyes of some — seller and buyer — has a less desirable connotation. Where usage is consistent, generic names are employed in this report. To avoid any confusion, housing is further described according to visual character¬ istics of building size and internal ar¬ rangement of dwelling units. For exam¬ ple, a row house will be described as two-story, or three-story; a duplex, as containing units side-by-side or one over the other. Such a combined system of classification is particularly appropriate in a discussion of site planning where knowledge of building height and internal design are critical to the evaluation of two-dimensional plan arrangements. 16 17 In this section housing types are consid¬ ered in a descending order of develop¬ ment intensity. Multifamily dwelling types — vertical attachment Multistory apartment buildings — elevator Of all the housing types this is the easi¬ est to identify and to define. Often known as "high-rise," to distinguish it from lower walk-up buildings, a multi¬ story apartment building is over three floors in height with one or more apart¬ ments per floor. In the United States such residential structures are almost al¬ ways equipped with at least one eleva¬ tor, either by regulation or common practice. Beyond the three-story level, the number of floors is determined by construction techniques, elevator manu¬ facture, and local zoning ordinances. Approximately one hundred sites visited during the course of this study had build¬ ings over three floors. These ranged in height from four to sixty stories. Roughly 40 per cent were between four and ten stories,- 45 per cent between eleven and twenty; 15 per cent over twenty-one stories. Included in this sample are both public housing projects and luxury apart¬ ment buildings. The latter were usually single buildings and the former, two or more identical structures. Traditionally, tall buildings were found only in the central portions of large cities [18, 19]. However, land shortages, high housing costs, and a widening accep¬ tance of apartment living have changed this picture. For example, in Cincinnati, Houston, Miami, and ten other metropol¬ itan areas that were visited, there are elevator apartments outside the central core of the city [20, 21 ]. Such buildings are frequently situated along major wa- HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY 21 terways and other locations offering out¬ standing features or views (no doubt reflecting high land value as well) or adjoining major regional shopping facil¬ ities and in the centers of new, planned communities (see page 151). Many build¬ ings accommodate nonresidential as well as residential uses in the same structure [22] or on the same parcel of land [23]. Parking facilities are planned to serve both. Multistory apartments vary in shape as well as in height. The most common shapes are: the slab (whose form de¬ rives from the internal, central, double- loaded corridor or the single-loaded corridor), the tower or "point block" (characterized by a central circulation core from which a limited number of apartments open at each floor), and the multiwing building (with a combination slab and point internal circulation ar¬ rangement). 22 HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY Multistory apartment buildings — walk-up This type of building has no elevator. The old tenements fall into this category and include some with as many as five floors. However, walk-up buildings be¬ ing constructed today rarely exceed three stories in height.- This means that the tenants have a maximum of two flights of stairs to climb excluding trips to utilities and storage in a basement. Having no elevator, the walk-up offers savings in the cost of mechanical equip¬ ment and savings in usable floor space, with no undue inconvenience to the oc¬ cupant [24-26]. Of the walk-up sites observed during the course of this study, two-thirds had two floors and the remainder three. While there are the ubiquitous brick buildings on the edges of central business districts ' In some states an architect's seal is not re¬ quired if residential structures do not exceed three stories. Local zoning ordinances frequently limit heights by numbers of stories, or the equiv¬ alent in feet, so that three floors is the maximum allowable in most residential districts. Such a limitation frequently has as its objective the blending of new three-story walk-up apartment buildings with older single-family buildings which, in many communities, are two floors plus on attic. HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY 23 24 HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY of most medium- and large-sized Amer¬ ican cities [27-29], the newer walk-up developments, particularly those in out¬ lying areas are showing greater variety in exterior design, site planning, and size of development [30-33]. 'Garden apartment" is now a eu¬ phemism for a two- or three-story walk-up and does not automat¬ ically mean that the buildings are grouped around common usable open spaces or are consistent in any other internal or external plan characteristics. "Garden apartment" was probably orig¬ inally used to distinguish suburban apartments where open space and gar¬ dens were dominant design features, from the older, urban tenement apart¬ ments where almost the entire site was used. Although garden apartments were at one time designed primarily for those who could not afford or did not choose to maintain a house and garden of their own, this is no longer the case. Some of the earliest garden apartments in the United States are the work of Clarence Stein, Henry Wright, and their col¬ leagues. Inspired by Ebenezer Howard, Raymond Unwin, and others from the English Garden City movement, these 1 Kevin Lynch, Sife Planning (Cambridge, Mass. M I.T. Press, 1962), p. 137. American planners were unable to real¬ ize their theoretical "Garden Commu¬ nity" and were forced to settle for a more modest development which con¬ sisted only of housing.' The first of their projects, Sunnyside Gardens, built in 1924, consists of groups of buildings sited to enclose open spaces in the cen¬ ter of the blocks [34-37], The open spaces meet the needs of both young and old by providing separate places for active and passive recreation. There are two categories of walk-up apartment buildings worthy of special 1 Clarence S Stein, Toward New Towns for Amer¬ ica (New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1957), p. 19. mention — maisonettes and single-fam¬ ily structures which have been converted to multiple occupancy. A maisonette is a private apartment of at least two stor¬ ies located in a walk-up building [38, 39]. Though fairly common in Europe, such apartments, sometimes called "du¬ plexes," are generally confined to lux¬ ury buildings in the United States. In England the term "maisonette" is used to describe both the dwelling unit and the building which contains these units. Residents of the upper apartments enter the lower level of the building by way of a semiprivate staircase. Once inside their own apartment the occupants use a private stair that gives access to the second floor of their maisonette. A vari- HOUS1NG TYPES AND DENSITY 27 ant of the four-story building (with two- story apartments over two-story apart¬ ments) is a three-story building with either the top or the bottom level used for efficiency apartments — and a mai¬ sonette occupying the remaining two floors. At sites with a marked change in grade between the front and rear of the same building, it is possible to plan the units so that all have direct access to private outdoor space — the one-floor apartments on the low side of the build¬ ing and the two-story apartments on the upper side. The single-family structure converted into apartments [40-43] represents a hous¬ ing type that is extremely difficult to dis¬ tinguish by exterior observation alone. After conversion, few changes to the site are visible, with the possible exception of supplementary parking facilities and pedestrian walkways leading to exterior staircases. Conversion represents a sub¬ stantial segment of the total housing supply, particularly in older cities and older neighborhoods. Since most design issues related to converted structures deal with internal spaces, this type of walk-up does not fall within the scope of this study. (For a notable exception, see illustrations 237 and 420 of the Mt. Adams area of Cincinnati, Ohio, where the utilization of roof tops for usable open space has application in new construction.) 28 HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY 44 Duplexes The term "duplex" refers to a single structure consisting of two separate dwelling units [44, 45]. It may be a two-story walk-up building in which one dwelling unit is situated over another, with access to the upper apartment by means of a private staircase. It may also be a structure having two dwelling units located side-by-side, with the indi¬ vidual units on one or more levels. (As noted on page 27, "duplex" is a term also used to describe an apartment of two floors in a multistory building.) The majority of duplexes are found in older sections of cities and in the inner ring of suburbia. Exceptions are in com¬ munities with a tradition of two-family dwellings, such as Philadelphia, and where local zoning specifically refers to the duplex as the most intensive residen¬ tial type allowed, usually in transition or buffer areas between single-family and multifamily housing districts. Duplexes are no longer as popular as they once were. They have been eclipsed by other housing — single-family houses in the suburbs, and large new apartment com¬ plexes with many conveniences on the same site. From "duplex" has grown a whole fam¬ ily of "-plexes" — "triplex," "fourplex," "eightplex," and so on. The prefix iden¬ tifies the number of dwelling units in the building, which is usually two stories high. A variation on the two-story four¬ plex, with two units each per floor, is the quatrefoil, which is a one-story square building with a unit in each corner pro¬ viding each apartment with at least two exposures. The converted single-family structure can also be classified as a "-plex." Sometimes houses are built with eventual conversion in mind. The separate quarters can become a source of extra income or may be intended for some elderly member of the family. When local building and zoning ordi¬ nances permit, the original structure may remain intact internally and the second unit may be added on the back or side. HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY 29 Multifamily dwelling types — horizontal attachment Row houses Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century fore¬ runners of contemporary row housing still exist both in Europe (the crescents at Bath and the town houses of London and Paris, for example) and in the United States (in such cities as Philadelphia [46-48], New York [49], Boston, and Washington). Row housing can be defined as a line of dwelling units, attached at the side or rear by means of common walls, com¬ prising an architectural whole. Each dwelling unit occupies the internal space from the ground to the roof. Depending 30 HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY upon local usage, this housing type is variously called town-, terrace-, group-, chain-, or attached-housing [ 50-52 ]. Al¬ though they can range from one to three and even four stories in height, ordinar¬ ily row houses are two stories. This is the densest type of housing that permits direct access to private outdoor space at grade for every dwelling unit. Some maisonettes built on sloping sites also have this characteristic where the upper unit has land on one side of the build¬ ing and the ground-floor unit on the other side. These are sometimes called "stacked row houses." 53 54 Historically, these houses were built as individual dwelling units constructed along the lot lines of individual land parcels [53-55]. This in part helps to explain the contemporary practice of treating the façades of row units differ¬ ently to give the impression that each dwelling in the row was constructed separately. 55 HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY 33 Until fairly recently, row housing was found primarily in central city locations. The spread of cities, however, and the parallel increase in multifamily housing construction has resulted in the scatter¬ ing of row housing throughout metro¬ politan areas [56-58]. Like the duplex it often serves as a transition between detached dwellings and apartment build¬ ings. Location influences the size of yards. In outlying areas, where land costs are lower than in central city areas, the siting of row housing is like that of walk-up buildings. Both try to duplicate the large front yards of expensive single- family units. In central areas the yards are much smaller and even nonexistent. Attached housing is often built right up to the front lot line, again consistent with the site planning of neighboring con¬ struction. From an observation only of exteriors, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish some row housing from walk-ups. The main clues are the number of mailboxes, front doors, utility connections, and meters. Windows also offer a clue. Windows of the first and second floors of row houses may differ in size whereas they will be identical in walk-up build¬ ings. The importance of being able to distinguish housing types is that knowl¬ edge of interior space arrangements — number and size of dwelling units — is a key to the appraisal of exterior site space planning. Even more crucial is information about the composition of the families living in them. 34 HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY Single-family dwelling types Atrium-, court-, patio-house . . the term 'court-house' refers to a single-family dwelling-unit consisting of one or more courts partially or com¬ pletely surrounded by living areas."' It can be attached, hence a subtype of row housing, but usually it is a detached structure [59-61]. Accordingly, it is classified here as a single dwelling type. Architecturally it is related to Egyptian, Greek, and North African housing of centuries ago. Then as now, the cre¬ ation of an "inward-directed house" by enclosing an area to provide totally pri¬ vate open space and simultaneously a source of light and air to the interior was the primary design goal. This de¬ sign is an especially happy choice for very small lots because some private outdoor space is assured regardless of lot size. If grouped together [62-64], either as attached or detached units, court-houses can have additional out¬ door space — communal space for rec¬ reation, garages, etc. Court-houses are found in transitional or medium density zones of cities. These zones may be close to the central areas of medium- size cities or on the outskirts of larger ones. On the basis of the very small sample of court-houses encountered dur¬ ing field work, no rigid or predictable location pattern is discernible. ' Norbert Schoenauer and Stanley Seeman, The Court-Garden House (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1962), p. 3. HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITY nn I jrï H LJLJ >* off-site conditions is perhaps even more repre¬ hensible. If buildings are arranged in arbitrary grid fashion, if views are ig- ' Ada Louise Huxtable, "More on How lo Kill a City," The New York Times, March 21, 1965, p. X 17. nored, and if land is stripped of vegeta¬ tion, this is not just bad site planning, it is no site planning [141-143]. Admittedly land costs and zoning reg¬ ulations are often the arbiters of the density of housing to be built on a given site. Nevertheless, within these confines, a choice of housing types remains. For example, depending upon the size of individual dwelling units and the amount and location of on-site land available for private and communal use and park¬ ing facilities, it is possible to build row houses at higher densities than walk-up apartments or row houses at lower den¬ sities than elevator apartments. The final decision of what to build should be de¬ termined on the basis of a comprehen¬ sive examination of many related influ¬ ences — community housing objectives, housing market, site conditions, sur¬ rounding area development, occupant needs — and not by any single influ¬ ence, creative caprice, or blind depen¬ dence on traditional solutions. Relation of Housing Site to Community Through its regulations, a community imposes constraints on site planning, as does the design of surrounding sites. A site planner must contend with these constraints. Rarely, if ever, does he have complete design freedom. Yet, the illustrations in this report of contempo¬ rary housing project sites are clear evi¬ dence that some designers have met the challenge and have taken giant steps forward while others have fallen behind. PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 142 Ideally, the development of every parcel of urban land should be related to care¬ fully considered and appropriately de¬ fined objectives of community planning. A comprehensive land use plan which incorporates specifics of residential de¬ velopment such as density and intensity is an excellent start. A plan of this nature would take into account four basic factors: (1) present and proposed transportation systems, (2) population characteristics and projected growth, (3) condition and supply of current housing, and (4) existing and antici¬ pated community facilities. A well thought out comprehensive plan can satisfy both broad community goals and specialized local conditions. Ex¬ amples of broad community goals are: the expansion of single-family housing at the periphery, the achievement of compact development by well-defined clusters, the preservation of open space at precise locations, and the substitution of rehabilitation and conservation for extensive clearance in order to upgrade residential neighborhoods. Foremost among specialized local condi¬ tions that must be considered are zoning regulations. Chapter Seven, "Site Plan- 146 ning Regulations and Design Incentives," examines in close detail the influence of zoning on the development of land for residential purposes. Here it is suf¬ ficient to say that for every location in a city covered by a zoning ordinance, the permitted housing types are speci¬ fied and many design details of housing sites are spelled out. For zoning purposes most communities are divided into a number of districts: residential, commercial, industrial, and so forth. Residential districts, in turn, may be further divided into single-family zones which differ according to the size of minimum allowable lots, and zones 68 PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 147 which permit a variety of multifamily types with different densities. Where there is a choice of building type, two issues must be considered: (1) the characteristics of the site itself and (2) the characteristics of the neighboring environment. Compatibility is an essen¬ tial quality in neighborhood planning [144], This concept is not to be con¬ fused with duplication. A good overall plan may call for contrast with what already exists — a physical and social contrast. In any case the decision must be carefully studied and the impact of the proposed development weighed in advance of construction. A neighborhood of single-family homes can generally accept a number of multi- family structures which preserve the pre¬ vailing scale relationships and do not generate excessive vehicular or pedes¬ trian traffic and disturb the quiet [145, 146]. The multifamily structures can act as visual and activity focal points, while respecting the texture and character of the area. Careful handling of scale relationships contributes greatly to compatibility be¬ tween new structures and prevailing older ones. For instance, if row houses are introduced to a single-family district, the number of units in a row should not be so great as to create an aspect of unbroken space in an area otherwise characterized by a series of solids and voids. While some site planning guides state that no more than a fixed number of units should be built in a row, it is not the number alone that is significant. What is significant is the visual appear¬ ance that a continuous façade creates. Altering the setback of every second or third unit may be enough of a pattern break to maintain a feeling of harmony with existing neighborhood housing [147-149]. PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 69 To ensure both harmony and variety, a good guide is to mix in moderation. If row houses predominate, some walk-ups and a few elevator apartment buildings might provide a contrast which is pleas¬ ing, yet not too radical a departure from the existing pattern [150-152]. If the dominant housing type is the garden apartment, a few tower or slab structures might well be introduced. More extreme mixtures of building types are difficult to handle well. The design scheme must be worked out with considerable care for an effective and harmonious blend, generally with one designer establishing the prevailing concept, but not neces¬ sarily planning the entire project [153- 157]. Relation of Housing to Occupant Needs In its most basic sense, housing can be defined as the provision of shelter. How¬ ever, the word "housing" has broader connotations. It means a place where family life, comfort, and health are fos¬ tered, and not merely a place for pro¬ tection from the elements. How then can we reconcile the fact that in actual prac¬ tice in the design of mass housing, these deeper needs of the occupants play such a minor role [158-160]? Why then is there such a dearth of quality and inno¬ vative housing? Is it because people want only what is available? Does our 158 present housing stock represent a true preference? Some would answer yes, that the builders are continuing to turn out traditional models because they are catering to the conservative tastes of the typical home buyer. If the latter does not want a house which is too "differ¬ ent," the reason is not necessarily a basic resistance to change; rather, it is often a fear of a risky investment. The buyer is afraid that an experimental house has unpredictable resale value. He is hesitant about buying anything but a conventional house; the builder, in turn, is hesitant about building other than conventional housing, and the cycle of timidity is reinforced. 160 It is unreasonable, of course, to expect custom-tailored housing for each indi¬ vidual and family. But it is also unrea¬ sonable to design housing for the so- called average family when the majority of Americans do not fit this mold. This concept of the average family may be an easy crutch to fall back on, but if the present shortcomings in housing are to be surmounted, a closer look must be taken at the consumer public. PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 73 There are differences in family charac¬ teristics numerous and general enough to suggest the possibility of a wide variety in the determination of housing types and related site planning aspects. The most obvious difference, and the one which exercises the greatest in¬ fluence on design, is family size. The interior as well as the exterior space requirements are clearly different for families with children [161, 162] and families without children [163, 164]. Commenting on the merits of various dwelling types, the Committee on the Hy¬ giene of Housing of the American Public 164 Health Association supports "the view that one- and two-family houses, includ¬ ing their row or group forms, are the generally preferable type for families with growing children, . . . although the modern types of walk-up apartments, if they are not more than three stories high, would seem to satisfy the require¬ ments of families with small children or aged persons. The Committee goes on to add that even the third story of a walk-up building can be undesir¬ able for such families. Even though this recommendation is presented in cautious terms, it is subject to further examination. " American Public Health Association, Committee on the Hygiene of Housing, Planning the Neigh¬ borhood (Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1960), p 25. On the level of practical experience, all too little study has been made of the impact on families with children of living at high densities or without easy access to ground-level facilities. Housing needs change as a family changes. This is sufficient motivation for designing housing and sites which are flexible and neighborhood accommoda¬ tions which are varied. "It is remarkable how often we talk about the necessity of meeting the needs of 'family life' by planning and how often in practice we have neglected the simple and crucial necessity of providing for 'family con¬ tinuity,' simply in terms of providing suf¬ ficient variety of housing to enable not 165 only the individual family to stay in the same area but the fluctuations in the composition of the population over time to be absorbed."3 Large single-family houses of pre-World War II vintage often lend themselves well to conversion into apartments [165], but what can be done with the small boxes that surround all American 1 J. H. Westergaard, Family Life in High Density Housing with Particular Reference to the Design of Space About Buildings [Report of a Symposium by the Royal Institute of British Architects (Lon¬ don, May 24, 1957)], p. 17. cities [166] ?' Providing for family con¬ tinuity should spark the imaginations of progressive designers and planners. By recognizing and responding to the needs of all occupants — individuals and couples, young and old, working and retired, with children and without children — these designers and plan¬ ners will create more livable housing and at the same time, more variety in the fabric of American cities [167-170]. ' It is the author's contention that developments of these "little boxes" are tomorrow's renewal sites. In contrast to central area rebuilding, fringe sites should present fewer problems — densities are lower, buildings are built of less durable materials and hence can be moved with relative ease if necessary. Lack of neighborhood continuity presumably lessens relocation problems. PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 75 Relation of Buildings to Buildings Adequate light and air There are certain basic human require¬ ments that must be satisfied by any housing type, among them the assurance of adequate natural light and fresh air. Factors to be considered are the solar orientation of a structure, size and number of windows, and exterior ob¬ structions that might block the source of natural light. For a given site it is pos¬ sible to plot the sun's position for any day of the year and compute the amount of light that will fall on any portion of the site or in any room of any building erected on the site. Because of differences in site locations and the design of the structures them¬ selves, there can exist no ideal orienta¬ tion of buildings. A single-family de¬ tached house can have any orientation because it can be designed so that interior rooms face the desired direc¬ tions. An attached structure, such as a row house, with windows usually on only two sides has less flexibility. A building with units facing in one direction is the least flexible, since it is difficult to make certain that all apartments get some direct sunlight and that none gets too much. Some building codes specify the mini¬ mum amount of light for a room. This is expressed in light units which can be computed from the size and position of windows and the angle of light ob¬ struction. Adherence to these codes coupled with allowance for other struc¬ tures on and off the site will guarantee a minimum standard of livability. How¬ ever, design for more than minimum standards is a complex problem involv¬ ing the provision of not only adequate light and air but also of a pleasant view and privacy [171-174]. Conditions that create or destroy these aspects are not always controllable. While it is not possible to anticipate any and all con¬ tingencies for adjoining sites, it is im¬ portant to make every effort to consider the impact of new housing on its neighbors [175 ]. Topography has an important bearing on the circulation of air on a site, espe¬ cially on very large sites. The placement of buildings and the design of the spaces around them will noticeably af¬ fect the microclimate — temperature, humidity, and air movement. While the details of climatic planning are beyond the scope of this report, they deserve the attention of housing developers. 171 Vistas Although much housing lacks what might be termed a spectacular setting, vistas on a modest scale can be planned. A spatial effect of a vista can be created at ground level by a skillful designer. The site planner should draw sight lines from principal locations on pedestrian walkways and from inside apartments in order to examine the placement of the building and the structuring of open space. Such a study might reveal that a minor change in the pedestrian net¬ work or placement of a building greatly enhances a vista. On the other hand, the study might show that the view ap¬ pears endless and needs termination [176, 177]. Accurately drawn perspec¬ tives or, even better, scale models of a particular site are excellent aids for n thorough examination of spatial effects at all stages in the design process. Spatial enclosures The principal preoccupation of designers seems to be with buildings — the solids of a site. Once the buildings have been placed on a site and circulation routes have been added, what remains is left¬ over space [178-182]. Yet these voids — areas framed by buildings, walls, planting, etc. — play a fundamental part in the creation of superior environ¬ ments [183-185]. One has only to study or visit the well-planned spaces of the world's great cities or sites of the best- known housing projects to appreciate that successful building layouts, at any scale, result from a meticulous concern for the planning of the voids. 78 PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 80 PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS There is great diversity in the kinds of outdoor space that can be composed; e.g., open, tight, sunny, shaded, axial, free-flowing, covered, or exposed [18ó- 189]. The range of choice may over¬ whelm someone seeking a shortcut to excellence in site planning. Such a per¬ son often resorts either to a stereotyped, grid-like, regular spacing of buildings [190-192], or a potpourri of random voids. A classic case is the mobile home park. Countless examples exist where the units are all oriented in the same direction and the spaces between them lack visual continuity [193]. PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 81 «ttïïuuvu %uuuîïïû * \\\\\\\\ 84 PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 194 There are few formulas that govern this aspect of site planning. What is certain is that the spaces must be planned and related to their intended use, and not left to chance [194-197]. The grand axis, still a popular design feature of housing developments, can be a handsome approach to a focal point of a site. If properly planned with respect to traffic flow, it can lead through a progression of spaces, framed by buildings and trees, to a place of natural interest and communal activity on a site [198-207] —a playground, social hall, swimming pool, or a grove of trees with benches. The axis may be utilized to heighten the sense of ap¬ proach. But of what value is the axis if PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 85 if leads from nowhere to nowhere [208, 209], or if the climate is hot and the axis has no overhead protection? Space on a site is most effective if planned for specific use — a large open field for outdoor group games [210], an enclosed area for young children's play equipment [211], etc. — and scaled in proportion to its purpose and users. In addition, each space should be treated as part of a continuum of spaces which includes not only the site itself, but also the streets around it and the spaces on the neighboring sites. 88 PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS Usability of space Building interiors are the primary con¬ cern of architects. Concern for building exteriors, on the other hand, is shared by a number of design professions —- architects, landscape architects, engi¬ neers. In spite of this shared and over¬ lapping responsibility, interior and ex¬ terior spaces need to be related and their design coordinated meaningfully' [212, 213]. Frederick Gibberd, Town Design (London; The Architectural Press, 1953), p. 231. According to Gibberd, ". . Ihe kinds of internal spoces and their arrangement that are required inside a dwelling [constitute] the architectural problem — and the kinds of externol spaces that are made when we relate the dwellings to each other, to the systems of communication, and to the land- scope [constitute] the urban design problem.'' 212 The supply of open space is critical to providing adequate light and air to a dwelling. But supply alone does not guarantee usability. Usable space can be divided into two broad categories — private space and communal space. In some instances, it is difficult to distin¬ guish between the two. However, dis¬ tinction usually is based on the treat¬ ment of the space itself and its location on the site. Private outdoor space Private space is that which is directly associated with an individual dwelling unit (preferably adjoining it) and visually demarcated [214]. Obviously there are 220 degrees of privacy. Privacy can mean exclusive occupancy and responsibility. It can also mean visual and auditory isolation. Chermayeff and Alexander have identi¬ fied a hierarchy of spaces ranging from the most public to the most private. Within the range of private spaces, they define "Group-Private [as] residential components under control of manage¬ ment acting on behalf of private and public interest for the benefit of tenants or other legal occupants: reception, circulation, and service spaces; com¬ munity gardens; playgrounds; laundries; storage; etc." [215-218], "Family- Private [is defined as] the spaces within the private domain controlled by a 90 PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 221 single family that are devoted to com¬ munal family activities such as eating, entertainment, hygiene, and mainte¬ nance"0 [219, 220]. In this study, pri¬ vate space refers to a visually demar¬ cated outdoor area which is designated for the exclusive use of certain tenants. One reason for stressing visual demar¬ cation is that it limits responsibility for maintenance [221, 222]. Where dwell¬ ing units in multifamily structures are occupant owned, private spaces tend to be clearly separated and well main¬ tained. Demarcation by means of land- f' Serge Chermayeff and Christopher Alexander, Community and Privacy Toward a New Archi¬ tecture of Humanism {Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1963), p. 129. 222 scaping, fences, and other horizontal and vertical markers aids in achieving visual and auditory privacy [223-225]. In the case of rental units, public and private spaces are not always distin¬ guishable and are often poorly main¬ tained [226]. The use made of these spaces varies from site to site. It is determined by climate, characteristics of the occupants, size of the space, and accessibility in terms of its location in relation to the whole site and also in relation to adjoining indoor spaces. PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 91 Where housing types have direct ac¬ cess to the outdoors, ground-level space can be private by artful site planning. For walk-up or elevator apartments, pri¬ vate outdoor space is less accessible, but it can be provided. For example, private open space is sometimes as¬ signed to individual families in the form of allotment gardens [227] —a com¬ mon European practice. These gardens may be located at some distance from the dwelling unit. Nevertheless they can still afford an outdoor sanctum for an individual or family. Balconies are the only private outdoor spaces at many higher density housing projects. If the balconies are really serviceable (large, safe, and accessible) [ 228 ], and not merely ornamental [229], they are quite acceptable substi¬ tutes for equivalent space at ground level. To achieve more than token pri¬ vacy [230], if may be necessary to build solid screen walls between adjoin¬ ing ones [231]. Also, solid materials may be used along the face and side of balconies [232]. Dwelling units may be planned so that balconies are lined up directly over one another [233], or are recessed from the face of the struc¬ ture [234]. The rooftop, often ignored, offers po¬ tentially usable outdoor space [235]. As density increases, the value of ex¬ ploiting this source becomes more evi¬ dent [236, 237]. It has particular ap¬ plication to row housing. Roofs of this housing type can easily be converted into safe, usable outdoor space pro¬ vided they are of adequate construction and have some means of access from 233 the top floor of the dwelling and screening or protecting parapets. Under these conditions, they are often ideal for sunbathing, laundry drying, dining, and even moderately active play [238]. If a rooftop is accessible to other than the family living below, as is true of terrace housing, its use must be appro¬ priately modified to avoid excessive noise and other annoying disturbances. The roofs of carports offer another open space resource [239]. PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 93 Communal spaces Communal outdoor spaces are those planned for the joint use of the resi¬ dents of a site and sometimes of the surrounding neighborhood as well (240]. The criteria for well-designed communal space are: sense of enclosure, sense of scale, appropriateness of loca¬ tion, and attractiveness and durability of landscape and building elements. En¬ closure is necessary to define the edges 94 PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS of different activity areas [241, 242], to separate private and communal spaces [243], and to protect users from moving vehicles and other dangers. Proper scale is necessary to encourage intended uses, to relate building solids and open space voids, and to provide a flow from one area to another [244, 245]. Proper location assures accessi¬ bility to users without crossing major trafPicways and prevents any conflict with private use of indoor spaces [246]. 243 244 251 Landscape and building elements are necessary to give warmth to a site, to screen unsightly clothes lines and utility areas, and to satisfy passive recreation needs [247, 248]. Attractive communal space should stimulate what Albert Mayer calls "social inventiveness that quality which capitalizes on the human individual-and-social plane, and is seldom arrived at by the formal, as¬ signed program"7 [249-251]. Trans¬ lated into site planning terms, "social inventiveness" means leaving portions of the site undeveloped until after initial Alberl Mayer, "Trends in Large-Scale Housing Design," Landscape Architecture, IV, No 2 (Jan- uory, 1965), p. 127. occupancy. Such a scheme allows for some flexibility in the use of space. With a turnover of occupancy, or as occu¬ pants age, children and adults alike have a chance to build their own en¬ vironment to suit their own changing needs. (Europeans have had great suc¬ cess with "¡unk playgrounds" — places where old pieces of machinery and scrap building materials are assembled for social and educational purposes. In the United States, Karl Linn has achieved excellent results with similar playgrounds in Philadelphia. As Linn expresses it, "We provide our small children with lots of clay, but we give no bricks to our teenagers who then go astray."K) Two heretofore generally unexploited sources of communal outdoor space are rooftops and corridors. The roofs of large buildings — apartments, adjoin¬ ing garages, and community buildings — have great potential for communal activity [252-255]. Because of their size, they can be divided into sections to accommodate a number of different activities, from dining to swimming. Outdoor corridors can also accommo¬ date both adults and children [256]. However, these "sidewalks in the sky" in practice are often ugly, dangerous, and a nuisance to tenants living in adjoining apartments. These faults are not inherent in the concept of outdoor corridors. They can be overcome through better design and through provision of additional space elsewhere on a site, especially for children's playgrounds. ' Karl Linn, "People and Playgrounds," Proceed¬ ings of a Conference, Education lor Urban De¬ sign (St. Louis. Washington University, School of Architecture, January 8-10, 1962), p. 36. m 256 ■■ mi Hm m ■■■1 ■m ■■ Il Ii m g a ■1 ■ i immi !■■■■■■ iMMsnpaaaai ■»«■■I PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 97 257 Waste of open space Waste of space frequently results, not from overt neglect to conserve land (land costs usually prohibit wanton wastefulness), but from u failure to de¬ sign a site so that all land is used in the most efficient, attractive manner [257- 2Ó1 ]. Too many housing sites have a dearth of usable areas. Yet if all the un¬ usable, left-over spaces could be gath¬ ered into larger parcels, there would be land for all needs — private and com¬ munal [262]. In suburban areas, residential structures cover less than 25 percent of their net site areas.9 From this statistic alone it seems that something is wrong when we have to complain of a lack of outdoor space. One thing that is wrong is that buildings are placed on their sites so as to render their yards almost unusable. Even discounting the space required for automobile parking, all but perhaps the very smallest housing sites have, at least potentially, adequate space for outdoor activities. ''Tunnord and Pushkarev, op. cit, p. 97. 98 PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 258 Waste is often associated with excessive front and rear setbacks and side yard spaces between buildings [263, 264]. Setbacks and yards were devised to en¬ sure several important ingredients to li¬ ability — adequate light and air, pri¬ vacy, and attractive surroundings and settings for buildings. Certain, if not all, of these same ends can be achieved as well and sometimes even better, depend¬ ing upon the circumstances, by other means—interior courts [265-268], sky¬ lights, screening walls [269-271], and changes in elevation and orientation (raising buildings above ground level PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 101 [272-274] and turning them away from the street [275]). These techniques of¬ ten produce privacy more effectively than yards and setbacks do. An orien¬ tation change, rather than setbacks, is a better solution to the problem of provid¬ ing privacy for housing with large glass surfaces [276, 277]. It is preferable to turn a building around on its lot (to face the rear) than to use setbacks. The latter would have to be very deep and very wasteful of land to guarantee real pri¬ vacy. A shallow setback would do little but afford an excellent view of the pic¬ ture window across the street. 272 Side yards, especially very narrow ones, can cause noise and maintenance prob¬ lems [278, 279]. If a wall were built along the property line high enough to give some measure of privacy to families living on either side, it would probably cut out so much light and air that the ostensible purpose of a yard would be defeated. Eliminating side yards en¬ tirely and constructing attached housing is sometimes the best solution. A solidly constructed party wall is a better sound barrier than a 6- or 8-foot separation between dwellings which have side win¬ dows or side doors. 280 Psychologically, minimum setbacks do give a sense of enclosure from the street. To some extent this same sense of en¬ closure can be generated by rows of closely spaced large trees whose trunks and limbs help to screen the house from street noises. At the same time trees give a structural definition to the edge of the road [280, 281]. Frequently homes along established residential streets have greater privacy than their modern counterparts which have deeper setbacks but no trees. Structuring of open space Structuring of open space involves plan¬ ning a series of connected voids, each serving a precise purpose, functionally and esthetically [282-285]. Structured space may be that confined within the boundaries of a single site and isolated from the surroundings by structural ele¬ ments of the project [286, 287], or it may be part of a larger sequence of spaces that flow throughout an entire community [288 ]. 104 PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS ^ \ \\ \\ ^ H» s s *«¡¡4 >/ V\ \\ s >■ © Si /\\\ Structuring of space should not be equated with a rigid or too-formal site arrangement [289-292]. What may be a satisfactory arrangement for one por¬ tion of a site need not be satisfactory for a different section. Monotony in housing development is as often the re¬ sult of the repetition of spatial organiza¬ tion as it is of repetition of building masses and surface treatment. Variety for the sake of variety can also be meaningless. Lack of discipline and fail¬ ure to establish building themes and or¬ dered spaces result in fragmentation, visual chaos, and breakdown in func¬ tional uses. [293-297]. PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 107 HO PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 299 Once a fundamental plan has been es¬ tablished for a site after careful study and critical evaluation of preliminary schemes, it becomes necessary to select details for accentuation. Focal points are the punctuation marks, the contrasts, in an otherwise flowing organization of spatial sequences [298-300]. Elements of surprise (a change of direction, some break in the open spaces) help to give a site its uniqueness and appeal. The focal point of open space may be on site — a building or gathering place for commu¬ nity activities [301]. It may even be combined with a special vista off site — perhaps that of a distant skyline. On particularly large sites these points serve both for orientation and relief from vis¬ ual uniformity. Structured space is also concerned with the edges of a site. In most instances, site boundaries are formed by streets, and it is along these streets that one gets his first impressions of a housing site [302]. The narrower the bordering street, the greater the need to consider it a part of the housing site. The "street scene" encompasses structures and spaces that are in harmony with the character of the neighborhood [303]. In developing a site plan, it is up to the designer to keep in mind how it might be viewed from the street by the passing motorist and pedestrian. PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL ASPECTS 111 the plan-functional aspects "America ... is no longer land¬ scape or townscape, but simply carscape."1 In addition to the selection of a site, the choice of building types, and the layout of solids and voids, site design involves planning for such concerns as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, vehicular storage, utility poles and boxes, overhead wires, drainage systems, garbage collection, and service areas. These are all vital to livability and their effective handling re¬ quires thought and ingenuity. For the long-term safety, comfort, and conve¬ nience of the occupants, these functional aspects must be considered simulta¬ neously with major site planning deci¬ sions and not apart as afterthoughts. Only then will a site really work properly. 1 Peler Blake, God's Own Junkyard. The Planned Deterioration of America's Landscape (New York. Holt, Rmehort and Winston, 1964), p. 119. On-Site Traffic Designing and maintaining a safe, effi¬ cient flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic is a prime design concern for any housing site. It involves planning for: 1. inter-site traffic — the flow of traffic to a housing site from external loca¬ tions and the reverse, and 2. intra-site traffic — the flow of traffic from one location to another within a site. In most cases, a site can be divided into separate precincts for the different types of traffic [304]. Separation can be either horizontal (on different sides of dwellings, on two sides of a green strip next to a street curb, divided by a screening wall) or vertical (underpasses or overpasses, roadways either in tun¬ nels below grade or on elevated struc¬ tures above grade) [305-307]. In ad¬ dition, on large sites separate lanes for bicycles, at some distance from auto traffic, are desirable. In all instances, the routes should be planned to serve their specific purposes in a logical man¬ ner and at the same time avoid danger¬ ous conflicts with other traffic routes. Where major roads are close to pedes¬ trian flows or residential buildings, screening and traffic control devices can be employed to guard against accidents. In planning for circulation routes con¬ sideration of their durability is also im¬ portant. Therefore, a site planner must be conscious of standards of construc¬ tion [308], quality of paving materials FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 113 [309], and drainage problems [310] even though they do not fall within the range of his particular professional spe¬ cialization. If any of these are deficient in quality, the whole site may be ad¬ versely affected. Pedestrian circulation The direction and amount of flow of pedestrian traffic on a site are usually determinable in the early stages of site planning in advance of any construction and on the basis of both on- and off- site factors. To be considered are the quality of the topography and land¬ scape elements and the location of such things as entrances to buildings, service areas (garbage collection points, laun¬ dry buildings, etc.), communal outdoor space, major points of access along the site boundaries (bus stops, street cross¬ ings, etc.), and community facilities (schools, playgrounds, shops, etc.). FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 115 315 The usual pedestrian instinct is to move in straight lines if at all possible. Con¬ sequently, the chief requirement for major walkways is that they follow a rational plan recognizing that most peo¬ ple in the course of their daily activities seek ways of avoiding extra steps and time. They will beat paths across lawns, skirt hills, and cut through parking lots [311, 312], Walkways will have little value if these habits of people are ig¬ nored [313]. Still an indirect walkway, in spite of its awkwardness, would at¬ tract some pedestrians if it provided overhead protection from inclement weather [314, 315], circumvented irreg¬ ular or treacherous topography (steep slopes, for example), or was particularly scenic. 316 Since the "natural" routes are the best routes [316], it may be wise under cer¬ tain conditions to curtail the paving of secondary walkways across major open spaces until a site has been occupied for a specified period of time, and its occu¬ pants have had a chance to select the most convenient paths. This alternative has obvious limitations and could be applied only to minor traffic arteries. 317 318 One of the most frequently traveled courses on any site is that from automo¬ bile parking areas to the entrances of dwellings [317]. The safety and con¬ venience of tenants are primary consid¬ erations in the design of this particular course. Shoppers laden with bundles will not want to clamber around parked cars whose bumpers extend over walk¬ ways [318, 319]. Nor will they want to walk unreasonably long distances to reach their apartments. A building en¬ trance canopy, projecting over a road¬ way, is an excellent shelter for the pas¬ senger alighting from his automobile [320, 321]. The width of paved walks should be pro¬ portional to their use. A variance in width can be employed to distinguish public and private sidewalks from one another [322-324]. At places of max¬ imum pedestrian flow, it may be desir¬ able to deviate from linear systems and pave a large square [325-333]. FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 119 Vehicular circulation The increase in the ownership and use of private automobiles since World War II has been phenomenal. When there were fewer cars, they were easily ac¬ commodated. A simple network of roads, curb parking, and small garage compounds proved adequate for most housing sites [334-336]. Today be¬ cause of sheer numbers, the accommo¬ dation of automobiles at most housing sites is a more complex matter, and one which must be tackled in the early stages of a site design. Provision must be made on site or the mechanical member of the American family will invade the interiors of houses [337, 338]. Wttlllll&l S h FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 121 Although the driver of a vehicle is ulti¬ mately responsible for traffic safety, the planner can contribute greatly to the safety of a site. The planner can avoid many potential traffic hazards by laying out streets in a way that discourages high speeds, that discourages nonresi¬ dents from using a housing site as a shortcut, and that avoids bisecting large open areas. On large sites with more than one means of vehicular access and egress, dangers can result if all streets are through routes as part of an un¬ broken grid system and if there is no differentiation between collector streets and minor residential roads. Cul-de- sacs, loops, and other street designs which direct the flow increase safety and convenience for site residents [339]. In addition, speed controls and stop signs are often helpful but only as com¬ plements to, and not substitutes for, good traffic planning [340]. Vehicular storage In terms of space demands and appear¬ ance, parking lots present one of the most difficult problems for the site plan¬ ner. Problems increase proportionally as the density of housing increases. Streets around housing sites cannot be expected to handle overflow parking as they once did; adequate on-site parking facilities have become a necessity. The amount of space required for park¬ ing is determined by many factors. The most significant ones which influence the ratio of space per dwelling unit are: occupant characteristics (total popula¬ tion, age, family status), and location of the site with respect to public transporta¬ tion, shopping and recreational facili¬ ties', and employment centers. Housing for the elderly generally requires less parking space for each dwelling unit than housing occupied by younger fam¬ ilies. More than a one-to-one ratio is likely to be needed at sites where there are families with many teen-age chil¬ dren or where apartments are shared by bachelors. This is especially true of multifamily sites in outlying areas. Here isolation from community facilities, par¬ ticularly schools and shopping, and poor public transportation service result in greater and greater reliance upon the automobile and correspondingly greater and greater demands for parking space. Regulations applying to on-site parking show a lower ratio for central city loca¬ tions than they do for outlying sites.2 This reduced ratio reflects the fact that people living at high-density urban sites are often less dependent upon the auto¬ mobile. In fact, some families deliber¬ ately choose central locations just to avoid using a car for everyday activities. Presumably they have easy access to many community facilities and to some form of public transportation. The higher cost of land in town also acts to hold down the parking per dwelling unit ratio. ' FHA's Land-Use Intensity Rating is a case in point. As the land intensity increases the num¬ ber of required car storage spaces decreases. At the lowest intensity, two spaces are required for each single-family detached house. At the op¬ posite end of the scole are centrally located multifamily structures of over twenty floors in height, where the number of required porking spaces is one-half the number of dwelling units. 124 FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 346 In addition to resident parking, many multifamily housing projects allot on-site spaces for guest parking. The optimum number of such spaces is obviously not predictable for all sites, and it, too, is influenced by site location, occupant in¬ come, and family characteristics. Park¬ ing spaces for service vehicles are also sometimes provided at multifamily hous¬ ing sites (usually at rear entrances of the buildings). There are no rigid rules to be followed in the location of parking facilities vis-à- vis dwelling units. The quality of the pedestrian route from the parked car to the door of the dwelling is often more significant than proximity [341, 342]. A route that offers no overhead protec¬ tion, is indirect, or is inconvenient is not very satisfactory [343]. Parking areas directly in front of a dwelling may also be unsatisfactory because of exhaust fumes [344], bright headlights [345], and engine noise, or because cars may have to back across major pedestrian routes to leave the site [346]. There ¡s a correlation between density and the ease with which vehicular stor¬ age is accomplished. At housing sites with either high or low densities, provid¬ ing for vehicular storage seems to cause fewer problems, at least visually, than it does at sites with a middle density range. At both high and low densities, it is often economically feasible to build garages with the result that the car is completely eliminated from sight. At low densities these garages are often attached to individual dwelling units [347-349]; at high densities there may be underground garages with direct ac¬ cess into the dwelling structures or even separate parking buildings [350]. Be¬ tween these two extremes of density, FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 125 problems arise in trying to achieve a balance between convenience and nui¬ sance. Middle-density housing sites tend to appear completely dominated by the automobile. Buildings are surrounded by seas of paved parking areas [351- 353]. There are at least two remedies, both of which have drawbacks. First, large, unpleasant looking parking lots could be replaced by a number of smaller lots scattered throughout a site. However, these might be inconvenient if located too far from the buildings they serve. Second, parking facilities could be built either above or below grade, but these would probably be quite costly for the developers. Screening is an in¬ expensive remedy which has been used 354 effectively at a range of sites. This tech¬ nique has a twofold advantage — it makes possible a separation between pedestrian and vehicular traffic and it hides cars from view [354]. It improves both the appearance and the usability of a site [355]. Esthetic and safety features are both important in the plan¬ ning of parking facilities, regardless of site density. Designs which create blind corners at the edge of a parking lot or along a roadway and which do not clearly divide pedestrian routes from parking areas endanger drivers and pe¬ destrians alike [35Ó]. FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 127 For several reasons, small parking lots are preferable to large ones: they are easier to screen, safer, and depending upon their location, more convenient [357-359], Large lots are more dan¬ gerous because their long straight lanes tend to produce high speeds [360]. Other problems associated with large lots are as follows: they require side¬ walks and dividing strips to prevent un¬ controlled pedestrian cross-circulation; for esthetic reasons, they require careful landscaping to minimize their size; and they encourage unwanted uses [361]. 128 FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS It is possible, for example, that children might use them as playgrounds if on-site playgrounds were not available. Allocat¬ ing separate areas for auto maintenance and repair might also discourage the use of parking lots for other than parking purposes. The open parking lot, though the most common, is not necessarily the best type of storage facility for a particular site. There are additional choices — carports, garages either on grade, underground, or in multistory structures — which are dependent upon the size, location, and type of housing project, the number and density of the units, and topographic and subsoil conditions. Protected car-storage areas, attached to the dwelling unit if possible, are pre¬ ferred by the majority of automobile owners, particularly in northern climates. At central city sites the solution is fre¬ quently a base of parking, above or below ground, upon which the building sits [362]. At outlying sites the car is often parked behind and/or under a row of housing units [363]. Hilly sites permit terracing of parking lots, partly below and partly above ground [364], Cluster developments facilitate a group¬ ing of garages or carports conveniently near entrances to a number of single units. Often the most outstanding aspect of many plans is the ingenuity with which site planners have accommodated huge numbers of cars without destroying the usability of open space [365]. FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 129 130 FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 369 370 371 Utilities Utility and drainage systems contribute vitally to the smooth operation of a hous¬ ing site. Unlike parking, these particular functional aspects of a site do not usu¬ ally present serious problems. They can be handled in a rather straightforward way. The most obvious recommendation is that they be hidden or camouflaged. From the point of view of safety and esthetics, it is desirable to avoid any exterior wiring even though this does not necessarily affect performance. Like¬ wise, it is desirable to screen such things as meter boxes [366], transformers [367], ventilating equipment, garbage pails [368-371], and clothes lines [372, 373]. Overhead utility lines and the 372 poles needed to support them are espe¬ cially unattractive at many housing sites. The poles create unsightly breaks in the sequence of spaces at ground level [374] and the wires clutter the skyline [375]. They should be placed under¬ ground. Failing this, they should be placed on a site in positions where they are inconspicuous and screened as much as possible by plant materials. Drain¬ age systems, from downspouts to open ditches, when not handled adequately, can cause a site to be dangerous and unattractive [376-378]. FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 131 132 FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 382 Landscape Treatment and Site Furniture Landscape elements are both functional and decorative. Being multipurpose, they can: 1. complement the best of architecture and spatial design [379, 380]; 2. conceal unattractive structures and utilities [381] ; 3. serve to direct traffic flow on a site [382,383]; 4. divide private and communal out¬ door areas [384, 385] ; 5. influence microclimate by affording shade and increasing air movement; 6. provide healthy activities for the site residents — trees for youngsters to climb, gardening opportunities for adults; and 7. add color and beauty to the entire site [386, 387]. lAiA'-rrVir. >f< FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 133 When site furniture (benches, baskets, lights) is added and coordinated with plant materials, the appearance of a site is further enhanced. Site furniture is especially effective if it carries out the design themes of the buildings on site and the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Durability and ease of maintenance are important considera¬ tions in the selection of these details. Obviously, some pieces such as light standards or drinking fountains will wear best if they are built in [388-391]. Others, such as benches, wastebaskets, or picnic tables, can either be perma¬ nently anchored or moveable as use warrants [392, 393]. These details are best handled as an integral part of site and building planning. Treating them as afterthoughts diminishes the quality of the site. On-Site Growth and Change The use of housing and its site is dy¬ namic and not static in nature. As dif¬ ferent people occupy the dwellings, as the surroundings grow and change, as new traffic routes are established, as plant materials mature or decline, as new technological advances are made, the function of a site (including open space) will also change. Changes may call for new site furniture (retaining wall, play equipment, for example) or replanning outdoor areas (where a children's playground is replaced by a sitting area for the elderly) [394-399]. A good plan is one that can accommo¬ date such adaptations. FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 135 402 Proof of the success of site design is the "naturalness" with which the site ap¬ pears to function. If things seem to be where they belong, and if occupants use the site as designed without recourse to excessive lists of requests and admo¬ nitions on the part of the management, it can be assumed that at least a mini¬ mum level of livability has been achieved [400-402], If, on the other hand, the 136 FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 403 site is not being used as originally con¬ ceived (children are not playing in the playgrounds, laundry is strung in the front yards, for example) [403], and the open spaces have a cluttered ap¬ pearance [404] and contain "tempo¬ rary" structures [405], it can be as¬ sumed that the site was not designed in relation to the specific requirements of the tenants who were to occupy it or that adequate changes to improve lia¬ bility were not made over time. The creative, effective, and long-range solutions to the problems of site planning cannot be made without reference to a tremendous number of factors. While for purposes of subject emphasis, it has been necessary to discuss architectural and landscape architectural design as separate from site planning, they are not really separable. If the interior planning, construction, and finish of a dwelling are inferior, no amount of mature trees and grass, handsome site furniture, efficient and screened utilities, and attractive sequences of open spaces can compensate. Site planning is a complex art encompassing many con¬ verging specializations and coordinating them into the single, dynamic end product to produce livable housing environments. FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 137 innovations "We have had to discard the as¬ sumption that imagination and in¬ novation are synonymous with extravagance and waste.'" Few of the site planning innovations dis¬ cussed in this chapter can be regarded as breakthroughs brought about by con¬ temporary American ingenuity. Most fit into one of the following three cate¬ gories: old proposals which did not materialize until recently, practices which were once common and are being redis¬ covered, or borrowings from foreign experience. To date in the United States, there has been little boldness of thought or action in the field of site planning and housing development. The chief reason is a lack of incentive and not a lack of tools or 1 Robert C. Weaver, "The Federal Government's Concern for Urban Design," Address to the Urban Design Conference (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Graduate School of Design, May 1, 1964). talent. Many distinguished individuals and groups of professionals have recog¬ nized this fact and are calling for mea¬ sures to supply motivation. The Panel on Housing of the Office of Science and Technology, part of the executive office of the President of the United States, concluded in 1963 that it was "necessary to increase Government expendi¬ tures in support of research and experi¬ mentation in housing, [and that] by revamping and expanding the role which Government plays in the support of research and experimentation in housing, the Government can, if it so desires, stimulate the national economy and, at the same time, enable the na¬ tion to realize the benefits of its scien¬ tific and technical capabilities by creat¬ ing better housing and a better living environment for all its citizens."2 What constitutes a true innovation in the nature of housing environments is sub¬ jective. As interpreted by the President's Panel, variance in building codes and employment of different building ma¬ terials would be considered innovations. However, under the definition estab¬ lished for this study, modifications of current prevailing practice would not be regarded as innovative unless they had some promise of influencing the fundamental nature of site design. United States Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology, Sub-Panel on Housing, Better Housing for the Future [A Report from the Sub-Panel to the Panel on Civilian Tech¬ nology, Office of Science and Technology (Wash¬ ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963)], p. 15. INNOVATIONS 139 For convenience of discussion, the inno¬ vations that are cited here are grouped by Location, Occupant Characteristics, and Site and Construction Characteris¬ tics. Examples include developments which have been completed, are under construction, or are in the planning stage. Innovations by Location Inner-city areas The most significant innovations near city centers integrate housing, recrea¬ tion, and commerce on a single site [406, 407], The impetus for the con¬ struction of such projects has come from several quarters: urban renewal pro¬ grams designed to increase the attrac¬ tiveness of formerly neglected core areas, reaction against single-use land planning which discourages combina¬ tions of housing and commercial estab¬ lishments, and the desire to meet the growing demand for in-town housing. For many families, particularly those with grown children, the attractiveness of suburban sites has diminished. Many want proximity to public transportation as well as to offices, commercial centers, and entertainment and cultural facilities. Housing projects in core areas which have best filled these special demands are the most successful. One of the most publicized inner-city projects is the Marina City complex in Chicago [408-411], In a few short years, its cylindrical towers have become a city landmark. It combines many innovations on a site of less than five acres: inte¬ gration of functions on a single site, proximity to the center of the city, auto¬ mobile storage on the lower floors of a 140 INNOVATIONS residential structure, convenient mass transportation (bus service and even po¬ tentially water-taxi service on the Chi¬ cago River), and modern structural forms. There are generous balconies, indoor recreation and convenience facilities (for example, swimming pool, health club, bowling alleys, restaurants, commissary, newsstand), a skating rink, and a marina for 700 small boats. On the same site there is also an office building. The shortcoming of Marina City is its ground space planning. This matches neither the quality of the architecture nor the con¬ cept of integrating uses. The spaces between the buildings appear to be unplanned voids, without any specific function in mind (other than traffic routes and the skating rink). 410 INNOVATIONS 141 412 142 INNOVATIONS 413 Another interesting Chicago project is Outer Drive East, the initial building of a large, planned complex of residential towers, office buildings, and commercial facilities bordering Lake Michigan [412, 413]. Right now, it consists of a single apartment tower with an adjoining restaurant and swimming pool. Like Marina City, it is close to employment, shopping, cultural resources, and the water. Also like Marina City, it cannot boast of any innovations in site develop¬ ment. What is most innovative about Outer Drive East is the fact that it utilizes the air rights of a rail yard. Following this lead, many more residential sites may be located over the countless rail¬ road tracks that cross and penetrate the hearts of American cities, particularly as ownership of air rights is better defined. Additional potential sites for residential structures exist over public facilities such as highways, piers, and parking fields. It has been estimated that in New York alone, in the five city boroughs, air rights over public facilities could provide for an estimated one-quarter of a million apartment units housing one million people.3 In fact, the first such project, Bridge Apartments, has already been built over the highway approach to the George Washington Bridge [414, 415]. The site also contains a bus terminal and adjoins a subway station providing a convenient interchange point between local and regional transportation net- 3 Space for Urban Living: A Plan of Action to Provide Urban Homes for Middle-Income Families Utilizing Air Rights Over Public Facilities [A Re¬ port Prepared by Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller's Study Committee for Urban Middle-Income Hous¬ ing (Albany: 1961)]. works. Other roadbeds offer opportu¬ nities as sites for residential as well as commercial buildings that could rise on paved decks or structures supported by columns anchored between the lanes of traffic. At some sites housing could be an integral part of the traffic movement system — a linear development in which housing and related activities would be a planned part of the highway, and where access from the road would lead directly into parking structures attached to residential buildings. Traditional atti¬ tudes towards mixing housing and high¬ ways will have to be reexamined before such schemes become a reality. INNOVATIONS 143 416 Commercial Wharf in Boston is yet another illustration of how a public facility, a pier in this case, may be combined with residential development [416-419], Commercial Wharf, a solid masonry, nineteenth-century building, has been renovated and refurbished in¬ side to house shops and offices at ground level and apartments on the upper floors. It is only part of a total Atlantic Avenue waterfront renewal scheme that eventually will combine resi¬ dential, commercial, office, cultural, rec¬ reational with the existing shipping facil¬ ities of this area. Following this example in Boston, builders of transient housing are erecting new hotels and motor inns overlooking other busy city ports. 144 INNOVATIONS 417 420 By-passed sites and older neighborhoods In many cities, land once thought to be unserviceable for residential develop¬ ment is being put to use by the imagi¬ native planning of sites. In Cincinnati, for example, slopes heretofore by¬ passed because they were considered too steep for economical and safe con¬ struction are today choice residential properties with magnificient views of the city center and the Ohio Valley [420, 421]. Steel and reinforced con¬ crete construction make it possible to 146 INNOVATIONS 422 build hillside property by anchoring foundations to the rock behind the face of the slope. Expensive earth moving to create level terraces is not required. Depending upon the road system and the grades at individual sites, hillside properties can be approached from the top, bottom, and/or intermediate levels; the steepest portion of the site may be used as a parking garage with interior ramps serving to connect the various road levels. Where residential buildings are con¬ structed on steep terrain, it is not always feasible to provide usable individual and communal open space at ground level without resorting to terrace levels. Most of the hillside construction viewed during this study consisted of individual build¬ ings, not groups of structures,- no exten¬ sive planning of open space in the form of galleries or decks was observed. For the single building on the small, steep site, the common space is frequently provided in the form of rooftop gardens. A few luxury apartments have rooftop swimming pools. 423 At the San Francisco Bay site, steep grade and waterfront land meet at a single location barely large enough to accommodate a cluster of buildings [422-426]. Since site planning under these circumstances is more a matter of creating land than manipulating existing elements, the task of designing safe accessways to buildings and usable open space at this site was very difficult. Access to dwelling units in the buildings is obtainable at two levels — from roof¬ tops (where automobiles are parked) and from the lower water level (where boats are docked). INNOVATIONS 147 ^■427 429 When new housing is interspersed in older, established residential neighbor¬ hoods, it sometimes gives a false impres¬ sion of being innovative simply because of the contrast with the existing sur¬ roundings. Such housing and site types are often not so much new to a city as they are new to a particular neighbor¬ hood [427-431]. What is mistaken for an innovation may be a thoughtful con¬ version of single-family into multiple- occupancy dwellings or a return to housing types once in vogue such as town- and court-houses. Many reemerg- ing housing types permit higher densities than the detached single-family dwelling and at the same time stress privacy for the dwelling. The court-house faces in 430 on its own contained space. Other in¬ novative types turn a solid wall to the street or a fence to neighboring prop¬ erties to screen gardens and patios that are designed for the exclusive use of a number of attached dwelling units. Scattered locations The use of scattered sites, now being tested in numerous localities by local public housing authorities, offers great promise. It is a means, probably the best means to date, of eliminating hous¬ ing monotony while still retaining the financial benefits of repetitive design. Under this plan, many small sites, sep¬ arated by a number of intervening blocks, are developed with identical 431 buildings; however, the physical sepa¬ ration of the structures breaks up what would otherwise be a big, dull "housing project" [432-435]. Where these "vest pocket projects" contain more than one building, there is an opportunity for architectural diversity. This scattering of buildings throughout a community can result in social mixture as well as physi¬ cal variety and should prove successful on both grounds. 432 433 150 INNOVATIONS Outlying areas The potential for innovations in terms of both design and social mix is greatest in totally new towns. In the area of design, planners can: 1. support the adoption of new regula¬ tions which will permit the testing of new theories of design; 2. provide a variety of accommodations, interspersed throughout the town; 3. cluster individual buildings related to one another to create tight urban cores; 4. experiment with new building forms generated by circulation systems; and 5. devise new modes of transportation for residential areas. 438 Many new cities have been built around the world during the past thirty years, but the record in the United States is a meager one. Although there are many pseudo "new towns" in the United States, these are generally nothing more than large developments of conventional housing types laid out in traditional sub¬ divisions, with the addition of a few multifamily buildings and shops to at¬ tract new residents. Since the Greenbelt Towns of the 1930's, Reston and Colum¬ bia, both in the Washington, D.C., area, are the only two in the United States which contain truly original concepts. Reston's first village (encompassing only a fraction of the planned ten-and-one- half-mile city) is nearing completion. The site was carefully planned and many successful innovations are already evi¬ dent. The multifamily dwelling areas have choice locations rather than "left¬ over" ones. The natural amenities of the land have been preserved and some new landscape features have been added, the most spectacular of which is a thirty-six-acre lake. At the head of the lake is a village center with com¬ mercial, residential, and community facilities all in one compact grouping [43Ó-440]. The residential clusters around the lake have separate identities, INNOVATIONS 151 441 but are interconnected by a series of circulation routes for automobiles, bi¬ cycles, and pedestrians [441-447; 448- 452]. The successful integration of housing and open spaces is the most refreshing of all the innovations of Reston. Though incomplete at the time of this writing, the village center already impresses the visitor with its animation and sense of purpose that is so lacking in most housing areas. W'iSa'fiBTf !¡2 1 11 152 INNOVATIONS 156 INNOVATIONS The city of Columbia is still in the plan¬ ning stage, but if building follows blue¬ prints, residents will enjoy a satisfying physical and social environment plus an outstanding public transportation system. Designers anticipate a variety of trans¬ portation modes including minibuses, which will be within walking distance of the majority of dwelling units. At Reston and Columbia land has been reserved for industrial parks. In the future, many of the residents will be able to work near their homes, even within walking and bicycling distance for some. These towns, with their clus¬ tered single-family housing and multi- family apartments will have populations of sufficient sizes to support a range of community facilities at the very outset. This policy of high net density planning satisfies demands for suburban living without the usual responsibilities of home ownership and provides focal points for both the multiple- and single-family housing by on-site commercial, educa¬ tional, and recreational facilities. The innovative site planning concepts are more related to the integrated land use planning of the entire community than to specific building sites in both towns. The compact development — in sharp contrast with other recent large projects on the outskirts of metropolitan areas — and the willingness to plan for other than automobile traffic make Reston and Columbia bright spots on today's hous¬ ing scene. Innovations by Occupant Characteristics Housing for the elderly Increased longevity has focused atten¬ tion on the problems and needs of the elderly. Housing built especially for them by both private and public developers is commonplace. Since this segment of the population is not homogeneous, several distinct types of projects are emerging which differ to the extent that residents are dependent upon medical and nurs¬ ing care. Best known, perhaps, are the retirement communities where the resi¬ dents are almost entirely self-sufficient and not dependent upon medical care to any unusual extent. The most striking pp] 157^ _ „ \m m „ - B i —4î—n 1 . 1 i « Ii i m II ■¿r - 11 ili characteristic of retirement communities is the stress placed on recreational and communal facilities — golf courses, club¬ houses, swimming pools, shuffleboard courts, and flower gardens [453, 454]. Since residents are generally either couples or single persons without chil¬ dren, variety in dwelling types and site planning becomes an exercise in the distribution of identical or very similar structures and the arrangement of open space flow between buildings [455- 457]. The most satisfactory designs are the ones in which community facilities are convenient but not so close that they detract from the privacy of the dwelling units and in which on-site auto¬ mobile circulation is replaced by some other form of transportation. In warm climates, small electrically powered trains and/or individually owned golf carts solve the transportation problem at several sites. In northern cities, the communities tend to be small and com¬ pact, with individual buildings connected by covered walkways leading to the dining or recreation hall and other com¬ munal areas. 455 456 457 INNOVATIONS 157 Young adults Site planning of multifamily housing de¬ signed for occupancy by young adults, both married and single, reflects the special tastes and characteristics of this segment of the population. Among these are high mobility and a high degree of social interaction with contemporaries. The accommodation of automobiles and communal recreational facilities is very important in site layout programs. Park¬ ing ratios are often required in excess of one space per dwelling. The closer the parking lot is to the buildings, the better. It is this handling of the auto¬ mobile plus the design of the units them¬ selves that makes much of the housing for younger people indistinguishable from motels [458]. Often privacy is of low priority at these sites, in spite of the fact that there are differences in the housing needs for persons within the same age group. Inclusion of communal recreation facilities such as swimming pools and barbecue pits is generally more important than provision of private outdoor space [459], Even private areas such as patios often are either extensions of public walkways or they open directly off the living rooms of the apartments [460]. Since young married couples have either no children or youngsters of preschool age, schools play no significant part in housing loca¬ tion and community planning. The most successful sites are those which do not try to attract both older families and young couples but concentrate instead on catering to this style of group living that young people apparently prefer. Innovations by Site and Construction Characteristics On-site parking and circulation systems Interior parking in multifamily residential structures is a fairly recent innovation that has proven advantages. Drivers can park their cars in garages without having to leave shelter to reach their own apartments. Moreover, because cars are off the street and thus shielded from view, site appearance benefits. Integration of parking into a dwelling structure can be achieved in a number of ways. Cars may be stored in the base of a structure, in decks above ground level, below grade in basement areas, or in a split system — both above and below grade [461-464]. The structural system for garage floors and residential floors may vary and could result in column spacing that is not suited equally well to both types of floor plans. An alternative is to place the cars in a separate building connected by pedes¬ trian passageways to the residential structure [465, 466]. For some time there has been a recog¬ nized need for "the combination of com¬ plete convenience in the use of the auto¬ mobile and a peaceful escape from its dangers."4 The cluster principle, which facilitates saving of streets by eliminating repetitive driveways and minor resi¬ dential streets, and the superblock, which keeps the automobile out of the heart of community open spaces, are two ways of meeting this dual need. Neither is new. Clustering was introduced with the Radburn plan of 1928; the super- block scheme was developed fully at Baldwin Hills Village in 1941. A variation of these plans is achieved at Swan Lake Mobile Home Park in Mira Loma, Cali¬ fornia [467-470]. Automobiles are not permitted in the residential areas of this adults-only park. Instead, they are parked in a lot at the main entrance to the 128-acre site. (A few homes at the periphery of the site have private park¬ ing spaces.) At this point, the resident can obtain an electrically powered golf cart and proceed to his home or else¬ where on the site. Each mobile home site has a small shelter where the cart is parked. Since all internal pathways are scaled to cart size, a great deal of space is saved. This space, that would otherwise be required for streets of ordinary width, is devoted to augment¬ ing the open space around individual homes. In addition to this saving of space, the noise and traffic generally associated with automobiles are con¬ siderably reduced if not entirely elimi¬ nated by the use of carts. * Stein, op. cil, p. 189. 160 INNOVATIONS 162 INNOVATIONS 473^ Open space Many innovations in open space plan¬ ning as a system represent a breakaway from the traditional block and lot build¬ ing patterns. Cluster development, the common green, greenways, superblocks, and planned unit developments all lend themselves to a diversified utilization of open space [471-474], They deviate from convention by: 1. pooling some private spaces for communal purposes, and 2. connecting the communal spaces to create a continuous flow of space, or greenway, through a site. They can be used as golf courses [475] and riding and hiking trails. In their most highly developed state, these greenways are connected to off-site open space systems, forming a contin¬ uous flow of space throughout a com¬ munity. It is possible for pedestrian networks to lead in an unbroken ribbon from residences to schools, to major parks, and to other community facilities. At major crossroads, underpasses or overpasses ensure safety from vehicular traffic. SZfr 164 INNOVATIONS In theory, common open space is a form of land conservation. Regional and local sites of outstanding natural beauty can be saved for communal use. The pooling of private lands can result in a net saving of land area per dwelling unit if the size of the common open space is less than the total "contribution" of the individual lots. What has hap¬ pened in practice, however, is that some developers have used this technique as an excuse to bypass open space stan¬ dards and then have reneged, with the consequence that they have failed to provide adequate space for either pri¬ vate or public use. In some locations, such as at the FHA experimental sub¬ division in Salinas, California, there is no evidence that any communal open spaces have been allocated to supple¬ ment the small, private enclosed yards on each house site. Although very small lots and no communal open space may mean a savings to home buyers, this initial financial gain may ultimately be offset by a corresponding decline in neighborhood livability. In view of the numbers of apartment complexes being constructed on small land parcels throughout the country, it would seem reasonable to exploit as fully as possible open spaces above ground level. To date, however, little experimentation has taken place. The few exceptions are rooftop plazas and gallery corridors. At Reston there are rooftop plazas designed over parking garages that serve as areas for passive recreation as well as "street" fronts for some of the town-houses. Most of the "sidewalks in the sky" that have been built are little more than wide access corridors to apartments, rather than pleasant places for recreation. En¬ closed by wire screening for safety purposes, they give the impression of cages — anything but inviting. Unless more attractive materials can be found to make them safe for children, access galleries might better be planned ex¬ clusively for adult use. This is the case at Victoria Plaza, a public housing proj¬ ect in San Antonio, Texas, where these corridors are wide enough to be used as sitting areas [476]. A worthwhile con¬ sideration would be to go one step further and design outdoor corridors to be accessible from private balconies, somewhat analogous to the relationship between common greens and private patios at ground level. The rooftop patios at Capitol Park in Washington, D.C., are examples of ex¬ cellent use of outdoor space above grade [477-479]. They combine es¬ thetics, function, and safety. They are large, private, made of handsome ma¬ terials, and they command a spectac¬ ular view of the city. As a consequence, they are truly outdoor extensions of the living rooms of the apartments that oc¬ cupy the top floors of the buildings. In fact they are reached directly from the living rooms below by spiral staircases. They also constitute a secondary means of egress from the apartments because they connect with a public stair tower at the rooftop level. This staircase in turn is used by all the residents in the building to gain access to that portion of the roof which is set aside for communal use. Industrial houses The field of industrial housing, with the exception of mobile homes, has demon¬ strated little originality in site planning and development. The experiments that are underway in this field deal mainly with building materials and not so much with relationships of structure to ground. The Monsanto House that was first de¬ signed in 1955 and exhibited at the 1964-65 New York World's Fair, for example, is innovative only with re¬ spect to materials and construction tech¬ niques. It rises from a central service core and the living wings cantilever out over the ground. This design has po¬ tential for innovations in site planning because it covers only a very small por¬ tion of ground. The mobile home industry has several interesting designs for high-density mobile home complexes. One of these is the use of factory produced mobile homes as cores of larger single-story structures. In some instances a simple wooden roof structure is built, under which the mobile home unit is parked [480]. The roof extends out over the mobile home so as to provide cover for a carport on one side and a patio on the other. In more elaborate units, actual enclosed rooms are built under the roof, but these may not be insulated as in a conventional house or equipped with heat or water [481]. The utilities are all contained in the mobile home which is inserted into the structure but can be removed, should the owner wish to relocate his movable house without its shell. INNOVATIONS 165 166 INNOVATIONS Somewhat the same principle is now being tested in multistory structures [482]. Factory manufactured units would be transported to a building site, either in sections or as completely self- contained apartment units, and then hoisted by crane into slots in a skeleton superstructure [483, 484]. Obviously, major modifications in the design of the mobile home as we know it today would be necessary, and the superstructure would have to contain vertical and hori¬ zontal circulation as well as utilities for the individual units. But these present no difficulties considering the sophistica¬ tion of modern technology. In other schemes, mass produced dwellings would be part of clusters, and raised to various levels by a system of ramps or sited at ground level. In each of these proposals there are many opportunities for site planning innovations to accompany the structural and material experiments. In Canada, Western Europe, and the United States, experiments are underway with what are labeled as continuous forms of megastructures — individual units connected so that a whole commu¬ nity is contained in a single building. Housing complexes of this magnitude contain unified systems for circulation and utilities. Some examples of mega¬ structures are Moshe Safdie's Habitat 67,5 to be built for the Montreal Fair, and Pelli and Lumsden's award-winning Urban Nucleus.0 483 6 "Housing in the City. Is This the Best We Can Do?" The Architectural Forum, CXXIII, No. 1 (July-August, 1965), pp. 68-69. 0 "The Thirteenth Annual P/A Design Awards Pro¬ gram," Progressive Architecture, XLVII, -No. 1 (Jan¬ uary, 1966), pp. 120-127. At the scale of the individual house, attempts are underway to design dwell¬ ings with greater flexibility by such means as interior partitions and exterior annexes which can be readily added or collapsed. The British Ministry of Hous¬ ing and Local Government, in a 1961 report,7 called for more investigation of an "adaptable house" to serve changing family needs over time more effectively than the traditional model. For Ameri¬ can builders, flexibility seems to lie in the direction of some sort of cellular component house design which com¬ bines the best of mobile homes and conventional housing [485, 486]. 1 Great Britain, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Homes for Today and Tomorrow (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1961), p. 9. INNOVATIONS 167 site planning regulations and design incentives "We have lost sight of what should be foremost among the regulators — the fulfillment of human aspira¬ tions and purpose in our surround¬ ings."1 Historic Precedents Since the passage of the 1916 New York City zoning ordinance1' and the United States Supreme Court's upholding of the Euclid, Ohio, ordinance as a proper exercise of police power,3 there has followed a host of regulations and con¬ trols. The ecfrliest regulations were passed to correct some of the worst conditions of tenement houses of the nineteenth and early twentieth cen¬ turies. From written accounts, photo¬ graphs, health records, and buildings that are still occupied today, there is ' Charles A. Blessing, "Regulation and Control," AIA Journal, XLI, No. 6 (July, 1964), p 55. " City of New York, Board of Estimate and Appor¬ tionment, Building Zone Resolution, Adopted July 25, 1916. 3 Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Com¬ pany, 272 U.S. 363 (1926). overwhelming evidence that the living conditions of some of the tenements were, and remain, intolerable. The fail¬ ure of the landlords to keep up their property themselves led to public action. Some designers have unwittingly con¬ tributed to the perpetuation of poor li¬ ability for low-income families by design¬ ing "model" tenements and by becoming the handmaidens of developers whose only interest has been in making money. Providing at least a minimum guarantee of health and safety of multifamily housing was perhaps the main, but not the sole, motive for the earliest regula¬ tions. These laws had the effect of iso¬ lating the people who lived in these buildings from the rest of society. If multifamily structures were equated with slums and second-class housing, their occupants — often poor immigrants — were regarded as second-class citizens.. Still other motives for regulation are cited below. Sound community development Location of housing within a community profoundly affects residential develop¬ ment and site planning by identifying specific parcels where housing may be built. In order to establish location pat¬ terns, it is necessary to have information on the suitability of land for residential development, and compatibility or in¬ compatibility of proposed housing to existing and potential surrounding uses. Knowledge is needed about the ade¬ quacy of sewers, water, and other util¬ ities to support added population loads REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES 169 of new residences, about the nature and capacity of streets and highways, and about the impact of traffic generated by new housing areas. In locating housing for families with children, additional in¬ formation is required about existing schools and parks and the availability of land for future ones. Location cri¬ teria combine to help determine a sound pattern of residential distribution so that an entire community benefits. Without some means of assessing the impact of new housing, the arbitrary location of projects could adversely affect existing services as well as jeopardize the liva- bility of whole neighborhoods. Standards have been established to reg¬ ulate both the use of land and the char¬ acteristics of buildings. Not uncom¬ monly, these standards are based on what already exists in a neighborhood or community. The practice of determin¬ ing future development by what already has been built is based to some extent on the assumption that present land and building patterns are satisfactory. If this is true, if an existing neighborhood and its buildings are sound, then pre¬ sumably there is no serious objection to having new buildings conform; however, if it is not true, minimum property stan¬ dards would perpetuate mediocrity and bar experimentation and change. Protection of property values Some communities, especially upper in¬ come ones, have enacted minimum re¬ quirements for lot sizes, and even for the size and cost of individual houses. These requirements, many of which are far in excess of what is reasonable for livability, are defended in the name of sound community planning. Ostensibly they are enacted to prevent overcrowd¬ ing of schools, overloading of sewers and utility systems, seepage of septic tanks effluent into private wells due to inadequate tile fields, and similar dan¬ gers, but many are double edged. Small houses or nonluxury multifamily buildings are excluded from upper income single- family neighborhoods in order to keep out "undesirable" people and "non- homogeneous" architecture because it is feared they both would cause a neigh¬ borhood to decline. Thus, many prej¬ udices are cloaked by property value protection. Those who finance housing also have a stake in protecting property values. Banks and FHA, for example, are some¬ times hesitant (perhaps rightly so) to underwrite construction of housing of a type which represents a drastic depar¬ ture from already existing housing in the neighborhood in terms of density or financial means of the occupants. 170 REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES Reflection of commonly held values Regulations in all but the densest city centers reflect a single-family housing bias. For example, the large landscaped front yards associated with detached housing have become the prototype of all site planning and preclude other ways of positioning dwellings on land. The suitability and desirability of such yards is not considered. Surely there is not complete consensus that they are essential or even beautiful. Some people prefer plastic flowers to trees and grass while others prefer no yards at all [487, 438]. 487 dRR Among other commonly held values that affect site planning are preferences for roof lines, architectural styles, and land¬ scape materials. Often what the com¬ munity values as attractive is not really an esthetic judgment but an uncritical acceptance of the status quo. Building all mansard roofs, or Georgian houses, or planting identical trees might be justi¬ fied in a district of historic importance, but in ordinary residential construction, such duplication may create lifeless monotony. Keeping pace with changes Site planning regulations have to adapt to changes in technology and living habits of the population. The reasons are obvious. If transportation changes were disregarded, for instance, we would still treat parking requirements as though we were dealing with horses and buggies instead of automobiles. As our affluent society produces more and more cars, the writers of parking standards are in¬ creasing the number of off-street spaces that a site developer must provide. Other changes have taken place, many involving recreation and the use of lei¬ sure time, that have not been properly evaluated. The impact of television has not been fully studied. If more and more people spend more time indoors and less outdoors (in gardens, balconies, and the like), it will be necessary to reexamine outdoor space allotments. More likely the shift is not from one kind of space to another — from out¬ door to indoor — but a change in the outdoor activities. The currently popular drag races, skate boards, and mini¬ ature golf courses require very different spaces than do stoop ball, hopscotch, and gardening. Home appliances also affect space needs. With an increase in the use of electric or gas clothes dryers, there is less need for outdoor drying yards at both single-family and multifamily hous¬ ing sites. Likewise, home disposals and incineration systems are reducing re¬ quirements for outdoor garbage and trash facilities. REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES Types of Controls Controls have had the following three main objectives: one, to correct abuses of uncontrolled building; two, to guide orderly community development and protect community investments; and three, to promote qualitative goals in the improvement of housing and site planning. These objectives fall roughly into three time periods. In the first, the controls set legally enforceable quanti¬ tative standards for health, safety, and other living conditions and were, by and large, negative in nature. In the second, they dealt less with quantities of living standards and more with the qualities of community life. In the third and present- day period, the focus of controls has turned away from measurable factors and toward broader esthetic and func¬ tional goals. Today's homebuilder has a difficult time trying to interpret some of these goals, and at the same time to operate within the bounds set by controls of the pre¬ vious two periods, most of which are still in effect and, all too often, are in direct conflict. Building codes Building codes, together with housing and sanitary codes, are intended to ensure sound construction. They affect site planning insofar as they specify occupancy of dwellings and rooms (the load on the land) and window openings for certain rooms. Building codes regu¬ late window openings, but they cannot assure a pleasant view since they have no effect on the relationship between indoor and outdoor areas [489], 172 REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES The greatest impact of these codes on site planning is in the area of material and construction requirements. They in¬ dicate very precisely what is and what is not allowed by reference to wall thicknesses, mechanical features, etc. Because of these stringent construction requirements, building codes in effect rule out certain housing types, namely the mobile home, which can be cheaper in cost and higher in density than con¬ ventional housing. Since a mobile home on wheels is not considered a dwelling in some states, and therefore not subject to building codes, wheels are left on units when they are placed semiperma¬ nently on park sites [490]. This blatant yet completely acceptable circumvention highlights shortcomings and ineffectuality of some building codes. 490 Pressure is mounting to shift the basis of regulations from specification to per¬ formance. With performance as the cri¬ terion, materials manufacturers and de¬ signers would be able to bring about technological improvements more rapidly than is possible today. Zoning ordinances Of all controls, zoning has the greatest influence on the design of housing sites and the intensity of development. By dividing a community into various residential districts (single-family, two- family, multifamily, etc.), zoning estab¬ lishes location, bulk, and siting of all housing throughout a city. The less restrictive the district, the more intensive the housing type permitted. Multifamily buildings are generally excluded from single-family zones but the reverse is not true. Again, the bias is clearly in favor of the low-density single-family houses. These are given the choice locations within the community, while apartments and mobile homes are relegated to less desirable sites, often as buffers between single-family districts and nonresidential uses. Exceptions are the central areas of some of our major cities (Park Avenue in New York City, Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, Russian Hill in San Francisco) where a combination of land costs and amenities gives high-density housing a more favorable position in the market¬ place. The number of residential zones within a city varies considerably. Sacramento, California, has only four, while Phila¬ delphia, Pennsylvania, has as many as twenty-three. The greater the number of zones, the greater the chances for both specialization and combinations of con¬ trols. A profusion of zones permits con¬ forming development patterns within any given zone and at the same time, at the overall city scale, greater variation in site planning techniques — variations in lot size, number and type of dwelling units, parking requirements, etc. Special districts are in order where unique fea¬ tures dictate site planning controls not applicable elsewhere in a community. For example, an R-V zone in Cincinnati, Ohio, protects views along the bluffs, and the R-G-H district in Fremont, Cali¬ fornia, preserves the colonial Spanish flavor of the neighborhood by requiring that new residences harmonize with the historic court-type dwellings. REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES 173 Even though there are quantitative dif¬ ferences between zones, some control factors such as density are common to all. Zoning can establish density di¬ rectly by stipulating the maximum num¬ ber of dwelling units and the minimum lot size of each building, or indirectly by specifying minimum ground level open space requirements per family, maximum height and bulk of buildings, and the minimum number of off-street parking spaces. The motivation for indirect con¬ trols is that a reasonable development or density can be assured without re¬ sorting to specification of the residential buildings permitted. There are no uni¬ form methods for controlling density by indirect controls, but FHA's development of Land Use Intensity (see page 43) may reduce some of the differences among the methods throughout the United States. Zoning ordinance details which apply to bulk and placement of buildings on in¬ dividual parcels of land have the great¬ est bearing on site planning practices. Typically, the ordinance establishes a three-dimensional "building envelope" which describes the setbacks, coverage, height, and spacing of buildings [491- 493]. Many critics believe that these regulations so thoroughly define the sol¬ ids and voids of site planning that there is virtually no room left for creative de¬ sign. This study tends to confirm this view. 174 REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES Building setback requirements are ex¬ pressed in the following different ways: as a minimum number of feet from the front lot or the street to the building line, as a percentage of the lot depth, as an average of the setbacks of exist¬ ing buildings on the same block, or as a distance related to the width of the 491 street and the height of the proposed construction. Side yard sizes are defin¬ able in terms of a fixed minimum number of feet from the lot line to the building line, or a minimum size for any one yard and a combined minimum for the two side yards which is greater than twice the single yard minimum. If a lot is ex¬ tremely narrow, the yard size may be a fixed percentage of the lot width. Rear yards are also specified in terms of either a fixed number of feet or some percentage of the lot depth. 494 Legal justification of front yards came in 1927 with the United States Supreme Court decision that setbacks from the street are necessary to protect dwellings from nuisances and dangers, to reduce fire hazards, to avoid erection of new structures blocking off the light and air of existing ones, to prevent traffic acci¬ dents due to poor visibility at corners, and to make a residential district more attractive by assuring space for lawns and trees.1 There is also strong support for side and rear yards. These yards have been required as firebreaks be¬ tween buildings, to assure adequate light and air to interior spaces, and to provide some usable outdoor space. An 4 Go rieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 606. 609 (1927). 176 REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES 495 additional and now outmoded reason for rear yards was to keep stables and outhouses away from the main structure. While many of the reasons cited above are still valid, there is need to reexamine the yard requirements in the light of changes in both building techniques and the scale of residential development. 496 Building is now taking place on a block- by-block basis in addition to the former lot-by-lot basis. Development at this larger scale permits the design of out¬ door space for both joint and individual benefit. By programming a number of units at one time, more flexibility in site planning can be achieved by at least two different arrangements: (1) placing dwellings on the side lot line and pool¬ ing both side yards into a single space where its usability may be increased [494-490]; and (2) replanning the in- 497 terior spaces of a dwelling so that front and/or rear yards can be cut down in size without sacrifice of livability [497]. Changes in architectural design (open plan, use of large glass surfaces, me¬ chanical ventilating systems) and new housing types (mobile homes, maison¬ ettes, for example) help make fixed yard requirements obsolete [498]. REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES 177 502 The inflexibility of yard requirements limits site planning of multifamily hous¬ ing even more than it does that of single-family. Since these requirements are modeled after yard dimensions of some detached, large lot, single-family dwelling ideal, the problem is difficult to begin with [499-501]. But it is even further complicated by the need to plan not only for satisfactory communal use of outdoor space but also to protect the privacy of the building occupants. If access to a yard outside an apartment window is unlimited, then that yard may be more of a liability than an asset, at least to the occupants of apartments bordering the outdoor space [502]. Land coverage and building height reg¬ ulations are intended to prevent over¬ crowding of the land. As with yard requirements, these regulations are blan¬ ket ones applying to all residential structures within a district. Uniform height limits, originally devised to guard against health hazards (such as tall buildings blocking out light and air from neighboring structures), have helped to produce monotonous skylines. To over¬ come this there has been a growing trend toward a control combining floor area ratio and minimum outdoor usable space per dwelling than on any absolute coverage and height limitations. In addition to yard specifications, there is control of the spaces between build¬ ings on multifamily sites. Usually the distances are prescribed by taking into account the heights of the buildings but not the uses of the interior spaces. As a result distances appear arbitrary [503] — perhaps too great when a building faces a solid wall [504] and too small when two buildings each with large windows face one another [505]. Like perimeter yards, the value of open space between buildings is a function of the usability of the space [506]. Size based on mathematical formulas alone makes no sense and only inhibits creative site planning. 504 505 REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES 179 506 Two special categories of zoning regu¬ lations with a profound impact on site planning are those that apply to parking and fences. Ordinances set standards for off-street parking spaces as some percentage of the number of dwelling units on a site, varying naturally with the different residential zones in a com¬ munity. Regulations also frequently spec¬ ify the location of off-street parking on a residential site. They usually prohibit the parking of cars in the front half of the lot on the premise that such a prac¬ tice will present an unattractive appear¬ ance in the neighborhood. Obviously it does not seem to matter that cars parked in the rear yards can be equally unat¬ tractive to the site occupants or that parking areas in front of structures can be well designed. Fences have particular significance in designs intended to increase the density of single-family housing — they aid greatly in securing privacy for outdoor areas [507-509]. Unfortunately, most zoning ordinances are at cross purposes with this goal. They treat fences as structures and often prohibit their intru¬ sion into required yard areas. Where fences are allowed, ordinances render them ineffective by setting standards of design and opacity which seem to have more concern for keeping houses open to public view than for protecting the privacy of their occupants [ 510, 511 ]. Most of the provisions of zoning ordi¬ nances influencing site planning are negative in nature — they prohibit what are believed to be bad planning prac¬ tices. However, there has been some easing of strict quantitative limits in 180 REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES 182 REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES 515 order to try to improve the quality of the residential environment. These ef¬ forts include floor area ratio, cluster zoning, planned unit development, den¬ sity zoning, and performance standards. Floor area ratio (FAR) sets the total building bulk, but leaves to the designer the manner in which the solids are to be arranged on the site. When combined with minimum open space standards, FAR has the advantage of protecting against overbuilding of land without specifying precise architectural and site planning solutions. FAR can be used as a design incentive by giving a bonus to developers (a higher allowable FAR) in return for some site amenities (such as parking underground or increases above the minimum required open space). Cluster zoning, planned unit develop¬ ment, and density zoning operate on the principle of flexible controls in return for unified land development. The re¬ sult of these regulations is that ac¬ companying an increase in community amenities there is a permitted reduction in the rigidity of single lot standards (of course, with adequate protection of in¬ dividual parcels). Cluster zoning allows a reduction in single lot sizes if the extra land thus accrued is preserved as permanent open space for a cluster of residences [512-516]. It makes possible the protection of natural site features i 516 (groves of trees or a stream bed, for ex¬ ample), the provision of larger recreation spaces than would otherwise be avail¬ able on individual parcels, continuous greenways, and new approaches to resi¬ dential design [517, 518]. The short¬ comings of this kind of control are more the result of misinterpretation and mis¬ application (as a deliberate means of circumventing restrictive regulations to achieve higher densities or to eliminate yard requirements) rather than any in¬ herent flaw in the principle. REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES 183 Planned unit development (PUD) districts are designed to allow a mixture of dwelling types in a residential zone. Under PUD, building proposals are often subject to review by a board appointed to safeguard community interests in any large new development. Although re¬ view guide lines are included in ordi¬ nances, the board judges plans on their merits. Density zoning is similar to PUD in that it also permits a mixture of housing types. Densities are established for various districts, and builders are permitted to determine building type within whatever density ceilings have been set. Unlike PUD, density zoning sometimes does away with plan review on the grounds that such reviews are administratively cumbersome and dis¬ couraging to potential developers of large tracts of land. Performance standards are concerned with different matters. They deal with nuisances — noise, smoke, glare, traffic — in residential areas. To date these regulations apply more to nonresidential than to residential uses. However, with increased mixing of the two activities on the same site, performance standards will have greater applicability in site planning. They would determine, for example, whether or not a small con¬ venience store on a housing site is de¬ sirable by investigating certain operating characteristics (number of employees, hours of operation, noise emission) and comparing them with allowable perfor- Eldridge Lovelace and William L. Weismanlel, Density Zoning Organic Zoning for Planned Res¬ idential Developments [Urban land Institute, Technical Bulletin No. 42 (Washington, D.C.: Ur¬ ban Lond Institute, 1961)]. 184 REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES manees. Previously such uses were either accepted or rejected with little or no regard to their specific nature. A final word under zoning on the subject of architectural controls. These have been adopted in some communities in order to ensure either a degree of har¬ mony or contrast between adjoining resi¬ dences. Design features, such as roof lines, surface materials, window open¬ ings, are reviewed for conformity (if the aim of the control is to preserve a cer¬ tain style in a community) or for diversity (if the goal is to prevent mass repetition of one or two builders' models). These architectural controls have little influ¬ ence on site planning, not because there is no legitimate or important connection, but because in housing design, the ex¬ teriors and interiors are often not re¬ lated. Numerous examples exist of a superficial, surface differentiation of the front façades of otherwise identical dwellings [519, 520]. Subdivision ordinances Subdivision ordinances pertain to the size and shape of land parcels, the length and width of blocks, width of streets, and grades. In most commu¬ nities they are intended to complement zoning, but in practice the two have been known to conflict. One of the reasons they conflict is that land is often parceled without regard to what build¬ ings will eventually be placed on it. 519 Once certain lot and block sizes have been determined, they tend to become frozen and are applied and reapplied in rubber-stamp fashion. Obviously this severely restricts any attempts to create variety in site design. The establishment of "ideal" subdivision principles might have had some validity when houses were built one-by-one on a lot-by-lot basis and the problems associated with a dwelling were almost identical with those of its neighbor. With the new patterns of urban renewal in central city areas and planned developments on the outskirts of metropolitan areas, tradi¬ tional subdivision practices are often obstructions rather than aids to good site planning (521 ]. Street and grade regulations have as their objective the prevention of dan¬ gerous traffic conditions. However, since they may require standard street widths and grades regardless of location and load, they may create design layout problems. A minor street serving only a few residences will be the same width as a major traffic artery. A residential street which is too wide gives no sense of visual enclosure and is wasteful of land, building materials, and construc¬ tion costs. Uniform standards, inten¬ tionally set high to provide for all pos¬ sible contingencies, are poor standards. The suggestion has been made to com¬ bine subdivision and zoning regulations, and perhaps others, into a single ordi¬ nance aimed at establishing what has been called, "Development Regula¬ tions."0 This single set of controls would seek to eliminate present conflicts be¬ tween the separate ordinances, to coor¬ dinate the standards that apply in a given community and even in adjoining communities, to adapt to building needs and construction methods, and to reflect positive design goals. "John W. Reps, "Requiem for Zoning," Planning 1964 {Chicago: American Society of Plonning Officials, 1964). REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES 185 Other regulations In addition to zoning and subdivision ordinances, there are other controls op¬ erative in both central city and suburban areas which bear on site planning. These are private controls (covenants), local public controls (urban renewal plan), and federal regulations (FHA Neighbor¬ hood Standards and Minimum Property Standards). Protective covenants are specifications written into a deed and go along with property when it is sold. In the main they have been negative in nature and have discouraged the introduction of new and different housing types and site planning practices. However, some have been of great benefit. In Boston, for example, they have been used to preserve historic and irreplaceable open space (see plan and photographs of Louisburg Square on page 33). More recently, they have been employed in connection with PUDs with a homes as¬ sociation to establish land use restric¬ tions on all parcels, to protect against any encroachment of the common areas, and to provide for architectural review of individual buildings.' Developers in urban renewal areas face another set of controls. These are con¬ tained in the urban renewal plan docu¬ ment and vary from community to com¬ munity. In some localities, "the controls may be very specific and tied to clear, 7 U.S. Federol Housing Administration, Planned- Unit Development with a Homes Association, Land Planning Bulletin No. 6 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 53. detailed plans tightly governing even¬ tual development." In other places an "open" plan approach is utilized, "with controls limited to matters [which provide] maximum opportunity for determining the details during redevelopment."8 FHA has prepared a series of Neighbor¬ hood Standards containing both ad¬ visory and mandatory rules for FHA in¬ sured subdivisions. The advisory rules set forth guides affecting the design of streets, lots, and related construction details; the mandatory ones establish minimum standards for street improve¬ ments, lot and block grading, etc. More H U S. Urban Renewal Administration, Design Ob¬ jectives in Urban Renewal Documents, Technical Guide 16 (Washington, D C U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965), p. 5. influential with respect to site planning are FHA's Minimum Property Standards (MPS) which apply specifically to indi¬ vidual building sites. Once very rigid, MPS have been revised within the past few years by introducing the concept of Land Use Intensity Ratios (see page 43) which gives more flexibility to design. Perhaps it is in its role of mortgage in¬ surer rather than standard setter that FHA wields greatest influence on site planning. Together with the Veterans Administration (VA), it has helped to shape the form of suburban America. Conventional in approach, they have fostered the single-family house in its traditional form. Although practices vary considerably with insuring offices in different parts of the United States, FHA has, on the whole, a poor reputa- 186 REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES tion among design professionals. Its "regulations have not been known to en¬ courage creative solutions."" FHA regu¬ lations and zoning ordinances tend to reinforce each other, and thus cause very restrictive situations for the imag¬ inative designer. Banks and savings and loan institutions are also extremely cautious in accept¬ ing innovations. They have accepted and perpetuated many of the dictums of zoning ordinances. Some of their atti¬ tudes are revealed in the following widely disseminated statements: "A front yard of not less than 25 feet ¡s a commonly used standard."1" Or, "In areas where town house dwellings are used, no more than five town house units in any contiguous group should be used."11 In such an atmosphere, the bur¬ den is on designers to "prove" that de¬ viations from these hard and fast rules will not jeopardize investors' capital or community standards. Design Incentives Under increasing pressure from the de¬ sign professions and enlightened offi¬ cials of government (at federal and local levels), housing associations, and lend¬ ing institutions, steps are being taken towards positive design incentives and reeducation programs to replace con¬ straints. These are not isolated efforts 'Ada Louise Huxtable, "HHFA-Design ol the Top," The New York Times, October 25, 1964, p. X 15. United States Savings and Loan League, Land Planning (Chicago: United Slates Savings and Loan League, 1962), p 8. " Ibid , p. 2 but part of a coordinated drive to re¬ examine the whole spectrum of regu¬ lations. At the national level, President Johnson has called for "the establish¬ ment of a Temporary National Commis¬ sion on Codes, Zoning, Taxation, and Development Standards."12 Though criticized for its conservative view of design, FHA has nevertheless played an important role in certain as¬ pects of site planning since its founding in 1934. In its early days it was instru¬ mental in helping to break the monoto¬ nous grid pattern of suburban streets, advocating instead cul-de-sacs, loops, and curvilinear subdivisions. President Lyndon B Johnson, "Message from The President of the United Slates Relative to the Problems and Future of the Central City and Its Suburbs" (Washington, D.C., March 2, 1965). More recent FHA design incentives are many faceted. Under the Housing and Home Finance Agency (HHFA), it has instituted an honor awards program aimed at stimulating better design of both single-family and multifamily resi¬ dences. It is engaged in planned unit development research and in a cam¬ paign to place utilities underground. It has long urged placing them along the rear property lines but has stepped up its efforts and is now increasing property valuation for the outright burial of utility lines. Concern for the large stock of obsolete housing in the centers of older cities has led FHA into the field of rehabilitation. It is backing current pilot projects in New York City to find ways of upgrading old tenements to meet adequate housing standards without displacing the occu¬ pants. Initially the rehabilitation is being limited to building interiors and exteriors, but subsequent projects will include site planning experiments (rear yard im¬ provements and other open space amenities). FHA has under consideration the spon¬ sorship of in-service training programs for personnel of its insuring offices, housing design competitions for students and practicing architects, and mass media educational programs (publica¬ tions and films) for the general public. A broad rather than limited approach is being pursued by FHA with the realiza¬ tion that no single program will of itself produce better housing and site planning. REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES 187 The Public Housing Administration is also taking an active role in fostering better design through a series of seminars, an honor awards program, and the use of consultants. Since 1963, PHA has been cooperating with the AIA and the Na¬ tional Association of Housing and Rede¬ velopment Officials (NAHRO), in seminars for public housing authorities and archi¬ tects in many parts of the country. "These seminars have been organized in an effort to bring new concepts to low- rent housing, to generate new enthusi¬ asm and interest in design, and to show, by examples, what can be done within the local housing authority's budget for better design of low-income housing."1 ' A major portion of the seminars is de¬ voted to discussion of site planning. Following FHA's lead, PHA's honor awards program has helped to demon¬ strate that good design is possible within the limits of existing programs. Many of the award-winning designs have been analyzed in the seminar programs. PHA now hires design consultants — architects, landscape architects, urban planners — to augment the professional staffs of their regional offices in review¬ ing the proposals of housing authorities for low-rent housing projects. The suc¬ cess of this program depends upon timing. Any review of design proposals must be early; if not, schemes are de¬ termined and changes become both ex¬ pensive and time consuming. PHA's role as a promoter of good design has been 13 Notional Association of Housing and Redevelop¬ ment Officials, "New Approaches to Housing De¬ sign for Low Income Families," Model Program for Design Seminars, 1964. 188 REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES strengthened by the establishment of a Land Planning Section at the Central Office in Washington "to help implement and carry forward the emphasis . . on better design and site planning."11 The section members constitute a team to complement the design consultant program. Their job is to relate low-rent housing to other local programs (social welfare, recreation, etc.), especially in site selection and the blending of new projects into the existing neighborhood fabric. "U.S. Public Housing Adminislrolion, Establish¬ ment of a Land Planning Section in PHA's Central Office" [Memorandum from Development Division to Regional Directors and Assistant Directors for Development (Washington, D.C., June 16, 1965)]. Of all the HHFA constitutents, the Urban Renewal Administration has had the most active program with "high quality design [as] a basic objective "1' Its program has taken many forms — speeches by Commissioner William L. Slayton, honor awards, technical guides, disposition techniques, and modifications of restrictive controls. Commissioner Slayton has made it clear that it is the job of URA to erect a frame¬ work within which the best design can flourish. In many public statements he has emphasized that good design is not just a repetition of what is considered "best" today, but that experimentation "U.S. Urban Renewal Administration, "Design in Urban Renewal," Local Public Agency Letter No. 249 (Washington, D C„ August 20, 1962). is needed "to develop new forms of urban living, new solutions for the heart of the city which satisfy the technological imperatives of the automobile age and the unchanging demands of the human organism."10 The honor awards program of URA has helped to focus attention on good de¬ sign by applauding and publicizing specific projects. It is hoped that such publicity will raise the sights of architects and local planning agencies alike. "'William L. Slayton, "Design Goals for Urban Renewal," Architectural Record, CXXXIV, No. 5 (November, 1963), p. 149. URA's technical guides have reempha- sized the gains in preparing design ob¬ jectives as a guide to project planning17 and have outlined alternative methods for reviewing developers' proposals prior to plan approval.1H A clear state¬ ment of objectives, unlike exhortations to "do a better job," helps to clarify the program for housing in terms of both future occupants and in relation to area- wide goals. Further, the objectives can stress qualitative rather than quantitative factors usually contained in urban re¬ newal plans. These methods for achiev¬ ing good site planning outlined in URA guides range from design competitions, in which a developer is selected in open competition with the local authority re¬ quiring design review even after the land has been sold, to virtually no de¬ sign review, with all the specifications and controls contained in the urban re¬ newal plan. In seeking to achieve high-quality de¬ sign, URA has urged that disposition documents be flexible, allowing for change at all stages of planning. Further, it has urged that where inno¬ vations are desirable, traditional zoning be abandoned in project areas in favor of a practice similar to PUD. In addition to the federal agencies — FHA, PHA, URA, and their regional and local counterparts — a number of pro- " U.S. Urban Renewal Administration, Design Ob¬ jectives in Urban Renewal Documents, Technical Guide 16 (Washington, D.C U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965) IS U.S. Urban Renewal Administration, Design Re¬ view m Urban Renewal, Technical Guide 15 (Washington, D.C U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965). fessional organizations and private asso¬ ciations are engaging in activities to stimulate better design. NAHRO, with a grant from the Ford Foundation, has organized design seminars to which PHA and AIA contribute. The latter organi¬ zation has actively participated in public meetings at the local level to heighten public awareness of the importance of design. At the national level, it has held conferences and issued numerous committee reports along with regular Institute publications to inform its own membership of new directions in the field of housing. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) has coop¬ erated with FHA, the National Associa¬ tion of Home Builders (NAHB), and others in preparing technical bulletins on innovative methods of land planning and site design. NAHB itself has carried the message of these bulletins to local builders throughout the country. In the area of design review and advice, the Mobile Homes Manufacturers Associa¬ tion (MHMA) provides a consulting ser¬ vice to park owners for a modest fee; the Association has also sponsored com¬ petitions for improved park design. REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES 189 conclusions "In mass housing design, there must be continued cooperation be¬ tween those who design and those who build." 1 Without doubt there is a serious lack of quality site planning in the United States today. If the more than 700 project sites visited during the course of this study (large projects and small ones, lo¬ cated in major cities and in small towns, and built with and without federal as¬ sistance) are a fair representation of current site planning, the overall picture is not encouraging. Even many sites singled out by local housing officials and architects as being of high quality are disappointing. No area has a monopoly on second-raie housing. It exists every¬ where and in fact is even copied. In¬ stances were found where a project was repeated in virtually every detail in d if- 1 Jomes A Murray, ' The Architecture of Housing, The 1962 Canadian Housing Design Council Lec¬ ture given at the National Gallery of Canada (Ottawa, November 29, 1962). ferent cities — no doubt designed by the same firm [522-527]. To be sure, there are bright spots, but these are what Ada Louise Huxtable calls "excellence culled from overwhelming mediocrity." Some of the best site planning was seen in older projects which appeared to have improved with age [528, 529]. It would be well to try to learn from them, but not to copy them slavishly. An ob¬ vious reason not to duplicate some of these earlier projects is scale; many are small, while today's sites are often large. The challenge of working out an individ¬ ualized plan — one that fits the site, climate, and special human needs — is frequently ignored. Instead the de¬ signer falls back on a convenient stock of "samples" applicable to all site situations. Practice of Site Planning Land There is national concern over land shortages, but in the experience of this observer the problem at many sites is not a shortage but a waste of land. The cut-up little patches of grass are legion [530, 531]. All too often in site plan¬ ning, buildings just "happen" on a site [532, 533] indicating that plans are prepared before a site is selected. It is not surprising, therefore, that trees are cut down, hills leveled, and streams filled to force a recalcitrant merger of building and land. Some of the most glaring shortcomings of contemporary site planning practice include lack of privacy, failure to design for daily and seasonal variations, im- CONCLUSIONS permanence of site details, unimagina¬ tive landscape treatment, unusability of open space, and poor relationships of interior and exterior spaces. Privacy for the small-lot, single-family unit is meager; privacy for the multi- family dwelling is rare. This situation is not critical for people who do not value privacy, but it is critical for those who do. A degree of privacy exists for the detached house in the form of yards which act as insulators, but there is none for the attached dwelling and the apart¬ ment [534, 535]. Occupants of a well- designed site ought to have enough in¬ terior privacy to be able to keep the shades of their apartments raised with¬ out feeling like fish in a glass bowl. They ought also to have exterior privacy in the form of a portion of outdoor space which they can use, maintain, and iden¬ tify with. Fences help, but they cannot salvage a poor plan. Most of the sites visited were related to daytime warm weather use. Few plans were adapted to weather, seasonal, and daily time changes. There was little evi¬ dence of special provisions for shelter, security, and lighting to make the sites usable at all times. CONCLUSIONS 193 Durability of site details is related to climate and intensity of use. The suc¬ cess of details is judged by how well they function and appear over time — five or ten years [536, 537] — not just at the time of installation. Causes of poor appearance can be attributed to cheap materials, slapdash construction, incorrect placement, and inadequate maintenance. Landscape treatment of many multifamily sites gives the impression that the choice is one of either grass or pavement [538- 541]. The former brings with it the ubiquitous poles and chains and "keep off the grass" signs. But obviously the choice is not limited to just these two. An alternative is to save the natural landscape during both the design and construction phases. If plant materials cannot be saved, or if they are lacking in the first place, the task is to provide a variety of new ones. 194 CONCLUSIONS Exterior spaces are at times nothing more than left-over spaces [542] — "The grounds — which are generally, barren . . . and usually accurately . called simply 'open space.' "2 To create vital, attractive spaces and to conserve land, a site should be laid out with specific activities in mind and not left to chance [543]. Usability is a conse¬ quence of planning and not a label. Merely designating an area a "common green," for example, is no automatic guarantee that it will function as such [544], To avoid waste, space has to fulfill its intended use in more than name only. "Albert Mayer, "Public Housing Architecture, Journal of Housing, IXX, No. 8 (October 15, 1962), p. 447. CONCLUSIONS 195 Relating interior and exterior spaces is another aspect of site design that is ne¬ glected in current practice. Private out¬ door space immediately adjacent to a living room, for example, remains only potentially usable if there is no direct access to it from the room [545]. An¬ other failure to relate indoor and out¬ door spaces occurs when an interior opens out onto a public rather than a private space. A sense of seclusion is lost to the dwelling unless some screen¬ ing is provided for both visual and auditory privacy [546]. Two other observations concerning land relate specifically to tower buildings.- poorly related ground-level spaces and unexploited rooftops. Granted, a satis¬ factory relationship between the ground plane and vertical building walls of mul¬ tistory apartment buildings is difficult to achieve. At some sites, the problem is nicely solved by elevating the structure on columns and freeing the ground level for communal use. At others where there is a dearth of usable ground space due to high coverage, rooftops are a rich source of space for both private and communal functions. Coverage, after all, does not remove open space,- it only changes its elevation. It is disappointing that in the face of their potential ad¬ vantages so few examples of exploited rooftops were observed during this study. Even fewer of these examples were attractive. With an increase in the con¬ struction of tall buildings, it is imperative that one be concerned with the appear¬ ance of rooftops since more and more are now visible. Circulation and vehicular storage It has been said that "cars design the site." Often site planners have found it easier to give first priority to cars and to consider human needs afterwards [547-551]. The result is a housing site that resembles a "sea of cars." Short of a decrease in on-site parking require¬ ments, which is unlikely at the present time, an alternative is some sort of multi¬ level garage structure. Having given priority to the automobile, planners give little thought to the resident as a pedes¬ trian. The route from the parking lot to the dwelling is seldom considered. In¬ stead, buildings are oriented to the street as though the majority of pedes¬ trians approached the site from a corner CONCLUSIONS 197 bus stop. The front door is the show- place [552], but for most tenants the back door — undesigned and cluttered though it may be — is the real entrance [553], The streets of housing sites, on the other hand, seem to suffer from overattention or at least overdesign. They appear excessively wide and suited more for the movement of vehicles than for their possible utility as gathering places or as part of a spatial sequence [554, 555]. For example, one-way streets, particu¬ larly at mobile home parks, result not so much in any saving of width of right- of-ways as in a faster flow of traffic. Building design and type Emphasis on housing sites continues to center on facades and interior arrange¬ ments and not on site development. Buildings are designed from the "outside- in" and not from the "inside-out." It has been noted that public housing projects "are usually standardized, uni¬ form designs that give little thought to the city's future landscape. Lack of adequate funds plays a role, but even where money is made available, it is often misspent on unprepossessing em¬ bellishments or wasted spaces. Economy, simplicity, and efficiency seem rarely to have made liaison." '' The same can be said of private housing. It is essential that some new forms of multifamily housing be found to replace the stereotype walk-up buildings com¬ mon to all American cities. This well- worn housing type has been appro¬ priately described as "a nondescript dwelling form, lacking the social concen¬ tration, visual drama and release of large open space at high density which gives validity to the high building and equally lacking the direct contact with private outdoor space and the plea¬ surable human scale so appealing in other forms of horizontal multiple build¬ ing; in short a compromise building, ex¬ hibiting the usual ills and indecisions of compromise."1 [55Ó, 557] Charles Abrams, Man's Struggle lor Shelter in on Urbanizing World (Cambridge, Mass.: M.l.T. Press, 1964), p. 62 4 James A. Murray and Henry Fliess, New Forms of Family Housing: A Study ol Horizontal Multi¬ ple Housing Techniques (Canadian Housing De¬ sign Council, n.d.), p. 2. Promising replacements are court-house and mobile home types. The court-house, as a detached structure and part of a single-family cluster, or as a multiple dwelling on a small site, has the advan¬ tages of privacy, land conservation, ter¬ rain adaptability, urban street scale, va¬ riety of private and public uses of the court, and flexible orientation [558- 561]. Many of these advantages are lost when traditional single-family house setbacks are required. As attached struc¬ tures on small sites, "court-houses within a court-house" are especially appealing. In the few examples of this type seen, there is a common court off which pri¬ vate dwellings are located. The private dwellings turn in on their own individ¬ ual, protected outdoor courts. "Whether or not the trailer house will play as beneficial a part as a perma¬ nent housing proposition is open to considerable and deeply rooted skepti¬ cism."' This doubt was voiced almost thirty years ago, and is relevant today. A great deal of the uncertainty would be removed if exterior design were changed so mobile homes would not look like a cross between a car and a house. If the gap in appearance between them and more conventional housing were narrowed, and if the full potential of compact design and flexibility in site ar- Americon Municipal Association, The House Trailer, lis Effect on State and Local Government, Report No. 115 {Chicago- American Municipal As¬ sociation, 1937). 202 CONCLUSIONS rangement were realized, mobile homes could be a great boon to the residential community [562, 563]. The court and mobile types are but two possibilities. What is needed in the en¬ tire housing field, multiple- and single- family housing alike, is greater choice — choice of type, location, and size of dwelling units. Even within a single building it is asonable to mix types of accommodation, for example, maison¬ ettes on the first two floors for families with children and smaller apartments at the upper levels for childless families [564-566]. Occupant needs Differences among families are not re¬ flected in current site planning practice. Most designs cater only to a monolithic, middle-class society.0 More advanced analysis, programming, and testing of tenant desires prior to design would re¬ veal that there ¡s great variation in the needs of families, even those that out¬ wardly appear to be similar. Some fam¬ ilies are gregarious while others are not; some want a "minimum involvement" house while others want the opposite — one in which they can express their indi- " Roger Montgomery, "Comment on 'Fear ond House-os-Haven in the Lower Class,' " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXXII, No. 1. 565 viduality and improve their own homes. After construction, there should be some evaluation of both site and building to ascertain if, and how well, a project meets occupant needs. Good transient facilities are also an essential part of satisfying housing re¬ quirements. Motel rooms that accommo¬ date families on more than an overnight basis are not enough. Also needed are dwellings designed to serve the family in a new community looking for perma¬ nent housing, families temporarily dis¬ placed during urban renewal, and sim¬ ilar situations. Site size Big sites present a challenge which has not been met successfully, namely, how to take advantage of economies which accrue from large-scale development while avoiding monotony and anonymity of housing. Ways of doing this are sug¬ gested in Chapter Four. An especially effective method is used in some urban renewal areas. Land is parceled out and sold to different developers, and each parcel in turn is designed individually. In spite of separate ownership and sep¬ arate design solutions, certain basic de¬ cisions affecting the whole site are co¬ ordinated (the location of utilities, the major road network, the distribution of major open spaces, and the building 566 567 masses). This same procedure could be applied to land under single ownership. The large site located outside the built-up portions of a community usually poses fewer problems. Preservation of existing landscape features and experi¬ mentation with street systems not tied to existing grids give opportunities for va¬ riety not usually available in center city locations [567]. CONCLUSIONS 203 568 569 204 CONCLUSIONS A special problem is presented when a lot is too small for a building or a build¬ ing is too large for the lot. However, it need not arise at all if the design of the two is coordinated. Multiple use of sites Mixture of uses on a site is becom¬ ing more and more widespread as the single-use zoning district comes in for more and more criticism [568]. "We must increase multiple use of land for the structures we inhabit and reserve more land for man to utilize solely for the single purpose of enjoyment."' Two ways of accomplishing this are by mixing uses within a given building and mixing uses on a given site. Apartments and shops are commonly found in one build¬ ing [569, 570]. Less frequent, however, is a combination of housing and office, school, commercial, and recreation uses. Mixtures of this type are probably best suited to central city locations with multi¬ story apartment buildings where the lower floors and the ground area are not likely to be desirable for either hous¬ ing or private outdoor uses. Housing in the future might be built on the air rights of parking lots [571]. Potential sites include suburban shopping center lots, which, if designed to accommodate housing above the site instead of across the street, could provide a community focus and also reduce the apparent size of the parking fields [572]. A. Quincy Jones, "Housing, Commerce and In¬ dustry," Address to the 1965 American Institute of Architects Annual Convention and the XI Pan American Congress of Archilects (Washington, D.C., June 14-18, 1965). Housing densities A former belief was that high densities resulted in low livability. However, there is growing belief that this is not the case. "In most larger communities and cities today . . . especially in the suburbanized cities of America, the problem is no longer that densities are too high but that they are, overall, too low. Yet the notion that lowering density will per se heighten livability, morality, and virtue still obsesses most of our planners and their zoning codes. They substitute com¬ pulsory open space and setbacks for creative urban design."8 When a site contains multiple uses or is located ad¬ joining a large permanent open space, many of the fixed notions about density become questionable. When high density is appropriate, cru¬ cial considerations are "multi-level open space, new forms of access, and indi¬ vidual privacy."9 With an examination of individual sites, it becomes clear that factors such as the usability of ground areas and the use of adjoining sites are as significant as density in determining livability. A much more detailed study would probably reveal that there are certain pivotal density points on either side of which site planning techniques and housing types differ. " Wolf Von Eckardl, "The Cose for Building 350 New Towns," Harper's Magazine, CCXXXI, No. 1387 (December, 1965), p. 91. 'Walter Segal, "The Use of land in Relation to Building Height, Coverage and Housing Density," Ekistics, IXX, No. 110 (Jonuory, 1965), p. 70. CONCLUSIONS 205 A tentative proposal emerges from this study which, if followed, might lead to better relationships between a site and its surroundings. It seems reasonable to suggest that in submitting building plans for review (by local planning and zoning agencies, FHA, etc.), architects be re¬ quired to submit drawings of their build- ing(s) in relation to all structures, open spaces, and circulation routes on adjoin¬ ing parcels. Where surrounding lands are temporarily vacant, local officials would have the responsibility of inform¬ ing developers of pending plans so that sites could be coordinated. Models should be required along with the draw¬ ings. It can be argued that this informa¬ tion is now available to any developer who wants to take the trouble to find out about the environment of his prop¬ erty. But the fact is that few have taken advantage of this information. When adjoining sites are both subject to local public review (PHA, URA, etc.), it is even easier to coordinate environmental planning. Site Design Responsibilities and Process Coordination "The coordination of both public and private interests towards the application of sound design principles for neighbor¬ hoods, with provision for flexibility and experimentation, can perhaps best for¬ ward the aims of a better environ¬ ment."11 Because of the complex nature of large-scale housing, involving as it does designers, builders, financiers, gov¬ ernment officials, and others, coordina¬ tion is essential. However, the cumber¬ some bureaucracy of the public function seems to impede any real coordination. It is easier for all concerned to work in isolation, in their own separate spheres. Uncoordinated action can have many unfortunate consequences, such as de¬ signing on-site open space without con¬ sidering adjoining off-site public open spaces [574-576]. During the course of this study, at meetings held to discuss site planning practice, architects, land¬ scape architects, and land planners — both with the government and in private practice in the same metropolitan area — met for the first time! " Redevelopment Authority of the City ot Phila¬ delphia, Eostwick New House Study (Philadelphia: Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadel¬ phia, 1957), p. 61. 206 CONCLUSIONS 574 Many housing agencies at all levels of government are preoccupied with bird's- eye views of projects (the rendered site plan at one inch equaling one hundred feet) and not with actual ground level views. "We have all too frequently ap¬ proached the plan from a zoning or¬ dinance concept and created two di¬ mensional rather than three dimensional concepts."1- More time is seemingly spent in trying to interpret regulations than in shaping livable housing sites. 13 William L. Slayfon, "Disposition, Developers, and Design," Address to the Metropolitan Devel¬ opment Association of Syracuse and Onondaga County (Syracuse, New York, July 26, 1962). 575 Conflicts among the multitude of local regulations also hamper any effective site planning coordination. Reference has already been made to the conflict between zoning and subdivision ordi¬ nances. Additionally, there are conflicts between other local matters, such as housing development densities and sewer extensions, and between highway and park acquisition programs, all of which affect residential site planning. 208 CONCLUSIONS Some existing component of local gov¬ ernment should serve as a clearing house to bring together the many poli¬ cies, programs, and regulations that influence residential building practice. Through concerted efforts of adminis¬ trators it is hoped that collaboration among developers and their designers will follow. The team approach to de¬ sign which is encouraged at national professional conferences seems to have little support at the local level. A jealous guarding of professionalism seems to take precedence over good (and coordi¬ nated) design. FHA's role Ideally, all government offices should attract the best qualified people of our country. This is true as well for those agencies engaged in housing and urban development. It is not surprising that architects take a dim view of FHA's atti¬ tudes toward design when the majority of its "architects" have no professional training as such. Until the government is able to hire fully qualified architects to assume positions of responsibility for design in local offices throughout the country, there are several steps that can be taken. The use of professional con¬ sultants, somewhat in the manner of PHA's experience, ought to be pursued, if not at the local level, then at the regional level. FHA's proposed person¬ nel training program might be expanded to include an in-service design program consisting of some basic courses taught at nearby architectural schools and some organized field inspections of both FHA and non-FHA insured projects. Still another step toward improving the qual¬ ity of FHA-insured housing would be to insist that plans submitted for review adequately indentify neighboring prop¬ erty characteristics. FHA's LUI concept begins to do this, but not in sufficient detail at the scale of off-site open spaces or building masses, for example. URA's role URA has shown exceptional concern for design. Some renewal projects (Wash¬ ington, D.C., San Francisco and Sacra¬ mento, California, to name a few) are outstanding. But in the majority of cities, the housing in urban renewal areas is neither better nor worse than housing elsewhere [577-579]. 578 Design competitions and procedures which encourage responsible review of plans can do a great deal to achieve excellence in design. However, many LPAs have not taken advantage of these opportunities. Some have not gone be¬ yond their own staffs in seeking advice. This failure to get outside consultant assistance has more serious conse¬ quences in communities of small and medium size where LPAs sometimes have no designers on their staffs. It was clear throughout this study that the concepts and design requirements imposed by land disposition documents have far less significance in producing quality site design than the motives of individual developers and the skills of their architects. However, quality site design may be better assured if design review is required by the disposition document. The land in urban renewal areas is too difficult to secure and too expensive to develop for design to be a giveaway. Zoning, now mandatory and usually an inhibitor of creativity, should be made less binding for urban renewal sites; plan review, now optional, should be made mandatory. CONCLUSIONS 209 PHA's role PHA has succeeded in improving the quality of its projects through capable national leadership, relaxation of tight restrictions, and the use of consultants. It could do even more by instituting local competitions for specific project sites and by continuing to ease present regu¬ lations. However, it is difficult for an agency after years of "following the book" to know exactly where to turn when the book is thrown away. Some local authorities have achieved good results by exercising limited but respon¬ sible review of plan proposals. Others have forfeited review and are accepting almost any design submitted that meets the letter of the law. Some critics of the public housing pro¬ gram have pointed to the high costs of land acquisition, building construction, and site improvement. In responding, local housing authorities would do well to admit that these costs are indeed high but to point out that cheap housing is a poor investment and that the cutting of corners only results in large operating budgets. Of course, spending great sums of money is no promise of excel¬ lence. Not satisfied with the quality of many PHA projects, some critics have the opposite complaint — that not enough money is spent for architectural services. While it would be splendid to pay archi¬ tects more, there is no necessary corre¬ lation between pay scales and quality of design. At present pay rates there are handsome projects as well as medi¬ ocre ones. Regulations and controls "Art and creativity do not come out of a formula. . . There is ample evi¬ dence that regulations and controls do not produce quality site planning and in fact may prevent it. All the sites illus¬ trated in this report were built in ac¬ cordance with local regulations. It is rather clearly demonstrated by the pho¬ tographs and plans that poor design has not been eliminated by ordinance [580- 584]. Ernest J. Kump, "Education and the Environ¬ ment," Address to 'he 1965 American Institute of Architects Annual Convention and the XI Pan Americon Congress of Architects (Washington, D.C., June 14-18, 1965). To be sure, zoning is an easy scapegoat. It is the excuse used by the less gifted designer who rationalizes his own short¬ comings in this way. However, if zoning alone is blameworthy, what then can explain the gamut of quality of develop¬ ments, ranging from first rate to deplor¬ able, all of which have been built under the same set of controls? Admittedly, zoning does not help, but it does not obliterate talent. 584 212 CONCLUSIONS In sections of cities where development is still taking place lot by lot, zoning may be the best tool we have devised so far. But in the main, it is probably the most limiting of all the controls on site planning. One of the causes is that regulations are written with the single- family house as the model. Other hous¬ ing types, multifamily included, are forced into this same mold. Through requirements dealing with yard dimen¬ sions, the separation of buildings, and the like, conservation and privacy are thwarted. "Detailed land use require¬ ments, setbacks, and building line, side yard, rear yard, and height limitations . . . leave no room for tailoring develop¬ ment to the advantages and limitations of a particular undertaking.",'t Since it is conceived on the basis of what already exists, zoning extends into new areas what has already been built in the old, with the result that innovation is stifled. "The . . . monotony of newly built-up areas cannot be construed as having been required by law, but the law has clearly dictated its form."1 New construction is compelled to con¬ form to site requirements, even if it de¬ parts from existing residences in both appearance and its relationship to land. Certain types, such as the mobile home, are either banned completely or dis¬ couraged from desirable sites because of local restrictions. " William L. Slaylon, "Municipal Responsibility for Lond Use Controls in Urban Renewal Areas — A New Assessment," Address to the Third Annual Institute on Plonning and Zoning, Southwestern Legal Foundation (Dallas, Texos, September 27, 1963). ' Redevelopment Authority of the City of Phila¬ delphia, foc. cit. Rigid, quantitative specifications can and should be replaced by less con¬ fining development guides. Examples of such guides are PUD for new growth areas, project design review for large area rebuilding, and LUI for single lots and small developments in built-up areas. In the hands of enlightened ad¬ ministrators, these regulatory devices have an even greater chance of suc¬ ceeding where zoning has failed. Towards Improved Site Planning Public expectations "The greatest obstacle to seemly cities has become the low standard of demand and expectation of their present inhab¬ itants, a direct expression of their having become habituated to the present en¬ vironment and their incapacity to con¬ ceive of any better alternative."10 With the present dearth of quality housing environments, public expectations are bound to be low. They can be raised and complacency overcome only when the consumer public is shown what skill¬ ful design together with advanced tech¬ nology can achieve. Of course, lay citizens cannot individually or collec¬ tively do the work of professionals in this field, but hopefully, they will opt for good design when they are presented a real choice. Frederick Gulheim, "Urban Space and Urban Design," Address to the Symposium on the Future Use of Urban Space, Resources for the Future (Washington, D C, March 26-27, 1962). Public leadership "When the Federal government says, in most positive terms, that it wants to in¬ sure that what is built is as fine as we can make it, then we are developing a new dimension in the public responsi¬ bility."1, The list of agencies and orga¬ nizations at all levels of government ex¬ pressing interest in improving the quality of the physical environment is impres¬ sive. But a word of caution is in order lest this multiplicity of well-meaning groups leads to a corresponding multi¬ plicity of regulations. The role of the government should be to promote those operational processes which cause good design to flourish and to support innova¬ tions and more research. Designer's role The architect's role in site and housing design has not been as extensive as it should be. Despite the professional claim that "no architecture is more im¬ portant than housing ,"IS resi¬ dential work (particularly multifamily) has never been held in very high esteem by the profession. Architects are in¬ volved primarily in single buildings and urban design, landscape architects in plant materials and resource planning. As a consequence, site planning, which lies between these two scales, gets lost in the shuffle. " Robert C. Weaver, "Public Policy ond the Urban Environment," Address to the 1965 American In¬ stitute of Architects Annual Convention ond the XI Pan American Congress of Architects (Wash¬ ington, D C., June 18, 1965). A. Quincy Jones, /oc. of During the field-work phase of this study many professional designers were con¬ tacted in an effort to learn more of their role in site planning. Apologies such as "I tried, but . " were fre¬ quently heard. Blame for unsatisfactory accomplishments was placed on restric¬ tive codes, the shortcomings of others, inadequate pay incentives, or other limitations. What emerged from many interviews is the importance of timing in any con¬ struction program. When a designer is engaged is as important as whether he is engaged. Architects and landscape architects can make little contribution if they are hired only to make an already completed plan "pretty" or "saleable" — to place their professional stamp on a fait accompli. Involving qualified de¬ signers at the outset of any program serves two purposes: it places physical design on an appropriate and equal plane with social and economic plan¬ ning, and it makes the site designer more appreciative of the nonphysical as¬ pects of housing. Experimentation In his Message on Cities to Congress, President Johnson said: "Let there be debate over means and priorities. Let there be experiment with a dozen ap¬ proaches, or a hundred.",!l His call will be unheeded unless there is a change in our present practice of market testing new ideas until all innovations are washed out. Experimentation requires yj President Lyndon B. Johnson, "Message on Cities," Washington, D.C , January 26, 1966. risks. Reluctance to try new ideas be¬ cause of obstacles presented by strict codes, tight money, or consumer hesita¬ tion must be overcome. Commissioner Marie C. McGuire of the Public Housing Administration has suggested a rethink¬ ing of the concept underlying the dem¬ onstration program. Instead of testing one idea, she recommends that demon¬ strations bring together a great many innovations in one place at one time. A start in this direction has been made in Reston. The President's Demonstration Cities Act of 1966 offers another opportu¬ nity to apply Mrs. McGuire's suggestion. More money will have to be spent on housing prototypes that address them¬ selves to basic human needs and not on those that are full of tricks and the latest mechanical gimmicks. A revision of standards by itself will not produce much in the way of true inno¬ vations; it can only clear the way. It is hoped that housing manufacturers will expand their own horizons beyond gadgetry and that designers will not seek "new forms for the sake of new forms alone. . . ."20 Criticism A rather one-sided picture of housing and site planning practice is presented by architectural magazines, newspaper real estate sections, and the news media in general. The successes get considerably more attention than do the mistakes. This imbalance could be cor¬ rected if bold, critical analyses of indi- 20 William L. Slayton, "Design Goals for Urban Renewal," Architectural Record, CXXXIV, No. 5 (November, 1963), p. 149 vidual sites were also available. Such critiques might examine in detail a project — new or old — from concep¬ tion to execution, from site selection to occupancy. If experience is a teacher, lessons could be learned from these critiques and applied to improving new site designs and rejuvenating older ones. It is easy to shift blame. The responsi¬ bility for site planning rests not with just one group but must be assumed by imaginative professional designers, well- informed private clients, and sympa¬ thetic public bodies. CONCLUSIONS 213 appendix I. project staff and major contributors Project Staff DeWayne H. Anderson, Graphics Judith H. Eckert, Editing Gary A. Hack, Editing and Production Shashikant A. Kalgaonkar, Graphics Robert P. Kentgen, Design and Production Russell V. Keune, Research LaMonte E. Kolste, Administration Jean C. Wasmann, Research Edward P. Womack, Research University of Illinois Rudard A. Jones, Director, Small Homes Council—Building Research Council Herbert L. Sterrett, Art Editor, University Press Federal Housing Administration Neil A. Connor, Director, Architectural Standards Division James R. Simpson, Deputy Director, Architectural Standards Division S. Porter Driscoll, Associate Director for Design, Architectural Standards Division Bernard T. Craun, Chief, Studies and Experimental Housing Section, Archi¬ tectural Standards Division Byron Hanke, Chief, Land Planning Section Urban Renewal Administration William L. Slayton, Commissioner Gordon Howard, Assistant Commis¬ sioner for Program Planning Frederick McLaughlin, Director, Legislative Policy Branch Howard Cayton, Director, Demon¬ stration Program Branch Dorn McGrath, Director, Project Planning and Engineering Branch Don I. Patch, Assistant Director, Dem¬ onstration Program Branch Earl von Storch, formerly Director, Project Planning and Engineering Branch Roger Montgomery, formerly Design Specialist, Division of Technical Standards Public Housing Administration Marie C. McGuire, Commissioner Thomas B. Thompson, Assistant Com¬ missioner for Development Morris E. Trotter, Jr., Chief Landscape Architect American Institute of Architects Kenneth C. Landry, formerly Adminis¬ trator, Governmental Affairs John Dawson, Governmental Affairs Division Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association Edward L. Wilson, Managing Director Leslie M. Jones, Director, Finance Division Richard K. Beitler, Director, Park Division Others Walter M. D'Alessio, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Richard Leitch, AIA, Newport Beach, California Abraham D. Levitt, formerly Assistant Regional Director, FHA, New York, New York Robert M. Lillibridge, AIP, Chicago, Illinois Albert Mayer, FAIA, New York, New York Frank A. Molther, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico PROJECT STAFF AND CONTRIBUTORS 215 appendix II. selected references American Public Health Association Planning the Neighborhood. A Report Prepared by the Committee on the Hy¬ giene of Housing. Chicago: Public Ad¬ ministration Service, I960. American Society of Planning Officials Apartments in the Suburbs. ASPO Planning Advisory Service Information Report No. 145, prepared by Frederick H. Bair, Jr. Chicago: April, 1961. The Architectural Forum The Architectural Forum. July-August, Vol. 123, No. 1, 1965. Babcock, Richard F., and Fred P. Bosselman "Suburban Zoning and the Apartment Boom," The University of Pennsylvania Law Review. June, 1963, 1040-1091. Bair, Frederick H., Jr. Local Regulations of Mobile Home Parks — Travel Trailer Parks and Re¬ lated Facilities. Chicago: Mobile Homes Manufacturers Assn., 1965. Bartler, Ernest R., and Frederick H. Bair, Jr. Mobile Home Parks and Comprehen¬ sive Community Planning. Public Ad¬ ministration Clearing Service, University of Florida, Studies in Public Administra¬ tion, No. 19. Gainesville: 1960. Brownstein, P. N. Commissioner, Federal Housing Adminis¬ tration, Remarks Before the Architectural League of New York, New York, N.Y., March 4, 1965. Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation Housing Design. Part I. Ottawa: 1952. Chermayeff, Serge, and Christopher Alexander Community and Privacy: Toward a New Architecture of Humanism. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1963. Coit, Elisabeth Report on Family Living in High Apartment Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Public Housing Administra¬ tion, 1965. Gallion, Arthur B., and Simon Eisner The Urban Pattern: City Planning and Design. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1963. Gibberd, Frederick Town Design. London: The Architec¬ tural Press, 1959. House and Home House and Home. Vol. XVIII, No. 2, August, 1960. Hnxtable, Ada Louise " 'Clusters' Instead of 'Slurbs,' " The New York Times Magazine. February 9, 1964, 36-44. 216 SELECTED REFERENCES Katz, Robert D. Intensity of Development and Livabil- ity of Multi-Family Housing Projects: Design Qualities of European and American Housing Projects (FHA 509). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Federal Housing Administration, 1963. Levitt, Abraham D. "Bureaucracy, the Regulatory Agen¬ cies, and the Architect," Progressive Architecture. February, 1965, 198-200. Lynch, Kevin Site Planning. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.l.T. Press, 1962. Maclennan, Ian The Architecture of Urban and Sub¬ urban Development. The 1964 Cana¬ dian Housing Design Council Lecture given at the Theatre of the Royal On¬ tario Museum, Toronto, April 22, 1965. Ottawa: Canadian Housing Design Council, n.d. Mayer, Albert "Public Housing Architecture," Journal of Housing. October 15, 1962, 446-468. "Public Housing Design," Journal of Housing. April 12, 1963, 133-143. Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association Mobile Home Park Planning Kit. Chi¬ cago-. n.d. Montgomery, Roger "Improving the Design Process in Ur¬ ban Renewal," Journal of the American Institute of Planners. February, 1965, 7-20. Murray, James A. The Architecture of Housing. The 1962 Canadian Housing Design Council Lec¬ ture given at the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, November 29, 1962. Ottawa: Canadian Housing Design Council, n.d. Murray, James A., and Henry Fliess New Forms of Family Housing. Ot¬ tawa: Canadian Housing Design Coun¬ cil, n.d. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia Eastwick New House Study. Philadel¬ phia: 1957. Reps, John W. "Requiem for Zoning," Planning 1964. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1964, 56-67. Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Design of the Residential Environ¬ ment. Report of the Committee of In¬ quiry into the Design of the Residential Environment. Ottawa: I960. Slayton, William L. "Design Considerations in Urban Re¬ newal," Remarks by the Commissioner, Urban Renewal Administration, at the Annual Conference on Urban Renewal of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, Eugene, Oregon, July 9, 1962. "Design Goals for Urban Renewal," Architectural Record. November, 1963, 149-152. "Disposition, Developers, and De¬ sign," Remarks by the Commissioner, Urban Renewal Administration, before the Metropolitan Development Associa¬ tion of Syracuse and Onondaga County, Syracuse, N.Y., July 26, 1962. "Municipal Responsibility for Land Use Controls in Urban Renewal Areas — A New Assessment," Remarks by the Commissioner, Urban Renewal Ad¬ ministration, at the Third Annual Institute on Planning and Zoning, Southwest Le¬ gal Foundation, Dallas, Texas, Septem¬ ber 27, 1963. "Towards Excellence in Urban De¬ sign," Remarks by the Commissioner, Urban Renewal Administration, at a meeting sponsored by the Architectural League of New York and the School of Architecture of Columbia University, New York, N.Y., April 29, 1965. SELECTED REFERENCES 217 Spreiregen, Paul D. "Regulation and Control," American Institute of Architects Journal. June, 1964, 55-70. "Urban Design for Urban Living," American Institute of Architects Journal. February, 1964, 71-86. Stein, Clarence S. Toward New Towns for America. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1957. Tunnard, Christopher, and Boris Pushkarev Man-Made America. Chaos or Con¬ trol? New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univer¬ sity Press, 1963. U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Better Housing for the Future. A Re¬ port to the Panel on Civilian Technology from its Sub-Panel on Housing, April, 1963. U.S. Federal Housing Administration Land-Use Intensity Rating. Land Plan¬ ning Bulletin No. 7 (Interim Edition), September, 1963. Minimum Property Standards for Mo¬ bile Home Courts. FHA No. 2424, Au¬ gust, 1962. Minimum Property Standards for Multifamily Housing. FHA No. 2600, November, 1963. Planned-Unit Development with a Homes Association. Land Planning Bulletin No. 6, December, 1963. U.S. Federal Public Housing Authority Public Housing Design: A Review of Experience in Low-Rent Housing. June, 1946. U.S. Housing Authority Planning the Site: Design of Low- Rent Housing Projects. Bulletin No. 11 on Policy and Procedure, May, 1939. United States Savings and Loan League Land Planning. Chicago: 1962. 218 SELECTED REFERENCES U.S. Urban Renewal Administration "Design in Urban Renewal," Local Public Agency Letter No. 249, August 20, 1962. Design Objectives in Urban Renewal Documents. Urban Renewal Service, Technical Guide 16, May, 1965. Design Review in Urban Renewal. Urban Renewal Service, Technical Guide 15, February, 1965. Urban Land Institute Density Zoning: Organic Zoning for Planned Residential Developments. Technical Bulletin 42. Washington, D.C.: 1961. Innovations vs. Traditions in Commu¬ nity Development: A Comparative Study in Residential Land Use. Tech¬ nical Bulletin 47. Washington, D.C.: 1963. New Approaches to Residential Land Development: A Study of Concepts and Innovations. Technical Bulletin 40. Washington, D.C.: 1961. The Patio House. Technical Bulletin 45. Washington, D.C.: 1963. Weaver, Robert C. "Public Policy and the Urban Environ¬ ment," Address by the Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency, to the American Institute of Architects/Pan American Congress of Architects, Wash¬ ington, D.C., June 18, 1965. "The Federal Government's Concern for Urban Design," Address by the Ad¬ ministrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency, to the Urban Design Confer¬ ence, Harvard Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, Mass., May 1, 1964. Whyte, William H. Cluster Development. New York: Amer¬ ican Conservation Association, 1964. Williams, Harrison "Federal Relationships with the City," American Institute of Architects Journal. August, 1964, 49-53. list of illustrations Project ríame (or street address), city, architect, and landscape architect are given where known. Identification is based on information obtained from local architects and housing officials and publications and drawings. Where a photograph or plan is used to illus¬ trate a design shortcoming, all identifi¬ cation except for location is purposely omitted. To avoid duplication, a project is identi¬ fied in full only once. Subsequent illus¬ trations of the same project give the number of the original listing. The photographs are by the author. Exceptions are those of mobile home parks which were taken by Russell V. Keune and a few others taken by Ed¬ ward P. Womack. The latter are noted in parentheses at the end of an indi¬ vidual listing. The great majority of the site plans are to the scale of one inch equals one hundred feet. The few exceptions (which are one inch equals five hundred feet) are noted in this listing. A = Architect LA = Landscape Architect SP = Site Planner D = Designer 1 1 St. Francis Square, San Francisco, Califor¬ nia. A — Marquis and Sloller. LA — Lawrence Halprin and Assoc. 2 #1 3 #1 4 Atlanta, Georgia 5 Atlanta, Georgia 6 Atlanta, Georgia 7 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 8 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 9 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 10 Map of the United Stoles 2 11 Lake Meadows, Chicago, Illinois. A-Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Prairie Shores , Chicago, Illinois. A - Loebl, Schlossman and Bennett (1" = 500') 12 Prairie Shores #11 13 Lake Meadow s #11 14 #13 15 New York, Ne w York 16 Denver, Color ado 17 Phoenix, Arize ana 18 London Terrace, New York, New Yor 19 #18 20 Madison Hous e, Cincinnati, Ohio. A — Milton Schwartz and Assoc. (Womack) 21 #20 (Womack) 22 Penn Towers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A — Samuel I. Oshiver and Assoc. 23 General Grant Houses, New York, New York 24 Park Morton, Washington, D.C. A — Keyes, Lethbridge and Condon. LA — Eric Paepcke 25 #24 26 #24 27 Denver, Colorado 28 Indianapolis, Indiana 29 Cincinnati, Ohio 30 Danish Village, Overland Park, Kansas. A —Boyle and Wilson 31 #30 32 #30 33 #30 34 Sunnyside Gardens, New York, New York. A — Clarence S. Stein, Henry Wright and Frederick L. Ackerman 35 #34 36 #34 37 #34 38 Springbrook Apartments, Cleveland, Ohio. A —Schafer, Flynn and Assoc. 39 #38 40 Church Hill, Richmond, Virginia 41 #40 42 Union Square, Boston, Massachusetts 43 #42 44 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 45 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 46 Bells Court, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 47 23rd and Delancy Place, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 48 #47 49 Sullivan and Bleecker Streets, New York, New York 50 Hyde Pork, Chicago, Illinois. A — I. M. Pel and Assoc. 51 #50 52 #50 53 Louisburg Square, Boston, Massachusetts 54 #53 55 #53 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 219 56 Hilgard Town Houses, Berkeley, California. A —Tucker, Tuley and Harms 57 #56 58 -56 59 Lucas Valley, San Rafael, California. A - Jones and Emmons. LA — Royslon, Han- amolo, Mayes and Beck 60 -59 61 —59 62 Madison Park and Dorchester, Chicago. Illinois. A-Y. C. Wong 63 —62 64 —62 65 Sahara Mobile Home Park, Phoenix, Ari¬ zona. SP — Mobile Homes Manufacturers Assn. 66 -65 67 =65 68 -65 69 =65 70 The Berkshire, Richmond. Virginia. A—Marcellus Wright and Son 71 Russian Hill, San Francisco, California 72 River Park, Washington, D.C. A — Charles M. Goodman and Assoc. LA — Eric Paepcke 73 =72 74 =72 75 =72 76 =72 77 Laguno Heights, San Francisco, Californio. A — Oakland; Jones and Emmons, Anshen and Allen. LA —Sasaki, Walker and Assoc. (1" = 500') 78 =77 79 —1, =77, and Midtown Park, San Fran¬ cisco, California. A — Skidmore, Owings and Merrill 3 80 Chicago, Illinois 81 Atlanta, Georgia 82 Kips Bay, New York, New York A — I. M. Pei and Assoc.; S. J. Kessler and Sons. LA - Leo A. Novick 83 Greenleaf Gardens, Washington, DC. A — Berla ond Abel. LA — Cary M. Parker 84 Cromwell Town Houses, Greenhills, Ohio. A - E. A. Glendening 85 =84 (Womack) 86 —84 (Womack) 87 Detroit, Michigan 88 Greene Acres Trailer Village, Hallándole, Florida 89 Kansos City, Missouri 90 =82 91 =82 92 =82 93 Denver, Colorado 94 Denver, Colorado 95 Denver, Colorodo 96 Fort Worth, Texas 97 Fort Worth, Texas 98 Chatham Green, New York, New York. A — Kelly and Gruzen 99 -98 100 Lafayette Park, Detroit, Michigan (1" = 500') 101 West Bluff Housing, Konsas City, Missouri, A — Kivett and Myers. SP — Hare and Hare 102 =101 103 Queen Anne Hill, Seattle, Washington 104 Russian Hill, San Francisco, California 105 Harbor House, Bal Harbor, Florido. A - T. Trip Russell ond Assoc. 106 Laguna Terrace, San Juan, Puerto Rico. A - Metropolitan Builders 107 Reston, Reston, Virginio a - Whittlesey and Conklin 108 San Francisco, California 109 Morksdale Gördens, Boston, Massachusetts. A - Associated Architects and Engineers 220 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 110 Smith-Taylor Apartments, Sausalito, Cali¬ fornia. A - Campbell & Wong 4 Assoc. 111 #110 112 #110 113 #110 114 #110 115 #110 116 =12 117 Chicago Theological Seminary-Faculty Quadrangle, Chicago, Illinois. A - Edward D. Dart 118 Aldama Street, Los Angeles, California. A — Allyn E Morris 119 Rose Villa Street, Pasadena, California. A - Allyn E. Morris 120 Los Angeles, California 121 Los Angeles, California 122 Atlanta, Georgia 123 Horizon House, Fort Lee, New Jersey A-Kelly and Gruzen LA - Michael Burns 124 Russian Hill, San Francisco, California 125 Atlanta, Georgia 126 Patterson, New Jersey 127 Washington, D C. 128 Setty-Kuhn Terrace, Cincinnati, Ohio. A - Garriolt & Becker & Assoc. 129 Woodridge Town Houses, LaHabra, Cali¬ fornia. A - Hoi C. Tan and Assoc. 130 Cherokee Mobile Home Park, Fort louder- dale, Florida 131 Glen Pines Inn, Dallas, Texas. A - Cray- croft-Lacy and Assoc. 132 =1 133 The Cove, Tiburón, California. A — John Lord King 134 Park Towne Place, Philadelphia, Pennsyl¬ vania. A —John Hans Graham and Assoc, Milton Schwartz. LA-Collins; Simonds and Simonds 135 Hopkinson House, Philadelphia, Pennsyl¬ vania. A - Stonorov and Haws. LA - Sasaki, Walker and Assoc. 136 3525 Congress Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A - Enslie O. Oglesby, Jr. 137 #136 138 #136 139 #136 4 140 Atlanta, Georgia 141 Cincinnati, Ohio 142 Cincinnati, Ohio 143 Cincinnati, Ohio 144 Morton Homes, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 145 Fan District, Richmond, Virginia 146 #145 147 Plaza I, Richmond, California. A - Hardison ond DeMars 148 #147 149 =147 150 Capitol Park, Washington, D.C. A — Chloelhiel Woodord Smith and Assoc. LA - Dan Kiley 151 #150 152 #150 153 Harvard University Married Student Hous¬ ing, Combridge, Massachusetts. A - Sert, Jackson and Gourley 154 #153 155 #153 156 #153 157 #153 158 Chicago, Illinois 159 Washington, D.C. 160 Los Angeles, Colifornia 161 Yesler Terrace, Seattle, Washington A — J. Lester Holmes; John T. Jacobsen; George W. Stoddard; William Aitken, William J. Bain. LA — Butler Slurlevant; Edwin W. Grohs,- Edwin Clair Heilman 162 lakeview Terrace, Cleveland, Ohio. A — Joseph L. Weinberg,- Conrad and Teare 163 Pacific and Whitney Streets, Houston, Texas 164 8th Avenue and Dexter Street, Denver, Colorado 165 #53 166 Miami, Florida 167 Quarry Knolls, Greenwich, Connecticut. A - Ives, Turano and Gardner. LA - Sasaki, Walker and Assoc. 168 #167 169 #167 170 -167 171 2413-19 Delancy Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A - Walter Weissman 172 #171 173 #171 174 #171 175 Houston, Texas 176 Cleveland, Ohio 177 #77 178 San Juan, Puerto Rico 179 San Juan, Puerto Rico 180 San Juan, Puerto Rico 181 San Juan, Puerto Rico 182 San Juan, Puerto Rico 183 "The Gordens" on Turtle Creek, Dolías, Texos. A-Warren H. Hall 184 #183 185 #183 186 Porkfairfax, Parkfairfax, Virginia. A — Leonard Schultz and Assoc. 187 Parkhurst Apartments, San Antonio, Texas. A —Allison B. Peery 188 Southgate Towers, Miami Beach, Florida 189 Three Fountains, Phoenix, Arizona. A-Alan A. Daily Assoc. 190 Los Angeles, California 191 Los Angeles, California 192 Los Angeles, California 193 Detroit, Michigan 194 Washington Squore Village, New York, New York. A - S. J. Kessler and Sons; Skidmore, Owings and Merrill 195 #194 196 #194 197 — 194 198 Carmel Valley Manor, Carmel Valley, Cali¬ fornia. A —Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. LA - Sasaki, Walker and Assoc, 199 #198 200 # 198 201 #198 202 #198 203 #198 204 #198 205 #198 206 #198 207 #198 208 Philadelphia, Pennsylv 209 Denver, Colorado 210 Park Town, Cincinnat Assoc. 211 #1 212 Pomeroy West, Santa Clara, California. A-Claude Oakland. LA - Royston, Hana- moto, Mayes and Beck 213 University Mews, Philadelphia, Pennsylva¬ nia. A - Ronald C. Turner 214 Capitol Towers Apartments, Sacramento, California. A —Wurster, Bernardi and Em¬ mons; Edward L. Barnes; DeMars and Reay. LA —Lawrence Halprin and Assoc. 215 El Segundo Boulevard, Gardena, Califor¬ nia. A - Carl A. Maston 216 #215 217 #215 218 #215 219 #215 220 #215 221 #212 222 Baldwin Hills Village, Los Angeles, Cali¬ fornia. A - Reginald D. Johnson; Wilson, Merrill and Alexonder; Clarence S. Stein 223 Parklabrea, Los Angeles, California 224 Villa Nueva, Santa Cruz, California. A - Hardison and Komatsu 225 #131 226 Minneapolis, Minnesota 227 Cedar Apartments, Cleveland, Ohio. A —Walter R. McCornock 228 Coribbean Apartments, Bellevue, Washing¬ ton 229 Boston, Massachusetts 230 Ann Arbor, Michigan 231 El Monte, San Juon, Puerto Rico. A - Ed¬ ward L. Barnes; Reed, Basora and Men- endez. LA - Hideo Sasaki 232 #150 233 21 Turtle Creek Square, Dallas, Texas. A-John H. Graham and Assoc. 234 The Premier, New York, New York. A — Mayer, Whittlesey and Glass 235 Houston, Texas 236 Russian Hill, San Froncisco, California 237 Mt. Adams Area, Cincinnati, Ohio 238 Jackson Lake Apartments, Oakland, Coli- fornio. A-Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons 239 Driftwood Mobile Estates, Huntington Beach, California. LA - Raymond E. Page, Jr. 240 #47 241 Terra Linda Meadows, San Rafael, Califor¬ nia. A - Welton Beckel and Assoc. 242 #241 243 #150 244 #239 245 #129 246 Capitol Plaza, St. Paul, Minnesota. A — Richard A. Keller. SP—Gilbert Leddelmeier 247 Eagle Pointe Apartments, St. Cloire Shores, Michigan 248 #77 249 Longwood, Cleveland, Ohio 250 #186 251 Atlanta, Georgia 252 Tower East, New York, New York. A — Emery Roth and Sons 253 #252 254 #106 255 #106 256 Luno Park Houses, New York, New York. A-Kelly and Gruzen 257 Perth Amboy, New Jersey 258 Perth Amboy, New Jersey 259 Perth Amboy, New Jersey 260 Perth Amboy, New Jersey 261 Perth Amboy, New Jersey 262 Chicago, Illinois 263 Phoenix, Arizona 264 Phoenix, Arizona 265 5000 Longmont, Houston, Texas. A — P. M. Bolton Assoc. 266 #265 26 7 #26 5 268 #265 Pickwick Village, Chicago, Illinois. A - Tigerman and Koglin #269 #269 Town Center Plaza, Washington, D.C. A — I. M. Pei and Assoc. #272 #272 Croskey Mews, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A - S. Sherman Rochlis Seattle, Washington Chicago, Illinois Detroit, Michigan Chicago, Illinois Rainbow Isles, Pompano Beach, Florida John W. Smith Homes, Detroit, Michigan. A — Lyndon and Smith Carl Sandburg Village, C'ncago, Illinois. A — Solomon, Cordwell and Assoc. #282 #282 #282 #23 Kenilworth Courts, Washington, D.C. A —Justement, Elam and Darby. SP — o. c. Sanders and Assoc. Cottonwood Cove Mobile Home Park, Salt Lake City, Utah. SP —Mobile Homes Man¬ ufacturers Assn. #117 #117 #117 #117 New York, New York New York, New York New York, New York New York, New York New York, New York Victoria Plaza, San Antonio, Texos. A —Noonan, Thompson and Krocker; Mor¬ mon and Mok Assoc. LA —Stewart E. King Guernsey City Mobile Home Park, Tampa, Florida # 150 #150 Denver, Colorodo English Village, Richmond, Virginia LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 221 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 5 304 -212 305 Rodburn, Rodburn, New Jersey. A - Clar¬ ence S. Stein, Henry Wright; Frederick L. Ackerman; Andrew J. Thomas; James R. Thomson 306 James Whitcomb Riley Center, Indianap¬ olis, Indiana A-Perkins and Will 307 -306 308 Cincinnati, Ohio 309 Washington, D.C. 310 New York, New York 311 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 312 Cleveland, Ohio 313 Los Angeles, California 314 Dallas, Texas 315 Blanton Gardens, Dallas, Texas. A — Fisher and Spillman 316 —281 317 =281 318 San Juan, Puerto Rico 319 Indianapolis, Indiana 320 Crystal House, Miami Beach, Florida. A — Morris Lapidus Assoc. 321 Fort Worth, Texas 322 Champlost Homes, Philadelphia, Pennsyl¬ vania. A — Neff and Price. LA — F. Blau 323 Lafayette Park, Detroit, Michigan. A — Mies van der Rohe 324 Clemens Homes, Mt. Clemens, Michigon. A — Meathe, Kessler and Assoc. LA — Eichstedt-Johnson Assoc. 325 Brecksville West, Brecksville, Ohio. A — Don M. Hisaka and Assoc. 326 -325 327 =325 328 - 325 329 Southwouk Plaza, Philadelphia, Pennsyl¬ vania. A - Stonorov and Haws 330 =329 331 =329 332 =329 333 =329 334 English Villoge, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 335 - 334 336 — 334 337 Philadelphia, Pennsylvonio 338 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 339 Columbia Park, Olmstead Falls, Ohio. SP-Mobile Homes Manufacturers Assn. 340 Socramento, California 341 National Place, Los Angeles, California. A — Carl A. Maston 342 - 341 343 Slolon Manor, Atlanta, Georgia. A - Heery and Heery 344 Denver, Colorado 345 Denver, Colorado 346 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 347 4311-4409 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, Missouri. A - G. Peter Keleti and Assoc. 348 =347 349 =347 350 Barrington Plaza, Los Angeles, Califor¬ nia. A - Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenholl 351 Atlanta, Georgia 352 Atlanto, Georgia 353 Atlanto, Georgia 354 Gramercy Park Town Houses, Anaheim, California A - Robert J. Coles 355 Pomeroy Green, Santa Clara, Califor¬ nia A - Claude Oakland. LA - Sasaki, Walker and Assoc. 356 Los Angeles, California 357 Washington Square East Town Houses, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A — I. M. Pei and Assoc. LA - Robert Zion, Harold Breen 358 =357 359 =357 360 Polerson, New Jersey 361 Miami, Florida 362 =150 363 Park Lido, Newport Beach, California. A - Dan S Palmer and Assoc LA - Linesch and Reynolds 364 Cardieux Avenue, Grosse Pointe, Michigan 365 Los Angeles, California 366 =30 367 Indianapolis, Indiana 368 Richmond, Virginia 369 Possaic, New Jersey 370 Wheat Street Gardens, Atlanta, Georgia. A - Wise, Simpson, Aiken and Assoc. 371 =65 222 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 6 372 Minneapolis, Minnesota 406 Borinquen Towers, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 373 Stanford Married Student Housing, Palo A - Sorgent, Webster, Crenshaw and Folley Alto, California. A - Wurster, Bernardi, 407 = 406 and Emmons,- Campbell & Wong & Assoc. 408 Marino City, Chicago, Illinois. A - Bertrand 374 Cincinnati, Ohio Goldberg Assoc. 375 Detroit, Michigan 409 = 408 376 Kansas City, Kansas 410 = 408 377 Detroit, Michigan 411 = 408 378 Richmond, Virginia 412 Outer Drive East Apartments, Chicago, 379 Fairlake, Sacramento, California. Illinois. A — Hirschfeld, Powlan and A - Gordon Stafford Reinheimer 380 = 150 413 = 412 381 = 1 414 Bridge Apartments, New York, New York 382 Fairmont Ploce, Cleveland, Ohio. A - Brown and Guenther A - H. O. Fullerton. LA - A. Donald Gray 415 = 414 383 Weslwood, Chatham, Palmyra and Glou¬ 416 Commercial Wharf, Boston, Massachusetts cester, Richmond, Virginia 417 = 416 384 Solona Y Sombra, Tucson, Arizona. 418 = 416(1" 500') LA — Guy S. Greene 419 = 416(1" 500') 385 = 150 420 Mt Adorns Area, Cincinnati, Ohio (Wo- 386 #214 mack) 387 = 252 421 = 420 388 Geneva Terrace, San Francisco, Califor¬ 422 Cole d'Azur, Sausalilo, California. nia. A - Claude Oakland. LA - Royston, A - Hammarberg and Herman Hanamoto, Mayes and Beck 423 = 422 389 = 198 424 = 422 390 = 214 425 = 422 391 Elliot Twin Apartments, Minneapolis, Min¬ 426 = 422 nesota. A - Thorsen and Thorshov. 427 2711 Hood, Dallas, Texas. A - Enslie O. LA - Nason, Law, Wehrman and Knight Oglesby, Jr. 392 = 384 428 = 427 393 = 238 429 = 427 394 Sumner Field Apartments, Minneapolis, 430 = 427 Minnesota 431 = 427 395 = 394 432 Wayne Low-Rent Public Housing, Wayne, 396 = 394 Michigan. A ~ Meathe, Kessler and Assoc. 397 = 394 LA - Eichstedt-Johnson Assoc. 398 = 394 (1" 500') 399 = 394 433 = 432 400 = 324 434 = 432 401 = 324 435 = 432 402 = 324 436 Reston, Reston, Virginia. A - Whittlesey 403 Detroit, Michigan and Conklin 404 Cincinnati, Ohio 437 = 436 405 Detroit, Michigan 438 = 436 439 = 436 440 = 436 rginio. A — Charle; a - Chloelhiel Estoles, eorge E. 441 Reston, Reston, Goodman Assoc. 442 -441 443 -441 444 —441 445 — 441 446 —441 447 — 441 448 Reston, Reston, Virginia. Woodard Smith and Assoc. 449 =448 450 =448 451 -448 452 =448 453 Rossmoor Leisure World, Walnut Creek, California 454 Park City Mobile Lauderdale, Florida. Waddey 455 Golden Age Homes, Minneapolis, Minm sota. A —Elizabeth and Winston Close 456 =455 457 =455 458 Sacramento, California 459 Turtle Creek Village, Dallas, Texas. A — Howard R. Meyer 460 =459 461 Atlanta Towers, Atlanta, Georgia. A — Aeck Assoc. 462 =461 463 =461 464 - 150 465 Executive Towers, Phoenix, Arizona. A-Alan A. Dailey and Assoc. 466 =465 467 Swan Lake, Mira Loma, California. A-K. W Wallers and Son 468 =467 469 =467 470 =467 471 Willils West, Bin A - Carl Luckenbo' 472 =471 473 =471 474 -471 ingham, Michigan. 476 477 478 479 480 485 486 Apache Wells Mobile Home Country Club, Mesa, Arizona (1" 500') «298 « 150 = 150 = 150 #475 The Oasis Mobile Home Park, Scottsdale, Arizono Modular Housing Units. D —John K. Hollon Factory Fobricoled Multifamily Housing. A - Ronald Goodfellow, Ken Fryar Assoc. #483 Packaged Housing U - Thomas Elliott #485 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 Villa Monterey, Scottsdale, Arizor A - Ralph Haver and Assoc. #487 Detroit, Michigan Washington, D.C. Knickerbocker Village, New York York. A - John S. Van Wart #491 = 491 Turtle Bay Gardens, New York, Ne1 A — Mrs. Walton Martin #494 #494 Tustin Village, Tustin, California. / son V. Woodman #357 Westwood, New Weslwood, New Westwood, New Detroit, Michigan Cincinnati, Ohio Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Los Angeles, California Miami, Florida Preston Road ond Loop 12, C Dickens Court, Chicago, Illinois #222 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jersey Jersey Jersey 511 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 512 #305 513 #305 514 #305 515 #305 516 #305 517 Village Green, Somerville, New Jersey. SP — Robert Catlin and Assoc. 518 #517 519 Houston, Texas 520 Houston, Texas 521 Atlanta, Georgia 8 522 Passaic, New Jersey 523 Cincinnati, Ohio 524 Passaic, New Jersey 525 Cincinnati, Ohio 526 Passaic, New Jersey 527 Cincinnati, Ohio (Womack) 528 #382 529 #382 530 Cleveland, Ohio 531 Cleveland, Ohio 532 Indianapolis, Indiana 533 Indianapolis, Indiana 534 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 535 St. Paul, Minnesota 536 St. Paul, Minnesota 537 New York, New York 538 Chicogo, Illinois 539 Jersey City, New Jersey 540 Los Angeles, California 541 Phoenix, Arizona 542 Indianapolis, Indiona 543 #391 544 Sacramento, California 545 #213 546 Indianapolis, Indiana 547 Denver, Colorado 548 Denver, Colorodo 549 Denver, Colorado 550 Denver, Colorado 551 Denver, Colorado 552 Cleveland, Ohio 553 Cleveland, Ohio 554 Phoenix, Arizona 555 St Paul, Minnesota 556 Lakeshore Apartments, Seattle, Washing¬ ton. A — Miller and Ahlson 557 Denver, Colorado 558 Tryon Court, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LA - Carol B. Skelly 559 #558 560 #558 561 =558 562 Bayside Village, Newport Beach, California 563 Treasure Island Trailer Park, Laguna Beach, California 564 «234 565 #234 566 =234 567 Marin City, Marin City, California. A — Aaron G. Green; John C. Warnecke. LA - Lawrence Halprin 568 #272 569 = 306 570 66lh Street and 2nd Avenue, New York, New York 571 Chicago, Illinois 572 Seattle, Washington 573 Eugenie Lane Apartments, Chicago, Illi¬ nois. A — Harry Weese and Assoc. 574 St. Paul, Minnesota 575 St. Paul, Minnesota 576 St. Paul, Minnesota 577 Minneapolis, Minnesota 578 Morrislown, New Jersey 579 Atlanta, Georgia 580 St. Paul, Minnesota 581 St. Paul, Minnesota 582 St. Paul, Minnesota 583 St. Paul, Minnesota 584 St Paul, Minnesota LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 223 / y Department of Urban Planning • University of Illinois iimmrnm