I
cation are
established
throughout the
built
environment: it is simply understood that certain blocks, neighborhoods, or even driveways
Territory Varies w i t h Form
are not entered w i t h o u t express permission f r o m inhabitants. I n many large cities, there are
Territorial inclusion is remarkably consistent
some quarters into w h i c h neither police, build-
throughout varied physical circumstances. En-
ing inspectors, nor tax collectors venture. There
v i r o n m e n t a l f o r m , i n all its richness and variety,
are urban areas i n w h i c h shopkeepers m u s t pay
always interprets the same basic set o f territo-
scheduled "protection" fees to local gangsters
rial principles, The f o l l o w i n g illustrations compare two very different examples.
or be driven out. Local enforcement, f o r m a l or i n f o r m a l , establishes territorial depth w i t h i n broader urban fabric. Territorial interpretations o f house f o r m
Row House Urban Tissue
vary greatly. Included territories created by acts The European bourgeois row house runs the gamut f r o m thirteenth-century French bastide towns, to Dutch seventeenth- and eighteenthcentury canal towns, to terraced residential districts of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England. Basically, each individual house gives onto a single, u n i n t e r r u p t e d public space com-
T e r r i t o r i a l S t r u c t u r e in Different
Environments
prising all streets, squares, and canals. The urban territorial structure o f these environments
spatial
hierarchy
characterizing
street networks o n the urban level is clearly distinct
house f o r m . The lower end o f the territorial structure may be far more diverse t h a n the f o r m initially suggests. I n the Dutch canal house, f o r example, we c o m m o n l y observe a basement entrance; w h e n not used by upstairs inhabitants for warehousing or other commercial activities, the basement frequently becomes an independent shop or dwelling. The b u i l d i n g then contains two or more n o n c o m m u n i c a t i n g
is simple. The
o f dwelling do not correlate to any specific
from
its
remarkably
flat
structure. U r b a n space exhibits
stacked territories, each directly related to the street (figure 8.2). The house, although b u i l t as a single con-
territorial pronounced
hierarchy. I n Amsterdam, there are the m a j o r canals, m a j o r streets perpendicular to t h e m , and secondary streets r u n n i n g alongside ca-
figuration,
lends itself to varied territorial use.
Thus b u i l t f o r m is an accumulation o f acts o f b u i l d i n g followed by acts o f inhabitation: the m a k i n g o f territory follows and interprets the creation o f f o r m .
nals. It w o u l d seem reasonable to assume that, I n another D u t c h variant, a rear house is
paralleling hierarchy observed i n the order o f f o r m , secondary streets constitute a lower terri-
accessed via a small alley between the original house and the lot line, as portrayed i n Ver-
torial level. Yet no evidence supports this. On the other hand, clear street and neighborhood territories that have no f o r m a l indi-
8.2
Amsterdam—Canal
entrances:
to a basement 8.1
Paris, 1739—Detail
Bretez, showing deep lots feature
buildings extensive
from
tlie "Turgot
set tight along rear gardens
Map" by Louis the streets.
(page
142)
Their
house, showing
to the main house, dwelling.
three
to an upstairs
separate
dwelling,
and
Observing Territorial
>
Structure
>
8.3
Varying
territorial
Interpretations
(a) A single house Is a single
(c) The back house
as the other
(d) The back house comprises mon entry garden. deeper
territorial
territory.
with access to the street
depth
exists 3t
two territories
than houses
the
houses.
with a com-
The back house Is consequently depth
house:
territory.
(b) A single house Is not a single
same territorial
of the row
on the
at a
street
146
147
meer's A Street in Delfi. There exist two territor-
habitants, we also note that individual territo-
ies o n the same level, each m a i n t a i n i n g direct
rial situations are i n fact quite variable. There
access to the street (figure 8.3c), However, the
may be no obvious physical signs o f a highly
narrow dead-end alley may access two back
complex reality.
houses on adjacent lots, i n w h i c h case territorial depth increases: the alley now
provides
public space for the two back houses. Since i t
T r a d i t i o n a l M i d d l e Eastern Tissue
can be shut o f f f r o m the street w i t h a door, the alley itself is private space relative to the street
I n comparison w i t h European row house urban
(figure 8.3d).
tissue, spaces w i t h i n traditional Middle Eastern
8.4
Tunis Medina—Urban
house plans.
fabric with
The first territorial
superimposed
level Is Indicated,
showing
W i t h i n the house, we earlier noted a lack
urban environment display deeper territorial
o f i s o m o r p h i s m i n the relationship between
structure. The historic quarter o f T u n i s shows
built f o r m and fluid territory, the latter being
dead-end streets w i t h their own gates. A n u m -
together
established by people and their f u r n i t u r e i n re-
ber o f individual houses are reached via each
the house bounded
by the rue de la Kasba and the
lation to fireplace, window, alcove, and the like,
of these streets. I n this way, bi-level territory is
des Tamis connects
to two impasses,
hole-in-the-wall streets,
and territories
Paysanne.
While we may generally categorize entrance halls and stairs as m i n i m a l public space for i n -
firmly
established w i t h i n urban space.
constituting
This is an example
from
Bou Machem overlap.
Sauvegarde
the
street
from It. Note
of territorial
of the Association
Tunis.
directly
a dead-end
with Those houses accessed
map courtesy Medina,
shops, houses entered
de la
that rue and la Base
The houses themselves, like many court-
suggests bottom-up growth. DweUings come
yard house types, are almost perfect territorial
first, leaving open public space to be f o r m e d as
f o r m s i n plan (see also figure 17.4). The court-
density increases.'
ceiving the environment. The western European model accommodates
separate acts o f
setflement, u t i h z i n g a geometric structure that
yard is entered t h r o u g h a gate, f r o m a street or
I n general, the Middle Eastern f o r m is
includes house lots. It creates a predetermined
dead-end alley. Individual rooms cluster around
more "territorial" throughout, while the Euro-
framework
it. The courtyard reads as the public space o f
pean m o d e l seems m o r e governed by geometry
depth. The Middle Eastern model, devoid o f
the house's territory. Each r o o m comprises a
and b u i l d i n g structure.
predetermined geometry, recognizes only the
wide and shallow private space, w i t h
three
shallow
territorial
act o f settlement and produces over fime a rela-
niches large enough to hold a bed, couch, or bench: one directly opposite the door is re-
o f relatively
fively deep territorial structure.
Party Walls and T e r r i t o r i a l Boundaries
cessed into a deeper zone that also offers stor-
Externally, one is a f o r m containing setdement; the other is settlement generafing f o r m .
age spaces; the other two are located to the right
Walls between neighbors are another aspect
and the l e f t o f t h e door. These niches echo the
worthy of comparison. I n the M i d d l e East-
true. There, the courtyard house f o r m lends
courtyard pattern: the relatively public center o f
ern tradition, abutters frequently cooperate i n
structure to m i n o r acts o f settlement, w h i l e the
the r o o m is surrounded by privacies.
shared party walls. Whoever builds first m u s t
canal house leaves settlement to create its o w n
T u n i s i a n urban space, shops give
be prepared to accept and accommodate the
order.
directly onto streets, thus occupying the same
neighbor's beams i n what then becomes a com-
territorial level as dead-end streets. Courtyard
m o n wall.^ I n terms o f f o r m hierarchy, the total
houses may also find themselves o n this level
configuration o f party walls w i t h i n the block
In
(see figure 8.4}. The same f o r m s — i n this case,
becomes
courtyard house or shop—generally recur on
Olynthus a similar higher-level structure was
a higher-level f o r m .
Whereas
in
very d i f f e r e n t territorial levels. Again, there is
premeditated and b u i l t i n one intervention, the
no r i g i d i s o m o r p h i s m i n the relation between
higher-level c o m m o n courtyard wall structure
f o r m and territorial structure.
i n the Middle East typically arises out o f many
A cursory comparison o f Dutch and T u n i -
cumulative individual acts.
sian tissue demonstrates how differently terri-
I n the western European r o w house tradi-
torial structure and u r b a n f o r m may relate.
t i o n , shared party walls are u n k n o w n . As early
W i t h i n a flat urban territorial structure, historic
as the medieval bastide towns, each house has
Amsterdam's canal house f o r m functions like
its o w n load-bearing walls just w i t h i n the terri-
a well-articulated container. Because i t reflects
torial lot line. Walls are thus doubled, perhaps
no predetermined territorial model, i t easily ac-
just a hand's w i d t h apart, to allow water collec-
commodates a range o f lower-level territorial
tion f r o m both roofs. This reflects a predeter-
situations. Courtyard house environment, as
m i n e d territorial structure o f lot divisions,
typified i n Tunisia, exhibits more depth i n the
It
u r b a n spaces, while the houses are very territo-
freely w i t h i n their territorial boundaries. Each
rial i n f o r m . I t is hard to see how occupancy can
b u i l d i n g may be independently erected or de-
deviate very m u c h f r o m a predetermined terri-
molished. Interaction, interference, and negoti-
torial interpretation.
ation between neighbors are thus kept to a
The T u n i s i a n example is, indeed, an al-
allows live
configurations to t r a n s f o r m
m i n i m u m d u r i n g the b u i l d i n g process.
most immediate reflection o f the act o f inhab-
Such different approaches to b m l d i n g
itation. Its lack o f overarching geometric f o r m
party waUs reflect p r o f o u n d differences i n con-
Inside the houses, however, the reverse holds
1
O b s e r v i n g T e r r i t o ria I S t r u c t u r e
feed a large city, thereby m a i n t a i n i n g its auton-
Paris, 1736
W h e n Territory Precedes Form
omy. But buildings that always stand at the The Turgot map of Paris (figure 8.1) portrays an
street edge, jealously guarding open space be-
environment i n w h i c h most buildings are about
yond, clearly adopt
five stories h i g h , about as h i g h as people could
stance toward pubhc space.
an assertively
territorial
The eighteenth-century
Capital City during the Qianlong
Era reveals an
u r b a n structure i n Beijing based on walled-in
The m i n i m a l pubfic space o f the streets
compounds that are accessed through clearly
each street's edge define u r b a n blocks. Public
and squares was lively and crowded. Accord-
articulated gates (see also figure 5.8). The waU,
space is m i n i m a l : even the extensive Jardin de
ingly, ground-floor space along street frontage
Luxembourg is entirely removed f r o m view be-
was predominantly earmarked for commercial
h i n d h i g h buildings and walls, I t does not par-
and work space. Domestic space was concen-
t h e C a p i t a l City d u r i n g t h e Q i a n l o n g Era, showing
ticipate i n the pubfic environment.
trated more inside and upstairs. Public space
street and residential
was also dangerous, uncontrolled, and dark at
gates.
sors o f the Parisian c o m m u n a l courtyards. The
night, a place to separate f r o m the more peace-
8.5
Beijing,
fabric is typical of a high-density urban environ-
f u l and regulated private realm i n w h i c h all
ment.
inhabitants
Streets are
of minimal
width,
even
t h o u g h they must serve all o f the teeming terri-
were
known
and
specifically
admitted.
tories behind the facades. Such crowded, narrow streets may be deceptive: toward the edge o f the city, buildings
Dutch Townscape
retain their height and r e m a i n situated right at the street edge proper. But there we find m u c h
For m i l l e n n i a , jealously guarded private open
lower density, for the buildings have extensive
space behind buildings and walls, creating a
backyards—primarily f o r agriculture, some-
walled-off domain, was typical o f u r b a n f o r m
times fashioned as pleasure gardens.
throughout the world, regardless o f population
Further into the outskirts, w i t h i n the fau-
density.
bourgs, houses appear only intermittently. Yet
I n historic Dutch cities, we find that al-
they still crowd the street, even w h e n f r o n t i n g
though the urban network o f public space, w i t h
expansive cultivated fields. Moreover, the fields
its canals lined w i t h trees, is more generous,
are walled i n . Even there, pubhc space is rigor-
most open space remains invisible f r o m the
ously separated f r o m private outside
streets or canals. Despite sixteenth- or seven-
space.
Green space is always private.
teenth-centitry
Delft's
unmistakably
urban
character, population density may wefi have been lower than that o f a m o d e r n Dutch suburb
Buildings on t h e Edge
or garden city.' Space is used differently i n contemporary
Thus, buildings were developed w i t h many sto-
urban environment. The proportion of public
ries, even w h e n their large lots were sparsely
space is larger, no doubt because o f the car. I n
developed. This may signify that land was
addition, private exterior space is displayed
slated f o r other purposes—for growing vegeta-
publicly. Historically, there was no point to set-
bles and fruits; for raising sufficient animals to
ting back a building: f r o n t yards were, f o r all practical purposes, useless.
ca. 1750—Detail
Ceremonial
main streets. lowed
Territorial Form
Map of tht
climb every day. Continuous perimeter walls at
W i t h i n discrete blocks are f o u n d precur-
U r b a n Fornn as
Complete
streets.
Most of the latter
gates are seen at the crossing
Houses typically
by one or more courts,
three sides. Reproduced I ihrary
of the Complete
exhibit
main have of two
an en trance court
each having
courtesy
Map oi
of the
pavilions
fol-
at
Harvard-Yenchlng
a p r i m a r i l y territorial demarcation, stands on its own, i n i t i a l l y d e f i n i n g the compound w i t h i n w h i c h pavilions, u n d e r separate roofs, are then arranged to f o r m a sequence o f courtyards. Whereas i n the T u n i s i a n fabric (figure 8.4), i t remains ambiguous whether territory or f o r m was there first, i n Beijing territorial demarcation preceded the buildings. Large-scale
environmental
creation
in
w h i c h territory precedes f o r m is universal and still very m u c h alive. We find walled territory i n urban compounds i n the i n f o r m a l sectors o f Latin A m e r i c a n cities (see figure 5.9). There, too, settlers first b u i l d walls around their territory, w i t h a gate to the street,•> I n w a r m and dry climates like those o f Mexico and Peru, i t suffices f o r a f a m i l y to live inside the waUs w i t h just a p r i m i t i v e shack to sleep i n . Gradually, a large two-story house w i t h several courtyards 152
emerges. Comparing
the
maps
o f Tunis
and
Beijing reveals another difference i n the relationship o f territorial structure to hierarchy o f f o r m . W i t h i n the T u n i s i a n fabric, territorial depth is f o u n d i n the street system as well: dead-end streets shared by a h a n d f u l o f houses w i l l have their o w n gates giving onto the network; secondary streets may have gates toward m a j o r streets. Whether i n d i v i d u a l houses have a single courtyard or many, territorial depth is f o u n d only between a courtyard and its surr o u n d i n g rooms. I n the Chinese model, territorial depth w i t h i n the c o m p o u n d can be extensive: courtyard after courtyard after courtyard may be arranged hierarchically, sometimes connected by alleys. I n the street network, territorial depth is i m p l i e d by the existence o f gates at the entrances o f the aUeys and at some intersections o f the streets,5
Observing Territorial
Overlap of Form a n d Territory
Structure
variation, out o f w h i c h urban fabric is also woven. Such themafic variation is related, not sur-
House types do not necessarily represent any
prisingly, to the social structure that brings it
specific social entity. They therefore cannot be
f o r t h . Building types c o m m o n l y associated w i t h
equated w i t h any specific territorial interpreta-
h o u s i n g do not so m u c h represent dwellings as
tion. Thus, the Dutch canal house demon-
f o r m s created to accommodate c o m m o n pat-
strates how the row house, although typically a
terns o f occupancy, w i t h w h i c h given social
single-family bourgeois dwelling, can accom-
groups specifically identify.
modate d i f f e r e n t occupation. Nor does this di-
Dwelling, as already argued, is a territo-
versity necessarily result f r o m change o f use
rial act o f occupation. It may involve a space
over t i m e : some seventeenth-century duplex ca-
smaller than a house: the boarder's dwelling is
nal houses have two original fa(;ade doors, one
a r o o m . House building, on the other hand, is a
o f w h i c h leads to an upstairs dwelling.
f o r m - m a k i n g act w i t h i n acquired territory The
Such variation is not l i m i t e d to residential uses. W i t h i n one b u i l d i n g type we
find
resulting house f o r m always remains open to territorial interpretation.
shops, bakeries, and many other residential-
3
House a n d Territory
Extreme changes i n social organization
scale commercial activities. These patterns o f
f o l l o w i n g i n i t i a l occupancy may trigger un-
variable use and occupancy may occur any-
foreseen
where and are not l i m i t e d to a particular house
nineteenth-century courtyard houses i n San-
type. The Pompeiian courtyard house, although
tiago
oriented inward, for commercial purposes con-
deliberate reordering to establish clear new
sistently opened rooms onto busy streets (see
territorial demarcation, p e r m i t t i n g higher den-
figure 15,2). While the suburban house type and
sity. The house, initially b u i l t f o r a prosperous
fabric do not typically support pedestrian store-
extended family, has now become a small vil-
f r o n t service retail activity, a b u i l d i n g
lage, occupied by a n u m b e r o f working-class
sug-
variations. I n a detailed study o f
de Chile,
Fernando
Domeyko records
gesting single-family use may i n fact hold two
nuclear f a m i l y households. The territorial or-
or more households, or, more commonly, a
ganization so clearly suggested by the courtyard
business office at home.
form
is scrupulously retained.
But private
There exists no strict parallel between the
rooms around the courtyard are now clustered
social u n i t o f a certain culture and any one
i n twos and threes by small f r o n t patios carved
house f o r m , although some relationship clearly exists. The first purpose of the Chinese court-
out o f the larger courtyard. Public space rem a i n i n g i n the courtyard is reduced to an alley.
yard compound, so susceptible to expansion by erecting additional pavilions, is to shelter an extended family. The first purpose o f the western Santiago
European row house is to enable dwelHng by a
8.6
single family.
century Is shown
Variations of territorial
and functional
de Chile—Partial
house with
view of a
two successive
as presently
occupied
by several
tants have fenced
off parts ofthe
interpretation w i t h i n such general themes sug-
vate yards, leaving
a narrow
gest that house f o r m results above all f r o m con-
axis. The house is thus transformed
ventional acts o f b u i l d i n g repeated i n thematic
known
as the "CItè Knossos."
public
After
turn-of-the-
courtyards
The house
families.
courtyards
Inhabi-
to make
alley In the
central
into a little
village,
Domeyko.
pri-
155
This example, while extreme, is by no
type its name and developed its characteristic
means an exception. Once f o r m is present, life
architecture o f wooden columns and banisters,
makes use o f it, adjusting it and adjusting to it,
sometimes elaborately carved.
o f f e r i n g ever-changing
territorial
Mansion conversions like those i n Cam-
interpreta-
bridge have m o r e recently provided an image
tions w i t h i n its relative constancy. Similarly drastic changes are observed i n
for new construction. Large "houses" recalling
o f Cam-
single-family mansions are now designed to
bridge, Massachusetts, as grand Victorian man-
contain a number of smaller dwellings f r o m the
sions set i n substantial gardens are converted
start.
i n t o c o n d o m i n i u m s . They still
there similarly emerged
affluent residential neighborhoods
accommodate
I n Europe i n the
rgzos
and
1930s,
"two-under-one-roof"
only those who can a f f o r d to dweh comfortably
houses. Such duplexes share a party wall and a
near the center o f the city; new entrances are
single roof, w i t h entrances and garages at oppo-
created at sides and rear to provide private ac-
site ends, recalhng the f a m i l i a r single-family
cess. These houses are subdivided vertically and
house f o r m . This f u r t h e r supports the n o t i o n
horizontally, o f f e r i n g stacked dweUings f r o n t
that house f o r m is one convention, occupation
and back as well as one or two beneath the
another.
eaves. The backyard is now a c o m m u n a l parki n g area that provides access to m u l t i p l e dwellings i n the house, increasing territorial depth.
T e r r i t o r i a l Conversion Territorial interpretation o f a given f o r m may lead, i n t u r n , to new f o r m s : f o l l o w i n g a massive influx o f workers into nineteenth-century A m sterdam, its fabric was extended (see
figure
4.4c). The new neighborhoods contained buildings that retained the w i d t h and height of the canal house. But each floor became a separate dwelling, connected to the street via a c o m m u nal staircase. A l t h o u g h the architecture was reductive and the technical quality was poor, this variant could be understood as the final transf o r m a t i o n of a historic b u i l d i n g type. The Bostonian single-family gabled urban house w i t h porch, set on a narrow lot, was transformed i n t o the "triple-decker" type stiU i n evidence throughout s u r r o u n d i n g cities. Here too, each floor became a separate apartment w i t h its o w n porch. Stacked porches gave the
Use o f Space and Contents Once entered into public space, by right or by
Use vs. Control of Space
admittance, one is free to walk i n pubhc parks,
A l i v i n g r o o m may be under the f i r m control o f a single family member, or i t may be controlled more i m p l i c i ü y by c o m m u n a l consensus. !n either case, it follows that those who use the space—children, friends, and
guests—need
not be i n control of it. Public space is, by dehnition, space used by those who do not individually control i t . Users of public space may come f r o m either i n cluded or higher-level territory. Entering the public realm f r o m private space is a f u n d a m e n tal right: the door to public space is always
enter public museums, drive public roads, sit on public benches, and use, f o r a fee, pubhc phones. I n addition to using space, we also use things. To a certain extent, we can actuaUy manipulate configurations we do not control, just as we can enter a space we do not control. But there are clear limitations. The house guest is invited to sit i n a chair, perhaps to pick up a magazine, but is not expected to rearrange or remove f u r n i t u r e . W i t h respect to actual physical transformations, the visitor is given little leeway. Control of things is an immediate, hands-
open, and there m u s t always be a public space we can move out to. I n doing so, one is still on "home
t u r f " : public space is communally
shared among those f r o m similarly included territories. Household members Public Space
access and
share the living r o o m . Residents i n a development may share clubhouse privileges. Further u p the territorial hierarchy, that sense o f proprietorship fades. Yet interstate highways i n the
on affair. I n the Parisian Jardin des Tuileries, visitors may sit i n i r o n garden chairs arranged around the pond. But a fee is exacted f o r this privilege, by a m a t r o n who continually restores the arrangement as each visitor departs. The park constitutes a large public space, but the circle o f chairs is the matron's configuration, as she w i l l pointedly i n f o r m you. We move "upward" to use spaces o f i n -
U n i t e d States, as well as the M a l l i n Washington,
D.C., are spaces held i n c o m m o n by all
American citizens. Public space is also used, w i t h o u t exercise o f control, by those admitted f r o m outside, who have a different attitude than those entering f r o m included territory. The outsider enters f r o m another (higher-level) public space as a
creasingly "public" character i n the order o f place. But to use and manipulate things, we move downward into the territory of the person i n direct control: a person who is actually there. The unhappy fate o f uncontrolled telephone booths and public toilets offers p r o o f that this territorial reality cannot easily be denied.
guest. There always remains some possibihty that entry will be barred to the neighbor, the out-of-towner, or the foreigner. Use f r o m outside is specifically granted, and temporary i n nature.
8.7
Cambridge,
Massachusetts—Triple-decker
house.
Claiming Territory t h r o u g h
the w o r l d . Many temporary territories are i n -
Use of Space
cluded f o r only a few hours, a cyclical increase
The use o f things occurs at the scale of the body.
towns has gone on f o r centuries. I n the l i v i n g
and decrease o f territorial depth that i n some
It inevitably impHes occupancy o f sufficient
room, we see the same phenomenon:
space—an instant territory, however temporary
books or toys are brought to occupy a corner or
and transparent—^to exercise this use.
a couch, some depth is added to the territorial
Configurations do not
fioat
freely i n
when
situation o f a c o m m u n a l space.
space; and control implies territory. Thus con-
The h u m a n body implies territorial pres-
trol o f a configuration simultaneously implies a
ence. Therefore, being i n a pubhc space is
territorial claim. The subway musician stands
partaking i n a game o f instant territorial recon-
against a pillar and places a hat i n f r o n t o f her.
figuration,
s h i f t i n g as people use things: sitting
People respect the claim and m a i n t a i n a dis-
on benches, waiting f o r buses, parking cars, en-
tance, entering her space sporadically to toss a
tering telephone booths, standing by the side-
coin. The hawker admitted i n t o the fiea market
walk. A game of fleeting spatial claims and
m u s t be granted a corner to display his wares.
territorial inclusions follows the flow o f use
The traditional market exhibits instant territo-
w i t h i n the contextual setting o f a given public
rial arrangements i n t o w n squares throughout
space.
8.8
Jogjakarta,
Indonesia—Sidewalk
barber.
r
Territory and Buildin
Territory and Buildings
The Suburban Yard
Tl
The mansion standing free i n its o w n estate may o f f e r some visual connection w i t h the pubhc road. But the space between is open land. Even when landscaped, h is not shaped to extend either house or street. The entry gate
o
marks the territory, not the house: the territorial claim
is quite separate f r o m the
building.
Sometimes there is only a post or a stone to i n dicate a boundary. The suburban house (figure 9.2a) bears witness to a somewhat more spatial, architectural engagement. Street and house keep their distance, but stand i n close enough proximity to provide a certain tension between the b u i l t f o r m inside a larger territory and the public space outside that territory. The suburban f r o n t yard is the mediating space i n between: the
Street a n d House
property o f the inhabitant b u t open to the
165
street, contributing to the public realm. Houses are separated just enough to be perceived as i n dividual f o r m s , and set back just enough to create a sense o f independence, "Suburban" aptly describes this arrange-
ery to suggest a freestanding cottage i n the
9.2
wilderness.
cal lines extending
ment. I n a f u l l y u r b a n environment, b u i l d i n g
The relation
territorial
of territorial beyond
boundary
to building
the square indicate
(verti-
the
boundary):
and street are closely married: the fa(;:ade f o r m s part o f a street wah, at the edge o f domestic ter-
(a) The suburban
house in its
(b) Urban houses
fronted
garden.
The Urban Yard
ritory. I n the suburb, that street wah is dissolved and a f r o n t yard mediates between house and territorial boundary. A n architectural complement to the dignity o f the pubHc r e a l m is sometimes preserved i n the way the entryway or facade addresses the street. But bungalows and ranch houses typically seek to deny the closeness o f the street, appropriating imag-
As we move f r o m the suburb toward the city
street
by narrow
gardens,
forming
a
wall.
(figures 9.2b and 9.4a), the distance between building and street decreases, u n t i l the d i m i n -
(c) The British terraced walk and
house with an "area" between
side-
building.
ished f r o n t yard requires architectural reinforcement to sustain itself as a strip o f nature
(d) The Dutch
between house and street. Victorian houses o f
between
canal house with a zone
pavement
and
for
stoops
building.
Boston's Back Bay, f o r instance, have f r o n t yard depths
o f at most
fifteen
f e e t — j u s t large
enough to plant a tree and m a i n t a i n a f e w feet o f lawn between shrubs at the foundations and those along the street. Assertion o f the ter-
(e) Perfect ing
coincidence
of territorial
boundary
and
build-
fa<;ade.
(f) Northern
Italian
with
the territorial
the
facade.
arcades, such as those In boundary
located
behind
Bologna, the line of
I
Territory and Buildin
9.3 urban
Kampong setting
and private
near Jogjakarta, in a kampong
with
Indonesia-House fence between
in subpublic
space
i66
ntorial boundary now becomes necessary: the street is too close and the small strip o f yard too vulnerable. Hence, i n the Back Bay, low walls w i t h i r o n railings, together about knee-high,
way, the street wall, standing behind the shallow f r o n t yards w i t h their greenery, undulates but remains anchored to urban geometry.
are f o u n d along the sidewalk. They f o r m a modest but essential architectural element.
The Six-Foot Yard
Because these fences are similar i n composition and u n i f o r m i n height, they f o r m a continuous element, de-emphasizing the individuality o f the houses, j o i n i n g them i n response to the street. Jointly, the fences define the sidewalk as m u c h as they demarcate individual yards.
The urban f r o n t yard (figure 9.4b) o f l i m i t e d dimension is f o u n d i n endless variation i n the nineteenth- and twenfieth-century city. Some five or six feet o f separation between garden gate and house door are sufficient to evoke the presence o f a garden. Demarcation o f t h e terri-
I n this configuration, house fagades beg i n to merge into a street waU. The Back Bay street wall is particularly successful i n that i t is f o r m e d w i t h bay windows. While their widths may vary, their projecfion beyond the facade and into the yards is always the same, such that they too are perfectiy aligned i n plan.' I n this
torial boundary becomes essential to preserve the
garden's integrity.
Boundary f o r m s vary
9.4 Distances urban setting:
between
public
space and building
in an (c) iondon^The
f r o m slender three-foot i r o n fences to elaborate
showing
combinafions o f masonry wall and railing. I n
(^) Boston
and steps down
Holland,
y^rds with buildings
ciHzens c o m m o n l y keep boundary
Back Bay, nineteenth aligned
century-Narrow
,n a continuous
front
the Netherlands-Minimal
low iron fence and freestanding
house.
the sidewalk
to basement
(d) Amsterdam-Canal (Ö) Apeldoorn,
of an English
from
floor.
waif
f o r m s low, to preserve a view o f the street f r o m the hving roora.
"area"
the bridge
front yard
with
house
stoops.
terraced
house
to the main
floor
a venerable tradition still occasionally i n evi-
The Georgian Terrace
dence today. The area i n question w o u l d be
no l i g h t f r o m the pubhc space. Pedestrians move inside a long continuous f o r m , rather
terraced
paved by the home owner, frequently i n costly
than
housing (figures g.2c and 9.4c) elevates the
stone, contrasting w i t h the brick paving i n the
comes alive only where shops and work places
street w i t h f i l l cut f r o m house lots. The f r o n t
public street. The territorial boundary was o f t e n
open toward it, where sounds and goods spiU
sidewalk is a f e w steps below the m a i n floor;
asserted by small granite columns, sometimes
out into the sunny public space f r o m dark holes
the rear garden is roughly at basement level. I n
connected w i t h i r o n chains, placed f o u r feet
i n the wall,
f r o n t o f the house is the "area": several yards
f r o m the facade.^
Urban
infrastructure i n Georgian
past individual
buildings. The
street
o f space between house and sidewalk, through w h i c h hght and narrow steps descend to the basement. A bridge over the area
connects
Lines Crossing: The Arcade The M i n i m a l Yard
m a i n entry to street, l i n k i n g territorial edge to
168
The convergence of b u i l t f o r m and territorial Six to eight feet is probably a reasonable l i m i t
boundaries aUows f u r t h e r variety i n relations
I r o n railings protect pedestrians f r o m the
f o r retaining the identity o f t h e garden between
between the two. The porticoes o f medieval and
b u i l t space.
private depth below, adding to the unique elabo-
house and street. Yet i n Japan, a small tree and
Renaissance cities Hke Bologna and Padua re-
ration o f the m a r g i n between house and public
some shrubs may be wedged between a territo-
veal a pattern i n w h i c h houses are b u i l t above
space. This pattern sets the house only a few
rial wall and the house two or three feet b e h i n d
the sidewalk, supported by columns and vaults
paces f r o m the sidewalk. The entry door, at the
it, to hide ground-floor windows. The symboli-
(figure 9,2f; see also figure 14.4). Together, they
end o f the bridge, is o f t e n f r a m e d by a ped-
cally not-quite-urban house alludes to affluence
f o r m a shaded walkway sandwiched between a
i m e n t and columns. The whole exhibits a
and freedom. W i t h such a strong configura-
bright public street and bright gated courtyard,
certain f r i e n d l y detachment but remains un-
tional meaning, dimensions become
second-
LLere, the lines actually cross, locating the ter-
mistakably urban.
ary: as long as the proper elements are there,
ritorial boundary behind the building's upper-
i n the proper relationship, the image and the
level facade and
message are conveyed.
penetrate the b u i l d i n g on the ground
aUowing public space to floor,
where gates inside the arcades open onto do-
A Four-Foot Masonry M a r g i n
mestic courtyards. The essence o f urban architecture is how i t ne-
The Courtyard House
gotiates the narrow m a r g i n available between territorial boundary and b u i l d i n g facade. I n the
W h e n territorial boundary and house wall do
A m s t e r d a m canal house {figures 9.2d
and
coincide (figure 9.2e), a certain tension is lost.
9.4d), the m a i n floor is raised f o u r or five feet
The streets of Roman Pompeii and Greek Delos
above street level. Thus the entry is approached
give us examples o f such i s o m o r p h i s m . Middle
via a half-flight o f stairs. (The water table is only
Eastern townscapes such as Tunis are similarly
a f e w feet below the pavement.) W h e n the base-
walled i n . The street becomes an
m e n t is used f o r warehousing goods, these are
space devoid o f civic expression beyond occa-
brought i n via a steep half-flight o f steps hidden
sional recessed house gates, w i t h perhaps a
under bulkheads, at street level.
small sculpted seat near the doorway. There are
enclosed
A l l o f these elements occupy a four-foot
no architectural facades, just unadorned walls.
m a r g i n between facade and street. This m a r g i n
Windows are few, appearing at the second floor.
clearly f o r m s part o f the domestic territory. I t
Such walled-in streets suit the introverted
was sometimes used to extend basement space.
nature o f the courtyard house, w h i c h requires
Territory and Buildings
Varying Form w i t h i n Fixed Territory
and B2 together is i n control o f it. Other than that, the
Form is interpreted i n different ways, and dif-
their
own
houses. I n ( f ) , the whole duplex house is under
sult. As a rule, f o r m is generally more stable
control o f an absentee landlord. Territorial pow-
than
ers B do not control any part o f it.
its
territorial
interpretation.
However,
structure, different
Finally, (g) represents a housing estate i n
f o r m s can be placed i n it. Accordingly, all dia-
which both the b u i l d i n g and the surrounding
fixed
territorial
grams i n figure 9.5 represent identical territo-
landscape are controlled by a housing authority,
rial organization: w i t h i n a territory
A. Renters B merely control space w i t h i n the
A,
two
building.
lesser territories B are included.
Territory and
B powers control
ferent occupation and territorial boundaries re-
given a
Q.2i
two
I n examples (b) and (c), b u i l d i n g forms
I n (d) and ( f ) , the property owner is not
lie w i t h i n the territory B and constitute part o f
an agent i n the given territorial context. There-
it. This is the most c o m m o n f o r m o f either the
fore, we have three territorial p o w e r s — A , Bi,
freestanding house (c) or the townhouse w i t h
and B2—as well as another new agent control-
its own party walls (b).
ling the f o r m .
I n (d), the house is owned by an absentee
Thus, the environmental game is played
landlord and therefore lies outside the control
i n a variety o f ways. Various b u i l t f o r m s and
o f the inhabiting territorial power B .
variable control distributions may go w i t h the
Building
Example (e) has a shared party wall. Nei-
same territorial structure. The b u i l d i n g can op-
ther B I nor B2 can control that wall indepen-
erate i n either territorial depth (A or B) b u t also
dently; hence a t h i r d power constituted by B i
can be controlled by outside agents.
9.5
A single
territorial
ings and
uses:
(a) Initial
terntory
(b) Abutting
diagram
houses
(c) Freestanding
diagram
(d) House as In (c) above,
(e) Houses with a common
(f) Houses as In (e) above,
(g) A single building
without
with blind
houses in
within
representing
varied
build-
buildings.
walls.
gardens.
when
rented
party
occupant
wall.
when rented
which
by
by
apartments
occupants.
are
rented.
Territory and Buildings
Varying T e r r i t o r i a l Structure
.1 The c o m m o n organization o f city blocks places buildings that r i n g the street perimeter shoulder to shoulder. They thus f o r m a continuous street wall and an internal open space invisible f r o m the street. The arrangement o f this internal open space and its connecdon to the street network merits scrutiny: to a large extent, they determine the character o f urban fabric.
O
The pictograms i n figure 9.6 represent a m i n i m a l arrangement o f this f o r m : f o r purposes o f diagramming, four territories coincide w i t h f o u r houses. (In reality, many m o r e houses compose a block.) Differences observed aU have to do w i t h the way space inside the block is treated. Together, the series o f emblematic pictograms allows f o r discussion o f numerous generic situafions i n territorial structure. City Block
i n the most c o m m o n version o f (c), we find aUeys several feet wide connecting to backyards. The alley is handy f o r b r i n g i n g bicycles into a back shed; and it provides a m u c h appreciated way f o r children to visit f r o m backyard to backyard. Unless the alley is gated (d), it is territorially part o f the general public space.
49.6 grams
Territorial
access to the ations
variations
diagramming
surrounding
on the space internal
territorial
(a) Territorial
on the urban
houses around
block—Picto-
a block.
All
have
streets that form the block.
Vari-
to a dty block can result In
differences
diagram
applicable
to cases (b), (c), (g), and
(d) The back alley
when gated,
for the surrounding
houses.
becomes
a public
space
(g) Private gardens munal
are merged
in a single ungated
com-
yard.
(h). (e) Terntorlal (b) Internal
open space Is subdivided
(c) Private gardens part of the public
Into private
gardens.
have access to a back alley, which Is street
network.
that depth
diagram Is traced
(f) Private gardens nal
yard.
applicable through
are merged
to (d) and
(f)—provided
the backyard—and
to (j).
in a single gated
commu-
(h) Houses are rented buildings
(j) The communal and
from a party
and their communal
street.
who controls
both
the
yard.
yard forms a courtyard
between
house
Territory and Buildin
o n a par w i t h the streets. There exists only one
f o u n d i n buildings at the mews, adjacent to or
which also provides a service entry, opening
territorial depth (a), while i n terms o f f o r m we
on top o f the stables. As society changed, out-
onto the pedestrian street.
f i n d perhaps three levels—street,
buildings were c o m m o n l y converted into or re-
The two networks i n the Venetian u r b a n
placed by independent residential buildings,
fabric are separate worlds, engaged w i t h great
These f o r m e d their o w n territories back-to-back
f r e e d o m and improvisation. Pedestrians occa-
w i t h that o f the m a i n house, thereby terminat-
sionally arrive at a purely u r b a n environment of
i n g the dual exposure o f the latter. I n this way,
streets and squares, w i t h no waterway i n sight.
the mews became a modest and i n t i m a t e resi-
Conversely, crossing a canal, or w a l k i n g along-
secondary
street, and aUey.
Dual O r i e n t a t i o n I n (c) and (d), house territory manifests dual
dential street, i n contrast to the more f o r m a l
side it, may lead to a square at water's edge.
orientation. Public space may be entered by two
streets o f the block proper.
There are no urban blocks whatsoever here. But figure
the street network remains, behind and be-
cause alley and street are so different i n charac-
7.2), dual orientation is more
sophisticated.
tween buildings, hidden f r o m m a j o r water-
ter, a potentially ambiguous
gates: one at the street, another at the aUey. Be-
I n the Venetian urban fabric (see
environmental
Houses connect to the network o f canals o n one
ways. Houses span between the two. Only along
structure remains clear and thus disorientation
side and a network o f narrow streets, alleys, and
secondary
is avoided, As a result, the scheme is eminently
squares on the other. Visitors are received w i t h
pedestrian
workable. Dual orientation o f house territory
appropriate dignity on a gated landing at the
intertwined.
canals do space
water,
become
buildings, and more
intimately
need not be confined to the narrow aUey More
ground-floor gondola m o o r i n g . A r r i v i n g f r o m
I n Suzhou and other cities of the Yangtze
elaborate and sophisticated examples can be
the canal, one passes under the house and up a
River delta, houses also mediate between water-
(frequendy elaborate) staircase i n the m i d d l e o f
way and street. But m a j o r streets are wide and
I n British terraced housing, the mews was
the house, to reach a large central, m a i n floor
often lined w i t h trees. They are laid out i n
specifically designed to provide access to car-
space once again facing the waterway. A second
a more
riage houses b u i l t i n back o f private yards,'
stair at the back o f t h e house connects the m a i n
horses and carts as well as pedestrians. There-
From the outset, servants' quarters were also
floor to a courtyard. This courtyard has a gate.
fore the two realms-—waterways and street net-
noted, 174
geometric
pattern,
accommodating
work—are almost equally balanced i n practical importance and i n physical size. I t is the street side on which the houses f r o n t formally; but at the water side, life may be equally intense. As the case o f Radburn—a modern, but 9.7
Bath—Section
street behind and servant now become
showing
the m e w s , a
the main streetguarters, private
See also the partial
stables
accessed from the back street, houses.
(After
reproduction
hiamdi and
of Edinburgh
less convincing m o d e l o f dual orientation—
secondary
What used to be
have
seems to indicate, success i n dual orientation requires differentiation between the two realms
Edgerly). New
Town,
to w h i c h the house relates. I n Radburn, singlefamily dwellings situated w i t h i n their gardens f r o n t on one street w i t h another
secondary
street i n back. The latter, clearly intended by the urban designers as a c o m m u n a l space, connects to parking. It is no longer clear precisely which side o f the house is the front. The ambiguity seems as m u c h related to
9.8
Suzhou,
relationship
f o r m as to use. The same dual f u n c t i o n a l re-
and waterways.
lation is f o u n d i n traditional back alleys such
the
two.
China—Diagrammatic
between
two Interwoven
map showing networks,
Estates and houses usually span
the streets between
Territory and Buildings
now
connected to two distinct public spaces
municipality. Here, the houses are presumably
(pubhc relative to B). W h e n B is entered via the
rented, w i t h all real estate controlled and m a i n -
back alley, it is two gates removed f r o m A,
tained by the authority.
whereas entering via A requires only one gate.
The outcorae o f such quasi-coramunity
Relative to A, territory B may be one or two lev-
space is seldom positive, f o r reasons that be-
els deep, depending on the route we choose to reach It. We may say that two territorial situations,
9.9
Suzhou,
China—Waterfront.
several houses belonging house Is composed
between
to an extended
around
there are six such stdngs
of courtyards
or "Humble
lane leading
Administrator's"
On the other side of the street, street
and water
family. of
Each
on the
to the
space can only be m i n i m a l . Successful c o m m u -
those i n diagrams (a) and (e), overlap i n B.
nal space is communally controlled and m a i n -
From one perspective (e), B lies i n C. The alley
tained. Here, adjacent inhabitants are not i n
is Cs public space. F r o m another perspective
c o m m u n a l control.
[a), territory B lies i n A,
I n ( f ) , the space is controlled by inhabit-
spans left
that on the
Garden modest
of
courtyards—
in all—and
The triangle
to the main house;
marks the gate of a narrow Zheng
a sequence
street and waterway.
marks the entrance
A large compound
come readily apparent: i n (g) and (h), the comm i t m e n t o f inhabitants l i v i n g adjacent to the
right
Zhuo
(figure
shops also
10.1). span
networks.
176
Similar overlap is f o u n d when a corner
ants who can close the gates. The design and
house fronts a m a j o r and a m i n o r street. I f t h e
actual use o f the space may be determined col-
latter exists
behind
a gate
(as i n historic
lectively by inhabitants or delegates. I f they are
Beijing), i t constitutes private space relative to
t r u l y i n control, they w i l l have the option o f
the m a j o r street. Yet because there are en-
carving pubhc space up into private outdoor
trances on both streets, a similar territorial
spaces, thus r e t u r n i n g to model (d). Experience
overlap occurs. I n general, such cases o f overlap
indicates that, given the choice, people o f t e n
are exceptions or involve physical situations
prefer subdivision. Either way, the scheme w i l l
of lesser significance, such as m i n o r service
work.
alleys. ( I n the M i d d l e Eastern fabric, cases o f
I n all cases, the c o m m u n a l backyards o f
houses connecting to two d i f f e r e n t gated dead-
( f ) , (g), and (h) create ambiguous dual orienta-
as i n Bostons Back Bay. But there, the physical
latter f r o m m a j o r residential streets. For that
end streets are somewhat m o r e frequent, al-
tion and concomitant disorientation. The m o r e
distinction between
the two sides is quite
reason, at the p o i n t where back alley reaches
though by no means the rule; see figure 8,4.)
pronounced the c o m m u n a l backyard space, the
clearly articulated, and the f r o n t facades face a
street space, no gate is indicated. There are now
busy street. I n the garden city o f Radburn, any
two gates f r o m each territory o f depth B i n t o the
such distinctions remain m i n i m a l .
public space: one f r o m the f r o n t and one f r o m
m o r e unclear i t becomes w h i c h side is more f o r m a l and important. The distinction between
Communal Backyard Space
the back, But these two gates are equivalent, as
T e r r i t o r i a l Overlap
a f o r m a l f r o n t and a more protected and informal back is very m u c h ingrained i n territorial
territory goes. The territorial diagram itself
Pictograms ( f ) , (g), and (h) diagram backyards
consciousness. Large c o m m u n a l space at the
does not change vnth the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the
merged into larger c o m m u n a l space, i n order
back weakens that distinction.
alley.
to create shared space f o r c o m m u n a l activities
Courtyard organization, as represented i n
The back alley or service street o f figure 9.6c
Sometimes, we do f i n d gates at the end
i n a more protected, less pubhc setting t h a n is
schematic
is a straightforward extension o f public space
of the alley (d), f o r w h i c h only inhabitants o f
offered by the street network. This shared space
more c o m m u n a l space between the domestic
already f o r m e d by the streets. I n terms o f f o r m ,
abutting houses have a key. This usually hap-
i n (g) w o u l d be accessible to others c o m i n g i n
and the truly public. Both territorially and ar-
there exists, therefore, a tri-level street network
pens where
alleys are very narrow, clearly
f r o m the larger pubhc domain, a situation that
chitecturally, i t is unambiguous. But It rep-
organization:
side
intended to help the inhabitants reach their
is clearly not as desirable as ( f ) . T h o u g h this
resents a totally d i f f e r e n t urban type than the
street, and back alley. But w i t h respect to territo-
baclcyards and not at all f o r general access. I n
f o r m suggests a raore private space, its imple-
terraced house model that is the essence o f ex-
rial structure, there is just one public space,
this case, the alley serves as another
pubhc
mentation i n practice is rather arabiguous. I n
amples (b) t h r o u g h (h). The courtyard turns it-
w i t h no evidence o f gates or other means o f
space f o r the territories already included i n A,
(h), c o m m u n a l space is actually contiolled by
self away f r o m the street. I t is, generally
closing o f f alleys f r o m secondary streets or the
adding another territorial level. Territory B is
an outside agent: a public h o u s i n g authority or
speaking, an u r b a n model, highly suitable f o r
m a j o r residential
street,
(j), is an ancient f o r m , providing
high-dens ity, low-rise living. Yet territorially similar situations are also f o u n d i n Indonesia and A f r i c a i n i n f o r m a l residential neighborhoods. I n those cases, groups o f families Hve i n compounds behind a single gate, m a i n t a i n i n g their o w n little gardens but also a c o m m u n a l open space. W h i l e these are not urban situations, their territorial disposition is equivalent to the one i n (j).^
C o n t i n u i t y of T e r r i t o r i a l Depth The final pictogram, figure 9 . 1 0 , represents a shared, c o m m u n a l space totally separated f r o m the street network. It occurs when the backyards o f figure 9.6b become u n i f i e d c o m m u n a l space. I t is a purely theoretical design, unobserved i n real life. (By its very nature, its existence w o u l d be k n o w n only to inhabitants sharing a space.) But as a rule, there is little reason f o r inhabitants l i v i n g o n f o u r d i f f e r e n t streets to share space w i t h i n a block.
,1,
O f more importance, this final scheme is anomalous because i t suggests discontinuous territorial depth: its backyard public space is nowhere connected to a more public space. C o m i n g out o f t h e house i n t o the shared c o m m u n a l space, one can only go back, but not to a more general territory. This violates territorial structure. Environmental order, regardless o f its particular f o r m , is always a continuous chain o f public spaces o f increasing territorial size.'^ We either go continuously up i n the territorial
9.70
chain, or we go continuously down. A l l environ-
block—A
mental space, i n fact, is one.
larger public
An anomalous communal
territorial backyard
space. This form
variation
on ttie
not connecting Is purely
urban
to any
theoretical.
