1) Single family detached houses have least land use and infrastructural efficiency as compared to the semi-detached and the town house typologies. This is primarily due to the large plot frontage that the single family detached typology demands.
2) Compared to slide 1. clustering the houses shows space gained, as well as economical use of infrastructure.
3) Demographic changes in the society towards smaller families and the demand for affordable social housing makes the compact town house an attractive option for urban housing.
4) Several town house prototypes have been explored in Western Europe. One such prototype is the "bungalow" town house. As an attached unit, the single-level town house has distinct merits. Side yards are eliminated. Smaller plot frontage reduces infrastructure required. Common walls between houses reduce extra building surface required as well as energy loss. All these result in greater economy. Individuality of the house type is slightly compromised.
5 ) Sea Ranch, 1965. Moore, Lyndon, Turnbull and Whitaker Built on a Californian sea-shore houses were designed as a cluster . Although each dwelling is different in design, similar redwood siding and shed roofs lend harmony to this development. Each home has a distinctive view of the ocean, access to common ground, good orientation, protection from the wind and screening from the highway.
6) Joseph Esherick's houses in '60ies
7) Row House in Denmark. Individual rooms are small, but large family and children's play zones are provided. Separate access enable a part of the house to be rented out when the family is small and does not require the extra space. Thus the house can modulate sizes as per requirements of the occupants.
8) The "linked" town house. Adjacent dwelling units are attached to each other only by garages. This helps in maintaining individual identity of each house. The garage also provides a direct access to the yard behind. The space provided for the garage can also be used for other purposes like an extra bath or kitchen space if the occupants desire.
9) Charleston Place. Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. This town house type was inspired by the traditional Charleston houses with side courtyards and porches. Houses are two storey and are shielded in the front by a one storey structure which can be used as a garage or an additional living space. Access to the porch behind is on a brick paved pedestrian lane. These linked houses have all the attributes of the court-garden houses as well.
10) Charleston Place. Florida. Painted in pastel hues, the condominium homes are individually identified. Slide also shows different uses of the garage space by different users.
11) Charleston Place. The rose walk. Pedestrian brick paving with rose arbors leading to the internal porch.
12) Linked town-house typology adopted by a developer. Individual identity of the house is maintained by the differing height of the garage.
13) Chelsea Place. Clustered house types around green cul-de-sac.
14) Richelian Place. Clustered housing.
15) Town Houses, Philadelphia, 1958. I.M. Pei and associates. Early example of a contemporary urban town house development which revived the spirit of Georgian town house. Interior arrangement with curved staircase and the layout of the rooms are spacious and helped in reacceptance of the town house typology in the urban fabric after it was defamed due to mass production of sub-standard by-law houses in Britain after the industrial revolution.
16) Street elevation of Philadelphia town houses. I.M. Pei
17) Individual yards are well designed but the parking in the centre of the cluster is a poor solution to the problem of accommodating the car in cluster housing. This solution only results in a sterile non-interactive common space.
18) An ingenuous solution of the car storage problem was submitted by Paul A. Kennon, Chartier Newtown, Heinz-Henning Huth and Philip J. Kinsella in a design competition held in 1959 by the Mastic Tile Division of the Ruberoid Company. With the pedestrian circulation at the upper level and vehicular storage underneath (each house having an independent access from the underground basement.), a vertical traffic separation was created in the immediate vicinity of the homes.
19) Concept of the vertical separation of traffic was widely publicized in the '60s as the "Flemingdon Park concept". This concept was successfully applied by Irving Grossman in a town house development at Flemingdon Park in Toronto.
20) Flemingdon Park. Elevated entrance court with a communal garage below.
21) Don Valley Wood. Carefully planned front open space included by the clustered houses.
22) Don Valley Wood. Individual yards at the back of the houses is poorly defined and ambiguous, and insufficiently utilised and badly maintained.
23) Oakdale Mannor, Klein and Sears. Cluster is defined by radial stagger of the units. However front open spaces are not defined appropriately which may give rise to ambiguity in ownership and maintenance.
24) Oakdale Sears. It is essential to divide and define individual open spaces distinctly, with the right elements so that they are utilized and maintained to the optimum.
25) The Willows. Pointe Claire. Clustered Housing.
26) The Willows. Ponte Claire. As the individual houses are identified by different colours, so also the private yards should be physically defined.
27) The Willows. Ponte Claire. Width of the attached house plots is determined by the width of the car and hence is often more than it need be.
28) Row Housing. Semi-basement car park, With a covered extended patio. The street, house, entrance stairs and patio generate different levels of interactions between people.
29) Trafalgar Terrace. Division of the clustered open space in private and public not only ensures individuality and maintenance but also provides a close knit scale to the cluster.
30) BoisFranc, Ville St. Laurent. Clustered town house type.
31)BoisFranc. It is imperative to provide the right building elements and place them in context to the built and open space, failing which will lead to the degeneration of the open space.
32) Galgebakken, 1974. Storgard and Orum Nielsen, Marcussen and Orum Nielsen. "Split level" town house typology can also be explored. This house form is merely an attached version of its detached or semi-detached namesake. Houses are aligned with single storey sections on both sides of a pedestrian path which forms a community semi-public area. On the two storey garden side of the houses are private outdoor spaces and beyond, a semi-private community area. Skylights flood the family rooms with daylight. the houses are flexible and can be divided into smaller self contained units to meet different sizes and needs of families.
33) Galgebakken. Skylights enabled due to differential heights of the front and the rear of the houses light up family rooms within.
34) Hill Housing. Le Corbusier conceptualized the narrow front clustered town house for hill housing to conserve the natural topography of the site.
35) Corbusian influences. Hill Housing. Roq and Rob and Cap Martin.
36) Galgebakken. Units are recessed to define them. This also helps in defining the private open space.
37) Siedlung Halen, Atelier 5. Corbusian influence. Built between 1955 and 1961 on a wooded hill site, the site coverage of its 75 two- and three- storey dwelling units is 46.8%, with 37.3% dedicated to open space, and the balance for access roads and visitors' parking.
38) Siedlung Halen, narrow front town house development. Split level, semi covered patios and clerestorey windows light up rooms
39) Siedlung Halen, Roofs of the houses were treated to create green terraces with an in-built sprinkler system to maintain them. Vehicular access is at the rear.
40) Siedlung Halen, Atelier 5. Stepped, narrow pedestrian paths, which are covered at intervals link the houses at different levels. Houses are planned along the contours of the hills and the pedestrian paths are perpendicular to the rows of the houses.
41) Siedlung Halen. Generous community open spaces are made possible due to narrow front attached houses.
42) Conceptual model of narrow front town house.
43) LeBretton Flats. Demonstration project for CMHC initiated by Schoenauer and designed by Ian Johns. Narrow front split-level town house arrangement. One of the first narrow front town house experiments in Canada. The car was accommodated on the ground floor parallel to the house.
44) LeBretton Flats
45) LeBretton Flats. Upper level patio.
46) LeBretton Flats. Since the houses were narrow the plan within was open, transparent and light. The stair was planned such that the landing could be perceived as the floor area of the living space.
47) LeBretton Flats. Railings between levels created a feeling of transparency, with increased cross ventilation and natural lighting.
48) LeBretton Flats. Doors could be fixed to rooms which required privacy.
49) LeBretton Flats, Ottawa. Section shows lofts created over the baths.
50) LeBretton Flats. Lofts accommodated delightful spaces for children which were exclusive to their scale and size.
51) LeBretton Flats. Participation by users through several levels was facilitated by judicious detailing and planning thus eliminating the drawbacks of a narrow-front town house and taking full advantage of the cross ventilation it facilitated.
52) Cathcart Mews, Ottawa. Ian Johns. Reuse of narrow front town houses after initial experiments.
53) Willow Arbour, 1980. James K.M.Cheng and Coal Harbour Arch, Group. Living area is planned at a higher level. This enables the roof height of the living room to be high without increasing the height of the ground floor which is where the bedrooms have been placed. Living rooms are better lit, have access to a roof deck which lights it up brightly and provides an extended view of the harbour. The entrance doors and lower floors face a semi-private courtyard and entry is through a gate from the street.
54) Willow Arbour, Vancouver. Street level entrance.
55) Willow Arbour. Semi-private courtyard is covered intermittently with trellis, enhancing the felling of enclosure.
56) Grow Homes. Affordable Homes Program of McGill's School of Architecture. Narrow Frontage makes the house affordable. Simple planning enables for additions and upgradations as can be afforded and required. Small houses meet the requirement of the 24 to 35 age group with two or three people per household. In Montreal only $22,020 Gross Annual Income is needed to buy a $76000 Grow Home, compared to $34690 income for a regular starter home at $102,000. Additions by users also created individuality among the houses.
57) Grow Homes, 1990. Rybczynski, Friedman and Ross.
58) Donald Mcdonald, San Francisco.