Infilling the Middle Landscape: Suburbanzoning codes to retain historicalplace makingforms

by Sidney Royal Bowen III AB, Boston College1971 MBA, Dartmouth College1973

Submitted to the Department of Architecture in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree Master of Architecture at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology February, 1995

C Sidney Royal Bowen III 1994. All rights reserved.

The authorhereby grants M.I.T.permission to reproduceand to distributepublicly paper -- and electroniccopies of this thesis documentin whole or in part.

Signatureof tl6 Author SidneyR. BowenIII December9, 1994

Certifiedby Ellen Dunham-Jones Assistant Professor

Accepted by Ellen Dunham-Jones ;.ASSACHUSETSINSTITUTE AssistantProfessor OF TECHNOLOGY Chairman,Department Committee on GraduateStudents

JUL251995

LIBRARIES

R201 to John H. Howe

JohnHowe with Mr. Wright in the West Drafting room. (Tafel1979)

Titlepage: Details of Riverside, Illinois. From a 19thcentury promotionalbrochure. (Fabos 1968) Preface 3

I was fortunateenough to grow up in the Mason City, Iowa neighborhood plannedby WalterBurley Griffin. Rock Crest /Rock Glen is the mostcomplete exampleof Prairie Schoolplanning extant. Nearly a dozenhouses by Griffin, Frank LloydWright, William Drummondand Barry Byrnewere builtbetween

1910and 1916. At MasonCity and in hisunrealized plan for Trier Center, Winnetka,Illinois, Griffin contributed a neighborhood designmethodology which addressedthe site in its totalityand integratedthe use,materials and methodsof construction.The result is a place of unusualvitality andbeauty, one which realizesthe potentialof the built landscapeto contributeto the publicrealm as well as the private. The housesbuilt by Griffinand his contemporaries,rather thanbeing an end in themselves,become one of the meansto achievea larger sense of place. In Griffin'swords, "landin this senseis accordedthe respectdue to a highlydeveloped and perfectedliving organism, not to be exterminatednor treated as dead material,or as a mere sectionof the map."' The influenceof this place on mewas subliminalbut powerful.

In 1973,at the age of 24, I met JohnHowe. What luck. "Jack"had been one of the original apprenticesat Taliesinin 1932. He grew up in Evanston, Illinois. Griffinhad redesignedtwo houses for Howe'suncle. Johnhad donethe drawingsfor the Alvin Millerhouse, a late Usonianat Charles City,Iowa that had mesmerizedme as a child. There could not have been a more perfectclient- architect relationship.Over the next fifteenyears John designedthree housesfor my family. I learnedhow to build. I admiredthe processof designand made suggestionsas I maturedin my taste and conviction. However,my most vivid recollectionof my relationshipwith Johnis oneI have nevershared with him. The wait for drawingsfor the first house John did for us wasinterminable. When I could stand it no longer,I snuck aroundto the windowof his officeto see if "our" plans were on the drawingboard. They were,and they were wonderful. Atthat moment,the process beganwhich brought me to the professionof architecture twentyyears later.

"The land is the beginningof architecture". John Howetold me that this is his inspiration,the principalof his architecture. It was clearly Griffin's inspiration. It is my thesis.

Charlestown,December 1, 1994 Acknowledgments

To

EllenDunham-Jones: steady, sincere criticism; a teacher. BillHubbard and Len Morse-Fortier:stimulating insight.

TomChastain: " it's not just a postcard". MauriceSmith: "wrong". FernandoDomeyko: for explainingwhat was "wrong".

Thank You TheSchneider House by Griffin, 1915. Completed after his departure for Dad, for freedom. ,Australia, byByrne. (Prare School Review, 1968) Sons, Gardinerand Coleman,for joy. Angela,for life

Table of Contents

3 Preface 5 Acknowledgments 7 Table of Contents 9 Abstract 10 Introduction 15 Place: Precedentand Paradox 15 IntentionVs. Order 17 SuburbanReality: Order over Place 19 ReclaimingIntention 23 A DevelopmentCode for Beverly,Massachusetts 24 HistoricalDevelopment 27 Paths and Places 33 Codes to Extend traditionalForm Making 44 ContributiveZoning Ordinances 46 BeverlyNeighborhood Extension Ordinance 48 Applyingthe BNE Ordinance 48 The FrickeEstate 52 The RiquierProperty 57 Conclusions 59 Appendix 73 Bibliograph

77 Notes C ei. Am+kn f f / 1

Infillingthe MiddleLandscape: Suburbanzoning codes to retainhistorical place makingforms

BowenIII Abstract by SidneyRoyal Submittedto the Departmentof Architectureon December9, 1994 in partial fulfillmentof the This thesis is a proposition for a new approach to the infill of the requirementsfor the degreeMaster of Architecture existing suburban context. While specific to a particular place and land use type, the rule making approach which is proposed and different from the existing is conceived as a general premise. That is, in place of the abstract functional rules which permeate the zoning regulations of Anytown, USA, I propose to substitute a rule making exercise aimed at retaining the historical characteristics of landscape and place which predate the increased density.

The thesis seeks to demonstrate that maximum allowable density can be achieved while retaining the existing hierarchy of contiguous spaces and the relationship(s) of dwelling units to that hierarchy. The thesis emerges from a practical confrontation with the potential subdivision of a 1.6 acre property surrounding a 100 year old carriage house in suburban Beverly, Massachusetts converted to residential use 35 years ago.

A brief critical history of the ongoing evolution of the American suburb and some precedents for architectural response to its shortcomings provides the basis for the design principals for this thesis which are then applied to two sites in Beverly. The goal is to accept the inevitable increase in density while developing and implementing a set of conditions at the neighborhood and house level that enhance the opportunity for ThesisSupervisor: Ellen Dunham-Jones enjoyment of Olmsted's notion of the "leisure, contemplativeness continued Title: AssistantProfessor and happy tranquillity" 2 of the suburban ideal. Introduction 10

The suburbancolonization of the UnitedStates began in earnest at the end of the 19thcentury. Transportationtechnology permittedthe concentratedliving conditionsof the city to be overcomeby streetcarand commuterrail lines. Utility companiesand railroadslooking for customerspromoted the subdivisionof vast quantitiesof previouslyagricultural land into residentialdevelopments. Suburban sprawl emergedand with it, a growing separationof urban and industrialactivities from residential. The metropolitanregion quicklytook on a monocentricmodel of spatial distribution witha commercialcore surroundedby residentialand mixed use settingsat decreasingdensity. 3

This phenomenoncontinued unabated untilthe 1960's. Then, however,the

completionof the interstatehighway system and relatedring roads like Route 128 led the way to the establishmentof multiple commercialcenters in dispersed suburban locations. Officeparks andshopping mallsproliferated at the far edges of the formercity enablingcitizens to move further into the countrysidewithout incurring prohibitivetime costs for transportation. The separationof manufacturing andmanagement resulting from differenthuman resource requirementsand the desireto achievemanufacturing economies of scale not possiblein existingmetropolitan locations further encouragedthis phenomenon.

The wideningring of the metropolitanregion put natural inflationary pressureon residentialland costs. At the sametime, increasedland useforced the institutionof public sanitarysystems in municipalitieswhich had previouslyrelied on private (septic)systems. Densitieswhich had previouslybeen limitedto as littleas onehouse per acre were no longernecessary nor economic. Schoolcosts as well as other municipalcosts further increasedthe tax on residentialproperty and largerparcels werequickly reduced to smallersubdivisions.

Whileconsiderable attention has been paid to the minimumlot subdivision and particularlyto large scale developmenttypical to the 1960's and 70's, less considerationhas been givento the growingimpact of the subdivisionof the individualresidential property from a singlelarge lot withone house into smaller MovingDay. (Rowe, 1993) lots with multiplehouses. Peter Rowe, inMaking A Middle Landscapeaddresses the issue peripherallyin his discussionof the house's emergenceas a speculative investmentin the inflationaryperiod of the 1970's. He contendsthat the house becamea product for whichthere was bothdemand and appreciationpotential; hence,a commodity.

Real estate has alwayshad the potentialfor commodification.What is differentin the emergenceof the suburbanhouse as commodityis the increased tendencyof the homeownerto make decisionsof size, style, look,and even subdivisionof the propertybased on perceivedmarket value. At the individual house levelthere is no evil in this decision. As Rowe puts it, "It is not the similarityin appearanceof units or the exerciseof bad taste, as somecritics claim, that commodifiesthe domesticsuburban landscape;rather the problemis that the typical suburbansingle familyhouse runs those risks withoutthe intrinsicsupport They Came! Tihey Saw! to be foundin more substantialurban dwellingsfor giving somesemblance of Tiey Raved! They Bought! communityidentity." 4 * TAfrV Is.a Nuieu.I 1..., for

SMewrpwd In Q0U1gr. Are- bmiy, "Ae.wMt. . MaseuMblit. The fact is that most subdivisionsof an individualproperty results in an NationalHomes advertisement, 1950's. (Wright, 1981) immediatecommodification of the entireproperty. The buyer of the out lot(s)is often a smallbuilder who listensto his Realtorand builds the "type"that is selling most quicklyin the community.The compatibilityof the "type" to the land,the existingenvironment or the potentialmaking of neighborhoodis utterlyirrelevant. The result is a patchworkof privacieswhich virtually and often physically smotherswhatever vestiges of Olmsted's"distinctly rural attractiveness"remains and alongwith it the public/privaterelationships which gave identityto the community.

Communities'reactions to this normal and rationalbehavior by its citizens is, in my view,often misguided. Instead of addressingthe issueof community identityat the communityor public scale,the focus is on forcinga notionof identityon the individualhomeowner. To achievethis conceptarchitectural reviewboards are formedto further assure conformanceto a style or even, at its most absurd, a color. Upzoningis also utilized. The perceptionthat larger lots will somehowretain the pastoral characterof the communityfails to understand and addressthe fact that the publiccharacter of a placeis not made of privaciesof any size but of the relationshipof privaciesto the public environment.Too often, the sanctityof individualproperty rights is assumedto precludeany action save absoluteenforcement of outdatedor counterproductivezoning and buildingcodes. The focus is "prevention"rather than "contribution".Reaction is substitutedfor action. Over time,the tenacityof the individualto achievemaximum value for his propertyprevails overthe collectiveresistance. We are left lamentingwhat has been lost and are powerlessto prevent it fromhappening again.

The followingis a considerationof stepsnecessary to developa contributivemodel for the furthersubdivision of existingsuburban properties. The thesis is that increased densitycan be accommodatedwithout losing the character,identity and senseof place that attractedus to the suburb in the first place. The approach differsfrom the typicaland existingin attemptingto establishrules or codesbased on the hierarchyof contiguousspaces, public and private,that make up the community.It rejectsthe notionthat we can retain identityby preventionor by forcingconformity on the privateand substitutesan HaleStreet Scenes, 1994 approachto fosteringdevelopment which mediates between privateand public so 1' 'V as to build or continuea publicor communityidentity. Place: Precedent and Paradox

IntentionVs. Order

Throughouthistory and across culturesthere has beena common "A true place is by nature complex, hierarchical, polyfunctional, individual, and multiform. A orientationto makingof place whichrecognized the need for a multiplicityof functional zone instead is by nature simplex, physicalrelationships. The earliestof mans' effortsat architecturewere simple nonhierarchical, and uniform, without true identity and individuality. A true nonplace is not reactionsto his physicalenvironment, a roof to shieldthe sun, a cave to deter more than the sum of its parts." predators. However,early in the historyof most knowncultures thereis evidence of the makingof place relatedto the much more complexrelationships among Leon Krier1991' membersof the culture. Fromthe Bushman'sritual path and theceremonial paths of the DarlingRiver valleyin westernAustralia tothe pilgrimagechurches of westernEurope, placemakingbegan withpaths of initiation,faith or commerce. These pathsappear to have predated theexistence of permanentsettlement along them. However, fromthe earliestexamples, there is consistentevidence of definitionalong the path. This definitionor intentionrecognized and formalized the social interactionof man, whetherthrough casual encounteror formal ceremony.Place wasdirectly related to the path. It was, however,the discontinuity,rather thanthe continuitywhich made place. In its simplest definition,place is not the wall but the gate, not the pathbut the clearing. Placeis intention. Modemman's intellectualcapacity for analysisand invention,his preoccupationwith technology,safety, power, moneyor evenfairness has permittednon social andultimately anti-placemaking considerationsto dominate his viewof the built environment.We ascribe exceptionalinsight to architects, planners andtraffic engineersand permitthe functionalspecialists to usurp responsibilitiesformerly the requirementof everymember of the culture. The

result, as Leon Krier and othershave observed,is a world of functionalzones, efficientfor their economicor politicalpurpose but havingutterly nothing todo with those fundamentalhuman relationshipswhich history demonstrates are the generatorsof place. Intentionis abandonedfor function.

Whilethis is a substantialtopic whichcan be addressedat many scales,I wish to assessthe impactof this abandonmentof placemakingin the contextof the modernAmerican suburb. The very conceptof place is in directconflict with the

DalyCity, Califomia. (Rowe, 1991) historicaland philosophicalevolution of the Americansuburban context. In some respectsthis may be the result of the very definitionof suburb;a functionalzone for residentialuse. In others,however, the reasonsare relatedto the substitution of order for intention. In these instances,steps can be taken to restore placemaking. SuburbanReality: Order over Place

The post WWII demandfor housingcombined with the availabilityof a universalmortgage facility resultedin the emergenceof the modemsuburb. Levittownand its imitatorswere an attemptto adapt the "House inthe Garden"to the budgetof everyman. The result was an efficientif endlessassemblyline spewingout what John Keats called, "identicalboxes spreadinglike gangrene. "6

This suburban icon,the Housein the Gardenwas but another rung on what ConstancePerin called"the ladder of life" ?. Successon this ladder was measured by whetherone rentsor owns one's dwelling,whether it was an apartmentor a house,etc. The risk that attachesto this view,as Rowepoints out, is that, "all the markingsand expressionsof houseare calculatedsolely toward social status."8 It is not the similarityin appearanceof units or the exerciseof bad taste that commodifiesthe domesticsuburban landscape; rather, the problemis that the house becomesprimarily an investmentand the suburbbecomes a portfolio. The desireto protectthe investment'svalue leadsto a proliferationof buildingand zoningcodes which,while well intentioned,are ultimatelya driver in the Levittand Sons advertisement. (Rowe, 1993) commodificationof the dwellingunit and the loss of placein Americansuburban communities. Exclusionaryzoning and theexplosion of metropolitanpopulations diminishedthe distinctionbetween city and country. However,instead of Wright's Broadacre,a sophisticatedcountryside in the Jeffersoniannotion, we have achievedwhat AlexKrieger calls "an omnipresentsuburbia". 9 The suburban visionbuilt by Ohsted at Riverside,Illinois was a mediatorbetween the urban commerceof Chicagoand the great nature of the westernplains. The lanes and roads Olmstedenvisioned taking man to nature now lead onlyto moresuburbs. The public realmrepresented by the city has beendeserted, replaced by shopping malls and office parks. The pastoral has been coveredover by residentialand commercialsubdevelopments and the street is no longera path but merelya connectorbetween uses.

The monotonyof the suburbanexperience is, in fact, the directresult of "ALawn Being Spinkled", byDavid Hockney, !967. (fromRowe, 1991) commodification.Robert Woodobserved that the organizationman built a house

whichexpressed the values of real estate expertsbut never his own. 10 Ultimately, the tyranny of the group results in buyingthe right car, eatingthe right breakfast cereal,using the right lawn tractor-every week! Gradually,according to Perin, "everythingis in its place".'1 Kriercontends that the final result of this buildingof order is, in fact, no place. Reclaiming Intention

How do we extract ourselvesfrom this quagmire? How,as the suburban sprawlreaches maturity, can we changethe rules so as to retain or reintroducethe capacityfor place? We must recognizethat the suburb will remaina residential zone. However,we can ask if the functionaluniformity bred of commodification can be challenged. Can local landscapeand historyguide us in makingrules killll ilium -; whichfosters definition and intention,a retentionof identity? of Il

These simplequestions drive a processthat AndresDuany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk(DPZ) have developedfor the shapingof principlesand formal regulatorycontrols aimed at connectingnew developmentto our historicalnotion of place. DPZ has shownconventional zoning ordinances to be impedimentsto achievingurbane communities.Their responsehas been to establish a process designedto developa set of new buildingand zoningcodes focused on the ideas that make place. Their work has evolvedfrom specificprojects to a generalcode based on a quite specificview of whatan appropriatemodel lookslike. This PanprpL JS 19 modelis foundedon the principlethat diversityof uses and incomesare fundamentalto urbane communities. Theresult is the TraditionalNeighborhood Planningprinciples atSeaside. (Duany, 1991) Development(TND) Ordinance. The TND addressesthe creationof new developmentsin traditionalpatterns by prescribingphysical conventions with social objectives. Appliedto new development,the conventionsare focusedon using thecodes to build a public realm . Someaspects of this approachare consistentwith the18th century practice in Paris of buildingstreet facadesbefore actuallyconstructing the building(s). Thefacade became support for both public street and private inhabitation.

Unfortunately,DPZ's most visibleearly successis the town of Seaside, Florida. As a highlysought after resort communityand tourist destinationit suffersfrom someof the same problemsthat older exclusiveresorts experience. It is not diverse, its homesare increasinglycommodities and itscharm is more in the realmof the picturesquethan in that of community.As Krier notes, "most Places in the UnitedStates have beentransformed into heritageconsumer items; stage sets to be lookedat, at best to be livedin on weekends".12 Thus it is possibleto dismissthe fundamentalstrength of the DPZ conceptsbased on criticismof specificresults. What one missesin such a casual reviewis the fundamentalprinciple which couldaid in the developmentof neighborhoodordinances for infillas well as new development.We must developan understandingof the built form that makesa placeand writecodes which enable and encourageformal extension of those patterns of physical and intellectualinhabitation that make place.

Seaside.(from Stem, 1986)

_--m-con

A DevelopmentCode for Beverly, Massachusetts 23

In orderto developand apply a new approachto rule makingfor continuing suburbandevelopment, it is essentialto begin with an intention. I will make such a propositionof intentionbased on dissatisfactionwith current zoning requirements as compared to historical development of one small area of suburban o; Boston. Mybelief is that if we codifythe valuesof pre-expertdevelopment, whosetenets werefrugality, cleanliness and generalrespect for the landscape,we wouldenable the retentionand continuationof placemakingeven in the face of the instinctto commodifythe suburbandwelling. At the larger scale we mightretain the definitionof the path and the notionof place.

Beverly,Massachusetts and environsare a reasonabletesting ground for this idea in part because the community grew up as both an independent village datingto 1668and as a destinationfor wealthyBostonians, initially as a summer communityand, sinceWWI, as a communityof permanentresidents. As a result, patterns of pre-suburban development aremostly intact. These patterns can be AI studiedin order to seek clues for contemporaryrule making.

Beverly.(Arrow Metro Boston Map 1993) HistoricalDevelopment ... "Gurney's new stone mansion ... is now finished, the family intends to move in to-day. ...The house is three stories high, built of rough stones with their moss on, Late 19thand Early20th centurynewspaper accounts of the development and presents a most picturesqueand unique appearance. belies the luxuriousestates that The mason workgives evidence of a master hand and of BeverlyFarms suggesta kind of simplicitythat attracts ... architects and builders from the city and predominatedThese large propertiesresulted in an informal organizationof elsewherewho visit The Farmsespecially to see the edifice." buildingsfor specificpurposes which were tied togetherby privateroads or paths. Typically,large estates had carriagehouses or stablesalong the rail lineor roadwaywhich included living quarters foremployees and long drivesto the main BeverlyCitizen, (August 14, 1886) house. Oftena secondhouse for other familymembers was locatedon the grounds. Additionalpavilion-like structures at the harbor edgewere oftenlarger thantypical singlefamily homes.

In the post WWI period,especially during the thirties,the changingfortunes broughtabout by the recessionresulted in the breakupof many largeproperties. Somewere developedinto smallersites, usually incorporatingthe originalprivate roads eitheras associationsor as dedicatedrights of way. Others simplyhad parcels alongthe right of way split off for individualdevelopment. Often the originalcarriage house or barn becamea separateunit as well. The resulting large openfields Photograph ca. 1890 (Boston Athenaeum) pattern is one of small lots alongthe street edge with openingsto or woodsbeyond with the originalestate housesenjoying a relationshipto the roadwaythat differslittle from the originalorganization. Otherhouses on the site werealso soldto separateowners who sharethe privateroad/driveway. Beverly remainedthe provinceof the wealthy. However,the definitionof wealthychanged.

AfterWWII, the rail accessthat led to Beverly'sfirst emergencemade it and otherNorth Shore communitiesnatural beneficiariesof the shiftto a aW- suburban,commuter life style. Subdivisionsnear rail stopswere followed by increasingresidential and commercialdevelopment along majorhighways. The Conversionofan agricultural building toresidential use, patternwas likethat which occurrednear large metropolitancenters throughout Beverly,1994. the northeast. A distinguishingfeature of coastalNorth Shore communitieslike Beverlywas the historicalpredominance of large residentialestates. Thus, in the parlanceof the real estate trade, the landwas alreadyat its "highestand best use". The large scaletract developmenttypical in formerlyagricultural areas like Burlington,Braintree or Framinghamwas, for the most part, precluded. Additionalresidential development tended to followthe prewarpattern with intensificationof the original rightsof way but withoutthe introductionof new street networks andinfrastructure. As a result, the architecturaland landscape characteristicsof these communitieswas preservedand, insome cases, enhanced. Whateverone's attitude towardthe theoreticalexplanations of man's perceptionand relationshipto landscapeand aestheticsatisfaction, there can be littledebate that there is an aestheticcharm to this particular area that is directly relatedto the organizationof landscape. I contendthat an understandingof this organizationalcharacter is the appropriategenerator of codeto permitcontinued developmentwhile retaining a sense of place.

Typicalpath form, Beverly 1994. Paths and Places

Virtuallyall developmentin coastal Beverlyhas been an intensificationof an existinguse withinan existingframework of streetsand countrylanes. That is, there has not beena dramaticconversion of land fromlarge, agriculturalplots to smallresidential sites. A comparisonof Beverlyzoning maps from 1927, 1965 and 1994reveals virtually no changein lot size requirements,few new roads and very few subdivisional culde sacs. Rather,the patternof developmentof the existingrights of way and their boundaries,the originalwalls and gate buildings, followedlater by additionalbuildings at a similarscale has beenthe norm.

These rightsof way began as animaltrails carved intothe landscapein the most efficientway possible. This establishedboth their formand character. On the uphill side,the earth from whichthe roadwaywas cut is supportedby stone retainingwalls. On the downhillside, a similarretaining wall supportsthe roadway. These walls weresuccessively inhabited, first by carriagehouses or barns and later by conversionor additioninto dwellings.As a result of this early inhabitation,the formal street edge or street wall whichbegan in the era of large residentialestates has continued.Setbacks have beendictated by historical Evolutionofa Beverlystreet 1660-1994. patterns andforms. Asa result, real verticalboundaries exist and the roadways take onspatial character. The new as well as theold inhabitationboth definesthe path and becomesthe thresholdbetween the public realmof the roadwayor path and a lush privateplace beyond.

An accidentalbut importantcharacteristic of this form of path construction is the furthertendency to build alongthe edge of major changesin slope. In Beverly,this has resultedin an experientialrelationship between path and landscapethat is repeatedover and over. Thebest descriptionof this experienceis an alternationbetween closed and openvistas. This alternationin both linear and Inhabitationofstreet walls along Hale Street, Beverly. The territoryofthe privateterritory ofthe inhabitation andthe public lateral. One has a sensethat the landscapehas a rhythmof its own,moving streethave physical definition. independentlyacross one'sown line of passage. This experiencehas a realimpact on the sense of place. There is a public realm that is at oncecontinuous but changing. It has real boundaries. The landscapeboundaries are made by the sharp elevationchanges that give a sense of lateral directionalityto the experience of passage. These are reinforcedby the built form,the retainingwalls of the path and the walls of the inhabitationthat followedthe walls. The total experienceis oneof being transportedthrough a series of places, each witha characterof its own, each quite publicbut with clear boundaries,definition and intention. NEW

In Jan Wampler'songoing research into the notionof "the space between", he parallelsthe notion of the path througha woodsto the streetthrough a landscape. "A woodsis onlyenjoyed when a seriesof paths andplaces are made to experienceit. Pathsenable movement through the landscapeand at the same timeprovide a way to viewit. Paths and places allow for sunlightto penetrate and flowersto grow. The flowersbecome the architectureof the woods."13 Kevin Lynchfound that "manypeople, if asked to describethe idealhouse of their fantasy,will sketchone from whosefront door one stepsinto a livelyurban promenade, whileat the rear there is onlysilent countryside." 14 The historical developmentof the pathsand placesin Beverlyhave givenform to these concepts of socialand philosophicalinhabitation. Yet, modem zoninglaws, eventhose in Beverly,virtually prohibitplace makingforms likethose whichresulted in Beverly'sunique relationships between public and private.

The "modem"street is in sharp contrastto the landscape/inhabitationform whichhas evolvedin Beverly. It is exclusivelyengineered for vehiclesand constructedby bulldozer.It is neitherof landscapefabric nor inhabitation.Even the most residential culde sac is constructedto accommodatethe turningradius of the largest fire truck on the market. Combinedwith typicalfront setback Typicalresidential neighborhood. (Rowe, 1991) 30

requirements(30 feet in Beverly),a vast no man's land typically 100feet between houses is created. This vast chasm combinedwith the Americancustom not to fencethe front yard but to commitits territoryto showingoff the house and/or parkingthe car leaves a territorywhich is neitherpublic nor private but onewhich is typicallylarger than the combinedback yards of abuttingneighbors.

Thomas Schumacher, in Buildings and Streets: Notes on Configuration and Use, addressesthe typical Americanresidential street of singlefamily detachedhouses. The front lawn, accordingto Schumacher,can be perceivedas a forecourtbecause it is literallya horizontalplane. However,because it does not containspace and its material(typically grass) inhibitspublic use, it can equally ------be read as a virtual verticalplane. In this sense, the lawn serves in the same manneras the ground floorof an Italianpalazzo, whichraises the principalliving spaceto the piano nobile. However,this ambiguityhas a negativeimpact on the

street. The lawn, unlikethe facade of a palazzo,does not functionto encloseor

definethe street but onlyto isolatethe street from the house. It becomesno one's

territory. The result is a loss of distinctionbetween path and place and, ultimately, Nomans land - the yardas a moat.(Anderson, 1978) a loss of lateral continuitybetween public and privateworlds. The uniqueaspect of Beverly'sdevelopment is an urban-likeform that has evolvedin a suburbansetting. The street was built first by its use and later by inhabitation. The hierarchyof place is unlikemost American suburban models. As is more typicalin Europe, distinctionsare sharplydrawn betweenthe public realm of the streetand the privaterealm of the house. The zonebeyond the built edge isprivate but opento contemplation,offering the travelerglimpses of the garden throughgarden gatesor breaks in the builtedge.

This contradictionbetween fact and rule suggestsan approachto rewriting Agarden through the street wall. the rule so as to retainand extenda formmaking precedent that can build both physicaland psychicrelationships between the citizensand the landscape.This then is the basis for the rule makingthat we shallpropose. For the purposesof this thesis,I will addressonly the low densityresidential areas of Beverly. These areas now consistof R-22, R-45and R-90 zones,approximately one-half, one and two acre Lots.

Codes to Extend TraditionalForm Making 33

In orderto write a replacementzoning code for Beverlythat will encourage a continuationof the traditionallandscape and built formconventions that result in the hierarchyof public and privatespaces that createits current charm, we must quantifyexperience. To achievea generallyunderstood and usefulset of codes, they must be both simple and minimal.

Withthis objective,I have analyzedthe landscapeand builtform conventionsthat I believelead to the current qualityof experiencein Beverly. For the purpose of analysis, HaleStreet and its tributariesis the best extantpre-expert example. The area from BoylesStreet to PridesCrossing has hadvirtually no new road constructionin over 100years. Somepaths have been widened,as has Hale Street itself,but deededsubdivision is virtuallyunknown. Newbuilding construction,likewise, has been minimal. I could find nomore than ten houses that were not in the BeverlyAtlas of 1897. EndicottCollege has acquiredseveral estates and has built new buildingson somesites. However,these do not change the scale or radically alterthe overallexperience of the area. Ground 34 BeverlyFigure

Thismap is taken from the 1897 Beverly Atlas. New Streets and buildings have been addedto

reflectchanges. Thesearelimited, in themain, to the westernmost part of the area, particularly atthe

intersectionofBoyles and Hale Streets and the new street off Boyles. Most buildings are or were parts of

largeestates. Former animal or carriagebams have beenconverted residencesto along the roadways. Its

developmentinthe 1970's followed current zoning law.

The twosites to be addressedby this thesisare the shaded parcels. That onBoyles Street is the Riquier

property.It isa 1.6acre parcelinthe R-22 zone currently a single property with a convertedcarriage house datingto

1915.The larger site on Hale Street is the Fricke Estate. It is 14.4acres in theR-45 zone. The original house and

thecar bam are both extant. The private road systemis as it was in 1897.

1A~ 35

as : 8 - ir~4 -

8 - - -

- III0 -. --. *

--- * ------

-- AA- -.-... 4.- It ------n 36 Topography

The land rises dramaticallyfrom the shorelineof BeverlyHarbor to a plateau at about 50 feet, then rises even more rapidlyto a secondplateau at 100to 120feet. Hale Streettends to hug the edge of this secondelevation change creating an edgecondition which makes for vistas across fields towardthe water. Large estatestended to be bufferedfrom the roadwayby pastures. These open spacesare perceivedas part of the public world despitetheir ownership. 37 Foliageand Built Edge

When the foliageand street walls are overlaid,the definitionof the path as a placebecomes more clear. The alternationof closedand open spacesis apparent. The paths and places permitan experienceof the landscapethat would otherwisebe lost. 38 Sight Lines

The sight lines for thetraveller through the Beverlylandscape reveals the constantchange of scale experiencedon the path. Walls and landscape conspireto shift the focus of ones experiencefrom tight spacesto open, fromright side to left side edgeconditions. The scale of the path varies from40 feet betweentwo walls to several milesas the harbor and Marbleheadto the southare revealed. The sense of being in a seriesof unique placesis undeniable. 39 Path and Place

The experienceof the landscapein Beverlyis of a public realmthat is constantlychanging. Yet, one is alwaysin a placewith clear definition.The view isalmost always framed and the travelleris alwaysat a point of prospect,his back to the "wall". Ratherthan beingat sea, one has the senseof possessionof that whichis revealed. There is at once a sense of surprise and a sense of controlor safety. This experienceis the productof specificrelationships between public and privateterritory which can be codifiedto encourage itscontinuation. Boyles Street

At the landscapescale, Beverlyoffers alternationsof closed and openvistas boundedby changesin elevationand dense foliage. Hereon BoylesStreet, the easternside of the roadwayis densewoods while the west is opento formerfarm fields. Hale Farm

In older areasof Beverlythe layeringof street walls,tree linesand dwellingsclose to the street wall combineto create a man made edge whichhas a similareffect on ones perceptionof the territoryof the public path as larger landscapecharacteristics. At every scale,the edge is offsetby openterritory opposite. In this case,the oppositeside of the road is occupiedby the old cemetery. Hale Street

Thesehouses are typical of the built edge characteristicof older developmentin Beverly. Whilethe road was probablywidened here, the relationshipof the houses to the street is very urban in scale. The houses, uniformlyarrayed at the street edge,build the public as well as the private territory. Their wallsbound both street and house. The conditionis verymuch likethe ideal describedby KevinLynch. The front of the house opensto the activityof the street whilethe back opensto the tranquilityof the openlandscape. This longvista is to the southis revealedthrough thefoliage immediately across from the houseson the proceedingpage. The openvista, at a pedestrian scale, givesa dramaticchange in scale to the experienceof the street. The territoryis privatebut the experienceof it is public. The framingof the vista by the denseclosure whichsurrounds it further intensifiesthe experience. The overlappingof private and public createsa conditionin whichthe space may be experiencedand enjoyedby both the publicand privateworlds. ContributiveZoning Ordinances

If we are to retain a publicidentity in Beverly,we must offerrules which encouragea continuationof the forms whichcontribute to the current experience of the publicrealm. It is this publiccondition which differentiates Beverly from newersuburbs in whichthe publicstreetscape has been dictatedby traffic surveys and built by bulldozer. The street edgesand wallswhich so contributeto the existingpublic/private mediation are virtuallyunheard of today. However,these walls, along with the inhabitationof the edgethat they encourage,contribute the built characterof the publicterritory and the overlap of privateand publicspace which so enrichesthe experienceof passage in Beverly. Further,the alternationof open and closedvista createsthe interestand sense of belongingthat is lost in most manodernnrights of way.

In essence,we must abandonuniformity and encouragediscontinuity or variety. We must requirethat the private developerbuild both the privateand publicdomain. In that the overlapof the two makeseach richer, we are not taking from the privatebut rather enrichingit. In a world of economics,however, we must have somethingto trade. While controversial,I offerthe eliminationof traditionalright of way constructionas the City's contribution.The setbackand frontagerequirements of the currentcode do nothingto reduce overalltraffic volumein a residentialarea. If anything,they do the oppositeby stretchingthe naturallylow densityof the suburb across an evenlower density street system. Everyonemust drive further to servicethe samenumber of dwellingunits, from the refusecollector and schoolbus to the snowplow. More territorypasses into the publicdomain, to be maintainedand not taxed. I wouldrelax the frontage requirementsfor developerswilling to provideand maintainprivate access to more than one dwelling.

The followingBeverly Neighborhood Extension Ordinance is designedto recognizeand codifythe conditionsof inhabitationwhich have createdthe public/ private experiencein Beverly. Whilenot suggestingthat they address every potentialissue, I have followedwith an applicationof these codesto two sites in differentzones, R-22 and R-45. I believethat these applicationsdemonstrate the potentialto encouragedevelopment in traditionalpatterns without further restrictingdensity and withoutloss of a senseof place. Beverly Neighborhood 46 INTENT Land Use LowDensity ResidentialLand Use: It is the intent of the Beverly Land designatedfor LDR use shall be in lots generallycontaining buildings for residential and uses includingsingle familyhouses, guest cottages, Home Officeand othersby Special Neighborhood Extension (BNE) Exception. Ordinance to implement codes that Lots and Buildings encourage a continuation of historic LowDensity ResidentialLots and Buildings: residenceto streetand streetto landscape relationshipswhile encouragingfurther a. Subdivisionof an Existing Lot shall be permittedso long as the subdividedlots meet both the lot size requirementfor the zone and building setbackrequirements. residential development. b. Buildingson LDR lots deededafter November10, 1994shall be set back either 1) Zero (0) to ten (10)feet from the Streetedgeor Streetwallor 2) at least one half (1/2)of the total depth of the ExistingLot measuredperpendicular to the ROW tothe deepest point of the ExistingLot. Exception: any existingbuilding may be retained for residentialuse. It may PURPOSE be expandedto a maximumof 4 times its existing footprint.

c. Buildings meetingcondition b. 1) shall not be permitteddirectly oppositeone another on the same ROW. Oppositeis defined ashaving any portion of a building less than 150 The BNE is designed to ensure the feet from any portion of one on the other side of the ROW development and subdivision of land d. All lots shall have a Streetedge.Lots with buildings meetingcondition b. 1) shall have a continuousStreetwall along the unbuilt portionof the Frontage Line. This Streetwall along the lines of traditional will be contiguouswith Streetwallsor Streetedgesof the neighboringlots borderingthe ROW. Streetwallsare permittedon lots with buildingsmeeting condition b. 2) provided neighborhoodpatterns. Its provisions that thereis not a Streetwallopposite the proposedon the same ROW. Oppositeis defined adapt the conventions which were as within 150 feet from the proposedStreetwall. normal to the communityfrom colonial e. Buildings shall be setback from the side Lot linesequivalent (in total) to no less than times to the 1940's. 20% of the width of the Lot. The entire setbackmay be allocatedto one side. Extension Ordinance f. Buildings shall be setbackfrom the rear Lot line no less than 40 feet. Definitions g. No more than two (2) street openings arepermitted per ExistingLot. If more than two Lots are created by a subdivision,they must be served by a commonprivate accessway. New ROWs are permittedonly when more than five (5) Lots are created and when the Existing Lot: ROWwill adjoinan existingROW No cul de sacsare permitted. Any parcel held by single deed on or after November 10, 1994, irrespective of total square footage. h. Clusterzoning is permitted. Up to three Lots may be combined. The combinedLots may containa commonwall building supportingone family dwellingper Lot includedso LDR: long as each dwellingunit has at least 35% of its gross area(excluding garages) on the Low DensityResidential Land Use. R-22, R-45, andR-90 zones. ground level and separate,ground level entry is providedfor eachdwelling unit. If not sharing a commonwall, the maximumpermissible separation of enclosure,one building ROW: to the next, is 8 feet. Setbackson combinedLots shall applyas in singlelots. Thebuilding/ buildings shall be treated as if it/theywere a singleunit. Right of Way. The deeded public easement for use as roadway. Street Opening: An automobile access from a Right of Way into a private Streets lot. LowDensity Residential Streets: Streetedge: a. LDRuse Lotsshall enfront on Streetswith a maximumROW of 46 ft. A Street shall A masonrywall, either free standingor retainingearth, or a hedge consistof a maximumof two(2) travellanes. No turn-outsor passinglanes are permitted. no less than 50% opaque built alongthe Frontage Line between two and four feet in height. Any wall, fence or hedge builtbetween b. Bicycleor pedestrianways are permittedwithin a ROW so long as they are separated the streetedgeand a point even withthe nearest enclosededge of from vehicular lanesby a physicalbarrier consistingof either 1) a curb or 2) a landscaped the dwellingmay be of no greater height thanthe streetedge. The median no less than six feet in width. Atintersections and street openingsthe bicycle/ % opacity shallbe calculated includingall openings. pedestrianway shall be marked by signage on the surfaceof the ROW Streetwall: Parking A masomywall no less than 75%opaque builtalong the Frontage LowDensity ResidentialParking: Line between five and ninefeet in height. The % opacity shall be calculatedincluding all openings. A structure is also defined as a a. LDR off street parking places and garage entrancesshall not have direct accessto the streetwall if any vertical surface (wall) of the structure intersects ROW throughthe Frontage. This provisionmay bemet by settingthe garage entrance a line drawn perpendicular to aROW fromthat ROW's center perpendicularto the ROW or by shieldingthe entranceor outsideparking by a wall or line at an inclinedangle of 26 degrees from horizontal(e.g.. if a continuoushedge (evergreenor deciduous)at least five (5) feet in height at maturity. structurewall exceeds 19.5 feet 40 feet from the centerlineof the ROW, that structure constitutesa streetwall). Applying the BNE Ordinance

The Fricke Estate

In order to test the principalsand languageof the BNEOrdinance, I have appliedits conditionsto two sites,the RiquierProperty in the R-22zone and the FrickeEstate in the R-45 zone. The most importantaspects of the code arethe public/privatemediation resulting from sectionsb, c and d.

Sectionb seeks to continuethe traditionof openvistas alternatingwith closedstreet edge conditions.In the case of the Fricke Estatethis sectionwould permita cluster of houses at the street edge but wouldnot permitany buildingin the existingmiddle territory between the street and existingdevelopment. Given the propensityfor existingconditions of developmentsimilar to Fricke on other large parcels, this seemsto be an effectiveway to maintainthe middleground as a mediatorbetween the public path andprivate inhabitation. This section,combined Ukelysubdivision under current zoninglaw. DeededROW, withthe streetopening provisions of sectiong will reducethe asphalt to asphalt 40ft. Streetsetback is40 feet a -currentlot perimeter conditionof multipledriveways and their typicalcamouflage plantingwhich b -setbackrequirement furtherprivatizes the formerlyopen space of the larger singleproperty. This sectionalso sanctionsstreet edgeor wall buildingsso longas they are not directlyopposed to one anotheron the path. Oppositethe Frickeestate is one buildingwhich meets this oppositecondition. As a result, theFricke subdivider would be forcedto put wall buildingsat eitherend of the propertybut not in the center. Combinedwith thestreet openingrestriction, this results in a maintenance of the alternatingcondition of the existinglandscape and, in this case, could intensifythat formby introducingit at the buildingscale as well as the landscape scale. The streetedge requirementsof Sectiond are less importantin the Fricke case becauseone alreadyexists. However,the rule requiresits maintenance and its continuity.

The anticipateddevelopment alternatives based on current and BNE Ordinanceson the succeedingpages demonstrate the objectivesof the rulemaking Ukely subdivisionunderBNE Ordinance. No new ROW, on public form making.No attemptto regulatethe form or styleof buildingis one-halfexisting setback.lot Cluster streetwall development undertaken. Hence,in both examplesthe diagrammaticpresentation of buildings ofwestern corner. Note 150' no build zone opposite existing dwelling. in the portion of the propertynot directlyinfluenced by the BNE Ordinanceis the a -currentlot perimeter same. The Ordinanceis designedonly to contributeto buildingthe public realm in b -setbackrequirement c -no buildstreet zone the vernaculartradition. Developmentunder CurrentZoning Code

Note the loss of a publiczone along the street edge. New street openingsreduce longitudinalcontinuity of path. Developmentunder BNE Code

Public/privatescale and mediationis retained. The historic streetwall/inhabitation condition is reinforcedand intensified by developmenton thewestern edge of the property. The Riquier Property

The smallerRiquier property is more difficultto address withnew codes. This is in part due to the fact that the propertyis difficultto subdivideinto three buildableparcels becauseof the central location andlarge footprintof the existing dwelling.However, a developerand the owner have offeredup a schemeto meet current code which createsthree bizarrelyconfigured parcels to meet frontageand setback requirementsthat will obliteratethe public/privateoverlap which made this property a magnetfor public outcryat the PlanningBoard review of the proposedsubdivision. However, by meetingthe current codes,the developerwas granted the requestedsubdivision. This process demonstratedthe need for an approachlike the BNE Ordinance. The committedland ownerwill find a way to achievefinancial gain.Code needs to permitthat normal instinctbut with covenants whichmaintain the public identityof place.

In the case of this parcel,it is virtuallyimpossible to build beyondthe 1/2 Currentbuilding and landscape forms. total depth called for in Sectionb of the BNE Ordinance. As a result, developmentof this propertymust incorporatewall buildingsto meetthe code. In that the houseopposite the propertyon Boylesmeets the definitionof a Streetwall, the location(s)for developmentare furtherrestricted to the most northerlyportion of the site or the southedge along BrookheadRoad. An alternativewould be to join both new dwellingswith the existingcarriage house to create a singlecommon wall building

The developer'sproposal and an individualdwelling alternative under the BNE Ordinanceare presentedon the succeedingpages. The public/private overlap of the existingproperty can be maintainedthrough the BNEOrdinance. The new Streetwallcontributed by the additionof the dwellingon Brookhead reintroducesthe normal vernacularto a site previously"modernized" by the subdivisionof the 1970's. These are the key objectivesof the new codeand appear to meetthe test of contributoryzoning. Developmentunder CurrentZoning Code

The public characterofthe clearingis lost. The new houseshave virtuallyno exteriorprivacies and the street to dwellingrelationships takes on the "moat" characteristics described by Schumacher.

I... Developmentunder BNE Code

The clearing is retained. The removalof the drivewayand the closingof the wall makesthe public understanding of the territory more clear, one of enjoymentrather thanuse. At the same time, this territoryis moreeasily sharedas an exteriorprivacy of eithernew dwelling.The construction and inhabitation of the streetwallon BrookheadRoad brings this path into the contextof the prevailingtypology. 56 Conclusions 57

In the preface to Architecture Without Architects, Bernard Rudofsky summarizeshis interestin "nonpedigreedarchitecture" with a quote fromthe late PietroBelluschi. Belluschi defined communal architecture as "a communalart, not producedby a few intellectualsor specialistsbut by the spontaneousand continuing activityof a wholepeople with a commonheritage, actingunder a communityof experience."A recurringcharacteristic ofthe remarkableimages Rudofsky presented is what he called "an admirabletalent for fitting their buildingsinto the natural surroundings. Insteadof trying to conquernature, as we do, they welcomedthe vagariesof climateand the challengesof topography."

Whilepresumptuous to compare thelast five scoreyears onBoston's suburban north shoreto the centuriesof civilization representedby the architectureof Machu Picchu orMonte Alban, the lessonsto be learnedfrom the "communalart" practiced in the pre-bulldozer,pre-expert time of any civilization arethe same. We mustnot permitour democraticneed to identifythe universaltruth (code)result in universal mediocrity. We must not substituteorder for place. Asan alternative,we must understandthe historical characteristicsof the built environment'srelationship to landscape and climate anduse these facts to formulatecodes. Particularlyin the suburb, by its definition, afunctional zone, we must permit and encourage a continuationof place making formsthat enhanceand intensifyour relationshipto Griffin's"highly developed and perfectedliving organism". 58 Appendix The StreetwallHouse

Most, if not all of the inhabitedwall buildingswhich pervade Beverly and informedthe code developedin this thesis wereadapted from a prior agricultural or service function. The reality of suburbandevelopment over the last 40 years leaves us with a modelfor the suburbanhouse in the "moat as yard" style. "Proper"houses have fronts and backs,the front for show,the back for barbecues. Facedwith the requirementto build on the Streetwall,one cannotturn to ones latest copy of "HomePlans Guide"and find several"appropriate" designs from ' KIT. &ARDS0N C4ICKON5 which WitLL. to choose. O9LC"^9aD

My questto understandthe historicforms that make Beverlywhat it is today led me to lookto early New Englandvernacular architecture. The fact that virtuallyall carriage barns are orientedeast-west was new informationfor me. I will never need a compassagain! ThomasHubka's book,Big House, Little RkOADI House, Back House, Barn, The Connected Farm Buildings of New England, MALE PEMALE providesrich detail on the culturethat resultedin a distinctlyNew England INmI'JE irsNiV WcamWOR architecture. The imageshe presentshelp explainthe connectionsbetween the (Hubka1984) publicpath and private place of the dwellingscommon to New Englandand, with somedifferences, common to Beverly. For me, the value of Hubka's findings relates to the use orientation fundamental 9-B to early farm buildings. The design of the buildings and the territory around them were approached with care. These buildings truly follow Sullivan's notion of form following function. Each building element related both to the next

B element and to the use territory of which it was a part. The most important exterior was the "dooryard", quite literally a territory onto which doors of all the

buildings opened. This was the territory of most intensive use for all members of

the family. A separate exterior, usually opposite the dooryard, was the province of the kitchen, dedicated to vegetables, chickens and the orchard. Children were safe here, away from the hustle of the working dooryard. The parlor was always front and center, facing a small garden, usually fenced, directly on the street. The entire - composition had an overall orientation to the sun dictated by the dooryard. It always had a southern exposure.

I do not argue for a return to an agrarian life-style nor to the Victorian Commonarrangements ofconnected farm buildings in relationto compassand road orientation. (Hubka 1984) forms associated with these buildings. However, the approach to designing all of the use territories, interior and exterior, as well as understanding their relationships to the entire landscape is crucial to developing reasonable formal interventions in the uncharted world of the suburban Streetwall house. ClaimingExterior Space: Wright's Contribution

In his prairie housesand particularlyin the later Usonians,Frank brokethe closed volumesof his Victorianpredecessors. His designs integratedinterior spaces with territorybeyond the walls. In the best examples, likethe Martinhouse (1904) and the Willetshouse (1903),there is a complete integrationof uses and access, interiorand exterior. The Coonleyhouse (1908) incorporatesa sophisticated articulationof serviceand familyterritories similar CoonleyHouse dooryard (Architectural Forum, Jan. 1938) to the connectedfarm buildingsof Hubka's study. It also has a dooryard!

The houses of Wright's Usonianperiod offer comparisonsto the R~ requirementsof Streetwallbuildings. Many of these houseswere designedfor whatWright believed to be minimalsuburban lots. Whilewe mightyearn for days when one acre was "minimal",Wright's approachto maximizingthe use of the site througha form I woulddescribe as a Streetwallcan informour effortsto developan approach to this conditionin Beverly.

Someof the works are clearlybetter than others. I wouldargue that the

DarwinD. Martin house (Architectural Forum, Jan. 1938) earliestUsonians, particularly those Sergeantclassifies as "polliwog",15 lack the multiplicityof territorialclaim/use that so enrichesthe connectedfarm building. The Rosenbaumhouse (1939) is typical of this group. See analysis of public/ privateterritory at left. The private zone is definedbut one dimensional. The divisionbetween public and privateterritory is clear but "unfriendly". Similarly, the "in-line"houses often suffer a lack of overlap betweenprivacies as well as a very abrupt break betweenpublic and private territories. The Willeyhouse (1934)

A i _T

Rosenbaumhouse plan and entry elevation. (Sergeant 1975) has a very one dimensionalcharacter to its territorialclaim. Housesin both categoriesalso suffer from havingonly oneor two "understandable"dimensions.

Willey houseplan and elevation. (Sergeant1975)

I _____ L- ,/,,,,,fZA6{LL__ ___ 64

The best of these houses, however,have characteristics which seem fundamental to maximizing the design of a Streetwall house. Inthe Kaufman house (1935) and the Miller house (1952), multiple understandings of the site are achieved by projecting the enclosure boldly out from the edge, distinguishing exterior territory both by use and creation of multiple understandings of the same territory. Further, the introduction of several sizes enhances one's perception of a space by giving it multiple readings. Thisphenomenon is comparable to the larger landscape perceptions observed in Beverly.

Millerhouse plan. (Wright 1954) A further enrichment of the spatial experience of these two houses comes

from an old Wright "trick". The transition from public to private is like being

"I- pushed through a funnel. One moves from the open public world into a "tight"

44-.entry and is then spit out into the wonders of the lush private world of the inhabitation. At Falling Water, this experience is further enhanced by the transitional experience of the loggia. Both the world from which you have come and the world you are about to enter are fleetingly revealed to you just before you

A A plunge into the house. These houses give greater meaning to Kevin Lynch's description of the ideal house, offering direct connection to both the "active" public and the idyllic private worlds. , despite being very much a wall structure, provides a layering of concealed and revealed views beginning in the entry sequence. Note the two views, one to the main privacy and one back to the roadway as one enters the loggia. The layering of the privacies enhances the sense of compression and release. The final move out to the view permits a full understanding of the direction and flow of the site.

Fallingwaterplan (Architectural Forum, Jan. 1938) Translucency:Schindler's Contribution

... .~ ...

Los Angeleswas a rapidly developing/densifyingsuburb virtuallyfrom its

amc Rospa Nan e vaton.1(rm RM Schindler,by August beginnings.Against this environment Samitz,Rizzoli, New York, NY, 1986) of ever growingscale, R. M. Schindler providesinsight into the inhabitationof the edge. In the Buck house (1934), Schindlercreates a conditionof ambiguityin the transitionbetween public and privatezones and multiplereadings of the sameterritory. In the Buckhouse one's readingof the transitionalzone is highly dependenton whetherone is insideor out.

The entry, with its recessedand transparentwall is contrastedsharply by the

continuityof the livingroom roof. A similarphenomenon occurs in the dining

room/kitchenyard. The "edge"may be the gardenwall. It mayjust as easily be the extensionof the garage wall-theback of the dining room. Schindlerreveals a clearlyprivate zone only after you pass throughthis transitionalterritory. The Design

In an effort to incorporate the ideas of the American vernacular with the lessons of the 20th century, I propose a building which is both of the wall but unique from it as a modern inhabitation.

The first layer of intervention is an extension of the wall. Access has a linearity and scale that permits an understanding of this zone as a layer, the inhabitation of the wall. The deployment of privacies differs from that of Wright or Schindler. Themost private territory, the bedrooms, turn inward. They occupy the wall both as indoor and outdoor territory. The wall layer is then broken by an extension of access and inhabitation directly into the landscape. This move is fundamental to an understanding that the house is not the wall but a claim on the world beyond. The house has a translucency to the private side to reinforce this notion. The wall disintegrates into occupation. Privacies are deployed in the larger landscape toboth claim and activate the space. A territory of relaxation is distinguished from one of activity. In essence, the dooryard and kitchen yard are one and the front yard has succeeded the old kitchen yard as the quiet zone, a introduction place to entertain guests or for family members to "escape" for quiet time. Breakingthewall to create a zone of inhabitation. The ofaccess 68

Introducethe vocabulary ofthe connected farm building. The wall is the smallest dimension inthe landscape.The resulting scale suggests that it isthe territory for the most private elements ofthe plan.The opportunity tocompress theentry and then open the vista to the private world is facilitated bythe nature of the wall form. 69

Planand elevation development. Seeking toboth mark the separation ofwal I andinhabitation and achievea level of ambiguity orexchange between public and private territor yat boththe site and buildingscale.

- -7~

Finalplan and street elevation. Family space, the active zone is to the left, The" parlor' is to the right,rear. The intersection ofaccess isalso the territory ofexchange with the public world. One enterswith thedirection ofthe wall. Once "inside", the public world is revealed once again, although modulatedbythe garden wall atthe street edge.

---

Ok~~I ,v A -.

-fi I

Bibliography

Anderson, Stanford, on STREETS, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1978

Calthorpe, Peter, The Pedestrian Pocket Book, A New Suburban Design Strategy, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, NY 1989

Chow, Renee, "Designing for the Suburbs", Thresholds no. 5, MIT Department of Architecture, Cambridge, MA 1993

Duany, Andres et al, Towns and Town Making Principles, Rizzoli, New York 1991

Fabos, Julius Gy. et al, Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr, University of Massachusetts Press 1968

Griffin, Walter Burley, "Occupational Conservation", Australian Wildlfe, October, 1935

Habraken, N.J., The Appearance ofForm, Cambridge, MA, Awater Press 1985

Hayden, Delores, Redesigning the American Dream, Norton & Company, New York,NY 1984

Hubka, Thomas C., Big House, Little House, Back House, Barn; The Connected

Farm Buildings ofNew England, University Press of New England, Hanover, NH 1984 Johnson, Donald Leslie, The Architecture of Walter Burley Griffin, MacMillan, 1977

McCoy, Esther, Case Study Houses 1945-1962, Second Edition, Hennessey and Ingalls, Los Angeles, CA 1977

McCoy, Esther, Five California Architects, Praeger, New York, NY 1975

McCoy Robert E., "Rock Crest/Rock Glen; Prairie Planning In Iowa", The Review, Third Quarter, 1968

Polyzoides, Stefanos et al, Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles; A Typological Analysis, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA 1982

Rowe, Peter G., Making a Middle Landscape, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1991

Rowe, Peter G., Modernity and Housing, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1993

Rowe, Peter G. and Desmond, John M., The Shape and Appearance of the Modern American Single-Family House, Joint Center for Housing Studies of

MIT and Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 1987

Rudofsky, Bernard, Architecture Without Architects, Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY 1965 Sergeant, John, ' UsonianHouses, Watson Guptill, New York,NY 1976

Schaffer, Daniel, Garden Cities for America: The Radburn Experience, Temple UniversityPress, Philadelphia,PA 1982

Solnit, Albert, The Job of the PracticingPlanner, The American Planning Association, Chicago, IL 1988

Stein, Clarence, TowardNew Townsfor America, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1957

Stem, Robert A. M., Pride ofPlace, Mobile Corporation 1986

Tafel, Edgar, Apprentice to Genius, Years with Frank Lloyd Wright, McGraw Hill, New York, NY 1979

Wampler, Jan, Space Between, School of Architecture and Planning, Department of Architecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge, MA 1992

Wright, Frank Lloyd, Drawings for a Living Architecture, Horizon Press, New

York,NY 1959

Wright, Frank Lloyd, The Natural House, New York, Horizon Press 1954

Wright, Gwendolyn, Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1981 All photographs taken by the author unless otherwise noted.

All illustration citations are to the bibliography. Notes 77

1. Griffin, Walter Burley, "Occupational Conservation", Australian Wildlife. (1935) p. 24

2. Fabos, J. G. et al, Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr Founder of Landscape Architecture in America. (1968) p. 48

3. Rowe, Peter G., Modernity and Housing. (1993) p. 29

4. Rowe, Peter G., Making A Middle Landscape. (1991) p. 56

5. Duany, A. et al, Towns and Town Making Principles. (1991) p. 147

6. Keats, John, The Crack in the Picture Windows. (1957)

7. Perin, Constance, Everything in its Place: Social Order and Land Use in America. (1977) p. 86

8. Rowe, Peter, Making a Middle Landscape. (1977) p. 61

9. Duany, A., Towns and Town Making Principles. (1991) p. 81

10. Wood, Robert, Suburbia: It's People and Their Politics. (1958) p. 26

11. Perin, Constance, Everything in its Place: Social Order and Land Use in America. (1977) p. 88

12. Duany, A., Towns and TownMaking Principles. (1991) p. 81

13. Wampler, Jan, Space Between. (1992) p. 3

14. Lynch, Kevin, A Theory ofgood City Form. (1982)

15. Sergeant, John, Frank Lloyd Wright's Usonian Houses, A Case for Organic Architecture. (1975) p. 40 What do the neighbors think of her chi dren? To everymother her own are Fortunately, however, there's the ideal children. But what do sonapand water. the neighbors thinkt Do iAey Bright, shining faces" and smile at happy, grimy facesac- freshly laundered clothes seem quired in wholesome play? For to make ch2ren welcome any- people have a way of associating where ... and, in addition, to unclean clothes and faces with speak volumes concerning their otherquestionablecharacteristics. perets' personal habits as well. There's CHALRACTER-in SOAP £s WATER JUuSHEDBYTHE ASSOCIATION Of AMERICAN sOAP AND OLYCERINE PRODUCERS, INC., TO AID THE WORK OF CLLNLINESS nISTI7t/

The New York Cleanliness Institute published this advertisement in Ladies' Home journal(1928), emphasizing the need for suburban parents to pay constant attention to appearances.