Table 1
Presence (‘Yes’) or absence (‘No’) of specific physical attributes in higher performing buildings.
| BUILDING NUMBER | ASYMMETRIC CORE PLACEMENT | UNIFIED COMMUNAL CORRIDOR | < 16,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET | INCREMENTAL FACADE RHYTHM | MORE THAN MINIMUM ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR | SOUTHERN EXPOSURE ON STREET FRONT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| 4 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| 5 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| 6 | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 8 | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No |
| 9 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| 10 | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 11 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 12 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 13 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 14 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| 15 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Table 2
Presence (‘Yes’) or absence (‘No’) of specific physical attributes in lower performing buildings.
| BUILDING NUMBER | ASYMMETRIC CORE PLACEMENT | UNIFIED COMMUNAL CORRIDOR | < 16,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET | INCREMENTAL FACADE RHYTHM | MORE THAN MINIMUM ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR | SOUTHERN EXPOSURE ON STREET FRONT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| 17 | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| 18 | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| 19 | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| 20 | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No |
| 21 | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| 22 | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 23 | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 24 | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No |
| 25 | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No |
| 26 | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| 27 | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| 28 | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| 29 | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| 30 | No | No | No | No | Yes | No |
| 31 | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| 32 | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| 33 | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| 34 | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| 35 | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| 36 | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 37 | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No |
Figure 1
Non-ground-floor plans of buildings 7, 12 and 15 exhibiting an asymmetric core placement.
Figure 2
(top) Pie chart showing the percentage of the floorplate occupied by floor 4 units of building 10 upon initial construction in 1921; and plan of said floor. (bottom) Pie chart showing the percentage of the floorplate occupied by floor 7 units of building 17 upon initial construction in 1915; and plan of said floor.
Figure 3
Average, smallest and largest unit sizes for buildings 10 and 17 from their initial construction, and their state in 1979 and 1984, respectively.
Note: Building 10 has a wider range of unit sizes compared with that of building 17.
Figure 4
Plan of the fourth floor of building 16 in 1914 (left) and 1973 (right).
Figure 5
Floor-by-floor unit composition of building 16 in 1914 (left) and 1973 (right).
Figure 6
Floor 11 of building 8 (higher performing) in 1926 (left) and 1981 (right).
Figure 7
Floor-by-floor unit composition of building 8 in 1926 (left) and 1981 (right).
Figure 8
Distribution of buildings by gross floor area for the combined datasets of 1934, 1958 and 1973.
Figure 9
Negative correlation between the density of economic diversity supported and gross floor area. The datasets for 1934, 1958 and 1973 are combined, depicting a total of 1290 buildings.
Figure 10
(left to right) Elevation of building 20 (1978); third-floor plan (1916); and the same floor (1978). Elevation of building 9 (1974); second-floor (1930); and the same floor (1974).
Figure 11
(left to right) Changes to unit diversity in building 20 (1916–78) and building 9 (1930–74) across the buildings’ lifetimes.
Note: There is relative stagnancy in building 20, and a relatively increased diversity of units in building 9.
Figure 12
Percentage of higher and lower performing buildings containing the architectural parameters of the study.