Open Form Architecture Blog

THE CONTEXT OF LOS ANGELES

“When I first arri­ved in Los An­ge­les, I was sur­pri­sed by the size and den­sity within the re­si­den­tial lots,” says Swiss-born archi­tect Ro­ger Ku­rath, of Cul­ver City’s De­sign 21. It is not unu­sual to see se­ve­ral single-family hou­ses pla­ced on one long, na­rrow site. This type of den­sity is of­ten the re­sult of the inc­rea­sing po­pu­la­tion Los An­ge­les is experiencing.

 

(Du­plex with a se­pa­rate of­fice, Santa Mo­nica)

Ac­cor­ding to the U.S. Cen­sus Bu­reau, from 2000 to 2005, im­mi­gra­tion inc­rea­sed by 16% to a cu­rrent to­tal of 35.7 mi­llion in U.S. Mo­reo­ver, the ma­jo­rity of America’s im­mi­grants come from Me­xico, an es­ti­ma­ted 27.5 mi­llion in 2005, com­pa­red to 10.4 mi­llion Chi­nese and 5.8 mi­llion In­dians.[1] By a wide mar­gin, the La­tino im­mi­grants choose to live in the State of Ca­li­for­nia and even more par­ti­cu­larly, they choose the city of Los An­ge­les. In fact, the La­tino po­pu­la­tion (4,613,450) is al­most equal to the White po­pu­la­tion (4,968,846) in Los An­ge­les.[2] In ad­di­tion, mi­llions of new­co­mers are ex­pec­ted to arrive in the next few years. This sud­den and ever ri­sing po­pu­la­tion growth has ge­ne­ra­ted an evol­ving ur­ban and archi­tec­tu­ral amal­gam as well as a uni­que me­tro­po­li­tan phe­no­me­non. There are more and more op­por­tu­ni­ties for den­sity in­side the city li­mits and ul­ti­ma­tely this si­tua­tion has be­gun to change the image, iden­tity and form of the archi­tec­tu­ral landscape.

(Trai­ler pla­ced on a roof te­rrace, Venice)

Los An­ge­les was once de­fi­ned as a re­si­den­tial city, but to­day is be­co­ming more of a me­tro­po­lis. As Jef­frey Inaba and Pe­ter Zell­ner state: “Los An­ge­les is un­der­going a ci­vic re­nais­sance. It is com­ple­ting a de­cade of archi­tec­tu­ral com­mis­sions that by all ac­counts are ma­jor pu­blic achie­ve­ments (the Getty Cen­ter, the Getty Vi­lla, the Los An­ge­les Cathe­dral, Dis­ney Con­cert Hall and the Cal­trans Buil­ding) […], but the more the city co­mes to ap­pro­xi­mate the scale and form of the world’s other me­tro­po­li­tan cen­ter, the less spe­ci­fic Los An­ge­les is be­co­ming as an ur­ban idea.”[3]

(Los An­ge­les Cathedral)

 

(Dis­ney Con­cert Hall)

With ap­pro­xi­ma­tely 260 di­ver­si­fied areas, Los An­ge­les can be seen as an enor­mous ur­ban vi­llage without an ur­ban cen­ter. Each dis­trict is fairly dis­con­nec­ted and cul­tu­rally they are dis­tinc­tive com­mu­ni­ties. As Michael Webb ob­ser­ves: “Each neigh­bourhood be­gins to ac­quire a sense of plu­ra­lity de­ri­ving from dif­fe­rent cul­tu­ral he­ri­tage.”[4] Within this de­mo­graphic growth and the mix of cul­tu­res, Los An­ge­les is en­te­ring into an era that calls for an archi­tec­ture of dif­fe­rence. In the end, the uni­que cul­ture of Los An­ge­les is crea­ted mainly by di­verse cul­tu­ral in­fluence in the de­sign of re­si­den­tial archi­tec­ture. This con­text starts to change the way archi­tects un­ders­tand the city and, as we will see, has an im­por­tant im­pact on the de­sign of housing.

Since the ave­rage cost of a house inc­rea­sed form $209,000 in 2000 to nearly $480,000 in 2005, Los An­ge­les is fa­cing a se­rious pro­blem with hou­sing af­for­da­bi­lity. The City’s hou­sing pri­ces have ri­sen so high that they not only sur­pass the wa­ges of wor­king fa­mi­lies, but th­rea­ten the City’s con­ti­nued eco­no­mic growth.[5] As a re­sult, many ho­meow­ners have ad­ded an ad­di­tio­nal dwe­lling on their pro­perty to ac­com­mo­date re­la­ti­ves or ren­ters and to take ad­van­tage of an ex­tra in­come. On the other hand, there is a ten­dency to see more and more over-sized apart­ment com­ple­xes stran­gely si­tua­ted within single-family neigh­bourhoods. Little by little, these large pro­jects not only trans­for­med the shape of the me­tro­po­lis, but also fai­led to un­ders­tand and ho­nour the archi­tec­tu­ral iden­tity that is the sin­gle fa­mily house as the base unit of ur­ba­nism which has for­med the spe­ci­fic cul­ture of Los An­ge­les. Thus, peo­ple need to re­cog­nize that the small scale re­si­den­tial work and me­dium den­sity in­fill is not only a bet­ter so­lu­tion, even eco­lo­gi­cally, for hou­sing the ri­sing po­pu­la­tion of LA, but also has an im­por­tant im­pact on the image and ur­ba­nism of the city.

(Steel struc­ture pla­ced over an exis­ting bun­ga­low in or­der to build a se­cond dwe­lling, Venice)

(Ren­tal units pla­ced above an exis­ting ga­rage, Mar Vista)

In a cir­cums­tance like the one at the Reitz Re­si­dence, where a small 1920s bun­ga­low sits alone on its pro­perty, most de­ve­lo­pers would tear down the exis­ting struc­ture to de­ve­lop the ma­xi­mum buil­ding block and thus, make the grea­test pro­fit. Ho­we­ver, the ow­ner and the archi­tect, Ro­ger Ku­rath, took a dif­fe­rent view of the si­tua­tion: “I wan­ted to create a re­si­dence that would sym­bo­lize an ur­ban li­festyle, while pre­ser­ving the old in­dus­trial vibe of the neigh­bourhood.” In kee­ping with his goal, Ku­rath kept the exis­ting bun­ga­low on the street side, built the ad­di­tio­nal house at the back of the pro­perty and pla­ced a new pu­blic space to link the two con­tras­ting struc­tu­res and thus crea­ted a tight ur­ban as­sembly.

(Reitz Re­si­dence, exis­ting bun­ga­low, Cul­ver City)

(Reitz Re­si­dence, new re­si­dence pla­ced at the back of the property)

PUBLIC SPACE IN LOS ANGELES

Com­pa­red to other Ame­ri­can me­tro­po­li­ses like Chi­cago, Hous­ton or New York, Los An­ge­les is an archi­tec­tu­rally ex­pe­ri­men­tal city. For over a cen­tury, archi­tects arri­ved from all around the world to ex­plore re­si­den­tial de­sign. These archi­tects thus con­tri­bu­ted to the de­ve­lop­ment of the so­cial and ur­ban rea­lity of LA. Ho­we­ver, the uni­que cha­rac­ter of Los An­ge­les co­mes from mi­llions of li­be­ra­ted, but iso­la­ted re­si­dents who did not have to fo­llow any re­gu­la­tions and con­se­quently have ad­ded their own pre­sence to their dwe­lling and neigh­bourhood. Thus, more in­te­rest was de­vo­ted in the cons­truc­tion of single-family house than any emi­nent pu­blic buil­dings or ci­vic spa­ces and even­tually, the per­cep­tion of each in­di­vi­dual fai­led to de­ve­lop great open space. Ho­we­ver, since the ex­plo­sive growth of new­co­mers, the na­tu­ral and man made lands­cape be­gins to change. Michael Webb, an archi­tec­tu­ral cri­tic, ar­gues: “The mix of cul­ture has pro­du­ced a chao­tic sprawl of ge­ne­ric dwe­llings with vul­gar dis­plays.”[6] Des­pite this ge­ne­ral sen­ti­ment, exam­ples in some com­mu­ni­ties, such as the La­tino, have hel­ped to re­con­fi­gure aban­do­ned parks, squa­res and other pu­blic spa­ces. In the lo­cal La­tin cul­ture, so­cial ac­ti­vi­ties be­gin in the daily exchan­ges that oc­cur in the plaza, con­trary to the ge­ne­ral rule in Los An­ge­les that every out­door space starts with the car.[7] Los An­ge­les is cha­rac­te­ri­zed by its trans­por­ta­tion sys­tems and net­works. The cars and free­ways do­mi­nate the image of the city and strongly de­fine the mea­ning of the pu­blic space. So, if for most An­ge­le­nos daily exchange ori­gi­na­tes with the in­te­rior space of their car, con­se­quently one could say that any buil­ding ty­po­logy in LA be­gins with the po­si­tion of the car in architecture.

(Los An­ge­les Freeways)

The Reitz Re­si­dence

In or­der to build an ad­di­tio­nal dwe­lling, Ku­rath nee­ded to pro­vide, by law, four co­ve­red par­king spots; two for the exis­ting house and two for the new cons­truc­tion. Since the pro­perty is si­tua­ted in a cul-de-sac and street par­king is pos­si­ble, the archi­tect re­fu­sed to co­ver up the ground sur­face with par­king spa­ces or an enc­lo­sed ga­rage, like most peo­ple would do. Ins­tead, the archi­tect de­ci­ded to re­flect on the mea­ning and the func­tion of the ga­rage ty­po­logy. By jug­gling with the buil­ding ter­mi­no­logy, Ku­rath fi­nally rai­sed the new cons­truc­tion 10 feet above ground lea­ving the space un­der­neath for the mi­ni­mum amount of par­king spots re­qui­red by the zo­ning code. Ho­we­ver, since the au­to­mo­bi­les of the dif­fe­rent fa­mi­lies will mostly be par­ked on the pu­blic tho­rough­fare, Ku­rath con­ver­ted the co­ve­red space into a multi-functional pu­blic room. The same way the La­tino ho­meow­ners trans­form dead ur­ban spa­ces into con­vi­vial so­cial pla­ces,[8] Ku­rath trans­for­med an or­di­nary par­king space to pro­duce a plea­sant and re­la­xed ex­te­rior stage for so­cial gathe­ring. This new kind of space be­co­mes an ur­ban ma­ni­fes­ta­tion of what is hap­pe­ning is the Los An­ge­les society.

 

 

(Reitz Re­si­dence)

Ho­we­ver, the idea of lif­ting the house above ground so as to place the ga­rage un­der­neath is a com­mon tech­ni­que that con­ti­nues, to­day, to shape the form of se­ve­ral small and large apart­ment com­ple­xes in Los An­ge­les. These par­king spa­ces, which are nor­mally closed-in on th­ree si­des, of­ten make the space feel gloomy, un­com­for­ta­ble and un­prac­ti­cal for any so­cial in­te­rac­tions. Ho­we­ver, the pu­blic space de­sig­ned at the Reitz Re­si­dence ge­ne­ra­tes a dif­fe­rent en­vi­ron­ment. The area un­der the struc­ture is com­ple­tely open to the ad­ja­cent lands­cape ma­king the ex­te­rior space brigh­ter, agreea­ble and func­tio­nal for va­rious so­cial ac­ti­vi­ties. For ins­tance, when the house was com­ple­ted, Ku­rath ca­rried out a hap­pe­ning to pro­mote the pro­ject and so­mething unu­sual hap­pe­ned: “Ty­pi­cally, in this kind of event, af­ter vi­si­ting the buil­ding and ta­king a look at the best views, peo­ple im­me­dia­tely leave the pro­perty. But, that hot sum­mer day, peo­ple were not lea­ving. Ins­tead, they were all gathe­ring and ac­ting with each other in this pro­tec­ted open space. This si­tua­tion was a spe­cial ex­pe­rience for me. Even if peo­ple were ou­tside the house, I felt that they were still con­nec­ted with it.” Af­ter all, this sce­na­rio pro­ves that it is pos­si­ble to bring, on a small re­si­den­tial lot, an ur­ban life that ack­now­led­ges the ex­ter­nal, such as the su­rroun­ding lands­cape and the so­cial life bet­ween the two fa­mi­lies. Con­se­quently, the place nor­mally as­so­cia­ted with the au­to­mo­bile is re-domesticated, crea­ting new te­rri­to­ries that force peo­ple to com­mu­ni­cate and in­te­ract with each other.

 

(Ty­pi­cal apart­ments with co­ve­red par­king space below )

 

 

(The area un­der the re­si­dence is com­ple­tely open to the ad­ja­cent lands­cape ma­king the space brig­ter agreea­ble and func­tio­nal for va­rious ac­ti­vi­ties.)

THE INFLUENCE OF THE URBAN LANDSCAPE IN THE SPATIAL ORGANISATION

The Reitz Re­si­dence

Lo­ca­ted in Cul­ver City, the Reitz Re­si­dence is su­rroun­ded by an in­te­res­ting in­dus­trial his­tory. Since the 1920s, Cul­ver City has been a sig­ni­fi­cant cen­ter for mo­tion pic­ture and la­ter te­le­vi­sion pro­duc­tion, in part be­cause it was the home of MGM Stu­dios. Also, it was the head­quar­ters for the Hughes Airc­raft Com­pany from the 1930s to the 1980s.[9] Since much of the archi­tec­ture de­ve­lo­ped in the re­si­den­tial areas fea­tu­res small hou­ses on small lots which have not chan­ged in de­ca­des, it be­came im­por­tant for Ku­rath to bring back this fee­ling of an in­dus­trial age. To do so, he crea­ted a loft space; a sim­ple empty box that re­fers to the mo­vie stu­dios and wa­rehou­ses that for­med the ini­tial ur­ban fa­bric of the city. Ho­we­ver, com­pa­red to these large scale in­dus­trial buil­dings which of­ten dis­re­gard their en­vi­ron­ment, the po­si­tion of the Reitz Re­si­dence as well as its spa­tial or­ga­ni­sa­tion is ins­pi­red by the green space that su­rrounds the property.

 

 

 

(Green space sou­rroun­ding the pro­perty)

 

Once in­side, ele­va­ted in the air, the oc­cu­pants are pro­tec­ted from the ur­ban ani­ma­tion of the street be­low. From there, the archi­tect opens up the en­tire façade, which ex­tends the en­tire width of the pro­perty, to give each com­mu­nal space within the house, such as the li­ving room, din­ning room and kitchen, a uni­que view of the su­rroun­ding tree fo­liage em­bed­ded along the street. Like an ur­ban ver­sion of the Vi­lla Sa­voy, the Reitz re­si­dence uti­li­zes the view as a way to en­gage and con­nect with the green spa­ces in the city. “In­side the house, the oc­cu­pants are not fee­ling that they are li­ving in an ur­ban area, ins­tead, they are ex­pe­rien­cing a sec­lu­ded life in­side a tree house,” says Kurath.

 

(Each com­mu­nal space has a uni­que view of the su­rroun­ding tree fo­liage em­bed­ded along the street.)

On the op­po­site side of the house, the pri­vate spa­ces, such as the be­drooms and bath­rooms are lin­ked and hid­den behind a long wall that di­vi­des the pri­vate and pu­blic do­main of the house, while in­cor­po­ra­ting all the kitchen uti­li­ties. De­sig­ned as a con­ti­nued piece of fur­ni­ture, the cen­tral wall is en­ti­rely dis­con­nec­ted from the cei­ling ma­king the room feel big­ger while main­tai­ning ade­quate pri­vacy for the be­drooms si­tua­ted at the back. Thus, the na­tu­ral and man-made sc­reens are hand­led to shield the oc­cu­pants not only form the ur­ban ac­ti­vi­ties, but also from the ac­ti­vi­ties in­side the house. The archi­tect also used the space left bet­ween the cei­ling and the wall to lo­cate a se­quence of ope­ra­ble sky­lights to bring na­tu­ral light th­rough both side of the par­ti­tions, while crea­ting an ef­fi­cient sys­tem to na­tu­rally ven­ti­late the house. In the end, the spa­tial lo­gic of the dwe­lling is de­ve­lo­ped around the idea of crea­ting an open space where there is no boun­dary bet­ween the pro­grams. One way to un­ders­tand the in­te­rior archi­tec­ture of the Reitz Re­si­dence is to vi­sua­lize a room with a va­riety of fur­ni­ture that can ea­sily be mo­ved to or­ga­nize a dif­fe­rent en­vi­ron­ment. To achieve this at­mosphere, Ku­rath pla­ced all the struc­tu­ral com­po­nents in the pe­riphe­ral walls so to eli­mi­nate the in­te­rior bea­ring struc­ture par­ti­tions, ma­king the in­ner space as fle­xi­ble as pos­si­ble. Thus, the in­te­rior walls are not only used to freely out­line a mix­ture of fluc­tua­ting zo­nes, but also to ex­press more free­dom in the spa­tial or­ga­ni­za­tion of the house

(Cen­tral wall with sky­lights above)

(The pri­vate spa­ces are lin­ked and hid­den behind a long wall that di­vi­des the pri­vate and pu­blic do­main of the house)

---

[1] http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_08_17/us/census_data_increase.htm

[2]
U.S. Cen­sus Bureau

[3] Jef­frey Inaba & Pe­ter Zell­ner, Wha­te­ver Hap­pens to LA? Archi­tec­tu­ral and Ur­ban Ex­pe­ri­ments 1970–1990, 2005, pp.10–11

[4] Michael Webb, Brave New Hou­ses, Ad­ven­ture in Southern Ca­li­for­nia Li­ving, 2003, pp.8–11

[5]http://housingcrisisla.ucla.edu/Master.cfm?Page=TaskForceReport/Main.cfm&Content=TaskForceReport.cfm

[6] Michael Webb, Brave New Hou­ses, Ad­ven­ture in Southern Ca­li­for­nia Li­ving, 2003, pp.8–11

[7] Hank Ko­ning & Ju­lie Ei­zen­berg, Wha­te­ver Hap­pens to LA? Archi­tec­tu­ral and Ur­ban Ex­pe­ri­ments 1970–1990, 2005, pp.27

[8] Mike Da­vis, Ma­gi­cal Ur­ba­nism, La­ti­nos Rein­vent the U.S. City, 2001, pp.65

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culver_City%2C_California