- 137 -

BULK

| Year of Law | % Lot Coverage | Height Restrictions |
|---|---|---|
| 1867 | No provision (100%) | No provision. |
| 1879 | 65%, applicable to new buildings | No provision. |
| 1887 | 65% limit extended to expanded old bldgs. | 70 ft. max. on streets<br>60 ft. wide or less; 80 ft. maximum on streets<br>wider than 60 ft. |
| 1895 | 75% allowed when Supt. of Bldgs. feels expansion will improve bldg. Shafts less than 25 sq. ft. not included in open space computation. | No change. |
| 1901 | 90% for corner tenements, 70% for interior tenements. | Maximum of 1 1/2 times the width of widest street on which bldg. stands. |
| 1929 | Indirect requirements via provisions for courts, yards etc. NYC Zoning Resolution (1916) also controls. | Same as above, except 3 ft. may be added for 1 ft. of setback up to 1 3/4 street width plus 3 ft. Tower may go higher if it occupies less than 20% of lot larger than 30,000 sq. ft. |

6

Apartments, Baltimore. Mies van der Rohe, c. 1965.

7

Lake Shore Drive apartments, Chicago. Mies van der Rohe, 1948.

8

Lamble Street housing, London. Powell and Moya, 1954.

9

Courtyard housing, Espoo, Finland. Korhonen and Laapotti, c. 1968.

10

Neue Vahr Apartments, Bremen. Alvar Aalto, 1958.

11

Preston housing, Lancashire. Stirling and Gowan, 1961.

6

7

8

9

10

dor; the floors above and below the corridor level are double-orientation unit types (open both front and rear), with the kitchens lining up on one side of the building.

*Single-orientation unit; interior core along the corridor.* In the more common type of single-orientation unit, the core elements are arranged in a zone parallel and adjacent to the corridor. Entrance is through this zone into the main spaces of the apartment, thus letting the major rooms open to the preferred side of the building. The kitchen and bath are interior spaces with mechanical ventilation. This simpler plan usually features a compact back-to-back kitchen and bath grouping and clear, consistent zoning of spaces. The double-loaded corridor slabs designed by Mies van der Rohe (6) are planned this way. He modifies the idea slightly in the Lake Shore Drive apartments (7), where the bath and kitchen are back-to-back but the kitchen opens to the major spaces on the preferred side. Although more typically a plan for double-loaded corridor buildings (where apartments are located on both sides of the corridor), the type is also used for single-loaded or access-gallery plans. The Lamble Street project by Powell and Moya (8) is an example of this type. Or, for a lower density type, there are the courtyard houses by Korhonen and Laapotti in Finland (9).

Aalto's apartments at Bremen (10), an unusual variation of the single-orientation type, consist of fan-shaped units opening out to the site. Core elements here, although placed along transverse structural walls, are nevertheless in an interior zone along the corridor. The Preston housing by Stirling and Gowan (11) is a two-story version of the same type. These two are single-loaded corridor examples, but the single-orientation unit type is probably most advantageous where three sides of the unit are closed, implying a double-loaded, corridor-every-floor organization.

A common variation of the singly-oriented unit (applicable to units with either transverse or interior core) works from a strategy of increasing the exterior surface on the open side of the unit so that more rooms can get light and

11

4

**Fig. 18** - Brownsville Unit Plan: Example of Category III, 6-story elevator with 9 apartments to the elevator stack, without through ventilation and with cross-traffic necessary through most living rooms.

**Fig. 19** - Abraham Lincoln Unit Plan: Example of Category IV, 14-story buildings to the floor, kitchen and dining alcove placed between living room and entrance. Long hall and cross traffic necessary for approach to living room and bedrooms.

**Fig. 20** - Lillian Wald Unit Plan: Example of Category IV, 10 to 14-story buildings, with 10 apartments having varied arrangements served by elevator stack.

-34-

**Figs. 4, 5, 6 and 7** - Illustrate compliance with required arithmetical standards for room sizes but show the difficulties with cross-traffic and furniture arrangements where there is bad relation between useable wall surfaces and wall openings as well as room arrangement.

**Figs. 8, 9 and 10** - Illustrate good relationships of useable wall spaces and wall openings, and room arrangements permitting alternative placements for furniture.

-24-