Mothers are more anxious about their very young ones, when they can’t see them in the street below, from a convenient kitchen window.
There is higher passivity in the high-rise because of the barriers to active outlets on the ground; such barriers as elevators, corridors; and generally there is a time lapse and an effort in negotiating the vertical journey. TV watching is extended in the high-rise. This affects probably most adversely the old who need kinesia and activity, in proportion, as much as the very young do. Though immobility saves them from accidents, it also shortens their life in a high-rise. . . .
A Danish study by Jeanne Morville adds more evidence (Borns Brug aj Friarsaler, Disponering Af Friarsaler, Etageboligomrader Med Saerlig Henblik Pa Borns Legsmuligheder, S.B.I., Denmark, 1969):
Children from the high blocks start playing out of doors on their own at a later age than children from the low blocks: Only 2% of the children aged two to three years in the high point blocks play on their own out of doors, while 27% of the children in the low blocks do this.
Among the children aged five years in the high point blocks 29% do not as yet play on their own out of doors, while in the low blocks all the children aged five do so. . . . The percentage of young children playing out of doors on their own decreases with the height of their homes; 90% of all the children from the three lower floors in the high point blocks play on their own out of doors, while only 59% of the children from the three upper floors do so. . . .
Young children in the high blocks have fewer contacts with playmates than those in the low blocks: Among children aged one, two and three years, 86% from the low blocks have daily contact with playmates; this applies to only 29% from the high blocks.
More recently, there Is the evidence brought forward by Oscar Newman in Dejensible Space. Newman compared two adjacent housing projects in New York—one high-rise, the other a collection of relatively small three-story walk-up buildings. The two projects have the same overall density, and their inhabitants have roughly the same income. But Newman jound that the crime rate in the high-rise was roughly twice that in the walk-ups.
At what height do the effects described by Fanning, Cappon, Morville, and Newman begin to take hold? It is our experience that in both housing and office buildings, the problems begin when buildings are more than four stories high.
At three or four stories, one can still walk comfortably down to the street, and from a window you can still feel part of the street scene: you can see details in the street—the people, their faces, foliage, shops. From three stories you can yell out, and catch the attention of someone below. Above four stories these connections break down. The visual detail is lost; people speak of the scene below as if it were a game, from which they are completely detached. The connection to the ground and to the fabric of the town becomes tenuous; the building becomes a world of its own: with its own elevators and cafeterias.
We believe, therefore, that the “four-story limit” is an appropriate way to express the proper connection between building height and the health of a people. Of course, it is the spirit of the pattern which is most essential. Certainly, a building five stories high, perhaps even six, might work if it were carefully handled. But it is difficult. On the whole, we advocate a four-story limit, with only occasional departures, throughout the town.
Finally, we give the children of Glasgow the last word.
To fling a “piece,” a slice of bread and jam, from a window down to a child in the street below has been a recognised custom in Glasgow’s tenement housing. . . .
THE JEELY PIECE SONG by Adam McNaughton
Pm a skyscraper wean, I live on the nineteenth flair,
On’ Pm no’ gaun oot tae play ony mair,
For since we moved tae oor new hoose Pm wastin’ away,
’Cos Pm gettin’ wan less meal ev’ry day,
Refrain
Oh) ye canny fling- pieces oot a twenty-storey flat,
Seven hundred hungry weans will testify tae that,
If it’s butter, cheese or jeely, if the breid is plain or pan, The odds against it reachin’ us is ninety-nine tae wan.
We’ve wrote away tae Oxfam tae try an’ get some aid,
We’ve a’ joined thegither an’ formed a “piece” brigade,
We’re gonny march tae London tae demand oor Civil Rights,
Like “Nae mair hooses ower piece flingin’ heights.”
Therefore:
In any urban area, no matter how dense, keep the majority of buildings four stories high or less. It is possible that certain buildings should exceed this limit, but they should never be buildings for human habitation.
Within the framework of the four-story limit the exact height of individual buildings, according to the area of floor they need, the area of the site, and the height of surrounding buildings, is given by the pattern number of stories (96). More global variations of density are given by density rings (29). The horizontal subdivision of large buildings into smaller units, and separate smaller buildings, is given by building complex (95). housing hill (39) and office connections (82) help to shape multi-storied apartments and offices within the constraints of a four-story limit. And finally, don’t take the four-story limit too literally. Occasional exceptions from the general rule are very important-HIGH PLACES (62). . . .
119
22 NINE PER CENT PARKING**
I 20
. . . the integrity of local transport areas and the tranquility of local communities and neighborhoods depend very much on the amount of parking they provide. The more parking they provide, the less possible it will be to maintain these patterns, because the parking spaces will attract cars, which in turn violate the local transport areas and neighborhoods—local transport areas ( I I), COMMUNITY OF 7OOO (l2)> IDENTIFIABLE NEIGHBORHOOD (14). This pattern proposes radical limits on the distribution of parking spaces, to protect communities.
4. 4. 4.
Very simply—when the area devoted to parking is too great, it destroys the land.
In downtown Los Angeles over 60 fer cent of the land is given over to the automobile.
Very rough empirical observations lead us to believe that it is not possible to make an environment fit for human use when more than 9 per cent of it is given to parking.
Our observations are very tentative. We have yet to perform systematic studies—our observations rely on our own subjective estimates of cases where “there are too many cars” and cases where “the cars are all right.” However, we have found in our preliminary observations, that different people agree to a remarkable extent about these estimates. This suggests that we are dealing with a phenomenon which, though obscure, is nonetheless substantial.
An example of an environment which has the threshold density of 9 per cent parking, is shown in our key photograph: a quadrant
I 21
of the University of Oregon. Many people we have talked to feel intuitively that this area is beautiful now, but that if more cars were parked there it would be ruined.
What possible functional basis is there for this intuition? We conjecture as follows: people realize, subconsciously, that the physical environment is the medium for their social intercourse. It is the environment which, when it is working properly, creates the potential for all social communion, including even communion with the self.