Louis Sauer

The Architect of
Low-rise High-density
Housing
by Antonino Saggio

ITOOLS LULU.COM
 For little Raffaele Saggio and his mom

THE PROJECT

SERIES PUBLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

AND URBAN DESIGN -
«LA SAPIENZA» UNIVERSITY OF ROME

2nd Revised Edition

English translation by Christopher Houston

Thanks to prof. Selena Anders for her comments and suggestions

Printed in January 2014 by Lulu.com in Raleigh NC, USA

ISBN 978-1-291-67435-4

New revised edition from the original book

Antonino Saggio, Un Architetto Americano Louis Sauer, Offiicina, Rome 1988

English edition edited under the auspice of the

PhD Program in Architecture - Design and Theory
«Sapienza», University of Rome
Dipartimento di Architettura e Progetto
via Antonio Gramsci 53
00196 Rome Italy
w3.uniroma1.it/dottoratocomposizionearchitettonica/

Thanks to Paolo Allegrezza and Federica Bramucci for help in layout and to Loretta
Schaeffer and Yvonne Thompson for editing of the «Preface to New Edition» .

Front Cover: Penn’s Landing Square, Philadelphia 1968-1970. Picture by Antonino Saggio
Back Cover: «Cozumel», by Louis Sauer 1989, paper & torn photographs by Y. Thompson

2.
Table of Contents

Fo r e w o r d b y P a o l a C o p p o l a P i g n a t e l l i .............................................7
I n t r o d u c t i o n .........................................................................................................1 0
P r e f a c e t o t h e N e w E d i t i o n .....................................................................1 3

PART ONE:
ARCHITECTURAL PLANNING AND DESIGN

C h a pt e r O n e
Urban Rene w al in S ociety Hill

U r b a n I n i t i a t i v e s .............................................................................................1 7
C r i t e r i a f o r R e n e w a l .....................................................................................1 8
S a u e r ’ s R o l e ......................................................................................................2 2
K e y P l a y e r s i n t h e D e v e l o p m e n t P r o c e s s ....................................2 3
S a u e r ’ s Wo r k i n S o c i e t y H i l l .................................................................2 8

C h a pt e r Tw o
Expr es si v e Choi ces

P u b l i c a n d P r i v a t e ..........................................................................................3 8
S k i n a n d S p a c e s .................................................................................................4 0
C o n t i n u i t y a n d D i s c o n t i n u i t y ...............................................................4 6

C h a pt e r T h r ee
Rel ati onshi p w i th the s etti ng

U r b a n S e t t i n g .....................................................................................................4 8
B u i l t - u p S e t t i n g ................................................................................................5 0
N a t u r a l S e t t i n g .................................................................................................5 2

C h a pt e r Fou r
Res i denti al studi es and anal ysi s

L o w - r i s e H i g h - d e n s i t y H o u s i n g ..........................................................6 1
H i e r a r c h y o f S p a c e s ......................................................................................6 3
D i s t r i b u t i o n S y s t e m s ....................................................................................6 3
O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e D w e l l i n g U n i t s ...............................................6 6
P l a n n i n g M e t h o d o l o g y ................................................................................6 6

3.
PART TWO:
BUILDINGS IN SOCIETY HILL

C h a pt e r on e
B u t e n H o u s e .......................................................................................................... 7 3

C h a pt e r t w o
M c C l e n n e n H o u s e ............................................................................................. 8 1

C h a pt e r t h r e e
L o c u s t S t r e e t To w n h o u s e s ....................................................................... 9 1

C h a pt e r fou r
S e c o n d S t r e e t To w n h o u s e s .....................................................................1 0 1

C h a pt e r fi v e
Pe n n ’ s L a n d i n g S q u a r e ..............................................................................1 0 7

C h a pt e r s i x
H e a d H o u s e E a s t .............................................................................................1 2 3

C h a pt e r s e v en
N e w m a r k e t ...........................................................................................................1 2 9

C h a pt e r ei gh t
L o m b a r d C o n d o s .............................................................................................1 3 7

PART THREE:
CONCLUSION

C h a pt e r O n e
A B r i e f B i o g r a p h y ..........................................................................................1 4 7

C h a pt e r Tw o
S a u e r ’ s P l a c e i n t h e C o n t e m p o r a r y D e b a t e ...............................1 5 3

4.
APPENDIX:
MATERIAL ON SAUER’S WORK

P i c t u r e C r e d i t s ..................................................................................................1 5 8
A b b r e v i a t i o n s ......................................................................................................1 5 9
B i b l i o g r a p h y ........................................................................................................1 6 1

Wo r k fr o m 1 9 6 1 t o 1 9 7 9
U r b a n D e s i g n .....................................................................................................................1 6 9
M a s t e r P l a n s .......................................................................................................................1 6 9
H i g h - r i s e H o u s i n g ..........................................................................................................1 7 1
Wa l k - u p H o u s i n g ............................................................................................................1 7 1
To w n h o u s e s ...........................................................................................................................1 7 2
R e s i d e n c e s...............................................................................................................................1 7 6
C o m m u n i t y .............................................................................................................................1 7 9
R e t a i l ..........................................................................................................................................1 7 9
G a r a g e s .....................................................................................................................................1 8 0
I n d u s t r i a l ................................................................................................................................1 8 0
O t h e r ...........................................................................................................................................1 8 0

Published Writing

B o o k C h a p t e r s ....................................................................................................1 8 1
S e l e c t e d r e p o r t s ...............................................................................................1 8 2
C o n f e r e n c e s , L e c t u r e s & P a p e r s ........................................................1 8 4
D e s i g n a n d A c h i e v e m e n t Aw a r d s ........................................................1 9 0

5.
Giancarlo Guarda introduced me to Louis Sauer in 1982 and shortly afterwards I began
working on the idea of a book that would help to make Sauer better known in Italy. I
gathered and verified with Sauer a wealth of material and information, first in Pitts-
burgh, in 1984, then afterwards by correspondence, in November 1986, in Boulder, Colo-
rado, and finally Rome, in May 1987 when Sauer gave a series of lectures at the
University of Rome’s Department of Architectural and Urban Planning.
The Commission for Cultural Exchange between Italy and the United States and Omer
Akin, Head of the Department of Architecture at Carnegie-Mellon University, gave me the
opportunity to work with Sauer (when he was at Carnegie-Mellon University) as a
Teaching Assistant and Adjunct Instructor. As well, the Italian Ministry of Public Educa-
tion and the Italian Student Loan Fund provided me, at various times, with the financial
resources to sustain my research.
Carlo Melograni, my Italian Professor in the filed of Housing Architecture and my The-
sis advisor, Donatella Orazi, Luigi Gazzola, Vieri Quilici, Ruggero Lenci and Milena
Guarda all read the first draft of this book, and their observations helped me to reflect
upon different aspects of the more difficult questions and issues my research presented me
with.
Paola Coppola Pignatelli belief in the project right from the start gave me the confidence
and enthusiasm to complete it.

6.
Foreword

This book presents an architect who is not widely known in

Italy: Louis Sauer. Why do I write about Louis Sauer instead of
another one of the many outstanding contemporary American
architects? For a variety of reasons, the first and foremost is
Sauer’s commitment to urban renewal. That is, his commitment
to renewing and redeveloping rundown and neglected urban ar-
eas, in particular by replacing old buildings with new ones, and
doing so without succumbing to the temptation to have his build-
ings merely mimic their surroundings, or else to create such a
contrast as to stir controversy.
There are numerous rundown urban areas in Europe’s large
and small cities: run-down because of the patina and wear that
time has on things just as much as it has on living beings. But
they are run-down also because they have lost the identity that
local culture and history, whether recent or distant, originally
gave the place. The debate over new urban projects in built-up
cities is very much alive still today, and while Sauer’s work makes
a valuable contribution to that debate, we also hope that it will
have a practical, operative impact, precisely because of his sub-
jective, though never arbitrary interpretation of the urban setting
within which his work is located.
As well, we look at Sauer because he confronts the issue of
residential housing from a profoundly laypersons point of view;
that is, with an approach that is free of any preconceived type of
ideology or formalism. Also, he is reluctant to adopt whatever
may be merely fashionable and he avoids the «primadonna» pit-
falls that can happen to those caught up in the architectural star
system. Indeed, it is no coincidence that American critics have

7.
never given him his due, especially if we consider the fact that as
far back as 1964, a still very young Louis Sauer won the prestig-
ious national «Progressive Architecture» First Design Award.
And so it is to Antonio Saggio, the author of this book that is
given the honor to bring to public attention this architect, Louis
Sauer, an architect who tackles the issue of residential housing
like a determined social researcher, a «street architect» , if you
will, who performs door-to-door surveys on the culture of urban
living. Yet also, he is an architect who plans and designs the
spaces of daily life with the love of an ethnologist; diversifying
them, dividing and organizing their connections, their sources of
light, the views they look onto; lingering and dwelling upon the
interstitial spaces between housing units, patios, gardens, stair-
cases. In other words, he passionately attends to all that makes a
dwelling a «home» .
There is in Sauer’s search for answers a clear echo of the
Anglo-Saxon culture. But there is also that something extra that
Sauer takes from his lessons from Louis Kahn - lessons on the
essence of architecture, on the «sense of dwelling», (or as Kahn
might have said on the «institution of dwelling») that translates
into a clarity and transparency in Sauer’s architectural language
and into a refinement and elegance in his designs.
With architectural sector journalists increasingly interested
in «original» urban-related problems, and given their tendency to
scream and shout rather than use measured, reasoned, softer
words, this book is an unusual case. Unusual in its almost
manual-like wealth of rarely seen residential housing solutions,
which are, and will always be, useful in stimulating the invention
and creativeness of architects and planners working in the field of
low-rise high-density housing.
Low-rise high-density housing is a type that is unjustly un-
derused, both in low-cost public housing and in free market
housing. This is due mainly to a shortsighted preference and an
underlying economic misunderstanding that development costs
are lower for high-rise than for low-rise buildings. However, this
reasoning does not take into account the costs and the difficulties
to manage and maintain the ground level’s (so-called) green areas
and semi-public areas. We too often see these as rundown and
neglected areas that make an insult to civil and civilized living.

8.
 Sauer offers solutions for a comfortable American middle-
class that obviously cannot be proposed in the exact same form in
other countries We should note, however, that over the last dec-
ade a sort of standardization in behavior, needs and tastes, has
increasingly come to characterize western society, even though
these behaviors and cultural values are often divided into much
larger demographic income brackets in Europe than in the U.S.
Once people’s basic needs have been met, and this holds for
every social level, people are extremely clear in expressing de-
mands connected to their quality of life, their psychological and
physical well-being, peace of mind and the quality of the physical
environment. Recent studies show that there is a widespread de-
mand for housing that has a direct contact the ground, with na-
ture and provides for highly personalized interiors and spaces.
Inhabitants increasingly want to establish an affective link with
rooms for work at home, well equipped garages for family hob-
bies, and green open-spaces protected from dangers and traffic
noise. In other words, there is a demand for residences that can-
not be satisfied by identical apartments stacked one atop the
other. I spoke of manuals and excellent housing solutions. How-
ever, I would not want this to create the misunderstanding that
Sauer favors content to the detriment of form, or to interior spa-
tiality for walling off the street that would become a detriment of
the surrounding urban image. It is probably true that in Sauer’s
architecture, the building’s skin is «treated» differently than its
interior, but not in terms of quality. As one walks the streets of
the Philadelphia designed by Penn in the 17th century, Sauer’s
buildings stand out for the masterly way he calibrates architec-
tural composition and the varied playfulness of his solutions
which, through a complex body of intuitively defined rules, one
will find the very essence of Sauer’s field of action where he in-
terprets the reality of the setting and its surroundings.
This book, then, is an enjoyable, lively read, because it pro-
poses a profoundly democratic architecture that opens individu-
als’ minds, leaves room to the end-user’s aesthetic sensibility and
presupposes a curious, imagining heart.
Paola Coppola Pignatelli

9.
Preface to the New Edition

Twenty-five years have now passed since Un Architetto Ameri-

cano Louis Sauer was written in 1987, a long time indeed. When
this book was first published, in Aldo Quinti’s Officina edition, I
was a second year PhD student in Rome University «La
Sapienza». Paola Coppola Pignatelli was Head of the Depart-
ment of Architecture and Urban Design and PhD coordinator.
Now, I am the coordinator of the same PhD program in which I
enrolled 25 years ago. It is a pleasure for Louis and me to leave
Paola’s beautiful preface exactly as it was, in homage to Paola
and as a document of historic perspective. Sadly, Paola passed
away on August 2, 2010.
The new edition of this book is needed for several reasons.
The original book was published only in Italian. This edition now
makes it available for the first time in English. When writing the
first edition of this book, my perspective was not only that of a
PhD scholar in the field of low-rise high-density housing. Since I
was also working as a professional architect, theory and practice
intertwine in the text.
The book introduces Sauer’s research areas, the remarkable
prescience and vision of his work, the originality and vigor of his
designs, and the importance of his projects at Society Hill, in
Philadelphia between 1963 and 1979. My original goal for the
book extended beyond even this. I hoped then, and now, that
knowledge of Sauer’s work can help stimulate discussions of pro-
jects built in historic city centers or, more generally, in built-up
urban areas. Sauer anticipated several current fields of research.
For example, his use of passive environment systems in Penn’s
Landing Square is exemplary. In his Head House project he pro-

10.
posed a mixed use development that was well ahead of its time.
Today the mixed use project is now a key strategy for today’s city.
The 1987 Italian edition of the book included a chapter
called “Indications for the Italian Context”. A few years ago I met
an architect from Friuli’s region in the north of Italy who had just
completed a project based on Sauer’s principles. He told me that
his PhD thesis in 2007 on high-density and low-rise housing was
based primarily on the work of Sauer whom he had discovered
through the Italian version of this book.
Here was an Italian architect, building a little Penn’s Land-
ing Square in Friuli! This is exactly what I had hoped would
happen when I wrote the book. At least in one case, my intention
was realized. Perhaps there are others. The transformation of
Sauer’s lessons into reality through the mediation of my work, is
what architectural writing is about. I hope that this may continue
with our PhD students. The importance of Sauer’s approach to
design deserves to be emulated much more.

***
As far as city design is concerned, the days of open land or
ideas of the vast open territories of the “Far West” are long over.
We are, if anything, in the “Inner West”. Thus, the main idea of
this book which remains absolutely central today, so many years
after its first publication, is that the city must stop its infinite ex-
pansion and try to operate inside its "Urban Voids": saturating,
densifying, partially replacing and stopping the indefinite and
unceasing urban sprawl into the open country side.
Colleagues who teach in China tell me that they continue to
use the original Italian edition of this book, because it provides a
set of possible solutions for that country - a set of solutions of
“densification” that does not include the violent demolition of the
existing fabric that unfortunately is still too common there.
The theme of inner city interventions, pushes urban design-
ers to consider issues which, in summary, are:
1. Finding adequate projects to achieve desired urban density
- about 300-450 inhabitants per hectare (c. 125-190 inhabitants
per acre or about 35-50 dwellings per acre) - with low compact
buildings that fit inside the urban fabric or compact develop-
ments immediately outside the city.

11.
 2. Studying the residential “soft” edges of development, so
that everyday life transitions harmoniously from the very private
to the most public. These areas present many design issues that
require specific attention in order to understand the relationships
and characteristics.
3. Responding to the diversification of user lifestyles which,
in recent years, have shifted dramatically away from the tradi-
tional nuclear family.
4. Studying design techniques that allow, on the one hand,
the standardization of construction and, on the other, the partici-
pation of the different actors involved in the design, construction
and habitation processes.
5. Investigating smart implementation of passive and active
environmental systems.
From this perspective, the foundations laid by the work of
Sauer has programmatic relevance. It must be stressed, finally,
that the experience of Society Hill, with what Sauer teaches
through this project and others on the reality of an actual urban
transformation, plays at levels that goes well beyond the current
culture and practice of architects. What he showed us more than
25 years ago - even in stratified contexts from the historical point
of view - is the relevant role of the promotion, coordination and
leadership of public administration, the role of private developers
and architects to design and build with the values of livability,
functionality and the aesthetics of a new architecture.
In 2010 I published “Architecture and Modernity. From
Bauhaus to the IT Revolution” (Architettura e Modernità. Dal Bau-
haus alla Rivoluzione Informatica, Carocci). Five pages in this 500-
page book are dedicated to Sauer. His work is preceded by the
great experience of Atelier 5 in Europe. After Sauer, Aldo Rossi
is presented. In this framework, it is easy to see how much of
Sauer’s work not only was important during the 60s and 70s of
the last century, but how it is still vital, important and necessary
today.

12.
Introduction

As part of the urban renewal programs launched by the

United States Federal government in the 1950s, the city of
Philadelphia started work on the important rehabilitation of the
Society Hill area. In less than three decades the neighborhood
was completely renewed, thanks to a strategy that involved, on
the one hand, recovering the urban fabric and restoring the area’s
historic buildings, and on the other, constructing new buildings.
Administered by the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority,
the new work for Society Hill was awarded through public com-
petition and involved a diverse group of private developers and
architects. As a result, a certain number of commercial, parking
and leisure structures, and, above all, many housing projects
were restored or built. The successful integration of existing
buildings and new construction improved the quality of the ur-
ban area so much so that it literally transformed a slum neigh-
borhood into one of the most interesting and successful examples
of urban renewal in the world.
Louis Sauer is the architect who worked on Society Hill with
the greatest continuity. While he was a student, he was employed
by Philadelphia’s Department of Planning working on the City’s
redevelopment proposal for the Federal government, assisting in
historic housing surveys, and designing alternative site plans.
Later, after he started his architectural practice, he designed 13
projects in Society Hill including a retail shopping mall, a motel,
cinema and numerous residential buildings. These projects, util-
ized, for the first time on a large scale, a «low-rise high-density»
design strategy. Sauer rapidly became one of the most well
known architect in the field of housing.

13.
 His work was a decisive factor in the redevelopment of the
Society Hill neighborhood because it enhanced and increased the
value of the area with innovative solutions that became an unde-
niable point of reference for later projects.
His design research has marked an important stage in con-
temporary American architecture. What stands out is the variety
of the residential solutions; the architectural and formal quality of
the buildings; the intelligent relationship between his designs and
the history of the places and their surroundings; the ability to in-
terpret the themes offered by the different urban scales and the
originality of his cultural and professional position, aimed at de-
fining in a concrete manner the architect’s role in the processes of
environmental transformation.
The first part of this book summarizes the most important
themes in Sauer’s architectural research, from his relationship
with the context to housing typology and distribution innova-
tions. The second part, presents in detail the design aspects that
have marked Sauer’s architectural projects in Society Hill. The
final chapter is devoted to the aspects of this architect’s work that
could serve as a model to stimulate future architectural projects
in other cities and in other parts of the world.

14.
 Chapter Four
Residential Studies and Analysis

Sauer’s studies on housing distribution systems, of different

unit combinations, of residential planning methods and of re-
search into residential density levels best suited to different urban
situations are – along with the themes and issues described above
– the aspects that most strongly distinguish his work. These stud-
ies are the specialized «instruments» that he uses to achieve, in
such a complex field as that of housing, a synthesis and articulate
understanding that allows him to obtain the results expressive of
the housing genre and of the qualities suggested in the site’s con-
text. They form a body of knowledge and experience that give
substance and skill to his architectural work.
From this perspective, Sauer’s position in the field of housing
specialists is an original one. Despite the fact that he operates us-
ing methodologies that are quite sophisticated from the viewpoint
of having control over residential planning, he is neither a
methods-based architect, like Habraken, nor a housing philoso-
pher, like Alexander; rather, Sauer is an architect who takes
known, refined techniques and bends them to the overall, con-
crete vision of his project.

Low-rise High-density Housing

Sauer’s low-rise high-density residential housing strategy

was conceived to operate within existing city contexts, urban
grids and individual properties.
The major themes concerning metropolitan expansion, which
the original Modern Movement studies were aimed at, have been
replaced by Sauer with a greater focus on the links between the
existing city and proposed development; in other words, he has a
greater focus on consolidating the existing urban fabric. The pre-
vailing theme in architectural planning has become that of «con-
tinuity», which is established through the creation of a series of
spaces, both inside and outside a complex, which form roads,
squares, entrances, parking areas, and so on. In planning low-rise
housing, it is possible to achieve net residential land density

61.
greater than 50 d.u./acre (125/hectare), which is comparable to
density levels that can be obtained through the use of well
spaced, high-rise buildings. (Net density is a measure of housing
strictly within the boundaries of private property including its
yards, other open spaces, walkways and other amenities.)
In Society Hill, thanks directly to Sauer’s work, this type of
solution can be found in a number of different architectural pro-
jects. The case of Penn’s Landing Square is exemplary. Sauer’s
complex solution for the aggregation and planimetric combina-
tion of the housing units (fig. 60 and fig. 126), with each building
limited to a maximum height of three stories, housed 376 inhabi-
tants in an area of 2.3 acres (one hectare). The resulting popula-
tion density of slightly more than 174 inhabitants per acre is es-
pecially high, considering that these are luxury-housing units and
offer approximately 35 square meters of floor space per inhabi-
tant. This density level was achieved by arranging the housing
units, in some cases, very close to each other and, in other cases,
farther apart.
The application of some of the early modern studies on how
people live has been eclipsed. These early studies focused on such
aspects as having uniform solar orientation, a constant distance
between buildings, a clear and distinct separation of all traffic,
the homogeneity and consequent rigidity of the housing unit dis-
tribution system. In a low-rise high-density housing project, some
of these findings are transformed from rigid assumptions on
which the residential project must be created, into planning req-
uisites.
Uniform solar orientation, for instance, rather than being a
fixed goal of the project, becomes just one of the many aspects to
focus on during planning. So in trying to achieve uniform solar
orientation, progress towards achieving this is constantly meas-
ured against spatial requirements and uses, the characteristics of
the spaces and pathways, and the design of the units, all in a
complex give-and-take with regards to goals that are often in di-
rect conflict with each other.

62.
 Hierarch y of Spaces

The low-rise high-density model eclipses the formula for the

public use of land as something that separates buildings. Instead
of designing the buildings» forms like prisms suspended over an
isotropic, homogeneous, public space, Sauer’s designs center on a
careful study of the relationship between housing units and the
site. As a result, residential units are anchored to the ground by
means of interior areas that enrich the project and mediate the
relationship between public and private. One of the characteristic
aspects of work on low-rise high-density housing is the functional
scale of the interior in the residential complex. In Sauer’s pro-
jects, there is a hierarchy in the use of spaces, which range from
the public space at street level to the common spaces of a group
of units, from the semi-common spaces of the entrance-way to the
semi-private spaces of the fenced gardens, the interior patios and
the terraces. Having interior areas with different inhabitant char-
acteristics allows maintenance costs to be kept down and, at the
same time, ensures spatial variety.

Distribution Systems

Providing units with semi-private spaces requires direct con-

necting to the ground level of as many housing units as possible,
a concept that turns traditional distribution systems completely
upside-down. In low-rise high-density housing, planners adopt
articulated distribution systems that replace the homogeneity of
housing types - row houses, gallery houses, high-rise housing -
with aggregations that are more mixed and varied. In some cases
the upper levels duplicate the system of the street at ground level
(Head House East), though more often private systems of access
have stairways (Lombard Condos and Penn’s Landing) either
inside or outside the housing units so as to be able to serve the
upper floors from the ground level. In particular, this latter sys-
tem provides an ample planimetric flexibility and a diversified
range of spaces found in the complex described above.

63.
Fig. 61. Infill studies for Washington Square West, Philadelphia, 1964. The plan also
includes Atrium Court (see Fig. 19-20) and two other urban infill townhouse projects.
Fig. 62. First floor plan; Seventh and Lombard Courthouses, Philadelphia, 1964. The
project creates a high-density urban infill.
Fig. 63. Second and third floor plans; Seventh and Lombard Courthouses,
Philadelphia, 1964.

64.
65.
 Organization of the Dwelling Units

The low-rise high-density housing model naturally impacts

upon the planning of single housing units. Bathrooms, for in-
stance, have forced ventilation (a fact that is widely accepted to-
day) and the kitchen is almost always situated in direct relation to
the dining/living room area, from which the kitchen receives its
only source of natural lighting. Housing units larger than 70
square meters have to be arranged on multiple floors, one atop
the other, and the system of private access to the units requires
the use of a large part of the front facade for the stairs. In order
to make it as functional as possible, the facade must be used as a
«service area» containing not only the stairs and entrance, but
also the bathrooms and kitchen. As a result, the unit is clearly
divided into a «served area», i.e., living room and bedrooms, and
a «service area», which we can define as an area for circulation
and services. This separation of the two areas not only solves the
problem of how to distribute interior space, but also helps to
achieve a planimetric arrangement based on placing the buildings
farther apart or closer together. The blind front service area of a
row of houses can, in fact, be positioned nearer to the open,
served back area of a parallel row of houses, which helps to avoid
privacy problems.
The restrictions or limits deriving from this complex layout
lead to situations where the quality of the single housing unit, in
the row house arrangement, is not always able to achieve optimal
levels of ventilation and day lighting. As is widely known, and as
we have seen above in regards to the planimetric organization,
choosing between the different requisites is the key to any resi-
dential housing design. Sauer’s professional and technical skill, as
demonstrated in numerous projects, consists in his ability to si-
multaneously control and oversee all the different aspects of a
project in order to achieve his final architectural goals.

Planning Methodology

For Sauer, the key element in a residential housing design is

not the individual dwelling unit, but rather a «housing package»

66.
Fig. 64. The unit and building package; Oak Hill Estates, Lower Marion PA. 1971-
1972.

that contains multiple units aggregated vertically and horizontally

(Spring Pond Apartments, fig. 65-66). These «housing packages»
usually consist of units laid out in an L-shape both in plan and in
section (Penn’s Landing Square, Lombard Condos, Atrium

67.
Court, fig. 31 and Pastorius Mews fig. 67-71). Compared to a
rectangular layout, the L-shaped layout opens two additional fa-
çade exposures, which allow the architect to create very diverse
combinations of apartment sizes.
The diverse aggregations and combinations of the housing
package, not those of the individual unit itself, allows the archi-
tect to arrange the residential complex according to the needs of
the spaces, the interior planimetric linking adjacencies and the
external relations with the city (Oak Hill, fig. 64). In this layout,
the housing unit is no longer the object in question, per se. Its
configuration is dictated, right from the start of the design, by the
relationship that Sauer wants to establish with the other units in
the housing package, in order to determine the overall system of
this specific residential housing design.
Clearly, this methodological solution is completely different
from the solution adopted in the initial studies of the modern
movement on how people live. Essentially, the traditional mod-
ernist relationship between unit and building is replaced by a
«triad» relationship between unit, housing package and building.
To summarize, Sauer connects in his designs the overall pro-
ject setting together with the graduated scales for interior room
privacy, while adopting a distribution system (for the most part
directly from the ground level). In doing this, he expands the de-
sign method based on the housing package (rather than on the
typical housing unit) as the basic element in the overall housing
design.
In the points described above, there is a systematic extension
of the knowledge and themes of the early Modern Movement:
from urban expansion to construction in the built-up city; from
high-rise, well-spaced buildings to low-rise buildings within the
urban fabric; from homogeneous distribution systems to mixed
distribution systems; from an equidistant arrangement of build-
ings to planimetric arrangements based on placing buildings
closer together or farther apart; from an approach based on a
multiplication of the unit to an approach based on the relation-
ships between the unit, the housing package and the building.

68.
 16,4ft

Fig. 65-66. Spring Pond Apartments, Painted Post NY, 1966 Floor plans of two
apartments; Housing package for the cells and buildings

69.
Fig. 67-71. Pastorius Mews, Pastorius
Lane (Germantown) Philadelphia,
1964. Studies for a system of housing
units, Ground floor plan, Second floor
plan, View of design model.

70.
 PART TWO:
BUILDINGS IN SOCIETY HILL

Fig. 72. Plan of Society Hill illustrating Sauer’s commissioned work in Society Hill.
Of these thirteen projects, ten have been built (•).

1. Head House Cinema 5. Penn’s View

2. Lombard Condos•
3. Head House East &
3. Newmarket•
4. Twin Houses•&
4. Grant House• &
4. Morrison House•
6. McClennen House•
7. Second Street Townhouses•
8. Penn’s Landing Square•
9. Locust Street Townhouses•
10. Penn’s Landing Motel

71
Fig. 73. The Buten House, 1920 Naudain Street, Philadelphia PA. 1962-1964.
Sauer’s sketch of the existing building & cross-section of the redeveloped buildings.
The dotted area refers to the owner’s apartment, the dashed to the rental apartment.
Fig. 74. Sectional perspective view.
Fig. 75. View along Naudain Street, the Buten house is in front of the two trees.

72.