Description

“Yet, it is pure – as yet! – the crime has come /  Not o’er this threshold
yet – so slender is  /  The boundary that divideth life’s two paths.”
Friedrich Schiller, “The Death of Wallenstein” (trans. S. T. Coleridge)

“One night began like a thousand others. But beneath its stars the change
began. I dreamed of the threshold of a new life, and by morning I stood
before my destiny as a different person.” Willy Peter Reese, “A
Stranger to Myself” (trans. Michael Hoffmann)

Apartment buildings are complex arrangements of space. They consist of places to
spend time, places of transition and connection, with elaborately differentiated
forms of public, semipublic, and private areas. The fabric of the city
transitions into the fabric of the house, the “public” into the “private.”
Apartment buildings form a dense network of connections between apartment units,
access areas, and private and communal open spaces, and they communicate
different uses to one another. Residential architecture thus becomes a complex
task. It expresses an everyday quality, provides the backdrop for a city, and
becomes the image of our form of social life. The basic theme is always the
attempt to establish within an area of high density a balance between various
needs and between the desire for private retreat and a collective community.

“The purpose of the house is that man use its walls to cut himself off from the
great universal space a special, in a sense private space and thus separates an
interior space from an exterior space.” That description is by the German
philosopher Otto Friedrich Bollnow, in his essay “Der erlebte Raum” (The
experienced space) of 1960, and he continued: “Man, who according to Simmel is
in general defined by the ability to establish boundaries and at the same time
transgress these boundaries again, establishing these boundaries most
immediately and apparently with the walls of his house. This duality of interior
and exterior space is fundamental to the construction of all experienced space,
indeed for human life in general.”[1]

On the way home to our apartment, we pass a number of spatial transitions. The
path leads from public urban space to the building. We open the doors to the
building and enter. Corridors, elevators, stairs, and steps lead us past the
neighbors’ apartments and up to our own four walls. Here too the space is
divided into places to be together and places of intimate retreat, into common
and individual rooms. After all, through openings in the facade and through
private open spaces, we establish contact again with the outside, with the
surrounding urban space. The entire house can be seen as a diverse series of
thresholds between inside and outside. Whereas in the extreme the inside is
one’s own apartment and the outside is the space of the city, each subspace can
be described as an inside and the surrounding spaces as its corresponding
outside.

The dialectic of inside and outside is a discourse that has been familiar in
architectural theory for a long time. Already in 1485, in his “On the Art of
Building,”[2]Alberti described a house as consisting of a sequence of the creation and
removal of boundaries. The concepts of locality, area, compartition, wall, and
roof contrast with the concept of opening. Architecture emerges only in the
interrelation of closing and opening. Architecture can thus be defined by its
space-creating character, by the duality of space and delimiting. By means of
the boundary, shell, or screen, a space becomes a place for people to stay and
be active, protected from the unwanted influences of the outside world. In this
view, the screen and the space its screens represent the essential elements of
architecture and are inseparably connected. The system theorist Dirk Baecker has
also defined architecture in terms of this phenomenon of drawing boundaries,
which separates spaces of different qualities. “As soon as it is about a screen
that separates inside and outside, it is about architecture – whatever purpose
architecture might have, whatever material it might use, and whatever it might
look like. It is the screen that gives architecture its elemental form.” And he
continues: “However architecture might be designed, depicted, used, and
inhabited, one only knows that it is architecture if one can go in and come out
again, if this ability to go in and come out again changes the relationships –
that is, something different happens and can be expected inside than
outside.”[3]In order to go in and come back out, transfer spaces are necessary. The
clearest element in this exchange is the door. “Anyone who wants to go into or
out of a house or a room has to pass the threshold between outside and inside,
which is itself a space, a space in front of an empty, appropriated, or occupied
room. The segment of interim space on the boundary between inside and outside is
a field of performative condensation. This small empty space is represented
architecturally by threshold and jamb. The existential, social, psychological,
and aesthetic performance of dwelling begins here and then continues inside.
Conversely, for the occupant the outside world begins here. Thus this small
boundary space is filled with gestures that point beyond it.”[4]

A change of roles and behavior always takes place in this space of transition.
For example, by entering the building one becomes an occupant; by exiting it
into the space of the city, one becomes a passerby.

Because space is not just what we perceive as physical space but also that which
we project and imagine, the threshold, as the place where the thing hidden
behind it is announced, takes on multiple meanings. Stately entries and portals
reveal the social status of the residences and become architectural elements to
convey status.

Stepping through a door or gate is laden with significant symbolism in language
as well. Passing over a threshold or through a gate are powerful linguistic
metaphors. Doors open and enable us to go further, opening up new paths for us.
On the other hand, many a door remains closed. The path is not open, and we are
not admitted. And when a door closes behind us, we know there is no going
back.

The threshold is the place where the boundary can be established or stepped over,
in which case the four walls are no longer closed. When we come up against
boundaries, we either back away or we try to overcome the boundary. In that
sense, it always offers possibilities for different choices about how to behave
in relation to opening and closing. We determine our boundaries ourselves – for
example, by closing doors and windows, drawing curtains, putting up fences, or
planting hedges.

The threshold as boundary and connection between two spaces thus itself becomes
the “room in front of the room,” an autonomous place. “Beyond the subjective, on
this side of the objective, on the sharp edge on which I and you meet, is the
realm of the between. The ‘realm of the between’ (…) has not received specific
attention because it (…) does not exhibit a simple continuity but rather
reconstitutes itself in accordance with human encounters.”[5]Alluding to these ideas by the philosopher Martin Buber, Aldo van Eyck
described the threshold as a “Gestalt gewordenes Zwischen” (the in-between
turned into form).[6]Defining architecture as the spatial articulation of human action was
postulated by the structuralists, beginning in the 1950s, as a counterargument
to the functionalism dominant at the time, with its sharp separation of private
and public areas.

The concept of the “in-between” was thus used in two ways: in the relationship of
the human being to architecture and that of architecture to the human being. In
this dialogical relationship a specific social situation cannot be separated
from a concrete place. In the relationship of public space and private home, the
structuralists attributed particular importance to the transitional areas, whose
formulation was intended to trigger certain reactions and behaviors in the
users. In that sense, thresholds are places of communication and of taking up
contact with one another. As territorial transitional areas, subtly designed
entrance zones become spaces of encounter, which as spaces of negotiation
between the individual and the collective offer freely interpretable latitude
for personal appropriation by their users and are intended to stimulate
communication between occupants – “form evokes function.”

According to Vilém Flusser, “human beings have to pass thresholds when they step
through different habitats, forcing them to identify and define themselves.”[7]A fundamental change of position takes place on the threshold; it is
“important for the development of our identity, which is shaped both by drawing
boundaries and overstepping boundaries. In order to be able to change between
different life spaces, transitional zones are (…) necessary.”[8]

In that sense, high-quality residential buildings are much more than a series of
different, elaborately interlocking floor plans. First and foremost, the urban
residential building communicates between the private sphere and the urban
public space. In the process, complex boundary relationships between inside and
outside are negotiated on very different levels of scale. An urban plan already
establishes in fundamental ways the scale of proximity and distance.

Two currents particularly stand out in residential architecture in recent years:
on the one hand, the private sphere is expanding; on the other hand, there is an
increasing desire for the urban and collective. The thesis of the present volume
is that residential architecture can only be successful when it does equal
justice to both spheres.

“Housing +” focuses on the study of architectural-spatial and
social-communicative points of intersection in the residential apartment
building: the relationship of the apartment building to the surrounding urban
space, the quality of interior and exterior circulation, the formulation of
private and communal open spaces, and programmatic orientation by offering a
mixture of different functions. Additional facilities for residents and common
areas will also be considered.

This book will also explore the question of how these transitional spaces are
created. It will also study the positioning of the residential building in
public space, the formulation of entrances and establishing identity, the
relationship of apartment units to open spaces, and the spatial form of the
facade. In that sense, it focuses on the totality of spaces of negotiation
between the individual, the families, the group, the neighborhood, the district,
and the city.

The architect has available an extensive repertoire of spatial means to design
these transitional spaces in accordance with their social, cultural, and
psychological meanings but also in relation to site-specific and climatic
conditions. The catalog of projects presented thus includes apartment buildings
from different countries and cultural spheres as well as from different eras.
Historical projects from the early twentieth century are juxtaposed with
contemporary ones. The buildings depicted also differ in terms of scale,
density, and urban context. The project catalog is organized to provide a focus
on four points of intersection: the urban context, the ground-floor zone, the
building structure, and the facade. Each of these four thematic areas is
introduced by an essay.

THE URBAN CONTEXT: CITY AND DWELLING

The essential parameters regarding public and private areas are already
established by the urban typology, which determines the degree of transparency
and screening off, views in and out, distance and proximity.

In European cities, it was not until the second half of the nineteenth century
that the residential forms that largely influence our present image of urban
housing began to develop. The most important type of building was the perimeter
block development, which as a rule consisted of multistory apartment buildings
with vertical access points. The perimeter block development formed clear,
closed boundaries. Solid architecture separated the private courtyards from the
public space of the street. “The block of the building created two spaces – one
could almost say two worlds – which, though closely related to each other, were
clearly separated from each other: first, the world of plazas and streets, where
churches and other public buildings occupied prominent ‘prestigious’ locations;
second, the world of private residential buildings and their courtyards and
gardens, whose private nature was guaranteed by the fact that each of these
cells was accessed indirectly by way of the public streets.”[9]

This separation of public and private spheres has been a consistent theme of
residential architecture of the past hundred and fifty years. Beginning with
modernist urban planning, however, the dense fabric began to be opened up in
accordance with the new credo of the “articulated and opened,” which led, by way
of the Zeilenbau, or parallel row construction, to individual buildings –
another fundamental transformation of this principle.

Urban housing today is diverse. The urban context ranges from loose cityscapes
with elements of the countryside to extremely dense metropolitan centers.
Although we can observe a worldwide trend to urbanization, the principle of the
shape of the city as something continuous that provides form has largely
disappeared. New concepts become necessary here: How does one respond, for
example, to the periphery and landscape in order to formulate alternative models
to the faceless carpet of single-family homes with no spaces that form community
and establish identity? Precisely in this respect, high-density residential
forms have the potential to help conceive and generate public and collective
spaces, with the help of concepts for nodes that establish a center, landmark
buildings, and self-referential structures that create neighborhoods.

Although the suburbanization that has been continuing for decades is still
considered the dominant geographic trend, for several years now there has been
increased interest in urban residential forms in the central neighborhoods of
cities. This “urban renaissance” goes hand in hand with new approaches to
collective housing forms in city centers.

“Housing +” presents, on the one hand, projects in which housing represents the
backdrop for public space and, on the other hand, models that shift this
boundary and interweave public and private space in a new way.

The Ground-Floor Zone: Entrances and Transitions

The ground-floor zone is constituted in dependence with the urban typology.
Within the “urban vicinity,” it is particularly important as the link between
urban space and the building. A multitude of everyday functions come together
here: pedestrian paths, automobile access and parking, deliveries and supplies,
emergency access roads, trash, storage areas for baby strollers and bicycles,
private and communal open areas. A wide variety of entrances have to be
connected to one another as well. The entry floor thus becomes an especially
complex space for negotiation. The situation becomes even more complex when the
ground-floor apartments and their open areas have to be integrated with such
public and communal functions. Threshold areas, such as semi-basements, raised
ground floors, walls or steps, and fenced-in areas are primarily employed as a
means to establish distance and create balance among the various spatial
spheres. The conflicts between public and private interests that come up on the
ground floor have the potential to generate innovative solutions for space, even
resulting in the dissolution of boundaries between inside and outside and
unification into a landscape continuum between the built house, open space of
variable use, and transfer spaces that can be altered to a given situation.

The Building Structure: Forming Communities

The building structure is developed in connection with the typology of the
building. The articulation of volumes, the relationship of the depth of the
building to the type of access, the lighting, the typology of the floor plan,
and the determination of functions are all variables that help in crucial ways
to determine a building’s inner form. Apartment buildings are complex structures
in which apartments, access routes, common facilities, and private and public
spaces are interwoven.

The evolution of our society is leading to increasing individualization with
lives split into very distinct phases, changing gender roles, a rise in the
average age, and changes in the relationship between living and working as part
of a transformation from an industrial to a service economy. The consequence has
been increasingly differentiated styles of living and dwelling. New types of
household have been developed for singles, unmarried couples living together,
single parents, patchwork families, childless couples, and those who work at
home with a “home office.” Ambitious projects for Residential Buildings in many
places have responded to this development with an exploding diversity of
floor-plan typologies all combined under one roof. In addition to this search
for individual or adaptable floor plans, however, the creation of a living
environment that creates community is one of the essential tasks of residential
architecture.

What would an apartment building look like that can do more than an old people’s
home, a single-family home, and a kindergarten combined? What mechanisms are
necessary to regulate mutual enrichment and prevent negative interactions
between different lifestyles and community-building functions? And what
infrastructural units are necessary beyond that for a given vision of living
together in an urban environment?

An elaborate dovetailing of interior and exterior spaces, a balanced ratio of
apartment units to communal areas, a complex combination of access routes, and
the development of highly differentiated thresholds between individual and
collective spaces represent especially important potential for a synergetic,
networked form of housing that points to the future. This calls for
multilayered, spatially diverse urban structures that encourage chance
encounters of people and the possibility of interaction, offering informal
meeting places and areas for social contact while at the same time doing justice
to the need to retreat into an individual space.

Inhabited Facades

The facade of a residential building is the boundary “in the third dimension,”
determining the relationship between inside and outside and warm and cold. It
separates open and concealed life, the area of dwelling from urban space. In
this relationship, there are two sides to the facade’s meaning: on the one hand,
it represents the face of the building in the context of the city as stage; on
the other hand, it acts as the inner spatial termination of the apartment, where
it borders on exterior space. It functions as the visual medium of social
structures, becomes the image of the social lifestyles of its residents, and
takes on tasks of conveying their status in the context of urban space. At the
same time, within the apartments it controls the relationship of the occupants
to the surrounding exterior space and the urban environment. The formation of a
boundary with built walls and openings has a rich, highly differentiated, and
refined cultural history. Whether as protective shell or unsparing openness, the
articulation of the building shell by means of projecting and receding elements,
horizontal and vertical layering, and facade openings in the form of windows,
doors, balconies, and loggias is always effective from two sides.

---

Originally published in: Ulrike Wietzorrek, Housing+: On Thresholds, Transitions, and Transparencies, Birkhäuser, 2014.