Sharing in a Setting

Renee Y. Chow ring in a Setting A community is defined by what its individual participants share — an interaction, an identity, an every­ day way o f living. W e measure the place o f a community through the propen­ sity o f its setting to support and promote this sharing. A funda­ Sach apartments. Photos and graphic courtesy Renee Y. Chow. Radburn, N e w Jersey. Radburn residents share two independent networks, vehicular and pedes­ trian, that give access to a town center, recre­ ational spaces, common facilities and private homes. T h e houses are arranged between pedes­ trian walkways and vehicular culs-de-sac that are shared by six to twelve residences. Despite die constraining size o f die houses, residents choose to stay i n Radburn because o f its sense o f commu­ nity. One remembers Radburn for its infrastruc­ ture, not its houses. W h e n type is emphasized, the setting is charac­ terized by die repetitive assemblage o f a pattern. By type, I mean a complex weaving o f dwelling patterns — ways of living, of articulating forms, of sequencing spaces and of building. Sharing is developed on a unit-by-unit basis, typically house by house, each of which is built as a variation on the collective understanding. Because this sharing is based on the agreements o f participants to follow the type, the setting is dependent upon die relationship between the individual dwellings. A good example o f sharing through type is found i n Charleston, South Carolina. One well- known characteristic o f Charleston is the arrange­ ment o f houses along die northern property line of each lot. T h i s frees the space south o f each house for uses like gardens or yards. T h e n o r t h wall o f each house is predominantly solid* build­ ing the southern edge of the neighbor'syard. Other characteristics of this type include die way of connecting house t o y a r d and yard to street, and of separating the porch from the street (through the form o f doorways). Describing a type diis rich is problematic. Its description is never complete, nor fully accurate, since it is only through the variations that the type is mental task o f residential design is to build this propensity explicitly i n the architecture. Settings can support sharing through an infra­ structure o f services and spaces that residents hold and use in common. Sharing also can be pro­ moted through the collective use o f a type. W h i l e i t is rare to find a setting that totally excludes these ways o f sharing, the degree to which infra­ structure or type is emphasized has consequences for the form o f a setting. I n a setting dominated by infrastructural shar­ ing, common spaces and facilities are designed, owned and maintained for collective use. These can include streets, sidewalks, recreational cen­ ters, golf courses, courtyards or shared entries to residences. Since sharing is not dependent upon the form o f the individual unit, dwellings can be independent o f each other within the hierarchy o f the common framework. Although every community shares some infra­ structure — at a m i n i m u m , residents share a road and land subdivisions — some communities are explicitly built around extensive systems o f common spaces. One example o f an infrastructure rich community w i t h hierarchic common spaces is P L A C E S l 1