U

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date: May 21, 2009

I, Elizabeth M. Rajala ,

hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of:
Master
in Architecture
It is entitled:
Between You and Me
We: an architecture of interaction

Student Signature:
Elizabeth M. Rajala

This work and its defense approved by:

Committee Chair:
Gerald Larson
G. Thomas Bible

Approval of the electronic document:

I have reviewed the Thesis/Dissertation in its final electronic format and certify that it is an
accurate copy of the document reviewed and approved by the committee.

Committee Chair signature: Gerald Larson

Between You and Me
We: an architecture of interaction

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

of the College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning

May 21, 2009

by Elizabeth M. Rajala
Bachelor of Science in Architecture
University of Cincinnati, June 2007

Thesis Advisory Committee:

Gerald Larson
G. Thomas Bible
abstract

New movements continue to appear across the Western world all seeking the same goal, to
recover the sense of community that has declined as these nations have developed. Their
responses to this issue frequently rely on the built environment to bring people together; in
a way attempting to create a physical manifestation of social organization.

This method is most successful when supported by the study of actual human behaviors in
relation to space and social interaction, particularly in the transition between spaces. By
translating these behavior parameters back into the space-making process, it is possible to
improve forms of sociable place-making.

Utilizing those parameters related to pedestrian flows and areas of activity along with a
respect for the scale and identity of human spaces, a housing design will be created for a
site which attempts to address the needs of the next wave of socially conscious dwellers.
Proposed then is a dense, low-scale housing scheme that focuses on the in-between spaces
of the built environment that foster interaction and maintain the ‘social sustainability’ of
community.

ABSTRACT iii
Acknowledgements

To my parents for their support and belief.

To Jerry Larson for his patience and humor.

To Tom Bible for his criticism.

To our thesis section for being a team: Corey, Jesse, Joe, Garth, Kelly, Ryan and Jamie.

To my friends near and far.

table of contents

III abstract
IV table of contents
V list of illustrations

1 social sustainability
3 we have been introduced
social architecture
interaction in the public realm
having social ability: sociability
an architecture of we not I
transitioning
9 in communication
micro-urbanism
block party
LIND
Sarugaku Shopping
Swan’s Market
Cambridge Cohousing
we are here
21 site: Oakley
what do we have here?
25 programmatic intentions
27 an architecture of interaction
31 all together

33 bibliography
37 visitability
39 design process

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
 list of illustrations
1 diagram of we: interaction updated by author, 5/20/2009
2 Sustainability Venn Diagram modified from Larsen, Gary L. An Inquiry Into the
Theoretical Basis of Sustainability: Ten Propositions,” 48
3 diagram of we: interaction by author, 2/2/2009
4 diagram of communing loosely referencing Getty image, by author, 4/24/09
5 sitting diagram by author, 2/2/2009
6 micro-urbanism microscope by author, 4/2/2009
7 site plan of LIND using Google Maps 2009, by author, 5/10/2009
8 LIND sketch from “The Merrimac Building: Smith & Others.” Architecture. Jan 1997, 86.
9 site plan of Sarugaku Shopping using Google Maps 2009, by author, 5/10/2009
10 Sarugaku photo by Nacasa & Partners, Inc. http://www.hao.nu/project/sar/sar5.html
11 site plan of Swan’s Market using Google Maps 2009, by author, 5/10/2009
12 Swan’s market photo by author, 3/16/2008
13 site plan of Cambridge Cohousing using Google Maps 2009, by author 5/10/2009
14 walkability of Cambridge Cohousing using Google Maps 2009, by author 4/2/2009
15 Oakley in Cincinnati, using All_Neighborhoods_Cincinnati by Wholtone, August 3, 2008,
modified by author, 4/2/2009
16 Oakley photo merge by author, 2/17/2009
17 site plan of Oakley using CAGIS 2000, by author, 1/16/2009
18 walkability diagram by author, 4/2/2009
19 oakley site analysis: traffic + activity diagram by author, 5/15/2009
20 oakley site analysis: business edge diagram by author, 5/15/2009
21 oakley site analysis: solar diagram using University of Oregon Solar Radiation
Monitoring Laboratory Sun Path Chart Program, 2007, http://solardat.uoregon.edu/
SunChartProgram.html, modified by author, 5/15/2009
22 grouping entried diagram by author, 2/2/2009
23 interaction at entry diagram by author, 2/2/2009
24 transition section diagram based on Gehl, 69, visualized by author, 3/7/2009
25 seating diagram based on by author, 3/7/2009
26 entry diagram by author, 3/7/2009
27 visitability diagram by author, 3/7/2009
28 100% Visitability Community of Habitat for Humanity. Browns Mill Road and Mount
Zion,Atlanta, GA. Concrete Change. http://www.concretechange.org/construction_
photos.aspx
29 diagram from, The Center for Universal Design. “Creating Stepless Entrances in
Multifamily Housing.” NC State University College of Design, 2007.http://www.
centerforuniversaldesign.org

v
1
 social sustainability
‘Know thy neighbors?’ No, well that is too bad, but not surprising. Disconnection from
place, suburban isolation, and edge phenomena - the human experience has become one
of distance, for one reason or another separating oneself from others. Alternative forms
of social connection and organization brought about by the information age can not
replace the power of people being together in physical space. As a result, the ability to
form the positive group consciousness of ‘citizenship’ has become difficult. Essential is the
maintenance of this social and civic fabric of humanity, what could be defined as social
sustainability.

Understanding that sustainability it inextricably linked to place we can understand how the
physical environment may have an affect on social issues. Citizenship itself is based on the
Roman ‘civitas,’ what was the civic organization of people through place. As urban scholar
Tim Brindley stated, “Place is something to which social identity can be attached and where
a sense of security can be constructed.”1 Place is the framework in which interaction ‘takes
place.’ This place does not necessarily have to be the city, although traditionally urbanity
implies the density of people and resources that may foster ‘community.’ This is supported
by Brindley who says that the sustainable city:
“is commonly interpreted as implying increased residential densities, a more intense
mixing of social groups and functional activities, and reduced spatial mobility. For
such a concept of urban sustainability to work, people will have to accept the idea
of living closer together, and in close proximity
to a variety of different people in heterogeneous
neighborhoods. Behind this is the implicit
Economic notion of ‘social sustainability,’ a pattern of social
relations within the city that is more sustainable
than current patterns.”2

Accepting that these concepts are true, let us

understand that there are scales of urbanity,
from village to mega-city. Many forms of place-
Environmental Social
making could assist social sustainability or as
clearly described by philosopher and social
sciences professor Sylviane Agacinski, “there is a
need for just as many spaces as there are forms of
2 Sustainability Venn Diagram Gary L. Larsen communal living…”3 Over and over again social
1 Brindley, Tim “Village and Community: Social Models for Sustainable Urban Development,” 74
2 Brindley, 68
3 Agacinski, Sylviane “Architectonic Enclosure,” 27

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY 1
theorists and designers cite that place has a social nature. This is particularly well-described
by Sally Lewis in her book Front to Back in which she outlines how “socio-spatial qualities”
can be designed.4 Lewis says that, “Sustainability is an overriding social value, influences
and complements in turn by the provision of choice, safety, and a sense of community or
neighborliness. Thus, if a place enables these values to be realised, then people will want
to live there, and thus the place will be sustained...”5

The goal of the thesis is to look at the point at which social and architectural meet. This
is a particularly sticky relationship that when manipulated by designers in the past seems to
have either been quietly successful or doomed to failure (the tower in the park). Careful
not to suggest a new form of utopia, the discussion will center on how and where people
choose to interact. Beginning with principles of public and private space, the potentialities
of public (social) space are then elaborated. This leads into an essential point - that it is
neither the public or private that is in question, it is all the spaces in-between, the seat of
interaction between different people.

These concepts of interaction, flows and spatiality are discussed in terms of several
projects that begin to highlight what designing for interaction might look like in the built
environment. All four of the projects are clearly physically oriented around the flows of
people into and around the site. Here the focus is primarily on places that contrast the most
private realm: dwelling with a highly public environment, either an urban area or results
of grouping dwellings together. Taking off from this point a site and program is presented
for the design of a small housing community that will test this architecture of interaction.
Parameters based on the thesis research into “socio-spatial qualities” provide a framework
for the design. A brief view of the resultant design process is provided in the appendix.

4 Lewis, Sally. Front to Back: A Design Agenda for Urban Housing, xvi
5 Lewis, 39

2 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
we have been introduced
social architecture
Architecture (building) is not merely physical shelter from the elements but mediation
between the world of one human individual identity or collective identity and others. It can
be a spatial extension of the personal realm or a framework for interaction.

“I’m with you and you’re with me and So we are all together”1

This phenomenon of rejoining the individual with the group continues to receive attention
in the form of social and design movements that seek to reconnect with a sense of
community. This form of community is best understood as social architecture. However
social architecture is not the building of space, but of relationships, constructing the social
networks that join people together.2 Attempts are made to use form and spatial design
to encourage community organization. As such, groups including the New Urbanists use
form to create a sense of community implying that with the correct repetition of elements
community can be made. To an extent this idea is entirely believable. As the Danish
urban designer Jan Gehl and Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern Language relate, certain
repetitive architectonic and programmatic functions in villages and cities reinforce the
social qualities of place.

These frameworks for interaction are the focus of this thesis. In order to be able to design
for interaction there is a need to understand the conditions under which individuals
socialize and communicate, and where that actually meets the built environment. Like
many discussions of people and architecture this becomes an analysis of public and private.
Functions that act toward interaction are typically designated in Western theory as public;
and so public space becomes the “stage” for interaction. Professor of Urban Design, Ali
Madanipour explains this by portraying the individual as an actor who is playing themselves;
that they put on a form of mask that allows them to interact with others. This mask then
“is the boundary between the public and the private in the individual. The treatment of this
boundary is what makes the public realm...”3

interaction in the public realm

Public is repeatedly characterized by scholars as open, while private (what is behind
Madanipour’s mask) is closed.4 But this notion is incomplete without the understanding
1 Marching to Pretoria; famously reinterpreted in John Lennon and the Beatles’ lyrics: I Am the
Walrus, /I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together/, Fontenot, Robert and
Traditional & Folk Songs with Chords. “Marching to Pretoria.”
2 Flexible Housing
3 Madanipour, Ali. Public and Private Spaces of the City, 120-124
4 see Madanipour, Weintraub, Wolfe, Kumar, Brain

WE HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED 3

that there must be a way to transition between public and private, both literally and
figuratively. For example Madanipour presents the example of a small group of people
in a crowd who have stopped to chat; they have created a small, more privatized realm
within the public.5 Those passing by tend to place some space between themselves and
the huddle. This set of actions if visualized suggests a loose
form of boundary. These perceived boundaries can be seen
not just in interactions between people, but also between
people and objects or buildings. Transitions then might look
like raindrops falling in a puddle - the concentric rings moving
out reflect the interaction between privatized realms (of the
individual and buildings) and the public realm. Architecture
is fully involved in this pattern making and can change how it
works unexpectedly.

So Madanipour’s public becomes that with which we would

like to, want to, or are willing to share of ourselves with others. 3
Having a public space; however, does not automatically mean that it will ‘work’ as David
Brain relates:
“A public space is both a site where certain kinds of social relations are enacted and a
material representation of the normative dimensions of these interactions. Thus, one
requirement of a “successful” public space is a certain type of intelligibility: it must
be sufficiently abstract in its representational qualities to be inclusive, yet sufficiently
defined to give it a tangibly intersubjective quality, enabling social actors to recognize
its public character and act meaningfully, appropriately, and efficiently within it.”6
Here the public space is shown to require certain qualities in order to succeed. If people are
unable to inter(act) as they need; or if the space is too open and undefined, with nothing to
‘play off of’ it may not be successful. Interaction is merely a word unless people are actually
involved in real communication.

having social ability: sociability

When people share and are involved in meaningful interaction we call this sociability. The
semi-official definition of sociability states that it is the casual and spontaneous encounters
between strangers and the interaction that reinforces relationships. In order to understand
the importance of sociability it would help to look at several definitions. Jeff Weintraub in
his essay “The Public/Private Distinction” states that “public” life can be equivalent to
5 Madanipour, 176
6 Brain, David. “From Public Housing to Private Communities: The Discipline of Design and the
Materialization of the Public/Private Distinction in the Built Environment.”, 245

4 WE HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED

sociability.7 Alexander states in A Pattern Language, “The simple social intercourse created
when people rub shoulders in public is one of the most essential kinds of social “give” in
society.”8

Sociability can be used qualitatively to evaluate space. The Project for Public Spaces
states that, “A sociable place is one where people want to go to observe the passing scene,
meet friends, and celebrate interaction with a wide range of people that are different from
themselves.”9 Examples of places with a high level of sociability include open-air markets,
public squares, corner stores, and other similar functions.

an architecture of we not I
With the understanding that space is linked to the concept of sociability, including and
planning for certain activities could increase the potential for interaction. Jan Gehl in his
book Life Between Buildings discusses that by assembling access points and communal-type
functions it is possible to increase pedestrian traffic. By arranging built spaces and unit
entrances the architecture begins to echo the communication of people - in itself a space
forming exercise of people facing one another. Collected functions represent the collected
identities of different users forming a group. Whether it is a ‘main street’ or a square,
organization can provide the sort of framework
and “intelligibility” that David Brain notes is a
requirement for public space. A relationship between
paths and nodes - areas of shared space - might begin
to formulate the layout of space.

Sociability might also be addressed in looking at

specific functions that are more about ‘we’ than
‘I.’ An interesting statement is made by the British
architectural team FAT toward the way architects
perceive the conceptual user. 4
“The idea that the user of public space is an individual (or a small family unit) who
occupies these spaces at a quasi-domestic scale (the cup of coffee) limits the potential
of the programme. To identify ‘the user’ as a term refering to a number of people, rather
than a single individual might serve to open possibilities of use...kinds of occupation
present in the football crowd, the battalion, or the gang.”10
7 Weintraub, Jeff. “The Theory and Politics of the Public/Private Distinction.”, 16-20.
8 Alexander, Christopher, et al. Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, 489
9 Project for Public Spaces. Good Places. 2008. <http://www.pps.org/parks_plazas_squares/info/
design/goodplaces>
10 FAT. “Contaminating Contemplation.”, 89-90

WE HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED 5

Here the individual is encouragingly subsumed in the group identity as a potential generator
of design response. Yet to counter this idea of the “crowd,” as presented, within the group
the user is still an individual interacting with others. Sociability is desired because it is not
about the group acting en masse towards its own ends. It is not merely about the crowd; the
group is important because it is communicating within itself and with the greater world.

Looking back at the potential of FAT’s suggestion that if the designer wants to encourage
group behavior there may be interesting programmatic inclusions. Looking at the small
scale, what if one included the ability to form an outdoor film screening area. All that
would be needed would be a wall on which to project and a place for seating and projector.
This situation has both specific and fluid spatial potential while engaging individuals in a
group activity. And in effect turning a semi-public space into a living room.

This type of function might be a better ‘within’ community activity, but other functions
could better encourage interaction with the greater community:
- including those functions with a high level of sociability
- food: especially eateries that invite lingering and rubbing elbows
- places that involve children: such as daycare and playparks11
- frameworks such as community gardens
Any function that enables face-to-face communication instead of inhibiting it means that
people will learn more about each other. The concept of the ‘living room’ takes this idea
and reiterates the meaning behind socializing. Social space for a small group of people
seems appropriate as it reflects that people often wish to put the same concept of mask on
their group identity before it is shared with others. Yes, this suggests a form of homogeneity
that can be as exclusive as it is inclusive, but it also considers the levels of public vs. private
that are natural to people. This leads to seeing place as a series of spaces that involve
different forms of interaction: the space that is between the most private zones and the
very public.

transitioning
Using Madanipour’s concept of human as actor, the individual when moving between
layers of private and public space needs space as a transition zone to be able to adjust
their “mask” for the next situation. A transition through space allows them to take on
their public persona and be prepared to interact with others. Sally Lewis terms this as,
“…positive distinctions between public and private space.”12 This transition acts as both
11 as suggested by Tom Bible
12 Lewis, 42

6 WE HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED

a spatial construct of time in order to change state, and as a set of physical indicators that
the individual is moving from the private realm into public. As a result a sense of comfort
and preparedness is gained.

This spatial transition is described as a “soft edge” by the urban designer Jan Gehl. A “soft
edge” is simply a “smooth transition between public and private” areas.13 Movement works
in both directions, encouraging a form of semi-public space controlled by the individual but
open to visitor interaction. Permeability in the edge between inside and outside encourages
the flow not just of natural processes, but of social movement. Space is provided for eddies
in the flow of people as the move between spaces. Meetings and group functions occur
in nodes along circulation paths and between individualized realms. Circulation is not
just about moving between point “a” and “b”, but the occurrences and situations that are
encountered along the path.

Similarly this public to private, non-edge condition is reflected in the “intimacy gradient”
discussed in A Pattern Language.14 Gradient, even more than the term soft, figuratively
suggests the shifting use of built space from one phase to another. There is not simply one
side or the other, but a whole range of in-between where the most meaningful spontaneous
interaction occurs. As stated by Madanipour:
“[P]ublic space is the institutional and material common world, the in-between space
that facilitates co-presence and regulates interpersonal relationships. By being present
in the same place with others, shared experience of the world becomes possible and a
link is made with previous generations who experienced (or future generations who
might experience) the same physical reality.”15
How does this become space? Jan Gehl and A Pattern Language begin to describe the specific
qualities of perception, distance, scale and functional accommodations that define the
architectonic possibilities of transition and interaction. Again, citing Sally Lewis “spatial
solutions affect social action by setting constraints, providing opportunities, and fostering
activities.”16

13 Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space, 115

14 Alexander,160
15 Madanipour, 235
16 Lewis, 38

WE HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED 7

5

8
 in communication
Interaction takes place. Where it happens is often just as important as what occurs
between the people involved. How places incorporate the flows and interactions of life is
important and potentially visually and architecturally interesting. The next section looks
at how theorists and designers are valuing the meeting of systems and people in the built
environment. Streetscape, traditionally a strong public realm, is strategically pulled into
the block to circulate people within a site, not just around it.

Micro-urbanism
The spatial qualities of interaction that have been discussed
can be encapsulateds in the concept of micro-urbanism, a
terminology that has appeared in recent architecture and urban
design theory to describe a focused view on the urbanism of
the pedestrian-scale streetscape. Ali Madanipour uses the
terminology to encompass the more the recent wave of design
and planning that “promotes the design and development
of small-scale, distinctive neighbourhoods and settlements,
recreating a small version of the city.”1

Surveying the definitions of micro-urbanism currently in use,

similar terminology appears. (1) Concentration is placed on
the concept of streetscape. (2) This is focused on communal
functions that happen in small-scale, public/semi-public areas.
3) These elements support interaction and exchange and the
intent of the designer is to recognize and incorporate flows of
people inside and around the site. Presented here are several of
these definitions of micro-urbanism:

6
Ann Pendleton-Julian & Stanford Anderson; Xiangning Li (MIT)
“ “What is “micro-urbanism”
Although the matter is more complex, the concern can be suggested with one word: streets.
Streets are not just smaller areas of pavement. Streets are critically defined both by their
own characteristics (width, continuity, trees, street furniture, etc.) and by the buildings that
frame them. These buildings serve various purposes (residential, shopping, office, dining,
entertainment, etc.) and are of various types (in housing, e.g., individual buildings, row houses,
walk-up apartments, elevator apartments, and, in many of these cases, the incorporation of
multiple uses).”2
1 Madanipour, 137
2 MIT

IN COMMUNICATION 9
European Urban Knowledge Network (EUKN)
“Improving public spaces (micro urbanism): parks and spaces”3
Gretchen Wilkins (University of Michigan)
“Micro-urbanism is concerned with the relationship between informal exchanges and spatial
limits. It investigates the agency of tactics embedded within strategies, or the means by which
local connections network into global systems.”4
Jeff Hou (University of Washington)
“The term “micro-urbanism” is used to describe small-scale urban spaces and design
interventions that enable a variety of activities, events, processes and functions to take
place.”5

A common thread is seen between Jan Gehl’s work and these concepts where quality of
street life, the “between buildings” is seen to have a great effect on the overall relationship
between space and people. Here the strengths of urbanity are recognized as density is
seen as a positive collection of activity. The ‘traditional’ town/city elements of square and
main street continue to offer up a precedent whose potential is accepted by a wide range of
people. Madanipour, however, is very careful about the use of micro-urbanism, under which
he includes the recent community-oriented movements including New Urbanism and its
British and Australian counterparts. Madanipour qualifies that micro-urbanism may be a
sustainable model, but that it “cannot provide the only possible, or the best, answer to the
questions its raises.” Foremost of which is that he believes that it is a tool that works better
for controlling growth than for what he terms “decline” or the bolstering of a struggling
area.6

This statement honors the concept that urbanism is often seen as a sustainable strategy as it
condenses people and resources. But the underlying theme suggests that it may be difficult
to create the conditions for an micro-urban environment without some form of existing
physical, social, and/or economic infrastructure. Arguing slightly against Madanipour’s
blanket statement, it may be possible that an area can be significantly aided by reusing its
essentially urban nature, but only if the area has the support and the connections inside
and outside of the system. Many projects have occurred in the United States that would
fall under the umbrella description of micro-urbanism, but that have followed models of
adaptation and collage, rather than the wholesale community-creation of New Urbanism.

3 EUKN
4 Wilkins
5 Hou, Jeff. “Guide to Seattle Micro Urbanism.” <http://microseattle.wordpress.com/
6 Madanipour, 163

10 IN COMMUNICATION
Block Party
A project never stands alone. Furthering the ‘social sustainability’ of a housing project
involves locating in an area that can support or will be revitalized by the additional influx
of residents. A very well established community is likely to already be at capacity in terms
of how it operates. However, many communities across the United States have undergone
economic changes that have shifted their original goals and uses. Existing building stock
and redeveloped plots may accommodate reuse and new incarnations that can utilize the
existing infrastructure, thus preventing more construction of greenfield development.

Numerous small scale infill and adaptive reuse projects have been completed filling in gaps
in many cities with mid-high income houses and walk-up apartments. However when a
site is big enough the projects become small towers and mixed use developments typically
filling entire blocks with overly homogenous, generic masses. Repetition is cheaper, and
height is an efficient use of space, but these concepts are often misused. When the existing
morphology of the built environment hovers at around 3-5 stories with a myriad of divided
blocks any other scale of project is grossly out of proportion. Looking back at the inherent
desires of micro-urbanism there should be a happy medium between the inefficiency of
single-residence infill and the massive-scale tower block.

A site is not an isolated island, it has a physical and social relationship with the greater
community. “It is reasonable to assume that the numerous and diverse people who choose
to live in a city may indeed find it easier to become a civic union and participatory fellowship
when they are welcomed, integrated, and harmonized into the urban sphere.”7 A mixed-use
housing development is mirroring at the micro-urban scale the urban environment; creating
a community within a community. The success of its integration into the surrounding
area is the connections between inside and outside, and the establishment of identity and
privacy boundaries without ‘gating off;’ again seeking Jan Gehl’s “smooth transition.”
Several successful design schemes have been built that focus on the individual human and
development components that form relationships with the greater community.

7 Benzel, Katherine F. The Room in Context: Design Beyond Boundaries, 81

IN COMMUNICATION 11
 7 LIND, San Diego
12 IN COMMUNICATION
Little Italy Neighborhood Development (LIND)
In the 1990’s a group of local designers took over a block in Little Italy, San Diego, California
helping to promote development in the city. The once vibrant neighborhood had suffered a
decline along with the economic faltering of the tuna industry.1 Organizations were already
at work to revitalize the area, but many blocks were available for redevelopment. The
designers organized under the heading of Little Italy Neighborhood Development (LIND)
supported by the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC). The block bounded
by Beech, Cedar, India and Kettner was developed as a series of relatively small scale,
individualized housing and retail segments each assigned to a different design firm.

Particularly intriguing for its diversity, the LIND project is a mixed-use development with
a lean toward low-moderate income housing and some live/work type spaces. Kept at a
relatively low scale and reusing some existing structures, the aesthetic is proudly California
contemporary. Each building has its own unique character, a quality that would quickly appeal
to buyers. As the block was purposefully divided, separations between buildings allowed for
the design of semi-public outdoor spaces that weave through the development.

The LIND project was a risk, but was immediately recognized as a successful kickoff for
further development in the area. A more recent project just two blocks north is Doma
by CityMark Development and Martinez + Cutri Architects.2 Covering an entire block
the project is a mid-rise, moderate-high income, mixed-use development. Although the
block size is similar to LIND, Doma is nearly twice as dense. Organized much more like a
traditional apartment block the units are organized around a central landscaped courtyard.
In terms of scale the LIND project better recognizes
the human-oriented streetscape and traditional
gradual development process. The interior
parts of the LIND block is activated by
its connections out to the street, it is
not simply a decorative court it provides
access to different buildings. Perhaps the
best element of both of these projects is the
way that every face of every building is designed
because they are so visible.

8 LIND morphology
1 O’Donnell, Dorothy. “Little Italy makes mark as model of urban redevelopment,” 1
2 Martinez and Cutri Architects. “Doma Lofts and Towns.”; O’Donnell, 1

IN COMMUNICATION 13
9 Sarugaku, Japan 10 Sarugaku “valley”

14 IN COMMUNICATION
Sarugaku Shopping
A small project located in the Daikanyama district of Tokyo, this boutique shopping haven
takes advantage of zoning restrictions that required that the build-out of the small site be a
collection of smaller volumes. The architects Akihisa Hirata, looked at the organization of
the shops as cascading over a series of mountains. “Thereby valley-shaped space between
mountains is formed, where people and displayed things will overflow. Each shop can
enlarge itself on the mountain shaped volumes.”1

A series of viewpoints were placed in the complex with sight-lines that cut through the
buildings. Windows are lined up to connect these views. Open, terraced circulation
allows for further visual and physical connection within the complex. Interaction occurs
within the deliberate creation of the “valley.” This rejects all the rules of a Western mall
by requiring the visitor to wander up and down and through the central court in order to
access the different shops. Here is the intended strength of the project. The mountains
reflect a form of terraced village at a human scale, not the shear face of a cliff. Instead of a
massive pavilion to enclose an activity, flows and interaction between people, objects and
clearly place, are visible/accessible. As Akihisa Hirata states, “We aim at making vigorous
buildings which acquire strength by overflowing with things and people.”2

1 Saieh, Nico, “Sarugaku/ Akihisa Hirata,” 1

2 Saieh, 1

IN COMMUNICATION 15
11 Swan’s Marketplace, Oakland 12 Swan’s Marketplace Court

16 IN COMMUNICATION
Swan’s Marketplace
Another mixed-use development project, again in California places a housing community
right in the center of a former urban marketplace. Oakland has a troubled reputation, but
the Old Oakland neighborhood has undergone a celebrated transformation and features
many local services, small businesses, restaurants, and apartments all within easy access of
Bay area public transportation. Due to the historic nature of this part of Oakland, the area
again maintains a generally 3-4 storey or less height limit and features an active, walkable
streetscape. The Swan’s Marketplace development reuses the old Swan’s Market and
Housewives Market block. Designed by Pyatok Architects the block has been divided by
an internal L street/plaza pulling visitors and residents into the interior.1

This project is particularly notable because it features what might be the most urban
cohousing community currently in the United States. To explain, cohousing as a communal
living model seeks to provide an alternative for the difficulties and isolation inherent in
living in typical single family and apartment homes, by directly encouraging (through built
form) people to live together in a community sharing some amount of space and resources.
The Swan’s Market Cohousing community consists of 20 apartment style units sharing a
‘common house’ where meals and activities may be shared. Their presence presents a strong
case for commitment to place. In this type of project the mixed functions of the site mean
that the area is active 24 hours a day. The cohousing community and apartments activate
what would otherwise be a fairly quiet block on nights and weekends, while the daytime
shopping and office functions allow local residents to live and work in the same area.

1 Pyatok Architects. “Swan’s Marketplace,” 1

IN COMMUNICATION 17
13 Cambridge Cohousing, Cambridge, Mass. 14 Walkability

service proximity

walkability

adjusted walkability

map

red line to Boston

18 IN COMMUNICATION
Cambridge Cohousing
The mixed-use projects discussed so far all seek to renew interest in city living, adjacent
to shopping and work; relying on and hopefully supporting the identity and services that a
well-defined neighborhood has to offer. Another interesting housing project accomplishs
the same intention in a more suburban locale. This is a cohousing community located in
Cambridge, Massachusetts outside of Boston. Cambridge is a community with a very well-
established individual identity, particularly as it is the home of Harvard University, and as
such has been fairly self-perpetuating. Cambridge is as a result a very expensive real estate
market. So when several small adjoining plots became available in the residential outskirts
a group interested in forming a cohousing community moved in.

The site amongst an older neighborhood of single-family homes, backs up to one of the
commuter train lines into Boston. To add further interest lots, were joined to fit around two
existing private lots. In order to fit the necessary number of units and parking, half of the
site features an underground parking garage with a apartment/common house building and
duplex units above. More duplex units are fit onto the adjoining site. So where perhaps
4-5 single-family homes would be built 41 units make up a cohousing community. 2 The
architects worked to fit the physical needs of the community into the contextual scale and
New England aesthetic of the neighborhood. Gables and balconies break up the facade of
the buildings.3 Enough free land area was maintained on the 1.5 acre site to allow garden
plots, outdoor patio areas, and a playground, all working to activate the outdoor areas.

Unlike the previous examples Cambridge Cohousing is only housing and is located in a
residential, tree-lined neighborhood. However, the cohousers are still easily within walking
distance of shopping and recreational areas, and more importantly public transportation
routes to the major employment centers of Cambridge proper and Boston. Within an area
like this with as expensive a cost of living as any urban center, housing of this scale is
essential for many people who desire the benefits of city living. Although the cohousing
group has purposefully developed the social cohesiveness of their community, the physical
planning and design of their facilities clearly influences how the community operates. How
density was addressed in this type of area and design of circulation zones might strengthen
the development of other more communal housing projects.

2 Cohousing Conference 2008. “Cambridge Cohousing,” 1

3 Elton + Hampton Architects. “Cambridge Cohousing,” 1

IN COMMUNICATION 19
Here We Are
All of these projects gain their strength from their organization in relation to the context
in which they are located. Whether it is the redevelopment of Little Italy in San Diego
where residents can still shop for cheeses and pasta right down the block, or cohousers
in Cambridge eating and shopping in Porter Square, these primarily residential programs
happily rely on local character, identity and services to reinforce their own value. Russ
Haley, of CityMark (the developers responsible for Doma) states this succinctly, “We
look at building urban projects in areas where there’s already a sense of place.”4 From the
developer’s perspective they are selling not the building, but the place. This type of project
should be a benefit to the existing community it joins.

The important elements that make these projects successful are:

• Connections to an established zone of resources
• Architecturally unique identity and variety of units
• Use of public and private landscaped zones to break up blocks
• Reasonable density at a low scale recognizing the human element
• Use of existing streetscape relationships and sensitivity to context

Utilizing these elements as goals, a search was made for a site to test an architecture of
interaction. The Cincinnati metropolitan area was identified as a strong, close-to-home
example of a place that has a range of neighborhood structures both in-transition and well-
established. Three main geographic areas of interest in the city identified. The first, the
Basin and West End of Cincinnati, had the morphology of low-mid scale development,
but connections to resources were limited. Secondly the area of East Walnut Hills was
evaluated. Of a more residential, suburban nature East Walnut Hills is another community
in transition. With a high vacancy rate in the original downtown there were few existing
resources to support new housing development (although the potential of this area may
continue to improve).

4 O’Donnell, 1

20 IN COMMUNICATION
site: Oakley, Ohio
Instead, the final area of interest, Oakley, Ohio was chosen because it has maintained
a strong community identity, with many necessary services all located in a centralized
area. Although even more suburban in nature, this area along Madison Road has easy
connections to public transportation. Recent development in Oakley has been more high-
end with boutiques and a gourmet grocery store filling new and existing buildings. Although
potentially classified as gentrification, the development is generally of an independent,
small business nature and does not appear to have driven out existing businesses.

15 the neighborhoods of Cincinnati with Oakley highlighted

Focusing in on Oakley, a site was located just off Oakley Square, the traditional heart of
the community. On a corner behind what was the Oakley Bank, the Oakley Pub and Grill
occupies a simple building floating on the edge of a medium-sized parking lot. Floating on
the corner, the Pub looks as if it has been broken off of a typical downtown streetscape.
Walking behind across the parking lot, the site segues into a single-family neighborhood.
The 40,000 square foot site benefits from having both the highly visible public corner of the
pub and a relatively quiet, tree-shielded private back.

16 composite view of the Isabella side of the site - Oakley Pub & Grill in center
SITE: OAKLEY, OHIO 21
 .25mi
2

RD .5mi
N
ISO
AD
M

1mi

17 site highlighted 18 site walkability

22 SITE: OAKLEY, OHIO
 what do we have here?
Located so close to the center of the community, the site has easy access to local services
including: the grocery store, pharmacy, optometrist, restaurants (from fast food-to fine
dining), banking, shopping, bookstore, hardware store, Public Library, and other useful
inclusions. All of these services lie within a quarter-mile to a half-mile walking radius -
fitting well within the definition of a walkable area.

19
Currently Oakley Square is an incredibly busy vehicular
traffic island. Many commuters turn right off Madison
Road to take Isabella Avenue to nearby Hyde Park. The
high traffic on both these streets makes pedestrian access
to the site and local shopping potentially treacherous.
Currently the site is bounded by paved driveways into the
parking areas. These would need to be adjusted to buffer
the existing residential and business functions from any
new development.
20

The initial move would seem to be to continue a line of

leasable space along Isabella Avenue to anchor the pub
and continue the natural street corridor. For that matter
the streetscape also begs to be continued along Markbreit
Avenue. Local conditions of the surrounding morphology
suggest a building height limit for the site of around 40 feet
(no higher than the historic bank building).

NORTH

21
Also of important consideration are the passive design
strategies that will control the layout of any new
construction. Of particular concern are the solar conditions
EAST

of the site, especially as humans prefer to congregate in a

WEST

sunny location. Any communal or personal living areas,

both inside and outside should have as much southern
exposure as possible.

SOUTH

SITE : OAKLEY, OHIO 23

22

24
programmatic intentions
Proposed for the Oakley Pub Site is is an infill housing scheme based on rowhouse,
townhouse, and semi-deattached dwelling typologies. These housing types would achieve
a density that balances the desire for the personal space found in single-family homes, with
the increased communal activity found in denser arrangements. The project is geared
toward socially-conscious people who are settling into new stages in their life. Perhaps
they are just starting out with a new career, or maybe now scaling back and looking for the
benefits of a close community. Organized with personalization and ownership in mind, the
project would likely function as a form of condo association. This would allow for ease of
organization and an understanding of responsibility for the shared spaces. Included in the
project are:

Sociability Functions:
existing Oakley Pub & Grill
modified seating area for pub
back-of-house provision
employee parking (underground)
(2) leasable business spaces
w/ street frontage
shared mail area
shared laundry
bike parking
communal garden space

Living Functions:
Minimum of (8) 2 bedroom units (around 1200sf or less)
of which (1-2) units should be entirely ADA accessible
must be visitable
provision for “front yard”
maximize southern sun exposure
rowhouse or flat style
Possible inclusion of smaller units (flats) (800sf)
must be visitable
provision for “front yard”
maximize southern sun exposure
(1) parking spot per unit (underground)

PROGRAMMATIC INTENTIONS 25
23

26
an architecture of interaction
Designing for interaction seeks to discover how the built environment can aid in encouraging
social relationships. Accumulated through the process of understanding interaction and
sociability are certain parameters and goals that will inform the design process.

- Transitions Between Greater Community (Context) and Site

- Programming Social Functions
- Grouping of Units/Functions Within a Pedestrian Zone
- Areas of Interaction and Repose
- The Front Door: Identity and Transition
- Visitability

Transitioning Between Greater Community (Context) and Site

Architecture is about place-making and the particular context and identity of the locale can
have a profound impact on the success of a project. Respecting the importance of building
relationships includes interacting with the greater community. This means allowing for
some sense of permeability (Gehl’s “smooth transition”) along the border. If it cannot be
physical permeability, some kind of visual connectedness may substitute.

Programming Social Functions - Increasing Activity

Sociability as previously discussed is social interaction; and certain functions appeal and
promote this phenomenon. As people interact they come to know each other and form
stronger relationships among themselves and with the place in which they are located.
Certain types of functions are more sociable than others, for example:
Public Square/Plaza
Eating + Drinking Places (not typically fast food)
Community Gardens
Laundromats
Daycare
Libraries
Art Class Centers
Shared Office/Studios
Street Fairs/Farmer’s Markets/Stall style markets ( not grocery store)
Corner Store
etc.
Including functions such of these in the program for a project may have the potential to
encourage more interaction.

AN ARCHITECTURE OF INTERACTION 27
24

Group Units/Functions Within a Pedestrian Zone

Bringing functions together within an accessible area increases the potential for people to
interact. This can be achieved in a number of arrangements including: series of pedestrian
paths, squares/nodes or courtyard configurations. Specific transitionsing systems are
involved in creating a sectional relationship [double-loaded] across a path. The literal
spatial relationships and figurative architectonic potential of the transition creates a positive
flow between the private unit to semi-private visiting spaces, inside and outside of the unit
to the semi-public ‘community’ area.

Basic Physical relationship:

• SECTION - Gehl + Pattern Language - path square or narrower interstitial ideal1
• PLAN - units should not face each other directly across path-do not want to look
directly into front door/windows.
• Does not need to be a linear - may undulate, but must see beginning and end
• Beginning and end should be designed - importance of view + procession

Environmental to Human needs:

Any space like this needs as much daylight as possible to be livable - it is known that
sunlight and water attract people (ie animals).

1 Gehl, 93-94; Alexander, 490

28 AN ARCHITECTURE OF INTERACTION
 Areas of Interaction and Repose
Along an area of activity people are more likely to stop
if there is space available to do so; places to sit down
and rest or merely to lean and chat.

25
Basic Physical relationship:
• PLAN- Pattern Language- people sitting want 5’ of space buffering them from
activity2
• ARCHITECTONIC - Gehl/Tom Bible/Feng Shui - when sitting generally want the
back protected - wall - niche - backrest etc.3
• SECTION - Pattern Language - scale is changed when one sits down, nice to lower
‘ceiling’ at seating area - sun invites, but then shading protects4
• Gehl - multiple benches can be oriented to allow for conversation (although this has
many complexities)5

26
The Front Door: Identity and Transition
The front door of a unit is part of public space because it is in public view. When opened
the view from both inside and outside becomes an element of transition. The front door
benefits from being recognized as the ‘mask’ that portrays the identity of the owner. The
ability to personalize/be responsible/own this zone positively reinforces relationships. This

2 Alexander, 496
3 Gehl, 151
4 Alexander, 496
5 Gehl,161

AN ARCHITECTURE OF INTERACTION 29
includes the utilization of a ‘front yard’ or a form of semi-public space that is in view and
discussion range with neighbors.

Basic Physical relationship:

• PLAN- preferably one main door used by both owners and visitors increasing possibility
for interaction
• ARCHITECTONIC - view should be planned by arranging walls, storage, and other
elements- controlling what you want to be seen
• OUTSIDE - shelter from weather, elements allowing for personalization signaling
entry
• INSIDE - Frank Lloyd Wright compress and release; physical relationship to semi-
public visiting space storage designed for outerwear
• PROGRAM - maybe a seating area, connection to nature with planting areas, ability to
be ‘outside’, secure playspace for small children, identity making

27
Visitability
Sociability includes recognizing the equality among individuals; everyone should be able to
physically visit one another regardless of physical/ mobility issues.6

Basic Physical relationship:

• ARCHITECTONIC – every unit must have some kind of semi-public living area
accessible to others, preferably from the ‘ground’ level that follows the below
guidelines.
• 3 Basic RULES:
1. one zero-step entrance.
2. doors with 32 inches of clear passage
3. one ADA bathroom on the main floor

6 see visitability in appendix

30 AN ARCHITECTURE OF INTERACTION
all together
This thesis was intended as an outlet for studying how the built environment, particularly
the housing environment might better serve the people who use it everyday. What is
presented is just one of the many areas in which architecture can function as a part
of peoples’ lives. Used over and over again in this document, the term interaction
reiterates how through physical communication people socialize with each other, and
for that matter place. Other terminologies were thrown into the mix including: social
sustainability, sociability, micro-urbanism, and visitability. Each of these phrases whether
they appear as some form of ‘archi-babble’ or not represent the same situation. The
health of our societies is based not only on our economic well-being and the status of our
natural environment, but on how we act with one another.

“So we are all together.”1

1 Marching to Pretoria; famously reinterpreted in John Lennon and the Beatles’ lyrics: I Am the
Walrus, /I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together/, Fontenot, Robert and
Traditional & Folk Songs with Chords. “Marching to Pretoria.”

ALL TOGETHER 31
32
bibliography
Agacinski, Sylviane. “Architectonic Enclosure.” in Anyplace. Ed. Cynthia C. Davidson.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1995.

Alexander, Christopher, et al. Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1977.

Benzel, Katherine F. The Room in Context: Design Beyond Boundaries. New York: McGraw
Hill, 1998.

Brain, David. “From Public Housing to Private Communities: The Discipline of

Design and the Materialization of the Public/Private Distinction in the Built
Environment.” in Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a
Grand Dichotomy. Eds. Weintraub, Jeff and Krishan Kumar Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1997.

Brindley, Tim. “Village and Community: Social Models for Sustainable Urban
Development.” in Moser, G. et. al. People, Places and Sustainability. Seattle:
Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 2003. (68-82)

“Cambridge Cohousing.” leaflet for Boston Area Cohousing Tour. Cohousing Conference
2008.

Elton + Hampton Architects. “Cambridge Cohousing.” http://www.

eltonhamptonarchitects.com/portfolio/modular/cambcohousing.php. access May
13, 2009.

European Urban Knowledge Network. “Urban Regeneration in Trinitat Nova -

Barcelona, ES.” Urban Renewal. http://www.eukn.org/eukn/themes/Urban_Policy/
Urban_environment/Urban_renewal/Urban-Reg. access April 2009.

FAT. “Contaminating Contemplation.” in Occupying Architecture: Between the Architect

and the User. Ed. Jonathan Hill. London: Routledge, 1998. p.77-98

Fontenot, Robert. “I Am The Walrus: The history of this classic Beatles song”
About.com. http://oldies.about.com/od/thebeatlessongs/a/iamthewalrus.htm.
access May 18, 2009

BIBLIOGRAPHY 33
Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Translated by Jo Koch. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1987.

Hou, Jeff. “Micro Urbanism.” Guide to Seattle Micro Urbanism. 2007. http://microseattle.
wordpress.com/about/ access April 2009.

Jarmusch, Ann. “Living in the City: Smith & Others poses a smart alternative to
developer-driven urban housing.” Architecture. Nov. 1999, 106-111.

Jonathan Segal Architect. “Kettner Row.” http://www.jonathansegalarchitect.com/

projects/kettnerRow/plans.html. access May 13, 2009.

Larsen, Gary L. “An Inquiry Into the Theoretical Basis of Sustainability: Ten
Propositions.” in Dillar, Jesse ed et al. Understanding the Social Dimension of
Sustainability. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Lewis, Sally. Front to Back: A Design Agenda for Urban Housing. Oxford: Architectural
Press, 2005.

“The Merrimac Building: Smith & Others.” Architecture. Jan 1997, 86-87.

Madanipour, Ali. Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Routledge, 2003.

Traditional & Folk Songs with Chords. “Marching to Pretoria.” http://www.

traditionalmusic.co.uk/folk-songs-with-chords/Marching%20To%20Pretoria.htm.
access May 18, 2009.

Martinez and Cutri Architects. “Doma Lofts and Towns.” 2005. http://www.mc-architects.
com/DOMA_SPECS.html. access May 13, 2009.

Miles, Malcolm. Urban Utopias: The Built and Social Architectures of Alternative Settlements.
London: Routledge, 2008.

O’Donnell, Dorothy. “Little Italy makes mark as model of urban redevelopment.” The
Daily Transcript. Thursday, August 12, 2004. <http://www.sddt.com/> access
April 2009.

34 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pendleton-Jullian, Ann, Stanford Anderson and Xiangning Li. Advanced Study in Modern
Architecture - Workshop on Micro-Urbanism: The Instance of Shanghai. MIT
Architecture, Spring 2006.

Project for Public Spaces. Good Places. 2008. <http://www.pps.org/parks_plazas_squares/

info/design/goodplaces> access January 2009

Pyatok Architects, Inc. “Swan’s Marketplace.” Adobe PDF from website. http://www.
pyatok.com/portfolio/swans.html# access May 13, 2009.

Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Universal Design at Buffalo. “Visit-

Ability: an approach to Universal Design in housing.” Adobe PDF from website

Saieh, Nico. “Sarugaku/ Akihisa Hirata.” Arch Daily. quoting Akihisa Hirata. Oct 30,
2008. http://www.archdaily.com/8237/sarugaku-akihisa-hirata/ access April 20,
2009.

Schittich, Christian Ed. inDetail Semi-Detached and Terraced Houses. Basel: Birkhauser,
2006.

Schneider, Tatjana and Jeremy Till. Flexible Housing. Oxford: Elsevier, 2007.

Weintraub, Jeff. “The Theory and Politics of the Public/Private Distinction.” in

Weintraub, Jeff and Krishan Kumar Eds. Public and Private in Thought and Practice:
Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Wilgoren, Jodi. “Wheelchair Users Achieve Milestone in 2 Ordinances.” February 7,

2002. The New York Times online. <http://www.nytimes.com> Access Aug 31,
2008.

Wilkins, Gretchen. “Tsukiji Micro Urbanism.” University of Michigan. wilkins_micro

urbanism.pdf

“Visitability.” <http://www.visitability.org/> access August 31, 2008.

on the shelf:
Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Space. Trans. Maria Jolas. Foreward John R.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 35
 Stilgoe. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, 1994.

Bentley, Ian et al. Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers. London: The
Architectural Press, 1985.

Cold, Birgit (ed). Aesthetics, Well-being, and Health: Essays within architecture and
environmental aesthetics. Ethnoscapes series. Aldershot, England:Ashgate
Publishing, 2001.

Cooper Marcus, Clare and Wendy Sarkissian. Housing as if People Mattered: Site Design
Guidelines for Medium-Density Family Housing. Berkeley: University of California,
1986.

de Botton, Alain. The Architecture of Happiness. New York: Pantheon Books, 2006.

Gallagher, Winifred. House Thinking: A Room-by-Room Look at How We

Live. New York: Harper Perennial, 2006.

Loidl, Hans and Stefan Bernard. Opening Spaces: Design as Landscape Architecture. Basel:
Birkhauser, 2003.

Schwartz-Clauss, Matthias and Alexander von Vegesack (ed). Living in Motion: Design and
architecture for flexible dwelling. Vitra Design Museum, 2002.

Sennett, Richard. The Conscience of the Eye. New York: Knopf, 1990.

36 BIBLIOGRAPHY
visitability
If a flexible dwelling had the ability to change
based on the occupant’s needs and whims,
and changes in occupants, should it not
accommodate the different physical needs of a
person? Universal Access and ADA guidelines
are required for “public” construction not for
the home, but in several states a new initiative
called Visitability has developed to bring a
certain amount of these standards to residential
design.
28
Geared mainly towards the single-family and townhome market where accessibility is at
its least advanced the trend encourages home-building that can accommodate people who
have difficulty with physical mobility.

Visitability has just three main requirements:

1. that there be at least one zero-step entrance
2. doors minimum 32 inches of clear passage space
3. one bathroom on the main floor that can be accessed by wheelchair1

The concept behind visitability was driven by Eleanor Smith who as a result would found
Concrete Change, an organization dedicated to the cause of residential universal access. In
1986 she happened to be driving by a whole neighborhood of typical Habitat for Humanity
homes pondering whether anyone had thought to make them accessible. Later she read in
a newspaper article that several of the homes had been designed for people with disabilities
but only because of specific requests. More importantly to Eleanor and for those with
mobility issues was how could they visit other homes.2

Visitability is not presented as a strictly disability-led crusade. Marketing shows baby

strollers along with wheelchairs and walkers. Visitability advocate Eleanor Smith founder
of Concrete Change reminds us, “When someone builds a home, they’re not just building
it for themselves - that home’s going to be around for 100 years.”3 However, a home built
with only the basic visitability guidelines might not serve as a fully functional accessible
dwelling. In addition the definition of a Universally Accessible home is broad and for good

1 Visitability. <http://www.visitability.org/>
2 Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Universal Design at Buffalo.
“Visit-Ability: an approach to Universal Design in housing,” 2-3
3 Visitability. Access Aug 31 2008. <http://www.visitability.org/>

APPENDIX: VISITABILITY 37
reason. There is no standard way of accomplishing this goal because people have many
different needs and there should be many different answers. Visitability is just another step
toward equality?
Visitability has been added to local and state codes in different parts of the country primarily
affecting only housing built with public funds. Two jurisdictions Naperville, Illinois and
Pima County, Arizona were the first to go a step further and have approved ordinances that
will affect new building in the private realm.4 New ordinances are even going beyond the
basic rules of visitability encouraging pre-planning for bathroom grabbars and other items
that could be added later.5 And a federal Inclusive Home Design Act is in the works.

These decisions are not easily made. Opponents to residential universal access codes
are deeply concerned about these acts taking away choice and individual rights for the
majority. The new rules were declaimed as “social engineering” in Naperville during city
hall meetings.6 Increased construction costs were also cited as an issue, however, this is
particularly debatable. All of these reasons are why the visitability movement does not
have many demands. For example ADA calls for equal access, that those needing access
assistance not be relegated to a back corner or alternate longer route. Visitability does not
seem to expect perfection; the back door is perfectly fine if it is the available entrance.

It would be unfortunate if rules became too restrictive to innovation and desires. Too much
standardization is a bad thing. A certain number of architectural projects might never
happen or...maybe the
challenge would just
make them better. For
now, this is an option
that has merit in terms
of social consciousness,
not inspiring guilt
or ‘engineering’ how
values. Visitability is
one more way that the
dwelling environment
can be that much more
adaptable to human
needs.
4 Wilgoren, Jodi. “Wheelchair Users Achieve Milestone in 2 Ordinances,” 1
29 An example scheme for
5 Wilgoren, 1 zero-step entries; Center for
6 Wilgoren, 1
Universal Design at NC State
University College of Design.
38 APPENDIX: VISITABILITY
Between You and Me
We: an architecture of interaction

DESIGN PROCESS

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 39

 this thesis

14

13
17

8
22

18
20

10
/1

al
17

er

du
at

vi
gw

di
llin

in
Fa

e
al

s
or

or
un

ie
m

hb

at
m

eig

re
m

ge

t
N
co

Re
illa

g
in

ith
tV
e

n
ld
or

de
w
g

u i
en
sin

m
tB

id
e
tiv

m
y

om
ou

H
ry
t

en
ra
i

ire
un

e
ito

ay
H

us
pe

m
Co

et
m

-w
m

ily

ho
oo

sR

r
m

?
or

pa
ge

he
m

ge
e

m
Co

gC

ak

us
sD

lA

Fa
id

f-t

ita
ar
ho
O

lex
br
z

lF
sin

-o
er

ca

m
gle
iel
ut

w
in
ak

er
pi

ut
up

ra
ou
bb

an

Sin
Ca

Tw

Ro
Ty

O
Ru

H
Sh

D
H
D
Ki

->
d?

1 2
re

n
e

2 2
rc n
io
on

ha

Ci tio
at

om en

N
S

a
ul

ro itch
es

ul
2

un d

1
La are
ac
t

rc

Ba r y K
ee

y
Ci

dr
rf

F
Sh

a
ng
u

1 - 3 i Arbitrary Likelihood of Human Interaction

e
/S
0

im

s
th

ls
ic

ce

v
ild

Pr
Ile

2 - 4 10 - interact daily 5 - yes, some contact

Bu
al

pa
er

M S
W

S TOTAL
3+ - 5 1 - unlikely
Shaker Community - 4/5 2 1 2 2 10 21/22

Kibbutz - - - - - - - -
Cambridge Cohousing - 4/5 2 1 2 - 8 16/17

Daniels Dormitory - 5 2 1 2 2 7 17/18

Twin Oaks Apartments - 4/5 2 - - - 7 13/14

Typ. Apartment Building - 5 2 1 - - 5 13

Rowhouse - 4 1 - - - 5 10
Duplex - 3 2 - - - 6 11
Rural Farmhouse 0 - - - - - 5 5
Retreat - Fallingwater 0 - - - - - 3 3
Hermitage?? 0 - - - - - 1 1

Cohousing as a communal living model seeks to provide an alternative for the

difficulties and isolation inherent in living in typical single family and apartment
homes, by directly encouraging (through built form) people to live together in a
dense community sharing some amount of space and resources.

Summer 07 - cohousing + urban models | Autumn/Winter 07/08 - San Francisco urban neighborhoods experience + visit to

Swan’s Market Cohousing- Oakland >

40 APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS

> Spring 08 - cohousing + multi-family housing research / University Linked Retirement Community Niehoff Studio - mixed use/walking street/housing |

Summer 08 - Cohousing Conference 2008 Dedham, MA - cohousers up close and personal...”there’s no housing like cohousing...” >

cohousing = social architecture, not built architecture

Some cohousing design professionals consider it inappropriate to “predesign” co-
housing architecture on the theory that the design and building process is integral
to cohousing community [social group] forming.

thesis is not cohousing

> architectural research at Penn State University Library - dense housing examples/communal housing/small buildings >

making mass housing less regimented > flexible architecture + housing >

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 41

 Fixed + Moves

Space is roughly broken up into dedicated

zones. Sliding and folding elements are
used to change the nature of the space.

Precedent
Steven Holl | ‘void space/hinged space’

Served/Service

Servant spaces are utilized to open up

space by pulling out intensive elements
such as circulation, storage, mechanical
equipment, etc.

Precedent
Smithsons | Put-away Villa

Modular

Spaces are made out of a demountable,

prefabricated kit-of-parts allowing for
swapping out of systems and changing
configurations.

Precedent
Open Building | NEXT21

Defining Flexibility
Flexibility allows for occupant individuality in an environment that has become
all about stacking little boxes. Humanity as “we” is not meant to be the hive.

The history of flexible architecture shall be broken down into three main form-
driving categories. Titled Fixed + Moves; Served/Service; and Modular, the
typologies are also often combined to add further dimension and changeability to
a project.

Summer 08 contd. - Flexible architecture - tectonics and theory >

42 APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS

Flexibility as a terminology for describing architecture is fairly widely discussed,
but in very abstract terms involving moving parts and one-off examples. Looking
for more practical examples the book Flexible Housing by Tatjana Schneider
and Jeremy Till clearly defines the theme of flexible and adjustable dwelling
architecture throughout history, beginning with Japanese tatami mat construction
and moving into more contemporary modular construction examples.

> Summer 08 contd. - MOMA “Home Delivery: Fabricating the Modern Dwelling” initial inspiration >

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 43

 Designing housing for more than one lifetime and different users.

> Autumn 08 - First Quarter of Thesis - presentation of thesis proposal and graphic abstract - not cohousing, but flexible strategies for dense housing >

44 APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS

 At what point does flexibility clash with density?

Considering what happens between walls with the above images highlighting the
possibility for extremely different activities happening on either side of a generic
wall. See No Evil/Hear No Evil/Speak No Evil is intended to address the issue of
the party wall and privacy.

> tectonics >

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 45

Where building users meet the public/streetscape - ENTRY
Where individual users interact with each other - CORRIDOR
Where the individual enters their own realm - FRONT DOOR
Where the individual meets with the guest - LIVING AREA
The realm of the individual outside - YARD/TERRACE

> where does flexibility clash with density in housing? >

46 APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS

This is all about the individual. Where is the community - the “we” in dense
housing?

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 47

 Visual Complexity Separate Individual Identity at
People from Cars the Front Door

“Assemble Activities” “Smooth Transition Be- Human Scale

tween Public and Private”

This preliminary playbook attempts to address what

issues - individual, communal, and architectonic
are important when people are grouped together
in urban situations.

Views
> end of Autumn 08 - Jan Gehl’s Life Between Buildings reconnects social issues with architecture >

We is a collection of individuals. The way they interact as individuals and as a

group has architectural implications. “I” and We”?

48 APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS

These plays are elaborated in this explanatory spatial section diagram suggesting
points of interaction and the separation of people and car.

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 49

 Suggestions made through model architectonics:

TL perhaps housing above work below

TR portal and courtyard
BL entry “streetscape” with front yards

> white museum board models crystallize thoughts about urban streetscape and housing but do not yet explicitly design the project >

50 APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS

> Winter 09 - four 20’ x 40’ scaled unit modules are manipulated to interact with one another and form suggestions of interaction space >

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 51

> finally a site is to test these concepts of “we“ / [semi] urban >

52 APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 53
 When designing for dense housing it is easy to become focused on a very
individualistic perspective centered on the private realm of the unit, often ignoring
the potential of housing in its organizational form as a collective. As important
as individual identity is, the human as a social creature needs the face-to-face
interaction that supports relationships and connects people to place.

Spatial implications can be identified between how people choose to interact

in relation to the physical characteristics of the environment and each other.
Addressing the in-between spaces within medium-density housing might better
recognize sociability as an essential component of design.

identity and encounter | built architecture vs. social architecture | defining sociability >

designing for interaction - smooth transition + increasing activity + visitability | micro urbanism>

54 APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS

 aite design process>

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 55

09W final site model | interesting entry sequence, but unit relationships do not yet work>

56 APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS

 elevational studies of retail and units facades>

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 57

09S two studies of the transition into the unit>

58 APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS

 N
ISO
AD MARKBREIT
M

4 5
3

6
2

1
9

7 8

10
ISABELLA

site plan near the finish>

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 59

 N
ISO
AD MARKBREIT
M
ISABELLA

SHARED SPACE
CIRCULATION

N
ISO
AD MARKBREIT
M
ISABELLA

INCREASING ACTIVITY
NODES

60 APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS

 N
ISO
AD MARKBREIT
M

ISABELLA
ENTRIES

N
ISO
AD MARKBREIT
M
ISABELLA

VISITABILITY

interaction between thesis research and almost final design...too be continued >

APPENDIX: DESIGN PROCESS 61