21 - 31 of 31 Posts

#### Norsko

·
##### Urban Citizen
Joined
·
445 Posts
Ok, and thanks for the pic, so it is like below then ? :

correct kay:

#### Time69

·
##### Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
Proposal for rationalizing this a bit :

We consider that there is a connex volume "C" for "communication core", that is the volume made by corridors, escalators, stairs, external walkways, etc. Then the volume "A" (not necessarily connex) for the appartments or flats.

From there we consider 3 basic shapes :

First the slab, that can be seen as an "infinite wall", or semi infinite, or a wall between two perpendicular walls, but creating a frontier between two exteriors, E1, and E2 :

Then the plain tower, ie the building is globally a connex volume, an we consider one exterior :

And then the open tower or atrium building from an open cylinder basic shape, that defines two exterior Ee (external exterior) Ei (internal exterior) :

From there we can compose horizontally :

So in fact seeing the "classic multi entry slab" as towers horizontally stacked together (which is what it is)

Or vertically, for instance for the "Le Corbusier cité radieuse type" :

Or for the "Bølerskogen type" :

Anybody knows of related analysis of this kind ?

#### Momo1435

·
##### Moderator
Joined
·
46,833 Posts
Another type, the Le Corbusier "cité radieuse" type :

All flats are traversing duplexes, and one central corridor every three floor.

Does anybody knows if it has been used apart from the few cités radieuses done by Le Corbusier ?
I my town, Alphen aan den Rijn in Holland there are several blocks exactly like this, they were build in the mid 70s.

I can't find any floor plans but on this picture you can see the doors every 3 floors from the corridors to the fire escape.

#### Time69

·
##### Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
I my town, Alphen aan den Rijn in Holland there are several blocks exactly like this, they were build in the mid 70s.

I can't find any floor plans but on this picture you can see the doors every 3 floors from the corridors to the fire escape.

Interesting, the flats do not appear to have a "duplex set up" (meaning double height ceiling for part of the flat), but they are still each on two levels with balconies at each level ?

#### Momo1435

·
##### Moderator
Joined
·
46,833 Posts
Yes, I found a floor plan, there are three balconies per apartment.

But some of the floors are also more mixed, to create different sized apartments.

Here's a plan of an apartment that's on 1 floor, on the same corridor there are also the entries for the apartments that are only on the 2 other floors were you have to go up or down right after the front door.

#### Time69

·
##### Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
Thanks a lot for the floor plans Momo, for some reason it is quite tough to find some for the Le Corbusier "cité radieuse", below one :

He really pushed the concept far, the flats being really "elongated" : The building is 19 meters thick and the flats only 3.66 meters wide, with 2.26 ceiling single height apparently from :

http://benjamin.lisan.free.fr/Inventions/ProjetUnToitPourTous/ProjMaisonPourTous.htm

Could you locate these buildings on google maps ? Its in below city :

?

#### Momo1435

·
##### Moderator
Joined
·
46,833 Posts
There are 5 blocks located close to each other, 3 of them have an L shape with 1 high part with 3 or 4 corridors 10 or 13 floors including the ground floor with storage and garage boxes and 1 low part with only 2 corridors (7 floors). These have 2 elevators in the highest tower. The other 2 blocks have 3 corridors (10 floors) with only 1 elevator/staircases.

location:

Two more pictures of an L-shaped building

And a picture of the corridor:

here you can also find some more pictures of the interior (click on Foto's):
http://www.directwonen.nl/koop/straat/Alphen+Aan+Den+Rijn/Wederikstraat+105.aspx?houseId=1097797

#### Time69

·
##### Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Discussion Starter · ·
Thanks a lot for all the info Momo, below pic gives a feel of the "unusualness" of the resulting flats :

And this one also :

Don't think many flats builded these days have windows in the bathrooms, let alone a balcony !

#### Momo1435

·
##### Moderator
Joined
·
46,833 Posts
I think the owners of this particular flat had some work done and converted one of the bedrooms into a bathroom. The floor plan has the original lay-out of the flats. They were all build as social housing as a rental flats, but some of them have been sold in the last 5 or so years. The strange layout is probably also the reason why it isn't sold for 2 years now.

#### disciple9

·
##### The last disciple
Joined
·
543 Posts
I will try to give a natural justification of Time69's work and therefore the aim is to present his work to a wider audience. Throughout of the text I will use LaTex-code in the mathmode marked as $...$ or the code environment of vBulletin.

This approach tries to classify different types of commieblocks by considering each story in the perspective of a ground plan. My argumentation relies on a classical theorem of Topology, known as the "Jordan curve theorem". The statement of this theorem is the following:

Let $J$ be a Jordan curve in the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$. Then its complement, $\mathbb{R}^2 \ J$, consists of exactly two connected components. One of these components is bounded (the interior), denoted as $I =: S_1$ and the other is unbounded (the exterior), denoted as $E =: S_2$, and the curve $J =: S_3$ is the boundary of each component.
With the above theorem we have a possibility to consider the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$ as a union of three disjoint sets. We can write
Code:
\mathbb{R}^2 = \bigsqcup_{i=1}^3 S_i
With the existence of these three sets $I, E$ and by assumption $J$ in hand we will apply this abstract situation to the case of a ground plan of a story in a commieblock.

Thus one can identify the ground plan with the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$. We assume that in the plane a Jordan curve $J$ exists drawn as a rectangle with "smooth corners", so that we will not have any problems about continuity. In this plane we will distinguish between three entities and will consider them as sets in $\mathbb{R}^2$. I will adopt Time69's notation:
• $C$ for communication core is the set of hallways or elevators, or just the set of public spaces
Code:
C := \{\, (x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid (x,y) \in \text{ public spaces} \,\}
• $A$ is the set of all apartments
• By the Jordan curve theorem the existence of the sets $I$ and $E$ is guaranteed and the union of both can be addressed as something like the "outside" $O$
Code:
O := \{\, (x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid (x,y) \in E \vee (x,y) \in I \,\}
All sets $C, A$ and $O$ are assumed to have non-vanishing Lebesgue measure in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
We now specialize and assume it is always true, that the Jordan curve $J$ is contained in $C$. We will define a new interior $I$ as $I := I \ (C \cup A)$. Further we demand that $C$ and $A$ are disjoint sets.

By "radius of a Jordan curve $J$" we mean the radius of a circle in the plane such that the interior of the circle contains the interior of the Jordan curve $J$.
Now 3 different cases pop up:
1. $I \equiv \emptyset$ and $r < \infty$ (Means that $C$ is actually the interior of $J$ and the radius $r$ is finite)
2. $I \ne \emptyset$ and $r < \infty$ (In words: $C$ is not equivalent to the interior of $J$ and the radius $r$ is finite)
3. $\lim r \to \infty$ (in words: the radius of the circle goes to infinity), then I conjecture that one can prove that $I$ is no longer bounded. Time69 speaks of that case as a infinite wall between two exteriors and we notate this as $E_1 := I$ and $E_2 := E$. Note that both $E_1$ and $E_2$ are no longer bounded sets.

At this step we summarize that we have following pairwise disjoint sets which cover $\mathbb{R}^2$:
• I =: M_1
• E =: M_2
• C =: M_3
• A =: M_4
Among these sets we will define a relation $R$. Without overemphasizing mathematical correctness, I will get a little sloppy defining this relation.
We say that a set $M_i$ is related to $M_j$ for $i, j \in \{1,2,3,4\}$, if there is a "spatial" connection $S$ between at least two subsets $A_i \subseteq M_i$ and $A_j \subseteq M_j$ with $A_i, A_j$ having non-vanishing Lebesgue measure in $\mathbb{R}^2$, such that $(S \cap M_i) \cup (S \cap M_j) = S$. This means that points of the spatial connection $S$ between $A_i$ and $A_j$ either lie in $M_i$ or in $M_j$. There is one special case if one considers the set $M_4 = A$, where elements already are spatial objects (i.e. have non-vanishing Lebesgue measure in the plane). So one would say that $M_4$ is related to $M_i$ for $i \in \{1,2,3,4\}$ if there exists an element $a \in M_4$ with a spatial connection to a subset of $M_i$ in the above sense.

This relation $R$ can be diagrammatical depicted like Time69 did it.

So for the first case, where $I \equiv \emptyset$ and the radius $r$ is finite, we remark, that $O \equiv E$, so we have the following

You could read Time69"s diagrams like this: One draws a connection between a set $M_i$ and $M_j$ if they are related to each other in the above definition. It is obvious that this relation $R$ is symmetric, but not necessarily reflexive, like the set $A$.

The next case is $I \ne \emptyset$ and the radius $r$ is finite. Then we have $O$ as a disjoint union of $I$ and $E$. We can translate our notation to the one of Time69 in this case:
• Ei = I
• Ee = E
So we take a look at the diagrams:

And last case which results in two unbounded exteriors. Translating notation here means for instance
• E_1 = I
• E_2 = E
and you will end up with the following diagrams:

Multi entry slabs follow in our understanding as well:

The advantage of this diagrammitcal description lies in the fact that one has a possibility of illustrating all possible relations between the sets $M_i$. But this diagrams should be used with care. Just because one can draw a diagram doesn't mean that this kind of relation truly exists, it might result in a contradiction. But Time69 gave in each case a concrete realization, which proves existence of all possibilities of relation between sets $M_i$ and $M_j$.

The weakness of these diagrams is that it does not respect the cardinal directions. But out relation $R$ was defined in that way, that there needs to exist at least one spatial connection between objects, so it would not depict any underlying condensed information. So there does still exist a variation of ground plans for each apartment as an element of the set $A$.
The same holds true when playing this abstraction on a greater scale, considering the orientation of commieblocks to each other. A lot more ingredients like distance or orientation of commieblocks to each other get important. Or the usage of green spaces, commercial areas, schools, kindergartens or the mixture of monolithic buildings to multi entry slabs are important as well. So there is no need to strip off information, only concrete realizations can be considered.

Please feel free to highlight any mistakes in my understanding.

#### alexandru.mircea

·
##### Ars longa, vita brevis
Joined
·
9,311 Posts
This is a post following up on a debate I was having somewhere else, where it was offtopic. Therefore I thought of this thread as a better place for the continuation.

The point I was contesting was:

Most notably, the commieblocks are not connected wall to wall, and do not surround a city block (the name insula comes from that, in fact. It is an "island" / city block). They stand isolated, so to speak. Many have empty land arround them. They are a modern (and somewhat inefficient) invention, almost completely.
Indeed, a lot of commieblocks are like that (a majority?) but as a native commieblock dweller I can attest to the widespread existence of the opposite type, the one that features:

- buildings connected to each other,
- forming what can IMO be described as enclosed inner spaces but with generous entry and exit in the form of street lanes (the inner spaces tend to be used for parking, playgrounds and utility annexes like thermal distribution points),
- retaining a strict proximity to the street grid, and
- offering space for various activities on the ground floors,

at least three of them at the same time if not all four.

This sort of commie urbanism has defined my upbringing so I found it very easy to find the examples, I only needed to look up on Google Maps the places where I grew up. I'll start with the neighbourhood where my paternal grandparents lived, whose main street looks like this:

When seen from above, the connecting commieblocks form these rectangular enclosings that are loose compared to typical modern Western "street blocks" but are still perfectly visible:

Inside the enclosures it looks like this:

Coincidentally or not, in a different city, my maternal grandparents' block was part of a loosely connected set of blocks. This is how it looks from outside:

And at the inside, displaying the exact same playground furniture from the 80s which TBH is freaking me out a bit right now:

This being a much bigger city, it was just a tiny part of a massive district built from scratch at the same time, and where a lot of the blocks made up these loose rectangles which are visible from above:

If you want to further explore, start from the courtyard I screenshot and work your way out if it: here.

Finally, here's an example from my own hometown. The two blocks I have inhabited there have been of the isolated type, but there is plenty to show of the other kind, like this neighbourhood where some of my favourite schoolmates lived:

From above: