To make sure that the different kinds of people can find houses which satisfy their own particular desires, we suggest that each cluster of houses, and each neighborhood should have three kinds of houses, in about equal numbers: those which are nearest to the action, those which are half-way between, and those which are almost completely isolated. And, to support this pattern we need, also, three distinct kinds of paths:
1. Paths along services, wide and open for activities and crowds, paths that connect activities and encourage busy through traffic.
2. Paths remote from services, narrow and twisting, to discourage through traffic, with many at right angles and dead ends.
3. Intermediate types of paths linking the most remote and quiet paths to the most central and busy ones.
This pattern is as important in the design of a cluster of a few houses as it is in the design of a neighborhood. When we were helping a group of people to design their own cluster of houses, we first asked each person to consider his preference for location on the basis of extrovert-introvert. Three groups emerged: four “extroverts” who wished to be as near the pedestrian and community action as possible, four “introverts” who desired as much remoteness and privacy as possible, and the remaining four who wanted a bit of both. The site plan they made, using this pattern, is shown below, with the positions which the three kinds of people chose.
| 36 DEGREES OF PUBLICNESS |
|---|
 |
| In one house cluster: private homes, 'public homes, in-bet<ween. |
Therefore:
Make a clear distinction between three kinds of homes —those on quiet backwaters, those on busy streets, and those that are more or less in between. Make sure that those on quiet backwaters are on twisting paths, and that these houses are themselves physically secluded; make sure that the more public houses are on busy streets with many people passing by all day long and that the houses themselves are relatively exposed to the passers-by. The in-between houses may then be located on the paths half-way between the other two. Give every neighborhood about equal numbers of these three kinds of homes.
195 summary of the language
the smallest independent social institutions: the families, workgroups, and gathering places. The family, in all its forms 3
| 75- | THE FAMILY |
| 76. | HOUSE FOR A SMALL FAMILY |
| 77- | HOUSE FOR A COUPLE |
| 78. | HOUSE FOR ONE PERSON |
| 79- | YOUR OWN HOME |
the workgroups, including all kinds of workshops and offices and even children’s learning groups;
| 600 | SELF-GOVERNING WORKSHOPS AND OFFICES |
| 8l. | SMALL SERVICES WITHOUT RED TAPE |
| <NGO | OFFICE CONNECTIONS |
| OOOO | MASTER AND APPRENTICES |
| OO | TEENAGE SOCIETY |
| OO | SHOPFRONT SCHOOLS |
| 86. | children’s HOME |
| the local shops and gathering places. | |
| CO | INDIVIDUALLY OWNED SHOPS |
| 00CO | STREET CAFE |
| 89. | CORNER GROCERY |
| 90. BEER HALL | |
| 91. | traveler’s inn |
| 92. | BUS STOP |
| XXIV | |
TOWNS
Use this pattern to help differentiate the houses both in neighborhoods and in house clusters. Within a neighborhood, place higher density clusters along the busier streets—housing hill (39), kow houses (38), and lower density clusters along the backwaters—house cluster (37), row houses (38). The actual busy streets themselves should either be pedestrian streets (100) or raised walks (55) on major roads; the backwaters green streets (51), or narrow paths with a distinct path shape (121). Where lively streets are wanted, make sure the density of housing is high enough to generate the liveliness—
PEDESTRIAN DENSITY ( I 23) . . . .
I96
| 37 HOUSE CLUSTER** |
|---|
 |
■97
. . . the fundamental unit of organization within the neighborhood-IDENTIFIABLE NEIGHBORHOOD (14)-is the duster of 3
dozen houses. By varying the density and composition of different clusters, this pattern may also help to generate density rings (29), household mix (35)) and degrees of publicness (36).
❖ ❖ *5*
People will not feel comfortable in their houses unless a group of houses forms a cluster, with the public land between them jointly owned by all the householders.
When houses are arranged on streets, and the streets owned by the town, there is no way in which the land immediately outside the houses can reflect the needs of families and individuals living in those houses. The land will only gradually get shaped to meet their needs if they have direct control over the land and its repair.
This pattern is based on the idea that the cluster of land and homes immediately around one’s own home is of special importance. It is the source for gradual differentiation of neighborhood land use, and it is the natural focus of neighborly interaction.
Herbert Gans, in The Levittowners (New York: Pantheon, 1967), has collected some powerful evidence for this tendency. Gans surveyed visiting habits on a typical block tract development. Of the 149 people he surveyed, all of them were engaged in some fattern of regular visiting with their neighbors. The interesting finding is the morphology of this visiting pattern.
Consider the following diagram—one like it can be made for almost every house in a tract. There is a house on either side, one or two across the street, and one directly behind, across a garden fence.
Ninety-three fer cent of all the neighborhood visiting engaged in by the subjects is confined to this sfatial cluster.
;y, u\D D,
minima'!
- \ _i^i ! i
vVi i i
0*z a typical block each home is at the center of its own cluster.
And when asked “Whom do you visit most?” 91 per cent said the people they visit most are immediately across the street or next door.
The beauty of this finding is its indication of the strength of the spatial cluster to draw people together into neighborly contact. The most obvious and tribal-like cluster—the homes on either side and across the street—forms roughly a circle, and it is there that most contact occurs. And if we add to this shape the home immediately behind, although it is separated by private gardens and a fence, we can account for nearly all the visiting that goes on in the Levittown neighborhood.