This research project was undertaken to answer the above questions. We have learned about the character and history of a range of neighborhoods in Copenhagen. Those neighborhoods that had the most to say about the city as a whole were selected for further analysis, and a fundamental building type of was described for each of these neighborhoods which arises from its history and determines its structure and character.
Despite the differences between these types there is also a clear lineage among them. These related types share features despite the more than 200 year time span and enormous advances in technology they encompass. These include:
Stairwell organization: with two or three units on each floor grouped around a stairwell. This eliminates the need for internal corridors and by provides greater interaction with the street than a single entry point. It also makes possible narrower buildings than are common in Seattle.
Narrow buildings: ranging from about 9 to 12 m ( ft) in width in most cases. This increases the feasibility of linear arrangements.
Linear arrangements: especially the encirclement of the block.
Natural light from two directions: with windows both of the street and courtyard sides. This is possible because of the lack of internal corridors and the narrowness of buildings.
Courtyards: creating an area which is clearly removed from the public realm. These are present for most of the building types described, with the exception of the late-stage Welfare Era type. This maximizes the usable land for residents by devoting nearly all the unbuilt land to a semi-private use. Of course, courtyards must be well maintained and somewhat limited in size in order to maintain their usefulness and privacy.
Limited Height: The building types described fall within the range of 3-6 stories tall. Elevators did not become universal in multi-story buildings in Copenhagen until quite recently and even then they did not lead to a dramatic increase in height, with the taller Livability Era apartments only rising to a maximum of about 12 stories. This means that these buildings have a stronger connection with the ground level and the population is distributed more evenly across the city than would occur with high-rise development.
Masonry and concrete construction: In the early 19th century half-timber construction was abandoned in favor of bricks. Wood beams were used as lateral elements - for floors and roofs, until concrete construction became widespread in the 1950’s. The lack of earthquake risk means that even old masonry buildings are safe for habitation. This reduces redevelopment pressure on historic areas, strengthening the connection to historic built fabric.
All of these features have been regulated by the government in some fashion historically and in the present. Some early regulations are discussed in the report, although as time goes on housing legislation becomes more detailed and less accessible to the English-speaking researcher. Generally we can say that regulation merely codifies some version of what society deems acceptable, and that it is therefore one of many factors that goes into the shaping of building traditions.
The above qualities all contrast with the common characteristics of multi-family housing in Seattle which generally consists of freestanding, thick, double-loaded corridor buildings of highly variable height. Mid-rise multi-family buildings are now constructed of wood and older masonry structures are in need of seismic retrofits due to earthquake risk. These buildings occupy small areas of the city creating pockets of high population density surrounded by large areas of single-family homes.
My interest in the distinct morphologies created by our respective building types and traditions is what prompted this study. The effects that these morphologies have on the quality of public realms is worth researching further.
No comments:
Post a Comment