Shared

Space

SIGNS OF COMMUNITY LIFE IN THE DANISH SUBURBAN LANDSCAPE

FULBRIGHT INVESTIGATION 20052006

RYAN SULLIVAN

Shared

Space

SIGNS OF COMMUNITY LIFE IN THE DANISH SUBURBAN LANDSCAPE

 2006 Ryan Sullivan

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5
License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ or send a letter
to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San
Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Prologue

1: Essays

Suburbia and Shared Open Space

2: Case Studies

Shared Open Space in Denmark

3: Concepts

Three Proposals Using

Shared Open Space

Contents

Signs of Life in the Suburban Landscape

Identifying the Parochial Realm
Dening Shared Open Space
A Brief History of Shared Open Space in Suburbia

1
5
7
9

Timeline
Case Studies
Project Catalog
Design Characteristics

14
16
28
34

Three in One
Eight Acre Shared-division
Backyard Retrot

40
44
48

Acknowledgements
This project was possible thanks to the Fulbright program
which funded the investigation during the 200506 academic year. I would like to thank the Danish Fulbright Commission and Marie Mnsted 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 Gemze, Susanne Andersen, Birgitte Bundesen
Svarre, Camilla Damm van Deurs, Britt Sternhagen Sndergaard, Solvejg Reigstad, Sia Kirkns and Javier Corvaln.
Thanks so much for hosting me at the Center for Public
Space Research and your insights, feedback and support.

Prologue
This investigation of shared open spaces in Danish suburban environments is grounded in the belief that suburbs are
deserving of the same nuanced study as cities themselves.
A cursory look at Copenhagens suburbs shows an environment consisting of the same types of buildings, infrastructures, behaviors and attitudes found in suburban America
and other parts of the world. But, a closer examination of
Copenhagens suburban landscape reveals that this environment 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 architectural signicance.
This study is also inspired by the waning provision of shared
open spaces in new Danish projects. As changing lifestyles
evolve towards increasingly privatized lives, it is important to
document the shared open space tradition, ask if it is still relevant 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 Newmans Defensible Space;
Crime Prevention through Urban Design. Newmans research
was especially important at its time, when undened and
poorly designed outdoor spaces were inserted into many
public housing projects. But, unfortunately, his criticisms of
shared open spaces have been so inuential 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 make
generalizations 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.

1: Essays

Suburbia and
Shared Open Space

Signs of Life in the

Suburban Landscape
Suburbias Changing Face
Traditionally, architects, historians, sociologists, geographers and planners have been extremely critical of suburban culture and development despite suburbias 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 William Whyte. The arguments have become more frequent in
recent years, as an increasing number of books, articles and
television broadcasts have condemned sprawl and suburbia.
These 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 as
the Congress for the New Urbanism in the early 1990s.
Despite their work, few other architects have contributed
to the eld through research or practice.2 And while the
critique itself of suburbia made by the New Urbanism and
architecture profession at-large reects the arguments made
by Mumford, Whyte and others, most architects remain
critical of the specic 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. This is partly because the suburban landscape
has changed enormously since the 1950s, yet contemporary
critiques of suburbia frequently rely on the same arguments
made fty years ago. A wide and diverse range of scholars
such as Dolores Hayden, Robert Bruegmann, Ellen Dunham Jones, Joel Kotkin and Edward Soja have questioned

many traditional assumptions about suburbia, pointing out

that their research frequently contradicts the low-density,
homogenous environment described by earlier critics.4 Their
arguments suggest that there is more to suburbia than meets
the eye and illustrate a number of research ndings 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 the
United States.5
2. Suburban environments can be extremely culturally
diverse. The 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. The 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 specic points outlined
above or those argued in their books, this new scholarship is
signicant because it takes a fresh look at the suburban landscape and strives to avoid repeating the typically anti-suburban rhetoric of the last fty years. But just what does this
new wave of written work mean for architectural and urban
design practice and research? Can we expect new architectural 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 that
suburbs are complex, idiosyncratic environments, deserv1

ing of the same nuanced study as cities themselves. Two

specic 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 characteristics
of suburban places and lifestyles. Rigorous analysis from
this perspective might reveal unique or unusual opportunities for new design strategies that are otherwise overlooked
when generalizing the suburban experience and landscape.
Second, architects could benet from placing existing suburban conditions within a historical context that stretches
beyond the last 50 years of post-World War II sprawl. The
written works by Robert Bruegmann and Dolores Hayden
benet 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 nd their role
to be more focussed on researching and retrotting suburbia,
rather than replacing it.
Although a signicant amount of research has explored the
cultural and historic characteristics of the suburban landscape, 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 understanding
of contemporary suburban zoning and real estate practices).
Nevertheless, a small number of examples do exist. Writings
by architects Rem Koolhaas, Peter Rowe, Keller Easterling 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 of
Places Journal was dedicated to the theme of retrotting sub2

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 landscapes changing face. And
unlike other disciplines investigating suburbia, architecture
is uniquely qualied to provide insight into the formal and
aesthetic characteristics of this environment.
The second contribution that architects could make in
response to the recent scholarship on suburbia is through
specic design proposals that engage and build on existing
conditions. Architects could invent new suburban typologies
or develop new strategies for retrotting existing suburbs.
Due to their utopian vision, few New Urbanist proposals
have retrotted existing suburban conditions; most of their
plans for existing suburbs call for completely transforming
or rebuilding these environments. However, a few design
proposals for retrotting suburban environments or creating
new suburban typologies do exist. A handful of New Urbanist schemes have involved transforming regional shopping
malls into walkable, mixed-use communities and Duany,
Plater-Zyberk and Company is developing a proposal for
transforming a corporate oce park into a neo-traditional
neighborhood.12 W. Jude LeBlanc and Michael Gamble invented a proposal for retrotting 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 The architecture rm Lewis.Tsurumaki.Lewis created a concept for a new suburban typology
that combines the big box with residences into a single
structure.15 This diverse range of projects suggests that opportunities exist for creativity and innovation in the design
of the suburban landscape.
Signs of Life in Suburbia?
One specic aspect of the suburban landscape that could
benet from architects insight is public space. Architects
have a strong tradition of researching and designing urban

public spaces, in part because they are particularly qualied to work with their spatial characteristics. However,
investigating public space and the public realm in suburbia
is an especially dicult task. Unlike many urban environments, suburbs lack clearly dened public plazas, squares
and 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. Therefore,
suburbias public realm is less clearly dened both in terms of its
spatial denition as well as the degree to which it is truly public
when compared to traditional urban environments.
Scholars have criticized suburbias emphasis on private
property and private lifestyles since the 1960s. 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 architectural 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. Ethnic
communities 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
suburbias public realm.
In their recent book In Search of New Public Domain,
Maarten Hajer and Arnold Reijndorp explore how architects and designers might contribute to the design of public
space. They 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 that
architects should question traditional denitions of public

space and seek out which other unexpected places possibly

manifest themselves as a public domain.17 Likewise, architect Michael Brill argues that there is a tendency to overlook
some types of public life because they do not t the traditional denition. He recommends investigating the realm of
virtual 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 dening and identifying public life could be more
advantageous than current practices for two reasons. First,
it builds on existing behavior and lifestyles rather than attempting to physically-determine future activity. Second, it
could allow for interventions in existing suburban communities rather than additional greeneld development.
New Directions
Designing and researching within the suburban landscape is
enormously challenging. The environments formal characteristics lack the clarity of those found in cities. It is a
complicated environment that is constantly changing, growing 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-ve
percent of new construction takes place in suburbia.19 The
recent wave of revisionist research suggests that it may be
time for architects to reevaluate their (lack of ) involvement
in critically engaging the suburban landscape.

Notes:
1

Alex Kriger, The Costsand Benets?of Sprawl in Sprawl and Suburbia,

ed. William S. Saunders, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005),
4449.

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

Ellen Dunham-Jones, Seventy-ve Percent: The Next Big Architectural Project in Sprawl and Suburbia, ed. William S. Saunders (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 2005), 13.

Jennifer Howard, Revising the Suburbs: A New Wave of Scholars Challenges

Common Assumptions about Sprawl and Urban Growth, The Chronicle
of Higher Education 52, no. 29 (2006), http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.
php?id=j88qk4jh36gr2zvp82f27f6z1kf5qgz8.

Robert Bruegmann, Sprawl: A Compact History (Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 2005), 5 and Edward Soja, Regionalization and the Regional
City (lecture, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 30, 2005).

Susan Rogers, Superneighborhood 27: A Brief History of Change Places 17,

no. 2 (2005): 3641.

Dolores Hayden, Redesigning the American Dream: The Future of Housing,

Work, and Family Life (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1984).

Robert Bruegmann, Sprawl: A Compact History (Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press, 2005), 4950 and Edward Soja, Regionalization and the
Regional City (lecture, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of
Architecture, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 30, 2005).

Rem Koolhaas, Junk Space in Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping, ed.
Rem Koolhaas, (New York: Taschen, 2003), 408421; Peter Rowe, Making
a 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: MIT
Press, 2000).

10

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

International Perspective, ed. Brenda Case Scheer and Kiril Stanilov, (New
York: Routledge, 2004) and Anne Vernez Moudon, Pedestrian Location
Identication Tools: Identifying Suburban Areas With Potentially High
Latent Demand For Pedestrian Travel, Transportation Research Record 1818
(2002): 94101.

11

Ellen Dunham-Jones, ed., Places 17, no. 2 (2005).

12

Several notable examples of New Urbanist retrots do exist, including proposals to transform oce parks into loft-like residences and shopping malls
into neighborhoods. However, these proposals generally require so much
transformation and are so disconnected from the cultural environment they
replace that it is debatable whether they can be considered retrots.

13

Julie Kim, Incremental Urbanism: The Auto and Pedestrian Reconsidered in

Greyeld ReclamationAtlanta, Georgia, Places 16, no. 3 (2002): 1821.

14

Darren Petrucci, Stripscape: Pedestrian Amenities along 7th Avenue Places

17, no. 2 (2005): 4244.

15

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

16

Margaret Crawford, The World in a Shopping Mall in Variations on a Theme

Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space, ed. Michael Sorkin,
(New York: Hill and Wang, 1992) 12353 .

17

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

18

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

19

Dunham-Jones, Seventy-ve Percent: The Next Big Architectural Project, 1.

Identifying the Parochial

Realm
In contemporary Western cities, distinctions are often made
between public and private spaces. This dichotomy is a
simple way to categorize space and is particularly useful in
traditional, urban environments where the spaces between
buildings and inside cultural and government buildings
are frequently publicly owned and accessible. Giambattista
Nollis 1748 map of Rome is a favorite among architectural
historians because it clearly renders the distinction between
res publica and res privata. Streets, piazzas and courtyards
are rendered in white along with publicly accessible interior
rooms such as worship spaces, galleries and performance
halls. All other buildings are rendered in black. In this way, a
clear distinction is made between the citys public and private
spaces and spatial relationships between the two become
evident. The privatepublic distinction was also especially
appropriate before the invention of televisions, radios,
refrigerators, automobiles and computers: devices that have
weakened public life by transforming many public activities
and errands into private and semiprivate experiences.1
But these dichotomies represent an oversimplication of the
complexities characteristic of built environmentsone that
is particularly challenging when examining suburbias public
realm. From both cultural and formal perspectives, the suburban landscape is a much dierent environment than the
traditional city and the division between public and private
is less clear. Many activities that were once carried out in
the citys public realm now take place within the home itself.
Many public meeting places are actually privately owned.
Due in part to the automobile, public streets are no longer
places for public life but reserved for the exclusive use of
auto transit and storage. Evolving cultural values have placed
enormous importance on private home ownership and investment. Finally, marketdriven development patterns and

weak planning regulation have resulted in a built environment consisting of buildings and spaces that must be sold or
rented; the construction of public space is rarely protable
and rarely undertaken by the private sector.
By broadening the discussion to involve the public and private realms and borrowing terminology used by sociologists,
a third category can be addedthe parochial realm. The
parochial realm consists of acquaintances and neighbors who
share something in common and form a network or community of their own.2 Using the three categories of public life,
private life and parochial life, one can more clearly uncover
the complexity of human relationships than with the publicprivate dichotomy. Public life takes place between people
who do not know each other, private life between close
friends and family and parochial life between acquaintances
and friends. Parochial life can also be labeled community life
and in this work both terms are used interchangeably.
The case for a parochial realm is fairly straightforward.
But what about the notion of parochial space? Can specic
spaces be identied as parochial? And do these spaces exhibit characteristics that are unique from public and private
spaces?
Many sociologists would say no. Sociologist Lyn Loand,
points out that public, parochial and private realms are
dened by the relationships that occur within them, not
by the architectural form of the spaces.3 Public, private
and parochial realms can occupy almost any type of space,
regardless of its design characteristics or intended use. For
example, a parochial realm, or gathering of acquaintances,
could occupy a neighborhood bar, public park or even a private residence in the case of a party or open house. Because
5

it is dicult to pinpoint the specic connections between

community and the built environment, urban planner Emily
Talen argues that American architects rst priority should
be to strengthen and provide open spaces that can facilitate a
variety of activities, regardless of whether they are public or
communityoriented.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 environments throughout history have included spaces designed
specically 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 between
the public realm and parochial realm. Brill says that these
two realms operate at very dierent scales and densities,
have their own purposes, mechanisms and customs and
require dierent physical environments. Additionally, Brill
argues that suburban neighborhoods need parochial spaces
rather than public spaces. Specically, he criticizes Peter
Calthorpe and other New Urbanists for designing public
spaces inspired by the classical urban tradition rather than
creating 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. Specically, she
identies shared outdoor spaces as one type of parochial
space and has documented built examples on the West
Coast of the Untied States. Cooper Marcus argues that
6

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 specic spaces to facilitate specic
types of activities and groups of users. While the realms of
human behavior themselves are transient, the spaces they
occupy are necessarily xed and determined. When it comes
to 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 specic
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 Gemze, New City Spaces (Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press, 2000), 1013.
Lyn H. Loand, The Public Realm: Exploring the Citys Quintessential Social
Territory (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1998), 1114.
3
Lyn H. Loand, 10.
4
Emily Talen, A Matter of Priorities: New Urbanism and Community Life,
Places 15, no. 3 (2003): 7780.
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): 3241.
2

Dening Shared Open Space

This series of project-related denitions borrows from the
elds 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 activities of the parochial realm.
Private Space is a physical location that facilitates activities
of the private realm.
Shared Open Space is a type of parochial space that facilitates interaction between residents of a community. These
common outdoor areas are frequently jointly owned and
maintained by the residents.
Also called Shared Outdoor Space or Community Greens.

A Brief History of Shared

Open Space in Suburbia
Shared open spaces can be found in many dierent cultures
throughout 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 Thomas Jeerson at the
University of Virginia.
In both northern Europe and the United States, contemporary examples of shared open space can be found in a small
number of residential developments. These 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 phenomenon.1
Shared Open Space in the United States
Shared open spaces are conspicuous in Dolores Haydens
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 rst to suer when developers and builders try to increase their prots. The small
presence of community spaces in the suburban landscape
may also suer 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.
The rst examples of shared open space in the American
suburban landscape were built during the 1840s, 50s and

60s 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 subdivisions; communities consisting of detached homes, parks
and streets were built cohesively. Reacting to the isolation
found in the rst suburbs, these builders actively incorporated shared parks and common spaces into their plans, hoping
to encourage a sense of community.4 Some of these neighborhoods were constructed by religious groups and others
associated with the communitarian movement. They aspired
to build a new model capable of reforming society and believed 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 fty years later, two new types of American communities integrated shared open spaces into their plans: garden
cities and greenbelt towns. Throughout the interim period,
streetcar suburbs and unplanned communities consisting
of mail-order houses had developed along the citys fringes.
These two new models reacted to the unplanned growth of
suburban areas and suggested new models for communities
that considered open space, dierent modes of transit and
a mixture of housing types, things frequently missing in the
street car and mailorder suburbs. The garden city movement originated in England in 1898 but achieved a modest
level of success and a great deal of publicity in the United
States during the 1920s and 30s. The 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 network of pedestrian and bicycle paths link the shared spaces
together.

Twenty Greenbelt towns were constructed beginning in the

1930s. These communities, such as Greenbelt, Maryland,
benetted 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 cohousing 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 community parks, but they cannot be accurately labeled as shared
open spaces. Likewise, the most signicant critical reaction
to 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 development. These 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 Copenhagens city walls. Shared
open space was a tool used to provide fresh air and sunlight to the residents as well as space for outdoor activities.
However, many projects during this time, such as Kartoelrkkerne, did not include shared open spaces because they
were more prot-driven, rather than led by philanthropic
organizations. It is important to note however, that at Kartoelrkkerne and in some other projects, the narrow streets
eventually took on the role of a shared open space. These
pre-automobile, neighborhood streets were not comfortable for through trac 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
10

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

housing developments. A housing shortage at the time was
addressed by government programs that encouraged prefabrication and other industrial building techniques. Early
projects usually consisted of high-rise multi-family towers
surrounded by parking lots and parks. The negative impact
that these projects had on social interaction was quickly
identied 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 strong
examples from this period.
The most recent Danish projects to incorporate shared open
spaces are the co-housing dwelling types developed in the
1970s and 1980s. These projects were a critical response
to the single-family detached suburban developments and
appealed to middle class homebuyers seeking a sense of
community. The co-housing concept called for a series of
private dwellings surrounding shared open spaces and sharing a common house. Residents assisted each other with
various chores as well as social activities. The 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 Themes
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. The earliest examples of suburban shared open
spaces in Denmark reacted to the crowded and unhealthy
living conditions in Copenhagens city center. In the United
States, the picturesque enclaves developed during the same
period were extremely critical of the ad-hoc suburban expansion that directly preceded it and its lack of community. The

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

tower in the park visions advocated by Le Corbusier and
CIAM. Likewise, the co-housing movement sought to recreate 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.
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: The Danish Architectural Press, 1996).
2

11

2: Case Studies

Shared Open Space

in Denmark
12

The Danish Tradition of

Shared Open Space
When Copenhagen demolished its fortication walls halfway through the nineteenth century, development spilled out
and eventually sprawled fairly neatly along the ve ngers of
the 1947 regional plan. Although rigid planning regulations
were in place, the new suburban residential building typologies 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 development, a series of critical reactions led to the invention of
several experimental living models. These 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 privatized lifestyles found in Copenhagens suburbs.

13

Timeline Danish Shared Open Space

14

This timeline identies the primary

types of Danish projects that most often
incorporate shared open space: worker
and medical housing, dense-low housing
and co-housing. Related economic, political and architectural events are noted
to provide context.
Projects highlighted in green are investigated in further detail as case studies.

15

Early Suburbs: Brumleby

During the 19th century, a number of plans emerged for new
housing projects built outside of Copenhagens old fortication walls. These projects fall into three categories: worker
housing served factory employees and military personnel;
medical housing explored strategies to replace unhealthy
urban living conditions; and low-income, co-operative housing models sought aordable housing for a growing population 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 traditional Danish row-houses facing streets with varying provisions for private yards and shared outdoor spaces. Today,
many of these projects are considered among Copenhagens
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 Copenhagens rst
planned suburban developments. Designed by architect
Michael Gottlieb Bindesbll, this project challenged the
congestion, noise and unsanitary conditions found in typical
housing projects of the day.
The signicant dierence between Brumleby and other Danish worker housing projects is that Bindesbll incorporated
many common spaces and facilities into the masterplan.
His strategy for this unusual approach oered a number
of advantages: rst, 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 nally, the
provision of open spaces created opportunities for sunlight
to reach every dwelling.
The plan organizes dwelling units in narrow facing rows,
separated by dierent types of open space: streets, front
16

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. The character of these entranceways is signicant 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. The dwelling units
open to two very dierent environments on either side. Their
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 summertime 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. This suggests that
the design of the edges of a shared open space is just as
important as the provision of the shared space itself.

Facts
Built: 1853
Architect: Michael Gottlieb Bindesbll
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

17

5000

10000

15000m

100

200

300m

Shared Open Spaces

Street

Lawn

Street

Lawn

Street

18

10

20

30m

Shared Open Space

[parklike character]

Shared Open Space

[streetlike character]

Soft Edge
[private backyard]

Soft Edge
[front stoop]

Buildings

Open Entry
[clear demarcation]

Stationary Activity Data

Adult Standing

Adult Activity (doing something)

Child Standing

SUNNY SATURDAY AFTERNOON

6 JUNE 2006

Adult Sitting

Child Playing

Child Sitting

25

50

75m

19

DenseLow: Galgebakken
In the 1950s and 60s, Danish architects constructed
modern, high-rise residential towers in response to a housing shortage. Before long, critiques of the living conditions
found in these International Style buildings led the government 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, architects A. & J. rum Nielsen and Storgaard and Marcussen
applied industrial building technologies to a high-density,
low-rise community. Like many of the dense-low communities, Galgebakken successfully incorporates several dierent
types of shared space between the dwelling units. Together,
these dierent areas create a hierarchy of increasingly public
spatial types. Each one-story rental unit opens onto a pedestrian lane. This four meter wide path provides pedestrian
access to the dwellings and widens into a small courtyard at
each dwellings entryway. The pedestrian lanes connect to a
larger network of neighborhood lanes that are also pedestrian-oriented. They 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. The pedestrian
lanes, neighborhood lanes and park represent three dierent
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 pro20

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 friends 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 architects sincere desire to encourage residents to feel responsibility 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 offered space for future common facilities.

Facts
Built: 1972
Architect: A. & J. rum Nielsen and Storgaard and
Marcussen

Dwelling Units: 644

Site Area: 20 hectares (50 acres)
Density: 32.2 units/hectare (12.9 units/acre)
Building Height: 12 stories
Ownership Type: Rental

21

5000

10000

15000m

100

200

300m

10

15m

Shared Open Spaces

Pedestrian Lane

22

Pedestrian Lane

Shared Open Space

[neighborhood lane]

Shared Open Space

[pedestrian lane]

Shared Open Space

[common space]

Soft Edge
[private outdoor space]

Private Backyard

Parking Area

Open Entry
[clear demarcation]

Stationary Activity Data

Adult Standing

Adult Activity (doing something)

Child Standing

SUNNY SATURDAY AFTERNOON

6 JUNE 2006

Adult Sitting

Child Playing

Child Sitting

25

50

75m

23

Co-housing: Trudeslund
A more radical approach to shared open space emerged in
the 1960s and gained momentum in the 1980s. In 1964,
Architect Jan Gudmand-Hyer organized a group of friends
and together they endeavored to create a neighborhood
characterized by the sense of community lacking in contemporary suburban developments. Inspired by Thomas Mores
Utopia and Danish communities such as Brumleby, they envisioned a new housing model in which each family lived in a
separate home yet shared common facilities, some meals and
services. By the early 1970s 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 nancing co-housing. Throughout the
1980s, the co-housing concept grew in popularity.
Trudeslund, located in a quiet neighborhood of single-family houses in a northern Copenhagen suburb, was designed
by the architecture rm 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 rm inspired, in part, by the
social values characteristic of the 1960s cultural revolution,
was also the architect of many other co-housing projects
throughout the 1970s and 80s.
At Trudeslund, Vandkunsten repeated a parti used in several
of their other projects. The 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 dwelling 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 facili24

ties (such as the group kitchen and laundry) in one area, residents are required to walk between their cars, the common
facilities and their home. Residents use the pedestrian streets
for this purpose. This formal organization of parking, dwellings and common building encourage chance encounters
between neighbors. The pedestrian scale of the streets and
restriction of automobiles also creates a human-scaled, childsafe environment. These characteristics encourage social
interactions that are absent in most suburban environments.
Unlike the previous case studies, Trudeslunds dwellings are
for sale and located in a relatively wealthy suburbproving
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 character of the adjacent suburban areas.

Facts
Built: 1981
Architect: Vandkunsten

Dwelling Units: 33 (plus one common building)

Site Area: 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres)
Density: 23.6 units/hectare (9.4 units/acre)
Building Height: 12 stories
Ownership Type: For Sale

25

5000

10000

15000m

100

200

300m

Shared Open Spaces

Park and Woods

Pedestrian Street

26

10

15m

Parking Area

Shared Common Building

[kitchen, dining, play room, laundry]

Shared Space

[pedestrian street]

Private Backyard

Buildings

Shared Space

[woods and playground]

Stationary Activity Data

Adult Standing

Adult Activity (doing something)

Child Standing

SUNNY SATURDAY AFTERNOON

6 JUNE 2006

Adult Sitting

Child Playing

Child Sitting

25

50

75m

27

Catalog of Shared Open

Spaces
The examples illustrated in this catalog represent several
critical Danish projects that include shared open spaces
located in Copenhagen and its suburbs.

Nyboder
Copenhagen
1631 (extended in 18th century)
Nyboder was an extension of Copenhagen executed by King Christian IV. The dwellings were
built for the Royal Navy and originally included
shared open spaces between the buildings. Today,
these spaces have been converted into private
backyards. The diagram to the right shows what
Nyboder might look like today if the shared open
spaces had remained.

Brumleby
Copenhagen
1853
Brumleby was a new type of dwelling area built
outside Copenhagens city walls in response to the
citys cholera epidemic. Shared open spaces between the buildings provide for both recreational
activities as well as access to sunlight and fresh air.

See page 16 for further details.

28

The Classen Project

Frederiksberg
1866
The Classen Project, inspired by Brumleby,
included many shared paths and open areas
between buildings. It was one of the rst Danish
projects to address Copenhagens mid-19th century demand for suitable working class housing.
The buildings were gradually demolished during
the 20th century.

Kartoffelrkkerne
Copenhagen
187389
The Potato Rows were built by an organized association of working class people for themselves.
Because the development was more market-oriented than Brumleby and the Classen Project,
there was no provision for shared open space.
However, during the second half of the 20th
century, the residents converted several parking
spaces in the middle of each street into a shared
outdoor space featuring trees, picnic tables and
grills.

City Blocks
Copenhagen
early 1900s
Many city blocks were retrotted in order to create shared open spaces, provide better daylighting
to apartments and remove industrial buildings
from the middle of the blocks. As industries
moved their operations from the city into the
suburbs and countryside, their inner block buildings could be demolished and replaced with open
space.

29

Hornbkhus
Copenhagen
192223
Designed by prominent architect Kay Fisker,
Hornbkhus is a classic example of a new trend
in the 1920s and 1930s to build landscaped areas
inside city blocks, rather than building additional
buildings in the courtyards. The open space
provided both a recreational amenity and better
daylighting to units.

Solgrden
Copenhagen
1930
Solgrden is a typical example of the new trend
to incorporate shared open spaces inside urban
blocks.

Sndergrdsparken
Gladsaxe
194950
Sndergrdsparken is a large neighborhood of
traditional Danish dwellings organized around
a network of shared open spaces. A series of
narrower shared areas link to one larger shared
open space.

30

Albertslund Syd
Albertslund
196368
Albertslund was one of the rst mid-century
housing projects to work within the constraints of
the prefabrication techniques used for high-rise
construction but congured in a high-density,
low-rise arrangement. Shared open spaces gure
prominently in the strategy and are used as an
organizing device for single-story, L-shaped
courtyard dwelling units.

Galgebakken
Albertslund
1972
Galgebakken improved upon the concepts
developed at Albertslund Syd. A sophisticated
network of 3 uniquely scaled types of shared open
spaces organizes the dwelling units in this highdensity, low-rise project. The transitions between
private indoor spaces, private outdoor spaces and
shared spaces are especially successful.
See page 20 for further details.

Solbjerg Have
Copenhagen
197780
Solbjerg Have arranges dwelling units, a kindergarten and elderly center around pedestrian-only
shared open spaces. Playgrounds and sitting areas
are provided at various points along the street
and its edges are dened by private terraces and
balconies.

31

Tinggrden 1 & 2
Herflge
197178; 197884
The projects at Tinggrden were a continuation
and advancement of ideas explored at the beginning of the dense-low movement. At Tinggrden,
the architects, Vandkunsten, worked very closely
with the future residents to create spaces and
buildings that reect an unusual degree of userparticipation while maintaining the architects
creativity. The architectural language drew from
vernacular Danish forms and materials.

Trudeslund
Birkerd
1981
Also designed by Vandkunsten, Trudeslund is
a co-housing community of attached dwellings
arranged around an L-shaped shared open space.
Private outdoor balconies and terraces line the
shared pedestrian way as well as the rear side of
the homes. A common building with kitchen and
laundry facilities is in the center of the plan. This
arrangement can be found in many of the 1970s
and 80s co-housing projects.
See page 24 for further details.

Jystrup Savvrk
Jystrup
198384
At Jystrup Savvrk, Vandkunsten transformed
the shared outdoor space into a covered, climatecontrolled space. It functions similarly as do the
shared pedestrian streets in their other projects,
but can be used throughout the year and in
inclement weather.

32

Sibeliusparken
Rdovre
1986, 1994
Sibeliusparken organizes attached dwellings for
low-income families along shared open spaces.
Small private yards and balconies line the spaces,
which have a pedestrian street-like character.
These soft edges contribute to enhancing eyes on
the street and have helped to reduce crime in this
community.

Dianas Have
Hrsholm
1991-92
Dianas Have maintains its sites former natural
setting by delicately positioning the buildings
within a shared open space. Narrower spaces
between the buildings connect the automobile
driveway with the front entrances of the dwellings.

33

Design Principles
The principles illustrated below describe several strategies employed by many of the most successful shared open
spaces. While it is unlikely that a single space would incorporate all of these principles, most of the spaces studied in
this report include most of these strategies.

Denition:

Dene shared
open space by the dwellings
it serves.
Proximity of homes and shared open space can
encourage use, increase interaction between
residents and build a sense of ownership and
responsibility.

Boundaries:

Provide clear
demarcations between public
space, shared open space
and private space.
Shared spaces are separated from public space
and streets by architectural elements that clearly
distinguish a threshold such as archways, steps
and gates. Shared spaces are separated from
indoor dwelling areas by soft edges, private
outdoor areas such as terraces, stoops, porches
and small yards.

34

Threshold

Soft Edge

Scale:

Design and
dimension the space for
human activity.
Unlike grand public squares or auto-oriented
streets, shared open spaces can be places that are
intimately scaled for human experience. The perceived size and proportions of the space should
relate to the activities within.

Connections:

Provide a
line of sight between dwelling
units and shared open space.
A clear line of site between private areas and
the shared open space provides an opportunity
for adults and children to see each other and increases safety. Because parents can safely monitor
their children from indoors, they are also more
likely to allow them to play in the space.

Flexibility:

Create opportunities for customization and

personalization.
By allowing residents the freedom to customize their environment (for example, choosing
paint colors, landscaping outdoor areas, etc.), an
increased sense of pride and responsibility can be
achieved among residents.

35

Accountability:

Allow for
both shared use and shared
responsibility.
A sense of ownership can be encouraged by
requiring the residents themselves to construct
and/or maintain the shared open space.

Activity:

Encourage
necessary outdoor activities
by grouping shared amenities
together.
If automobile parking, bicycle parking, rubbish receptacles and other functional needs are grouped
together rather than provided for separately at
each dwelling unit, residents will be required to
move through the shared open spaces, thereby
activating them.

36

Typical Development

Shared Open Space

37

3: Concepts

Three Proposals Using

Shared Open Space
38

Design Concepts
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 1960s. But
as American metropolitan areas embrace the principles of
smart growth, cities and counties are seeking strategies that
increase dwelling densities in existing communities without damaging existing architectural character and property
valuesan especially dicult task. American developers,
planners and architects need to explore new models for living within this context. In cities such as Portland, Palo Alto
and Los Angeles, zoning revisions and design competitions
have been used as tools to develop new typologies for inlling 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 buildings. Developers desire to accommodate the automobile at
the expense of the human experience and their unwillingness 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.
The following three proposals are concepts for new development in existing neighborhoods. Each builds on the lessons
learned from the Danish tradition of shared open space and
seeks to re-appropriate it for the contemporary American
context.

39

Three in One
As cities and their inner suburbs densify many municipalities (including Portland, Oregon and Palo Alto, California)
are rewriting their zoning ordinances to allow for higherdensity, context-sensitive development in neighborhoods
that were originally rst-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. The challenge is to nd a way to
introduce higher density residential projects on single-family
lots while simultaneously respecting the context and character 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, rst and second ring suburbs can vary
between 1520m (5075) wide by 3045m (100150) in
length, allowing for three basic congurations, illustrated on
the following pages.
Providing on-site parking creates a particularly dicult
challenge. In the unlikely case that a municipality allows
the parking provision to be fullled on street, more site area
can 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 adjacent open spaces such as the street, shared open space and
adjacent lots.
40

From a market perspective, it is important for these inll

projects to respond to their context, in order to mitigate the
concerns of existing residents and the potential for drops
in 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 inll projects have failed
because they have essentially packed the contents of a higher
density, inll building typology into the clothes of a traditional single family detached homesymbolizing home,
but failing to provide quality craftsmanship and well-designed outdoor space.
Proposals for this type of inll development will require
adjustments to existing zoning ordinances in order to allow
for higher densities and smaller setbacks. The proposals
illustrated here, supplemented by additional studies, could
be used to help identify appropriate setbacks, minimum
dimensions between buildings, drive lane dimensions and
additional parameters for this type of development. Adjusting existing zoning and development standards is the rst
step in encouraging this type of development.

41

Double-Loaded

Dwellings are organized

around a central, linear
shared open space.
Four 1600 sf dwellings face a shared open space
which can also be used to provide auto access to
the units. By eliminating curb-cuts and integrating auto access, pedestrian access and play areas
into one unied space, quality outdoor space can
be provided in this narrow plan. If automobile
accommodation is required, a minimum lot width
of 75 is needed to provide sucient dimensions
for turning radii and parking.

Single-Loaded

Dwellings are situated on one

side of a linear shared open
space.
Three 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 access
and pedestrian-oriented space. A minimum 50
wide lot is required. If two adjacent lots can be
acquired, this layout can be used on each lot to
create one larger shared open space (illustrated on
the previous page). In this case, auto access could
be provided on the rear side of the dwellings.

Split

A shared open space in the

middle of the site organizes
dwellings to either side.
Four 1000 sf dwelling units can be arranged
around a shared open space. The dwellings are
based on a traditional row-house model. Curbcuts are eliminated to integrate auto access and
pedestrian-oriented space. A minimum 50 wide
lot is required.

42

43

Eight Acre Shared-division

In many suburbs opportunities to inll small, in-between
sites that were not developed by larger development companies 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-proven, it is fairly in-ecient 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
ecient by clustering the buildings closer together. This
would also create more formal denition for the streets.
Shared driveways and rear alleys help to minimize the visual
impact of automobiles. However, because these types of inll
sites are so small, there is no opportunity for the mixed-use
buildings, public buildings parks. Without these elements, it
is dicult to create a comprehensive New Urbanist plan in
this context.
The shared open space alternative arranges the dwelling units around a series of spaces. This approach creates
uniquely human-scaled spaces and can actually enhance the
natural environment by encouraging more compact building
development, preserving more natural areas and reducing
impervious surfaces. The pedestrian access lanes create a human-scaled environment and an appropriate place for children to play. This 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.

44

Shared Open Space Subdivision

Shared Park Space

Auto Parking and Access
Lane

Pedestrian Street

Private Yards and Terraces

Conventional Subdivision

45

Conventional Suburban
Model
This conventional suburban development model
is based on an existing subdivision outside of
Baltimore, Maryland.
Dwellings: 20
Density: 2.5

New Urbanist Model

A reinterpretation of the existing development model based on New Urbanist principles
can achieve a higher density and improved
streetscape.
Dwellings: 30
Density: 3.75 units/acre

Shared Open Space

Model
The shared open space approach to conventional
suburban development achieves higher density
and drastically reduces the amount of impervious
surfaces on the site. A radically dierent, humanoriented streetscape is also created.
Dwellings: 30
Density: 3.75 units/acre

46

47

Backyard Retrot
In the United States, suburban homes are growing larger and
lot sizes smaller. Smart Growth principlesfavoring denser
developmentand developers desire to maximize prots are
responsible for this trend. In many communities, frontyards
and backyards are so small that they are almost unusable for
many activities and fulll only a symbolic role. By consolidating a portion of each backyard on a block, a larger, more
useful space can be created for residents while still maintaining private backyard terraces, gardens and decks.
Additionally, the shared open spaces can contain bioswales
for excess stormwater runo, wind-generated power devices
and other sustainable features, providing strategies for
transforming suburban neighborhoods into more environmentallyfriendly communities. In this sense, this concept
could not only generate a forum for community lifeso
desperately needed in many suburban neighborhoodsbut
also serve as a strategy for transforming existing subdivisions
into environmentally sustainable communities.

48

Wind Turbines for Local

Power

Shared Park Space

Wind Turbines for Local

Power
Pedestrian Street

49

Conventional Suburban
Backyards
Private backyards are
typically dened by a high
fence and contain a small
patio and lawn.

Shrinking backyards in contemporary suburban

developments are sometimes as small as 15 ft by
10 ft. These yards provide very little space for
recreational activities and children to play.

Terrace and Shared

Open Space Strategy

A private patio opens onto a

shared park.
A private patio can be dened by fences and
hedges, therby providing the same level of privacy
typical of conventional backyards. By combining
the reamining backyard areas together, a larger
and more functional space is created.

50

51

52

Bibliography
Brill, Michael. Problems with Mistaking Community Life
for Public Life. Places 14.2 (2001): 50.

Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press, 2003.

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

The University of Chicago Press, 2005.

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

Danish Architectural Press, 2000.

Cooper Marcus, Clare. Shared Outdoor Space and Community Life. Places 15.2 (2003): 34.

Hajer, Maarten and Arnold Reijndorp. In Search of New

Public Domain: Analysis and Strategy. Rotterdam: NAI
Publishers, 2001.

Cooper Marcus, Clare. Shared Outdoor Spaces. Lecture

presented at Center for Public Space Research Lecture
Series. The Center for Public Space Research. The Royal
Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture, Copenhagen.
7 October 2005.
Crawford, Margaret. The World in a Shopping Mall. in
Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the
End of Public Space, ed. Michael Sorkin, 12353. New York:
Hill and Wang, 1992.
Dunham-Jones, Ellen, ed. Retrotting Suburbia. Places 17.2
(2005): 867.
Dunham-Jones, Ellen. Seventy-ve Percent: The Next Big
Architectural Project. in Sprawl and Suburbia, ed. William
S. Saunders, 13. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 2005.
Easterling, Keller. Organization Space: Landscapes, Highways,
and Houses in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
Kriger, Alex. The Costsand Benets?of Sprawl in
Sprawl and Suburbia, ed. William S. Saunders, 4449. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.

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: The
Future of Housing, Work, and Family Life. New York: W. W.
Norton and Company, 1984.
Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization
of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press,
1985.
Kim, Julie. Incremental Urbanism: The Auto and Pedestrian Reconsidered in Greyeld ReclamationAtlanta,
Georgia. Places 16.3 (2002): 1821.
Koolhaas, Rem. Junk Space in Harvard Design School
Guide to Shopping, ed. Rem Koolhaas, 408421. New York:
Taschen, 2003.
Lerup, Lars. After the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2000.

53

Loand, Lyn H. The Public Realm: Exploring the Citys Quintessential Social Territory. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc.,
1998.
McCamant, Kathryn, Charles R. Durrett and Ellen Hertzman. Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing
Ourselves. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, 1993.
Monderman, Hans. Shared Space. Lecture presented at
Center for Public Space Research Lecture Series. The Center
for Public Space Research. The Royal Academy of Fine Arts
School of Architecture, Copenhagen. 5 January 2006.
Soja, Edward. Regionalization and the Regional City. Lecture presented at The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts
School of Architecture, Copenhagen. 30 September 2005.
Orum-Nielsen, Jorn. Dwelling: At Home, In Community, On
Earth. Copenhagen: The 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 and
Community Life. Places 15.3 (2003): 7780.
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.

54

Vernez Moudon, Anne. The Subdivision of the Single-Family House in the United States. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning
Nr. 3 (1995): 59-78.

Illustration Credits
Photographs

From Jorn Orum-Nielsen, Dwelling: At Home, In Community, On Earth. (Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press, 1996), 143. Frederiksberg Library
(page 28 middle
From Jorn Orum-Nielsen, Dwelling: At Home, In Community, On Earth.
(Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press, 1996), 122. Copenhagens City
Museum (page 29 top)
From http://193.89.24.223/arkfo/kanon/top12stat.aspx (page 30 bottom)
Lars Gemze (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.

55