fulbright final

8/20/2019 Fulbright Final

1/63

Shared SpaceSIGNS OF COMMUNITY LIFE IN THE DANISH SUBURBAN LANDSCAPE


2/63


3/63

Shared SpaceSIGNS OF COMMUNITY LIFE IN THE DANISH SUBURBAN LANDSCAPE

FULBRIGHT INVESTIGATION 2005–2006

RYAN SULLIVAN


4/63

© 2006 Ryan Sullivan

is work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://cre-ativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ or send a letterto Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, SanFrancisco, California, 94105, USA.


5/63

Prologue

Signs of Life in the Suburban Landscape 1

Identifying the Parochial Realm 5

Defining Shared Open Space 7

A Brief History of Shared Open Space in Suburbia 9

Timeline 14

Case Studies 16

Project Catalog 28

Design Characteristics 34

ree in One 40

Eight Acre Shared-division 44

Backyard Retrofit 48

1: EssaysSuburbia and Shared Open Space

2: Case StudiesShared Open Space in Denmark

Contents

3: ConceptsThree Proposals Using

Shared Open Space


6/63

Acknowledgements

is project was possible thanks to the Fulbright program

which funded the investigation during the 2005–06 aca-

demic year. I would like to thank the Danish Fulbright Com-

mission and Marie Mønsted and Barbara Lehman for their

assistance and continued support throughout the year. I am

also especially thankful for the opportunity to learn from Jan

Gehl, Lars Gemzøe, Susanne Andersen, Birgitte Bundesen

Svarre, Camilla Damm van Deurs, Britt Sternhagen Søn-

dergaard, Solvejg Reigstad, Sia Kirknæs and Javier Corvalán.

anks so much for hosting me at the Center for Public

Space Research and your insights, feedback and support.


7/63

Prologue

is investigation of shared open spaces in Danish subur-

ban environments is grounded in the belief that suburbs aredeserving of the same nuanced study as cities themselves.

A cursory look at Copenhagen’s suburbs shows an environ-

ment consisting of the same types of buildings, infrastruc-

tures, behaviors and attitudes found in suburban America

and other parts of the world. But, a closer examination of

Copenhagen’s suburban landscape reveals that this envi-

ronment exhibits its own unique characteristics. One such

example, and the subject of this work, is shared open space,a type of outdoor space found in many suburban residential

neighborhoods. Although these spaces are not mainstream,

they are abundant, and their presence suggests to me that

suburban environments can exhibit moments of architec-

tural significance.

is study is also inspired by the waning provision of shared

open spaces in new Danish projects. As changing lifestylesevolve towards increasingly privatized lives, it is important to

document the shared open space tradition, ask if it is still rel-

evant today and, if so, explore contemporary interpretations.

Furthermore, a rigourous study of shared open space and

the parochial realm can be used to address architects’ general

distrust for spaces that are neither exclusively public or

private, due in part to Oscar Newman’s Defensible Space;Crime Prevention through Urban Design. Newman’s research

was especially important at its time, when undefined and

poorly designed outdoor spaces were inserted into many

public housing projects. But, unfortunately, his criticisms of

shared open spaces have been so influential among architects

that they unthinkingly avoid designing spaces that are not

exclusively public or private.

Ultimately, it is my hope that this research will lead to

further investigations of suburban landscapes and their

unique characteristics. When architects and planners makegeneralizations about suburbia and base design and policy

recommendations on these generalizations, we risk ignoring

the unique characteristics of these environments. And we

miss opportunities to build on and draw inspiration from

these distinctive aspects.


8/63

Suburbia and

Shared Open Space

1: Essays


9/63

1

Signs of Life in theSuburban Landscape

Suburbia’s Changing FaceTraditionally, architects, historians, sociologists, geogra-

phers and planners have been extremely critical of subur-

ban culture and development despite suburbia’s enormous

popularity among the general public. Outspoken critiques

can be traced back to the middle part of the 20th century in

the writings and observations of Lewis Mumford and Wil-

liam Whyte. e arguments have become more frequent in

recent years, as an increasing number of books, articles andtelevision broadcasts have condemned sprawl and suburbia.

ese scholars and journalists most often criticize suburbia

for being culturally homogenous, environmentally damaging

and physically unattractive.1

Inspired by these critiques, a handful of American architects

began to directly challenge the suburban environment with

design proposals, several of them organizing themselves asthe Congress for the New Urbanism in the early 1990’s.

Despite their work, few other architects have contributed

to the field through research or practice.2 And while the

critique itself of suburbia made by the New Urbanism and

architecture profession at-large reflects the arguments made

by Mumford, Whyte and others, most architects remain

critical of the specific design strategies employed by the New

Urbanism.3

Over the past three years, a number of written works have

begun to question many of the assertions made by the critics

of suburbia. is is partly because the suburban landscape

has changed enormously since the 1950’s, yet contemporary

critiques of suburbia frequently rely on the same arguments

made fifty years ago. A wide and diverse range of scholars

such as Dolores Hayden, Robert Bruegmann, Ellen Dun-ham Jones, Joel Kotkin and Edward Soja have questioned

many traditional assumptions about suburbia, pointing outthat their research frequently contradicts the low-density,

homogenous environment described by earlier critics.4 eir

arguments suggest that there is more to suburbia than meets

the eye and illustrate a number of research findings that

contest traditional views of suburbia, such as:

1. Suburban environments are becoming denser. As

measured by the census bureau, sprawling Los Angeles

is the most densely populated urbanized area in theUnited States.5

2. Suburban environments can be extremely culturally

diverse. e largest immigrant communities in the

United States are no longer found in cities, but in

suburbs outside of Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and

Houston.6

3. e typical suburban family no longer consists of two

parents and children.7

4. Physical boundaries and edges between cities and

suburbs are becoming less clear.8

Whether or not one agrees with the specific points outlined

above or those argued in their books, this new scholarship is

significant because it takes a fresh look at the suburban land-

scape and strives to avoid repeating the typically anti-sub-

urban rhetoric of the last fifty years. But just what does thisnew wave of written work mean for architectural and urban

design practice and research? Can we expect new architec-

tural and planning strategies inspired by this recent wave of

suburban research? If so, what form will they take?

Architects and Suburbia

New architectural proposals within the suburban landscape,

prompted by recent scholarly research, should accept thatsuburbs are complex, idiosyncratic environments, deserv-


10/63

2

ing of the same nuanced study as cities themselves. Two

specific strategies used in the scholarly research might also

be of use to architects and architectural researchers. First,

architects could learn from the way that the scholars have

focused on the lived experience and everyday characteristicsof suburban places and lifestyles. Rigorous analysis from

this perspective might reveal unique or unusual opportuni-

ties for new design strategies that are otherwise overlooked

when generalizing the suburban experience and landscape.

Second, architects could benefit from placing existing sub-

urban conditions within a historical context that stretches

beyond the last 50 years of post-World War II sprawl. e

written works by Robert Bruegmann and Dolores Haydenbenefit from stretching the history of suburbia to include

many examples of exurban growth that occurred before the

advent of the automobile. Enlightened by an understanding

of suburbia characterized by an awareness of its history and

lived experience, it is likely that architects may find their role

to be more focussed on researching and retrofitting suburbia,

rather than replacing it.

Although a significant amount of research has explored the

cultural and historic characteristics of the suburban land-

scape, there is little in-depth research of the existing suburbs’

formal and aesthetic characteristics. While it could be argued

that the New Urbanists have contributed in this respect, it is

important to note that their research has focused primarily

on historic urban precedent rather than existing suburban

conditions (although they have developed an understandingof contemporary suburban zoning and real estate practices).

Nevertheless, a small number of examples do exist. Writings

by architects Rem Koolhaas, Peter Rowe, Keller Easter-

ling and Lars Lerup have explored strategies for describing

the physical suburban environment, frequently focusing

on typology.9 Additionally, Brenda Case Scheer and Anne

Vernez Moudon are using GIS to explore formal attributes

of contemporary suburban environments.10

A recent issue ofPlaces Journal was dedicated to the theme of retrofitting sub-

urbia.11 But more research is sorely needed; in their haste to

criticize suburbia as unworthy of attention, architects have

become blind to the suburban landscape’s changing face. And

unlike other disciplines investigating suburbia, architecture

is uniquely qualified to provide insight into the formal andaesthetic characteristics of this environment.

e second contribution that architects could make in

response to the recent scholarship on suburbia is through

specific design proposals that engage and build on existing

conditions. Architects could invent new suburban typologies

or develop new strategies for retrofitting existing suburbs.

Due to their utopian vision, few New Urbanist proposalshave retrofitted existing suburban conditions; most of their

plans for existing suburbs call for completely transforming

or rebuilding these environments. However, a few design

proposals for retrofitting suburban environments or creating

new suburban typologies do exist. A handful of New Urban-

ist schemes have involved transforming regional shopping

malls into walkable, mixed-use communities and Duany,

Plater-Zyberk and Company is developing a proposal fortransforming a corporate office park into a neo-traditional

neighborhood.12 W. Jude LeBlanc and Michael Gamble in-

vented a proposal for retrofitting suburban strips into more

sustainable, pedestrian friendly environments.13 Similarly,

Darren Petrucci developed public amenities facilitating

walking, playing and displaying art along a commercial strip

in Scottsdale, Arizona.14 e architecture firm Lewis.Tsuru-

maki.Lewis created a concept for a new suburban typologythat combines the big box with residences into a single

structure.15 is diverse range of projects suggests that op-

portunities exist for creativity and innovation in the design

of the suburban landscape.

Signs of Life in Suburbia?

One specific aspect of the suburban landscape that could

benefit from architects’ insight is public space. Architectshave a strong tradition of researching and designing urban


11/63

3

public spaces, in part because they are particularly quali-

fied to work with their spatial characteristics. However,

investigating public space and the public realm in suburbia

is an especially difficult task. Unlike many urban environ-

ments, suburbs lack clearly defined public plazas, squaresand streets. Furthermore, an increased emphasis on private

development and private lifestyles has led to an environment

in which few truly public activities and places exist. erefore,

suburbia’s public realm is less clearly defined both in terms of its

spatial definition as well as the degree to which it is truly public

when compared to traditional urban environments.

Scholars have criticized suburbia’s emphasis on privateproperty and private lifestyles since the 1960’s. Recently,

architects such as Margaret Crawford and Michael Sorkin

have critiqued the pseudo-public spaces found in suburban

shopping malls.16 But rather than bemoaning what Sorkin

describes as the “end of public space”, architects and architec-

tural scholars should consider exploring existing examples

and new possibilities for the public realm in suburbia. In

fact, examples of vibrant life in suburbia do exist. Ethniccommunities outside of Los Angeles, Houston, Miami and

Washington D.C. exhibit characteristics of public life in

their suburban environments. Recent census data indicates

that suburban residents are more involved in community

groups and activities than urban residents. Perhaps these

traces of public life in suburbia could serve as a starting point

for new architectural research and design investigations into

suburbia’s public realm.

In their recent book In Search of New Public Domain,

Maarten Hajer and Arnold Reijndorp explore how archi-

tects and designers might contribute to the design of public

space. ey urge architects and scholars to stop discussing

the public realm in terms of “loss” and “decline” because this

pessimistic approach may prevent new ways of identifying

and designing public space. Furthermore, they suggest thatarchitects should question traditional definitions of public

space and seek out “which other unexpected places possibly

manifest themselves as a public domain.”17 Likewise, archi-

tect Michael Brill argues that there is a tendency to overlook

some types of public life because they do not fit the tradi-

tional definition. He recommends investigating the realm ofvirtual communications (which replaced the town crier, town

hall meeting and other physical venues for public discourse),

public life that takes place in private spaces and public life

centered on performance, spectacle and consumption.18

Adopting a spirit of optimism and open-mindedness with

respect to defining and identifying public life could be more

advantageous than current practices for two reasons. First,it builds on existing behavior and lifestyles rather than at-

tempting to physically-determine future activity. Second, it

could allow for interventions in existing suburban communi-

ties rather than additional greenfield development.

New Directions

Designing and researching within the suburban landscape is

enormously challenging. e environment’s formal char-acteristics lack the clarity of those found in cities. It is a

complicated environment that is constantly changing, grow-

ing and evolving, yet most architects regard it as unworthy of

study. New directions in architectural practice and research

should focus on this environment and seek out a deeper

understanding of its characteristics. After all, seventy-five

percent of new construction takes place in suburbia.19 e

recent wave of revisionist research suggests that it may betime for architects to reevaluate their (lack of ) involvement

in critically engaging the suburban landscape.

Notes:1 Alex Kriger, “e Costs—and Benefits?—of Sprawl” in Sprawl and Suburbia,

ed. William S. Saunders, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005),44–49.

2 Less than 1% of licensed architects in the United States are also members of theCongress for the New Urbanism.


12/63

4

18 Michael Brill, “Mistaking Community Life for Public Life,” Places 14, no. 2(2001): 53.

19 Dunham-Jones, “Seventy-five Percent: e Next Big Architectural Project”, 1.

3 Ellen Dunham-Jones, “Seventy-five Percent: e Next Big Architectural Proj-ect” in Sprawl and Suburbia, ed. William S. Saunders (Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 2005), 1–3.

4 Jennifer Howard, “Revising the Suburbs: A New Wave of Scholars ChallengesCommon Assumptions about Sprawl and Urban Growth,” e Chronicleof Higher Education 52, no. 29 (2006), http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=j88qk4jh36gr2zvp82f27f6z1kf5qgz8.

5 Robert Bruegmann, Sprawl: A Compact History (Chicago: e University ofChicago Press, 2005), 5 and Edward Soja, “Regionalization and the RegionalCity” (lecture, e Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of Architec-ture, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 30, 2005).

6 Susan Rogers, “Superneighborhood 27: A Brief History of Change” Places 17,no. 2 (2005): 36–41.

7 Dolores Hayden, Redesigning the American Dream: e Future of Housing,Work, and Family Life (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1984).

8

Robert Bruegmann, Sprawl: A Compact History (Chicago: e Universityof Chicago Press, 2005), 49–50 and Edward Soja, “Regionalization and theRegional City” (lecture, e Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School ofArchitecture, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 30, 2005).

9 Rem Koolhaas, “Junk Space” in Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping , ed.Rem Koolhaas, (New York: Taschen, 2003), 408–421; Peter Rowe, Makinga Middle Landscape (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991); Keller Easterling,Organization Space: Landscapes, Highways, and Houses in America (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1999) and Lars Lerup, After the City (Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 2000).

10 Jacqueline Tatom, “Radial Street as a Timeline” in Suburban Form: An

International Perspective, ed. Brenda Case Scheer and Kiril Stanilov, (NewYork: Routledge, 2004) and Anne Vernez Moudon, “Pedestrian LocationIdentification Tools: Identifying Suburban Areas With Potentially HighLatent Demand For Pedestrian Travel,” Transportation Research Record 1818(2002): 94–101.

11 Ellen Dunham-Jones, ed., Places 17, no. 2 (2005).12 Several notable examples of New Urbanist retrofits do exist, including pro-

posals to transform office parks into loft-like residences and shopping mallsinto neighborhoods. However, these proposals generally require so muchtransformation and are so disconnected from the cultural environment theyreplace that it is debatable whether they can be considered retrofits.

13 Julie Kim, “Incremental Urbanism: e Auto and Pedestrian Reconsidered inGreyfield Reclamation—Atlanta, Georgia,” Places 16, no. 3 (2002): 18–21.

14 Darren Petrucci, “Stripscape: Pedestrian Amenities along 7th Avenue” Places 17, no. 2 (2005): 42–44.

15 Paul Lewis, Marc Tsurumak and David J. Lewis, “Portfolio: New Suburban-ism,” Lewis.Tsurumaki.Lewis, http://www.ltlarchitects.com/pages/portfolio/speculations/newsub.html (accessed June 8, 2006).

16 Margaret Crawford, “e World in a Shopping Mall” in Variations on a emePark: e New American City and the End of Public Space, ed. Michael Sorkin,(New York: Hill and Wang, 1992) 123–53 .

17 Maarten Hajer and Arnold Reijndorp, In Search of New Public Domain: Analy-sis and Strategy (Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2001).


13/63


14/63

6

it is difficult to pinpoint the specific connections between

community and the built environment, urban planner Emily

Talen argues that American architects’ first priority should

be to strengthen and provide open spaces that can facilitate a

variety of activities, regardless of whether they are public orcommunity–oriented.4 She also points out that community

itself is not dependent upon local, physical places and that

the notion of community is in fact resisted and considered

undesirable by some. Despite these compelling arguments,

it is curious that a culturally diverse range of built environ-

ments throughout history have included spaces designed

specifically for parochial uses, such as courtyards, cloisters

and campuses.

Several architects have argued that architects should design

for distinctions between public and parochial uses. For

example, architect Michael Brill maintains that the parochial

realm is distinct from public and private realms and that

it requires a distinct physical environment. He writes that

“increased emphasis on physical and social isolation and

the private sphere” has led to increasing confusion betweenthe public realm and parochial realm. Brill says that these

two realms “operate at very different scales and densities”,

have their own “purposes, mechanisms and customs” and

require “different physical environments”. Additionally, Brill

argues that suburban neighborhoods need parochial spaces

rather than public spaces. Specifically, he criticizes Peter

Calthorpe and other New Urbanists for designing public

spaces inspired by the classical urban tradition rather thancreating spaces for community interaction, better suited to

the densities and lifestyles New Urbanists envision in their

new towns.5

Architect Clare Cooper Marcus also argues that parochial

spaces have their own design characteristics. Specifically, she

identifies shared outdoor spaces as one type of parochial

space and has documented built examples on the WestCoast of the Untied States. Cooper Marcus argues that

these types of spaces can serve a number of important roles

such as providing a transition between public and private

spaces, a setting for social life and play space for children.

Cooper Marcus also criticizes New Urbanist developments

for not including these types of spaces in their projects.6

Ultimately, both arguments are valid. It is commonsensical

that the public, private and parochial realms can occupy a

variety of physical spaces and locations. But there is also a

rich tradition of designing specific spaces to facilitate specific

types of activities and groups of users. While the realms of

human behavior themselves are transient, the spaces they

occupy are necessarily fixed and determined. When it comesto designing and building a space, the best an architect can

do is to match the needs and desires of potential users with a

space that facilitates them. But as Brill points out, it may be

problematic for architects to generalize space as either public

or private. It is into this gap that shared open space should

be considered, along with other types of hybrid spaces that

exist along the continuum between private and public spaces.

While more research may be unable to pinpoint the specific

relationships between the parochial realm and semi-public

spaces, it seems foolish for designers to ignore the history of

these spaces and simplistic for them to consider designing

for exclusively public and private realms.

Notes:1 Jan Gehl and Lars Gemzøe,New City Spaces (Copenhagen: Danish Architec-tural Press, 2000), 10–13.

2 Lyn H. Lofland, e Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential SocialTerritory (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1998), 11–14.

3 Lyn H. Lofland, 10.4 Emily Talen, “A Matter of Priorities: New Urbanism and Community Life,”

Places 15, no. 3 (2003): 77–80.5 Michael Brill, “Mistaking Community Life for Public Life,” Places 14, no. 2

(2001): 50.6 Clare Cooper Marcus, “Shared Outdoor Space and Community Life” Places 15,

no. 2 (2003): 32–41.


15/63

7

Defining Shared Open Space

is series of project-related definitions borrows from the

fields of sociology, architecture and urban design.

Public Realm consists of exchanges among a collection of

individuals who are unknown to one another.

Private Realm consists of intimate connections between

individuals within a family or close personal network.

Parochial Realm consists of connections between friends

and neighbors sharing something in common.

Public Space is a physical location that facilitates activities

of the public realm.

Parochial Space is a physical location that facilitates activi-

ties of the parochial realm.

Private Space is a physical location that facilitates activitiesof the private realm.

Shared Open Space is a type of parochial space that facili-

tates interaction between residents of a community. ese

common outdoor areas are frequently jointly owned and

maintained by the residents.

Also called Shared Outdoor Space or Community Greens.


16/63

8


17/63

9

A Brief History of SharedOpen Space in Suburbia

Shared open spaces can be found in many different culturesthroughout history. Courtyards, surrounded and shared by

several dwellings can be traced as far back as the Incas in the

13th century, BC. More recent, western examples of shared

open space include monastic courtyards and the green spaces

surrounded by academic buildings in the American campus

planning tradition beginning with omas Jefferson at the

University of Virginia.

In both northern Europe and the United States, contempo-

rary examples of shared open space can be found in a small

number of residential developments. ese spaces can be

traced throughout the brief history of suburban expansion in

these countries, to the early 19th century. Shared open space

has generally been a more suburban than urban phenom-

enon.1

Shared Open Space in the United States

Shared open spaces are conspicuous in Dolores Hayden’s

history of American suburbia, Building Suburbia: Green

Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000. From the beginnings

of suburban expansion, Hayden writes that Americans were

enamored with building the “triple dream”: house, nature and

community.2 As the story unfolds it becomes clear that third

component, community, is always the first to suffer when de-velopers and builders try to increase their profits. e small

presence of community spaces in the suburban landscape

may also suffer from an increased focus on private lifestyles.3

Nevertheless, a surprisingly rich collection of shared open

spaces can be found in several periods of American suburban

expansion.

e first examples of shared open space in the American

suburban landscape were built during the 1840’s, 50’s and

60’s in communities labeled picturesque enclaves by Hayden.

Unlike the ad-hoc initial phase of suburban expansion, this

second period of growth involved the construction of sub-

divisions; communities consisting of detached homes, parks

and streets were built cohesively. Reacting to the isolationfound in the first suburbs, these builders actively incorporat-

ed shared parks and common spaces into their plans, hoping

to encourage a sense of community.4 Some of these neigh-

borhoods were constructed by religious groups and others

associated with the communitarian movement. ey aspired

to build a new model capable of reforming society and be-

lieved that “shared open space was essential to a new kind of

community life.”5

Llewellyn Park, located near Eagleswood,New Jersey was one such communitarian project. Led by

the religious Perfectionist Llewellyn Haskell and designed

by Alexander Jackson Davis, the community consisted of

private detached homes set in a shared landscape of forests

and meadows.

Nearly fifty years later, two new types of American commu-

nities integrated shared open spaces into their plans: gardencities and greenbelt towns. roughout the interim period,

streetcar suburbs and unplanned communities consisting

of mail-order houses had developed along the city’s fringes.

ese two new models reacted to the unplanned growth of

suburban areas and suggested new models for communities

that considered open space, different modes of transit and

a mixture of housing types, things frequently missing in the

street car and mail–order suburbs. e garden city move-

ment originated in England in 1898 but achieved a modest

level of success and a great deal of publicity in the United

States during the 1920’s and 30’s. e most well-known

community is Radburn, New Jersey which conspicuously

features a network of shared open spaces. Houses face the

spaces and are served by small, alley-like streets. A net-

work of pedestrian and bicycle paths link the shared spaces

together.


18/63

10

Twenty Greenbelt towns were constructed beginning in the

1930s. ese communities, such as Greenbelt, Maryland,

benefitted from federal funding and frequently included

shared open spaces, a mix of housing types and cooperative

grocery stores, drugstores and gas stations.

Few American suburbs built after World War II include

shared open spaces. Although the co–housing movement in

Scandinavia caught on in the United States, its presence was

fairly modest. New suburban model communities such as

Columbia, Maryland and Reston, Virginia include commu-

nity parks, but they cannot be accurately labeled as shared

open spaces. Likewise, the most significant critical reactionto post-World War II development, the New Urbanism,

includes neighborhood parks and town squares in their plans

but avoids the inclusion of shared open space.

Shared Open Space in Denmark

In Denmark, shared open space has enjoyed a much longer

and more recent place in the history of suburban develop-

ment. ese spaces premiered in several medical-housing,worker-housing and cooperative-housing projects in the

mid-nineteenth century such as Brumleby and the Classen

Trust project just outside of Copenhagen’s city walls. Shared

open space was a tool used to provide fresh air and sun-

light to the residents as well as space for outdoor activities.

However, many projects during this time, such as Kartoffel-

rækkerne, did not include shared open spaces because they

were more profit-driven, rather than led by philanthropic

organizations. It is important to note however, that at Kart-

offelrækkerne and in some other projects, the narrow streets

eventually took on the role of a shared open space. ese

pre-automobile, neighborhood streets were not comfort-

able for through traffic and residents eventually removed a

number of parking spaces, replacing them with trees, picnic

tables and playgrounds.

Shared open spaces were rediscovered again by Danish

architects in the 1950’s and 60’s as a tool in new, large-scale

housing developments. A housing shortage at the time was

addressed by government programs that encouraged pre-

fabrication and other industrial building techniques. Early

projects usually consisted of high-rise multi-family towerssurrounded by parking lots and parks. e negative impact

that these projects had on social interaction was quickly

identified by some architects and a new movement called

dense-low began. High-density housing areas of two-three

stories were achieved using the same industrial building

methods. Architects focused on creating courtyards, shared

open spaces and pedestrian networks between the buildings.

Projects such as Albertslund and Galgebakken are strongexamples from this period.

e most recent Danish projects to incorporate shared open

spaces are the co-housing dwelling types developed in the

1970’s and 1980’s. ese projects were a critical response

to the single-family detached suburban developments and

appealed to middle class homebuyers seeking a sense of

community. e co-housing concept called for a series ofprivate dwellings surrounding shared open spaces and shar-

ing a common house. Residents assisted each other with

various chores as well as social activities. e common house

included a shared kitchen and dining room, for optional

nightly community dinners, play areas for children, laundry

facilities and other common uses.6

Common emes

Within the context of a historic framework, shared open

space can be seen as a critical strategy used by architects and

visionaries to critique the urban and suburban environments

of their day. e earliest examples of suburban shared open

spaces in Denmark reacted to the crowded and unhealthy

living conditions in Copenhagen’s city center. In the United

States, the picturesque enclaves developed during the same

period were extremely critical of the ad-hoc suburban expan-

sion that directly preceded it and its lack of community. e


19/63

11

Danish projects in the 1950’s and 60’s were a reaction to the

tower in the park visions advocated by Le Corbusier and

CIAM. Likewise, the co-housing movement sought to recre-

ate a sense of community within the context of increasing

autonomy and private lives led in suburbia.

In this sense, it is useful to identify that the shared open

space typology is characterized by an ideology that advocates

community life and seeks to provide for the diminishing

importance of community life in suburban development and

contemporary lifestyles.

Notes:1 Emily Talen, “A Matter of Priorities: New Urbanism and Community Life,”

Places 15, no. 3 (2003): 77.2 Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000

(New York: Vintage Books, 2003), 5-9.3 Michael Brill, “Mistaking Community Life for Public Life,” Places 14, no. 2

(2001): 50.4 Dolores Hayden, 45.5 Dolores Hayden, 45.6 For more about the history of housing in Denmark, see Jorn Orum-Nielsen,

Dwelling: At Home, In Community, On Earth (Copenhagen: e Danish Archi-tectural Press, 1996).


20/63

12

Shared Open Space

in Denmark

2: Case Studies


21/63

13

The Danish Tradition ofShared Open Space

When Copenhagen demolished its fortification walls half-way through the nineteenth century, development spilled out

and eventually sprawled fairly neatly along the five fingers of

the 1947 regional plan. Although rigid planning regulations

were in place, the new suburban residential building typolo-

gies consisted primarily of market-driven suburban villas

and modern residential high-rises, resulting in suburban

living environments that are fairly similar to those in other

western countries. But amid the market-oriented develop-ment, a series of critical reactions led to the invention of

several experimental living models. ese innovations, such

as the co-housing and dense-low strategies, are especially

unique because of their well-designed shared open spaces.

For Danish architects, the provision of shared open space

was a tactic with which to challenge the increasingly priva-

tized lifestyles found in Copenhagen’s suburbs.


22/63

14

Timeline Danish Shared Open Space


23/63

15

is timeline identifies the primary

types of Danish projects that most often

incorporate shared open space: worker

and medical housing, dense-low housingand co-housing. Related economic, po-

litical and architectural events are noted

to provide context.

Projects highlighted in green are investi-

gated in further detail as case studies.


24/63

16

Early Suburbs: Brumleby

During the 19th century, a number of plans emerged for new

housing projects built outside of Copenhagen’s old fortifica-

tion walls. ese projects fall into three categories: workerhousing served factory employees and military personnel;

medical housing explored strategies to replace unhealthy

urban living conditions; and low-income, co-operative hous-

ing models sought affordable housing for a growing popula-

tion of industrial workers. Despite the variety of intents, the

projects that emerged from these three groups were relatively

similar in form. Generally, they each included a series of tra-

ditional Danish row-houses facing streets with varying pro-visions for private yards and shared outdoor spaces. Today,

many of these projects are considered among Copenhagen’s

most desirable living areas.

Built outside of the city walls in 1853 as a response to a

cholera epidemic and cramped urban living conditions,

Brumleby can be thought of as one of Copenhagen’s first

planned suburban developments. Designed by architectMichael Gottlieb Bindesbøll, this project challenged the

congestion, noise and unsanitary conditions found in typical

housing projects of the day.

e significant difference between Brumleby and other Dan-

ish worker housing projects is that Bindesbøll incorporated

many common spaces and facilities into the masterplan.

His strategy for this unusual approach offered a numberof advantages: first, he managed to keep project costs low

by sharing outdoor amenities rather than providing them

separately for each dwelling unit, second, the shared spaces

served to encourage community interaction and finally, the

provision of open spaces created opportunities for sunlight

to reach every dwelling.

e plan organizes dwelling units in narrow facing rows,separated by different types of open space: streets, front

stoops, private gardens, and common lawns. Access to the

project is through gates on the east side of the site and a

narrow opening to the west. e character of these entrance-ways is significant because it indicates that the spaces inside

are not for explicit public use, yet they do not completely

bar access to visitors and non-residents. e dwelling units

open to two very different environments on either side. eir

fronts face onto small stoops and the street while the backs

open to small private gardens and the common green.

A behavioral study of stationary activities on a sunny sum-mertime afternoon revealed that nearly all human activity

occurred on the sunny side of the buildings and in the soft

edges adjacent to the shared open spaces, such as the front

stoops and backyards. Private outdoor yards that did not

face shared open spaces were not active. is suggests that

the design of the edges of a shared open space is just as

important as the provision of the shared space itself.


25/63

17

Facts

Built: 1853

Architect: Michael Gottlieb Bindesbøll

Developer: Medical Housing Association

Dwelling Units: 236

Site Area: 3.764 hectares (9.3 acres)

Density: 62.7 units/hectare (25.4 units/acre)

Building Height: 2 stories

Ownership Type: Rental


26/63

18

0 100 200 300m0 5000 10000 15000m

0 10 20 30m

Shared Open Spaces

StreetStreet Lawn Lawn Street


27/63

19

0 25 50 75m

Shared Open Space[park–like character]

Shared Open Space[street–like character]

Soft Edge

[private backyard]

Soft Edge[front stoop]

Buildings

Open Entry[clear demarcation]

Adult Sitting

Adul t Standing Adul t Ac tivi ty (doing something)

Child Playing

Child Standing

Child Sitting

Stationary Activity DataSUNNY SATURDAY AFTERNOON6 JUNE 2006


28/63

20

Dense–Low: Galgebakken

In the 1950’s and 60’s, Danish architects constructed

modern, high-rise residential towers in response to a hous-

ing shortage. Before long, critiques of the living conditions

found in these International Style buildings led the govern-

ment to encourage new approaches. Several architectural

competitions and experimental projects explored low-rise

communities while adhering to the low-cost housing laws

and industrialized housing production process used in the

high-rise projects.

In the winning entry of a 1969 design competition, archi-

tects A. & J. Ørum Nielsen and Storgaard and Marcussen

applied industrial building technologies to a high-density,

low-rise community. Like many of the dense-low communi-

ties, Galgebakken successfully incorporates several different

types of shared space between the dwelling units. Together,

these different areas create a hierarchy of increasingly public

spatial types. Each one-story rental unit opens onto a pe-

destrian lane. is four meter wide path provides pedestrian

access to the dwellings and widens into a small courtyard at

each dwelling’s entryway. e pedestrian lanes connect to a

larger network of neighborhood lanes that are also pedes-

trian-oriented. ey provide space for common facilities

such as playgrounds and workshops and serve to connect

the pedestrian lanes to the larger community, including a

neighborhood park. Parking is accommodated in several lots

and connected to the dwelling units through the network

of pedestrian lanes and neighborhood lanes. e pedestrian

lanes, neighborhood lanes and park represent three different

scales of shared open space. Although each is accessible, their

proportions and architectural character indicate varying

degrees of privacy.

Interviews with current and former residents indicated that

the pedestrian-friendly character of this environment pro-

vided children with an enormous amount of independence

compared to traditional residential neighborhoods. One

father recalled how he allowed his two-year old daughter to

walk alone to her friend’s house. Now an adult and living

in a typical neighborhood consisting of detached homes

and streets, she doubts that her children will have the same

experience.

One of the most unusual aspect of Galgebakken, is its archi-

tects’ sincere desire to encourage residents to feel responsibil-

ity for their homes and community through adaptation of

the pedestrian lane courtyards. Residents were allowed to

paint their homes, build small additions and landscape their

front courtyards. Additionally, the neighborhood lanes of-

fered space for future common facilities.


29/63

21

Facts

Built: 1972

Architect: A. & J. Ørum Nielsen and Storgaard and

Marcussen

Dwelling Units: 644

Site Area: 20 hectares (50 acres)


Building Height: 1–2 stories

Ownership Type: Rental


30/63

22

0 5 10 15m

0 100 200 300m0 5000 10000 15000m

Shared Open Spaces

Pedestrian Lane Pedestrian Lane


31/63

23

0 25 50 75m

Shared Open Space[neighborhood lane]

Shared Open Space[pedestrian lane]

Soft Edge[private outdoor space]

Parking Area

Open Entry[clear demarcation]

Private Backyard

Adult Sitting


Child Playing

Child Standing

Child Sitting


Shared Open Space[common space]


32/63

24

Co-housing: Trudeslund

A more radical approach to shared open space emerged in

the 1960’s and gained momentum in the 1980’s. In 1964,

Architect Jan Gudmand-Høyer organized a group of friends

and together they endeavored to create a neighborhood

characterized by the sense of community lacking in contem-

porary suburban developments. Inspired by omas More’s

Utopia and Danish communities such as Brumleby, they en-

visioned a new housing model in which each family lived in a

separate home yet shared common facilities, some meals and

services. By the early 1970’s the idea had caught hold and

many groups began discussing the co-housing concept and

by 1980 twelve communities had been successful. In 1981

a new law established by the Ministry of Housing provided

a new method for financing co-housing. roughout the

1980’s, the co-housing concept grew in popularity.

Trudeslund, located in a quiet neighborhood of single-fam-

ily houses in a northern Copenhagen suburb, was designed

by the architecture firm Vandkunsten and constructed in

1981. Like many other co-housing projects, Trudeslund was

initiated by a group of like-minded individuals who were

interested in an alternative, community-focused lifestyle.

Vandkunsten, an architecture firm inspired, in part, by the

social values characteristic of the 1960’s cultural revolution,

was also the architect of many other co-housing projects

throughout the 1970’s and 80’s.

At Trudeslund, Vandkunsten repeated a parti used in several

of their other projects. e dwellings are organized into an

L-shape with the community house and common facilities

located in the center. By clustering the homes in this format,

two narrow pedestrian-only streets are created. Each dwell-

ing fronts a shared pedestrian street and on the other side,

opens to quieter, backyard patio areas. By locating parking

in one portion of the site and placing several shared facili-

ties (such as the group kitchen and laundry) in one area, resi-

dents are required to walk between their cars, the common

facilities and their home. Residents use the pedestrian streets

for this purpose. is formal organization of parking, dwell-

ings and common building encourage chance encounters

between neighbors. e pedestrian scale of the streets and

restriction of automobiles also creates a human-scaled, child-

safe environment. ese characteristics encourage social

interactions that are absent in most suburban environments.

Unlike the previous case studies, Trudeslund’s dwellings are

for sale and located in a relatively wealthy suburb—proving

that successful shared open spaces can be found in housing

areas regardless of socio-economic status. An interview with

one current resident revealed that the Trudeslund lifestyle

represented an attractive alternative to the privatized char-

acter of the adjacent suburban areas.


33/63

25

Facts

Built: 1981

Architect: Vandkunsten

Dwelling Units: 33 (plus one common building)

Site Area: 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres)


Building Height: 1–2 stories

Ownership Type: For Sale


34/63

26

0 100 200 300m0 5000 10000 15000m

0 5 10 15m

Shared Open Spaces

Park and Woods Pedestrian Street


35/63

27

0 25 50 75m

Parking Area

Private Backyard

Buildings

Shared Space[pedestrian street]

Shared Common Building[kitchen, dining, play room, laundry]

Shared Space[woods and playground]

Adult Sitting


Child Playing

Child Standing

Child Sitting


C t l f Sh d O


36/63

28

NyboderCopenhagen

1631 (extended in 18th century)

Nyboder was an extension of Copenhagen ex-ecuted by King Christian IV. e dwellings werebuilt for the Royal Navy and originally includedshared open spaces between the buildings. Today,

these spaces have been converted into privatebackyards. e diagram to the right shows whatNyboder might look like today if the shared openspaces had remained.

Catalog of Shared OpenSpacese examples illustrated in this catalog represent several

critical Danish projects that include shared open spaces

located in Copenhagen and its suburbs.

Brumleby Copenhagen

1853

Brumleby was a new type of dwelling area builtoutside Copenhagen’s city walls in response to thecity’s cholera epidemic. Shared open spaces be-tween the buildings provide for both recreationalactivities as well as access to sunlight and fresh air.

See page 16 for further details.


37/63

29

The Classen ProjectFrederiksberg

1866

e Classen Project, inspired by Brumleby,included many shared paths and open areasbetween buildings. It was one of the first Danishprojects to address Copenhagen’s mid-19th cen-tury demand for suitable working class housing.e buildings were gradually demolished duringthe 20th century.

KartoffelrækkerneCopenhagen

1873–89

e “Potato Rows” were built by an organized as-sociation of working class people for themselves.Because the development was more market-ori-ented than Brumleby and the Classen Project,there was no provision for shared open space.However, during the second half of the 20thcentury, the residents converted several parkingspaces in the middle of each street into a sharedoutdoor space featuring trees, picnic tables andgrills.

City BlocksCopenhagen

early 1900’s

Many city blocks were retrofitted in order to cre-ate shared open spaces, provide better daylightingto apartments and remove industrial buildingsfrom the middle of the blocks. As industriesmoved their operations from the city into thesuburbs and countryside, their inner block build-ings could be demolished and replaced with openspace.


38/63

30

SøndergårdsparkenGladsaxe

1949–50

Søndergårdsparken is a large neighborhood oftraditional Danish dwellings organized arounda network of shared open spaces. A series ofnarrower shared areas link to one larger sharedopen space.

SolgårdenCopenhagen

1930

Solgården is a typical example of the new trendto incorporate shared open spaces inside urbanblocks.

Hornbækhus Copenhagen

1922–23

Designed by prominent architect Kay Fisker,Hornbækhus is a classic example of a new trendin the 1920’s and 1930’s to build landscaped areasinside city blocks, rather than building additionalbuildings in the courtyards. e open spaceprovided both a recreational amenity and betterdaylighting to units.

Albertslund Syd


39/63

31

Albertslund SydAlbertslund

1963–68

Albertslund was one of the first mid-century

housing projects to work within the constraints ofthe prefabrication techniques used for high-riseconstruction but configured in a high-density,low-rise arrangement. Shared open spaces figureprominently in the strategy and are used as anorganizing device for single-story, L-shapedcourtyard dwelling units.

Solbjerg HaveCopenhagen

1977–80

Solbjerg Have arranges dwelling units, a kinder-garten and elderly center around pedestrian-onlyshared open spaces. Playgrounds and sitting areasare provided at various points along the streetand its edges are defined by private terraces andbalconies.

GalgebakkenAlbertslund

1972

Galgebakken improved upon the conceptsdeveloped at Albertslund Syd. A sophisticatednetwork of 3 uniquely scaled types of shared openspaces organizes the dwelling units in this high-

density, low-rise project. e transitions betweenprivate indoor spaces, private outdoor spaces andshared spaces are especially successful.

See page 20 for further details.

Tinggården 1 & 2


40/63

32

Jystrup Savværk Jystrup

1983–84

At Jystrup Savværk, Vandkunsten transformedthe shared outdoor space into a covered, climate-controlled space. It functions similarly as do theshared pedestrian streets in their other projects,but can be used throughout the year and ininclement weather.

TrudeslundBirkerød

1981

Also designed by Vandkunsten, Trudeslund isa co-housing community of attached dwellingsarranged around an L-shaped shared open space.Private outdoor balconies and terraces line the

shared pedestrian way as well as the rear side ofthe homes. A common building with kitchen andlaundry facilities is in the center of the plan. isarrangement can be found in many of the 1970’sand 80’s co-housing projects.See page 24 for further details.

Tinggården 1 & 2Herfølge

1971–78; 1978–84

e projects at Tinggården were a continuationand advancement of ideas explored at the begin-ning of the dense-low movement. At Tinggården,the architects, Vandkunsten, worked very closelywith the future residents to create spaces andbuildings that reflect an unusual degree of user-participation while maintaining the architect’screativity. e architectural language drew fromvernacular Danish forms and materials.

Sibeliusparken


41/63

33

Diana’s HaveHørsholm

1991-92

Diana’s Have maintains its site’s former naturalsetting by delicately positioning the buildingswithin a shared open space. Narrower spacesbetween the buildings connect the automobiledriveway with the front entrances of the dwell-

ings.

SibeliusparkenRødovre

1986, 1994

Sibeliusparken organizes attached dwellings forlow-income families along shared open spaces.Small private yards and balconies line the spaces,which have a pedestrian street-like character.ese soft edges contribute to enhancing “eyes onthe street” and have helped to reduce crime in thiscommunity.

Design Principles


42/63

34

Design Principlese principles illustrated below describe several strate-

gies employed by many of the most successful shared open

spaces. While it is unlikely that a single space would incor-

porate all of these principles, most of the spaces studied inthis report include most of these strategies.

Boundaries: Provide cleardemarcations between public

space, shared open spaceand private space.

Shared spaces are separated from public spaceand streets by architectural elements that clearlydistinguish a threshold such as archways, stepsand gates. Shared spaces are separated fromindoor dwelling areas by “soft edges”, privateoutdoor areas such as terraces, stoops, porchesand small yards. Threshold

Definition: Define sharedopen space by the dwellingsit serves.

Proximity of homes and shared open space canencourage use, increase interaction betweenresidents and build a sense of ownership andresponsibility.

Soft Edge

Scale: Design and


43/63

35

Scale: Design anddimension the space forhuman activity.

Unlike grand public squares or auto-oriented

streets, shared open spaces can be places that areintimately scaled for human experience. e per-ceived size and proportions of the space shouldrelate to the activities within.

Connections: Provide aline of sight between dwellingunits and shared open space.

A clear line of site between private areas andthe shared open space provides an opportunityfor adults and children to see each other and in-creases safety. Because parents can safely monitortheir children from indoors, they are also more

likely to allow them to play in the space.

Flexibility: Create opportu-nities for customization and

personalization.

By allowing residents the freedom to custom-ize their environment (for example, choosingpaint colors, landscaping outdoor areas, etc.), anincreased sense of pride and responsibility can beachieved among residents.

Accountability: Allow for


44/63

36

yboth shared use and sharedresponsibility.

A sense of ownership can be encouraged by

requiring the residents themselves to constructand/or maintain the shared open space.

Activity: Encouragenecessary outdoor activitiesby grouping shared amenitiestogether.

If automobile parking, bicycle parking, rubbish re-ceptacles and other functional needs are groupedtogether rather than provided for separately ateach dwelling unit, residents will be required tomove through the shared open spaces, therebyactivating them.

Typical Development Shared Open Space


45/63

37


46/63

38

Three Proposals Using

Shared Open Space

3: Concepts

Design Concepts


47/63

39

In Denmark, the presence of shared open spaces in new

projects is waning and in the United States, few shared

open spaces have been constructed since the 1960’s. Butas American metropolitan areas embrace the principles of

smart growth, cities and counties are seeking strategies that

increase dwelling densities in existing communities with-

out damaging existing architectural character and property

values—an especially difficult task. American developers,

planners and architects need to explore new models for liv-

ing within this context. In cities such as Portland, Palo Alto

and Los Angeles, zoning revisions and design competitionshave been used as tools to develop new typologies for infill-

ing existing residential neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, many of the new projects constructed within

this context pay little attention to the quality of the spaces

between buildings and their relationship to adjacent build-

ings. Developers’ desire to accommodate the automobile at

the expense of the human experience and their unwilling-ness to pursue strategies untested by the market has led to

the construction of many un-inspiring new projects. Shared

open space is a tool that has been used in the past to achieve

modest dwelling densities while allowing for quality outdoor

space and access to light and air.

e following three proposals are concepts for new develop-

ment in existing neighborhoods. Each builds on the lessonslearned from the Danish tradition of shared open space and

seeks to re-appropriate it for the contemporary American

context.

Three in One


48/63

40

As cities and their inner suburbs densify many municipali-

ties (including Portland, Oregon and Palo Alto, California)

are rewriting their zoning ordinances to allow for higher-density, context-sensitive development in neighborhoods

that were originally first-ring and second-ring streetcar

suburbs. Municipalities can increase tax revenue and supply

the demand for housing using this strategy, but they also

risk alienating current residents who may not be in favor

of higher density development and its perceived negative

impact on property values. e challenge is to find a way to

introduce higher density residential projects on single-familylots while simultaneously respecting the context and charac-

ter of adjacent properties.

In order to increase density, lot coverage inevitably increases,

leaving little room for attractive, usable outdoor spaces.

Shared open space can be a tool to provide needed outdoor

areas and for the spatial organization of the design.

Lot sizes in the old, first and second ring suburbs can vary

between 15–20m (50’–75’) wide by 30–45m (100’–150’) in

length, allowing for three basic configurations, illustrated on

the following pages.

Providing on-site parking creates a particularly difficult

challenge. In the unlikely case that a municipality allows

the parking provision to be fulfilled on street, more site areacan be used as shared open space. When parking must be

provided on site, it is useful to design and detail the parking

and driving areas so that they are primarily pedestrian areas

that are simply shared with automobiles.

Private outdoor spaces should be generously provided and

can serve as a transition between the buildings and adja-

cent open spaces such as the street, shared open space andadjacent lots.

From a market perspective, it is important for these infill

projects to respond to their context, in order to mitigate the

concerns of existing residents and the potential for dropsin adjacent property values. However, contextual sensitivity

should be achieved by consciously respecting the scale and

materials found in adjacent buildings rather than mimicing

architectural style. Many recent infill projects have failed

because they have essentially packed the contents of a higher

density, infill building typology into the clothes of a tradi-

tional single family detached home—symbolizing “home”,

but failing to provide quality craftsmanship and well-de-signed outdoor space.

Proposals for this type of infill development will require

adjustments to existing zoning ordinances in order to allow

for higher densities and smaller setbacks. e proposals

illustrated here, supplemented by additional studies, could

be used to help identify appropriate setbacks, minimum

dimensions between buildings, drive lane dimensions andadditional parameters for this type of development. Adjust-

ing existing zoning and development standards is the first

step in encouraging this type of development.


49/63

41

Double-LoadedDwellings are organized


50/63

42

Dwellings are organizedaround a central, linearshared open space.

Four 1600 sf dwellings face a shared open spacewhich can also be used to provide auto access tothe units. By eliminating curb-cuts and integrat-ing auto access, pedestrian access and play areasinto one unified space, quality outdoor space canbe provided in this narrow plan. If automobileaccommodation is required, a minimum lot widthof 75’ is needed to provide sufficient dimensionsfor turning radii and parking.

Single-LoadedDwellings are situated on oneside of a linear shared openspace.

ree dwellings (2 @ 1200 sf and 1 @ 1600 sf )are aligned on one side of a shared open space.Curb-cuts are eliminated to integrate auto accessand pedestrian-oriented space. A minimum 50’

wide lot is required. If two adjacent lots can beacquired, this layout can be used on each lot tocreate one larger shared open space (i llustrated onthe previous page). In this case, auto access couldbe provided on the rear side of the dwellings.

SplitA shared open space in the

middle of the site organizesdwellings to either side.

Four 1000 sf dwelling units can be arrangedaround a shared open space. e dwellings arebased on a traditional row-house model. Curb-cuts are eliminated to integrate auto access andpedestrian-oriented space. A minimum 50’ widelot is required.


51/63

43

Eight Acre Shared-division


52/63

44

In many suburbs opportunities to infill small, in-between

sites that were not developed by larger development com-

panies are becoming increasingly common. In other cases,changes in zoning policy or property ownership may make a

small site desirable for small-scale residential development.

Although the conventional suburban model is market-prov-

en, it is fairly in-efficient in density and does not create an

active public realm. Its wide streets are designed for exclusive

automobile use and the open spaces between the dwellings

themselves are each privately owned.

A New Urbanist approach to the 8 acre site could be more

efficient by clustering the buildings closer together. is

would also create more formal definition for the streets.

Shared driveways and rear alleys help to minimize the visual

impact of automobiles. However, because these types of infill

sites are so small, there is no opportunity for the mixed-use

buildings, public buildings parks. Without these elements, itis difficult to create a comprehensive New Urbanist plan in

this context.

e shared open space alternative arranges the dwell-

ing units around a series of spaces. is approach creates

uniquely human-scaled spaces and can actually enhance the

natural environment by encouraging more compact building

development, preserving more natural areas and reducingimpervious surfaces. e pedestrian access lanes create a hu-

man-scaled environment and an appropriate place for chil-

dren to play. is space is contrasted by a larger, preserved

natural area on the site that is also shared by residents.

Private outdoor spaces for terraces and gardens are provided

adjacent to the dwellings and create a “soft edge”.


53/63

45

Conventional Subdivision

Shared Open Space Sub-division

Pedestrian Street

Private Yards and Terraces

Auto Parking and AccessLane

Shared Park Space

Conventional SuburbanModel


54/63

46

is conventional suburban development modelis based on an existing subdivision outside of

Baltimore, Maryland.

Dwellings: 20Density: 2.5

New Urbanist Model

A reinterpretation of the existing develop-ment model based on New Urbanist principlescan achieve a higher density and improvedstreetscape.

Dwellings: 30Density: 3.75 units/acre

Shared Open SpaceModel

e shared open space approach to conventionalsuburban development achieves higher densityand drastically reduces the amount of impervioussurfaces on the site. A radically different, human-oriented streetscape is also created.

Dwellings: 30Density: 3.75 units/acre


55/63

47

Backyard Retrofit


56/63

48

In the United States, suburban homes are growing larger and

lot sizes smaller. Smart Growth principles—favoring denser

development—and developers’ desire to maximize profits areresponsible for this trend. In many communities, frontyards

and backyards are so small that they are almost unusable for

many activities and fulfill only a symbolic role. By consoli-

dating a portion of each backyard on a block, a larger, more

useful space can be created for residents while still maintain-

ing private backyard terraces, gardens and decks.

Additionally, the shared open spaces can contain bioswalesfor excess stormwater runoff, wind-generated power devices

and other sustainable features, providing strategies for

transforming suburban neighborhoods into more environ-

mentally–friendly communities. In this sense, this concept

could not only generate a forum for community life—so

desperately needed in many suburban neighborhoods—but

also serve as a strategy for transforming existing subdivisions

into environmentally sustainable communities.


57/63

49

Pedestrian Street

Wind Turbines for LocalPower

Shared Park Space

Wind Turbines for LocalPower

Conventional SuburbanBackyardsPrivate backyards are


58/63

50

Private backyards aretypically defined by a highfence and contain a small

patio and lawn.

Shrinking backyards in contemporary suburbandevelopments are sometimes as small as 15 ft by10 ft. ese yards provide very little space forrecreational activities and children to play.

Terrace and Shared

Open Space Strategy A private patio opens onto ashared park.

A private patio can be defined by fences andhedges, therby providing the same level of privacytypical of conventional backyards. By combiningthe reamining backyard areas together, a largerand more functional space is created.


59/63

51


60/63

52

Bibliography

B ill Mi h l “P bl i h Mi ki C i Lif G hl J Lif B B ildi U i P bli S C


61/63

53

Brill, Michael. “Problems with Mistaking Community Life

for Public Life.” Places 14.2 (2001): 50.

Bruegmann, Robert. Sprawl: A Compact History. Chicago:

e University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Cooper Marcus, Clare. “Shared Outdoor Space and Com-

munity Life.”Places 15.2 (2003): 34.

Cooper Marcus, Clare. “Shared Outdoor Spaces.” Lecture

presented at Center for Public Space Research LectureSeries. e Center for Public Space Research. e Royal

Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture, Copenhagen.

7 October 2005.

Crawford, Margaret. “e World in a Shopping Mall.” in

Variations on a eme Park: e New American City and the

End of Public Space, ed. Michael Sorkin, 123–53. New York:

Hill and Wang, 1992.

Dunham-Jones, Ellen, ed. Retrofitting Suburbia. Places 17.2

(2005): 8–67.

Dunham-Jones, Ellen. “Seventy-five Percent: e Next Big

Architectural Project.” in Sprawl and Suburbia, ed. William

S. Saunders, 1–3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press, 2005.

Easterling, Keller. Organization Space: Landscapes, Highways,

and Houses in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.

Kriger, Alex. “e Costs—and Benefits?—of Sprawl” in

Sprawl and Suburbia, ed. William S. Saunders, 44–49. Min-

neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.

Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Copen-

hagen: e Danish Architectural Press, 2003.

Gehl, Jan and Lars Gemzøe. New City Spaces. Copenhagen:

Danish Architectural Press, 2000.

Hajer, Maarten and Arnold Reijndorp. In Search of New

Public Domain: Analysis and Strategy. Rotterdam: NAI

Publishers, 2001.

Harris, Richard and Peter J. Larkham, ed. Changing Suburbs:Foundation, Form and Function. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Hayden, Dolores. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban

Growth, 1820-2000. New York: Vintage Books, 2003.

Hayden, Dolores. Redesigning the American Dream: e

Future of Housing, Work, and Family Life. New York: W. W.

Norton and Company, 1984.

Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: e Suburbanization

of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press,

1985.

Kim, Julie. “Incremental Urbanism: e Auto and Pedes-

trian Reconsidered in Greyfield Reclamation—Atlanta,

Georgia.” Places 16.3 (2002): 18–21.

Koolhaas, Rem. “Junk Space” in Harvard Design School

Guide to Shopping, ed. Rem Koolhaas, 408–421. New York:

Taschen, 2003.

Lerup, Lars. After the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

2000.

Lofland, Lyn H. e Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quint-

essential Social Territory. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc.,

1998.

Vernez Moudon, Anne. “e Subdivision of the Single-Fam-

ily House in the United States.” Nordisk Arkitekturforskning

Nr. 3 (1995): 59-78.


62/63

54

McCamant, Kathryn, Charles R. Durrett and Ellen Hertz-

man. Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to HousingOurselves. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, 1993.

Monderman, Hans. “Shared Space.” Lecture presented at

Center for Public Space Research Lecture Series. e Center

for Public Space Research. e Royal Academy of Fine Arts

School of Architecture, Copenhagen. 5 January 2006.

Soja, Edward. “Regionalization and the Regional City.” Lec-ture presented at e Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts

School of Architecture, Copenhagen. 30 September 2005.

Orum-Nielsen, Jorn. Dwelling: At Home, In Community, On

Earth. Copenhagen: e Danish Architectural Press, 1996.

Rowe, Peter. Making a Middle Landscape. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press, 1991.

Scheer, Brenda Case and Kiril Stanilov, ed. Suburban Form:

An International Perspective. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Southworth, Michael and Eran Ben-Joseph. Streets and the

Shaping of Towns and Cities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

Talen, Emily. “A Matter of Priorities: New Urbanism andCommunity Life.” Places 15.3 (2003): 77–80.

Talen, Emily. “Exorcising the Ghost of Emily Latella.” Places

15.1 (2002): 69.

Vernez Moudon, Anne. Ed. Public Streets for Public Use. New

York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc., 1987.

Illustration Credits

Photographs


63/63

55

PhotographsFrom Jorn Orum-Nielsen, Dwelling: At Home, In Community, On Earth. (Co-penhagen: e Danish Architectural Press, 1996), 143. Frederiksberg Library

(page 28 middle

From Jorn Orum-Nielsen, Dwelling: At Home, In Community, On Earth.(Copenhagen: e Danish Architectural Press, 1996), 122. Copenhagen’s CityMuseum (page 29 top)

From http://193.89.24.223/arkfo/kanon/top12stat.aspx (page 30 bottom)

Lars Gemzøe (page 32 top and bottom)

From http://www.vandkunsten.com (page 33 middle)

Ryan Sullivan: All other photographs.

Drawings and Diagrams:Based on a diagram by Jan Gehl. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space.Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press, 2003, 128. (page 36 middle)

Ryan Sullivan: All other drawings and diagrams.

fulbright final

Documents