DESIGN STUDIO III 2021
CO-LIVING DESIGN REPORT GROUP 12 LONG SUN WANTING HUANG VUI SHIUAN CHONG YU LIN -
CONTENT
19 Community profile Size & social mix Required facilities
03 Co-living model
What is co-living? Benefits of co-living The end of urban loneliness Is Co-Living a better way of living?
05 Group research
Eliminate social isolation Shared spaces Distance in social relations Shared responsibility
09 Precedent studies
21 Spatial arrangement Site analysis Functional map
23 Conceptial designs Concept 01 Concept 02 Concept 03 Concept 04
31 References
Precedent 01 Precedent 02 Precedent 03 Precedent 04
17 SPACE10 Survey results 02
Whta is co-living? Generally, co-living is a residential community living model which accommodates multiple unrelated people. Living experience often includes sharing spaces and facilities, meeting fellow residents at common areas, cooking and eating together and sometimes taking shared collective endeavors. More and more people turn to co-living in urban cities for the benefits of affordability, comfort and getting rid of social loneliness.
Marmalade Lane central common house. Photograph: David Butler
Benefits of co-living The co-living model provides residents certain advantages than traditional living models, these benefits commonly include cost saving, convenience, better social relationship and sustainability. First, co-living model is capable of housing more people on a limited land supply, this means less cost of land. Similarly, by sharing utilities and services, residents pay less bill than in a traditional housing model. Second, co-living model offers flexable lease terms as well because rentees can live with fewer physical objects. Third, co-living model provides extra opportunity for people to interact with each other to avoid social isolation and loneliness by sharing common areas. Last, building and operating co-living properties are more efficient on using energy and building materials compares to traditional houses, for example, co-located laundary and kitchen saves plumbing and isulation materials, minimal sleeping areas save heating and cooling energy, dedicated public transport options save car costs, etc.
03
The end of social loneliness “People have a rudimentary need to belong, which affects their behavior, cognitions and emotions.” (Baumeister and Leary, 1995) Researches suggest that lonelyness is a growing health issue not only affects a person’s mental health but also their physical health, not only to elderly people but also to young people who live and work alone. Co-living communities is an effecitive solution by providing people chances to meet others to form attachments through their daily activities. Studies show that daily social interactions in co-living communities can actually “improve health and increase longevity.” (Harvard Health, 2020)
The co-working space at the Collective. Photograph: BBC
Private rooms at the Collective are on the cramped side. Photograph: BBC
Is co-living a better way of living? From above we can see that co-loving model do have unique advantages to solve problems in today’s society than traditional housing models, and it is a better living experience for some people, especially for those who are vulnerable to social loneliness. However, we also see some failure cases such as the Collective, the largest co-living building in London, is now considered a “cynical corporate dormitories”(The Guardian, 2019) for cash in on the concept of co-living. Apparently, co-living will not be for everyone, needs of potential residents must taken into account to ensure a functional community, which is crucial to eliminating social loneliness and providing better quality of social relationship to make a better way of living.
04
Group Research
Research objectives Based on the James Clasper’s case study from SPACE10, group members conducted researches about what is a better and more sustainable way of life and how to achieve this goal through design process.
05
Subtopic 1: Eliminate social isolation Designing a better way of life is to make people live happier not only from the inside of the buildings but also from the outside. However, the raising urbanisation is making people less happier in urban cities, those cities that used to be deemed as urban utopia are failing because the modern urban design is causing social isolation. The Happiness Reaesrch Institute’s research suggests that the most important happiness factors is the quality of social relationship, thus, in order to make people happier, the new design must restore the quality of social relationship by increasing opportunities for people to meet each other. The result of comparing two co-living projects in Tokyo and Adelaide shows that the design of communal space is more decisive on the quality of social relationship and the level of social loneliness, rather than other factors such as building quality, privacy level and location.
Subtopic 2: Shared spaces By studying a successful co-housing case in Denmark, we found that the balance and boundry between shared spaces and private space in the co-living community is important to the quality of social relationship. The case of Saettedammen is a community similar to most town houses around the world, however, by dividing certain common space for communal activities such as a common house for communal meals, residents are able to maintain a high level of social relationship and miutual understandings.
06
Group Research
Subtopic 3: Distance in social relations Jan Gehl believes that the increasing number of cars along with the raising urbanisation is separating people and communities because the lack of walkable neighbourhoods and less interesting street life. His solution is the concept of soft city, in which cars, bikes and pedestrians have their own lanes to ease social segregation caused by traffic. The concept of a compact and connected city design can also contribute to reducing usage of cars, consequently, to reduce the social segregation in modern city areas. In co-living communities, proper social distance is important to define the size of facilities and the circulation between them. Co-living model allows unrelated people to live together, thus, residents need to maintain a proper distance in both communal and private areas in order to have a comfortable living experience while not too distant to develop social segregation or isolation, this banlance is crucial to the group design.
07
Subtopic 4: Shared responsibility Denmark is considered the happiest country on earth because of its high social quality and standard of living, it also has the largest co-housing population among the modern industrialised nations in the co-living community model. It’s very common that community members take shared responsibilities to take care not only communal properties but also other fellow residents. Having shared responsibilities is important to achieve a sustainable way of life, by sharing endeavour the community members can saves money and time for fellow members, but more importantly, this process helps to develop trust and attachment between them, and this is crucial to achieve such high level of social relationships, which makes Danes happiest in the world.
08
Precedent 01 UNPLAN Shinjuku Tokyo | 2019
Designer: AIDA ATELIER Site Area: 344.21sqm Building Area: 303.32sqm Total Floor Area: 1,663.61sqm Structure: Reinforced Concrete Capacity: 193 residents
09
Spatial analysis This project renovated a 30 year old office building into a hostel. The brand name UNPLAN stand for the concept of “urban play”, an idea of creating a space for unexpected encounters to enjoy communications and coziness in the center of Tokyo metropolitan. The dormitory units are special designed 2-in1 bunk beds called “UNPLAN Bunk”. In order to allow visitors to spend quite a long time in such small space, the units are equiped with windows for lighting and ventilation, as well as power outlets, safes, coat hangers and desks. The design layouts shows 3 zones divided by purposes. Upper floors are used for dormitory, where tranquility, cleanliness and privacy are required. The underground floor is designed as a common area with bars, a meeting room and a kitchen, the ground floor serves as a buffer zone between private and common areas. This design aims to minimalize the impacts from the common area to the bedding (private) area.
10
LT Josai Share house Architect: Naruse Inokuma Location: Japan Year: 2013
Precedent 02 11
Private space
Integration
Common space
"Sharing houses," where people live not as family but as unrelated strangers, is an increasingly popular way of life in Japan. Therefore, both a special management technique and space management technique are necessary for complete strangers who can naturally continue to share each other's space. In this design, shared Spaces are created by reconsidering the entire composition of the building. Shared and personal Spaces are considered at the same time, and by arranging individual rooms in a three-dimensional manner, multiple zones are established within the remaining shared Spaces, each offering different comforts. The atrium and dining space in the entrance hall are ideal for gathering with many people, while the nook and window space in the living room are ideal for solitude. The kitchen counter is suitable for relatively small groups of people. While ensuring personal space, the design makes good use of different public Spaces in each corner, which is a highlight of the design.
Circulation & Movement
12
Precedent 03
Design idea The design of the building is taken into account that the idea of co-living is the main purpose. The designers created a design specifically for professional singles with or without pets. There are multiple areas where the community can gather with spaces such as work areas, lounge spots, communal kitchen, laundry and areas for pet. The garden is specifically designed to be in the middle of the building because it is the first thing that people see entering the building and the residents are able to see once they exit their room. The aim is to create a place where people that lives in the city are able to enjoy greenery. By utilising plants and trees, they created areas to provide the feeling of nature indoor.
BO-DAA Treehouse
13
Seoul, Korea Site Area: 1,230 sqm Above ground area: 2,780 sqm Basement Area:2,030 sqm Rooms: 72 Studios
As nature unfolds on the ground floor of the building, the second floor offers more facilities that the residents are able to enjoy. The interior of the building consist of a big empty space in the centre of the building, the reason for this design is to give the concept of big open spaces so that the bulding feels bigger. Because the centre of the building is an open space, this also allows the residents to experience nature after entering the building and leaving their respective room. As a co-living building, the facilities in the building are shared among the residents. Although the residents are unrelated to each other, the facilities are built that in a way it can encourage the residents to communicate as a community building relations.
Above the garden are sixfloors of residence. The designs of the room on each floor are different such as ladder of ledge or a tub in the room. The penthouse are designed to be larger than the other rooms. The design shows the spatial composition of the communal lifestyle and the atrium is where the spatial heart of the residence is, but the stacking private units of the room creates the space. The key architectural design of this building is the full-width slanted windows that comes with blinds to provide privacy or to be able to see the sky.The key architectural design of this building is the full-width slanted windows that comes with blinds to provide privacy or to be able to see the sky.
14
Precedent 04
Project Concept
Affordable Ownership
The project is located in the rural area of Oosterwold Almere, Netherlands, designed by Bureau SLA and ZakenMaker. This project demonstrates the possibility of low cost co-living life. Co-living is not only reducing the cost upfront, but also benefitting from sharing resources.
Though it is tight budget. The architects chose materials carefully to make the building well-insulated. Floor, roof and adjoining walls were built as hollow wooden cassettes, which are filled with insulating cellulose that was pumped on completion.
Oosterwold Co-living Complex Capacity: 9 Homes; Site Size: 1 Hectare potato field; Room Size: 160 Squre-metre per family; Share level: shared outdoor space, shared public services like electricity, gas, water and network.
15
Personality
Respect Privacy
Nine families can custom their interior layout by themselves. This boost individual fulfillment and make the co-living place a real long term home.
Whatever how much you could share with others, there is alway something you want to be with you only. A decent amount of private space could make you thinking like an artist, working like an engineer or doing whatever you like undisturbedly.
Social Need
All Age groups Friendly
Like minded people or people from every walk of life can live together, interact with each other and help each other. Co-living life style can easily meet people’s social need and form a healthy community culture.
Such a design, not like capsule host, is friendly to all age groups. Everyone can easily find a place for herself/himself and live together.
16
Survey results Target groups From the SPACE10 survey results, potential residents are mainly in two forms: singles and couples (families) in different age groups range from teenager (>16) to senior (<70).
Couple & Family
Unanimity -Target groupsSingle resident is the most chosen group by the group members, followed by couples and families.
-PersonalityMembers except totally different qualities of personality from potential residents.
-Ownership & manangementAll members agree to have to property under business manangement and to collect rents from residents.
-ResolutionSome members choose to call house-meeting to solve living issues between residents, others rely on manangement.
-FurnitureFull furnished interior is required. -PrivacyAll private areas are voted to be off-limits.
Single
This decision is based on the consideration that college students and retirees who tend to live alone are the most vulnerable to social loneliness, while couples and families can bring vitality to the community to help curb sense of loneliness.
17
Division
-EnergyEnergy bills are expected to be collected based on the amount of individual use. -OriginsNo previous co-living experience expected by the group members.
-AssemblyMost member want to vote to choose new renters while others choose to rely on manangement. -PetsOne member chooses no pets in house, others agree to allow pets in controlled condition. -CookingMost of members think private kitchen is unnecessary, while the others still want it.
Concerns & benefits Lack of privacy The biggest concern among the members is the lack of privacy. Residents share more space also means they own less private space, this might impact their living activities.
Different living habits The second biggest concern is the different living habits between residents. People have different daily schdules, tempers, favourite food and religions, all these can be the source of annoynce to others.
Other residents’ mess The third biggest downside of co-living is the quality of people. Different educational background make people behave differently, and it’s inevitable that some people will make masses that irritate the others.
Meet people Because of sharing more space and equipments, residents are expected to have higher possibility to meet and have conversaton with other fellow residents, this is crucial to develop relationship between residents.
Cost saving Members believe that cost saving is the biggest benefits from co-living model because doing co-living can significantly cut extra space that most individuals don’t need, therefore, less costs from building and construction, similarly, by sharing utilities and equipments, residents can invest less on personal objects and services.
18
Community profile -GoalsAn affordable residential community house which provids high quality of living experience and helps to eliminate social loneliness. The community house is perfect for those who are relocating for new jobs, studying at college or uni, working remotely or new to this city. The community house sets up larger common space in order to encourage our residents develop high quality social relationship by communicating with each other, consequently, to eliminate social loneliness inside the community and to make residents a better and happier living experience. -Social mixSingles, couples and families from all walks of life, especially for people who are suffering from social loneliness. Age of resident ranges from 16 to 70, people who exceed this range are suggested to go to professional institutions since the community house does not provide special cares. -MembershipResidents pay rent for management and service. Duty officers (nominated residents) are exempted from paying rent in exchange of serving.
19
Community size 50+ Total capacity Including: 10+ Single units for single residents. 10+ Family suites for: families with no more than 2 adults + 2 children; couples; single parents; other residents who wish to share rooms.
10+ Units 10+ Units
Required facilities -Private areaBedroom Private storage Wardrobe Study -Communal areaCommonroom Bathroom Laundry Bars Kitchen Dinning & Canteen Gym Courtyard Raised garden beds Auditorium Parking -StaffStaff office & reception Infirmary
20
Spatial arrangement
Sun path June December
Site analysis Location: 23 - 24 Westcliff Ct, Marino SA 5049 Total Area: 5308sqm
23m
*Sea view on site at the NW direction.
Wind gust direction From Google Maps
The site is a slope located on one side of a valley, this gives it an invincible sea view and this will be one biggest feature in this design. A new driveway on the NE side is necessary in order to make minimal impact to the neighbouring properties in the future.
21
Highest temp in February
Contour interval: 1m
Elevation difference: 23m Maximun wind speed: 17.5m/s (63km/h) Temperature: Low - 3.0°C / High - 39.3°C
Functional map COMMUNAL
PRIVATE
Bus stop
Common room
Auditorium Locker room Gym
Lobby / Hall Dressing room Parking
Entrance
Bath / Toliet Courtyard
Reception
Bedding area
Bath / Toliet
Study Pub / Bar
Stuff office Laundry
ZONE 3
Infirmary
ZONE 2
Dining Kitchen Canteen
ZONE 1
In order to create a better living experience, making high quality of social relationship between residents in the building is crucial, as well as to eliminate loneliness and social isolation. To achieve this, residents have to be guided to perform daily activities outside of the private area. Thus, private areas are reduced to remain in bedding area to guide residents to the communal area to meet each other. Facility locations are optimised to serve daily activities in three zones, same facilities can be found in different zones is out of reasonableness.
22
Design brief
Concept 01
This project is a co-living community house designed to make a higher quality of living experience for people from all walks of life. The design aims to create high quality of social relationships between the community members (residents) by adjusting functional space arrangement in order to create maximum communication possibilities, this makes this project different from other ordinary apartments. In this design, only bedding area remained as private zone, residents are going to share all services, household appliances and equipments with others. Bedding area are specially designed to maintain maximum privacy while contributing to eliminating social isolation and loneliness. The community house has a capacity of 78 residents (30 single units and 12 double-bedroom suites). Because of its unique special arrangement, residents will have multiple storage locations in Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3 to store different types of personal belongings. This is out of considerations such as efficient use of space, minimise potential arguments caused by personal hygiene conditions in communal bedding areas, and better circulation. Ground floor facilities, proposed driveway and new bus stop can also contribute to neighbouring residents and communities.
Plan & circulation
(design phase 2)
Resident
Exit
Exit
Entrance
Exit to B1F
Vehicle
Exit
Corridor Private
B3F
Communal
B2F
B1F
Courtyard
GF
Exit to courtyard
Roof terrace
Exit
Mainroad Entrance
78 Total capacity 12 Two bedroom units 30 Single bunk bed units
Exit
23
Exit
Exit to B1F
Site usage
(design phase 1)
Section 1
Section 2 Proposed driveway and parking area Proposed building area
Section 3 From Google Earth
Section 1
Two-bedroom unit (on B2F & B3F) • Kitchen • Shower • Toliet
• 2in1 bunk bed unit • LS size bed x 2
Single unit (for female on B1F N wing)
Single unit (for male on B1F S wing)
• Larger storage spaces than male type. • Additional dressing table • LS size bed • Underbed storage space (wardrobe) • Stair cases with drawers for storage • Sea view from window
• LS size bed • Underbed storage space (wardrobe) • Stair cases with drawers for storage • Sea view from window
The proposed building roof is lower than neighbouring houses to avoid the risk of blocking the sea view or natural light. Window openings and outdoor spaces for communal areas are all below the ground level in order to avoid noise and light impacts to neighbouring houses.
Section 2
The proposed driveway is designed to be lower than neighbouring fencing all the way up to avoid negative impacts to two adjacent houses. Section 3
In order to minimise the risk and cost from cutting and filling process, the proposed building is oriented along the aspect of the slope. Each level spans no more than 4 meters of elevation difference, the proposed building is decending toward the bottom of the valley. Bedding and communal areas are facing seaside for better view and natural lighting.
Spatial model & details
(design phase 3)
24
Concept 02
Ground floor Second floor
L1
Spatial model on site L2
Design process
Layers form design to solve the proplem of the steep slope, each floor is 2700mm height plus 400mm ceilling thickness.
25
Using the step block idea to design the 2 level step shap garden balcony for resident enjoy the view of the sea.
Floor plan & section
Room arrangement
Second floor
L2
L1 30 Single unit (6sqm)
8 Family unit (20sqm)
10 twin share unit 9sqm bathroom
kitchen and dining area
Garden balcony
26
Concept 03 Family room 15
Design Brief Populace, a place where people can meet with others to build a community regardless of age and differences. The building is designed to provide accomodation to at least 15 families ranging from 3-4 person in a family and 60 singles room, the total amount of rooms would be 75. When considering the amount of rooms to fit the amount of people, 75 rooms is at the range where it is just at the right amount. Facilities are carefully considered and chosen to fit the criteria of the residents. Although some residents may be a introvert, the communal kitchen and work area can provide some encouragement to engage with the other residents building relations. Although some residents may find engagement with other residents to be tiring, there is a private area where they are allowed to rent rooms there or they are free to stay in their respective rooms to avoid any contact.
Communal Kitchen
75
Total Capacity
Single room 60
Concept Design Carpark
Carpark
Management Office Locker and Storage Gym Lounge and Children Area
27
Entertainment Area Visitor Area and Private Area
Management Area Visitor Area Family Rooms Single Rooms
Rooms
Work Area
The bedrooms and balcony are specifically designed for it to face towards the slope. This is so that the residents are able to observe the view out from their own rooms. The family room includes a mezzanine for multiple uses that families can use. The single room consist of a room for the resident to store their belongings.
Spatial model on site
The design of this building is to fully utilise the nature that the area has to offer. The area revolving around the building will have a steep slope. To utilise this slope and without changing the terrain around the bulding, only the area where the building sits will be fitted by the shape of the building. With this course of action, residents living at the lowest level of the building will still be able to get a beautiful view out of their window or balcony. Residents heading to their room are able to observe the view from the hallway.
28
Concept 04 Entrance Design Brief The proposed Co-Living community is designed to accommodate 54 adults and 11 children to reside in it. This community will become a high share-able services community. With the purpose of connecting multiple generations, most of the space and services will be shared thoughout the community. At the same time, they will have their own private space to sleep and deal with their personal affairs. Furthermore everyone in the community will be treated equally and respectfully. To archive this goal, communication by different means will be involved, there will be many public places are open to the public for working and entertaining purposes. Interaction with each other will faciliate the mutual understanding.
Design Process
The bedroom is divided into two categories, one is for single/couples, the other is for people with kids.
29
The kitchen room evolves from single room to having a balcony and roof balustrade.
The groundfloor has a balcony, the first floor has balustrade and the second floor is open frame structure with massive glass windows.
Circulation
Entrance
Spatial model
Section of common area
Section of bedding area
Section of kitchen & dinning area
Elevation
30
Bibliography
Page03: “‘Co-living’: the end of urban loneliness – or cynical corporate dormitories? “ The Gardian, accessed April 12, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/03/co-living-the-end-of-urban-loneliness-or-cynical-corporate-dormitories Page04: ”Co-living in London: Friendship, fines and frustration” BBC NEWS, , accessed April 12, 2021, https://www.bbc. com/news/uk-england-london-43090849 Page05-06: “Cohousing communities help prevent social isolation,” Youtube, accessed Mar 28, 2021, https://youtu.be/ DmWrx0ntATU “Dormitory Gallery,” Shukutoku Japanese Language School, accessed Mar 28, 2021, http://www.shukutoku-school. com/kaikangallery-en.html “Highgate Lodge,” Study Adelaide, accessed Mar 28, 2021, https://adelaidestudenthousing.com.au/properties/highgate-lodge Page09-10: “UNPLAN Shinjuku | UNPLAN” UNPLAN, accessed April 12, 2021, https://unplan.jp/shinjuku?lang=en Page13-14: “Treehouse Coliving Apartments / Bo-DAA,” Archdaily, accessed April 8, 2021, https://www.archdaily. com/932735/treehouse-apartment-building-bo-daa Page15-16: Dujardin, Filip. “Ooster Co-living Complex” Accessed Apr 11, 2021. https://www.archdaily.com/914154/oosterwold-co-living-complex-bureau-sla/5ca1866d284dd1aa510001af-oosterwold-co-living-complex-bureau-sla-photo?next_project=no
31
THANK YOU FOR READING
