Living areas
Colin R. Leech
An interesting tidbit from a thread entitled
"Weird Unit Conversions Wanted" over in sci.engr.civil:
Yan Seiner (y...@cardinalengineering.com) writes:
> Don't forget the Japanese measurement for living area.
>
> 1 tatami (a straw mat) is about 3x6 feet.
> 1 tsubo (a measure of land area) is 2 tatami, or about 6x6 feet.
>
> Rooms are measured in tatami - thus a 4.5 tatami room
> That the japanese measure land in unis of 36 sf and we meaure it in
> units 43,560 sf (or whatever an acre is) is indicative of land
> availability and population density....
>
> Yan Seiner, PE
> --
> +-----------------------------------------------+
> | Cardinal Engineering, Inc. |
> | Civil and Environmental Engineering |
> | http://www.CardinalEngineering.COM |
> | mailto:y...@cardinalengineering.com |
> +-----------------------------------------------+
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Aaron Priven
This is only related extremely peripherally, but:
Several of the "neotraditionalists" have proposed measuring space
in terms of the rod: a "colonial measure" of 16.5 feet (198 inches),
which supposedly is uniquely appropriate for human-scale, urbanist
development.
But a rod is also 5.029 meters. 5 meters is 196.85 inches -- less
than one and a quarter inches less than the traditional rod.
Would measuring in meters be less human-scale? Or does it just not
fit various architects' images to measure in somehing "modern" like
the metric system?
(of course, the metric system isn't really "modern," but
Enlightenment)
In article <5lekka$q...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
--
Aaron Priven, aa...@priven.sf.ca.us, http://www.priven.sf.ca.us/
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <5lfvck$ecl$1...@shell2.ba.best.com>, aa...@priven.sf.ca.us (Aaron
Priven) wrote:
> This is only related extremely peripherally, but:
>
> Several of the "neotraditionalists" have proposed measuring space
> in terms of the rod: a "colonial measure" of 16.5 feet (198 inches),
> which supposedly is uniquely appropriate for human-scale, urbanist
> development.
Wait a minute! Have these people never been to the Smithsonian or the
bounty of Colonial Historic sites around the US? I've never seen a
colonial period bed that the average American could comfortably fit into
today. Scheeez.....
Nelson
Aaron Priven
In article <nbenzing-160...@cha-nc5-01.ix.netcom.com>,
nben...@ix.netcom.com (Nelson S. Benzing) wrote:
>In article <5lfvck$ecl$1...@shell2.ba.best.com>, aa...@priven.sf.ca.us (Aaron
>Priven) wrote:
>
>> This is only related extremely peripherally, but:
>>
>> Several of the "neotraditionalists" have proposed measuring space
>> in terms of the rod: a "colonial measure" of 16.5 feet (198 inches),
>> which supposedly is uniquely appropriate for human-scale, urbanist
>> development.
>
>Wait a minute! Have these people never been to the Smithsonian or the
>bounty of Colonial Historic sites around the US? I've never seen a
>colonial period bed that the average American could comfortably fit into
>today. Scheeez.....
I think any American, average or no, could fit into a bed 16.5 feet long.
Seriously, they use the rod for measuring lot sizes -- a two-rod lot,
a three-rod lot, streets one rod wide. These, they say, are
particularly appropriate measurements.
It occurs to me now that it might be just a ploy to use narrower
measures than might otherwise be chosen, but I'm not sure it would be
effective. ("We were going to make it fifteen feet, but let's make it a
rod instead!") I suspect it has more to do with the idea that no new
concepts need be invented since they got it all perfect in 1920,
something I think is essentially incorrect.
(The problem, as I see it, was not that everything was perfect in
1920, but that modernist architecture and use-separating urban
planning forced the slow evolution of urban form-making to be
replaced by an utter break with tradition. Going back to the
tradition makes sense, since it evolved over time to meet many
needs which we still have today. Making a fetish of it is
inappropriate.)
=Aaron=
George Conklin
In article <5lib81$7se$1...@shell2.ba.best.com>,
Aaron Priven <aa...@priven.sf.ca.us> wrote:
>
>(The problem, as I see it, was not that everything was perfect in
>1920, but that modernist architecture and use-separating urban
>planning forced the slow evolution of urban form-making to be
>replaced by an utter break with tradition. Going back to the
>tradition makes sense, since it evolved over time to meet many
>needs which we still have today. Making a fetish of it is
>inappropriate.)
>
> =Aaron=
>--
>Aaron Priven, aa...@priven.sf.ca.us, http://www.priven.sf.ca.us/
That 'tradition' you speak of, the urban industrial city,
was in fact a break with tradition. Francaviglia points out
that much of the architecture and design principles on many
Main Streets, while considered attractive today, is the
19th-century version of strip-mall, cookie-cutter
philosophy. What you call 'tradition' was merely a temporal
adjustment to the technology of the era. Technology has
moved on. The strip mall so hated by planners today will be
the cultural icon of 100 years ahead.
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <5lib81$7se$1...@shell2.ba.best.com>, aa...@priven.sf.ca.us (Aaron
Priven) wrote:
> In article <nbenzing-160...@cha-nc5-01.ix.netcom.com>,
> nben...@ix.netcom.com (Nelson S. Benzing) wrote:
> >In article <5lfvck$ecl$1...@shell2.ba.best.com>, aa...@priven.sf.ca.us (Aaron
> >Priven) wrote:
> >
> >> This is only related extremely peripherally, but:
> >>
> >> Several of the "neotraditionalists" have proposed measuring space
> >> in terms of the rod: a "colonial measure" of 16.5 feet (198 inches),
> >> which supposedly is uniquely appropriate for human-scale, urbanist
> >> development.
> >
> >Wait a minute! Have these people never been to the Smithsonian or the
> >bounty of Colonial Historic sites around the US? I've never seen a
> >colonial period bed that the average American could comfortably fit into
> >today. Scheeez.....
>
> I think any American, average or no, could fit into a bed 16.5 feet long.
>
> Seriously, they use the rod for measuring lot sizes -- a two-rod lot,
> a three-rod lot, streets one rod wide. These, they say, are
> particularly appropriate measurements.
In Italy the used the "brac", which was an arm's length. Colonial NY and
for many years latter (it can be seen on Broadway at the end Waverley
Place) is layed out on a 37" module yielding a lot of 37' wide building,
just as they are found in the colonial-thru 19th C. towns of NC. (guess
folks had grown a bit and a *yard* got stretched by an inch?). In Britain,
the means of measuring farmland, I've recenty been told by a Brit, on the
amount of time it took to walk it. The point is, that measurements were
based upon what the human body is therefore human in scale.
>
> It occurs to me now that it might be just a ploy to use narrower
> measures than might otherwise be chosen, but I'm not sure it would be
> effective. ("We were going to make it fifteen feet, but let's make it a
> rod instead!")
There's probably more truth in that than we realize.
I suspect it has more to do with the idea that no new
> concepts need be invented since they got it all perfect in 1920,
> something I think is essentially incorrect.
Me too. Let's see, how big were people in 1920 and how much
consumer-marketed *baggage* did they have to drag around with them to
*make themselves happy*?
>
> (The problem, as I see it, was not that everything was perfect in
> 1920, but that modernist architecture and use-separating urban
> planning forced the slow evolution of urban form-making to be
> replaced by an utter break with tradition.
If you'll grant the prefix *bad* Modern Architecture, I'll say *Amen*.
There's a whole other side to Modern Architecture with the same concerns
of which you speak; they just remaind on the other side of the Atlantic.
And because Europe is Metric, what they've done isn't going to replace
inches, feet, etc.here.
I also hasten to correct you about "the architecture". It was the
materials and building systems industries that created the break with the
anthropomorphic measurementtradition. They came up with the idea of taking
the traditional 4" increment and exponentially mutliplying it to come with
16" instead 12", and 48 damned" instead of 36". To make matters worse, for
higher tech buildings they came up with 60" which doesn't relate to
anything and breaks down into nothing (except by 5).
Going back to the
> tradition makes sense, since it evolved over time to meet many
> needs which we still have today.
Except for one small point. That past architecture was based on the limits
of the building technology of its time. Loadbearing masonry walls and
timber beans go only so far and may have had more to with than anything
else. Would the supremely practical Ben Franklin have laboriously made
windows of mullions into which to set eight panes of glass if he'd had
some sheets of plate glass in the back room? Hell no! BUT, with regard to
the lintel required over the opening, however, he'd have still make it a
hair over 36" wide.
Today it is an aesthetic issue; what we feel comfortable inhabiting,
walking past and seeing. I can name dozens of European architects doing
urban infill projects and designing new communities all over that
continent using current technology uncovered by *historicist pastiche* to
make friendly buildings you hardly notice as being different as you walk
by and which make you feel good when you DO realize that it's of *your*
time.
Too much is known about scale, proportion, module, incremental rythum,
etc. as it relates to human comfort from the fields of Art and Perceptual
Psychology (shelves of books on the subject) to have to cop out for the
1920's.
UNLESS:
They think that's the only way to make it acceptable to the average
person. (something for them to relate to).
BUT WAIT! Isn't 15' just 5'x 3? Sure is.
Perhaps we just found the answer:
Every building system manufacturer and leasing agent (they're in to 5'
also) will be thrilled to death to be *left alone*.
So what's a measely three quarters of what we walk around on? And what's
the difference between having a 9' wide front room and one that's 10'
(assuming the 1920's TRADITIONAL side stair and hallway and the the
parition thicknesses to contain them?
So much for human scale! Perhaps we'll all have to shrink.
Nelson
Nelson S. Benzing
Me too. Let's see, how big were people in 1920?
So much for human scale!
Nelson
Jim Rems
A> Seriously, they use the rod for measuring lot sizes -- a two-rod lot,
A> a three-rod lot, streets one rod wide. These, they say, are
A> particularly appropriate measurements.
A 'rod' or 'rodde' was used as the basic English unit of land measure in
surveying and is equivalent to the 'pole' and 'perch'. The english mile is
equivalent to our statute mile, 5,280 feet.
The Gunter's Chain was adopted by our government as the official linear
measuring device for government surveyor's. The Gunter's Chain of four
poles or perches, consisting of 100 links measuring a total of 66 feet, and
the two-pole Gunter's Chain, consisting of 50 links and measuring a total
of 33 feet were commonly used by government land surveyor's to survey and
mark the lands of the public domain.
From the foregoing, the following can be summarized:
7.92 inches = 1 link
25 links = 16.5 ft.
25 links = 1 rod
4 rods = 100 links
100 links = 66 ft.
100 links = 1 chain
1 Mile = 5280 feet 1 Acre = 43,560 sq. ft.
= 8000 links = 4,840 sq. yds.
= 320 rods = 160 sq. rods
= 80 chains = 10 sq. chains
-- Jim
Jacob F. 'Jim' Rems * Publisher * Wattles Publications
Publishers of Books for Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Voice: (714)832-5711 * Fax: (714)832-4169 * BBS: (714)832-7916
jfr...@wattles.com -+- in...@wattles.com
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <000003FD...@wattles.com>, jim....@wattles.com (Jim Rems)
wrote:
> A> Seriously, they use the rod for measuring lot sizes -- a two-rod lot,
> A> a three-rod lot, streets one rod wide. These, they say, are
> A> particularly appropriate measurements.
>
> A 'rod' or 'rodde' was used as the basic English unit of land measure in
> surveying and is equivalent to the 'pole' and 'perch'. The english mile is
> equivalent to our statute mile, 5,280 feet.
>
> The Gunter's Chain was adopted by our government as the official linear
> measuring device for government surveyor's.
Then we're talking postcolonial, right?
Thanks for the info.
Nelson
Aaron Priven
In article <nbenzing-170...@cha-nc2-01.ix.netcom.com>,
nben...@ix.netcom.com (Nelson S. Benzing) wrote:
>> (The problem, as I see it, was not that everything was perfect in
>> 1920, but that modernist architecture and use-separating urban
>> planning forced the slow evolution of urban form-making to be
>> replaced by an utter break with tradition.
>
>If you'll grant the prefix *bad* Modern Architecture, I'll say *Amen*.
>There's a whole other side to Modern Architecture with the same concerns
>of which you speak; they just remaind on the other side of the Atlantic.
>And because Europe is Metric, what they've done isn't going to replace
>inches, feet, etc.here.
Perhaps I am ignorant, but I am not aware of Modernist buildings
that fit into their surroundings rather than use the surroundings
to set off itself. I think the basic principles behind Modernism
include the rejection of tradition. This was a mistake.
>> Going back to the
>> tradition makes sense, since it evolved over time to meet many
>> needs which we still have today.
>
>Except for one small point. That past architecture was based on the limits
>of the building technology of its time. Loadbearing masonry walls and
>timber beans go only so far and may have had more to with than anything
>else.
Yes, I'm not in favor of the mindless preservation of tradition any
more than I am of mindlessly discarding it. Changes should be
carefully considered, however, and the idea that today is a different,
mechanistic age so everything that came before should be ignored is
not positive for our cities.
>Today it is an aesthetic issue; what we feel comfortable inhabiting,
>walking past and seeing. I can name dozens of European architects doing
>urban infill projects and designing new communities all over that
>continent using current technology uncovered by *historicist pastiche* to
>make friendly buildings you hardly notice as being different as you walk
>by and which make you feel good when you DO realize that it's of *your*
>time.
Well, this is fine by me, but it takes attention to the buildings
around it, a respect for their existence, to make buildings you hardly
notice as being different as you walk by. That's adaptation of
tradition, an entirely good thing as far as I am concerned.
Nelson S. Benzing
> N> > The Gunter's Chain was adopted by our government as the official linear
> N> > measuring device for government surveyor's.
> N>
> N> Then we're talking postcolonial, right?
> N>
> N> Thanks for the info.
> N>
> N> Nelson
>
> It started around the plantation period for obvious reasons. English
> surveying texts were imported which contained trig tables as well as log
> tables. The decimal chain and an improved four-perch chain of 100 links was
> generally used. In 1688 with the publication of John Love's "Geodasia", new
> techniques were introduced for 'New World' surveying which attempted to
> simplify the process of land surveying and it recommended the use of chains
> developed by Aaron Rathborne and Edmund Gunter.
I understand if we're looking at large land parcels or farms. I can find
evidence of the 100' chain in that the blocks of most early American
cities are in 100' increments, ranging from 200' sq. to 400' sq and in
some cases 200' x 600'. In some cities, those of early post-colonial
layout in the south, the measurement was from the center of the street,
because street widths vary from block to block (also Charleston and
Richmond). On the other hand, the planned City of Savannah's measurement,
as NYC's, is to the street but I've not determined yet the widths of
streets because they aren't noted on plats I have.
Savannah's 200' block depth includes and alley, BTW, while NYC's does not.
What I cannot find on these plats, which include Boston and Philly as
well, is any relation to the 16.5' rod or wing chain so far as the
subdivision of the blocks, which was the subject of the beginning of this
thread. I suspect other forces impinged upon the system as a fine grain
determinant for building buildings.
>
> I think officially the statute mile was adopted with the passage of the
> Land Ordinance of 1785. Prior to that, Surveyors used the Gunter's chain,
> as well as other types of chains. For example: the Wing chain has 40 links
> and measures 33 feet. An engineer's chain has 100 links and is 100 feet
> long. In California and the southwest in general, chains graduated in varas
> (approx. 33 inches) and differing in length from 10 to 50 varas were used.
>
I'll keep looking, because I'm interested in the validity of the argument
of using the rod as a rationale as much as I distrust that it's the same
thing when reduced to 15':-).
Thanks
Nelson
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <5lvqfn$6d4$1...@shell2.ba.best.com>, aa...@priven.sf.ca.us (Aaron
Priven) wrote:
> In article <nbenzing-170...@cha-nc2-01.ix.netcom.com>,
> nben...@ix.netcom.com (Nelson S. Benzing) wrote:
> >> (The problem, as I see it, was not that everything was perfect in
> >> 1920, but that modernist architecture and use-separating urban
> >> planning forced the slow evolution of urban form-making to be
> >> replaced by an utter break with tradition.
> >
> >If you'll grant the prefix *bad* Modern Architecture, I'll say *Amen*.
> >There's a whole other side to Modern Architecture with the same concerns
> >of which you speak; they just remaind on the other side of the Atlantic.
> >And because Europe is Metric, what they've done isn't going to replace
> >inches, feet, etc.here.
>
> Perhaps I am ignorant, but I am not aware of Modernist buildings
> that fit into their surroundings rather than use the surroundings
> to set off itself. I think the basic principles behind Modernism
> include the rejection of tradition. This was a mistake.
If you've not traveled much outside the U.S., I can understand that,
though there are a few outstanding examples over here. One is the PSFS
Building in Philly, the first International Style high-rise. Others in
Philly are the International Style rowhouse of the PSFS Bldg. architect
and the Penn Mutual Bldg., which faces both Independence Park and Franklin
Park. To make a point to my students that it was not Modern Architecture
so much as Modern Planning (the isolated building syndrome) that was the
culprit in the failure of Moderism, I walk them past each of the three at
least twice, and as they are looking at and enjoying the formal and social
structure of the city, they never notice them. I point them out the third
time around and they say "wow, it IS a Modern building".
Among relatively few exmples in Boston (lotsa bad ones) is the one-time
Dime Savings Bank (now Borders Books), an exquisite example of good
modernism at work in the oldest part of that city. Borders' original store
on Walnut St. in Philly, does equally well.
MOMA in NY doesn't belong on 53rd St.? It most definetly does, and in a
break with Modern Planning, it not only is it's glass facade on the street
and touches the buildings on either side, it creates, within, one of the
finest outdoor courtyards in that city. You can walk by the Ford
Foundation Building and not know it's there nor that within it is one of
lushest gardens found outside the botanical designation. The attached
mathamatics building at Columbia U. is noticably different, but definitely
"belongs", as does the addition to the back of Avery Hall. The new dorms,
tho' it leaves much to be desired after you enter the courtyard, enriches
the campus with its authenticity (use and expression of contemporary
technology) rather than its technology draped with the *image of
pre-modern* screenscape like a stainless steel wastebasket that's been
*antiqued* to look like wood.
You can walk the residential streets of S.F. and find a thoroughy modern
rowhouse on about every block expressing the uniqueness of it's time, but
only if you concertedly LOOK for them.
This latter situation permeates the City of Paris and most other European
cities in which making building of today look like building from the past
is inconscionable, if not an immoral betrayal of history in the past,
present and future. These buildings, again, do not disturb the historic
proportions or rythm of the streets. As with most all of the buildings I
have cited, they subscribe to any underlying original formal structure
(has nothing to do with style) of vertical and horizontal regulating lines
that was adhered to through a dozen style periods in that city's history,
and it is done with concrete, steel and whatever that represents the time
in which it was built.
73% of Nuremburg, Germany, was destroyed during WWII. It was rebuilt to
the precise foundation lines that had existed since the 14th C and it was
done with modern materials subscribing the regulating facade geometries
that were once there. It is a beautiful city.
> >> Going back to the
> >> tradition makes sense, since it evolved over time to meet many
> >> needs which we still have today.
> >
> >Except for one small point. That past architecture was based on the limits
> >of the building technology of its time. Loadbearing masonry walls and
> >timber beans go only so far and may have had more to with than anything
> >else.
>
> Yes, I'm not in favor of the mindless preservation of tradition any
> more than I am of mindlessly discarding it. Changes should be
> carefully considered, however, and the idea that today is a different,
> mechanistic age so everything that came before should be ignored is
> not positive for our cities.
Which is what I've been saying all along. It just isn't as simple as
scraping modernism and using it's lowest form, the fake material (dry-vit)
that could make your computer look like it was made out of granite.
>
> >Today it is an aesthetic issue; what we feel comfortable inhabiting,
> >walking past and seeing. I can name dozens of European architects doing
> >urban infill projects and designing new communities all over that
> >continent using current technology uncovered by *historicist pastiche* to
> >make friendly buildings you hardly notice as being different as you walk
> >by and which make you feel good when you DO realize that it's of *your*
> >time.
>
> Well, this is fine by me, but it takes attention to the buildings
> around it, a respect for their existence, to make buildings you hardly
> notice as being different as you walk by. That's adaptation of
> tradition, an entirely good thing as far as I am concerned.
It's a readaptation to principles of urban agglomeration that go back as
far as ancient Greece (regulating geometries) and building a city
authentically using its methods of building technology and serving todays
needs far better than the urban architecture of the past (sans adequate
plumbing, bathrooms, kitchens, environmental control systems, car space or
space for all the items we seem to require today that did not exist then.
If you don't know this, you've probably never bought an unimproved 19th C,
or 1920's house.
With regard to the last sentence, above, with few walls taken out (I like
few but big spaces) and an electrical and plumbing upfitting it was fine,
as it may be for you. But I'm not your typical American homebuyer and
require none of that other stuff (mostly electronics), air conditioning or
space for a car when living in a city.
>
Nelson:-)
Jim Rems
N> What I cannot find on these plats, which include Boston and Philly as
N> well, is any relation to the 16.5' rod or wing chain so far as the
N> subdivision of the blocks, which was the subject of the beginning of this
N> thread. I suspect other forces impinged upon the system as a fine grain
N> determinant for building buildings.
I don't think you'll find the rod or any chain length as driving the width
of streets or lots.
There are a number of 'modern' residential streets in California with a
width of 66 feet. The width has nothing to do with a Gunter's chain or rod.
Generally these streets have 36 feet of pavement, curb to curb, and 15 foot
parkways on each side. This would accommodate two driving lanes of 10 feet
each and an 8 foot parking lane on each side.
N> I'll keep looking, because I'm interested in the validity of the argument
N> of using the rod as a rationale as much as I distrust that it's the same
N> thing when reduced to 15':-).
Good luck. ;-)
The rod was used because of its utility in laying out land without much
calculation. Surveyors would layout a 100 acre grant, usually fronting a
river, by dividing the number acres in half and laying out a baseline of 50
rods along the river. Then, from each end of the baseline and perpendicular
to it, they would measure 320 rods, one mile, and connect both end points.
Thus a 100 acre grant was laid out and marked on the ground.
Aaron Priven
Why do we seem to agree on everything except the semantics?
I'm not very worried about the appearance of buildings. I don't particularly
like grey concrete buildings, and I think historic buildings tend to
look better than International Style buildings, but I'm not
particularly picky about that, and since you seem to have identified a
number of counterexamples, that's fine.
I'm worried about the way buildings work on a social level. If an
International Style building does that, that's fine with me. I
think it might be very difficult for it to do so -- cf. the
discussions in William H. Whyte's "City: Rediscovering the Center"
about reflectivity of building materials and its impact on neighborhood
parks -- but in principle I don't care what the style is.
This discussion started, if you'll remember, with my statement that
Andres Duany's comment about how everything was perfect in 1920 and
all it needs is to be rediscovered -- with my statement that that was
not correct. I used to joke that I want to live in a Victorian house
with built-in Ethernet. I still think there's an important truth
there -- that Victorian houses had some features to them that were
very valuable and that should be rediscovered, and that they also had
serious deficiencies. I somehow don't think you're disagreeing with
that.
What are we arguing about anyway?
=Aaron=
Colin R. Leech
Nelson S. Benzing (nben...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> In article <5m27ru$mdh$1...@shell2.ba.best.com>, aa...@priven.sf.ca.us (Aaron
> Priven) wrote:
>
>> Why do we seem to agree on everything except the semantics?
>> [...]
>> What are we arguing about anyway?
>
> Beats me:)
And what does any of this discussion have to do with the subject line?
Please change the subject line once the discussion drifts off into
different topics.
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <5m8qe3$n...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA.nospam (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
> Nelson S. Benzing (nben...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> > In article <5m27ru$mdh$1...@shell2.ba.best.com>, aa...@priven.sf.ca.us (Aaron
> > Priven) wrote:
> >
> >> Why do we seem to agree on everything except the semantics?
> >> [...]
> >> What are we arguing about anyway?
> >
> > Beats me:)
>
> And what does any of this discussion have to do with the subject line?
> Please change the subject line once the discussion drifts off into
> different topics.
It's the resolution.
Nelson