Alicia, something I’ve been wondering is if courtyard blocks work at a lower density level I.e. 2-3 stories? In theory I imagine it would be quite easy to use the American rowhome and just eliminate the setbacks and create the courtyard. But with that would come the long and skinny floor plan that you promote against. My question then is does it make sense/how would it work to have the wide and shallow courtyard blocks but at 2-3 floors instead of 6ish? I’m thinking for further outside of a city center so people could get more of a “quieter” feel but still enjoy the courtyard block style or near suburban downtowns. Thanks!
Sure! They absolutely do, and that’s basically how a lot of the row house blocks in London and NYC are.
The benefits are that owners get fee simple legal status, where they own the building and the land. And—for many—the lower density is a benefit.
The cons (for others) are that you don’t have the density to support mixed-use, walkable neighborhood with natural affordability (like Paris and Berlin). That comes through stacking apartments of different sizes above commercial ground floor.
But the rowhouse perimeter blocks can be a great alternative to suburban detached SFH. You get higher densities as well as the protected courtyard effect in the block interior.
Thank you for the response! I think suburban downtowns in the US could be great walkable havens and have been wondering if infill projects with courtyard row home blocks would work. Thanks again!
GREAT question. I love Haussmann, and I post about the buildings all the time on twitter.
But the courtyards are so small!
The advantage is that central Paris has fantastic density levels while still providing residents homes that "live like a house," with a front and a back, and a single stair experience.
Drawback is that there's not a lot of green space.
Every urban area needs to strike the balance between density and green space that makes sense in that context. I would recommend somewhat larger courtyards for neighborhoods that want to prioritize retaining families. Smaller courtyards for very central, core areas.
I know this because a friend of mine lives in one of the units in that building, and I've been to parties she has thrown in that inner courtyard, and it is awesome. Might be interesting to research how that block came to be the way it did and whether there are any more like it in SF.
That block is an interesting case, if you look at it, it resembles a lot of the New York City blocks where there are narrow and long buildings built wall wall to frame a block. These are very nice, and I wish we had more of them, and they are far better than all blocks because they provide that nice residential green space in the block interior.
However! If you compare the San Francisco block with a block in Prague, you will notice how different they are, and the main reason is that the classic European Courtyard block is made up of buildings that are wide and shallow rather than narrow and deep.
The wide and shallow building does all sorts of things that are extremely important for the quality of life of residence. For starters, it means there’s more room in the interior of a block for green space. Floor area is made up by going up taller, typically 5 to 6 stories.
But it also means that the units are so much better because the window wall is on the wide side of the rectangle instead of on the short side. And this is how you get those amazing interior rooms that you see in Haussmann apartments or in Prague apartments with very wide rooms overlooking the front street or the back courtyard with these amazing long window walls. The lighting in ventilation in these wide and shallow buildings is so much better by design.
This is such a helpful article! A nagging concern I have is that smaller, more affordable buildings like this can’t support people with disabilities. Are there more modern examples of buildings in this style with elevators that can accommodate wheelchairs? Are ADA requirements a major barrier to these design reforms?
No worries! These are absolutely disability/ADA friendly. Many of the older buildings have been retrofitted with elevators. And new buildings almost always have elevators.
Of course, elevators add cost. A big problem for this scale housing in North America is that elevators are much more expensive (because they’re bigger and have to be manufactured in ways to benefit unions rather than consumer).
But elevators can add accessibility. Also, there’s potential for some ground floor ADA accessible units.
Fantastic article. It encapsulates perfectly the issues with monozone urban planning, as opposed to the developed forms of urban systems in the Old World. Everything, from lifestyle, through to architecture, social aspect, urban efficiency and even conveniences of urban living are all encapsulated in the courtyard design, which I noticed is wholly absent from new developments.
In order to make the transition however, it will have to be pioneered by one brave developer, who can put money down for a traditional development and turn a profit on it, to show others what actually sells, as opposed to the same old megablock monstrosities. I bet it would sell better than the new style housing too, but that’s just my hunch.
What would be the mechanism(s) in the US for getting private developers to build around a shared and protected green space? I’m thinking there are both private and public sector approaches.
Yes, a private mechanism would be finding a developer to act as site developer: acquires the land, subdivides it into the appropriately sized parcels (WIDER than standard American parcel—should be at least 50’-60’ wide).
Site developer can entitle the parcels so that there are no side or front setbacks—this will ensure the wide but shallow buildings that, when placed wall to wall, form the perimeter.
Site developer then sells the parcels to local small developers, maybe with pre-approved building plans, and lets them build out the block incrementally.
A public mechanism is having the city zoning dept create a zoning overlay and pre-approved building templates that effectively does the same thing.
Thanks for responding! So it would require large-sized land acquisition, which most 5-over-1 development types already do. It would be cool to see a comparative financial analysis of a texas donut vs. courtyard development proposal.
I guess cities already have subdivision regulations for cottage courts, but they don’t seem to get used that much. I wonder if courtyard apartment regulations would be more appealing.
I'm wondering if you have distilled the Chicago Zoning and Building codes to see what needs to be tweaked to allow this. Local YIMBY groups and Strong Towns might be interested in advocacy for it!
Yes, I am a member of both abundance, Illinois and strong towns Chicago and am working with them to push for single stair and reduced parking minimums, which will be particularly helpful in bringing this building type to Chicago.
Because this requires close collaboration between many different developers, each building their own building with no front setbacks with a wide but shallow building envelope with party walls, I believe this would require a form-based code for the court-yard block, instead of traditional zoning type code.
Even if all the building code restrictions are removed, one developer building with the wrong dimensions (with front and/or side setbacks) would prevent the creation of a true courtyard block.
Sorry, and excuse the awkward comments as I get used to using this platform.
A form based code would be ideal, especially if you are doing a whole block. But I think that this building would be valuable, even as an incremental development.
I don’t think I’m able to post pictures here, but on my Chicago Block there are 26 flags that are wall to wall not exactly even. And then there is a separation between them and a two flat. There is actually a lot of variation in the setbacks already.
I will go into more depth about this in a later post, but I think that there is value even in the wide and shallow mixed-use, mixed-income building that makes up the courtyard block. Even if it is not at first part of a complete perimeter wall.
I am working now on a pro forma for a development on a site that is zoned B3, which is ideal because we actually don’t need any variances for setbacks to do the wide and shallow mixed-use four story building.
Initially, I think this is a matter of introducing the wide and shallow mixed-use multifamily building type to the market and encouraging people to build them wall-to-wall
Thanks for the reply! Austin, TX has been hard at work to break down the barriers that would allow this wide but shallow 4-story single stair building. We already did single stair reform, got rid of parking minimums all together and setbacks have been reduced on the fronts and sides. I think there is still some work to be done but we’re getting there.
lol I have spoken with an extremely intense lawyer in Austin who understands the situation thoroughly and will probably get stone versions of these built there before I get them built here in Chicago
Alicia, something I’ve been wondering is if courtyard blocks work at a lower density level I.e. 2-3 stories? In theory I imagine it would be quite easy to use the American rowhome and just eliminate the setbacks and create the courtyard. But with that would come the long and skinny floor plan that you promote against. My question then is does it make sense/how would it work to have the wide and shallow courtyard blocks but at 2-3 floors instead of 6ish? I’m thinking for further outside of a city center so people could get more of a “quieter” feel but still enjoy the courtyard block style or near suburban downtowns. Thanks!
Sure! They absolutely do, and that’s basically how a lot of the row house blocks in London and NYC are.
The benefits are that owners get fee simple legal status, where they own the building and the land. And—for many—the lower density is a benefit.
The cons (for others) are that you don’t have the density to support mixed-use, walkable neighborhood with natural affordability (like Paris and Berlin). That comes through stacking apartments of different sizes above commercial ground floor.
But the rowhouse perimeter blocks can be a great alternative to suburban detached SFH. You get higher densities as well as the protected courtyard effect in the block interior.
Thank you for the response! I think suburban downtowns in the US could be great walkable havens and have been wondering if infill projects with courtyard row home blocks would work. Thanks again!
How do the famed Haussmannian apartment buildings of Paris stack up on these measures?
GREAT question. I love Haussmann, and I post about the buildings all the time on twitter.
But the courtyards are so small!
The advantage is that central Paris has fantastic density levels while still providing residents homes that "live like a house," with a front and a back, and a single stair experience.
Drawback is that there's not a lot of green space.
Every urban area needs to strike the balance between density and green space that makes sense in that context. I would recommend somewhat larger courtyards for neighborhoods that want to prioritize retaining families. Smaller courtyards for very central, core areas.
Agreed. BTW there is at least one de facto courtyard block in San Francisco that seems pretty legit by your standards:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/120+Landers+St,+San+Francisco,+CA+94114/@37.7655558,-122.4293902,282m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x808f7e1ec6d4ca3d:0x840772032d28de95!8m2!3d37.7655516!4d-122.4281027!16s%2Fg%2F11c5nb5ml4?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
I know this because a friend of mine lives in one of the units in that building, and I've been to parties she has thrown in that inner courtyard, and it is awesome. Might be interesting to research how that block came to be the way it did and whether there are any more like it in SF.
That block is an interesting case, if you look at it, it resembles a lot of the New York City blocks where there are narrow and long buildings built wall wall to frame a block. These are very nice, and I wish we had more of them, and they are far better than all blocks because they provide that nice residential green space in the block interior.
However! If you compare the San Francisco block with a block in Prague, you will notice how different they are, and the main reason is that the classic European Courtyard block is made up of buildings that are wide and shallow rather than narrow and deep.
The wide and shallow building does all sorts of things that are extremely important for the quality of life of residence. For starters, it means there’s more room in the interior of a block for green space. Floor area is made up by going up taller, typically 5 to 6 stories.
But it also means that the units are so much better because the window wall is on the wide side of the rectangle instead of on the short side. And this is how you get those amazing interior rooms that you see in Haussmann apartments or in Prague apartments with very wide rooms overlooking the front street or the back courtyard with these amazing long window walls. The lighting in ventilation in these wide and shallow buildings is so much better by design.
This is such a helpful article! A nagging concern I have is that smaller, more affordable buildings like this can’t support people with disabilities. Are there more modern examples of buildings in this style with elevators that can accommodate wheelchairs? Are ADA requirements a major barrier to these design reforms?
No worries! These are absolutely disability/ADA friendly. Many of the older buildings have been retrofitted with elevators. And new buildings almost always have elevators.
Of course, elevators add cost. A big problem for this scale housing in North America is that elevators are much more expensive (because they’re bigger and have to be manufactured in ways to benefit unions rather than consumer).
But elevators can add accessibility. Also, there’s potential for some ground floor ADA accessible units.
Fantastic article. It encapsulates perfectly the issues with monozone urban planning, as opposed to the developed forms of urban systems in the Old World. Everything, from lifestyle, through to architecture, social aspect, urban efficiency and even conveniences of urban living are all encapsulated in the courtyard design, which I noticed is wholly absent from new developments.
In order to make the transition however, it will have to be pioneered by one brave developer, who can put money down for a traditional development and turn a profit on it, to show others what actually sells, as opposed to the same old megablock monstrosities. I bet it would sell better than the new style housing too, but that’s just my hunch.
Again, great article.
What would be the mechanism(s) in the US for getting private developers to build around a shared and protected green space? I’m thinking there are both private and public sector approaches.
Yes, a private mechanism would be finding a developer to act as site developer: acquires the land, subdivides it into the appropriately sized parcels (WIDER than standard American parcel—should be at least 50’-60’ wide).
Site developer can entitle the parcels so that there are no side or front setbacks—this will ensure the wide but shallow buildings that, when placed wall to wall, form the perimeter.
Site developer then sells the parcels to local small developers, maybe with pre-approved building plans, and lets them build out the block incrementally.
A public mechanism is having the city zoning dept create a zoning overlay and pre-approved building templates that effectively does the same thing.
Thanks for responding! So it would require large-sized land acquisition, which most 5-over-1 development types already do. It would be cool to see a comparative financial analysis of a texas donut vs. courtyard development proposal.
I guess cities already have subdivision regulations for cottage courts, but they don’t seem to get used that much. I wonder if courtyard apartment regulations would be more appealing.
I'm wondering if you have distilled the Chicago Zoning and Building codes to see what needs to be tweaked to allow this. Local YIMBY groups and Strong Towns might be interested in advocacy for it!
Yes, I am a member of both abundance, Illinois and strong towns Chicago and am working with them to push for single stair and reduced parking minimums, which will be particularly helpful in bringing this building type to Chicago.
Yeah, I have discussed at length with architects, planners, and developers about the code and market challenges to building these.
There are reforms such as single star and reduced parking minimums and some setback variances that make it easier. Nothing major though.
Because this requires close collaboration between many different developers, each building their own building with no front setbacks with a wide but shallow building envelope with party walls, I believe this would require a form-based code for the court-yard block, instead of traditional zoning type code.
Even if all the building code restrictions are removed, one developer building with the wrong dimensions (with front and/or side setbacks) would prevent the creation of a true courtyard block.
Sorry, and excuse the awkward comments as I get used to using this platform.
A form based code would be ideal, especially if you are doing a whole block. But I think that this building would be valuable, even as an incremental development.
I don’t think I’m able to post pictures here, but on my Chicago Block there are 26 flags that are wall to wall not exactly even. And then there is a separation between them and a two flat. There is actually a lot of variation in the setbacks already.
I will go into more depth about this in a later post, but I think that there is value even in the wide and shallow mixed-use, mixed-income building that makes up the courtyard block. Even if it is not at first part of a complete perimeter wall.
I am working now on a pro forma for a development on a site that is zoned B3, which is ideal because we actually don’t need any variances for setbacks to do the wide and shallow mixed-use four story building.
Initially, I think this is a matter of introducing the wide and shallow mixed-use multifamily building type to the market and encouraging people to build them wall-to-wall
Thanks for the reply! Austin, TX has been hard at work to break down the barriers that would allow this wide but shallow 4-story single stair building. We already did single stair reform, got rid of parking minimums all together and setbacks have been reduced on the fronts and sides. I think there is still some work to be done but we’re getting there.
lol I have spoken with an extremely intense lawyer in Austin who understands the situation thoroughly and will probably get stone versions of these built there before I get them built here in Chicago
(Structural stone another sustainability goal on the horizon)
I wonder beyond the courtyard block what other "repeated urban patterns" need to be figured out?
E.g.
How to create great versions of the following:
Courtyard blocks
Streets, lanes and boulevards
Squares
Civic buildings
Anything else? What are the fewest number of patterns one needs to get right to deliver a world-class human-centric city?