That's another once-common housing form that we've since made illegal for dubious reasons, and from a broad lifecycle/life-stages view, it's potentially complementary to courtyard housing.
yes, that makes sense architecturally, although I'm not sure if it does financially? I think these buildings are extremely expensive to maintain and operate. Not sure they work financially as SROs.
I'm struggling to understand the feasibility of this model - are you suggesting razing whole city blocks to rebuild in a perimeter building/courtyard fashion? Or acquiring a block of single-family homes and plopping down a mixed-use courtyard neighborhood? Or developing in greenfield locations? I'm just not seeing where it's possible, especially in established cities with CBDs.
And I don't think building conversions should be completely dismissed! Cleveland, where I practice, is a great example of many successful conversions downtown. We even have a recent example where they cut in a lightwell through the whole building (May Building). I could see courtyard blocks being established in our first-ring suburbs, perhaps, where there is a lot of SFH vacancy - and they are cheap enough to buy up and demolish (our Land Bank is already doing this).
You don't really address what should become of a metro's CBD and the high-rises...just that we should abandon that model and there is no hope for them. Courtyard urbanism is an ideal model that is feasible in a vacuum, but I'm not seeing 1. where they can physically be built in our current urban fabric, or 2. what to do with our current buildings and infrastructure that can't be converted and would be a considerable undertaking to fully demolish.
Sorry for length and hope it's not taken as criticism, just wanting to understand the model's feasibility better - I'm sure is a lot I'm missing that you've written about!
One key clarification is that courtyard urbanism is fundamentally an incremental infill model that works at the scale of small parcels (typically 40–60 feet wide). In practice, that means you’re not assembling and razing entire blocks. You’re seeing gradual redevelopment: a single parcel here, two adjacent lots there, maybe a quarter-block or half-block over time. Full perimeter blocks do happen, but they’re usually the end state of many smaller projects accumulating, not the starting point. That’s how these environments were built historically, and it’s the most realistic way they can re-emerge in a U.S. context.
On your point about feasibility in established CBDs. Very few CBDs are full. Most CBDs (including Cleveland!) have acres and acres of parking lots that could be fruitfully developed as courtyard blocks.
If you pair that kind of infill with the conversion work you’re describing (like the May Company Building) you get a much more plausible path forward: conversions stabilize existing buildings, while perimeter-block infill gradually fills in the gaps and introduces a more residential, neighborhood-oriented fabric.
I also agree with you that conversions shouldn’t be dismissed. But they tend to be building-by-building solutions with structural constraints, whereas courtyard blocks are a way of producing new housing at scale in a repeatable form.
Your instinct about first-ring suburbs is also right on target. Areas with vacancy, land bank activity, and lower acquisition costs are some of the most realistic places to see more complete versions of this model emerge earlier. That’s where you might see larger assemblies or even full-block redevelopment happen sooner.
And to your final concern: what about buildings that can’t be converted? In some cases, yes, selective demolition may end up being the more sustainable long-term option, especially where structures are deeply obsolete and the land could support far more housing and activity. But that’s a slow, case-by-case process, not a sweeping mandate.
So, the bigger picture isn’t “tear down and rebuild the city.” It’s: incremental infill on small parcels, larger moves where land is already underutilized (like parking lots), continued use of conversions where they work, and gradual evolution of both downtowns and suburbs over time.
Another great piece! I think it's okay to just convert the office buildings that we can and try to work with/around the rest, while focusing on building courtyard blocks as our future. I'm curious about your opinion on skywalks, especially in very cold and very hot climates. Are there any examples of those in being built in courtyard blocks?
Really interesting to read about the courtyard block from the American perspective. I'm American but live in Sweden, and courtyard apartment buildings (usually 4-6 stories high) are the prototypical type of apartment in cities here. One thing that you didn't mention that's really great about them is as a safe play space for children. Nearly all here have a small playground and grassy area, and are fairly enclosed (e.g. away from the urban nightmare of cars), so kids living in apartments can still have the "go out and play with your friends" experience that children living in houses on suburban cul-de-sacs can have.
Meanwhile in manhattan they can’t build high rise office towers fast enough to keep up with demand. Suspect declaring the end of them may be a triffle premature…
That’s true, new trophy towers are doing well in Manhattan and in London, but these are exceptional hyperhubs.
And even in Manhattan the pattern is that older or weaker-located Class B/C towers have leasehold complications, high vacancy, looming maturities, and post-2020 rent/occupancy reset.
Trophy and newly renovated Class A buildings are doing much better, though even some high-quality towers need fresh equity to refinance.
what's crazy is that if you have rules that simply require that buildings be beautiful, and within a certain height range, rather than ugly as sin, below a certain heigh range, and fulfilling only a narrow use case you naturally end up with people living and working near things because everywhere would be worth living near and there'd obvious natural demand to live near work because you have to go there all the time.
we invented the need to re-invent "regular neighborhoods" which is how everyone lived for centuries the same way we created the need to invent "farm to table" despite food always being farm to table except for the last ~80 years.
Too many rules is what led to suburban sprawl in the first place. The first thing to do is remove all the regulations that make mixed use illegal or impractical.
There's a good argument that the right type of housing to build in a deep-floor-plate office tower conversion is the SRO: https://www.therebuild.pub/p/rebuilding-the-bottom-rung
That's another once-common housing form that we've since made illegal for dubious reasons, and from a broad lifecycle/life-stages view, it's potentially complementary to courtyard housing.
yes, that makes sense architecturally, although I'm not sure if it does financially? I think these buildings are extremely expensive to maintain and operate. Not sure they work financially as SROs.
I'm struggling to understand the feasibility of this model - are you suggesting razing whole city blocks to rebuild in a perimeter building/courtyard fashion? Or acquiring a block of single-family homes and plopping down a mixed-use courtyard neighborhood? Or developing in greenfield locations? I'm just not seeing where it's possible, especially in established cities with CBDs.
And I don't think building conversions should be completely dismissed! Cleveland, where I practice, is a great example of many successful conversions downtown. We even have a recent example where they cut in a lightwell through the whole building (May Building). I could see courtyard blocks being established in our first-ring suburbs, perhaps, where there is a lot of SFH vacancy - and they are cheap enough to buy up and demolish (our Land Bank is already doing this).
https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/cleveland-ohio-rental-market-19864f0c
https://propmodo.com/playbook/clevelands-office-conversion-boom-is-no-longer-an-experiment-its-the-blueprint/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-cleveland-cracked-code-office-conversion-projects-nick-pipitone-hkwpe
You don't really address what should become of a metro's CBD and the high-rises...just that we should abandon that model and there is no hope for them. Courtyard urbanism is an ideal model that is feasible in a vacuum, but I'm not seeing 1. where they can physically be built in our current urban fabric, or 2. what to do with our current buildings and infrastructure that can't be converted and would be a considerable undertaking to fully demolish.
Sorry for length and hope it's not taken as criticism, just wanting to understand the model's feasibility better - I'm sure is a lot I'm missing that you've written about!
This is a great question.
One key clarification is that courtyard urbanism is fundamentally an incremental infill model that works at the scale of small parcels (typically 40–60 feet wide). In practice, that means you’re not assembling and razing entire blocks. You’re seeing gradual redevelopment: a single parcel here, two adjacent lots there, maybe a quarter-block or half-block over time. Full perimeter blocks do happen, but they’re usually the end state of many smaller projects accumulating, not the starting point. That’s how these environments were built historically, and it’s the most realistic way they can re-emerge in a U.S. context.
On your point about feasibility in established CBDs. Very few CBDs are full. Most CBDs (including Cleveland!) have acres and acres of parking lots that could be fruitfully developed as courtyard blocks.
If you pair that kind of infill with the conversion work you’re describing (like the May Company Building) you get a much more plausible path forward: conversions stabilize existing buildings, while perimeter-block infill gradually fills in the gaps and introduces a more residential, neighborhood-oriented fabric.
I also agree with you that conversions shouldn’t be dismissed. But they tend to be building-by-building solutions with structural constraints, whereas courtyard blocks are a way of producing new housing at scale in a repeatable form.
Your instinct about first-ring suburbs is also right on target. Areas with vacancy, land bank activity, and lower acquisition costs are some of the most realistic places to see more complete versions of this model emerge earlier. That’s where you might see larger assemblies or even full-block redevelopment happen sooner.
And to your final concern: what about buildings that can’t be converted? In some cases, yes, selective demolition may end up being the more sustainable long-term option, especially where structures are deeply obsolete and the land could support far more housing and activity. But that’s a slow, case-by-case process, not a sweeping mandate.
So, the bigger picture isn’t “tear down and rebuild the city.” It’s: incremental infill on small parcels, larger moves where land is already underutilized (like parking lots), continued use of conversions where they work, and gradual evolution of both downtowns and suburbs over time.
Another great piece! I think it's okay to just convert the office buildings that we can and try to work with/around the rest, while focusing on building courtyard blocks as our future. I'm curious about your opinion on skywalks, especially in very cold and very hot climates. Are there any examples of those in being built in courtyard blocks?
oh thanks!!
I have seen little pedestrian bridges in Italy, but I'm not sure about skywalks like they have in Minneapolis. Is that what you are thinking of?
I agree that residential conversion is good -- but we should accept it's not going to be a total fix!
Really interesting to read about the courtyard block from the American perspective. I'm American but live in Sweden, and courtyard apartment buildings (usually 4-6 stories high) are the prototypical type of apartment in cities here. One thing that you didn't mention that's really great about them is as a safe play space for children. Nearly all here have a small playground and grassy area, and are fairly enclosed (e.g. away from the urban nightmare of cars), so kids living in apartments can still have the "go out and play with your friends" experience that children living in houses on suburban cul-de-sacs can have.
Thank you for this comment …the play areas are wonderful, I agree! I will have to do a special piece on their role in this story
Appreciate your work!
Thank you so much!
Meanwhile in manhattan they can’t build high rise office towers fast enough to keep up with demand. Suspect declaring the end of them may be a triffle premature…
They are building mixed use. They have residential.
Josh is right - most of the largest, tallest high-rise towers in NYC are 100% commercial. Which ones are you referring to?
All these recently completed or under-construction towers are commercial-only with no residential:
- JPMorgan Chase (270 Park Ave)
- One Vanderbilt
- 2 World Trade Center
- 740 8th Ave (non-office - only hotel and entertainment)
- 175 Park Ave (office with hotel)
- 350 Park Ave (office)
That’s true, new trophy towers are doing well in Manhattan and in London, but these are exceptional hyperhubs.
And even in Manhattan the pattern is that older or weaker-located Class B/C towers have leasehold complications, high vacancy, looming maturities, and post-2020 rent/occupancy reset.
Trophy and newly renovated Class A buildings are doing much better, though even some high-quality towers need fresh equity to refinance.
Example, one NY plaza, but there are many
https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2026/01/05/brookfields-one-new-york-plaza-hits-special-servicing/
what's crazy is that if you have rules that simply require that buildings be beautiful, and within a certain height range, rather than ugly as sin, below a certain heigh range, and fulfilling only a narrow use case you naturally end up with people living and working near things because everywhere would be worth living near and there'd obvious natural demand to live near work because you have to go there all the time.
we invented the need to re-invent "regular neighborhoods" which is how everyone lived for centuries the same way we created the need to invent "farm to table" despite food always being farm to table except for the last ~80 years.
Too many rules is what led to suburban sprawl in the first place. The first thing to do is remove all the regulations that make mixed use illegal or impractical.
Our corporate overlords won’t allow this. They want you to commute for hours and they want you to suffer.