This post will begin to outline a research trajectory I am currently exploring, and hope to develop much further in the coming year. It takes the residential subdivision as a key point of intervention in the American metropolis, and seeks opportunities to introduce new forms of creativity, adaptability, and resilience into this ubiquitous form of (sub)urban development. Looking both to the rich history of innovation and experimentation in the history of housing development, as well as to emerging mapping, modeling, and simulation tools, this research will explore the possibility of reclaiming the innate flexibility and adaptability of the stud frame house and subdivision development as a path towards revitalizing the American residential landscape in the face of ongoing transformations of the city.
In the 1920’s, the Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA), spearheaded by Clarence Stein, Benton MacKaye, Lewis Mumford, Alexander Bing, and Henry Wright, forwarded a series of demonstration projects for a new kind of residential development. These now famous prototype developments, including Sunnyside Gardens, Queens (1924) and Rayburn, New Jersey (1928), offered alternative spatial configurations from the 19th century gridded neighborhood. These projects sought to forge more explicit relationships between the various elements and networks of the modern city, and introduced a host of new spatial products to the American residential development: neighborhood units, superblocks, cul de sac, and greenbelts. These elements were understood within a set of “interlocking functions” that governed and negotiated relationships across the various scales of the growing city, linking individual houses to pedestrian and vehicular networks, schools, green areas, and local and regional infrastructure (Keller Easterling, Organizational Space, 1999). These plans, building on Ebenzeer Howard’s diagrammatic language for urban planning, envisioned a dynamic and adaptive kind of residential development, responding to the specific, measurable condition of the site. Neighborhood plats were laid out in response to the topography of the site, organized in relation to walkable distance radii to schools and greenbelts, with elements like the cul de sacs conceived as an interface between extensive pedestrian and vehicular networks, rather than insulating dead-ends.
The ambitions of these projects was to institute what Keller Easterling calls a “subdivision science”, establishing spatial protocols, development strategies, and zoning frameworks that allow for a rational program of site specific residential development. And while both of these neighborhoods stand as a point of reference for innovative residential spatial organization, the also serve as a cautionary tale for the economic capture of spatial products. The rationalization of these systems set us down a forked path: on the one hand, this rationalization allows far more flexibility, variability, specificity, and ultimately marketability; on the other hand, it was precisely these terms which opened the residential landscape up wholesale capture by market forces which would ultimately shape it in response to abstract economic imperatives rather than the physical, material, experiential textures of the site.
This begs a tricky question: to what extent does flexibility and rationalization of urban plans open up opportunities for creativity and adaptability, and to what extend do they simply allow for further penetration of these forces, and a general realignment of the urban fabric from performance to profitability? Or perhaps, more to the point, what kinds of flexibility and rationalization of the urban plan are productive in unlocking creative development? In trying to conceive of new models for “soft planning” in the American residential landscape in the aftermath of the 2008 collapse, boom/bust dynamic of the housing market, and the persistent inequalities in the American city, how do we position and organized this “softness” to ensure that it strikes the balance between profit and performance, creativity and scalability, variability and cohesion? Clearly this is a complex problem, requiring a working understanding of the web of physical, social, and environmental, financial, regulatory conditions, the politics of NIMBYism, gentrification, and so on.
This project will attempt to revitalize the diagrammatic approach of the RPAA plans and Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City, drawing on the history of housing development over the past century, as well as emerging computational tools and urban data. The goal will be to develop platforms for generating and evaluating site specific, adaptable urban plans for new and existing residential areas. This project rejects comprehensively recent calls to eliminate urban planning codes to be replaced by a “hegeomonic parametricism.” Rather, this projects seeks to explore the ways these codes and institutions can be augmented through the use of computational tools, building on the intelligence embedded within these systems while attempting to overcome unnecessary rigidity or friction and strike the delicate the balance between structure and freedom in any organizing system.
A key part of this research includes an investigation of four neighborhoods, representing the full arc in the evolution of the subdivision neighborhood over the past 100 years, all in or around New York:
- Rayburn, New Jersey (1928) – pre-industrialized subdivision
- Levittown, New York (1947) – early industrialized subdivision
- 1980’s Subdivision TBD – mature industrialized subdivision
- Pre-2008 Subdvision TBD – speculative subdivision
Places Journal and The Atlantic’s Citylab publications, among many others, provide rich sources for the ongoing debates and analysis of the current state and deep history of the American residential landscape. I will try to aggregate relevant articles on this topic below:
Housing Construction Links
Detroit Recover + Housing Links:
NIMBYism + Gentrification
Economics of the American housing crisis: