Density & Atmosphere On Factors Relating To Buildi... - (DENSITY ANALYSES)

DENSITY ANALYSES
Introduction,
(p. 26)
Approach,
(p. 38)
Methodology, and
Terminology, The (p. 44)
Districts,
Evaluation,
(p. 150)
Conclusions
(p. 170)
Copyright © 2015. Birkhäuser. All rights reserved.
Tröger, Eberhard. Density & Atmosphere : On Factors relating to Building Density in the European City, edited by Dietmar Eberle, Birkhäuser, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/aalto-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1809897.
Created from aalto-ebooks on 2017-11-07 00:44:50.
Introduction
“You just have to get through it” 1
27 “You just have to get through it”
The spatial expanse of urban development in Central Europe is steadily

growing. This creates a fear of losing natural landscape areas and
precious land resources. At the same time, we bemoan a dearth of at-
mospheric ambience in our unstructured and sprawling cities. We have 1
tolerated unfettered urban sprawl as a necessary evil for too long. Gerhard Polt, “Die Wegbeschreibung”
(“Directions”), in “Fast wia im richtigen
The calls for new limits and urban densification can now no longer be Leben” (“Almost Like in Real Life”),
ignored. Nevertheless, we are unwilling to foresake individuality and tenth episode, Bayerischer Rundfunk,
growth. 10 December 1984.
The discussion on the extent of urban density in our cities is a central

topic in the daily press and trade journals. What is lacking, however, are
measurable criteria with which to choose the correct density for
each respective situation. By establishing a relationship between urban
density and atmosphere, this book aims to establish the foundations
for a new integrated design of our urban spaces.
Butterflies, Gravel Pits and Dreams of a Home
“Come on out for a change. You’ll see it’s real nice here
in the country. Why don’t you come on out sometime,
so you can also get to see a butterfly? It’s beautiful here.
It’s a green belt, you know…”2 2
Ibid. All following quotes without foot-
notes are from the same source.
In his 1984 piece “Die Wegbeschreibung” (Driving Directions), Bavarian
comedian and satirist Gerhard Polt described with merciless accuracy
what has long since become a daily reality for many Europeans: Mr.
König, the main protagonist played by Polt, has moved into a new small
row house on the periphery of Munich and gives his friend Hilde
directions on how to drive from the city to his new place “in the country”
for a visit. The route involves numerous highway ramps, and travels
past high-rise developments, mixed-use areas, gravel pits, industrial
parks and single-family home subdivisions until finally arriving at the
much praised row house with a tiny patch of green in the front yard.
Hilde’s journey turns into an expedition through the urban sprawl that
makes up much of the contemporary cityscape. Polt succinctly iden-
tifies the key issues with which those responsible for city and land-use
planning wrestle more than ever today.
“Anyways … after the trailer park, you’ll drive towards a

shredding facility, ok … and next door there’s a hazardous
waste disposal plant. But you can’t drive in there, you
know, anyways you have to go past it on the right. Then
it’s gonna start getting a bit more rural. You’ll start to feel
that you’re getting away from the city.”
Mr. König’s driving directions through the agglomeration derives its

playful malice from the close observation of the realities of urban
planning (in the film footage, an actress is shown driving the route *
in real time, precisely as described)* and the optimistic enthusiasm the Thirty years after Gerhard Polt’s “Weg-
beschreibung” (lit. “Driving Directions”)
fictional new homeowner shows for these environments. High-rise was first published in 1984, we recon-
developments are called “Am Jagdfeld” (Hunting Grounds), churches structed and once again followed Hilde’s
look like “chimney stacks”, and young families live between a big route from the ring road to the row-
house idyll through the agglomeration
box-furniture store and a truck manufacturing plant in the “second set” surrounding Munich. The series of
of new high-rises. As for the industrial areas, well, “you just have to photographs accompanying this chapter
get through” them. None of these absurdities can rattle Mr. König’s un were taken during this drive in 2014 and
documents the current state of the
shakeable optimism. On the contrary, he waxes enthusiastically about ongoing development of our cultural
giant hydro towers and a concrete plant with “all the bells and whistles”. landscape in all its facets.
28 Introduction
Even the massive jumps in scale with regard to form and content fail
to shake his equilibrium. At least the Zaunkönigstraße (named after
a tiny song-bird called “the king of the fence”) serves as an orientation,
and the custom-made “brass doorknob” adorning the otherwise
mass-produced row house serves as a kind of anchor in the confusing
“hodgepodge” of the late-capitalist urban landscape.
“I’m not really into country life, you know, but it’s so much
better for the children … Right now, we’re still a little out
of the way here. But in a year and a half, it’s all gonna
change, ’cause they’re expanding the highway to six lanes,
right to our doorstep. Then it’s gonna be a cinch to get
into the city, you know…”
In all this, as a new resident on the periphery, Mr. König is not even
“into country life”. It’s all for the children, and soon the expansion of the
six-lane highway will rescue him from the remoteness of this “rural”
row-house idyll. The functions of the city are tidily separated from each
other; without a car, the suburban dweller is lost in the ever-expanding
sea of urban sprawl.
Polt’s darkly humorous narrative reveals the deep yearning of post-

modern individuals for a place to call their own in this world of
constantly growing possibilities. Everything has to remain available,
and to this end people are willing to put up with quite a bit. This is
why the row-house dweller can summon enthusiasm even for massive
warehouses and truck manufacturing plants. They are the economic
guarantors for his rural idyll with city links. As such, the necessities
that evoke admiration, or at the very least have to be tolerated, are
neither ugly nor beautiful, but simply “enormous”. Based on this type
of acceptance, optimistically geared towards ensuring one’s personal
wellbeing, a new kind of residential development has steadily spread
since the 1970s, aptly and bluntly described by Polt as “hodgepodge”,
while contemporary planning experts refer to it as “urban sprawl”.
It is neither city nor country, but forms a third category which springs
precisely from this yearning, seeking to satisfy as many of the con-
stantly increasing demands as possible, and all the while tolerating
the means required to achieve this state of affairs as a necessary evil.
3
“Keep going… Then there’s another industrial park.” In the interest of ensuring quick and
economically efficient land use, there
However, aspiring for ever more naturally has its limits. The resources was for a long time a practice of failing
to draft comprehensive and forward-
of land, raw materials and energy are not inexhaustible, and after looking spatial plans. This inadvertently
decades of tolerating the means in favor of economic growth3 a plateau promoted the creation of precisely the
in the meantime seems to have been reached for clients, planners, kind of urban “patchwork” of individual
spatial plans without any overarching
communities and residents, which has lead to an urgent quest for alter- integration that Gerhard Polt describes
native solutions for coping with population growth, the rise in economic so aptly in his “Driving Directions”.
spending power and the attendant desire for ever more living space. 4 4
Living space requirement grows expo-
At the same time, the demand for sustainability is omnipresent and im- nentially to population growth. For
possible to ignore. But our economic system is avaricious, and attempts example: whilst the population of
are underway to productively appropriate this nebulously defined Switzerland has grown from roughly
6.3 million in 1980 to 8.2 million in
term. Sustainability is “in”, but only if it doesn’t require any sacrifices. 2013 (source: Federal Statistical Office,
Switzerland), thus experiencing a
“And then you drive through one of those commercial growth factor of 1.3, the requirement
for individual living space has grown
mixed-use areas … Well, it’s a bit of a hodgepodge …” from 34 to 45 square meters over
the same period by approximately the
However, the “hodgepodge” style of housing that goes hand in hand same factor.
with this attitude cannot deliver on the ideal of a less fettered lifestyle
for free consumers in a landscape of constant growth. The “country

life” does not play out in the green belt filled with fluttering butterflies
invoked by Polt’s protagonist. Instead of colorful insects, airplanes
thunder over a carpet of row houses, high-rise developments, old town
cores, industrial complexes and the wastelands that lie between.
And the “six-lane highway” has morphed from a traffic solution to
a traffic and energy problem. It generates kilometer-long traffic jams,
environmental pollution and exorbitant maintenance costs.
This discrepancy between demand, yearning, and reality is in-
creasingly worrisome to urban planners. In addition to the destruction
of valuable resources, they bemoan the lack of a sense of place,
the structural isolation and the absence of atmospheric qualities. As
a result we are engaged in a desperate quest for workable urban
forms of societal and social cohesion and a desirable urban form for
the future.
“Now, you’ve pretty much arrived… And there it is: ‘In

the Meadow’… You can’t miss our place, ’cause we’ve got
a brass doorknob…”
In this quest, it is the “soft factors” of subjective urban perception and

experience — such as well-being, urban character, identity, quality of
living and atmosphere — which are becoming once again prized in afflu-
ent Central-European society, occupying an equal position with the
more objectively measurable values of urban planning. The wish, ideally,
is to incorporate atmospheric factors into planning in order to create
a more agreeable local district atmosphere. However, these factors are
somewhat difficult to evaluate and describe: after all, they are first
and foremost dependent on the subjective perception of individual
residents or passers-by, and cannot be quantified in a more general
or universal manner. Yet suitable solutions for larger urban areas must
achieve a broad consensus among residents. Not everyone is content
with a polished “brass doorknob” as an individual site marker within an
increasingly complex world. Conversely, certain combinations of objects
with specific qualities are indeed able to create continually recurring
atmospheres that reach beyond subjective individual perception to be
roughly interpreted in the same way by the majority of residents.
Building density could be one of the main criteria by which to generate
this kind of “objectively perceptible atmosphere.”
Polt’s “Driving Directions” dates from 1984. Three decades of growth

and much procrastination later, it seems that we are finally forced to
no longer tolerate the mentality of “you’ve just got to get through it”
and are asking the fundamental questions we have thus far avoided,
such as how and how densely we want to dwell in our growing cities.
“You’re coming, right? We’re so excited!”

“Wouldn’t you just love it?”
The problem of the idealization of demands with regard to one’s

personal living environment is hardly new, for it is intimately connected
to modern society and its striving for individuality and affluence. Nearly
a century ago, at the time of the so-called classic modernism at
the end of the 1920s, another prominent German satirist whose wit was
no less acerbic and amusing than Polt’s perfectly captured the mount-
ing ambitions and demands of the population at large. Kurt Tucholsky
30 Introduction
described the ideal of the German bourgeoisie striving for evermore

wealth in his poem “The Ideal” from 1927:
Ja, das möchste – Wouldn’t you just love it?

A villa with large terrace in the country,
The Baltic out front and the Friedrichstraße out back;
A beautiful view, fashionably rustic,
With a glimpse of the Zugspitze from your bathroom
But only a short walk to the movies at night.
All of it simple, and oh so modest:

Nine rooms – no, make that ten!
A roof patio with oak trees standing tall,
Radio, central heating, vacuum cleaner,
Servants, obedient and silent,
A sweet wife, full of spirit and passion
(And another for weekends, just in case)
A library and all around
Solitude and bumblebees buzzing.
In the stables: two ponies, four thoroughbreds,

Eight cars, a motorcycle – with you at the wheel,
Of course – that goes without saying!
And in between you go hunting big game.
 
But wait, I nearly forgot: 
Haute cuisine – the best of the best –
Vintage wines poured from a beautiful decanter –  
And you will remain as thin as a rail.  
And money. And just the right amount of jewelry.  
And another million and then another million.  
And travel. The jolly kaleidoscope of life.  
And splendid children. And everlasting health.
Wouldn’t you just love it!
But here is how things are on this earth:  

At times it seems that earthly happiness
Is only doled out peu à peu.
One bit or another is always missing.  
When you’ve got money, you’ve got no Molly*;
When you’ve got the girl, you’re out of dough –
When you’ve got the geisha, you’re bothered by her fan: 
We may have the wine but no cup, or the cup but no wine.
There’s always something. Take heart.

All happiness comes with a sting.  
We want so much: To have. To be. And to count. 

For someone to have it all:  
That is rare.
Who wouldn’t love such a comfortable life in a “villa with large terrace *
Molly: a female name, also used in slang
in the country, the Baltic out front and the Friedrichstraße out back”? to describe the ideal girlfriend. “Utter
Ever since a broad sector of the population began to be able to dream perfection. If you let this girl into your
this dream thanks to growing wealth, the desired villa has become life you will never regret it, she’s incred-
ible and so beautiful, everyone should
for most at best a prefab single-family home, striving for individuality have a Molly.” [source: urbandictionary.
through bright colors and shapes, and seeking to compensate for com]
the poor quality of the external environment through technical upgrades

of the interior spaces. Instead of gazing at the Baltic Sea from our
patio, we sit in our air-conditioned homes in front of our very own multi-
media systems and take the odd weekend excursion to recreation
areas marred by high-tension lines overhead. And if we have the desire
every now and then to take in a movie on downtown Friedrichstraße,
we are dependent on a highway or at the very least on a bus or train
connection.
The mobility associated with this lifestyle is another steadily
increasing challenge in today’s urban planning. Road and public trans-
portation networks are constantly being expanded and have become
key positioning factors for land use and development. Thus a house that
was until recently still an hour’s distance from the commercial center
of the nearest city, is suddenly within a travel range of only fifteen
minutes thanks to a commuter rail link, which in turn ushers in a rapid
and noticeable transformation of the built environment around the
house and the mix of residents.
How can contemporary urban planning respond to this complex mix

of vastly different ingredients? Various approaches — from Gründerzeit5 5
The Gründerzeit (lit. Founding Epoch) is
block-edge developments, to modernistic row housing or compact the term used to describe the period of
housing blocks modeled on late modernism, to new high-rise districts — rapid industrial and urban expansion in
all are being simultaneously exploited by today’s urban planners. The Germany and Austria (i.e. Central Eu-
rope) in the latter half of the nineteenth
debates accompanying these approaches are testimony to the nerv- century, interrupted by the stock market
ous helplessness in the quest for an up-to-date image of the city. crash of 1873. In terms of urban plan-
Today, planners unanimously condemn sprawling carpet developments ning it includes the new factor of rapid
mass transportation and vehicle-friendly
of single-family homes and demand “urban densification”. However, (i.e. broad) streetscaping, and in archi-
the form and quality of such densification remains unclear, and con- tectural terms it roughly corresponds
vincing solutions are in high demand. with the various historicist architectural
styles in Great Britain and the United
States that are understood under the
description Victorian Era.
Magic Formulae
It was precisely during Tucholsky’s era6 that the visionaries of the 6

Tucholsky’s poem “Das Ideal” (“The
architectural modern were confronted with similar problems. On the Ideal”) dates from 1927; the Athens
one hand, the population at large had, even then, already begun making Charter was launched in 1933.
increasingly individualized demands on their living environments. On
the other, cities were faced with the massive social, infrastructural and
public health challenges arising from exploding population numbers
in the cities due to the rural exodus. Paradoxically, with their all too
idealistic responses they unwittingly prepared the ground for the
amorphous new development structure, which once again now confronts
us with the same fundamental question as then: how can cities
grow quickly and sustainably, while being and remaining worth
living in?
The members of CIAM (Congrés Internationaux d’Architecture Modern

or International Congresses of Modern Architecture) once dreamt
courageously and confidently of a completely new city that would solve
all problems in a single stroke. In 1933, under the leadership of Le
Corbusier, they drafted their urbanist manifesto The Athens Charter,7 7
Le Corbusier, The Athens Charter (Gross-
which ushered in an entirely new vision of the city. Upon re-reading man: New York, NY, 1973), translated
the text today, one discovers striking parallels with the problems of the from the French by Anthony Eardley. All
current urbanist debate, albeit seen in terms, some of which are the subsequent quotations in the English
edition of this book are taken from this
exact opposite of currently held views. translation.
The charter contains the following core statements or observations on

the status quo of cities at the time of its drafting.
32 Introduction
On Densification:
Observation 8: “The advent of the machinist era has pro-
voked immense disturbances in the conduct of men, in the
patterns of their distribution over the earth’s surface
and in their undertakings: an unchecked trend, propelled by
mechanized speeds, toward concentration in the cities, a
precipitate and world-wide evolution without precedent in
history. Chaos has entered the cities.”
Observation 9: “The population is too dense within the

historic nuclei of cities, as it is in certain belts of nineteenth-
century industrial expansion — reaching as many as four
hundred and even six hundred inhabitants per acre.”
In the charter, the problem of unstructured agglomeration and urban

sprawl is lamented as follows:
Observation 11: “The growth of the city gradually devours
the surrounding verdant areas of which its successive belts
once had a view.”
Observation 20: “The suburbs are laid out without any plan
and without a normal connection to the city.”
And the charter identifies the social and psychological problems of

the city at the time:
Observation 71: “The majority of the cities studied [by the
Fourth Congress] today present the very image of chaos:
they do not at all fulfill their purpose, which is to satisfy the
primordial biological and psychological needs of their
populations.”
Observation 72: “This situation reveals the incessant

accretion of private interests ever since the beginning of
the machinist age.”
Based on all these observations, the CIAM conference draws the

following highly political conclusion in its final observation:
Observation 95: “Private interest will be subordinated to the

collective interest.”
As we know today, it was somewhat premature to formulate this ob-

servation as a certainty at that time. Socialist models of society were
unable to satisfy this urgent wish despite enormous efforts. And
globalized western consumer society is confronted more than ever by
the barely controllable “incessant accretion of private interests”.
Nevertheless, the CIAM Charter has shaped and changed the image
of our cities and landscapes more enduringly than any other twent
ieth-century manifesto.
The most urgent problem of the day at the time was excessive density
in urban cores, which led to social, hygiene and the associated health
problems, and which allowed the cities to grow with a hitherto unknown
speed — like metastasizing tumors spreading across the surrounding
landscape.
The fear of chaos, which gripped a large proportion of the society
at the time, prompted people to call for radical answers. The malignant
tumor was to be excised to make way for an ordered and healthy
configuration in which people could dwell peacefully. Thus architects,

too, embarked on a quest for a magic formula to provide a solution
for the social and urbanistic tasks ahead. The charter did so in a
manifesto-like form, stating concrete observations and requirements:
The formula for spatial planning:

Requirement 1: “The city is only one element within the
economic, social and political complex which constitutes
the region.”
The formula for architecture:

Requirement 29: “High buildings, set far apart from one
another, must free the ground for broad verdant areas.”
The formula for urban planning:

Requirement 32: “A just proportion of constructed volumes
to open spaces — that is the only formula which resolves
the problem of habitation.”
The distribution of the building masses in their relationship to the

open, unbuilt area (which should ideally be natural area) was recognized
as the decisive factor in finding a solution for the problem of allowing
cities to grow rapidly in a sustainable fashion. Every resident was
to be given the opportunity to lead a healthy life with light, air and
sun in a green environment. The fathers of the charter regarded the
specific density of the built environment as the magic formula for
the future of cities.
The requirements or demands developed as a conclusion from these

observations are widely known. The uncontrolled and unstructured
sprawl of city clusters was to be untangled, organized and divided
according to basic functions — housing, leisure, work, traffic and the
historic heritage of the cities. As a connecting system, transportation
was given a central role, for the new buildings were to concentrate
as much building mass as possible on a relatively small footprint 8 and 8
In comparison to the scale of the build-
leave a large space open for fresh air and sun, which translated into ings, the footprint of the built-over area
long routes between not only the buildings themselves but also between is very small.
the functions — between home, work, shopping and cultural institutions.
In keeping with the logic of the “machinist age”, autonomous “habi
tation machines” strung along supply chains were to be embedded into
the landscape. Movement between the building units, some at consider-
able distance from each other, was to be by motorized transportation
of some kind.
However, to begin with the implementation of this magic formula
seemed unthinkable as it would have required massive demolition and
expropriation in the cities. Only with the large-scale destruction of
the Second World War and the sweeping political changes that followed
the war could the CIAM ideas be more broadly realized in the wake
of recons truction in the eastern-socialist as well as the western-cap-
italist system.
But the formula would appear to have failed. The new urban structures
encouraged the formation of islands of urban development, which con-
tinue to characterize the structure of the expansion zones of our cities
to this day. Instead of a built continuum of the European city, historically
built around a central core, what emerged was a web of traffic networks
along which an extremely heterogeneous built environment spreads
outward into the landscape without any discernable center or core.
34 Introduction
The fundamental urban planning issues, however, seem to be the same

as in the era of Le Corbusier. Issues like the form of the rapidly
expanding city, the separation of housing developments and landscape,
the distribution of private and public space, and the functional organi
zation of the city are once again on everyone’s lips. Today the solution
for these problems is being sought in the “correct ratio of building
mass to open space”. 9 However, where the focus in the charter was 9
Le Corbusier, The Athens Charter,
on open, that is, unbuilt space, the new magic formula for urban plan- observation 32.
ning is seen in densification and mixed use.
Densification – Phobia, Compulsion and Lifestyle
Calls for densification have been growing ever more urgent in recent
times, born out of a fear of the unchecked growth of agglomerations,
which are randomly spreading across the landscape and no longer
reflect any social ideals. These demands are falling on willing ears, not
only because of arguments of land and energy conservation. For some
time now urban planners and architects in particular have idealized
the lose term “urbanity”10 as the definitive up-to-date form of living 10
For further detail on this term, see the
without precisely stating what this mostly subjective and rather vague section on “urbanity” in the chapter “
term means. 4 Cities, 36 Urban Perimeters, 13 Analyt-
Contrary to the ideas put forth in the Charter of Athens, today’s ical Perimeters, 9 Density Categories”
planners identify the qualities of urban life not in having access to

fresh air and nature, but instead in appropriately compact developments
with the highest possible density. In addition to limiting the area for
development, density in the built environment as a deliberate “(re-)urban-
ization” is intended to lead to greater social density and integration
within cities, and to counteract the self-centeredness of individualization
and privatization. After the failures of the divided, dispersed city of the
modern era and the formalistic experiments of post-modernism, the
new approach to solving the problems in many places is to return to the
traditional European image of the city. The block edge with uniform
eaves height, a hallmark of the Gründerzeit, or the model of medieval
lanes are being rediscovered as capable of providing solutions for
contemporary societal constellations. Others continue to support
the ideals promoted by modernism, namely the demands for green
surroundings, air, light and sun. Regardless of which traditional form is 11
referenced, everyone’s hopes are based — as if caught in a kind of a In psychoanalysis, compulsive repetition
psychological compulsive repetition — on a belief that the reiteration of is described as an impulse that causes
a person to re-enact unresolved and
old patterns may deliver a new valid solution.11 even painful thoughts, actions, dreams,
But as far back as the 1960s planners and residents alike no games, scenes or situations again
longer blamed the failure of modern urban ideals on a technical and and again in the hope of achieving a
“belated mastery”, that is, in the hope of
functional failure of the urban fabric that was part of the charter’s effecting a positive outcome.
criticisms. On the contrary, they blamed it on the new “inhospitality of 12
our cities”,12 which resulted precisely from the lack of human scale Alexander Mitscherlich, Die Unwirt
lichkeit unserer Städte: Anstiftung zum

caused by the functional separation demanded by CIAM, and which in Unfrieden (Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am
turn led to an inhospitable, technical atmosphere in many cities. Main, 1965).
13
Thus the factor of urban permeation
In order to enable sustainable growth for our cities, renewed densifica- (UP) in Switzerland has increased by a
tion and mixed-use initiatives for existing structures seem inevitable. factor of 1.5, from 2.75 UP in 1960 to
Restructuring towards densification is underway everywhere — in organi- 4.24 in 2002. The annual increase of
sprawl is growing rapidly. Between 2002
cally evolved urban structures, on the peripheries, and in agglomerations. and 2010, with 0.032 permeation units
These efforts are driven by various causes. (in German DSE)/m2/year, the rise was
On the one hand are the hard facts: the consumption of land can- nearly three times that of the period
between 1980 and 2002 at 0.012 DSE/
not continue unlimited at the ever-increasing pace we have experienced m2/year. Source: Geomatik Schweiz
until now.13 Distances and traffic flows have to be be shortened to 3/2007 and 2/2013.
save resources. By placing houses and residential units once again

closer together, energetic synergies can be utilized. And the waste-
lands of (post)modern urban development could be used as available
building land for retroactive densification.
On the other hand are the soft factors, which have to be given
at least equal weight. These are social coexistence, the city as com-
munity, and last but not least the individual experiential value of urban
space, a sense of identity and of feeling at home.
But what can densification in these areas truly achieve? And how much
densitity translates into the desired goals? For not everyone in con-
temporary society wishes to live in an environment of compact physical
and social density. Density and individualization have a relationship that
is fundamentally determined by a phobia. Our liberal lifestyle requires
a fitting distance to neighbors to prevent any kind of “social density
stress”. The calming effect of green space in a city is a key achievement
of modern urban planning and the integration of individuals into the
public space are as important as ever and seemingly indispensable to
contemporary requirements for work and living.
The Right Measure
Currently different approaches are being pursued simultaneously in

differing locations and urban situations in Central-European cities. In
residential districts and on urban peripheries, planners are searching
for a structure that combines the advantage of density with the
advantages of a green and spacious city environment. In central loca-
tions, experiments are underway using maximum density, optimizing
architectural and social attractions in order to create a dense urban
atmosphere in the inner cities without going beyond the limits of what
the population will tolerate.
To establish the right measure of density for the different locations and
social groups, comprehensible foundations need to be created by
which to set objectively measurable factors in urban planning in relation
to subjective perception.
This book explores the relationships between built density and
atmosphere, and presents these relationships in a clear format. A central
question looks at the influence of built density on the atmosphere
of a city and its districts, and looks at which additional factors must
be taken into consideration to deliberately generate a coherent
atmosphere. This having been said, it is not a question of arriving at
universal magic formulae. Instead an interpretative analysis of the
measurable factors is set in relationship to the subjective perception
of the urban space. The aim is to create tangible foundations for
the comprehensive planning of new urban districts and the retroactive

densification of existing structures — foundations that promote an
active atmospheric mood in a district and create a dense atmosphere
in the urban space that goes beyond the fatalist mentality of “just
having to get through it”.
In the Atmosphere of the Street
The focus of this study is on public space. This is where the density
of the built environment is spatially palpable. This is where the ele-
ments of the city converge in a shared space. This is where communal
36 Introduction
urban life takes place. And, finally, this is where the atmosphere of a
district or an entire city is created.
The term “atmosphere” is derived from the Greek words atmós (which
means air, pressure, steam) and sfaira (or sphere). It describes the
gaseous envelope that surrounds a celestial body, usually consisting
of a mix of various gases held in place by the gravitational force of
the body. The atmosphere is at its densest at the surface; at greater
heights, it transitions fluidly into interplanetary space.
This physical definition has much in common with the other meaning
of the term, namely atmosphere as the sensory mood or ambience
of a location or a space. We also describe the Earth’s atmosphere in
physical terms. And the atmosphere that is discussed in this book could
be described as the atmosphere of a site. Similarly to the Earth’s
atmosphere, it too is composed of a “mix of various gases”, in this case
the differing sensory “emanations” of the space, the objects within it,
and of the people and their social actions as a whole. Each object and
every person radiates uniquely characteristic sensory impressions,
which in turn trigger unique and subjective perceptions in those who
discern this mixture. Every object, every house, every tree and every
human being has their own appearance, their own expression, scent and
sound that feels unique.
This atmosphere is also referred to as an “aura”. The atmosphere
of a city is composed of the many different auratic emanations of
its individual elements, which, in turn, form what one might call the
“atmospheric gaseous mix” of the city and its districts.
Atmosphere is our first — and fastest — perception of a space. An urban

space is a highly complex web of many individual components. Never-
theless, we usually absorb it immediately and with all our senses:
when we step into the space of a street or square, we form an intuitive
impression of its appearance and scale, which triggers a subconscious
chain of associations without having consciously grasped every detail.
At the same time we hear the width or narrowness of the space, and
the composition of its materials, without being able to consciously
describe this sound. At the same time, the scent of a space may awaken
memories in us, which remind us an entirely different, distant situation.
All this occurs in the selfsame initial blink of an eye.
From this mix of sensory perceptions, we develop a sense of the space,

which we have difficulty in grasping more precisely and tend to simply
speak of as “atmosphere”. However, this preconceived mood will often
determine whether we like a room or an individual object, whether
we use it intuitively relaxed and feel comfortable in relation to it. All this
is based on a sensory code, through which we communicate with
the space.
In order to deliberately create an atmosphere, it is therefore of upmost

importance to discover how its code functions. To this end, one must
analyze and understand the precise composition of the individual
elements in order to produce the correct mix of sensory perceptions.
The concept of density plays an important role in this process.
As in the context of a planet, it is highest in proximity to the physical
mass and diminishes with increasing distance. One could say that a
high degree of built density also create a dense atmosphere. However
in the subjective meaning of the concept of atmosphere as a sensory
mood in a space, atmospheric density is not primarily dependent on
the high concentration of building masses, but on the balanced mix

of a multitude of sensory impressions, which create a certain sensory
density in the perception of the city. We step into the atmosphere of
a street and sense whether we like it or whether there is a discrepancy
or dissonance between the space and ourselves.
This book presents an analytical exploration of the relationship between

built density and atmosphere to facilitate a new drafting of funda-
mental principles for the creation of harmonious dense atmospheres
in our cities, about which their inhabitants can say:
“It’s lovely here.”

Approach,
Methodology, and
Terminology
4 Cities, 36 Urban Districts, 9
Density Categories, 13 Analysis
Parameters
39 Methodology and Terminology
The current debate on the necessity of densification The Density Factors

and the appropriate degree of density in our settle-
ments always encompasses the question of the gain Building density is calculated on the basis of the
in quality of life associated with it and the resulting floor area ratio (FAR) values; the way this is calcu-
atmosphere. The core question that underlies this lated is not identical in all European cities and coun-
book is: what is the specific relationship in an tries. Therefore, in this book, it is not calculated in
urban district between building density and the usual way, from the ratio between the sum of
atmosphere? the floor areas of a building and the corresponding
private lot area; instead, it takes the entire area
The first step toward determining an answer to this of a defined urban perimeter 4 as a reference. The
question is to define nine density factors and to values described as density factors are therefore
classify them in nine categories. Within this matrix, calculated from the sum of the floor areas of all
36 districts, or perimeters, in four Central European buildings within the perimeter in relation to the total
cities are examined according to 13 analysis para area of the same perimeter:
meters, compared, and finally related to the image
and the prevailing atmosphere in each perimeter. Sum of floor areas of all
In this chapter, the key terms are explained and the buildings
methodology and approach are described. = density factor
Sum of total area of the
urban perimeter
Density This approach takes into consideration not only the

areas of the private lots, but also the area covered
The term density is employed in a dual, deliberately by the public street space, squares, and parks,
ambiguous sense: on the one hand as building which are all included in the calculation. Thus the
density, to which the nine density categories in this resulting density factor provides reliable information
study refer. This is defined as the distribution of on the actual building density in the totality of an
the built fabric in relation to a limited urban space.1 urban perimeter. Public space plays a special role
The key value for this density is the floor area ratio. 2 in this calculation, since it has a significant impact
on the density factor.
The atmospheric density, on the other hand,
signifies the intensity of the sensory perception and
the specific mood in the exterior spaces of the
selected perimeters in each city. This includes visu-
al, acoustic, tactile, and olfactory stimuli, as well
as the total image of the relevant district and how
social life in the district is perceived. One could also
describe this aspect as the “perceived density”. 3
The connection between these two terms is the

subject of this book.
40 Approach
The Nine Density Categories The Four Cities
The density categories form the backbone of this To ensure clear comparability, four European cities
study. Based on the density factors, nine density from German-speaking countries were selected for
categories are defined. Each density category this study:
encompasses a certain range of density factors,
determining the degree of density in the assigned Berlin
perimeters: Munich
Vienna
Density category 1 Zurich
density factors of less than 0.4
Density category 2 Although these four cities differ considerably in
density factors from 0.4 — 0.6 terms of total area and population, they neverthe-
Density category 3 less share a comparable historic and cultural
density factors from 0.6 — 0.9 background, similar settlement structures, and
Density category 4 homogeneous lifestyles and demands among the
density factors from 0.9 — 1.2 residents.
Density category 5
density factors from 1.2 — 1.5
Density category 6 The 36 Urban Districts
density factors from 1.5 — 1.9
Density category 7 Nine urban perimeters or districts were selected
density factors from 1.9 — 2.3 in each of the four cities for the analysis. Each
Density category 8 perimeter is a clearly delineated district within the
density factors from 2.3 — 2.7 city, and encompasses private land parcels as well
Density category 9 as public streets, parks, and squares. Each of these
density factors above 2.7 perimeters is assigned to a density category. In
the book, the perimeters are therefore identified as
One perimeter per city was defined as analysis follows (density factor in parentheses):
area in each density category. 5 In this manner, one
perimeter each from four cities is analyzed per
density category. This approach makes it possible
to compare different urban planning patterns from
different periods and in different contexts, but
with similar building density. The relative consistency
of the building density within each category makes
it possible, in turn, to draw conclusions with regard
to the influence of the building density on the at-
mosphere in the district. Does building density alone
determine atmosphere to a large extent? What
other factors are similarly influential in this regard? 6
Density category 1 The criteria for the selection of the perimeters within
Berlin — Privatstraße (0.23) each density category are the building density, the
Munich — Waldstraße (0.36) comparable total area, a similar siting within the city,
Vienna — Schippergasse (0.31) and as broad a spectrum of urban development
Zurich — Im Heimgärtli (0.30) patterns as possible, both within the density category
itself and among all the analyzed perimeters being
Density category 2 compared.
Berlin — Drakestraße (0.41)
Munich — Reindlstraße (0.47)
Vienna — Pilotengasse (0.43) The 13 Analysis Parameters
Zurich — Schlösslistraße (0.44)
In order to determine which factors, in addition to
Density category 3 building density, affect the atmosphere, each of
Berlin — Hochsitzweg (0.63) the 36 urban perimeters is evaluated according to
Munich — Quiddestraße (0.80) 13 analysis parameters. These include parameters
Vienna — Larochegasse (0.70) relating to the buildings and the exterior space, as
Zurich — Altwiesenstraße (0.61) well as social and historical parameters:
Density category 4 Year of construction (YC)

Berlin — Goebelstraße (0.93) Occupation density (OD)
Munich — Konrad-Dreher-Straße (1.03) Population turnover (PT)
Vienna — Prinzgasse (1.01) Building height (H)
Zurich — Meierwiesenstraße (1.18) Number of floors (F)
Floor area ratio (FAR)
Density category 5 Site occupancy index (SOI)
Berlin — Senftenberger Ring (1.44) Volume-to-area ratio (VAR)
Munich — Holbeinstraße (1.37) Rental price (RP)
Vienna — Ringofenweg (1.31) Undeveloped area (UA)
Zurich — Scheuchzerstraße (1.28) Public space (PS)
Use and (public) ground-floor use (PU)
Density category 6 Private Space (PRS)
Berlin — Bonner Straße (1.53)
Munich — Tumblinerstraße (1.78) On the one hand, these parameters are compared
Vienna — Hasnerstraße (1.62) within each density category to draw conclusions as
Zurich — Bändliweg (1.55) to the character of each category. On the other hand,
the analysis of these parameters makes it possible
Density category 7 to assess their influence on the atmosphere of the
Berlin — Christburger Straße (2.12) urban perimeters across all density categories.
Munich — Pariser Platz (2.02) Precise information on the calculation of each
Vienna — Fockygasse (1.96) individual parameter is provided at the beginning
Zurich — Kanzleistraße (1.96) of the “density catalog”, which contains maps repre-
senting the key values and an easy-to-follow over-
Density category 8 view of all analysis parameters in the form of charts.
Berlin — Raabestraße (2.33) At the end of the density catalog, all the
Munich — Im Tal (2.62) charts of each city are summarized in a city diagram
Vienna — Hahngasse (2.49) to provide a clear and comprehensive diagrammatic
Zurich — Spiegelgasse (2.52)
image of Berlin, Munich, Vienna, and Zurich.
Density category 9
Berlin — Friedrichstraße (3.40)
Munich — Schwanthalerstraße (2.89)
Vienna — Wollzeile (3.18)
Zurich — Bahnhofstraße (2.78)
42 Approach
The Atmosphere District Descriptions

Detailed descriptions of the history, location within
In contrast to the objectively measurable 13 analysis the city as a whole, current image, streetscape, and
parameters, the atmosphere of an urban district atmosphere are provided for each of the 36 urban
is largely determined by the subjective perception perimeters from the perspective of the author in
of each individual resident or passer-by and their order to furnish the reader with as clear an idea as
relationship with this environment. But in addition possible of the character of each perimeter. These
to the highly personal readings, there are universally district descriptions are contained in the chapter
applicable connections that lead to a perception “The Districts”; in addition to the data of the analysis
of atmosphere shared by most people in a specific parameters, they form the basis for the evaluation
district. This shared perception depends on certain and conclusions of this book.
constellations of a wide range of elements in the
urban space. And this book explores these constella-
tions in the exterior space of the various perimeters,
with a particular focus on the public spaces.
However, in order to be able to discern the
subjective components of the atmosphere, one
needs to be present in this environment. One has
to be physically there to see, smell, and feel all the
ingredients. But a book does not provide that
opportunity. For this reason a variety of illustrative
means have been employed to convey the atmos-
pheric mood and render it experienceable for the
reader, thereby facilitating a comparison of the peri
meters in the different cities and density categories:
Standardized District Photographs

The public street spaces and the semi-public exterior
spaces were photographically documented in all
four cities according to rigorous criteria for compari-
son: identical height of camera viewpoint, central
perspective, same time of day, similar weather con-
ditions. These photographs are shown in the
“density catalog” at the beginning of each density
category. They provide a clear overview of the exter
ior spaces in the corresponding perimeters.
Atmospheric Photographs
The photo essay visually captures the atmosphere
in the different perimeters. Large-format, full-page
photographs reveal the subjective gaze of the
photographer, who portrays selected details of the
life in the district. These photographs are integrated
into the chapter “The Districts” and also feature
in the preface and the credits pages of this book.
Approach and Methodology The Density Catalog

The Density Catalog presents the collective data
All these data, facts, and descriptions are analyzed material — all the material that can be objectively
and evaluated in order to draw conclusions on the measured and visualized — arranged according
connection between building density and atmos- to density category, in the form of photographs,
phere. The book is divided into three main sections: maps, and diagrams. A practical thumb index is a
“The Density Analysis”, “The Density Stories”, and valuable aid in locating information for each category.
“The Density Catalog.” Thus the relevant data material in the catalogue is
readily accessible to complement the reading of the
“density analysis”. Readers can therefore explore
The Density Analysis sections of the book separately and according to
The density analysis contains the textual analysis their own preferences, while at the same time gain-
comprising the district descriptions, the evaluation, ing an understanding of how the chapters are linked
and the conclusions. It is organized into three sub- and relate to each other.
chapters:
The Districts 1
See section: “The 36 Urban Districts”.
To begin with, the basic prerequisites for each 2
density category are briefly explained; next, each See section: “The Density Factors”.
of the four perimeters in Berlin, Munich, Vienna, and 3
See section: “The Atmosphere”.
Zurich are described, followed by a brief interim 4
conclusion on the character of each density category. See section: “The 36 Urban Districts”.
This creates an overview of all nine density categor
5
On the selection criteria, see section:
ies and the 36 districts. “The 36 Urban Districts”.
6
Density, Atmosphere, and Numbers See section: “The 13 Analysis
Parameters”.
Next, the objective criteria of the relationship
between density and atmosphere are explored
across all density categories, perimeters, and cities.
The material comprising plans, numbers, and data —
visually represented in the second section of the
book, the “density catalog”—forms the basis for this
exploration. Finally, this material is then related to
the insights gathered in the district descriptions.
Density and Atmosphere

Based on these insights, comprehensive conclu-
sions arising from the study are drawn, and the key
factors for the connection between density and
atmosphere are identified. This is rounded out with
commentary on the implications of the study, and
criteria for future district plans.
The Density Stories

In the “Density Stories”, four authors share literary
narratives on the cities. These four narratives were

created specifically for this book and capture the
unique character of each author’s city from his
or her personal perspective: some speak of their
hometown, while others portray their chosen
hometown. Berlin, Munich, Vienna, and Zurich and
their respective atmospheres are thus made
“readable”, complemented by a brief commentary.
the districts
36 Urban Districts in 9 Density
Categories
The character of an urban district
is largely determined by its historical
origins, the social composition of its
inhabitants, its location and use, its
current appearance, and much more
besides.
Below, the basic conditions of each
density category are briefly outlined,
each of the respective perimeters from
Berlin, Munich, Vienna and Zurich
is concisely characterized, and finally
some short preliminary conclusions
as to the character of the respective den
sity categories are drawn.
Density Category 1 ( < 0.4 )
Single-Family House Idyll 1:

House and Garden
Zurich, Im Heimgärtli
48 Density Category 1
The Dream of a House of One’s Own
The present analysis of districts with a lose development profile on

urban peripheries begins with density category 1. People who move to
locations such as these are looking for very specific qualities. The
houses — most of which are detached, with surrounding gardens — are
home to residents seeking a sheltered, intimate and private living
environment in close contact with nature.
Historically, the four developments studied here are expansions
of traditionally evolved village structures, which arose in the early
twentieth century in response to the sudden increase in population
numbers and the impact of industrialization, and were consequently
incorporated into the adjacent towns and cities. Further densification
of the inner cities seemed no longer possible. Regardless of class,
families of all income levels were looking for a healthy lifestyle with
fresh air, light and sun in a verdant environment. With this in mind,
Ebenezer Howard developed the idea of the Garden City toward the
end of the nineteenth century. Originating in Great Britain, where the
burdens of industrial growth were especially great, and soon spreading
across industrialized Central Europe, the Garden-City movement
seemed to promise relief for the overstrained city centers. Many cities
that built districts based on the English example initially adopted a
cooperative model financed by municipal or private funds, yet without
aiming to realize Howard’s Garden City vision in its entirety.1 1
Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City scheme
The verdant urban expansions were instead rather patchy envisioned founding large new urban
complements to the existing city, and adopted a pragmatic approach. developments in the countryside,
They were either created in areas with favorable landscapes, or beyond the boundaries of existing cities.
They were to comprise several concen-
on land that allowed for the easy development of inexpensive building trically arranged belts of new develop-
sites, or in the vicinity of the new factories on the urban periphery. ment with a variety of functions (e.g.
Initially, people used the gardens for a home-grown food supply. residential, commercial, cultural amen
ities), separated by agricultural land. As
This aspect was vitally important, especially in the years following a new urban utopia, the garden cities
the First World War. The regular rows of relatively quickly erected and were intended to dissolve the contrast
rather modest post-war homes, with their narrow streets and optimized between city and countryside and make
it possible for cities to grow and expand
land use, continue to define many urban peripheries in Central in a healthy fashion. Although no Gar-
European cities and still transmit the atmosphere of those desperate den City was ever fully realized, the idea
years into the present day. served as inspiration for the urban-plan-
ning ambitions of modernism and their
With economic recovery, the meaning of property ownership subsequent implementation on a large
changed from collective uniformity toward taking pleasure in a small scale after the Second World War.
territory of one’s own, which could be designed with individual flair.
Up to the present day, single-family house districts remain the poster
images of our individualized society.
What the four districts under analysis have in common is the
expansive homogeneity of their urban planning. As new housing
settlements, they were conceived on the drawing board to respond to
the requirements and ideals of their time and then implemented.
Even now, many of these suburban settlements are still barely connect-
ed to the adjacent urban areas owing to this structural uniformity.

Over the years, this had led to the emergence of an urban patchwork
of very different, isolated urban districts, which characterizes suburbs
today.
The Perimeter
The district centered on Waldstraße in Munich-Trudering (density

factor 0.36) is a residential area that has gone through all these de-
velopment stages. During the years of severe housing shortages
toward the end of the First World War, the so-called Gartenstadt
49 House and Garden
(garden city) was created in the Munich suburb of Trudering, which

includes the area around Waldstraße and was incorporated (into
Munich) in 1932. After the Second World War, the once needy popula-
tion strata, with their vegetable gardens grown for self-sufficiency,
gradually made way for more affluent middle-class residents, who
appreciated the tranquil and family-oriented lifestyle in green surround-
ings with easy access to the city. Since the closure of the old
airport and the completion of a subway line to the new Messestadt
Riem district (lit. Convention City Riem) in 1999, population numbers
have increased sharply. Today, the Gartenstadt in Trudering is one of
Munich’s most popular residential districts.
This successive development is clearly visible in the design of the
individual houses. In the grid of quiet residential streets encompassing
blocks of different sizes, simple buildings with hip roofs from the
early years of the settlement alternate with semi-detached homes from
the 1950s and two-family houses from the 1970s designed in the
vernacular of the Bavarian alpine foothills, and contrasting with renovat-
ed 1960s bungalows. In between, building cranes tower skyward
from newly excavated construction pits right alongside postmodern
single-family homes.
A close look at the figure ground plans of the four districts re-
veals that Trudering boasts the largest open spaces while at the
same time possessing the greatest building density. This is the result
of a deliberate concentration of the building mass in mainly two-story
detached and semi-detached homes along the edges of unusually
deep lots. Consequently, the centers of the blocks have a very gener-
ous, visually continuous garden space. 2 From the very beginning, 2
A similar urban-planning solution with
a second building line was introduced in this area, and is mostly occu- greater density (larger houses on
pied by small garden sheds or gazebos, as well as a few residential smaller lots) may be found in the Lich
homes accessible via footpaths. In the near future, this potential terfelde residential district. Compare
the Drakestraße perimeter, density
building space could be utilized more intensively at the expense of category 2.
the gardens, as is already happening in the eastern part of the
district. If this were the case, the density factor would increase signif-
icantly.
The urbanization of the district is also reflected in the concen-
tration of public space. On the one hand, at barely 12.5 percent,
the share of public spaces in relation to the gross area within the
perimeter is lowest among the four districts analyzed here. On
the other hand,it is notable when looking at the larger context of the
garden city that small-scale and larger parks are dispersed across
the district; public spaces are thus combined to form open spaces for
communal use, very much in the vein of urban squares. They create
focal points in an otherwise uniform residential district, where the
streets are interchangeably similar despite the difference in house
styles. 3 3
If this type of green space, for example
The proximity to the urban core is also revealed in the great the area along Waldstraße, were to
number of cars parked in the relatively wide streets with sidewalks be included in the perimeter discussed
on both sides. Moreover, the dynamic district boasts the highest fluc- here, the percentage of public space
would be much higher.
tuation rate of all perimeters under discussion.
At first glance the Schippergasse in Vienna-Großjedlersdorf (dens

ity factor 0.31) offers a very similar streetscape. However, this
district provides a more tranquil environment than that in Munich. The
houses are slightly lower in height, the streets somewhat more
verdant, and the residents display the highest residential stability of
the four districts. Even so, in the figure ground plan the development
in this district reveals the highest density, confirmed by the high
site occupancy index of 0.19. With a floor area ratio of 0.31, the
Berlin, Privatstraße
Munich, Waldstraße
utilization of available development space is well below that seen in

Munich. This more modest ambiance of the district is rooted in its
origins, which are closely linked to the industrialization of the region.
Like Trudering, Jedlersdorf was once a small village in the
floodplains of the Danube outside of the city gates of Vienna. From
1872 onward, the construction of the Northwestern Railway (a former
railway company during the Austro-Hungarian Empire) gave rise
to the emergence of many industries in addition to the large railway
factory. Following incorporation into Vienna as the city’s 21st district
at the beginning of the twentieth century, there was a steady influx
of large working class families, necessitating the creation of a variety
of factory and workers’ housing settlements. Among these is the
Schotterfeld workers’ settlement, which was founded in the late 1920s.
Rapid industrial development has left its mark on Großjedlersdorf
to the present. Today, the bourgeois idyll of the district is surrounded
by a hodgepodge of large-scale developments on the boundary to
the open landscape. 4 4
Compare the districts Pilotengasse
Once again, the individual houses reveal their year of construc- (density category 2) and Prinzgasse
tion; the overall urban structure, however, is noticeably more homo (density category 4) in a similar setting
geneous. The older streets are narrow with unpaved sidewalks, while in the Donaustadt, Vienna.
the newer ones are more generous in scale with paved sidewalks
on both sides and, in some case, rows of trees that separate the
sidewalks from the road. The streets surround narrow neighborhood
blocks, which are nearly equal in size and reflect the former division
of agricultural fields. Although this area has the highest ratio of public
spaces — nearly 16 percent — among the four districts analyzed here,
there are no parks at all. The street is the only space available for
communal use, but as it fails to provide a hospitable environment,
it tends to remain empty. Daily life plays out within the confines of the
private homes and gardens. This great emphasis on privacy is also
evident in the occupancy rate, which documents that each resident of
the Schippergasse occupies an average of just under 119 square
meters floor space.
The settlement Im Heimgärtli in Zurich-Albisrieden (density factor

0.30) shows an even more homogeneous image. In contrast to the
other three districts, it was built in 1933 as a simple workers’ settlement
with gardens for cultivating fruits and vegetables for self-sufficiency.
To this day, it still looks as if it were cast from a single mold.
The Heimgärtli is also located in a former suburb, which was
incorporated into the City of Zurich in 1934 in the wake of industrial
development. Since Albisrieden is shadowed by the Uetliberg
(a small mountain overlooking the city) in the afternoons, it was never
one of Zurich’s preferred residential areas despite its proximity to
nature. The entire foot of the mountain slope was therefore gradually
built over by building cooperatives with simple row housing and
smaller detached homes. It is only very recently that some of these

settlements are being expanded with new buildings on a larger scale.
The building structure of the Heimgärtli district is extremely
simple and space saving. The relatively small area was divided into
identical building lots. “Im Heimgärtli”, the eponymous street, is a quiet
cul-de-sac that forms the central axis of the district. Identical small
two-story houses with saddle roofs are centered along this axis of the
site. As a result, the individual buildings are separated by green zones,
but the private garden space has shrunk to a narrow strip around
the house. However, this narrow strip is so intensively utilized that
many of the modest homes are nearly obscured by vegetation today.
The two blocks at the core were even developed with three rows
53 House and Garden
each to maximize the land use. Of these, the center row is accessed
via small dead-end access lanes.
Although individual houses have gradually been adapted to
changed living requirements over the course of time, the serial row
layout has been preserved since larger additions are impossible due to
a lack of building space on each lot.
As is the case in Vienna, there is a great degree of identification with
the district and hence considerable stability with regard to long-term
residency. At 14 percent, the ratio of public space still falls within the
average range of the density category 1; however, in this case it is
exclusively concentrated on the narrow network of paths through the
settlement, without creating any visible focal points. The modest
width of the streets, which have no sidewalks, creates close proximity
between neighbors and generates an intimate sense of community
among them.
In contrast to the rather repetitive and extensive urban configurations

in Munich, Vienna and Zurich, the district Privatstraße in Berlin-
Hohenschönhausen (density factor 0.23) is characterized by an
idiosyncratic, rigorous structure.
Hohenschönhausen, a former one-street village in Brandenburg
that was incorporated into Greater Berlin in 1920, was renowned
as a small rural oasis thanks to the small lakes that surround it. When
industry moved into the area, population numbers soared and new
developments sprang up, branching out in sections from the historic
core of the village. On one of the northern pie-shaped sections
of this expansion, a single-family house development was created on
a privately owned site from 1936 onward. The structure of this
development, whose systematically numbered streets are still simply
named as a “Privatstraße” or “private street”, is radially aligned with
the old village center. The curved side streets, lacking in sidewalks, are
relatively narrow; their unpaved edges emanate a rural atmosphere.
At a small green space, which forms the center of the district, a wide
principal axis with green verges and pedestrian paths intersects
with an expanded crossroad. Surrounded by modest residential areas,
large-scale prefab housing estates and allotments, the settlement
seems introverted and insular — sealed off from the outside.
The narrow lots are roughly equal in size. Small houses from all
stages of the development are situated close to the road, their
gardens to the rear forming a communally sheltered green space in
each block — much the same as in the district in Munich — within which
a variety of small structures have been erected as well as a notable
number of small pools.
This settlement has by far the lowest building density of all the
districts analyzed in this chapter. The distance between structures,
the intensive use of the gardens and the proximity between neighbor-
ing blocks almost gives the district an air of an allotment colony.

This modesty is also evident in the occupancy index of 68 square
meters of floor space per resident. Although the central green space
and the two wide axes offer generous public spaces, daily life remains
focused on the lovingly maintained homes and gardens.
Private Sphere and Communal Sphere
The areas analyzed for density category 1 are purely residential areas
where active use is focused in the private sphere. Generally speaking,
the street serves only as a traffic route and connection to the city,
Berlin, Privatstraße
Munich, Waldstraße
57 House and Garden
since there is a lack of public transportation and infrastructure or

services within walking distance. It is only from a certain building
density onward that public space comes into play as an essential
activity sphere. In all development densities in this category, however,
the character of a district is nevertheless strongly determined by
the distribution and form of the public space.
Munich’s Gartenstadt has the most distinct spatial forms and
definitive differentiation between public and private space. Set closely
to the street and mostly two-stories high, the houses, which are
aligned in a row along the street, create an almost urban streetscape,
complemented to the rear by a similarly clearly defined garden
space. The district is characterized by a concentration of both building
masses and open spaces.
In the Heimgärtli in Zurich, in contrast, public space is almost
completely eliminated in favor of private space. The figure ground plan
shows a distribution of identical two-story homes that is so homo
genous as to render the streets almost invisible to the eye. Given their
narrowness, the streets barely disturb the green continuum of the
garden areas — they appear to not create any divisions. The community
is in the foreground here.
The other districts lie somewhere between these two polar
opposites. Although the Wiener Schippergasse boasts the highest
percentage of public space, in the figure ground plan the perimeter
reveals a development distribution that is similarly uniform to that in
the Heimgärtli in Zurich and recalls, at the same time, the streetscape
in Munich. On the one hand, however, the streets in the Viennese
district are too wide to allow the garden space to dominate the residen-
tial area, and on the other hand the homes are too low in height on
average and too “overgrown” to create a uniform streetscape.
The distribution of spaces in the Berlin settlement is far more
differentiated. Since this perimeter has the least density, the houses
are only one-and-a-half stories in height on average, comparable
to those in Vienna. However, since their floor area is smaller overall,
the gardens are closer on either side of the narrow streets, not unlike
the district in Zurich. Public space is concentrated around a large
axis of coordinates and the small park at its center, lending the area
a rural ambience with its village square, main street and side streets.
Vienna, Schippergasse
Density Category 2 ( 0.4 — 0.6 )
Single-Family House Idyll 2:

Urban Garden Cities
Vienna, Pilotengasse
next page: Munich, Reindlstraße
61 Urban Garden Cities
Garden and City
Density category 2 districts, like category 1, are also settlements

which — at least when they were founded — lay on city peripheries.
In comparison to the first category, the residents here not only want
to enjoy their garden idyll, they also choose to live in green areas in
close proximity to urban society.
The period in which the four selected settlements arose spans more
than a century. Consequently, the motivations behind their foundation
and the aims of their builders vary accordingly. Developments range
from the villa colonies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to the
pragmatic extension of towns during the period between the two
world wars, and more recent attempts to counterpoise faceless prolif-
erations on the outskirts with a distinct and compact form.
For all their typographical and empirical differences, the settle-
ments analyzed here have one thing in common: that they basically
adhere to the model of a private house with a garden whilst simultan
eously seeking to realize this goal in more concentrated urban forms
such as grand villas and long rows of terraced houses. The greater
compactness of these developments — in combination with small,
district-centered infrastructural facilities such as restaurants, shops and
community houses that serve as meeting places within walking
distance — allows for the emergence of a sense of shared identity.
On the one hand, their privileged position, being directly linked to
the inner city, makes these districts highly desirable residential areas
where rented and purchased properties fetch the highest prices.
On the other hand, the developments themselves are intended to inject
a sense of urban life into the peripheries.
The Perimeter
The district in Drakestraße in Berlin-Lichterfelde (density factor 0.41)

is the oldest of the four areas examined here. It lies in the Lichter
felde West villa colony, which was inspired by English models and built
on private land from 1860 onward, making it Berlin’s first villa district.
Its founder and initiator was the Hamburg businessman Johann
Anton Wilhelm von Carstenn, who marketed the district as a profes-
sional project developer. He developed fallow land near the village
of Lichterfelde, building streets, metropolitan railway links and even the
first electric tram line in the world. In this way, he directly linked the
new settlement area with the City of Berlin. From the start, the small
district center with its shops, restaurants, parish hall and beer
garden — both next to the station and along Drakestraße — made the
villa colony independent of the surrounding villages. Even now, it still 1
In order to sell the property at a profit,
serves as the gate to the city. Carstenn, a shrewd businessman,

Buyers1 were able to construct villas on their own land according financed the construction of a Prussian
their own tastes, resulting — in the heyday of historicism — in a wide main cadet school. As a consequence,
the area soon became a select residen-
variety of imaginative building styles. As the villas’ styles had to meet tial area for members of the Prussian
very strict urban-planning regulations and reflect the owners’ desire officer corps of noble ancestry.
for prestige, 2 by the early twentieth century a unique villa colony had 2
Among other things, the houses had
emerged that not only displayed cohesive urban planning and extraor- to adhere to a common building line
dinary architectural diversity, but also became a model for other and have a prestigious designed facade
settlements of this nature. During the post-1945 housing shortage, (regardless of the style) facing the
street.
a large number of the villas were divided up into apartments. The
building gaps left by the Second World War were partially filled with
new, pragmatically designed apartment buildings. Nevertheless most
of the historicist villas have remained intact and are today to a large
extent under preservation orders.
The area under investigation at the junction of Drakestraße and

Holbeinstraße is typical of the colony as a whole. Most of the compact
street blocks are surrounded by detached houses, which form small villa
complexes at the street corners and are crowned with small towers,3 3
In common parlance they are referred to
lending the crossroads an urban character with a square-like atmos- as the Lichterfelde “mini-tower villas”.
phere. The occasional shop or restaurant can be found here, too.
All of the houses in the street have been erected along a single build-
ing line, so that their front gardens create space between the houses
and the street. The villas, mostly two or three stories high, are entered
via a staircase leading to the typical raised ground floor — the
prestigious belle étage. Nowadays, converted coachman’s houses, as
well as the occasional villa, may still be found on properties located
in the center of the square development blocks. Although Drakestraße,
as a thoroughfare, has meanwhile been asphalted, the side streets
with their old cobbled surfaces and traditional gas lighting still evoke
the atmosphere of the time it was built.
Despite its rich architectural diversity, the district has a very
peaceful and homogeneous atmosphere due to the greenness of
the old gardens and the tall trees planted in an avenue-like fashion
between the footpaths on both sides and the street. Neighbors
encounter one another on the way to the baker’s, the S-Bahn (metro-
politan railway) and the restaurant, allowing a moderate street life
to take place in peaceful surroundings.
Thanks to these qualities, plus the fast railway connection to the
Berlin-Mitte district, since German reunification the Villenkolonie
Lichterfelde delights in its having become an extremely popular resi-
dential area again, especially among diplomats.
Most of the settlement area around Schlösslistraße on the Zürich-

berg (density factor: 0.44) arose in the early 20 th century as a noble
villa district. A glance at a figure ground diagram shows that it has
a very different structure to that of Drakestraße. In contrast to Berlin,
where an extensive street network has created clearly defined de-
velopment blocks, Zürichberg displays a largely uniform distribution of
detached houses, partly due to its very different topographical situation.
Schlösslistraße lies in the Zurich district of Fluntern, which originally de-
rived its livelihood from growing wine grapes on the steep southern
slopes of the Zürichberg. When the city experienced an economic
boom in the nineteenth century, the mountain suddenly acquired
a new significance. The city fortifications at the foot of the mountain
were demolished to make way for Zurich’s highly prestigious university,
the ETH , and the new hospital, whilst the panoramic vineyards
were transformed into highly sought-after residential areas for wealthy
citizens, who sought to escape both the haze of the smoke emissions
of the expanding industry in the Limmattal (the valley of the River
Limmat) and the oppressive layers of fog in the Zurich winter. 4 Under 4
The precursors of the villas were large
the new development plan of 1901, the steep old vineyard paths country estates owned by families
were replaced by the district’s winding streets, while the invention of who lived in the city. One example of this
the motorcar made it easier for people to reach the area, which from is Schlössli Susenberg, which gave
Schlösslistraße and Susenbergstraße
then onwards became increasingly popular among wealthy citizens. their names. In 1909, the villa was
As a result, available building land became correspondingly scarcer and bought by the Phoenix Construction
more expensive. Hence, the more recent the development, the smaller Company. It was later torn down and sold
at a profit together with the surrounding
the land parcels. In the 1950s, simpler, single-family houses and estates, which form the perimeter.
co-operative buildings were built between the old villas. The district has
meanwhile become a scene of bustling construction, and for many
Berlin, Drakestraße
Berlin, Drakestraße
Zurich, Schlösslistraße
years now rising demand for prestigious living space has increased the
pressure of private investment. 5 Although the area is linked to the 5
Generally, the old villas are demol-
inner city by the nearby Rigiblick funicular tramline and a bus route, the ished and replaced by new build-
car remains the most common means of transport in the district. ings with luxury owner-occupied
Due to its sunny position and proximity to the city on the one hand, and flats. The new dwellers exploit
the site to the full and contribute
the Zürichberg woods on the other, the Schlösslistraße district is now towards the district’s growing
one of the most expensive residential areas in the whole of Zurich. population density.
Correspondingly the residents place a high premium on their privacy.
The streetscape is marked by the high, protective hedges and the
supporting walls of the terraced properties, which often also contain
garages. The roads themselves vary considerably in quality: the flatter
ones following the contour lines are wider and paved on one side
only, while the steeper streets on the slope are often much narrower,
only partially cobbled, and lack pavements. Steep stairs, do however,
provide short cuts for pedestrians. 6 6
Often, these steep footpaths followed
the old vineyard paths.
In contrast to the two nineteenth century Gründerzeit districts in Berlin
and Zurich, which are primarily populated with free-standing villas,
the qualities of the more recent and modest settlements in Munich and
Vienna relies on rows of compact terraced housing.
The middle-class ribbon developments within the perimeter of Reindl-

straße in Munich-Laim (density factor 0.47) are part of the Neu-
friedenheim settlement, which was built around 1930 — during the
Weimar Republic — as a social-housing project by the Gemeinnützige
Wohnfürsorge (charitable housing welfare) as part of a large-scale
project aimed at alleviating the growing housing shortage. The architect,
Bruno Biehler, planned nine rows of two-story houses, while a tenth
four-story row7 was to be shielded in the east from the traffic noise in 7
The four-story row lies outside the
Fürstenrieder Straße. These quiet residential blocks, built in groups of perimeter of the grounds.
two, surround four green garden spaces that open to the south in
a star-like formation. A narrow central gravel path, lined by hedges,
provides access to each of the garden plots, as in an arbor garden
settlement. These garden areas are interrupted at Indersdorferstraße
in the north by one-story connecting buildings accommodating small
shops and garages. The central building is set back slightly, creating
a small public park facing the street, with narrow treeless streets —
paved on either side — running between the narrow parallel rows. The
small front gardens and the entrances to the houses are separated
from the street area by one low step, without any fences or walls. As
a result, these private areas are transformed optically into a part of
the public space, and green the street. In order to break up the monot-
ony of the rows of houses, the architect has also arranged the rows
into two to six part-sections of unequal length and colored each one in
a different, earthy pastel tone. 8 8
The Hochsitzweg neighborhood in Berlin
The finely meshed path network, as well as the small scale of the (density category 3) has a similar urban
houses and the street spaces, lends the district an intimate and almost constellation, except that the houses are
village-like character. In both the streets and the gardens, the dis- one story higher.
tinction between public and private space is blurred. Although it has

the highest building density, the Neufriedenheim settlement has by
far the greatest share of public spaces of all the four perimeters
analyzed in this category. The spaces actually used by the public — the
small parking lot and the rows of shops on the one side, and the
restaurant and beer-garden opposite the Catholic Church on the other —
face the major roads. As a result, the settlement remains a peaceful
locality, which strangers are hesitant to enter.
As the secluded settlement has largely retained its original char-
acter, it is now under a preservation order.
Zurich, Schlösslistraße
At first sight, the settlement in Pilotengasse, Vienna-Aspern (density

factor 0.43) might almost be a contemporary version of the settlement
in Munich. And there are certainly a number of parallels. Here, too, the
long lines of rowed housing are subdivided into smaller sections,
and colors — some earthy, some extremely powerful — alleviate their
monotony. Here, too, an intricate network of paths runs between the
two-story house rows. But whereas the district around Munich
Reindlstraße has been integrated into an existing urban environment,
the Pilotengasse settlement turns into a privatized experiment on
a green-meadow site. The strictly square and flat plot, including its
circulation routes and infrastructure, was developed as an entity by the
Österreichisches Siedlungswerk (the property developer) and com-
pleted between 1989 and 1992. As a manifesto-like model settlement,
it was supposed to explore the potential of a high-density settlement
on a sprawling periphery. 9 Instead of creating distinct village and 9
Compare the Ringofenweg neigh
urban spaces, however, the three teams of architects comprising Adolf borhood (density category 5), a similar
Krischaniz, Steidle + Partner, and Herzog & de Meuron devised a joint experiment with a higher density.
development plan that creates a space full of abstract allusions.10 10
The estate’s individual units could also
The radii of the six long, curving lines of rowed housing allude to be interpreted as a construction-kit-like
imaginary, distant centers outside the periphery. As a result, the inter- collection of development typologies
stices, with their gardens and narrow private paths, widen and of the modern estates of the 1920s and
1930s, as can be found — in the color
become narrow without ever defining a real center. On the western side scheme and down to the very last
the structure is flanked by a long, straight line of rowed housing, detail — in Zehlendorf’s former rural
whereas the individual houses are separated from one another by settlement Onkel Toms Hütte in Berlin
(see perimeter Hochsitzweg, density
single-story extensions in the garden. On the eastern side, a row of category 3).
free-standing single and two-family houses appears to open outwards.
As for the long building — which runs from north to south — and the
diagonally aligned reference fields of gardens and green spaces, the
architects speak of a textural overlay.11 Hence, the individual rows, 11
www.krischanitz.ch
with their individually designed frontage buildings, logically end in
a diagonal green area containing two community halls and a playground.
Although Pilotengasse lies approximately fourteen kilometers from
the center of Vienna, it has good subway connections to the inner city.
As a model development it attempted to create an extended structure
minus a center, which was intended to combine the advantages
of urban living and its social plurality with the pleasures of peaceful
residency in the green periphery. In order to correspondingly individ-
ualize the strict order of the development site, the architects joined
together various typologies in a variety of colors and flows.12 There is 12
There are a total of 21 different apart-
only one central parking lot on the north side of the perimeter, and the ment types in the housing development.
internal routes are only usable on foot. 13 of them are single houses, five duplex
houses with ten apartments, six single-
story apartments, 35 terrace houses with
172 apartments, and two community
Family Life with Urban Accessibility buildings.
The four districts in density category 2 attempt to perform a balan

cing act between allowing people to lead self-determined lives on the

green periphery and participating in the advantages of communal city
life. Despite their similar structural density, however, their characters
are completely different.
Surprisingly, the least densely developed area around Drake-
straße in Berlin is the one with the most urban character, despite the
fact that it is here — as with most modern single-family housing
accommodation — that the most diverse private dwelling dreams coexist
alongside one another. The reasons for this are two-fold. On the
one hand is the urban structure, which is composed of street blocks of
similar proportions and dimensions to those in the Gründerzeit inner-
69 Urban Garden Cities
city districts, and emphasizes the corners by constructing continuous

housing units. On the other hand is that the old avenue trees lend the
street views homogeneity. The villas’ decorative gables, which are
often three stories high, also give the district a sense of urban splendor
and demonstrate the individual intention to achieve prestige in an
urban society. With its small shopping and business center, as well as
its own metropolitan railway station, this district is, at the same time,
the most autonomous of the four areas under examination here.
The Zürichberg villa district has a completely different character.
Here public space accounts for less than 14 percent of the total area:
lower than that for Berlin. Furthermore, there is virtually no public
infrastructure. In contrast to the prestigious buildings in Lichterfelde,
Zürichberg’s villas, set back from the road and with more modest
facades, focus more on the private inner-space of the gardens and
houses.13 13
The quality of life comes closest to that
During the post-war years of housing shortages, the planners in the accommodation of density cate-
seemed to think that it was no longer appropriate to use large spaces gory 1, albeit in a more luxurious form.
for free-standing single-family houses. In many settlements built
during the period of modernism, like that along Reindlstraße in Munich,
people have moved closer together in village-like communities.
In comparison with urban developments in Munich and Vienna, which
have adopted a similar planning approach, it is striking that even
where the share of undeveloped areas is almost identical there remains
a great discrepancy with respect to the share of public spaces.14 14
In the Munich settlement, 24.05 per cent
In both cases, the finely interwoven access routes have increased the comprises public areas, as against 13.42
amount of space devoted to traffic. The Munich perimeter, however, per cent in the Viennese settlement.
clearly differentiates between house entrances facing district roads
used by traffic and gardens accessed via garden paths, even though all
of the streets and paths constitute public space. The Viennese
settlement, in contrast, was built on just one private parcel. Hence, the
purely pedestrian network has also been effectively privatized. This
approach seems to have made Pilotengasse the most introverted of
the settlements mentioned here, and being a less significant address
with fewer passers-by it already displays the deficits of semi-public
spaces.
Urban Apartments in Green

Areas 1: Houses and Rows
Munich, Quiddestraße
The Verdant City
The third density category is caught between the poles of the

private single-family house and the green single-story apartment.
The hybrid nature of this category is reflected in a concomitant
fundamental change in property relations. The structures of the two old
districts in Vienna and Berlin are derived from the idea underlying
the private town villa, which offered those higher up the social ladder
an opportunity to live on their own properties in an open space as
an alternative to the increasingly confined conditions in the city center.
After the Second World War, the widespread shortage of accom
modation caused by drastic socio-economic changes was so great that
totally different dwelling forms had to be found for the broad mass
of the population. As in the perimeters of Zurich and Munich, co-oper-
atives and large investors began developing large parcels of land on
the basis of economic criteria to create the greatest possible number
of rented apartments. Striking here is the fact that, over the course
of time, the development of the floor area ratio (FAR) in the four areas
under investigation responded reciprocally to the figures for the
site occupancy index (SOI). The more recent the settlements and the
larger the plots, the higher the FAR and, at the same time, the smaller
the resultant SOI as a footprint of development. Consequently cubic
capacities develop vertically upwards to the benefit of the surrounding
open spaces. On the one hand, this development guaranties ever
faster and more economical modes of construction, which corresponds
on the other hand to a new attitude towards urban development
that offers the greatest number of people a healthy life in a green
environment.
Despite their peripheral position, however, the four settlements
examined here no longer regard themselves as purely suburban
districts, but as part of the city, whereby some even form towns of
their own.
The Perimeter
The Gründerzeit settlement along Larochgasse in Vienna-Hietzing

(density factor 0.70) graphically illustrates the development of a
prestigious detached house into a city apartment in a green area. Until
the end of the 19 th century, the area was part of the extensive
park of the grand Villa Hügel. With the incorporation of Hietzing into
the City of Vienna, however, land prices suddenly rose. From 1894
on, an estate agent began dividing the park into squares with individual
plots. Stately houses, based on the so-called cottage style inspired
by English models, were built upon these plots up to the early years
of the 20th century.1 In their middle, he left one block undeveloped 1
The district includes, among other things,
and — inspired by the villa gardens of old — transformed the Hügelpark the Steiner and Scheu Villas by Adolf
into a public space. Owing to its location between Schönbrunn Loos, and Villa Langer by Jože Ple čnik.
Gardens and Lainzer Zoo, and its good railway links to the city, this
area soon became a lively and elegant residential district.
In terms of style and urban planning, this settlement initially calls
to mind the Villakolonie Lichterfelde in Berlin described above.2 Its 2
See the perimeter Drakestraße (density
rectangular structure, however, is based on smaller parcels, and it category 2).
contains a larger number of roads. The houses are far bigger and most
of them not only have three full floors, but an additional one, too.
Furthermore, they are built closer together and alongside one another,
even forming integrated complexes of detached villas. At the latest
after the Second World War, these houses had become too large to
73 Houses and Rows
accommodate just one family, and many of them were therefore divided
up into single-story apartments. Apartments in newer buildings were —
and still are — built to occupy an entire floor.
The proximity of the buildings to one another lends the blocks
something of the character of urban perimeter street-front develop-
ments. What were once the narrow inner-city courtyards of the blocks
have in the meantime been replaced by the rampant greenery of
private gardens. Hence, in the interaction between the park and the
trees — which line the avenues on one or both sides of the sidewalk —
people feel as if they are living close to nature despite the density
of the buildings. The various infrastructural establishments such as
schools, the park cafe, small shops, and the adjacent historical center
of Hietzing contribute much towards making this area one of Vienna’s
most highly valued residential districts.
If the district office planners had had their way, free-standing villas
would now be also standing on the perimeter of Hochsitzweg
in Berlin-Zehlendorf (density factor 0.63), as was already the case
in older parts of the district. 3 By the early twentieth century, Zehlen-
dorf, with its large detached houses, had become Berlin’ s most
3
popular suburb. In view of the housing shortage and the expansion See the district in the vicinity of
of cities during the inter-war years, however, the planning team Drakestraße (density category 2).
around Hugo Häring, Otto Rudolf Salvisberg and Bruno Taut proposed 4
In the narrow houses, each resident
a new building typology. For the forest settlement Onkel Toms has slightly more than half the floor
Hütte (Uncle Tom’s Cabin) they came up with a development plan that space available to each resident in
mainly foresaw long lines of row houses. Between 1926 and 1932, Vienna’s Larochegasse. Thus, the
houses, which only cover the area of
they erected 1,100 apartment complexes and 800 single-family a simple single-floor apartment in the
houses on both sides of Argentinische Allee. With the extension of the center of Berlin, represent a green
underground railway network to the settlement in 1929, Taut com- alternative to the tenements built very
close together there at the turn of
pleted a fifth building section in the northern part of the settlement: the century.
the row of houses at Hochsitzweg and its comb-like crossroads. 5
In contrast to the southern section — much of which is marked by This structure (including its color
scheme) served, among other things,
apartment complexes in large, long drawn-out forms extending along as a model for the Viennese Piloten-
large semi-public open spaces — he now adopted a building typology gasse settlement and can also be found
that was close to nature and simultaneously urban, namely the in the settlement centered on Reindl-
straße in Munich (for both cases see
single family house with a private garden. He did not build any presti density category 2).
gious free-standing villas, however, but compact lines of row houses 6
with a small floor area. 4 And although the town-planning constellation The individually ornamented facades of
the villas (such as those in Larochgasse,
of two long and five short intermediate streets created the im Vienna) were to the architects of the
pression of a block structure, the gardens remained open on their Gründerzeit what color was to Bruno
narrow sides, without any yards. The gardens that were laid out Taut as a representative of the Modern
Movement: of all design elements, color
perpendicularly to the narrow garden path between the two rows5 had the best value for money and was
were explicitly designed to encourage communication between the available to all social strata. In Hochsitz
residents. Taut implemented a series of measures both to avoid any weg, he used color to distinguish the
attic from the floors below, thus lending
danger of his settlement becoming monotonous, and to individualize the facades an almost classical struc-
the each of the houses: his terraced family houses, which are ture. At the same time, he used green
and red as themes for the points of the
basically built alike, are two-and-a-half stories high on the street side,
compass. Taut did not align his houses
while those facing the garden are three-stories high and staggered. in accordance with the position of
A finely balanced color concept6 emphasizes the difference between the sun (as had been done with other
the single houses and their integration into the district, which, modernist settlements) but gave them
traditional street and garden facades.
due to its colorful facades, is also popularly known as the “Parrot As the perpendicular rows ran north-
Settlement”. south, he colored the east facade green
A special feature of Zehlendorf’s Waldsiedlung lies in the way to cool the morning sun, and painted
the west facade in the warm orange of
it integrates the former pine forest into the development plan. By the setting sun. Consequently, the green
positioning individual pine trees in a seemingly arbitrary fashion in the and orange facades face one another
streets and gardens, despite its strict development structure the in the streets. Taut’s color scheme was
applied down to the last detail on the
settlement looks as if it has been built in an uninterrupted forested window frames, making them part of the
area. facade ornamentation.
Berlin, Hochsitzweg
Vienna, Larochegasse
Zurich, Altwiesenstraße
In contrast to this forest atmosphere and the urban avenues of Wiener

Larochegasse, the rows of houses in the settlement around Alt
wiesenstraße in Zurich-Schwamendingen (density factor 0.61) were
built on green lawns interspersed with just a few bushes and trees.
This meadow carpet forms the basis of what are largely co-operative
settlements in this district. After the Second World War, Schwamen
dingen experienced a rapid construction boom, causing the small
village of 3,000 inhabitants to grow to 34,500 by 1966.7 The develop- 7
Zurich’s district 12 (Schwamendingen)
ment plan for this rapid building boom was drawn up in 1948 by now has approximately 28,000 residents.
the former master municipal architect Albert Heinrich Steiner, from
Zurich. He planned the new Schwamendingen as a landscaped
residential suburb, laid out in a spoke-and-ring form around the old
village center.
The perimeter under consideration here was built in a short space
of time by a housing association in 1952, and accessed by relatively
few district roads, which now primarily serve the parked traffic. 8 The 8
In the 1950s, the car became a means
individual houses, whose modest apartments occupy an entire floor, of mass-transport for the first time.
are no longer laid out to face the street (as is the case in Berlin), but
the position of the sun, and are entered via a narrow pathway through
the meadows. A glance at the figure ground plan shows a more-or-
less even distribution of short building rows that face one another.
They vary only by virtue of their different positions, their regular offsets
and their heights, which range from two to five floors. Architecturally,
however, they are very similar to one another. As the intermediate
spaces — with their unbordered lawns — are also barely structured and
seldom used, the settlement seems distinctly quiet and monotonous. 9 9
Small private gardens, tended by the
Due to its open development structure, however, the permanent noise residents, are to be found only in front
from the main thoroughfares on both sides can be heard throughout of the two-story rows.
the entire settlement. Work recently began on redeveloping the area
and replacing old apartments that had become too small by new
and larger buildings. However, the intention is to continue to essentially
preserve the settlement’s distinctly green character.
The large settlement around Quiddestraße in Munich-Neuperlach

(density factor 0.80) takes a further major step towards concentrating
built structures and thus creating additional semi-public open spaces.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the largest satellite town in 10
See the Waldstraße perimeter (density
West Germany was constructed on the border of the quiet garden city category 1).
of Trudering.10 Diverse groups of large residential buildings with 11
plenty of buffer vegetation and interspersed with small neighborhood Each of these groups of developments
basically serves as an autarkic district
centers are grouped around an extensive octagonal center.11 The unit, whose green spaces are enclosed
perimeter under analysis is one of the development units in the north island-like by belt highways.
of the so-called “Entlastungsstadt” (overspill town)12 and is accessed, 12
In 1960, the city of Munich decided to
like an island, from a single tree-lined ring road with parking lots. create satellite towns to alleviate the
From there, fenced footpaths lead through green areas to the various growing housing shortage.
access cores of the six-to-ten-story residential buildings. Completely
in the spirit of the “car-friendly city”, four-lane highways, such as

Quiddestraße, have been neatly separated from pedestrian-route
networks. On the edges of the periphery, they meet briefly in two small
shopping centers and two community centers containing a church
and a kindergarten. The entire complex is based, by and large, on the
ideals of the Charter of Athens — high-rise buildings in extensive green
areas positioned at a distance to the street, alignment to face
the position of sun, the separation of functions, etc. Resembling urban
avenues, the pedestrian alleys and small car parks are designed
to structure the omnipresent open spaces and lend the settlement (to
an appropriate extent) the face of a newly understood urbanity in
a green setting. The facilities remained empty, however, and their lack
79 Houses and Rows
(in the form of kiosks and cultural amenities) was inadequately supple-
mented later on in the form of provisional containers. In the high
buildings, the identical apartments are too far from the public areas.
Furthermore, very little effort has been made to create a welcoming
location value for the house entrances that could establish a link to the
external space on the ground floor. Unlike the individually differenti-
ated and location-related color concept of Berlin’s above-mentioned
“Parrot Settlement”, the colors in Munich are primarily intended to
provide orientation amidst the monotonously repetitive facade fronts,
and to contribute towards visually enlivening the huge building
complexes.
Spatial Organization
The key to characterizing the four extremely different districts in

Density Category 3 lies in the relationship between the public and
private spaces and the buildings in the surrounding open space.
A comparison of the share of undeveloped areas in the four perimeters
shows that the Viennese villa settlement, achieving a good 75
percent, lies at the lower end of the scale, whilst the large Munich
settlement, at almost 87 percent, is near the top. An examination
of the share of public spaces, however, reveals almost exactly the
opposite story: at 22.50 percent, the Viennese district has the largest
share, while the Munich satellite settlement has less than 17 percent,
and Zurich’s linear housing blocks has just over 13 percent. The
atmospheres in the residential settlements differ accordingly.
The district around Larochegasse in Vienna has a distinctly urban
character, with a transparent, hierarchically arranged organization
of private and public spaces. A green strip with high trees separates
the traffic lane from the footpath, which ends at the low foundation
walls of the garden fences. These, in turn, clearly separate the public
road space from the private garden area, while the front garden
helps to green the street and leads to each house’s individual entrance.
Beyond it lie the private gardens — protected from street life — which
visually merge the interior space of each block to create a common
green area. With a height of two to three full floors at most, each
single-story apartment relates directly to these garden spaces, which
are intensively used and maintained. In addition, with the Hügelpark,
the public area has gained a park space — shared by everyone — in the
center of the district.
The Bruno Taut settlement in Hochsitzweg in Berlin boasts a
similar spatial layering. Here, however, the main difference lies in the
fact that the individual dwelling units are not organized horizontally
as single-floor apartments, but vertically alongside one another as
terraced family houses. As a result, all residents have their own share
of private open space. Finely structured roads and garden paths,

the neighborly proximity of the narrow plots of land, and the high trees
here and there create a rural village atmosphere — in marked contrast
to the grand streets of Vienna.
Zurich and Munich’s single-story-apartment settlement buildings
have virtually no private gardens. As a result, the traditional spatial
hierarchies between the street, garden and house are absent. Streets
no longer serve as spaces for public encounters, but merely as
a necessary means for accessing the green district areas. The plots
of land are far bigger, and private footpaths lead from the few roads
through semi-public green areas to the house entrances, which are
barely recognizable as such.
In Zurich, houses three to four stories high establish a fairly close

relationship to the open spaces between the house rows. Even so, the
bare lawn areas are not clearly assigned to the individual houses and
lack spatial organization. No street environments have been created.
As a consequence, the spacious areas are reduced to the domain of the
caretaker. The lives of the residents are limited to the interiors of their
dwellings, and even the balconies are seldom used.13 13
Compare the Ringsiedlung in the Goe-
Munich’s satellite town, Neuperlach, is based on a completely new belstraße perimeter, Berlin (density
conception of the city. Its high-rise complexes do not even begin to category 4).
establish contact with the open spaces, but want to be seen as highly
concentrated structures in an uninterrupted landscape. The main
high-rise buildings, which are fundamentally independent of any urban
center, are symbolic of the internationally oriented modern movement.
As they do not have raised floors in the sense of the Charta of Athens,
however, their high house walls create seemingly lost intermediate
spaces that keep the individual rows of buildings apart.14 14
See the Prinzgasse perimeter in Vienna
(density category 4) and Senftenberger
Ring in Berlin (density category 5).
Vienna, Larochegasse

Areas 2: Row and Courtyard
Berlin, Goebelstraße
Munich, Konrad-Dreher-Straße
85 Row and Courtyard
The Structured and Spacious City
When the settlements for density category 4 were planned, the

preponderant consideration was the rapid production residential
space at a low-cost. The explosion in population numbers in the
interwar years and the housing crisis following the destruction of
World War Two made the need for efficient solutions for the housing
problem ever more acute. The guidelines of the Athens Charter,
drawn up under the leadership of Le Corbusier at the fourth Congrès
International d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) in 1933, formed the
basis for developing a new urban-planning strategy. Point 29 of the
Charter states: “High buildings, set far apart from one another,
must free the ground for broad verdant areas.”1 In order, despite the 1
Le Corbusier, The Athens Charter, trans-
rapid population growth, to limit urban encroachment into the country- lated from the French by Anthony
side, open space was no longer regarded as a private garden, but Eardley (Grossman: New York, NY,
as an uninterrupted rural area from which everyone ought to benefit. 1973).
Three years before the charter was written, Hans Scharoun already
indicated the direction this might take with his plan for the ribbon
development of the workers’ Ringsiedlung in Berlin-Siemensstadt.
After the Second World War, the ribbon development realized at the
settlement, with its single-floor apartments in semi-public open
spaces, would become the model for countless housing developments.
With the invention of serial pre-cast-concrete components,
this mode of construction experienced another enormous boom in the
1960s and 1970s. Although it still proved possible for various
architects to realize individual designs of manageable height in
Siemensstadt, standardization led to the construction of anonymous
large-scale buildings whose appearance was primarily driven by cost
effectiveness.
The semi-public space between the large, mass-produced struc-
tures had become unrecognizable from the original vision of natural
open space; instead, it degenerated into problematic open-spaces,
thus nurturing uneasy doubts among residents and passers-by about
the safety of such complexes. Soon, people began criticizing
the anonymity of these satellite towns. But even then, it took until the
late 1970s and early 1980s before a genuine process of rethinking
started.
The Perimeter
The so-called Siemensstadt Ringsiedlung (Ring Settlement)2 around 2

The Ring, founded in 1923/24 was an
Goebelstraße in Berlin-Charlottenburg (density factor 0.93) was association of leading architects of the
built between 1929 and 1931 by the architects Walter Gropius, Otto Modern Movement, whose aim was to
Bartning, Hugo Häring, Fred Forbat, Paul Rudolf Henning and promote so-called Neues Bauen, which
subsequently became International
Hans Scharoun (who also prepared the urban-planning concept) as Modernism. All of the architects of the
a company settlement built by Siemens in the eponymous Berlin Ring Settlement were members of this
district. The urban complex closely resembles Bruno Taut’s large association.
3
Onkel-Toms-Hütte settlement, 3 which was created around the same See the Hochsitzweg perimeter in
time in the northern part of Zehlendorf district. A conspicuously long, density category 3.
monolithic four-story building4 stretching out along Goebelstraße 4
The moniker “long lament” was based
partitions the street area opposite the districts’ eleven perpendicular on the monotonous facade overlooking
ribbon developments, which stand four to five full-stories high. To the street; in length and curvature it
the north, they are joined by seven additional rows of only two or three corresponds to Bruno Taut’s differenti-
ated design for his so-called “Peitschen
stories, which are grouped around a park-like open space and form knall” (whip-crack) in Berlin-Zehlendorf.
the transition to the Jungefernheide forest boundary. After the Second
World War, six short row developments were added alongside the
central heating plant to the south of Goebelstraße.
In contrast to the Zehlendorf Waldsiedlung, the Ringsiedlung consists

entirely of single-floor apartments. Its layout is also far more uniform
than the settlement in Zehlendorf. The straight rows running north
to south are neither staggered nor do they create street environments.
Instead they are embedded in a flowing green space that provides
access to the individual house entrances via footpaths only. The 5
rows are so close together that the spaces between them resemble For a comparison with the Siemens
workers’ settlement see the Bonner
narrow, open courtyards. 5 The monotony of the row layout is Straße perimeter in Berlin (density
only slightly subdivided and loosened by diverse design idioms of the category 6), which, with a comparable
participating architects’, chiefly expressed in the design of the height and similarly homogenous
population structure (Artists’ Colony),
balconies and the change of material colors between the bands of creates enclosed courtyards with a
plaster and bricks. Since the ground plan is strictly aligned towards greater occupancy rate.
the sun,6 all of the dynamic balcony sides face the austere rear walls 6
The bedrooms face east and the living
of the neighboring building. Goebelstraße is characterized by the rooms — with their balconies — face
atmosphere the bleak rear wall of Otto Bartning’s so-called “Langer west (or north and south along Goebel-
Jammer” (long lament). straße).
Although the open spaces between the rows are well structured
by what are now old trees, they remain largely under-utilized as
they are not assigned to specific houses or residents. At the corners
of the perimeter, small one-story shops and a primary school with
a sports ground contribute to the district’s amenities.
The settlement became a style-setting model for countless
post-war green row settlements. It now enjoys listed-building status
and has been incorporated into the UNESCO World Heritage list.
Since the 1960s at the latest, ribbon developments of this type
have come under criticism as being monotonous and inhumane.
The settlement perimeter of Konrad-Dreher-Straße in Munich-Ha-
dern (density factor 1.03) attempts to avoid such harshness with
a village-like structure, offering an “alternative” form of urban-
development. The Kleinhadern residential settlement was built in the
1950s as part of the westward expansion of Munich. The first
buildings in the southern part of the district were erected as ribbon
7
developments in extensive green areas7 and adopted the row See the perimeter of Altwiesenstraße in
structure of Neufriedenheim, the prewar settlement in the neighboring Zurich (density category 3).
district of Laim. 8 During the most recent construction phase to 8
See the perimeter of Reindlstraße
the north of Konrad-Dreher-Straße, which forms the perimeter under (density category 2). The rows of houses
examination, attempts have been made to create a stronger relation- in Kleinhadern, however, comprising
ship between the buildings and the external space. Here, curved and three or four stories, are far higher than
those in Laim, and contain only one-
staggered buildings dating from the 1970s, the 1980s, and the story apartments. There are no private
1990s — along with three freshly refurbished ribbon developments from gardens.
the early 1960s — form a seemingly organic urban development
that has created a succession of the most diverse courtyard-like
spaces. Although the buildings, which average 4.3 stories, are an entire
story lower than those in the Berlin Ringsiedlung, the district itself
has a higher density figure.
And although the share of undeveloped space has shrunken as a result,
it is now being intensively redesigned. An internal network of land-

scaped footpaths links the diverse playgrounds and small squares
in the various open courtyards in order to put the semi-public space
to better use. Outwardly, the buildings along Alpenveilchenstraße
to the west — with shops and a home for the elderly on the ground
floors, and which widens at the north-west corner to create a small
square — form something akin to a perimeter-block-development
setting.
The district around Konrad-Dreher-Straße is an attempt to
combine the two approaches. On the one hand, it seeks to use the
qualities of flowing green areas to create refreshing open spaces, like
those in Berlin. On the other hand, the buildings, with their inner-city
height and the creation of open courtyards, aim to enhance the utility
of these areas by lending them an urban flair. Despite the variety
of the spatial range, however, the interior of this hybrid building has
a rather abandoned air. 9 9
The Neufriedenheim settlement, which
is only a few hundred meters away
The settlement in Prinzgasse in Vienna-Aspern (density factor 1.01) (see the Reindlstraße perimeter, density
seeks to present an alternative to ribbon developments. With almost category 2) with its U-shaped courtyard
composed of rows with private gardens
the same density factor as Kleinhadern, it pursues a similar strategy, and district roads, is used far more in
although on a very different scale. tensely, despite its stringency.
The development on the flat and formerly rural district of
Donaustadt, to which Aspern belongs, was not executed on the basis
of an integrative, superordinate concept, but successively by applying
the principle of filling residual spaces.10 For this reason, low row 10
See the Pilotengasse perimeter (density
settlements, dating from the 1950s, can be found alongside mixed category 2), which is also a development
districts with single-family houses that end abruptly alongside large pocket in Vienna.
ten-story structures at the edge of a field. A similarly isolated, large-
scale settlement can be found on the boundary of Prinzgasse, which
was planned and built with prefabricated concrete panels as a
municipal settlement of the City of Vienna11 by the architect Oskar 11
In order to remedy the shortage of
Payer from 1972 to 1975. In response to the harsh criticism of free- accommodation, the city built 16,500
standing ribbon structures in the first generation of Viennese new apartments in Vienna from 1972
concrete-panel housing, he developed a new type in Prinzengasse, to 1977. Many of them were planned
by Payer’s architectural office.
which permitted cross-corner connections, allowing him to create
diverse courtyards with T-shaped layouts in the northern section and
zigzag variations in the southern. These courtyards are grouped around
the flat-roofed buildings of a small shopping complex that also
serves as a cultural and education center.12 Set out diagonally to the 12
Unlike Quiddestraße in München-Neu-
streets, the building complexes assert their independence vis-à-vis perlach, it lacks a superordinate new
the flat countryside. The great height of the groups of eleven-story center. Prinzgasse stands there like a
houses also creates the most extensive open spaces with the lowest fragment of an urban utopia lost among
the wide open spaces.
site-occupancy index in this density category. As in the solution applied
in Munich-Neuperlach,13 the pedestrian pathways and the motorized 13
See Quiddestraße perimeter (density
traffic routes are once again clearly separated from one another. category 3).
Even today, the only way of traveling to Prinzgasse is by car or bus.
What Neuperlachan failed to achieve with informal rows of buildings
and pedestrian alleyways was to be achieved in Prinzgasse with
the aid of concentrated courtyard formations. Both settlements, namely,
are intended to open the semi-public green space thus gained to
all of the residents. However, likewise in Prinzgasse the individual
apartments fail to relate to the exterior space due to the great height
and uniformity of the standardized facades, as well as the absence of
individually designed house elements and entrances. And even though
high facade walls have the lowest site occupancy index (0.15), they
create outside spaces of such magnitude that the desired articulation
defies all sense of physical scale as far as the residents are con-
cerned. Since the buildings are not mounted on pillars on the ground
floor, as demanded by the Athens Charter, the landform is unable to

flow, stopping instead at the barriers created by the elongated groups
of houses, which can only be crossed here and there via dark
courtyard passageways. From within their fortress-like freestanding
complexes, residents are more likely to turn their eyes to the wide
expanses of countryside than to the immediately nearby planned open
spaces of the development.14 14
The adjacent Hirschstetten swimming
pool, however, provides top quality
The residential development in Meierwiesenstraße, Zurich-Grünau public recreation space.
(density factor 1.18) was devised as a new district on the westernmost
edge of the city from a master plan by the architects Heinrich Kunz
and Oskar Götti between 1975 and 1976. The area — which is rather
Vienna, Prinzgasse
Zurich, Meierwiesenstraße
isolated by the motorway flanking it, as well as by the Europabrücke

(Europe Bridge) and the River Limmat — was the City of Zurich’s
last large land reserve. Hence, it was to be developed as densely as
possible to create a district with its own independent local liveliness.15 15
In contrast to the comparable large
Consequently, the plans attached great value to sociological consider- settlements at Quiddestraße, München-
ations, such as a social mix. Neuperlach (density category 3), and
The settlement displays the widest variety of urban forms of all Senftenberger Ring in Berlin (density
category 5), the Zurich settlement is not
the four perimeters. Two curved and spandrel-braced rows of resi a unit that forms part of a larger urban
dential buildings, seven to nine floors high and with almost continuous utopia. It merely wants to be a well-
balconies and communal roof gardens, enclose a large park, which functioning new district.
receives plenty of sunlight.16 A nineteen-story residential tower rises 16

The Cité du Lignon in Geneva, which
in the middle, surrounded by public facilities, which include a school was built not long before, served as the
with a children’s day-care center, an old people’s home, a post office, model for this settlement.
and a few shops and businesses in low buildings with an architectural
vocabulary of their own. Apartments of varying sizes were designed
to attract not only families, but also singles and senior citizens. Subsi-
dized social housing and expensive condominiums were also available.17 17
The fact that the community center was
Although the large settlement in Grünau has by far the not realized on the scale planned is one
greatest building density of all the four perimeters in this category, reason why Grünau also soon became
it has the same large share of undeveloped space as Vienna’s the target of criticism as an anonymous
high-rise settlement, despite its differ-
satellite town. It even seems to have the largest and liveliest outdoor entiated planning and the social integra-
space. In contrast to Vienna, however, it is not broken down into tion. In the meantime, however, people
individual courtyards, but consolidated to create a single large open are beginning to appreciate its qualities.
space. In principle, this urban-planning constellation can be viewed as

a concentrated transformation of the Berlin ribbon settlement. In
Berlin, too, Bartning’s long ribbon development includes an open space
created by rows of buildings. In Grünau, however, the large arch
seems to be far higher, wider and even more staggered. Here, the
creation of free space is concentrated in a single high tower, instead
of in rows. In this way, a park has emerged that is well structured
by the public buildings and facilities, and which most of the tenants can
see from their urban apartments.
The large Zurich settlement has tried to get everything right.
Clearly structured by the individually designed groups of houses and
eminently usable outside spaces, which respond to the specific
location, as well as due to the convenient tram link, a rather lively
district has arisen on this isolated urban periphery — indeed, one that
many of its inhabitants soon gladly identified with.18 18
See the Bändliweg perimeter (density
category 6), which extends the
settlement with a new urban structure.
Scales
The four perimeters in density category 4 reveal the problems arising

when insular and isolated structures are inadequately integrated at
the urban-development and sociological levels. Here, the quality of the
semi-public space and traffic connections has become a hallmark
of a project’s success as a residential district.

All four areas under study here solely provide single-floor apart
ments without private gardens. Despite their greater floor-space
index, these settlements have, on average, a far smaller share of
developed spaces than the districts in density category 3.
On the whole, large companies developed these areas on relatively
large private plots in a short space of time. The residents arrive at
the nondescript entrances to the individual buildings after passing
through extensive, private, outside space via narrow footpaths that
branch off ring roads. This access-system has allowed the planners
to minimize public road space. From the residents’ point of view,
approaching their apartments is like taking a tour through a more-or-less
well-designed landscaped space. Yet it is precisely these semi-public

open spaces, which — in relation to the frequently great height of
the buildings with their stereotypically anonymous facades — are the
problem zones in this system. These spaces are neither explicitly
assigned to the individual houses, nor do they relate personally to the
residents. Hence, in contrast to the equally distributed low rows of the
1950s Zurich settlement around Altwiesestraße,19 all of the buildings 19
See the Altwiesenstraße perimeter in
in category 4 seek to establish relationships between the individual Zurich (density category 3).
buildings. Ultimately, however, it is less a question of creating small-
scale structures than of establishing good, practical relationships
between structural masses and free spaces, and a relationship to the
locality in question.

Areas 3: Courtyard and Garden
Munich, Holbeinstraße
Green and Compact
In the districts selected in density category 5, there is a spatial

transition from the open row development characterizing the
previous category to the initial formulation of urban block-edge
developments with private courtyards and gardens. As the
Senftenberger Ring perimeter shows, this degree of density pushes
the development of large greened settlements to the limits of feasibil-
ity with respect to both staggered levels and development. Thus, in
the three other perimeters the traditional urban house of moderate
height is shifted closer to the street again, and the green spaces are
cultivated as small, parceled private gardens. Overall, the hierarchical
boundary between public street space and private property is the
defining element in the perimeters analyzed here, with the exception
of Berlin’s Märkisches Viertel where the distinction is still blurred.
Owing to the small number of full stories (of which there are only
three or four), the share of undeveloped space in these cases sinks
while the density increases. At the same time, the share of public space
is growing: because instead of developing more efficient ring-roads
around semi-public rural spaces, the street network here becomes more
finely meshed, encompassing clearly laid-out block structures. Smaller
parcels allow each house to create its own personal address, which
is directly accessible via the public space. This allows a district to de-
velop dynamically, even when the density is high — as in this case.
Despite the creation of urban block development, open space remains
extremely important for people living in urban environments.

The Perimeter
The settlement of prefabricated concrete-panel housing at Senften-

berger Ring in Berlin-Reinickendorf (density factor 1.44) forms part
of the Märkisches Viertel, a satellite town developed between 1963
and 1974. At the time of its completion, it was West Berlin’s largest
new settlement in the north of the city, close to the border with East
Berlin. Over 35 local and international architects contributed to
the design of the new district. Initially, some 17,000 apartments were
planned to accommodate people displaced from the inner city areas
then undergoing redevelopment, as well as refugees from East Berlin.
1
Later the social structure changed, so that for a long time the Since German reunification, the popula-
Märkisches Viertel epitomized the problems of anonymous large settle- tion structure — which has always
ments with a considerable proportion of immigrants. A new political characterized by migration — is better
integrated, and the demolition of
landscape, post-reunification reconstruction and other improvements the nearby Berlin Wall has improved its
have since defused the situation.1 position by de-marginalizing the area.
Not unlike Neuperlach,2 Munich’s satellite town, a variety of large 2
See the Quiddestraße perimeter (densi-
residential blocks with diverse landscape features are grouped around ty category 3).
a central area containing water basins, a shopping centre, and cultural

and social facilities. The main access road — the Senftenberger Ring,
which gave the new satellite town its name — encircles the development.
The perimeter under discussion forms the eastern part of this large
ring development. The narrow buildings, constituiting T-shaped struc-
tures that range in height from eleven to fourteen stories, were
designed by American architect Astra Zarina, whereas the long eleven-
stories-high zigzag buildings to the east were designed by the archi-
tects René Gagès and Volker Theissen. The staggered urban formation
endeavors to create a succession of open courtyards, reminiscent of
3
the area around Prinzgasse in Vienna, 3 although the buildings in Berlin See the Prinzgasse perimeter (density
are ten meters higher on average. And although in comparison the category 4).
95 Courtyard and Garden
undeveloped area in this case increases slightly, namely to 87 percent,

the share of public space falls by approximately 8 percent to roughly
half that of Vienna and Munich due to the fact that the greater part
of the area centered on Senftenberger Ring is only semi-public or in
other words de facto private space. Correspondingly, for a considerable
length of time the use of semi-public spaces between the stereotypical
facade mountainscapes posed a problem because hardly anyone
felt themselves to be responsible for their maintenance. Nowadays the
green areas are admittedly being tended and the occasional child
can be seen in the playgrounds, but on the whole these spaces appear
as deserted as those in the comparable large settlement perimeters.
The height and monotony of these developments reveal even more
starkly the problems of semi-public spaces between buildings.
It is interesting here to compare a large residential settlement of this

nature with a city district of similar density that has evolved in a
traditional manner. The perimeter around Holbeinstraße in Munich-
Bogenhausen (density factor 1.37) is a mixed block-edge district.
Most of its grand residential houses were built between the second half
of the nineteenth century and the present. After the village of Bogen-
hausen was incorporated into the city in 1892, the hill ridge on the other
side of the River Isar became one of Munich’s most popular villa 4
Typologically, one could view the perim-
districts. The perimeter, which is surrounded by detached houses with eter at Holbeinstraße with its prestig-
gardens, forms core of Bogenhausen, which is dominated by attached ious facades, cultivated front gardens
building structures. At the time it was being built, a rural atmosphere and garden courtyard as a condensed
version of Larochegasse in Vienna
prevailed in front of the town gates, which is still reflected in the style (density category 3). The impression
of many of the facades with their lively bays, gables, and balconies. that Larochegasse is greener, is not only
The differentiated design of the facades helps to provide each building due to its more informal construction
and larger share of garden space, but
in the row of attached structures with its own distinctive address. 4 also to the trees lining the public street
Averaging four floors, the height of these buildings is inspired by space that are largely absent in Munich.
inner-city block-edge developments. 5 Here, however, the building 5
See, for instance, the Munich perimeters
lines are set back from the sidewalk, forming small front gardens that Pariser Platz (density category 7) and Tal
green the streets, and because of the similar widths of the public roads (density category 8).
appear more spacious than those in the city. The private and public
areas are kept quite separate from one another. And although the
undeveloped area of just under 67 percent is a full 20 percent lower
than that of Senftenberger Ring, its share of public space — at more than
23 percent — is almost four times that of the large Berlin settlement. As
this perimeter features hardly any genuine town squares, existing
public spaces are spread across the street network, which is lined
by sidewalks and space reserved for parking. Small businesses and
restaurants are scattered across the district, contributing to the
peaceful street life. Although the population density of the Munich pro
ject is only about half that of the Berlin one, private and public
exterior spaces appear to be far more intensively used in the former
case than in the semi-public spaces in the Märkisches Viertel.
The housing area of Scheuchzerstraße in Zurich-Oberstraß (densi-

ty factor 1.28) constitutes a compromise between greening a district
and simultaneously sustaining a high density. The settlement lies at
the southwestern foot of the Zürichberg, just below the expensive villa
district.6 Like the latter, it arose after 1893 in the former hillside vine- 6
See the Schlösslistraße perimeter
yards when it was incorporated into the City of Zurich. As it was close (density category 2).
to the inner city, however, the city and investors decided on a more
concentrated development. The network of quiet residential streets
adapts to the sloping terrain and creates blocks of various shapes
and sizes. Nevertheless, the stringent development plan creates such
a tight corset that the district as a whole radiates a very peaceful,
Berlin, Senftenberger Ring
Zurich, Scheuchzerstraße
Zurich, Scheuchzerstraße
Vienna, Ringofenweg
next page: Zurich, Scheuchzerstraße
homogenous atmosphere. To ensure that every single parcel of land

on the slope receives as much sun as possible and to give the district
a garden-like flair, the 1901 development plan prescribed an open
building layout involving free-standing multifamily buildings.7 The street- 7
The Zurich Building Code of 1901
front widths of the buildings were not permitted to exceed 25 meters, generally prohibited using sealed devel-
whereas the plot could be developed up to a border margin of seven opments (that is, no openings between
meters. This was the plan adopted for the residential development buildings) on slopes.
in Oberstraß between 1904 and 1914, where the typical deep and
slender four-story residential houses are surrounded by narrow gardens
with side entrances. The building height constituted an urban bench-
mark, whilst the clear division between public and private spaces in an
interplay with the diversity of the variously designed individual buildings
creates a sense of personal situation. Matching their bourgeois
8
clientele, aside from a few in Art-Nouveau style the houses were gen- The Heimatstil was a twentieth-century
erally constructed in the particular Swiss domestic-revival style movement within architecture in several
(Heimatstil) that was in the process of emerging at the time. 8 The European countries which, inspired
by an idealized rural model, sought to
heavy roofs, sgraffito ornamentation, large balcony loggias and the promote regional and native building
old hedges and trees in the gardens lend the district a decidedly styles.
homely and almost intimate atmosphere, despite its urban habitus. 9 9
Compare the Larochegasse perimeter
With respect to the floor-space and site-occupancy indices as in Vienna (density category 2), which
well as the share of public spaces, the figures for Zurich are slightly displays a similar structure. However,
lower those for Munich. The distribution of living space in single-floor with its lower building height, larger
gardens and prestigious villa facades,
apartments within free-standing houses creates an elegant symbiosis it radiates a grander atmosphere.
based on the feeling of living in a home of one’s own and at the same
time of participating in urban life. All these aspects make the district
one of the most popular in the whole of Zurich, and also affect the
rents, which are even higher than in they are in the exclusive Bogen-
hausen district in Munich.
In the late 1980s, the planners of the residential settlement around

Ringofenweg in Vienna-Favoriten (density factor 1.31) attempted to
learn from the experiences of the past. The working-class district of
Favoriten has a densely built centre with block-edge developments
dating from the Gründerzeit. Like Vienna’s Donaustadt, experiments
were also conducted on its boundaries with a wide variety of develop-
ments ranging from single-family houses to prefabricated concrete-
panel housing settlements.
The perimeter under examination lies between the southeast
expressway and the large Wienerberg natural recreation area. It
is part of the Wienerberggründe residential settlement, which arose
on the site of the former Wienerberger Ziegelwerke (brickworks). Otto
Häuselmayer won a competition to design the settlement in 1980; 10
between 1984 and 1996, approximately 2,000 residential units were Architects who joined Otto Häuselmayer
included, among others, Otto Steidle,
ultimately realized in three stages, with contributions by a number of Helmut Wimmer, Adolf Krischanitz, Heinz
architects, in addition to Häuselmayer.10 After the negative experiences Tesar, and Gustav Peichl.
with anonymous large settlements such as that on Prinzgasse,11 11
See perimeter Prinzgasse (density
which is similar to those in the Märkisches Viertel in Berlin, the planners category 4).
began looking for alternatives. By developing Ringofenweg, they
wanted to cost-effectively allow a more urban social lifestyle to evolve
that also took advantages of the benefits of living on the periphery.
The site’s proximity to the local Wienerberg recreation area and excel-
lent transportation links to the inner city seemed to provide ideal
preconditions for achieving this goal.
The settlement arose within the scope of the “Vollwertwohnen”
(lit. wholesome or full-value living) housing program, which sought to
create more attractive town apartments offering a better quality of
12
life and thereby slow people moving from the city to the countryside. See perimeter Pilotengasse (density
As in the model settlement on Pilotengasse12 in Vienna-Aspern, a great category 2).
variety of different housing models is to be found in the Wienerberg-

gründen settlement. Block-edge developments, courtyard buildings
and ribbon developments create a three-to-four-story urban street space
along Otto-Probst-Straße. At the same time, the development
containing the point-blocks of Gustav Peichl’s “dancing rural villas”
disperses loosely as it reaches the lakeside recreational area of the
Lehmgrubensee. In order to guarantee individuality and to encourage
identification among the residents with their own house and district,
a large number of architects were called upon to apply their personal
architectural styles. However, the diversity of executed residential
forms also betrays a certain sense of helplessness with regard to the
correct form. This stems from a critical attitude towards large mon
otonous settlements, such as that on Senftenberger Ring in Berlin.
At the same time, investor-friendly solutions had to be found in order
to develop the largest possible parcels. The division of the quadrangular
perimeter into five sites, which are accessed via a ring road flanked
by parking spaces and three cul-de-sacs, calls to mind the structure
(the larger share of which comprises semi-public outside spaces)
of large settlements. On the other hand, the insular location of the
district, eight kilometers outside the inner city center, evokes more
of a suburban atmosphere. With a relatively low height of approximately
three floors and a small share of undeveloped space, the settlement
nevertheless placed its hopes in neighborly closeness encompassing
a wealth of spatial options. In this regard, it is more like a concentrated
form of the village-like structure of the Neufriedenheim settlement
in Munich,13 only with the difference that the Viennese plan envisioned 13
See perimeter Reindlstraße in Munich
single-story apartments and hardly any private gardens. (density category 2).
Yearning for Symbiosis
Housing programs like that of the “Vollwertwohnen” in Vienna embody

the longings and expectations associated with the housing in density
category 5. Its planners are evidently searching for a symbiosis
between a tightly knit urban community and living close to nature.14 14
See also Kurt Tucholsky’s poem “The
This demand, however, is best satisfied by developments that Ideal” in the chapter “Wouldn’t you just
clearly place their hopes in an urban habitus and self-confidently embed love it?” in the introduction to this book,
townhouses in private green spaces. In districts such as those in which describes with satirical aptness
the concept of “full-value living” used in
Munich’s Holbeinstraße or Scheuchzerstraße in Zurich, there is the settlement.
a strictly structured stratification of spaces from the road across the
sidewalk, and from there to the front yard, the house and the garden
space. The atmosphere has an urban feel. But it is, first and foremost,
the rurally inspired design of the facades, the well-kept gardens
and the surrounding villa districts that keep that feeling of living in the
country alive. Furthermore, the overhanging balconies provide the
individual apartments with bountiful private outside spaces. At the same
time, the share of undeveloped areas and public spaces for encounters
increases. In both Munich and Zurich, the symbiosis of urban and
rural qualities is intensified by the fact that both the nearby recreation
areas and inner cities can be easily reached on foot. As a result,
these two districts can easily satisfy the longing for urban life in natural
surroundings.
The development on Ringofenweg, which has a similar density,
takes shape much less decisively. Inside the district itself, it relies
upon people being able to walk to both the street-side shops and the
recreational space with the lakes beyond it. The houses, however,
are at least one whole story lower than they are in Munich and Zurich,
and the ensemble appears to be closed in on itself. Here, the
103 Courtyard and Garden
greater distance to the inner city preserves the atmosphere of an

isolated suburban community.
The Märkisches Viertel, on the periphery of Berlin, strives to be
far more consistent by creating its own satellite town as a similar
symbiosis of urban and rural life. In reality, the district fails to establish
either a well-functioning urban center or to provide usable green
spaces. By concentrating its density vertically, it tends to establish
spatially far-off reference points rather than creating the basis for well-
functioning district life.
Inner-City Mixture 1:
Courtyard and Street
Munich, Tumblingerstraße
Vienna, Hasnerstraße
107 Courtyard and Street
The Search for the Urban Form
Analysis of the districts in density category 6 shows a shift in the

focus of urban-planning from open spaces to street and court-
yard space.
During the second half of the nineteenth century, industrialization
triggered an explosion in population growth. At the time nearly all
large cities in Central Europe drafted urban expansion plans, which
included a comprehensive approach to incorporating surrounding
districts and towns. In order to make efficient use of the expanded area,
block-edge frontages became the characteristic urban form of the
period. Access provided thanks to public transport, such as railway and
tram networks, also played an important role.
Although the two perimeters in Vienna and Munich discussed
here date from the Gründerzeit, they respond differently to the
question of density and the relationship of the road to the courtyard.
The Berlin district sought to learn from the mistakes of the past
and to clarify and improve the form of the block perimeter. In Zurich,
the youngest perimeter was developed on the basis of compact single
volumes and sought to reinterpret the concentrated block-edge
development under the banner of economic and ecological efficiency.
All four perimeters shared the goal of wanting to create
distinct urban spaces in formerly suburban areas. Even now, however,
these perimeters are still not part of the inner cores of their respec-
tive cities. They have good traffic connections with their city centers
and peripheries and seek the advantages offered by local communities.
With the notable exception of Zurich, semi-public space now plays
a subordinate role. Conversely, the drawing of boundaries between the
street, the house and the courtyard is becoming increasingly important.
The Perimeter
Analysis of the district begins with an urban-planning experiment.

The perimeter on Bändliweg in Zurich-Grünau (density factor 1.55)
attempts an inversion of the traditional block-edge development. Thus
architect Adrian Streich has located the building masses where one
1
would expect the development to feature courtyards, and a semi-public If the courtyards were filled in with a
space occupies the area where the block edge would normally stand traditional perimeter development and
alongside roads.1 The result is a large area in the middle of Grünau the houses on the block edge were
torn down, all that would remain would
dotted with cubic buildings with relatively deep plans and generous be compact, cubic buildings, similar
balconies. The areas between the buildings are designed as a loose to those in the plan for Bändliweg
succession of open spaces with differing solid surfaces interspersed development.
2
with public art installations. 2 Landscape architect André Schmid
The idiosyncratic constellation of the Werdwies settlement must designed the open spaces, which
be considered within the context of its immediate environment. In 2007, also feature a fountain by artist
Ugo Roninone and a series of flags
the perimeter replaced a simple housing settlement with low rows by Frédéric Post.
of blocks surrounding a long, introverted courtyard. On the one hand,
the new point blocks open the space to the north to the green areas
and to the public facilities of the large Grünau settlement, dating from
the 1970s,3 whilst on the other hand they create a transition to the 3
See the Meierwiesenstraße perimeter
smaller parcels to the south. The settlement appears to be standing on (density category 4).
a piazza, which now forms the new center of Grünau.
A comparison of the analytical parameters with those of the
neighboring settlement reveals that, despite the far greater density and
slightly lower average height of the buildings in Werdwies, the share
of undeveloped space there has declined while that of public spaces
increases dramatically. The public-space distribution plan, however,
Berlin, Bonner Straße

Zurich, Bändliweg
immediately reveals that the latter are concentrated only around the
large parcel on Ringstraße. The public spaces themselves belong
entirely to the semi-private area of the settlement. As this area has been
divided into smaller-scale units, the intermediate space is more difficult
to use4 than the larger spaces in the neighboring 1970s’ settlement, 4
The formally different designs of the
which are evenly weighted according to function. Although all of the individual open spaces — which despite
residential cubes have semi-public uses on the ground floor, such as their similar use and size are intended
a small supermarket, a kindergarten and small businesses, the lack to create squares of diverse character —
show that they did not evolve in re-
of walk-in customers relegates them to languish in the tranquil environ sponse to local amenities and require-
ment at the core of the settlement. The plan is focused on providing ments.
good, spacious apartments. This is confirmed when one compares
the occupancy rate of the two settlements: the apartments in Werdwies
offer each resident almost one-and-half-times the living area than those
in the adjacent Großsiedlung.
The Künstlerkolonie (Artists’ Colony) bordering Bonner Straße

in Berlin-Wilmersdorf (density factor 1.53) represents an opposite
approach to urban planning. Here clearly defined block-edge devel
opments surround large courtyards with a park-like design. A network
of tree-lined streets, combined with green front yards, forms the
settlement’s closely meshed public access, with the public square of
Ludwig-Barnay-Platz at its center.
The Künstlerkolonie Berlin was developed between 1927 and
1931 according to a master plan by the architect Ernst Paulus and his
son Günther Paulus as the southern extension of the so-called garden
city around Rüdesheimer Platz, which had been created before the
First World War. It aimed to offer artists and writers without any social
security comfortable apartments at an affordable rent. A large number
5
of well-known artists lived in the colony until the National Socialists Immediately after the National Socialists
came to power. The high concentration of left-wing intellectuals made gained power in 1933, there were raids
the district a target of National Socialist attacks after 1933. 5 Many on the colony and people were arrested.
Numerous prominent residents, such
were forcibly evicted, others joined the resistance, and some returned as Ernst Bloch, Walter Hasenclever,
after the war. The settlement is now protected as a historical site. Arthur Koestler and many others either
As the Künsterlkolonie was home to a community of kindred left Germany or went underground to
organize the resistance, for instance in
spirits, and its planners attached great value to the communicative the Revolutionary Workers and Soldiers
qualities of the outside spaces, the blocks’ courtyards offer an (RAS) group.
alternative to the cramped tenements of the Gründerzeit, 6 and were 6
See for example the perimeters Christ-
deliberately designed as open places where people could encounter burger Straße (density category 7) and
each other. Barnay-Platz was the public focal point and meeting place Raabestraße (density category 8).
of the district.
A comparison of the figures of the colony with those of the
Werdwies settlement in Zurich reveals that — with almost the same floor-
space-index and slightly lower building height — the share of unde
veloped space is slightly lower in the Berlin settlement, while the public
areas are dramatically larger. The street network is spacious and
open, creating squares as focal points. Furthermore, the diverse court-
yards are semi-public in character, offering yet another hierarchy of

meeting places, albeit clearly allocated to their respective residential
blocks.7 Apart from a church and a parish hall, there are no public 7
Compare the roughly contempor-
institutions or businesses in this perimeter. The district is well integrated aneous ribbon development in
into the public transport system and has, to this day, the character of the Goebelstraße perimeter in Berlin
a quiet residential district with little road traffic. (density category 4), which with a
similar overall height and a lower
density creates mostly semi-public
The building structure in Hasnerstraße in Vienna-Ottakring (density spaces.
structure 1.62) increases in density in both toward the streets and
toward the courtyards.
The perimeter extends across the boundary between the districts
of Ottakring and Neulerchenfeld, and is typical of the Gründerzeit
111 Courtyard and Street
developments on the other side of the Wiener Gürtel. 8 When Ottakring 8

See also the Fockygasse perimeter
was industrialized in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the (density category 7).
neighboring district of Neulerchenfeld experienced a sudden population
growth. 9 To accommodate the great number of new residents, a 9
The population of Neulerchenfeld rose
new district based on a regular grid comprised of rectangular blocks from a 6,000 in 1850 to 45,000 in 1890.
measuring approximately 60 by 130 meters was created between Ottakring had a population of over 7,000
the two cores. As mostly workers and trades-persons lived and worked in 1850 and just under 62,000 in 1890.
After its incorporation into the City of
here, intensive building use was made of the interior courtyards, Vienna in 1892, the number continued
which feature low rear buildings, commercial buildings, stables and to rise.
garden houses. Many of the structures are remnants of the modest
single or two-story buildings from the early days of the district.
The taller buildings along the block edge were added in the late nine-
teenth century. Lacking front yards, the building line runs directly
on the street. Public green space is concentrated in a few park areas,
such as the forecourt of the district council offices and the trees
lining Hasnerstraße. As a result, despite the variety of building heights
the overall impression of the district is of an urban environment
dominated by stone.
As only 50 percent of this area contains undeveloped space, the
grid of this perimeter, which is used in an extremely efficient manner,
has the lowest value of all of the four areas analyzed here. At the same
time, despite its far higher building density, it has a similarly high share
of public space as the Berlin Künstlerkolonie (31 percent). Semi-
public space is almost non-existent here. Owing to the hustle and bustle
in the block, however, the closely structured public open spaces are
used far more intensively. In the district, one still finds a wide variety
of small businesses, shops, restaurants and other eateries. The high
residency concentration and the buildings’ close-proximity to one
another generally ensure relatively low rents, thus creating a district with
a large mixture of locals and outsiders from abroad. The division
into smaller parcels and the option to convert existing courtyard struc-
tures or to erect small new buildings promote the continued dynamic
development of the district.
The Schlachthofviertel (slaughterhouse district) surrounding Tum

blingerstraße in Isarvorstadt, Munich (density factor 1.78) is another
Gründerzeit district for workers and craftsmen.
In 1878, Munich’s central slaughterhouse and stockyard, as well
as its rail link, was built in Isarvorstadt. It rapidly attracted small-scale
businesses, primarily butchers, tanneries and textile operations, which
were predominantly run by Galician Jews. Together with diverse
other small trades, they settled to the north of the new slaughterhouse
complex, transforming the district into a lively area. Although many
of the houses were destroyed during the Second World War, a large
number were rebuilt, and many Gründerzeit buildings have been
preserved to this day.
Although the district adopted the building-line plans approved

when the abattoir was built, the quarter’s structure seems to have
developed more organically than that of the Viennese grid. The block
developments are far larger and do not form sealed perimeter
developments, but dense conglomerates comprising detached houses
and small blocks. Only on the outer margins of the perimeter are
the blocks enclosed by rows of taller buildings. In this way, the entire
quarter interior is shielded from the very busy main roads that
surround it. A network of narrow paths leads to the individual buildings,
which are set close to one another within each rectangle of the
district. The development thus retains a sense of openness, despite the
building density, and allows for transverse routes between the blocks.
In Ruppertstraße and Schmellerstraße, the houses have front gardens,

which together with the trees between the buildings create a very
green atmosphere. The large area occupied by the predominantly four-
story buildings and their density produce the highest floor-space
index in this category. And although the share of public space is rela-
tively low at 24.5 percent, the district seems more spacious and much
more tranquil and verdant than the comparable district in Vienna.10 10
Compare the Scheuchenzerstraße
As the surrounding districts of the Glockebach and Gärtnerplatz perimeter in Zurich (density category
have been greatly redeveloped over the past few years and are 5), which with a lesser density, smaller
currently experiencing rapid gentrification, rents are also rising in the blocks and a greater share of roads
has a similar distribution of detached
more modest Schlachthofquartier. Residents seem to value the qualities buildings.
of the district despite its dense development.
Private and Public
The districts in density category 6 are trying — each in their own way —

to find the right relationship between public and private space. And
although the relatively high density limits semi-public space, three of the
perimeters mentioned experiment with this spatial category.
The Werdwies settlement in Zurich turns semi-public space inside
out in an endeavor to maximize public interaction, but in the process
merely manages to create a somewhat ambiguous suburban setting.
The Künstlerkolonie in Berlin attempts to establish defined
hierarchies between the semi-public courtyard spaces, the front yards,
the streets and the park areas, resulting in a very peaceful, green and
homogenous district with little street life.
The network of narrow paths between the housing blocks in
Munich also creates narrow semi-public spaces, although the latter are
clearly designed to provide access to the various buildings within
each block, taking on the function of alleys. The front yards overlooking
the streets serve, in part, as small patios for the patrons of local
restaurants and cafes or as forecourts of businesses, thus contributing
to a bustling street life. For all its density, the district offers a pleasant
mix of residential and commercial uses, promoting communication
among residents, and without losing its peaceful neighborhood qualities.
Only the perimeter in Vienna dispenses completely with semi-
public spaces. Having the highest site occupancy index, it also creates
the greatest level of public life, since all of the spaces outside of the
blocks are assigned distinctly public functions, for instance as streets
and squares. In the streets, this concentration of life can be felt
everywhere, making it the noisiest and liveliest district in this category.
With an occupancy index of 60 square meters per inhabitant, apart-
ments offer just over half the space available to each resident in
Werdwies, Zurich. It is only thanks to grants from the city that these
apartments in Zurich are still affordable. Here too, however, the great
transformation in tenants’ demands on residential space is making

itself felt.
Vienna, Hasnerstraße
Grids, Axes and Squares
Berlin, Christburger Straße

next page: Vienna, Fockygasse
117 Grids, Axes and Squares
Urban Expansions in the Gründerzeit
Density category 7 combines four classic urban expansions in the

Gründerzeit and reveals the similarities in their histories and how each
of the four cities in question realized a different solution.
In the mid-nineteenth century, industrialization unleashed an
unprecedented economic boom in Central Europe. One consequence
was a rural exodus that resulted in a rapid rise in the demand for
affordable housing in the cities. New urban districts sprang up within
a short period of time, some of them on greenfield sites. This was the
era of widespread incorporation of suburbs and the birth of metrop
olises. The pace of urban expansion and the population explosion
required not only hygienic sewage systems and wastewater treatment,
but also a completely new infrastructure for mass transit. Railways
became an important engine for the economy, and equally for the
development of the urban structure. Railway stations and train tracks
were the structuring elements of the new conurbations, and provided
much needed transportation for the residents.
The Gründerzeit street grid comprising perimeter block develop-
ments with four to six-story apartment buildings emerged as the
most efficient urban planning form of the era, and Central European
cities are still largely defined by them to this day. The greatest difficul-
ty posed by this type of construction consisted in the lack of regulation
with regard to building density. Most building regulations tended to
focus exclusively on planning the public space for streets and squares,
as well the distribution of schools, government buildings and cultural
institutions. Within each block—and especially in the courtyards at their
center—rampant building speculation could proceed virtually unchecked.
The verdant ribbon developments of modernism must be understood
as a liberating reaction to the oppressive, crowded conditions of this era
of speculation.1 It is interesting to note, that, in contrast to modernism, 1
This phase of speculation came to an
the perimeter block-edge development from the Gründerzeit created abrupt end with the financial crisis
clearly defined districts, which are still regarded as the very essence commonly known as the Panic of 1873.
of urbanity in Central Europe. Recovery would only occur towards the
end of the nineteenth century, which
Today these formerly impoverished workers’ districts count among saw the advent of a renewed building
the most popular residential areas in the cities, albeit with significantly boom.
lower residency concentrations. After the destruction resulting from
both world wars, a deliberate approach to revitalizing and opening
up the courtyard spaces has transformed the buildings into generous
living spaces in a mixed-use setting of small shops, pubs and a variety
of housing options. They also benefit from good links to public trans-
portation and are close to the city centers. Gentrification is now in full
swing, affecting nearly all the districts preserved from the Gründerzeit.
The Pertimeter
The district centered on the Christburger Straße in Berlin-Prenzlauer

Berg (density factor 2.12) demonstrates the principles and challenges
of a development from the late Gründerzeit in an unusually pure form.
To this day, Prenzlauer Berg is the largest preserved Gründerzeit
district in Germany. Even its origins were marked by superlatives.
As population numbers soared in Berlin at the beginning of the nine-
2
teenth century due to the mass migration from rural areas, living As early as 1840, landscape architect
conditions in the narrow tenements within the city walls deteriorated so Peter Joseph Lenné, who held the title
severely that the city administration drafted plans for extensive urban of Prussian Garden Director, planned
a major ring boulevard around the city.
expansion all around Berlin and its leafy neighbor Charlottenburg. After However, the boulevard was too ambi-
several failed planning attempts, 2 James Hobrecht, a building inspector tious and generous in scale.
appointed by the Royal Ministry of the Interior, developed the eponymous

“Hobrecht Plan”, which was completed in 1862; this plan was to serve
as a blueprint for the implementation over the next fifty years of what
was at the time Europe’s most ambition urban expansion. 3 The goal 3
In 1861, Berlin had a population of
of the plan was to create a functioning street network with suitable 525,000 and the Hobrecht Plan was
sanitation and supply lines, as well as space for train tracks and railway based on a projected growth over the
stations. However, Hobrecht did not provide a detailed development next fifty years to a total of 1.5 to 2
million inhabitants. In reality, the popu
plan; instead he developed a so-called alignment or sightline plan, lation soared to roughly 1.9 million
defining a system of axes and boulevard-like ring roads radiating out- by 1910.
wards from the core. This plan merely established the boundaries
between the public streets and squares and the land set aside for block
development without establishing a more detailed parcel structure
or their maximum use. To begin with Hobrecht only determined that the
streets should be bordered by residential buildings of no more than
six stories and an eaves height of 20 meters, and that the rear buildings
and courtyards were to be used for workers’ housing and workshops.
These regulations would, he hoped, lead to social diversity among the 4
This was the minimum turning radius
residents in the new districts. However, since the only stipulation for the fire engines then in use.
of the building inspection act of 1853 was that the courtyards at the
center of the perimeter blocks must measure at least 5.34 by 5.34
meters4 without any further regulatory definitions as to land use, the 5
door was left wide open to speculation. Berlin therefore saw the rapid With an average of 110 residents per
building, the Prenzlauer Berg district
development of the Wilhelminian tenement housing ring, characterized was one of the most densely populated
by spacious front buildings contrasting with an extremely crowded, areas in the world. (By comparison,
poorly ventilated housing environment in the rear buildings. 5 in 1920 London had an overage of eight
residents per building and New York
Prenzlauer Berg forms the largest portion of this ring. In the older an average of seventeen residents per
sections of the district, which are close to the inner city, the density building.)
was especially high with up to eight courtyards per block.6 It was only 6
For more detail on the older districts
after the building sector had recovered following the market crash in Prenzlauer Berg, see the Raabestraße
of 1873 and a new building boom with extremely dense development perimeter (density category 8).
ensued as the turn of the century approached, that the authorities
were compelled to tighten the building regulations. The amended act
called for markedly larger rear courtyards, with the result most of
the newer buildings were on two adjacent parcels forming a C-shape
around a common inner courtyard. The eaves height was raised to
a maximum of 22 meters and the number of stories was limited to five.
At the end of the 1890s, the development reached the Danziger
Straße ring, which formed the northeastern boundary of the Hobrecht
Plan. Bounded by the Christburger and the Danziger Straße, the
perimeter represents an exemplary implementation of this new planning
scheme. Whereas the older development blocks in Prenzlauer Berg
7
are characterized by a large street grid with high-density land use and The typical Prenzlauer Berg building of
multiple courtyards, this perimeter features two additional parallel the era is 18 meters wide, with a five-
roads, dividing the area into three narrow rectangles with parcels of story front building which housed retail
shops and businesses on the ground
more or less identical dimensions. The result is a series of well-lit and floor and two apartments per upper
ventilated apartments distributed across two front buildings and one floor. Additionally, the building would
connecting or transverse wing.7 have a side wing or transverse structure,
often with four apartments per floor

With this clear urban structure, the perimeter on Christburger for poorer tenants. The monotony of the
Straße achieves the highest density of the four districts in this category. building was cleverly relieved through
Although the perimeter also boasts the highest proportion of public differing facade designs.
8
space with over 40 percent, this is concentrated in the streetscape, The Hobrecht Plan envisioned a large
without offering any open space of recreational value. 8 The East- public space for this perimeter. However,
German regime allowed the area to fall into disrepair, preferring to erect as land and property owners were
rarely compensated by the city for such
new pre-fabricated housing blocks. Following Germany’s reunification spaces, they built over these areas
in 1990 there was a surge of interest in the many preserved buildings as well. Today the district is bordered by
from the Gründerzeit, and Prenzlauer Berg became the largest the wide streetscapes of the Danziger
and the Greifswalder Straße, as well
urban-renewal area in Europe. With a significantly reduced residency as the Landsberger Allee with its street-
concentration, the mix of wide, tree-lined streets, small shops, spacious car tracks.
Vienna, Fockygasse
Munich, Pariser Platz

Zurich, Kanzleistraße
next page: Zurich, Kanzleistraße
apartments in the street-facing buildings and quiet courtyard units,

seems to function better than ever today. The area also benefits from
excellent public transportation links with two streetcar lines and the
S-Bahn rapid transit ring.
The grid in the perimeter on the Fockygasse in Vienna-Meidling

(density factor 1.96) is similarly dense as that in the Prenzlauer Berg
district. In contrast to Berlin, however, Vienna never developed a
comprehensive urban expansion plan. 9 Nevertheless, the Gründerzeit 9
Although Otto Wagner won the competi-
development with two ring roads (Ring and Gürtelstraße) and streets tion for a “general regulation plan” for
radiating outward from the ring roads resembles in principle the Berlin the City of Vienna in 1893, the plan was
model. While Vienna also experienced rapid growth in the nineteenth only partially realized in the form of
small fragments.
century, land-use solutions were realized in smaller increments here
with site-specific developments.
The perimeter under analysis lies outside the Gaudenzdorfer
Gürtel or ring. The Gürtelstraße was constructed from 1873 onward by
creating a loop with the old Linienwall fortifications. This effectively
lifted the building restrictions around the city wall, with the result that
new residential districts sprang up all around Vienna in the area
between the ring and the historic cores of the suburbs.
10
Like the perimeter on Hasnerstraße,10 the small area on the See the Hasnerstraße perimeter in
Fockygasse in this zone lies immediately outside of the former fortifica- Vienna-Ottakring (density category 6).
tions and is characterized by a largely uniform street grid. And as
in the former, tall perimeter block developments overlooking the streets
surround courtyard spaces with lower commercial buildings and
modest housing units. At five stories, the front buildings are one story
higher than those in Ottakring, and are only rarely completed with
rear buildings of equal height. In contrast to the industrially optimized
row system on Christburger Straße, the homogenous street elevations
in this perimeter hide a diverse environment of courtyards that devel-
oped virtually unfettered by regulations. The relatively high percentage
of public space is concentrated exclusively in the street space,
much the same as in Berlin. The intersection of the Wolfgang- and
Steinbauergasse creates a focal point. In contrast to most of the
narrow side roads, which are nearly devoid of greenery, these two
streets are somewhat wider and bordered by a tree-lined green verge,
which provides a far more pleasant outdoor environment. These streets
are also home to small shops and restaurants. It is evident that the
lively quarter has the highest occupancy rate in this density category.
The prevailing atmosphere is of a simple, densely populated workers’
district with a high percentage of foreign-born residents.
The basic urban plan of the perimeter on Kanzleistraße in Zurich-

Außersihl (density factor 1.96) strongly resembles that of the perimeter
in Vienna. Außersihl, too, was created from a suburban community,
located on the far side of the old city fortifications and the River Sihl.
The community encompasses the flood plain of the Limmat and

Sihl rivers, and was initially only sparsely populated. It was chosen as
a site for executions and slaughterhouse pits (functions that were
undesirable in the city proper), giving the area a poor reputation for
many years.11 However, when Zurich also experienced a rapid popula- 11
The area in Zurich’s municipal district 4
tion growth with the onset of industrialization, Außersihl offered the is still called “Cheib”, Swiss German for
largest area of land for development on the periphery of the city. By animal cadaver.
the time it was incorporated into the city in 1893, it had already
surpassed Old Zurich in area and population. The city sought to improve
the area by erecting buildings such as the barracks, the customs
house and various schools. The urban district would nevertheless
remain one of the most impoverished in Zurich. In response to the poor
conditions in the densely populated Außersihl, the revised building act

of 186312 introduced regulations on the appearance of urban areas, 12
The “Cantonal Law re. a Building Act for
and authorized high-density closed construction to replace the impov- the Cities of Zurich and Winterthur and
erished individual buildings. During the rampant speculation that for Urban Conditions in General from
accompanied the economic boom at the end of the nineteenth century, June 30, 1863”, was intended to improve
the general urban appearance, envision-
this type of development spread quickly.13 The quarter on Kanzlei ing a precise distribution of public space
straße experienced the same transformation and adhered to the new and allowing for a closed building form.
guidelines with the construction of five-story housing blocks, most However, the law was never fully imple-
mented in an urban plan.
of which were erected toward the end of the 1890s. The construction 13
of the rail freight depot and the rail tracks attracted mostly Italian Between 1888 and 1900, the
construction workers who settled in the area bounded by curving track number of residential buildings in
Außersihl doubled to nearly
of the Seebahn, within which the perimeter is located. The workers 1,900 units.
proudly displayed their newly won proletarian awareness and self-con-
fidence in stately Renaissance Revival facades. When the post-1900
property crisis burst the speculation bubble, all construction ceased
on Kanzleistraße. It was only during the upswing in the 1920s and
1930s that building societies finally completed the layout of the district
by constructing uniformly designed block edges.
In contrast to the compact blocks with their labyrinthine court-
yards in Vienna’s Fockygasse, the street blocks along Zurich’s Kanzlei
straße are smaller, and the narrower block-edge developments
enclose multiple open courtyards. Only the older courtyards are pos
itioned in the center of a block, which accommodate detached,
low commercial buildings. Individual locations in the district also feature
two-story commercial buildings directly on the street, and serve
as a reminder of the area’s proletarian past. More recent courtyards in
developments realized by building societies have small landscaped
areas with children’s playgrounds. The streetscape is dominated by
stone interspersed with a few trees and small green front yards.
Today this is a popular residential district thanks to its many old
buildings and the small cafés and shops that contribute to a lively
urban scene.
The development in the perimeter around the Pariser Platz in Munich-

Haidhausen (density factor 2.02) was also spurred on by railway
construction. When Munich’s Ostbahnhof (or Eastern Railway Station)
was inaugurated in 1871, Germany had just won the Prussian-Franco
war. As a symbol of this triumph, the city architect Arnold Zenetti
decided to connect the large swath of undeveloped land in front
of station with the city by creating a system of large axes and squares
modeled on the work of Georges-Eugene Baron Haussmann in Paris.
This gave rise to the so-called Franzosenviertel or French Quarter, the
largest part of which is covered by the perimeter discussed here,
and whose streets and squares were named after victorious battles.
In contrast to the rigorous grid in the other three perimeters,
this district is divided into very irregular and unusually large sections
created by the boulevards radiating outward from Orleansplatz—the

square in front of the railway station—and the round open town squares.
Looking at the figure ground plan one could be forgiven for thinking
that a piece of Paris was literally transferred to the much smaller city
of Munich in a scaled down version, although the buildings here rise
to only four stories on average, making them at least one story lower
than those in the French metropolis. Similar to the city’s slaughterhouse
district,14 planners sought to find solutions for these deep housing 14
See the Tumblinger Straße perimeter
blocks. But in contrast to the former a decision was made in favor of (density category 6), where the detached
closed block-edge developments. The courtyards at the center of these house development does not form
blocks, often only accessible through a gate in the front building, enclosed courtyards and allows for
greater ease of movement.
became the cramped living environments for the poor. As a result the
area quickly developed into one of Munich’s most densely populated

districts. Despite this, the overall impression is of a very green
environment thanks to the boulevards and the tree-lined public squares.
The French district survived the war with little damage, and
much of the historic building fabric has been preserved. Until the 1980s
it remained the skid row for low-income residents. In the years
that followed the courtyards were gradually de-cluttered, some of the
old structures were replaced with new buildings and more green
areas were added to the area. Next to Schwabing, the district became
one of the first urban areas in Germany to experience gentrification.
Today it is one of the most sought after residential areas in downtown
Munich.
Block and Grid
Given the similarities in their history, the four perimeters in Density

category 7 are fairly homogenous in terms of appearance and
statistics. A comparison of the figure ground plans reveals that the main
problems of block-edge developments from the Gründerzeit were
rooted in the size and proportions of the street blocks and in the dis-
tribution of the public space.
As the oldest of the four districts, the area around Pariser Platz
in Munich also features the largest building blocks with the greatest
depths. With one of the highest site occupancy indexes in this category,
it has by far the lowest proportion of public space at roughly 28 percent.
However, in contrast to the other perimeters, the public space in
this district is distributed across clear axes and public squares, whose
abundant tree plantings create green spaces, providing a strong sense
of place. On the other hand, the inner space of these blocks was diffi-
cult to plan and, initially, produced crowded, unhealthy living conditions.
The district on Vienna’s Fockygasse, which was developed
soon after, displays similar problems due to the dense development in
the courtyards. However, the regular grid blocks are smaller, which
translates into more public street space, albeit without creating any
notable focal points.
The perimeters in Berlin and Zurich are also based on a grid.
Since they were planned later at the turn of the century, these
developments benefitted from lessons learned elsewhere. Zurich has
the most tightly knit grid, which meant that the city blocks, including
courtyards, were all constructed on a smaller scale, and that low
commercial buildings were only sporadically allowed. As the city with
the greatest and fastest population growth, Berlin sought to find
a solution to its housing challenge by constructing standardized rows
of courtyard houses in long, narrow blocks that could be erected
with maximum speed and efficiency. A variety of facade decorations
drawn from generic catalogues were a simple means of adding some

individuality to the otherwise identical buildings, creating a sense
of identity to this day. However, public spaces often had to make way
for the building boom—especially in grid plans.
It is notable that the districts from the Gründerzeit continue to
function extremely well. This is due, on the one hand, to their distinctly
urban expression with clear streetscapes and public squares,
which are often tree-lined. On the other hand, soft factors such as
interior-courtyard structures, which have been thinned out or replaced
over time, make it possible to adapt these districts to contemporary
living requirements. For this reason, renovated Gründerzeit districts are
among the most popular residential areas of the present day.
Inner-City Mixture 3: Historic

Suburbs and City Centers
Munich, Im Tal
next page: Zurich, Spiegelgasse
129 Historic Suburbs and City Centers
Historic Settlement Patterns
In density category 8, the analysis comes to the core areas of historic

inner cities. In contrast to the perimeters analyzed thus far, these
areas all evolved through long, complex historic processes and were
not, or only partially, developed on the basis of plans created on a
drawing board.1 Most originated as the earliest environs outside of the 1
One exception is the Raabestraße
ancient city walls of the original town core, and only became part perimeter in Berlin. Although it was built
of the inner cities over the course of time. Traffic routes such as trade on the square grid of the Hobrecht Plan,
arteries or, from the nineteenth century onwards railways, played an the interior of the block evolved to ac-
commodate the needs of investors and
important role in their development. But the church also had a central residents.
role, for its large, influential buildings and adjoining lands often
acted as a catalyst and anchor for the development of greenfield sites.
The analysis of the four districts leads from newly subdivided
farmland outside of the city, to outskirts that have been uniformly built
up but where historic structures are still visible, and on to historic city
structures, which grew gradually and steadily and were able to maintain
their distinct form over centuries.
Despite their central location, most of the districts have preserved
their proven usage structure over the course of time. On the ground
floors, small shops and cafés enliven life on the street. The floors above
are reserved for apartments. The residential use gives way to commercial
uses only gradually in areas that belong the innermost core of the city.
Central-city districts are only able to maintain their varied mixed
use because the parcels have remained small to this day and because
the buildings are managed by a multitude of different proprietors. But
this division into small units dates back to a distant past and is cur-
rently difficult to maintain for economic reasons. Consequently, small
parcels, where damage from the Second World War or subsequent
property sales have left gaps, are often combined and used for devel-
opments on a larger scale.
The Perimeter
The perimeter that surrounds the Raabestraße in Berlin-Prenzlauer

Berg (density factor 2.33) lies just beyond the old city fortifications and
is thus part of the development based on the Hobrecht Plan, a land-
use projection for the urban expansion of Berlin in the Gründerzeit.
It is therefore not a historic city district in the strictest sense. But the
form and development history of the district are very different from
those of the area on Christburger Straße, 2 which also lies in the Wins 2
See the Christburger Straße perimeter
viertel only a few hundred meters away and was constructed a little (density category 7), which also contains
later. In contrast to the latter, the four nearly square blocks on Raabe details on the history of the Hobrecht
straße are among the largest in Prenzlauer Berg. Plan.
The Immanuel Church is the historic heart of the district. The

Bötzow family, who owned the land on which the church was built, re-
sorted to a well-tried strategy in order to promote development on
fields that were part of their large estates: in 1890, they gifted a piece
of land on the far side of the Marien-Nikolai Cemetery to the city of
the Berlin for the purpose of erecting a church on the other side of the
Prenzlauer Gate. Shortly afterward, the Georgengemeinde (St. George’s
Society) built the Immanuel Church on the site in 1893 under patron-
age of the Empress Augusta Viktoria. The Bötzows’ strategy worked,
and a dense residential district developed around the church in the
years that followed.
The Hobrecht Plan envisioned relatively generous blocks for
this area. But as a pure alignment plan, its focus was only on the
Zurich, Spiegelgasse
Munich, Im Tal
representative streetscape and the five-story bourgeois buildings of

the closed blocks. The perimeter on Raabestraße is a good example
of what occurred with the courtyard areas — for which little if any build-
ing guidelines existed — during the building boom of the Gründerzeit. 3 3
Compare the greater density on Christ-
To this day, the narrow series of perimeter block developments with burger Straße, where the problem had
up to seven courtyards surrounded by mostly five-story buildings already been recognized and corrected,
have been preserved across much of the district, and convey a sense and where the more spacious court-
yards adhere to a new minimum scale.
of the building density that characterized the Gründerzeit years in
Prenzlauer Berg. 4 The dense network is thinned out only somewhat in 4
The relatively modest floor-area ratio
those areas where damage from the Second World War tore gaps and site occupancy index are purely the
in the building fabric. Although nearly all of the narrow courtyards result of the generous streetscapes.
are now planted with green and their facades brightened with color, Within the blocks, there is maximum
density.
the narrow dimensions of these spaces — more akin to a chimney than
an open courtyard — pushes the limits of what is deemed acceptable
as a living environment today. But the excellent mix of small cafés
and shops, the popularity of the Gründerzeit apartments, and the cen-
tral location have ensured that this district has also been undergoing
a process of gentrification for some years.
The densely developed district on Hahngasse in Vienna-Rossau

(density factor 2.47) also grew around a church as its center. Some
similarities notwithstanding, this district can look back on a much
longer history than Berlin’s Raabestraße.
In 1632 a widened glacis was created around the old core of
Vienna by imperial decree, which also imposed a building ban on the
area immediately adjacent to the glacis. This zone covered the flood-
plains of the Rossau River, where fishermen and rafts men grazed and
watered their horses. Thanks to its proximity to the city, this wetland
area soon became popular among the aristocracy and the wealthy
bourgeoisie, who built their summer palaces there. 5 The true built core 5
The Palais Liechtenstein, immediately
of Rossau took shape with the construction of the Servite Monastery adjacent to the perimeter, is a preserved
in the 1670s. From the early eighteenth century onward, large com- example.
mercial enterprises such as a porcelain manufacturer and a calico
factory set up shop near the monastery, profiting from the proximity
of the Danube Canal for transportation. Since the boats were also
dragged upstream to the Rossauer Landing, additional trades such as
saddlers and wainwrights, providing harnesses for the horses as well
as towing ropes and wagons, also flourished in the area of the obsolete
glacis from the 1770s onwards.
Shortly after the incorporation of Rossau into Vienna, the emperor
ordered the razing of the former fortifications, beginning in 1857, and
had them replaced with the ring boulevard bordered by new buildings.
Similar to the Fockygasse district,6 the area near the Servite Monas- 6
See the Fockygasse perimeter (density
tery — which had previously been home to a scattering of individual trade category 7).
enterprises and workshops — grew into a new residential district on
the far side of the ring boulevard. In contrast to the rational grids of the
Gründerzeit, the street blocks in Rossau preserved the historic paths

around the former palace gardens, which resulted in neighborhood
quads of varying dimensions. The smallest are very narrow and struc-
tured, while the largest are nearly identical in scale to the perimeter
blocks on Berlin’s Raabestraße. What is notable is the pronounced
discrepancy between the elegant front buildings in the grand-boulevard
style and the universe of the rear courtyards, characterized by un
fettered chaos and crowding. While affluent citizens lived close to the
city center on the streets with the most enviable location, the crafts-
men and “simple folk”, who had previously dominated the life of the
district, made do within the confines of densely developed rear court-
yards, unseen from the life on the main street. Despite the presence
of a few shops, pubs and small enterprises, the district has remained
largely residential to this day.
Originally, the Tal in Munich’s Old Town (density factor 2.62) was
also created beyond the gates of the inner-city fortifications. Once
again a church played an important role in the development of the area.
In the thirteenth century, the Heilig-Geist (Holy Ghost) charitable
hospice and church complex was erected on this site. Since the valley
formed part of the main eastern entry into the city as part of the
Salt Road, various trade establishments settled near the monastery
hospital. By the fourteenth century, the density of buildings had in-
creased to such a degree that a second city wall was erected in 1347.
This early urban expansion covered roughly the same area as the
perimeter analyzed here,7 which has retained its basic late medieval 7
The westernmost area of the perimeter
structure to this day. near St. Peter’s Church, which is on an
The plan of the district is defined by the broad street known as elevated site, was still located within the
“Im Tal” (lit. in the valley). Thanks to the ample supply of fresh water first city walls.
in the valley in the Tal borough, the area became home to many brew-
eries. Most side streets run along the brooks that once provided fresh
water for the breweries. Thus a clear hierarchy emerged within the
network of streets, in which Im Tal — as a continuation of the country
road open to traffic — was widened to square-like dimensions, while
the side streets often remained mere lanes running parallel to the
brooks. When the historic Marienplatz became too small to continue
serving as a food market in the beginning of the nineteenth century,
the Heilig-Geist charitable hospice was demolished, although the church
was preserved and even expanded. The former hospice site was
utilized to establish the Viktualienmarkt (fresh-produce market), which
remains the largest open space in the district to the present day.
In contrast to the Wiener Au district around the Servite Monastery,
whose neighborhood blocks were almost all newly erected in the
Gründerzeit, the Tal borough is an example of a historically grown urban
structure, which has evolved across centuries in response to the
demands of each era. Parts of the district were only destroyed as re-
cently as the Second World War and subsequently replaced by new
buildings. Today, Im Tal is one of Munich’s main retail streets. The side
streets with their brewery pubs and the Viktualienmarkt count among
the most popular tourist destinations in the city.
Since the narrow ancient parcels of the Tal are almost completely
built over, the district has an extraordinarily high site occupancy index
with a density factor of 0.57. At the same time, the ratio of public
spaces is the highest of the four perimeters analyzed here: just under
33 percent. A look at the buildings themselves reveals a notably
high ratio of public and commercial uses, which — combined with few
residential units — is typical of a central urban district.
The perimeter surrounding the Spiegelgasse in Zurich-Niederdorf

(density factor 2.52) lies between the Predigerkloster (the Dominican 8

monastery) and the Großmünster (Great Minster) 8 and constitutes the In the thirteenth century, the Dominican
old city core within the city walls on the east side of the River Limmat. Order, which had founded the preach-
ers’ monastery, was an ally of the auton-
Its main artery is the Niederdorferstraße, which runs parallel to the omous city, and as such an opponent
Limmat somewhat higher up on the slope. It was once the urban section of the ecclesiastic powers behind the
of the old trade road, running from the direction of the Canton of Grossmünster, who were vying for domi-
nation over the City of Zurich at the
Aargau through Zurich and to the northern shore of Lake Zurich. Prior time.
to the construction of the Limmat quay, the headquarters of the various 9
guilds stood directly on the riverbank. Narrow streets, some of which These lanes still bear the names of the
trade guilds and businesses to which
were cul-de-sacs, led from the Niederdorfstraße down to the river. 9 To they once led, e.g. butcher’s lane and
the east of the main street, the district is divided into sections through bath lane.
Berlin, Raabestraße
Vienna, Hahngasse
a system of squares and market streets of varying dimensions. The city

never created a large central market square, as was the case in Munich;
rather, it preserved the different small markets such as the Rinder-
mark (cattle market), the Neumarkt (new market) and the Marktgasse
(market lane) as a microcosm. As a result, many hospitality establish-
ments set up business in the adjacent houses. Niederdorf became
Zurich’s entertainment district and continued to fulfill that function long
after the markets had been closed. This old townscape was never
touched by war: the medieval structure and the old houses are fully
preserved. As a result, Niederdorf today has the ambience of an open-
air museum of an old city, and is a popular tourist attraction.10 10
Up until recently, privately owned shops
The only major intervention occurred in the nineteenth century. were able to hold their own in the dense
When the narrow Niederdorfstraße could no longer accommodate network of narrow lanes in Niederdorf
the increased traffic volume, the Limmat quay was built as the new by focusing on specialty goods. It is only
in the last few years that these shops,
traffic artery along the river and partially bordered with new buildings. too, are disappearing and being replaced
It remained a busy road until 2005, when it was pedestrianized in by chain stores.
keeping with the entire district in this perimeter.
Similar to the Tal district in Munich, there is a clear hierarchy of
large main streets, small lanes and squares. But the structure is more
tightly knit and the parcels themselves are smaller as well. Indeed
the streets are often so narrow that even without pedestrianization they
would barely be able to accommodate car traffic. Nevertheless, with
a site occupancy index of 0.53, the district is less densely developed
than the Tal, and here and there one can even spot a private yard.

Inward Densification
For all their differences, the perimeters in density category 8 have

at least one characteristic in common: the high density factors are the
result of maximum land use. This densification towards the center
creates a great discrepancy between the narrow building structures
and the sometimes generous public spaces.
In Berlin and Vienna, where the districts are characterized by their
origins in the Gründerzeit, these public spaces are relatively evenly
distributed across the streetscape without creating focal points.11 11
Although the Servite Monastery created
Despite the wide streets, at only 25 percent these two districts have a focal point with a public square in
a relatively low ratio of areas suitable for public use. The perimeters Vienna, a remnant from a bygone era, the
in Munich and Zurich, on the other hand, are characterized by irregular, layout of the rest of the area is resolutely
in the Gründerzeit character in terms of
medieval networks of paths. Here, differing street widths and a variety street widths.
of public squares create hierarchies that indicate the corresponding
function of the spaces, such as markets or roads for traffic circulation.
The contrasting spaces create an environment that is mainly geared
towards walkability — a reflection of the historic period when the districts
were first created.
The streets of the Gründerzeit districts, on the other hand, were
designed for horse-drawn and vehicular traffic from the beginning.

Their regular grid was fundamentally designed to be repeatable ad
infinitum. To this day, residential use is dominant in the blocks along
these streets, and only some of the ground floors are occupied by indi-
vidual small businesses and restaurants.
Mixed-use for commerce and housing is far greater in the narrow
old town districts. Since Munich saw fairly extensive destruction during
the Second World War, the parcel sizes are more heterogeneous
here than in the fully preserved historic Niederdorf district in Zurich.
After the Second World War, large buildings were erected in place
of the former small houses. This resulted in larger retail areas; today,
the district is thus a main retail street that forms an extension of the
central pedestrian zone.12 The Niederdorf has been able to preserve 12

See also the western extension of the
most of its traditional composition of small shops and narrow housing pedestrian zone in the Schwanthaler
units. In recent years, however, financial pressure on this central Straße perimeter (density category 9).
location has grown so steeply that many of the traditional shops have
now had to close and make way for retail chains with deeper pockets,
which then find themselves struggling to cope with the small scale
of the spaces. With rental rates that lie nearly two thirds above the
average in the City of Zurich, many private shop keepers have little
chance to operate successfully in this area.
Density Category 9 ( > 2.7 )
Commercial Centers
Berlin, Friedrichstraße
Vienna, Wollzeile
Munich, Schwanthalerstraße
Commercial Pressure
The districts in density category 9 are all city-center commercial

districts. Their high density factor arises from the tremendous
demand for centrally located spaces. They are mainly defined by
commercial uses; the aim, therefore, is to achieve maximum utilization
of the parcels.
Similar to the perimeters in density category 8, all four districts
in this category can look back on a long history of architectural de-
velopment. Here, too, most evolved from what were originally environs
immediately outside the core city (with the exception of Vienna’s
Wollzeile). Nevertheless there are significant differences in terms of
planning and usage structures. In this category, the damage sustained
during the Second World War plays an important role. While the
Wollzeile in Vienna was mostly spared destruction and has been able
to preserve its small-scale pattern both in terms of its division of lots
and architectural expression, Berlin and Munich both saw a strong
trend towards large-scale development after the war. As the youngest
of the four districts, Zurich’s Bahnhofstraße may have been spared
any wartime damage, but from its beginnings onward it was developed
in response to a modern industry-driven economy, which favored
large area use, a fact that is reflected in correspondingly large-scale
structures dated throughout the period of the area’s growth.
The Perimeter
The area around the Wollzeile in central Vienna (density factor 3.18)
has the longest history among the perimeters in this category. Its
historic structure has been preserved to this day, without any significant
damage due to war. The perimeter encompasses the eastern section
of the historic core around St. Stephan’s Cathedral.
The Wollzeile (lit. woll row) is one of Vienna’s oldest streets.
As far back as Vienna’s origins in Roman antiquity as castrum Vindo
bona (or Fort Vindobona), an arterial road led from here in an easterly
direction. In the Middle Ages, the road ran within the then city
fortifications from the bishop’s residence next to the cathedral to the
Stubentor. A second Roman road followed the course of Kärtnerstraße
in a southern direction. Together with Kärtnerstraße and Rotenturm-
straße, which led to two other city gates, the Wollzeile marks the axis
of the eastern part of the old town. In the Middle Ages, this area
1
was divided by narrow lanes and markets for the various craft guilds1 Street names such as Wollzeile, Bäcker-
and monasteries. The cathedral district occupied the center of the straße, Seilerstätte and Fleischmarkt
area, originally conceived as an enclosed complex. After it was opened are reminders of the historic trades
formerly concentrated in the area—wool
no longer preserved for the clergy, the cathedral square became merchants, bakers, rope manufacturers
Vienna’s central public space. Although the built fabric underwent and butchers. An elongated market
place once occupied the area between
numerous changes, the medieval network of lanes remained intact.

Bäckerstraße and Sonnenfelsgasse;
It was only in the late nineteenth century that Kärtnerstraße was it was filled in with buildings as far back
widened and the houses on either side of the street were substantially as the Middle Ages.
altered. In 1974, the street was designated as a pedestrian zone.
Many of the buildings in the perimeter still date from the baroque 2
period; when the ring road was constructed, only those buildings along Kärntnerstraße and Rotenturmstraße
the former city walls of the Stubenbastei were replaced with Gründer were most badly destroyed. Some of
the new buildings in these streets were
zeit blocks. And damage during the Second World War was also only constructed recently.
limited in this area, with only a few buildings destroyed beyond repair 3
and subsequently replaced with new buildings. 2 See also the similar perimeter of Im Tal
in Munich (density category 7); however,
The Wollzeile district is an example of an inner-city area that as a former outer borough, this perimeter
has seen the continual development of a medieval urban structure. 3 has a more open structure.
143 Commercial Centers
Narrow lanes open onto squares of varying sizes. The smallest among
them — such as the Franziskanerplatz or the Doktor-Ignaz-Seipel-Platz —
resemble intimate rooms within the density of this district, throughout
which land use has been exploited to a maximum. With a site occu-
pancy index of 0.63, Vienna’s historic core perimeter has by far the least
amount of open, undeveloped area among all the perimeters in this
category.
Today, the entire area exudes an air of nostalgic tranquility. Since
the narrow streets are unsuited for cars there is little traffic. With small
shops, old-fashioned department stores and arcades in the middle
of the city center, the Wollzeile has preserved the ambience of a quiet
shopping street in a typically Viennese style — beautiful and slightly faded.
In contrast to the tightly knit structure in Vienna that evolved over the
course of centuries, the figure ground plan of the perimeter on
Friedrichstraße in Berlin-Mitte (density factor 3.40) with its perpen-
dicular grid exudes an air of Prussian severity. One could be forgiven
for assuming that it is part of the Hobrecht Plan from the Gründerzeit, 4 4
See also the Christburger Straße perim-
but the grid is even more rigid, the blocks are smaller, and the devel eter (density category 7) and the Raabe-
opment is too dense for residential buildings. straße perimeter (density category 8).
In fact, the origins of Berlin’s Friedrichstadt date back to the
mid-seventeenth century. Following the death of his father, the Great
Elector Friedrich Wilhelm, Frederich I commissioned a plan for a
new district to be developed on the site of what was then the estate
of the Cöllnischen Feldmark outside of the old city walls. 5 Friedrich 5
Following Friedrichsweder and Doro
oversaw the construction of streets and access routes. Civil servants theenstadt, Friedrichstadt was the third
in higher positions were deeded building lots as gifts on which to expansion to the historic town core. The
build as impressive buildings as possible, in which they were also meant, expansions were planned by the archi-
tects, engineers and master builders
among other uses, to house refugees and soldiers from France. Most Johann Arnold Nering, Johann Heinrich
of the houses were designed with their eaves extended lengthways Behr and Martin Grünberg—all influenced
along the streets, because the amount of state-funded allowances for by the Dutch baroque.
the construction costs was based on the length of the street facade.6 6
Most of the houses had to be built on
These regulations resulted in a series of long narrow houses — block- piling because the Feldmark was origi-
edge developments with low elevations, some of which enclosed fairly nally a swamp.
substantial gardens. The Friedrichstadt grew over a relatively short
period;7 as soon as a house was deemed unsightly, it was quickly 7
By around 1740 Friedrichstadt already
replaced with a more imposing structure. The density of the built fabric encompassed some 2,000 houses.
in the blocks increased accordingly; the parcels became smaller,
the buildings gradually taller and the entire atmosphere more urban.
Flanked by the French and German Cathedrals, the Gendarmenmarkt
was the central market square, where the theater would later stand.
The main artery of this city expansion was and still is Friedrichstraße.
It led from Doretheenstadt to the north all the way to the parade
grounds on the Tempelhofer Feld in the south, and was therefore also
used for military marches.
The perimeter analyzed here lies between the Gendarmenmarkt
and the slightly curved Mauerstraße, along which the western extension
of the city wall of Dorotheenstadt formerly ran. Thus the perimeter
encompasses the core section of Friedrichstraße as it is today. In the 8
nineteenth century, this street developed into a lively commercial route. One can still get a sense of this dense
development in the western blocks
At the beginning of the twentieth century it benefited from excellent of the perimeter, where much of the
connections to public transport with the erection of the Friedrichstraße pre-war fabric remains intact.
railway station. By this time, the perimeter was already characterized 9
Many breweries and brandy distilleries
by very dense development on small parcels with narrow rear court- already existed in Friedrichstadt in
yards. 8 With countless stores, theaters, pubs, restaurants and hotels, around 1725.
Friedrichstraße formed the very center of urban life in Berlin. 9 10
Roughly 50 percent of the building
Following the large-scale destruction of the Second World stock in the perimeter was completely
10
War, the area of the perimeter remained an urban wasteland for a destroyed.
Munich, Schwanthalerstraße
considerable length of time. It was only in the 1970s that a systematic

effort of reconstruction began in what was then East Berlin. How-
ever, since with its width of only 15 to 17 meters Friedrichstraße was
relatively narrow for such an important boulevard, a plan was devel-
oped during the GDR era to expand the street at the height of the
Gendarmenmarkt into a space akin to an urban square. When the
building shells had been erected by 1989, the so-called “Wende” (the
fall of the Berlin Wall and reunification) brought construction to a
sudden halt. In the reunified Berlin, the GDR structures were torn
down and the blocks along the Friedrichstraße were then very densely
developed. Instead of the envisioned widening into an urban square,
the three blocks occupied by the Friedrichstadt Arcades were over-
built with large department stores, whereby many of the small parcels
on the opposite side of the street had already been replaced by
large buildings prior to this development. Today Friedrichsstraße is the
vibrant business core of Berlin-Mitte, characterized by a mix of large
new buildings and older small building lots. Since some blocks in
the perimeter are fully developed with buildings of at least five stories,
the area boasts the highest density factor of all the perimeters under
consideration. The dense development in combination with the
large facades and the lack of green space or plantings contributes
to an atmosphere dominated by stone.
The perimeter on Schwanthalerstraße in Munich’s railway-station

district (density factor 2.89) also suffered extensive war damage,
and was almost completely reconstructed after the Second World War.
It, too, originated beyond the gates of the old city.
Munich owes its existence and its wealth to the Salt Road, which
led from the east through the fortified Isar Tor and the Tal (valley)11 11
See the Im Tal perimeter (density
as a main axis running through the old city, exiting the city on the category 8).
western side through the Neuhauser Tor. Immediately on the far side
of the gate, at the location today’s Stachus (a busy urban square also
known as Karlsplatz), the road branched off in two directions. What
is now Bayerstraße continued on to the town of Landsberg and from
there to Lake Constance, while Schützenstraße,12 which has since 12
The name Schützenstraße is a reminder
been pedestrianized, lead to the north-west in the direction of Augs- to this day of the shooting range, which
burg. The fork in the roads had already been settled with a small was located on this site from the Middle
cluster of homes as far back as the seventeenth century. It can still Ages onwards.
be traced today in the trapezoid tapered block on the northern side

of the perimeter. In 1804, the old Botanical Gardens were created to
north of this fork. At the same time, King Ludwig I initiated a large-
scale urban expansion beyond the city with what was to be called the
Ludwigsvorstadt, which encompasses the area of the perimeter and
the grounds of the Theresienwiese immediately adjacent to the south.
The layout of subsequent perimeter in the area round the fork road
basically followed that of the existing country houses set in large garden
blocks. Ludwig’s plan was to create a residential area dotted with

villas and elegant apartment buildings for affluent citizens. The district
experienced rapid growth after the central railway station was relocated
there in mid-nineteenth century. And when the station was expanded
at the end of the nineteenth century, the perimeter was already densely 13
developed, forming part of a block-edge development that was spread- The Mathäser was one of the largest and
ing towards the east. It now formed the linking element between oldest breweries in the world. Its origins
date back to 1690, when the first
the railway station and the city center, and became the core of a new Mathäser brewery served the Schieß-
station district with numerous entertainment establishments and beer platz (military firing range), which was
gardens.13 located within the perimeter during
that period. The entire complex was
As the railway station was a principal target for the Allied Forces demolished in the 1990s and replaced
in the Second World War, the area surrounding it was virtually with the Mathäser Filmpalast multiplex.
Zurich, Bahnhofstraße
Vienna, Wollzeile
razed to the ground. In the 1950s it was reconstructed together with

the railway station. The northern section of the perimeter between the
front of the new station and the semi-circular open space of the
Stachus, was then partly built over with department stores and hotels
on large lots formed by amalgamating the previous smaller parcels.
In combination with the pedestrian zone of Schützenstraße, this area
now forms the extension of the busy Neuhauser Straße from Marien-
platz to the railway station. In the southern section of the perimeter the
pre-war layout of smaller parcels has largely remained preserved.
This section became home to a mix of red-light district and gambling
establishments on the one hand, and a Turkish community with small
shops and mosques on the other — a mix that is typical of many railway-
station districts in Germany.
The perimeter around the Bahnhofstraße in the center of Zurich

(density factor 2.78) also emerged in its current form as late as the nine
teenth century. And once again the development of the area is closely
linked to the construction of the railway station.
Prior to the nineteenth century, the lower Bahnhostraße was still
the site of the remnants of the fortified former town-walls, which had
become overgrown with trees, and with the occasional freestanding
townhouse set in large gardens. After the wall had become obsolete for
defense purposes, it became a popular spot for taking open-air walks.
As early as 1847, a small railway station was constructed on the site
of the current main station in front of the Schanzengraben — a moat that
used to run parallel to the fortifications and merged with the River
Limmat. To begin with the station only served the small Nordostbahn
(north-eastern railway) of the Zurich-Baden line, and was difficult to
reach from the city. When Switzerland began expanding its interregional
railway network a few years later, the station quickly gained in im
portance. A decision was made to retain the site and to erect a larger
station on it. In order to improve access between the station and the
city it was decided to divert the Schanzengraben into the River Sihl in-
stead of the Limmat, and to fill in the moat of the Fröschengraben of
the former inner city fortifications in order to construct a boulevard that
would connect the new railway station with the Paradeplatz and the
lake. The Bahnhofstraße was completed in 1865. With a width of 22 to
24 meters, the middle stretch of the road was initially unpaved and was
bordered by gardens and small houses. The real transformation from
a semi-rural residential area to a commercial urban artery only occurred
as late as the turn of the nineteenth century. It was only in the period
immediately preceding the First World War that many of the villas that
had in the meantime sprouted up were demolished to make way for
urban commercial buildings. The new district was divided into irregular
street grids, which were gradually filled with block-edge developments
and large department stores. The perimeter area is divided and
broken up by various squares — such as Löwenplatz, Beatenplatz or the

Pestalozzianlage.14 Due to these open spaces and the relatively wide 14
Outside the city gates, the site had
main streets, this perimeter in Zurich has by far the highest ratio of previously served as an execution site.
public spaces in this category. At the same time, it also has the lowest
values in terms of the floor-area and site occupancy indices. Today, the
Bahnhofstraße is purely a pedestrian zone; with the tree-lined boule-
vard and small parks it feels very greened.

The Centers of the Cities
Density category 9 is the only one of the overall categories to consist

almost exclusively of commercial buildings. Housing plays a secondary
role here. The focus is on the provision of profitable office and retail
space. In this category public space fulfills a particularly important role
in offsetting maximized land use. It is less an environment for whiling
away time, than a dynamic circulation space for a large number of
people. The pedestrian zones in Munich and Zurich are most suited
to this task, although it is worth noting that Zurich’s Bahnhofstraße with
its streetcars and great length appears livelier than Munich’s classic
pedestrianized Schützenstraße, which also finds itself cut off from the
city center by the traffic whirlpool of the Stachus. Berlin’s Friedrich-
straße is pushed to bursting by its narrowness and the additional traffic
load. On the other hand, these same characteristics also give it a
heightened urban ambience, which is further underscored by the sheer
scale of the buildings. The Wollzeile in Vienna seems to be suspended
in a bygone era. Here the buildings, narrow lanes and arcades are
clearly geared towards pedestrians, and the narrow parcels do not allow
for any large-scale development. As a result, the Wollzeile can barely
compete commercially with the pedestrian zone on Kärntner Straße,
but the mixed use and unique qualities of the old streets make it an
unmistakably Viennese quarter. The street spaces are scaled down for
people on foot, and offer many attractive places for spending extended
periods of time. In contrast to the three other business districts, which
are designed to be crossed as quickly and as linearly as possible, the
network of paths here creates a singular rhythm of narrow and wide
spaces, alternating between accelerations and moments of abatement.
Evaluation
Density, Atmosphere, and
Numbers
151 Density, Atmosphere, and Numbers
The relationship between the built density of a district and the atmos-
phere that characterizes it is multi-layered and ultimately depends
on the sensory perception of every individual as a physically present
subject in the relevant environment.
And yet each density category analyzed in this work has its
own character that depends on a wide range of quantifiable factors.
Having analyzed the historical backgrounds, the urban devel
opment, and the architectural image of the districts,1 the questions 1
See chapter “The Districts.”
that arise are which specific parameters have a concrete influence on
the relationship between density and atmosphere and how they do so.
In the following, the quantifiable ratio of this relationship be-
tween density and atmosphere is studied on the basis of thirteen
parameters. The study is based on the material gathered in plans and
numbers in the second part of this book under the heading “Density
Catalog”.
Density Categories and their Parameters

This section presents a comparison and establishes a relationship
among the values of the key analysis parameters: floor area ratio,
site occupancy index, parceling, undeveloped area, ratio of public
space, ratio of private space, building height, number of floors,
population turnover rates, rental rates, and (public) use. The conclusions
are then verified against the actual image and atmosphere of the
corresponding districts based on documentary photographs and district
descriptions in the analyses. What emerges is a profile of the sig
nificance of the individual analysis parameters for each density profile
and the corresponding atmosphere within an overarching comparison
of the nine density categories. Sudden “leaps” and “breaks” or
deviations in the values are allocated to specific density groups and
compared against the physical appearance of the districts. The
evaluation is organized according to the key factors that influence how
density and atmosphere are interconnected, and which of these factors
have the greatest impact on the atmosphere in the various districts.
Building Height and District Image
Building Height and Number of Floors, Floor Area Ratio,

and Site Occupancy Index
Building height is frequently referenced as an important criterion

for the suburban or urban atmosphere of a city district. But what is its
concrete influence on the perception of a district?
The floor area ratio (FAR) is the decisive density factor in this study.
When it is taken as a point of departure for the quantitative analysis
with regard to the impact that building height has on the districts,
and then related to the corresponding site occupancy index (SOI),
a comparison of the nine categories reveals a clear break between
the third and the fourth density category (density category 3: FAR
0.6 to 0.9; density category 4: FAR 0.9 to 1.2).
In the first three categories, up to density factor 0.9, the FAR
fluctuates at roughly twice the value of the SOI . From the fourth
density category onward — and up to the ninth density category — the
152 Evaluation
FARs are then consistently 4.5 to 5 times the value of the SOIs.
In other words: despite higher density, this value does not increase.
A comparison of average building heights in the districts in
the individual categories confirms this conclusion. In density categories
1 to 3, the number of floors ranges from 1.4 to 3.4 full stories.
From the fourth category onward, this number remains relatively stable
within a range of 4.5 to 5 full stories. And although the building
height rises continuously from 4.5 meters to over 10 meters in the
first three categories, this increase levels off from the fourth category
onward, achieving a mean value for the analysis parameters of
14.3 meters.
When these observations are correlated to image, history and atmos-

phere of the districts, it is noticeable that the first three density
categories display a rather suburban character, while an urban character
is dominant from the fourth category onward.
Thus the height of the development and its relationship to the
built area has a decisive impact on how the district is perceived.
Nevertheless, height alone does not guarantee an urban character.
Individual diversity of the houses on
Within the first three density categories, classic residential districts Privatstraße in Berlin and the homoge-
with single-family homes cannot develop inner-city qualities — nor nous development in Zurich’s Heimgärtli
2
is it their intention.2 Given the modest land use of the plots for building, The following perimeters are classic
the structural focus in these areas is on creating private yards and residential districts with single-family
green spaces. Despite their village-like ambience, the origins of this homes: Privatstraße and Drakestraße
in Berlin; Waldstraße in Munich; Schip-
type of settlement lie in the ideas of the Garden City Movement pergasse in Vienna; and Im Heimgärtli
from 1900 onward, which represented a new interpretation of green and Schlössliweg in Zurich.
space in urban environments. Modest building heights with only
one to two full stories were meant to provide good lighting and a direct
connection to the generous outdoor space.
The homes in the Privatstraße settlement in Berlin-Hohenschön
hausen — most of which are single-story buildings with an average
height of just 4 meters — are set within fairly large yards and make
it possible to fulfill the dream of direct contact with nature within the
private sphere of one’s own property. The same goal characterizes
the homes in Zurich’s Im Heimgärtli settlement, which are therefore
identical in scale, the only difference being that here the building
masses are distributed more efficiently across two full stories, with an
eaves height of 6.6 meters.
Land use in such districts is therefore focused on creating a private

sphere and has no requirement to achieve representation in the
public space. One exception among the analyzed perimeters is the
villa colony centered on Drakestraße in Berlin-Lichterfelde. While this
area, too, features detached homes on fairly large private lots, the
villas here are nearly 9 meters high on average, in contrast to the
roughly 3.5- to 6.6-meter-high eaves height of the other single-family

home districts. Moreover, although most villas in Berlin-Lichterfelde
have only two full stories, clever visual tricks create the appearance
of three-story buildings. First of all, most of the bourgeois homes are
constructed with plinth stories, which raise them above grade, Prominent facades on Berlin’s
and the entrances are therefore designed with exterior sets of stairs. Drakestraße and villas hidden behind
Secondly, many of the homes feature windowed gables on the hedges and walls along Schlösslistraße
in Zurich
representative facade overlooking the streets, which creates the im-
pression that they have a third story. Finally, the rows of mature
boulevard trees also contribute to the imposing impression of the
street elevation, investing the streetscape with a height profile that
has an urban feel.
Despite the significantly greater average height of 11.25 meters and

3 full stories, Schlösslistraße in Zurich, on the other hand, fails to
exude an urban air. The houses have very little presence from the per-
spective of the street. Instead, their facades are more oriented towards
the private yards and the views of city, lake, and mountains. Although
the district is among the most expensive among those analyzed in
this book — with rental rates that are 142 percent of the mean rental
rate in Zurich — the street space in this area is reserved for access
and circulation within the district and far less for purposes of display
or public life.
The building height in the single-family home settlements in the first

two density categories is also linked to the social status of the
residents. Districts inhabited by those with a higher social status, such
as the Drakestraße and the Schlösslistraße, also feature noticeably
taller homes than the other four single-home districts, which are more
modest and where eaves heights rarely reach 4 meters.
In addition to being imposing, building height in expensive districts
also serves to concentrate the building masses in favor of providing Verdant street spaces in the Reindl-
more private open space and maximum use of the built over area. straße, Munich and in the Pilotengasse,
Vienna
With a SOI of 0.15, the pricey Schlösslistraße occupies the lowest tier
of all measured floor area ratios, and this despite a FAR of 0.44. 3 3
The Privatstraße perimeter in Berlin
has a higher site occupancy index (SOI)
In combination with height, the compactness of the built environment of 0.16 despite having the lowest FAR
is an additional feature of the urban character of a district. As the of 0.23.
floor area ratio rises, buildings are set closer together. Even in density
category 1, districts such as the Waldstraße in Munich-Trudering
suggest a hermetically sealed, compact street elevation as a result of
the close arrangement of the single-family homes.
From density category 2 onward, the individual homes — modest
in height with a maximum of two full stories — begin to be combined
into rows. The residential row housing in the Reindlstraße perimeter
in Munich, as well as in the Pilotengasse in Vienna and the Hochsitz
weg in Berlin, combine to create a relatively enclosed network of
streets and paths. However, the effect in these areas remains sub
urban, since the two-story homes are still largely oriented towards the
private yards.
It is only from density category 3 onwards that the building rows
reach heights of over 10 meters. However, increasing height does
not necessarily translate into a more urban atmosphere in the district.
The rows along Altwiesenstraße in Zurich still seem somewhat dis-
connected or lost in their calm environment of empty meadows despite
their greater heights and long rows. Conversely, another district
in density category 3 — the Larochegasse in Vienna — has a distinctly
urban character, even though the homes rise to a relatively low
average height of 6.37 meters with only two stories. Here, the urban
residences create a clear street space, while the orientation of the

rows in Zurich tends to be in response to car dinal directions rather
than the line of the street.
In Vienna’s Larochegasse and Berlin’s
Urbanity, therefore, does not result from density and building height Hochsitzweg, private front gardens
enliven the streetscape
alone; it is dependent on the relationship of the buildings and their
residents to the exterior space. Height does play an important role
in this relationship.
Most of the districts in the first three density categories seek
to establish a clear connection to the yard as a private exterior space.
Featuring one to two full stories, they tend to be low constructions,
allowing direct access to the yard from many rooms. The fact that
154 Evaluation
intimate space is prioritized also means that the orientation in these

districts is outwards, facing the green space and resulting in a
suburban image. In the chapter presenting a detailed analysis of the
districts, they have therefore been summarized under the term
“Garden Idyll.”4 4
For further details, see chapter “The
Density category 3 represents a transitional category between Districts”.
these garden idylls and “living in a green environment” in the
multi-story housing units that are analyzed after the break in density
category 4. With a maximum of 2.5 full stories on average, the
Hochsitzweg and Larochegasse perimeters still seek to establish
a close connection to the green parcels they occupy. The perimeters
Quiddestraße in Munich-Neuperlach and Altwiesenstraße, on the
other hand, no longer have access to any private yard space. Residential
units in these districts are distributed across buildings ranging in
height from 3.5 to 5.5 full stories. At the same time, both districts
experiment with staggered building heights. On Altwiesenstraße long
blocks two to four stories high are scattered across a large grassy
area. And in the area around Quiddestraße, multi-unit housing ranges
from two to as much as ten stories in height.
Beginning with density category 4, most buildings are at least four

stories high and no longer have access to any private green space,
which is now replaced by contiguous semi-public green areas. Similar
to the Altwiesenstraße and Quiddestraße developments, individual
buildings in the perimeters featured in the fourth and fifth category
vary greatly in terms of height. The staggered building rows in the
large housing estates create a residential landscape set into semi-
public and landscaped green spaces. This height variation is especially
noticeable in the satellite towns of the late 1970s. Some are featured
in density category 3, but most are in categories 4 and 55 and repre- 5
See the perimeters on Quiddestraße
sent a distinct and separate urban type. Inspired by Ebenezer Howard’s (density category 3), on Prinzgasse
Garden City Theory (1898) and the recommendations espoused by and Meierwiesenstraße (both density
the Athens Charter (1933), their aim was to provide a public shared category 4), and on Senftenberger Ring
(density category 5).
green space to all residents at the same time. As a result of the
radical separation into functions, the buildings for public uses such as
shopping arcades, community centers, and cultural centers are usually
low, with only one to two stories, in order to maintain a direct connec-
tion to the exterior space. The residential buildings, on the other hand,
are towering structures erected on a small footprint surrounded by
relatively large green areas. Ideally, the residential estates are raised
on pilotis or piers, although most are only raised from the ground by
plinth stories. This impedes direct access from the ground-floor units
to the green space and hence the creation of any private yards.
Thus the apartments are geared in their orientation towards landscape
as a feature in the distance rather than the immediate green space
surrounding them. This differentiation of building heights and connection
to the exterior is found in settlements as early as the 1950s.
Since densification in such large housing estates is by height rather

than by area coverage, this specific type of housing results in the
greatest deviations of FAR and height within each category. With
heights of over 42 meters and up to 14 full stories for a very low FAR
of only 0.13, Berlin’s Mariachi Vertex am Senftenberger Ring in
density category 5 approaches the limits of what is feasible in terms
of lighting and the relationship with the exterior space.
The Siemensstadt in Berlin-Charlottenburg adheres to a more
Narrow green areas between the rows
traditional path, despite the open arrangement of the rows of build- on Altwiesenstraße in Zurich and on
ings. Long buildings four and five stories high are set in rows along Quiddestraße in Munich
Goebelstraße with a continuous urban height of 18 meters, similar to

a district from the Gründerzeit. But the buildings are oriented towards
the sun, with the rear elevations overlooking the streets, and
the street space on the north side opens towards the green space.
A second break in terms of height occurs between density

categories 5 and 6. The mean height value remains roughly the
same. From a FAR of 1.5 upwards, changes in height are noticeably
reduced and the buildings form fairly homogeneous block edge
developments. In the district analyses, these districts are therefore
summarized under the heading “Inner City Mixture.”
Given prevailing regulations in Central Europe with regard to dis-
tance, aimed at ensuring good natural light for all houses, increased
building heights across entire urban districts is hardly possible because
of the reciprocal shading that would occur. This is especially true
for residential developments. The block edge with a maximum of four
to six floors, conversely, offers a suitable template structure for area
densification. While the front buildings maintain the established height, Varying building heights in the large
additional staggered heights are possible in the courtyard buildings. residential developments on Senften-
berger Ring and on Prinzgasse
Degrees of land use for these courtyard buildings allows for a gradual
densification without altering the image of the streetscape.
Thus the courtyards in the Bonner Straße perimeter in Berlin-Wilmers

dorf are kept open and unbuilt to be used as common green spaces
at the center of the five-story blocks that surround them. The noticeably
smaller blocks on the Kanzleistraße in Zurich, on the other hand, are
only four stories high, but their much older courtyards are filled in
with one- and two-story commercial structures. The courtyards in the
newer blocks are open and planted with greenery, similar to those
in Berlin. The blocks on the Raabestraße in Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg are
once again fairly densely developed and most courtyard buildings
are five stories high, just like the front buildings. The courtyards of
similar block developments were often opened up again in later years.
By contrast, entire blocks of similar height are fully built over in the
business districts.
In other words, the system of block edge and courtyard develop-
ments is structurally very flexible, able to accommodate a wide range
of building heights and site occupancy indices without compromising
the image of the streetscape. This is also one of the reasons for the
longevity of Gründerzeit districts. Unlike row housing or detached
buildings, they can assume many different density qualities and adapt
well to changing requirements.
Over time, their average height of 4 to 5 full stories at 18
to 22 meters became the reference value in Central Europe, as it offers
a number of advantages. For one, it guarantees favorable natural
lighting conditions for apartments combined with practical, usable
street widths, which, in the cities analyzed here, correspond in width

to the height of the buildings. Secondly, houses of this height
could and still can be efficiently constructed with simple masonry.
And furthermore, at this height, the top floors are still manageable via
stairwells without the need for elevators, and the apartments on
the top floor still have direct vocal and visual contact with life in the
street. It is not for nothing that living rooms and balconies in classic
Gründerzeit usually overlook the street, regardless of orientation.
In this way, they fulfill a social function. As private exterior spaces,
the balconies are an extension of the bustling life in the street at
A park-like courtyard on Bonner Straße
an elevated height. Each resident can thus make his or her personal and the milieu of small-scale rear
contribution to public life. courtyards on Raabestraße in Berlin
156 Evaluation
The compact, closely spaced facades always maintain a sense of

a certain urban density in the streetscape, even when there are entirely
different density factors in the courtyards to the rear.
Thus the height of the built environment contributes decisively
to the atmosphere of a district. It is directly connected to the density
of a district. The relationship to the exterior space is extremely
important in this context, as is the construction of that exterior space.
In the following, we will therefore take a closer look at the relationship
between building density and open areas, both private and public.
Public and Private Exterior Space, Green Space
Ratio of Open Public and Private Space; Parceling
The atmosphere of a district is largely dependent on the qualities of the

exterior space in the district, as well as what types of uses are
offered or suitable. This is where proximity and distance, social togeth-
erness or anonymity, liveliness or tranquility, crowdedness or expan-
siveness, light and shadow are determined and where the district
is fine-tuned. The design and distribution of open public and private
exterior spaces is therefore of vital importance. If one compares
the area values in the nine density categories, the numbers confirm the
break that occurs after the third and fifth categories, which have
already been noted in the evaluation of the height analyses.
In the first three categories, the average ratios of public space
rise more or less continuously from 12 percent in the first category
to over 20 percent in the third category. After the first break, when the
density factor exceeds 0.9 in category 4, the ratio falls once again
to less than 10 percent. It is only from density category 5 onward that
values of more than 20 percent are reached again. With a density
factor of 1.6 in category 6, which marks the second break, the values
leap to 30 percent and in isolated cases to over 40 percent.
This trend is directly linked to the connection of the buildings to the

exterior space and the social significance of the latter.
In the first three categories, public space plays a subordinate
role. Residents seek mostly a connection with their own private
exterior spaces. The parcels structure is tightly knit, and streets serve
mostly to provide access to and circulation between individual private
properties.
In residential districts with single-family homes, local streets
with little traffic can also assume a neighborhood function as a
Waldstraße in Munich and Schipper-
meeting place or play area. Several strategies can be differentiated. gasse in Vienna with sidewalks and a
In homogeneously structured perimeters such as Munich’s narrow district street in Zurich’s
Waldstraße and Vienna’s Schippergasse, with a ratio of public spaces Heimgärtli
of just 12.5 to 16 percent, the public space is restricted to the street

network . In Munich, and to some degree in Vienna, the street width

allows for narrow sidewalks on both sides, which means that ped
estrian and vehicular use can occur simultaneously within the same
street space in safely segregated paths. These streets usually have
a local speed limit of 30 km.
This speed limit also applies to the Im Heimgärtli perimeter in
Zurich. Given a similarly low ratio of public space of nearly 14 percent,
coupled with a greater structural and aesthetic homogeneity, there
are, however, no sidewalks or pedestrian paths. The streets are much
narrower and are used by both cars and pedestrians. Practically
speaking, cars need to slow down to walking speed in this district.
Moreover, the extremely narrow main street is privately owned, and

traffic access is regulated accordingly. This tranquility and the proximity
between public and private space only contribute to the intimate
social atmosphere of this district. As a pedestrian, one almost has the
sense of being an intruder trespassing on private property.
With a nearly identical ratio of public space, 14.4 percent, the
Privatstraße 6 perimeter in Berlin, with its narrow side streets with 6
Despite their name, all these narrow
unpaved verges, has in some ways an even more intimate ambience “Privatstraßen“ (lit. private streets) are
than the Im Heimgärtli perimeter. But this neighborly proximity is located on public land.
structured and divided by a much wider axis road with a green verge,
which surrounds a small park at the center of the district. Instead of
a uniform street grid, this perimeter establishes a hierarchy within
the public space. The side streets are as narrow as they can possibly
be. The space that is gained by this means is invested into the main
street and the small park at the heart of the area. By virtue of their
scale, these two spaces do make a contribution to the sense of public
life and create a core that is usable by all as a shared space. At the
same time, the main street (and the park) serve as orientation guides
within the multi-colored monotony of detached houses. In actuality,
these spaces see very little use, as the private yard remains the center
of activity for most residents. Nevertheless, the district is characterized
by this orderly structural symmetry, which makes it highly recognizable
and creates a strong identity or sense of place.
Spatial hierarchies are also present in the residential districts in den-

sity categories 2 and 3, with detached homes on Berlin’s Drakestraße
(density factor 0.41) with 15.3 percent public space and on Vienna’s
Larochegasse (density factor 0.70) with 22.5 percent public space.
The Drakestraße is the broad main traffic artery of the district;
it forms a structuring street junction with the Holbeinstraße. Some
corners at other intersections in the district expand into larger spaces
and accommodate individual public and commercial uses. This invests
them with the characteristics of small public squares, albeit not
suitable for whiling away the time due to the heavy flow of traffic
on Drakestraße. The crossroads take on this function: in contrast to the
asphalt surface of the Drakestraße, they are paved with cobblestones
and bordered by a wide green strip with large boulevard trees that
separates the road from the sidewalk. The powerful presence of public Rarely used green space at the center of
green space transforms these residential streets into almost park-like the residential development on Privat-
environments, which would not be achievable by the presence of private straße in Berlin and tea dance in the
lively Hügelpark on Larochegasse in
yards alone. Vienna
Vienna’s district on the Larochegasse has a very similar street
image with trees and a green strip. But this perimeter also benefits
from a park at its core — a central public open space for all residents,
similar to that in the Privatstraße district, although the Viennese
make better use of their park. Even without taking the park into consid-
eration in terms of area analysis,7 at 22.5 percent the Viennese 7
In City of Vienna maps, the Hügelpark

district has a higher ratio of public spaces than Berlin’s perimeters, with is identified as a private area. However,
15 percent for the Drakestraße and only 14.4 percent for the Privat- it is open to the public and features a
straße. This is largely the result of the smaller urban grid. The more playground and a kindergarten.
tightly knit the street grid, the greater the area the grid covers within
the entire district, leaving less area for public space.
The highest proportion of public space among the first three density
categories is therefore found in the row housing on the Reindlstraße
in Munich-Laim, where 24 percent of the district is area devoted to
public use. The small, narrow row house parcels are accessed from two
sides. The narrow residential street, made wider and verdant thanks
to private front yards, leads to the front entrances; a footpath running
158 Evaluation
parallel to the street allows access directly into the private yards at
the back of the houses. 8 Both routes are part of the public space and 8
With just 21 percent public area, Bruno
benefit from the adjoining private yard areas. Taut’s Hochsitzweg residential estate
The grid is even more tightly knit in the row housing along has a similar structure.
Vienna’s Pilotengasse; with a mere 13.4 percent this district has the
lowest ratio of public spaces in the category. This is not caused by
close arrangement of the rows themselves, but rather by the fact that
the entire development was constructed on a single privately owned
parcel of land, which means that the access paths are also located on
private property.
This privatization of space that is nevertheless utilized by the public

is characteristic for the majority of the perimeters analyzed in the
density categories 4 and 5. The parcels develop into large,
contiguous private areas, accessed via a few public ring roads and
cul-de-sacs. In large housing estates such as the Meierwiesenstraße
in Zurich or the Senftenberger Ring in the Märkisches Viertel in
Berlin the ratio of public space drops significantly — to below 10 percent.
However, this does not mean that the area that can be used by
all residents decreases by the same degree. On the contrary: as has
already been noted, the site occupancy index of such estates is
very low and open areas are consequently more prevalent. The ratio
of open space in the total area of such perimeters lies at roughly
85 percent.
The defining theme of these districts with average density is
“semi-public space.” And the challenge of these areas is already
expressed by that term. These are de facto private areas. In contrast
to hierarchically organized settlement structures, where there is a
clear distinction between private and public space, the boundaries are
blurred here. The division and design of tightly knit private parcels
gives way to a continuous, generously scaled landscape, which is more
or less designed, and into which larger individual buildings are placed,
surrounded by open ground. In this case, the structure is first and
Public district road and garden path to
foremost defined by traffic routes and the placement of parking lots. the rear of the properties in the residen-
Within the green spaces, communal facilities such as community tial area on Reindlstraße in Munich
centers and playgrounds create focal points. On the other hand, it
is difficult to distinguish clear boundaries of ownership in the exterior
space. For this reason, the peripheries of such areas are often
cluttered with signs that announce regulations or prohibitions, which
only serves to render their use more confusing, if not altogether 9
See the perimeters on Quiddestraße,
impractical. In large housing estates dating back to the 1970s, 9 the Prinzgasse, Meierwiesenstraße, and
generous green spaces run the risk of deteriorating into mere setbacks Senftenberger Ring.
with little recreational use or value.10 10
On the topic of semi-public spaces, see
the section “Hierarchies!” in the chapter
In the 1980s, efforts were undertaken to counter these problems with “The City as Social Space”.
more tightly knit structures. For example, the proportion of public
spaces in the Viennese Ringofenweg perimeter, over 17 percent, is

nearly twice that of the Senftenberger Ring district in Berlin, although
both belong to density category 5. This is largely the result of the
smaller scale of the access routes to the parcels, which are still quite
large but more densely developed.11 Small private yards in front 11
The Ringofenweg perimeter has 64
of many of the ground-floor units between the rows are an attempt at percent open space, while 87 percent of
introducing a privatized hierarchy here. But challenges with a lack the area in the Senftenberger Ring 87
of allocation persist with the remaining areas, which are subjected is open space.
to many rules as semi-public spaces and are therefore barely utilized.

The district on Konrad-Dreher-Straße in Munich has no real
public spaces within its perimeter. The ratio of 14.5 percent is exclusively
distributed across the streets that flank the area. Still, there is a
smattering of small areas with playgrounds and public benches for

the local residents, who utilize these spaces to varying degrees.
There is no real identification among the residents with the public
space provided.
The quality of semi-public spaces is dependent on their design and

upkeep. If they are functionally and esthetically designed to match
the needs of the residents, and maintained and looked after accordingly,
they can provide a valuable exterior space with park-like qualities
for many users. Public spaces such as Fernand Pouillon’s Le Point du
Jour in the Boulogne-Billancourt district near Paris demonstrate
the potential as well as the effort required to create well-designed and
well-maintained semi-public spaces. Initiatives of similar care and
quality, albeit in a fairly simple form, are found in the Meierwiesenstraße
perimeter in Zurich. Yet the investment required is a deterrent to
many property owners, and the property management companies tend
to minimize their efforts to the best of their abilities.
But another problem associated with these spaces is unrelated
to their design. They privatize areas that are functionally assigned
to public uses such as paths, streets, and squares, in effect promoting
the formation of islands of parallel worlds that are only partially
integrated with the urban organism.
Fundamentally, the districts in the middle density categories are seek-

ing to find a solution in their public and private exterior spaces for a
very popular and contemporary desire to live in a green environment
with plenty of open space, all the while being able to enjoy the
amenities of urban life. The exterior space as a recreation and activity
area plays an important role for both of these desires, albeit with
differing requirements.
Urban initiatives, which focus on semi-public spaces in keeping
with modern urban planning, seek to create expansive green spaces
that are generally only accessible to local residents. The upkeep Private paths in the residential areas on
of these spaces requires much dedication on the part of the private Pilotengasse in Vienna, Konrad-Dreher-
Straße in Munich, and Ringofenweg in
owners and a high degree of permeability with regard to placement Vienna
within the plan: only then can the desired landscape qualities of the
semi-public spaces be realized. For a sense of living in a park-like
setting only takes hold if the green areas are well taken care of and
the distances between buildings are generous enough.
Not a few residents and experts bemoan the lack of an urban
quality of life in combination with a high concentration of residents
in a small area. The only compensation for this disadvantage seems
to be to provide the best possible regional transportation links to the
city center. In each case, this generates additional traffic flows into
the nearby city, which in turn deplete the social cohesion of life in the
district. The emergence of an urban atmosphere is thus prevented
in these districts, despite the pluralistic composition of the residents.
The same density can also be achieved nearer to the city and with
a comparable “green atmosphere” with the help of hierarchical spatial
divisions and small parcels. In this study, this is exemplified by
the Scheuchzerstraße district in Zurich. Private and public areas are
clearly differentiated here and, despite a lack of town squares, public
space accounts for 22 percent of the total area, covering nearly a
quarter of the entire perimeter. Each building is accessible from public
streets and closely linked to the transportation network of the city. Manicured exterior spaces in Zurich’s
housing estate on Meierwiesenstraße,
The garden-like atmosphere in the district is the result of two urban- which are connected by open ground-
planning decisions. On the one hand, the Scheuchzerstraße is planted floor zones
160 Evaluation
with mature trees, which transforms the public streetscape into a ver-
dant continuum with a specific canopy height within the district. And
on the other hand, the buildings are erected in the centers of relatively
small parcels.12 The narrow green spaces that surround each house 12
See the district analysis for details of the
create exterior spaces that are can be individually used and designed. land use plan for the Scheuchzerstraße
In the streetscape, these rather small yards seem to merge into a perimeter.
connecting green space, which defines the atmosphere of the district
as a whole. At the same time, the tight rows of individually designed
buildings create an urban atmosphere in the streetscape, and this
despite a ratio of unbuilt, open space approaching 70 percent. Still,
there are no public squares. The generous balconies or loggias play
an important role, enlivening the streetscape in the form of personal
exterior spaces.
This urban principle distributes the effort required for care
and maintenance across many owners, minimizing individual investments
and yet promoting and supporting individual initiatives. The Garden atmosphere in the side streets
street becomes a social reflection of the residents who live there. off Scheuchzerstraße in Zurich
From density category 6 onwards (density factor 1.5 and up), the
development structure is more closed and private exterior spaces
decrease in favor of public spaces. If, as previously described, one un-
derstands urbanity as an urban and architectural manifestation of
a dense and mixed social life, then true urban life, which requires the
appropriate action spaces and stages to unfold, begins with this
category.
Category 6 occupies a special position. It is to some extent a transi-

tion category between those density categories that strive for a
balance between privacy and access to nature and those that supply
the requirements of social life in the city centers.
The district surrounding the Bonner Straße in Berlin tries to
manage this dichotomy in a stunning manner. With its enclosed block
edge developments, it harks back to inner-city structures from the
Gründerzeit and boasts a relatively high ratio of public spaces, at 31
percent. At the same time, the front yards, boulevard trees, and
verdant courtyards speak to a yearning for as much nature in the city
as possible. Given the same ratio of public spaces, the block edge
developments on Vienna’s Hasnerstraße are fully dedicated to inner-
city life without green spaces along the streets and appear much livelier.
The houses in the Tumblingerstraße perimeter in Munich offer Verdant streetscapes in Bonner Straße
yet another urban planning solution. The structure in this district also in Berlin and urban block-edge develop-
attempts to combine living in a green environment with urban qualities. ments in Vienna’s Hasnerstraße
And although the district has considerably less public space, than
the Bonner Straße and the Hasnerstraße, with only 24.5 percent, the
streetscapes here somehow appear greener and less cramped. As
a kind of hybrid between block edge development and single-family
neighborhood, one unique factor lies in the internal network of paths

through the compact blocks on private property.
The district on the Bändliweg in Zurich (density factor 1.55) could
be interpreted as a sanitized version of the small Munich-style
blocks in the Tumblingerstraße on a uniform basis. Here, the building Narrow lanes along the Tumblinger-
masses are grouped in seven voluminous buildings. This arrangement straße in Munich
surrounds the buildings with large semi-public spaces13 that are 13

See the analysis of the Bändliweg pe-
sealed with a variety of coverings and additionally subdivided, which rimeter. The entire public space (22.5
attempt to offer an urban variation of the neighboring large housing percent of the area) is distributed
estate on Meierwiesenstraße. In contrast to the Tumblingerstraße, across the streets that surround the
perimeter.
however, the district in Zurich remains insular and isolated without in-
ternal public streets.
In the perimeters of the density categories 7, 8 , and 9, which are

analyzed here, the phenomenon of the semi-public space is almost
entirely absent. The close social cohabitation, as well as the long history
of many of these districts, favors small parcels and maximum utilization
of all available building areas. The ratio of unbuilt area in these
categories drops from about 60 to less than 40 percent. Conversely,
the ratio of public space rises to as much as 41 percent.
The analysis perimeters of the three top density categories are
defined by block edge developments of the kind typical in most Central
Detached housing blocks on Bändliweg
European city centers. Structurally, we can distinguish two different in Zurich
urban planning patterns.
In the first pattern, there are the old town areas that have grown up
over the course of centuries, such as the Spiegelgasse in Zurich,
the Im Tal in Munich, and the Wollzeile in Vienna. Even a cursory look
at the ground plans of these districts reveals the irregularities in
their tightly knit urban plan. The parcels are very small and the net-
work of paths is usually geared towards walkability. The public spaces,
ranging from 26 to 33 percent, are spatially structured and divided
by a web of narrow streets and lanes with a few isolated spaces open-
ing up into town squares. The historically grown web of functions
and ownership profiles also provides the rationale for the siting, scale,
and proportion of this great variety of seemingly organic spaces.
Many of the main lanes in these historic cores run along the same lines
as the trade routes of long ago. Since the medieval city districts
were enclosed within the confines of city walls, this type of urban plan
tends to treat its open space with the utmost economy. The ratio
of unbuilt area lies between 37 and 47 percent. Where private homes
or smaller businesses are only accessible on foot, the lanes are Square expansion and narrow lanes on
the Spiegelgasse in Zurich
often extremely narrow, whereas streets are correspondingly wider and
bordered by shops and other businesses along routes once used
by horse-drawn carts travelling along a trade route. Streets were laid
out even wider for markets or in front of public building;14 at times, 14
Examples of expanded street spaces
public squares were created for these sites. There is usually very little that also served as market squares are
green in these small exterior spaces. Since the origins of these districts Im Tal in Munich and the Rindermarkt
often date back to the Middle Ages, nature was still easily accessible in Zurich’s Spiegelgasse perimeter.
from these relatively small, walled towns; there was no real need for
recreational public greens and trees within the city walls.15 But private 15
Once fortifications were no longer re-
yards abound, historically often used for self-sufficiency in the form quired and fell into disuse, some grad
of vegetable garden plots and the like. Today, these spaces are privi- ually developed into the first green
leged oases amid the bustle of the city. Thanks to the gradual evolution spaces of a city. Many of these are still
preserved as a green belt surrounding
of the tightly knit grid of small parcels, a balance of built versus the old town, for example, in Vienna.
unbuilt areas has emerged as a matter of course, always premised on
optimal use of the available area. Thus the urban plan — both in terms
of structure and in terms of the atmosphere in its streets and squares —
becomes a mirror of the functions, the social mix, and the lifestyle
typical of the period.

Today these districts are the historic identifiers of their cities.
This means that they often suffer from the consequences of adapting
to tourist requirements: traditional shops disappear, to be replaced
by international chains and shops catering to tourists, apartments are
converted into offices or hotels and restaurants. Still, the tightly knit
structure offers a new potential for regeneration of these city models,
especially in the current atmosphere of renewed enthusiasm for traffic
calming, pedestrianization, and neighborly integration.
16
These top density categories also include the classic urban expansions See the Friedrichstraße perimeter in
dating from the baroque era at the end of the seventeenth century16 density category 9.
162 Evaluation
and predominantly from the so-called Gründerzeit in the latter years

of the nineteenth century.17 Available space is treated no less eco 17
See the following perimeters for com-
nomically in these districts. However, since they were developed quickly parison: Hasnerstraße (density category
over a relatively short period of time, their planners had to resort 6); Raabestraße; Pariser Platz; Fock-
to the drawing board to sketch out prospective structures that could ygasse; Kanzleistraße (density category
7); Christburger Straße; Hahngasse
efficiently accommodate a wide range of functions and adapt to (density category 8); Schwanthaler-
different demographics and topographies. The principle of the street straße; and Bahnhofstraße (density cat-
grid, which has been around for millennia, has proved to be the most egory 9).
advantageous and flexible. It is interesting that the land use plans

of the baroque as well as those of the late nineteenth century tended
to only define the streets outlining the block edge and the maximum
building height. Building density within the blocks was undefined and
unregulated; as a result, development of the block interiors progressed
in a wide range of styles and densities. The ratio of open space
to total area in the perimeters in this category ranges from barely
42 percent to 63 percent. The ratio of public spaces ranges from
barely 26 to over 40 percent and is, on average, higher than in the
old town districts. By and large, public space in these districts is Block-edge developments from the
Gründerzeit on Raabestraße
concentrated in the street network, with focal points here and there
in the form of unbuilt blocks in the grid, which are then used as parks
or town squares. Large intersections also represent public space in
these perimeters. The width of the streets and the dimensions of the
blocks, in other words, determine the quantitative ratio of public space.18 18
The Christburger Straße perimeter in
The design of the street spaces therefore has a major influence Berlin has the highest ratio of public
on the quality of the atmosphere in this type of district. space of the entire analysis: over 40 per-
From the late nineteenth century onward, the streets in the cent. This is due to the relatively large
total area covered by street spaces sur-
Gründerzeit district grew wider, offering “more light and air,” and were rounding the narrow development
designed to handle the increasing traffic volume. One consequence squares in the district.
was that sidewalks for pedestrians were strictly separated from traffic
lanes. To this day, the generous sidewalks in many districts from
this era bear witness to the fact that circulation on foot was still more
of a focus than vehicular traffic when these streets were created.
Moreover, with the rapid expansion of the cities, the landscape beyond
the city boundaries grew ever more distant. As a consequence, the
green space within these street grids became more important. Many
of these nineteenth-century streets are still lined with boulevard trees.
These rows of trees separate the footpaths from the traffic lanes,
while the height of their canopies provides privacy against curious eyes
Baroque street axis on Friedrichstraße
for the windows and balconies of the apartments on the upper in Berlin
floors. On several levels, the trees provide an efficient structure for the
life on the street and invest it with a calming, verdant atmosphere.19 19
See the section “Green Space and Ar-
Where paved squares offered space for trading and social life in chitecture” in the “Conclusion”.
the medieval towns, the urban expansion plans of the nineteenth
century envisioned parks to offer the working residents recreational
areas immediately adjacent to the densely populated housing blocks. 20 20
However, many of these small city parks,
The round public spaces that dot the Weißenburger Straße in which were created as a result of the
Munich’s Pariser Platz district are an exception, a mix of paved public original urban expansion plans from the
spaces and green parks in keeping with the Parisian model. This nineteenth century (e.g. the Hobrecht
Plan, Berlin) were never realized because
type of planted town square derives its impact from the form, which of pressure from investors for more
creates a good sense of place and provides options for many development land. At times, cemeteries
uses. Although a large portion of the public space is paved, the overall would assume the function of green
spaces.
impression is one of a green space and a park-like atmosphere
promising relaxation. Restaurants and cafes are drawn to these areas
and the green public space soon becomes a local recreation.
When a city reaches a certain size, which in the case of the four cities —
Berlin, Munich, Vienna, and Zurich — analyzed in this study occurred
only in the nineteenth century, the landscape beyond the city limits
becomes too distant to be readily accessible in daily life. The green

space or park, therefore, has brought a piece of nature into the city,
improving the climate in both senses of the word: environmental and
social.
Use
Ground-Floor Uses
The individual perimeters in this analysis were selected for their variety
in urban lifestyle quality. With the exception of the commercial districts
in the densest perimeters, housing is thus the predominant use in
all density categories. However, ground floor uses such as retail and
office also contribute to the life of the street and hence to the atmos-
phere of even those districts with the least density. They establish a
connection between street and building, creating a sense of place and
promoting communication among residents.
The breaks after the second and the fifth density categories,
which were noted with regard to building height and the distribution
of public space, are also evident in the use of the perimeters.
The first two categories are characterized by purely residential
use, most of it in the form of single-family homes with private yards.
The atmosphere in these districts is therefore private and intimate.
Still, some public ground floor uses for businesses or restaurants
register even from the second density category onwards, although they
represent only a maximum of 2 percent. In perimeters such as the
Drakestraße in Berlin, these uses create meeting places for the local
residents at street intersections amid the otherwise very quiet residen-
tial atmosphere.
Once we get into the third density category, nearly all the buildings
are multi-story housing. The buildings are taller and horizontally
layered in terms of function, while the number of residents increases.
In density categories 3 to 5, individual public uses of the ground
floor spaces are an important element in the districts, ensuring
access to supplies and services for the residents in proximity to their Boulevard trees on Christburger Straße
homes. The ratio of public uses increases from 3 to 5 percent in in Berlin and the lavishly planted
Weißenburger square in Munich
these categories. Modern and late modern row housing, in particu-
lar — such as the Goebelstraße in Berlin’s Siemensstadt and the
Altwiesenstraße in Zurich — integrated small corner shops to provide
the settlements with a degree of autonomy. Today, many of these
shops are struggling to survive since public transportation links
to the city center have been improved and less expensive shopping
centers on the periphery are easily accessible by car. In large
housing estates such as Vienna’s Prinzgasse or Berlin’s Senftenberger
Ring, public uses are concentrated in low-rise shopping centers

with the aim of creating a small city-within-a-city, with the result that
the ratio of public uses rises to 10 and even to 15 percent in
these districts.
In density categories 6 and 7 the ratio is the same, ranging
from 10 to 15 percent, but here ground floor uses of this kind
are distributed across the entire perimeter. Shops and restaurants are
therefore able to stimulate life on the street in all areas of the
perimeters. In the Kanzleistraße in Zurich this value reaches nearly
38 percent because many ground floor units are occupied for
commercial uses and large schools are located within the perimeter. Small local shops on Drakestraße and
Aside from this, the dominant use is still residential. on Goebelstraße in Berlin
164 Evaluation
In density categories 8 and 9 the ratio of public uses rises sharply

to over 60 percent, as these central locations also draw people from
outside the district and even outside the city itself. These perimeters
should no longer be regarded as separate districts in this regard,
since their function is based on integration with the entire urban area
for which they are the commercial center. These inner-city commercial
districts are therefore the only perimeters in this study where public
uses exceed residential uses. In particular, the perimeters in density
category 9, such as the Friedrichstraße in Berlin, have a residential
ratio of just over 25 percent. And even these few residential units are
rarely year-round apartments; instead, many are a second or even third
pied-à-terre for business people.
Location, Traffic, and Social Data
Location in the City Area, Public Transportation, Rental

Price, Residency Concentration, and Population Turnover
Low-rise buildings of the central shop-
ping center on Senftenberger Ring in
Generally speaking, density increases continuously in the analyzed Berlin
perimeters from the outer perimeter towards the city centers. Most
residential areas with single-family homes with the lowest densities
are located on the edge of the cities. The higher and the highest
densities are all in central locations such as the Gründerzeit districts
and in and old town cores and their historical environs. The middle
density categories are located in the areas between these two poles.
As with most of the other analysis perimeters, the large housing es-
tates from the 1960s and 1970s are once again the exception. Since
they are organized as autonomous (satellite) cities, they are usually lo-
cated on the periphery, despite their middle-range density.
Location has a tremendous impact on the atmosphere of a district,

on its design and on the social composition of the residents. The low
densities in categories 1 and 2 on the urban peripheries are
dependent on good (public) transportation, because work places as
well as shopping options tend to be relatively distant. As recently
as the late 1980s, most residents relied on personal transportation. The
car was the symbol for a self-determined and autonomous life in a
green environment. As traffic volumes increased, matched by a growing
awareness of environmental issues, walkability and public transport
links are gaining in importance, especially in these green settings. For
example, when the Waldstraße perimeter in Munich was connected
to the U-Bahn or subway network in the late 1990s in addition to the
existing streetcar line, the district saw a sudden jump in population
numbers.
Even today, at 138 percent, population turnover rates continue
to be unusually high and dynamic in the Waldstraße district. By

comparison, the Schippergasse perimeter in Vienna, which has poor
links to public transportation, has a population turnover rate of only
12 percent. The district on Zurich’s Schlösslistraße, in turn, also has
Streetscapes defined by public uses:
a low turnover rate of 23 percent and only marginal public trans Weißenburger Straße on Pariser Platz
portation in the form of a single bus line. Nevertheless, the rental rates in Munich, Friedrichstraße in Berlin, and
are the highest in this density group, at 142 percent of the city’s mean Schwanthalerstraße in Munich
rate. This has to do with the fact that the inner city is within walking
distance and, above all, with the attractive views from the sunny location
on a slope. The lowest rental rates in comparison to the mean rental
rates in the city in these two density categories are found in Berlin’s
Drakestraße perimeter, at only 94 percent. Although this area also
boasts detached houses in a green setting, the great distance to the

city center translates into these relatively reasonable rental rates.
Traditional residential areas in more convenient locations, such as Im
Heimgärtli in Zurich, achieve rental rates of 110 percent despite a very
modest building substance.
The occupation density, on the other hand, is not only connected
to location parameters but also highly dependent on the building
type and the social structure in a district. The predominantly middle
class single-family-home neighborhood on Munich’s Waldstraße has
therefore a relatively large area per resident: 310 square meters. This
value arises from the fact that each family has their own house. But
it is also once again influenced by the location because the convenient
public transportation links by bus, streetcar, and subway and the
green surroundings attract many young couples and their families to the
district, a demographic that would be more likely to live downtown
were it not for the excellent public transportation available in this area.
Lower-middle-class row housing offers significantly less living space
per resident: one example is the Pilotengasse in Vienna with 59 square
meters per resident.
In the middle categories 3, 4, and 5, multi-story apartment buildings

in different locations dominate. While Gründerzeit districts such
as the Holbeinstraße perimeters in Munich and the Scheuchzerstraße
in Zurich are located in inner cities, most settlements in this category
Bus stop on Drakestraße in Berlin and
are located closer to the urban edge and are once again dependent steep stairs serving as short cut from
on good transportation links. In contrast to the single-family home the Schlösslistraße to the city center in
districts in the lowest density categories, these districts have much Zurich
higher population densities and endeavor to provide infrastructural

amenities such as shops, schools, clinics, and daycares that are
reachable on foot in order to save residents the inconvenience of long
distances. However, this is only partially successful, since most
workplaces are still some distance away and larger purchases are still
made by car or by taking public transportation. This problem is ex
acerbated in the satellite cities, where public transportation is lacking.
Located some 14 kilometers from Vienna’s Donaustadt, the Prinz-
gasse perimeter, for example, was connected only by streetcar for a
very long time. A subway station was finally built as recently as 2013.
Zurich’s Meierwiesenstraße, on the other hand, is well served by a
streetcar: the trip to downtown takes only 15 minutes.
Transportation issues in satellite cities also affect the population
turnover rates, which, at more than 25 percent, are much higher
than those in centrally located Gründerzeit districts in the middle cat-
egories. With a mere 16 percent new or relocating residents, the
Prinzgasse is far less dynamic. With a low turnover rate of only 14
percent, the population in the Munich perimeter on the Konrad-Dreher-
Straße, which lies roughly ten kilometers from Marienplatz at the heart Streetcar tracks on Zurich’s Bändliweg
and residential homes near the city
of the city, is the most stable and the easiest to reach by highway. center on Munich’s Holbeinstraße
The rental rates in this density category range between 92 and 124
percent, with the lowest rate in the Altwiesenstraße perimeter in
Zurich-Schwamendingen, which is six kilometers from the city center.
This district is defined by 1950s row housing with simple apartments,
although it has recently been undergoing a transition. Residents in
Zurich’s Scheuchzerstraße, where bourgeois apartments in buildings
from the Gründerzeit are located close to the city center, pay the
highest rental rates.
In categories 3, 4, and 5, occupation densities range between
30 square meters in the Quiddestraße perimeter in Munich’s Neu Anonymous slab buildings on Munich’s
perlach satellite city and 114 square meters in the Gründerzeit villa Quiddestraße
166 Evaluation
district around Vienna’s Larochgasse. This population turnover is the

result of the building type and social mix in the districts, rather than
the location as such. Both districts lie roughly eight kilometers from
the city center and have subway links nearby.
The perimeters in density categories 6 and 7 are mostly character-

ized by Gründerzeit block edge development in inner-city locations.
Car traffic is less important here. Instead, there is a dense network
of public transportation and it is walking distance to public institutions
and retail areas, parameters that are key for a good location. Individual, detached urban villas on
All districts in these two density categories more or less meet Vienna’s Larochegasse
these requirements. The rental rate is thus at about 100 percent of
the mean value in each respective city. In the two Viennese districts,
this value drops to nearly 75 percent. This means that the residents
in the Hasnerstraße and Fockygasse perimeters pay the lowest rents
in the entire study. 21 However, both districts have excellent transpor 21
With rental rates at 66 percent of the
tation links and are close to the city centers. The rental rates in these city’s mean rental rate, the subsidized
former laborers’ districts are influenced by the tremendous mix in residential district on the Bändliweg
the population and the older building fabrics, which have not been ren- in Zurich is unrivalled in terms of afford-
ability.
ovated, rather than by the location.
This is also evident in the occupation density of the two
Viennese perimeters, which at less than 60 square meters per resident
is the highest in these two density categories. In the remaining
perimeters, residents have living areas ranging from 70 to 90 square
meters22 — larger than those in the middle density categories. This 22
In Zurich’s Bändliweg perimeter, the
is largely a product of the generous layout of Gründerzeit apartments, residency concentration is especially low
originally designed for large extended families, but today mostly at 113 square meters per resident; how-
occupied by couples or small families. Larger families or shared living ever, this is only the case because the
district is defined by subsidized housing
arrangements are only found in the two multicultural districts in with large family units.
Vienna.
The population turnover rates are especially low in the perim-
eters at the extreme ends of the scale: those with the lowest rental
rates and those with the highest. The two inexpensive perimeters on
Hasnerstraße and Fockygasse have a turnover rate of only about 33
percent. The expensive Munich districts on Tumblingerstraße and
Pariser Platz actually have turnover rates of only 23 and 15 percent
respectively. These low rates reflect the popularity of these districts.
In one case the popularity is due to the good location, and in the other
it is due to the attractive architecture combined with a good location
and the low vacancy rates in the city.
The highest density categories, 8 and 9, are exceptional. They form

the city centers, and commercial uses are significant here. Owing
to their central location these districts are often transportation hubs
within the city. In the district itself, however, walkability is more sig
nificant because all the necessary amenities are within reach. Districts
Typical streets from the Gründerzeit in
such as Niederdorf in Zurich’s Spiegelgasse, the Bahnhofstraße in the the districts on Hasnerstraße and
same city, or Vienna’s Hahngasse are largely traffic calmed or Fockygasse in Vienna, formerly home
even pedestrian zones. The environment is designed to offer a pleasant to tradesmen and craftsmen
shopping experience.
The rental rates are especially high here as a result of the high
leasing rates for retail spaces. In the Spiegelgasse perimeter in
Zurich’s old town, the rental rate rises to a peak of 166 percent of the
city’s average rate. But even districts with more residential use, such 23
as the Christburger Straße in Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg has a relatively The unusually low rental rate of 94
high rental rate of 103 percent. 23 In this category, the residential area percent in Berlin’s Friedrichstraße is ex-
plained by the relatively high proportion
on Vienna’s Hahngasse is the only district with rental rates that are of old buildings that have not been re
clearly below average at 93 percent. novated or upgraded in this perimeter.
The occupation density is comparable to the high values in density

categories 6 and 7, but only in the residential districts. In the areas
where commercial uses dominate, it is several hundred square
meters per person. The presence of many department stores and
offices pushes the area parameter in Zurich’s Bahnhofstraße to several
thousand square meters per person.
The population turnover rates provide little insight into location
and use. The lowest turnover rate of only 22 percent is found in
the long established old-town district of the Wollzeile in Vienna, while
the dynamic and multicultural Schwanthalerstraße perimeter in Munich
has the highest turnover rate.
The Cities and their Parameters

In addition to their significance for the density categories, the analysis
parameters also provide important insights into the character of
the respective cities. The following paragraphs present a comparison
of the influence of the individual parameters in Vienna, Zurich,
Berlin, and Munich, and the differences that emerge based on average
values in all perimeters in each city.
Height and Area Parameters

Traffic calmed zones in Vienna’s
Hahngasse
Building Height and Number of Floors, Floor Area Ratio,
and Site Occupancy Index
If one calculates the average floor area ratio (FAR) of all analyzed
perimeters for each city, Munich has an average FAR of 1.48 and
Vienna of 1.45: these two cities therefore have the highest area
parameters and hence the highest density. The perimeters in Berlin
and Zurich, on the other hand, have an average FAR of 1.4 and
significantly less density.
A similar profile emerges for the site occupancy index (SOI).
Once again, Munich and Vienna have the highest values, with
0.35 and 0.36 respectively. With average SOIs of 0.29 and 0.28, the
indices in Berlin and Zurich are again considerably below those of
the other two cities.
But the profile is reversed when we look at height and number
of floors. Zurich has the highest average height of buildings, at
15.6 meters, and the greatest number of floors at 4.6; it is followed
by Berlin with an average building height of 13.4 meters and 5
floors on average. In Munich, the average building height is only 10.7
meters, with 3.7 floors, while Vienna only reaches an average building
height of 9.1 meters and 3.1 floors.

These results are also evident in the city image. Berlin spreads Pedestrian zone in Zurich’s Niederdorf
out as a large green city. The streets tend to be wide, and there in the Spiegelgasse area
are many parks, squares, and green areas. Zurich’s streets are sig-
nificantly narrower, but the development is not as dense and there
are few block edge developments with courtyards. The great building
height in Zurich is the product of the homogeneous building height
in the city, similar to that in Berlin. In Munich and Vienna, on the
other hand, the maximum eaves heights allowed by building codes
eaves heights are much lower, resulting in a lower average building
height.
168 Evaluation
Public and Private Exterior Space
Undeveloped, Public, and Private Areas; Parceling
In connection with the average FARs and building heights, the cities
in this study can again be divided into two groups with regard to
open, undeveloped areas. With low floor area ratios and site occu-
pancy indices, Berlin and Zurich have the highest ratio of unbuilt area:
72 percent for Berlin and 71.5 percent for Zurich. Land use is much Pedestrian zone in the Bahnhofstraße
more intensive in Munich and Vienna, where the amount of open, un- perimeter in Zurich
developed area is 65 and 63.5 percent respectively.
The distribution of private spaces across the total areas of the
perimeters confirms this image. The highest averages (49.5 percent
each) are found in Berlin and Zurich, while Munich and Vienna have 42
and 41 percent.
The ratio of public spaces in the total area is roughly the same
across the board at approximately 23 percent, with the value dropping
slightly to 22 percent in Zurich.
In other words, the higher ratio of open, undeveloped area in Berlin and
Zurich is not utilized to create public spaces but remains private
property. Nevertheless, the urban image of Berlin appears far more
24
generous in spatial terms than the other three cities. In Berlin, the Thus the Federal Office for Spatial De-
open spaces are directly or indirectly related to the large scale of the velopment (ARE), Zurich, has estab-
street space. In Zurich they are distributed across a tightly knit lished an average floor area of 40 to 45
square meters per resident (residency
network of exterior spaces. In Munich and Vienna, the public benefits concentration). It is worth noting, how
somewhat more from the open areas, although the cities as a whole ever, that the “the calculation is based
show a more densely developed urban image. on the total sum of residents in a com-
munity. That is, residents who live in
buildings that are allocated to uses such
as ‘service providers,’ ‘industry,’ ‘agricul-
Social Data ture,’ and ‘other,’ are included in the cal-
culation. This means that the actual
floor area per resident is even higher.”
Occupation Density and Population Turnover Source: Department of Building and
Construction, Canton of Zurich, Federal
Office for Spatial Development (ARE),
Based on the average occupation density in density categories 3 Spatial Planning Department, Available
to 7, which are dominatwed by multi-story apartment buildings, the Floor Area 2000–2009, Zurich 2011.
highest area values are found in Berlin (76 square meters) and Zurich 25
For example, in Switzerland only 14.2
(81 square meters). Each resident in Vienna has an average available percent of total residents were living
living space of 72 square meters and in Munich this value is “only” 65 in one-person households in 1960; by
square meters. All of these values are nevertheless remarkably 2000, this number had risen to 36
percent. The average residency con
high24 and are testimony to the demographic shift in the population, centration (floor area per resident) has
as households have steadily decreased in size. 25 risen from 34 square meters per re
A comparison of the average values of the population turnover sident in 1980 to 44 square meters per
resident in 2000. And this figure con
rates26 in the four cities reveals a fairly heterogeneous image and tinue to rise. Source: Federal Statistical
does not seem to correlate to the occupation rates. Yet these values Office (FSO), Neuchâtel, Switzerland
2014.
provide important information about the atmosphere and dynamics

26
in each city. Berlin — the city characterized as the most adaptable, dy- Percentage of residents moving into
namic, and international of all the cities in this study — has the highest or out of the district between 1996 and
turnover rate with 64 percent. The flourishing and expanding city of 2006.
27
Munich is in second place, with a turnover rate of 52 percent. Despite The relatively low population turnover
many dynamic developments, Zurich’s turnover rate is quite low at rate in contrast to the dynamic changes
only 42 percent. 27 And with a modest 25 percent, Vienna is a distant in the city is largely due to the fact
that this study analyzes the older and
last among the four cities in terms of population turnover rates. more established districts in Zurich.
This rate is thus a reliable indicator of the dynamism, popularity, and 28
character of a city. 28 For more insight into the character of the
individual cities, see the literary short
stories and portraits in the chapter “City
Stories”.
Conclusions
Density and Atmosphere
Karl-Marx-Zentrum complex, Munich-Neuperlach
171 Density and Atmosphere
“Density” and “atmosphere” are both terms that have a social and
a physical component. The analysis in this book demonstrates that the
density of a city is closely linked to the needs of the population,
which served as a guide when the architectural form of the district was
designed. Ultimately, the density defines how the atmosphere in
the district and the entire city is subjectively perceived. The relationship
of private to public space plays a central role in this regard.
Consequently the conclusions drawn from the analysis are divided

into three sections:
The City as Social Space

The City as Residential Space
The City as Living Space
Ultimately, the city should serve as a residential space for all occupants
and offer a livable atmosphere in the districts, regardless of which
density category they fall into. A summary of the relevant criteria
is presented in this section. These criteria reveal that it is possible to
develop social and architectural forms for all density categories, from
the lowest to the highest. The boundary between city and country-
side, for example, can be developed as a soft transition rather than an
abrupt shift, creating an integrated, shared living space.
The City as Social Space

Social Atmosphere
“And what’s he supposed to do?”

“Spread atmosphere!”1 1
Gerhard Polt, “Fast wia im richtigen Le-
ben” (Almost like real life), episode 10,
In Gerhard Polt’s short satire “The Bohemian” from 1984, the two “Der Bohemien”, Bayrischer Rundfunk,
protagonists — Polt in the role of building superintendent Faltermeier Munich 1984. All subsequent quotes set
off from the running text are taken from
and Gisela Schneeberger as zealous property owner Mrs. Kerzl — stand this source.
on a balcony in Munich’s satellite city Neuperlach. They look down
and watch a man in flat cap, neckerchief, and sandals park his bike, buy
a bottle of wine in the supermarket, and then settle down in the
area beneath their balcony to drink. 2 Mrs. Kerzl has hired this bohemian 2
The scene with Gerhard Polt and Gisela
to, as she puts it, “spread an urban atmosphere” in the large housing Schneeberger was shot in the Karl-Marx-
estate on the periphery. The satirical message: although the space they Zentrum complex in the Neuperlach
are looking at from the balcony was planned as the commercial, housing estate in Munich, only a few
hundred meters from the Quiddestraße
cultural, and social center of this section of Neuperlach in the 1970s, perimeter (density category 3). The com-
it is in fact unable to fulfill this function. People cross the concrete plex was erected as a sub-center within
space as quickly as possible, without lingering. the satellite city of Neuperlach from 1975
onward.
An urban space functions in its true sense as a social space by

serving as a public meeting place that is a social forum for all residents.
To this end, it must possess specific qualities that invite passers-by
to linger. The property owner in Polt’s piece believes that she has
identified what the space is missing. Therefore she has decided, along
with other owners, to breathe some urbanity into the space between
the new residential towers by joining forces with the owner of the
local café to provide a bohemian with a rent-free unit to entice him into
172 Conclusions
living there. His urbane presence, they hope, will add flair and to the
windswept space and indeed the entire impersonal residential district.
For among the many thousands of inhabitants in the satellite town,
there is not a soul, it seems, willing to spend a bit of time in the space
reserved for this purpose. Mrs. Kerzl hopes that the sight of someone
enjoying the space will serve as a model for all the other residents
and attract public life to the square.
“You’ll see: he’ll hang around drunk as a skunk, just like the
other one, you know, the guy who puked all over the place.”
A similar initiative with another artist had already failed. Without his
familiar urban surroundings, the artist in his role as stage extra was
unable to cope with the bleakness of the site and turned to the
bottle for comfort. But Mrs. Kerzl persists in her stubborn belief in
cultivation through selected individuals. Once these pioneers intro-
duce their artistic presence and style to the periphery, cultural life
similar to that in the city center must surely follow. She is already
planning to introduce a second bohemian in order to accelerate the
intended effect.
“I’m telling you, Mr. Faltermeier: We’re going to systematically

cultivate the Rosebush Square […] So let’s get another
bohemian. . . . We’ll put a second one out there. […] There’s
a real cultural life taking hold here. Believe me, Mr. Falter-
meier: don’t worry about the atmospheric improvement.
The four units I own here, I’ll be able to rent them out so
much better. A few bohemians, maybe an actor, and the
price per square meter is going to go up by 30 percent, at
least!”
“Oh, I get it: you want to create a new Schwabing.”
What the clever owner really wants to achieve is a kind of artificially

inspired gentrification. This process usually occurs organically when
the core area of a city grows and previously remote districts suddenly
morph into central locations. This new positioning also changes
the composition of the residents: in the transition phase, rental rates
are still low and commercial areas become available as businesses
that require large premises move farther out to the periphery.
Typically, artists and the so-called alternative scene are the first to
recognize and utilize the potential of the newly available spaces. For
a limited period of time, they are the initiators and mediators of
transformation, until the inevitable increase in rental rates takes place,
bringing with it more affluent residents. In the 1980s, the district of
Schwabing was a prime example of this type of metamorphosis.
Mrs. Kerzl relies upon a single resident and does not see the
urban plan or the architecture as being at fault. After all, she is a

participant in the latter as a satisfied property owner, and sees no
cause for investigation or criticism. On the contrary: she has identified
the potential for maximizing financial gain because she will be able
to raise the rent on the apartments she owns, if her plan succeeds.
Mrs. Kerzl dreams of a symbiosis of downtown atmosphere and a
quiet life in a green setting, the very goal identified by the planners
in their programs for satellite cities such as Neuperlach. To her mind,
Neuperlach’s shortcomings lie in the absence of a social and cultural
life in the public space and the current state of anonymity among
residents. She hopes to improve these social factors with the help of
individuals who are to serve as standard-bearers.
But why should a district that is barely ten years old — as Neuperlach
was at the time of this satirical piece — already require some kind of
social restructuring? And why is it that the desired social vitalization
of such large housing estates has never truly succeeded to this 3
day? See the Quiddestraße perimeter in den-
sity category 3.
4
In the 1960s and 1970s, the urban model
Urbanity through Density? of “Urbanity through Density” was in-
tended to lead to a more urban lifestyle
through greater density and urban
When the satellite city of Neuperlach3 was being planned in the structures characterized by better inter-
1960s, every effort was made to get it right. Inspired by the guiding nal organization and a mix of functions.
vision of urbanity through density, 4 the intent was to create a new Since the plans adhered to the principles
of living in a green environment, densi
model for urban life in a green environment. The urban planners had fication was achieved by increasing
learned from the mistakes of the uniformly distributed, mono-functional the building height. Rising land prices
and monotonous ribbon developments of the 1950s, and were favored this development. The most
prominent realizations of this model are
placing more value on social and functional structuring and integration, the large-scale satellite cities such as
as well as on more attractive architecture. By adhering to the guide- Neuperlach in Munich.
lines for a loosely structured city, 5 concentrated pockets of density 5
Johannes Göderitz, Roland Rainer and
were intended to achieve a new experiential sense of urban life and Hubert Hoffmann, Die gegliederte und
an urban atmosphere set into a green environment. However, the aufgelockerte Stadt (Tübingen 1957).
satellite cities that were developed on the basis of these good inten-
tions quickly deteriorated into social problem zones. In other words:
density based on numbers alone cannot create a functioning atmos-
phere.
Today the motto “Urbanity through Density” is once again bandied

about in the daily press and in countless trade publications. But the
parameters have changed. In contrast to the 1960s and 1970s, when
efforts were aimed at heading off a looming housing crisis by de
veloping a new urban concept in a green setting — or “in the meadow”
in the parlance of the day — the current approach is retroactive den
sification of existing urban structures. In the early 21st century we
are living in an era of strong urban growth, where the retrofitting of
entire urban districts is unavoidable. The reason is not a sudden leap
in population numbers or a housing crisis, but the growing demands
of residents with regard to the design, scale, and location of their
housing. Thus the average amount of living space per resident has
grown from 34 to 45 square meters over the past 30 years in Switzer-
land, while the area of settled land per resident has risen from
375 to over 400 square meters. 6 Moreover, fewer and fewer people 6
Figures according to the Swiss Federal
are living in traditional family structures; as a result, they demand Statistical Office, status: 2013.
more choice in the design of their own homes as well as in the public
space that surrounds them.
These new demands are also expressed in expectations with
regard to atmosphere. Urban planners and architects, in particular,
consider a lifestyle in high-density environments — vaguely paraphrased
as urban — as a positive factor. Low density, on the other hand, is

condemned as despoiling the landscape and residents in such areas
are decried as egotistical “house builders” with no interest in com-
munity or cultural responsibility.
However, the analysis of the nine density categories in this book has
demonstrated that urban planning solutions that create a functioning
and livable atmosphere for specific demographic groups can be
found for all of these categories, although the form these solutions take
must be tailored to the needs and expectations of the type of residents
the planners envision in each instance. In all this, the public space — its
use, and animation through people — plays a key role.
174 Conclusions
To Each Society Its Own Density!
“It wasn’t easy to get him to come out here to the edge
of the city.”
“Sure, but he gets to live here for free, doesn’t he?
He should be happy!”
“You wouldn’t believe how hard it is to pry a true
bohemian away from his familiar surroundings!”
Neuperlach is not Schwabing. In this book the satellite city in Munich7 7

See the Quiddestraße perimeter in
is allocated to density category 3 under the heading “Urban Apart- Munich-Neuperlach (density category 3).
ments in Green Areas.” Conversely, Munich’s Schwabing district, which
represents the model Mrs. Kerzl aspires to, is counted among the
“Urban Blocks”8 of density category 7. The two districts represent 8
Schwabing’s building density is similar
entirely different densities and target resident groups. to that of the Pariser Platz perimeter,
The bohemian only deigns to move to the large housing estate also analyzed in this study (density
in exchange for free rent. In Schwabing there is higher density, which category 7).
creates a downtown atmosphere with many different ground-floor

uses and an abundance of local restaurants and cafes. The varied life
in the street that goes along with this mix is the breeding ground for
the bohemian’s savoir vivre. The newly planned district of Neuperlach,
on the other hand, is located on the periphery. Attempts were made
to combine an urban lifestyle with a leafy green environment through
artificially created urban scenarios like the public square around
the Marx-Zentrum high-rise complex. Clearly, the complex fails to satisfy
either the needs of the urbanite or those of the suburbanite seeking
a quiet environment. This is why Mrs. Kerzl yearns for a social re-
structuring and stimulation of the district in order to create an urban
atmosphere. However, the bohemian whom she has exerted such
efforts to lure away from his downtown environment ultimately ends
up sitting like a lost soul in front of the café in the periphery, seeking
solace in the bottle — just like his predecessor.
Certain demographic groups prefer specific densities in terms
of buildings and atmosphere, which they associate with a specific
set of expectations. It is only when these expectations and needs
are fulfilled that a harmonious district with a relaxed atmosphere can
develop.
What matters, therefore, is to develop urban structures and their

specific building densities with great attention to the needs of the
anticipated target group and to tailor them to the needs of the
residents and their social coexistence. The pleasant atmosphere
follows over time, arising from the unique relationship between social
and built density as well as the form this density takes in terms
of the urban plan and architecture. The 36 perimeters in the nine
density categories can thus be allocated to specific social groupings.
In the chapter “The Districts,” these categories are divided

into three different density groups, with headings that reflect the
relevant social positioning and atmospheric ambience.
I. Single-family House Idyll
Density categories 1 and 2 (with density factors up to 0.6) were

summarized under the heading “Single-family House Idyll.” Families
with children are the principal target group. In this context, the
word “idyll” means enjoyment of an autonomous lifestyle in a verdant,
quasi-rural environment. In this category, having a close connection to
the city yet living independent of the social pressures imposed by

urban density are key. Direct contact with a private yard takes pride
of place in housing priorities, which is why the detached homes tend
to have only one to two stories. Ideally, the atmosphere is quiet and
close to nature, characterized by a fine balance of proximity and
distance to the neighborhood. Safety — of children and property — is very
important. There are few public uses. Small local shops and a few
restaurants and beer gardens can make an important contribution to
a communicative atmosphere; without these, districts of this type can
easily tend towards becoming a series of isolated individual housing
territories.
These areas often go through generational cycles: at first,
they are home to young families with children, who enliven the streets
and yards. Once the children are grown and leave the parental home,
the districts grow quiet with a predominantly ageing population until
the next generation once again brings young life into the area.
In these density categories retroactive densification is only
marginally possible by increasing the land use as long as the garden
or yard ratio remains dominant in the overall image. Such interim
building measures can shorten the generational cycles in the neigh
borhoods.
Among the perimeters analyzed in this study, two different strategies

represent two different attitudes. Both are valid and can successfully
create a specific atmosphere in a residential district, but they also
9
demonstrate two entirely different relationships with the city as a whole. The following perimeters are part
of this subgroup: Privatstraße
1. Intimate Community Developments9 in Berlin, Im Heimgärtli in Zurich, Reindl-
straße in Munich, and Pilotengasse in
The first strategy relies on maximum intimacy and a sense of Vienna.
community in the district. Perimeters such as Im Heimgärtli in Zurich 10
or the Reindlstraße in Munich10 are made up of a network of very Unless otherwise stated, the street
names mentioned here and in the
narrow public streets that appear intimate, allow reciprocal control following refer to the analysed perimeter
of the private sphere in the district, and are notable for having little Pariser Platz (density category 7).
traffic.11 The residents know each other and like to chat over the 11
These streets typically feature a lane
garden fence. Yards dominate the public streetscape, which can also reserved for parking and a separate
serve as a play zone for children. Private and public exterior spaces can lane for traffic. Driving speeds are
develop closely integrated synergies. limited to 10 to a maximum of 30 km/h.
However if the paths to the homes are privatized and only

accessible on foot, as is the case in Vienna’s Pilotengasse perimeter,
an atmosphere of a parallel society that is hermetically sealed off
from the outside can quickly develop and this runs the risk of margin-
alizing the urban community.
Focal points in the exterior space like the small public park in
Berlin’s Privatstraße perimeter can play a positive role in structuring
these districts, although they are not strictly necessary, given the em
phasis on private yards in the small-scale single-family home neigh-
borhoods.
2. Integrated Garden Cities12 12

The following perimeters belong to this
The second strategy, by contrast, seeks to integrate the tranquility subgroup: Waldstraße in Munich,
of a family-oriented residential district as closely as possible with Schippergasse in Vienna, Drakestraße
the street network of the city. The streets gain importance as meet- in Berlin, and Schlösslistraße in Zurich.
ing places and traffic arteries outside of the private sphere, and
every house is reachable by car, on foot, or by bicycle. This co-ordina-
tion of traffic and circulation is also reflected in the street space
with sidewalks, parking spaces, and traffic lanes. In perimeters such
as the Drakestraße in Berlin-Lichterfelde, the street space is invested
176 Conclusions
Munich, Reindlstraße; Vienna, Prinzgasse

Munich, Waldstraße; Berlin, Privatstraße
Zurich, Scheuchzerstraße; Berlin, Friedrichstraße

Vienna, Hasnerstraße; Vienna, Schippergasse
178 Conclusions
with a detailed hierarchical structure and a distinctly autonomous

spatial task: it features boulevards, green strips, wide sidewalks, and
paved roads. All these features combine to give it a greater impor-
tance in the community. When developing the new district, which was
located far beyond the city gates back in 1860, the investor planned
the entire streetscape from the beginning, including the boulevard
trees; he connected it to the street network of the capital city, so that
interested builders and homeowners could walk along the streets
before a single house had been built. His vision paid off: the lots
were quickly sold and developed.
This focus on the street space in combination with individual shops

and restaurants results in a noticeably more urban atmosphere in the
district, even though it is a leafy single-family-home neighborhood
on the periphery. The subway link to the city rounds out this sense
of an urban lifestyle.
If one compares individual streets, with and without streetscapes

that are hierarchical in structure, in the perimeters in Munich (Wald-
straße) or Vienna (Schippergasse), the difference in atmosphere is
immediately apparent.
When the streetscapes are spacious and designed as inviting
spaces, public parks are not necessary but can still offer additional
meeting places and assist orientation, as is the case in the Wald-
straße in Munich. Open spaces dedicated to specific purposes, such
as soccer fields or community centers, can also promote social
interaction.13 13
Communal exterior spaces of this
kind are lacking in the Schippergasse
Broadly speaking, the integrated garden cities have districts that are in Vienna; as a consequence, the
more urban in atmosphere, less generous in layout, and offer residents streetscape is less structured and has
a more anonymous atmosphere.
more control over the level of proximity or distance they maintain.
II. Urban Apartments in Green Areas
Density categories 3, 4, and 5 (with density factors ranging from 0.6

to 1.5) are analyzed under the heading “Urban Apartments in Green
areas.” Built density can increase in this group, although open spaces
still prevail, with the result that the green spaces are dominant in
terms of atmosphere, or at least that there is a balance between the
green space and the built fabric.
It is in these categories that a shift occurs from single-family
homes to apartments, which influences the make-up of the
residents: the target groups are residents in shared accommodation,
couples and singles, rather than a focus on families with children.
The result is a greater social mix with regard to age, lifestyle, and
background. Although the connection with the green space is still

important, each resident no longer has direct access to a private bit
of green space. At the same time, the need for public amenities
grows.
The intended atmosphere combines an urban lifestyle with the com-

forts of a quiet life in a green environment . This density group is
perhaps the most discussed and desired currently, because it is most
compatible with a contemporary sense of living. Many of the new
residential districts today are designed with precisely these require-
ments in mind and seek to create new solutions for this balancing act
between city and green space. This is therefore the density group with
the greatest divergence in urban planning models and the greatest

structural ambiguities.
City planners have long experimented with a wide range of typol-
ogies in order to tackle this dichotomy of urban housing versus
housing in a green setting. From the garden cities at the turn of the
19th to the 20th century to the row housing of modernism (1920s and
post-war years), from satellite cities of the 1970s to open block
edge structures with integrated green spaces, there is an abundance
of different ideas. At the same time, these districts often present
the most problematic social, functional, and atmospheric situations,
owing to the ambiguous allocation of private and public exterior spaces.
Once again, we can distinguish between two fundamentally different

planning approaches, although both pursue the same goal — the urban
apartment in a green environment:
1. Housing Estates with Landscaped Green Spaces

The majority of the districts analyzed in this group integrate compact
and, in part, fairly tall buildings into a semi-public (de facto privatized) 14
To achieve a functioning semi-public
green space designed as a landscape. However, because the green space, there must be a clear
allocation of this green space to specific residents is unclear or al delimitation of the public space, detailed
together undefined, this configuration rarely develops its full potential landscape planning, intensive mainte-
nance of the green spaces. However,
of autonomous living within a landscape.14 The relatively large scale most owners in such settlements
of the parcels and the buildings is frequently associated with an shy away from the costs associated
atmosphere of anonymity, which can lead to social problems in the with these efforts, with the result that
there is fallow or residual and low-
district. The buildings can be divided into two subgroups: quality green space that is uninviting as
a meeting place.
a) Individual Building Rows15 15
The following perimeters are part of
In the first subgroup, individual rows of buildings up to four stories this subgroup: Altwiesenstraße in Zurich
high are distributed across a largely unstructured green space. Stand- and Goebelstraße in Berlin.
ardized, prefab building methods, typical of the 1950s, characterize
this subgroup. The Zurich district on Altwiesenstraße is a prototype
for this urban planning model. There is very little built fabric enclosing
the street spaces, which are mostly used as parking zones.
b) Large-Scale Building Complexes16 16

Although the second subgroup also focuses on creating a landscape this subgroup: Quiddestraße in Munich,
continuum, these plans seek to stage urban scenarios with greater Prinzgasse in Vienna, Meierwiesen-
building density through more complex spatial divisions, with boulevards, straße in Zurich, Senftenberger Ring in
Berlin.
public squares, and cultural and commercial centers. The large-scale
building complexes, most of which were constructed in the 1960s and
1970s and are referred to as satellite cities, usually fail to achieve a
human scale owing the massive building forms and heights of up to 14
stories. They are also unable to deliver the qualities of urban living
in a green setting, as Gerhard Polt’s narrative of the bohemian in Neu
perlach vividly demonstrates. All contact with the communal green
space is lost, and the eye is drawn to the landscape in the distance.
2. Open Block Edge Structures17 17

The second group of “Urban Apartments in a Green Environment” is this subgroup: Larochegasse in Vienna,
configured with small-scale buildings grouped around open block edge Konrad-Dreher-Straße and Holbein-
structures. These perimeters also seek to create urbanity within a straße, both in Munich, Ringofenweg in
Vienna, and Scheuchzerstraße in Zurich.
green environment. But they are less focused on a landscape continu-
um; instead, they seek to establish clear hierarchies between public
and private spaces. Plans for districts such as the Scheuchzerstraße
in Zurich rely on creating a relationship on a smaller scale between
multi-family buildings — typically with no more than eight units — and
relatively small private gardens. The street network is more tightly knit
180 Conclusions
and the public streetscape gains in importance. In the Larochegasse

perimeter in Vienna, which has a similar structure, this approach is
complemented by a clearly defined square intended as a meeting place
for local residents. Despite the relatively low building density, lower
population numbers and large private gardens, the park is actively and
frequently used and promotes public life in the residential district.
In the Holbeinstraße perimeter in Munich, the individual houses are
to some extent even combined into enclosed urban block edge
developments, although their lush front yards help to maintain the at-
mosphere of a verdant suburb. Public amenities such as schools and
shops complete this urban-green atmosphere, often in direct
proximity to the inner city. The perimeters of this subgroup are among
the most popular residential districts in their respective cities.
III. Inner-City Mix
The analyzed perimeters in density categories 6 to 9 are almost

exclusively developed with enclosed structures that have an unabash-
edly urban expression. The eaves heights range from 20 to 22 meters
and are typical of Central European inner cities. On the one hand,
the street in these districts represents the negative space of the form-
giving built fabrics that surround it. On the other hand, the street
must be designed with more detail and definition here, because it has
to fulfill a more complex task owing to the greater population density
in a small area.
These categories see a mix of a wide range of population
groups of diverse backgrounds and income levels. Families, singles, and
students often share the same neighborhood. The public amenities
such as schools, administration buildings, and cultural institutions are
more numerous and prominent than in the districts of the previous
density categories. The closer the perimeter is to the city center, the
more dominant are the commercial uses, from small businesses and
independent retail stores to office and business centers to large
department stores and shopping centers. Traditionally, public squares
and markets are integrated into the exterior space. Despite these sim
ilarities, we can distinguish three fundamentally different urban models
within this density group, each model being differentiated according
to the residential target groups.
1. Old Towns18 18
The following perimeters are part of this
The first subgroup is represented by the old towns, which have de subgroup: Im Tal in Munich, Spiegel-
veloped historically over the course of centuries and occupy privileged gasse in Zurich, and Wollzeile in Vienna.
locations in the center of the cities. They usually reflect the urban
layout dating back to historical eras, from the Middle Ages to the
baroque to the early modern era. Since these urban structures and the
preserved buildings reflect the hierarchies and needs of a society

from the distant past, they tend to exude a museological ambience and
are often dominated by tourism or the requirements of a small elite.
These uses tend to overlay the original usage structure. Thus the
Niederdorf perimeter in Zurich was originally characterized by trades,
church, and bourgeois residents: at that time, it represented the city
proper, located within the original city walls and organized into strict
social-hierarchical strata and amenities, such as markets, harbors,
and monasteries. Today, the use has shifted toward a mix of high-end
apartments, small boutiques and tourist shops, hotels, restaurants,
and offices. Heritage conservation prevents major demolition and en-
sures that the tightly knit urban fabric is preserved. Depending on the
location and former social standing, building heights fluctuate between

one and six stories. Many lanes are extremely narrow and only ac-
cessible on foot . The atmosphere oscillates between the tranquil
ambience of a village and noisy tourism. These districts are notable
for a unique feature: in some cases, private gardens and roof patios
offer the lifestyle of a single-family home idyll right in the center of the
bustling city.
2. Gründerzeit Districts19 19
The following perimeters are part of this
The second subgroup represents the typical Gründerzeit districts from subgroup: Tumblingerstraße in Munich,
the 19th and early 20th century. They dominate large areas of inner-city Hasnerstraße and Fockygasse, both
districts in Central Europe. Since they were usually developed in Vienna, Raabestraße in Berlin, Pariser
Platz in Munich, Kanzleistraße in Zurich,
on the basis of land use plans, which only defined the public street Christburger Straße and Bonner Straße,
space, the building lines, and the heights of the front buildings, both in Berlin, and Hahngasse in Vienna.
without stipulating the development in the block interiors, they are
notable for a wide range of densities, despite having similar street
elevations. The strength of this building form lies in the flexibility of
its structure. The front buildings often create a generous street space
with a uniform eaves height, resulting in a homogeneous impression,
frequently complemented by rows of trees and exuding a tranquil,
urban-green atmosphere. Gaps can be used for playgrounds and
small parks. There are clear horizontal as well as vertical hierarchies
evident in both the streets and the buildings. Most of the streets
feature wide sidewalks separated by rows of trees from the parking
lanes and the passing traffic in the street. This separation is em
phasized by the use of a variety of surfaces, for example, stone slabs,
cobblestones or other paving stones and asphalt for the traffic lanes.
The spacious sidewalks allow a wide range of uses for cafés, kiosks,
as a play area, or simply as an area for strolling, conversation, or leisure.
The facades of the front buildings are individualized with
colors and decorative elements. Despite the homogeneity of the
development, individual houses therefore benefit from easily identifiable
addresses. Many of the ground floors in the front buildings are
reserved for retail stores and restaurants. The generous apartments
on the floor above usually feature balconies overlooking the street
and reflect the needs and prestige aspirations of the original upper-
middle-class residents. The floors are staggered in ceiling height
according to the social status of their residents, from the bel étage on
the second floor to the lower ceiling heights on the fifth or sixth floors,
which were reserved for the simplest and most inexpensive apartments.
These apartments from the Gründerzeit continue to be popular for
couples and families, owing to their size, ceiling height, and flexibility;
they are also well suited for use as office spaces. In the past, the
buildings to the rear and in the courtyards used to feature a mix of
simple, inexpensive apartments and workshops, and were sometimes
characterized by great density within the core of the blocks. Today
these dense structures have been thinned out and have become
popular residential units with access to green courtyards: their location
in the courtyards shields them from the noise of the street.
In terms of plans developed on the drawing board on the
basis of a street grid, the Gründerzeit districts display what is no doubt
one of the most flexible urban structures, readily adaptable to
changing requirements and able to assume an entirely different char-
acter depending on the demographic shifts in the local population.
20
3. Commercial Centers20 The following perimeters belong to
this subgroup: Friedrichstraße in Berlin,
The commercial centers form the third subgroup. In principle, they are Schwanthalerstraße in Munich, and
based on the same urban block-edge developments as the residential Bahnhofstraße in Zurich.
182 Conclusions
districts from the Gründerzeit; however, the focus in the use of these
districts shifts toward trade, commerce, and offices. Instead of
commercial uses being confined to the ground floor, entire buildings
or even blocks are devoted to business and commerce. Among all
the perimeters analyzed for density, this subgroup is the only one where
residential use is clearly in the background. For this reason, this
subgroup features the highest building densities, where entire blocks
are completely overbuilt and used for department store complexes,
as in the Friedrichstraße in Berlin. The public is focused on consump-
tion and flocks to the district from many areas of the city. One problem
in these areas is the lack of life outside of business hours. Although
there is usually a legislated requirement of providing a minimum of 20
percent housing units, a residential atmosphere rarely develops.
After closing time these districts tend to be deserted due to a lack
of smaller structures and the high rents in the city center, which are
usually only affordable for affluent clients and high-end businesses.
Hierarchies!
“Mr. Böhm even took the trouble to apply for a street café
license … so there’s gonna be live music every now and
then …”
“What, music too?”
In Gerhard Polt’s piece “The Bohemian,” Mrs. Kerzl, who owns apart-
ments in Neuperlach, dreams of a cultural life in the streets of the
satellite city. But the structures and facilities are often lacking. A street
café license cannot guarantee cultural life, especially if the local
residents dislike spending time in the windswept open space. There
is an absence of organization in the exterior space, which would
encourage adequate use of the site. This applies to movement
through the street spaces as well as to spending time in the public
squares or parks.
Density and its Urban Forms
Density Categories 1, 2 Single-Family — Intimate Community

Density factors up to 0.6 House Idyll Estates
— Integrated Garden
Cities
Density Categories 3, 4, 5 City Apartments — Landscaped Housing — Detached Linear Blocks

Density factors from 0.6 to 1.5 in a Green Setting Estates — Large-Scale Housing Estates
— Open Block-Edge
Structures
Density Categories 6, 7, 8, 9 Inner City Mixture — Old Town Cores

Density factors over 1.5
— Gründerzeit Districts
— Commercial Centers
In all density categories, the districts that offer the most agreeable
atmosphere, the best quality of life, and the highest degree of popu-
larity, are those that respond specifically to the composition of the
resident population by offering a detailed hierarchy of urban structures
in the public space and in the transition to the private space, all with
a specific building density and utilization of these factors as the basis
for designing the urban plan. Tailored divisions of private homes and
gardens, sidewalks and roads, and green spaces can all respond to
the profile of the local residents.
Hierarchical divisions of the public space as a communal space
are all the more important in an age where the personal sphere of
the various demographics is increasingly leveling off and where interior
and exterior spaces are increasingly separated. 21 21
Thus many windows in new buildings
It is important to note that “hierarchy” does not describe an are no longer opened or are even sealed
authoritarian top and bottom in the sense of a social ranking. Rather because of controlled apartment venti
the meaning ascribed to it is of an ordered coexistence of different lation and air-conditioning systems. The
penetration of the public space through
members of a society within the urban space, whose exterior spaces open windows into the building interiors,
are weighted differently depending on building and social density. and vice versa, as well as the potential
Delimitations between private and public areas — the width of a side- for communication between streetspace
and interior residential space is thus
walk, different surface treatments for sidewalks and streets, a green- increasingly being lost.
strip, rows of trees, lighting, and many other features — reflect the social
configuration by virtue of their arrangement, scale, and quality, and
express the lifestyle of the residents in the atmosphere of the exterior
spaces. The defining element in the public space is not the public
square or the park, but the street.
Private and Public Space22 22

See chapter “Density, Atmosphere and
The treatment of the relationship between private and public space Numbers”, section “Public and Private
is the basis for establishing this hierarchical order. In the first group Exterior Space, Green Space”.
(density factors below 0.6) of the density categories 1 to 3, the private
exterior space dominates. It is usually marked and protected by
means of fences, hedges, and trees. The separation of yard and street
is clearly defined in classic single-family-house neighborhoods.
Row house settlements, such as the Reindlstraße perimeter in Munich
or the Hochsitzweg in Berlin, are exceptions to this rule. In these per
imeters, small front yards create open transition zones, without fences,
which characterize the street image. However, this is only possible
because the true private yards remain protected behind the continuous
house fronts, which form a closed barrier. When the rows are placed
closer together and no longer distinguish between back yard and front
yard, as is the case in the Pilotengasse in Vienna, the need for a
separation between sidewalk and yard, and separation between the
yards themselves, is once again more pronounced.
In many cases the atmosphere of this lower density group suffers
from the fact that the public space is neglected in favor of the private
yard. Streets with strong organizational separation demonstrate that
the public space can become a meeting place and enhance the
communal atmosphere. In the Großbauerstraße in Vienna’s Schipper-
gasse perimeter, for example, the paved sidewalks running parallel to
garden fences are separated by wide greenstrips with boulevard trees
from the paved road, thus creating an attractive public space beyond
the boundaries of the individual properties.
The perimeters in the middle density group (with density factors from
0.6 to 1.5) reveal the least clarity with regard to hierarchical organi
zation. This is especially true for the landscaped ribbon developments
from the 1950s and the large complexes in the satellite cities, where
the boundary between public and private space is blurred. It is often
184 Conclusions
unclear who may access and use these green spaces and paths.
A large number of signs indicating regulations and prohibitions bears
witness to the lack of clarity surrounding these semi-public spaces.
The consequence is that no one feels responsible for these green
areas, intended to be a “green paradise” for the local residents: neither
the property owner or property administrator, nor the public (even
though the private owners and administration authorities, who install
these signs, are clearly responsible for these areas, and the uncertainty
lies more with the residents and users). However, as soon as clear
boundaries are established between the public and private areas,
for example, with the help of fences, hedges, walls, or even setbacks
or level changes, even these types of perimeters can be intensively
maintained and used if the property owners are committed to investing
the necessary effort. There is a cost for doing so; the result is gated
communities, which develop into rigorously protected and controlled
private spheres that exclude the wider city community.
Open block-edge structures, on the other hand, create exterior
spaces that are far more clearly structured and defined, allocating a
space to each member of the community and, ideally, equally assigning
responsibility for the space to those members. In order to make these
allocations practical, the lot sizes should be shared among a reasonable
number of parties. Small parcels, such as those in the Larochegasse
perimeter in Vienna or the Scheuchzerstraße in Zurich, function much
better than those where a similar structure is retroactively imposed on
large parcels, such as, for example, the Konrad-Dreher-Straße pe
rimeter in Munich and the Ringofenweg in Vienna. For if the yards are
assigned to individual buildings and clearly separated from the street
space, they are tended accordingly and contribute to the calm, green
atmosphere of the street as individually designed exterior spaces. At the
same time, it is important to strengthen the street space with corre
sponding divisions. Thus the separation of street and sidewalk through
greenstrips and trees transforms the street itself into a public green space.
The closed development on the Holbeinstraße perimeter in
Munich singles this area out as a transition to the third density group.
Narrow front yards keep the passers-by at a distance and also serve
as private patios for ground-floor units.
While private and public exterior space is roughly equal in the middle
density group, well structured exterior space assumes greater im
portance in the highest density group (with density factors of 1.5 and
more). The series of clearly delimited spaces from private courtyard,
to house with perhaps a small front yard, to sidewalk, which may or may
not feature greenstrips and trees, to parking lane and traffic lane,
facilitates life in this dense inner-city mix.
The higher the density category, the greater the degree to which
the public space penetrates into the home and courtyard in the form
of shops, restaurants, and cultural facilities. At the same time, private

elements such as balconies project into the street space. 23 This 23
See the sections “Balconies!” and
kind of integration and meshing of private and public space is essential “Ground Floors!” in the next chapter
in this density group in order to enable communication among residents. “The City as Living Space”.
And it is therefore all the more important to create clear separation
between private and public spheres.
Green Space and Architecture

With the exception of a few areas in the highest density group, green
space plays an important role in the urban planning of all the pe
rimeters analyzed in this study. The differentiation between public and
private green space, as well as its relationship to the built fabric in
each density category, has a significant influence on the atmosphere

in each district.
In the first density group (with density factors below 0.6) there
is a preponderance of private green space, which causes the archi-
tecture of the detached homes to recede into the background. The
individualization of these gardens is all the more important. Recently,
there is a trend toward low-maintenance gardens characterized by
low plantings, such as simple ground cover, which makes hardly any
contribution to the appearance of the public space. From an atmospheric
perspective, this results in gaps or even wastelands along entire
streets, since the individual detached homes fail to create a communal
streetscape owing to the lack of prominent garden features. They
also fail to protect the private spheres among neighbors. At the same
time, it is reasonable to assume that the desired atmosphere for this
population group is a quiet, undisturbed life in a green setting. Adding
public green space to the streets in the lowest density categories
is therefore increasingly important. Greenstrips, verges, and trees can
create a strong structure and uniform height as quasi-architectural
elements, once again relegating the heterogeneous buildings to the
background and transforming the district into a cohesive whole through
the public street space.
The perimeters of the middle density group (with density factors from
0.6 to 1.5) seek to achieve a balance between green space and archi-
tecture. To this end, compact building masses are distributed across the
green space in these housing developments. Green space and built
fabric are inflated to a larger-than-life scale as a consequence. The
large exterior spaces are out of synch with the human scale, as are the
towering buildings, and this makes it difficult for the residents to
establish a connection with them. In other words, social contacts in the
public space are difficult to cultivate under these conditions and tend
to focus on playgrounds, designed as small islands within this space,
and a small network of footpaths. Often, however, there is hardly any
social interaction in the open areas, as residents withdraw into the
privacy of their apartments.
Open block-edge developments, conversely, combine green space
and architecture into a tightly knit network that is easy to structure
and organize. In contrast to the semi-public spaces found in building
rows or satellite cities, they seek to achieve a balance of clearly
defined public and private green space. While the ratio of open, unde-
veloped area rises by roughly ten percent, the green spaces are more
suitable for use owing to social integration and the smaller scale.
In terms of the architecture, clearly delineated private yards are com-
plemented by spacious balconies, allowing for a carefully calibrated
intimacy scale in the exterior space. Although the yards are clearly
separated from the public street and belong to individual buildings, they
make a noticeable contribution to the green atmosphere in the street

scape. Fence, hedges, or low walls identify the boundary between
public and private ground, thus defining responsibilities and ensuring
a shared use of the street space without conflict. This promotes
positive synergies between public and private space.
The focus in the relationship between green space and
architecture in the public space only shifts towards the built fabric,
which clearly dominates the streetscape, in the highest density
group (with density factors of 1.5 and up). Nevertheless, the green
space still influences important sections of the districts in most of
these perimeters. Trees planted along the streets are significant,
introducing an essential structuring element with architectural qualities
186 Conclusions
in the street space. The sequence of tree trunks resembles a colon-

nade, with the tree canopies serving as an entablature. From a
perspective at right angles to the street, the gaps between the tree
trunks frame the view between the street and the ground floors of
the buildings, many of which contain public or commercial uses in this
density category. The canopies above grow into a dense cover that
protects the intimacy in the private apartments on the upper floors.
These apartments can, in turn, contribute to the greenery in the street
space. Balcony plantings complement the walls of the street space
and create private vertical gardens.
Traffic and Tranquility

The street is the public space where the community in a district and
a city comes together, meets, and moves through a shared space.
For the street to assume this social role, it must be able to absorb and
reflect the social mix of a district. It is therefore essential to organize
as many types of traffic flow as possible in parallel along the street,
and to provide each address with as much direct access to public
transportation as possible. The street can then serve as a distinctive
structural element for the public space in its interplay with the adjacent
buildings, promoting communication and use of the space as a
meeting place. To avoid conflicts between the needs of the various road
users, all users must be provided with clearly defined areas.
In the first density group (with density factors below 0.6) the
individual streetscapes occupy public space without any hierarchy.
There is little traffic in quiet residential neighborhoods, and the dif-
ference in speed between pedestrians and vehicular traffic is negligible,
so there is no need to separate these functions. 24 The streets between 24
Speed limits in the analyzed perimeters
the gardens tend to be narrow and all residents use the same area. range from 10 km/h (walking pace) to
In garden cities, the task of the street is more complex. It is always 30 km/h.
divided into traffic lanes and sidewalk, as traffic flow is more significant
here and pedestrians must be protected. 25 The street space is also 25
In the perimeters analyzed for this
a meeting place, where neighbors gather and children play. Parked cars density groups, the speed limit is usu-
usually create the separation, which can be problematic for visibility ally set at 30 km/h.
in the traffic lanes; alternatively, greenstrips are used, which offer add
itional public green spaces and open up sightlines. Rows of trees
can also contribute to structuring the space and offering protection.
Middle density groups (with density factors from 0.6 to 1.5) are
characterized by traffic conditions similar to those in the garden cities.
But there are significant differences in how the traffic flows are
organized in these two subgroups. In the landscaped settlements,
pedestrians and drivers use clearly separated networks of paths and
routes. This separation is based on the idea that pedestrians should
be able to move freely and safely through a green environment that
is also urban in atmosphere. At the same time, one of the stated goals
of the 1960s and 1970s was to create car-friendly cities. The reality
looks different: most pedestrian paths lead across semi-public private

spaces and terminate in parking lots. The separation of pedestrian
friendly and car friendly routes prevents any real integration with the
continuum of the complex urban network of streets.
In the open block-edge developments, on the other hand, all road
users move along the space in parallel. The street can better fulfill
its task as a public community space. Sidewalks and traffic lanes are
separated by greenstrip and parked cars; moderate speed limits are
usually enforced as well. 26 In this density group, pedestrians should 26
Most analyzed perimeters have speed
have at least the same amount of available space as drivers. limits of 30 km/h.
In the highest density group (with density factors of 1.5 and
higher) the relationship shifts strongly in favor of pedestrians. The
greater the number of people living in close proximity and the smaller
the ratio of unbuilt area in a district, the greater the importance of
walkable public areas. Sidewalks play an important role in the Gründer
zeit districts. They are often wider than the road and serve a variety
of purposes. On the one hand, they are sidewalks for pedestrians; but
they are also zones for restaurants and cafes, meeting places, and
spaces where children play. This quality is reinforced by the use of
different surface treatments for roads and sidewalks. 27 Thus the broad 27
The most common surface treatments
sidewalks are transformed into lively public spaces. In old towns, some are as follows: pedestrian paths and
streets have been closed to traffic, either because they are too sidewalks with slabs or small paving
narrow for cars, or for traffic-calming reasons. As a result, the old town stones; bicycle paths identified with
differentiating colors; and streets with
is often perceived as an island in the greater urban area and more asphalt surfaces or coarse paving
geared toward the needs of the tourist than those of the urban dweller. stones. The only city in this study where
Broadly speaking, detailed hierarchies, which allocate portions this differentiation does not occur is
Zurich, where most (circulation) surfac-
of the public space to the various users, organize and strengthen es are covered in asphalt.
the street in its role as a communal space. In residential areas, which
constitute the majority of the perimeters analyzed in this book, a trend
toward prioritizing pedestrian areas has been noticeable for some
time. Cars are displaced in favor of public transportation, which also
increases the importance of the pedestrian. Tranquility and walk
ability have become desirable qualities in all density categories. And
the bicycle, seen as perhaps the most flexible means of transportation
for short distances, is becoming ever more popular and needs to be
accommodated in the street space.
“Look, now he’s cycling!”
The City as Residential Space

Dwelling!
“And what’s he supposed to be doing?”

“Living there!”
It is no accident that Mrs. Kerzl chooses the bohemian as a sym-

bolic figure to unmask the deficits of the latest urban plans at the
time; after all, bohemians are seen as the prototypical urbanites who
thrive on the public amenities in their city environment. Life is not
centered on the home, but on the streets, squares, and cafés of the
city. And this exterior life is the creative incubator for their existence.
Their lifestyle is not defined by the rhythm of the workday but by
that of the flâneur, communicator, and networker. They are therefore
urban dwellers par excellence. And these qualities are becoming
increasingly important in our modern communications-based society

with its decentralized work patterns and network integration. The
public space could, and today already does in many cases, serve as
an ideal place for the entire spectrum of living, from personal leisure
time to working at computers.
“At the last owners’ meeting, we all agreed: something’s

gotta change! . . . Culturally and atmospherically, too . . .
you know what I mean . . . quality of life!”
“But we just got the new dry cleaners to set up shop
…”
188 Conclusions
When relevant amenities are lacking, as in the satellite city Neuper-

lach, bohemians cannot dwell there in the kind of lifestyle they re-
quire. Although the individual apartments in the large buildings offer
all the comforts one might desire, the public space on the exterior
cannot meet their urban requirements for social interaction, entertain-
ment, and comfort. And Mrs. Kerzl’s conclusion that the presence of a
single bohemian could automatically fill these gaps is false, of course.
On the contrary: all it does is cast a stark light on what is lacking.
In his essay “Building, Dwelling, Thinking”, the philosopher Martin Hei-

degger establishes the fundamental principle that “to be human
being means to be on the earth as a mortal. It means to dwell.”28 This 28
Martin Heidegger, “Building, Dwelling,
existential interpretation of dwelling — living in a home, be it an apart- Thinking” (1951), in: Poetry, Language,
ment or a house — means that we must build structures and spaces in Thought (New York 1971), trans. Albert
a manner that creates sites surrounding us that are a reflection of Hofstadter Retrieved from http://mysite.
pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Heideg
who we are. When this act of building is detached from the lifestyle ger.html.
and needs of the residents — which can easily occur in large planned
developments where profit-driven efficiency and mass production,
to name but one example, are the structural goals that supersede the
functional, emotional, and social requirements of the residents — an
ontological gap opens up between the built environment and the
residents. The built fabric can no longer develop into a social dwell-
ing place. This is especially true for public exterior space, because
it is not occupied and shaped by individuals; rather it is there to
provide a place that supports the social life of the majority of the local
residents. More than the building interior, the exterior space is thus
a reflection of what we understand society to be, effectively becom-
ing the living room of our cities.
If architects and urban planners are passionate about urbanity
as a sense of living in the city, this grows out of the conviction that 29
the urban environment is our future in terms of dwelling on this earth. While nearly 70 percent of the world’s
population was still living in rural areas
And worldwide urbanization appears to confirm this notion. 29 Yet in 1950, more than half of humanity lives
opinions are divided on the precise image of this urbanity. How do we in urban regions since 2007. According
wish to dwell when we have never before lived in such a densely to the UN World Urbanization Prospects,
this will rise from 2007 onward to over
settled world? The real housing issue is that mortals need to discover 60 percent by 2030 and then to over 70
the nature of dwelling over and over again, they must learn how to percent by 2050.
dwell. 30 30
Heidegger, see note 28.
In other words, each generation in each society must embark on a

quest for a form of dwelling that is valid for them. This form always
arises from the correct relationship of building mass to open
space, 31 an observation expressed as early as the 1930s in the 31
Le Corbusier, The Athens Charter.
Charter of Athens. Building density and atmosphere are closely relat- (Grossman, New York 1973), trans. by
ed in the context of compact living in a small area. The specific dens Anthony Eardley, Observation 32.
ity with which these sections of the city are built over also deter-
mines the atmosphere we experience there.
The bohemian is the figure who tests whether what we have

learned actually functions or not, because his desire is to dwell in
the urban space without intention. As a flâneur, his goal is urban
dwelling per se. Rather than spreading atmosphere, he is the social
mood barometer of the atmosphere of a district and of an entire city.
It is in this context that the previous section “The City as Social

Space” represents an attempt to correlate the density categories of
the city with specific social groups or mixes and their living require-
ments. For it is only when these groups are able to dwell within the
city space and are interested in using it that a relaxed atmosphere,
one that is compatible with the society and makes urban living possible
in the first place, can develop. The liveablity of the public city space is
therefore one of the principal criteria for the functioning of a district.
This applies even to the lowest density group of the single-family

house idyll. In a perimeter such as the Drakestraße in Berlin, individual
shops and a markedly green, hierarchically designed streetscape
create an atmosphere beyond the boundaries of one’s private property
that promotes communication and interaction in front of house and
garden in an environment where proximity and distance are balanced.
This transforms the public space into a liveable space, exuding an
urban atmosphere despite the low density and low building height.
Intimate community settlements like Zurich’s Im Heimgärtli also
present a lively and inhabited image. The public space is less important
here because of the proximity of the gardens to the street. The atmos-
phere is suburban, and passers-by are subjected to intense scrutiny.
Since the focus in the lowest density group is living in the private
sphere, even a fully privatized perimeter such as the Pilotengasse in
Vienna can exude a comfortable, homey atmosphere for the residents
because of the proximity of the gardens. The main difference in
comparison with the other districts is that the exterior spaces are only
marginally linked to those of the city as a whole, which prevents a
sense of living in the public urban space.
In the middle density group of urban apartments in a green environ-

ment, the public exterior space is more important as a result of the
taller buildings and greater social density. The hybrid character of this
group is revealed. The demand for private green space, coupled with
the expectation of enjoying an urban lifestyle, often leads to misunder-
standing in terms of planning and less than satisfactory results.
Landscape and garden are perhaps the ideal terms to use in describ-
ing the relationship between exterior space and living in the interior
space in this middle density group. The exterior spaces of landscaped
settlements such as Senftenberger Ring in Berlin or Prinzengasse in
Vienna are plagued by the fact that landscape cannot be a designed,
urban green space; instead, the “landscape” in these districts was
created to approximate nature as closely as possible. The large green
spaces are neither truly accessible to the public nor purely private
territory. In and of themselves, landscapes do not represent dwelling
places for people; they are only made habitable here and there with
the help of street furniture and zoning.
A garden, on the other hand, is an individually cultivated and designed

piece of land with a clearly private allocation to a person, family, or
group, and serves as their outdoor living space by definition. Gardens
are therefore easily integrated into the hierarchy of private and
public spaces of a city. 32 Open block-edge developments such as the 32
For in-depth analysis on the relationship

Scheuchzerstraße in Zurich or the Larochegasse in Vienna with their between green space and the city, see
enclosed private gardens therefore also offer good liveability on the the section “Green!”
public street space. The buildings take on a more prominent role in the
exterior space and define it much more than the single-family homes
do in the lowest density category. Moderate in height, the buildings
establish a good relationship between the apartments and the garden
and the street, which effectively becomes a living space shared by
all. If one understands the streets as a fluid spatial continuum of the
city as a living space, then small parks and squares can represent
the completion of the rooms in this living space, as counterparts to the
private gardens — oases of tranquility in the network of streets.
190 Conclusions
This interpretation of the public urban space as living space is most

evident in the third and highest density category of the inner-city
mix . In this category, streetscapes, public squares, and green spaces
are for the most part enclosed, surrounded by walls. This invests
them with the character of interior spaces within the fabric of the city.
Although the public green space is less dominant than in the
lower and middle density groups, it can nevertheless contribute con-
siderably to a sense of well-being in the urban atmosphere. Cultivated
and manicured rows of trees along the streets, public squares with
plantings, and verdant parks are, in a manner of speaking, the potted
plants and flower bouquets of the city as living space. Street furniture
ensures that these spaces can serve as gathering places for many
different population groups.
Social meeting places such as small local shops, cafés, cinemas,
or theaters, are especially important. Old town centers and Gründer
zeit districts no doubt offer the most liveable urban atmospheres in the
public space because of the intense mix in terms of scale and use.
The generous streetscapes dating back to the Gründerzeit are notable
for the variety of uses they invite. Depending on their needs, local
residents can set up café patios or simply set out a chair on the wide
sidewalks and participate in the life in the street, while parents pushing
strollers stop for a chat, or ice cream vendors set up their carts at
the corner. And last but not least, the sidewalk serves as a multifunc-
tional zone for pedestrians, who can move along the space in leisure
and safety.
The only areas where the equilibrium of this mix is threatened
are the commercial centers. Trade and services dominate to such
a degree that interior and exterior spaces often become no more than
circulation areas, spaces to pass through rather than gathering
places. However, even in this case, there are design strategies that can
bring life into the district. Cultural institutions and the public spaces
associated with them can make a valuable contribution to the usability
and recreational quality of the area. The Friedrichstraße perimeter
in Berlin, for example, lies directly adjacent to the Schauspielhaus
(now a concert hall) and the Gendarmenmarkt, which justly deserves
to be described as one of Berlin’s most distinctive public living
spaces and provides a public meeting place for the district and the
entire city. On the Bahnhofstraße in Zurich, rows of trees, green
spaces, and public benches are designed to act in a similarly stimulat-
ing fashion.
Balconies play an important role in integrating the built environment

in this density group, especially in the residential districts, creating
a close link between the walls of the buildings and the surrounding
public space. As small private exterior living spaces, they allow residents
to step into the street space without leaving their private apartments.
The street space can thus become a vertical living space across the
entire height of the buildings. 33 33
For additional details see the following
section “Balconies!”
Balconies!
“Mr. Faltermeier, come quickly. Look, there he is! You can

just about see him from here . . . ”
“Let me see . . . show me where . . . ”
“There! Down there with the plastic bag!”
In Gerhard Polt’s satirical piece, Mrs. Kerzl summons the superintend-

ant Faltermeier to her balcony: she is excited because she has just
caught a glimpse of the bohemian she moved into the district in the
space in front of her building. The two characters are seen stepping
through the thick drapes out onto the balcony. And because Mrs. Kerzl’s
balcony is located on the second floor, she is able to draw a neigh-
bor’s attention to the new attraction as well:
“Hi there, Mrs. Böhlow! Look!“
Stepping outside of one’s own four walls into the public communal
space of the street is an important act of communication between
individual and society. In this sense, balconies are vital intersections
between the public domain and the private domain, between apart-
ment and street. The shape of these intersections is closely linked to
the individual community and the corresponding built density.
From density category 3 onward, apartments are dominant in the

housing structure of all the districts. In other words: in districts with
density factors of 0.6 and up, this private exterior space begins to play
an important role as a mediating space. In the middle density group
(with density factors from 0.6 to 1.5), the balcony is a ubiquitous facade
element. But that does not mean that it is always able to fulfill its
function as a communication element. The fundamental challenge lies
in the changed requirements for balconies since the onset of modern-
ism in architecture. Whereas these requirements were founded in
social aspects (orientation towards the street or a square) in traditional
architecture up to the Gründerzeit, the balcony then became a private
spot in the sun in subsequent years. From the 1920s to this day,
balconies are placed in accordance with the position of the sun and
not in response to the street, especially in the middle density group.
The Siemensstadt settlement in the Goebelstraße,34 an archetype 34
See density category 4.
of a modern housing development in Berlin, illustrates the changes
this brings to the public streetscape. Because of its orientation to the
north, Otto Bartning’s elongated building presents an uninviting and
smooth rear wall to the street. Berliners soon dubbed it the “Langer
Jammer” (roughly “long sorrow”) with good reason. All the balconies lie
on the south side, overlooking a private green space. A similar phe-
nomenon is found in the ribbon development that runs perpendicular
to the Goebelstraße. Since the evening hours were defined as the time
of day for leisure and relaxation, all the balconies face west towards
the setting sun. The effect is that each facade with balconies overlooks
the smooth, sealed facade of the building on the opposite side. The
balcony is thus transformed into an exterior living space focused on
private interests without any mediating function.
This disadvantage is even more evident in the large housing estates

of the 1970s. Vertical density, in these plans, was associated with the
idea of providing each resident with the best possible access to green
space with light, air, and sunshine. Consequently, the balconies were
once again rigorously placed on the facade oriented to the
sun, presenting a bleak rear facade to the buildings on the opposite
side. As the height of buildings increases, the problem of balconies
overlooking unattractive rear elevations is made worse by the cir-
cumstance that any direct contact with life in the street or in the sur-
rounding green space is no longer possible from the fourth or at
most the sixth floor upward. If Mrs. Kerzl had lived at such a height,
she could not have called out to Mrs. Böhlow down below on the
192 Conclusions
Berlin, Hochsitzweg und Raabestraße

Munich, Waldstraße; Berlin, Goebelstraße
Vienna, Fockygasse; Zurich, Altwiesenstraße

Zurich, Bahnhofstraße; Vienna, Wollzeile
194 Conclusions
square in front of the building to draw her neighbor’s attention to the

spectacle of the bohemian.
Recent housing developments such as the cube-shaped buildings

in Zurich’s Bändliweg perimeter35 seek to utilize all three sunlight 35
directions — east, south, and west — for private balconies whenever
possible. Communication with the street space is barely taken into
consideration. Installing balconies on more than one building orientation
is an attempt to avoid the kind of monotony that mars the image of
Berlin’s Siemensstadt. Strictly speaking, these are not cantilevered
balconies, but loggias. The distinction is important, for loggias remain
rooms within the building volume; therefore they do not allow one to
step out into the exterior space and cannot be integrated with the ex-
terior space. This emphasizes the separation of the private and public
spheres, thus neglecting social as well as communicative aspects.
Settlements such as the perimeters on Larochegasse in Vienna, Hol-

beinstraße in Munich, and Scheuchzerstraße in Zurich demonstrate
that balconies are sometimes also designed with social goals in mind
in the middle density group. Balconies, and oriels as the enclosed
variation of balconies, are part of the streetscape and very much orient-
ed towards it. They are popular, much used, and often adorned with
plants, acting as vertical continuations of small private gardens at
ground level. Low traffic volumes in these perimeters also translate
into a relatively high level of privacy, which is extended into the street
space. In this way, the balconies are testimony to the residents’ re
lationship with the exterior space and contribute in no small measure
to the character of the individual buildings, which together form
the community of the district. Communication from street to balcony
is possible throughout and invests the area with a lively and strong
residential atmosphere despite the quiet streets.
In the highest density groups (with density factors higher than 1.5), the
balcony becomes an essential interface between public space
and private apartment. The closed architectural line of the street space
demands integration with the buildings to make communication possible
in the first place. Only then can the urban space become an urban
living space across the full height of the developed area. Once again,
a fine balance between proximity and distance is key. The block-
edge developments of the Gründerzeit reveal a clear hierarchy in this
regard. On the street elevations, ornamented facades were equipped
with decorative balconies that were rarely allowed to project more than
a meter into the street space. This depth imposes a disciplined use
of this private exterior space, because it does not offer enough space
for any more domestic furnishings. This privilege is reserved for the
rooms overlooking the interior of these blocks, which offer privacy
as well as orientation toward the street. As to the less prestigious court-

yards to the rear, balconies, if they were provided at all, were usually
small kitchen balconies for growing herbs in pots, storing malodorous
waste, or hanging laundry out to dry.
Today the focus in these districts is to create an alliance between
the old hierarchies and the new requirements. Many of the small, old
kitchen balconies are being replaced with large balconies with depths
of more than 2 meters. These new balconies can truly serve as ex-
terior living spaces and be used in a more casual manner, as they lie
far from the noise of life in the street, sheltered within the tranquility
of the courtyards. They can even promote neighborly closeness. The
smaller balcony overlooking the street, on the other hand, retains its
original character and functions as a box looking out onto the theater
of public life in the street.
Generally speaking , one can note that balconies (or solariums) are
private exterior living spaces that project into the public space and
render the entire height of the street space habitable. Where there are
no balconies (and no corresponding ground-floor uses36), the river 36
See the next section “Ground Floors!”
of life tends to flow past the buildings, slipping past them without
finding any anchorage or possibilities for communication. The street
space then runs the risk of degenerating into a traffic artery, pure
and simple.
Ground Floors!
“We’re even gonna have art openings every three months .

. . down there, in Mr. Böhm’s café.”
Meanwhile, in Gerhard Polt’s satire, Mrs. Kerzl has already bought two
canvases from the bohemian and now wants to organize exhibitions
in the café on the ground floor of her building. This is yet another
initiative to improve communication in the large housing estate and to
improve the quality of life in the publicly shared space. However, the
success of this approach always depends on the local public. In
the large housing estates of the 1970s, in particular, where functions
were strictly separated, there was little in the way of foot traffic to
be drawn into public events in facilities at street level, that is, on the
ground floor.
After years of marginalization of the ground floor, these days more
value is placed on designing this part of the building, and especially
on reserving it for uses that are freely accessible to all. If ground floors
are to fulfill their enlivening function in a district, what is needed
once again is a customized adaptation to the needs and interests of the
target public in each density category and site.
The ground floor is the site where the passer-by can establish contact
with the housing at eye-level. Opportunities for exchange are even
more immediate here than at the balcony level. This can involve distance
(for example, through fences and gardens), depending on the building
density and social mix of the district, or it can involve proximity, even
to the extent of a complete merging of public space with the building
(for example, in the case of public uses such as retail stores and
restaurants on the ground floor).
In lower density groups (with density factors below 0.6), distance is

preferred. It could be said that the garden is the ground floor of these
districts. Fences, hedges, and bushes protect the private sphere of

the residents. Communication occurs across the fence or the hedge.
Still, individual shops, restaurants, or local cafes can serve as meeting
places that stimulate the social atmosphere.
The Reindlstraße perimeter in Munich37 presents a wide variety 37
of different amenities at the ground floor level. In the narrow streets
of the district, small and slightly raised front gardens keep the passer-
by at a distance from the apartments on the ground floors and the
elevated plinth stories of the uniformly identical row houses. Although
they add some green space to the streetscape, the small gardens
can only compensate for the petit bourgeois dreariness of the uniform
facade to a limited degree. The restaurant with a beer-garden functions
196 Conclusions
well as a social gathering place and oasis, a function that is enhanced

by its location across from the church and the playground to the
south. But the single-story row of shops running along the north side
of Inderstorferstraße are hardly accessible to clientele on foot be-
cause they are not connected to a continuum of other ground-floor
amenities and so they see little pedestrian traffic.
The situation is quite different on Drakestraße in Berlin38 where 38
the integration of a series of shops and restaurants — all grouped
around widened street intersections — creates a loose chain of public
ground-floor uses. In the side streets, the atmosphere is one of in
timate living, characterized by gardens and detached homes set back
from the street.
In the middle density group (with density factors from 0.6 to 1.5),
contact with the public space increases in importance. In this group
there are entirely different concepts for ground floor uses.
In the large housing estates of the 1970s, the public uses were
gathered in shopping and cultural centers. This left the remaining
infrastructure of the settlements reserved entirely for residential use,
despite the relatively high density. The ground floors were raised to
protect the private sphere from the semi-public exterior space, but the
plinths are rather uninviting in appearance.
Other housing estates tried to integrate retail strips into the res-
idential areas on a smaller scale. As the example on Reindlstraße in
Munich demonstrates, these only function when they are integrated with
other public uses or are combined to form small local centers, as 39
in the perimeters on Konrad-Dreher-Straße in Munich39 and Ringofen- See density category 4.
weg in Vienna. 40 40
Most of the districts in this density group, like those in the group
with the lowest density, create distance from the public (street-)space
by means of large green areas. Less densely developed perimeters
like the Tumblingerstraße 41 in Munich show that this distance created 41
With a density factor of 1.78 the Tum-
by front yards can also be used as a multifunctional zone. In the blingerstraße perimeter in Munich
Schmellerstraße, which is located within this perimeter, a front yard can is already part of the highest density
serve as a private garden, a furnished restaurant garden, or a forecourt group. But the loose development
structure and verdant streetscape are
to a store or café patio — all depending upon the type of building. comparable to districts in the middle
This flexibility with regard to how the space between the building and density groups.
the street can be used is an excellent reflection of the residents’
needs in the middle density group. Urban neighborhood structures with
small lots can respond well to a wide range of needs. This allows a
mix of private and public uses, and hence the hoped-for characteristic
for these urban apartments: a quiet dwelling in a green setting com-
bined with a sense of city life and a transformation of the street into
a public green living space. 42 42
Suggestions of this type of mix by means
of multifunctional front garden zones
In the high density group (with density factors of 1.5 and up), the are already evident in the perimeters
on Larochegasse in Vienna (density cat-
ground floors of buildings developed as block-edge structures border

egory 3) and Holbeinstraße in Munich
directly onto the public street space with no buffer zone in front of (density category 5).
the buildings. This has advantages and disadvantages. If the buildings
are for residential use, they are usually designed with raised ground
floors, or plinth stories, to provide privacy from pedestrians. This does
not prevent residents from occasionally making the unwelcome dis-
covery in the morning of the odd beer can on their windowsill. Ground
floor apartments are therefore unpopular in the density categories
with a factor of 1.5 and higher; these categories are more suitable for
public and semi-public uses such as retail, restaurants, daycare centers,
and the like. Such places benefit from the immediate accessibility,
and they expand the public living space of the street into the buildings.
The ground floors in the high density categories thus become a part
of the street.
Green!
“Well, then he could help me out a bit, trimming hedges

or thinning out the ground cover.”
“Mr. Faltermeier, the man is a bohemian, he won’t lift a
finger!”
The term “ground cover” is synonymous with the claims housing estates
like Neuperlach make about their relationship with nature, and with
their ambivalence about it. Literally, ground cover means evergreen,
low-growing plants that are easy to maintain, that are able to cover large
areas and prevent the growth of weeds. Unlike a lawn, for example, ar-
eas with ground cover are not suitable for walking on nor for use as
recreational areas. And in contrast to meadows or lawns, they only need
to be trimmed once or twice a year.
But the bohemian would have little interest in making even this minimal
effort. As a city flâneur he is used to enjoying the amenities the city
center has to offer without participating in their maintenance, especially
if they do not contribute to his enjoyment in any significant way. After
all, many ground cover plants are employed as monoculture and not
particularly appealing, such as the creeping cotoneaster. And yet these
landscaped settlements were created to offer the joys of urban dwelling
in a verdant environment.
Martin Heidegger writes: “Building as dwelling unfolds into the building

that cultivates growing things and the building that erects edifices.” 43 43
Heidegger, see note 32.
According to Heidegger, building is therefore dwelling on earth. His
meaning is as follows: in addition to erecting buildings, cultivating plants
and crops for nourishment or simply for the aesthetic adornment of the
environment is a fundamental aspect of dwelling. In this sense, to
build also means to cultivate and maintain the soil. Buildings are thus
closely linked to the exterior space that surrounds them. Both bear
witness to humanity dwelling on earth.
The fact that they do not give him any particular enjoyment is not
the only reason why the bohemian does not wish to participate in the
maintenance and care of hedges and ground cover. Simply put, he
does not feel responsible. Exterior space, to his mind, is public space;
naturally, therefore, this means that the public sector — read govern-
ment — is responsible rather than he. It would never occur to him to
mow the lawn in a public park. But the seemingly public space in Neu
perlach is not really public property. It is private property and is therefore

commonly referred to as “semi-public.” In other words: misunderstand-
ing is inevitable.
In any case, green space is one of the most important factors con-
tributing to the atmosphere of exterior urban space. And since urban
green space is cultivated nature, its impact is in turn largely dependent
on maintenance.
Green space plays an important role in nearly all of the urban
perimeters explored in this book. Depending on the degree of building
density, the focus is on either private or public green space. The
sense of identification and responsibility is strengthened when the green
198 Conclusions
space is clearly allocated to individual buildings and residents, on the

one hand, and municipal bodies on the other, and the care and main-
tenance of gardens, trees, green strips, squares, and parks is all the
better for it.
In the inner city, green space also plays a key role as natural
climate control. When building walls heat up in summer and tempera-
tures soar, especially in the higher density categories, trees provide
shade and coolness, and their foliage filters the pollutants such as
exhaust gases from the air. In winter, deciduous trees shed their leaves
and allow the sunlight to penetrate deeply into the street space.
The green elements thus adapt dynamically to all seasons. At the same
time, they introduce a natural scale to the street space, which gives
people in the space a sense of how they fit into the scale and a sense
of place. The height of a tree, for example, is in direct relation to the
height of the adjacent building and the residents within that dwelling.
And it renders the change of seasons visible for city dwellers. Urban
green spaces thus create a direct connection with the surrounding land
scape and nature as a whole.
The street is an artery along which nature, in cultivated form, can
dovetail with the city. There is much talk today of “green cities” and
“green buildings,” often in a quest to find new forms of architecture and
even cities. 44 However, when the public street space is once again 44
In contemporary architecture there is
fundamentally understood and enhanced as a site for the greening of a trend to develop forms where green is
the city, this network of streets in all its multiplicity is once again more integrated into private buildings through
efficient and flexible than any technologically optimized building solution. large terraces, projections, facade green-
ing or loggias. At the urban level, there
are experiments to develop new versions
of the Garden City idea; however, these
cannot respond to the complexity of an
urban construct in its entirety.
The City as Living Space

Individuality and Continuity
“We’ve got plenty of big city here . . . but what about flair!
Savoir vivre!”
“Who?”
With respect to the Marx-Zentrum in Munich — the view Gerhard Polt’s

superintendent Faltermeier and property owner Mrs. Kerzl are gazing
at from the balcony — one is tempted to counter the latter’s declaration
with a question: what big city? And what flair (or, what type of atmos-
phere)? And what is the lifestyle that fits with it all? Mr. Faltermeier is
quite right to ask: Who? Perhaps he means: For whom?
The satellite city is determined to project the image of a new city
concept cast from a single mould by means of differentiated spatial
and architectural divisions. But its residents have trouble seeing
themselves reflected in that image. Urban atmosphere as an interplay
of social and esthetic harmony cannot take hold because there is a
lack of concrete connections between the people and the architecture.
Hardly anyone knows just how to live here. Did someone say savoir
vivre?
Even if forms that are conducive to harmonious atmospheres can be

found in all density categories, as the analysis of the 36 perimeters in
this book has shown is the case, the question remains: how can a city
as a whole evolve from all these varying densities?
A city can only be identified as such if it creates a strong continuum

of its structures, resulting in cohesion and identity. Most Central
European cities, which are the focus of this book, are plagued these
days by a loss of this continuum in the urban fabric. In response to
this situation, many of the urban planners and architects who partici
pate in current debates on the correct degree of density are looking
for ways to strengthen the boundaries of the city and to bring the
structure s within it closer together and unify them through densifica-
tion. A minority among them advocate for the opposite approach,
namely, dissolving the traditional idea of the city in favor of a vision of
the city as a region, in the sense of an amorphous settlement structure
(Zwischenstadt or lit. “in-between city”), 45 a vision that attempts to 45
Thomas Sieverts, Zwischenstadt:
see urban sprawl as containing an opportunity for a new kind of urban zwischen Ort und Welt, Zeit und Raum,
planning. Stadt und Land (Gütersloh and Berlin,
However neither approach can operate without the concept of 1997). According to Sieverts the
areas between traditional cities, which
the city as a place of community. As a political unit, the city’s role is are today described as agglomeration
to enable and organize a peaceful social coexistence. or urban sprawl, are neither city nor
country but a new category of settle-
ment, which he calls the “in-between

In this work, different degrees of density have been found to correlate city.”
to different social groups and mixed social environments; the needs
and expectations of these groups vis-à-vis their surroundings are
taken to be the basis for how these are shaped and designed. 46 Of 46
See the section “The City as Social
necessity, this approach must operate with certain assumptions or Space.”
experiential values — especially in the planning of new districts — and
thus always runs the risk of falling into the trap of idealizing a typical
population profile and their related expectations. Still, it is useful to
take the notion of social togetherness as the basis for planning
processes, for uncomfortable atmospheres loaded with tension
tend to arise primarily in areas where there is a large gap between
200 Conclusions
expectations and reality. Once the atmospheric ambience has been

successfully created in the various density groups defined in this
book47 and an urban and architectural form befitting all their different 47
For details on the individual density
demands has been found, the next question is how these individual groups see “To Each Society Its Densi-
solutions will combine into a continuum that will meld the districts into ty!”
a city.
This is where public space comes into play. It alone cannot connect
the different public and private sections of a district and a city
into a harmonious whole. The community space is available to all and
shared by all. In the fulfillment of this function, public space can
create the continuum of the city and, moreover, prepare the ground
for specific atmospheres in the individual districts, even though it
cannot guarantee that they will develop. Public space can thus set the
tone for the atmosphere of a whole city.
The Street as Meeting Place
When public space is the topic of discussion, it is often thought of

as areas designated for recreation. Much attention is focused on
town squares, parks, playgrounds and sports fields, and these areas
also attract prestigious investments from private parties.
By far the largest area of public space is covered by streets,
although their principal role is to serve as traffic arteries. In areas
where they are to fulfill the function of a meeting place, traffic-calm-
ing measures are usually taken, or the streets are restricted to local
traffic only or even privatized.
And yet the street is the only public space that can ensure the
continuum of the city. As a circulation space, it is at the same time
also the largest place for movement and public gatherings. Most
people meet in the street. Only the street can gather all citizens in
one and the same space. Pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and patrons
of public transportation share the same space, thus representing
the broadest range of public life. It is therefore important to route
the many different traffic streams in parallel along a shared street.
Depending on the district and the local flow of traffic, different
groups may receive preferential treatment. Currently there is a clear
trend to favor pedestrians and cyclists.
Only a few of the perimeters analyzed here are equipped with parks
or park-like areas, and most are primarily residential in nature. The
street is thus the largest and often the only public meeting place in
the city.
The Street as Catalyst for Atmosphere
Since it is everywhere, the street is the space that determines the

character of a district in considerable measure. In an age of growing
individualization, which is also evident in the esthetics of individual
buildings, the public street also assumes the function of acting
as a catalyst for atmosphere. It should do more than merely provide
access to individual properties and provide a space for complementary
amenities; rather, the atmosphere in the district should be created
by and in the street in order to ensure the atmospheric continuum
of a city. One should therefore cease to understand the street
as a secondary spatial element, with its atmosphere derived from

the adjacent private homes and green spaces, but instead see it as
an active element that is the public projection and reflection
of the local district and its community.
The street is always the first consideration when a plan is drawn up.
Its layout can anticipate the atmosphere in a new district even before
any buildings are erected. The importance of defining, as closely as
possible, in the early planning phase what kind of atmosphere should
greet the future residents and passers-by in the future development
cannot be overstated.
The following factors play a role in the deliberate creation of a specific

street atmosphere:
— its width in relation to the height of the built development

— a closed or an open arrangement of the adjacent buildings
— the distance of the buildings to the street
— the orientation of the buildings to the street
— the ratio of private to public green space
— the type of street greening (or absence thereof),
— the area distribution of sidewalk, green space, parking areas,
and traffic
— the materials used for the surfaces
— the type of street furniture
— the speed of local traffic and speed limits
— the hierarchical division of the street into corresponding areas for
pedestrians and for traffic
— the hierarchical sequence of street layout, crossroads and squares
across the various districts of the city as well as
— the connection of the street to neighboring districts.
When a relationship is established between these factors, the street

can be “fine-tuned” to a certain degree and the effect can transfer
to the entire district.
Therefore, a street in a single-family home district of the first density 48

group can not only derive its effect from the atmosphere of the The intimate community settlements
private gardens that line it, but can become a public image of those are an exception since they thrive due
to the participation of all residents. It
gardens. 48 On the one hand, this ensures that the intended verdant is for this reason that these districts
atmosphere in such a district is in fact realized, even if some of feature relatively narrow streets without
the gardens on the street are not designed to contribute to it. And, on sidewalks. In these districts, the
streets do not play a role as a public
the other hand, the individual expressions of the private green spaces space and rely upon the effect of the
are complemented by a unifying form of cultivated green space that verdant gardens.
is integrated with the entire city as a public space. 49 49
Examples of this type of street design
Streets in the middle density group also seek to establish are found in the Großbauerstraße in the
a form that represents the expectations of a green setting combined Viennese perimeter of Schippergasse
with urban living. This group is distinguished by a balanced relation- with its trees and green strips or in the
tree-lined boulevards in Drakestraße
ship between the presence of the buildings and the green spaces — perimeter in Berlin.
in particular the relationship between building and street. In land-
scaped settlements, the buildings are not oriented toward the street,
but toward the directions of the compass and the green space. This
is why they cannot form defined street spaces. In districts with
open block-edge developments, on the other hand, the street eleva-
tions of the buildings create a relatively clear street space. Even when
the buildings are detached within separate lots, the consistent
distance to the street creates a consistent sightline behind the
front yards, which also contributes to the green atmosphere of a
202 Conclusions
street. The public street is clearly separated from the private gardens,
divided into hierarchies and planted with greenery.
In the third and highest density group, closed block-edge develop-

ments constitute — architecturally speaking — the walls of the street
space. The buildings rise directly from the edge of the street; instead
of a front yard as interstitial space or transition zone, the communal
public space penetrates the ground floor areas. The result is an
intermeshing of the pedestrian area of the hierarchically divided
street with the interior of the buildings. 50 Whenever possible, the 50
On the upper floors, this integration
streets in these districts are adorned with greenery. Where this is not occurs through the private balconies,
the case, the facades must create the atmospheric effect, which which project into the public street
requires relevant guidelines with regard to facade design. space. See “Balconies!” in “The City as
Social Space”.
Addresses
If the street is to act as a connecting continuum, linking all density

categories of the different districts of a city into a cohesive whole,
then each resident should, ideally, have a direct connection to the
street network along the shortest possible path.
Even in the density categories of the lowest group, the street

spaces that function best are those where the single-family homes
are relatively close to the street and roughly equidistant from one
another. This allows the buildings to have a spatial impact on the
street. Given the modest dimensions of the individual lots, the path
from street to front door is usually quite short.
This relationship undergoes a fundamental shift in the land-
scaped settlements that comprise the middle density category.
Here the buildings are embedded in large private green spaces. The
path to the street leads through semi-private areas, which establish
their own network of paths, usually providing access to several
addresses or large housing complexes. It is often impossible to
identify a single address from the public street. This, in turn, leads to
a privatization of the building access paths, with the result that a
portion of the network no longer runs across public ground and is
thus not under the control of the city. The buildings are no longer
directly connected to the network of the city.
In contrast to these large lots, or parcels, which create an
insular, privatized infrastructure, each house is directly connected with
the public street space and thus integrated with the entire street in
the districts that have open block-edge development. The lots and
green areas are smaller and clearly private, the addresses are home
to a smaller number of residents. Everyone is linked via the shortest
path to the continuum of the city and can be represented in the
public space by his or her private entrance.
In the block-edge developments in Gründerzeit districts and commer-

cial centers, both belonging to the highest density group, buildings
tend to stand immediately adjacent to the street, with the result that
house doors open directly onto public space. The area set aside for
pedestrians within the hierarchical division of the streets is all the
more important here. Once again, it is advantageous when individual
addresses are shared by a limited number of parties. Buildings with
commercial uses or restaurants are exceptions: here, there are usually
two addresses, one for the business and the other for the residents
on the upper floors. The exterior space on public land in front of the
buildings is vital, for selling goods or sitting on a public patio. The

private address penetrates into the public space.
When every resident enjoys direct access to the public street space,
what emerges is not only a spatial but a social continuum in the city,
which is shared by everyone. This prevents the formation for ghettoes
or “gated communities” — the streets belong to the communal living
space.
City and Landscape —

A Plea for Integration and Soft Transitions
The relationship between built environment and natural environ-

ment has been a central theme of modern urban planning since
its very beginnings. All seminal urban planning theories of the past
150 years have explored the relationship between the city and
the landscape. Ebenezer Howard’s vision of the Garden City from
1898 sought to establish a new urban concept in response to the
rampant industrialization of city and landscape and the population
explosion. His vision was based on integrating nature, cultivated
acreage, industry, and residential development into a system arranged
in concentric layers. Instead of a densely developed city center, the
garden city was laid out around a public park.
In a further development, the Charter of Athens sought to
maximize the area reserved for untouched nature by concentrating
the building masses in high-rises with a view to providing all residents
with a healthy lifestyle in a green setting. However, this could only
have functioned if the land had belonged not to individual owners but
to the community, which would have been responsible for its care
and maintenance.
The desire to unify architecture and nature has continued
unabated, spurred on by the ecology movement since the late 1970s
and the current debate on sustainability. “Green architecture,” it is
hoped, will improve our quality of life, both in terms of energy (con-
sumption) and in terms of atmosphere.
Today, many urban planners and city dwellers bemoan the unchecked
expansion of cities into the surrounding landscape. Critics speak of
excessive “land consumption” and how to counteract it through
densification, once again giving shape and clear boundaries to the
city, which has dissolved into disconnected parts. Urban planners
demand high densities, the higher the better. The motto for breathing
a positive sense of living into this urban from is “Urbanity through
Density,” in contrast to the openness of the landscape.
However, the analyses in this book demonstrate that the variety

of all the density categories is most compatible with the plurality of
our society. Instead of thinking in dualities such as “good inner city”
and “evil periphery,” or “nasty development” and “good nature,” we
should aim to create and appreciate soft transitions.
Incidentally, wildlife has been ignoring this separation into city
and nature for some time and has conquered the city as a new
habitat. In Berlin alone there are 53 species of mammals and 180
bird species, 51 more than in most areas of the cultivated landscape 51
Data provided by the Senate Administ-
that surrounds the city. Low and middle densities play an important ration of the City of Berlin, status 2014.
role, because they offer a multiplicity of living environments that make
possible a harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature.
204 Conclusions
Berlin, Raabestraße; Zurich, Kanzleistraße

Berlin, Friedrichstraße; Munich, Im Tal
Munich, Tumblingerstraße; Berlin, Friedrichstraße

Berlin, Friedrichstraße; Vienna, Wollzeile
206 Conclusions
When we look upon at the city as a political, social, social-economic,

and economic whole, it is clear that public space plays a key role.
It alone can connect the different densities, including vacant land,
to form a continuum, while ensuring that controlled growth is possible.
As the largest element of this space in terms of area covered,
the street is the means to ensure atmospheric cohesion. When it is
understood as a visually important built structure and not simply
as a negative space between built fabrics, the street can create
and sustain the atmospheric unity of a city on a social and perceptual
level. Moreover, it can link and integrate city and landscape. Streets
can open out views from the city over the surrounding landscape.
And more importantly: nature can grow into the city along the street
corridors, and vice versa. A rigid separation of compact building
masses and open natural and cultivated landscape — as proposed in
the Garden City utopia or the Charter of Athens — is superfluous
when streets, squares, and parks create a strong continuum. By
this means, city and landscape may evolve into a varied composite
urban landscape, or a landscape city as shared living space.
To this end, it is vitally important to prevent the privatization of large

swaths of public space, since privatization means that the cities
lose control of the space, as is evident in middle density districts, which
have been popular with investors and property owners for decades.
Semi-public spaces used as private areas destroy the continuum
of the public exterior spaces of a city and make way for a never-end-
ing series of private interests, which Le Corbusier identified as
problematic long ago in the Charter of Athens. 52 52
The Athens Charter, see note 31, Obser-
Ultimately, a sensibly adapted continuum of public space is vation 72.
capable of creating a shared sense of urbanity, across all different
density categories and groups, from the periphery all the way into the
city center, and hence is able to offer a contemporary quality of life
for all population groups.
Cities and communities are increasingly challenged to plan, build, and

maintain high-quality public spaces. They are the bonding elements
that can connect a wide range of densities into a unified urban
structure. And they are the tools with which the atmospheres in the
different densities can be created and combined into a citywide
atmosphere.
For the city to be a holistic living space for humanity, fauna, and flora,
and to present harmonious and dense atmospheres in all districts,
what matters is the specific quality of the individual urban densities in
relation to a strong public exterior space.
Despite all the similarities in the districts analyzed in this book, each
of the four cities has its own character that defines the life of
the people who live there and invests their buildings, streets, squares,
cafés, and parks with an ineffable atmosphere found nowhere
else. Four authors explore the unique attributes of their own cities
through personal narratives.
As the largest of the cities profiled here, and owing to its unique
history, Berlin has absorbed landscape and nature into the expanse
of its urban fabric; it has integrated them and interwoven them
with the buildings into a multi-layered network that is almost impossi-
ble to disentangle. Bettina Erasmy speaks of the wastelands and
green spaces of this city, which paradoxically emphasize the density
ofthis city. She talks of the life of Berlin’s residents, both humans
and animals, amid high density and fleeting dissolution, between lofty
dreams and broken glass in the grass.
In the much smaller Munich, on the other hand, the opposing poles
of town and country are more clearly felt. In Matthias Kiefersauer’s
story, partying girls from the village of Dingolfing ride through the
narrow streets of Munich’s downtown in glitzy stretch limos. The over-
sized dimensions of the cars embody the idealized expectations of
the village girls when it comes to the promises of the big city, which,
in turn, is overtaxed to deliver on them. Density and restriction are
closely intertwined in this city—in the streets and in the minds of
people. The calm waters of the Isar River alone offer a brief respite,
a relaxing space for a delicate rapprochement between town and
country, heart and mind, in which the participants hardly dare trust.
Vienna, although similar in size to Munich, is defined by a greater

sense of confidence and at the same time stalked by moments
of profound doubt. Franz Schuh speaks of the direct link between
corporeality and psychological makeup in this city, and relates
these terms both to himself and to Vienna as a whole. Megalomania
and mediocrity, efficiency and wastefulness, élan and ennui, indus
triousness and leisure, all form a strong urban fabric, although it
has cavities and is somewhat ailing. These characteristics combine
to create a generous urban personality, which still sometimes leans
towards narrow-mindedness.
Zurich is by far the smallest of the four cities. Still, in his story,
Gerhard Meister describes a density of adjacent spaces with differing
characteristics that is nearly unthinkable in the other cities. As in
the expansive Berlin, nature is present everywhere—the residents and
the protagonist of the Zurich story alike are able to fully identify
with it. But nature here does not penetrate into the city, at least not
physically; instead, the city is set jewel-like in the midst of nature,

or at least what one might call nature. The forest, after all, is walking
distance, or quite literally “a stone’s throw,” from the city center.

Density & Atmosphere On Factors Relating To Buildi... - (DENSITY ANALYSES)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Density & Atmosphere On Factors Relating To Buildi... - (DENSITY ANALYSES)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DENSITY ANALYSES

The spatial expanse of urban development in Central Europe is steadily

The discussion on the extent of urban density in our cities is a central

Butterflies, Gravel Pits and Dreams of a Home

“Anyways … after the trailer park, you’ll drive towards a

Mr. König’s driving directions through the agglomeration derives its

Polt’s darkly humorous narrative reveals the deep yearning of post-

for free consumers in a landscape of constant growth. The “country

“Now, you’ve pretty much arrived… And there it is: ‘In

In this quest, it is the “soft factors” of subjective urban perception and

Polt’s “Driving Directions” dates from 1984. Three decades of growth

“You’re coming, right? We’re so excited!”

“Wouldn’t you just love it?”

The problem of the idealization of demands with regard to one’s

described the ideal of the German bourgeoisie striving for evermore

Ja, das möchste – Wouldn’t you just love it?

All of it simple, and oh so modest:

In the stables: two ponies, four thoroughbreds,

Wouldn’t you just love it!

But here is how things are on this earth:

There’s always something. Take heart.

We want so much: To have. To be. And to count.

the poor quality of the external environment through technical upgrades

How can contemporary urban planning respond to this complex mix

It was precisely during Tucholsky’s era6 that the visionaries of the 6

The members of CIAM (Congrés Internationaux d’Architecture Modern

The charter contains the following core statements or observations on

Observation 9: “The population is too dense within the

In the charter, the problem of unstructured agglomeration and urban

And the charter identifies the social and psychological problems of

Observation 72: “This situation reveals the incessant

Based on all these observations, the CIAM conference draws the

Observation 95: “Private interest will be subordinated to the

As we know today, it was somewhat premature to formulate this ob-

configuration in which people could dwell peacefully. Thus architects,

The formula for spatial planning:

The formula for architecture:

The formula for urban planning:

The distribution of the building masses in their relationship to the

The requirements or demands developed as a conclusion from these

The fundamental urban planning issues, however, seem to be the same

Densification – Phobia, Compulsion and Lifestyle

planners identify the qualities of urban life not in having access to

lichkeit unserer Städte: Anstiftung zum

save resources. By placing houses and residential units once again

The Right Measure

Currently different approaches are being pursued simultaneously in

the comprehensive planning of new urban districts and the retroactive

In the Atmosphere of the Street

Atmosphere is our first — and fastest — perception of a space. An urban

From this mix of sensory perceptions, we develop a sense of the space,

In order to deliberately create an atmosphere, it is therefore of upmost

the high concentration of building masses, but on the balanced mix

This book presents an analytical exploration of the relationship between

“It’s lovely here.”

The current debate on the necessity of densification The Density Factors

Density This approach takes into consideration not only the

The connection between these two terms is the

The Nine Density Categories The Four Cities

Density category 4 Year of construction (YC)

image of Berlin, Munich, Vienna, and Zurich.

The Atmosphere District Descriptions

Standardized District Photographs

But here is how things are on this earth:  

We want so much: To have. To be. And to count. 

The present analysis of districts with a lose development profile on

At first glance the Schippergasse in Vienna-Großjedlersdorf (dens

The four districts in density category 2 attempt to perform a balan