New (Er) Urbanism

Home , Manhattantown, Narkomfin Building, Robert Taylor Homes

New(er) Urbanism

A Thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Architecture

In the School of Architecture and Interior Design

In the College of Design Architecture Art and Planning

By Quinn Kummer BS Arch, University of Cincinnati

May 2011 abstract

Currently, federal urban policy is focused on the deconcentration of poverty, with the implicit notion that mixed-income living may allow upward mobility for the urban poor. A crucial assumption behind this mixed-income strategy is that social ties will form across socioeconomic lines. The New Urbanist theory that guides housing design today espouses an ‘architecture of engagement’ that supports a sense of ‘community,’ but the requisite cross-cultural interaction remains to be seen. Through an analysis of theoretical and empirical works from the environmental-behavioral field, I suggest that building-scale design strategies may, in fact, encourage the formation of cross-cultural social ties. Specifically, I propose a reconfiguration of traditional circulation and threshold conditions on an existing rowhouse development in Cincinnati, the Glencoe Place apartments. These dwellings provide an ideal backdrop for innovative architectural strategies, because they represent, on multiple levels, a ‘failed’ housing strategy.

CONTENTS

01 Introduction 1 02 The Social History of Public Housing 9 Early Public Housing 10 Modernism 11 Postmodernism 15 Public Housing Today 17 03 The Case for Mixed Income Communities 21 04 The Case for Traditional Neighborhood Design 31 05 The Case for Defensible Space 39 06 Contemporary Socio-Spatial Theories 49 07 Precedents 57 Weinstein Copeland Architects 60 Jean Renaudie 66 Giancarlo De Carlo 72 Moisei Ginzburg 78 08 Project Site 87 History 88 Physical Context 94 Current Conditions 96 Social Context 100

09 New(er) Urbanism 103

iv Image Credits 01 Koyaanisqatsi: Life Out of Balance

02 Planning for .Disaster: DVD. Directed How Natural by Godfrey and Man-madeReggio. Los Disasters Angeles: ShapeMGM, 1983.the Built Environment 04 Ramroth, William G. . Kaplan Publishing, 2007. 166. Timeline Images in chronological order: .

1800s Riis, Jacob. (1890). Hells Kitchen and Sebastopol From Wikipedia. JPG, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jacob_Riis_-_Hells_Kitchen_ and_Sebastopol_-_photograph_.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011). 1898 Photograph of EbenezerToward Howard. New Accessed Towns forMay, America 17 2011. http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ebenezer_Howard.jpg 1924 Stein, Clarence. (1924). . Cambridge: The MIT Press. 1925 http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/2005/05/rein vent- ing_pub.html (accessed May 17, 2011). 1928 http://www.memo.fr/Media/Le_Corbusier.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011). 1929 (left) Held, Louis. (1919). Portrait of Walter Gropius.Modernity From and Wikipe Hous- - ingdia. JPG, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WalterGropius-1919.jpg (accessed May 17,Constructivist 2011) (right) Architecture Rowe, Peter in the G. USSR. . Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993. Fig. 138. 1932 Kopp, Anatole. London: Acad- emy Editions, 1985. p 71. 1933 Goldensky, Elias. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 1933. From Wikipedia. JPG, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FDR_in_1933.jpgCreating Defensible Space (accessed May 17, 2011). 1937 Newman, Oscar. . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996. Fig IV-6. 1949 Levittown, Pennsylvania. From The Urban Times. JPG, http://static. theurbn.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/09/LevittownPennsylvania. jpg (accessedTeam 10 May 1953-81: 17, 2011). In Search of a Utopia of the Present 1953 Smithson, Alison and Peter. Ideogram of a net of human relations. From , edited by Max Risselada and Dirk van den Heuvel. Rotterdam: NAi, 2005. p 244. 1961 From BloombergCreating Businessweek. Defensible JPG, Space http://images.businessweek. com/mz/04/33/0433_12innova.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011). 1972 Newman, Oscar. Planning for Disaster:. HowWashington, Natural andD.C.: Man- U.S. madeDepartment Disasters of HousingShape the and Built Urban Environment Development, 1996. Fig I-9. 1972 Ramroth, William G. . Kaplan Publishing, 2007. 166. 1979 From Coastal Family Living. JPG, http://coastalfamilyliving.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/Seaside-FL.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011). 1987 http://www.nndb.com/people/478/000062292/w-wilson-sm.jpgCreating Defensible Space (accessed May 17, 2011). 1987 Newman, Oscar. . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996. Fig IV-10.

v 1996 From Zillow Blog. JPG, http://www.zillow.com/blog/mortgage / files/2010/01/hud_logo.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011). 1996 http://i.bnet.com/blogs/henry-cisneros-lower-res-200x300.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011). 1999 Courtesy Bing Maps. http://www.bing.com/maps (accessed May 17, 05 2011).

06 Rankin, Bill. Flavors of Blur. 2009. JPG, http://www.radicalcartography.net/chica- godots_income_big.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011). 07 Rankin, Bill. A Taxonomy of Transitions. 2009. JPG, http://www.radicalcartography.net/chicagodots_race_big.jpg (accessedEnvironment May 17, 2011). and Planning A Illustration based on Kleit, Rachel G. “HOPE VI New Communities: Neighborhood 08 RobertRelationships Moses and in Mixed-Income the modern city Housing.” : the transformation of New York. 37, no. 8 (2007): 1413-1441. Fig. 1. 09 Robert Moses and the modern city : the transformation of New York edited by Hil- ary Ballon and Kenneth T. Jackson. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2007. p 128. 12 . edited by Hil- ary Ballon and Kenneth T. Jackson. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2007. p 262. Original Image from Wikipedia. JPG,http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ 13 commons/thumb/b/b9/Pruitt-igoeUSGS02.jpg/800px-Pruitt-igoeUSGS02.jpgCreating Defensible Space (accessed May 17, 2011). 14 Newman, Oscar. Defensible space: Crime Prevention. Washington, through D.C.: Urban U.S. Department Design. of Housing and Urban Development, 1996. Fig I-9. 18 Newman, Oscar. The Social Logic of Space New York: Macmillan, 1972. Fig. 150. 20 Hillier, Bill, and Julienne Hanson. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Fig. 121. Jowers, James. New York Public Library. Rochester: George Eastman House Col- 21-25lection, 1967. From Flickr. JPG, http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2987740376_ 26 d219204a1c_o.jpgA Right(accessed to Difference: May 17, 2011). The Architecture of Jean Renaudie Images courtesy of Weinstein Copeland Architects, Seattle. 27 Scalbert, Irénée. A Right to Difference: The Architecture of Jean Renaudie. London: Architectural Association, 2004. p 110. 28 Scalbert, Irénée. A Right to Difference: The Architecture of Jean Renaudie. London: Architectural Association, 2004. p 151. 29 TeamScalbert, 10 1953-81:Irénée. In Search of a Utopia of the Present . London: Architectural Association, 2004. p 153. 30-31 Team 10 1953-81: In Search of a Utopia of the Present, edited by Max Risselada and Dirk van den Heuvel, 220-224. Rotterdam: NAi, 2005. p 220 32 Team 10 1953-81: In Search of a Utopia of the Present , edited by Max Risselada and Dirk van den Heuvel, 220-224. Rotterdam: NAi, 2005. p 223. 33 Constructivist Architecture in the USSR., edited by Max Risselada and Dirk van den Heuvel, 220-224. Rotterdam: NAi, 2005. p. 221. 35-37 Kopp, Anatole. Constructivist Architecture in the USSR.London: Academy Editions, 1985. p 67. 38 Kopp, Anatole.Constructivist Architecture in the USSR. London: Academy Edi- tions, 1985. p 73. 42 Kopp, Anatole. Glencoe Place:London: Mount Auburn Academy Neighbor Editions, 1985. p 71. Cincinnati Dept. of Urban Development.

vi hood Development Program 43 Glencoe Place General Plan . Cincinnati: Cincinnati Dept. of Urban Development, n.d. 44 Cincinnati City Planning Commission. . Cincinnati, 1964. (top 3) Courtesy Google Maps http://maps.google.com (accessed May 17, 2011) 51 and (bottom) Courtesy Bing Maps http://www.bing.com/maps (accessed May 17, 2011). From ArchDaily. JPG, http://cdn.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/1292513155-03.jpg (accessed May 17, 2011).

vii 01 introduction

Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of Bal- anceOne of the most enduring images of American public housing comes from director Godfrey Reggio’s 1982 film, . In a sequence entitled “Pruitt-Igoe,” a grave, foreboding score by Philip Glass sets the tone as the camera pans through various urban scenes, beginning with the canyons of Manhattan’s financial district. Af- ter briefly visiting a block of faceless, dilapidated tenements, the viewer is once again whisked away to an eerily abandoned urban setting. As the musical accompaniment turns a shade darker, the camera reveals various signs of urban decay: a rubble strewn playground, a broken streetlamp swaying gently in the breeze. The strings enter, then slowly languish in a descending minor scale.

1 Suddenly, the music becomes urgent and violent. The woodwinds Today, American public housing bears little resemblance to its be- and the strings join in tumultuous arpeggios, punctuated by a strident hemoth ancestors. As outlined by a group called the New Urbanists, trumpet call. The viewer is once again transplanted, now to the skies current design guidelines eschew the massive scale and alien form of above a seemingly endless field of identical 11-storey apartment build- Modernist housing schemes in favor of a more traditional urban mod- ings. As the tempestuous score rages on in the background, the camera el. By rebuilding American inner cities with historically-flavored row- pans quickly through the towers, revealing monotonous brick walls and houses and other low-riseKoyaanisqatsi: housing Lifetypologies, out of Balance the New Urbanists seek row upon row of broken windows. There is clearly something sinister to expunge the stigmatized image of mid-century public housing so elo- about this place. quently portrayed in . While they have As the scene unfolds, the camera settles on a wide-angle shot of a been largely successful in this endeavor, it seems that the New Urban- single building. A white cloud escapes from the lower windows, and ists have also abandoned the socially-transformative ideals of Modernist soon the mammoth structure begins to collapse upon itself. The build- architecture in their retreat towards traditional neighborhood design. ings that seemed so menacing seconds earlier are now reduced to a This thesis seeks to reintroduce some of the social aspirations that seem fleeting cloud of dust. to have left public housing discourse in recent years. This is St. Louis’s Pruitt-Igoe housing project, one of the largest and In order to establish a contemporary social agenda for public hous- most notorious of its kind in American history. Completed in 1956, this ing, one must first consider how the program has changed over the years. development was once hailed as a paragon of Modernist architecture. The first section of this thesis thus explores the history of American pub- Project architect Minoru Yamasaki envisioned the pristine, massive tow- lic housing and its various social goals. This historical account reveals ers as “vertical neighborhoods” in which community life would thrive an interesting trend in federal urban policy towards mixed-income pub- along deep hallways or “galleries” (Von Hoffman, 433) at each level. The lic housing. Antithetical to previous models of urban development, this massive scale and hyper-rational layout of the complex was an idealistic mixed-income paradigm suggests that a diverse socio-economic milieu attempt to bring adequate housing to the greatest possible number of may allow upward mobility for the urban poor. Rather than to challenge people. Clearly, behind the radical image of these towers was an equally this assumption (as indeed many have), this thesis embraces it, and pos- radical social agenda. its that a contemporary agenda for public housing may be interpolated Before long, however, Pruitt-Igoe fell into a deplorable state of disre- from this mixed-income model. pair, marred by extreme poverty, crime, and vandalism. The demolition, The next section thus probes at the sociological underpinnings be- immortalized in Reggio’s film, occurred on July 15, 1972, a mere 16 years hind the mixed-income development model. A review of available theo- after the project was completed. Architectural theorist Charles Jencks retical and empirical research suggests that socioeconomic diversity is 01 Scenes of Pruitt- would famously conclude that “modern architecture died” (Jencks 1977, by no means a panacea for the urban poor. Most of the hypothetical so- Igoe from the film Koyaanisqatsi: an 9) at this exact moment, as the utopian ideals imbued in Pruitt-Igoe were cial benefits of income-mixing require a certain degree of cross-cultural enduring image of a failed literally scrapped. For many, the remarkable rate of decline at Pruitt-Ig- social interaction. In other words, a low-income household has little to social and architectural oe and other high-rise public housing projects across the country served gain from a nearby middle-income household if there is no contact be- ideology. as a glaring indication of a failed social and architectural ideology. tween the two. The research to date finds that diverse socioeconomic groups tend to keep to themselves within mixed-income communities.

2 3 It stands to reason, then, that the social benefits of income-mixing are largely unrealized due to a lack of interaction among residents. This thesis thus seeks to rethink the design of mixed-income public housing with an explicit emphasis on increased resident interaction. In order to rethink the design of public housing, one must first consider the status quo. As the historical account within this thesis will attest, the trend towards mixed-income defensibledevelopment space is not the only ideological thread that guides housing design today. In fact, the principles of traditional neighborhood design and remain highly influential, each officially recognized by federal housing design guidelines. Springing from a Postmodern backlash against mid-century urbanism, these theories were cultivated in the 1960s and 1970s. While there are valuable insights to be gleaned from each line of thought, the current income-mixing agenda requiresdefensible a new space perspective in housing design. Therefore, chapters 4 and 5 critically examine the tenets of traditional neighborhood design and , respectively. Rather than to throw these theories out altogether, these chapters weigh the sociological implications of each. After sifting through today’s well-established design ideologies, it then seems pertinent to consider recent developments in the environmental-behavioral field. In recent years, designers and theorists have developed new understandings regarding environmental design and its social implications. Chapter 6 will explore some of the contemporary socio-spatial theories that seem most applicable to the issue at hand. Much of the research within this section identifies the threshold as the operative architectural device that mediates diverse social realms. As this thesis seeks to encourage interaction between diverse households, it is now evident that the threshold, at its various scales, acquires a newfound significance. Along with the insights from the previous chapters, these contemporary theories help to inform the design process developed within this thesis. Before delving into a practical design exercise, it is first useful to consider a few applicable architectural precedents. Throughout recent history, several architects have approached housing design with an ex- pressed emphasis on social interaction. Chapter 7 explores four of these projects and seeks to objectively evaluate each. By indentifying venues for social interaction and their relative location, it is possible to analyze 02 Pruitt-Igoe demolition, July 15, 1972. The utopian the probability and nature of social interaction within each environ- ideals of Modernist ment. Along with the theoretical works discussed thus far, the success- architecture are literally ful architectural strategies observed in this section help to create a de- scrapped. sign methodology for practical application.

4 5 Before salient findings from the research may be applied to a practical design, it is first necessary to chose an appropriate building site. Chapter 8 introduces the chosen location, the Glencoeth Place Apartments in Mount Auburn, Cincinnati. This collection of 19 -century rowhouses serves as a challenging yet apt backdrop for an architectural intervention. Now abandoned, Glencoe Place has served as a low-income housing development in the past. A recurring history of social decline suggests that the otherwise sturdy rowhouses on site may be lacking in many respects. In light of the research conducted thus far, this section will critically examine the existing housing on site, and identify some of the shortcomings that may require adjustment. The ninth and final chapter of this thesis serves to summarize the principal findings from the research and to apply them to a practical design. Through a series of architectural interventions, the Glencoe Place Apartments are redeveloped into a socially-engaged, mixed-income public housing development. Precedents and theoretical concepts are synthesized into a New(er) Urbanism that promotes new opportunities for social interaction. At multiple scales, threshold conditions are reconfigured at the Glencoe Place Apartments, promoting a more nuanced boundary between private and public spaces. Though many of the design considerations are tempered by specific site considerations, the resulting New(er) Urbanist scheme may serve as a model for future mixed-income public housing projects.

03 City West, Cincinnati: Today, American public housing bears little resemblance to its Modernist ancestors.

6 7 02 the Social History of Public Housing

From its inception, public housing has always been intrinsically linked to social theory. By studying and interpreting society, architects and policymakers have long sought an understanding of urban poverty and its spatial implications. Public housing has thus emerged in various forms throughout history as an environmental solution to the social pathologies ascribed to the urban poor. Consequently, public housing ideology has often carried an air of environmental determinism, or “a belief that an ideal or improved residential environment will better the behavior as well as the condition of its inhabitants” (von Hoffman 1996, 423-424). In many ways, this notion of environmental determinism per- sists to this day. A look at the history of public housing reveals that accepted architectural models tend to reflect the prevailing social values of the time. In order to best understand contemporary housing, it is essential to consider how these shifting values have shaped, and continue to shape the public housing program in the United States.

9 Early Public Housing Consistent with Howard’s model, the first realized examples of public housing were located within swaths of green space, far from the Before there was public housing, there were slums. The rapid ur- squalor of the urban center. Architecturally, early public housing was banization following the Industrial Revolution brought with it an acute often indistinguishable from other housing. Characteristically low- housing shortage in American cities. Fueled by a lack of funds and a density, these projects were often detached, single-family residences or desire to live near industrial centers, increasing numbers of urban immi- low-rise ‘garden-style’ apartments. As these early projects were exclu- grants found residence in grossly overcrowded, precariously built slum sively funded by local philanthropists and social reformers, they were settlements. These areas were characterized by incredibly dense config- typically small-scale and community based. urations of tenement or rowhouse dwellings, amounting to a “wholesale Though various philanthropiesth wouldth create a modest stock of so- superimposition of sub-human living conditions” (Frampton 1975, 24). cial housing in the late 19 and early 20 centuries, federally funded To many, the sordid image of these informal settlements was a clear public housing did not appear until 1933, as part of Franklin D. Roos- indication of social pathology. Indeed, social reformers of the time evelt’s Public Works Administration. While this legislation was origi- “firmly believed that the slums of the city were a malevolent environ- nally conceived as a means to employ idle workers, the federal government that threatened the safety, health, and morals of the poor who in- ment would commit in earnest to a public housing program with the habited them” (von Hoffman 1996, 424). Interestingly, the etymology of Wagner-Steagall Housing Act of 1937. Consistent with earlier forms of the word ‘slum’ suggests that the term has always denoted moral deg- social housing, projects built under this legislation strove to “create an radation. Beforeth ‘slum’ acquired its spatial implications, it was used in environment antithetical to the urban slum” (von Hoffman 1996, 426). the early 19 century to describe ‘racket’ or ‘criminal trade’ (Davis 2007, Though this was originally achieved through traditional architectural 21). The notion that ‘slum’ became a derogatory term for both place and styling, designers and policymakers would become increasingly influ- action underscores the perceived link between environment and behav- enced by the European avant-garde, who offered a radical departure ior held by society at this time. from urban squalor. The urban slum has thus been the polemical target of public housing Modernism advocates from its inception. Early housing designers looked to Ebene- The definition of the street which has held good up to the present day is ‘a road- zer Howard, who promoted his Garden City model as a “panacea for all way that is usually bordered by pavements, narrow or wide as the case may 04 Timeline showing be.’ Rising straight up from it are walls of houses, which when seen against significant events in our social and economic ills” (Frampton 1975, 24). In essence, Howard the sky-line present a grotesquely jagged silhouette of gables, attics and American public housing proposed that the central business district of cities be circumscribed by zinc chimneys. At the very bottom of this scenic railway lies the street, and the ideological undeveloped, arable land. Most of the urban population would reside in threads involved. small, self-contained, satellite communities connected to the central city by radial boulevards. Modernism Development begins in Sunnyside Gardens Industrial Revolution causes rapid in Queens, New York. The urbanization. High-density slums project is an early example of the develop near manufacturing centers in garden apartment. Northeastern urban areas. IDEOLOGY 1800s 1898 1924 1925 1928

Ebenezer Howard publishes Garden Cities Le Corbusier proposes Plan Voisin for Paris, CIAM (International Congresses of Modern PRACTICE of To-Morrow, encouraging a suburban advocating widespread demolition of original Architecture) founded by Le Corbusier, origi- model for urban development, away from the urban fabric for high-speed automobile thor- nally conceived as an instrument of propaganda social ills of the industrialized city center oughfares and high-rise towers to advance developing European avant-garde architectural theory. Garden City Movement

10 11 plunged in eternal twilight. The sky is a remote hope far, far above it. The street is no more than a trench, a deep cleft, a narrow passage. And although we have been accustomed to it for more than a thousand years, our hearts are always (Rowe 1993, 48). By abstracting the subject of theirexistenzminimum design into an ide- oppressed by the constriction of its enclosing walls… It is the well-trodden path of the eternal pedestrian, a relic of the centuries, a dislocated organ that can alized, platonic figure, Modernists were able to develop universal stan- no longer function. The street wears us out. And when all is said and done we dards of design. They explored the concept of , or have to admit it disgusts us. Then why does it still exist? (Le Corbusier 1946). minimum subsistence dwelling, in an effort to maximize efficiency and affordability. These minimal dwelling units were then formulaicallyZeilenbau arranged to maximize hygiene and constructability. One result from this hyper-ra- The above quote from Le Corbusier illustrates the extreme distaste tional approach to site planning was the barracks-style (line for traditional urban form held by the European avant-garde. This dys- building), which would greatly influence American public housing. The topian portrayal of the traditional street, as a morally and physically op- most influential product of CIAM’s urban discourse, however, was the pressive environment, resonates with the prevailing conception of the advocacy for the high-rise apartment tower. This building type repre- American slum. It also indicates an animosity towards traditional ar- sented the logical culmination of scientific site planning. CIAM member chitectural features (gables, chimneys, etc.), which Modernist architects Walter Gropius made the most compelling argument for high-rise liv- would render obsolete through new building methods. ing, citing “the biologically important advantages of more sun and light, Like Ebenezer Howard and his followers, Le Corbusier and other larger distances between buildings, and the possibility of providing Modernist architects looked to reform the unsavory traditional city extensive, connected parks and play areas between the blocks” (Mum- through radical urban design strategies. In 1928, Le Corbusier organized ford 2000, 38). This fateful formula would create the paradigm for the the first meeting of the Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne isolated, high-rise housing project that “for better or worse, gave public (CIAM), or the International Congress for Modern Architecture. In the housing its distinctive image” (von Hoffman 1996, 426). following decades, the group would define “a new and perhaps overly In the United States, Modernist theories of urbanism were realized ambitious socially transformative role for architects and architecture through the Housing Act of 1949, which paved the way for the whole- by combining certain design strategies with a passionately held convic- sale demolition of urban slums and their subsequent redevelopment. tion that architecture should serve the many and not the few” (Mumford Based loosely on Modernist theory, the resulting ‘urban renewal’ pro- 2000, 4-5). grams gave housing reformers and real estate developers an opportu- Though the Modernists had their aesthetic proclivities, their urban nity to abolish the urban slum on a grand scale. Of the thousands of design discourse was firmly grounded in positivist science. Inspired projects built under this legislation, the vast majority were designed at by Frederick Winslow Taylor’s methods of scientific management (Tay- a human scale, rarely exceeding three stories in height. Nonetheless, lorism), Modernists believed that “living could now be studied in terms a handful of conspicuous “high-rise projects came to dominate the im- of population norms, means, and other measures of central tendency” Moisei Ginzburg’s Narkomfin Building completed as The City of Yonkers Municipal Housing the first realized social condenser, a housing type meant Authority opens Mullford Gardens. Comprising to socialize its inhabitants by bringing several lifestyle Construction begins on Levittown, New York. 550-units across 17 buildings, the complex typi- activities into communal spaces. Often cited as the first mass-produced suburb, fies the isolated, barracks-style housing prevalent Levittown sets a new paradigm for suburban in the 1940s and 1950s. living in the United States.

1929 1932 1933-1938 1937 1949 1953

At CIAM 2, Walter Gropius provides the definitive Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Younger attendees of the CIAM IX conference argument for high-rise housing, citing the advantages New Deal spurs the first fed- in Aix-en-Provence form Team 10, offering of increased sunlight and recreation space. erally mandated public housing a loosely sociological critique of Modernist program in the United States. architecture.

Modernism Garden City Movement

12 13 Postmodernism age of American public housing” (von Hoffman 1996, 431). Due to their stark appearance and massive scale, Modernist-inspired projects such as St. Louis’s Pruitt-Igoe and Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes became the As the most visible symbols of public housing fell into severe dis- stereotypical representation of American public housing. repair, a growing number of critics began to question both the public In addition to the physical changes to housing design during the housing program and its underlying Modernist doctrine. One of the 1950s and 1960s, various structural issues would drastically shape the most outspoken critics to emerge from thisThe backlash Death wasand LifeJane of Jacobs, Great public housing program. The proliferation of the automobile and the whoAmerican decried Cities, the extensive urban renewal taking place in Robert Mo- standardization of building methods brought unprecedented growth to ses-era New York City. In her seminal work American suburbs. The suburban outmigration of American families Jacobs uncovered the rich social life flourishing in her was systematically denied to African Americans, however, as the critical native Greenwich Village. Her call for social and architectural diversity Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans were explicitly withheld flew in the face of Modernist notions of universality and standardiza- from blacks through a process known as ‘redlining.’ Public housing was tion. By refusing to discount dense, diverse neighborhoods as ‘slums,’ likewise relegated to the urban center, as attempts to locate new proj- Jacobs brought traditional urban form to a new light, and subsequently ects in outlying areas were met with stiff, not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) ushered in a Postmodern era of urban design. protests from concerned property owners. Architecturally, affordable housing began to take the counterform As a result, a growing association emerged between public hous- of its behemoth ancestors. Whereas Modernist housing design con- ing, the inner city, and African Americans. As public housing became sciously rejected its urban context, Postmodern urban theorists uncov- estranged from the mainstream, suburban lifestyle, it became politically ered the severe sociological effects of this practice. Stylistically, it was unpopular, and thus woefully underfunded. Skyrocketing construction now commonly believed that Modern housing’s “sturdy but sparse and costs often prevented housing projects from reaching adequate design characterless architecture effectively stigmatized residents as low-aid, specifications. Maintenance funding also languished, as it was tied to down on their luck, racially dissimilar, or on the dole” (Rowe 1993, 62). the rents of an increasingly poor tenant base. This caused housing proj- Accordingly, designers began to emulate traditional neighborhood de- ects to experience accelerated rates of decline. sign in terms of scale, site layout, and architectural treatment. In an at- With these underlying structural problems, it is not surprising that, tempt to “break down the distinctions that had stigmatized projects and during the 1960s, “public housing had begun to project an image of di- their occupants” (Calthorpe 2009, 61), Postmodern designers adopted saster” (von Hoffman 1996, 436). With millions of dollars and thousand a neotraditional model of urbanity that starkly contrasted that of their of households on the line, it became clear that federal urban policy was ModernistConcentrated Poverty predecessors. Theory in need of a new direction. The self-evident failure of mid-century urban renewal was soon to give way to the Postmodern critique of urbanism. Postmodernism Defensible Space Theory Oscar Newman proposes prefabricated, diligently separated row houses for new public housing in Yonkers. This type of project Development begins in Seaside, would later influence the HOPE VI program. Demolition begins at St. Louis’s Pruitt-Igoe Florida, the first New Urbanist com- housing project, 16 years after its completion. munity. 1961 1972 1972 1979 1987 1987

Jane Jacobs publishes The Death and Life Oscar Newman publishes Defensible Space, col- Sociologist William Julius Wilson publishes The of Great American Cities, a widely influen- lecting theories about crime prevention in public Truly Disadvantaged, alerting politicians and tial critique of Modernist urban planning. housing projects based on natural surveillance and academics to the deleterious effects of concen- territoriality. trated poverty.

Modernism Garden City Movement

14 15 Public Housing Today The emerging Postmodern doctrine adopted a complex and heterogeneous worldview in contrast to previous notions of positivism and universality. Under this paradigm, the housing problem could no longer Though urban policy in the United States remains heavily depen- be abstracted into statistics and minimum standards. It became appar- dant on private-sector production, federally-funded housing lives on ent that people needed more than just housing; rather “they needed a through the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) home, an environment they could call their own and associate proudly program. Established in 1993 by the US Department of Housing and with a broader socio-cultural enterprise” (Rowe 1993, 172). Without inUrban situ Development (HUD), this program funds the demolition of ‘se- the possibility of a universal subject, the Modernist notion of universal verely distressed’ housing projects, and their subsequent reconstruction space was now obsolete. This sentiment was brought to the fore in the . This practice not only halts escalating maintenance costs in ail- 1970s, when architect Oscar Newman first suggested that ambiguously ing housing projects, but it also helps to erase the stigmatized symbols defined, universal space fostered rampant crimedefensible and antisocial space behav- of a failed era in public housing. Recognizing that the problems facing ior in public housing. From his analysis of failed Modernist housing public housing transcend architectural treatment, the HOPE VI program projects, Newman developed guidelines for his theory. requires that designers “pay attention to the economic and social needs Based on the socio-spatial concept of territoriality, Newman’s theory re- of the residents as well as the physical condition of the housing” (Cisne- jected universal space in favor of clearly-defined denominations of pub- ros 2009, 7). lic and private space. Federal urban policy has responded to this call to address the so- Politically, the self-evident failure of public housing prompted a new cial and economic needs of the urban poor by advocating mixed-income direction for social housing. Following President Nixon’s 1973 morato- communities. The logic behind this approach is largely based on The the rium on all federal housing programs, the government shifted the onus workTruly ofDisadvantaged sociologist William Julius Wilson, who alerts readers to the del- of low-income housing to the private sector. Through legislation such eterious effects of spatially concentrated poverty in his 1987 work as Section 8 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, . In this influential publication, Wilson postulates the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing became heav- that the concentration of poverty leads to downward mobility as com- ily subsidized to private developers. As a result, low-income housing munity support structures are systematically removed from impover- would lose some of the top-down, overly-bureaucratized nature that ished neighborhoods. This suggests that the corralling of urban poor in plagued the program in the 1950s and 1960s. In keeping with the ethos public housing towers is a fundamentally flawed approach, as it neces- of Postmodern urban design, this supply-side approach would allow for sarily concentrates poverty. Following this logic, “many housers believe the architecture of low-income housing to become more locally respon- that they can address the problems of the poor by placing them in eco- sive and diverse. nomically and ethnically heterogeneous residential areas” (von Hoffman

Congress initiates the HOPE VI program, The Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority seeking a wider range of incomes for public receives two HOPE VI grants to demolish and housing residents through the demolition redevelop Lincoln Court and Laurel Homes, two of distressed inner city housing. distressed housing projects on Cincinnati’s West End. 1993 1993 1996 1996 1999 Present

The Congress for the New Urbansim Oscar Newman publishes Creating HUD secretary Henry Cisneros meets (CNU) forms to promote livable, Defensible Space for HUD, outlining with the Congress for New Urbanism pedestrian-scaled communities. specific defensible space guidelines for to establish design guidelines for public public housing. housing Defensible Space Theory Concentrated Poverty Theory Postmodernism

16 17 1996, 439). Accordingly, the HOPE VI program has made poverty de- directly caused immorality and vice, as if by osmosis. Later, Postmodern concentration an explicit goal, officially recognized in the 1998 Quality critics such as Oscar Newman suggested that specific spatial arrange- Housing and Work Responsibility Act. ments could encourage or deter crime. In this way, urban pathology was Today, the design of social housing remains widely influenced by still very much a product of the physical environment. In the past quar- Postmodern urban theory. In recent decades, the principles of neo- ter century, however, academics such as William Julius Wilson have ar- traditional urban design have been absorbed and codified by a group gued that the plight of the urban poor must be considered in social and called the New Urbanists, officially formed in 1993. Much like Le Cor- economic terms, as well as spatial terms. According to this recent ideo- busier’s International Congress for Modern Architecture, the Congress logical thread, concentrated poverty creates a socio-spatial condition in for the New Urbanism meets annually to exchange ideas and to promote which crucial support structures are unavailable to the urban poor. To a new, socially responsive form of urban design. Drawing heavily from address this situation, federal urban policy has made the deconcentra- the work of Jane Jacobs, the New Urbanists advocate dense, pedestrian- tion of poverty an explicit goal. By developing a mixed-income model for scaled neighborhoods that “encourage walking and enable neighbors to public housing in the HOPE VI program, HUD seeks to improve the lives know each other and protect their communities” (Congress for the New of the urban poor by diversifying their socioeconomic milieu. Urbanism 2001). This socially-transformative vision of urban design In this way, current public housing ideology is shaped by three dis- piqued the interest of then HUD secretary Henry Cisneros. When Cisne- tinct, sometimes divergent theoretical strands. First, the mixed-income ros met with leading New Urbanists in 1996, the group established de- paradigm seeks to combat the deleterious effects of concentrated pover- sign guidelines for the HOPE VI program that espoused an “adaptation ty that have plagued public housing in the past. Next, the New Urbanistde- of New Urbanism through suchdefensible practical space concepts as ‘defensible space’” modelfensible seeks space to correct the failures of Modernist planning by emulating (Cisneros 2009, 8). As a result, contemporary public housing design re- traditional neighborhood design. Finally, a continued emphasis on mains firmly grounded on the and traditional neighbor- techniques seeks to deter crime and promote a sense of hood design principles established by Postmodern critics in the 1960s safety in public housing design. In order to fully understand the ideolog- and 1970s. ical thrust of public housing today, it is necessary to discuss these three Conclusion influences in further detail. The following three chapters will thus un- pack each of the three ideological strands behind current housing policy, starting with the case for mixed-income development. After reviewing the various eras of public housing ideology, it is clear that a degree of environmental determinism has always been present. Through the years, accepted models of urbanism have taken a critical, almost combative stance towards the perceived social ills of a given environmental condition. In the fledgling years of public housing, the polemical target was the urban slum. To varying degrees, the Garden City and Modernist models of urbanism proposed an environment antithetical to the congested, unsanitary slum. Along these lines, urban renewal programs razed cluttered, informal urban areas to make way for sleek, modern towers surrounded by greenery. Ironically, these towers would be demolished decades later, after Postmodern critics decried public housing for its isolation and alien form. Today, New Urbanist-inspired public housing seeks to emulate the traditional urban forms that were rejected decades earlier, often on the same site. In each of these instances, public housing ideology repudiates that which directly precedes it. Also evident in this historical account is a shifting understanding of urban pathologies. Early reformers believed that the slum environment

18 19 03 The Case for Mixed-Income Communities

A relatively recent thread in public housing ideology, the mixed-income development paradigm is of central importance to this thesis. As history has shown, federal urban policy has shifted dramatically from the advocacy of isolated high-rise housing projects to that of integrated, economically and ethnically diverse communities. At the core of this mixed-income strategy is the theory, first outlined by sociologist Wil- liam Julius Wilson, that concentrated poverty precludes upward mobility. Thus, federal urban policy seeks to reverse the deleterious effects of concentrated poverty through its ‘deconcentration.’

21 Unfortunately, as the following section will attest, the effects of concentrated poverty are not so straightforward that they may be reversed by simply ‘deconcentrating’ low-income households. The social fabric of a community is a complex phenomenon in which income is merely one component. In order to understand the potential benefits of mixed- income development, it is first essential to understand the myriad sociological forces that have caused decline in impoverished neighborhoods.The Tru- ly DisadvantagedThus, the following section will first summarize the influential con- clusions about urban decline made by William Julius Wilson in . This review will introduce some of the socio-spatial concepts that remain crucial components of today’s mixed-income paradigm. Next, a review of Mark L. Joseph’s article entitled “Is Mixed-In- come Housing an Antidote to Urban Poverty?” will serve to further un- pack these socio-spatial concepts. By weighing relevant theoretical and empirical research on the subject matter, Joseph’s article seeks to outline the realistic expectations for mixed-income development. More importantly, this section serves to identify instances in which architectural design may promote the potential benefits of mixed-income development. Literature Review

Much of the current theory behind mixed-income public housing can be attributed to sociologist William Julius Wilson. In the 1980s, Wilson began to study startling trends in urban poverty resulting from the dein- dustrialization of American cities and the restructuring of capital. At this time, sociologists and policymakers were acutely aware of the growing social pathologies in America’s inner cities, but few could agree upon the genesis of these problems. A common theory pointed to a ‘culture of poverty’ by which “basic values and attitudes of the ghetto subculture 05 Concentrated poverty have been internalized and thereby influence behavior” (Wilson, 1987 in Chicago, 2000. Note 61). Wilson rejects this theory, however, suggesting instead that the so- the segregation of income along community lines. cial pathologies of the ghetto stem from a structural-spatial condition. This isThe the Trulyfoundation Disadvantaged of Wilson’s influential theory regarding the concentration of poverty and its deleterious effects. and ensuring social norms, the black middle-class also served as a “so- In , Wilson contends that the turning point cial buffer” which allowed for social institutions to remain in the ghetto, for the ghetto occurred when the black middle-class began to leave the even if the truly disadvantaged could not support them. Thus, crucial inner city. Before the Civil Rights Movement, various restrictive cove- institutions such as schools, churches, and businesses remained viable nants ensured that blacks of all economic standings inhabited the same largely because of the black middle class. As restricted covenants were urban spaces. Thus, unemployed and low-income blacks constantly en- lifted, the eventual out-migration of these supportive figures resulted in countered blacks, whose “very presence provided stability to inner-city a “disproportionate concentration of the most disadvantaged segments neighborhoods and reinforced and perpetuated mainstream patterns of the urban black population, creating a social milieu significantly dif- of norms and behavior” (Wilson 1987, 7). While providing role models

22 23 ferent from the environment that existed in these communities several decadesneighborhood ago” (Wilson effects 1987, 58). social capital neighborhood effectsWilson’s theory thus draws from two important sociological concepts: and Neighborhood. In effects general theory describes the “myriad ways that neighbors influence one’s behavior” (Freeman 2006, 129). thus loosely describe the guidance of rolesocial models, capital the influence of peer effects, the formation of social ties, and overall notions of collective efficacy. Also at work is the concept of , defined by sociologist Robert Put- nam as “the norms and networks of civil society that lubricate coopera- tive action among both citizens and their institutions” (Putnam 1998, 5). In other words, social capital is a sort of abstract means by which community cohesion may be measured. According to Wilson, meaningful social capital resides in the hands of the middle class, and thus, “poverty concentration has the effect of devaluing the social capital of those who live in its midst” (Wacquant and Wilson 2005, 133). Criticism

Concentrated poverty theory has become widely influential in both policy and academia. Though Wilson ultimately recommends a compre- hensive program of social services and economic incentives for the inner city, federal urban policy has focused on the more blunt approach of ‘deconcentrating’ poverty. Wilson’s theory has thus been oversimplified to the following equation: “if the problems of the inner city are the result of the spatial concentration of inner-city poverty then the solution is obvious: ‘deconcentrate’ the poor” (Crump 2002, 582). Wilson never uses the term ‘deconcentrate,’ nor does he suggest that drastic demographic change be brought to the inner city; however, his argument for mixed- 06 De facto racial income neighborhoods has often been construed as an endorsement for segregation in Chicago, such measures. 2000. Note similarities to income segregation. One of the most obvious platforms for poverty deconcentration is public housing. In light of Wilson’s theory, public housing projects are “singled out as the most egregious example of how spatial concentration social networks social control culture and behavior income development. Joseph categorizes these propositions under the of poverty leads to welfare dependency, sexual promiscuity, and crime” political economy of place four headings of , , , and (Crump 2002, 581). A mixed-income approach to public housing has the . Through an extensive review of exist- thus been adopted in order to address these social pathologies. While ing theoretical and empirical studies, Joseph finds varying amounts of mixed-income development is partially grounded on a naïve reversal of support for the four arguments. Though some claims appear plausible, Wilson’s concentrated poverty thesis, there is a growing volume of so- Housing Policy Debate Joseph ultimately finds a “tremendous amount of hyperbole” (Joseph ciological theory that supports this strategy. 2006, 222) associated with mixed-income development. In a recent article for , Mark L. Joseph exam- ines some of the more widely accepted arguments in favor of mixed-

24 25 social networks social networks

Joseph first evaluates the thesis, which suggests that the thesis. In this study, Rachel G. Kleit performs a post by courting higher-income households back to the inner city, “mixed- occupancy evaluation of NewHolly, a HOPE VI project in Seattle. The income development can facilitate the re-establishment of effective so- site is particularly germane to the study of social mixing, as it is home cial networks and social capital for low-income residents” (Joseph 2006, to an incredibly diverse population, both ethnically and economically. 213). In other words, by diversifying their immediate social milieu, it NewHolly has also won several awards, both for its New Urbanist design, is more likely that low-income residents will form social ties with up- and its innovative approach to community building. The complex boasts a wardly mobile individuals. Though research shows that strong social branch of the Seattle Public Library, classrooms for a community college, ties rarely form across socioeconomic lines, sociologist Mark Granovet- youth and child care centers, and even employs a full-time ‘community ter suggests that ‘weak ties’ may be instrumental in creating social capi- builder.’ In other words, NewHolly represents “an ideal locale to study tal. Formed by the overlapping of social networks, ‘weak ties’ are “more whether, in the best of situations, overlapping social worlds for those of likely to link members of different small groups than are strong ones” different housing tenures and socioeconomic status occur in a HOPE VI (Granovetter 1973, 1376). Thus, the spatial proximity of diverse social site” (Kleit 2007, 1418). social networks networks within mixed-income communitiescontact may increasetheory the likeli- Following an extensive set of phone interviews and group meetings, hood that these secondary contacts will form. Kleit finds mixed support for the thesis. For instance, A related sociological concept is that of , which sug- though the community makes ample use of the on-site library, it does gests that “people of different backgrounds will be more likely to interact not appear that this facility promotes substantial interaction across so- if the two groups have equal-status interactions within a given situation” cioeconomic lines. Kleit also suggests that NewHolly’s extensive com- (Kleit 2007, 1416). Thus the programming of communal spaces may be- munity event planning does not produce its desired social mixing ef- come instrumental in the formation of social ties. These considerations fects. On the other hand, analysis shows that children often act as social attach an added significance to the design of space, as “opportunities for bridges, creating relationships between adults of different social and contact, proximity to others, and appropriate space in which to interact economic standing. In addition, Kleit finds that “proximity plays an im- are key factors that can promote and shape social interaction” (Joseph portant role in the creation of ties to public housing residents. People 2006, 214). know their near neighbors,contact and common theory local activities, such as garden- As Joseph explains, few empirical studies have found mixed-income ing, enable those proximate contacts” (Kleit 2007, 1439). Essentially, development to substantially increase social interaction among disparate this observation espouses on a local level, suggesting that 07 Heuristic model: income groups; however, a recent study provides modest support for diverse socioeconomic groups will in fact form social ties if they are ar- correlates of social ranged in close proximity. This finding carries clear design implications. interaction in mixed- INDIVIDUAL If mixed-income housing can be designed in such a way that disparate CHARACTERISTICS income housing. In an SIMILARITY groups may experience frequent, equal-status contact, then it is conceiv- extensive study, Rachel G. able that these groups will form meaningful social ties across socioeco- Kleit finds that proximity social control nomic boundaries. plays the most important EQUAL-STATUS SOCIAL INTERACTION role in cross-income COMMUNITY CONTACTS AMONG DISPARATE The next theory evaluated by Mark L. Joseph is the neighboring. FACILITIES AND INCOME GROUPS thesis, which posits that “the presence of higher-income residents—in INVOLVEMENT PROXIMITY particular, homeowners—will lead to higher levels of accountability to norms and rules through increased informal social control and thus to increased order and safety for all residents” (Joseph 2006, 214). In other words, residents with a greater vested interest in their neighbor- PRIOR KNOWLEDGE TIME collec- OF NEIGHBORS tivehood, efficacy such as homeowners, are more likely to take actions that benefit the community as a whole. A key concept to this theory is that of , whichcollective describes efficacy the perceived level of trust and cohesion among residents. Various empirical studies have shown a positive correlation between and factors such as homeownership,

26 27 ior social control political economy social control of place economic class, and residential stability. For this reason, Joseph deems . On the other hand, he finds the and the thesis plausible,culture despite and a lackbehavior of compelling evidence propositions to be more compelling. The salient difference be- from studies at HOPE VI sites. tween these theories is that the former require an element of social in- The next proposition, that of , suggests that “the teraction across social and economic lines, while the latter rely simply presence of higher-income residents in mixed-income developments on the mere presence of the middle class. Thus, one might conclude, as will lead other families to adapt more socially acceptable and construc- many sociologist have, that meaningful social ties resist the bridging of tive behavior” (Joseph 2006, 214). Examples of such behavior include socioeconomic boundaries. While this is true in many respects, Rachel showing respectneighborhood for property, effects seeking regular employment, and abiding G. Kleit’s analysis of NewHolly shows some promising examples of social by established social norms. This proposition relies cultureheavily andon the behavior afore- mixing, especially between immediate neighbors. mentioned thesis, which suggests that behavior is Conclusion partially shaped by immediate social context. The social networks culture and behavior thesis also relies on a degree of role-modeling. This may occur through direct mentoring,culture and but behavior may also take the form of distal role-modeling, Rather than to reject the and which occurs when patterns of positive behavior are observed remotely. theories altogether, Joseph suggests that “there seems to be a great po- The thesis thus encapsulates many of the con- tential to think creatively about design in order to facilitate more inter- cepts that William Julius Wilson uses neighborhoodto describe the effects, social decline of the action among residents” (Joseph 2006, 223). This call to rethink mixed- American inner city. Indeed, many have come to accept that an absence income housing is essentially the basis for this thesis. Though it appears of the middle class leads to negative but little em- that mixed-income development has some inherent benefits, a lack of pirical evidence shows the inverse of this condition to be true. As Joseph social interaction among residents prevents their full realization. With- explains, “there is no evidence in the limited research on mixed-income out an emphasis on increased social interaction, current federal urban developments asculture to whether and behavior role-modeling is taking place and, if so, policy will continue to fall short of its goals. what effect it has” (Joseph 2006, 221). Though this finding casts serious As Joseph’s article makes clear the need for more social interaction, doubt over the argument, it should be noted that Kleit’s study provides clues as to what type of interaction may be most such concepts as distal role-modeling are extremely difficult to quantifypo- beneficial. For instance, while planned events at NewHolly have not ful- liticalempirically. economy of place filled their social mixing potential, informal activities such as communi- The final argument for mixed-income development regards thepoliti - ty gardening have proven successful in this manner. Though the library cal economy of place , a concept first developed by sociologists John rarely brings people together, children’s play often has this effect. This Logan and Harvey Molotch in a 1987 essay of the same name. The suggests that meaningful social ties are formed opportunistically. This suggests “the influence of higher-income residents conclusion is further reinforced by Kleit’s finding that proximity plays will generate new market demand and political pressure to which ex- a major role in the formation of cross-cultural social ties. People form ternal political and economic actors are more likely to respond” (Joseph relationships with their immediate neighbors because these are the peo- 2006, 215). This argument relies less on sociological theory and more ple with whom they interact fortuitously and consistently. on an understanding of structural economic and political forces. It sug- This suggests that a true architecture of engagement must begin at gests that the middle class is endowed with a higher social standing, and the building scale, at the level of immediate proxemics. The New Ur- thus, may command better goods and services. This may amount to bet- banist doctrine behind current federal housing policy touts traditional ter schools, improved crime prevention, and increased retail options. In neighborhood design as a means to build social capital and engage resi- short, the market force of the middle classpolitical brings economy positive ofexternalities place dents. While some elements of traditional urban design effectively en- to the community. Though Joseph finds little empirical evidence to sup- courage social interaction, the evidence thus far suggests that further port this thesis, he nonetheless finds the to be measures must be taken. The following chapter will discuss the social a compelling argument for mixed-incomesocial networks development.culture and behav- implications of neotraditional urban design in further detail. Mark L. Joseph’s exhaustive literature review finds little convincing evidence for theories involving and

28 29 04 The Case for Traditional Neighborhood Design

In many ways, the design of American public housing remains firmly grounded in Postmodern urban theory. Following the conspicuous failures of post-war Modernist planning, neotraditional urban design now serves as the preeminent model for public housing. As the following Thesection Death will and show, Life this of returnGreat American to traditional Cities design was more than a mere aesthetic knee-jerk from Modernism. In fact, as Jane Jacobs argues in , traditional neighborhoods provide a socio-spatial condition that is ideal for social interaction and its subsequent benefits.

31 The following chapter will outline Jane Jacobs’s arguments for traditional urban design, and will review her explicit design guidelines and their social implications. Next, an article by Emily Talen will evaluate some of these design guidelines, as adopted by the New Urbanists. In particular, Talen’s article helps to set realistic expectations for neotraditional urban design and its ability to create a sense of community. Fi- nally, a case study of Diggs Town in Norfolk, Virginia provides a practical assessment of New Urbanist design in the context of public housing revitalization. As discussed in the previous chapter, public housing’s current mixed-income model requires an increased emphasis on social interaction in order to reap its potential social benefits. Thus, the following chapter seeks to uncover the possibilities and the limitations of traditional urban design from a sociological perspective. 09 Site of Manhattantown, Literature Review 1958: A Robert Moses-era urban renewal project on the Upper West Side. The DeathThe and most Life impassioned, of Great American and also Cities. most influential call for traditional neighborhood design comes from Jane Jacobs’s 1961 publication, Living in Robert Moses-era New urban renewal projects and the expansion of the interstate highway sys- York City, Jacobs was confronted with the potentially disastrous effects tem -- both of which can be tied indirectly to ModernistThe urban Death discourse. and Life of Modernist planning on a daily basis. Strong ethnic neighborhoods, ofDespite Great (orAmerican perhaps Cities because of) her non-architectural background, Ja- 08 A Brochure showing such as her native Greenwich Village, were continually endangered by cobs makes poignant observations about urban life in the proposed Lower . The influence of this book can not be under- Manhattan Expressway, stated as it relates to public housing, and urban design in general. 1959: One of Robert Moses’s slum-clearing In opposition to conventional planning wisdom, Jacobs establishes infrastructure projects. low- to middle-income urban neighborhoods such as Greenwich Village and Boston’s North End as the quintessential urban model. She extols these areas for their physical and social diversity. By meeting the needs of a diverse population, Jacobs argues, these neighborhoods are able to keep people coming and going at all times of the day, maintaining a vibrant, communal, and above all, safe atmosphere. In exposing the vi- brancy of dense, traditional urban settings, Jacobs seeks to debunk the ‘towers in the park’ paradigm of Modernist urbanism. Perhaps most importantly, she brings a newfound importance to the street as a social setting. According to Jacobs, the traditional street so easily dismissed by Modernist planning is in fact the lifeblood of vibrant and safe urban communities. Though Jacobs eschews technical jargon, she nonetheless touches on some of the major sociological concepts that have been presented thus far. For instance, when Jacobs explains, “thecollective trust of efficacy. a city street is built up over time from many, many little public sidewalk contacts” (Jacobs 1961, 56), she evokes the concept of Fur-

32 33 thermore, the seemingly trivial,contact quotidian theory sidewalk contacts to which stability, and environmental health be sustainedHousing without Policy a coherent Debate and Jacobs refersconcentrated represent thepoverty frequent, ‘equal-status interactions’ neces- supportive physical framework” (Congress for the New Urbanism 2001). sary within the framework of . Jacobs also alludes to the In a somewhat defensive article forCharter for the New Urbanism, Em- concept of when she explains the need for socially ily Talen seeks to clearly define the social goals of Newcommunity Urbanism.social She diverse neighborhoods. Her claim thatpolitical “diversification economy of of income place alone equityevaluates eachthe of common the 27 principlesgood of the community makes a difference in the range of possible commercial diversification” within the frameworksocial of three general social goals: , (Jacobs 1961, 286) resonates with the thesis. , and ‘ affective .’ The notion of is understood Thus,The Jacobs Death finds and in Life the of traditional Great American neighborhood Cities many of the sociologi- to have both a “ component, consisting of various types of social cal conditions thought to promote upward mobility for the urban poor. interaction, and an social equitycomponent, involving a whole range of psy- espouses a notion of en- chological and emotional responses” (Talen 2002, 167).‘the Talen common considers good’ vironmental determinism. Much like her predecessors, Jacobs suggests the next category of in terms of neighborhood resources that certain social and physical environments have behavioral implica- and their equitable distribution. Finally, the notion of tions. Her arguments, however, seem so self-evident that few question encompasses overarching concerns such as health, safety, and the envi- their validity. Jacobs argues that traditional neighborhoods are uniquely ronment, as wellsocial as civic equity engagement and social‘the common responsibility. good.’ In her capable of fostering social interaction and maintaining moral order. In line-by-line assessment of the charter, Talen concludes that 8 of the prin- particular, she presents three design guidelines for safe streets that con- ciples strive for and 19 address Though tinue to guide housing design today. First, she insists, “there must be there are “instances in which notions of community are used as descrip- a clear demarcation between what is public space and what is private tive material to support a given principle”community (Talen 2002, 178), none of the space” (Jacobs 1961, 35). Next, “buildings […] must be oriented to the Newsocial Urbanist networks principles explicitly centers around this concept. street. They cannot turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave it Of the three criteria, the notion of is most akin to the blind” (Jacobs 1961, 35). And finally, “the sidewalk must have users on it argument for mixed-income development, discussed in fairly continuously” (Jacobs 1961, 35) in order to maintain an adequatede- the previous chapter. Both arguments contend that a certain spatial ar- fensiblelevel of spacesurveillance. These guidelines have since become thoroughly rangement may increase social interaction and that this interaction is engrained in public housing design, and provide the foundation for desirable. One of the charter’s principles makes this connection fair- and New Urbanist theory. ly clear, claiming “a broad range of housing types and price levels can Criticism bring people of diverse ages, races, and incomes into daily interaction, strengthening the personal and civicsocial bonds networks essential to an authentic community” (Congress for the New Urbanism 2001). As discussed in relation to the thesis, empirical re- As mentioned, the widelyThe influential Death and New Life ofUrbanist Great American movement Cities. advocates an environmentally and socially conscious brand of urban de- search finds the correlation between environment and social ties to be sign that traces its roots to dubious. Indeed, Talen concedes, “in practical terms, the attempt to link The New Urbanists have adopted from Jane Jacobs not only a procliv- physical design to community introduces problems thatcommunity are beyond the ity for traditional neighborhood design, but the belief that this environ- control of New Urbanist design” (Talen 2002, 180). Perhaps this ex- ment encourages social interaction and fosters a sense of community. plains her eagerness to downplay the importance of within This environmental determinist stance has come under fire from critics, the greater social goals of New Urbanism. Nevertheless, the explicit and who fault New Urbanism for perpetuating “the idea that the shaping of implicit thought remains that “when diverse groups are in proximity to spatial order is or can be the foundation for a new moral and aesthetic each other, there is no requirement for social interaction, but the situ- order” (Harvey 1997, 2). Perhaps in response to such criticisms, the ation allows the possibility of mixing divergent groups” (Talen 2002, Congress for the New Urbanism intentionally distances itself from overt 178). This argument remains central to the mixed-income, New Urban- environmental determinist claims. The group’s official charter explains, ist paradigm in public housing today. “we recognize that physical solutions by themselves will not solve social Of course not all New Urbanists have hedged their optimism to the and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality, community extent that Emily Talen has. Some designers and theorists strongly be-

34 35 11 Diggs Town, birds- eye aerial: Additional lieve that design can enhance a sense of community. In a post-occupan- porches and storage units cy evaluation of an early New Urbanist project, Stephanie E. Bothwell, highlighted. Raymond Gindroz, and Robert E. Lang describe how specific elements of traditional neighborhood design “can restore a sense of communitysocial capital to distressed neighborhoods” (Bothwell et al. 1998, 89). The authors also evaluate the design in terms of Robert Putnam’s concept of , a measure of community cohesion. The project in question is the 1990 redevelopment of Diggs Town in Norfolk, Virginia, a low-rise, barracks-style public housing project originally built in the 1950s. Unlike subsequent HOPE VI projects, the redevelopment of Diggs Town did not sacrifice existing units. Instead, the redesign, lead by Raymond Gindroz of Urban Design Associates, relies architectural details. The site design seeksdefensible to increase space pedestrian and 10 Diggs Town, Norfolk, on additive design features, such as front porches and other traditional VA: Before (above) and automobile traffic through the site by weaving in new streetscapes be- After (below). Note tween existing buildings. Incorporating techniques, the additional street frontage, designers also seek to “distinguish the private territory of residents from new porches, and fencing the public realm of the community” and to “enable residents to establish to dilineate outdoor a secure environment for themselves and their families.” (Bothwell et al. spaces. 1998, 109). In their evaluation of Diggs Town, Bothwell, Gindroz, and Lang find the addition of individual front porches to be of particular significance, as these architectural elements allow the mediation between private and public space. The distinction between private and public is further reinforced by low fences and strategically placed landscaping. The addition of porches also creates a new venue for interaction among residents. Bothwell, Gindroz, and Lang contend that these modest design modifications create an ‘architecture of engagement.’ They explain, “the architecture of engagement restores public venues. These venues lead to the formation of social capital, which in turn benefits communities by providing the links betweensocial the networks individual and society that are essential to economic and social life” (Bothwell et al. 1998, 111). This assessment recalls Mark L. Joseph’s thesis, suggesting that a spatial arrangement may encourage beneficial social ties. social capital In all, Bothwell, Gindroz, and Lang find that the simple design modifications of Diggs Town create a substantial rise in . A post- occupancy survey finds promising trends in levels of income, welfare dependence, and education attainment. Unlike Rachel G. Kleit’s study of NewHolly, however, this survey is not equipped to measure levels of neighborly association and overall social interaction. In addition, one must interpret the authors’ enthusiasm with caution, as co-author Ray- mond Gindroz was also the project’s lead designer. Nonetheless, it is clear that the redesign of Diggs Town has created new opportunities for interaction among residents.

36 37 Conclusion 05 The proponents of traditional neighborhood design provide varying emphasis on its sociological implications. While Bothwell, Gindroz, and Lang assert that simple design modifications may create social capital, Emily Talen washes her hands of any environmental determinist rhet- The Case for oric in the Charter for the New Urbanism. Like the charter itself, this thesis espouses a casual link between environment and social behavior. While people will invariably interact with one another at their own will, residential design must be informed by the complexities of human in- Defensible teraction. At best, as noted by Bothwell, Gindroz, and Lang, architecture can create the venue for social interaction. At least, architecture must not preclude neighborly associations, for these hold the potential for upward mobility in mixed-income development. Space In terms of social interaction, it seems as though the salient characteristics of traditional neighborhood design deal with spatial adjacen- cies, and not with a style or aesthetic. The front porch may act as a traditional architectural detail on one level, but its sociological value lies in its ability to mediate between the private and the public realm. Likewise, the value of the traditional streetscape lies in its ability to bring pedestrians, commuters, and households into close proximity. Thus, by weaving new streets into the existing Diggs Town project, Raymond Gindroz and the Urban Design Associates created a new social interface where once there was none. In creating a true architecture of engagement, it is clear that traditional neighborhoods offer some valuable insights. That being said, the research indicates that current design standards have failed to foster adequate levels of social interaction in mixed-income developments. It stands to reason, then, that residential spaces must be more opportunistic in their design, so that residents may encounter even more peopledefensi in- defensible space blemore space ways. At some point, however, there is a tradeoff between public accessibility and safety. This observation is one of the tenetsdefensible of space When Oscar Newman began formulating his theory , another major thread in current public housing ideology. The in the 1970s, American public housing was in crisis. Large housing de- following chapter will further explore the concept of velopments across the country became conspicuous symbols of failure, and its social implications. plagued by crime and vandalism. As these massive, ailing projects began to project an image of failure on multiple levels, a silent majority of public housing complexes remained relatively safe and desirable. To make sense of this disparity, Oscar Newman analyzed numerous housing developments across the country, correlating physical design characDefen- sibleteristics Space to levels of crime. The following chapter will discuss the salient findings of Newman’s research, as outlined in his seminal work .

38 39 defensibleGiven the space troubled state of American public housing at this time, it early urban sociologists Émile Durkheim and Ferdinand Tönnies, New- is not surprising that federal urban policy quickly adopted Newman’s man suggests that the density and heterogeneity of the communityurban environ - techniques. Along with the general ideological shift collectivement has efficacyeroded societal norms and support structures. In this way, away from Modernist site planning, these design guidelines no doubt Newman links recurring sociological concepts such as and led to safer, more livable public housing communities. As history has to crime levels. Thus, like the New Urbanists, Oscar shown, however, the ideological thrust behind public housing design has Newman emphasizes the need to create a sense of community, explain- changed in recent times. While design and safety were of primary con- ing, “means must be found for bringing neighbors together, if only for the cern at the advent of Newman’s theory, the mixed-income development limited purposedefensible of ensuring space survival of their collective milieu” (Newman paradigm has since brought neighborly interaction to the fore. In the 1972, 2). According to Newman, this may be achieved through the pro- following chapter, Karen A. Franck and Teresa Caldeira suggest that an duction of , defined as “an environment in which latent 13 Sketches by Oscar overly-defensible environment may actually preclude social interaction Newman showing the by detracting from the collective realm. In addition, Clare Cooper-Mar- ill-defined spaces in a traditional high-rise cus explains the sociological benefits of common spaces in her article apartment (above) versus “Shared Outdoordefensible Spaces space and Community Life.” These arguments sug- the gradient of privacy gest that contemporary public housing requires a more nuanced appli- allowed by detached or cation of techniques. row house type dwellings Literature Review (below).

Like Jane Jacobs, Oscar Newman believes that the physical urban environment greatly affects social interactions.Defensible Also drawing Space from the increasingly apparent failures of Modernist planning, Newman shares his theory and criticism in his seminal work , published in 1972. In this publication, Newman gives a sensational account of sky- 12 Pruitt-Igoe, St. Louis, rocketing violence and crime in American cities. Echoing the theory of c. 1965. Note the stark contrast to adjacent Carr Square Village, a traditional urban neighborhood.

40 41 territoriality and sense of community in the inhabitants can be trans- diminishes as space becomes more public. A common space outside a lated into responsibilitydefensible for ensuring space a safe, productive, and well-main- small cluster of dwellings, such as a circulation corridor, would be contained living space” (Newman 1972, 3). sidered semiprivate. The lobby of a high-rise apartment building, on the In formulating the theory, Newman, like so many in other hand, would be considered semipublic, as it is less associated with his field, found a wealth of information in the catastrophic failures of ‘el- the individual dwelling units above. As Newman explains, “the larger evator’ high-rise housing projects. As a professor at Washington Univer- the number of people who share a territory, the less each individual sity in St. Louis, Newman’s muse was the notorious Pruitt-Igoe complex. feels rights to it” (Newman 1996, 17). Therefore, it is beneficial to keep Though touted as an architectural triumph at its inception, the complex common spaces well-defined, so that nearby residents may appropriate quickly fell into decay, terrorized by its own inhabitants. In 1972, Pruitt- them and care for them accordingly. defensible space Igoe was demolished after only 17 years of existence. Newman postu- These observations about territorial definition constitute the first of lates, “because all the grounds were common and disassociated from the Newman’s four principles for the design of . After exten- units, residents could not identify with them. The areas proved unsafe” sive statistical and empirical research, he suggests the following: (Newman 1996, 10). As a glaring counterpoint, Newman found that in- The territorial definition of space in developments reflecting the areas of individual housing units were often clean and well maintained on the influence of the inhabitants. This works by subdividing the residential environ- side. Likewise, areas of limited access, such as a territorialitylanding that serves only ment into zones toward which adjacent residents easily adopt proprietary attitudes. two households, appeared safe and well-tended. These observations are evidence of the socio-psychological concept of , defined as The positioning of apartment windows to allow residents to naturally survey the “universal, biological impulse in individuals to claim and defend a the exterior and interior public areas of their living environment. clearly marked ‘territory,’ from which others will be – at least selectively The adoption of building forms and idioms which avoid the stigma of pecu- –excluded” (Hillier and Hanson 1984, 6). liarity that allows others to perceive the vulnerability and isolation of the in- Like Jane Jacobs, Newman looks for further inspiration at so-called habitants. slums. Newman juxtaposes Pruitt-Igoe with Carr Square Village, a neighboring row house development with a similar tenant profile. He 14 Oscar Newman’s notes the comparative lack of crime, and relative success of the low-rise proposed courtyard project, and suggests that the crucial difference must be physical. New- modifications forC lasson man’s abstract feeling of safety in Carr Square Village is amplified in the Point Gardens, a housing gated, well-to-do neighborhoods of St. Louis, where the streets show no project in the Bronx. Low evidence of crime or vandalism. Newman suggests that these private concrete walls and other sturdy landscape features streets are endowed with a certain sense of safety because they have are used to segregate been claimed, and thus defended by their residents. In other words, the spaces. streets have become an extension of the residents’ territory. Territorial definition is perhaps most straightforward in the detached single family dwelling, where the immediate outdoor environment is clearly defined as a front or back yard. In this instance, it is most likely that residents will treat their yard as a reflection of themselves and care for it accordingly. Though it is often economically impossible to provide detached single family homes in public housing schemes, Newman suggests that territoriality may nonetheless be exploited in multi-family arrangements. In these instances, spaces may be classified within a hierarchy ranging from private to semiprivate, semipublic, and public. This hierarchy represents the sense of association between the individual dwelling unit and its surrounding space, where territoriality

42 43 The enhancement of safety by locating residential developments in function- between private and public. It is essential to differentiate these spaces ally sympathetic urban areas immediately adjacent to activities that do not provide continued threat (Newman 1972, 9). from the public realm, however, as they serve a more defined social network. According to Marcus, “People have a need to relate to a group These four elements resemble in many ways the design guidelines which is larger than the family unit but smaller than a planner-designat- for safe streets set out by Jane Jacobs. Both authors stress the impor- ed neighborhood. In brief, there is a need for community life as distinct tance of window placement and the definition of private and public from public life” (Marcus 2003, 36). In other words, these spaces create space. Furthermore, Newman’s principles regarding urban milieu and the venue for a smaller, more cohesive social network among residents. context have become fundamental tenets of New Urbanism. Incidental- Within the mixed-income development paradigm, this type of neighborly ly, Oscar Newman’s influence reaches beyond the theoretical, as he has interaction is essential for the upward mobility of low-income residents. personally redesigned several public housing projects and developed A number of architectural devices may be used to define the col- design standards for the federal Departmentdefensible of Housing space and Urban De- lective realm and promote community life. Citing a number of success- velopment (HUD). In this way, contemporary public housing design can ful examples, Marcus offers guidelines for the deign of shared outdoor be both directly and indirectly attributed to theory. spaces. Typically, these spaces are bounded by a cluster of neighboring Criticism dwellings which communicate a clear sense of ownership over the space by orienting inward. This inward orientation also allows the surveillance of the common shared space. Narrow entry passages may help to distinguish the shared space from the public realm of the street, adding Though Oscar Newman finds a crucial link between a sense of com- a degree of exclusivity. Marcus also suggests that clearly-defined private munity and a sense of safety, others suggest that these sociological outdoor spaces, such as patios, may facilitate the transition between defensibleneeds may space be mutually exclusive. Karen A. Franck, an environmental- shared space and individual dwellings. behavioral theorist and former colleague of Newman’s, suggests that It is important to note that this spatial arrangement is in some ways theory can be taken too far. For instance, in an effort to antithetical to prevailing neotraditional urban models. Though the New territorially define space in public housing projects, open areas are often Urbanist guidelines for HOPE VI developments acknowledge the need extensively fenced. Franck suggests that this may be “too extreme and for shared outdoor space, specific guidelines recommend accessibility too automatic a response” (Franck 1998, 90) as it has the potential to by bike and footpath, and also suggest that these spaces be separated preclude children’s play and other spontaneous social activity. from homes by a street. This open accessibility and symbolic detach- As history has shown, the ideology behind Americandefensible public housing space ment from the home, in essence, surrenders the shared space to the has a tendency to repudiate that which immediately precedes it. Karen public realm, as opposed to the collective realm. In addition, the New A. Franck identifies the collective value shift towards Urbanist privileging of the street-as-social-venue requires that individ- in housing design as an example of this tendency. The Modernist prin- ual dwellings orient towards the street, while Marcus suggests that an ciples of openness and universality have been decried in favor of closed, inward orientation may enhance the collective realm. privatized outdoor spaces. Franck warns that “an exclusive emphasis In a compelling argument for shared outdoor spaces, Marcus cites a on the individual realm rather than the universal realm bypasses the case study comparing two adjacent residential blocks in Berkeley, Cali- middle ground of the collective realm – of a local community within the fornia. Once statistically identical, the two blocks became an interesting development” (Franck 1998, 90). This ‘collective realm’ is precisely the dialogue in neighborly interaction when a real estate developer bought socio-environmental condition sought by New Urbanists for its potentialPlaces out one of the blocks and began removing backyard fences and extrane- to create a sense of community. ous outbuildings between dwellings. The formerly private outdoor spac- The collective realm is further discussed in a 2003 article for es in this experimental block then became a landscaped shared space, by architect Clare Cooper Marcus. According to Marcus, the venue for technically open, yet clearly belonging to the 27 surrounding dwellings. community life is the ‘shared outdoor space,’ which is owned and acces- A subsequent study of this development showed that, compared to the sible to a relatively small number of households. In terms of Newman’s fenced ‘control’ block, residents in the modified block had considerably hierarchy of spaces, the successful shared outdoor space lies somewhere more social ties. Not surprisingly, these ties tended to bridge the shared

44 45 intended to promote collective safety, but it fundamentally requires a language of exclusion. Thus defensible architecture, by nature, under- mines the socially inclusive agenda of the HOPE VI program, creating a disconnect between ideology and implementation. Conclusion

defensible space The current mixed-income development paradigm requires a more nuanced understanding of techniques. Oscar Newman suggests that a degree of territorial definition is necessary to promote safety and well-being, while others note the deleterious effects of over- zealous fencing. Consistent throughout the literature, however, is the notion that territoriality profoundly influences social interaction. It is possible, as noted by Franck and Caldeira, that overly privatized outdoor space may undermine the socially inclusive rhetoric of contemporary 15 Social ties within public housing ideology. While a certain amount of exclusivity may be two adjacent blocks in necessary, the nature and specificity of exclusion becomes more pivot- Berkeley, CA. Where al within the context of mixed-income development. With this under- backyard fences separate dwellings (above) standing, the boundaries within public housing design take on an added residents rarely associate importance. with neighbors to their Of particular interest in this section is Clare Cooper Marcus’s celebra- rear. Where fences are tion of the ‘shared outdoor space.’ The sociological nature of such spac- removed (below) this es seems well-suited for the type of cross-cultural interaction necessary condition is reversed. defensible space within the mixed-income development paradigm. Interestingly, Marcus seems to denounce techniques on one scale, while advocating them on another. At one level, Marcus specifically evokes New- outdoor space, while residents of the ‘control’ block rarely interacted man’s language in stressing the importance of “territorial clarity and the with their neighbors to the rear. This case study calls into question the delimitation of shared space that is not accessible to ‘outsiders’” (Marcus traditional division of private outdoor space, and suggests that success- 2003, 40). In this case, the operative boundary exists between the col- ful outdoor spaces may be defined symbolically, without extensive fenc- lective realm and the public realm. Meanwhile, the transition between ing. shared space and private space is more fluid, and less defensible. Thus, An essay by sociologist Teresa P. R. Caldeira similarly challenges the defensible space defensible space by embellishing the semiprivate realm, Marcus reinterprets Newman’s role of fencing in housing design. Citing the effects of the increasingly- techniques, which tend to privilege the private realm. popular gated community, Caldeira suggests mecha- This nuanced territorial definition may very well be the key to increased nisms may serve to stratify social relations. She explains, “when some social engagement and its purported benefits. people are denied access to certain areas and when different groups are The literature in this chapter suggests that the urban boundary or not supposed to interact in public space, references to a universal prin- threshold serves an integral sociological function. The unique nature ciple of equality and freedom for social life are no longer possible, even of the threshold remains a crucial thread in contemporary socio-spatial as fiction” (Caldeira 2005, 334). In mixed-income HOPE VI communi- discourse. The following chapter will discuss some of these contempo- ties, where diverse socioeconomic groups share the same neighborhood, defensible space rary theories. defensible architecture may be seen as a bane to social interaction, or worse, a form of elitism. Newman’s theory is mainly

46 47 06 Contemporary Socio-spatial Theories

As history has shown, federal urban policy became explicitly concerned with the deconcentration of poverty in 1998. Meanwhile, public housing design remains grounded in Postmodern urban theories established during the 1960s and 1970s. This thesis argues the current social agenda of public housing requires a re-evaluation of Postmodern ideologies. In recent years, a number of theorist have continued to develop an understanding of the urban environment and its sociological implications. The following chapter will outline some of the contemporary socio-spatial theories that seem most relevant to public housing design.

49 The Social Logic While contemporary housing design remains in many ways wedded of SpaceOf Course, Nan Ellin is not the first theorist to recognize the socio- to the Postmodern, defensible architecture paradigm, a growing number logical importance of the threshold. In their 1984 work, of designers and theorists have sought out new solutions to familiar ur- , Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson recognize the threshold as a Integralban design Urbanism problems. Urban theorist Nan Ellin catalogues some of these fundamental component to the archetypal dwelling unit, or ‘elementary new approaches and their theoretical underpinnings in her recent work cell.’ In their attempt to systematically analyze the myriad ways that so- . According to Ellin, Western society is experiencing cial forces affect spatial arrangement, Hillier and Hanson first define the a “gradual reorientation toward valuing slowness, simplicity, sincerity, fundamental types of spaces and their sociological implications. They spirituality, and sustainability in an attempt to restore connections that describe the ‘elementary cell’ as “a boundary, a space within the bound- have been severed over the last century” (Ellin 2006, 1). In addition, the ary, an entrance, and a space outside the boundary defined by the en- Western worldview has become more receptive to notions of complex- trance, all of these spaces being part of a system which was placed in a ity and interconnectivity; as evidenced inflow the range of work from Gilles larger space of some kind which ‘carried’ it” (Hillier and Hanson 1984, Deleuze to chaos theory. Using Deleuze’s vocabulary, Ellin explains, “the 19). They continue: goal of Integral Urbanism is to achieve ” (Ellin 2006, 6), which can All these elements seemed to have some kind of sociological reference: the be understood spatiallyhybridity, as an connectivity, equilibrium porosity, between authenticity, overstimulation andvul- space within the boundary established a category associated with some kind nerabilitymonotony. Ellin introduces five qualities that contribute to this spatial of inhabitant; the boundary formed a control on that category, and main- condition of flow:porosity and tained its discreteness as a category; the world outside the system was the . domain of potential strangers, in contradistinction to the domain of inhabitants; the space outside the entrance constituted a potential interface between Of these, is most relevant to the schism between ideology the inhabitant and the stranger; and the entrance was a means not only of and practice in housing today. As history has shown, the Postmodern establishing the identity of the inhabitant, but also a means of converting a movement reacted to the openness and universality of Modern urbanity stranger into a visitor (Hillier and Hanson 1984, 19). by erecting borders between the private and public realm. Ellin likens this practice to a shift from ‘transparency’ to ‘opacity.’ The contempo- Within this framework, the threshold, or the entrance and its adjacent rary response to this dichotomy may be described as ‘translucent ur- outdoor space, is understood as the setting for interaction among strang- 17 The ‘elementary cell’ banism,’ which “does not eliminate or fortify borders, boundaries, and ers, and potentially for the creation of socialRE ties.AL 16 Translucent urbanism M O as defined by Hillier edges. Rather, it engages and enhances them to reintegrate (or integrate F S as an alternative to the TR and Hanson. Here the A N overly fortified, opaque anew) places without obliterating difference” (Ellin 2006, 82). With this G threshold is seen as the E urbanism (Postmodern) understanding, the boundary between spaces is no longer conceived R operative device that S and the ambiguously as a border, but as a porous membrane or threshold that mediates, and converts a stranger into a defined, transparent visitor. consequently enhances diversity. Thus, the threshold acquires a new REA urbanism (Modern). LM sociological significance, as it controls, and potentially encourages inter- REALM OF O F INHABITANT V action between diverse social worlds. I S

T O

THRESHOLD R S

opaque urbanism translucent urbanism transparent urbanism

50 51 18 An early attempt at mapping human relations by Hillier and Hanson: vens 2007, 75). Within these spaces, uses and activities overlap, and Elementary Cells arranged new stimuli are introduced. In this way, the threshold becomes a sort of at random within a set of simple parameters. crucible for equal-status, social interaction among diverse socio-cultural groups. As previously noted, this is precisely the type of interaction that is thought to unlock the potential benefits ofporosity mixed-income development. Therefore the design of the threshold carries immense sociological implications. Echoing Nan Ellin’s notion of , Stevens suggests that individuals must be able to modulate the nature of the threshold. He explains: People use the architecture of the threshold to adjust both their own perceptions and the extent to which they are perceived by others in public. Using various threshold conditions, through small-scale movements, individuals can readily and subtly calibrate their exposure to others on a variety of reg- isters: visual, auditory and bodily. This control over gradients of perception and exposure gives people the freedom which is a necessary prerequisite to play” (89).

In his analysis of urban thresholds in London, Berlin, and Melbourne, Stevens observes and records playful behavior, in its various forms, as evidence of liminality. He suggests that forms of play, such as street per- formance or skateboarding, are indicative of the loosened socio-psychological restrictions experienced at the threshold.The Social Logic of Space Closely related to the threshold are the spaces between buildings, which Hillier and Hanson also address in . While the threshold performs an integral social function, it may While the threshold and its function may be fairly consistent across so- also elicit a unique socio-psychologicalBetwixt response and Between: from thoseBuilding navigating Thresh- cio-cultural boundaries, Hillier and Hanson find a significant cross-cul- olds,between Liminality, social realms.and Public Urban Space theorist Quentin Stevens addresses this tural variation in the spaces between buildings. They believe that this phenomenon in an essayliminality entitled larger space that ‘carries’ individual dwellings is largely shaped by social 19 The threshold not only . Within this text, Stevens contemplates INTERIOR EXTERIOR concentrates activity, but thresholds in terms of ; an anthropological term that describes PRIVATE PUBLIC modulates a psychological INTROVERTED EXTROVERTED transition between interior the “intermediate stage in rituals of progression from one social status RESTRAINT FREEDOM to another” (Stevens 2007, 73). According to Stevens, the threshold me- and exterior, where perceptions and actions diates a significant behavioral transition between interior and exterior, may be temporarily or private and public realms. Therefore, “thresholds are sitesliminal of signifi- affected. cant shifts in people’s status, their perceptions and their actions” (Ste- THRESHOLD vens 2007, 74). In this way, the threshold may promote a state, in which social hierarchies are blurred, and barriers to interaction are lifted. Another crucial characteristic of the threshold is that it physically connects people. Stevens explains, “the threshold is a constrained site which gathers people together, channeling their movement, focusing their attention and forcing them into close contact with others” (Ste-

52 53 20 An example of heightened activity at the threshold: people and open-ended. Thus, “settlement space is richer in its potential, in gathered on the steps that more people have access to it, and there are fewer controls on it. We of the New York Public Library. might say it is more probabilistic in its relation to encounters” (Hillier and Hanson 1984, 19). By this logic, dense, clustered settlements provide the ideal setting for constructive social interaction between diverse social groups. Conclusion

Above all, the literature in this chapter places a newfound importance on the urban threshold. Hillier and Hanson identify the threshold as the boundary between the realm of the inhabitant and that of the stranger. Thus, social ties are necessarily created at this boundary, where a stranger may potentially become an acquaintance. Quentin Stevens elaborates on this understanding, noting the unique socio-psychological condition that occurs between the public and private realm. He claims that the liminal nature of the threshold creates a condition in which social hierarchies become blurred, and interaction may become solidarity, or cohesion, a concept first developed by early urban soci- more opportunistic. In mixed-income housing, where social hierarchies ologist Émile Durkheim. According to Durkheim, there are two distinct tend to limit interaction, it may be beneficial to exploit this liminal state. forms of solidarity: “an ‘organic’ solidarity based on interdependence In the previous chapter, it was suggested that a disconnect exists through differences, such as those resulting from the division ofOrganic labor: between the socially inclusive ideology of public housing and its overly solidarityand a ‘mechanical’ solidarity based on integration through similarities defensible form. Nan Ellin responds to this dichotomy, suggesting that of belief and group structure” (Hillierorganic and solidarity Hanson 1984, 18). urban boundaries should not exclude people, but rather filter them as a also reliessocial on capital, strong socialcollective ties efficacy to produce andsense enforce of community societal porous membrane. Ellin’s concept of urban porosity envisions the thresh- order. Therefore, the concept of correlates highly with old not as a barrier, but as an opportunity for social realms to overlap. such qualities as and . While the threshold fundamentally separates discrete elements, it also In addition, this form of solidarity allows for the phenomenon of natu- brings them into contact. With this understanding, the urban threshold ral surveillance, organicas described solidarity by Jane Jacobs and Oscar Newman. Thus, has a rich potential to promote interaction between diverse groups, ful- under Durkheim’s framework, HOPE VI developments would be an at- filling the social agenda of contemporary public housing. Accordingly, tempt to create , as the mixed-income paradigm seeks this thesis seeks to create a true architecture of engagement through a to foster interdependence among diverse groups. organic nuanced treatment of threshold conditions at multiple scales. mechanicalHillier andsolidarity Hanson argue that the cross-cultural differencesOrganic in out- Of course, this thesis is not the first attempt to create a housing en- solidaritydoor space stem from the way that the alternate structures of mechanicaland vironment that encourages residential interaction. Indeed, this is one solidarity generate and control social interaction. of the stated goals of the current New Urbanist paradigm. Through an favors a dense, tightly-woven community, whereas analysis of built precedents, the social logic of this model, and several often produces dispersed and segregated space. Furthermore, others will be evaluated in the following chapter. there are sociological implications to the method by which dwelling units, or ‘elementary cells’ are arranged. Hillier and Hanson differentiate between the subdivision of the elementary cell into a ‘building,’ or the accumulation of cells into a ‘settlement.’ The former model is often highly defined, and less permeable, while the latter is more accessible

54 55 07 Precedents

Throughout history, a number of architects have created residential environments with an explicit focus on social interaction. This chapter will present and evaluate four examples of these. Though the following projects share the goal of increased resident engagement, the impetus for this varies. For instance, Moisei Ginzburg’s Narkomfin Building, an example of the Soviet ‘social condenser,’ was conceived as a means to assimilate its inhabitants to a new, communal way of life. On the other hand, architects Giancarlo De Carlo and Jean Renaudie both looked to the structure of human interaction as a fundamental design tool. Addi- tionally, the current New Urbanist model seeks to foster a sense of community among inhabitants through traditional neighborhood design. Each of these approaches offers valuable insight towards creating a true architecture of engagement.

57 the socialnetwork withinagiven project. resulting The web-like diagram helps to gauge the overall structure weight. and complexity of line relative their maintaining dimensionally, two- mapped then are interaction for opportunities these comparison, ease further To design. architectural given a for interaction of sphere the visualize to three-dimensionally.helps stepmapped This then fied, identi- are contacts tertiary Primary,secondary,and opportunity. tion each dwelling unit are first identified, then evaluated in terms of interacfor Nodes precedents.following the of each for dwellingunits adjacent These contactsare represented by athinline. another.one fromangle oblique an at relativelyarelocated or apart, far are represented by a line of medium thickness. Finally, tertiary contacts window.architecturala of as sort such device,screenedbysome These are represented by a thick line. Secondary contacts are often nearby, but likely,most whereinteractionis contacts, Primary nodes. between tion interacfor- relative probability the gauge to associations hierarchyof a interactionprobable.less is Therefore, analysisof method this employs further are away, nodes architecturalof followsfeature,sort that obscuredit bysome and if Likewise, interact. to likely most are individuals separated by no physical or visual barriers, one may conclude that these tion between two nodes. Thus, if two residents are relativelyinterac- fornearby and opportunity the affect greatly visibility and proximity that assume to reasonable is it will, free one’s by determined course, of is, ability of interaction between individual nodes. While social interaction promote interaction. to ability their gauge to nodes these of relativelocation the consider to essential also is however, it design; opportunistic socially more a fies signi- general,nodes greaterIn approachthese a of sequences. number such nodes include balconies, porches, windows, streets, sidewalks, and of Examples realm. public the physicallywith interfaceor visually may fied for each scheme. These nodes represent locations in which identi- areresidents nodes, or interaction, for venues First, proposed. is method contact. arecirculationstrategicallycorridors and residents intobring to placed windows instances, other In arrangements. programmatic novel ploy provide added amenities such as balconies or porches, while others em- schemes Some interaction. social encourage may that strategies tural 58 For ease of comparison, this method of analysis is applied to four to applied is analysis of method this comparison, of ease For probrelative- the gauging by variable this addresses step next The following the strategies, these analyze objectively to attempt an In architec- of number a are there attest, examples following the As S S S Analytical Process primary contacts tep 3: Map tep 2: Evaluate tep 1: Identify Nodes

C WINDOW onnections

C APP

onnections R OA C H

PEDE WINDOW STR IAN PO RC secondary contacts H

PORCH PORCH

WINDOW WINDOW 59

PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN

tertiary contacts

APPROACH APPROACH

WINDOW WINDOW 22 NewHolly Phase I site Weinstein Copeland Architects plan before demolition 32ND AVENUE S AVENUE 32ND 31ST AVENUE S AVENUE 31ST 29TH AVENUE S AVENUE 29TH 30TH AVENUE S AVENUE 30TH 32ND AVENUE S AVENUE 32ND 31ST AVENUE S AVENUE 31ST 33RD AVENUE S AVENUE 33RD 33RD AVENUE S AVENUE 33RD SHAFFER AVENUE S AVENUE SHAFFER S M NewHolly Phase I / Seattle ORGAN STREET S MORGAN STREET (left) and after redesign (right). Architects ALLEY ALLEY ALLEY

ALLEY Weinstein Copeland

S WARSAW STR EET S WARSAW STREET ALLEY attempt to reconnect street 30TH AVENUE S AVENUE 30TH 31ST AVENUE S AVENUE 31ST 29TH AVENUE S AVENUE 29TH SHAFFER AVENUE S AVENUE SHAFFER In 2003, NewHolly was awarded the “New Face of America’s Public ALLEY ALLEY

S CENTRAL PARK grid with surrounding AVENUE AVENUE 29TH 29TH

Housing Award” by HUD and the Congress for the New Urbanism. In- S HOLLY STREET neighborhoods.

P P o w ALLEY ALLEY ALLEY o w e r e r L ALLEY deed, this mixed-income HOPE VI development exemplifies, in many L i n i e n e R R i g i h g 28TH AVENUE S AVENUE 28TH h t S AVENUE 28TH S HOLLY PLACE t o 3 f 2 o N f W D W

a ALLEY A 3 2 ways, the current model for American public housing. NewHolly is lo- N D V a

A 3 2 V y E N N D E U A E V y E S N U NE

S U E ALLEY S HOLLY PAR K DRIVE S DRIVE S PARK LLY cated about 6 miles southeast of downtown Seattle, and occupies the HO S BRIGHTON STREET

3 2 N D

A 3 2 V E N N D

U A E V E S N U E

S former site of the 893-unit Holly Park Public Housing Development, ALLEY 30TH AVENUE S AVENUE 30TH

S WILLOW STREET

built in 1941. Designed by Weinstein Copeland Architects, and com- ALLEY

ALLEY ALLEY ALLEY

pleted in 1999, NewHolly Phase I includes 476 housing units. Of these, S PLACE 32ND about 30% are available for homeownership, while the remaining units S FRONTENAC ST S FRONTENAC STREET Community Center Community Center S UE VEN BEACON AVENUE D A BEACON AVENUE 32N are either public housing or low-income rental units. While this alloca- Van Asselt Playground Van Asselt Playground Family Center Campus of Learners

S MYRTLE STRE tion of units ensures an economically diverse residential profile, there ET S MYRTLE STREET is also an impressive ethnic diversity at NewHolly. The development is S NUE EXISTING SITE PLAN - 1996 NEW SITE PLAN - 1999 also of particular interest to this thesis because it has been extensively 50 0 50 100 200 50 0 50 100 200 23 NewHolly Phase I: researched by Rachel G. Kleit in a 2005 post-occupancy evaluation. As elevations and sections discussed previously, this report is the most thorough empirical analysis showing typical of social interaction within the New Urbanist, HOPE VI model. duplex and rowhouse Social interaction is encouraged at NewHolly in many ways. Some configurations. Windows and outdoor porches of the more active strategies for social mixing include community gar- are oriented towards the dening initiatives, block clubs, activity clubs, and other neighborhood- street. 21 Birds-eye aerial of wide activities. NewHolly employs a full-time ‘community-builder,’ who NewHolly Phase I, a New Urbanist HOPE VI project in Seattle. Note traditional urban design features.

coordinates social services and community events. Another key social component is the on-site Neighborhood Campus, which boasts a branch of the Seattle Public Library, classrooms, child care, and other neighborhood-based amenities. Of particular interest to this thesis are the passive, architectural strategies for social interaction. As an exemplar of the New Urbanist, HOPE VI model, NewHolly borrows heavily from traditional urban design techniques. Weinstein Copeland Architects eschew the open, cur- vilinear streets of the old Holly Park housing development, and opt instead for a dense urban street grid. This common New Urbanist tech- nique promotes vehicular connectivity with neighboring communities,

60 61 24 Exploded axon showing different defensible space architectural variations Like all contemporary public housing projects, NewHolly also em- for the same foundation, ploys techniques. The architects exploit the spatial hi- a cost-saving device used by the architect. erarchy of the traditional streetscape by promoting a progression which 4 Bedroom Single Family Unit “begins at the public street, moves to the semipublic front yard and porch, and ends in private backyards” (Atkin 2001). The privacy of each backyard is ensured by fences, but the architects intentionally kept these physical barriers low. In this way, the fences “provide each household a sense of security and ownership […] but still allow for visibility and con- 4 Bedroom Duplex Units versation with neighbors” (Seattle Housing Authority 2011). Thus, the private outdoor spaces at NewHolly maintain a certain degree of visual porosity. Analysis (see next page)

4 Bedroom Townhouse End Units with 2 Bedroom Interior Units DESIGN DIVERSITY: DESIGN DIVERSITY: 25 Site plan and section CONSTRUCTION STRATEGY DEMONSTRATING 3 SINGLE UNIT USED IN 3 TYPICAL CONFIGURATIONS Of the precedents discussed in this chapter, NewHolly appears to DISTINCT ROOF OPTIONS WITH SIMILAR FIRST Standardization of the essential construction dimensions, assemblies and showing the public, street- FLOOR AND FOUNDATION materials generates a "system" of repetitive unit plans that are put together have the most opportunistic social network. The analytical maps for Standardized duplex (two-family) lower floor plans accommodate in different combinations to yield diverse buildings - individual 2, 3, 4 and 5 differing upper floor plans to yield dramatically different roof forms. bedroom units are constructed as single family houses or are put together facing orientation of each Variation of these roof forms, together with variation of exterior siding in combinations as duplex units or as four unit townhouses. this scheme show a dense, evenly distributed web of interconnectivity patterns and colors and the detailing of exterior porches and railings, dwelling unit and private provides a further level of diversity within the system. between adjacent residents. Also of note is the strong interface between backyard separated by low the individual dwelling and the street. By arranging the street, sidewalk, fencing. porch, and entry sequence into a tightly-knit streetscape, this scheme ensures a dense overlap of social realms. It is important to note, though, that the New Urbanist scheme arranges dwellings in such a way that there is little opportunity for chance interaction between adjacent front porches. This may be a substantial shortcoming, considering that the porch is the node at which residents are most likely to linger.

and brings households closer to the public realm of the street. Every dwelling unit at NewHolly features a street-facing porch, providing an interface between the private and public realms. Generous sidewalks encourage pedestrian traffic, further activating the threshold between the street and the individual dwelling.

62 63

PEDESTRIAN PORCH

AUTOMOBILE WINDOW (FRONT) WINDOW

APPROACH APPROACH

WINDOW (FRONT) PORCH

PORCH WINDOW (FRONT) WINDOW

APPROACH APPROACH WINDOW (FRONT) PORCH

64 65 Jean Renaudie Various Works / France

One of the most unique and intriguing architects of his time, Jean Renaudie designed a handful of social housing projects in southern Paris and the south of France during the 1960s and 1970s. Immediately recognizable for their complex form and idiosyncratic geometry, these housing blocks were “a radical,grands visionary ensembles departure from the modernist idea of ‘existence minimum’” (Mostafavi 2010, 45). Though Renaudie was critical of Modernist (high-rise projects), he did not revert to neotraditional urban design, as Postmodern urbanists would. Rather, Renaudie adopted a structuralist worldview from thinkers such as Claude Levi-Strauss, and found inspiration in complex organic structures. Thus, the organism became Renaudie’s analogy for the complex spatial and social relations inherent in urban dwelling. Renaudie be- 27 Givors housing lieved that form could be molded by social networks, explaining, “ar- project, Rhone, France, chitecture is the materialization of the complex structure according to 1974-1980. which human relations are organized” (Renaudie 1968, 32). The manifestations of this structuralist paradigm are incredibly complex, yet coherent on a larger scale. This is in part due to Renaudie’s this paradoxical condition by employing an extensively stepped, radial conviction that “architecture and urbanism are one and the same thing” massing. Dwellings are thus connected by circulation and services at the (Renaudie 1968, 32). Thus, each building is conceived as a city, and each core, while each unit is given outdoor exposure in multiple orientations. dwelling unit an integral part of this structure. In this way, Renaudie’s The stepped form also allows for an impressive number of balconies, projects transcend Hillier and Hanson’s ‘settlement’ versus ‘building’ many of which contain extensive roof gardens. dialectic, simultaneously displaying the outward permeability of the It is clear that these outdoor terraces and their complex intercon- ‘settlement’ and the interconnectivity of the ‘building.’ Renaudie creates nectivity are of central importance to Renaudie’s design. If the entire complex is understood as a social network, then each terrace represents an individual link in its intricate structure. Renaudie explains, “the terrace encourages contact between people […] they can call from one terrace to another and hold conversations with a neighbor on the terrace above” (Renaudie 1980). By positioning these terraces at every exterior fold, it is as if the threshold condition, the venue for social interaction, is extended across the entire building envelope. The opportunity for interaction is further enhanced as Renaudie weaves semi-public plazas and 26 3rd floor plan of Jean- outdoor circulation systems throughout the project. Ground-level retail Baptiste Clement House, and public spaces add another element to the social milieu. The overall Ivry-sur-Seine, France, effect of Renaudie’s design is such that, “the overlapping of spaces, the 1973-1975. Note fractal- like geometry that allows interface between dwellings, the prospect from one terrace onto anoth- for rich diversity, but also er, the continuity of circulation from one building to the next: all were complicates design/build augmented in his work so that the opportunities for social contact could process. be in turn multiplied” (Scalbert 2004, 46).

66 67 Though Renaudie was able to create an incredibly rich, socially responsive architecture, his highly articulated forms came at a consider- able cost. His angular, fractal-like plans were structurally inefficient, and construction costs were often drastically over budget. In addition, there were no economies of scale inherent in Renaudie’s designs: every individual dwelling unit was unique. This required an inordinate amount of design deliberation, as “the effect of one apartment configuration upon another necessitated never-ending adjustments between inside and outside, between one space and the next” (Scalbert 2004, 45). In addition, the jagged geometric language that allows for such a diverse set of orientations and connections also creates awkward interior spaces. On the other hand, the unique nature of each unit invites residents to “meet the idiosyncrasies of the plan with their own and in this way appropriate their space” (Scalbert 2004,grands 50). Therefore,ensembles Renaudie’s projects foster a sense of individuality and ownership: qualities that were deplorably absent in the Modernist . Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that Renaudie’s distinctive designs have proven popular enough to attract upper-income residents. Renaudie’s projects maintain a substantial portion of their originally intended social housing residents, though, and “today, […] the buildings represent a desirable community of mixed-income residences” (Mostafavi 2010, 47). Analysis (see next page)

The particular project analyzed here is the Villa Jean-Baptiste Clem- ent in Ivry-sur-Seine. Though it is relatively small, comprising only ten units, it nonetheless typifies the geometry and spatial arrangements common in Renaudie’s oeuvre. As the mapping shows, Renaudie’s terraces offer an incredibly rich network of associations along the exterior of the building. The relative complexity of the mapping also suggests that interaction is relatively opportunistic in this scheme, with several nodal connections at varying levels. A notable shortcoming of the Villa Jean-Baptiste Clement is its isolation from the life of the street, or the public realm. It should be noted, however, that the lowest level of this complex (not shown) begins to interface with the street below.

28 Stepped terraces at Givors. Vegetation is used as an adaptable privacy screen.

68 69

WINDOW 1 WINDOW TERRACE 2 TERRACE

WINDOW 2 TERRACE 1 TERRACE

WINDOW 3 WINDOW 2 WINDOW

WINDOW 4 WINDOW 1 WINDOW

TERRACE 1 TERRACE 3 TERRACE

TERRACE 2 TERRACE 2 TERRACE

WINDOW 1 TERRACE 1 1 TERRACE

WINDOW 2 WINDOW 1 WINDOW

TERRACE 1 TERRACE 3 TERRACE TERRACE 2

70 71 30 All units at Villagio Giancarlo De Carlo Matteotti have a dual Villagio Matteotti / Terni, IT orientation, allowing frontage to both the street and a pedestrian courtyard. Here, terraces Giancarlo De Carlo was one of the founding members of Team 10, a step away from the group of like-minded young architects who dissented from CIAM (the courtyard. International Congress for Modern Architecture) in the 1950s. Long before the Postmodern movement caught on, these architects existen formed- zminimum“some of the first really penetrating critiques of Modernism – of place- lessness, mindless zoning, repetition” and “the poverty of the ” (Jones 1992, xi). Like the Postmodern urbanists in the years to come, Team 10 rejected the universality of the Modern movement in favor of a locally-scaled, socially-responsive architecture. A profound interest in the relationship between space and society lead De Carlo to pursue a participatory design process in many of his projects. Indeed, resident involvement was the driving force behind De Carlo’s design for Villagio Matteotti, a social housing project in Terni, Italy. Villagio Matteotti was commissioned by the Italian National Steel Corporation in 1969. Through a series of meetings with potential residents, De Carlo established design parameters that would ultimately inform the collective design of the complex. For instance, every dwelling was to have covered parking, an entrance to the street, and an out- 31 An elevated walkway door garden. Within these parameters, De Carlo developed five distinct separates pedestrians apartment types, which through variations in interior and exterior ar- from automobile traffic, and provides a lateral rangement produced 45 unique dwelling varieties. In concert, these connection between units. differentiated dwelling types create a pleasing milieu that avoids the Communal facilities 29 Roof plan of stigmatizing uniformity attributed to Modernist public housing. Lush center around this raised Villagio Matteotti. Note network. organization of units along horizontal bands of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

72 73 32 Site sections and site plan, showing dual- outdoor gardens also serve to soften the hard edges of the cast-in-place orientation of units along concrete structures, while allowing residents to appropriate and further alternating bands of vehicular and pedestrian differentiate their dwellings. In this way, De Carlo was able to create traffic. a rich architectural diversity without the painstaking deliberation that plagued Jean Renaudie’s housing projects. Nonetheless, the highly articulated design and substantial amenities at Villagio Matteotti required a “higher allocation of resources than was usual for subsidized housing” (Zucchi 1992, 106). Much like Jean Renaudie, De Carlo worked simultaneously at the individual and collective scales, blurring the distinction between architecture and urbanity. At Villagio Matteotti, De Carlo works within a structural framework to create “an organized composition on a large scale that facilitates individual expression on a smaller scale” (Mulder 2005, 220). In this case, the overall structure is determined by alternating bands of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The individual units are arranged within these bands in such a way that each dwelling enjoys frontage on both a street and a pedestrian courtyard. This dual orientation enables surveillance in all directions, extending a sense of ownership to the public spaces, and increasing solidarity among residents. Further- more, De Carlo creates a valley section within the pedestrian court, extending and carving away the mass of the apartment blocks to create stepped-down terraces for each unit. This creates a semi-enclosed public realm in which neighbors may visually or physically connect with one another. Of course, various dividing walls and vegetative screens allow residents to increase privacy, if desired. Perhaps the most intriguing element of De Carlo’s design is the (see next page) three-dimensional network of pedestrian circulation within the com- Analysis plex. Elevated walkways segregate foot traffic from automobile traffic, while pedestrian bridges provide lateral links between the rows of dwellings. This network not only acts as a “mediating organizational The social network mapping of Villagio Matteotti is, at first, not system” (Mulder 2005, 220), but also serves to connect inhabitants to as impressive as other precedents. Though there is a strong connection public and semi-public amenities. In essence, this adds another venue between individual units and the public realm, interaction between ad- for interaction between residents, another opportunity for social mix- jacent units is limited. It seems that De Carlo took painstaking efforts to ing. One might argue, however, that this pedestrian network is overly ensure that private balconies do not leer over one another. That being deterministic, as it does not allow the same freedom of motion inherent said, De Carlo intentionally weaves public corridors and semipublic ter- in the ground plane. In addition, it is possible that the segregation of races through the complex, enhancing the opportunity for passing en- pedestrian and automobile traffic may actually preclude certain types counters. It should also be noted that the reductive analysis used here of social interaction. While De Carlo retains the Modernist notion of the fails to address interaction opportunities across the semipublic pedes- street-as-infrastructure, Postmodern urbanists would soon celebrate trian courts. These nearby dwellings present several nodes of interac- the street as the quintessential venue for social life. Nonetheless, highly- tion. nuanced interaction between private and public space, interior and exterior, ensures that Villagio Matteotti is a socially integrated community.

74 75

PEDESTRIAN 1 PEDESTRIAN PORCH

PEDESTRIAN 2 APPROACH

AUTOMOBILE WINDOW (STREET) WINDOW

COMMON SPACE WINDOW (COURT) WINDOW

WINDOW (COURT) PORCH

WINDOW (STREET) APPROACH

APPROACH WINDOW (STREET) WINDOW

PORCH WINDOW (COURT) WINDOW

WINDOW (COURT) PORCH WINDOW (STREET) APPROACH

76 77 Moisei Ginzburg Narkomfin Building / Moscow

In the wake of the Russian Revolution, Soviet architects were forced to drastically reconsider social housing. On one hand, the chronic housing shortage in the Soviet Union required the utmost efficiency in housing production. On the other hand, the politicalsocial ideologycondenser of the time called for a radical reconfiguration of social structures. The Soviet avant-garde responded to this challenge with the , a new building type meant to “influence users through its use of space so as to introduce a new way of life into their social habits” (Kopp 1985, 70). Thissocial new form con- denserof social housing was intended to socialize its inhabitants, and convert them into a productive, self-sufficient community. Thus, the represents a case were social interaction is taken to the extreme. Though this short-lived housing typology was regarded as “a total failure” (Kopp 1985, 80), it nonetheless offers an intriguingsocial condenser example of an architecture with the sole purpose of enhancing a sense of community. One of the few realized examples of the , Moisei 34 Exploded axonometric Ginzburg’s Narkomfin Building was completed in Moscow in 1930. Ar- drawing of split-level ‘Type chitecturally, the Narkomfin Building is of the Constructivist style, with F’ Unit, as seen in the its bold rectilinear massing and stripped-down aesthetic. Unlike the Narkomfin Building. precedents discussed thus far, Ginzburg’s building encourages interaction not through architectural amenities, but through its unusual programming. In essence, private space is reduced to the bare minimum, maining functions are condensed into an auxiliary building that contains while day-to-day functions are transplanted into collective spaces. Thus, “communal kitchens and dining-rooms, laundries, cleaning services, the individual dwelling units are little more than a dormitory, while re- kindergartens, gymnasiums, libraries and rooms for ‘intellectual work,’ 33 Plan of dormitory-style and summer dining-rooms on the roof” (Kopp, 71). Ginzburg also en- ‘Type F’ Unit, first applied courages social interaction by reducing the number of hallways through to the Narkomfin Building. an inventive, split-level arrangement of units. This has the effect of in- Living space is minimized tensifying pedestrian traffic, thus increasing the opportunity collective in an effort to transplant exchange amongst residents. domestic functions into communal areas. By removing essential spaces from the private realm, Ginzburg re- flects on one hand an economic necessity, but also an ideological shift away from the family structure. Indeed, Soviet ideology at the time actively sought the destruction of the family unit, in favor of a new communal social structure. Unfortunately, this vision did not mesh with the inhabitants of the Narkomfin Building. Residents vehemently rejected the Soviet attempt at social engineering, underscoringsocial condenser the fundamental need for privacy and domestic life in social housing. While the obscure programming of the no doubt led to the building type’s demise, it nonetheless represents an architectural strategy that brings residents into social interaction quite effec-

78 79 35 Narkomfin Building: short elevation and transverse section tively. By displacing essential domestic tasks to communal areas, Soviet architects ensured that residents would come into contact quite often. Perhaps a similar programmatic strategy could be employed today, without detracting from the domestic realm. Tasks such as gardening, mail collection, and garbage disposal occur on a daily basis, and are often performed near thesocial dwelling condenser unit, but outside of the private realm. If these quotidian tasks were assigned to a defined common area, this space would become a of sorts. The crucial difference between such a space and its Soviet predecessor, of course, is the fact 36 Narkomfin Building: that the former does not encroach upon the domestic realm. In this way, 2nd floor plan, showing neighborly interaction may be incentivized without being compulsory. upper level of the more traditional, ‘K-Type’ Analysis (see next page) maisonette-style units.

The Narkomfin Building is not as interesting for its architectural strategies as it is for its programmatic arrangement. Individual dwelling units here are, for the purpose of this analysis, devoid of interaction nodes. All opportunities for interaction are confined to either the circulation corridors, or the ancillary building. Not surprisingly, the mapping 37 Narkomfin Building: reveals a very regimented social network. Opportunities for interaction 4th and 5th floor plan, showing split-level are quite strong, yet highly predictable. The research on social networks ‘F-Type’ units. socialsuggests condenser that chance, opportunistic encounters with proximate neighbors are the most beneficial for the purpose of this thesis. Therefore, the may not be the best architectural model, but it raises intriguing programmatic possibilities.

38 Narkomfin Building: perspective rendering, showing large block of residential units (right) and auxiliary ‘social condenser’ for communal functions (left).

80 81

LEISURE (OUT) LEISURE APPROACH

LEISURE (INDOOR) DINING

DINING LEISURE (INDOOR) LEISURE

APPROACH LEISURE (OUT) LEISURE

LEISURE (OUT) APPROACH

LEISURE (INDOOR) DINING

DINING LEISURE (INDOOR) LEISURE APPROACH LEISURE (OUT)

82 83 Conclusion into a specifically programmed ancillary building, separate from individual dwellings. This creates a highly concentrated and structured venue The architectural precedents in this section approach social inter- for social exchange. action in various ways. Of the projects researched, the New Urbanist The comparison of each scheme’s mapped network is also telling example seems to create the most engaging environment. By condens- of their idiosyncrasies. NewHolly predictably has a dense map, with a ing venues for interaction along a tightly-knit streetscape, NewHolly cre- particularly strong connection to the public sphere, represented by the ates a rich interface between the private and public realms. While the street and the sidewalk. Villa Jean-Baptiste Clement, on the other hand, analysis indicates that this scheme provides the most opportunistic so- lacks a connection to the street, but presents a dense, opportunistic web cial network, there are important considerations to be gleaned from the of connections between neighboring dwellings. The map of Villagio other precedents. Matteotti shows a sparse connection between individual dwellings, but As the summary diagrams below indicate, each scheme manipulates a rich connection to the public realm, represented by public walkways the realm of interaction in a unique way. As discussed, NewHolly clearly and stairwells. Finally, the map of Moisei Ginzburg’s Narkomfin Building establishes the street and sidewalk as the operative interface between shows strong connections between nodes, but no spontaneity in their private and public. Alternately, Jean Renaudie articulates the exterior structure. of the Ville Jean-Baptiste Clement in such a way that the entire build- In short, every map indicates both weaknesses and strengths in ing envelope may be considered the realm of interaction. Giancarlo De their respective schemes. By objectively analyzing each precedent and Carlo, on the other hand, uses common circulation routes as the medi- identifying their operative architectural features, it is now possible to ating device between private and public at Villagio Matteotti. Though apply these methods in concert with the research conducted thus far. De Carlo maintains a degree of privacy for each individual terrace, he Before this may be done in earnest, however, a site must be established. intentionally introduces common stairwells and elevated walkways into The following section will thus introduce the Glencoe Place Apartments their sphere, creating an opportunity for passing encounters. Finally, in Mt. Auburn, Cincinnati as the chosen location for the practical application of this thesis. theWeinstein Narkomfin Copeland Building / New Holly channels all opportunitiesJean Renaudie / Ville for Jean-Baptiste social interaction Clement Giancarlo De Carlo / Villagio Matteoti Moisei Ginzburg / Narkomfin Building PEDESTRIAN 1 PEDESTRIAN

LEISURE (OUT) LEISURE WINDOW 1 WINDOW

PEDESTRIAN

PORCH TERRACE 2 TERRACE PEDESTRIAN 2

WINDOW 2 APPROACH

ILE LEISURE (INDOOR) PORCH

AUTOMOBILE

APPROACH TERRACE 1 TERRACE AUTOMOB

WINDOW 3 DINING

DINING

WINDOW (FRONT) WINDOW APPROACH (STREET) WINDOW

COMMON SPACE WINDOW 2 WINDOW

WINDOW 4 LEISURE (INDOOR) LEISURE

APPROACH WINDOW (COURT) WINDOW

WINDOW (COURT)

WINDOW 1 WINDOW APPROACH TERRACE 1

WINDOW (FRONT)

PORCH LEISURE (OUT) LEISURE

WINDOW (STREET) LEISURE (OUT) TERRACE 3 TERRACE

TERRACE 2

PORCH PORCH APPROACH

APPROACH

APPROACH TERRACE 2 TERRACE LEISURE (INDOOR)

WINDOW 1 39 Summary diagrams WINDOW (STREET) WINDOW

PORCH WINDOW (FRONT) WINDOW

APPROACH 1 TERRACE WINDOW 2 DINING

DINING showing overall realm of WINDOW (COURT) WINDOW

WINDOW (COURT) WINDOW 1 WINDOW

TERRACE 1

LEISURE (INDOOR) LEISURE

PORCH APPROACH APPROACH WINDOW (STREET)

WINDOW (FRONT) TERRACE 3 TERRACE APPROACH TERRACE 2 LEISURE (OUT) interaction (above) and PORCH mapped network (below) for each precedent.

84 85 08 project site

Nestled away into one of the many folds in Cincinnati’s glaciated landscape lies Glencoe Place, a truly remarkable and unique location. Almost in defiance of the site’s extreme grade, seven tenement-style rowhouses are strung along a tight gridiron street pattern. Though the individual rowhouses are conspicuously devoid of ornamentation, together they create an intriguing cascading form as they conform to the hill’s steep slope. In this way, Glencoe Place is quite impressive, and certainly unlike any other block in Cincinnati.

87 Yet the site lies in complete abandonment. Overgrown foliage seeks to engulf the ancient rowhouses, while graffiti and other forms of vandalism make a mockery of the once-stately complex. Numerous broken windows transform the austere façade of the typical Glencoe rowhouse into an eerie, off-putting sight. Thus, the apartments at Glencoe Place send a mixed message, hinting at a vibrant past while evidencing years of disappointment. This unique and challenging site serves as an apt backdrop for this thesis on multiple accounts. First of all, the Glencoe Place apartments have served as federally operated low-income housing in the past. In addition, the site has been earmarked for mixed-income development in recent years, but progress has stalled. More importantly, the existing dwellings on site represent a failed architectural strategy, as the site has fallen into decline twice during its history. Almost paradoxically, the Glencoe apartments seem to represent multiple eras of public housing ideology. Their stripped-down, monotonous detailing is reminiscent of early Modernist architecture, while their rowhouse typology and narrow setbacks could easily be considered New Urbanist. Thus, a successful architectural intervention must consider these conflicting influences, while simultaneously considering the new ideological thrust of Ameri- can public housing. History

The site’s neighborhood of Mount Auburn is considered by many to be Cincinnati’s first suburb. Developer James Key built the neighborhood’s first residence in 1819, and a number of exclusive residences were constructed shortly thereafter. The well-heeled pioneers of Mount Auburn were notable for their philanthropy, founding an impressive number of social services, such as the Cincinnati Orphan Asylum, the German Deaconess Home, and Christ Hospital. Originally known as Key’s Hill, the neighborhood acquired its current title in 1837, named after the Mount Auburn district of Boston for its similar landscape features. Public transportation via horse drawn street car first reached the site in 1867. This improved accessibility would cause Mt. Auburn’s 40 (Opposite) current population to spike, necessitating the construction of several hotels, in- conditions at Glencoe Place, overgrown foliage cluding the Glencoe. and vandalism mar The Glencoe Hotel and Apartments were commissioned by Truman the appearance of this B. Handy and Jethro Mitchell in 1875. Wherein the original impetus for 19th-century rowhouse construction was the local demand for a hotel, the residential rowhouses complex. were seen as a means to bring steady income flow to the project (Cin- cinnati Dept. of Urban Development n.d., 11). When property owners

88 refused to sell Handy and Mitchell street frontage along Auburn Avenue, In the 1970s, major revitalization attempts were directed towards the developers were forced to locate on View Court (hence removed), Glencoe Place and other surrounding properties as part of the federal to the west. Some speculate that Handy and Mitchell intentionally built Model Cities program. Redevelopment efforts included structural re- the rowhouses to a lower-class standard to spite neighboring proper- inforcement, interior renovation, increased parking, and improved site ty owners. By attracting a less reputable clientele, it is reasoned, the planning. Some of the construction on site was deemed beyond repair, developers might bring down the property values of those landowners and a series of demolitions was carried out. These demolitions allowed 42 Glencoe Hotel and that denied the hotel prominent street frontage (Cincinnati City Plan- Apartments, c. 1970. ning Commission 1964). As a result, over 200 tenement-style units were Highlighted regions hastily constructed to minimal structural and architectural standards. represent structures Despite its obscured position, the Glencoe Hotel and Apartments demolished during Model 2 Cities renovation. thrived through the turn of the century. Over time, however, the pres- tige of Mt. Auburn began to wane as the automobile pushed urban development further away from the city center. The property had begun 3 to deteriorate by the 1920s, and slum-like conditions began to set in, continuing through the 1960s. A site report at this time notes that the 1 Glencoe Place tenants were “generally poor” and that “many families are quite large, and living on welfare” (Cincinnati City Planning Commission 1964, 17). Of the few remaining (white) middle-class residents, the report notes, “They express a certain satisfaction with the location, but the racial transition is exerting a new pressure on the residents” (Cincinnati 41 Glencoe Place from City Planning Commission 1964, 16). 43 Site photos, c. 1970. Auburn St, the site’s Locations keyed on site main approach (outline map (above). of existing buildings highlighted). The extreme grade change and lack of street frontage have obscured the complex from its inception.

1 2

90 91 44 (Opposite) site aerials and birds-eye, c. 2010. for the designation of new public spaces, and lessened the overall feeling of enclosure to some extent. Overall, the renovations were hailed as a success, winning several urban renewal awards. Instrumental in the renovation of Glencoe Place was a grassroots, nonprofit organization called the Mount Auburn Good Housing Founda- tion, who acquired the site at this time. The group’s visionary leader, Carl Westmoreland, was determined to rebuild his native Mount Auburn from the ground up. In a 1978 interview, he explained “I see beauty where I live, and I’m responsible for the filth in the streets. My neighbors are responsible for it. We cannot depend upon the benevolence of people who live outside our community” (Watkins, 1978). Though Westmoreland was clearly not lacking in good intentions, the Mount Auburn Good Housing Foundation ultimately lacked the funding and business expertise necessary to maintain a prosperous Glencoe Place (P. Van der Haer, personal communication, Feb. 23, 2011). Poor management and chronic underfunding ensured the gradual decline of the property. A growing backlog of maintenance issues drove discern- ing residents away from the site, and the Glencoe Apartments began to house an increasingly-distressed tenant profile. By the 1990s, the area had once again earned an unsavory reputation, due largely to conspicuous drug trafficking on site (P. Van der Haer, personal communication, Feb. 23, 2011). Though it would be logical to assume that escalating crime and dete- riorating conditions drove Glencoe Place to its present state of abandonment, this is not entirely the case. In actuality, the complex was ordered vacant in 2002 on a technicality when the on-site heating system failed. By this time, Glencoe Place was under the ownership of HUD, which was legally obligated to provide adequate heating to its low-income tenants. Unable to make the necessary repairs, HUD issued Section 8 vouchers to remaining residents, and promptly relinquished ownership of the site. The Glencoe Place Apartments have not been inhabited since. Courted by the site’s historical character and close-out price tag, local developer Pauline Van der Haer soon purchased the property with hopes to redevelop the site as low-income housing. The redevelopment plan, which later changed to market-rate condominiums, would also include the provision of additional parking facilities and the much-needed repair of existing building shells. After negotiating with City Council for various incentives, Van der Haer agreed to move forward with an $18.4 million redevelopment plan with the understanding that $5.4 million would come from the City of Cincinnati. After Van der Haer renovated a few model units on site, the City of Cincinnati rescinded its promised

92 4 46 Photos of selected 2 1 neighboring buildings. 3 Locations keyed on context map (opposite).

45 Context map, showing construction date of existing structures. 1975 - PRESENT 1 2 1950-1975 7 5

1925-1950

1900-1925

1875-1900 8

1850-1875 6

funding in 2009. The two parties have since been in a legal battle, and it 3 4 appears unlikely that renovation plans will be realized. Physical Context

Like the Glencoe rowhouses, surrounding neighborhood institutions haveth seen various degrees of redevelopment over the years. Since the 19 century, the Christ Hospital has certainly been one of the more dominant fixtures in Mount Auburn. The main economic engine of the neighborhood, Christ Hospital has been acquiring neighboring properties for decades. In fact, the hospital has considered channeling expansion onto 5 6 the Glencoe Place site since the 1960s (Cincinnati City Planning Commis- sion, 1964). The influence of Christ Hospital can be seen in the several neighboring medical institutions that surround the site. Despite this influence, the hospital does not appear to support any nearby commercial functions, with only a few storefronts lining the immediate section of Auburn Avenue. The remaining context is entirely residential, reflecting the neighborhood’s suburban nature at its inception. These residences are typicallyth smaller-scale, and most were constructed around the turn of the 20 century. The non-residential buildings in the area are typically larger, newer, and closer to Auburn Avenue. The relative lack of commercial functions in the neighborhood suggests that residents must commute to shopping centers in neighboring communities. 7 8 Architecturally, the neighborhood is very eclectic. Many of the older residences along Auburn Avenue have been beautifully restored to their

94 95 original splendor; however, there are a number of modern structures 47 Site topography map. that eschew the intricate detailing of their neighbors. Stylistically, the

Italianate or Queen Anne style may be the most prevalent. There are INWOOD PL AUBURN AVE also nearby examples of Gothic Revival and Romanesque architecture. The nearby Planned Parenthood building blends in rather seamlessly

with its Postmodern style and material nods to surrounding buildings. MCGREGOR AVE GLENCOE PL From a massing perspective, the most dominant building is the neigh- 1 boring tower of Christ Hospital. At 13 stories, the hospital rises well DERONDA CT

LEROY CT ADNORED CT above all surrounding structures, including the once-dominant Mt. Au- burn Baptist Church. VALENCIA ST Current Conditions ALBION PL

GILMAN AVE JUSTIS ST 48 Site sections showing The most immediately recognizable feature of this site is, no doubt, notable site features. the steep terrain that gives Glencoe Place its characteristically stepped Locations keyed on map form. The precipitous grade of the site poses several advantages and (above) 2 disadvantages to potential users. On one hand, the topographical variation necessitates a degree of architectural complexity amongst the otherwise stoic existing rowhouses. In fact, the National Register for His- toric Places recognized the Glencoe-Auburn Hotel and Row Houses in 2003 as “a fine example of a vintage architectural style conforming to Cincinnati’s hilly topography” (Radel 2004). Despite the added aesthetic intrigue, the steep grade of the site pos- / physical buf isual fer es several urbanistic disadvantages. First of all, the trek up the hill is DERONDA CT ADNORED CT v AUBURN AVE arduous for pedestrians and, one can imagine, nearly impossible for el- site lines derly or handicapped individuals. In addition, the sunken position of the site leaves the existing 3-4 story structures nearly invisible from Auburn e Avenue, the site’s primary approach. Buffered by vegetation and other steep grad ACCESS low-rise structures, the complex has no public frontage. The site is also 1 heavily screened from Inwood Park, to the west. Of course, the existing buildings themselves also impact the site ex- perientially. Within the site, the built form augments the sense of enclosure caused by the valley-section of the terrain. The steep, sheer walls and narrow spacing of the rowhouses leads to a ‘canyon effect’ that is INWOOD PLbuffe GLENCOE PL LEROY CT not particularly pleasing to pedestrians. The situation of the buildings r ffer on the site is such that many views are entirely framed by these relent- bu less urban walls. densityThe overallcrowding dense, enclosed nature of the site brings to mind the distinction made by Rudolf Moos and James Kulik between the terms and . In describing the deleterious socio-psychological canyon effect 2 effects of crowding, an important distinction is made between these two terms: “Density denotes a physical condition involving limited space,

96 97 49 Photos showing progression through site. Locations keyed on context map (opposite).

6 5 4 2 7 3 8 1 2

perceived whereas crowding has the additional requirement of spatial 3 4 inadequacy” (Moos and Kulik 1976, 144). Though historical population figures for Glencoe Place are not entirely clear, records show that at least 200 dwelling units existed on the four-acre site. Thus, the rowhouses at Glencoe Place were drastically more dense than their immediate suburban context. crowded In light of Moos and Kulik’s definition, however, one might also say that, when inhabited, Glencoe Place seemed . The arrangement of streets on site is such that one is confronted with a four-story urban wall around each corner. Where apartment buildings align along 5 6 the same street or corridor, the spacing between facing units is often exceedingly narrow. One might also contend that the architectural detailing of the rowhouses serves to heighten this sense of crowding. The monotonous, relentless appearance of the rowhouses somehow makes them seem more numerous, if not infinite. In concert, these spatial characteristics most likely created a ‘perceived spatial inadequacy’ among the former residents of Glencoe Place. If it is true that this “cognizance of spatial inadequacy […] evokes psychological and physiological stress in the individual” (Moos and Kulik 1976, 144), it is possible that these characteristics were at least partially responsible for the site’s demise. 7 8 Another striking feature of the rowhouses is their overwhelming conformity. Though constructed long before the Modernist movement, Glencoe Place bears the unmistakable mark of cheap, efficient construction. This stripped-down, unadorned aesthetic is thought to cause “a visual stigma” (Calthorpe 2009, 59) for inhabitants. Furthermore, the uni-

98 99 formity of appearance precludes the psycho-sociological need for one to spectacle worth preserving. On the other hand, a number of shortcom- create “general symbolic and emotional ties with the house” (Rapoport ings suggest that changes must be made to promote a successful mixed- 1986, 303) through appropriation and personalization. income housing development. Though it would be naïve to assume that Social Context the demise of Glencoe Place was solely a matter of design, the site’s troubled history nonetheless seems to justify the need for architectural intervention. Though Glencoe Place has its shortcomings, the site provides an Within the sociological context of this thesis, Glencoe Place appears intriguing opportunity for intervention. As a traditional urban setting, to be a viable framework for nuanced intervention. The site’s tradition- Glencoe Place is endowed with many of the social qualities that Post- al urban streetscape creates a strong interface between the private and modern urbanists now emulate. For instance, all dwelling units are ori- public realm, but individual dwellings fail to appropriately engage one ented towards the street, and plentiful windows provide an opportunity another. While there are public spaces on site, there are none that pro- for natural surveillance. The narrow setbacks and low-rise form of the mote a more intimate ‘collective realm.’ In general, the existing context rowhouses also allow residents to extend their sphere of influence onto at Glencoe Place requires a more sophisticated treatment of its many the streets. Furthermore, the Glencoe apartments represent a relatively threshold conditions. The following chapter addresses this need, by ap- dense arrangement of dwellings compared to their pseudo-suburban plying the wealth of socio-spatial considerations discussed heretofore to context. This high density intensifies the opportunity for social interac- a viable site-specific architectural strategy. tion, and also increases the number of ‘eyes upon the street.’ On the other hand, the Glencoe rowhouses are lacking in a number of respects. Most notably, the dense configuration of dwellings on site leaves little room for outdoor common space.defensible Though space the renovations in the 1970s opened a few crucial venues for outdoor interaction, these spaces can only be described as ‘public’ by standards. As the existing open spaces cannot be symbolically tied to nearby dwellings, there are no instances of ‘sharedporous common space,’ as described by Clare Cooper Marcus. Likewise, the various threshold conditions are generally abrupt, and do not act as membranes, as Nan Ellin recommends. A modest stoop marks the entrance to each unit, but this feature serves little more than its utilitarian function. There are no architectural devices that exploit the threshold’s liminality by encouraging interaction. Another glaring deficiency is the lack of private outdoor spaces, such as terraces or balconies. As evidenced in the precedent analysis, these spaces successfully create an interface between the private and public realm. Terraces also allow residents to easily appropriate and individu- alize space. Most importantly, these spaces may be considered a venue for interaction between immediate neighbors. Conclusion

Glencoe Place offers a number of opportunities and challenges. On one hand, the unique historical buildings on site are an architectural

100 101 09 New(er) urbanism

As history has shown, the ideological thrust of American public housing has shifted to include income-mixing as a fundamental objective. Federal urban policymakers have assumed, perhaps too readily, that a diverse socioeconomic milieu may prove beneficial for the urban poor. Though the theoretical advantages of income-mixing have proven somewhat elusive in practice, this thesis posits that a nuanced use of architectural devices may help to exploit the potentialities of mixed-income living. Specifically, it is argued that the design of mixed-income public housing must tactfully encourage social interaction between economically diverse households. While the current New Urbanist guidelines for housing design seek to promote a sense of community among residents, this thesis offers a New(er) Urbanism that incorporates new ideas about social interaction in space.

103 51 An example of visual porosity: Distance In order to apply the theoretical concepts discussed thus far, an ar- of Fog House by chitectural intervention is proposed at the Glencoe Place Apartments StudioGreenBlue, Japan. in Mount Auburn,th Cincinnati. The design proposal aims to convert the existing 19 -century complex into a socially-engaged, mixed-income public housing development through the use of New(er) Urbanist techniques. With its traditional urban form, the Glencoe Place development represents in many ways the current New Urbanist model for public housing design. Thus, the redesign of Glencoe Place seeks to preserve the latent possibilities of traditional urbanism, while enhancing these sociological potentialities through strategic New(er) Urbanist interventions. It is hoped that the resulting design will create an architectural dialogue between past practices and current thinking. In pursuit of an architecture of social engagement, the threshold has emerged as the operative architectural feature. At its various scales, the threshold is situated at the literal and figurative overlap of social realms. According to Quentin Stevens, the threshold not only collects people, but offers a liminal condition in which one is temporarily freed from social restraints. In this way, the threshold becomes a sort of crucible A porous membrane not only mediates two discrete realms, but creates for equal-status social interaction among diverse socio-cultural groups. a hybrid condition in which these realms overlap and slowly seep into This is precisely the type of interaction that is thought to unlock the po- one another. Similarly, a porous urban threshold must clearly demarcate tential benefits of mixed-income development. Therefore, the New(er) social territories, while allowing and even enhancing the exchange be- Urbanism seeks to embellish the threshold condition in order to exploit tween diverse social spheres. Changes in grade or pavement patterning its innate sociological function. may act as a subtle indication of territorial boundary, while low fences The research conducted within this thesis not only identifies the po- or architectural screening devices represent a more defined, yet suitably tentialities of the threshold, but provides valuable insights into how this porous boundary. The concept of urban porosity also connotes a slow condition might formally operate. In general, Nan Ellin’s concept of ur- passage from one state to another, prolonging the liminal state between 50 Urban porosity as an ban porosity serves as a useful analogy for the design of the threshold. social realms described by Stevens. With this consideration, the archi- analogy for the threshold tecture of the threshold should encourage lingering by providing seating condition. A porous areas and other amenities wherever possible. membrane creates a While urban porosity presents a useful conceptual framework for hybrid condition between threshold design at all scales, the New(er) Urbanism recognizes that discrete realms by allowing each to seep into specific thresholds must be tailored to their particular function. In her one another. analysis of NewHolly, Rachel G. Kleit found that residents interact most frequently with their immediate neighbors, regardless of socioeconomic status. In other words, cross-cultural interaction occurs most naturally at the local level. This finding underscores the importance of the space between proximate dwellings, as this is the presumed setting for the most efficacious social contact. Accordingly, the threshold that mediates adjacent dwellings must be adequately porous to allow a fluent interface between neighbors. Paradoxically, this freedom of exchange must not come at the expense of personal privacy. In order to mediate these disparate criteria, it seems necessary to offer multiple orientations for

104 105 each dwelling, each with varying degrees of porosity. In this way residents may chose to acknowledge neighbors, or to remain in privacy, thus modulating public exposure. Beyond the level of immediate neighbors, the next threshold of con- cern is that between the communal and public realm. According to Clare Cooper Marcus, this threshold should be clearly defined, or less porous, in order to promote a shared common space that is symbolically attached to nearby dwellings. In other words, Marcus suggests that the operative threshold between public and private be pushed beyond the individual dwelling, so that a small cluster of dwellings may feel equally entitled to a communal open space. This type of space may then become a sort of forum for collective exchange, in which social ties between next-door neighbors are defined and fortified. By privileging the shared common space, the New(er) Urbanism actively seeks to cultivate contact between proximate households. Beyond the communal realm, it is now appropriate to consider the Glencoe Place development as a whole. In general, one of the problems with Glencoe Place is that it lacks a sense of flow. Nan Ellin explains, “Places that are truly in flow […] have interesting and unexpected de- tours and zigzags. We might call these ebbs or the rocks around which the flowing stream navigates” (Ellin 2006, 6). The relentless urban walls and awkward public spaces at Glencoe Place fail to deliver an interesting urban milieu. This fact is underscored by the uniformity of architectural treatment throughout the complex. A New(er) Urbanist site strategy seeks to create new, distinguished open spaces and to promote a greater sense of visual and circulatory porosity. This in turn creates new av- enues by which residents may connect with one another. Site Strategy

The New(er) Urbanism calls for a calculated relationship between interior and exterior, or public and private. Currently, the densely arranged dwellings at Glencoe Place preclude some of the nuanced spatial transitions discussed thus far. It is thus proposed that a series of selective demolitions be performed. By demolishing roughly every third rowhouse, a greater degree of porosity may be achieved on the site, allowing for increased visual and physical connection between residents. Furthermore, this strategy gives the remaining units an additional ori- 52 Site strategy showing entation, so that they may now open to the street and to their adjacent selective demolitions to increase connectivity and neighbors. Perhaps most importantly, the space between remaining porosity. units becomes a new venue for interaction, or a shared common space.

106 107 EXISTINGEXISTING PROPOSEDPROPOSED 53 Existing entry 54 Proposed entry sequence. Passage sequence. Residents are between public and brought into communal private realm is abrupt. space before entering individual dwelling units. This increases the opportunity for interaction and enriches the entry sequence by adding a pronounced privacy gradient.

balcony balconyentrance entrance

front entrance front entrance

circulation space circulation space

public public private private public public semi-public semi-public semi-private semi-privateprivate private

In order to fully exploit the unique nature of this newly-reclaimed dwelling now interfaces the communal realm with an outdoor private space between dwellings, a new entry sequence is proposed. Currently, space. In this way, each terrace operates much like a traditional front each rowhouse at Glencoe Place connects to the street through a small porch, but the close proximity of these spaces increases the opportunity stoop and a single, street-facing front door. This rather abrupt transition for social interaction between immediate neighbors. between private and public space is not unusual in traditional urban de- While the closely situated terraces create a socially opportunis- sign. The New(er) Urbanist approach instead converts the void between tic space, they also raise concerns over privacy. To address this issue, adjacent rowhouses into an embellished entry sequence, in which each each terrace is designed with varying degrees of visual porosity. Where unit enters from the side. Integral to this new sequence, each dwell- terraces directly face one another, a full-height perforated metal panel ing unit also acquires a terrace at its front door. With this feature, each screens direct views. The remaining edges of each terrace are intention-

108 109 55 Perspective of 56 Interior sectional proposed entry sequence. elevation of proposed Stairs act as a screen entry sequence. The between terraces, but stairs and terraces are also serve to juxtapose torqued slightly to create a circulation space and limited overlook between private space. This neighbors, offering an creates a fortuitous opportunity for interaction. opportunity for interaction between neighbors, but only in passing.

ally left open, to allow overlooking and thus interaction between terraces. To subtly enhance this overlooking condition, the terraces torque slightly as they rise from floor to floor. This formal operation deliberate- ly skews the vertical relationship between adjacent terraces so that upper tenants may catch glimpses of those below, and vice versa. A similar arrangement of stepped terraces was found to create fortuitous encounters between residents at Jean Renaudie’s Villa Jean-Baptiste Clement. Another key consideration within this common shared space is the vertical approach to each entrance. To make efficient use of limited space, and to supplement the screening between facing balconies, a staircase bisects the space between dwellings. The resulting juxtapo- sition between circulation space and private outdoor space is a direct reference to the strategy used by Giancarlo De Carlo at Villagio Matteotti. This strategy ensures that residents will come into close contact with one another routinely, but only in passing. Thus, an opportunity for interaction arises when a resident approaches his or her unit, but an appropriate level of screening ensures that contact is optional. This subtle manipulation of traditional entry sequences epitomizes the New(er) Ur-

110 111 57 Threshold condition at 58 Proposed site street. A perforated metal modifications, showing screen serves to clearly new parking and design define the shared common modifications at newly- space between dwellings, formed nodes. but also allows a degree of porosity to the street. In addition, the form of the screen maintains the stepped form of remaining rowhouses.

banist objective to bring residents into fortuitous contact with one an- worked within, and challenged the existing urban framework at Glencoe other. Place. The resulting scheme thus preserves an architectural legacy while This attempt to encourage chance interaction is also employed at creating a dialogue between traditional urbanism and New(er) Urban- the neighborhood scale. Currently, the overall flow through Glencoe ism. Without the site-specific constraints of Glencoe Place, New(er) Ur- Place is rather linear, extending predictably from the top of the hill to banist techniques may likely be employed more seamlessly on a tabula the bottom. In order to enrich this circulation pattern, the New(er) Ur- rasa. In this way, it is hoped that the principles employed here may serve banist approach introduces lateral flows through the site that encour- as a model for future mixed-income public housing developments. age intersection and overlap. To create new movement patterns on site, This design exercise has showcased the many ways by which archi- parking facilities are proposed at the northernmost and southernmost tectural strategies may encourage social interaction. Through a practi- borders of the complex. Where circulatory routes converge, a node is cal application of the research within this thesis, the New(er) Urbanism created, and the potential for interaction is increased. Perhaps the most seeks to bring people together in such a way that meaningful social ties prominent node within this new framework is the intersection between are formed between diverse neighbors. Though people will ultimately Glencoe and Adnored Court. Given its central and prominent location, associate with whomever they please, the new income-mixing agenda this intersection is an appropriate location for a few programmed com- of public housing demands this type of informed, nuanced emphasis on munity spaces. Thus, a small, neighborhood-run café and an enclosed resident interaction. community function space are proposed here. It is hoped that these new amenities will not only bring residents of Glencoe Place together, but also draw people from other communities to the site. Conclusion

In some ways, the chosen site of Glencoe Place has strained the application of New(er) Urbanist techniques. In practical terms, it would likely be more efficient to raze the entire site than to selectively demolish individual rowhouses. Nonetheless, this design exercise has purposefully

112 113 Works Cited Places Marcus, Clare Cooper. “Shared Outdoor Space and Community Life.” 15, no. 2 The Christian Science (2003):The Human 32-41. Context: Environmental Determinants of Behavior Monitor Moos, Rudolf, and James Kulik. “Population Density, Crowding and the Use of Space.” Atkin, Ross. “Public Housing Gets a New Look in Seattle.” In Ecological, edited Urbanism by Rudolf , 2001 14-February. Housing Policy Debate Moos, 141-174. New York and London: John Wiley and Sons, 1976. Bothwell, et al. “Restoring Community through Traditional Neighborhood Design: A Mostafavi, Mohsen. “Why Ecological Urbanism? Why Now?” In Team 10 , Case Study of Diggs Town Public Housing.”The Urban Sociology Reader 9 (1998): 98- edited by Mohsen Mostafavi, 12-55. Baden: Lars Muller, 2010. 114. 1953-81: In Search of a Utopia of the Present Mulder, Suzanne. “Villaggio Matteotti Housing Estate, Terni 1969-74.” In Caldeira, Teresa P. R. “Fortified Enclaves.” In From Despair to Hope, edited by Jan , edited by Max Risselada and Dirk Lin and Christopher Mele, 327-335. New York: Routledge, 2005. The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960. van den Heuvel, 220-224. Rotterdam: NAi, 2005. Calthorpe, Peter. “HOPE VI and New Urbanism.”Glencoe Place In General Plan. , 49-63. Mumford, Eric. Creating Defensible Space. Cambridge: MIT Press, Washington, D.C.: Brookings InstitutionGlencoe Press, Place: 2009. Mount Auburn Neighborhood 2000. CincinnatiDevelopment City Planning Program. Commission. Cincinnati, 1964. Newman, Oscar. Defensible space: Crime Prevention Washington, through D.C.: Urban U.S. Department Design. of Cincinnati Dept. of Urban Development. From Despair to Hope: Housing and Urban Development, 1996. HOPE VI and the New Promise Cincinnati: of Public Cincinnati Housing Dept. in America’s of Urban CitiesDevelopment, n.d. Newman, Oscar. New York: Cisneros, Henry G. “A New Moment for People and Cities.” In Housing Policy Debate Macmillan, 1972. , edited The Cincinnati Enquirer Putnam, Robert D. “Foreward.” 9 (1998): 5-8. by Henry G. Cisneros and Lora Engdahl, 3-14. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Radel, Cliff. “Glencoe ‘Hole’ Now Historic.” , 2004 26-January. Institution Press, 2009. Royal Institute of British Architects’ Journal Rapoport, Amos. “The Personal Element in Housing:L’Architecture An Argument d’Aujourd’hui for Open-ended Congress forEnvironment the New Urbanism. and Planning “Charter D: Societyof the New and Urbanism.”Space Chicago, 2001. Design.” 75, no. 7 (1968): 300-307. Crump, Jeff. “DeconcentrationPlanet of Slums. by Demolition: Public Housing, Poverty, and Urban Renaudie, Jean. “Urbanism is Architecture.”Unpublished manuscript. , 1968 June- Policy.”Integral Urbanism. 20 (2002): 581-596. July: 32-33. A Right to Difference: The Architecture of Jean Renaudie. Davis, Mike. New York: Verso, 2007. Lotus Renaudie, Jean. “The Terrace.” 1980. Ellin,International Nan. New York: Routledge, 2006. Scalbert, Irénée. NewHolly: Redevelopment Plan. London: Frampton, Kenneth. “The Evolution of Housing Concepts, 1870-1970.” New Architectural Association, 2004. Directions in Urban, 1975: Public 24-31. Housing Seattle Housing Authority. 2011. http://www. Franck, Karen A. “Changing Values in U.S. Public Housing Policy and Design.” In seattlehousing.org/redevelopment/newholly/plan (accessed 2011 4-April). , edited by David P. Varady, Wolfgang F. E. Loose Space Stevens, Quentin. “Betwixt and Between: Building Thresholds, Liminality, and Public Preiser and FrancisThere Goes P. Russel. the ‘Hood: New Views Brunswick: of Gentrification Center for from Urban the Policy Ground Research, Up. Space.” In , edited by Karen A. Franck and Quentin Stevens, 73-92. 1998. Housing Policy Debate New York: Routledge, 2007. Freeman, Lance. The American Journal of Sociology Talen, Emily. “The Social Goals of New Urbanism.” (Routledge) Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2006. 13, no. 1 (2002): 165-188.Housing Policy Debate Granovetter, Mark S. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” Harvard Design Von Hoffman, Alexander. “High Ambitions: The Past and Future of American Low- 78,Magazine no. 6 (1973): 1360-1380. IncomeThe Urban Housing Sociology Policy.” Reader 7, no. 3 (1996): 423-446. Harvey, David. “The New UrbanismThe and Social the CommunitarianLogic of Space. Trap.” Wacquant, Loic J. D., and William J. Wilson. “The Cost of Racial and Class Exclusion.” 1 (1997): 1-3. In , edited byAmerican Jan Lin Heritageand Christopher Magazine Mele, 124-133. Hillier, Bill, andThe Julienne Death and Hanson. Life of Great American Cities. Cambridge: Cambridge New York: Routledge, 2005. University Press, 1984. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City and the Underclass, and Watkins,Public T.H. Policy. “Out of the Shadow of Ruins.” , 1978. Jacobs, Jane. The Language of Post-modern Architecture. New York: Random House, Wilson, William J.Giancarlo De Carlo. Inc., 1961. Giancarlo De Carlo Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Jencks, Charles. New York: Rizzoli, 1977. Zucchi, Benedict. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture, 1992. Jones, Peter Blundell. “Foreward.” In , by Benedict Zucchi,Housing ix-x. PolicyOxford: Debate Butterworth Architecture, 1992. Joseph, Mark L. “Is Mixed-IncomeOeuvre Housing Complete an Antidote 1910-1929 to Urban Poverty?” (Routledge) 17, no. 2 (2006): 209-234. Le Corbusier. “The Street.” In . Erlenbach and Zurich, 1946. Environment and Planning A Kleit, Rachel G. Constructivist“HOPE VI New Architecture Communities: in the Neighborhood USSR. Relationships in Mixed- Income Housing.” 37, no. 8 (2007): 1413-1441. Kopp, Anatole. Translated by Sheila de Vallée. London: Academy Editions, 1985.

114 115