UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date: 10-Nov-2009
I, Nathan R. Morris , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Architecture in Architecture (Master of) It is entitled: The Architecture of Boundary
Student Signature: Nathan R. Morris
This work and its defense approved by: Committee Chair: John Eliot Hancock, MARCH John Eliot Hancock, MARCH
George Bible, MCiv.Eng George Bible, MCiv.Eng
11/16/2009 299
The Architecture of Boundary
A thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
5 Master of Architecture
.0 In the School of Architecture and Interior Design of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning 2009 11
. by
02 Nathan R. Morris Bachelor of Science in Architecture, University of Cincinnati, 2003
Committee Chairs: John Hancock Tom Bible Abstract
Boundaries have several primary roles. They occupy shifts along the continuum from private to public. They enable a system of private property by defining zones of control. As interfaces between neighbors, they also provide opportunities for communication, cooperation, and exchange in the interest of civility and mutual benefit.
Urban public spaces, no longer needed for many of their previous interactive functions, are being despatialized. Replacing them are spaces controlled by private entities, often non-local corporations that treat them more as commodities than legitimate public spaces. Many of these are indoor common spaces that, despite not being truly public, could more effectively supplement the public realm if designed properly. The traditional retail arcade can serve as an exemplar for its successful integration with the public realm.
An alternative model is proposed for the creation of new urban retail space. It adapts certain qualities that allowed arcades to cleverly blend private with public, employing contemporary interpretations of boundary articulations to delineate inclusive zones. The result is a more appropriate response to urban settings than the bulk of current urban retail development, which seeks to be exclusive.
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 1
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations...... 2
Introduction...... 3
Chapter One: The Boundary ...... 5 1.1 Boundary and the Private-Public Continuum ...... 6 1.2 Boundary as a Means of Creating Private Property...... 9 1.3 Semipermeable Boundary...... 11
Chapter Two: Privatization ...... 14 2.1 Fragmentation of the Public Sphere...... 15 2.2 Indoor Common Spaces...... 17
Chapter Three: The Arcade...... 21 3.1 Characteristics of the Arcade Typology ...... 22 3.2 Arcade Retail Boundaries ...... 27
Chapter Four: Precedents...... 34 4.1 Cleveland Arcade...... 35 4.2 Galleria Umberto I ...... 37 4.3 Crocker Galleria...... 40 4.4 Galleria de Cristoforis...... 42
Chapter Five: Proposal...... 45 5.1 Design Implications ...... 46 5.2 Site Information ...... 50 5.3 Design Program ...... 55
Bibliography ...... 58
Appendix...... 59 The Architecture of Boundary Morris 2
List of Illustrations
Figure 1 Image by author. Figure 22 Geist, p. 432.
Figure 2 Image by author. Figure 23 Image by author.
Figure 3 Image by author. Figure 24 Bush-Brown, p. 59.
Figure 4 Geist, p. 279. Figure 25 Bush-Brown, p. 63.
Figure 5 Geist, p. 31. Figure 26 Image by author.
Figure 6 Geist, p. 30. Figure 27 Geist, p. 370
Figure 7 Image by author. Figure 28 Geist, p. 367.
Figure 8 Image by author. Figure 29 Image by author.
Figure 9 Image by author. Figure 30 Image by author.
Figure 10 Image by author. Figure 31 Image by author.
Figure 11 Image by author. Figure 32 Image by author.
Figure 12 Image by author. Figure 33 Image by author.
Figure 13 Image by author. Figure 34 Image by author.
Figure 14 Image by author. Figure 35 Image by author.
Figure 15 Image by author. Figure 36 Image by author.
Figure 16 Image by author. Figure 37 Image by author.
Figure 17 Geist, p. 243. Figure 38 Image by author.
Figure 18 Geist, p. 241. Figure 39 Image by author.
Figure 19 Image by author. Figure 40 Image by author.
Figure 20 Geist, p. 429.
Figure 21 Geist, p. 430.
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 3
Introduction
Often we find spaces in the urban environment, both indoor and outdoor, that fail as public spaces. This is due primarily to the overtness of private ownership. In the past, the arcade has managed to blur the distinction between private and public. Today, however, contemporary urban retail centers largely abandon efforts to emulate public space. Instead, they want to be exclusive, aiming to encourage use by a certain clientele while discouraging casual use by others.
Such an attitude flies in the face of the true urban ideal: to be inclusive.
This thesis proposes a reinterpretation of the arcade on an urban site, applying a sophisticated understanding of boundary roles to challenge the current notion of the contemporary retail center. Boundary issues are intrinsic to this question as they are absolutely instrumental in defining the multiplicity of zones in such a project. The intention is not to necessarily revive the arcade, but to adapt certain approaches that allowed arcades to create spaces that felt public and apply them to a modern urban retail setting. The goal is to create space to supplement the public realm that, despite its private status, invites and welcomes use by all.
Chapter One identifies the three primary roles of the boundary, first locating it within the framework of the private-public continuum, then identifying its importance to the institution of private property, and finally outlining the advantages of a selectively permeable boundary. The second chapter begins by addressing the fragmentation of the public sphere and the trend towards private ownership and control over public spaces. Next, it discusses an increasingly widespread type – indoor common spaces – and what qualities are encouraged to promote their success.
The third chapter analyzes the traditional retail arcade, identifying seven fundamental characteristics of the typology, and proceeds to a survey of the various boundary articulations at both storefronts and inter-store interfaces. Chapter Four evaluates several arcade precedents from The Architecture of Boundary Morris 4 the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in terms of boundary treatment and public integration. The final chapter synthesizes the design implications gleaned from the investigation and proposes to test these assumptions on a new urban retail space. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 5
Chapter One:
THE BOUNDARY
1.1 Boundary and the Private-Public Continuum
1.2 Boundary as a Means of Creating Private Property
1.3 Semipermeable Boundary
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 6
1.1 Boundary and the Private-Public Continuum
The social world around us is organized along a continuum from the most private to the most
public. While it may be natural to imagine a dichotomous condition of private and public spaces,
the vast majority of what we encounter is neither truly private nor truly public. In practice, we
see a diverse array of varying shades of the semi-private and the semi-public.1 If we imagine a gradient from private to public, each change in value signals a boundary, whether physical or intangible, explicit or inferred. These boundaries not only reconcile the transitions between neighboring spaces, but they also play a large part in defining how these spaces are observed, understood, and used.
The inner consciousness of the human being is the most private and personal of all spaces, storing the mind’s contents and sharing it with only those that it chooses. It is the one realm that is available only to a single individual.2 As children we comprehend simple boundaries between the private and the public by first distinguishing between ourselves and others. With age, we identify more layers in a more complex FIGURE 1 Diagram illustrating the many layers of the private-public continuum and the boundaries that 3 regulate shifts in value spatial system from ourselves outward.
1 Madanipour, Ali. Public and Private Spaces of the City. New York: Routledge, 2003: p. 239. 2 Ibid, p. 7. 3 Ibid, p. 229-230. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 7
Personal space is the layer immediately outside the body; it manifests itself in social
situations by regulating one’s proximity to others. While it locates the individual in physical
space, it is generally not defined by physical boundaries.4 The extents of personal space manifest themselves through body language, verbal communication, and behavior. It can be observed by others, and thus is a degree less private than inner consciousness. It is situational, varying with the type of social encounter and with the particularities of those involved, such as gender, age, and status. Personal space provides a degree of control in social interactions, allowing people to protect themselves while communicating with others.5 Invasions of personal space boundaries, usually signaled by the touching of another person, are typically tolerated in keeping with a general privilege, provided the incidents are neither hostile nor injurious.6
The private sphere is a larger zone which extends beyond the individual and his or her personal space. It contains the set of all things owned or controlled by an individual that cannot be observed or known by the public, or controlled by a governing group, without that person’s permission. The private sphere is a “sphere of freedom of choice for individuals, protected from the external gaze.”7 Private spaces lie within this encompassing sphere, and are those spaces from which one has the power to bar outsiders. Some public spaces may also be contained in the private sphere, in the examples of public libraries and parks.8 Private property can be defined by patterns of use through territoriality or identified through legal ownership.9 Unlike personal space, private property has static boundaries and is fixed.
The primary physical representation of the private sphere is the home. The eighteenth century marked the transition of the family home as a place for social interaction to a more intimate,
4 Ibid, p. 230. 5 Ibid, p. 230. 6 Epstein, Richard A. Principles for a Free Society. Reading, Massachusetts: Perseus Books, 1998: p. 188. 7 Madanipour, p. 230. 8 Ibid, p. 41. 9 Ibid, p. 50. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 8
private space. The home now represents in built form both an isolation of the nuclear family
from the rest of society and a separation of private from public.10 “…Closed boundaries are legitimized in the idea of the home-as-haven, in which emotional and economic self-containment find their confirmation in centrifugal urbanism and architecture.”11 Within today’s home, though, is a range of spaces offering degrees of privacy from private to semi-public to accommodate the need for both individual solitude and shared interaction.12 Thus, while commonly viewed as the basic unit of the private sphere, the home occupies a range of the private-public continuum.13
From our mind to our personal spaces, private territories, properties and homes, we think we are in control of a number of enclosed spaces, a number of boxes where we control their concealment or exposure. However, all the boxes that we think are completely sealed, or that we have full control over, are indeed open to influences and forces from the outside. As human beings, we may need to feel in control, to feel that we are in control of these boxes and can open them whenever we decide. In reality, however, this control is a desire, a normative aspiration, rather than an empirical reality. What is private is indeed a potentially fragile configuration, a half-closed box full of objects, each of which may be half-inside and half-outside, or half-visible and half-hidden.14
Beyond the private spaces of the city, and separated from them by a complex, continuously
evolving boundary, is the public sphere. It is comprised of the spaces of the city that are outside
the control of individuals, families, and small groups. These are spaces of varying significance
and function which surround the private, exclusive zones of individual territory. A public space
typically refers to one which is under government control and maintenance, and accessible to all
members of a community.15 The actual quantity of truly public spaces is limited. If we define a
public space as one without private influence, it becomes clear how few of these remain in
modern cities. The second chapter discusses the privatization of the public sphere.
10 Ibid, p. 231. 11 Waterhouse, Alan. Boundaries of the City. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993: p. 311. 12 Madanipour, p. 76. 13 Ibid, p. 77. 14 Ibid, p. 104. 15 Ibid, p. 134. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 9
The notion of neighborhood introduces further ambiguity into the public and private separation. At the same time that it causes the semi-privatization of public space by giving an increased sensation of control to residents, it adds a degree of publicness to residences by subjecting them to the regulation of a group.16
As we have seen thus far, rather than being a bifurcated arrangement of spaces, all of which are either “public” or “private,” the environment is broken down into many shades and degrees along the continuum from private to public. Because of the many varied influences, most spaces we experience exist somewhere in the range from semi-private to semi-public. An extensive series of boundaries radiate outward from the most private inner consciousness of the individual, signaling changes in value. The next section looks at the second primary role of the boundary: its
function in defining private property.
1.2 Boundary as a Means of Creating Private Property
While Ali Madanipour recognizes the many-layered public-private continuum into which our world situates itself, he often appeals to a more dichotomous diagram for the sake of his discussions, choosing to focus on the public vs. private juxtaposition. In Public and Private
Spaces of the City, he identifies the boundary as that which facilitates the differentiation between public and private. He asks, “If the boundary is removed, how can a distinction be made?”17 This boundary mediates between the two realms, protecting private property from unwanted exposure, while keeping private interests from disturbing public life.18 Not only are both spheres reliant on this boundary for protection, but both are also highly defined by it. “The character of each side
16 Ibid, p. 162. 17 Ibid, p. 60. 18 Ibid, p. 60. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 10
depends, to a large extent, on the way this boundary is articulated, as much as the configuration of what lies behind this boundary.”19
In Principles for a Free Society, Richard Epstein discusses the subdivision of space, stating that “only by drawing boundaries and creating separate spaces is it possible to organize a system of private property.”20 While there are boundaries to separate private property from public
domain, others exist between individual properties. Boundaries make the concept of neighbors
possible, argues Epstein. Without them, he says, we would be required to live in communal
arrangements and engage in partner relationships with everyone. There are clear shortcomings
inherent in such a system. The array of individual preferences and dispositions found in any large
group of strangers could not be accounted for with any amount of consideration or community
participation. While a degree of community, involvement, and shared property is desirable, too
much “…turns out to be a bad thing, and the simple and most profound sentiment that drives us
in the direction of private property is that we would all prefer to have more neighbors and fewer
partners in the this world.”21
The boundary empowers the institution of private property, demarcating the zones that are under the control of individuals, and enabling those individuals to defend what is theirs. Without
boundaries, it would be impossible to define private property, to distinguish one property from
another, and to create a distinction between what is private and what is public. However, to
establish that boundaries are vital to the existence of private property is not to suggest that these
boundaries must emulate the impenetrability of fortress walls. The following section explores the
communicative role of boundaries and presents the argument in favor of the semipermeable
boundary.
19 Ibid, p. 60. 20 Epstein, Richard A. Principles for a Free Society. Reading, Massachusetts: Perseus Books, 1998: p. 189. 21 Ibid, p. 190. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 11
1.3 Semipermeable Boundary
Boundaries have potential beyond the strict segregation of space. Madanipour posits, “As
much as it is a means of separating the two realms and protecting them from each other, the
boundary is indeed a site of interface and communication between them.”22 He points to colonnades and front porches as two common examples of boundaries which stimulate interaction between the public and private. He suggests that the boundary must manage the seemingly contradictory duality of ambivalence and clarity.23 He argues, “The more ambiguous and articulate the boundary, the more civilized a place appears to be.”24
Richard Epstein argues that boundaries should not be viewed as harsh, static, impenetrable demarcations, as such a method precludes good relations between neighbors.25 Instead, he suggests that there are many cases which point to the benefits of a more relaxed reconciliation of boundaries. “The best way to approach a boundary is to endow it with a certain presumptive validity, and then to identify the circumstances in which its strictness can be relaxed to the mutual advantage of the parties on both sides of the line. Paradoxically a world with semipermeable boundaries can strengthen the institution of private property.”26 He follows by proposing a series of examples which elucidate the potential for mutual profit by relaxing boundaries.
Epstein first points to an abatement of boundaries in medieval crop-planting. Each time the plough reached the end of a row, it required a substantial space to turn around, which in turn created an unusable area. While the initial solution was to plant in long, narrow rows to reduce the amount of wasted land, the farmers were able to preserve even more through cooperation.
22 Madanipour, p. 63. 23 Ibid, p. 64. 24 Ibid, p. 64. 25 Epstein, p. 190. 26 Ibid, p. 190. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 12
Realizing they could share the loss of
productive planted area, neighboring
farmers would often agree to establish a
common plough-turning area along their
borders. Most frequently, this was
implemented via an equal contribution of
land from each side of the agreed
boundary. Where an even division was not
feasible, additional arrangements were
made to compensate for the inequity.27
This illustration begins to introduce the FIGURE 2 Diagram illustrating the mutual benefit of a possibilities for mutual benefit contained shared plough-turning area at the boundary of two farmers’ land within boundaries between neighbors.
Epstein speaks to a few other circumstances which support the relaxation of boundaries. The first involves cases of nuisance, in which the live and let live rule governs common practice. The suggestion is that each neighbor agrees to accept a certain amount of inconvenience resulting from the everyday activities of the other, providing he or she receives the same courtesy in return.28 While Epstein lauds the concept, he does not assume that all neighbors would reach the same end if not guided towards it. In cases involving individuals seeking recompense for the slightest boundary violations, he believes that “relaxing the sharp boundary makes perfectly good sense; and the relaxation should come in the only way possible, as a matter of law.”29
27 Ibid, p. 190. 28 Ibid, p. 191. 29 Ibid, p. 194. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 13
He acknowledges that the rule is not perfect for every individual. However, he states, “the reciprocal nature of the gains and losses make it likely that most individuals will benefit from the increased liberty of action more than they will suffer from the additional disruption in their daily lives,”30 at least in the long run, if not in every instance. He reminds us that those who can not tolerate the particularities of a place retain the option to move to a location better suited to their needs.31
To create a boundary relationship that allows for communication, exchange, and cooperation is not to compromise the other roles of the boundary. Indeed, such relaxation of harsh boundaries establishes a more sophisticated, civilized interface and promotes tolerance among neighbors.
And, as we have seen, there is great potential for adjacent parties to profit from a deviation from a system of rigid, impenetrable boundaries. The next chapter deals with the disintegration of the public sphere that has resulted from the fragmentation and privatization of our urban centers, and looks specifically at the indoor common spaces that are included in many private developments as contributions to the public realm.
30 Ibid, p. 194. 31 Ibid, p. 194. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 14
Chapter Two:
PRIVATIZATION
2.1 Fragmentation of the Public Sphere
2.2 Indoor Common Spaces
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 15
2.1 Fragmentation of the Public Sphere
With modernity came the enlargement of the city. Spaces have become increasingly
specialized, which has in turn weakened the symbolic and functional integration of the public
and private spheres. The industrial revolution brought about a separation between places of work and places of living, transforming life in the private sphere. New information technologies now allow people to live and work outside the city, thereby reducing the need for many to enter the downtown area.32
The increased speed at which we can transverse the urban center has stripped away what was
once an intimate connection between the citizen and the physical city. Activities which previously required face-to-face communication can now be accomplished in various other ways.
Many political, commercial, and ceremonial interactions no longer need public space to occur.33
“The public sphere is no longer equated with public space, but…with being metaspatial: the sum total of many arenas of communication.”34
Although places such as public libraries, theaters, and museums are open to the public and
perceived as public, they have certain prescribed functions and accompanying regulations. The
open, non-specific spaces of the city “have come under pressure from the specialization and
functional disintegration of the modern city.”35
Also contributing to the breaking apart of the city and the diminishing significance of public space is the “social polarization that has followed the emergence of market economies and the privatization of space.”36 Development of urban properties has increasingly been undertaken by
larger, often non-local companies with dispensable resources. Financing for new projects has
32 Madanipour, p. 213. 33 Ibid, p. 213-214. 34 Ibid, p. 215. 35 Ibid, p. 215. 36 Ibid, p. 215. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 16
also followed this trend, as financial institutions are becoming larger national and international entities. As developers and financiers, who may be neither knowledgeable of nor sympathetic to the cultural attachments of a locality, begin controlling the development process, exchange value becomes the primary motivating factor. “As space is stripped of its emotional and cultural value, which is only developed through people’s use through time, it is treated as a mere commodity.”37
Development of public places is becoming increasingly privatized, as public agencies are often hesitant to take on the costs of creating and maintaining them. The complete management of these spaces is consequently left to private organizations, which inevitably favor the interests of a particular group. In response to this tendency toward privatization, the development of truly public space is being promoted as a catalyst for “tolerance and social cohesion.”38
Urban spaces, no longer able to claim the social and spatial significance they once could, are being treated largely as aesthetic exercises to enhance the marketability of the city. Urban designers are promoting the development of flexible spaces able to accommodate many uses and types of people.39
Creating these inclusive nodes may be a positive step towards reducing the potential conflicts arising from different interpretations and expectations of urban space, and in promoting an urbanism of tolerance and social cohesion. At the same time, these places may be expected to serve the demands of economic competitiveness for the cities, undermining their possible role in promoting social cohesion and cultural richness.40
The next section explores the indoor common space, an increasingly common example of a privatized public space.
37 Ibid, p. 215. 38 Ibid, p. 217. 39 Ibid, p. 228. 40 Ibid, p. 228. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 17
2.2 Indoor Common Spaces
Indoor spaces are provided to the public within many downtown developments as a supplement or alternative to exterior plazas, often in exchange for an increase in the number of permitted floors. While these spaces may purport themselves to be public, they are far from being truly public, and generally less public than their outdoor counterparts. As noted by William
Whyte in The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, indoor common spaces are by nature housed within buildings, and the appearance of these buildings, their entrances, and the security personnel all tend to skew the cross-section toward those of higher income and to limit the undesirables. While this may please the building managers and tenants and ensure the types of environments they desire, it draws into question the degree to which the public should underwrite these spaces.41
Inevitably, any internal space is bound to have a screening effect; its amenities, the merchandise lines offered, the level of the entertainment – all these help determine the people who will choose to come, and it is not necessarily a bad thing if a good many of the people are educated and well-off. But there should be other kinds of people, too, and, if there are not, the place is not truly public. Or urban.42
From another perspective, it could be argued that the simple fact that most of these spaces are
subject to private ownership and influence would cause their designation to shift toward private,
regardless of the public cross-section they are able to attract. At best, these spaces could be
described as semi-public. However, encouraging use by a wide variety of people is a positive
step towards contributing a worthwhile space to the public domain, even if it is on private
property.
41 Whyte, William. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980: p. 79. 42 Ibid, p. 79. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 18
The through-block circulation afforded by
many publicly accessible indoor spaces may
initially seem beneficial, but Whyte contends that
passages which offer no other amenities are very
sparsely used. “Unless there are attractions within,
people don’t use walkways very much, even in
rainy or cold weather. The street is a lot more FIGURE 3 Sparsely used interior passage in interesting.”43 As an example, peak traffic through Cincinnati the mid-block passage at the Olympic Towers in New York is a mere 10 percent of that on the
Fifth Avenue sidewalk that runs alongside it.44 More people use an interior route if something is happening in it, whether or not they pause to eat or sit. The preferred places to sit are generally those on the edge of the pedestrian flow.45
Whyte prescribes the following four essential amenities for successful indoor spaces: sitting, food, retailing, and toilets. He recommends at least one linear foot of seating per thirty square feet of open area, also the rule-of-thumb for outdoor seating. While he contends that movable chairs are best, he also encourages making double use of planters and ledges. Whyte emphasizes the importance of food, stating that “every successful indoor space provides food,”46 inferring that a space not offering food cannot succeed. He believes retail shops should be mandatory in these publicly-accessible indoor spaces, as they provide pedestrian traffic and increase the activity within the spaces. Finally, restrooms should not be overlooked, as “their existence could have a considerable effect on the shopping patterns of many people, older ones especially.”47
43 Ibid, p. 78. 44 Ibid, p. 78-79. 45 Ibid, p. 79. 46 Ibid, p. 76. 47 Ibid, p. 78. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 19
A good publicly accessible interior space should also have a strong connection to the street,
both visually and functionally. “It should be visible from the street; the street and its
surroundings should be highly visible from it; and between the two, physically and
psychologically, the connection should be easy and inviting.”48 Rather than using nondescript walls to separate the space from the street, glass enclosures and atria, where feasible, are preferable for their transparency. Entrances should be designed and placed so that they are easy to find and straightforward to use. This direct connection to the street and to the public realm is important because, “if the space is underwritten by incentive zoning, it should not merely provide access to the public, it should invite it.”49
However successful an indoor space is, one has to consider its effect on surrounding street life. Each person using an interior passage or browsing indoor shops is one person not engaging the street. “Internal spaces with shops can dilute the attractions of the street outside, and the more successful they are, the greater the problem. How many more indoor spaces it might take to tip the scale is difficult to determine, but it is a matter the planning commissions should think very hard about.”50 However, one could also argue that a space that is appealing enough to draw masses of people from the streets could very well also draw more people to its particular locale than would have been there otherwise, effectively improving the vitality of the entire immediate vicinity.
While these indoor common spaces may never be truly public, every effort should be made to encourage use by all types of people, and not just the affluent, educated ones. Providing the essential amenities – sitting, food, retailing, and toilets – and creating a strong connection to the
public realm increases the likelihood that these spaces are well used. The traditional retail arcade
48 Ibid, p. 79-80. 49 Ibid, p. 79. 50 Ibid, p. 79. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 20 is a noteworthy example of a privatized indoor space provided to the public. Taking this building type as a precedent, the next chapter presents the seven prominent characteristics of the arcade typology, followed by an analysis of two of the potential boundary conditions of such a retail space. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 21
Chapter Three:
THE ARCADE
3.1 Characteristics of the Arcade Typology
3.2 Arcade Retail Boundaries
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 22
3.1 Characteristics of the Arcade Typology
In Arcades: The History of a Building Type, Johann Geist identifies seven fundamental characteristics which define the typology of the arcade and differentiate it from other related building types. He describes the origins and development of each of these key elements. His analysis represents the established understanding of the arcade typology, upon which this thesis design project is initiated.
1. Access to the Interior of a Block:
Whereas in many urban blocks, the interior is left as derelict, back-alley space, the arcade takes advantage of this space that does not front the street. “Of all methods of opening up the unused interior of a block, the arcade is the most ingenious.”51 The result is similar in nature to the development of medieval cities, in which building within fortress walls necessitated an inward focus.52 The arcade emerged during an era of flourishing real-estate markets in the late eighteenth century. Driven by building speculation and an emphasis on profit, developers sought to maximize land use. The arcade allowed for the construction of a great number of residences and stores on inexpensive land.53 Geist discusses the open-air private housing courts and walk-
through buildings (combined ground-level stores with housing and storage for seasonal markets
above) as precedents to this aspect of the arcade.
2. Public Space on Private Property:
Arcades have historically drawn upon the architecture of public façades for their interiors.
Motifs such as the arcade, the colonnade, and the arbored walk, all of which had previously been
used to provide an accessible public face to private property, have frequently been applied to the
51 Geist, Johann. Arcades: The History of a Building Type. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1983: p. 12. 52 Ibid, p. 12. 53 Ibid, p. 13. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 23
design of arcade façades.54 The space faced by the
arcade façade, however, is subject to private ownership.
The arcade strives to present the impression of public
space, despite being located on privately-owned
property.
3. A Symmetrical Street Space:
Arcades are distinguished from other commercial
streets by the symmetrical nature of their façades. Geist
contends, “Any symmetrical development of the street
space tends necessarily toward an arcade-like
structure…All that is needed to convert this space into FIGURE 4 The interior façades of an arcade is a glass roof.”55 He attributes arcade-like Sillem’s Bazar draw upon the arcade motif, commonly used in the design of qualities to bridges lined with shops and apartments, as exterior street facades they are “symmetrical, forced passages.”56
4. A Skylit Space:
Spaces lit from above have been common since antiquity, as can be seen in the atrium, the dome oculus, and the clerestory. Progress was advanced by the need to light completely enclosed spaces, buildings with plans too deep to be lit only from the sides, and indoor vegetation that required light from all sides. Like exhibition halls and railway stations, the arcade needed ample illumination and isolation from weather.57 The creation of the industrially-manufactured plate glass and milled iron structure made this weather-tight, sky-lit space possible, and improved on
54 Ibid, p. 16. 55 Ibid, p. 19. 56 Ibid, p. 19. 57 Ibid, p. 20. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 24
the previous attempts with small glass panes over wood
structure, which leaked so badly that, in the case of the Galerie
Vitrée, “the floor became a veritable swamp on rainy days.”58
While a number of possible configurations exist, the one best suited to the arcade is the continuous glass skylight.59 The structure of the glass roof was never disguised in nineteenth- century arcades, but early twentieth-century arcades introduced the concept of the dust cover, “an indication that the feeling for the external structure of the arcade space has totally disappeared.”60 As discussed in the fourth chapter, however,
Crocker Galleria (1982) returns to the nineteenth-century propensity toward exposed glass roof structure.
5. A System of Access:
The arcade is a street-like arrangement of independent, narrow units, unified by its interior façades. This access system served as the model for the eighteenth-century modernization of the prison, eliminating communal, unattended, dungeonesque chambers in favor of linear arrangement of individual cells, of a
minimum size for certain tasks to be performed, along top-lit Prison designs inspired by the arcade’s system of access: corridors that could be guarded from a single point.61 FIGURE 5 [ABOVE] Stein au der Donau Prison FIGURE 6 [BELOW] Berlin, Mabit, The arcade’s system of access also inspired the theoretical Prison for Men
58 Ibid, p. 22. 59 Ibid, p. 24. 60 Ibid, p. 25. 61 Ibid, p. 28. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 25
residential phalansteries of Charles Fourier’s utopian vision and Godin’s partial realization of
Fourier’s model in his familistère (“familial phalanstery”), a commune built for the workers of
his radiator factory as part of an all-inclusive effort to improve labor conditions.62 Geist also compares this system of access to those found in market halls and the stacks of large libraries.63
6. Form of Organizing Retail Trade:
The arcade developed as a response to the influx of capitalism. “The overproduction caused by technological advances made it imperative for the manufacturers of luxury goods to discover new methods of distribution, faster turnover, and easier promotion.”64 The arcade was successful because it combined these department store goods with publicly accessible space and the opportunity for “undisturbed promenading, window shopping, and display of merchandise.”65 By
1800, the arcade had become the luxury department store of its time, offering a varied selection of luxury and fashion items under a single roof.66
7. A Space of Movement:
The arcade is a transitional space that facilitates movement. It connects two streets, just as the gallery or pergola connects two buildings and the railway station connects discrete locales.
The development of the arcade is situated chronologically between the palace gallery and the railway station. “The transitional character of the passageway, exploited for commercial purposes, determines the building type. In its fully developed form, the structure attempts to legitimate its function and hide its orientation toward profit and exploitation by striving to be a gallery. Precisely from this point on the arcade receives its vaulted roof.”67 The glass vault also relates the arcade to railway station, another space of transition and movement, and ultimately
62 Ibid, p. 29-33. 63 Ibid, p. 33. 64 Ibid, p. 35. 65 Ibid, p. 35. 66 Ibid, p. 39. 67 Ibid, p. 55. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 26
the shape of the underground train tunnels, which adopt “an aerodynamically ideal cross section
and a technologically refined form which makes fantastic velocities possible.”68
The arcade unlocks the oft-unused interior of the urban block, presenting the illusion of a symmetrical public street within a private development. It creates a space of transition and movement, naturally lit from above, that gives access to a linear array of retail stores. This description contains the key characteristics that define the typology of the arcade as it emerged in the nineteenth century as a distinct building type. The following section explores two of the many potential boundary conditions within an arcade, presenting a variety of options for each, some of which have commonly been employed, and others which may have not been considered.
68 Ibid, p. 55. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 27
3.2 Arcade Retail Boundaries
Most built environments contain a number of boundaries. Within an arcade, there are boundaries between interior circulation spaces and the public realm beyond, boundaries that distinguish store interiors from common circulation spaces, boundaries between stores that demarcate individual zones of equally semi-private control, and physical or implied boundaries that signal shifts between retail and more private zones of office or residential spaces. An even greater number of boundary conditions exist within individual stores, such as display and check- out counters, back room partitions and doors, and divisions between departments.
The boundary discussion in the first chapter revealed some of the benefits of a relaxation of boundaries between neighbors. A logical application of these principles to an arcade environment is a reevaluation of the boundaries between neighboring retail stores. A thorough understanding of the retail spaces created by these boundaries cannot be achieved without discussing the other bounding edges. To begin, the store-front boundary will be diagrammed, providing a representative sample of boundary types from a completely impermeable demarcation to a completely permeable one that still maintains a distinction. This logic will then be applied to the inter-store boundary to advance the discussion and explore a series of options beyond the standard continuous, opaque boundary. The larger overall boundary conditions will be addressed in the fourth chapter in the analysis of arcade precedents.
1. Boundary Between Common Space and Store:
The first boundary condition within the arcade to be addressed is the boundary between the
semi-public common indoor space of the arcade and the somewhat less public retail space of the
stores. This boundary coincides with the interior arcade façade, which has traditionally been
treated much like an exterior building façade, particularly in European examples. As such, the The Architecture of Boundary Morris 28 primary consideration in the design of this boundary has been creating the feel of an exterior street within an interior setting. This analysis takes a broader perspective, allowing for a wider range of conditions, and identifies a number of generic boundary configuration possibilities, beginning with the most restrictive, and moving toward the most permeable.
FIGURE 7 Retail storefront boundary diagrams
The first floor plan condition (A) is the most rigid boundary between the common space and the store. A solid, opaque wall separates the retail space from the common space. There may be signage to indicate the presence of a store beyond. This condition assumes access from elsewhere: either at another point of connection to the common space, through another store, from another level, or from the outside. Condition (B) is also highly impermeable as it allows neither direct visual connection nor physical access from the common space to the retail space of the store. However, the store is given
FIGURE 8 [ABOVE] Showcases at the opportunity to display its merchandise to passersby. secondary store boundary, Kenwood Towne Centre, Cincinnati, an Condition (C) provides visual permeability from the example of condition (B) FIGURE 9 [BELOW] Direct visual common space into the retail space, but does not allow connection at secondary store boundary, Kenwood Towne Centre, Cincinnati, an example of condition physical movement across the boundary. It is still a (C)
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 29
secondary boundary in the sense that users must go elsewhere to gain access to the retail space beyond. In condition (D) we see the first appearance of a direct physical condition, but overall permeability is rather low. A single access point into the store is flanked by opaque partitions on either side, regulating both physical and visual access.
FIGURE 10 Retail storefront boundary diagrams
In condition (E) the direct physical connection
between the two spaces occurs across a transitional
threshold, yielding a more gradual shift from the semi-
public common space to the semi-private retail space.
Visual permeability is still rather low, with elevated,
opaque-backed showcases flanking the entry, but these showcases can present an inviting face to the common
space with a suggestion of what lies beyond. Visual
permeability increases in (F) as the showcases lose their
opaque backings and are either open to the store or glazed
front and back. While the threshold transition still exists, the doors are replaced with a roll-down screen. FIGURE 11 [ABOVE] Opaque-backed showcases at primary storefront, Kenwood Towne Centre, Cincinnati, Conditions (G) and (H) are the most open and an example of condition (E) FIGURE 12 [BELOW] High visual permissive of these diagrams. Visual permeability is permeability at primary storefront, Kenwood Towne Centre, Cincinnati, similar to condition (F) optimized, and physical access becomes easier. In The Architecture of Boundary Morris 30
condition (G) a portion of the boundary is glazed to demarcate a display area, leaving the
remainder open to pedestrians. In condition (H) the entire boundary is unobstructed. The
distinction between what is inside the store and what is common space can be made by changes in flooring material, ceiling height, and other visual cues. Folding or roll-down partitions can close the space off at closing time. In this condition, circulation may begin to mingle with store activities.
While many of these diagrams may initially seem incompatible with a strict interpretation of an arcade, they are not meant to represent the breadth of what has been built in the arcade environment, nor are they all to necessarily be considered recommendations for a new retail space. The objective is to identify key points along the gamut of potential boundaries between the common space and the store, from the most impenetrable to the most permeable. Many of these variations can be observed within the modern shopping mall, a successor to the traditional retail arcade. The next section applies this same methodology to boundaries between stores.
2. Boundary Between Individual Stores:
Inter-store boundaries have nearly universally been approached as solid, closed, opaque separations meant to reinforce an exclusivist attitude towards retail environments. Viewed in plan, these often appear as massive masonry bearing walls which also establish a structural array.
A store’s main presence has generally been at the common corridor, with the occasional showcase or window at the exterior sidewalk or interior corridor. As was discussed in 3.1, the arcade’s system of access stipulated entry from the skylit interior passageway. In a few rare instances, secondary connections were introduced in the form of single small doorways at the inter-store boundaries. One such instance is the Galleria de Cristoforis in Milan, discussed in section 4.4. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 31
FIGURE 13 Retail inter-store boundary diagrams
Accounting for the vast majority of built examples, condition (A) is the most rigid iteration of the inter-store boundaries, a simple opaque demarcation. Store access is assumed to be afforded at the boundary between the store and the corridor. Condition (B) provides neither physical nor visual connection between stores, but introduces the potential for mutual advertising at the internal boundary.
Shoppers are presented with the suggestion of merchandise beyond, but must use the common space to move to the next store.
Condition (C) permits visual permeability across the
FIGURE 14 [ABOVE] Visual connection inter-store boundary, if only at a single point, but still at boundary between Jimmy John’s and Student Book Store, Cincinnati, disallows translocation across the boundary. The an example of condition (C) FIGURE 15 [BELOW] Physical boundary in condition (D), while maintaining a clear connections at boundaries between Gap departments, Rookwood Commons, Cincinnati, similar to definition between stores, allows a degree of physical condition (D) permeability, giving shoppers the opportunity to peruse successive stores without returning to the circulation corridor. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 32
FIGURE 16 Retail inter-store boundary diagrams
Condition (E) combines the mutual showcases of (B) with the connection point of (D), and creates the feeling of a storefront within a store, further encouraging an internal progression through consecutive stores. Boundary crossing is less abrupt than in (D) as a result of a transitional zone created between display showcases. Visual permeability increases in (F) as the displays are opened to the store beyond, while the physical connection remains effectively equivalent.
Condition (G) becomes more permeable, both in visual transparency and freedom of movement at the boundary. A portion of the boundary is glazed, setting up the suggestion of a transition to a new space while creating an opportunity for mutual display or simply attraction of shoppers’ interest through visual proximity. Condition (H) removes all physical obstruction from the boundary between stores. Distinctions between individual stores are made through the interior design of each space. Shifts in material, color, brightness, ceiling height, and other qualities can signal that a transition has occurred without the need for a physical boundary.
Signage can also play a significant role.
This section reveals a number of ways in which the principles of the semipermeable boundary from section 1.3 above can be applied to an arcade. As the inter-store boundary begins to become more permeable, opportunities arise for the stores to benefit from increased exposure, The Architecture of Boundary Morris 33
freedom of consumer movement, or both. Retail entities naturally desire the potential to display
their merchandise to potential customers and provide access to those interested. Most often, their
only occasion to do so is at the boundary between the common space and the store. Employing semipermeable boundaries between stores affords new opportunities for the stores to attract customers. While each store must compromise a bit of its exclusivity in the interest of cooperation, such a boundary relaxation has the potential to outweigh potential inconveniences with augmented profits and increased exposure.
As has been shown, there is a wide range of boundary possibilities where retail stores meet both circulation corridors and other stores. Viewed as independent variables, there is an even greater number of possible combinations of the two variables, each of which would yield a unique retail experience, although not all are feasible. Additional variations are achievable by combining or alternating multiple boundary conditions.
The coming chapter surveys several significant built examples of the arcade precedent and analyzes them according to the principles discussed heretofore. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 34
Chapter Four: PRECEDENTS
4.1 Cleveland Arcade
4.2 Galleria Umberto I
4.3 Crocker Galleria
4.4 Galleria de Cristoforis
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 35
4.1 Cleveland Arcade
The most significant achievement for architects John Eisenmann and George H. Smith, the
Cleveland Arcade is the largest of the English and American arcades. Built between 1888 and
1890, it “displays all the unique characteristics of the non-continental arcade in a monumental exaggeration that was never to be outdone.”69 The Cleveland Arcade still serves its original function today, over a hundred years after opening, although it is now part of a larger complex of buildings.
The Arcade is a simple linear form that connects two nine-story office buildings, one fronting each of two of downtown Cleveland’s most active commercial streets,
Euclid and Superior Avenues. Each of these entry buildings features “a towerlike central projection above a mighty archway which describes a semicircle, the arcade entrance.”70 To reconcile the elevation differential
between the two streets, the Euclid Avenue entrance
coincides with the second level of the arcade, and
provides steps and elevators down to the lowest level and
the Superior Avenue entry. This allows direct sidewalk
access at each entry without the need for external stairs.
And, while the Euclid Avenue building is rotated to relate FIGURE 17 Cleveland Arcade, Euclid to the street, both ends of the atrium space terminate in Avenue entry level plan
69 Geist, p. 237. 70 Ibid, p. 239. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 36
semicircular forms that “penetrate the office
buildings in such a supple manner that the skewing
of the axes is not apparent within the arcade.”71
Displaying only its steel structure, the interior lacks the façade treatment of the typical European arcade, and is thus more representative of English and American arcades. All five levels are occupied by shops and other businesses and are accessible from the arcade space via continuous galleries.72 FIGURE 18 Cleveland Arcade interior common space These galleries step back three times, with the fourth and fifth floor circulation stacked. The stepped, widening volume is reminiscent of a sports arena, an illusion reinforced by the wide-spanning glass roof.73 The support structure for this massive span can be seen on the top two floors, but becomes part of the third floor façade frame and is further buried on lower floors.
A number of lessons can be learned from the Cleveland Arcade. Its plan responds with clarity to simple cross-site circulation demands, and semicircles mediate changes in direction. While the compression through the entry buildings compromises a strong connection between the arcade and the street, its stairless sidewalk access from both ends makes for easy entry. Furthermore, the sloped site and entry at two different levels ensures direct use of at least those two levels. Its exhaustive use of the arcade system of access at a monumental scale, combined with a progressive stepping out with height, yields a feel that is more like a sports arena than a covered street. It also lacks a clear boundary between retail spaces and other businesses. The only cues
71 Ibid, p. 239. 72 Ibid, p. 237. 73 Ibid, p. 237. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 37
that the top two floors are different are a final step outward and a slight change in façade boundaries. While upper floors have planar façades with periodic doors inserted into a rhythm of glazing and spandrel, storefronts at retail floors feature large glazed showcases that serve as the primary boundaries between the common space and the stores. Entry points are signaled by recesses between showcases.
A transitional zone equal to the depth of the showcase is created at each entry, the outside edge of which is accentuated by a small step up. This space feels more private than the rest of the circulation, but still a part of the common space. Boundaries between stores follow FIGURE 19 Cleveland Arcade typical retail boundary diagram the convention of the basic opaque partition.
4.2 Galleria Umberto I
A European contemporary of the Cleveland Arcade is Naples’ second arcade, the Galleria
Umberto I. Built between 1887 and 1890, the Galleria was designed by Emanuele Rocco, who was given the commission in 1885 after winning a design competition. It remains today in its original form, and is Naples’ largest public space.74 It is protected from the elements, but open at the ends of its axes, and is “cooled by the sea wind which blows through it.”75 The Galleria
Umberto I was built as part of an effort to elevate Naples to Italy’s foremost city after the unification. It was also an initial part of a public health initiative meant to improve the conditions
74 Ibid, p. 429. 75 Ibid, p. 429. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 38
at the city’s center after the pestilent cholera outbreak of
1884, a program that also included the installation of a
sewer system and potable water lines.76
The cruciform plan of Galleria Umberto I penetrates the block and connects all four bounding streets. It responds to the site’s centrality to the Teatro S. Carlo, the
Palazzo Reale, and several piazzas, adjacencies which ensure nearly equal traffic to all four sides of the arcade.
In this way, the cross-shaped plan is more intellectually justified than that of Milan’s Galleria Vittorio Emanuele
II, which had less to do with pedestrian access than it did with the aspirations of the architect.77 Its most elaborate façade is opposite the Teatro S. Carlo, with dual entrances, of which only one is real, along a concave curve that acknowledges the symmetry of the theater.78
This exuberant face has been criticized for its presumptuous overshadowing of the Teatro S. Carlo.79
The interior is much more façade-driven than the
Cleveland Arcade, a testament to its European heritage.
Although there are five floors, only one is accessed by FIGURE 20 [ABOVE] Galleria Umberto I plan the arcade space. There are no galleries above the ground FIGURE 21 [BELOW] Galleria Umberto I, façade opposite Teatro S. Carlo
76 Ibid, p. 428. 77 Ibid, p. 428. 78 Ibid, p. 431. 79 Ibid, p. 437. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 39
floor; instead, upper floors face the arcade space through
windows, some with balconies.80 Geist describes the experience of discovering the Galleria in this way:
One strolls unsuspectingly along Via Roma. A chance glance to the left, and the eye is overcome by the sudden revelation of the existence of this huge, hidden space. The passerby does not have to be of a special religion or have a ticket to enter. The arcade belongs to everyone. It is the monumental expression of this most characteristic achievement of the nineteenth century, the public sphere, in which everyone may participate.81
Galleria Umberto I demonstrates several things. Its plan
responds to circulation desires and adjacencies to nearby
piazzas. While it could have been executed more graciously, its
most expressive façade addresses the historic Teatro S. Carlo.
It has very literal connection to the public realm; its open-air
design means there is no physical separation between the street
and the arcade space, save for varying degrees of elevation
change negotiated by stairs. Its use of vertical, fenestrated
façades and no upper galleries creates a clear boundary
between first floor retail and private upper floor rental spaces,
FIGURE 22 [ABOVE] Galleria and adds to the feel of an exterior street. The illusion breaks Umberto I interior common space down somewhat because of the monotony of the interior FIGURE 23 [BELOW] Galleria Umberto I, conjectured typical architecture and the use of interior floor material. Stores are retail boundary diagram
entered between massive stone pilasters. Although detailed plans were not available, there is no
reason to suspect any deviation from solid interior boundaries.
80 Ibid, p. 431. 81 Ibid, p. 437. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 40
4.3 Crocker Galleria
A more recent arcade project can be found in
San Francisco. Completed in 1982 by Skidmore,
Owings, & Merrill as part of a larger development,
Crocker Galleria bridges two prominent retail streets, Post Street and Sutter Street, just off Market
Street in downtown. It integrates with a new office tower and renovated bank hall, cutting a pedestrian path through the center of the block.82
The three-story arcade space is fully dedicated to retail and dining establishments, with direct access to all three levels. Entering the arcade from either
Post or Sutter Streets involves descending to the lowest level, a half floor below the sidewalk. The
Kearny Street entrance of the new office tower coincides with and connects to the middle level of the arcade, as the site slopes downward from west to
83 east. Whereas historically arcades have drawn FIGURE 24 [ABOVE] Crocker Galleria plan FIGURE 25 [BELOW] Crocker Galleria interior upon exterior façade motifs for the design of their common space interiors, Crocker Galleria draws upon the nondescript glass storefront of the urban retail store.
The storefronts line up vertically while second and third floor circulation is achieved via walkways that, in the overall composition, amount to little more than gypsum bands that protrude
82 Bush-Brown, Albert. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill: Architecture and Urbanism: 1973-1983. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983: p. 58. 83 Ibid, p. 58. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 41
into the arcade space, downplaying the façade in the composition and, in conjunction with the prominent escalators, lending a mall-like atmosphere to what could otherwise be an engaging
space.
The transparent glass vaulted atrium and entry facades afford views to the surrounding
buildings and urban activity, allowing occupants to feel a part of the city and partially countering
the suburban shopping mall stigma. This transparency also
emphasizes the permeability through the site afforded by the arcade.
The transition from circulation space to retail space occurs in a recess
much like at the Cleveland Arcade. In this case, however, the
showcases have been extended to the floor and have become display
areas that are extensions of the retail floor. Visual permeability FIGURE 26 Crocker Galleria typical retail between the common space and the stores is rather high, while boundary diagram
physical access remains at a single point.
Crocker Galleria has suffered in recent years from low traffic, loss of profits, and increased
vacancies. Long-time store owners blame a slowing economy.84 While employees from surrounding Financial District businesses frequent the Galleria for lunch, “most of them eat and run – contributing little to suffering stores…”85 Its two-block distance from Union Square, the center of San Francisco’s shopping district, also puts it at a disadvantage. Were it closer to the retail center, perhaps it could enjoy a larger share of the daytime shopping traffic.
Crocker Galleria teaches several things. In order to maintain the traffic required for profitability, a close proximity to other retail spaces can be beneficial. While the galleria’s end façades are transparent, the connection between the street and the arcade is not as direct as it
84 Strasburg, Jenny. “Anxious anniversary: Crocker Galleria celebration comes as it loses key stores.” San Francisco Chronicle 30 October 2002: B-1. 85 Ibid, B-1. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 42
could be if one of the levels matched sidewalk grade at Post and Sutter Streets rather than at the
secondary Kearny Street entrance. Finally, large amounts of gypsum and prominent escalators
detract from the street-like qualities an arcade space can have.
4.4 Galleria de Cristoforis
Built between 1831 and 1832, the Galleria de
Cristoforis was Italy’s first arcade. It is particularly noteworthy as one of the few arcades to feature interconnecting stores. Although the arcade was demolished in the 1930s, drawings were published by architect Andrea Pizzala that reveal the nature of the built form and its intended function: “Milan was the first city in Italy to construct wide, clean streets and a large theater, but it lacked a place where a certain FIGURE 27 Galleria de Cristoforis interior common space public could spend inclement days and long winter evenings.”86
The Galleria de Cristoforis connected the end of Corsia de Servi, “once the promenade of the most elegant Milanese,”87 to the Contrada del Monte through a long main wing and then a shorter wing to the right about ninety-five degrees. It was home to “seventy shops, some interconnecting, and rooms belonging to them on the mezzanine.”88 Apartments occupied the floor above. The façades were unified by full-height pilasters which aligned with the interior store boundaries, and were terminated in an ornate cornice upon which a continuous gabled
86 Geist, p. 366. 87 Ibid, p. 366. 88 Ibid, p. 366. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 43
skylight perched without underbracing. The store
entrances spanned the distance between pilasters, and glass
display cases filled in arches above the openings. Just
inside the store entrances were passages on either side that
ran between stores. Depending on the articulation, the
openness of the entrance thresholds and the inter-store
passages may have conveyed less a connection between
stores as much as a continuous secondary aisle running
behind the main façades. Nonetheless, this building is
unique for its relaxation of inter-store boundaries.
A clear zoning can be observed within the Galleria de
Cristoforis. The one level intended for public use was accessible via a common atrium. Private stairs were located off secondary circulation behind the stores that gave access to the mezzanine and apartments above.
Interest was increased by meshing circulation and shopping space. The continuous façades likely downplayed the notion of the interior street, however, unless one imagined two long, identical buildings flanking a street. FIGURE 28 [ABOVE] Galleria de While they were to varying degrees successful in Cristoforis plan FIGURE 29 [BELOW] Galleria de Cristoforis typical retail boundary clearly communicating boundaries, integrating with the diagram public realm, and creating space appropriate to an urban The Architecture of Boundary Morris 44
setting, these arcade precedents offer a significant amount of information, both central to the issues in question and related in general to the design of urban retail centers. The next chapter begins with a synthesis of the design-related aspects of the inquiry up to this point, including a synopsis of the design influences suggested by this chapter, and proceeds to identify the project being proposed, describing the site influences and responses. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 45
Chapter Five:
PROPOSAL
5.1 Design Implications
5.2 Site Information
5.3 Design Program
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 46
5.1 Design Implications
This thesis proposes a new arcade-inspired mixed-use building that focuses on retail, dining and common interior space that builds on and supplements the public realm. While the development would be subject to private ownership, the common spaces would strive to accommodate all people and present a public image. This section synthesizes the design related information discovered in this investigation and serves as the basis for design exploration.
As described in the first chapter, boundaries have several important roles. Situated within the public-private continuum, boundaries occupy gradient shifts. The retail storefront mediates between the privately influenced store interiors and the more public internal or external pedestrian street beyond, defining a public-private shift. The interests of both the public and private spheres should be considered when articulating this boundary.
As neighboring retailers are generally equally semi-private, the inter-store boundary does not typically signal a shift in the public-private continuum; it relates at its most basic level to another of the primary roles of the boundary: the subdivision of space and the definition of property.
Arcades and other such indoor groupings of retail establishments use boundaries to establish zones of control for each tenant. Boundaries enable store owners to identify their territories and create the environments they desire. Both the inter-store boundary and the store-common space boundary fulfill this role. The inter-store boundary signals the shift between one retail entity and the next, defining the edge between what is controlled by one tenant and what is controlled by another. The boundary at the common space distinguishes between what is available for use by all and what can be regulated by the retail entity.
The third major role of boundary is to be a catalyst for communication and cooperation.
While the storefront boundary is commonly crafted in such a way as to be distinct but highly The Architecture of Boundary Morris 47
communicative and easily permeable, this boundary function has much potential for exploration
at the boundary between tenants. Section 1.3 describes the benefits of a selectively relaxed boundary at the interface between neighbors. Section 3.2 presents a range of situations in which the typical inter-store boundary can be relaxed, either visually or physically, and to varying extents. Depending on the degrees and types of permeability at this boundary, store owners can benefit from increased promotional frontage or increased foot traffic, or both. While a completely uninhibited inter-store boundary may compromise store definition and identity, a median condition that respects the boundary and acknowledges the desires of both of the neighbors while giving them the benefits of increased freedom strikes an ideal balance.
The conditions described in section 3.2 serve as the starting point for a more in-depth
exercise exploring the concept of an inter-store boundary zone. Storage and other support spaces
are a necessity for most retail environments. Where the typical arrangement, with these “opaque”
support spaces at the back of the store, does not support an overall building zoning strategy in
terms of transparency and physical access, one solution is to define a shared zone between stores to house these necessary functions. Much like the shared plow-turning zones utilized by medieval farmers described in section 1.3, a shared support zone at the inter-store boundary can minimize the disruption of these required spaces. See appendices A and B for diagrams relating to this exploration.
Section 2.2 provides a series of guidelines for creating a successful indoor common space that can directly inform the design of a new mixed-use commercial/retail center. According to
Whyte, simple indoor passageways attract little use, but amenities such as seating, food, retail,
and restrooms increase their appeal. Retail is one of the primary emphases of the project, and the other three are to be provided for in the program. This section also calls for strong connections to The Architecture of Boundary Morris 48 the public realm, with easily identifiable, prominent entrances. A measure of success is the degree to which the general population feels comfortable spending time within the public parts of the building – not just the middle and upper classes that come to shop, but all types. The more public a space seems, the more meaningful a supplement it can be to the public realm.
Johann Geist’s arcade typology analysis in section 3.1 serves as a survey of the predominant characteristics of this building type. Described below, these characteristics provide insight to the arcade’s mastery of integration with the public realm and the boundary relationships that contributed to its success.
Arcades introduced interior passageways that greatly increased the amount of retail frontage available when compared to urban blocks that only developed a ring around the perimeter. Their façades have historically been articulated in such a way as to evoke public exterior building façades, contributing to the illusion of public space on private property. While arcades have traditionally featured strict, regular symmetry about their multi-story volumes, and this quality has undoubtedly contributed to their impressive monumentality, it could be argued that a public feel was imparted more by the creation of a pedestrian street than by its symmetry.
One of the arcade’s most striking features is its linear, skylit atrium. The more undisturbed and continuous the light, the better the illusion of being outdoors can be executed, which in turn aids a more effective replication of public space. The organization of the arcade called for a series of narrow, independent units to be arranged linearly along a common atrium, thereby maximizing the number of units that could be accessed from the common space.
The arcade was successful because it provided a means of displaying and distributing department store goods while allowing for leisurely window shopping and promenading. This suggests that arcade users welcomed the choice to browse from a neutral position or shop more The Architecture of Boundary Morris 49
actively. Arcades are linear spaces that facilitate movement, providing connections between
distinct points in the public realm, most often streets.
The following design implications emerge from the specific precedent studies of Chapter 4.
The plan should respond to the desired circulation paths and external adjacencies. A direct connection between the interior common space and the sidewalk is more ideal than one separated by stairs. A connection that emulates the open-air quality of Galleria Umberto I can create drama and discovery from the street and help impart a more public feel to the interior volume. Direct access to multiple levels increases the likelihood that more levels will be used. Reversing circulation at more private areas can create a clear public-private boundary as the building progresses upward. Furthermore, turning vertical, fenestrated façades to the atrium space can also contribute to the feel of an exterior street more than a fully atrium-accessible organization.
However, monotonous façades detract from the efficacy of the street illusion, as do copious gypsum and prominent escalators. Traffic past stores is important to their success, and, while building off adjacencies to existing dominant retail centers can expand a retail zone and increase traffic, two blocks of separation is too great for stores to benefit from existing traffic.
The next section describes and analyzes the site being proposed for development.
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 50
5.2 Site Information
The site being proposed for this project is the block containing Fountain Square, bounded by
Walnut and Vine Streets to the East and West, and Fifth and Sixth Streets to the South and
North, in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio. Home to the famous Tyler Davidson Fountain, Fountain
Square is a particularly significant space to the residents of the Cincinnati, as one of the city’s most prominent landmarks. It is a place where small and large groups gather, where special events are held, and where locals spend their lunch hours sitting outside. The square has undergone a fairly significant redevelopment effort over the past few years. This proposal builds upon the improvements to date, incorporating the newly updated landscaping and amenities.
Occupying the northernmost third of this block is a low-rise building with limited retail
and dining at the ground level below five levels of parking on its north side, and office space on its south. A diminutive ground-level passage through the building from the Square to Sixth
Street is the building’s only common space.
Over time, this building had become an eyesore for square-goers, and as part of the redevelopment effort it received a makeover in FIGURE 30 [ABOVE] Pre-redevelopment square- fronting façade of northern building (2005) FIGURE 31 [BELOW] Recladded square-fronting the form of a glass screen. While this helped to façade of northern building (2009)
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 51
mitigate its square-side appearance, it did little to
increase the building’s contribution to the public
realm. Recently added to the site is a small
building housing the Via Vite restaurant as well
as public restrooms and stairs and elevators to
the parking garage. These functions would be
integrated into the new building, proposed to
replace both the low-rise building at the north of
the site and the small building that has recently
been added.
Until recently, an open-air portion of
Cincinnati’s skywalk system crossed the square along its north edge. This route received steady traffic, particularly at midday when downtown FIGURE 32 [ABOVE] Building containing Via Vite employees ran errands and ate lunch on their restaurant, restrooms, and garage elevators (2009) breaks. Whereas recent development eliminated FIGURE 33 [BELOW] Section of skywalk system previously traversing the square (2005) the portion of second-level passageway crossing the square, the proposal would involve replacing it with a more integrated pedestrian offering. To the East, the skywalk provides access to offices and government buildings, and to the West, the
city’s retail center, hotels, and a food court within Tower Place at Carew Tower.
This prime location adjacent to one of the most public outdoor spaces in the city and within
two blocks of most of downtown’s retail offerings deserves a more thorough intervention. On
this site is the potential for a building that better engages the Square, the skywalk, surrounding The Architecture of Boundary Morris 52
Streets, provides more positive connections across the site, adds indoor common space to supplement the public Square and surrounding streets, adds to the amenities currently offered at the Square, and expands Cincinnati’s downtown retail offering.
Below is a drawing illustrating the publicly accessible passages in the blocks surrounding the
Square, as indicated by white areas. Dashed lines denote passages on the skywalk level.
FIGURE 34 Figure-ground illustration of the network of interior passages around the site (2005 survey)
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 53
The following is a breakdown of use types in the buildings surrounding the square.
Particularly notable is the site’s close proximity to an existing retail node. There are several stores in the Lazarus building west of the Square, with Tower Place south of Lazarus. One more block west finds Saks Fifth Avenue. A number of hotels are interspersed with the retail, with several commercial office buildings on the periphery. A pocket of arts and culture exists northeast of the site.
FIGURE 35 Diagram illustrating various use types in the nine block square around the site (2005 survey)
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 54
Below is a diagram describing activity levels at certain “hot spots” around the site on a
twenty-four hour scale, beginning and ending at midnight. The infilled outline specifies the location of the hot spot, and the corresponding graph refers to activity levels. Higher peaks indicate higher levels of activity. Superimposed over this is a plot of the distribution of people across the outdoor areas around the site, gathered empirically from aerial and other photographs.
A preferred route across the site seems to be along the south edge of the site, around the fountain.
FIGURE 36 Diagram showing distribution of people outdoors and activity levels at hot spots (2005 survey)
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 55
5.3 Design Program
Objective: To create a positive indoor supplement to Cincinnati’s public Fountain Square by
implementing strategic boundary articulations and adding to the square’s amenity offerings.
Overall Site Zoning:
Existing: The site is currently most public at the Existing
Square itself, at the points of sufficient isolation from
private influences, the most prominent of which is
Fifth-Third Bank’s presence on the site.
Proposed: Demolishing the low-rise buildings at the
northern portion of the site allows the semi-public
zone to be extended. While the new building is to
inhabit a similar location to the one being eliminated,
Proposed the new construction will be more permeable at its
south side, welcoming the public to a much greater
degree than the current building. The northern portion
of the building will respond to the rationality of the
streets and city grid beyond. The southern portion will
break from these constraints and exhibit a more
expressive, less rigid quality.
Indoor Common Spaces: As suggested by the precedent
studies, the plan will respond with simplicity to the FIGURE 37 [ABOVE] Diagram showing current public-private gradient FIGURE 38 [BELOW] Diagram showing circulation needs. At the ground level, circulation will proposed public-private gradient and the expansion of the semi-public run from the square north and/or northeast to maintain zone northward
The Architecture of Boundary Morris 56
a passage through to Sixth Street. Skywalk circulation will be maintained, but diverted past
some of the retail spaces. Those pedestrians that do not wish to traverse the retail level will
have the option to exit to the square level. This will allow the retail spaces to benefit from
traffic that already uses the skywalk, and will help to maintain traffic at both levels. In
addition, there is already a significant series of retail spaces linked by the skywalk upon
which this project can build.
As suggested by Whyte89 and the precedent studies, there will be a strong connection to the
public Square and streets, both visually and physically. Common spaces will be lit from
above to enhance the illusion of an outdoor public space. The intent is to blur the boundary
between more private indoor spaces and the public realm beyond in an effort to create
inclusive interior space.
Tenant Retail Spaces: (Square level and skywalk level) Consistent with the arcade typology,
these retail spaces will be relatively narrow units accessed by indoor corridors. Each of the
boundary articulations is to respond to the overall public-private zoning of the building.
Inter-store boundaries will support this zoning and explore semipermeable articulation
concepts in order to encourage cooperation and, where appropriate, ease of access between
stores. In order to promote an active exterior street, and not just an active interior street, there
will be street-fronting retail on Sixth Street.
Food Service and Dining: (Square level and one level above skywalk level) According to
Whyte, both outdoor and indoor public spaces benefit from the availability of food.90 There
will be a variety of food options, from informal street-style vendors at square level to
indoor/outdoor bars and restaurants at the rooftop, one level above the skywalk level.
89 Whyte, p. 79-80. 90 Ibid, p. 50-53, 76. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 57
Tenant Office Space: (Upper floors) Following the gradient of public to private with increased
height, the circulation will reverse at tenant office floors.
Public Restrooms: As recommended by Whyte, there will be appropriate restroom facilities at
each level.91
Tyler Davidson Fountain: To further integrate the public Square with the building and the
spaces within, the new building will acknowledge the Square and the fountain, and establish
alignments within the building geometries to link the indoor spaces with the Square beyond.
Underground Parking: Parking will provide equal or greater number of spaces than currently
provided in the above ground parking deck at the north side of the site.
91 Ibid, p. 78. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 58
Bibliography
Bush-Brown, Albert. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill: Architecture and Urbanism: 1973-1983. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983.
Epstein, Richard A. Principles for a Free Society. Reading, Massachusetts: Perseus Books, 1998.
Geist, Johann. Arcades: The History of a Building Type. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1983
Madanipour, Ali. Public and Private Spaces of the City. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Strasburg, Jenny. “Anxious anniversary: Crocker Galleria celebration comes as it loses key stores.” San Francisco Chronicle 30 October 2002: B-1.
Waterhouse, Alan. Boundaries of the City. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.
Whyte, William. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980. The Architecture of Boundary Morris 59
Appendix A
FIGURE 39 [ABOVE] Graphics showing exploration of Shared Inter-Store Boundary Zone The Architecture of Boundary Morris 60
Appendix B
FIGURE 40 [ABOVE] Graphics showing exploration of Shared Inter-Store Boundary Zone