habraken_the structure of the ordinary_place, the territorial order_chapter 8+9
DESCRIPTION
dTRANSCRIPT
I
Terr i tory Varies w i th Form
Territorial inclusion is remarkably consistent
throughout varied physical circumstances. En
vironmental fo rm, i n all its richness and variety,
always interprets the same basic set o f territo
rial principles, The fol lowing illustrations com
pare two very different examples.
T e r r i t o r i a l S t r u c t u r e in
D i f f e r e n t E n v i r o n m e n t s
Row House Urban Tissue
The European bourgeois row house runs the
gamut f r o m thirteenth-century French bastide
towns, to Dutch seventeenth- and eighteenth-
century canal towns, to terraced residential dis
tricts of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century
England. Basically, each individual house gives
onto a single, uninterrupted public space com
prising all streets, squares, and canals. The ur
ban territorial structure o f these environments
is simple.
The spatial hierarchy characterizing
street networks on the urban level is clearly dis
tinct f r o m its remarkably flat territorial
structure. Urban space exhibits pronounced
hierarchy. In Amsterdam, there are the major
canals, major streets perpendicular to them,
and secondary streets runn ing alongside ca
nals. It would seem reasonable to assume that,
paralleling hierarchy observed i n the order o f
f o r m , secondary streets constitute a lower terri
torial level. Yet no evidence supports this.
On the other hand, clear street and neigh
borhood territories that have no formal indi-
8.1 Paris, 1739—Detail from tlie "Turgot Map" by Louis
Bretez, showing buildings set tight along the streets. Their
deep lots feature extensive rear gardens (page 142)
cation are established throughout the built
environment: it is simply understood that cer
tain blocks, neighborhoods, or even driveways
are not entered without express permission
f r o m inhabitants. In many large cities, there are
some quarters into which neither police, bui ld
ing inspectors, nor tax collectors venture. There
are urban areas i n which shopkeepers must pay
scheduled "protection" fees to local gangsters
or be driven out. Local enforcement, fo rmal or
informal , establishes territorial depth wi th in
broader urban fabric.
Territorial interpretations o f house f o r m
vary greatly. Included territories created by acts
of dwelling do not correlate to any specific
house f o r m . The lower end o f the territorial
structure may be far more diverse than the
f o r m init ial ly suggests. I n the Dutch canal
house, for example, we commonly observe a
basement entrance; when not used by upstairs
inhabitants for warehousing or other commer
cial activities, the basement frequently becomes
an independent shop or dwelling. The bui ld ing
then contains two or more noncommunicat ing
stacked territories, each directly related to the
street (figure 8.2).
The house, although bui l t as a single con
figuration, lends itself to varied territorial use.
Thus bui l t f o r m is an accumulation o f acts o f
bui ld ing followed by acts o f inhabitation: the
making o f territory follows and interprets the
creation o f fo rm.
I n another Dutch variant, a rear house is
accessed via a small alley between the original
house and the lot line, as portrayed i n Ver-
8.2 Amsterdam—Canal house, showing three separate
entrances: to the main house, to an upstairs dwelling, and
to a basement dwelling.
> >
146
8.3 Varying territorial Interpretations of the row house:
(a) A single house Is a single territory.
(b) A single house Is not a single territory.
(c) The back house with access to the street exists 3t the
same territorial depth as the other houses.
(d) The back house comprises two territories with a com
mon entry garden. The back house Is consequently at a
deeper territorial depth than houses on the street
meer's A Street in Delfi. There exist two territor
ies on the same level, each maintaining direct
access to the street (figure 8.3c), However, the
narrow dead-end alley may access two back
houses on adjacent lots, i n which case territo
r ia l depth increases: the alley now provides
public space for the two back houses. Since i t
can be shut o f f f r o m the street w i t h a door, the
alley itself is private space relative to the street
(figure 8.3d).
W i t h i n the house, we earlier noted a lack
of isomorphism i n the relationship between
buil t f o r m and fluid territory, the latter being
established by people and their furn i ture i n re
lation to fireplace, window, alcove, and the like,
While we may generally categorize entrance
halls and stairs as m i n i m a l public space for in
habitants, we also note that individual territo
rial situations are i n fact quite variable. There
may be no obvious physical signs of a highly
complex reality.
Tradi t ional Midd le Eastern Tissue
I n comparison wi th European row house urban
tissue, spaces wi th in traditional Middle Eastern
urban environment display deeper territorial
structure. The historic quarter o f Tunis shows
dead-end streets w i t h their own gates. A num
ber o f individual houses are reached via each
of these streets. I n this way, bi-level territory is
firmly established w i t h i n urban space.
O b s e r v i n g T e r r i t o r i a l S t r u c t u r e
147
8.4 Tunis Medina—Urban fabric with superimposed
house plans. The first territorial level Is Indicated, showing
hole-in-the-wall shops, houses entered directly from the
streets, and territories constituting a dead-end street
together with Those houses accessed from It. Note that
the house bounded by the rue de la Kasba and the rue
des Tamis connects to two impasses, Bou Machem and la
Paysanne. This is an example of territorial overlap. Base
map courtesy of the Association Sauvegarde de la
Medina, Tunis.
The houses themselves, like many court
yard house types, are almost perfect territorial
forms i n plan (see also figure 17.4). The court
yard is entered through a gate, f r o m a street or
dead-end alley. Individual rooms cluster around
i t . The courtyard reads as the public space o f
the house's territory. Each room comprises a
wide and shallow private space, w i t h three
niches large enough to hold a bed, couch, or
bench: one directly opposite the door is re
cessed into a deeper zone that also offers stor
age spaces; the other two are located to the r ight
and the le f t o f t h e door. These niches echo the
courtyard pattern: the relatively public center o f
the room is surrounded by privacies.
I n Tunisian urban space, shops give
directly onto streets, thus occupying the same
territorial level as dead-end streets. Courtyard
houses may also find themselves on this level
(see figure 8.4}. The same f o r m s — i n this case,
courtyard house or shop—generally recur on
very different terri torial levels. Again, there is
no r ig id i somorphism i n the relation between
f o r m and terri torial structure.
A cursory comparison o f Dutch and Tuni
sian tissue demonstrates how differently terri
torial structure and urban f o r m may relate.
W i t h i n a flat urban terri torial structure, historic
Amsterdam's canal house f o r m functions like
a well-articulated container. Because i t reflects
no predetermined terri torial model, i t easily ac
commodates a range o f lower-level territorial
situations. Courtyard house environment, as
typif ied i n Tunisia, exhibits more depth i n the
urban spaces, while the houses are very territo
r ia l i n f o r m . I t is hard to see how occupancy can
deviate very m u c h f r o m a predetermined terri
torial interpretation.
The Tunisian example is, indeed, an al
most immediate reflection o f the act o f inhab
itation. Its lack o f overarching geometric f o r m
suggests bottom-up growth. DweUings come
first, leaving open public space to be formed as
density increases.'
I n general, the Middle Eastern f o r m is
more "territorial" throughout, while the Euro
pean model seems more governed by geometry
and bui ld ing structure.
Party Walls and Terr i tor ia l Boundaries
Walls between neighbors are another aspect
worthy of comparison. I n the Middle East
ern tradition, abutters frequently cooperate i n
shared party walls. Whoever builds first must
be prepared to accept and accommodate the
neighbor's beams i n what then becomes a com
m o n wall.^ I n terms o f f o r m hierarchy, the total
configuration o f party walls w i t h i n the block
becomes a higher-level f o r m . Whereas i n
Olynthus a similar higher-level structure was
premeditated and bui l t i n one intervention, the
higher-level common courtyard wall structure
i n the Middle East typically arises out o f many
cumulative individual acts.
I n the western European row house tradi
t ion, shared party walls are unknown. As early
as the medieval bastide towns, each house has
its own load-bearing walls just wi th in the terri
torial lot line. Walls are thus doubled, perhaps
just a hand's wid th apart, to allow water collec
t ion f r o m both roofs. This reflects a predeter
mined territorial structure o f lot divisions,
I t allows live configurations to t ransform
freely wi th in their territorial boundaries. Each
bui ld ing may be independently erected or de
molished. Interaction, interference, and negoti
ation between neighbors are thus kept to a
m i n i m u m dur ing the bu i ld ing process.
Such different approaches to bmld ing
party waUs reflect profound differences i n con
ceiving the environment. The western Euro
pean model accommodates separate acts o f
setflement, u t ihz ing a geometric structure that
includes house lots. I t creates a predetermined
framework o f relatively shallow territorial
depth. The Middle Eastern model, devoid o f
predetermined geometry, recognizes only the
act o f settlement and produces over fime a rela-
fively deep territorial structure.
Externally, one is a f o r m containing setde
ment; the other is settlement generafing f o r m .
Inside the houses, however, the reverse holds
true. There, the courtyard house f o r m lends
structure to minor acts o f settlement, while the
canal house leaves settlement to create its own
order.
1
Paris, 1736
U r b a n Fornn as
T e r r i t o r i a l F o r m
The Turgot map of Paris (figure 8.1) portrays an
environment i n which most buildings are about
five stories high, about as h igh as people could
cl imb every day. Continuous perimeter walls at
each street's edge define urban blocks. Public
space is min ima l : even the extensive Jardin de
Luxembourg is entirely removed f r o m view be
h ind high buildings and walls, I t does not par
ticipate i n the pubfic environment.
W i t h i n discrete blocks are found precur
sors o f the Parisian communal courtyards. The
fabric is typical of a high-density urban environ
ment. Streets are o f m i n i m a l width , even
though they must serve all o f the teeming terri
tories behind the facades.
Such crowded, narrow streets may be de
ceptive: toward the edge of the city, buildings
retain their height and remain situated r ight at
the street edge proper. But there we find m u c h
lower density, for the buildings have extensive
backyards—primarily for agriculture, some
times fashioned as pleasure gardens.
Further into the outskirts, w i th in the fau
bourgs, houses appear only intermittently. Yet
they still crowd the street, even when f ron t ing
expansive cultivated fields. Moreover, the fields
are walled i n . Even there, pubhc space is rigor
ously separated f r o m private outside space.
Green space is always private.
Buildings on the Edge
Thus, buildings were developed wi th many sto
ries, even when their large lots were sparsely
developed. This may signify that land was
slated for other purposes—for growing vegeta
bles and frui ts ; for raising sufficient animals to
feed a large city, thereby mainta ining its auton
omy. But buildings that always stand at the
street edge, jealously guarding open space be
yond, clearly adopt an assertively territorial
stance toward pubhc space.
The m i n i m a l pubfic space of the streets
and squares was lively and crowded. Accord
ingly, ground-floor space along street frontage
was predominantly earmarked for commercial
and work space. Domestic space was concen
trated more inside and upstairs. Public space
was also dangerous, uncontrolled, and dark at
night, a place to separate f r o m the more peace
f u l and regulated private realm i n which all
inhabitants were known and specifically
admitted.
Dutch Townscape
For mil lennia, jealously guarded private open
space behind buildings and walls, creating a
walled-off domain, was typical o f urban f o r m
throughout the world, regardless o f population
density.
I n historic Dutch cities, we find that al
though the urban network o f public space, w i t h
its canals l ined w i t h trees, is more generous,
most open space remains invisible f r o m the
streets or canals. Despite sixteenth- or seven-
teenth-centitry Delft's unmistakably urban
character, population density may wefi have
been lower than that o f a modern Dutch suburb
or garden city.'
Space is used differently i n contemporary
urban environment. The proportion of public
space is larger, no doubt because o f the car. I n
addition, private exterior space is displayed
publicly. Historically, there was no point to set
t ing back a building: f ron t yards were, for all
practical purposes, useless.
O b s e r v i n g T e r r i t o r ia I S t r u c t u r e
When Terr i tory Precedes Form
The eighteenth-century Complete Map of tht
Capital City during the Qianlong Era reveals an
urban structure i n Beij ing based on walled-in
compounds that are accessed through clearly
articulated gates (see also figure 5.8). The waU,
8.5 Beijing, ca. 1750—Detail of the Complete Map oi
the Capi ta l City dur ing the Qian long Era, showing main
street and residential streets. Most of the latter have
gates. Ceremonial gates are seen at the crossing of two
main streets. Houses typically exhibit an en trance court fol
lowed by one or more courts, each having pavilions at
three sides. Reproduced courtesy of the Harvard-Yenchlng
I ihrary
a pr imar i ly terri torial demarcation, stands on
its own, ini t ia l ly def ining the compound w i t h i n
which pavilions, under separate roofs, are then
arranged to f o r m a sequence of courtyards.
Whereas i n the Tunisian fabric (figure 8.4), i t
remains ambiguous whether territory or f o r m
was there first, i n Beij ing territorial demarca
tion preceded the buildings.
Large-scale environmental creation in
which territory precedes f o r m is universal and
sti l l very m u c h alive. We find walled territory
i n urban compounds i n the i n fo rma l sectors o f
Latin American cities (see figure 5.9). There,
too, settlers first bu i ld walls around their terri
tory, wi th a gate to the street,•> In warm and dry
climates like those o f Mexico and Peru, i t suf
fices for a fami ly to live inside the waUs w i t h
just a pr imit ive shack to sleep in . Gradually, a
large two-story house w i t h several courtyards
152 emerges.
Comparing the maps of Tunis and
Beij ing reveals another difference i n the rela
tionship o f terri torial structure to hierarchy o f
f o r m . W i t h i n the Tunisian fabric, territorial
depth is f o u n d i n the street system as well :
dead-end streets shared by a handful o f houses
w i l l have their own gates giving onto the net
work; secondary streets may have gates toward
major streets. Whether individual houses have
a single courtyard or many, territorial depth is
found only between a courtyard and its sur
rounding rooms.
I n the Chinese model, territorial depth
w i t h i n the compound can be extensive: court
yard after courtyard after courtyard may be ar
ranged hierarchically, sometimes connected by
alleys. I n the street network, territorial depth is
impl ied by the existence o f gates at the en
trances o f the aUeys and at some intersections
of the streets,5
O b s e r v i n g T e r r i t o r i a l S t r u c t u r e
3 H o u s e a n d T e r r i t o r y
Overlap of Form and Terr i tory
House types do not necessarily represent any
specific social entity. They therefore cannot be
equated wi th any specific terri torial interpreta
t ion. Thus, the Dutch canal house demon
strates how the row house, although typically a
single-family bourgeois dwelling, can accom
modate different occupation. Nor does this di
versity necessarily result f r o m change o f use
over t ime: some seventeenth-century duplex ca
nal houses have two original fa(;ade doors, one
of which leads to an upstairs dwelling.
Such variation is not l imi ted to residen
tial uses. Wi th in one bu i ld ing type we find
shops, bakeries, and many other residential-
scale commercial activities. These patterns o f
variable use and occupancy may occur any
where and are not l imi ted to a particular house
type. The Pompeiian courtyard house, although
oriented inward, for commercial purposes con
sistently opened rooms onto busy streets (see
figure 15,2). While the suburban house type and
fabric do not typically support pedestrian store
f ron t service retail activity, a bui ld ing sug
gesting single-family use may i n fact hold two
or more households, or, more commonly, a
business office at home.
There exists no strict parallel between the
social uni t o f a certain culture and any one
house f o r m , although some relationship clearly
exists. The first purpose of the Chinese court
yard compound, so susceptible to expansion by
erecting additional pavilions, is to shelter an ex
tended family. The first purpose o f the western
European row house is to enable dwelHng by a
single family.
Variations of terri torial and functional
interpretation wi th in such general themes sug
gest that house fo rm results above all f r o m con
ventional acts o f bui ld ing repeated i n thematic
variation, out o f w h i c h urban fabric is also wo
ven. Such themafic variation is related, not sur
prisingly, to the social structure that brings it
for th . Building types commonly associated w i t h
housing do not so m u c h represent dwellings as
forms created to accommodate common pat
terns o f occupancy, wi th which given social
groups specifically identify.
Dwelling, as already argued, is a territo
rial act o f occupation. I t may involve a space
smaller than a house: the boarder's dwelling is
a room. House bui lding, on the other hand, is a
form-making act w i th in acquired terri tory The
resulting house f o r m always remains open to
territorial interpretation.
Extreme changes i n social organization
fol lowing in i t ia l occupancy may trigger un
foreseen variations. In a detailed study o f
nineteenth-century courtyard houses i n San
tiago de Chile, Fernando Domeyko records
deliberate reordering to establish clear new
territorial demarcation, permit t ing higher den
sity. The house, init ial ly bui l t for a prosperous
extended family, has now become a small v i l
lage, occupied by a number o f working-class
nuclear family households. The territorial or
ganization so clearly suggested by the courtyard
f o r m is scrupulously retained. But private
rooms around the courtyard are now clustered
i n twos and threes by small f ron t patios carved
out o f the larger courtyard. Public space re
maining i n the courtyard is reduced to an alley.
8.6 Santiago de Chile—Partial view of a turn-of-the-
century house with two successive courtyards The house
Is shown as presently occupied by several families. Inhabi
tants have fenced off parts ofthe courtyards to make pri
vate yards, leaving a narrow public alley In the central
axis. The house is thus transformed into a little village,
known as the "CItè Knossos." After Domeyko.
155
This example, while extreme, is by no
means an exception. Once f o r m is present, l i fe
makes use o f it , adjusting it and adjusting to i t ,
o f fe r ing ever-changing territorial interpreta
tions w i t h i n its relative constancy.
Similarly drastic changes are observed i n
affluent residential neighborhoods o f Cam
bridge, Massachusetts, as grand Victorian man
sions set i n substantial gardens are converted
into condominiums. They sti l l accommodate
only those who can af ford to dweh comfortably
near the center o f the city; new entrances are
created at sides and rear to provide private ac
cess. These houses are subdivided vertically and
horizontally, o f fe r ing stacked dweUings f ron t
and back as well as one or two beneath the
eaves. The backyard is now a communal park
ing area that provides access to mult iple dwell
ings i n the house, increasing terri torial depth.
type its name and developed its characteristic
architecture o f wooden columns and banisters,
sometimes elaborately carved.
Mansion conversions like those i n Cam
bridge have more recently provided an image
for new construction. Large "houses" recalling
single-family mansions are now designed to
contain a number of smaller dwellings f r o m the
start. In Europe i n the rgzos and 1930s,
there similarly emerged "two-under-one-roof"
houses. Such duplexes share a party wall and a
single roof, w i t h entrances and garages at oppo
site ends, recalhng the fami l ia r single-family
house f o r m . This fur ther supports the not ion
that house f o r m is one convention, occupation
another.
Terr i tor ia l Conversion
Territorial interpretation o f a given f o r m may
lead, i n tu rn , to new forms: fol lowing a massive
inf lux o f workers into nineteenth-century A m
sterdam, its fabric was extended (see figure
4.4c). The new neighborhoods contained bui ld
ings that retained the width and height of the
canal house. But each floor became a separate
dwelling, connected to the street via a commu
nal staircase. Al though the architecture was re
ductive and the technical quality was poor, this
variant could be understood as the final trans
format ion of a historic bui lding type.
The Bostonian single-family gabled ur
ban house w i t h porch, set on a narrow lot, was
transformed into the "triple-decker" type stiU i n
evidence throughout surrounding cities. Here
too, each floor became a separate apartment
w i t h its own porch. Stacked porches gave the
Use vs. Control of Space
A l iv ing room may be under the f i r m control o f
a single family member, or i t may be controlled
more impl ic iüy by communal consensus. !n ei
ther case, it follows that those who use the
space—children, friends, and guests—need
not be i n control of it.
Public space is, by dehnit ion, space used
by those who do not individually control i t . Us
ers of public space may come f r o m either in
cluded or higher-level territory. Entering the
public realm f r o m private space is a fundamen
tal right: the door to public space is always
open, and there must always be a public space
we can move out to. I n doing so, one is st i l l on
"home turf" : public space is communally
shared among those f r o m similarly included
territories. Household members access and
P u b l i c S p a c e share the l iving room. Residents i n a develop
ment may share clubhouse privileges. Further
up the territorial hierarchy, that sense of propri
etorship fades. Yet interstate highways i n the
Uni ted States, as well as the Mal l i n Washing
ton, D.C., are spaces held i n common by all
American citizens.
Public space is also used, wi thout exer
cise o f control, by those admitted f r o m outside,
who have a different attitude than those enter
ing f r o m included territory. The outsider enters
f r o m another (higher-level) public space as a
guest. There always remains some possibihty
that entry wi l l be barred to the neighbor, the
out-of-towner, or the foreigner. Use f r o m out
side is specifically granted, and temporary i n
nature.
Use of Space and Contents
Once entered into public space, by right or by
admittance, one is free to walk i n pubhc parks,
enter public museums, drive public roads, sit
on public benches, and use, for a fee, pubhc
phones. In addition to using space, we also use
things. To a certain extent, we can actuaUy ma
nipulate configurations we do not control, just
as we can enter a space we do not control. But
there are clear l imitations. The house guest is
invited to sit in a chair, perhaps to pick up a
magazine, but is not expected to rearrange or
remove furni ture . Wi th respect to actual physi
cal transformations, the visitor is given little
leeway.
Control o f things is an immediate, hands-
on affair. I n the Parisian Jardin des Tuileries,
visitors may sit i n i ron garden chairs arranged
around the pond. But a fee is exacted for this
privilege, by a matron who continually restores
the arrangement as each visitor departs. The
park constitutes a large public space, but the
circle o f chairs is the matron's configuration, as
she w i l l pointedly i n f o r m you.
We move "upward" to use spaces o f in
creasingly "public" character i n the order o f
place. But to use and manipulate things, we
move downward into the territory of the person
i n direct control: a person who is actually there.
The unhappy fate o f uncontrolled telephone
booths and public toilets offers proof that this
territorial reality cannot easily be denied.
8.7 Cambridge, Massachusetts—Triple-decker house.
Claiming Terr i tory t h rough
Use of Space
The use of things occurs at the scale of the body.
I t inevitably impHes occupancy of sufficient
space—an instant territory, however temporary
and transparent—^to exercise this use.
Configurations do not fioat freely i n
space; and control implies territory. Thus con
trol o f a configuration simultaneously implies a
terri torial claim. The subway musician stands
against a pillar and places a hat i n f ron t o f her.
People respect the claim and maintain a dis
tance, entering her space sporadically to toss a
coin. The hawker admitted into the fiea market
must be granted a corner to display his wares.
The traditional market exhibits instant territo
rial arrangements i n town squares throughout
the world . Many temporary territories are in
cluded for only a few hours, a cyclical increase
and decrease o f territorial depth that i n some
towns has gone on for centuries. In the l iv ing
room, we see the same phenomenon: when
books or toys are brought to occupy a corner or
a couch, some depth is added to the territorial
situation o f a communal space.
The human body implies terri torial pres
ence. Therefore, being i n a pubhc space is
partaking i n a game o f instant territorial recon
figuration, shif t ing as people use things: sitting
on benches, wait ing for buses, parking cars, en
tering telephone booths, standing by the side
walk. A game of fleeting spatial claims and
terri torial inclusions follows the flow of use
w i t h i n the contextual setting o f a given public
space.
8.8 Jogjakarta, Indonesia—Sidewalk barber.
r
Territory and Buildin
T e r r i t o r y a n d B u i l d i n g s
S t r e e t a n d H o u s e
The Suburban Yard
The mansion standing free i n its own estate
may offer some visual connection w i t h the pub
hc road. But the space between is open land.
Even when landscaped, h is not shaped to ex
tend either house or street. The entry gate
marks the territory, not the house: the terri torial
claim is quite separate f r o m the bui lding.
Sometimes there is only a post or a stone to in
dicate a boundary.
The suburban house (figure 9.2a) bears
witness to a somewhat more spatial, architec
tural engagement. Street and house keep their
distance, but stand i n close enough proximity
to provide a certain tension between the bui l t
f o r m inside a larger territory and the public
space outside that territory. The suburban f ront
yard is the mediating space i n between: the
property o f the inhabitant but open to the
street, contr ibuting to the public realm. Houses
are separated just enough to be perceived as in
dividual forms, and set back just enough to cre
ate a sense of independence,
"Suburban" aptly describes this arrange
ment. I n a fu l ly urban environment, bu i ld ing
and street are closely married: the fa(;:ade forms
part o f a street wah, at the edge of domestic ter
ritory. I n the suburb, that street wah is dis
solved and a f ron t yard mediates between house
and territorial boundary. A n architectural com
plement to the dignity o f the pubHc realm is
sometimes preserved i n the way the entryway
or facade addresses the street. But bungalows
and ranch houses typically seek to deny the
closeness o f the street, appropriating imag-
Tl o
ery to suggest a freestanding cottage i n the
wilderness.
The Urban Yard
As we move f r o m the suburb toward the city
(figures 9.2b and 9.4a), the distance between
bui lding and street decreases, u n t i l the d imin
ished f ron t yard requires architectural rein
forcement to sustain itself as a strip o f nature
between house and street. Victorian houses o f
Boston's Back Bay, for instance, have f ron t yard
depths o f at most fifteen feet—just large
enough to plant a tree and mainta in a few feet
o f lawn between shrubs at the foundations and
those along the street. Assertion o f the ter-
165
9.2 The relation of territorial boundary to building (verti
cal lines extending beyond the square indicate the
territorial boundary):
(a) The suburban house in its garden.
(b) Urban houses fronted by narrow gardens, forming a
street wall.
(c) The British terraced house with an "area" between side
walk and building.
(d) The Dutch canal house with a zone for stoops
between pavement and building.
(e) Perfect coincidence of territorial boundary and build
ing fa<;ade.
(f) Northern Italian arcades, such as those In Bologna,
with the territorial boundary located behind the line of
the facade.
I
9.3 Kampong near Jogjakarta, Indonesia-House in sub
urban setting in a kampong with fence between public
and private space
i 6 6
ntor ia l boundary now becomes necessary: the
street is too close and the small strip o f yard too
vulnerable. Hence, i n the Back Bay, low walls
wi th i ron railings, together about knee-high,
are found along the sidewalk. They f o r m a mod
est but essential architectural element.
Because these fences are similar i n com
position and u n i f o r m i n height, they f o r m a
continuous element, de-emphasizing the indi
viduality o f the houses, jo in ing them i n re
sponse to the street. Jointly, the fences define
the sidewalk as much as they demarcate indi
vidual yards.
I n this configuration, house fagades be
gin to merge into a street waU. The Back Bay
street wall is particularly successful i n that i t is
formed wi th bay windows. While their widths
may vary, their projecfion beyond the facade
and into the yards is always the same, such that
they too are perfectiy aligned i n plan.' I n this
way, the street wall, standing behind the shal
low f ron t yards w i t h their greenery, undulates
but remains anchored to urban geometry.
The Six-Foot Yard
The urban f ront yard (figure 9.4b) o f l imi ted di
mension is found in endless variation i n the
nineteenth- and twenfieth-century city. Some
five or six feet o f separation between garden
gate and house door are sufficient to evoke the
presence of a garden. Demarcation o f t h e terri
torial boundary becomes essential to preserve
the garden's integrity. Boundary forms vary
f r o m slender three-foot i ron fences to elaborate
combinafions o f masonry wall and railing. In
Hol land, ciHzens commonly keep boundary
forms low, to preserve a view of the street f r o m
the hving roora.
T e r r i t o r y a n d B u i l d i n
9.4 Distances between public space and building in an urban setting:
(^) Boston Back Bay, nineteenth century-Narrow front
y^rds with buildings aligned ,n a continuous waif
(c) iondon^The "area" of an English terraced house
showing the bridge from the sidewalk to the main floor
and steps down to basement floor.
(d) Amsterdam-Canal house stoops.
(Ö) Apeldoorn, the Netherlands-Minimal front yard with
low iron fence and freestanding house.
The Georgian Terrace
Urban infrastructure i n Georgian terraced
housing (figures g.2c and 9.4c) elevates the
street w i t h f i l l cut f r o m house lots. The f ront
sidewalk is a f ew steps below the main floor;
the rear garden is roughly at basement level. In
f ron t o f the house is the "area": several yards
of space between house and sidewalk, through
which hght and narrow steps descend to the
basement. A bridge over the area connects
main entry to street, l i n k i n g territorial edge to
bui l t space.
I ron railings protect pedestrians f r o m the
private depth below, adding to the unique elabo
ration o f the marg in between house and public
space. This pattern sets the house only a few
paces f r o m the sidewalk. The entry door, at the
end o f the bridge, is often f ramed by a ped-
168 iment and columns. The whole exhibits a
certain f r iendly detachment but remains un
mistakably urban.
A Four-Foot Masonry Margin
The essence of urban architecture is how i t ne
gotiates the narrow margin available between
terri torial boundary and bui ld ing facade. In the
Amsterdam canal house {figures 9.2d and
9.4d), the main floor is raised four or five feet
above street level. Thus the entry is approached
via a half-f l ight o f stairs. (The water table is only
a few feet below the pavement.) When the base
ment is used for warehousing goods, these are
brought i n via a steep half-f l ight o f steps hidden
under bulkheads, at street level.
A l l o f these elements occupy a four-foot
margin between facade and street. This margin
clearly forms part o f the domestic territory. I t
was sometimes used to extend basement space.
a venerable tradition sti l l occasionally i n evi
dence today. The area i n question would be
paved by the home owner, frequently i n costly
stone, contrasting wi th the brick paving i n the
public street. The territorial boundary was often
asserted by small granite columns, sometimes
connected w i t h i ron chains, placed four feet
f r o m the facade.^
The Min imal Yard
Six to eight feet is probably a reasonable l i m i t
for retaining the identity o f t h e garden between
house and street. Yet i n Japan, a small tree and
some shrubs may be wedged between a territo
rial wall and the house two or three feet behind
i t , to hide ground-floor windows. The symboli
cally not-quite-urban house alludes to affluence
and freedom. W i t h such a strong configura-
tional meaning, dimensions become second
ary: as long as the proper elements are there,
i n the proper relationship, the image and the
message are conveyed.
The Courtyard House
When territorial boundary and house wall do
coincide (figure 9.2e), a certain tension is lost.
The streets of Roman Pompeii and Greek Delos
give us examples o f such isomorphism. Middle
Eastern townscapes such as Tunis are similarly
walled i n . The street becomes an enclosed
space devoid o f civic expression beyond occa
sional recessed house gates, w i t h perhaps a
small sculpted seat near the doorway. There are
no architectural facades, just unadorned walls.
Windows are few, appearing at the second floor.
Such walled-in streets suit the introverted
nature o f the courtyard house, which requires
no l ight f r o m the pubhc space. Pedestrians
move inside a long continuous fo rm, rather
than past individual buildings. The street
comes alive only where shops and work places
open toward it , where sounds and goods spiU
out into the sunny public space f r o m dark holes
i n the wall,
Lines Crossing: The Arcade
The convergence of bui l t f o r m and terri torial
boundaries aUows fur ther variety i n relations
between the two. The porticoes o f medieval and
Renaissance cities Hke Bologna and Padua re
veal a pattern i n which houses are bui l t above
the sidewalk, supported by columns and vaults
(figure 9,2f; see also figure 14.4). Together, they
f o r m a shaded walkway sandwiched between a
bright public street and bright gated courtyard,
LLere, the lines actually cross, locating the ter
ritorial boundary behind the building's upper-
level facade and aUowing public space to
penetrate the bui ld ing on the ground floor,
where gates inside the arcades open onto do
mestic courtyards.
Varying Form w i t h i n Fixed Terr i tory
Form is interpreted i n different ways, and dif
ferent occupation and terri torial boundaries re
sult. As a rule, f o r m is generally more stable
than its territorial interpretation. However,
given a fixed terri torial structure, different
forms can be placed i n i t . Accordingly, all dia
grams i n figure 9.5 represent identical territo
rial organization: w i t h i n a territory A, two
lesser territories B are included.
I n examples (b) and (c), bui ld ing forms
lie w i t h i n the territory B and constitute part o f
i t . This is the most common f o r m of either the
freestanding house (c) or the townhouse wi th
its own party walls (b).
In (d), the house is owned by an absentee
landlord and therefore lies outside the control
o f the inhabit ing territorial power B .
Q .2 i T e r r i t o r y a n d B u i l d i n g Example (e) has a shared party wall . Nei
ther B I nor B2 can control that wall indepen
dently; hence a th i rd power constituted by Bi
9.5 A single territorial diagram representing varied build
ings and uses:
(a) Initial terntory diagram without buildings.
(b) Abutting houses with blind walls.
(c) Freestanding houses in gardens.
(d) House as In (c) above, when rented by occupant
(e) Houses with a common party wall.
(f) Houses as In (e) above, when rented by occupants.
(g) A single building within which apartments are rented.
T e r r i t o r y a n d B u i l d i n g s
and B2 together is i n control o f i t . Other than
that, the two B powers control their own
houses.
I n ( f ) , the whole duplex house is under
control o f an absentee landlord. Territorial pow
ers B do not control any part o f i t .
Finally, (g) represents a housing estate i n
which both the bui ld ing and the surrounding
landscape are controlled by a housing authority,
A. Renters B merely control space w i t h i n the
bui lding.
In (d) and ( f ) , the property owner is not
an agent i n the given terri torial context. There
fore, we have three terri torial powers—A, Bi,
and B2—as well as another new agent control
l ing the f o r m .
Thus, the environmental game is played
i n a variety o f ways. Various bui l t forms and
variable control distributions may go w i t h the
same territorial structure. The bui ld ing can op
erate i n either terri torial depth (A or B) but also
can be controlled by outside agents.
Varying Terr i tor ia l Structure
The common organization o f city blocks places
buildings that r ing the street perimeter shoul
der to shoulder. They thus f o r m a continuous
street wall and an internal open space invisible
f r o m the street. The arrangement o f this inter
nal open space and its connecdon to the street
network merits scrutiny: to a large extent, they
determine the character o f urban fabric.
The pictograms i n figure 9.6 represent a
m i n i m a l arrangement o f this f o r m : for pur
poses o f diagramming, four territories coincide
wi th four houses. (In reality, many more houses
compose a block.) Differences observed aU have
to do w i t h the way space inside the block is
treated. Together, the series o f emblematic pic
tograms allows for discussion o f numerous ge
neric situafions i n territorial structure.
C i t y B l o c k i n the most common version o f (c), we
find aUeys several feet wide connecting to back
yards. The alley is handy for br ing ing bicycles
into a back shed; and it provides a much-
appreciated way for children to visit f r o m back
yard to backyard. Unless the alley is gated (d),
it is territorially part o f the general public space.
9.6 Territorial variations on the urban block—Picto
grams diagramming houses around a block. All have
access to the surrounding streets that form the block. Vari
ations on the space internal to a dty block can result In
territorial differences
(a) Territorial diagram applicable to cases (b), (c), (g), and
(h).
(b) Internal open space Is subdivided Into private gardens.
(c) Private gardens have access to a back alley, which Is
part of the public street network.
T e r r i t o r y a n d B u i l d i n g s
.1
O
4 -
(d) The back alley when gated, becomes a public space
for the surrounding houses.
(g) Private gardens are merged in a single ungated com
munal yard.
(e) Terntorlal diagram applicable to (d) and (f)—provided
that depth Is traced through the backyard—and to (j).
(h) Houses are rented from a party who controls both the
buildings and their communal yard.
(f) Private gardens are merged in a single gated commu
nal yard.
(j) The communal yard forms a courtyard between house
and street.
on a par w i t h the streets. There exists only one
territorial depth (a), while i n terms o f f o r m we
f i n d perhaps three levels—street, secondary
street, and aUey.
Dual Or ien ta t ion
I n (c) and (d), house territory manifests dual
orientation. Public space may be entered by two
gates: one at the street, another at the aUey. Be
cause alley and street are so different i n charac
ter, a potentially ambiguous environmental
structure remains clear and thus disorientation
is avoided, As a result, the scheme is eminently
workable. Dual orientation o f house territory
need not be confined to the narrow aUey More
elaborate and sophisticated examples can be
noted,
174 I n Bri t ish terraced housing, the mews was
specifically designed to provide access to car
riage houses bu i l t i n back o f private yards,'
From the outset, servants' quarters were also
found i n buildings at the mews, adjacent to or
on top o f the stables. As society changed, out
buildings were commonly converted into or re
placed by independent residential buildings,
These fo rmed their own territories back-to-back
wi th that o f the main house, thereby terminat
ing the dual exposure o f the latter. In this way,
the mews became a modest and int imate resi
dential street, i n contrast to the more formal
streets o f the block proper.
I n the Venetian urban fabric (see figure
7.2), dual orientation is more sophisticated.
Houses connect to the network o f canals on one
side and a network of narrow streets, alleys, and
squares on the other. Visitors are received w i t h
appropriate dignity on a gated landing at the
ground-floor gondola mooring. Ar r iv ing f r o m
the canal, one passes under the house and up a
(frequendy elaborate) staircase i n the middle o f
the house, to reach a large central, ma in floor
space once again facing the waterway. A second
stair at the back o f the house connects the main
floor to a courtyard. This courtyard has a gate.
9.7 Bath—Section showing the mews, a secondary
street behind the main street- What used to be stables
and servant guarters, accessed from the back street, have
now become private houses. (After hiamdi and Edgerly).
See also the partial reproduction of Edinburgh New Town,
T e r r i t o r y a n d B u i l d i n
which also provides a service entry, opening
onto the pedestrian street.
The two networks i n the Venetian urban
fabric are separate worlds, engaged w i t h great
freedom and improvisation. Pedestrians occa
sionally arrive at a purely urban environment of
streets and squares, wi th no waterway in sight.
Conversely, crossing a canal, or walking along
side it , may lead to a square at water's edge.
There are no urban blocks whatsoever here. But
the street network remains, behind and be
tween buildings, hidden f r o m major water
ways. Houses span between the two. Only along
secondary canals do water, buildings, and
pedestrian space become more intimately
intertwined.
In Suzhou and other cities of the Yangtze
River delta, houses also mediate between water
way and street. But major streets are wide and
often l ined w i t h trees. They are laid out i n
a more geometric pattern, accommodating
horses and carts as well as pedestrians. There
fore the two realms-—waterways and street net
work—are almost equally balanced i n practical
importance and i n physical size. I t is the street
side on which the houses f ron t formally; but at
the water side, l i fe may be equally intense.
As the case o f Radburn—a modern, but
less convincing model o f dual orientation—
seems to indicate, success i n dual orientation
requires differentiation between the two realms
to which the house relates. In Radburn, single-
family dwellings situated w i t h i n their gardens
f ron t on one street w i t h another secondary
street i n back. The latter, clearly intended by the
urban designers as a communal space, con
nects to parking. It is no longer clear precisely
which side o f the house is the front .
The ambiguity seems as much related to
f o r m as to use. The same dual funct ional re
lation is found i n traditional back alleys such
9.8 Suzhou, China—Diagrammatic map showing the
relationship between two Interwoven networks, streets
and waterways. Estates and houses usually span between
the two.
1 7 6
9.9 Suzhou, China—Waterfront. A large compound of
several houses belonging to an extended family. Each
house Is composed around a sequence of courtyards—
there are six such stdngs of courtyards in all—and spans
between street and waterway. The triangle on the left
marks the entrance to the main house; that on the right
marks the gate of a narrow lane leading to the Zhuo
Zheng or "Humble Administrator's" Garden (figure 10.1).
On the other side of the street, modest shops also span
street and water networks.
as i n Bostons Back Bay. But there, the physical
distinction between the two sides is quite
clearly articulated, and the f ron t facades face a
busy street. I n the garden city o f Radburn, any
such distinctions remain min ima l .
Terr i tor ia l Overlap
The back alley or service street o f figure 9.6c
is a straightforward extension o f public space
already formed by the streets. I n terms o f fo rm,
there exists, therefore, a tri-level street network
organization: major residential street, side
street, and back alley. But wi th respect to territo
r ia l structure, there is just one public space,
w i t h no evidence o f gates or other means o f
closing o f f alleys f r o m secondary streets or the
latter f r o m major residential streets. For that
reason, at the point where back alley reaches
street space, no gate is indicated. There are now
two gates f r o m each territory o f depth B into the
public space: one f r o m the f ron t and one f r o m
the back, But these two gates are equivalent, as
territory goes. The terri torial diagram itself
does not change vnth the introduction o f the
alley.
Sometimes, we do f i n d gates at the end
of the alley (d), for which only inhabitants o f
abutting houses have a key. This usually hap
pens where alleys are very narrow, clearly
intended to help the inhabitants reach their
baclcyards and not at all for general access. I n
this case, the alley serves as another pubhc
space for the territories already included i n A,
adding another terri torial level. Territory B is
T e r r i t o r y a n d B u i l d i n g s
now connected to two distinct public spaces
(pubhc relative to B). When B is entered via the
back alley, it is two gates removed f r o m A,
whereas entering via A requires only one gate.
Relative to A, territory B may be one or two lev
els deep, depending on the route we choose to
reach It.
We may say that two terri torial situations,
those i n diagrams (a) and (e), overlap i n B.
From one perspective (e), B lies i n C. The alley
is Cs public space. From another perspective
[a), territory B lies i n A,
Similar overlap is f o u n d when a corner
house fronts a major and a minor street. I f t h e
latter exists behind a gate (as i n historic
Beijing), i t constitutes private space relative to
the major street. Yet because there are en
trances on both streets, a similar terri torial
overlap occurs. I n general, such cases o f overlap
are exceptions or involve physical situations
of lesser significance, such as minor service
alleys. ( In the Middle Eastern fabric, cases o f
houses connecting to two different gated dead
end streets are somewhat more frequent, al
though by no means the rule; see figure 8,4.)
Communal Backyard Space
Pictograms ( f ) , (g), and (h) diagram backyards
merged into larger communal space, i n order
to create shared space for communal activities
i n a more protected, less pubhc setting than is
offered by the street network. This shared space
i n (g) would be accessible to others coming i n
f r o m the larger pubhc domain, a situation that
is clearly not as desirable as ( f ) . Though this
f o r m suggests a raore private space, its imple
mentation i n practice is rather arabiguous. I n
(h), communal space is actually contiolled by
an outside agent: a public housing authority or
municipality. Here, the houses are presumably
rented, wi th all real estate controlled and main
tained by the authority.
The outcorae o f such quasi-coramunity
space is seldom positive, for reasons that be
come readily apparent: i n (g) and (h), the com
mi tmen t o f inhabitants l iv ing adjacent to the
space can only be min ima l . Successful commu
nal space is communally controlled and main
tained. Here, adjacent inhabitants are not i n
communal control.
I n ( f ) , the space is controlled by inhabit
ants who can close the gates. The design and
actual use o f the space may be determined col
lectively by inhabitants or delegates. I f they are
t ru ly i n control, they w i l l have the option o f
carving pubhc space up into private outdoor
spaces, thus returning to model (d). Experience
indicates that, given the choice, people often
prefer subdivision. Either way, the scheme w i l l
work.
In all cases, the communal backyards o f
( f ) , (g), and (h) create ambiguous dual orienta
tion and concomitant disorientation. The more
pronounced the communal backyard space, the
more unclear i t becomes which side is more
fo rma l and important. The distinction between
a fo rma l f ron t and a more protected and infor
mal back is very much ingrained i n terri torial
consciousness. Large communal space at the
back weakens that distinction.
Courtyard organization, as represented i n
schematic (j), is an ancient f o r m , providing
more communal space between the domestic
and the truly public. Both territorially and ar
chitecturally, i t is unambiguous. But It rep
resents a totally different urban type than the
terraced house model that is the essence o f ex
amples (b) through (h). The courtyard turns it
self away f r o m the street. I t is, generally
speaking, an urban model, highly suitable for
high-dens ity, low-rise l iv ing. Yet territorially
similar situations are also found i n Indonesia
and Afr ica i n i n fo rma l residential neighbor
hoods. I n those cases, groups o f families Hve i n
compounds behind a single gate, maintaining
their own lit t le gardens but also a communal
open space. Whi le these are not urban situa
tions, their terri torial disposition is equivalent
to the one i n (j).^
Cont inu i ty of Terr i tor ia l Depth
The final pictogram, figure 9 . 1 0 , represents a
shared, communal space totally separated f r o m
the street network. It occurs when the back
yards o f figure 9.6b become unif ied communal
space. I t is a purely theoretical design, unob
served i n real l i fe . (By its very nature, its exis
tence would be known only to inhabitants
sharing a space.) But as a rule, there is l i t t le rea
son for inhabitants l iv ing on four different
streets to share space wi th in a block.
O f more importance, this final scheme is
anomalous because i t suggests discontinuous
territorial depth: its backyard public space is no
where connected to a more public space. Com
ing out o f t h e house into the shared communal
space, one can only go back, but not to a more
general territory. This violates territorial struc
ture. Environmental order, regardless o f its par
ticular f o r m , is always a continuous chain o f
public spaces o f increasing territorial size.'^ We
either go continuously up i n the territorial
chain, or we go continuously down. A l l environ
mental space, i n fact, is one.
,1,
9.70 An anomalous territorial variation on ttie urban
block—A communal backyard not connecting to any
larger public space. This form Is purely theoretical.