InterpretingTerritorial Structure: w,3.mene the machiyaof Kyoto and therowhouses of Boston'sSouth End

by JamesRobert Finn Moore

Bachelorof Arts(Architecture) Universityof Washington Seattle,Washington 1985

SUBMITTEDTO THEDEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTUREIN PARTIALFULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTSOF THE DEGREEMASTER OF ARCHITECTURE,AT THE MASSACHUSETTSINSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RENI ii'l June, 1988 I illli ilI illI @gjJames R. FinnMoore, 1988

The Authorhereby grants to M.I.T.permission to reproduceand distribute publicly copiesof thisdocument in wholeor in part. r-I6ii11ll 160A I i L

Sianatureof thea- JamesR. FinnMoore Departmentof Architecture May,13,1988

Certiledby N. JohnHabraken Professorof Architecture ThesisSupervisor

BillHubbard, Jr Chairman Departmental Committeefor Graduate Students ARCHIVCS

JUN 196 Room 14-0551 77 MassachusettsAvenue Cambridge,MA 02139 Ph: 617.253.2800 MITLibraries Email: [email protected] DocumentServices http://libraries.mit.edu/docs

DISCLAIMER OF QUALITY

Due to the condition of the original material, there are unavoidable flaws in this reproduction. We have made every effort possible to provide you with the best copy available. If you are dissatisfied with this product and find it unusable, please contact Document Services as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Poorphotographic reproduction.Best copy available. 2 InterpretingTerritorial Structure: the machiyaof Kyotoand the rowhousesof Boston'sSouth End

by JamesRobert Finn Moore

Submittedto the Departmentof Architectureon May 12, 1988 in partialfullfillment of the requirementsfor the degreeof Masterof Architecture

Abstract

This thesis focuses on the structureof territory,and how a sense of physical and psychologicalretreat can be achievedby manipulatingterritorial principles as one moves throughlayers of spacein an urbancontext. The machiyaor rowhousesof Kyotoare a sophisticatedexample of a buildingtype which successfully creates a senseof privacyand contemplativeretreat within a denseurban context. Througha studyof the principlesof spatial manipulationand architecturaldesign of the machiya in Japan,some generic techniquesare identified which can be applied to othertypes of rowhousesto addcomplexity and depthto the experienceof spacewithin a confinedarea. The principleswhich are gleanedfrom the Japaneseexamples are then applied to a localrowhouse type, in the South Endin Boston,to explorethe implicationsof increasedspatial complexity and layering in the Americanurban context.

The thesisis dividedinto two parts:first, a discussionof genericissues of territory,and observationsof the territorialstructure of Kyotoand the SouthEnd; then, the development andapplication of a thematicsystem for exploringterritorial interpretations atthe levelof the dwelling,cluster of dwellings,and the urbantissue.

Thesissupervisor: N. JohnHabraken Title:Professor of Architecture Acknowledgments

WhenI beganthinking about this projectabout a yearago, my understandingof Japan and Japanesearchitecture was very shallow, and my impressionof whatI wantedto dowas still quitevague. There is a lot moreto learn,but I feelI have comea long way, and I couldnot have doneso withoutthe helpof manygenerous people:

Myadviser, professorJohn Habraken. It hasbeen a pleasureworking with him; his innovative ideasabout design, and his calm rationalitywill continueto bean inspiration. Myreaders, ShunKanda and Cherie Wendelken, who helped to pullme backwhen I strayed too far away from theJapanese agenda. I am especiallyindebted to Cheriefor her commitment,going beyondthe call in sharingher resourcesand insightswith respectto Japanese cultureand architecture. ReikoTomita and the other membersof Team Zoo.Their playfulapproach tolife and architectureis an inspirationin general,and has also helpedme to get a glimpse ofanother, perhaps newer side of Japan. ProfessorPhilip Thiel, theof Universityof Washington, whosewords of wisdombefore my trip werevery helpful and appreciated. The Finnsand the Moores,for their constantlove and supportthrough the years,and for the financialaid which helped me get to Japan. And,of course,Lori. This thesis is dedicatedto her.

Thanksto youall. Contents

Observations...... 7

Preface:Territory ...... 8 Chapter1: Kyoto ...... 15 Description:...... 16 InnerFocus ...... 16 Fragmentation...... 18 Machiya ...... 20 TerritorialDistance: ...... 24 TerritorialDepth ...... 24 Physical Diagrams ...... 25 Tradition ...... 27 Chapter2: the SouthEnd ...... 33 Description...... 33 TerritorialDistance: ...... 38 TerritorialDepth ...... 38 PhysicalDiagrams ...... 39 Tradition ...... 41

Projections...... 43

Preface: WorkingMethod ...... 44 Chapter3: the ThematicSystem ...... 47 Chapter4: the Cluster ...... 63 Chapter5: the UrbanTissue ...... 70

Interpretations...... 77

Appendix...... 81 Bibliography...... 82 End notes ...... 85 6 Observations Preface: Territory

One mightdescribe one of the rolesof architectureas to providephysical and psycholgical security.Both of thesesuggest a degreeof separatenessor distancebetween the subject and its larger context.This notion of physicaland psychologicaldistance in the built environmentis relatedto what HeinrichEngel terms "seclusion":

Seclusionin buildingwas the dominantquality of earlyarchitectural space. It was closelyassociated with the sensationof beingprotected against the hostilityof environment,both weather and animal,and thus was prerequisitefor psychological comfort. Seclusionin building,both as the withdrawnroom and as the hiddenhouse, is not antiocial.Instead, it is the affirmationthat man is primarilyindividual rather than componentof family,and, again,that ties withinfamily are strongerthan those to society.1

Thetraditional, and much contemporary, architecture of Japanprovides an interestingmodel for studyingthis senseof removal.At manylevels, the builtenvironment of Japancan be characterizedas maintaininga strongphysical continuity with naturewhile simultaneously achievinga deeppsychological removal from the publicrealm. The distinction is not so much one from exteriorto interior as from extrovertedto introverted.To Westerneyes, the introvertedterritorial structure of Japanis a distinctivecharacteristic:

In the West, seclusionin buildinghad been an inevitablecondition dictated by unfavorableweather and limited technical means rather than a conditionprompted by anawareness of man'spsychological need for solitude.That is to say,seclusion was not anintentional creation, but an accidentalcircumstance. It is for this reasonthat progressiveWestern architecture has neverfully recognizedthe psychological implicationsof seclusionin building.2

In thisthesis I wantedto explorethis phenomenonof "seclusion"in architecture.In orderto understandthe principlesand implications of an introvertedterritorial structure I decidedto focuson Japan.Though one canfind examples in manyareas of Japanesearchitecture, I settledon the traditionalmerchants' rowhouses, machiya, found in variationsthroughout the country,and in abundancein Kyoto.Kyoto was the only majorJapanese city sparedfrom bombingduring World War 11 because of the richnessof itshistorical and cultural architecture andartifacts. Individual surviving examples of machiyaare scattered throughout the city,but largerportions of thetraditional urban fabric have been preserved in some areas, most notably the Sanneizakaand Gion districts. One reason for my choosing the machiyato studywas that theyrepresent an identifiabletype which is still in activeuse today. Also, my owninterest lies in understandingthe potentialand implicationsof territorialdistance in an urbancontext, wheregreat physical distance is notalways available. Finally, the rowhouse,as a generictype, is foundin manycultures, including the U.S.,and especially in Boston.

Whileit wasuseful to studya foreigncontext to beginto understandits territorialstructure, it seemednecessary and desireable to testwhat I hadlearned in a localcontext - to consider whatcould be transfered,and howfar it could be taken.With this in mind,I chosethe rowhousefabric of the SouthEnd of Boston.The South End has a largestock of sturdybrick rowhousesand, accordingto MargaretSmith, it is "the largestVictorian urban residential districtremaining in America".3 Also,while it hasa longand rich history,and an established urbancharacter, it is a neighborhoodin transition,with considerableopen spacefor infill development,and large blighted areas in needof renewal.

The machiyaof Kyotoand the SouthEnd rowhouses are similarin someways, both being a rowhousetype, but theyrepresent extremes of territorialintentions. My goalwas to explore thepossibility of achievingsome of theterritorial qualities of the machiyain the typologicaland socialcontext of the SouthEnd. To explainwhy I thinkthat that is a valid endeavor,and to prefacethe workthat follows,a brief discussionof someof theterritorial principles which informedit seems appropriate.

Territoryis the basicphenomenon by which architecture assists humans in fullfillingtheir fundamentalneeds of physicaland psychological security. The strengthof any territoryis determinedby the degreeto which its occupantsmaintain control of its borders.When territorialcontrol is clear,actions are generally predictable and unstressful. When it is unclear or challenged,anything from embarrassment or abandonment,at best,to conflictor war,at worst,can be expected.

Any territory- exceptperhaps the verysmallest - can be saidto consistof two kindsof territorialspace: public space, and other included territories, or privatespace. The included territories,being territories themselves, also have public space and more included territories, and so on. Thus there is a hierarchyof territorywhich beginsat nations,probably the highest-levelhuman territory, and extends to one'sbed. The term "territorial depth" refers to p.1Increasing territorial depth the numberof discerniblehierarchical territorial layers in a selectedportion of the built

environment.The territorial depth of a givenarea can be increasedor decreasedby changing

thenumber of territoriallayers without necessarily changing its physical dimensions. (fig. p.1)

Buta territoryis morethan just an assemblageof publicand private spaces. In addition,since securityis maintainedthrough control of the bordersof the territory,movement among territoriesis very important.In general,access to the privatespace of a territorymust be obtainedvertically, through the publicspace of that territoryfirst. In somecases one may bypassa levelof territory and pass directly into the private space. A commonexample is the backdoor. One can also find examplesof horizontalmovement, between territories of equivalenthierarchical level. Examples of thiscase are borders between nations. (fig. p.2) p.2 Vertical movementamong territories (left) is most common and comfortable. Horizontal Withoutgoing to greatlengths to proveit, it is assumedhere that theseprinciples of the movement, or vertical movement which skips levels,like a back door (right) is also possible,but worldand necessary to the makingof good structureof territoryare universal throughout the requires more knowledge among the parties architecture.They can be representedand explored with the simple"territorial diagrams" involved. shown.

Whilea territorialdiagram is universal,-it is also generic.That is, whilethe hierarchical relationshipsand control of accessamong various territorial elements must be maintained, their physicalarrangement and the qualityof the pathsamong them can be interpretedin manydifferent ways. Each such interpretation embodies a differentset of territorial intentions and can be representedby a "physical diagram". These range from extroverted arrangements,with short,direct relationships between territorial levels, to highlyintroverted vi vpc arrangements,characterized by indirect movement. (fig. p.3) When several territorial levels are p.3 Extrovertedand introvertedphysical diagrams operatingwithin an introvertedterritorial structure, the mostprivate spaces may in fact be physicallyclosest to the mostpublic territories, but they retain a senseof removalbecause of theirposition and access relationships to the otherlevels. (fig. p.4)

Justas theterritorial diagram can represent any level of territory, so a physicaldiagram can be appliedto a room,a building,a block,or a city.Also, just as wesee the territorialdiagram everywhere,we canfind instancesof the samephysical diagrams in disparateparts of the world.Furthermore, within one geographical area, we canfind more than one physical diagram atwork. Figure p.5 shows two interpretations ofthe floorplan of a typicalsuburban bungalow. The first has an introvertedterritorial structure with livingand dining rooms out front,and bedroomand service in the rear.The second plan makes minor adjustments to the planand flips theentry to the otherside, creating an introverted physicaldiagram. Though this is a hypotheticalinterpretation, the resultingdwelling form is actuallyquite common, especially in moredense urban contexts.

In architecture,a physicaldiagram can be usedto organizea singleintervention, or may p.4 Sameterritorial depth, same number of territories, differentphysical diagrams. evolveover time as the resultof a long-standingtradition of buildingin a region.A building "type"represents a complexset of agreementsabout building,developed over decadesor centuries. Types encompasssmall thescale of an individualdwelling, as well as the larger urbanscale. While a giventype may embody a generalworld view which informs the territorial structure, onemay find physicaldiagrams at differentlevels which representa range of intentionsin the introversion-extroversion scale.

Thephysical diagram is also "generic"in that it says nothing about the specificlocal traditions ofculture, climate, materials and building practices, etc.These contextual issues add physical reality andrichness of meaningfor the users,and can reinforcetheir territorial intentions. Indeed,these local factors are as importantto the makingof goodarchitecture as theterritorial principlesdiscussed above. While diagrams can be instructive,the issueof territorycannot be separatedfrom people,for territoryis an intentionalphenomenon and only existsif people acknowledgeand take controlof space.Any place can havemany territorial interpretations, regardlessof the designersintentions. Thus, while accomodating thebasic territorial principlesis necessary,it is not sufficient.The physicaldiagram whichis employedmust be familiarand meaningful to the socialand physical context, and the additionallocal traditions

mustbe accomodated. Thesethree areas of concernmust be addressedin orderto makesuccessful architectural interventions.However, we havefurther seen that each of themoffers potential to increase whatone might call the "territorialdistance", the degreeof physicaland psychological removal experiencedas one movesfrom publicto privateterritory. First, manipulating the territorial diagramallows us to increaseterritorial depth. Within the samephysical distance one can increasethe numberof territoriallayers one passesthrough by aggregatingpreviously individualterritories and identifying a publicspace through which they pass.A caveatwith regardto this approachis thatcreating new shared spaces for peoplewho don't necessarily feelany social bonds may result in well-designed,but unusedpublic space. Beyond a certain point,one mustrely on othermethods. The second way of increasingterritorial distance is throughmanipulation of the physicaldiagram: the dimensions, direction, and character of the access,and the orientationof the territorialelements can heightenthe senseof removal. Finally,local traditions of use,materials, and building methods can affect the perceptionof the territorialstructure of a place.

In workingwith the territorialstructures of Kyotoand the SouthEnd, I havetried to utilize thesethree methods of increasingterritorial distance. Since, when stripped of their local culturalbaggage, all types are manipulations ofthe sameterritorial diagram, and variations on the samemanipulations are foundall overthe world,it seemedreasonable to attemptto implementqualities of the territorialstructure of onecontext into the territorialstructure of another,as longas localissues of use, materials, climate, etc., are accomodated. p.5Source: Walker, p. 186 14 Chapter1: Kyoto

Myinitial fascination with Japanese architecture was withits form, but my thesishas focused on territory.My originalinterest was in continuityin an urbancontext, but has endedup centeringon discontinuity.The tone of my work beganas objectiveanalysis, but soon becamesubjective discovery and interpretation.Once there, I realizedthat the "spatial layering"I hadread and written about was everywhere in dailylife, not just in the rowhouses andtemples. I soonput awaythe analyticalmethodological tools and took out my notebook.In it I triedto explainto myselfwhat was goingon aroundme. Eventually I beganto distilltwo qualitieswhich seemed to be presentand fundamental to manyof thearchitectural and social contextsI foundmyself exposed to, bothof whichseem to berelated to the Japanesespatial phenomenon,"oku." OneI termed"inner focus;" the otheris the qualityof fragmentation,or mystery.These qualities both relate to the issueof territorialdistance in allthree of the ways discussedabove: territorial depth, physical diagram, and traditions of useand construction. I will brieflydiscuss their meaning in general,and then their relationship to the machiyaand the urbanfabric built around the machiya,the machinami. Description

InnerFocus

The elusiveconcept of oku seemsto be the operativephenomenon behind my sensingof an innerfocus to manyaspects of the Japanesecultural and built environment. I give itthe more generic namebecause of the complexityof the termin its deepestand richest meanings.The term oku literallymeans depth or interior,but to expressthe word'sfull implicationsin Japaneseculture, it takesmany tries to defineoku in the Englishlanguage. Maki uses the terms "invisiblecenter", "innermostspace", "convergenceto zero", and "relativedistance" to try andconvey its architecturalor spatialsignificance. Every Japanese househas a hierarchicalorganization of morepublic and more private, or interior,spaces in its depth. Movingprogressively inward is movingtowards the innerfocus of the house,its most privateand distant realm, its oku. Makireminds us thatthe term is usednot only for describing spatialconfigurations, but also for expressingpsychological depth; a kindof "spiritualoku." 4

This latterpoint is reinforcedby a conversationI had in Nara.An aquaintanceexplained that okuhas to do withsomething which is notimmediately clear or simple.An adjectivewhich is usedto describethis is oku-bukai.(strangely redundant expression which might translate literallyas "deepwith depth") An oku-bukaihito (person) or tatemono(building) is onewhose true self is not right up front, but obscuredby layers,which are relaxedand revealed dependingon the situation.The quality of oku-bukaiwas once considered a thingof virtueor beauty,but thistraditional value is beingslowly forgotten.

Insofaras oku, or "innerfocus" relates to territorialstructure, it has to do with the gradual movingaway from the public realm through layers of moreand private space, toward a perhaps partiallyobscurred heart or goal. Buildingsorganized and perceived with a senseof okuhave anintense sense of innerfocus, yet thenotion of oku itselfseems separate from absolute notionsof publicand privatespace. Oku is as mucha stateof mindas itis a kind ofspace or form,and therefore is verymuch tied to traditionalJapanese culture. Oku mustbe perceived to be appreciated,but not necessarilyreached. Those who have not learnedto appreciatea Buddhistemptiness (mu) or void,and must inspect out the contentsof a murkytemple altar, or openthe verysmallest of a seriesof littleboxes, are often disappointed. Maki notes that the closestWestern equivalent to okuis the conceptof center,but that "the center unlike the oku mustbe openand visible.... The okuis the originalpoint (mental touchstone) in the mindsof the peoplewho observe or createit, and hence becomes the invisiblecenter." 5

Thedepth of meaningof oku may notbe relevantin the SouthEnd of Boston;nevertheless, it is an importantphenomenon, a key to an understandingof the spatialstructure of Japan.It is the heartof an introspectiveterritorial structure, which removes one from the outerworld andallows one to nurtureone's inner self. Fragmentation Whereasinner focus deals primarily with the relative positionsof the territorialelements of publicand private space,fragmentation is concernedwith the movementamong them.The territorialdistance found in Japanesearchitecture is not achievedspontaneously from any single pointin spaceor time.Rather, by choreographing human movement, space is revealed sequentially,as a penetrationthrough layers. Matsuo Inoue calls this Japanese sensibility "movementspace", as opposedto the sensibilityof "geometric space" foundin Western and otherAsian countries. In geometricspace, the compositionalelements relate toan overall orderingframework, revealed by "prospects" and "vistas". In movementspace, on the other 1.1Diagram of movement-orientedspace. Each hand,"what is importantare thepositions of elementsrelative to eachother.... Successive spatialunit is isolatedfrom the others and from the outsideworld. Source:Inoue, p.144 observationis the principleupon which this typeof architecturalspace is based. Spaceis never revealedin its full extentall at oncebut is showninstead a bitat a time....A newscene

is discoveredat everytum and left behind at the next."6 (fig.1.1)

.Q~f bs( tL Seen and Hidden Thesensibility of movement-orientedspace is a highlyrefined art in Japan,characterized by specificcompositional and space-orderingprinciples. These have beendescribed and interpretedin detail and includesuch principles as aesthetictriangle, alternating turns, recessed space,unparrallel system, symbolical eyestop, and borrowed space. 7 Allof these relateto the perceptionof space throughmovement. Theseprinciples can mostreadily be seenin the gardenswhich surround villas and the residentialquarters of Buddhisttemples, andin the carefulsite planning of Shintoshrines. [ ] Recessed Space

The fragmentationof spatial experienceis groundedin a fundamentalphilosophical conceptionof thedynamic nature of theuniverse. AgainI turn to Inouefor a descriptionof this connection: The twisting,turning movement of Japanesearchitecture has its spiritualparallel in the ideaof mutability.The Buddhistconcepts such as the transmigrationof the soul or the law of causeand effect imply,by their nature,a flow basedon temporal extension.Sangai ruten refers to the flowingmovement of all livingthings through the three worldsof past,present, and future. Thus in Buddhismthere is a tendency to regardhuman life as basicallya fluidphenomenon. However, when the ideaof this flowing movementis expressedby the words shog yo mujo ("all thingsare impermanent"),it takes on a specialnuance. The flow is characterizedby what the wordmujo literally means: "no constancy";it is not simplyamovement of constant speedin a single,fixed direction,but a deflected,discontinuous movement. 8

Thismovement-oriented or temporal conception of spaceis alsoillustrated in the Japanese wordkamae, which wasthe closestequivalent to the westernnotion of facadein traditional Japan.Kamae describes the publicaspect of a building,but notjust its physicalsurface. It refersmore to thedisposition of the buildingand other elements on the site,and refers tothe entireentry sequence and its psychologicalimpact. In architecture it refersto the publiczone of the buildingas visiblefrom the exterior,and includes entry elements such as gates,walls, gardens,the "facade"or buildingskin, andtransitional zones that take onefurther into the interior.Kamae can alsobe defined as a physicaland psychological readiness, or mentalset. Psychologicallyit refers to the outer-most"layers" of one'spersonality. It is usedto describe the initialstance taken by someone participating in a martialart, or thedefensive mechanisms exhibitedby some animals. All of thesemeanings add a senseof expectation destinationor to the notion ofspatial layers created by the fragmentation describedabove. Thissense of destination,or purposeis what ties thefragmentation of space tothe senseof innerfocus. Onepenetrates the outer layers of kamae, whichcreates a toneor set ofexpectations as to thedistance and natureof a building'soku. NikkoToshogu shrine. Source: Inoue, p. 106 Machiya Thoughthe literalmeaing of machiya is "townhouse", the type has alwaysbeen closely associatedwith the merchantclass as botha placeof residenceand of commerce. Theyfirst appearedlining themain streets oftowns, with a shopin frontand theshopkeepers home to the rear. In Kyoto,the machiyaoriginally lined the edgesof the largeblocks, layed out accordingto Chinese grid-planningprinciples, leavingan openarea at thecenter. During the Muromachiperiod, the squareblocks were transformed into long rectangular blocksto create more street frontage, and the buildings and their gardens filled the middle of the blocks, creatinga densely-packedurban tissue of long,narrow rowhouses. 9 Common dimensions of machiyarange from about sixteen to twenty-sixfeet wide, and seventy to up totwo hundred feetdeep. 10 These exceedingly long proportions lead them to be referedto as "eelsdens".

11Originally they wereone story in height,but eventuallygrew to two stories.A shop,or mise-no-ma,and livingand entertaining spacesare commonlyon the groundfloor, with sleepingspaces above. A six to eight footaccess and cookingspace (tooriniwa), with a concreteor earthenfloor at the samelevel as the ground,lines one wall, with the livingspaces organizedin a serialfashion parallel to it.The livingspaces are separatedby sliding fusuma panelsand areraised above the ground about two feet, with a woodor tatamimat surface. The primaryspatial componentsof the groundfloor of a largemachiya include theentry vestibule (genkan),anteroom, reception room, eating and/or living room, and formal entertaining room

(zashik),with its picture recess (tokonoma) and ornamental shelves. Smaller homes may only haveone or two livingspaces, whichperform all of the abovefunctions. Upstairs, rooms near the streetare sometimesused for storageor forguests, while thosetoward theinside of the lot areliving/sleeping space for the family.In additionto the interiorrooms, a veryimportant elementof the machiya are its garden(s).While most homes haveone garden,more prosperousmerchants had two. In this case,the tsuboniwaoften separates the shopin front fromthe living spaces,while the okuniwais positionedbeyond the zashikiand forms the heart of the house.12 DianeDurston describes the gardenof the machiyaas a "private,limited spacelocated deep in the interioralways a refreshingsurprise. Here the masterof the house could createa small paradiseof his own."13 Bathingfunctions and the large,fireproof storehouse(kura) fill outthe lot to the rear.(fig. 1.2)

IIWO Ito10

Yb 4. 501o . 0

'0 - Lo..J ul-119 Its

Pla o1sflor ~l11~

1.2 Typicalmachiya. A serial arrangementof rooms,progressing toward the garden.Source: Ashihara,p. 128 Theconstruction system of the machiyais woodenpost and beam, dimensionally based on the kenmodule - structuralunit that marks the basiccolumn interval, measuring approximately threefeet by three feet. Spatialunits are measuredin tsubo,which is the areaof 2 tatami, approximately6X6 feet, although variations in the sizeof the tatamiexist in differentregions of the country.A highgabled roof, with its ridgerunning parallel to the street,covers the main building,with other roofs, sometimes running perpendicularly, covering the smallerbuildings at the interiorof the lot.The facade generally has two eaves;one from the mainroof over the secondfloor, and the othera smallattached eave over the firstfloor for additionalshade and

weatherprotection. Fire has always been a majorthreat to the machiyaand for this reasonthe exteriorstreet wall is oftenmade of heavyclay andplaster over the woodenframe, like the constructionof the kura.Wooden lattices and reed screens overlay this wall,providing visual privacyand ventilation, and are an importantpart of the formalrhythm of thetownscape. 1.3Diamond-shaped territorial structure of Kyoto, depictingcho and gakku (larger territories). Source:Ueda, p. 229 Thefilling in of the rectangularblocks of Kyotohas resultedin a roughlydiamond-shaped urban tissue with longer rowhousesat the middle of the block and shorter houses, overlappingone another, near the corners.(fig. 1.3) Thisphysical structure, or machinami (literally"city rows") is relatedto the socialstructure of the city.The basicsocial unit is the chonai("inner town"), or simplycho. It consistsof aroundforty households which line a street, in oneof the approximatediamond shapes. The cho is dividedinto a smallersocial unit, the gonin-gumi,consisting of five neighboringhouseholds which policeone anotherand is

"accreditedwith much of the responsibilityfor the safetyof Kyoto'scity streets." 14 Above the chowe find the gakku,or schooldistrict, and the ku,a districtcomparable in scaleto the South Endor BackBay in Boston.The smallestsocial unit is the family.Within the realmof the

house,the family lives and works as a singleunit, without the privacyof individualrooms and

sound-proofwalls. The role of individualfamily members is definedso as to facilitatethe smoothoperation of the familyunit. This is primarilyillustrative of a culturalemphasis on the group overthe individual,and it is reinforcedby the lightnessof constructionof the machiya, in whichmost interior partitions are limited to removablesliding paper doors.

Thishierarchical social structureis related to the termsuchi ("inner") and soto ("outer'). Uchi refersto an innercircle or groupto whichone belongs, and soto represents all that is outside ofthat circle. Theseare relative terms,thus one may think of expandingcircles, the smallestof whichis the familyor workplace,the largestbeing the nation.Behavior is stronglyinfluenced bythe standardsof eachuchi, both with respectto membersof the innergroup, and to those fromthe outside realm. The word for stranger,tanin (ta refersto otheror elsewhereand nin meansperson, thus tanin means literally, "a personfrom outside or elsewhere").The word for foreigner,gaijin is alsorelated to thenotion of uchiand soto, gai referingto outside, another readingfor the characterfor soto. Yetthese are all relative terms. "Whereasa stranger might be anotherJapanese person in the sametown outsideof one'sgroup; in another,larger groupdefinition with respectto one'stown or country,a personfrom a differenttown or countrymight be consideredthe stranger."15

Thebehavioral standards of uchimay call for quite different conduct relative to othermembers of theinner groupor to taninor gaqin. Thereis a self-criticalsaying among the Japanese that the Japaneseare "onlypolite with their shoesoff," referingto the care with whichgroup membersand their gueststreat each other within their respectiveterritories, the uchi, or insidewhere one is familiarenough to relaxand removeone's shoes. This is in marked contrastwith thebehavior that the casual visitor to Japansees at anytrain station during rush hour. Thenthe seaof "strangers"with whom one has no connectionor relationis ignored, andeach personfights tooth and nail for his or her spaceon the train. Territorial Distance

Territorialdepth: inner focus

The relativesocial terms of uchi and soto can be interpretedterritorially as different hierarchicallevels of publicand private space, which are also relative terms. The layersof socialcircles to whichone belongs creates a territorialdepth which puts some psychological distancebetween oneself and the larger "outsideworld". This psychologicaldistance is sometimesmade physical by the use ofceremonial gates at the entranceto a neighborhood,

andby a changein dimensionand/or direction of the path.As onewalks down the narrow, windingstreets radiating from Ikebukurostation in Tokyo,for instance,elaborate, colorful gatesoverhead mark the beginningof newdistricts. These districts are further reinforced by theuse of repetitivelighting fixtures or plantings.

Territorial depth:fragmentation

Thephenomenon of fragmentationinthe machiyais primarilyestablished as a functionof the physicaldiagrams, and traditions of useand construction. The intensifications of the gatesof territoriallayers discussed above heightens the fragmentationof experience,but beyond that territorialdepth is more relatedto the notionof inner focus.Furthermore, because of the limiteddimensions of the machiya,the traditionsof constructionand use becomemore important.Since fragmentation through manipulation of the physicaldiagram usually involves the dimensionsand direction of access,there is onlyso muchthat can be donein a small physicaldistance. Physical diagrams:inner focus A diagram ofjust the built andopen spaces of a typicalmachiya is onethat couldrepresent an introvertedterritorial structure, creating a long, narrowpath to the okuniwa,which acts asan inner focusfor the private spaces.(fig. 1.4) This would imply that the garden wasthe public spaceof the machiyaterritory, through whichone passedbefore moving into the private 1.4 An introvertedterritorial structurebased on the spaces.But, aswas statedearlier, the okuniwacan not reallybe interpretedas a territorial courtyardas publicspace. Not the diagramof the element.Perhaps a moreaccurate diagramof the territorialstructure of the machiyais a series macha of distinct spatialunits, experienced sequentially, and progressing in use fromless to more private. (fig. 1.5) The destinationis the tearoom, looking out into the inner garden.The

resultingphysical diagram is similarto Inoue'sdiagram of movement-orientedspace (fig. 1.1)

While theokuniwa represents a visibleoku, another physicaldiagram found in the machinami of Kyotoilluminates Maki's notion of an "invisiblecenter". The dense city blocksoften have a at its templeor largemerchant's or landlord's house center,accessed througha narrow alley. It 1.5 Machiyaphysical diagram - a series of distinct is outsidethe territoryof the rowhousesthat surroundit, andrelates to portionsof several spatial units,progressing toward oku. differentcho, but servesas an unseenfocus. Maki addresses this phenomenonwhen he describesthe city as a "territorialgroup which envelops numerous places of oku,sometimes publicand sometimes private.Cities have developed as anaggregate of numerousterritories of a socialunit that protectsthe oku,and not as a placewith an absolutecenter to cluster

around."16 Otherexamples of this"protective" physicaldiagram canbe found. For instance,

the shopin frontof the machiya,sometimes assisted by the tsuboniwa,acts as a bufferin a similar way.Also, a commonmodel of thehigh-density machinami is the "stacking"of one housein frontof another.The housenearest the streetwill oftenhave a smallrestaurant or 1.6 A "protective" physicaldiagram. other publicfunction on the groundfloor, whilethe rearhouse will be an innor a private residence.(fig. 1.6) One territory is "blocking"another territory of equivalent hierarchicallevel fromthe public spaceof the nexthigher level. Thus, the accessto the protectedterritory becomeslong, narrow, and perpendicularto the directionof the largerterritory -all adding territorialdistance to it.

Physicaldiagrams: fragmentation Physicaldiagrams which promoteterritorial distance through inner focus generallyalso enhancefragmentation. In suchdiagrams, the lengthof the pathfrom the publicspace of the streetrealm to the publicspace of the houserealm is inevitablylonger because of the removal of the housepublic space from directassociation with the street.The otherdimensions of widthand height of this pathare also often manipulatedto heighten the removal.These long, narrowpaths are foundat all levelsof the urbanlandscape of Kyoto.Residential streets or commercialstreets relating to a particulardistrict exist in the midstof majorshopping districts, or nearexpressways, and yet maintain an intimatehuman scale by their narrow width and high heightto widthratio. If they are not enclosed over head as a pedestrianmarket, as is oftenthe case,they may havea senseof enclosureby projecting eaves and innumerable electrical wires,signs, lamps, and decorations.Dark passageways and covered alleys leading to an unseenworld are commonin the neighborhoodsof Gionand Sanneizaka.And the entry passagewaysto individualdwellings may be evensmaller, sometimes offering a glimpse througha woodenlattice gate of a small entrygarden at theend.

Directionand change in directionis also an importantaspect of fragmentation.The same streetsmentioned above will often have an abrupt ninety-degreerelation to the public thoroughfare,and may alsohave a lateralshift at somepoint. The shifttemporarily blocks one'sview of what lies beyond, and may signal the beginningof anotherterritorial layer. Plans of the individualmachiya sometimes show a shift ofthe accessfrom the servicezone of the groundfloor across to the otherparty wall of the housebefore encountering the stairsto the upperfloor. Tradition:inner focus Oneform of traditionfound in Japanwhich reinforcesthe phenomenon of innerfocus is ritual, throughformalized behavior. Simple acts of everydaylife are refinedto their essential attributesand performed with the greatcare anddeliberateness generally only presentin Westernsociety in religiousceremonies. Engel explains that "thesimple and commonplace lifein itsmost trivial aspect can become art. For art is nota matterof skillor training,but a matter of innerattitude." 17

Theexchange of moneyat a bankgives a glimpse.It begins,as withall transactions,with a bowand a politegreeting. The announcement of the customer's intentions brings forth a form and a penon a smallgreen plastic tray with short rubbernubs on the insideto fascilitate pickingup itscargo. The tray is slidacross the counterand retracted when the formhas been completedand returnedto it. Nothingis exchangeddirectly from handto hand,but only throughthe intermediaryof the tray,refining and focusing the manykinds of transactionsto thissimple object and action. The tray is treatedfull of care, always using both hands to pushit acrossthe counter,and to takeit to a superviserfor approval.The transaction ends as itwas begun,with a bowand a salutation.

The highlevel of formalizationin socialbehavior may be related to the prominenceof ritualin traditionalJapan. No doubtthe mostfamous of Japaneserituals, and perhapsthe most indicativeof the notionof aninner focus, is thatof thetea ceremony.

Thecult of tea wasbrought to Japanfrom China by Zen Buddhistmonks during the sixteenth century,"but the basicphilosophy fit the Japanesepeople like a psychicglove."18 The tea ceremonyritualizes the actof makingtea by"symbolizing and refining each of the constituent actswhich lead to, andculminate in, the cupof tea." 19While tea itselfis a commonplace thing, Engelreminds us that it is alsorepresentative of thesimple life of "theordinary farmer, from whichboth the motifand form of tea were taken."20 Engelfurther statesthat "the Japaneseresidence, unless it is the bare minimumfor existence,has materializedits awarenessof seclusionin buildingthorugh one of the very distinct achievementsof Japanesearchitecture: the tearoom....the tearoomin its pureform is inwardlyoriented and shunsextemal experience." 21 Inthe machiya,the tearoom, typically four and one-half tatami, or approximatelynine by ninefeet, is positionednext to the okuniwaat the heartof the house.It is a spaceused only by the headof the householdfor personalintrospection or for entertainingguests.

Tradition:fragmentation

As explainedabove, traditions of use are very importantin creatinga senseof mysteryin machiya.The mostubiquitous example is the practiceof takingoff one'sshoes at the entry (genkan).This act was originally simply a practicalway of keepingmud out of the housein the rainyclimate of Japan,but hasachieved more deep-rooted meaning as oneof themany rituals of dailyliving. Besides affecting a changein the modeof travel,it alsocauses a pauseand a turnback toward the outsidebefore continuing on. Theraised floor at the entry,a traditionof buildingalso originating from the samepractical considerations, further heightens the act of transitionfrom outside to inside.The formal entry sequence is oftenarticualted into several discreteacts. These are embodiedby the seriesof entry vestibule(genkan), and the anteroomand reception rooms, all associatedwith the receivingof guests.The sequential natureof this processis reinforcedby another tradition of building,the use of opaquefusuma panelsand translucent shoji screensfor the verticaldefinition of space.These elements dividespace into a sequenceof layerswhich are peeled back in successionand closed again, so as notto exposethe whole spatial composition of the buildingat once. RyokanHinomoto RyokanHinomoto, a family-runinn in Shimagyo-kuin Kyoto,offers a good exampleof the phenomenaof innerfocus and fragmentation at severallevels. The short street it is on runs roughlyparallel to andonly slightly ( around100 feet) removed from KawaramachiDori, the majorNorth-South commercial thoroughfare that followsthe Kamoriver. (fig. 1.7)While its paralleldirection doesnot reinforce its territorial removal from Kawaramachi, the entrancesto the street,at both ends,are quite abruptand at rightangles to a secondaryelement that mefiatesbetween the publicnessof Kawaramachiand the intimacyof Hinomoto'sstreet. At the Northend this mediatingelement is Matsubaraavenue, a medium-sizedEast-West street witha mixof commercialand residential, which intersects Kawaramachi. Atthe South end it is a triangularparking lot leftoverfor itsodd shape and size.

As soonas onemoves into the neighborhoodof Hinomoto'sstreet, thesights and sounds of Kawaramachifall off becauseof the intimatedimensions and proportions of the street.In the middle,there is a lateral shift,effectively dividing the streetinto two territories.Hinomoto is situateddirectly in the shift, facingback towards the beginningof the street.As such its physicalposition is fairlyprominent within this innerworld and thus notas removedas other buildings.

Theentrance and reception desk are in the garage.From there guests take a verysteep flight of stairsup to the guestrooms. The roomsare positionedalong a corridorwhich takes two 180degree turns and a lateralshift before continuing in the primarydirection. To showeror batheone must go downa darkback stair,penetrating into the familyrealm, and find one's wayto the bath rooms.The fusumapanels which definethe roomsare rarelyleft casually open,not only hiding their contents, but also casting the corridoron darkness.(fig. 1.8) ......

......

I'Al

1. Fel n , fpl 1.8 Field notes of the plans of Hinomoto. 4 The senseof mysteryof this placeis capturedby the useof the mainpublic space of the familyrealm, aneight-tatami room just offthe garage.From the garageone can seelight and movementthrough the room'stranslucent walls,and from most of theguest rooms upstairs onecan hear the noisesof television, meals, conversation throughoutthe day. The guestis not affordeda glimpse inside exceptfor during breakfast, which is servedin this room. Howeverthe experienceis somewhatdisappointing relative to thesense of anticipationfrom the prospectof enteringthe heartof the familyrealm. The feeling is thatin factone hasnot entered thefamily realm at all. Rather,the familyrealm has pulledback andtemporarily relinquishedcontrol of its publicspace to its guests.To get there,it wouldhave been most directto godown therear stairs, however it is understoodthat one should go downthe front stairsto the garage- almostin the territoryof the street- andenter from thatside. (fig. 1.9) Oneenters tofind a simplebreakfast of toast andcoffee waiting on a low table,with an English-language newspaper it. besideWhile eating,no one enters, except other guests. It is onlyupon having slid the paperpanel closed behind as one leaves that one hearsthe proprietressenter from the rearto clear thedishes.

1.9 Axonometricof the accessof Hinomoto. 2.1 SouthEnd map. Source:Caminos, p. 62 4 b oo Chapter2: The SouthEnd

Description

Geographically, the SouthEndis situatedon almostentirely filled land. Bostonwas originally a penninsula,barely connected to the mainlandby a narrow"neck" of landwhich was sometimesflooded at hightide. Beginningin the eighteenth century,plans were considered to fill part of the BackBay, to the Northand West, andthe SouthBay, to the East.The intentions wereinitially to stopthe erosionof the necklands, and latercreate to revenue from thedevelopment of themarshy land, and to provideattractive new housing to stemthe flow of the middleand upperclasses from the city to the risingsuburbs. Several plans were consideredover the years beforedevelopment began in earnestin the mid-nineteenth century. Todaythe onlyphysical remnant of the original geographyof this part of Bostonis Washington Street,which, for two hundredyears, was the onlyroad to Boston.22 Its roughly Northeast-Southwestdirection, connectingthe city with Roxbury andthe suburbs, however, is echoedin the eventualstreet layout of the SouthEnd.

Whileindividual rowhouseswere developed privatelyand gradually, thestreet infrastructure was plannedand layed out bythe city as onelarge development. Ideally, the urbandesign consists of major urbanarteries roughly parallel to WashingtonStreet, connected perpendicularlyby long residentialstreets. This resultsin relativelynarrow blocks, oriented Ii

2.3Typical South End rowhouse plan and section. Source:Caminos, p. 65 againstthe urbandirection, which were in turn bisectedby a servicealley. Most rowhouses, thereforeface onto a residentialstreet, either to the Northeastor Southwest.This ideal, however,was modified, as "the streetpattern as it actuallydeveloped in the SouthEnd was I I Mill duemore to trafficand topographical considerations than to a preconceivedgrid." 23 (fig.2.1)

Sincethe SouthEnd was developed on filledland, the streetswere graded ten to fifteenfeet higherthan the blockinterior to allowfor drainageaway from the streets,and a service entrancefrom the basement.The arteries range from sixtyto onehundred twenty feet wide; IT the residentialstreets from thirty five to fiftyfeet; thealleys are twenty feet wide.

Thedimensions of the individualbuilding lots aresimilar to thoseof the machiyaof Kyoto, rangingfrom twentyto thirtyfeet wide and aboutseventy to one hundredfeet deep.The buildingsthemselves, however, generally do notfill the entirelot, but rangefrom forty to fifty feetin depth.24 In the spaceof the backyards, one often finds small ancillary buildings such as garages,storage, or anadditional apartment, with a roofdeck. (fig. 2.2)

Onefinds a hierarchyof openspace in the SouthEnd, from the frontand backyards of the rowhouses,to the largepublic parks of Franklinand BlackstoneSquares on Washington street,measuring over three hundred feet square. Between these scales are found a variety of smallerparcels of openspace. Often a communitypark occurs in a gapwhere one or more rowhouseare missingfrom the block. Also, communitygardens are an importantand frequentlyoccuring type of openspace. Another type of openspace found is the residential square,a narrowstrip of greenspace located in the centerof oneof the residentialstreets, causingthe streetto split,and creatinga wideropen area in the centerof the blockthan normal. The largestof theseare ChesterSquare, in MassachusettsAvenue, Worcester Square,and Union Park. 2.2Typical South End block. The SouthEnd rowhouse is a masonrybuilding supported by party walls and spannedby wood or concretefloor systems.The twentyto thirty footbay is further divided,like the machiya,into aboutan eightfoot accesszone and a livingzone. This dimensionis usually, thoughnot always,expressed on the facadeby a projecting bayor bow.The plan can also be thoughtof as beingzoned into light, living zones at theexterior, and a smallerservice zonein the middleof the forty- fiftyfoot depth. Vertically, the facadeis articulated into base, middle, andtop. The base,in stoneor concrete,contains the entry stoop. The roof,usually of slate or metal,is foundas a mansardin front ofa flat roof,or as a low-pitched gable.Both rooftypes utilizedormers to bringlight into attic. (fig. 2.3) Though the SouthEnd rowhouse is primarilya residentialtype, it, again like the machiya,can accomodatecommercial use, usually at or below grade,and facing one of the urban arteries.

The intentionsof the city plannerswho developedthe SouthEnd was that it wouldbe an exclusiveneighborhood attractive to the middle andupper classes of Boston.Though it beganthat way,the increasingpopularity of the quburbs andthe developmentof the Back Baysoon lead to the economicdecline of the SouthEnd. An influxof immigrantsand working classfamilies lead to the transformationof what were originally single-family townhousesinto multi-familybuildings withflats. Until the middle ofthe twentiethcentury the area remaineda stableworking class neighborhood. However,according to a reportby the mayorsoffice, "the neighborhood'srelative harmony and balancewas shatteredin 1960by three powerful externalforces: urban renewal,construction of the PrudentialCenter, and anawakening of interestin innercity neighborhoods."25 Todaythe SouthEnd is sociallyand economically quitediverse - "one ofBoston's most richly varied and complex neighborhoods." 26 Within the areaone finds pocketsof ethniccohesion, representing Chinese, Black,Greek, and Hispanic,and other groups. Economically,there is a wide spectrum,from thePine Street Inn for the homeless,to luxuryrenovated townhousesin Union Square. Gentrificationhas raised propertyvalues and thus housingcosts in the wholearea, and hascaused tensions between the district'snewcomers and its lower-income residents.

Physically,the SouthEnd has also seen some change and diversification over the years.The rowhousetype, while remainingfairly strong,has been interuptedoccasionally by new modelsof urban housing.Two large projectsare the Villa Victoriadevelopment to the Northwestof BlackstoneSquare, and the Cathedralpublic housing project, adjacent to FranklinSquare and Washington Street. Neither attempts to workwith the existingrowhouse typein formor material,however the former,a low-densityrather suburban development of three-storyduplexes, departs in a muchless damaging way. Its humanly-scaledbuildings and generousopen spaces are welcome in the community,and it alsoworks as an infillbetween existingrowhouses occassionally. The Cathedralhousing project, on the otherhand, is a sadlytypical example of bleak,monolithic public housing imposed over a site,whose open spaceconsists of shaded,paved areas leftover between buildings ranging from three to ten storiesin height. Territorial Distance

Territorialdepth

Becauseof the mixof ethnicand economic backgrounds the layersof socialstructure are less definedand less consistentin the SouthEnd than in Kyoto.There are pocketsof strong socialcohesion, usuallyalong ethnicor economiclines, which begin to formlarger community territories,but becauseof the changingnature of the SouthEnd, theseare not always reinforcedby the physicalenvironment. The block-sized residential parkssuch as UnionPark andWorcester Square are the mostcoherent examples ofattempts to establishan urban territorialstructure with increased depth."The SouthEnd parks werenot connectedin a park system. Instead,each park was a focal pointof a neighborhoodwhich extended outward for severalstreets in alldirections." 27 Withthese exceptions,and the looseethnic community territoriesnot reinforcedby physical structure, the territorialdiagram of mostof the SouthEnd consistsof levelsat the city,the building, thedwelling, and roomlevels. Physical Diagrams Mostof theterritorial distance achieved in the SouthEnd rowhouse fabric occursat theurban scale. Thebuilding itself has a very directphysical diagram - public space directlyassociated with thestreet. Consequently, the lengthand other qualities of the accessis relativelyabrupt anddirect as well. Also,though the directionof the buildingaccess makes a ninety degree turn of privacyfrom the streetdirection, the individualdwellings are orientedthe same 2.4Physical diagram of a rowhouse. directionas the building.One might expect this to indicateeither a highlycommunal living arrangement,where included territories want to feelclosely associated with the publicspace of theircommon territory, or sucha passive,unused public space that making a strongmove of privacyfrom it is unneccessary.The latter is morelikely in thiscase. The actual reason for the configurationprobably has to do with thefact that today'smulti-family rowhouses were convertedfrom single-family townhouses. What is nowthe wholepublic space of thebuilding territoryused tobe only the access of a largerdwelling territory - stillpublic space, but only part of it. Thus, evenif the different tenants of oneof today'srowhouses wanted to usethe public spacemore actively, its dimensions and light inhibits this. The back yards of therowhouse are anotherpart oftheir public space, but they are inevitably unmaintained and unused exceptfor storage.This is probablyalso a resultof the divisioninto multipleunits. Originallythe backyardswere clearly controlled by the family livingin the townhouse.However, when severaltenants occupy the samebuilding, the controlof the backyardbecomes ambiguous.

At the urbanscale the streetinfrastructure assists in creatingterritorial distance for the buildingterritories by the lengthand direction of the residentialstreets. In the caseof the residentialparks, the squeezingin ofthe endsto providea senseof placeto the blockinterior is similarto the fragmentationfound in Japanof passingthrough a narrowingin the accessto get to aninner focusing element. 2.5 Physicaldiagram of a South End residential square. Relativeto the machinami of Kyoto, muchless territorialdistance is achievedin the progression frompublic toprivate territory in the SouthEnd. However, it is interestingto note that,relative to the rowhouse structureof the nearbyBack Bay, developed shortlyafter the SouthEnd, the SouthEnd exhibitsmuch moreof an introvertedterritorial structure. The majordifference is again relatedto the directionof accessat the urbanscale. Unlike thelong residential streets runningperpendicular to the urban arteries foundin the SouthEnd, the BackBay infrastructure is characterizedby grand avenues, all in the primary urbandirection, with minorconnector streets between.The rowhousesface the avenuesand thus havea very shallowremoval fromthe publicrealm. In fact, the dwellingsare basicallyincluded territories withinthe metropolitan territory,with no intermediatelayers. Commonwealth Avenue,for example,the centralaxis of the Back Bay,with its generous mall in the center,is almostexclusively residential in use, butit can hardlybe interpretedas anythingother than an elementof an urbanorder. Rather than focus a neighborhoodinward it is "a link between the olderparks of the Common andPublic Garden and the newerFenway Park, which ultimately joinedFranklin Parkin the Metropolitan Park System." 28 Tradition Again, becauseof the heterogeneityof the Americanculture, the phenomenonof ritual,as a refined,deliberate practice of the essenceof an act, doesnot take placein everyday life. Ritualis relegatedto the church."In the West,a churchis a sacredplace, built as a houseto god;a person'sown housecannot be a sacredplace in the sameway. Thereis a strict distinctionbetween sacred and secularplace." 29 Individualsmay developregimens of behaviorwhich approach a senseof ritualand which relate to simple,daily acts; but what is not foundin the Westis widely-sharedritual at morebroad social levels.

The physicaltraditions of the SouthEnd add somewhatto the territorialdistance of the rowhouse,although in a moredirect, frontal way than in the machiya.The frontyard, absent in the machiya,mediates between the streetand the house.The stoop,an extensionof the base,crosses the "moat"of the lawnand brings the visitorup to the building.The wall of the buildingitself makesa strong,unmistakable distinction between inside and outside,as opposedto the multi-layeredfacades of the machiya.Thus, the rowhousecreates an unambiguoussense of entry andof leavingthe street,but withoutthe depthof experience foundin Kyoto. 42 Projections Preface: WorkingMethod

Agenda In orderto begin workingwith the territorialstructure of the SouthEnd I neededto clarifyand elaborateon my agenda.My general intentionwas to try toachieve some ofthe qualitiesof the Japaneseterritorial structure withinthe socialand typological context of the SouthEnd. Specifically,those qualities were thephenomena of innerfocus and fragmentation. Since the specifictraditions of buildingand use in Kyoto werenot of particularrelevance in the South End,I wouldfocus on using its territorialand physical diagrams to achievethe qualitiesI sought.As hasbeen shown, some of thoseare similar to somefound in the SouthEnd, so I wouldtry to reinforcethose. The SouthEnd traditions of buildingand use were,of course, relevant andthose would alsoinform the designof the territorialstructure and building system.

Thefocus of mywork began at studyingthe potentialfor developing territorial distanceat the levelof anindividual rowhouse. This scaleis comparableto that ofthe machiya,and could be thoughtof as an infill approach.It seemedlikely from the start that individualbays of rowhousesmight become aggregated into a largerterritory, so I usethe term "cluster" rather than"building" to avoidconfusion. I wasalso interested in consideringthe largerurban scale, to seehow one might begin to create largercommunities of innerfocus, and to repairsome of thephysical scars of urban renewal.Finally, though themachiya is generallya singleterritorial level- the family- the SouthEnd rowhouse contains included territories at the dwellinglevel, whichin turncontains included territories at theroom level. So I alsochose to lookat territorial distanceat theselower levels.

Thus,to organizemy workI settledon "innerfocus", "fragmentation", and "building system" as the threespecific issues of my agendawhich would be addressedat the levelsof dwelling, cluster,and urban tissue.

Method Inorder to coversuch a widerange of levelsin a relativelyshort period of timeI choseto usea workingmethod known as thematicdesign. This approach,developed by the Stichting ArchitectenResearch (Foundation for Architects'Research; SAR) "sees the environmentas basedon systemicrules that incorporate a 'theme'that can be recognizedby the observer. Eachintervention can be a 'variation'on thistheme; a uniqueintervention yet a contributionto thewhole." 30 Both the SouthEnd rowhouse fabric and the machinamiofKyoto are examples of thematicsystems, which have become deeply ingrained in their respectivephysical and socialcontexts, to becomeknown and accepted as types.The notion of a systemis basedon defining"specific elements which relate to eachother according to specificrules."(Grunsfeld, 3) Oncethe elementsand rules are agreed upon it is possibleto makemany variations of the system.By using a thematicsystem to organizemyself, I coulddevelop rules which would, in general,give rise to an introvertedteritorial structure, and yet allowme to considera wide rangeof interpretations,at different levels.

Thefollowing chapters present the variousaspects of the thematicsystem which I developed towork with, and then projectionsof that system as an infilldevelopment, and as a largescale redevelopmentof a parcelin the SouthEnd. CLLGTEfPLA4IS CLUGTE- GECTIONG

IIW "I II --- -TL-LD P

I------

3.1C 11

I~ D-11

3.Clse plnI. lstrscin Chapter3: theThematic System

Clusterlevel

Beinga sortof middleground between the intimateand the urban,the levelof a clusterof dwellingsseemed to be a logicaland comfortable place to beginworking with the territorial structureof the SouthEnd rowhouse. For that reason,the rulesthat cameout of this level weremore specific and extensive, and had a stronginfluence on theother levels.

Innerfocus An earlydecision with respectto the levelof a clusterof dwellingswas to use the back building,occasionally seen in the South End, and the spacebetween it and the main rowhousebuilding, as a positivepart of the theme.The longerfront buildingcan be shortenedto bringin morelight to the court,which creates an innerfocus for the dwellings. Thecourt element does not actually increase the territorial depth of the rowhouse,but rather

the sizeand use capabilities of itspublic space. The public space of the existingbuilding type hasbeen reconfigured not only to satisfymy ownagenda, but alsoto increasethe chance that itwill be used.In section,the frontbuilding is taller,reinforcing the inwardfocus of the cluster.Rules of relativeheights of the buildingsare shown in thediagrams. Since the courtis intendedto be a partof the publicspace of theterritory, at leastsome of thetenants should 48 go throughit to gainentry to theirdwelling. If thiswere not the case,it wouldbecome one of the ambiguous,unclaimed spaces like the backyardsof the existingrowhouses. If all of the dwellingsenter from the court,it becomesa verylively space, with the drawbackthat it "kills the street".Ifthe dwellingsof the frontbuilding enter from the street,with the dwellingsof the backbuilding entering from the court,the clustertakes on a "protective"physical diagram like thoseseen in Kyoto.The streethas its frontstoops, but the unitswhich enter from the street arenot reallya partof the clusterterritory. On the otherhand, this is a gooddiagram for the casewhere retail occurs within the building.(figures 3.1, 3.2)

Dependingon howthe territorialstructure of the urbanscale is interpreted,the mainentry to the clustercould come from the streetor the alley.At the scaleof an infilldevelopment, of course,entry from the streetwould be the only option.When more than one bay of rowhousesare aggregated, sharing the samecourt, it inevitably becomes larger and might be splitinto two or moreareas, one being more of a roofterrace, the othermore of an access zone.One area might be lowerthan the other to makea transitiondown to the alley,or higher to get moresun. ACCEGS TCPEG 9TF-leT VEATicA#L ALPy

3.3 Accesstypes 3.4 Parking Fragmentation The eight-foot access zonefound in the existingmodel is maintained.Entry to thecluster fromthe streettakes place here, as well as stairsfor secondmeans of egress,as required. Besidesthis passagebeing narrow, it wouldalso rise four to eight feetto the court,and may havelateral shifts to furtherremove the court from the street,especially where a clusterfaces onto a busycommercial street. Vertical access from the courtto theupper dwelling units occursin the zonebetween thefront and back buildings.The maximum climb from garage to the highest dwellingentry should be limitedby building heightand unit configuration to four floors. (figures3.3, 3.4)

The directionof accessin this modelis differentthan that of theexisting rowhouses. The primarydirection of the cluster, especiallywhen more than one bay hasbeen aggregated, is parallelto the street,which would indicate maintaininga publicness to it.But it is also removed horizontallyand vertically by the narrow passage,which increases the privacy.The primary directionof thedwellings is perpendicularto thecluster direction, making a private move away fromthe moreactive court. As discussed earlier, in the existingprototype, the buildingaccess makesthe privacy, whereasthe dwellings maintain the samedirection as thebuilding acccess. I C-W.,WI4rOr' F'Ae1yWALL4/ , M~.ANI M I AfvFc

I+' mWgIMWA4 FoF- VWELL' 4',M'. -- froIJ4' FAL IA~'I

4 E,6 " 0!A TN.e - I t ^CZ Tor~ PfOSITIO,,' FoP-F2-{UC-

'LIrW M6 Ht Or-IrM$Ty V4^LL. IN ipf-Wc-V 7Xt,

MR :I--2I-

3.5 primarystructure Buildingsystem Conceptually,each cluster consistsof wood buildings, containingthe dwellingunits, betweenmasonry party walls. The accompanying diagrams illustrate the rulesdeveloped for positioningof party walls and egressstairs. The bay projectionon the streetside, not structuralwith respect to theoverall party wall construction, was included to allowa continuity in form and material withthe context,and to providea hard,protective layerbetween the lighter-weightbuildings and the street.In section, there is a concretebase zone including the parkingand lower dwelling levels, a largermiddle zoneofthe lighter-weightconstruction, and the top roofzone. The form of the roofswas derived froma desireto maintainthe mansard form to the street,while using pitched roofs to the inside to shedwater and to reinforcethe inwardfocus of the cluster.(figure 3.5, 3.6)

Thebase/middle/top articulation is carriedout in the streetelevation with the samekinds of elementsfound in the existing context.A systembased on a sixteeninch module(to accomodatemasonry and wood construction) was usedto informthe size andposition of facadeelements. The sixteeninch modulewas brokendown into six-inchand ten-inch bands.Elements of the woodsystem are to be positionedwith their edges one inch inside of oneof the six-inchbands, while elements of the masonrysystem are to beginone inchinside of a ten-inch band. This systemof modularcoordination suggests certain standard dimensionsfor the sizesand placement of material,and allowsone to workvery quicklyover a 6-10-6-10tartan grid. The minimum dimension between elements of the woodsystem is four inches;eight inches in the masonrysystem. Mullion 'A', therefore,occurs as the minimum betweentwo elementsof themasonry system, or whereveran interiorpartition intersects a woodwall between two facade elements. Mullion 'B' is the minimumbetween two elementsof the woodsystem without an intersectingpartition. Mullion 'C' is a "transitional"element of the woodsystem to allowmullions 'A' and 'B' to occurin the same wall. (figure3.6, 3.7) ~ACA~ ~L~~N'\WTS ~ HOAl2.ONTAL :7E 4 P061-lilONG- 12Fnt,

rT Ll -LI-

MfpDLEWINDON C

L20V000iTO

AL.guo ' Idtvlor4 e" tMooLLIO C'

V.Tg-ICAL61 7.c6 4 f'061To70n

reo/A OLaKs 1s1

3.6 Facadeelements 3.7 Facade rules 55 L41T TYP~cs DWELLNbjCr rfs- ru-a ELvA-Tiok VA 4 a OL4 n, Ot

3.14 Unit types 3.15 Zones 3.16 Unit entries DwellingLevel

I utilizedthe conceptof zonesto providea frameworkto informthe positioningof the various spatial elementsof the dwellingunits, while allowinga variety of specific dwelling configurations.The sizes of the zoneswere determinedby studyingtheir capacityfor accomodatingvarious uses, and how they worked withinthe sixteeninch modular system. A livingzone of ninesixteen inch modules (or twelvefeet), and a service/accesszone offour modules wereselected. (figure 3.15) The zonesare positionedwith margins ofthree modules(four feet) betweenthem. The longunits of the front buildingcontain twoliving zonesat the ends,and a service/accesszone in the middle.Units of the backbuildings and shortened unitsin the frontbuildings consist of oneof each zone.The distribution of zones informedwhere the placementof minimal structureof the partywalls would occur. In order to maintainmaximum possibility for lateral connection across party walls within units, this minimal structure wasplaced in the fourfoot margins.These piers can be splitto theoutsides of the marginif necessary.

Territorially,this configuration of zonesallows a varietyof dwelling types. The long units have anelongated access, but their public spaceis rightup front,directly associatedwith the next territory. Theshort units, on theother hand, have a moreabrupt access, but it passesthrough the servicezone first, thus removingthe publicspace from theoutside more. (figure 3.14) The internalaccess of the unitscan reinforce territorialdistance within the unitthrough level changesin the samefloor, and using a secondfloor. In the latter case,a changein direction withthe stair adds more removal. ~EE-

E I

3.9 Bloc a

3.9 Blockalternative 3.10 Block alternative 3.8 Clusterarrangements 58 UrbanTissue Level

Whenconsidering a largerpiece of the built environmentthere is muchmore opportunity to experimentwith different territorial interpretations,andmixing physical diagrams. The issues to exploreare combining clustersof dwellings into larger territories, the positionof the public spaceof thesenew layers,and the character of theaccess to andthrough them.

The seriesof diagramson the followingpages proposes five interpretationsof the territorial structure ofa typical block in the SouthEnd, using the clustersof dwellingsgenerated by this thematicsystem as the basicunit of aggregation.The first column showsthat four bayswas deemedthe maximumfor onecluster, and that, by introducing pedestrian access from the streetto the alley,the clusterscould have their entry from the alley.The second columnof diagramsexplores the joining of twoclusters into a higher-levelterritory. (figure 3.8)

Thefirst blockdiagram is an introvertedscheme, similar to theexisting model except for the useof the clusters.(figure 3.9) Entries to the clustersare from the street.This scheme would be verydense and not allowmuch light into the alley,or useableopen space,so the next interpretationshows the samescheme withseveral bays left out to createpublic open space. (figure3.10) This is a common patternseen in the SouthEnd. In thesefirst two schemesno newteritorial layers have been added to the territorial structure.What territorial distanceis gainedis dueto thephysical diagram of the clustersthemselves. In the nextscheme, an introvertedblock is demonstrated.(figure 3.11) In this case,all of the clustershave their entriesfrom a raisedpedestrian street over the alley. Accessto the pedestrianstreet is 3.11 Block alternative 3.12 Block alternative 3.13 Block alternative throughgaps left in the rowhouseson bothsides of the block.This internalstreet forms the publicspace of a newterritorial level, and one can imagine that, at its endsespecially, clusters mightstart aggregating into larger territories. In deferenceto the"life of the street",the next schemeproposes a mixedterritorial structure with the clusterson oneside of the block enteringfrom the residentialstreet, while the oneson the otherside enterfrom the alley. (figure3.12) Since the"protected" clusters must enter the interiorpedestrian street from the residentialstreet on the left side of the block,the streeton the right side of the block becomesunnecessary. The final interpretationeliminates this street,allowing theinterior clustersto shift and make moreroom in the alley,eliminating the needfor the raised pedestrianstreet above the alley.(figure 3.13)

Concerningthe buildingsystem, the onlyrjew thematic element of thesystem introduced at the level ofurban tissue is the raisedpedesetrian street, which is treatedas anextension of the baseelement of the buildingsystem. Other adjustments to the systemfor specialsite conditionswould be treated on anindividual basis. Axonometricof court Chapter4: the Cluster

The intentionof the projectionat the level of a clusterof dwellingswas to see howthe thematicsystem might work as an infill approachwithin theexisting rowhouse fabric in the SouthEnd. A three-baycluster was selected, with eleven units. Though the siteis generic,it wasgiven a locationon the Northwestside of a residentialblock. The openspace moves throughthe clusterin a diagonal,towards the South.The first portionof the publicspace of the clusteris the vestibule/mailroom at the top of the stoop,four feet above the levelof the sidewalk.The centralcourt is primarilygiven to access,with the publicstairs and all of the entries tounits offof it.I decidedto haveall ofthe dwelling units enter fromthe courtso as not to compromisethe sense ofa commoninner focus. Five of thenine units adjacentto the street havetheir public spaces facing out to thestreet, and I felt thatthis, combined with the largecommon stoop would keep thestreet facadelively. The next courtis fourfeet below the centralone - backat streetlevel, but still a full storyabove the alley.This courtis more exposedto the sun, and is conceivedas a common areafor smallvegetable plots and barbeques.Stairs downfrom this levellead tobicycle storage, trash cans,and the garage. //jJ /

'5

L

Basement Firstfloor [71

Secondfloor Third floor Zj\

Fourthfloor Elevation 67 Section through upper court Sectionthrough lower court 69 Chapter5: the UrbanTissue

Todiscover how my thematic system could work at the urbantissue level, I choseto focuson an actualsite in the SouthEnd - thatof the Cathedralhousing project described earlier. It is largeenough to beginto seethe systemas a tissue,and yet has someirregularities which testedits abilityto adaptto localconditions, like any type can. The siteis boundedby the large urbanarteries of Washingtonand Harrison Avenues, and by Monsignor Reynolds Way and

EastBrookline. The residential streets of EastCanton, East Dedham, and Plympton usedto cutthrough the site untilthe housingproject was developed. In the immediatevicinity of the site are FranklinSquare across East Brookline, the BlackstoneCommunity School across Washington,Holy Cross Cathedralacross Monseignor Reynolds, and vacant lots and mostly industrialdevelopment across Harrison.

Thebuildings of the Cathedralhousing project range from three stories high at the periphery, to tenstories in the center.Many of the units,including all of thosein the tallestbuildings, havebeen abandoned. There are currently plansto renovatemany of theunits, which would certainlybe a challengingdesign problem, but,since my agendawas very specificand exploratory,my attitudetoward the existing buildingsand streetsof thehousing project was to ignorethem.

Theseries of diagramsshown gives four interpretationsof theterritorial structure of the site. The openside of eachmass of buildingsrepresents the entryside ofthe clustersin that 5.15.

5.25.

71 mass.In eachcase, because of the publicnessof Washingtonand Harrison, I chose to orient the buildingswhich are adjacent to themtoward the street.Commercial use would occur at streetlevel, with the dwellingunits havingaccess from eitherthe street,or fromthe block

interior. (figure5.1)

The first alternativeis extroverted,extending the old streetsthrough the siteagain, and proposingclusters with their entries from the streets.In the next scheme,the blockshave becomeintroverted, adding a newterritorial level. Also, the pedestrianaccess to the block interiors are coordinatedto form a continuouspedestrian path across the blocksat approximatelymidpoint. The third interpretationexhibits the sameorientation of the clusters, but eliminatesone street, replacing its on-streetparking with a parkinglot at the blockedge. Thiscreates a largeopen space in the centerof the site andallows two rowsof clustersto shift.Vehicular access for residentsis stillthrough the alley, but visitors park in thelot and walk acrosswhat is nowthe front yard of a largersuper-block territory. Territorially, this is similarto the existingmodels of UnionPark and WorcesterSquare, with the streetremoved. The triangularpiece of the site is alsogiven its own largeropen space, with additional parking alongthe extensionof PlymptonStreet. The final alternative uses a mixedterritorial structure, withthe outermost clusters having access from the street,and the innerrow of clustershaving accessfrom the pedestrianstreet over the alley.An openspace is leftin approximatelythe sameplace as the last scheme,but it no longeracts as a publicspace for a super-block becauseaccess to the clustersis not madethrough this space.Thus it belongs to thegeneral public.

Tostudy the potentialof the thematicsystem in moredepth, I choseto elaborateon the third scheme- the mostintroverted of the four.The site plandemonstrates a deploymentof the primarysupport and the locationof some non-thematicelements. Though there was no I I*I I I L~~i) L>>91 I

Site deployment I_(r~ 0 - ii ii 11 specificprogram for thisprojection thesewould be larger non-residentialfunctions. One modificationI made to the originaldiagram is thatI retainedthe continuouspedestrian path acrossthe siteintroduced in figure5.2. This lessens the importanceof the inner open space in thatit is nowpossible to enterinto some the of clusters without passingthrough it, but I felt thatthe mid-blockconnection to FranklinSquare was desireable.

Thesite detaillooks at an intersectionbetween the pedestrianalley and a publicvehicular street.These areas would be nodesof activity- a block-sized"stoop" - withstair and elevator accesto the parkinglevel, and smallretail functions such as laundry,grocery, or daycare (at the blockinterior). 0 10 76 Implications Thisthesis came about first as a desireto reacha reasonableunderstanding of the principlesat work in the Japanesebuilt environmentwhich lead to an introverted territorialstructure, and then an attemptto introducesome of them into another context.The premisewas that principlesof territorialstructure are universaland, whilemuch is culturally-determined,I have shown that a lot of it is generalizable. Oncegeneralized it can be projectedinto anothercontext. Having donethat, it is importantto ask whatthe implicationsare of sucha proposition.

The increasedterritorial distance created by my proposedthematic system brings to mindseveral issues which shouldbe addressed.One concerns the notionof territorial depth.The projections the of systemhave demonstrated the potentialfor new layers of territoryat several scales.I chose to pursuethese in order to demonstratethe system'spotential. However this is notto saythat one couldgo on forever.In reality, the degreeof communal space projectedfor any intervention would vary dependingon the completenessof informationavailable about the end users. Speculative residentialdevelopments might be likely to makemore modest increasesin territorialdistance, whereas developments with specificknown users could tailor the physicalconfiguration of the systemto anintended territorial structure. While thereis great physicalvariety in the existingrowhouse fabric of the SouthEnd, this flexibilityof territorialdepth is somethingthat is not found.

Anotherissue related to the courtconcerns its use. It is not like the okuniwaof the machiyain that it is publicspace, moved through and inhabitedby the tenantsand their visitorsdaily. The okuniwa, rather,is a spatialvoid, not to be entered,but reflectedupon fromwithout. The difference in use is expressedby the difference betweenthe diagramsin figures1.4 and 1.5. On the other hand, the court is also not like the public space of an existing South End rowhousebecause it is territorially removedfrom the street realm, has more useable dimensionsand light than the rowhousestairwell, and is shared by severaldwelling units.

Another important implication of introducing an introverted territorial structure in the South End is the character of the street. The most introvertedinterventions of the systempose the problemof a deadenedstreet facade. Where this conflictswith a more lively context, it can be mitigatedby utilizingdwelling entries from the street, or retailspace at the street level - both commondevices currently in use.

Both the South End and Kyoto havecharacteristics unique from each other and worthwhileon their own terms. The machiya offers a multi-layeredretreat to an inner realm, whereasthe South End presentsa sturdy permanencefrom which to look out at the world. What I have proposedis neither purelyof Kyoto,nor purely of the South End. Rather, it attemptsto utilize some of strong qualitiesof both in a hybrid,which can then be deployedwithin a range of territorial intentions.

Appendix Bibliography

Allinson,Gary. "Japanese Urban Society and its CulturalContext." in The City in Cultural Context.Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1984.

Ashihara,Yoshinobu. The Aesthetic Townscape. Cambridge: The MITPress, 1983.

Bognar,Botund. Contemporary Japanese Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,1985.

------. "Typologyof SpaceConstruction in ContemporaryJapanese Architecture". Process Architecture,no. 25, 1981.

Boston,City of. South End: District Profile and Proposed1979-1981 Neighborhood ImprovementProgram. 1979.

Brady,Alphonse. Design from the Outside-In:Housing Strategy Using Street Facades in RowhouseDwelling Types as a Catalystfor NeighborhoodDevelopment. Cambridge: MIT. M.Arch.thesis, 1978. (Habraken, adviser)

Caminos,Horacio, et al. UrbanDwelling Environments: An ElementarySurvey of Settlements forthe Studyof DesignDeterminants. Cambridge: The MIT Press, MIT Report no. 16,1969.

Cavanaugh,Kevin. Row House Sketchbook.Cambridge: MIT. M.Arch.thesis, 1978. (Lyndon,adviser)

Chastain,Tom. Explorations of CollectiveForm: A DesignVocabulary Using Directional Village Formsas References.Cambridge: MIT. M.Arch. thesis, 1982. (Smith, adviser)

Cotaras,George. Nihon no Minka:Folkhouses of Japan.Tokyo Instituteof Technology, GraduateSchool of Architecture,thesis. March, 1983.

Durston,Diane. Kyoto: Seven Ways to the Heartof the City.Kyoto, Japan:

Ellis, Elizabeth.The CollectiveHouse: An Open Frameworkin a Row HouseContext. Cambridge:MIT. M.Arch. thesis, 1978. (Slattery, adviser) Engel,Heinrich. The JapaneseHouse: A Traditionfor ContemDoraryArchitecture. Tokyo: CharlesE. Tutle Company, 1964.

Fawcett,Chris. The NewJapanese House: Ritual and Anti-Ritual Patterns of Dwelling.New York:Harper and Row, 1980.

Habraken,N. John."The Control of Complexity"in Places. vol.4, no.2.

------."Notes on Hierarchiesin Form".working paper; January, 1984.

------et al.- TheGrunsfeld Variations: A Reporton the ThematicDevelopment of an Urban Tissue. Laboratoryof Architectureand Urban Planning, MIT, 1981.

Higuchi,Tadahiko. The Visualand Spatial Structure of Landscapes.Cambridge: The MIT Press,1983.

Hille,Tom. Understandingand TransformingWhat's There: A Look at the FormalRule Structureof the ResidentialFacade Zone in VictorianSan Francisco. Cambridge: MIT. M.Arch. thesis,1982. (Habraken, adviser)

Inoue,Mitsuo. Space in JapaneseArchitecture. Tokyo: Weatherhill, 1985.

Ito,Teiji, et al. Katsura.Tokyo: Shinkenchiku-Sha, 1983.

Maki,Fumihiko. "Japanese City Spaces and the Conceptof Oku."The Japan Architect. (May, 1979)

Nitschke,Gunter. "'MA': The Japanese Sense of Place."Architectural Design. (March, 1966)

Okawa,Naomi. Edo Architecture: Katsura and Nikko. Tokyo: Weatherhill, 1975.

Plutschow,Herbert E. HistoricalKvoto. Tokyo: The Japan Times Ltd., 1983.

Rappoport,Amos. "Culture and Urban Order." in TheCity in CulturalContext.

Seitz, PatriciaA. Machi. Machinami.Machiya. Cambridge: MIT. M.Arch.thesis, 1982. (Domeyko,adviser) Smith,Margaret Supplee. Between Cityand Suburb: Architecture and PLanningin Boston's SouthEnd. Brown University, Ph. D., Architecture, 1976.

Stone,Donn. "Japan - A Profilein Transition."in ProcessArchitecture, no. 25. (1981)

------, et al. "JapaneseHome in Transition";Now in Ja2an. no.28; Feb., 1979.

Tange,Kenzo, ed., Nihon no ToshiKukan.

Thiel,Philip, "An Experimentin SpaceNotation" Architectural Review, May, 1962.

------, "ProcessionalArchitecture", AIA Journal, February, 1964.

Tingey,William R. "ThePrinciple Elements of MachiyaDesign", in ProcessArchitecture, no. 25. (1981)

Ueda,Atsushi. Kyo Machiya: Komyuniti Kenkyu. Tokyo: Kashimashuppan kai; 1976.

Vernez-Moudon,Anne. "Design Strategies for the Reuse ofa 19th CenturyResidential Block",Housing and SettlementDesign Series, vol. 34, Laboratoryof Architectureand Planning,MIT.

Walker,Lester. American Shelter: An IllustratedEncyclopedia of the AmericanHome. Woodstock,NY: The Overlook Press, 1981.

Woodbridge,Sally. "P/A Portfolio:Japanese Design", Progresive Architecture, October, 1987.

------"UrbanHelix: The Spiral in Tokyoby Maki and Associates", Progressive Architecture, April,1986. End Notes 15 Seitz,p. 29 16 Maki,p. 62

17 Engel,p. 290

18 Durston,p. 56 Preface:Territory 19 Engel,p. 290 1 Engel,p. 278 20 Engel,p. 279 2 Engel,p. 278 21 Engel,p. 290 3 Smith,p. 1 Chapter2: the SouthEnd Chapter1: Kyoto

Smith,p. 22 4 Maki,p. 53 Smith,33 5 Maki,p. 58- 59 Smith, 6 Inoue,145 - 147 32 Boston,3 7 Tange,et al,p. 47- 63

8 Inoue,p.152 Boston,3 Smith,43 9 Tingey,p. 88 Smith,43 10 Mimura,p. 5 Seitz,73 11 Tingey,p. 88

Habraken,et al,p. 2 12 Durston,p. 4

13 Durston,p. 4

14 Durston,p. 3